The hopeful future of film photography

[Ed Eubanks]

Let me say up-front that this is all speculation-- albeit educated speculation-- and not based on any solid facts, other than history and experience. I am not a prophet (nor the son of a prophet...), but I do think that my prediction is reasonable.
Let me begin with the computer industry in general. There is a general principle called "Moore's Law" (http://www.intel.com/research/silicon/mooreslaw.htm) which is widely considered to be accurate (to a point) and should hold for the foreseeable future. It basically says that there is an exponential rate of progress in the speed of transistors to the amount of time that passes-- e.g., that the speed doubles every two years. Anyone who has been watching the progress of chip-speed advancement knows that this has held, ever since Moore postulated it in the mid-60s. I've been simply astonished at the chips available today, and the raw power that they represent; it is not only possible to get a 3.4 Ghz Intel processor today, but they are becoming common as offerings in mid-to-high-end desktop machines.
That said, I don't know anyone who owns one-- in fact, I don't even know anyone who wants to own one. There are basically two realms of computing that utilize such lightning-fast chipsets: gamers and video editors (and, ironically, the video editors almost exclusively use Apple Macintosh machines, to Intel's chagrin). No one else-- not even hardcore professional photo manipulators-- require this sort of technology, nor will they for another year or even two (at which point, according to Moore's Law, we will have chips twice as fast...). There is simply more speed and power in those high-speed Pentium 4s than the average computing world could ever use.
As a result, the computer industry is no longer supplying according to demand when it comes to the fastest chips. Instead, they are progressing (because they must, to stay competitive with one another) for the sake of progress. It is useful to know that, when Windows 2010 or Mac OS C requires it, I will have the chipspeed required to run my system at a comfortable pace; however, there is no true stake in the highest-speed chips for guys like me (and most, if not all, of you).
What does this have to do with photography? I think everything. The most clear and present threat to film photography is the digital photography industry. "Listening" to some of the discussions here, one might think otherwise: it might be inferred that the enemies of traditional film photography (and especially the less mainstream avenues of it, such as Large Format) are the manufacturers, who, with malice aforethought, discontinue our most precious products to spite the buyer and control what sorts of photography we're even able to do. They are simply following their business charters, however, which says that they must turn a profit.
As digital photography has progressed, it has become (for many) a truly viable alternative to film photography. In fact, at this point, the main things which prohibit the average snapshooter from converting totally are convenience and the too-high costs of ink cartridges. For more serious shooters, issues of convenience are less of a factor than image permanence, but there still remain only a few obstacles from making the jump. Granted, this is obviously less the case for a Medium-Format photographer, as digital equipment gets very costly very quickly, and almost every Large Format photographer is stuck with a hybrid-digital option at best, as few can afford the equipment it takes to go 100% LF digital. However, the threat remains, as the photo industry takes its cues, on average, from the "pro-sumer" who usually shoots a high-end 35mm SLR. And the profits that the industry must produce are found right now in the film-to-digital-conversion market; witness the Nikon D100, etc.
While the threat to film photography exists, I don't think it will stand the test of time to prevail over film photography. Moore's Law works with digital camera transistors, too, and before very long, the same phenomenon we see now with the processor in the average desktop computer will occur in the digital photography world: namely, that there will be more pixels, more megabytes (or gigabytes), and more resolution than a photographer could ever need, no matter what Epson develops. It is bound to happen, since we are already to the point where most point-and-shoot (or as we used to call them at the camera store, PHD-- "push here, dummy") digitals can print up to 8x10 with little or no difference from a 35mm negative enlargement.
Why, then, is there hope for film photography? Because when this happens-- when every digital camera can print flawless poster-sized prints-- people will quit buying cameras for their lack of limitations, and will start buying cameras for the sake of photography again. And, just like folks who shoot 35mm film often get around to trying (and liking) larger formats, folks who shoot digital will often get around to trying film photography. Thus, the digital photography "movement" that we are experiencing now, rather than posing a true long-term threat to film photography, will actually be a benefit, a refinement of sorts, to good photography.
As a result of this, I see the implications for the industry being this: those companies that can and will hold onto their "traditional" lines of equipment and supplies will, in 5-7 years' time, become quite successful, even profitable, in those areas. Those companies which can't, or won't, will regret it, but the absence of their weak commitments to the future of photography will not hurt us in the end.

[ronald lamarsh]

Stunning disertation Ed , I hope(and think) you are probably right. Its been my experience in life that humankind is always atracted to next new shiny thing but ends up coming full circle after discovering it didn't cure all ills of their lives or produce instant enlightenment. For those who favor digital please don't get ruffled: all photography is just a tool for self expression wether it is digital, traditional or alt-process and to declare one superior to another is like monnet tell van gogh he's using the wrong brush! Rock On

[Michael Chmilar]

Should I be investing in an abacus manufacturer?

It seems your argument, if we return to the computer realm, is that computers will become so powerful and cheap that everyone will suddenly become interested in calculating on an abacus. Abacus production will experience a renaissance.

I look forward to the rise of "hand calculated" computation!

[Jim Galli]

Scene: 1954, UP Railway Roundhouse somewhere in Wyoming.



10 reasons why steam locomotives will never be replaced:



1. 1 steam locy can pull 4 of those diesels backwards.
2. The workforce knows how to fix steam locy's.
3. Coal is a lot cheaper.
4. Everybody likes 'em.
5. Steam locomotives have more personality.
6. Deisel locomotives are lifeless cold machines.
7. There's a million miles of plant in place that's geared for steam.
8. Deisels are smelly.
9. The noise they make sucks.
10. No one would ever want to photograph a Diesel locomotive.

[Geary Lyons]

Digital medium is the current "state of the art" for accumulating, storing, retrieving and distributing data. That data can be manipulated into reports, graphics, digital photo images, renderings of sound or music. Digital is quantitative by definition. It takes a leap of faith the accept any qualitative aspects to digital. The basic quality, that makes digital so useful, is the same as its quantitative simplicity - it's binary, bi-polar, either "on" or "off" of a micro switching circuit. The Moore's Law effect on this reality will reach a point of diminishing returns.

Perhaps, we can learn from history. Let's look at the immediate "market maker" predecessor to digital photography - digital recording and storage - CD's. CD's are a storage medium superior to the vinyl records that they replaced. For the general consumer, the conversion has been complete since the mid- 80's. To the general consumer, recorded music is rimarily "pleasing background noise". I define this as "non-active listening". The music is an adjunct to another activity. This consumer base embraced the clean, clear sound of digital sound. But digital sound is not considered "musical" by many knowledgable, active listeners. Clarity is the overriding benefit. CD's met their need for background music storage. Musicality is not an important characteristic for background listening. This is similar to the marketing hype of digital cameras for the point & shoot crowd.

There has always been a consumer base of active music listeners. Listening to, and enjoying, recorded music is the primary activity. The enjoyment is definitely the "Art of the Music". Although a significantly smaller consumer base, still a viable market. Generally quality vinyl records played on quality electronics comprise the music playback system - not plastic consumer equipment stacks, (corresponds to consumer cameras)! Fidelity is the overriding benefit of a quality medium and playback system. Fidelity, or truth, to the original artist's performance is the goal. The availability of quality vinyl recordings has NEVER been higher than today. But to the general public vinyl records ceased to exist nearly 20 years ago! The lowest common denominator to the product mix has been eliminated. There are virtually no "consumer grade" vinyl records available new. A new CD costs $18-27. A new, audiophile grade vinyl recording can be purchased for virtually the same price! Similar corollaries can be drawn to practices in the professional recording industry.

So will history repeat itself with photography? I believe so. We are not the general consumers. Film will, most likely, not be a mass market consumer product in the near future. For those who do commercial work, and especially for mass reproduction - digital, being a superior storage and transfer medium will win! Digital better meets these markets' needs. So how about us!

When quality and expression are the driving needs, not click 'n' shoot or storage and transfer, film will be a segment of the market's choice. There will be marketeers to meet that need. Will it be Kodak, Agfa or Ilford? Probably not. Columbia, RCA and London no longer produce vinyl records, but niche marketeers have very profitably filled the need! I would postulate that photographers of our ilk greatly outnumber the audiophiles. So we will be a viable niche market.

The overall cost of producing film is much lower and the overall processes are much simpler than the convolutions of the music recording industry. Look to Efke, Foma, Forte, etc. as our future manufacturers. I am perfectly happy with their products today! Just like the niche marketeers purchased the vinyl record stamping plants, perhaps the same will happen to the Film Big 3's facilities and we will have choices, yet unknown! Efke films are a result of a similar redeployment of equipment.

I am in agreement with Ed. I am not to worried that I will have to cryo store a vast reserve of B&W film. I am confident that the market will adjust. The consumer film products will vanish in favor of digital imaging. I will be able to buy quality B&W film because, niche marketeers will step in to meet my needs.

Cheers!

Geary

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

folks who shoot digital will often get around to trying film photography



Here is the flaw in your reasoning, they will not if there is no film around. Nice try tho..



I like better the comment a member of APUG made, which is we should trust in the laws of supply and demand. If there is a demand for film, someone, somewhere will try to fill that gap and supply it. Someone will work on creating a coating machine for "amateurs" one that will perhaps not do 1 meter wide by 600 meters long film, but maybe 50 cm wide by 2 meters long. Chemists like me and others who love photography will work at making home made emulsions better, and will most likely post these results on the internet. Emulsion making will become an "open source" and not a trade secret. Like the abacus mentioned above, it will become a niche industry, but it will survive.



I have to say this coment made me feel better, I dont know if film as we have it now will survive, but I do think this guy made a good point and film will survive as long as some people want it.

[Glenn Kroeger]

I think B&W film will survive as long as somebody wants it. But I don't think color transparency film will. Simple fact is that only Fuji and Kodak have the technology to produce films like Velvia 100F. Coating one layer of emulsion is one thing, but complexity goes up like the number of layers squared.

On the other hand, I don't see a digital technology that will replace the quality of 4x5 color. While pixel density can grow, physics doesn't stretch with it. The largest single capture chips are 36mm x 48mm. Assuming the pixel density of the Olympus E300, about 188 pixels/mm you are going to be diffraction limited by about f/11. With that density you will be able to make about a 30x40" print at 200 dpi. While not quite up to 4x5 quality, I think people will settle for that quality, and large format COLOR sheet film will slowly fade away.

[John Kasaian]

FWIF, I think Jim Galli's response is an accurate assessment of the future of LF---Diesels haul the frieght, but Steam is still with us and thrives in the tourist industry. People will pay a premium for a ticket on a steam railroad that essentially goes nowhere while Amtrak goes begging for riders and subsidies Consider that a v8 'dorff is a lot cheaper to operate and maintain than a Baldwin or Shay locomotive and the future looks downright rosey!

[Neal Shields]

Moore's law has not held true for making bigger chips. Faster, higher yield, more; yes, bigger no. For digital to compete with film you need to be able to make bigger chips economically and I am not aware that anyone knows how to do that.

With memory chips you can just mask out areas that are flawed for what ever reason and use it anyway. With photographic sensors, if a small area doesn't work the whole chip is junk. (This is espcially true because some flaws can take out a whole row as most CCDs do a "read" by shifting information down a row like people in a theater moving toward the isle one seat at a time.)

Beyond that the other limitation is pixel size. Moore's law works because the gains are developmental or scaleable. With pixels we know how to make them smaller and can, they just don't work. 3 microns is about as small as the current technology is going to get us. Even at that the dynamic range suffers. No one can say that we won't have 1-micron pixels tomorrow that have the dynamic range of what 9-micron pixels have today, but for that to happen someone has to invent something. I.E. Revolutionary engineering, not evolutionary engineering. That could happen tomorrow or never.

As for the demise of color film, that would seem to be quite unlikely as every time I go to the drug or photo store there is a line of people there to pick up their prints. Many if not most of which are from digital cameras and all of which are printed on traditional silver based color photo paper.

As long as there is a huge market for color paper I can't see that it is going to be a big problem to coat transparent backing and make film.

[Melchi M. Michel]

I'd like to agree with Neal's post above. If anything, he's being too optimistic about future improvements. First, realize that even if the resolution of CCD's has improved rapidly over the past couple of decades, the resolving ability of lenses hasn't. Resolving the 1 micron pixel size that Neal mentions would require a lens that could resolve 1000 lpmm. As we all know, it's hard enough to find a lens that can resolve 100 lpm. It looks as if (functionally, at least) 9 microns is probably as good as CCD's are going to get. As an aside (and without taking sides) I'd like to point out that the locomotive and abacus analogies are inappropriate. The primary uses of locomotives and calculators (generically) are practical, they are not generally used as recreational tools; as a result, in deciding whether to use steam vs diesel or a digital calculator vs an abacus, efficiency is paramount. That is, few people using calculators express concern about the "process" of calculating. Cameras, on the other hand, are primarily a recreational tool. Where this is not the case and efficiency is paramount (e.g., newspaper photojournalism, high-volume portrait studios), digital has already supplanted film. I don't know what exactly this tells us about film photography, but there is still hope. I also agree with John's post. If I had to take a train to get somewhere, I'd probably take the diesel. But if I just wanted to ride on a train, I'd rather ride the steam train. Likewise, though photography largely made commercial portrait painters obsolete, many people still pay much more for a poorly painted portrait than they would for a good photographic portrait.

[Glenn Kroeger]

Melchi:

Steam trains survive because their survival doesn't depend on railroads making a profit on them. If they needed different track, they would be gone! UP and BNSF aren't offering steam train service for recreation. Museums and a few small companies run them (Durango-Silverton) on a limited basis.

Likewise, B&W can probably survive with a few small companies producing film on a part time basis. I can't see E6 color films surviving under that model. The capital investment in plant, and the small volume would seem incompatible. As the cost rises, even smaller numbers of recreational users will partake of color sheet film. A vicious spiral of higher cost and fewer uses quickly makes all business models unsound, and the capital won't materialize.

A hobby club can refurbish a steam locomotive. I am not sure I can envision and E6 hobby club operating the Fuji coating plant on weekends.

[K.E. Carter]

This type of dialogue is what makes this and similar newsgroups worth logging onto everyday. I too feel that the as long as demand holds up, film will be produced. That said, it would seem unlikely that Kodak, Fuji, etc. will continue to be our suppliers, due to profit requirements and a heavy committment towards the digital side of things. The number of niche companies that have sprung up in just the last decade, particularly within the large format community, is quite promising. There were certainly not nearly as many choices in view cameras, especially in the "high end" of quality a few decades ago. We will still be around and groups like this will have an even greater purpose in promoting our continuation.

[Ed Eubanks]

If I may chime back in for a few thoughts...
Everyone's responses are, I think, what I expected. To follow up on what Neil Shields, and others, said, I guess I would sum up what I was trying to say in this way: sooner or later (and probably sooner), digital photography will hit a practical, if not a technological, wall, and at that time the hype will be over. Then, folks will just start looking for the best way to photograph again-- and many, I speculate, will find that in traditional film.
Maybe I should have simply said that in the first place...NAH!!!

[Bryan Willman]

In all of this, perception versus reality in the market matters.

In particular, the photo market in the US, or in the G7 countries, is not the same as the rest of the world.

The question is not "when will there be so little C41 film consumed in the G7 that the factories that produce got turned into something else."

The question is "when will there be so little c41 film consumed *in the world* that groups of photographers can no longer get special orders of sheet film made somewhere far away and shipped into the US?"

[John Flavell]

One solution I never see in this debate is that we might just simply have to go full circle and paint our own homemade emulsions onto glass plates. It's been done before.

[Wayne Crider]

Interesting speculation. I will tho disagree, and this based on the fact from what i see now, which is, more and more of my friends and family turning to digital cameras and having their pictures processed at the likes of Walgreens and Walmart's. If anything, I could see photo paper surviving much better than film. In the end these types of conversations are just redundate. We all know that some larger film will survive, just as the older processes have, but it will be a smaller field, as it is already. The only thing that may happen, and has at times thruout history, albeit for small amounts of time, is a back lash by the younger generations to shun the established norms. Digital will prevail over film, has already in many commercial applications, and will continue to do so as pricing comes down just like it as for computing equipment. We who shoot film are rapidly becoming tomorrows dianosauers. At least there is still enough interest, and film cameras, to create a supply line for now. I doubt in a hundred years it will be 1/10th of what it is now, just as alot of the alt processes are so much less practiced than yesteryear. Of course this may all be a moot point if the Christian philosophy of an impending end to life on our planet does come true, in which case I wouldn't doubt there will be plenty of 12 megapixel camera phones around to capture the event for off planet data transmission.

[Philippe Gauthier]

Neal and Melchi are raising a relatively seldom heard, but very true point about the digital technology: while we tend to see it as a new technology, it is actually a mature one that has been around for nearly 20 years in science application. It has nearly reached its limits. To be honest, this "limit" will be satisfying to about 98 or 99% or photographers.

But LF digital photography is likely to remain too expensive for anyone but the high volume studio for a long time, perhaps forever. As long as there's a fair number of hobbyists, there will be film - at least B&W film. I agree that color emulsions require more complex, capital intensive technology and that there is no guarantee that C41 and E6 it will be around forever.

I'm pretty sure, however, that in reaction to standardized, clean and easy to manipulate digital images, art collectors will tend to give some premium value to more artisanal and somewhat less perfect silver or alt process images. The fact that silver gelatin prints are hand and not machine made will always make them more intresting, pretty much in the same way as painting has always been valued more than silver photography.

[mark blackman]

Photography never did completely replace painting, nor is it likely ever to do so. Speak to any painter and they will moan about the high costs of their oils, some even make their own in an effort to save money. However, and this is the important part, companies around the world continue to profit from their manufacture. If we make the comparison with digital v chemical I expect the same will hold true. Sure, the big monolithic companies that are slow to change will suffer, and I doubt if we'll be able to buy Fuji or Kodak tranny film in 10x8 sheets in 5 years time. I do not doubt that there will be an enterprising individual who starts selling his/her own handmade emulsion to a few friends and within a few years is making quite a tidy living from it. The film may cost £20 per sheet, but, like the painters, there will be enough people around the globe willing to cough up for it.

[CXC]

Film is *already* a niche market. Digital has already exceeded the needs of 99.99% of photographers, that is, normal people who take pictures of themselves and each other to remember events in their lives. A recognizable, in-focus face in a 4x6 print is what people want. My Logitech 1.3MP fully satisfies this need. The *only* advantage of film in this real-world sphere is that it need not depend on batteries...but so much of our lives depends on batteries that this advantage carries no weight.

Recently the growth area has been in gee-whiz and convenience. A combo phone-pda-mp3-camera is a fun toy, and it reduces the number of things you need to carry around. Kiosks where you can view a cardful of pictures and print 3, brightened and cropped, in 5 minutes, are incredibly convenient. Why wait till you get home from your trip to Vegas to see the pictures?

My only hope is that people decide they don't want to wait even 5 minutes for their pictures, and go back to instant, keeping Polaroid alive for a couple more years...

[Chris Ellinger]

It seems to me that while many manufacturers would like film photographers to throw away their cameras and jump on the digital merry-go-round -- replacing cameras and printers every couple of years -- there are also a few manufacturers who will be able to make a living supplying film and paper to those of us who are quite happy to spend our time and money making images instead of replacing and testing new equipment.

[Jim Ewins]

"...people will stop buying them for their lack of limitations..." Too true, why else the craze for pin-hole and the Helga?? Jim Ewins

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

"...people will stop buying them for their lack of limitations..." Too true, why else the craze for pin-hole and the Holga?? Jim Ewins

I agree with that. My "point & shoot" is a Yashica Mat. I can see scan backs becoming affordable for 4X5, possibly at a resolution that will make colour film in 4X5 and 8X10 sizes obsolete. B&W on the other hand has always been a sort of alchemy. It also has a wonderful history. There are many pictures that were made in the late 1800s and early 1900s that rival those made today.

[Nick_3536]

I don't see anything digital becoming affordable if it's targeted at 4x5. The market is very small. Worse we're already reaching the point that the big middle is moving towards cellphone type cameras. The real question in my mind is how long until stand alone cameras are considered quaint? Or only used by niche market pros?

I also don't believe in the digital darkroom bubble. Sooner or later we will see a shake out. People that never felt the need to have a darkroom are going to start wondering why they're running a digital darkroom. When that happens you can expect the remaining group to start wondering about supplies the same way we worry now. OTOH it's possible to mix your own print developer. Trying making your own printer supplies.

[Picscity]

Film will survive for years due to strong demand in China and Japan. Analogue photography is booming there, they are enthusiasts of high quality mechanical equipment. The more affluent Chinese are currently buying legendary German lenses and cameras and especially 4x5 format more then anyone else. Owning a Leica in Japan is a must for any adult photo enthusiast. When it comes to photography as a hobby it is rare to see Japanese shoot a digital camera or any Japanese made camera. They are believers in the "process" and the" feel" of the equipment . Their electronic stuff is just a reminder to them of the "sameness" and lack of personality in their own society. To them, electronic equipment, including digital is just commercial junk to be replaced like a microwave and something they push to foreign masses. Fuji film sales are booming in China and Japan. There are currently numerous new films that you guys dont even know about. There is even a new direction that film is currently taking with enthusiasts in Japan. Specially designed films with unique and exagerated color characteristics that is funky and creates a different look altogether. Fortia is one of them, there are many more coming. There is even new professional films like Pro 160 series that supposed to be super for scanning and with incredible granularity of 3 rms. Dont think that current film has reached its limit The quality envelope can be pushed beyond what we think is even possible. In Japan digital is delegated only to newsman, housewives, and skirt girls in Shibuya. Fuji will only laugh when Kodak will sink because of America's infatuation with digital .

[RK]

I am a newcomer to this site and forum, having found both quite by accident. The site is wonderful; ain't serendipity serendipitous!? I hope this comment doesn't come so late in the conversation that adding it makes the thread a zombie.

The premise of this thread offers hope for those who prefer film, with steam trains used as an example of technology surviving despite all odds. But as a steam-loco enthusiast and onetime press photographer (the industries' parallels are striking), I must reluctantly agree with the argument that film, for all formats, is doomed. Large-format is the last redoubt.

I am old enough to remember the hue and cry against dieselization. The city where I lived was the location of vast tracts of brick railshops, and in that city the battle against the end of steam appeared to those most directly involved — as it does for professional and advanced-amateur photographers — to be more relevant than it was to the rest of the world. Those people fought a rearguard action, and here and there they slowed the loss of some peripheral jobs in the shops, but in the end the noise they made signified nothing.

Revolution — albeit within the realm of steam — was nothing new to the railroads, so dieselization in the late '50s was merely an extension of those preceding revolutions, but the most visible. And like dieselization, digitalization is but the latest of the preceding revolutions in photography. In many respects, the industry — within the digital realm — has moved on to other revolutions, smaller, perhaps, but lesser known only because they are not as visible and receive less publicity.

When I started in the news biz in the early '60s, one old hand still waxed poetic about Graflexes. He had a Crown, I think, that he kept "just in case," and he refused to use anything smaller than 120 Rolleiflexes to the day he retired in the mid-'80s after semi-retiring earlier, even as everyone else's first- and second-generation Nikon motor drives were falling apart from heavy use and old age. He resisted the small-camera revolution and stayed with his Rolleis, since it was still possible to walk into any camera store and buy one in seconds.

But his Crown, if that's what it was, gathered dust, then disappeared from the office, and the photos that he took with his Rolleis couldn't match what was possible to capture — news, remember — with 35s. The 2 1/4 medium-format full-frame quality was better than a 35 full-frame, of course, but that didn't matter by the time his images hit the paper; 35s had reached the point where Rolleis couldn't cut it, as Rolleis had reached the point where Graflexes couldn't cut it.

He was a dinosaur as regards the business we were in, and even he must have recognized that in regard to his 4X5 , since he never used it. And probably, in his heart, he recognized it in regard to his Rolleis. (There was a very old ground-glass wooden camera, with bellows that stretched at least six feet, and that focused using wooden rails nailed to the floor. We used it for copy shots. That thing would be worth a fortune, now. It shot 4X5s, though it probably was built for 11X14s.)

With the Rolleis, though, the veteran's objections to 35s were more philosophical — and understandable — than practical, because in practical terms I believe the Crown simply wasn't worth the effort for him, even in situations where he wouldn't have been laughed off the scene. But likewise, using a Rollei simply wasn't worth the effort for me -- although I did once in a while, sometimes out of my respect for him (being equipped with a Rollei brought no laughs). Now film is not worth the effort for anyone who doesn't appreciate large format for its own sake, for those shooting commercial work in the ever-decreasing areas it is necessary and for those who don't want to shuck their investments. It is one with woodcuts. Ask the National Geographic.

In my newspaper salad days, Nikon — the revolutionary standard — blew the doors off the old standard, Rollei, and the interloper Yashica, that twin-lens-telephoto neck-breaking boat anchor. ( I shot a hockey game from the rafters, using at 4X5 swing-and-tilt on a rail, complete with black cloth and air bulb, so this is no anti-large-format rant. Never a 5X7, though.) It is not hard to imagine that when my friend the veteran's world was young, his old-timers tsk-tsked Super Double-X, D76, any lens capable of an aperture bigger than F8 because they would too easily wreck the depth-of-field-focus guarantee of a grab shot through the wire-frame finder -- and the end of gunpowder flash.

He could recite a laundry list of Graflex strengths, far beyond the obvious of its large format and most Graflex models' swings and tilts. But what relevance did those strengths have for newspaper photography with its lousy letter-press reproduction, night-fire pix and one-column-wide head shots, and blurred-action sports shots because of slow shutter speeds, no telephotos worth mentioning -- especially at night football games in snowstorms -- and no dumptruck full of sheet film and holders?

Now the same objections — and many more — are used justifiably against film cameras in general, and soon enough valid arguments supporting film will be heard only by a select few, as I was one of the select few to hear the esoteric praises of the Graflex for news, most of which I don't remember and none of which I care about because their attributes don't hold water in news photography. Fewer people as each day passes could reel off such a list, so whatever is lost, soon will be lost forever. But who would want to make a cam-focus Graflex their shooter of choice to pay the rent and rediscover the joys of 1930 photography just to resurrect the list?

But is losing such a list a loss in practical terms? Not for me, because I didn't believe the list was meaningful even then; now it would be out-and-out nonsense. Anything from the past of which we know nothing is no more a loss than anything yet to be invented. And that is the ultimate end of the film vs. digital, celluloid vs. glass, Daguerreotypes vs. prints and steam vs. diesel conundrums.

Do you worry, even a little, that Kodak's color-film revolution doomed Autochrome? Do you know or care why a camera using Autochrome had to be built to accept backwards-loading film holders? Do you worry, even a little, about the subtle shades of color and the pointilist effect that are forever lost because Kodak's dyes replaced Autochrome's potato starch? Did you even know of this loss? If not, was it a loss when you didn't know of it? Is it a loss worth contemplation whether you knew of it or not?

Who cares that film has grain but Daguerreotypes, even quarter-plate, did not? Do you? Did you ever? What does that new-found knowledge (if, indeed, it is) mean to you? Is it such a great loss that you will open a Daguerreotype salon so it will be lost no more? What's quarter-plate? And if you care to re-experience Autochrome's pointilism, complete with muted colors, you can do it with Photoshop and the click of a mouse. When 11X14 digital equals 11X14 film, will the differences be apparent only to Zen masters?

Does Joe Sixpack care that an 11X14 digital print may have more grain than an old-school print? Did he ever care? Would he even want a bigger print than a 4X6 or 8X10? Do I, should I, care that Joe Sixpack doesn't care?

When I was a child, a railroad branchline about two miles from our house ran to a cement plant. On winter mornings, the steam-locomotive engineer would pull the whistle, which would be blocked by ice. The whistle's frequency would be at a glass-shattering screech, then in about three seconds as the ice melted, the frequency would drop, then drop again until the whistle made the usual sound now heard only in old movies, for the most part.

That glass-shattering screech dropping into the lower registers is lost forever. No one cares but me. It is a small loss, but one I regret and one I have never heard anyone else express in all the volumes written about the steam era. So it is no loss to anyone but me -- and life is short. So it will be with film. And so it will be to someone else when digital photography is old-school, even 8X10, and to someone else when the successor to the successor to digital photography is old-school — perhaps holodecks rediscovering battlefield wet-plate photography — and mercury-vapor madness.

There are losses because of digital, but most can be reclaimed — and on your desktop, miracle of miracles. And without the loss of being chained to a darkroom, the opening of new vistas themselves, some yet undreamt, would be lost.

Big Yellow cares, but only for the money lost in outmoded, unsold, onetime assets and film sales by the trainload, steam or otherwise; nostalgia ain't what it used to be in Rochester. Except for the ersatz memories created by an ad firm, Big Yellow doesn't have a nostalgic bone in its executive penthouse. Really, we shouldn't, either.

[Kendrick Pereira]

RK,
I don't know whether the thread is a zombie but I should like you to know that I read every word of your long posting and enjoyed it so much that I have copied it into a word document on my computer for [just my own personal] reference in future. I hope you don't mind.
I particularly enjoyed this particular thread taken as a whole most of the postings on which I have read. They are cogently argued and certainly provide food for thought. Nevertheless I felt that your posting helped to put the others in perspective for me.

It seems to me that nostalgia and antiquarian interest apart there are two salient considerations which weigh in favour of large format [not denying that there are others which carry weight the other way] as against small format film but do they necessarily carry over to digital formats, large or small?
1) It is much more feasible to retouch large negatives than small ones.
2) Use of lens tilts requires critical examination of every part of the image and this is hard to provide for with small formats.

As regards 2) many digital cameras already provide a nominal manual focussing facility of a sort. In the [rather modest] models I have been able to try out this facility has not been something to take seriously and I think this is because the monitor screen has very poor resolution. There is no intrinsic reason why digital camera models should not in time come to be designed with monitoring screens with the same resolution as the image that will actually be recorded and if photographers want this feature enough to be prepared to pay for it the industry will no doubt supply it in due course. If, initially, these models are not very compact they need at any rate not be bulkier than present day large format cameras. My point is that it is the viewing screen, not the recording format, that needs either to be of adequate size for naked eye viewing or supplemented by optical aids to critical viewing to make lens tilts viable. Provision for lens tilts in digital camera models is purely a matter of design and will be supplied if users are prepared to pay for it.

