BBC Article About Continuing Use of Film

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't even need to do that. I have a complete second set of my image files stored at work, up to the last few days. I swap drives and update my work copy every several days. In case of emergency, I may grab other important stuffs from home and run out. A fire or some other natural disaster can destroy all of my digital images at home. I might lose the most recent day or two of work. Everything else I have another copy stored somewhere else. And I leave no copy in any cloud storage that other people can potentially access/steal.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>I always intended to use film for as long as possible. Back in 2010, Kodak discontinued Ektachrome E200, my favourite MF colour film (Kodak has since apparently discontinued all E6 films, and I don't like Fuji). At this time I went digital with a Canon 5D Mark II but still felt black-and-white film had the edge. Just recently I began experimenting with digital black-and-white and genuinely surprised myself.<br>

With the picture shown here, an ISO setting of 200 plus a minus two thirds exposure correction gives me an EI of 320, which means easy handholding. If I were to shoot this on Tri-X, rated at EI 200 and with a red filter, I'd end up with an EI of 25, which makes a tripod virtually indispensable. What is more, I would have to take a decision at the time of shooting as to which filter to use, whereas with digital I can if necessary try yellow, orange and red and choose the best result. I have accordingly given up film photography.<br>

I could imagine those professional photographers who sell prints (actual prints, not just pictures) might well want to use film as part of a sales pitch, attesting to the fact that their product is hand-crafted, but as of now, I can see absolutely no reason whatsoever for me to shoot film ever again.</p><div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Tangibility!</p>

<p>I, too, appreciate the tangibility of a print. There is something way more special, to me, about the photos I've printed and hung than the photos I've limited to monitor viewing. That's the case especially when I think about others viewing them because I know, with the prints, they're viewing the color, contrast, etc. that I chose. I've seen my photos on the monitors of others and been disappointed in many cases because of the quality of their screens or the lack of calibration which severely impacts what they're seeing.</p>

<p>When I read the comment about digital's intangibility compared to other arts my first thought was music, which is possibly the most intangible of the arts, needing to be performed (or mechanically recorded) to be heard. And since it exists only in time, it can't really be held onto like a print. Sheet music is not the art, IMO. Nor is the script of a play. Films of plays alter the experience greatly. In many cases, you had to be there. So digital photography, if it is more intangible, shares such intangibility with what have been considered other arts for centuries. Intangibility is significant, I think, in a good way.</p>

<p>In terms of backup, I have both on-site backups and backups I keep off-site.</p>

<p>Many film photographers I know have scanned as many of their negatives as possible in order to archive them on digital media. Many who've archived negatives and prints have spent a lot of energy and effort on the physical archiving process, spending money for chemical-free storage means and carefully organizing them in drawers, cabinets, etc.</p>

<p>Probably the most extreme example of intangibility, for me, are the few most important photos I can remember NOT taking. One was of my dad and his best friend when they were both nearing 90, sitting together by a window in Harold's apartment with a canal just outside in the background. My dad's friend (who I grew up knowing) had lost his ability to talk, for the most part, so he was gesturing a lot to communicate. But I simply wanted to be part of the moment and not disturb it in any way, so I didn't take my camera out. There's something very, very special about the images I retain in my mind from that day. Though, over the years, I've thought about the pictures I might have got from that day, I really don't regret not having taken them. And the sort of intangibility of only having them in memory is actually quite beautiful.</p>

<p>Consider that whatever "intangibles" one can infuse into their work are what will often add to the emotional significance. It's often those things we can't quite put our finger on that will stir us the most.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Fred, very good point about the pictures that should have been taken. I have many of them too. Many times there are not a second chance. I think I now have learnt that lesson. BTW, it doesn`t qualify us as *real* photographers?<br /> <br /> And I have always demanded the value of a print as a tangible product. Some people appreciate to have a mechanical watch, others prefer a battery operated one. The look is the same from the outside. Why not to apply if the print is a carbon, callotype, or an inkjet print?<br /> ---</p>

<p>I cannot understand why most of you like to shoot film to be then scanned. The only reason I can think is for the pleasure of shooting with film cameras (why not?)... cheaper, more variations, some of them became affordable these days... but shooting film for film`s sake is always risky (to say the least).</p>

<p>Any digital camera will provide a much better register, exposure wise. And resolution is not of an issue these days, for most needs. So if wet printing is not part of the process, I don`t get it.</p>

<p>I understand shooting film to be traditionally (wet) printed. There is no other way than using a transparency. The process by itself is an interesting and satisfying activity. Even cheaper and more convenient in certain cases.</p>

<p>But if I`m using a digital printer, I`d by far prefer a good b&w inkjet with a way much wider variety of printing materials. I`d love to have such options for wet printing. Textures, surfaces, feel, some have a really delicate feel. They look really nice.</p>

<p>People dance, make apple pies at home and like to care their flowers. Some even like to make their pottery. There should`t be a reason to shoot film or to enjoy vintage processes like collodion. If there is enough market to manufacture films and papers, why not to use them?</p>

<p>Technical reasons always seem to me mediocre pretexts.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I have to say although "famous Magnum photographer guy" has his functional view of photography: it is by no means a universally accepted view except in a rather trivial way. In my opinion a photographer is anyone who considers themselves to be one, whatever media they use. I am a digital photographer and just got rid of my remaining developing tanks etc. But, if I had the chance to have a real darkroom, I would go back to it in a shot for black and white, so I am totally with Arthur in this. It is pleasant and rewarding as a process in itself.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Fred, very good point about the pictures that should have been taken. I have many of them too. Many times there are not a second chance. I think I now have learnt that lesson. BTW, it doesn`t qualify us as *real* photographers?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jose, just to clarify, I was saying that that picture of my dad and Harold is one I was glad I did NOT take and remains special because I did not take it, and in that respect it has an aspect of intangibility. I don't think it should have been taken. <br>

<br>

If Hurn wants to decide what a real photographer is, that's for him to decide. Other people have decided what a real man is and what a real American is and I don't conform to their notions either. I know many photographers who have a passion for photography itself so I think Hurn's definition is lacking and think he's more dismissive of process than I would be while others put more emphasis on process than I would.<br>

<br>

Yes, prints that result from many different methods are tangible and significant.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>Jose: I cannot understand why most of you like to shoot film to be then scanned.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One reason might be format. Large format digital photography is impossible, with the possible exception of highly modified scanners. The closest one can get is to shoot large format film and then to scan. This would give a person access to the best of both worlds, so to speak. Even medium format digital photography isn't available to most of us, for cost reasons.</p>

<p>What I can't understand is the big stink that many photographers make over this film/digital issue. I've found both digital and film to be competent media with their own respective strengths. When I started shooting digital about a decade ago, film photographers would bad-mouth digital photography to the point that I actually lost gigs over it. What's a potential client going to do when faced with such conflicting views? He/she will probably go with the majority view, which did not favor digital photography at that time.</p>

<p>Now a decade later, the tables are turned the other way around. Now digital photographers can now claim some sort of popularity high-ground, bad-mouthing film photography for its alleged inferiority on whatever grounds we care to concoct. But it's not right that we do so, just because it was done to us before. I would think this in-fighting would only hurt film photographers, with the possible exception of Daniel, who says his business is roaring along.</p>

<p>Now that we have so many great choices of tools, methods, and techniques at our disposal, perhaps we need to grow our big tent just a bit and celebrate the diversity of our community. Although I don't shoot much film anymore, I will miss it dearly if it disappears. Fewer tools cannot be a good thing.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Ooops, Fred, I see. Thanks for the correction.<br /> Many times I have regretted not to have taken certain images, and then people or places disappeared, not having a second chance<em> to share</em> anymore. Nobody will never know anything about that scenarios and feelings. I`m somewhat obsessed with this idea.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>... And don`t ask me why, but this images should have been taken on film.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>... And don`t ask me why, but this images should have been taken on film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because of the intangible nature of many of our passions, inspirations, and desires, the question of "why" can't always be answered, so I empathize with you. These questions can't necessarily be answered or even adequately dealt with by debate, proof, citation, or even logic and reasoning. The expressive natures of photography and art are more slippery than that. Those who will ask or even demand justification for such a predilection will never get a satisfactory answer.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Computer photography will never be photography as we know it. I think photography will always be chemical."</em> <br /> <strong>—Annie Leibovitz</strong><br /> <br /> <em>"Somehow Photoshop and the ease with which one can produce an image has degraded the quality of photography in general</em>." <br /> <strong>—Elliott Erwitt</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>These quotes don't express my own beliefs. But I'm not put off by them and don't object to them. I'm glad they were said and glad they were said without a qualifying "in my opinion." I don't take them as gospel for myself or anyone else. I listen and it gives me insight into those who said it. Someone who really loves something and is emotionally invested in it will make statements like this, universal and unqualified. I take these statements as coming from that place and whether I agree or not is not as important as my respect and admiration for their belief in and love for what they are doing.</p>

<p>If I think the American League doesn't really play baseball because of the designated hitter, if I think Bach played on modern instruments isn't true to the "real" Bach, if I think digital isn't as genuine as film (I don't actually think any of these things . . . except the first!), and I speak my mind about it, I'm not expecting that passionate people who have different beliefs will somehow be negatively impacted or infringed upon by my adamance. I'm revealing something about my own core. No one has to take it personally.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

It shouldn't be about whether it is right, or who is right. Not about beliefs.<br>Violins weren't all burned when electronic instruments, sythesizers, came along. The still have their value. Still do what they always have done, in their own way. You can use violins if and when you think it appropriate. Or not, if and because you don't like the things.<br>Same with film.<br>It is not about ideologies. Not about 'authentic' photography vs. some other sort of photography, and all that. It is about what you can do with film.<br>Use if it you want, because of what you get. And if you don't, don't.<br>And if you like the look but not the inconvenience, use a modelling tool, a synthesized film plug-in.

[billangel]

The Russians still launch spy satellites that use film.

See http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1405/06soyuz/#.VTarCGLD_Yg

[donbright]

<p>Henri Cartier-Bresson, The Man the Image & The World, is a book I'm looking through now, and as for real Photographers this comes to mind. Looking through these images I'm reminded that seeing is believing! There are hundreds of Photographs by HCB, and most of them are strong asthetically, and not all are technically punctuated, but these are handheld shots, and the ones that reveal the possibilities of film are simply mind blowing! The tones, depth, the way the highlights, and shadows play off each other driving the eye to meander throughout the picture for extended periods of time is such the monument, like I said, seeing is believing, and the possibilities here are for us to just stop and look, Look! What drives most of these kinds of discussions in my view are the workflow advantages of digital, other than that film carries the subject in a more relatable way, and this is just not my opinion, more and more Photographers are realizing this. This topic has been hot for years now, and had the trajectory for the total demise of film had any justification, it would have happened by now. It's films strength that keeps it alive. I use Bressons work to illustrate a point, there are others to use for illustration, not mine.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>And if HCB had been handed a dSLR (perhaps with a manual focus lens), I think he would have done pretty much the same work, though he might have complained about the form factor. I know that I can use either set of tools to achieve similar results. Most people can't tell the difference between my digital and film work, whether color or B&W. This includes other photographers.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

The debate is pretty hot in the movie "film" industry right now as to choices and stylistic preference. Film strengths are subjective, are they not- hard to lay bare but still is a respected option because it works, works well.... Since art is natively subjective at the core ( its values and styles of media used) , and that choice of media influences the way the artist feels and does her thing. Meaning hows she chooses and lights her subject. How her subject talent react. Certain stars are convinced that they look better filmed with real film stock. . Some actresses say that an Arriflex with Kodak stock makes them better actresses. Feelings count a lot in art. Some directors,- Woody Allen comes to mind- allege that film has a quality they prefer with no dispute and no chit chat about distribution costs.

 

We have the luxury to dispute, but efficiency usually gets the upper hand in a popular medium. Except when it does not. Those that do not mind taking longer and putting up with some extra workload/ like the workload in fact as part of the artistic process.Seems to be where we have headed in the discussion.

