To me, what I like about film is the color and tone. I don't get the same in my digital. Another thing I like is the feeling that as soon as I filp that shutter, the shot is done. I don't get that feeling in digital.
Theoritically you can get the same color and tone. But it is counter-productive to spend that much time for a shot in front of computer and that takes the whole advantage of "instant gratification" out of digital. For people who like the digital tone, it is decided.
The color and tonality character of film was the main reason that I didn't go completly digital on 35mm. So perhaps including workshops and knowledge sessions where one shows the difference in the tonality of the same pictures (or series) could help to get some people in.
Another thing to consider is the flow and cost. In my case per shot, my cost is less than 15 cents (film and processing cost) It takes just 1 hour to develop myself 2 rolls. In those 2 rolls, I get approximately 2 or 3 best shots and few more decent ones that I like. So for just 1 hour spend developing, I get 2 shots that are ready to go to my portfolio. In the case of Digital. I take about 150-200 shots and need to spend about 1-2 hours going through them (getting to system, deleting the bad ones and finally finding the best ones and some tone corrections). Lightroom has made it easy, but it still take a good quantity of time to get the shots on a digital to become my favorite.
Time wise, to me, there is no difference. It is the possibility of messing a shot (because we ametures don't click it unless we can get the exposure dialed it in the way we want.) is the biggest reasoning against Film. But real pros were pros before digital. They didn't mess it during the film era and they don't mess shots in the digital either. So that comes with experience.
If someone comes up with great idea on how to educate this to an ameture level photographer, I think we will have more people at least willing to consider film.
A couple nights ago I was chatting with a friend from back in our high school days on Facebook. Back then he shoot Kodachrome in 110 format and projected, while I had a cheap (some may say "toy") 35mm rangefinder and shot Kodachrome and Ektachrome, and also projected. He said he could no longer find his projector, and I told him he should check on that auction site as sometimes you can pick up a working projector for almost nothing, and you could get a good 35mm SLR and lens from KEH for a fraction of what the camera cost new.
We were talking about where to get slide film and I mentioned Peoria Camera Shop and how pricey they were for their slide film. He agreed and said last time he was in that shop he was after Super-8 film and how he didn't shoot Super-8 any more either because he couldn't find the film. I told him he could get Tri-X Reversal and Ektachrome 100D in Super-8 from B&H and that Dwayne's could soup the Ektachrome for him (gave him prices for both). He said he was gonna check it out. Maybe he'll start shooting some film again!
My wife and I recently switched from shooting our location portraits on digital to shooting them all on film. It was very well received by our clients and it has set us apart from other photographers in the area. Because of this we have been selling quite a bit of film.
Last year before X-Mas some one from China I think has sent a request on my Flickr page to explain how to load film and operate a Smena 1 camera (make a clip preferably). I have a whole bunch of old cameras that I like to use and post pictures taken with each of them but never thought of making a movie clip. It took me about one month to shoot, edit and post this clip on Youtube - I totally went out of my comfort zone to do this but I think is worth it if at least one person will start shooting film with a Smena 1.
"There's more to the picture
Than meets the eye." - Neil Young
& My APUG
That's a good way.
Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson
I can't agree. Process is a process, much more than a mere tool. You do
Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson
realize that yours is THE argument of digital? I think Knowledgeable
people know and appreciate the difference between riding their bike and
driving their Hummer even if they end up at the same place at the same
time. Knowledgeable people know and appreciate the difference
between home grown and factory farmed meat, eggs or vegetables, even if
they look and taste similar. Process matters.
We are told (by salesmen) that nothing but the surface of things matter.
We are a results only, to hell with how you got there culture. GET RESULTS NOW!
The attitude that the photographic process doesn't matter plays right into
mass-market mentality. But process does matter because each process has
its own strengths and weaknesses, physical, tactile and esoteric
qualities (as you obviously know and appreciate), and each uses its own
resources and materials and has its own consequences. And try as you
might, no matter which process you choose, you have to go through that
That's not to say that one is superior to another in an objective way,
but to say the process doesn't matter does not help film. If the process
doesn't matter, and someone can get the result they want digitally
(if they can't today, they will someday), why would they ever use film?
You have set up the eventual extinction of your own argument for film.
The process is the journey, and the wet process has much to recommend
it. Its a physical process, requiring movement, the moving from wet to
dry side, the opening of boxes of paper, pulling each one out, the
setting up the enlarger, putting the film in the carrier, flipping on
the light, leaning over to focus, developing and squeegeeing the prints.
Its a sensory process, the feel of the paper under your fingers or in the tongs in the
tray, the chemical smells (whether you like them or not), the amber glow of
the safelight, the sound of prints washing. Even the "drudgery" of it,
as Brett Weston called it, is part of the process. Contrast that with
sitting at a monitor clicking a mouse. One is not better for everyone, but they are
different in big ways that definitely matter. Sweeping all of that under
th rug and reducing it to "results" dismisses 99% of what analog photography is.
Anyway it is clear from your posts that process does matter to you, despite this puzzling comment.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Yes I am also sure that process does matter to Thomas, but he can reasonably choose not to emphasize it...
I think the point is that if the output is just about process rather than artistic vision, then it is... just process. When I see an image that is all about process alone, and I don't care whether it is made by redwood gum over ostrich albumen sprinkled with archival diamond dust: that print is a failure as art. There must be a harmony between the image and the process. By "harmony" I mean that there is a compelling reason why the vision and the process came together.
Originally Posted by Wayne
I can think of only a few "process photographs" that really impress me- they are the first images by Niepce and Talbot and so forth.
There must be harmony between process and vision - between the path and the destination - for the fine art to emerge. Photographers can easily become over-obsessed with one or the other to the detriment of the final result.
Anyway let's keep digital out of this. I use it for some things, and happily, and unapologetically. It's complete bunk to throw it all out because some people use it only for convenience or for happy snapping. I mean, I have seen some gawdawful LF work, frankly, that upsets me because I know firsthand how much each sheet costs So what. Everybody gets to do their own thing.
P.S. Let me just clarify, in my comments above, please read "process" as output (i.e. printing) process. But there is alarger process that all photographers undertake. For many of us, that process begins long before printing or even before capture. E.g. anticipating a photograph and pursuing it is part of a larger process. Process isn't just a recipe for a print.... it's a linking of one step to the next, a path forward....
You're missing my point, but you are free to disagree.
I enjoy printing in the darkroom, but detest processing film. I hate it with a passion. But I still do it, and do it well, because I care about the prints. It's the resulting print we can hold in our hands, and covet or share with others. It's the culmination of all your/our efforts.
Please explain what you say 'argument for digital'. I don't know of very many digital photography artists who don't spend hours and days in front of Lightroom or Photoshop, making decisions about, and post processing their work. How is that different from darkroom work, and its processes?
I personally see more similarities than differences.
Originally Posted by Wayne
"Make good art!"
- Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera".
- Yousuf Karsh
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit".
I disagree, a photograph is not a photograph until it is printed on paper with chemical methods. Nothing else looks like it; not a computer scan nor a crap print from a stink-jet printer.
Originally Posted by Wayne
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
So, by your reasoning an image captured other than on film must surely achive legitimacy as a photograph by being printed on chromgenic paper even if it is a 10 cent print out of a minilab but an image shot on, let's say, MF film but printed by any process that does not involve developer and fixer is not a photograph.
Originally Posted by Sirius Glass
The most recent OPs have tried to project reasonable viewpoints but your absurd assertion and juvenile language contribute nothing to the discussion. OzJohn