As regards 1) I think digital technology has already drawn level with large format film and plate photography. I recently came across a roll of 35mm film exposed some thirty-odd years ago and home-processed. I scanned the negatives and viewed them on my computer monitor. I was astonished to find that I recognised not a single one of them. The explanation was not far to seek. I had never thought it worth printing them because the negatives were too grubby. Spotting each print would have aggregated to a prohibitive total work-load. I have now been able to get Photo-shop Elements to work on the digitised data-files. It has still been a lot of work but worth it as I can now get as many clean prints as might be required at the touch of a few keys.

[lungovw]

This thread is really plenty of insightful thoughts and it is hard to add any good thing on it. Anyway I would like to comment the situation in emergent countries because from Brazil I have a very different perspective compared to Picscity when he says “Film will survive for years due to strong demand in China and Japan. Analogue photography is booming there, they are enthusiasts of high quality mechanical equipment.”

Film photography has become luxury photography everywhere. Professionals looking for productivity and amateurs looking for convenience are all happily shifting to digital. In Brazil it is even faster because productivity here is critical due to lack of resources and to compromise with quality is part of daily life.

I hardly can find stores to buy B&W film over here as a hobbyist. I work in marketing for cosmetics and it is also really hard to find a professional photographer still doing film. It is ironic but emergent markets feel more pressure to be updated than rich ones.
Enthusiasts of film photography and mechanical cameras exist everywhere but bulk of them is in USA, Europe and Japan. So do not count with the few who can afford it in the BRIC market or places alike to fuel the market specially in LF.

Nevertheless I see an important role of emergent markets for the future of film photography and that is not on the demand but in the supply side. Someone said before and I totally agree that the key driver now for that industry is the fact that what has become a small and not profitable market for giants like Kodak and Fuji is a good business for companies in places like China and Eastern Europe. Brands like EFKE and Foma are taking advantage from the situation and maybe others more will come. The future will be probably worldwide suppliers located far from where the demand is.

About cameras and optics the situation is more complicated. There are probably more professionals giving away their gear to the second hand market than enthusiasts being born. There won’t be demand to pay for high R&D and production costs and still be competitive with good old lenses and virtually indestructible cameras already produced. For instance, I bought a Linhof Tech V with four lenses, acessories, etc for as low as 1000 UDS in Sao Paulo. So I think that as far as equipment is concerned, we will be in the future living on the good scrap from the heyday of film photography and will be nicely served. I prefer an old Linhof than a brand new Holga and for sure many, many enthusiasts of film photography, will agree with me on that.


Wagner Lungov

[roteague]

There are losses because of digital, but most can be reclaimed — and on your desktop, miracle of miracles. And without the loss of being chained to a darkroom, the opening of new vistas themselves, some yet undreamt, would be lost.

I don't want to be tied to a computer. I don't even carry a laptop when I travel, and it suits me fine.

[Steve J Murray]

Like many threads on this forum, this is a good one. This topic comes up frequently, and no wonder. I, for one, realize that am going through a long period of grieving that started about a year ago, after I bought my DSLR and started using it. I soon realized how the DSLR quickly would replace my 35mm gear and even medium format gear. 35mm for me has always been the machine of choice when photographing people in natural settings. You've got the fast lenses, mobility, no need for tripod, quick shooting, etc. So, I began to grieve for all my "friends" that worked with me over some 35 years of film photography: developing tanks, chemicals, thermometers, trays, enlargers, etc. All these things were a important part of my life for my entire adult life. They now sit unused in the basement, and will likely never be used again, unless I do some 4x5 work. I still have the 4x5. That's because you can't do a decent landscape with a 6 mp DSLR. But, I have little interest in doing landscapes right now. I am more interested in photographing people at this point, and the DSLR is the perfect tool for that.

I just wanted to make the point that it is hard to "let go" of things that have been part of you for so long. But, you can't reject the new just because its hard to let go of the past. For me the important thing is to be creative and produce images that are fresh and artistic. I'm doing that more than ever now with digital technology, and I cannot imagine going back to film for the things I am doing now. I can see that some people use film precisely because it gets them away from the computer, and I respect that too. We all have our own preferences and should do what allows us to do our best work. Anyway, I still have definite feelings of grief and loss over film and processing, and expect to for some time.

[Scott Knowles]

I soon realized how the DSLR quickly would replace my 35mm gear and even medium format gear. 35mm for me has always been the machine of choice when photographing people in natural settings.

I just wanted to make the point that it is hard to "let go" of things that have been part of you for so long. But, you can't reject the new just because its hard to let go of the past.

You raised some interesting point, something I've been working at the last few years, first moving to 4x5, and now considering adding a full-frame DSLR for some film-based photography, mostly events and general use. I intend to keep using my film camera system because I'm most familar and comfortable with it, and intend to let it help me move to LF work as well as the work it does best for me.

But the point that few proponents keep forgetting with digital photography is the cost, not just the capital investment of the sytem, but the consistent requirement for maintanence and upgrade, if not replacement because the camera isn't supported by the company for the want of selling new cameras. At least film cameras were supported for many years if not decades past the discontinuation of the model, if only for the simple fact of numbers of cameras for parts. With the advances in technology, it's not profitable to keep making old chips and parts.

The key that I see is with the new(er) DSLR's is that may last a long time, but that companies, from the camera to the computer/software companies, will drop their support to make it work with newer technology. What good is a DSLR if you can't fix it or upgrade the software or can't get photo import conversion software? And with all this the price of digital cameras start to compare with film cameras if you have to keep replacing your camera equipment and computer hardware/software.

I don't see this changing the plans to get a DSLR, but it makes the decision harder when you realize it's lifetime won't match the film cameras I have. In short, I have to just drive the DSLR into the ground and replace it than fixing it because it won't be fixable. Yet I can still get my 1969 SRT-101 fixed, even it it's cannibalized parts for the shops supply if not getting lucky to find a shop with an inventory of new parts they've collected over the decades.

Just a personal observation. It's an interesting disucussion.

[roteague]

I stick with film, because I don't consider digital good enough to switch.

[Steve J Murray]

Robert, that is a meaningless statement unless you qualify what type of photography you do. I looked at your website and I can see you do landscapes. I too, would choose large format film for such photos. But for photographing people in natural lighting and circumstances, where high iso, low grain, fast lenses and mobility are needed, a DSLR is superior to film IMO. I can say that because I shoot film for 30 plus years under those conditions with Nikons and good lenses. I now prefer to shoot a DSLR with the same lenses to get the best of both worlds. I don't think you can just make a blanket statement any longer about the superiority of film over digital.

[roteague]

Steve, you are welcome to your opinion, as I am to mine.

FWIW:

http://www.nicoleboenigmcgrade.com/
http://www.cheryljacobsphotography.com/
http://www.michaelmcblane.com/

[MJSfoto1956]

large format film will continue to have an edge in quality for many years to come. Manufacturers have placed their bet: the largest sensors are going to be for 645 cameras (currently 36mmx48mm max) -- there likely will not be a 6x7 or 6x8 sensor anytime soon, if ever (how sad). And other than scanning backs, you can forget about ever seeing 4x5 or larger digital backs. The reason is simple economics: the commercial photographers with today's 22/31/39 megapixel equipment can deliver more than their customers need. Whether a fashion photographer or wedding photographer or studio photographer, today's digital equipment is simply "good enough" for commercial work. There is no economic pressure to deliver more.

The trouble is art photographers in years past used to use the same equipment and technology as their commercial pro brethren. There was a happy synergy and economics of scale that produced a reasonably priced art medium that could do double duty. In effect, commercial photographers were subsidizing art photographers indirectly. For many years this was a win win situation. That has forever changed.

Now that commercial photogs have gone over to "the dark side" the economics no longer work for the big manufacturers (film or cameras, but particularly true of medium format). So the old manufacturers rightly chase their profits and digital is delivering those profits and sales beyond their wildest dreams. That may or may not last (particularly as digital becomes more and more commoditized), but that fate will not affect large format photographers at all. Market forces are already at work that are changing the landscape of our large-format world. To wit:

#1 -- the Chinese (and other home-grown entities) are manufacturing film and medium/large format cameras and accessories that will eventually equal and/or exceed the quality we have come to expect. This is an exciting development. Of particular interest is the phenomenon of low-cost compter-controlled milling machines that can manufacture one-off customizations and accessories never before possible. (think SK Grimes and Kirk and RRS for example)

#2. Consolidation -- the old manufacturers are indeed profit motivated. But they are not stupid. They are not about to leave any money on the table. As a result, we are seeing the effective end of commercial E-6 and the "standardization" of C-41 as the primary commercial film processing/film media. This is not necessarily such a bad thing since it suggest a long-term commitment to C-41 compatible films going forward. Perhaps we will even see a C-41 color negative film without the orange mask!! (hey, why not? After all, there exist B&W C-41 films) In other words, there is no evidence at all the C-41 films or processing is going away any time soon. The same cannot be said of commercial E-6 though unfortunately.

My take: these are exciting times. Perhaps the best ever to be a large-format photographer. Yes you will need to change, but when has that ever not been true with photography?

J Michael Sullivan
Editor/Publisher, MAGNAchrom
www.magnachrom.com

[Kirk Fry]

I have a product in mind.
It looks like a 545 Polaroid Back, sticks in any 4X5 view camera and runs on two (4 or 6 ok too) AA batteries.
It it makes 300 mb color scans in 15 secs. with light levels found in normal indoor environments
and is sensitive to 10 zones of light or so.
It costs $1,000 and the pictures end up on an SD_card.
No computer involved. Unless of course you want to see how your focus was after the fact.
What kind of dent would a tool like this make in large format film sales?
Whatever happened to Baldwin anyway? Is Kodak (Fuji) the next Baldwin? Does it matter?

K

[BrianShaw]

What happened to Baldwin... here's the story. Lower production (can't compete with the digital pianos and Chinese knock-offs), higher cost, and smaller distribution network. Like Baldwin Locomotive Work's adaptation to changing technology, so has Baldwin Piano adapted too.

Baldwin Piano Information

Baldwin Piano Company is going through a renaissance phase. Production on the Baldwin artist pianos have been cut drastically to improve quality control and to directly compete with Steinway & Son. Baldwin has cut their retail distribution from over 300 dealers to 90 select dealers across the country.

They have revamped how the pianos are being built.. Like Steinway pianos Baldwin used to use an assembly line approach to building the pianos without much synergy or connection from beginning to end (except in the very limited production concert and semi-concert grands). Now Baldwin is using a "ground up" approach to each and every artist grand built. The same team of technicians builds a piano from the ground up and knows every particular item in each individual piano in order to create a better sounding piano with much improved quality control.

Baldwin is now using certain patents previously only available on the concert 9' sd-10 on all of their artist grands as well as many of their verticals. Including the Synchro-Tone String, and the Accu-Just Hitch Pin.

Every Baldwin artist grand piano now leaves the factory with a letter from the President of Baldwin Piano that he personally inspected the piano before it left the factory and it meets or exceeds the highest of standards.

Baldwin is actively replacing many Steinway pianos in performance venues as well as other brands. Baldwin has always been the choice of the consument concert performer as well as the seasoned Jazz player. Many artists are switching over to the Baldwin piano. Click here for Baldwin's artist roster.

They are also raising their prices dramatically to cover the additional costs of building a world class high performance piano with many advantages of the still more expensive steinway piano.

If you are looking to buy an undervalued high performance piano, you should seriously consider the new Baldwin artist series of pianos.

[CXC]

Thanks to Wagner for his comments from Brazil. I would like to ask other members living in countries other than Japan/Europe/US/Canada to comment, as their point of view is crucial to this discussion and relatively rare.

My opinion is that in a short number of years Joe and Joan Sixpack will only be shooting with their phones, and never printing anything, as snapshot imagery will become entirely electronic and much more disposable. At the high end (technologically speaking), tabletop photography for advertizing will be replaced by computer graphics, with images being built instead of recorded.

[cyrus]

I suspect that the cleavage of "commercial" photography away from film photography is hardly the death knell of film photography - in fact, it could be a boon! It means that film photography will develop and grow as a field unto itself and the mass ease/availability of electronic picture-making will foster a greater appreciation for the craft of film photography rather than detract from it. Film photography, already somewhat viewed as an expensive specialized art form (aka elitist), will be viewed as more so - and the reduction in the ease/availability of entering into the field of film photography which will result from the end of the 35mm snapshot cameras will drive up the prices for "real" photographs too. Demand for artistic photography, rather than going down, will go up as more people come to see the intrinsic value of film photography over mass digital photography. in fact, digital photography will be a doorway to introducing more people to film photography!

So, the remaining question is whether anyone will still make film, paper and chemicals. I suspect yes since the demand for film photographs will continue (see above). It may be that the "Big guys" like Kodak etc sell off their plants to smaller outfits, which produce smaller batches of film etc, resulting in higher costs for the film etc. (which will itself make film photography even more elitist and thus even more in demand)

I suspect that the biggest investment in running a film-making factory are the machinery. Kodak isn't just going to scrap those - they'll sell them to another company that is going to use them to continue making film.

Now, what happens to the price of silver is another issue!

[Kendrick Pereira]

Demand for artistic photography, rather than going down, will go up as more people come to see the intrinsic value of film photography over mass digital photography. . . .
. . . . higher costs . . . . (. . . . will itself make film photography even more elitist and thus even more in demand)

But are we considering artistic film photography as against mass digital photography and if so should we be? Artistic photographers are going to embrace digital as enthusiastically as anyone - innovative artists in all media always have been keen to turn to artistic use the best resources available at the time. The ease with which photographs in digital storage can be manipulated, retouched or just cleaned up commends the medium to the avant garde. It permits artist photographers to devote more of their time to artististic considerations and spend less time bogged down in the mechanics of the process. Film will continue to be used as "best" if and so long as it can keep ahead in the as regards image quality: and, with artist photographers especially, the case will be progressively more and more one of "keeping the best for last" i.e. last resort.

It might be in the commercial field that photographers will in fact continue to be able to persevere with film photography longer by persuading their clients to pay for it. It is on the artist photographer that the squeeze will be tightest. The commercial and artist photographer might be one and the same person - using film for a client who pays for it and pursuing his artistic aspirations as he can with what he can pay for himself. If he is gifted he will no doubt achieve something anyway - that is what being an artist, as distinct from a mere artisan or craftsman, means - but he will not choose to use less than the best available to him.

I get the impression that a considerable proportion of LF afficionados are digitising their LF images via scanners in preference to printing photographically in the darkroom so even the LF boys, many of them, are already dependant on digital photography - and demonstrating what I have said above: that they want to exploit the latest facilities available.

Apart from image quality the only really decisive consideration in favour of keeping LF film photography alive as a practical commercial and artistic option is the tilt/swing facility. This requires an adequate viewing facility. If the 36x48mm format mentioned elsewhere under this thread yields adequate image quality, provision of the tilt/swing movements for the lens would not not have to wait on any new discovery or invention. It would be just a design matter. Medium film format lens designs are available and less expensive to make than large film format. 36x48 might be considered large format in digital terms and used much the same way as 4"x5" or larger film formats. It is not the size of the recording format which is definitive here but the viewing facility - and remember: with digital there is no intrinsic reason why the viewing screen has to be physically in the same housing as the lens. I can picture a compact housing for lens and computer on a handy light-weight tripod with the photographer comfortably seated nearby operating this set-up by reference to a monitor of generous size in his lap, using a remote control. And I should like to think that the photographer would be an artist.

Before you throw up your hands in horror at this repellant scenario just consider whether this is not in principle the same as what the majority of LF format practitioners are already doing as soon as they have an image fixed on film. If its OK for the print why not for the negative?


Oh and BTW, increases in costs would certainly make film photography more elitist and, very likely, help prolong its life as an elitist thing but demand overall may be expected to contract rather than expand. That is what it means to say that something has become elitist.

[David Luttmann]

Steve, you are welcome to your opinion, as I am to mine.

FWIW:

http://www.nicoleboenigmcgrade.com/
http://www.cheryljacobsphotography.com/
http://www.michaelmcblane.com/

Robert,

Your posted links have nothing to do with Steve's comments. As he said, in low light situations (not controlled studio lighting like your link samples) where low noise and high iso is needed, along with mobility, a DSLR is a better option. This isn't open to opinion....the DSLR will offer better noise at 1600 iso than a 35mm can at 400.

Opinion won't change this fact.

[ozsilver]

Robert,

Your posted links have nothing to do with Steve's comments. As he said, in low light situations (not controlled studio lighting like your link samples) where low noise and high iso is needed, along with mobility, a DSLR is a better option. This isn't open to opinion....the DSLR will offer better noise at 1600 iso than a 35mm can at 400.

Opinion won't change this fact.


Nicole Boenig-McGrade and Cheryl Jacobs don't do any studio work with controlled studio lighting. Their work is all natural lighting. I believe Nicole doesn't even own a flash.

[cyrus]

But are we considering artistic film photography as against mass digital photography and if so should we be?

I didn't mean to imply that the two are mutually exclusive. Certainly, many artists will work in digital, or a combination of film/digital. But film photography by itself will be mostly a purely artistic endeavor, and less so a commercial endeavor, for a variety of reasons that you cite such as convenience, ease of retouching/manipulation, etc. of digital photography.


The ease with which photographs in digital storage can be manipulated, retouched or just cleaned up commends the medium to the avant garde.

There have been many new mediums developed that the avant garde embraced over traditional painting -- silk screen was quite popular in the 1970s if I remember right - but that didn't detract from the perceived intrinsic values of traditional oil-based painting that had been going on for centuries before and which is still quite popular as an independent art form.


It permits artist photographers to devote more of their time to artististic considerations and spend less time bogged down in the mechanics of the process.

Ah, but I claim (IMHO) that the "mechanics of the process" are precisely what gives film photography its certain cache that will attract more followers. BECAUSE the process of making a traditional photo is difficult and requires skill/effort/time etc, then the end product will be perceived to have a greater instrinsic value than the easy/convenient digital form , and so there will be a demand for them.



Film will continue to be used as "best" if and so long as it can keep ahead in the as regards image quality


If by image quality you're referring to the objective, technical qualities (resolution, sharpness etc) then I have to disagree. These factors may be important considerations in commercial/scientific photography but less so in artistic photography. In fact, some of the most acclaimed photos are of poor technical image quality. So the fact that digital cameras can (one day, if not already) take "better" photos than film cameras in the technical sense is mostly irrelevant to the artistic value of the creation.


I get the impression that a considerable proportion of LF afficionados are digitising their LF images via scanners in preference to printing photographically in the darkroom so even the LF boys, many of them, are already dependant on digital photography - and demonstrating what I have said above: that they want to exploit the latest facilities available.

Naturally more people will go towards a digital direction, and many will combine the two -- but that only creates a bigger void of "traditional photography" for the "purists" to step in. I myself am an example of that -- I have digital cameras and printers and computers but I choose to stick to a purely non-digital process. I see a value specifically in the wet darkroom process of creating photographs. Of course, I can create the same image using digital, or a combination of digital-film, with a lot more convenience but convenience isn't the factor that attracted me to this. ANd I am willing to bet that the "consumer" of photographs will see a particular value in a photo made without any digital technology.


Oh and BTW, increases in costs would certainly make film photography more elitist and, very likely, help prolong its life as an elitist thing but demand overall may be expected to contract rather than expand. That is what it means to say that something has become elitist.

Well we can quibble about the precise meaning of elitist, but call it whatever you will, there are many things that are expensive and yet are in great demand (and sometimes they are in demand specifically BECAUSE they are expensive.) So in such cases, demand expands with price, rather than contracting. This may not be econimically rational especially when perfectly functional substitutes exist, but then again, we're not talking about commodities, we're talking about human perceptions of artistic value.

Let me put it this way: If you had to purchase a statue, would you prefer the less expensive plastic mass-produced version that was easy/convenient for the artist to produce because he used a mold to pop out hundreds at a time, or would you prefer the hand-made, one of a kind marble one that was carved with great difficulty by the artist on a one-off basis?

[roteague]

Robert,

Your posted links have nothing to do with Steve's comments. As he said, in low light situations (not controlled studio lighting like your link samples) where low noise and high iso is needed, along with mobility, a DSLR is a better option. This isn't open to opinion....the DSLR will offer better noise at 1600 iso than a 35mm can at 400.

Opinion won't change this fact.

With the exception of Michael's work, all these photographers use film in natural settings - in the clients home. BTW, film doesn't suffer from noise problems. Regardless, it is a matter of opinion - you may not like grain, but a lot of people prefer grain over noise. A DSLR is only better in your opinion.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Oh lord, are we going down this road again?


It permits artist photographers to devote more of their time to artististic considerations and spend less time bogged down in the mechanics of the process

Aparently only those using digital are able to have "artistic considerations" those of us using film must monekeys whose only knowledge lies on souping up film, huh?... So lets see, someone in this forum spends a week playing with his/her digital file and this is only due to their "artistic considerations" but another person on this forum spends a week making masks, dodging and burning and playing with their chemically processes image and all he is doing is being "bogged down" by the mechanistics of the process? is this how it works? :rolleyes:


but he will not choose to use less than the best available to him.

So I guess you have decided for all of us that digital is the best available for all of us..huh?


Medium film format lens designs are available and less expensive to make than large film format. 36x48 might be considered large format in digital terms and used much the same way as 4"x5" or larger film formats. It is not the size of the recording format which is definitive here but the viewing facility

Sorry, but this is pure BS. It is the size of the recording format what is important.....Why would anybody here use an 8x10 camera and then scan the negative if the size and quality of the resulting negative was not important? So I guess your idea of quality is having a DSLR which can be viewed in a 3x2 feet screen as greater quality? As to the MF lens being less expensive to make than LF lenses, you obviously know little about lens design. The economics of lens design and sales rely on units sold, there are far more MF lenses being made and sold than LF lenses. If the same LF lenses were being sold in the same amount as MF lenses, they would be a fraction of the price they are now, it is far easier to make a LF lens than to make a MF lens.

[Don Bryant]

As a film only photography I have no illusions about the future of film. Film use will continue to diminish and film costs will continue to increase. I'll continue to use film but the truth is digital photography will continue to increase in acceptance for what ever reasons you choose.

Digital cameras are easy to use, digital output is getting better every year. However large format quality from digital capture isn't very affordable for most LF users nor do I think most LF users are interested in digital capture.

How long large format film will be available is anyones guess, but I would conjecture that within the next 5 to 10 years LF film could become extinct because of lack of demand.

My 2 cents,

Don Bryant

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Robert,

Your posted links have nothing to do with Steve's comments. As he said, in low light situations (not controlled studio lighting like your link samples) where low noise and high iso is needed, along with mobility, a DSLR is a better option. This isn't open to opinion....the DSLR will offer better noise at 1600 iso than a 35mm can at 400.

Opinion won't change this fact.
Sorry Dave, but noise and grain are different things. This is one more of the myths digital users try to perpetrate. If you dont like grain, fine, but the grain from a negative is far different from the noise from a digital chip that was unable to capture the range of light. LIke you said, opinions wont change facts.

[David Luttmann]

With the exception of Michael's work, all these photographers use film in natural settings - in the clients home. BTW, film doesn't suffer from noise problems. Regardless, it is a matter of opinion - you may not like grain, but a lot of people prefer grain over noise. A DSLR is only better in your opinion.

Grain is noise...

Noise/grain from an 800 iso digital source is less intrusive than a 100iso film source. If you can prove otherwise, I'd be happy to see the results. In the meantime, there is no argument.....digital files are cleaner. I've got 800iso 16x24s from DSLRs that have less noise/grain than MF iso 160 film. The same holds true for digital backs.

The original comment had to do with mobility and low light noise issues. As I said, less noise/grain is not open to opinion. Grain is noise as it wasn't present in the original scene to the eye. The only way to comabt that is to shoot with larger film like 4x5 or 5x7....and those are hardly known for their mobility.

[Don Bryant]

Robert, that is a meaningless statement unless you qualify what type of photography you do. I looked at your website and I can see you do landscapes. I too, would choose large format film for such photos. But for photographing people in natural lighting and circumstances, where high iso, low grain, fast lenses and mobility are needed, a DSLR is superior to film IMO. I can say that because I shoot film for 30 plus years under those conditions with Nikons and good lenses. I now prefer to shoot a DSLR with the same lenses to get the best of both worlds. I don't think you can just make a blanket statement any longer about the superiority of film over digital.
Steve,

You are wasting your time trying to make rational arguments about digital photography with Robert. He is totally anti-digital capture.

That said sometimes I do like the look of film grain that film can provide which is difficult to mimick from digital capture.

And I only use film for serious photography. If I could afford a high end digital camera I would probably use one for color work but not to the exclusion of using film for B&W.

Don Bryant

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Grain is noise...

No it is not, this is why many of the statements made by those using digital are myths. Grain is image forming material, noise is non image forming pixels. There is a very big difference and the sooner you guys admit to the lack of appropiate language by those using digital, the better these misunderstandings will go away. BTW, grain is not the same as noise just because you say so, next time please give reasons for your statements.

As to grain not being present in the image the eye sees this is a red herring argument, the little dots you can see in your pictures are not present in what the eye sees either, nor are the little squares.......

Funny how you tell us about these things you have done, I have the same stories and they are usually the opposite of what you say. For example same place I photographed, it requires an exposure of 40 minutes at F/45, a friend had a D70, could not handle the exposure, a college student showed up with his pentax 1000 and tri X...he was able to handle the exposure with no problems.... So you see, at least in this real life case film was the winner by far, one walked away with a pic, the other one did not....

[roteague]

Grain is noise...

No, noise is garbage in the signal, grain is what gives a film based image its structure. Most people find noise objectionable, but will accept grain. Your argument about an ISO 800 file being cleaner than 100 ISO film has no basis in merit, since you fail to provide anything other than your assertions.

Don, you are correct. I am anti-digital capture, for MY own work, what you use is your choice.

[Steve J Murray]

Robert, my observations apply to the way I use photograpy. If you looked at my 70's folder you would see that I did very effective candid portraiture with film formats from 35mm to 4x5. I know what you can do with film. I don't have to look at someone else's web site to understand what can be done with film. I believe I can do more (in my style) with my DSLR today because of the increased flexibility, especially with color. A great photo is a great photo regardless of the equipment used. I could still do good work with film, but I have a lot more fun doing it digitally and my prints are every bit as good as prints I made in the past, and I am doing color and not just black and white. I would still use a 4x5 for any good sized landscape photo, although it is fun to "walk about" and do "sketches" with the DSLR and make small prints.

[Kendrick Pereira]

"Naturally more people will go towards a digital direction, and many will combine the two -- but that only creates a bigger void of "traditional photography" for the "purists" to step in. I myself am an example of that -- I have digital cameras and printers and computers but I choose to stick to a purely non-digital process. I see a value specifically in the wet darkroom process of creating photographs. Of course, I can create the same image using digital, or a combination of digital-film, with a lot more convenience but convenience isn't the factor that attracted me to this. ANd I am willing to bet that the "consumer" of photographs will see a particular value in a photo made without any digital technology.

Let me put it this way: If you had to purchase a statue, would you prefer the less expensive plastic mass-produced version that was easy/convenient for the artist to produce because he used a mold to pop out hundreds at a time, or would you prefer the hand-made, one of a kind marble one that was carved with great difficulty by the artist on a one-off basis?"

But I protest, in this example the making of the mould is the original work of the artist. Churning out the plastic copies is mere mechanical reproduction. If an artist were to succeed in making a mould which yields a result which really is fully equal to the hand-carved and polished marble statue he would indeed be an artist of genius and would have fully justified his choice of technique. It would be the mould which might be expected to later change hands at some astronomical price at (say) Christie's. Of course the consumer would need the moulded plastic end-product in order to enjoy the work of art but this is immaterial. A movie cannot be made accessible to viewers without being projected or played back on suitable video equipment but the artistic work does not lie in running the film or videotape through the equipment or even making the copies which are run through. If you can, as you say "create the same image using digital, or a combination of digital-film, with a lot more convenience" - If it really is the same image, yielding nothing in quality or character to the print made in the wet darkroom - then I submit it would be perverse to handicap yourself by unnecessary self imposed difficulties. I do not believe that any of the great artists has deliberately done this. The proof must be there in the end result.

So long as prints made in the wet darkroom offer something at least different from, if not decisively better than, digital prints in the end result and not merely in the means of producing it so long will the older method be justifiable by artistic criteria alone. Of course, there are other values which will keep the old methods going for some time after they have ceased to be really useful to serious artists. Just by way of example, nostalgia will take some time to dissipate and after that the processes will still be of antiquarian interest.

In the meantime I have not said and do not say that digital image quality has equalled or surpassed that of film. I know that very many people whose opinions are worth heeding consider that this state of affairs has not yet been reached. So long as you consider that what you are doing produces something distinctive, I have no wish to criticise you for persevering with it. What I wrote was conditional and not meant to apply so long as film does keep ahead in the image-quality stakes. Nor have I any wish to denigrate antiquarians, only to distinguish them from artists. We are better off for having both.

I appreciate the close attention you have given my post, though it would seem we continue to disagree as to just what is included by the term "artist" - I suspect that that is the crux of it.

[cyrus]

But I protest, in this example the making of the mould is the original work of the artist. Churning out the plastic copies is mere mechanical reproduction.

OK so that wasn't a perfect example of my point so let me adjust it. Today, using CNC machines, any three dimensional object can be carved out of any material quite cheaply and conveniently - and yet no one doubts the artistic value of handcarved statues nor is there a flagging interest by consumers and collector in "traditional" sculpture.


If an artist were to succeed in making a mould which yields a result which really is fully equal to the hand-carved and polished marble statue he would indeed be an artist of genius and would have fully justified his choice of technique. It would be the mould which might be expected to later change hands at some astronomical price at (say) Christie's. Of course the consumer would need the moulded plastic end-product in order to enjoy the work of art but this is immaterial.

Well, not really immaterial since we're talking about the potential longevity of the medium based on whether there will be a demand for it by the consumer - and not just the inherent artistic qualities of the medium.


...then I submit it would be perverse to handicap yourself by unnecessary self imposed difficulties. I do not believe that any of the great artists has deliberately done this. The proof must be there in the end result.

I submit that the end result is not the proof by itself. The means used to acheive the end result also count. Even if digital and wet process resultd in totally identical end results, as perverse as it may be, the film version would have a higher perceived value specifically because of the difficulty and inconvenience (a.k.a. skill and effort) involved in creating it.

