CMur12
Veteran
I saw that and it is encouraging. Thanks for posting it.
I'm assuming that Kodak's efforts are going into continuing their existing emulsions (hopefully including Ektachrome), with any new technology going into efficiency of production.
- Murray
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
I'm not disagreeing, per se... but reviving old tech to make a new product is still new production, and (at least in Harman's case), they're having to do a certain amount of R&D to make it happen.
Similarly, you could make the argument that what Ferrania's been up to for the last ten years could count as R&D - they had to figure out how to take a plant and machinery intended to make miles of film for movie use and find a way to make it work for small-scale production.
There's also projects like Supersense's One Instant, trying to make peel apart film work in a massively downscaled (and borderline DIY) production process.
I really don't think we're ever going to get brand new film technologies - there's just not the budget for that sort of thing, and I'd imagine we're going to get "brand new" developers before we ever get "brand new" film - but revisiting old ideas and finding ways to modernise them and make them available (and/or relevant) in the modern era is, in itself, a form of progress and development.
Freakscene
Obscure member
It is implementation and development. I have worked in science innovation for over 20 years. If there is nothing new, it is not research.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
In one sense, a major appeal of film over digital for me is that it allows me to use some of the lovely ancient cameras that I own. And I like using them because they produce photographs that are very satisfying to my eye and a bit different/special/etc compared to what I can do with digital imaging and more modern lenses.
Along with that, there is an excitement and a mystery to the delayed gratification of shooting film, since you can't see what you've done until some time has gone past and you have processed (and rendered) the exposures. Film is the realm of pre-visualization, digital capture is the realm of post-visualization. You have to work with your imagination in the future as you make exposures on film as you won't see them for at least a few hours. I think this factor, in the current world of instant gratification and the immediate "in your face" nature of modern digital equipment presents a different and appealing difference of experience to the many people new to photography who were brought into the pursuit after digital became the majority, if not only, practical option.
Digital capture is very versatile and useful, I have no beef with it at all. It is simply different in many ways from film capture, both in how you work with it and how it affects what you see, what you make photographs of. I use, and enjoy, both experiences for their specific traits.
And, as always, in the end the true goal is satisfying photographs that capture what your mind's eye imagined. No one really cares what technology you use if you achieve that.
G
Along with that, there is an excitement and a mystery to the delayed gratification of shooting film, since you can't see what you've done until some time has gone past and you have processed (and rendered) the exposures. Film is the realm of pre-visualization, digital capture is the realm of post-visualization. You have to work with your imagination in the future as you make exposures on film as you won't see them for at least a few hours. I think this factor, in the current world of instant gratification and the immediate "in your face" nature of modern digital equipment presents a different and appealing difference of experience to the many people new to photography who were brought into the pursuit after digital became the majority, if not only, practical option.
Digital capture is very versatile and useful, I have no beef with it at all. It is simply different in many ways from film capture, both in how you work with it and how it affects what you see, what you make photographs of. I use, and enjoy, both experiences for their specific traits.
And, as always, in the end the true goal is satisfying photographs that capture what your mind's eye imagined. No one really cares what technology you use if you achieve that.
G
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
Overall, I think you're right about hipsters and artists being the main categories of users. But I don't know that we all fit neatly in those two categories. For myself, my training has been in Fine Arts, and that influences my seeing, but I consider myself a documentarian. I don't want "character", but I do want clean, predictable, and neutral rendition. I think there are a good many serious photographers who want the same. And that "ultimate" technology, as Freakscene describes it, is more than adequate for my needs. Just please, please, don't take my Ektachrome away!
JohnGellings
Well-known
I really actually love the whole process of digital.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
We are all out for a good image. The choice is then do you want to do it the hard way or the easy way? I'll do the latter. Remember, I shot film for ~50 years. I've paid my dues in that camp.
