Why We Still Love Film: Analog Photography in the Digital Age | NBC Left Field

[NortheastPhotographic]

I agree that film slows me down, allows me to think and compose better. But there's a lot of post shooting work as with digital. You can spend enormous amounts of time in the darkroom or scanning and editing at the computer if that's your thing. I don;t have a darkroom, but i'm sure many people find that just a laborious as sitting by a computer. Also, computer editing can be just as creative as darkroom work. Scanning, editing, and presenting photos on the web or part of a slide show presented on a 75" UHDTV are just as creative.

Also, using film can be an ego thing. Being different than what everyone else is doing has a certain attraction. It sets us apart.

I was merely trying to argue that for many an escape from their screen is a value proposition in and of itself. I do not believe that one is more 'pure' or 'artistic' or simply better than the other. I shoot a lot of digital for work, and spend a lot of time behind a screen editing that work. It may be interesting or even necessary for some, but it's not my personal favorite way to produce work.

 

[Henning Serger]

I would like JUST ONE TIME for those who object to the "environmental impacts" of film to reach into their pocket and pull out their phone and acknowledge THE ENTIRE impact on the environment that device has and will have over time.

Somehow, that always gets a pass...

Exactly.
That is why I have made several comments with additional information concerning environmental impacts in the comment section of the video.
For several years I worked in environmental research projects at University and doing Life Cycle Assessments was also the major part of the longest project I worked for.
Digital Imaging has a much much bigger (more worse) impact on the environment than film photography. Period.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

I live in Maine and I see a lot of tourists in the Summer. Almost every time I go to a popular spot at LEAST one person has a 35mm camera. They do skew younger I suppose though I don't think I'm that old (35). Rarely do I see anyone but pros shooting portrait sessions using a DSLR. Everyone else, smart phones.

It was a mistake to think photography is a zero sum game in which the easiest route to the sharpest image wins. The craft now belongs to a class of activities in which the 'journey' so to speak is a big part of it. Horseback riding, sailing, listening to vinyl records, making bread from scratch, it's all the same feeling. Sitting with your laptop or desktop computer editing photos is not a fun or engaging experience, IMO. I'm glad more people are coming into the fold!

Some of these camera companies might want to do some production runs of film backs or film bodies.

+1.
The phenomenon of "digital fatigue" is one of the major forces for the film revival. People have to sit in front of computer screens on their jobs the whole day. And more and more of them do not want also to sit in front of a computer screen in their rare leisure time. They don't want to be a kind of "computer slave" whose life is completetly dominated by this tech.
They need a change, something different, something with which they can relax. A rest / recuperation from the daily digital pressure.
Film photography offers that wanted alternative.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

I'd like more evidence than is presented in such videos as this one.
pentaxuser

You have got permanently lots of evidence of the film revival here on photrio from people from the industry. Film manufacturers like ADOX and Ilford, film distributors like Fotoimpex and AG Photographic, lab owners like Adrian Bacon, Felim (foc), Northeast Photographic, technology / market analysts like me.....
But you are mostly ignoring what they are reporting.
Instead you listen to industry outsiders, which even often hide their identity behind pseudonyms, and take their "film is dead" fairy tales for real.

The facts are
- all film manufacturers have reported increasing demand
- some even have to invest in additional film converting capacities because of that strong (and higher than expected) demand
- because of this "demand surpassing supply problems" certain films are often sold out at the distributors
- all manufacturers are working on new products, lots of new products already have been introduced to the market
- the number of film photography youtube channels and their followers is strongly increasing, more than 100 channels already
- film photography content on instagram is booming, Kodak alone gets 1000-2000 new followers there every day (!)
- the labs see strong increasing demand
- lots of new labs have opened globally; in Bangkok for example the number of labs has almost doubled during the last 18 months (about 20 labs now)
- the prices for film cameras are rising because of the increasing demand
- the repair technicians are as busy as never before because they get so much cameras in, which the owners want to use (again).

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Cholentpot]

What's environmentally unsound about film?

I live near the largest body of freshwater in the world. Humans will be long gone before this resource gets used up. Washing my clothes in the 'ol Whirlpool is harsher than my developer and fixer.

