Shooting film in a digital world-a mini documentary

[blockend]

Yeah, and for logical consistency it should have been posted on the analog internet too.

We're talking about Kodak's core business, history and legacy - the medium of film - and how it differs from the competition. That was the message of the photographers. Making a moody digital video suggests film is an anachronism, for the moving image at least.

 

[removed account4]

Yeah, and for logical consistency it should have been posted on the analog internet too.

hi wayne, sorry to be a PITA

to me at least it is like shooting a movie about how wonderful kodak film is
how it is great stuff for amateur, experimental and professional photographers alike
but it was shot on fuji color stock, or a cannon dv cam ...
sure it is on the internet, and in the end it will have had to be digitized but
in order to suggest how wonderful FILM is, wouldn't it make sense that it would be made with FILM ??
the images displayed in the video are digital now anyways, did it matter that they were shot on film too ?

 

[Wayne]

Its not that I really disagree with you, I don't...but since we'd all be viewing it digitally anyway, it seems a pointless, yet very true, criticism.

hi wayne, sorry to be a PITA

to me at least it is like shooting a movie about how wonderful kodak film is
how it is great stuff for amateur, experimental and professional photographers alike
but it was shot on fuji color stock, or a cannon dv cam ...
sure it is on the internet, and in the end it will have had to be digitized but
in order to suggest how wonderful FILM is, wouldn't it make sense that it would be made with FILM ??
the images displayed in the video are digital now anyways, did it matter that they were shot on film too ?

 

[blockend]

Its not that I really disagree with you, I don't...but since we'd all be viewing it digitally anyway, it seems a pointless, yet very true, criticism.

Unless you only view your photographs as silver (or platinum or tin or whatever) prints, you're showing those digitally, too. That doesn't stop people shooting film. However if your business is film, shooting digitally seems like holding a white flag up to the onslaught of digital image making, presumably because it's too time consuming and expensive. I don't think donating, processing and telecineing some 16mm wouldn't have caused Kodak to go broke, and it may have been more consistent with the underlying story that film is great, film is different, film still works.

 

[MDR]

They could have used Super 8mm or 16mm short ends without breaking the bank or Kodak could have donated some outdated stock. And imo nothing screams film like Super8mm or Standard 16mm. The advantage of DV is that the guys can talk 30 min + without the need for a reload and since the interviewed photographers are not pros this is a big advantage. Cinelicious has a few examples of Weddings shot in Super 8 they look superb imo.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I prefer to see this in a more fundamental light. Kodak is, through their backing of this piece, at long last finally taking a step back in the direction of film product marketing. If you've followed their sad tale over the recent years you know that this is a sea change in attitude. At least this one solitary data point is.

Publicly characterizing photographic film as a Good Thing worthy of purchase and use by the consumer instead of digital could not in principle be further from the spectacle of dynamiting film-related buildings and infrastructure just to demonstrate their previous commitment to digital. More simply, it could not be more anti-Perez agenda in the message it sends.

That this piece may have been presented and/or originally shot on digital equipment could not be less significant. It's the sea change that counts, guys, not that tiny amount of ocean spray that ended up on your shorts after that last wave washed up.

Ken

 

[blockend]

Kodak were incapable of imagining themselves as anything other than monolithic, and paid the price. Ilford were fortunate to have senior management who believed in the product, and were prepared to put their own necks on the line to see it continue. Kodak may be learning the lesson that artists, geeks, curmudgeons and hipsters are the market now, but it's been forced upon them, and you get the feeling they can't quite swallow the sea change graciously and follow the film idea through.

That said, I agree the documentary shone a light on the new wave of film users, and for that we should be grateful.

 

[frank]

Amen to that!

 

[Wayne]

I don't disagree. It would have been much better to use film. But it's good anyway. (I mean in principle-living in the Stone Age on dialup, I have not watched the film...er...documentary)

Unless you only view your photographs as silver (or platinum or tin or whatever) prints, you're showing those digitally, too. That doesn't stop people shooting film. However if your business is film, shooting digitally seems like holding a white flag up to the onslaught of digital image making, presumably because it's too time consuming and expensive. I don't think donating, processing and telecineing some 16mm wouldn't have caused Kodak to go broke, and it may have been more consistent with the underlying story that film is great, film is different, film still works.

 

[MattKing]

Kodak never stopped promoting film - in the cine world.

 

[removed account4]

Kodak never stopped promoting film - in the cine world.

matt

that is my pet peeve
they are promoting it now ( and well as i can see from the short film )
but when it came to US they ciuldn't have cared less ...
until now of course ...

im glad the are advertising ..
every few months? of course

 

[Wayne]

Go buy some Kodak, and maybe they'll do more advertising.

 

[removed account4]

Go buy some Kodak, and maybe they'll do more advertising.

hahahaha

pretty funny

no matter if i purchase
5 thousands of of dollars of film
or 10 boxes of the boutique xx 4x5 film
they wouldnt advertise anymore than they do

but thanks for making me feel so special