Why you should be shooting film

KenS · Jan 31, 2017

I have been making latent exposures onto film for over 60 years. My mentor, those many years ago, always insisted that good photographs are "made"...

As of today, I still think of the 'act' of making a photographic exposure as an creative "act" rather than one of a violent "shooting" with a camera 'loaded' with film. Hearing the word "shooting" as it applies to the effect of capturing photons to a light sensitive substance behind the lens (or pinhole) leaves me to believe there may now be a large physical 'hole' through my sheets of film that might result in my having a large black "dot" on the paper to which I print.

Might there be any way that we could look towards eliminating the expression 'shooting' from the vocabulary of all photographers?

Ken

Sirius Glass · Jan 31, 2017

KenS said:
Might there be any way that we could look towards eliminating the expression 'shooting' from the vocabulary of all photographers?

I would much rather get rid of the term "souping" used for developing.

blockend · Jan 31, 2017

Sirius Glass said:
I would much rather get rid of the term "souping" used for developing.

Add workflow to the hit list. What the hell is workflow in a film context anyway?

Ko.Fe. · Jan 31, 2017

This video dude is wearing toque hat and flannel shirt. This outfit and unfinished surroundings makes me feel like he does framing for living. If so, the absent of knowledge on digital redundancy in his head is OK with me. I'm not handy man, can't do framing for living and I was able to get income by dealing with digital images and motion pictures on digital media. Digital redundancy of the media (or any files) is very easily achievable at low cost and on consumer level these days. It is also no brainier. But I'm not here to tell about this in details.
I, as technical person who deals with broadcast (digital), post processing (digital) and archiving (digital) is finding it to be very balanced to use film and paper at home. And read some books. For education and pleasure. I don't think toque head guy is telling something I should know about

blockend · Jan 31, 2017

I don't know anyone, personally, who backs up images from their phone to a computer. They use a phone as a photo album, and treat its contents as disposable. That is absolutely normal behaviour for non-photographers, they have learnt that the effort to do more than click and show is completely out of kilter with image capture. That's how cameras work now, you touch the screen, you post on social media, and that's the life of a photograph. Printing from a phone - rare. Printing from a phone like we get enprints from a film roll - completely non-existent. Backing up? Uh? Backing up and future proofing? That's what Facebook is for.

You have to be interested to save photos now in a way that hasn't been necessary since George Eastman built his boxes.

LAG · Jan 31, 2017

Kodachromeguy said:
"I don't know if a single floppy would be able to hold all the information a single 35mm negative, I suspect not." The smaller floppies, 3.5 inch, held 1.44 mbytes of data when formatted on a PC, while a short-lived experimental version from IBM held 2.88 mbytes. As for the content of a 36x24mm exposure on Tri-X: I am scanning some Tri-X right now that I took in Cuba. A full-frame scan at 3600 dpi outputted as 16-bit TIFF (grey scale) is about 36 mbytes. Color would be 3 times the size. Realistically, 3600 dpi is a bit too much with the relatively grainy Tri-X, and 2400 dpi would extract the useful image data. So, it would take a lot of floppies to hold this data, and it would be inconvenient to retrieve.

Does a photograph have to have those numbers to be a photograph? (Wow)

klownshed said:
...People. We are the weak link.

Very true, indeed! (and the overall reason for all these reasonings)

KenS said:
Might there be any way that we could look towards eliminating the expression 'shooting' from the vocabulary of all photographers?

It should be removed from the dictionary first!

MattKing · Jan 31, 2017

blockend said:
Add workflow to the hit list. What the hell is workflow in a film context anyway?

Here is mine:
Load reels and put into tank, measure temperature of working solution developer, adjust container of pre-wet water to that temperature, pre-wet, developer, stop bath, fixer, rinse, HCA, wash, Photo-flo, hang to dry, put in Print File pages, prepare contact proof print.
IMHO, "work flow" is a useful generic term that fits just as comfortably within the analogue world.

Luckless · Jan 31, 2017

blockend said:
Add workflow to the hit list. What the hell is workflow in a film context anyway?

Workflow - The series of tasks leading to an end product. Not really sure why any would say it doesn't fit in a film focused context.

blockend · Jan 31, 2017

MattKing said:
IMHO, "work flow" is a useful generic term that fits just as comfortably within the analogue world.

Luckless said:
Workflow - The series of tasks leading to an end product. Not really sure why any would say it doesn't fit in a film focused context.

Because I never heard the term for the first thirty years of my photographic life and the prints came out fine. I think it's a digital term that has been reverse engineered into film photography.

Sirius Glass · Jan 31, 2017

blockend said:
Add workflow to the hit list. What the hell is workflow in a film context anyway?

I think it has to do with kidney and urinary track drainage.

Luckless · Jan 31, 2017

blockend said:
Because I never heard the term for the first thirty years of my photographic life and the prints came out fine. I think it's a digital term that has been reverse engineered into film photography.

