Haven’t you embraced digital yet the man asked.
No indeed I have not I replied.

I never know quite how to explain to people why I choose to use the materials that I do. As an artist, film and camera are my proverbial paintbrush. I have spent years trying out different film formats, cameras and equipment and the tools that I utilize have been carefully chosen to serve my artistic process. It is an extremely conscious and deliberate decision. Digital photographic technology is a completely different tool like the difference between acrylic and oil paint. They are different materials within the same medium, yet they render things quite uniquely. This is the sort of relationship that I feel film and digital photography have. This is why I tire of being asked, not why I choose to shoot film, but rather why I don’t shoot digital. It is assumed that new technology is somehow “better”.

I point to the table I am sitting at, completely covered in little sheets of instant black and white film … but I am happy with these materials.

A big smile spreads across my face.

Digital technology mimics the properties of light sensitive materials and is based on the principles of film photography. Since the inception of the photographic process in 1839 advances within the medium have been driven by photography’s inherent ability to visually replicate reality. We are currently experiencing a technology transition within the field of photography. Just like when Photography made the step from glass plates to film (1883-90), a significant shift in the accessibility of photography to the general public occurred. Digital technology strives to more “realistically” render a scene and to heighten the convenience factor of the medium to the general public. It has done that very well. Digital has become the norm and film is now considered to be an archaic form. It is cumbersome, slow, limiting, and expensive.

You must be a purist the man said.
My smile widens as I answer yes.

That does not however mean that I am anti-digital in any way. I rely on scanners to get my film from the light table to the computer screen and I print digitally. I love that the technology allows me to readily share my work and make quick and economic prints of my work. Granted with the introduction of digital photography I did hold out for a very long time vowing to never pick up a digital camera. However, It quickly became apparent to me that this new technology was not going to go away. I learned the basics of shooting digitally, but found the process to be extremely unsatisfying and in someway, too easy. I have been in school during the last ten years of this digital transition and part of my philosophy has been created by the attitude that the fine art world has had towards digital photography. Film is highly respected and the schools that I have chosen to attend have all had a very strong dedication and emphasis to traditional methods (which is why I chose them). I have been directly told to continue shooting film because it is working very well for me and because it is a viable art form.

I am feverishly pasting photographs to the inside of paper photo frames, each one hand cut by me. A vaudevillian magic act is keeping the partygoers at bay for a moment by hypnotizing a reddish brown hen. I am 375 miles from home.

What it really comes down to is the experience of actually making photographs. If you know me you know that I am the sort of girl that has an affinity towards things of the past. I always prefer well-made things from long ago to shiny new plastic things from today. I am not enamored by technology. So when I make decisions about my materials this influences my decisions. My camera has no automatic functions, and was first produced in 1948 by a company that made cameras for the Swedish military. The advertisement for it boasts that it is a camera for the photo perfectionist and the current model looks almost identical to the original design. Why mess with perfection.

I am folding a giant paper moon in half, breaking down the canvas cloud backdrop and pushing down on the garbage can that is bulging over with instant film remains.

By simply sticking with what has been working for me my materials are being greatly appreciated. I used to get really annoyed that digital was poisoning the pure well of photographic art, but what it actually has done is set what I do apart from the norm. Film photography is now described as traditional and viewed as a fine art approach. I have no complaints about this. The down side to this being that the commercial market has “gone digital” and there has been a big decrease in the availability of traditional photographic supplies. I have had to say goodbye to a lot of my favorite printing papers, film and chemicals, but there is still enough on the market that I can still find everything I need to pursue my craft. If it comes down to it I will go back to hand mixing my black and white chemicals from scratch. It means that much to me.

I am not attracted to the hyper-realistic look that digital has or the fancy plastic beeping cameras that translate light into files. I also don’t wish to spend my time in front of a computer making pixels look like film grain. I prefer the way that film renders light and I am attracted to its subtle and beautiful nature. The process in which I make imagery directly influences my photographs, every single decision affecting the outcome.

This is why I am committed to the craft of film photography. It works for me.

I am quite convinced that something, call it art or what you will, but something apart rom mere mechanical and scientific excellence, not only can, but, should, find its way into every print from every negative that leaves the photographer’s studio

~Frederick Hollyer 1838-1933