Jump to content

The Promotion of Film use....what are we missing?


Recommended Posts

<p>I sympathize with you who still love film, and wet processing. As just one person though, I'm lately better able with a middle-tier DSLR (with VR for my shakier aging body), affordable glass, an iMac, good editing software and the Internet to make and share satisfying images, even though thirty years of home film processing and darkroom printing (1969-1999) brought many rewards. But to be honest, my declining abilities would make that older technology less satisfying or effective for me now. In 2003 I passed on my analog equipment and darkroom to a young community college art student, who was thrilled to load it all into her car and drive it away to better use. As for all of those thousands of negatives and slides I produced, will anyone ever "discover" a (de-humidified) basement full of it, so carefully catalogued and stored? Probably not. The world is already filled and still filling with visual geniuses. I hope to enjoy <em>their</em> analog work now. BTW I'll be driving to Oshkosh WI soon, where the Payne Art Center is now presenting an exhibit of Ansel Adams original prints, until sometime in the fall. His film and wet printing mastery still inspires! </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>"I want it now and I want it cheap".</p>

<p>The interesting thing is that a lot of film users are willing to pay almost whatever it takes to continue shooting film. The most extreme example of this are the folks who continue shooting Polaroid LF products.</p>

<p>I know I'm willing to pay a lot, but with processing becoming a bigger challenge I'm seriously thinking of digital imaging as a viable option. There are limits and difficulty of processing is what drives my limit.</p>

...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"Panayayotis, film is Alternative Process, like oil painting....Adobe Illustrator did not make oil painting a thing of the past, people use it with a passion."<br /> Dear Daniel, even though I dont' think this is a good example, I must say that even so it doesn't make film promising or attractive to the masses. So why should someone consider an investment? Why someone should spend money and go out promoting films? To whom? To moms as mentioned before?!!!...Would you be any of those willing to do so? Would you risk your money on that? I surely not.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The word "alternative" is a bad word in general.</p>

<p>We generally apply that to the production of prints using archaic processes -- cyanotype, carbon transfer, etc. Lately it seems to be applied to the use of archaic "film" processes like wet plate. None of these are 'alternative". They are archaic, historical, and in some cases non-silver... but they are what they are.</p>

<p>Alternative implies that they are a secondary choice made out of some kind of desparation.</p>

<p>If that is the case, as an avid film photographer I hereby declare digital photography to be "alterntive photography". Ha ha ha.</p>

...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Panayotis, you keep saying for the masses, film is no longer for the masses, it is for those who want an alternative to

shooting digital, the artist, the person who loves film cameras, the person who loves the workflow. There are millions to

be made in the film markets, Ilford does really well in this regard and Kodak sells a lot of film, just not the billions that they

used to or their shareholders used to enjoy the profits from.

 

I am not sure why you don't understand this, just because film is not the choice of the masses does not mean there is

zero demand for it. Also, I feel the same way when I paint as I do when I make a print in the darkroom, that I am making real art, not computer art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Panayayotis, film is Alternative Process, like oil painting....Adobe Illustrator did not make oil painting a thing of the past, people use it with a passion.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The only problem with that analogy is that I can make oil paints, right down to squeezing nuts for oil and grinding pigments, on a whim. I can make brushes, and I might have to trade something with someone with a loom for a piece of canvas. Yes, it's a whim that might kill a weekend...</p>

<p>Film isn't a whim. I can make a coater that would take up a good portion of the basement, and brew up some B&W emulsions, but I'd have to buy chemicals from someone with a technology infrastructure. Ditto the film base itself. There's a certain commitment and critical mass to film. The more advanced the film, the higher the critical mass. Projections are that the EFKEs of the world, little factories keeping a couple of coaters running, churning out a 60 year old emulsion formula, can keep going forever. But I worked the math last year, and we appear to be below critical mass for all color film, everywhere, already. That industry is in a shutdown phase. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p> Ilford does really well in this regard</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And being black and white only, Ilford does not have a movie business to back it up. They do have other products to maximise the use of their coating facility but they are for the most part in business providing for us.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Color is definatley an endangered variety, I think it is riding on the coat tails of the motion picture film industry which is now in a major transition. This is why I have made smaller and more cautious investments in color stock, especially since I scan it for print anyway. But black and white is where I have poured tens of thousands into, it stands the best chance of remaining viable. I will use and promote color as long as it looks viable, but black and white is my future, I'll be doing that as long as I live...</p>

<p>But in the mean time, I am using my resources, my connections to Kodak and my drive to keep finding new ways to promote film use...You just don't know what can happen if you do not try.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"(film photography) ...real art, not computer art."</p>

<p>This is like the centuries-old distinction between hard sciences and soft sciences. Some claim that the social sciences are not sciences at all.</p>

<p>These distinctions are arrogant and meaningless. Are you interested in making great images, or just interested in making great images with a specfic technology.</p>

...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I work probably 5 months a year in terms of a 40 hour week in photography and pull in nice healthy 6 figures Brian. I can and do make fine images using digital, but for my fine art work, I use a darkroom because one of the reasons is that the value that has added to my work is appreciated by my customers...I almost always get the "Wow, you did not use digital on this?"<br>

<br /> Can we now move on and throw great, innovative and passion driven ideas into this discussion? That is all I care about, really.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>it is often what comes around goes around.<br>

Inb the 1950's autos were basic, even primitive.<br>

( i don't think so. my 1950 cars were JUST RIGHT)<br>

but the cameras and film were plastic pieces of crap<br>

( sorry Gene M) ( I like some of these cameras)<br>

I was totally embarrased and turned away when I saw a grown man with a dinky little instamatic trying to get a good shot.<br>

or the man taking a photo of a movie with flash.</p>

<p>Photography for the MASSES was reduced to a very low level.<br>

poor equipment and so-so results.<br>

It was done to make money for Kodak.<br>

and they made a LOT of money.<br>

the digital " revolution" is more of the same.<br>

Keychain cameras or a cell phone camera<br>

( some do surprisingly well)<br>

and this is the new "photography for the masses"<br>

People who could care less if a lens is glass or plastic or if the cameras has a 3 or 4 or 5 elemsnt lens.<br>

" hey that's aunt Sue and uncle Harry "<br>

does it work ? yeah-sort of., just like the cheap digital cameras.<br>

it is clear that digital photography is a LOT cheaper.<br>

and they do have an impact on consumers.<br>

Real film cameras used to cost REAL money.<br>

but now for $25.00 to $50.00 you cam buy a REAL slr.<br>

that provides outstanding results even with 1950'<br>

s film<br>

much better ith the improved films available<br>

today. sadly slide film and paper and services for these images had either declined or<br>

completely vanished. ( can you still get slide dupes or slides from negatives ?)<br>

I know wet printing of slides is long gone. <br>

But the marketplace and profits. not hundreds or thousands but MILLIONS<br>

of dollars is at play. is it possible Plus x or Agfa apx100<br>

or WQW Panatomic x still make money? Yes not not the kind or money<br>

that enables those with gold, jeweled cufflinks to manufacture these products.<br>

" hey profits are down 10% lets concentrate on more profitanble<br>

products "<br>

this is the same flawed reasoning that cause Kodak to lump inkjet printers with Film<br>

so that the profits from film would help the ailing inkjet business.</p>

<p>as long as Idiots run businesses we will have idiotic results.</p>

<p>I am not saying it is like the old guy who keeps making shirts or shoes or lawnmowed when import undersell him<br>

