I just watched this video, and I love everything about it. It is positive and affirming of what I do and what I'm about.
Some of the things said are technically nonsense and inaccurate, but these photographers are searching for words and ways to convey their emotions, and they sometimes fall short, but they are speaking from the heart.
This sums up my thoughts exactly. Thanks for posting Frank, I couldn't say it any better myself.
That was my first thought when this film came out. I'm betting on a Canon 5D mk II/III. Film has a different look to digital without lots of editing, and in medium format (and larger) is way cheaper for great IQ. Everything else is debatable.
It's advertising. Film advertising. Eastman Kodak film advertising. And very effective advertising at that. They're trying to cast the few remaining EK film products in a positive light. Instead of publicly blowing up film-related buildings and infrastructure for the benefit of Wall Street analysts and the media.
I don't understand the cynicism. I don't understand how this can be in any way bad. Hideously late in the game, perhaps. But not bad.
"They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."
— Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs
In my opinion it's fundamental. If the mood of the piece is visually inspired, it suggests that digital can create that mood, rendering much of what the interviewees say superfluous. I enjoy any discussion that promotes the use of film, but feel Kodak could have gone the extra mile and provided movie film stock to underline the comparison. If they say that's too complicated and expensive, they're looking at a heap load of cognitive dissonance.
Last edited by blockend; 02-02-2014 at 05:49 PM. Click to view previous post history.