I am convinced my film photography was better than the majority of my digital work and there are a couple of reasons why. I started shooting film when I was eight with a point and shoot Kodak Brownie, with no controls. My next camera, a Zenit B had only three shutter speeds and a cheap lens, this was when I really learnt to read the available light. No metering, fully manual. I taught myself how to develop my own B&W film then colour transparency film. A very skilled portrait photographer taught me how to print b&w. I spent several years freelancing for newspapers using Nikons, shooting wedding with a Hasselblad and commercial work with 5x4.
Then digital came along and we all got lazy, auto-focus, better metering, instant images for review. Auto winding all we had to do was point it in the right direction and adjust the aperture or shutter speed. Film with only 12 frames or 36 made you think, I very rarely bracketed exposures, I knew it would be fine without seeing it, that was the difference I had the knowledge to trust my judgement. You didn't waste frames just because you could. I and every photographer I knew who covered weddings seldom shot more than 150 frames, now they shoot 5000 !
The other consideration is that this was thirty and more years ago. I'm not sure I could go back to film now, digital has made it too easy.
Thank you for sharing this story — it really captures the essence of what many of us feel when comparing film and digital. The discipline film required, and the trust in one’s own judgment that grew out of those limitations, is something digital rarely forces us to practice. I especially connect with what you wrote about not wasting frames simply because you could — every exposure demanded attention.
At the same time, I think you’re right: digital has changed our habits so much that going back fully isn’t easy anymore. But perhaps even just remembering those film-era disciplines — slowing down, trusting our eye, being deliberate — can help us bring some of that spirit back into the way we shoot today.
Thank you, for those of us who grew up with film there is a path back through experience but the photographer who has only ever experienced digital cannot begin to appreciate what shooting film fully manual was like. I also think my best work was shot on the Hasselblad, if for no other reason than the size of the viewfinder. 5x4 was very slow and much more deliberate but very worthwhile.
I’ll weigh in as a rank amateur (in both senses of the word). As Ari Jaaksi puts it, limitation is good. I took a step in that direction a short while ago. http://bit.ly/46qWash
Sometimes, I browse through not only my digital photo library but also my collection of hundreds of film negatives, many of which were never printed. So, I scan them and add them to my collection. For example, take a look at these photos https://pulsepx.com/photo/DqvUR4IZIOe and https://pulsepx.com/photo/YM8bGkM0tct. Unfortunately, I can only say that I am growing more technically skilled, but not artistically.
I know exactly what you mean about feeling technically more skilled but not always artistically “further ahead.” I think that tension is part of every creative path. The craft grows more precise, but the artistic spark can feel elusive at times. Still, revisiting and re-scanning older negatives is such a wonderful way to reconnect with the voice you had then — and often it reminds us that artistry shows up in ways we didn’t even recognize at the time.
When film was the only game in town, I shot slower and with more intentionality. Every frame had to count. Digital encourages "point>focus>shoot>repeat" style photography and the pressure some people feel to continually feed the social media algorithm just adds the desperation for some (not all....) to "create and post" something.....anything, to be seen and remain relevant.
A thought provoking piece Tomasz. When I look at my earlier images they tend to evoke emotional feelings about the context of the past; in other words they’re reminders of points in my life. However, they were not as good technically as the images I produce today. This shouldn’t be surprising given photography is, I believe, a never ending developmental journey. Consequently, I tend to give equal weight to both the technical and compositional aspects when viewing an image, But I do wonder if there’s a correlation between time and the relative weight we give to each end of this simple spectrum? In other words, as time passes, do we consider the compositional aspects, and the emotions they generate, as more significant than the technical aspects?
I wonder whether this also has to do with having fresh eyes for an older image. I find that immediately after a shoot I am often disappointed. The intent, the hope I had, the feeling as I shot often don’t materialize. As time passes, I see the images for what they are and often like them just fine.
Interesting point Marcello, the opposite is also sadly true.... I look at some of my older digital images and think why did I waste all those frames on that? Something that probably looked like a really good idea at the time.
This hit home to me, Tomasz. When you mention freshness, I understand. And yes, my old twin lens and Pentax took great shots. When I was staying in Italy, my Venice shots were wonderful and so spontaneous. Not it seems that they are different since my approach is different too. I sat in my father's darkroom as a little girl and watched him develop film, such magic. Now when I look back at my art career, I see that his influence is there with me. Photos play a big part in what I do, either as inspiration or actually incorporated. Thank you for the tap on my shoulder this morning to think of this. Karin Skiba
Thank you for sharing this beautiful reflection. I love the image of you sitting in your father’s darkroom — what a magical beginning, and it’s wonderful to see how that influence continues to flow through your art today. Your Venice story also captures so well how our approach shifts over time, yet those spontaneous moments still stay alive in us.
I had a Mamiya C330f before my Hasselblad and in my opinion the b&w negatives from the Mamiya were far better than the Hasselblad shooting Ilford FP4. Colour was a different ball game, shooting Kodak Vericolor Pro 160 with the Hasselblad was the best combination. I think it was probably because of the coatings on the Zeiss lenses Hasselblad used.
I too know exactly what you mean, Tomasz. Right now I'm looking at a new (digital) version of a photo made more years ago than I care to count. This one is sharp, contrasty, in a plain black frame.
Hanging in another room is the original, darkroom made, version...(vintage?). It's softer, not too much contrast and in an antique frame. I can remember the exact time and place I took the picture.
I don't know what this all means, but I like both versions.
Such an interesting topic, Tomasz. I agree with both of your theories about your experience of “better” earlier work. I would add a third, which is that in the sciences and some other fields, people do their “best” work between the ages of about 25-40. I don’t know where you are on the calendar, or if my point applies to the visual or musical arts. Just a thought.
I started looking back and was surprised at the drama I was able to capture, particularly of single birds in the fall, with a small inexpensive camera.
I hear what you're saying Tomasz. I have the same feeling. But for me, the explanation is different: when I was younger I worked hard at every photo. I'd plan them, take them with filters (sometimes several), then spend hours processing them until they were "perfect".
Today, I'm moving towards film, I'm becoming a proponent of zero edit, I'm taking nearly exclusively monochrome. The images are very different.
But I feel I have found my photography freedom. I know what pleases me, I experiment more, I don't feel I need to deliver every time I go out to take photos, I'm more interested in documenting and stories than esthetic perfection.
So my images now are probably less nice, less technically accomplished, less pleasing to the eye. But they're all I want them to be now. I have evolved.
"my images were better back then than they are today"..................I don't think so, but I've learned a lot over the years. So it looks like they are better, but the new ones are quit different. There are still mine of course, colorful and bright. I started with an old camera, also a Zenith and after that a Nikon till now. Film at first and digital now. What the difference is between film and digital is the tension after developing, that feeling is gone.
Ha! I was considering this same thought yesterday as I inadvertently landed on a series of photographs in LR which I made 7 years ago. I did not judge whether they were better than my current photographs, but it occurred to me photography was less burdened with the infinite number of "things" available to photographers now. I don't remember too many rabbit holes in which to fall back then. Knowledge is not necessarily power - too much of anything can be paralyzing. A certain naiveté is refreshing. Thank you for another intriguing subject for us to ponder. Cheers.
I have done this more and more lately, looking back over old photos that I thought were either terrible or boring and I am pleasantly surprised to find that even if they aren't all winners, there are certainly more gems to be discovered than not. I also find that looking at my images soon after I have uploaded them is somehow not as satisfying, my judgment not so forgiving, as when I look again in a few days or months or even years later. What initially disappoints me because it doesn't match what I was envisioning in the moment, eventually reveals what others would see, which is a pretty decent representation of the time and place. The subjects are actually more interesting as I naturally forget every detail of the scene as it was. The neutralized view helps, and trying to look at my own images as a stranger would allows me to give myself some credit for making something that is better than I originally deemed it to be.
I am convinced my film photography was better than the majority of my digital work and there are a couple of reasons why. I started shooting film when I was eight with a point and shoot Kodak Brownie, with no controls. My next camera, a Zenit B had only three shutter speeds and a cheap lens, this was when I really learnt to read the available light. No metering, fully manual. I taught myself how to develop my own B&W film then colour transparency film. A very skilled portrait photographer taught me how to print b&w. I spent several years freelancing for newspapers using Nikons, shooting wedding with a Hasselblad and commercial work with 5x4.
