Author Topic: "I LOVE FILM" feature in February edition of Photography Monthly magazine. (Read 11218 times)

GLOBETROTTER · « **on:** February 12, 2009, 07:09:43 PM »

I see that there is a major feature on using film by Ian Farrell published in the latest edition of Photography Monthly (UK).

Ian also mentioned filmwasters.com within the published article.

It is nice to read a positive unbiased view on the use of film emulsion within today's modern world of photography.

gothamtomato · « **Reply #1 on:** February 12, 2009, 08:33:11 PM »

I wonder if he used any of our quotes! I can't wait to see it.

Francois · « **Reply #2 on:** February 12, 2009, 09:56:43 PM »

I guess I'll be reading the article at the news stand

Skorj · « **Reply #3 on:** February 14, 2009, 12:58:39 AM »

Thanks for the tip, I'll try and snaffle a copy. Appreciate it. Skj.

This-is-damion · « **Reply #4 on:** February 14, 2009, 08:31:41 AM »

On the shopping list!

Ed Wenn · « **Reply #5 on:** February 15, 2009, 08:05:43 AM »

For those who missed Ian's initial post here while he was researching the article and various forum members' responses the original material can be found here: http://filmwasters.com/forum/index.php?topic=1846.0

Francois · « **Reply #6 on:** February 15, 2009, 05:15:03 PM »

I just learned it will take at least another two weeks to make it over the pond

Pete_R · « **Reply #7 on:** February 18, 2009, 03:34:14 PM »

Was in the motorway services this morning and saw the last copy of PM on the shelf so thought I'd waste some money on it to read while sipping my Costa Coffee.

It could be Ian's been very clever and written this with the DUDs (Dim Users of Digital) in mind or he could have just done a bad job...

He starts off on the back foot by using phrases like 'minority', 'spare-time camera activities' and 'old technology' putting film use very firmly in the 'not to be taken seriously' category. He continues with 'If shot properly, a well-exposed frame of film can deliver as much sharpness, detail and tonal range as the most expensive DSLRs on the market - possibly even more!'. REALLY?? And there's me thinking all this time that the most expensive DSLRs might come close to a frame of film if you're lucky.

Ian lists several 'downsides' to film including not being able to change the white balance - has he never heard of colour correction filters. He also implies that film users are actually digital users who also happen to shoot a bit of film. I think he's totally missed the point on this one.

More negative (no pun intended) comments like using a darkroom as being 'hardcore' and something that few people have the time for these days isn't going to encourage anyone to try either.

Overall, I don't think this is likely to cause Ilford to start gearing up for a sudden rush of film purchases.

[sceptic mode]
Who's 'Globetrotter' by the way? Funny he's only made one post to announce this 'major feature' by Ian Farrel...
[/sceptic mode]

Francois · « **Reply #8 on:** February 18, 2009, 03:53:17 PM »

Quote from: Peter R on February 18, 2009, 03:34:14 PM

He continues with 'If shot properly, a well-exposed frame of film can deliver as much sharpness, detail and tonal range as the most expensive DSLRs on the market - possibly even more!'. REALLY?? And there's me thinking all this time that the most expensive DSLRs might come close to a frame of film if you're lucky.

Actually, most digital sensors have around a 3 stop range (just like slide film). I read this years ago so things might have changed... but I doubt it.
On the other hand, color negative film has between a 5 to 7 stop range.

Digital sensors are specially calibrated to work under certain specific conditions. The new Nikon D90 has an ISO level that starts at 200 ISO! This kind of limits possibilities, so you have to carry neutral density filters instead of color correction filters...

With film, you have to know what you're doing to get the best out. With Digital, you just machine gun everything and you're bound to have a few good pictures out of the few thousands that fit on a good sized card

LT · « **Reply #9 on:** February 18, 2009, 07:07:38 PM »

I remember being told by a well known and very experienced darkroom printer that mono (and I suspect colour neg) film actually records about 12-14 stops of info - the limiting factor is (was) in the materials used to print the neg onto - silver gel papers have about 5 - 7 stops with careful use of contrast grades. I think some of the alt processes record a much greater range from the neg - platinum certainly does.

