Kodak Film in Action

[chad_mitchell2]

<p>I thought I would post something I came across in a magazine, to provide some counter-weight to all the dying variations of film. In the last Wired magazine, the section with fotos of Brad Pitt have Kodak film markings on each one - looks like (unless it was a total marketing ploy) they were taken with Kodak NC and VC films. Those prints look pretty good by my eye.</p>

[User_276104]

<p>I've sometimes wondered about that - when they print it so that it looks like the actual strip of film. I wouldn't be surprised if it was just an attempt at a retro look. Not sure what it's worth to the magazine or Kodak/Fuji to do that kind of thing, though.</p>

[patrick_mont]

<p>I saw a CNN commerical that looked like 120 film with Tmax markings on the edges. What was interesing was the the images were color and some were videos.</p>

[c_o1]

<p>National Geographic shows the edges. I trust them.</p>

[nicholas_rapak]

<p>A Time Magazine article recently had an image with TXP markings on it. It looked a lot like TXP. </p>

[david_l3]

<p>For reasons I do not understand (nor care for) it's fashionable to add film edges to digital photos. Google film edges for many ways to fake them, and a page of numerous examples. Sad to guess what's real and what isn't on the internet. </p>

[spanky]

<p>I guess this was the next logical step once they figured out some people wanted "grain" in their digital shots to make it look more like film. I never could figure this out...if one wants a film look then shoot film. Then again, what do I know?</p>

[silverscape]

<p>You never know. It might actually be film. There does seem to be kind of an undercurrent building, and people are starting to either go back to film, or are becoming curious about it and trying it for the first time. And then you have people like me, who have always used film, but are now trying new kinds of film and different formats. (I'm about to try peel-apart instant film for the first time!) I've been seeing a LOT more blogs lately about film photography and even websites showing how to develop B&W film at home. <em>Something</em> is definitely going on. Yeah, maybe film will never be the mass market consumer product it once was. The typical soccer mom getting snapshots printed at Walmart, or emo kid taking blurry, pixelated shots for their MySpace page is satisfied with a cheap digital camera and will probably never be interested in film. But I think for people who have a serious interest in photography, it definitely looks like things are just beginning to swing the other way.</p>

<p>When I go out with my vintage film cameras, no one makes any smart-a** comments or asks "oh, can you still can get film for that?" anymore. They actually get curious and ask me questions. People really do seem to be respecting film again, or at least they're curious about it. Kodak might not see it yet, but I sure do. </p>

[fredonian]

<p>Was it Ansel Adams who stated (or something similar to the effect) that a photograph was "a big lie"? In addition, if the photos were taken by Annie Leibovitz? She still shoots film and her images are later enhanced by which means I don't know. I'm told by some it done digitally when others say it's done with ink manipulation. It could be both?</p>

[eddy_d]

<p>I heard annie leibovitz shoots digital now and for some shots she pieces them together in the computer. This is what I heard.</p>

[emmett_s]

<p>She's digi now...and broke btw.<br>

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/fashion/02annie.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/fashion/02annie.html</a></p>

[rustys pics]

<p>Always thought Liebowitz was way over rated as a photographer. Avedon and Arbus were photographers. Leibowitz was just in the right place at the right time. Brad Pitt is an avid film photographer. Would not surprise me if he insisted the article be shot on on good old emulsion.</p>