Why film?

[Axel]

... I think we can, he's right...

So do I.
The experience around is different.
Some like it, some don´t...

 

[Bill Pierce]

Then why does he never cite any of the people who now use more film than ever who are in his former industry? ...

He just tosses these propaganda bombs of waxing poetic quasi-wisdom in the ring like a chew toy for a pack of neurotic dogs and hardly chimes in again. ...

I don’ t know anyone working for daily or weekly news publications in print or on the often updated web that can use film. Not their choice, the choice of their employers. Much of what I did pre digital was on color film in countries where the only realistic way to get images to the magazine was put it on a plane and face a three or four day delay in publishing and often considerable extra expenses in holding the press. You can’t do that in a competitive world when everybody else can use digital transmission. You might be able to do that with local news. But I don’t know any publications that do. Most have sold their wet darkroom gear. (Fortunately, they’ve often sold it to their own photographers.)

 

[Bill Clark]

I believe this forum is lucky to have a person, Mr. Bill Pierce, who is trying to help elevate, those who want to learn photography from snapshot to art. I looked up the definition of education and this is one example:

"Education is the process of facilitating learning."

He provides the topic it is up to us to take the ball and use it to learn.

To go from snaps to art is a lot of hard work. You can differ with this thought but that's what I found and with other successful folks I met on my journey with photography say the same.

The "high-end" photographers I have met have all been the nicest people, willing to help. I believe that's what Mr. Pierce is trying to do here.

 

[KM-25]

I believe this forum is lucky to have a person, Mr. Bill Pierce, who is trying to help elevate, those who want to learn photography from snapshot to art. I looked up the definition of education and this is one example:

"Education is the process of facilitating learning."

He provides the topic it is up to us to take the ball and use it to learn.

To go from snaps to art is a lot of hard work. You can differ with this thought but that's what I found and with other successful folks I met on my journey with photography say the same.

The "high-end" photographers I have met have all been the nicest people, willing to help. I believe that's what Mr. Pierce is trying to do here.

Sure, we are all lucky to have each other. But a word of caution, you are putting it like we are all beginners here and that is just not the case as some of us are as experienced as Bill and still just cranking right along.

I have done three magazine articles this year in that the art directors wanted and paid for film use. My last New York Times assignment a month ago was shot on film...I noticed the check that just paid on that was $200 higher than normal too.

I think this is the point I am trying to make, if I don't know the answer to something, I would rather find the answer rather than say I don't know the answer. Because the latter helps no one and former helps everyone.

I'll help out: Photographer Michael Turek shoots nothing but medium format color film for Conde Naste Travler. I'm checking out of this one now folks, I have a shoot to prep for....

 

[Ko.Fe.]

If picture is worth of the news it is not worth of the film, IMO.

My ward council stopped asking me for events pictures after I switched to bw film. He gave DLSR to his wife, but now he is broadcasting in RT by holding mobile phone in front of him. This is how news are made now. Our federal representative is using it same way. Facebook, Twitter. For mature folks. Young ones - the Snapchat. And entire Canada is famous now for its PM selfies and socks.

I see no reason to cover local community news with advanced digital rig like huge DSLR, digital Leica or Bill's favorite Fuji X anymore. I quit. Any phone and anyone does it much more effectively and in real time. I'm taking it on film. 99% of documentary photography I admire is from the past and it was taken on film. BW film. And not only events photography. Street and landscapes. Since I started to print in the darkroom and getting more less acceptable results, my prints went to Australia, Belgium, USA. I have another prints ready for Russia and USA again.

And it is not about money. I have sales jobs. Multi-million dollars deals. Quit. Sooner or later is comes to corruption. In any county. Russia and Canada are the same. Selling your pictures leads to the same. It is about holding to right connections and leaking some morons balls. Instead I show prints here and where on-line and giving them for free. I'm giving them for people I don't know, never seen. It is true and only merit how good is your picture. If someone unknown and totally disconnected choose your picture from thousands of others and asks for it.
And to me it works with darkroom prints.

Film is not dead. But weekly, printed news are dead news.

 

[Bill Pierce]

printed news are dead news.

I think this is true; future generations will get their news on the internet. This is going to save a lot of trees and a lot of expense for news organizations. Some estimates of paper, printing and delivery put it as high as 90% of the cost of putting out the newspapers and magazines in the paper-only world.

The sad part of this will be its effect on the quality of images in well shot feature and long term stories. Computer monitors, tablets and phones are all over the place in image quality and adjustment. Some print publications make a real effort to maintain high print quality, but there is no way an internet publication can force its viewers to use fixed viewing parameters that do well by the photos.

There is probably only one way to guarantee your pictures will look the way that you choose them to look. It doesn’t matter if they are film or digital - print them.

 

[cz23]

....The sad part of this will be its effect on the quality of images in well shot feature and long term stories....

Maybe so. But look at all the extended photo features we now enjoy, such as the NYT Lens blog, and countless slideshows in online publications. The only times those photos may have appeared in print were the Sunday magazine supplements -- and then just one or two essays each week in major papers.

Thanks to digital delivery, we have lots of them. And they remain archived for viewing by anyone at any time.

You can make all the prints you want, but I'll likely never see one. But at least some of your work is available online for everyone to see. A good trade-off, in my view.

John

 

[PKR]

Sure, we are all lucky to have each other. But a word of caution, you are putting it like we are all beginners here and that is just not the case as some of us are as experienced as Bill and still just cranking right along.

I have done three magazine articles this year in that the art directors wanted and paid for film use. My last New York Times assignment a month ago was shot on film...I noticed the check that just paid on that was $200 higher than normal too.

I think this is the point I am trying to make, if I don't know the answer to something, I would rather find the answer rather than say I don't know the answer. Because the latter helps no one and former helps everyone.

I'll help out: Photographer Michael Turek shoots nothing but medium format color film for Conde Naste Travler. I'm checking out of this one now folks, I have a shoot to prep for....

An AD in our studio doing a digital job was beyond himself (; with excitement as he was off to Paris the next week to do a job in 8x10 film with a photographer, unknown to me, who commands a $30k day rate. So yeah, film is still around in the commercial world too.

Not too many photographers getting that kind of money that are "unknown", or maybe I'm out of touch. I know Watson gets that kind of money and often much more for corporate work.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I wish we could still get the TriX from the eighties ...

Leica M3, Summilux 50mm f/1.4 v2, TriX.

Erik.

 

[gnuyork]

I wish we could still get PlusX:

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

• Still prefer the look of it. And even if i can make digital look like film, i still know it's not. Every image i've ever valued by other photographers, a hundred years of history, in every exhibition i've seen or every book i own — it's all film. That's the language i grew up with and loved.
• Analog cameras look and feel better. Feels good to actually have mechanical things going on.
• Digital still feels like 'cheating' a little.

 

[maddoc]

I agree and I see a big problem here. With digitally only taken, processed and stored images there will be no printed proof of what happened in the history. If I can show somebody an old newspaper I have some kind of proof. Of course that image might have been manipulated before printing but it could not have been altered after that. Digital only and the image can be altered more easily afterwards.

Film is not dead. But weekly, printed news are dead news.

 

[KM-25]

That may be all well and fine, but there is just something odd I can't seem to put my finger in how he goes about participating on this site. Like there is a disconnect somewhere....not sure what it is.

I finally figured out what is off about these posts ( for me )...

Bill has such a storied career, insights, etc. that would be so fun and inspiring to see interwoven into his posts with images and great stories that are like "For Example" but I don't see any of that, ever.

Maybe he does not have the time but I think this thread could have taken on a far more insightful tack if he did a bit of a preamble of what are his favorite images he shot on film or even tossed one in that he tells a story of a shot he almost did not get due to a lab error, etc.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I agree and I see a big problem here. With digitally only taken, processed and stored images there will be no printed proof of what happened in the history. If I can show somebody an old newspaper I have some kind of proof. Of course that image might have been manipulated before printing but it could not have been altered after that. Digital only and the image can be altered more easily afterwards.

If image is newsworthy and creditable historically it gets naturally populated over different physical location (server clouds). It is impossible to alter them all.

What is still gets easily altered is humans mind. Often self-altered these days more than ever. Left and Right, East and West. Rhinoceros and 1984 comes very often to my mind.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I finally figured out what is off about these posts ( for me )...

