Why shoot film - a short film about film users

[Whiteymorange]

An indie film about why photographers shoot film. It came up with a Kodak Professional logo on the facebook page, but I'm not sure why. Did they pay for it? Worth watching.

Thanks, papagene for posting this on Facebook.

OK, figured it out (not hard, just had to look!) The film was first posted on Kodak Professional Page.

 

[removed account4]

good stuff whitey, thanks for posting it, but was THIS film shot on FILM ?

 

[MDR]

Thank you for the link finally at least some decent pro film marketing though I would question the choice of photographers and calling it a docu.

 

[MDR]

P.S. Forgot to ad it seems to be the first results of the Kodak Lomo Partnership the photogs constantly mention Kodak and the insert after the Polaroid Guy mentions the impossible project. If that's the kind of marketing they will do in the future Kodak might have a long term future.

 

[jbridges]

I appreciate the film, but it was hard to look past the guy wearing the silly animal hat. har har.

 

[BradleyK]

Thank you for posting, Sir. An enjoyable view, and one which echoes many of my sentiments re the virtues of film!

 

[AgX]

see this older thread too:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[wildbill]

no, it wasn't shot on film. kinda ironic.
kodak sponsored it- gave them some rolls of film

 

[cliveh]

Thanks for the link, interesting, but like MDR mentions, I would question the choice of photographers. When I think about film photographers, I could name lots of really good ones, but at the moment can’t think of any really good digital photographers. There must be some, can someone enlighten me with a few names I could google?

 

[Kawaiithulhu]

can’t think of any really good digital photographers. There must be some, can someone enlighten me with a few names I could google?

If everyone breathes air then no one self-identifies as an air breather, and you wouldn't find anyone on a google search for "people who breathe air."

 

[MattKing]

If everyone breathes air then no one self-identifies as an air breather, and you wouldn't find anyone on a google search for "people who breathe air."

Unless you are looking for breatharians - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia

 

[removed account4]

If everyone breathes air then no one self-identifies as an air breather, and you wouldn't find anyone on a google search for "people who breathe air."

YAWN

the same can be said of photographers who use analog materials, they all identify themselves as photographers ...
not sure what your point is ?

 

[Dinesh]

Thanks for the link, interesting, but like MDR mentions, I would question the choice of photographers. When I think about film photographers, I could name lots of really good ones, but at the moment can’t think of any really good digital photographers. There must be some, can someone enlighten me with a few names I could google?

You're kidding right?

There are many great photographers who are using digital. If you cannot find them, it's because you choose not to.

 

[removed account4]

You're kidding right?

There are many great photographers who are using digital. If you cannot find them, it's because you choose not to.

and some of them are right over on DPUG making mind blowing gravures

 

[cliveh]

You're kidding right?

There are many great photographers who are using digital. If you cannot find them, it's because you choose not to.

well can you help me out here by naming a few?

 

[batwister]

Couldn't watch the whole thing, but I applaud them for making it. Yeah, it has that kind of "film is a lifestyle, maaan" college drop out vibe, but still of value.

The reason you won't see the same kind of video with established art/commercial photographers is there's a tendency for them to appear like adverts. And I can imagine the big guys have to protect their credibility with their audiences.

Popular art photographers like Todd Hido, who shoot solely Portra, and may even have some kind of relationship with the company, admittedly, have the biggest marketing power. You have to wonder why Kodak doesn't at least try to work with this in some subtle way.

 

[removed account4]

...

 

[timor]

You have to wonder why Kodak doesn't at least try to work with this in some subtle way.

Kodak is run by wrong people taken, I duno, from the Moon ? Soo removed from the reality.

 

[batwister]

well can you help me out here by naming a few?

Michael Wolf, Burtynsky does now I believe, Gregory Crewdson, Lauren Marsolier, David Eustace for more conservative tastes. To name a few I've been looking at recently.

 

[cliveh]

Michael Wolf, Burtynsky does now I believe, Gregory Crewdson, Lauren Marsolier, David Eustace for more conservative tastes. To name a few I've been looking at recently.

Thanks, and I would agree with you about Burtynsky, but not the others.

 

[pbromaghin]

As to the choice of photographers who use "like" as a comma and "awesome" for just about any other adjective, think of who this video is aimed at. Old farts like me don't need to be sold on film.

 

[miha]

I believe Gregory Crewdson shoots 8x10 colour film but then the shots are higly manipulated. Gursky works in a similary fashion.

 

[batwister]

I believe Gregory Crewdson shoots 8x10 colour film but then the shots are higly manipulated. Gursky works in a similary fashion.

Ah, that might be the case. Certainly for some work - maybe advertising- I've seen a video of him using a digital back.

Have conflicting feelings about Crewdson, but find myself coming back to his pictures nevertheless.

 

[Dinesh]

well can you help me out here by naming a few?

Photographers who use hybrid processes.


http://www.joecornishgallery.co.uk

http://www.clayharmon.com/

http://sandykingphotography.com/

 

[Maris]

It's a nice enough video but conceptually shallow. If they'd had me on the production team I would have insisted the challenge is not merely about film or the "look". More is a stake.

Film is a common option in photography but not really at the heart of things. Hey, some people expose paper in a camera. Others do wet-plate. The unique and decisive thing about photography is the making of pictures out of light sensitive materials. Platinotypes, ambrotypes, gelatin-silver pictures...the list goes on... are just as much part of photography as exposing film. Without this insistence we may end up with people taking digital pictures of photographs (by camera or scanner) and displaying the re-calculated digital results as photographs. That's a deceit I won't buy if I'm going to stand up for photography.

As for the "look", what happens when electronic picture making can replicate exactly the appearance (just the appearance not the substance) of a photograph? Do I abandon photography and it's special physical and causal relationship to subject matter? No way! I'm not going to buy "looks like means same as" and go through life as an eternal patsy.