Film vs Digital. Impact on Art, Culture, Experience.

[Gregg MacPherson]

I posted this before on Bill Dipiettra's thread, Sad Day For 35mm Film. It may have got lost there, so I'm starting a unique thread for it.

 

This is my sincere attempt to write some kind of personal begining point on this. It's not an invitation to conflict. I'll call it an invitation for others to offer their own thoughts about it or to make creative reactions. For those interested in that, I suggest we basicly ignore any reactions of an ugly or personalized sort.

 

For some years, from 1993 to 2010, while I avoided any involvement in film making, I occasionally had the strange thought to write something on the differences between the film and the electronic motion picture image - the impact of this difference on art, culture, human experience. I didn't, the grass grew under my feet and now it's almost too late.

 

There are many reasons why people may lament the apparent demise of film and it may be that they all have some legitimacy. Some important things may be wrongly dismissed as mere sentimentality. For example some people are intimately identified with the physicality of the camera, the perforated film and a photographic process which verges on the inexplicable or magical. This can be quite profound and not to be dismissed.

 

The photographic process is more densely packed with intelligence and meaningful information than we can possibly imagine. A tiny pixel sized dot on the cheek of an actor. How many photons arrive there per 1/50 second while the cinematographer watches. There are probably some on the forum who can tell us, per unit of measured light. It's a lot, a vast number. The interaction between the photons and the actors skin, we have to assume is on the molecular level, or on the scale of the atoms there.

 

My contention is that this interaction between the photons and the material structure of the actor is changing the physicality of both photon and actor. I mean on an incredibly microscopic level. Further, some would contend, that the microscopic contains functional principals of the macroscopic. I'm thinking that each single microscopic interaction somehow encodes a snapshot of the macroscopic, at that moment.

 

So this deluge of photons heading towards the cinematographers eye in the 1/50 seconds interval is overwhelmingly dense with information far beyond issues of light, dark, color, contrast that the cinematographer might normally deal with. You could assume that human sense perception is incapable of responding, or that common disbelief would disable the chance of receptivity. Again, taking an intuitive leap, I suggest that some cinematographers are at least subconsciously receptive to this more subtle, densely rich stream of information and process and make use of it without even being aware of it.

 

Regardless of the degree of receptivity in the cinematographer, after the expiration of 1/50 second, all that stream arrives at the emulsion. Thinking intuitively about that, and yes again making some intuitive leaps, the interaction between photons and emulsion could be conceived of on a microscopic level. Maybe black and white is easier to talk about. Imagine a very small element of grain. The arriving photons make an impression apon it. This can again be considered at a microscopic level. Being saturated with information on a very refined level from their interacation with the actor, now an interaction on a similar level is possible with the emulsion.

 

My guess is that with current methods, contact printing the camera original, we loose a lot of or the purity of this vast storehouse of photographed information. On the conscious level, normal human perception may be unable to see it, but this does not mean that it is unable to make an impact upon us and leave us with something useful. Think art, magic, subjective experience.

 

Now, the digital version. The cinematographer, assuming he is lucky enough to have a spinning mirror, no longer has a photographic capture process that is analogous to his own ocular perception. As before we could hope that his retina, neurophysiology and style of awareness is responding in some way to the microscopic interactions with this vast incoming stream of densely laden photons. Again, after the expiration of 1/50 second, all that stream arrives at the .......sensor. All I can think from what is commonly described about the configuration and function of sensors is that the vast bulk of all that impossibly dense, richly packed information is suddenly all but gone. It's replaced by a relatively) tiny stream of zeros and ones that encode a crude value of only some aspects of that.

 

I think photochemical process is capable of creating a direct and profound impression. The photons landed on the negative and changed it. It enables a direct visceral connection that someone can later make with that moment. Not imaginary, not virtual, not smoke and mirrors. It's real, palpable, can feel as real as being punched in the stomach. But I don't think we all respond uniformly, most significantly for me because we don't all have the same acuity of seeing or functionality of awareness. But then again, moving pictures as a popular art form require some degree of common or shared style of seeing.

