Why ℗ Analogue Film in a digital Age?

[Truzi]

No similar experience from me.

Although I work on computers all day, I also spend I spend a lot of time on computers when I get home from work. So that's not it - I don't need a break.

Following the food example - I would argue Dairy Queen burgers are much better than twenty years ago. However, I rarely have a taste for any burger.
Or the drinking example; although I enjoy a cocktail, I don't so much with a meal. When eating, I prefer Pepsi. At a wedding, not knowing when the bar will close before the meal, I will have to get the one mixed drink I can enjoy with a meal.

It's a matter of taste, so to speak. I simply prefer film, how it looks. Certain qualities, that I cannot articulate, that look better to me.

I use film, to borrow a line from a fictitious sane person, because it pleases me to do so.

 

[Nuff]

Well, I went digital in 2004 after shooting film for only 4 years. Never shot kodachrome etc... but I used to shoot mostly slide film (and lost all of them in one of them many moves I had done since).
In 2013 I discovered some of my old photos shot on the old version of Pro400H and I get myself a film camera. I liked the colours etc...

I still shoot digital, but mostly with my iphone. I didn't touch my DSLR for close to a year even if it has better higher ISO etc, so I think it will go on ebay very soon.

For me it's all about look and final result, not to mention the journey...

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I use film for the physical provenance that is an iron-clad guarantee engineered by the laws of nature. There are no virtual abstractions involved. It is the single most magical aspect of the medium to me. It was my first epiphany, and it has never faded. And it is Photography's greatest loss in the digital era.

There was a time when seeing something in a photograph might elicit the breathless comment "I can't believe that happened!" But in today's digital photographic world the first comment is often a cynical "I don't believe that happened."

The gulf between the two could not be more profound. Or more sad...

Ken

 

[pdeeh]

I wonder ... did film and film photography have all these mystical qualities that get ascribed in these threads before the advent of digital photography ...

 

[analoguey]

I wonder ... did film and film photography have all these mystical qualities that get ascribed in these threads before the advent of digital photography ...

hahaha.

 

[perkeleellinen]

The darkroom is the draw for me and that was always something special even before digital.

I wonder if what were grasping for here is the same thing that keeps fountain pen enthusiasts from dumping them all to 'upgrade' to Microsoft Word and what keeps sculptors away from CAD/CAM software. My wife laughed when I suggested she throw away her piano and 'upgrade' to computer software that can make the notes sound better. Maybe opera singers should 'upgrade' to Auto-Tune as well. I have a friend who makes violins - madness! He could buy a better one. I grow onions in the garden - more madness! The time I waste could be better spent working and then buying more onions than I can grow; and they'd look nicer.

 

[zanxion72]

It is all about personal aspects and traits. For me analog photography (my analog photography) is far from perfect and it is more like me. I had too much digital for long and I came to the point of getting a perfect photo almost every single time. I got tired of it, I have started that it is not me but rather the camera that does it perfect and then had given up all to analog photography. For sure it is more of a pain to get your results, but that makes me love it even more and it is all me.

 

[F5B&W]

What does "℗" mean in this context?

It is a legal symbol.

It means that I made a typo on an iPad when writing the post at night.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi. I am trying to understand myself better on a sleepless night. I have two wonderful Nikons, among others, a D700 and a F5. Also. a Rolliecord V. In this day and age of digital I ampulled to keep my bulk loaders full of FP4 and HP5.

I don't understand my reluctance to embrace digital. Has anyone had a similar experience

L

Probably most of us on APUG,including mebut,Let me tell you,you're missing out,start using your D700and forget film for a while.digitalhas huge creative opportunities.

 

[ic-racer]

Digital images are like nitrate film -- they will go up in smoke or be reduced to dust very soon, maybe before this century is up. Traditional silver b&w prints and negatives will last 200 years. And 200 years from now many people will be interested to see what those olde time savages (you and me) were up to.

Realize also that "Digital Image" is a nonsense term, "Digital File" is probably better. An arbitrary collection of charged particles in silicone do not satisfy any definition of "Image" that I am familiar with. To see a digital file it needs to be converted to some analog form (by following specific but arbitrary rules) such as colored lights or colored pigments.

 

[michr]

I've always had similar issues with the term "latent image". There's no image there, just some molecules that have been altered by photons, and some that have not. You need a special chemical to alter the sensitized particles and then another chemical to wash the unsensitized ones out, then you can see the image, or rather, you can see its inverse.

 

[Steaphany]

...digital has huge creative opportunities.

No one here is denying that point. Likewise, the same can be said regarding images created through water color or oil paint. I admit that I do shoot digital along with film and I explained previously why I chose to go with a Sigma SD14. There are times when digital has it's place. But, the key point is "who" does the creativity, the photographer or the mob of semiconductor, electronics, and software engineers who are behind the design, performance, and operation of every camera on the market. There is little creativity when pointing a camera at something, anything, and leaving it to the Robot Camera to do the rest.

I just recently have seen a wave of posts on various photo and social sites regarding a new issue regarding the series of self portrait photos that a wild Macaque took when they found, picked up, and played with a wildlife photographer's camera. Seems like the new big deal is the legal copyrights to the photos are in question, do they belong to the photographer who owns the recovered camera or to the wild Macaque who at some point decided to push the magic button to make the clickety noise. Think for a minute, what did the wild Macaque think of the camera ? Just a strange thing found on the ground that at some point made a whirr and clickety noise, maybe the components of the lens also moved. But, did the wild Macaque possess the experiential understanding that this thing, the camera, was actually capturing and saving it's own appearance ? and is that lack of experiential understanding still within the definition of creativity ? Back to the film / digital subject, if the same wildlife photographer used film cameras, instead of digital, could a wild Macaque have shot anything ?

Dead Link Removed
Who is responsible for this photo ? The wild Macaque or the Camera's Design Engineers ?​

BTW, I feel the photo I posed here is simply funny.

 

[Ektagraphic]

There are so many things from the click or chirp from the shutter in an analog camera, down to the smell of the fixer, and the tones and depth of images taken on film both black and white or color, that constantly keep me coming back for more. D-g-t-l feels dead to me. Film and the analog feel like they are living, natural forms of capturing images, in a way that is truly photographic.

 

[tron_]

For me it's like the idea of a food pill. If you could take a pill three times a day with enough calories to feel "full" would you do it? Personally I wouldn't because cooking and the experience surrounding it is more appealing to me.

Even though the pill would be more convenient and quantitatively "better" in the sense that it could provide the exact nutrition your body needs to operate at it's peak, it doesn't mean it would be preferred.

 

[michr]

Agreed. Film photography isn't more pure or genuine simply because its technology isn't as high tech as electronic digital photography. A photographer's judgement, through each step of the process of creating an image, is the creative force.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I wonder ... did film and film photography have all these mystical qualities that get ascribed in these threads before the advent of digital photography ...

Yes, because mystery has nothing to do with any of it. That's rather the point. The laws of nature responsible for the provenance were in force long before digital. Long before analog. Long before you as a species.

Film photographs make themselves. The same is not true of digital, which require real-time abstractions to come to be. And to be sustained. Yes, the hand of man is present in the creation of both film and silicon. But at the point light hits emulsion the recording process is spontaneous, complete, and without any further input by you. Only Nature is in control, by her laws and processes.

Digital requires oceans of abstractions (software) to be initially realized, and later viewed. Remove the making abstractions and the primary image cannot ever be. Remove (or lose) the viewing abstractions and the primary image ceases to be after the fact. Gone forever. Just like that.

Note that this is not a discussion of creativity, that being related to the interpretation of the final result of a process. This is a discussion of the process itself, and it's ability to generate credibility with regard to that final result.

Hold a USB thumb drive up to the light and what do you see? A USB thumb drive.

Hold one of the glass plates made on July 7, 1865 by Alexander Gardner of the hanging of the Lincoln conspirators up to the light and what do you see? Mary Surratt's lifeless body, on the far left, at the end of a rope, twisting slowly in the breeze.

That glass plate was physically present in the courtyard that afternoon. Were it not, the image rendered upon it could not have been. Were Mary Surratt not, the image rendered upon it could not have been. As I've said many times before, that plate bears silent first-person witness to the events directly and spontaneously recorded upon it.

The USB thumb drive, and the abstracted versions of reality it records, harbor no similar levels of credibility.

Ken

 

[pbromaghin]

Digital requires oceans of abstractions (software) to be initially realized, and later viewed. Remove the making abstractions and the primary image cannot ever be. Remove (or lose) the viewing abstractions and the primary image ceases to be after the fact. Gone forever. Just like that.

Note that this is not a discussion of creativity, that being related to the interpretation of the final result of a process. This is a discussion of the process itself, and it's ability to generate credibility with regard to that final result.

Ken

Another great post, Ken.

Amongst all the many, many other reasons for using film, my career as a software developer, twiddling bits for 35 years, prevents me from enjoying digital photography. It is greatly difficult to look on it as anything other than manipulated data.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Yes, because mystery has nothing to do with any of it. That's rather the point. The laws of nature responsible for the provenance were in force long before digital. Long before analog. Long before you as a species.

Film photographs make themselves. The same is not true of digital, which require real-time abstractions to come to be. And to be sustained. Yes, the hand of man is present in the creation of both film and silicon. But at the point light hits emulsion the recording process is spontaneous, complete, and without any further input by you. Only Nature is in control, by her laws and processes.

Digital requires oceans of abstractions (software) to be initially realized, and later viewed. Remove the making abstractions and the primary image cannot ever be. Remove (or lose) the viewing abstractions and the primary image ceases to be after the fact. Gone forever. Just like that.

Note that this is not a discussion of creativity, that being related to the interpretation of the final result of a process. This is a discussion of the process itself, and it's ability to generate credibility with regard to that final result.

Hold a USB thumb drive up to the light and what do you see? A USB thumb drive.

Hold one of the glass plates made on July 7, 1865 by Alexander Gardner of the hanging of the Lincoln conspirators up to the light and what do you see? Mary Surratt's lifeless body, on the far left, at the end of a rope, twisting slowly in the breeze.

That glass plate was physically present in the courtyard that afternoon. Were it not, the image rendered upon it could not have been. Were Mary Surratt not, the image rendered upon it could not have been. As I've said many times before, that plate bears silent first-person witness to the events directly and spontaneously recorded upon it.

The USB thumb drive, and the abstracted versions of reality it records, harbor no similar levels of credibility.

Ken

Also, that glass plate was made into a photographic negative by A.G. himself, with his own two hands. Not remotely possible with anything digital, it's all mouse clicks and hardware at work - the first time the worker touches the print is to remove it from the printer. The vast majority of digital photos are never printed

 

[eddie]

For me, it has nothing to do with any sort of comparison to digital image making. I enjoy the tactile quality of film... The thought process in exposure and development of a sheet or roll... The solitude the darkroom offers... The soft light, while printing... The way a print comes up in the tray... The sounds made by rocking a tray... The singular personality of each print (even if I'm printing multiples of the same negative)... The fact that, even after 40 years, I'm still learning, and finding new ways to express my creativity through film use...

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I like the look; I like the process. An 8x10" contact print is still the gold standard (though not necessarily suited to every kind of subject).

 

[michr]

You're splitting some mighty fine hairs to privilege the way one image is recorded over another.

When you looked through the glass plate, what did you really see?

 

[BradS]

Yes, because mystery has nothing to do with any of it. That's rather the point. The laws of nature responsible for the provenance were in force long before digital. Long before analog. Long before you as a species.

Film photographs make themselves. The same is not true of digital, which require real-time abstractions to come to be. And to be sustained. Yes, the hand of man is present in the creation of both film and silicon. But at the point light hits emulsion the recording process is spontaneous, complete, and without any further input by you. Only Nature is in control, by her laws and processes.

Digital requires oceans of abstractions (software) to be initially realized, and later viewed. Remove the making abstractions and the primary image cannot ever be. Remove (or lose) the viewing abstractions and the primary image ceases to be after the fact. Gone forever. Just like that.

Note that this is not a discussion of creativity, that being related to the interpretation of the final result of a process. This is a discussion of the process itself, and it's ability to generate credibility with regard to that final result.

Hold a USB thumb drive up to the light and what do you see? A USB thumb drive.

Hold one of the glass plates made on July 7, 1865 by Alexander Gardner of the hanging of the Lincoln conspirators up to the light and what do you see? Mary Surratt's lifeless body, on the far left, at the end of a rope, twisting slowly in the breeze.

That glass plate was physically present in the courtyard that afternoon. Were it not, the image rendered upon it could not have been. Were Mary Surratt not, the image rendered upon it could not have been. As I've said many times before, that plate bears silent first-person witness to the events directly and spontaneously recorded upon it.

The USB thumb drive, and the abstracted versions of reality it records, harbor no similar levels of credibility.

Ken

Thank you ! I'd like to print this out and pin it to the wall of my cube at work.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

You're splitting some mighty fine hairs to privilege the way one image is recorded over another.

When you looked through the glass plate, what did you really see?

If I walked up to you and offered to give you a $100 bill, or alternatively to give you a piece of paper upon which was written a highly detailed description of a $100 bill, which one would you choose to accept?

Ken

 

[cliveh]

Yes, because mystery has nothing to do with any of it. That's rather the point. The laws of nature responsible for the provenance were in force long before digital. Long before analog. Long before you as a species.

Film photographs make themselves. The same is not true of digital, which require real-time abstractions to come to be. And to be sustained. Yes, the hand of man is present in the creation of both film and silicon. But at the point light hits emulsion the recording process is spontaneous, complete, and without any further input by you. Only Nature is in control, by her laws and processes.

Digital requires oceans of abstractions (software) to be initially realized, and later viewed. Remove the making abstractions and the primary image cannot ever be. Remove (or lose) the viewing abstractions and the primary image ceases to be after the fact. Gone forever. Just like that.

Note that this is not a discussion of creativity, that being related to the interpretation of the final result of a process. This is a discussion of the process itself, and it's ability to generate credibility with regard to that final result.

Hold a USB thumb drive up to the light and what do you see? A USB thumb drive.

Hold one of the glass plates made on July 7, 1865 by Alexander Gardner of the hanging of the Lincoln conspirators up to the light and what do you see? Mary Surratt's lifeless body, on the far left, at the end of a rope, twisting slowly in the breeze.

That glass plate was physically present in the courtyard that afternoon. Were it not, the image rendered upon it could not have been. Were Mary Surratt not, the image rendered upon it could not have been. As I've said many times before, that plate bears silent first-person witness to the events directly and spontaneously recorded upon it.

The USB thumb drive, and the abstracted versions of reality it records, harbor no similar levels of credibility.

Ken

That is a very good post. Well said.

 

[pdeeh]

Everything new is just awful isn't it ...