The comeback?

[jtk]

This is nothing new. Of course there is, and has been, a decline. But that does not mean it will continue to the point of the death of analog photography. It is evident by the growth of the analog portion of this site over the years that a strong interest in analog photography continues.

It is important to stress that film is a very high quality, viable photographic medium and its continued use should be promoted in the interest of the photographic community, not be killed off as you continue to try to do with your doom-for-film posts.

Why turn this discussion into a personal attack?

 

[RPC]

Why turn this discussion into a personal attack?

It is not a personal attack on him but an opinion on the nature of his posts, with which he is allowed to express his opinion on the fate of analog. Am I not allowed to express my opinion on them?

 

[Wayne]

Why turn this discussion into a personal attack?

Please get together with John and a dictionary and learn what a personal attack is. Comparing someone with Donald Trump is a personal attack; saying that someone's doom and gloom posts aren't helping film is not even close.

 

[Wayne]

There’s no doubt that it is.

I have doubt. I would expect that almost everyone if not everyone doing contact printing using digital were doing contact printing before they started using digtal. Again, if you are going to make a quantitative claim you'll need numbers to back it up. Merely asserting it is not enough.

 

[jtk]

Please get together with John and a dictionary and learn what a personal attack is. Comparing someone with Donald Trump is a personal attack; saying that someone's doom and gloom posts aren't helping film is not even close.

He's spamming that elsewhere.

 

[faberryman]

I have doubt. I would expect that almost everyone if not everyone doing contact printing using digital were doing contact printing before they started using digtal. Again, if you are going to make a quantitative claim you'll need numbers to back it up. Merely asserting it is not enough.

I do not have an 11x14 view camera. I am making 11x14 platinum/palladium prints using digital negatives. There are any number of workshops being offered in alternative processes, all of which involve using digital negatives. If people are already making contact prints using film, they would not be taking the workshops. But this is just anecdotal information. Take it for what it is worth. Or not. Your choice.

 

[RPC]

He's spamming that elsewhere.

Personal attack!

 

[Berkeley Mike]

I don't have much problem with RPC except that he continues to say I am for the termination of film. I get this at my department from the 78 year old teacher of film. It is seen, by my colleges and my Dean, as personalizing me as s symbol of what is happening naturally. He cannot confront the entire photo community that has marginalized film so I am a convenient target. I get that so it sorta bounces off.

So my wanting to terminate film is inaccurate. My responses are about defining comeback by challenging claims that want engagement. RPC and I are engaged is disagreement. How we characterize each other speaks to another purpose that means little to me.

This is a fantastic discussion of ideas and experiences. Let's move on.

 

[MattKing]

I have doubt. I would expect that almost everyone if not everyone doing contact printing using digital were doing contact printing before they started using digtal. Again, if you are going to make a quantitative claim you'll need numbers to back it up. Merely asserting it is not enough.

All the young people I have encountered who are currently doing contact printing using alternative processes are using digital negatives.
The alternative and traditional (non "silver gelatin") processes seemed to have fallen into near disuse until quite recently. There has been a significant recent upsurge in the use of and interest in those processes, and that upsurge coincides with the availability of the digital negative processes with their accompanying digital manipulation tools.
Relatively speaking, very few people use digital negatives to make more "normal" "silver gelatin" prints - the resolution inherent in film still exceeds the resolution in all but the highest quality of digital negatives, and one can see the difference in resolution if one is contact printing on to "normal" photographic paper.
One caution about the terms "alternative" and "traditional" photographic processes. Those terms used to be reserved to processes like Van Dyke Brown, kallitypes, cyanotypes, platinum prints, etc. More and more though the terms are also being considered as including what I consider to be "normal" darkroom prints.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

I have doubt. I would expect that almost everyone if not everyone doing contact printing using digital were doing contact printing before they started using digtal. Again, if you are going to make a quantitative claim you'll need numbers to back it up. Merely asserting it is not enough.

It may be that at this point we can only identify the modalities people use but neither greater motivation nor comparative numbers. That doesn't mean we dismiss an opinion suggesting some prevalence of before or after scanning usage. Neither side has numbers. It is a valid comment that cannot be simply dismissed for lack of numbers.

 

[eddie]

Neither side has numbers. It is a valid comment that cannot be simply dismissed for lack of numbers.

I think he wants numbers, names, addresses...

 

[Berkeley Mike]

In discussions people often fabricate data. Our President does it a dozen times a day to support his point of view. People who support him see it as only as bombast. Others see it as muddying the waters.

One of the reasons I landed here was that I saw posters admit they were wrong or thank people for info. I am accustomed to people taking me at my word: I provide services to people who count on me to understand things they really don't. So grace and faith are big for me.

