Is fashion photography returning to film?

rwreich · May 28, 2016

... There may be some evidence that a few fashion photographers are returning to film. As the writer quotes from a source at the end of the article, there are some broader ideas at work.

Other than the fact that film doesn't exhibit moire in fabrics, I'm interested to hear others' ideas about advantages in fashion, specifically.

Also, one source is quoted discussing the inherent emotional content of film photography. I'm curious to hear others' reactions to this and other ideas presented in the article.

Finally, I'm especially eager to see that this conversation does not drift into pessimism regarding youth or young photographers or whatever. Can we keep the tone encouraging and thoughtful, please?

http://www.businessoffashion.com/ar...otographers-hawkesworth-weir-dodgson-ghertner

Richard S. (rich815) · May 28, 2016

This is terrific news. I especially like seeing the following as I often wondered how they bypassed these reasons so easily in converting to mostly the convenience and "good enough" aspects of digital: "...to differentiate their work, regain control over their craft and find a more human pace."

rwreich · May 29, 2016

Richard S. (rich815) said:
This is terrific news. I especially like seeing the following as I often wondered how they bypassed these reasons so easily in converting to mostly the convenience and "good enough" aspects of digital: "...to differentiate their work, regain control over their craft and find a more human pace."

All of those reasons are excellent and they really resonate with me.

Alan Klein · May 29, 2016

From the article, well said: “It is similar to what happened in music, with the resurgence of vinyl. Digital photography is sharper and cleaner; it captures a lot of information but it’s cold. Film gives you less information but it’s emotional information. And what do we care about, information or emotion? We care for the emotion. Film is very emotional. You can cry looking at a contact sheet, it is incredible. ”

benjiboy · May 29, 2016

Will all the pro's want their RB67's back now ?

David Brown · May 29, 2016

benjiboy said:
Will all the pro's want their RB67's back now ?

They're not getting mine!

removed account4 · May 29, 2016

hope they can find a lab that can process their E6 film in 3 hours, and C41 film in an hour.
and not charge them 60$/roll
that might be kind of a problem in some markets

gr82bart · May 29, 2016

These are just a few I know that have returned to film. There were 4 in the PDN40 that shot film last year.

http://www.businessoffashion.com/ar...otographers-hawkesworth-weir-dodgson-ghertner

Regards, Art

MattKing · May 29, 2016

Thanks Art, but rwreich beat you to it: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

rwreich · May 29, 2016

jnanian said:
hope they can find a lab that can process their E6 film in 3 hours, and C41 film in an hour.
and not charge them 60$/roll
that might be kind of a problem in some markets

That's kind of the point of a new film generation. It doesn't have to be immediate. I don't mind waiting days or even two weeks for great negatives to come back from a great lab. I'm not publishing in magazines but my clients (brides, families, etc.) understand that there will be a delay between shooting and getting images returned.

Sirius Glass · May 29, 2016

benjiboy said:
Will all the pro's want their RB67's back now ?

Yes and their Hasselblads back too.

removed account4 · May 29, 2016

rwreich said:
That's kind of the point of a new film generation. It doesn't have to be immediate. I don't mind waiting days or even two weeks for great negatives to come back from a great lab. I'm not publishing in magazines but my clients (brides, families, etc.) understand that there will be a delay between shooting and getting images returned.

im glad it works for you !
i have quite a few colleagues
who's customers insist on
a burned CD before they leave the set.

im glad your customers have patience ... these days
patience seems to be in short order

rwreich · May 29, 2016

jnanian said:
im glad it works for you !
i have quite a few colleagues
who's customers insist on
a burned CD before they leave the set.

im glad your customers have patience ... these days
patience seems to be in short order

If you burn the film onto a CD, it makes for a really sticky mess

I really believe that there is a place for everything in this business. Film for when you need it to be awesome, organic, and valuable. Not film is for when you need it immediately I'll do portraits, eSessions, and families on film, but I'll do the ceremony, receptions, graduations, and events on not film. It's a simple matter of practical value.

removed account4 · May 29, 2016

rwreich said:
If you burn the film onto a CD, it makes for a really sticky mess

I really believe that there is a place for everything in this business. Film for when you need it to be awesome, organic, and valuable. Not film is for when you need it immediately I'll do portraits, eSessions, and families on film, but I'll do the ceremony, receptions, graduations, and events on not film. It's a simple matter of practical value.

yeah, i know what you mean, there is a place for everything if you are doing professional photography.
but i dont' really find film to be more valuable or organic. its just different. and it wasn't film that was burned
to the cd it was the stream of unedited images that are given to the client.
when i was working at a high security navy facility i wasn't allowed to leave with my film.
i was asked to leave all my 4x5 film holders there, along with my stack of polaroids.
they reviewed the polaroids. then i had to return at a different date, and process all my film in the navy yard darkroom
( i muled my chemistry and trays ) ... then made contact prints ( well they electrified 4-up ) and then compared every view
to the polaroid ... to make sure they could be available to the state archives.
not sure if the images would have been less awesome, or less organic, or valuable if done with modern means.
definately i would have been able to have them view the stuff right there before i left instead of having to drive back and forth 4 times.
value is only in the eyes of the end holder of the product. something could be a piece of junk but have value to someone else.
unfortunately archivability isn't part of the whole electronic landscape yet so personally when i cleint asks for something that is supposed to
last 600 - 900 years and insists that it can't be done with film, it makes me worry. and even after trying to educate them it doesn't much help.
with color, or fashion or assignment or commercial work there really isn't much reason to do anything with film if you ask me. those images are ephemeral.
but b/w stuff for an archives, well that is a bit different --- they are supposed to be a visual record of time and place, and if they are ephemeral it really doesn't do much good.
i haven't seen much commercial, beauty, fashion work in b/w ... maybe THAT needs to change as well !

i'm glad in your business your customers understand the value of the effort fllm requires.

spijker · May 29, 2016

Since the fashion magazines are all edited digitally, using film and then digitizing it later on seems a bit pointless to me. Specially when the editor claims that they can make digital look like film. To me, the main advantage of film is that you can print in the darkroom. That's not happening here. If you have to digitize it first, then the advantage is lost. It's like playing a vinyl record on a record player with a USB output.

rwreich · May 29, 2016

jnanian said:
yeah, i know what you mean, there is a place for everything if you are doing professional photography.
but i dont' really find film to be more valuable or organic. its just different. and it wasn't film that was burned
to the cd it was the stream of unedited images that are given to the client.
when i was working at a high security navy facility i wasn't allowed to leave with my film.
i was asked to leave all my 4x5 film holders there, along with my stack of polaroids.
they reviewed the polaroids. then i had to return at a different date, and process all my film in the navy yard darkroom
( i muled my chemistry and trays ) ... then made contact prints ( well they electrified 4-up ) and then compared every view
to the polaroid ... to make sure they could be available to the state archives.
not sure if the images would have been less awesome, or less organic, or valuable if done with modern means.
definately i would have been able to have them view the stuff right there before i left instead of having to drive back and forth 4 times.
value is only in the eyes of the end holder of the product. something could be a piece of junk but have value to someone else.
unfortunately archivability isn't part of the whole electronic landscape yet so personally when i cleint asks for something that is supposed to
last 600 - 900 years and insists that it can't be done with film, it makes me worry. and even after trying to educate them it doesn't much help.
with color, or fashion or assignment or commercial work there really isn't much reason to do anything with film if you ask me. those images are ephemeral.
but b/w stuff for an archives, well that is a bit different --- they are supposed to be a visual record of time and place, and if they are ephemeral it really doesn't do much good.
i haven't seen much commercial, beauty, fashion work in b/w ... maybe THAT needs to change as well !

i'm glad in your business your customers understand the value of the effort fllm requires.

I was being silly about the film being burned on a CD - I knew what you meant, but my humor doesn't really translate on the web. I do appreciate your reference to working with 4x5 on the navy yard. When it comes to choosing film for those projects, whether it's color or B/W, I can go either way depending on my mood.

spijker said:
Since the fashion magazines are all edited digitally, using film and then digitizing it later on seems a bit pointless to me. Specially when the editor claims that they can make digital look like film. To me, the main advantage of film is that you can print in the darkroom. That's not happening here. If you have to digitize it first, then the advantage is lost. It's like playing a vinyl record on a record player with a USB output.

With all due respect, it doesn't have to be that way. Film's advantages go well beyond the opinion of one editor. Likewise, the experience of seeing an analog negative processed for mass publication on the internet is nothing like listening to a vinyl record through a USB connection. You may not see a difference, but that doesn't mean it's not there for others to see.

removed account4 · May 29, 2016

rwreich said:
I was being silly about the film being burned on a CD - I knew what you meant, but my humor doesn't really translate on the web. I do appreciate your reference to working with 4x5 on the navy yard. When it comes to choosing film for those projects, whether it's color or B/W, I can go either way depending on my mood.

yeah i know, i was just being thick
your humor was fine, i forgot the simileys

CropDusterMan · May 29, 2016

As interesting an idea of a "return to film" sounds, I just wonder if it's really possible on a scale
that's going to matter...I just don't feel the infrastructure and work force exists who would embrace
it versus the slick workflow of todays digital industry. Ultimately, there are photographers working
out there who would not be had they not had a computer and Photoshop to fix their images. One could argue
that a weak image can't be "fixed", and I agree, that weak work will always be that, but it is the
art directors and photo editors of today, many of whom have never worked with film, have allowed a lower
standard of work to be produced and accepted as good enough. The attention span is so short.

Are AGFA and Noritsu going to crank up the production lines for machines again...not likely. It's a sad
reality.The fashion world is often like the clothes themselves, short lived styles and fads, but money is money,
and I doubt that magazines and agencies will return to the days of $2000+ film and processing budgets and slower
turnaround times of film...and we were fast back then! I used to shoot an assignment, process that day and then
have finished prints of the editors selected edit the next day before end of work day at the mags. Friends
who currently work fashion tell me that the edit is already done by the end of the shoot and that the
digital tech has already got the images selected to about 95% if not completely touched-up for press for the art
directors to take with them.

rwreich · May 29, 2016

CropDusterMan said:
As interesting an idea of a "return to film" sounds, I just wonder if it's really possible on a scale
that's going to matter...I just don't feel the infrastructure and work force exists who would embrace
it versus the slick workflow of todays digital industry. Ultimately, there are photographers working
out there who would not be had they not had a computer and Photoshop to fix their images. One could argue
that a weak image can't be "fixed", and I agree, that weak work will always be that, but it is the
art directors and photo editors of today, many of whom have never worked with film, have allowed a lower
standard of work to be produced and accepted as good enough. The attention span is so short.

Are AGFA and Noritsu going to crank up the production lines for machines again...not likely. It's a sad
reality.The fashion world is often like the clothes themselves, short lived styles and fads, but money is money,
and I doubt that magazines and agencies will return to the days of $2000+ film and processing budgets and slower
turnaround times of film...and we were fast back then! I used to shoot an assignment, process that day and then
have finished prints of the editors selected edit the next day before end of work day at the mags. Friends
who currently work fashion tell me that the edit is already done by the end of the shoot and that the
digital tech has already got the images selected to about 95% if not completely touched-up for press for the art
directors to take with them.

One of the biggest trends in fashion, today, is the prolific use of instagram. That much might be obvious. However, did you know that a great deal of photographers are uploading film-based images to instagram and gathering a very large following? It's not a lo-fi look by any means, either. Young people deserve more credit than they are given and as they continue to shape the culture, we might find that they are film's only hope. Magazines follow the money and right now, the money is in marketing to young people. A great deal of young people are starting to learn of film's intrinsic value.

TheRook · May 30, 2016

I guess some fashion photographers are getting fed up with the same film simulation plugins everyone else in the industry is using, and have decided to switch to the real deal instead.

Cybertrash · May 30, 2016

TheRook said:
I guess some fashion photographers are getting fed up with the same film simulation plugins everyone else in the industry is using, and have decided to switch to the real deal instead.

I think this, rather than some mythical properties of film, may be the core of the poodle. When everyone is using VSCO to emulate Portra or Tri-X, actually switching to those stocks is a way of differentiating oneself, also working with older cameras and processes will make an impression on clients and in social media.

Of course it's a lot easier to wax poetic about the "organicness" of film and how it is "more real" than digital, much as DJs who play vinyl do the same thing, it lends an air of legitimacy.

Helinophoto · May 30, 2016

It's probably related to the actual look.
Still, in a high-volume shoot, it's doubtful that anyone in their right mind will fire off 200-300 shots with film these days.

Positive news though, keeps film going, nothing is better than that ^^

removed account4 · May 30, 2016

TheRook said:
I guess some fashion photographers are getting fed up with the same film simulation plugins everyone else in the industry is using, and have decided to switch to the real deal instead.

maybe ... its probably a combination of that and wanting to stand out from the crowd/be noticed by doing something "different"
and posting a steady flow on insta gram allows all that "different" to be seen by tons of people.

its not hard to use a new camera with an old lens and alter one's shooting and post shooting style/routine to do things that look like film
without plugs or al gore rhythms .. its kind of funny the great lengths people go to, to do this stuff when it would take a lot less time and effort.
i guess you couldn't say you were using "film" and saying you processed it in the original post ww1 dust covered, crystalized bottle rodinal unearthed at
a dead relative's house found in a steamer trunk filled with all sorts of stuff. it adds to the legendary quality of celluloid.

removed account4 · May 30, 2016

calebarchie said:
People being overly poetic about film never fail to make me cringe.

i don't mind the poetry, what i mind is the thoughtless steady flow of bad vibes
people say, insinuate ( in verse or prose ) about the new generation of people
using film as if they don't have any legitimacy and are all a bunch of hacks.
this thread has been exactly the opposite, which is a breath of fresh air as
far as i am concerned and the more film users the better !

removed account4 · May 30, 2016

not at all, it has nothing ot do with age, skill, country of origin, ancesteral background, aspirations or desires
its a pan global, pan age sort of thing, and i wasn't even refering to what you said/suggested.
i also find the "mythical" &c thing to be a bit strange. there is no myth except for the
mythology one creates with their photography.

Is fashion photography returning to film?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency