Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,842   Posts: 1,582,623   Online: 1063
      
Page 17 of 18 FirstFirst ... 71112131415161718 LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 173
  1. #161

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    northern england
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    716
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne View Post
    Yeah, and for logical consistency it should have been posted on the analog internet too.
    We're talking about Kodak's core business, history and legacy - the medium of film - and how it differs from the competition. That was the message of the photographers. Making a moody digital video suggests film is an anachronism, for the moving image at least.

  2. #162

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    16,878
    Images
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne View Post
    Yeah, and for logical consistency it should have been posted on the analog internet too.
    hi wayne, sorry to be a PITA

    to me at least it is like shooting a movie about how wonderful kodak film is
    how it is great stuff for amateur, experimental and professional photographers alike
    but it was shot on fuji color stock, or a cannon dv cam ...
    sure it is on the internet, and in the end it will have had to be digitized but
    in order to suggest how wonderful FILM is, wouldn't it make sense that it would be made with FILM ??
    the images displayed in the video are digital now anyways, did it matter that they were shot on film too ?

  3. #163

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,379
    Images
    3
    Its not that I really disagree with you, I don't...but since we'd all be viewing it digitally anyway, it seems a pointless, yet very true, criticism.

    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    hi wayne, sorry to be a PITA

    to me at least it is like shooting a movie about how wonderful kodak film is
    how it is great stuff for amateur, experimental and professional photographers alike
    but it was shot on fuji color stock, or a cannon dv cam ...
    sure it is on the internet, and in the end it will have had to be digitized but
    in order to suggest how wonderful FILM is, wouldn't it make sense that it would be made with FILM ??
    the images displayed in the video are digital now anyways, did it matter that they were shot on film too ?
    Nice work. You have a very talented computer.

  4. #164

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    northern england
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    716
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne View Post
    Its not that I really disagree with you, I don't...but since we'd all be viewing it digitally anyway, it seems a pointless, yet very true, criticism.
    Unless you only view your photographs as silver (or platinum or tin or whatever) prints, you're showing those digitally, too. That doesn't stop people shooting film. However if your business is film, shooting digitally seems like holding a white flag up to the onslaught of digital image making, presumably because it's too time consuming and expensive. I don't think donating, processing and telecineing some 16mm wouldn't have caused Kodak to go broke, and it may have been more consistent with the underlying story that film is great, film is different, film still works.

  5. #165
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,159
    They could have used Super 8mm or 16mm short ends without breaking the bank or Kodak could have donated some outdated stock. And imo nothing screams film like Super8mm or Standard 16mm. The advantage of DV is that the guys can talk 30 min + without the need for a reload and since the interviewed photographers are not pros this is a big advantage. Cinelicious has a few examples of Weddings shot in Super 8 they look superb imo.

  6. #166
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,632
    Images
    48
    I prefer to see this in a more fundamental light. Kodak is, through their backing of this piece, at long last finally taking a step back in the direction of film product marketing. If you've followed their sad tale over the recent years you know that this is a sea change in attitude. At least this one solitary data point is.

    Publicly characterizing photographic film as a Good Thing worthy of purchase and use by the consumer instead of digital could not in principle be further from the spectacle of dynamiting film-related buildings and infrastructure just to demonstrate their previous commitment to digital. More simply, it could not be more anti-Perez agenda in the message it sends.

    That this piece may have been presented and/or originally shot on digital equipment could not be less significant. It's the sea change that counts, guys, not that tiny amount of ocean spray that ended up on your shorts after that last wave washed up.

    Ken
    Last edited by Ken Nadvornick; 02-03-2014 at 05:39 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Sucky grammer...
    "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

  7. #167

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    northern england
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    716
    Kodak were incapable of imagining themselves as anything other than monolithic, and paid the price. Ilford were fortunate to have senior management who believed in the product, and were prepared to put their own necks on the line to see it continue. Kodak may be learning the lesson that artists, geeks, curmudgeons and hipsters are the market now, but it's been forced upon them, and you get the feeling they can't quite swallow the sea change graciously and follow the film idea through.

    That said, I agree the documentary shone a light on the new wave of film users, and for that we should be grateful.

  8. #168
    frank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Bit north of Toronto
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    942
    Images
    2
    Amen to that!
    My blog / photo website: http://frankfoto.jimdo.com/

  9. #169

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,379
    Images
    3
    I don't disagree. It would have been much better to use film. But it's good anyway. (I mean in principle-living in the Stone Age on dialup, I have not watched the film...er...documentary)

    Quote Originally Posted by blockend View Post
    Unless you only view your photographs as silver (or platinum or tin or whatever) prints, you're showing those digitally, too. That doesn't stop people shooting film. However if your business is film, shooting digitally seems like holding a white flag up to the onslaught of digital image making, presumably because it's too time consuming and expensive. I don't think donating, processing and telecineing some 16mm wouldn't have caused Kodak to go broke, and it may have been more consistent with the underlying story that film is great, film is different, film still works.
    Nice work. You have a very talented computer.

  10. #170
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,923
    Images
    60
    Kodak never stopped promoting film - in the cine world.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin