Defensiveness about film photography

Dinesh · Jun 30, 2014

cliveh said:
...... during which time the process has produced a multitude of iconic and classic images. Digital has yet to do this and prove it can do it,.....

Are you suggesting that digital photography hasn't produced any "iconic and classic images"?

BrianShaw · Jun 30, 2014

cliveh said:
... Do you get my drift?

No. But not because I don't understand the words written, but because I think the metric suggested is incorrect... "number of iconic/classic images per lifetime of imaging technology in years" is a rediculous metric.

Or as Dinesh wrote...

cliveh · Jun 30, 2014

Dinesh said:
Are you suggesting that digital photography hasn't produced any "iconic and classic images"?

No, just not many in relation to possible digital image numbers (see my previous post).

removed account4 · Jun 30, 2014

there are plenty of bad images in both media

markbarendt · Jun 30, 2014

jnanian said:
there are plenty of bad images in both media

Oh yeah.

blockend · Jun 30, 2014

I use film and digital, roughly 60/40. Until relatively recent times 35mm film had objectively superior image quality, being equivalent to somewhere between 6 and 22 megapixels, depending on who you asked, and what lens, film and developer was used. You could have bypassed the first decade of digital photography (as I did) and missed nothing in visual progress. All digital cameras, and professional digital cameras in particular, showed massive depreciation, making digital photography very expensive year on year.

Subjectively, digital photography requires significant intervention (IMHO) to provide an aesthetically pleasing image. In a blind test my wife, who is a visual artist but not a photographer, picked film images as the ones which most pleased her, with photographs being taken on a mix of film and digital formats. Film definitely has something, though what that thing is is hard to quantify. To achieve it in digital takes much more effort, if it can be gained at all. I have serious doubts about whether digital formats are as stable as people hope, and question whether files and access to them will exist in a hundred years time. Hard copy prints spread the technological base, but few digital photographers seem to make prints habitually as film photographers once did.

Things I like about digital? The latest cameras are capable of squaring the exposure circle, providing low noise, fast shutter speeds and depth of field at high ISOs, in a way film cameras simply can't. A 400 ASA colour film is the fastest commonly available, and the highest speed with moderate grain, whereas new digital cameras are barely out their base ISO at 400. That's a real advantage for street photographers seeking Dof and freezing action under mixed lighting. Research into film science stopped early in the new millennium, and shows no sign of returning - what we have now is all there is likely to be, technologically speaking - while digital research moves on apace. Digital moving images are superb compared to what was available at a reasonable price with film.

A mixed bag of benefits and downsides.

pentaxuser · Jun 30, 2014

Essentially most of the world of photographers were and still are "press a button" enthusiasts. The camera phone does instantly what George Eastman did when he said "you press the shutter we do the rest.

In the "old days" however everyone did "it" the same way whether it was Eastman's factories or the home enthusiast's darkroom so we had a guaranteed supply. Now we have two systems with no common materials and the "snappers" instead of helping the enthusiasts without meaning to, are hindering the enthusiasts, again without meaning to, by making the supply of our materials more expensive and less certain purely on the basis of what sells creates supply and what doesn't creates high prices and eventually no supply.

No-one "on the other side" is asking me to be defensive about my kind of photography from my experience. It is just that the other kind of photography is easier, is part of other equipment that few seem to be able to do without and essentially my kind of photography just isn't relevant to their lives

Whenever I show a 5x7 or 8x10 darkroom print to those who simply "share" pictures on a VDU or have the occasional print made, they are happy to look at my prints, never say "why do you bother with out-dated technology?" and generally appreciate the prints but equally they never say "Wow, how do I get into this kind of photography?"

The sad truth is that what most of us do on APUG isn't relevant enough to most people's lives to actually excite any real emotion in them.

I wander amongst a race whose diet is totally different from mine and who will without malice see me starve because it is none of their business if my food source is disappearing.

pentaxuser

BrianShaw · Jun 30, 2014

pentaxuser said:
...The sad truth is that what most of us do on APUG isn't relevant enough to most people's lives to actually excite any real emotion in them.

...

I don't find that especially sad; it is just a fact.

eclarke · Jun 30, 2014

Too much thinking..

Nuff · Jun 30, 2014

I use digital, also thanks to digital, I can afford cameras which i never could before. Even if film is more expensive...
For me in the end it is about good photographs and for some reason I can get better ones on film than digital. No matter how many megapixels there are...

ambaker · Jun 30, 2014

I never get defensive about film. I use what I want, when I want, no apologies to anyone.

The only thing I have done is snicker a bit when a coworker explained to me that the camera was dead, because the cell phone could take just as good a picture as any camera.

If you don't want to see me use film, don't look.

jonasfj · Jul 1, 2014

There is nothing to be defensive about. Digital has obviously developed into a fantastic technology. Look at the new Nikon D800.

I am shooting film because I like it. It is fun and gives a great look. When I get the time I will definitely go MF and do wet printing, because thst is wh a t it is all about.

