Film revival?

When it's a superficial Hallmark emotional gesture, it's just narcissistic and annoying.

Where did I miss the example of that exhibited by any contributor to this thread?

Post the example Fred.

never want to go back to using film.

That is a perfectly valid position.

Psychoanalysis and assumption of motives of people posting here who enjoy film and digital and calling them names is not, in the context of the positive nature in which most have participated in the discussion.

One can disagree without the incessant name calling and contriving some offense that doesn't exist.

This is why the nostalgia bit often rings so hollow. It's nostalgia just for the sake of the ol' days, not for the sake of actual craft. It's about the memories that go along with using film, even if using film meant sending it off to a lab for processing and printing. When there's some substance behind nostalgia, I can get behind it. When it's a superficial Hallmark emotional gesture, it's just narcissistic and annoying.

 

I'm close with some experienced photographer friends who have a nostalgia for working with film, which actually means, for them, having worked with film, shooting, processing, and developing, not just utilizing film so someone else can work it and send it back to them. It may feel great to heighten expectations and delay "gratification" to wait a few weeks to get a box of negs or prints back and not use an lcd, but it has to be considered how ridiculous that sounds when talking about an art or a craft. The gratification you're getting is from the work someone else did, while you sat home and delayed.

Time to shelve the bitchy "village explainer" schtick. It's tiresome. Opinion? Fine but do consider that swinging your fists around becomes problematic when they contact someone's nose. "Craft" in photography? Cartier-Bresson's printer was the craftsman; Cartier-Bresson was the artist. Don't see the difference? Pity.

Post the example Fred.

The folks who were talking about loving film because they didn't have to deal with an lcd and were able to delay gratification by waiting for their negs and/or prints to come back from the lab.

"Craft" in photography? Cartier-Bresson's printer was the craftsman; Cartier-Bresson was the artist. Don't see the difference? Pity.

That's exactly what I was saying. The fact that you missed our agreement speaks volumes.

"The folks who were talking about loving film because they didn't have to deal with an lcd and were able to delay gratification by waiting for their negs and/or prints to come back from the lab."

Mark, just shot a few rolls and the mystery is refreshing, unlike the instant gratification of an lcd. Not to mention slowing down to craft the image, spot metering the scene, placing tones, not just checking for blinkies.

That would be Bill in the post above.

He was speaking from his own personal experience.

He shoots digital professionally.

Hardly a justification for all of your windmill tilting.

He well noted the typical strawman so often employed as well.

Mark, you asked for an example. I gave you one. I know he was speaking from his own experience. What's that got to do with anything. I was talking about people who speak nostalgically from their own experience, who sent their film to labs. That's the example you asked for and that's the example you got.

Wrong.

The example does not fit your line of argument throughout this thread.

It does not ring hollow.

It is not narcissistic.

His work does not show a lack of craftsmanship.

Your example fails on all those counts.

Once again your strawman fails when taken to task.

It does not ring hollow.

It does. He's talking about the benefits of film and doesn't even process his own film That rings pretty hollow to me. It may not ring hollow to you but it shouldn't be that hard to understand why it would ring hollow for someone else.

It is not narcissistic.

He mentioned his awards and accolades several times here and elsewhere. That's pretty narcissistic in a forum like this. In any case, it certainly doesn't impress me or make me think any more of his opinions, which I take on face value, not based on the awards he's received.

His work does not show a lack of craftsmanship.

I didn't say it does. I said there's a lack of craftsmanship in not processing your own film when you're claiming to be a serious film photographer.

It does. He's talking about the benefits of film and doesn't even process his own film That rings pretty hollow to me. It may not ring hollow to you but it shouldn't be that hard to understand why it would ring hollow for someone else.

That is absurd.

Does the digital photographer process his own images of does a processor do that?

I didn't say it does. I said there's a lack of craftsmanship in not processing your own film when you're claiming to be a serious film photographer.

What? You just contradicted yourself again.

That is absurd.

Does the digital photographer process his own images of does a processor do that?

Good question. I don't know what "the" digital photographer does, but I'll tell you what I do. I shoot RAW and then I convert the RAW file with a RAW converter, determining all kinds of things like color temperatures, saturation levels, tonal contrasts, and all the rest of the kinds of decisions one makes when processing. Then I bring the photos into Photoshop and am either satisfied with them as is or may do some creative post processing work to get the photo to look the way I want it to look. There's a difference in terms of craftsmanship, in my opinion, between doing that and taking one's film out of a camera and sending it off to a lab.

Keypad manipulation of a processor.

You send your preference to a processor.

The equivalent of writing "push" on a film mailer.

Thinking otherwise is the height of narcissism......

Tim even mentioned needing a better processor to introduce a film look to his digital images....

Keypad manipulation of a processor.

You send your preference to a processor.

You've got to be kidding with this, right?

You are correct, I am not the computer nor am I the computer board nor the software. And I am not a series of 0s and 1s. OK. Glad we've got that established.

What I do is decide things and get the computer to process the files based on my decisions. That's different, as I said, from taking film out of a camera and sending it off to a lab to be processed.

You've got to be kidding with this, right?

 

You are correct, I am not the computer nor am I the computer board or the software. And I am not a series of 0s and 1s. OK. Glad we've got that established.

 

What I do is decide things and get the computer to process the files based on my decisions. That's different, as I said, from taking film out of a camera and sending it off to a lab to be processed.

Different?

No it isn't. At least not in any substanitive way that would differentiate level of craftsmanship.

The film guy chooses a whole range of options before sending the film to the processor, same as you.

Additionally, the film guy has the option of post process manipulation of a scanned image......

When is the image truly complete?

At least not in any substanitive way that would differentiate level of craftsmanship.

I think we can safely say we disagree. I can usually at least understand the position of people I disagree with about photography, but in this case I'm baffled that you don't see the difference between converting one's own RAW files, making all those decisions, and sending one's film off to a lab and claiming to be a film craftsman. As far as when an image is complete, sometimes never. What's that got to do with anything. We're not talking about complete images. An image can be completed by taking a pic, sending the film to a lab to be processed and printed and never making a decision, period. A complete image does not speak to the photographer as craftsman.

But, enough. We're going around in circles and it's not terribly much fun doing this dance.

An image can be completed by taking a pic, sending the film to a lab to be processed and printed and never making a decision, period.

That is obviously patently false.

Period.

"You want glossy or matte"........

Film choice.

Camera choice.

Subject choice.

Lighting choice.

Metering choice.

Lens choice.

Filter choice.

Exposure choice.

Composition choice.

Perspective choice.

Hold choice.

Panning choice.

Focal choice.

Processing choice.

All decisions.

And now, after all of those decisions, the film guy can go down the rabbithole of digital manipulation to the extent he chooses.

Processing choice.

Right. That's the one that's being left out when "serious" film guys send their film away to be processed. That's the point. And, I should have been more specific. I was talking about the choices made AFTER the pic is taken, not choices like composition, etc., which we all make. I'm talking about the significant choices made when processing that some film goers are foregoing by sending their film to a lab and the cluelessness of then claiming to be more of a craftsman than digital folks who do make all those decisions.

I don't think Bill is clueless.

I expect he understands both film and digital quite well.

And there are a whole range of post capture processing options to decide upon by the guy who sends the film off.

I do not disparage any example of film use covered in this thread.

Almost goodnight, I guess, lol.

I also don't disparage any example of film use covered in this thread. What I take exception to is the claim to be a film craftsman by someone who abdicates a fairly significant aspect of working with film, especially when such a claim is accompanied by calling the use of an lcd "immediate gratification" and, in this case, "checking for blinkies." I don't care what part of the craft Bill farms out. But his condescension to the way others practice their craft invites him being shown he's not as pure as he thinks he is.

As listed in the "decisions" reply, there is a lot of room for creativity front loaded with the film process that should not be discounted.

And the post production possibilities of the returned negatives is extensive as well.

These two factors limit your assertion considerably.

Yet again, there's not much difference in terms of craft between processing yourself or letting the lab process it. The processing is the carrying out of a predetermined recipe (which is where some of the craft comes in) to get to the required results.

Like following a software tutorial.....;)

The processing is the carrying out of a predetermined recipe (which is where some of the craft comes in) to get to the required results.

I may never have worked in a darkroom myself, but I spent a lot of time with someone who did, and even accompanied him into the darkroom at times. In any case, we discussed processing film quite a bit and I've read about it as well. So I know that processing film can be much, much more than carrying out a predetermined recipe and how many creative decisions can and sometimes need to be made at the time of processing, some of those being things that can't be overcome or undone later. Sure, there are recipes involved, but that's just the beginning. The film craftsperson doing his own darkroom work is determining which of many recipes to use for what desired results and is nuancing and changing those recipes in creative decisions to get non-generic results. Many times, the decisions being made are IRREVOCABLE and CAN'T be made up for later.

Fred gives too much importance on the execution of the processing when he's saying that he doubts a photographer can be as serious a film photographer as they claim to be when they don't process the film themselves.

No. You're missing important facets of processing one's own film, both craft aspects and creative aspects. You're showing a rather shallow understanding of what goes into it.