Is fashion photography returning to film?

[Stephen Frizza]

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

I can still process C-41, E-6 and black and white film in under an hour and only charge $8.50 per roll.

 

[removed account4]

excellent news !

i have a lab down the road from me who is reasonable as well ...
but unfortunately labs that are reasonable, who still do 3hour e6 and 1 hour c41
in some markests aren't as reasonable. not to mention shipping back / forth
if someplace isn't local .. some might see as a real bummer.

 

[MattKing]

I'm just trying to figure out what this thread is doing in the "Ethics and Philosophy" sub-forum.

I think it is a good thing that there are a few capable photographers out there who like shooting film for fashion and there are art directors out there who are comfortable with the differences in the work flow.

I'm the last person to require convincing about the advantages and qualities of film, but I think it is most important that the photographers themselves enjoy using it and feel inspired by working with it.

If you are prepared to work at it, it is quite possible to get extremely similar results from film and from digital. But if one medium comes more easily and naturally to you, then it is great that you can choose to use it.

 

[Diapositivo]

Besides the real differences between film and digital (no, no filter can imitate the dynamic range of negative film, or the foot of a slide on the highlights) I think the trend here is extremely interesting.

I see very well how digital (overall, huge blanket) will end up being perceived as amateurish, and film being perceived as the technology "for the real photographer". You don't expect a professional cook to use ready-made mayonnaise sauce. If a cook uses a ready-made something, that alone de-classifies it to the amateurish crowd. Too easy and too un-artisanal, besides being probably less tasty.
Real cooks start from raw materials, and know how to choose them carefully. There is an artisanal side of the profession.
Real photographers don't have "safety nets", they know what they are doing. They don't need to chimp because they know how the picture will look. Plus, add the "artisanal" magic: the darkroom, the tradition, the real stuff in your hands. How can all this not resonate with young photographers, or young photography students?

And soon, we will see again, on Fashion TV o similar, backstages of calendars with beautiful models photographed with film cameras. That will resonate with young people a lot! If not consciously, certainly deep in the inconscious a voice will tell them "you see, photographers who take pictures of great pieces of c..t use film!". Fashion runs very high on the "values" of many youngsters. That will be noted. The "cool factor" is absolutely necessary for film to come back. Being different from the crowd resonate with some of them. Too many things lead toward the resurgence of film.

I don't think vynil is the right comparison. Vynil is inferior to digital, film is technically superior under many respects. The comparison is anything "hand-made", "hand-crafted", think shoes, dressmaking, leather goods. A digitally-controlled machine can be as effective, but people want the artisanal side of the product, and they pay for it, and they get the small imperfections, the small variations as qualities, not defects. They pay for tradition, craft, and the "passion" put in the work.

I'm very optimist.

 

[rwreich]

I'm just trying to figure out what this thread is doing in the "Ethics and Philosophy" sub-forum.

I think it is a good thing that there are a few capable photographers out there who like shooting film for fashion and there are art directors out there who are comfortable with the differences in the work flow.

I'm the last person to require convincing about the advantages and qualities of film, but I think it is most important that the photographers themselves enjoy using it and feel inspired by working with it.

If you are prepared to work at it, it is quite possible to get extremely similar results from film and from digital. But if one medium comes more easily and naturally to you, then it is great that you can choose to use it.

Matt - I was having a tough time finding the fashion sub-forum, so I thought that it might be okay in the philosophy section.

Besides the real differences between film and digital (no, no filter can imitate the dynamic range of negative film, or the foot of a slide on the highlights) I think the trend here is extremely interesting.

I see very well how digital (overall, huge blanket) will end up being perceived as amateurish, and film being perceived as the technology "for the real photographer". You don't expect a professional cook to use ready-made mayonnaise sauce. If a cook uses a ready-made something, that alone de-classifies it to the amateurish crowd. Too easy and too un-artisanal, besides being probably less tasty.
Real cooks start from raw materials, and know how to choose them carefully. There is an artisanal side of the profession.
Real photographers don't have "safety nets", they know what they are doing. They don't need to chimp because they know how the picture will look. Plus, add the "artisanal" magic: the darkroom, the tradition, the real stuff in your hands. How can all this not resonate with young photographers, or young photography students?

And soon, we will see again, on Fashion TV o similar, backstages of calendars with beautiful models photographed with film cameras. That will resonate with young people a lot! If not consciously, certainly deep in the inconscious a voice will tell them "you see, photographers who take pictures of great pieces of c..t use film!". Fashion runs very high on the "values" of many youngsters. That will be noted. The "cool factor" is absolutely necessary for film to come back. Being different from the crowd resonate with some of them. Too many things lead toward the resurgence of film.

I don't think vynil is the right comparison. Vynil is inferior to digital, film is technically superior under many respects. The comparison is anything "hand-made", "hand-crafted", think shoes, dressmaking, leather goods. A digitally-controlled machine can be as effective, but people want the artisanal side of the product, and they pay for it, and they get the small imperfections, the small variations as qualities, not defects. They pay for tradition, craft, and the "passion" put in the work.

I'm very optimist.

I totally agree and I'm also very optimistic!

 

[blockend]

If any professional discipline can support film, it's fashion. The look is everything. Portraiture is also film friendly. The biggest threat is risk averse art directors who want everything now.

 

[rwreich]

If any professional discipline can support film, it's fashion. The look is everything. Portraiture is also film friendly. The biggest threat is risk averse art directors who want everything now.

+1

 

[skorpiius]

If any professional discipline can support film, it's fashion. The look is everything. Portraiture is also film friendly. The biggest threat is risk averse art directors who want everything now.

100%. Certain situations, breaking news, sports or other situations where a thousand photos might be shot to get 'the one', and perhaps extreme iso shots are situations where 'notfilm' makes a lot of sense. But for everything else going away from film seems more of a jump on the bandwagon response, than perhaps the best response.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I don't think vinyl is the right comparison. Vynil is inferior to digital, film is technically superior under many respects.

Film is as inferior to digital as vinyl to digital. From practical and mass use. But if you need something which looks very different and closer to traditional visual art film is as good as vinyl.
Holding vinyl album with big photo of the singer and reading all songs text without magnifying loupe is superior to the file of compressed music somewhere in the cloud. Shellac is even more superior. You could hear Feodor Chaliapin voice exactly as it was one hundred or so years ago.

And for the topic. Hipsters are fashion, hipsters love film

 

[Diapositivo]

Film is as inferior to digital as vinyl to digital. From practical and mass use. But if you need something which looks very different and closer to traditional visual art film is as good as vinyl.
Holding vinyl album with big photo of the singer and reading all songs text without magnifying loupe is superior to the file of compressed music somewhere in the cloud. Shellac is even more superior. You could hear Feodor Chaliapin voice exactly as it was one hundred or so years ago.

And for the topic. Hipsters are fashion, hipsters love film

I respectfully disagree. Digital music is superior to vinyl IMHO under any conceivable respect. You just need to listen to it through a well-made hi-fi set. There is no match at all in detail and dynamic range, let alone easiness of use and toughness of the support (vinyl degrades at every listening).

With digital and film, not to start another film-digital OT, things are different. Digital is superior in practicality, in immediacy, and in sport or wildlife film is no match. On the other hand, negative film is way above digital (any digital of any make of any quality) in dynamic range, and slide film, being more or less like digital in dynamic range, is better in having a shoulder and toe. Film is also better as far as toughness of support (archivability) and in other respects: in "risky situation" such as degraded suburbs, or hiking in the mountains, a small film compact, easily pocketable, puts your wallet and your safety at much smaller risk than a digital of comparable quality. There are situations where film is clearly more practical, given the same final output quality, IMHO.

But, to repeat myself, I think there are some aspects of photography as a profession that can benefit from the "artisanal" or "hand-crafted" nature of film. This cannot be seen in vinyl vs CD, because the listener is always passive. In photography, the photographer creates the product and this makes a lot of difference because film or digital imply different creative processes, different "experiences" in your hobby. In music, the music (the artistic expression, if you want, or the artistic result) is identical, whether the performance is recorded digitally or analogically. There is no "artisanal flare" in vinyl recording because, as a listener, you don't enjoy the creative process, only the final outcome.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I respectfully disagree. Digital music is superior to vinyl IMHO under any conceivable respect. You just need to listen to it through a well-made hi-fi set. There is no match at all in detail and dynamic range, let alone easiness of use and toughness of the support (vinyl degrades at every listening).
...

To me listening albums which were recoded before digital makes sense only on vinyl. It was called sound mastering for vinyl, if I'm not mistaken. I have refurb Marantz Amp, DUAL TT and JBL monitors. All from seventies. The sound is great. I have printed in Italy album of young Toto Cutugno and listening him on digital Hi-Fi is as appropriate as drinking Italian wine from English tea set.
Listening as photography have taste too. Louis Armstrong on digital hi-fi is same as bw photography on digital. Unnatural.

 

[Eric Rose]

For busy working professionals I could see someone hitting the wall when it comes to the constant BS associated with managing digital images. At least with film you have the negs or transparencies that can be filed way. No need for backup. I am coming to that point myself. Over the years I have lost some of my best digi images due to hard drive crashes, mislabeling and all kinds of other controllable and uncontrollable things. In the early days RAIDs were very expensive and slow. Burning to CD's and DVD's turned out to be a mistake as well. It's easier with cloud storage but it has it drawbacks as well.

Film and digi both have their limitations when it comes to storage etc. but I still have negs from my great grandfather that are in perfect shape.

 

[TheRook]

For busy working professionals I could see someone hitting the wall when it comes to the constant BS associated with managing digital images. At least with film you have the negs or transparencies that can be filed way. No need for backup. I am coming to that point myself. Over the years I have lost some of my best digi images due to hard drive crashes, mislabeling and all kinds of other controllable and uncontrollable things. In the early days RAIDs were very expensive and slow. Burning to CD's and DVD's turned out to be a mistake as well. It's easier with cloud storage but it has it drawbacks as well.

Film and digi both have their limitations when it comes to storage etc. but I still have negs from my great grandfather that are in perfect shape.

Very true, long term storage of digi images is a real pain, requiring repeated back ups and transfers to survive over the years. However, I don't think this particular point will serve as a key incentive for fashion photographers to use film, as the final product will usually be a film/digital hybrid - shot on film, scanned, edited and enhanced on the computer, and then distributed as a digital file. So unfortunately, digital storage is still required to safeguard the finished work in today's fashion photography.

 

[fdonadio]

Yes and their Hasselblads back too.

Haha! They're not getting mine!


Flavio

 

[darkosaric]

I have read somewhere that some fashion photographers went back to film only to stop the model running to him after every shot, asking to see the photo on the camera lcd.

 

[Diapositivo]

Very true, long term storage of digi images is a real pain, requiring repeated back ups and transfers to survive over the years. However, I don't think this particular point will serve as a key incentive for fashion photographers to use film, as the final product will usually be a film/digital hybrid - shot on film, scanned, edited and enhanced on the computer, and then distributed as a digital file. So unfortunately, digital storage is still required to safeguard the finished work in today's fashion photography.

In my opinion what is key is not necessarily the preservation of the final product, but the preservation of the shot itself. If you have a negative on film, you can reprint it. If you have a "digital negative" and you lose it, you cannot derive from it a final product any more.
The final product will be the print on magazines, on billboards, on leaflets. That's not really relevant. Relevant is that you can recover the images, many years after the shot, and make them live again even as different final products (such as internet advertising). The "root" of the work must be preserved and this is made much more easily with a material product like film.

 

[Helinophoto]

Well, if nothing else, this will also means that the demand for high-end scanners will (must) pick up.

Appalling how little you get for a boatload of money these days, there are so many negatives where the information in them is never taken out properly.

 

[benjiboy]

I often think of the true irony that most of the covers of digital photography magazines are actually shot on large format film.