Should we start a new photographic movement?

[KerrKid]

Why don’t we just rename an old movement and pretend it’s new?

 

[George Mann]

Why don’t we just rename an old movement and pretend it’s new?

What would be gained by doing so?

 

[Don_ih]

Film photography survived nearly a century without it. The problem with people is that they tend to always choose inferior processes do to them being cheaper and easier.

Some of us find these compromises to be unacceptable.

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.

 

[George Mann]

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?

I never said that we couldn't or shouldn't use digital methods for the purpose of sharing our progress or results.

 

[Helge]

A movement is borne out of necessity.
And It’s almost always instigated willfully.
Extremely few things worth a damn with humans “just develop organically”.
It’s takes great force to break with habit.
But at the same time there has to be want and a need, like a hidden coiled up spring waiting to be released.

There generally seems to be an oscillation between on one hand a break with the perceived artificiality and the contrived, a return to “real”.
And on the other hand a “return to the beautiful, elaborate and a break with the austere.

 

[Don_ih]

I never said that we couldn't or shouldn't use digital methods for the purpose of sharing our progress or results.

Then the most anyone could hope for is already happening. People are using film and sharing their scans. More people are getting curious about enlarging, also (although the ever-climbing price of photo paper isn't helping). There may even be a new Pentax film camera.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I see this as the death of traditional photography as the art of analog printing is lost.

Furthermore, none of these scans are likely to survive the coming turmoil.

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.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If doomsday's coming, I won't be worrying much about scans.

Scanning has positively saved film manufacturers. Do you think those tens of thousands of people who buy rolls of Portra or Ektar or Cinestill would buy a single roll if there was no scanning? Absolutely not. Without scanning and the ability to post those images on Instagram, Facebook, or wherever, there would be no film manufactured. If they couldn't scan the motion picture film to do final processing (colour adjustment and adding special - i.e., digital - effects), no motion pictures would be shot on film, either.

Scanning is the digital saviour of film. It's naive to think anything different.

When I bought my first 4x5 camera system during Covid because of boredom, I had to upgrade my scanner to an Epson V850 because of the larger size negatives and chromes. Scanners allow me to post pictures and slide shows converted to video on YouTube, and for playback on my 4K TVs as well as on Flickr and many photo sites. Scanners allow us to discuss photography better from around the world because we can post the shots to discuss. It's a wonderful tool.

 

[Chuck_P]

you want to keep film alive, make it easily accessible to the most people possible. How you do it will be your movement.

Precisely......the movement is film, keep using it.

 

[faberryman]

People create movements. Therefore, someone has to decide.

I nominate you. What did you have in mind?

 

[nmp]

I nominate you. What did you have in mind?

I think we need a Committee for Creation of New Photographic Movement (CCNPM) which will solicit nominations from Photrio members (analog only,) then debate and pick 3 potential candidates. 3 managers will be selected to run with those potential movements for a period of 1 year, each having their own TikTok accounts. At the end of the year whoever has the most followers on their TikTok account will go forward as the new movement that saved the fate of analog photography.

 

[koraks]

I feel a new movement is necessary to propel film photography into a strong future existance in an increasingly difficult and uncertain world.

So it's not really a photographic movement, but the propagation of a certain set of technologies.

From a photographic viewpoint, that's putting the horse behind the cart, and that's also why such a 'movement' will never gain any traction among people who are serious about photography as such. It might gain traction among enthusiasts of photographic technology (and yes, that demographic has a small overlap with the group in the previous sentence) - but then again, most of us here are already sold on the idea, so the movement is right there under your eyes

 

[BrianShaw]

I think we need a Committee for Creation of New Photographic Movement (CCNPM) which will solicit nominations from Photrio members (analog only,) then debate and pick 3 potential candidates. 3 managers will be selected to run with those potential movements for a period of 1 year, each having their own TikTok accounts. At the end of the year whoever has the most followers on their TikTok account will go forward as the new movement that saved the fate of analog photography.

Seconded!

 

[jtk]

Yes, when somebody on Photrio thinks he's in a position to start a photo movement it is a waste of time...the notion of photo movements is itself absurd.

Sorry, didn't mean to ridicule somebody who was "giving us a chance to weigh in."

Perhaps George is involved in some kind of photographic group that nobody knows about.

 

[Cholentpot]

I think we need a Committee for Creation of New Photographic Movement (CCNPM) which will solicit nominations from Photrio members (analog only,) then debate and pick 3 potential candidates. 3 managers will be selected to run with those potential movements for a period of 1 year, each having their own TikTok accounts. At the end of the year whoever has the most followers on their TikTok account will go forward as the new movement that saved the fate of analog photography.

