On the Tri-X factor

[Don Denton]

From the Economist:

http://www.intelligentlifemagazine.com/content/features/bryan-appleyard/tri-x-factor

"McCullin shoots Tri-X alongside digital. Corbijn shoots almost nothing but film, Tri-X for black-and-white and Kodak Portra for colour. They are veterans — McCullin is 78 and Corbijn 58 — but they are not Luddites and they are not wallowing in nostalgia. They are intent on preserving an artefact, a practice and an art form that, they say, simply cannot be matched by the technologies of digital photography. They are also keeping alive a cultural moment defined by one brand of film."

[David Buzzard]

Film is a dead medium.

[Don Denton]

Film is not dead, just a less popular medium. Almost no medium actually dies, just becomes supplanted by easier, more popular processes. Look at all the photos working with wet plate collodion and other antique methods these days. Look at the popularity of Instax cameras/film and the revival of Polaroid through the Impossible Project.

[Fred Lum]

hey look, a horse ! let's beat it 

[Fred Lum]

hey Don,

you still run film through your cameras ?


fred

[Don Denton]

Don't ever use film for staff work due to convenience/time etc but still shoot some b/w for personal work, have one Nikon film body, a Hexar, couple of toy cameras (i.e. Holga) and have an Instax which is interesting to play around with.

After I posted the original link above I saw this column by Andrew Coyne in the Post which makes some interesting (and, of course, debatable) points but a good read.

"Or perhaps there is a simpler explanation still. I forget who it was who theorized that our notion of technological progress is purely a function of chronology: were the typewriter, say, to have come out after the computer, we’d be exclaiming at its advantages (you hit the key, and presto — instant printout)."
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-making-sense-of-the-analog-counter-revolution

[Fred Lum]

thanks for the link Don, will read it later. pm me your snail mail will ya ?

[Fred Lum]

Interesting read Don but I still wish people would get it right and not mention Polaroid in the  context of new film products.

Polaroid is long gone save for the expired stuff on eBay and which I personally wouldn't gamble on unless one could feel the pods. Fuji, The Impossible Project and New55 are the only ones making instant film. New 55 being a bit different from the other two, except for TIP's 8x10 films which are peel apart.

If Fuji were smarter, they would make an Instax Share that uses their Wide film. I've got their Mini Share and making prints from iPhone photos is a great way to  break ice or give people something tangible (as Coyne mentions).

[Don Denton]

or how about tin types?

For four years, Clement and dog Zeiss - named for a German lens manufacturer - have traveled the country, shooting tintypes for an overflow list of clients and corporations. Clement, 34, set up in a borrowed studio in Fishtown last week, having to turn down prospective clients because his schedule was full.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20151221_The_small__stylish_comeback_of_the_steampunk_of_photography.html#5RRh5MjbuIvfFMl5.99

[Warren Toda]

Film is a dead medium.

Film is not dead, just a less popular medium.

Sounds like the start of a Monty Python sketch.


One interesting thing about the times in which we live, is that we can time travel. We can buy old clothes, old cars, old cameras, old furniture, old electronics ... and we can also buy many new things that have a retro look.

Everything old is new again. And again. And again.

Using an old photographic technique could be about nostalgia, it could be about someone wanting to experience another point of view, or it could be about someone wanting to keep up with Internet fads.

As analogue photo techniques progressed, they were always about being better, more real, more perfect. When digital photography delivered perfection, folks complained about the too-real look and software companies delivered software that recreated imperfection.

So which is it? Do you want your photos to look exactly like real life or do you want them to look like an imperfect version of real life?

If you really wanted an imperfect recreation of life, you'd be a painter not a photographer    But it's been said that a photographer is a painter in a hurry.

It's not about old photo techniques versus new technology. The photographic technology used, new or old, is a red herring. Nothing is being "revived" because nothing really died (it's just pining for the fjords  ).

Here's the deal:

People (and that includes photographers) have an innate desire to be "hands on." Humans are emotional and emotion can be expressed through touch. This is why folks have hobbies like gardening, painting, sculpting, woodworking, baking, working in a darkroom, playing a musical instrument, etc. Most people want to be creative and work with their hands.

This is why we're photographers.

