BBC Article About Continuing Use of Film

[donbright]

<p>Horses and Buggies, Muskets, Restaurants, and Rants! Film verses Digital? 4/20/15<br>

I guess Photography is not interesting anymore.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Film may be a lifestyle, religion or cult to some. But first of all it is a tool available to the photographer.<br>A tool with its very own character that can be (and is) used to good effect (hence the make-it-look-like-film filters in image processing software). Let's not forget that. No need to dismiss film, no need to forbid ourselves to use film, just because there is an easier, faster, and cheaper way.<br>That "small fanbase" will be those people who know that, who appreciate having as many different options available to make things look the way they want them to look. Sure, it is possible to have no use at all for the things film has to offer. But it sure looks like people dismissing film as outdated apparently never considered that, and don't see that they limit their possibilities by doing so, are focused on gear and technology instead of expression.

[hjoseph7]

<p>"<em>Can you point out "hostility" towards the "concept" of film please</em>"</p>

<p>Jeff no pun intended but I can write a book about this...</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>A local store called "The Record Archive" is celebrating a vinyl weekend.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br /><br />Last year on the BBC news, it was reported that UK vinyl sales were the highest for 15 years. I think film is also having a similar resurgence.<br>

It's never going to be mainstream again, people are too lazy for that and prefer the ease and convenience of digital... but it's not going away either.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>I`m with Arthur... to me, it`s the pleasure of engaging the process (I guess... ).</p>

<p>For sure I`m not a hipster, nor even a *photographer* (from David Hurn`s words), but after near forty years printing and shooting I still enjoy traditional photography more than any other life activity.</p>

<p>I sincerely believe the "digital is better" idea, but I find it so boring in comparison. I have a full set of pro digital gear which I use just because I have to use it for... "documentation" (I`m not a photographer, well, maybe a sterile one;).</p>

<p>For my own enjoyment, film shooting and darkroom printing is still my favorite. I cannot get the point of hybrid processing. Maybe I`m like those elderly woman who enjoy making crochet works... I don`t care. Life is too short.</p>

[jordan2240]

<p>My take is that people typically embrace older technologies because there is more of a psychological impact than a creative one. For older people, it likely reminds them of a 'simpler' time (at least as they remember it), or at least a time when they recall being happier and healthier. For younger people, I think it's mostly a desire to be different. To most lay people, and probably a lot of 'enthusiast' photographers, it would be guesswork to discern a film print from a digital print. It certainly would be for me. </p>

<p>I visited a town a few years ago here in PA that had a variety of art galleries. In one, a man described how he did silk-screening the 'old-fashioned' way. The process sounded quite complex and impressive. Unfortunately, pretty much the exact same results he was getting could be achieved much more quickly and easily using modern technologies, and virtually no one who looked at a framed print would know the difference. So while I admired what he was doing and the talent involved, I wondered whether it was really worth the effort and expense. I suppose I have a similar question about film.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>A tool with its very own character that can be (and is) used to good effect</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For me, that is the one point that matters indeed.<br>

Despite having had film around all my youth and adolescence, I simply wasn't interested in photography back then. I got into it due and thanks to digital. The instant availability of images, getting them onto the PC immediately, making it easier to only print what you like (and hence cheaper), reasons like that. It got me interested only afterwards in photography in general, and then I got hooked. Film came much, much later (and for now a hybrid workflow with digital prints - no darkroom and no space, looking to do some other printing techniques though that do not require the darkroom).<br>

It isn't all about nostalgia, about 'getting back to what we know best'. Sure, that is a portion of the population, in the same way a part is doing lomography and interested in getting unpredictable results. And there will be a number of new converts (as me, I don't think my story is unique) who are simply interested in the process, in the history, and/or like using older cameras. Despite Lex' posts bringing up several very good points, I don't think it is this much restricted to a single demographic. But for sure, it is a niche, and I do not foresee the niche growing by very much (even though I think the comparison to vinyl makes sense, 15-year record sales I have to see happening first).</p>

