MAGNUM hasnt given up on film!

I had the pleasure today of sitting in on a presentation by a Magnum

administrator speaking to students at SPEOS here in Paris. As you

all know, Magnum is a 60 photographer co-op generally considered the

finest collection of photographers in the world. She stated that NOT

ONE Magnum photographer uses digital exclusively and only a MINORITY

use digital for ANY of their work. She stated as well that those who

do use digital do so only when circumstances require e.g war footage

etc and that ALL of them use film for their personal work. She

stated it as if it were a given.

 

Magnum employs 4 people whose job it is to scan the photographers'

negatives.

Oh, c'mon...we all know everyone wants digital and film will be gone in 5 years...no wait, 3 years...no wait, 6 months...shoot, it's gone!! Unfortunatly Tim you'll probably get a raft of responses stating how these Magnum guys just don't know where it's at.

Magnum's cool, digital sucks ;-)

 

Seriously though and on a side note, has anybody happened to check out the latest issue of LensWork. I received mine last night and read the editor's notes and in it he talks about his revelation with digital and basically he says that he can shoot more, therefore new visual avenues open up. I would say its a good time to be a photographer. So many new ways of shooting and printing and still not enough time in the day. Fun fun.

"Photography has not changed since its origin except in its technical

aspects, which for me are not important."

<blockquote><i><b>-Henri Cartier-Bresson</b></i></blockquote>

Bob and others, when was the last time the preference of a small group of erudite and talented individuals prevailed over corporate greed and the ignorant masses they so easily control?

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0402/colburn.html

 

Long and short of it is, if you're good enough, no one cares what you use. And for 2 page

spreads, you need at least 50M files.

Good point, Jay.

Jay

 

You've got a point, and I reckon the last time was about 2000 years ago, by Jesus and his disciples.

 

 

Regards

 

 

Bruno

Jay...I'm always amazed how you never respond when I mention the 60,000,000 single use cameras (each loaded with a 35mm film) that Kodak alone expects to sell this year. Maybe the 60 odd Magnum members don't have much corporate clout, but the 1.3 billion stong Chinese market (where Kodak is aggresively marketing this year) sure as hell does. But of course Jay probably thinks everyone in China has a Mac G5 on thier desktop.

I seurely would not even consider a digital p&s if i had someone doing all the scans for me ;-)

<i>But of course Jay probably thinks everyone in China has a Mac G5 on thier desktop.</i><p>

 

They don't, but labs in Asia offer digital input, the same as film. You don't need a computer to print from digital any more than you need a color darkroom to print 4x6 snapshots. <p>

 

Kodak may think there's lots of film potential in Asia, but look at all the great information leading to the great decisions they've made in the last ten years. In Vietnam, a country poorer than China, I didn't see anyone in the film camera section of the stores, I couldn't find 120 film, and the 35mm film wasn't selling either. But people were working on computers in the back with customers' memory card images. My friend visiting his family this month in a small village sent an email saying he was amazed at how quickly digital is taking over photography there.<p>

 

Before I went to Asia, I believed that it was this growing market for film based on what I read here, but having been there, I have seen what's happening. It would be a lot better if people go to Asia before they repeat off-base comments about it from Kodak executives.

Awww, Jay, you're not a 'corporate greed' guy are you? Please tell me you're joking.

It's a lot of fun reading all the "answers" this forum generates, but some notes

along the way,

Remember when b/w photography was dead? Now most of the great high

end ads i n Vouge, Vanity Fair etc. mags are four color black/white ads...

In motion picture, there is a difference in the look of digital original and film

original. Many motion pictures are shot with film and then go directly to digital

for output. Soon projection will be digital instead of film projection machines...

happening already. there is definitely a different "look" between film and

digital, video etc. and that is the point. what do you want the end result to look

like. For reportage and journalism, digital is the deal and far better than

anything before... shoot, laptop, photoshop and transmit or just transmit, bang

it's there. But in the case of archival storage... I'd rather have (and do have)

sheets of original transparencies, proof sheets and negs that I can select from

than hard drives filled with images and a software program to work with. I

don't see it as an "either/or" world. Magnum has a history and I think that it's

easierfor them to continue that history with film and some digital. It preserves

what they feel is their "look." I'm going to shoot anything depending on the

project , but I don't feel any fear that I'll run out of film . As far as 10

megapixels being archaic in two years, I don't think so. right now you can with

"Genuine Fractals," take any good scan up to at least 4x5 feet. I just did it,

and sold a print made by A&I i n L.A. the result was terrific... and the original

scan was of three 35mm strips of 3 pix each, scanned on my Epson 2450 side

by side. After cleaning them up and arranging them, I saved them as Genuine

Fractals and then adjusted for a 300 megabite file (4x5 feet) and saved it on a

CD.<div></div>

Jeff write "Kodak may think there's lots of film potential in Asia, but look at all the great information leading to the great decisions they've made in the last ten years."

 

...."Before I went to Asia, I believed that it was this growing market for film based on what I read here, but having been there, I have seen what's happening. It would be a lot better if people go to Asia before they repeat off-base comments about it from Kodak executives."

 

It obviously varies across countries in the Asia region but as Ive posted here before China is not like the others. Sure you can always find a fair share of digitals and I agree that all the labs can handle digital but thats usually a funtion of the Noritsu and Frontier processing machines they've installed.

 

Ive been making a point of observing the film/digital trend here (in Beijing) and I can tell you that the majority, by far, of all cameras are film based - usually P&S and a few SLRs. Even the majority camera stores have a far greater display of film cameras relative to digital. Kodak is certainly everywhere but its just a pity that the only B&W available is TMX and TMY - Oh! there's always "Lucky Pan".

 

Peter A makes a point about people still trying to feed their children; consider that the average income in Beijing is about US$240 a month - rural China quickly drops to about 1/5th of that.

 

Four people living in a house (read room) that is 5mtr square and contains a double bed, a single bed, cooking facilities, food storage, seating, ... the toilet is a public set of "holes in the ground" with no privacy 200mtrs down the track. These people sell vegetables in a Beijing market (not uncommon) and, not knowing what their cost-of-goods are, but as an example 1Kg potatoes, 4 tomatoes and 2 lg onions are sold for US 0.17c. But they have a film camera!

 

regards

Craig / Beijing

Jim, what a treasure.

Jeff,

I only spent a couple of weeks in Vietnam (Hanoi), and it wasn't for photography purposes so I can't comment on Vietnam. But in India, where I have spent a substantial amount of time, about the only digtals I saw were in the hands of foreigners. I'd assume that photographers at the big Indian newspapers use digital as well. But by far, the majority of Indians with cameras are shooting film, mainly p&s with a few photogs at tourist sites offering to take pics of people for a small fee using Vivitar manual SLRs. I saw a lot of people using p&s taking their camera into a lab, and having to get the lab guys open the camera to take the film out, and load a new one in (whether through laziness or not knowing how to do it, I don't know). And in an Indian photo magazine I was reading, 90% of the advertising was film related.

 

However here in Taiwan, it seems that everyone has a digital p&s, although I've not seen anyone with a dSLR yet - although all the camera stores sell them, so someone must be buying them. Interestingly, I see quite a few Taiwanese shooting in MF as well. Although Taiwan is quite a rich country (I think GDP per capita is US$15000, with a low cost of living)

 

Asia is a big place - some parts are poor, some are rich, some shoot digital, some shoot film and some can't afford either.

Nice to hear Tim.

 

Jim - beautiful shots! Would love to see more!

From the website of Michael "Nick" Nichols, National Geographic staff photographer:

<p><i>"Geographic is still shooting transparencies. I think technology is probably the least important thing to consider. But you do have to be able to handle transparencies to shoot for the Geographic. That�s more difficult exposurewise than color negative or digital."</i>

"corporate greed and the ignorant masses"

 

Frankly, I don't give a damn about the film/digital debate, I know what I want for my own work and that's all that interests me about it. But I am disturbed by the contempt for the "ignorant masses" displayed more or less openly by so many forum members. Jay comes out with it, but a lot of people think it. Shame on you.

Xinbad, 3 words for you.

 

"Acid Washed Jeans"

Interesting. From the one side Jay gets it - incredibly, to me - for daring to mention corporate greed; and from the other for saying "ignorant masses". <p>

 

You'd have to be living in some kind of twisted la-la land, to not know of corporate greed, being as how so much of history and current times - reality, in other words - is so rife with examples of it. Jay can (as we all know) speak for himself. But I see his statement, like most of his statements, as being that of a hard-nosed realist. Politics as such has nothing to do with it.<p>

 

Likewise the reference to ignorant masses - especially in the context of their being manipulated. Again, reality - especially of late -brims with examples. In fact our cup runneth over. And of course ignorance isn't the same as stupidity - which is typically reserved for those doing the manipulating (along with their compatriots - those who deny the existence of corporate greed).<p>

 

As for Magnum, why should any of those photogs change to digital where it isn't required? They have great success with film, and know what they're doing. Their co-operative situation - and the demand for their services - allows them to go their own way more than other pj pros. Something to take a lesson from, even if you're not a pj.

I don't know, CD - I don't see any implication that the "masses" are manipulated into ignorance and poverty by the corporations in Jay's repeated statements. But I could be wrong. I find the very word "masses" disturbing; it recalls my grandmother's attitude - that of a pampered and privileged woman who believed herself and her class (the late nineteenth century German haute bourgeoisie - now long extinct) to be superior to the common run of mankind.

<i>I don't see any implication that the "masses" are manipulated into ignorance and poverty by the corporations in Jay's repeated statements.</i><p>

 

I don't see that, either. But the idea that people's ignorance is exploited to drive their needs and fears is clear.<p>

 

<i>I find the very word "masses" disturbing; it recalls my grandmother's attitude - that of a pampered and privileged woman who believed herself and her class (the late nineteenth century German haute bourgeoisie - now long extinct) to be superior to the common run of mankind.</i><p>

 

Nor am I fond of the term. Too much massing together implicit in it, when massing is most of the problem. Nonetheless it is convenient shorthand for the great group, especially convenient for a strict pragmatist discussing manipulation of the "market".<p>

 

On a personal note, was that the German haute bourgeoisie in England? or the one in Germany? What happened to them?

CD and Xinbad

 

Don't you think that the constant flow of advertising regarding the race for most megapixels is manipulating the masses into ignorance ( because most mps does not necessarily equate to best)?

 

Regards

 

Bruno

Right, along with the idea that anything "digital" is inherently better. (Just try reminding someone who is ga-ga for digital that they themselves are analog. I have and it doesn't work.) Anyway, you make a good point, Aruno.