What does this value consist of to consumers? Well, there are elements of nostalgia, of craftsmanship, of exclusivity, quality etc. If the price goes up as I expect, the expensiveness of the film prints too will be a factor of their perceived value. Darkrooms and film have all of those connotations and associations, as does traditional sculpture. Thus, film prints will be perceived as have a special "extra" distinctive quality to them, even if digital prints have the same or superior technical qualities and are produced more easily and conveniently.

Oh and yes you do know of great artists who have "deliberately done this" - doing things the hard way even if they could acheive the same exact results the easier way. Any landscape painter, for example, who paints a scene instead of simply using Photoshop to import an image of the scene and use various filters/plug-ins to make the image look like a "painting". Why do they do they continue to use oil paint and easel etc when they should just use Photoshop to "create" a "painting" which could look identical to any oil-based painting? For the same reason that people will continue to use and appreciate film.


So long as prints made in the wet darkroom offer something at least different from, if not decisively better than, digital prints in the end result and not merely in the means of producing it so long will the older method be justifiable by artistic criteria alone. Of course, there are other values which will keep the old methods going for some time after they have ceased to be really useful to serious artists.

I don't agree. Prints created in the darkroom do in fact offer something different from digital - the proces by which the were created! The end result cannot be separated from the process. That has a value in of itself, even if we assume that the end results are identical. As I mentioned above, today with digital technology, someone could create digital "paintings" which look almost identical to any painting made with brushes and oil paints -- and yet the art form of traditional painting is not considered to be in any danger of being abandoned in favor of digital, nor is the "serious usefulness" of traditional painting under debate.


Just by way of example, nostalgia will take some time to dissipate and after that the processes will still be of antiquarian interest.

No I seriously doubt this. Painting wasn't supplanted by photograph (digital or non-digital) and sculpture wasn't supplanted by machinin, and stone lithography wasn' supplanted by wood block or other forms of printing etc. And its not just nostalgia factor which keeps these art forms alive - they're alive because they are unique and distinctive art forms (and any art form is greater than simply its end product)


In the meantime I have not said and do not say that digital image quality has equalled or surpassed that of film...

I agree on this point, and I am not about to compare the quality of film v. digital either, just as I don't compare the quality of a painting versus a photograph. These are simply different art forms and mediums and each has its own distinctive qualities.
Apples and oranges.


I appreciate the close attention you have given my post,
Thank you!
Beats working, eh?!

[Gordon Moat]

Good afternoon,

I can see some direction in which the discussion is leading that aludes to the commodity nature of photography. It has always been an aspect, though perhaps more noticeable to some. Not everyone using cameras wants to create art, or even use those cameras to make a living; some are merely wanting to record history, often just their own personal history. The camera companies made a mistake in thinking that digital imaging could sell more prints, simply because people would take more photos. Unfortunately, the numbers indicated by InfoTrends, CapVentures, and Gartner Group indicate that less than 1/3 of digital camera owners print any images; that should lead many to imagine the uses to which those images are put. Mostly there are more images floating around in e-mail, or on the internet, but there are many that exist for a short while on the camera, only to be shared with others on the LCD, and eventually get boring and get deleted. While there are better quality D-SLRs getting into enthusiasts hands, they are by far less common than compact models, and massively outsold by cameraphones.

Some might look at the fallout and state that it is not simply film imaging taking a hit, it is photography. There are some bright aspects to this, one relevent to this Forum is that large format imaging is enjoying an expanded interest and market. Another thing is the many occurances I read about of college aged people taking up film photography; partially as a way of getting away from a computer, but also something in an age of automation used as a way of expressing more control over personal creativity.

I have also read and listened to several people in the film industry mention that when a new emulsion is released that means a company willing to put 7 to 10 years into it (depending upon whom you discuss this with). So Fuji introduced new films this year, and Kodak had E100G and E100GX, as well as a few upgrades to other films over the last few years. If I need reconciliation in five to ten year chunks, I am okay with that. Not to sound to happy, there is the loss of some more Polaroid materials, and who knows how long Rollei Retro films (redone AGFA APX100, et al) will be available. Obviously, anyone still using film might expect changes, though I draw the line at demise. It is tough for me to not worry about anything E-6, though I remind myself (and others) that it has always been a very small segment of the market. The other thing is Kodak's contract commitment to continue funding Lucky Film in China; I don't care where my film comes from, as long as I can still get it.

I also found the comments and references to painting interesting, since that is actually my preference in creating artwork. I rarely find people who choose oil paints because they feel the more difficult aspects justify the endeavour; most use oil paints because it gives them the results they want. Painters rarely have too many issues about what is better to use, though some using acrylics seem to think they are easier, more convenient, or maybe better . . . . too subjective and hard to compare. Painters have agonized or pushed what they felt where better brushes, or sometimes better methods, but rarely try to convince others their methods are the best. The process is a deeply involved part of creating any painting, but the choices are dictated by the creative vision the artist wants to express.

To me, using a 4x5 is like going to a location and drawing (or painting) the scene. I used a 4x5 in college, then abandoned it shortly after graduating for 35mm and medium format. After considering what I needed and desired to express in my creative work, I came back into 4x5 this January. Obviously the process is part of expressing a creative vision with a view camera.

I did not go back to 4x5 because I felt the results were better than I got from 35mm or medium format. Rather I choose to work this way because it is easier to get the results I want directly, as opposed to the suggestions some have of post-processing smaller formats; I don't believe a marginal image can be PhotoShopped into a good or great image. Oddly enough, my 4x5 kit in backpack is lighter than the D2X outfit a friend of mine uses, so who really has it easier?

When I look at so many books, published images, great large prints, or even nice small prints, I never get this impression some going the all digital route imply that film is not good enough. How can anyone honestly look at all those images of the past done with film, and dismiss the lot of them as not good enough? We have better films, better lenses, better light meters, and some would state more choices than most photographers of the past, yet many of us fail to garner the notoriety or kudos of those who did this before us.

I am glad to see some in this discussion indicating that they too believe that film is the right choice to express their creative vision. Nice to see painting mentioned too, since that is definitely lower resolution than most photography, yet still something people can enjoy. If photography as a profession is seeming too much like a commodity, then the magic has been removed; professionals need to expres a unique vision and do more than just being in some place with a camera. As long as photographers can inspire someone with a compelling vision, there will still be people finding photography of great interest.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

[John Louis]

Oh and yes you do know of great artists who have "deliberately done this" . . . . doing things the hard way even if they could acheive the same exact results . . . . simply using Photoshop . . . .

Please, could you enlighten me? Who are the recognised great artists who have had Photoshop?

I do not think "any landscape painter" would do as an example of a great artist.

[cyrus]

Who are the recognised great artists who have had Photoshop?


Why, Degas and Titian, of course. Canaletto had a Mac in Venice. (just kidding - see below)


I do not think "any landscape painter" would do as an example of a great artist.

Precisely my point. Painters paint. THere are any number of contemporary painters (whether one considers them to be "Great" or not is besides the point) who continue to use messy acrylic or oil, easles, palettes, brushes etc despite the fact that they could simply simulate a "painting" using Photoshop (I live with one - her hair smells like turpentine!) They don't Photoshop even though that may be more convenient and even though the end result could look "just like" a painting. And there are consumers who appreciate the "real" painting even though the photoshop "end reuslt" version could look exactly the same. Why? Because of the inherent qualities of "real" paintings. Indeed, the mere fact that digital tech can simulate paintings easily/conveniently makes people appreciate the skill/effort in "real" paintings more! Not that there's anything wrong with digital arts, but its just not painting. Those are two different art forms (though some artists may choose to combine the two). Thus, painting is is no danger of being supplanted with Photoshop & what's keeping painting alive is the inherent qualities of painting rather than mere nostalgia which will run out soon.

The same example applies to sculpture - you don't see cnc machines posing any threat to the traditional art form of hand sculpture.

Similarly, film photographers use film and darkrooms & the inherent qualities of film photography will keep it alive & well despite the existence of digital photography. Thus, just like painting or sculpture, traditional film photography will not necessarily be supplanted by computers -- and in fact, I posit that the "mass" availability/ease of taking digital images will only increase the perceived value/appreciation for film photography.

This is already happeneding - just see apug.

[lungovw]

The discussion of which one is more artistic or valuable, from the point of view of which one is more mechanically produced, between film and digital photography is actually an empty one. Looking to a PDF file we can see that it is just a string of characters that one can send to the other side of the globe and any one else will be able to “play” it in a printer and get an image out of it. The same way a musician receiving the scores for a symphony will be able to play it as music. Some art forms are immaterial and some are not. In some of them you have an original that is the only one that counts as THE piece of art (like in painting, somehow in film photography or etching) and in some of them the notion of original does not play a role at all, like in literature, music (when put into scores) and more recently digital photography. There is a book called Languages of Art, by Nelson Goodman that discusses and settles these issues. It is a pain in the neck to read but it is enlightening.
I prefer to see as an artist somebody that invites or guides people into seeing things artistically. Things that he creates with his hands, with cameras, computers, machines of all sorts and also things he may find anywhere from nature to a garbage bin. For the artistic experience is in the act of perceiving the artistic subject and not in creating it.

[tonepixs]

Sure glad my software reads out text passages Otherwise would never have got round to finishing that washing up!: D

[John Flavell]

Perhaps we need a thread on the hopeful future of photographers.

[squiress]

Interesting thread. Enjoyed the commentary. Just joined the group and have already gotten a lot out of the forums. I also just got into MF and LF film. Had done a lot with 35mm over the years.

I have a few Mamiya 645 bodies and lenses, an RB67 and lenses, two Crown 4x5s, one Speed 4x5 and a growing set of shuttered and barrel lenses, and a Toyo 45AX and set of lenses for that. I've picked most of this stuff up on Ebay over the last couple of months at minimal cost. My brother bought a lot of the same stuff new over the last fifteen years and we laugh at the bargains out there as shops go digital (or maybe he's crying inside at the loss of value of his equipment). I personally think the trend will reverse from the non-commercial side. The commercial side will continue down whatever path allows them to shoot quicker. cheaper and faster for an acceptable product, and that is probably digital for the immediate future. Film for commercial applications is at the same place where comercial artists were as cameras were introduced into advertising.

Anyway, I thought I would add a belated two cents on why I just dropped few but still significant dollars into all this stuff, and why I am just about to acquire an 8x10 and make use of that as well. IT'S FUN! There's something about the light meter approach to shooting pictures. There's something about composition under the dark cloth. There's something about using movements to make the picture come together. There's something about getting it all set up and then taking your eye out of the process and becoming a mechanical tool with the camera, changing film, cocking shutters, setting aperture and the release. Then doing it again as you bracket. IT'S DELIBERATE. Compared to the mindless blazing away with my Canon 20D and 2GB memory card with 500 plus pictures of hi-res iimaging possible and lots of frames per second, shooting MF and LF is a process that takes some planning, and consistency, and even note taking for goodness sake. I have found those moments under the dark cloth to be wonderful times of problem solving to make it come together in the way I picture it from outside the camera. For the forseeable future I don't see one being able to do it outside of film.

I am going to admit I am lazy and only pursuing the part of this where the image winds up on film. And for the 4x5s I take I will use Quickloads for convenience. 120/220 roll film is easy to load as well. And when I get the 8x10s, then I will tackle sheet film loaders, however that will be a little different beast because of cost per image effort. Still the experience and the results will exceed doing it any other way.

I agree that the majors will bail and license their technology to smaller companies, likely over seas and film cost will go up. I saw the same thing with my Laserjet III. HP made the cartridges for $35. Now I get them from Lexmark for $80. They still work the same. I can't imagine how many LJ IIIs are still around, but I can still get that cartridge for it at my local Office Depot. The film of the future may not be named Kodak or Fuji, but I would bet it would be available and only at two to three times what you pay now.

I was surprised that E-6 processing is a little harder to find than it used to be. I can get C-41 most places, but E-6 takes mail order or finding a pro-shop in town. I like positives, however when I scan negatives into my computer, they convert to positives from the getgo so I don't know that it's all that big a deal.

Two of the 645 lenses I bought had oil on the leaves. I was fortunate to find a camera repair shop where the owner was able to reasonably deal with the problem and CLA the lens. I had him CLA one of the Crown Schneider lenses and that was also nicely done. I worry about him staying in business and being available to fix this stuff when it breaks, as fewer and fewer folks use this equipment commercially. Being handy, I would rely on myself to do some of the repair. I was able to repair the shutter on the Speed using one of the online available manuals.

So I don't think that we can count at all on the commercial side to support film any longer. It has become a hobby or an artist medium. Costs will go up and have gone up (price Polaroid film lately?). Yet it remains a great deal of fun, and immensely satisfying as a hobby. I expect to be able to continue in it for a long time to come.

Thanks for all your comments. Great experience here and appreciated!

Stew

[Don Bryant]

I agree that the majors will bail and license their technology to smaller companies, likely over seas The film of the future may not be named Kodak or Fuji, but I would bet it would be available and only at two to three times what you pay now.


Probably not since production of film products depends on products that are licensed from other sources. IOW, when Kodak stops making a film it won't reappear somewhere else.

Don Bryant

[cyrus]

Probably not since production of film products depends on products that are licensed from other sources. IOW, when Kodak stops making a film it won't reappear somewhere else.

Don Bryant

Not sure if Kodak has exclusive rights to making film. But in any case Kodak won't just mothball it - they'll simply license to a company in say China or India or . . .

[Ralph Barker]

Not sure if Kodak has exclusive rights to making film. But in any case Kodak won't just mothball it - they'll simply license to a company in say China or India or . . .

While that would certainly make sense, I'm not sure Kodak would take that approach. They might want so much for the license that smaller manufacturers might not be able to afford the deal.

[Eric Leppanen]

Or Kodak could sell the business (factories, licenses and all) to a third party for a lump sum. The new owner would then decide how to reconfigure the business (whether to keep the factories as-is, move the film making equipment to a new location, etc.).

I think the one-time sale approach is most common among companies spinning off a legacy business. Kodak could use the cash to pay off a bunch of their debt, which they desperately need to do.

The big decision for Kodak is when to do the spin-off. The longer they wait, the less valuable the business is. The problem is, Kodak is carrying so much debt now ($3.5B U.S.) that they need the film business cash flow to pay for on-going operations and to service their debt. Kodak's health imaging unit (which is up for sale) presumably will not yield anywhere near enough to retire the debt, so I think Kodak needs to keep the film unit around until the consumer digital business is proven to be profitable.

This is why I now doubt that Kodak will exit the film business anytime soon. This is why they retain interest in such activities as special ULF film orders and issue press releases such as this: http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/060809/20060809005405.html?.v=1

[PhotographicBlack]

One solution I never see in this debate is that we might just simply have to go full circle and paint our own homemade emulsions onto glass plates. It's been done before.

Guy's he's right. But really, Why do people paint? Why do they draw? Why in hell would someone take hours and hours of their hopefully precious time and use time consuming processes like film? Because there's a certain Aura about film that just cannot be reproduced.

Granted digital is in every casual party goers pocket, but I'm an artist and I demand film because it is the aesthetic look that pleases. Paints are still around, why not film. It's an artist's choice and that makes it mine.

Plus, for the moment being. My 4x5 has somewhere 62x the surface area that of a regular digital camera until we're talkin' Canon's 35mm chip, even then, I have something to the effect of 16x the surface area, if my memory serves me correctly.

Also, people have become so lazy with all these auto features! I personally think that too many people are poor manual focusers and also they lack the intuitive skillz that a film photographer learns. I take pride in my "blind" efficiency : )

-R

[cyrus]

I personally think that too many people are poor manual focusers and also they lack the intuitive skillz that a film photographer learns. I take pride in my "blind" efficiency : )


I won't put down the digital-users, but there is one thing that ruffles my feathers: digitally-converted black and white images. Its sooo....contrived.

A French post-modern philosopher Jean Baudrillard wrote everything is being replaced by exact simulations of what we think they're SUPPOSED to look like. I understand using digital cameras to create digital images. They're great and they serve their purpose just fine. But when you start to convert a lovely color digital image into BW, that's just wrong! That's crossing a boundary: you're not creating a BW image, you're merely "simulating" what a BW print is SUPPOSED to look like. Either enjoy the digital camera for what it can do, or use BW film to acheive was BW film was meant for!

Yes yes I know that photographs as a whole are contrived....but that's my feeling & I'm sticking to it!

[Dirk Rösler]

Either enjoy the digital camera for what it can do, or use BW film to acheive was BW film was meant for!

Totally agree with your statement.

Better yet: create photographs the way only a digital camera can do. Define your own language and stop emulating what was before you: Velvia, B/W, Daguerrotypes, "Ansel Adams filters", TriX, film sprockets, sepia toning, print borders and, amazingly, fake tilt & shift!

[cyrus]

Totally agree with your statement.

Better yet: create photographs the way only a digital camera can do. Define your own language and stop emulating what was before you: Velvia, B/W, Daguerrotypes, "Ansel Adams filters", TriX, film sprockets, sepia toning, print borders and, amazingly, fake tilt & shift!


I knew about "sepia toning" . They actually have digitized "Ansel Adams filters" and "tilt & shift" and sprocket effects?
That's just so contrived and affected and wrong.

[Jim collum]

Totally agree with your statement.

Better yet: create photographs the way only a digital camera can do. Define your own language and stop emulating what was before you: Velvia, B/W, Daguerrotypes, "Ansel Adams filters", TriX, film sprockets, sepia toning, print borders and, amazingly, fake tilt & shift!

so i'm assuming that if Tri-x goes away (shudder).. then no-one's going to try to figure out how to emulate that look with their own coating process?

jim

[MJSfoto1956]

I won't put down the digital-users, but there is one thing that ruffles my feathers: digitally-converted black and white images.
Allow me to play devil's advocate here.

What is the difference between taking a B&W photograph using film + red filter vs. digital RGB and extracting just the RED channel?

They essentially represent the same part of the electromagnetic spectrum. (please let's forget about resolution or pixels vs. grain for the moment).

So yes, we all understand the horrors of digital filters, and heavy-handed digital manipulations, and flickritis. But for the sake of a rational discussion, I see no practical difference in the above comparison. (Note: there *ARE* other legitimate differences and of course many film photographers don't use any filters at all). But the red filter vs red channel discussion/comparison is very interesting to me. I'd like to hear some rational discussion on the matter.

Cheers,

[Ron Marshall]

They actually have digitized "Ansel Adams filters"

Yes they have:

http://people.csail.mit.edu/soonmin/photolook/

[Jim collum]

Yes they have:

http://people.csail.mit.edu/soonmin/photolook/


i guess i really don't understand the fear/issue here. so someone has come up with a program that will map tones to emulate the same tonal range of an Adams image (actually one specific image.. since that range can vary between different images of his). Haven't we been doing this all along with the Zone system and BTZS? we're trying to place certain values of visual light onto an artifical value of reflected light (print). that doesn't guarantee that the resulting image is any good!

sure... it might be technically good.. and i've seen hundreds of technically excellent silver b/w images as well.. but unless the photographer has the eye/vision, then those images are BORING. digitial, silver, platinum.. doesn't make a difference

jim

[MarshallS]

I would just like to comment on the arguments regarding the youthfull backlash and trend towards dp. I myself am a mere 21 years of age and am one of many younger people I know that despite the "digital" revolution have seen its pitfalls and have chosen to invest whatever money we have in large format for our photography. I actually think that the youthfull backlash against digital has started and the increasing trend in modern art photography over the next five years will (hopefully) be rooted in traditional methods with new guerilla approaches, or atleast an approach that counterbalances the "ease" and removal from the hand craft process that is using digital. I really don't see film making a comeback nor digital slowing down but am hopefull for the youth of today to make a stand for the laborous approach.
Then again I sell digital cameras in a store to pay for my 8x10 film, guess thats irony.


FU64 is for the children.

[Dirk Rösler]

I knew about "sepia toning" . They actually have digitized "Ansel Adams filters" and "tilt & shift" and sprocket effects?

http://www.flickr.com/groups/tilt-shift-fakes/pool/

Oh yes. "Film grain" was just the beginning...

[Dirk Rösler]

What is the difference between taking a B&W photograph using film + red filter vs. digital RGB and extracting just the RED channel?

Factually you are right, it is the same thing. However I prefer making the commitment to colour vs. B/W before taking the shot, not tweaking it to my liking afterwards. It is like a live performance versus a song engineered in the studio.

Or shooting an hour of motion picture sweeping the scene and later extracting one still.

It just feels wrong. Although it may not be, who can say?

[Marko]

I won't put down the digital-users, but there is one thing that ruffles my feathers: digitally-converted black and white images. Its sooo....contrived.

A French post-modern philosopher Jean Baudrillard wrote everything is being replaced by exact simulations of what we think they're SUPPOSED to look like. I understand using digital cameras to create digital images. They're great and they serve their purpose just fine. But when you start to convert a lovely color digital image into BW, that's just wrong! That's crossing a boundary: you're not creating a BW image, you're merely "simulating" what a BW print is SUPPOSED to look like. Either enjoy the digital camera for what it can do, or use BW film to acheive was BW film was meant for!

Yes yes I know that photographs as a whole are contrived....but that's my feeling & I'm sticking to it!

Ruffles your feathers? Why? As long as nobody is forcing you to do it, why would it bother you?

The problem with the whole argument about how a print or a photograph in general is supposed to look basically lays in our collective inability as a species to agree on who exactly is supposed to do the supposition. Be it in art, politics or religion. Wars were, and worse, are still being fought for that same reason and still for naught.

After all, I'm sure that good folks over at APUG would vehemently disagree with the very notion that digital cameras could be enjoyed in the first place :rolleyes:

Finally, I'll offer a contrarian argument: it is the scene and the recognition of it that matters at the moment of capture and it is the final result and its presenation (or perhaps even results) that matter in the end. If we can agree that a digital camera is a whole different capture medium than film, than we should not treat it as film either. It is a method of capture, especially when using raw, that not just allows, but expressly facilitates different interpretations by its nature, so why should we limit ourselves in using it just because the medium that preceded it had limitations in that respect?

[Dirk Rösler]

why should we limit ourselves in using it just because the medium that preceded it had limitations in that respect?

I am not entirely clear on how the new technology overcomes those supposed limitations. Surely not by imitating a medium with limitations. You capture in colour - because you have to - then you "remove" the colour, you add grain, you add blur... I don't understand it.

It would only make sense if you produced something that no other medium can capture in that way. Like colour film did when it was invented. Like 35mm did when all there was only tripods and view cameras. Did those guys 50, 60 years ago then mount their portable "miniature" cameras on tripods, or made b&w prints from colour film? Yet, this is exactly what is done today.

I have written a little piece about this issue a few days ago, because I just cannot get my head around this. I would gladly hear other people's comments on it.

http://www.unicircuits.com/?p=407

[cyrus]

Ruffles your feathers? Why? As long as nobody is forcing you to do it, why would it bother you?

No one is forcing me to do anything. It bothers me just like most rap music and R&B music bothers me - I don't flip out about it, I just change the channel. I consider most R&B to be saccharine and most rap to be mindlessly moronic. I'm just expressing my own sense of aesthetic. I don't understand why someone would buy a gazzilion megafreckles digital camera, and then proceed to do things like ad grainniness to make it look like a BW print. Its just seems so....I don't know what's the word....affected or contrived or both.

But hey that's just a matter of my own tastes.

[Jim MacKenzie]

This discussion is interesting... and as one of "the people over at APUG" I have a particular interest in the subject.

Perhaps surprisingly, I have no particular issue with digital shooters using the tools at their disposal to do things that we do in other ways on film cameras. What's wrong with shooting in colour and then desaturating or removing certain channels to simulate filtration? Nothing. Similarly, I have no great objection to using computers to simulate tilt, shift, and so on. These are means to an end; the end is what matters.

Using Photoshop to simulate filtration on black and white film may work very well, but the output is still digital. I like the tonal range of silver, and more importantly I appreciate the archival qualities of silver, particularly toned silver. Despite what Canon and Epson might say, I don't trust the longevity claims of inkjet or dye sublimation prints. This, to me, makes film capture with filters superior to digital capture with Photoshop manipulation.

I do think it's going a little too far to simulate sprocket holes and grain and the "Velvia look" and such with digital - if you want your output to look like film, shoot film. Sprocket holes are a physical trait of film. Filtration, however, is just a means to an end and achieving that end in a different way isn't inappropriate to me, even if I do use the film route exclusively.

[Marko]

I am not entirely clear on how the new technology overcomes those supposed limitations. Surely not by imitating a medium with limitations. You capture in colour - because you have to - then you "remove" the colour, you add grain, you add blur... I don't understand it.


I don't understand why someone would buy a gazzilion megafreckles digital camera, and then proceed to do things like ad grainniness to make it look like a BW print. Its just seems so....I don't know what's the word....affected or contrived or both.

Before digital, I had to carry three cameras if I wanted to be able to choose between color negative, color slide and b&w negative as the need required.

Or, even shooting b&w only, carry at least two cameras for low speed and high speed film.

Or color only, daylight and tungsten... and on and on.

In a word, wonderful as it is, film has its limitations. That's a fact, it's neither bad nor good, it just is. Digital does not have those limitations, but it introduces others. They are very different from those of film, and they too are neither good nor bad, they just are as well. We may be using the same set of lenses and digital bodies may look the same as film ones, but essentially they contain very different capture mediums.

To say that nothing has changed with digital because we still use the same lenses and same bodies is the same as saying that computers had no significant impact on the art of writing, for example, because they both use the same input device - keyboard. But computers have changed writing so much as to entirely eradicate certain professions whose sole job was inputing and organizing text and numbers. The change is still ongoing and one of the areas currently undergoing change is photography. It is only natural that many people, especially those already specialized in the old ways do not see the change for what it is - that is only natural - but the change is happening and when it is over, the same thing will happen as with all the other technologies. People, especially the young, will start using it in totally new ways, as they always do. Some other people, especially the old, will grumble about "good old days".


It would only make sense if you produced something that no other medium can capture in that way. Like colour film did when it was invented. Like 35mm did when all there was only tripods and view cameras. Did those guys 50, 60 years ago then mount their portable "miniature" cameras on tripods, or made b&w prints from colour film? Yet, this is exactly what is done today.

I don't see what could be wrong with mounting a 35mm on a tripod either. In fact, given the usual magnification, it should benefit even more from it than larger formats, shouldn't it? :)

Color film was invented to capture color, and b&w film was invented to capture shapes, light and shadow. Neither is very good at the other task.

Digital captures both equally well and, in my view and experience, liberates the photographer, in a sense, from having to decide in advance what type of capture it is going to be and how sensitive. Very similar to what the invention of interchangeable lens cameras did to mobility and versatility.

On the other hand, certain scenes lend themselves very well to color, other ones to monochrome (doesn't even have to be b&w). In my opinion, how they were captured makes no difference whatsoever, as long as the end result is right. Same as with painting - I don't care which type of brush was used (or it could've even been fingers), as long as I like the painting itself.

As a final thought, not being able to understand something (or simply not liking it) does not necessarily mean it is wrong. And vice versa.

[Marko]

This discussion is interesting... and as one of "the people over at APUG" I have a particular interest in the subject.

I said "one of the GOOD people over at APUG", didn't I? :)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Before digital, I had to carry three cameras if I wanted to be able to choose between color negative, color slide and b&w negative as the need required.

Then you were not using a LF camera, hell, you were not even using a MF camera. If you are talking about 35 mm then heck even I own a digital gizmo....but I dont make my art with that, and I certainly do not carry 3 8x10 if I want to choose between color, BW or transparency.. :) I do carry more than one film holder though...

[Marko]

Then you were not using a LF camera, hell, you were not even using a MF camera. If you are talking about 35 mm then heck even I own a digital gizmo....but I dont make my art with that, and I certainly do not carry 3 8x10 if I want to choose between color, BW or transparency.. :) I do carry more than one film holder though...

Well, I don't use digital MF or LF either... I'm working on it, though. I'm playing lottery. :D

Regarding formats: there is a time and place for everything. Photography being a hobby, I rarely have enough time for it. Especially since time = money. And that was even more true when I was younger, hence 35mm. These days, I use both a dslr and a 4x5.

[Jay W]

It was interesting to see evidence (presented by Gordon) that the average digital photographer (a family shooter) is not printing their images. This confirms my own non-formal survey of friends and relatives. Often you hear that the first thing people try to save from a burning house is the photo album. So I wonder if the lack of family photos, or photos lost in a hard drive crash, etc will backlash at some point down the road.

As I was developing film in the darkroom last night, I was looking around at items that haven't been used in quite a while. It feels like a death in the family. Interesting thread.

Jay

[Marko]

Often you hear that the first thing people try to save from a burning house is the photo album. So I wonder if the lack of family photos, or photos lost in a hard drive crash, etc will backlash at some point down the road.

Probably not, as those people mostly keep their photos on some Internet hosting server or the other. That way they can share them with anybody anywhere.

Again, it is a whole new, very flexible medium, old analogies need not apply (although it is still nice when they do).

[Dirk Rösler]

Next time you see a painter at work, ask him if he brought oil paints, water colours, crayons, charcoal to cover all eventualities. Chances are he has had vision in mind and committed to his form of expression long before he starts doing his work. Everything else - for me at least - dilutes the intent and shows you're just out there to catch the most shots, not hunt for that single shot.

Implying that I am probably old and do not understand is rather silly by the way.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

as those people mostly keep their photos on some Internet hosting server or the other

O bet you 99% of the families using digital cameras do not even back up, let alone have duplicates on another server. This is an assumption you made and for the most part not true.

[Marko]

Next time you see a painter at work, ask him if he brought oil paints, water colours, crayons, charcoal to cover all eventualities. Chances are he has had vision in mind and committed to his form of expression long before he starts doing his work. Everything else - for me at least - dilutes the intent and shows you're just out there to catch the most shots, not hunt for that single shot.

Implying that I am probably old and do not understand is rather silly by the way.

I implied no such thing! I know better than to assume one's age, much less one's level of understanding. What I do is argue with your statements, that's the purpose of the discussion. When I say something about age here, I lump myself in along with everybody else, as most of us here seem to be of comparable age, give or take.

Now, as for film vs. painter - I did most of the things you mention at some point or the other, depending on what I felt like back in the day when I was experimenting with all things visual. Some days I would prefer watercolor, some others I'd pick up charcoal. I didn't much care for oil or crayons, but I did like pencil and ink. I usually kept watercolors, pencils, charcoal and ink in my bag all at once. I also had several blocks of different paper in the trunk.

