Ken Rockwell and the popularity of film photography

kb3lms said:

Hey this is all a great debate about KR, and I like his site most of the time, too, but the real topic was about this comment about "the exploding popularity of film!"



-- Jason

Click to expand...

Haha, yes, I should have put that line a little later in my comment, quite a bit later!

I'm not sure if it's exploding, but I've converted around March. My last overseas trip to Nepal was shot only on film.
Now I'm working on converting one of my friends as well, at least for his black and white photography. He started looking at a used hasselblad 500, but he is still hesitant. Although he likes my results a lot.
I the popularity is growing, but people are a lot more aware of it and might consider it.
Although, humans are LAZY. Converting to film is the same as telling people to go to gym, start cooking at home, eat healthy and lose weight. It's just not going to happen...

I should also mention, that I've received quite lot more complements for the photos I've posted on facebook. Very often followed by what mobile I've used to take them with and which one do I recommend.
Once I answer that it was taken on old film camera, I get silence...

AgX said:

Kodak already sold that business. It is now for the new owner of the still photography business to decide and to order films.

If they feel any rumble of an explosion at all...

Click to expand...

Lets not make it out like they sold it to some random company. They're playing paper games and they still effectively control it. Let's also remember it's never been anything but profitable.

Nuff said:

I should also mention, that I've received quite lot more complements for the photos I've posted on facebook. Very often followed by what mobile I've used to take them with and which one do I recommend.
Once I answer that it was taken on old film camera, I get silence...

Click to expand...

Haven't really put up analogue pics on fb, but given how distorted - in quality, my digital pics look on fb - how do these hold up?



- via tapatalk.

analoguey said:

Haven't really put up analogue pics on fb, but given how distorted - in quality, my digital pics look on fb - how do these hold up?



- via tapatalk.

Click to expand...

I don't upload big photos to internet, only 1000px max at widest point. Sometimes even 800, both of flickr and facebook (you can look at my flckr album in my signature).
What I'm talking about is the look, character, colours, etc...
I guess what helps that I focus now more on composition and the art side of photography instead of just collecting gear...

omaha said:

I think Matthew is right on target with his thoughts there.

I'll add that one of the things that brought me back to film is the notion of "authenticity".

I'll grant that it is entirely possible to create, using purely digital photography, just about any "look" that can be created in the analog world. And even if you can't get 100% of the way there, you can get 99.9%.

But even if you do, you are creating a simulation of something else. Why create that when you can create something authentically real?

That's what I'm in it for.

Click to expand...

Yes it is, "just about it". But it's a lot — damned lot, much harder to do. Like others in my field, I do not intentionally set out to do this in my hybridised workflow; the authenticity and grace of analogue hanging beside the cold, hard edge of digital puts things in brutual perspective: producing prints from both analogue and digital, I can say both have their own distinctive look and feel and I don't set out to make them one and same, why should I? Digi will never be bang on form the way film renders nuances of colour, texture and the softer, less-jarring delineation of lines than does an over-sharpened (today's latest craze) digital image.

One thing that caught my eye of KR's Shooting Film page was KR scanning 10,000 x 8,000 pixels from a 6x7 slide (!) The one question we are asking is Why??

I think it was to keep all the pixel peepers quiet.

clayne said:

Lets not make it out like [Kodak] sold it to some random company. They're playing paper games and they still effectively control it. Let's also remember it's never been anything but profitable.

Click to expand...

Their creditor (KPP) gave up the most of their claims in that trade. Now KPP are expected to even give up control of their new assets?
Hard to believe...

AgX said:

Their creditor (KPP) gave up the most of their claims in that trade. Now KPP are expected to even give up control of their new assets?
Hard to believe...

Click to expand...

Well whatever man. I'm still shooting Kodak film and will always be shooting it for as long as it's available. Some of the best film made.

Poisson Du Jour said:

Yes it is, "just about it". But it's a lot — damned lot, much harder to do. Like others in my field, I do not intentionally set out to do this in my hybridised workflow; the authenticity and grace of analogue hanging beside the cold, hard edge of digital puts things in brutual perspective:

Click to expand...

That would be an analogue wet print versus digital or hybrid w decent scan vs digital print? At what size? Some pictures I can clearly make out Analogue vs Digital, but I had printed a few photos of hybrid analogue and some digital at 20" by 30" and I found myself veering towards digital print. (scanned on Nikon 4000 I think, and shot on Ilford delta 100)




- via tapatalk.

Ken Nadvornick said:

Holy cow! You get this? Really??
....

Thank you so much.

Now I can die happy.

Click to expand...

Just not right away, ok? I couldn't handle the guilt.

analoguey said:

I do not understand why people go hyperbole on him

Click to expand...

My theory is that people who are overly attached to their purchasing decisions take offense at his casual praise for most cameras.

For the most part, KR either declares something "The Best Ever At Any Price" or "Absolute Shite". Not a lot of middle ground.

And most stuff rates as "The Best Ever..." because KR understands that stuff doesn't matter anyway.

So the guy who just dropped $2k on the latest Canon suddenly reads that the latest Nikon is "The Best Ever..."!!!

Urp.

Total consumer culture vapor lock! This isn't just some guy on the internet who disagrees. This is a fundamental assault on my manhood!! Why, don't you know that the gaussian pixel Bayer filter asymptotic polychromatic auto ISO USB diffraction layer on the Nikon was ranked by DPReview as 0.03% WORSE than the Canon?!?!?!? How could one possibly, in a million years, expect to take a single competent photograph with such garbage kit as that?!?!?

KR tweaks them because he gets that the gaussian pixel Bayer filter asymptotic polychromatic auto ISO USB diffraction layer doesn't mean a damned thing, and that you can take an absolutely glorious photograph with a Kodak Instamatic camera if you know what you are doing.

Its all pretty amusing, really. There are guys out there with countless thousands of dollars invested in gear who never take any actual pictures. But by golly, that camera they never use...well, it is the best!!

I think there are two other factors that figure into people's reactions to him.

First, for whatever reason, people love to manufacture personal offense on the internet. Despite the fact that this is a medium in which everyone is well aware that people are expressing themselves in shorthand (whether in a blog post, a tweet, a FB update, etc.) and without the benefit of hand gestures, facial expressions and all the other things that provide the necessary context that we take for granted in face-to-face communication to detect sarcasm, hyperbole, etc., a significant percentage of internet readers seem utterly hell bent on construing everything they read as a personal attack.

A: "I had a great latte this morning at Starbucks?"

B: "What the $%^&, why do you hate Peet's so much and why are you so hellbent on destroying the lives of American children? Are you a terrorist?"

A: "Excuse me? Are you speaking to me?"

The second phenomenon seems to be a corollary of the first, which is that people seem to give absolutely no consideration to the source of information. Without trying to make a political point (I absolutely despite politics and conversations about politics, so this is merely a (hopefully balanced) example), certain people get bent out of shape when they listen to someone like Keith Olberman rant and rave about the more conservative elements of our society. He was a SportsCenter anchor before he started doing political talk shows. I'm not sure I'd consider him an "authoritative source" on anything (other than a Giants score) and I can't imagine getting too riled about anything he has to say. Similarly, my understanding is that Glenn Beck never finished HS (although I believe he eventually did get his GED) and yet he seems to have a boundless understanding of our Constitution and Constitutional law. With due respect, I went to three years of law school and passed two bar examinations (one of which is considered the hardest in the country) and I consider myself to have a pretty feeble understanding of Constitutional law (and I think most lawyers would say something roughly similar). A lot of these folks are being extreme because they recognize that it makes good copy and good copy sells advertising and keeps them in a job. Ken is the same way. If he were bland, no one would read the site and there would be nothing to talk about, which wouldn't be very lucrative for him...

Just my $.02. I like his site in the same way that I like reading TMZ. It's a guilty pleasure that is good for a laugh. I don't take "I only shoot JPG and never RAW" as advice to follow, but rather a lighthearted moment to help get me through the day. Obviouly, YMMV.

omaha said:

My theory is that people who are overly attached to their purchasing decisions take offense at his casual praise for most cameras.

For the most part, KR either declares something "The Best Ever At Any Price" or "Absolute Shite". Not a lot of middle ground.

And most stuff rates as "The Best Ever..." because KR understands that stuff doesn't matter anyway.

So the guy who just dropped $2k on the latest Canon suddenly reads that the latest Nikon is "The Best Ever..."!!!

Urp.

Total consumer culture vapor lock! This isn't just some guy on the internet who disagrees. This is a fundamental assault on my manhood!! Why, don't you know that the gaussian pixel Bayer filter asymptotic polychromatic auto ISO USB diffraction layer on the Nikon was ranked by DPReview as 0.03% WORSE than the Canon?!?!?!? How could one possibly, in a million years, expect to take a single competent photograph with such garbage kit as that?!?!?

KR tweaks them because he gets that the gaussian pixel Bayer filter asymptotic polychromatic auto ISO USB diffraction layer doesn't mean a damned thing, and that you can take an absolutely glorious photograph with a Kodak Instamatic camera if you know what you are doing.

Its all pretty amusing, really. There are guys out there with countless thousands of dollars invested in gear who never take any actual pictures. But by golly, that camera they never use...well, it is the best!!

Click to expand...

Well said.

Pffftt!! PT was wrong, there is a sucker born every second, not every minute. And KR has most of em on his hook. And for those that are not yet hooked there are lots of apuggers that are trying hard to put them there.

Poisson Du Jour said:

One thing that caught my eye of KR's Shooting Film page was KR scanning 10,000 x 8,000 pixels from a 6x7 slide (!) The one question we are asking is Why??

Click to expand...

For all those who are printing 30" x 40" enlargements of course.

Ken Rockwell is all about affiliate marketing.thats all I know about him.You click his link he get paid, you buy though his link.he get percentage...

omaha said:

The central truth of KR is that he understands that gear doesn't matter.

Click to expand...

I would agree.

Ken Nadvornick said:

Holy cow! You get this? Really??

I've been going at this point around here for years now. Most everyone fights me on it tooth and nail. The differences between a real three-dimensional thing and a zero-dimensional virtual abstraction of that thing just seems to escape them. I've tried every analogy I can think of to no avail.

The idea that a photographic negative (something you can hold in your hand) and a RAW file simulation of a photographic negative (a virtual abstraction that you can't) are significantly different representations is apparently just too many vegetables to swallow at dinner.

And then you sit down and just write a post that says exactly that.

Wow.

Thank you so much.

Now I can die happy.



Ken

Click to expand...

I actually heard you state that opinion more than once...twice.....twenty times....anyway... the problem with it is you are assuming everyone is like you. You are like the guy with a classic car with a stick shift and tells everyone with an automatic transmission that their driving experience is not "authentic".

They can't feel the gears, experience the joy of the downshift and upshift, as they power in and out of the corners, so while they tool around the country in their car with an automatic transmission, they aren't getting the real experience of what driving should be.

So you are assuming that for a lot/most people that they really care about that, or should, but instead they care about getting to their destination. That is their goal, how that is achieved is just a matter of semantics.

You are a "process" guy. You love the process and to you if we don't agree with you then we are not authentically experiencing photography.

But some people are goal oriented. The process is semantics. They'll use the tools available to achieve the best print they think they can get because to them the print is the ultimate goal of the exercise. Now you can argue that in your world the print is better, but in my world and experience it is not, for many reasons.

Many here on APUG are process guys/people. To many this is a hobby. A way to get in the darkroom and get away from the old lady, kids, computer work for a while. It's all about the process. One print today and maybe 4 by the weekend.

But some here are goal oriented and the process does not fit well with today's demands.

I've driven a stickshift and I now drive an automatic. I would never go back.

But feel free to enjoy your choice but don't assume that just because you think your choice is authentic that you are necessarily correct, you are merely happy with your choice and trying to evangelize to everyone that your choice is the only choice or the only REAL choice.

If the negative is the score but the print is the performance, does it really matter if the score is written in pen or on a computer screen.

What would Ansel do?

Good question.

blansky said:

I actually heard you state that opinion more than once...

Click to expand...

The two processes are not mutually exclusive, they are just not the same. And because they are not the same process they produce different end results. Both physically and aesthetically. Which result suits any individual's needs at any given moment is up to each individual to decide for themselves. And that decision may change with each subsequent moment or need.

Go back and reread our extensive PM exchange again. I can't be any more clear and consistent in this common sense position. Neither method is better or worse than the other. They are just not exactly the same thing. And asserting that they are, as you and others have repeatedly done in the past, does a massive disservice to both. As well as to the blindingly obvious realities of both.

So tell me, when you have finished a portrait session do you normally disassemble your camera, then disconnect and remove the CCD sensor, then immerse it into D-76 diluted 1+1 for 11 minutes at 68F/20C with agitation for 10 seconds out of each 60?

Why not??

Ken

Ken Nadvornick said:

The two processes are not mutually exclusive, they are just not the same. And because they are not the same process they produce different end results. Both physically and aesthetically. Which result suits any individual's needs at any given moment is up to each individual to decide for themselves. And that decision may change with each subsequent moment or need.

Go back and reread our extensive PM exchange again. I can't be any more clear and consistent in this common sense position. Neither method is better or worse than the other. They are just not exactly the same thing. And asserting that they are, as you and others have repeatedly done in the past, does a massive disservice to both. As well as to the blindingly obvious realities of both.

So tell me, when you have finished a portrait session do you normally disassemble your camera, then disconnect and remove the CCD sensor, then immerse it into D-76 diluted 1+1 for 11 minutes at 68F/20C with agitation for 10 seconds out of each 60?

Why not??

Ken

Click to expand...

No I agitate it for 8 seconds at 72 degrees.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvcnx6-0GhA

72 degrees of inclination, I presume.

blansky said:

No I agitate it for 8 seconds at 72 degrees.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvcnx6-0GhA

Click to expand...

Aye blansky...

But do you know which one of those chaps was playing you and which was playing me?

I'll bet you do...



Ken

lxdude said:

72 degrees of inclination, I presume.

Click to expand...

Exactly, I'm inclined towards that.

Ken Nadvornick said:

Aye blansky...

But do you know which one of those chaps was playing you and which was playing me?

I'll bet you do...



Ken

Click to expand...

Obviously I'm the John Cleese character.

You on the other hand are just looking for an argument.

No you aren't.

Yes you are....................