Analog Photography Makes a Comeback

[removed account4]

The tenacity of your expressed opinions tends to suggest otherwise.

im a know nothing who aspires to be a know-something

 

[BrianShaw]

im a know nothing who aspires to be a know-something

… and in support of your education (which is a funny thing for you to think you need), I submit this interesting news article about Banksy, who you mentioned in one of these threads, I can’t remember which; I hope you enjoy!

https://abc7.com/entertainment/unau...er-city-still-closed-amid-questions/11119016/

Now I shall seek punctuation counseling!

 

[Pieter12]

I think the legitimizing use you people are all looking for is the phrase "published by x" where x is some legally defined entity that either acquires or preserves the copyright of the material in question, possibly for profit but also possibly for no-profit (such as a publicly-funded) museum.

At any rate, "published by" not me. This has long been the objective validation of worth.

"Publish" will always mean "to make public".

I believe the photographer (or artist) retains the copyright when published or if the work is acquired by a museum. It is only when the photographer explicitly sells or transfers the copyright--something frowned upon by most professionals, usually for advertising work--that someone else hold the rights to the image. Selling a print does not transfer the copyright to the buyer, just the print.

 

[removed account4]

… and in support of your education (which is a funny thing for you to think you need), I submit this interesting news article about Banksy, who you mentioned in one of these threads, I can’t remember which; I hope you enjoy!

https://abc7.com/entertainment/unau...er-city-still-closed-amid-questions/11119016/

Now I shall seek punctuation counseling!

Fantastic!, thanks for that . I'm not sure how one does an exhibit on Banksy's work if it is all on sides of buildings &c.* I know the artist was rather annoyed people were purchasing sides of buildings that
s/he turned into art ( or so it was something I read a while back ). There is this British tv show I saw online a few years ago where someone brings in art they want to sell and some art dealers make them an offer, and the side of a building with a Banksy on it was one of the things attempting to be sold. The shredded piece from a few years ago was on exhibit somewhere alongside some heavy hitters (Van Gogh and Rembrandt or something similar ). Thanks for the homework, teacher

John

*there is a guy on IG who exhibits lots and lots of Banksy much cheaper than 20$/wack!

 

[Pieter12]

The shredded piece from a few years ago was on exhibit somewhere alongside some heavy hitters (Van Gogh and Rembrandt or something similar

The Banksy piece in question surprisingly (partially) self-shredded upon sale at Sotheby's. It is owned by a private collector and I only know of it being exhibited in Germany in a contemporary art museum, where there would not be any Van Goghs or Rembrandts.

 

[removed account4]

The Banksy piece in question surprisingly (partially) self-shredded upon sale at Sotheby's. It is owned by a private collector and I only know of it being exhibited in Germany in a contemporary art museum, where there would not be any Van Goghs or Rembrandts.

Maybe it was internet hype I am remembering ? about 8 months ago maybe more maybe less it was bookended by 19th century masters, was sort of funny, could have been an art show hype deep fake.

 

[Pieter12]

Maybe it was internet hype I am remembering ? about 8 months ago maybe more maybe less it was bookended by 19th century masters, was sort of funny, could have been an art show hype deep fake.

It was the Sotheby's auction.

 

[removed account4]

It was the Sotheby's auction.

I realize that I saw the auction and the shredding ( or the video of it ). I am talking about the show where it was
presented next to masters from the 1800s or maybe early 1900s ... looks like I can't find the imagery I was talking about
must have been a hoax and I was gullible enough to believe it ..

 

[Craig75]

I realize that I saw the auction and the shredding ( or the video of it ). I am talking about the show where it was
presented next to masters from the 1800s or maybe early 1900s ... looks like I can't find the imagery I was talking about
must have been a hoax and I was gullible enough to believe it ..

he did a few peter kennard rip offs that you could easily exhibit next to 19th masters in a themed show

 

[Agulliver]

I believe the photographer (or artist) retains the copyright when published or if the work is acquired by a museum. It is only when the photographer explicitly sells or transfers the copyright--something frowned upon by most professionals, usually for advertising work--that someone else hold the rights to the image. Selling a print does not transfer the copyright to the buyer, just the print.

yes.

