Let's Talk About Film

[Agent M10]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I thought about posting this on the Digital or M8 forum just to kind of razz folks up. This is a quote from Larry Towell, Magnum photographer, that I found on Heather Morton's blog.

 

I just don’t shoot digital. I won’t. I like film. Photographers today have to compete. If a picture is six hours old, it’s too old to use. If you look at the coverage of the tsunami you can go on to any of the websites and there’s a catalogue there of 400 photographs all taken in the past 30 minutes for you to look through. And none of them will stay with you. They’re just news pictures. They’re not even good news pictures.

 

They’re nothing — they don’t have any meaning. There’s no time put in them, no thinking that’s put into them and when there’s no time and no thinking put into still photography or into photojournalism what does that say?

 

I think that’s damaging, and I think it also it destroys the notion that photography is reflective, that it’s about history, that it’s about self-contemplation. And it’s all being replaced by a sort of philosophy of speed which is only of fleeting significance. I think the news is killing journalism.

Long live my M7 (and M6 and R9).

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest stnami]

Good old Larry.............. his choice but one opinion of many ..................next................ Joe Blog said..................... next and on and on and on...........,,,,,,,,,,,,;,, just like the good old days when knowledge was via word of mouth now blink and remember:D . next and on and on and on...........,,,,,,

[Guest wls.shanghai]

Larry Towell:

....I think that's damaging, and I think it also destroys the notion that photography is reflective, that it's about history, that it's about self-contemplation. And it's all being replaces by a sort of philosophy of speed which is only of fleeting significance. I think the news is killing journalism.

 

For me, digi-photopraphy is superficial "computer-graphy" and I find out, most, or many digi-photos are without statements

 

LONG LIVE MY LEICAFLEX SL 2 & R 7 :D

 

Kind regards

 

wls

[James Mitchell]

From the quote, I don't see his point. He's not arguing digital vs. film, but rather digital photographers vs. film photographers. I shoot both but prefer film myself, and I understand that news demands immediacy. You can take pictures just as quickly and thoughtfully with either medium, but you can't post a film photograph quite as instantaneously. Either medium can preserve history. Film demands more attention, perhaps. This might be his point. But a good photographer can use either medium to make historic shots. The temptation to shoot more frames with digital may water down the end bulk, but it can also produce the shot that was not captured with film. The author sounds like he is picking a fight more than making a valid point. Anyway, just my take on it.

[brianv]

We just got back from a trip to Williamsburg, Virginia. A great place that preserves history and brings it to life. I was the only one using a Leica M3 and Canon P. What amazed me is that 5 people stopped and asked me about the camera, a couple asking what they sold for these days and where to look for them. Told them buying a classic Leica has never been cheaper. They also asked if I ever used Digital. "Yes, since 1981".

 

Most of the people using Digital Point and Shoots today would have used Box cameras in the 40s, Brownies in the 50's, Instamatic 126's in the 60s, Pocket Instamatics in the 70s, and Fixed-Lens AF cameras in the 80s and 90s. So today they use point and shoot Digital cameras. Are the photo's less composed because they are Digital? I suspect they are better with the feedback of the Monitor. I've seen people stop, state "that one did not come out", and retry.

[Agent M10]

Here is a quote from Mary Ellen Marks about her use of film:

 

Most photographers that I really admire are still shooting film. I've shot with Tri-X for more than 45 years and the look of my images has to do with that film stock. Shooting digitally doesn't quite fit in with what I do. I love the look of Tri-X and it's taken me years to understand what it does.

 

I think digital has a real purpose and I respect it, but at the same time I think it's a big mistake that many schools have stopped teaching film and discontinued their darkrooms. Film and digital are different mediums and I think schools should teach both mediums and students should have the experience of both mediums.

[underground]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My daughter is taking a digital photo class in high school. They teach her basic rule of thirds compensation and how to remove pictures and edit with software.

 

We Few have learned in a lab. and understand well better than most weather we choose to shoot digital or film. I think it is based on Knowledge. "THAT IS THE DIEING BREAD"

[j. white]

Here's an anecdote from a recent conversation:

 

I shoot at a number of events in San Francisco, some of which have "resident photographers". I know the promoters of one such night and snapped a roll and a half of Tri-X at their February show. I posted my edits to the promoters who asked to present them on their website, which they did.

 

I had some concern in going to the March edition that their resident may have taken umbrage with my having "muscled in on his turf". Quite to contrary, he was clearly taken with the images and the fact that I used an M6 TTL and film. What is most germane to this discussion though was that he then told me that he was shooting a digital camera in aspiration to using film. He wanted to learn enough shooting digitally so that when he one day shot a film camera he would be making the most of those "precious exposures".

 

It would appear that there are at least a few aspiring young photographers who hold film in something of an exalted status.

[Arif]

Photographers at different stages in their life are in different stages of their photgraphic expression. With the assumption that many (digital shooters) came from film, there will be many who are at the same level in their digital work as they were in their film and so for them, they are completely comfortable with digital and the speed it offers. For many, the digital output may still be inferior to their film output whether due to the camera sensor or lack of computer proficiency and so they will work with/recommend whatever gives their best results. We are just at a stage in time where we don't have enough data to create digital legends but have more than 100 years of film legends to choose/compare against.

 

Recently there was a very interesting interview with Robert Frank (posted on another thread) and he gives his own interpretation which was a good point for reflection.

 

Best regards,

Arif

[adan]

I kind of agree with the statement that "news is killing journalism" - although it's being doing just that for at least 60 years.......

 

I don't really see any basis for mixing film vs. digital into that debate though - there have been fast bad FILM news pictures for 80 years with no digital involved. And quite a few (at least in the brief time it has been around) well-considered stories done slowly with digital....

 

viz. Final Salute : : News : The Rocky Mountain News

 

Digital makes "fast" possible - it does not make it necessary.

 

I DO think LT is discovering something that I first saw "explicated" by Thomas L. Friedman in his book "The World is Flat" - where he says that digital technology, in the larger sense of cellphones and laptops and the internet, not just photography, has removed "friction" from the world.

 

Everything can be done faster and easier and without the "waits" that older technologies required - the drag, the friction, the delays. Whether it is waiting for the film to be developed, or for the steamship to deliver the package, or for the presses to print the edition, or for the trucks to deliver the newspapers - older technologies took TIME -and we had that to time to think things over - whereas now everything is "instant" and easy - push a button on your iPhone and you get everything, from anywhere, right this second.

 

I'm not being curmudgeonly - I feel it too. A magazine story a week from now, or even a newspaper story tomorrow morning, is so - DATED - by the time I get it. I saw that on CNN or the internet already.... I used to find out how my stocks were doing once every 3 months - now I find out every three seconds...

 

The disappearance of 'friction' has empowered people and moved technology into fast-forward mode - but it has also left some people behind, who used to be able to keep up because the "friction" was holding back those who could outrun them otherwise - and who do so now.

 

Friedman's argument is that it's worth it - and a good thing, because it is unstoppable anyway. As someone in the media, I live it every day - and agree it is unstoppable. I'm not so sure it's always worth it.

[srichmond]

When I was at school (early - mid '90s) I used film because there was nothing else available, so got into B&W development and using fully manual cameras (all I could afford). Then came digital. Fantastic! No on-going overheads, quick, no limits, great digital SLRs... took about 30,000 photos in 5 years. How many do I consider "good"? About 30. I never stopped to think about what I was photographing really, I just snapped snapped snapped... What a waste.

 

Have now got back into film again - all B&W. Process it myself, and I love it. You start creating photographs again, and the results are amazing compared with digital. Digital is too perfect. There's no grain, autofocus / auto exposure everything... too clinical.

 

Digital allowed me learn a lot I guess - as film has a cost implication, and when you're young, you're keen to avoid spending too much money on experimenting. So, 10 years of digital has been great in many respects, but I feel I understand enough about situations, framing and exposure to use film confidently.

 

I love my M6 - and I think I'm going to get rid of all my Nikon gear pretty soon. I used it recently to take a photo of a fridge I was putting on eBay.

[Mark Antony]

You can of course be a thoughtful photographer on both, digital definitely has the speed, but if you wish you can slow down your thinking to film levels– try taking out a 512mb card on a job and shooting in raw.

 

What i think digital photography has done/is doing is opening up a new subset of users, people who don't consider themselves photographers, use cell phone/ compacts as a simple recording medium to upload pictures to ebay/facebook or blogs etc.

 

Most of the people on Forums across the user-net are the equivalent of the enthusiast who used to have a darkroom in his outhouse/shed.

These people are quite different from the majority, because they think about things like composition, exposure Raw converters and film types.

 

I mainly use film, but use a fair bit of digital too for some colour work and uploading to my blog, I like both mediums for different reasons, if I had to keep one it would be film.

It's a personal thing, I hope there will be people who share my love of the 'film aesthetic' (it doesn't look the same with digital faux film filters) and there will always be a market for film.

Mark

[Rolo]

The important issues for me are:

 

- does film promote creativity

- does film encourage a photographers response to a situation

- does film help productivity

- is the 'unique' response of film essential to communicating the idea

- is film easier to achieve the required result

- does film & screen match film & paper for the required look

- if the life of an image is 24 hours on LUF and 10 comments, does film/digital matter

- if one's digital skills match the best available will that compensate for the absence of film

- can anything replace the finest silver prints

 

Until 2 years ago I was all film, formats to 5x4, mostly B&W, 100% spot meter, all darkroom, all silver print, some scanning, but things have changed dramatically with the improvements in digital tools. If the M8 was half as reliable as it should be, I'd be all digital today (except for my Leica MP, Rolleiflex, Mamiya 7, Rollei S and Hasselblad backs :D ).

 

Rolo

 

p.s. I've had PhotoShop since version 3.0

[srichmond]

Yes, I would generally stay clear of film v digital debates, as I think both mediums are great for different things. Film is going to be challenging for a generation who've never seen it. At the same time, there are millions of kids taking photos, and because there is no "hard copy", most of these photos will be lost by the time they're in their 20s. That's a bit of a shame, I think.

 

At the same time, digital photograph, and especially very impressive digital SLRs have opened up photography to people who'd never have embraced it to the same degree if the constraints of film had been there.

 

I'd still encourage people to get a good digital camera first, and then if they explore and want to learn more, maybe start with film - I think you've got to be really motivated to do that these days though.

[abrewer]

I just spent the last eight days wtih my nephew, a newcomer to photography, introducing him to the hobby

 

This is a kid, twenty-five years old, who's bounced around from job to job to job without purpose; and who (barely) graduated high school so he could get in the Army (where he promptly got hurt and medically discharged)

 

If not for the ease of digital capture (turn it on, auto-exposure, auto-focus, download to his computer and immediately put up on the web) he would never have gotten close to knowing that he actually has some talent (maybe even a professional future) in this field

 

So the relative ease of digital imaging, and accessibility of the medium, has to count for something positive in bringing a new generation into the game

 

Kids like my nephew haven't the patience for repeatedly buying, loading, snapping, rewinding, removing and developing, processing and printing and all the chemistry involved with film; which is exactly what I love about it

 

 

Thanks

 

Allan

[rmhodnett]

If not for the ease of digital capture (turn it on, auto-exposure, auto-focus, download to his computer and immediately put up on the web) he would never have gotten close to knowing that he actually has some talent (maybe even a professional future) in this field

 

So the relative ease of digital imaging, and accessibility of the medium, has to count for something positive in bringing a new generation into the game

 

Kids like my nephew haven't the patience for repeatedly buying, loading, snapping, rewinding, removing and developing, processing and printing and all the chemistry involved with film; which is exactly what I love about it

 

I'm with you there, Allan, that's pretty much how I discovered photography. My father's Nikon Coolpix 5200, a weekend in Rome and a week at sea, and I'd discovered that taking photos was fun - and something I wanted to learn more about.

 

I got a digital P&S with manual functions (D-Lux 3), found that limiting after a few months, graduated to a DSLR (Panny L1), then somehow, got the film urge... I'm now using an M3 and developing my own B&W film. I haven't printed yet, but I will.

 

To start with, I'd never have been bothered with the process of messing around with film and chemicals - now, I love the hands-on, the time it takes, and the simple satisfaction in using a camera which doesn't do anything for me. Total control.

 

But going back to LT's comments - they sound to me like someone who feels his time (as a film photographer, as a photojournalist) is passing. I've read (and to my shame, I can't remember where) much as to the decline of photojournalism because of the immediacy both of digital photography, and of live-action/video journalism. Whether this really is killing off the true photojournalist as exemplified by the Magnum agency or not is a moot point, but it is a viewpoint that I've read quite commonly.

 

Best wishes,

 

R.