ANALOG PHOTOGRAPHY :: RETURN OF KODACHROME?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 сер 2024
- I haven't covered analog or film photography in quite some time. So today's Friday Q&A is all about analog photography.
Sorry my social template failed on me so the type doesn't fit.
Check out my buddy Dave Bias -
www.davebias.org
Subscribe for more videos!
www.youtube.com...
Watch More Episodes:
FILM PHOTOGRAPHY PROCESS :: FROM SHOOTING TO SCANNING
• FILM PHOTOGRAPHY PROCE...
DEVELOPING COLOR FILM (C41)
• Developing Color Film ...
DEVELOPING FILM IN ONE STEP :: NEW 55
• Developing Film In One...
Twitter: / tedforbes
Instagram: / tedforbes
Facebook: / theartofphotography
Pinterest: / tedforbes
Website: theartofphotogr...
And get on our mailing list to stay up to date on photography news and the latest episodes:
theartofphotogr...
Thanks for watching - if you like this video, remember to share it with your friends!
Ted Forbes
The Art of Photography
2830 S. Hulen, Studio 133
Fort Worth, TX 76109
USA
My name is Ted Forbes and I make videos about photography. I’ve been making photographs most of my life and I have a tremendously deep passion for photography that I want to share with you on UA-cam.
The Art of Photography is my channel and I produce photography videos to provide a 360 degree look into the world of making images. We all want to get better so lets do this together!
I make videos covering famous photographers, photography techniques, composition, the history of photography and much more.
I also have a strong community of photographers who watch the show and we frequently do social media challenges for photographers to submit their own work. I feature the best and most interesting on the show when we do these so come check it out and get involved!
I'm a retired photojournalist who got his first camera in 1968 (a Nikon F). Obviously had to turn to digital as the business changed, but have never lost touch with film. Now that I shoot mostly for myself, it's almost all film. I've sold lots of gear in my life but never got rid of my original F2 kit. Now I'm back shooting with my Nikon F2AS bodies and loving every minute of it. Would love to see Kodachrome make a comeback, but I'm not holding my breath.
I use film and digital - digital for birding and wildlife because you end up wasting a lot of your shots. I love film for the look and I use it for more artistic shots. It forces me to think more about composition and to really learn the camera’s controls which in turn makes my digital photography better. They complement each other and are both valuable in different ways
I was sold on digital when I was absolutely amazed at what you could do with Lightroom /Photoshop/Elements. It gave me the darkroom I never had. And yes, I'm an old guy.
I'm 16 and i've been shooting a Pentacon Six, Fuji Gw690, EOS 650 and FTb QL for a year now and it's amazing
awesome, keep it on!
I bought my F5 originally during 2001 and still own it. They did F6 and it was with more improving on the light meter and added more auto focusing. For Nikon if they do another Analogue there's nothing more to add except few tune up. So far they used the F6 as their basic body when they introduced the first Digital camera. Now the present digital cameras are done on the demand of developments to keep up the level competitively to be on the race of the technology. Anytime when they want to do an analogue camera, they can do it easily onto a body replacing the sensor and adapting film feeder. That's how Leica did M-A camera. But Nikon F5/ F6 is still a workhorse and do the best in action Photography to get the best analogue image.
Digital vs film , oil painting vs graffiti , I love all !
Actually tomorrow I will shoot film , street photography I will use a grainy one !
Film versus digital. Its certainly an interesting discussion. In a way, film is similar to vinyl records.
There's a certain depth to the tangible quality of film (and the subsequent tonal quality of prints) unattainable by digital no matter the technological advances. (is that nostalgia?) Film relies on light particles reacting with chemicals to fix an image, there's an actual 'physical' base level underlying the process, it is literally light caught and fixed on film, which is pretty amazing. Digital photography is just as amazing but different. A series of electronic photodetectors which record light digitally and is reproduced digitally.
Photography, to me, represents opportunity and 'quite unlike' any other 'art form' or 'mechanical process', represents and reflects modernity. As much as it signifies the scientific vigour and inventiveness of the industrial revolution so it reflects the more recent technological/digital revolution and the whole gamut in between these eras. Whatever way you use it the camera and photography, are perfect vehicles representing a modern, ever changing world and I am excited to see new developments whatever they may be.
I've recently gone back to shooting SOME 35mm film for the first time in years and this has led to me buying a Bronica 120. I'm looking forward to eventually processing my own black and white film and creating something from start to finish. It is an medium that teachers much more than the delete button on a digital camera. But, even with this renewed enthusiasm at least 75% of my photography will continue to be digital especially for wildlife, macro and for bracketed shots where I will blend them myself. I totally agree with you, it is the finished photograph that matters and the satisfaction it gives you. Photography is to be enjoyed not fought over or have separate "camps", we can debate (I have an ongoing debate about filters) but we mustn't lose sight of what we are trying to create. Another brilliant video, your channel is unique in its approach and certainly one of the most informative and inspiring.
I ran a photography business for 27 years. That whole time I processed my own film and prints, both black and white and color. I especially loved doing large prints from transparency film. I would tube process 16x20's. It was so exciting to open the tube at the end and remove the print. In all that time I shot commercially and did the art end of photography for myself. I would take my 4x5 out in the field to do nature stuff. And 35mm was always my favorite. In the end I had all those years of making a living and experiencing the joy of photography. I shoot digital now and have started the learning process all over. Photography will always be amazing and fascinating to me. ThanksTed, for a great UA-cam channel.
I love shooting film because of the romantic aspect of it. Working with film is fantastic, and it's very enjoyable. That being said, it's slow as hell, and whether or not you shoot film or digital, you're still going to be touching up the images on a computer to deliver them to a client. Film is great, but sometimes it can get in the way.
We shoot film because the way it looks and because shooting film force you to visualise the picture before and after taking the picture and that is a powerful tool ,
Your brain!!
Just to point out, the Rochester plant was not totally closed down, and its not Kodak Alaris who manufactures the film, its Kodak itself. They manufacture both the film for photography and for making movies, but the distribution of the photographic film, like Ektar, Portra, Ektachrome etc... is done by Alaris.
Kodak has shut down the rest of their plants though, it's now only Rochester and at much smaller volume. There used to be Chinese, UK, and West German large plants as well.
Tube amplifiers, tube mic's, analog synthesizers analog mixing tables, vinyl records, analog photography... Anyone else see the similarities? Almost every single one of these were said to be obsolete by now, but doesn't really seem like they're going away any time soon
The imperfections these devices cause give the audio or picture some character that you just can't reproduce on a digital device.
Let's be honest that a huge part of this is trend. That's not to say that the older technology isn't good or that it's completely useless just because it's outdated, but the majority of supporters don't even get why they like it, and a good chunk of them are hipsters that just need to be contrary about what's "mainstream". - But the people who can properly use the older technology should be thankful to the hipsters of today, or it wouldn't be around as much.
My personal theory, or experience anyway, as to why that old and analogue stuff still works or clicks is because it's something more physical. You have all these people going "Oh, it's nostalgic. It's imperfect. It has character."... And sure, there's that, but it still doesn't explain it. - I think it's because it's more physical and organic. And I don't mean as in how they say "It looks/sounds organic.", there is that too in style, but I'm talking about the physical transfer from like sound into magnetism and electricity, onto tape or vinyl, through tubes and transistors and out of large speakers. If not light captured by chemicals, basically. - All this stuff is physical and it connects better with humans than digital technology. - I have nothing against digital technology, but I honestly believe it's best used for calculating things, editing things, or containing things. I think digital doesn't take away a lot from sound captured on tape or light captured on film, it's able to practically clone it. But you can still notice when something wasn't recorded to tape or film, or when it was a digital/virtual tool... There's a detachment with humans there, which I find to be a problem as both a creative and an audience.
I don't think tube amps ever went out of fashion though...
Hmmm ... I don't think I'll be going back to vinyl any time soon, but film is another matter. I've never got rid of my analogue cameras, and I never will. They sit side by side with my DSLRs and mirrorless cameras.
Of course silver halide photography be it film, paper or on glass isn't an analogue process.
I was hired as photographer at the Musical Instrument Museum in 2009. I shoot Digital at the MIM museum. For the last 7 years now, all day long I have photographed and documented this collection. I had burned myself out on photography. Then I discovered the large format view camera and this opened my eyes to a whole new world of photography . My evenings and weekends are spent with my Linhof 4x5 Technika. This has helped me to really slow down and work on the images that matter. The developing process of one 4x5 sheet at a time working on the zone system, 25 to 30 min. a frame. This alone will make you stop and ask yourself what story do you have and how can you communicate your thoughts visually. I am developing skills by using the view camera and I have been working through learning curves. I'm starting over and I really am enjoying the process.
T.W. Sharp
Since I've started to shoot film 6 years ago, I could never go back to digital... Even when I travel I only take my iphone and one film camera. Couldn't be happier with that decision.
i started about the same time, but i do use both.
I've shot film as a child in the '90s, obviously because that was the main thing for the average consumer, and I also moved along into digital in the early 2000s. But while I got myself some digital cameras as an adult, I suddenly grew tired of it. It's difficult to pinpoint why, but while digital technology is absolutely amazing, it took something away from just creating things, both in imaging and audio. Even writing digitally, though I'm not about to go back to pen and paper and then scan it, I'll occasionally write more personal letters just because that makes more sense than e-mailing or printing text.
Anyway, I ended up just putting down cameras (somewhere between 2014 and 2017) because I got bored, then I recently had the opportunity to receive some old film cameras for free, which I took, and now I'm excited about photography again. I'm now trying to find a nice snapshot-film for my Olympus Trip for more casual shots and memories, so I can easily take along a film-camera. I too have an iPhone, I also have a decent Canon PowerShot, but meh... It just doesn't do it for me. Pictures are fairly easily taken, but they almost always come out so cheap and cheesy. Film just kinda is what it is.
I shoot digital and film for portrait photography projects. But I must say that shooting portraits with a Nikon F6 SLR, Nikon 105 f/2 DC lens and Fuji Pro 400H film is an experience unlike any other and the reason I'm so passionate about photography.
I shoot film almost exclusively now and my digital gear collects dust. it's hard to say why it's expensive it's limiting with low fixed ISO/ASA but I think it's because it stops me taking thousands of photos and slows me down + I love using old more mechanical cameras, the nikon F3 and F2 especially.
Those older videos that you did on film and film processing is what got me hooked on your show years ago. So of course when there is talk of film and analog photography, I am all ears and I would be interested in segments or a new series from you on film photography.
In terms of film vs digital, something should be said for photo quality. A medium format negative scanned at full resolution can produce a 95 megapixel equivalent image. That blows the large majority of the consumer DSLRs on the market out of the water. For some landscape photographers, medium format cameras is the only way to go. I shoot both. I appreciate both. Both have pros and cons. Digital is faster but film is about the craft and for some work, the picture quality. For any serious landscape photography I plan on doing, I reach for my Pentax 6x7
Hey Ted, first of all big fan right here, I've watched your videos for many years now and what I like the most is that they deliver exactly what they say they will: an approach to photography as an art. That's something we don't see too often out there.
Second, I have a request. When you have the chance, please show us a comparison on pushing film. By that I mean probably taking different shots of a same scene pushing the ASA at different levels, in order to show clearly what are the consequences of pushing the film in therms of contrast, depthless, etc. There are some comparisons out there, but they are never really precise or clear enough. Thanks a lot, take care.
I spent over 40 yrs shooting film and working in pro darkrooms both B&W and Color. One day almost by 'accident' I got to use a really really cheap digital camera and I was amazed by the image quality in terms of image resolution- much better than 35mm film could achieve, so....having by then being very familiar with computer graphics it became a no brainer to go digital.
Agree.. I think digital will not replaced with film. Both are just tools or option and to make a photograph, we still need to composed the scene and exposure and etc. I grew up close to film and digital. I never shot film but my uncle have a photo studio. We do process film in darkroom but then my uncle brought a lab machine to process film and prints and still remember the smell of the chemical filling my uncle's photo studio but now the photo studio is dying. Not many people now print their photograph. most people prefer just upload on social media and by digital is the fastest way to do that, even now people can upload their picture right from their camera by wifi. If only people more valued the print photographs, I dont think film will dying. All of this just happening not long ago. around 20 years ago.
Analog stuff I would love to see in your channel:
- Direct positive paper exposing and processing (Imago/Harman, similarities, differences)
- large format film processing (trays)
- contact printing
- alternative processes if you use any
Sometimes I really miss the old days of analog film, the smell of the chemicals and doing things by hand. The process was slow because the chemicals needed a specific amount of time to do their work. So there was plenty of time to think about what to do with the next picture while waiting for the previous ones, note what to do better in the next shooting and things like that. That helped a lot in the creative process when I look back. Do I miss the "analog quality"? Not really. Modern cameras are technically better in every possible way. You just have to define the limits yourselves instead of naturally being limited by the technology. That's the hard part.
Started using the Velvia film presets on my Fuji X for a recent UA-cam project. Results blew me away when comparing those JPEGS with the duplicate raw baseline images. Lot of phots also like the Chrome preset. Not film I know but fun and interesting all the same.
My partner and I have started shooting large format film with the intention of moving into wet plate. At least with chemical photo processing on plates... tintypes, etc, there is not such a reliance upon film companies. It is possible to still engage in analog photography. Even if all the companies go out of business, if you understand the chemistry, you can produce gorgeous one-of-a-kind art.
That classic film " Blow up" sums it up for me.........you never know what you have actually got in the camera until its been developed.
I remember watching your analogue process episodes a few years ago. They are a great reference I would always come back to, however, your "new style" of shooting the episodes could bring a refreshing theme to the subject and of course include knowledge you've acquired since then. Plus, it would be great to see your set up at your new place.
Thank you for everything, Ted! Cheers
I have been shooting only film for some time now. Not because it's better, but because it forces me to think about what I'm doing. I like that. I was in a coffee shop the other day and there was a (digital) photographer taking pictures of a model and she would take a couple photos and then look at the screen and say, "hold on, just getting my settings right" then take a couple more photos and adjust again. After about 10 minutes, she finally started saying "beautiful...ahhh, these are amazing". By this point you could see the model was kind of bored. Total time taking pictures was less than the "figuring it out" time. Wasted moments that could have been captured.
This isn't a digital vs. film problem. Can be done with digital too. However, just saying film really does force you to plan and appreciate every photo you take. With higher stakes, you will probably produce a higher ratio of better images too.
Different flavors, both valid.
But in almost every art form it is clear that as we strive for perfection (mostly through digital and technology), a large segment of people realize that actually technical perfection could be actually less desirable.
In music this is proven time and time again, very high level recording uses tube and analog equipments that introduces distortion, 30+ year old synths guitar and drums are the most desirable instruments, and play back on vinyl and tubes again can be perceived to be more pleasing.
Firstly great show. I find it odd that many photographers are still doing the film v digital thing. Here in the UK many photographer I meet are either shooting or want to shoot film as well as digital. I'm trying to get back into photography and dug out the Pentax Super A I bought 9 years ago (virtually new). I find it better than my digital camera when trying to re-learn things I haven'y done for years. The quality of my pictures are still a bit iffy and finding a good low cost processor has been more miss than hit so far, but its still very enjoyable. A few days ago I ordered some chemicals to process black and white films myself thanks to your stand development video. So please revisit the analog processes if possible they seem as much fun as taking photographs.
Keep up the good work
I'm more into film now.. I took a summer class in NYC and fell in love.. I don't edit much anymore and absolutely love being in the darkroom
I am pure digital photographer. I have never tried my hand on analog photography. Not by design, but by default because when I seriously decided to pursue photography about 6 years back, digital was the most accessible and conspicuous technology available. So, my request would be if you could do some videos on basics of analog photography and processing film (unless you had already done in the past), that would be great. It just might motivate the likes of me to explore analog.
A few years ago I began to scan old Kodachromes & Ektachromes that my father took in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. Much to my surprise a carefully scanned and edited slide can look every bit as beautiful as a digital photo. As a result, I resurrected my old 6X6 cameras from the 1970s and rediscovered film. I have to say, that as a result of scanning these old slides I prefer the analog hands down to digital. 20 years from now will your family still have the digital images? The film images will be around 20 years from now and longer.
I would love to see a darkroom series. Make ir happen, Ted! Please!
Your first question. Reminds me of other areas. When I was in college as an animation student. That was the big fight. The 3d animation vs 2d animation. Digital vs analog music recording etc. I still see it even now. Now it has moved to DSLR vs Mirrorless.
I'm young and pretty new to photography, I started out just using my
cellphone taking pictures of my truck and some ice after a winter storm.
After that the need to improve my pictures grew but i could not afford
a camera. Just recently i had a cannon ae-1 program given to me after
fixing it and trying it out for a day i was in love with every aspect of
this camera from the looks to the sounds it makes it never leaves my
side. But im pretty remote ( for film photography ) its hard to get
film, the only film ive been using is the generic fujifilm from my local
store and it would lake them 3 weeks to get anything developed. i fount
this channel it helped me allot i now want to develop my own film and
im looking for ways to buy more and different film (currently have almost 5 rolls of film that needs to be developed just waiting on the funds to get them done ) And thank you Ted
Absolutely loved those film videos from way back when. It's what got me into shooting and developing my own film.
Please develop a film in front of us. The whole proces!
4a6ka he's done it in the past.
I love film, I have 35, 120, and 2 1/4 x 3 1/4. Unfortunately due to having a lung problem I can't be in the dark room in the chemical fumes so I do digital, but my hart is still analog.
YESSSSS!!! Bring back the Pinterest boards and the essays on composition and film process :D
This channel has become something else
i feel like for work and day to day use digital in some form or most forms is the way to go. film is fun once and awhile when you have the time
I'm enjoying heading you talk about film again Ted.
I'm not sure if it'd be easy to arrange, but I'd love to watch a video of you trying out some P30, developing it, and talking us through what you thought of it, what kind of situations it's good for, etc.
