Death To Film Eulogy

Since George Eastman gave us film in 1884, pivotal moments of change in our society have been recorded by trapping light between emulsion layers onto silver halide.

The imaginations of the Irving Penns, Helmut Newtons, and Ansel Adams of the world have been brought to life on film.

Remember the sickly sweet chemical smell as you tore away the protective foil, revealing a canister shielding the layers of precious metal and gelatin from being polluted with unintentional light?

Remember the challenge of lining up the film lead with the camera sprockets for minimal waste, squeezing every last frame from each cartridge?  Oh, lucky day when the counter hit 39!  

If you did manage to catch that signature image or defining societal moment, you then had to drop your precious light sensitive media off at a lab for processing.

Would their rollers be clean, the chemicals fresh, the temperature right? Would the person handling the film be competent? If the processing stars lined up perfectly you might end up with more than just the Magnificent 11 like Robert Capa. 
The experience of watching that first ghostly image slowly reveal itself in the dim orange darkroom light will be missed by future generations of budding photographers.  As will the visceral feel of using a finely crafted piece of German optics to inspect film size images contact printed onto a rich paper surface…. 

Oh, who are we kidding.  When romanticizing shooting with film, it is easy to gloss over the tremendous environmental damage caused by dumping your fixer down the drain or processing Kodachrome film.  Most of us will be lucky not to die of cancer from all the toxic chemicals inhaled or absorbed into our skin while producing analog imagery.  To quote Roland of Gilead, “The world has moved on”.

The limitations of shooting film are also easily forgotten.  As photographers we got used to stopping and changing rolls every 12 to 36 frames.  We had to pick and choose our shots judiciously in order to achieve the results we were after.  We had to carry a separate camera or back attachment loaded with expensive film in order to get an instant (90 second) color preview (”The final film will look better than that, I promise!”)  We carried additional cameras so we had a choice of color or black and white film stock.

George Eastman wrote in his suicide note:  “My work is done.  Why wait?”  Digital has surpassed and replaced film as the primary method of capturing images and like it’s inventor, film’s work is done.  

We can wax nostalgic and cling to our happy analog memories but we should all prepare ourselves to work with the tools provided through our digital inheritance.

Add to:
| Digg it | +Google | Slashdot

2 Responses to “Death To Film Eulogy”

1. Milnor Says:
   October 16th, 2006 at 2:14 pm

   I hate to be the guy to rain on the parade, but there are just too many reasons not to. And, after all, this is the Death to Film blog, so what would it be without a little conflicting reportage.
   I too love the digital world. I mean how can I not with the overpriced equipment, the perpetual need to upgrade software, firmware, capture devices, computers, hard drives, archives, calibration equipment and other “high tech” devices.
   Let’s face it, film looks incredible, archives even better, and is just far too efficient. With digital I get to correct for blown highlights, embalmed skin tones, strange color and corrupted cards and drives, and get to spend a HUGE portion of my life in front of the computer.
   At this point I’m not sure what I would do with all my free time if I went back to film. Travel? Work out? Play?
   Everyday, when I find myself stumped by yet another digital “issue,” I always remind myself, “Oh wait, I forgot, it’s better!” Then, all my issues go away.
   Oh, note to research department. Check NYTimes article on the “Digital Landfill,” and you will know that the “Digital Revolution” has done, and is doing, far more environmental damage than you can possibly imagine. Remember, every eight minutes there is a new device made, and eight minutes later it is gone. Each new product requires marketing, design, sales, etc, etc. Can anyone say natural resources? This article will tell you just how many pounds of cadmium, mercury and heavy metals are in our landfills based on cameras, computers, and a bevy of other digital devices. This is not to mention the millions of cell phones entering our lovely landfills. I think this article will open some eyes.
   Most importantly, I just think of the photographers out there who have yet to make the jump to digital, and I realize that these people just don’t have anything to offer. Salgado, Burtinsky, Mann, Corbijn, JUST TO NAME A FEW. They must not have gotten the “digital is better” memo???

   So, with warm regards. Let’s once and for all get rid of this awful film stuff. I’m all about the latest capture device, you know, the one that was released and discontinued in the same day!

   Love,

   DRM

2. Britt Says:
   October 17th, 2006 at 8:24 am

   Dan Milnor folks, dragged kicking and screaming into the digital age - like most of us. Thanks for taking the time to comment.

   I definitely am not saying that there is anything wrong with analog film. I think there will always be a place for such processes especially in fine art print making. For example, platinum and palladium printing hasn’t been commercially viable for over 50 years but when I searched google there were 836,000 english web pages devoted to the topic. As an artist, you should choose whatever tool allows you to fulfill your vision.

   Creating artwork and producing commercial photography are two very separate things. There will always be a top echelon of photographers that can dictate to the world how they capture images, but unless you are that top 2 or 3 percentile you better adapt to the marketplace. Today’s clients expect super fast turn around and an experience that includes seeing the images as they are captured and walking away from the shoot with the final art.

   Just like Dan knows that my eulogy was tongue in cheek, I know that Dan shoots both film and digital and is very proficient with both. Check out his web site. Currently, there is a time and place for analog and digital capture. The point of my eulogy to film is that we all need to be ready to move forward. Smashing textile machines digital cameras will not solve anything. Digital is not free, cheap, easy or magic. The learning curve is high just like in the early days of analog photography. In addition to artistry, you had to have a skill set that included chemistry and mathematics. Now it’s computer literacy, color theory, and to some extent, electrical engineering.

   And about the damages caused by digital versus film/paper/chemistry… My dad worked at one of Walmart’s regional processing facilities in Arkansas. I saw first hand how millions of Americans document every mundane aspect of their lives on film and routinely drop them off for cheap processing and double prints at places like Walmart. There is NO WAY that the environmental damage done in the production of digital cameras even comes close. When these families go digital, they don’t have upgrade-itis. They paid several hundred dollars for their camera and will use it mostly for emailing photos for years to come. It is true that as professional’s we will be forced to upgrade about every two years but we are a small fraction of the photo market.

   Wow, I have had too much coffee this morning. Must..stop..rambling.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.