• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Film. No Compromise.

clayne

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
2,764
Location
San Francisc
Format
Multi Format
Anyone else seen these shorts from Kodak?

Let's just jump right into it with Sam Bayer:
http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Products/Customer_Testimonials/Sam_Bayer/index.htm

Cinematographers and DOPs are people that should be listened to - even before still photographers at times. Not surprising to me at all to see respected DOPs supporting it vehemently.

Now if only we could work on that other part of society which is centered around "me! me! me! now! now! now!"
 
This Should Be Mandatory Viewing.

Thanks Clayne,

That's What I'm Talking About !
This should be mandatory viewing for all APUG Members.
And family, and friends, and even The Enemies of APUG Members
You can feel the passion, and enthusiasm ( The God Within ).
That's how I felt as a 16 year old, when I shot my first roll of Kodachrome 25.
I was amazed when I got the slides back, to see the detail, brilliance, and impact of Kodachrome 25.
I have been trying to experience that impact with digital, but it doesn't happen.
I just kept wishing that I had used Kodachrome instead.
So Many Years Wasted ...

And this is from Kodak !
I feel awkward when using their website, it's seems to be difficult to
find any worthwhile information about Film. Very Strange Indeed ...

Thanks Again For Providing The Link


Ron

From The Long Island Of New York, and the
Long Island @ Large Format Group, right here on APUG
.
 
Thank you.
 
The only problem is that he looks like he is using story boards, that's the problem with all video nowdays, whether it's the President or a commercial or the news...EC
 
Close Your Eyes, And Open Your Ears

eclarke said:
The only problem is that he looks like he is using story boards, that's the problem with all video nowdays, whether it's the President or a commercial or the news...EC
Click to expand...

Listen to what the man is saying !
Don't watch what he is saying.
If I can understand the words that are coming out of his mouth,
then I would assume that the rest of the APUG Membership should get it.

Just Saying ...



Ron

From The Long Island Of New York, and the
Long Island @ Large Format Group, right here on APUG
.
 
The video is embarrassing.

How many times can a person mention 'film' and still breathe? I would expect if I show this vid to a 'prospect' it would not result in a compelling reason to shoot film. It just sounds like Kodak made him say the word every 5 seconds.

"This should be mandatory viewing for all APUG Members". Ron, I would expect that people on APUG do *not* need to be convinced to use film. They already are.
 
I did like the quote "I love film like I love my wife and I'll never cheat on either of them". My wife thinks of me as Tri-X : a short exposure is long enough.
 
Shooting film is still the main option in hollywood-land. A good friend of mine is a camera tech here in LA, and he´s got a personal "love affair"(albeit super 16, not 35mm) with film as well. DP´s and directors are having to work with smaller budgets, but hollywood will buy what´s needed to get the shot wanted. Digital technology is creeping in more and more, but the time spent behind the computer can generally be more expensive that actually just shooting the film and getting it telecine´d. The DI(digital intermediary) process is what has really kept film going. And the amount of control it affords DP´s and directors after processing is immense, way better than shooting prints like in the old days.

but for some scenes, digital technology can be the only way to get it, but in full-fledge cinema, not the vacationer/consumer/prosumer crowd, they´ll still be using film for a long time, just cause "if it ain´t broke, why fix it?"

thanks for the video btw, I´ll pass it on to my friends

-Dan
 
The Video Is Embarrassing.


I agree with you that it is an embarrassing video.
I am embarrassed that Kodak has a website that does not
promote the use of film, that is The Embarrassment !

Thanks for the update that APUG Members are already using film.

My point was to remind, and convince film users of how passionate
they were about " Film ", or Photography. I am sure, that I am not the
only member who jumped over the fence to see what was on the Digital side.
And, Wa$ted time, and money on equipment, and then realized their mistake.

It is fun, and convenient to use a DigiSnapper, but it doesn't provide
the true essence of photography. If I could afford a Digital Back for
my 4X5, maybe then I would be passionate about the process.

Luckily. $300.00 worth of equipment, and $30.00 of Kodak Film
encourages my Enthusiasm ... En Theos, God Within.
But, I am without a religion, Photography Is A Reasonable Substitute.


Ron

From The Long Island Of New York, and the
Long Island @ Large Format Group, right here on APUG
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Film or digital, doesn't make any difference to me. If the client wants film I use film. If they want digital I will use digital. But no one asks me any more.

I believe there are other more important components to making a photograph than equipment. For people a good foundation of the basics that includes lighting, posing, composition, environment and people skills are very important for the photographs I make. When making PJ photographs I look for those ingredients. They are a part of me.

Plus if you're in this as a successful business, business skills are an absolute necessity.
 
I agree that movies shot on film looks better with all things being equal. I think the digital revolution has lowered the cost of producing movies which isn't all bad. With digital video cameras, you don't have to buy film stock, no film processing, not having to rent expensive editing bays has allowed everybody to have a voice with movies. It used to be that producers with a lot of money were the only ones able to produce feature films. With the lower costs of using DV cameras, anybody with a story and minimal budget with limited technical skill can tell their own story. I'm a Mac user and Imovie is pretty cool allowing anyone to edit. Can't imagine people shooting their own film and using an old Moviola to cut their film. It's easy to see the world with uncompromising eyes if your budget is huge. If you have a great story, but no budget, digital video is the greatest thing. It's a complicated world and I like to see it from all angles in shades of gray.
 
interesting video ...
but i think one of the problems i see is that
people who watch these things might think
that a numeric camera is more "democratic" these days
and film based image making is more elite.
kind of like the comments " you use film, you must know what you are doing
or be a professional" if some "average person" sees you with a film camera.
probably the same thoughts in the late 1800s,
when the masses were using something like a kodak bullseye camera
and a handful of people were still using large format plate cameras ...




exactly what i think, its just a tool. its if you can't "see" it doesn't matter
what tool you have, it won't help much.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A successful product. You watched it and payed attention. And you'll remember it as well. Whether you liked it or not. His passion for emulsion and disdain for digital is obvious also.
 
So true


With the democratization of the media, a lot a wonderful ephemera and vernacular photography has been created by amateurs. It's work done for the joy of it.
 
Alex, Most people I know feel the same about me. If they thought of me as Panotomic X, one of my marriges might have worked out.
 


I dont want to be offensive, but your post comes across as offensive, it is an opinion, an incorrect opinion, it is biased and elitist and shows everything wrong in an attitude a film user could have.

I shoot film and digital, I dont feel neither is a waste of time or money.

"DigiSnapper" please don't make up terms to degrade someone else's medium.

"Doesn't provide the true essence of photography" this is rubbish I'm afraid to say.

It's like saying Paint X or Brush A doesn't provide the true essence of painting like Paint Y or Brush B, it's just rubbish.

Photography occurs before equipment and medium, dismissing it like that is both wrong and elitist.


A print (inkjet, dyesub, optical wetprint or laser wetprint) or image on a screen are not photographs, they are reproductions of photographs.

Film, printing (whatever type), and scanning, digital display, are all reproduction methods.

I can shoot photographs without film, paper or digital. As an image in my mind may also be a reproduction of a photograph, that I saw with the lenses in my head and captured on my retinae, and I can recall that for later viewing, which is a reproduction - I just can't create a good reprodution for anyone else's viewing.

All photography is equal, there is no segregation of pure photography between film, digital or otherwise, referring to film photography or digital photography is a reference to the equipment and workflow someone has chosen in order to reproduce their conception.

Implying or saying that the equipment, process and methodologies of one photographer is somehow less photography than another (or that it does not provide the true essence of photography) is totally invalid, the very idea is not even worth entertaining.

As I said before, all photography is equal, it is all created in exactly the same way with no differences. The amount of work gone into it, and value of the art, journalism or purpose may greatly differ, but this is not the point at all.

The various types of luminscence, incandescence, and reflectance and translucency of objects remain identical for users of film or digital equipment, as does electromagnetic radiation. Physical law doesn't suddenly for anybody's preference.




A photograph is conceived (a conceived drawing/image of light), therefore it is a concept. Not a print, not an image on screen, not a strip of negatives, nor a memory card. Equipment cannot alter the essence of your conception.
 
Athiril, you looked at his words, but did not understand what was being said.
 
I find it curious that this video is on the Kodak website since in April of this year Kodak announced that they were ceasing the manufacture of Eastman Plux-X. Sadly only Double-X remains from the family of B/W MP films.
 
Hey Athiril, speak for yourself. Maybe you have reproductions, I have boxes and boxes of photographs, not reproductions.

JMHO

PS. You don't have to agree with my opinion or the opinion of anyone else, however, to say they are incorrect because you don't like them is hilarious. However, your entitled to your opinion, even if it is wrong!
 
I find it interesting that some people keep breaking out the "it's just a tool" strawman argument. Last time I checked our eyes don't clip highlights when the scene is too bright.

It's not just about resolution. When will people get that through their heads?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register