I do not understand the complaint about availability of gear and materials. There have never been a better line of films available. Kodak has a great offer of both b/w and negative color film. What can beat TMax, Tri-X, Portra and Ektar? Ilford are also offering top of the line film: Pan-F, FP-4, HP-5, Delta etc. Fuji Velvia. ADOX.

There's plenty of interesting chemistry.

Loads of fantastic print papers.

Mountains of used gear on Ebay.

Today is the film photographer's heaven!

BR,

Jonas

blockend · Jul 1, 2014

jonasfj said:
I do not understand the complaint about availability of gear and materials. There have never been a better line of films available.

I would seriously question that. With the possible exception of Kodak Portra 400, the loss of film products far outweighs the gains. Slide films, true infra red, slow film, technical film, are all down to bare bones, with regular abandonment of existing materials. Print products show even more extinctions, notably the entire Agfa line and Cibachrome. All current film is old technology, something analogue photographers currently celebrate but will eventually pale in comparison to digital. Who wouldn't like a nice, fine-grained 1600 ASA film with good colour saturation? Or beautiful 25 ASA black and white that will outshine the old Agfapan? Without research - and there is none because there's no commercial motivation for it - there will be no new films, and we'll be using c20th technology for ever.

dorff · Jul 1, 2014

jonasfj said:
There is nothing to be defensive about. Digital has obviously developed into a fantastic technology. Look at the new Nikon D800.

The D800 is now officially old . The D810 has been announced, knocking probably 20% off the D800's value straight away. But I agree, if film goes away, we'll still be able to do photography, just not in all the ways we liked and were used to. The world would become a poorer place, in the same way that it does when a species of frog goes extinct in Papua New Guinea or a flower in Zimbabwe. Barely noticeable in the collective conscience, but it would matter to us who care and know better.

jonasfj said:
I do not understand the complaint about availability of gear and materials. There have never been a better line of films available. Kodak has a great offer of both b/w and negative color film. What can beat TMax, Tri-X, Portra and Ektar? Ilford are also offering top of the line film: Pan-F, FP-4, HP-5, Delta etc. Fuji Velvia. ADOX.

The issue is the recent demise of great films like Reala, Provia 400X, Astia, Plus X, Ektachrome, true IR films. Add to that unavailability of many extant films in some formats, and not everyone is as happy as you seem to be. I am jittery about slide film in general, but the rest does not bother me that badly yet. Still, I can understand the yearning for 110 and 126 films, and Neopan 400 in 120 and sheet sizes, etc.

Also, when last did you have a medium format camera serviced? If you need Mamiya/Bronica/Contax/Pentax parts, you are probably stuffed. There are a few repairsmen that still have parts stashed here and there, but no new parts are entering the world, and when those finally run out, that's the end of that I'm afraid. Well, we'll still be shooting pinholes on 4x5 film, I suppose.

Roger Cole · Jul 1, 2014

dorff said:
Inaccessible in terms of cost of large sensors, and inaccessible in terms of getting the same format size for which the equipment (especially the lens) was designed. Apart from prohibitively expensive scanning backs, I am not aware of any fixed sensor that covers the full 6x7, 4x5, 8x10 etc size. There are many alternatives in various sizes. But my point is that for the vast majority of MF and LF cameras and lenses, no feasible digital extension exists which staves off their obsoletion. Even my Mamiya 645 AFD II, which is nominally digital-ready, is hampered by lack of an affordable sensor that covers the 42x56 frame size. That is what I meant by inaccessible. Not as in "NASA can't do it" but as in "Ordinary Joe can't do it".

Huh?

LF is inaccessible because there is no affordable digital sensor?

Whiskey...tango...foxtrot?

LF is more accessible than ever, especially in black and white (granted the price of color film is ridiculous bordering on prohibitive) with good used cameras and lenses and accessories available inexpensively and new cameras at least very accessible as well. Digital has made LF MORE accessible by freeing up tons of equipment onto the used market.

I don't even understand what this post is getting at.

dorff · Jul 1, 2014

Roger Cole said:
Huh?

LF is inaccessible because there is no affordable digital sensor?

Whiskey...tango...foxtrot?

LF is more accessible than ever, especially in black and white (granted the price of color film is ridiculous bordering on prohibitive) with good used cameras and lenses and accessories available inexpensively and new cameras at least very accessible as well. Digital has made LF MORE accessible by freeing up tons of equipment onto the used market.

I don't even understand what this post is getting at.

