CNN Video: Film, not dead yet

[Marlton Mom]

An interesting thought occurred to me.... We are quickly moving to a time when the majority of people will not have had any experience with using film as a medium to capture images.....

This video talks about shooting with film.

If you've never done it, I would urge you to give it a shot, especially if you have a particular subject or shoot in mind. Another really great thing to do is to sign up for a course on photography where you are shooting, developing and making your own prints.

The experience of using digital means versus film means to capture and display your images is as different as night and day. It's also as similar.... and if you've done both I'll bet you 'got' that similarity.

Interesting and debatable points are raised in this video. I find it very interesting that there seems to be some digital disrespect with the assertion that digital makes it too easy and is more on the thoughtless side. In my opinion, Digital and film are merely tools. Tools that depend on the skill of the user. On this very forum we have seem many talented photographers go deep with digital photography.... so I really can't support that assertion at all....

check out the video here:

http://cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/living/2011/08/18/natpkg.film.not.dead.yet.cnn.html

~ Marlton Mom

 

[boufa]

One of the things digital has done is that it has lowered the cost barrier for taking pictures. While much junk has been photographed due to the virtually free cost of pushing the shutter release; many great shots have come from the "free"dom to experiment.

Some/many old school photographers actually object to all of us newer digital amateurs flooding into their hobby and ruining it. I've never crank started a car, but I still appreciate and enjoy driving.

 

[photo_chick]

I think a lot of the feelings that digital makes it too easy, or too thoughtless, comes from all the spraying and praying that happens with digital. And from all the people who pick up a digital camera, have it for a few months, and go into business. Some feel the flood of bad photographers as "professionals" cheapens the work of "legitimate" photographers. While I can see the point some people try to make there, I don't agree with it. I think the so called old school photographers who complain about the noobs in the field shooting digital need to worry a little bit less about what everyone else is doing and more on what they are doing. Because really, if you've got strong work it will stand up no matter what anyone else shoots. they should also take a look back to what happened in the art world when photography hit the scene. Photographers got the same kind of grief from painters.

Ok, soapbox away now.

I still shoot a good bit of film and I'm very much a a part of the low-fi photography movement. When you put a well done fiber print next to a high end digital print, there is no comparison. The fiber print looks better. Now that doesn't mean we all need to ditch our DSLR's, but to me it's proof that digital will not replace silver prints anytime soon. Those of us who shoot film are able to produce a gallery print that's got a quality that we just can't get at this point in time with digital. Yet.

 

[boufa]

I think a lot of the feelings that digital makes it too easy, or too thoughtless, comes from all the spraying and praying that happens with digital. And from all the people who pick up a digital camera, have it for a few months, and go into business. Some feel the flood of bad photographers as "professionals" cheapens the work of "legitimate" photographers. While I can see the point some people try to make there, I don't agree with it. I think the so called old school photographers who complain about the noobs in the field shooting digital need to worry a little bit less about what everyone else is doing and more on what they are doing. Because really, if you've got strong work it will stand up no matter what anyone else shoots. they should also take a look back to what happened in the art world when photography hit the scene. Photographers got the same kind of grief from painters.

Ok, soapbox away now.

I still shoot a good bit of film and I'm very much a a part of the low-fi photography movement. When you put a well done fiber print next to a high end digital print, there is no comparison. The fiber print looks better. Now that doesn't mean we all need to ditch our DSLR's, but to me it's proof that digital will not replace silver prints anytime soon. Those of us who shoot film are able to produce a gallery print that's got a quality that we just can't get at this point in time with digital. Yet.

I think that some old school photographers made a killing on mediocre material and are now fearful that the noobs will be able to produce better work. The biggest "offense" to the art of photography that is heightened by digital is photo manipulation. Scenes that do not exist in real life, but only in the computer. This is nothing new however. A local photographer is famous for his photos of our skyline. However, none of the photos are real. He uses a composite of at least 2 shots. In nature these buildings line up in such a way as that you could never see all 3 of the tallest ones at the same time without them blocking eachother. So he moves one over to make room for another. He has been doing this for at least 30 years. (few people realize it!)

On the other hand post production is part of the creativity and art of photography. Look at HDR those images don't exist (I don't like the look of HDR but I appreciate the art of it)

As for point and spray... nothing new here. Just the cost barrier is lower. An event photographer might shoot 30 - 50 rolls at an event and present the 5 or 10 best images that came out. My wedding photographer 16 years ago shot over 200 images of the ceremony and poses. I have a hard time shooting 200 shots at almost any event in an hour, much less in film.