 

So perhaps the main stream film industry, in particular, digital exhibition, will culture us to see in a way that is useful to them and no one will notice or know any different.

 

On Bill's thread I rounded it off here , thinking I was using more than my share of space.

 

Cheers,

Gregg

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Gregg, I believe you touch on some good points. But I wanted to point out, although I know this is not new information, that film is about much more than the chemical process and even the look. It is about an approach to filmmaking that, I believe, is dying.

 

That approach is about discipline, dedication, mastery of one's work, and that unsettling drive to pursue greatness the first time around. Digital filmmaking is introducing a new paradigm that basically allows one to always let the cameras roll, ignore auditioning, attention to detail, and most other aspects of a controlled set because either 1) you can experiment and shoot more without consequence 2) there is this idea that you might catch something greater because the camera rolls more often 3) some even have the idea "you can fix it in post." Then again, the post idea even started to creep in with film but to a lesser degree, I believe.

 

Digital, in its quest to provide a pathway of entry, has done little outside of flood the market with lesser quality products. The barrier to entry of film seemed like an evil for some but it was a necessary evil. It permitted the dedicated and talented to rise to the top and the winner in the end was the end viewer. They didnt have the burden of sorting through thousands of low end films. Yes, there was always low budget stuff but the nature of film made those types of films easy to spot. Digital technology has allowed sleek presentations on the box with poor product on the disc. There is difficulty for the viewer to discern by looking at a box. In fact, many lower end digital features have greater artistry in their marketing concepts than in the finished product. Perhaps the filmmakers should switch careers and pursue marketing!

 

So I dont over run my time, I just want to sum up that I believe the demise of film brings with it the end of an age of discipline, dedication to quality, obsession with detail, passionate desire to get things right the first time, and the death of patience in this industry. When you hear of people editing on the set before the production is over, you know something is wrong. Time should be taken and care should be given to look at the overall vision and behold what you did in production. If the Director is involved in the editing process, he needs a chance to process in his/her mind what just happened and to regroup, even if only for a weekend, before he delves into editing decisions.

 

The implications for you working professionals is even worse, Im afriad. At least at the lower budget level. This is the first of the hammer falling. Soon filmmakers will cut you out if new technologies render you useless, and by useless, we arent talking about them getting the same quality as having you. No, they dont need as good of quality, only passable quality as enough to justify cutting you out of the chain. No different than film is being cut from the chain. Perhaps a studio boom stand with a long reach can replace a sound guy and any buffoon who can press a button can man the record and stop button to further automate processes that used to take skill. Ok, Ive said enough for now...would love to hear others thoughts.

[Francisco Martins]

Matthew, you nailed it right on the head. Discipline, patience, and vision.

[Kahleem Poole]

Discipline, patience and vision have little to do with digital or celluloid capture. It's a mindset and either you have it or you don't, point blank.

This notion of digital movie making perpetuating impatience is silly and a bit tired. Especially since there are strong examples of the opposite everywhere, including those on this forum.

 

What Cinematographers from this generation need to do is to learn from the previous generation by example, practice and research. If the older generation wants to mentor the new breed, then so be it and it is much MUCH appreciated (and needed). However, claiming that film as an art form is dead or dying just because a classical capture medium has run its course is just silly and an overblown exaggeration.

 

I myself began as a comic book illustrator with pencils, India ink, t-squares, exacto knives, water color, screen tones from Japan and 11x14 bristol board paper. However with illustrators now digital painting almost exclusively in Photoshop and Corel Draw, the medium hasn't died even if the bar of entry has lowered. In fact, the expectations have risen; just the opposite of the fear mongering going on years ago, similar to this.

 

It's the same with filmmaking and I am from this new breed generation of digital filmmakers. Though my work doesn't suffer from any form of ADD setbacks or lack of patience. I light and shoot the way I draw and paint. I research dozens of books from ASC masters, watch tons of lectures and documentaries and pick the brains of those that I admire as much as I can, when I can. My choice of canvas shouldn't determine whether an entire art form lives or dies and it won't either. Had it not been for DSLRs and other video cameras to give me entry, I wouldn't have realized my calling as an artist professionally.

