Jump to content
Leica M EV1: Die erste M mit EVF statt Messssucher ×
Leica M EV1: The first M with EVF instead of Rangefinder ×

Film based images

iain parker

By iain parker
in Film Forum

Recommended Posts

Michael Geschlecht

Michael Geschlecht

Posted
Posted

Hello iain,

 

Welcome,

 

I think you are clear evidence that film is not dead.

 

Nice photos,

 

Sort of the exploratory photojournalistic style of the 1970's. Not a bad group to be in.

 

People recorded the world as they saw it without first giving it time to spruce up. They set the groundwork for much of what followed.

 

When people say film is dead they are not saying it does not work anymore. What they are saying is it is sort of like shoes with laces.

 

Shoes w/ laces work perfectly well. They are good at many things.

 

Now there are shoes w/ velcro.

 

Wheras a six year old child or adult w/ arthritis can have trouble tying laces a 2 year old or person whose hands don't work quite that well today can easily do velcro.

 

Same thing here:

 

Digital is technologically cheaper to produce. This means manufacturers make greater profits.

 

It does not necessarily mean lower costs to consumers.

 

Digital, due to computerized technology, can be made more user friendly. This means less user required input therefore potentially increasing the user base to people not included before.

 

Film (meaning film, chemicals, paper,etc) is better today than it has ever been. Its future as a capture medium from the perspective of its ability to form an image has nowhere to go but up.

 

Film is more expensive in the totality than the alternative from the creation of image capture mechanisms/materials to the finished image on a cost per completed image presented basis.

 

Film is more ecologically toxic.

 

Please note: I've always been a tree hugger. I'm not talking about how I look @ the World.

 

I'm talking about people who are finally realizing that the waste stream created by industry will have to be remedied.

 

It is poisoning the earth at a rate such that it will soon be mandatory to deal with it because it is significantly encroaching on the industrialized world's ability to maintain itself.

 

Following the Second World War, in less than 50 years, the industrialized world threw away more trash than had been thrown away by all the people of the entire planet from the beginning of people to 1945.

 

Since then, as the population has increased and more people are quite reasonably asking for an equivalent piece of the pie, this situation has worsened.

 

Consequently people including those who have no concern for the environment are realizing that their individual lives they once thought protected by borders drawn on maps are not.

 

Film photography is net more toxic than its replacement which certainly comes with its own kettle of fish.

 

And more.

 

BTW: I think there are still places where people use glass negatives. For some things they are better.

 

Sort of like high-buttoned shoes.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

 

Who's workhorse is an M3 w/ 35mm Summicron w/ goggles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest joewehry

Guest joewehry

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am not so convinced of the film vs digital ecology argument. In terms of cameras, consider the film Leica which last most photographers a lifetime, vs. the continual 1-3 year cycle replacement of digital. Even if a Leica lasted 30 years, thats 10-30 digital cameras. Per photographer. And then there are the circuit boards inside. (gee, no toxic waste in that process....) And batteries that need frequent replacing and disposal. (You do recycle your batteries or toss them into trash?) And then there are computers multiplying the mfg / waste cycle every 1-3 years. And electricity to run the darned things. And the energy to run the internet for all the web sharing, and all the computer equipment in the world required to make that happen. And the plastic and chemicals in the printers to do our own publishing. Etc., etc...

 

Digital is no economical or ecological angel. But while you are at it, you could consider going vegetarian. Look at the environmental impact of the meat process. Yikes. And walk to work. Dump the car and get a bike,.... Oh, and bottled water or any beverage for that matter. And all those photographers taking jets to film the world with their ecological (?) digital cameras. Gee, no carbon footprinting there....

 

Every process leaves its mark and it's good to be aware of where we can minimize the impact. For those wondering about film, you can visit Kodak's corporate web site to see what they do to address ecological issues for one example.

 

But back to film based images per the OP. Lovely images and stick with it to really discover what you can do with film. And get to galleries if you can that show original prints. You'll be blown away and challenged to do better with your craft.

 

BTW - There is a great photo book that looks at one part of the oil industry that is worth a purchase or look

 

CURSE OF THE BLACK GOLD: 50 Years of Oil in the Niger Delta

Link to post
Share on other sites
earleygallery

earleygallery

Posted
Posted
Digital still wins if you have a quality digi camera. No scanned film is as good.

 

Sorry but that's just bollocks!

 

Why does it always have to be an either or argument? I prefer film to digital output, to me it's way better in terms of quality, tone, colour etc. My point of view. I understand others prefer the look of their digital files. Fine, it's personal, not a proven fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
pico

pico

Posted
Posted
Film photography is net more toxic than its replacement which certainly comes with its own kettle of fish.

 

I rather doubt that film photography is more toxic than digital. We don't see the whole impact of manufacturing for digital because so much of it is in Asia, although the USA does have a centered manufacturing area. Still, we do not get the picture.

 

Besides, so very little film is used today that overall, the minor impact is marginal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
j. borger

j. borger

Posted
Posted
Many time I have duplicated an image on both film and digital using Leica film cameras and Nikon full frame digital. Digi wins, but I still llike my film cameras and use them regularly, screw mounts, M`s and R cameras.

 

Define "wins" ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
erl

erl

Posted
Posted
To the masses, they can not be bothered with film. Just like they could not build a darkroom in decades past.

 

Digital still wins if you have a quality digi camera. No scanned film is as good.

 

Sorry Tobey, but 'absolute' statements can always be challenged, and even disproved.

 

Earlier this year, I travelled to Antarctica for three weeks, taking with me the following cameras: M7, M8 and M9. The M7 film camera was to be used as backup for the digitals in case of 'climate' failure. As it transpired, all cameras functioned perfectly and I just enjoyed using them for their respective virtues.

 

Back home, I edited and prepared an exhibition display at A2 size, purely based on image quality and aesthetics. I was surprised to realize that the clear 'winners' were B&W images from the M7 films. I processed the film myself and then scanned it to produce the prints digitally, despite having a fully functional darkroom. To be completely transparent, I was initially drawn to the B&W images as a preference, but the digital images processed to B&W did not attract me as much.

 

Forgetting my preference, repeatedly, other people remark especially on the filmic images as outstanding. I had not set out to proved one better than the other and probably I didn't prove anything, but the ability of film to hold it's own is clearly alive and well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
pico

pico

Posted
Posted

Just a minor story here. A colleague, who is a published professional, presented material for his most recent book to a number of publishers via the 'net without success. Then he met with one publisher in-person and when he pulled out the material, all 35mm and Hasselblad transparencies, in plastic sleeves, they perked up immediately. A viewing table was brought out, the loupes came out, and they dove into the slides with greater interest.

 

I am not sure why that happened. Perhaps it was a fluke, but they were definitely most interested in the films, and the book was published. Here it is: Purebred and Homegrown - America's County Fairs

 

Oh, just yesterday the author and I had coffee and he told me that he had just purchased his first digital camera, a Nikon something-or-other. So it goes!

Link to post
Share on other sites
iain parker

iain parker

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thank you one and all for the feedback and the intelligent discussion.

 

my intention is not the age old film verses digital debate, as it a tired point. i have used a D3 and M8 over the years and from an artistic point of view i have always been drawn back to film. digital does have a place and for certain photographers it is a valid point of view and reference for the world they see. it's not a question of what is best, because that is a redundant question and serves no purpose for intellectual debate on the subject.

 

Photography is what matters and what you see and do with the understanding of the subject. your chosen voice or medium is an expression, a beginning rather than an end. trends, like fashion come and go with time. the more aspiring photographers who do not learn the basics via film the more poorer they will be in the future. after all an M3 can function completely free of any kind of electrical power, if you do not how to use experience and learning then you won't be able to use one, or a camera like it to get an image regardless.

 

i think photography needs to come to it's senses somewhat, at the end of things, the image is what we seek and strive to find. that perfect little moment when it all comes together, if by doing so, you can inspire another to stop and look, even for only a minute, then it has all been worth while.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest malland

Guest malland

Posted
Posted
...my intention is not the age old film verses digital debate...digital does have a place and for certain photographers it is a valid point of view and reference for the world they see. it's not a question of what is best, because that is a redundant question and serves no purpose for intellectual debate on the subject...
Iain, film vs digital threads are usually a bore because so many people often just parade their prejudices. I tried to start a thread that was aimed at discussing what specifically, except for the obvious things, is different between film and digital: the discussion did not get very far but a few interesting points did emerge.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Scratching the Surface©

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...