Cover Image: © Nora Lowinsky (Film Photographer)

The Film Revolution

Shhh. There’s a film revolution going on, and surprisingly, only the most avant-garde are the proponents. Like Purple Magazine’s editor-in-chief Olivier Zahm. A perceived psychopath anyway. In the most genius sense. But many of the people who’ve been down this road before are heading back. But they are not the shockers. It’s the new wave of first timers. The recent Calvin Klein “My Calvins” campaign, with actress Klara Kristin, was all film, shot by the fairly young Harley Weir, an often film proponent.

A Film Revolution – But Why?

Why? As anyone will tell you, digital photography is sharper and cleaner. And 85% of all photography is done with a smartphone anyway. But film provides… emotion. Less information,…but tangible emotion lacking in the most professional digital camera available. Pixel peepers will tell you this is “hogwash”. If you deal with algorithms and numbers all day, they are actually right. But how does one quantify emotion? And why are all these digital era youngsters opting to go the film route? Olivier Zahm says he’s encouraging his photographers to go off the farm. His take? Digital equals cold information. Film equals emotional information. If I’m going to be honest with you,…I don’t get it either. Maybe because pixels are square and exact,…film is round and organic/imprecise? And maybe our eyes can see more than we give them credit for? I’m not technical enough to debate anyone. And it doesn’t matter anyway.

In a recent interview with Jaime Perlman, the creative director of British Vogue, she noted the film revolution, “I think the move away from digital photography is part of a backlash to what’s been going on in our culture, which is now so digitally savvy.” They’ve actually started almost promoting film photography for some time now. The May 2016 spread, “Moonage Daydream,” by Colin Dodgson, was all film. And because they feel there’s a refreshing purity to film, they’re actually expanding their commitment to film.

True Grit

Just aesthetics alone cannot explain away this shift. The sleekness and “Mr. Clean” look of digital is partly responsible. It’s Gucci and Vetements retro inspired campaigns that have pushed this new appreciation for an emotional rawness that’s self evident, and cannot be reproduced using zeros and ones, no matter how hard you try. The rich tones, deep detailed blacks and organic characteristics of film.

That said, you have to be assertive and confident in your vision. Art directors resent losing control. When images are no longer the creative output of the photographer, the photographer literally becomes a “technician”. The Creative director/art director becomes the true image originator, subverting the formerly organic chain of command, and assigning themselves grandiose titles of undeserved importance. (clipping the wings of the actual photographer) But, that may actually make more sense in a consensus environment/assignment. Everybody is assigned equal importance in molding the final output. AD, Makeup, Stylist, Client. This could be a good thing, (the photographer is cleared of all responsibility), or bad thing. (that was never his/her vision) So, digital definitely has an important role to play. At both extremes. (a predetermined client based vision,…and pictures of your cat) Now,…back to the ‘crazies’ shooting film.

The humanness of shooting in a film has, most importantly, excited consumers who have nothing to do with the industry, but are keenly aware of what is brutally heartfelt and real,…and what is not. And the feel of a fine, solid piece of equipment in your hands. Like a $20,000 Patek Phillipe. Of course an Apple watch makes more “logical” sense. However, it’s just not the same. I don’t know why I lack any visceral connection to digital cameras. Yet, I will almost ‘fondle’ a Nikon F3. (I said “almost”,..let’s not make this weird) But I do realize it’s 10x easier shooting with digital. In fact, if you’re really wanting to be forward thinking, just shoot everything with your iPhone. No need to buy a Canon xD/Nikon Dx. (and, yes, I shoot my children with an iPhone) No need to get crazy if you’re just uploading to Facebook. (95% of the 350M FB daily uploads are shot on a smart phone) So, this is not an anti-digital post. Just pro film post.

Flawed Reasoning?

Edgar England is a manager at West End Cameras in London. They are the analog “go to” place in London. Crazy idea to operate such a retro store? Yeah, crazy like a fox. Between film developing and film sales, he and his staff have their hands full, selling out pallets of film in just a few days. Even the darkroom equipment and supplies are doing well. He saw a niche market emerging in 2005-2006 and took a chance that has paid off.

So really,…what’s the deal? Well, everyone shooting film has their own reasons. And despite all the digital mavens with pen and paper in hand, they will not be deterred. Reasons? Large Format, mixing chemicals, gritty imperfection, making subjects feel at ease when they know it’s a film camera, color palettes not easily achievable in digital, detailed organic shadows, a feeling of accomplishment, addicted to the soft red light and quiet contemplation of the darkroom, etc. Does it really matter?

The old are excited to take pictures like they use to,…mailers and all. And the young are burnouts from an era of instantaneous selfies and are looking to slow it down and experience a touchable form of visuals, and acheive a level of depth over intellect.

Kodak still makes film, and Ilford appears to have figured out a way to remain monetized and financially sound. Additionally, Ferrania in Italy appears to be enjoying a sound resurgence. Adox and Agfa-Gevaert are vibrant and growing, and even Cinestill is making film from rolls of Kodak’s motion picture film. Still in use by directors like Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan.

Some of the most important work and photographers are now film. The fear of it becoming extinct has long passed. Haven’t you heard? There’s a film revolution! So whether you want to keep it on the cheap with a Pentax MX, or gonna go all out with a Mamiya 7 or Hasselblad 500 C/M, (or even a classic Rollei TLR), or even just stick with your Nikon D800,….it’s all good. Just keep making images. (yes, Peter Lindbergh was digital in his final years, using a Nikon D5,….but didn’t allow any client or magazine to retouch any of his images) All that said, it’s hard to dismiss the delicate beauty of a B+W fiber print, despite what the “numbers” say. Or as the Master printer at Magnum, Pablo Inirio, said, “Digital prints have their own kind of look, and it’s fine, but the Photo Print (fiber) has such richness and depth. [Which is why] collectors and galleries still want prints on fiber paper—they just like the way it looks.”

So despite what that yelling ‘stocky’ guy on YouTube says, (why is he yelling?),……Film is Not Dead! At least,…not for everyone. 😉