Use the neg once, then toss it. Make another when you need it or want to improve it. The print is as archival as the printing processs used. If one uses a digital negative to make a carbon print, and if one has not done it well, one can have a lousy-looking print that will last centuries unchanged...for the worse.This process requires power, ink, and the printer has to actually work 100% (most develop issues in a short amount of time).
Then there is the issue of archiveability, or the lack thereof.
Scan the prints. I think too many photographers don't post their pictures. How can you have a hobby and forum in photography when so many don't share their pictures with each other? It's like a bunch of food connoisseurs getting together once a month to discuss eating well and skipping lunch.
I brought that up in the past and was accused of “bullying.”
You don't understand that, for the vast majority of people (including the vast majority of film-users), digital methods are not inferior, nor are they compromising anything. Digital technology has been enabling. But one of the things it did quite finally was kill film use in industry. No more bulky process cameras, no more miles of lith film, no more need for photos shot on transparency. No more shuffling physical copy from one place to another and back again for changes. All of that tedium was swept away - along with all the skills to make it happen - and along with the vast majority of materials involved.
Then there's the wedding photographer, whose clients want all their photos to have a particular look and definitely want to be able to post their photos on Facebook or whatever. What wedding photographer will get away with handing a print package, no scans of any kind available, to their client?
Then there are all the people who just take pictures. You know what? They don't want prints. They want to send photos in messages, post them on social media, email them to relatives, and maybe get a photo book printed once a year - but otherwise, they're fine just having them on their phone or computer. They don't think much about it.
And then we're left with the idea of a "movement" of just film users, not using any digital methods whatsoever. How are they going to show each other what they're doing?-- meet in person? How many of us on this thread have met in person? Andrew and Matt. There's no channel available for communicating in a purely non-digital way, anymore - no one will do it.
The non-personal use of film will never be resurrected. Be happy so many people are using it the way they are. Kodak and Ilford and Foma and Adox and Fuji surely are very happy so many people are shooting film, scanning it, and posting the photos online.
I hope somebody will make film digitizing workflow cheap and easy.
No it's not bullying. It's our opinion.I brought that up in the past and was accused of “bullying.”
Of course, it's personal. But, it just seems that our hobby being a visual hobby, should be discussed visually. Leaving aside aesthetic appreciation, when someone suggests a method of improving our photography for example, and then doesn't show samples of that method, why would anyone waste time trying to use a new strategy when they can't see the results? When I buy a new shirt, I like to see what it looks like. What's so complicated?+1
It is a personal choice like using a GND.
While I wouldn't call it a proper "workflow", there are multiple devices being sold that hold your film and, in conjunction with a phone application and a diffused backlight, give you a positive on your phone. It's all handheld, of course, but it is a cheap and easy solution for a lot of people.
….when someone suggests a method of improving our photography for example, and then doesn't show samples of that method, why would anyone waste time trying to use a new strategy when they can't see the results?
Technique, equipment, and fancy tricks -- a movement they do not make. Got to be a lot deeper than that.
It would like going to a vegetarian for advise on How to BBQ.
What I found that really improves the quality of content here is the “Ignore” feature.
when someone suggests a method of improving our photography for example, and then doesn't show samples of that method, why would anyone waste time trying to use a new strategy when they can't see the results?
For clarity, I'm chiming in on this because this part of the debate is starting lean towards categorically disqualifying people on the basis of their choice to display their work. That is perpendicular to the inclusivity that's essential to this place and as such, it worries me.
Technique, equipment, and fancy tricks -- a movement they do not make. Got to be a lot deeper than that.
Should the finished work define the movement rather than the process used to create it? I fully understand that “process” and an interest in it does have an impact of how an audience reacts to the work. I am thinking of Jackson Pollack as an example.
Some people require examples because they either need some form of credentials in order to be willing to listen to somebody, or they need a visual aid for them to learn. This 'debate' is apparently more about the former. Important to note is that this principle is not a universal one. There are many people willing and able to learn from someone even if that person has no proven track record, or the form of the proof is not what they'd expect or prefer it to be.
I don't think you're wrong, necessarily. But what you say is not, and should not, be a universal truth or presented a such.
It's valid to ask someone to show their work if they explain something. It's equally valid for that person to refuse that request.
Tough cookie, deal with it.
For clarity, I'm chiming in on this because this part of the debate is starting lean towards categorically disqualifying people on the basis of their choice to display their work. That is perpendicular to the inclusivity that's essential to this place and as such, it worries me.
I agree completely with your statement. When digital photography became affordable in the early 2000s, I jumped in and bought a Nikon D70. I learned a lot about photography by using that camera. You are absolutely right that digital technology has had an enabling effect on countless photographers. And I also agree that, in order to communicate in an online community, we need to be able to digitize our photographs to share them with others. My Nikon D70 died a long time ago. I sold my Nikon CoolScan 9000 ED scanner a long time ago. The only way for me to digitize my pictures is with my cellphone. It's not ideal, but it works well enough for me. However, it would not work for many others.
I am delighted that a lot of young people are flocking to film. Will they stay there? Most probably will not. I think we need a super inexpensive, super easy way to digitize film. Currently, it's way too difficult and way too expensive. Some of you are going to say: "just send it to a lab," and that may work for some, but film processing and scanning costs add up really quickly. Young people cannot afford to pay a couple of hundreds of dollars for a film processing and scanning service once a month or so. I hope somebody will make film digitizing workflow cheap and easy. When I say easy, I mean virtually foolproof, as in "I feed a piece of film through a scanner and beautiful pictures show up on my screen." Maybe then a conversation about a new movement might be relevant. Until then, I don't see it.
Should the finished work define the movement rather than the process used to create it? I fully understand that “process” and an interest in it does have an impact of how an audience reacts to the work. I am thinking of Jackson Pollack as an example.
For Vaughn (and for anybody who appreciates his posts, as I do) ...I strongly suggest reading anything by Craig Childs. It's better than photographic. Random example of Craig Childs' work: House of Rain.
But certainly no lasting artistic movement is going to begun by a bunch of older men wanting the past to return.
Pollock's example actually illustrates well the opposite, i.e., that the process is not necessarily the movement. The movement Pollock belonged to was abstract expressionism, along with artists with very different ways of expression than he, such as Rothko and De Kooning.
The drip technique that Pollock developed, his "action painting", belongs to him as a means of expression. They are not the movement. What they initiated was not a movement but imitators, which isn't the same.
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?