Long live film

Unfortunately, it is. Film will never be mainstream again...

Sure, but automatic and manual wind watches stopped being mainstream a while ago. Sailing boats vs. motor boats too.

Niches can survive and thrive, not everything has to be used by the masses, and few things even benefit from being used by the masses.
 
Well I was talking about CD players that you would use in the home... Not really a choice is it if it is supplied with the car already.

I love film because of how it looks and the ability to print my own work - In my experience if you print your work its the best option. I have yet to see any digitally printed images that come close. They just lack the depth and lovely tonal range you get with an analogue process.

You can talk about market share, resolution, pixels and all that stuff all you want. But for me its irrelevant to producing the images that I love. I love the film, the cameras, the process, and the images produced.
 
Interesting movie. The analogy to vinyl is very relevant in my opinion: yes vinyl is growing but it remains a very very small part of the music business. Because I have that vice as well: vinyl albums sell something on the range of 4 million per year, accounting for a bit more than 1% of the total music business sales, it's peanuts.

Similarly, I don't expect Film to become mainstream again. It's not a matter of taste (I personally love it), it's a matter of a technology that makes it easier for people to take photos that has taken over. With a digital camera, you press a key, you don't have to understand exposure, spent money on film, etc. We can argue whether this is good or bad but that's reality. History is full of cases of easier to use/cheaper technology taking over regardless of quality...
 
As mentioned, the parade of film-shooting hipsters is repetitive, but there is strength in numbers and this IS a big slice of the younger generation (my non-hipster self included) that needs to be convinced to pick up the medium to keep it going. Spread the word - it's all good.

If someone wants to make their own documentary lamenting all the downsides of the film industry and feature photographers that people don't relate to, have at it.
 
...I have yet to see any digitally printed images that come close. They just lack the depth and lovely tonal range you get with an analogue process...

This is an oft stated reason for preferring film and wet printing. However I've never seen any useful proof that this is true. Seeing an image produced digitally along side the same image produced in a darkroom would be a useful test. I suppose that's pretty hard to show on the web... maybe impossible. But until I see such a comparison, I don't yet believe that digital prints can't have just as much depth and tonal range, at least as far as a viewer in a gallery is concerned.
 
Actually, CDs are on the way out and LPs have been growing sales for over a decade. More record players are sold than CD players nowadays.

Well right, but what I was talking about is this...

4.6 million vinyl records were sold versus 316 million full-lengths sold by other means in 2012.
 
Sure, but automatic and manual wind watches stopped being mainstream a while ago. Sailing boats vs. motor boats too.

Niches can survive and thrive, not everything has to be used by the masses, and few things even benefit from being used by the masses.

True, but film obviously was one of those things that benefited.
 
For the life of me I can't understand why people would voluntarily shoot digital when there are still film and scanners. Some say film's a niche, or that it's dying, but why bother switching to digital until you have no choice if that was the reason? Seems like a justification or some kind of passive aggressive insult rather than a reason to me. But that's just MY opinion, and you know what those are like.
 
For the life of me I can't understand why people would voluntarily shoot digital when there are still film and scanners. Some say film's a niche, or that it's dying, but why bother switching to digital until you have no choice if that was the reason? Seems like a justification or some kind of passive aggressive insult rather than a reason to me. But that's just MY opinion, and you know what those are like.

+100.

I am not against digital. I would like to think that one day I would buy a serious digital camera (other than my iPhone) when the technology matures and the prices come down, but I have spent over a decade thinking that and here we are in 2013 and film is still top dog in my book. You ca pick up a Hasselblad for under $1K that will blow most digital tech out of the water in terms of quality and the aesthetics of the final image. Move up to LF and the difference is even greater. For average enlargements 35 mm still delivers by the bucket load. Even a $100 point and shoot delivers the goods. My minliab processed Kodak colour film shots using a Pentax Spotmatic are sublime! I have never seen anything even remotely close from a digital camera.

Every time I see a digital print it just looks artificial. It looses that ability to convey the feel of the original scene, an ability that was perceived as magic when photography first evolved, drawing the masses in their thousands.

The great thing about film is it's a mature technology that does everything you could hope for. Digital still has a fair way to go still and event then it has a different aesthetic, which I am not sure I will ever warm to. We shall see.
 
+100.

I am not against digital. I would like to think that one day I would buy a serious digital camera (other than my iPhone) when the technology matures and the prices come down, but I have spent over a decade thinking that and here we are in 2013 and film is still top dog in my book.