Then digital came along and we all got lazy, auto-focus, better metering, instant images for review. Auto winding all we had to do was point it in the right direction and adjust the aperture or shutter speed. Film with only 12 frames or 36 made you think, I very rarely bracketed exposures, I knew it would be fine without seeing it, that was the difference I had the knowledge to trust my judgement. You didn't waste frames just because you could. I and every photographer I knew who covered weddings seldom shot more than 150 frames, now they shoot 5000 !
The other consideration is that this was thirty and more years ago. I'm not sure I could go back to film now, digital has made it too easy.
Thank you for sharing this story — it really captures the essence of what many of us feel when comparing film and digital. The discipline film required, and the trust in one’s own judgment that grew out of those limitations, is something digital rarely forces us to practice. I especially connect with what you wrote about not wasting frames simply because you could — every exposure demanded attention.
At the same time, I think you’re right: digital has changed our habits so much that going back fully isn’t easy anymore. But perhaps even just remembering those film-era disciplines — slowing down, trusting our eye, being deliberate — can help us bring some of that spirit back into the way we shoot today.
Thank you, for those of us who grew up with film there is a path back through experience but the photographer who has only ever experienced digital cannot begin to appreciate what shooting film fully manual was like. I also think my best work was shot on the Hasselblad, if for no other reason than the size of the viewfinder. 5x4 was very slow and much more deliberate but very worthwhile.
I’ll weigh in as a rank amateur (in both senses of the word). As Ari Jaaksi puts it, limitation is good. I took a step in that direction a short while ago. http://bit.ly/46qWash
one of your most thoughtful and meaningful missives.
Thank you so much, Michael — I truly appreciate you saying that. It means a lot to know these reflections resonate in a meaningful way.
Sometimes, I browse through not only my digital photo library but also my collection of hundreds of film negatives, many of which were never printed. So, I scan them and add them to my collection. For example, take a look at these photos https://pulsepx.com/photo/DqvUR4IZIOe and https://pulsepx.com/photo/YM8bGkM0tct. Unfortunately, I can only say that I am growing more technically skilled, but not artistically.
I know exactly what you mean about feeling technically more skilled but not always artistically “further ahead.” I think that tension is part of every creative path. The craft grows more precise, but the artistic spark can feel elusive at times. Still, revisiting and re-scanning older negatives is such a wonderful way to reconnect with the voice you had then — and often it reminds us that artistry shows up in ways we didn’t even recognize at the time.
I like your railway station shot with the statue in the foreground.
This is Lenin's monument, and it was destroyed in the 90s.
I wondered if it might be Lenin. It's a great photo.
Thank you!
Me encanta
When film was the only game in town, I shot slower and with more intentionality. Every frame had to count. Digital encourages "point>focus>shoot>repeat" style photography and the pressure some people feel to continually feed the social media algorithm just adds the desperation for some (not all....) to "create and post" something.....anything, to be seen and remain relevant.
A thought provoking piece Tomasz. When I look at my earlier images they tend to evoke emotional feelings about the context of the past; in other words they’re reminders of points in my life. However, they were not as good technically as the images I produce today. This shouldn’t be surprising given photography is, I believe, a never ending developmental journey. Consequently, I tend to give equal weight to both the technical and compositional aspects when viewing an image, But I do wonder if there’s a correlation between time and the relative weight we give to each end of this simple spectrum? In other words, as time passes, do we consider the compositional aspects, and the emotions they generate, as more significant than the technical aspects?
I wonder whether this also has to do with having fresh eyes for an older image. I find that immediately after a shoot I am often disappointed. The intent, the hope I had, the feeling as I shot often don’t materialize. As time passes, I see the images for what they are and often like them just fine.
Interesting point Marcello, the opposite is also sadly true.... I look at some of my older digital images and think why did I waste all those frames on that? Something that probably looked like a really good idea at the time.