<p>Bill's point comes up more often in discussions like this, and I feel one really needs to seperate there what the public perceives versus the process that the artist feels is right and gives him/her the results he feel good about. True that there are programs that with one click can make my digital file look like the film I just shot. But there is a bit a sense of creation in holding a negative or print you made yourself - a physical thing, after all. I like experimenting with double exposures on film; I'm not interested at all in doing those in digital. In digital, it's easier, and I can easily manipulate to get the exact result I hoped for. With film: no safety net; get it right there and then, and you will only know so much later so not the time for second takes either. I could force myself to have the same approach with digital, but somehow it doesn't work for me (to easy to check the screen and validate) - and hence, makes me less convinced about the results, less happy and well, no fun that way. Just a matter of choosing the right tool for the job <em>for myself</em>. Nobody, not even a paying audience, needs to agree there: it's about how I choose to express myself; the results do not need to be better, but I have to be happy (enough) about them.<br>

But the point with digital-vs-film debates is that some have this urge for wide-sweeping statements that one is better than the other, rather than acknowledging that it's all about personal wants and needs only.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>My take is that people typically embrace older technologies because there is more of a psychological impact than a creative one.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My experience has generally been that my psychological and creative states are interrelated.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For older people, it likely reminds them of a 'simpler' time (at least as they remember it), or at least a time when they recall being happier and healthier.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Several older people have said why they use film. I take their words at face value.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For younger people, I think it's mostly a desire to be different.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know several younger people who use film (in addition to digital). The reasons they've given me vary, from it being part of the curriculum at school to wanting to connect with the history of photography to simply enjoying it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately, pretty much the exact same results he was getting could be achieved much more quickly and easily using modern technologies, and virtually no one who looked at a framed print would know the difference.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't see it as unfortunate. Those using film or doing silk screening a certain way may not be doing it only so people would notice a difference. Sometimes it's as much about the journey as the destination. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>So while I admired what he was doing and the talent involved, I wondered whether it was really worth the effort and expense. I suppose I have a similar question about film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My take on this is that it is worth the effort and expense to some people and is not to others.</p>

<p> </p>

[jordan2240]

<p>Of course Wouter and Fred are correct. Ultimately it's the artist's satisfaction with what was created and how it was created that is important. I DO find it unfortunate that the older technology that requires a different, and I think more extensive, skillset doesn't necessarily yield better results. The silkscreen artist I referred to above came across as having some disdain toward modern methods, and I can fully appreciate why. I don't typically think that is the case with film photographers, though I would also understand it if it was. Is there any doubt that film photography is more difficult and involved?</p>

<p>I got interested in photography a few years before it started to transition to digital, and I swore I would continue shooting film, then scan the negatives to display them digitally or print them as necessary. I figured it was the best of both worlds - until the workflow got to be a pain in the rear. Much easier to simply pop the camera card into a card reader and go from there, plus it was cheaper than buying rolls of film and the immediate feedback was hard to resist. If I was to return to shooting film, it would be because I wanted to challenge myself, though for me, the more significant aspect of photography has always been what was captured rather than how it was captured, so the media used is really secondary.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>" Is there any doubt that film photography is more difficult and involved?"</i><br><br>Well, yes. More involved it is. But more difficult it certainly isn't.<br>It is just not hard. Not difficult. The most difficult part about using film is knowing the different films, how they behave, and how they look. No great difficulty as such. But something you have to learn. <br>Yet easier (and more fruitful) than trying to remember all 800 pages of a DSLR's manual.

[Robert W. Pillow]

<p>The only problem I see with digital is the archive question has not been answered to my satisfaction. I have a file cabinet of slides and negatives that has never crashed. That said, I continue to use digital most of the time. The work flow is easier, but I think electronic storage is costing more money than that file cabinet.</p>

<p>I thought I was a closet Luddite until I saw some archive comments made in "Side By Side", a documentary about movies going digital, and “Time Zero: The Last Year Of Polaroid Film”. Both documentaries, which I saw on Netflix, touch on the longevity of digital media.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>...the longevity of digital media.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Robert, I am seriously curious what the exact point would be that would render digital media at risk? What arguments are used?</p>

