To fight back or not to fight back?

[ben z]

We travel a great deal, and between visiting photogenic locations and my habit of stopping in at camera stores wherever I go (kid in the toy shop syndrome I guess), in the past couple of years I haven't been to any place on 4 continents (wasn't in India) where I've seen more than one or two people at each stop using film cameras, or talked to a shop owner who didn't say something like he hadn't sold a film camera "in months". Thousands of people with outstretched arms squinting at LCD screens, and a few serious photogs with DSLRs, plus here and there somone with an older SLR shooting film. Of all my family, friends, and acquaintances, including some serious amateur photographers, I'm the only one still shooting film. My pro buddies of course "went digital" several years ago and most are already on their 3rd and a couple, their 4th generation DSLR. Anyone else had a different experience? Even if every member of every internet photo forum was a confirmed exclusively-film user (which they're not), it'd still be a tiny drop in the bucket. I don't see where film vs digital arguments based on the technical quality of the end result have any chance to stand up, if only because with each one there are so many variables between capture and end product, and also because a great majority of film-captured images these days are digitized along the way. What I personally feel is the only rationale for film continuing to exist as a profitable commodity for even a small "niche" market, is that many artists tend to want to be different from what everyone else is doing. There have always been art photographers who work with arcane printing techniques, some who coat emulsion on glass plates, and so on. So while the rest of the world "goes digital", there will always be some photographers who will want to shoot film and/or wet process prints just because so few people are doing it. Between them and the tiny batches of photographers who are either uncomfortable with the digital workflow, or fans or collectors of certain brands of film cameras, perhaps there will be enough demand to keep at least one company operating in the black. Will it be a subsidiary of a former film giant ("Kodak Classic" or "Fujifilm Vintage") or an independent manufacturer ("Ed's Emulsion Emporium"), that I think is the only thing still up in the air.

[SCL]

It seems I remember conjecturing similar arguments moving from a DOS operating system to Windows - "who needs it". Turned out the consumer wanted it, in a big way. Evolution took time to get it right. Yes, I still use DOS on an HP palmtop from the early 90's because it fits my needs perfectly, XP for most other stuff. Yes, I still use my Leica RFs and SLRs. I also use a lot of digital gear. Film and camera manufacturers see the mass consumer market clearly headed toward digital, some still see a niche market in film. I honestly like both...as long as there continue to be advances in each field and product/repair/replacement availability. It irks me that I can't always use my treasured "old" Leica gear with digital enhancements...but perhaps in the future Leica, Siliconfilm, or somebody will get it right. In the meantime I keep shooting and enjoying the fruits of evolution.

[Brad_]

<I>Actually, Brad, there was a certain beauty to slide-rules, and I kept mine. They require,

and lead you to, an understanding of maths that calculators simply bypass.</I><P>

 

Yes, that was the logic usually touted by slides-rule proponents fearing the calculator

takeover in the early '70s. And you hear the same thing today - digital imaging makes you

lazy and decouples you from the photographic process. Funny how people when threatened

with change come up with all sorts of bogus nonsense.

[gene_e._mccluney]

You might consider that there are a few companies that still provide film cameras, Nikon,

Canon, Pentax and Minolta all still have film cameras. NIkon just released a new pro-level

one, the F6.

 

Cosina seems to be betting on film lasting and have several rangefinder models in their

Voigtlander line, as well as they have manufactured a rangefinder model for Roelli, and are

currently manufacturing the soon to be released Zeiss Ikon rangefinder and some of the

Zeiss lenses. Cosina also make several SLR's, and also manufacture entry level SLR's for

Nikon and perhaps another brand. Their only venture into digital at this point is making

the body for the Epson RD-1. If anyone is committed to film, it would have to be Cosina.

[john_layton]

I take strong exception to the above comment, to the effect that "artists still like to use the

old materials because they like to be different." OK, there might be a few of these, but to

practitioners with Dektol in their veins its not a question of doing it "just to be different."

[doris_chan]

"Try as I might, I cannot duplicate the feel, in the actual imagery, of the Leica photos. But

the digital photos serve their (foundation website) purpose. The Leica photos go well

beyond this"

 

This might be the case for you, but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that

photographers working at the highest level don't feel this gulf when switching from Leicas

to other cameras, whether film or digital. If you look at a photographer like Gilles Peress

he made all of the images in his book Telex Persan on Leicas, all of the images in The

Silence with Canon EOS. They're equally fine books, and it would be foolish to suggest that

his choice of camera any real significance to the quality of either.

