Seeing Film Everywhere

[______]

It also gives me great satisfaction when I get the scans back from a roll where I guessed the exposures myself, and most of them are spot on. I still can't get my Nikon P7700 to perform that bit of magic.

Shoot your P7700 in manual. Light is light. If you can guess the EV for film, you can guess the EV for digital as well.

 

[Huss]

I've written it before, and I'll write it again, one of the attractions of film is that it possesses an authenticity that doesn't exist in digital.

I have some Kodachrome slides taken in Japan in 1948. What's neat is that when I hold those slides, I'm holding the same film that actually was shot in Japan, in 1948. The slides actually were there. That's a direct connection to the time and location one can never really have with a print from digital or viewing a photo online.

To most people who don't really care a whole lot about photography or history, that doesn't mean much, and it's not very interesting. But to me there is something really amazing about holding negatives or slides that you know had actually been in the hands of the photographer, and had actually been to some important or beautiful location. When I look at my own travel slides, it's something that brings those places close again. When I handle negatives or slides from somebody else, maybe somebody long dead even, it provides a connection that just can't exist with digital.

This post has my

 

[ChrisPlatt]

A colorful Olympus Trip 35 from TripMan caught my daughter's eye.
The true test will be if a pedestrian silver and black one will suffice...

Chris

 

[jsrockit]

I've written it before, and I'll write it again, one of the attractions of film is that it possesses an authenticity that doesn't exist in digital.

I'm glad museums and galleries don't feel the same way.

 

[css9450]

I usually shoot by myself, away from the sort of situations which attract crowds of photographers. But the photographers I DO see, aren't using film. I haven't seen a "regular" film camera in years besides my own. I do run across the occasional hipster shooting a Polaroid, but that's about it.

 

[JChrome]

I'd say a few years ago it was a lot more (a lot more). I was going to say it appears to be on a decline here. Your experience is different though.

I thought the only way to confirm this was to get anecdotal evidence from a film developer. I went to LTI light side on 30th street tonight. He said that demand is higher than he's seen in awhile. That's just from one guy so take it with a grain of salt. But these are the folks who might know the best.

On a more general note about film's "authenticity" over digital etc. I feel a lot of this is just romanticizing film. You can romanticize any anachronism but that doesn't make it "better". Romance has its place though and I suspect lots of kids get into film precisely because of this (it was a driver for me for sure).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Samuel D]

I'm glad museums and galleries don't feel the same way.

Judging by the preponderance of film photography in art galleries, many of them do.

I live in Paris, where film cameras on the street are an everyday sight. However, it has always been like that since I moved here in 2008.

I don’t see as many medium-format cameras as you might expect from the web. I do notice lots of Leicas, various Nikon FMs, Contax G systems, and Hexar RFs. The fact that these are the cameras I’ve owned or wanted to own has nothing to do with this!

 

[tunalegs]

I'm glad museums and galleries don't feel the same way.

If the photographer doesn't care about the authenticity of their own work, why should the museum? Museums generally don't dictate photographer's processes or concepts.

If you don't care about authenticity, that's fine too. Nobody said you had to put any value on it. Many don't. I enjoy that connection with people and places, but by no means do I think a work is a failure or not valid without it.

On a more general note about film's "authenticity" over digital etc. I feel a lot of this is just romanticizing film. You can romanticize any anachronism but that doesn't make it "better". Romance has its place though and I suspect lots of kids get into film precisely because of this (it was a driver for me for sure).

You're mistaking somebody believing film to be "real photography" with the rather objective fact that film as a medium has to have been present at the location it was shot at the time it was shot, and thus there is a very real connection between the photographer, medium, and viewer, which simply isn't present in digital.

Sure, you could touch the memory card a famous photograph was recorded on, but somehow that doesn't seem as interesting as looking at an actual negative or slide which has a famous image recorded on it. That the image doesn't actually exist as an image on the card kind of ruins the effect.

 

[farlymac]

Shoot your P7700 in manual. Light is light. If you can guess the EV for film, you can guess the EV for digital as well.

If I could see the bleeping screen I would.

PF

 

[Michael I.]

I see mroe and more people, stores offering decent service in several countries over the last few years. Local photography forums are full of young people looking for tanks and enlargers, I helped a few develop a roll. I can get used to this!

