Film Lives!

<p>Just got my September 2012 issue of Popular Photography.<br>

A refreshing & interesting article.</p><div></div>

<p>Author Debbie Grossman expresses a wonderful final thought.</p><div></div>

<p>2 weeks ago i purchased a Leica MP, I felt that digital was never quite the same as B&W film, I processed my first film in 10 years, So for me it is a rebirth.<br>

Below is one of the images from that roll of film.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks Gus ... I'm off to Barnes and Noble to pick that issue up!</p>

<p>Somebody ought to remind Kodak after their announcement! I still have a freezer full, but the announcement was a little bit of a jolt.</p>

<p>Stephen, what was Kodaks Announcement?</p>

<p>Richard--they are selling off their film business...<br>

Paul</p>

<p>Paul if they are selling it off, then i presume it will still be made but not by them, I am sure the name will be part of the sale.</p>

<p>I'm afraid it is dead, mourned and gone at my house. The last roll of film was used about two years ago and we haven't for a moment missed the inconvenience of the medium. It was a wonderful family memberf back in the '90's, but we now see it only in photos and around family discussions of "remember when".</p>

<p>I wonder if Pop Photo would have run that front page and article had the editors known ahead of time about yesterday's big news. <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/24/news/companies/kodak-film/index.html">LINK </a></p>

<p>I don't miss film at all. On Jan 1, 2011, I made it my New Year's resolution to not shoot film that year. It was the first time in my life I was able to keep my resolution. I sold all of my film equipment and never looked back.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> we haven't for a moment missed the inconvenience of the medium</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />That's the problem with everything now. Convenience wins out over quality. The same is true with sound recording. From wax cylinders up to compact discs there was an improvement in quality at every step. Then for some reason, convenience became more important and the masses now want to cram thousands of MP3s into a miniature device incapable of reproducing the full sound. Likewise with photographs. We all want to store far too many of them and look at them on low resolution monitors and digital frames. </p>

<p>How long has it been since the first Canon Digital Rebel came out? Anyway, that's when film died for me. Still have four rolls of Fujicolor 400 from then, as once I got hooked on digital I never had any interest in shooting film again.</p>

<p>I've never had a digital camera and have always continued to use my SLR cameras, rangefinders and medium format.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've never had a digital camera</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I made the mistake of buying one once. Worst £1300 I ever spent.</p>

<p>I have an old Pentax K1000 kit stashed in the closet. I've thought, and talked about, pulling it back into service on occasion. But why? I pay for film. I pay, and wait, for processing. Then what, paper prints of 24-36 images where only a few may be keepers? Scanning negatives to make digital files of the same images that I can then manipulate on my computer? That's what I'm doing already with the digital cameras. I poo-pooed digital when it first became widely available, but now, for me, it is superior. And when I want a paper version of that keeper, I send it to my photo printer and then go buy a frame. I applaud, though, what other can do with film and how it brings them so much satisfaction, and I sincerely hope all the best to them.</p>

<p>Vacuum tubes vs. transistor/digital logic. Carburetors vs. fuel injectors. Books vs. e-readers. Hammers vs. nail guns. Ax vs. chain saw. Time and technology march on and pay no attention to what happened yesterday, or to who it affects, or how and why. These companies are in the business of profit, not fulfilling dreams and desires (even though the job of the corporate marketing department is to make you think otherwise, watch a few episodes of Mad Men). In photography equipment, the money is in the computer chip, not in the film strip. Otherwise the camera makers would still be turning out tens of thousands of new film cameras every year. Film manufacturers are holding on because... they are in the business of making film, and trying to convince us of the romantic notion of using film. Time will tell how long they can hold on. So enjoy it while they still make it.</p>

<i>"How long has it been since the first Canon Digital Rebel came out? Anyway, that's when film died for me."</i><br><br>... is a statement perfectly illustrating what happened this last decade and a half, or so. The first Canon digital rebel?<br>People appreciate ease of use far, far more than the results. Don't care about what they are doing or why. Only about how they are doing things. How 'comfortable', and 'trendy', it is.<br>Sure: digital has become much better now. But that - considerations about quality - was not (nor is it today) the main thing that drove film to the edge of extinction. On the contrary, as illustrated by that "How long has it been [...]".