Now film is presented as more contemplative and zen-like in approach. Really? Just pretend your digital camera has 24 or 36 shots and work from that. I take a lot of pics at the river's edge here as that is what is close and available. I have some night shots of the fishing boats loading crab pots last year that I took some time to shoot, as if I were shooting film. With the same camera I shot 27 images in a few minutes of a Ro-Ro, or car carrier, coming upriver. I got one good shot and one almost good shot of the Ro-Ro. How I approach what I am doing and the purpose and pressure determine how I handle the camera more than the medium. I could have shot that Ro-Ro on film just as easily, 27 shots in quick succession. But I was able to come home with the digital images and upload them to Flickr for viewing in minutes. It was less time than it would have taken me to drive to a Kodak film kiosk. Yeah.
Now film is presented as more contemplative and zen-like in approach. Really? Just pretend your digital camera has 24 or 36 shots and work from that. I take a lot of pics at the river's edge here as that is what is close and available. I have some night shots of the fishing boats loading crab pots last year that I took some time to shoot, as if I were shooting film. With the same camera I shot 27 images in a few minutes of a Ro-Ro, or car carrier, coming upriver. I got one good shot and one almost good shot of the Ro-Ro. How I approach what I am doing and the purpose and pressure determine how I handle the camera more than the medium. I could have shot that Ro-Ro on film just as easily, 27 shots in quick succession. But I was able to come home with the digital images and upload them to Flickr for viewing in minutes. It was less time than it would have taken me to drive to a Kodak film kiosk. Yeah.
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
I don't feel that film is more contemplative or zen-like. I do feel that it's inherently a very disciplined approach, by necessity; one's approach with digital can be equally disciplined, if one wishes it to be. But digital also offers spray-and-pray to a degree never offered by film. I suppose it's a good thing to have that option, but it's not one I would ever care to use. Please be assured that I don't consider your approach to shooting the Ro-Ro as spray-and-pray, by the way.
We are, indeed, all out for a good image. But I'm also out for a good time!
I just enjoy shooting film in a way that I never experienced when I shot digital. YMMV.Leon C
Well-known
Neither do I, nor do I find using film any harder than using digital, it's just a different method to get the same result, I find all these 'Vs discussions' rather pointless and most just end up as ego massaging exercises, rather dull.I don't feel that film is more contemplative or zen-like. I do feel that it's inherently a very disciplined approach, by necessity; one's approach with digital can be equally disciplined, if one wishes it to be. But digital also offers spray-and-pray to a degree never offered by film. I suppose it's a good thing to have that option, but it's not one I would ever care to use. Please be assured that I don't consider your approach to shooting the Ro-Ro as spray-and-pray, by the way.
We are, indeed, all out for a good image. But I'm also out for a good time!
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
Likewise. I am just tired of being presented as someone who "just doesn't get it" by using digital. I have done it both ways. Digital works a lot better for me.
As for the "contemplative" and "zen-like" descriptions, I do not create them. I see them used by the analog folks. It makes no sense to me. But some like those descriptions. Chacun a son gout.
I know analog, I had a half a century of it. That first digital, a Sony DSC S70, allowed me to take pictures I never would have taken. I was living in Mexico where film was not sold. But there was always 110 coming out of the wall. ;o) I never worry about film or getting it processed. And I can shoot all the color I want.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
JohnWolf
Well-known
It’s a bit of a dilemma for me.
I enjoy using my M2 way more than my M10.
But I love cranking up ISO and shooting zone focused with a small aperture and fast shutter speed.
I love grain and especially the highlight texture of higher speed BW film.
But the consistency and reliability of digital to get a good technical image is remarkable.
I enjoy the whole workflow - the craft - of BW film.
But I’m equally wowed by software and it’s precision and creative potential.
For whatever strange reason I simply value my film photos more.
But I like being able to go out, take a few pics, and not have to wait to finish a roll to see or share them.
Like I said, a dilemma.
I enjoy using my M2 way more than my M10.
But I love cranking up ISO and shooting zone focused with a small aperture and fast shutter speed.
I love grain and especially the highlight texture of higher speed BW film.
But the consistency and reliability of digital to get a good technical image is remarkable.
I enjoy the whole workflow - the craft - of BW film.
But I’m equally wowed by software and it’s precision and creative potential.
For whatever strange reason I simply value my film photos more.
