Film is still hard to beat

[d]

Learn to coexist, gearhead. And while you're saving those canisters, maybe you can have your family save some for your ashes when that time comes.

Charming.

 

[YuengLinger]

Ok, which is more racist, sexist, and making climate change worse? Film or digital?

I'm proud to see that there isn't a single humanitarian photographer among the bunch of us, which is why I love CR!

 

[Loswr]

From dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/relevance)

relevance. [rel-uh-vuh ns]. noun
1. the condition of being relevant, or connected with the matter at hand:
Some traditional institutions of the media lack relevance in this digital age.

Interesting that their chosen example is directly relevant to the topic at hand, quite the counterpoint to the irrelevance of film in modern photography.

Sadly, some people just can't handle the truth, and become rude and defensive when presented with it.

Alternatively, some people fail to grasp the concept of relevance. A ride in a horse-drawn carriage can be romantic, can be enjoyable, can be nostalgic...but it's not relevant as a mode of modern transportation. Film is like that – impractical and irrelevant, and the fact that it provides personal enjoyment for some people doesn't change that essential truth.

 

[slclick]

From dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/relevance)

relevance. [rel-uh-vuh ns]. noun
1. the condition of being relevant, or connected with the matter at hand:
Some traditional institutions of the media lack relevance in this digital age.

Interesting that their chosen example is directly relevant to the topic at hand, quite the counterpoint to the irrelevance of film in modern photography.

Sadly, some people just can't handle the truth, and become rude and defensive when presented with it.

Alternatively, some people fail to grasp the concept of relevance. A ride in a horse-drawn carriage can be romantic, can be enjoyable, can be nostalgic...but it's not relevant as a mode of modern transportation. Film is like that – impractical and irrelevant, and the fact that it provides personal enjoyment for some people doesn't change that essential truth.

I accept the irrelevance of film. It changes nothing of the enjoyment factor.

 

[Loswr]

From dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/relevance)

relevance. [rel-uh-vuh ns]. noun
1. the condition of being relevant, or connected with the matter at hand:
Some traditional institutions of the media lack relevance in this digital age.

Interesting that their chosen example is directly relevant to the topic at hand, quite the counterpoint to the irrelevance of film in modern photography.

Sadly, some people just can't handle the truth, and become rude and defensive when presented with it.

Alternatively, some people fail to grasp the concept of relevance. A ride in a horse-drawn carriage can be romantic, can be enjoyable, can be nostalgic...but it's not relevant as a mode of modern transportation. Film is like that – impractical and irrelevant, and the fact that it provides personal enjoyment for some people doesn't change that essential truth.

I accept the irrelevance of film. It changes nothing of the enjoyment factor.

Of course it doesn't, nor did I suggest that was the case. Hey, I like horse-drawn carriage rides, too!

 

[Eldar]

Have a look at Nick Brandt and Morten Krogvold. Both do nothing but film and they outperform everone I can think of ...

 

[Orangutan]

Have a look at Nick Brandt and Morten Krogvold. Both do nothing but film and they outperform everone I can think of ...

Outperform in what sense?

 

[Ozarker]

Ok, which is more racist, sexist, and making climate change worse? Film or digital?

I'm proud to see that there isn't a single humanitarian photographer among the bunch of us, which is why I love CR!

They are all triggers, though film is by far the most offensive. ;D

 

[Destin]

Has anyone in Australia used "Hillvale" for processing? (hillvale.com.au)

Now that B&H have stopped shipping C41 chemicals to Australia, the cost of buying chemicals locally is making lab prices look attractive.

If you're after a Pro Lab, check out Vision Image Lab in Redfern. They do all my E6 processing (sent from Bris), I assume they do C41 as well.

 

[Orangutan]

For anyone that thinks film is dead, at the end of "The Force Awakens" titles, you can see the Kodak logo saying "This film was shot using Kodak film."

The 1% that wasn't CGI?

 

[Hillsilly]

The 99% that wasn't the opening credits.

 

[pwp]

Have a look at Nick Brandt and Morten Krogvold. Both do nothing but film and they outperform everyone I can think of ...

Really? Try thinking a bit more broadly. They're good, but it isn't film that makes them good. They're simply good photographers.

This thread is absolutely hilarious!

-pw

 

[Hillsilly]

If you're after a Pro Lab, check out Vision Image Lab in Redfern. They do all my E6 processing (sent from Bris), I assume they do C41 as well.

Thanks! Not sure if a pro lab is what I'm after, though. I might be misinterpreting the price guide, but it seems to be $9.90 to process a roll and then another $55 to scan it at Vision. I'm a little price conscious. At Hillvale it is only $20 in total.

You're not Destin Sparks? If so, by coincidence I came across your website recently when I was looking for some ideas on Brisbane landscapes. Excellent work!

 

[Orangutan]

For anyone that thinks film is dead, at the end of "The Force Awakens" titles, you can see the Kodak logo saying "This film was shot using Kodak film."

The 1% that wasn't CGI?

There was a lot of "The Force Awakens" that was not CGI.

They actually made a full size Millenium Falcon out of wood.

Yeah, that was humor. I've seen the film just once, and the cinematography didn't jump out at me as either good or bad. Mostly, I was happy the film didn't suck.

 

[YuengLinger]

For anyone that thinks film is dead, at the end of "The Force Awakens" titles, you can see the Kodak logo saying "This film was shot using Kodak film."

The 1% that wasn't CGI?

There was a lot of "The Force Awakens" that was not CGI.

They actually made a full size Millenium Falcon out of wood.

Were the actors made of wood too?

 

[Eldar]

Have a look at Nick Brandt and Morten Krogvold. Both do nothing but film and they outperform everyone I can think of ...

Really? Try thinking a bit more broadly. They're good, but it isn't film that makes them good. They're simply good photographers.

This thread is absolutely hilarious!

-pw

Yes, they are both exceptional photographers and artists. They have both tried to convert to digital, but both have concluded that they are unable to produce the same artistic expression that way and are back to film. Instead of ruling this thread as hilarious, maybe you should go and have a look at what a master print from film can be. It is jaw dropping ...

Personally, I have +20 years of experience with film and working in the darkroom and I loved it. However, I am now totally converted to digital and I would never go back. I will never reach the levels of these two either, not even to their knees. Mainly because of their artistic skills, but also because of how they do it.

Think broadly? That is what most amateurs do and that is why digital is clearly the best solution for the masses. However, if you want to excel your photography, you need to focus and concentrate your efforts in a particular area. In most cases digital will be the preferred technology, in the case of Brandt and Krogvold, film is theirs.

 

[Orangutan]

Have a look at Nick Brandt and Morten Krogvold. Both do nothing but film and they outperform everyone I can think of ...

Really? Try thinking a bit more broadly. They're good, but it isn't film that makes them good. They're simply good photographers.

This thread is absolutely hilarious!

-pw

Yes, they are both exceptional photographers and artists.

I looked at some of their images online and I'm sorry to say most of them don't impress me much. The straight-up portraits were nice, but many of the "nature" shots employed either surrealism or enhanced contrast for dramatic effect, and did so in ways that seemed manufactured to me. Maybe if I saw them as full-sized prints I would get a different feeling from them.

both tried to convert to digital, but both have concluded that they are unable to produce the same artistic expression

It's entirely legitimate for each to choose their own medium, so if they prefer film I have no problem with that. On the other hand, the fact that they were unable to produce what they wanted with digital does not mean that someone else could not do so: it could be a simple matter of someone who is not comfortable with computers, but is very comfortable in the darkroom.

 

[Eldar]

Maybe if I saw them as full-sized prints I would get a different feeling from them.

You should and and then I am sure you would.

FYI, very few images are available on the net from Morten Krogvold. His website is currently down, due to reconstruction. Some of the dramatic landscapes you may be referring to are up to 24 hours exposures. That gives a unique image I believe you'll find hard to make with digital. He used the same technique photographing Rome and Venice, to ensure people free images. Quite special. He is a wizzard in the darkroom and his prints are fantastic. Get the book Photographs 1977-2007. I am sure you'll be rather impressed by most of them.

As for Nick Brandt, get the book On this earth a shadow falls (3 books in one). Fantastic images and even more so if you're able to imagine seeing these images in very large high quality prints. If you're not impressed, Africa and B&W is probably not for you.

 

[Pookie]

The best thing about film is those little plastic canisters it comes in, which are useful for storing a variety of small items from screws to quarters. The stuff that originally comes inside those handy little canisters has lost relevance.

Exceptionally narrow minded comment there and probably why you find it irrelevant... only 35 came in those nifty little plastic containers you're so fond of. Some people still shoot film and 35mm is the farthest from their mind when talking about film.

 

[scyrene]

The best thing about film is those little plastic canisters it comes in, which are useful for storing a variety of small items from screws to quarters. The stuff that originally comes inside those handy little canisters has lost relevance.

Exceptionally narrow minded comment there and probably why you find it irrelevant... only 35 came in those nifty little plastic containers you're so fond of. Some people still shoot film and 35mm is the farthest from their mind when talking about film.

I think the key to Neuro's comment was the word 'relevance'. Some people still use fax machines. Some people still use video recorders. Some people still have old style mobile phones with physical buttons and monochrome screens - some people don't even have a mobile at all! But while those choices may be personally relevant to them, they are not generally relevant to the population as a whole, or to whichever market those technologies belong to. They are niche. I don't see why it would be upsetting to be told that film is a niche now.