Film is coming back but where's the film?

[kivis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I keep reading articles about the use of film is making a comeback.

Is film making a comeback? Why indeed it is! | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

Traditional camera film makes a come back - Telegraph

 

Etc, etc. But in the meantime traditional film companies are closing shop or discontinuing film lines. So which is it?

[Advertisement]

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

[LucisPictor]

And where is the recommendable lab in my area??

[kivis]

And where is the recommendable lab in my area??

yes and that, too.

[iliahi]

I think we can only do our part and shoot film like there's no tomorrow. We'll do our good faith effort on the demand side. Hopefully this will get us over the churning and uncertainty involved on the supply side. Market economies obviously depend on both consumer and manufacture. Both have got to go to work.

[Fgcm]

Ilford Photo, Adox, Fuji film, OrWo survived.

Someone will pick up Kodak bw.

And the best lab is in your home.

All you need to process and whet print a bw film cost 200 / 300 euro, not more.

A Plustek scanner costs 250 / 2000 Euro depending on specs you need.

Mine is a cheap one and works fine.

You can set up a darkroom in the bathroom

It's easy and fun.

Try!

[LucisPictor]

I

You can set up a darkroom in the bathroom

It's easy and fun.

Try!

 

It's not difficult, that's right, but it's a nuisance to set it up correctly (completely dark) each time.

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You don't need a darkroom to process film, just to wet print.

 

There are plenty of different films available. Yes some have fallen by the wayside, and we have yet to see what will become of Kodak. I've said before, IF Kodak were to fail completely whilst it would be tragic, in another sense it would boost the sales of the remaining manufacturers and hopefully secure the future of other film products.

 

Commercial labs are plenty, if you don't have one local to you, you simply post your films off and wait a few days.

[AlanG]

I keep reading articles about the use of film is making a comeback.

 

If you go back further in time, before there were digital cameras, you will find that film was very popular among photographers. That first article is from May 2010 and the second one from May 2011. How many films has Kodak dropped since then? So can we conclude that these articles might have been correct that there was more interest in a narrow niche market but not in the broader market? Besides, as some labs closed the volume in the remaining labs might have picked up slightly.

 

Too bad he undermined his credibility and whatever points he was trying to make by posting those three images.

Why wouldn't a cell phone camera be good enough for those snapshots? Since his article was about how film can give better results than using a full frame digital M9 shouldn't he have show some examples that support this view?.

[Fgcm]

It's not difficult, that's right, but it's a nuisance to set it up correctly (completely dark) each time.

 

It's true. You need an appropriate room.

 

In my new house, the laundry room has no windows and has a wooden door.

I switch off the light and it's perfectly dark.

It's a perfect darkroom, large enough to work, with sink and water.

I'm a lucky boy

 

Franco

[CalArts 99]

E6 and C41 processing is also pretty easy to do yourself.

 

btw, there was a thread here not long ago about a new Jobo product. Here's an update from the recent Photokina: The Jobo Parts Blog: Its official: Jobo displays two CPP3 prototypes at Photokina

[250swb]

Too bad he undermined his credibility and whatever points he was trying to make by posting those three images.

 

Well it comes down to the thought 'I could do better than that' I suppose. And you get a lot of people baffled by Stephen Shore's 'American Surfaces' book for a similar reason. It looks like something they could do, but of course they don't, because there isn't a background idea in their tiny heads around which to base a consecutive series of images that hang together. Steve Huff has consistently photographed his family as 'actor's' in his scheme, a grand idea to document their lives via his own drive for a stable subject matter. Lets face it, as a means by which various cameras are reviewed it is superior to many other methods.

 

If film is making a comeback (and it is, despite a now massive shakeout), it is amongst the people who not only have an idea, but want to cement that idea with some idea of craft. They want to go the whole mile and not just a three quarters of a mile to get their message across. They perhaps want to dissociate themselves from fast action and instant gratification with slow gratification, something to mull over and refine. I'm not saying I like or dislike Steve Huff's pictures, but they should be seen in context in their own genre, not as some elite expression of what film can do, but what communication can do.

 

Steve

[AlanG]

I don't care if anyone likes or dislikes his images. And I have no idea what his other images look like or what his artistic motivation may be. I just don't see how those images have anything to do with making his point. He even says that they don't support his contention so why post them?

 

This is a quote from him, "Also, I have yet to get my own “pro” scans done so I am not talking about the silly snapshots of mine that have been posted so far, but soon I will have some real scans and I will share my results. "

 

There are objective measurable qualities and aesthetic ones. Clearly great photos can be made with all kinds of approaches and it is not always very dependent on the medium to communicate a personal vision. But if you are going to contend "IMO, a 35mm film camera with Leica glass and good metering can easily surpass even a Leica M9 for richness, color, and feeling." it would be nice to see some demonstration of that. Especially because he said it can easily do this. Of course he does lead off with, "IMO" so maybe that is enough for some. BTW, what are the technical characteristics that produce "richness" and "feeling?"

 

Thus IMO his images would have been just as vapid or intriguing (depending on your view) if shot with a cell phone. Many cell phone cameras are pretty good today and I've seen plenty of interesting personal projects shot on them. So why not?

 

As for "film making a comeback." What does that mean?

[CalArts 99]

 

Clearly great photos can be made with all kinds of approaches and is not always very dependent on the medium to communicate a personal vision.

 

The medium used is an integral part of an artist's personal production. btw, there was an art movement known as Process Art in the mid to late 1960s. There point was that one cannot separate out the process from the final product and in fact, art production is all about the process.

 

(Many cell phone cameras are pretty good today and I've seen plenty of interesting personal projects shot on them.)

 

And those personal projects are specifically using cell phones for a very specific reason.

 

Marshall McLuhan coined "the medium is the message." Granted he was looking at the politics of communication, but nonetheless the implication was that the form of the medium is always imbedded in the message and that the two form a symbiotic relationship with each other.

 

Take Sally Mann's work and the materials she specifically uses for her "personal vision" (and the physical process that she has to undertake to use them) as just one example of many........

[AlanG]

The medium used is an integral part of an artist's personal production. btw, there was an art movement known as Process Art in the mid to late 1960s. There point was that one cannot separate out the process from the final product and in fact, art production is all about the process.

 

Hey, I attended two photos schools. I remember countless trends that "everyone" was doing... kodalith prints, gum bichromate, filing out the negative carrier for crop-free black borders, pinhole cameras, etc. etc.

 

It is very easy for numerous people to think that just because they produce everything with a specific process or on a cell phone or with whatever, or via any kind of "plan," it will magically cross over to the realm of "art." I remember a classmate who had a series of his arm holding "cow pies" up against various skies. In retrospect, maybe that really was art as some kind of commentary on the approach of just having an "idea" and being serious and relentless about it.

 

So IMO through his statement that just by using film, Leica lenses, and "pro" scans you will easily get better "richness, colors, and feeling," he is misleading a gullible? audience. Originality accompanied by compelling visuals is harder to come by regardless of the camera or process you choose.

[jdsheepdog]

I will be setting up for processing my B+W when I get back from the Philippines, something I have not done for many, many years. It is still a long way off, and in the meantime I am taking photographs and filling the fridge with film.

 

I watch for scanners, and am encouraged by the general feeling that film will not vanish, at least in the immediate future.

 

Since we live, when home, on a boat, a regular darkroom is out of the question. It will be a tank in the galley sink, and one thing that is eluding me in looking around the net is a loading, or "black" bag. Can anyone point me to a supply house that would list such a thing?

 

Thanks all

[CalArts 99]

Hey, I attended two photos schools. I remember countless trends that "everyone" was doing... kodalith prints, gum bichromate, filing out the negative carrier for crop-free black borders, pinhole cameras, etc. etc.

 

It is very easy for numerous people to think that just because they produce everything with a specific process or on a cell phone or with whatever, or via any kind of "plan," it will magically cross over to the realm of "art."

 

So IMO through his statement that just by using film, Leica lenses, and "pro" scans you will easily get better "richness, colors, and feeling," he is misleading a gullible? audience. Originality accompanied by compelling visuals is harder to come by regardless of the camera or process you choose.