and eventually his 80 year old company becomes the towns new parking lot.<br>

Not common sense is required. Something which seems to be lacking in this world.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Walter, what is really lacking in this thread are fresh ideas, fresh perspectives, breaking out of old, tired, worn out to death regurgitating of the same old woe is me film rhetoric. Let me give you an example:<br /> In another forum, I wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am starting to believe that it is the bitter film user that is causing the public misconception the most, not the digital zealots...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A bright 18 year old college student in New Zealand replied with the following nugget of insight, gave me permission to quote him:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This.<br /> Whether older film shooters realize this or not, young blood is needed to fill in the shoes of those who stop shooting, either because they no longer possess the consciousness and animation to photograph or because photography no longer interests them.<br /> When I was first getting started in film, the passing comments from fellow digital users that film is dead didn't really bother me, because it obviously wasn't and isn't. What bothered me were the film users who lamented the fact that film wasn't the top dog and go-to medium of choice for 35mm photography (digital MF is still out of reach to most people). Yes, film isn't the prevailing choice for consumers, but plenty of professionals still use film for their personal projects. Most of my lecturers at university use digital only when time constraints prohibit them or as a stand-in for polaroid exposure test shots, and that method of practice influences the student body. I've managed to get a few people shooting film myself. I understand it must suck to see lab after lab shutting down, film after film being taken out of production, but so long as a market exists then there will be products.<br /> The people who put me off film for so long were the old school users who were constantly spouting doom and gloom and never mentioned one positive aspect about film. The people who gave me that final nudge to give it a go were people who were actually shooting.<br /> This thread almost made me consider flipping the M6 for a profit, squeezing every penny and getting a digital Leica while neglecting other photographic needs in preparation for the imminent death of film that's right around the corner of next week (or so it seems from reading this thread). Then I scanned some Portra, and it was good, albeit a little dusty.<br /> Anyway, wouldn't this restructuring be a good thing? Wouldn't the bigwigs see that the chemical printing and film branches were the really successful branches in no uncertain terms? Also, why would someone buy the film and chem. division just to shut it down? Seems like a waste of money to me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A big freaking amen to this man, we need innovation in the way we promote film, period, and that starts with forgoing the ego feeding brow beating of the same old crap, end of story.<br>

Give me ideas people, not tired speculation, please!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"Can we now move on and throw great, innovative and passion driven ideas into this discussion? That is all I care about, really."</p>

<p>I feel like a schoolboy who has just been reprimanded. I don't need a dismissive reply like that. Sorry you don't want or appreciate my input. You sound like a very succesful photographer -- continued good luck to you.</p>

...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Brian, now you know I feel. I am just trying to get people who are smart enough to think out of the box to get passed repeating the same old thing, come up with ideas. All I am mostly getting is constantly re-educated by people who seem to just want to tell me how it is and how it is going to be and that film is no longer the choice of the masses..<br /> Sorry if my loaded sarcasm offended, thanks for your input...</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Daniel, I am under the impression that you don't understand what I am saying or you don't want to understand. Reason due that you keep isolating phrases from my whole written text and keep referring to them ignoring the substance. <br>

If you think that all these people who contributed their time and experience in answering your original question were tired speculators then nothing more need be said. Good day!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just re-read your first post, you say a lot about how the world has moved on to fast, film is old, some will use film like vinyl, etc.

 

You are right, I don't understand what you are trying to say. Since you know film is a viable niche and Kodak makes some

of the best around and it is still very popular among those who still use it, who were never mainstream users or the

masses as you call them, what do you mean then, to say that marketing of film, and not necessarily paying top dollar for

ads, is not worth it?

 

Did you read my post about the 18 year old man in New Zealand....because you are fitting that description *perfectly* sir...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the bottom line folks, people see me working with ( getting paid to use ) my Leica, my Xpan, my Hasselblad or my

4x5 and aside from mostly positive things say one of several other things, in order of what I hear most:

 

1. Can you even get film for that anymore?

 

2. I thought film was gone, where can you get it?

 

3. Why are you not using digital?

 

4. Ah, old school huh, have you even tried digital, it's better.

 

This is what the BS on the Internet has done, this is why I am looking to innovate how people find out about how film is

being used now, by pros, amatuers, young and old alike.

 

If you have a great idea that you are willing to share, I would love to hear it. If you just want to remind me that it is 2012

and the world for everything that is not digital is coming to an end, with all due respect, you are a BIG part of the problem I am trying to fight, so expect

that kind of response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Film needs to concentration on what it does best. Here are four areas where film has advantages over digital:</p>

<ol>

<li>fine art prints--I don't think you can duplicate "Moonrise over Hernandez, NM" with digital.</li>

<li>larger formats--6x9 cm and larger</li>

<li>Single-shot "gigapan" style images--You've probably seen these wide angle shots of Yankee Stadium where you can zoom in and recognize every person. These are combinations of hundreds of digital shots with a telephoto lens. You can find people with 4 arms because they were on the border of successive shots and moved. How about a single picture of a very large crowd all reacting to the same event? An 8x20 in camera should cover it.</li>

<li>One-time-use underwater cameras--There is no easier entry to underwater photography than these waterproof film cameras.</li>

</ol>

<p>This is just the start of a list. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I hear the same things as I shoot with Nikon, Rollei, Hasselblad, as well as Graflex and another 4x5 camera. The questions are generally inquisitive and relatively innocent. Answer them honestly and let the negativeity roll of of your back like a duck. That's what I do. It works... it really works: they learn something, some might even be convinced enough to give film some credibility in their mind, and I retain peace-of-mind. Try it!</p>

<p>Re: your parting shot - no, we are not a BIG part of any problem. The problem includes EPA, sucky economy, and poor management of a few companies. YOU are looking for scapegoats. Maybe you should look more earnestly in the right places for fault, or change your name to Don Quixote. Your quest is noble, but offending people is not going to gain you much support.</p>

...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Daniel: It would be great if you could read your comments from a sort of external, comparitively dis-interested third party perspective. You're asking people to passionately come up with new ideas about how to communicate to non-film-users the fact that they should be using film ... and you're lamenting that most of what you hear is the same old reality check stuff from all of us digital peasant-class shooters ... but <em>you're not saying anything new yourself.<br /><br /></em>That's the part that has me scratching my head. You seem to be suggesting that you've got this fresh and powerful understanding of what's great and necessary, and it's just about communicating that to the unsophisticates. But ... what <em>are</em> the new facts, the new considerations, the bits of creative-people-will-love-them concepts that you're assuming don't need to be said to <em>this</em> audience, because surely we already know what they are? I feel like I'm really missing part of your message, and that you're sure you don't need to say that part because it goes without saying. And that's the problem: you're asking people to come up with a new way to <em>present</em> information that you're assuming we all have. But we don't have it!<br /><br />The only tangible thing you've shared along those lines is that you've got customers who find your end results to be more valuable because of the <em>process</em> you use while making them. The new facts on the ground, for me, would be a real sense of just how many of those customers (as a ratio, or hard numbers) you think there are. How many people do you think will pay more for end results that they find more valuable because of a decision to use a particular tool? This is not a rhetorical jab, I'm serious. <br /><br />My wife makes jewelry. She makes chain by hand, link by link. Her customers like seeing photos of the process, and <em>some of them</em> then look more closely at the results, and see the by-definition unique hammered texture of each scrap of the piece, and some minority of that minority then connect with it and with the selling artist, and without as much reservation to the higher price and the longer waiting time for her work. But most people simply step back and say they like, or don't like, the piece. The process is completely irrelevent to the <em>meaningful</em> fraction of the demographic.<br /><br />And it's the meaningful numbers that drive the process and tool decisions for her. If it's not about "work," and instead about recreation and historical reenactment, then that's another matter. Using older, slower, less productive methods because some part of her audience likes the theatrical aspects of seeing it done and have romantic ideas about it ... that's <em>performance art</em>, rather than the creation of <em>results</em> that are art. Which is not a bad thing, but it's not the same as - I think - what you seem to be asking other people to come up with a new marketing language to describe.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ron, I hear ya man, I don't agree with all that you have written, but I do understand where you are coming from. And while it is good to spotlight some of these things, I am looking for a more broad approach. For example, you go on a site like this one or Flickr and you see an image that looks like it could have possibly been made with film, so you check the tags, info and find out it is and say, wow, that's a great shot made on film. What kind, Kodak, Ilford, Foma, Fuji, etc. Bingo, instant word of mouth marketing for film, the proof is in the image.<br>