 

So I say to Daniel, resurgence of film is good, admirable, to be encouraged among students of photography for a start anyway. PN celebrates it by its five forums of film cameras. Nikon honors the tradition by producing one high end camera for film. Canon same thing. It is not dying. Glad it is not, big tent wise.

[aplumpton]

<p>The Nikon F6 was produced mainly for the intent of photographing electricity meter readings in some countries, where falsifying film negatives is rather difficult to do. The mainstream camera manufacturers are hardly very much tied to the amateur or professional photographer who uses film, its mainly the smaller companies (Leica, Voigtlander-Cosina, Mamiya MF, large format camera constructers, the exception in company size being Fujifilm MF) who can survive in this limited market and who often spend much less proportionately on advertising. Same for the film and paper manufacturers. Kodak and Agfa are long gone in paper and exist but for a small stream of silver halide emulsions. </p>

<p>But a large market is not necessary, just a stable or a marginally growing one. Ask Ilford about that, which is also promoting local darkroom facilities and other community film-paper activities.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

One can still get a manual analog film camera repaired I found out. Like the formidable Canon T90 which I had serviced last year. The apex of Canon FD. Many were made and still in use. And KEH used camera supermarket in Atlanta Georgia has Bronicas and Hassys on offer. Mamiya 330 if you want solid MF 120 was a tank. The older mechanical cameras were built to last. And they did. Minoltas the same. I have an SRT 102 and lens that only needs some seal replacement ,which I probably could do at home..Mercury batteries have available substitutes..

So film users never had it so good for bargains, especially medium format. Emulsions, yeah, I can see the problem there and limited volume makes limited choice. Ilford gets honors for keeping alive some of their great films. Not sure what the status is on 220 rolls anymore. I still have two or three SQ 220 film backs. Not selling anything, but I may hand them over to the kids....

[wogears]

<blockquote>

<p>The Nikon F6 was produced mainly for the intent of photographing electricity meter readings in some countries, where falsifying film negatives is rather difficult to do.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Obviously. You need a camera with interchangeable lenses, multiple metering modes, an advanced AF system and motor drive(s) to take pictures of water meters.</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<blockquote>

<p>I've… seen things you people wouldn't believe… Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of <a title="Orion (constellation)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(constellation)">Orion</a>. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the <a title="Tannhäuser" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannh%C3%A4user">Tannhäuser</a> Gate. All those… moments… will be lost in time, like [<em>small cough</em>] tears… in… rain. Time… to die…</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

[dhbebb]

<p><em>the possibilities of film</em><br>

This always makes me smile to myself. Normal practice for photojournalists working in daylight was to set cameras to 1/125 @ f5.6 or so, focus at 15 feet, and shoot at these settings for everything when under extreme time pressure and without the time to optimise settings. Similarly, they used to become uneasy when a 36-exposure film got past 20 or so exposures and would very frequently remove and replace the film so as to have a greater amount of blank film available. I am certain none of the great names in photojournalism would have hesitated for a heartbeat in working with an autofocus auto-exposure camera if one had been available.<br>

The question of film tonality I find nebulous. When I moved to digital. I found some fine-tuning of exposure necessary in the same way that I fundamentally used +1 stop exposure and n-1 development with b+w film. For me, shooting digital with an exposure correction of -2/3 stop and boosting shadows with "Levels" as necessary gives me the tonality I am looking for, particularly as digital sensors seem to have a characteristic curve which is all straight line within its limits, without the reduced-contrast toe at the bottom and shoulder at the top which film has.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>The Nikon F6 was produced mainly for the intent of photographing electricity meter readings in some countries</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What's the market for this? A couple of dozen?<br>

The F6, like all professional camera equipment, is mainly bought by amateurs. If only professionals (and meter readers) bought them, they would be uneconomical to make.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>To my Nikon friends: I may well have mixed up the F6 (Nikon) with the R6 (last Leica manual SLR film camera) when speaking of your friendly meter readers. If so, me culpa.</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>Never mind.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>That's a new one on me, Arthur.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Marc, the replicant wanted to live longer and free like humans. He thinks he was made better than humans, with much higher capabilities and experiences. He wanted to have the same rights as humans.<br /> Similar words but different ideas. Very nice film worth a thread, anyway... :)</p>