Film photography is not dead, it is just “gourmet”.

[paulopires]

<p>I’ve stated many times that I’m not a photographer and it would offensive to any real photographer calling what I do photography. I’m a graphic designer and I work for a magazine for a living.<br>

<strong>1</strong> – A couple of months ago my boss challenged me to take some “film photographs” of a Portuguese artist, Julião Sarmento. The official photographer was sent and I was sent along to help him, to take a few shots and not stepping in the way.<br>

A Swiss watch company made a limited series for Julião Sarmento and we were there to take pictures of the first piece being delivered.<br>

One of my lame pictures was chosen to be the cover of a brochure and also for the website promoting the watch. A grainy, bad exposed, no detail analog photograph was chosen to promote a beautiful, detailed, micro mechanics work of art wrist watch…<br /><br /><img src="http://cookingfilm.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/untitled-7.jpg?w=545&h=545" alt="" width="545" height="545" /><br /><br /><br>

<img src="http://cookingfilm.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/untitled-12.jpg?w=545&h=545" alt="" width="545" height="545" /><br>

<em>Both of the above images: Hasselblad 500CM, Zeiss Planar 80mm/2.8.</em><br /><em>Kodak Trix 400 @ 3200, Xtol, stock, 11 min.</em></p>

<p><strong>2</strong> – A friend asked if I could work on his new album by taking some pictures and making the design for it and also to take some promotion shots.<br>

Once again and despite all the risks someone made the decision of using analog photography to add value to his work. This project also made me use color film which I almost never do and not certainly for a serious pourpose such as this. Using the Hasselblad and a hand held meter to capture kids running around… trust me, not an easy thing to do.<br>

They run around all the time and very fast, going from shady to sunny spots and me… trying to keep up with fairly accurate light readings, manual focusing and trying not to be very intrusive. Using 160 ISO film and setting up the meter for 400 ISO by mistake.</p>

<p><img src="http://cookingfilm.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/original.jpg?w=545&h=545" alt="" width="545" height="545" /><br /><em>Original shot for the CD cover: Hasselblad 500CM, Zeiss 120mm Makro Planar.</em><br /><em>Kodak Portra VC 160 @ 400 (set the meter by mistake)<br /></em><br>

<img title="mestra" src="http://cookingfilm.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/mestra.jpg?w=545&h=545" alt="" width="545" height="545" /><br /><em>I duplicated the original layer and made it black and white. <br />Then using the opacity slider I reduced the opacity of the black and white image.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em><img src="http://cookingfilm.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/capa.jpg?w=545&h=490" alt="" width="545" height="490" /><br />Final artwork for the cover.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em><img src="http://cookingfilm.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/algodacc83o-1-baixa.jpg?w=545&h=549" alt="" width="545" height="549" /><br />First promotion shot to be released.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em><img src="http://cookingfilm.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/untitled-161.jpg?w=545&h=545" alt="" width="545" height="545" /><br />The original: Hasselblad 500CM, Zeiss 120mm Makro Planar.<br />Fuji Provia 100 F.<br /></em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Last month I was sent again as a backup photographer/assistant to take some photographs of Cristiano Ronaldo and Franck Muller. Cristiano Ronaldo is one of the world’s best football players and Franck Muller is a brilliant master watch maker. Once again some of my images were selected…<br>

What I’m trying to say is that this is not about me. This is about how film photography presents a different aestethic choice. It adds value to the printed or online media. The questions is not film being better than digital, that’s rather silly, but for a magazine editor the choice of having two different visual languages is, again, added value.<br>

There’s room for analog photography in the printed media industry. Many editors don’t even consider it for being a slow and not error free process. However there’s so many amazing and talented analog photographers out there. Young people that only need a chance to put their talent at work.<br>

Film photography is not dead, it is just “gourmet”.</p>

<p><img src="http://cookingfilm.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/untitled-9.jpg?w=545&h=541" alt="" width="545" height="541" /></p>

<p><img src="http://cookingfilm.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/untitled-28a.jpg?w=545&h=541" alt="" width="545" height="541" /><br /><em>Both of the above: Hasselblad 500CM, Zeiss 120mm Makro Planar.</em><br /><em>Kodak Trix 400@1600, Xtol, 1+1, 12 min.</em><br /><br /><br>

Please excuse my poor English and the long post. <br />Many of you guys are pros and I'm just an amateur but having the chance to put some of my images out there, in the real world, feels great.<em> Thank you.<br /></em></p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>No, Thank you, Paulo, for your post, pictures and thoughts.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Paulo, I remember your post discussing push processing Tri-X. Good to see how well it worked out for you.</p>

[SCL]