<br /> Same thing with seeing work in a gallery, people see my image of a storm brewing behind the Black Canyon of the Gunnison shot in 120 Infrared, love it and want to know how I arrived at that stark look. They read the gallery's bio on me and say, WOW, he shot that on film and made the print in a darkroom, cool! Word of Mouth, proof is in the image marketing strikes yet again...<br>

<br /> That is generally what is going on in terms of getting people to shoot film the most as it stands, as with any medium, they are inspired by what they see, want to give it a shot, buy film, etc. <br /> Photo.net, Flickr, Facebook pages for Kodak films, these are current trends in viral marketing, this is not unique to photography, but it is current, not future, not the latest innovation in terms of thinking what *else* can we do. <br /> Examples of what I am trying to do here in Aspen, CO. Bring back traditional darkroom based workshops because I have people asking for it and I only have so much room in my 880 square foot apartment for dinner parties that include a darkroom sesh. Let kids at the Woody Creek Community Center enjoy using film cameras and the experimental nature of it all. Possibly partnering with the most successful restauranteurs in my area in opening up a low risk, low overhead, easy to move coffee shop called "Caffenol" that you can come in, get a cup of Joe, peruse a classic photo centric coffee table book in cool decor with a darkroom motif and then get up and rent a Leica, a Blad, buy some black and white film, get it developed or do it your self, take a lesson for an hour a day, learn to print, etc. <br /> We live in an age where innovators thrive on innovators, it has less to do with technical ones and more to do with how creative human beings are at flexing their minds in an age where we are utterly connected. I strongly believe that there is new ground to be broken in terms of both creative use of the film based medium and creative promotion and sharing of it...in fact I am positive it is out there...<br>

<br /> But if there is one thing this thread has taught me, it is that we have to overcome the notion that film or digital is a medium that has to better one or the other and be a mass market item. This is what I mean by tired thinking, the bad parts of the internet overshadowing the creative potential in moving the entirety of the craft of photography forward in unison because of passionate image makers who have yet to have even been born who will relish in having a choice in what they use to express them selves...<br /> We can solve this problem of tired thinking, we just have to open our minds and stop thinking like a Yahoo news page...</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>No Matt, I am not trying to tell people why they should use film, I am trying to tell them that they CAN....that is the problem Matt, they think they can't because of tired thinking / regurgitating web born rhetoric...</p>

<p>Brian, I am truly sorry sir, I don't mean to offend you, but that 18 year old young man hit the nail on the head, he is impressionable, he responds to both the folks who told him film is no longer top dog and to his elders who use film and show him emotional, not technical results. Please re-read it, that is what I mean by big problem...he represents who might want to try film, but might not if they hear the wrong messages...and they are wrong...<br>

<br /> And Panayotis...do any of you understand what he was try to teach me..?...I honestly don't.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Daniel Bayer, for most people film, throughout it's history, has been overkill.</strong> People have facebook now and can order photo albums off the web. I don't really see a role for film for the average consumer. I think it is great for certain kinds of pros. Unfortunately for things like photojournalism editors want a lot of images fast. Shooting film for a newspaper would get expensive real fast. Who do you envision using film and why? I use it because I'm into photography and I hate some of the limitations of digital. Posterization drives me nuts. I like to shoot something that will have a continuous gradation of tone.</p>

<p>I can't think of anything I operate in my life that requires as many steps as film. It's not that many steps but relative to the automatic and digital world its a lot. You are asking people to show more commitment than they've shown to anything else in their daily lives.</p>

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...