I dont know how this is translated in scanning - one of the issues I come across with scanning negs is being able to create a nice dynamic range of tones from a scan which I cant entirely reproduce in the darkroom - so I suspect that careful development and high quality scanning can probably realise a much greater proportion of the negative's detail. Much more than digi sensors seem to be able to achieve.

Peter - was the mag in a plastic wrapper? If not, I'll try to have a look at one tomorrow. If your (slightly) cynical assessment is true .... is it really such a surprise to see an article like that in Photo Monthly? Sadly, I dont think it is - it;s not really the highest quality of publication for our kind of interest is it? I havent bought it since I got interested in photography, and even then it seemed like a poor relation to AP and Prac Photog - and that must make it really bad!

This-is-damion · « **Reply #10 on:** February 18, 2009, 07:18:59 PM »

i read it from a perspective that PM is a very pro digital magazine and would guess ( but could be very wrong) that about 90% + of its readership are digi users, hence the way the article was written.

I do agree I thought it odd they way film was spoken about as if it was already consigned to the dustbin of history, but i wasnt sure weather i was just being precious or not.

can only be a good thing f/w got name dropped though! the more the merrier......

Francois · « **Reply #11 on:** February 18, 2009, 07:37:20 PM »

All I hope is that he didn't make us look like a bunch of losers...
Ian asked me for an authorization to use a part of the text I posted here along with my name... I still have to wait another 2 weeks for the magazine to be on the racks around here... and I'm waiting anxiously.

gothamtomato · « **Reply #12 on:** February 18, 2009, 09:57:02 PM »

Quote from: Francois on February 18, 2009, 07:37:20 PM

All I hope is that he didn't make us look like a bunch of losers...
Ian asked me for an authorization to use a part of the text I posted here along with my name... I still have to wait another 2 weeks for the magazine to be on the racks around here... and I'm waiting anxiously.

Hmmm...I hope not as well. He also asked me if he could use one of my quotes, and I was happy to participate because I assumed it was going to be a pro-film article. I hope I was right.

I think most magazines are mostly about digital because most magazines are mainly about selling product (the products of their advertisers - who are mostly hawking digital toys). I don't mind that they have their digital stuff, but what annoys me is the evangelical aspect of digital shooters. It always has. Some cannot just accept that it is just another tool in the toolbox, like anything else.

I understand that the digital evangelism is just a desperation on their part, to try to legitimize themselves, but I'd prefer it if they just got therapy rather than inflict their insecurities on the rest of us - who just want to make pictures, and want to maintain the widest variety of available tools to acheive our visions.

Ian didn't seem to fall into that category.

Francois · « **Reply #13 on:** February 18, 2009, 10:06:43 PM »

I know I loved the days when photography magazines were just that.
Nowadays, PC World has more photography content than most photography magazines... or is it that most photography magazines have more computing content than PC World?

Pete_R · « **Reply #14 on:** February 18, 2009, 10:29:49 PM »

Quote from: leon taylor on February 18, 2009, 07:07:38 PM

Peter - was the mag in a plastic wrapper? If not, I'll try to have a look at one tomorrow.

No it wasn't wrapped but it did have a booklet bound to it by a sleeve. Something about how to use your DSLR. It went in the bin with my double chocolate cookie wrapper.

Quote

If your (slightly) cynical assessment is true

I thought I was being very cynical. I'll try harder next time.

And to those concerned about quotes. He did use a few but the only one he attributed to anyone was by Synjoo. It was in response to it that he referred to going back in to the darkroom as 'hardcore'. Hardly a positive response.

Pete_R · « **Reply #15 on:** February 18, 2009, 10:56:01 PM »

Oh, I missed a bit.

I think my eyes must have been glazing over by the time I got to the end of the article because I missed the bit where Ian asks why anyone should follow the 'nostalgic path of these film-shooting eccentrics'.

**!!!>>>!!!***ocks.

Ed Wenn · « **Reply #16 on:** February 19, 2009, 12:05:52 AM »

This has been a TOP quality read. Thanks everyone for being guardedly pissed off (and not forgetting, VERY cynical). I loved some of the phrases you guys came out with during the course of your posts...and if I may nick a phrase from the 1930's I'll throw out a big, "No Paseran!" to the Filmwasters massive.