 

I'm not talking about that person's (Huff?) comment, but your comment about process. Process is an integral part of production; not the end result but the process. And the medium is very much part of the process. And an artist's choice of medium involves different ways of thinking and different ways of physically working which are both related to the end product itself. That cannot be denied. They are integrated with each other. An image does not exist only within its frame, it has a historicity. And it's not about trends nor about your personal art school experiences (your 'school' apparently did not teach you very much aside from the technical; contemporary art education is not about filing out negative carriers.)

 

You're not thinking very critically here but simply tossing out tired cliches about what you personally think about art production. And it's a very tired and conservative way of thinking (what I emphasized in bold.)

[AlanG]

I'm not talking about that person's (Huff?) comment, but your comment about process. Process is an integral part of production; not the end result but the process. And the medium is very much part of the process. And an artist's choice of medium involves different ways of thinking and different ways of physically working which are both related to the end product itself. That cannot be denied. They are integrated with each other. An image does not exist only within its frame, it has a historicity. And it's not about trends nor about your personal art school experiences (your 'school' apparently did not teach you very much aside from the technical; contemporary art education is not about filing out negative carriers.)

 

You're not thinking very critically here but simply tossing out tired cliches about what you personally think about art production. And it's a very tired and conservative way of thinking (what I emphasized in bold.)

 

My comments on trends was simply that almost everyone tries out various approaches and techniques before settling on one or more. It is part of the learning process. But my point being there is a lot more to it than that... as you know.

 

I am commenting only on what he said specifically about film and his lack of support for that via his examples. And I don't know why you are judging me or my education.

 

If you want to get into a broader discussion about what constitutes art, you'll have to please leave me out of it. I don't understand why my pointing out that his examples did not support his generalization about film would get you going in this direction.

[pico]

Ach! My darkroom is already at 47F and winter has not even begun.

.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[AlanG]

Ach! My darkroom is already at 47F and winter has not even begun.

.

 

I started out with a color darkroom in my parent's unheated garage. I wore a hooded parka in the winter. I was using a large 16x20 basket print processor that had a 100 degree heated water bath. I huddled over it.

 

I couldn't heat their garage but maybe you can heat your darkroom somehow.

[CalArts 99]

My comments on trends was simply that almost everyone tries out various approaches and techniques before settling on one or more. It is part of the learning process. But my point being there is a lot more to it than that... as you know.

 

I am commenting only on what he said specifically about film and his lack of support for that via his examples. And I don't know why you are judging me or my education.

 

If you want to get into a broader discussion about what constitutes art, you'll have to please leave me out of it. I don't understand why my pointing out that his examples did not support his generalization about film would get you going in this direction.

 

I'm in a particular "direction" only because I wasn't replying to what that other person said (this Huff person, which I didn't read) but only to your comment about media and process; i.e, specifically this: "Clearly great photos can be made with all kinds of approaches and is not always very dependent on the medium to communicate a personal vision."

 

I wholeheartedly disagree with that. Again, a choice of medium and/or execution (and including the actual physicality that is required) is an integral part of the whole process of expression and the two are symbiotic.

 

As far as "almost everyone tries out various approaches and techniques before settling on one or more it is part of the learning process" is concerned, artists are often constantly experimenting with media and process (and subject matter) and rarely settle on one over a lifetime. (Robert Frank is a good example of many.) And "the learning process" goes on forever in one's lifetime, or at least hopefully it does.

 

But I think part of my reaction is probably because I feel a dismissal or kind of knee-jerk reaction to art coming from you. Please forgive me if I misinterpret that, but it sounds like it to me (you use art in quotations as though it's not something real, and say things like "countless trends" or "magically cross over to the realm of "art."")

 

I don't necessarily like all the photography I see, but that doesn't mean I'm going to dismiss photography as form of communication and expression. Each photograph ever made has something behind it; some meaning and motivation for the author. I can't honestly dismiss that author's motivation or intent just because I don't agree with it or understand it. It's the same with food (I dislike certain foods but I can't dismiss them. Because they are valid somewhere down the line and for somebody, somewhere.) It's really the same with just about anything and not only with art, photography (or food.) In addition, our preference for things also changes over time (e.g., experimenting or traveling can change one's perspective about the world, etc., etc..)