35mm Film Photography Journal
Editors Note:
This publication came about as a result of an assignment at Waikato Institute of Technology (WINTEC) allocated to us this semester. When allowed the option to pick our own subject matter, 35mm film photography jumped straight to mind. As a passionate film photographer myself, it was an incredible experience talking to other like minded individuals that shared a love of analogue photography. Film photography won my heart a couple of years back after studying Fine Arts at Massey University in Wellington. I made use of an opportunity to take a photography paper— specialising in technical darkroom skills. We were taught the entire process. We hand loaded our film into the development containers. We used a timing chart and analogue clock to measure processing times. Felt the satisfaction of pulling out a freshly washed roll of film that now had perfectly contrasted images presented on its surface. Once dry, it was into the darkroom spending hours on hours under that hauntingly beautiful red light— trialling lighting times, burning and dodging areas, getting that perfect balance of light and dark. Then that magical moment, dropping your final image in that first tray of fluid and watching the black blossom across the paper. We tried our hand at cyanotypes. We even made our own pinhole cameras from cardboard boxes and masking tape. It’s one of the best papers I’ve taken in my entire time in tertiary education. To me, film is character. It’s got a heart and a soul that often is very hard to find in digital images. Saying that, I will neither deny, nor dishonour that there are some incredible digital images out there that sport both unbelievable heart, and soul. The comparable factor perhaps, is the constant exposure we have to digital images in modern society. Anyone can take a digital photo. Those shooting in film more often have a passion that’s driving them, directing their choices, framing their shot. I think that quality is readable in an image, and think that’s what makes film truly unbeatable.
02
|
May 2017
Lightbox.
|
Issue One
Contents 08-15
Interview with Lance Evevoldsen
16-19
Why 35mm Won’t Die
20-27
Interview with Stefanie Young
30-37
Artist Spotlight: Laura Wilson
38-43
Artist Spotlight: Finn Cladridge
44-49
Artist Spotlight: Nigel Humffreys
52-53
#filmisnotdead
| 03
04
|
May 2017
Lightbox.
|
Issue One
CREDITS AND CONTRIBUTORS Edited: Lara Brock Editing overseen by: Luke McConnell and Jordan Foster of Waikato Institute of Technology Photos/opinions provided by: Laura Wilson Finn Cladridge Nigel Humffreys Interviews courtesy of: Lance Enevoldsen of Imageland Ltd Stef Young of Waikato Institute of Technology Publication consultation from: Grace Archer of Starving Artist Publications
Photo: Laura Wilson
| 05
06
|
May 2017
| 07
Lance Enevoldsen Located in the heart of the Frankton, photography and framing business Imageland is one of the few services left that still provides development and scanning assistance for those who continue to dabble in analogue photography. At the head of the business is Lance Enevoldsen— a long time photography enthusiast and highly insightful film advocate. He shares a few of his thoughts on the life span of 35mm film:
08
|
May 2017
Lightbox.
|
Issue One
| 09
How long have you worked in the photography and print business? What are we now? 2017…that makes it 23 years.
What drew you into photography in the first place? At the time, I was working in technology. My father was into photography. We saw that photography was heading towards digital in the mid 90’s and thought—right, let’s get in there and be a part of it.
So obviously, you’ve been focusing on digital, but you’ve still kept a fundamental passion for film? Yeah, the true passionate users of photography still use film, and that passion is what really inspires [you], or wants to keep you in business. That’s the rewarding part—seeing people try something that they don’t see instant results and they have to do a lot of thinking.
I learnt years ago that I shouldn’t take a photo [laughs]
Why is that? I was completely demoralised by seeing the work of good photographers so I though right, I’ll focus on the printing of it.
In terms of what you see, how do you feel film differs from digital photography? The results that we see from film, there’s a bit of a mixture. We see a lot of wedding cameras coming through, just general users, and we see a lot of disappointment there because people don’t realise that there’s a lot of cheap product on the market that actually isn’t that good. [For instance] transporting film, when we buy film we need to know that it’s being transported properly, that it’s not been hot. We see a lot of disappointment because of that.
Where did you study that?
The single biggest difference is there’s more thought in a film photo and you’ll find, or what we see, is there is better technical composition and there’s more emotional connection with photos taken on film purely because more time is put in to taking the shot. I think that comes down to if you’ve got a 16 gig SD card in your camera you can take 200 photos not a problem. When you’ve got a roll of film, 36 shots, and 3 kids running in different directions you plan your shots a bit more. You can keep that candid feel to them but there’s a lot of thinking behind it. What we see more with digital shots is people will take 10 photos from the same place, whereas with film shots we’ll see 2 photos from different positions getting different viewpoints, different connections.
That was just at Ngaruawahia High School. High school darkrooms were not all that common and I doubt that there’s any left now. When we started [Imageland] we had a darkroom the size of the showroom.
Do you feel that people are more inclined to shoot film nowadays because there’s still good access to film development services rather than having to develop it all themselves?
Do you practice your own film photography? Or do you just work with it with the business?
A lot of people feel that film development services are restrictive. When we first started in the CBD there was 13 other labs that processed film and
So how did you find yourself in the world of film photography then? Even before digital came along? Oh, I studied photography at school. It was actually a class I wasn’t intending on taking but it was the only art type class that I could do. My parents said that I had to do something arty because I was doing lots of math and science so I had to do something else. And that was photography because that’s where the schedule fit.
10
|
May 2017
Lightbox.
|
Issue One
| 11
12
|
May 2017
Lightbox.
now there’s none in that area. In Hamilton now I think there’s two of us running film processing so it’s reduced the availability somewhat even though we’re in a good fairly easy to get to spot.
Would you say that’s because anyone that has continued shooting with film is very interested in doing the darkroom stuff on their own? I think there’s a real passion to keep the film going for those that are doing it. What we’ve seen over the last 5 years is people who have been using digital, they’ve been disappointed in the results and have gone back to film. We have absolutely seen people accessing from that convenience point as well because they can drop the film in, and come back and pick up their prints and do something with them, rather than calling their kids to come over and help load them onto the computer where they’ll never find them again. There are definitely people returning to film. We’ve seen photographers over the last 2 or 3 years really returning to using film for different things.
Do you have any tips for people who are shooting in film who want to print their film photos at a larger format if they’re either getting their film scanned professionally or they’re doing it themselves? There’s a massive difference in scanning types. You get very different results from different types of scanners. The regular flat bed scanner is not going to do anywhere near as good as a led projection scanner or an area scanner. Even a linear scanner is going to get a better result for doing true negative scans than a flat-bed with a transparency unit. What we typically see with people who scan at home, is thin or semi translucent scans. But it depends on the intent and what kind of paper you are planning to print on. If you’re going for a really retro sort of look, you’re wanting to mimic fibre based papers and you’re printing onto an art paper sometimes a thinner scan is going to render a better result than a really good scan. It just gives it that muted sort of tone. There’s a purpose for everything, but typically using a pro scanner is going to make a big difference.
|
Issue One
Do you have any products that you have more of an affinity to or would recommend to others? No brands in particular. We carry Fujifilm and Kodak which are the two most disputed brands. There are pros and cons of using the Fuji brand for some types of work and it depends entirely on what you’re after. There is a different look. Its not better or worse, its just different. There’s less crazy brand loyalty nowadays than there was. It also depends on the era. In film cameras you had 5 major brand Minolta, Canon, Pentax, Olympus and Nikon an through different eras each one had their rise and fall in popularity. At the moment you’ve got Canon and Nikon battling it out, but in other parts of the world people hardly know what they are. Its somewhat trends, somewhat personal preference and understanding the logic. We used to sell cameras and what we’d look at was the logic of the menu system and whether that fit the person rather than the brand because they had a different way of doing the same thing. Sometimes one way made more sense
What services do you provide at Imageland for anyone shooting or wanting to start shooting film? Well its very straight forward. We [develop] it, we scan it, and we print it. That’s as simple as it gets. I wish I could say that I still had an optical printer. I believe I was the last one in New Zealand running an optical film lab. I could be incorrect—there might be somebody out there that’s still doing it, but unfortunately we couldn’t keep the parts going for it.
What kind of scans do you provide? Can people get scans of their images but not prints so that they can alter the photos in post-production themselves? Yeah absolutely. Depending on what they’re after we’ll scan it in a number of different ways so medium format film vs 35mm—different machines are involved. Were looking to land another scanner right now actually, dedicated to film. I think that brings us up to 11 active scanners. It’s a case of
| 13
14
|
May 2017
Lightbox.
|
Issue One
choosing the right machine for the right job for the desired output because if you get the wrong combination then it won’t work.
Is there anything about film that you’d like to make comment on to finish off? The cool thing is that we’ve got people returning to film and seeing that its not completely gone. 2 years ago we were thinking about decommissioning our C41 processor. You need to be running a reasonable amount of film through to make it viable. The jolly thing chews up more power than the average house in a month. Since we closed our Vic street store and moved everything to here we’ve seen a reasonably large influx of customers coming through with film so we’ve been able to keep that going.
Imageland is located at 55 Lake Road, Frankton, Hamilton and is open for business Mon–Fri: 8.30am–5.30pm and Sat: 9.00am–4.00pm. Contact via the automated email service on their website: http://imageland.co.nz/ or Phone: 07 848 2060
| 15
Defying the Odds 35mm photography. It’s an art form that in this day and age, most people assumed they would be referring to as inherently prehistoric. The digital era came smashing into focus with its flashy new image sensors and endless editing capacities, promising faster turnover and cheaper running costs. As if our fast paced, money driven society was going to turn their back on that efficiency goldmine.
16
|
May 2017
Lightbox.
|
Issue One
| 17
As witnessed with many modern conveniences we assumed would last ‘forever’ (remember fax machines? Typewriters? Pagers?)—society as a whole jumped on board the digital band wagon and prepared their eulogies for the photographic medium of film. The passionate few left clinging to their beloved film rolls and single-lens reflex’s were written off as fanatics, unable to keep up with the modern era. Yet somehow, even though film photography has relinquished it’s front row seat to its younger, digital brother, it still manages to maintain demand. The widely accepted theory to back up it’s unpredictable, stubborn presence has been pinpointed at a few unique characteristics that digital still has yet to replicate. Personally, I feel you can’t underestimate the power hipsters have to make even the most obscene technologies popular again. An opinion that may mean I must class myself (unwillingly) among their ranks. Like many before me, I began my photographic journey along the digital pathway and was quickly and wholeheartedly seduced into the world of analogue photography. However, for my passionate love affair with film, I’m willing to take that reputational blow. What is it about film that makes it so unforgettable? I’m glad you asked (because it’s something I never get sick of discussing). The freaking colour. Its unbeatable. There is absolutely no digital sensor that can capture the same light spectrum as your classic silver halide gelatin emulsion coated film rolls. Even if you’re an old school black and white enthusiast, the blacks are deeper and the contrast is stronger and unlike digital, there is little, if any, need for post production tampering. The retention of highlights and shadows is refreshingly honest and immensely satisfying. Alongside that, you have the unsurpassable texture and softness that only comes from film being physically exposed to light. You can add grain and soft-focus filters all you like in post-prod, but any slightly trained eye can pick up the inauthenticity from a mile away. Plus why put in the extra effort when you can just shoot on film in the first place? For any enthusiast that loves a bit of hands on work, an obvious and incredibly satisfying component to film photography is the physicality of production. Anyone who has been blessed at some point of their life to have had access to a darkroom will vouch for the fact that there is no better feeling
18
|
May 2017
than standing in that glowing red light and watching your photo blossom out of the white plains of paper in that very first developing tray. It’s quite literally magic. Even if you’ve never stepped foot in a darkroom, the limitation of capturing photos on a finite resource such as film make you far more diligent about what you capture. Every frame costs you money. Which means you’re far more likely to spend more time and energy better connecting with your subject and the basic technical components that will make a quality image. You stop fluffing around with all the extra equipment, settings, and add-ons, and actually capture an image that is super authentic. An image that you’ve put more of yourself into. To personalise you photographic style even more, there is a far wider range of analogue cameras on the market for prices more affordable than digital cameras. Sure, this is a direct result of the digital overhaul casting film cameras into the realms of hobbyist items and collectables. Nevertheless, it means that you can get your hands on four to five decent working camera models for the price of one of their digital counterparts (bonus: you may even manage to snake a couple of your parents/grandparents/aunts/ uncles/second cousin twice removed’s cameras that have been collecting dust for the last 10 years). No photographer can deny the pleasure of trying out different models and finding which one feels more like an extension of you eye, rather than a piece of metal sitting in your palm. Last, but definitely not least there’s the unpredictability of film. This ones never going to win over those prissy, highly strung photographers that love to control every tiny little detail of their photos (I actually do have friends like this and I do love them dearly, I swear). This is for those photographers that loves a bit of artistic spontaneity. From light leaks to blurring to development errors to film scratches to the nature of human memory- you never know one hundred percent what result is coming to come out at the end. And that, for me, is so exciting. Going through test prints, or scanned images from film that you took three months ago but have only just remembered to develop- finding hidden gems, photos that you don’t remember taking but capture the moment so perfectly you instantly get transported back. That’s the real magic. Eternalizing moment of time. Isn’t that why we were all lured into photography in the first place?