 

This incessant fear mongering and whining has gone on for awhile now and will disappear in 5yrs.

Either you're an artist or you aren't. The expensive, technical medium can't mask this for long and if that's what you fear, then maybe you were on borrowed time to begin with.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Kahleem, I appreciate your dissention to inspire debate but your implication of my hyperbole is unfounded. Experience has taught me that you are wrong on most everything you have said. But you are entitled to your opinion. For a straight year I was volunteering free sound work for anyone who wanted it. This lead to a lot of interest I might add. And every production I was on was ran the same way, only the faces of the directors were different. DSLR shoots, the lot of them. Not lit correctly, bad exposure, blown out highlights, evidence of rolling shutters by cheap filmmakers who wanted to emulate pros but with inferior equipment.

 

Im sorry that you will never even realize what you dont know and what youre missing. But at least you believe you are part of the same quality of yesteryear. As they say "ignorance is bliss."

[Kahleem Poole]

Kahleem, I appreciate your dissention to inspire debate but your implication of my hyperbole is unfounded. Experience has taught me that you are wrong on most everything you have said. But you are entitled to your opinion. For a straight year I was volunteering free sound work for anyone who wanted it. This lead to a lot of interest I might add. And every production I was on was ran the same way, only the faces of the directors were different. DSLR shoots, the lot of them. Not lit correctly, bad exposure, blown out highlights, evidence of rolling shutters by cheap filmmakers who wanted to emulate pros but with inferior equipment.

 

Im sorry that you will never even realize what you dont know and what youre missing. But at least you believe you are part of the same quality of yesteryear. As they say "ignorance is bliss."

 

I think you're mistaken. I never said that I haven't shot on film. I've shot on Fuji Velvia super 16 and still shoot on Kodak 200 and 400 film in my SLR today.

There are always more people who don't know what they're doing than those who do. It has nothing to do with film vs digital. It's the difference between those who are great (being minimal) and those who are not (being the majority).

 

Had these kids learned proper photographic technique, then you wouldn't be making the statements you are making, but apparently it wasn't the case.

Lastly, the flaws you've pointed out (with the exception of rolling shutter) are also evident in low budget films, shot on film as well and have been for years. It isn't a "digital" thing. It's a "low quality" thing. The equipment has the smallest role in it all.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Yes Kahleem, but thankfully film kept many hacks away because they werent willing to shell out so much of their own dough for their filmmaking desires. Many would give up after figuring out what it would cost them. Thank God for those days.

[Gregg MacPherson]

Gregg, I believe you touch on some good points. But I wanted to point out, although I know this is not new information, that film is about much more than the chemical process and even the look. It is about an approach to filmmaking that, I believe, is dying.

 

If there were six degrees of separation between our topic start point and, say, talking about cabbages, then you and Kahleem just made the first step. Sorry, I'm still in a humorous mood from the Skyfall thread. I was thinking about art, perception, photography (by implication cinematography). A look at a hugely more refined interaction than is normally part of common experience, but which, even by intuitive analysis, is obviously occurring. My opinion is that these more refined, more subtle values are more potent, even if they are not consciously experienced. The question then comes, is current digital technology disabling that or compromising that? The obvious answer is yes. Next question is, what are the implications of that in terms of art, culture, human experience.

 

Should one be fearful that another increment of inevitable "progress" is about to perhaps irrevocably compromise art, culture and human experience (ACHE ?). Yes. Should all people live in fear? Don't know. Those who are aware will probably feel it for the others by proxy.

 

If digital camera designers and the mind-set of their market agreed with me on an obvious, objective level but (of course) still wanted to evolve digital, then I don't know the direction they would take. Simply having even more pixels and being able to mimic film on a crude objective level would not cut it. The only hope might be a sensor or capture process that more literally paraphrased the human eye and nervous system. Ultimately, cultured living tissue would be a likely possibility. And when they felt they had finally matched all aspects of that quaint, archaic medium called film, I guess they would feel quite good about it. By that time what will the world look like? The vision of Bladerunner is probably too romantic. Think more like Imortal (Ad Vitam) by Enki Bilal.

 

If I am still alive I will be trotting down to whatever obscure place still projects sprocketed film. A museum or an underground subversive society. Unless we were blowing up bridges I think we would be considered quaint and irrelevant.

 

 

It sounds like I'm really taking the piss re the slight divergence from topic. I think the ideas at issue there are important and worth arguing over. Probably deserving of a thread all of their own. Here in New Zealand the grass roots emergent film makers are coming through and very identified with a large local culture based on the 48hour film making contest. I have "stood on a soap box" alone before and raged against the happy limitations they hold dear within their culture. Digital technology has played a huge part in the democratization of film making that they enjoy. But also, to make the obvious joke, one can also see it as a mediocratization. If you want to read some of that visit here:

 

For my rage and the ensuing bun fight.

http://www.v48hours.co.nz/forum/general-discussion/ratty-crack-bride-rules-beyond-48-hours-etc/

 

For a more reasoned but still hopeless approach. Scroll about 1/4 way down the page.

http://www.v48hours.co.nz/forum/general-discussion/the-trifecta-of-bullshit/?i=500#forum-replies

 

If you are in a hurry just read my posts, forget the other guys (smiling). I think anyone can post there. Please do if you have any bright ideas.

 

Cheers,

Gregg

 

[Kahleem Poole]

Yes Kahleem, but thankfully film kept many hacks away because they werent willing to shell out so much of their own dough for their filmmaking desires. Many would give up after figuring out what it would cost them. Thank God for those days.

Like any serious venture, these people end up quitting after some time of stagnation or sheer frustration to stick it out and learn and earn. There will be other "sky is falling in film" sentiments soon after this passes. Trust me.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Kahleem, I am just curious...do you disagree then that major motion picture films have lowered in quality throughout the years? Do you think that...say...Skyfall is shot as well as Gone with the Wind or Citizen Kane? Im just curious as to your thoughts on the matter.

[Kahleem Poole]

Kahleem, I am just curious...do you disagree then that major motion picture films have lowered in quality throughout the years? Do you think that...say...Skyfall is shot as well as Gone with the Wind or Citizen Kane? Im just curious as to your thoughts on the matter.

 

For one thing your question is both vague and subjective.

 

Subjective mostly because the examples you gave are of the highest caliber of their time periods (with the advantage of hindsight to help). Which where also at the time, surrounded by tons of lower quality films (mostly exploitative films, to start). What you're suffering from is "yesteryear was better" syndrome; pure nostalgia, not fact. Especially when considering that the films were more than likely produced before you were even born, disconnecting you from their context in time altogether.

 

Secondly, Skyfall is an action film, not a musical or a pillar in cinematic innovation. They're totally different comparisons that have little to do with one another. One is an epic 65mm musical and another is a "filmed play" style classic. Why don't you compare Skyfall to another older film of its genre, not a musical or a drama (both of which thrive on strong visuals even more so than action films do). Furthermore, cinematography, when skillfully shot, is of subjective taste like any art form. It's not a matter of "which is better", but of which do you prefer?

 

With all due respect, your comparisons don't make much sense. And, I doubt Deakins ASC would think so as well.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Kahleem, of course its subjective. There is no such thing as "objective cinematography." But its kindof like beauty. We say it is in the eye of the beholder but why do so many people agree on what's attractive and what isnt? There is a commonality to it. And I would appreciate it if you didnt attempt to tell what what I think or why I think it. You dont even know me but you seem to have it all figured out. You need to realize that you arent the all knowing authority on this subject, therefore, its not like I am foolish to disagree with you.