Both are true for me
This hit home to me, Tomasz. When you mention freshness, I understand. And yes, my old twin lens and Pentax took great shots. When I was staying in Italy, my Venice shots were wonderful and so spontaneous. Not it seems that they are different since my approach is different too. I sat in my father's darkroom as a little girl and watched him develop film, such magic. Now when I look back at my art career, I see that his influence is there with me. Photos play a big part in what I do, either as inspiration or actually incorporated. Thank you for the tap on my shoulder this morning to think of this. Karin Skiba
Thank you for sharing this beautiful reflection. I love the image of you sitting in your father’s darkroom — what a magical beginning, and it’s wonderful to see how that influence continues to flow through your art today. Your Venice story also captures so well how our approach shifts over time, yet those spontaneous moments still stay alive in us.
I had a Mamiya C330f before my Hasselblad and in my opinion the b&w negatives from the Mamiya were far better than the Hasselblad shooting Ilford FP4. Colour was a different ball game, shooting Kodak Vericolor Pro 160 with the Hasselblad was the best combination. I think it was probably because of the coatings on the Zeiss lenses Hasselblad used.
I too know exactly what you mean, Tomasz. Right now I'm looking at a new (digital) version of a photo made more years ago than I care to count. This one is sharp, contrasty, in a plain black frame.
Hanging in another room is the original, darkroom made, version...(vintage?). It's softer, not too much contrast and in an antique frame. I can remember the exact time and place I took the picture.
I don't know what this all means, but I like both versions.
Such an interesting topic, Tomasz. I agree with both of your theories about your experience of “better” earlier work. I would add a third, which is that in the sciences and some other fields, people do their “best” work between the ages of about 25-40. I don’t know where you are on the calendar, or if my point applies to the visual or musical arts. Just a thought.
I’m cooked then.
Of course there are outliers like Picasso and Beethoven, so don’t give up!
😂
me too.
That's certainly true for me, my most active period was in the 1980s and that would cover most of that time frame.
We can do great work after 40’ish, but there is something special about early adulthood that really hums!
I started looking back and was surprised at the drama I was able to capture, particularly of single birds in the fall, with a small inexpensive camera.
I hear what you're saying Tomasz. I have the same feeling. But for me, the explanation is different: when I was younger I worked hard at every photo. I'd plan them, take them with filters (sometimes several), then spend hours processing them until they were "perfect".
Today, I'm moving towards film, I'm becoming a proponent of zero edit, I'm taking nearly exclusively monochrome. The images are very different.
But I feel I have found my photography freedom. I know what pleases me, I experiment more, I don't feel I need to deliver every time I go out to take photos, I'm more interested in documenting and stories than esthetic perfection.
So my images now are probably less nice, less technically accomplished, less pleasing to the eye. But they're all I want them to be now. I have evolved.
Maybe you have also found your way.
"my images were better back then than they are today"..................I don't think so, but I've learned a lot over the years. So it looks like they are better, but the new ones are quit different. There are still mine of course, colorful and bright. I started with an old camera, also a Zenith and after that a Nikon till now. Film at first and digital now. What the difference is between film and digital is the tension after developing, that feeling is gone.
Ha! I was considering this same thought yesterday as I inadvertently landed on a series of photographs in LR which I made 7 years ago. I did not judge whether they were better than my current photographs, but it occurred to me photography was less burdened with the infinite number of "things" available to photographers now. I don't remember too many rabbit holes in which to fall back then. Knowledge is not necessarily power - too much of anything can be paralyzing. A certain naiveté is refreshing. Thank you for another intriguing subject for us to ponder. Cheers.
I have done this more and more lately, looking back over old photos that I thought were either terrible or boring and I am pleasantly surprised to find that even if they aren't all winners, there are certainly more gems to be discovered than not. I also find that looking at my images soon after I have uploaded them is somehow not as satisfying, my judgment not so forgiving, as when I look again in a few days or months or even years later. What initially disappoints me because it doesn't match what I was envisioning in the moment, eventually reveals what others would see, which is a pretty decent representation of the time and place. The subjects are actually more interesting as I naturally forget every detail of the scene as it was. The neutralized view helps, and trying to look at my own images as a stranger would allows me to give myself some credit for making something that is better than I originally deemed it to be.