Yet another professional opinion on film...any thoughts?
- Thread starter bobby_novatron
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 94
- Views 10K
igi
Well-known
With regard to modern digital monochrome cameras, Nikon, Leica, and others offer them for Lab use. These are specialty cameras made for microscopes and other lab equipment. You can have a high-end Monochrome Camera made by some companies for general photographic use, but it will be very expensive. Expensive as in an M9 looking cheap by comparison.
Having a camera modified for IR is much less expensive, requires the IR Blocking filter be replaced with clear glass or a visible blocking filter. Conversion cost runs $500 or so, depending on the camera. Mostly paying for a technician to take apart the camera, the replacement filter is a small part of the cost. BUT: if the camera companies chose to offer a native Infrared camera, and made it IR at the time of construction- the cost differential would be minimal. Fuji offered a camera for IR and UV recently, but I cannot easily find a dealer:
http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/digital_cameras/is/finepix_ispro/index.html
Looks like Fuji offers it for only $2600, for the body. That is cheap. You have to fill out a questionnaire to by one. Glad I looked!
Having a camera modified for IR is much less expensive, requires the IR Blocking filter be replaced with clear glass or a visible blocking filter. Conversion cost runs $500 or so, depending on the camera. Mostly paying for a technician to take apart the camera, the replacement filter is a small part of the cost. BUT: if the camera companies chose to offer a native Infrared camera, and made it IR at the time of construction- the cost differential would be minimal. Fuji offered a camera for IR and UV recently, but I cannot easily find a dealer:
http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/digital_cameras/is/finepix_ispro/index.html
Looks like Fuji offers it for only $2600, for the body. That is cheap. You have to fill out a questionnaire to by one. Glad I looked!
Last edited:
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I couldn't agree more. I feel the same way about woodcuts, stone lithographs, oil paintings, charcoal sketches, sculpture (except that made on a 3D printer), books printed on paper, calligraphy (except that done on a Wacom), and music played on acoustic instruments (especially old ones, like lutes and fortepianos).
All of these things deserve nothing but contempt, as do those who care for them.
Right, Rich?
Edit: [Crickets.]
Last edited:
johnnygulliver
Established
Great thread - and thanks for sharing the references too: I've been telling my students something like this this for years; when I think back to the amount and type of different storage mediums I have used often cranky, unreliable and shortly obsolete - to use one notorious example 'Jazz' misrepresented as an archival back-up tool for goodness sake. Unlike film, I doubt in a 100 years they will recover a treasure trove of photographers images in dusty lofts and outhouses on old hard-drives, in the way we find 'Capa' suitcases, unknown masterpieces on glass plates and such. The 'chimping' point is extremely valid too, and is related to the above: Images on film roles, pored over days or years after the even often reveal great, meaningful (sequences, contexts and juxtapositions) pictures which might otherwise been discarded at the time of taking. Not the best example, but the discovery decades later of the context of the Doisneau 'kiss' is a trivial example which shows us something of how the man worked, the discovery of more of the context of Capa's fallen soldier is maybe another ... I think.
Last edited:
johnnygulliver
Established
it's an interesting piece though, thanks for posting.
JayGannon
Well-known
http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essay/samba
Cheap digital P&S
http://1000words.kodak.com/post/?ID=2388083
Kodachrome
http://www.magnumphotos.com/larrytowell
Tri-x
Its the photographer not the tool guys.
Alex shows that more than anyone else i think.
Cheap digital P&S
http://1000words.kodak.com/post/?ID=2388083
Kodachrome
http://www.magnumphotos.com/larrytowell
Tri-x
Its the photographer not the tool guys.
Alex shows that more than anyone else i think.
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
He's got a very interesting point about the archival abilities of film vs. digital. I also believe that, far into the future, we'll have way more images from the 20th century than this one -- which is ironic given that exponentially more images are being made now than ever.
It's a digital dark age, and Greene is hardly the only one to understand that.
http://blog.longnow.org/2008/07/24/edward-burtynsky-the-10000-year-gallery/?akst_action=share-this
And this, especially:
http://www.cbc.ca/spark/2008/09/full-interview-ed-burtynsky-on-10000-year-old-photos/
It's a digital dark age, and Greene is hardly the only one to understand that.
http://blog.longnow.org/2008/07/24/edward-burtynsky-the-10000-year-gallery/?akst_action=share-this
And this, especially:
http://www.cbc.ca/spark/2008/09/full-interview-ed-burtynsky-on-10000-year-old-photos/
user237428934
User deletion pending
It may be a all true that we leave less photos behind than the last century. But now comes my serious question: who cares? What problems do we really address if we spam lots of photos into the future?
Perhaps I'm a bit provocative but it sounds sometimes like we have a kind of obligation to feed future archeologists with material for their work?
Of course it's nice to look through old negatives of my grandfather that are over 60 years old now. I even have the camera he used for the photos. It's nice, but not essential for me.
sanmich
Veteran
I fail to see the point.
what about negatives?
Do you see an image? or only raw material for an image?
How is it relevant in an art where the end product is a picture?
sanmich
Veteran
Archivability is a tricky thing.
Think about antiquity...
Lots of very important texts have been lost because they were written on paper vs stone. The only way for a paper to come through the ages to us is if it was important enough to have been reproduced in a certain quantity.
The original memories of Hadrianus have been lost. Important texts regarding the dawn of christianity have existed in very few copies so when someone, somewhere was powerful enough to put his hands on them, they were destroyed. the original hebrew text of "Hasmoneans" is lost because it didn't enter the canonic text of the bible due to the politic dissentions at the moment of the book "closing" (only the greek translation have survived).
Think about the impact of the invention of printing in that regard.
Without printing, my guess is that 90% of important text wouldn't have survived to the numerous political/religious "cultural purges" (comunists/ Nazis/ Christian church/ Taliban, you name it...) that happened to us since the invention of printing.
I think Digital is a bit like book printing...
No negative will survive centuries, or thousands of years. endlessly reproduced data will (let's rule out apocalypse where frankly, I don't think that the first concern of survivors will be the impact of the photography of HCB on Koudelka style)
Film unsustained archivability is superior to digital for decades, and that's why I use film. But the argument about the vulnerability of my archives when all of them are in a closet that can be destroyed is damn real.
All this discussion is about personal choices.
You can use film like you do digital with minor differences (of course if the client insists on either option...). In my eyes, the only relevant question is how the new photog generation aprehend photography, given they are raised up in a digital world. The small format camera did revolutionized our way of thinking about photography, and the digital may do the same.
HCB wouldn't probably have chimped, but with digital he could have saved precious moments spent on changing rolls..
Meanwhile, to each his own...
Think about antiquity...
Lots of very important texts have been lost because they were written on paper vs stone. The only way for a paper to come through the ages to us is if it was important enough to have been reproduced in a certain quantity.
The original memories of Hadrianus have been lost. Important texts regarding the dawn of christianity have existed in very few copies so when someone, somewhere was powerful enough to put his hands on them, they were destroyed. the original hebrew text of "Hasmoneans" is lost because it didn't enter the canonic text of the bible due to the politic dissentions at the moment of the book "closing" (only the greek translation have survived).
Think about the impact of the invention of printing in that regard.
Without printing, my guess is that 90% of important text wouldn't have survived to the numerous political/religious "cultural purges" (comunists/ Nazis/ Christian church/ Taliban, you name it...) that happened to us since the invention of printing.
I think Digital is a bit like book printing...
No negative will survive centuries, or thousands of years. endlessly reproduced data will (let's rule out apocalypse where frankly, I don't think that the first concern of survivors will be the impact of the photography of HCB on Koudelka style)
Film unsustained archivability is superior to digital for decades, and that's why I use film. But the argument about the vulnerability of my archives when all of them are in a closet that can be destroyed is damn real.
All this discussion is about personal choices.
You can use film like you do digital with minor differences (of course if the client insists on either option...). In my eyes, the only relevant question is how the new photog generation aprehend photography, given they are raised up in a digital world. The small format camera did revolutionized our way of thinking about photography, and the digital may do the same.
HCB wouldn't probably have chimped, but with digital he could have saved precious moments spent on changing rolls..
Meanwhile, to each his own...
Last edited:
PKR
Veteran
HCB with digital, traveling where he did, and in many places where people work today, require a Honda Generator to keep the batteries charged and and the laptops and backup drives running for a few hours a day. i guess he could have packed a bunch of batteries (I carry 4 spares) and traveling with the gas for the generator can be an issue.. And then when working in bright light It's kinda hard to see the LCD on the camera and computer.. so a outdoor tent used for picnics is best, but then it takes a couple of assistants to set all this up.. and then if you want to move quickly.. Ya know, even though I shoot a lot of digital, when I do something for me, it's easy to take a film camera with a couple of rolls of film in my pocket and maybe a second lens in the other pocket. And you don't smell of gas after feeding the Honda. And god (photo god) help you if you have to do a sensor clean in the field...
Last edited:
sanmich
Veteran
I know and I personally agree.
I just want to say that some of the arguments brought by Mr Green can be a bit er.... wrong?🙄
I have heard Stanley Green reacting about the trend changes in the industry to a panel of journal editors, and he seems to be both very intelligent and a gentleman, but I think most of the arguments of "why film" or "why digital" can be turn around.
(see the "its very hard to alter a raw file" thing that I personally wasn't aware of)
PKR
Veteran
My Opinion:
Stanley (and anyone else) can use any kind of film or digital media he chooses. He can store the stuff any way that pleases him. I don't care how folks make their photos (unless I can learn something from their experience) and i can't understand why anyone is interested in how I make mine. This has become a hardware/software-religion, with a bunch of folks trying to get one an other to convert. It's like getting worked up over what kind of tires someone buys.. or what kind of pickles they like on a burger..I just don't get it.
oftheherd
Veteran
I understand what you are saying. But is an artist can evoke different emotions (especially if they are positive) in different people, are those people's interpretation of the work invalid?
