Another Proclamation that Film is Dead--UGH!

[Brian Rose]

Today, I endured two hours of a professor showing off his photo work, and all that stuff. Towards the end, he goes off on how much easier everything is with digital, and he proudly proclaimed that Kodak will stop making film in five years. I think film has a little more life than that!

Brian R.

[dr_gonzo]

Today, I endured two hours of a professor showing off his photo work, and all that stuff. Towards the end, he goes off on how much easier everything is with digital, and he proudly proclaimed that Kodak will stop making film in five years. I think film has a little more life than that!

Brian R.

 

in TEN years perhaps their will be a 50/50 division of features shot on HD vs. film....but give your professor a good punch in the throat for me.

[Brian Rose]

You should have heard him when I asked this:

 

"Isn't digital less disciplined? With film, you only get one shot to get it right, so naturally you plan it out, take you time, and make sure it is what you want. With digital, all you do is point and shoot, and at the end of the day, you can delete the stuff you don't like."

 

Man, he went off. Touched a raw nerve I expect!

[Matthew W. Phillips]

What an idiot...I want to come back in five years and ask what all those "film is dead" people what they think when film is still the origination medium on over 50% of all narrative productions.

[Daniel Stigler]

You should have heard him when I asked this:

 

"Isn't digital less disciplined? With film, you only get one shot to get it right, so naturally you plan it out, take you time, and make sure it is what you want. With digital, all you do is point and shoot, and at the end of the day, you can delete the stuff you don't like."

 

Man, he went off. Touched a raw nerve I expect!

 

I experienced that kind of shooting. It gives you 99 crappy takes to choose from...

[Matthew W. Phillips]

I experienced that kind of shooting. It gives you 99 crappy takes to choose from...

 

Yeah, I been there too...

[David Sweetman]

Well technically, I think film and digital are equally dead. I don't think there are any living elements in either format.

 

Anyway the use of still-film will certainly dwindle (and has) before the use of motion picture film dwindles. Of course most professional photographers still have a deep love and respect for film. I think you may be hard-pressed to find one with a harsh word to say about film. I'm just glad I was born before the transition; all the pictures of my youth have amazing resolution and lattitude, with beautiful colors and sometimes a nice faded look. Worlds better than any consumer digital cameras could render.

[Brian Rose]

I should say, I don't hate digital. It has its uses, and when used correctly, has its own strengths apart from film. What burned me was the level of haughtiness this prof. had toward digital over film. And it seemed for all the wrong reasons. He kept talking about how much easier it is to make prints and maniuplate images than it used to be. He admitted the quality wasn't as good as earlier techinques, but he was just so thrilled that instead of having to labor in a darkroom, he could do everything on computer at his home, and then print it out. To me, this seemed to be the completely wrong idea. I like what is hard! Sure, its a b*tch to take light readings, shoot the film, get it processed and all that just for a few minutes of footage, but IMHO, the product of all that labor, seeing that actual, beautiful image on that thin strip of film is so much more satisfying than a digital image that can be taped over in a second, as though it never existed. For me, art is about labor, and I was so troubled that this particular prof didn't see that.

[Chayse Irvin ASC, CSC]

Today, I endured two hours of a professor showing off his photo work, and all that stuff. Towards the end, he goes off on how much easier everything is with digital, and he proudly proclaimed that Kodak will stop making film in five years. I think film has a little more life than that!

Brian R.

 

Heh. I remember hearing that same thing 5 years ago. Needless to say he was wrong.

[Michael Collier]

huh. And hes a prof you say? Seems odd he wouldn't be working in the feild, what with such advanced knowledge. (tell him that, see what he says.)

[Gareth Munden]

Hi, I'm work mostly in stills Photography here in London. I think I'm one of the only ones that still perfers film.

It's getting harder to get the stock you want at short notice even from Pro outfits ( and there are less and less of them ). Clients ask for Digi now as the think it's cheaper and they love the speed, in fack jobs get "signed" of very late now coz they can shoot Digi ( pay less, even if a H2 digi Hasselblad costs £30k which they will not pay to hire).

 

I think it's a leason for the furture of moving film, when the accountents take offer say good buy to film.

[freddie bonfanti]

i still use slide film in still photography, call me crazy, which i usually push a couple of stops...it makes me thinking carefully about composition, exposure and various techniques and thats great cus when i get my stuff back i know it wasnt easy to achieve it. but in filmaking i go for hd with mini 35, just because film wont give me a chance to shoot as much as i want, because of the costs...and because of the look, which to me is great

Edited September 12, 2006 by freddie bonfanti

[John Pytlak RIP]

The professional photographer who shot my daughter's wedding last November INSISTED on using 120-format FILM. Nothing like film to hold highlight detail in white lace and flowers, and have great flesh tones.

[David Leugers]

120 format film has a real soft spot in my heart for taking still pictures. I have a relatively inexpensive Yashicamat24 that I will not part with. Pictures taken 15-20 years ago of my kids are some of the best

images I have ever taken. My wife who shoots only digital pictures now, looked through the 120 photo

album last week and couldn't believe how good they looked. Got me to get the old 120 out and to buy

some film for it. Looking forward to the fall and enjoying the art of photography rather than the "point and

shoot" of digital photography... I enjoy the craft of film and the results are definitely worth the effort to me.

[Brad Grimmett]

It's funny that shooting film for stills is cheaper than digital now. A friend of mine just told me about a Mamiya medium format setup that he bought for $590, including a lens! At that price you will have to shoot a lot of film before you even come close to the price of a medium format digital back, and the results will be (in my opinion) better. I may just pick up a medium format camera after hearing about the deal my friend got.

[Gareth Munden]

My Mamiya RZ, which shoots 120 roll film at 6x7cms knocks the socks off most 20-30k Digi backs ( that is UK Pounds not USD ). BUT most UK photographers are using Digi. Why ?. Maybe coz they love the toys or because of the "in house" work flow i.e. Shot-Retouch-Print from your own Mac. For me this is not so much a problem coz I print my own RA4 colour prints in my own Darkroom ( but it's getting very hard to get small amounts of RA4 Chemistry now).

[Guest Patrick Nuse]

My Mamiya RZ, which shoots 120 roll film at 6x7cms knocks the socks off most 20-30k Digi backs ( that is UK Pounds not USD ). BUT most UK photographers are using Digi. Why ?. Maybe coz they love the toys or because of the "in house" work flow i.e. Shot-Retouch-Print from your own Mac. For me this is not so much a problem coz I print my own RA4 colour prints in my own Darkroom ( but it's getting very hard to get small amounts of RA4 Chemistry now).

 

Hats off to you, making real prints of your work.

I too am a film nut. I recently bought a Nikon F4 to upgrade my lens quality. I have recently discovered what kodak ultra color 100 can do and Im exited about photography all over again. the images are absolutely amazing. the second half of my work flow is digital though, hard to get printing supplies here. but using film to capture the original image is still my prefered way to take photos.

[Will Montgomery]

I find that I like using more exotic emulsions for still photography; stocks that give you a look that digital can't.

 

With a digital SLR I can get great, sharp images with the depth of field I like. BUT, there's something about certain B&W stocks and Kodachrome that give a look you just don't get with digital. Its almost the inaccuracies and imperfections that I love the most... grain? BRING IT ON!

 

Anyone use run across some stocks that give a different "look?"

 

Just bought a Holga 120 camera for $20 too. Having fun with it.

[K Borowski]

Tell your professor that Kodak has just upgraded its film products. They're incorporating Vision-2 Advancements into the Portra line. Unfortunately, Portra 100T has been discontinued, making the 160 the slowest stills format available anymore.

 

6x7 cm is amazing. I don't think I'll shoot anything smaller than 6x4.5 cm (in stills ;-) ) ever again.

 

Regards,

 

~Karl

[Matthew Buick]

That Professor. <_<

[Marty Hamrick]

I have noticed in my news work when I see police evidence technicians taking photos at a crime scene, they are ALWAYS using film.I haven't yet inquired why they,too,haven't changed, but I have a feeling it has much to do with the value of "hard copy" with a negative as opposed to a file that can be corrupted,lost or deleted accidently.

 

Usually when I see someone with your professor's attitude,it's someone who feels uncomfortable with the aspects of photography that those of us with a strong film background are most comfortable with.Depth of field,focus,shutter speeds,aperture settings and using a light meter.The fact that your conversation about the "99 crappy pictures for one good one" struck a nerve with the dude confirms this.These types of folks are more comfortable with their computers,where they feel that they are in control moreso than out in the field dealing with vaiables like light and movement.They can cover a multitude of sins in photoshop.

 

I've worked with commercial producers like that who felt comfortable in an edit bay, but were nervous out on location or in a studio.It's all about what territory a person is comfortable.

 

I still don't understand why there are so many that want to bury film.Isn't it nice to have a CHOICE?

 

BTW, I love my Nikon F 3 and have no intention on giving it up.I plan to get a nice digi SLR at some point,but I'll continue to shoot film as long as it's available.

Edited September 19, 2006 by Marty Hamrick

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

As far as cops still using film, I've been told its because of the archiving aspect as well as the neg. being a "true hardcopy".....Gov. officials use it for this reason as well, I'm told. (I see cops in my work sometimes...) I asked about scanning and was told its rarely done. Everything is still "tangible" for "security" reasons. Its funny that a man with a mannila envelope is still more secure than a hard-drive or disc. Hehe..

 

About films death,................Print has been dead for a decade I'm told. I guess I'm lucky to find all these archaic retail shops that sell "books"....

 

Fact: we use more paper now then 10 years ago. Ok, I just guessed, who knows for sure. But it seems like it...

 

I don't think film will totally die out any time soon. The balance of power will shift of course, but many people will still cry out for film, hence demand. Capitalism will create to profit, don't forget that. And think about 50 years from now......film will make a "comeback" in the future arthouse. In the future(I feel), films popularity will be cyclical as the moods change from one gen to the next. Choice may narrow, but film will be manufactured for a long, long time. I figure about two generations after the last motion picture camera is made film will say goodbye. And it seems that they are still making and innovating the film camera, right? Penelope?

 

Film just works. Like paper, it will always be loved. Appreciation for the scratch of a pen, the alchemy of emulsion, is what seperates us from digital-people. Homo-analogous? Maybe.

Edited September 23, 2006 by Jon-Hebert Barto

[Mark Williams]

Got some super 8mm film footage from 1975 looks as good today as it it did then.. Every ten years or so I telecine it to the newest and latest format.. Seeing this footage on a viewer is better than any DV footage or HDV.. yOU CAN almost see INTO the picture.. So from an archive, aesthetic, Lifelike or creative, artistic, USE.. Film for me IS the best.. And because using light to form the image is a reflection of reality and Ink is from the Natural world.. This gives a true representation.. Not one made from zeroes and ones.. Not with huge bits of information manipulated or half the picture information missing.. No matter how good sharp clean it looks. There is always something missing. And not quite right..

 

Does'nt mean other formats dont have there place.. For convenience news or TV Drama.. Horses for courses.. People developing this new technology should try an make better Film cameras, Equipment and stock.. Instead of trying to improve digital which will never be analogue..

[Marty Hamrick]

Capitalism will create to profit, don't forget that. And think about 50 years from now......film will make a "comeback" in the future arthouse.

 

 

I can imagine 50 years from now,if all of the film manuafactures have shut down mass production of stock,some small mom and pop shop in Europe will be manufacturing specialty stocks.Probably 16mm black and white ,grainy reversal which someone will be loading into their old Bell and Howell Filmo or Bolex Rex that they have lovingly nurtured over the years.

 

I'm picturing some eccentric "art film director" making a short black and white,silent work for the same budget as a feature,lol.

 

As I said before,it's really nice to have a CHOICE.When/if film "bellies up" there will no longer be that luxury.

Edited September 28, 2006 by Marty Hamrick

[Daniel Sheehy]

I have noticed in my news work when I see police evidence technicians taking photos at a crime scene, they are ALWAYS using film.I haven't yet inquired why they,too,haven't changed, but I have a feeling it has much to do with the value of "hard copy" with a negative as opposed to a file that can be corrupted,lost or deleted accidently.

 

It is supposed to be easier to tamper with a digital file than with a negative, however both are equally admissible as evidence.

 

As Jon said, there is the archiving aspect to consider.