Photography is arguably the most universal and widely-used language on our planet.

Photography, like any language, has the ability to communicate about things that are not present, and like all languages, has “rules” regarding construct that also change over time depending on trends and what’s happening in the world.

However, that’s not what this is really about. It’s about the language of photography; more specifically - how we as photographers talk about photography and our craft, amongst ourselves and with others.

Like any hobby or passion, those that are “into it” tend to have their own lingo and terms. I’ve been there and done that with many of my hobbies over the years: Porsches, Bicycles, Homebrewing, etc – all of those have their own vernacular. Often it may sound completely foreign to outsiders when two “insiders” are talking amongst themselves. “Is that the 10 or 11 speed? 142.5 spacing in the back? What’s your BB height? Square or oval dash? 23.3mm or 52mm offset? Looks like you’ve touched the eccentric bolts”. Any of that make sense to you? It would if you were an insider.

So, yes, like another other craft or passion, we as photographers have our own language. Is it the same language for all of us? Well, I generally thought it was, until two recent events set me down a path of self-reflection.

The first thing that happened was a few weeks ago. I was on a local photography group page discussing some old film photos, and another member and I were talking about wet-plate, dry-plate, low ASA ratings, powder flashes, etc. Another member made a comment, completely innocent, about the knowledge that was being thrown back and forth. And rightly so. We were talking about things that most modern photographers have never heard of nor do they really need to know. Nor should they care.

Then the second thing, the thing that really got me thinking, happened. I was watching a YouTube video from Chris Sale, and he and two other gentlemen were talking about other photographers’ videos and what to watch. They started talking about Paul C Smith, another YouTube photographer that I watch quite often. Here’s how that conversation went. Watch from the point I’ve linked below until about the 14:00 minute mark..

Chris Sale: “For me personally, when anybody starts talking about film photography, its almost like they’re speaking in a different language. I just don’t understand it.”

Wait a minute here. What’s going on? Chris Sale is a professional landscape photographer, who routinely gives 1x1 lessons and makes his living solely through photography, teaching photography, and photography YouTube photos. Why is “film photography speak” so foreign to him and the other two hosts?

I mean, to me, shooting on film and shooting on a sensor are more similar than they are different. I routinely bounce between the two formats with no problem at all. Film speed = ISO settings. F-stops are the same, shutter speeds are the same. Yes, certain films have a “look” —- that a lot of folks often just reproduce digitally with presets or adjustments. I guess one could argue there is no such thing as “reciprocity failure” with digital sensors, but there is long-exposure induced noise.

But that’s it, right? Otherwise, its still the same exposure triangle. Still the same rules of composition. Same craft.

A good image is a good image. Correct?

So if it IS essentially the same, why am I often choosing to shoot film instead of just picking up one of my digital cameras and firing away?

Because I capture something on a piece of film, instead of a sensor, isn’t really the point for me. I’m not one of those folks, and there are some, that feel that extra credit should be given just because something was taken with a film camera. I can’t remember ever shooting something with a digital camera and later saying “Man, I wish I had shot that on film.”

Arguably I could say that an image caught on a 6cm by 7cm negative, scanned in at high resolution, would print bigger than any image I could capture on one of my digital cameras. And that would be true – but how often am I printing larger than 16x20? Not often.

I could also talk about how something shot on Portra 400, over-exposed by 1 stop, has that “look”. To be fair – I’ve seen some very good editing and emulations on Instagram where it’s hard to tell the difference between the real thing and a fake.

I could also say that “film is archival”, which, I guess, is true. It could be scanned 20-30 years from now to make an image. But let’s be honest here. The last 5 years’ worth of negatives are in storage binders on shelves in my den. If we have a fire at the house, heaven forbid, they are gone. Up in smoke. None of those are in our fireproof safe because frankly there isn’t enough room in it. My scans of many of them will live on, as I have a lot backed up onto cloud drives, but then, again ,how is that different than digital?

So what is it then?

It took me a lot of thinking to come to such a simple conclusion: I just like shooting with old film cameras.

That tactile feel of a mechanical tool. The “thwap” sound, and the feel of the huge medium format mirror as it slams shut. The loading and unloading of film. The process of developing. The smells. The different formats available to shoot on. All of it.

This realization, the “why”, explains also why I HATE taking images with my phone camera. It’s not the same, enjoyable, tactile process………..for me.

When I talk about shooting with old film cameras, I guess I really am speaking a different language. A language of passion and enthusiasm for something that seems so redundant and nonsensical in today’s digital age. One that other photographers, whom have never shot an old film camera in their lifetimes, just can’t understand. Their eyes may roll back in their heads when I wax poetically on the beautiful sound the Hasselblad 500c makes. And that’s OK.

So maybe we aren’t “brothers in arms” when it comes to photography. Maybe we’re more like “first cousins”. The family ties are there, we’re somewhat close, and we can have a civil conversation - but if you steal my helping of mashed potatoes during a family party, I’m coming for you. Well, LOL, maybe not like that. But you get the idea.

So are digital and film photographers the only two cousins in the family? Nope, not by a long shot. Digital has its own splits of Nikon versus Canon versus Sony versus everyone else. Film has its splits of medium format versus 35mm versus large format versus everyone else. Kodak film versus Ilford film. It’s never-ending.

Now, however, here is where all photographers seem to be the same - when we talk about it to anyone else whom ISN’T into photography as much as we are. Regular folks.

Renee has a masters degree in fine art, and took photography classes and darkroom classes in college. When I ran this thought process by her, she told me that the thing she hates about photography, whether its film or digital, is all of the technical stuff that’s involved. She doesn’t care about ISO/ASA, f-stops, shutter speeds, center-weighted focus, exposure compensation, etc. But she is a master at composition and capturing moments, which is why she is often my second shooter at events. My job is to ensure the camera is set up in a manner that all she has to do is show up, compose and shoot. And I’m good with that. Imagine that - taking great photos without knowing or caring about all of the minutia.

So I can’t begrudge folks like Chris, and others, that feel that a different language is being spoken when folks like me start talking about making images with old film cameras.

Photographers, whether they are film or digital, ultimately need to be talking about the images first – to most everyone else, everything that went into it is secondary.

Because after all, a good image is a good image.

Thanks for reading,

Jeremy