Why am I suddenly interested in film photography? I'm not quite sure.

Earlier this week, I read this essay by Nathan Jones, entitled "Why Film Matters".

http://nathanjones.com/writing/why_film_matters_1.html

I'll quote the author here:

"The essential nature of the digital image is that it is easy to make, ephemeral and disposable. Rational people generally regard things that have these qualities as having no value."

"The medium is the message. And the message of the digital image is that it is not worth anything. This is not a good starting point for anyone venturing seriously into photography."

"Think that this doesn't apply to you? Then ask yourself these questions: How many images have you deleted directly from your camera before even transferring them to your computer? Are all of your digital images backed-up? How much are you willing to pay for this back-up on a per images basis, or to transfer your digital images to print? Does the capacity of everyone everywhere to make limitless perfect copies of any one of your images raise or lower their value? Does your own capacity to make thousands of images essentially without cost make you a more or less careful photographer?"

Tonight, I went to a musical performance with a full orchestra and a mass choir. But I was constantly distracted by the sound of a DSLR shutter. This photographer was standing in the back of the auditorium with a tele lens, taking a picture every 5-10 seconds. During the quiet parts of the music, it was ridiculously distracting.

I was annoyed by how loud his camera was in a quiet room, but (as an amateur photographer) I was more annoyed by how many photos he was taking. I couldn't help but think of the essay I had just read. How valuable are those photos he just took? Is even HE going to care about them? If he emails the photos to every member of the choir, how much time will those people spend looking at the photos?

I find myself doing something on Flickr, but even more often on Facebook. I'll open a folder of 100 photos, and spend about 2 seconds looking at each of them. Wouldn't it be better, I find myself wondering, if that person had taken 5 good pictures instead of 100 mediocre pictures?

I think the digital photography medium creates a mindset in people: we think to ourselves, "Every second that I'm not taking a picture is a waste of this beautiful camera. And I don't have to worry about what's good, I'll figure that out when I'm sitting at home on the computer." That makes us lazy photographers who take 1,000 pictures in a day in the hopes that at least a few will be good.

I'm shooting with a Pentax K1000 these days. It's an all-manual 35mm film SLR.  I think mine was made in Hong Kong about 1985. At the time, it was the "cheap", "student" model of Pentax cameras. I'm absolutely in love with this goofy camera.

I have noticed three interesting things about how people react to me.

1) Yes, a lot of people say, "Isn't it expensive? Why don't you just use a DSLR?" But a lot of people seem genuinely fascinated to see someone using a film camera. One of my friends told me, "Is that a film camera? It's charming!"

2) People who don't realize I'm shooting film always say, "Can I see that?" I hand them the camera, and they realize that it's not digital. What they wanted to see was the photo I just took, on a crappy 3 inch LCD screen. Why?

This is the instant feedback desire. We feed it without thinking about whether or not it's good for us. Smartphones, fucking iPads, the whole Internet rewards this reaction. "Bored? How about downloading a game, or looking at some news headlines?"

Have you ever been working hard all day, skipped lunch, been really, REALLY hungry, and then sat down to a nice dinner? How much better is that meal than a meal you eat when you're not really hungry? It's amazing.

I'm starting to feel that way about photography. I LIKE the fact that I can't see the photo I just took. I like the fact that it cost me money to take that picture. When I do see it, probably a few weeks from now, I'll be in a position to actually appreciate it for what it is, instead of just glancing at it for a moment.

3) People are often annoyed by the fact that it takes me about 5 seconds to select an aperture, select a shutter speed, manually focus, frame the shot, hold the camera steady, and shoot. Again, it's like we think we should just take 10 photos and see which one looks good, instead of taking one photo that you KNOW will be good.

What do you think? Am I a Luddite? Am I just fighting a losing battle against technology? Or do I have a point? Is there something inherently valuable about an image captured on a physical medium, that actually costs me money to take, and that I had to put some real work into creating? Is there something inherently valueLESS about an image capture in a digital file, that will almost certainly only ever be viewed on a computer screen?