That's very true. The quality/price ratio for film is simply outstanding in my opinion. You can buy an Olympus compact film camera for $40 and shoot "full-frame" at a fraction of the cost. Having said that I'm not religiously against digital, I'm following closely and have no issue jumping-in when it ticks my boxes.
 
This is an oft stated reason for preferring film and wet printing. However I've never seen any useful proof that this is true. Seeing an image produced digitally along side the same image produced in a darkroom would be a useful test. I suppose that's pretty hard to show on the web... maybe impossible. But until I see such a comparison, I don't yet believe that digital prints can't have just as much depth and tonal range, at least as far as a viewer in a gallery is concerned.


When I first fired up my darkroom, I had an expectation that there would be a slight difference in between a scanned image, a wet printed one and an outright digitally shot and printed one on the same scene, the digi was with a D800 no less. This perception of *slight* difference was based solely on what I had seen and heard over and over again on the web. I did not care either way because I knew my heart was in film and that was where I was going for better or worse.

Well I was wrong, the difference made me almost teary eyed, the wet print simply looked deep, almost 3D like and seemed to have a life of it’s own, like an artistic being. The way that a well lit, well printed silver gel print looks in person is amazing in terms of tones, the way they related to one another and bound out of the print because of that. This is especially true in medium format fine grained films and is astounding in large format. I own an 11x14 of this print by John Sexton and it is truly an immersive experience to view it in person, a masterful example of a full tonal range well represented, the way it looks in this web representation is *very* telling of why one should view a print in person.

As far as film with young people being a fad, well that remains to be seen. Young people can set wheels in motion that last a lifetime, so it is a little on the “stodgy” side to assume they will not stick with it. Some will leave it after awhile and some will use it all their life and take it places we have never seen. A hobby makes one feel well rounded in how they spend their time. An artistic pursuit that one lives day to day in the fullest makes one want to live to be 200-300 years old…..I know I do.

What is missing from this film? Nothing, because it should not be the only one made on the subject now should it. In fact it should inspire one to be even more creative in developing whimsical narrative in how they too, love film. What a wonderful opportunity it would be to show a creative duality between a chef and a devout darkroom printer…it honestly feels the same to me. Lots of prep work, things being ripe or going out of date, stirring, temperatures....flipping the print in the tray and flipping the omelet in the pan…delicious results await the fan of the great “Chef” of either concoction.

Oh…and to those like Ansel and thebelo who are claiming to be waiting for digital to be good enough, I can report now, I have used it professionally for 20 years. It was good enough years ago and it will never be good enough…if you catch my drift. Because digital will never be film…digital is a computer and film is film, so you have to decide how you want to “live” your imagery.

When ever my wife goes away for more than a few days for a business meeting, I get caught up on my film processing and do some explorations of new negatives in the darkroom…it’s kind of an all-in bender. I don’t do it while she is away because she does not approve, I do it because I love her and time is precious with her. This week I cranked out 22 rolls of 35mm, 37 rolls of 120 and 130 sheets of 4x5. Tomorrow I get to throw the ingredients I grew into the pan and see what I come up with…

Cook on folks, cook on….
 
The great thing about film is it's a mature technology that does everything you could hope for.

I don't think that sort of statement is very helpful in these discussions. As a film user myself, for well over forty years, I know that it just isn't true. As just one example, you can't record an image with a film camera and send it directly to the other side of the world in a few seconds.

If you had phrased the comment as "film does everything I hope for", it would have been a valid statement but I find such sweeping generalities counter-productive.

Film and digital are different media that just happen to look similar at first glance. Let's enjoy and use each for their individual merits.

:angel:
 
When I first fired up my darkroom, I had an expectation that there would be a slight difference in between a scanned image, a wet printed one and an outright digitally shot and printed one on the same scene, the digi was with a D800 no less. This perception of *slight* difference was based solely on what I had seen and heard over and over again on the web. I did not care either way because I knew my heart was in film and that was where I was going for better or worse.

Well I was wrong, the difference made me almost teary eyed, the wet print simply looked deep, almost 3D like and seemed to have a life of it’s own, like an artistic being. The way that a well lit, well printed silver gel print looks in person is amazing in terms of tones, the way they related to one another and bound out of the print because of that. This is especially true in medium format fine grained films and is astounding in large format. I own an 11x14 of this print by John Sexton and it is truly an immersive experience to view it in person, a masterful example of a full tonal range well represented, the way it looks in this web representation is *very* telling of why one should view a print in person.

As far as film with young people being a fad, well that remains to be seen. Young people can set wheels in motion that last a lifetime, so it is a little on the “stodgy” side to assume they will not stick with it. Some will leave it after awhile and some will use it all their life and take it places we have never seen. A hobby makes one feel well rounded in how they spend their time. An artistic pursuit that one lives day to day in the fullest makes one want to live to be 200-300 years old…..I know I do.

What is missing from this film? Nothing, because it should not be the only one made on the subject now should it. In fact it should inspire one to be even more creative in developing whimsical narrative in how they too, love film. What a wonderful opportunity it would be to show a creative duality between a chef and a devout darkroom printer…it honestly feels the same to me. Lots of prep work, things being ripe or going out of date, stirring, temperatures....flipping the print in the tray and flipping the omelet in the pan…delicious results await the fan of the great “Chef” of either concoction.

Oh…and to those like Ansel and thebelo who are claiming to be waiting for digital to be good enough, I can report now, I have used it professionally for 20 years. It was good enough years ago and it will never be good enough…if you catch my drift. Because digital will never be film…digital is a computer and film is film, so you have to decide how you want to “live” your imagery.

When ever my wife goes away for more than a few days for a business meeting, I get caught up on my film processing and do some explorations of new negatives in the darkroom…it’s kind of an all-in bender. I don’t do it while she is away because she does not approve, I do it because I love her and time is precious with her. This week I cranked out 22 rolls of 35mm, 37 rolls of 120 and 130 sheets of 4x5. Tomorrow I get to throw the ingredients I grew into the pan and see what I come up with…

Cook on folks, cook on….

KM, you should write a blog.
I am so tired with those myopic-visioned blog writers that are so popular these days for writing the obvious and making profound-sounding "thoughts."
 
I recently was in the position where I had 2 35/2 Asphs, an M9 and an M2 loaded with some cheap film (Agfa Vista Plus 200). Thinking it would be nice to sell the M9 to release some equity, I walked around taking shots with the M9 and a duplicate with the M2. Comparing the results on a computer screen, a few were better (richer, more depth) with film, others were better with digital. I was surprised that most shots looked similar, even with my poor post processing. A tie? Well, post processing each digital shot is very time consuming, as was the taking of the image ensuring no clipping. With film, fewer shots were taken, less brainpower used in exposure, and the lab did all the post processing; the whole process more carefree. My conclusion is, if your post processing technique is wanting, like mine, you may as well shoot film. I've just bought another MP and I'm a step closer to selling the M9. Whether I'll ever get around to it is anyone's guess.
Pete
 
Finally got around to watching this short film. I do agree with the comments that it would have been nice to have a little variety with who they were interviewing rather than some ridiculously stereotypical hipsters. Some comments that made me laugh:

"I just started photography two years ago.... I only shot digital for three months before moving to film." - Really? Give me a break

Many of them complained about digital slowing them down because of rattling off photos or because they'd constantly chimp. Not to mention they're more disconnected with their subject because of digital. HUH?! You can compose, focus, and shoot just as slow with digital and most cameras allow you to turn off the replay function so you don't have to chimp after every photo. It's simply personal preference. As far as connecting with your subject, that has nothing to do with what kind of camera you're using, it has to do with your personality.

While I agree plenty of people take the machine gun approach and rattle off 'crap' photos just to share immediately on Facebook, digital is a great (and cheap) way to learn the basics of photography. If anything, the digital x100 and M9 helped me slow down in my photography and focus on what I was shooting compared to a decade of DSLR use.

It may seem like I'm being extremely negative toward the film, but I actually quite enjoyed it for what it was. I was also seriously impressed by some of the images they shared from each photographer. Often times I'll shoot a digital image along with a film image just to see the differences later on. 9 times out of 10 I grab my film camera when I go out and like having my entire freezer chalked full of different films to use. I also like having a specific look due to what kind of film I'm using and not spending tons of time in front of the computer trying this look, or that look, and not being able to make a decision when processing. Of course, until I learn to develop/scan my own the cost of a lab adds up, but it's all part of the experience. FWIW, I've been shooting primarily film for the past 6 months and have been loving every moment of it so I guess that makes me just like most of the people in the film. 🙂
 
Wash your hands Tom, or wear nitrile gloves. I live in Arizona so film dries in an hour, and I keep the window in the bathroom closed, so dust is ... manageable. I'm gonna try a project in a couple weeks where I need to shoot and process a roll every day for 7 days in a row. Not sure if I have the stamina for that myself, but once I start, I've got to finish it.
 
Back
Top Bottom