8x10

20,3 x 25,4cm 8 x10 in 50

Designed and edited by Leon Makari www.leonmakari.com

All rights reserved copyright Š Leon Makari 2012

All images unless stated at the end of this book belong to the Author

Printed and Bound in the UK Ripe Digital Limited www.ripedigital.co.uk

8 x10 in

CONTENTS

1 2 3 4 5 6

An Exploration of Thirty-Five Millimetre 3—16

My first real experience with 35mm film photography begins with a personal story of the difficulties encountered adapting to the medium.

An Exploration of Thirty-Five Millimetre part two 17—40

My second attempt of experimenting with 35mm film. The developing and darkroom processes with experimentation’s.

“The Medium is the Message” 41—56

An investigation of Marshall McLuhans theory, ‘The Medium is the Message’.

Exploring different cameras and comparing qualities.

The Rise and Fall of Analogue Photography 57—72

In depth analysis on the highs and lows of Eastman’s Kodak establishment over the years. Looking at where film sits in our society today and in years to come.

Photographers Favourite Camera’s 73—80

What camera’s do people own and why. Looking at photographers choice of cameras and their thoughts and views on analogue photography.

Facts and Figures 81—90

Cost differences between digital and analogue photography. Analysis of which medium is more cost efficient. The best places to go if you love film.

INTRODUCTION

The story begins when I was studying for my diploma at London College of Communication.

A small group of us learnt the basics of photography during an extension four week course.

We learnt all the basics that you would expect to learn on a short photography course such as; apertures, shutter speeds, loading film, developing film, dark room and so on. In fact, thinking about it now, we didn’t even touch a digital camera.

On our first day, our tutor Dave asked the class, ‘what is photography?’ My thought was a pause in time, which you can capture and look back at but never go back to. I wasn’t wrong but Dave had more of a creative answer, something that always stuck with me. Dave described photography as painting with light. I never took a photograph in the same way again. I thought about each shot before I snapped away. You wouldn’t spend days painting a picture for random, you would have specifically chosen something to paint; there’s a reason or a motive. I guess it works the same in Photography, well I think it does.

The first photograph we took on the course was with a camera in its simplest of forms. A pinhole camera consists of a single small aperture without a lens and in a lightproof box. There is a small hole in one side of the box where light passes through which then projects an inverted image to the other side of the box which is loaded with either film or fast photographic paper. In this case it was film, which we developed and printed.

2

1

An Exploration of Thirty-Five Millimetre

My first real experience with 35mm film photography begins with a personal story of the difficulties encountered adapting to the medium.

THE BRIGHT SUNNY DAY SOON TURNED OUT TO BE GLOMMY AND DARK

He struggled to load the camera so he took it into the back where he assured me that his collegue would help him.

Two or three minutes later he returned with my camera and said it was ready to go.

M

y new 35mm film SLR finally arrived in the post. I got out early to make the most of the sun and headed to the specialist photography shop in town where I picked myself up some 35mm black and white film. The man behind the desk was extremely helpful. He advised me to buy the Ilford Delta 400 35mm professional film for my Pentax SLR. I took his advice and bought the film for a fairly expensive price of £8.50 but if it was any consolation, I got 10% student discount. I asked the man if he could load the film because I was still relatively unfamiliar with loading film into my new camera. The man seemed happy to help however he looked unsure of what he was doing. He struggled to load the camera so he took it into the back where he assured me that his colleague would help him. Two or three minutes later he returned with my camera and said it was ready to go. I thought that the employee was really helpful however he didn’t seem over enthusiastic with film photography or my camera.

I ever used a digital SLR. There was very minimal amount of buttons on this film camera, all you really need to do is adjust the aperture and shutter speed dials depending on the light. I was starting to realise how beautiful film photography is. I was really excited to see my photographs and couldn’t wait to get into the darkroom. I was really enjoying the day. I had gone out on days taking photographs before but usually with a DSLR. However, I felt more comfortable with this particular camera compared to others I had previously used. I wasn’t taking a photograph then looking at a 3 inch LCD screen and deciding if I should have another crack or scrap the picture all together. I carefully chose what I was taking, composed the shot to the best of my ability, adjusted the aperture and cranked the button. I was paying for each time I took a shot so there was that precious feel to every frame. This is surely what photography it all about.

The sun was beginning to set when I decided to head back home. I had spent the whole day taking photographs in what I thought was an I was in very high spirits when I left the shop extremely successful session. This day would and was excited to take 36 photographs help me write this book and really get across with my new camera. I walked around hilly emotion of how beautiful film photography Bristol for most of my day, really trying to is. It was a true exploration of 35mm in challenge myself and take visually interesting its greatest form. How is it possible that photographs with everything I had learnt photography labs have been forced to close so far. I felt extremely confident with my down? How can we let such an incredible ability and far more in control of the pictures process become extinct in the ever-growing I was taking compared to how I felt when world of digitalization?

6

That evening I planned for the next day which I was going to spend in the darkroom developing and printing the film. I clicked the release button underneath the camera and began turning the rewind crank to wind the film back, making it safe to open the back of the camera to take the film out. However, something did not feel right. I had used manual film cameras many times before and I knew that there was not enough pressure when I turned the rewind crank and there was certainly no click.

I kept turning it waiting for a click; however there was neither a click nor any pressure.

I popped open the back to find the Ilford film just sitting there. There wasn’t any film negative showing just the Ilford film. I knew I rewound the film correctly. I even looked for instructions online to double-check the routine on this particular model. I also knew something went wrong; the film couldn’t have been loaded correctly. I was dying to get into the darkroom and develop that film to find out whether the film was exposed or if the film wasn’t properly loaded to begin with.

The next day was going to be an interesting day. You will know how I got on by simply turning the page. If you see a bunch of photographs, you know everything went well.

However, if the page is blank, then you know it didn’t go according to plan. I wish myself luck, I also wish the camera shop luck too.

They may need it more than me.

FAIL

A WASTE OF TIME

Before I developed the film, I knew that the film was unexposed. Nevertheless I entered the darkroom but with false hopes that the film was exposed. I got all the equipment out that I needed while the light was on so that I was prepared for when the lights were switched off. I was using an Ilford HP5 plus 400 film so I found the developing time and matched that with the temperature of the developer to work out how long it had to sit in the solution for. Once I worked out the length of time, I set the timer so I knew when I had to take the film out of the developer and place it in the stop. Still with the lights on, I cut the tip of the film off and placed it within the groves of the reel so I was ready to go when the lights were off. A reel is used to separate the film and allow for even developing. After a few attempts, I thought I had put the film on the reel correctly so I placed it in the developer. Once the whole process of the developer, fix, stop and wash was over, I hung up my film to dry on the drying rack. I could see already that the film was not exposed because there were no images on the film at all.

