Why film?

[ktmrider]

I shoot film because I know how (doing it since 1966), I like the cameras, and hate sitting in front of a computer. I don't have to justify this to anyone because it is just for me.

 

[PKR]

I watched these years ago John.. The Düsseldorf School..

Hilda Becker is in the beginning, Giving Her Blessing to Rhine II.

Gursky:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTAYMeI9hlg

Edit: I re-watched some of this.. for the Camera People & The Film vs.Digital people" ..

Gursky uses a pocket digital camera to preview possible camera positions and a 4x5 Rail camera with Bag Bellows, indicating the use of a WA lens. He photographs with a Digital Back on the 4x5 and also runs Fuji positive film (from the Green Fuji Film Box seen at his light table).

So, he gets huge amounts of money for his digital prints (maybe made from the digital back or maybe a scanned 4x5)? I'm not German fluent, maybe someone who is, will watch and tell us?

The image files are digital, as seen by the image "adjustments" made by his help. The final prints are a digital - silver product.

I think he covered all the bases as per the, film vs. Digital.. or Digital vs. Film, argument. He uses it all - No big surprise. Also, notice the use of studio electronic flash. Speed lights won't provide enough light for a 4x5 film exposure in one pop, especially at the DOF shown in the finished image.

 

[ptpdprinter]

I find it funny that C-prints have reached such exalted status. They are what we used to get back from the drugstore.

 

[jsrockit]

I find it funny that C-prints have reached such exalted status. They are what we used to get back from the drugstore.

Well, unless you were doing cibachromes or dye-transfer its what we all used for color ... until digital.

 

[PKR]

I find it funny that C-prints have reached such exalted status. They are what we used to get back from the drugstore.

If you take the time to study the changes in the Ektaprint process over decades, you will see the current product it's not the same paper or chemistry as in the past. The change in the 70s from Ektaprint II to Ektaprint Iii was a major change. Advances were constant over the years. You might do a little reading?

Dye Coupler technology has changed along with materials; they are much more stable now. Fuji is now, the major supplier of these products.

"Dye coupler technology has seen considerable advancement since the beginning of modern color photography. Major film and paper manufacturers have continually improved the stability of the image dye by improving couplers, particularly since the 1980s, so that archival properties of images are enhanced in newer color papers and films. Generally speaking, dye couplers for paper use are given more emphasis on the image permanence than those for film use, but some modern films (such as Fujichrome Provia films) use variants of couplers that were originally designed for paper use to further improve the image permanence."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dye_coupler

 

[gns]

I find it funny that C-prints have reached such exalted status. They are what we used to get back from the drugstore.

https://www.phillips.com/detail/WILLIAM-CHRISTENBERRY/NY040210/267

 

[sjones]

How in the world is it superfluous to enjoy a photo for simply what it looks like.

To be sure, the medium and the material can matter for certain folks (including me!); and for a lot of collectors, scarcity matters as does good marketing.

And if cost was not an issue, I would certainly choose an original Adams print, one that he personally created in his darkroom, over a poster reproduction. But I wouldn’t consider any variant if I did not like the way the photo looked like.

However, the output of a medium’s quality or visual impact is not proportionally linked to craft or effort, and at least for me, it was the latter two that I was addressing.

For example, dye transfer prints involve a ton of craft and effort, at least from what I understand, but some folks might actually prefer the inkjet version.

I’ve seen Adams’ original prints; and they are exquisitely impressive. But I came to enjoy his work while spotting an Adams calendar in my coworker’s cubicle back in 1991, long before I ever got into photography.

I can appreciate a highly produced recording through mono blocks and electrostatic speakers, but if it kicks out on an AM-only car radio of decades past, I’ll enjoy it as well.

In fact, one could possibly argue that snubbing off a song you like because it’s not being cranked out of a high end system is superficial. God knows my college roommate, an actual and very talented musician, gave me grief over my then stereo geek proclivities.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Did I say I approached it in a shallow way?

Because I've done both, and I found digital photography to be a relatively shallow and effort-free activity. YMMV as they say. Just my experience and opinion.

I took you at your word that you were speaking from personal experience.

 

[John Bragg]

Because it just works for me. I have never shot digital apart from smartphone and feel zero inclination to do so. The crusty luddite within me is 100% satisfied with my collection of cameras and lenses and I enjoy using them from the tactile satisfaction they give to the quality of the images they produce.

 

[PKR]

I like that you took "materials matter" to mean "only materials matter".

You need to up your troll game if you want to fool people into believing you're the sort of person who lives in a cardboard box because a house made out of wood and stuff would be pointless to you.

Yeah. He Seams to be at that..

I was taught (in school) that craft, the making of a good finished print, was expected. The art (I think) can't be taught. But, if you want your "art" to be taken seriously, you master the "craft" portion of your effort.

 

[Chris101]

I just read a fun article about this subject by Nick Holt. Holt stated that his attraction to film was due to the "chance and magic".

 

[Keith]

It's interesting reading back through this thread and noting how the process seems to be more important to many people than the end result. Sorry but I really don't get this!

 

[PKR]

It's interesting reading back through this thread and noting how the process seems to be more important to many people than the end result. Sorry but I really don't get this!

Equipment fetish? Not very many here (RFF) seem overly concerned with photographs; especially printed ones.

 

[Tompas]

It's interesting reading back through this thread and noting how the process seems to be more important to many people than the end result. Sorry but I really don't get this!

Because it's about fun? The whole thing, I mean. (Unless you earn your money with photography, of course.)

That said, I make better / more good images using film cameras. It's a fact; I've actually done the numbers.

So you might say, the more pleasant process gives the better results. For me, that's true. I suspect it's true for others as well.

 

[Keith]

Because it's about fun? The whole thing, I mean. (Unless you earn your money with photography, of course.)

That said, I make better / more good images using film cameras. It's a fact; I've actually done the numbers.

So you might say, the more pleasant process gives the better results. For me, that's true. I suspect it's true for others as well.

I can accept that because we all have our own reasons for what we do, why we do it and of course how we do it. When people start to preach that their path is superior I become uneasy. Not accusing you of course but I do a see it in these threads from time to time. 🙂

 

[ptpdprinter]

I DID NOT say I approached digital photography in a shallow way and put no effort into it. I said I found it a shallow and unrewarding experience. Completely different things.

You previously said that digital was a "shallow and effort-free activity". You are now saying that it is a "shallow and unrewarding experience". Two different things. Activity is doing; experience is feeling. You need to express yourself clearly to avoid being misunderstood.

I get it if you prefer film to digital. That's all it is - a preference. Just say: "I prefer film." No need to denigrate digital and rant. Not everyone shares your preference.

I have said it before. I do not understand the road rage response on the part of film aficionados to this issue. Why all the anger?

By the way, if you dislike loading film onto plastic reels in hot weather with sweaty hands, try using stainless steel. I tried both when I was first starting out four decades ago, and found stainless steel both easier and more satisfying. As a bonus, you use less chemistry. But it is just a preference. I can happily co-exist with others who prefer plastic tanks and reels.

 

[Bill Clark]

I'll share some of my experiences garnered from my business.

When I first started to use a digital camera for my business, I also used a film camera. At a wedding, two cameras, one medium format film camera mounted on a tripod the other a digital on a tripod. My first few digital gigs were all jpeg's made in camera. Then I got brave, saw the light, and went with 100% diigital capture, process and various ways to view the photographs.

Boy did I have a lot to learn.

Once I got going with digital there was no stopping me. I was making wedding albums back in 2004 with layers in Photoshop, flatten them into jpeg's, then having the lab print each page and sending the prints to an album vendor (Pictobooks). I saved each page as a psd as well, if the bride wanted changes made it was simple. I had Pictobooks use real leather for the front and back covers. They had, amongst many choices, a rich looking beige leather. The final product looked like a fancy book! No big deal now but it was back then. I used the jpeg's of the pages as a tool, sending the flatten album pages jpeg's to the bride, email, got her work email address, then it not only became an approval to process but it also became a marketing tool for my business. I really enjoyed this!

I had a steep learning curve getting around Photoshop. From my view, Photoshop is all about layers and blending. At first, I didn't know what either of those could do for my photographs! I did have help along the way with my coach, Monte and also Eddie Tapp.

Another important change I made was capturing in RAW mode. It's the only way to go, at least for me.

The equipment can only make a photograph as good as the person working the tools.

 

[Tompas]

(...) When people start to preach that their path is superior I become uneasy. Not accusing you of course but I do a see it in these threads from time to time. 🙂

Yes, of course. I didn't read the whole 10 pages of this thread -- probably I missed all the bad stuff. 😉

 

[ptpdprinter]

It's simple: Life is about the journey, not the destination.

In photography, while I agree that the journey (process) is important, ultimately it is about the destination (final print).

 

[back alley]

You didn't take me at my word at all. You're either not reading and understanding what I'm saying, or deliberately twisting my words in an effort to annoy. If you don't agree with my point of view, that's fine. But don't respond by trying to dismiss my opinion by creating counter-arguments against something I didn't say in the first place.

I DID NOT say I approached digital photography in a shallow way and put no effort into it. I said I found it a shallow and unrewarding experience. Completely different things.

I put a hell of a lot of effort into my photography, but ultimately the digital process did nothing for me. I found it unsatisfying from start to finish. Plastic, soulless cameras with failing electronics. Nasty looking digital files. Long, tedious hours in Lightroom and Photoshop. The endless megapixel upgrade cycle. The boring reality of the instant-response video screen. Yawn.

Film photography is the complete opposite for me. I love *almost everything about the process, from loading film into beautiful mechanical cameras, to washing the blix off fresh prints. It's just a bonus for me that the performance of film is superior in many ways, as are the end results.

* Except loading film onto plastic reels in hot weather with sweaty hands :bang:

are you the fujilove that has the magazine, the website and workshops? all dedicated to fuji?

this guy...https://fujilove.com/about-fl/