How to promote film use?

[zumbido]

I must have been in the can when they were handing out bushy tails. I always wanted a bushy tail.

 

[thomas l]

+1

Coming out with "fim is superior to digifail" makes all film users out to be reactionary Luddite cranks.

Saying that all photography is good, but "yoo may want to try this hand-crafted, old school photography" is a winning sales pitch.

You are right!

I think the most important thing is simply to use film, so people see that you are taking pictures on film. Generally the feed back is almost always very good. Then it's good to show your photos - nowadays this is pretty easy as if you are meeting people most digital photographers are showing their pictures on their i-phone - so you just have to show a print on FB paper...;-) Especially young people who grew up with digital photography are very interested in the traditional way. Generally it is important to show people, that film is not dead. I met young photographers who never tried film just because they did not even think about it or thinking that film is not produced anymore......

 

[CGW]

+1

Coming out with "fim is superior to digifail" makes all film users out to be reactionary Luddite cranks.

Saying that all photography is good, but "yoo may want to try this hand-crafted, old school photography" is a winning sales pitch.

The vast majority of film users acquired through evangelizing will not be in the darkroom anyways because most people haven't the time, money, or space for one. They'll get a mail-order lab to do it, and it will inevitably be scanned. So discrediting digital when scanning will be a key component of promoting film is inherently counter-productive.

Reactionary crank is more like it.(With respect, read some E.J. Hobsbawn for what Luddism was about). The dismissal of all things non-analog wins PKM-25 and others nothing but raised eyebrows and zero cred among their intended audience. I show/give prints to friends, acquaintances, models, and even street shot subjects if I can re-connect with them. They like them for the "look" but also that the print is theirs, a tangible one-off, an "ongoing moment" as Geoff Dyer says. It's not about gear fondling or smugness. It's about the qualitative difference in the images that most people can see immediately. On that, I feel this site is nearing a rethink of its mission and what analog photography means in 2012. Otherwise, the narrowmindedness and parochialism often in evidence could be its undoing.

 

[Steve Smith]

makes all film users out to be reactionary Luddite cranks.

But some of us are!!


Steve.

 

[Aristophanes]

A few years ago, when I first joined the forum, there was a gentleman whose name escapes me, who proclaimed that as far as he was concerned (and for everyone else, in his opinion) there was no further point to photography because his favourite paper had been discontinued. I don't know what became of him, but I do know that photography as a relevant art does and will continue. Many of us may fall by the wayside if and when materials become difficult to obtain or make for ourselves. The traditional photographer will be considered an artisan, and the finer practitioners, artists. We may be considered curious or quaint. There are already fluff news "features" about photographers who work with traditional materials. Are we becoming the "water-skiing squirrels" of our time?

I am ok with this.
(except for the squirrel part)

I am NEVER driving again because they no longer make this:

 

[David Brown]

... I feel this site is nearing a rethink of its mission and what analog photography means in 2012. Otherwise, the narrowmindedness and parochialism often in evidence could be its undoing.

It could be.

However, as someone who's been here for many more years than you, I have to state that the original "mission" of APUG was not anti-digital. (It has always been unfortunate that we attracted the rabid types - on both sides.) APUG was (and is) not anti-digital, it is just a place that analog practitioners can discuss analog without having digital being forced into every discussion. In the early days that was a problem. The site is much more tolerant now. (See this thread)

 

[PKM-25]

Reactionary crank is more like it.(With respect, read some E.J. Hobsbawn for what Luddism was about). The dismissal of all things non-analog wins PKM-25 and others nothing but raised eyebrows and zero cred among their intended audience. I show/give prints to friends, acquaintances, models, and even street shot subjects if I can re-connect with them. They like them for the "look" but also that the print is theirs, a tangible one-off, an "ongoing moment" as Geoff Dyer says. It's not about gear fondling or smugness. It's about the qualitative difference in the images that most people can see immediately. On that, I feel this site is nearing a rethink of its mission and what analog photography means in 2012. Otherwise, the narrowmindedness and parochialism often in evidence could be its undoing.

It's nice to have friends in the world who email you to tell you that someone is talking smack about you on a forum, LOL!

Look sir, I never meant to imply that I am the only one doing something to promote film use, sorry you took that personally to the point that you have to target me like this.

The fact of the matter is that I have been shooting digital professionally for over 18 years, been there done that and I am still doing it. I have nearly 200,000 frames on my D700, tens of thousands on my X100 which is not even a year old, both killer rigs to shoot with. I have a D4 on order, etc…

But I love film, I love the mystery, the unintended consequence of visually meandering from the norm, or at least the perceived one. So I am fighting tooth and nail to shoot less commercial and editorial work in which digital is a requirement and instead, is an option and do more fine art and book projects in which I call the shots, and shoot film.

Here is why I feel we are not doing enough to promote film use, this site included: In terms of mainstream / consumer use, film is toast, no argument there. But the hype engine that is the internet is making the mainstream / consumer level camera user think it is gone, period. They think you can not get film anywhere. When Kodachrome was nixed, I can not tell you how many people thought that meant that FILM was nixed!

The simple fact remains that if enough people use a product, there will be at least some form of business model to be had from that. But if far less people use film or at least seek out the option because they keep hearing film is dead and see no evidence that it is alive and well, then we are screwed.

So how about knocking off the targeting of me, show some work on here, like you do out there? It is go time for all of us, otherwise….

 

[CGW]

It's nice to have friends in the world who email you to tell you that someone is talking smack about you on a forum, LOL!

Look sir, I never meant to imply that I am the only one doing something to promote film use, sorry you took that personally to the point that you have to target me like this.

The fact of the matter is that I have been shooting digital professionally for over 18 years, been there done that and I am still doing it. I have nearly 200,000 frames on my D700, tens of thousands on my X100 which is not even a year old, both killer rigs to shoot with. I have a D4 on order, etc…

But I love film, I love the mystery, the unintended consequence of visually meandering from the norm, or at least the perceived one. So I am fighting tooth and nail to shoot less commercial and editorial work in which digital is a requirement and instead, is an option and do more fine art and book projects in which I call the shots, and shoot film.

Here is why I feel we are not doing enough to promote film use, this site included: In terms of mainstream / consumer use, film is toast, no argument there. But the hype engine that is the internet is making the mainstream / consumer level camera user think it is gone, period. They think you can not get film anywhere. When Kodachrome was nixed, I can not tell you how many people thought that meant that FILM was nixed!

The simple fact remains that if enough people use a product, there will be at least some form of business model to be had from that. But if far less people use film or at least seek out the option because they keep hearing film is dead and see no evidence that it is alive and well, then we are screwed.

So how about knocking off the targeting of me, show some work on here, like you do out there? It is go time for all of us, otherwise….

Thought you were checking out last week? But then the soap box and sidewalk are free, no?

History. Kodachrome was no longer viable. Never shot the stuff 'cause I didn't like the look. Working pros stopped shooting it in the early/mid-90s when Velvia knocked it off photo editors' light tables. Amateurs followed suit, especially after processing became inconvenient. Film demand went over the falls a decade ago. In a sense, we're already "screwed," in your terms. One of the oldest(57 years in biz) and once busiest labs in Toronto is closing next week after a long death watch. Not the stuff to mention to a film rookie or potential recruit.

Think you're flattering yourself as a contrarian. One of my favorites was the late Christopher Hitchens, who was also a realist and informed. All I'm reading is self-congratulation and denial from you, along with the odd bitch slap to people, like me, you don't know. I do what I can, how I can, when I can. Try not to offend people accidentally? You're preaching to the converted here.

 

[Aristophanes]

The problem for film is almost entirely economic.

It is far more expensive to use or promote film.

Each roll costs money as does processing and printing/scanning. there's no instant gratification like with digital.

So if you want to keep film as a viable medium, you actually have to make the higher cost something that is a benefit, not a problem.

It's like slow food, or a day long BBQ, or a 7 course French meal. Patience is a virtue. The suspense is worth the wait. A few extra dollars for a product with character is better than a cheap shot.

Film is not mainstream and never will be again. It's the path less walked. The road less traveled. This is a good thing and a market can be reconstructed out of that.

Being pro-film should not mean being anti-digital. Anti-digital is counter-productive. Digital services and crossover users are now the lifeblood of film.

Ironically, people from digital like to try film in part because they can waste a zillion shots on digital perfecting technique without blowing money on practise rolls (sorry Kodak). That's the new normal gateway into film photography and should be embraced. Think of all the people who guy from APS-C digital sensors to Medium Format film. That's quite a leap, yet it's made possible entirely because of the practice phenomenon.

 

[ME Super]

...
Ironically, people from digital like to try film in part because they can waste a zillion shots on digital perfecting technique without blowing money on practise rolls (sorry Kodak). That's the new normal gateway into film photography and should be embraced. Think of all the people who guy from APS-C digital sensors to Medium Format film. That's quite a leap, yet it's made possible entirely because of the practice phenomenon.

I use this technique myself when I'm in (what is to me) a tricky lighting situation. Out comes the digital P&S. It doesn't tell me the aperture and shutter speed it uses, but I can dial in exposure compensation in 1/3 stop increments from -2 to +2 stops. When I get a shot I like on the digital P&S, I dial in the same exposure compensation on the 35mm SLR and take the shot, confident that I have indeed gotten the shot. Bracket? Yep. I bracket with the digital. Once the digital image is exposed the way I want it, it gets committed to film with the film camera.

ME Super

 

[segedi]

This is how to promote film use:
Dead Link Removed

 

[keithwms]

It's the path less walked. The road less traveled. This is a good thing and a market can be reconstructed out of that.

Agreed. We need to focus on the unique capabilities of film and not pick futile battles. As the saying goes, you can wrestle a hog in the mud and eventually win, but the hog will enjoy it.

As I tried to say in my blog post, there are many things that film can still do far better than the other thing. There is increasing value in the craft of traditional photography. Those truly engaged in personal, creative art know that very well. I am not among those laboring to construct works of homage to 100 year old photographs, nor do I seek someone's else tripod holes. I am a living, breathing, young photographer using film to do new kinds of photography. And I think there are very unique and valuable things that film (and alt printing and wetplate etc) can do now.

 

[Toffle]

This is how to promote film use:
Dead Link Removed

I would agree, but it appears there are some folks on this site who really don't want this project to succeed.

 

[PKM-25]

One of the challenges for any medium to be appetizing to a potential creative user, even if more niche & expensive, is that bold and fresh looks are key in keeping all interested parties engaged, not just those on APUG. The other thing is that if a medium seems unstable to a potential long term user in terms of availability, he views other options if that is a particularly important aspect of his choice. So knowing just how niche this might all become is probably in the pit of many a stomach on this site as we think about what our do or die products are. So keeping film around is about moving forward with it, keeping it edgy, good and visible.

For a host of reasons, makers of film just don't put forth even a fraction of the marketing budget for film that others do for digital so it really is up to us, the film user to commit fully to the medium and then promote it a like a pink pimp in Harlem.

How does the viewer of photography online and elsewhere find the best photography currently being made on film? This site could have a home page engine that loops that very answer beautifully right before our eyes but there is just nothing. Move the twitter feed and shrink the left a bit and loop a gallery for god's sake, it's overdue...

 

[michaelbsc]

This is how to promote film use:
Dead Link Removed

OK, so everybody here go put $10 in the kitty. Or more if you can afford it. I know some folks here can kick in at least $50.

 

[rakeshmravi]

To me, what I like about film is the color and tone. I don't get the same in my digital. Another thing I like is the feeling that as soon as I filp that shutter, the shot is done. I don't get that feeling in digital.

Theoritically you can get the same color and tone. But it is counter-productive to spend that much time for a shot in front of computer and that takes the whole advantage of "instant gratification" out of digital. For people who like the digital tone, it is decided.

The color and tonality character of film was the main reason that I didn't go completly digital on 35mm. So perhaps including workshops and knowledge sessions where one shows the difference in the tonality of the same pictures (or series) could help to get some people in.

Another thing to consider is the flow and cost. In my case per shot, my cost is less than 15 cents (film and processing cost) It takes just 1 hour to develop myself 2 rolls. In those 2 rolls, I get approximately 2 or 3 best shots and few more decent ones that I like. So for just 1 hour spend developing, I get 2 shots that are ready to go to my portfolio. In the case of Digital. I take about 150-200 shots and need to spend about 1-2 hours going through them (getting to system, deleting the bad ones and finally finding the best ones and some tone corrections). Lightroom has made it easy, but it still take a good quantity of time to get the shots on a digital to become my favorite.

Time wise, to me, there is no difference. It is the possibility of messing a shot (because we ametures don't click it unless we can get the exposure dialed it in the way we want.) is the biggest reasoning against Film. But real pros were pros before digital. They didn't mess it during the film era and they don't mess shots in the digital either. So that comes with experience.

If someone comes up with great idea on how to educate this to an ameture level photographer, I think we will have more people at least willing to consider film.

 

[ME Super]

A couple nights ago I was chatting with a friend from back in our high school days on Facebook. Back then he shoot Kodachrome in 110 format and projected, while I had a cheap (some may say "toy") 35mm rangefinder and shot Kodachrome and Ektachrome, and also projected. He said he could no longer find his projector, and I told him he should check on that auction site as sometimes you can pick up a working projector for almost nothing, and you could get a good 35mm SLR and lens from KEH for a fraction of what the camera cost new.

We were talking about where to get slide film and I mentioned Peoria Camera Shop and how pricey they were for their slide film. He agreed and said last time he was in that shop he was after Super-8 film and how he didn't shoot Super-8 any more either because he couldn't find the film. I told him he could get Tri-X Reversal and Ektachrome 100D in Super-8 from B&H and that Dwayne's could soup the Ektachrome for him (gave him prices for both). He said he was gonna check it out. Maybe he'll start shooting some film again!

ME Super

 

[Ryan Montgomery]

My wife and I recently switched from shooting our location portraits on digital to shooting them all on film. It was very well received by our clients and it has set us apart from other photographers in the area. Because of this we have been selling quite a bit of film.

 

[naeroscatu]

Last year before X-Mas some one from China I think has sent a request on my Flickr page to explain how to load film and operate a Smena 1 camera (make a clip preferably). I have a whole bunch of old cameras that I like to use and post pictures taken with each of them but never thought of making a movie clip. It took me about one month to shoot, edit and post this clip on Youtube - I totally went out of my comfort zone to do this but I think is worth it if at least one person will start shooting film with a Smena 1.

 

[Wayne]

The best way to promote film is to use
it, print it, do it well, and show it.

That's a good way.

Most intelligent people understand that it's the results that matter,
and not the tools.

I can't agree. Process is a process, much more than a mere tool. You do
realize that yours is THE argument of digital? I think Knowledgeable
people know and appreciate the difference between riding their bike and
driving their Hummer even if they end up at the same place at the same
time. Knowledgeable people know and appreciate the difference
between home grown and factory farmed meat, eggs or vegetables, even if
they look and taste similar. Process matters.

We are told (by salesmen) that nothing but the surface of things matter.
We are a results only, to hell with how you got there culture. GET RESULTS NOW!
The attitude that the photographic process doesn't matter plays right into
mass-market mentality. But process does matter because each process has
its own strengths and weaknesses, physical, tactile and esoteric
qualities (as you obviously know and appreciate), and each uses its own
resources and materials and has its own consequences. And try as you
might, no matter which process you choose, you have to go through that
process.

That's not to say that one is superior to another in an objective way,
but to say the process doesn't matter does not help film. If the process
doesn't matter, and someone can get the result they want digitally
(if they can't today, they will someday), why would they ever use film?
You have set up the eventual extinction of your own argument for film.

The process is the journey, and the wet process has much to recommend
it. Its a physical process, requiring movement, the moving from wet to
dry side, the opening of boxes of paper, pulling each one out, the
setting up the enlarger, putting the film in the carrier, flipping on
the light, leaning over to focus, developing and squeegeeing the prints.
Its a sensory process, the feel of the paper under your fingers or in the tongs in the
tray, the chemical smells (whether you like them or not), the amber glow of
the safelight, the sound of prints washing. Even the "drudgery" of it,
as Brett Weston called it, is part of the process. Contrast that with
sitting at a monitor clicking a mouse. One is not better for everyone, but they are
different in big ways that definitely matter. Sweeping all of that under
th rug and reducing it to "results" dismisses 99% of what analog photography is.

Anyway it is clear from your posts that process does matter to you, despite this puzzling comment.

 

[keithwms]

Yes I am also sure that process does matter to Thomas, but he can reasonably choose not to emphasize it...

I can't agree. Process is a process, much more than a mere tool. You do realize that yours is THE argument of digital?

I think the point is that if the output is just about process rather than artistic vision, then it is... just process. When I see an image that is all about process alone, and I don't care whether it is made by redwood gum over ostrich albumen sprinkled with archival diamond dust: that print is a failure as art. There must be a harmony between the image and the process. By "harmony" I mean that there is a compelling reason why the vision and the process came together.

I can think of only a few "process photographs" that really impress me- they are the first images by Niepce and Talbot and so forth.

There must be harmony between process and vision - between the path and the destination - for the fine art to emerge. Photographers can easily become over-obsessed with one or the other to the detriment of the final result.

Anyway let's keep digital out of this. I use it for some things, and happily, and unapologetically. It's complete bunk to throw it all out because some people use it only for convenience or for happy snapping. I mean, I have seen some gawdawful LF work, frankly, that upsets me because I know firsthand how much each sheet costs So what. Everybody gets to do their own thing.

 

[keithwms]

P.S. Let me just clarify, in my comments above, please read "process" as output (i.e. printing) process. But there is alarger process that all photographers undertake. For many of us, that process begins long before printing or even before capture. E.g. anticipating a photograph and pursuing it is part of a larger process. Process isn't just a recipe for a print.... it's a linking of one step to the next, a path forward....

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

You're missing my point, but you are free to disagree.
I enjoy printing in the darkroom, but detest processing film. I hate it with a passion. But I still do it, and do it well, because I care about the prints. It's the resulting print we can hold in our hands, and covet or share with others. It's the culmination of all your/our efforts.

Please explain what you say 'argument for digital'. I don't know of very many digital photography artists who don't spend hours and days in front of Lightroom or Photoshop, making decisions about, and post processing their work. How is that different from darkroom work, and its processes?
I personally see more similarities than differences.

- Thomas

I can't agree. Process is a process, much more than a mere tool. You do
realize that yours is THE argument of digital? I think Knowledgeable
people know and appreciate the difference between riding their bike and
driving their Hummer even if they end up at the same place at the same
time. Knowledgeable people know and appreciate the difference
between home grown and factory farmed meat, eggs or vegetables, even if
they look and taste similar. Process matters.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I can't agree. Process is a process, much more than a mere tool.

I disagree, a photograph is not a photograph until it is printed on paper with chemical methods. Nothing else looks like it; not a computer scan nor a crap print from a stink-jet printer.

Steve

 

[OzJohn]

I disagree, a photograph is not a photograph until it is printed on paper with chemical methods. Nothing else looks like it; not a computer scan nor a crap print from a stink-jet printer.

Steve

So, by your reasoning an image captured other than on film must surely achive legitimacy as a photograph by being printed on chromgenic paper even if it is a 10 cent print out of a minilab but an image shot on, let's say, MF film but printed by any process that does not involve developer and fixer is not a photograph.

The most recent OPs have tried to project reasonable viewpoints but your absurd assertion and juvenile language contribute nothing to the discussion. OzJohn