Why film?

[Calzone]

Thanks Cal.

Mostly tongue in cheek with my comment, kidding.

I still like your avitar shown here each time you post.

Bill,

My avitar was taken after a NYC Meet-Up. The guys decided to decorate me like a Chrismas tree with their cameras.

For some reason I end up with mucho cameras.

Cal

POSTSCRIPT: The title "Gear Whore" was done by John my friend, a moderator. At first I felt slighted, but the more I thought about it the title fit. LOL.

 

[jsrockit]

Photography--Photography--has been a passion of mine for over 45 years. Film is something I've used while practicing this passion, it's not the passion itself.

It seems many can't grasp the important stuff. Photography and the images created in its pursuit should be the passion, not what tools and materials are being used in the practice. Use film, use digital, hell, coat your own glass plates or tin strips. Make contact prints, use an enlarger or print with an Epson. Use a Sony, use a Linhof, use an oatmeal box with a pinhole. If you're making something interesting, it's all good.

Yes,... yes! BUT many will swear you are wrong.

 

[jsrockit]

I still like your avitar shown here each time you post.

My creation since we affectionately called Cal a "gear whore."

 

[jsrockit]

But some "NoName", "NoFrills" guys from the crowd like me are fine with mucho affordable and reasonable archival inks and 100$ inkjet printers for upto 8.5x11 size. And just archival paper from Epson with next to nothing price 🙂.

But your expectations are different no?

 

[Bill Pierce]

To Bill Pierce -

I think you are discounting film a little too severely. You are right that film is not "pure" and today digital and film are interconnected in processing for instance. But digital is just ordinary; film is cool and different, and attracts aficionados. Stupidly when digital tries to be "different" it apes film looks. The other point is that the crisis of film, marked by steadily declining usage and shuttering of factories, is over. Film production is actually growing again.

I'm not discounting film even though the majority of my current work is digital. For a number of reasons, much of it to do with the delivery of images, the great majority of professional work is now digital. A lot of important film photography exists outside of those limits.

What does distress me is someone saying the digital technology is to blame because they can't make an inkjet print from a digital file that has the same tonal characteristics as a silver print. Superb black-and-whte photographers, for example Salgado, can mix their early film work and recent digital work and make them match in either exhibits or books. When I have time, I'll try to outline all the ways you work on that. But the easiest way to start is just to put some b&w silver prints on the desk next to your computer, look at some digital images on your computer screen and say what do I do to those raw files to make them look more like the prints on my desk.

 

[jsrockit]

But digital is just ordinary; film is cool and different, and attracts aficionados.

This all depends on perspective. Many of us here started in photography when there were not any consumer digital cameras. Film is not different to me. Film was the norm. Digital was different. I'm certainly an aficionado and I use only digital at this point. I prefer the look. I know that is hard for some to believe, but it is true.

Stupidly when digital tries to be "different" it apes film looks.

No, when PEOPLE try to emulate film with digital.

The other point is that the crisis of film, marked by steadily declining usage and shuttering of factories, is over. Film production is actually growing again.

and this is a good thing for photography in general.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

But your expectations are different no?

From what I have seen as Piezography, no. Last time it was at local Arts Center few months ago. Some big (locally) name photographer and huge prints.

I'm happy with OEM Epson pigment inks or compatible inks (for ten times less) from reputable seller in Canada and Epson archival paper. I print and it is not wet right away. Instant pleasure. Cheap and quick bw prints. 😀

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

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..

Hi,
I meant i'd just shoot, and leave files without postprocessing if on digital.
In case of doing it with film, I'd develop, but I wouldn't print.
I imagine Gary Winogrand developed most rolls he considered important because of any interesting scene he remembered and he'd like to see... I've never thought the rolls he left unprocessed were for him his best work.

 

[Bill Pierce]

Hi,
I meant i'd just shoot, and leave files without postprocessing if on digital.
In case of doing it with film, I'd develop, but I wouldn't print.
I imagine Gary Winogrand developed most rolls he considered important because of any interesting scene he remembered and he'd like to see... I've never thought the rolls he left unprocessed were for him his best work.

Winogrand said he delayed the developing of film to put some distance between taking the pictures and selecting which ones to print in order to increase the objectivity of his selections. Don’t know if it’s true, but that’s what he said.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Thanks for the info, Bill !
He could have delayed selecting only, though...
Anyway, so many many rolls left that way have always been a mystery to me...
Lazy? Sad? Bored? Feeling he did enough? Depressed?
Hard to know.
Absolutely wonderful photographer, of course.

 

[lawrence]

It's a good question and my own, very personal, reasons are:

I like film itself, I mean the actual stuff, and the process of developing it. Yes, it's time consuming but to see a roll of negs coming out of the tank is magic. So far, for me, there is no equivalent in the digital world.

I shot my first rolls of monochrome film at age nine and I still have them. Now I'm in my mid sixties and I can look back over the years and see a certain continuity right back to those old negs. For me digital is a totally different thing, not worse or better but different. I do shoot digital but there is less emotional attachment.

There's a lot about shooting/developing film that I don't yet know or haven't yet mastered. While this remains the case why should I switch to something else?

Finally, I like the look of film. There's something about digital monochrome that I find less attractive, even though it may be technically more perfect. Some have mentioned Salgado. For me his work lacks the kind of feeling that appeals to me - it's technically very proficient but give me a grainy, lopsided Frank or Moriyama any day.

 

[jsrockit]

So, really... it comes down to romanticism and process. Nothing wrong with that. What a wonderful time to be into Photography. So many different ways to do it and basically every process (from its history) is still available if you want to pursue it.

 

[ptpdprinter]

So, really... it comes down to romanticism and process. Nothing wrong with that. What a wonderful time to be into Photography. So many different ways to do it and basically every process (from its history) is still available if you want to pursue it.

The choice doesn't have to include romanticism. Could just be process.

 

[emraphoto]

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.

there is a profound cult of personality in photojournalism today that has sent some of most dedicated and talented photographers i know in other directions.

 

[jsrockit]

The choice doesn't have to include romanticism. Could just be process.

Ok...I should have put and / or!

 

[PhotoGog]

Why film?

I wonder what Zizek prefers? As a self-professed old school dialectical materialist does he embrace the tangibility of Tri-X? Or as a 21st century slayer of romantic shibboleths does he fire up a Canon 1DX? His view would be fascinating, no doubt. How do we get him to join RFF?

 

[PKR]

Winogrand said he delayed the developing of film to put some distance between taking the pictures and selecting which ones to print in order to increase the objectivity of his selections. Don’t know if it’s true, but that’s what he said.

I recall, that he said he would wait at least a year.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

So, really... it comes down to romanticism and process. .

And the fact that it doesn't look the same. Which, since we are talking about something we look at, matters to some people.

 

[davidnewtonguitars]

I usually stay out of these discussions because I'm not a pro photographer. When I realized that I have to take pictures of my guitars to sell them online, so pictures are a part of my income stream. So I use my digital camera for that because I need the pictures fast.
I like to take my other pictures with a film rangefinder, because I enjoy it. That is all.

 

[jsrockit]

And the fact that it doesn't look the same. Which, since we are talking about something we look at, matters to some people.

Completely, as long as we understand there is a camp that actually prefers the way digital looks too. It seems that many cannot come to terms with that. I like both. My favorite photographers used film, I cannot dispute that (but they had no other choice). However, for what I want to do, I prefer digital. It's not laziness. I love the clarity and the process. However, a nice 6x6 camera could be fun though.