I wasn’t surprised one bit when the film came out blank. Not only was the film loaded incorrectly but I also managed to fail to put the film into the reel properly too. The film was stuck together from wrapping the film roll too tightly around the reel. The whole experience from start to finish was a complete mess mainly due to a lack of experience and practice with the process. Many mistakes were made but it has not put me off at all. Bring on round two.

8

STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE TO developing black & white film

1. OPEN THE FILM CANISTER Begin with finding a light-safe spot and get the developing tank, reels, film, a bottle opener and a pair of scissors close to hand. Turn off all lights and use the can opener to pry the top off the film canister.

2. TAKE THE FILM OUT OF THE CANISTER Touching the emulsion side of the film will affect the chemicals in the developing process, so try to remove the film without making any contact with the film itself. Holding only the plastic knob that sticks out of the canister, pull the film out of the canister.

3. EVEN OFF THE END OF THE FILM Without touching the emulsion side of the film, use your thumb and forefinger to grip the film by the edges and feel toward the end of the film. Using your fingers as a guide, find your scissors and cut the ‘tongue’ off your film.

4. LOAD THE REEL Take a reel and feed the first piece of film onto it. It may resist at first but once it passes the ball bearing it seems to pop onto the track. Rotate one side of the reel about 1/8th of a turn and return it to it’s original position, as this action is repeated the film will wind around the track without any significant problems.

5. CUT OFF THE PLASTIC END OF THE REEL Toward the end of the reel, you will feel the plastic spindle that was used to pull the film out of the canister. Take the scissors and cut this plastic spindle free and continue to load the rest of your film. Once all your film is loaded onto reels, place the reels inside your light safe tank and close it up.

12

6. BEFORE THE DEVELOPING PROCESS The quarter turn and tilt agitations are an essential part of developing. The quarter turn inversions are used to make sure that all parts of the film get exposed to the chemicals. These inversions should take about 1 second and will be repeated several times in the process.

7. DEVELOPER Pour enough water to fill your tank and let your negatives soak for 1 minute. Pour out the water and pour in the Developer which should be at at 72째. Agitate with quarter turn and tilt agitations. Time varies on what film is used. Pour out and discard your developer.

8. STOP BATH Pour in 20oz of stop bath and agitate with 1/4 turn inversions for 30 seconds. Pour out and discard the stop.

9. FIXER Pour in 20oz of fixer. Complete 3 1/2 to 8 minutes of cycles that consist of 15 one second inversions, 3 taps and 45 second rests. Once this step is complete you can open your light safe tank. If your negatives appear purple and thick continue this process for another cycle.

10. ONE MINUTE WASH Refasten the lid to your tank and give your negatives a 60 second water wash. Once this process is completed, discard of the water.

13

11. HYPO Use enough HCA to cover your reels. Follow by 1 full minute of full agitation (1 second 1/4 turn inversions). Hypo can be recycled, but it is difficult to tell when the mixture is getting weak.

12. FIVE MINUTE RUNNING WATER WASH Give your negatives a 5 minute running water wash. Remove light safe lid and let water pour directly onto the reels.

13. PHOTO FLO Toward the end of the water wash apply 2 drops of Photo Flo. Rotating your negatives in this solution helps to distribute the Photo Flo.

14. DRYING AND HARDENING Remove the negatives from their reels and hang them in a clean dust free area. Do not touch the negatives with dry fingers, but wet your hands in Photo Flo solution and lightly run fingers along drying film to remove excess water.

15. ALL DONE. After at least two hours of drying, put your negatives into a archival sleeve to protect them. Cut after either every 5 frames or 6 frames depending on the negative preserver.

14

What hope has film got in surving when the professionals cant even load a 35mm camera?

16

2

An Exploration of Thirty-Five Millimetre part two

My second attempt of experimenting with 35mm film. The developing and darkroom processes with experimentation’s.

19

My second attempt of taking photographs went far more efficiently than the first. I loaded the film appropriately thanks to some helpful youtube tutorials and then went off to take some photographs around Bristol.

I finished the roll of film in that same day and went to have another go at developing myself. I practised putting the film into the film reel over and over again until I could do it quickly and effortlessly with the lights off. With all that practice, I was confident in the darkroom and felt like I had learnt from my mistakes first time round. The whole developing process went to plan and I knew when I hung up my film in the cabinet that the film was well exposed. The next day I returned to pick up my negatives and went straight into the darkroom to get printing.

20

TEST BEFORE PRINTING How to get perfect prints by using test strips properly Start by putting the negative in the enlarger, get it focused, get it sized, and stop the enlarger down to ƒ 8 or ƒ 11. You want an aperture that’s somewhere in the middle.

The size of your enlargements, and the general density of your negatives will determine exactly what aperture you start at. Smaller enlargements will usually take a smaller aperture, and denser negatives will usually require a larger aperture. Regardless, the first test will show you.

Cut the paper into quarters lengthwise of 2.5"x 8". The idea here is to use a piece of paper big enough to tell you something. Little strips torn off a corner don’t even make good bookmarks. Place the strip on the printing easel, emulsion side up, in an important area that hopefully has both dark shadows and highlight areas. If there doesn’t seem to be a good area with both, choose an important shadow. Tape the strip down, with a small

piece of masking tape. This will, hopefully, keep you from moving the strip while you are doing the test.

Then, set your timer for 2 seconds, as this will allow room for adjustment if needed. Cover about 4/5 of the paper with opaque board.

You need to completely mask the light. Also, orient the board so that the dark and light areas will be on each strip. Pop the timer to make a 2-second exposure. Move the board down a fifth, and make another exposure.

This will give you a strip of 4 seconds (the first exposure plus the second) and a strip of 2 seconds. Moving your board down another fifth, making another 2-second exposure.

Keep going until you run out of paper.

Process the paper and make sure to do everything for the full amount of time.

It may be boring, but if you rush, the results will not be accurate and will only prove to be a waste of time and money.

22

Take the strip out of the darkroom, and view it in good light. Ideally, one of the exposures will be correct. It will show details in both the shadows and the highlights. More often, some contrast adjustments will need to be made. You do that by using the split-filter or split-contrast method. If you were lucky enough to get a solid result, go ahead and make a test print, on a full piece of paper.

Do exactly what you did before. If you determined, that the ideal exposure was 8 seconds, then expose the print for 4 2-second intervals. This repeats the test, and with a repeating timer, will eliminate any small errors from the timer. It also removes what is called the intermittency factor, which is a physics law which states that 4 2-seconds shots of light is not the same as 1 8-second shot. Finally Process the paper and this full print will tell you more than the test strip, and should guide you in adjusting and refining contrast and exposure.

Test strips are used to determine exposure time, contrast adjustments, and processing time.

24

A LOT HAS HAPPENED OVER THE LAST FIFTY YEARS I am starting to understand why digital photography has destroyed traditional film techniques.

We live in a society where nobody has time to sit and enjoy the beautiful things in life.

26

Pentax K1000 35-105mm F3.5 Ilford HP4 film

Pentax K1000 35mm Ć’ 1.8

PADDINGTON STATION I took my camera with me to London and took some photographs in Paddington Station. It may of been because it was rush hour, but the station was heaving with people trying to get to their desired location.

The station was in complete chaos.

32

BEAUTIFUL IMPERFECTIONS THAT YOU DON’T GET WITH DIGITAL PHOTOGRAHY.

Pentax MV1 f 1.4

Have we got time?

I was at London’s Paddington station taking photographs when I finally realised why film has been overshadowed in the world of photography. It was around 5pm and the station was heaving full of people moving in all directions. Everyone was rushing around; some were even running, to get to their desired destination after a busy day at work. I stood and took a picture to try and capture how busy the station was and how fast everybody was moving. Taking this photograph made me realise what type of environment we live in. We now live in a place where people no longer have spare time on their hands. Our fast paced lives are forcing us to do everything as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Digital cameras entered the markets at the perfect time and consumers reacted instantly

to this proficient new way of capturing images. Despite the excellence and beauty of film, digital photography is just ideal for the culture we live in today.

I have been in the darkroom for nearly a week now and have only managed to develop two films successfully and print no more than a dozen photographs. Sending an Ilford black and white film off to get developed and printed professionally would not only cost you the best part of £15, but it also takes two weeks until you receive the photos back.

If you were to get a colour film developed, even that would take a minimum of an hour, costing you at least a fiver where you would receive a maximum of 36 photographs per film. Medium format and large format film costs an outrageous amount to buy and get developed and they too also take a long time

40

to get developed. In complete contrast, it is possible to transfer hundreds of photographs from a DSLR to a computer in a matter or minutes, or even seconds and send them to print on either a digital printer or online.

This digital process is far quicker and much easier to do. It’s a great shame that the digital process is just too convenient to avoid.

Nevertheless, I have enjoyed my days out with my 35mm camera taking photographs. The process may have been very time consuming but there is no greater satisfaction than printing your own photographs by hand.

I have physical photographs that I can proudly say I made myself. Although Digital cameras dominate the market and is most probably going to kill, if it hasn’t already, the beautiful traditional techniques, it is important to never forget where it all started.

3

“The Medium is the Message”

An investigation of Marshall McLuhans theory, ‘The Medium is the Message’.

Exploring different cameras and comparing qualities.

MARSHALL MCLUHAN

The medium is the message. This is merely to say that the personal and social consequences of any medium, that is, of any extension of ourselves, result from the new scale that is introduced into our affairs by each extension of ou r s e l v e s , o r b y any new technolog y.

I

n a culture like ours, long accustomed to splitting and dividing all things as a means of control, it is sometimes a bit of a shock to be reminded that, in operational and practical fact, the medium is the message. This is merely to say that the personal and social consequences of any medium – that is, of any extension of ourselves – result from the new scale that is introduced into our affairs by each extension of ourselves, or by any new technology. Thus begins the classic work of Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media, in which he introduced the world to his enigmatic paradox, “The medium is the message.” But what does it mean? How can the medium be its own message?

Many people presume the conventional meaning for “medium” that refers to the mass-media of communications – radio, television, the press, the Internet.

And most apply our conventional understanding of “message” as content or information. Putting the two together allows people to jump to the mistaken conclusion that, somehow, the channel supersedes the content in importance, or that McLuhan was saying that the information content should be ignored as inconsequential. Often people will triumphantly hail that the medium is

“no longer the message,” or flip it around to proclaim that the “message is the medium,” or some other such nonsense.

McLuhan meant what he said; and unfortunately, his meaning is not at all obvious, and that is where we begin our journey to understanding.

Marshall McLuhan was concerned with the observation that we tend to focus on the obvious. In doing so, we largely miss the structural changes in our affairs that are introduced subtly, or over long periods of time. Whenever we create a new innovation, be it an invention or a new idea – many of its properties are fairly obvious to us. We generally know what it will nominally do, or at least what it is intended to do, and what it might replace.

We often know what its advantages and disadvantages might be. But it is also often the case that, after a long period of time and experience with the new innovation, we look backward and realize that there were some effects of which we were entirely unaware at the outset. We sometimes call these effects “unintended consequences,” although “unanticipated consequences” might be a more accurate description.

in our society and culture that we just don’t take into consideration in our planning.

These range from cultural or religious issues and historical precedents, through interplay with existing conditions, to the secondary or tertiary effects in a cascade of interactions. All of these dynamic processes that are entirely non-obvious comprise our ground or context. They all work silently to influence the way in which we interact with one another, and with our society at large.

In a word (or four), ground comprises everything we don’t notice.

If one thinks about it, there are far more dynamic processes occurring in the ground than comprise the actions of the figures, or things that we do notice. But when something changes, it often becomes noticeable. And noticing change is the key.

McLuhan tells us that a “message” is, “the change of scale or pace or pattern” that a new invention or innovation “introduces into human affairs.” Note that it is not the content or use of the innovation, but the change in inter-personal dynamics that the innovation brings with it. Thus, the message of theatrical production is not the musical or the play being produced, but Many of the unanticipated consequences perhaps the change in tourism that the stem from the fact that there are conditions production may encourage.

44

In the case of a specific theatrical production, its message may be a change in attitude or action on the part of the audience that results from the medium of the play itself, which is quite distinct from the medium of theatrical production in general. Similarly, the message of a newscast are not the news stories themselves, but a change in the public attitude towards crime, or the creation of a climate of fear. A McLuhan message always tells us to look beyond the obvious and seek the non-obvious changes or effects that are enabled, enhanced, accelerated or extended by the new thing.

