Posts tagged: film
You Still Can’t Do This With Digital.
This is one of the things I love most about film photography. With all of the great software and hardware that has been created in the last decade, we still don’t have any equivalent to the light table. Of course we have Aperture and Lightroom, iPhoto and Picassa, and all of the (mostly crappy) others; all of which are attempts at replicating what is one of the essential and fundamental joys of photography: editing. The word editing has even lost a great deal of its original meaning—interpreted now to generally mean “using photoshop to mess with an image”—it used to basically mean: looking at photographs with the intention to choose “selects” and “rejects,” and then deciding what to do with the selects.
Software that tries to replicate the feel of a light table will, in my view, never be able to match the experience of the real thing. The reason is simple: with software-based solutions, the layer of abstraction that exists between the viewer and the photographs is, and will always be, inferior to the directness and tactility of one’s own hands and eyes. The software itself is the layer of abstraction, the barrier to full engagement with a photo or group of photos. We move a simulated pointing device (the mouse arrow) around on a two-dimensional screen; and then use it, along with a variety of keyboard commands, to move, manipulate and interact with two dimensional abstractions of our photographs.
With physical photographs on a light table you simply look, move, behold, engage, sort. It’s effortless. Pick up a group of photographs (with your actual hands)… lay them on the table… view them… turn them around… inspect them… bring them close to your face to look closer… hold a loupe to your eye and examine the extraordinary detail and nuance that each photo inherently possesses. If you have never done this, take my word for it: it is magical. Your photographs are no longer an extension of a spectacularly complex system of abstraction. They are real items that you hold in your hands. They exist in space, have weight, texture, depth, smell, sound, color… meaning. They can’t be duplicated easily. They can’t be manipulated easily. They are delicate, even fragile. And yet the realness they posses is strangely potent and intoxicating.
It makes them feel… yes, special.
I got interviewed by Scott Sheppard for the Inside Analog Photo podcast. If you’ve got a half-hour and don’t mind hearing me talk about film and photography, give it a listen.
These images, by photographers of the Farm Security Administration/Office of War Information, are some of the only color photographs taken of the effects of the Depression on America’s rural and small town populations. The photographs are the property of the Library of Congress and were included in a 2006 exhibit Bound for Glory: America in Color. (via Captured: America in Color from 1939-1943 – Plog Photo Blog)
Just got 22 rolls of E100G for $40. Unreal.
Then the owner had me sign and date the last box so he could keep it. The last box of Kodak E6 he ever sells.
Talk about bittersweet.
Yesterday I asked if anyone had any info on why medium format film is commonly called ‘120’. I knew that the notion that it had something to do with 120 millimeters was simply not true, but I couldn’t seem to find a source for why it had taken on the moniker of ‘120’ in the first place. A few kind folks did some better googling than I did and found the definitive answer. Here it is, in a nutshell:
According to this article…
[Kodak] … decided that … roll films … would be numbered in the order of introduction, starting with … number 101.
This system was gradually phased in as new film boxes and camera instruction manuals were printed … [and] numbers 101 through 129 were used.
I also liked this passionate plea:
Please, please, please, don’t mistakenly call this size “120mm.” Even B&H’s online store has been known to get this wrong. The film is actually about 63mm wide, and the 120 is just an arbitrary number from the dim mists of Kodak history.
Now we all know!
Cabinet Doors are Overrated.
Many a splendid meal has been prepared on that hallowed stove and counter-top and with those tools and spices. It’s like looking into the brush bag of a great painter. It all looks simple until you try doing it yourself.
Anyone have a link or care to share, if you know, precisely WHY 120 film is called “120”? (If you say 120 millimeters you’re automatically disqualified.)
I’m curious about the origin of the name. I know it’s “just called that,” but I assume there must be a reason, and I can’t seem to find anything on it.