Bill has such a storied career, insights, etc. that would be so fun and inspiring to see interwoven into his posts with images and great stories that are like "For Example" but I don't see any of that, ever.

Maybe he does not have the time but I think this thread could have taken on a far more insightful tack if he did a bit of a preamble of what are his favorite images he shot on film or even tossed one in that he tells a story of a shot he almost did not get due to a lab error, etc.

I was thinking in the same circles. Why not to tell us some good old times stories. I don't think this forum is full of people like Bill. With big and deep experience in commercial analog photography. I like to read this forum and get candle light reading feel. Not the Apple tablet light reading about mobile phones photography and Fuji cameras glow of glory. 🙂

 

[Bill Pierce]

I finally figured out what is off about these posts ( for me )...

Bill has such a storied career, insights, etc. that would be so fun and inspiring to see interwoven into his posts with images and great stories that are like "For Example" but I don't see any of that, ever.

Maybe he does not have the time but I think this thread could have taken on a far more insightful tack if he did a bit of a preamble of what are his favorite images he shot on film or even tossed one in that he tells a story of a shot he almost did not get due to a lab error, etc.

I was very lucky to work for magazines that let me witness incredible events and spend time with exceptional people, but it was the events and the people that were important, not the photographer. From Facebook to photo sites, I see photographers talking and writing about themselves when what is important is in front of the camera, not behind it. Were there adventures and wonderful times? Of course. That’s why I chose to be a news photographer rather than an advertising or commercial photographer. But, I’m a little reluctant to join the “look at me” crowd. I feel a lot more comfortable as part of the “look at that” crowd.

Here’s one story (and then I’m going to shut up). I have a friend who is a fairly well known actor. I’ve photographed films and plays he’s been in. Even done the ubiquitous head shot a number of times. He’s approached a lot in public and is always warm and courteous to fans, even when it takes a little effort. Once we were in the lobby of a theatre after the production when a fan started charging towards us. He put on a smile, but carefully positioned himself with me between him and the fan. She ran up to us, stopped and said, “You’re Bill Pierce, the photographer.” We both went into shock. That’s the first and last time that has ever happened. He got approached by another fan on his way out of the theatre, and things went back to normal.

 

[MrFujicaman]

Gee, Bill-maybe it's because many of us were teenagers in the 1970's and pored over your articles in Pop Photo to try and become the best film photographers we could and now we don't want to give up all the things we learned and start all over.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Wow, very well done... That´s what I call intelligence and class. We could say it was deserved, and we've got more words than as a group we deserved... 🙂
I agree with Bill Clark it's up to us, we're the ones that should be thinking and saying things... So, a new comment, for the subjects Mr. Pierce chooses are always interesting and tend to last... Now it's really personal, and maybe superficial for some members, but here it is:
I use film, but many times I've thought, if suddenly I got told I'm seriously sick, and for sure there's no cure, and I have 3 months, I´d get a couple of digital cameras, distortionless 35 and 50, work 90 days and call it a day. I confess in that case I would consider film and wet printing a waste of my time.

 

[Rayt]

I am a film shooter and do not scan. I prefer wet prints I get from #2 fiber paper. Some 10 years ago I did switch to digital for a few years but was never happy with the look of b/w prints I get from my R2400 Epson. It is just personal choice. My next project is to make contact prints from large format negatives.

 

[PKR]

Wow, very well done... That´s what I call intelligence and class. We could say it was deserved, and we've got more words than as a group we deserved... 🙂
I agree with Bill Clark it's up to us, we're the ones that should be thinking and saying things... So, a new comment, for the subjects Mr. Pierce chooses are always interesting and tend to last... Now it's really personal, and maybe superficial for some members, but here it is:
I use film, but many times I've thought, if suddenly I got told I'm seriously sick, and for sure there's no cure, and I have 3 months, I´d get a couple of digital cameras, distortionless 35 and 50, work 90 days and call it a day. I confess in that case I would consider film and wet printing a waste of my time.

Or, you could do what Winogrand did, and leave a bag (2500 rolls?) of unprocessed film behind. I spend as much time in post as I did in a darkroom. Plus, I have to soup and scan my film. If you only have 90 days, let someone else worry about it..