The comeback?

removed account4 · Jan 13, 2019

jtk said:
Just to set this straight, I didn't suggest jnanian was spamming. I think we're pretty much in agreement about the virtues of both film and digital.

thanks jtk
yeah ..
TBH i don't care how someone makes their photographs
and its really sad people can't just do what you want...
==

marcofimages said:
Is film photography coming back? Do you have any story to share? Either positive or negative?
This thread is meant to collect some anecdotal evidence on the subject. Please feel free to contribute with any personal story of "feeling" about the topic. I would love to hear about that.
Marco

hey marco
maybe its a comeback, there seem to be people using film and paper.
kodak and ilford and adox and foma and fuji and ferrantia are still chugging along
there seems to be a lot of people involved in photography websites and groups
large format camera companies are still making large format cameras, and there are people
making and selling smaller format cameras too ... there's people interested and making their own emulsion too
new polaroid type films and cameras are being sold, glass plates are being coated and sold
not sure if it is a comeback or the train going up the hill saying " i think i can, i think i can i think i can" but ...
whatever it is it can't be bad if you enjoy using traditional or modern+traditional materials

RPC · Jan 13, 2019

Berkeley Mike said:
We share on many threads so it is hard to recall ifI have said things before so if I am repeating myself...

I did film from 1975 to about 2000. Got good highlights and detail in the shadows with the Zone system. Wife gave me a digital camera in the late 90s and I resisted it until a friend got me Lightroom 2. I converted my commercial work to digital.

I love film but, just like ex-girlfriends, that doesn't mean there is a place in your life for them. Personally, I don't want film in my hands. Years of working darkrooms have left me sensitive to the chemistry and I get dopey. The characteristics of film have no urgency for me and its utility in my commercial work is zero.

Our program was based on film to the degree, since 1973, that it never moved forward into digital capture with the rest of the world. As President of he Advisory Board from 1993-96, I tried to get them to move. If I knew then what I know now I could have made that change happen. Anyhow, as Chair I changed that. With half the faculty supporting film (2/3s of that can teach nothing else) the change is still resisted even though film classes do not perform well and have not in the last 4-7 years. Empty sections, 30% finishing the class, students do not go from there and into further class in any significant numbers. It was in the way.

I pressed to reduce the number of film sections from 3 to 2 and opening another Intro to Dig class. Blasphemy! I was trying to kill film. With my plan I have redefined our degree to exclude Film as a core requirement , with the support of the Technical Advisory Board 16 to 2, as too few serious students wanted to do film. and one felt foolish making the case that film was commercially viable in any significant number, compared to digital work. It was not relevant to our mission, it did not fit in our workflow, and saw no support from students.

I did not kill film; I just did not feel that an unsuccessful part of our discipline that should too great an influence on our program, while performing so badly and receding in commercial utility by the day, should wag the dog. I instigated and shaped a special Analogue Certificate that includes Intro to Film, Intermediate Darkroom, and Alternative Processes. Nothing in our area does that and it gives us cache; a real marketing advantage.

In discussion the statement from our film cadre that "film is making a comeback." Curiously the way it is stated is as it were an immutable truth, as if the sky were the limit, as if it were an untapped movement that we could key on. This is why the "comeback" and its definition are of value to me. Here I have seen a couple of sides and hybrids and all sides agree that film is viable but will never see the kind of numbers it once had. Everything else gets bandied about.

Of course film has a place in the community. It just doesn't work for us and our commercial mission. For film folk any loss is seen as a threat to survival of film, so film folk do not want to give up ANYTHING, regardless of circumstance. Makes for a lot of tension and challenges thoughtful discussion.

If film were commercially viable I would be all over it for our program. It's not, to any statistically significant level. If it were truly ascending in numbers in any meaningful way I would be all over it for our program. It's not, to any statistically significant level. If the silent majority or the hidden masses of film users existed at all, that might change things. But it doesn't.

It looks as if you prefer digital because it is more convenient, which is the reason it is viable commercially. Too bad you don't look at film as favorably as most on this site do. Luckily there are those who do, to help keep film alive. I have noticed you are one of the few members on this site who shoot only digital.

I don't see any indication that you have ever developed or printed color film. I have been doing it happily for more than 30 years and in addition to it being easier now than ever before to do, my results are superior to what I routinely saw come in at the lab I worked at shot digitally. I have already discussed in earlier posts the overall technical quality problems of digital images I saw come in and color corrected, not only compared to my own printing but film images that came into the lab as well, due to the limited dynamic range problems of digital. That is what made me decide digital would have little place in my photography unless convenience not quality was most important. But I acknowledge it works well for you and many others and so you have your reasons and I have mine and so does everyone else, and despite my experiences I am fully supportive of both mediums.

RPC · Jan 13, 2019

jnanian said:
thanks jtk
yeah ..
TBH i don't care how someone makes their photographs
and its really sad people can't just do what you want...
==

Why not do what you want? Explain further please.

RPC · Jan 13, 2019

MattKing said:
More and more though the terms are also being considered as including what I consider to be "normal" darkroom prints.

Keep in mind the RA-4 color print process is still used extensively by labs, so in that sense I would not consider it alternative.

Berkeley Mike · Jan 13, 2019

jnanian said:
not sure if it is a comeback or the train going up the hill saying " i think i can, i think i can i think i can"

How about just saying "I am."

MattKing · Jan 13, 2019

Wayne said:
How much of the "falling into disuse" was a direct result of digital technologies? Probably 95-100%.

The "falling into disuse" came before digital became commonplace.
Most of the alternative and traditional processes lack a colour capability and have lower resolution. All of them are much more challenging to use than a roll of film processed and printed by a lab - or even in most cases in your own darkroom.
With the exception of a very few workers, these processes had been supplanted by more modern, film based processes.
It is an interesting question whether the resurgence of interest in those processes is as a result of the availability of digital techniques (particularly digital negatives) or instead an aesthetic reaction to the appearance of a lot of digital (and high end film) product.

RPC said:
Keep in mind the RA-4 color print process is still used extensively by labs, so in that sense I would not consider it alternative.

We could quibble about the meaning of "alternative", but I would say instead that RA-4 colour printing offers a viable choice for printing, even if its use is either stable or declining (as a percentage of the market), and its implementation is more and more one that creates prints from digital (rather than film) originals.

Berkeley Mike · Jan 13, 2019

RPC said:
It looks as if you prefer digital because it is more convenient, which is the reason it is viable commercially. Too bad you don't look at film as favorably as most on this site do. Luckily there are those who do, to help keep film alive. I have noticed you are one of the few members on this site who shoot only digital.

I don't see any indication that you have ever developed or printed color film. I have been doing it happily for more than 30 years and in addition to it being easier now than ever before to do, my results are superior to what I routinely saw come in at the lab I worked at shot digitally. I have already discussed in earlier posts the overall technical quality problems of digital images I saw come in and color corrected, not only compared to my own printing but film images that came into the lab as well, due to the limited dynamic range problems of digital. That is what made me decide digital would have little place in my photography unless convenience not quality was most important. But I acknowledge it works well for you and many others and so you have your reasons and I have mine and so does everyone else, and despite my experiences I am fully supportive of both mediums.

I printed for for a lab. I never got very good at it. BW I "mastered." I moved on to Shoot production, location scouting, set-building, studio construction, all kinds of shooting, studio management, hiring and training assistants, Kodachrome film testing for the most prominent lab in SF, wrote instruction programs for equipment at our major equipment renter...

My colleagues and I are charged to producing working photographers. Training to something on the margins is for schools and workshop have a different mission. Training commercial photographers in film in a 4-semester program is a poor use of time. That said, I still have a part of the program, outside our degree, that offers Intro to Film, Intermediate Darkroom, and Alternative processes.

In these discussions the word "convenient" tends to be used dismissively. For my own personal part digital was a time saver and a money saver. Over the last 20 years I have embraced the digital improvements as they came. Labs have disappeared.

In a commercial shoot when you have to produce 4, 8, 24 shots a day that becomes meaningful. Unless you can leave 4, 8, 12 sets up and lit until you can see the film come back from the lab, 2 hours later, quality is challenged. On location it was dicier. Depending on the shooter they avoided it like the plague or studied the hell out of it and relied just on Polaroid without the safety net of seeing processed film before "teardown." I watched shooters pace, anticipating snip rush normal/push/pulls, adjusting 1/8-1/4 stop changes late into the night.
( to be continued....)

Arklatexian · Jan 13, 2019

Berkeley Mike said:
We share on many threads so it is hard to recall ifI have said things before so if I am repeating myself...

I did film from 1975 to about 2000. Got good highlights and detail in the shadows with the Zone system. Wife gave me a digital camera in the late 90s and I resisted it until a friend got me Lightroom 2. I converted my commercial work to digital.

I love film but, just like ex-girlfriends, that doesn't mean there is a place in your life for them. Personally, I don't want film in my hands. Years of working darkrooms have left me sensitive to the chemistry and I get dopey. The characteristics of film have no urgency for me and its utility in my commercial work is zero.