 

As far as what Deakins would think on the subject; how can you speak for him? Are you his agent or publicist? You have some ego about you to judge everyone's thoughts and feelings. I think you know that there is a declining of quality but for some reason you choose to ignore it. But until you show us any digital acquired work of art that can compare, you are frankly talking out your rear and have fell short of the benchmark. Perhaps what I am getting at is not that every movie shot on film is better than any movie shot digitally but rather that digital is currently incapable of matching the best film has to offer. I stand by this and if you choose to debate this with anything other than rhetoric or conjecture, than I would love to hear it. But you cant because there is currently no such basis to debate it.

[Gregg MacPherson]

.....There will be other "sky is falling in film" sentiments soon after this passes. Trust me.

 

Kahleem,

I didn't get that reference. Is it towards anyone or anything in particular? Is that your take on my original post?

[Kahleem Poole]

Kahleem, of course its subjective. There is no such thing as "objective cinematography." But its kindof like beauty. We say it is in the eye of the beholder but why do so many people agree on what's attractive and what isnt?

 

Because the commonality in beauty is facial "symmetry". It's what humans can universally agree on even without being able to describe it accurately. This point has nothing to do with the conversation and is totally different subject matter.

 

As far as what Deakins would think on the subject; how can you speak for him?

I didn't "speak" for him. Apparently by your standards, his work is now sub par in comparison to others before him (or possibly his own older work) just because he shot digitally for Skyfall. Your notions, not mine.

 

But until you show us any digital acquired work of art that can compare, you are frankly talking out your rear and have fell short of the benchmark. Perhaps what I am getting at is not that every movie shot on film is better than any movie shot digitally but rather that digital is currently incapable of matching the best film has to offer. I stand by this and if you choose to debate this with anything other than rhetoric or conjecture, than I would love to hear it. But you cant because there is currently no such basis to debate it.

 

You're going to pick at anything anyone gives you regarding digital cinema purely because you have a distaste for it, regardless of how illogical it may seem.

Carry on. Your bottom line: all celluloid shot cinema is automatically better than digital cinema purely because it's been captured on the "magic" medium that is film. Which is all you'll accept or hear.

 

However, art isn't completely objective, which is what we agree on.

If this is so, then why the complaining or comparing?

[Bill DiPietra]

One is an epic 65mm musical and another is a "filmed play" style classic.

 

Gone with the Wind was made in 1939. It was shot on 35mm, not 65mm, with a 1.37:1 aspect ratio.

[Geoff Howell]

I love film as much as the next person, but there seems to be this crazy notion that back in the pre-digital days everything produced was just super :huh:

 

The 'crap to good' ratio is probably just about the same as it ever was: there was crap music being made before the invention of Pro Tools and there were crap movies being made long before digital video came on the scene.

 

the only thing I think that has significantly changed is the way in which everything is now distributed. In the past you'd actively have to go out of your way to consume entertainment/art/whatever; these days everything's on tap and we are constantly bombarded with media that 9 times out of 10 we have little or no interest in; and yes it sometimes feels a bit overwhelming

[Matthew W. Phillips]

I dont deny that I thought the color in the old epics was gorgeous. Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, The Ten Commandments, etc. Perhaps I am romanticizing the old days OR maybe Im just speaking the truth as my eyes see it? I, of all people, would love to be egotistical about my generation and brag to the old timers "see, our time has prettier pictures than your time because we have digital!" But I would get laughed at and be embarassed within myself because I know it isnt true.

 

Kahleem, my case rest with you on this point...if your digital technology were as great (or on par with film) as you say, why is every single website related to the matter of making cinematic images filled with posts of different digital shooters discussing methods, software, curves, and other ways in which digitally acquired images can be made to look more like film? And please dont deny that this is a top topic of interest among digital shooters because we all know better.

 

Since when has a superior format attempted to so passionately emulate a lesser format? Unless it wasnt a superior format to begin with.

[Kahleem Poole]

I dont deny that I thought the color in the old epics was gorgeous. Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, The Ten Commandments, etc. Perhaps I am romanticizing the old days OR maybe Im just speaking the truth as my eyes see it? I, of all people, would love to be egotistical about my generation and brag to the old timers "see, our time has prettier pictures than your time because we have digital!" But I would get laughed at and be embarassed within myself because I know it isnt true.

 

Kahleem, my case rest with you on this point...if your digital technology were as great (or on par with film) as you say, why is every single website related to the matter of making cinematic images filled with posts of different digital shooters discussing methods, software, curves, and other ways in which digitally acquired images can be made to look more like film? And please dont deny that this is a top topic of interest among digital shooters because we all know better.

 

Since when has a superior format attempted to so passionately emulate a lesser format? Unless it wasnt a superior format to begin with.

"My" digital technology? I'm a photographer, simple as that. Whether it's film or digital is irrelevant to me and I'm not a part of a specific clique or camp when it comes to it.

Maybe that's just the problem. An "us vs them" mentality, or superior vs inferior when it's not even the subject point.

 

No one said digital was superior in this conversation. It's just different; a different tool to learn and understand the art and science of, much like what's been done w/ film.

People crave to emulate the look of film with digital technology because of several reasons. For one, digital tech is more flexible to even consider such a direction in the first place. Secondly, film stock (the most popular being Kodak of course) has a specific aesthetic look. There's nothing wrong with wanting that look the same as there isn't anything wrong w/ a bleach bypass look that we now associate with being "blown out" akin to video.

 

Digital workflows of today are superior to that of film, I would say. There are so many to choose from. However film vs digital is just goofy and silly for the most part. It gets us nowhere, nothing advances and the inevitable will occur regardless of how much people resist.

 

I love film as much as the next person, but there seems to be this crazy notion that back in the pre-digital days everything produced was just super :huh:

 

The 'crap to good' ratio is probably just about the same as it ever was: there was crap music being made before the invention of Pro Tools and there were crap movies being made long before digital video came on the scene.

 

the only thing I think that has significantly changed is the way in which everything is now distributed. In the past you'd actively have to go out of your way to consume entertainment/art/whatever; these days everything's on tap and we are constantly bombarded with media that 9 times out of 10 we have little or no interest in; and yes it sometimes feels a bit overwhelming

 

+1

 

Gone with the Wind was made in 1939. It was shot on 35mm, not 65mm, with a 1.37:1 aspect ratio.

 

Sorry, I misread that. My brain read "The Sound Of Music", which was what I was referring to. My mistake :)

[Matthew W. Phillips]

 

Sorry, I misread that. My brain read "The Sound Of Music", which was what I was referring to. My mistake :)

 

I guess that means that my point remains valid. :)

[Kahleem Poole]

I guess that means that my point remains valid. :)

If you need to be right, then you're right. Hope that helps you.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Kahleem, would you take work from a director who wanted to shoot on film?

[Kahleem Poole]

Kahleem, would you take work from a director who wanted to shoot on film?

 

Of course, why wouldn't I? Just the same as I would with a Director who wants to shoot digitally.

 

What's important to me is the story and how I can realize it visually; how to paint the picture as beautiful as I can. If their story doesn't appeal to me, shooting on film is irrelevant. In fact I've turned down a Panavision 35mm shoot months ago because I didn't believe in the work.

 

Depending on the vision he/she has, that's how I choose my tools. Nowadays more things are done digitally, but it's my job as a cinematographer to educate myself and test the different sensors for their pros and cons and choose accordingly. The exact same way tests are done on different film stocks available.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

comment deleted

[Gregg MacPherson]

Post 3

 

Commonly the words objective or subjective refer to relative qualities of awareness. More or less of one quality or the other. The style with which we entertain an idea. I have proposed that a level of connection exists between cinematographer, object and emulsion, personified as a vast stream of interacting photons. There is the commonly accepted physically objective value of this, and what is commonly seen, but the density of information on offer is vastly greater than that. Whatever the cinematographer or the audience is able to "see" beyond those boundaries of the objective, we shift by instinct into the realm of the subjective. Or perhaps the imaginary, or the magical, the inexplicable, or art.

