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

[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