The Future of Film Photography

[roresteen]

Understand - there is NO inherent advantage in film that cannot be overcome digitally. People will argue that film has a different look, or different quality; if those qualities are in sufficient demand, they can be created digitally. Again, the question is more one of economics than technical.

Greg - in terms of quality I have to take issue with your statement. The internet is littered with many attempts to replicate the "film" look. It falls short, to be polite.

Film color is smooth and not punchy, digital well, is digital.

Film tonality is smooth across the range...digital is not bad, but nor superb like film is from MF on up.

Film color can be reproduced but it's depth cannot - or at least not without an obvious digital footprint applied to it.

Film has the uncanny ability to be sharp and smooth at the same time:







I have noticed a significant advantage in shadow detail and depth with the Mamiya C330 with pro stock color negative film. A D3 or 5D cannot replicate this in camera.

Another reason for a resurgence in film is the digital "promise" many would-be MWAC or DWAC's realize is that you must become a Photoshop jockey more than a..photographer, to get those *awesome* images you see everywhere.

So many good images can come right out of the can with film, not so much with digital.

Regardless of how 'good' digital supposedly is, it looks flat and probably always will be flat.

[roresteen]

[QUOTE=Gary L. Quay;523482]1) "Is digital better? I think that digital has surpassed 35mm in sharpness and color when coupled with Photoshop."

Umm, well, I buying into that for a while untill I got back my images from a Leica M3 with a Zeiss 50 2.0 shot with Fuji 400 Pro H. Bring on a D3. It loses, IMO:



"I have a Flickr account, and I look around at other photographers' works. Folks put some astounding imagery on there. Photoshop and Absolute Fractles give the digital shooter some powerful tools. I would put my old Minolta XG-1 and, certainly, my Hasselblad up against any digital camera and win for image quality, but only until the digital image hits the computer and gets a makeover."

Well, "quality" is subjective. This is typically what Photoshop does to images in the hands of many modern photographers. To some, this is *awesome*. To others, not so much:



"Here are some exceptions: 1) a film camera and photoshop are equally horrible in the hands of someone who has no freaking idea what he's doing. 2) Digital still has trouble with black and white. I don't know why, but I find the tones of digital B&W to be harsh. 3) Scanning film gives the film photographer the same tools, with the added benefit of having the analog negative."

Huge, IMO.

"Digital really gives the photographer that film can't is instant gratification."

Yes. Then there is the 3 days of post processing...there is no free lunch. Also, if I may add, with digital, the "film" is "free", but your time fixing and or creating an image, is not. Unless you deem your time somewhat worthless.

"Polaroid is gone, as far as their professional products are concerned. The instant films may return next year, but we aren't likely to get the high quality films back ever, so digital only will be able to deliver decent quality images in moments."

Yea, so true. This is a great example of Poloroid Type 55 shot by now, digital ace, Joel Grimes:



I haven't seen anything impressive with the Fuji FP-100 emulsion; I might have to look harder.

"2) Film technology has certainly been curtailed too hastily, but only because the marketing departments at Kodak and the major camera manufacturers made the choice to abandon film in order to move the comsumer market to digital. The ultimate goal of technology and consumer product companies is to get everyone to replace everything every few years, and the best way to make something obsolete is to make everyone forget about it. (also my answer to question # 4)

3) The real benefit of film, I believe lies in the process. Instant gratification leads to sloppiness. This is why machine guns were invented. Thowing a wall of lead down range allows the amature almost the same chances of hitting the target as the seasoned sniper. With data cards that hold thousands of images, the average photographer can create a whole army of slop, out of which can come a few good images. There is no way even a 35mm shooter can carry a few thousand images worth of film the way a digital shooter can. I liken film photography to a sonnet. The sonnet is a poetic form that focuses the poet's energies by restricting them to their basic essentials. I shoot everything from 35mm to 8x10", and as I move up in size, my shots get more careful, and better planned. Like the sonnet, I am forced to be more thoughtful about the process. The medium influences the art."

So true. This is why film shooters tend to better than their digital counterparts: we work with our eyes, hearts, and imagination...the guy holding the D-90, well, his right index finger and 4 8GB cards. But true, I have no problem shooting 10 rolls of 35 or 5 rolls of 120 if the images are there.

"5) There will be film in 30 years. Artists will use it. Non-comformists will use it. At least in the USA, just about everyone who is likely to move to digital has already done it. The big question is: will the next generation of artists and non-comformists embrace it. Will today's teens ever realize that it's even out there? I assume that many of them will eventually want a better image than a cell phone can make."

Gary - well said...and my answer to #5, yes. Of course.

--Gary [/QUOTE}


And if I may add...I believe there is a solid appreciation of film with the youngsters. Because the aesthetics of film are too good, visually powerful, and the relatively low cost-of-entry, it will keep and attract millions, not thousands, of enthusiasts as well as many pro's who shoot it because MORE and MORE clients appreciate it (not heard by any in PDN or other print media) for it's beauty and timeless quality.

The digital, social media world actually helps film sustain and possibly increase it's user base due to the growing knowledge that someone can pick up almost any old "worthless" 35 MM film camera and with a decent scan, can have gorgeous images, arguably as good or better than the DSLR that cost $2,000.00 a few years ago and now is selling for $699.00 on Craigslist.

[BetterSense]

if those qualities are in sufficient demand, they can be created digitally

The idea that everything in life can be converted to digital data is the primary shallowness of this generation.

I would not consider anyone who ascribes to this philosophy an artist worth paying attention to. Images and objects have many qualities. Before you make statements like the above, I think you should do some reading and thinking on the meaning of quality.

[John NYC]

roresteen... great post. gloriously lush images also.

[Gary L. Quay]

Well, "quality" is subjective. This is typically what Photoshop does to images in the hands of many modern photographers. To some, this is *awesome*. To others, not so much

Interestingly, since I posted my 5-part thesis on this thread a couple years ago, I've modulated my stance on image quality for film in relation to digital thanks to some wise words from Zeb Andrews of Blue Moon Camrera in Portland. Just like fish work better in water, film works better in print. Film is a physical medium. Digital is an electronic medium. My prints, especially my 8x10 contact prints, never look as good on the computer as they do up close. Maybe I'm just not very good at photoshop yet. I haven't paid much attention to digital prints, but there is indeed a lack of depth to the color on the images I see on Flickr. I've also noticed that my "wow" has worn off for the saturated, eye-popping images. Most of them seem overblown these days. What does this have to do with the future of film photography? I don't know. I suppose it depends on how people view photographs in the future. Most people, frankly, don't care. My son can't tell the difference between a CD quality and MP3, much less between a vinyl recored and MP3. I can. How many people out there care if it's an 8x10 contact print or a cell phone picture? Are there enough to keep Kodak producing film? Ilford? Fuji? All I really know is that I like working in the darkroom, and that I want to keep doing it for as long as I can.

--Gary

[Jay DeFehr]

roresteen,

I disagree with almost everything you write above, or at least with the thrust of your thesis, but I will confine my comments to a few observations. First, all of the images you've posted as examples of the superiority of film are digital images, displayed on monitors, the "qualities" of which are meaningless in the context of this discussion, but the irony is that it makes just the opposite point you intend; the world is digital, and that's how we view the majority of the images we see on a daily basis, and all of the images we see online, or on TV. Film will not have any kind of resurgence. The "qualities" you find so important in physical photography are meaningless to the vast majority of image consumers, and that doesn't make them wrong.

This is why film shooters tend to better than their digital counterparts: we work with our eyes, hearts, and imagination...

The above is nonsense because the same people who shoot film, or shot film, also shoot digital, they are not the separate species you claim them to be, and there is nothing inherent in a DSLR that robs a photographer of his eyes, heart, or imagination. This argument was never a good one; not when it was used to support painting in favor of photography, not when it was used to separate 35mm photographers from those who used larger formats, and it's not any better in this incarnation. Constraints on the photographer simply do not translate to better images.

Physical photography has become an endangered species. It might survive in artificial environments for some time, but it's been selected for extinction.

[Gary L. Quay]

Physical photography has become an endangered species. It might survive in artificial environments for some time, but it's been selected for extinction.

That's what makes me sad. I became a serious photographer after seeing Ansel Adams' Yosemite pictures, especially "Clearing Winter Storm" in the mid 1990s. I really wanted to do what Adams did the way he did it. So, I worked my way slowly from 35mm up to 8x10, bought a bigger house so that I could build a darkroom, and learned how to develop film, and make enlargements. I only completed my darkroom in 2005. I have years of learning to go.

We all have to make our own choices based on what we want to do, and what photography means to us. I have no intention of going digital, so I'll have to learn how to make my own emulsions or take up drawing if film completely disappears. I joyfully have no plan B. That said, I think that film will last my lifetime at least.

[Jay DeFehr]

Gary,

While I've never been a fan of A.A., I too worked my way up from 35mm to 8x10, and built a darkroom in my house to do my thing there. Last night I processed a roll of 120 TMY-2 in Halcyon; images of my beautiful nieces, growing up so quickly, and their father, my brother. A thoroughly enjoyable experience. Where we differ is that I am thrilled at the potential of digital imaging! My thinking about digital imaging has almost nothing to do with my thinking about physical photography. I don't plan to stop making physical photographs as long as I'm able to reasonably source materials, but I'm not interested in making my own emulsions, etc., and I plan to engage fully with digital imaging in the meantime.

[Drew Wiley]

I find it utterly ironic how these discussion all seem to end up at one point or another comparing trends in amateur consumer photography with what we're doing
in large format. What relation did one-hour drugstore print machines and intersection Photomats have to do with large format in the past? Damn little. And
what on earth do eighty million little digital cameras have to do with it now? If we
just want family snapshots to share on computer screens, we'll probably end up
picking up one of those things ourselves. But it will be no substitute for what we
do with view cameras. A much better comparison would be what's going on with
display advertising. Big prints with a lot of detail are still very much in demand and
generate of a lot of dollars for the industry. This means either high-end digital or
real film and high-end scanning. Inkjet output is only a part of the market; real silver-based color paper still has strong demand. It's used in botique window advertising all over the place. Someone's certainly paying dearly for that. And while there's a lot of speculation about what Hollywood might or might not do with film as the years go by, there's an even bigger market called Bollywood. Even all the old Technicolor cameras and dyes have been bought up by foreign film interests, and are still available if someone comes up with the budget to use them. Different style movies necessitate different methods of presentation, and I have no doubt that film will remain a favored option for many of them. It just looks different, and those folks know it too. After all, video was a significant innovation which didn't push real film off the block.

[Brian C. Miller]

Since the best manifestation of the image is the print, the computer screen doesn't do the print any disservice. Yes, we see many images on our screen. But is that an actual substitute for a print? No, it isn't, and it never will be. The computer screen allows us to view some of a print's presence, but it is not a complete substitute, just as a picture in a newspaper isn't a substitute.

Right now, I am viewing images on a 1024x768 screen. Yes, it's small, and my notebook weighs a whole two pounds. Is this a total substitute for a print? Not in my mind, it isn't. Are the colors better than a print? Yeah, straw man argument here, of course not. My notebook screen is no comparison to my HP monitor, and that is no comparison to a real print.

The film market is regulated by the viewing market. The motion picture industry is the biggest consumer of film. (I don't have the approximate mind-boggling numbers, but they were published over on APUG.) There is the film used to create the motion picture, and then there is the film used to publish that motion picture to the theaters. The next smaller market is the consumer film market. The next smaller market is the pro market, and finally the art market, which I suppose includes all of us.

What do those two markets have to do with our little niche? Keeping the film manufactures producing film, that's what. Markets drive manufacturing. No demand, no supply. This is a high-tech industry, and even with a manufacturer completely dropping a product, that doesn't result in another manufacturer recreating it (e.g., Kodak HIE). While we may not see the end of film itself, we are seeing emulsions and formats discontinued. Perhaps, if the demand drops low enough, color film will be discontinued.

Our market is governed by wall space. Prints go on walls. (At least I've never seen them on floors, ceilings, or windows.) If there isn't the wall space, then the print isn't going there. Most people buy one or two pictures, and that's it. They don't buy a huge collection, and rotate through it. (Could have a picture frame that holds multiple mats, though) Yes, plenty of us burn through more film than paper. Making a photograph is fun. But optimal viewing of what we produce is still governed by wall space.

What will happen for digital cameras? Look at the advertising copy for Hasselblad's $40,000 H4D-60 camera:

The Medium Format Hasselblad H4D-60 camera, uses an extra large sensor with an impressive number of pixels, to support the shallow depth-of-field shooting that characterizes so much high-end shooting, and to provide the ultra-high resolution demanded by today’s most discerning professionals. The H4D-60 is the ultimate photographic tool for the serious commercial photographer demanding unsurpassed results.

(emphasis added)

Aren't you glad that you are discerning professional? And this camera is still, literally, tortoise-to-hare in those touted aspects when compared with a 4x5. The professional digital cameras have only one way to go: larger sensor size, and still cost as much as a GMC/Chevrolet Yukon or a Jeep Grand Cherokee. These won't be coming down into the amateur price range for a very long time.

So sheet film will still have a niche, for as long as it is manufactured.