A Farewell to Film

[holmes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A Farewell to Fil..........by Ernest Hem....... Ok I don't believe that Hemingway was a photographer of any particular note. However he lived during the golden age of photojournalism and most of the other photo isms.

B&W ruled the day, though one did see occasional color. Imagine setting the ISO (ASA) at 12. Those of you who have had the distinct pleasure of shooting Kodak's ISO 25 can get a feel for ISO 12. These were the free wheeling days when often the bathroom sink and toilet were pressed into service. The editors of the New York papers were ever demanding on shots from the front or elsewhere when General Franco landed with his troops from the Canaries and Spanish Morocco. Rick's was serving up their liquor while Sam sang, "You Must Remember This, A Kiss is still a kiss". Robert Capa and David Douglas Stewart(?) running up and down the mountains of Spain. Hemingway was running with the bulls in Pamloma. Gertruide Stein held court in Paris for writers. Then the Germans shouted in a madman as der leader. Get two good history books about WWI and WWII. The parallels are incredible. Neither leader had been invited to Paris. One never made it, the other had to capture it. The Kaiser traveled to Vienna and not much more. The other went where his armies went and not much more nor for very long. The American photographers had an edge over their British and French counterparts. Even though the was started on September 1st,1939. America did not enter until December 1941. The ever hungry photo editors in NYC wanted more and more. You had the day the Germans marched into Paris: there is the movie of a middle aged Frenchman with tears running down his face. Then you had the wild explosions of the Germans leaving followed by Free French and Americans. All recorded by Capa and Douglas Stewart to name two. Capa had come ashore with the first wave of American troops at Normandy. Most of his film was spoiled by a darkroom technician back in England.Yes, that was an exciting time to be alive and a photographer. Rather than sitting around debating the merits of film vs. digital. David Douglas Stewart happliy in a lead jeep with a Leica. Rather than sitting around debating the merits of film vs. digital.

David Douglas Stewart happliy in a lead jeep with a Leica

[KM-25]

First time I have been on the computer since last month, what freedom, nothing like being on the road without the distraction of the digital world, camera or otherwise.

 

Yesterday, I was shooting a band practicing unplugged on a cliff above the ocean North of Bodega Bay, CA, it was a greatly abstract scene, a perfect Kodachrome I thought. After I was done, the lead guitarist asked me what it was like not seeing the image right away. I said it was like playing guitar like you do, by feel, instinct, flow and a sense of rhythm.....instead of looking down at the fingerboard to see if your finger hit the right fret.

 

Digital is fine, but to me it is old news, the same old thing since I have used it for nearly 17 years. Not one person I know aspires to arrive early at the end of their life, instead they savor the journey, not the destination and since all this new technology has not increased the length of an earthen day more than the current 24 hours, I cherish every moment and prefer to use film in my journey through life.

 

The day I walk onto a beach and find that the grains of sand have been replaced by pixels is the day I fake my own death and become a monk in Myanmar.

[AlanG]

When it comes to photography, is it the process or the results that interest you? If it is the results, then it doesn't matter what process was used.

 

I don't know David Douglas Stewart, but David Douglass Duncan is well regarded.

[JBA]

When it comes to photography, is it the process or the results that interest you? If it is the results, then it doesn't matter what process was used..

 

It's not a question of either-or, but rather both-and.

[colin_d]

I can't say that about film either. I've binned all my old Agfachrome slides because they have turned a low-contast brown. Irrecoverable..

 

My Ektachrome and Agfachrome slides from 35+ years ago are still perfect, maybe storage has a lot to do with how they last, which, is no different to digital when you think about it. A hard drive or flash stick can easily crash as well.

 

When I look at my slides, on the big screen or a viewer, they take on a character and appeal I don't get when I scan them and view them on a computer screen, no doubt about it.

 

I vehemently defend film, but if I could afford an M9 no doubt I would jump in, but also keep my M5 for the real brain stretching stuff.

[zlatkob]

A Farewell to Fil..........by Ernest Hem....... Ok I don't believe that Hemingway was a photographer of any particular note.

 

But Hemingway appreciated good gear. In A. E. Hotchner's book Papa Hemingway: A Personal Memoir he is quoted: "I bought her [his wife Mary] a Hasselblad with a fourteen inch lens that looks like a sixty-millimeter mortar and costs a little less than a Jaguar".

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In this shot of Hemingway by Ken Heyman - KenHeyman.com: Details

 

what Hemingway is looking down at (out of frame) is one of Heyman's Leicas. Heyman tells the story and shows the contact sheet (with other shots of EH admiring the "gadget") in his photo-editing book "The Best Picture." Amazon.com: The Right Picture (9780817457259): Ken Heyman, John Durniak: Books

[jaapv]

My Ektachrome and Agfachrome slides from 35+ years ago are still perfect, maybe storage has a lot to do with how they last, which, is no different to digital when you think about it. A hard drive or flash stick can easily crash as well.

 

When I look at my slides, on the big screen or a viewer, they take on a character and appeal I don't get when I scan them and view them on a computer screen, no doubt about it.

 

I vehemently defend film, but if I could afford an M9 no doubt I would jump in, but also keep my M5 for the real brain stretching stuff.

Maybe, but maybe the quality of the development. I know the late Fritz Pölking had the same problem with his Agfachrome slides, and one would assume a top photographer would take care of his images.

[pgk]

A new medium has its own characteristics, and the effective artist will find the aesthetic beauty in those, rather than make a pastiche of the past.

Well whilst this is to some extent true, there are examples of where modern technology has to be used but the end result may look like it is older. In the UK you cannot build a traditional Elizabethan house in exactly the same way as it was originally built - it has to incorporate modern requirements, but this does not mean to say that a house cannot be built which appears to be Elizabethan (and I believe such buildings exist and have been built in order to be in keeping with their surroundings). Whilst I do not want to shoot digital and make it look like film I see no reason why people should not do so if they want to, nor why it cannot have any less artistic merit than any other image. Viewers may neither know nor care what it was shot on.

 

I don't really understand why this debate exists - imposing 'rules' or requirements on image creation is limiting, and anything which limits image creation cannot be a good thing. I do not want to go back to film photography, but I see no reasons for others not to do so - until the technology (film) becomes uneconomic to produce (which may or may not happen). But stating that there is no reason to make digital look like film is IMHO rather unreasonable.

[wizard]

Hmmm. my brother has a 60-year old Kuba taperecorder that he restored to perfect working order recently - no problem obtaining the electronic parts, valves etc.

 

Jaap,

 

a 60 year old taperecorder used dicrete electronic parts, transistors, diodes, capacitors, resistors etc. Those parts can still be bought today.

 

A modern electronic device, such as a digital camera, employs highly integrated and often custom built electronic circuits. They are the problem, as over the years there have been tens of thousands different models, and of course, no one still makes the older ones as they were produced on entirely different equipment. Believe me, you will not be able to buy this stuff in 60 years from now, likely not even in 30 years from now. Canon just terminated a maintenance contract for one of our copy machines as they stopped making replacement parts and thus can no longer provide full service for that device. The machine is 7 or 8 years old!

 

Andy

[bill]

Useful

things,

carriage

returns...

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[jaapv]

Jaap,

 

a 60 year old taperecorder used dicrete electronic parts, transistors, diodes, capacitors, resistors etc. Those parts can still be bought today.

 

A modern electronic device, such as a digital camera, employs highly integrated and often custom built electronic circuits. They are the problem, as over the years there have been tens of thousands different models, and of course, no one still makes the older ones as they were produced on entirely different equipment. Believe me, you will not be able to buy this stuff in 60 years from now, likely not even in 30 years from now. Canon just terminated a maintenance contract for one of our copy machines as they stopped making replacement parts and thus can no longer provide full service for that device. The machine is 7 or 8 years old!

 

Andy

Nice thing about the M8/M9: They are built out of discrete off-the-shelf electronic parts Nothing (except of course the sensor microlenses) was designed specifically for the camera. Well, maybe we'll need some donor cameras Don't forget, we think these are very complicated and highly sophisticated machines. In 60 years time they will be regarded as simply built primitve relics, any high-school kid could service them.

[plasticman]

I find it fascinating that this debate goes around and around. Two observations:

 

- I'm fascinated by the persistent fallacy that all that needs to be added to a digital photograph to make it look like film is grain.

The way that film captures an image looks intrinsically different from the way a digital sensor captures the same scene. Which way is preferable is entirely up to the individual, but adding grain, contrast and other 'film-like' elements (whether manually or through very sophisticated plug-ins) doesn't and can't recapture the essential differences in the way the original image is made.

 

- I find arguments about the competing persistence of each media totally irrelevant. Most of what we photograph probably deserves to disappear within a reasonable timespan. Anything that deserves careful preservation will probably be looked after accordingly.

 

Anyway, I assume that Lars was bored by the long-term absence of his digital camera and decided he would justify his frustration by taking it out on the film crowd. Ironic, really.

[Guest BigSplash]

Nice thing about the M8/M9: They are built out of discrete off-the-shelf electronic parts Nothing (except of course the sensor microlenses) was designed specifically for the camera. Well, maybe we'll need some donor cameras Don't forget, we think these are very complicated and highly sophisticated machines. In 60 years time they will be regarded as simply built primitve relics, any high-school kid could service them.

 

Jaapv this is true but unfortunately it is also very misleading.

 

The M8/M9 uses a very specialised DSP that is used in some other equipment. Likewise the sensor made by Kodak is indeed a standard device used by others. In both cases these are not huge volume devices that are commodities such as transistors, op amps etc as mentioned earlier .

 

So I question whether they will really be available as you suggest in 10, 20 ,or more years?

 

The sensor has the microprisms added as a later step .....wll the facility that does that be up and running in say 10 years?

 

The only answer is for Leica to rigorously analyse failures over the next years and determine if there are any wear out mechanisms that can be used to quantify the number of failures in 10, 20 years and then build an inventory that exceeds this number. That is what the military and others do.

[plasticman]

The day I walk onto a beach and find that the grains of sand have been replaced by pixels is the day I fake my own death and become a monk in Myanmar.

 

Not wanting to pick a fight here by any means, because I'm usually (as in this case) 100% behind what you say. But I think sometime over the summer I remember seeing a post from you about the M9 where you said something like "I really want one of these!"

 

Is this a change of heart?

 

As I've said elsewhere, I shoot both film and digital (the M8). I really love the images from the M8, but when I view them alongside my film images, they look surprisingly one-dimensional and 'artificial' (for want of a better word). When I tried the M9 I didn't feel any differently about those images (in fact I preferred the color-rendering of the M8, among other things - but that's another story).

 

I'm intrigued therefore by this statement alongside the earlier one (unless I'm mistaken - in which case I naturally apologize).

 

Mani

[bill]

The only answer is for Leica to rigorously analyse failures over the next years and determine if there are any wear out mechanisms that can be used to quantify the number of failures in 10, 20 years and then build an inventory that exceeds this number. That is what the military and others do.

 

No.

 

It isn't.

 

As usual.

 

They can also do what any other normal, right-thinking organisation does and cease official support for a product after a reasonable period of time.

 

We are talking about consumer electronics here, after all, not Challenger tanks...

[jaapv]

Jaapv this is true but unfortunately it is also very misleading.

 

The M8/M9 uses a very specialised DSP that is used in some other equipment. Likewise the sensor made by Kodak is indeed a standard device used by others. In both cases these are not huge volume devices that are commodities such as transistors, op amps etc as mentioned earlier .

 

So I question whether they will really be available as you suggest in 10, 20 ,or more years?

 

The sensor has the microprisms added as a later step .....wll the facility that does that be up and running in say 10 years?

 

The only answer is for Leica to rigorously analyse failures over the next years and determine if there are any wear out mechanisms that can be used to quantify the number of failures in 10, 20 years and then build an inventory that exceeds this number. That is what the military and others do.

Ah- you are talking about the highly collectable "Bundeswehr-M8"! I seem to recall one sold at Westlicht for 190.000 Euro in 2058....

 

 

Btw. It is a sad world when the truth is misleading.

[jaapv]

 

They can also do what any other normal, right-thinking organisation does and cease official support for a product after a reasonable period of time.

 

Indeed, one or two decades after production ends in this case. However that won't stop retro-freaks from buying up old cameras and breaking them up for spare parts.

[Nicoleica]

We are talking about consumer electronics here, after all, not Challenger tanks...

 

Thankfully. It might be very disconcerting if one should accidentally drop an 'M', were it to be fitted with reactive armour!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[stunsworth]

In a way I'm surprised we're still having this debate. I would have thought it obvious that any method of recording images has its pros and cons - whether it's film, digital, or carving stuff on rocks.

 

We all weigh up the pros and cons, and hopefully choose the system that suits us best at the time. There's no right or wrong, only personal preference.