<p>I ask sincerely, because it's a point Isee more often made, and I am not so convinced about it. After all, to make effective use of those slides and negatives, you need something too - either a scanner (not a healthy market), or chemical, enlargers, projectors (not a healthy market). So, their use is at risk already. Plus, you have one copy of the original in a single place - of course we all hope that will never ever be an issue, but natural disasters do exist.<br>

Digital media instead - the internet will not disappear quickly, hard disk storage will not disappear quickly (not without a similar replacement anyway). If you do not have more than one copy of your file, then you're putting yourself at risk. But have a solid backup strategy, and there is in my view nothing to suggest that your files are more at risk than your cabinet of negatives. There is the point of file formats, but the open source world is catering for a lot of options there, plus there is relatively little incentive on dropping support for old file formats either for manufacterers - customers do not like it, after all; plus old software remains available in some shape or form. In comparison to finding a good projector (or spare parts for it) for your slides, I do not see the disadvantage digital has.<br>

But maybe I am completely missing a point?</p>

[Robert W. Pillow]

<p>The point, Wouter, is that unlike other art forms, digital imagery is not tangible; analog is.</p>

<p>Your point about the risk to analog from natural disasters is valid. Yes, a certain amount of technology is required to see an analog image, optimally, but it is fairly low-tech compared to what is required to maintain and interpret a digital image. Not all analog imagery is immediately available; pictures need to be developed. In that interim, something could happen to the image, but after development the work is archived, automatically, and, with care, is available to see a long time without high-tech support.</p>

<p>Here's a real life example. Last weekend, when I came across a box of Graflex Century negatives that my father shot and sleeved in the 1950s, I held them up to a light see what was on them. I could do that because glass plates, and negatives, slides, and movies on celluloid, and other media -- paintings and sculpture, for example -- can instantly be recognized as images. As far as I know, and my knowledge is somewhat limited by my experience as a database administrator, it is pretty hard to see an image on a hard drive, a flash drive, a CD, DVD, or BluRay, without a computer and a monitor.</p>

<p>By the way, I have back-ups -- digital and analog.</p>

<p>Rest easy, Wouter, and have a nice day.</p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I didn't mean to challenge the statement as such, it was genuine wonder and interest - and thanks for providing the arguments. They do make sense for sure; and I do appreciate the physical nature of having a negative or a print as well - but I'm equally worried about making a mess of my hard disk as I am of storing negatives in a stupid way :-)</p>

[Brad_]

>>> The only problem I see with digital is the archive question has not been answered to my satisfaction. I

have a file cabinet of slides and negatives that has never crashed.

 

And I know someone who lost a ton of negatives (likely in a file cabinet) when Katrina rolled through.

[Robert W. Pillow]

<p>Wouter, my guess is that you won't make a mess, regardless of which media you choose. I'm not really worried about preserving my work for posterity. I do wonder, given the history of electronic recording devices, if a generation or two will end up undocumented -- so to speak.</p>

<p> </p>

[Brad_]

>>> I do wonder, given the history of electronic recording devices, if a generation or two will end up

undocumented -- so to speak.

 

Yes, just like shoeboxes of negatives and old prints that get tossed out when a family member dies and no

one cares to go through or save them.

[Robert W. Pillow]

<p>Brad, I'm sorry that person lost negatives -- and probably everything else -- because of Katrina, but I know people who lost digital images without enduring a hurricane. For example, a friend of mine saw a smart phone turn into a brick while attempting to update the operating system.</p>

<p>The difference between digital and physical media -- to me -- is that to preserve analog images you do not have to be a RAID-5, -10, or -50 storage specialist or depend on someone who is. I'm not convinced the average person wants to be in that position. Some people find shoe boxes with envelopes of negatives and prints easier to manage than setting up phones and computers to back-up somewhere.</p>

<p> </p>

[Brad_]

>>> The difference between digital and physical media -- to me -- is that to preserve analog images you do not have to be a RAID-

5, -10, or -50 storage specialist or depend on someone who is.

 

I'm certainly not a RAID specialist nor do I have the need for RAID, but I have have been backing up my large (> 100K images)

image library to multiple media, kept in different geographic locations, for the last 15 years. Super easy...

 

>>> Some people find shoe boxes with envelopes of negatives and prints easier to manage than setting up phones and computers

to back-up somewhere.

 

True, but my response was addressing your comment of generations going undocumented due to digital storage. If family members

don't care about preserving a photographer's work when (s)he dies, the work is gone, whether analog or digital.

[JDMvW]

<p>By the way, talk about hostility - or rather hypersensitivity --<br>

if you so much as hint, even politely, that film is getting a lot "harder" than it was (e.g., http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00ctG6 ) ....</p>

<p>I will stipulate that I did not receive any actual death threats, however.</p>

[Robert W. Pillow]

<p>Wouter, Brad, and JDM;</p>

<p>This has been a really fun debate for me. I appreciate the three of you taking the time to respond to my comments. I enjoyed looking at your pictures.</p>

<p>It's great that you feel comfortable with digital and its archive technology. I use digital because the initial work flow is faster and results in consistent output. However, I am not satisfied with current digital archive technology. It's easier for me to maintain film originals in my file cabinet than to buy storage and transfer individual files, libraries, or catalogs from one device to another. (I do this electronic file management grudgingly.) The concept of cloud storage does not have any appeal to me because it seems like another on-going task I do not want to take on.</p>

<p>Although I do not believe that my work will be of much interest to anyone in 50 years, at least who ever comes across my analog pictures will know what they are. That's me. Your mileage may vary. If you're happy with the existing technology, that's great. Use what ever suits you best.</p>

<p>Thanks again,<br>

Robert</p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>There are at least two general approaches to photography and what it means to a practitioner, Both have an impact on convenience, pleasure and other factors of engagement. One is to consider photography for its value as a recording medium and to transfer directly and simply what the photographer has perceived of his subject matter at the time of exposure with only minimal or no post processing (or editing if you prefer that term). The other is to consider photography as a creative vehicle, wherein the exposure is just one step in the process of creation of an image that may bear only a partial resemblance to the subject matter as it was at the time of exposure.</p>

<p>Approach 1 to photography: As a recording device, there is probably little argument that digital image capture (Actually the capture is analogue and it is only transferred to digital by the camera software) is more convenient and rapid than film photography.</p>

<p>Approach 2 to photography: When it comes to artistic or creative application of photography, once the image is exposed (which of course can also be creative depending upon the process of the photographer and his talent) it is still subject to much treatment and continuing intervention.</p>

<p>At that point in the second photographic approach I raise, the question of rapidity and convenience are really minor parameters. Image editing on the computer can require time and effort, not unlike the printing of negatives under an enlarger. The possibilities of manipulation with Photoshop or other image editors are very extensive and even more so than the many options in darkroom enlarging (which permits dodging, burning, variable contrast across an image, filters in front of the enlarger lens, blurring, toning, multiple exposures, toning and other creative tools). However, the learning curve for, say, extensive Photoshop use, is not climbed very rapidly. The teacher of a short college course on Photoshop I attended admitted that even after 20 years of using PS regularly, from the original versions to today, he has still a number of gaps in his experience and is always learning something, even on basic applications of the tool as well as the new tricks.</p>

<p>When we speak in approach 2 of photography as something not ending with the moment of exposure we enter into an additional range of "process" where considerable time can be spent in working on an image to make it what we want it to be, either as some perception or effect we have foreseen but not entirely captured at exposure, or in the additional process of exploration and discovery of image editing (post production) and modified basic images, as we continue to craft or create the final image.</p>

<p>I don't think digital or film is better or worse, more or less convenient, than the other medium, when it comes to creative photography, which occurs over the full exercice that exists from perception of the subject matter, idea, to exposure and to manipulation for the final print.</p>

<p>The continuing use of film makes sense for me for B&W photography and for the process of photographic creation. Although there are some undeniable advantages of my digital work at exposure and in basic or moderate Photoshop processing I cannot yet do all the manipulations with Photoshop that I can in the darkroom and print enlarging, and I cannot justify a large print inkjet machine and the calibration required to print the small to moderate number of prints I make each year, or the waste of ink and wear on the jets that occur with that moderate frequency of use.</p>

<p>Film and darkroom photography is relatively cheap and adaptable in those cases and the process equally engaging and productive (from the result and not the volume point of view). But I enjoy both forms</p>

<p>Thanks E. Short for your appreciation of my small darkroom. If you like building things, the sink, print drying racks, drying screens, walls, flooring (very comfortable inexpensive linoleum over sponge cushioning sold to go under rugs), wooden shelves for chemicals and other accessories, and other constructions can be done quite cheaply and with available time. In fact, before renovating the old house that had previously been abandoned over a period of twenty years, I built the eventual darkroom originally at one end to function as a temporary encloseable sleep space (away from the various small animals that had temporarily taken over the building) on the weekends when I had time to renovate the rest of the house.</p>

[cbender]

<p>Wow, I seem to have kicked off a highly engaged discussion, with lots of good points on all sides. I really didn't mean to start a film vs digital debate. More of a "why can't you just leave film alone if you don't like it" one. I agree, it's hard to argue with the technical purity of digital. Modern CCDs, CMOS arrays, and HgCdTe devices are clearly superior to their anlog counterparts; I've got a characterization lab full of them, and no astronomer would take observations with an emulsion.</p>

<p>But (for the hobbiest, or artist, or non-professional photographer who is not depending on workflow speed to put bread on their table), I love the tactile sensation of film. I have yet to encounter a digital image that can cause the same visceral reaction I get when I toss a perfect chrome onto my light box and peer at it with my loupe. It's a private viewing experience that isn't the same with the modern share everything world.</p>

<p>I also like to (incorrectly) convince myself that I can understand what's going on photochemically (and miss those technical discussions of old that Lex recalls). And at some level I do know what's going on, having made my own B&W emulsions in the distant past (which were not very fast, or coated very uniformly, but were definitely photosensitive with decent resolution). All of the SPIE papers in the world can't convince me that I could ever build a CMOS detector (although I understand the theory and can write the control software).</p>

<p>As for hybrid processing, if I could print E6 via analog (in house) I would, but I can't. So I occasionally use an ink jet, which admittedly can easily and cheaply beat any darkroom results I could hope to muster.</p>

[cbender]

<p>And JDM, film is getting harder, and ridiculously expensive. I shoot less because of it and horde my freezer stash like a mizer. But at least I don't feel the need to update my camera body every 2-3 years.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Arguably, prints are the best archival format for our photos. Anyone (at least with normal or corrected eyesight) can view them without any technology or device. It doesn't take an expert to recognize a photographic print. Any surviving relative or friend can easily sort through prints and decide whether to keep a few or keep the entire batch in hopes of finding a home. For the past decade I've kept a carton full of photos, newspaper clippings and military documents that belonged to a fellow who was only indirectly related to my family. Nobody else was alive to directly inherit the photos and papers. There's some interesting stuff and perhaps I'll eventually be able to do something with it.</p>

<p>My grandparents kept lots of prints, dating back a century, but very few negatives - so far I've found only one set of 127, and one set of 110 negatives. Interestingly, to me at least, my granddad did keep hundreds of Kodachromes in Kodak Carousels and a few 8mm movie films, but apparently discarded most negatives. Even though my granddad had some basic movie film editing/splicing equipment, I'm guessing he didn't see any future use for still camera negatives.</p>

<p>Despite my best efforts some of my own b&w negatives have been misplaced over the decades. After dozens of moves since I was a kid, it's hard to keep track of everything. I'm surprised to find I still have a few of my original negatives from when I was a kid first getting into photography.</p>

<p>But in the event of emergency, if I had only minutes to decide, I'd have to leave behind my thousands of personal and family photos. For one thing, the prints are sorted into many different boxes. Even if combined into only one or two boxes they'd be very heavy. And that doesn't include the framed prints.</p>

<p>But I could easily grab a couple of small 1 TB or larger capacity portable or external hard drives and stuff 'em into a pocket.</p>

<p>I hope I won't have to make that choice. But I'm planning to scan everything, every family snapshot, with most going to the cloud, and with duplicate copies sent to any interested family members.</p>