[alan_smithee_photos]

Cool article.

“Fashion is rediscovering the possibility and the quality of film photography,” says Purple Magazine’s editor-in-chief Olivier Zahm, who dedicated his editor’s letter to the subject in the magazine’s most recent issue. “It is similar to what happened in music, with the resurgence of vinyl. Digital photography is sharper and cleaner; it captures a lot of information but it’s cold. Film gives you less information but it’s emotional information. And what do we care about, information or emotion? We care for the emotion. Film is very emotional. You can cry looking at a contact sheet, it is incredible. ” Half of Purple’s Spring 2016 issue was shot on film and Zahm says he is continuing to push both himself and the photographers he works with to embrace the analogue medium whenever possible.

Fashion Photographers Return to Film | Intelligence | BoF

[Cuthbert]

Interesting...I always found fashion shots from the 80s in Kodakchrome fascinating.

BTW Alan, how are your women? All feeling good? :P

[DeadJohn]

The article is pretentious, IMO.

"Emotion" gets mentioned 4 times in one paragraph. Film grain has no more emotion than a digital pixel; they are both data especially when the analog film is scanned and converted into digital pixels during the publishing and printing process.

Then there's this gem coming from the fashion industry: "Shooting with film — it is anti-capitalist and this is a good thing."

I'm not against using film. Film is just a tool. I'm more productive with digital, but if some photographer's process works better with film, or if they merely enjoy using film more than digital, I'm fine with that.

[RGlasel]

Ready-made filters and easy-to-use photo-editing apps have turned us all into amateur photographers, while social media platforms like Instagram have made it easier than ever to disseminate our photos. For young professional photographers, the question now is how to stand out from a sea of hobbyists — and increasingly, they’re finding answers in the pitch black of the dark room.

It IS an interesting article, but this attitude that photography is mechanical and technique makes the photograph special, not the eye of the photographer is very wrong. Alan, two of the things that make your photographs so interesting is your not-overblown use of natural light and shadow and your ability to create tension between natural body lines and the geometry of your studio. No "easy to use photo-editing apps" can create what you do, your work stands on its own, it doesn't need a gimmick. (unless haphazard conduit and a beat up old piano are gimmicks)

[gofour3]

Interesting article, though it's the typical "if someone deviates from the current norm then it's news worthy"!

It's like a news story here in Vancouver when a local musician released their new album only on a cassette tape, because it was cheaper and they felt they had more control. No big deal to me, but the reporter was making jokes about cassettes and how archaic this was. (Yes I still have a working cassette deck and still make compilation tapes)

The world is way too quick to write off older technology and when people still are using it years later it's news worthy. Moral of the story is use whatever works best for you and forget what the masses are doing.

Phil.

[Cuthbert]

It IS an interesting article, but this attitude that photography is mechanical and technique makes the photograph special, not the eye of the photographer is very wrong. Alan, two of the things that make your photographs so interesting is your not-overblown use of natural light and shadow and your ability to create tension between natural body lines and the geometry of your studio. No "easy to use photo-editing apps" can create what you do, your work stands on its own, it doesn't need a gimmick. (unless haphazard conduit and a beat up old piano are gimmicks)

I think the main point of the article is that in the digital era fashion editors have more power than photographer whose "eye" is not important anymore.

Se says what she likes more of film photography is that she must trust her eye.

[alan_smithee_photos]

The article is pretentious, IMO.

"Emotion" gets mentioned 4 times in one paragraph. Film grain has no more emotion than a digital pixel; they are both data especially when the analog film is scanned and converted into digital pixels during the publishing and printing process.

Of course it's pretentions, it's from a fashion publication!

Re: emotion, I get what you're saying but for me film frequently does convey more "drama" or emotion. To wax pretentious, it has that special je ne sais quoi.

I shoot hybrid all the time and when I line up digital and film frames side by side (with similar FLs, etc.), the film one just has a greater impact for me. It's definitely not about resolution, dynamic range, or some easy to put your finger on technical quality. It just grabs me in a more visceral way. Similarly, when I post-process my digital files I frequently find myself modifying them to get a more film-like quality out of them. (Which, workflow-wise, usually makes editing film more efficient for me. Aside from cropping, fixing a blemish here or there, etc., I monkey around with film images less than digital.)

Interesting...I always found fashion shots from the 80s in Kodakchrome fascinating.

BTW Alan, how are your women? All feeling good? :P

Who are these women of whom you speak?! Although I do have three model sessions from last week still to process. Gotta drop my film off this afternoon...

---

Last edited by alan_smithee_photos; 05-31-2016 at 04:30 PM. Reason: forgot to add quote

[Cuthbert]

To wax pretentious, it has that special je ne sais quoi.

You used a sentence in French, therefore you ARE pretentious!

[Eyewanders]

The article is pretentious, IMO.

"Emotion" gets mentioned 4 times in one paragraph. Film grain has no more emotion than a digital pixel; they are both data especially when the analog film is scanned and converted into digital pixels during the publishing and printing process...

It's a fashion rag. Duh.

I don't think one can argue that there is not a greater inherent emotional connection/reaction to a film image, not because film is necessarily emotional, but rather *nostalgic* and that will get sentiment flowing more than damn near anything.

---------- Post added 05-31-16 at 04:48 PM ----------

You used a sentence in French, therefore you ARE pretentious!

To be fair, he included a small warning preamble.

[Digitalis]

Hardly surprising, I still work with 4X5 and 8X10 format film - and I have several clients who ask for me to use film.

[j0n4hpk]

Thanks for giving me another reason to keep my 35 mm film bodies.

[Eyewanders]

Honestly, I re-read this article and found it not all that pretentious at all. There is a fair bit of pro vs con, and most all of the pro-film views I agree with wholeheartedly. Sure "film is anti-capitalist" sounds uppity at first, but when I consider the photography climate of today, with the thousands of images turned around daily and (as mentioned) editors and clients staring at the back of a DSLR or tethered screen in the interest of expediency and accurate simulation... film work is more pure, at least insofar as connection and vision are concerned. Conversations occur around words and imagination in the moment, not just an LCD. Of course, I am not a fashion photographer, so this is largely conjecture.

[Cuthbert]

Honestly, I re-read this article and found it not all that pretentious at all. There is a fair bit of pro vs con, and most all of the pro-film views I agree with wholeheartedly. Sure "film is anti-capitalist" sounds uppity at first, but when I consider the photography climate of today, with the thousands of images turned around daily and (as mentioned) editors and clients staring at the back of a DSLR or tethered screen in the interest of expediency and accurate simulation... film work is more pure, at least insofar as connection and vision are concerned. Conversations occur around words and imagination in the moment, not just an LCD. Of course, I am not a fashion photographer, so this is largely conjecture.

I think the anti-capitalist thing derives by the sensation that fashion photographer are marginalised as the editor has the real artistic (and economic I assume) control because all is done in PP, so they feel like slaves.

[Eyewanders]

I think the anti-capitalist thing derives by the sensation that fashion photographer are marginalised as the editor has the real artistic (and economic I assume) control because all is done in PP, so they feel like slaves.

Seems to be a cross-industry theme these days.

[Digitalis]

One of the biggest appeals of film photography is the fact with slides the colour rendition is right there in front of you. There are no profiling issues, no colour management stuff-ups, It gives the people working on publications a tangible, physical point of reference....and a 8X10 format transparency is truly something to behold*.


*though 8X10 format transparency film production has been slowly grinding to a halt over the years, Fuji Discontinued Velvia (disneychrome) 8X10 sheet film format in 2013, AFAIK Provia and Astia are still in production.