# Why people shoot film



## gsgary (Nov 17, 2013)




----------



## timor (Nov 17, 2013)

Thanks for posting this.


----------



## cgw (Nov 17, 2013)

The early clips I saw of this put me off and now this totally puts me off. Why does it have to look so much like an Apple ad?

For me, this short CNN video makes a far more convincing and eloquent case for film:

What film photography still has to offer - CNN.com


----------



## gsgary (Nov 17, 2013)

cgw said:


> The early clips I saw of this put me off and now this totally puts me off. Why does it have to look so much like an Apple ad?
> 
> For me, this short CNN video makes a far more convincing and eloquent case for film:
> 
> What film photography still has to offer - CNN.com



I wouldnt know what an Apple add looks like, never been interested in Apple products

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Light Guru (Nov 17, 2013)

cgw said:


> The early clips I saw of this put me off and now this totally puts me off. Why does it have to look so much like an Apple ad?
> 
> For me, this short CNN video makes a far more convincing and eloquent case for film:
> 
> What film photography still has to offer - CNN.com



I do t think it looks like an Apple add. I could not start to continue watching that cnn video as the computer voice narrator is incredibly annoying.


----------



## Light Guru (Nov 17, 2013)

gsgary said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> > The early clips I saw of this put me off and now this totally puts me off. Why does it have to look so much like an Apple ad?
> ...



Umm advertisements are not there because your already interested in something there are there to get people interested.


----------



## cgw (Nov 17, 2013)

gsgary said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> > The early clips I saw of this put me off and now this totally puts me off. Why does it have to look so much like an Apple ad?
> ...



But the audience for the hipster-infested "film" is. Just Google "Apple 5C ad." Old film cameras don't function all that well as lifestyle props, neither does aspirational advertising necessarily work to sell film. I mentioned the CNN short simply because it got far closer to answering why people shoot film.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 17, 2013)

I miss my Kodachrome skies.

Joe


----------



## Derrel (Nov 17, 2013)

Here's a scan I made from a BADLY underexposed Kodachrome of my sister's fourth birthday celebration, back in 1954.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 17, 2013)

The "indefinable look of film" argument drives me insane.

Skipping around the video does suggest that a lot of the people out there get it, though. It's not about the medium itself, it's about you.

Racing sailors will sand the bottoms of their boats with insanely fine sandpaper. 1500, 2000. The bottom of the boat is a mirror. Does this make the boat go faster? Here's a secret: No it does not. It does, however, make the sailor faster. You're connected to the boat, you've removed a variable as a concern, you're more invested in the upcoming race. It's a process that focuses you, and makes you faster.

In the same way, film changes the way the photographer works, which changes the results. It's not about any damned "look". If you find that you can't capture the "look" of film with digital, then you're simply not trying hard enough, and you're almost certainly seeing things that are not there anyways, like an audiophile hearing "a more 3 dimensional soundstage" from their stupid vinyl.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 17, 2013)

amolitor said:


> (snip) In the same way, film changes the way the photographer works, which changes the results. (snip)



But it shouldn't and it doesn't have to.

I control my tools my tools don't control me.

The single most salient fact evident in that documentary was that a bunch of hipster film photographers don't have the self-control to use a tool without being unduly distracted by it. One after another they sang the same tune; film makes me slow down -- film makes me concentrate and focus -- I've only got 12 shots on a roll so I have to make them count -- a waist level finder helps me to see --other people are too plugged into their iphones and facebook and if I had an iphone I couldn't control myself either -- I need a film camera to keep me under control.

Joe


----------



## timor (Nov 17, 2013)

amolitor said:


> In the same way, film changes the way the photographer works, which changes the results. It's not about any damned "look". If you find that you can't capture the "look" of film with digital, then you're simply not trying hard enough, and you're almost certainly seeing things that are not there anyways, like an audiophile hearing "a more 3 dimensional soundstage" from their stupid vinyl.


Eh Amolitor...Not this is beautiful, what is beautiful, but, what you think is beautiful. So don't drive crazy yourself with such a discussions or opinions, as there is maybe not enough whisky in the world, to fully understand such an argument. Every one is entitle to have an opinion. Luckily is not death and life matter. On the other hand, in hundred years, if TPF server survives it will be nice research material for some want to be PhD of social studies.


----------



## terri (Nov 18, 2013)

What a terrific video.   I heard "film is alive" more than once - it's that tactile part of the process that can be hard to express.  And the cameras themselves - that also comes into play.   These gorgeous cameras, the various formats, etc - all help these photographers decide how to approach their work.   Having this variety helps them be better photographers, and wow! - there was some amazing stuff in there.   :love:

This was a great idea for a project, and these guys did well.   I appreciated the many different photographers they spoke to, from weddings to food to graphics - so interesting, and they were all so talented.   

Thanks for posting this!    :thumbup:


----------



## gsgary (Nov 18, 2013)

amolitor said:


> The "indefinable look of film" argument drives me insane.
> 
> Skipping around the video does suggest that a lot of the people out there get it, though. It's not about the medium itself, it's about you.
> 
> ...



It made Ben Ainsley go fast for the American team

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## amolitor (Nov 18, 2013)

Ysarex said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > (snip) In the same way, film changes the way the photographer works, which changes the results. (snip)
> ...



I disagree, and I think this statement is a fantasy. We're a *lot* less rational than we think we are. Playing tricks on ourselves to keep ourselves in line a big, big, part of how the human brain works.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 18, 2013)

Just to extend my sailing parable a little bit.

If you're not a very good racing sailor, then sanding the bottom of your boat to a mirror finish isn't going to help you. You're not going to win races until you get to be better at a lot of different things. When you do become a good racing sailor, one of the things you have internalized is that everything -- absolutely everything -- should be done right. Competing at a high level is about doing everything right, and taking every edge you can, no matter how small. Why? Because there are other blokes out there who are just as good.

Sanding the bottom of your boat to a mirror is a psychological trick, which is one of 10,000 things you do when you're winning a lot of races, to make those wins happen.

Shooting film is going to make you work differently. There's simply no getting around that. If you're sufficiently manly you can maybe reduce the effect to a very very small one, by controlling your tools and not letting them control you, but the fact that you're carrying this camera with these limitations is going to change the way you work.

If this change, however small, is in the right direction, why wouldn't you take it? If you want to make the best pictures you can, you need to take every edge offered to you, you need to use every trick, you have to do every single thing the best you can, otherwise you're taking pictures that are, at best, almost but not quite the best pictures you can. You're not competing against other blokes here, you're competing against an idealized notional version of yourself, one who makes literally no mistakes.


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Nov 18, 2013)

It was a pretty fun film but they all said the same thing over and over which got old. They should have had the photographers expand more on it, spent more time with them maybe. It just didnt seem to go in depth enough for me.  

It also felt very short. Seems like they could have had the camera crew who was traveling take film photos along the way between the meetings with the photographers to show case their travels more. Even if they werent photographers, it would have been cool to see what they did.


----------



## timor (Nov 18, 2013)

Whisky will be needed. Especially if someone will ask me to polish the  boat bottom without the use of digital technology. Brrr... However at  the end the question is, if polishing the boat by hand is an exercise in  concentration and attention, which might have benefits somewhere else.  Uh.. one more shot. Gulp.... Better. Yeah, this protracted funeral of  film technology is depressing. Eventually we will loose original  technology and substitute it with computerized simulation of it. That  will make us poorer. But then who cares ? Aren't we already substituting  real contacts with texting and Facebook gossiping ? Aren't we going to  be a simulated society ?


----------



## runnah (Nov 18, 2013)

I wish bad things upon the guy in the yellow hat.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 18, 2013)

runnah said:


> I wish bad things upon the guy in the yellow hat.



Isn't the hat already bad enough?


----------



## gsgary (Nov 18, 2013)

cgw said:


> The early clips I saw of this put me off and now this totally puts me off. Why does it have to look so much like an Apple ad?
> 
> For me, this short CNN video makes a far more convincing and eloquent case for film:
> 
> What film photography still has to offer - CNN.com



Only good things i saw in the video were Elliot Erwitt, same cameras as mine  Mamiya C330, Leica M and the camera shop in NY


----------



## amolitor (Nov 18, 2013)

It's interesting to contrast Erwitt to the hipsters.

Erwitt: I'm a photographer, have been for a long time. I think it's important to do some work with film.

Hipsters: Well, there's just this.. it's... the light... and... you see and there's this perfect ... and... you just .. and ... um .. the light..

The hipsters clearly have no idea why they're doing any of this, but they've mastered a certain collection of words and jargon that sounds vaguely artistic and sensitive. They can reel off this content-free jibba-jabba by the yard. How big of a soundbite do you want? I think someone should take a 4 hour film of just one of these dolts droning on in his little cycle of indefinable/light/you just/and it's/indefinable/light/you just/it's... Now there's some effing ART for ya.


----------



## compur (Nov 18, 2013)

It's just a commercial made by ad agency types for a big corporation (Kodak).  It's no better or worse than a thousand other ads broadcast daily on boob tubes around the world. 

I only watched a bit of it. Was it shot on film? 

But, anyway, if something promotes film, I'm for it. The more people who use film the more film will be sold and the more film will be made. Fine with me.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 18, 2013)

amolitor said:


> It's interesting to contrast Erwitt to the hipsters.
> 
> Erwitt: I'm a photographer, have been for a long time. I think it's important to do some work with film.
> 
> ...



Some interesting points of view have been stated in regard to the Kodak mini-movie about why people shoot film. I myself noticed that the people interviewed were mostly under 35 in appearance, all the way through, until late in the film when they introduced the 40-something fellow. As a person who is 50 years old this year, I found the hipsters in the film somewhat amusing in the vague artsy-fartsy praise of film; none of them could really define what it was they liked. In some cases, there seemed to be a sort of nostalgia, a sort of feeling of being in love with old machines, old cameras. Which is fine. *Steampunk* is also a HUGE thing among this same hipster age bracket, and it's basically a nostalgia, a *love-of-fantasy-and-old-timey stuff.* But hey, the film was produced by Kodak, which means Kodak ponied up the money to make this short movie, and Kodak has a big involvement in imaging, film, paper, and photo chemicals. Or at least Kodak used to have such involvements, before they went bankrupt. I'm not sure what, exactly, Kodak is doing these days, but if younger hipsters love old cameras, and love wet darkroom work, and love shooting film, hey, that's cool. But I agree, the same old repeated inarticulate praise of "depth", and the ridiculous assertion by the darkroom printer guy that 35mm film negatives are "better" than digital was amusing. I suppose we all have our self-delusions though. But I agree, all of the "indefinable/light/depth/the depth/indefinable quality" B.S. was tedious.

Next up: *Why Hipster Engineers Love the Ancient Abacus*. Followed by a short film: *Slide Rule or Scientific Calculator? You Make The Call !*(produced by the Flat Earth Society, Cincinnatti,Ohio chapter)


----------



## amolitor (Nov 18, 2013)

I think there are excellent reasons to shoot film, and I have spent quite a lot of effort articulating those reasons.

And since I have, I naturally assume that everyone else's reasons are suspect, and probably stupid


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 18, 2013)

If you feel the unrelenting need to justify to other people why you shoot a certain format, and why it is better.... then maybe it isn't really those people you are trying to convince.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 18, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I think there are excellent reasons to shoot film, and I have spent quite a lot of effort articulating those reasons.
> 
> And since I have, I naturally assume that everyone else's reasons are suspect, and probably stupid



If a guy wants to limber up a Mamiya C330, or an old Rolleiflex TLR, or a cheap, 1970's Sears 35mm SLR...then a guy needs to shoot film. Last summer I bought 25 rolls of expensive 120 color film for my Yashica 635, and I had a blast taking the old 635 over to the Oregon Coast. Despite carring a big, black pro Nikon d-slr, the old Yashica TLR drew TONS of comments from total strangers, ALL DAY LONG. Literally, I had 30+ people ask me about my second camera, which I had slung over my shoulder much of the day, as I shot for real with the Nikon, and shot for fun and posterity with the twin lens reflex. One woman even posed with my camera!!!