Lightbox.
|
Issue One
| 19
Stef Young In a digital age, analogue practices still have a place, and provide a technical and artistic skills that are difficult to replace. Working as fine artist, photographer, and educator, Stefanie Young still champions for analogue photography and darkroom practices being available and taught to students.
20
|
May 2017
Lightbox.
|
Issue One
| 21
What initially drew you into the world of film photography? That’s quite interesting because I studied for medicine when I came out of school and had done the sciences throughout high school—no art whatsoever. So when I came back from London I trained as a journalist, and then got a job at Adis Press as a medical publication editor. Even though I was an editor, I loved the art department and spent a lot of time talking with the guys when it came to that part of the printing process. One of the doctors I worked with was an obsessive photo hobbyist and asked if I wanted to go and have a shoot with him. Because I didn’t know how ‘to shoot’, he brought a camera along and helped me and showed me to shoot, print and develop my films - I just absolutely loved it. So, to my parents horror, I put in a portfolio to Auckland Institute of Technology (AIT) and got accepted—went back to student study bursary, and never looked back really.
So very big shift in career… Yeah, I know. School was very different than and if you had half a brain you were expected to do the sciences, math, Latin…there was certainly no photography or interesting art choices during school. The closest I got to art would have been when I got to make an ashtray in a pottery elective!
What do you feel makes film stand out from digital? For me, there is still a difference between digital and film—and I refer to digital as images, and film as photographs. And you can see this difference when you are trying to create a ‘digital black’ for post production work. Often I will have shot as analogue and then get it digitally processed for scale to exhibit—and trying to replicate a film’s shadow and black value digitally is the most challenging part of the process. It will often take up a cast, whereas when you are printing in darkroom from film, you can print for your shadow and highlight details with whatever has been exposed on the film. One of the big things I see with regards using film compared with digital is that is makes you ‘see’. You can’t just post-prod the image later. You have to use light and your senses to frame what is there,
22
|
May 2017
at the time. This training gives you an instinct about light and space and form because you can’t rely on a computer ‘fix up’ after the shoot.
It’s a very valid point though. Yes, we usually have really robust discussions on this particular issue when it comes up in my theory paper, because students are used to the availability of digital cameras, phones and all manner of post production apps and Photoshop.
Yeah, I can imagine people would be very polarized Yes, but I don’t mean it as a hierarchy. I think they’re just really different processes. In digital shooting, seldom can you just get an image that you don’t actually have to work through in post-production. Using a computer and altering and ‘massaging’ the image is part and parcel of digital photography. In a way, it’s exactly the same in analogue with darkroom techniques to print and process in a particular way, but it still seems very much attached to the actual process of photography. For me, computer post-production techniques and processes are a separate specialised skill-set, and often seem quite removed from the photographing.
Still within that as well, what place do you feel that film and analogue processes hold in an age that is centred around digital? Well that’s an ongoing debate. Phone cameras and social media have revolutionised the availability of the image both to take and to see. I mean if I see one more selfie of a student when they go out, I’ll scream! But seriously, digital is a part of our way of being now—nothing will change that and technologies are developing so rapidly, it will continue to be bigger, better, faster…well with technologies it is probably going to be smaller, better, faster. The craft of analogue though is still important—and although in a commercial environment, the speed and efficiency of digital is incomparable, film will always have its place because of the particular qualities it has. There will always be the ‘cult’ following just as there is with the making of movies—those films shot on film and then cut and edited compared with todays high res digital.
Lightbox.
|
Issue One
| 23
24
|
May 2017
Lightbox.
