Toronto Photography Meetup Group

and what of the photographers who used to use polaroids or fuji as tests ?

I still have my 4x5 Fuji packfilm holder..... as I am holding on to it if I get a field camera in the future. I love the fuji packfilm, but expensive as hell to shoot.

fuji looks great, got a decent stash. I understand it's a bit more work to manipulate but still works. buy from Freestyle and save a few bucks

Don't forget the digital crusaders that believe that film is dead and people shoot film because they just don't know any better. I like to know how good these Soothsayers have been at predicting the market. The only thing I know is that when we run out of oil the sh%t will hit the fan. There is a long list of photojournalist that use digital for their commercial day to day work but shoot film for their project work.

I thought this thread was going somewhere but film versus digital debate such a waste of time, we all like to waste time don't we

Ryan, I hate to burst your bubble -- but we need oil to produce film. Everything in our world is affected by oil. As you know, I am very pro film.... but if the world ever runs out of oil, the human race is going to be pooched, as everything as we know it will have to change.

David that was my point no oil and everything else will change it's the only prediction that I feel safe making. And it makes all this environmental impact and film versus digital debate insignificant.

BTW I plan to stock pile B&W film and chemicals so I can record the end of days. Also learn Sunny 16 for after the EMP.

The need for "breaking news photography" has cheapened the profession overall. Sure they're shooting with digital cameras, but they're only trying to produce images big enough for web or print use. They won't be shooting in full-size 14 bit RAW in a war zone, they'll be shooting JPEGs. Now anyone with a camera in the right place at the right time can get their photos distributed, which undermines professional photojournalists.

Now they have to shoot video at the same time as stills.

How can they infiltrate rebel bases, capture images from the inside, etc? PJ budgets have shriveled, and you're left with media who don't care about where they get their images, photographers are no longer household names getting cover spreads in Life magazine. Since the public doesn't want to pay for images, magazines, then the media isn't going to ask for the best possible work either.

I could only see a couple of photos in the two links you posted that were truly memorable. There is a visual overload from so many different sources and cameras shooting the same things that very little actually stands out. If you just look at Natcheway's work, you can see so many familiar images because his images stood out from the rest of his peers at the time.

I don't think PJs can survive in today's world with a film camera, but they're no longer the die-hards of before. You'll never get PJs in the first assault wave, at the front line, they just wouldn't want to do it because they're not crazy enough and they're not getting paid enough to put their lives on the line.

I shoot film and digital- I see advantages and disadvantages to each format- and see shooting with each format as different experiences.

I am sorry that I didn't get into photography seriously until the last few years, and feel that I've missed some/most of the "heyday" of film photography - it's much harder to share the same experiences that so many other photographers have experienced (ie. working in a darkroom, having a wide/the widest range of films available etc.) now that supplies are disappearing/becoming harder to get/ more expensive and film choices are becoming more limited (with certain "classic" films disappearing. . I don't wish to diminish the advantages and conveniences of digital capture - I just wish there was more room for both worlds so some of us johnny-come-latelys could explore both worlds happily... I think more people will need to take up using film (and more people regularly shoot with film) to avoid some film processes disappearing altogether. I think that diminishing options is another reason to get into alternative photographic processes.

One other comment I'd like to contribute to this discussion, I've noticed a troubling shift that has followed a shift away from film - a fundamental shift in how people view photographs. I know many people who do not bother to print any of their photos- many people (including people who shoot with SLR's) who either make photos available on the internet, or keep the photos on their computers- they never print the photos - they leave them in digital form.

I think that too many people miss out on the experience of creating prints, or viewing photographs in print- looking at enlargements of theirs or others' photos- seeing all the detail in a physical form - feeling the paper- holding the moment in their hands- without distractions of e-mails/a whirring fan- without variables such as monitor size and colour casts in a monitor. .

Perhaps the manner of storage and presentation contributes to the feeling that photographs are cheap/lack value (together with the cheap cost of storage which allows one to keep lots of crappy photos)- I've often noticed very different reactions e given to pictures I've made available electronically (ie. posting on a site/Facebook) and reactions when the same photos are viewed by the same people in print (especially larger prints). I'm sure part of the difference is the attention that one often puts into a print (selecting paper etc.). Perhaps people just respect prints or the time and effort necessary to produce a good print- perhaps it is because prints are less common- perhaps it is the different sensory experience as well....

I know for several years, I rarely made prints from what I shot in digital- my thinking was that I could look them up on the computer- why go to the trouble and expense of printing.. But i've since started to systematically print all of the photographs that I like or value. I do this not only to show others (though I admit I prefer to show people photos that I want to show in print rather than in electronic form)- but I also prefer to view and enjoy my photos in print as well.

Prints were more of an imperative with negatives- perhaps we've
lost more with the shift to away from film than we realize....

Conac excellent points about prints. May with Contact is a great time of year to see what you are talking about.

Arta is putting on: Himalayan Black Tent Nomads, A lecture by Jesper Sorensen this Tuesday. His walk in sized large format prints are a real eye opener (I just hope one or 2 are hanging.

You must RSVP http://artagallery.ca/news


Also check out 2 exhibitions also printed by Elevator

HOUSE CALLS with my Camera
opens at The ROM - May 15th.


Elevator friend and client, Dr. Mark Nowaczynski has his social documentary series, House Calls with my Camera as the feature exhibition for CONTACT.

Checkmate.

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/1 ... ml#photo31



Anything mechanical will fail eventually. Film goes bad, negatives can get damaged or destroyed while developing.

For important shoots I always shoot to dual memory cards and immediately back up to hyperdrive. I don't delete anything until the file is safely on my computers raid drive or the clients FTP. If by chance your that fraction of a percent that is dodging bullets while taking pics... NATO forces all rely on electricity for modern warfare so your may be able to use the cigarette lighter in a Hummer (just guessing lol). Or better yet, you can bring a spare battery. I can take about 4k shots per charge so I would be good for a week or so with each battery (just guessing).

Taylor: You weren't kidding, you really hate digital LOLOL.

Not me. I was explaining to my brother's neighbor last night how involved the print making process was. I don't wax on nostalgically about having to mix and store the chemicals and loading film on to the developing reel....shudder. OK I've embraced the new world. I love the immediacy of digital. Just like I don't miss the old days of carbon brick BBQs, having to get up and turn the channel or having to have exact change for a pay phone.
But that's me. Others may miss the old days.

Have you seen David Burnett's photos of the presidential elections? He was shooting large format film with a Speed Graphic and Aero-Ektar lens. The photos look so different from the usual telephoto digital press shots, and I'm sure the prints made from those negatives are even more impressive.

On the contrary, digital media will go bad before a black and white negative will. DVDs only last ~50 years, hard drives even less than that. Who knows what kind of digital file system we'll have in the next 100 years -- they might not even be able to read DVDs anymore. You'll always be able to shine light through a negative onto paper. And not only that, the print you make from a negative will last hundreds of years, whereas a colour print will fade within decades.

Thanks Metrix- I'll try to check those out- I have some time this week and am planning to try to hit a bunch of the exhibits.


Trev.Nikon- I think you may have missed/I didn't express my primary point clearly enough in my earlier post (from the portion that you quoted). The point you quoted wasn't about printmaking in a darkroom, but rather about printing at all. My larger points are that fewer people are enjoying the experiences of (a) producing a high quality print at all (either from digital or from a darkroom), and (b) viewing their own or others' photographs in print form rather than on a computer. With respect to (b) my point is that viewing a print vs. viewing a photo a computer are two different experiences. I do suggest that this is related to the decline of film (where printing from a negative was necessary for viewing)- but as I mentioned, many people who create photographs in digital who are capable of printing elect not to so. It seems to me that a key part of the process of making photographs is missing if you don't make a print- it is a loss for the photographer and the viewer.

Taylor's point also reminds me of something else that we seem to be in danger of losing with the decline of film- the potential loss of large format photography. I remember being blown away by Ansel Adams prints a few years ago when there was an exhibit at the AGO- I hadn't seen anything like it, only having been familiar from A.Adams' work as reproduced in books. I'm not sure that Large format photography will totally disappear, but far fewer people to be shooting with large format cameras these days. I fear that people will stop producing photographs using movements that are only available on a large format camera (a t/s lens is not the same) and worse, miss those absolutely beautiful prints. I've not seen any digital produced prints rival large format prints yet.....

As long as there is demand and financial roi, there will always be film. Last man standing kinda sitch. I wish people would just accept that there's room for both digital and film under the tent and quit being so defensive. Seriously, you'd think this was another forum

A gross oversimplification as a means to dismiss the issue.

