My Doubts about Film Photography

Erik Brammer replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

"plenty of 'yes that's me' moments in a short space of time" - I couldn't agree more... :-) Thanks, David, for your article.

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

Thank you, Paul! Am thrilled to hear that you saw yourself in some of my worries and annoyances. Feel like we should start a support group...though maybe that's what 35mmc is! Keep shooting and if you ever scan those color 4x5s I'd love to have a look. No judgement...!

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

Thank you Erik for reading and your supportive response!

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

Thank you David for your generous response! I agree that color is harder for me to work with. When it works it can be super rewarding but I often end up converting to monochrome when scanning or even darkroom printing. Not that my discouragement is limited to color; it's an equal opportunity thing. But then again so is my joy when things work! Keep shooting. Cheers.

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

David thank you for beautifully articulating the upsides of this crazy analogue process. Although I'm not a golfer, I imagine it has something in common with the sense of reward--the dopamine rush-- that accompanies a well-played shot. These sense of accomplishment that comes with learning how to use these old tools is also very rich...despite the many days when I question my sanity for engaging in it. Thanks again for your response.

Alastair Bell replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

"And part of the pleasure of my hobby is the tactile sensation of handling precision, hand crafted perfection. Just the feel of my Leica M4 or IIIc, a Rolleiflex, Nikon FM2 or some of my current exploration of Minoltas. The photographs may be rubbish, but the taking of them is profoundly satisfying." I absolutely concur with this. There is something profoundly satisfying about using a camera crafted 60 or more years ago and having it still do what it was designed to do. Equally the tactile feel of a manual focus Zeiss lens and the smooth way a Vario Sonnar zooms on my Contax RX is only enhanced on those days when it all comes together and you get an image that you look at and say "Yeah - nailed it". Its as much about the doing as it is the getting.

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

Yes, Alastair! I think the tactile/physical part of this is huge. And it sets analogue photography for me in a separate category from almost anything else I do in life. It's quite a privilege really!

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

Totally agree, Peter! I spoke a few years back with the owner of a photo shop in Paris who told me his mostly young customers seldom come in to retrieve their negatives; the scans are all they're after. I recently heard the same thing from someone who works in a lab in Brooklyn. Hopefully some will get bitten with the darkroom bug and realize what a trove those strips of celluloid are. Thanks so much for writing.

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

Thank you for the compliment, Chuck! We Barnack types need to stick together!

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

Absolutely!!

Omar Tibi replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

Grain is gorgeous!

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

Yes!

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

Wise and kind words as always, Ibraar. I've never found an AF camera that speaks to me though zone focusing is my boon companion! If you have an AF camera recommendation would love to hear it, though my husband my divorce me if I buy any more cameras (I've been lately playing with an Olympus PEN-FT after reading your piece about them last year. Will report back with results one day soon). Cheers!

Ibraar Hussain replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

Ah the FT - I hope you enjoy it. I had the F (the Gothic F did it for me) In regards AF - something small, classy beautifully made and quick with a large VF hmmmm…the Pentax MZ-S springs to mind - compact, very nicely built in Japan, you can use all of those K mount lenses And found the following on the web: 1/4000 shutter speed 1/180 flash sync P-TTL compatible flash, yes the same flash system as the digital SLR's are using. Fast 6 point AF with manually selectable user points. HyperOperation, a sort of HyperMode but with the aperture ring on the lenses. Full manual controls, it uses aperture ring on the lenses and a command dial that can act just like a shutter button. It has a 6 segment metering with a twist, it reads the exposure latitude from the DX code on the film canister, which means fantastic and very reliable exposure metering. It has the best metering ever seen on an analogue body. Pentaprism viewfinder with dioptre correction. Depth-of-field preview MTF, action/sport, depth-of-field and normal program line. Auto bracketing Multiple exposures Flash exposure compensation Full compatibility with non-autofocus lenses. Multisegment, centrumweighted and spot metering 2.5-2.8 fps.

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

Thank you Ibraar for the recommendation and generous information about the Pentax MZ-S. It sounds like an amazing piece of kit...one that very well may find its way into my collection!

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

PS if my husband murders me I promise not to blame you!

Ibraar Hussain replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

Heheh!!!! Always a way around those issues! But I find that people tend to neglect AF SLR’s assuming Film needs to Be shot with a manual focus thing. My eyesight is quite bad and I can’t really many focus any more unless I have a huge VF - the AF makes it so much easier as Does the matrix metering which takes away a lot of tricky determining exposure in tricky conditions - just bracket and shoot. The Nikon F6 is another option or if you don’t mind some plastic the Minolta a-7 Maxum 7 which i enjoyed thoroughly

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

...my EBay trigger finger is getting twitchy....

