Jump to content

BBC Article About Continuing Use of Film


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>I think the key points for a lot of us who use both digital and film is the comment down in the BBC report that medium format film photography is still very viable, due to the decreasing prices of some of the better used camera systems (Hasselblad, etc.) and the fact that high quality prints with digital medium format means acquiring equipment that is very expensive or at least the highest quality 35mm FF digital cameras.</p>

<p>If you don't have, or don't need, a range of optics, purchasing something like a MF SLR with a couple of lenses, or even a not very old Fujifilm 690 III rangefinder 6 x 9 cm negative fixed lens camera (65 or 90mm lens options), is very tempting.</p>

<p>Add to that the pleasure of (necessarily, and often advantageously) slow photography, as well as the optional and enjoyable darkroom printing of B&W (current cheap high quality used darkroom systems) and there is really a very ample reason to use film. Everything can be done in-house, as any artist instinctively knows to be a satisfying option.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The Amish still use horses and buggies, so there's clearly a place for almost any technology.</p>

<p>As far as I'm concerned, the "enjoyable darkroom printing of B&W" must be some use of the work "enjoyable" that I'm not familiar with or used only in comparison to the making of color prints.</p>

<p>

Speaking only for myself, I think I can make a high quality digital print faster, easier, cheaper and with just as much enjoyment as I could a medium format B&W "wet chemistry" print. I've done my own B&W developing and printing in the past. I have to admit I didn't find it all that enjoyable, nor were the results generally as good as I'm getting via the digital route. That may of course be due to my lack of printing skills of course.

<p>

I'm sure that much of the current use of film is to be "hip" and different from the masses who now all use digital. Nothing wrong with that of course, but I'm not 100% sure that using film is necessarily the best route if obtaining quality images on a budget is the major goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Smoothbore, muzzle-loading muskets still in use last Saturday.</p>

<p>If I want to shoot film these days, either I do the development myself or send it to Dwayne's. <br>

Like wet-plate photography, it can be a fairly intense re-enactment experience.</p><div>00dF9z-556362984.jpg.3b565ad03e950ddb76f85ab5c611246b.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm the first guy to say that, yeah, old mechanical cameras are neat devices and using them is kinda fun. But I have to agree with Bob on printing. I always hated the wet print darkroom. The smells, the difficulty of consistent, repeat ability when printing an edition, hands in chemistry constantly and the sheer time it takes to get results. While I still enjoy playing around with my old film cameras from time-to-time, it would take a team of wild horses attached to an Amish buggy to drag me away from digital printing. I suppose there are people who get pleasure from the process. Heck, there are still a few folks processing Daguerreotypes. Gawd bless but no thanks.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Add to that the pleasure of...slow photography</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've heard this repeated a number of times, but, frankly, I don't get it. What prevents folks shooting with digital cameras from working slowly, deliberately and with introspection? </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I picked up a Pentax K1000 dirt-cheap at a thrift store a few years back, got a few rolls of Tri-X, chemistry and a canister (and I'd given away a really nice one). I persevered, well sort of: I've shot and processed 4 rolls now, have yet to scan the fourth.</p>

<p>Come to think of it, even my Canon 5DIII is gathering dust, all I'm using of late is my IPhone, my heart's not in it I guess.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>As one using both systems of photography I can understand the enjoyment of using either (and both), and also the less enjoyable aspects of each. Telling another photographer what is or is not enjoyable is a subjective call and cannot be taken as some sort of self-evident truth. We can only mention what we think is enjoyable for ourselves. I have no interest in telling another what is not enjoyable for him.</p>

<p>Slow photography is not only an aspect of film photography (only necessarily somewhat so in that case), but also very much possible and often useful in digital photography. Fellow PN photographer Fred G. has reminded me of that on one or two occasions. It is something with which I fully agree. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Actually, to be clear, Arthur, what I reminded you of in a private message this morning was that I found your use of "slow photography" to describe film photography perfectly acceptable, and that's coming from someone who only shoots digital and who works quite slowly and, I like to think, thoughtfully. In general, film and darkroom work are a slower process than digital work. As a matter of fact, I'd say the vast majority using digital are shooting jpgs and immediately uploading it from camera to facebook or instagram and not spending much time "processing" at all. None of this means it applies to everyone shooting film or shooting digitally. It's just a descriptive phrase that's taken hold. It's an appellation that, in general, rings true. It's not unlike how, these days, many refer to "slow food" as a counterpoint to "fast food." It doesn't mean that some slow food can't be cooked in as fast a manner as some fast food and it doesn't mean that I don't occasionally have to wait for quite some time at a McDonald's.</p>

<p>As for enjoyment, when someone tells me they enjoy something that's different from something I enjoy, it's rare that I don't understand what they mean or think they must be using a different definition of "enjoy." It didn't take me long in life to understand that different people enjoy different things. Certainly, I hope that your telling me of your enjoyment of darkroom work, given that I use digital processing, wouldn't make me defensive about my own process and doesn't boggle my mind.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It's ironic that April 11 was Film Photography Day, as I took my first serious/good photo that day with an iPhone. No matter what the medium or format, I think that was an example of the very best camera being the one I had with me. ;-)</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I still shoot film. Why? Because the cameras I like happen to use film.<br>

Now if I could just unclip the removable back from my OM cameras and clip on a digital back, and then switch back to film when I have a notion to do so........<br>

Then I would use digital. <br>

If I felt like it. <br>

On occasion.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patrick is carrying on one side a Mamiya C330. A great camera for those who did not mind the weight and the reverse image. It did the job though. Now we have better and lighter technology for those who are interested mainly in the result and not especially concerned about the tools. Tools improve. Spinning wheels were once in every home. It was the best available and then came the powered spinning machines and looms and something else after that. I think it's called productivity improvement. Less labor, more output. More predictability. Less fuss. Not saying that has some existential good, but that seems to be the template for where to place one's bets.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I think it's called productivity improvement. Less labor, more output. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>As an engineer by training I can understand where you are coming from, even though it means not so much to me in photography. I also understood the late Alex Colville, the so-called realist painter from Nova Scotia who died in 2013, who carefully planned his art and invested at least 6 months on each painting.</p>

<p>Enjoyment, art and photography are not always driven by more output and/or less time. </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Why is it, that when any news appears on any photo forum about the resurgence of film, then there always seems to be those who feel the need to remind us why they use digital?<br>

No one who uses digital needs to convince me that, for them, it is better than film. <br>

Same goes for film users. Or those still doing wet plate or tintypes.<br>

The people who still, or have started to, or have gone back to film are not doing so as a challenge to those who have chosen digital. These stories about the resurgence of film are of course interesting to those of us who do use film because it means our choices have increased. And that makes us happy. </p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The article mentions those staying with film as being non-conformists. OH, PULEEEZE!</p>

<p>That type of "hipsterism" I equate to those that think it's a good idea to re-invent the movie theater experience by having waiters scurry about in a darkened theater during the movie reciting to patrons what's on the menu they can't seem to read for themselves because there's no lights while management constantly, rudely and forcefully reminds patrons to turn off their cellphones during the movie or else be ejected from the theater.</p>

<p>Yeah, they really thoroughly thought that concept through which is why I don't go to their theater and why I don't shoot film. If they're going to sell "hipsterism", "non-conformity" it requires thinking people which doesn't necessarily mean you're a conformist. A pragmatist? Yeah.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Merriam Webster<br /> <strong>non-comformist</strong> - a person who does not behave the way most people behave</p>

<p>Sounds about right. Since most people are no longer using film in their cameras, by definition those who do use it are non-comformists.</p>

<p>As to "hipsterism" I'd have to know the individual to determine his or her motivations and/or character. I wouldn't paint with too broad a brush, whether I was writing an article or responding to it.</p>

<p>As to movies, I'm 61. Never been to a movie house that serves dinner. Not then. Not now. I will say this. A lot of my friends prefer to wait for movies until they can watch them at home in the comfort of their living rooms on wide screen tvs or even laptops. I'm often asked why I go to so many movies, especially when it means paying upwards of $13.00 here in San Francisco for the privilege. (There's one theater that considers me a senior because I'm over 60 and I get in for under $10. At first I was annoyed to be considered a senior. I got over that quickly!) Anyway, my quick answer about preferring to go a movie is that I ENJOY doing it that way. My longer answer has to do with sharing the experience with audiences, even quiet ones, the feeling I get when the lights go down, the sense of space and magnitude, the relative formality of it. I don't chide my friends for wanting to do it a different way and don't usually second-guess their motives. A lot of this stuff is intangible. Why do I prefer to play my old upright piano instead of a newer electric keyboard? Why do I tend to buy antique or period furniture to new stuff? Why was it cool to listen to old scratched records at my brother's cottage in the Berkshire mountains of New England recently, with a nice fire going? Thankfully, I have nothing to prove to anyone by doing so and no one should assume I'm out to prove anything by doing so, unless they want to waste their energy making such assumptions.</p>

<p>In many ways, I'm an old hipster at heart, and a proud and happy one.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have read the article and feel it is by far the best one yet on the resurgence of film as a fun and creatively rewarding niche. I have also read posts about it on various forums and damn.....a lot of the responses on this one are by far the most negative I have seen.<br /> <br /> Please...pretty please..?...lighten up folks, film photography is *still* photography and of the 6 or so young people I mentor, none of them are doing it to be hip. They are doing it because they love everything about it, the cameras, the journey and the results. And like me...they *ADORE* the darkroom and their fine work is a reflection of that.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The article is well timed. A local store called "The Record Archive" is celebrating a vinyl weekend. People were parking blocks away to get there. Later this spring, there will be a horse-drawn surrey driving competition at a nearby horse farm. I can see some very practical reasons for shooting film in certain instances. If you want to shoot live action with large format images, film is the best option. If I were to take a raft trip down the Colorado, I would be willing to risk my Minolta SLR, but probably not my Nikon DSLR. If I'm shooting landscapes on a windy day and the trees are blowing, I can capture a wide luminance range with color negative film without resorting to multiple shot HDR techniques. I can also see some subtle gradations of hue in film that don't show up with digital. </p>

<p>I can see a number of reasons for using film for certain circumstances and I used to refer to switching to digital as "going to the dark side." It is also been three years since shot a roll of film. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still have and enjoy vinyl records, a total analog deal with the gear as well: Little brushes and styluses, Shure balance, sleeve liners, jackets, cabinet to file and store them.. I don't mind the extra care but I do not cherish it either..Older processes have charm plus must have something beyond charm for folks who are choosing vinyl . But I got to say if pressed I vastly prefer the ease of CDs and their storage. Or the music on the internet from my Logitech Squeezeboxes.

 

If film is soul satisfying, why bother arguing with anyone here who chooses it over digital. Or does both...you get a choice. Trying to say I do not turn up my nose at film buffs or enthusiasts. Even those who love Polaroid and are rediscovering its individual look. I understand. I hope I do anyway.

 

So I have made my preference known but it is not a put down of the article or adherents to a technology that is no longer (vastly) popular and is harder FOR ME to use. Personal pronoun underlined...

 

Some superb authors draft their books on manual typewriters. So I say big deal. Whatever makes you happy is a positive thing so who am I to knock it. I of snobbery for the means I use to make photos. I still have my film cameras. And some film I need to finish the roll on. Give me some Kodachrome and I will break out one of my three film stereo cameras and my Gossen meter. But not my film loading tank. I once wrote in a forum that I felt that developing film was like cooking spaghetti, meaning a chore. And then one of the members responded " I enjoy cooking spaghetti." Each to his own. I love to eat the stuff got to say...with good marinara sauce.

 

The article is interesting and that is the sum of it. I am glad that we still have access to the materials. I am one of the niche people who still loves stereoscopy. Just bought a Wollensak viewer from Dr T George Themelis to use for viewing my boxes of Kodachrome slides. That is the sum of it for me. And maybe more than necessary =unless we have our 'dukes up' for an argument. Or rather heated discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" Enjoyment, art and photography are not always driven by more output and/or less time"

 

 

Hard to quarrel with that one, Arthur. I only add a qualifier or two as it applies to me and clearly some others here. If the microchip/ integrated circuits discussed in the article did nothing else, they relieved the boring bits, rituals that should better be done by a machine by assigning them to a machine, the digital machine .... Like what for instance. Well, loading a spool of film on a Nikor reel. Agitating trays. Test strips to get the exposure, picking the right filter for the enlarger..making enlargements or having someone do it to specs and then picking them up later and judging color....And certainly the shooting part is less hassle of ritual. Computing fill flash.. getting exposure down...making toned copies...and so on. Yes, I would argue that automation makes productivity easier for the individual who has the time then to be more creative in the higher sense of fulfilling and idea and bringing it to life. The human part if you will.

 

As to the languid painter who manages to do a bit each day for six months.. Pope Julius would ask that question he put to Michelangelo in the film , "when will you make an end to it?:-). No shame in that careful approach with no output pressure. No prizes either, no honors from me anyway.

 

But I agree that haste can and does make for junk, we see a lot of junk and some of it us ours no doubt. Saying that we need to think what we are after with the time saved by the machine and the chip. Or maybe get immersed in some worthy purpose for our product and relate to someone or some project for the output.

