What? No Film Forum?

[donbga]

Stamper: I agree that it doesn't or shouldn't really matter. Digital has matured. Film has faded and many of its resources diminished. I suspect that even the complaints against digital obsolescence may start to wane as the capital investments become prohibitive (read the Nikon news) at least for a while. After your camera is flying around like a robot with a mind of its own... there's only so much more technology you can pack in before the diminishing returns establish firm limits.  And yes, while there will be some images that may be better or easily made with one or the other, many of us won't be stopped from choosing the harder way. There's a thrill in the challenge, and a thrill in mastery of the craft, and that's part of learning expression. My question relates more to whether we might have gone too far in one direction and could consider having some balance and not completely ignore film "as if" it isn't there. Film photographers exist. I suspect even a few are shooting landscape... like Joe Cornish. I am curious not dogmatic. I don't have a dog in this fight but simply observing and gawd forbid... commenting. Seems the technical issues for film may be greater rather than otherwise given the starvation of resources over the interim years. But fairly, it may also be that no one here wants to have those discussions here but redirect them elsewhere. That's an editorial decision... or a membership decision... or however that is done here. And it may be likely there's no more traffic on this than you see in Digital B&W. But I'm also not seeing that section deleted btw. More to the point perhaps is that I can see the put downs that some may be tempted to load inadvertently into their posts almost unawares.... that these might have a negative impact on the collective process I think Lula tries to foster. And on that basis... that'd be enough for me to say "Mother LuLa knows best". But y'know... that may underestimate the maturity of the group... and on the rangefinder forum... they have a wide range of digital mirrorless camera buckets, film and digital shooters, and the flame wars are over.

Your stream of conscious posts aren't coherent to me and I suspect to others as well, not to mention your writing style is at odds with being readable. In short - blather.
   

[Rob C]

Does it really matter if the camera contains a film or a digital sensor? It is the final image that matters? 

Absolutely right, from most angles.

I may be picking this up wrongly, but I think all the OP's saying is that he's a little bit disappointed that LuLa doesn't have a wider film-based readership or number of contributors. The only reason that's so is the numbers game: there are more people using digital than using film. Period. There is certainly no editorial bias against it, and I'm perfectly sure that more film users would be as welcome here as anyone else, regardless of what they choose to photograph, porn, I hope, excluded.

One can't blame a site or readership for the constitution of its membership. It is what it is, which is the crowd attracted to participate herein. If there be huddled masses of desperate filmies sitting around homeless, then why don't they drop in? There's always a cuppa at the Coffee Corner. Let them show us what they bring to the party.

Rob

[stamper]

Agreed!

[stamper]

There aren't any film images posted on here because they have been digitalised so what is the point of a Film Forum?

[David S]

There aren't any film images posted on here because they have been digitalised so what is the point of a Film Forum?

 

To have fun talking "film" images.

Dave S

[donbga]

Absolutely right, from most angles.

I may be picking this up wrongly, but I think all the OP's saying is that he's a little bit disappointed that LuLa doesn't have a wider film-based readership or number of contributors. The only reason that's so is the numbers game: there are more people using digital than using film. Period. There is certainly no editorial bias against it, and I'm perfectly sure that more film users would be as welcome here as anyone else, regardless of what they choose to photograph, porn, I hope, excluded.

One can't blame a site or readership for the constitution of its membership. It is what it is, which is the crowd attracted to participate herein. If there be huddled masses of desperate filmies sitting around homeless, then why don't they drop in? There's always a cuppa at the Coffee Corner. Let them show us what they bring to the party.

Rob

Well said Rob. I hope Roscoe doesn't feel like we are ganging up on him rather just telling it like we see it.

[stamper]

To have fun talking "film" images.

Dave S

The Wet Darkroom is a haven for talk about film images.

[Paulo Bizarro]

I may be stating the obvious, but there are at least 2 for a where "film photography" can be discussed:

1. Cameras, lenses, and shooting gear

2. Wet Darkroom

I see no need for a specific film forum. anyone wishing to discuss a particular film topic, can discuss it there.

[Petrus]

Six (6) posts on "wet darkroom" forum since last September...

R.I.P.

[Kevin Raber]

I am not inclined to add a topic for Film on the LuLa forums.  There are numerous areas where topics of this nature can be discussed as noted in the posts above.  If I really saw film as a comeback and discussions on this in larger numbers I may have considered it.  A couple of years ago Michael tried film for about two weeks and then moved on.  I feel the majority of readers here have done the same thing.  I haven't had any desire to go back to film for 17 years.  So, there you go.

[stamper]

It is all about nostalgia and not about practicalities. Film and digital are tools to produce an image.

[Rob C]

Strangely enough, today's new leader episode - Photography Tomorrow - seems to have a different prognosis for film.

But nonetheless, I see no need to create any new section because the subject can already be discussed perfectly well, should anyone wish so to do.

Rob

[roscoetuff]

Not rattled, or ganged up on. Good to have an established, clear cut nix to film as a settled issue for Luminous Landscapers. Will leave it at that. Thanks!

[Otto Phocus]

Six (6) posts on "wet darkroom" forum since last September...

R.I.P.

That would support the hypothesis that there is not much interest in posting on film topics, 

The owners of this site can only do so much.  They have enabled forums about film and film related topics.  Now it is up to the members to populate those forums.  If the members choose not to populate the forums, adding more forums is not really a solution.