They view differently – and sometimes you just want to be immersed in the unique beauty and craft of film. There’s nothing that can quite replicate that. Most of the major art and design schools in New York, England, and Australia still have analogue practice in curriculum because I think it’s a specific skill, an important way of seeing. I see it with my students. We used to have analogue as part of first year which has shifted into digital. But when it became just digital there was a dramatic shift in the quality of image being produced—without the training in film and darkroom processes it seemed that the instinct and ability to ‘see photographically’ had been compromised. There was more reliance on the post production values than the composition and exposure values to get the photo that you want ‘in camera’. It is something I am quite adamant about with my students—get it in camera, and make the analogy of ‘don’t think putting some tomato sauce on it later will somehow make it a good meal!’ So I think it’s a totally different way of seeing. Almost like a spiritual training of all of those senses that have to be in alignment when you’re shooting on analogue. It is a craft, and I know I can also get really complacent with digital because if I miss the shot, I can either dump it or fix it up later.
[laughs] Oh, and I was reading before as [about how] every photo cost because you’re paying for the film obviously which means that every time you click the trigger its costing you something? The availability of stock is more of a concern now but still have fantastic places like B & H in New York that will ship whatever you want at a good price. You can really notice it when you get into medium and large format film where every click is $10 or more…certainly makes you consider what it is you are framing up, and you don’t have the luxury of just photographing anything in sight as sometimes you can digitally.
Have you seen or noticed any trends in the popularity of film over the last kind of few years, last 10 years? Definitely. I think it’s more than just a hobby for people. There is the actual fascination and belief
|
Issue One
in its unique qualities and processes. Often with creatives, they will have a hybrid practice using both digital and analogue for specific purposes. For any ‘job’ or commercial output, the efficiency of digital is beyond comparison, but when you are wanting to produce exhibition work, or document with an attention to archiving, the qualities of analogue have their place. Most people who use film also have a love of the darkroom—there is a kind of magic in a darkroom and it can become addictive. It is time consuming and detailed work, so unless you love it, you would choose the availability, ease and speed of digital. Even if it gets a ‘boutique’ status, I don’t think film is ever going to go out of fashion.
You’ve already covered it a little bit, but how does film photography and analogue processes influence your own art practice? Mm, that’s what I was saying, I go between and have a hybrid practice. When I’m needing to turn things around fast, there’s a convenience with using digital of course. I’m actually more likely to use my phone and post prod apps for images and instagram than a digital camera unless I have a specific shoot or I’m shooting for a client. My analogue work has its place in my artwork—my personal outputs for self or exhibition. For exhibition work as I mentioned earlier, I will often shoot in film and then process digitally so that I can achieve the scale of work I want, but without the laborious manual processes that I used to do for large scale hand-processed work.
Do you find having a working darkroom at WINTEC encourages more students to give film a go? Oh yeah, definitely—they love it. I mean seriously, there’s almost like mutiny when it doesn’t get run. This is my 12th year and there is always the discussion about whether to keep the darkroom going. It’s been altered and made smaller and larger, but, you know, the darkroom paper has always been hugely popular. I think if anyone’s creative, they want to express themselves—fullstop. And there is always a fascination with the processes of film photography and learning the science of developing your own film and printing. Most students love a ‘hands-on’ process where they can go from loading
| 25
26
|
May 2017
Lightbox.
the film, shooting it, processing film, to printing, to fine printing—ownership of the entire process. It’s an incredibly intimate process that you just sort of immerse in. There’s nothing like just being by yourself in a darkroom, music going, the red lights on—its like another space. I haven’t had anyone over the years who’s like ‘Woah! This is not for me.’ Even if it’s been a real struggle and they’re maybe not so natural with it, I think people like getting their ‘hands dirty’, and actually being responsible for their work. They’re the author of that work from start to finish. It doesn’t have the reliance on the intermedia of the computer and your post production abilities. Whatever they’ve got—it’s theirs.
What do you find then is the biggest issue that you are facing with people trying to take the darkroom away if there is such a huge interest? Digital is more economical and available for high schools to provide for students. For tertiary institutions, the emphasis is on industry relevance and impact so digital practices have a priority stake in both currency and application for industry outputs. However, if it is the ‘creative currency’ we are highlighting—the ability for a student to apply their ‘x-factor’ to polish off the technical skills, then having access to analogue practices such as darkroom and film, are important. They teach a range of skills that are outside of the usual technical, operator basket. That’s why you’ll still see darkrooms in art schools like Parsons and NCU, Victoria and Melbourne etc, because it’s about the creative and the idea, and maybe not quite so aligned or directed towards industry. It’s actually more about creativity. But I think there’s a place within any tertiary institution to provide a range of practices that hone the creative skills and instincts—at the end of the day, you’re dealing with artists. You’re dealing with creatives. You’re dealing with people who have a curiosity
|
Issue One
and need to express themselves. The bottom line for me with any creative, is the need to problem solve, to think creatively, and to be able to use the most appropriate medium to express this.
From your personal preference what are your favourite brands of camera and film to use…if you have one? I do. I’m a Canon fan for digital. For me that’s just because of its ease of use and I have to have a camera that feels ok in my hands—being tall, I want something substantial but not cumbersome… Canon’s my preference with that. I like all sorts of analogue cameras. I’ve mainly used Pentax and Canon for the 35mm film, but I really love Mamiya medium format. I’ve never been able to afford to invest in one, but the Hasselblads are amazing. I like playing with the Dianas and the Holgas and LOMO cameras that give you all sorts of loveliness! It’s always fun.
And obviously you prefer developing your film yourself, But do you ever get it done independently as well? Yeah, but I prefer to develop my own film because I know what conditions I’ve been in, so I can adjust it a little in my developing. But I definitely have when I’ve run out of time on deadline. When I’ve been racing. When we used to have Labtec (now PCL), I’d have shot a whole lot of film for some project… six, seven, eight rolls—that’s probably looking at about 12 hours in darkroom. If I didn’t have that time available, I would send those off and they’d do these really beautiful vertical photo test print runs which were amazing. Processing and machine test prints were definitely the benefits of having it done externally, but then you didn’t have the pleasure of taking your work through to the end.
| 27
28
|
May 2017
Lightbox.
|
Issue One
| 29
30
|
May 2017
Lightbox.
|
Issue One
Laura Wilson Amid a world of academia and essays while studying Anthropology, International Relations, and Political Sciences, Laura Wilson already sports an inherent love for people and places. A documenter by nature, its a hard task keeping a camera out of her hands at all times. Its only natural that her acute curiosity would lead her into the world of analogue photography little less than a year ago. She has a few words to sum up exactly what #35mm film means to her:
| 31
“I love the tactility of film. That probably sounds intentionally counter-cultural now, and it’s true that there has been a huge resurgence of the medium. My mother would call it “trendy.” But I think in all honesty, I am a millennial by age, not by era. I have never been ‘up with the latest technology’, nor does it particularly excited me. I am certainly a bit of an old soul at heart when it comes to film photography, and have been captured by its magic for as long as I can remember. I have always lusted over old Polaroid photos and cameras, for example, and after hunting on Trade Me in my early teens to discover almost every model made listed, I was disappointed to find that Polaroid had stopped producing film. Throughout my childhood, my mother documented the early years of my siblings and I on a beautiful Minolta camera. As a result, we all have beautiful albums of our childhoods, all in film until I was about ten. Our albums are gorgeous; I honestly don’t think digital photos now can compare. I now shoot with that same camera, sadly Mum now uses her phone, in a new and convenient world of smartphone photography. There is something about the quality and aesthetic of film photography that can’t be replicated, or reproduced by that of digital. Ironically, now we put filters on our digital photos to try to emulate the effect of film, whether that be on Instagram or through VSCO, or Lightroom, with pre-sets. I still own a digital Nikon DSLR, a trusty D7000 model, but the quality frustrates me now I compare it to that of full-frame models, with better
32
|
May 2017
(more expensive lenses). But my, (or mum’s!) old Minolta never fails me. The way it captures light, the colours it captures (though this depends on the film I choose to use, and where I get it developed) and the general aesthetic is something I could never emulate straight out of my digital Nikon. I don’t think I am the only one who sees this magic, judging by film’s popularity, even now with a million digital options available in photography. I think with film, there is so much more value and sentimentality with every frame. Some would argue that this is simply due to the obvious economic investment—the fact that one must purchase not only the film initially, but also pay for it to get developed after. My film ends up costing me about a dollar per shot. Compared to digital, where one is essentially free to snap away to their hearts content, costing nothing, other than printing should they decided to print anything, film is an extremely expensive hobby. But I think it’s the investment in each frame that makes you value every shot you take with so much more care and attention and precision when shooting analogue! With only 24 or 36 frames, you have to be deliberate, and selective with what you isolate to photograph, and also through how you frame it. I used to, and still could, snap away thousands of photos on my digital camera, to tediously filter through later until I had my best shots, but with film photography, you do that process whilst photographing. For someone like me, who isn’t a huge fan of computers and editing anything, it’s a perfect medium.”
Lightbox.
|
Issue One
| 33
34
|
May 2017
Lightbox.
|
Issue One
| 35
36
|
May 2017
Lightbox.
|
Issue One
| 37
Finn Cladrige King of the rural beach scene, Finn Cladrige’s photos are undeniable representations of the clichÊ New Zealand coastal town. His photos act as a portal back into collective Kiwi memory. They hold no placemarks or distinctive features, yet they feel familiar, and (subject to your summer memories) warmly comforting.
38
|
May 2017
Lightbox.
|
Issue One
| 39
40
|
May 2017
Lightbox.
|
Issue One
“Why film over digital photography? It’s something I can’t fully express with words. A feeling, it’s like I have my own emotional attachment with each photo. There’s a raw excitement that comes with the process, the longing for the photos to develop into individual art pieces. There is a certain carelessness that comes with digital photography. No repercussions for any mediocre photos as you can just take another 5 until you get the perfect one whereas film you have to always aim for the perfect photo first time. Photography makes me happy but film photography gets me excited.”
| 41
42
|
May 2017
Lightbox.
|
Issue One
| 43
Nigel Humffreys Working as a sales rep, Nigel Humffreys sold his DSLR mid way through last year after he found he had a million photos that he never looked at. His photos boast a rich, warm colour palate that so many can only poorly impose onto their digital photos- courtesy of the Olympus MJU II and Kodak Gold 200 ISO that they were shot on. To sum up the sudden change from digital, he says:
44
|
May 2017
Lightbox.
|
Issue One
| 45
46
|
May 2017
Lightbox.
|
Issue One
“I love film photography for a bunch of reasons. The anticipation of waiting for the return of developed photos. That nostalgic look that reminds me photos of my youth. The way it makes me take more care and put more thought into the shots I take. I was using [my] DSLR a lot less. I found a few old film camera to try out. I now use a Canon g7x mk2 as my digital and have half a dozen op shop film cameras.�
| 47
48
|
May 2017
Lightbox.
|
Issue One
| 49
50
|
May 2017
Lightbox.
|
Issue One
| 51
#filmisnot dead Nothing is more heart warming to a 35mm enthusiast than finding other people that share the same love and passion for analogue photography. Mix that passion with the biggest photo sharing social media platform and you don’t have to search far to find a collection of individuals all posting and sharing photos taken with their beloved film camera and promoting their conviction that #filmisnotdead. Boasting just over 4.5 million posts, the Instagram hashtag “#filmisnotdead” continues to prove that the apparently ‘antique’ art form still has a pretty decent amount of followers in its ranks that are still stubbornly fighting for its validation. In comparison, the hashtag “#filmphotography” only sports 4.6 million posts which reflects a passion that extends beyond just sharing pretty photos. People want to make a statement that their beloved art form has a space to stand among the big guns of digital photography. That it’s not going to disappear any time soon.
52
|
May 2017
Posts range from pro photographers showcasing some of their work, to amateur photographers who just picked up a camera cause they we’re curious, to camera buffs showing off their impressive collection of well-kept cameras. The quality is outstanding, the range—diverse. More over, as you find yourself scrolling endlessly through the feed of images, you grasp a sense of true character from this mass of unrelated images that I believe would be near impossible to achieve in a digital collection. Transfer your gaze to Twitter and you see the same trend prevail—people sharing their favourite photos and insights into their processes, sporting the tag “#filmisnotdead”. It’s almost ironic how the digital outlets have become such a huge platform for championing the analogue art form. Instead of disappearing under the crashing wave of the digital era, film has found a state of buoyancy. Utilising social media to share their passion, and their love for analogue guarantees that 35mm will be a very hard practice to sink.
Lightbox.
|
Issue One
| 53
DISCLAIMER All photographs of the featured artists have been provided with permission and guidance from the photographer. Photos provided in the article ‘Defying the Odds’ as well as the Interviews with Stefanie Young and Lance Enevoldsen, have been taken by the editor. Photos both on the Contents/Contributors spread as well as the Disclaimer Spread (current page) have been provided by featured artist Laura Wilson. Cover photos have been provided by the editor. Images attached to the article ‘#filmisnotdead’, images have been taken directly from Instagram. All interviews have been conducted in person by the editor, recorded, and then edited for length and clarity. All artist comments have been sent in with permission to print from each artist. All articles have been written by the editor.
54
|
May 2017
Lightbox.
|
Issue One
Photo: Laura Wilson
| 55