Generally speaking, I prefer to see the scene without thinking how am I going to express it. It is a hobby, I enjoy seeing primarily for myself, expressing what I saw or felt to others comes much later, if at all. I prefer to capture the scene first and then experiment with the final means of expression. I find digital very flexible in this respect.

Intent? My intent is to see the world around me and enjoy the moment and this beautiful hobby. I don't feel I must "catch the shot", much less "hunt for that single one". Why should I?

If someone wrote the manual that proscribes what must or must not be done in order to excersize proper photography (whatever that meant), I must've missed it.

Chances are, even if they did, I don't think I'd care much, if at all. ;)

[Marko]

O bet you 99% of the families using digital cameras do not even back up, let alone have duplicates on another server. This is an assumption you made and for the most part not true.

It's not me making assumptions here - I said "keep", not "backup".

That's a statement and mostly a true one, when it comes to general public.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

That's a statement and mostly a true one, when it comes to general public.

We must be talking about a different general public, The general public I know have no idea and in fact dont want to spend time loading images into a different server, they trust their hard drive.

[Dirk Rösler]

O bet you 99% of the families using digital cameras do not even back up, let alone have duplicates on another server. This is an assumption you made and for the most part not true.

My parents in law have the pics printed from the digital camera and then delete them from the camera. They don't store them on the computer at all.

True freedom.

For some reason we have become obsessed holding on to everything and trying to retain it forever. This applies to individuals and corporations alike. Where does perceived need come from and why do we allow it to create so many headaches for us? Remember that unlike in the physical world in the computer age, things are designed for transience, not permanence and the digital world is strongest for dealing with non-permanence.

[Dirk Rösler]

If someone wrote the manual that proscribes what must or must not be done in order to excersize proper photography (whatever that meant), I must've missed it.

Chances are, even if they did, I don't think I'd care much, if at all. ;)

You are right, we have to be careful not to fall into that trap to write such a manual or prescribe people how they are about to do their stuff.

It is a very subjective thing, but worth discussing. In the end you have to do what you feel most comfortable with. As it has been said, there are photographers that pre-visualise and those who prefer the work after the picture was taken. Both are legitimate ways to get an image and digital is a godsend for post-capture workers. But often I feel it promotes laziness of the mind and those who came before us did not need it to create their great images. So I am wary.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

For some reason we have become obsessed holding on to everything and trying to retain it forever

Not really, those old pictures in a box must have meant something to someone at one time, and the next generation was lucky to see them. Now a days even if the photographs are stored in a alternate server, the next generation might not know or be able to retreive them. This is not a matter of being obessed, it is just a part of life.

I am certainly glad to see where I came from and who my grand parents were, even if it was from a photograph, if this is being "obssesed" then yeah....I might be....but happy to be so.

[Marko]

We must be talking about a different general public, The general public I know have no idea and in fact dont want to spend time loading images into a different server, they trust their hard drive.

Surely. Most people I know here - non-technical, non-phographic people to be sure, general public at its most common - "upload" their images straight from the camera using some variation of an online swiss knife kind of service that "does it all for them", just "click and load".

Most of them have only a very hazy distinction between a computer, a hard disk and a server... but they still do it. They want to be able to show pictures to Mom, Dad and uncle Ernie, you see. But ignorant as they may be, they still have the right idea. Photography serves a real and very tangible purpose for them. The original purpose for which it was invented.

But then again, I may not live in a trully representative segment of the market either... Probably not, when I think about it, this is LA, after all.

:)

[Marko]

You are right, we have to be careful not to fall into that trap to write such a manual or prescribe people how they are about to do their stuff.

It is a very subjective thing, but worth discussing. In the end you have to do what you feel most comfortable with. As it has been said, there are photographers that pre-visualise and those who prefer the work after the picture was taken. Both are legitimate ways to get an image and digital is a godsend for post-capture workers. But often I feel it promotes laziness of the mind and those who came before us did not need it to create their great images. So I am wary.

It's the old hunter vs. farmer comparison. Some people like to carefully cultivate their field for the entire year while other prefer to go hunting and pick whatever comes their way. I mostly like to go hunting, but sometimes farming has its attraction too.

IMO, you should be wary of digital only if you consciously choose to differentiate. Me, I don't really care what is my capture medium as long as it doesn't get in my way and as long as it enables me to get the result I want with the minimum fuss.

I happen to be fairly proficient with computers and Photoshop due to the nature of my job, so when digital came of age, it was a natural fit. I did traditional, mostly 35mm photography before and used to be relatively decent hand in the darkroom too, back in the day. Those techniques even helped understand PS better.

But digital makes the best out of my time and my space. For me, photography is about capturing either the moment or the scene, preferably both. Processing only serves to effectivelly communicate what I saw or felt. In that respect, I prefer not to think about the communication part during the capture phase. Film forced me to and digital enables me not to.

Your intent and purpose may and probably is different and who's to say which is right or wrong?

[Jay W]

If someone were to hand me a Canon 5D, I'm quite sure it would be able to give me great color prints. Probably about as good (to my eye) as my 4x5 Velvia. I have a few reservations though.

1. Would I enjoy the process or if you prefer, the workflow? There's something I really enjoy about hearing a shutter release that's really cool. I particularly love the Nikonos (to pick one camera) shutter release. As an analogy, even though I listen to CDs every day, I love the process of putting on an album, cleaning, flipping it over... I have a Canon G5, and that doesn't really have any "cool" use factor to it. What a cheezy shutter sound.
But maybe more to the point is how much I would work on the images. It seems I have lots of interest in my 4x5 images, some interest in my 120, and hardly any interest in my 35. Part of it is sorting through ok stuff trying to find a good image. Part of it is that I remember each 4x5 I shoot because it took a while to shoot. I'm really interested in looking at the 4x5s to see how that particular idea came out. I fear I would fire off so many frames with digital that sorting would be a real chore. I'm sure I'd probably experiment more with digital, and I'd love a infra-red setup in digital...

2. Can you get really good looking B&W with digital? I haven't heard much on this end.

3. Is there any reason to switch now? It seems like I should just go on shooting my current pile of gear and wait until film supplies become difficult. The cost of film (for me) is not a big factor because I'm really not going through a lot of film. (Wish I could actually.) Also, it seems digital camera quality will improve and costs will go down, and the used Hassy lenses are really cheap now...(grin).

Jay Wenner

[Marko]

I fear I would fire off so many frames with digital that sorting would be a real chore. I'm sure I'd probably experiment more with digital, and I'd love a infra-red setup in digital...

2. Can you get really good looking B&W with digital? I haven't heard much on this end.

3. Is there any reason to switch now? It seems like I should just go on shooting my current pile of gear and wait until film supplies become difficult. The cost of film (for me) is not a big factor because I'm really not going through a lot of film. (Wish I could actually.) Also, it seems digital camera quality will improve and costs will go down, and the used Hassy lenses are really cheap now...(grin).

Why switch? Why not simply use both? Those are very different tools, each with its own set of strengths and limitations, and they usually complement each other. I chose to use digital for small format becasue I find that type of shooting much more convenient in digital. Especially now that serious small format digital has become comparable in price to what a decent film slr setup used to cost back in the day.

Large format is a different story, the quality is still far better and the traditional workflow still has its charms, at least the film processing part. I know that LF backs do exist and that their quality may be comparable, but as a total hobbyist, I can't even justify thinking about them, much less buying one.

Here are the advantages of digital, the way I see them:

There is really no actual need to shoot more in digital than in film, but most people do it because it doesn't cost extra. It is nice to be able to bracket liberally and then pick or even combine some of the shots.

I love doing panoramas but never wanted to spend fortune for a specialized camera. Digital camera and Photoshop let me do it as I please and even have fun with it.

Infrared is not just possible, but relatively easy, since you have instant feedback.

Switching sensitivity is a big factor too. I know it was never too much of a factor with MF and LF, but I'm comparing 35mm here, as that's where I'd most likely want to have really high ISO.

Processing - if you take the trouble to get familiar with Photoshop, it can be very rewarding. There are no stumbling, spills, smells or wasted paper and chemicals. Once you have it, it costs nothing. And you can create different versions of the same source image.

Good quality B&W is very possible. How good and how possible depends on the operator. Basically, a skilled Photoshop operator can do anything his traditional darkroom counterpart could do and much more. And easier.

Nice thing about computers is that they are multi-usage technology, unlike traditional darkroom. They also need nothing more than a desk, another multi-use item :) Far fewer people are able to afford traditional darkroom than a computer, from both economic and physical perspective.

I'm sure there are other advantages, just as I know there must be other limitations - one's needs and preferences influence one's perspective to a large extent. We are blessed that we live in a period when we can have both. I find it a pitty to waste time arguing which is better because this won't last too long.

[Jay W]

Why switch?

I think the strongest pull is the promise of 6x9 quality with 35mm convenience (and 35mm depth of field).

Jay Wenner

[Carsten Wolff]

"The hopeful future of film photography?" I'm not sure why we're having this discussion (again). I suspect that by their very nature, many LF folks are romantic hedonists. Comments like "as long as there is a demand for film, someone will make it" kind of stuff.
What are we afraid of? That our investment becomes worthless? That we're no longer the superior photographic beings we perceive ourselves as? That we have to learn something new? That we loose choices ("from my cold dead hands")? Ok, to paraphrase Jim Galli, I miss steam locomotives, too, ...and I, too, am glad we have diesels and, even better, electric ones now. I suspect the real hope of many is actually that one day soon there will be a Giga-pixel $59.95 digital back with the characteristics of film that looks and behaves exactly like a film holder with a darkslide and loaded with anything from Adox to Velvia and more (just flick the tab for your favourite emulsion.... emulation). As long as there is a demand for it, someone will make it :rolleyes:
The hopeful future of photography in, say, 2020 would mean that: Firewire X vs. D-76.... be no contest.
Consider this though: Commercially it has been mostly over for film anyway, save for certain applications; the same way we neither have steam-locomotives lugging our freight, nor sailing ships carry goods across the oceans. There is a change in car manufacture hopefully in the wings as well; I don't know whether anyone noticed. The fact is though that as a niche product and for leisure, all those technologies are still and will remain accessible, for whatever reasons. Variety IS the spice of life after all.

I have said somewhere else that I'm not afraid of the dark :cool: and I enjoy working in a darkroom: That is because currently I can't be bothered investing in, nor waiting for, the scanner, PC and printer to do their thing to help create that image I'm after. I rather print another negative in the meantime. However, one day I'd like to have a more streamlined, comfortable, direct, fast, consistent, environmentally responsible, even better quality and fun work-flow. That's not too much to hope for, is it?

[Brian Stein]

Its interesting that this thread has been resurrected from 2006 and then prior to that 2004.

In 2004 we read
. ....Sure, the big monolithic companies that are slow to change will suffer, and I doubt if we'll be able to buy Fuji or Kodak tranny film in 10x8 sheets in 5 years time. I do not doubt that there will be an enterprising individual who starts selling his/her own handmade emulsion to a few friends and within a few years is making quite a tidy living from it. The film may cost £20 per sheet, but, like the painters, there will be enough people around the globe willing to cough up for it.

At b&h today 5 years later I see 7 different slide films in 10x8 running in the US$8-10 per sheet range. APUG hit 30 000 members this year. Although Polaroid type 55 is on its way to blessed memory, it doesnt look too bad for film just right now.

Someone should kick this into life again in another 5 years and see whats what then!!

[ljsegil]

I went fully digital four years ago, and by two years ago was back to >90% film and much happier and more creative (though no more skilled) for having made the conversion back. And that is still without the additional advantages my own darkroom setup (building slowly) will offer. There is a whole world of photographic opportunities, options, and quality that digital can still not economically provide, and a level of pleasure and satisfaction in the act of creating an image that it may never offer (though it is mighty nice to have at least an idea that you have gotten the shot before it is forever gone).
I do believe there will always (these days "always" lasts about a decade or so) be a "role" for film and the vast assortment of cameras that use it so well.
Optimistically best wishes for the new year,
LJS

[peter schrager]

I spent several hours on the the altphotos.com site yesterday....not only did I see some great work there; but there was MORE than a considerable amount that was shot with film...truly suprised but then not suprised at all....and my inner self tells me that these are a quite younger photo crowd than we would suspect using film...check it out for yourself
Best, Peter

[Ron Marshall]

"The hopeful future of film photography?" I'm not sure why we're having this discussion (again).

We're having this discussion again because you resurected this three year old thread!

[sanking]

I think Carsten may have had a "Rip Van Winkle" moment.

Sandy King




We're having this discussion again because you resurected this three year old thread!

[D. Bryant]

I spent several hours on the the altphotos.com site yesterday....not only did I see some great work there; but there was MORE than a considerable amount that was shot with film...truly suprised but then not suprised at all....and my inner self tells me that these are a quite younger photo crowd than we would suspect using film...check it out for yourself
Best, Peter

After inspecting the info listed for 87 photos shown there: 27 were listed media as film, 40 listed as digital media, and 18 media unknown.

Don Bryant

[D. Bryant]

More importantly you forgot to include reference to Format/ and quipment categories they list.

That information wasn't available in many cases if at all.

Don Bryant

[Steve M Hostetter]

Take that digital image and try to blow it up the size of a 7 story Imax screen..

Take that D3 24.5 mp 16 bit Nikon image and try to print it

[Carsten Wolff]

We're having this discussion again because you resurrected this three year old thread!
I didn't see the date stamp... Sorry, everybody. Take what I said with a grain of salt anyway. I wouldn't be such an LF addict otherwise.

[SamReeves]

LOL, a lot of film has gone dead in those three years. :p

[dwross]

Originally Posted by Ron Marshall
"We're having this discussion again because you resurrected this three year old thread!"

Well, what is wrong with that. After 3 years and new digital outon mkt, it is time for an update.

Absolutely. Photography is static neither as science nor art. On the first day of this thread in October 2004, Jorge Gasteazoro speculated that emulsion making would someday stop being a 'secret society'. That's happening. My website, www.thelightfarm.com is open source and growing all the time. Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee are making their wonderful 'Lodima' chloride printing paper (http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/index_skip.html), and Jim Browning (http://www.dyetransfer.org/) and Terry Holsinger on theunblinkingeye are working the problems.

Less and less do I see film and silver paper disappearing commercially. That trend, and the deplorable doom and gloom that reinforced it, is slowing as people realize they can make their own products if they wanted. With fear fading, more people seem willing to commit to the craft with all its rewards, and Ilford (among others) seems willing to promise to stay around.

The weather and the economy may be gloomy, but the future of photography couldn't be more optimistic and exciting. There's even the bright note that making your own silver gelatin paper is a whole lot cheaper than buying the homogeneous high-end baryta inkjet papers and their inks. Now, shopping for that stuff can get depressing!

Happy Photo'ing and New Year to All.
Denise

[Bob Salomon]

"PANORAMIC formats- nothing except a Seitz out there (and I think Red has one). "

Apparently you missed the Anagramm back for the Linhof Technorama 612 PCII shown at Photokina last September.

[SamReeves]

Some dropped, some added....even in the 35mm market. Polaroid I saw going under, with instant view on your dslr, and others using their dslr to assist setting up and exposure for large format. Film is still improving. Lets see a Canon 5Dii match a 4x5 at 30x40 inches. Both film and digital are equal only while they both can print at 300ppi,bigger then 16x20....and dslrs are running out of gas and require upsizing.

I agree there's been some reshuffling, but too much as disappeared on the whole. Just a quick search to B&H's store only provides 25 varities of 4x5 sheet film for negatives. Agfa is kaput, Kodak's catalog has shrunk for LF, and we almost lost Ilford in the last year to liquidation…but they are giving it another go. It's a bear market when it comes to film these days.

[DuncanD]

This thread alone justifies my membership in the LF list. As in a hand-held phone snap at ISO 1600, there seems to be useful information and interesting perspective surviving through the noise.

I am surprised that in all the discussion of digital versus film, no one has pointed out how physics teaches us all information is digital. At the quantum level, if I am not too grossly mistaken, perhaps the only analog measurement is the probability of momentum or location of some fundamental particle. String theory postulates that even mass, distance, and time exist in finite "digital" quanta, rather than across in infinitely small analog scale.

"Painting with light", whether on film or electronic media, relies on discrete photons impacting some recording medium. Furthermore, aside from personal memories (which would appear to be stored "digitally" in synapses of the brain), we generally perceive stored images by utilizing the millions of individual (i.e., "digital") rod and cone cells in the retinas of our eyes.

If all images are digital, then film is digital, albeit in a smaller, molecular, increments than current electronic recording pixels. Ask any astronomer. So from my point of view, this conversation is not about digital versus film but rather different methods - work flows - for recording, manipulating, storing, and viewing images.

I have no doubt at all that electronic recording technology will soon (15 months; 15 years?) enable a higher density of information capture than today's films (I won't venture any guess as to what films might then exist). Perhaps we will write image files to individual molecules.

To me, the stark objective difference between film versus electronic capture is that the proximate result on film is itself an image. While that image can be scanned, photo-chopped, archived and printed digitally, none of those steps are necessary for an image to exist in visual form. There are some who can scan a PSD file in hex, just as there are a few people who can read music in the groves of a vinyl record; however for most of us there are multiple technology components and processes between the electronic sensor and the image we examine.

On the other hand, the most important subjective difference to me is precisely the labor, care, and tedium imposed by my large format process versus the hyper-instantaneous mode which digital capture invites (but in no way requires). For me, after 40 years of photography in many formats, I find that looking for photographs has made it often superfluous to make photographs.

The images which matter most to me - far more of them than I have ever printed - are stored in the most accessible format I have: my brain. Since I photograph primarily for the pleasure of seeing, and not publishing, my images, my simple 4x5 cardboard visualization frame is the most effective "camera" I've ever used!

On the other hand, using my aging brain as a primary storage medium does expose me to another important objective criterion, the question of which work flow is suitable for which images. My memories are ephemeral. So far, in the course of 64 years, the images which matter most have been adequately durable (or the ones which have endured seem most important?). But human physiology predicts that my images will fade as surely, though not as predictably, as my Agfa slides from 1965.

Forty years of professional experience with computer technology warns me that electronic storage is at much more risk than my memories, and far more than well stored film. I purchased my first personal hard disk in 1981, spending $15,000 for 5MB. At that time my enterprise had an entire floor of large scale IBM disk drives housing a whopping 12GB! Five years later, neither my personal disk or those IBMs were readable. The hardware was fully functional but the disk controllers, operating systems, and data software had moved on.

Who among us today can retrieve data from a 1/2 tape, 8" floppy, 5 1/4", 3 1/2", Zip disk, or any of the countless other "high density" archival media of the last 20 years? In fact, many CDs have been written in a format not recognized by some current computers. So regardless of digital electronic stability (which does not exist) or archival rewrite protocols (which are all subject to statistically frequent failures) even perfect media cannot be read with non-existent equipment and software

On the other hand, I can pick up any piece of film ever shot and immediately see its contained image to the limits of the chemical stability of that film.

I concur, as others have already said, that personal choices of "digital" versus film ought to be made, and re-visited from time to time, in light (pun intended) of personal values placed on work flow and intended uses of the images.

[Steve M Hostetter]

maybe we should band together and try to at least convence Imax to stop building new theatres,, say hay you up there on that scaftle ,, didn't you hear.? film is dead!

[Wayne]

What other kind of photography is there?:confused:

[PenGun]

I'm getting back into photography after a 17 year absence.

One thing that really impressed me was a recent edition of Outdoor Photography that was full of perfectly exposed well framed dreck. I could not believe a magazine could publish a whole edition without one good photograph.

All pictures were credited and the digital data was proudly displayed but not one really good shot in the whole mag.

I see no competition at all for what I attempt to do. Make a great photograph.

The digital camera requires immense discipline and a skill set I do not have. All of the negatives I exposed before I got my light meter are pretty close. My eye's have not lost their cunning after all these years. ;)

Film for me. Digital is too hard.

[claudiocambon]

And 25 varieties in film is not enough? I understand your point, but you have to remember with a new kid on the block (digital film), there are going to be some changes in market share. Of course there has been some shrinkage due to a market change....some films dropped, some competition gone, etc. But many are now saying stability in the market has been reached. No one has given up on film, new ones are out, a bit less choices due to substitution by digital. But they serve different needs, they do not replace the other. I would change to digital in a heartbeat if they could solve two problems for those of us wanting high end gear, and prints bigger then what a Canon 5D2 offers (16x20 @ 300ppi)-

1. COST- $40k plus body and lenses is rediculous, only those with high volume can justify it (forget fine art, amateurs). It seems they price it based not on cost plus markup, but the expected saving they expect you to achieve over a 2 yr period in film/processing. Worse, I still cannot print bigger then 30inches with 39mp backs. Because it is photography, they justify the price...and don't tell me it is due to research. The research behind GPS units, the sophistication when you consider the number of satellites needed to be placed in orbit, and total investment is far higher for GPS then digital backs. Worse, a digital back is a dslr without its body and lens. Can we spell RIP-OFF! Come on, make your profits from economies of scale, not rob us. Many of us would buy, but we have other financial issues....house/business/kids education/cars/etc. Well, it is nice I guess to only need to build 3 units per week instead of 1000. Less labor, and 5 day weekends.


2. ARCHIVING issues- operating systems/software/file protocol sucks. While printer and paper mfrs have now reached 200 yr lifespans and made it all affordable, computers and digital cameras lag way behind. Don't expect this problem to improve any time soon.FOr those of us doing fine art, big prints, film is the only SAFE choice (cheap too).

I agree with everything you say EXCEPT for the idea that film's inherent qualities will guarantee its survival. Every material we use was made for a specific commercial purpose which we adapt for our own personal use. Even if there are more than a handful of us doing this, thereby constituting a commercial constituency, we may eventually not be enough of one to make it worth a company's time, regardless of the results film yields; we are only a secondary benefit. If digital can meet all of our economy's visual needs, then film's days are definitely numbered (more than they already are). And even if film holds more resolution at the LF level, interpolation makes things "good enough" for most purposes. In other words commercial and technological viability wins out over quality every time they are pitted against each other. Not to mention that our media will see huge transformations in the next decade as demand shifts evermore towards video. So between what the technology can do and what the market wants, we may become an insignificant minority. Just think of the superior resolution of glass-plate negatives to acetate-back films. That argument eventually just lost relevance in the face of technological developments and commercial expectations, and photographers had to adjust. Obviously we are going to be asked to make a bigger leap one day than the glass-plate folks, but unless individuals an small companies fully take over industrial processes, we will have to say goodbye to analog altogether. I think it will be a crying shame to look at a 645-sized chip as the best the digital world has to offer, but if it is the only way to take pictures, we will all have to do what we can (kicking and screaming the whole way).

[nathanm]

The hour we spend reading and writing about the death of film could probably better be spent by buying a big 'ol friggin' box of film right now. Vote with your dollars. Sure the corner drugstore doesn't have it anymore, but the internet is at our fingertips with loads of places to order all kinds of glorious film, right? So buy some film and quit yer bellyachin'! :D

We're fooled into thinking that newer and better technology must wipe the old off the face of the earth, but it just ain't like that. Not that I know much about the process, but I could go get the stuff I needed to shoot glass plates right now couldn't I? There's probably a ton of old, obsolete things I could still do right now if I looked hard enough. I can still buy CDs, vinyl records, heck I bought some blank cassette tapes not long ago. You can still use old computers and old operating systems if you really want. I bet there's not a whole lot of outdated technologies that were really cool, that people really liked, that you absolutely 100% cannot do anymore. I suppose you can't ride a horse down the main street and hitch him up to a post outside the corner store anymore. I dunno, I could be wrong about that. It seems to me like these are some pretty great times we're living in, in spite of all the cruddy stuff.

[claudiocambon]

We're fooled into thinking that newer and better technology must wipe the old off the face of the earth, but it just ain't like that. Not that I know much about the process, but I could go get the stuff I needed to shoot glass plates right now couldn't I? There's probably a ton of old, obsolete things I could still do right now if I looked hard enough. I can still buy CDs, vinyl records, heck I bought some blank cassette tapes not long ago. You can still use old computers and old operating systems if you really want. I bet there's not a whole lot of outdated technologies that were really cool, that people really liked, that you absolutely 100% cannot do anymore. I suppose you can't ride a horse down the main street and hitch him up to a post outside the corner store anymore. I dunno, I could be wrong about that. It seems to me like these are some pretty great times we're living in, in spite of all the cruddy stuff.

I don't think making your own acetate-back film is an option, and that is the main threat to our survival as analog artists.

For the time being it seems as if companies are making "enough" money on us, and the education programs that still teach traditional photography, but there may come a time where, regardless of the demand level, which is bound to decrease, the companies, rightly or wrongly, risk deciding that that "enough" is, well, not enough, and there we go down the tubes.

I for one plan on shooting film as long as I can because I like the quality it yields, as well as the different shapes that various formats offer me, and so far digital has yet to produce either to a sufficient degree. But I harbor no illusions that I will be able to shoot the stuff as long as I want to.

[sanking]

What Claudio writes makes a lot of sense to me. Film was made for commercial uses and folks like most of us are a secondary benefit to the industry. There will probably continue to be a niche market for film and papers in the near future but I honestly can not see it lasting indefinitely.

Also, his point that commercial viability wins out over quality is pretty much self-evident. Digital has already replaced film in many situations not because it offers higher quality but because for one reason or another it is more viable commercially. No one can question the fact that 4X5 LF film is superior to full sensor DSLR of 12-21 mp, but the fact is that many photographers, both amateur and professional, have found that is is good enough for the specific kind of work they do. But if you look at any careful study you will find that MF digital backs don't come close to matching 4X5 film in terms of detail, or spatial frequency and in order to approximate the image quality you have to rez up the digital file.

Sandy King










I agree with everything you say EXCEPT for the idea that film's inherent qualities will guarantee its survival. Every material we use was made for a specific commercial purpose which we adapt for our own personal use. Even if there are more than a handful of us doing this, thereby constituting a commercial constituency, we may eventually not be enough of one to make it worth a company's time, regardless of the results film yields; we are only a secondary benefit. If digital can meet all of our economy's visual needs, then film's days are definitely numbered (more than they already are). And even if film holds more resolution at the LF level, interpolation makes things "good enough" for most purposes. In other words commercial and technological viability wins out over quality every time they are pitted against each other. Not to mention that our media will see huge transformations in the next decade as demand shifts evermore towards video. So between what the technology can do and what the market wants, we may become an insignificant minority. Just think of the superior resolution of glass-plate negatives to acetate-back films. That argument eventually just lost relevance in the face of technological developments and commercial expectations, and photographers had to adjust. Obviously we are going to be asked to make a bigger leap one day than the glass-plate folks, but unless individuals an small companies fully take over industrial processes, we will have to say goodbye to analog altogether. I think it will be a crying shame to look at a 645-sized chip as the best the digital world has to offer, but if it is the only way to take pictures, we will all have to do what we can (kicking and screaming the whole way).

[cjbroadbent]

Wedding protographers. I had the impression that the only 'professional' sector of the market that Kodak andf Fuji cared about were wedding photographers. Since they seem to have gone over, maybe we can get some attention now. Is there a recent marketing survey for film published anywhere? At least so that we can know what we actually count for?

[Steve M Hostetter]

I don't think making your own acetate-back film is an option, and that is the main threat to our survival as analog artists.

For the time being it seems as if companies are making "enough" money on us, and the education programs that still teach traditional photography, but there may come a time where, regardless of the demand level, which is bound to decrease, the companies, rightly or wrongly, risk deciding that that "enough" is, well, not enough, and there we go down the tubes.

I for one plan on shooting film as long as I can because I like the quality it yields, as well as the different shapes that various formats offer me, and so far digital has yet to produce either to a sufficient degree. But I harbor no illusions that I will be able to shoot the stuff as long as I want to.
the only illusion is to think that the motion picture industry will at some point stop using film,,, I would imagine they like film for all the reasons you just mentioned and they won't stop using film in our lifetime

[claudiocambon]

Van Camper,

Everything you say is logical from a working photographer's perspective, but what you are describing relates more to our own convenience than the market's, two things which are not essentially aligned. What if the digital marketplace decides that 35mm is affordable enough for most, and MF backs do come down in price, and reach about 100MP? If consumers are happy, and commercial people can do everything that is asked of them, sadly, I don't expect anyone making production decisions to give a sh#%@t about why film is better or more affordable, and easier to use for artists, and we will be SOL in terms of the range of equipment that we now happily use.

Using your logic, Kodak should still be making Studio Proof POP (what a gorgeous paper!) because of its inherent, unique and irreplaceable qualities. But they're not because they decided to dedicate their resources to making more money elsewhere. Photographers kicked and screamed, but in the end Kodak did it anyway. Just reflect on its main commercial use in the 20th century: things like school pictures which could be sent as advance proofs to parents, which were easy to develop without chemistry, held a positive image for some time, and then faded so that people couldn't hold onto the proof instead of buying something. I'm sure it was produced for wider reasons than that, but basically, when school photographers are all shooting in color, and the only people using it a few thousand sheets a year are Linda Connor and some other artists, Kodak pulls the plug, regardless of its artistic merit. They are a big industrial company, and Studio Proof is a speck on their horizon.

Steve's argument about motion picture film is a more compelling case for the preservation of acetate-back technology, because there the users (people filming) are the only market, although there too I see commercial expedience and technological shift slowly winning out.

We are all just buying time with film, unfortunately, and we have to hope that digital will one day reach if not exceed film's capacity before they take it away from us.

[Steve M Hostetter]

excellent post Van

[Gordon Moat]

Yikes! That Wikipedia article needs lots of help. I am surprised by the lack of mention of tests done by Zeiss, Erwin Puts, or Chris Perez . . . yet the article quotes Ken Rockwell.
:eek:

A little side on this. Some fellow professional photographer friends of mine have sold their 1Ds Mark II cameras to go with either a Mark III or switch to Nikon. Taken the difference between purchase price and sales (potential or actual) price, and the number of actuations (shutter trips), the cost per shot worked out to around 0.75¢ each, averaged over those individuals. Obviously not scientific, since the sample of photographers is small, but I think this is a better example of expense. Obviously any service, repairs, or necessary peripherals were not factored into this.

