AlanG Posted October 8, 2012 Share #21 Posted October 8, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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..) Geez it sure doesn't seem to take much for you to filter things though your own perspective or agenda and jump to whatever conclusions you want. Yes, I forgive you since I realize you know virtually nothing about me and do seem to misunderstand me pretty much completely. And for all you know, I might agree with you about art. Why don't you just read the article and deal with what I was actually referring to instead of trying to read my mind on my views about art? Again, he gave me the impression that he was telling people that if they simply used a Leica lens, film, and pro scanning, they could easily improve the "richness, colors, and feeling" of their images. Whereas I feel there is much more to it than just that. Do you agree with me on this single point I was trying to express or not? (As I don't believe there is any shortcut to significantly "better" photographs via simply adopting a specific process alone.) I am not saying the choice of process has no value. In any case, that article is 2 1/2 years old and who knows what he believes at this point? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 Hi AlanG, Take a look here Film is coming back but where's the film?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
CalArts 99 Posted October 8, 2012 Share #22 Posted October 8, 2012 Geez it sure doesn't seem to take much for you to filter things though your own perspective or agenda and jump to whatever conclusions you want. Yes, I forgive you since I realize you know virtually nothing about me and do seem to misunderstand me pretty much completely. And for all you know, I might agree with you about art. Why don't you just read the article and deal with what I was actually referring to instead of trying to read my mind on my views about art? Again, he gave me the impression that he was telling people that if they simply used a Leica lens, film, and pro scanning, they could easily improve the "richness, colors, and feeling" of their images. Whereas I feel there is much more to it than just that. Do you agree with me on this single point I was trying to express or not? (As I don't believe there is any shortcut to significantly "better" photographs via simply adopting a specific process alone.) I am not saying the choice of process has no value. In any case, that article is 2 1/2 years old and who knows what he believes at this point? Again, sorry if I misunderstood. All I can go by is what's written in words and in your posts (and a forum is of course not always the best format for discussion.) Anyway, I was following up from what Steve said here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/2202676-post11.html (which I thought was pertinent) And then your reply here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/2202689-post12.html It was the second sentence of the third paragraph of your post, and not what this Huff person was talking about. And I simply disagreed with what your implication is/was (at least what I read it as.) The fact remains that the medium is hugely important in respect to communicating. The medium becomes part of the artist's production effort (e.g., hauling around a view camera versus a cell phone and what that even means in the overall context of the history of art production), and it becomes part of that final effort in communicating the author's 'vision' and intent. It's inevitable. This is what I believe Steve was referencing in his post. It's not only the images of Stephen Shore's work that "communicate his vision," but the very fact that he uses a view camera has an effect on his approach to subject matter and the choices he makes in intellectualizing his subject matter. Using a cell phone would be a different Stephen Shore body of work and not just in the appearance of the final images themselves. In respect to this: "Again, he gave me the impression that he was telling people that if they simply used a Leica lens, film, and pro scanning, they could easily improve the "richness, colors, and feeling" of their images. Whereas I feel there is much more to it than just that." If that's what this individual believes, then that's fine with me. It's up to the reader to decide. And sure, I'd agree there's more to image production besides only the materials. Although someone could readily experience a radical change in their world view if they decided to try those materials he is espousing; people often get epiphanies interacting with something that's new and different to them, it happens all the time. In the meantime he's not doing any disservice to anyone. This is the internet and not an academic peer reviewed journal article. And even published journal articles are always open to interpretation. What Huff said is what he probably truly believed at that given moment, and there's no real harm done. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted October 8, 2012 Share #23 Posted October 8, 2012 The fact remains that the medium is hugely important in respect to communicating. The medium becomes part of the artist's production effort (e.g., hauling around a view camera versus a cell phone and what that even means in the overall context of the history of art production), and it becomes part of that final effort in communicating the author's 'vision' and intent... Yep that could be true in many cases and for many people. I've used everything from 9.5mm Minox to 8x10 and virtually every "modern' process since dye transfer and Cibachrome so I already knew that. But I often used a 35mm film or digital camera as if it were a view camera. So from my perspective when used this way the only difference is the film size or medium choice and the resolution. The approach is the same so the results on "reasonably" sized prints may not vary much. And showing images on screen, which is how most view them today, sadly is kind of a lowest common denominator factor that marginalizes many of the choices that photographers make. In any case, none of this was what I was getting at in my posts. I don't see anything in Mr. Huff's article that deals with craft, art, personal expression, personal vision, etc. He gushes over amazing film images he has seen "recently" and how one needs the best scans to communicate its quality digitally. But he doesn't show any examples. Wasn't that my issue? And he says that film is making a comeback with no explanation of what he means by that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted October 9, 2012 Share #24 Posted October 9, 2012 Ach! My darkroom is already at 47F and winter has not even begun. . I have an electric hot plate on which my plates stand to develope the prints. It's nice for your hands too! My cellar never gets that cold. It might drop to 60 F but, the hot plate keeps my knees and hands warm. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/darkroom/252175-show-us-your-darkroom-2.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 9, 2012 Share #25 Posted October 9, 2012 I have an electric hot plate on which my plates stand to develope the prints. It's nice for your hands too! My cellar never gets that cold. It might drop to 60 F but, the hot plate keeps my knees and hands warm. Where is my head? Very interesting idea. I'll bet there are various sizes of electric heated ceramic plates that could be put in the sink. Waterproof would be very important. I will start looking around! Thanks very much. You made my day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted October 10, 2012 Share #26 Posted October 10, 2012 Film is coming back? It's not coming back, not as the medium to shoot snaps. Brownies? Instamatics? Polaroid? No it's not coming back. What film is doing is find a baseline demand filled with those who enjoy it's qualities. This group probably combines young photographers discovering the medium and those of us,myself included, who simply enjoy the feel and look of what we grew up using -- professionally or as amateurs. And, for those of us who like film, this basing in demand is good enough because it means film usage is big enough to support an ongoing supply of film and supplies etc. But no, it's not coming back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted October 10, 2012 Share #27 Posted October 10, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) ...What film is doing is find a baseline demand filled with those who enjoy it's qualities. This group probably combines young photographers discovering the medium and those of us,myself included, who simply enjoy the feel and look of what we grew up using -- professionally or as amateurs... That number may go down, remain stable or increase. We can't say at this point nor can we say if the other film users who are not in this group stop using film, will there be enough of a "baseline" to maintain much of a "film industry." But I think there is a larger story than this. I am going to throw some of you a curve and say that I don't think it is clear that the advent and adoption of digital photography has been a good thing... beyond making photography, faster, cheaper, more usable as a communication tool, and more accessible to people. And in some cases may produce "better" images and even images that couldn't be made with film cameras at all. Those are all good things but at what cost? Look at what has happened to many manufacturers in the film and camera industry. The impact on manufacturers of processing equipment, the closing of labs and camera stores, and the loss of jobs all of this entails. And the camera companies that do remain are mostly large electronic based companies who are now in a hyper-frenetic competitive race to constantly build new models. Very little role is left for small players. And what is the impact on professional photography? A lowering of the barrier to entry of the profession with the resultant lowering of the value of photography in financial terms. This benefits buyers of photographs but not the creators. While equipment is better than ever and many of today's photographers are very highly skilled, the "glory" days of photography are in the past. I am sort of tossing up these ideas to see what sticks as I haven't really done any kind of analysis of this. And I do appreciate the concept of digital photography very much. Perhaps the digital photography industry employs enough workers to compensate for the loss. But this seems to me that it is mostly consolidating manufacturing jobs to a few large players and retail jobs to big box stores and those working at the internet resellers. There is probably an overall efficiency to this but something has also been lost. I guess there have been a lot of changes like this in the past few decades. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted October 10, 2012 Share #28 Posted October 10, 2012 You can't stop progress at that point on the curve where it suits you, or anyone for that matter. Film was first and foremost a way to deliver what you needed painters to produce. How exciting to have a box camera in 1900 and take a snap of granny instead of needing someone to make a painting of her. How many artists did cameras out out of work? We can go on and on and on. Digital is simply the hi tech extension of produce an image form life. Along the way people turned it into an art form. Same is and will occur with digitial. Digital doesn't lower the entry level, it is the buyer of the photo whose standards matter regardless of the medium. You don't like the turn in the world, I appreciate your concerns, but some day there will be something even more hi tech and the Ccd and CMOS sensors will be relegated to history along with film spools and CDs and LP records. It's life. People still paint and have portraits done. Water colors still sell. People still hand color black and white negatives and people still shoot slides. There is a base number for film that will rise and fall but never return to its previous heights because the technology of image reproduction has moved on. At one time all watches were hand made and everyone had one you had to wind. Now, well we all know now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted October 10, 2012 Share #29 Posted October 10, 2012 Where is my head? Very interesting idea. I'll bet there are various sizes of electric heated ceramic plates that could be put in the sink. Waterproof would be very important. I will start looking around! Thanks very much. You made my day. You're welcome! My plate is especially made for this purpose and came very cheap ( € 100,- ) I bought it new in the photo store because nobody uses it anymore. It is waterproof at the top site and has a coating, protecting it against the fluids. It also has a thermostat so I can keep it on 20 C all the time. It can harbor three 30cm *40cm 's as you can see in the picture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fgcm Posted October 10, 2012 Share #30 Posted October 10, 2012 +1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotohuis Posted October 10, 2012 Share #31 Posted October 10, 2012 Masterlab (till 8x10"/ 20x25cm) from Nova: Eur. 25,- from a Police lab, hardly used. Jobo CPA: A bottle of wine. Elevator and re-circulation pump revision: Eur. 250,- . Incl. different drums till 40x50cm for prints too. Both suitable for RA-4 color or B&W prints. The CPA can do all different film processes. And I have a Heiland TAS inverse processor too for regular B&W films with high acutance type developers. Enough film for buying: Foma (B&W), Rollei (Agfa Gevaert B&W, C41, E6), Ilford/Harman (B&W), Adox (B&W), still Kodak (B&W, C41), Fuji (B&W, C41, E6). And if you want 35mm perforated motion film too: OrWo Filmotec (UN54, N74+) or ready made from Bergger BRF400+ (N74+ OrWo), Kodak double X, etc. So do not worry. The best fit in B&W is always DIY. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RED ROBIN Posted October 11, 2012 Share #32 Posted October 11, 2012 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? Here in mid-Fla. I found a suppler of film -Kodak, out-of -date drug store & nearly OOD film . At .25 a roll, I've run our of room in the freezer as "She Who Must Be Obeyed" has called a halt to my buying frenzy. So to answer the question: The film is in my freezer, in my cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted October 11, 2012 Share #33 Posted October 11, 2012 But no, it's not coming back. Actually, it never went away. What is happening is that 'new' photographers who have only ever used digital, become curious to try out film. They like it and carry on using both mediums. I have also seen numerous threads on here and other forums from photographers who have become tired of digital photography and have reverted to film. Added to these catagories are the Lomography crowd - a trend which seems to be increasing and good luck to them! Of course, the mass consumer market is in digital photography, specifically cameras incorporated in mobile phones. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted October 11, 2012 Share #34 Posted October 11, 2012 Yes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Pedley Posted October 15, 2012 Share #35 Posted October 15, 2012 Actually, it never went away. ........... I have also seen numerous threads on here and other forums from photographers who have become tired of digital photography and have reverted to film. . Reminds me of when CB radio took off. At that time, I was a licensed amateur radio operator. As CB became popular, more and more radio enthusiasts became licensed operators (widening up frequencies and modes), and all sorts of fancy processor-controlled equipment appeared on the market That was the right time to return to Morse code. I managed contact with Japan frequently using just 1 Watt of 3.5MHz and a mechanical Morse key. This contact is next to impossible using voice/speech.. My MP and film are like my Morse key and single-crystal transmitter. Mechanical, heavy, makes solid clicking noises, smooth operation, never fails, I do most of the work, and I know I am ahead of the CPU boys even if they are using the best amplifiers they can buy. Oh, and let's not forget the brassing bits...reminders that these technologies will see far more service in their lifetime than any cpu-based gadget (not to mention the superior performance of the medium) 73's G4WGI Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StS Posted October 16, 2012 Share #36 Posted October 16, 2012 .. .... .- ...- . -. - ..- ... . -.. - ... .. ... ... .. -. -.-. . .. .-- .- ... .- -.-. .... -.-. .. .-.. -.. ... - . ..-. .- -. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted October 17, 2012 Share #37 Posted October 17, 2012 ..- -. ... ..- .-. .--. .-. .. ... .. -. --. .-.. -.-- - --- -.. .- -.-- - .... . .-. . ... .-- .-- .-- ... - --- .--. --- -. .-.. .. -. . -.-. --- -. ...- . .-. ... .. --- -. ... - --- .--. -.-. --- -- ... .-.. .- ... .... -- --- .-. ... . ..- -. -.. . .-. ... -.-. --- .-. . -.-. --- -.. . ... - --- .--. .... - -- ... - --- .--. -... .. --. ... -- .. .-.. . ... - --- .--. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StS Posted October 17, 2012 Share #38 Posted October 17, 2012 Our grandfather made two morse transmitters for my older sister and myself, under the condition, that we would learn the code. The cable ran only to the next room. However, I'm completely out of practice these days, for the reason you wrote. Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted October 18, 2012 Share #39 Posted October 18, 2012 film was apparently back after the obama/romney debate. not exactly sure why it was so, perhaps security reasons, but everyone on stage taking pictures of the candidates and/or themselves with the candidates were using those disposable kodak film cameras that comes with a flash built in. does this count? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmpphotography Posted October 18, 2012 Share #40 Posted October 18, 2012 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 Calumet (Digital cameras, lenses and photo gear at calumetphoto.com offers a changing bag on their site. Another possibility would be to find a Leica or Agfa Rondinax developing tank. They were developed jointly between Leitz and Agfa and are designed to allow film loading even in daylight. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.