[Rob C]

Thing is, there's not really very much to say about film photography. Basically, it's very easy to do, and once you know the how, then you simply have to keep on doing it until it becomes second nature. At that point, you know what you're doing, and the interest lies in the doing, not chatting about it. A bit like the adult view on sex.

Digital, on the other hand, is purpose-made for the telling of tall, singles barroom tales. It's overflowing with sex gadgets and toys, and folks can compare, tweak and measurebate until the cows come home, and the kind manufacturers, considerate and altruistic madames that they be, are always there to offer a few new highs to excite the jaded taste buds. I won't even mention the naughty delights of digital pinters! My God, they get so big! And come in two main, €xciting flavours, too! I don't believe they do peppermint, though.

;-(

Rob

[roscoetuff]

Rob: Yep. Would agree. It's in the do not the yack. That said, problems of film today are less about tech issues in most respects but in terms of dealing with dwindling and re-invented resources. Maybe as much as I'd resist the nostalgia put down, perhaps it's more true in that regard... like the guys who restore Indian motorcycles, rebuild TR-6's, etc.  Apparently I misjudged the culture and character of interest here. My bad... and apologies. Won't repeat. BTW, you have some very good work on your site. Thanks!

[Rob C]

Rob: Yep. Would agree. It's in the do not the yack. That said, problems of film today are less about tech issues in most respects but in terms of dealing with dwindling and re-invented resources. Maybe as much as I'd resist the nostalgia put down, perhaps it's more true in that regard... like the guys who restore Indian motorcycles, rebuild TR-6's, etc.  Apparently I misjudged the culture and character of interest here. My bad... and apologies. Won't repeat. BTW, you have some very good work on your site. Thanks!

Thank you, that's very kind of you!

One thing I'dd add, though, is that having a lot of darkroom time behind one certainly makes it more easy to learn how to figure out how to use digital techniques to produce reasonable black/white files. I think that's because one already knows how a print could look, and so the effort's made to keep working until that's achieved. A difference, possibly not so good, is that the digital micro-control of tiny areas can help to turn one from being a maker of pictures into being a retoucher of everything, which is really a bit OTT and can actually take away some of one's visual identity.

Ciao-

Rob C

[dreed]

I am not inclined to add a topic for Film on the LuLa forums. There are numerous areas where topics of this nature can be discussed as noted in the posts above.

I've used "Coffee Corner" for such topics. Some attract interest, some do not.

If I really saw film as a comeback and discussions on this in larger numbers I may have considered it.  A couple of years ago Michael tried film for about two weeks and then moved on.  I feel the majority of readers here have done the same thing.  I haven't had any desire to go back to film for 17 years.  So, there you go.

What does it cost in terms of time and effort to add a "Film Focus" (pun intended ;-) forum down next to "Coffee Corner" or somewhere similar?

News about film keeps popping up here and there and for some (mostly movie studios), various films are still in active use today. Last month I was out shooting a sunset and found myself standing next to someone with bellows and hood for their setup to shoot medium format with.

Film seems to be about as dead as LPs and most ... audiophile websites will include a forum for that.

[image66]

Easy answer to this: Film Photography is no longer Photography. At least that's the effective rule of thumb around here.

It's kinda like cars. The average LL person is driving the photographic equivalent of a Lamborghini Aventador, Ferrari 458, or Porsche 911 GT3. They have fond memories of that secondhand, manual gearbox Mazda Miata, but consider anything under 500 HP and made in Germany or Italy beneath them. OK, a McLaren 675LT could be in the running too.

And here you show up with a Mamiya 6 loaded with film? That's a Chrysler MINIVAN to them.

There are elitists in every category of things. LL just happens to be the place where photography elitists hang out.

Seriously, I know my last statement can be interpreted as a little inflamitory, and could be taken as a criticism or insult. Please don't take it that way. I'm just acknowledging the elephant in the room. It's perfectly OK to be that place and be those guys. But it isn't OK to pretend that we aren't.

I shoot digital and film. Still have a very well equipped darkroom. But I've learned that if you want to talk film stuff, you are better off doing so elsewhere. Just like that Mazda Miata you are trying to restore, you aren't going to get good information or even a bit of understanding from the guys who show up in Prancing Horses or Raging Bulls that they just got from the dealer last week.

By the way, a Hybrid Workflow really is a terrific way of being competitive with the latest/greatest digital gear without mortgaging your home. It isn't for everything, but MF Digital really isn't either.

Ken

[Rob C]

Ken, my digital outfit is the sex-god equivalent of a second-hand Morris Marina. (Don't look it up: it'll depress you that they got made. AKAIK, it's one of greatest scandals of Italian designer/British builder co-operation.)

"By the way, a Hybrid Workflow really is a terrific way of being competitive with the latest/greatest digital gear without mortgaging your home. It isn't for everything, but MF Digital really isn't either."

I don't think dedicated scanners for 120 format upward were ever inexpensive... I would leave Epson aside for the purpose of this chat. The problem, really, isn't cameras or film - it's needless expense and bother to arrive at the same destination - pretty much. It seems a slightly eccentric battle with reality, in the best British tradition, of course. I would have still belonged to the 'film is best' band had I not had the chance rediscovery a few day ago of some 500CM trannies I'd shot decades ago. My fond memories of the sublime crispness of a 4/150 Sonnar were largely imaginary, I realised.

I also realised, at the same time, that I did have a little saying I'd sometimes whisper to myself: do you want 'em big or do you want 'em sharp? The 'blads gave big, but the Nikons gave sharp!

;-)

Rob