Ibraar Hussain replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

You mussssssssst clixkkkk my precioussssss!!! In for a penny in for a pound - go for it - likely add another aspect and fun to the photography. That Pentax looks good - or if you don’t mind bulk - a Contax N1. And if you’re feeling some festive spirit your other half could go all in and buy you a Nikon F6 with a selection of lenses heheh!!

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

Thank you for such a lovely compliment, Erik! So glad you enjoyed them!

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

Thank you Danai! I never thought of the delayed gratification as a built in constraint of shooting film, but ot course it is. It makes to me in light of your observation that I would be a bit up an down in my relationship to film, as the "big reveal" of seeing images long imagined can lead to gratification...or the other thing. Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts.

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

Thank you Patrick! My darkroom is a refuge but it can also at times be rather lonely, especially when things aren't going well. Good to have company!

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

Thank you Art! I have a friend, now in his 70s, who used to shoot for a major city newspaper. It's amazing hearing about the workflow of his days back in the 70s and 80s (processing the day's films in a basement darkroom before putting his kids to sleep then messengering the films and contact sheets to the editorial office late at night), but like you he couldn't wait to get away from it once digital came in (Unlike you he hasn't gone back!). Even though he doesn't shoot film much anymore he would agree with you, as do I, that there is a kind of craft to making these old silver-tone prints that is hard as hell but also substantial and when the stars align deeply gratifying. Would love as always to see more of your work. Cheers.

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

Also meant to mention that I sometimes love those late night sessions in the darkroom. Okay, by "late" I mean 9 or 10 pm, not all-nighters like in college, but getting lost there trying to perfect a print can be pretty magical. Cheers. -D

Alexandre Kreisman replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

Way to go Bill!

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

Amazing, Bill: good for you! I do some minor retouching to prints on occasion —spotting mainly —but am really bad at it and would love to have learned from someone like you. As for technology I am unfortunately glued to my phone, but did resolve not to replace my laptop after it went on the Fritz during the pandemic. I haven't missed it!

Bill Brown replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

Forgot to mention how much I liked the opening image with the rain. Almost a film noir feel except it's in color. It made me imagine someone was trying to run you down. Maybe a hired hit because of your camera buying! As far as basic print spotting goes here are my top recommendations. Brush: Windsor & Newton Series 7 Red Sable 0 or 1. Other than a keen eye and study hand this is the most critical part. Use a magnifying glass if needed. Spotting dyes: In this day and time this is the tricky part. I have all my original dyes from back in the day, Marshalls and Spot Tone. A bottle lasted a really long time even for a person like myself who spotted work on a daily basis. Before I moved to digital in 2006, after 30 years as an analog retoucher, I had probably retouched/spotted well above 20,000 photographs. My specialty was removing/blending complex neg imperfections. Some of these prints took me upwards of 8 hours to retouch. My main client had his work printed point light source and this method showcased every flaw in the negative. That's where I came in. The key to this was that nothing could be visible after retouching/spotting. Sorry, got sidetracked. The water based dyes work best if placed on a glass palette and then let dry. Dipping into wet dyes is NOT recommended. Use distilled water in a small plastic cup to wet your brush then pick up a small amount of dye from the palette and gently twirl/blot it on a cheap non coated kleenex tissue. The twirling helps to refine and train the brush bristles to a fine point. You don't want the dye/water solution to be too wet or it can go too dark too fast on the print. Build into the tone density. Don't try to hit it in one touch. Work on a reject print to get a feel for it. This will sound obvious but the key to spotting is only putting dye on the spot. This is the delicate touch I mentioned. Hope this get's you started. Just ask me if you have a specific question. Best.

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

I love your association to that rainy photo! That huge black SUV does look pretty intimidating... I believe it was an Uber we'd called to bring us back home from a restaurant in a different part of Brooklyn. Normally we would've taken the train but we didn't have an umbrella, hence the splurge. Thanks so much for the advice on spotting. I mostly don't bother with resin coated paper but when I make a fiber based print, often as a gift, I hold myself to a higher standard.

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

Hi Mark, how beautiful your statement about the emptiness of chasing validation (oh by do I know about that) and also the pleasure of surrendering to the craft which brings deep satisfaction. (Among other feelings!). I really appreciate your response.

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

Hi Jeffrey, it's heartening to know you're out there doing this work as well. While I do shoot color I find black and white irreplaceable. I just recently began setting up a website (super prelimary, only the homepage at this point) and am debating keeping everything monochrome since that's where the bedrock is for me in all of this. That said for color snaps a smartphone is hard to beat!

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

Salut Alex! Et merci pour votre commentaire! Given the gorgeous, luminous quality of your photographs, I would never imagine that you took a sabbatical, but of course I understand that we all need to recharge. (Photography for me the way I recharge from my career as a psychotherapist, an art form of sorts with its own rewards and frustrations, but that's a story for another day). I think the weakest link in my technical arsenal is my scanning setup. I use a digital camera on a stand with masks etc but the results I get are far inferior to those that come from a good lab. I do have an M3 : used to have two but just got rid of one. They are amazing cameras but the lightness and pocket ability of the Barnacks is hard to beat. Don't worry though I am keeping my other M3 as I know I would need to buy it again in a year or less, probably for much more money, as soon as it left my shelf! Merci encore!

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

Thank you Walter! I would love to hear more at some point about the way that you meter (for highlights, shadows etc), though I know that also depends on film stock, the degree of contrast in the scene, etc. I have tried for years to master the Zone system but find my mind turning to Jell-o each time I do so. Hearing the wisdom of others is always welcome. Thanks.

Walter Reumkens replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

Ansel Adams' classic zone system was developed more for use with sheet film. Each shot was given its own treatment from start to finish. I have had his three books, Camera, Negative, Positive, since the 1990s and had the same problems with them. What helped me was literature on exposure metering and contrast control, of which there are several books here in Europe. I can highly recommend Andreas Feininger's book "The Complete Photographer, Revised Edition", which was published in the USA. Writing about it in detail here would be difficult, if only because of the German/American translation, where details are important, as we have seen recently. What helped me was using the analogue Pentax Spotmeter V, which is often still available second-hand. Reading the manual helps you get a good grasp of the subject. Thank you David!

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

Hi Graham, I'm with you about menus. Even my handheld digital light meter has too many of those for me, and I often resort to using an older model with a comforting dial and needle instead. Funny about Adams. He doesn't explain really why he got those prints so wrong (the book implies he was trying to return to some earlier technique from the 1930s). If memory serves they were 5x7 contract prints of landscapes, not big enlargements. I also read somewhere recently that Peter Hujar, one of my very favorite photographers and a superior darkroom printer, once put a fist through a friend's darkroom wall in frustration as he tried to print a different photographer's work. He knew how to get the effects he wanted in his own prints most days at least, but couldn't wrap his head around aiming to realize someone else's look. In sum even our heros have dirt under their fingernails... Thanks for your kind response.

Walter Reumkens replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

My humble opinion on Peter Hujar and "banging your fist against the wall". In my first photography course in the late 1970s, I learned that you have to view the photograph and the paper print as a single entity. If the exposure was too short when taking the photograph, you had to extend it during development, and it was helpful to know what had happened beforehand when printing. The consequence of this at the time was to use products from one manufacturer for everything from film to negative developer and paper, and to coordinate the processes. ILFORD was a very good manufacturer for these things at the time, and we got on very well with them. There was also relevant literature in the data sheets for the products mentioned. The ISO value for the film depended on the developer, whether ID-11, Perceptol or Microphen, which I wanted to use later. At my age, it's all too much effort for me now, especially because of the chemicals, so I have my black-and-white film developed by a specialist laboratory, with whom I coordinate the ISO value of the film in advance. It's usually box speed. That's why I'm not a fan of always using new films. The entire workflow changes, even in the labs, and Kodak + Ilford/Kentmere know what they have to do. Everything else is just a fad and a passing trend. Peter Hujar, Friedlander and all the others would never have worked that way.

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

You are absolutely right, Walter. Hujar was apparently obsessed with using Tri-X 400 and printing on Agfa Portriga Rapid paper, a paper that gives his photos their luminosity and vast tonal range (they grey tones are just incredible, as are the whites. OMG). It's a sad irony that Afga discontinued production of that paper the same year Hujar died, all too young, from complications of HIV/AIDS (1987). One can only imagine what he may have made of the digital revolution had he lived to see it.

Bill Brown replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

Agfa Portriga Rapid. The first professional photographer I worked for, Bank Langmore, had stacks of those paper boxes waiting to be opened and used. Those prints his darkroom printer, Ron Evans, produced were absolutely stunning. They spotted beautifully too. Check out Banks work. https://www.afterimagegallery.com/LangmoreErwitt.htm His youngest son, John Langmore, has his own amazing collection of cowboy work too. http://www.johnlangmorephotos.com/open-range/ They had a father-son exhibition at the Briscoe Museum in San Antonio in 2015. I was privileged to spot 26 vintage silver gelatin prints of Banks for this exhibition.

