Seeing Film Everywhere

[BuzzyOne]

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?

Really, if you die your family won't want to look at your photos? How sad you have never had the experience of stumbling upon a box of negatives or prints from years ago. Absolute magic that can be.

Yeah, my images are that important. Yours are too.

Again, your SD card will be little more than a novelty in 100 years.

 

[tunalegs]

Can it not also bring back the weight of the time, place and photographer that shot with it?

Is a memory card a photograph?

A negative, a slide, are definitively photographs. When you look at them you see where they were, when they were. Maybe you also know who made them. If you pick up a memory card - what do you see? A memory card. You don't know where it's been, or who used it, it's not a photograph. In and of itself it can't really inform you of anything.

This should be completely obvious to anybody who's thought about it for at least a split second.

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

Is a memory card a photograph?

A negative, a slide, are definitively photographs. When you look at them you see where they were, when they were. Maybe you also know who made them. If you pick up a memory card - what do you see? A memory card. You don't know where it's been, or who used it, it's not a photograph. In and of itself it can't really inform you of anything.

This should be completely obvious to anybody who's thought about it for at least a split second.

I agree, a memory card contains no real (or simply latent) pictures (or whatever file you wish), but merely Zeros and Ones — and again, unlike a film, it's not sustainable.

 

[benlees]

All I know is photography was around before film and it will exist long after film. And the last person I saw using film was myself...

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

ABC ran this piece yesterday, possibly a first for them in connection with local film photography. The story attracted hundreds of comments on their Facebook page, which pleasantly surprised me because they were overwhelmingly positive about film. I don't know if the video is geo-blocked, but in any case the accompanying text adequately conveys the story.
Cheers,
Brett

 

[David Hughes]

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.

Hi,

Yes, that's one of our standards and we always try to get to it somehow but how many have noticed our other diversion into wonderland?

It happens when someone innoently asks about a camera and immediately the "you can't take action shots in poor light that will make billboards" group swing into action and frighten off someone who only wanted to do 5" x 7" prints of his wife/girlfriend/both or dog or cat and so on. They'd be happy with a digital or film P&S but we suggest thousands spent is the only way...

And now, to make matters worse, we are adding that the prints must last a thousand years or otherwise it's not photography...

Regards, David

 

[Samuel D]

I don’t think anyone suggested quite that, David. They only dared to mention the notion of film-as-artefact as one reason among many for film’s continuing relevance. If you can’t say that in this thread, where can you?

The idea that a negative or slide was once literally a witness to the photographed scene is poetic and forceful to me. Apparently to others it means nothing. These conflicting ways of perceiving the world are both okay.

EBay is full of memorabilia that was once owned by rock stars. These items are worth a lot of money to some people. In most cases you could buy a better cap, Zippo, guitar, etc., for far less money if you didn’t care about its provenance. The interest in those objects lies entirely in their history.

This idea extends to other things. Some people like wearing a durable mechanical watch as they meander through life, titillated by the fact that the very watch on their wrist was present for every momentous occasion in their life. Others think a watch is only for telling the time in the absence of a telephone.

I am sure that the sort of person who likes shooting film today is more given to flights of fancy than those who think digital rendered film obsolete. How could it be otherwise?

 

[JP Owens]

These days, if you really want your photos to live forever, release them copyright free onto the Internet. Not just to Flickr or Instagram or any of the other formal photo sharing sites, because they will eventually go defunct, but generally on the Internet, where people may share them a million times. As long as the Internet survives, your photos will have achieved immorality. Duplicated a million times, and distributed over millions of computers, nothing short of a nuclear war will wipe them all out.

I have no desire for immorality, nor for my photos to outlast me. I've never understood the desire to acquire artifacts, though.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

These days, if you really want your photos to live forever, release them copyright free onto the Internet. Not just to Flickr or Instagram or any of the other formal photo sharing sites, because they will eventually go defunct, but generally on the Internet, where people may share them a million times. As long as the Internet survives, your photos will have achieved immorality. Duplicated a million times, and distributed over millions of computers, nothing short of a nuclear war will wipe them all out.

I have no desire for immorality, nor for my photos to outlast me. I've never understood the desire to acquire artifacts, though.

To be fair about it, though, achieving immorality with one's images is probably easier to accomplish (if one has a mind to--I don't) than achieving immortality with them. 🙂

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

To be fair about it, though, achieving immorality with one's images is probably easier to accomplish (if one has a mind to--I don't) than achieving immortality with them. 🙂

You made my day, dear Brett! 😀

It's funny, you discovered that hilarious (repeated!) typo although you're a native speaker, while I've read it as if it would have been written correctly.

 

[jsrockit]

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).

For sure, true. Just when I'm out walking the streets photographing, I used to see a lot of film cameras a few years ago... really cool stuff ....not just the usual like Leica Ms and cheap film SLRs. These days, I just see Ms and stuff like the Canon A-E1.

 

[gns]

The idea that a negative or slide was once literally a witness to the photographed scene is poetic and forceful to me. Apparently to others it means nothing. These conflicting ways of perceiving the world are both okay.

EBay is full of memorabilia that was once owned by rock stars. These items are worth a lot of money to some people. In most cases you could buy a better cap, Zippo, guitar, etc., for far less money if you didn’t care about its provenance. The interest in those objects lies entirely in their history.

