Thought you were checking out last week? But then the soap box and sidewalk are free, no?
Originally Posted by PKM-25
History. Kodachrome was no longer viable. Never shot the stuff 'cause I didn't like the look. Working pros stopped shooting it in the early/mid-90s when Velvia knocked it off photo editors' light tables. Amateurs followed suit, especially after processing became inconvenient. Film demand went over the falls a decade ago. In a sense, we're already "screwed," in your terms. One of the oldest(57 years in biz) and once busiest labs in Toronto is closing next week after a long death watch. Not the stuff to mention to a film rookie or potential recruit.
Think you're flattering yourself as a contrarian. One of my favorites was the late Christopher Hitchens, who was also a realist and informed. All I'm reading is self-congratulation and denial from you, along with the odd bitch slap to people, like me, you don't know. I do what I can, how I can, when I can. Try not to offend people accidentally? You're preaching to the converted here.
The problem for film is almost entirely economic.
It is far more expensive to use or promote film.
Each roll costs money as does processing and printing/scanning. there's no instant gratification like with digital.
So if you want to keep film as a viable medium, you actually have to make the higher cost something that is a benefit, not a problem.
It's like slow food, or a day long BBQ, or a 7 course French meal. Patience is a virtue. The suspense is worth the wait. A few extra dollars for a product with character is better than a cheap shot.
Film is not mainstream and never will be again. It's the path less walked. The road less traveled. This is a good thing and a market can be reconstructed out of that.
Being pro-film should not mean being anti-digital. Anti-digital is counter-productive. Digital services and crossover users are now the lifeblood of film.
Ironically, people from digital like to try film in part because they can waste a zillion shots on digital perfecting technique without blowing money on practise rolls (sorry Kodak). That's the new normal gateway into film photography and should be embraced. Think of all the people who guy from APS-C digital sensors to Medium Format film. That's quite a leap, yet it's made possible entirely because of the practice phenomenon.
I use this technique myself when I'm in (what is to me) a tricky lighting situation. Out comes the digital P&S. It doesn't tell me the aperture and shutter speed it uses, but I can dial in exposure compensation in 1/3 stop increments from -2 to +2 stops. When I get a shot I like on the digital P&S, I dial in the same exposure compensation on the 35mm SLR and take the shot, confident that I have indeed gotten the shot. Bracket? Yep. I bracket with the digital. Once the digital image is exposed the way I want it, it gets committed to film with the film camera.
Originally Posted by Aristophanes
Agreed. We need to focus on the unique capabilities of film and not pick futile battles. As the saying goes, you can wrestle a hog in the mud and eventually win, but the hog will enjoy it.
Originally Posted by Aristophanes
As I tried to say in my blog post, there are many things that film can still do far better than the other thing. There is increasing value in the craft of traditional photography. Those truly engaged in personal, creative art know that very well. I am not among those laboring to construct works of homage to 100 year old photographs, nor do I seek someone's else tripod holes. I am a living, breathing, young photographer using film to do new kinds of photography. And I think there are very unique and valuable things that film (and alt printing and wetplate etc) can do now.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I would agree, but it appears there are some folks on this site who really don't want this project to succeed.
Originally Posted by segedi
Tom, on Point Pelee, Canada
Ansel Adams had the Zone System... I'm working on the points
system. First I points it here, and then I points it there...
One of the challenges for any medium to be appetizing to a potential creative user, even if more niche & expensive, is that bold and fresh looks are key in keeping all interested parties engaged, not just those on APUG. The other thing is that if a medium seems unstable to a potential long term user in terms of availability, he views other options if that is a particularly important aspect of his choice. So knowing just how niche this might all become is probably in the pit of many a stomach on this site as we think about what our do or die products are. So keeping film around is about moving forward with it, keeping it edgy, good and visible.
For a host of reasons, makers of film just don't put forth even a fraction of the marketing budget for film that others do for digital so it really is up to us, the film user to commit fully to the medium and then promote it a like a pink pimp in Harlem.
How does the viewer of photography online and elsewhere find the best photography currently being made on film? This site could have a home page engine that loops that very answer beautifully right before our eyes but there is just nothing. Move the twitter feed and shrink the left a bit and loop a gallery for god's sake, it's overdue...
"I'm the freak that shoots film. God bless the freaks!" ~ Mainecoonmaniac ~
OK, so everybody here go put $10 in the kitty. Or more if you can afford it. I know some folks here can kick in at least $50.
Originally Posted by segedi
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!