I agree with everything Blansky said except I don't buy the number one reason anyone would shoot film over digital is they like the look. I think at this point, given how far digital cameras and printers have come in terms of quality, that is baloney. I'm 100% analog, but I have to admit to myself at this point it has nothing to do with analog being better or looking different. It is strictly a matter of preference for darkroom work over computer work, and also that analog is what I know how to do. I have no interest in digital workflow, and that's about it. Coming up with other reasons seems mildly delusional.
I think film does look different. Silver halide reacts differently to light than a silicone sensor. Film does a 'better' job de-familiarizing the subject while digital often appears 'too' real. Then there are the analog lenses themselves many of which don't have a digital equivalent : all 6x6 120 lenses are as wide vertically as horizontally and simply paint a different looking image.
I think film does look different.
An interesting little documentary about why one would shoot film in today's world.
Hope you enjoy it.
http://www.picturecorrect.com/tips/why-some-pro-photographers-prefer-film-over-digital/
Nice job by all involved, this is one of the best ways to market film in my mind, with love and passion for the medium. Kodak is being genuine and smart here, they know who their market is now and they are confirming it with this kind of portrayal. While it does not represent all of us in nuance, it represents a lot of us in passion.
I know a fair bit of (there was a url link here which no longer exists) now who are really enjoying the balance something as hands on as film brings to their otherwise over-digitized lives. I’m really grateful to be a part of mentoring them, hanging out with them on cool ad campaigns, other shoots. We have some real growth in my local area in terms of interest in it and that all stems from being super positive about film and doing work that gets us excited, the passion is infectious.
That being said, I truly feel sad for those who pick this video apart and can’t see what it stands for, a love of photography in a form that will clearly outlive anything digital becomes. My clients want to me to shoot more film now, because that is when my heart skips a beat and they get the best photographs from me they possibly can. We now have 4 galleries in town that show photography in retail spaces that command $6,000-$14,000 a month. Aside from Peter Lik's Vegas looking digs, 75% of the work is Silver Gel, not compu-prints.
There is a lot of claim in how digital fine art is catching up with Silver Gel in technical terms and while that is true, it can not outpace the tsunami of public perception that digital art and digital photography is something that more and more people can do every day, so why pay for it. I'm a business man and I know a bad investment when I see one and digital photography is certainly that, it is designed to self-obsolete.
After 22 years of being on the deck of the digital ship, I can see what is happening, I am not going down with it....
But my fault with the video is that it is dishonest as most advertising is. The "love" of analog could easily have been shown in an honest manner. There are people on APUG who turn out stunning black and white work but instead the film shows a lot of mediocre photographers spouting nonsense.
I've double-checked and confirmed that ALL my lenses are as wide vertically as horizontally. And what happens when I put my "analog" lens on my digital camera? Does that make it a "digital" lens? What if I were able to put my "digital" lens on my analog camera?
BTW, if I want to get a "6x6" look, I can crop. I've never felt limited by the ratio of the "sensor" dimensions in analog or digital.
To the viewer of the end result, or to the producer who sees the image along the way to a final product?
I wonder if anyone's done a double-blind test lately. My gut feeling is that we're at the point where no viewer could possibly distinguish which images were film and which digital in a pool of well-produced examples, but I can't prove that.
-NT
Agree with ntenny and that was basically my point earlier. Barring extreme procedures, in a blind test I doubt anyone can tell the difference at this point. The "film is better" or "film is different" argument may have applied earlier on, but by now the digital technology is so good I really think if we're honest with ourselves as analog workers, the only truly valid reasons we have for working in analog are that we enjoy it (and don't enjoy computers) and that it is what we know how to do. It isn't about differences in the final product anymore. At least in my case, I can't reasonably take that position. It's just that I love working in the darkroom, I love the workflow with film, chemistry etc., I love working under the enlarger, and these are skills I've worked hard on. I don't want to re-learn how to do it with software, and have no interest in that process. It wouldn't be enjoyable for me. I started photography in the darkroom, and I'll finish it there. If a time comes when I can't buy the materials anymore, I'll just allocate more time to my other hobbies.
I know three of those guys, they are being straight up in the video, no BS and I agree with what they are saying 100%. I dont agree with the slam on the work, some of it is ok, a good bit of it is really nice, considerably better than a lot of the work I see on this site.
I would think we all share the common desire for film to stick around, but the lack of logic here in regards to what I consider to be a nice narrative on current film users and what I still think is the best advertising .is baffling to me. Compared to living life in and around people like these guys who love life behind the lens, APUG is a very negative place in terms of moving film forward.
For too many APUG members, its often the complaining seems to be the biggest past time on here. Since I have been a member, legions of people have complained that Kodak does not advertise. So here they do it in a *KILLER* way and people still slam on it .
You seriously need to wake up, the video is awesome, truthful and to the point. This is narrative and advertising and that is *exactly* what Kodak needs to be doing right now and in the future.
Whoa...
we all have the right to our opinions and none of us, whatever those opinions may be, are required to respond a certain way to anyone's advertising, including that produced by film manufactures.
It's not just advertising, it is heart-felt narrative, kind of like when someone passes your name onto someone with heart felt enthusiasm, it advertised you, but from a real place...
You have a right to your opinion, so does everyone else...
IAnd no, you don't *have* to respond in a certain way, but as a successful photographer who has gone nearly entirely back to film, I can say with certainty that it is often a net-negative result in terms of threads like these when it comes to commentary that newcomers to film would encounter here.
I asked the woman I showed in (there was a url link here which no longer exists) photo if she is a member of APUG. She responded that she is familiar with the site but finds it is tainted with far too many tech-battles and negative talk for her to spend much time dealing with.
That's on you guys, so maybe stop crapping on your own party and perhaps more people will show up...
I'm wondering what else is supposed to happen in a forum besides tech battles. Art battles? Or everyone patting eachother on the back for a mediochre job well done.
Yeah, what ever Shawn...
I work using film, know some of the people in the video, mentor young people in my area, are working with the city of Aspen to find space to set up my three other enlargers and get people in the darkroom to enjoy it. Besides taking care of business, I promote the use of film every single day so we can all continue to use it.......do you?
Because this nonsense about bashing a positive video about film use is the domain of those who are not thinking about the bigger picture...
So no one should disagree on anything for fear of upsetting newcomers? I believe the tone should be kept civil (unlike yours in this thread) but there are many different ways of doing things in the world of analog photography and art in general, most of them are valid and much can be learned though differences in opinion.
I say you and everyone else has a right to their opinion and you say "what ever"...
Am I or anyone else required to do any of the things you mentioned? I doubt you know much about me, what I do or whom I help. Your anger seems unfounded and don't wish to fight with you.
I'm wondering what else is supposed to happen in a forum besides tech battles. Art battles? Or everyone patting eachother on the back for a mediochre job well done.
When this video came out I was surprised at the amount of negative reaction from film photographers. I think that you've got to put it in perspective: It's some guys who run a film lab, going on a road trip and talking to people (probably their clients) about why THEY shoot film. Most of all it's just fun.
The film is no masterpiece, the photographers come across as Hipsters as opposed to real photographers furthermore I am missing quite a few photographic genres in the infomercial and the promised romance doesn't really come across.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?