Hard numbers from sources deemed valid by all concerned seem to be held close so are hard to come by. Absent that we have to look for indications around us. This discussion is largely a part of that effort. With such tenuous and shaded info, we can only do our best to shed preconceptions and share clearly.

 

[Barry King]

Photography has been my hobby, interest and passion for over half a century, when I first started my camera had no rangefinder or meter I have gone from that stage to using a DSLR. However I still have analogue cameras, which in a pinch will work perfectly well without a battery because they are mechanical instruments and have been designed for years of use, most digital cameras have built in obsolescence and will probably not last as long as a well functioning analogue camera. Furthermore digital media cannot compete in the longevity stakes as we all know that film negatives appropriately looked after will last in excess of a century.

I like to use my film SLR with B&W film also enjoying the processing, because of space constraints I use a scanner and my computer to edit, print and display.

So no film IMO is not dead, thankfully.

 

[RPC]

I don't have much problem with RPC except that he continues to say I am for the termination of film. I get this at my department from the 78 year old teacher of film. It is seen, by my colleges and my Dean, as personalizing me as s symbol of what is happening naturally. He cannot confront the entire photo community that has marginalized film so I am a convenient target. I get that so it sorta bounces off.

So my wanting to terminate film is inaccurate. My responses are about defining comeback by challenging claims that want engagement. RPC and I are engaged is disagreement. How we characterize each other speaks to another purpose that means little to me.

This is a fantastic discussion of ideas and experiences. Let's move on.

So then, what is your personal opinion on whether film has a place in the photographic community and should survive? Do you think a film comeback would be a good thing and welcome it? Do you feel, as many here including myself do, that digital and film both have important advantages and can and should co-exist?

 

[faberryman]

So then, what is your personal opinion on whether film has a place in the photographic community and should survive? Do you think a film comeback would be a good thing and welcome it? Do you feel, as many here including myself do, that digital and film both have important advantages and can and should co-exist?

I agree with this.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

So then, what is your personal opinion on whether film has a place in the photographic community and should survive? Do you think a film comeback would be a good thing and welcome it? Do you feel, as many here including myself do, that digital and film both have important advantages and can and should co-exist?

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]

So then, what is your personal opinion on whether film has a place in the photographic community and should survive? Do you think a film comeback would be a good thing and welcome it? Do you feel, as many here including myself do, that digital and film both have important advantages and can and should co-exist?

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.

 

[RPC]

Thank you for your reply but I wasn't asking any info on your school's position or film's commercial viability, only your own opinions.

 

[Wayne]

He's spamming that elsewhere.

Translation?

 

[Wayne]

How much of the "falling into disuse" was a direct result of digital technologies? Probably 95-100%. The notion behind this is that we should be thankful because digital is keeping alive what digital nearly killed in the first place, and that is absurd. Now if someone can actually produce palpable numbers that it has increased overall availability or useage or decreased overall cost over pre-digital days, then you might have an argument.

All the young people I have encountered who are currently doing contact printing using alternative processes are using digital negatives.
The alternative and traditional (non "silver gelatin") processes seemed to have fallen into near disuse until quite recently. There has been a significant recent upsurge in the use of and interest in those processes, and that upsurge coincides with the availability of the digital negative processes with their accompanying digital manipulation tools.
Relatively speaking, very few people use digital negatives to make more "normal" "silver gelatin" prints - the resolution inherent in film still exceeds the resolution in all but the highest quality of digital negatives, and one can see the difference in resolution if one is contact printing on to "normal" photographic paper.
One caution about the terms "alternative" and "traditional" photographic processes. Those terms used to be reserved to processes like Van Dyke Brown, kallitypes, cyanotypes, platinum prints, etc. More and more though the terms are also being considered as including what I consider to be "normal" darkroom prints.

 

[Wayne]

I think he wants numbers, names, addresses...

Yes, when YOU introduce quantitative statements I will ask for numbers to support them. If that displeases you, don't make quantitative claims.

 

[eddie]

Yes, when YOU introduce quantitative statements I will ask for numbers to support them. If that displeases you, don't make quantitative claims.

It only requires common sense to realize that there are far more printers capable of creating digital negatives, in use now, than there were ever 8x10 cameras. I know people using digital negatives to make cyanotypes who never did large format in the past (most of them never did any darkroom/film work). Faberryman has already posted that he uses diginegs- so there's one. In can think of others, here, doing the same. You could set up a poll, if the numbers are important to you, but denying the obvious is absurd. And, not being appreciative of the fact that digi negs are a major reason alternative contact printing processes are growing is equally absurd.

 

[removed account4]

He's spamming that elsewhere.

im not spamming anything anywhere... its made up.

 

[jvo]

the king is dead... long live the king!

 

[jtk]

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.

im not spamming anything anywhere... its made up.

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.