The hopeful future of film photography

[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