Film is not dead yet
- Thread starter walsh
- Start date
I don't really like when it's referred to as analogue photography, after all - you could theoretically get an analogue digital camera could you not?
And what was up with the scary computer lady? Couldn't afford a real narrator? Still, anything that helps spread the good word to the masses
And what was up with the scary computer lady? Couldn't afford a real narrator? Still, anything that helps spread the good word to the masses
s162216
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,105
- Name
- Samuel
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And indeed you can, how do you think TV cameras worked before digital cameras were about? They were analogue as were camcorders which used VHS-C or Hi8 tapes for example.
Even more fitting, how about the Sony Mavica series in the early 80's? They captured an electronic still image which was stored on a floppy but were analogue not digital until 1997. There were even interchangeable lens SLR models.
They were whats known as a still video camera, i.e they captured an image like with a camcorder but only played the same frame continuously but it meant that they were restricted to ordinary T V resolutions and need to be captured with a digital capture card to export to a computer.
joxby
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,782
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
Is it not true that the word analogue exists only to describe data that isn't digital, before the advent of digital there was no need to describe data as one or the other because it was just data.
Do you then need to define data.
Living is a purely analogue experience, we can convert analogue experiences to digital (to 1's and 0's) but it is then a simulation.
I kinda like the thought that analogue photography is more accurate because it is analogue and not a digital assimilation, even though 10 year oodate polaroid film has absolutely no accuracy of any kind whatsoever.
So, for that reason, I can live with film picture being described as analogue..
Do you then need to define data.
Living is a purely analogue experience, we can convert analogue experiences to digital (to 1's and 0's) but it is then a simulation.
I kinda like the thought that analogue photography is more accurate because it is analogue and not a digital assimilation, even though 10 year oodate polaroid film has absolutely no accuracy of any kind whatsoever.
So, for that reason, I can live with film picture being described as analogue..
A message that came through in that video (from various speakers) is that film takes more effort. Us digital shooters are simple and sloppy as the way we shoot doesn't take time effort or concentration. It's also implied that it's not real photography which is a bit insulting to my mind.
Surely that would imply that each individual silver halide crystal (or whatever emulsion) can only have one value, which i don't think is true.
Still, this has been a rather interesting thread so far
A thought occurs - if you can't call it analogue because that encompasses far more than what we want it to, and such isn't what we're after, and if you can't call it film because some processes of creating images don't even involve such a thing at any point... what can you call it?
Last edited:
Strapps
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,064
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I call it witchcraft because it traps the soul of the subject which can then be used to strike a bargain with the devilSuperewza said:A thought occurs - if you can't call it analogue because that encompasses far more than what we want it to, and such isn't what we're after, and if you can't call it film because some processes of creating images don't even involve such a thing at any point... what can you call it?
joxby
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,782
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
Well I had to watch it again.
I suppose you have to shoot both to be able to appreciate the differences.
I think you'll find only Elliott Erwitt says those things, but what do you expect from a 85 year old living film legend, its really down to the viewer how he/she interprets what he says.
I think he's partly right and partly asking for trouble, but then its all about opinions isn't it.
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
A thought occurs - if you can't call it analogue because that encompasses far more than what we want it to, and such isn't what we're after, and if you can't call it film because some processes of creating images don't even involve such a thing at any point... what can you call it?
How about ... 'Film'?
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
LOL. He definitely over-stated his case a bit. If you have only 10 or 12 exposures shooting medium format, you certainly don't bang off too many chancer shots as you might be inclined to do with digital, so it is a slower more thoughtful process, but to suggest it's the only way was just a mite too dogmatic.
redddraggon
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,818
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Analogue surely implies implies that it's been stored or transmitted electronically? Film photography isn't stored or transmitted electronically (except when I scan it in, and then the files are digital).
Last edited:
RMaynardPhoto
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 69
- Edit My Images
- No
Film will never die, you just cant replicate its feel.
flashp
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 392
- Edit My Images
- No
I had a letter published in Outdoor Photography a few years ago and won letter of the month. My point then was one regarding the archival quality/longevity (or not) of digital and how we risk becoming an un-recorded society in the way we used to. Pictures and negatives found in drawers 20 30 40 50 years later will be a thing of the past. I've just scanned and reprinted from glass plate negatives my late parents wedding pictures and others. Digital imaging made that possible so easily, but the value of film should not be overlooked on any account.
I regularly say to friends and relatives who have children growing up 'for goodness sake, invest a roll of film every now and then if you want to make sure record photos last a lifetime'. A great many of the photo taking public haven't considered archiving or experienced catastrophic hardware failures resulting in loss of valuable images. They will, and film will have it's day again.
I also have a colleague who believed his external 500GB external HDD to have failed. He had around 4000 photos on it, none of which were backed up, and most of these were of his young daughter growing up. To say he was beside himself would be understating his condition at the time. Between us we recovered the data, but he was petrified.
As an aside, imagine a timeline with the development and maturation of film versus digital. On that timeline in digital terms I would currently put us at 1940 maybe...what do you think?
I regularly say to friends and relatives who have children growing up 'for goodness sake, invest a roll of film every now and then if you want to make sure record photos last a lifetime'. A great many of the photo taking public haven't considered archiving or experienced catastrophic hardware failures resulting in loss of valuable images. They will, and film will have it's day again.
I also have a colleague who believed his external 500GB external HDD to have failed. He had around 4000 photos on it, none of which were backed up, and most of these were of his young daughter growing up. To say he was beside himself would be understating his condition at the time. Between us we recovered the data, but he was petrified.
As an aside, imagine a timeline with the development and maturation of film versus digital. On that timeline in digital terms I would currently put us at 1940 maybe...what do you think?