Just curious, but does anyone know of any art galleries or museums that have bought prints made from digital cameras?

AGO has for sure...

it's not the capture medium that matters... only the print medium

Not imo. There are pros/ cons for both and the same arguments for or against either will continue to be trotted out. I'm just tired of reading this type of thread on all the fora I frequent. yeah I guess I could choose not to read it but it's like a train wreck, I hafta stop and rubber neck

TPMG has always seemed to be above the evangelism prevalent elsewhere and hope it continues to do so.

just to be clear, I much prefer film to digital - both in the results as well as workflow... i prefer how tangible film is to digital... both have their strengths and weaknesses but at the end of the day it's a matter a preference

the hobbist is blessed with the option to choose while a professional's choices are often dictated (or at least influenced) by the demands of the client...

if you're following this thread - this may be of interest to you:

comments made by a photog that was in the US Army and deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan (?) - used Leica film and digital... interesting perspective on the issue...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/70355737@N ... otostream/

Thanks for sharing that Ken.

My take on this discussion is that I love photography, in any form and in any medium. Why discriminate, judge or favour -- just enjoy. I love both film and digital, neither is better than the other. It's like cars .. I love old muscle cars and I love modern sports cars, for different reasons but in the end I appreciate them both.

Kumbaya!!

I agree, if you like film, great, if you like digital, great. Me? I love both blondes and brunettes.

He's a soldier who posts on RFF as well, I remember him asking about what kind of cameras and stuff to take on his deployment. Somehow I don't think a Leica is the most practical camera to use in a warzone, maybe he prefers to shoot with them because of Leica snobbery, who knows.

I don't see how it is practical to sort through thousands of photos a day. That's like shooting a wedding every day.

You make a good point Ken -- most people who shoot digital aren't particularly interested in the time-consuming aspects of photography, and they want to do things as quickly and cheaply as possible.

And James and labgrunt, I'm not trying to convince people that film is better than digital -- this thread started out with me lamenting the slow disappearance of film. I wish people would appreciate it more, instead of discarding it to the side because it's old technology.

Not exactly true. Digital has given us the ability to stitch images together to get single image resolution that far exceeds available film media.

http://gigapan.org/gigapans/48492/ Dubai @45 Gigapixels
http://www.paris-26-gigapixels.com/ Paris @ 26 Gigapixels
http://www.yosemite-17-gigapixels.com/ Yosemite @ 17 Gigapixels

etc...

Apples and oranges

well, electronics fail even faster. not to mention the obsolesce issue.

I started shooting film a year ago and if I had my own darkroom I would probably shoot digital only 10% of the time. You usually see me walking around with my Spotmatic more than my MKII.

Can't say digital is all bad... I can't imagine how to learn strobe lighting without a dSLR.

As a totally unscientific comparison, I find that I'd only find 10% of my digital shots worth keeping, whereas I find that I can print/scan around 40-50% of a roll of film.

"Not exactly true. Digital has given us the ability to stitch images together to get single image resolution that far exceeds available film media."

Fizbot, you might be right about matching resolution, but I wasn't thinking about resolution- I was talking about what one can do with movements on a large format camera, plus the greater control over depth of field (presumably the greater dynamic range of some films can be simulated with HDR photos).

Nonsense thats not a function of digital imaging thats a function of computer processing, google maps street view is another even larger example of an image data base.. One flight using a film strip camera on an airborne mapping survey produces well over a tera-pixel continuous single image if it was digitally scanned. The technology to scan, stitch, compile, store and print images together was in use well before digital cameras reached 1 mega-pixels.

Personally I couldn't care whether or not people use digital or film or even a stick in the sand to make images.

I only saw Ken at the lecture and photo exhibition last night the rest of you missed your chance to see lecture and prints that I'm sure will turn out to be a legacy for the Himalayan people and of historic importance. This is what photography can be about. Photography is about getting out there not counting pixels on your computer screen.

fizbot - the original Gigapixel project (gigapxl.org) used film, which they then scanned.

Of course you can stitch together even cell phone pictures if you took enough of them, but you wouldn't be capturing information all at one moment in time.

Tony Hauser got two sherpas to carry his massive wooden 11x22" ultra large format camera in Cambodia and other parts of Asia. It would've been easier if he just shot digital, or even medium format, but he wouldn't be able to make contact platinum prints.