Yet another professional opinion on film...any thoughts?

[bobby_novatron]

A preamble: hello, my fellow RFF'ers, I'm just plopping this jumble of words on RFF for people to read and think about. It's a "cross-post" from a thread I started on Flickr earlier, but I thought it might be of interest to photogs amateur/pro on RFF. Happy reading!

This is an excerpt from a recent interview with Stanley Greene, a photojournalist who has covered numerous troubled areas of the world over several decades. Mr. Greene has taken many strking photos that have been published in the major media.

BTW the original interview is here:

lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/shoptalk-7/?scp=2&s...

This is his opinion on film vs digital, not mine. I am posting this here for elucidation and discussion only, not to inflame passions.

So here we go:

"I also think we are going to have more pictures from the 20th century than we are going to have from the 21st, because everything is getting deleted. Digital is not real. I can touch a negative. I can’t touch digital. When you have to back something up with 15 hard drives, doesn’t that rattle something?

And also, when you shoot digital, you can chimp; you can look at the image on the camera. Imagine Cartier-Bresson if he was trying to take a picture and all of a sudden he looked down. He would lose that next moment. A really good combat photographer chimping in the middle of the field could get a bullet in his head. I am surprised that no one has been shot yet.

But by shooting film, you are forced to really think about what you are photographing. You have to have a dialogue between you and the subject. When I shoot, I shoot from every angle possible because I am a super insecure photographer. And when I am shooting film, I am even more insecure. I push the envelope on trying to get the right shot, but I also think it through. With digital, there is a moment where you say: “Oh, I got it. What the hell.”

I think that we have no choice but to go back to shooting film because we have to get back to some kind of integrity. I think we are losing the moral code. And I think that in the end with film — yes, you can manipulate it and yes, you can change some things — there is still a moral code.

Anyway, I like shooting film. I have a thousand rolls of Kodachrome. But the fear I have every day is, “When I am going to get that golden assignment where I can actually go shoot the Kodachrome, then ship it off to Kansas and still hope that they are still processing it?” I am waiting. Any day now, they are going to say, “It’s all over.” But they said that about Polaroid, and now Polaroid is coming back with a vengeance..."

 

[John Rountree]

"I think that we have no choice but to go back to shooting film because we have to get back to some kind of integrity. "

So, the capture medium trumps the image?

 

[semilog]

"I think that we have no choice but to go back to shooting film because we have to get back to some kind of integrity. "

So, the capture medium trumps the image?

It is harder to produce a manipulated 35mm negative or transparency than it is to produce a manipulated digital file. Not to say it can't be done. But it's harder.

 

[Finder]

"I also think we are going to have more pictures from the 20th century than we are going to have from the 21st, because everything is getting deleted. Digital is not real. I can touch a negative. I can’t touch digital. When you have to back something up with 15 hard drives, doesn’t that rattle something?

False. Even in the film age, you never saw every frame taken. I know photographers that did throw out bad film images. Also, there is no reason to keep every digital image. I do not delete my digital images.

And also, when you shoot digital, you can chimp; you can look at the image on the camera. Imagine Cartier-Bresson if he was trying to take a picture and all of a sudden he looked down. He would lose that next moment. A really good combat photographer chimping in the middle of the field could get a bullet in his head. I am surprised that no one has been shot yet.

But you don't have to chimp. I do not preview my images that I am shooting until I get home. Here again, a false argument.

But by shooting film, you are forced to really think about what you are photographing. You have to have a dialogue between you and the subject. When I shoot, I shoot from every angle possible because I am a super insecure photographer. And when I am shooting film, I am even more insecure. I push the envelope on trying to get the right shot, but I also think it through. With digital, there is a moment where you say: “Oh, I got it. What the hell.”

Another false argument. None of this behavior is related to the medium. I work just as hard when shooting digital as I do when shooting film.

I think that we have no choice but to go back to shooting film because we have to get back to some kind of integrity. I think we are losing the moral code. And I think that in the end with film — yes, you can manipulate it and yes, you can change some things — there is still a moral code.

Since when does technology have a moral code. Morality is in the photographer--you can be dishonest and underhanded no matter the medium you work in. Film will not keep you honest.

Anyway, I like shooting film. I have a thousand rolls of Kodachrome. But the fear I have every day is, “When I am going to get that golden assignment where I can actually go shoot the Kodachrome, then ship it off to Kansas and still hope that they are still processing it?” I am waiting. Any day now, they are going to say, “It’s all over.” But they said that about Polaroid, and now Polaroid is coming back with a vengeance..."

Well, he has to the end of the year to finish his Kodachrome. After that he will have to learn to process it himself. Of course, Kodachrome is no longer in production--even Paul Simon has not released a song this time.

But there is other film. And all forecasts about the end of film have been wrong.

I think Mr. Greene should stick to taking photographs. But most artists/photographers don't have a lot to say which is worth listening to.

 

[semilog]

I think Mr. Greene should stick to taking photographs. But most artists/photographers don't have a lot to say which is worth listening to.

Yeah, only pseudonymous twits (e.g., me) should be able to spew random opinions 🙄.

Seriously, though, the rest of the interview is quite interesting and, IMO, worth reading/listening to. But then, I don't actually have to agree with an opinion to find it useful or interesting.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I think Mr. Greene should stick to taking photographs. But most artists/photographers don't have a lot to say which is worth listening to.

I had a professor when I was working on my BFA who had a PhD in art history, and she was also a professional artist. She made more money from her paintings than she did as a full professor with tenure. Interestingly, she claimed that artists are unqualified to talk about their own work's meaning, a job best left to art historians like her. Most art historians are not also artists, so such a statement from most would not sound as hypocritical as it did from her, lol. I have to disagree with her and with RFF Member Finder. If artists have nothing to say, is their art worth looking at?

 

[Finder]

If artists have nothing to say, is their art worth looking at?

I find their works speak eloquently (good or bad), whether they have anything to say or not. I seldom find the artist's statement at an exhibition a useful addition.

And perhaps I was not so clear. I find comments by artists, at least the more interesting ones, simply personal statements. They may be interesting. They may give insight into how a particular artist works. But that is their relationship to their work and no one else's.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I find their works speak eloquently (good or bad), whether they have anything to say or not. I seldom find the artist's statement at an exhibition a useful addition.

And perhaps I was not so clear. I find comments by artists, at least the more interesting ones, simply personal statements. They may be interesting. They may give insight into how a particular artist works. But that is their relationship to their work and no one else's.

I agree the best work shouldn't need much text, except for some documentary work where the context can be explained (example, pics of a war...text can explain what war it is, where, what the people are warring about)

 

[Ranchu]

The guy doesn't like to use low DR, disposable cameras to take pictures with. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Tim Gray]

Interestingly, she claimed that artists are unqualified to talk about their own work's meaning, a job best left to art historians like her.

I think that's one extreme view, countered by the other extreme that we should *only* care about the artist's opinion.

The artist's take on a piece of their work is just another opinion on the work. Just like your's is, as well as mine. I think all opinions/views/etc of a piece of art are interesting, but ultimately they all inform *my* opinion, which is the one that matters in the end to me.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I think that's one extreme view, countered by the other extreme that we should *only* care about the artist's opinion.

The artist's take on a piece of their work is just another opinion on the work. Just like your's is, as well as mine. I think all opinions/views/etc of a piece of art are interesting, but ultimately they all inform *my* opinion, which is the one that matters in the end to me.

