Will LF and Film Become An Artistic Medium Only? [Archive]

Pawlowski6132

1-Feb-2013, 12:53

Close but, they ARE pressing new vinyl. More to the point though, I'm guessing that manufacturing and packaging film is much more capital intensive than pressing vinyl based on what I know about both processes.

Plus buying a record and playing it is MUCH easier than getting a film camera and lens, exposing the film getting it processed etc.

I don't think it's EVER coming back. Further, I guess that 98% of those who try it today are compelled by some naive romantic notion. They think using film will "slow them down..." Which, for the life of me, I'll never understand. As if using digital forces them to rush through a shot and they have no choice in the matter. Rubbish. Then, they send the film off for processing and then view, edit and print on their computer. Some film experience. Those 98% will soon get over it and you will see their cameras on Ebay within six months.

The other 2% will continue to explore the medium and immerse themselves all they way. Some will graduate to LF and even complete film processing and the printing process in their own darkroom. Those are the craftsman that will support the ratailers and manufacturers. These are the same type of folks who make their own beer, knit their own sweaters, make their own furniture, fix their own cars, etc.

The problem with your analogy is that you buy a vinyl record once, and now you own it. As long as you have a working player, you can enjoy that record forever (assuming you take care of it and don't let it get damaged).

But with film, someone has to be manufacturing it constantly. You can't use your film camera without the raw material. There may become a time that the demand is so low that a small box of b&w would cost hundreds of dollars to buy - will anyone shoot it anymore at that price?

I think coating plates may be the only way to go at some point. But hopefully it'll be economically viable to produce film for another 40-50 years at least.

Brian C. Miller

1-Feb-2013, 13:49

I know I've seen this discussed before, probably more on APUG than here.

Film is a highly industrial process, and while it can be done at home (Light Farm) it isn't near to what is done commercially. From what has been said on APUG, all of the film manufacturers are producing their own base support material, so if Kodak goes then Fuji or Ilford won't necessarily follow. Coating machines are made for many different applications, and black & white emulsion is not difficult to start up. What is extremely hard to start up is a color film line, and that's the weak spot, of sorts. There is still a huge amount of film being manufactured. Unfortunately the Kodak equipment was built for world supply, and the demand means that the equipment isn't being run as often. When will it be lights out? Uh, I think it's goat entrails at dawn or something like that. But that would be for one manufacturer, and that would mainly affect the color supply.
And then what would Fuji do? They've said they would "consider" bringing back certain color emulsions or formats if Kodak died. And currently I can get 8x10 Fuji Provia, 20 sheet boxes. At what point will Ilford turn off the lights? It would probably have to do with the lease on their location. I know they've had to move before. But without Kodak, that means that demand for Ilford products will go up. Fuji doesn't have the B&W lineup of the past. Kodak has discontinued TMZ, so Ilford is the only source for 3200-speed B&W film. And if there's no Kodak, then Ilford will have increased revenue for its products.

And of course if all fails, LF will continue because wet plate has never stopped! Bwahahahahaha! And in Seattle there is a fellow who is doing commercial wet plate portraits. (I know I've posted a thread about him some time ago.)

MIke Sherck

1-Feb-2013, 14:03

I'm going to be an artist?

Don't tell my mom. She'll be awful disappointed.

:) Mike

Dan Fromm

1-Feb-2013, 14:34

To get the answer to that, examine the entrails of an owl.

I prefer to observe birds' flight. It is less messy and owls are expensive and hard to obtain.

Drew Wiley

1-Feb-2013, 14:44

There are practically supermarkets in this town just for do-it-yourself beermakers. Some of these types
have gone on to found highly successful breweries of their own. So there goes that analogy. And if every generation of teenagers in this country continues to rebel against the culture of their parents (who are currently obsessed with every idiotic techie electronic gadget that comes out) - then maybe millions of young people will want film again. Maybe an asteroid will collide with earth; and the only animals left suitable for entrail divination will be gophers.

ROL

1-Feb-2013, 16:18

It always has been for me. Oddly enough, most of my photos resemble owl entrails.

Peter York

1-Feb-2013, 16:34

I prefer to observe birds' flight. It is less messy and owls are expensive and hard to obtain.

The correct way, a la the Shang dynasty, employs turtle shells (plastromancy).

David Lobato

1-Feb-2013, 16:44

The analogy to vinyl records is appropriate in another way. It's how the content is delivered to the consumer. I think the real issue of LF film is the photographic prints and how today's culture thinks of them. Back to music, almost all now is delivered electronically, iCloud, iTunes, mp3 files from Amazon, etc. There is no physical medium. Same for photos, most of what we see are electronic, Flickr, 500px, blogs, etc. The public desire for paper based photos seems to be declining if we understand the cultural signs.

My wife released a vinyl album a few years ago and may release another. She also has several CD releases. We are both knee deep in digital vs. analog.

Corran

1-Feb-2013, 17:01

Jody_S

1-Feb-2013, 17:23

Will LF and Film Become An Artistic Medium Only?

That threshold was crossed several years ago, at least in most of the world. There may be pockets of the world that still use film for commercial activities, but most of what we would call commercial photography has been 100% digital for several years now, so yes, film is an artistic medium and is certainly sold as such (see the current rise in LF film prices, and distribution through 'boutique' outlets instead of major retailers and commercial suppliers).

cyrus

1-Feb-2013, 22:19

I think coating plates may be the only way to go at some point. But hopefully it'll be economically viable to produce film for another 40-50 years at least.

Some of us are getting into wetplate/dryplate specifically for that reason!

Peter Gomena

1-Feb-2013, 22:26

I hope to use black and white film for another 20 years. When they're shutting the factory gates, I'll have hoarded my supply. I hate to see color film go, but it's becoming expensive and impractical for me. It's cheaper and easier to have a little digital camera tucked into my LF bag.

Daniel Stone

2-Feb-2013, 01:44

I recently traded my trusty D3 for a D800. What was I thinking??? I hate using this thing, where as the D3 MADE me want to shoot!

Film is kind of the same way. Digital just doesn't 'do it' for me, the same way that shooting film does. That anticipation of waiting for the lab to return my processed film, so I can examine it on the light table, its a rush. Especially when you get that 'feeling' that a shot went well, and the results are going to be good! Digital and its instant gratification just don't have that same feeling in the end. I also find that shooting film(of any kind/flavor) has taught me to be more careful with my framing, considerate of my time more, and to use it wisely.

Film has taught me, a 24year old, to see more clearly, breathe more slowly, and overall, KNOW my craft. Patience has also been tacked on that list of things too ;)

Its sad to see so many transparency films gone... I loved Astia, it made scanning a real joy! Provia is really nice too, but its different. Good, but different. E100G has been a good replacement for Astia, unfortunately that's now gone too(along with all Kodak E-6).

Will I move to digital for color work when 8x10 and/or 4x5 color film becomes either too scarce and expensive to source? Maybe... I hope and pray that will be a long time off though.

-Dan

2-Feb-2013, 08:09

Not that it really matters to me, but I think both LF and Film are artistic mediums with very few exceptions.

I like digital AND film. Pretty much everyone who wants a digital camera has one; many people consider phones good enough. The digital market is saturated. Imitation of old is big right now, but there's little need to pretend to make old process photos when you really can. There's a serious but modest rebellion against the bleeding edge of photo technology. I think the Internet is the conduit for a growing arts and crafts movement, but who knows which film makers and technologies can stick around for the duration? I've hoarded enough to keep me busy for a while, and would be willing to make glass plates after that if needed.

Bernice Loui

2-Feb-2013, 09:44

What got me thinking about this was a conversation with a long time friend who runs a photo studio. She told me there are SO many digital photographers today trying to make a living at photography. This group has flooded the market with, "spray and pray." digital imaging. The consumers for images has also changed. Coolness and being "in" has replaced the fine art of classic image making craft.

It seems the deed is done for now. So much of the image process today has become digital and it is a reflection of electronic digital communications of today. Near instant transmission of electronic digital images have changed to world and expectations of those who use this method of communications.

Digital imaging has been good for companies and individual who produce the hardware and software related to this technology at the expense of the companies who once dominated the film industry.

I had a look at the local directory of color processing and print labs not too long ago, virtually all of them are long gone... Replaced by inkjet or laser based printing technology.

Yet, digital imaging has the same artistic possibilities as film based images. Digital imaging is just a different tool, but I do believe both film and digital should co-exist together rather than trying to destroy each other in the quest for market share.

Maybe this is asking too much from the majority of market who has never really cared about image quality to begin with. A reflection of the world we live in today?

What got me interested in doing serious photography again was the purchase of a Canon 1DS that allow me to use a good number of Canon L lenses that have been sitting in storage for years. The images were instant with many megapixels of resolution and all that.. Yet the process seems so empty to me, so lack involvement and removed with the craft of image making.
Out of curiosity, dug out my old 5x7 Sinar view camera and began to use it.. and it all came back. For me, there is just a great deal of satisfaction and involvement from using a view camera beyond the image quality.

For better or worst, image making has changed for good be it good or bad.. Yet the view camera which goes back to the earliest days photography carries on..

Bernice

Jim Galli

2-Feb-2013, 10:36

Your question revolves around the free market system and the availability of both discretionary time and money.

Another parallel might be the Model A Ford. By 1952 most or all of them were worn out, retired, junked, whatever word you choose for no longer in use. They were of value during and immediately after WWII because of the car shortage. Poor folk could always coax a few more miles out of a Model A Ford. But by 1952 the clock had run out.

60 years later you can purchase almost an entire car, newly manufactured, a piece at a time. That's because there's a demand by hobby-ists, and someone in the free market system has found a way to supply that demand and make ever so little bit of money.

This all depends on factors stated. Someone has the time and inclination, so someone supplies for profit. That's very fragile. If world economies collapse these sorts of things will be the first to go.

We'll see something similar with film. Ilford's already trying hard to find the balance. Maybe somebody in China will go buy Efke's old Kodak machinery and haul them down there. Who knows. All we do know is 1965 will never come again.

goamules

2-Feb-2013, 10:58

My answer to the question "will LF film become an artistic medium only" is no. People today, and in the future, have other reasons for shooting film; History, nostalgia, anti-technology, hobby, craftsmanship, they like the slow workflow, their eyes appreciate the ground glass, and more. Only a few posture themselves as artists.

A better question would have been, "will LF and film continue to be used as an amateur medium, for family snapshots of life, holidays, and travel?" No, they've all gone digital. But all the above reasons to shoot film will continue.

Peter Gomena

2-Feb-2013, 12:01

Out of curiosity, dug out my old 5x7 Sinar view camera and began to use it.. and it all came back. For me, there is just a great deal of satisfaction and involvement from using a view camera beyond the image quality.

Bernice

Yes, precisely. View cameras are enjoyable for me to use in the field. Little computers with lenses on the front are not.

Ken Lee

2-Feb-2013, 14:00

What today we call "digital imaging" will eventually become an "artistic medium only".

Andrew O'Neill

2-Feb-2013, 14:15

What today we call "digital imaging" will eventually become an "artistic medium only".

Yes, but thankfully, we'll all be dead by then... :)

ic-racer

2-Feb-2013, 22:13

Given the dominance of digital imaging in everything from cameras in smart phones to commercial image making, it sure seems film has been relegated to a specialty niche.

