Public Enemies, Film’s friend.

I don’t know how many of you saw Michael Mann’s most recent film, Public Enemies, but if you did I’m sure you know where I’m going with this. I was excited about the movie, being a Johnny  Depp fan and being fascinated by the story of John Dillinger. However, the film was terrible, I could hardly watch it due to the visual quality being so horrible. It had the worst cinematography of any film I’ve ever seen. As TIME magazine put it, “It looked like parts of the film were shot on an iphone.” The lighting was terrible and the overall camera movement and utilization, etc was abominable. Dante Spinotti, the cinematographer is an experienced professional and it seems the only thing different about Public Enemies was that is was shot on digital whereas most of his previous projects were film. You have to light for the medium, you light some film stocks differently depending on their ratings and you should run tests on the digital camera you’re using so you can light for it accordingly. This film’s aesthetic failure was a big win for film, film’s dynamic range is more forgiving than that of digital’s ccd’s. I’m not suggesting that the film would have won an oscar for cinematography, but I am sure that film would have been more forgiving of the blunders in lighting and such. Some of the film’s problems can also be blamed on the post supervisors, they clearly screwed up as well with how the digital was prepped for transfer, etc.

Another big problem I have with people like Mann shooting film’s such as PE on digital is this. If you’re shooting a period piece and it is supposed to look old, why not shoot it on the medium that existed back then and give it a genuine vintage look. I think people should exploit the positives in both digital and film, use your brain. If money is no object for your film, choose the medium that is going to do the most for your movie. For instance, shoot your outer space futuristic movie on DIGITAL, and your civil war film on FILM. Just a thought.

A good talking point for digital.

I recently became a vegetarian and have tried to start eating more organic foods and such. Just a few days ago I was telling a couple of friends that the Jello and marshmallows they were eating were made of gelatin, which is derived from pig, horse, and cow bones and hooves, etc. Obviously gelatin isn’t something that most vegetarians or vegans would eat or want to promote. Today as I was reading some photography sites, it dawned on me that one of the main components of photographic film and papers is GELATIN!!! I searched online and found that,surprisingly there has not been any non-gelatin film made. Kodak and Fuji both researched a non-gelatin emulsion alternative, but apparently to no avail. So the more I looked around on the web, I realized that many vegans have completely adopted digital photography for the sole reason that it doesn’t involve animal byproducts. So this could be a pretty great selling point for digital cameras and I’m shocked that people haven’t made a bigger deal about coming up with alternative emulsions. We can put men into space, so I’m quite sure that we could devise a substitute for gelatin to use in film emulsion. It probably just comes down to the fact that it wouldn’t be cost effective, especially now with the digital age taking control. My realization will not prevent me from using film in the future, but I’m sure the idea of animals dying for my photographs will stay in the back of my mind.

On a positive note, I guess this epiphany could be great for my photography, now I’ll have to make sure that every film photo I take is worth a cow’s hoof. I’m joking of course, but it is something to think about. You film-bashers shouldn’t get too happy though, most photographic papers also contain a layer of gelatin. So your digital camera may be green and “vegan,” but if you plan on printing, don’t think you’re off the hook.

By the way, please let me know if any of this info is incorrect, I love being corrected. Also, I’d love to know if there is a “vegan” film out there somewhere.

Is $19 for 12 photographs worth it?

 

A set of steps eroding away after many years of abuse.

Today I got a roll of 400ISO 120 medium format film developed and scanned. The total cost of the roll of 12 photos was about $19, not including prints. The roll cost me about $6, processing was $8, and scanning was $5. Out of these 12 photographs, only 2 or 3 came out spot on, as far as focus, composition and exposure go. I was pretty happy with that result considering the camera I used was a Zeiss Ikon folding 6×6 camera from 1954 with a viewfinder the size of a pencil eraser. As much as I enjoy film, I couldn’t help but think about how I could have saved that $20 by shooting on my Nikon Dslr instead. It’s almost as if you are supposed to feel guilty for “wasting” money on film these days. It shouldn’t be like that though, there are plenty of great reasons to still shoot on film. I realized one of the main reasons I still shoot film is that it forces me to focus. I don’t mean any cheesy pun by that statement, I mean that had I had one of my digital cameras instead of my film camera, I would have most likely become snap-happy and popped off 50 shots, when all I really needed was that one decisive frame. People say that digital is so much cheaper than film, which it is easy to jump on the bandwagon and agree after paying processing and scanning costs for your film. However, don’t forget that if you shoot 50 digital shots for every 1 you would have shot on film, that is 50 times more editing to do at a later point. Not to mention the time it takes to transfer and convert raw files. So in some cases it may come down to how much you value your time, can you put a price tag on that? As of right now, I will continue to shoot my $19 rolls of film, as well as shooting some digital.

 

I wonder if using a small memory card would have the same effect of making every frame count that I love about film? The ability to delete from the card instantaneously probably means no…

Film vs. Digital on Wired

As I was searching the web for other sites and blogs concerned with the Film VS. Digital debate, I came across an interesting article at www.wired.com, titled “Five Reasons Film Cameras are still better than digital.” The article makes some good points, but I feel like they could have just as easily written an article entitled, “Five Reasons Digital Cameras are now Better than Film.” One of the main reasons I started this blog is because I, along with many others, am somewhat torn on the issue. I could write many reasons why digital cameras are superior to film and vice versa. At the end of the day, the point that matters most is, what camera gives the best quality in all aspects of photography, at the most reasonable price. It also needs to be recognized that everyone is different and everyone has personal preferences when it comes to cameras. So the camera that is best for you, may not be for me or someone else. There have been award winning photos taken on all kinds of cameras, it is often a matter of personal taste. Soon I will be uploading some photos deriving from both film and digital cameras to compare and contrast them.

Welcome to Film or Digital’s Blog!

There is an ongoing debate as to which is better in the photographic and movie industries, film or digital. Many people take the traditionalist stance and defend the longevity and proven quality of film (celluloid), whereas others take the more modern side of the argument, believing that digital is as efficient or more efficient than film. Both film and digital have their strengths and are viable options in different circumstances. This blog will be dedicated to exploring the arguments for film and digital, as well as the many fallacies surrounding both mediums. I will try my best to give equal attention to both motion picture photography and still photography, as I have an extensive background in both of these fields.I have worked as a professional photographer for over 5 years and studied film at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. My plan is to publish my own research as well as that of others (I will be sure to cite and link to original sources) on this blog. If anyone reading this has any ideas for experiments or tests to compare digital and film, please leave a comment detailing your idea and I will look into following through with it. Be sure to check back often as I hope this becomes a great place for people to learn and share their knowledge. I see value in both film and digital, and my hope is for this site to be informative rather than just another source of biased propaganda (so this is not like Fox News for either film or digital). Thanks for reading and I look forward to hearing from all the film, video, and photo enthusiasts out there! 

-Film or Digital