 

[BrooklyNYC]

I see film photographers regularly here in New York City. I could imagine in smaller cities that it can be difficult to still shoot in film. It's getting harder to process color film, but I think film will be around for a while. I use a film camera almost daily, but my young children still ask me, "Can I see the picture?" I don't mind waiting and I like being surprised when I see my film developed.

 

[maddoc]

With "alternative facts" becoming the reality, more and more people in the documentary/journalistic business might steer away from the easy to manipulate digital recording or imaging technology, at least for their personal objects.

 

[Spanik]

I thought the only way to confirm this was to get anecdotal evidence from a film developer. I went to LTI light side on 30th street tonight. He said that demand is higher than he's seen in awhile. That's just from one guy so take it with a grain of salt. But these are the folks who might know the best.

On a more general note about film's "authenticity" over digital etc. I feel a lot of this is just romanticizing film. You can romanticize any anachronism but that doesn't make it "better". Romance has its place though and I suspect lots of kids get into film precisely because of this (it was a driver for me for sure).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Asking a lab might not be a good idea. My lab also sees more film coming in. But it is just because its range is getting larger with other labs closing and he picking up trade from further away.

 

[Peter de Waal]

you can back-up and duplicate digital files all you like, but if your computer's motherboard doesn't have ECC RAM modules you may still be in for an unpleasant surprise when you try to recover those images!

Most consumer 'puters don't use ECC RAM. I put my trust in well-conserved negatives...

 

[David Hughes]

...You're mistaking somebody believing film to be "real photography" with the rather objective fact that film as a medium has to have been present at the location it was shot at the time it was shot, and thus there is a very real connection between the photographer, medium, and viewer, which simply isn't present in digital ...

Hi,

I am having problems understanding this, why doesn't it apply to digital?

Regards, David

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

you can back-up and duplicate digital files all you like, but if your computer's motherboard doesn't have ECC RAM modules you may still be in for an unpleasant surprise when you try to recover those images!

Most consumer 'puters don't use ECC RAM. I put my trust in well-conserved negatives...

And so do public record offices, ecclesiastical, military, and all other archives of some significance.

Scans can be nice for their respective internet sites, or as a means of quick exchange of materials between historians and scientists — but in fact, all the important documents have as a data backup (usually 35mm) negatives.

 

[eia41]

What a satisfyingly refreshing thread this is...!!

 

[Skiff]

I don't see more film cameras in the streets here in my town.
But:
1. My preferred local professional lab told me that five years ago 10% of their business was film, and 90% was digital.
Now it is 40 % film, and only 60% digital.
2. The biggest local photo shop (brick and mortar store) has hired a new employee with lots of film knowledge to serve the film customers better.

The local photo business here is realizing a film revival. More film photography workshops are offerd, too. And a public darkroom is also getting more use.

 

[JChrome]

If the photographer doesn't care about the authenticity of their own work, why should the museum? Museums generally don't dictate photographer's processes or concepts.

If you don't care about authenticity, that's fine too. Nobody said you had to put any value on it. Many don't. I enjoy that connection with people and places, but by no means do I think a work is a failure or not valid without it.



You're mistaking somebody believing film to be "real photography" with the rather objective fact that film as a medium has to have been present at the location it was shot at the time it was shot, and thus there is a very real connection between the photographer, medium, and viewer, which simply isn't present in digital.

Sure, you could touch the memory card a famous photograph was recorded on, but somehow that doesn't seem as interesting as looking at an actual negative or slide which has a famous image recorded on it. That the image doesn't actually exist as an image on the card kind of ruins the effect.

Of note, I only shoot film. That's just an aside.

I too would like to know how a digital camera can take a photo without being there.

In regards to the point about "touching negatives"... sounds like you're proving my point about romance... Maybe you've personally handled HCB's negatives to get the joy of looking through them but a simple man like me will never get that chance. I'm fine with seeing his images in books, in galleries and (less so) on the web.

If this is why you shoot film then that's fine. I'm happy you get to look at negatives and enjoy them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MIkhail]

I'm a big fan of, at the very least, making books of my photos... and I do it every single month.

😱
Wow, that's dedication... I have maybe 15 pictures a year that I consider worthy a book 🙂