Pictures and film

[urbpan]

My friend Bruce, a professional photographer and media specialist (and art photographer outside of his day job) and I get in touch with one another off and on every few months. He just sent me this email:

so old friend.
tell me.
is film dead?
does it matter if the image is captured on film or a chip?
what do you think?
b

I answered:

Film is certainly dead for me. I picked up my old Pentax K1000 a few
months ago and stroked it gently and wished they made digital backs
for old SLRs. They're such great machines, but who wants to pay for
film, not know what the pictures are on it, and then pay to get the
pictures back?

I'm glad there are still pros using film, but for how long? It's
kinda spooky to imagine the process dying out. I suppose it will be
relegated to fringe craftsmen, like lithographs and wrought iron work.

I love the fact that I'm not accumulating boxes and boxes of photos
any more, but if anything happens to the great digital archive out
there, I'm totally fucked. The electromagnetic pulse will erase all
my writings and photos back to 2003.

My dad uses a digital slr and brings the card to walgreens or
photowhatever in Enfield, and gets back a cd and a packet of prints.
He's quite mystified by the fact that I have no hard copies. As a
historian I think it freaks him out.

What are the historians of the future going to have to go by? A
dwindling amount of print and film images, and a vast digital dung
heap that may or may not even be accessible.

In short: dunno.

Answer poetry with blather, that's my approach!


So how would you answer?

Comments

[godorion.livejournal.com]

I seem to have read not too long ago that many of the companies that make film are quietly closing shop. There simply isn't the demand for it. In some ways that makes me sad. I think there are truly artists in the print field. Perhaps the real artists will learn to make all they need to continue their art just as earlier artists had to know how to make their paints.

I personally, however, love digital. I am more willing to take risks with a shot now that I don't have to pay for processing to see if it is even worth printing. Add in the ability to manipulate images with Photo Shop, programming significantly cheaper than a darkroom and supplies. I do make print images, so I have a small print archive, but I keep most of my images on disc...

I'd like to hope that technology will be able to carry itself forward, sort of like the saving of old celluloid movies by transferring them to digital. Yes, the celluloid is gone, but the image is saved.

[urimancy.livejournal.com]

I agree. I'm certainly not a professional, but I take a lot of pictures with a DSLR, and I don't think I will ever go back to film. I love the instant-ness of digital, and I love not having to deal with the expense and effort of getting film developed. Film can be lovely, but it's not for me anymore. And digital cameras keep getting better.

[candent.livejournal.com]

The question is too broad. I think it is better asked in two parts: 1) Is film dead for amateurs? and 2) Is film dead for pros?

I believe that amateurs still using film are not long for this world, and pros still need the resolution, color, contrast, and artifact control, not to mention medium and large format flexibility, that only film provides.

As technology improves, and some of the inherent limitations of current digital imaging techniques are overcome with breakthroughs, I believe that film will truly die. However, that date with the reaper is a long way off.

Printed books are going downhill, too. Many texts can now be found online, and there will be less and less need for bulky paper versions. Some libraries are "guillotining" rare old books—chopping off the spine, scanning the pages, and then throwing the pages away. No longer needed. Sounds modern. Good for them.

No one likes tube audio amplifiers any more, either. Transistors are much more efficient, and they measure better. Less distortion, more power. Everyone likes that.

[kryptyd.livejournal.com]

Are you talking about tube amps for guitars and the like? I don't know anything about amps but what I DO know is pretty much every guitar player I know only like tube amps to the point of snobbery.

[miz-geek.livejournal.com]

The last holdout in my photo club switched to digital a couple years ago. On the other hand, one of my friends has started collecting vintage cameras and using them with some interesting results.

Periodically when I'm out taking pictures, my husband will turn to me and say, "Are you sure you have enough film?" I love that I don't have to worry about the answer to that.

[morgi.livejournal.com]

I love my old EOS A3E, but I do very much like the convenience of my shiny new digital. I would hate to see film die out completely, but that may just be the sentimentalist in me. I still use both for fireworks photos.

[propaddict.livejournal.com]

I was always mystified by Doc's switch to digital, but dependence on hard copies. Always seemed to defeat the purpose to me. Then again, we're talking about a man who makes more legal size prints of photos in a month than most people make in a lifetime. His main outlet for and display of his work is in the hard print format.

I finally sold my trusty Canon AE-1 last year. My DigiRebel allowed me to do everything the old film eater could and more. It was also pounds lighter. It kind of hurt to see it go. Well over 1000 rolls through it (I was loading my own Ilford HP5 rolls), and inumerable miles trucking that thing everywhere. Camera was older than me, and still always took great pictures.

Film is dead, at least for me.

[wandererrob.livejournal.com]

It's an interesting thing. I think for me, largely, film is dead for me too. I print what I REALLY want to and the rest get uploaded to the computer and burned to CD for backup.

Except b/w. Digital just can't seem to quite get it right IMO. I don't know what it is exactly, but a desaturated image is not the same as a true b/w photo.

I do, however, offer the following lineof thought for consideration. Digital is great for all the reason you've mentioned and I agree, but film does offer one thing I think could, and may, get lost using digital... film makes you think about your shot. Really think about it. Whereas with digital, you can shoot the same subject a hundred times until you get what you want without fear of wasting anything but memory. In that aspect I have some measure of concern that the art of photography could suffer. I'm not saying it will, but it could.

but for day-to-day stuff, my digital P&S is the only way to go anymore. :)

[weofodthignen]

Heh, I am not a photographic artist. I am a documentary photographer and architectural painter manquée. So my answer's all backwards to your friends' and yours.

I can't see clearly what the shot is going to look like in the viewfinder--and even less so in a tiny screen. I also find resolution on a PC less than ideal. I can see the image best in a paper print, second best in a paper thumbnail, oddly enough.

I rarely mind waiting for the film to get developed at the supermarket, and I would really resent having to be at a computer to see it.

I rarely if ever want to crop or otherwise manipulate my shots, and know I would suck at it if I did. I am more likely to wish I'd been able to get the training to use them as the basis for paintings.

I find the controls on digital cameras and the software to actually see the pictures impossible. I've made 2 attempts and failed utterly. I was just beginning to learn to use an old Argus, but it's lost in one of the series of moves I made around the time I started this LJ. I kept breaking Instamatics and they don't make them anymore, or sell film for them. So I decided to try disposable cameras and they work great for me. I wish they had better lenses, and as with everything else I sometimes long for panoramic or close-up view, but in terms of usability they're perfect for me.

I get a CD-ROM so I can upload to Photobucket to share here. I would probably be moblogging if I had that type of cellphone . . . except that my housemate's Palm takes utterly ghastly pictures, so it's not worth even thinking about it.

Opposite direction from all you artists '-)

M