Young people and film

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This misses the point of the thread. Younger people are less likely to join such gatherings (and have been since the '60s). The fact that their membership is dwindling has little to nothing to do with the future of film or the fact that younger photographers are showing a healthy interest in the medium.

 

I understand that younger people don't join organizations. But my point is that they need somewhere to go that has darkrooms if they are going to make a print. I don't think many high schools have them today. (My high school didn't have one back in the 60s but I had my own.) I don't think interest in film by itself will carry the day or matter to me without an interest in printing too. I just don't share the enthusiasm for shooting film if your goal is digital output. But I don't really believe there is a significant return to the values of hard work and craftsmanship for their own sake, as long as there is a quick and cheaper why to do something. After all, it once was very common for a hobbyist to own a darkroom. When I was 11, I could walk into the little drugstore in Haddonfield, NJ and pick up packets of Kodak paper and processing chemicals. How many here have one?

 

One other point about LF photography. A lot of 8x10 was shot for high volume product photography where the images had to be shot to size in order to fit into a catalog or brochure without requiring enlarging the images. It had little to do with quality for this type of work. I shared a studio with another photographer and we had 3 8x10s and 4 4x5s between us and a Polaroid 8x10 system for proof shots. We had three fridges filled with film. One young assistant looked in a fridge and said, "That film in this one fridge is worth more than everything I own." Just one high volume commercial photography studio probably used up more film in a year than the Lomo London store will sell. The film and 8x10 cameras were replaced by a Kodak DCS 460 and a Phase One 4x5 scan back. At $60,000 or so for the two it was easily justified in cost savings. He and I don't have any of those view cameras today.

 

I wish Lomo and film well, but until I see it being sold at BestBuy, I'll have my doubts.

Edited November 11, 2010 by AlanG

[adan]

I think one problem with these threads is mixed definitions about what "film photography" is.

 

"B&W silver" photography has not been used significantly in the fields AlanG mentions for decades. Except some very technical fields (which are not what I'm sure most people think of as "photography" - radiology, graphics-arts films for making printing plates, Polaroid records of oscilloscope waves, etc.), the "practical" film world has been all about color, since long before digital.

 

And the fine art photography world has been increasingly about color ever since Joel Meyerowitz and William Eggleston began selling color C prints (c. 1975 - to screams of outrage from the silver traditionalists).

 

So "B&W silver" photography does NOT equal "Film" photography - although it may, some day in the future. At the absolute peak of FILM photography, B&W SILVER photography was already a niche (a beautiful niche, but a niche). Check your assumptions to make sure you are not confusing the two.

 

The whole silver darkroom process was a revelation to me when I was introduced to it at the age of 16 - enough so that it became my career. Analog photography is wonderfully "transparent" in the way that a kid (and we're all kids at some level) can see what is actually going on - even in the dark. The light hits the paper "there" under the enlarger, and then "there" turns dark in the developer. Take an unfixed print out in the light and you can watch it die before your eyes (occasionally "solarizing" - which is cool in its own way). It's touchy-feely-seey (in a good sense) in a way that the electrons running around the CPU just can't be.

 

Color photography was already rather different. There was little to see in the totally black darkrooms required. There was nothing to experience or learn personally in seeing one's film go in one end of the Noritsu and prints come out the other. The results were all you saw, so the results were all that counted.

 

By the same token, it was also a revelation to me (at a younger age) that I could "play" vinyl records mechanically, using just a pin pushed through the tip of a paper cone to pick up and amplify the analog bumps in the tracks. Alas, my fascination did nothing to revive the market for Victrolas - audio amplification having gone irretrieveably electronic decades before.

_______________________

 

An aside to pico regarding his chairman's suppression of analog chemical photography. Sadly, there are factors institutional administrators have to face behind the scenes - The EPA and OSHA being a couple of big ones. Once you start mixing kids (for whom you have taken in loco parenti responsibility) with acids and other chemicals, the paperwork and inspections and other stuff go way up. Just having chemicals in the same building becomes a serious headache.

 

(To avoid going OT, I'll stipulate that digital is no better than film environmentally - the difference being that the noxious stuff is confined to factories and power plants and landfills, not darkrooms or classrooms full of minors.)

 

My high school recently tore down a wonderful modernist science building only 40 years old. I wondered why, until I walked through the halls of the replacement and saw all the new eyewash and shower stations, and fire-suppression units, and filtered ventilation systems that are now required any place there are chemical or bio-hazards (especially mixed with kids). In terms of meeting today's safety standards for chemicals, it was cheaper to start all over than to retrofit the otherwise functional building.

 

Properly handled, I don't think photography materials are very hazardous, and I'd like to see lots kids get exposed (in the good sense) to analog photography. Unfortunately, administrators have to answer to the regulators, not to me.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[twittle]

Why does every thread concerning the future prospects of film have to turn into a battle between the hopeful and the nay-sayers...? Is it really necessary?

[AlanG]

 

Properly handled, I don't think photography materials are very hazardous, and I'd like to see lots kids get exposed (in the good sense) to analog photography. Unfortunately, administrators have to answer to the regulators, not to me.

 

Yep, even "chemistry sets" don't come with chemicals today. It is fine for kids to be put at risk to play football, but not to actually learn something.

 

I don't make my posts to piss people off. I just have been in this field for a long time and can't help but comment on what I see going on. I perhaps have fonder and more memories of using film and printing than many others here. I have a very traditional view of what I see as a necessary foundation for what I consider to be a skilled photographer. However I also accept that many have proven that success can come in this profession or art field via a variety of paths.

 

As Adan pointed out, once clients no longer wanted b/w silver or Cibachrome prints and especially when they just wanted digital files, the incentive for me to use film was quickly replaced by the necessity for me to get up to speed with digital technology. First scanning film and then shooting digitally. Once the goal became digital output, I just didn't find the difference of shooting film significant enough to keep me using it much. (Perhaps things would be different if I hadn't already used film for so long.) I am not sure where an incentive to shoot film will come from. I understand the quirky counter technology images as a significant part of Lomography, but without the fascination of seeing the print appear in a tray, I'm not sure what is so fascinating about using those film cameras. I don't think the famous classic shooters or photographs of the past are inspiring people to shoot with Lomos and Holgas. There is very little emulation of tradition or craft. Which is OK by me too. So how this will play out is anyone's guess but I'm sure we'll see some typically vapid Lomo images selling for big bucks in NYC galleries before long. Maybe I should go that route too.

Edited November 11, 2010 by AlanG

[adan]

I think it is called "a marketplace of ideas."

 

I'm sorry, but if a thread starts out "I am always happy when I see young photographers give up digital and turn to film" - as of the moment "digital" was mentioned, the "digerati" have been invited into the discussion.

 

I respect you, twittle, but it does sound as though you are saying "We film users can talk about both film and digital - but digital users should be barred from the film discussions, unless they happen to agree with us. ;)"

[AlanG]

Why does every thread concerning the future prospects of film have to turn into a battle between the hopeful and the nay-sayers...? Is it really necessary?

 

If you are referring to me. I'm not a naysayer. I think the future of film photography is very clear as it will mostly be used by creative types who enjoy using it. This may not be a great number of people is all I'm saying. We probably agree on this. It will not be increasing for many "mainstream" aspects of photography. I think that is a positive development and may help define film photography as "art." Of course just because it is on film does not make it art either. After all you don't want everyone to pick up a hammer and chisel and start carving marble do you? Likewise, there are no more walk in daguerreotype studios and the few who shoot daguerreotypes today pretty much define themselves as fine artists. I say, get an 8x10 view camera, a darkroom and head out to Point Lobos with some naked women before the rush.

Edited November 11, 2010 by AlanG

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I will say that, if we were all saying exactly the same things while sitting together, knocking back toddies or single-malts in a warm inglenook at the local pub or "apres-ski," - it probably would not be interpreted as a "battle." Just a friendly exchange of ideas.

 

If everyone tries to keep that pub atmosphere in mind while reading - AND writing - there's no reason it can't just be fun.

[andybarton]

The whole forum is supposed to be "fun".

 

As soon as it stops being "fun", what's the point?

[twittle]

I think it is called "a marketplace of ideas."

 

The term "boxing ring" of ideas seems more appropriate.

 

I'm sorry, but if a thread starts out "I am always happy when I see young photographers give up digital and turn to film" - as of the moment "digital" was mentioned, the "digerati" have been invited into the discussion.

 

I respect you, twittle, but it does sound as though you are saying "We film users can talk about both film and digital - but digital users should be barred from the film discussions, unless they happen to agree with us. ;)"

 

I doubt you actually respect me; after all, I don't think I've done anything on this message board that demands or even timidly requests respect, but that's neither here nor there. But thanks, nonetheless.

 

I'll admit I didn't actually read the first post, but I've still been following the conversation, and my previous post was based on the general tenor here. Neither film shooters nor digital need exclude themselves from each other's respective discussions, but when the twain meet it is inevitable that the fur flies, and all with respect to a pointless, stale issue that will not and cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of all.

[twittle]

If you are referring to me. I'm not a naysayer.

 

Your posts give a very mixed message, to say the least.

 

After all you don't want everyone to pick up a hammer and chisel and start carving marble do you?

 

I see no reason why on earth not. Just because rubble will inevitably be created, so will the odd work of art.

[AlanG]

but when the twain meet it is inevitable that the fur flies, and all with respect to a pointless, stale issue that will not and cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of all.

 

 

I thought this was just a discussion of ideas. I never expected a resolution. If you consider me the most outspoken proponent of digital (which I am not because I don't give a damn what anyone else uses) you should realize that I am strongly convinced that film has a future. I can't say how big it will be but I'd sure like it to be one of more craftsmanship and creativity, not less. I am not sure if others agree but I see film photography and darkroom work to be linked if you really want to play seriously in the film world of the future. Why was this so easy for me as a teenager yet so few are willing to invest the effort today? In my book, you just can't go to a one hour lab and call the prints "art."

Edited November 11, 2010 by AlanG

[AlanG]

Your posts give a very mixed message, to say the least.

 

 

They will if you don't take the word "resurgence" literally. And I made a post on why I love film. I'm not monogamous. There will be no resurgence, there will be something.

Edited November 11, 2010 by AlanG

[twittle]

If everyone tries to keep that pub atmosphere in mind while reading - AND writing - there's no reason it can't just be fun.

 

In my experience with message boards (not just here), that's usually easier said than done, sadly.

 

The whole forum is supposed to be "fun".

 

As soon as it stops being "fun", what's the point?

 

Interesting is generally good enough for me , but I agree with the sentiment.

[andybarton]

Why do you jump into every "film" thread with your digital viewpoint Alan? Just wondering.

[AlanG]

Why do you jump into every "film" thread with your digital viewpoint Alan? Just wondering.

 

I've been making every effort to express my film viewpoint. Perhaps I see the value in shooting film as not duplicating what can be more easily and cheaply accomplished via digital photography. To repeat, if you are going to shoot film, you should make your own prints too. Color or b/w. It isn't that hard. I think that those who love film should also be involved in expressing some standards that show how much they truly value it. If they are willing to praise even the smallest interest in using film as significant, I think it undermines what is valuable about using film... making a serious commitment to using it in a personal way. I don't begrudge people having a hybrid film to digital workflow, as it is very convenient and can produce great results. But there is nothing "traditional" about this from a film photography sense and few outside this forum would find the resulting web displays or digital prints to be significantly differentiated from digital capture to be worth arguing about. But argue here they do... e.g. pictures shot on film have soul, pictures shot on digital don't. Well maybe some individual pictures have soul and maybe some don't. I always looked at the content as being the principal factor if a picture moved me. The process was secondary. But if that's what you think, stick to it and stay analog all the way.

 

Long before digital, I didn't consider people who casually shot film and took it to a one hour lab to be "real" photographers. Sorry. And with digital photography, there is much more of this same attitude because it requires even less commitment. Just shooting film today may say something about you, but what do you want that to be? I'd rather see a few really good film photographers than a bunch of mediocre ones. There's plenty of mediocrity to go around. Give everyone a Holga and there will instantly be a lot more "artists" I'm sure.

Edited November 12, 2010 by AlanG

[giordano]

Each morning I shave with a straight razor. I have had to learn to hone and strop, and to use the razor itself, but the results are worth the effort and I enjoy being able to use the skills I have spent some years learning. Such things are why we choose to go on living, are they not? The results, be they fine photographs or a smooth and irritation-free cheek, are a bonus.

 

This reminded me of the joke whose punchline is "Standing, in a hammock." I then thought I'd post something sarky about how I hope you also chop the wood to heat the water that you carry upstairs in a jug to the room where you shave. But this makes my point far better :

Civilisation advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them. Operations of thought are like cavalry charges in battle - they are strictly limited in number, they require fresh horses, and must only be made at decisive moments. (A.N. Whitehead)

[AlanG]

This reminded me of the joke whose punchline is "Standing, in a hammock." I then thought I'd post something sarky about how I hope you also chop the wood to heat the water that you carry upstairs in a jug to the room where you shave. But

 

 

Did you see the American Express commercial where Conan O'Brien goes to India, buys thread, weaves the cloth, dyes the cloth, all to make red curtains for his new show? He demonstrates that he cares about every detail.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIZCtDJtFPw

 

We have to draw the line somewhere.

Edited November 12, 2010 by AlanG

[twittle]

Civilisation advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them. Operations of thought are like cavalry charges in battle - they are strictly limited in number, they require fresh horses, and must only be made at decisive moments. (A.N. Whitehead)

 

I think many would take the opposite view. A lack of necessary thought has caused civilization to decline in many respects.

[giordano]

A lack of necessary thought has caused civilization to decline in many respects.

 

Are you saying that if politicians had to shave themselves with cut-throat razors they'd have less capacity to cause problems for the rest of us? I could sign up to that if I believed it was enforceable.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[twittle]

Are you saying that if politicians had to shave themselves with cut-throat razors they'd have less capacity to cause problems for the rest of us? I could sign up to that if I believed it was enforceable.

 

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying... Thoughtfulness is important in all activities. The best way to maintain one's faculties through life is to exercise the mind. Mindless activity leads to decay. We live in an increasingly mindless world; people need to think more, not less, and if that means shaving with a straight razor or engaging in thoughtful photography (film or digital), so be it.

 

Not that I'm a lover of politicians.