The comeback?

[faberryman]

Well, IF they are diligent enough then they don't need to shoot RAW.

I guess I gave you more credit than you deserve too.

 

[markjwyatt]

I bought the Fujifilm XT-2 partially because of the film simulations. In the end I mainly use RAW. I want to try using the Acros simulation through FUJIFILM RAW Studio, but have not experimented with it yet.

 

[RPC]

I guess I gave you more credit than you deserve too.

I was implying they might be diligent. I thought I was giving them credit.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

So you have an educator that started teaching film photography when Nixon was president, has served students for his entire career, and he actually thinks his work is important even though he teaches fewer students? Well color me surprised.

Film is important to those that appreciate it. So is digital. I think that the one section the old timer still teaches is filled with students that are lucky to have a teacher that thinks what he has to offer is still relevant. I don't think a credible argument can be made that mastering film technique should be a requirement for students simply because companies aren't making film cameras anymore and the world values speed that film can't provide. But dipping your toes in the friendly waters of film photography certainly can't hurt a student, and will very likely help.

In an economic sense, film/analogue is not feasible in the college no matter how "important" someone thinks it is. It must earn its way amidst the other offerings in the department; 3 levels of Pro classes, entry-level digital, entry-level film, History of Photo, Art & Design, HDSLR, Photojournalism, classes offered at High Schools, all capped by limited resources.

In Spring 2018, 97 students enrolled in Intro to Photo: Film's 3 sections. Within 2 weeks the number was down to 57, by mid-term down to 36, with only 27 making it to the finish line. By comparison the 3 sections of Intro to Photo; digital enrolled 78 bringing 59 to the finish line.

Statistical comparisons over a 3 year period show that only 18% of film students (5) go on to take further classes in the department compared 34% (18) through digital. Last summer the lone film section was cancelled due to low enrollment.

Last Fall's semester 1 section of film was shut down due to low enrollment. Of the 2 remaining, 1 section had 1 student on the last lab day and 5 in another. By comparison, 2 sections of digital drew 50 snd delivered 37 to the finish line. So far, 14 digital students have enrolled in the upcoming semester (none into or from film) and I haven't even banged the drum.

This semester the department has reduced the number of Into to Film classes to 1 (now at 16). A new Intermediate film class has 6, with an Alternative processes class, which I will teach if we can get anyone to enroll.

My dad was an auto mechanic of 45 years. Dad never used a transmission jack but, reclining on a creeper, pulled it onto his chest, scooted under the car, pressed it upward and started one bolt, then another until it was in place. Jacks were for parts replacers, not mechanics. Fumes and particulates were the norm. Wrenches of his cadre slowly retired with battered bodies and crappy lungs. They also retired as their bodies and hands did not fit into the smaller more efficient cars. They could not adapt to the use of computers (real mechanics....). They were slowly replaced with a new breed of mechanic who could work in metric, computer analysis, fume and particulate masks, better lifts and jacks.....

As a young man Dad learned how to work on automatic transmissions as they were developing in the 50s. Mechanics of the day suggested that real drivers used a stick. Sound familiar.

Our young students and other aspirants enroll in film with romantic notions of "magic." However, once they get into it they abandon ship and, statistically either walk away from photography or into Intro to digital. So film as important? Hard to support that thinking; fundamentals of photography are much easier to teach and learn with digital. Yes, they are lucky to have the experience of our veteran instructor who believes in the importance of film... but it doesn't keep them in classes and drags down the department.

In spite of Ilford studies that show large numbers of new users under 35 y/o, that doesn't add up to numbers that will sustain or increase film use.

Regardless of your view from the lab, film is now an alternative process.

 

[RPC]

Regardless of your view from the lab, film is now an alternative process.

Just an opinion, probably not shared by many here at Photrio.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

To be clear, this is not about the value of film but its place in the greater photo community. Like I said, I will be teaching alternative processes and silver nitrate film is one of those and pinhole cameras, cyanotypes, salt prints, tin types....Film no longer is the established norm.

 

[keenmaster486]

Our young students and other aspirants enroll in film with romantic notions of "magic."

This confirms a fear of mine, that young people are interested in film for the wrong reasons and will soon become disillusioned with it.

I was never interested in it because of romantic notions. To me it is about being intimately involved in the process of making the image, every step of the way. To take apart my camera and put it back together again, knowing exactly what it's doing inside when I press the shutter button. To study the film itself and the chemical processes that make it work. And mix my own chemicals and develop my own film and make my own prints. That way I can hold up the final product and really say with meaning, "I made this."

With digital, most of the real work is being done by the microprocessors in your camera and computer. It requires what to me as a computer guy are the same skills I use for browsing the web. It's just commonplace and boring, and takes away any sense of photography as an art unto itself.

 

[warden]

In an economic sense, film/analogue is not feasible in the college no matter how "important" someone thinks it is. It must earn its way amidst the other offerings in the department; 3 levels of Pro classes, entry-level digital, entry-level film, History of Photo, Art & Design, HDSLR, Photojournalism, classes offered at High Schools, all capped by limited resources.

In Spring 2018, 97 students enrolled in Intro to Photo: Film's 3 sections. Within 2 weeks the number was down to 57, by mid-term down to 36, with only 27 making it to the finish line. By comparison the 3 sections of Intro to Photo; digital enrolled 78 bringing 59 to the finish line.

Statistical comparisons over a 3 year period show that only 18% of film students (5) go on to take further classes in the department compared 34% (18) through digital. Last summer the lone film section was cancelled due to low enrollment.

Last Fall's semester 1 section of film was shut down due to low enrollment. Of the 2 remaining, 1 section had 1 student on the last lab day and 5 in another. By comparison, 2 sections of digital drew 50 snd delivered 37 to the finish line. So far, 14 digital students have enrolled in the upcoming semester (none into or from film) and I haven't even banged the drum.

This semester the department has reduced the number of Into to Film classes to 1 (now at 16). A new Intermediate film class has 6, with an Alternative processes class, which I will teach if we can get anyone to enroll.

My dad was an auto mechanic of 45 years. Dad never used a transmission jack but, reclining on a creeper, pulled it onto his chest, scooted under the car, pressed it upward and started one bolt, then another until it was in place. Jacks were for parts replacers, not mechanics. Fumes and particulates were the norm. Wrenches of his cadre slowly retired with battered bodies and crappy lungs. They also retired as their bodies and hands did not fit into the smaller more efficient cars. They could not adapt to the use of computers (real mechanics....). They were slowly replaced with a new breed of mechanic who could work in metric, computer analysis, fume and particulate masks, better lifts and jacks.....

As a young man Dad learned how to work on automatic transmissions as they were developing in the 50s. Mechanics of the day suggested that real drivers used a stick. Sound familiar.

Our young students and other aspirants enroll in film with romantic notions of "magic." However, once they get into it they abandon ship and, statistically either walk away from photography or into Intro to digital. So film as important? Hard to support that thinking; fundamentals of photography are much easier to teach and learn with digital. Yes, they are lucky to have the experience of our veteran instructor who believes in the importance of film... but it doesn't keep them in classes and drags down the department.

In spite of Ilford studies that show large numbers of new users under 35 y/o, that doesn't add up to numbers that will sustain or increase film use.

Regardless of your view from the lab, film is now an alternative process.

I get it with the auto mechanics. I think we can agree that mechanical skills have value, and that auto mechanics do too, even the old timers. I have a new Jeep that has been back to the dealership maybe seven times in the first year, with a ridiculous failure to correctly diagnose an engine rattle. It's a brand new fixer-upper, as my dad keeps reminding me. The nerds with computers replaced lots of stuff on the engine to no avail. (remove and replace seems to be the mantra now) They had me give their oldest mechanic a ride to demonstrate the noise and he diagnosed it right away - "Jesus man, that's a bad piston." When the backordered pistons are in, he's my man. And he may have misdiagnosed it too - time will tell - but how refreshing to have someone who knows engines give me the story using his senses rather than a computer.

Statistical comparisons over a 3 year period show that only 18% of film students (5) go on to take further classes in the department compared 34% (18) through digital. Last summer the lone film section was cancelled due to low enrollment.

Kids these days, amiright?

