PDA

View Full Version : Film is back, says NYT



Pages : 1 [2] 3

Sirius Glass
05-31-2012, 06:29 PM
Finally after all these years, now that the NYT approve the use of film, I will finally be able to sleep at night with a clear conscience!

kevs
05-31-2012, 07:06 PM
"Letís start with the cons. Analog cameras require a little more precision to operate than digital ones. It can take some time to figure out how they work and to learn how to reload them without dropping them on the sidewalk. The film itself is fairly delicate and often needs to be refrigerated and shielded from the sun."

"And when the prints show up, there can be wild variations in color and the sort of unpredictability that turns a photo into something that seems like a unique piece of art."

The author's readers seem to be ham-fisted, camera-dropping nincompoops. And as everyone knows, if you drop film on the "sidewalk", it breaks and all the pictures will fall out!

Cheers,
kevs

Moopheus
05-31-2012, 07:38 PM
Incompetent jorurnalism plain and simple. A decent 110 camera can beat any camera phone made

Except, of course, that the majority of 110 cameras were not "decent". They were in fact "crap". I remember this facet of using them clearly. Even as a kid I could not be fooled. As soon as I could get my hands on something better, the 110 was history.

Yes, it's kind of a dumb article--a young tech writer writing about some lomo stuff for for her audience. Yes, film was finicky and difficult, which is why it's hard to believe that billions of people used it.

eddie
05-31-2012, 08:08 PM
Any article that mentions film, without "is dead" attached, is a good thing, regardless of whether it is poorly written, or focused on a small subset of film use.

Alan Davenport
05-31-2012, 11:36 PM
"Techno junkies" should be outlawed from writing articles dealing with any form of art. They have no clue and no feel for the medium. I have seen this kind of thing in the local paper here and Iím surprised I have any hair left! I love my "seemingly archaic art Ö" since it requires craft and vision which these kinds of people know nothing about.

Newt_on_Swings
06-01-2012, 12:14 AM
Most any name brand auto loading point and shoot with DX coding and AF, in combination with a roll of Tri-X is the most fool proof combo you can get. I used to carry prints around in a portfolio just to show people that its not all lomo, film produces high quality and detailed images.

Poisson Du Jour
06-01-2012, 01:34 AM
Well, no camera is entirely "fool proof". People still manage to stick their finger in front of the lens just as the shutter trips, or obscure the flash of Aunt Grettel managing a rare smile with the sun beaming down behind her.

Newt_on_Swings
06-01-2012, 04:26 AM
Indeed I stand corrected, almost fool proof haha.

PKM-25
06-01-2012, 12:18 PM
Incompetent jorurnalism plain and simple. A decent 110 camera can beat any camera phone made, and 35mm is so far ahead it isn't worth comparing.

I mean no disrespect, but I am not in agreement with this.

I did a show last year of photos from my iPhone 4, not even the 4S, in Hipstamatic that were printed in 10" x 10" and two of them at 30" x 30", all looked great, sold enough on the opening night to pay for 15 new iPhones. I can tell you with full confidence that even an ASA 100 film shot in 110 would not begin to compete with the above.

I'm sorry but it is this kind of statement that really makes the non-film using community laugh, does us no good...at all.

As for the article, meh, I have read better in the NYT, and I shoot for them several times a year...

Newt_on_Swings
06-01-2012, 06:36 PM
I cant believe people buy hipsmatic prints lol. But yes cell phone quality is decent in bright light. My previous nokia n72 had an AF zeiss lens with an actual xenon flash tube. It took amazing 5mp photos in the day, and the flash was and still is leagues ahead of the LEDs now. No funky inphone image editors back then either.

But the cell phone is as I view it a last resort, I've probably taken only 75 or so shots with my iPhone 4 these last two years ive had it.

I'm hoping this phase of photography ebbs soon. too much lomo for my taste not everything requires over saturation and vignettes.

DREW WILEY
06-01-2012, 06:50 PM
I've got a good use for cell phone cameras. You see, just below the platform of my big Ries wooden
tripod there a little hook where you can hang a mesh bag. Sometimes even with an 8x10 camera there's too much wind for a steady shot. So you take a bunch of rocks or cell phones or whatever
and throw them in that little mesh bag to add extra weight and stability. Now that's technology!

Alan Klein
06-01-2012, 10:48 PM
I read the article "in the flesh" so to speak. My diner has the Times on a small stand so I "borrowed" a copy to peruse during my lunch. I was disappointed that they only focused on the non-traditional Lomography, Polaroid etc and not more on traditional uses of film that still have a strong following. However, I agree with the poster above who says young people don't read newspapers anyway. Most youngsters get interested in film from what other youngsters are doing with film. Youngsters mimic each other as they do in all generations. If film remains interesting to some youngsters, it will be interesting to others, notwithstanding what the Times says or not.

Also, much of the spread of film, and this is a guess, may be through social sites like Facebook which allows you to post your Lomography. Which reminds me. My daughter gave me this little box for my birthday. It has all these little colored translucent plastic pieces. You're suppose to place it in front of the lens for interesting colored shots. Now I think I figured out what to do with them.

cepwin
06-02-2012, 12:45 AM
I have to agree with a lot of the discussion here that there was a bit too much emphasis on the lomography/flawed aspect of film (although some of their cameras look like a lot of fun) but it was nice they were discussing film. I would have liked to have seen some mention of the large format work being done in film that is the total opposite end of the spectrum from what the lomography folks are doing. (Not to mention a lot of fine art photographers are still using film.)

Moopheus
06-02-2012, 07:59 AM
I have to agree with a lot of the discussion here that there was a bit too much emphasis on the lomography/flawed aspect of film (although some of their cameras look like a lot of fun) but it was nice they were discussing film.

The problem was not really that there was too much emphasis on Lomo, since that was clearly the actual topic of the article. The real problem was it didn't make clear that that was the real topic of the article. The point of the article was that some people like Lomo because it gives you something very visually different from the clinic sameness of the usual digicam. It was just expressed very poorly. If it had been clearly expressed that what they were talking about was a subset of film photography, it would have been a better article.

benjiboy
06-02-2012, 08:07 AM
If The New York Times says it, it must be true.

RattyMouse
06-02-2012, 09:31 AM
If The New York Times says it, it must be true.

Can Lomo and Holga save film?

PKM-25
06-02-2012, 10:05 AM
Lomo, Hippo, I had my fun with it, like any medium, if you pair it up nicely with the right subject, it rocks....it's not like film has not had passing fads before...

I don't really shoot in Hipstamatic anymore and the one show is the only one I will ever do. That said, I love, love Love the app called "Viewfinder Pro" to pre-visualize a potential shot before even setting up my view camera...

Chan Tran
06-02-2012, 07:36 PM
I failed to find out the reason why Lomo has to be done with film? I thought it can be better done with a digital like the cell phone.

benjiboy
06-02-2012, 08:11 PM
Can Lomo and Holga save film?
It's just another post for people who can't face facts, and like clutching at straws.like the ones who can't accept that that Kodachrome is no more.

eddie
06-02-2012, 08:20 PM
I failed to find out the reason why Lomo has to be done with film? I thought it can be better done with a digital like the cell phone.

These days, very little needs to be done with film. To say that it can be "better done with a digital" misses the point of why we choose film.

Every time I see the dismissive attitude towards Holgas/Dianas, I'm pretty certain it comes from someone who has never tried a Holga/Diana. We use them because they're a lot of fun...