You miss the point, because you read it out of context of the original post and the subsequent discussion. The point is that digital sensors offer no replacement or substitute for what can currently be done with LF and MF systems. Therefore, users of such systems are justified in their concern over the disappearance of specific films or film in general, whether the demise is imminent or not. I was never saying anywhere that MF or LF film photography is inaccessible. Rather, I was referring to the fact that if film runs out, digital in the same format is not likely going to plug the gap, and the equipment will be likely obsolete. We were talking about emotional issues, not the current state of affairs per se. This is BTW the reason it helps to stay more or less on topic, otherwise after a while nobody knows what we are talking about any longer.

jp498 · Jul 1, 2014

Back to being defensive. Saying zero digital on apug is part of that defensiveness. If it were "any mix as long as it's captured analog" were the rule here, we'd be more "tolerant" / openminded / creative and there'd be less defensiveness here.

removed account4 · Jul 1, 2014

jp498 said:
Back to being defensive. Saying zero digital on apug is part of that defensiveness. If it were "any mix as long as it's captured analog" were the rule here, we'd be more "tolerant" / openminded / creative and there'd be less defensiveness here.

cut that out, your are supposed to be defensive ... not opening another can of worms, kettle of fish, can of beans bag of salad (triple washed )
box of film, bag of paper, box of pizza, coffee-can of old nails+screws, can of paint, jar of spackle ... et. al.

where's thread about the camera gone round the world, maybe we can sacrifice one of their chickens to keep sensors at bay ..

Roger Cole · Jul 1, 2014

dorff said:
You miss the point, because you read it out of context of the original post and the subsequent discussion. The point is that digital sensors offer no replacement or substitute for what can currently be done with LF and MF systems. Therefore, users of such systems are justified in their concern over the disappearance of specific films or film in general, whether the demise is imminent or not. I was never saying anywhere that MF or LF film photography is inaccessible. Rather, I was referring to the fact that if film runs out, digital in the same format is not likely going to plug the gap, and the equipment will be likely obsolete. We were talking about emotional issues, not the current state of affairs per se. This is BTW the reason it helps to stay more or less on topic, otherwise after a while nobody knows what we are talking about any longer.

So "if the film goes away the cameras are usless" then? Well, so? The same is true of 35mm, at least the cameras if not the lenses. I guess I still don't see the point behind the point, as it were. (Nor do I think there would be an gap to fill quality wise, just in making old equipment useful again and nothing lasts forever.)

Xmas · Jul 1, 2014

If you want to use Dig cam or cam phone please use it.

If you want to scan negs ditto.

If you want to use film, wet print or wet plates then all the volume cost reduction was from Mr and M's average happy snappering and cine theatre attendance, etc.

You just cannot blame commerce for increasing prices when they have been artificially low cause of other peoples volume.

If I see some on the street using a pinhole does not upset me, any more than a x100.

I've seen a lady with some sort of tablet attached to two box brownies with lots if black PVC tape so I say 'stereo?'
'No unreliable'.

Wayne · Jul 1, 2014

Roger Cole said:
Huh?

LF is inaccessible because there is no affordable digital sensor?

Whiskey...tango...foxtrot?

LF is more accessible than ever, especially in black and white (granted the price of color film is ridiculous bordering on prohibitive) with good used cameras and lenses and accessories available inexpensively and new cameras at least very accessible as well. Digital has made LF MORE accessible by freeing up tons of equipment onto the used market.

I don't even understand what this post is getting at.

LF gear is more accessible than ever, perhaps. I haven't compared prices of 8x10 equipment now with 10-15 years ago so I can't say. I can say that 15 years ago I could afford even color 8x10 film, and now I can't afford any except for x-ray. So the equipment is accessible, maybe, I just can't use it.

F4user · Jul 1, 2014

cliveh said:
I sometimes see on APUG and other areas on the net related to film photography a defensive explanation for using film against digital and new technology. Should this be the case? Film photography has had a run of over 100 years, during which time the process has produced a multitude of iconic and classic images. Digital has yet to do this and prove it can do it, so why do some film users feel they have to justify their methods? Its a bit like Claude Monet apologising for using oil paint instead of using a different medium.

1)
I hate digital since my first digital camera .. a soapbox with 3x zoom and max 100 pictures per battery charge ( sometimes )
I hate when i use first " pro " 6M pixel Canon EOS
I hate later cameras not having dials
I hate empty proprietary shaped batteries
I hate xD memories 2 GB limit.
I hate my laptop not reading SD larger than 2GB
I hate my crashed laptop's HDD and the replacelent and the replacement of replacement and endless windoze reinstalls.
I hate my faulty SD used in a Nikon Df

I love my Nikon Df wich i use to scan my slides and my Nikon F4 negatives
When i want to look at my pictures, slides or negatives the only tool needed is my eye, not mains powered tablet or laptop with screen/ projector.

Clear ?

2) An oil paint Rembrandt is more expensive than any digital image or even film print, supposedly they exist over 10 years

pdeeh · Jul 1, 2014

So much hate ... seems a terrible waste of energy

blockend · Jul 1, 2014

pdeeh said:
So much hate ... seems a terrible waste of energy

Nah, a little targeted bile can change things, and make the person feel better. Easier still to never hang out with camera club types who care what other people are shooting with. I barely notice which cameras other photographers use, but I'm sure it'll have no correlation with the aesthetic quality of their work.

removed account4 · Jul 1, 2014

Snippity snip snip

blockend said:
Easier still to never hang out with camera club types who care what other people are shooting with.

huh probably more than about 80% of apug is like that ...
whenever there is an " us and them " sort of framework it never ends well

Defensiveness about film photography

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency