pico Posted May 23, 2012 Share #101 Posted May 23, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yeah the Amish are big photography buffs. The Amish have their particular prides. A young man with his small buggy and beautiful horse with a high-stepping gait is as puffed-up in pride as a regular English-mon in his brand new Mustang hot rod. I've seen it. I would stop dead in my tracks seeing some of the horses they had. Some amazing training and breeding there. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 23, 2012 Posted May 23, 2012 Hi pico, Take a look here Is it time to stop regarding film as the benchmark for B&W?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pico Posted May 23, 2012 Share #102 Posted May 23, 2012 Do you care to innumerate what specific aspects of film photography are required to master in order to make one a better digital photographer? None. Please read what I wrote and do not cast my post into a different meaning. Redefining what was written, or clearly implied, does not help understanding. In fact, it is a cheap shot. There are certain things a film camera can do that digital CANNOT, and if you do not understand that, then you have been assimilated, or you do not care and therefore accept marginalization. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted May 23, 2012 Share #103 Posted May 23, 2012 The Amish have their particular prides. A young man with his small buggy and beautiful horse with a high-stepping gait is as puffed-up in pride as a regular English-mon in his brand new Mustang hot rod. I've seen it. I would stop dead in my tracks seeing some of the horses they had. Some amazing training and breeding there.. And your point? I like horses, paintings, and manual transmissions too. (My handwriting sucks with any kind of pen.) Last chance to buy a new Ferrari with a manual gearbox: http://www.carthrottle.com/the-last-fully-manual-ferrari/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted May 23, 2012 Share #104 Posted May 23, 2012 There are certain things a film camera can do that digital CANNOT, and if you do not understand that, then you have been assimilated, or you do not care and therefore accept marginalization. . Well I have a very long film background and haven't seen the need to use a film camera for my commercial assignments in the past 8 years. So instead of these sweeping statements, I was hoping you could fill me in on specifically what I am missing out on and why other commercial photographers would need to know about film photography or when they would need to employ it. Many do not even own a film camera. I think film is fine but I don't see it as some kind of prerequisite, just as knowing darkroom work is not a prerequisite either. As a matter of fact, after talking to some photographers, it is clear to me that you really don't need to know much about anything to be a photographer today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Messsucherkamera Posted May 23, 2012 Share #105 Posted May 23, 2012 The Luddites destroyed machinery that threatened their livelihood. Do you feel threatened by film so much that you would use the word Luddite so recklessly? Haven't you been following the news? All around the globe, tens of thousands of disenfranchised luddite film photographers are protesting against digital photography and engaging in civil disobedience. Droves of these bitter, marginalized film militants march, protest, incite riots, impede traffic and smash the windows of camera stores that sell digital cameras. A some have even gone so far as to pose as prospective camera buyers in order to get a Nikon D800 or D4 in their hands. While the camera salesman extols the virtues of the latest digital wonder camera, these film extremists will smash the megadollar camera to the floor, stamp it into worthless rubble and bolt from the camera store wild eyed, shouting "WE ARE THE 0.000001 PERCENT!!!" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted May 23, 2012 Share #106 Posted May 23, 2012 I hate to tell you this but digital HAS superseded film. Just look around you. The vast, vast majority of images are now shot digitally, so film has in effect been superseded (replaced). As I said in an early post, there are now many photographers out there who have never shot a film image - and many others who have had their interest in photography rekindled by the digital revolution. On this forum we are likely to see more discussion about film than most because it is likely that a significant proportion of Leica photographers are traditionalists with a greater grasp of the historical perspective of Leica, and photographic process in general, than are say dSLR users. For those of us who grew up with film there is an inevitability about the way we view digital imagery and compare it with what we were brought up with. But if anyone thinks that today's digitally reared photographers are honestly going to go back to a technology which they are unfamiliar with, and then utilise it as a benchmark for their familiar technology, then they are kidding nobody but themselves. I am writing this response to you from a major metro High School where I have been a guest speaker doing a presentation today in their new multi-million dollar campus…that includes a state of the art 7 enlarger station darkroom that was included in the renovation at the insistence of both the staff and students. In short, the the students I invited to read your posts in this thread that I have been treating as a read only until now think you need to both open your mind and not assume so much about "Young People" not seeking out the answers for them selves. Many of the students in the darkroom program actually choose the elective to GET AWAY FROM COMPUTERS which they are surrounded by since BIRTH Paul. They take woodworking, textile and other classes to keep a balanced perspective on life of which you seem to be lacking. Young people like to actually get away from the technology you are sooooo in love with to get a broader perspective on life, make well rounded choices. Not only do young people NOT believe all that is served up on Facebook and the internet hype engine to be gospel, they challenge it with intrepid thinking, seeking out the truth them selves in both studies and in practice. yYoung people think for them selves and professional artists like my self who have been shooting digital far, far longer than you choose to use film because it is a choice that leads to a superior way of life, a different kind of path to the same goal, that being a stunning image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted May 23, 2012 Share #107 Posted May 23, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am writing this response to you from a major metro High School where I have been a guest speaker doing a presentation today in their new multi-million dollar campus…that includes a state of the art 7 enlarger station darkroom that was included in the renovation at the insistence of both the staff and students.... Well that is very good for them. However, I am trying to picture this community and their budget. I went to high school in the late 60s in a fairly prosperous county. We had a newspaper, yearbook, etc. and the school had about 2500 students. There were several photographers working on the publications. We unfortunately had no photography classes or a school darkroom. (I had my own.) Three of us from that one group of school photographers studied photography in college and became professional photographers. (I don't know if any other students did too.) It is my understanding that the school now has 3 levels of photography classes that include darkroom work under its fine art program. However I think this only re-enforces that the world of film photography will probably end up being mostly fine art oriented and film will not likely be used much in applied or commercial photography. I bet most photographers for school papers and yearbooks are shooting digitally today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted May 23, 2012 Share #108 Posted May 23, 2012 Young people like to actually get away from the technology you are sooooo in love with to get a broader perspective on life, make well rounded choices. Firstly, try rereading my contributions to this thread before making incorrect statements. Secondly. When I studied photography I did all sorts of utterly irrelevant exercises, such as making separations in the darkroom - a hideous process which I swore never to do again. Oddly enough I've come across several educational bodies setting up darkrooms despite the fact that traditional photography will/has already become very peripheral. Regardless of what you think it is no longer the yardstick or benchmark for photographic images. I attended a small photo trade show run by my local dealer today. Canon, Nikon, Leica, Sigma, Tokina, etc., were all represented and there were lots of images on show. Guess how may were film derived...... Film will have its place but this thread is about whether film is still the benchmark. I have tried to explain that it cannot be so and in reality isn't. If you want to disagree I have no problem with that at all, but please read my posts before thinking that I am obsessed by digital photography and computers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted May 23, 2012 Share #109 Posted May 23, 2012 I am principally a film person. I wouldn't kid myself that film is the benchmark any more. Most "35mm" photographers don't care about film anymore, even if they ever did. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted May 23, 2012 Share #110 Posted May 23, 2012 Time passes. Andy is right - if any of you seriously think that film is anywhere mainstream, you're deluding yourselves. It is well into the Long Tail. When my camera gear was stolen, the insurance company said they would replace my F5 with an F6, but it would have to be made to order by Nikon. Nikon! Made to order! I suspect even Leica makes M7s and MPs to order, rather than to stock. Kodak, the greatest film company ever (I say that purely in recognition of Kodachrome) is going broke and doesn't make slide film anymore. How marginalized do you need to get? Will film and film cameras stop being made? Probably not any time soon. The internet will ensure it has a long and prosperous life in the fringes, but not in the mainstream. Does that mean that film will no longer be the benchmark? Well, film hasn't been the benchmark for colour for some time, and it probably won't be for B&W for much longer either, with high quality conversions from colour digital (Silver Efex Pro et al) and the Monochrom, film will lose much of its relevance. It you consider the discussion about the Monochrom, the issue has moved. Initially, the question was whether or not the Monochrom could match film, but then there was a subtle shift - the issue is now about the ability to manipulate the colour sliders of an M9 image to optimize the B&W conversion. With film, you're stuck with the tones and range of the emulsion; the Monochrom images are the same - you can influence either with filters, but that's it. Will B&W film always give a better image? Sure. Absolutely. And here comes the Easter Bunny. I will always get a buzz out of shooting Tri-X on my M3 and developing the film. I will tolerate cleaning fluff and dust off the negatives to scan it. I won't unpack my enlarger and set up a dark room to do wet printing. Film is cool, but in a woodcut, back to basics way. Benchmark? Well maybe, but not for much longer. Historic images taken in B&W when film was at its peak (think about it) will be something to aspire to. Digital will reach its own peak at some stage. Will it be as high as it was with B&W? Will we match the images? I don't think that depends on the technology of film, chemicals, digital sensors or post-processing, but the skills of the photographer, and the quality of the tools. The issue will be taking the time to do something worthwhile. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted May 23, 2012 Share #111 Posted May 23, 2012 it's time for popcorn. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/179531-is-it-time-to-stop-regarding-film-as-the-benchmark-for-bw/?do=findComment&comment=2021857'>More sharing options...
pico Posted May 23, 2012 Share #112 Posted May 23, 2012 Time passes. Andy is right - if any of you seriously think that film is anywhere mainstream, you're deluding yourselves. It is well into the Long Tail. So what? The Long Tail contains as many enthusiasts as the 'right' tail, possibly more. It is a culturally rich area, unlike the 'right' which contains largely fans of the fads. When my camera gear was stolen, the insurance company said they would replace my F5 with an F6, but it would have to be made to order by Nikon. Your agent is an idiot. Will film and film cameras stop being made? Probably not any time soon. The internet will ensure it has a long and prosperous life in the fringes, but not in the mainstream. Again, what is the virtue of the mainstream? Does that mean that film will no longer be the benchmark? Well, film hasn't been the benchmark for colour for some time, and it probably won't be for B&W for much longer either, with high quality conversions from colour digital (Silver Efex Pro et al) and the Monochrom, film will lose much of its relevance. I thought you were smarter than that. Will B&W film always give a better image? Sure. Absolutely. And here comes the Easter Bunny. More innuendo. Film is not restricted to 35mm formats. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted May 23, 2012 Share #113 Posted May 23, 2012 Your agent is an idiot . I have a story about damage to a bathroom suite and a loss adjuster that sums insurance up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted May 23, 2012 Share #114 Posted May 23, 2012 Your agent is an idiot. My read was that the agent was willing to replace the F5 with an F6 but one was not readily available and needed to be custom ordered by the claimant due to lack of demand. What can the agent do about this? The title of this thread leaves little to discuss other than opinions as we all set our benchmarks wherever we want to set them. Although I have never thought of setting a benchmark, digital became viable to me for a lot of my work when the 1Ds came out as my clients approved of the quality it produced. Prior to that I did some web work and other projects with "lesser" digital cameras that I did not feel rivaled 35mm film but were more than good enough for the application of the images. In the past, sometimes a customer would specify a format or I felt I needed to use a small, medium, or large format on a specific job. A lot of that has changed due to clients becoming less knowledgeable or less concerned... and the fact that 35mm digital is doing a very good job for many applications. So if film is a benchmark of anything, who is specifying it is to be used? In what format is it to be used? And for what application? I went to college at a time when 35mm was put down by one professor as "miniature" photography and real photographers shot 5x7 or larger. (Thankfully not all felt that way.) With that kind of attitude, Bresson would never have gotten an assignment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted May 23, 2012 Share #115 Posted May 23, 2012 My read was that the agent was willing to replace the F5 with an F6 but one was not readily available and needed to be custom ordered by the claimant due to lack of demand. What can the agent do about this? That is correct. Nikon offers one film camera - the F6, and it is made to order if you order it from here. There is insufficient demand for it to be in stock here or in Japan, it seems. Canon doesn't list a film camera at all (their last film camera seems to be the Rebel T2/300x/Kiss 7). Hasselblad still offers its V system. Leica offers two film cameras (seen any new, not old stock, M7s or MPs sitting on shelves in shops recently?) Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted May 24, 2012 Share #116 Posted May 24, 2012 Perhaps consider that this so called benchmark itself is subjective. For example, Kodak Technical Pan film was considered the benchmark in sheer resolution, but it was hardly ever mainstream, it started out as and ended as a niche product with films like TMax 100 coming close in terms of resolving power but being far more usable in terms of tonality, contrast and processing options. Old Holland oils are widely considered the benchmark of oil paint, not Adobe Illustrator. Even though there are plenty of neato "brushes" in Adobe Illustrator or Photoshop and one can output a digital "oil painting" to shiny canvas, it is a different path to what could be a similar looking piece of art. Adobe, easy, digital output, not considered a painting. Oil painting, not mainstream, hand made, never has to see a computer to be realized... Film is no longer mainstream, it is niche, perhaps even Alternative Process, that's a good thing. Black and white film as it stands right now is like oil painting, it is hand made and never has to touch a computer to be realized in terms of how the artist uses it, therefore it is not even to be compared to some stupid digital benchmark. The M9M could very well be the new benchmark in the greyscale digital workflow, but it will never be a benchmark for black and white film, because the digital workflow is the computer one... But I do get it, those on this thread that have a deeply rooted belief that digital is their personal lord and savior take every opportunity to remind everyone else that they have been saved and that the rest of us are going to perish in hellfire in the darkest-room....you live for that, don't you. I'll just happily move about my visual business as I shoot both workflows right next to each other, prophecy be damned... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Printmaker Posted May 24, 2012 Share #117 Posted May 24, 2012 The Amish have their particular prides. A young man with his small buggy and beautiful horse with a high-stepping gait is as puffed-up in pride as a regular English-mon in his brand new Mustang hot rod. I've seen it. I would stop dead in my tracks seeing some of the horses they had. Some amazing training and breeding there.. More than half a lifetime ago I used to buy my horses at the New Holland Auction. The horses were mostly race track Thoroughbreds who didn't make the cut. With a little work they made decent saddle horses. They sold for about .50 per pound or $400- $500. Whenever a flashy carriage horse came up, the Amish would get into a bidding war and they would often get the price of the horse up to the price of a new Mercedes. It was fun to watch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted May 24, 2012 Share #118 Posted May 24, 2012 But I do get it, those on this thread that have a deeply rooted belief that digital is their personal lord and savior take every opportunity to remind everyone else that they have been saved and that the rest of us are going to perish in hellfire in the darkest-room....you live for that, don't you. No. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Messsucherkamera Posted May 24, 2012 Share #119 Posted May 24, 2012 Yes, it's true: Film is no longer mainstream. I, for one, could not care less what the "mainstream" does, thinks, says or buys. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TshawM8 Posted May 24, 2012 Share #120 Posted May 24, 2012 Again, what is the virtue of the mainstream? . This statement if funny to me. What does virtue have to do with ANYTHING? The merit of mentioning films departure from the mainstream is apparent with regards to technological advances. Even if it does not exist now, the fact that digital is now the mainstream ensures that technological advances will, more than likely, result in digital eventually have thing same, if not better, quality image as film. This, in case you have forgotten, is the topic of this thread. Your response was seemingly arrogant and condescending. This is a sensitive topic, I understand, but there is no reason to become overly emotional. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.