If Ian's article turns out the way I'm hearing then, yeah it's a disappointment, but is it a surprise? A bigger surprise would have been if we'd all been happy with it. It's what happens when the mental attitude of the mass market collides with an interest group who actually know what they're talking about. The gulf is huge. Y'know a lot of the time it's not even the journalist who's to blame. Editorial staff can change things round radically in a piece with some very careful changes. Having said that, some of the quotes above do sound disappointing esp from someone who said he was an avid film user.

Whatever. If I may nick a another phrase (this time from around 1980): I suggest we all "Rise above".

In closing....and I'll elaborate on this later when I'm not already an hour overdue for my bed; I spent a fascinating evening a couple of weeks back with a digital photography evangelist and freelancer who used to work for Nikon and more recently has worked for an Israeli subsid of Kodak who make ultra high quality 'Medium Format' digital backs - at a cost of around $15,000-$20,000 a pop. He bolts them onto some quality MF and LF camera gear (Arca Swiss, Linhof, Cambo etc. etc.) behind some serious vintage lenses and swears that the results are awesome. He was banging on about having 12 stops to play with and saying it was better than film. It was loud in the pub, I was a bit tipsy, he was very drunk...details got lost, but he's offered to take me out shooting some time so I'll take him up on that when I have some free time & report back.

gothamtomato · « **Reply #17 on:** February 19, 2009, 01:01:13 AM »

Quote from: ed.wenn on February 19, 2009, 12:05:52 AM

I spent a fascinating evening a couple of weeks back with a digital photography evangelist and freelancer who used to work for Nikon and more recently has worked for an Israeli subsid of Kodak who make ultra high quality 'Medium Format' digital backs - at a cost of around $15,000-$20,000 a pop. He bolts them onto some quality MF and LF camera gear (Arca Swiss, Linhof, Cambo etc. etc.) behind some serious vintage lenses and swears that the results are awesome. He was banging on about having 12 stops to play with and saying it was better than film. It was loud in the pub, I was a bit tipsy, he was very drunk...details got lost, but he's offered to take me out shooting some time so I'll take him up on that when I have some free time & report back.

You're luckier than me. The last time I spent time with a drunk Kodak rep, he wouldn't stop (loudly) singing 'Surrey With the Fringe on Top' in my ear.

As for the film article, I'll remain cautiously optimistic because the writer, Ian, does seem like a nice guy, and I do like the magazine he edits. And when I had emailed him to ask if my quote was used, he said yes, but that he knew his article was shortened, because there were fewer pages available, and he hadn't seen the final copy yet. I've had the experience of writing articles for magazines, only to have the editors chop them in a way that completely changes the tone of the articles. So if that happened to Ian, I can commiserate!

With regard to the digital evangelists; I have so little patience for them because I encounter them so often. I sell my photographs at art festivals around the country, and so I get them coming into my booth and asking me (always) about whether my pictures are made with photoshop, and when I say no, everything is film, and all manipulations are done by hand, they launch into their Chicken Little shpiel, (about how there's no more film and digital is the second coming anyway, and I better get with the plan, blahblahblah). Everyone I know who shoots film has these same prats lecturing them as well. They just don't get it.

They remind me of a joke I heard Greg Heisler tell once, about increasingly automated cameras: He said the new generations of cameras would have a 'decisive moment' indicator so the user wouldn't even have to think at all, and when the perfect image moved in front of the viewfinder, the camera would say, 'now asshole', so the user knew when to squeeze the shutter. I always picture those digital evangelists using that camera.

Ed Wenn · « **Reply #18 on:** February 19, 2009, 08:01:53 AM »

Quote from: gothamtomato on February 19, 2009, 01:01:13 AM

They remind me of a joke I heard Greg Heisler tell once, about increasingly automated cameras: He said the new generations of cameras would have a 'decisive moment' indicator so the user wouldn't even have to think at all, and when the perfect image moved in front of the viewfinder, the camera would say, 'now asshole', so the user knew when to squeeze the shutter. I always picture those digital evangelists using that camera.

...not sure if you realise this, but I think that's already happened to a certain degree. My sister in law bought a low-end digi point 'n' shoot last year (from the Sony Cybershot range) and it has a 'smile mode'. Once in this mode it will try and detect when a human subject is smiling. We tried it out and it worked reasonably well. She pointed it at my face and pressed the shutter release. I pulled a variety of expressions & about 3 seconds later when I finally smiled, the camera went and took the picture.

Crazy!

Skorj · « **Reply #19 on:** February 19, 2009, 08:50:22 AM »

The only thing worse than a digital evangelist, is a film evangelist.

Present company excluded of course... Skj.

Francois · « **Reply #20 on:** February 19, 2009, 03:37:57 PM »

Quote from: ed.wenn on February 19, 2009, 08:01:53 AM

She pointed it at my face and pressed the shutter release. I pulled a variety of expressions & about 3 seconds later when I finally smiled, the camera went and took the picture.

Actually, it's more impressive than the stupid trick HP put in the last generation of cameras they made before pulling the plug... the feature was said to make everybody 10 pounds thinner. All it did was squish the image horizontally. Everything got strange looking and everybody ended up with a cone head

As usual, it wasn't recommended to use it at a Mighty Cone Head convention

gixerdude · « **Reply #21 on:** February 20, 2009, 02:43:56 AM »

I have just read a few of the replies you guys have written with much interest.

When I read the article I thought bleedin hell great an article about film in a digital mag, and I for one (and seem to be the minority regarding this Topic) totally agree and thought why not praise film its not dead and buried not by a long chalk.

I found some of your replies a tad off the mark. In my humble opinion Ian wasn't dissing film or condemning us as some kinda weirdos who will not at any price embrace technology. I thought he was doing the opposite and saying that we had the upper hand among the digital users (which I am also) as photographers.

When he used the word hardcore I interpreted as dedicated which we all are. I also agree that we do think about our images and don't reel off a thousand shots at random hoping to get 'that shot' and therefore that makes us better image makers.

Oh and the article brought me here to filmwasters.com too. Thanks Ian

I know some people who have started taking up photography who have never used film and probably would look totally lost if you asked them to load up 120 back. This is of course my opinion and no doubt people may not agree but I too come across the digital evangelist and no doubt some study eugenics and wonder how they can rid the world of the photographer still dedicated to film and the chemical process that I for one still love and adore.

Ed Wenn · « **Reply #22 on:** February 20, 2009, 04:51:55 PM »

Thanks gixerdude for that different perspective. Great to have you here to say many thanks to Ian for that.

I have yet to read the article myself so have no opinion on it at the mo. Anyway, I hope you have a great time here talking about film etc. Be sure to look out for any collaborations etc. and get stuck in.

david b · « **Reply #23 on:** February 20, 2009, 05:25:27 PM »

Quote from: gixerdude on February 20, 2009, 02:43:56 AM

I found some of your replies a tad off the mark. In my humble opinion Ian wasn't dissing film or condemning us as some kinda weirdos who will not at any price embrace technology.

To be fair, talking about the "nostalgic path of these film-shooting eccentrics" is pretty much exactly doing this.

Francois · « **Reply #24 on:** February 20, 2009, 10:13:17 PM »

I just got an idea!
Lets all get together with out 4x5 cameras and invite a few magazine editors... then again that would be proving the eccentric part

I think this is somewhat related...

Hope it puts a smile on your face

gixerdude · « **Reply #25 on:** February 20, 2009, 11:36:33 PM »

Quote from: david b on February 20, 2009, 05:25:27 PM

Quote from: gixerdude on February 20, 2009, 02:43:56 AM
I found some of your replies a tad off the mark. In my humble opinion Ian wasn't dissing film or condemning us as some kinda weirdos who will not at any price embrace technology.

To be fair, talking about the "nostalgic path of these film-shooting eccentrics" is pretty much exactly doing this.

Hi David B. I disagree. It's the way you wish to interpret this and to be honest when I read the article that was the last thing I thought of. Am I being naive? I mean ,we are all here for one thing and thats to enjoy photography in what ever fashion or medium you choose.

gothamtomato · « **Reply #26 on:** February 21, 2009, 01:05:56 AM »

Quote from: david b on February 20, 2009, 05:25:27 PM

Quote from: gixerdude on February 20, 2009, 02:43:56 AM
I found some of your replies a tad off the mark. In my humble opinion Ian wasn't dissing film or condemning us as some kinda weirdos who will not at any price embrace technology.

To be fair, talking about the "nostalgic path of these film-shooting eccentrics" is pretty much exactly doing this.

Well, I'll admit to being eccentric. (But I do not have any cats).

I really can't wait to see this thing. It's still not here in the Big Apple.

LT · « **Reply #27 on:** February 21, 2009, 08:02:53 AM »

I managed to scan a copy in Wetherby service station. I didn't read it word for word, but I have to admit, despite the odd inference to us zany film users, the article did exactly what I imagined the brief to be - introduce the idea of shooting film to a purely digi readership.
I am a healthily sceptical person, but I didn't feel scepticism rising as I read it. Ian's description of susan bernstein's (sic) success was nothing but positive and supportive.

All in all, I didn't find any reason to think this article gives the wrong message about film. It just wasn't aimed at us film users.

gothamtomato · « **Reply #28 on:** February 21, 2009, 01:09:46 PM »

Quote from: leon taylor on February 21, 2009, 08:02:53 AM

the article did exactly what I imagined the brief to be - introduce the idea of shooting film to a purely digi readership.

Terrific!

GLOBETROTTER · « **Reply #29 on:** February 22, 2009, 12:41:23 AM »

[sceptic mode]
Who's 'Globetrotter' by the way? Funny he's only made one post to announce this 'major feature' by Ian Farrel...
[/sceptic mode]

Maybe 'Globetrotter' is a sceptic too...

On a serious note, I've been very busy with work projects, so I'm sorry that I've not been able to visit filmwasters.com over the past days. I have no connections with either Ian Farrel or the magazine - I simply thought that it may be of interest to this forum.

I'm a full-time professional photographer/author (for the past 30-years) and even today almost all my digital files still originate from colour transparencies (mainly Fuji Velvia).

Susan B. · « **Reply #30 on:** February 22, 2009, 06:58:16 AM »

Seems we don't get Photography Monthly magazine here.
Can anyone scan and email the article to me by chance?
Can't recall what I said, so it would be nice to give it a read.
Cheers,
Susan

LT · « **Reply #31 on:** February 22, 2009, 09:43:51 AM »

Globetrotter - welcome to the site. It's good to have you and your contributions here.

uniB · « **Reply #32 on:** February 22, 2009, 01:40:23 PM »

Well I've just found the filmwasters forum through the article so, like gixerdude, I thank Ian for that.

I'm actually pleasantly surprised by Photography Monthly, I've never really read it before but as I'm featured in next months edition I thought I better have a read of it! It was good to see the film article and I don't find it as offencive as some have found it here. It's what you tend to expect from a magazine which must have a 95% digital readership - a very general overview, aimed at readers who are not in a hundred years going to start using film.

I agree that "nostalgic path of these film-shooting eccentrics" is not the best choice of words, I don't use film for the sake of nostalgia, I use it because for the landscape work, film is simply better. I do agree that darkroom printing is hardcore ? like many, Joe Cornish included who is also featured later in the magazine ? I scan my film and work on them digitally from there, printing colour in the darkroom is hardcore ? it always has been in my book!

There's room in this world for digital and film, hopefully as film gains popularity there will remain a decent supply of film (the news that Ektar will be coming to us in 120 format is great). My main camera is a Chamonix 4x5 but I also use a Sony a900, I have to admit that a large format has limitations what I can overcome with a DSLR and visa versa. I also use a Hasselblad and I've recently picked up a Minolta 600si and Dynax 5 - I just wish I could carry all of them at the same time!

LT · « **Reply #33 on:** February 22, 2009, 04:45:31 PM »

Welcome to you too UniB.

When we set up this site, the last thing we wanted was for it to become like apug.org where anything digital is thought to be worthless and the work of the devil. We're just a bunch of wasters who like to use film! Some of us are hardcore darkroom users, some of us are inkjet printers and others are alt process printers. As long as someone uses film, they'll be welcome here.

This-is-damion · « **Reply #34 on:** February 22, 2009, 05:48:17 PM »

Quote from: leon taylor on February 22, 2009, 04:45:31 PM

Welcome to you too UniB.

When we set up this site, the last thing we wanted was for it to become like apug.org where anything digital is thought to be worthless and the work of the devil.

eh? I thought that's excatly what we thought.....we were just were not allowed to say it?

david b · « **Reply #35 on:** February 22, 2009, 06:26:12 PM »

Quote from: uniB on February 22, 2009, 01:40:23 PM

I agree that "nostalgic path of these film-shooting eccentrics" is not the best choice of words, I don't use film for the sake of nostalgia, I use it because for the landscape work, film is simply better.

I think this is what irritated me about that quote. For some applications film just works better, and makes sense to use from a practical perspective. It isn't all about rejecting modernity or being a willful contrarian - at least not for most of the posters here, or the film photographers I know - it's just a matter of using the best method available to achieve your aims in photography. The sort of dogmatism that Leon talks about - from both sides - mainly seems to come from people who are obsessing over the technology and process because they don't have anywhere to go with it.

And welcome uniB. Most threads here are probably more fun than this one.

gothamtomato · « **Reply #36 on:** February 22, 2009, 07:59:06 PM »

Quote from: david b on February 22, 2009, 06:26:12 PM

For some applications film just works better, and makes sense to use from a practical perspective. It isn't all about rejecting modernity or being a willful contrarian - at least not for most of the posters here, or the film photographers I know - it's just a matter of using the best method available to achieve your aims in photography. The sort of dogmatism that Leon talks about - from both sides - mainly seems to come from people who are obsessing over the technology and process because they don't have anywhere to go with it.

Exactly. Some people are into the 'stuff' aspect of photography. Some were that way with more traditional equipment as well. The big difference to now (I think) is just that all the new toys keep coming at the market at a much faster pace.

I remember getting into a discussion about inkjet prints, on a forum, several years ago, and (along with others) was labeled a technophobe, anti-progress, etc; all because I was against what these particular photographers were doing with those prints: They were, at the time, selling prints to customers at festivals, made from an older generation of inks & printers, that only had a longevity of 5-8 years, and they were not telling the customers that.

My point was that it was unethical to be selling those types of prints to customers, without disclosure. Some, like me, thought it was about ethics, not technology. But everyone who spoke against that practice was deemed to be trying to delegitimize new technology. Truly bizarre.

But interesting to note; I heard later, that one of those proponents of those cheap prints, who had been selling them for several years, stopped doing festivals because old customers were starting to show up with faded prints, asking for refunds.

Francois · « **Reply #37 on:** February 22, 2009, 10:13:59 PM »

I know some people have a way to make the digital-analog "debate" sound like a bi-partisan standoff at the US congress...

I know, like everybody on this site, I too have a digicam. I use it. But tend to like using film better for many tasks (though not all).

I keep wondering how long this situation will last.

gothamtomato · « **Reply #38 on:** February 23, 2009, 05:03:33 PM »

Quote from: Francois on February 22, 2009, 10:13:59 PM

I keep wondering how long this situation will last.

I don't know. But maybe George Mitchell can broker a settlement.

gothamtomato · « **Reply #39 on:** February 23, 2009, 07:02:54 PM »

The February issue of Photography Monthly just made it to Manhattan, but the article is not in it. It is in the March issue (the article is mentioned on the preview page 'Why you should still use film').
So it won't get here for another month!

HOWEVER: I just found their website, www.photographymonthly.com , and they have a preview on-line. You can only see the first 2 pages of the article - and I don't see anything negative about it at all. There's nothing us vs them about it (and I'm not just saying that because he paraphrased one of my quotes).

I look forward to being able to read the rest of it when it jumps the pond next month.

Juliet · « **Reply #40 on:** February 25, 2009, 03:55:30 PM »

Most threads here are probably more fun than this one.
[/quote]

I am rather new here too...but I thought this discussion was pretty darn fun to read. I got a digital last summer and it is fun. I still take fewer frames than anyone shooting around me. But I also got a Hassie and that thrills me.

I am finding myself surrounded lately by my 14 year old son's friend's who are getting into film photography. So that is a great sign. Now if the materials producers will sit up and take notice, maybe we won't have to struggle to find what we need.