Kodak on facebook

Matthew Wagg · Jul 20, 2012

I'm subscribed to a kodak feed on facebook and today they asked why film matters?

https://www.facebook.com/kodakprofessional/posts/410596028977254

I've replied. If anyone else is on facebook it might be worth reminding them we are out here and we love our films.

HowardDvorin · Jul 20, 2012

I'm in.

htimsdj · Jul 20, 2012

Just posted.

choppastyle · Jul 20, 2012

Done.

Jerevan · Jul 20, 2012

Done! It has a lot to do with hands and heart, this film thing.

PKM-25 · Jul 20, 2012

I replied:

"If every reply on this post were handwritten, you would see why film matters. You would see that no two people are alike and that the writing would all be different, being handmade. For as long as it has been around and will, film is a mystery that inspires and engages in a way that the world of instant gratification can not. Film is a lesson in both patience and vision refined and it will always be my preferred medium of self expression."

Which is right above Kodak's reference to my recent blog entry..

Sirius Glass · Jul 20, 2012

I would add a comment but I do not use FarceBook or any other [anti]social media.

chriscrawfordphoto · Jul 20, 2012

I found most of the responses intellectually empty. Silly emotional defenses rather than thoughtful answers. I shoot both film and digital, and have never felt the kind of transcendence that some of these guys are ascribing to film. Its just another medium, and I'm glad I have the choice. Some shots work better with digital and some with film. To say that one of them is always inferior is simple ignorance. No different than burning a cross while screaming that blacks aren't human. I doubt such sentiments will influence Kodak to keep making film.

Matthew Wagg · Jul 20, 2012

PKM-25 said:
I replied:

"If every reply on this post were handwritten, you would see why film matters. You would see that no two people are alike and that the writing would all be different, being handmade. For as long as it has been around and will, film is a mystery that inspires and engages in a way that the world of instant gratification can not. Film is a lesson in both patience and vision refined and it will always be my preferred medium of self expression."

Which is right above Kodak's reference to my recent blog entry..

That's beautiful.

Ipno Tizer · Jul 20, 2012

Just did my bit. And I intend to share it on my timeline too.

eddie · Jul 20, 2012

chriscrawfordphoto said:
No different than burning a cross while screaming that blacks aren't human.

That's an extremely poor analogy. You may want to rethink it.

Poisson Du Jour · Jul 20, 2012

chriscrawfordphoto said:
I found most of the responses intellectually empty. Silly emotional defenses rather than thoughtful answers. I shoot both film and digital, and have never felt the kind of transcendence that some of these guys are ascribing to film. Its just another medium, and I'm glad I have the choice. Some shots work better with digital and some with film. To say that one of them is always inferior is simple ignorance. No different than burning a cross while screaming that blacks aren't human. I doubt such sentiments will influence Kodak to keep making film.

I thought your post was quite agreeable and lucid. Until I saw this intellectually bereft statement: No different than burning a cross while screaming that blacks aren't human. I doubt such sentiments will influence Kodak to keep making film.

Really sir. THIS, from an American!?

SkipA · Jul 20, 2012

chriscrawfordphoto said:
I found most of the responses intellectually empty. Silly emotional defenses rather than thoughtful answers. I shoot both film and digital, and have never felt the kind of transcendence that some of these guys are ascribing to film. Its just another medium, and I'm glad I have the choice. Some shots work better with digital and some with film. To say that one of them is always inferior is simple ignorance. No different than burning a cross while screaming that blacks aren't human. I doubt such sentiments will influence Kodak to keep making film.

How do you know what will influence Kodak? You have your way of looking at things, other people have theirs. Emotional demand supports the sale of many products, and that is as good a reason to manufacture a product and sell it as any. Do you imagine that all film emulsions were invented and marketed solely based upon their technical merits?

All reasons for preferring film, shooting film, or wishing for the continued existence of film matter. Even yours. Because in the end, any reason that translates into SALES is what matters.

Edit: By the way, I'm not facebook literate (don't have an account there), so I might be missing a trick, but I see less than 50 comments on that page. Which of those do you (Chris) consider intellectually empty and unlikely to persuade Kodak? And where is your comment? I'd like to enjoy your doubtless highly intellectual comment.

SuzanneR · Jul 20, 2012

chriscrawfordphoto said:
I found most of the responses intellectually empty. Silly emotional defenses rather than thoughtful answers. I shoot both film and digital, and have never felt the kind of transcendence that some of these guys are ascribing to film. Its just another medium, and I'm glad I have the choice. Some shots work better with digital and some with film. To say that one of them is always inferior is simple ignorance. No different than burning a cross while screaming that blacks aren't human. I doubt such sentiments will influence Kodak to keep making film.

That's a bit extreme... I'm not sure anyone who thinks film is superior to digital (personally I don't... each medium with its own strengths and weaknesses) is necessarily on the same level of profound ignorance as those burning crosses for really stupid and misguided racially motivated reasons.

chriscrawfordphoto · Jul 20, 2012

eddie said:
That's an extremely poor analogy. You may want to rethink it.

It represents blind hate and ignorance. That's why I chose it, and it is a perfect analogy. From the responses, you guys seem to think I'm endorsing racism. Quite the opposite. I grew up around that stuff; the biggest KKK group in the United States was based in northeast Indiana when I was a teenager. I found that kind of baseless hate repulsive then and still do.

eddie · Jul 20, 2012

I never thought you were endorsing racism. To compare people who choose one media over another with racists is absurd, and tasteless. A little thought could have provided a better analogy. This one completely misses...

Brian C. Miller · Jul 20, 2012

chriscrawfordphoto said:
I found most of the responses intellectually empty. ... I doubt such sentiments will influence Kodak to keep making film.

Kodak asked for people to tell the world why film matters. They didn't say, "Tell us why we should keep making film, because we're just itching for a good reason to turn off the lights!" If someone's response is emotional, then that's their reason for why film matters to them. If it's a technical reason, then that's fine, too.

I'm another social network avoider, so I can't post on that page why film matters to me.

Why does film matter to me? Because it's a physical construct. Its grains are never in the same pattern, much like every snowflake is different. When I use it, I don't need to worry about Moiré patterns. When I use Kodak color film, I don't spend time worrying that the colors are inacurate. I get a reliable result, time and time again. I get more resolution from film than what an 80Mp camera can deliver, at 1/3,333rd of the price. Each photograph results in a physical object which has been proven to last over 100 years, despite radical changes in technology. Film cameras work as long as film is available, and cameras over 100 years old still function beautifully today. When will digital technology match these things? I don't know. I don't care. I have film.

SuzanneR · Jul 20, 2012

chriscrawfordphoto said:
It represents blind hate and ignorance. That's why I chose it, and it is a perfect analogy. From the responses, you guys seem to think I'm endorsing racism. Quite the opposite. I grew up around that stuff; the biggest KKK group in the United States was based in northeast Indiana when I was a teenager. I found that kind of baseless hate repulsive then and still do.

Simple ignorance (your words) about the differences between film and digital are not the same as "blind hate and ignorance" akin to the acts of the KKK, the analogy is not apt, and though I don't think you are endorsing racism, you seem to be trivializing the suffering of those that were the targets of such " blind hate and ignorance."

Sirius Glass · Jul 21, 2012

Thank you for stating that clearly and concisely SuzanneR. I knew what and understood why Chris said what he did, but it was a poor analogy and trivializing what some people suffered with.

R.Gould · Jul 21, 2012

already posted a comment,

batwister · Jul 21, 2012

chriscrawfordphoto said:
No different than burning a cross while screaming that blacks aren't human.

I might tell this to people who prefer drinking tea over coffee.

Kodak on facebook

Matthew Wagg

HowardDvorin

htimsdj

Advertiser

choppastyle

Jerevan

PKM-25

Sirius Glass

chriscrawfordphoto

Matthew Wagg

Ipno Tizer

eddie

Poisson Du Jour

SkipA

SuzanneR

Moderator

chriscrawfordphoto

eddie

Brian C. Miller

SuzanneR

Moderator

Sirius Glass

R.Gould

batwister

Kodak on facebook

Advertiser

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency