This is very topical. I have been approached by an Eastern European photographer who only works with large and medium format to do a shoot, possibly more than one, with him. I am truly impressed with his work and am considering working with him before I go back to Italy to help looking after my mother.
I love working with film, I like the feel of a film shot and the adjustments one has to make as a model. When I did my shoot with George Swift he also used a large format. He took several shots with his digital camera and then we decided to recreate for film one of those. I have not got the print yet, am looking forward to it, but here is the digital version.
So I am reposting this piece which I wrote for Unbearable Lightness' blog only a few months ago (I have already explained the saga of the missing photos, so I will not repeat it here). Let me know your thoughts.
It all began with a box of photographs I found at Christmas - or was it Boxing Day? (no pun intended) - in a case I keep under my bed. They were taken by my father in the 1960s and my mother, myself and my sisters were his models - or should I say subjects? Lovely family pictures, including one of me taken in 1962 or 1963, with a huge doll almost as big as me.
There were also some large prints of my mother wearing a gorgeous black silk shawl, which now belongs to me, draped over her shoulders. She wore a 1950s dress, showing off her tiny waist - have you noticed how tiny women's waists were in the 1950s compared to waist sizes today? an 18 inch waist was not unusual back then, whereas it is today. My mother's waist in those days was really small compared to mine and she had already had my elder sister!
I loved the feel of those prints. They had been clearly retouched, in an old fashioned studio style. But they were lovely. And they had been taken with an old camera, using film.
Just before last Christmas I modelled for Brano (Branislav), a Slovakian student doing a Master in Photography at a well known London art college. The shoot was done on film in the foyer of the National Film Theatre in London, where they were exhibiting the entries for the Landscape Photographer of the Year exhibition. Obviously that was a clothed shoot and it was done quite surreptitiously, while the exhibition was on. I was surprised no one stopped us, as we had no special permission.
Let me tell you a little about Brano. He only shoots with film, using different cameras, including a Hasselblad which actually belongs to his department. He has access to a professional darkroom, does all the developing and processing in that dark room, scans the prints - these days you have to have images online - and refuses to do any further work on them using Photoshop or similar. I suspect this is one of the requirements of his course, the shoot we did was part of his end of the year portfolio. Occasionally, he might scan a negative and do some processing using the aforementioned Photoshop but when I asked him whether he would do that with a particular shot of mine, which I did not think was very flattering as it was, the look of disdain on his face was such that I promptly retracted my request, feeling very embarrassed. His words were "I use film. Why do you want me to enhance it digitally". Brano is a purist, as I later found out.
The experience with Brano and the box of my father's photographs made me decide I wanted to do more work on film. Specifically an art nude shoot. So back in January I put a casting call on MM and Purestorm, two sites for models and photographers, and more recently I put it on deviantArt, though I knew I would mostly get replies from the other two, rather than deviantArt, where I put it only as an afterthought. The response was extraordinary. One or two people - bless them - said they would like to work with me, they knew exactly what I was after, had the right equipment, it was just a question of sorting out practical details. The others...well, let me begin with those that felt the need to tell me, most patronisingly "You will not find anyone using film anymore. If we work together I can use a Photoshop filter, it will be like film and you will get b/w images". Or "Oh, I like your look, let's shoot together. You want b/w images. Easy, I will shoot in colour then convert it into b/w". Digital of course.
To these photographers film meant b/w. They either had no idea what film was or (more likely) they thought that I being a model would not know the difference (for those of you who model: have you noticed how sometimes people condescendingly stress the word 'understand' as in "do you understand this or that" when talking to you? I once did a shoot with a photographer who could not refrain from saying "Oh, you know about that? You are intelligent!" totally miffed by the fact I could converse). Many people are convinced that all models are affected by severe learning disabilities and can, at best, only discuss competently the latest exploits of celebrities, as reported in trashy weeklies. These are exceptions of course and, I have to say, I have mostly worked with photographers who were most respectful.
Why do I want to do a shoot on film? Because as a model working with film is more challenging. You have to pose in a different way. The shot has to be very carefully composed and as a model you need to work in that mode and yet preserve some sort of spontaneity, or you will look wooden. My very first professional shoot was for an editorial in a weekly magazine, back in 2004, and it was done on film. The photographer used polaroid first. It took a whole morning to get it done and only four shots were taken. When shooting digital you can often see yourself on a computer screen, as the shoot progresses. It becomes a 'safety net'. It works like a mirror in a dance studio.
I remember when I was studying dance the big controversy about mirrors. Some teachers would tell us to work in front of the mirror and correct ourselves. Some other teachers would absolutely not allow us to look at ourselves in the mirror and would either cover the mirrors in the studio or make us face the wall, with our backs to the mirror - and they would shame you in front of the whole class if they caught you glancing back. "You dont have mirrors on stage" they would say. "You need to be able to feel the movement and feel the symmetry of your shape in your own body. Only beginners [sneer] need mirrors". I used to think those teachers who forbade the use of mirrors were a real pain, I loved looking at myself in the mirror. But they were right, I reluctantly had to admit they were, no mirrors could ever be seen on stage. And not being able to feel the movement in your body and know what you are actually doing is not conducive to good dancing.