I here you on archival, but the issue is far different than marketing claims of inkjet manufacturers. While attending college, we did learn how to use our oil paints and canvas preparation to ensure that our painting would last hundreds of year. Unfortunately not everyone followed that, and the materials could be used inappropriately. I can consider the cave painting, early pottery, and some frescos to be long lived, but even oil paintings need some conservation in order to last over a thousand years. Maybe that shows a direction for a possible answer: rather than finding a medium that doesn't degrade as quickly, we need to find a medium that is simpler to be effected by later conservation efforts.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[claudiocambon]

Van Camper,

For the sake of simplicity, I return to my original point, which is that quality and commercial viability are unfortunately not intrinsically linked. I am not arguing against the intrinsic merit of quality, merely its viability, which, again, is desired, but in no way guaranteed.

The point is not whether film is still better than digital, the relative level of film sales and camera manufacturing, whether there aren't serious archiving issues with digital (as there are with color film, by the way), and so on. My point is that if consumers, whether it's mom and pop or commercial photographers, are fully digital, I wonder whether we artists are a significant enough constituency to warrant continued production of our favorite materials; actually I doubt it. We seem to be for the time being, but films sales are at best stable, and they probably are not growing. I think it's stable at the edge of a cliff.

These are complex industrial processes that involve a lot of infrastructure, and someone at the top may just decide at some point that it isn't worth it, and that more money can be made elsewhere. If the majority of consumers, individual and institutional, are satisfied, then that will be good enough for the manufacturers, and we will be SOL, who, as a minority (we artists will always be a minority, however prestigious) will have to adapt. Some of these materials can be manufactured on a small scale, but others may not be transferable to smaller manufacturing runs. Consider the opposite problem. Ford sold its electric car technology to a Swedish company who was simply not big enough to fully realize the car and bring it to market, despite the pressing need for such a vehicle. I believe Ford repurchased the unit recently.

Everything you say about the better quality of film is correct, and I am in full agreement with you, but what percentage of the overall consuming public are we? How many people make over 60" prints to hang in their house, and how many care how long they really look, and how long they last? Sadly, probably not enough to make a market case. Basically, pit the Gursky against the billboard advertisement, and we know who the market winner is.

This is obviously an emotional issue because it is no fun to have materials taken away from you that you may not be able to replace, but it is important to look at the state of things as objectively as possible. Your posts are getting a pinch inimical, and you should understand that I am no happier at the prospect of giving up my current way of working for something more expensive, lower in quality, and harder to use. I am simply less optimistic about the continued availability of our materials than you are, not today and tomorrow, but after tomorrow, let's say 5-10 years down the road. If I am wrong, I will be very pleasantly surprised. In the meantime I'll keep shooting all the film I can, hope A+I stays in business (looks slower every time I go) to run my film, and also hope that digital continues to work out its kinks, and finally become a a suitable replacement if film goes away.

[Stefan Lungu]

The comments of this thread are a nice read indeed. The point is that everybody has a view of the market, and depending on that there are different conclusions to the problem of film being around for a longer time. I think we will have some sort of film for a long time, even if will not have the same films that we have today, and possibly not the same manufacturers that we have today. The market of film, as I see it, is shrinking to a niche market. Commercial photographers are long on the digital track, most of them anyway. Amateurs that shoot birthsdays and vacation are lon overflooded with the thousends of pictures they have taken in the last four years ( and I speak from experience, coming from a digital to film ) and don't even know what they have on their disks right now. So that is a market that will probably not come back. Then there are people who need to print BIG and at high quality, and those that are simply in love with the film and the process. These are far fewer, so the ones that need film will be far less than in the past. The good news is that young people are turning to film - for various reasons, be it lack of finance or simply opposing to the mainstream - and those who are doing it are doing it with passion and I have seen some great work from young photographers on film trough the online galleries. So I think that while the market is shrinking, it will stabilize and then the companies will have to make their maths nad decide if they want to stay in the market or not. I also hope that we will see some better decisions made by the industry that has to learn that the hyper-run for profit and more profit is actually not the way to go ( that does not imply no profit, but if I hear a company is not good because it only makes 6% profit on some billion sales and is sold because of that I can only shake my head ).

[Kirk Gittings]

Gursky (not a favourite of mine), who prints to 10 ft can afford a digital back (maybe a couple dozen), since he sells his images at over $3million each...but instead he shoots 5x7/8x10. Why?

I'm pretty sure, about a year ago, I don't remember where, I read that he was switching over to a P45 back and stitching.

[Rakesh Malik]

Along similar lines to yours, we have a National Parks Conservation Association office here in Seattle (the Northwest chapter HQ, I think). They show a selection of photographs hanging on their walls, and last few months they had up a set of images by a rather good local photographer.

All of the images were pretty big. All of them were also soft, especially the 40x60 one, which was soft even at a moderate distance. They weren't soft because of focus errors, they were soft because the images were too big for their source, which was some Canon digitoy or other, I don't remember which one (a fairly high end model, I think).

By comparison, I'm getting some images ready for a showing shortly... currently, they're being printed at 24x30, all from 4x5 scanned on a Microtek M-1, and all of them are extremely sharp and detailed... far beyond anything a current digitoy could even begin to aspire to.

I can only imagine that as my skills improve and we get our hands on a higher end scanner, that will only get better... and the gap between my work and that of the local digitoy landscape shooters will just grow.

In the meantime, I hope that the trend toward LF photography continues, because in addition to being by far the superior format for my needs, I also happen to enjoy working with it, enough that I'm hoping to set myself up with a darkroom soon(ish). :)

[icefan13]

More importantly than all that: The Jonas Brother were recently quoted as saying, 'film is cool'. That means millions of teenage girls are going to want to have film cameras and are going to discover film. That's all it takes really.

Even before that, I was told by an Ilford rep that film sales had been increasing.

[sanking]

I recently started using a Canon 50D DSLR and was interested in reviews of its performance, and found a review by Harold Merklinger on the Luminous Landscape. He wrote.

"Back to the Canon 50D. The first thing I did with a 50D was to put the nearest lens at hand - a Canon 50/1.2L - on the camera, step outside my front door and take a picture of the house across the street. Then I looked at the image on the computer. "Finally!" my eyes told me "I can see the sort of detail I used to see with slow, fine-grain, b&w film!" What particularly grabbed my attention was that I could tell the maple trees behind the house from the oak trees, by the shape of the leaves."

That pretty much sums up DSLR versus MF film for me. If I were to take a photograph of the house across the street with my Mamiya 7II camera, and any one of the four lenses that I use with it, I would expect to see the "veins" of the tree leaves with a good quality scan.

BTW, to put things in perspective, I recently had a chance to do some extensive comparisons of the Canon 5D versus the 50D. The 5D is better in many respects, but in terms of resolution the 50D is slightly better, assuming your lens, and/or aperture, does not limit resolution. So the Canon 50D is a fairly decent DSLR.

Sandy King

[Kirk Gittings]

Some random thoughts related to this topic (in my mind at least)......I remember my grandmother remarking how amazing she thought the first cars and airplanes were. But my grandfather was still working a mule on his farm when he died in the 1960's. The technological changes in their lifetime were staggering. My cell phone has replaced my wrist watches, land line phones and alarm clocks. I'm sure I am not alone in this change. Yet the technology and sales of those three items seems to continue to forge ahead, because though they are unnecessary some people continue to use and like them. I have no use for film anymore in my commercial business. But I like film. I could choose to use it at the expense my time and profitability. I choose digital for my business because I want to make the most money from it. I choose film for my personal work because its about the joy of process and not money or time.

I just received my 5DMII yesterday. At first blush it seems like a hell of a camera. My 5D is only 2 years old and yet it seems like old technology in comparison the MII. The MII will potentially solve a couple of problems for me that slow me down when processing files like upresing, dust and maybe noise. I figure the time saved processing files alone will pay for it in maybe ten big jobs (by late February or early March maybe). My business has flourished since going digital and my personal work too because it is now so distinct technologically from what I do everyday. It is all good. Technologically speaking we live in the best of photographic times.

[Andrew O'Neill]

A student in my graphic design class (we do all work in digital there) is buying a canon eos-5 so that he can shoot black and white film. He's 17. There is hope.

[Nathan67]

"How many people make 60 inch prints" ...........a lot of people do, look at all the 44 inch printers were buying. Also by big I really mean 30 inches and up, which right now means digital backs (without interpolation) are still struggling in this market (it is for the small print market only....wedding/news/magazines/fashion). Walk into any frame shop, or art gallery and you will see a few big prints. Just check the websites of photographers selling their works in here. For Ken Duncan and Peter Lik a 60 inch print is not that big, and Peter Lik alone sold $35million worth this year. Check out these guys, and it is not just photographers making big prints. Oil/watercolor artists have been doing it for years. Go check out any gallery, they are huge. Until digital backs and dslr cameras can produce bigger prints, and people start trusting the files they have saved will last....the fine art market cannot afford to risk it with digital. One image can be worth millions, and you don't want to start reproducing by copying a print. As one person said...so long as they come off the original file they are originals, once they are off copied prints they become just reproductions.

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum172/54564-photokina-positive-news-film.html

Here are two typical artists, both are making fine art prints. The little stuff you can get at Wallmart.

http://www.davidbrookover.com/interior.html (photographer....all big prints)
http://www.tomrissacher.com./seascapes.html (painter....all big prints)

Lets not forget the industrial photographers serving corporations, malls, retail and using big cameras. Check this 17 ft print........ http://www.panos.at:80/ How can you say digital can satisfy the majority of the market? Jobs like this need 8x10 format, not a P45 that in this situation you can consider as nothing but a toy when you need a mans size camera to get the job done. Digital is great for the wedding/news/magazine/sports and some areas of commercial (fashion, etc). In many cases a dslr is sufficient. Digital is for the short term market, for pros wanting it done fast, cost effective, and don't care about sales 2 years from now (wedding shooters find people scanning their images, while commercial guys would consider a 2 yr old McDonalds ad already old). They don't worry about long term storage of images while fine artists do (their nest egg for retirement).

"How many care how long they really look, and how long they last". Well, as mentioned earlier, if I sell limited editions (commercial guys doing magazines don't do this), and my income is based on 150 copies selling at $3500 per image ($total $525,000).....well I certainly will care. Most artist originals are big, then when reduced they look even better.

I find it odd that many are saying film is dead when the film mfrs themselves admit the market has stabilized and film is growing slowly. With the intro of digital, the market went through a change. Local labs are gone (because 35mm sales were down), but we still have Wallmart/Costco/Sams club to handle the needs of the cosnumer markets ( elderly population afraid of computers. Some pro labs will close down (but were they really just a mom pop lab and 35mm film was their bulk of business). I find the labs in Toronto with a professional base doing well and processing up to 8x10. But I believe like all retail, were moving towards the super store in photography (BH Photo, Adoroama, Calumet), and same is happening to labs (West Coast, etc). Unfortunately, many of us are now not only shipping to buy our new cameras (buying unseen products), but also to process the film.

Film is not dead, it is "high-end" photography that the average consumer isn't aware of! It is funny that these are the ones spreading negative comments about film, who own only a D40, and never seen a large format camera in their life....totally clueless. Film can make big prints, digital cannot....that's a big market for film.

Erm.... facts, that 17 foot print was not taken with a large format camera.. it is a stitched job from a Nikon D70s, not even a high end digital camera.... 6mp if you had clicked on the link to view the file you would have been presented with this info under the pano.

Now. I too hope that film will survive, however my studio has been fully digital the last 5 years, and the only film stuff I do is for personal projects because I enjoy the process so much.
My corporate and private clients expect digital, on some shoots I may pull out one of my large format cameras or run a roll of film through my hassy, but on the whole I dont have the time...
I just love using my hassy and my LF cameras, but its my 1DsmkIII that pays the bills and pays for my expensive film habit :)

Nathan

[Stefan Lungu]

My business has flourished since going digital and my personal work too because it is now so distinct technologically from what I do everyday. It is all good. Technologically speaking we live in the best of photographic times.

I'm thinking the same every time I see a debate about film vs. digital or life/death of film. I for myself would not want to skip the digital I have for convenience and other such reasons, and a friend of my father who was a passionate photog in hir younger days was pretty impressed at the detail level of the 1Ds MkI shots I took ( he only shot 35mm ). But I am very happy to use my 6x9 folder with B&W film and start using my Crown with 4x5. No need really for those tools to compete. Only problem that we were discussing was if we will be able to use them in the future - and that goes for digital ( file formats, archive etc. ) as well as for film ( any film available ).

Regards, Stefan

[AutumnJazz]

A student in my graphic design class (we do all work in digital there) is buying a canon eos-5 so that he can shoot black and white film. He's 17. There is hope.

I'm 16 and I'm in the process of buying a 45. :)

[bspeed]

I'm 16 and I'm in the process of buying a 45. :)
That's awesome :)
there is hope for the world, with Generation "Now" :D

[sanking]

Since most people are not able to own an infinte number of cameras, and since we are linited to the equipment we can carry for any specific project, digital and film are in constant competition IMO. Digital and film have strong points and if one want sto make intelligent decisions about how to spend money, or pack and carry equipment for a specific project one must constantly think about the desired outcome and which method can get you there best. In that sense digital and film are in constant competition.

Sandy King



I'm thinking the same every time I see a debate about film vs. digital or life/death of film. I for myself would not want to skip the digital I have for convenience and other such reasons, and a friend of my father who was a passionate photog in hir younger days was pretty impressed at the detail level of the 1Ds MkI shots I took ( he only shot 35mm ). But I am very happy to use my 6x9 folder with B&W film and start using my Crown with 4x5. No need really for those tools to compete. Only problem that we were discussing was if we will be able to use them in the future - and that goes for digital ( file formats, archive etc. ) as well as for film ( any film available ).

Regards, Stefan

[D. Bryant]

[QUOTE]I think the information were getting from the mfrs is the more relialable indicator (sales figures). Mfrs at photokina are agreeing the film/digital war is over, and there is stabilization. Film sales are moving up

Fuji and Kodak both reported decreases in film and related consumable sales for '08 to be markedly down. This may also include Ilford products too. What mfrs are reporting increases?

Don Bryant

[D. Bryant]

[QUOTE=D. Bryant;429135]

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum172/54564-photokina-positive-news-film.html

http://www.thiaps.com/editors/ (40% inc in 4x5 film sales alone)

I also find the following comments interesting....

"In the last two years Kodak introduced 11 (!) new or improved films: Portra 160 NC-2, 160 VC-2, 400 NC-2, 400 VC-2, Portra 800 version 3, improved Gold 200 and Gold 400, Portra 400 NC-3 and Portra 400 VC-3, TMY-2, Ektar 100.

I grew up in in the "golden analogue days". But I can't remenber a time in the past, when Kodak introduced 11 Films in only two years. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Look back at summer 2006: Anyone here on apug who thougt that Kodak will bring 11 new films to the market in the next two years?
No, quite the opposite: The apug experts talked about Kodak leaving the film market.
Anyone here on apug who thought we will see Velvia 50 back on the shelves?"
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum172/54564-photokina-positive-news-film-4.html

I see, now I understand the situation more clearly. Good to have an optimist onboard.

Don Bryant

[Nathan67]

Don, I look at it this way. If I as an artist do not feel comfortable entrusting my artwork to digital for long term storage, then there must be others thinking the same way. If I were doing weddings, I would worry about sales today, not 1 year from now (unlikely to happen with everyone owning a flatbed scanner). For them digital is the cats meow. My DVD failure last week keeps confirming this belief.....except this time it was a only movie. I don't trust Gates, I already lost all my old files on 5.25 floppies from 20 yrs ago, but I still have ALL my films in perfect shape ready for printing traditionally or to be scanned from 40 yrs ago. Five backup copies on DVD/hard drive, or whatever does not make me feel any safer....5x0 is still 0. When I see proof, then I will switch, but not if it takes $40k (digital film) that does the same as large format film for a couple $'s. Fine artists don't work in high volume, so film costs are not an issue. Printer and paper companies have gone a long way with respect to archival issues, but computer mfrs can't even spell archival.

Also, if you need very big prints, nothing touches film, especially when it comes to affordability. Data storage companies, mfrs, are all realizing historical data must be backed up to film. If it is happening to them, with people paid to maintain it (were more likely at home to get lazy or forget), then the average person with images important either for personal or sales will be sadly disappointed in the next few years. Often we can't even get the image from CF card to computer, while with film I know I will come back with something. One roll might be lost or damaged at a lab, but not all of it, and once I have it at home and stored in polypropylene pages I don't have to ever worry about it again. When I need it for the next sale, I am confident it will be there. If your selling editions of 100-1000, you can be confident your image will not be lost due to operating system changes, media failure, file protocol.

You make many valid points here, but you simplify the problems with film.
Now once again I want to say before I go further that I am not anti-film, I still love and use film whenever I can. Especially for personal projects and family shots.
Now you say that once the fil is in its sleeves you never have to worry about it again.

What happens if your place of storage burns down, floods or otherwise is raised to the ground?
Theft? what if someone steals your negs?

I back up my negs digitally, but then it is just a copy, if I lose the original then its gone.... when I back up a digital file then it is the same as the original... and can be backed up at multiple locations.

As far as losing info and not trusting Microsoft, well every time there has been a format change I have managed to copy my archive from the old to the new... never lost anything to an old floppy, zip disk or scuzzi hard drive, and I use a mac :)

My files are backed up to 2 locations and 3 sets of drives. as soon as the next format change comes I will have to move and update it all again... but thats life.

Fine art can be made digitally AND with film, its the final image that matters, not the capture medium.

[Maris Rusis]

Photography is safe from electronically controlled picture fabrication only when the world realizes that it is a completely distinct thing. And the difference lies, not in how the pictures look, but in what they are.

Gathering the physical impressions that real things make in sensitive surfaces is not the same as using machines to draw pictures.

[Allen in Montreal]

[QUOTE=Van Camper;428468]



Fuji and Kodak both reported decreases in film and related consumable sales for '08 to be markedly down. This may also include Ilford products too. What mfrs are reporting increases?

Don Bryant

My camera shop owner claims to be selling more film in 2008 than in the three or four years previous.

[Kirk Gittings]

Film is the choice of fine artists (pros, amateurs), and digital the choice of pros (wedding,news,magazine, sports) where smaller prints are the norm and digital has no issues with print sizes needed or archival issues.

This is waaay to broad a brush.

[JBrunner]

This is waaay to broad a brush.

I agree, as pro film as I am, I don't think labels are appropriate. I do think you will find most photographers that are using film do it for aesthetic. I know I do. I find arguments about jigapixels and "quality" and other technical things to be largely pedantic, useless really to any serious photographer. I use film because of what it does, how it looks, and the fact that I personally like those qualities, and the ease at which it delivers them. Use something because you want to, because it works for you, because it delivers what you desire, so you can stop worrying about process and get on with doing. That's the hard part, figuring out what you really want to do, and then strapping on the dealios to do it, not jumping from magic bullet to magic bullet.

[Nathan67]

Kirk, your right, I made a mistake. The way it reads it suggests you need film to be a fine artist. What I really meant was film is preferred by fine artists who often are faced with needing very large prints. Most of my friends are not into photography and prefer oils. Standard sizes for them are easily 40-50 inch lengths for gallery showings, etc. Also many photographers are offering landscapes up to 70 inches or more. Film is the choice, it doesn't run out of pixels like a p45 (limited to 27 inches approx at 300ppi). You get the point when you see the prints sizes Ken Duncan offers....30/40/50/60/75 inches. But if you want to shoot a p45 in the rain, money no issue, you got to have one....no one is stopping you. But far more popular is large format film simply because it is affordable. Frankly, all this talk about high end digital, yet none of us here have the $, so it is rather pointless. For those that need it, we don't need to tell them what they need....they know.
Both the artists below are into HUGE prints. Theirs your market for film, something digital cannot do well (I don't consider a scan back suitable for landscapes).


http://www.kenduncan.com/gallery.php?ms=19&fn=prod&id=1903

http://www.tomrissacher.com/seascapes.html
That last link is a painter..... not a photographer

Now there are plenty of photographers still using film, but plenty that use digital.
Stitching with digital backs and or digital slrs is not uncommon, providing HUGE files for printing, you yourself mistakenly linked to such a stitched "large format" (the websites words not mine) image.
Now generalising that film is the only way to go for large prints is not really looking at the big picture (pun intended), for you maybe, but I think that you will find that most professional photographers will look at the assignment/project/job and choose the tools that best fit the job. I know I do.
In a pro situation its very common to hire/rent equipment for a job, so If I need the latest phase one or hassy back, I just ring my dealer and he sends me the gear, that expense I pass on to my client.
I may use my 1DsmkIII in the studio and on location everyday as my general workhorse, and for some jobs I may need "only" my 1DmkIII, but then for some jobs I may need to ring and rent a hassy with a 50meg back. Or I might even pull out my hassy and film backs or one of my 5x4 cameras and shoot some film for a specific look... or just for the pleasure :) (yes even working photographers hoot for pleasure now and then)

Regards, Nathan

[rodney@theloughroad.com]

I just have to jump in on this one.

Fuji Film has begun using a number of my images, originally shot on 8x10, for display at their trade booths during conventions. During one of the many conversations I'd asked the likelihood of special ordering additional 8x10 Astia (IMHO the best landscape film ever made.) At this time, they are not able to do it. I have yet to press the issue, and wonder if "not able" means "not going to." The last time i ordered this exact film I had to purchase about $18k worth (yes, that's the right number) in order to get them to do it. Maybe that's what it will take this time as well. After all - they say if you throw enough money at something......

On Stitching:
One of the images that they will be showing is a 35x93 inch panoramic (printed on Flex) that i stitched from 3 horizontal 8x10 transparencies. The final file size is over 4GB. The detail is stunning.

In the past I had simply cropped from the horizontal of an 8x10 to get a pano; it was always larger than 120 roll film and the results were very good. However, they pale in comparison to what I just did with this piece.

I knew in the field that I'd wanted a pano, but the detail of the flowers, grass and trees would not be as sharp if i simply cropped from the 8x10 film later; hence stitching came to mind. I was lucky with the light, nothing moved, and I am amazingly happy with the end result.

It is a technique that will work in many situations, but not all, especially where things move, but on rare occasion it is one that I will employ again.

[Eric Leppanen]

One of the images that they will be showing is a 35x93 inch panoramic (printed on Flex) that i stitched from 3 horizontal 8x10 transparencies. The final file size is over 4GB. The detail is stunning.

In the past I had simply cropped from the horizontal of an 8x10 to get a pano...and the results were very good. However, they pale in comparison to what I just did with this piece...Not to hijack this thread, but there are several instances where I've been thinking about stitching several 8x10 transparencies/negatives as well. How did you do it? Did you use a large coverage lens and use rear shift (to avoid any parallax)? Or did you rotate the lens around its nodal point?

And what stitching software did you use that handles such large files? How much memory on your PC was needed? Any insight you could provide would be very helpful, thanks!

[rodney@theloughroad.com]

I rotated the lens around the nodal point. With the Arca-Swiss it's fairly easy to set this up. Shot a 300mm Fujinon with a forward tilt, panned left to right overlapping each shot apx 1/2 (just to be sure.) The toughest part was the set up.

I used CS3 to stitch, Mac dual 2.7 with 8 gig. The process was fairly straight forward as I am sure many could explain far better than I. 8x10 scanned on my tango at maximum resolution to achieve end result.

Hope this helps.

Rodney Lough Jr.

[John Louis]

I received an email informing me that there had been a new post on 23rd Jan 2009 by one Carsten Wolff to this discussion [The Hopeful Future of Large Format Photography]

Where is it?

What's going on?

John Louis

[cjbroadbent]

The main idea behind stitching (LF or digital) is to use the longest possible lens in front of the largest possible virtual piece of film.
The longer the lens - the more detail.
Like: 3 vertical overlapping 8x10s make an 18x10cm picture for which a short lens would be an 18" (450mm).
Likewise: 2 rows of 6 vertical overlapping 24x36 make a 10x5cm picture for which a short lens would be a 100mm.
This may be teaching your grandmother to suck eggs - but she tend to forget that most of the qualities we desire from LF derive from the length of the lens. The film size just has to catch up to match the lens.

[cjbroadbent]

...3 vertical overlapping 8x10s make an 18x10cm picture ...
Correction: an 18x10 inch picture ...

[Drew Wiley]

Ah stitching ... so much for the "decisive moment".

[cjbroadbent]

Ah stitching ... so much for the "decisive moment".
The post above on stitching was in reply to Eric Lepannen's question. You can have your decisive moment. Shoot the subject first, then shoot the sides. The side shots are there only for peripheral vision anyway.

[pablo batt]

Film is dead RIP

[John T]

And yet you said:



it aint photography if it aint a print.

How quickly things change. I guess this means that you won't be inflicting yourself on this or any photo forum.

[JBrunner]

Film is dead RIP

Troll. I wish someone would remove this axe grinding broken record, permanently.

[roteague]

Film is dead RIP

I wonder what I've been running through my Nikon F6 these past few months then ....

[Jim collum]

i just discovered the tri-x and dixactol combination shooting with a hassey xpan. It's motivated me to take a box of trix out of the freezer for the 4x5 and see what it does with that

[kellyonassis]

Wonderful discussion.

Just had to join and say something.

And to resurrect....

[Marko]

Its interesting that this thread has been resurrected from 2006 and then prior to that 2004.

[...]

At b&h today 5 years later I see 7 different slide films in 10x8 running in the US$8-10 per sheet range. APUG hit 30 000 members this year. Although Polaroid type 55 is on its way to blessed memory, it doesnt look too bad for film just right now.

Someone should kick this into life again in another 5 years and see whats what then!!

And then again in early 2011... It was really fun to read it again.

So, looking at the situation again, Polaroid, Readyload and Quickload are all gone.

At B&H today, I see only one 8x10 and one 4x5 slide film available, at about the same price. Interestingly enough, the only 4x5 available is Fuji Quickload, most likely remaining stock. (There are also two Fuji and one Kodak 4x5 slide films listed, but all marked as either Out of Stock or Temporarily Unavailable.)

[Steve M Hostetter]

My mother is 72 years old and she won't use the digital camera I bought for her.. She says it's a pain to use.. That is the only reason she gives + I wanna take my film in to walmart and get my prints just like I have always done.
Pretty simple logic!
Rock on Mom!
steve

[mikerz]

I'm confused about the state of LF, is it dying or not? I can't see the big companies continuing production as it's not profitable enough to counteract the inherent inefficiency of a large company, but I don't see any small companies filling the gap -- they need the capital investment for machinery as well as IP of films.

[Jay DeFehr]

The Chinese have set up the most "modern" film manufacturing plants, in the sense that they're scaled to the current market conditions, with the capacity to grow, if needed. It's much easier to grow than to shrink. There are other reasons to believe the Chinese will outlast/outcompete the bigger players, too. I think those who shoot LF in the near future, and maybe any format of film in the less-near future will use Chinese film. It's not anything like as good as the film made by the giants, but maybe that will change over time. In the meantime, it's film, and it's available, and it's cheap. When Freestyle starts carrying it, the end is near for its competitors.

[Ben Syverson]

Well, 2010 actually saw the introduction of TWO color films in 4x5 and 8x10 size: Ektar 100 and Portra 400.

In the B&W world, you can still get a wide variety of emulsions in a huge array of sheet sizes.

So LF film is not dying. It's reconfiguring, consolidating, adapting. It's the way forward.

[Two23]

I think those who shoot LF in the near future, and maybe any format of film in the less-near future will use Chinese film. It's not anything like as good as the film made by the giants, but maybe that will change over time. In the meantime, it's film, and it's available, and it's cheap.

What if they were to buy the rights and formula etc. to manufacture these films from companies that abandon them, such as Tech Pan?


Kent in SD

[tgtaylor]

If there are 30 or 40 thousand of us as stated above, then why then don't we all get together as a non-profit dedicated to the preservation of film and kick in $1000 each and buy the factory - lock, stock, and barrel? Enough of a profit could probably be turned to pay the factory workers and keep the lights on and each of us would have free film for life :cool:

[John Kasaian]

I wonder if sculpturers sit around discussing the future of stone?

[Brian C. Miller]

"God to discontinue stone, film at 10"

If stone were being discontinued, then you bet that sculptors would be discussing it. So would geologists and theologians. ;)

[Karl Hudson]

The Chinese will continue to manufacture Stone and sell it at an amazing price, but in the process they will use up an awful lot of energy and pollute the air and water without a single second thought. Their workers will be dropping dead at a slightly slower pace than the fish in their rivers. The Stone they manufacture will look strong from the outside, but in reality will be thin and weak...designed to barely meet specs and to be cheaper to throw away and replace if you make a mistake. I try my best not to purchase from "Chindia" because I don't agree with how they make their profits by turning out cheap junk while externalizing their costs onto the backs (and at the expense of) their people and their people's health and well-being...not to mention the damage to the environment which is something we all need to survive.

[Robert Hughes]

I try my best not to purchase from "Chindia"...
I don't think that's even possible to do anymore. The only item I've seen lately that was marked Made in the USA was a bottle of ketchup.

[mikerz]

The Chinese will continue to manufacture Stone and sell it at an amazing price, but in the process they will use up an awful lot of energy and pollute the air and water without a single second thought. Their workers will be dropping dead at a slightly slower pace than the fish in their rivers. The Stone they manufacture will look strong from the outside, but in reality will be thin and weak...designed to barely meet specs and to be cheaper to throw away and replace if you make a mistake. I try my best not to purchase from "Chindia" because I don't agree with how they make their profits by turning out cheap junk while externalizing their costs onto the backs (and at the expense of) their people and their people's health and well-being...not to mention the damage to the environment which is something we all need to survive.

This is a poor understanding of economics and reads like 50's propaganda. Chinese workers on average save more than Americans (53% of their income) and have much, much cheaper goods available to them. Remember that there is no absolute scale of value; the only really valid value scale in economics is the subjective scale of value.

If we can get cheap goods and they can get commissions to produce those goods, we are both better off. Environmental concerns are important, but rest with and primarily affect the Chinese. Chinese industry is not to blame; but if you have founded concerns then you should not buy from them. Do not buy from companies that are destructive, but do not assume that because they can make it cheaper it must mean they are destroying the health of the people and the environment.

That said, American consumers are no longer interested in film. The Chinese and Japanese seem to have greater interest in film; we should support those companies which will serve our needs in LF best.

[rdenney]

I try my best not to purchase from "Chindia" because I don't agree with how they make their profits by turning out cheap junk while externalizing their costs onto the backs (and at the expense of) their people and their people's health and well-being...not to mention the damage to the environment which is something we all need to survive.