I can say one thing: now that we are into the 21st century, and 35mm film camera manufacture has been discontinued by almost every company that ever made 35mm cameras, using a film camera, and especially an old-fashioned type, like a twin-lens reflex, or a waist-level 120 rollfilm camera, or a Graphic or Technika,etc., draws a HUGE amount of interest and attention. And I think subconsciously, Kodak played up on that in the selection of central casting hipster-type people in their film.I personally think, among the younger, under-40 hipster demographic, that appearances are a big issue. Being "noticed" is a big deal. An old-timey styled camera, as I found out, literally makes people come up to you, and ask about the camera. 

The degree of "cool factor" of carrying an old TLR on a weekend at the beach startled me. I thought it was unfortunate that the film focused so much on the hipster, desires-to-get-attention crowd. But as compur said the film is basically a commercial, an advertisement, *a promotion of FILM*, which was aimed at the, "I have never shot film before" crowd, the people who LEARNED on digital, but who are now desirous of learning the old way of doing things. I thought that the Kodak film was somewhat pandering to the hipster generation, and that they neglected to show a balanced view of film shooters as a whole. I think that people who have been shooting film for the past 15,20,25,30, 40+ years have an utterly different point of view than the bearded hipster NYC set of people, and I thought the film needed more people like Elliott Erwitt [he's in my sig file...see that?] and one or two less bearded, 32 year old men...


----------



## limr (Nov 18, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> If you feel the unrelenting need to justify to other people why you shoot a certain format, and why it is better.... then maybe it isn't really those people you are trying to convince.



Explain does not mean justify, and though some of those folks sounded like they didn't quite know what they were talking about, that doesn't mean they are trying to talk themselves into anything.

Note: Not all people who still shoot film are hipsters.

On a completely different topic, what bugged the holy hell out of me about that video was the auto correct subtitles that kept getting words completely wrong.
What someone said: "To me, they're both just tools that both have their uses."
What the subtitle said: "To me, they're both tools that having uses Batman films just."


----------



## runnah (Nov 18, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> If you feel the unrelenting need to justify to other people why you shoot a certain format, and why it is better.... then maybe it isn't really those people you are trying to convince.



Could not agree more.

I also think that the people who think that just because they shot something on film somehow makes a sub-par image great are very deluded.


----------



## timor (Nov 18, 2013)

limr said:


> Note: Not all people who still shoot film are hipsters.


Thank you, Leonore.


----------



## timor (Nov 18, 2013)

runnah said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > If you feel the unrelenting need to justify to other people why you shoot a certain format, and why it is better.... then maybe it isn't really those people you are trying to convince.
> ...


Deluded how ?


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 18, 2013)

limr said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > If you feel the unrelenting need to justify to other people why you shoot a certain format, and why it is better.... then maybe it isn't really those people you are trying to convince.
> ...



That is why i specifically used the word justify instead of explain. 
I love talking to people about film and why they shoot that format.
i have shot 35mm, MF, and 110 myself, though not to any great extent. What i dislike is people that play the "i shoot film" card to somehow pad their ego in a bizarre attempt to feel superior to us poor "uncool"  digital shooters.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 18, 2013)

This is going great i have never had a thread closed before could be my first one


----------



## runnah (Nov 18, 2013)

timor said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



Shooting on film makes up for their lack of talent.


----------



## limr (Nov 18, 2013)

runnah said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > If you feel the unrelenting need to justify to other people why you shoot a certain format, and why it is better.... then maybe it isn't really those people you are trying to convince.
> ...



If it's not a good picture, it won't be a good picture no matter what kind of camera was being used. The delusion is not exclusive to film users.

The implication in both of these comments is that film users who are vocal about their preference are just hipster idiots who don't know what they are talking about and are trying to convince themselves that film really is better _for them_ even though they secretly know that digital is truly superior.

Sorry, but that's just as much BS as those who are just jumping on a fad bandwagon but have no idea why. And I'm referring to _any_ fad bandwagon, be that film, HDR, selective color, or whatever.

Sure, there are dumbasses who decide to shoot film and then brag about it and try to make it some kind of mystical experience. They do not represent the rest of the folks who quietly go about their photographic business without having to crow about their gear. There are just as many dumbasses who walk around with their massive Nikon full-frames and think that their camera is going to sh*t gold every time they press the shutter because it's the latest and greatest technology. They also do not represent the rest of the digital photographers who are simply trying to make work that they enjoy. But they sure are vocal and high-profile and numerous so they get a lot of attention.

That's what most of us are doing right? Just trying to get the best pictures we can. We all choose different poisons to achieve the same result.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 18, 2013)

runnah said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



Nobody has mention sub par images because most are made on digital


----------



## timor (Nov 18, 2013)

runnah said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...


That's a B.S. argument. Content make the image great, not the technology used.


----------



## runnah (Nov 18, 2013)

timor said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > timor said:
> ...



That is what I have said, twice.


----------



## runnah (Nov 18, 2013)

limr said:


> We all choose different poisons to achieve the same result.



We do and if you take a great photo with a one time use camera it doesn't matter. But when you start saying "My poorly composed, out of focus, under exposed photo is great because it's on film." is when I have a huge problem with it.


----------



## timor (Nov 18, 2013)

runnah said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...


So the same applies to digital folks, right ?


----------



## amolitor (Nov 18, 2013)

But if I shoot on SHEET film then everything I do is automatically awesome, right? It's that roll stuff that hasn't got any actual mojo.


----------



## runnah (Nov 18, 2013)

timor said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > timor said:
> ...