But McLuhan always thought of a medium in the sense of a growing medium, like the fertile potting soil into which a seed is planted, or the agar in a Petri dish. In other words, a medium – this extension of our body or senses or mind – is anything from which a change emerges. And since some sort of

change emerges from everything we conceive or create, all of our inventions, innovations, ideas and ideals are McLuhan media.

Thus we have the meaning of “the medium is the message”. We can know the nature and characteristics of anything we conceive or create (medium) by virtue of the changes often unnoticed and non-obvious changes that they effect (message). McLuhan warns us that we are often distracted by the content of a medium (which, in almost all cases, is another distinct medium in itself). He writes, “it is only too typical that the “content” of any medium blinds us to the character of the medium.” And it is the character of the medium that is its potency or effect – its message. In other words, “This is merely to say that the personal and social consequences of any medium – that is, of any extension of ourselves – result from the new scale that is introduced into our affairs by each extension of ourselves, or by any new technology.”

Why is this understanding of “the medium is the message” particularly useful? We tend to notice changes – even slight changes (that unfortunately we often tend to discount in significance.) “The medium is the message” tells us that noticing change in our societal or cultural ground conditions indicates the presence of a new message, that is, the effects of a new medium. With this early warning, we can set out to characterize and identify the new medium before it becomes obvious to everyone – a process that often takes years or even decades. And if we discover that the new medium brings along effects that might be detrimental to our society or culture, we have the opportunity to influence the development and evolution of the new innovation before the effects becomes pervasive. As McLuhan reminds us, “Control over change would seem to consist in moving not with it but ahead of it. Anticipation gives the power to deflect and control force.”

Mark Federman

45

ONE OBJECT FOUR CAMERAS

Marshall McLuhan’s book the medium is the message, got me thinking on the effect that camera’s have on peoples interpretations of photographs. Film photography was, and still is a beautiful thing, but with the introduction of digital DSLR’s, compact point and shoots and also camera phones, film has become a technology of the past and has been swept aside. My interpretation of Marshall McLuhan’s theory and book ‘The medium is the message’, relating to technology in photography, is how the medium, has an overpowering effect on the image produced. I am going to conduct a mini experiment and take photographs of an Ilford 35mm film using a variety of camera’s to see the differences in quality between them. It would be interesting to see which camera and which medium has the best image especially with a huge price range between the cameras. A Nikon D7000 DSLR, Canon compact digital, Pentax MV1 35mm SLR and an iPhone 4 with the use of photography applications will all go head to head to see whether the quality of the image has an effect on the content of the photograph.

NIKON D7000 DSLR

This photo was taken with a Nikon D7000 DSLR camera with a 50mm lens and a studio flash.

This was the first of the four cameras used to capture the shot of this Ilford film cartridge. This camera on paper is the best out of the bunch so does this mean that this photo is better than the others? If McLuhan’s theory stands correct, then the content of the photography is far less important than the camera itself. How about if we take the same photo with an iPhone? Does the photography automatically lose appeal just because it was taken on a mobile device?

50

IPHONE AND INSTAGRAM

Same object once again but this time the photograph was taken with an iPhone 4. The photo came out surprisingly well on the iPhone with an incredible amount of detail. There is obviously a huge difference in quality compared to the photograph taken with the Nikon SLR. The other photographs to the right were also taken with the iPhone 4 but were edited using the mobile app, Instagram.

Instagram is a free photo sharing program launched in October 2010 that allows users to take a photo, apply a digital filter to it, and then share it on a variety of social networking services, including Instagram’s own. A distinctive feature confines photos to a square shape, similar to Kodak Instamatic and Polaroid images, in contrast to the 4:3 aspect ratio typically used by mobile device cameras. Instagram was initially supported on iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch; in April 2012, the company added support for Android camera phones running 2.2 (Froyo) or higher.

It is distributed via the iTunes App Store and Google Play. On April 12, 2012, Facebook acquired the company (and its thirteen employees) for approximately $1 billion in cash and stock, with plans to keep it independently managed.

51

52

FILM IS FAR FROM DEAD This photograph was taken with a Pentax MV1 35mm DSLR and it is without a doubt the best photograph.

There is a distinctive quality you get with film that you don't get with digital which makes the images so beautiful.

54

DIGITAL COMPACT CAMERA Canon point and shoot camera with manual settings Just what it says on the tin, automatic setting and with a click of a button you have a perfect photograph that can easily be uploaded on to facebook or shared on twitter. The photo isn’t that much different from the iPhone and shows very little emotion and depth like the film cameras. However, if the content of the photograph is the message that I am trying to get across than why should I think that one photograph is better than the other?

I feel after doing this mini experiment that Marshall Mclaren’s theory stands strong and the medium does very easily take over the message. The iPhone photograph, although it came out well, it didn't make me want to look at the photograph at all. I much prefer the feel and quality of the photo taken on the 35mm film camera.

56

4

The Rise and Fall of Analogue Photography

In depth analysis on the highs and lows of Eastman’s Kodak establishment over the years. Looking at where film sits in our society today and in years to come.

HOW KODAK SUCCUMBED TO THE DIGITAL AGE

Company founder George Eastman was hailed as the Steve Jobs of his era, and Kodak was its Google. In 1900, Eastman gave the world’s consumers the “Brownie,” the first relatively portable photographic camera for the everyman.

R

obert Shanebrook pulls his Dodge minivan up to an immense building in snow-covered Kodak Park, in Rochester, New York, and says: “These days they make spaghetti sauce here.” He takes pains to sound morose, as if he wanted his words to bridge the entire period since the day, more than 40 years ago, when he first came to Kodak as a young engineer. Back then, the company was building the camera that would capture the images of the Apollo 11 mission, which delivered perhaps one of the greatest “Kodak Moments” of all time, or pictures of the first men on the moon.

Shanebrook, a tall, gray-haired man with a scraggly beard, wears hiking boots. He’s kept active since retiring from Kodak in 2003. For 35 wonderful years, he had the privilege of working and travelling the world for the company. He was at Kodak in the 1990s, when its shares were worth as much as $70 each. He was there in the 1980s, when the company employed more than 30,000 people in this city on Lake Ontario. At that time, the employees’ biggest worry was finding a parking spot near where they worked on the sprawling campus of 195 buildings.

“It’s hard to imagine nowadays,” Shanebrook grumbles. He drives his Dodge across snowcovered parking lots that are much larger than football fields but only have a few cars in them. These days, Kodak employs fewer

than 7,000 people in Rochester, and the news from the 19-story corporate headquarters at 343 State Street is devastating. On Jan. 19, or two days before our trip with Shanebrook, the company was forced to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. “Did I cry?”

Shanebrook asks. “No. Was I shocked? Yes. And I still haven’t recovered from it.” The very next day, published reports indicated that panic was spreading in Rochester.

Newspaper editorialists cast Kodak’s move as yet another symbol of the dismal state of affairs in America. Others said Kodak served as an example of a company that had disregarded the signs of the times and only had itself to blame. However, none of these interpretations is correct. If anything, Kodak symbolizes the deep-seated structural changes that have taken place across the world in recent years. Indeed, the story of Kodak is not a simple parable of rise and fall. Instead, it is a complex tale with an ending that is more comforting than one would initially expect.

From Small to Huge to Nothing If you were to turn back the hands of time to almost any point over the last 132 years, you would come across Kodak without having to look for long and often without even realizing it. The red-and-yellow logo and yellow film boxes were as much a part of everyday life in the West as Coca-Cola.

Indeed, film made in Rochester was the

60

universal storage medium for pictures from weddings, holidays and vacations long before the dawning of 12-megapixel digital cameras and wafer-thin smartphones.

All around the world, people immortalized themselves on Kodacolor, the first “true color negative film,” introduced in 1942. Later, they put Ektachrome slides in gray plastic frames and flimsy carousels. Eventually, they would use Kodachrome, the film its creators claimed could see “better than the human eye” and which, according to the Paul Simon song of the same name, “makes you think all the world’s a sunny day.”

Kodak was at the heart of all the world’s images. Company founder George Eastman was hailed as the Steve Jobs of his era, and Kodak was its Google. In 1900, Eastman gave the world’s consumers the “Brownie,” the first relatively portable photographic camera for the everyman. The Brownie would change our view of the world forever and spawned an amazingly novel and profitable business idea: While selling its cameras cheaply and in bulk, Kodak made a killing by developing the film that went in them.

This ingenious model paid off handsomely for exactly a century and, in 1999, the company enjoyed record profits of $2.5 billion. For one, last time, the company could look back with satisfaction on a century of having decisively shaped the world of images.

Only the Best for the Best Indeed, Rochester produced far more than the raw materials needed to take photographs. It made film for X-ray photography, microfiches for archives, reels of 16mm and 35mm movie stock, and film for Super 8 video cameras.

Slide projectors were manufactured in huge numbers, as were videocassettes, lithium batteries and floppy disks for the first desktop computers. In all those decades, Kodak literally flooded the market with newer and newer cameras. In fact, it wasn’t unusual to see the company launch 20 or even 30 new products a year. And then there were printers, photocopiers, recordable CDs, disposable cameras, photosensitive paper and films of all kinds. Kodak was everywhere. Between 1928 and 2008, every single movie to win the Oscar for best film was shot on Kodak stock. The fact that this honor has gone to Fujifilm every year since 2009 says a lot. But it says even more that cinematic production will soon be able to do away with film stock altogether by becoming completely digitized. In that earlier,

carefree era, Robert Shanebrook had the best job the company had to offer. As a research engineer, he worked on optimizing the films used by professional photographers. His products had names like Portra and TX and, since they were the latest and greatest things in the world of photography, they were tested by the century’s greatest photographers.

Shanebrook visited these master craftsmen the world over in Brazil, Uganda, France, Japan, Mexico and Singapore. He brought them prototypes for trials in the field and the studio and solicited their feedback.

Shanebrook was constantly flying around the world to deliver new films, only to return four weeks later to collect them. And, when he wasn’t flying, he was rubbing elbows with all the artists and reporters who immortalized the world’s wars and crises, who shot the famous portraits of Hemingway and Kennedy, and who captured the poses of Marilyn Monroe and Sophia Loren for posterity. Shanebrook

61

helped the people who created the images that were first etched into the emulsion of Kodak film and then into our collective memory.

Shanebrook is a man of few words when discussing his work at Kodak because he doesn’t want to make his role sound overly important. He cares a lot more about a thin book he published himself. With many pictures and few words, he provides an extremely detailed description of how film is manufactured. It is a very technical manual, though one as dated as the processes it describes.

Nevertheless, reading it, you marvel at the amazing abilities of the Kodak plants, at the light-sensitive layers they put on films at a speed of 300 meters per minute. The films themselves were actually made up of a dozen layers and yet were only 0.06 millimeters thick. Shanebrook has sold a thousand copies of his book.

NOSTALGIA AND PRIDE How did Kodak miss the dawn of the digital era? How could a company that had always been one of the world’s most innovative, implode so dramatically that its share price fell to below 50 cents at the start of the year, prompting the company to be delisted from the New York Stock Exchange?

64

During our drive through Kodak Park, Shanebrook ponders questions more fundamental than technical: How could his company have gone bust? How was it possible for a company to go out of business when, in the 1970s, it was making fully 90 percent of all the films exposed in the United States and 85 percent of all the cameras sold? Could such a thing really happen to one of the most valuable and well-known brands of the entire 20th century? How could a company that had always been one of the world’s most innovative, implode so dramatically that its share price fell to below 50 cents at the start of the year, prompting the company to be delisted from the New York Stock Exchange?

If you want to know the answers to these questions, you must be prepared for a few surprises. To start with, who would have believed that it was actually Kodak that developed the world’s first digital camera in 1975? Robert Shanebrook recalls seeing the first prototype and can describe its size with his hands. Together with all its parts, the device was about three times as large as a shoe box. The camera, which was invented by Kodak engineer Steve Sasson, took a single, appalling black-and-white photo comprising a total of 0.01 digital megapixels. Likewise, Shanebrook remembers that saving the image took a full eight minutes. For these reasons, Sasson’s device didn’t seem like a very marketable product.

But the Kodak technicians continued researching and doggedly improving the sensors that would soon be found in military equipment and, later, in both Nikon and Leica cameras, the latter costing as much as a car.

65

Bad luck also played a part in the company’s eventual demise. Kodak tried extremely Larry Matteson, another Kodak veteran, hard to survive the competition between remembers those days well. Matteson analogueue and digital technology. It scaled was a manager in the company for many back its film production in as controlled a years, and even a senior vice-president.

After focusing on chemicals and film for manner as possible, while ratcheting up its Today, he is a professor at Simon Business several decades, it would have probably digital capacities. As a result, Kodak was the School at the University of Rochester. been impossible if not insane in business leading manufacturer of digital cameras on Four years after the invention of the terms for Kodak to try to reinvent itself as an the American market as recently as 2005. digital camera, Matteson was tasked with electronics company. What’s more, its film Unfortunately, the next technological leap drafting a report about the future of digital business was still booming in the late 1970s was just around the corner, and the first technology for the company’s executive and promised to bring in outstanding profits smartphones were already replacing digital board. In hindsight, his report seems almost for many years to come. cameras. Indeed, people soon stopped prophetically accurate. Matteson tells me using normal cameras to take photographs, by telephone about the report he made more In addition, it was easy to figure out that preferring instead to snap pictures on their than 30 years ago. Judging by his voice and the meager margins of the digital market phones. This, in turn, triggered a race to the picture on the university’s website, one could never hope to match those of the bottom in terms of camera prices and, would think he’s a good-humored elderly analogue film or to keep a company like by 2007, Kodak had slipped to fourth gentleman. Back in 1979, he summarized Kodak above water. Thus, as many as 30 place on the American camera market. the prospects for digital photography in a years ago, Kodak seemed to have one of Three years later, it was seventh. One by series of rapidly rising exponential graphs. two choices: to commit suicide right away one, Canon, Sony, Nikon and all the other The graphs showed that inevitably, if not or to put it off until later. camera manufactures overtook Kodak. Their immediately, all the products Kodak had products were just as good or better, and been successful at selling, film, photos and Digitalized to Death they looked nicer, more colorful and fresher. cameras would switch from analogue to digital by 2010 at the latest. The world as “The mistake” Matteson says, “if you want In Tokyo, managers at the rival company Kodak knew it was destined to vanish, and to talk about a mistake at all, was that Fujifilm came upon the idea of converting its business would shrink to practically Kodak could never separate itself from the their chemical business into a cosmetics nothing. Almost overnight, Kodak found notion of being a company about images”. one. But Kodak executives couldn’t come itself heading down what seemed like a There were apparently repeated, although up with a radical solution that could save one-way street to oblivion. half-hearted, attempts to reorganize the their company. Other similarly outside-thecompany and completely change its box suggestions like using their outstanding From an objective point of view, there were direction. Every new board came up with coating technology to print wallpaper or to two particular things that the company did a different strategy. Kodak invested in the manufacture sandpaper or Post-it notes were extremely well: First, Kodak was a world hope of possibly expanding its chemicals only given brief consideration before being leader in organic chemistry. And, second, division into the pharmaceuticals business. dismissed as undignified. Rochester was thanks to its unparalleled experience in It also spent a lot of money trying to gripped by an understandable but still fatal making films, it had become expert in dominate the market in digital printing, a attitude: They had given the world pictures coating surfaces of all kinds with extreme plan that was pursued, abandoned and then from the surface of the moon, they reasoned; precision and at incredible lightning speed. eventually revived once again. so someone else could give it wallpaper.

A One-Way Street to Oblivion

“But you can already see where that was heading”, Matteson says. “Both were qualities that were no longer needed in the production of digital images".

66

A Rosy Future for Rochester Visiting Rochester today, you find a city that seems like no stranger to bad news. The downtown area is a collection of office towers, many of which are for sale. Streets are filled with cars, but there are only a few people on the sidewalks. The skyline is dominated by office blocks belonging to Xerox, Bausch & Lomb and Chase Bank. Kodak’s headquarters is also downtown, though a bit off to one side, and it can be seen from afar, especially at night, when its old-fashioned logo shines brightly in fiery red.

From there, it’s just a few hundred steps to the point where the Genesee River plunges 30 meters into the heart of the city. The base of the waterfall is surrounded by crumbling, abandoned factories older than Kodak’s, the remnants of early 19th century Rochester. The city has long sought to transform the ruins into a fashionable nightlife district, but the efforts thus far have failed.

Still, Rochester is doing far better than its cityscape suggests. One reason for this is the fact that Kodak’s decline has been rather drawn out. A slew of Kodak executives and researchers left the company to start their own businesses rather than manning the bridge as the ship was sinking. The behemoth that had once, like a Soviet collective, done everything itself including printing and folding its own cardboard boxes gradually broke apart into smaller units.

Johnson & Johnson is developing medicaldiagnostic tools in the park. But there are also small and mid-sized firms with between five and 50 employees. These include the solar-cell company Natcore Technology and Cerion Energy, which was founded by former Kodak employees who have developed a diesel additive that is supposed to dramatically lower fuel consumption.

Given these developments, it would be a stretch to say that Rochester is almost Kodak’s decline has brought healthy change panicky about its future. The city is home to the city by spawning new businesses whose to a respected university as well as the products are better-suited to 21st-century Rochester Institute of Technology, which needs. One corner of the industrial zone has is sometimes mentioned in the same been taken over by the Eastman Business breath as MIT, its illustrious counterpart Park, which Kodak holds a stake in. This in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In fact, the cluster of 35 companies already reportedly future actually looks rosy in Rochester: employs a total of 6,500 people. If correct, this The region now employs half a million figure almost matches Kodak’s remaining people, fully a fifth more than were there workforce in Rochester. in Kodak’s heyday.

68

THE GOLDEN AGE In the golden age, it also had hobby rooms for stamp collectors, cameras were lent out free of charge, and 50 darkrooms were reserved for workers to use for their own purposes. During lunch breaks, 20-minute segments of Hollywood movies were shown in the almost 2,000-seat auditorium; over the course of a week, employees could see the entire film.

69

Kodak has always been about pictures. No matter how wonderful they’ve been, all stories have to end.

The success stories of the 21st century are more fleeting, modest, less spectacular and less heroic than those associated with Kodak.

Indeed, at the very end, the company proved to be a rather crazy organization whose corporate culture in the glory days seemed almost socialist. Robert Shanebrook recalls how Kodak was an “all-inclusive” business: It paid its former employees pensions, it offered free medical treatment and it even helped organize leisure-time activities for its employees.

The Dodge minivan rolls past the front of Building 28 on West Ridge Road. Inside the immense, windowless brick structure are gyms and sporting halls in which employees used to play basketball and volleyball. In the golden age, it also had hobby rooms for stamp collectors, cameras were lent out free of charge, and 50 darkrooms were reserved for workers to use for their own purposes.

During lunch breaks, 20-minute segments of Hollywood movies were shown in the almost 2,000-seat auditorium; over the course of a week, employees could see the entire film.

The city used to boast a free dental clinic funded by Kodak-founder George Eastman.

Today, it is dilapidated and has its windows boarded up. But the Eastman Theatre and the Eastman School of Music are still there and in good condition, as is Eastman’s former house on the chic East Avenue, home to the city’s most beautiful and bizarre villas.

The living room boasts a life-size cast of an elephant head that Eastman brought back from Africa as a trophy. But the house contains one of the world’s most important photography and film museums, including the private film collections of Martin Scorsese, Norman Jewison and Spike Lee. More than 4,000 historic cameras are also

stored there, as are priceless photographs from the American Civil War, as are prints developed personally by Eugène Atget and Alfred Stieglitz, photos that link the 19th to the 21st century and are so valuable because they are so rare.

The most remarkable document is the farewell letter that Eastman, then old and sick, penned in 1932 before shooting himself in the heart with a Luger pistol. The note, which is displayed in a glass case, is only three lines long, and could be read like words of comfort for the doomed Kodak of today: “To my friends. My work is done. Why wait?”

A Circuitous Route Back in Time So what is Kodak waiting for? If it’s going to survive, it will need a miracle. As part of its bankruptcy proceedings, the company has been given another $950 million in loans from Citigroup to try to get its finances in order within the next 18 months.

Management hopes Kodak can become successful again with printers, but that doesn’t seem all that convincing because Kodak has always been about pictures. No matter how wonderful they’ve been, all stories have to end. And perhaps that’s also sometimes the case with companies, as well.

Indeed, the story of Kodak pictures has already ended, and a new story is beginning.

But this new story is one told by the torrent of digital snapshots flooding the Web by the billions. Likewise, little is “immortalized” anymore. Despite the wealth of images, fewer and fewer pictures are being printed. In a way, the world is taking an unusual path back to the very beginnings of photography.

In general, people who are in their 90s today

72

have, at best, only a few photographs of their own childhood. Thanks to Kodacolor, today’s 60-year-olds have a somewhat larger picture archive. Forty-year-olds already have a photographic record of at least the key moments in their lives, often captured on Ektachrome slides by their parents. However, the children born in the 21st century have been photographed so often that their lives could be charted almost in their entirety by a biographical flip-book of these snapshots, that is, if the pictures were ever printed.

Strangely enough, despite the flood of digital pictures, moments are becoming fleeting again. “I’m always telling people that they should make paper prints,” Shanebrook says.

“Otherwise, in 10 years, they won’t have any pictures anymore.” Shanebrook may have a point. The snapshots we send out today by email are easily lost, and our virtual folders of digital images are constantly threatened both as we move from one computer to the next and by the technological advances racing along at an ever-faster pace.

Perhaps the future will have less need for quality printed photos. And perhaps people will be satisfied with recording their world and their lives with shots taking spontaneously and more or less on the fly.

If so, it might just be that the 20th century will be the best-documented era ever, archived in countless photo albums and slide boxes as well as on movie films, postcards and artfully printed posters. It will be a century that has been captured, a century immortalized. And, of course, we’ll owe it all to Kodak.

Translated from the German by Jan Liebelt

5

Photographers Favourite Camera’s

What camera’s do people own and why. Looking at photographers choice of cameras and their thoughts and views on analogue photography.

CAMBO 5x4 MASTER I love the whole process, from setting up the camera to printing the image in the darkroom. It’s a very slow process, the camera is huge and fiddley and you have to be really carful and precise. It’s a bit of a labour of love. I think the final prints can be much more beautiful than a digital print.

76

SONY ALPHA 77 Sony Alpha DSLR’s are my favourite camera’s simply for the amount of amazing stuff you can do with them. The spec on the Alpha 77 is outrageous! Film is a great process but digital makes sense in the world we are living in.

77

BRONICA ZENZA ETRSI This is not my favourite camera but I do prefer square format photographs to any other medium. All medium format camera’s slow you down and so are a joy to use.

80

6

Facts and Figures

Cost differences between digital and analogue photography. Analysis of which medium is more cost efficient. The best places to go if you love film.

35MM DEVELOPING AND PRINTING PRICE LIST 35mm C41 Colour/Cross Process Size (in)

30 min

2 Hour

24 Hour

Extra set

Low CD

Med CD

High CD

Tiff CD

3½ � 5

£7.00

£6.00

£5.00

+ £1.00

+ £1.50

+ £5.00

+ £9.00

+ £15.00

6�4

£8.00

£7.00

£6.00

+ £2.00

+ £1.50

+ £5.00

+ £9.00

+ £15.00

5�7

£10.00

£9.00

£8.00

+ £3.00

+ £1.50

+ £5.00

+ £9.00

+ £15.00

5 � 7½

£10.00

£9.00

£8.00

+ £3.00

+ £1.50

+ £5.00

+ £9.00

+ £15.00

6�8

£11.00

£10.00

£9.00

+ £5.00

+ £1.50

+ £5.00

+ £9.00

+ £15.00

6�9

£12.00

£11.00

£10.00

+ £5.00

+ £1.50

+ £5.00

+ £9.00

+ £15.00

Develop Only

£6.00

£5.00

£4.00

+ £2.00

+ £5.00

+ £9.00

+ £15.00

35mm Black & White and E6/Slide Size (in)

7-10 days

Extra set

Low CD

Med CD

High CD

Tiff CD

3½ � 5

£9.00

+ £1.00

+ £1.50

+ £5.00

+ £9.00

+ £15.00

6�4

£10.00

+ £2.00

+ £1.50

+ £5.00

+ £9.00

+ £15.00

5�7

£12.00

+ £3.00

+ £1.50

+ £5.00

+ £9.00

+ £15.00

5 � 7½

£12.00

+ £3.00

+ £1.50

+ £5.00

+ £9.00

+ £15.00

6�8

£13.00

+ £5.00

+ £1.50

+ £5.00

+ £9.00

+ £15.00

6�9

£14.00

+ £5.00

+ £1.50

+ £5.00

+ £9.00

+ £15.00

Develop Only

£7.00

+ £2.00

+ £5.00

+ £9.00

+ £15.00

83

120 DEVELOPING AND PRINTING PRICE LIST 120 C41 Colour/Cross Process Size (in)

30 min

2 Hour

24 Hour

Extra set

Low CD

Med CD

High CD

Tiff CD

4�4

£9.00

£8.00

£7.00

+ £1.00

+ £1.50

+ £5.00

+ £7.00

+ £10.00

5�5

£10.00

£9.00

£8.00

+ £2.00

+ £1.50

+ £5.00

+ £7.00

+ £10.00

6�6

£11.00

£10.00

£9.00

+ £3.00

+ £1.50

+ £5.00

+ £7.00

+ £10.00

Develop Only

£7.00

£6.00

£5.00

+ £2.00

+ £5.00

+ £7.00

+ £10.00

120 Black & White and E6/Slide Size (in)

30 min

Extra set

Low CD

Med CD

High CD

Tiff CD

4�4 5�5 6�6

+ £1.00 + £2.00 + £3.00

Develop Only

£9.00 £10.00 £11.00 £7.00

+ £1.50 + £1.50 + £1.50 + £2.00

+ £5.00 + £5.00 + £5.00 + £5.00

+ £7.00 + £7.00 + £7.00 + £7.00

+ £10.00 + £10.00 + £10.00 + £10.00

Low CD 350kb 1228 � 1818

Med CD 1mb 2433 � 3637

High CD 4mb 3648 � 5444

Tiff CD 50mb 3648 � 5444

Scans based on 35mm, 24mm � 36mm negative.

84

DIGITAL PRINTING PRICE LIST Prints from Digital Size (in)

1-10

11-29

30-199

200 +

3½ � 5

£0.50

£0.25

£0.15

£0.05

6�4

£0.60

£0.30

£0.20

£0.07

5�5

£0.60

£0.30

£0.20

£0.07

5�7

£0.70

£0.40

£0.30

£0.15

5 � 7½

£0.70

£0.40

£0.30

£0.15

6�6

£0.70

£0.50

£0.40

£0.30

6�8

£1.00

£0.80

£0.70

£0.60

6�9

£1.00

£0.80

£0.70

£0.60

Size (in)

1-10

11 +

7 � 10

£2.00

£1.50

8 � 10

£2.50

£2.00

8 � 12

£3.50

£3.00

A4

£3.50

£3.00

10 � 10

£4.00

£3.50

10 � 12

£5.00

£4.50

12 � 12

£5.50

£5.00

10 �15

£6.00

£5.50

12 � 16

£7.00

£6.50

A3

£7.00

£6.50

12 � 18

£7.50

£7.00

85

Pearlescent Digital Prints Size (in)

1-10

11 +

7 � 10

£4.00

£3.50

8 � 10

£4.50

£4.00

8 � 12

£5.50

£5.00

A4

£5.50

£5.00

10 � 10

£6.00

£5.50

10 � 12

£7.00

£6.50

12 � 12

£7.50

£7.00

10 �15

£8.00

£7.50

12 � 16

£9.00

£8.50

A3

£9.00

£8.50

12 � 18

£9.50

£9.00

Prices for 24 hour service Add £2 to order total for 30 min service Add £1 to order total for 2 hour service

86

COST DIFFERENCE’S BETWEEN DIGITIAL AND ANALOGUE Total Cost of an Intermediate DSLR, Lens and Memory Card Prices taken from jessops.com Nikon D5100 DSLR

£499.99

Nikon 50mm f 1.4 D AF

£234.95

Sandisk 32gb SDHC Card

£110.95 £845.89

Cost of a Pentax MV1 35mm SLR Purchased from ebay.co.uk

Total cost of 35mm Film, developing and CD 36 exp film, 24 hour developing, low CD

Pentax MV1

Kodak 100 Colour Film—36

£3.99

Pentax f 1.4 50mm Lens

Developing

£4.00

Low CD

£2.00

£21.85

£9.99

£1000

£800

£600

£400

£200

£’s spent

Costs of Nikon DSLR Costs of Pentax 35mm film SLR Cost of 1800 shots Point where costs meet

no. photo’s

500

1000

1500

2000

87

2500

3000

THE RESULTS

The Nikon D5100 and the Pentax MV1 were put to the test to see the cost differences between them both. The Nikon D5100 was chosen as the DSLR to be compared with as it’s sold at a reasonable price and packs high specifications for an entry-level DSLR camera. The D5100 was paired with a 50mm f 1.4 lens similar to the lens that the Pentax came with to try and make the results as fair as possible.

The prices for the Nikon were taken from Jessop’s online store and the Pentax was bought on eBay where hundreds of old analogue cameras are sold for a similar price everyday.

There is clearly a huge difference in price between the digital and film SLR’s. However, the analogue camera’s costs will rise depending on how many photographs are taken and developed, where as the DSLR’s costs will not change after purchase. To be able to see the Pentax’s photographs on a computer, the negatives would need to be scanned too. The total cost of this process is £9.99 for 36 photographs developed and scanned on a low CD. (prices from Photograpique, Bristol).

The total cost of the Pentax was £21.85 with the camera and lens. The same kit but with the Nikon D5100 totaled £845.89. As the graph illustrates on the left, the Pentax 35mm camera will be able to take 2970 photographs until the costs meet at Nikon’s £845.89 total. That means one could get a total of 82 films, developed and put on a low cd for the same price as buying a brand new digital SLR. On average, a 32gb can hold 5700 photographs, and once that is full, it can easily be transferred to a computer and wiped clean to start again.

The results are interesting as it shows how cost efficient digital cameras are. If the Pentax was at cost price of when it was bought, then the value of the camera would be far more and becoming even less cost efficient. However it would be argued that the quality of the analogue camera is worth the extra costs.

88

RECOMMENDATIONS

LONDON CAMERA EXCHANGE LTD I 3 Alliance House, Baldwin Street Bristol, BS1 1SA 0117 929 1935

LONDON CAMERA EXCHANGE LTD II 53 The Horsefair Bristol BS1 3JP 0117 927 6185

BRISTOL CAMERAS 47 High Street, Bristol, BS1 2AZ 0117 914 0089

PHOTOGRAPHIQUE 31 Baldwin Street, Bristol, BS1 1RG 0117 930 0622

89

RESOURCES

ARTICLES http://bit.ly/iI4K1e http://bit.ly/a34YD5 http://bit.ly/Jq6TnS http://bit.ly/1kB6gF http://bit.ly/yWaMoP

BOOKS Film, Tacita Dean, Tate Publishing, 2011 The New Photography, Frank Webster, John Calder Ltd, 1980 What Photography Is, James Elkins, Routledge, 2011 Basic Photography, Michael Langford, Focal Press, 1986

IMAGES http://bit.ly/IhGE1l http://bit.ly/IxUIm6 http://bit.ly/HZ5JKQ http://bit.ly/I3yqLK http://bit.ly/IfaDmu http://bit.ly/J3q7Kf

WEBSITES http://www.photographique.co.uk/ http://www.jessops.com/ http://www.ebay.co.uk/ http://www.ilfordphoto.com/ http://www.packagingtoday.co.uk/

20,3 x 25,4cm 8 x10 in 50