The artist created the work so I really think the artist's thought on its meaning is the only legitimate view. If the work doesn't say to you what the artist claims it does, then either the artist failed to create an effective piece or the viewer wasn't smart enough to understand it. I think art should not be hard to understand though, if it is so difficult to understand that a large number of viewers are not smart enough to get it, then I think thats a failure on the artists' part rather than a failure on the part of the viewer. Not that art should be dumbed down, but it shouldn't be deliberately difficult either. Too much of what's made today is designed to make the viewer feel stupid, in my opinion.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I enjoy film more than digital too. And I agree I trust its physical presence more...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[bobby_novatron]

I think Mr. Greene has some valid points but "Finder" had some good arguments as well. Greene's argument about integrity is related to another section in the interview, where he speaks disparagingly about the ubiquitous use of Photoshop in professional circles, even to the point of modifying the content of images (i.e. removing a chair) to make the composition better.

I would have to add, though, that just because one uses film there is more integrity. It's just as easy to scan a film negative and "massage" the image, as it is to modify a .raw or .jpeg file from a digital camera. Perhaps, in the ethereal, esoteric sense of capturing a particular moment of life at that slice of time, a piece of film IS indisputably a physical record of the scene. But how many people think that way, or care? They just want a great shot, they don't care how they get it.

As a disclaimer, I have to say that I really like using film. I haven't been around as long as other RFF members, but I can safely say that I cut my teeth on a Minolta rangefinder, and a Pentax K1000 back in the early 1980's as a teenager. Did lots of B&W developing and printing too. Later, in the late 1990's, I rode the digital tsunami, like so many other enthusiasts. But recently, I've returned to shooting film almost exclusively.

As Greene says, when I shoot film, I find I really have to slow down and THINK. I really need to think about what I'm shooting, and try to make every frame count. Sure, out of a roll of 36 I might only get a handful of decent shots. But at least I know that with every image I took, I really had to work at it.

Occasionally, due to sheer convenience or other factors, I will put down my film cameras and "regress" to digital. When I pick up my Canon dSLR, I am completely blown away at how much the computer does for me -- there is so little thinking involved, I feel like cheating somehow. Or I'm some sort of imbecile that needs some serious hand-holding in order to take a good photo.

I'm still grateful that digital is around, though. It definitely has its strengths, just like every medium has its strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

As Greene says, when I shoot film, I find I really have to slow down and THINK. I really need to think about what I'm shooting, and try to make every frame count. Sure, out of a roll of 36 I might only get a handful of decent shots. But at least I know that with every image I took, I really had to work at it.

Occasionally, due to sheer convenience or other factors, I will put down my film cameras and "regress" to digital. When I pick up my Canon dSLR, I am completely blown away at how much the computer does for me -- there is so little thinking involved, I feel like cheating somehow. Or I'm some sort of imbecile that needs some serious hand-holding in order to take a good photo.

Nothing about digital makes it impossible to slow down and think. Cameras that do everything for you have been around for more than 20 years now. I shot with my old Nikon F4s today; its a big professional 35mm SLR from the early 1990s. It offers autofocus and program autoexposure with matrix metering, making it easily the biggest, heaviest, most expensive point n shoot camera of its time. Of course, I had it on manual exposure with spotmeter and manual focus as I walked down Wells Street (an old business district near where I live in Fort Wane, Indiana) shooting old buildings with the 35mm f2 AF-Nikkor and 50mm f1.4 AF-Nikkor lenses. My point is that even in the days of film, long ago, one could shoot without thinking if one chose, even with a very expensive camera.

Here's some stuff I shot with a digital SLR a few yrs ago:

The Ortiz Mountains photographed from the Galisteo Basin, Santa Fe County, New Mexico

Abandoned Farm in Pulaski County, Indiana

Rex Ottinger's Barber Shop in Roanoke, Indiana

Bullitt County, Kentucky

Louisville, Kentucky

Estancia, New Mexico

Abandoned Farmhouse in Pulaski County, Indiana

Lawton Christian Church in rural Pulaski County, Indiana

Abandoned House in Allen County, Indiana. Note the article about the ancient photo of Jesus !

All shot on manual exposure with a Kodak DCS 14n, manual focus, camera on tripod.

 

[lawrence]

I know it's only gelatin silver but I like it, like it, yes I do...

I know it's only gelatin silver but I like it, like it, yes I do...

Since 1971 I have developed every b&w film I've taken and I don't think I have yet come anywhere close to mastering the medium -- I'm still exploring film so why should I ditch it for something else? Also, to me there's something a bit strange about digital -- the fact that there's no physical original. Although I'm not an Adams fan he did say something I can relate to "The negative is the score, the print is the performance" and even with scanning/digital printing this still holds true. For me there is no 'better' or 'worse' between film and digital only 'different'. I just happen to like film and I'll keep buying it as long is it's available.

 

[sojournerphoto]

I would have to add, though, that just because one uses film there is more integrity. It's just as easy to scan a film negative and "massage" the image, as it is to modify a .raw or .jpeg file from a digital camera. Perhaps, in the ethereal, esoteric sense of capturing a particular moment of life at that slice of time, a piece of film IS indisputably a physical record of the scene. But how many people think that way, or care? They just want a great shot, they don't care how they get it.

And that is the great weakness of 'photography' today. Because it has become so easy to change the content of the image there is no trust in it's ability to represent the scene before the lens at the moment the shutter was pressed. This isn't necessarily an issue if you are making art, but if you want photography to have a place that is different from painting then you've got aproblem.

Mike

 

[Arjay]

With regards to film vs. digital, I'm with Finder.

Film or digital - that's just the medium. The way how we use the medium determines whether we create imagery in a premeditated or just in a haphazard way. I can be just as thoughtful and meticulous using a digital camera as using an analog one.

As for the alleged loss of integrity when using digital, manipulation has also been possible with analog media - it just was a little more difficult or time consuming. But it was possible all the same. So, ethics are not a media-related problem, but they have always been one that has been tied to the person of the photographer - no matter whether he uses analog or digital tools.

The artist created the work so I really think the artist's thought on its meaning is the only legitimate view. If the work doesn't say to you what the artist claims it does, then either the artist failed to create an effective piece or the viewer wasn't smart enough to understand it. I think art should not be hard to understand though, if it is so difficult to understand that a large number of viewers are not smart enough to get it, then I think thats a failure on the artists' part rather than a failure on the part of the viewer. Not that art should be dumbed down, but it shouldn't be deliberately difficult either. Too much of what's made today is designed to make the viewer feel stupid, in my opinion.

Not sure if I agree. To me, all good art is ambiguous, and invites the viewer to interpret it. Sure, the artist can explain what he thought of when he created a picture - but if the picture is really good, there will be multiple layers of meaning that are waiting to be read.

And that is the great weakness of 'photography' today. Because it has become so easy to change the content of the image there is no trust in it's ability to represent the scene before the lens at the moment the shutter was pressed. This isn't necessarily an issue if you are making art, but if you want photography to have a place that is different from painting then you've got aproblem.

If you use photography in a journalistic or forensic context, I agree with you. If you need to guarantee that a picture hasn't been tampoered with, you can use content integrity protection functions that ara available with Pro DSLRs form most major manufacturers.

For all others who just want to make images, the medium can just as well be considered meaningless, as long as the photographer produces an interesting image. And - in the end, who cares if an image is a photography, a painting on canvas or a digital painting as long as it is meaningful?

 

[mfogiel]

I like this other passage, and it sums it up for me too:

"I think digital is great — for color. I don’t think it’s great for black and white. I think it’s just too much manipulation. It’s not real. There is this kind of grayness. I still don’t get the blacks I want without taking it to such an extreme that it becomes a cartoon of its former self"

 

[user237428934]

I think most manipulation with photos is done through putting a photo in the wrong context or leaving off important content while taking the photo or taking photos of a "staged truth". This can be done easily with film or digital. I think this is a more powerful way of manipulation than modifying a single photo. So please stop this pseudo argument for film.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

The fact that you can back up a digital photo to 10 hard drives seems to me to be an advantage over film. With film, you have only one original. If it is destroyed by fire, flood, vandals, whatever, it is gone. With digital, you can have 10 originals stored in 10 different places if you like.