Toronto Photography Meetup Group

TPMG.CA
It is currently Thu Oct 23, 2025 5:14 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Rant about film
PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 2:22 am 
Offline
I'm on TPMG way too much
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:02 pm
Posts: 1383
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
There have been so many great films that have disappeared over the years.

There's something magical about looking at slides, holding a polaroid, and getting something to hold that you've spent so much time, effort and money to produce.

I miss the great Agfa films, many I've never even got to try like Scala. I'm lucky enough to have a small stockpile of Agfa Ultra in 35mm, but I've seen the last few rolls of 120 go for ridiculous prices.

I hate that I missed out on Polaroids. They were so ubiquitous, and now they're so expensive that you really must have a special project to shoot them.

It's so hard to find a good developing place these days, there's always something that will go wrong. ELPRO is my recent developing place, but the film I've received from them have small creases in a few frames, probably where they hung the film or something. It used to be so cheap to develop film, and now everyone's raising their prices.

I hate how they make prints of film from low-quality scans of the negs, no longer optical prints. I remember just 5 years ago Shoppers were still making optical prints, and they look like crap, all pixelated and awful colour correction.

I feel like digital has made things cheap and worthless - pictures, songs, movies, books are FREE now and there's no longer that value or ritual. Most doctors don't read textbooks anymore, but rather subscribe to online evidence sources like UpToDate, but these are "point of care" resources, or something you go to to look something up, instead of reading about it beforehand. People will just Wiki the thing they want instead of reading up on the context.

Clearly I can't express my frustrations in 160 characters or less. I'm going to bed...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Rant about film
PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 8:07 am 
Offline
I'm on TPMG way too much

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:01 am
Posts: 1237
Location: Willowdale
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Taylor wrote:
There's something magical about looking at slides, holding a polaroid, and getting something to hold that you've spent so much time, effort and money to produce.


You did not mention that it is an environmental unfriendly means.

Quote:
I feel like digital has made things cheap and worthless - pictures, songs, movies, books are FREE now and there's no longer that value or ritual. Most doctors don't read textbooks anymore, but rather subscribe to online evidence sources like UpToDate,


Avoid freebie images, songs, movies books. There is no free lunch

UpToDate is not free though



Daniel


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Rant about film
PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 8:32 am 
Offline
TPMG Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:52 am
Posts: 4022
Location: Newmarket
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 2 times
Flickr: http://goo.gl/RJbMu
danieltpmg wrote:
Taylor wrote:
There's something magical about looking at slides, holding a polaroid, and getting something to hold that you've spent so much time, effort and money to produce.


You did not mention that it is an environmental unfriendly means.



Bring back K-12 Kodachrome!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Rant about film
PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 9:05 am 
Offline
TPMG SUPERSTAR
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:49 am
Posts: 2012
Location: Leaside
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Taylor wrote:
I hate that I missed out on Polaroids. They were so ubiquitous, and now they're so expensive that you really must have a special project to shoot them.


Polaroids were always expensive. Just they were expensive in 1980 dollars. As kids we only used them to take pictures that we wouldn't a film lab (or our parents) seeing. :wink:

It's amazing today how many of those pictures end up online, and it's usually self-portraits taken with camera phones (I wonder if that's what the guy means in that iPhone commercial when he tells her she's very photogenic).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 9:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:11 pm
Posts: 24
Location: North End of Trawna
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
I don't fully buy the argument about film being an environmental mess. As an environmental engineer once said to me, do you realize how many nasty chemicals go into making your computer and its accessories?

I never really made the leap to digital. In my cranky old way, I see the current digital camera industry as being driven by electronic gimmicks. Competition amongst manufacturers for biggest file, highest ASA, and now they are adding HD video to cameras. I see people point a digital camera at a static object, zip away 6 images in a second and think,


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Rant about film
PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 9:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 9:44 am
Posts: 547
Location: Here
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
These are not my words but I would say that "Spyro" over on RangeFinderForum hits the nail on the proverbial head. It's made in reference to a comment by an individual browsing the Henri Cartier-Bresson exhibit at the MoMa in NYC; the individual said "Why are so many of his photos out of focus?" (the response by one of the forum members was: "Why does it matter?"):
Quote:
You gotta love digital cameras...