One example is the photo I took at a small jazz/blues club in 2019 of a musician. I published a set of photos from the gig on Facebook - all taken with a 60s rangefinder on HP5+ pushed to 3200. I also sent the same set to the artist in question via Facebook messenger. Some months later he had a new album in the works and threw a substantial sum of money at me to use one of my photos as his album cover. But he never once asked for the copyright. Nor has any transfer of copyright been negotiated. So I've been paid for the limited right for it to be used on an album cover but I still own the copyright myself, to do with as I please. In fact I'll do nothing, because I'm happy to help a musician and never intended to sell the images anyway.

How this actually affects the comeback or otherwise of analogue photography I am unsure. The physical release of the album got put back due to the plague. So I haven't seen if the sleeve makes note of the image being acquired on film or not. However other musicians performing at the same club have used my images to promote gigs and do mention it. This probably gets a handful of people thinking.

There seems little doubt, from my own experience and talking to shop owners and from Henning's inside information.....that more film is being sold and more cameras are being used. I was in my favourite camera shop just yesterday and they'd sold a few vintage film cameras and had to change the display cabinets contents. Also a young (about 20 years old) lad was in there asking about repairs on film cameras. This has been repeated across England and Wales when I've popped into a camera shop in recent years. Demand is up. The lady who does film processing at my local shop cannot keep up now.

 

[Don_ih]

How this actually affects the comeback or otherwise of analogue photography I am unsure.

We were just talking about publishing - namely, putting photos online for free viewing (Instagram, Facebook, etc.) and whether that counts as publishing. And at least that form of publishing does have some relevance, since that is the main way anyone knows anyone else is actually using film and is also the way film use gets promoted (you know, as a "cool" thing to do, even though some people here think that's a banal or inauthentic reason to use film).

 

[Pieter12]

We were just talking about publishing - namely, putting photos online for free viewing (Instagram, Facebook, etc.) and whether that counts as publishing. And at least that form of publishing does have some relevance, since that is the main way anyone knows anyone else is actually using film and is also the way film use gets promoted (you know, as a "cool" thing to do, even though some people here think that's a banal or inauthentic reason to use film).

Unless the IG post is tagged as analog or film, no one will know.

 

[Don_ih]

Unless the IG post is tagged as analog or film, no one will know.

The entire point is that it is tagged as film. That is the only way it could be seen as promotion.

 

[Pieter12]

The entire point is that it is tagged as film. That is the only way it could be seen as promotion.

And that is up to the poster...

 

[Don_ih]

And that is up to the poster...

Yes, but talking about it distracts from the point of what I said. Online posting of photography identified as film photography promotes the use of film - and it lets people know there are other people using film. Not tagging it is functionally the same as not posting it - it's impossible to find and becomes irrelevant. I'm not talking about those people - only the ones who identify what they're doing (tagging it film).

 

[Pieter12]

What bothers me about this whole "shoot film and scan" process is that it lets the rest of the process wither. Although it might encourage the manufacturing and sales of film, nothing is happening to help paper and darkroom materials. For me, I might as well shoot digital if I can't make a wet print.

 

[Pieter12]

@Pieter12 there's no "rest of the process". For many of us, an exposed, developed, scanned and edited film is the final product. The process stops right there.

Everything else is just making reproductions of the product. Essentially it's just copy-making. As far as I'm concerned that's publishing, not photography. Saying "if I can't make a wet print" is exactly like saying "if I can't have it on a t-shirt" or "if I can't make it a tattoo". Elevating paper, moreover - one specific way of drawing an image on paper, into a special status above other reproduction mediums is just silly. The fact that not too many people are into silly things shouldn't bother you

But it is the process of making a wet print that completes it for me. My involvement with the choices that I have made up to that point (camera, film type, lens, angle, composition and exposure) continues in the darkroom with developer choice then cropping, contrast grade, burning and dodging. What is so special about shooting film that you couldn't do or simulate with a completely digital process? Making a print is not publishing any more than painting a picture is. The negative alone is nothing until it is reproduced, and my preferred way of reproducing it is wet printing.