 

I see it as somewhat obvious and unarguable that film emulsion is currently the only medium with potential to capture these more intensely refined values of an image. And the idea of developing a sensor that literally emulates the human retina and nervous system, in order to emulate the film emulsion, does seem odd when film itself is such a simple thing, a practical solution, already achieved. The question will come up, wondering about just how valuable or necessary these more refined values of subjective connection are in the photographic event. Assuming it's actually real, does it really matter?

 

Qualities of human awareness and modes of thinking have undergone a gradual shift towards more objective values and greater objectivity. In general people are happy, because they equate subjectivity with myth, unbelievable magic or Santa Klaus......things that objectivity seem able to disprove. But this change in style of awareness and thinking is accelerating. The world seems more particular, broken into manageable units, de-constructed if you like. And what has suffered is the value of wholeness in experience, the sense of profound integration within the universe. So in short, my opinion on the value of subjective and often inexplicable layers of experience, especially as they impact on art and culture......It's as vital as life. We can't afford to loose more of that. If we do we will end up forever trying to recapture what we have lost.

 

When we talk about the accelerating shift to the objective, the particular, the material, in human awareness and life basically we acknowledge that this has occurred in parallel with the growth of technology. I'm not sure whether either one is clearly a cause of the other. That's another big issue I guess. Considering the future and wondering how far these changes in awareness and technology will take us. Consider this imaginative exercise. A future where your life partner is a hybrid cyborg. Better able to provide for whatever you need. If you itemized all the parts or elements of their function as discrete objective items, they were better. When this becomes an option, some people would just happily accept it. Some would be horrified I hope. How will people react when this becomes mandatory, when there is supposedly no other choice.

 

Digital is almost at the point where it has the same context in our time as that hybrid cyborg technology in that imagined future. What we will loose may not even be noticed. We have been mentally conditioned to simply absorb and accept inevitable change. Inevitable change is commonly confused with "progress". All too strange really. Globally we are a feisty lot, going to war for reasons that often seem inexplicable. Here, coming close to loosing film, something that I think IMHO has profound value to art, culture and human experience, there is barely any objection from the human population. There are a few islands of sincere dissent, but globally this change is occurring as if unnoticed..

 

There is a scene in that Julia Roberts Movie about Erin Brockovich, where her dad is eating a soya cheesecake, complaining that he knows that every bit of it is made from soya, he doesn't like (hates) it, but he's eating it. This kind of wisdom is suddenly less certain when that's GE soya, a fact that may ultimately signal the irreversible compromise of the human genetic code. By accepting digital we are helping to enable a compromise or loss of a similar order. We are replacing a medium that enabled direct connection, "seeing" on an incredibly refined level, with one that does not.

 

In this thread the idea of "seeing" having more refined states was put in a sort of literal way, considering the microscopic, as an obvious way of going beyond commonly accepted boundaries. In physics the apparent functional laws change as we shift from the macroscopic to the microscopic.

 

Without film, is there still potential for refined experience, profound experience or art in stills or motion pictures? My feeling, bear in mind that my whole construction here is intuitively and experientially based, is yes of course, but of a less direct or absolute kind. It's of a different order, some will say lower order. Perhaps impolitic, but probably true.

 

[Chris Millar]

Took me thirty seconds to find this:

 

"Although early photography such as Daguerreotype and Calotype appeared by the mid 19th-century, photographs only began to be displayed in art galleries and museums only in the early 20th century. The art critics were of the view that photography is such a mechanical process that there is no scope for artistic interpretation. In fact in the early days, photographers imitated paintings to claim its artistic status. They pursued the same subject matter familiar to painting world such as landscapes, buildings and portraits and often added dreamy softness to images so that it was not taken as an objective factual record."

 

google: effect of photography on painting

 

among many others: http://www.studymode.com/essays/What-Was-The-Effect-Of-Photography-194322.html

 

And using the same framework of observation, how does chemical photography and it's associated grain hold up against the near atomic grain of a daguerreotype?

 

Just throwing it into the mix - not sure if it'll hold ;)