Because of them, all of a sudden you have all these people who never took an interest in art, who never went to a museum or a gallery or bought an art book, confronted with a whole new world that they don't understand... but they are determined to be a part of it, because now they have a DSLR and that makes them an artist, right? So they go ahead and read on the internet about this new photography thing (still no intention of going to a museum or a gallery- too hard, internet is easier) and they come across the magic marketing term:

IMAGE QUALITY! Ahhhhh yes! Now it all makes sense! You spend the $$$, you get a gooood camera, you get lotsa image quality, and good image quality = good photos! right? And then they discover bokeh, woohoo! Add a healthy dose of bokeh for good measure and you have a winner, right? Gallery stuff!

Nope

Sorry. Its kinda hard to explain that technical issues may or may not matter, depending on the artist's intention. There are however other things that definitely matter, things like (caution: artspeak follows) context, emotion, content, mood, concept, aesthetic, cohesiveness and of course more pedestrian stuff that are particular to photography and painting, things like light, composition, timing, tonality and colour if applicable. When HCB's photos score so high on everything that matters, who cares about sharpness? And, to make things even more complicated for the guy who has now discovered this peculiar new art world, it is a world which is not always logical, or fair, or entirely free of trends and fashions. And if that is not enough, photography is the most complicated of all media to explain why it can be art, because of that misguided notion of "easy to make" that has been haunting from the start.

So when people ask me how come some guy's prints sell for $3,000 at XYZ gallery (no sharpness? no bokeh? WTF ), I just tell them that he probably had a really good lens


Dave


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 9:35 am 
Offline
TPMG Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:52 am
Posts: 4022
Location: Newmarket
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 2 times
Flickr: http://goo.gl/RJbMu
I guess my joke was a little obscure. K12 kodachrome processing (replaced by k14 in 1974) really was an environmental mess.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Rant about film
PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 10:24 am 
Offline
Official TPMG Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:18 pm
Posts: 4691
Has thanked: 3 times
Have thanks: 19 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/metrix_feet/
danieltpmg wrote:
You did not mention that it is an environmental unfriendly means.
Daniel


How many film shots to a gallon of gasoline or the packaging in the average basket at the checkout in your local grocery store? Modern film facilities are pretty conscious of environmental codes while only 20% of electronics are recycled. Add to that the short product lifetime vast quantities and the heavy metals and chemicals used in manufacturing and digital is not at all green.

Anyway I don't think that was the point of Taylor's rant.

Wikiapedia the reformatting of the reformat of the reformatting of original ideas, all I can say is "Lost in Re-translation"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Rant about film
PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 10:26 am 
Offline
TPMG Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:26 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Burlington
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 11 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/christopherbrian/
Taylor wrote:
I feel like digital has made things cheap and worthless - pictures, songs, movies, books are FREE now and there's no longer that value or ritual.


Whether it is digital itself that has made things this way in terms of songs, movies and books or it is the way they are now marketed/other I don't know. There are certainly some very good things to come from free music/books/movies. But I agree in that there is something missing from the ritual of digital photography. It doesn't have the romance that it did with film. Perhaps it's just nostalgia for the aged? ;) I dunno... My biggest bugbear is the post processing part. I don't like it but it's necessary for me to get the shots I want. It's all about getting the shot I guess, even though the ritual has changed... Spray and pray and fix in post can get one a lot of shots that the older ritual wouldn't provide. I mean this for the hobbyist that didn't have the film budget in which to spray and pray of course.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 10:30 am 
Offline
TPMG Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 3:50 pm
Posts: 8965
Location: Ajax
Has thanked: 3 times
Have thanks: 25 times
Flickr: www.flickr.com/lxdesign
My wife, who is an avid film shooter, was happy this past week.. as she went into a blacks store (our local one in Ajax), to pickup some more film, and get some prints. A 5 pack of print film (I think ASA 200) was $30 vs the normal $50 price tag. (processing included). Apparemtly one of the girls behind the counter said "the film industry is not going to be around for much longer..." bah!

I've shot more film in the past 3 months that ever ... and I can't wait to start taking some of the rolls in for processing, and see the results.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 10:33 am 
Offline
I'm on TPMG way too much
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:02 pm
Posts: 1383
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
A slight correction on my first post, Shoppers and even Loblaws had great prints from film before, when they still did optical printing. Now it's just a print from a low quality scan that they throw onto a contact sheet.

You know, people are happy to pay hundreds to thousands of dollars up-front for a digital camera, and then proceed to buy expensive accessories, hard drives, colour calibration tools, software, computers etc etc just to shoot digital. That money could go towards a lot of film.

I'm really glad that people like Lady Gaga and hipsters are rejuvenating film. Hopefully it'll turn people into a life-long love of it.

When I first started to shoot digital, it was because I wanted to edit my photos easily too. I should've been trying to learn how to get the photo I wanted WHEN I took the shot, not after. I probably would've been a much better photographer now.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 10:56 am 
Offline
TPMG Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:52 am
Posts: 4022
Location: Newmarket
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 2 times
Flickr: http://goo.gl/RJbMu
A variation of something I've said before:

Digital allows one to learn how to use a camera, film allows one to learn how to take a photograph.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 11:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 7:10 pm
Posts: 369
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Flickr: http://www.ktoth.ca
hotwire wrote:
A variation of something I've said before:

Digital allows one to learn how to use a camera, film allows one to learn how to take a photograph.


Are you serious?

Either you have an eye for photography, an aesthetic, or not. No amount of fawning over optics, and arguing about digital or film will change that. A camera is merely a tool, and I can't say how tired I am of going to talks and presentations and always having someone ask what camera the photographer used, or a debate whether digital has changed the photographic landscape. Digital merely changed the work flow and it has advanced to the point where it mimics film quite well. Not only that, but the quality of processing has gone down in PRO labs, so why would the average consumer keep shooting film, or even the working pro? Digital doesn't look exactly like it, but who cares? I use both and find film works better for somethings then others.

Hardly ever does someone get right to the point about a photograph because everyone is too busy arguing about the tools. I think if many of these photographers we are talking about were around, they would be using digital as well. Film was always changing, color film was quite scandalous when it came out, so its not like we have been in a static landscape since the 1840's.

*ducks*


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 12:06 pm 
Offline
TPMG Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 3:50 pm
Posts: 8965
Location: Ajax
Has thanked: 3 times
Have thanks: 25 times
Flickr: www.flickr.com/lxdesign
I have to agree with you on that one -- the ability to produce a photograph goes beyond which camera and format the photographer used. Its about composition, light, emotion, feeling, subject, etc.....

This is actually something that Darwin Wigget speaks to very well.... the best camera is the one you have with you! The rest is up to you.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 3:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 9:19 am
Posts: 627
Location: Brampton
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/m2c_photography/
Processes change over time. That is the way things are. A great photo today will be OK by next year. Doubt me? Pick up a magazine from the 80's and try and convince me those photos are better than todays magazines images. Its night and day, photography has evolved.

I do see some similarities between film and digital. Good photos sell and mediocre don't. Being able to touch a slide or negative doesn't increase its value as a photograph. It more rare yes but thats it really.

Film tech was just as gimmicky as digital too albeit the evolution was slower. Film photographers would drop cash to get better glass, motor drives, more powerful flash units, more accurate light meters... now those are looked at as tech gimmicks in DSLR's. Same but different. Will a higher ISO or more resolution make you a better photographer? Let me ask, would grainless 12800 ASA film or switching to medium format film open up possibilities for a film shooter... hell yes! If you shoot for a living you will upgrade, not to be cool but to stay employable.

