Is Film Dead...

[roteague]

Some digi photographers (not all) may feel they are looked on as lazy, or not quite as versed. Despite its commercial success, it is easy for a traditionalist to dismiss pixelography as a bastard child, with a tiny wave of the hand.

Unfortunately, this is not limited to just digital photography; I've seen it also applied to color film photographers. More than once, I've had my work called "colorful calendar art". I know one photographer who left APUG because he felt his work wasn't appreciated, and I know others who are frustrated at seeing heaps of praise on the latest B&W, Azo, PtPd, etc print, and see their own color work ignored.

 

[JBrunner]

Unfortunately, this is not limited to just digital photography; I've seen it also applied to color film photographers. More than once, I've had my work called "colorful calendar art". I know one photographer who left APUG because he felt his work wasn't appreciated, and I know others who are frustrated at seeing heaps of praise on the latest B&W, Azo, PtPd, etc print, and see their own color work ignored.

Well, I certainly don't feel that way about your work, and there is absolutely nothing that comes even remotely close to looking at a big color tranny in person.

I just don't understand these pessimistic discussions that degenerate to dreck about digital sometimes. I use film every day. So do allot of other people.

We should encourage others, who are less familiar, to learn about it.

Why give a flyin f*** about digital? Why discuss it here? It will just keep lurching on, like Frankenstein, regardless of its merits or lack thereof. It's not film. No tradition-none whatsoever, and none being built. Its post process is basically graphic design, and a million places on the web to go blab about it, might as well be about car stereos, for thats about what it is.

I'll stick with the orchestra.

For me this horse is dead.

Back to the darkroom.

 

[roteague]

Why give a flyin f*** about digital? Why discuss it here? It will just keep lurching on, like Frankenstein, regardless of its merits or lack thereof. It's not film. No tradition-none whatsoever, and none being built. Its post process is basically graphic design, and a million places on the web to go blab about it, might as well be about car stereos, for thats about what it is.

I'll stick with the orchestra.

For me this horse is dead.

Back to the darkroom.

I agree with you. I've been on other forums, and left because I was sick and tired of the digital content. I love shooting film.

 

[pentaxuser]

In this week's Amateur Photographer(UK magazine) there was a report from a Japanese person who organises secondhand camera fairs there. He said that based on the growing interest in such fairs there was evidence that Japanese photogs were returning to film cameras. OK the clientele was older and not your point and shoot and show your friends the image instantly on the screen but maybe the rush to digital is at least slowing and the interest in film is reviving.

pentaxuser

 

[naturephoto1]

Unfortunately, this is not limited to just digital photography; I've seen it also applied to color film photographers. More than once, I've had my work called "colorful calendar art". I know one photographer who left APUG because he felt his work wasn't appreciated, and I know others who are frustrated at seeing heaps of praise on the latest B&W, Azo, PtPd, etc print, and see their own color work ignored.

Robert,

Thank you for bringing this to the attention of others. I know that you and I have been discussing this since I joined APUG and have personally been somewhat frustrated as I have been uploading work in the last 3 days.

Rich

 

[Jeremy]

I love many of the color images that you guys post, but as I mostly work in b&w I don't feel "qualified" to offer any critiques. I just enjoy the show.

 

[lkorell]

If you are sick and tired of the mention of digital on this forum, why read or reply to a thread titled "Is film dead"? That's asking for trouble IMHO.

The reason most of us are on this forum is because we still appreciate film and all of the things that are about producing good film work. That does not mean that as aware photographers we don't occasionally discuss what is going on in the world of photography and the concerns we all have about the disposition and availability of film products. We are always reminded by articles that we see regularly concerning companies going out of the film business or film gear business. It's an important point of discussion. We could sit here all day and hide by just talking about how much we love film but we also need to be in tune so that we understand how our business or hobby may be affected in the near future.
If you are serious about photography, you will be serious about both film & digital and their place in the current photography arena. Yes, it's all about making pictures, but it's also about how we like to make them.

Lou

 

[naturephoto1]

I love many of the color images that you guys post, but as I mostly work in b&w I don't feel "qualified" to offer any critiques. I just enjoy the show.

Thanks very much Jeremy. Qualified or not. It is still a matter of esthetics and what you like. Art Critics, the general public, other photographers, everyone has an opinion. Not everyone is going to agree and like the same thing. But, my feeling is that there would be more unity here at APUG if everyone understood we as film users are all in the same boat right now. We need each others support as our passion and our livelihood is going through such an upheaval now in 2006. We may be using a somewhat different medium of B&W and color, but we have the same love for photography and the 160 or so years of history.

 

[roteague]

If you are serious about photography, you will be serious about both film & digital and their place in the current photography arena.

I understand where you are coming from, but, there are many, many outlets where one can learn about digital photography. APUG doesn't need to be everything to everybody.

Yes, there is a bunch of photographers on APUG who shoot digital for a least a portion of their work. But, there are also those who don't - there are photographers here who do weddings, portraiture, nature, etc, all on film and deliver transparencies or prints to the client. We all agree on film.

 

[JBrunner]

If you are sick and tired of the mention of digital on this forum, why read or reply to a thread titled "Is film dead"? That's asking for trouble IMHO.

The reason most of us are on this forum is because we still appreciate film and all of the things that are about producing good film work. That does not mean that as aware photographers we don't occasionally discuss what is going on in the world of photography and the concerns we all have about the disposition and availability of film products. We are always reminded by articles that we see regularly concerning companies going out of the film business or film gear business. It's an important point of discussion. We could sit here all day and hide by just talking about how much we love film but we also need to be in tune so that we understand how our business or hobby may be affected in the near future.
If you are serious about photography, you will be serious about both film & digital and their place in the current photography arena. Yes, it's all about making pictures, but it's also about how we like to make them.

Lou

It isn't about the availability of film products or the future of film, once it degenerates to pointless comparisons of completely different media. The point of APUG is to be digital free zone. Like I said, there's a million other places on the web to talk about the other stuff.

Also, I'm perfectly entitled to read or comment on anything I wish.

Where else would one comment about a particular thread? Should I start a thread about a thread? That would seems kind of silly.

 

[lkorell]

It isn't about the availability of film products or the future of film, once it degenerates to pointless comparisons of completely different media. The point of APUG is to be digital free zone. Like I said, there's a million other places on the web to talk about the other stuff.

Also, I'm perfectly entitled to read or comment on anything I wish.

Where else would one comment about a particular thread? Should I start a thread about a thread? That would seems kind of silly.

I thought the point of APUG was to appreciate film, not isolate ourselves from the photographic community. There is no such thing as a digital free zone. That's the whole point I was trying to make. We need to understand that photography is more than digital vs. film and that both exist for a reason. If I am mistaken about the intent of APUG and it is meant to be about only film then it is not about photography. I must be in the wrong place.


Lou

 

[arigram]

*snif* *snif*
what's that awful smell?
it's coming from my camera...
oh, no! the film inside has died! I keep forgetting them inside for too long.
good thing I have a whole bunch of live ones in a cage...

 

[arigram]

I thought the point of APUG was to appreciate film, not isolate ourselves from the photographic community. There is no such thing as a digital free zone. That's the whole point I was trying to make. We need to understand that photography is more than digital vs. film and that both exist for a reason. If I am mistaken about the intent of APUG and it is meant to be about only film then it is not about photography. I must be in the wrong place.
Lou

APUG is about posting photos made on film and discussing photography based on film. Which part of it you don't understand? Its hard to isolate a website from the rest of the internet. One is free to open two websites at a time, APUG and a digital forum. What isolation are you talking about? If you mind so much that APUG is focused and specialised then you must be in the wrong place. It would be like talking nuclear submarines in a sailing boat forum. Sure both float in the water...

 

[Andy K]

If I am mistaken about the intent of APUG and it is meant to be about only film then it is not about photography. I must be in the wrong place.


Lou

Lou, from APUG's front page:

APUG.ORG is an international community of like minded individuals devoted to traditional (non-digital) photographic processes. APUG is sponsored by member and corporate donations. The site is based on an 'open source' model. In other words, this site is driven by the feedback and content we receive from our members. APUG is an active photographic community; our forums contain a highly detailed archive of traditional and historic photographic processes. We'd like to thank all of the photographers out there who have given us the encouragement to see this concept through.

It is all in that first sentence. It is your decision as to whether you are in the wrong place or not.

 

[arigram]

I suggest we make this a sticky.
There always going to be some n00bs that somehow manage to miss the point...

 

[gr82bart]

I thought the point of APUG was to appreciate film, not isolate ourselves from the photographic community. There is no such thing as a digital free zone. That's the whole point I was trying to make. We need to understand that photography is more than digital vs. film and that both exist for a reason. If I am mistaken about the intent of APUG and it is meant to be about only film then it is not about photography. I must be in the wrong place.

Lou,

I think what happening here is semantics. This site certainly has many people that appreciate film, like me. Heck some of us even prefer film! But the site is focused on traditional processes and associated traditional materials and equipment.

So it is not about the entire gamut of photography.

Now the whole thing about a digital free zone is correct. I agree. You win a point there. But so what? Sure we are using a digital vehicle to talk about and even restrict discussion to a non-digital area. Yes, that's what we're doing.

And to your other point about if we only focus on film, then we are not about photography. Is an apple a fruit? Again, sure. Whatever. Our focus may be limited in some minds, but that is the intent of the site.

So, why don't you forget about this thread, take a look around, join one of the print exchanges, give some feedback in the galleries, buy a print for Jorge, go to a get-together, post a couple (traditionally made but digitally scanned - yes it's a bit of a contradiction, but let's just let it go) or even go to the conference in Toronto.

There's more to a site than worrying about the little things. IMNSHO.

Regards, Art. (There are other ways to handle a situation than to throw a suicide bomber at it! )

 

[lkorell]

No problems guys, I'm cool. I just saw the post "is film dead" and though that it was a discussion about the current state of things with regards to digital taking over.
I certainly didn't think it was a yes or no question.
I want to remain open to enjoying all types of photography no matter what the medium. I also do not want to engage in any kind of snobbery with regards to the capture of images. While I do actually prefer fim to digital, I was only trying to stress the fact that film should not die, but it could if we ourselves as photographers create an elitist design around so called "traditional" methods. I don't want to see that happen because I don't want to see a loss of respect for those who are working with film as a primary or sole media. Education is the key to understanding but closed minds can create an ivory tower mentality.
I thank you for setting me straight about the intent of the APUG forum. I really enjoy reading many of the posts here and because I love my film cameras, also enjoy reading about the gear as well. I'm not usually the catalyst for controversy, but sometimes I find a comfortable spot on a soap box. After all, it is a FORUM. I think that means a place to offer an opinion, but I didn't look it up.

Cheers!

Lou

 

[Kimberly Anderson]

You know...there really ought to be a website that's *about photography*, not about the process.

Somewhere that the actual device used and the output intended for reproduction is inconsequential. Where the discussions can be about images and about how we see and make those images mentally and intellectually.

 

[PhotoJim]

Isn't the process of photography inextricably linked from the final result? You can't be a photographer without using one of the photographic processes.

It wouldn't be hard to find people who love to travel and feel passionately about how enjoyable driving somewhere faraway can be... and to find others that feel equally passionately about the joys of air travel, or ship travel. You can't travel without finding a way to do it, and you are bound to have opinions about the ways.

Many photographers are indifferent to the means they use (they choose based on the practicalities and cost and all sorts of considerations), but many (I'd argue most) feel quite passionate about the method they use. That's okay. I think it's even quite good.

I suspect we are disproportionately passionate about analog photography here, but since the Internet is so large, that's not only alright, that's very desirable. I don't think the Internet is suffering a lack because we don't really talk about digital photography here. There are dozens and dozens of websites where it is discussed in great detail and in great quantity.

This is the single photography-related website I use the most, exactly because it's so analog-focussed. That's what I want... and it appears that that's what a lot of people want. Hooray for choice.

 

[George Papantoniou]

APUG is about posting photos made on film and discussing photography based on film. Which part of it you don't understand? Its hard to isolate a website from the rest of the internet. One is free to open two websites at a time, APUG and a digital forum. What isolation are you talking about? If you mind so much that APUG is focused and specialised then you must be in the wrong place. It would be like talking nuclear submarines in a sailing boat forum. Sure both float in the water...

Ari, submarines are not primarily designed to float, but to submerge... they can float, if they like, though... so are digicams primarily designed to convert light to numbers. These numbers can be used to produce images, if we force them to, but they primarily are a series of NUMBERS in a digital data file ;-)

 

[Jim Chinn]

Wow, this post is still going. Since we get the "film is dead" genre of posts about every 60 days, if we keep this one going we won't have to start over with a new thread. this one might be able to last us up to July.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Wow, this post is still going. Since we get the "film is dead" genre of posts about every 60 days, if we keep this one going we won't have to start over with a new thread. this one might be able to last us up to July.

Jim;

I agree that it might last until July, but which year? 2007, 2010, 2040? By then it might have become a self fulfilling prophecy.



PE

 

[Jim Chinn]

Jim;

I agree that it might last until July, but which year? 2007, 2010, 2040? By then it might have become a self fulfilling prophecy.



PE

Well by then at least someone will get the satisfaction of having said "I told you so!"

 

[IloveTLRs]

In this week's Amateur Photographer(UK magazine) there was a report from a Japanese person who organises secondhand camera fairs there. He said that based on the growing interest in such fairs there was evidence that Japanese photogs were returning to film cameras. OK the clientele was older and not your point and shoot and show your friends the image instantly on the screen but maybe the rush to digital is at least slowing and the interest in film is reviving.

I went to a camera fair here in Nagoya a few weeks ago it was hopping. Lots & lots of film camera bits & pieces - it was heaven for me, a recent return to film person

Out of that fair I found what was to become my new favorite camera shop. I asked them how they did at that fair (6 days) and the owner said they sold about 40 cameras a day. Good Lord Ms. Agness! That's a lot of money!

I was told by another camera shop that the CEO of Fujifilm likes film himself so we're pretty much guaranteed at least a steady supply of film for some time to come. Good news

My personal reason for ditching digital was two-fold. Compared to my 1950s & 60s film cameras, dSLRs & PHDs are really lacking in quality, and are made to last for about 3 years (not to mention viewfinders that are like looking through a straw.) Also if your CCD conks-out, you're dead in the water (better hope there are replacement parts out there.) The other was results - what I saw through the viewfinder wasn't the same as what came up on my monitor at home. When I shoot 120 or 35 through a 50 year old camera, I'm completely satisfied with the results of 95% of my work. What I saw when I tripped the shutter is what I see in my transparencies. Isn't that the point of photography? (One of them, at least.)

Post-processing is for the birds. I'm too busy taking photos, not adjusting them.

 

[David Brown]

I agree that it might last until July, but which year? 2007, 2010, 2040? By then it might have become a self fulfilling prophecy.

Hang in there, Ron. Another month and you will have won the pool ... :rolleyes: