Sometimes I get in these reminiscent moods where I remember all our work was done on film. I look at my recent stuff I’ve shot on my digital or any one of the recent digital cameras I’ve owned and I’m not as inspired as the film images.
This self-criticism could be a self-fulfilling thing though. As I like the film images more, I may be more inclined to take my time making them but really, I hate editing and I shoot maybe a small amount more on a digital. Hell, lately I’ve shot ten times, maybe thirty times more on film than with digital. It can’t be the camera. It could be the way of seeing though. I don’t want this to be a gear post. I want to delve into what makes me prefer the results from one medium over the other.
I find that the film camera leaves me more room for error. Either that or I’m a lot better at exposing film than I am at exposing crappy digital frames. I just point and click with the film camera. The digital makes me check things. Perhaps it causes hesitation in all its complexity.
It’s these thoughts that make me think “I can do this all with film” but I know that unless it’s a long-form personal project, I simply can’t. The world is time-oriented and the shot has to get out there now. I know in the long run, doing that kind of heavy deadline stuff isn’t for me but for now it’s good. Keeps my blood pumping.
Looking at a few images I shot almost from the hip with a camera made more than sixty years ago just inspires me to once again sell the expensive computercameras and move completely back to the silver and acetate. I know better though. I’ve been down that road twice before, and while it’s fun, it doesn’t pay well. Neither does any journalism, so maybe film has a place in the world after all.
Philip Forrest 