Of course but I still think you are missing the point.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 18, 2013)

I thought both the Kodak film, and the shorter CNN piece that cgw referred us to were missing something kind of important, which is the simple, PHYSICAL manner that film-based images can be stored in, as film negatives, or film positives. That's mostly the reason I posted that old 1954 Kodachrome image; the image was made decades ago, and because it was a simple, physical piece of film, it is still readable to this very day, with a scanner, or with a slide projector, or just a magnifying lens and some light shined through the film. No need for a computer to access the image.

I like the way film is an actual, tangible "thing"....a negative, or a positive image, made permanent, in one, single FIXED, finite, defined form. Not a bunch of data that can be re-arranged and manipulated only by a computer and software, but a real, finalized, finite image. A permanent rendition that can easily be printed out, or scanned, or seen by the human eye. I have old film negative of my grandfather, made in 1910 and 1911 and 1912...great big, B&W film negatives of him as a baby. He died in the mid-1980's at 76 years old. And yet, his baby photos are still here, in physical form. 

A digital image, a digital capture, a "DSC_6789.NEF" or Digital Still Capture, Nikon Electronic Image File format data set, is subject to lots of software interpretation in order to make it a tangible object, and it's easily changed or altered within seconds. A film negative or a film color slide is somewhat difficult to alter, and because of that it means that creating the perfect negative or the perfect slide demands rigorous technical and rigorous artistic standards must be met to create something good. I think that, the idea of needing to meet technical AND artistic goals while shooting the images, is why so many long-term film shooters love film, and it might be something that today's "me generation" younger people and newer practitioners of the craft find lacking in their snap-happy, *shoot 2,000 images at every wedding frenzy, *digital photography experience.


----------



## timor (Nov 18, 2013)

runnah said:


> But when you start saying "My poorly composed, out of focus, under exposed photo is great because it's on film." is when I have a huge problem with it.


Me to. Film is not an absolutorium from having solid skills. Nor is digital technology.


----------



## limr (Nov 18, 2013)

runnah said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > We all choose different poisons to achieve the same result.
> ...



And do you also accept that going the other direction?  That a crappy photo can still be a crappy photo even though it's perfectly in focus and has ten gazillion pixels of oversaturated badness?


----------



## limr (Nov 18, 2013)

runnah said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



I don't mean to be dense, but what is the point? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I can't tell what point you're making.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 18, 2013)

gsgary said:


> This is going great i have never had a thread closed before could be my first one



Nah... We can keep it Classy.


----------



## runnah (Nov 18, 2013)

limr said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > timor said:
> ...



A photo of a dogs ass is still a photo of a dog ass even it if was shot with film. There seems to be this modern misconception that using film magically turns something into art or gives it a certain amount of legitimacy that the image itself can't back up.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 18, 2013)

Here is a scan of a piece of Black and White film. I shot this film in 1976, when I was a 13 year old boy on a salmon fishing trip with my father, my brother, and my grandfather. The following image illustrates why I focused on the physical, tangible aspect of film in my comments in post #43.



[150726204.FTLqgDNs.uploadedto__1200x.jpg]

I froze the undeveloped roll of 120 film in a 100-foot 35mm bulk roll Kodak steel film can until 1985, when I developed it. I stored the cut strips of 120 film in a folded sheet of paper, in a drawer, for over two decades. Then, when I was 48 years old, I made THIS SCAN from the film. In other words, 35 years between exposing the film, and seeing the first positive image of the photograph I shot with my old 1958 vintage Ricoh Super Ricohflex TLR. I had the negatives in my possession for years and years, and it took only a few minutes to scan the negative and to create this memory of a day long,long ago, before digital still imaging was a reality like it is today.


----------



## timor (Nov 18, 2013)

limr said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > timor said:
> ...


Ah... This is about the form of advertising the film to new generation. Well, I think, they use, what's work on mentality of young people.


----------



## terri (Nov 18, 2013)

I think a lot of the point is being missed here...the primary one is that this IS a promotional film paid for by Kodak, and that alone brings a rather cynical tone to it, if you're an actual film user.    Really, Kodak - you CARE?!   Bless my soul, guess I can expect my HIE back on the shelves soon.   

Promotional efforts aside...exactly what makes anyone think that photographers SHOULD have to have some kind of convincing "argument" for their choice of medium?   If, instead of the under-40 crowd, the filmmakers had sought out the 50 and over crowd, you naysayers would simply be rolling your eyes over that aspect of it - that it's a "graying" type of technology that is stubbornly clung to by a silly bunch of Luddites who won't accept the fact their chosen medium is outdated and irrelevant.    Easily finding so many young professionals across the country is perhaps to disabuse us of that argument, yet you are eager to dismiss these professionals as "hipsters" who wear funny hats and should not be taken seriously.    

That is dismissive of fellow photographers who actually seem to be paying their bills with their art.   How many of us can say the same these days?  

Of course if they could answer in rich words and thirty seconds why they shoot the way they shoot, even answer philosophically "what is art", I'm sure they'd earn your respect.   :roll:    

Actually, it is the whole reaction here from the _digital_ crowd which reads like the ones who are defensive.        How odd.   How amusing.    How dare these film/hipster/Luddite types act like they can do it better without a little viewing screen and a histogram?!    Bastards....and did I mention they wear funny hats, too?


----------



## cgw (Nov 18, 2013)

I'd guess what many on this thread dislike is *any *medium becoming a conceit. That's what I can't take, especially when it matters more than the quality of the image.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 18, 2013)

timor said:
			
		

> This is about the form of advertising the film to new generation. Well, I think, they use, what's work on mentality of young people.



I agree, I thought the film was a cleverly-pitched, carefully-targeted promotional piece, designed to appeal to younger people in a fairly specific target demographic. It was *a propaganda film* about the virtues of film! lol.

But like all really successful advertising, the film tried hard to create good feelings, positive feelings, about shooting film. It tried to create a sense of desire, of longing-for, both film cameras, wet darkroom printing of images, and a whole host of things associated with film. And that's what helps Kodak pay some of its bills--making and selling film.