Just as I was getting interested in film for my own reasons the introduction of groups on deviantArt allowed photographers who only use film an opportunity to get together and create their own deviant groups. I joined a couple of them to look at the work that was submitted and in general to learn about film - I also have it at the back of my mind that I want to start taking pictures myself on film and recently got hold of a Bronica, but that's a different story I will tell you in another post.
Now you have to bear in mind my experience with Brano and his purist attitude and total avoidance of Photoshop - no doubt engendered by stringent course requirements. When I started looking at the work submitted by the members and contributors of these groups I swear that I often could not tell the difference between an image taken with a digital camera and an image taken with an analogue. I clearly only had the opportunity to look at online output not prints, so my impression was based on my examination of the material available online . I realised that the photographers would scan their negatives and photoshop them, as much as they wanted. The end result was, of necessity, partly digital. Brano's college professors would probably fail him if he did that as part of his portfolio, but what you do at college is not necessarily what you do when you leave with your diploma under your belt (when I wrote my dissertation I referenced it scrupulously almost every other sentence, but if I wrote articles or blogs in that style everyone would fall asleep).
Everyone has their own take on film and digital and why they use either. Photographers can be sanguine about this issue. However, only very few, extremely opinionated, and perhaps slightly ill-informed people would say that film is better than digital - if people do maintain that film is "way richer in tone" it may be that they do not have access to the very best digital equipment whereas their analogue camera may be one of the top range analogues, so in their experience film is qualitatively better, but this is not objectively proven. Eyeballman on deviantArt gave a very detailed account of an experiment he was invited to take part in, where people had to guess whether a print had been obtained using digital or analogue equipment and it was almost impossible to tell the difference.
As a model I am interested in film because it has a different impact on my modelling. It is a personal choice and it does not mean I am not interested in working with photographers that use digital. Modelling for a photographer who uses film will make me, in my view, a better model, but of course there are many other ways to reach the same goal and there are models out there who are fantastic and yet have never posed for a shoot on film and may not necessarily be interested in doing so.
The end product of a film shoot is often digitally enhanced, so one can say that in the 21st century, and inevitably so, film is being used differently. And to me that is good, I do not advocate a return to the old ways, I don't believe in recreating the past in the present as it was. It is neither possible nor desirable.
(All photos modelled by Alex B.)
I love working with film, I like the feel of a film shot and the adjustments one has to make as a model. When I did my shoot with George Swift he also used a large format. He took several shots with his digital camera and then we decided to recreate for film one of those. I have not got the print yet, am looking forward to it, but here is the digital version.
Photographer: George Swift
Film, Digital and Photoshop
(first published 3/03/10 in What We Saw Today)
Alex at 3 by her father
It all began with a box of photographs I found at Christmas - or was it Boxing Day? (no pun intended) - in a case I keep under my bed. They were taken by my father in the 1960s and my mother, myself and my sisters were his models - or should I say subjects? Lovely family pictures, including one of me taken in 1962 or 1963, with a huge doll almost as big as me.
There were also some large prints of my mother wearing a gorgeous black silk shawl, which now belongs to me, draped over her shoulders. She wore a 1950s dress, showing off her tiny waist - have you noticed how tiny women's waists were in the 1950s compared to waist sizes today? an 18 inch waist was not unusual back then, whereas it is today. My mother's waist in those days was really small compared to mine and she had already had my elder sister!
Just before last Christmas I modelled for Brano (Branislav), a Slovakian student doing a Master in Photography at a well known London art college. The shoot was done on film in the foyer of the National Film Theatre in London, where they were exhibiting the entries for the Landscape Photographer of the Year exhibition. Obviously that was a clothed shoot and it was done quite surreptitiously, while the exhibition was on. I was surprised no one stopped us, as we had no special permission.
Alex, film, by Brano
Let me tell you a little about Brano. He only shoots with film, using different cameras, including a Hasselblad which actually belongs to his department. He has access to a professional darkroom, does all the developing and processing in that dark room, scans the prints - these days you have to have images online - and refuses to do any further work on them using Photoshop or similar. I suspect this is one of the requirements of his course, the shoot we did was part of his end of the year portfolio. Occasionally, he might scan a negative and do some processing using the aforementioned Photoshop but when I asked him whether he would do that with a particular shot of mine, which I did not think was very flattering as it was, the look of disdain on his face was such that I promptly retracted my request, feeling very embarrassed. His words were "I use film. Why do you want me to enhance it digitally". Brano is a purist, as I later found out.
The experience with Brano and the box of my father's photographs made me decide I wanted to do more work on film. Specifically an art nude shoot. So back in January I put a casting call on MM and Purestorm, two sites for models and photographers, and more recently I put it on deviantArt, though I knew I would mostly get replies from the other two, rather than deviantArt, where I put it only as an afterthought. The response was extraordinary. One or two people - bless them - said they would like to work with me, they knew exactly what I was after, had the right equipment, it was just a question of sorting out practical details. The others...well, let me begin with those that felt the need to tell me, most patronisingly "You will not find anyone using film anymore. If we work together I can use a Photoshop filter, it will be like film and you will get b/w images". Or "Oh, I like your look, let's shoot together. You want b/w images. Easy, I will shoot in colour then convert it into b/w". Digital of course.
Photographer: Neil Huxtable
Why do I want to do a shoot on film? Because as a model working with film is more challenging. You have to pose in a different way. The shot has to be very carefully composed and as a model you need to work in that mode and yet preserve some sort of spontaneity, or you will look wooden. My very first professional shoot was for an editorial in a weekly magazine, back in 2004, and it was done on film. The photographer used polaroid first. It took a whole morning to get it done and only four shots were taken. When shooting digital you can often see yourself on a computer screen, as the shoot progresses. It becomes a 'safety net'. It works like a mirror in a dance studio.
Alex in 2004, Woman magazine, film
Photographer: George Swift
Now you have to bear in mind my experience with Brano and his purist attitude and total avoidance of Photoshop - no doubt engendered by stringent course requirements. When I started looking at the work submitted by the members and contributors of these groups I swear that I often could not tell the difference between an image taken with a digital camera and an image taken with an analogue. I clearly only had the opportunity to look at online output not prints, so my impression was based on my examination of the material available online . I realised that the photographers would scan their negatives and photoshop them, as much as they wanted. The end result was, of necessity, partly digital. Brano's college professors would probably fail him if he did that as part of his portfolio, but what you do at college is not necessarily what you do when you leave with your diploma under your belt (when I wrote my dissertation I referenced it scrupulously almost every other sentence, but if I wrote articles or blogs in that style everyone would fall asleep).
Photographer: Hervé Baudat,
film
film
As a model I am interested in film because it has a different impact on my modelling. It is a personal choice and it does not mean I am not interested in working with photographers that use digital. Modelling for a photographer who uses film will make me, in my view, a better model, but of course there are many other ways to reach the same goal and there are models out there who are fantastic and yet have never posed for a shoot on film and may not necessarily be interested in doing so.
Photographer: Darran Porter
(All photos modelled by Alex B.)
The film vs. digital controversy reminds me of the ongoing controversy in the music world about digital vs. analog recordings. I can remember when the first digital recordings came out in 1979, and they embodied a great increase in tonal clarity and dynamic range. But from that day to this many audiophiles have insisted that at its best, the analog format, especially on vinyl, is warmer than digital and better reflects what we actually hear in concert. Still, nobody seriously suggests that we go back to 78rpm records on shellac! *lol*
ReplyDeleteA photograph, like a recording, is at best a document of an actual event. There may be differences in the recording medium, but essentially it's all image (or sound-image) reproduction. From my perspective, both "systems" have their good points and their drawbacks.
Very well said. The photographer I spoke with the other day, with whom I will be shooting next week if all goes well, told me he preferred film for his own work because it gives everything a slower pace, but he uses digital for his fashion work. To be honest after my ghastly experience with Jessop, who have lost my film, I am only too grateful that we did have a digital camera with us or the whole shoot would have been lost. I can see the advantages and drawbacks of both and I like both
ReplyDeleteFilm is a completely analog/tactile art. I like developing the film. I love printing from a good negative.
ReplyDeleteWhen making prints, I use my hands to dodge and burn the image onto the paper. I control the time, the light and the contrast all through manual filters and switches. As my hands pass over the projected image, it makes me feel like I am touching the art inside the image. I become a part of it. I enjoy the chemicals and watching the image appear in the developer and putting it through all the other baths as well.
The tactile rewards of making prints is very rich. Sadly though, the amount of time it takes to perfect a print, then repeat the exact process multiple times for each copy makes it hard to produce multiple sell-able prints. I appreciate digital for my ability to perfect the print, and then make as many as needed instantly.
Thank you for sharing your point of view from the model's perspective. I appreciate learning how my choice of media as a photographer affects the model. I took a private tutorial from Kim Weston (Edward's grandson)in 2004. He mainly shoots large and medium format film. A few weeks prior he held a workshop with 5 photographers, including one using a new digital camera. The digital photographer shot over 2000 images. The other participants shot a few dozen. After looking at the near motion picture-like images of the digi photographer, Weston mumbled, "Why don't you just shoot a damn movie?"
Sometimes the spray and pray aspect of digital is hard for large format photographers to appreciate. On the other had, spending minutes or hours to create a few, or even just one, negative feels like a waste of time to digital photographers.
Great post.
Thanks Karl, I appreciate this comment. Last thursday I did a shoot with a photographer who only uses film. We revisited a location which is very special to me because that is where I did my first outdoor nude shoot. Unlike the first shoot for which the photographer used a digital camera - though he later started using film again, which is his first love, and he is truly good with it - this other photographer used film, switching from large format to medium format. I loved every minute of it and as soon as I get the scans I will be posting about it. What you say resonates with me.
ReplyDelete