Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

How Can Analog Photography Be Saved?

 

Here are three interesting websites that are dedicated to the endeavor of saving analog photography.  Digital photography is fun, quick and easy and can produce outstanding results; that having been said, it would be a real tragedy if analog cameras, film, chemisrty and the ability to outsource our printing needs were to vanish forever.

 

 

The websites:

https://www.oneyearwithfilmonly.com/single-post/Is-Film-Photography-Really-Saved

 

https://cameraventures.com/help

 

https://cameraventures.com/

Edited by Carlos Danger
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been seeing articles on the same lines now for what, 10+ years! 

 

In that time some films were discontinued and quite a few labs shut down. But then film use increased, someone found a way to make Polaroid again and now more new films are being announced. 

 

So fed up with the doom mongers! 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I mentioned a subject for a science fiction story earlier - the plot involved a significant number of super EMP bombs exploded over civilized areas and neutered all digital media.

 

Let our imagination fill in the rest.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Part of the trouble with digital photography is that it is sooo common. Everyone (thinks they) can do it. This, IMO, devalues it.

OTOH, analog photography once was a supreme craft, practiced at a level of expertise that was revered by others. Then digital upstaged it to a great extent. But now, analog is regaining its reverence, as must the practitioners. To be able to shoot, process and produce one's own images by this means is again seen as a thing of talent.

 

By remaining a niche area of photography, analog will retain it's appeal and mystique.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Take the hipsters out of the equation and you'll find an army of photographers who don't need Leica SL's, M10's & Youtube.

 

We never went away.

Well, I can agree with the thrust of your point, but I don't blame the 'hiptsters' for the retreat of analog and the advance of digital. There is also an army of working professionals who have left analog and embraced digital technology. Speaking for myself, the reasons are mainly financial and time sensitive. I am sure you know that very well.

 

The fact is, the majority of 'shooters' are not professional and so 'the others' tend to be the consuming drivers of the market. Digital will consume them and 'we' shall be left in relative peace. :D

 

Declaration: I own and use more film cameras than digital, despite just acquiring an M10.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the trouble with digital photography is that it is sooo common. Everyone (thinks they) can do it. This, IMO, devalues it. OTOH, analog photography once was a supreme craft, [... snip please see post ...]

 

That is one view. Another is that analog photography was tedious and expensive enough that the everyday person was discouraged from doing it and that hacks who endured the process made money. When making pictures, especially color pictures was as easy as pointing a tiny telephone appliance the hacks lost their niche, especially as the hacks became editors, IOW photograpy became democratized for better or worse.

 

.

 

Edited by pico
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I mentioned a subject for a science fiction story earlier - the plot involved a significant number of super EMP bombs exploded over civilized areas and neutered all digital media.

 

Let our imagination fill in the rest.

.

Can I assume you're referring to the "One Second After" novel series by Dr. John Matherson? Total civilization breakdown. My film cameras will work, and no problem finding darkness to load my film tanks, but with no running water, it'll be difficult to do proper film washing. And I'll need a powerful flashlight in my enlarger to make prints. All good until I run out of chemistry, but better than nothing!

 

Anyway, I think analog photography will always be around. As an encouraging sign, I recently saw a student from the local high school out and about with a Spotmatic; film is a requirement for the photography class.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Analog photography was existing before film and will exist after film. Analog photography is taking the image optically on analog light sensitive emulsion. Emulsion on plates, paper and film. Just like one of those:

 

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Emulsion/emulsion.html

 

:)   

Edited by Ko.Fe.
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That is one view. Another is that analog photography was tedious and expensive enough that the everyday person was discouraged from doing it and that hacks who endured the process made money. When making pictures, especially color pictures was as easy as pointing a tiny telephone appliance the hacks lost their niche, especially as the hacks became editors, IOW photograpy became democratized for better or worse.

 

.

 

 

Tedious and expensive? Yes! But some of the best things in life take a little longer.

I did make money but claim not to be a hack. I performed in an arena that no one else could match, at the time. Today's phone shooters are largely doing the work I did once upon a time. They are doing it badly, in the main. Or totally missing the shot.

 

I/we dedicated ourselves to our craft and had the opportunity to gain excellence. I believe I made it on a relative basis. No phone shooter (not even me) will achieve what I did with a real camera. My craft was gleaned from film photography and carried over into my digital work. Without the analog upbringing I believe I would not have got where I did creatively. Film taught an understanding that is not part of the inherent digital scenario.

 

I am glad I have both because together they are formidable, if one is up to it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the trouble with digital photography is that it is sooo common. Everyone (thinks they) can do it. This, IMO, devalues it.

OTOH, analog photography once was a supreme craft, practiced at a level of expertise that was revered by others. Then digital upstaged it to a great extent. But now, analog is regaining its reverence, as must the practitioners. To be able to shoot, process and produce one's own images by this means is again seen as a thing of talent.

 

By remaining a niche area of photography, analog will retain it's appeal and mystique.

Er.....what is photography for?

To preserve a mystic craft?

Or to record images of what the photographer sees in front of them?

 

Sure, there's an attraction in doing things just for the sake of the process and the exercise of disappearing skills. But let's not pretend that that is particularly relevant to why photography was invented.

To borrow from Bill Clinton: "It's the image, stupid".

 

(FTAOD, the last word is just a quote and is not directed at you, erl, or anyone else).

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Er.....what is photography for?

To preserve a mystic craft?

Or to record images of what the photographer sees in front of them?

 

Isn't it both of those things?

 

There are other ways of just recording what's in front of you than with a camera, and not all photography is just recording stuff.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Er.....what is photography for?

To preserve a mystic craft?

Or to record images of what the photographer sees in front of them?

 

Sure, there's an attraction in doing things just for the sake of the process and the exercise of disappearing skills. But let's not pretend that that is particularly relevant to why photography was invented.

To borrow from Bill Clinton: "It's the image, stupid".

 

(FTAOD, the last word is just a quote and is not directed at you, erl, or anyone else).

Paul, I don't know if I properly understand what you posted, so I hope I don't get this wrong.

Photography is not to preserve a mystic craft, in fact I'm not sure that it is even that. To me it is many things. Currently it is a release mechanism for some of my inner emotions. It used to be a passion that provided an income. It will always be a skill that I aspire to increase. Not everyone is equipped to do it well. Like brain surgery, it demands discipline as well as imagination. Some of us will be better at it than others. Let them be rewarded accordingly.

 

Photography is like other forms of art. Not really easily defined. In fact why bother? Just do it!

 

As for Bill, well, a nice bloke, but he got a few things wrong, didn't he. :p

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it both of those things?

 

There are other ways of just recording what's in front of you than with a camera, and not all photography is just recording stuff.

The way analogue photography is written about in some of the preceding posts has little to do with photography except as a means to an end, IMO, and a lot to do with nostalgia and an affection for passing traditional craft skills. People are welcome to learn and exercise such skills, and I will admire and respect them - but not as photographers, unless the final image has a value in itself.

 

If, by your second sentence, you mean drawing/painting as other means of recording, then I agree with you. I don't wish to argue about how to define photography vs drawing, but I see photography and drawing/painting as different mainly because of the near instantaneous nature of photography, and the greater choices about subject, composition and appearance of drawing/painting. One can, of course, invent scenarios where they are difficult to distinguish from each other  - think of Terry Pratchett's iconographs, painted instantaneously by imps, or more realistically drawing from a camera obscura. 

 

Can you explain what you mean by "not all photography is recording stuff"? I was not intending to imply that the sole purpose of photography was to create an exact record.

Edited by LocalHero1953
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, I don't know if I properly understand what you posted, so I hope I don't get this wrong.

Photography is not to preserve a mystic craft, in fact I'm not sure that it is even that. To me it is many things. Currently it is a release mechanism for some of my inner emotions. It used to be a passion that provided an income. It will always be a skill that I aspire to increase. Not everyone is equipped to do it well. Like brain surgery, it demands discipline as well as imagination. Some of us will be better at it than others. Let them be rewarded accordingly.

 

Photography is like other forms of art. Not really easily defined. In fact why bother? Just do it!

 

As for Bill, well, a nice bloke, but he got a few things wrong, didn't he. :p

Erl, I think you understood me, but I suspect we have a different approach to these things.

 

I enjoy the process of photography and learning the skills, but they are entirely ancillary to what I want to do, which is create an image (to express it in its simplest form). I was delighted when digital photography reached a stage where I could ditch film and the processes involved - the quality of the images I produced improved dramatically (IMHO!) when I was able to take almost unlimited numbers of photographs at minimal marginal cost for near instantaneous review: I could see the results of my photographic choices while I could remember exactly what I was doing and thinking at the time, make corrections and do it again. That process is still going on. It would not have happened if the technique of taking a photograph had not got out of the way of seeing and creating the image.

 

I don't expect everyone to agree, but I wouldn't regret the passing of analogue for itself - only because there are still some photographic results that cannot be achieved without it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I assume you're referring to the "One Second After" novel series by Dr. John Matherson? Total civilization breakdown. My film cameras will work, and no problem finding darkness to load my film tanks, but with no running water, it'll be difficult to do proper film washing. And I'll need a powerful flashlight in my enlarger to make prints. All good until I run out of chemistry, but better than nothing!

 

Anyway, I think analog photography will always be around. As an encouraging sign, I recently saw a student from the local high school out and about with a Spotmatic; film is a requirement for the photography class.

 

I spent some time yesterday guiding the son of a friend through eBay, he is taking a photographic class in college and part of that requires film. The Minolta XD-7 he was using died so I was helping him select a replacement. 

 

Sadly, his knowledge of basic photographic terminology and equipment was severely lacking, when I asked if he had to have an SLR or if other options were possibilities his answer was "I don't know what you mean".

 

Happily though we selected a Mamiya/Sekor 500 DTL which his Professor pronounced "perfect".

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why worry? Today we can buy all the film and paper we are likely to use for the rest of our lives.

Caveat emptor: "We can" may be dependent upon age, life expectancy, disposable income, and ability to resist shooting our EOS-1V HS at 10fps for extended and repeated periods.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...