The Death of Film

watt100 wrote in post #14961555
LOL

All you gotta do is ask:
askngs@nationalgeograp​hic.com

You don't even need to be an NG subscriber !

Ok. We get the idea. Can we move onward from this now?

Here is the problem with the OP's statement.

1. "People tend to see the past through rose-colored glasses."

1. "It's just nostalgia."

How you feel about film, and your desire to indulge in the convenience of digital is fine. But in the 'rose-colored glasses' statement, you break away from your personal druthers and make a critical judgment on other people. And this is where you invited the backlash.

In the 'nostalgia' statement, are you saying this is in regards to you, or making a universal statement about the value of film. If the latter, this is a remarkably shortsighted observation.

In any event, film is like paintbrushes, a chisel, the human hand, a pen, or for that matter, a digital camera or a word processors. They are all tools that contribute to the arts. In terms of professional efficiency or even personal convenience, some tools are better than others; but this does not mean that what they produce is actually better, depending on the objective.

If anyone, for example, thinks that a person writing a book with MS Word will always, simply because of the medium used, create a better story than someone using a typewriter, then this person is not ignorant, they are much worse, they are stupid.

If someone believes that anyone who uses a typewriter in this day and age is foolish, then this critic should admit himself to the local hospital, as he has obviously OD'd on some spiritually devoid concoction of Mountain Dew-cum-MTV. His "hey dude, I'm all digital, I'm extreme" attitude only makes him take the pathetically transmuted form of a perpetually stunted Pauly Shore. The ability to think for himself long since corroded.

Sadly, this is not obvious on POTN, but, shocking as this may seem, different people do different things for different reasons, and not all of these things are going to fall in with the popular crowd. If photography is a profession, I understand that mainstream puts food on the plate; no problem. But if a person actually thinks that the mainstream should dictate what everyone chooses, especially if it is just a hobby, then this person has the mindset of just another perennial middle-school cheerleader trapped inside the soulless body of an automaton. The day that niche or unique become evil words in the arts, is the day that the arts will no longer exist. Let's try not to be so quick to destroy choice.

And this actually goes back to the OP. I understand and accept why you want nothing to do with film, but that you should gladly await the day that it is denied to others is a disgrace to photography overall. I don't like to cook, but I certainly don't wait for the day when those who do enjoy it give it up to go all out microwave.

To wish the loss of any implement of art is destructive and unenlightened; and really, if anyone thinks film should die just because it appears antiquated, this person would be an outright hypocrite if they did not wish the same death for paints, molding clay, or for that matter, the electric guitar.

In any event, there are numerous reasons why someone might shoot film, and it is not simply about the "look" of film or if it is or isn't validated by a publication that takes lots of photographs of animals, especially while my favorite wildlife photographer is out there with a film camera.

In the end, you or anyone can rip on film; what ultimately matters are the photos, and given this, I damn well know that there are some film detractors (and I'm not saying it is the OP) who really aren't in position to say anything. To these folks, instead of busting on film, focus more on your glaringly limited creativity.

sjones wrote in post #14961631
Here is the problem with the OP's statement.

1. "People tend to see the past through rose-colored glasses."

1. "It's just nostalgia."

How you feel about film, and your desire to indulge in the convenience of digital is fine. But in the 'rose-colored glasses' statement, you break away from your personal druthers and make a critical judgment on other people. And this is where you invited the backlash.

In the 'nostalgia' statement, are you saying this is in regards to you, or making a universal statement about the value of film. If the latter, this is a remarkably shortsighted observation.

In any event, film is like paintbrushes, a chisel, the human hand, a pen, or for that matter, a digital camera or a word processors. They are all tools that contribute to the arts. In terms of professional efficiency or even personal convenience, some tools are better than others; but this does not mean that what they produce is actually better, depending on the objective.

If anyone, for example, thinks that a person writing a book with MS Word will always, simply because of the medium used, create a better story than someone using a typewriter, then this person is not ignorant, they are much worse, they are stupid.

If someone believes that anyone who uses a typewriter in this day and age is foolish, then this critic should admit himself to the local hospital, as he has obviously OD'd on some spiritually devoid concoction of Mountain Dew-cum-MTV. His "hey dude, I'm all digital, I'm extreme" attitude only makes him take the pathetically transmuted form of a perpetually stunted Pauly Shore. The ability to think for himself long since corroded.

Sadly, this is not obvious on POTN, but, shocking as this may seem, different people do different things for different reasons, and not all of these things are going to fall in with the popular crowd. If photography is a profession, I understand that mainstream puts food on the plate; no problem. But if a person actually thinks that the mainstream should dictate what everyone chooses, especially if it is just a hobby, then this person has the mindset of just another perennial middle-school cheerleader trapped inside the soulless body of an automaton. The day that niche or unique become evil words in the arts, is the day that the arts will no longer exist. Let's try not to be so quick to destroy choice.

And this actually goes back to the OP. I understand and accept why you want nothing to do with film, but that you should gladly await the day that it is denied to others is a disgrace to photography overall. I don't like to cook, but I certainly don't wait for the day when those who do enjoy it give it up to go all out microwave.

To wish the loss of any implement of art is destructive and unenlightened; and really, if anyone thinks film should die just because it appears antiquated, this person would be an outright hypocrite if they did not wish the same death for paints, molding clay, or for that matter, the electric guitar.

In any event, there are numerous reasons why someone might shoot film, and it is not simply about the "look" of film or if it is or isn't validated by a publication that takes lots of photographs of animals, especially while my favorite wildlife photographer is out there with a film camera.

In the end, you or anyone can rip on film; what ultimately matters are the photos, and given this, I damn well know that there are some film detractors (and I'm not saying it is the OP) who really aren't in position to say anything. To these folks, instead of busting on film, focus more on your glaringly limited creativity.

actually I just re-read the OP's initial post and I don't see anywhere he "gladly awaits the day film is denied to others" and is a disgrace to photography. Seems he is saying it's mostly about nostalgia

And just today the New York Times had an article about the "death of film"
http://www.nytimes.com …movies.html?_r=​1&src=dayp

interesting read !

watt100 wrote in post #14961671
actually I just re-read the OP's initial post and I don't see anywhere he "gladly awaits the day film is denied to others" and is a disgrace to photography. Seems he is saying it's mostly about nostalgia

And just today the New York Times had an article about the "death of film"
http://www.nytimes.com …movies.html?_r=​1&src=dayp

interesting read !

Very interesting read, I was actually going to reference film to a VCR myself. In the end its the movie or image or book, not the tool used to create it. There is little advantage to film, some of which have been pointed out here validly. Eventually it will phase out but we currently still have many shooters who once used film and still have an affinity for it. the next generation (and some in this generation) of camera owners will be probably the first never to be exposed to film. Some will be interested in trying it and like records and archaic game systems there will likely be the resources available to explore it. But to deny the advantages of the digital film era is kinda silly in my mind.

Film is an important part of our history, but not likely an important part of our future. It's this very premise that we digitally remaster old movies, to keep them alive. We don't do it for all because frankly some are just not good. But equally there are even more bad movies & photos today simply because the easy access of movie and photography technology to regular folks like myself and its ease of use.

watt100 wrote in post #14961671
actually I just re-read the OP's initial post and I don't see anywhere he "gladly awaits the day film is denied to others" and is a disgrace to photography. Seems he is saying it's mostly about nostalgia

And just today the New York Times had an article about the "death of film"
http://www.nytimes.com …movies.html?_r=​1&src=dayp

interesting read !

"I for one would not mourn its passing and would be the first to throw dirt on its casket."

I would assume that "passing" is universal, not just the death of film in his house. And, um, the title of his post, "The Death of Film." That kind of set the tone. Much different than, say, "Glad digital came around, so much easier."

He didn't say mostly 'nostalgia,' he said 'just nostalgia.' For who?

As for the NYT article, what movie studios (which is not photography) choose to do has nothing to do with the value that I place on film as a photographic medium. No crap digital is pushing out film (still or cinema), it has been for the past decade; so?

Am I suddenly going to like "The Godfather" less because it wasn't digitally filmed? Especially when there appears some dissent exists according to the NYT article: "We’re awash in ugly digital because of cost cutting and a steep learning curve made steeper by rapidly changing technologies."

Whatever, a good movie is a good movie, digital or cine film.

Maybe it's all just a popularity contest for some people and financially sensible for many others, but I'm a bit above the former and, as a hobbyist, unconcerned about the latter, especially since, as I said, it's the photos that matter, and I would add the experience involved.

But really, are people now validating the quality of photography based solely on if it is film or digital...are people that stupid? I know the answer to this, and I also know that it goes both ways...both sides have their dolts.

If someone wants to do tintypes, does an actual argument seriously exist against doing so simply because it is not high-tech, that it's not modern? If so, how pathetic. Just like it's pathetic to say that digital has no soul...that cherished element comes from the photographer.

If someone even possesses an ounce of hatred for film simply because it is not, well, digital, and digital is the future, does that mean they hate all filmed-based photographs, or photographers that ever used a film? Well, I reckon everyone has a right to their opinions, no matter how inane or hypocritical.

The bottom line, in photography, as well as in the arts in general, there is no valid defense for promoting the diminution of choice, particularly when the preferred device is NOT, in terms of a camera's core purpose, superior to the item it is supposedly replacing.

And if some new photographic technology comes out next week, is all digital going to suddenly suck, just be a byproduct of nostalgia? Are people so vapid and superficial?

I mean, in terms of technical quality, which I generally don't give a crap about, as there is much more to photography, I've seen Ansel Adams' original prints, and in terms of tonal depth and gradation, I haven't seen anything like that out of an inkjet, yet. And being that I use an inkjet, trust me, I'm rooting for inkjets to equal or surpass the quality of wet room prints...but I know what I saw...

I also know this; one of my set ups includes a nearly 60-year-old camera and a 78-year-old lens, and with this, I've taken several photos that are unequivocally better than the majority of digital photos I see flooding Flicker and such. This is not disputable---fun with subjectivity. But most importantly, these photos (which have NO nostalgic value) are NOT better because of the type of camera or lens I use...get the point?

I'm out, have a good weekend.

Nature Nut wrote in post #14961724
But equally there are even more bad movies & photos today simply because the easy access of movie and photography technology to regular folks like myself and its ease of use.

More good ones, too.

I enjoy using both film and digital. I shoot with my digital camera more frequently simply because it's more convenient, but I'll occasionally shoot film for a variety of reasons. For one, when I find myself becoming bored with photography using my digital camera, I'll take out one of my film cameras and enjoy an experience that's a bit different. It can rejuvenate my interest in photography sometimes. Secondly, photos I take using film truly do have a different "look" to them. Sometimes this is a good thing and sometimes it's not, depending on the subject I'm photographing. But in some cases, the nature of the film lends a certain appearance to the photo and it just seems to be appropriate in certain shots. The same shot with my digital camera might be fine, but not quite the same. Thirdly, I just enjoy using old cameras. The metal, the leather, the great mechanical sounds and textures, it's just a more pleasant tactile experience. One of the reasons I got my Fuji X10 (besides being small and convenient) was the look and feel of it. It sort of reminds me of some film cameras, just a bit. But it still feels like a cheap toy compared to my Canonet. My DSLR is great, but compared to my old film SLR it just seems plastic and boring. But they both work well and I wouldn't get rid of them in favor of only shooting film.

The simple reality is that manufacturers of film will keep making film as long as it is profitable. Signs are that the time that this will remain so will end in the near future. From where I'm sitting, film is supported by photographers my age for whom it is part of their self-identity, making it an emotional not an objective issue, and hipsters for which it is a passing fad. Once old-timers like me pass on and the hipsters move on the next hip thing, that will be the end of it, except for some specialized labs that will keep a then quite expensive medium going on a minor scale.

