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

[q.g._de_bakker]

Paulo,<br><br>MBs are a measure for how big files on a computer disk are. Not for the quality of the thing contained in that file.<br><br>It's a mistake common in 'Designerland'. Just as believing you need to drive an Alfa Romeo or Lancia and use Apple computers.<br>;-)

[paulopires]

<p>Q.G.: Yes I know. "high quality files that are, at the same time, beautiful and expressive images."<br />Let me replace the quality for resolution. <br /><br />Italian cars? Oh no please, I drive a VW Golf but I do use an Apple :-)</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>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…</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Especially since he uses DSLRs now and nobody who cares about his images has seen any difference. It really doesn't matter, it's about photographs. The photographer chooses the tools, but doesn't hang them on the wall.</p>

[doug_williams4]

<p>I would like to get back to the idea of film adding value. Do you think that it adds value because it is rare and more expensive to use or because the way one may use film is different than digital i.e. shooting less exposures?</p>

[paulopires]

<p><strong>Jeff:</strong> As a spectator facing an image hanging on a wall or printed on a book it does not matter at all, I agree. I will not like it more or less because it's film or digital, taken with an Holga (no disrespect) or the most expensive Leica. <br /><br />Tools are just part of the process and when the process is finished all it matters is what's in front of our eyes but I also like the tools part and I want to find out (that's the reason for my little interviews) by the photographers themselves, how do they feel about this specific issue.<br /><br />I'm curious about in what extent the tools are important in the creative process of the photographers I interview.<br>

<br /><strong>Doug:</strong> I think it adds visual value. Can't help thinking as a designer. When I'm designing the magazine I work for, I want it to be as rich as possible, visually. It's great to work with photographs but also with illustrations or any other visual element that helps creating the best "final product" possible.<br />As such, why not, consider film photography as another visual element that will help to accomplish that final result?<br /><br />The professional photographer that works for us has his own style. We like his style very much, that's why he was chosen for the job. His contribute only makes sense having creative freedom. <br /><br />A while back we talked about including some black and white analog photography in the magazine. My name came up because my boss knows I do it as a hobby. I'm an easy solution. So I was sent on a trial basis.<br /><br />The real reason for this post was wanting to share how happy I am that people are liking the pictures and the possibility, the distant possibility, of being able to grab this motivation and take my passion for photography a little step further.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm curious about in what extent the tools are important in the creative process of the photographers I interview.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

For me, unless it's studio gear, it takes me about three minutes to pick out gear for a shoot, whether it's commercial or personal. It sometimes takes me a week to find a location, it can take several weeks to get access, it can take hours of waiting in an uncomfortable position to make sure I get what I want. I have spent months looking for props for set-up shots. And more than anything, I often think about photographs or jobs for hours and hours before going out to shoot, thinking about how I choose to work with people, find a position, get someone to help. The amount of effort spent on equipment is almost zero, yet I get shows and commercial jobs regularly.<br>

<br>

Also, you seem to have avoided my point that Salgado changed gear and people didn't notice. That's because people care about his photographs. The equipment is irrelevant if he is successful, because as one can easily tell from his statements (and similarly from most other photographers who have something to say), it's about his photographs. I feel like I have somehow failed in my efforts if someone asks me about equipment when they see my photographs.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

It could be a sign of people wanting to know and understand even more about your (anyone's) photography, Jeff.

[doug_williams4]

<p>Paulo, I was hoping you or someone else would say something like that. I agree that the image is what is most important and it matters little how you achieve getting what you want. One the other hand it is fun to use different cameras and processes and the joy of making the image is important also.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

That (<i>"it matters little how you achieve getting what you want"</i>) presupposes that it matters little how you achieve etc. The image is most important, making the means and process needed to create that image less important?<br>"Most important", "important" is the wrong word. The image is the goal. A goal that needs something to become within reach. As means to achieve the goal, both goal and means are important. The difference is that the image lasts (longer), the means and process are only important until they achieve the goal.<br>Photographers are people who not just watch images, but also create images. A photographer who says he isn't interested in the means available, and how they can be used to produce images. is either lying, or in denial.<br><br>Having said that: the difference between the very many different tools available are often minimal. A discussion of whether camera X or Y is better usually is 'unimportant' indeed. But that still must not blind you to the fact that even though you may have little trouble chosing what camera bag to grab, that is because you already have chosen. Maybe you never sit down thinking about whether to take a film camera or a digital camera. Maybe it would be a non-choice, producing the same results. But when was the last time you sat down thinking about whether you should perhaps better use wet collodion plates in a ULF camera instead? Something that does indeed make a difference to what you can ultimately achieve?<br>That you don't, that you just pick up your bag, doesn't mean there are no 'important' considerations concerning the means to achieve the goal. It only means you hardly ever (if at all) give it a thought. A limited repertoire. How does that affect the image, that "most important" thing?

[paulopires]

<p><strong>Jeff:</strong> I agree when you saw "people didn't notice" the change, but for all that matters the people who are not only "spectators" but also photographers can tell the difference. A 100x70cm print from a 35mm negative has very little to do with a print of the same size made from a 35mm or medium format digital camera photograph. Please don't get me wrong on this. It has nothing to do with one system being better than the other, I'm not saying that, the outcome is just different.<br /><br />People will not notice it by looking at 600x400px images on a screen, neither will those who are more aware of these photographic issues. People will not even notice it if they are facing a real print in front of their eyes or a double page spread in a book. But the ones more aware of photographic issues will notice.<br /><br />Does this change the way I feel as a spectator about his images? No!<br /><br />If I like or dislike an image it has nothing to do with anything involved in the creation process but, on the other hand, as I told you, I'm also curious about the process.<br /><br />Is talking about the process and the tools involved to take out value of any kind of creation, like a photograph? I think it does not.<br /><br />I can not agree when you say "... and similarly from most other photographers who have something to say". I've came across photographers that don't want to talk about the process or the tools because they feel the same as you about this, and others who feel differently and are willing to share their thoughts about cameras, lenses and the creative process.<br>

The artistic value of the Sistine Chapel does not come from the time spent in painting it. To me it has as much value as Pollock dripping paint over a canvas for a couple of hours. As a spectator both blow me away but, as a person, I find both creative processes fascinating.<br>

I respect both "sides" and I don't feel that a certain photographer is less or more valid, his words less or more meaningful, if he shares (or not) my opinion about this.<br /><br />The thing that got me started with the interviews about cameras, and the process, was a video on Youtube featuring Daido Moriyama talking about why he uses a compact camera and not any other system.<br /><br /></p>

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>People will not notice it by looking at 600x400px images on a screen, neither will those who are more aware of these photographic issues. People will not even notice it if they are facing a real print in front of their eyes or a double page spread in a book. But the ones more aware of photographic issues will notice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Paolo, this is frankly somewhat of a naive statement for a graphic designer. Surely you understand that someone skillful in the art can impart just about any "look" to an image. For instance, I often composite digital and film images together, and that requires that I apply contrast curves and grain structure to the digital component that match the film component. I must be successful at this, because nobody has ever noticed that one part of the image has a different "look" than another -- not even pro photographers, and not even amateur enthusiasts who obsess over film vs. digital differences.</p>

<p>To be more direct, could I tell the difference between prints of film vs. digital images? It depends on the format and the skill of the photographer. If I'm looking at the digital works of a less skilled photographer, yes, I probably could, if there's enough contrast in the image, just from the linearity of the response curve. If I can examine the grain structure of a smaller format photograph under a loupe, I could also probably nail the difference, but I might be wrong. If I see something that looks like film, I cannot automatically assume that it is not digital. It often is -- often created by someone like me who needs to create a credible film "look" for whatever reasons.</p>

<p>Honestly, if you were to look at prints of a number of my works, especially my monochromes, you would probably identify them as handheld medium format film -- because you can't see grain, but the contrast curves I like to use have distinct toes and shoulders that are rather film-like. They're also often color pre-filtered and push/pull processed just like film. However, they're mostly straight-up digital.</p>

<p>Incidentally, I have to agree somewhat with Daniel Bayer. Just call yourself a photographer and be done with it. If you got paid for your photos, then congratulations: You're a professional.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I was talking to <a href="http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/">Ed Burtynsky</a> at his Hong Kong opening the other day. He is one of the most celebrated large format photographers of his generation. With his massive prints going for US$30,000 and up, he is also one of the most well compensated. (He also owns <a href="http://www.torontoimageworks.com/">TIW</a>, Canada's last dip & dunk pro lab.) He is now totally digital except for architectural work, which is not his main thing. He told me his 60 MP digital files are "better" than what he gets from his 4x5 Linhof. <br>

I agree with Jeff, there is nothing that says film in those shots to me either. </p>

[paulopires]

<p><strong>Ian</strong>: Your comment really ends this. <br />I mean, we could go on debating the many issues that came up with my post but... bottom line... you said it also "there is nothing that says film in those shots to me either."<br /><br />That is really the point. My pictures don't "say" film and that should be my main concern at the time. Making them to say film.<br /><br />Thank you and I also thank <strong>Sarah</strong> for leaving her thoughts.<br /><br /></p>

[EricM]

<p><strong>"I mean, we could go on debating the many issues that came up with my post but... bottom line... you said it also "there is nothing that says film in those shots to me either.""</strong><br /> <br /> 13+ years of these threads and they all end with the same conclusion.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>Paulo. I got your snarky mail, please don't send me any more or I will ask the mods to deal with it.<br>

My comment doesn't "end" anything. You started something when you said film is "gourmet", which to me implies something for connoisseurs. I am saying I think you are wrong. </p>

 

[paulopires]

<p>No snarky email Ian. Honest mail. No need to deal with anything and of course it is very obvious I'm not a connoisseur. I will gladly deleted my account.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Now that's unfortunate and so unnecessary. </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Well done, photo.net, well done. If only this sort of "medium doesn't matter" mantra were more rare.</p>

<p>And I'm fresh outta grilled steak references.</p>

[huang_shao_hui]

<p>Jeff Spirer said the below:<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.</p>

<p>I always feel funny, why is it that EVERY SINGLE THREAD that has the title <strong>FILM </strong>on it will draw the attention of Jeff? Any explanation that your put so much attention to this kind of thread might have just explained why other could put such importance to put the medium in the title. But if you could make that out, then you won't ask, so I guess it's nonsensical...<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.</p>

<p>If you are as 'mediumless' as you try to claim, then you won't even bother to participate in this thread. Leave this to the super arrogant gearhead or 'film head'. But I guess you replies just reflected so badly of status you try to portray. Too bad!<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.<br /> <br /> Out of the hundreds of words you said, the 2nd last line DO make sense! But for your last line, I just can't stop laughing! hahaha, that's why I never bother to submit a single photo here! To show some 'real' photo can justify one's status as a real photographer or bring more weight to one has to say? Wow, superlogic! If Ansel Adam say 1+1=3 is true, your logic will concur. Brilliant!</p>

[huang_shao_hui]

<p>Jeff Spirer said the below:<br /> >>Also, you seem to have avoided my point that Salgado changed gear and people didn't notice. That's because people care about his photographs. The equipment is irrelevant if he is successful, because as one can easily tell from his statements (and similarly from most other photographers who have something to say), it's about his photographs. I feel like I have somehow failed in my efforts if someone asks me about equipment when they see my photographs.</p>

<p>It's really funny as I NEVER KNEW Salgado used Leica! Why are you paying so much attention to his <strong>PREVIOUS</strong> equipment? It didn't turn out like you're what you wished you were...</p>