Tactility and Endurance

[NaChase]

These are two of the most important, and, in my opinion, most neglected attributes of film. Many of us are so keen on arguing the merits of the image that the medium itself is overlooked. I am not at all interested in a digital vs. film debate (those happen ad nauseamall over this site already), I just wanted to bring up this point. In addition to its aesthetic (which I happen to prefer), film, unlike JPEG files, RAW files or computers is enduring; you can reach out and touch it. Long after your computer or hard drive bites the dust, your negatives will still be there, a veritable safety blanket of celluloid and silver. Thus, while I would be monumentally pissed to lose all my files, I still have the physical negatives in the event I need to start over.

 

[troym]

Very nicely put.

 

[mdarnton]

I tried to talk a previous employer out of digital 15 years ago. He was so enthusiastic about things modern, but he was building an archive of very important proportions and intent, and I thought it would be a bad deal to see it all eventually disappear through technology change. He didn't listen, however.

His intent was to publish a couple of specialist books (which was the perfect answer to my complaint), which he didn't get to before he died. Now I'm pretty sure the digital half of the whole thing--30 years of intensive work by one of the leaders in the field--will fade away relatively unseen.

 

[Prest_400]

For me, one of the most important qualities of film.
Afterall, it was after finding Dad's chromes when I thought I could use his camera and use film too.

I shall confess that sometimes while shooting digital I feel like I shoot smoke, that it can vanish in a near future. When a film frame is much more permanent. Mostly happens when I'm having some nostalgia attack!

I am rather disastrous for digital archiving (it's boring!) and a few years ago I lost a folder of files. A couple of years ago, again, I lost some from a school event.
The former folder would deem to be important, as it contained some photos with my mom's friend, who passed away at a young (40s) age.
Most probably I am the cause by misplacing files or thinking I copied them before formatting. Files need a rather constant care.

I have much more fun archiving film, as I get to peek and feel it. I even like to read about it and learn. Just leave it well placed in good environment and it will be fine for years... decades.

A couple of weeks ago I was talking with a new acquittance and he told me that printing is an expensive thing to do, plus no one does it... "Put 'em on facebook and be done".
I hope the thread won't be banalized by mentioning Mr Rockwell, but on the 26th he posted some writing under the title "Disposable photos" which I can thoroughly agree with and is an important message.

 

[gsgary]

Also a lot of digital shooters at our club do not print and only enter digital competitions, i am the exhibition secretary and we have 2 place we can exhibit to attract new members and i struggle every month to fill and change the photos

 

[noisycheese]

Regarding film based images, there is a visual tactility that digital lacks. This seems to be always overlooked or dismissed by electronic photography lovers.

Each film has a specific grain structure, a specific exposure latitude, a specific color rendering (except for B&W, obviously) and a specific way of reacting to light in term of things like contrast variations and the way shadow detail is rendered. In other words, each film has its own "fingerprint."

With digital, you don't get any of this.

Many will say that digital images are sharper than film based images, and they may be correct. However - sharpness is but one facet of overall image quality. It is not the holy grail; it is one part of the equation.

Just sayin'...

 

[sevo]

Many will say that digital images are sharper than film based images, and they may be correct.

They do indeed look sharper on a screen than scanned film images of measurably identical resolution. But that is mostly a matter of the smallest image forming entities being hard edged - or rather, being able of a 1:1 hard edged mapping to the physical display, where the texture of the film does not correlate to the display texture.

 

[Andrea Taurisano]

The visual tactility, by which I mean the tangible texture of film based photographs, including their imperfections, is exactly why I now shoot mainly film again.

This being said, I scan all my negatives and do some quick contrast adjustments and dust removal and, from that point on, I deal with digital images which have the much beloved visual tactility of film. In other words, I browse through my archive on a Mac, not a light table, and print digitally, not wet. I'm probably not alone on this, am I?

There are also ways to archive digital files which make them safer than it is for our negatives to be stored in a shoe box. Files will thus survive a flood or a fire, but will they survive time and the technological progress? Time will tell..

 

[michaelwj]

The visual tactility, by which I mean the tangible texture of film based photographs, including their imperfections, is exactly why I now shoot mainly film again.

This being said, I scan all my negatives and do some quick contrast adjustments and dust removal and, from that point on, I deal with digital images which have the much beloved visual tactility of film. In other words, I browse through my archive on a Mac, not a light table, and print digitally, not wet. I'm probably not alone on this, am I?

You're not alone, its my workflow. I have far fewer files to edit because I think more before I press the shutter with film, thus culling a lot of garbage, then there is a second cull at scanning. I only scan the good ones, so I end up with a handful of nice images on my hard drive, rather than some nice ones with other garbage thrown in. I print them all, sometimes only a contact sheet from lightroom, the best get an 8x10. I don't throw any negatives away btw.

Back OT, there is also a tactility and endurance about the actual camera when shooting film, it feels beautiful and solid, a joy to use, rather than tinny plastic.

Michael

 

[shadowfox]

... And if you print in the darkroom, all the qualities mentioned in this thread continue to apply (and even more so). I print digitally also, but no, the satisfaction is not even close.

As I write this, I have a roll I developed this morning hanging to dry, tomorrow before dawn, I'd be printing from that roll. With everything else I need to do (work, family, etc.) this is the perfect pace for me.

 

[NaChase]

There is a great deal about film that I love. Another thing to mention is the wait; I often shoot several rolls of film, which takes a couple weeks, and then send them off to be developed (I lack darkroom capability at my house- not to mention I am currently in Afghanistan), having largely forgotten the specifics of what is on each roll. Thus, when I get the film back a week or so later it is that much better on account of the fact that I waited for it. There is something almost anachronistic about waiting, but I think it adds to the allure of film.

 

[troym]

There is a great deal about film that I love. Another thing to mention is the wait; I often shoot several rolls of film, which takes a couple weeks, and then send them off to be developed (I lack darkroom capability at my house- not to mention I am currently in Afghanistan), having largely forgotten the specifics of what is on each roll. Thus, when I get the film back a week or so later it is that much better on account of the fact that I waited for it. There is something almost anachronistic about waiting, but I think it adds to the allure of film.

This was part of Gary Winogrand's process--waiting to develop and view pictures. He thought is helped to ensure that each image could be viewed afresh and with a more critical eye.

I find that there are images I would have deleted at the time I took them, but for the fact that I was shooting film. On later inspection, however, I realize that the image is much, much more interesting than I had thought.

 

[Deardorff]

If you were really after 'tactility' and endurance you would be shooting larger formats and printing Carbon prints.

Longest lasting print method known - other than maybe petroglyphs - and a fine three dimension print of gelatin and carbon pigment.

Nothing else is like it. Can even do three color carbon and end up with color prints that are beautiful and last like nothing else.

Good negatives are what are required and it is not a case of digital or film, but of whatever it takes to get the good negatives to work from.

 

[noisycheese]

True, but a lot of times portability, speed and the ability to photograph hand held rather than using a tripod are needed. That's where cameras like the Leica M excel.

The 500 series Hasselblads are another option as long as you don't need the whisper quiet operation of the M camera.

I used to shoot with a 6x6 Hasselblad. I loved the camera and the results but the unholy racket it made put me off - and that was before I'd ever seen or used a Leica M. Today I can't. imagine using a 'blad for my documentary shooting. For this type work, the fast lenses, image quality of M glass and whisper quiet shutter of the M cameras are all must haves.

 

[Photo_Smith]

I'd say if you want quiet shutter and MF then a Rolleiflex is hard to beat, I'd use one over the Leica M for those times you don't want others to know you're shooting.
The big advantage is that you don't need to put them up to your eye and still obtain perfect focus/framing.
I is quieter than the M in my opinion and you can use faster film speeds with less drop in quality (Delta 3200 looks like Trix on my M) if you can put up with one lens makes an excellent documentary camera.


caught by Photo Utopia, on Flickr