With the 2013 conversion of all American theatrical feature film releases to DIGITAL projection, with NO film prints being distributed, one of Kodak's last bastions of huge-volume film sales has finally died off, after decades of selling motion picture duplicating stocks to labs making prints for Hollywood studios.So promoting other avenues for film sales makes sense.


----------



## terri (Nov 18, 2013)

runnah said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



Yeah, so similar to someone picking up a digital camera and shooting a dog's ass and saying, "I can make it better in photoshop!"   Because being technically proficient at Photoshop magically turns something into art or gives it a certain amount of legitimacy that the image itself can't back up.    I like an HDR dog's ass, myself....

And yet, not a single dog's ass image was displayed in this particular film...it was all professional work.   Food shots, weddings, children playing, event photography...you know, just normal stuff.   _ Photography. _  Images that were shot on film, and beautiful images, at that.    

Did you even look at the work displayed in the film from these photographers?   Is that not the bottom line, the image -  as so many are so fond of saying?


----------



## terri (Nov 18, 2013)

Derrel said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And from _Kodak,_ of all people....     Like they actually give a sh!t.    Most of my money goes to Fuji and Ilford.


----------



## limr (Nov 18, 2013)

cgw said:


> I'd guess what many on this thread dislike is *any *medium becoming a conceit. That's what I can't take, especially when it matters more than the quality of the image.



Exactly. Sure, it's obnoxious when someone presents a crappy photo but thinks it's great by virtue of it having been captured on film. But digital folks do that do, so why is all the mockery directed at the film poseurs and not the DSLR poseurs as well?


----------



## amolitor (Nov 18, 2013)

I am irritating in two dimensions, at least.

The first is the elevation of medium, which bothers me, but only a little, because I happen to think there are excellent reasons for shooting film.

The second is that I think these people are maddeningly inarticulate, and simply repeating stock phrases that they learn from one another. These stock phrases almost make sense. They sound like something spoken by a thoughtful person, repeated by a dunce who didn't hear it very well, and certainly never understood it. This will irritate me in any context.


----------



## terri (Nov 18, 2013)

limr said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> > I'd guess what many on this thread dislike is *any *medium becoming a conceit. That's what I can't take, especially when it matters more than the quality of the image.
> ...



Exactly what I was saying to runnah up there after his crack about pics of dog asses.


----------



## timor (Nov 18, 2013)

cgw said:


> the quality of the image.


Here is the problem. There is no, and won't be a single definition. An opening for never ending discussion.


----------



## limr (Nov 18, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I am irritating in two dimensions, at least.
> 
> The first is the elevation of medium, which bothers me, but only a little, because I happen to think there are excellent reasons for shooting film.
> 
> The second is that I think these people are maddeningly inarticulate, and simply repeating stock phrases that they learn from one another. These stock phrases almost make sense. They sound like something spoken by a thoughtful person, repeated by a dunce who didn't hear it very well, and certainly never understood it. This will irritate me in any context.



Are you irritat_ing_ or irritat_ed_? 

Obviously, I agree that there are excellent reasons to shoot film and that is what the film was trying to get at so they could sell more film.

I also agree that part of the issue is the inability to express those reasons clearly and definitely. Just because they can't express the reason well doesn't mean they don't have good, valid reasons, but it's hard to tell if they do indeed have those reasons when they seem like they are parroting each other. 

So then they should be criticized for that lack of ability to express, but then again, doesn't their work also express those reasons? If it's good work, then it's a good reason, right?

(To address my own possible lack of clarity - I'm essentially agreeing to your point and trying to add to it a little  )


----------



## terri (Nov 18, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I am irritating in two dimensions, at least.
> 
> The first is the elevation of medium, which bothers me, but only a little, because I happen to think there are excellent reasons for shooting film.
> 
> The second is that I think these people are maddeningly inarticulate, and simply repeating stock phrases that they learn from one another. These stock phrases almost make sense. They sound like something spoken by a thoughtful person, repeated by a dunce who didn't hear it very well, and certainly never understood it. This will irritate me in any context.



Which has nothing to do with the content at hand.      These are photographers, not actors, who were approached by a couple of guys, given the rundown, carefully placed and lighted...."You're going to be edited to about 60 seconds or less, so as quickly as you can, tell us _what you do and why you do it_, k?    In three, two, one....GO!   TALK!"    

Regardless of the subject, I think most of us would come off as stammering dunces in this scenario.


----------



## runnah (Nov 18, 2013)

terri said:


> Yeah, so similar to someone picking up a digital camera and shooting a dog's ass and saying, "I can make it better in photoshop!"   Because being technically proficient at Photoshop magically turns something into art or gives it a certain amount of legitimacy that the image itself can't back up.    I like an HDR dog's ass, myself....
> 
> And yet, not a single dog's ass image was displayed in this particular film...it was all professional work.   Food shots, weddings, children playing, event photography...you know, just normal stuff.   _ Photography. _  Images that were shot on film, and beautiful images, at that.
> 
> Did you even look at the work displayed in the film from these photographers?   Is that not the bottom line, the image -  as so many are so fond of saying?



Let me try again.

Say I take a film camera and digital take a photo of an apple with the same settings/light/subject etc... Some people will argue that the film image is somehow better only because it's on film or "has that film look".


----------



## limr (Nov 18, 2013)

I so need to scan in the shot I actually have of a dog's ass.


----------



## limr (Nov 18, 2013)

runnah said:


> terri said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, so similar to someone picking up a digital camera and shooting a dog's ass and saying, "I can make it better in photoshop!"   Because being technically proficient at Photoshop magically turns something into art or gives it a certain amount of legitimacy that the image itself can't back up.    I like an HDR dog's ass, myself....
> ...



And others will argue the digital is better simply because it's digital because it's "sharp and clean."


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 18, 2013)

runnah said:


> terri said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, so similar to someone picking up a digital camera and shooting a dog's ass and saying, "I can make it better in photoshop!" Because being technically proficient at Photoshop magically turns something into art or gives it a certain amount of legitimacy that the image itself can't back up. I like an HDR dog's ass, myself....
> ...



Might be interesting to see a blind taste test on that one - don't tell them in advance which is film and which is digital.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 18, 2013)

limr said:


> I so need to scan in the shot I actually have of a dog's ass.



You know.. coming from almost anyone else, that would spark a lot of questions in my mind.. lol


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 18, 2013)

limr said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > terri said:
> ...



Whereas I would argue digital is better just because I no longer have to deal with the snotty kid at the photomat.  For those who really like and shoot film, hey, more power too you.  Me, I just don't have the time or money to really invest in an endeavor like that.  So for pictures of my dog's ass (appropriate hat tip to limr), I prefer digital.  Lol


----------



## Derrel (Nov 18, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I am irritating in two dimensions, at least.
> 
> The first is the elevation of medium, which bothers me, but only a little, because I happen to think there are excellent reasons for shooting film.
> 
> The second is that I think these people are maddeningly inarticulate, and simply repeating stock phrases that they learn from one another. These stock phrases almost make sense. They sound like something spoken by a thoughtful person, repeated by a dunce who didn't hear it very well, and certainly never understood it. This will irritate me in any context.



Ummm, you are irritat*ing* in two dimensions, at least? Hah-hah! I LOVE that, Andrew!

I agree, the inarticulate nature of the people profiled was disconcerting. Talking about "depth". I wondered if they were not seeing the better highlight rendering that film gives, compared to the majority of digital still cameras. On SOME types of work, such as where the sun is shown within the image, film's much, much longer and more-gradual transition from bright tones to the very brightest or paper-base white tonal values, is something that digital still capture cameras simply can NOT handle in the same way. Film has the "shoulder" on the H&D graph, while digital just "clips", and makes sun-containing shots that often look like crap to me.

Now, I KNOW that you read Ctein's columns, amolitor; did you see the column where Ctein detailed his opinions and findings on how and why digital-origin prints so often LACK DIMENSIONAL CLUES? Yeah...one of the world's best printers, in multiple types of photographic print making, feels that unless manipulated a certain way, that digital-origin images tend to do a poor job of conveying depth, and dimensionality. He recommended some specific sharpening methods to help digital better convey depth clues and surface textures. The fine folks at Nik Software worked very hard on that kind of stuff. So, while the inarticulate younger practitioners might have parroted the virtue of "depth" in film-based images, I think there is an underlying tendency of poorly-processed digital images toward some serious imaging tendencies that film simply does NOT suffer from! And Ctein mentions this lack of depth, this lack of dimensionality in digital images. So...

One of Ctein's suggested methods was to apply a specific type of additional USM to images that were going to be printed. He also mentioned adding some additional software filtering that the folks at Nik Software developed, something akin to clarity in the Adobe metaphor, yet subtly different. But again...Ctein mentioned the LACK of depth-conveying in many digital-origin images.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 18, 2013)

Oops 

I cannot say that I specifically recall that one of Ctein's essays. While I have enormous respect for the guy's technical skills, I have to say that there are several directions in which I get a little cagey when reading his stuff, though. I have tried in vain to locate the relevant essay, are there any further tips you could give me? Is it recent, old? Was it on ToP or elsewhere?


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 18, 2013)

While you guys are settling this, slide in the issue of print media.
I recently saw  set of photos and the method of printing was prominently displayed on the title cards.
The images were crap, poorly edited and oof pictures of nothing significant or interesting,  but the prints were OK.
The photographer told me as great length how she had searched for a lab that could do the work justice.
My guess is that you could locate the lab by searching for a business where an employee had just committed suicide.


----------



## compur (Nov 18, 2013)

I do think it's valid to say there is a difference in the "look of film" vs digital. I don't know that the hipsters can define it but I think it's a real thing. 

Lots of people look at an image on their computer screen that originated in a film camera and they think they're looking at a film image but they're not.  There are no film images on any computer anywhere nor on the internet. 

So, they look at this digital image that they think is a film image and they compare it to images that came from a digital camera and they think they're comparing film to digital but it's not a valid comparison at all since both are digital images.

Another thing is that, for many young people today, the only real film photos they've seen are their parents amateur snapshots of family vacations and babies stored in a shoebox in the closet. They've rarely if ever seen a real, professionally shot and printed, _original_ film photo in the real world done by a skillful photographer and I don't mean reproductions in magazines, posters, etc -- I mean real photographs from a darkroom.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 18, 2013)

Yes, it was on TOP. Here's another somewhat related bit her wrote Mastering Photo » The Fine Art of Digital Printing: The Difference Between Smart Sharpening and Unsharp Masking

See also The Online Photographer: How I Made the $19.95 Print

The article I referred to is from 2011, I believe, and might have been based on THIS brief 2007 piece he wrote. The Online Photographer: How To Improve Digital Print Tonality

I've looked and cannot find the TOP article either, but this appears to be a summary of the piece I was thinking about, greatly condensed and then sold to this web site: Mastering Photo » The Fine Art of Digital Printing: Using Unsharp Masking To Improve Texture and Tonality In Your Prints


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 18, 2013)

Derrel said:


> The article I referred to is from 2011, I believe, and might have been based on THIS brief 2007 piece he wrote. The Online Photographer: How To Improve Digital Print Tonality



This is what is being referred to as Local Area Contrast Enhancement or something like that in many places


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 18, 2013)

compur said:


> I do think it's valid to say there is a difference in the "look of film" vs digital. I don't know that the hipsters can define it but I think it's a real thing.



Wait, so all of reality is not defined by the whim of hipsters?

Great.  Ok fine, guess I'll put the beret back up for sale on ebay.  I really wish you guys would start putting this stuff in memo's.. sheesh.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 18, 2013)

I don't think that anyone is denying the pleasant look of some film and if I could get that look with the flexibility and ease of finishing of digital, yeah I'd shoot whatever magical stuff that might be.

It's like being married to a beautiful intelligent woman who is also rich and generous.

But if I have to choose a set of characteristics, I chose digital and slightly bemoan the loss of the look of film.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 18, 2013)

Well, one thing is for sure, there are not too many digital cameras that require photographers to have a mechanical, camera-un-jamming wrench on hand...lol

When the one dude waxed rhapsodic about the "Hassle-Blad 501cm" I thought about this! Unjamming an Hasselblad

And for those who like more text about how to un-jam their "Hassle-Blad" and re-cock the lenses....here's the on-line PDF maual with some nice photos and text.

http://fotodiox.com/e/Other Camera Accessories/Other Accessories/Hassy Tool Instructions.pdf

The Hassy folks wanted backward compatibility at all costs, so they continued with 1940's and 1950's engineering ideas for decades after the Japanese showed the world how to make reliable 120 rollfilm SLR cameras at lower cost, and which did not need constant servicing just to work right. Of course, Mamiya and Bronica cameras lacked that classic, European "fine watch" type of feel, being based more on self-lubricating plastics, alloys, and looser tolerances on mechanical components, and in some cases, using accurate, Seiko shutters instead of mechanically timed systems with complicated geartrain timing and such. Kind of amusing...I was in a big pawnshop two weeks ago, and they had a Mamiya RB 67 with a lens for $199. Wow--$199!!!!


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 18, 2013)

Derrel said:


> I was in a big pawnshop two weeks ago, and they had a Mamiya RB 67 with a lens for $199. Wow--$199!!!!



7 years ago, my RB67 shutter started hanging and the speeds got slower and slower.
The estimate to fix was >$800


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 18, 2013)

Ysarex said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > (snip) In the same way, film changes the way the photographer works, which changes the results. (snip)
> ...



Well the truth of the matter is that for some people the satisfaction they gain from a task is proportional to the amount of effort they need to put forth to obtain it.  It's a simple element of human nature.  Something that by it's nature is more complicated, more complex, more difficult is therefore more enjoyable and more satisfying.  

Since in the final analysis what really matters here is how the photographer feels about the end result, well then I guess my thought process is if someone really likes shooting film, then by all means shoot film.  Granted, I myself prefer digital for a variety of reasons - part of that might be my personality type, who knows.  But just because I find that digital works for me and suits my personal tastes better doesn't mean that it really bothers me when someone else says, "I prefer film".


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 18, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Well, one thing is for sure, there are not too many digital cameras that require photographers to have a mechanical, camera-un-jamming wrench on hand...lol



True, but a oversized crescent wrench can still come in handy for say, street photography.

Don't ask.. lol


----------



## limr (Nov 18, 2013)

Okay, just to get back on track of what this is REALLY about...

Dog asses!




Of course it's awesome because it was shot on film. And check out these hipsters I was with when I took the shot!




All in good fun, folks. Just for some kicks and giggles on a Monday afternoon! Now can't we all just get along????  :cheers:


----------



## runnah (Nov 18, 2013)

limr said:


> Okay, just to get back on track of what this is REALLY about...
> 
> Dog asses!
> 
> ...



Is that your instagram feed?


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 18, 2013)

limr said:


> Okay, just to get back on track of what this is REALLY about...
> 
> Dog asses!
> 
> ...



I guess we now have photographic evidence that indeed, even the sun shines on a dog's ass some days.

Yes, we are truly blessed people.  I think this calls for a happy dance.


----------



## terri (Nov 18, 2013)

meh; cameras break all the time; we certainly have enough gearhead posts on TPF to prove that.   That's not really relevant to the topic.   

The OP contains a promotional video that is about 40-odd minutes in length, showing some beautiful photography and the photographers who shot it.   All film.   If there are comments about the video or Kodak or your own reasons for shooting film, that's fine.   

Hearing why digital shooters shoot digital is kind of a yawn, and given in a rather defensive posture which is not needed in the film discussion forum.   In fact, given the proportion of digital to film shooters in TPF in general, it's odd that digital shooters seem to feel the need to rag on those who prefer film, and bust into these kinds of threads using derogatory terms like "hipster", as if one would only pick up a film camera in a special effort to be known as a hipster - whatever that may mean to certain people.   It's a term I'm sick of, really.

For the argument that "film shooters act like their method is superior," this attitude may exist out in the netherworld of the internets, but I don't see it here.   People post their work, discuss their methods of processing, etc., just like anyone else - yet have to suffer these little darts for no apparent reason other than digital shooters seem uncomfortable that film is still around and used at the professional level.    

No need to take this video as a personal affront if it seems to show someone is a better photographer than you, or earn their living off of shooting, and do it without the use of digital workflow.    They seem comfortable and relaxed with their artistic approach.   They do not come across as loud-mouthed poseurs with more attitude than talent.   

Please stay out of the conversation if you have nothing to add about the promotional film or work therein - or, have your own_ film-based pictures _of dog asses to contribute!   Keep it real, people!!


----------



## runnah (Nov 18, 2013)

terri said:


> have your own_ film-based pictures _of dog asses to contribute!   Keep it real, people!!



To the filing cabinet...then to the scanner...!


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 18, 2013)

terri said:


> meh; cameras break all the time; we certainly have enough gearhead posts on TPF to prove that. That's not really relevant to the topic.
> 
> The OP contains a promotional video that is about 40-odd minutes in length, showing some beautiful photography and the photographers who shot it. All film. If there are comments about the video or Kodak or your own reasons for shooting film, that's fine.
> 
> ...



No disagreement persee, but I would point out that you are kind of spoiling the whole sunshine, dog's ass, happy dance vibe we had going there for a second.. lol


----------



## gsgary (Nov 18, 2013)

limr said:


> I so need to scan in the shot I actually have of a dog's ass.



Let me help you out


----------



## Derrel (Nov 18, 2013)

gsgary, for the win!!! Dog asses galore! I cannot believe this thread has not been shut down yet.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 18, 2013)

Derrel said:


> gsgary, for the win!!! Dog asses galore! I cannot believe this thread has not been shut down yet.



Colour arses


----------



## terri (Nov 18, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> terri said:
> 
> 
> > meh; cameras break all the time; we certainly have enough gearhead posts on TPF to prove that. That's not really relevant to the topic.
> ...



Thanks!   :sun:    er....


----------



## terri (Nov 18, 2013)

Derrel said:


> gsgary, for the win!!! Dog asses galore! I cannot believe this thread has not been shut down yet.



I'm not of a mind to shut it down; though I might bring a small cloud over the sunshine thing every couple of posts.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 18, 2013)

Derrel said:


> gsgary, for the win!!! Dog asses galore! I cannot believe this thread has not been shut down yet.




And ******** galour


----------



## gsgary (Nov 18, 2013)

terri said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary, for the win!!! Dog asses galore! I cannot believe this thread has not been shut down yet.
> ...



They get better


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 18, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > amolitor said:
> ...



It doesn't bother me either when people say they prefer film. I can even handle someone saying they prefer to listen to CW music. What I object to is people saying they prefer something and then going on to offer irrational and bogus reasons for their preference.

Joe


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 18, 2013)

Ysarex said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



Lol.. well people are rarely if ever rational about art.  Hence all the loping off of ears and such.  Don't sweat it.  If it makes them happy then let them be happy.  Sunshine, Dog's Ass, Happy Dance, Hoorah.


----------



## cgw (Nov 18, 2013)

gsgary said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > I so need to scan in the shot I actually have of a dog's ass.
> ...



Extra points for bonus horses' asses!


----------



## timor (Nov 18, 2013)

Is this ^^^ what is called "kick-ass photography" ?


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 18, 2013)

cgw said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



There's even asses on top of the horses!

Joe


----------



## vintagesnaps (Nov 19, 2013)

Asses aside... I've never _not_ shot film, so my perspective is different I think than for people who have been used to using digital cameras and then try film. I think my style is the same regardless. 

What seems different is not so much shooting film or digital, but using a different camera or lens. There's a different procedure involved in shooting with an SLR than a rangefinder, or my SX-70, or a vintage/antique camera, etc. I think when I'm using a rangefinder and a 45mm lens I'm framing differently than with an SLR and a short telephoto lens (when I tend to shoot on the fly which comes from having done sports) - the process is somewhat different but I'm still 'me' in what I photograph.

There's definitely a difference in the quality of wet chemistry prints compared to inkjet photos. I've scanned in some of my darkroom prints and then printed inkjet copies; from a distance across the room there isn't a difference in quality or sharpness, but up close or in comparison there's a quality to my darkroom prints in the paper and gloss that you just don't get with a digital print. Once a film image is scanned as mentioned earlier in the thread it doesn't have the same look in a digital copy as the original.


----------



## NathanKing (Nov 21, 2013)

I shoot predominantly on film. You can replicate the look of a hybrid film/digital workflow with a purely digital workflow. It takes quite a bit of manipulation (time sitting in front of a computer) to do, and I do enough of that every day at work. That said, a purely analog silver gelatin print from my enlarger looks quite different than its digitized counterpart. It would be presumptuous of me to declare one better than the other, but there is a difference.

The video is a marketing tool, which is a good thing if it aids in extending the tradition of analog photography.


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Nov 21, 2013)

The amount of manipulation so prevalent now is one of the reasons I feel towards digital the way I do. It just seems cheap and phony _sometimes_,especially when HDR or other heavy post production changes are employed. That being said I shoot both and prefer film just 'cause I'm old and started with and have more experience with film. 

The feeling that you must get the *perfect image* removes a considerable amount of art from the final product IMO. It's more like a the feeling of successfully getting that satellite into perfect orbit than making a nice image. Flaws or anything other than absolute perfection is no good and that's far from the case.

There's more but I'm running behind. See ya.................


----------



## timor (Nov 21, 2013)

MartinCrabtree said:


> The amount of manipulation so prevalent now is one of the reasons I feel towards digital the way I do. It just seems cheap and phony _sometimes_,especially when HDR or other heavy post production changes are employed. That being said I shoot both and prefer film just 'cause I'm old and started with and have more experience with film.
> 
> The feeling that you must get the *perfect image* removes a considerable amount of art from the final product IMO. It's more like a the feeling of successfully getting that satellite into perfect orbit than making a nice image. Flaws or anything other than absolute perfection is no good and that's far from the case.
> .


I am with you.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 21, 2013)

I'm with you both

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## amolitor (Nov 21, 2013)

Me too. Back in the film days nobody, at least not the serious guys, did all kinds of crazy manipulations on their pictures. They pretty much left it straight out of the camera.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 21, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Me too. Back in the film days nobody, at least not the serious guys, did all kinds of crazy manipulations on their pictures. They pretty much left it straight out of the camera.



Yah!






Halsman





Barbara Morgan





Herbert Bayer





Oscar Rejlander





Man Ray





Jerry Uelsmann





W. Eugene Smith





Henry Robinson

Could do this all afternoon.

Joe


----------



## bhop (Nov 21, 2013)

Burn


----------



## timor (Nov 21, 2013)

Ysarex said:


> Could do this all afternoon.
> 
> Joe


Yeah.. But this are manipulation done with real light and real photosensitive material, not a virtual pixels. Each mistakes costs real money, many of that pictures are one of the kind. One needed to be a real artist. Nowadays whatever you do someone else will do better. Whatever you did in the past already everyone (me excluded) is doing better. That's the power of pixel.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 21, 2013)

timor said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Could do this all afternoon.
> ...



And its down fall with the art world people will pay real money for real prints

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 21, 2013)

timor said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Could do this all afternoon.
> ...



Right.. fortunately the place I buy all my computer parts lets me pay them in monopoly money the minute I tell them that I'm going to be using the rig in part for manipulating photos.  Plus those good folks at Adobe just forking over the license for Photoshop in exchange for guitar lessons was awesome.  I mean it's so nice not to have any "real money" tied up in any of this stuff.

Sheesh.


----------

