Dear God, Shall I drop digital?

[mca]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree with this, 100%.

 

But the problems remain that because of the timing of the Internet information age and an ever increasing interest in technology over artistry or vision in photography in broad terms, film based photography needlessly takes a brutal beating on not a daily but hourly basis across the Internet. Berating film or the film user has literally become a big new subset of the social photography sphere.

 

I feel like if I just mosey along happily using film and never say anything, I am not doing the medium I love any favors, hence the post above by MCA that he does not know any pros who use film and therefore seems to think that there are none and it is worthless for film makers like Kodak, Fuji or Ilford to to invest in the making of and marketng of film for pros.

 

This is wide spread misinformation based on both digital hype and people's lack of motivation in finding out what the actual truth is. I call it the "Little Bubble of Convenient Information" in that one just assumes the color of the front lawn in their own yard is the same as the one 6,000 miles away, therefore stating to all that all grass is the same color.

 

It's ok if you want to believe something is better, dead, the best, not worth it, perfect, etc. But the nauseating issues to me are in the way people present these opinions as fact that applies to everyone or that what the majority does matters to everyone. Why even talk about the majority here, it's not like Leica has ever been that by the way...

 

Like I said, this is news to me. And I do come here to learn, so no harm there. Anyway, are you saying that you know a lot of professionals who still use 35mm film as their main medium? And if so, is that on a relevant representation of the market? Can you throw in a number, more or less? Being a film enthusiast, I'm quite interested in this.

 

Thanks

Luis

[tomasis7]

Ikarus, I'd understand. What I do is to store used 50 rolls before development then use Epson V700 scans or send them to lab. It is done in almost no time. It is worth to hold my M3 for that.

 

None delivered digital with 0,9x VF (it is not that important in comparison between "medium"). No meter, no battery charging, no memory card changing which I hate to do on Rd-1. Funny that digital twindling is even more cumbersome than the film photography plus film developing for me.

 

The question about developing prints is how good one thinks is as photographer. If he makes exhibitions, 20 prints, then it is totally worth to do the whole analog process.

 

I dont want buy 5k worth printer to make large prints if i ever need and upgrade the whole digital equipment every each period including storage.

 

One counts that using M9 pays of if ones makes billions images. Im not in such mood to make snapshots in order make mental economical confimation.

 

In the end, for me 100% analog process is much cheaper, less time consuming etc.

[IkarusJohn]

Thanks Tomasis, I understand completely.

 

Printing is always going to be something I send out for. To justify the expense, the image needs to be something I'll look at more than once. If I've printed it, I'll want to frame it - that isn't going to happen often.

 

When I print, it will either be using an online service like White Wall - that way I've done all the post processing digitally the way I want it, or I'll take the negative up to the local printing place and talk to the printer - that way I get less control, though. Better print? not sure.

 

Will continue to stockpile my rolls of exposed film - it's the taking of the image I enjoy the most!

 

Cheers

John

[KM-25]

Like I said, this is news to me. And I do come here to learn, so no harm there. Anyway, are you saying that you know a lot of professionals who still use 35mm film as their main medium? And if so, is that on a relevant representation of the market? Can you throw in a number, more or less? Being a film enthusiast, I'm quite interested in this.

 

Thanks

Luis

 

I am saying I know a fair number of photographers globally who are using 35mm black and white and some color in editorial that is more in depth reporting. There are also some wedding shooters, two on here, NB23 and one other one in Florida with Leica. Not all are using it as their main medium but enough are using it that up and coming shooters take notice, are intrigued by it. I use 35mm for mostly editorial, like the magazine assignment I am working on that has a July 2013 deadline. My main use of film is in medium and large format, nearly 100% black and white.

 

So when we say pros and do not specify what level, what genres and locations, that means all of them to me, the average weekend wedding pro to the David Burnett's of the world.

 

As part of my assignment over the weekend, I did a monstrous 26 mile hike at an average elevation of 11,500 feet with a gain of over 8,000 feet, I was pretty tired when done. But after even an hour of reading this kind of thread and trying to curb the nasty web born idea that film is dead, pros no longer use it, digital has replaced it and to not even bother trying, I am effing exhausted, like I did two of those hikes back to back.

 

I have loved using digital full time since 1994, but this ongoing bludgeoning of film on an hourly basis makes me sick to death of what has become of photography, enough to where I want nothing to do with it anymore at times. So I am moving like a hurricane away from digital just because I can not stand the attitude associated with.

 

So I come back here once and awhile and try to say, "Hey, I am using it, have no problem buying it, printing it, selling it, WTF are you guys talking about?"

 

Enjoy the debate fellas, I am once again, fully worn out....

[tomasis7]

Will continue to stockpile my rolls of exposed film - it's the taking of the image I enjoy the most!

 

It is what Gary Winogrand did. He inspired me to collect used rolls

 

Foremost of all, as you say, taking image is the best thing I know.

 

 

have nice time with m3

cheers

 

Tomas

[tomasis7]

Enjoy the debate fellas, I am once again, fully worn out....

 

It is part of game. People who sit a lot against computer screen, find a lot energy through typing about anything else, feed on sweets & soda, staying home.

 

Recharge energy in your compact darkroom, please

 

I noticed that film users enjoy time outside computer. I've spent countless hours working on computer before and I thought it is time to get quality of life and time then I suddenly switched everything from digital to oil painting, lol. You bet that Im enjoying of life.

 

Enjoy of hike, mate!

[CalArts 99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

But the problems remain that because of the timing of the Internet information age and an ever increasing interest in technology over artistry or vision in photography in broad terms, film based photography needlessly takes a brutal beating on not a daily but hourly basis across the Internet. Berating film or the film user has literally become a big new subset of the social photography sphere.

 

I feel like if I just mosey along happily using film and never say anything, I am not doing the medium I love any favors, hence the post above by MCA that he does not know any pros who use film and therefore seems to think that there are none and it is worthless for film makers like Kodak, Fuji or Ilford to to invest in the making of and marketng of film for pros.

 

 

I certainly do admire your commitment and your efforts as a spokesperson for the medium. I probably also see this a bit differently since being in the art world (and also in the pedagogical side of it), there really is no argument over the choice of materials. Film is never given a 'brutal beating' and in fact, it's actually seen as something worthwhile and by an army of new students who have been brought up on nothing else but the internet as their source of all information. And there is quite a bit of film promotion going on out there among that age group.

 

But even long before digital there were always people more interested in "technology over artistry." It's always been an industry (i.e., photo materials and equipment) and there were 'techno wars' going on just as there are today. Yes, information has been sped up with the internet but that particular paradigm hasn't really shifted that much overall.

 

Nonetheless, the reality is that film is being consumed at a much smaller volume and that the big users (meaning the really big studios and agencies) have moved to digital primarily for speed and costs. Even in the movie industry the studio execs are pushing digital because of budgets. They 'put up with' certain directors who want to stay with film primarily because of the box office profits that those directors can pull in and not because of the film aesthetic. Most producers (the actual money people) would like to see film go away and profit margins go up.

 

I'd like film to be around forever. And I think it will in some fashion. Maybe a bit more scarce and more expensive, but I feel that it will be around. One can still do pretty much any of the vintage alternative processes that preceded celluloid. Bostick & Sullivan and Photographer's Formulary are still in business. Of course we do have to bear in mind that the industry which provides us (i.e., sells us) all of our tools are for-profit corporations and not benevolent organizations. And if there's no profit to be made then well, there it goes. None of the suppliers are basing decisions on what's being said on the internet; it's all about actual profit margins and the real bottom line.

 

But keep on promoting film, I'm all for that. I think one does have to be careful not to alienate potential users and bring them on board in ways that they can understand and to see how using film might be beneficial to them as a medium. This isn't a war (or at least it shouldn't be.)

 

p.s., I used to live in El Jebel a looong time ago when I was a ski bum. Couldn't afford Aspen proper or Snowmass, etc.. Those were the days of skiing on long skis, beer, sunshine, and of course processing B+W film in bathroom darkrooms.

[erl]

Just a little statistic to add into the discussion here. I am a working professional and I use digital for all my paid work, however most of my extensive working life was with film because that is all there was until recent years. I remember asking my then film supplier why amateur films always came out with the 'latest& greatest' improvements before Pro films.

 

His answer was enlightening. Amateurs were used as guinea pigs for releasing Pro films, but the 'obvious' reason was that amateurs were far and away the greatest consumers of film compared with Pros. Simply a weight of numbers. So film survival into the future will not be dependent in any way on Pros, if this statistic is in any way correct.

[AlanG]

It is part of game. People who sit a lot against computer screen, find a lot energy through typing about anything else, feed on sweets & soda, staying home.

 

Recharge energy in your compact darkroom, please

 

 

There is the other side... some of us have spent so much time in a darkroom we can't imagine ever going back into one.

[zlatkob]

There is the other side... some of us have spent so much time in a darkroom we can't imagine ever going back into one.

 

Some famous photographers of the film era didn't spend much time in the darkroom either. Some didn't do their own printing and had no love for the chemistry of photography. They loved the art of photography, but didn't feel enough attachment to the darkroom process to actually do it. They may have viewed darkroom work as a necessary but unpleasant part of photography. Film and chemicals were a means to an end, not an end in itself. The end was the picture. And the picture was made with the medium that was available at the time. I believe that for such photographers — those not enamored of the chemistry of photography — digital would simply be a NEW film. That is, just another recording device to load in the camera, now a digital camera. This new "film" doesn't come in a yellow Kodak box, but serves the same purpose.

[erl]

There is the other side... some of us have spent so much time in a darkroom we can't imagine ever going back into one.

 

There are also varying takes on that 'time'. I can't imagine anyone having spent more time in a darkroom than I have! A rough guess, 1 hr behind a camera necessitates, say 4 hrs in the darkroom? Not too different from the 'digital ratio' IMO. Yes, I was glad to 'release' myself from the darkroom as a 'necessity' (weary legs and all that) after many many years, but some of my most pleasant photographic moments were always in that 'sanctuary'. It is for that very reason I have never contemplated disassembling the 'holy of holies'.

 

A vague hope is that maybe just one of my grandchildren will enjoy it one day.

 

This little guy, 3yrs old, is #1 contender.

Note his natural 'leica' grip!

 

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!

 

P.S. This image was created on FILM using a Leica M7.

[Guest Ming Rider]

Wow a natural and both eyes open as well. Good lad.

[robert blu]

i was recently in a couple of touristic places and was impressed looking at all people shooting digital. I was thinking that only a few years ago most of them (let's only imagine 50%) were shooting film. And how much sales the film industries lost. I have no figures about but if you think about all people traveling for tourism or holiday shooting now digital the loss for the industry is huge.

robert

PS: I admit that one part of tourist shooting now digital were not shooting film.

[erl]

Wow a natural and both eyes open as well. Good lad.

 

I have to admit he does it better than I do!

Hope springs eternal.

[mca]

I am saying I know a fair number of photographers globally who are using 35mm black and white and some color in editorial that is more in depth reporting. There are also some wedding shooters, two on here, NB23 and one other one in Florida with Leica. Not all are using it as their main medium but enough are using it that up and coming shooters take notice, are intrigued by it. I use 35mm for mostly editorial, like the magazine assignment I am working on that has a July 2013 deadline. My main use of film is in medium and large format, nearly 100% black and white.

 

So when we say pros and do not specify what level, what genres and locations, that means all of them to me, the average weekend wedding pro to the David Burnett's of the world.

 

As part of my assignment over the weekend, I did a monstrous 26 mile hike at an average elevation of 11,500 feet with a gain of over 8,000 feet, I was pretty tired when done. But after even an hour of reading this kind of thread and trying to curb the nasty web born idea that film is dead, pros no longer use it, digital has replaced it and to not even bother trying, I am effing exhausted, like I did two of those hikes back to back.

 

I have loved using digital full time since 1994, but this ongoing bludgeoning of film on an hourly basis makes me sick to death of what has become of photography, enough to where I want nothing to do with it anymore at times. So I am moving like a hurricane away from digital just because I can not stand the attitude associated with.

 

So I come back here once and awhile and try to say, "Hey, I am using it, have no problem buying it, printing it, selling it, WTF are you guys talking about?"

 

Enjoy the debate fellas, I am once again, fully worn out....

 

I understand your point and respect it, but I must say that if you don't enjoy these discussions and explaining your points of view, which are as valid as anyone else's, then maybe you shouldn't bother to come here.

 

Regarding your reply, I think you have just made my point. Very few photographers are using 35mm film for professional use. Even you admitted that you're using it for one assignent and that's due next year and most of what you shoot is not in 35mm film. The convenience of digital for delivering quick and good results is unbeatable.

 

And as I understand you're doing it more to prove a point than anything else

[erl]

.... snipped

Regarding your reply, I think you have just made my point. Very few photographers are using 35mm film for professional use. Even you admitted that you're using it for one assignent and that's due next year and most of what you shoot is not in 35mm film.

KM-25's point is not about Pro's per se, but about (all) photographer's that use film. Pro's were never a large user of film (see my earlier post).

The convenience of digital for delivering quick and good results is unbeatable.

I don't think that has been disputed and is not the point anyone id trying to make.

 

And as I understand you're doing it more to prove a point than anything else

I think your understanding could be mistaken there. KM-25, to my knoweldge, has always used a lot of film, relative to digital.

[CalArts 99]

Pro's were never a large user of film (see my earlier post).

 

And of course only in the context of the sheer number of consumers versus the number professionals. But I gather everyone understands that.

 

Here are figures from PMA's data (it only applies to the US consumer market)

 

In 1999 about 800 million rolls were sold in the US.

In 2005 about 315 million rolls were sold in the US.

[pico]

People, consumers, have always taken the path of least resistance - that which yields adequate outcomes with the least expense/effort. Why would anyone be surprised that digital has dominated?

 

The average pro is in the same paradigm, although he might choose cameras that his clients consider adequate.

 

Nothing has changed.

[AlanG]

 

...The average pro is in the same paradigm, although he might choose cameras that his clients consider adequate.

 

Nothing has changed.

 

8x10 -> 4x5-> 120-> 35mm-> digital

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[zlatkob]

People, consumers, have always taken the path of least resistance - that which yields adequate outcomes with the least expense/effort. Why would anyone be surprised that digital has dominated?

 

The average pro is in the same paradigm, although he might choose cameras that his clients consider adequate.

 

Film would be the path of least resistance for me. Shoot it, drop it off at the lab, pick up the prints. The results would be adequate. No backups, no adjustments, no computer time, no big investments. Digital requires that I do more work, but I get better results. With digital, I can shoot in less light and craft my photos in ways that I never could in the darkroom.