Seeing Film Everywhere
- Thread starter JChrome
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 168
- Views 12K
benlees
Well-known
I don't understand the film/objectivity thing. Why does it matter if it was there? The whole point is to create an image to communicate something to someone, who, presumably, wasn't there. Right? So a piece of film was on the moon. The important thing is the image of the Earth. A satellite takes a picture of your backyard on film... What was where?
What is "important"? and to who? Negatives can be easily manipulated and have been since the beginning of film use.
What is "important"? and to who? Negatives can be easily manipulated and have been since the beginning of film use.
Nyc Dito
Established
I know 3 youths who started in film because they loved the look and experience. Each one quit film within 6 months.
I can say that i have seen more film shooters around here than before. Usually an older Canon or Nikon SLR... or something Lomo'ish.
I can say that i have seen more film shooters around here than before. Usually an older Canon or Nikon SLR... or something Lomo'ish.
SaveKodak
Well-known
If you have a hard drive that will:
1. Never suffer mechanical failure.
2. Never corrupt data.
And,
3. Be easily readable by readily available equipment in perpetuity.
Then trust me, the world needs this technology! If there is something like this let me know what it is. Keep in mind criteria # 3. I'm having trouble finding even a disc drive in most computers these days.
I'll make it a little easier! The storage medium only has to last as long as a properly stored, selenium toned b&w negative. So, that's basically only a few centuries.
So, with that in mind, what commercially available digital storage medium will hold my .DNGs perfectly in tact and be readable in ohhh lets sayyy the year 2217? Because were I to simply properly store the roll of Ilford HP5 I developed yesterday it will still be in printable shape by then.
(Yes this is obviously not considering natural or other disasters which would wipe out everything, this is more theoretical).
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Is the digital camera the photograph? 😀
Film itself is an artifact, a product of the time, place, process. When you have an old slide in your hand, that slide was there, then. It doesn't matter if the photographer was famous or not, you've got your hands on something that was actually touched by the photographer, that was actually there when the photo on it was taken.
This is a large part of why a painting is more valuable than a print or a forgery. Why an original sculpture is more important than a paperweight in its likeness.
If it's not important to you it's not important to you. Asking why it is important is like asking why Degas or Picasso is important. If you don't care, you don't care. If you do care, then you know why.
If you don't have any value for authenticity then don't sweat it. Authenticity is not a crucial requirement for creating valid art.
gns
Well-known
Is a good picture diminished at all by the knowledge that it was created digitally?
Is a bad one improved at all by the knowledge that is was made on film?
Just doesn't seem relevant at all to me.
Is a bad one improved at all by the knowledge that is was made on film?
Just doesn't seem relevant at all to me.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
SaveKodak
Well-known
From an objective perspective no one serious is questioning the purity of digital images as they relate to image making as a whole. The criticism comes down to workflow, archivability, and to some extent aesthetics.
For my part, if someone is creating a portfolio of work, and they want their images to last a certain amount of time (many don't), I would simply encourage that person to print an edition of that portfolio and get serious about storing those prints. They have to treat their photographs more like a painter might treat a painting. It exists on paper in a stable state, and that's that. The original file or it's derivatives will last until the user's DAM procedures break down and/or the technology that is storing that file moves on.
gns
Well-known
Bad analogy. The print being a reproduction of the original painting and (presumably) in a different medium.
A digital file and a negative can yield a final print in the same medium. Inkjet, C-print, etc. can all be arrived at from either a digital or analog original.
A better analogy might be, whether a novel written in pen is better than one typed on a computer.
This discussion seems about 10 years old to me.
Kenzie
Member
I don't see many other film shooters out and about. I got a funny look when I was carrying my Certo Dolly medium format folder extended when out shooting though.
JChrome
Street Worker
Is the negative the photograph?
gns mentioned it as well. But if I followed this line of thought, I would go to a gallery of Winograd's work, shake my fists and claim, "The photo paper was not at the scene of exposure nor was it handled by Winograd. It lacks authenticity. I only view negatives which were physically handled by the author."
nikonhswebmaster
Retired NHS Webmaster
I have not been as lucky as most I guess.
I have never lost a digital file, but have lost many negatives, mostly because they were lost during moves. Fortunately I have never lost any slides, but what a PITA to scan them.
My greatest issue with digital -- I have too many duplicates, which I have never sorted out, from multiple backups.
I have never lost a digital file, but have lost many negatives, mostly because they were lost during moves. Fortunately I have never lost any slides, but what a PITA to scan them.
My greatest issue with digital -- I have too many duplicates, which I have never sorted out, from multiple backups.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
You and gns are still missing the whole point. As I've mentioned several times, the connection between an image, photographer, and viewer doesn't have to tangibly exist for the work to have validity.
Just that where that tangibility exists it provides an authentic link between time, place, and people, just as an antique or artifact does, but which a replica or forgery cannot. It's why where possible museums seek originals rather than reproductions. You can go, just for example, to the science museum in London, and see the Stephenson's Rocket. The actual one, which was built by George and Robert Stephenson in 1829, the actual one which competed in the Rainhill trials, the actual one which set the basic pattern for all steam locomotives to follow. You could also look at a photograph of it. The photograph could be very nice. There's nothing wrong with looking at the photograph. But it's still not the actual thing. You can also see an operating replica, which itself is great, but again it's not the actual thing. It wasn't actually there, it didn't actually compete, it wasn't built in 1829 by George and Robert Stephenson.
When you shoot film, or handle film, you're getting an actual physical artifact in and of itself. You can't do that with digital.
zuiko85
Veteran
Wondered how long this thread would take to go downhill into a film vs digital debate. Three days. Not too bad but no where the record. Try harder folks.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Good thing your post relates to the original topic then. Things are back on track now. 🙂
Huss
Veteran
Am I the only one that loves the smell of film? When you crack open a new canister of 35mm, or tear the wrapper off a roll of 120...
JChrome
Street Worker
And yet, I am still completely unconvinced 🙂
Two main points I think and forgive me for getting philosophical:
1) You focus on "where that tangibility exists it provides an authentic link between time, place, and people, just as an antique or artifact does, but which a replica or forgery cannot."
Is it not true that the collection of bits associated with a saved file on a memory card can provide a link between time, place and people? What is the ontological distinction between the chemicals that make up a film negative and the electromagnetic position which inscribes a memory card? They are both just as physical. Because my eyes cannot see the bits within the memory card, it is just as *real* as the negative which my eyes can see.
Arguing that just because I can feel something like a negative has no bearing on whether or not it is real. I cannot see the magnetic fields of earth. Yet they exist. And, if a pigeon could talk, they would laugh at humans because they can actually see the magnetic fields.
2) And yet, Stephenson's Rocket, which you can visit and see, is not Stephenson's Rocket. The electrons of the metal that compose it have shifted over time, it's composition has changed. It is not *the* rocket that existed at the time of creation. Just as a negative is not *the* negative that was exposed at a place and time. Just as a memory card is not *the* memory card that was originally manipulated by a digital camera.
Identity through time is very difficult problem to solve. But these artifacts are just vestiges of a reality past.
Take a war photographer currently in Syria, who is very probably shooting some digital camera. You follow this photographer, amaze at their abilities to risk their lives and love their ability to capture the moment. 50 years hence, you receive the memory card of that photographer. Can it not also bring back the weight of the time, place and photographer that shot with it? I would argue it's just a state of mind or sentiment of the person holding the relic in their hand. Which is why I claim that this is based on romance and not on any true distinction between whether the medium is film or digital.
BuzzyOne
Established
With film (chemicals) I can create an image that will last hundreds of years. Your SD card will be inoperable in less time.
No one will see your digital RAW files in even 100 years.
That is one of the reasons I shoot film and create actual negatives and photos you can hold in your hand. That, and I will be able to document the coming Apocalypse.
No one will see your digital RAW files in even 100 years.
That is one of the reasons I shoot film and create actual negatives and photos you can hold in your hand. That, and I will be able to document the coming Apocalypse.
______
Well-known
I show my prints to family, friends, and colleagues. I am fairly certain that no one is going to want to look at my photographs 20 years from now (since I'll likely not be around), much less 100 years from now. So who really cares. For those arguing about the impermanence of digital, do you think your photographs are so important that it matters?
benlees
Well-known
Indeed, the trick to preserve any image is that someone besides yourself thinks they are important.
Similar threads