 

Sally Mann,whom I just read about in the NYT magazine last Sunday was a superb gelatin- emulsion printer. Her fame though is in the choices she describes not the darkroom process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Not looking to argue about anything especially whether someone wants to use film or drive a horse & buggy. I just don't think it's new information that requires a media alert.</p>

<p>I also think folks who like using old technology often don't tell the whole story where a lot of detail gets lost in their ruminating on the subject on just what a PITA it is to engage in as a pastime which was my point about young entrepreneurs thinking it's an original great idea having a waiter in a darkened movie theater take food orders which so happens to be going on in my local Texas based Alamo Drafthouse theater.</p>

<p>For years I've been hearing a great idea about an innovative movie going experience created by a young "hipster" entrepreneur and I'm on board until I finally visit one in my local town and see they left out a bunch of details. The only thing I heard was they had tables which anyone who's seen families struggle to their seats carrying buckets of popcorn and drinks will totally understand why that's been needed ever since movie theaters were invented.</p>

<p>Oh, you want to go back to using film? Why? Because it's fun? Go for it! But don't tell me it's better without including all the details on why that is and whether the PITA aspect of it is worth the trouble.</p>

<p>And don't get me started on Chipotle restaurant. I don't know why it is lately with young folks coming up with what appears to be great ideas I find out about in the media not measuring up to the actual experience and you can include Starbucks in the lot of them as well. There's not one food item at Chipotle that tastes like smoked jalapeno and nothing even coming close to any recognizable ethnic (TexMex/Mexican) flavor. Salty stewed tasting meats and bland vegetables. I couldn't even taste cilantro, lime or chili. I had to go home after my meal to get an authentic Chipotle flavor eating Wheat Thins Spicy, Sweet Chipotle. They are SO GOOD!</p>

<p>We really need to accurately define what is the new hip because it's getting a bad name in my book from all the let downs from the over hyped expectations it promises to deliver. I bet that Apple Watch is a PITA to use. We're just not hearing about the details yet.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more media attention film gets in terms of a niche user base, why they are using it and why it is better for them, the

better chance it has for sticking around. Most film makers can not afford TV superbowl ads like Kodak and Fuji once used

to so its all a grassroots level passion filled spread the word kind of thing.

 

The use of film is great, there is great fresh work being made on it, the niche that is the market is starting to stabilize and

it's going to stick around now. It deserves to and the people who love to use it deserve to cheer it on, talk on forums about

it and celebrate articles such as this new one by the BBC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Daniel, I'ld like to see some of that great fresh work being made on film.</p>

<p>My experience with film going back decades was never a positive one especially when I was an art director for a small local ad agency. Oh, I was told I had to have special skills and experience to be trusted to insure color reproduction between the photographer and the commercial press and so I didn't get to do a lot photographic color reproduction.</p>

<p>I didn't know a guy, who knew a guy, who's cousin worked at a high end film processing lab and could do the work fast and cheap so I was always the one out looking in. So I have a lot of baggage about film I'm not too happy about.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Perhaps food is not such a bad analogy for the subjective choices we can make in photography. I am not a great cook but I enjoy the process of spending time in the kitchen making a dish that I or my friends might enjoy. Modern food processing technology makes that dish available much more conveniently. Instead of preparing a simple salad and its dressing myself I can choose one from dozens presented at the local supermarket and often prepared using more productive machines than my labor. More conveniently than hours in the kitchen. </p>

<p>The pleasure of engaging in the process, like cooking, has its analogy in both digital and darkroom photography. If I wished, I could spend quite a lot of time in front off my computer screen in making (editing) each photo and engaging in the sometimes lengthy iterative process of getting a good print from whatever printing device I happen to use. Or I could send the file to a lab and have them produce it (which I might then want to have redone if it did not meet my objective).</p>

<p>Film and darkroom is a similar choice and a personal one. I get some fine black and white prints from my digital stock edited on my computer and then printed elsewhere (I cannot keep an inkjet printer in good enough shape with only occasional use and I am not that good at calibration). The process of film development and printing is also not "convenient" but the process is pleasurable for some photographers. When I see the morning light filtering into the darkroom workspace I am glad I spent an evening there and am thinking of what I will have to print the next time. Hopefully enough others will be equally motivated and we can keep Ilford and the various other manufacturers busy. </p><div>00dFF5-556371984.jpg.45090b564634c6184593c1f2801fa332.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...