 

[removed account4]

What bothers me about this whole "shoot film and scan" process is that it lets the rest of the process wither. Although it might encourage the manufacturing and sales of film, nothing is happening to help paper and darkroom materials. For me, I might as well shoot digital if I can't make a wet print.

I can see how you feel but it makes people who do darkroom printing more akin to "artists" whether they want to assume that title or not. The rarer something is the more valuable something becomes or so I have been told. I don't think there will be a scarcity of darkroom papers or chemistry. I've been predicting we are returning to about 1910 for about 10 years now and we are getting close. I'm not sure if that is good or bad anymore since It doesn't matter to me much anymore. I came to the conclusion that it was important to be able to make photo emulsion and coat paper or glass or whatever, It really isn't a difficult task and takes about 20minutes ( if that ) to make something useful. I realize not everyone has the interest to make emulsion from raw materials but I have a feeling that there will always be bottled emulsion made by someone to be purchased and coated by someone else.

 

[Agulliver]

Unless the IG post is tagged as analog or film, no one will know.

I seldom use Instagram but from what I have seen people use hashtags such as #ilfordhp5 or #kodakportra

I do the same on the occasions I post. People also sometimes draw attention to the cameras for example #leica or #zeissikon

When musicians tweet my photos or use them to promote gigs, they often make a point of the fact that they were shot on film.

 

[Don_ih]

What bothers me about this whole "shoot film and scan" process is that it lets the rest of the process wither. Although it might encourage the manufacturing and sales of film, nothing is happening to help paper and darkroom materials. For me, I might as well shoot digital if I can't make a wet print.

I agree. And people think the result of a scan is the same as the result of a print. It really isn't. Some negatives look very different enlarged than they do scanned. Also, manipulations like dodge and burn are much cleaner in a darkroom than they are digitally. On a computer, you can watch the pixels dance around as the heuristic dithers the impacted area. Also, a scanner deals with density poorly, where an enlarger tends to take a bit more time to make the print. And most people would be very surprised to find that, if they look through a grain focuser at their negative being projected onto an easel, the grain they see doesn't match what they identify as grain in a scan.
Some people like the result of a scanned negative, though, and don't see a problem with the disparity between that result and a wet print. But the increased sophistication of digital cameras means there is less and less reason to scan film. Many of the pictures with film hashtags on instagram are actually filtered digital (Fuji has filters built into their digital cameras to make the image look like Velvia or Acros, etc.).
Anyway, when the photo itself isn't significant, the way it looks is what matters. And most photos are truly insignificant. So, it's great to be happy with how you get the photo to look the way you want, however you get it that way.

 

[Helge]

Technically projection (enlarger or projector) from film (or plate) is the ultimate way of reproducing a photo.
That is well established, empirically and theoretically.
It’s pretty much incontestable.

Scanning (as in impeccable and advanced scanning. Forget anything consumer oriented) has the potential to pull out a few more stops of dynamic range and speed than projection.

But when you talk about resolution and ultimate image quality from a well exposed negative...
Nothing(!) beats the darkroom.

It would be a tragedy of unfathomable proportions to lose that basic technology and skillset.

 

[radiant]

And people think the result of a scan is the same as the result of a print. It really isn't. Some negatives look very different enlarged than they do scanned.

This is true. It is probably because to really resolve all from 35mm film, one would need a bit over 10,000 DPI scan. That is 10x more than what for example Epson V600 for example can do. That might explain a bit of it..

I'm pretty sure with decent film + grain emulation while using old lenses on DSLR one can produce such files that it is difficult to say if they are film or not. My theory is that film is mostly shot for egoistic reasons; to be a bit special and unique. Somehow the merit is more in the "technology" (film) and not the content. One can make brilliant photographs with basically any camera; you just need to be in right place at the right time to do it. Well, if every photo is crap, you might get extra internet points for shooting it on film

 

[Don_ih]

One can make brilliant photographs with basically any camera; you just need to be in right place at the right time to do it. Well, if every photo is crap, you might get extra internet points for shooting it on film

Hard to disagree with that.

 

[MattKing]

the heuristic dithers

I like this - it would also make a great name for a band!

 

[Pieter12]

Interesting if you have the time to watch. Not sure I agree with everything, but a point of view of someone in the industry.