Been shooting digital for a couple of years but never tried films. Two days back as I was browsing a buy and sell website I accidentally saw a post about a Nikon F80 AND F75 film cameras being offered for free. I contacted the guy and we met yesterday. I am now very eager to go out and shoot with these film cameras. I would want to start off by loading the film but the problem is I could not find stores selling roll films in Dubai! :D
I shoot digital for convenience and instant gratification, but my business has been film based (NOT analog) since I sold my first print in 1967 up to my latest ones last December. When I'm at a show, It's quite satisfying to have my 20x24 b&w prints shot with my medium format cameras using Kodak Tri-x., Tmax 100 or Ilford Delta 100 printed on canvas sell for prices that make me smile when I watch my digital compatriots selling 8x10's for $10. To each his or her own, but film has been very kind to me for the last 50 years, 32 of them in a studio, and I'm in no hurry to change.
I started shooting film about two years ago - started as an interesting experiment and turned into a principal way to convey the mood I wanted with photography. To Ted's point - a lot of support for film will depend if Kodak Alaris, Ilford, Fuji et.al are going to be able to make profit off of this resurgence in shooting film. Our part, I believe, is to commit to shooting and exploring film photography in full analog or hybrid (develop+scan+digital post) process. The only way this makes sense if we are able to process the film ourselves, which is where resource like AOP channel helps a great deal. I hope this leads to some sponsorship possibilities with Ilford, Alaris, Fuji or Ferraria for Ted. Film reviews/discussions would definitely be something I would be interested in.
I do music recording on two inch analogue tape, and shoot all kinds of film. I do both that way because I love doing both. It also gets me away from a computer screen when I do my hobbies.
I love film even though I shoot digital however film is great it has fun in the process of actually taking a picture.It has a ritual of getting the packet back and opening it and seeing your work in hard copy.
TED!! I would love to see a video based on graded and non-graded papers when trying to obtain a certain look. You see, I've been hoping to really crush the blacks on my prints, but haven't quite found what I'm looking for, and I find that wading though film, paper, and developer options to be daunting and expensive. Any help demystifying this part of the process would be greatly appreciated.
On a personal note, your darkroom videos helped me out tremendously when I first started processing and printing my own film, and to be honest they still do today. They're my go-to whenever I'm not feeling confident about something in the darkroom, and whenever I introduce someone to the world of film, I send those videos along like a care package. Thank you for the tremendous amount of work you put into this channel, and into the photography community. I hope you realize how much these videos mean to all of us.
I shoot film because, while my 8x10 color sheets cost $17-$25/pop, a digital back would set me back over $30k :D
As for 35mm, I shoot film because I just love the darkroom too damned much!!! Everyone should find a local darkroom and give it a try, if they didn't have the pleasure back in high school / college
I expose TOPS 50 sheets of color/year - you're talking 30 years to pay for itself, and by then the technology on any digital back would be woefully outdated
As for 35mm, that I'll never switch because I love darkroom printing. The large format I might contact print a B&W occasionally, however they usually all get scanned.
Aren't scanner back exposure times in the minutes?
Agree with everything you say - all topics covered in your answers were on point. Yes film and digital are two totally different technologies of course, and they can live happily side by side.
As for a brief look at what happened with the digital revolution - we have to realize just what an unenviable position Kodak (the best example as they were affected the most) found itself in. Here was a behemoth of a company that for nearly 100 years was the world leader in film technology, in so many varied and diverse areas - producing millions of feet of film of all types weekly to feed professional and amateur motion pictures and still film, chemicals, papers, untold types of other hardware and photo chemical technology for medical, industrial, commercial and consumer applications. Here was this gigantic production going on around the world that suddenly came to a grinding halt. In the case of motion picture film - virtually overnight when cinemas around the world and movie studios decided to stop using film for the majority of their output. Their model suddenly was obsolete. The huge factories could no longer be supported. Scrambling to reinvent themselves was the only option. They probably should have bit the bullet and simply downsized to a manageable contained entity that met the market and concentrated their efforts in the area they knew best. But everyone was crying 'the death of film'. As it turns out, fortunately, that is not quite the case - there is still a place for film.
I shot Kodachrome at ISO 25, then later at 64. I mailed my film to Kodak for processing. 10 days later I got it back, about half the rolls dirty or scratched. Independent processors were worse. When Ektachrome 64 came out, I switched. In the 1960s, I spent my money on college - no color photography. In 1975, I returned to Ektachrome and started processing it myself; I still do. The quality of modern Ektachrome is such that there would be no reason to renew production of Kodachrome. It would not be finer grained or sharper; it would cost more to manufacture and to process; and Kodak would have to do it all, as the low volume would not be economical for independent processors. Be thankful if we get a renewed Ektachrome in the face of Fuji's contracting film production. For B&W, who loves you - Ilford, that's who.
A couple of thoughts on the Kodachrome discussion. First of all, there is the Kodachrome most of us shot, and real Kodachrome 25 of the distant past. It had a unique color, slate blue skies, etc. Kodak changed that formula a long time ago, and when a group of major photogs arranged a meeting to discuss bringing it back, Kodak sent its lawyers. So much for any hint of concern for the product as a historical icon. Second, there were only a few labs in the country which could process Kodachrome. As for the grain you noticed, after I got a couple of boxes back with other people's pic mixed in with mine, I resolved to try E6 and find a local pro lab to work with. I was stunned to do side-by-side comparisons of 100 Fuji E6 and Kodachrome 64, where on a black / white border (a lighthouse stripe) I could see crossover grain on K14 and a clean line on E6. And for that I was going almost a stop slower?
I am getting a kick out of the nostalgiamaniacs (I know, I just made it up), he long for a return to analog photography. I grew up when analog photography was the only thing. I began processing my old film (b&w) and printing my negatives on an $80 Vivitar in a ad hoc darkroom (no running water ), etc.
Since the introduction of digital photography, I haven't been remotely interested in go back to the dark ages when film photography. I love being able to view the results instantly, being able to modify my photos using Photoshop, being able to store my pictures on any number of different media, etc. etc. etc. I don't care what others say, the best digital systems produce images that are far superior to the old analog cameras. If do not want to return to the days when I would shoot a couple of rolls, drive them or mail them to a processor, wait a week to get them back, pay a small fortune for the processing, and discover the exposure errors, mistaken framing, etc.
Don't forget film/print's susceptibility to degradation over time.
Ugh.
Stephen Prints and negatives can last hundreds of years. Digital files can get corrupt and hard drives fail all the time.
I might be biased because I sold my full 5D kit to switch entirely to film. 120 and 4x5 mind you but the image quality still surpasses digital unless you talk about Phase1 backs or something. Not for everybody, I only do portraits and fine art but for that purpose, it's the best.
Not everybody shares that sentiment.
Color film doesn't last long because of unstable dyes.
Hi Ted, I have recently bought a 35mm camera and now I am learning all of this from the beginning. I would very much welcome a mini analogue series in your usual well thought out and informative style. At the moment I will be sending my films to a lab but I would love to understand how I could develop my own film at home without having a dedicated darkroom. Many thanks.
Nothing like the look of film! I shoot both, both have its place. Film is just my first love. Both are more than capable mediums to create beautiful images with. There is no VS discussion as far as I'm concerned. Both have its merit.
Great video! I do not understand the either or argument regarding film and digital. Each has its own strengths. All my images are captured on film. But I scan my 6x7 color for inkjet printing. This is the best process ever for color printing! My 4x5 is entirely analog and there are great B&W films & papers today. The best of all possible worlds in photography is right now!
The other thing to keep in mind (at least with Kodak) is the correlation with movie film. With a large number of Hollywood productions still using large quantities of movie film, the development, production and sales of Kodak film is still an important part of their business. Yes it's a different product than Portra, Ektar, etc but the need for film production and development is still a much larger market than "niche." The fact that Kodak has recently lowered their prices is encouraging for the short term future of film!
What I'd like to see from a darkroom episode: Semi stand development. Not how to do it. But what sort of results you can expect from doing it, vs normal development (c-41 in particular, but B&W would also be interesting).
I know this is a 2 year old video now, but Kodak/Kodak Alaris are looking into bringing back the Kodachrome sensitivity curve but using E-6 processing. Quite aside from other issues, K-14 needs specialized equipment and has severe EPA problems with the chemistry being toxic. So this would be a sort of Kodachrome III for E-6 - could be a very interesting outcome if they can pull it off.
Apparently your chemists comment is the hardest part, but they have some guys over at Eastman Chemical helping them.
Outstanding Q & A! I never shot Kodakchrome, there was no lab in Costa Rica that processed it and it had to be shipped either to Mexico or Panamá for processing. I shot Ektachrome extensively (within my modest student budget and mostly for pocket calendars for dad"s printing shop) and I loved the look and color saturation! And for the sake of catharsis on my last vacation in Sarasota FL I went and shot 4 rolls of E-6 transparency film varying from Ektachrome VS to Fuji Astia in down town with my Mamiya C220! I sent the film for processing to ZebraColor in Saint Petersburg, however, I'm still waiting for the scans to arrive!
My most beautiful shots were taken on Kodachrome. Awesome colours.
Your channel is as resourceful as the Hubble telescope itself.
I think that the fact that the categories "warm" or "cold" are (still) so widely applied in a number of very different contexts (like music for vinyl/CD or lamp amps/numeric amps, or in the cinema industry with real/CGI effets, or photography,...) to mark a difference felt either in the medium or in the product might be a proof that there is some kind of consistency in the concept... Even if there's no need to hate on the digital era and its usefulness, the fact that a lot of people are returning to or discovering film photography and such analog ways nowadays might give us some insights on how the ever-over-digital society frustrates some of our needs and in this case the need to get a hand on things, to acquire autonomy and control over things, to manually create,... It's my opinion but I think in film photography the black room is a big part of the process. Anyway if someone is interested in the subjet I strongly recommand reading Matthew Crawford.
Re film, I like your idea of a film that reflects today, rather than the focus on reviving old formulas and processes. On the one hand the economics might be a point of focus -- making film more economic to manufacture in smaller batches, which is today's reality; or focusing on the fact that we scan processed film at home and share digitally, rather than a lab-only process that only ends in prints. (For example).
YES!!! Thank you! I mainly shoot film but I haven one digital camera, Ricoh GR. I turned on notifications because I love the material covered on your channel. Keep it up!
Boy I miss Kodachrome and I wish it could be revived and back on the market. The last two rolls of Kodachrome 64 I shot was back in 2005.
I would be excited to have a modern film to shoot. If its less expensive to produce it could survive for longer in a small market and it may give rise to some new types of shooting.
I want to know more about the EMP now...
haha. Survivalists shoot film!
I'd love to see you take different films that are currently available and just go out and shoot, explain why you're shooting a certain film in that situation and see you compare films in general. I've just gotten into analog photography and I love it!
Ted, bought an F3 on your recommendation. Liked it so much I bought a second... and a third. One for each viewfinder, HP, regular, and waist level. Then I started following Matt Day and Negative Feedback, now I somehow have an enlarger and a fully equipped darkroom.
Thank you for your wide breadth of content. Although I don't watch all of it, it's all important to me.
To note in the UK Kodachrome came in 2 speeds 25 ASA and 64 ASA. The 25 ASA was as smooth as silk showing hardly any grain even blown up to 5feet on a projector screen. Those were the days.........ahhhhh
I had the amazing experience of going on a tour of Kodak in Rochester NY when I was a chemical engineering student at Syracuse in 1998, I believe it was building F 117 (F17?) Where they actually prepared and applied the emulsions to the acetate film, there were THOUSANDS of feet of stainless piping and valves and controls and it was all inside a refrigerated and very dark building. , the machinery was unbelievable and all of it was precision. The tour guide told us that just the "hearts" (rotary die punches)that they used to cut the sprocket holes cost about 30k each. Interestingly enough the best workers they had were blind people. The point is that it would be astronomically expensive to restart a film manufacturing program and its all gone now. So for dear god buy film from the few remaining manufacturers because once they close they are gone forever
Catching up on some AoPs, one year late for this eps, but this is a really good one, very good points raised and discussed.
There is actually someone in Portland who has started developing Kodachrome in color. The results are amazing.
2 years on from this video and Kodak have brought back Ektachrome Ilford have brought out Ortho 80 and Fuji have brought back Acros as Acros II, all in 35mm, 120 and 4x5. The market for "Boutique" film is growing exponentially and Kodak have announced a multi million dollar investment in the development of new emulsions and production facilities as they simply can't keep up with demand. Film took everything digital threw at it and it's bouncing back. It probably wont see the sort of numbers last seen in the glorious days before digital, but enough for the big players to make the commitment to new facilities and films. The Millennials are finally understanding what Boomers and Gen Xer's have been enjoying all these years, the experience of shooting film, creating an image using basic tools and holding the final product in your hand. It is much more satisfying than seeing it on the back of a digital camera or on your smart phone.
I never stopped shooting film:
There is really no need for a new high-end film camera.
There are so many existing to be had.
I shoot with a 40 year old Pentax that takes great pictures.
There will always be a niche, and both pronunciations are acceptable.
Glad to see the new release of Ektachorme. Seems like a move in the right direction.
Lets keep in mind that film is only half the process, digital capture is only half the process. Lets talk about print medium. That is where the rubber hits the road. Photography is about the print, not the medium you started to get to that end.
I never understood why there wasn't "Kodachrome 100" to head off Fuji and Sakura when they came to the U.S. market. As for using slide film when the light level went down, I reached for High Speed Ektachrome (ISO 160) and wondered why Kodak let GAF's Anscochrome 200 and 500 "eat their lunch." Oh well, Kodak did wake up, finally with Kodacolor II (ISO 100) and Kodacolor 400, though by then, my new work schedule stopped my one regularly scheduled reason to use Kodachrome 25 or 64. When "the lights were turned on again," I opted for a Fuji E500 digital camera and a Nikon D40 instead of going back film, which was getting hard to find at the local drugstore. Go back to analog Photography? Well, I still have my Nikon FM2 and F2, so nothing is impossible.;)
TED, agree 100% on the darkroom tutorial. Would be interested to see your tips for setting up a darkroom from scratch.
If I were starting again, I'd get an ok Nikon digital SLR and one great lens to learn on, like a Zeiss Milvus. Once I became happy with my compositions, I'd jump to a medium format for landscape or an F6 so I could use the same lens.
Its 2020 and im watching all your film photography videos!
Ted, here's a question for you, do you plan on doing any more videos spot lightning a single past photographers like your past videos? Those are the videos that inspire me the most and I'm a huge fan of your curating on them.
Quick note: Dwayne's Photo ain't in Kansas City, its down South here in Parsons Kansas. Just so no one gets confused.
If they brought back Kodachrome, that’s all I would shoot. Nothing compares to that look in my humble opinion. Regarding film vs digital. To me it’s the craftsmanship that comes with film that I admire, the longevity and lineage from our for bearers, digital seems like something from a disposable age.
Man. . .I just scanned-in a matchbox-size book of Kodachrome slides taken of family members--likely around Parsons, Kansas--over 60-years ago.
After all that time, the colors are still rich, all the details are still there, and no special digital editing had to be performed afterward.
While I am starting to sway-away from the cumbersome process of film (but probably won't), want Kodachrome back SO bad!
You got me at "Analogue photography as a topic" :) Love this episode - thanks for sharing!
There *are* people out there building film manufacturing machines. Fortunately it's the same technology for doing motion picture stock plus or minus a few details.
When you say you want to see a new modern film for today's age instead of bringing back films, I think Ektar 100 is that film. Very saturated with amazing colors but yet easy to scan and process being a color negative film. I'm not saying it's better then Kodachrome but it's definitely got a unique and very pleasing look. I'm probably keeping Kodak in business single handedly buying the stuff.
the AOP video on R3 monobath got me back into film. I now own 13 film cameras.. ThanksTed! LOL Film Lives!
Modern DSLR's with 300+ functions are just intimidating when all you really need are settings for ISO, f-stop and shutter speed. Evereything else is just in the way.
I use digital to shoot all day until i find a great photograph, then I take some experimental test shots before finally pulling out my early 1980's all mechanical Pentax to get the perfect shot on Natura or Portra film. It may not be better, but it has a look which can't be replicated.
Well, it's been about a year and a half since you produced this video, but I feel the need to comment. You discussed Kodachrome in some detail, and I think you're correct that it is doubtful that it will ever come back, which to me is a pity. The reason is because of Kodachrome's outstanding quality as an archival medium. To this day there is still no substitute for Kodachrome as an archival medium. I don't trust digital in the long term because of the change of formats that are likely to occur over to coming decades -- and centuries -- and I think the only way digital can survive this march of technology will be for the old stocks to be converted to the new formats. Sooner or later, this process will break down somewhere and the oldest digital images will quietly disappear. But good old Kodachrome will still be around. So, what I'd like to see from the surviving film producers is some effort to produce a film product that will have the same archival quality as Kodachrome has. Maybe it will be a new process? Maybe it can still be E-6 -- or even C-41 -- but the dyes in the film are more stable? I dunno, but I sure would like to see a replacement to Kodachrome. Not having an archival quality color film really bothers me.
Happy your darkroom will soon be up again. Split grade exposure would be a great subject to explore!! More analogue is always welcome, as I still shoot only on film. Do you know of any cibacrome printing of slides still on the market? Getting those Cibas out of a beautiful slide was a breathtaking experience, pure pleasure! Thanks Ted
In the very least, Nikon recently announced that they would be offering repairs for their film cameras for a limited time. Either way, that's a pretty big acknowledgement from one of the biggest players in digital.I'd love to hear your thoughts on this
The thing about old machines manufacturing is that the problem is so prevalent because most of our manufacturing is in the third world, where factories can't stay solvent and afford new/modern machines. You should see the bottle manufacturing plants in Mexico that form the glass for popular perfumes and beverages. The machines are about 80% duct tape at this point.
I have some Kodachrome slides from the 1950s
10 asa if I recall.
Still bright and sharp.
Shot on a Leica screw mount camera
Glad to hear you're doing analog videos more often!
its just simple, because digital picture is virtual, and film is physical image, so by the side of museology, film is lasting material, and digital is not. so digital is fast, but film is lasting and keeps thing for years, and we are not so sure that after 100 years this digital virtual images will survive and will be readable again. film will for sure...
Ive not done it yet but a company brought back a film for the SX-70 cameras, I miss shooting with it. SX 70 was one of my favorite cameras when i shot film.