GT_2003

Sunday, a friend and I visited a local art institute (a massive building comparable to the Field Museum in Chicago, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, or one of the Smithsonian buildings in Washington, DC). The Institute of Arts have a huge collection of photography, and on display right now is a couple hundred images - part of a collection gathered over the last 60 years, with images dating from the tail end of the 18th century up to the late '90's. Included was the collector's own shots taken during the 90's in Europe.

I was struck by the variety. Between the texture of the paper, the tone of the prints, the kind of images, and the range of subject matter, it was amazing. An image of Dali with cats flying past the camera amidst buckets of water and among a couple of his paintings, with the man himself apparently gleefully participating, it was a revelation of what is possible with a modest amount of creativity and a huge degree of balls. A shot of a woman jumping down a stairs, frozen in mid-air, shot in 1905. A shot of a farm kid in 1970-something looked like it was shot yesterday, while an image of a young shepherd shot maybe ten years ago looked timeless and ancient. Ships in port in London in the mid-late 1800's, smoky and yet clear and sharp and detailed in a manner I found hard to fathom given it's age.

There is no "in short." It was eye-opening and revealing. I looked at images and saw how they were made in the darkroom. I saw images that left me guessing what was done in-camera and what was added later. I tried to find where the shooter must have been standing in a particularly impressive shot of the old St. Louis County courthouse reflected in a then-new office building.

There were few shots that gave away their vintage. I found myself looking at placards for dates simply because it was impossible to date them any other way. Some subjects gave it away, but the technical aspects can shame much of what passes for "modern photography." It was almost impossible to believe some were of the age they were. I came away with a new concept of what is possible, what is worth doing, a new definition of "good." And a feeling that what I am doing is following a worthy tradition and yet isn't a rehash. It was nice to see other people had the same impulse, but to know that my vision was different enough from everyone else's that there was no direct emulation, even if I could easily spot the people who saw like I do.

I highly recommend anyone who is in the area to take the time to see the exhibit. Admission is donation only, and by that I mean free unless you feel like dropping money into a box by the door but far from attendants. I felt like a piker for not putting my whole paycheck into the box when I left.

Sorry, guys, there wasn't a digital shot among them as far as I saw. They were all traditional B&W, and some of what was captured on film in the 1800's would make some of you drool for that kind of resolution and dynamic range. It raised the bar for me in so many ways, and to say it reinforced my preference for film would be understating things a tad. But art is art, and surely in the next 200 years someone using autofocus and program exposure will make a digital print that conveys a small part of what those simple old school examples of a dead and inferior medium can deliver just by being.

It's all good.

iLuveketchup

I really don't understand why you can't mention film w/o downplaying digital.. Since you have a higher understanding of photography, please post some of YOUR pics & enlighten us on what photography should be.

GT_2003

[QUOTE=iLuveketchup,Feb 4 2008, 08:47 PM] I really don't understand why you can't mention film w/o downplaying digital..

oss

I have to say I agree with GT_2003..!

I love Digital, it's what got me back into the hobby but I fuly understand what he's saying regards B&W and film in general.

You can't reproduce the "feel" of a B&W print on a monitor, it's just not possible and I'm saying that as a man who spent 12 years working full time in a darkroom printing B&W.

Some years ago I started trying to scan some of my old film stuff and it was so disappointing as the scans looked nothing like my projected slides or my prints.

I love what I am able to do these days with digital images and the way they look on screen, however funnily enough I always feel slightly disappointed when I print them

I can understand anyone who wants to continue in that medium and I would urge younger folks to give it a try, it is very rewarding..!

Ubetit

In the timeline of photography digital is just a tiny dot. Digital cameras hit the stores at one megapixel in 1997. Digital SLR's 2 years after that. The picture quality was still not acceptable for pro work until 3-4 years ago. Honestly what did you expect at this exhibit? Even the pictures from the 90's HAD to be on film.

ser1992

Well I

iLuveketchup

I'm not disagreeing w/ anyone that film has a different "feel" vs. digital. I find my self using my Olympus 35mm & Mamiya more than my Canon DSLR. I just don't agree w/ GT2003 on bashing digital at every post. There are a lot of things that I can't stand about digital. One of them being HDR. But if someone likes them, then good for them.

oss

[QUOTE=iLuveketchup,Feb 5 2008, 10:12 PM] I'm not disagreeing w/ anyone that film has a different "feel" vs. digital.

E-autosports

Digital photography has been the death of photography as an art. PERIOD. Don't get me wrong.. I shoot digitally too, but I also shoot film because.. well.. it's more fulfilling. Digital art has grown because of digital photography tho.

GT_2003

Fuji just announced a new folding rangefinder MF camera. They recently re-introduced a slide film due to overwhelming criticism from fans all over the world. Kodak has improved many all of their color and B&W films in the last few years, and in the last ten have invested quite a lot of money in their film manufacturing business to increase profitability and improve the product at the same time. Silicon chips are still printed on wafers with "analog" techniques, using light, a negative image, and a lens projecting onto the wafer, which is then "developed" to etch the conductors.

Film is nowhere near dead unless you only read mainsteam photography rags, which rely on advertising from companies like Canon and Nikon. Which in turn rely on a churning market of ever-obselete products to maximize profits. They have little use for anything that doesn't require replacement every few years.

In the last ten years, a small and relatively unremarkable low-end producer of lenses and bodies has managed to reap great profits from a line of innovative and affordable film rangefinder bodies and lenses, constantly updating and improving their product. Zeiss has developed an entirely new film rangefinder body to universal acclaim and brisk sales. Leica developed 2 updated film M bodies while only releasing a single digital M body. More than one European film and paper manufacturer has seen unprecedented growth due to very healthy demand for their products.

All indications show a very healthy life ahead for film and related technologies. One wouldn't know it by reading most "photography" forums and magazines, but that speaks more to a divide between the people who need to have the latest and greatest vs. those who prefer the proven best over the newest for it's own sake.