What is it about film?

It is nearly a year since my last posting here, which was to note the passing of George, my Maine Coon cat.

We are still in a bit of a flux over how to proceed with our lives, but have it in mind to spend more time in the warm. Somewhere like Spain or Portugal, just as we leave the EU!

Anyway, I was reading a comment of mine to a piece that has not been published for some reason. The article in question is about the fact that the writer hands his exposed film over to a small scale professional developer in order to get the best out of his exposures. He also says that he just is not interested in the developing part of film photography, which is fair comment.

I reckon that whilst what he says is true, for me, not making a decision about developer, developing time, agitation and so on, is missing out on as much part of the process as pressing the button at what one thinks is the right time. The following paragraph was my comment:

"Getting in to what happens after you press the button is for me, one of the great attractions of film. There is a pure analogue process, the sort of thing that men have traditionally been valued for. The idea that merely washing the film in various chemicals reveals the image, rather than a computational process that is completely divorced from the real procedure of loading a film and winding it on after each shot.

I realise that the image that we eventually arrive at doesn’t care how it got there, but it is nice that we do."

The mere "washing with chemicals", even though someone else specified what the nature of those chemicals should be, was performed manually, by a person with anything from basic skills to total mastery of the process, and it is that which impresses, it is easily said but takes years to learn. I am only scratching the surface after nearly ten years of messing.

I believe that the recent digitisation of almost everything is what has led to the idea that men are useless, they aren't but we have justified it on accountancy grounds, which of course does not include all of the inputs, honestly applied.

I have read somewhat paranoid tales about how the introduction of digital methods has enabled all sorts of shenanigans. The implications that can be deduced from "working the data" in image files, to produce whatever you want, rather than what was actually there is of course there, but I would suggest comparatively rare.

What would not be so rare though I would suggest, is the urge for programmers employed by camera designers to "spoil" the camera operator into thinking that they are more skilled than in reality.

However this paranoia is not a necessary reason for choosing film. Serendipity, or... happy accidents, out of focus shots, incorrectly exposed shots, accidental double exposures, indeed any number of cock-ups ensure that one never tires of how daft one is. It is those moments that produce some of the most delightful snaps.

As an example, this pinhole shot taken at Sara and Martin's Yoga Farm in the mountains of Catalunya is very lazy. The "camera" is the 6 x 9 Ondu Pinhole MK 2, these are beautifully made and the newest versions are even better. 

I have sat in this position, playing with the laptop, flicking mozzies away, petting one of the cats or dogs, or just idlin'. I have taken plenty of very similar shots with many different cameras, from a beautiful Leica to an old worn out Olympus with a light leak.

Somehow this one, without a lens, is beautiful....

I hear the mountains calling!