Cordiality and lack thereof...

MatthewThompson said:
When I got out of college, I managed a commercial/industrial studio for a pro in my city. We were fairly busy, did a few solid jobs a week. He had shelves of Hasselblad equipment and accessories that were unused. When I started getting onto using the Hassellad system again (liquidated mine to get on the DSLR train, the right choice at the time), he pretty much called me an idiot. Meanwhile he was chasing a never ending upgrade path, moving from a (disastrously bad) Kodak DCS 14n to a Canon D30.

I never understood the logic there. I shot DLSR (with my own gear) next to him on the same jobs, did all the post-processing work, etc. I knew the business inside and out, profits, budgets and the client side. He always seemed to want to correct my foolish impulses to work traditionally for my own enjoyment. I don't think anyone here (or out there in the real world) thinks they're going to use film (MF or otherwise) to make any sort of profit.

If a younger photog asked me what I thought of them wanting to shoot film (MF in my case, though I can see the appeal of 135) I'd encourage them to make images by any means possible. If film photography spoke to the I'd advise them to answer and explore.

I get questioned constantly about walking around with a MF film body, but if I have the 5D it turns into a numbers game; there's no winning. I've started pleading ignorance:

How many MP in that baby?
I dunno, makes nice photos though. It's just a tool.
My Nikanolympus has 18MP!
OK...
Thinking about replcing it though, the new 24MP units are coming...

Really, does it matter what we're using? Why can't we just take solace that we're all out to watch what's happening around us and capture moments and scenes that sparkle?
Click to expand...

Dear Matthew,

An entertaining (if chilling) story.

Suggestion for reply to the silly question about no. of MP

...ooh, lots!

Fortunately most people mistake the M9 for a film camera, i.e. ignore it or say, "Wow! A real camera!"

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
sleepyhead said:
And try to not assume things about a person based on their comments, that in fact you don't actually know about them.
Click to expand...

... or assume superiority/ignorance based on others formal education or occupation. Some people are educated/work in one area, but have self-taught to beyond the PhD level in others. We all know what ASSUME stands for, don't we?
 
Journeyman said:
Only camera collectors are obsessed by what type of gear other people use, for some strange, narcisistic reason. Real photographers don't give a rat's arse what others use. It's not relevant to anything that matters. Content matters.
Click to expand...

Sorry, don't fully agree; Don't you think QUALITY sometimes counts too? That isn't strange or narcisistic to a professional... or even an advanced amateur... or even some people who just likes looking at nice snapshots. There are exceptions, or course, who will look at content only without regard for any other consideration.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
Many people here, I suspect from their posts, are not so much interested in film as in rangefinders, and shoot film only because there isn't an affordable digital RF. A $700 dollar M3 is doable, a $7,000 M9 is not for most folks.
Click to expand...

If this is true (I don't believe it is), then it's tragic.

Film has a lot to offer to anyone who is willing to explore it. Has been, always will (if we care to preserve it).

If digital alone can make me content, I'd never adopted film.
 
Last edited:
Journeyman said:
Roger, I take your point as well. While I won't argue the point, I will add that, IMHO, 'real' photographers only really care about other's gear when they're interested in improving their own work. I'm so sick of hearing that such-and-such a camera has so many megapixels and is therefore better than my film cameras. I hear it here and from strange people I meet all the time. I can understand it when a shop salesman says I should buy the latest thing. They have an interest in my money, but why do some people insist on telling me their camera is better than mine?
Click to expand...

Ahh, now I understand your perspective a tad better.

Here's some good advise, that applies to more than just internet forums:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1252690&postcount=18
 
MatthewThompson said:
I don't think anyone here (or out there in the real world) thinks they're going to use film (MF or otherwise) to make any sort of profit.

If a younger photog asked me what I thought of them wanting to shoot film (MF in my case, though I can see the appeal of 135) I'd encourage them to make images by any means possible. If film photography spoke to the I'd advise them to answer and explore.

....

Really, does it matter what we're using? Why can't we just take solace that we're all out to watch what's happening around us and capture moments and scenes that sparkle?
Click to expand...

Matthew, I'd like to response to your well-written post. I like your statement above "If film ..." and you are doing the right thing by encouraging younger generation of photographers that way.

Sadly however, it takes more than just encouragement to make sure that the younger generation even have a chance to try film.

If film cannot successfully make the transition from consumer market to artistic niche (the way painting did), soon they won't be able to discover if film "speaks" to them or not.

You (we) also need to inspire, teach, show them. Proactively. Now.

Which is far more useful to affect the availability of film than any types of bickering amongst ourselves (no matter how skillfully performed they are).

Looking at it from this perspective, it *does* matter what we use and why.
 
shadowfox said:
If film cannot successfully make the transition from consumer market to artistic niche (the way painting did), soon they won't be able to discover if film "speaks" to them or not.
Click to expand...

I think film is already well-established in the artistic niche. The question with no answer is if that niche will be large enough to support commerical manufacturing of film products. GROWING that niche, as you say, is essential to future availability.
 
We should stop arguing about film and put our money where our collective mouths are.

Lets set up a "film death pool." We'll each contribute $1000 (to make it worthwhile), and choose some date for when film is supposed to be dead (say, 2015).

If film is still alive at that time, then the pro-film people will divide up the pot. If film is dead, then the naysayers will get the money.

Out of politeness, I will graciously invite someone else to contribute the first $1000 🙂
 
shadowfox said:
If this is true (I don't believe it is), then it's tragic.

Film has a lot to offer to anyone who is willing to explore it. Has been, always will (if we care to preserve it).
Click to expand...

How can any photographic choices be considered "tragic"? Film and digital create images in different ways, so the resulting images differ subtly. Everyone is free to choose, or not choose, one approach over the other.
 
Fred, it's true anyone can make light sensitive materials. The problem is making the stuff we want to shoot, which is roll film. And not everyone can make roll film. I'm guessing if most folks here were forced to go to large format glass plates, they might buy a digital camera! 🙂
 
wgerrard said:
How can any photographic choices be considered "tragic"? Film and digital create images in different ways, so the resulting images differ subtly. Everyone is free to choose, or not choose, one approach over the other.
Click to expand...

Dear Bill,

Everyone is free to die, as well, and all of us will.

That doesn't stop a death being a tragedy.

You may fairly complain that the word 'tragedy' is over-dramatic in this context, or that to compare a person's death with the death of film is tasteless; but plenty of people I've never heard of die every day, and while that's a tragedy for their family and friends, it usually isn't for me.

It all depends on where you're standing.

Cheers,

R.
 
wgerrard said:
How can any photographic choices be considered "tragic"? Film and digital create images in different ways, so the resulting images differ subtly. Everyone is free to choose, or not choose, one approach over the other.
Click to expand...
Exactly!...and I keep hearing that I must inform/educate/teach youngsters - regarding film use, why?. If requested I will try to help anyone with any hobby that I am able, but apart from that - I could not care less what people will be using in twenty years time!.
Dave.
 
shadowfox said:
Sadly however, it takes more than just encouragement to make sure that the younger generation even have a chance to try film.

If film cannot successfully make the transition from consumer market to artistic niche (the way painting did), soon they won't be able to discover if film "speaks" to them or not.

You (we) also need to inspire, teach, show them. Proactively. Now.

Which is far more useful to affect the availability of film than any types of bickering amongst ourselves (no matter how skillfully performed they are).

Looking at it from this perspective, it *does* matter what we use and why.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the point of my post. I'm not flying any flag for either medium, I am simply saying that in the interest of fostering another person's interest in film photography I'd place myself as an optimist instead of a pessimist. Photography is simply about the action and experience of making images. Polaroid or PHASE ONE, I don't really care.

I'd certainly not diffuse somebody's enthusiasm for film use, but I'm also not about taking the fight to the streets and start a silver gelatin re-education geurilla movement. That's just silly, I'd be no better than the wankers who scoff at my choices in using film in the first place.

I'll use MF at my own rate until it's either unaffordable or unavailable. Everyone else can do as they wish since it's none of my business either way, nor my intent or interest to convert anyone to my opinions or methodology. I'll make IMAGES regardless of the world around me. Process, though enjoyable with what I call traditional media, is merely part of the exercise.
 
I like the film death pool idea, with a slight modification. Entry to the pool should carry the condition that if you subsequently start or contribute to any film-vs-digital or film-is-dead/alive threads, you're kicked out the pool and lose your $1000.

I volunteer to administer the pool.
 
Dear Fred,

I'm not convinced that 1891 technology could be used for a modern 35mm film. How much do you know about double-jetting and monosize crystals, for example?

Base availability could be another problem.

Cheers,

R.
 
Dear Fred,

The point is, you're NOT dealing with 1891 technology. Today's films are sharper, finer grained, tougher, more resistant to reticulation, more evenly coated... These are all developments that have come in since 1891, and some of them are quite demanding. Not, as you say, likely to be beyond the wit of a small manufacturer but NOT 1891 technology. Not by a very long way. And I really don't think that many films before about 1960 (or so) would be acceptable to most modern 35mm users. Yes, I know about Super-XX (which contained cadmium, and cannot therefore be replicated) and I used FP2, FP3, HP4... That's one reason why I admire modern films.

Cheers,

R.
 
If you are so worried about the production of film halting, why not stockpile a few hundred rolls or something? And whatever you all do, stop complaining. It wears damned thin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom