| Looking at Photography and Images - The Impact and Longevity |
© Mark LaMonica. All Rights Reserved.
For those of you who never used film, here's some news. Photography and Photographers existed before the digital age. Imagine
that ! People actually had the knowledge to capture moments in time with film and no help from an LCD panel or auto white balance.
Yes, this was a time when knowledge of photography was important.
Back when I was young, my parents used a medium format camera with reversal film in it. That was the way it was back then, in the
70's color negative film became popular with most families while professional photographers remained in the reversal film pool.
Looking back you have 2 of the best known outdoor photographers who used film with great success. Ansel Adams known for using
8 x 10 field cameras and Galen Rowell who was a Nikon user. You have Ansel doing Black and White on negative films and Galen
doing color with reversal films, yet despite the different formats and film used, they both had a reputation for high quality Landscape
images. So much for the guy who has a habit of saying 35mm is an amateur format.
The impact from film based photography has made headlines and everyone is labeling film as a destroyer of the environment. I
don't remember this subject ever coming up prior to the digital age. Today, film developer is far more environmentally friendly
compared to developers of yesteryear. This is a very complex subject and there would have to be some kind of controlled research
to really determine if film based photography has more of an environmental impact or a higher carbon footprint. Cameras normally
didn't get replaced for at least 8 to 10 years. I know photographers on a professional level that have used the same gear for over
20 years and I've heard about others who are using gear that's well over 50 years old and with great success. No reinvesting in new
camera bodies every 2 years for these guys. Lets look at the number of Nikon pro film bodies introduced since 1996. The F5 was
introduced in 1996, 1999 the F5 50th anniversary model and F100, 2000 the FM2N Y2k model and the F6 in 2004. At current
prices the F6 sells for $2,499.95, I bought my F6 for under $1,500.00 after the price dropped in 2006. In 2008 prices steadily
increased and this year a minimum 10% increase will be seen on all camera gear. All manual film cameras required very little
electronics and some still don't. That means less lead solder and processes in manufacturing. Metal not plastic bodies, People took
pictures on holidays, birthdays or vacation not daily like today. I know people who have had the same roll of film in their camera for
over a year. There wasn't a lot of mindless picture taking going on like you see today. More pictures = more computer time = . . . . . .
that ! People actually had the knowledge to capture moments in time with film and no help from an LCD panel or auto white balance.
Yes, this was a time when knowledge of photography was important.
Back when I was young, my parents used a medium format camera with reversal film in it. That was the way it was back then, in the
70's color negative film became popular with most families while professional photographers remained in the reversal film pool.
Looking back you have 2 of the best known outdoor photographers who used film with great success. Ansel Adams known for using
8 x 10 field cameras and Galen Rowell who was a Nikon user. You have Ansel doing Black and White on negative films and Galen
doing color with reversal films, yet despite the different formats and film used, they both had a reputation for high quality Landscape
images. So much for the guy who has a habit of saying 35mm is an amateur format.
The impact from film based photography has made headlines and everyone is labeling film as a destroyer of the environment. I
don't remember this subject ever coming up prior to the digital age. Today, film developer is far more environmentally friendly
compared to developers of yesteryear. This is a very complex subject and there would have to be some kind of controlled research
to really determine if film based photography has more of an environmental impact or a higher carbon footprint. Cameras normally
didn't get replaced for at least 8 to 10 years. I know photographers on a professional level that have used the same gear for over
20 years and I've heard about others who are using gear that's well over 50 years old and with great success. No reinvesting in new
camera bodies every 2 years for these guys. Lets look at the number of Nikon pro film bodies introduced since 1996. The F5 was
introduced in 1996, 1999 the F5 50th anniversary model and F100, 2000 the FM2N Y2k model and the F6 in 2004. At current
prices the F6 sells for $2,499.95, I bought my F6 for under $1,500.00 after the price dropped in 2006. In 2008 prices steadily
increased and this year a minimum 10% increase will be seen on all camera gear. All manual film cameras required very little
electronics and some still don't. That means less lead solder and processes in manufacturing. Metal not plastic bodies, People took
pictures on holidays, birthdays or vacation not daily like today. I know people who have had the same roll of film in their camera for
over a year. There wasn't a lot of mindless picture taking going on like you see today. More pictures = more computer time = . . . . . .
| 100 years of Film and 10 Years of Digital |
Text and Photography by Mark LaMonica
How about the archival longevity of film? I personally have transparencies and slides that are more than 50 years old in excellent condition and they were not properly stored. I would have to say film is
very archival and with minimal effort. If you follow the proper storage recommendations of the film manufacturer, it will last a lot longer. Film today is far more stable than the old Ektachromes and I have
some old Kodachrome slides that are in great shape too. I was one of the many professionals who switched to Velvia in 1990. I stopped using Kodachrome 25 and 64 in 1989 and had used some
Ektachrome EPP100 and Fujichrome RDP100 until Velvia came along. I use a variety of films depending on the subject matter and intended use.
I'm not saying digital is a bad investment, just look at what you get, how it depreciates, cost of the entire image making system including computer upgrades and storage, toxic CRT monitors and all of
the "Whole System Peripherals" being thrown away every few years, you really need to look at the whole picture before you start bashing film photography and saying it's worse for the environment.
very archival and with minimal effort. If you follow the proper storage recommendations of the film manufacturer, it will last a lot longer. Film today is far more stable than the old Ektachromes and I have
some old Kodachrome slides that are in great shape too. I was one of the many professionals who switched to Velvia in 1990. I stopped using Kodachrome 25 and 64 in 1989 and had used some
Ektachrome EPP100 and Fujichrome RDP100 until Velvia came along. I use a variety of films depending on the subject matter and intended use.
I'm not saying digital is a bad investment, just look at what you get, how it depreciates, cost of the entire image making system including computer upgrades and storage, toxic CRT monitors and all of
the "Whole System Peripherals" being thrown away every few years, you really need to look at the whole picture before you start bashing film photography and saying it's worse for the environment.
I have confidence that if I put my slides in one of my black storage boxes and put my digital files in another one, 30 years from now, I will be able to pull out a slide page and see my originals. I'm not that
confident about the ability to read those Cd's 30 years from now if I put them in a box and forget about migrating to newer storage mediums. Digital requires more work in the entire photographic
process and if you don't migrate your images to newer archiving technologies, you could end up with a pile of worthless Cd's and your images gone forever.
A typical week with film is to photograph the project, UPS the film to the lab which is a 3 day turnaround if I'm local to the lab I can get 3 hour processing, look at the slides on my color corrected Light
Box, label and archive in pages, makes scans if needed, burn a Cd for client review and file the pages away. Clients have the option of either working from the original slide or a 4000dpi scan delivered
on Cd. Either way, I have an original slide as my source for color accuracy. The client passed the transparencies off to the print shop for scanning and final prep for printing.
An assignment with digital starts off capturing the images to a CF or SD card, upload those files to a folder in a computer labeled Originals, post process those files in special software, save the
processed images in 2 folders, one as high resolution print files and the other as quick proofs for client review. The client picks what they want from the quick proofs and then they get high resolution
files with a color corrected contact sheet to work from for color accuracy. With film, you have the film to look at without the aide of a computer or software. With digital, a computer or some kind of device
is required to view images from a Cd. If that computer is not color calibrated, then what I saw on my end, may not be what they are seeing on their end. Digital is not easier like the marketing hype you
hear or read. It requires a lot more equipment to get to the same place in the end, which is either a stored image or a print.
confident about the ability to read those Cd's 30 years from now if I put them in a box and forget about migrating to newer storage mediums. Digital requires more work in the entire photographic
process and if you don't migrate your images to newer archiving technologies, you could end up with a pile of worthless Cd's and your images gone forever.
A typical week with film is to photograph the project, UPS the film to the lab which is a 3 day turnaround if I'm local to the lab I can get 3 hour processing, look at the slides on my color corrected Light
Box, label and archive in pages, makes scans if needed, burn a Cd for client review and file the pages away. Clients have the option of either working from the original slide or a 4000dpi scan delivered
on Cd. Either way, I have an original slide as my source for color accuracy. The client passed the transparencies off to the print shop for scanning and final prep for printing.
An assignment with digital starts off capturing the images to a CF or SD card, upload those files to a folder in a computer labeled Originals, post process those files in special software, save the
processed images in 2 folders, one as high resolution print files and the other as quick proofs for client review. The client picks what they want from the quick proofs and then they get high resolution
files with a color corrected contact sheet to work from for color accuracy. With film, you have the film to look at without the aide of a computer or software. With digital, a computer or some kind of device
is required to view images from a Cd. If that computer is not color calibrated, then what I saw on my end, may not be what they are seeing on their end. Digital is not easier like the marketing hype you
hear or read. It requires a lot more equipment to get to the same place in the end, which is either a stored image or a print.