Typing at a computer keyboard, shuffling paper and sitting at a desk are, and always will be, hugely disappointing and spirit killing in the long run. This is why some companies like Google try to build fun, creative atmospheres in their offices by installing pool tables, mini-putt golf courses, small music recording studios, pinball and video arcade games. This is to relieve the mind-numbing boredom of today's (work) life.

Technology is/was supposed to create endless leisure time for us. But life isn't about being leisurely, it's about being busy and being creative. Creativity keeps the mind young:

...using data on more than 1,000 older men collected between 1990 and 2008. The researchers found that only creativity — not intelligence or overall openness — decreased mortality risk. One possible reason creativity is protective of health is because it draws on a variety of neural networks within the brain...

And being creative isn't just cerebral, it's also physical.

The look of old photography processes can be replicated with software. But using an old process is about being hands on with the process. If you had to mix the pigment for your inkjet printer, I bet more folks would love the "inkjet process". If you had to sprinkle magic pixels on your sensor and then load it into your camera, more folks would love the "digital process". But digital photography basically involves using your digits to push buttons. No need to roll up your sleeves or put on an apron.

As for a comeback, "old photography" never left. What disappeared or changed was customers' expectations and experiences with photography. What disappeared or changed was photographers' approach to, and the use of, (digital) photography.

Everyone owns a camera or two. Pictures are so ubiquitous, they're almost invisible. Pictures aren't special like they were decades ago. Getting your picture "taken" isn't a big deal; if anything, it's a chore or a nuisance. Finished photos are now kept mostly on electronic devices rather than on paper – the original touch screen.

Photographers treat digital cameras like machines, disposal machines you replace every few years. Film cameras were tools that you got to know over a decade or so. Photographers have little relationship with their digital cameras.  Many a photographer will speak glowingly of their F3, FM, F1 or A1. I've yet to hear the same of a D2Xs or 5D Mk I.

Film cameras came in all sorts of sizes, shapes and materials. Digital camera manufacturers have tried to emulate this with retro-looking cameras and cameras with wood inserts but looks aren't the point. The point is involvement with the overall process. As technology advances, people get pushed further away from the process, and it's not just with photography.

Instead of thinking that using an old photo process will automatically bring back the joy, the satisfaction and the creativity of photography, examine how you use digital photography and I don't mean the technical aspects of the digital process. Look at the photography, not the digital.

Simple test: When you shoot a posed portrait, watch how the customer reacts when you use a tripod versus no tripod. Notice how they behave when you use a hotshoe flash versus full-on studio lights. It's not the technique or the specific tools, it's the experience for both customer and photographer. If you make it a big deal, it will be a big deal. You don't need old tools to get new satisfaction.

Self-employed photographers take note of this! It's the experience that counts, it's the experience that customers pay for. Return to the past and make (your) photography a big deal, a unique creative process. Photography is not a workflow!



Spot quiz:  If everything old is new again, will there be a revival of printed newspapers?

[Don Denton]

Just to keep on beating the dead horse:

http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2015/12/the-bestselling-item-in-amazons-camera-department-during-the-holidays-was-film.html

[Fred Lum]

Honestly, I get no joy from putting film in a Leica or loading an A12 film back. They're chores, much like processing film tbh. Tactile feel of film cameras is also not part of the equation although the sound of a rangefinder shutter curtain or thwack of the Hasselblad shutter is beyond satisfying. The film advance of the brass geared Leica MP is extremely smooth I will admit. Won't describe it as buttery as most fans would.

Speaking for myself, and having spoken with other photographers about it, using film is almost liberating, it's hard to explain. There is no chimping or constantly adjusting things. No histograms to interpret. You release the shutter and that's it. For 12 frames or 36, same thing. Yeah, you have to wait till the film is processed (delayed chimp) but it's out of your hands at this point. Some may sweat a bit until you get the film developed but the relief is akin to a minor high or buzz. 'Ahhh' or 'whew' are applicable here.

Look, we're all at the point where we will make a good photograph, exposure and composition wise, so do we really need to check it ? Is it that perhaps some don't have 100% trust in their chops and need the confirmation that digital affords ?

I guess to be brief (sorry if it was tl;dr) working with film is an experience unlike 1's and 0's.

Love it, use it, hate it, loathe it. Won't make a difference to those of us who embrace silver.