What is worse for the environment? I have no idea. But my B camera has over 100k actuations on it. That would be a swimming pool of developing chemicals and about 3000 rolls of 36exp film... and I have several bodies gasp! I will lean towards digital on this one but I don't have the environmental info to substantiate my theory.

Developing film and processing digital images is still a huge part of the image creation process. Those who are masters of digital manipulation are just as artistic (perhaps more so) than those who sat for hours next to a red light with tongs in one hand and a wired remote in the other. The reason I hinted at the possibility of the modern creative process being potentially more creative is there are no limits today. If you have a computer with PS installed there really isn't much you can't do... thats "if" you are creative and technically competent. The sky is the limit for film shooters, there are no limits for digital shooters.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 3:53 pm 
Offline
Official TPMG Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:18 pm
Posts: 4691
Has thanked: 3 times
Have thanks: 19 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/metrix_feet/
kht wrote:
hotwire wrote:
A variation of something I've said before:

Digital allows one to learn how to use a camera, film allows one to learn how to take a photograph.


Are you serious?

Either you have an eye for photography, an aesthetic, or not. No amount of fawning over optics, and arguing about digital or film will change that. A camera is merely a tool, ...
Hardly ever does someone get right to the point about a photograph because everyone is too busy arguing about the tools. ...
*ducks*


While I don't completely buy into Hotwire's truism I also don't buy into that we as humans are born with aesthetics and a eye to photography. With the exception of child prodigies most of us evolve by learning and practising. It's within this environment of a tool user that we develop our skills and eye for photography. The modern age we live in along with the new-paradigm of the digital camera has drastically changed the way we treat photography it's because of this that learning with digital has it's strengths for helping novices quickly learn the technical skills. At the same time it does not address any of the art of photography. If you haven't already developed the artistic eye before you started photography and you are focused on equipment then it's highly unlikely that you will progress unless you purposely break out of your equipment rut.

I learned on digital but it wasn't until I went to film and had to give up my crutch of instant feedback that I began to see the results in my mind before I took the photograph even before I lifted up the camera. (Still working on this) So sure after a certain point digital, film, SLR, P&S are just different tools. But your choice of tools and how you use them along the road makes a vast difference to where you end up.

As Magic says there are no limits and as my digital post work flow is the same for film there's also no limit with film.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 4:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 8:35 pm
Posts: 568
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fizbot/
I remember back in the old days...
... when we had to walk uphill both ways to school and home
... when we could only take 36 film shots without replacing the film
... when we could only take 36 digital shots without replacing the batteries


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 4:39 pm 
Offline
Official TPMG Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:18 pm
Posts: 4691
Has thanked: 3 times
Have thanks: 19 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/metrix_feet/
fizbot wrote:
I remember back in the old days...
... when we had to walk uphill both ways to school and home
... when we could only take 36 film shots without replacing the film
... when we could only take 36 digital shots without replacing the batteries


And then there was APS film and Kodak mini disk for digital


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 5:16 pm 
Offline
I'm on TPMG way too much
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:07 pm
Posts: 1378
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/vkhamphi/
fizbot wrote:
I remember back in the old days...
... when we had to walk uphill both ways to school and home
... when we could only take 36 film shots without replacing the film
... when we could only take 36 digital shots without replacing the batteries


Don't forget we had to walk in the snow too.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 7:41 pm 
Offline
TPMG Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:52 am
Posts: 4022
Location: Newmarket
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 2 times
Flickr: http://goo.gl/RJbMu
I think everyone is misinterpreting what I've been saying. Allow me to elaborate.

Digital provides instant gratification that a beginner can easily use to quickly and on the spot correct for the right photo, assuming they are not subscribing to the "i'll fix it in post" school for the sake of this argument. It's different from shooting a roll of film, and not knowing/remembering how one did something, since it was developed hours or days later.

I have seen many many cases of people on tpmg who only shot digital embracing film, I feel because they have enough experience on the digital side that they feel confident in the results they'll get with film.

Now while I started with film, I believe the trial and error experiences of digital have made me a better photographer, regardless of the medium, so I count myself in this group.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 8:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:31 pm
Posts: 289
Location: yyz
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
just so I'm clear. you're NOT saying digital=training wheels are you ?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 8:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 7:48 am
Posts: 29
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
My 2-cents on film. I grew up shooting with film and held out for a long time before going digital. Had a lot of money invested in the equipment! There is certainly nothing that can compare with a projected image of a 2 1/4" Velvia slide. But digital came along and everyone jumped on the bandwagon.Soon it got difficult finding anyone to process E-6 in Toronto. The stores that are still doing any E-6 processing are not making a lot of money doing it, or if they were, were making cuts in the quality control of the process. That's why you do not get consistency when you process E-6 films. One day good, the next day mediocre. Film is slowly dying. Your choices of film types slowly whittled down, and soon you might only find it in specialty stores. Polaroid's days were numbered when digital came into the marketplace. People did a lot of creative things with polaroids. You now have the artsy types hoarding all the Polaroid film stock they come across. There is even talk of the English company that owns Polaroid now coming out with a new batch of film.
Digital now rules. For the beginner it is so much easier with instant gratification. If if does not turn out good the first time keep adjusting and keep shooting. You eventually get it right, and you learn a lot quicker.
I keep thinking to myself that I would love to run a roll of slide though my medium format camera, but the effort of actually going through the process puts me off. I miss those slides!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 09, 2010 12:11 am 
Offline
I'm on TPMG way too much
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:02 pm
Posts: 1383
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Here are some brilliant photos from the Vietnam war. I think the most well-heeled PJs had Nikon Fs.

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/0 ... later.html



How many photos you take with digital are worth keeping?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 09, 2010 1:09 am 
Offline
TPMG SUPERSTAR
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:46 am
Posts: 2119
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 1 time
I think if PJ's back during the Vietnam war had access to the digital systems we have now, they would have used it. I don't think you can compare the Vietnam war with today's wars. They're literally generations apart.

Yes there is something about film that digital lacks and it's probably called nostalgia. Some people call it a soul.

Here's MSNBC's decade of photos. I'm pretty sure most if not all were shot with digital. Some just as powerful and moving as tragedies of the past.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34261690/displaymode/1247/

Here's Boston Globe's top images of the decade.

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/1 ... raphs.html

Yes I grew up shooting film from 110 to 35mm and everything in between.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 09, 2010 1:28 am 
Offline
I'm on TPMG way too much
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:02 pm
Posts: 1383
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
How can you shoot digital with the same kind of reliability as a mechanical film camera? You'll need to charge batteries, download images to a storage device or laptop, and your whole kit of gear would be much heavier.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 09, 2010 2:13 am 
Offline
TPMG Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:52 am
Posts: 4022
Location: Newmarket
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 2 times
Flickr: http://goo.gl/RJbMu
labgrunt wrote:
just so I'm clear. you're NOT saying digital=training wheels are you ?


No, I'm basically saying the LCD Screen, the playback menu, and the delete button are, to use your words, the training wheels.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 09, 2010 2:44 am 
Offline
TPMG SUPERSTAR
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:46 am
Posts: 2119
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 1 time
Taylor wrote:
How can you shoot digital with the same kind of reliability as a mechanical film camera? You'll need to charge batteries, download images to a storage device or laptop, and your whole kit of gear would be much heavier.


Now we're talking about equipment vs media types.

To get around equipment failures then you'll have backup bodies like all PJ's do today. Charging can be done almost anywhere now via car chargers, solar units and even in press/medical/embassy centers or where ever they may be housed. Uploading can be done from a mobile/sat connection in the field. Yes more gear to carry but if they want to be the ones to do breaking stories they need to stay abreast of the competition. If you're a PJ in today's world shooting film, I think you'd be out of a job.

As for mechanical failure etc, I will agree with you totally. I read a National Geographic article (quite some time ago) about one of the photographers who spent a period of time in the Amazon. I believe he had 4 camera bodies. Three of which were Nikon F4s and the fourth was an old Nikon F2. By the end of his assignment, 2 of his F4s electronics had succumbed to moisture and humidity. The F2 was his trusty backup because no batteries were required to run it. I've read other stories of PJs having a fully mechanical film camera as 3rd backup body (this before the digital age).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Rant about film
PostPosted: Sun May 09, 2010 5:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 5:07 pm
Posts: 447
Location: Downtown Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonathanp77/
dcsang wrote:
These are not my words but I would say that "Spyro" over on RangeFinderForum hits the nail on the proverbial head. It's made in reference to a comment by an individual browsing the Henri Cartier-Bresson exhibit at the MoMa in NYC; the individual said "Why are so many of his photos out of focus?" (the response by one of the forum members was: "Why does it matter?"):
Quote:
You gotta love digital cameras...

Because of them, all of a sudden you have all these people who never took an interest in art, who never went to a museum or a gallery or bought an art book, confronted with a whole new world that they don't understand... but they are determined to be a part of it, because now they have a DSLR and that makes them an artist, right? So they go ahead and read on the internet about this new photography thing (still no intention of going to a museum or a gallery- too hard, internet is easier) and they come across the magic marketing term:

IMAGE QUALITY! Ahhhhh yes! Now it all makes sense! You spend the $$$, you get a gooood camera, you get lotsa image quality, and good image quality = good photos! right? And then they discover bokeh, woohoo! Add a healthy dose of bokeh for good measure and you have a winner, right? Gallery stuff!

Nope

Sorry. Its kinda hard to explain that technical issues may or may not matter, depending on the artist's intention. There are however other things that definitely matter, things like (caution: artspeak follows) context, emotion, content, mood, concept, aesthetic, cohesiveness and of course more pedestrian stuff that are particular to photography and painting, things like light, composition, timing, tonality and colour if applicable. When HCB's photos score so high on everything that matters, who cares about sharpness? And, to make things even more complicated for the guy who has now discovered this peculiar new art world, it is a world which is not always logical, or fair, or entirely free of trends and fashions. And if that is not enough, photography is the most complicated of all media to explain why it can be art, because of that misguided notion of "easy to make" that has been haunting from the start.

So when people ask me how come some guy's prints sell for $3,000 at XYZ gallery (no sharpness? no bokeh? WTF ), I just tell them that he probably had a really good lens


Dave


I'm having a difficult enough challenge with the "context, emotion, content, mood, concept, aesthetic, cohesiveness" aspect of it. If/when I ever sort that out, then maybe I'll figure out how I want the final image to be and hence have an opinion or two on my preference between film or digital.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 09, 2010 8:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:31 pm
Posts: 289
Location: yyz
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Professional photographers, how 'bout photojournalists in this case, will use whatever they need to do the job. In most cases, let's say 90% for example, digital will be the go to, this is pretty well cast in stone. The ones who do choose to use film will do so for aesthetic reasons if you will and this will be on an assignment by assignment basis. There are photographers who only shoot film of course but they're most likely in the minority.

I agree to some point that for many who choose to use film and defend it with evangelical fervor, that it's mostly nostalgia. There's nothing wrong with this, I straddle both camps comfortably and appreciate what either can do better, whether technically or aesthetically. I just don't subscribe to the idea that people start on digital and then either outgrow it or mature to film.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 09, 2010 9:05 am 
Offline
TPMG ADDICT

Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 12:52 pm
Posts: 1669
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
hotwire wrote:
labgrunt wrote:
just so I'm clear. you're NOT saying digital=training wheels are you ?


No, I'm basically saying the LCD Screen, the playback menu, and the delete button are, to use your words, the training wheels.


it depends on how the user learns... those are training wheels for some, crutches that create dependency for others...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group