Discussion in 'AP Magazine Feedback & Suggestions' started by filmlover, Oct 17, 2011.
Maybe because the major manufacturers do not seem to make film cameras anymore?
Once we get to 36 posts do we have to start a new thread to make folk feel at home here?
Oh let's tar everyone with the same brush shall we...
27 years using film, at least 14 of them processing and printing film myself. In fact, the contact sheet that I used to make the graphic I posted was made last Thursday and was scanned in moments before posting it on here.
I spent most of last Friday in the darkroom making a set of 20x16 prints.
I won't bother to ask for an apology, I'll just ask that you get your facts right before commenting.
There are probably many thousands in the world who still specialise in " ancient" photographic processes. Unfortunately film users are now added to that number.
There are excellent Forums and web sites that cater to their needs. However they are probably no longer concentrated or numerous enough to support a regular hard copy magazine. The occasional article highlighting advantages or specialist film/ printing processes would probably be found interesting to newer photographers.
I was thinking only the other day about the number of specialist printing papers, their surfaces and bases and the various colours of tints they were available to us in the 50's, not to mention the number of different emulsions that were available and that could be processed to give a wide variety of colours. The books of individual samples from Kodak alone, amounted to many dozens even hundreds. With emulsions that gave tones from clear blue black to the richest of golden browns. And others like press bromide that gave a neutral black with out any fluorescence, designed for reproduction purposes.
Agfa and Gaveart offered some amazing very high silver content papers, some with soft filament surfaces that were as beautiful as they were a nightmare to retouch.
Most of this is now lost to modern photographers to the extent that hardly a memory survives.
The last few generations of film photographers were them selves short changed and on a very restricted diet with very few choices.
I started my serious photography with glass plates in the early 50's.
Cutfilm was around to some extent, but was far harder to pencil and knife retouch, nor did it lay as flat in an enlarger.
Though cut film was easier to handle and file. Processing had advantages both ways.
Ap had stuff about both plates and film as did the BJP. but people were still sniffy about 35mm. We were not permitted to use it in the London School of Printing and Graphic Art ( Now LCC)
Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about or that you shouldn't treat them with respect. Your ignorance and attitude speak volumes, and don't enhance your credibility. Nobody I know of wishes that film was dead - that's just a deliberately provocative statement on your behalf to make those you disagree with look unreasonable; the reality is that it's your inability to accept that many of us have used film but now prefer to use digital is what's unreasonable. Stop being such a pain in the neck about it, revel in your enjoyment of film but stop putting people down who have a different opinion - it's just so boring and irritating - and unnecessary.
From the other side (trying to get away from the bickering here), would a regular feature on film, it's benefits and shortfalls, the availability of cameras, etc.. encourage more people to use film cameras?
I've no idea if my inheriting of about 600 old photo mags a couple of years ago spurred me back into shooting film, but it did happen around the same time.
Well I can only go by what's contained in your posts, and for someone who has spent so much time working with film, you came across as being remarkably dismissive of it.
Because I enjoy working with digital more than I ever enjoyed working in a darkroom.
And film does smell funny!
Fair enough, I prefer it the other way round. In my initial post, I was simply suggesting that AP take into account the surge of interest in film photography, and that it might give encouragement and interest to younger photographers, if a small section of the magazine could be devoted to the art of using & processing film. I still believe it is a valid art form where superb results can be obtained with relatively inexpensive equipment. Surely an important consideration in these finacially stretched times?
Unfortunately even this is too much for some here who have never experienced anything but "instant" digital, and seem to condemn film as having little value. I have used both formats, and happen to prefer film. There are many who do also. Is it too much to ask for a little bit of "balance" in a weekly magazine that has served photographers so well in the past?
Although should there not be a moments unease around 20 posts "Is this an outdated argument?" And perhaps after 24 or 25 posts "Now is it a budget job?" "What does the end tab say?" and then after 28 or 29 a quick, worried, glance at the left hand side of the thread to see that everyone is still being properly wound up?
How times change… and yet not 10 to 15 years ago AP was being accused of being a luddite, of not embracing the digital revolution The fact of the matter is, Note: I am not the Editor, AP does not draw a distinction. It is the image - not the camera nor the medium or how it was processed - that is king.
If anyone has a feature (suggestion), film or digital, contact the editorial office
BTW there is a film ( ) review* in an upcoming issue.
*I believe it is Die Hard or perhaps Portra
You're at it again. Stop misrepresenting the views of others if you don't want to be dismissed as a troll.
Not at all, I'm only responding to those (not only on this string) who seem all too ready to jump down my throat at the very idea that film might still have some validity.
Filmlover… you're quite correct. Film has every validity as a medium, as does digital. That is why, so far as I know, AP is not about to push it into a niche. I seem to recall, a few years ago I grant you*, a review of a pinhole camera …of all things
*Releases are far and few. Although AP, and I'm sure the Editor, awaits the Harman Titan
Thanks for the supporting post. There is so much quality s/h film gear on sale at the moment at bargain prices, you don't need to spend several thousand pounds to get top quality pictures. I recently picked up a s/h older Nikon body in mint condition for just £79. In fact you could quite easily get yourself an outfit of a film body plus three same make lenses in good condition for under £200 if you're prepared to learn the basics of working with film.
In these austere, cash strapped times, maybe source for an article in AP.?
AP has produced a number of such articles and supplements over the years, although none I believe based solely upon the medium
Nobody has. People have just taken offence at your assertions that they don't know what they're talking about if they don't agree with you that film is "better" than digital. Time after time you keep on trying to paint everyone who doesn't agree with you as being anti-film - they're not, it's just that they disagree with your vehemently anti-digital and anti-anyone who enjoys digital position. Your extreme arguments undermine your position over and over again, as you've just done yet agaon. It's not film that has no validity, but your outrageous attitude to anyone that disagrees with you that has no validity. A little humility on your part might actually win you more friends and more arguments.
Where have I accused anyone of being "anti-film?"......Where have I stated "film is better than digital"?........you appear to be getting rather unnecessarily hysterical about this.
I'm quite satisfied I've made my point and if you read Mark Jacob's sensible post, where he indicates that AP is in agreement that film is still a valid medium. That's good enough for me.
Separate names with a comma.