plasticman Posted November 12, 2014 Share #1 Posted November 12, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) NOTE! NSFW Link includes a topless image! This interview was linked over on RFF - Kiera Knightley waxing lyrical over film: Keira Knightley by Patrick Demarchelier - Page - Interview Magazine From the interview: "KNIGHTLEY: Do you miss any of the physicality of [film]? I think I'm a horrific kind of romantic about film. There's something about that single shot that was one moment in time, and something about the physical process of the light hitting the lens and the dark room. I find it difficult to see the romance in digital." and: "KNIGHTLEY: I've noticed that the people who started on film still have the ability to see the person in front of them. Whereas for a lot of photographers who have only ever worked in digital, the relationship between the photographer and the person who they're taking a picture of sort of doesn't exist anymore. They're looking at a computer screen as opposed to the person. " Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 Hi plasticman, Take a look here Kiera Knightley loves film. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wattsy Posted November 12, 2014 Share #2 Posted November 12, 2014 Patrick Demarchelier, the photographer, seems less keen: "Film is not very practical. The new world goes faster, and digital is very fast." I'm not sure why everyone feels they need to "go faster" all the time but we all have our foibles. As an aside, this blog piece from a photographer I like will probably interest you, Mani. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted November 12, 2014 Share #3 Posted November 12, 2014 Patrick Demarchelier, . Never heard of him Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted November 12, 2014 Share #4 Posted November 12, 2014 More seriously though, I think she makes a very valid point regarding the photographer-subject relationship. Since the advent of digital, one rarely hears professional photographers ask their subjects to "Say cheese". Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted November 12, 2014 Author Share #5 Posted November 12, 2014 Patrick Demarchelier, the photographer, seems less keen: "Film is not very practical. The new world goes faster, and digital is very fast." I'm not sure why everyone feels they need to "go faster" all the time but we all have our foibles. The craziest shoot I've been on was one in Barcelona where 100+ people were involved over a whole week, and the main photographer whose name I've forgotten even though he's famous had five retouchers/visualizers sitting at laptops working on mock-ups of what the final images were going to look like simultaneously with the shoot. Pretty much everyone was clustered round those computers the whole time - I felt sorry for the models. So yes I fully understand the 'need for speed' (AlanG will come in and lecture us about it soon I guess) in ad work. Pity they don't know what they're missing if they just slowed down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted November 12, 2014 Author Share #6 Posted November 12, 2014 As an aside, this blog piece from a photographer I like will probably interest you, Mani. Funny link - I've had a similar experience actually At my last couple jobs I was the supposed 'expert' on cameras, where people would come to me for advice about which digital to buy etc. One Art Director wanted to look through my images one day and every time a film image came along she'd ask which camera was that taken with, and the same with the next film image in my stream. She was totally uninterested in all the digital images. I had to use all my charm to steer her away from buying a film camera after that - I knew it was bound to end with a massive headache and lots of support. I think she resented me for not letting her buy a Hasselblad for the rest of the time we worked together. Now I work at a tech startup and absolutely no-one is interested in anything better than a smartphone cam. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted November 12, 2014 Share #7 Posted November 12, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) In a million years I would never have guessed it would be Kiera Knightley leading the digital backlash. I could fall in love if it turns out she also uses a Leica. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted November 12, 2014 Share #8 Posted November 12, 2014 . One Art Director wanted to look through my images one day and every time a film image came along she'd ask which camera was that taken with, . This is something I hear a lot from people looking at my holiday pics; people who usually have no interest in cameras. I just point out that it's because it's film. The thing is, many people (me for instance) just don't have the skill to post process their images to match the quality of a nicely scanned film image. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semi-ambivalent Posted November 12, 2014 Share #9 Posted November 12, 2014 Never heard of him lol. I seem to recall he was Porizkova's favorite photographer. She or Evangelista's. s-a Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted November 12, 2014 Share #10 Posted November 12, 2014 I remember some nice shots he did of Cara Delevingne in B+W. She's my favorite Pete (Old enough to be her dad) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenton C Posted November 12, 2014 Share #11 Posted November 12, 2014 NOTE! NSFW Link includes a topless image! This interview was linked over on RFF - Kiera Knightley waxing lyrical over film: Keira Knightley by Patrick Demarchelier - Page - Interview Magazine From the interview: "KNIGHTLEY: Do you miss any of the physicality of [film]? I think I'm a horrific kind of romantic about film. There's something about that single shot that was one moment in time, and something about the physical process of the light hitting the lens and the dark room. I find it difficult to see the romance in digital." and: "KNIGHTLEY: I've noticed that the people who started on film still have the ability to see the person in front of them. Whereas for a lot of photographers who have only ever worked in digital, the relationship between the photographer and the person who they're taking a picture of sort of doesn't exist anymore. They're looking at a computer screen as opposed to the person. " She waxes, too? ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlinman Posted November 13, 2014 Share #12 Posted November 13, 2014 NOTE! NSFW Link includes a topless image! This interview was linked over on RFF - Kiera Knightley waxing lyrical over film: Keira Knightley by Patrick Demarchelier - Page - Interview Magazine From the interview: "KNIGHTLEY: Do you miss any of the physicality of [film]? I think I'm a horrific kind of romantic about film. There's something about that single shot that was one moment in time, and something about the physical process of the light hitting the lens and the dark room. I find it difficult to see the romance in digital." and: "KNIGHTLEY: I've noticed that the people who started on film still have the ability to see the person in front of them. Whereas for a lot of photographers who have only ever worked in digital, the relationship between the photographer and the person who they're taking a picture of sort of doesn't exist anymore. They're looking at a computer screen as opposed to the person. " Thats interesting: It sounds like that it is a question of how You have learned to make photos. If You have learned it in the old analog times, Your speed, view, workflow etc. is complete different from pure digital photographers - even if You now work digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted November 13, 2014 Share #13 Posted November 13, 2014 Thanks Plasticman for the link with nice b&w pictures I like film too : http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/349045-glances-complicity.html http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/other/286747-i-like-film-open-thread-101.html Film is not dead Regards Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
osscat Posted November 26, 2014 Share #14 Posted November 26, 2014 From reading the article I believe Ms Knightly was referring to cameras without a viewfinder, in which case I am inclined to agree with her. Its what I call 'arms length' photography, not really fully involved with the subject. Osscat Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted November 26, 2014 Author Share #15 Posted November 26, 2014 From reading the article I believe Ms Knightly was referring to cameras without a viewfinder, in which case I am inclined to agree with her. Its what I call 'arms length' photography, not really fully involved with the subject. Osscat I think in the context she's talking about being photographed by professionals (for magazine articles, ads and so on). Nothing I can see there suggests she means just arm's length point-and-shoots. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted November 26, 2014 Share #16 Posted November 26, 2014 Thats interesting: It sounds like that it is a question of how You have learned to make photos. If You have learned it in the old analog times, Your speed, view, workflow etc. is complete different from pure digital photographers - even if You now work digital. Maybe they are just older and therefore are slower. Did Gary Winogrand work slowly? Few (outside of paid professionals) could afford to shoot 12 rolls of film every day of their working life as he did. But his high volume approach is readily available to anyone with a digital camera and the desire to shoot that way. http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2012/08/20/10-things-garry-winogrand-can-teach-you-about-street-photography/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted November 26, 2014 Author Share #17 Posted November 26, 2014 He's back! :D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJH Posted November 26, 2014 Share #18 Posted November 26, 2014 There is an enormous difference between pro volume and just shooting of images because you can. As an amateur with a completely unrelated working life I do my photography hobby in a way almost exactly the same as what I learned when I did 2 weeks work experience on a news paper 24 years ago. Back then I was shooting minimum 4 or so rolls a day, this year I have shot about 30 in total over the entire year thus far. The difference is simply that when photography was my daily life you fill those hours with plenty of things to do, maybe work through 4 to 6 different jobs/shoots/locations in a day always on the go. As a hobbyist its maybe once a week go off somewhere and take some pictures (1 roll). The idea that digital allows one to shoot like a pro of olden days is probably the biggest load of old nonsense I have read in my time on this forum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted November 26, 2014 Share #19 Posted November 26, 2014 Yes, and the point is one can shoot any way they like with film or digital if they can afford it... from 20x24 film to MF digital backs. Fast or slow, whether amateur or pro. Few people with digital cameras shoot 442 photos per day every day either... as Winogram did on film. The article I linked to was about tips for street shooters. And this one in particular was recommending you try shooting a lot if images. Maybe this is a good idea for some and maybe it isn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.