Another Proclamation that Film is Dead--UGH!

[Stephen Williams]

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

 

 

Hi,

 

Adding detail is tampering with evidence! If part of the picture looks cut out, I don't think that would help very much!

 

Stephen

[Richardson Leao]

I particularly think that if one considers cinematography an art, when you film in digital, the artistic creation finishes at the acting and scriptwriting. Everything else after are mathmatical algorythms. So, unless the producer/director is also a programer, every postproduction aspect of the film is machine-made, that's it. So, in my opinion, crapy stuff (e.g. rambo, miami vice etc) are OK to be digital, i am sure nobody is really paying attention on the photography when they watch those, but then, I would never watch the motorcycle diaries with the same passion as I did if it was done in digital. I am currently working in a 16mm project which the vision of two characters differ in color style (sometimes BW, sometimes color) and the one's that sees BW coloured his world according to his immagination, and for that I cross-process ektachrome (c41) and I tried different contrasts and film-stocks to pass the mood of a given scene. I consider all the postprocessing as part of the cinematography. Off course I could use some software made by some nerd that loves britney spears and mcdonalds to do similar effects, but ssomehow, I dunno if I could rest my head on a pillow knowing that my ideas were only possible to render because of some binary magician.

[Mark Duckworth]

Yeah right. And after you finish your film you take the short ends and plant them in the ground and in the spring sprouts a brand new Kodak 5218 tree, that you harvest your film from. And after you shoot it you spray water on it and leave it out in the sun to develop. Film is a technical medium as well, and has , as the Kodak folks are quick to point out, over a hundred years of enginering and science behind it. Film is not dead but I really can't stand the "brought down from the mountain" mentality when someone speaks of film. Don't romaticise it as being anything but a medium to capture and present creativity and artistic expression, just like digital. It has never been and never will be about the brushes or paint, it is always about the artistic vision and presentation.

[Craig Agee]

someone in a chat was going on and on the other day about how film will be gone in 15 years.im constantly running into people trying to justify digital cameras,i love them but they are WAY out of my price range right now.i shoot 120 in 645 format.who says digital is easier?i bought a d70 two years ago,had to learn quick about ICC profiles for printers,color spaces,extensive editing i couldnt even come CLOSE to some of my favorite film stocks,provia 100f,e100vs and velvia,you have to be border line brilliant to get decent results with digital in my opinion.easy to me is knowing what film stocks will do what and loading it and shooting,i sold my d70 a few months ago because it was a cheap plastic paper weight that cost twice as much as my 645.i hope more and more photographers do go digital though because it makes my portfolio look amazing :P

[David Venhaus]

I don't think that film will ever die. It may not be what the average consumer uses but like in still photography there are still people making a living doing daguerreotypes, tintypes, wet plates, etc. It is simply a matter of creative/artistic choice. If you want a certain look, use the real thing. Sure people can imitate most film effects digitally but why settle for something simulated. To acheive an authentic look there is no imitations. If you want to make an oil painting, you don't start with water colors.

Edited October 2, 2006 by David A Venhaus

[Marty Hamrick]

crapy stuff (e.g. rambo, miami vice etc) are OK to be digital,

 

 

 

Well the movies you just mentioned all had the budget to shoot film,that is the decision to shoot film vs.an electronic medium wouldn't even come into the argument (with the exception of Miami Vice,though, the decision to shoot HD over film there was NOT a budgetary decision).When your budget is 30 million plus,cost factors of stock and lab work aren't an issue.It is an issue,if say, your budget is well under 7 mil,so many artistic efforts of small independents are now and will be done in an electronic format or they won't get done at all.

 

While I'm not one to put a tomb stone over celluloid, I can't ignore the fact that in one day of shooting a lower priced HD camera can pay for itself,when you figure cost per roll along with processing and transfer.

 

I prefer to look at the new technology as another alternative,not a replacement.

[Robert Hughes]

Film is fine. Digital's fine. I can scan a negative into my computer, or run it in over a wire from my wifes DSLR. But when my disk drive dies, everything's lost.

 

Good thing I made a backup (why won't this read) and shot in film (where'd those negatives go?)...

[Richardson Leao]

Yeah right. And after you finish your film you take the short ends and plant them in the ground and in the spring sprouts a brand new Kodak 5218 tree, that you harvest your film from. And after you shoot it you spray water on it and leave it out in the sun to develop. Film is a technical medium as well, and has , as the Kodak folks are quick to point out, over a hundred years of enginering and science behind it. Film is not dead but I really can't stand the "brought down from the mountain" mentality when someone speaks of film. Don't romaticise it as being anything but a medium to capture and present creativity and artistic expression, just like digital. It has never been and never will be about the brushes or paint, it is always about the artistic vision and presentation.

 

I agree about the science and technology behind film but what I meant, I develop my own negs (or reversals) according to the mood I want in certain scenes. The final result is more unpredictable and experimental than simply adding whitenoise to digital stuff or using math algorithms to get different looks at the scene. While I cannot make film, I can mix the processing chemicals myself to obtain the kind of effect I want, and I think this is also part of the filming process.

[Guest]

It is an issue,if say, your budget is well under 7 mil,so many artistic efforts of small independents are now and will be done in an electronic format or they won't get done at all.

 

Then there are people like me shooting features on 35mm with a budget under $100,000.00.

 

So I'm way way way below your 7 million mark, but I'm not having any trouble shooting 35mm. There are a dozen "tricks" that can be employed to lower the cost. You just have to work smart.

 

R,

[Alessandro Machi]

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.

 

 

Digital stills do have advantages over film when it comes to quantity, in that regards your professor is right on.

Additionally, digital stills have an advantage in that they can be zoomed into quite a ways.

[Charles MacDonald]

Additionally, digital stills have an advantage in that they can be zoomed into quite a ways.

 

Can you expand that statement? My wife borowed my old Pentax MX, and using Fuji Superia took a picture of the harbour of the place she was staying. It was a nice shot taken just before magic hour, using a long exposure, stedied by the balcony of the Hotel she was in.

 

I took the negative in, and the normal lab - Qualex via Wal-Mart, made a very nice crisp sharp 24X36 Inch print. Film Grain is hardly visible. masts of the boats are clear. and this was 400D (c-41) stock. Note that this is "zooming in" 25X from the actual negative.

 

I don't know how fancy a digital camera I would need to get the same effect.