bill Posted May 23, 2008 Share #41 Posted May 23, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Blimey. Have I taken a wrong turning and ended up in RFF? Regards, Bill Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 23, 2008 Posted May 23, 2008 Hi bill, Take a look here "Film is not dead" website. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Martin T-M Posted May 23, 2008 Share #42 Posted May 23, 2008 Bill, I have the same impression. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haris Posted May 24, 2008 Share #43 Posted May 24, 2008 Mark Antony, I want to apologize to you. You are completely right, and all your arguments stand and mine are wrong. Please, take my humble apologize. Reason for this apologize is news I heard few days ago. In UK, scientists got permission to continue to make human-animal embrio. As result over the years of doing that we could expect let say dog head on 180cm tall, 90-60-90 bombshell body. Knowing that, why one can't shoot film, scan it, and call him/herself analogue/traditional/film photographer? In light of above news, it is completely legitimate. Again, my humble apology to you, Mark Antony. Cynically yours, Haris Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haris Posted May 24, 2008 Share #44 Posted May 24, 2008 Oh, yes, I am done, it really has no sense to continue this Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Antony Posted May 24, 2008 Share #45 Posted May 24, 2008 Mark Antony, Knowing that, why one can't shoot film, scan it, and call him/herself analogue/traditional/film photographer? In light of above news, it is completely legitimate. Again, my humble apology to you, Mark Antony. Cynically yours, Haris Haris your apology is accepted. By the way I'm not an analogue photographer, have never claimed to be one. My workflow is a hybrid one (but I choose no labels, possibly just photographer?). I for one am glad you finally realize that my methods are legitimate and that photography is a multi faceted art driven by individual expression. To define is to limit. Mark Omnia mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jimmy pro Posted May 26, 2008 Share #46 Posted May 26, 2008 So you have no argument with some peoples modus, but denegrate people using film scanners? Who is decrying digital? Please? Look at your argument: Who cares what media art is made on? But guys shooting film and decrying digital while sticking there [sic] negs into a scanner? That makes me LOL WOW WOW indeed. Aren't you even a little embarassed to make these ridiculous statements? You leave people only two choices, to believe you really don't understand what you read, or that all you want is to fan a flame war. I don't "decry" people for scanning film. I don't even "decry" them if they decry digital after digitizing their film. I just laugh at the incongressness of it, which they either must ignore or just plain don't get. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted June 1, 2008 Share #47 Posted June 1, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Jimmy - I'm embarrassed for you, I really am. I've just read through this thread, and you've made so many arrogant, self-contradictory, pugnacious statements that are mostly simply wrong, that I'm guessing each time you come back to justify yourself, you must wish it were possible to remove the thread history. For the record, I shoot film and digital (currently enjoying digital for it's greater convenience with the R-D1s) but the results with film are most definitely different and not capable of being 'mimicked' by digital manipulation, however good the photoshop skills. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted June 1, 2008 Share #48 Posted June 1, 2008 I think what Jimmy is doing here is an insecurity based response that is highly typical of the whole film versus digital debate. For you see, what matters is how the artist / photographer / creator feels about what they are using and the process that entails. Jimmy is being A-typical by even trying to apply the global generalization of what is good for everyone to such a highly varied craft as photography. It does not matter what Jimmy thinks he knows, he simply does not know all photographers and what they actually prefer in practice. At the end of the day, images made by Ralph Gibson, Michael Kenna or Alex Webb on film are going to "Blow away" most images made by many folks on here that would use an M8. I shoot both digital and film. I use one or the other for a variety of reasons, one of which is the feel of the process and the other is lack of battery dependancy and finally the consistency of certain film stocks. So there is no point in constantly defending film or digital, for digital, contrary to amateur hour internet hype, has not replaced film in any way for the truly dedicated craftsman, professional or otherwise. Digital is merely another tool in the box, it is not better or worse. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jimmy pro Posted June 2, 2008 Share #49 Posted June 2, 2008 LOL! Yeah there are a lot of insecure, defensive posts here but none of them are from me. I've said so many times that film is fine, digital is fine, and it doesn't matter to me at all which one people use, that there are no rules in art, and yet each time some film zelott chimes in with another defensive rant, setting up straw men and purposely putting words into my mouth that I never said. All I'm saying is that once you scan film, it becomes digital imaging. So if you say "I prefer film to digital" but you scan, then your contradicting yourself. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted June 2, 2008 Share #50 Posted June 2, 2008 Jimmy - you're making a fool of yourself. Let it go. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted June 2, 2008 Share #51 Posted June 2, 2008 a very philosophical issue (especially what jimmy says) ... sorry i dont know why people call each other "fool" here, cause i have not followed the tread... but lets consider this : ideally, an analog photographer is one who prints in the darkroom. so, he/she used the film and used an analog method to make it on paper for viewing. nothing is better than this once a print is masterly made (especially the black and white) "semantically", i tend to agree with jimmy, once u scan, the thing becomes digital. sorry but this is what happens. especially if u scan the film and then play with software. i can understand a little objection if some body scans from paper and then tries to make it look on monitor just the same as it looks on real print, but scanning from film and then silverfasting/photoshoping it ..... that is digital. now lets leave semantics and ideal case and think about it.... a painter uses paper/canvas and some colors/materials to create... so we will call him painter, rite .... cause he/she starts from painting, so the starting point is important here. but then it is reproduced in order to make it printable in book or viewable on monitor/internet. it is still a painting cause nothing has been changed, just a reproduction. the digital image only represents the original. note, represents. but what if somebody (may even be the painter) will just change the digital-file ? change i mean - make it look different (not just a little enhancing). is it still a painting ????!!!!! it started from painting, what u see as a final result is surely not a painting (per-se) and now it is not even a representation of the painting anymore because there has been some changes. rite ?! ???!!! .... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jimmy pro Posted June 2, 2008 Share #52 Posted June 2, 2008 a very philosophical issue (especially what jimmy says) ... sorry i dont know why people call each other "fool" here Someone should be pitied who believes that everyone who doesn't share there opinion are fools. Double pity for the one's with so much arrogence and so little self-respect they actually come straight out and announce it to the world. Yes this is a philosophical issue. Or at least a semantic one. For a few people it's also obviously an emotional issue, which I don't happen to get. I don't get why bother buying film and developing it if all your gonna then do is scan it into a digital file, but I wouldn't call someone else a fool for doing it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted June 2, 2008 Share #53 Posted June 2, 2008 Jimmy what are you a pro at? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted June 2, 2008 Share #54 Posted June 2, 2008 well, that is a complicated question. lets divide it into questions - scanning color film (slide or negative) and scanning black&white film. whats the point using film and then scanning. color : film still looks different. i will not say better or not, it just looks different (i mean when both digital file and scanned film are well processed/scanned/adjusted). now we have two things here... most high quality cameras try to reach the inherent qualities of a good film at least by some parameters. at the moment the only cameras that feel more or less equal by many parameters are the medium format backs (if u process their file according to film "look" - something as a slide film should look like on light table). new canon full frame starts to show this qualities too on the print. while it is still different, i think the gap is not big -- not technically, and in practical terms not aesthetically too in case that u scan the film and then print it. so personally, for me, i may like using particular color film, and especially may like using a precision mechanical camera, but i dont really mind to make color photograph with digital camera as well (be it canon 5d, 1ds, d3, leaf aptus, and u know - even something like olympus e3 which is the less good if we go with the film-look). so i wouldnot say to somebody why use color film, but i can tell u that for me, one of the main reasons to use color film is the fact that it gets into one of my beloved mechanical cameras, and from here, i can always make that film look great, partly because most pro films today are simply amazing, partly because i know how to scan them, and partly because im happy to use pure camera :-) about black&white the things are very different... there is no way u can replace a black and white film for real/genuine black and white work. true, especially with b/w the darkroom is the most important but ... even if i scan the film well, it still looks more like b/w-film. so ya, semantically, u r rite, this is actually a digital file and adjustment, but it is a compromise for when darkroom work is not possible for various reasons. and here i can tell u for sure - it is not only the joy of mechanical camera, but above all, it is the "look" that cannot be done otherwise. i can take photos even with delta-100 and t-max100 which seem to be less eccentric b/w films and it is still different from digital monochrome conversion. just different. so maybe one who just scans his/her film cannot be called a pure analog photographer, but at least with b/w, one gets a substantially different result, which more likely replicates the "film-look" rather than being just another digital file. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jimmy pro Posted June 3, 2008 Share #55 Posted June 3, 2008 Jimmy what are you a pro at? "Jimmy Pro" is what my friends call me. You can call me Mr. Provenzano. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted June 5, 2008 Share #56 Posted June 5, 2008 shame on those who have not turned their homes into shrines to film (darkrooms)! its sad to hear of wet printers being so 'rare'. Nothing beats hanging your own traditional prints on the wall. Just silver and light. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted June 5, 2008 Share #57 Posted June 5, 2008 I still teach bnw wet photography, lots of kids love it though I doubt if they will set up a darkroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nahh I prefer "Jiminy (call me Prosaic)Cricket!" Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted June 5, 2008 Share #58 Posted June 5, 2008 I forgot to mention that I use only handcoated paper made out of recycled wasps' nets that have been harvested from areas where the wasps only construct from lignin free matter. The platinum salt are not so much coated on the paper as mixed with the pulp before the paper is made, resulting in a platinum-paper complex - this lends the images an unmistakable depth. My internegatives are made from collodium gelatine slivers which are so delicate as to be viable only in a zero gravity environment, but it is worth it due to the more random distribution of silver in comparison to a more stable substrate. This ensures that the images are free of the sterility associated with traditional silver/platinum prints. For those lacking access to such ecosystems, a number of species of cave wasp can can be farmed quite easiy in the home under zero light conditions. Simply add Pl/Pt salts to their water and leave 100% cotton rag museum board in their enclosure and you will only need to roll the nests flat before use. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted June 5, 2008 Share #59 Posted June 5, 2008 ................fixed in a batshit bath Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted June 5, 2008 Share #60 Posted June 5, 2008 ................fixed in a batshit bath No, the pH is too high. Bat piss works. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.