I've been specifically photographing for something going on 6 or 7 years (as of 2023), and I'm happy to say that in that time I've shot a lot of a lot.
I technically started photographing things "seriously" when I got a Nikon D3400 DSLR and some photography books as a gift, but I really got serious when I started taking photos of my friends band, which forced me to learn composition, post-processing, and the different ways a single subject could get photographed. I credit this time of my life with a lot of things; with my photography, I rapidly developed a real portfolio, and a real sense of what I thought I wanted to shoot. I eventually grabbed a film camera during this time, and then experimented with that. A year after that, I was working full time at a photolab, professionally developing, scanning, and printing peoples photographs. When I quit the photolab, I sold all of my personal medium format cameras, scanners, and anything related to shooting film in the pursuit of a "do-it-all" digital camera. Two-ish years after that, in December 2023, I bought a film camera once again. Why do I keep flip flopping between film and digital? What are my thoughts on both? That is the subject of this entry.
As I mentioned in the context, I've shot a lot of a lot. This goes for types of cameras, of course. Name a sensor size, film size, camera type, or camera brand and I've either shot a roll through it and/or owned one at some point. You'd think this means I know exactly what type of camera makes me happy-and I do to some extent- but I still flip flop between different mediums of photography all the time. I have thoughts on all these mediums and where they fit in, at least for me.
Film photography is something that has seen a massive resurgence in the past decade. As someone born in the 21st century, my only real introduction to film before this rise was disposable cameras at summer camp and brief mentions of the annoyances of film from family members. It's not until I stop into a camera store on a family trip that I learn about film photography, and what makes it novel. I walk in, start looking at cameras, and the guy behind the counter starts a conversation about cameras. This store had a decent selection of used cameras, so I asked about them, and next thing I know I'm holding different entry level 35mm SLRs. What's stuck with me about that experience, aside from a Pentax K1000, was the positive reminiscence this gentleman had for shooting film; his Pentax SLR never failed on him, even on the tallest mountains and deepest caves. I shot one roll of film on that trip, and that set in course my dive into 100% film photography. I shot 35mm for a while, tried out a few different camera types, and then moved to medium format film, which is what I've likely shot the most roll wise, if not exposure wise as well. I got really invested into the workflow, having a nice medium format scanner, learning the technicals behind color negative inversion, and consistently shooting the same type of film to keep things as consistent as possible.
At my peak I was shooting upwards of 5 rolls of film everytime I went out somewhere. Retrospectively, this was a symptom of not shooting with purpose or something. When the shots were good they were really something amazing, but when something wasn't exactly the way I envisioned in my head it was really hard to get it to that point due to the nature of the film negative. I also got super involved in the community side of things, joining the One More Stop discord group (back when it was still associated with Restore From Backup), joining facebook groups for the scanners I used, the gear I used, et cetera and so forth. I made a portfolio website, cut my instagram down to something solely for sharing photography... did everything right so to speak.
That's how I shot when I was shooting film, and it's what got me a nice portfolio of "fine arts" work I guess. While I still shoot some film now, my usage has slowed down, mostly due to the new image of the film photographer. What was once a budget way to shoot with great gear, and get great images has turned into much more; this is great for the overall future of film, but I just never felt like I belonged with a lot of the film shooting community, and I didn't want my work to be lauded or hated simply because of its medium.
Early on in my study of photography I really did treat film as a way to be forced to learn how to shoot well, and that any skill I derived from film was to be applied to shooting with my DSLR. In the context for this thought I talk about my time with my friends band Newgrounds Death Rugby. As you'll sort of figure out with the rest of my online presence, I like doing a lot with a lot of different skills, and picking up as many different skills as I can. This got a bit of a jumpstart when they asked me if I knew anything about recording music. I said sure, googled how to do it, and then showed up to a band practice to introduce myself and get the ball rolling. While I was there for recording music, I quickly became their primary photographer for pretty much everything, managed merchandise logistics, helped book shows, and at some point did everything except the actual music (this is really worth a whole post). This experience basically forced me to become a good photographer; if I wasn't taking these photos, was it going to be done? Because of the DIY aspect of the community the band was in, I never felt the pressure to upgrade from my d3400 and get a "real" camera, because 24mp and my 18-55 were good enough. If I were doing this photographer thing full time, I'd have some good portfolio work and credits just thanks to Newgrounds Death Rugby getting as big as they are; I have a photography credit on a record that's done well.
I took a brief sabbatical from digital photography when I took a bit more focus into producing photos I cared about, and would want to see places. Still though, it was my work with digital cameras that was getting me opportunities. Before I left for college, I interviewed and got offered a studio photographer gig solely based on what I shot for Newgrounds Death Rugby, not the tens of hundreds of rolls of film I shot. When people would ask me for photography services -because of the work I had already done- it was always wanted from a digital camera.
All of this, plus some creative burnout made me want to make a serious switch of art medium. Since I'm not cut out for watercolors, I took the plunge into a "real" camera I thought so useless once. This change of environment really did a number on changing how I shot, what I shot, and how often I shot. Could I have maybe stuck through with film and pushed through any burnout? Probably. But I did what I thought best in the pursuit of work I was proud of. My work with a digital camera got focused enough for a zine release that I'm really proud of putting together, and likely represents some milestone of my work. Just as I finalized the release of this zine, I got the hankering to shoot some film again.
For a majority of the photography community, gear is seen as two sides of a coin: film or digital. I think one answer to the eons debated gear question is to just keep both in your repertoire. I was listening to an NPR segment on creatives and AI recently, and something one of the panelists said stuck out to me: Art is not efficient... and efficiency doesn't make for good art. When I heard this, I instantly saw it as at odds with a lot of the photography communities I've been a part of and seen. If you go on a major photography subreddit from either side of the aisle, everyone seems to be looking for the "best" or "ideal" way to take a damn photo. I think this quest for efficiency is best solved by the exact opposite; becoming medium agnostic and shooting what you want with what you think will be fun to use for that work.