Film and guns don't shoot by themselves. Digital imaging is 'dominant' in photography in the same way the newspapers 'dominate' literature: in volume only.

Gary Nylander

2-Feb-2013, 23:53

Yet the view camera which goes back to the earliest days photography carries on..

Bernice

I really like that quote....

ImSoNegative

3-Feb-2013, 06:19

I was reading a thread over on apug a few years back and the question was "will film stop being made" a fellow answered, " yes! film production will end next tuesday""

Lenny Eiger

3-Feb-2013, 15:20

The public desire for paper based photos seems to be declining if we understand the cultural signs.

For me, this is the point.... It doesn't matter what scanner one uses if all you need is screen resolution.

However.

IMO, this issue is with culture, as you said. The question in our culture is whether it will degrade so much so that these current trends of everything being electronic, augmented, AND superficial will prevail.

Where does one find meaning for one's life? Certainly some find it in a church of some sort, but whether you approve or not, church participation is dwindling. Personally, I have found meaning in living what I call an artist's life. I try to live artfully (no, I don't always succeed) and I look for depth wherever I can find it. Often this means I look closer when I am outside photographing, and try to connect with what I am photographing before I go clicking shutters..

I think that our culture is going to rebound. I don't think they will all throw their computers out the window, by any means, but there is a balance between production and having a sense of why we are all doing what we are doing. The novelty of multitasking does wear off. Then what are you left with? That same question comes around again - what is the meaning of it all?

Then the culture will look again to religious groups, meditation groups, and artists of all types. They will again find meaning in objects. Certainly some photographs are in the category of an object. There are some where the image is about what is happening in the photograph, or its impact, and there others where there is a quiet "resonance" to the image. I am sure there are lots of other kinds as well, but I think the image as object exists and holds it place in the consciousness of the people who feel its valuable. I don't think this is going to go away.

The latest James Bond film may be exciting, but it lasts only two hours. The Super Bowl is three. Ultimately we have to go home and deal with ourselves. I look around my house and see many objects that define who I think I am. I could use more. I like going to the houses of my friends who have objects from older cultures. I have one friend who has large bones of animals displayed, next to a series of musical instruments from all over.

Superficiality will not win. Humans are too wired for meaning for that to occur.

That's my thought for the day... i can only hope I am right.

Lenny

Maris Rusis

3-Feb-2013, 16:23

I reckon the eternal objective of commercial picture-making is the production of industrial scale quantities of illustration. Over the millenia a variety of techniques have been used and many of those techniques became artistic media when discarded by commerce.

Starting with Babylonian clay seals, then wood block printing, then wood-cut, then engraving, etching, lithography, mezzotint, half-tone plates, photography, digital (and whatever is next) the objective is maximum PICTURES at minimum effort and expense. Put more bluntly the illustration industries never wanted photographs. They wanted realistic looking pictures and photography was the least nasty way, at the time, for getting them. Eventually even digital picture-making may be replaced by direct-to-mind transmission of images via an implanted chip. If it's quick, cheap, easy, and profitable that's the way things will go; art be damned.

rdenney

3-Feb-2013, 18:59

The appeal of film is really purely romantic, it seems to me. It's the high-touch reaction to the high-tech revolution, as John Naisbitt observed in Megatrends decades ago. There will always be a portion of the population that resists software-driven technology, simply because they want to live in a three-dimensional world.

But those people have been a niche for a long time.

When the cheap quartz watch came out (versus the expensive quartz watch, which was hailed on its first offering as the state of the art in an industry that--mistakenly--worshipped at the altar of accuracy), mechanical watch sales plummeted. People predicted its total demise. By the end of the 1970's, the Swiss watch industry was in full crisis. Some manufacturers embraced and succeeded with luxury quartz watches, and some insisted on remaining rooted in the mechanical tradition. And some tried to offer something to each camp. Didn't matter; most went under. What saved the Swiss watch industry was the realization that watches were not necessities, but fashion items, and the result of this realization was the S'Watch--a plastic quartz cheapie sold in bright colors to serve as a fashion statement, not as an expression of haute taste. The Swiss won that race to the bottom that is usually now not won by western countries, simply because it determined that a fashion statement need not be a luxury statement. The foundation provided by making cheap ephemera supported--eventually--a rebirth of mechanical watch-making, which is now a pretty strong industry but only in the luxury sector. But the strength of mechanical watches these days is absolutely not wtih those who must time things for a living. Commercial time-keeping is all electronic--period. It could be said that people own and wear mechanical watches as a matter of artistic expression--it says something about themselves they want to express, even if they are the only ones who can hear the statement. So, mechanical watches are alive and well, but only as a boutique product.

I suspect there will always be people who respect something for its high-touch qualities, but in reference to photography that means treating it as art and not as mere utility.

I think large-format film photography has been primarily an artistic medium for a long time, despite the few remaining holdouts. And I think that will be an enduring niche. Will it be a large enough niche to support the manufacturing infrastructure required? I think so, for black and white. Color is another matter, just because of the scale of the apparatus required to make the stuff. Black and white film is much easier to make on a small scale as a boutique product.

If color film manufacture is lost, it will not come back. The film we know and love is the result of decades of evolution and incremental learning, hard to gain but easy to lose.

Rick "thinking it is art that will validate film...or not" Denney

paulr

3-Feb-2013, 20:40

Rick, it's funny, years ago I freelanced in the ad department at Rolex, and our old Swiss creative director told the same story about how Swatch saved their industry. And that the industry had been, since the beginning, about making jewelry that pretended not to be jewelry.

I think film is already a niche medium. It's just going to become a smaller niche. The question remains if anyone will figure out, technologically and economically, how to sustain any film manufacturing as a cottage industry. Whether or not film has any longterm future at all depends entirely on this.

LF is a slightly different story. I think it will be just be redefined, as it has quite a few times in the past. We consider 4x5 large format ... once upon a time it was a tiny format. It does what larger formats once did because of improvements in materials. I think the large format of the future is what we currently call medium format digital. It's too expensive and half-baked at the moment to be anthing more than a niche itself, but this will change soon enough.

Jac@stafford.net

3-Feb-2013, 21:36

I prefer to observe birds' flight. It is less messy and owls are expensive and hard to obtain.

It is less messy unless you become very unlucky when they fly over you.

Kodachrome25

4-Feb-2013, 03:52

I use film in my work with both medium and large format because my heart is in a different place when doing so than when I use digital for other jobs...and I have used digital for nearly 20 years.

There is nothing nostalgic about it, nothing romantic, it is purely that I personally do not consider computer generated photography at any stage a true art form. And luckily what I am finding out is that the people who buy my prints really are desperately seeking something that is not in any way shape or form touched by a computer and are willing to pay what I ask for my darkroom based prints, as long as the photograph itself is powerful in appearance of course...

I have talked to a lot of young people about this as they show interest. By far most cite that it is their parents who are addicted to the digital age and many of these 15-25 year old's are already over it because they feel like they are being sold an idea of how they are supposed to think rather than just a product or a service.

But in the end, I use film and my darkroom because it is the one thing I do that is hand made. If it ever comes to be that I can no longer obtain the materials in which to do this, I will leave photography, move on to something else and look back with great fondness at a wonderful career.

Nothing to do with format, not only do I believe that film will live on as almost purely an artistic medium, but black and white film use by true artists will outlive digital in current form.

Cletus

4-Feb-2013, 07:22

Wow! Many excellent ideas and comments here - I'm especially close to, and can relate to Rick Denny and Kodachrome's remarks - nor could I have said it better myself! I am committed to black and white LF photography, as an art form for me - because:

1. It's one of the few things I can still do these days that is pure craft and needs zero involvement with a computer. The fact that photography has coincidentally "gone digital" has absolutely nothing to do with my continued interest in it. I have always been a maker of film photographs, and handmade darkroom prints simply because I think their primary beauty is inherent in the fact that there's no help from a computer anywhere in the process. If that makes any sense....

And 2. I am interested in making what I consider to be works of art using a process that is time honored and done (in many ways) as it has been done since the beginning of photography. I see no inherent beauty in the fleeting, sterile and "machine-made" digital file. Obviously, it might only be me who knows the photograph is "pure analog", but when it comes to my photographs, my opinion is the only one that counts!

I own and wear a mechanical wristwatch as well, which might be a small insight into the way I think and the way I approach technology in this technological age. It's one of my most prized possessions. It is a fairly expensive - more than a Rolex - hand-built 'work of mechanical art' that very few people would recognize for what it is. I know what it is, and that's all that matters as far as I'm concerned.

I don't keep time for a living, nor do I make photographs for a living. If that we're true, I would most certainly rely on a digital watch and a digital camera. I think LF film and film in general will endure as an art medium and for those like me - and I believe there are many - who will continue to practice these processes for personal satisfaction and for the simple pleasure of making something beautiful by hand.

ScottPhotoCo

4-Feb-2013, 12:12

I have been in the advertising business for over 20 years and have seen the progression of "craftsmanship" degenerate to "good-enough". Not to say that there's not some fantastic work being done in the digital realm. If we did a shoot for a client like Sony or PepsiCo today they would freak if we showed up with a film camera. Unfortunately there is no incentive in the corporate world for craftsmanship anymore. It is about margins, speed to market and justifiable results. That is exactly WHY I shoot film. I love the process, thought and personal touch that it requires to achieve what I want. I am not an artist. I am just passionate about creativity and expression.

So I know that this doesn't answer your question, but I hope that film will be around for many more years as the process of film feeds my soul and helps keep me creatively fed which in turn helps me be a better "creative" for our clients. Film is imperfectly perfect, which is absolutely perfect in an imperfect world for me.

Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

John Rodriguez

4-Feb-2013, 17:33

Given the dominance of digital imaging in everything from cameras in smart phones to commercial image making, it sure seems film has been relegated to a specialty niche. Will film continue to slowly spiral downward to near zero or will there come a time when film will make a return?

What is happening reminds me very much of what happened to vinyl phonograph recordings. When digital audio appeared on the market, it displaced vinyl phonograph recordings very rapidly. Recently there has been a resurgence in vinyl phonograph recordings. Will there be a time in the future when film might make a significant return or has digital imaging, instant gratification, post process image control and ease of image making taken over completely and from this time forward?

Bernice

As a dj I was part of the group that kept vinyl alive through the early 2000s, but through the advent of CDs and now digital downloads that market has imploded. While vinyl will likely stay around for awhile as a hipster trend (kinda like Holgas), it will never fully come back. However, the cost of producing a vinyl record is trivial in comparison to manufacturing film, especially color film. Plus, there are ~43 active vinyl presses worldwide, and 3D printers will be viable options in a few years (you can find some videos of people playing records on current $2k 3D printers, they sound like crap, but they're getting there).

As far as Large Format - how do you define large format? A view camera? If that's the case I think you'll see more and more view camera movements available on digital cameras. More and more tilt/shift lenses and adapters are appearing as view camera users move to digital, and EVF cameras that don't need a mirror will make it even easier to use existing MF wide-angles on 35mm digital cameras with adapters. I'm going to be testing a 7" field monitor mounted to my D800, this will give me a ground glass equivalent for composing/focusing. I can even turn it upside down if I really want to :)

rdenney

5-Feb-2013, 07:38

I am not an artist. I am just passionate about creativity and expression.

I would submit that these two statements are contradictory, especially with the broad definition of art most use, which would suggest that anything made as a result of passion for creativity and expression is necessarily art, even if it also has some external utility.

Some observations on the subject of "good enough":

I saw a video (http://www.youtube.com/embed/zvUpnE-fKF4) of the making of the "Architects of Time" ad campaign for the Swiss watchmaker EBEL. This work was done in 2008 or 2009, and the photographer (Mitchell Feinberg) was using a large-format camera and film. The presentation media included back-lit transparencies printed at about 30x40, installed in boutiques where they could be viewed up close. This would probably be done digitally now, but I'm not sure digital was "good enough" in 2008. EBEL is a luxury brand so they are trying to portray an impression of excellence. (The camera looked to be, appropriately, a Sinar.)

On the other hand, I can also go into Subway and the photos they have of food are "artified" digital photographs that have been run through a filter so that the pixelation would not be obvious. They look terrible--just terrible. But it's a place that sells $5 sandwiches. They were better off with their New York subway map wallpaper.

Probably the worst fit I've seen was at a glass factory in western Maryland. The factory was once owned by Corning but is now a Simon Pearce glass-blowing workshop. In their showroom, they had some product photography posters (28x40 or thereabouts) hanging where customers could put their nose against them. The edges were highly pixelated--the poster was enlarged to perhaps four times what should have been the maximum enlargement. Glass products, especially luxury products, are defined by their crisp detail, and these posters undermined that impression completely. Here, "good enough", wasn't.

Most non-photographers would not notice these things, but it would still color their impressions even if subconsciously.

But I don't think it's a digital vs. film thing. That EBEL campaign could have easily been accomplished using a scanning back. Possibly, a medium-format digital back camera could have done a good job, too, with the right lenses (and they do exist). I use film because I prefer the image quality and image management possible with a large view camera. If there was a 4x5 digital solution of sufficient quality and field workability that I could afford, I'd be fine with that.

Rick "not lumping large-format and film in the same category" Denney

Brian Ellis

5-Feb-2013, 08:21

But in the end, I use film and my darkroom because it is the one thing I do that is hand made. . . .

How do you figure that your photographs are "hand-made?" You make them using a machine (the camera). You process the negatives with chemicals made by others. You put the negatives in a machine (the enlarger) using paper manufactured by others. Then you process the paper in chemicals made by others using equipment and machinery made by others. The only thing you've done by hand in the darkroom is put the paper in the easel, turn on the enlarger, maybe flash, dodge, burn, etc., and then run it through some chemicals for predetermined times. While dodging, burning, etc. is done by hand in the darkroom, it's also done by hand using Photoshop or another program so that doesn't seem to be a relevant difference.

uphereinmytree

5-Feb-2013, 08:35

Cheap, fast, and disposable has taken hold to the point that when I recently shared some 8x10 contact prints with an artist group, I was asked how I did the black & white conversion in photoshop and if the 'effects' were done with a third party add on. (This from artists!) When I expanded, most expressions seemed to be 'Why would you do all that' I'm wondering if most people have no idea what a truly high quality image looks like.

Brian C. Miller

5-Feb-2013, 09:34

How do you figure that your photographs are "hand-made?"

(sarcasm)(voice accent_locale="east european") I make my photographs by hand, with hammer and chisel! I sweat over a hot forge, pounding every silver particle into place. I take camera, set it up, and peer at scene on ground glass. I memorize every detail. And then I go to my forge and make the photograph by hand, for hours! Look at this wonderful detail. By hand! Each particle laid down with care. (/voice)(/sarcasm)

It's as hand-made as the process allows. Are you subtracting points because somebody didn't make their own silver nitrate? Oh, and make the cotton cellulose base, too. And cut the trees down and make the paper. How about making a furnace to turn sand into glass for wet plate? And grind your own lenses while you're at it.

Enlargers are machines?? A lamp and a lens is a machine? Tear down and rebuild an engine some time. That'll give you perspective.

Oy, vay.

Cheap, fast, and disposable has taken hold to the point that when I recently shared some 8x10 contact prints with an artist group, I was asked how I did the black & white conversion in photoshop and if the 'effects' were done with a third party add on. (This from artists!) When I expanded, most expressions seemed to be 'Why would you do all that' I'm wondering if most people have no idea what a truly high quality image looks like.

When I worked at Microsoft, a few times I brought in an 8x10 negative and its contact print. You have no idea how that threw so many people, even one who said he watched his uncle make prints in a darkroom. "This is a print ... and this is another print?" (referring to the negative) Supposedly the smartest people on the planet.

(on topic) Film will never cease to exist as an exclusively artistic medium, not as long as film is made. Not as long as companies are buying $15,000+ of Kodak TMax 100 8x10, for whatever purpose. Maybe Boeing is doing it, as I've locally bought some lens boards that had their old property tags on them. Something needs to be photographed that has a specific need which a digital camera can't accomplish. Not with 80Mp. Kodak used to cut Techpan in 8x10 because somebody wanted it. So there is still a real need for what 8x10 film can deliver, and it isn't for fashion or artistic "statement."

Drew Wiley

5-Feb-2013, 10:03

I don't know who is using all that 8x10 TMX, but they're bought up an entire batch of it two years in
a row. All I know is that it's an "industrial" user, not one of the usual photo supply distributors. I picked up a few boxes left over from the initial order. Being right here in the heart of Techie Land,
surrounded in every direction with it, it is inevitable that one constantly interacts with the software
and animation workers, and the engineers that develop all the digital toys. It can be a bit annoying
out on the trails when they stop (often on trail bikes) and ask to look thru the 8x10. I'm polite and
accommodate them. The responses are always positive: "Wish I had a spare room for a real darkroom",
"Sure nice that they still make real cameras", "The prints must be wonderful". Photoshop is just more
boring work for them - they aren't overawed by it in the manner their marketing departments want the
world to fall down and worship their digital idols. Just new tools, that's all - no different than a new
garden rake.

Drew Wiley

5-Feb-2013, 10:05

Brian - tear down and rebuild my own big enlarger some time (not, don't!). That will make an engine
look simple.

David Lobato

5-Feb-2013, 10:41

Drew Wiley

5-Feb-2013, 12:14

No pain, no gain.

rdenney

5-Feb-2013, 14:26

Regarding the extra effort in using large format, I have a prepared response to someone who asks "why?" I'll say that the easy way to do something is not always the best way.

Quality exacts extra effort. Dedication is a virtue.

Dedication is a virtue, but we should not believe that the effort of overcoming a difficult process embues the art with some special quality. We've all seen much art (and in my case, in my own portfolio) that overcomes the technical challenges but still falls flat as art. At best, it represents craft. There is no problem with that, as long as we don't confuse the two.

For me, though, the goal is not art, and not even craft. For me, the goal is to produce, often for reasons I cannot even articulate, for its own sake, for fun. Maybe it works out, maybe it doesn't. Often, I don't like it myself, but I still enjoy making it.

I am a radio amateur, and I participate in several contests each year that require building radio stations in the field. I love building radio stations. Once it's built, though, I'm happy to let someone else sit there and operate it. Why would I enjoy such a thing? It's a means of expressing something about myself. I was once asked why I did the radio thing instead of just calling someone on a cell phone. My response was: Why ride a bike when we could just get in the car and drive? We benefit from the effort, but the art does not benefit from the effort. With the bike, we may be more satisfied with the process, but we still get there more slowly, and usually less comfortably. With the radio, we struggle to make contacts that are easy using a cell phone. Still, it's just plain more satisfying to do it ourselves.

With that stated, whether something is satisfying or not 1.) cannot be calculated. Any one person will have a different way of measuring it, for reasons inherent in their psyche. They may not even understand it themselves. And 2.) does not necessarily reflect itself in the product. There are things I do very well but from which I derive only cursory satisfaction. They come easily, but I still do them quite well. For others, I struggle to produce even mediocre results, but those mediocre results still provide deep statisfaction.

So, I don't serve art. I serve me. Maybe that is art--the desire for expression is built in. But it also includes a desire to make something in a particular way for reasons that cannot be justified by the product alone, simply because that's the way we want to make it. The more we think we can justify it in absolute terms (particularly using any possible distortion of the definition of "art" or, far worse, "photography"), the thinner is that ice we are about to break through.

Rick "thinking just about all film photography is made solely because the photographer wants to make it that way" Denney

Alan Gales

5-Feb-2013, 17:46

I'm wondering if most people have no idea what a truly high quality image looks like.

From my experience, they don't.

Leonard Metcalf

6-Feb-2013, 13:20

The film (and large format and alternative processes) has already started...

irwinhh

4-Mar-2013, 13:00

paulr

4-Mar-2013, 13:07

I agree, however film is making a return.

I don't doubt that black and white film could have a renaissance. It's easy to imagine it coming back as a cottage industry for artists, reconstructed at the appropriate scale.

Color film seems less likely. The manufacturing technology is probably out of reach of anyone besides huge industry. It's not like coating a single emulsion on some stock, or building a wooden boat or pressing a vinyl LP.

Drew Wiley

4-Mar-2013, 14:54

Did anyone notice how horses and equestrian sports all suddenly became extinct once the model T Ford was marketed?

DavyG

4-Mar-2013, 14:56

Unfortunately not so many resurgent film photographers are under the age of 50 so it still may go the way of the hundreds of restored Model T's that were cherished by some who are no longer with us. I guess when the last persons who want to own a 1957 Chevy or maybe an air cooled Porsche are dead and gone film photography may be gone as well.
Andy

I have to disagree with you in this. I believe myself to be one of the younger members here on this site - I'm still in my twenties - and based on all the pictures of children and grandchildren on this site I will have to set the average age of its members somewhat high.
The person who introduced me to LF was a man of the age 35, and i know perhaps about 20 - 25 other young people - all in their twenties too - who shoot film as a hobby, both B/W and colour.
I don't believe film will ever get a comeback in business, but I know for a fact that a lot of younger people are very interested in film photography.

Scratched Glass

4-Mar-2013, 19:31

I've been away from film for the last year and half, I've been busy and have to take photos of my work that is mostly descriptive, so digital is the logical choice. Last week I finally took out the big camera, and spent and hour taking two frames. It just felt real, it allowed me to connect with the photo, and concentrate on the scene and the world around me.

Yesterday my 8 year old son and I developed his first 35 roll of fuji neopan 400, from an older nikon p&s. He was delighted and can't wait to take more photos and process more film. I don't think either of us will ever make a living doing this, but it is a fun and often rewarding hobby. I think there will always be people like us, and market large enough for film, but I worry that we may have only a handful of film choices left.

Several companies and many custom gun makers are still manufacturing thousands of traditional muzzleloading firearms each year. These guns went out of date in the 1860's, and in some cases the 1690's. There is almost no reason to have them other than people like to connect with their ancestors. Hobbyists and artists will keep it alive. But when there is no fuji velvia manufactured ever again. I will shed a a few tears into one of the old green boxes and bury it in the back yard.

Daniel Stone

4-Mar-2013, 22:40

I've had some interesting conversations with some people over the last few years regarding both film AND LF, and its merit in today's digital world. Mostly with people who 'settle' with their photography, rather than strive for the absolute best in quality and representation of their shots in printed form(of any size). I started with digital, and was 'happy' with it until I saw a contact sheet of 6x7 color negatives that a friend(RIP) had made in the 1980's. They were bridal portraits(he was an engineer who shot weddings on the weekends for extra photo money), and even though the negatives and contact sheet were 20+ yrs old, the contact sheet still 'sang' in a way that ANY digitally made photograph I had seen or made up until that point(~2004, I was a junior in h.s.) could not. Well, at that point, I instantly became interested in film.
Fast forward to 3yrs ago, when I started with LF, I saw that many of 'the greats' in photography had/do/did use LF cameras, and upon seeing the rendering of fine details, quality of craftsmanship and overall 'feel' that LF and film gave to a photograph, I wanted in.

I now work as a freelance photo assistant here in Los Angeles. Many of the people I've worked for/with have gone completely digital. Some still have their Mamiyas and Hasselblads sitting in closets at home, but many haven't used them in 5-7yrs or more. Sad... Such great technology just sitting there, unused...And we've had conversations over lunch during jobs about how they don't feel good about the digital capture. Many feel that with film, they had more 'creative freedom' per se, that clients and a.d.'s allowed them to run the shoot, now its almost the opposite, with big computer monitors, Ipads hooked up through wireless networks so the client can play nanny to the shoot while sitting on their duffs eating cake or browsing the internet.

Some assistants miss it too, but many don't. One guy I work with on occasion still shoots 6x12, but he can't get out too often these days w/ a growing family dynamic. So 'little me'(if you've met me in-person you'll know that's far from an accurate description ;) ) still leads the charge as an ardent user/promoter of film in the professional photographic market.

But 'good enough' has definitely become the norm, individual styles seem to have gone out the window now, along with budgets... But that's another topic for another thread :D

-Dan

Peter Lewin

5-Mar-2013, 06:21

I just read through the entire thread, and IIRC, only Bernice herself on page 2, and our moderator, RCDenny, used the words "art" and "craft" separately in their posts. I think it is a crucial distinction, and the question that Bernice posed in starting this thread might have been better phrased as "Will LF and Film Become A Craft Medium Only."

"Artistry" is primarily about the image, and the presentation of that image. Digital image capture has reached the point where, in my opinion at least, it is equal to, or superior to, film capture, at least for formats smaller than ULF. The prints made possible using, for example, Cone ink sets, are at least equal to those made using traditional processes. So in terms of making "art" I think that digital has won out, again excepting perhaps giant prints made from scans of ULF negatives. If, at some future point, digital LF backs became portable (i.e. non-tethered), affordable, and light weight, I suspect most of us would switch over, again assuming we had access to the suitable amount of computer power and large-format inkjet printers. At least if our primary concerns were the images we produce, and the prints we make of those images.

But what most of those on this forum value is "craft." We enjoy the process of making prints "the old fashioned way" and many have written about the tactile enjoyment of working with view cameras and LF negatives. To the extent that craftsmanship is an "ongoing" interest, I suspect some amount of film will continue to be available for that niche; I certainly hope so, because it is the craft that keeps me using film and my darkroom. So those who love "the process" will try to keep it going, and if there are a sufficient number, there will continue to be suppliers for this limited population, but also probably of a limited number of choices.

To me, the "proof of the pudding" (much better image than owl entrails!) is my monthly attendance of the NJ Photographers Forum. I believe many of those who attend think of themselves as artists (I specifically exclude myself, I consider myself a "hobbyist"); they are successful enough to have shows of their work, some have published books, a number bring in magazines which have chosen to publish their work. Currently I believe there are two attendees (one of which is me) who still bring in silver prints, and both of us use view cameras. Everyone else brings in digital work, shot with DSLRs and printed on inkjet. I have to believe that we two "luddites" continue to use LF and film not out of "artistic" sensibilities relative to all the other attendees, merely that we enjoy the process of manually playing with swings and tilts, and getting our hands wet. And as I typed this last sentence, I thought about the many posters in this forum who while they still enjoy swings and tilts, and getting their hands wet in developer, have already switched 100% to digital output.

Drew Wiley

5-Mar-2013, 09:34

So where does that argument take you, Peter? Now you're stuck defining what "art" is (or pretends to be), plus, how do you
extract "craft"(i.e., technique itself) and be left with anything tangible, even visible. Less technique = more art??? Yeah, the
proof sure is in the pudding. Even digital printing is a "process", and those who think it will do everything by itself make some pretty rancid pudding. Tactility versus Lardassography is a personal choice, and has zero to do with artistic merit per se. I just take exception to those Lardassographers who are too lazy to pick up a paintbrush, but are wannabee painters.
It still craft, any way you look at it, but craft needs the right tools. Nothing luddite one way or the other. There is already a
generation out there that thinks anyone toting a DLSR is a luddite. Next thing to go will be the cell phone camera. The rush
to new technology for its own sake is never a hallmark of quality, just of marketing.

Brian C. Miller

5-Mar-2013, 09:38

A couple of the threads in the Lounge have gone in a parallel direction. The art of photography, along with the craft of photography, have become devalued with the digitization of the medium. For example, let's say I grab some servos, a couple of Arduino controllers, and write a plugin for Photoshop called PhotoPaint, where instead of a photograph being printed, it is painted on canvas. Then I license the technology to Epson, and retire comfortably. PhotoPaintings become common and ordinary, and to make a painting all you need to do is feed the thing an image (not necessarily a photograph), choose paint strokes, and click "Paint" on the menu, just under "Print." Wait a while, and you have your new oil or arcrylic or watercolor painting. What then happens to painting?

LF had a major role when the only way a photographic image could be made was with a viewing-size image, i.e., the size of the sensitized material determined the size of the viewed image. When the Brownie came along, the role of the LF camera was diminished. Then MF and 35mm came, and finally digital came and is all over the place like crab grass and dandylions on the lawn. Once professional photographers decided that a 2Mp digital camera was good enough, there was no turning back.

But artistic only?

"Only" denotes "never" in a different context. So LF film would never be used in any commercial or scientific application. But there is at least one company that makes a $15,000 order of Kodak TMax 100 from Canham Cameras. Application unknown, but it is done. I've been told that the auction houses use a lot of E6 in 4x5 and 8x10, and had standardized on Kodak. Have they moved to digital, or are they using Fuji Provia? I have no idea. But those are commercial film applications, and as long as the material is available, then it will be used for that.

So as long as large format film is available, and it satisfies a niche use, the criteria for "only" cannot be satisfied. When commercial film is no longer produced, then it will become only used as an artistic craft medium. There aren't any industrial users of the wet plate collodion process, though there are a few commercial portrait studios. We will have to produce our own dry plates, and so on. But as long as Ilford stays standing, we'll be OK for commercial film. And there will be some niche that only LF film will be the best choice, so the condition for "only" won't be met.

Drew Wiley

5-Mar-2013, 10:13

It's not painting on canvas. It's doing a half-assed simulation of what an idiot thinks a painting should look like. There were
overlay techniques to photograhic prints for years that simulated brush texture, and now Fauxtoshop gives some blur nonsense too. So what. You'll never get a Van Gogh that way, where each individual brushstroke is intelligently felt. So does this technology make Van Gogh obsolete? Millions and millions of Big Macs served still don't add up to a single real steak. Artsy/craftsy is one thing, craft as the means of actually communicating your vision is something else. But I know about that Canham TMX 8x10 thing, because he sold me the leftover boxes.

Bernice Loui

19-Mar-2013, 20:28

Art is very much a part of craft and craft as much a part of art. They are both joined at the hip and inseparable.

The apparent separation appears to occur when individuals involved become obsessed with one -vs- the other and not seeing or understanding how related they are.

Examples of this are photographers/image makers who are always searching for that magical widget that creates special images all on their own with little intervention or ability required from the user.. Or, we have photographers/image makers who do not understand the technical/craft/materials aspect of image making and become extremely frustrated at the process for not doing what they want the process to do as a means to express their vision.

As for Art, what is art.. who defines what art might be? Some time ago Jim Williams who is a very well known in the Analog design world as a creative and artist Engineer suddenly died. Have a look at his work.. is this art? For those who have a deep understanding, maybe yes. For others who are not fluent or appreciative of this work, likely no.

So what is art?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wwZ8eI3jvw

As for ULF being the definitive in resolution and sharpness and... It depends on what is being imaged. If one were to create images with the optics focused at infinity, the ULF works pretty well. Once the reproduction ratios become less than infinity or focal length limited or light available for imaging or the laws physics involved with optics, and other recoding medium starts to bit, ULF may be far worst than smaller film formats.

Every tool has its built in and designed in limits. It is a matter of knowing what the tools are truly capable of and what they can and cannot do before applying a specific tool to create the image in mind. Which brings back the topic of art and craft, they are very much interdependent and not separable.

Bernice

I just read through the entire thread, and IIRC, only Bernice herself on page 2, and our moderator, RCDenny, used the words "art" and "craft" separately in their posts. I think it is a crucial distinction, and the question that Bernice posed in starting this thread might have been better phrased as "Will LF and Film Become A Craft Medium Only."

"Artistry" is primarily about the image, and the presentation of that image. Digital image capture has reached the point where, in my opinion at least, it is equal to, or superior to, film capture, at least for formats smaller than ULF. The prints made possible using, for example, Cone ink sets, are at least equal to those made using traditional processes. So in terms of making "art" I think that digital has won out, again excepting perhaps giant prints made from scans of ULF negatives. If, at some future point, digital LF backs became portable (i.e. non-tethered), affordable, and light weight, I suspect most of us would switch over, again assuming we had access to the suitable amount of computer power and large-format inkjet printers. At least if our primary concerns were the images we produce, and the prints we make of those images.

But what most of those on this forum value is "craft." We enjoy the process of making prints "the old fashioned way" and many have written about the tactile enjoyment of working with view cameras and LF negatives. To the extent that craftsmanship is an "ongoing" interest, I suspect some amount of film will continue to be available for that niche; I certainly hope so, because it is the craft that keeps me using film and my darkroom. So those who love "the process" will try to keep it going, and if there are a sufficient number, there will continue to be suppliers for this limited population, but also probably of a limited number of choices.

To me, the "proof of the pudding" (much better image than owl entrails!) is my monthly attendance of the NJ Photographers Forum. I believe many of those who attend think of themselves as artists (I specifically exclude myself, I consider myself a "hobbyist"); they are successful enough to have shows of their work, some have published books, a number bring in magazines which have chosen to publish their work. Currently I believe there are two attendees (one of which is me) who still bring in silver prints, and both of us use view cameras. Everyone else brings in digital work, shot with DSLRs and printed on inkjet. I have to believe that we two "luddites" continue to use LF and film not out of "artistic" sensibilities relative to all the other attendees, merely that we enjoy the process of manually playing with swings and tilts, and getting our hands wet. And as I typed this last sentence, I thought about the many posters in this forum who while they still enjoy swings and tilts, and getting their hands wet in developer, have already switched 100% to digital output.