Interesting interview: Film in professional photography
a very interesting interview with Robert Caldarone, professional photographer in New York, why he is using film for 90 % of his professional work:
As someone who started with a Kodak Retina IIIC in about 1976, moving to Nikon a year later, then purchasing a Bronica ETRS in the early 1980s (losing the Bronica during a divorce a few years later), then P&S digital in the early 2000's, and Nikon D40 and D300 in the mid 2000's, this interview vindicates my recent purchasing of a Bronica ETRS system, Beseler 23CII enlarger, Kodak Vigilant 6x9 w/4.5 Anistmat, Franka Solida IIIe, and Franka Rolfix 6x9. I will have to let my wife read it.
After having not made prints in a darkroom for about 25 years I was blown away by my first B&W prints from 120mm Fuji Acros 100, nothing I have shot digital compares. Instead of pouring over hundreds of images, I only have a few negatives to scan and print (for those times I need them to be digital, but I prefer making prints in my "wet darkroom"), and my percentage of keepers has greatly increased since shooting film.
I have recently noticed TV commercials showing people using film, one of a lady taking pictures of her daughter with a Hasselblad, and a Mayonaise commercial showing someone using a Polaroid Pronto at a party. Imagine being at a party with teenagers, taking their photo and giving them a print on-the-spot instead of just letting them look at it on your digital viewfinders...they would be amazed!
Last edited by cknapp1961; 06-11-2009 at 10:54 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Reads a bit too much as an infomercial from the Film traders co-operative. From the looks of things, the interview is probably 4 years old now (1D Mk II was released in mid 2004). I wonder if he still thinks in the same manor.
That being said, a lot resonates as true to me as well. I still like my digi, but I am starting to lust over film more and more, for the reasons stated.
Originally Posted by cknapp1961
I have done that a number of times with my Polaroid 195 and Fuji FP-3000b They are indeed amazed.
Once I took a photo of my niece, I pulled the image and let it develop and pulled it apart to show her....she ask with a crooked upper lip "why is it all grey?" First time in my life felt old and I am only a mere 32.
I liked the interview to a point. I'll admit I'm a big fan of film but I think its important to not come across as someone who is biased making statement's like "35mm film poster sized prints without showing grain- with better quality than a 39MP Hassie back".
Those kinds of statements will make digital users dismiss the other things we say about our film experiences- they'll think we're a bunch of zealots and ignore the valid parts.
I use both film and digital, but much prefer film working with a tactile medium with real feedback that is low tech and a joy to work with. I wish I could print more, but time is against me at this moment in my life.
I shoot some stuff in digital for web work or instant results with my D2x but in all honesty it doesn't come close to the feeling of well being I get with my Rolleiflex, F2 or Leica M4-P using them feels right - just personal nothing really that concrete.
Equipment is very important, I know plenty of people who say its the photographer not the camera, I feel its both. I take very different images with my Rollei than I do with my D2x the user experience is worlds apart.
If I were a younger man who had been brought up on digital I might wonder what all the fuss is about, my advice to those people is to buy a great SLR something like the Olympus OM1 and 50mm I saw for £59 recently advertised. Couple that with a roll of Ektar they can have a wonderful shooting experience you just can't get with the massive FF digicam beasts- manual mechanical precision instruments will never exist in the DSLR world.
i often read the Photo.net articles, but sometimes they come across as a bit- well naive as if the people writing them have little experience, or just getting into film. Maybe its me but the whole thing seems a little 'thin' on experience I'm sure people here could write more thoughtful arguments/articles.
I think the upshot of my ramble is I enjoy using film, just don't feel any other capture medium has the connection.
Last edited by Mark Antony; 06-11-2009 at 10:38 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: for clarity
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I agree with many of your points. If one thinks about the processes of photography rather than just the initial exposure or finished print some of these issues related to camera choice as an example can be seen within a broader context.
A previous poster mentions "scan and print", which really is only half the story of film. While film does indeed have a beautiful look and feel, it doesn't even start to live up to its full potential until the negative is printed in the darkroom.
I know...I'm preaching to the choir here.
A previous poster mentions "scan and print"
They did? I must have missed that. I agree though the full beauty of film is when printed in a darkroom- just for some that isn't practical and other methods get you some of the way there so should not be ignored.
I print conventionally, scan, and show some images on the web all are important but sometimes people say 'don't print digitally, you might as well just use a DSLR"- I disagree- the DNA of film is visible in even a 800 pixel web image.
And though a real print is great, a print from a scanned negative can be too. Especially if you print it in Duotone, or do other 'enhancing thingies' to it.
But you still need film, a scanned negative.