Film dead? - article in The Age
Nice life confirming article
If film is dead, then I'm officially a necrophile.
However the New York Times has an article in their Tech area that says point & shoot digital is dying, superseded by telephones. SLR digital cameras are, so far, survivors as they will be.
I'd be pleased to buy a really cheap digital p & s, how useful it would be for those "recces" when planning to perhaps load up a 4x5 or 5x7.
More to the point, the article shows that many, many folk just want a device to grab pics of the kids and mates and circulate them easily and quickly, let's leave 'em to it and keep buying film stock for heaven's sake.
Regards - Ross
Gosper wields a lot of cogent intellectual clout with the Masters tucked under those jet-black tresses cascading over her shoulder. That's just one eye-catching allure to what is a beautiful gallery of outstanding work with its foundation in celluloid.
Phil Virgo is an excellent accomplice given his commercial printing and photography skillsets — both very valuable. They're the avant garde art world's equivalent of Sasse & Bide.
Here's the punchline:
''The things that are important to us are that, yes, the work is of a high technical standard, but it has to be of an equally high conceptual standard,'' Gosper says.
''We really wanted to fill that space in the market for photographers who sit somewhere between what we might call a 'photographer's photographer' and a fine art photographer.''
A nice bit of interesting, unbiased writing from The Spencer Street Soviet.
Last edited by Poisson Du Jour; 12-07-2010 at 02:32 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I'm one of those young film shooters they mention in the article, I started on a digital and picked up a 35mm. then another, and another, now I have 7 and 4 are SLR's.
I can look through my portfolio, it's organized by dates, and I notice that after a certain date that I shot a picture of my Nikon FG, a week later when I loaded film into it and started shooting, I immediately noticed all my digital photos coming out better. More keepers, less snap-shooting, better processing, better composition. 35mm has really taught me how to make a great picture out of the most mundane objects.
I was originally going to stay all digital, and only use the Nikon for practice until I got better, but I kept with the format instead and love it. I have three digis, my Rebel XTi, a Canon Powershot A640 backup, and a teeny little FujiFilm Z33 I use on my bicycle, it's waterproof. For basic imagery, photos of the parents, things for Facebook, I rock the digital.
But when I really want to make a great image that will last for generations to come and I'll have something to show my brother's children "Look what your uncle does", film all the way. My Dad still thinks film is already dead, but I'm like he flipped when I showed him my freezer one day.
5x7 Eastman-Kodak kit / B&L 135mm Zeiss Tessar + Compur Deckel
4x5 Graphic View / Schneider 180 5.6 Symmar in a Synchro Compur
RB67 Pro S /50 4.5 / 90 3.8 / 180 4.5 / WLF / prism finder / polaback
Random 35mm stuff
Originally Posted by Ross Chambers
I can confirm that's one of the undeniably useful aspects of a P&S digi. I set mine to the same 35mm aspect ratio and can meddle with the Polarised or Neutral affect before committing the image to film.
Yep, there's a profound lack of right-wing bias in the media these days...
Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour
Good article, thanks..
And we all know that it is the big cinamatographers that are keeping Kodak in business buying film stock.