<p><<<<em>it behooves all of us -- especially those who have grown up with digital -- to slow down and to take a series of pictures uninterrupted by a feed of digital information and the glow of an LCD. Remember what it's like to make pictures when there's nothing in the world but you, a quietly receptive machine, and your subject.</em>>>></p>

<p>This is TOO funny.</p>

<p>First of all, I shoot digital and I rarely interrupt myself to chimp or look at the LCD screen, especially when I'm on a roll (no pun intended) with my shooting. People still have choices. And one choice is NOT to use the technology to the extent you don't want to.</p>

<p>Second of all, the idea of a quietly receptive machine accompanying you when you're supposedly communing with your subject is one of the funniest rationalizations I've ever read. A machine is a machine is a machine. Cameras are machines. Deal with it. If you don't want a machine, don't take along a machine. Read Susan Sontag sometime for an opinion on just how passive a machine even a film camera can be . . . or not.</p>

<p>Small-minded and not very clever people let only their machines guide what they do with them. If you have some sense of self and self control, it will be the OPERATOR of the machine that makes the decisions, chooses how to use the machine, and comes up with good photos and exciting ways to use and be with the camera.</p>

<p>Many people using only the automatic functions of cameras and chimping away as they shoot are using a camera differently from traditional film users, and using it just the way they want to. That shouldn't bother any film user. Why would someone else's way of using a camera suggest that others should use different types of cameras the way they use theirs. Next I'll be told I have to put my polaroid on a tripod and use it like an 8x10, because everyone should have an experience like MINE.</p>

<p><em>"The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it."</em> --Ansel Adams</p>

<p>"Convenience wins out over quality." Sometimes inconvenience becomes so great that it forces change. I have kept on with film despite the increasing difficulty of having it processed. Once that difficulty becomes killing -- I am not young, and making two longish trips to the lab for each roll is not easy -- I shall have to go all digital simply in order to survive.</p>

<p>The one thing digital can't beat is the "fun" of sending your film off to get processed and waiting for it to come back.</p>

<p>Digital, if you think about it, reveals a lot about the people who use it. People who don't want to admit mistakes or imperfection (deletes "ruined" photos). People who have an impatience complex (shoot them now, print them now). Add to the list.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Steve T. said: Vacuum tubes vs. transistor/digital logic. Carburetors vs. fuel injectors. Books vs. e-readers. Hammers vs. nail guns. Ax vs. chain saw. Time and technology march on and pay no attention to what happened yesterday, or to who it affects, or how and why. These companies are in the business of profit, not fulfilling dreams and desires.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Time may march on and technology advances but vacuum tubes, transistors, carburators, books, hammers, axes, and even buggy whips are all still being manufactured. The firms making them must be making a profit. Another thing is, most of the old technologies work without electricity or power requirements so, after the end of the world and zombies are attacking, you still have something that works while digital and iPads are worthless.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>People appreciate ease of use far, far more than the results. Don't care about what they are doing or why. Only about how they are doing things. How 'comfortable', and 'trendy', it is.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Speak for yourself. I seriously doubt you can speak for all "people." <br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p> Convenience wins out over quality</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />It's a whole lot more inconvenient to set up a couple softboxes and a backdrop than to shoot a film camera. The time it takes to use a camera of any type is completely negligible when I factor in all the rest of things that I have to do, like find a location, pose models, arrange and clean up backgrounds, scope out the lighting and decide if I need to add some, etc. </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I'm afraid it is dead, mourned and gone at my house. The last roll of film was used about two years ago and we haven't for a moment missed the inconvenience of the medium. It was a wonderful family memberf back in the '90's, but we now see it only in photos and around family discussions of "remember when".</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I can't put film behind me because I have several old cameras that I dearly love that require it for their operation. :) I refuse to entertain the possibility that these cameras will be rendered obsolete because I will no longer be able to find film for them. I hope I'm dead and gone before that day comes.</p>

 

<p><<<<em>Digital, if you think about it, reveals a lot about the people who use it. People who don't want to admit mistakes or imperfection (deletes "ruined" photos). People who have an impatience complex (shoot them now, print them now). Add to the list.</em>>>></p>

<p>And SOME people who use film have bizarre notions about others. It's usually a sign of great insecurity, not to mention ignorance, when one has to put down the practices of someone else who does things differently. But if making these obnoxious claims allows you to feel complete or superior, more power to you. </p>

<p>What is obnoxious about that claim? It's factual and a sign of the times. If you find it offensive, go stand in front of the mirror and take a good hard look.</p>

<p>I know I'd be champing at the bit to shoot some film -- in medium/large format -- if I didn't have to give up digital photoediting. I'd see it as something like this:</p>

<ol>

<li>Shoot medium format film that I bulk load. (No bulk loaded MF film available, except perhaps for 70mm aerial PX stock, shot in a Pentax 645NII.)</li>

<li>Scan in a good and affordable scanner. (Good and affordable don't co-exist.)</li>

<li>Edit in my computer.</li>

<li>Expose silver halide paper with an affordable scanning laser enlarger. (None are affordable. Maybe a wide carriage inkjet printer could be modified?)</li>

<li>Smile as my image comes to life in the developer tray.</li>

</ol>

<p>I certainly wouldn't give up digital, though. I'd do both. Digital would be my medium of choice (by a mile) for small format work.</p>