the habit of seeing

August 1, 2006.

What was the significance of this date?

It was Kodak’s scheduled cessation of prepaid processing of Kodachrome Super 8 cine film, announced in a press release in May 2005. Users of Kodachrome 16mm, sales of which were discontinued in February 2006, had up to the end of December 2006 to submit exposed material to Kodak for processing.

According to Kim Snyder, General Manager and Vice President of Image Capture Products, Entertainment Imaging at Eastman Kodak Company, ‘The reason for discontinuing these specific product lines was entirely driven by market dynamics. In line with the discontinuation, we will also stop offering processing for those particular films within the year.”

As a 35mm stills photographer, you may not be concerned with any of the above.

However, as a regular user of Kodak’s Kodachrome 64 and 200 35mm film, I am, and I believe his days are numbered despite Kodak’s ambiguous work around direct questions from users like me, regarding his life. useful future. The words “market dynamics” quoted above by K.Snyder are key to understanding Kodak’s ultimate intent. This film material, along with other types of products, will disappear without sufficient user support; that means buy it now and use it, not think about it.

However, this is not really what I wanted to write about, although it presents a convenient route to the next dissertation.

However, before you go there, it may be worth reiterating a few previously mentioned observations about Kodachrome.

For 35mm photographers experienced with color structures that fade quickly on E-6 type reversal film stock when poorly archived, Kodachrome can provide a solution. Of all color film stocks, whether negative or positive, Kodachrome continues to have the highest dark storage rating for maintaining original color and brightness. It may have lost pole position (to Fuji) in 1990, for finer grain, but its unique color space remains unbeaten in my book, most especially when used in conjunction with Leica lenses.

The long-term benefits of Kodachrome are numerous, but unfortunately the downside for many is the time it takes for exposed frames to reach Renen in Switzerland (for Europeans) and then find their way back to their owner. Wait at least 10 days. This elapsed time can be frustrating and it’s understandable why countless shooters turned to other actions processed more quickly and conveniently.

This convenience factor relating specifically to C-41 color black and E-6 reverse film materials has also been, I believe, a driving force in persuading photo enthusiasts to turn to digital capture. The perception, for those who have adopted it, seems to be that there is little significant difference in the aesthetic quality of the generic color spaces offered by digital capture compared to those inherent in the types of film just mentioned. There may even be an appreciation of digitally captured images that have greater clarity, brightness, a smoother tonal range, and more saturated colors when viewed on screen. All the other perceived conveniences of digital capture also help offset the costs of purchasing and processing film, as well as adding more subliminal benefits. Currently archiving longevity is not one of them and remains questionable. It’s one of the reasons I still shoot Kodachrome for projects that I think can have a long life.

Another reason is this.

The habit of viewing developed from my early days of using cameras, of experimenting with the many different formats that were once common, and choosing my favourites. In this long process of aesthetic evaluation, one came to see life through the eyes of different lenses; squares or rectangles of a very specific size were locked away in the subconscious and unlocked when the occasion called for it, say a 50mm Summicron or a 10-inch Apo-Lanthar. So second nature is this habit of seeing that often one is not so aware, at the time of exposure, that a format has been selected. This process is instinctive, while the conscious side is in charge of the interpretation of the motive; content, composition and lens effect.

It may seem, as some correspondents have pointed out to me in their emails, on the subject of the articles I have written and which have appeared in the specialized press, that I have ‘adopted’ digital capture with some enthusiasm.

It is true that for some aspects of daily work routines, digital capture provides a more convenient route to meet customer demands than when using silver-based technology. There is also the main consideration these days, of the demands of image buyers. Over the past five years, I’ve noticed an increasing number of missives hitting the ‘wish’ box for ‘non-film’ images. The perception among younger imaging researchers who seem to have had very little experience looking at transparencies in a light box is that all film, regardless of size or format, has peculiar and, to them, unsightly pin-sized artifacts. inherent in its image structure. They are correct; is called grain.

Personally, I like what grain can add to the aesthetics of a photograph, but once again, a thorough understanding of how the phenomenon works and how it can be used, as well as a particular format size or the characteristics of a special lens, is essential for an appreciation of how the motif might look on the page or in print.

Where I have a particular problem with digital is not so much with the reproduction of images, but with the tool used to do it. Only a couple of 35mm Dslrs provide a full 24X36mm frame and I don’t use either. Otherwise, wearers are left with a reduced frame size and substantially different effects on subject when wearing lenses designed in a pre-digital era. Use a modern DX type designed for image circle coverage of an APS-C type sensor and cannot be used efficiently for full frame. It is as if my whole habit of seeing has been turned upside down; Not much of what I photograph digitally is the result of the same knee-jerk aesthetic reaction to the format of choice that has naturally applied over decades of ‘photographing for the frame’.

In an effort to adapt to and overcome this restriction, I resorted to a technique practiced in the news agency news photography business; ‘shoot for crop’ helps resolve aspect ratio imbalances and aji and bokeh effects as seen in digital imaging in APS-C form. This is only partially successful and is mainly due to the limitations imposed by the smaller image area of ​​the cropped viewfinder. It’s difficult to unconsciously transpose this small image onto a hypothetical magnification socket and make the mental cultivation of a motif in the time usually available for a split-second decision, but the process improves with each new assignment.

Lenses designed for 35mm rangefinder film cameras place an optical constraint on the development of similar types of cameras with digital capture devices. Epson selected an APS-C sized sensor out of the box for their RD1, resulting in a 1.5x reduction of the full 35mm frame; Kodak has developed a special sensor for Leica that allows a more acceptable 1.3X reduction for use in their digital-M camera, but this, IMHO, still won’t allow those of us gifted with decades of visual perception traditional easily change your viewing habit.

That digital capture will eventually replace film seems inevitable when looking at statistics from the photographic industry and other forms of digital search. However, while these are the stated goals of some large manufacturers, there will be many customers who will want to continue down the path they know best. That path is lined by hundreds of thousands of people with a colossal combined database of traditional photographic knowledge unmatched in the digital world.

They know, for example, that there is still no digital capture device available that matches the simplicity of a Leica rangefinder, no DSLR with a viewfinder as bright and clear as a Leica R, no digital camera of any brand or type without the clutter. of some operational pitfall. ; a dead battery, a shutter that doesn’t fire at the critical moment, a flash storage system that fails inexplicably, and none, yet, where the sensor is capable of capturing as many sharp micro details as film.

This will change of course. Support systems will get better and yes, it’s only a matter of time before sensors exceed ordinary film’s ability to resolve the smallest details. Perhaps camera manufacturers are also getting the message that before we all jump off the cliff in search of their new products, the issue of sensor size, brightness, area, and viewfinder clarity needs their immediate attention.

I don’t think the manufacturers are trying to fool me with some marketing crap about how convenient the large rear LCD display is. In the field, it can work for landscapers or outdoorsmen who can spend hours with their digital capture device on a tripod waiting or arranging light. I know that when I’m bouncing around in the ocean or in the middle of a melee event, or stalking the streets, only one display system works. I need to be able to see my subject clearly, focus accurately the first time, and when I release the shutter, know it will happen without delay. I don’t want to do the mind flip game that wastes precious seconds and misses the moment.

My viewing habit is so ingrained, and my awareness of the mechanical and aesthetic pitfalls of digital capture so keen, that I jump at the chance to expose my favorite movies on whatever camera has become my soul mate over the years. it is a blissful experience; a release from having to endure network blocking from a technology devised by those who don’t know.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *