Shooting film in a digital world-a mini documentary

[Paul Ozzello]

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.

 

[moose10101]

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'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.

 

[ntenny]

I think film does look different.

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

 

[PKM-25]

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....

 

[blansky]

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....

Interesting post and good luck with your decision.

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.

As for digital going anywhere, your niche is a pretty small example of the photography market and digital never has and probably never will be able to touch the fine art print marketplace, for the simple reason that fine art is by definition a niche/scarce product.

But thanks for your point of view.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

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 agree, it seems like so many of these types of videos end up as such and don't need to...

Of course I must admit that I'm alright with almost anything (within reason) that sells film at this point.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

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.

Digital lenses (particularly wide angle lenses) are designed with optical formulas to take into account the 'behavior' of the sensor and are almost always retro-focus instead of symmetrical, and analog lenses simply perform differently with a digital sensor than on film. All lenses are as wide vertically but ALL digital sensors automatically crop the top and bottom of the image. Then if you want to shoot square, you have to crop <again>. The optical formulas of Hasseblad V lenses for example, were designed to be used 'full frame', it's how they 'paint' the image, you just can't replicate the 'look' of a 38mm Biogon with a digital camera or medium format sensor.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Just as soon as I retire from this job, I won't have to be sitting here with a keypad and mouse getting carpal tunnel misery, cramped shoulders, and a sore butt. You'll probably never hear from me again (celebrate now). The last thing I want to do is process images that way. So that's
a valid reason to ignore digital photography! Not all of us want to be hooked up to a high-fructose corn syrup IV indoors, or want an obnoxious electonic device spoiling our outdoor forays. Use those CDS's for skeet shooting, and your smart phones for skipping across ponds. Give me a
real darkroom, nice n' quiet. .. But I never did figure out how Fred Picker integrated classical music to his compensating metronome in his own
darkroom... maybe Bach had to be played at just the right developer temperature.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

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

To both. I'm not saying one is better than the other and I don't want to hi-jack this thread and turn it into film vs digital especially since I use both, but they are different. Once you start printing large the differences are obvious. It's like the difference between a CRT television and 1080P. There is a sense of detachment (I call it de-familiarization) when watching a movie on CRT while the HD version looks so real you could walk right into the screen. Film has the same effect and interprets the image differently just by the nature of how silver halide responds to photons. You just can't replicate it by adding grain with a plug-in.

 

[PKM-25]

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 don’t 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, it’s 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.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

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 don't think it's a question of enjoyment. I do enjoy shooting film and the tactile feel from my old cameras, the large viewfinders, but I don't miss using an enlarger and get a lot of satisfaction from drum scanning and large format digital printing. I enjoy working in Photoshop and if I could find a digital replacement for my Hasselblad I would be all over it. But at this point in time, digital capture still has a long way to go.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

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 don’t 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, it’s 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.

 

[PKM-25]

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...

And 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...

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

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...

 

[PKM-25]

You have a right to your opinion, so does everyone else...

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...

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

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...

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.

 

[PKM-25]

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.

I think her point was that there is good info here in terms of tech resources, but when it degenerates into a battle of egos over practicality, that drove her away. This is not unique to APUG, it happens on a lot of photo sites, you get good info about 1-3 pages in and then by page 10 it can be total waste of time.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

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...

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.

 

[PKM-25]

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.

My beef is not really with anyone but Blanksy on this thread.

The guy has obviously gone digital awhile ago for his portrait work but for some reason, he hangs out and takes a nice big fly ridden steamer on anything that pits film against digital. For Pete's sake Shawn, I must have double the professional digital experience as him and I just don't get it, the need for him to OD on digital laxatives every time one of these threads pops up.

I think I post these responses more for people like Claire to read when she comes here rather than to convince the ever present squadron of "B-Negatives" overhead....

 

[ntenny]

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.

I'd like to see more art battles. Get on it, all y'all.

-NT

 

[PKM-25]

OK, the shocks on my truck are done, gotta bail for awhile again, this is just too much for me, a downer...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I think I agree with Dan that the best way to promote film is to try to be positive about its use.

For the last four years I've had to print in a darkroom that is about 45*F in the winter, just because I have nowhere else to set up. I've relied on a hot water jacket, and when it's acceptable temperature in the darkroom, in the summer time, I typically don't want to be indoors in a darkroom. I've tried to produce work from there, and it's been challenging, but kept at it and kept myself from getting too rusty. Yesterday I plugged in a 40" long heater tray made for keeping food hot, and I was able to place three 12x16" trays side by side, which kept the chemistry at a snug and comfy 70*F instead, and I found that true joy of the craft again, a joy that has been missing for years now.

It reminded me just how exciting darkroom printing is, where the process comes full circle. Photo paper was designed to work with negatives and the tone curves of both fit together like hand in glove. To see the results of all the decisions I made and instinctive reactions I had in the field, photographing, from exposure to film processing, to agitation, and to printing, and finally to toning, is remarkable every time, and when it comes together it's such a beautiful thing.
I hope that more people in the future have the opportunity to at least experience what us darkroom workers do, so that the decision of what they choose as their medium is based on something they tried for themselves, and not the feedback they get from learning from others. I really believe it's a process that must be physically experienced to be fully appreciated.
That's where a positive spin on darkroom and film work comes in handy, to attract those users that are curious.

I also agree that we all have a right to our opinions, but also that sometimes those opinions are not useful, even if we ourselves opine that it's good information. I guess I'd like to promote a balance between information that is useful from a standpoint of knowledge, and information that is useful to our subculture of film/darkroom photography as a whole.
I know I've been stuck in peeing contests more than once, and I almost always regret it, because it doesn't help the state of film photography, but rather detracts. Personal pride gets in the way.

For what it's worth, I think the video was OK. Hopefully Kodak, Indie Photo Labs, and the photographers have some benefit from it.

 

[AgX]

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.

This film was sponsored by Kodak (when they still were busy with still film). So one could assume they thought this film either to mirror the stand of many film photographers or to be of interest to many wannabe photographers.

 

[MDR]

First Digital vs Film is getting boring neither is better they are different media and yes I and others would probably see the difference in a blind test.

Also I like most of Blansky's post they are usually funny and intelligent in this case I have to somewhat side with PKM-25. Bashing Film on a site that is here to promote the use of film is extremely counterproductive and quite frankly stupid.

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.

For a decent film about the magic of the Darkroom look no further than the movie about Nathalie Lopparelli (french Masterprinter), she doesn't need to wax poetics it's all there in the images. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz2dC5MXjSY s
Talk is cheap it's the results that count and showing the real magic as opposed to talking might be a better way to promote the use of film.

Second recently a poster on the RFF said something so intelligent it blew my mind there is no digital image and there can never be a digital image. The Sensor is analogue, the image you see is analogue. The digital part of the image is a written code not an image a photographer or anyone who isn't a computer can see, all digital cameras need an A/D converter in order to display an image. Meaning all images are analogue the storage and compression is the difference

 

[adelorenzo]

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.

Can you define for me what a 'real photographer' is? Those people in the film sure seemed like they were making real photos to me but maybe I'm just too dumb to understand.