But I like being able to go out, take a few pics, and not have to wait to finish a roll to see or share them.
Like I said, a dilemma.
Last edited:
Freakscene
Obscure member
Your photos are great John. Whatever works for you is fine. Please just produce them and keep showing us 👍🏻
Marty
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Freakscene
Obscure member
That is so cool that you knew him. Did you ever get to ride in his van with the Feynman diagrams on it?
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I had the incredible pleasure of being in the theater group at CalTech with him and going to several of his parties. This was in the last years before he succumbed to cancer and was gone. His passing was a tremendous loss ...
Let's forget all the silly "film vs digital" nonsense and concentrate on making, looking at photographs.
Leaves on Pavement - Santa Clara 2025
What kind of camera makes an image is truly one of the most trivial elements of Photography.
onwards,
G
Let's forget all the silly "film vs digital" nonsense and concentrate on making, looking at photographs.
Leaves on Pavement - Santa Clara 2025
What kind of camera makes an image is truly one of the most trivial elements of Photography.
onwards,
G
CMur12
Veteran
When I shoot with a TLR on a tripod, it's "more Zen-like and contemplative," but I don't think that is an inherent characteristic of film photography. Then, of course, I'm amazed at the capabilities of digital. I still hope to learn more of these capabilities.
Like Godfrey, what I like about film is using a simple, classic camera with the most basic, essential controls: an aperture ring, a shutter-speed dial, and a focusing ring. Life seems so much simpler and less cluttered in these moments.
- Murray
Like Godfrey, what I like about film is using a simple, classic camera with the most basic, essential controls: an aperture ring, a shutter-speed dial, and a focusing ring. Life seems so much simpler and less cluttered in these moments.
- Murray
Harry the K
Well-known
The Society of Photographers Reveal Photographer of the Year 2024
A gruesome image took home the top prize.
petapixel.com
Scrolling through the winners I must admit that I feel a little alienated.
Clearly all of the images are produced by digital means, at once distinguishable from film images of former times. Technically they are better than film images, there´s much more resolution, for example.
But I have the impression that they are also more distant from the reality of the human eye, often showing a kind of hyper reality.
It´s the post production where it´s possible to add image looks not achievable with film photography.
Maybe I´m alienated because I was accustomed to the film image look for the bigger part of my life, I don´t know, but I prefer the look of film images, they are more honest and down-to-earth.
Freakscene
Obscure member
I was thinking about this, and recalled that the Olympus Pen-F Digital has a “CRT” (Creative) setting controlled by the Creative Mode Selection Wheel in which various settings allow you to adjust the colors and tones of your photographs. The color wheel that allows you to manipulate the strength of each color and adjust how vividly the color will be rendered. You also have the ability to manually adjust the shadows and highlights. Besides these key adjustments, a number of smaller tweaks can be made to the image. I had forgotten about that. It remains something that should be explored - but putting a processor in a camera that can run Lightroom would make them a lot more expensive.
Yokosuka Mike
Abstract Clarity
How many ways are there to describe ones preference for film Vs. digital? I would say "and vice versa" but there seems to be far less romantic and mythical regard for digital than there is for film.
One thing is for sure, there is no end in sight to the film Vs. digital thing. Therefore, problem solved. No end is the end.
All the best,
Mike
One thing is for sure, there is no end in sight to the film Vs. digital thing. Therefore, problem solved. No end is the end.
All the best,
Mike
JohnGellings
Well-known
Why would you feel alienated? It is one organizations "best." It is what they feel photography is. There are many different styles and philosophies in photography. You have to find the style that doesn't alienate you, that is all. It's always been that way.The Society of Photographers Reveal Photographer of the Year 2024
A gruesome image took home the top prize.
Scrolling through the winners I must admit that I feel a little alienated.
Yes, exactly...they are hyperreal. That is what they are going for. You can use digital just like film and get more towards reality.
Just cleaner, but people made stuff like this forever. Exactly no, but composite images and hyperreal were done before digital. Or a combo of both.
Me too, but I use digital. I just use digital like I did film. I think it is more important than ever to use photography in a straightforward manner due to how AI is being used to create images.