I don't know where you teach, nor can I tell by your statistics (which I appreciate you sharing by the way) whether your school leads or follows its students. I have a friend that teaches photography at university level, and it's clearly a follow situation which is very frustrating for him because education suffers. Oh well.

In spite of Ilford studies that show large numbers of new users under 35 y/o, that doesn't add up to numbers that will sustain or increase film use.

That's what is known in the biz as an opinion, and you're entitled to it. My opinion is that film sales will stabilize at a volume similar to what sells today, i.e. a tiny fraction of its heyday. Prices will adjust to support that. No problem here.

Regardless of your view from the lab, film is now an alternative process.

My view from the lab? I don't go to labs. As far as film being an alternative process, I wouldn't, and haven't, suggested otherwise. The whole world can go to hell with 3D printers while I sculpt with clay. There will always be people on both sides of that fence. It's cool and I'm satisfied.

Photography is phones and computers now for the most part, and I'm cool with that. But film is more fun, just my humble opinion.

 

[jtk]

To be clear, this is not about the value of film but its place in the greater photo community. Like I said, I will be teaching alternative processes and silver nitrate film is one of those and pinhole cameras, cyanotypes, salt prints, tin types....Film no longer is the established norm.

IMO the most important skill has to do with image-making. Not printing. More likely has to do with writing or drawing or (as jwarden mentione) sculpture....or video...not even digital still.

Here on Photrio are all sorts of photographers...when you look at the images the allegedly ultimate technical experts among them post you'll see (IMO) that those geeks are not among the better (ie most stimulating). They don't seem to even be INTERESTED in imagery.

 

[eddie]

...film is now an alternative process.

I definitely agree, as alternative implies it is something out of the mainstream. There may be a semantics difference for those of us who delve deeper into photography than most people. We're accustomed to platinum/wet plate/cyano/etc. being referred to as alt processes. To the average, non-photo literate person, film has become a rare alternative. As a film/darkroom enthusiast, I proudly wear the alternative badge with "regular people". On sites like this, in discussions with members, alternative process has a different meaning.

 

[RPC]

I definitely agree, as alternative implies it is something out of the mainstream. There may be a semantics difference for those of us who delve deeper into photography than most people. We're accustomed to platinum/wet plate/cyano/etc. being referred to as alt processes. To the average, non-photo literate person, film has become a rare alternative. As a film/darkroom enthusiast, I proudly wear the alternative badge with "regular people". On sites like this, in discussions with members, alternative process has a different meaning.

If I read you right, I agree with this. Alternative can mean there is a choice between two or more processes, not that one is better than the other. Each one would be an alternative.

But the problem I have is that this thread was suppose to be about a possible comeback of film, yet some here seem to have taken the opportunity to use it to subtly counter that idea, promoting digital and pushing the idea that film is subordinate to digital. I hope I am wrong in that assumption.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

I get it with the auto mechanics. I think we can agree that mechanical skills have value, and that auto mechanics do too, even the old timers. I have a new Jeep that has been back to the dealership maybe seven times in the first year, with a ridiculous failure to correctly diagnose an engine rattle. It's a brand new fixer-upper, as my dad keeps reminding me. The nerds with computers replaced lots of stuff on the engine to no avail. (remove and replace seems to be the mantra now) They had me give their oldest mechanic a ride to demonstrate the noise and he diagnosed it right away - "Jesus man, that's a bad piston." When the backordered pistons are in, he's my man. And he may have misdiagnosed it too - time will tell - but how refreshing to have someone who knows engines give me the story using his senses rather than a computer.



Kids these days, amiright?

I don't know where you teach, nor can I tell by your statistics (which I appreciate you sharing by the way) whether your school leads or follows its students. I have a friend that teaches photography at university level, and it's clearly a follow situation which is very frustrating for him because education suffers. Oh well.



That's what is known in the biz as an opinion, and you're entitled to it. My opinion is that film sales will stabilize at a volume similar to what sells today, i.e. a tiny fraction of its heyday. Prices will adjust to support that. No problem here.



My view from the lab? I don't go to labs. As far as film being an alternative process, I wouldn't, and haven't, suggested otherwise. The whole world can go to hell with 3D printers while I sculpt with clay. There will always be people on both sides of that fence. It's cool and I'm satisfied.

Photography is phones and computers now for the most part, and I'm cool with that. But film is more fun, just my humble opinion.

Film FUN is huge.

As a vocational curriculum that has had no significant guidance since 2004, the program evolved with the talent it had; mostly film folk, mostly academic, few commercial shooters. Digital emerged as a new tool around 2007 or 8 when there were still 5 sections of Intro to Photo:Film. Film was supported in all classes. As budgets were cut the Instructional Assistant (IA) who managed gear and chem had less time to support the darkroom. Digital capacities were developed as contemporary pros became instructors.

In the meantime participation in film decreased and grant money, which would not support faculty or IAs, slowly built-up a fleet of iMacs. The utility of digital capture and processing was infused into the program as a matter of course, not as a goal. Its' workflow, its' immediacy, secured it in the daily exercise of photography. All the while the program was failing its vocational mission for lack of vision, leadership, and a sense of practical application.

As a working pro of 40 years and community builder I was appointed chair by 2 consecutive college presidents. I pushed digital for its vocational value. The resistance has been tremendous: old photogs, Top administrative staff who only understand photo as a darkroom experience, an MFA who cannot teach anything else and knows nothing about digital, and last but not least, a physical plant that had a nice 22-station darkroom designed into it when the department was built in 1969 when it made sense.

Do we need to lead students to film? No; that is a crusade which pales against the crusade for the success of the departments vocational mission. The film folk are clinging desperately to the analogue but they will disappear. New hires will have pro experience. Digital vocational success will crowd out film unless more money is discovered. As certain grant funding is directly hooked up to a vocational mission, the future of film shows little promise.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

If I read you right, I agree with this. Alternative can mean there is a choice between two or more processes, not that one is better than the other. Each one would be an alternative.

But the problem I have is that this thread was suppose to be about a possible comeback of film, yet some here seem to have taken the opportunity to use it to subtly counter that idea, promoting digital and pushing the idea that film is subordinate to digital. I hope I am wrong in that assumption.

Throughout this thread I have simply tried to qualify the rose-colored glasses idea of comeback with reality-based experience and data. That, in itself, puts the discussion on a real footing: the new foundation of film. The substantiation of film and its application can start from there, not from some mistaken notions of a big comeback.

 

[jtk]

[QUOTE="RPC, post: 2142069, member: 15535"]If I read you right, I agree with this. Alternative can mean there is a choice between two or more processes, not that one is better than the other. Each one would be an alternative.

But the problem I have is that this thread was suppose to be about a possible comeback of film, yet some here seem to have taken the opportunity to use it to subtly counter that idea, promoting digital and pushing the idea that film is subordinate to digital. I hope I am wrong in that assumption.[/QUOTE]


Film isn't "subordinate to digital" but they are both subordinate to image-making...subordinate to photography.

Placing this discussion in the context of universities and community colleges automatically puts still photography in the larger contexts of "art", journalism, graphic design, and vaious overall budgets. It's a budgetary context.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Photography is a medium that can capture light in an image. It starts with Niepce, asphalt on pewter, practically one of a kind. Technology made consistency and duplication ubiquitous. Industry made it less expensive and quicker. From there it became common to nearly everyone. I suggest that it has always been a budgetary context for what became a practical methodology. It can be a hard way to see things in a culture that has so much.

 

[warden]

Film FUN is huge.

As a vocational curriculum that has had no significant guidance since 2004, the program evolved with the talent it had; mostly film folk, mostly academic, few commercial shooters. Digital emerged as a new tool around 2007 or 8 when there were still 5 sections of Intro to Photo:Film. Film was supported in all classes. As budgets were cut the Instructional Assistant (IA) who managed gear and chem had less time to support the darkroom. Digital capacities were developed as contemporary pros became instructors.

In the meantime participation in film decreased and grant money, which would not support faculty or IAs, slowly built-up a fleet of iMacs. The utility of digital capture and processing was infused into the program as a matter of course, not as a goal. Its' workflow, its' immediacy, secured it in the daily exercise of photography. All the while the program was failing its vocational mission for lack of vision, leadership, and a sense of practical application.

As a working pro of 40 years and community builder I was appointed chair by 2 consecutive college presidents. I pushed digital for its vocational value. The resistance has been tremendous: old photogs, Top administrative staff who only understand photo as a darkroom experience, an MFA who cannot teach anything else and knows nothing about digital, and last but not least, a physical plant that had a nice 22-station darkroom designed into it when the department was built in 1969 when it made sense.

Do we need to lead students to film? No; that is a crusade which pales against the crusade for the success of the departments vocational mission. The film folk are clinging desperately to the analogue but they will disappear. New hires will have pro experience. Digital vocational success will crowd out film unless more money is discovered. As certain grant funding is directly hooked up to a vocational mission, the future of film shows little promise.

Those were four pretty grim paragraphs, even by fine arts higher ed standards! Sounds very much like you're biding your time until your unloved colleagues leave and you can nuke the darkroom. So be it, and maybe that's the best thing for your school after all.

You used the word vocational a lot there so I see where you're coming from. If I was managing a curriculum with a vocational mission I'd probably have everyone use iPhones and a laptop and call it a day. But I couldn't abide a vocational mission anyway so I'd never fit in.

Suffice to say that any film "comeback" will not be happening at your school, but the world is a large place after all and we don't all think alike.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

With film, you can be different.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Grim, the state of the department has precedents in film, roots in film, in a time of digital predominance. Nowhere have I suggested to eliminate film; that is what the film folk in the department have said. And now I hear it on this site.

Yet, I did not bring digital into the department, film people did. I did not fail to keep students in film classes, they did. I did not close sections of Film classes, the new chair, a film MFA, did. Yet I am the bad guy. I am a convenient target for a loss that has nothing to do with me. And that is a mistaken notion.

That is not my doing. I'm the one teaching Alternative processes, not the film folk. How can I still be the bad guy? I do believe that film should not wag the dog; its' time for that is over.

I have yet to hear form anyone on this site about any body of information they have about a greater community. I hear anecdotal stuff; opinions, beliefs, desires masked by rationalizations, but no real statement about real numbers of people, face-to-face, in real time.

 

[jamesaz]

So you are sold on the mechanics of the film process: relative densities of silver shaped by specifically managing light during capture and some pretty general manipulation of light through dodging/burning, specific and general temperature and chemical values and paper varieties. Going back into my files I have some pretty elaborate dodging and burning masks that look for all the world like cucoloris; what a nightmare.

Left behind were glass negs, and silver/pewter plates as superior methods were introduced. The hue and cry of users of those "arcane" media parallels today's from film users. Statistically, as late as 2002 with a billion rolls used, 98% of film was utilized by the general population and most of that was C-41. The ramp-up from computers to digital cameras and camera phones, by that 98% of shooters, gutted film use. As such, film is, statistically, an alternative process; an artifact of the evolution of photography. Film folk do not want to hear that.

I have an Instructor in my department that has been teaching film for 45 years at the school. The number of sections of his basic film class have gone from 5 in 2009 to 1 in Spring 2019. Yet he will not believe that film is not central to photography even though he cannot fill classes. I have another Brookie who had his own BW lab in Oakland which suffered the typical demise as digital capture gained prevalence. He teaches two Pro classes, ANY WAY HE WANTS!!!, but uses no film in any assignments and no one uses film. Yet he will not believe that film is not central to photography even though he teaches Pro without it!

That is a pretty weird system of denial. I point that out and I am the department film-killer. Don't shoot the messenger.

Time marches on, true enough. I no longer make my living with photography so that gives me the luxury of doing what I choose, photographically at least. The kinesthetic aspect of lab work helps me process my thoughts about what I'm trying to do. For me, that handwork is an essential part of my creative process. I've never been quite able to achieve the same quality of experience with photoshop (using since pre-layers.) Of course, the lack of production schedules is what allows my self indulgence.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

This confirms a fear of mine, that young people are interested in film for the wrong reasons and will soon become disillusioned with it.

I was never interested in it because of romantic notions. To me it is about being intimately involved in the process of making the image, every step of the way. To take apart my camera and put it back together again, knowing exactly what it's doing inside when I press the shutter button. To study the film itself and the chemical processes that make it work. And mix my own chemicals and develop my own film and make my own prints. That way I can hold up the final product and really say with meaning, "I made this."

With digital, most of the real work is being done by the microprocessors in your camera and computer. It requires what to me as a computer guy are the same skills I use for browsing the web. It's just commonplace and boring, and takes away any sense of photography as an art unto itself.

As a cyclist and coach working on bikes is simply a matter of course. Curiously, once you get deeply into the sport the work on the bike can have the same cadence and flow as the riding; essential to the process and its enjoyment. It is a neat thing to find.

 

[MattKing]

I perceive a film comeback, but that comeback is more about acceptability and interest and viability than it is about market share and market penetration.
I would certainly not expect a vocational program to centre on film, but I'd be careful about deciding to exclude from it knowledge about film, its capabilities and possibilities.
When I started on APUG, the continued existence of a market for film products was in doubt. Now, while that market has its problems, it also has shown surprising capacity for flexibility and endurance.
The biggest film comeback for me? Hope.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

The greatest value is one of craft. There are technical distinctions from digital but passion and skillset are unique to each.

As I have studied this I do not see unique photographic lessons from film as distinct from any number of processes. People cite things like patience but that is a life lesson learned over many years from a young age. The idea that "I learned patience from darkroom" is rare. I learned patience from my dad, mom, coaches, from life, from work over years.

 

[msage]

Well, IF they are diligent enough then they don't need to shoot RAW.

I don't understand your comment.

 

[RPC]

I don't understand your comment.

It's simple. Exposure and white balance errors can be fixed in RAW before converting to jpeg. If they are not fixed they can result in degradation, e.g. blown highlights or color errors when converted. But if shooters are diligent and careful with their white balance and exposure to begin with, they can be converted in-camera to jpeg with little or no degradation therefore the RAW step would be unneccessary. I saw tons of this at the lab I worked at--plenty of errors that were fixable in RAW but weren't, so the jpeg images we got were either difficult to color correct or unfixable, due to the loss of dynamic range when converted to jpeg. These problems were virtually non-existant in the days of film, due to its much greater dynamic range. Largely due to this, it is my preferred medium.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

It's simple. Exposure and white balance errors can be fixed in RAW before converting to jpeg. If they are not fixed they can result in degradation, e.g. blown highlights or color errors when converted. But if shooters are diligent and careful with their white balance and exposure to begin with, they can be converted in-camera to jpeg with little or no degradation therefore the RAW step would be unnecessary. I saw tons of this at the lab I worked at--plenty of errors that were fixable in RAW but weren't, so the jpeg images we got were either difficult to color correct or unfixable, due to the loss of dynamic range when converted to jpeg. These problems were virtually non-existant in the days of film, due to its much greater dynamic range. Largely due to this, it is my preferred medium.

Color correction when printing film is part and parcel of color printing. I recall having to make substantial changes in my standard pack for each film to accommodate color casts. Nothing new in that. I can't imagine how broad the need for color correction for digital must be given different cameras, computers and screens and the light conditions under which computer processing might occur, not forgetting fundamental color balance at capture. (Don't get me started on Profiles.... )
As one who works with developing shooters, the lack of appreciation for color balance is prominent. Dependence on Auto White Balance (AWB) is most prevalent. Some of that is just ignorance but some is a function of the individual isolation of each shooter and their consequent "standards" which result. In my 5th session I focus on White Balance (1-Orientation to Camera & Focus, 2-SS, 3- f, 4-ISO, 5-White Balance.) I expect that for a Printer, as files come to their standardized screen, it must be pretty scary!
At the same time most only shoot in jpeg with its incumbent limitations. I introduce RAW in a subsequent classes, after fundamentals of camera operation, files management, and properly sized and formatted output have been established. In the context of digital photo, RAW is an advanced tool.
In a broader context I have come to see how incomplete the skill-sets are in people who consider themselves photographers. Piecemeal file management, unchallenged habits, narrow focus, rigid thinking, flat-out gaps, in-camera processing, poor development skills due to alack of fundamentals...the list gets long. Small wonder Printers get Jpegs that have a limited facility to good prints.