The Promotion of Film use....what are we missing?

[vinny]

Dan, you should change your screen name to Clementine, as in miner's daughter, lost and gone forever.

Cinematographers seem to understand that what they do is tell stories with moving pictures and that the image capture medium isn't that important. We're still hung up on technology ...

Cinematographers would all love to shoot film but the vast majority of them have little to do with making that decision. That decision is made before the cinematographer is hired. It all comes down to profits. If the producers feel they can do it with video, they save money. Money that buys more cars, homes, plastic surgery, and louis vuitton hand bags.



When I'm out shooting, I do what I can to explain why I'm "not shooting digital" and often hand out a biz card. When the public buys a print, they don't care what it was shot on as long as they like it.

[Dan Fromm]

Vinny, I remember when Sony subsidized a few productions to get cinematographers to use their latest most best video gear. At the time, the camera was tethered to a truck. Shooting the Sony way was difficult and there were loud complaints in American Cinematographer about the difficulty of lighting with the Sony rig. It had very narrow exposure latitude, greatly limited what could be done. With that in mind, go read the Alexa propaganda. If I were EKCo and Fuji, it would bother me a lot.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Hope for film as anything more than an arcane lost process will have to come from a wider appreciation of precisely when or why film is a better choice to achieve a more compelling image in a given situation. As good as digital has become, that's not easily done in a great many situations. But working in large format, I can easily articulate what they are, and use film for those purposes, e.g. Extreme resolution, wide SBR, gallery prints.

[vinny]

Vinny, I remember when Sony subsidized a few productions to get cinematographers to use their latest most best video gear. At the time, the camera was tethered to a truck. Shooting the Sony way was difficult and there were loud complaints in American Cinematographer about the difficulty of lighting with the Sony rig. It had very narrow exposure latitude, greatly limited what could be done. With that in mind, go read the Alexa propaganda. If I were EKCo and Fuji, it would bother me a lot.

I don't need to read it. That camera is the first video camera I don't mind being seen standing next to. The images don't look like all the previous crap sony, and panasonic have been forcing down our throats for the last 20 yrs.

sorry to get your thread off track........

[John Kasaian]

Back when I was shooting a lot of aerials, Kodak's tech reps were a huge help. I agree Kodak's people "in the trenches" are very passionate about their excellent products. But Kodak today is a different animal---I seriously doubt those tech reps are still employed by Kodak (a LOT of good people lost jobs) and I tend to think Kodak drank the corporate Kool-aid when it lost it's greatest assets---the bulk of it's employees. Does anbody left at Kodak pay attention to whats being said on the forums? I doubt it. I really doubt it.

[Kodachrome25]

Jay, read, enjoy, contribute, refute, discuss and endear a potential new friendship, but don't say silly things that assume something, OK? I am going to sleep fine tonight and do most, but I took in a lot of info yesterday, it got me thinking.

Simply put, I see a problem in the public's perception of film falsely being entirely gone, so I know there are opportunities in solving it that have not been thought of yet.

Take the high road and take a step back a bit....

Ken,

You're playing a pretty free hand with your moderation here. None of my remarks were rude, or if you're extremely sensitive, no more rude than Sal's comment:



Do moderators get a pass, or just people you like/ agree with?

[Kodachrome25]

Back when I was shooting a lot of aerials, Kodak's tech reps were a huge help. I agree Kodak's people "in the trenches" are very passionate about their excellent products. But Kodak today is a different animal---I seriously doubt those tech reps are still employed by Kodak (a LOT of good people lost jobs) and I tend to think Kodak drank the corporate Kool-aid when it lost it's greatest assets---the bulk of it's employees. Does anbody left at Kodak pay attention to whats being said on the forums? I doubt it. I really doubt it.

Not only are some of those people still there, one of them who has a lot of pull in the film arena is reading this in earnest right now. I want to say I have read all of this and while I appreciate it, why we are here, where it might go, the premise of this post is that while we are doing all we can and thinking we are doing all we can, let's double check, listen to new blood and be willing as old blood to undergo a transfusion.

Keep in mind I started using digital full time at one of the very first newspapers in the country to go totally digital...in 1994, so I am not at all against or not familiar with the medium, I just know that I personally am not done with film....I am just getting started in fact, and I have been using it for 35 years.

[Kodachrome25]

I want to share something that a young man wrote in another forum, he is cool with me spreading it around, it kind of does illustrate part of the problems film as a niche, alternative process is facing.

I had written the following in reply to a rather defeatist statement on the topic: "I am starting to believe that it is the bitter film user that is causing the public misconceptions the most, not the digital zealots..."

The 18 year old college student replied with the following:

"This.
Whether older film shooters realize this or not, young blood is needed to fill in the shoes of those who stop shooting, either because they no longer possess the consciousness and animation to photograph or because photography no longer interests them.

When I was first getting started in film, the passing comments from fellow digital users that film is dead didn't really bother me, because it obviously wasn't and isn't. What bothered me were the film users who lamented the fact that film wasn't the top dog and go-to medium of choice for 35mm photography (digital MF is still out of reach to most people). Yes, film isn't the prevailing choice for consumers, but plenty of professionals still use film for their personal projects. Most of my lecturers at university use digital only when time constraints prohibit them or as a stand-in for polaroid exposure test shots, and that method of practice influences the student body. I've managed to get a few people shooting film myself. I understand it must suck to see lab after lab shutting down, film after film being taken out of production, but so long as a market exists then there will be products.

The people who put me off film for so long were the old school users who were constantly spouting doom and gloom and never mentioned one positive aspect about film. The people who gave me that final nudge to give it a go were people who were actually shooting.

This thread almost made me consider flipping the M6 for a profit, squeezing every penny and getting a digital Leica while neglecting other photographic needs in preparation for the imminent death of film that's right around the corner of next week (or so it seems from reading this thread). Then I scanned some Portra, and it was good, albeit a little dusty.


Anyway, wouldn't this restructuring be a good thing? Wouldn't the bigwigs see that the chemical printing and film branches were the really successful branches in no uncertain terms? Also, why would someone buy the film and chem. division just to shut it down? Seems like a waste of money to me."

This is just one young person, one of many who are using film, but are subject to impressions, emotions and reactions based on what they see, hear, think and feel...

I know there is uncharted territory for the film user out there, but there is also uncharted territory in terms of how we move the medium back into the spotlight....

I am simply making a call out to everyone to unlock what those innovations could be....

[Jay DeFehr]

Jay, read, enjoy, contribute, refute, discuss and endear a potential new friendship, but don't say silly things that assume something, OK? I am going to sleep fine tonight and do most, but I took in a lot of info yesterday, it got me thinking.

Simply put, I see a problem in the public's perception of film falsely being entirely gone, so I know there are opportunities in solving it that have not been thought of yet.

Take the high road and take a step back a bit....

Dan,

I absolutely harbor no ill will toward you. My response was aimed at your rather dramatic and, in my eyes, misguided approach, for which you seemed to be seeking support. I can't imagine my response surprised you, and I certainly don't feel I was aggressive or rude -- just responding in the tone you set for the thread. Best of luck in your endeavor.

[John Kasaian]

I agree that the public perceives film as an anachronism. For snap shooting family photos, digital is cheaper, smaller and lighter and dosen't run out of film(but eats battery life). For portraits, weddings, and event photography digital has the market sewn up. For editorial use, no publishing houses seem to (seem to?) No one wants color transparencies or b&w prints anymore. If a client desires a retro looking image, that can be handled with PS. Sure one of Mr Galli's vintage lens will make it look better, but few can appreciate that once an image has been digitally reproduced.
For most people I know film is off the radar.
But you and I know films not dead, not by a long shot. The market has changed, and the photo culture that Kodak originally spawned has changed.

A lot of the belly-aching about dropped products were sour grapes IMHO, espoused by photographers who were seemingly unable to comprehend supplies in envelopes other than yellow.
But a lot of what went on at Kodak was insulting, at least from the viewpoint of this consumer. A couple of times over the past decade, Kodak and Ilford 8x10 film prices were only a few cents per sheet apart. Not that long ago Kodak film was, briefly, even cheaper than llford so it couldn't cost Kodak that much more to manufacture B&W sheet film than llford Now Kodak is about twice the price and a special order item as well. This probably isn't an issue for pros(who mostly shoot digital)---clients are the ones paying for the bill---but for hobbyists, it's death, man! The issue of boxes---which is certainly no small expense--is just crazy. The explaination given here was that the 10 sheet box would allow students to try out Kodak's new incarnations of TMAX at less expense, but the 25 and 50 sheet boxes vanished so consumers have to buy 3 or 4 of those nifty not-cheap boxes to get the same amount of film, adding the burden of a needless expense to customers already paying top dollar (and now it's become so expensive, that buying a 25 sheet box would be economic suicide for many of us!) I don't know if Kodak can survive making sheet film. I suspect not, at least formats larger than 4x5 (and since 8x10 is all special order anyway, I see it as the 8x10 version of the "kiss of death" by Kodak as that has been Kodak's SOP for dropping products lately)
But surely you've heard all this before.
What can turn it around for film, especially Kodak film? They need to find a market that will buy a lot of film.
Niche companies from overseas will cater to the product needs of hobbyists and "Art" photographers---Kodak has effectively dropped the ball in that court.
I don't know if the movie industry is still a big film buyer or not (I hope they are) nor do I know if a share of the "casual photographer" digital market can be won back, but certainly with the demise of the corner drugstore, just getting the stuff developed will be a battle royal.
Plastic film cameras like Lomos and Holgas do have a following (and resultant share of the film market) and it is odd that Kodak doesn't appear to have a horse in that race, if they are serious about selling film.

I think ultimately what it will take is a cultural paradigm shift away from the current instant gratification on demand mentality.