<p>I'm very impressed with your results and your vision. It's nice to see film continuing to be used, and don't downplay your masterful touch!</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Very nice photos. However, you truly believe they couldn't have also been done with a digital camera? Why on earth not? A good photographer can use either medium to arrive essentially at the same vision, as long as there are no unusual demands, such as ISO 12800 or 60 min time exposures. And even then, there are ways.</p>

<p>However, if you enjoy using film, that's great!</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>Recently, I used more film. Mostly b/c I enjoy it. I think there are subtle differences but need to know what to look for. I do agree that digital has a more cleaner look and sharper image at least straight out of camera but I think that is not that important in terms of application for submission in whatever form. They both meet it. But digital has leaped great bounds in a short period of time at least based on the technicals. And film cameras are cheap, a used Hassie body-less kit could be had for under $400. <br>

Thanks for sharing, I like to get into bw film also at least in the processing. </p>

 

[stp]

<p>Very interesting -- well written and well photographed. I'm intrigued by the concept of "value added" when film is used in a project. I sense that this is not coming from Paulo, but rather from the people who are asking him to do the work, especially editors. By describing it as "gourmet," it seems the value comes from the relative scarcity of film being used in these projects, and that makes an aspect of the project "unusual," or "different." Where once film was the only choice and it was used without question, now it's a small, secondary choice and it is used with full knowledge of its limited use relative to digital. A quote from The Online Photographer: "The unusual wins out over the usual." Film has become unusual, and that alone is sufficient for some to want to use it.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p> However, you truly believe they couldn't have also been done with a digital camera?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I don't see any reason why not. There's nothing here that screams "film."</p>

[rogerwb]

<p>I think your graphics background gives you the ability to see the basics of the picture amd put everything in it's proper place. When a pic of a celebrity is used to feature the watch, that is exactly what you did. The basic black clothing, underexposed to almost solid black makes the watch the focal point of the photograph, as it should be in an ad. </p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Photographers see the photograph as the entirety of their work. A graphic designer sees a photograph as an element to be incorporated into their design, consequently, Paulo's approach to photography will naturally be different, and possibly more desirable for the intended purpose. </p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Nice shots. For me it's great to see film using in projects like this. Even if the same shots could have been made with digital they weren't and digital could have likely brought different qualities to the images. The way of shooting would likely have been different which could likely lead to different results and a different shot chosen. At the end of the day using film helps keep film alive and that has to be a good thing.</p>

[paulopires]

<p>Thank you all for the kind words. You are most kind.<br>

<strong>Sarah:</strong> I'm just a passionate amateur and this has nothing to do with film versus digital. I never said that these images could not be taken with a digital camera. I just said that, it only makes sense to me, personally, to keep on doing photography the way that I like to do it and that's using film. That's an advantage of being amateur, it's graphic design that pays my bills :)<br /><br />I use a Sinar P3 to photograph wrist watches, a Phase One for numerous situations, digital has nothing but advantages but for my own pleasure I prefer film. <br /><br /><strong>Stephen:</strong> by added value, and please forgive me if it's not the right expression, I mean having the choice of using both digital and film images. I like that choice when I'm designing my magazine and I know that some editors like to have different kinds of images to chose from. It makes my magazine richer visually. Usually when I'm sent for a job the magazine's official photographer always goes along, of course. I'm just the "let's see what this guy comes up with" :)<br>

Like you said: "The unusual wins out over the usual." Film has become unusual, and that alone is sufficient for some to want to use it."<br /><br />Thank you again for taking the time to comment.</p>

[jeffrey_warden1]

Very nice work! I think you should get used to calling

yourself a photographer and a graphic designer. Don't sell

your passion for photography short.

[rossb]

<p>Whatever you wish to call it I think your work looks great. Very nice.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>It is well known that the gifted amateur can be as good as a professional and often better than most.</p>

[szrimaging]

<blockquote>

<p>I just said that, it only makes sense to me, personally, to keep on doing photography the way that I like to do it and that's using film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

If I may, is it the film or the camera that you enjoy more? I recently started to shoot 6x6 from an old TLR, and the experience of shooting is totally different than, say, a 35mm SLR. And in all honesty, shooting film in an SLR doesn't seem to change much for me compared to shooting digital in an SLR. It's when you move into larger, non-SLR cameras (I shot 4x5 in college), that I feel the whole experience changes, and hopefully so do the results (for the better).</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

A designer is someone who works on how things look. Something that 'photographer' should be synonymous with, though, surprisingly, sometimes is not.<br>The difference between graphic and photographic designers is in the command of the craft, the technical bit. Which is easy as far as photography is concerned. Less so (a lot, sometimes) when graphics are concerned.<br>I like the name of the German association of professional photographers: der "Bund Freischaffender Foto-Designer". Knowing about f/11 at 1/125 is not enough. Not by far.<br>So while a 'photographer' may very well be a very poor designer (and thus a very poor photographer), a graphic designer only needs to know about f/11 at 1/125 to be an excellent photographer.<br>Unless, of course, you would want to limit what being a 'photographer' is to knowing about f/11 at 1/125. But who would?