[squareframe]

my wife and I are on our sailboat in Desolation Sound, British Columbia. this morning we are heading up towards the Queen Charlotte Islands, and my GPS/chartplotter yields my exact position and an accurate waypoint to our destination. I also have paper charts that I use to double check, and much like a photographic print on a beautiful paper, I love the tactile feel, the texture, and the art behind chart-making. I know spherical-trigonometry, the law-of-tangents, scalar-triple products, and am good with a sextant. however, freeing me from the arcanum and arduous tasks (and highly error prone) of plotting my position, I can concentrate on sailing and other beautiful aspects of what we are doing.

 

using a GPS also gives me a deep appreciation for those that have sailed before me with Logarithm tables and the inherent uncertainties. I have to think there are many a sailor, now resting on the bottom of the sea, that would have wholly embraced the new technologies.

 

yes, I know ... what happens when my battery fails? the anti-digital mantra. with five GPS's on board I like my odds, not to mention having two sextants.

 

cheers ...

[ben z]

Ok John, I'll take your word for it, cause I've just got plain old blood in mine : ) I do know a lot of arty photogs and they're always looking for obscure ways to do it, that will let them "express their individuality", and set their work apart. And I know some of them for whom every little step, from choosing the film, camera type, and souping the film, choosing the developer, enlarging, paper type, etc etc etc is all an intergral part of the "creative experience". A few others think that using a computer is "cheating", that some programmer is the one supplanting a portion of the talent the artist lacks, and some of them just like being apart from the herd. I've never actually seen published actual price/demand numbers for the profitability of film production, so I'm not in a position to say whether the demand from eccentric artists and curmudgeony diehards can keep film alive or not. All I can say is that I believe they're film's only hope.

[dennis_couvillion]

"digital imaging makes you lazy and decouples you from the photographic process"

 

I don't know about digital making someone "lazy". However, from my perspective (and this is just my personal opinion), film photography is more challenging and thus, at least for some of us, the results are more rewarding. I believe it is more challenging to coax a fine print from a negative than it is from photoshop. Certainly both processes require knowledge and skill. However in such things as dodging and burning, just to give one example, in photoshop the areas you are working on can be isolated more easily; and, more importantly, on the computer screen you can see how each adjustment affects the image while you are working on it. In a wet darkroom there is much more time-consuming trial and error. Wet printing kicks my ass many times. It is challenging. But when I manage to get a good print it is all the more rewarding.

 

If the "photographic process" means, in the broad sense, simply capturing an image then there is no difference between digital and film photography. But the process required in each represent different subjective mind-sets, IMO. But one is neither better nor worse than the other. Digital is good for some things... film is good for other things.

 

IMO, the subject is entirely too subjective for completely rational discussion. It's like trying to explain why someone gets a kick taking a 50 mile bike ride to look at beautiful scenery when hopping in a car and driving is much more convenient and efficient. Some people like taking long bike rides... some people wouldn't ride a bike around the corner.

 

As for the original query: Why don't film photography sellers fight back? It's all about profits, not aesthetics. I suspect that they do not wish to confuse the buying public with mixed messages. How, for example, could Leica tout film photography when they are about to embark on a digital plan? Now, as for Ilford and Fuji, I think their advertising could (and should) focus more on the strengths of film photography... and actually draw distinctions between film and digital.

[bart feliciano]

The only real way to fight back is probably for someone to build a desktop film processor that does c41 and e6 with replaceable cartridges.

 

And it should cost <600 dollars and not poison you...

[bart feliciano]

And it has to be as easy to use as a film scanner (roller transport?)

[cenelsonfoto]

Sounds like a plan, Bart. How's that project coming along?

[douglas k.]

Funny...I've never noticed any successful pros getting worked up over this whole "film vs. digital" debate. Only non-photographers with lots of money sunk into film cameras seem to do all the hand-wringing.

[andrew robertson]

Douglas has hit the nail on the head.

[ben z]

It's where the other end of the nail is that's the problem with this forum lately.

[john_layton]

Doris - point well taken. Of course there are many examples of top-flight photographers

who do stunning and inspiring work with digital. But I think most of these are

photographers who've at least gotten their feet wet in "traditional" photography, at least to

the extent that allows them to fully evaluate the newer media in terms of its own "best

use" relative to who they are as practitioners. My fear is that the up and coming

generation of photographers won't allow traditional materials this same chance - that

they'll be so swayed by the hype of digital that they won't look beyond this, and if this

indeed becomes the case, then everybody loses.

[alicia_rovel]

My opinion: there is nothing to fight about, really. If you like film buy film, if you like digital buy digital. Unfortunately when people start talking about film becoming extinct people get upset. That is highly unlikely so don't you think we should all relax? As a Leica Lover, I will continue to feed mine with film. But, if digital would be best for some of my projects I would not hesitate to use it. Why do humans need to turn any issue into WAR? Check out the incredible cooperation of other species as in The March of the Penguins...a really moving film (take your hankies) about how cooperation increased the chance of species survival. Don't fight back, celebrate that you have more choices.