This idea extends to other things. Some people like wearing a durable mechanical watch as they meander through life, titillated by the fact that the very watch on their wrist was present for every momentous occasion in their life. Others think a watch is only for telling the time in the absence of a telephone.

There's a word for that...Sentimentaility.

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

There's a word for that...Sentimentaility.

Sentimentaility? What's that?

Or, better: What ails you?

In fact, the word you're seeking is: Sustainability, I presume.

 

[HHPhoto]

Leaving the "film vs. digital" debate and coming back to the original topic:
"Seeing film everywhere?"

Looking here locally is too much "anecdotically" for me. I think to get the best picture is just to look at what the film manufacturers are doing:
1. Ilford is expanding its business. They say they see increasing demand and have hired also some new staff to satisfy it. Their plan is to completely modernize their factory to be fit for the next decades.
2. Eastman Kodak has reported increasing demand for film as well, and also an increase in staff for film production. The recent Ektachrome statement is another clear indicator.
3. Adox has bought essential parts of the Ilford Imaging factory in Switzerland to increase their film and photo paper production capabilities. They said they wanted more independance and wanted also be better prepared for the increasing demand.
4. Foma has introduced one new film (the 320) and re-introduced another film (Fomapan R100).
5. Impossible Project is reporting increasing demand every year and introducing improved films and last year even their first own camera. Further cameras will follow.
6. Fujifilm is running from sales record to sales record with their instant films, and introducing new film (BW) and this year a new format as well (square), and also new instant cameras.
7. Bergger has released their first own film (designed and produced by film and photo paper manufacturer InovisCoat in Germany, they are former Agfa engineers), Panchro 400.
8. Film Ferrania is making progress every month. They are convinced of a sustainable film revival, that is why they are investing in the re-construction of the former Ferrania LRF as their new film production factory.

By the way: Someone here said in a post that no new enlargers are built anymore. That is of course nonsense.
German manufacturers Dunco, Kaiser and Kienzle are producing excellent new enlargers for all formats. Kienzle is even building 20x24" enlargers if you want one. At Photokina last year the've got an order for one from China.
In China large format photography has increasing popularity.

Cheers, Jan

 

[tunalegs]

There's a word for that...Sentimentaility.

And I suppose your signature on a check is just sentimentality too? 🙂

 

[______]

Really, if you die your family won't want to look at your photos? How sad you have never had the experience of stumbling upon a box of negatives or prints from years ago. Absolute magic that can be.

Yeah, my images are that important. Yours are too.

Again, your SD card will be little more than a novelty in 100 years.

No need to get maudlin. My wife took most of the family photos. My daughter scanned them (isn't that ironic) and has then somewhere. Presumably she can find them.

I'm talking about my photographs. My photography is important to me, not so much to the wife and kids. I'm not kidding myself; none of it is going to end up in a museum or a retrospective at a gallery or a book on the history of photography. Some photographers have an exaggerated sense of importance about what they do.

Just think, your great grandchildren won't be able to see all those important digital photographs of what you had for lunch today posted to social media or stored on an SD card because the weren't printed and archivally stored. The loss to humanity. It boggles the mind.

Here is Google's solution:

https://youtu.be/MEyDt0DNjWU

 

[JChrome]

Seeing Film Everywhere

Is a memory card a photograph?

A negative, a slide, are definitively photographs. When you look at them you see where they were, when they were. Maybe you also know who made them. If you pick up a memory card - what do you see? A memory card. You don't know where it's been, or who used it, it's not a photograph. In and of itself it can't really inform you of anything.

This should be completely obvious to anybody who's thought about it for at least a split second.

Thanks for clarifying. So I take it that that "authentic link between time, place, and people" must be a small photograph on acetate which a human can perceive without viewing on a computer? Seems a pretty odd and arbitrary definition of what is "authentic". If you don't require the acetate backing, then you can use one of these digital cameras that prints the photo immediately when you take it. Seems to fit your definition of authentic then. And further, if authenticity requires that the image connect me to the place, time and photographer, it does a much better job than a 35mm negative does. Most 35mm negatives are pretty confusing to look at and would do a terrible job of connecting me to a time, place and photographer.

You must understand at this point that it is immaterial to me that a negative has a collection of chemicals which resembles a small image that mine eyes can see and a memory card has bits which a computer can read. Either medium is just as authentic regardless of if there's an image I can see. If it makes some difference to you - then that's fine, but your assertions about authenticity aren't resting on any universals here so you'll have to forgive those who don't share your opinion.

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

Film is on the up and up. Apparently it flies off the shelves of the store I buy from. I know, anecdotal. But Kodak is bringing back Ektachrome. The motion picture industry is committed to film. After a long time, good news all around. I too have the impression I see a few more young people carrying film camerss. A few years ago some of them would be embarrassed to carry them. The image of manual was converted/reclaimed from old-man-uncool to something like young-'n'-authentic.

cue: sustainability.

😀

 

[jsrockit]

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

Well, it's part of the editing process. The books are rough edits. Like work prints.

 

[jsrockit]

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.

I'm not of the opinion that film is authentic and digital isn't. That is my point.