How to promote film use?

[John Austin]

When I exhibit or publish my work it is clearly labelled as "silver gelatin print from original large format negative" in the catalogue or wall panels - Also I stress the benefits of silver jelly in interviews - The words "traditional quality" seem to strike a positive note

Being derogatory about digi-squirt prints is, I feel, likely to be counter productive in this case - Especially when compared to the disgusting way Australian politicians crap on about each other, but I guess that is the same everywhere - TV News about the current USA Republican nonsense gets muted - Actually I mute all TV political news - I digress

 

[mds721]

I'm in my 35 year teaching film based college photography. I am experiencing 40% of the students that registered for the class don't have film cameras only digital.

Through donations of cameras and outdated film. I am able to give students equipment to continue with the course and if they wish can keep the camera to continue film photography.

I bring in cameras from my collection and demonstrate Widelux medium format and large format cameras too spark interest in other formats besides 35mm.

I purchased a Lomo 360 degree Spinner for students to try and have fun with and its successful. My next purchase is to get a sprocket rocket to lend out to continue the exposure to panoramic photography.

I require all students to shoot at least one roll of 120 film I'll lend out the cameras either TLR or Folder or even a holga . I use outdated E6 film for a optional crossing processing assigment.

In addition I give eveyone a Freestyle catalog

Any converts I can make to film I feel is one small step in keeping film around another day.

Personally I shoot film every day, street photography and in my studio shoots I shoot both film and digital exposing my models to film photography they tell me I'm the only photographer who shoots film I use three cameras digital 35mm and medium format.

 

[Grainy]

Buy it, use it, speak about it, blog about it, teach about it, be creative with it, show your work, help friends getting started, develop their films. It's so much we can do.

 

[lightwisps]

Welcome aboard. I love you idea and drive.

I won a gallery and we find that selling digital prints is very difficult. On the other side of the coin, analog photos seem to march out the door. I wish you luck, Don

 

[lightwisps]

I meant I own the gallery, sure as hell didn't win it. Don

 

[faustotesta]

I live in a small village (3,500 inhabitants) where myself and (at least) two other guys shoot film. Nearby there's a school (graphic) where analog photograghy is one od the subjects. Analog photography is not dead. At this stage we should play our parts shooting,buying,promoting. At the moment i'm buying,shooting,developing. Maybe in the future i'll be adding something more.
Digital natives know very little about chemical photography. But most of them seem interested in the whole process. I'll start from there.
Ciao

 

[Toffle]

However, in a stretch, if Film vanishes, how many of you really want to learn how to make it? Really. For your own use?

Practically no one wants to. Out of the APUG membershop of over 50,000, I find about 50 people interested. What kind of interest is that? I think that the really serious users here number around 500.

PE

True, the thought of making my own film is a really daunting prospect, and I'm not likely to take that up any time soon. I think, thought, that you would find a lot more people interested in other hand-coated processes, some of which negate the need for an intermediary film stage between the subject and the final image.

 

[JohnMeadows]

I've been reading this thread in the context of (there was a url link here which no longer exists), and one point I think should be considered is that to promote film use, more flexibility in the acceptance of the hybrid will be required. For someone just starting out, working with negative scans may be more practical, and some shooters may stay with that workflow and not get into darkroom prints, but they are still buying/shooting film, using film cameras.

J.S. Bach (and many other composers of the period) wrote a lot of lovely music for the viol, a fretted, flat-bowed ancestor of the modern violin. Viols aren't too common today, although some early music groups use modern copies, and as a result this music is often performed on a violin. Perhaps not as authentic as if it were played on a viol, but at least the music is being kept alive. I believe this is an acceptable compromise, just as in mind mind a hybrid workflow is OK with me, if it keeps people buying and shooting film.

 

[ooze]

As of 1st Jan 2012 I started a blog about traditional film photography and darkroom work. I'm deliberately writing it in turkish since my aim is to motivate potential new enthusiast in this part of the world. I'm naively thinking that I'm doing my part for the future of film and the darkroom, but honestly, I don't hold high hopes.
www.geldurkal.blogspot.com

 

[andrew.roos]

I've just come back to film after a 20-year absence and am currently setting up my darkroom. I've suggested to my camera club that I give a talk later in the year (when I have some more recent experience) about film photography, since I realised that many of the newer members have only ever taken digital photographs; and that probably fewer than 10% have ever done their own development and printing. I'll also be taking some silver prints along to meetings instead of the now ubiquitous projected jpgs. I'm hoping that a couple of club members will be inspired to make use of my darkroom and do some of their own analog work.

 

[Aristophanes]

I've been reading this thread in the context of (there was a url link here which no longer exists), and one point I think should be considered is that to promote film use, more flexibility in the acceptance of the hybrid will be required. For someone just starting out, working with negative scans may be more practical, and some shooters may stay with that workflow and not get into darkroom prints, but they are still buying/shooting film, using film cameras.

J.S. Bach (and many other composers of the period) wrote a lot of lovely music for the viol, a fretted, flat-bowed ancestor of the modern violin. Viols aren't too common today, although some early music groups use modern copies, and as a result this music is often performed on a violin. Perhaps not as authentic as if it were played on a viol, but at least the music is being kept alive. I believe this is an acceptable compromise, just as in mind mind a hybrid workflow is OK with me, if it keeps people buying and shooting film.

Hybrid systems is the only way that photo labs have been able to stay in business.

Since by far the vast majority of film purchases are processed through labs where scanning is intrinsic to their services (and part of the mini-lab machine systems now almost ubiqiuitously) the need to accommodate that in order to promote film use is fundamental to the effort. If labs don't scan, they go out of biz, and with it the processing. Even if the shot is analog, much of the use will be digital, including dry prints which are the norm. There is nowhere near enough market through home darkroom processing and optical printing to sustain industrial roll, cartridge, and sheet film production.

The lab systems long ago accommodated this reality.

 

[Dinesh]

.... I am only one person and I am trying to figure out where to go with it next..

Now imagine 55K+ members and 1.1 million posts.

Welcome to Sean's world!

 

[ROL]

Take good pictures, use the net.

 

[PKM-25]

I've been reading this thread in the context of (there was a url link here which no longer exists), and one point I think should be considered is that to promote film use, more flexibility in the acceptance of the hybrid will be required. For someone just starting out, working with negative scans may be more practical, and some shooters may stay with that workflow and not get into darkroom prints, but they are still buying/shooting film, using film cameras.

This is exactly right, even when someone makes a print in the darkroom, they want to promote / show it. Even well known fine art is shown via the web. There should not be as dark of a line drawn in regards to APUG and hybrid photo, it is not doing anyone favors here.

What this site needs is to do the following:

1. There could be a looping slideshow of some of the best new analog work out there on the home page, but there is not.

2. There could be a more flavor forward feel of the content of the images in analog being easily detected by the new forum reader, but again, there is not. For example, if there is a topic on pushing Tri-X, then a site algorithm should select a random image tagged with that criteria and list it as the subject icon. All images, all the time, the home page is starkly opposite in this regard, I personally know half a dozen people who have been driven away by the billion word, small font appearance of it all.

3. Perhaps lock out the forum topics from non-paying or visiting site users rather than the very things that are not only to bring in more potential film users but more paying site users, THE PHOTOS.

I would pay $50-$100 per year for a site like that mentioned above.

 

[MDR]

Just found this on rangefinderforum "Put your Kodak Moment on CNN
http://ireport.cnn.com/topics/726798?hpt=hp_bn1

Dominik

 

[Aristophanes]

This is exactly right, even when someone makes a print in the darkroom, they want to promote / show it. Even well known fine art is shown via the web. There should not be as dark of a line drawn in regards to APUG and hybrid photo, it is not doing anyone favors here.

It's not a threat, it's an opportunity.

Flickr is loaded with excellent analog samples and thoughtful proponents.

I agree that putting analog work from supporters here behind a paywall is self-defeating.

 

[PKM-25]

Just found this on rangefinderforum "Put your Kodak Moment on CNN
http://ireport.cnn.com/topics/726798?hpt=hp_bn1

That is where I have to personally draw the line for my needs and wants, I don't support an outlet that exploits free content over good content for a bottom line, especially after they just laid off a bunch of staffers. But that is a whole other story...

 

[Sirius Glass]

There is a thread on APUG dedicated to promoting film

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[MDR]

I am not a friend of CNN (and most of todays media conglomerates) either I only saw the link on the Rangefinderforum/took a quick look and thought that it could be interesting.

Sirrius Glass thank you for the link I wasn't aware of that thread

Dominik

 

[PKM-25]

I am not a friend of CNN (and most of todays media conglomerates) either I only saw the link on the Rangefinderforum/took a quick look and thought that it could be interesting.

That's why I said my needs...

Any info is good info, lets keep this up!!

 

[John Austin]

Wet is a plate too far for me

However, in a stretch, if Film vanishes, how many of you really want to learn how to make it? Really. For your own use?

Practically no one wants to. Out of the APUG membershop of over 50,000, I find about 50 people interested. What kind of interest is that? I think that the really serious users here number around 500.

PE

Wet is a plate too far for me, and I count myself dedicated - I hope film will last in the way fine printmaking papers and inks are still made and even etching presses

Too keep silver jelly going the more of us that buy and use silver jelly materials the longer small manufacturers will survive

Should film manufacture disappear I will return to charcoal drawing - For printmaking I still have a pile of copper and zink in my studio and all the inks etc, but etching is even more process oriented than photography, so it will be charcoal drawing

Also, as I have already typed, every time we exhibit be clear about the process used, like other printmakers do

 

[Photo Engineer]

Umm, where did wetplate come from regarding my post quoted above?

PE

 

[ostgardlaw]

I've been so focused on APUG and dedicated film publications that until recently I did not know how common it is in popular photography circles to act as if film were dead and buried. Another way we should be promoting film use is by taking opportunities to speak up like Mark Twain and protest that reports of our death have been greatly exaggerated. I just reviewed a book on Amazon.com, "The Passionate Photographer" in which I pointed out how its treatment of contemporary film photographers was completely misleading and unfair to the tens of thousands of passionate film shooters who are out taking pictures every day. And recently Brooks Jensen, of all people, posted a commentary on one of his Lenswork blogs in which he mourned the loss of 'depth of field' as an artistic tool, suggesting it is one of the casualties of our digital age (he concluded by saying, "When I stumble upon this affect and see it so successfully used it brings back fond memories of a photographic technique I miss dearly.") I posted a comment that if he missed depth of field and bokeh, he could find many beautiful examples of both every day in the galleries of APUG.org, and that he might choose to shoot a roll of film from time to time, as needed, to scratch that itch.

We won't influence those who insist on writing that film is dead, but their audiences include a lot of newbies who will believe them if we aren't there politely correcting the record.

Jim O.

 

[PKM-25]

I've been so focused on APUG and dedicated film publications that until recently I did not know how common it is in popular photography circles to act as if film were dead and buried. Another way we should be promoting film use is by taking opportunities to speak up like Mark Twain and protest that reports of our death have been greatly exaggerated. I just reviewed a book on Amazon.com, "The Passionate Photographer" in which I pointed out how its treatment of contemporary film photographers was completely misleading and unfair to the tens of thousands of passionate film shooters who are out taking pictures every day. And recently Brooks Jensen, of all people, posted a commentary on one of his Lenswork blogs in which he mourned the loss of 'depth of field' as an artistic tool, suggesting it is one of the casualties of our digital age (he concluded by saying, "When I stumble upon this affect and see it so successfully used it brings back fond memories of a photographic technique I miss dearly.") I posted a comment that if he missed depth of field and bokeh, he could find many beautiful examples of both every day in the galleries of APUG.org, and that he might choose to shoot a roll of film from time to time, as needed, to scratch that itch.

We won't influence those who insist on writing that film is dead, but their audiences include a lot of newbies who will believe them if we aren't there politely correcting the record.

Jim O.

At 44 years old, I have been doing photography most of my life at 35 years now, over 20 professionally. I have seen a lot of changes in a lot of things from music, publishing, all kinds or arts including photography. But what I have never seen is the phenomenon that is the enjoyment that people get by saying film is dead, good riddance, don't miss the scratches, etc. I meet and know a lot of photographers from all walks of life and the ones who were great at shooting film and now shoot only digital never put down film.

The digital and more specifically, the Internet age has either made people stupid or at least prone to saying stupid things. For example, whenever a person asks me why I am using film, they almost always think I have not tried digital yet when in fact, I went digital far before 99% of the world some 18 years ago.

I just don't understand what has happened to the pride in this craft, there is no reason to put down a medium or spread misinformation within an art form that supposedly gives so many people so much joy.

But people really do seem to get a kick out of it and it is now so bad, it is unlike anything I have ever seen in any other passion, hobby or craft.

The only thing more sad than seeing Kodak in the position they are in is that photography has truly turned into a junk show in terms of the digital venom. It's so bad that if there comes a time that there is no more film for me to shoot, I will be done with photography and never look back.

We need to change the way we do things as analog shooters, it can no longer just be about us. Otherwise, there will be no us...

 

[Vaughn]

By personal example. If possible, use film and print wet. Show your work, even if it is on the local cafe wall. Teach others.

I run the teaching darkroom for a university's art department. I volunteered as a darkroom assistant there for 12 years before becoming the paid tech for the past 20 years. In one way or another and to various degrees, I interact with 125 students every semester. I check out, and demonstrate the use, of small, medium and 4x5 cameras. Students come to me for ways to get their ideas onto film and/or onto photo paper -- but I don't teach a class: I have a bachelors degree -- in science! (Actually a BS in Natural Resources Management.) There are another 25 students per semester taking a digital class, but I only see them when they sneak down the hall and use the darkroom. (okay, they don't have to sneak -- they get darkroom privileges too.)

I have taught younger kids film camera and darkroom work at summer art programs (4th grade thru high school) -- including making their own pinhole cameras, exposing onto litho film and making cyanotypes and silver gelatin prints. I give demos at grade schools and have one scheduled for the high school. Three different classes, I think. All digital classes, but the teacher and I want to give the students a look on the silver side (along with some platinum and carbon). I'll have the 8x10 set up.

If there is no longer film available, then I will learn how to make my own dry plates. Or perhaps when I am 70, retired and my three boys are out of the house. Whatever comes first. Until then, I will happily buy film and be satisfied with making my own print material (Carbon printing). Though in all honesty, by the time (if ever) film and photo paper are no longer available, I could probably still make new carbon prints from old-but-not-yet-printed negs until I could no longer stand at a darkroom sink. What a backlog!

Vaughn