[Brad_]

<I>that they'll be so swayed by the <B>hype of digital</b> that they won't look beyond

this, and if this indeed becomes the case, then everybody loses.</i><P>

 

Heh, no bias here... And just who is going to lose, anyway?

[Spearhead]

<i>.I've never noticed any successful pros getting worked up over this whole "film vs. digital" debate. Only non-photographers with lots of money sunk into film cameras seem to do all the hand-wringing.</i><p>

 

Right. As usual, Mr. K makes the most important point, although I confess to having skimmed most of the silly arguments above.<p>

 

There are much more important "battles" for photographers, such as the declining rates for publication in newspapers and magazines and the increasing difficulty of getting an offical media pass in San Francisco.

[Brad_]

I don't understand all this outpouring of care towards upcoming generations of

photographers not having worked in the darkroom or having employed "traditional

materials." I suspect there a lot of insecure people who are afraid that what they once

considered their special domain, making prints (in the darkroom using traditional materials)

is now opened up to more people via digital. Why do you care what other people do if they're

getting great results. Or maybe it's just not fair...

 

It's vision at capture and postprocessing, whether analog or digital, that matters - not the

technology employed in making prints.

[bart feliciano]

CE, that was my point...

[dennis_couvillion]

"Only non-photographers with lots of money sunk into film cameras seem to do all the hand-wringing."

 

Reminds me of a Sean Hannity diatribe...

 

FYI, I have heard several film photographers (who sell their work)beginning to complain about the decreasing selection of b&w photographic papers. Forte' is now gone and Agfa, I understand, is not far behind. The concern among film shooters about the decreasing availability of materials is legitimate. I would venture to say that the "hand-wringing" people are actual shooters who are affected by the changing dynamics of the photgraphy industry rather than "non-photographers". Although my belief is that film photography products will be available long after I'm gone, but perhaps with a diminished selection, the angst of film shooters is entirely natural and understandable.

 

However, I wholeheartedly agree that in the real world you don't hear professional photographers debating film versus digital. (In fact I've made the exact same observation here before.) But this is the internet where people say stupid things...

[victor_cruz1]

I like film.

[peter_yankin]

Some genius wrote: ".I've never noticed any successful pros getting worked up over this whole "film vs. digital" debate. Only non-photographers with lots of money sunk into film cameras seem to do all the hand-wringing.

 

Right. As usual, Mr. K makes the most important point, although I confess to having skimmed most of the silly arguments above.

 

There are much more important "battles" for photographers, such as the declining rates for publication in newspapers and magazines and the increasing difficulty of getting an offical media pass in San Francisco."

 

Well, I'm a "successful pro" if you count that as someone who has been doing it for 37 years, fifteen doing fashion in NY, now has a portrait studio with in-house film lab and digital workflow, four full-time shooters and six assistants doing weddings, corporate and product shoots. Nobody I call a colleague (or a competitor) "debates" film vs. digital. We all have had to accept it because many clients have been brainwashed by the hype (put out by the manufacturers) into thinking that if a pro isn't shooting digital he's a has-been. At first blush, yeah, it looks like we save a ton of money on film and darkroom. But in reality, we have had to hire experienced Photoshop operators (not so commonplace yet, so they practically name their own ticket) to handle the digital post-processing, and although we charge a premium for digital, we're just about breaking even with film/darkroom. We've had to practically give away gear that could've worked another 4-5 years, and paid six to ten times as much for digital gear that does nothing better. We will not "catch even" on film and processing cost for at least two years. So while "successful pros" might not debate film vs. digital, we're not all jumping for joy over digital either.

 

Maybe in this little dog and pony show you define a "successful pro" as someone who roams the streets with a $900 dSLR looking to capture a few magic shots and become the next Garry Winogrand, and for that individual maybe the price they pay for shots or getting a permit to shoot in San Fran is a big worry. But the majority of "successful pros" are guys like me, who've got to pay for 3 $30,000 digital backs, eight Canon 1DS-II's and a quarter million in scanning, computing, archiving and printing equipment plus backups, the staff to run it, and training for them every time a new version or an upgrade comes along. All because the camera manufacturers have convinced John Q. Public that digital is "in" and film is "out". All of you wisecrackers should consider yourselves lucky that you have the luxury of debating film vs digital.

[dennis_couvillion]

Peter, thanks for the great post. It's refreshing to read a post from someone with your knowledge and experience.

 

Cheers,

 

Dennis