My observation: Only rich countries have the means to worry about the quality of life of their residents and about issues beyond mere hand-to-mouth survival, such as the environment. So, it seems to me that the best way to promote both the welfare of the people and the environment is to make poor countries into rich countries, and then let their people express those needs once they are no longer concerned about starvation. The primary tool used to keep people from expressing those needs is to keep them poor. That can be done by evil and corrupt leaders, but that's not the only way.

Rick "suspecting that China is already seeing shifting priorities within its vast population" Denney

[Jay DeFehr]

Rick,

It is precisely the process of capitalist industrialization by which poor countries become rich ones that is responsible for the consumption of resources and its polluting byproducts, and this process is only possible by exploiting the workers. Your theory is as wrong as one can possibly be.

[rdenney]

Rick,

It is precisely the process of capitalist industrialization by which poor countries become rich ones that is responsible for the consumption of resources and its polluting byproducts, and this process is only possible by exploiting the workers. Your theory is as wrong as one can possibly be.

Okay. Have it your way. Starvation is the answer!

Rick "wondering if subsistence farming is sustainable without an average 35-year lifespan" Denney

[bobwysiwyg]

Also, it's a lot easier to pass judgement from the top of the heap than the bottom. :(

[Genevieve Ness]

My two or three or four cents opinion on film vs. digital:

1. Both the process and final product of film has emotional and subjective associations and qualities that digital cannot duplicate.

Here is my own analogy, to jump off the tracks of the prior train analogy: Seventy years ago the greatest thing since sliced bread was sliced bread. My mother in law grew up on homemade bread; when they could afford store-bought it was a step up. When she could bring a sandwich made with store bought bread to school she'd be so proud she'd make big show of it. Technically, it was superior. Lighter, fluffier, softer, more uniform, never burnt, never dry, never lumpy. The vast majority of consumers will never go back to making the majority of our everyday sandwich loaves by hand. Few American women of my mother-in-law's generation bothered to learn how. That sort of drudgery belonged in the past. It was sold in every supermarket, you didn't need specialty bakeries, in fact, most small bakeries died out. There was a sourdough revival in the 60s/ 70s, which is a totally scratch approach which most homemakers have tried in their careers exactly once, but maintaining a starter isn't for most people, if you don't have to. Although some people have started they have maintained since the 70's! In the late 80's breadmaking machines were popular, but more of a hassle, limitation and space hog, and so I think they have seen their heyday. In the 1990's St. Louis Bread company sold out and became Panera, and better quality mass produced bread became more available. "Artisan" breads become more popular with the emphasis on the mystique, complexity and knowledge needed to hand craft fine bread. Then no- knead bread recipes were developed to simplify things for the home cook. I waited two months to check out "Artisan Breads in Five minutes a Day" from the library, behind 15 other patrons, (and that was about two years after it was published) and now I make mine from scratch. My mother-in-law can inhale the whole loaf in ten seconds flat if I don't set some aside for everyone else! Bread making is a multi-sensory experience, part art, part science, so simple and so complex, rich with cultural and emotion associations. Film doesn't have a history as long as that, nor the religious connotations, but it is a multi-sensory process, and it has been the primary visual memory keeper for our own lifetime. Can digital be be fine art? Sometimes, but most of the time, and in most instances, it is wonder bread, utilitarian carrier of sandwich meats and doctored up with mayo and mustard to make up for lack of taste.

2. Ten second rule: if it will be looked at and really seen for less than 10 seconds, use digital. When the subject is the most important thing, when social networking and documenting and maintaining connections with family and friends, when the connections matter more than the image itself, and the image used primarily as a reference to a memory or idea, digital shines. If you aren't going to look at an image for more than a second at a time, and most images take fit that category, use digital. Most of the images never even need to be printed. It saves time and money and serves it's purpose. The connections and re-enforcements are what matter, not the image.

2. Digital's plasticity can be it's advantage when done well. Well planned combinations of images and of mediums, such as painting and drawing are potentially more natural in digital as opposed to film. Both film and and digital can be contrived when you get into multiple exposures, selective color, painting images, and there are some wonderful alternative images that do those things, but on the whole, digital and hybrid tech seems more natural.

3. If you need a tripod, you have lost the primary advantage of small formats such as 35mm or digital: portability and freedom of movement. Might as well use film.

4. Grain in film is not a technical flaw, it is part of the medium and part of the texture of the medium. The choice of fine, nearly grainless film or heavily grained film are like the differences in brush strokes between painters. Different effects and moods can be had like different strokes for different folks. I prefer using fine grain myself, at least in the past, but I have admired the work of a number of artists who produce big grained work with bigger emotional and expressive impact than any of my own work. I am not sure digital noise is being used in the same way or if it can be, or if viewers see it as part of the work, or an intrusion into the work, like static on T.V.

4. If you want to produce images that will be looked at for any length of time, it is more likely to happen with film. There have been a handful of good prints that I have had the privilege of viewing that can take my breath away that that demand my prolonged attention, and that I never get tired of looking at. Years later, I can still look at those images and it is still fresh, I can still stare at them and completely lose myself and lose time. Can that happen with a digital image? When I see one I'll let you know!

5. As the tools and objects of our everyday lives become more complex, more automated, and more global, the urge towards the handcrafted grows stronger. Homemade bread is a luxury and valued as such; wonder bread is cheap. Also, analog photography has a certain nostalgic appeal to the young, in a way digital probably won't. Old digital will just be obsolete. I mean there are people who collect old computers, but they are geeks among geeks. Old cameras have utility and look cook and feel cool and even kind of smell cool. Old digital are just outdated and will remain so. As long as these cameras are collected, some folks will want to use film just for fun!

6. Some folks will return to analog because the data management of digital literally gives them headaches. At some point you realize you have taken 5,000 photos in the last year and spending the time sorting through them to decide which to keep and which to print and which to get off your hard drive is a real pain. A time consuming pain. There is a point at which you hit a wall of data, especially mothers who are the primary data keepers for family photos. At this point, going back to film or at least dabbling in film may be appealing, for the speed of final results it provides.

7. Because of the instant feedback and because you aren't spending pin money on film, digital photography is more accessible to women, than film has in the past. There have always been female photographers, but in the past men outnumbered women as enthusiasts, home photographers and professionally. Today women, mothers especially are entering the world of professional portraiture in droves, largely on account of digital. Women learn differently than men, we like to get our feet wet a little bit, we don't always jump right in. But as women get more comfortable with higher end digital, here is a whole new market for higher end film photography, if only you can make the introduction!

Well, there is my seven cents worth!

[rdenney]

Well, there is my seven cents worth!

I don't think you were charging by the word, heh.

Some of things you mention are your preferences, which are valid for you, of course, but may not rise to the level of universal truth. It is possible that in some situations, for example, the digital nature of files make them easier to store reliably than negatives.

But the main problem I have with your essay is the notion that digital photos don't have lasting value. You defended that statement by noting that in your experience, no digital photos had moved you in the way many film photos had. Maybe that is true for me also. But those film photos have about a 150-year head start. Give the digital photos a chance to catch up. The notion that digital is incapable of such value can and will be refuted by one genius.

They used to say tubas are incapable of beautiful melodies. And they were when they said such things. And then a few world-class musicians, instead of choosing the violin or 'cello, decided to play tuba. Shazzam! Tubas could make beautiful melodies! Who knew? It turned that it wasn't the artistic potential of the instrument that was rare, but the artist who could exploit it. Has that ever not been true?

Each new medium has to prove itself, but as soon as the best artists embrace it, that proof is inevitable.

Rick "for whom the medium is the tool of the artist not the definition of art" Denney

[Mike Anderson]

...Seventy years ago the greatest thing since sliced bread was sliced bread...

I love that sentence. I like the rest of that post too.

...Mike

[Jay DeFehr]

Marketing people are interested in only one thing....is there a need in the market.

I promise you that's the last thing in which marketing people are interested.

The number of photographers for whom very big prints is important is practically zero. Many of the people (myself included) who shoot 8x10 contact print exclusively, or scan and print digitally and not many of those print larger than 16 x20, a 2X enlargement factor. Your argument, based on huge prints, applies to almost no one. If you were to stop and think about why digital imaging is burying film photography instead of contriving these inane specious arguments, you might actually begin to understand the phenomenon.

[goamules]

...
The number of photographers for whom very big prints is important is practically zero. Many of the people (myself included) who shoot 8x10 contact print exclusively, or scan and print digitally and not many of those print larger than 16 x20, a 2X enlargement factor. Your argument, based on huge prints, applies to almost no one...

I also note the comparisons are always about things I don't see. Now I did go see an Ansel Adams exhibit last year, and giant prints do look nice. However, not many people are doing giant prints from what I see. The costs of doing prints in film vs digital is also a moot point; people just don't print much when they shoot digital. I bet for every 1,000 digital captures the average consumer shoots they print 1 larger than 4x6.

For every 1 large format camera being use I wonder how many DSLR and Point & Shoot digitals are being used. 5,000 to 1? 25,000 to 1? Maybe 100,000 to 1? LF film will continue, I know it. But it will be a small, niche market for it's special abilities. Which are not pixel count, resolution type qualities.

[Brian C. Miller]

I promise you that's the last thing in which marketing people are interested.

Are you sure?

From Marketing Factors: Consumer Buying Behavior (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/19593/marketing_factors_consumer_buying_behavior.html?cat=35):
Purchasing decisions include many factors that most consumers are not even aware of. Five steps are involved in nearly every purchase made: need recognition, information search, evaluation of alternatives, purchase decision, and finally post purchase behavior. Even the simplest purchases can include any or all of these steps. (Brown, 2005) Purchases are further influenced by such things as personal, psychological, and social issues. A good market researcher will study the thought process undergone by consumers, compare it with their demographic data, and use the resulting information to market their products. (Armstrong et al, 2005)

Looks like marketers are looking for a need in the market, and figuring out how to best put their product into that market. "Money, money, money, Always sunny, In the rich man's world"

All companies want to sell something. "Sweet dreams are made of these, who am I to disagree?" So of course the market is going to be analyzed for the product's best position.


The number of photographers for whom very big prints is important is practically zero. Many of the people (myself included) who shoot 8x10 contact print exclusively, or scan and print digitally and not many of those print larger than 16 x20, a 2X enlargement factor.

The market is the factor. Not the photographer, it's the market. Plain and simple. What governs people's purchase of large prints? Wall space. In the Seattle/Tacoma market 16x20 is the most popular large print size due to the consumer's wall space. People do like larger prints, but the larger sizes (20x24 and up) usually don't work out well in the person's dwelling.

Most amateurs don't produce enlargements from 8x10s because they don't have an enlarger. I have one, but it's in storage until I find a place to set it up. Getting a 16x20 RC print is at least $30. Color has to be sent out of state. That puts a real crimp in the thought, "Oh, for grins and giggles I'll make a big enlargment from my 8x10 today." According to the poll that I put up a while ago (link (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=66632)), the marjority do not contact print, they make enlargements.

[Jay DeFehr]

Brian,

You should read your own posts more carefully. Purchasers might consider their own needs, but marketers don't worry about whether a product is needed. If they did, there would be very few products on the market.

We were discussing the availability of film. For film, photographers are the market, not print buyers. I mentioned print sizes in response to Van Camper's flawed analysis of the superiority of film over digital, for which he depends heavily on the making of very large prints, which almost no one does.

It seems you don't read your own polls any better than you read your posts. Clearly, the majority (of a miniscule sample) do contact print. What poll were you looking at? It doesn't mater, for the purposes of my point, why people don't make large prints, my point is that VC's arguments all fall apart when very large prints are taken out of the equation.

[lilmsmaggie]

I don't profess to be an expert at anything, least of all photography. However, I do see the analogies of Moore's Law, Steam vs. Digital, Supply & Demand, consumer proclivities etc, relevant to the discussion future of film photography and film in particular.

From a strictly consumer perspective, image quality i.e. image resolution is probably not very important.

We live in an era of “I want it yesterday,” “Feel Good,” instant gratification mindset.

I’m confident that most will agree that the rate of technological acceleration is separate and independent of what the “average” consumer thinks he/she wants or needs. There are a wide range of technologies that are subject to the law of accelerating returns, Moore’s Law being one of them.

The consumer is simply the benefactor to a certain degree of the continued rate of technological acceleration. The consumer has benefited from the ongoing R&D in science and military exploration of technology. As astronomers, astrophysicists, and others continue to expand and test the boundaries of current base of knowledge, more demands will be placed on the resolving power of CCD’s and other imaging devices used to look out into the universe and peer backwards in time, the resulting acceleration in technology will trickle down and eventually find its way into a consumer product – namely cameras.

In regard to the ongoing digital/film debate, witness the proliferation of camera phones and resulting arguments that eventually, these devices will soon replace the camera as we know it:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/01/it-wont-be-long-.html


Another area where the acceleration of technology has affected consumers buying habits has been in the recorded music and playback. Remember those licorice pizzas’s known as vinyl records that could be found everywhere? It hasn’t been that long ago that when one wanted to listen to recorded music, we relied on something called a “turntable,” which used a “needle, or stylus,” to pick up a faint analog audio signal, which was then amplified, and presented through a pair of speakers.

Consumers nowadays don’t seem to care about the playback sound quality. They’ve been accustomed to compressed MP3 “digital” sound blaring through their portable media players; e.g. iPods, and those shiny round compact discs (CD), soon to be supplanted and made obsolete by the digital video disc for its sheer storage capacity and ability to store multiple file formats not just video.

Sure, you can still find and purchase vinyl and the analog based audio playback systems, e.g. turntables, phono cartridges, preamps, amplifiers, etc. needed to play them.

And like film, vinyl and analog audio systems has become a niche market.

I won’t pretend to presume I know what will happen to the future of film photography. On a personal note, I would not like to see the demise of either film or cameras, but consumers are fickle and easily impressed by “technology.”

[Jack Dahlgren]

Another area where the acceleration of technology has affected consumers buying habits has been in the recorded music and playback. Remember those licorice pizzas’s known as vinyl records that could be found everywhere? It hasn’t been that long ago that when one wanted to listen to recorded music, we relied on something called a “turntable,” which used a “needle, or stylus,” to pick up a faint analog audio signal, which was then amplified, and presented through a pair of speakers.

Consumers nowadays don’t seem to care about the playback sound quality. They’ve been accustomed to compressed MP3 “digital” sound blaring through their portable media players; e.g. iPods, and those shiny round compact discs (CD), soon to be supplanted and made obsolete by the digital video disc for its sheer storage capacity and ability to store multiple file formats not just video.



Consumer's in those days didn't seem to care about playback sound quality. They used record changers with cheap needles through $50 all purpose receivers and listened to AM radio. Sure there were crazy audiophiles, and still are. But when something is "good enough" most people are happy with it.

35mm film became good enough. Now digicams are good enough.

There is no change from the past in this regard. Sound quality and convenience was much lower back in the old days. hiss, pop, scratches etc.

[Marko]

Consumers are not really impressed by technology per se, they are impressed by the ease of use and the simplicity technology brings them. Remember VCRs and how programming them to record at a certain time was considered an incomprehensible chore? That was not because consumers were stupid, it was because consumers didn't care about it, they just wanted to record the TV show and watch it later. Of course they will be impressed by technology smart enough to eliminate the obstacle!

Same with photography. The average Joe out there couldn't care less about quality, and artistry and craftsmanship and all those noble concepts, it's all just incomprehensible noise to them - all they want is to take a picture to document where they've been, what they did and with whom. That's why Kodak invented the Instamatic ("you press the button, we do the rest") and that's how it made its fortune on it. They still had to take the camera to the shop and come back later to take the prints. They still needed to make as many prints as they wanted to send out and they still had to physically mail the copies to whomever they wanted.

Now when you think of it, digital cameras weren't attractive because they were digital, they were attractive because they eliminated the need for film and even prints - all you needed was a computer and Flickr account and you could share your pictures with anybody you cared for the moment you got home.

Cellphone cameras simply made the final step and took that to a logical conclusion - you don't even need to carry a camera any more since everybody has cellphones anyway. The cellphone is always on and connected, that's it's purpose, so now you can post your "take" up on Flickr the moment you take it and send a tweet about it to all those interested. I often send pictures as an illustration of what I'm talking about as I talk. All literally by pressing a couple of buttons.

That's what has already effectively killed film and that's what is now in the process of killing P&S camera as we know it (Please note that I'm saying "P&S camera", not "a camera").

So, what will happen with film in the future is relatively simple to guess: It's already become a niche and the big companies, who are ill-equipped to support such market, are pulling out of it. The only reason they don't just flip the switch is because they want to do it in the most cost-effective way. Film, B&W more likely than color, will remain available as long as few small, highly specialized companies can make a profit on it. That's what's already happening, if you look closely.

[Jay DeFehr]

Marko,

You're exactly right. The relative artistic merits of film vs digital is a separate debate, and one in which I believe those who denigrate digital are missing separate points.

[bobwysiwyg]

Marko, well put. ;)

[Marko]

Marko,

You're exactly right. The relative artistic merits of film vs digital is a separate debate, and one in which I believe those who denigrate digital are missing separate points.

Jay,

Yes, it is separate, but debate it really isn't, IMO. Both film and digital are just different technologies used to achieve the same end. Separate ways to skin the same rabbit, if you will. And so are daguerreotype, gravure, gum or any of the other alt processes.

A technology is an inanimate tool, it cannot have artistic merits on its own. Only its application by a thinking human can. Therefore, it is not a debate at all.

Those who are denigrating any technology - or essentially somebody else's different choice of technology for achieving artistic or other end - are themselves missing the larger point of it all.

[Brian C. Miller]

It seems you don't read your own polls any better than you read your posts. Clearly, the majority (of a miniscule sample) do contact print. What poll were you looking at?

Percentage who contact print: 42.65%
Percentage who make enlargements: 57.35%

Since you always go on about reading, I thought that you could do a bit of math as well. 57% is clearly a marjority.


It doesn't mater, for the purposes of my point, why people don't make large prints, my point is that VC's arguments all fall apart when very large prints are taken out of the equation.

If you ignore and rewrite at will, then of course your points are always correct.

[Jay DeFehr]

Marko,

I agree, mostly. I suspect my estimation of the differences between film and digital is more radical than yours. I think using digital to skin the same rabbit film does is missing a major opportunity, and misunderstands the magnitude and nature of the differences between the technologies. Digital imaging, and the digital age are forcing a redefinition of the terms, photograph, and photography, and within a generation the fact that film photography and digital imaging could be used for similar ends will become a quaint coincidence.

Brian,

You're right, I didn't look closely enough at your graph, but I still think you overestimate the data. Almost half of your tiny sample only contact print, while the slight majority also occasionally enlarge, with very few indeed enlarging significantly, a point you seem to support in your theory about why people don't make or buy large prints. As for ignoring or rewriting, I was simply trying to steer the discussion back on course. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make by your theory of why people don't make or buy large prints. If you care to elaborate on why you think market conditions affecting the size of prints consumers buy affects the future of film, I'm ready to consider your point of view. The reasons you gave to explain why people don't buy or make large prints seem reasonable enough to me, I'm just not sure how you mean for your point to be read into the discussion.

[Marko]

Marko,

I agree, mostly. I suspect my estimation of the differences between film and digital is more radical than yours. I think using digital to skin the same rabbit film does is missing a major opportunity, and misunderstands the magnitude and nature of the differences between the technologies. Digital imaging, and the digital age are forcing a redefinition of the terms, photograph, and photography, and within a generation the fact that film photography and digital imaging could be used for similar ends will become a quaint coincidence.

Well, that's where we disagree then. Respectfully, of course. :)

Photography is essentially recording or capturing an image on a medium sensitive to light. Same camera, same lens, same light, same physics. Only the light sensitive medium changes. And it is not the first time in the history of photography either. The resulting image is a photograph.

There is simply no need to redefine anything, except maybe the term darkroom itself, and not even that if one chooses to print alternatively, using digital negatives.

[Jay DeFehr]

Marko,

I enjoy our discussions as much when we disagree as when we agree. I agree with all your points about how film photography and digital imaging are alike, but I think you're missing the essential difference, one which is historically unprecedented. Digital imaging liberates image information from a physical media, so in this sense, the physics are emphatically not the same. The implications of this liberation are both so common we don't give them a second thought when we upload an image, or email one, or send a photo from our phones to another phone, etc., and also so far reaching we've just begun to explore them. The artistic implications represent a line of demarcation separating film from the future of imaging. Any image made with film alone (no digitization) will exist forever on one side of that line, regardless of the content. Film photography and print making belong to a tradition that does not, and will not make the transition to the digital age, and will always be seen as a part of the past, and not a part of the present, let alone the future. Hybrid workflows are transitional, and as such, occupy a unique place in the history of the medium. If I was a collector, or investor, I'd be looking for the best examples of a hybrid film/digital workflow. I would ignore nostalgic, sentimental work, and look for forward looking, innovative uses of the bridging techniques, and bold, imaginative themes that represent a break from tradition.

[Genevieve Ness]

But the main problem I have with your essay is the notion that digital photos don't have lasting value. You defended that statement by noting that in your experience, no digital photos had moved you in the way many film photos had. Maybe that is true for me also. But those film photos have about a 150-year head start. Give the digital photos a chance to catch up. The notion that digital is incapable of such value can and will be refuted by one genius.


Actually, that really was my point. They haven't moved me... yet. I meant it to be open ended. It is a new, separate medium. Part of it is my own experience, and knowing what goes into a fine print, and what goes into digital manipulation. It isn't exactly that the more you put into something the more you get out of it, as I like decisive moment photography and impressionistic painting has merit. Actually, I think I was wrong about no digital images moving me yet. My son had an I-spy picture book, which started as photographed sets. I don't know if the original images were digital or scanned film, but the end image is mostly hand drawn or painted in photoshop. I highly suspect scanned large format film, given the miniature sets and level of detail. The images weren't photographed then "photoshopped," but as a whole illustrations where hand drawn with the sets and photographs being integral to the whole process. Beautifully done- not a painterly effect superimposed on an image, but images intentionally and naturally used to construct a painting or illustration. The final images have a strong foundation in conventional drawing and illustration. The artist could draw well and shoot well separately; it takes both skills for digital manipulation. Can unmanipulated digital images be moving? Or what does it take for them to be moving? As in stare for long lengths of time and come back to time and time again? I'll leave that as the next open question....

As far as storage and work flow issues, it depends a lot on the type of user, and from a low end consumer point of view, which is the largest market share, especially from the point of view of mothers with children, who are probably the largest share of that market, digital has it's uses and it's conveniences, but it can also be a huge pain in the patooey. Moms take images with the end goal of a physical, in your hands album that they can pass on to their kids. When junior goes off to college or gets married, are you going to present them with a removeable storage device, or an online link, and say, "here are are our memories?"
The increased volume of digital means that you are sorting through thousands of pictures, rather than dozens or for the same given time frame, plus you are constantly waiting for the computer to process each image. Managing the photos and sorting and grading them digitally, the picking and choosing- from a low end consumer point of view- is a clunky process. Let's say I have a box of five years worth of unsorted photographs in envelopes by roll, and you have and identical digital pile of five years worth of unsorted, unflagged images, filed only by date. I'll pick and sort the best of mine and put then into a simple physical pocketed albums, while you pick and chose the best of yours using an online album printing site, using a typical momma-slow computer. Wanna take bets who gets done first? Or who enjoys it the most? Or who has a headache from screen glare?

While film will never come back completely for primary use for low-end primary consumers, it does have some rebound use for consumers burned out by digital management. I know more than one mom who own top of the (consumer) line DSLRs but primarily use disposable fixed focus plastic lens film cameras.

Also, as much as mommas and daddies love taking, looking and sharing pictures of our loved ones, for women, it is still on some level work, and not entirely a hobby. We are socially obligated to produce it. It is part of the interconnecting process with our friends and family, and part of our responsibilities as parents to our children, to produce the family photo album. Digital social networking has increased this obligation. Which provides an opportunity for film. Digital is working photography, film is is now free to be fun photography. Sometimes girls just wanna have fun, just want something they can take, drop off, pick up without a lot of further obligations. Photographically speaking only. Or alternatively, something that they can really get their hands wet with, producing work entirely for themselves. Again, photographically speaking only.

[Marko]

Marko,

I enjoy our discussions as much when we disagree as when we agree. I agree with all your points about how film photography and digital imaging are alike, but I think you're missing the essential difference, one which is historically unprecedented. Digital imaging liberates image information from a physical media, so in this sense, the physics are emphatically not the same.

Every true change, be it in society or in technology, has to be unprecedented or else it isn't really a change. Photography itself was unprecedented when it first appeared.

But I am not talking about digital imaging, I am talking about photography, regardless of the light sensitive medium in the back of the camera. The separation of the image and the media figures only after the image - the photograph - has already been captured. And it is being captured using the same light following the same laws of physics projected through the same optics. It's only the capturing medium that's different. While some cosmetic differences may exist between film and digital versions of small and medium format cameras, a delicious irony is that even the camera is literally the same in the case of LF.

How can then the difference be fundamental when everything is the same except the medium?


Film photography and print making belong to a tradition that does not, and will not make the transition to the digital age, and will always be seen as a part of the past, and not a part of the present, let alone the future. Hybrid workflows are transitional, and as such, occupy a unique place in the history of the medium. If I was a collector, or investor, I'd be looking for the best examples of a hybrid film/digital workflow. I would ignore nostalgic, sentimental work, and look for forward looking, innovative uses of the bridging techniques, and bold, imaginative themes that represent a break from tradition.

This is another fundamental difference in the ways we approach the issue. I tend to agree most closely on that level with HCB in that "once the image is in the box" as he put it, the photograph already exists, everything else is just a matter of presentation. A photograph itself is essentially information which lends itself well to the abstraction of separation from physical media.

Print is the exact opposite, it can only exist as a material object, but that's because it is a fixed physical interpretation of a photograph. A photograph can exist in many different interpretations and still be a photograph precisely because that separation. This was in some instances the case even before digital.

[Jay DeFehr]

Hello Marko,

I'm enjoying this discussion very much. I mentioned that the advent of digital imaging is unprecedented in reply to your suggestion that the light sensitive media was the only change from film photography, and that there have been similar changes before. I think you trivialize what I consider to be a more important development, in evolutionary terms, than the development of writing.

You also wrote there is no need to redefine anything, but your definition of the term photograph seems to differ from the popular one. I'd be interested to know your definition, and what you think HCB might have understood a photograph to be. Do you consider a latent image on unprocessed film a photograph? If you agree with me that what is essential to an image is the information that defines it, we agree on much. Until the advent of digital imaging, image information was inextricably bound to a physical media. Even a latent image exists within the physical boundary of the film's emulsion. The same is not true of digital image information, and this fact has profound implications. A negative, or a print is an artifact. A digital file is not. This distinction represents an evolutionary leap.

[Marko]

Hello Marko,

I'm enjoying this discussion very much. I mentioned that the advent of digital imaging is unprecedented in reply to your suggestion that the light sensitive media was the only change from film photography, and that there have been similar changes before. I think you trivialize what I consider to be a more important development, in evolutionary terms, than the development of writing.

Jay,

I enjoy this discussion too, although we may end up disagreeing on some fundamental differences. There were countless film/digital discussions before, there are several more going on right now on this board, but few of them are as civil as this one.

There are, in my view, two essential layers to this story. One is revolutionary and that is the advent of computers and information technology in general. It is revolutionary because nothing like it ever existed before and also because it brought with it a fundamental change across the entire human way of life, a change that is still going on. This is actually a change of eras, from Industrial to Informational.

There is nothing trivial about it and I think we can safely agree on this level.

The other layer is evolutionary because it forces existing types of human endeavors to transform - evolve - by adopting new methods brought by the general revolutionary change. Or to go extinct if they cannot adopt or become unnecessary.

What I am saying and where we really seem to disagree is that I consider the art separate from the craft. Photography itself is art, just like painting and drawing. Individual methods are craft. Daguerreotype, Film, Gravure, Digital... they are all individual methods, therefore crafts. In other words, the art still exists after the revolution, it's the craft of it that changed - evolved - through the inclusion of a new technology for achieving the same end.

The crucial point to consider here, the one I keep brining up, is that the essential method, the one that makes photography what it is and which sets it apart from other arts, has not changed.


You also wrote there is no need to redefine anything, but your definition of the term photograph seems to differ from the popular one. I'd be interested to know your definition, and what you think HCB might have understood a photograph to be.

In a nutshell and as I stated before, I understand photography as the capture of the image using light projected through an optical system to a light sensitive surface. It is an image created by light itself and not an image created by human hand. This was equally true of photography before the advent of digital technology as it is now. Digital is just one of many available photographic crafts. The newest and most capable one for sure, but it does not define photography itself in any significant way. I really am not all that concerned about the popular definition, but I don't see how this differs from it either.

The way HCB understood this according to his own words, the creation of a photograph happens in the camera, at the moment of capture. He wrote a lot about it and he was a true poet of this art who glorified the composition and the moment. He also had a rather clear condescension for the material part. Here are some of his quotes:


Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks.

Pictures, regardless of how they are created and recreated, are intended to be looked at. This brings to the forefront not the technology of imaging, which of course is important, but rather what we might call the eyenology (seeing).

Photography has not changed since its origin except in its technical aspects, which for me are not important.

- Henri Cartier-Bresson


Do you consider a latent image on unprocessed film a photograph? If you agree with me that what is essential to an image is the information that defines it, we agree on much. Until the advent of digital imaging, image information was inextricably bound to a physical media. Even a latent image exists within the physical boundary of the film's emulsion. The same is not true of digital image information, and this fact has profound implications. A negative, or a print is an artifact. A digital file is not. This distinction represents an evolutionary leap.

Well, yes - evolutionary leap it is, but not revolutionary. Information is all the image is about, each worth a thousand words or so the saying goes, the rest is just craft. Craft will change in the future as it changed in the past, but what will remain is art.

[Jay DeFehr]

Hi Marko,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and well reasoned arguments. There is always a bit of semantics to work through in any discussion of ideas, and this is true here. I see only evolution, and no revolution. All processes are subject to the forces of evolution, but revolution is a political mechanism. I think we can agree that the digital age represents an evolutionary leap, and that not every technology will make the transition. Film is not fit for survival in a digital environment, but this is a separate issue, and not really debatable.

