The hopeful future of film photography

[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
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 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!!