Aye aye!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Should that be "Yes, no, maybe, or why not?"?

On second thought, the answer is probably all four. But it is an interesting question...can one discuss/create a new movement before it starts to move? Or is it a matter of reconizing a new trend and/or possibility, and then moving that trend forward?

Avoid Nostalgia: I do not think photography would be moving forward by embracing any back-looking trends as a new photographic movement.
I use older alt processes for all my work, and the use of historical processes should not carry the images.

Go right ahead!

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I feel a new movement is necessary to propel film photography into a strong future existence in an increasingly difficult and uncertain world.

It is vital to use it as a way to help to preserve this unfolding history, and to give us a unified goal to help us thru it.

The reason these threads are pointless is not only that their premise is flawed but that at no point is there offered a rational, objective and coherent demonstration of why it is essential—not important, essential—that film photography remain "alive". And the reason for that is that it's impossible to do so, i.e., it's impossible to demonstrate that the demise of film would have a significant and negative impact on photography itself—from the act and fact of photographic image-making itself to it's esthetics and qualities.

The medium may be the message, but the process isn't the medium. Photography—the photographic image—is the medium, and the history of the medium shows that it keeps on being active and relevant regardless of the process and tools used.

Not to say these don't have an impact on the way photographs are made—you don't take a photo with a 8x10 view camera the same way you do on a digital point and shoot, a photojournalist working in a war zone can show the world what's going on much faster on a digital camera than on a Pentax 6x7, etc.—, but they have no impact on the way photographs are looked at and read as photographic documents. If the photograph is meaningful—to me, to my family, to my community, to people in general, to society, to other photographers, etc.—the tools used to take it—digital, film, color, black and white, point and shoot, 8x10, 6x7, panoramic—are absolutely irrelevant.

Photography didn't die when Daguerrotype was replaced by other processes, which were replaced in turn by other processes, and photography won't even blink the day film disappears, if that ever happens. I'm even willing to bet that should that happen, only Photrio members who are in it for the process (which is perfectly legitimate) would stop taking photos; those who love doing photography—for whom making photographic images is a necessity beyond the process itself—would switch to digital, or whatever new form of photography there is at that time.

Same way Bob Dylan going from acoustic to electric guitar didn't prevent him from making great music.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Is there any interest out in the general public for a movement?
Does anyone really care about a movement?
Is there anyone on this website willing to start a movement if they could figure one out?

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

...How are [photographers] going to show each other what they're doing?-- meet in person? ...

What a bloody marvelous idea!

I confess I can not see the point of taking a picture on film, then taking a picture of the negative and publishing the result to digital media. If the end result is digital media then take a digital image from the start and be done with it. I'm sure there is a filter somewhere that converts a digital image to look like some god-awful DIY cell-phone picture of a negative.

Yes, it is nice to get your photographs seen by a larger audience but I don't view a scan of a print as the end product. If I wanted a digital product I would start with a digital camera and never go near film.

The film fad among the XYZs will soon go the way of all fads. Film sales will collapse overnight. I'm afraid color film is not sustainable. RIP dye transfer, Cibachrome, and Kodachrome - and soon Ektachrome, CN41, RA4...

I hope B&W silver gelatin survives until I am safely tucked in my grave. Après moi, le déluge.

 

[Sirius Glass]

What a bloody marvelous idea!

I confess I can not see the point of taking a picture on film, then taking a picture of the negative and publishing the result to digital media. If the end result is digital media then take a digital image from the start and be done with it. I'm sure there is a filter somewhere that converts a digital image to look like some god-awful DIY cell-phone picture of a negative.

Yes, it is nice to get your photographs seen by a larger audience but I don't view a scan of a print as the end product. If I wanted a digital product I would start with a digital camera and never go near film.

The film fad among the XYZs will soon go the way of all fads. Film sales will collapse overnight. I'm afraid color film is not sustainable. RIP dye transfer, Cibachrome, and Kodachrome - and soon Ektachrome, CN41, RA4...

I hope B&W silver gelatin survives until I am safely tucked in my grave. Après moi, le déluge.

Some times contributors to Photrio in a local area manage to get together. Post a request for your area and see who response. Also go to classes. I learned a lot more than just darkroom work by attending a week long class given every year in May by Alan Ross in Yosemite National Park in Ansel Adams' darkroom. https://www.alanrossphotography.com/

 

[KerrKid]

What would be gained by doing so?

Expedience. No one involved in the new film movement cares if it's a new movement or an old one. No one wearing bell-bottom jeans cares if that's been done before. No one on a Harley cares if monkey bars have been done before. No one needs a new movement when an old one will do just fine.

There's sure nothing wrong with starting a movement whether it's old or "new". You may go down in history as the "Father of _____________________". That would be cool.))

 

[Cholentpot]

What a bloody marvelous idea!

I confess I can not see the point of taking a picture on film, then taking a picture of the negative and publishing the result to digital media. If the end result is digital media then take a digital image from the start and be done with it. I'm sure there is a filter somewhere that converts a digital image to look like some god-awful DIY cell-phone picture of a negative.

Yes, it is nice to get your photographs seen by a larger audience but I don't view a scan of a print as the end product. If I wanted a digital product I would start with a digital camera and never go near film.

The film fad among the XYZs will soon go the way of all fads. Film sales will collapse overnight. I'm afraid color film is not sustainable. RIP dye transfer, Cibachrome, and Kodachrome - and soon Ektachrome, CN41, RA4...

I hope B&W silver gelatin survives until I am safely tucked in my grave. Après moi, le déluge.

I'm waiting for the fad to die among Millennials. We've been told many times our fads will die off, so far they're sticking around.

 

[KerrKid]

The reason these threads are pointless is not only that their premise is flawed but that at no point is there offered a rational, objective and coherent demonstration of why it is essential—not important, essential—that film photography remain "alive". And the reason for that is that it's impossible to do so, i.e., it's impossible to demonstrate that the demise of film would have a significant and negative impact on photography itself—from the act and fact of photographic image-making itself to it's esthetics and qualities.

The medium may be the message, but the process isn't the medium. Photography—the photographic image—is the medium, and the history of the medium shows that it keeps on being active and relevant regardless of the process and tools used.

Not to say these don't have an impact on the way photographs are made—you don't take a photo with a 8x10 view camera the same way you do on a digital point and shoot, a photojournalist working in a war zone can show the world what's going on much faster on a digital camera than on a Pentax 6x7, etc.—, but they have no impact on the way photographs are looked at and read as photographic documents. If the photograph is meaningful—to me, to my family, to my community, to people in general, to society, to other photographers, etc.—the tools used to take it—digital, film, color, black and white, point and shoot, 8x10, 6x7, panoramic—are absolutely irrelevant.

Photography didn't die when Daguerrotype was replaced by other processes, which were replaced in turn by other processes, and photography won't even blink the day film disappears, if that ever happens. I'm even willing to bet that should that happen, only Photrio members who are in it for the process (which is perfectly legitimate) would stop taking photos; those who love doing photography—for whom making photographic images is a necessity beyond the process itself—would switch to digital, or whatever new form of photography there is at that time.

Same way Bob Dylan going from acoustic to electric guitar didn't prevent him from making great music.

Very well said.

 

[Don_ih]

What a bloody marvelous idea!

I confess I can not see the point of taking a picture on film, then taking a picture of the negative and publishing the result to digital media. If the end result is digital media then take a digital image from the start and be done with it. I'm sure there is a filter somewhere that converts a digital image to look like some god-awful DIY cell-phone picture of a negative.

I was making reference to the fact that, currently, you can look at reasonable representations of the work of a lot of different people spread far and wide - even know that the photographs would look better as prints in your hand than on a screen - and that none of that would be possible except for this purely digital means of communication.

Yes, it is nice to get your photographs seen by a larger audience but I don't view a scan of a print as the end product. If I wanted a digital product I would start with a digital camera and never go near film.

I don't consider a scan of a print an end product, either - but a lot of people do consider a negative scan as the end product. The point of what I was saying is that it's fine to not be satisfied with that but you (actually, George) have to accept that the vast majority of people are satisfied with fully digital (and the vast majority of film users are satisfied with negative scans).

 

[Cholentpot]

I was making reference to the fact that, currently, you can look at reasonable representations of the work of a lot of different people spread far and wide - even know that the photographs would look better as prints in your hand than on a screen - and that none of that would be possible except for this purely digital means of communication.



I don't consider a scan of a print an end product, either - but a lot of people do consider a negative scan as the end product. The point of what I was saying is that it's fine to not be satisfied with that but you (actually, George) have to accept that the vast majority of people are satisfied with fully digital (and the vast majority of film users are satisfied with negative scans).

I'm perfectly happy with my negative scans. I can share it with family and friends across the globe. I can send it to multiple digital photo frames, share it on texting apps and upload to instatok or where ever. I've noticed that film shots look excellent on small screens. It somehow compresses very nicely while retaining a unique look. Side by side on digital photo frames the film scans have an extra little bit of something that makes it stand out.