Ken Rockwell and the popularity of film photography

[markbarendt]

Fortunately these discussions are really all in fun, even though they can get heated (albeit heated at a distance).

Yep

 

[Truzi]

Whether that's me or someone else you are referring to, regardless of their position or opinion I would cut them some slack.

People engaging in intense debate often adjust their positions because they learn something new, or someone else said something that clarified a certain facet of the issue in their thoughts, or they meant to say the same thing as they said earlier not realizing they actually didn't, or they even just momentarily drifted mentally and forgot.

Fortunately these discussions are really all in fun, even though they can get heated (albeit heated at a distance). Luckily this is not a court of law. And the death penalty is not in play here.



Ken

I posted that I couldn't find a flame-shield smiley, so the latter half of my post was a bit sarcastic. I personally love to debate. Some things, though, seem to get a little nasty at times (which can happen) so it was more of a general comment and not specifically aimed at anyone in particular. When I'm debating someone, I often miss the fact that there may be spectators who may not take things as the debaters intend.

Case in point: My post was aimed at some of the more nasty comments I've read, not at apparent/seeming inconsistencies or pointing them out. I do that all the time in debates & arguments. The contrary comment was not contrary to themselves, but contrary to what others say, and not occasional, but as a matter of habit. (Think Argument Clinic.)
So, I should have been more careful (or verbose, but I tend to be verbose enough as it is).

Being online, instead of in person, robs us of voice tone, non-verbal cues, and the ability to quickly clarify a position (or disposition) to a spectator.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

There are two reasons that I see for the value of Clearing Winter Storm.

One is the reasons is the image, the other is the Adams mystique.

Adams, like other successful artists, marketers, hucksters; sold "us" on his process. (As evidence I offer his books.) Silver gelatin printing is only important in the market valuation of clearing winter storm because "that's how Ansel did it", its how the original was made. Anything else would be "a fake".

Elliot Erwitt and Steve McCurry don't need to worry as much about the exact how of processing as the Adams estate might.

All possibly true, except that...

My choice of AA as the example was solely to illustrate the fact that, while the differences between the two imaging processes are concrete and real, those differences mean different things to different people. AA was just a convenient choice because everyone at least recognizes the reference.

In other words, it does matter to some "what tools get it from scene to wall."

Even though others could validly care less.

That was the original point of yours I was answering.

Ken

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I personally love to debate. Some things, though, seem to get a little nasty at times...

Heh, heh...

Ever ventured here?

It's the vestigial remnants of the original Usenet discussion boards. The death penalty is not only in play, but is unjustly imposed as often as they can get away with. Think of yourself as a small-timer, then read my signature line below.

And anyone even uttering the word moderation is at the top of the hit list.

:eek:

Ken

 

[removed account4]

50 is a huge edition for any piece of art. 25 is still quite sizable. Unless you are a major figure in the art world who would command large prices even from an edition of 100 prints, it doesn't make sense from a value perspective to create such an edition. 10-15 is a far more sensible figure for any piece that exceeds 16x20". I am discussing this from a business/economics vantage-point however. Very little of what I have said in this thread is of any use outside of the context of that of a working artist who subsists on their art. To those of you who do photography simply because it is enjoyable and challenging, then you are free to work in whatever manner you wish, with whatever tools you wish...which is a beautiful thing.

Those of us with student loans who are trying to eke out a living without having to sling booze (for others, at least) have to consider the intrinsic value of our work from a multi-faceted perspective, however the fact that I use a film camera does not make my work more valuable. If this were the case then surely Richard Prince's xeroxed shit wouldn't sell for millions of dollars.

thanks chris, total agreement with you ..
but the french people i know all smoke lucky's.

 

[Chris Lange]

thanks chris, total agreement with you ..
but the french people i know all smoke lucky's.

Precisely why the dopes who parade around with them look pretentious!

 

[MartinCrabtree]

However the point is (was) "is film photography gaining in popularity?" Well???

 

[Chris Lange]

In a nutshell...yes.

I know tons of young people that are at least interested in trying it, and half again as many that regularly shoot film.

 

[perkeleellinen]

I went for a walk yesterday and I saw an Agfa Precisa film box on the floor. Someone else shoots film in this tiny village - 100% increase in popularity!

 

[kb3lms]

However the point is (was) "is film photography gaining in popularity?" Well???

Yeah, since starting this thread and poking about here and there, I've come to the conclusion that it very well may be. In short, I think the "digital" (in general, not only photography) peak of our digital, online life is passing and the general public is getting tired of playing with computerized crap because they have to do so at work all day, many being sat on their ass in a chair and all but chained to the damn thing.

A marketing opportunity is passing before us.

My choice of AA as the example was solely to illustrate the fact that, while the differences between the two imaging processes are concrete and real, those differences mean different things to different people. (snip)

In other words, it does matter to some "what tools get it from scene to wall."

If I was spending $10,000 on a print of "Clearing Winter Storm," it damn well would matter what process was used to get it from scene to wall. I don't give a crap if Ansel came back out of his grave, scanned, "photoshopped" and clicked the damn print button himself - it's just a freakin' inkjet copy of it. A thousand more could be made just like it, all ISO9000 certified to be exactly the same as only a machine could do.

Each wet printed print of that negative that Ansel ever made shows "the hand of the maker" in some way and is unique. It is a uniquely interpreted presentation of the scene in front of his camera at the time and his thoughts on how to show that scene.

And that thought might be core to a growing popularity of film.

 

[blansky]

However the point is (was) "is film photography gaining in popularity?" Well???

Anecdotal evidence aside, I guess the way to know is get the numbers from the film companies.

Probably more accurate than some guy saying he's going to start shooting film.

Fluff pieces in magazine articles and on blogs is just the daily filler needed to feed the machine.

It would be great if it actually is growing. More options, more choice.

 

[Bill Burk]

Does anyone in this thread *honestly* care whether someone on the internet whose name you do not know and whom you will never meet in real life think that what you do is or is not photography?

This is about the funniest thing I read all day.

For those not in on the joke... MatthewDunn and I are going to get together in real life to do some darkroom work.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Real life? Or virtual abstract life??



Ken

 

[blockend]

However the point is (was) "is film photography gaining in popularity?" Well???

I'd be surprised if film sales are more than 2% of 1995. Hope I'm wrong. Maybe digital opened up a new constituency of people who wouldn't have taken photographs before, because relative percentage of film to digital must be nearer 0.01%. Among photographers who consider themselves enthusiasts, I'd guess around 5% shoot film. However you look at it, film is pretty niche these days, but as a technology for which new hardware sales are next to non-existent, film is a massive success story. Compared to audio tape with a similar heritage, film is positively booming!

 

[f/16]

I only read KR's site for it's entertainment value. I don't take any of it seriously. You'll come across something like "Sharpness doesn't matter. Pros don't care about sharpness, especially in the corners." And in another one of his articles you'll see something like "I love this lens. It's sharp sharp sharp, even in the corners."

 

[analoguey]

Was reminded of this thread when I saw the prices of used Nikon gear shoot up / being stable on ebay.
I had been wanting to try some of the older nikon gear but had put it off as I wanted to use the newly bought old stuff first - was in '11. Now, I see that most of the gear has appreciated in price. Even used Nikon flashes!

Some are attributed to strobist, others to Nex and other micro 4/3rd users buying up the lenses.

Maybe film might pick up too!

 

[ME Super]

I only read KR's site for it's entertainment value. I don't take any of it seriously. You'll come across something like "Sharpness doesn't matter. Pros don't care about sharpness, especially in the corners." And in another one of his articles you'll see something like "I love this lens. It's sharp sharp sharp, even in the corners."

He does have some good stuff on there. Like pack light - you get more pictures when you're not fumbling with equipment. My main lens is a 28-200mm f/4 zoom, though I do have a manual focus 50mm f/2 lens as well. With my Pentax PZ-20 I can have all of the automation, or none of it except the motor drive. I have 5 program modes, aperture priority, shutter priority, and fully manual for exposure (with the 50mm lens I have I lose all exposure modes except aperture priority and manual). I can even turn AF off if I so desire. In some situations, I do exactly that - turn all of the automation off (I do use the built-in meter though, even in manual mode).

Another thing - it's not all about the gear. KR knows this.

 

[alanrockwood]

KR's website is part legitimate commentary, part hyperbole, and part tongue in cheek, and he doesn't always tell you which is which, so you have to be able to take the information and opinions he gives and filter it based on additional knowledge you gain elsewhere. Some people can't tolerate that approach to photography commentary. I don't mind it.

Actually, on the technical side of things Rockwell's pronouncements are probably at least as accurate (taken as an average) as the average post at APUG, and everyone here at APUG knows you have to filter the information given here based other knowledge.

 

[flavio81]

26 pages about Ken Rockwell?!

I like his lens reviews, a lot. He tests for the things I care for. But you have to have a good sense of humor to like them.

I liked the fact that he tests for chromatic abberration by photographying a white gazebo and if the lens is good he says:

"This lens is approved by the PPLFPA, Professional Patio and Lawn Furniture Photographers' Association, with a grade of "A.""

 

[DREW WILEY]

If you understand the basis for this kind of gig, one thing you need to realize about people who make their living doing constant gear reviews is that they shoot from the hip an awful lot. Like many things either on the web or in print, take it with a grain of salt; and if you want something done right, do it yourself. But I'd give Mr. Rockwell higher scores than something like Consumer Reports, which is one most misleading sources of information I can think of in many case, in numerous categories. In a product category we all can relate to here, I remember where they rated the Lecia as the worst 35mm buy on the market because you paid way too much for it and didn't even get a free camera bag, flash, or other silly goodies. With the exception of automobile reports, the very concepts of quality and reliability seem to be missing from their vocabulary.

 

[Roger Cole]

Consumer reports tests things for uninformed consumers, not hobbyists, aficionados, serious artists or professionals. That view of the Leica was probably spot on for their intended audience. Let's face it - if you're making camera buying decisions based on Consumer Reports, you don't need and won't appreciate a Leica anyway. In the days before digital when every snapshooter shot film the vast majority were never printed larger than 3.5x5 or 4x6 anyway, on color neg film, and the vast majority of those people would not have been able to tell the difference between photos from a Leica with the finest German lens and those from their mid grade P&S. Not that the differences wouldn't be discernible even at that print size, but that audience simply wasn't attuned to them. For that matter the P&S with its auto exposure and focus (I don't know the time period we're talking about here, assuming those were available) would make them more likely to get results acceptable to them. Drop back into the 70s and you still got auto exposure on the best of the little pocket 35s so that's still true to an extent. Fact was, a Yashica Electro 35 was probably a better choice for the average person (and still overkill) than a Leica was.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Roger, I know about the Consumer Reports because I have been peripherally involved in it several times, by their incompetent subcontractors soliciting sample of this and that from me. You would howl with laughter if I had time to relate several of the incidents. But a dead giveaway is when they rate two of exactly the same thing completely opposite, even though one in simply a private-label of the brand name other. Since 98% of our business here happens to be to professionals spending real money, who rely upon correct information and work on trust, if anyone walks through the door with an issue of Consumer Reports, they are politely redirected to Home Depot. We don't want their business.

 

[Truzi]

My parents subscribed to Consumer Reports years ago, when it was part-way useful. Anymore, it's more interested in how many (superfluous) features per dollar, not about quality, robustness, etc.

 

[AgX]

In a product category we all can relate to here, I remember where they rated the Lecia as the worst 35mm buy on the market because you paid way too much for it and didn't even get a free camera bag, flash, or other silly goodies.

I do not see what is wrong with a report as that.

Roger already explained why.

 

[Jim Jones]

Long ago Consumer Report also panned Leica because owners reported having serviced their equipment more often than most other camera owners. Of course the professional Leica photographers did!