Just silly.

Rest of the report was positive and interesting.

 

[BradS]

.....
I'd like more evidence than is presented in such videos as this one.
.....

I think you maybe need to get out and about a little bit. There is ample evidence for anybody who cares to look objectively at the world around them.
--- The local camera store is crowded again - with young folks wearing old film cameras
--- All four of the photo labs that I frequently use have been swamped with film to process and print, and yes, scan to CD or the web.

 

[Lee Rust]

maybe? IDK im not a scientist and don't claim to have all the information. i would imagine seeing Eastman Kodak was the largest polluter on the planet for decades using all sorts of nasty chemicals to produce film and papers, and the arsenic and cyanide ( or whatever it is ) used to extract and refine silver to be used for film and paper and that's just EK.
maybe cellphones have surpassed that. or like you said it might not be close. they're both pretty bad.

The perception that high-tech things like electric cars and smartphones are more 'green' than old-tech like photo-chemicals is often evidence of a NIMBY mentality. The electric power has to be generated someplace and the lithium, exotic metals and rare earth elements have to be mined somewhere. Are those far-away operations pollution free?

For the better part of the 20th century, the everyday atmosphere here in Rochester NY was spiced by the sharp odor of methylene chloride vapors that were almost continuously discharged from the tall stacks of Eastman Kodak. In recent years that distinctive smell has been absent because EK no longer manufactures their own film base and has outsourced the air pollution to some other locale. There used to be much controversy about suspected 'cancer clusters' in the residential neighborhoods around Kodak Park, but no more. The stacks are gone.

 

[Prest_400]

Very interesting to see, I've noticed most of the increase factors over the last years but the words and figures (3 times in Kodak) make it much more blatant and it's very interesting to hear that even 2016 wasn't that well off. I recall the rumors around 2014 that Kodak was in the brink of shutting down film production.

I joined APUG as a teenager who found film an alternative to digital because the fixed costs were covered and I didn't want to shell the 3 figures of an entry DSLR. Then 35mm film was as good as it is and delivered excellent results, so I stayed with film. That decision brought me into a tight-knit community that was continuously battered by the digital revolution, and fatigued by the constant erosion and discontinuation of products. Kodachrome was gone the next year and thanks to the words of a fellow forumer I ended up trying it at the very last period, becoming the first ever slide film I shot. In that, there was something quite special that transcended mere image making and that is what many of the newcomers are seeking -- a different approach.

No, in 2008 I didn't perceive that film was cool but rather something old and obsolete. My 75 year old uncle still looks as if I was mad for using B&W when anything digital is just instant. Well, his value proposition is different, ours not. It's about a hollistic view and the use of different tools. Digital has a space, and I'm looking forward to cameraphones leveling to the quality of compact large sensor cameras. More options are better.

For one, I am glad to see those times behind and hope this increase is steady and able to hold a healthy niche film industry.

As of the environmental discussion, let me quote Ron Mowrey (PE) from a very interesting series of (old, 2004) posts in p.net about the topic:
https://www.photo.net/learn/color-processing-myths-dispelled/
Section 24:

24. Color chemicals are more toxic than B&W chemicals, and are
vastly more toxic than digital imaging.
Fact: Yes and No.

There is a long write up which might be better to read there, as it'd be very large to copy here

Now digital. First, the manufacture of sensors requires doping with arsenic and
selenium among other chemicals. The manufacture of computer chips and memory chips are the
same and the video monitors use lead. The phosphors on the screens are toxic heavy metal
compounds in some cases. The inks used in color printing are azo dyes and are somewhat
toxic.

Now film making – color and B&W. These are mature industries that have worked for
40 years to eliminate all heavy metals and toxic effluent. There is no longer cadmium and
mercury used in making film, nor is formaldehyde used. Methylene chloride is used in
making the support, and a lot of the coupler synthesis is about as toxic as making the
Ilfochrome azo dyes or the digital azo dyes, so film making is not an extreme
environmental hazard.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

People just hear 'chemicals' and think 'bad!'. The 'all natural' movement has made enough crazies out there to fill a mega church or two dozen. Analog photography, popular though it may be, is still so niche that the negative impacts are quite small in my estimation. I would say the medium sized city's collective dry cleaning industry is more harmful than what Eastman Kodak is doing.

As far as I know Kodak did do a bunch of work lowering the toxicity of their chemistry. The current Flexicolor LORR, XTol, and I think bleach are low toxicity. And I'm presupposing people are properly handling their fixer and filtering the silver out, which I do.

My wife taught school in NYC. Her school was near an old cleaners plant that closed years earlier. Unfortunately, the chemicals leached into the ground and migrated under her school. The EPA and NYC DEC had to do tests, construct barriers in the ground, add air filtration in the building, etc. Supposedly it was all OK when they finished. Even with that, I told her to stay out the basement.

 

[cmacd123]

For the better part of the 20th century, the everyday atmosphere here in Rochester NY was spiced by the sharp odor of methylene chloride vapors that were almost continuously discharged from the tall stacks of Eastman Kodak.

The Standard of care and the level of permitted discharge of various substances has been under tighter control for years. Kodak made Nitrate film and had a tall stack to spread the poisonous odors. as the rules tightened, the processes were changed. the pollution generated by making and processing film is likely less than that making and using a product like Laundry Detergent.

 

[dkonigs]

I joined APUG as a teenager who found film an alternative to digital because the fixed costs were covered and I didn't want to shell the 3 figures of an entry DSLR. Then 35mm film was as good as it is and delivered excellent results, so I stayed with film.

I originally joined the club (in 2009) out of a fascination with "professional" equipment that I was never exposed to during its heyday, but was now cheap and very accessible*. That basically meant discovering medium format and Fuji E-6 film, which at the time (if scanned well) still had a level of detail on-par with (or often superior to) most digital cameras. Since then, I've stuck with it out of a desire to do something just a little bit more interesting/unique/different than every other random person on the street.

(* I actually went through a similar phase in college with computer equipment, that resulted in spending far too much time/money dumpster diving and browsing eBay for mid-90's "workstation grade, not a PC or Mac" hardware.)

 

[Carlos P Beltran]

Hello everyone, this is Carlos P Beltran, the journalist who directed the video. Thank you for sharing and for making very valid points through the thread. It was a massive endeavor attempting to touch on every aspect of such a vast industry in mere 10 minutes, but I’m glad we tried. I believe there is much more room for a second and perhaps third part down the line. Again, thanks for watching, sharing and opening discussions around the state of the film industry and its community in the year 2020

Carlos

 

[Ariston]

I would like to point out that digital cameras are losing more users to smartphones than film cameras are at the moment.

 

[etn]

Thanks Kino. That’s one of the questions I have about electric cars- what is the TOTAL environmental impact, cradle to grave, of these products? They are not as clean as they first appear.

Agree with you here. Besides as long as lithium and other components are still cheaper to extract than to recycle (*), we will not see any mass recycling here. ((*) Uneducated guess here)
What electric cars do well though - or will do if/when they are adopted on a large scale - is removing exhaust emissions from cities.
But we digress, let's go back to topic

 

[foc]

Hello everyone, this is Carlos P Beltran, the journalist who directed the video. Thank you for sharing and for making very valid points through the thread. It was a massive endeavor attempting to touch on every aspect of such a vast industry in mere 10 minutes, but I’m glad we tried. I believe there is much more room for a second and perhaps third part down the line. Again, thanks for watching, sharing and opening discussions around the state of the film industry and its community in the year 2020

Carlos

Thanks Carlos for your video and your comments.
I look forward to any extra videos in the future.

 

[Henning Serger]

Hello everyone, this is Carlos P Beltran, the journalist who directed the video. Thank you for sharing and for making very valid points through the thread. It was a massive endeavor attempting to touch on every aspect of such a vast industry in mere 10 minutes, but I’m glad we tried. I believe there is much more room for a second and perhaps third part down the line. Again, thanks for watching, sharing and opening discussions around the state of the film industry and its community in the year 2020

Carlos

Hello Carlos,
welcome on board . Nice to have you here.
Lots of film photographers have been loyal to film over all the years, and kept on using it also during the difficult time of 2004 - 2015, in which global film demand decreased heavily.
These loyal film photographers supported the film manufacturers with their demand, so that the production could be continued.
Here on photrio you will find lots of these enthusiast, loyal film photographers who have never stopped using film.
And here you will also find lots of people / companies from the film industry: Film, photo paper and photo chemistry manufacturers, film/paper/chemistry/camera distributors, lab owners, photo engineers, book authors, technology / market analysts and so on. And I am sure they will support you if you want to make a second or third part of your video.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I was merely trying to argue that for many an escape from their screen is a value proposition in and of itself. I do not believe that one is more 'pure' or 'artistic' or simply better than the other. I shoot a lot of digital for work, and spend a lot of time behind a screen editing that work. It may be interesting or even necessary for some, but it's not my personal favorite way to produce work.

I agree. Meanwhile, right now, I am sitting in front of a computer instead of going out and catching the sunrise.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Exactly.
That is why I have made several comments with additional information concerning environmental impacts in the comment section of the video.
For several years I worked in environmental research projects at University and doing Life Cycle Assessments was also the major part of the longest project I worked for.
Digital Imaging has a much much bigger (more worse) impact on the environment than film photography. Period.

Best regards,
Henning

I think the problem is too many people. If it wasn't film or cell phones, then it would be something else. People devour resources. Unless we plan to go back to nature, it will continue as such. Many things are naturally recycled. With the rest, we can take reasonable care that the environment is protected and move on from there. The Earth will survive.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Hello everyone, this is Carlos P Beltran, the journalist who directed the video. Thank you for sharing and for making very valid points through the thread. It was a massive endeavor attempting to touch on every aspect of such a vast industry in mere 10 minutes, but I’m glad we tried. I believe there is much more room for a second and perhaps third part down the line. Again, thanks for watching, sharing and opening discussions around the state of the film industry and its community in the year 2020

Carlos

Carlos, That was a very good film. I'm not an editor. But I think you did a great job summing up a lot of the industry today and the excitement with film. Regarding some of the people in the movie who blog on the internet, I watch all three from time to time. I think it's great that such young people are doing this. They're film entrepreneurs.

I'll be 75 in a few weeks. So it's old fogies who still do this stuff too. I just ordered a newly manufactured large format 4x5 film camera from China and an 25 year-old German lens from Japan to go with it. I've ordered Kodak film from NYC and Japanese film directly from Japan. (The type is not sold in America). It will be the first time using such film equipment for me. So even old guys can learn new things with film. We're not dead yet either.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I would like to point out that digital cameras are losing more users to smartphones than film cameras are at the moment.

What if they came out with a film smartphone? Now wouldn't that be something?

 

[removed account4]

The perception that high-tech things like electric cars and smartphones are more 'green' than old-tech like photo-chemicals is often evidence of a NIMBY mentality. The electric power has to be generated someplace and the lithium, exotic metals and rare earth elements have to be mined somewhere. Are those far-away operations pollution free?

For the better part of the 20th century, the everyday atmosphere here in Rochester NY was spiced by the sharp odor of methylene chloride vapors that were almost continuously discharged from the tall stacks of Eastman Kodak. In recent years that distinctive smell has been absent because EK no longer manufactures their own film base and has outsourced the air pollution to some other locale. There used to be much controversy about suspected 'cancer clusters' in the residential neighborhoods around Kodak Park, but no more. The stacks are gone.

hey lee
i guess since you quoted me i'll respond ..
i never said modern tech was clean, but i don't have any fantasy that any variant of chemical based photography is / was either. its too bad that many romanticise at how wonderful, clean and unproblematic these things are ( whether it is modern or olde ). mining, refining and other "industries" are always offshored to where earth-rights are a little more lax.
SSDD
>snip snip snip<

Hello everyone, this is Carlos P Beltran, the journalist who directed the video.
Carlos

hey carlos,
great video. thanks for publishing it

john

 

[Jim Jones]

I began B&W photography over 75 years ago. Then, during a Navy career, I switched primarily to 35mm Kodachrome (ISO 10!). Most of the time since 1963 a B&W darkroom has been available. Ten years ago I switched to digital, and have produced many more prints since then than in all of the preceding 65+ years. Film is still a logical choice for some images. The magnificent photographs by master photographers of 150 years ago compete well with today's digital results. Digital imaging is far more convenient, and good enough for most purposes. Each system should continue to be used where most appropriate.

 

[KenS]

Still using film? The guy looks too young to start out with film and if he started out with digital then he is not still using film.

Chan,
I am a 'somewhat semi-retired "pro" and have ben castigated numerous times by digital camera users about the pollution of he sewer system the by dumping my used fixer down the drain..

I have taken to fighting back since i no longer dispose of used fixer in that manner.. I 'reclaim' the silver by pouring it onto a brown glass carboy and adding Uused but not 'dead' developer, shaking he mix and letting it 'stand'.. shaking it again
syphoning off the clear 'liquid' adding more used developer and firther aliquots of used fixer... repeat and repeat.

Eventually you will have a precipitate that you can 'wash' with clean hot water and letting it 'settle down' to the bottom of the 'container after 'repeating' a number of times.
Filter the precipitate out... It is now the 'purest form of silver you can get. Take it to a jewelery 'repair outlet and have it melted down in one of their 'furnaces' for a percentage of the proceeds.

A bit more 'work and effort' than disposing of the used fixer down the drain into the sewage system but 'in the end"
both a 'money saver' and leading to a 'cleaner environment' for society.

There will be a percentage of those who take the time to read this... and declare "rubbish'.however I can but hope a high percentage of you readers will actually make the effort at least 'try it' and perhaps include it into your darkroom management policy.

Ken.

 

[Sirius Glass]

1. I have been doing film photography for sixty years.
2. I have all the cameras that I want and the lenses that I want.
3. I have the knowledge to use film cameras, develop film and print film.
4. I have a darkroom and equipment to develop and print both black & white and color film.
   
5. I can buy better quality film cameras and their lenses for less money than the top of the line Nikons and Canons.
6. I do not need to buy a new expense computer to do work equivalent to what I do with film.
7. I do not need to buy expensive software to do work equivalent to what I do with film.
8. I do not need to buy an expensive printer to even get in the neighborhood of what I can do in my darkroom.
9. Negative film has a wider exposure latitude than digital sensors.
10. Film has better tonality than digital.
11. The four color pixels are much larger than film grain.
12. I enjoy using film and working in the darkroom.
13. I do not enjoy using Photo$hop or its equivalents.
    
14. Digital is great for spacecraft doing remote sensing, but since I am retired I longer have a need to do remote sensing.

 

[Chan Tran]

Chan,
I am a 'somewhat semi-retired "pro" and have ben castigated numerous times by digital camera users about the pollution of he sewer system the by dumping my used fixer down the drain..

I have taken to fighting back since i no longer dispose of used fixer in that manner.. I 'reclaim' the silver by pouring it onto a brown glass carboy and adding Uused but not 'dead' developer, shaking he mix and letting it 'stand'.. shaking it again
syphoning off the clear 'liquid' adding more used developer and firther aliquots of used fixer... repeat and repeat.

Eventually you will have a precipitate that you can 'wash' with clean hot water and letting it 'settle down' to the bottom of the 'container after 'repeating' a number of times.
Filter the precipitate out... It is now the 'purest form of silver you can get. Take it to a jewelery 'repair outlet and have it melted down in one of their 'furnaces' for a percentage of the proceeds.

A bit more 'work and effort' than disposing of the used fixer down the drain into the sewage system but 'in the end"
both a 'money saver' and leading to a 'cleaner environment' for society.

There will be a percentage of those who take the time to read this... and declare "rubbish'.however I can but hope a high percentage of you readers will actually make the effort at least 'try it' and perhaps include it into your darkroom management policy.

Ken.

You quoted my posts in 2 different threads and while I would agree with what you said in both they don't seem to have any relevant to my posts.