Our program was based on film to the degree, since 1973, that it never moved forward into digital capture with the rest of the world. As President of he Advisory Board from 1993-96, I tried to get them to move. If I knew then what I know now I could have made that change happen. Anyhow, as Chair I changed that. With half the faculty supporting film (2/3s of that can teach nothing else) the change is still resisted even though film classes do not perform well and have not in the last 4-7 years. Empty sections, 30% finishing the class, students do not go from there and into further class in any significant numbers. It was in the way.

I pressed to reduce the number of film sections from 3 to 2 and opening another Intro to Dig class. Blasphemy! I was trying to kill film. With my plan I have redefined our degree to exclude Film as a core requirement , with the support of the Technical Advisory Board 16 to 2, as too few serious students wanted to do film. and one felt foolish making the case that film was commercially viable in any significant number, compared to digital work. It was not relevant to our mission, it did not fit in our workflow, and saw no support from students.

I did not kill film; I just did not feel that an unsuccessful part of our discipline that should too great an influence on our program, while performing so badly and receding in commercial utility by the day, should wag the dog. I instigated and shaped a special Analogue Certificate that includes Intro to Film, Intermediate Darkroom, and Alternative Processes. Nothing in our area does that and it gives us cache; a real marketing advantage.

In discussion the statement from our film cadre that "film is making a comeback." Curiously the way it is stated is as it were an immutable truth, as if the sky were the limit, as if it were an untapped movement that we could key on. This is why the "comeback" and its definition are of value to me. Here I have seen a couple of sides and hybrids and all sides agree that film is viable but will never see the kind of numbers it once had. Everything else gets bandied about.

Of course film has a place in the community. It just doesn't work for us and our commercial mission. For film folk any loss is seen as a threat to survival of film, so film folk do not want to give up ANYTHING, regardless of circumstance. Makes for a lot of tension and challenges thoughtful discussion.

If film were commercially viable I would be all over it for our program. It's not, to any statistically significant level. If it were truly ascending in numbers in any meaningful way I would be all over it for our program. It's not, to any statistically significant level. If the silent majority or the hidden masses of film users existed at all, that might change things. But it doesn't.

Berkeley Mike, I think it is important to separate the apples from the oranges in this discussion. What you seem/are discussing is educating people to be commercial photographers in all it's forms. I think you are absolutely correct in what you say about what is needed to become a commercial (profit making) photographer in almost all of today's market. If I were a professional/commercial/color photographer I would shoot "only" digital because I must make money enough to cover all of my expenses with enough left over to live on for me and my family which is hard enough for "any" small business to do today. However, there is another type of photographer who isn't/should not be in photography to make a living and that is the "serious amateur" who sometimes becomes a "fine art" photographer. This person is free to pursue whatever photographic endeavor he/she pleases just because it is interesting. I think this is where most "analog photographer's" interest is/should be. So, shouldn't there be an avenue to knowledge for this person? If not in a college or university, where? When I was in college, the emphasis was on education, not how to make a living. Possibly wrong but there were and are schools who only teach you how to make a living. Unfortunately few teach commercial photography because the demand is just not there unless you live in a large metro area. Fortunately we all don't live in such an area......Regards!

removed account4 · Jan 13, 2019

RPC said:
Why not do what you want? Explain further please.

cause there are a lot of haters, hating ...

Berkeley Mike said:
How about just saying "I am."

probably will be saying i can i can after this giant comeback !

markjwyatt · Jan 13, 2019

Berkeley Mike said:
...It [film] was not relevant to our mission, it did not fit in our workflow, and saw no support from students.

[film is]...receding in commercial utility by the day, ...

If film were commercially viable I would be all over it for our program. It's not, to any statistically significant level. ...

This is how I see your position. Is that fair? You are part of a vocational type photography program. Film certainly is viable for artistic purposes, would you agree?

I am not trying to pick on you (In fact I agree with much of your position, but feel could help a commercial photographer could have a unique product to offer and interesting marketing with film offerings, but it is clearly not the 90% of commercial photography today).

Does your school have an art department? Have you talked to them about picking up some of the tab and maybe joining in the analog (and even digital) photography programs? Just curious. You are in a junior college correct (I think I have seen your Linkedin page)? Certainly universities and art schools would have even more impetus to keep the art of photography alive.

RPC · Jan 13, 2019

jnantz said:
cause there are a lot of haters, hating ...

You still haven't said anything meaningful.

removed account4 · Jan 13, 2019

RPC said:
You still haven't said anything meaningful.

Feel free to PM me ... I will be happy to fill you in,
otherwise, you will have to read between the lines, read some of the
threads I gave the endings to a couple of pages back &c and read for yourself
what I am talking about. Sorry.

wyofilm · Jan 13, 2019

Arklatexian said:
Berkeley Mike, I think it is important to separate the apples from the oranges in this discussion. What you seem/are discussing is educating people to be commercial photographers in all it's forms. I think you are absolutely correct in what you say about what is needed to become a commercial (profit making) photographer in almost all of today's market. If I were a professional/commercial/color photographer I would shoot "only" digital because I must make money enough to cover all of my expenses with enough left over to live on for me and my family which is hard enough for "any" small business to do today. However, there is another type of photographer who isn't/should not be in photography to make a living and that is the "serious amateur" who sometimes becomes a "fine art" photographer. This person is free to pursue whatever photographic endeavor he/she pleases just because it is interesting. I think this is where most "analog photographer's" interest is/should be. So, shouldn't there be an avenue to knowledge for this person? If not in a college or university, where? When I was in college, the emphasis was on education, not how to make a living. Possibly wrong but there were and are schools who only teach you how to make a living. Unfortunately few teach commercial photography because the demand is just not there unless you live in a large metro area. Fortunately we all don't live in such an area......Regards!

Very salient points. It is important to realize that universities are becoming more and more like vocational schools. The liberal arts structure we grew up with now leads to either the under-employable or the industry trained, depending on the major. The former group must often go back to school for a marketable degree.

Berkeley Mike · Jan 13, 2019

Arklatexian said:
This person is free to pursue whatever photographic endeavor he/she pleases just because it is interesting. I think this is where most "analog photographer's" interest is/should be. So, shouldn't there be an avenue to knowledge for this person? If not in a college or university, where? When I was in college, the emphasis was on education, not how to make a living. Possibly wrong but there were and are schools who only teach you how to make a living. Unfortunately few teach commercial photography because the demand is just not there unless you live in a large metro area. Fortunately we all don't live in such an area......Regards!

If we were in the Art department our emphasis would be much more flexible. Our funding depends upon a vocational approach. We managed the Analogue Certificate: Intro to Film, Intermediate Darkroom, Alternative Processes; certificates have value to the state. That aside, the workflow and time value of Digital is now embedded into our larger program. Even Art & Design (color & composition) keys on Digital. Soft shoots (much less structured and more Grab-shot) employs digital. Shoot, import, size/shape, then place in a file of other images for critique on the big LCD (with pretty nice color). Same with Photojournalism.

Berkeley Mike · Jan 13, 2019

markjwyatt said:
This is how I see your position. Is that fair? You are part of a vocational type photography program. Film certainly is viable for artistic purposes, would you agree?

I am not trying to pick on you (In fact I agree with much of your position, but feel could help a commercial photographer could have a unique product to offer and interesting marketing with film offerings, but it is clearly not the 90% of commercial photography today).

Does your school have an art department? Have you talked to them about picking up some of the tab and maybe joining in the analog (and even digital) photography programs? Just curious. You are in a junior college correct (I think I have seen your Linkedin page)? Certainly universities and art schools would have even more impetus to keep the art of photography alive.

Partnering with Art? A great idea. On the other hand it might be the nose of the camel in the tent. We are under pressure as the Administration wants our space, wants to cut back. O! It's fine to think that it would be great for film but but that is a crusade. It's damned hard top plan from our perspective and then have Administration step in and pervert things. If we make a move way from our bread & butter are they may scuttle us in some form. None the less, I will keep it in mind.

Wayne · Jan 13, 2019

RPC said:
Why not do what you want? Explain further please.

I don't know why John has taken up this position of persecution like he has, and I wish he would stop or explain it with specific detail or drop it. You can't have a discussion about vague, non-committal comments about perceived slights. I have always had a lot of respect for John and his analog photographic work, have never disrespected him for whatever he chooses to do in digital away from APUG which was and is clearly his own business. Its only when recent attacks on analog users cropped up and he chimed in that I have had any issues with his statements. John knows I have supported him 100% on certain matters of a personal nature that have happened and we discussed offline, and I still do. But to the best of my recollection, that wasn't related to the topic at hand. So if there is something aside from your feeling that you were treated unfairly on APUG in general, which, in the absence of specifics and specific links, I don't agree with, I would certainly like to know what it is John. You can feel free to PM me, as always. But unless its a narrow personal matter, I'd rather discuss it in on the forum.

removed account4 · Jan 13, 2019

Berkeley Mike said:
If we were in the Art department our emphasis would be much more flexible.

im guessing the art department probably isn't teaching people
vocational training to get a job? or is the art department teaching students
a fun thing to do and learn about? im thinking of the ceramics,
textiles, printmaking, photography, painting departments at the local comnunity college
fun classes, yes, if i could afford just taking ceramics and printmaking
classes for IDK forever, i would in a heartbeat, lots of fun to be had
but a marketable skill that doesn't have to do with making a living
from selling stuff on etsy and having a you tube channel? not sure about that.

too bad you can't have the photo 1 class / intro to photography class
be the 1st class these photography vocational people take..
as someone who learned about digital after film ( not the other way around )
i have found a film photography background is helpful in a
parallel and not the same but the same and different kind of way...

markjwyatt · Jan 13, 2019

Berkeley Mike said:
Partnering with Art? A great idea. On the other hand it might be the nose of the camel in the tent. We are under pressure as the Administration wants our space, wants to cut back. O! It's fine to think that it would be great for film but but that is a crusade. It's damned hard top plan from our perspective and then have Administration step in and pervert things. If we make a move way from our bread & butter are they may scuttle us in some form. None the less, I will keep it in mind.

I suppose it could be the proverbial double edged sword. The key is keeping the sword in your sheath and not Admin's hands!

Berkeley Mike · Jan 14, 2019

Fast forward...Then I was building and developing studios, on to shooting catalogue, some agency stuff, then corporate, now portraiture. At this end we used to send film and it would get digitized. Now shooting digital moves very easily from the camera to the client. Huge time savings, no more messengers or waiting around for tests; yay! Great....but really hated to lose the polaroid and film and processing as a profit center.

For me digital is just a matter of course. I've adapted my moves to it and no one complains about the quality. I can share it during the shoot, shoot adjustments or changes. Organization and storage are easy. The process is smooth and I can work the quality all the way out the door. There is no question about it. I know very few pros who don't use it.

So when it comes time to teach vocationally it is a no-brainer. Establish fundamentals and build flow. It's like printing in the darkroom; timing, pace, rhythms and repetition: rinse and repeat. The difference is that the time loop is much shorter; you are closer to the moment of capture as you review and then finalize your shot; the consequence of what you have done is closer to when you did it.

So if I'm asked to support developing shooters, I go with digital for the short learning loop. As we go through the program they learn the toys, sets, locations. The results are seen quickly, interpreted, and we can move on.

I'd like to make the point that basic skills, focused around a program, lay the foundations for electives like film. Camera operation, managing light and focus skills, make learning film and darkroom so much easier. They can focus on the chemical process. They understand what good exposure is and tonality. Faith in the process already exists, initial quality is higher.

Of course there is a place for film and I support that in a number of ways. It just can't wag the dog in a program like ours.

Berkeley Mike · Jan 14, 2019

markjwyatt said:
The key is keeping the sword in your sheath and not Admin's hands!

Amen, brother. Halleluja. A bit of luck doesn't hurt, either.

removed account4 · Jan 15, 2019

snip

Wayne said:
I don't know why John has taken up this position ....

WHATEVER.
my post+observation had nothing to do with me, but with bad behaviour
witnessed over 10 years.
i see you have resorted to posting things about me that you know aren't true. please stop
and please leave me out of your posts.

RPC
as i said feel free to PM me and i will give you the condensed/abstract.

Wayne · Jan 16, 2019

jnantz said:
snip

WHATEVER.
my post+observation had nothing to do with me, but with bad behaviour
witnessed over 10 years.
i see you have resorted to posting things about me that you know aren't true. please stop
and please leave me out of your posts.

RPC
as i said feel free to PM me and i will give you the condensed/abstract.

Nobody forced you into anything, you voluntarily stirred the pot back on post 765 and previous threads. Everyone else has a right to post their their opinion too, and I disagree with your statement. If that leads somewhere you don't like to go, the solution is simple.

eddie · Jan 16, 2019

All I’ve ever read in John’s posts is do whatever you like, and have fun doing so.

Berkeley Mike · Jan 16, 2019

Oy-veh. Boys, take it outside. Just stop. Neither of you will win.

Besides, video is going to put us all out of business.

faberryman · Jan 16, 2019

Berkeley Mike said:
Besides, video is going to put us all out of business.

Apparently this is the case. Our local community college has now added video courses to the photography curriculum. I am taking Studio Lighting I this semester. All digital, all strobes, and a lot of work.

The comeback?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency