The Death of Film
February 15, 2008
With last week’s announcement of the end of Polaroid, covered on pretty much every blog and must discussed in every corner of the photo world, I have to worry that film cannot be too far behind. While Kodak is promising to make film for at least another 5 years, with Polaroid gone, it seems that many film holdouts will have no choice but to go at least partly digital. The question I am asking myself, is digital like color film? When Eggelston, Shore, Sternfeld and the other early color art photographers switched, I’m sure the B&W purists feared that their form would also disappear. B&W survived but it became a ‘niche’ instead of the dominant force in fine art photography(sorry B&W shooters out there, don’t shoot the messenger.) I know there was quite a fight over color film in the early days, and I imagine artists felt much like I do about the current debate. But perhaps it would make more sense to embrace the technology and try to make to work, rather than hold on to my love of film. Personally, I find digital too perfect and lacking the sense of emotionality that film can capture. I have yet to see work shot digitally that can compare to large format film.
Yet the argument could be made that this is the moment to rethink my aesthetic choices? Maybe the too perfect, too harsh, and too sharp look created by these camera’s computer chips, better reflects the content of our current culture. Is there any sensitivity or nuance to the national obsession with the mental and physical breakdown of Britney Spears? Do reality shows use soft lighting or turn the camera away to protect people from being seen at that worst? Part of me feels that I should be shooting to reflect that reality, but another part of me feels that I should hold out, and stay true to my vision and hope for the world. If we all give up, and give in, is there any chance for us to rise out of our culture of exploitation and celebrity obsession – I will admit to having VH1′s Celebrity Rehab DVR’d. There is something entertaining about all of this, maybe Western Culture has never really left the Colosseum?
Which is better…
B&W or Color?
Eggelston
Walker Evans
Film or Digital?
Annie Leibovitz
February 15, 2008 at 11:09 pm
This is an interesting point with which most of us are wrestling, I think. After working with film for decades, I honestly don’t know. By that I mean I don’t quite know which way to go in my own photography. The main point, which I think is often overlooked, is not whether film survives, but how our vision of what an image is, is being changed by digital. Since digital is a construct, one that up to this point, has been trying to mimic film and paper, I am curious to see what happens as the collective memory of film, prints, and slides fades, and people will no longer insist, for example, that their digital black&white print look like an “Ansel Adams, or their color one like an Eggleston. I really do think that it behooves us to think of this whole issue as a philosophical and not technical one.
February 16, 2008 at 3:23 pm
These debates will just run onto new technology as it appears. Digital slr’s replaced film in the photojournalists hands. This will soon be replaced by stills taken from hd digital video cameras which is happening as we speak. Both has its place but photography is produced by a chemical reaction to light. Digital is a simulation of this not actually photography. Some people will disagree with that statement but technology is advancing so fast there is already the means to do away with aperture and shutter speeds on cameras so will it still be photography when this aspect of the taking is gone.
February 17, 2008 at 6:16 pm
I wouldn`t get too pessimistic about film.
as you have written, digital sensors are far
(maybe a decade?) away from delivering results
you can get even with an old pentax645 on a 100asa;
forget digital b/w, looks ugly to me…
at the time when I started photography 3 jears ago,
it was clear to me that I wanted to have the
opportunity to choose from different cams.
btw. fuji is not polaroid :
they put up http://choose-film.com/
to promote the analogue way of living, bringing
new films to the market….
my digital stuff http://www.robertalexander.ch
February 17, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Eggleston – color
Evans – b&w
Annie – film
Film or digital. They each have a place.
For commercial or news purposes, digital is king. It is the most versatile media in terms of light gathering ability and workflow speed. The quality is there, especially with medium format backs.
However, when it comes to producing personal work, film still rules. When I have tried to shoot digital for myself, I was left feeling empty and the images seemed generic and lifeless. When I shoot film there is a feeling of being grounded. It”s expensive and I tend to be way more choosy as to when I trip the shutter. I
t’s the difference between reading a book and a pdf or word document. A book is tactile and real, you can see it and feel it in your hand, like film it is tangible in a way that a digital file is not. For me, the look of film is what a photograph is supposed to have; grain, details in shadows and highlights, and dimensionality.
That being said, a scanner to convert the film is a far more efficient way to produce images than any darkroom, even b&w film, for me. If film ever goes away, and I think it might but not soon, I’m sure that I will find a way to cope without it. Hey, some horse and buggy types were sure that the automobile would never catch on. Humans are an adaptable bunch, we’ll get over it.
February 18, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Please don’t forget that Kodak is not the only film maker. There is still Fuji and Ilford, both of whom are very invested and dedicated to film users. Hell, Fuji is toying with the idea of a medium format rangefinder.
I am lucky enough to have my own darkroom. I shoot only black and white. If I did not have my darkroom, I would shoot film and then scan and print digitally. But digital black and white still has some work to do to catch up with the darkroom.
But I too ponder the digital side of things. I get real excited about it, I want to get some new gear and start working this way, and then I see the price tag. Remember when you bought a Canon AE-1 and used it for 15 years? Can you do that with a 1ds Mark II ?
I doubt it.