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

OMG, Bill! Those cowboy photos are drop-dead gorgeous, both father's and son's. I feel like I've been transported a million miles away from Brooklyn, NY. And the quality of the printing is just mind-blowing. Really exquisite and your story of working on them is amazing. If you're willing I would love to interview you at some point for a profile for 35mmc. You have a perspective on this art form that few people do. My email is [email protected]

Tony Warren replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

Correction:- ..From many of.. and ...efforts through competitions and also the... Eyesight problems and a bit of dyslexia!

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

Thank you Tony for your kind words and wisdom. Thank goodness I don't compete or compare myself (unfavorably or otherwise) to peers in my actual career — I've been a therapist for so many years that I have developed a respect even for folks who work very differently than I do, provided they have integrity - but show me a Sally Mann or a Lee Friedlander or (fill in name or your favorite photographer) and I go green with envy. My ego says "I wanna do that!" It's the darndest thing and a real distinction from actually enjoying this amazing way of seeing the world.

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

I meant a real distraction from enjoying this amazing way of seeing the world.

Tony Warren replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

I agree David and sadly we need distractions from what we are seeing in the world.

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

Thank you Gary so much. Am thrilled you liked the shots of Dwayne! You're very right about cameras and technologies coming and going. They are of course just tools for seeing or self-expression or whatever. But I often lose track of that!

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 12/01/2026

Thank you David for your kind words, which rallly touched me.

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 13/01/2026

Thank you Scott! I love the Ring Lardner story, which I'd not heard of before: it's spot on. During our pandemic decampment upstate I briefly took up golf — played nine holes every day—sans cart—as soon as the sun was up. I has a few gratifying shots and a rush here and there of dopamine but mainly learned from those six months that I would never be much of a golfer (though the walks were spectacular). Photography definitely has its hooks much deeper into me and I'm glad to see into you and so many of us here. Onward! And thanks.

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 14/01/2026

Thank you so much for your kind words, Leonel! I'm thrilled that this story rang true to your experience as well. Whatever the frustrations and disappointments, as you so rightly state, the joy is real and keeps us coming back for more. Let's keep shooting and sharing. Cheers!

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 15/01/2026

Thank you Alexander! It's true there is strength in numbers...a real gift to be part of this community.

Bill Brown replied:

Comment posted: 15/01/2026

Skip the AF SLR David and find someone you can borrow a Contax G2 from. Now that's fun!

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 15/01/2026

Thanks Ibraar! I have been very happily surprised and moved by the response. Actually on Sunday night before it went live I wondered whether this post might be one that went nowhere ... am thrilled that it has had legs, as I think they used to say in movies about the newspaper business. Still perusing the web for thoughts about an AF camera...

Ibraar Hussain replied:

Comment posted: 15/01/2026

Yes but the metering isn’t great. I’d get that Pentax or similar SLR - quicker, better metering, better at zone focus setting, vast selection of lenses, and besides David has been shooting Rangefinders.

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 15/01/2026

Oh goodness! A Contax G2...I love Zeiss optics for sure. Not sure it would be in the budget but hey you never know! Thanks Bill.

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 15/01/2026

Good point Ibraar. My husband and my better judgement say "no new cameras for 2026" but New Year's resolutions are made to be broken...!

Scott Ferguson replied:

Comment posted: 15/01/2026

We have a G2 that I'd be happy to lend you if you fancy a highly automated rangefinder. It will be a very different experience from your Barnack, or the Rollei.

Ibraar Hussain replied:

Comment posted: 15/01/2026

I'll treat him to some Sargodha photos come the 18th! That smile will mean he'll give you the all clear!! hehehe!!! On a related note, I get the impression that many people (here and elsewhere in the www Film 'community') turn their noses up at 35mm AF SLR's, as if Film is "supposed" to be shot with a snail paced Manual Rangefinder (or SLR) or some compact (cheapo or expensive) meanwhile, AF SLR's are neglected and cheap - when in use they blow any of the others away. I wrote a piece about the Minolta Maxxum 7 titled "The Best for when you really have got to get that shot (on a budget)". for good reason

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 15/01/2026

Oooh, can't wait for the Sargodha photos! Rajiv will love seeing them too...perhaps they will soften him up! Interesting what you say about AF and possible prejudices against it here and in the film community generally. I think that may be right, even for me. I think in my case it's part of the push back against the perfection of the iPhone camera, the desire to "do everything myself" without intervention of tech. Which is absurd as lens choices film choices filters format etc are all manipulations of tech as well, but tech without electronics. Seems to be throwing useful babies out with wash water...!

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 15/01/2026

Thanks, Scott! That would be great!

David Pauley replied:

Comment posted: 20/01/2026

Thank you so much, Eagle. I love the idea of inviting imagination, something I think I often fail to do with my photos (by being obsessed with technical details and transparency). You do the mood thing so well with your work, so your words really have weight for me.