I shot film for some 30 years. I don't miss it. Maybe I'm missing a few brain cells or retinal cones, but I think that the vaunted "look" of film is seen by those who want to see it. The only thing that I personally think is an advantage of film is dynamic range. As somebody else observed, digital advances are making that difference less and less so with each generation of sensors.

irishman wrote in post #14956190
You had to work with film. Often you would fail to load it correctly on the take-up spool and not even know it, "shoot" the entire roll, pop open the camera back and see that you didn't take a single shot! I was so paranoid about it that I would sometimes pop open the back to see if it really loaded and overexpose several frames. And try loading a roll of film with gloves on when its -20 outside. Not being able to change your ISO (called ASA back then) on the fly meant that you would waste a lot of film. ASA 50 was a standard daylight film and you needed a lot of light for that! And then you had to develop the negatives in complete darkness, rolling it onto a spool. If any of the film touched in the developer you ruined frames.

WOW.....I could do that all by myself at 11 years old. My teachers couldn't and didn't believe it until my father went in and set them straight that he taught me how to load, develop and print my own B&W film.

There is something magical in watching a print come to life in the tray that digital so lacks

Bosscat wrote in post #14962086
WOW.....I could do that all by myself at 11 years old. My teachers couldn't and didn't believe it until my father went in and set them straight that he taught me how to load, develop and print my own B&W film.

There is something magical in watching a print some to life in the tray that digital so lacks

I like watching the print, but I like unrolling 36 little jewels of silver from the developing reel even more. Opening a file on the computer will never be like that. But if loading a roll into the camera is difficult, loading the film onto a reel would probably cause an aneurysm.

Bosscat wrote in post #14962086
There is something magical in watching a print some to life in the tray that digital so lacks

Yeah, I did that with my Polaroid Land Camera. I can dig it.

And the Swinger ... awesome.

joedlh wrote in post #14962078
The simple reality is that manufacturers of film will keep making film as long as it is profitable. Signs are that the time that this will remain so will end in the near future. From where I'm sitting, film is supported by photographers my age for whom it is part of their self-identity, making it an emotional not an objective issue, and hipsters for which it is a passing fad. Once old-timers like me pass on and the hipsters move on the next hip thing, that will be the end of it, except for some specialized labs that will keep a then quite expensive medium going on a minor scale.

Exactly. Already companies are dumping lines and choices are becoming more and more limited as the market for selling film related items grows smaller and smaller. People will continue to stay in business offering film, but prices aren't going anywhere but up.

Which is part of the reason I think the future of film is likely to exist in a mainly "Home-brew" fashion, where those of us with an interest in it as something with a process different to digital will simply learn to make our own products out of more common and readily available materials.

You can buy tables and chairs and foot rests at Walmart and it's all very cheap. But people still have work benches and power tools and build their own because they enjoy doing things the old way, the hard way. Many people do things the old way, to have fun and have a break from daily life.

moose10101 wrote in post #14960828
Nat Geo is not only NOT fully digital, they periodically publish photos using technologies much older than modern film (e.g. tintypes).

What I'm shocked (even amazed) about is that someone from their photo department apparently doesn't even read the magazine.

And Johnny Depp never watches the finished (or any version) of a movie he is in. Never. He says he enjoys the process of acting in the moment and has no desire to see the finished results.

joedlh wrote in post #14962078
but I think that the vaunted "look" of film is seen by those who want to see it.

To me the look of film is often a look of imperfection. Might sound silly, right? Not really.

With digital you can easily increase the ISO to help ensure you'll not have camera shake or at times even no subject motion. But is that necessarily a good thing? On the other hand, many a photography used slow film because it, at the time, was much better than higher ISO films. This at times lead to a "soft" image by camera shake and/or capturing subject motion or motion of background elements. And the grain (though today's films even ISO 400 and 800 is very fine grain) also makes the resulting print not look like exactly what your eyes would see if you were there.

To me, photography is mostly about showing things differently than my eye would see it. What's the point of taking the picture if it looks normal and ordinary?