« [REVIEW—NIKKOR AF-S 50mm f1.4G lens] | Main | [REVIEW-LEICA D-LUX 4 compact camera] »
February 05, 2009
[MR ALLEN GOES BACK TO THE FUTURE]
In his new film Vicki Cristina Barcelona Woody Allen reveals a nostalgia for good old silver halides. Cristina is a young American who wanders awestruck around Barcelona snapping away with her all-in-one digital superzoom.
Until her new friend, Maria Elena, gives her some advice, to “get rid of her digital camera and to use an old one for more interesting results.”
And bingo! We see Cristina out and about with a Leica rangefinder camera and Maria Elena has set up a darkroom for her in the basement where, without practising or instruction, she becomes an expert in no time, turning out perfect prints. How we laughed!
What does Woody mean by “more interesting results”? And why doesn’t he come clean on the economics of the conversion from digital back to film? For the price of the Leica and the enlarger and other darkroom paraphernalia, not to mention the cost of the silver-based materials, Cristina could have bought the best digital camera and had some change.
It set us thinking. Is there some special quality about traditional prints? The walls of the Imaging cave are covered in photos, both darkroom and inkjet printed. There’s no doubt that the blacks in the old photos, printed on Agfa paper (the company was a victim of the digital revolution) have an appealing richness, but you can get the same with a good inkjet printer.
However, if you insist on the qualities of photographic paper, take the hybrid path. Capture the image as a digital file and then make the print on silver-based paper, processed in the old-fashioned chemical way. Pegasus prints are probably the best known example of the hybrid technology.
The name Pegasus refers to the printing machine and processor. The digital information is sent to the machine from a computer and the paper is exposed by an array of LEDs. It is a colour system, but we were interested in the quality of its monochrome output.
We took our picture file to LabX (www.labx.com.au) in St Kilda where production manager, Rob Goldie, dropped our CD into the computer, pressed the Print button and seven minutes later presented us with a 38X50cm black and white print. Superb. And at $33 cheaper than we could have done it in the darkroom. And just as “interesting” as any silver halide print we have made in the past. All without inhaling toxic fumes, setting up, cleaning up, wasting water washing the print and so on.
Rob Goldie has been with LabX for twelve years and has seen the transition from film to digital from day one. We peek into the black and white darkroom and see the two big enlargers in pieces, no longer used. The darkroom operators have been retrained to work with computers. Even when printing from film the process is digital – the film is scanned and turned into numbers before sending to the printing machines.
So you might say that Woody’s nostalgia for film is delusional. In the end it is all zeroes and ones. But if you really want to make “more interesting” photos the dpexpert enlarger is for sale.
*
Posted by terry at February 5, 2009 08:47 AM
Worth Checking Out
Digital Cameras SydneyComments
Agree with your sentiments I also watched this movie and grinned at the Leica / Film so called superiority.
Bunkum .. mind you Leica afficiendos truly believe Leica lenses capture atmosphere something no other lenses can so .. Dream on ..
Some know otherwise.
Posted by: John Smith at February 6, 2009 03:53 PM
Terry you've always struck me as a born again-er i.e. someone who in later life switches to something can often be more fanatical and narrow minded than someone who grew up with it.
I've run into other older people who've switched to digi and express the same mentality- a complete rejection of everything about film.
You're also doing that now traditional thing of bringing up "the best" (digital) camera. People obsessed about the best/sharpest/most pixels miss the point. Camera technology was sufficiently advanced by the 1940's to get reliable and artistic photos.
What camera you use since then is up to you.
Posted by: Mike at February 6, 2009 04:32 PM
Yes I think maybe you missed the point Terry.
Sure, you can shoot digital, print digital, save money, save time, and sure - you're going to get a great picture (providing you took a great one in the first place.)
Is this then what photography has been reduced to Terry in your "digital life"? A mere equation of convenience?
One understands that for many of those approaching dotage shiny new technology often seems miraculous, magical, impossible and unquestioningly desirable.
"Observe, I can produce a wonderful quality image in less than 15 minutes, isn't that simply marvelous?" you reverently ask in hushed tones.
Well yes Terry, it sure is.
"And look, just look!" Now you're excited. "I can see the picture I have taken immediately. And if it's over exposed.... I can just take it again. And again. Until I know it's right!!"
And again, this is wonderful.
But what's missing?
Do you remember Terry, not too many years ago, when each time you pressed that shutter the distant sound of cash registers could be heard?
"Yes, yes indeed" you say frowning and shaking your head, "such awful times, the Dark Ages in fact."
But Terry, what is the difference between shooting with a known cost of time and money, and shooting without same inhibitions. Well Terry, the difference is in the worth of the outcome.
Do you remember when you had to predict how a film would react to light? Do you remember puzzling over the best way to process the film? Do you recall having to deal with one (yes ONE!) ISO speed for 36 shots on 135 and do you remember how these limitations made you really think about what you were doing? How the cost of that click made you consider it?
Digital photography, Terry, has given us much which as photographers we can can be grateful for. But shooting film, Terry, forces us to consider the process in an entirely different way.
Was Woody Allen saying "film is more interesting than digital?" That is doubtful. More likely is the director using the distinction to highlight a simple and ancient truth - the destination is less important than the roads we take to get there.
For others reading this blog who, like me, still appreciate the intrinsic value of chemical based photography, please stop into the Melbourne Silver Mine for chat. :)
Posted by: Serge at February 6, 2009 05:00 PM
I think you're wrong Terry - your articles, as a matter of necessity I guess, have often been dismissive of traditional techniques, but the reality is that you can't replicate the darkroom with digital. It cannot, and will never, be done. They are fundamentally different processes. It says a lot of your medium that you feel threatened by an old chemical process that's hardly changed in 100 years. You can get something that's 'almost kind of' similar but you'll never replicate the same textures and tones and artistic replication of light and shadow. Fact is, whilst you are road testing and writing reviews of the latest plastic zx-5000 multi-sensor, 1000 function, auto eye correction model sony + FM radio. Plenty of folks will be contently using their old lenses and chemicals and doing what Cartier-Bresson was doing. Perhaps when awe are as good as him we can move on.
We'll be waiting a while. Woody was right!!
Posted by: pedro at February 6, 2009 09:15 PM
you appear to be struggling with the difference between "printing" and "photography", film is still quite alive, particularly for those who don't think the end result of "photography" is looking at an image on a 3" screen or via a 72dpi web page.
Posted by: Henri at February 8, 2009 11:08 PM