When does film cease to be film?

Steve said:
Just wait until my next thread on Nietzsche and whether film transcends the mereological nihilism of digital photography :)
Click to expand...

Nihilism, schmihilism, nothing is real.......except my imagination.:cuckoo::thinking:
 
Last edited:
You know to stay in the F&C section i think i need to eat a dictionary!:lol:
 
That's what we did...burp!!!!!
 
As an alternative suggestion (no, not eating alphabet soup or spaghetti) towards a possible answer to the original query, how about thinking in terms of people who "distress" the negatives (and probably the people who make film) by subjecting them to unusual stress (like melting them) before printing, so as to achieve a one off and unique image? At what point in the melt does the film cease to be what we'd regard as film?
 
May I rephrase that? "Do painters actually genuinely put a lot of thought into such things? Just pick up a brush, go paint some pictures and enjoy....".

It depends on whether you enjoy the process, or want to create something. Yes, people aren't all the same, and some really do enjoy the end result and the pride of achievement. Just as some people (I suppose) enjoy eating the food rather than cooking it.
 
PMN said:
Do people actually genuinely put a lot of thought into such things? Just pick up a camera, go take some photos and enjoy whatever you want to do however you want to do it!
Click to expand...

StephenM said:
May I rephrase that? "Do painters actually genuinely put a lot of thought into such things? Just pick up a brush, go paint some pictures and enjoy....".

It depends on whether you enjoy the process, or want to create something. Yes, people aren't all the same, and some really do enjoy the end result and the pride of achievement. Just as some people (I suppose) enjoy eating the food rather than cooking it.
Click to expand...


Both valid points, initially i agree with what Paul said, do what you want and stop over thinking basically, but then stephen has got a good point too, i guess people also just like to hear others views and opinions...

One thing i have noticed so far in some of these threads, is it's kept so polite! i like that and makes a refreshing change to some threads
 
B*ll*cks.....:D
 
Oops.....I meant billhooks, things sailors use to lift things....honest.
 
Andysnap said:
Oops.....I meant billhooks, things sailors use to lift things....honest.
Click to expand...

Liar Liar pants on fire! :banana:

Actually what i meant was, did you mean it's not polite in discussions here? i've caught you all well behaved for once?:D
 
Cg_Girl said:
Actually what i meant was, did you mean it's not polite in discussions here?
Click to expand...

This bit of the forum is horrible. It's populated by blood-thirsty packs of photowolves all going round saying things like 'my Velvia slides are bigger than your Velvia slides' or 'my film fridge is bigger than your film fridge'. Everyone's fairly quiet for the moment because the packs haven't been given their daily feed of Rodinal yet but hopefully the zookeepers will be round soon...
 
A photographer does not have the scope for creative expression/impression that a painter does.

When peeps look at a painting they appraise it differently to a photograph, anything does actually go with a painting, whatever is put on the canvas/paper/wall, no matter how near or far the departure from reality, it will always be a painting, and peeps judge it in that context.
 
Cg_Girl said:
Actually what i meant was, did you mean it's not polite in discussions here? i've caught you all well behaved for once?:D
Click to expand...

Interesting observations and there is a lot of truth in it. Not sure why this section is so civilised, but it's a nice refuge from the trolls and keyboard warriors that stalk elsewhere.
 
joxby said:
A photographer does not have the scope for creative expression/impression that a painter does.
Click to expand...

To a certain extent, yes. But many photographers are limited not by the process but by their unwillingness to use all the means available to them because they either think it's cheating , because judges won't accept it, or because they crave acceptance by people who think it's cheating.

joxby said:
When peeps look at a painting they appraise it differently to a photograph, anything does actually go with a painting, whatever is put on the canvas/paper/wall, no matter how near or far the departure from reality, it will always be a painting, and peeps judge it in that context.
Click to expand...

That's in part implied by what I said - but should photographers be limited by the perceptions of non-photographers?

How much material other than paint has to be placed on a canvas before the result is no longer a painting? (Look at the whole gamut of mixed media collages or paintings which have pieces of material affixed to them.)

As a matter of interest, what do you mean by "appraise it differently"? Use different "rules" of composition, view it with rigid preconceptions of what a photograph is, or something else?
 
I wouldn't say they are rigid preconceptions, more that they have certain expectations of a photograph that they don't apply to paintings.
I'm talking about joe public, the masses, not art historians/photographers/artists whatever.
 
Which would bring us to a different thread - should photographers allow limits to be placed on their artistic freedom that are not applied to other artists? Natural history photographers of course are happy to be so limited, though I never could understand why. At this point, I drop this as belonging in a different thread :) Even if limited to expectations, should photographers not attempt to raise expectations - and if not, are they self condemned to never be original? Anyone care to start this thread?
 
PMN said:
This bit of the forum is horrible. It's populated by blood-thirsty packs of photowolves all going round saying things like 'my Velvia slides are bigger than your Velvia slides' or 'my film fridge is bigger than your film fridge'. Everyone's fairly quiet for the moment because the packs haven't been given their daily feed of Rodinal yet but hopefully the zookeepers will be round soon...
Click to expand...

F&C. Heavily medicated for your safety since 2008 :thumbs:
 
Fixer in the malt, brings out the flavour keeps general population at bay...
 
Last edited:
joxby said:
I wouldn't say they are rigid preconceptions, more that they have certain expectations of a photograph that they don't apply to paintings.
I'm talking about joe public, the masses, not art historians/photographers/artists whatever.
Click to expand...
It's apt that this is discussed in one of Steve's threads as it was his thread on solarization that I mentioned a paper on this technique within which quotes Man Ray as saying: "The technique in itself was not important to me, I was interested only in the result; the technique enabled me to get away from photography, to get away from banality, what I seek above all is to escape from banality, and here was a chance to produce a photograph that would not look like a photograph."
 
wickerman said:
It's apt that this is discussed in one of Steve's threads as it was his thread on solarization that I mentioned a paper on this technique within which quotes Man Ray as saying: "The technique in itself was not important to me, I was interested only in the result; the technique enabled me to get away from photography, to get away from banality, what I seek above all is to escape from banality, and here was a chance to produce a photograph that would not look like a photograph."
Click to expand...

Interesting quote. I seem to recall that Man Ray referred to himself as an artist rather than a photographer which seems feasible from this quote. I imagine if creating art today, he would be using all manner of digital manipulation to realise his vision.

For me the technique does matter in as much as I get satisfaction from the process and enjoy working with film.
 
***when does a film photograph cease to be film and become something digital?***

Well when the cinema industry stops making films using film and you can only watch digital movies.......:( There will be less demand for film from the big boys, although I don't know if they use special film in the movie industry which we don't use, but still must be some sort of knock on affect if only psychological to film manufacturers.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...to-film-20140118,0,806855.story#axzz2qvlc1oYk
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
***when does a film photograph cease to be film and become something digital?***

Well when the cinema industry stops making films using film and you can only watch digital movies.......:( There will be less demand for film from the big boys, although I don't know if they use special film in the movie industry, which we don't use, but still must be some sort of knock on affect if only psychological to film makers.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...to-film-20140118,0,806855.story#axzz2qvlc1oYk
Click to expand...

Paramount have only stopped using films for distribution; they are still using it for actual filming. This practice is also limited to the United States; I don't see it going worldwide for some time simply because the necessary digital projection systems costs about £70,000.
 
skysh4rk said:
Paramount have only stopped using films for distribution; they are still using it for actual filming. This practice is also limited to the United States; I don't see it going worldwide for some time simply because the necessary digital projection systems costs about £70,000.
Click to expand...

Ah! All confusing as I'm sure I read somewhere that many are now shooting movies on digital for all the easier special effects and some were storing on film for archival reasons, so why can't they do a copy of the movie (on film) and offer a choice around the world..i.e. digital or film copy and you would still get some profit back either way from cinemas who would buy\license the movie.
 
excalibur2 said:
Ah! All confusing as I'm sure I read somewhere that many are now shooting movies on digital for all the easier special effects and some were storing on film for archival reasons, so why can't they do a copy of the movie (on film) and offer a choice around the world..i.e. digital or film copy and you would still get some profit back either way from cinemas who would buy\license the movie.
Click to expand...

Thats because the system works on a 'rental' system (with the option to buy), namely each cinema pays the distributor a fee to show the feature, and then they return the film/DCP afterwards (and in the case of film prints their usually destroyed and the silver recovered for reuse). Digital distribution is a lot cheaper for the distributors as they just need to send out a hard drive, or a download over the internet, rather than having to create thousands of film prints, ship them out to all the cinemas, recover them afterwards etc. It is getting more difficult to get film prints though as many of the major distributors are starting to only deliver DCP for certain major films

A lot of cinemas are now exclusively digital, even in the UK (although they will usually retain the 35mm equipment in some screens for showing past content) and nearly all of the major cinema chains rarely show film prints these days. Even quite a few independents have now obtained digital projectors, but usually only the one because of their high cost so to show films not available as film prints. Nearly every cinema that I know now use digital projection almost exclusively. The funny thing is that in a few years all of those projectors will be obsolete and have to be replaced as the technology improves, yet film projection has not really changed since 1929 when the introduction of sound changed the frame rate to 24 FPS, and a projector from the 30's could run one of todays prints as easily as one in the 30's (obviously you would have to use the appropriate film gates/anamorphic projection lenses for widescreen films, and have a suitable sound processor for the soundtrack).

With regards to shooting the features, a lot of cinematographers mix and match as they please for artistic effect. For example the 'Wolf of Wall Street' recently was shot mostly on 35mm Kodak film stock, but used the digital Arri Alexa for green screen (because it had originally been budgeted as being fully digitally shot so the effects budget was not sufficient for doing the effects on film) and low light shots.
 
s162216 said:
Thats because the system works on a 'rental' system (with the option to buy), namely each cinema pays the distributor a fee to show the feature, and then they return the film/DCP afterwards (and in the case of film prints their usually destroyed and the silver recovered for reuse). Digital distribution is a lot cheaper for the distributors as they just need to send out a hard drive, or a download over the internet, rather than having to create thousands of film prints, ship them out to all the cinemas, recover them afterwards etc. It is getting more difficult to get film prints though as many of the major distributors are starting to only deliver DCP for certain major films

A lot of cinemas are now exclusively digital, even in the UK (although they will usually retain the 35mm equipment in some screens for showing past content) and nearly all of the major cinema chains rarely show film prints these days. Even quite a few independents have now obtained digital projectors, but usually only the one because of their high cost so to show films not available as film prints. Nearly every cinema that I know now use digital projection almost exclusively. The funny thing is that in a few years all of those projectors will be obsolete and have to be replaced as the technology improves, yet film projection has not really changed since 1929 when the introduction of sound changed the frame rate to 24 FPS, and a projector from the 30's could run one of todays prints as easily as one in the 30's (obviously you would have to use the appropriate film gates/anamorphic projection lenses for widescreen films, and have a suitable sound processor for the soundtrack).

With regards to shooting the features, a lot of cinematographers mix and match as they please for artistic effect. For example the 'Wolf of Wall Street' recently was shot mostly on 35mm Kodak film stock, but used the digital Arri Alexa for green screen (because it had originally been budgeted as being fully digitally shot so the effects budget was not sufficient for doing the effects on film) and low light shots.
Click to expand...

You touched on it, but I think the big point to highlight about digital distribution at present is that it really only benefits the studio distributing the film. It's not a great deal for cinemas, as they need to invest in new equipment that will ultimately become obsolete, or for audiences, who will ultimately be getting an inferior product as digital systems still cannot match the quality of 35mm projections.
 
Well maybe all the Asian movie makers and cinema outlets who can't afford new technology will need\use film. (y)
 
Slightly snipped since I can only paint as a decorator not an artist!
StephenM said:
It depends on whether you enjoy the process, or want to create something. Yes, people aren't all the same, and some really do enjoy the end result and the pride of achievement. Just as some people (I suppose) enjoy eating the food rather than cooking it.
Click to expand...

One of the things I miss about film is that with print film, using off the shelf D&P (and to some extent using slide film), the photographer's input pretty much stops when the button's pressed, from that point on, the process was pretty much out of my hands. For a while, as I was making the transition from film to digital, I was religiously scanning pretty much every shot and PPing the cr@p out of it just because I could, now, I try to avoid PP whenever possible, shooting JPEG and PPing only what needs to be PPed. Since I'm the end user (in 99.99% of cases), I'm the only one who needs to be kept happy - and pixel peeping doesn't make me happy! I have quite a few shots that give me a huge amount of enjoyment and a certain amount of pride - I made them! Likewise food, while I love eating, the processes involved in the choosing, preparation and cooking of the ingredients give me a lot of pleasure too, even shopping! Occasionally, I've even grown some of the ingredients from seed and that adds an extra layer of enjoyment.
 
skysh4rk said:
You touched on it, but I think the big point to highlight about digital distribution at present is that it really only benefits the studio distributing the film. It's not a great deal for cinemas, as they need to invest in new equipment that will ultimately become obsolete, or for audiences, who will ultimately be getting an inferior product as digital systems still cannot match the quality of 35mm projections.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the 'quality loss' doesn't develop at the projection end, but rather in the post production: in the past ~15 years true optical workflows for film during post production have become exceedingly rare (probably only at the most 2-3 'non-arthouse' films per year now), and now 99% of films utilise the Digital Intermediate (DI) where the original camera negative (OCN) is scanned, and any colour correction etc are completed digitally with the major advantage that you can do things that a traditonal optical workflow simply cannot, coupled with the fact that the film can then be edited together in the digital realm as well.

For example, the film 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?', the cinematographer Roger Deakins (The Shawshank Redemption, 1984 [the one with John Hurt], No Country for Old Men and Skyfall amongst his other numerous works) and the Coen brothers (the directors) wanted a desaturated, 'golden' look to the skin tones, ground, foliage etc, but a normal sky. However it was impossible to accomplish this using traditional techniques as bleach bypassing combined with colour balancing would give the desired tones, but also do the same to the sky. Because of this they eventually tuned to using the DI technique (the first feature film released using it) where they could accomplish it.
Since then that has become practically the standard for film production, with one major advantage for the producers being that the colour balancing etc can be completed in a week or so compared to several weeks with the traditional method, and the film is much easier to edit as you don't have to produce inter-positives, and then physically cut the original negative before its printed to an inter-positive and then an inter-negative that is used for contact printing the release prints. In the DI method the edited DI is output back onto film using a laser, LEDs or lightjet etc, which is then used for contact printing the release prints (also conveniently avoiding the generation loss from the inter-positives and negs needed by the traditional optical method).

The quality problems however comes during the DI stage: these days its typical for the 35mm OCN to be scanned at 4K or 6K so to capture all of the detail possible, but because of the additional cost and time associated with 4K masters (as obviously computer effects etc have to be rendered at the same resolution for them to match with the live action, and 4k rendering takes a lot longer in total for the whole DI, effects etc), its typical for a lot of even very major features to have the DI completed at only 2K, which is nothing near what the film can achieve, so it doesn't really matter whether you see a film print or a DCP ultimately! Another reason is simply that most cinemas that brought projectors in the past few years opted for cheaper 2K models (although more are buying 4K compatible ones now as they've come massively down in price). Digital projectors have improved as I can remember seeing a film with one about 7 years or so ago, and was troubled by the lack of contrast in dark scenes,and occasional 'strobing', but I've not really noticed it in any digital projections in the past 2 or 3 years when it started to become much more common. Ultimately its the general customer that the cinemas have to cater to, and I'll bet that if you asked 100 most would say they wouldn't care how its shown (although there is of course the 'digital' buzzword that can be used in advertising to attract customers)

I will be truthful, I do prefer seeing a film print if possible, but sadly its becoming harder and harder. Just over a year ago though I got to see all 3 of the last Batman films back to back at the BFI Imax on 15 perf 70mm film (o.k 'Batman Begins' was a blow up from 35mm anamorphic from start to finish, and you could tell sometimes as the image was slightly soft in places but overall it looked good), and the quality of the Imax segments of both 'The Dark Knight' and 'The Dark Knight Rises' were astounding. Although the 35mm segments were from a DI, I was really lucky as the Imax parts of the prints that I saw were printed directly from the 15/70mm OCN (only about 12 prints in total were done like this for both films so to avoid degrading the OCN), and it was literally like looking at something real in front of me. You won't get me into see most 'Imax films' though as most are complete blow ups from Super 35 or digital, and just a waste of money as theres no discernible extra detail visible (in fact most new Imax's now only show digital projections, which is nowhere near the quality of true 15/70mm).

@excalibur2 unfortunately Brian in India especially their switching over to digital projection because of the massive cost savings (each 35mm print costs about $8,000+) that they can make, and once the digital projector is paid off they only have to pay for the digital print so ultimately the cost is lower (and the distributors are 'encouraging' the switch to digital by providing funding etc) although in my opinion it is a bit of a false saving.
 
s162216 said:
I will be truthful, I do prefer seeing a film print if possible, but sadly its becoming harder and harder. Just over a year ago though I got to see all 3 of the last Batman films back to back at the BFI Imax on 15 perf 70mm film (o.k 'Batman Begins' was a blow up from 35mm anamorphic from start to finish, and you could tell sometimes as the image was slightly soft in places but overall it looked good), and the quality of the Imax segments of both 'The Dark Knight' and 'The Dark Knight Rises' were astounding. Although the 35mm segments were from a DI, I was really lucky as the Imax parts of the prints that I saw were printed directly from the 15/70mm OCN (only about 12 prints in total were done like this for both films so to avoid degrading the OCN), and it was literally like looking at something real in front of me. You won't get me into see most 'Imax films' though as most are complete blow ups from Super 35 or digital, and just a waste of money as theres no discernible extra detail visible (in fact most new Imax's now only show digital projections, which is nowhere near the quality of true 15/70mm).
Click to expand...

Great post.

This bit I find particularly interesting personally, as I saw the Dark Knight at the Imax theatre in Sydney and it absolutely blew me away. I have a feeling it also was one of those OCN prints, because it was just so far superior to anything I've ever seen in any cinema.

I saw the Dark Knight Rises at the Glasgow Science Centre Imax, which I believe is one of only three Imax cinemas in the UK that actually projects real Imax film, and, while good, it just wasn't anywhere near the quality of what I'd seen in Sydney.
 
As far as I know, the BFI, National Media Museum, Science Museum and Glasgow definitely project proper Imax film... when its available. That means any of the official Imax documentaries, or major films where they have blown it up for projection. A lot of blow ups are now though being shown in digital exclusively however (I know that the BFI and Glasgow have recently installed digital projectors as well to allow them to show these as well) as theres a tremendous cost saving (a single 15/70mm Imax print costs several tens of thousands of dollars).

Imax have recently licensed Kodak's new laser projection technology which combined with digital 4K does apparently improve the projection immeasurably (they've installed these at the BFI and Glasgow apparently). I've got nothing against 4K projection as it does look bloody good (when you actually get to somewhere which is is showing a 4K DCP with it!), but Imax does deserve the real deal of 15/70mm film if your going to see it (for the DI versions of true Imax films they are apparently already scanning at 8K in preparation for projectors with that level of resolution, and of course that ultimately helps with the projections of the current lower resolution DCPs).

I got to see an original 1982 70mm print of 'Tron' at the BFI Southbank a few years ago (it sadly had acquired a slight magenta shift, but was apparently the best print available in the UK as all the restored prints only live in the US), and despite the grainy image from the films unique production method in the 'computer world' parts (if your interested get the DVD and theres an 1.5 hour documentary on how the film was produced which is really interesting) in the pure 70mm parts in the 'real world' you could see the exceptional detail (and that was from just standard vertical 5/70mm!). I really want to go up to Bradford to the NMM one day to see something on their Cinerama screen (one of only 3 left in the world) as its supposed to be an exceptional experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top