Well, you don't need to have a formal term for something or to be aware of it as a formal concept to still use it. Earliest references to 'workflow'/'work flow' that I can find off hand date from the 50's. The concept dates well before then, but unsure how the language used for it has evolved over time.

Helios 1984 · Jan 31, 2017

blockend said:
I don't know anyone, personally, who backs up images from their phone to a computer. They use a phone as a photo album, and treat its contents as disposable. That is absolutely normal behaviour for non-photographers, they have learnt that the effort to do more than click and show is completely out of kilter with image capture. That's how cameras work now, you touch the screen, you post on social media, and that's the life of a photograph. Printing from a phone - rare. Printing from a phone like we get enprints from a film roll - completely non-existent. Backing up? Uh? Backing up and future proofing? That's what Facebook is for.

You have to be interested to save photos now in a way that hasn't been necessary since George Eastman built his boxes.

hummm I backup the picture on my phone? Also my father asked me to backup the pictures on his phone when he changed for a newer one (Here's a picture he took) ohh and a few weeks ago he went to Walmart to have a print of something he shot with his android so he could give it to his father. I know there not much love for digital around these part but it is an error to believe that people who use digital (including phones) do not care about their snapshots.

blockend · Jan 31, 2017

Helios 1984 said:
I know there not much love for digital around these part

That may be true but I didn't link to knock digital cameras and like I say, I own four of them. People may read every digital thread in tribal terms and respond with knee jerks, but that's their problem. The underlying issue is that photography has become an electronic process, not a chemical one, and that has implications for the way photographs are viewed and kept. If favours people who like sitting in front of computer screens processing data, and is less kind to those who choose to ignore technological caprices. To be responsible for your images, you simply cannot leave the photograph at the time you put a negative in a sleeve and the print in its box as before, you have to update to survive. That puts the long term future of your photos beyond your control, there's just no argument about that.

Theo Sulphate · Jan 31, 2017

blockend said:
... The underlying issue is that photography has become an electronic process ... you have to update to survive. That puts the long term future of your photos beyond your control, there's just no argument about that.

Exactly.

As I said, it doesn't matter how meticulous you are: at some point someone other than you is going to be looking at an old computer disk drive, not know or care very much what's on it, and they're likely going to toss it as rubbish.

With the shoebox or album of prints, there's a significantly higher likelihood that the images will be viewable. Whether they're worth saving is a different question.

(... I say this as someone with three digital cameras and gigabytes of photos)

Wallendo · Jan 31, 2017

The permanence of film is part of what draw me back from the Dark Side. I was scanning Kodachrome slides I took on a college trip to Europe in 1982, and it struck me that the piece of film had been with me on that trip. And still looked brand new.

As for archival permanence, I follow a strategy of multiple types and locations for backup. I save my negatives/slides, and also scan them and save to my hard-drive, the cloud, and Blu-Ray disc. Film has the advantage in that passive storage is usually adequate. Digital, on the other hand, requires active effort. New backups must be made as disks wear out. Files may need to be converted to other formats, but if done properly, can be preserved for centuries with no loss of quality.

With any of these technics, the greatest risk to my photographs is that my descendants may have no interest in them and toss them away. And for 99% of them, that is appropriate.

Wayne · Jan 31, 2017

Sirius Glass said:
I would much rather get rid of the term "souping" used for developing.

+1.

FWIW I'd also like to get rid of "+1"

Sirius Glass · Jan 31, 2017

Wayne said:
+1.

FWIW I'd also like to get rid of "+1"

+2 or for binary aficionados +0010

Tim Stapp · Jan 31, 2017

I recall the statement that this current young generation is the most photographed in history, but will have nothing to show the next generation.

removed account4 · Jan 31, 2017

blockend said:
I agree. My default method is printed books. I get to say what order, size and shape the images are seen, and can introduce text if it's important. I can make silver prints and C-types from the negatives, and scan them for my records. I recently presented such a book to my in-laws who were blown away and described it as an "heirloom". The same shots on an iPad would be flicked through and forgotten in 5 minutes. That's the effect printed matter has on people. There's no comparison between the engagement of an image on a screen and a printed one.

i agree, making books is a great thing !

do you have a "service" that makes them for you, or are you making them from scratch ?
i have wanted to have a "service" make them but i always seem to have something else to do
and while i have made handfuls of books, i haven't made one in quite some time ... which reminds me,
i should probably make one sooner or later !

ME Super · Jan 31, 2017

"Oh, but backups of my files are so hard to make!" or "Oh, I can't remember to do backups!" Neither of these are excuses for not backing up your personal data (I'm not talking just photos here - other stuff too!).

Go down to the local big box electronics store (or order online) a hard drive that is accessible over your local network.
Take it home, plug it in, attach it to your network.
Download yourself a copy of "Syncback Free" (I'm assuming you're a Windows user, there's likely a Mac equivalent) and install it on your computer.
Run the software and set up a scheduled job to back up whatever data is important to you from your computer to your shiny new network-accessible hard drive on a periodic basis (mine runs daily at 10pm).

Done! Did you get yourself a new computer, or did your computer's hard drive fail? No problem moving your files from the old one to the new one before you decommission the old one - just restore from your network accessible hard drive, install Syncback Free (or equivalent) and set up your backup job again.

Now, this won't protect your ephemeral digital photos from a house fire (for that you need off-site storage - easy solution there is another hard drive that you keep offsite (at the office?) and bring home once in a while and copy the files from the network-accessible hard drive to the offsite drive, then take it back off site again).

It's a bit more complicated with mobile devices such as your phone, but there are tools for this too. However, all of these require action on your part. Shooting film and getting prints back from the lab, sticking them in a box, you're done. Ideally, you should go through and make some notes on the back of the prints or something for future generations, but that's about it. (Me being a slide shooter, there's not much room to write on a slide mount, so I'll have to put codes on the slides and then put details on separate pieces of paper, but it's the same principle).

Sirius Glass · Jan 31, 2017

Tim Stapp said:
I recall the statement that this current young generation is the most photographed in history, but will have nothing to show the next generation.

Sirius Glass · Jan 31, 2017

ME Super said:
"Oh, but backups of my files are so hard to make!" or "Oh, I can't remember to do backups!" Neither of these are excuses for not backing up your personal data (I'm not talking just photos here - other stuff too!).

Go down to the local big box electronics store (or order online) a hard drive that is accessible over your local network.

Take it home, plug it in, attach it to your network.

Download yourself a copy of "Syncback Free" (I'm assuming you're a Windows user, there's likely a Mac equivalent) and install it on your computer.

Run the software and set up a scheduled job to back up whatever data is important to you from your computer to your shiny new network-accessible hard drive on a periodic basis (mine runs daily at 10pm).

Done! Did you get yourself a new computer, or did your computer's hard drive fail? No problem moving your files from the old one to the new one before you decommission the old one - just restore from your network accessible hard drive, install Syncback Free (or equivalent) and set up your backup job again.

Now, this won't protect your ephemeral digital photos from a house fire (for that you need off-site storage - easy solution there is another hard drive that you keep offsite (at the office?) and bring home once in a while and copy the files from the network-accessible hard drive to the offsite drive, then take it back off site again).

It's a bit more complicated with mobile devices such as your phone, but there are tools for this too. However, all of these require action on your part. Shooting film and getting prints back from the lab, sticking them in a box, you're done. Ideally, you should go through and make some notes on the back of the prints or something for future generations, but that's about it. (Me being a slide shooter, there's not much room to write on a slide mount, so I'll have to put codes on the slides and then put details on separate pieces of paper, but it's the same principle).

Yes then the photographs will degrade over time unless you regularly refresh every file. Of course when the OS changes or gets replaced or when the storage format changes or you just replace your computer, there is a risk that the images will be lost. NASA almost lost all the pre Apollo landing surveys, but did lose many other photographs. But that is not important because you are so confident that you know more about digital storage than the industry experts and researchers. Good luck to you.

Theo Sulphate · Feb 1, 2017

ME Super said:
... just restore from your network accessible hard drive ...

Probably a good idea to mention to family members or write a note somewhere (like in a Will) that this archive exists (or at least did exist at one time...)

blockend · Feb 1, 2017

jnanian said:
i agree, making books is a great thing !

do you have a "service" that makes them for you, or are you making them from scratch ?
i have wanted to have a "service" make them but i always seem to have something else to do
and while i have made handfuls of books, i haven't made one in quite some time ... which reminds me,
i should probably make one sooner or later !

Most of the commercial book makers are very good now, I suspect they use a printer/s that specialises in this work because the print quality looks similar. It's not Steidl, but it is good, the kind of quality you'd get in a typical gallery bookshop. I normally use a firm called Bonusprint because they regularly have offers where you can put a double 28 x 21cm 80 page book together for £20-25 instead of £75-80. Print companies generally use standard and custom formats, so you can cut and paste to their designs or make your own, I like to keep things simple. Take a few hours to get on top of their protocols and it's easy. I looked at photography books I admired and stuck to that layout. In the UK Bonusprint were one of those firms that developed your photos by mail and sent you a free unbranded film in the 70s and 80s, so I was suspicious of their quality initially, but it looks like they use an independent printer. From nine books I've only had a print problem with one and they replaced it by return. I'm sure most companies will do a good job. If you want to publish to sell you'd be better to go to a regular printer, but for 1's and 2's photobook publishers are the easiest.

Arctic amateur · Feb 1, 2017

blockend said:
I don't know anyone, personally, who backs up images from their phone to a computer. They use a phone as a photo album, and treat its contents as disposable.

All smartphones these days have automatic cloud storage of all photos taken with the phone.

Why you should be shooting film

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency