Film photography, a good business in the future ?

[mdm]

Really? If an image doesn't stand on its own, I don't think a sales pitch is going to sell me.

The sales pitch is what gets you to look at the picture in the first place. If a Peter Lik falls into your lap, one expects you would look at it before you pass it on. If one of my horrendous prints fell in your lap you might pass it on without a look. Thats because of marketing.

[myoptic]

I find it very interesting to find some active members of the LFF being so anti-film. By anti-film, I mean seeing little value to it, or the images produced by it due to the overwhelming advances and advantages of using digital technologies. Its like going to a Republican convention and finding a vocal group of Democrat supporters....
My two cents is that the camera, the process and the output matter, but only to serious collectors, people wanting LF portraits, and those who appreciate the 'craft' of traditional photography. Would Elliott Erwitt, Frank Capa have embraced digital, most likely. Would Steichen, probably not. Digital will continue to improve and get cheaper, but as it gets better, the look will continue to go past what traditional media could offer in sharpness and colour fidelity, making traditional more differentiated. I think people doing portraits and work in 8x10 and bigger are quite safe. Until there are 'filters' to mimic every film and lens out there, traditional shooters will be able to create work that is different from completely digital. As long as there is a difference, and as long as silver lasts longer than digital prints, then there will be a market. The argument for ever better technology and the inevitable progression of science ends when digital tech allows a camera not much bigger than a thimble to take a picture with the quality of a Hasselblad. At that point digital photography will feed on itself as any and every schmuck will be able to, and with luck will, produce images as good as the masters.

[Jay DeFehr]

David,

????. I don't know what you mean. How do I get the sales pitch before I see the image? If I had one each of Lik's photos and yours, I might be able to tell them apart , only because I've seen a few Liks, and a few of yours, but to be perfectly honest, I don't think I'd be very interested in buying either- it's just not the kind of work I'm drawn to, and no offense meant, but no sales pitch is likely to change the way I feel about either photo.

Myoptic,

I'm not an expert, or an industry insider, but I think it would be hard to prove many collectors care about film. I think it would be more accurate to say the only people who care about film are the people who use it, and the people who make it, in that order. I also think it's a mistake to think photographers who use film don't also use digital, and your argument that as digital continues to improve, film will gain status by being different, is a little strained. Also, one doesn't need film to make prints that last.
I use film exclusively, but that doesn't somehow blind me to the reality of the state of the medium. There is some very beautiful work being done with digital cameras, much of it by people who wouldn't have the slightest idea how to estimate exposure, or calculate effective aperture, or use a densitometer, because they don't need to know those things to make the images they make. I know almost nothing about digital cameras or workflows, because I don't need to....yet.

[tgtaylor]

Also, one doesn't need film to make prints that last.

On the other hand many digital cinematographers consider a film-based separation master necessary for archival purposes:


Some studios opt for a film negative master for archival purposes. There are after all numerous extant examples of original 19th century film footage which were manufactured under primitive conditions, with no consideration given to archival value, but whose original images are still clearly visible and recoverable with relatively simple equipment. As long as the negative does not completely degrade, it will always be possible to recover the images from it in the future, regardless of changes in technology, since all that will be involved is simple photographic reproduction. In contrast, even if digital data is stored on a medium that will preserve its integrity, highly specialized digital equipment will always be required to reproduce it. Changes in technology may thus render the format unreadable or expensive to recover over time. For this reason, film studios distributing digitally-originated films often make film-based separation masters of them for archival purposes.

Quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital...aphy#Archiving

Thomas

[Jay DeFehr]

Thomas,

I'm not sure how your post is relevant to the discussion, and I'm not sure how accurate the cited article really is. Binary code is not particularly difficult to read, but I'm no expert. Is there any historic digital media that's unrecoverable today?

[Brian Ellis]

People appreciate craftsmanship and hands-on skill. All they need is a bit of education & to be given some background info about the process - you can't just hang a pretty picture up and expect to sell it.

True. I saw an exhibit recently where the photographer's statement said his photographs were handmade - with a Jobo. : - )

[Brian Ellis]

The sales pitch is what gets you to look at the picture in the first place. If a Peter Lik falls into your lap, one expects you would look at it before you pass it on. If one of my horrendous prints fell in your lap you might pass it on without a look. Thats because of marketing.

How would I know your prints were horrendous if I didn't look at them?

[Richard Mahoney]

How would I know your prints were horrendous if I didn't look at them?

That you should even ask that question Brian shows that David -- despite protestations to the contrary -- is a very canny marketeer, though hopefully not a Lik in the making.


Kind regards,

Richard

P.S. And not to be so easily fooled, David, I'm going to take your word for it and not enquire any further

[Marko]

The sales pitch is what gets you to look at the picture in the first place. If a Peter Lik falls into your lap, one expects you would look at it before you pass it on. If one of my horrendous prints fell in your lap you might pass it on without a look. Thats because of marketing.

I think you are giving marketing too much of a credit and not nearly enough to yourself.

I don't know you personally and I may disagree with some of the stuff you say here, but I'd pick one of your images over Lik's any time of the day.

Marketing has nothing to do with it, it's the picture that gets you to look at the picture. If the picture is not there, no amount of marketing will work.

[Marko]

On the other hand many digital cinematographers consider a film-based separation master necessary for archival purposes:


Some studios opt for a film negative master for archival purposes. There are after all numerous extant examples of original 19th century film footage which were manufactured under primitive conditions, with no consideration given to archival value, but whose original images are still clearly visible and recoverable with relatively simple equipment. As long as the negative does not completely degrade, it will always be possible to recover the images from it in the future, regardless of changes in technology, since all that will be involved is simple photographic reproduction. In contrast, even if digital data is stored on a medium that will preserve its integrity, highly specialized digital equipment will always be required to reproduce it. Changes in technology may thus render the format unreadable or expensive to recover over time. For this reason, film studios distributing digitally-originated films often make film-based separation masters of them for archival purposes.

Quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital...aphy#Archiving

Thomas

On the other hand, The Library of Congress is actively and resolutely going the opposite way.

I don't know about you, but I'd trust the Library of Congress over Wikipedia any day.