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p> this has nothing to do with film versus digital.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

That begs the question of why it was so important to put the medium in the title. If it's not important, just talk about the photos.<br>

<br />I watched an incredible documentary last night on a photojournalist who was shooting in Juarez, the most violent city in the Western Hemisphere. The only time he talked about equipment, it was about his body armor. He never once mentioned his camera(s), or anything other than what he was shooting and what he was trying to show with his photos. If people let go of the equipment and medium when they present their photos, it comes across as someone more interested in the photographs than the technicals.<br>

<br>

However, good that you showed their photos, and thanks for that. I like the last two. There are plenty that talk about it all the time without ever showing a photo.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Jeff,<br><br>It is possible - would you believe - to talk about film (or whatever), about it's character, its place in culture, past and present, it's position in the market, etc., without it being a comparison to something else, or even exposé on its supposed or real (who cares) shortcomings or superiority compared to a particular something-else.<br>Just like it is possible to talk about painting, without it being about why it would be better or less than photography, or sculpture, or [etc.]. Why would it be begging the question to put "painting" in a thread devoted to painting? Why would it be begging the question to put film in the title of a thread about film?

[paulopires]

<p>Thank you <strong>Jeffrey</strong>, <strong>Ross</strong> and <strong>JC</strong>. <br /><br /><strong>Zach:</strong> That's a good point indeed. I use the Hasselblad and also a Contax G2 and a Leica CL. You are right, shooting a DSLR is not much different than say the G2. I mean I have all the electronic I need, automatic film advance, metering, aperture or speed priority, EV compensation… but, speaking for myself, shooting film changes my attitude towards the act of taking a picture.<br /><br />Being a graphic designer and using photoshop for over 15 years I do a lot, and I mean a lot, of post-production work on digital images. <br /><br />When I was taking pictures for myself and using digital cameras the act of taking was the "less" important thing because I knew what I could do with the images afterwards using Lightroom or Photoshop. I was more concerned about capturing a good "base" to work uppon later. And I didn't want that, I wanted to slow down and to enjoy the act of taking a picture.<br /><br />Of course I can also slow down using a digital camera… I can also have manual control over it but film challenges me in so many ways. The choice of film, taking the pictures, getting home and develop my own film, the choice of the developer… it's almost a ritual. And, of couse, on top of that I like film. :)<br /><br />You pointed out the 6x6 format.. well my friend that really changes a LOT the shooting experience. That's a whole new league. I absolute love my dear Hasselblad. All the images I've posted were taken with the Hasselblad for a reason. They were meant to be printed on a magazine and I needed that "extra quality" from the 6x6 negatives or positives. <br /><br />I home scan my images and I do not own a good scanner so… the bigger the negative, the best. A single page image on my magazine is about 38MB (24cm x 30cm). Scanning a 6x6 negative 1:1 at 2400 dpi gives me a file of about 90MB. <br /><br />Please do enjoy your 6x6… who knows… maybe you will end up using a 8x10! :)<br /><br /><strong>Q.G:</strong> Thank you for taking the time, for more than once you helped me with you amazing knowledge.<br /><br />My photography teacher a long, long time ago, made me start by building a pinhole camera out of a shoe box and all the sudden I realized i knew nothing! I was 20 years old at the time and taking pictures for a couple of years but I knew nothing.<br /><br />Understanding aperture and it's relation with light and shutter speed, depth of field… Developing and printing in the darkroom… Starting from scratch changed everything to me. I kept those teachings with me and life gave me a chance of going "back" to what I love the most: taking pictures and, if it's possible, using film cameras.<br /><br /><strong>Jeff:</strong> Q.G. answer it better than I ever could. Please trust me because my English is very limited.<br />I respect your comment, of course, and it's my fault. I take pictures as a hobby and I have a little blog called "Cooking Film". On that blog I post my experiments with films, cameras and developers…<br /><br />Basically I share recipes for developing different kinds of films with different developers and I always share the techicals like I did in this post. Camera, lens, film, developer and development time.<br /><br />I understand what you are saying when you talk about that documentary… I know photography is not only the camera, or the film, or the digital sensor… it is much more than that. Specialy when you talk about someone that takes pictures in Juarez… but there's also the other side. <br /><br />Let's say for example Sebastião Salgado… the fact that he uses Leica cameras has nothing to do with the overwhelming quality, depth and intensity of his images… His images transcend the plain "gear factor". But he's a photographer and, as such, he uses cameras and lenses and film or digital cameras… and I also like that part. <br /><br />I also post small interviews on my blog. That means I just annoy people to death and until they agree to answer my questions.<br />The last interview I did was to David Burnett. Of course he's an amazing photojournalist and I admire his work very much but I wanted to know the other side. The gear side, to know more about his tools of the trade. <br /><br />Why does he take an Holga when his going to take pictures of the President of the United States? Why does he takes a Speed Graphics when shooting the Olympics? His first AF camera? The first time he used color film?<br /><br />I think those are simple and valid questions to ask a photographer and mean no disrespect for his work.<br />It's just my hobby Jeff but that does not mean I can't recognize the power of photography as something that transcends all my lame gear questions. And it really has nothing to do with digital versus film. I use both but when given the choice I prefer to use film.<br /><br />Thank you for your comment and please forgive my poor English.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>My impression of Paulo's thread title was that it was intended as somewhat humorous irony. I've often described the future of film as a "boutique" item. Diehard fans will continue to use it for as long as it's available and affordable. And the impressions of some folks will be imbued with a certain mystical reverence for the material itself, for the same reasons some painters and fans of painting value hand-brewed egg tempera painting in the traditional icon style. For some folks there's a certain cachet associated with materials and process as well as in the end results. </p>