I'd like to address your more interesting points; the primacy of the capture, and the separation of art and craft. For physical photographers, image information is always bound to a physical media, and it's manipulation limited by that media, and the others that follow in the process of becoming a viewable image. The physical media is always a constraint to the manipulation of image information. This fact has important implications in the separation of art and craft.

One example of a physical media that could be said to make this separation is instant photography. After the moment of capture, the process is automatic. One can intervene, but intervention is not required. Is this art without craft? If so, is it in some way superior to art with craft?

As another example, consider the work of Jerry Uelsmann. Uelsmann's work depends on heavy manipulation of physical media. Is there no artistic value in these manipulations? Or, is the art precisely within these manipulations, and are not the individual captures subordinate to the combined whole?

You might have surmised by now that I find the argument for a separation of art and craft an important one. Craft can exist independently of art, but is the reverse also true? In the case of instant photography, isn't there craft in the preparation of the physical media? Even if the artist and craftsman are separated, the two are reconciled in the object. Is anything changed if the physical media was prepared by a robot? If the robot was built by men, and programmed by men for its task, it is simply an intermediary, and nothing is changed. But what if the robot evolved independently of men?

Let's go back to the original "capture"; that moment when we see something we'd like to isolate as an image. Is art present at that moment? Is craft? I think we can agree the following definition applies: the capture of the image using light projected through an optical system to a light sensitive surface. In what form does the image exist? According to your definition, we already have a photograph. Is there some important difference between HCB's "box" and our minds? If so, what is it? I would suggest the difference is externalization, and the myth of objectivity.

Photography distinguishes itself from painting and other arts by pretending objectivity, and elevating observation over imagination. When we paint, or draw, we can draw from observation, or imagination, or some combination of the two, using as the source image information stored in our minds; information collected, interpreted, manipulated, and transformed over time. If we think of the internet as an extension of our minds, and the image information stored there as the raw materials for our expression, I think we begin to see the implications of the information age for imaging. Not only is film unfit for survival in the digital environment, but so is photography as we've come to define it.

[Maris Rusis]

It has been very illuminating to follow the discourse between Marko and Jay DeFehr on the question of the identity of photography and whether this identity will be preserved in the future.

Marko's sharp observation, quote: I understand photography as the capture of the image using light projected through an optical system to a light sensitive surface. unquote, captures the question succinctly. Immediately I read this I was prompted to wonder why aren't all pictures photographs? Further reflection indicated that there are only four possibilities.

1. "A photograph is whatever I say it is." This was earnestly put to me by a very senior person at the National Gallery of Australia. The other three options are more interesting.
2. No pictures are photographs.
3. Some pictures are photographs and some are not.
4. All pictures are photographs.

The following intellectual ramble has led me to think option 3 is correct.

For thousands of years the basic workflow involved in making realistic pictures of things has, at its core, stayed the same.

The first step is to have illuminated subject matter.
Light from this subject matter is focussed as a real optical image on a megapixel sensor.
The megapixel sensor transduces the image into data that travels as electrical pulses up a cable.
The cable feeds the electrical pulses into a memory where they are temporarily stored.
The picture memory is sent to a processor where it may be edited, perhaps stitched with other picture files, and given the HDR treatment.
The resulting picture file is prepared for output via some sort of mark-making device which either places spots of paint or ink on a surface or glowing dots on a monitor screen.
This array of points forms the picture.

People familiar with digital picture-making will instantly recognise the separate roles of camera, computer, and printer/monitor in the short narrative above.

People familiar with painting and drawing will find the same narrative just as familiar. The lens and megapixel sensor are of course the artist's eye, the retina is the light sensitive transducer, the optic nerve is the cable and the signals it carries are the data. In addition the memory and processor are parts of a brain, and the mark-making device is usually the artists arm, hand, and brush.

Digital picture making is a remarkable technical achievement in that it severally mechanizes and automates the traditional work flow conducted by artists over the centuries. The insight that digital picture makers haven't grasped is that they are fully legitimate contemporaries of the grand artistic stream that includes Leonardo da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Vincent van Gogh, and hundreds of other super-stars of Western art! The other deadly insight is the implication that if we accept "photography as the capture of the image using light projected through an optical system to a light sensitive surface" then that describes the essential first component of the Mona Lisa. Leonardo's famous portrait is a photograph! And indeed, by carrying the argument forward, all pictures are photographs. This is an absurdity and we should put aside the premise that leads to it.

And then there is actual, not virtual, photography. I mean the art practiced by Louis Daguerre, Edward Weston, Ansel Adams, Diane Arbus, and millions of others great and not so great. Here there is the same illuminated subject, a lens, an image, and a sensor but that's where things stop. The sensor absorbs a physical sample of the subject, suffers chemical changes and becomes the picture itself. There is no transducer, no data, no memory file, no data processor, and no mark-making device that fabricates pictures by emptying a memory.

Digital picture making and photography are radically different things that become muddled with one another because the pictures they make can, on the surface, look similar. Some pictures are photographs and some are not and I think the distinction will always be unambiguously available to serious inquiry.

[Jay DeFehr]

Maris,

Thank you for joining the discussion with your insightful post. I'm enjoying this discussion very much, and learning a lot along the way.

I think you'll see by my previous post that we agree on many points already, but differences, too (what could be better?!).

Your question, "Why aren't all pictures photographs?", given Marko's definition, is a reasonable one, as your elaboration illustrates, but I think you left out one important category from your list of possibilities: The way we define photograph changes over time, which I think most closely resembles the first option on your list, and which I think is most correct. Sir John Herschel's definition at the bottom of your post would be most closely aligned with option 4, as described in your elaboration of the imaging sequence, and shouldn't be dismissed as an absurdity. Other definitions narrow the field, to one degree or another; there seems to be no clear consensus, but I think an important element enters the argument with your first point in the imaging sequence: The first step is to have illuminated subject matter. This is vital relative to point #4:The cable feeds the electrical pulses into a memory where they are temporarily stored. How temporarily? If we draw from memory, what is the source of the information? Is it the object (assuming there is one), or our interpretation of an object, or some fabrication independent of anything directly seen? There are important differences between our human optical systems and cameras, of any kind. We've been educated to compare ourselves with machines without emphasizing the differences. In other words, we're more interested in how we're like machines than how we're different from them. I think the Cartesian theater is dead as a concept, but lingers to muddle our thinking. There are no images in our minds, not in any form, there is only information.

I have to run, but thank you for the stimulating discussion, and I look forward to picking it up again soon.

[Brian C. Miller]

Maris, I think that's a nice ramble. I think that it's a bit stretched in places, though.

The word "picture," according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, pops up in use around the 15th century. "Middle English, from Latin pictura, from pictus, past participle of pingere to paint." So at one time, in the 14th century, there were no pictures. So "pictures" have only been with us for 600 years or so. Not that long, really. And according to your own signature, the first utterance of "photography" was in 1839.

Regardless of Alice in Wonderland games played by someone at the National Gallery of Australia, certain words only relate to certain things. A rabid dingo is not a photograph. That is completely verfiable by chaining said dingo to said very senior person, and analyzing the senior person's subsequent communication. Is it, "Could someone help me mount this photograph on the wall?" or is it "Help! Somebody get this f***ing dingo off of me!"

For a definition of photography, I'll go with your signature: "Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..."

Is digital imaging photography? I think that it is. I think that it certaintly does fill the definition of "the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation" quite well.

What is the essential difference of digital and chemical photography? Digital is comprised of distinguishable blocks arranged side by side in a uniform grid. That's how digital sensors are manufactured and operate. Chemical photography is comprised of a light-sensitive chemical compound suspended in a gelatin substance. The silver particles give us the grain structure. We even decide whether or not we like how the individual grains look. Who would have ever thought of it? A beauty contest for little teeny tiny bits of silver.

The hope for the medium is how it is used, and also how it inspires. Aside from motion pictures, how is film used by the consumer? The toy camera crowd enjoys film for its own sake. While I'm sure that somebody could make a Holga plugin for Photoshop or Gimp, it's not the same as actually going out with and having some fun with it. People like something that is tactile, which is why they like to touch highly polished cars, much to the owner's dismay (I'm told that the fingerprints are difficult to remove).

We use large format because we like the results. It is as simple as that. The results are worth it. "Why do you use large format?" "Why did you run for president?" This is the same reason used by anyone who gets off their duff and does something: the result is worth it.

[rdenney]

We have indeed discussed this many times, and in those discussions, I have learned a way to articulate what has always been apparent to me, even before the advent of digital technologies. And that is this: What makes a picture photographic is the physical connection between the subject and the image. That is inherent in Marko's definition--the image is made by the action of light--and that action constitutes the physical connection. The official word for this connection is "indexical", which was a new word to me just a year ago.

A painting may be so realistic that it is indistinguishable from a photographic print. But it is still a painting, because it was made by the artist's application of paint, as directed by his memory and imagination, rather than by the action of light emanating directly from the subject. A painting is not indexical--nothing that went into the painting, including the painter, actually had to be present at the scene being depicted.

I like the definition of "photograph" in the Collins Children's Dictionary (as of about 10 years ago when I ran across it): "A photograph is a picture made using a camera." What an elegant and simple definition! It establishes the primacy of the indexical relationship, encompasses everything within Marko's more established definition, and defines what it is about a photograph that makes it photographic. It even handles subtleties, like the difference between a photograph and a photogram, which the more established definition that Marko has quoted does not do. As a definition, it is utterly unconcerned with how that picture is recorded, stored and reproduced, as long as the picture is made using a camera. That makes it similar to a definition of a painting that might read: "A picture made by applying paint to a surface." A watercolor painting is far more different from an oil painting than a digital photograph is from a film photograph, yet both are still paintings.

And I think this is the definition that nearly all non-photographers understand. Show any average person a print made from a digital camera, and they will insist that it is a photograph. Show them a print made from film, and they will insist likewise.

(The indexicality of photographs makes them unique. Paintings are not indexical, and therefore cannot be defined using the same mode of definition as a photograph. A photograph only needs a camera and a resulting picture, while a painting needs paints and a surface. A photograph is still a photograph without being applied to a surface, and it is the only visual medium of art that has that quality. That's what we have been calling the latent image, of course.)

It gives us a way to add a category to Maris's list, too. And that is a picture that is partially but not completely photographic. Uelsmann's work is example. Everything you see on his print was made using a camera, so it is photographic. But it was arranged in the darkroom in ways not directed by the camera, and that aspect of his images is not photographic. But the bulk of it is so photographic that nobody is confused when we call it such.

And digital photographs that have been manipulated by moving one bit of photographic image to another part of that picture (or to a different picture) is a non-photographic manipulation of a photograph. It is photographic to the extent and for the same reason that Uelsmann's work is photographic. Everything you see maintains the indexical relationship to the subject, except the way elements of the subject are arranged in the display of the picture. Again, few would be confused by calling it a photograph, though such practice would not be acceptable in some applications of photography, e.g. journalism. (This is no problem--language can also be used to express fiction even though fiction is unacceptable in certain applications of language, again including journalism.)

Nearly all prints have non-indexical elements. We dodge and burn in, which are actions of our hands that are not indexical. Those are therefore non-photographic manipulations of a photograph. But the print is still so overwhelmingly photographic that nobody is confused or misled by that label.

And the picture may be displayed on a computer screen, a sheet of plastic, a sheet of paper, or by direct electronic implantation in our brains, and it will still maintain the indexical relationship to the subject that makes it photographic.

In the end, neither film nor digital recording and storage media have special claim to being photographic, which is no end of annoying to proponents of one or the other. But that doesn't stop those proponents from making those claims. And that is no end of annoying to others, so the discussions usually spiral out of control. If we could all agree that what makes a picture photographic is the part that is made indexical by the presence of the camera at the scene, we could be more clear-headed about discussing what is and is not photographic in any given picture.

Film photography will appeal to some practitioners of photography for the same reason that some painters mix their own paints using vegetable dyes. It has the look that expresses their visualization and artistic intent.

Rick "a Philistine who spent the day at an art show and (horrors!) didn't mind the paintings made using inorganic-dye paints" Denney

[Mike Anderson]

I like the definition of "photograph" in the Collins Children's Dictionary (as of about 10 years ago when I ran across it): "A photograph is a picture made using a camera."

Exactly! And the definition of camera: "A device used to make photographs".

There's elegance in simplicity and circularity.

...Mike

[rdenney]

Exactly! And the definition of camera: "A device used to make photographs".

There's elegance in simplicity and circularity.

...Mike

I'm sure that's why most adult dictionaries use a more detailed definition. But I bring up the Collins Children's Dictionary to illustrate what's important in the word "photograph" from what is not, in terms of what most people think the word means.

Rick "not particularly concerned about circularity because a camera can be held in one's hands and therefore does not require a definition for most people" Denney

[Marko]

As another example, consider the work of Jerry Uelsmann. Uelsmann's work depends on heavy manipulation of physical media. Is there no artistic value in these manipulations? Or, is the art precisely within these manipulations, and are not the individual captures subordinate to the combined whole?

[...]

Let's go back to the original "capture"; that moment when we see something we'd like to isolate as an image. Is art present at that moment? Is craft? I think we can agree the following definition applies: the capture of the image using light projected through an optical system to a light sensitive surface. In what form does the image exist? According to your definition, we already have a photograph. Is there some important difference between HCB's "box" and our minds? If so, what is it? I would suggest the difference is externalization, and the myth of objectivity.


Marko's sharp observation, quote: I understand photography as the capture of the image using light projected through an optical system to a light sensitive surface. unquote, captures the question succinctly. Immediately I read this I was prompted to wonder why aren't all pictures photographs?

[...]

The insight that digital picture makers haven't grasped is that they are fully legitimate contemporaries of the grand artistic stream that includes Leonardo da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Vincent van Gogh, and hundreds of other super-stars of Western art! The other deadly insight is the implication that if we accept "photography as the capture of the image using light projected through an optical system to a light sensitive surface" then that describes the essential first component of the Mona Lisa. Leonardo's famous portrait is a photograph! And indeed, by carrying the argument forward, all pictures are photographs. This is an absurdity and we should put aside the premise that leads to it.

Jay and Maris,

You both raise very interesting questions and in the process also raise the level of this particular discussion. Thank you for that.

Since Rick has already articulated the indexical connection between the light and the image and did it far better than I could hope to, all that remains for me to do now is to point out one significant detail and answer all the questions quoted above.

Maris has only partially quoted me and in the process omitted a crucial part that sums up my entire approach. Here is the full quote, with the omitted part bolded for emphasis:


I understand photography as the capture of the image using light projected through an optical system to a light sensitive surface. It is an image created by light itself and not an image created by human hand.

Categorizing Mona Lisa as a photograph is such an absurdity precisely because the portrait was created by the hand of artist and not by light. In other words, there is no indexical connection between the light and the final picture and even if there were one, it would have been broken by the hand of the artist.

This same lack of indexical connection between the light and the latent image as well as the (figurative) hand of the artist is also that crucial difference between an image in "HCB's box" and an image in our minds.

As for Uelsmann, he's been used as an example by both anti- and pro-digital crowd. In my view, that's because he is such a perfect example of the "hand of artist" criteria but neither side is quite willing to accept the full implications of it.

[Mike Anderson]

I'm sure that's why most adult dictionaries use a more detailed definition. But I bring up the Collins Children's Dictionary to illustrate what's important in the word "photograph" from what is not, in terms of what most people think the word means.

Rick "not particularly concerned about circularity because a camera can be held in one's hands and therefore does not require a definition for most people" Denney

I think "A photograph is a picture made using a camera." is a good definition. The "circularity" thing is kind of a dumb joke on my part.

...Mike

[Mike Anderson]

...
Nearly all prints have non-indexical elements. We dodge and burn in, which are actions of our hands that are not indexical. Those are therefore non-photographic manipulations of a photograph. But the print is still so overwhelmingly photographic that nobody is confused or misled by that label.
...

Interesting. And informative about "indexical".

Does "indexical" = "accurate"?

Consider Susan Burnstine's work (http://www.susanburnstine.com/), which I think is less indexical than other camera users. I don't know much about her process (wish I did) but for all I know it could be minimally manipulated in post processing and the lack of indexicality could be mostly due to inaccurate equipment (hand made lenses or whatever).

So she (and Holga types) are intensionally disabling accuracy by equipment choice. Are they being less indexical? (I'm not being rhetorical here, genuinely curious.)

When you pick your camera-lens-film one of the consequences of that decision is quality and amount of inaccuracy that will occur.

(I think I've answered my own question here, "indexical" isn't the same as "accurate", but I thinks there's some relation.)

...Mike

[rdenney]

Does "indexical" = "accurate"?

Accurate? Yes. Precise? No.

Accuracy is the correctness of the recorded image, and precision is the detail with which the image is recorded. If precision exceeds accuracy, then you see artifacts and noise, and those do not share the indexical link, it seems to me.

The indexical link implies an accurate physical connection from subject to image, in that the image is made by light from the subject. But the precision by which the tool projects that light varies. It does not matter if that precision is very low, as would be the case with an out-of-focus magnifying glass instead of a good lens. The image may be extremely imprecise--which means fuzzy--and still be completely accurate in terms of the indexical link, given that all that fuzzy image is still made wholly from the light that reached it from the subject. Or perhaps we completely obscure the literal outline by our use of composition and shadow, so that one can't tell at all what is being photographed. Whatever there is in the image, however, was made by the light.

Some applications of photography have precision requirements (in addition to indexicality requirements), but those requirements do not, it seems to me, redefine the indexical link.

Rick "who, as an engineer, was trained to understand the difference between accuracy and precision" Denney

[Brian C. Miller]

Consider Susan Burnstine's work (http://www.susanburnstine.com/), which I think is less indexical than other camera users. I don't know much about her process (wish I did) but for all I know it could be minimally manipulated in post processing and the lack of indexicality could be mostly due to inaccurate equipment (hand made lenses or whatever).

So she (and Holga types) are intensionally disabling accuracy by equipment choice.

Susan Burnstine's statement:
For these series, I wanted to find a way to portray my dream-like visions entirely in-camera, rather than with post-processing manipulations. To achieve this, I created twenty-one hand-made film cameras and lenses that are frequently unpredictable and technically challenging. The cameras are primarily made out of plastic, vintage camera parts and random household objects and the single element lenses are molded out of plastic and rubber.

To appropriate the iPhone advertisement for LF purposes, "We have a lens for that."

Some of that is also technique. Remember Saving Private Ryan? Remember how they did the after-battle upwards glow? I thought that it had been done with a filter, so I wrote to the B+W people about it. I received a response, saying that it had been done by changing the shutter sync in the camera. So use a long shutter speed, and when it is about to close, move the camera to streak the highlights. We have a thread about home-made lenses. Some people used plastic magnifying glass lenses, with interesting results.

Susan built 21 cameras. All we need to do is make 21 lens boards, or filters, even.

So mark up another thing that can be done with film and can't be done with digital: make your own camera.

[Marko]

So mark up another thing that can be done with film and can't be done with digital: make your own camera.

Something like this (http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/tech/scanner.html)? Or this (http://golembewski.awardspace.com/)?

Or just make a regular LF camera and stick a Betterlight in it?

:)

[BetterSense]

Digital picture making and photography are radically different things that become muddled with one another because the pictures they make can, on the surface, look similar.

QFT.

What is it about an attribute of some thing that makes it a defining attribute of that thing? What attributes shall be considered defining, or at least important, attributes?

Whether or not somebody thinks that digital images are photographs betrays whether that person conceptualizes based on a shallow and superficial level (the two things are the same because they look the same) or on a fundamental/objectivist level.

[Jay DeFehr]

I'm so glad to see this discussion proceeding along such productive lines. Rick has introduced the qualification of indexicality to the definition of photograph, which allows us to disqualify some kinds of images, but falls short of being definitive in itself, and its validity is open to debate. As Rick has pointed out, a photogram is indexical, and meets all the requirements of the definition but one; the use of a camera. Rick and Marko also seem to agree that a latent image is a photograph. This represents an important leap of logic. By all the definitions given so far, if we can accept the definitions within the definitions of such things as cameras, pictures, etc., it seems photographs exist in our minds. Since our eyes are surely lenses focusing light on a sensor, the images formed must be indexical, the image information stored in our memory must be photographs, according to the definitions given. Only Maris' definition incorporates the output product.

Let's look more closely at Rick's and Marko's (and HCB's) definition of the latent image as a photograph, and the implications and consequences. If we can agree that a latent image on film is essentially similar to image information in code, we can do away with the necessity of a physical media. We're left with the following definition of photograph:Image information formed from projected light onto a sensor. This definition disqualifies images formed by a camera without a sensor, such as a camera obscura, and a sensor without a camera, such as a photogram, but there is still the problem of perception. Using Rick's criteria of popular recognition, I think we can agree few people would recognize a latent image on film, or code in memory as a photograph, and the above definition does nothing to remove photographs from our minds. I suggest the missing term in our definition is expression. A latent image is not an image, or a photograph, but merely a potential image, the same way DNA is not a person. Without some form of expression, image information, indexical though it may be, is imperceptible, and not graphic. In other words, an invisible photograph is not a photograph.

Are photographs necessarily indexical? In the case of film photography, the negative is indexically linked to the scene, but the print is only an index for the negative, not the scene. The photograph refers to the scene through the intermediary of the negative, so it is a referential index, at best. If I place my hand in a photocopy machine and press the button, I make a photograph, by all of the definitions given above. If I place that photograph back on the bed of the copier and press the button again, have I made another photograph? If so, how is it different from the first? If not, why not? Indexicality is an unworkable qualification for a photograph, as it would disqualify every photograph made with an intermediary step in the process.

Are combined images photographs? Rick's treatment of Uelsmann's work reveals some serious problems in his theory:


...a picture that is partially but not completely photographic. Uelsmann's work is example. Everything you see on his print was made using a camera, so it is photographic. But it was arranged in the darkroom in ways not directed by the camera, and that aspect of his images is not photographic. But the bulk of it is so photographic that nobody is confused when we call it such.

Uelsman's work can not be called indexical, by even the broadest interpretation of the term, which Rick almost acknowledges, but he's still content to call it a (partial) photograph, and suggest nobody is confused by this. I disagree. I think lots of people are confused. Rick wants to claim that a photograph is anything people recognize as such, but there are serious problems with that line of thinking; it contradicts his claim that a latent image is a photograph, and it ignores several other obvious problems; most people would not identify a negative as a photograph, many people would identify a photogram as a photograph, etc., etc.

Are we any closer to a definition of photograph? I don't accept the indexical argument, or the latent image as photograph argument on the grounds of self contradiction and the requirement that a photograph must be visible. I think the children's definition comes closest, but I would substitute image for picture, and add the requirement of a sensor. A photograph is an image made from information collected by one or more cameras' sensors.

[rdenney]

...Using Rick's criteria of popular recognition, I think we can agree few people would recognize a latent image on film, or code in memory as a photograph, and the above definition does nothing to remove photographs from our minds. I suggest the missing term in our definition is expression....

Actually, I agree. But I don't think it requires an expression, but rather the ability to be expressed. And that's what makes it different from what we carry around in our memories, or from a camera obscura. My simple definition is "a picture made using a camera". What is a picture? Most people will think of it as an expession, so the need for the ability to be expressed is built in. Even if the image made using camera was implanted in our brains, that would be an expression--it would be implanted, not imagined or remembered.

So, what makes the latent image a photograph is that it is a record that can be expressed. But the expression itself is not the photograph, at least not completely, though the ability to be expressed is a required feature.

I avoid any definitions that assume things that regular people don't assume, for the simple reason that the purpose of language is to communicate, not to justify one's philosophical perspective. If one wants to argue that a digital photograph lacks something important, then fine. But trying to reinforce that point by arguing that it is not a photograph takes them out of any meaningful conversation with regular people. But including in the definition any requirement for a negative is also a problem. When I project a slide, the projected image is a projection of a photograph, and anyone would call it a photograph. But it is ephemeral. The slide itself is the actual storage medium and can be directly viewed as a final expression, which a negative cannot. If the expression is built into the definition (rather than the abillity to be expressed), then a negative is not a photograph, because it is not a useful expression (at least for most people). That logic could lead to transparencies being the only bona-fide photographs, because that is the only photographic media that provides a final image on the same surface that was exposed to light. If we are to communicate, we must acknowledge a definition that does not get tangled up in all those intermediate processes, many of which non-photographers neither understand nor care about, and all of which are too narrow.

My use of common meaning does not eliminate the latent image. When a non-photographer looks at a print, they say it's a photograph. When they look at a picture on a computer monitor (a picture that was made using a camera), they say it's a photograph. When they look at a slide, they say it's a photograph. When they look at a picture in a magazine, they say it's a photograph, though they realize without confusion that it may be a reproduction of a photograph (though this is not required). They don't care how many generations exist in the process. They only care that it is a picture made using a camera. The existence of an indexical latent image is the only common element in those examples.

I'm happy to make a distinction between a photographic print and a print made using non-photographic means, though what is being printed is still a photograph.

Okay, so people are confused by Uelsmann's pictures. If they are, it's the introduction of non-indexical processes that creates that confusion. The greater the non-indexical content, the more difficult it is to describe meaningfully as a photograph.

When you substitute image for picture, you lose the expression, which you previously argued was necessary.

In music, the argument has been waged for far longer than in photography. What is the music? Is it the stuff written down on the page, or is it the sounds entering one's ears? The answer is...it is both. A sheet of musical notation is music--everyone calls it that and understands what it means even if that sheet is sitting mute on a shelf. It is music whether or not it is ever performed. There are musicians who can hear it in their heads just by looking at it (which is as close as I can get to that implantation). What they are hearing in their heads isn't coming from their ears, but from their own understanding of what they are seeing with their eyes, but it is music all the same, and it is the music on the page, not something they are imagining or remembering.

True, music is limp and lifeless without performance, and it is also true that a performance adds much that is not on the page. But that does not make what is on the page any less music. So, music is the latent sound. It must be able to be expressed, and that expression is necessary to full enjoyment, but it is music even before it is expressed. And we credit primarily the person who did the scribbling, not the person who performed it. If the New York Phil performs Beethoven, both get billing, but much of how it will be evaluated will hinge on how closely they channeled Beethoven's intentions from what was written, in accordance with how the listener thinks Beethoven should sound. So, Beethoven's instructions are as much the music as are the sounds bouncing around the Lincoln Center.

And it is true that music that is expressed using digital means lacks something that music expressed by live performers includes. But even though we may prefer not to hear the music fed into a MIDI sound generator, nobody would think doing so made it any less music. And, increasingly, the only way we can really know if what we are hearing is live or digitally generated is that the former has mistakes in it, assuming we are listening through speakers instead of listening to acoustic instruments acoustically. I'm a musician and I greatly prefer live music, but I don't argue for my preference by claiming that digitally generated music is not music.

Rick "thinking simple definitions based on simple meanings are often more robust under scrutiny than committee-style complex definitions" Denney

[BetterSense]

But I don't think it requires an expression, but rather the ability to be expressed. And that's what makes it different from what we carry around in our memories

Why? A picture we carry around in our memories can be "printed out" at will with a drawing implement. How is that different than a digital image stored in a computer memory? You are arguing that one of them is a photograph and the other is not (FTR, I think that neither is a photograph).

[rdenney]

Why? A picture we carry around in our memories can be "printed out" at will with a drawing implement. How is that different than a digital image stored in a computer memory? You are arguing that one of them is a photograph and the other is not (FTR, I think that neither is a photograph).

Because if the printing procedure requires 1.) human memory and 2.) drawing, it loses its indexical link.

A digital image stored in computer memory maintains the indexical link, unless you think the computer is constantly revising its memory on the basis of new experiences, or unless you think a printer attached to the computer unable to express that image without further interpretation (noting that imprecision is not necessarily reinterpretation).

Remember that you are starting with the assumption, based on your many statements in threads like these that clearly stem from your preferences, that a digital photograph is not a photograph, and then you are trying to create a definition that suits that outcome. That's fine, but recognize that you are speaking in code, and there are fewer and fewer people who will understand your code. As we have heard expressed many times by those who talk to gallery owners, museum curators, and regular people, the description of pictures made using a digital camera and printed on a device controlled by a computer as photographs is long-since accepted.

Rick "who always comes back to general understanding as a validation against speaking in code" Denney

[Marko]

Let's look more closely at Rick's and Marko's (and HCB's) definition of the latent image as a photograph, and the implications and consequences. If we can agree that a latent image on film is essentially similar to image information in code, we can do away with the necessity of a physical media. We're left with the following definition of photograph:Image information formed from projected light onto a sensor. This definition disqualifies images formed by a camera without a sensor, such as a camera obscura, and a sensor without a camera, such as a photogram, but there is still the problem of perception. Using Rick's criteria of popular recognition, I think we can agree few people would recognize a latent image on film, or code in memory as a photograph, and the above definition does nothing to remove photographs from our minds. I suggest the missing term in our definition is expression. A latent image is not an image, or a photograph, but merely a potential image, the same way DNA is not a person. Without some form of expression, image information, indexical though it may be, is imperceptible, and not graphic. In other words, an invisible photograph is not a photograph.

Are photographs necessarily indexical? In the case of film photography, the negative is indexically linked to the scene, but the print is only an index for the negative, not the scene. The photograph refers to the scene through the intermediary of the negative, so it is a referential index, at best.

Let me begin by a couple of qualifications: I believe photographs are indexical and I also believe that a latent images are indeed photographs.

Beginning with the latter, latent images are photographs because they contain all the information about a scene in a particular slice of time as recorded by the light bouncing off the scene itself, transmitted to and focused on the light sensitive surface by the optical system of a camera. Incidentally, this also makes them indexical in the most direct sense of that word.

I say information because I believe that's what a photograph, any photograph, essentially is. Both latent film image and unprocessed RAW digital image contain all the information about the scene as well as indexical link to it. Everything else, be it a print, a projection or a screen image, is just a representation of that information and therefore also a photograph.

[Jay DeFehr]

Rick,

I appreciate your thoughtful comments, but I disagree on some important points. I think the indexical link is untenable, as you pointed out in your earlier post:


But including in the definition any requirement for a negative is also a problem. When I project a slide, the projected image is a projection of a photograph, and anyone would call it a photograph. But it is ephemeral. The slide itself is the actual storage medium and can be directly viewed as a final expression, which a negative cannot. If the expression is built into the definition (rather than the abillity to be expressed), then a negative is not a photograph, because it is not a useful expression (at least for most people). That logic could lead to transparencies being the only bona-fide photographs, because that is the only photographic media that provides a final image on the same surface that was exposed to light.

Whenever an intermediary is used between the capture and the expression, the indexical link is broken, if there ever was one, of which I remain unpersuaded. I am likewise unpersuaded by the argument that a latent image is a photograph in itself, rather than the potential source of one. Your musical analogy is telling in that the code, in the form of musical notation, is readable by a person, and therefore an expression in itself, something not shared by digital code or latent images.

I'm out the door again, but I want to thank you again for this very interesting discussion. I look forward to your reply, and hope to hear more from Marko and Maris, and others, as well.

[Mike Anderson]

Trying to nail down the definition of a "photograph" reminds me of trying to define "money". I have about $12 of the old fashioned definition of money (a ten, a one, some change). But I've probably got 2 or 3 times that in the bank. But "money in the bank" has become a well established, almost tangible thing with a solid comfortable number attached to it.

And then there's the recent concept of "on paper I'm worth..." (stocks, options, other complicated assets) which don't have a stable number but have some of the characteristics of "money".

So the definition of "photography" is hard but not as hard as "money", I think.

...Mike

[rdenney]

Whenever an intermediary is used between the capture and the expression, the indexical link is broken, if there ever was one, of which I remain unpersuaded. I am likewise unpersuaded by the argument that a latent image is a photograph in itself, rather than the potential source of one. Your musical analogy is telling in that the code, in the form of musical notation, is readable by a person, and therefore an expression in itself, something not shared by digital code or latent images.

A photographer might read a negative and understand what he sees, too, but that's only because he has the expertise to connect what he is looking at with how it might look when it is expressed. That requires specialist experience and understanding, and is thus identical to a musician being able to hear music in his head by reading notation. But let's say that the music, instead of being notated, is stored in a digital file as a series of MIDI sequencing commands (okay, let's print those commands out on a sheet of paper to avoid the complaint that nobody can directly read bits and bytes). Nobody would be able to interpret those at sight sufficiently to hear it in their heads, but they define the music every bit as clearly and unambiguously as conventional notation (software exists that will translate MIDI sequences into notation and vice versa). Being able to be read in the intermediate step by an expert is not a part of my definition, but rather proof that some intermediate steps fully define the elements of the art that make it what it is even before it is "expressed".

I don't see how the indexical link in a photograph is broken by the use of a negative. Light comes from the subject, arrives at a recording surface, is recorded, and then is stored. That stored information is used directly to express that picture in some tangible way. When I lay a negative down on a sheet of print paper and make a contact print, I am adding nearly nothing that wasn't created by light emanating from the subject and recorded by the camera. I'm not painting or drawing the outlines--those edges were made by the light at the scene. The indexical link is maintained. When I dodge and burn in, then I'm adding non-photographic elements. As we alter the image with non-indexical input, we make it less photographic, but most people would agree that it would take significant additions of non-indexical content to undermine the term used to describe the result. But the only things that can challenge the use of those terms is the addition of significant non-indexical information.

Everything we do does add some non-indexical content, to be sure, unless we are viewing a transparency. Using a developer that adds acutance by the edge effects it creates is adding more definition than was made by the light at the scene. The edge effect is a gradient of tone that was not present in the scene. I have seen some images where this effect was so pronounced that it lost reality, yet photographers have no trouble calling the result photographic. So, we end up canonizing a list of methods that are considered acceptable, while delivering opprobrium on another list of methods, many of which preserve indexicality to a greater extent than those approved methods. Often when I have explored the arguments made by those who accept this method and reject that one, however, I find them drawing lines based on what they do and like rather than on any rigorous consideration of what in the image was made by the light and what was made by some subsequent process or input.

If we define "photograph" as only the expression, then we really do break the indexical link, and we leave ourselves without any way to determine what in the expression is photographic. Some, though, seem troubled that one term can be used in reference to the latent image as well as the displayed expression, but in fact even regular people have no trouble with this at all. Even non-photographers often make comments such as, "Whew! I got that photo!" within a second after releasing the shutter at what they deem was just the right instant. What can that be if not a direct reference to the latent image? There has been no expression at the time they say that. Yet they have to express it in some fashion before they can show it to someone else, and they call that expression a photo, too. But if regular people (and museum curators, gallery owners, etc.) are referring to a print as a print, they call it a print. The little placard next to the print on the gallery wall will read "Gelatin silver print". The sign above that wing of the gallery will say, "Photographs", indicating that when they are referring to the picture itself, they use the word "photograph", even if they are pointing to a print when they do so. It's the stuff that had the indexical link--the stuff that can be described as a picture made with a camera--that people call "photograph".

The magazine photo is a case in point. Most people will see a photo that is displayed in a magazine, and say, "Look at that neat photo." They already know it's a magazine reproduction, but what that are referring to is the part of the image that has maintained the indexical link. If they cut it out, frame it, and hang it on their wall, they'll continue to call it a photo. But they'll know not to call it a photographic print. "No, it's not a real photo, it's a magazine reproduction of a photo that I thought was neat, so I framed it. I can't afford a real print." When people buy a poster of a painting and frame it for their walls, they know it's a poster and they'll call it a poster. But they still might say, "I love that painting." Regular people get this distinction; it's us who are confused, and I think because we try to outsmart ourselves.

(I explained this once before to someone--I don't recall who--who defended vigorously the notion that only a print could be a photograph. After that discussion, that person seemed to more carefully use the word "photograph" to describe their prints, and frankly it rang wrong in my ears as being rigorous about using a word differently than the way most people use it. Gelatin silver photograph? I've never seen that on a gallery wall. I noticed it for a week or so and then forgot about it, but it comes back to my mind now as an example of how we can wind ourselves around the axle because of the outcome we want to achieve.)

I have been talking about photographs my whole life, but I have never had a non-photographer demonstrate confusion about what was and was not a photograph, unless the picture contained obvious non-indexical elements. If the advent of digital photography has affected that, then I have not noticed it. Only photographers get wrapped around the axle about these issues. That's why I unwind back to what is commonly understood--it keeps us from redefining ourselves into confusion, or using definitions to invalidate those who use methods we don't like.

Rick "thinking that when you take the latent image out of the photo, you have nothing left" Denney

[BetterSense]

I have been talking about photographs my whole life, but I have never had a non-photographer demonstrate confusion about what was and was not a photograph, unless the picture contained obvious non-indexical elements.

And so we should let non-photographers decide this for us?

Only in photography do the cognoscenti defer to the lay. No wonder people have wondered whether to call photography "art" throughout its history.

[Marko]

Please let's not destroy this discussion with the (supposedly) witty but meaningless little soundbites! There's plenty of other, more usual threads on the same topic going on...

[rdenney]

And so we should let non-photographers decide this for us?

Only in photography do the cognoscenti defer to the lay. No wonder people have wondered whether to call photography "art" throughout its history.

Sorry, but that is not the case. Every time a cognoscenti has tried to control the words used to describe their art, they have become increasingly disengaged from the rest of the population. Just read back through the many threads on this forum laughing at the more egregious examples of artspeak.

Jargon is technical language that is used between experts for the sake of efficiency. Those who use jargon with non-experts end up talking only to themselves.

But even if we could educate the vast uncaring public in our narrow use of their words, it would still not be an improvement. Given that there is a way to define photography that is meaningful both for photographers and non-photographers, I find the motivations for such narrowing to be unrelated to communications efficiency between experts, as would be required to justify jargon, but rather to create cliques within photography. The normal way to qualify a general term for a specific case is to add a qualifier, not to require those who don't belong in the clique to find a new word.

Rick "a film photographer, and also a digital photographer" Denney

[Mike Anderson]

...A latent image is not an image, or a photograph, but merely a potential image....

On the other hand, if I take some pictures with a camera (and film, no less), have I not been "photographing"? Or have I just started the initial phase of "photographing"?

...Mike

[oneminoxfan]

As a novice photo buff, I enjoy the forums on LF because i see the conversations are making the art form much clearer . The articles ten years ago puts a good perspective in what is still available today and what future generations will have to choose from. . Keep on shooting.thanks

[cyrus]

Analog photography just as a certain mystique. For all the analog photographers who went digital, there are digital photographers who started to experiment with analog because they were drawn by that mystique.

[Brian C. Miller]

OK, let's see...

Original thread started in 2004, popped up again, resurrected this month by a new member who still has only posted one message, and apparently just for the sake of resurrecting this thread.

Ed Eubanks' premise was that by now everything should have settled out, and film should be rediscovered.

And we're discussing what is or is not, may or may not be, photography.

We have cameras, and we don't know WTF is a photograph???

SO WHAT IS THE HOPEFUL FUTURE OF FILM???

Ed's post, ever so long ago, may have well been written today. The premise is that there are more pixels than needed. We should be on a plateau now. Hasselblad hasn't yet come out with something better than the H4D-60 in 16 months. Has Hasselblad reached a plateau for a $40,000 camera? The Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III was introduced in 2008. Has Canon hit a plateau for a $7,000 camera?

I have talked to people who are discovering film, from only having previously shot digital. This is also the experience of others here. Film is holding its own where it has an absolute advantage. Film is being discovered in the toy camera venue. I'm sure that Vivian Maier's photographs are at least causing a bump in the used Rollei market.

Has film reached a plateau in its nose dive? I don't know. All I know that if it wasn't pouring outside, I'd go make some photographs.

[Marko]

And we're discussing what is or is not, may or may not be, photography.

We have cameras, and we don't know WTF is a photograph???

Of course we do, only some would prefer it were something different and are trying hard to wish it so...

Like the kids do with the monsters under the bed (http://www.wikihow.com/Eliminate-Monsters-Under-the-Bed)... or like that certain dude by the name of Nedd Ludd long ago did with the steam machine...

:D


Has film reached a plateau in its nose dive? I don't know. All I know that if it wasn't pouring outside, I'd go make some photographs.

You need to come on down to SoCal... It's 80 degrees outside, no cloud in site and I wish I were some place cold, like 50 degrees or so with lots of clouds or even fog. I'd give a month here for a day of great fog!

People are strange creatures, never happy with what they have and always wishing something impossible. That's probably why we are having this discussion, some bored with cold and clouds, others with heat and sun.

:)

[redrockcoulee]

Of course we do, only some would prefer it were something different and are trying hard to wish it so...

L

You need to come on down to SoCal... It's 80 degrees outside, no cloud in site and I wish I were some place cold, like 50 degrees or so with lots of clouds or even fog. I'd give a month here for a day of great fog!

People are strange creatures, never happy with what they have and always wishing something impossible. That's probably why we are having this discussion, some bored with cold and clouds, others with heat and sun.

:)

Come here in three months and we should warm up to your "cold"
temperature

[Jay DeFehr]

Gentlemen,

Thank you for giving me so much to think about. I wrote somewhere along the way that the information age requires a redefinition of the term, photograph, but I didn't anticipate the radical redefinition offered here by Rick and Marko. I have to admit I like the idea that pure information can be considered a photograph, but I'm not persuaded by the arguments for that definition.

There are two bones of contention, for me; that a latent image or a digital image file (source codes) are themselves photographs, and that photographs are strictly indexical. One example comes to mind that addresses both issues.

Rick argued that musical notation is recognized by the cognoscenti as music itself, and rejected my argument that it was different because a person can read the code. Rick suggested an alternative wherein the code was unreadable by a person, but readable by a device. It's a good argument. I was wrong about the human readability of the code being a factor, and I'm convinced the elements of musical notation are not music, for reasons I'll get to in a moment, but there is another implication of Rick's argument that relates to indexicality.

A photograph is said to be indexical because there is a physical link between the subject and the object (remember that the concept of indexicality is a linguistic/philosophical one); light reflected from the subject creates a chemical reaction within the object that forms the latent image. This is different from a painting because the light reflected from the subject forms an image in the mind of the painter. In both cases a process is required to make the image viewable outside the capture device. The cases differ most significantly in storage media. In the case of the latent image, the media itself becomes viewable by the development process. In the case of the painter, an output medium is required. The painter's process is identical to the digital imaging process, except that the painter is biological. If we substitute a lens/sensor/memory system for the painter's eyes/brain/mind, and a printer or viewing screen for his hand (as BetterSense suggested), there is no technical difference. So, I think a digital image is never strictly indexical, thought it can possess indexical qualities, and a physical photograph is only strictly indexical when the viewed object maintains its indexical link to the subject, as in the case of direct positives.

returning to the source code (latent image, digital code) as photograph argument, I remain unconvinced because I can think of no other example in which the source code is the thing expressed; DNA is not an organism, a blueprint is not a building, an alphabet is not a language, and the elements of musical notation (staff, notes, time signatures, etc.) are not music.

As for incorporating the perceptions of lay people into definitions, I find it an impossible proposition. That doesn't interfere with our understanding of the lay person's use of terminology, and we should understand what is meant when one refers to almost anything as a photo. I find Rick's problem with differentiating prints from photographs disingenuous. I think we all understand the hierarchical tree of image>photograph>print; all (photographic) prints are photographs, and all photographs are images.

I can't accept any definition of photograph that doesn't include a viewable image. There is no quality or characteristic of a photograph that is not visible.

Mike,

One engaged in the process of making photographs can be said to be photographing, but this remains in the context of a process.

To sum up:

1) a digital image is never strictly indexical, any more (or less) than a painting is, and neither is a photograph strictly indexical, except in the case of a direct positive (this is in accordance with Rick's definition: "The indexical link implies an accurate physical connection from subject to image, in that the image is made by light from the subject." In the case of a print made from a negative, the image has no physical connection to the light falling on the subject. A negative doesn't store light, only coded information. A painting can be as indexical as a digital image, because a person and a machine are theoretically interchangeable. My theory might be seen to imply that a digital image is not a photograph because it's not strictly indexical, but my theory also rules out prints made from negatives as strictly indexical, but they remain photographs. Instead, my theory should be understood to reject indexicality as a photographic requirement, and reduce it in stature to an incidental quality shared to differing degrees by different imaging processes.

2) A latent image on film or a digital image file are not photographs any more than any other kind of source code is the thing expressed by the code. Any definition of photograph must include a viewable image, because every quality and characteristic of a photograph is visible.

I look forward to your comments, and apologize if seem to have overlooked something important.

[Mike Anderson]

...
returning to the source code (latent image, digital code) as photograph argument, I remain unconvinced because I can think of no other example in which the source code is the thing expressed; DNA is not an organism, a blueprint is not a building, an alphabet is not a language, and the elements of musical notation (staff, notes, time signatures, etc.) are not music.
...


I disagree with this part. I think the genotype/phenotype relationship is completely different than the latent picture/realized picture relationship.

...Mike

[Jay DeFehr]

Mike,

Certainly there are differences, one being a complex process of cell division and the other a relatively simple chemical reaction, but what are the differences that relate to the analogy? The information for the phenotype is contained within the genotype, excluding environmental and developmental influences, and the same can be said for the latent image and the viewable image. What is your objection?

[BetterSense]

but my theory also rules out prints made from negatives as strictly indexical, but they remain photographs.

Prints from negatives ARE indexical; it's just that they are indexical to the negative, and not to any subject of the negative (if there is/was a "subject" of the negative)--at least not but through some stage of separation.

Both camera negatives and prints are negative images of their subjects. Both must be developed to be viewable. One may be on paper and one on film, but it's possible to shoot paper in-camera and to print to film.

In this sense (the only one I maintain), it's accurate to call both camera negatives and darkroom prints "photographs". It's just that when you make a photographic print, you happen to be standing inside the camera (darkroom) and photographing something that holds still (possibly, but not necessarily, another photograph).

[Mike Anderson]

Mike,

Certainly there are differences, one being a complex process of cell division and the other a relatively simple chemical reaction, but what are the differences that relate to the analogy? The information for the phenotype is contained within the genotype, excluding environmental and developmental influences, and the same can be said for the latent image and the viewable image. What is your objection?

I think the differences are really extreme. You can take something with a latent image (film) and dip it into the right liquid and you have an image that that can be experienced by people. The process of turning a tomato seed into a tomato plant is much different, both in practice and comprehension.

...Mike

[Marko]

Jay,

Thank you for a great discussion, even though we are ending up in disagreement. I have essentially said what I had to say, just a quick reply to two of your points:


... I didn't anticipate the radical redefinition offered here by Rick and Marko. I have to admit I like the idea that pure information can be considered a photograph, but I'm not persuaded by the arguments for that definition.

No agreement is necessary, :) although I don't believe that either of us redefined anything, in fact we picked the most neutral and conservative definitions of photography possible.

Speaking for myself, the information bit was not a part of definition, it was just my interpretation of it. I don't see anything radical in it either, at least not since several decades ago. If you stop and think about it, you will realize that a product of any intellectual activity is essentially information, be it writing, music, science or religion. There is nothing fundamentally different about photography that should set it apart.


In the case of the latent image, the media itself becomes viewable by the development process. In the case of the painter, an output medium is required. The painter's process is identical to the digital imaging process, except that the painter is biological. If we substitute a lens/sensor/memory system for the painter's eyes/brain/mind, and a printer or viewing screen for his hand (as BetterSense suggested), there is no technical difference.

I will disagree with this on a very fundamental level. Of course there is a technical difference, it is a difference between photography and painting.

One is an image created by light, the other by human brain/hand. A latent image, once captured, is literally frozen in the respective medium (film or digital), while human memory keeps changing over time with concurrent brain activity.

Frankly, I have a very hard time understanding on a rational level this insistence on drawing such a distinction between film and digital sensor while at the same time investing such an effort into equating digital sensor with human brain! It has nothing to do with the actual physics of either process and everything to do with certain ideology.

Which is fine if that is your basis for discussion, but then we are not really having a discussion, we are having two parallel monologues.

[sanking]

One is an image created by light, the other by human brain/hand. A latent image, once captured, is literally frozen in the respective medium (film or digital), while human memory keeps changing over time with concurrent brain activity.



I have made this point several times in my own writings about photography. The fundamental difference between photography and all other visual arts is that a photograph is a representation of something that once existed in nature, and it was captured and frozen as it then existed. This, above all else, is its unique characteristic compared to other visual arts. And there is no essential difference between film capture and digital capture on a sensor. It seems absurd to even debate the issue.

Sandy King

[Jay DeFehr]

Bettersense,

When I write "strictly indexical", I mean there is a physical link between the subject of the photograph, and the photograph itself. A negative can be a photograph; it's purely an artistic decision to present the subject as a negative instead of a positive, but when a print is made from a negative, the physical link between the subject of the photograph and the photograph itself is broken. In other words, I think we agree!

Mike,

I think you're confusing the specific processes with the relationships. I never claimed the process of cell division is similar to the process of converting silver halide to metallic silver. it's the relationship of DNA to organism I'm comparing to the relationship of latent image to viewable image. In both cases, the information for expression is contained within a code, but the code is not the thing expressed.

Marko,

There's nothing wrong with disagreement, but I wouldn't like it if our disagreement stemmed from a misunderstanding instead of us coming to different conclusions. I agree that every intellectual activity is essentially information, and I'll go even further and say that everything is essentially information, but information takes many forms, and these forms are not interchangeable. You can put a cat in the oven, but that doesn't make it a biscuit. I disagree with your assessment of your definition of photograph as being neutral or conservative, and challenge you to cite any other definition that doesn't include a visible image.

Regarding the differences between digital imaging and painting, I maintain the differences are superficial. Both systems are biomechanical, since a camera cannot act independently of an operator, and the eyes and brain of the photographer are part of his system as much as they are parts of the painter's system. In both systems the image is formed by light striking a sensor, being processed by image processing software, and made viewable by a mechanical process. There is no latent image in a digital sensor, just a code containing image information. A painter looking at an object updates his image information in real time, so there need be no memory. We know this is true because people who have suffered brain damage and can't form new memories can paint what they see in front of them. The fact that a painter can paint from memory or imagination does not mean he must do so.

My point in making these observations about film, digital, and painting is to challenge some fundamental assumptions about the similarities and differences among them, and has nothing to do with ideology. Nowhere have I argued for the superiority of any one over any other form. To insist there are no differences strikes me as delusional as insisting there are no similarities. Frankly, the argument for indexicality as the essential quality of a photograph doesn't bear up to scrutiny, and neither does the argument for a latent image being a photograph, instead of the source code for one. The argument that all the image information is contained in the source code is neither compelling nor accurate, and you've offered no reason or explanation for why the source code/thing expressed relationship in photography is different from every other example of that relationship.

I think we're having a discussion, since I've tried very hard to respond to all your points as best I can. If you've lost interest in this discussion, that's understandable, and I thank you very much for the most stimulating discussion I've had lately.

[rdenney]

Jay, I think Marko is right that we have two parallel monologues going. If I have not persuaded you at this point, I doubt I will ever be able to do so. And while I didn't think it was possible, I've been out-typed. We'll just have to leave it for readers to decide for themselves.

Rick "who has a camera, and therefore knows what a photograph is" Denney

[Marko]

Jay,

You keep referring to digital photography using the term digital imaging and then go on to equate it to painting. At the same time, you are telling me that I am being radical for defining photography as "the capture of the image using light projected through an optical system to a light sensitive surface" and photographs as "images created by light itself and not an image created by human hand".

These are not merely different conclusions, these are different premises. I did the best I could to offer my reasoning for it, and since it is obviously not good enough, we will have to agree to disagree at this point. I haven't lost interest in the discussion, I have simply run out of words (and free time).

This was still one of the most enjoyable attempts at discussing this particular issue, it made me put my best effort to date to articulate my thought on the subject and for that reason alone I consider it a great success.

[mdm]

You are mostly a muddy headed lot. Go here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotic_elements_and_classes_of_signs_%28Peirce%29#Classes_of_signs) and read up on what you are talking about. Then see where a photograph fits in the inverted pyramid in the screen shot below. Where does music fit, where does painting fit? Where does a machine readable file fit?

If this is the language you are speaking then a photograph fits in the bottom square, Group IV.

[Jay DeFehr]

Rick,

While you haven't persuaded me, you've made some truly excellent points and challenged my thinking on these topics. I still have some misgivings about inconsistencies in my own thinking, and I'm motivated to resolve them. This is far better, in my opinion, than polite agreement without challenging dialogue. Thank you for your participation and insights.

Marko,

I didn't mean to be provocative by using the term digital imaging, but to include some elements that might not be strictly defined as photography. The only part of your definition I find radical is the part that refers to a latent image as a photograph. If you define a photograph as an image, we have no disagreement, provided the image is visible. I never meant to suggest a painting is a photograph, just that it can be as indexical as a digital image. I'm sorry I didn't make that more clear.

In any case, it's been a very interesting discussion, and I thank you sincerely for your thoughtful participation.

[Jay DeFehr]

David,

I'm glad you were inspired to do a little web search, but we're way ahead of you. If you have an argument to make regarding the indexicality of various forms of photographs, I'm interested to hear it. A link to a description of semiotics is about as useful as a link to a description of photography. We know, we're discussing it, and you're welcome to join the discussion.

[Mike Anderson]

This was still one of the most enjoyable attempts at discussing this particular issue.

Agree.

....Mike

[Mike Anderson]

You are mostly a muddy headed lot...

I disagree.

...Mike

[Eric Leppanen]

Just to go back to the question of print size for a moment, the Photo LA show just wrapped up in my neck of the woods a few days ago. John Camp posted a show report on Mike Johnston's The Online Photographer blog. Here is an excerpt:

Photos have grown larger with the arrival of high-res printers. Where there were always a few photos printed large at photo shows, you now routinely see full-color photographs that are six feet long. In the case of Photo LA, I'd say they dominated the show. Inkjet prints are now the norm, in all but classic photos. There were some silver prints, etc., but the inkjets dominated.

The full blog post can be read here: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/01/a-note-from-photo-la.html

Of course, the interesting questions for us include whether large prints are truly a trend or a short-term fad (are they driven by customer demand or photographers in search of a high sales price), and what proportion of successfully sold large prints use film versus digital capture. I normally poll the latter when I visit the show, but I did not get to go this year.

[sanking]

Photos have grown larger with the arrival of high-res printers. Where there were always a few photos printed large at photo shows, you now routinely see full-color photographs that are six feet long. In the case of Photo LA, I'd say they dominated the show. Inkjet prints are now the norm, in all but classic photos. There were some silver prints, etc., but the inkjets dominated.



I am glad you pointed this out. Anyone who has attended exhibitions of photography over the past few years would have noticed that the average size of prints exhibited has increased a lot= due to digital inkjet printers. In the days of wet processing it was a fairly complicated operation to make a print of 40X50" in size and not many people did it. These days there are inkjet printers everywhere that will print up to forty or more inches wide, and making a print 40X50" takes no more energy than making a 16X20".

Where this will go in the future is anybody's guess but for now many of the folks who are collectors of fine art prints have huge houses with a lot of wall space and they need big prints to fill the space. I don't know how to react to this because making a carbon transfer print of over about 18X24" is a major undertaking for me, and yet many collectors consider that a very small size.

Sandy

[mdm]

David,

I'm glad you were inspired to do a little web search, but we're way ahead of you. If you have an argument to make regarding the indexicality of various forms of photographs, I'm interested to hear it. A link to a description of semiotics is about as useful as a link to a description of photography. We know, we're discussing it, and you're welcome to join the discussion.

I dont think so. You do not know what indexicality means. I may be out of my element, but at least I can read.

In any case, to me photography is not mathematical, I do not think of it in terms of logic. When I see a photograph I look at it as an expression of the photographers subconcious. And my looking is not objective.

Many many famous photographers claim that photography is purely objective but contradict their own beliefs with their actions, in the final analysis their photographs are highly subjective. So in my view if a photograph is indexical to anything, then it is the subconcious of the photographer, only it cant be indexical to something that does not exist in fact. So the whole idea of indexicality cant be used to understand a photograph. You are tilting at windmills.

I give as an example the f64 movement and its antecendants including Gursky, who claims that photograpy is not art, that the view of the camera is uncompromising, but all of their work in the end is subjective. Even Penn, with his singular vision and uncompromising standards. Contrast that with the other school who see the photographer as participant, such as Avedon, even Vivian Maier. For them a photograph is theatre.

However, if you take theory for what it is, then by definition a photograph is indexical, it relates to something in fact, even a Gursky with people and details photoshopped in. A painting is iconic. A machine readable image file is symbolic.

[mdm]

antecendants

Meant descendants.

[Jay DeFehr]

David,

I believe you don't think in terms of logic, but the rest of your post is self contradictory nonsense. You're in WAY over your head, and embarrassing yourself.

"..photography is not mathematical" = nonsense



"When I see a photograph I look at it as an expression of the photographers subconcious." Look at it any way you like, but I'd be willing to bet you wouldn't know how to begin to describe your process of looking.

"And my looking is not objective." = Obvious


"Many many famous photographers claim that photography is purely objective". Cite one.

"...photographs are highly subjective". Yes, we know. Welcome to the rest of the world.

"So in my view if a photograph is indexical to anything, then it is the subconcious of the photographer, only it cant be indexical to something that does not exist in fact. So the whole idea of indexicality cant be used to understand a photograph.". So, meaningless jabbering aside, you don't believe photographs are indexical. Care to explain why, or are you content to make unsupported and self contradictory statements?

..."I give as an example the f64 movement...". An example of what?

"However, if you take theory for what it is, then by definition a photograph is indexical, it relates to something in fact..". So, which is it? You can't have it both ways. And which theory are you referencing?

Why don't you do a little more wiki-reading, and get back to us when you've decided what you want to pretend to believe?

[mdm]

A photograph is indexical to its object because it related in fact. Try making a photograph of a moose in fiordland, hard if there are none to photograph. One can not make a photograph of something that does not exist. A Digital photo seen on the camera LCD or computer monitor is indexical to its object too. So is a photogram. This is clear if you read the definition of indexical.

A latent image and a digital file laying on your hard drive, are symbolic of their object. Nothing indexical involved.

The relationship of a painting to its object is iconic. Not indexical. A digital photograph is not iconic because it is related to its object in fact. One can not make a digital photograph of something that does not exist or a moment that has already passed.

A photograph by definition, is indexical to its object. A physical connection is not required. The name Jay is indexical to its object.

In the purest sense of the word, a photograph is indexical to its object. No argument whatsoever. To me there is much more to a photograph than its relationship with its object. I realise what interests me is the interpretent. What the sign means, the effect that it has. That is how I can integrate my view with this theory. There is nothing contradictary about that. Thank you, a little reading here and there broadens the mind.

[Jay DeFehr]

David,

I'm glad you're broadening your mind with a little reading, and I regret your participation in this discussion has taken such a confrontational tone, but it's the one you chose. If you want to be taken seriously, you should adopt a more respectful attitude.

As far as the indexicality of a photograph is concerned, semiotics is a linguistic theory, and reading a photograph in its terms is open to interpretation. You seem to be quite confused about the linguistic basis of the theory, and how it relates to photography. To say a photograph is indexical, one must first define photograph, and indexical. If you've followed the thread, you'll notice there is some disagreement on both points. Until I know what you mean by photograph, I can neither agree or disagree with you about its indexicality. You repeat many times that a photograph (however you define one) is indexical to its object. I think you're confused here. What is the object of a photograph? Your statement doesn't make sense in photographic or linguistic terms. A photograph can be an object, as in artifact, but it doesn't have an object, it has a subject, and what is the fact in which you suppose it's related? If you mean that a photograph is related to its subject by the fact that the subject exists, and is therefore indexical, you have not ruled out painting as indexical. One can paint the same subject one can photograph. You'll have to do much better than this to persuade me.

I agree that a digital file is not strictly indexical, because there is no physical link between the file and the subject, but it contains indexical qualities, as a painting can (the subject of the painting or photograph is related to an observed/photographed subject). A latent image is not so clear cut. On a molecular level, a latent image is formed by direct contact with photons, changing the molecular structure in a direct relationship to the subject. I think a latent image is indexical, but I don't think it's a photograph, because photographs are visible images, and not just the source code for a visible image.

You need to reconcile the following statements:


A photograph by definition, is indexical to its object. A physical connection is not required.


A digital photograph is not iconic because it is related to its object in fact.

What is your interpretation of the difference between a physical connection, and a relation in fact?

If you want to argue that a painting is iconic, and a digital photograph is indexical, and a latent image is symbolic, and there are no instances in which any one of these things can possess more than one of these qualities, you'll have to dig a lot deeper into the basis for the theory, and not just parrot some terms you've recently discovered.