<p>And that's fine too.</p>

<p>To say a photograph is just a photograph is as true as saying a painting is just a painting, without regard or reference to the materials and process. It will seem true and complete to some, and not to others.</p>

<p>I visited a 6-year-old family member in the hospital today to see how he's doing after heart surgery last week. This time I took only a compact P&S digital camera. One of my cousins, whom I'd taught traditional film photography and darkroom processing several years ago, immediately noticed and said "What? No film camera?" as if I'd suddenly gone heathen. Usually I also tote a small Olympus 35mm film camera as well, but not today.</p>

<p>I think I just lost my film halo. But the photos came out fine.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>And please excuse my poor English, but here it comes Mr. Paulo...<br /> Firstly, no need to apologize to pros on Photo.net, there are far less of them actively reading your thread than you might think. Secondly, I use film in my work too, feels great, works great, happy clients. <br /> Thirdly, if you are a Graphic Designer in your work, then why pry your camera into the line of work and call your self an amateur and then rub it in the faces of people on a photo forum in nearly every post you make? Some of your work is nice, why would it offend said "photographers" for you to call it that? It does not offend me but what does is your insisting on calling your self an amateur then brag about your taking of the work.<br /> By the way, in 2009, I got sick of Graphic Designers cutting out the photographers in some ad campaigns and doing the work them selves. So I hired a really good graphic designer who has no interest in being an amateur photographer and cut out the middle man, put two of those firms out of business.<br>

<br /> Nice job on the pieces, but dude, lose the tacky amateur bragging....</p>

<p> </p>

[szrimaging]

<p>I hope I never use an 8x10, just seems like a pain. I did love 4x5 though.</p>

<p>As for the experience/flow of film, you do have a point there. Working in the darkroom can almost feel like a spiritual journey at times. And watching your print develop is pure magic. And as you mention the ritual of developing your film is a large part of the craft that one develops to get their desired results. Congrats on finding the key to yours!</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>In terms of gourmet. I think digital is like a michelin restaurant where it is more consistent, polished, nicely presented, it's the trend with smarty pants and people are willing to pay for it be those who are in the know how in cuisine (photography) and those who are not. Film is like going into the smaller towns where you get to talk to the locals and the farmers markets (the locals) and it's cooked more the old fashion way passed down from the generations (the darkroom) and where the food can be more rustic (the grain). Both however appealing to a different market but both equally desiring. </p>

[paulopires]

<p><strong>Daniel:</strong> Let me start by saying that I don't brag. That's not me, that's not my attitude. Not in life and not in here. I don't rub anything in peoples faces. I don't cut if front of photographers or in front of anyone doing their jobs.<br>

If that's how you fell after reading this or any other of my posts I have to accept and respect it.<br />But, respectfully I must answer that you got it wrong. That's really not me.<br /><br /><strong>Zach:</strong> By the end of the day, those quiet moments developing or printing are worth gold! <br />Thank you and enjoy your 6x6!<br /><br /><strong>Ray:</strong> I agree and your comment made me smile. It is every designers dream to work with high quality files that are, at the same time, beautiful and expressive images. The creative freedom digital images brought into the world it's unsurpassed.<br>

I work for a company that imports Swiss wrist watches. They are all premium products and they need images that can do justice to their value. I don't even dare going that way but I get, every day, amazingly detailed, clear, beautiful images and on top of that, I'm talking about high quality files of 100, 150, 200MB.<br /><br />That's a whole new level of quality.<br /><br />I'm fortunate to have lunch at a michelin restaurant and dinner in a small town.<br /><br />Thank you.</p>