Back to openDemocracy Email us Powered by TypePad  
political magazine Help bring democracy to the US
political magazine The New oD Today
political magazine China's modernisation and its discontents
political magazine openDemocracy widget
political magazine Goodbye Habeas Corpus
political magazine Dance the guns to silence?
political magazine Don't be a lawyer in China
political magazine Have we hit the ground yet?
political magazine The strange ways of Falungong
political magazine 2000 dead
political magazine April 2006
political magazine December 2005
political magazine November 2005
political magazine October 2005
political magazine September 2005
political magazine August 2005
political magazine July 2005
political magazine June 2005
political magazine May 2005
political magazine April 2005
My Photo oD Today
A weblog from the editors, staff and friends of openDemocracy.net

« Death of a Parliamentarian | Main | Lest They Forget »

Au revoir 35mm?

So Dixon’s, the UK-based consumer electronics retailer, have announced that they will no longer be selling  35 mm film-based cameras. As irrelevant as this piece of news may seem to some, it’s an important landmark in the history of photography. Is this the final nail in the coffin for film and a confirmation that the digital era has arrived and is here to stay?

So what? Some might say, the digital format is progress. Digital images are cheaper, more convenient and nearly equal in quality. In an age when we can sit at our computers and, at the press of a button, launch an image to a thousand different destinations for free, what need is there for that cumbersome dinosaur?

In fact, 35mm film first brought photography to the masses, precisely because it was so user-friendly and so uncumbersome. George Eastman’s  desire to “to make the camera as convenient as the pencil” freed photography from its restrictions as a pastime for the rich or something to be left to the professionals. No longer was it necessary to hire porters to carry your camera up that mountain for a scenic shot; likewise you didn’t need a personal studio or dark room to take your family portraits.

Some would argue that that this is all very well: digital photography can do all the above and more. There are many photojournalists who would concur with this, and most have already converted to digital and carry their portable darkroom / telegram office (the laptop) with them while out on the frontlines. Advertising and fashion photography are also moving in the same direction: why take the risk with film (results you will not see until the next day) when you can show your client the finished product then and there?

As a keen amateur photographer, all this would logically tell me that I should also ditch my 35mm and join the revolution. Yet something holds me back.

I think that it’s precisely the convenience that puts me off. Digital photography is too easy. It’s too easy to erase the images you think you don’t like and then regret their absence from your life forever more; so often I find that the photographs I’m initially ambivalent about end up becoming my favourites.

I like the inconveniences tossed up by film – the dash to the developers and the first anxious glimpse. I like finding a forgotten roll of film at the bottom of my bag and being reminded of lost weekends and holidays. I like the piles of photographs lying in my room aching to be organised into albums; each time I sit down to the task I am transported back to a different time and place, and a memory of how I felt at that moment. I notice a different nuance, an expression, the shapes and colours in the background, the mistakes and double exposures and I get a thrill from looking at them in another way. The album might not get done but a hundred memories have been rekindled.

Digital photography is too efficient, too precise, too intangible. You are not confronted by stacks of prints cluttering up your home, or a solid photo album that can be pulled from shelves. Too often digital images and the memories imprinted within them remain buried in the depths of laptops and PC’s, forever to be lost in a maze of files and folders.

I have made a concession and bought a digital camera, but unlike Dixon’s I won’t be throwing away my 35mm just yet.

August 9, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83454872c69e200d834b1b29d69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Au revoir 35mm? :



Comments

What need indeed for the average consumer to bother with the "cumbersome dinosaur"? I find the arguments for 35mm rather unconvincing. As far as digital photography being "too efficient, too precise, too intangible".... I am at a loss to know what this could possibly mean, apart from expressing a nostalgic longing for tangible clutter (as opposed to digital clutter). All of my old 35 mm prints are in boxes in a closet. My digital prints are easily stored, found, and printed when necessary. Is this a bad thing?

Posted by: Flotsam | 17 Aug 2005 15:54:47

You seem to have misconstrued the point of my argument. I do not think that the advent of digital cameras is necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I welcome it in many ways. It is more convenient, after all.
However, the inconveniences that 35mm prints throw up I also see as a bonus; they force me to look at photographs that I would otherwise forget about.
My argument is essentially about formats of technology and how they make us behave and appreciate photography or music in different ways. In the same way that the iPod and its "shuffle" program has changed the way many listen to music, so the same is happening with digital photography. However, it is all down to personal behaviour patterns. You seem like a well-organised individual who no doubt sets aside time to look through your archive of photographs. Personally, I don't find that I regularly think about accessing my hard drive to take a trip down memory lane. I like the way my photographs sit around like flotsam in my flat, occasionally lapping against my consciousness.
I could take my memory card into a lab to print up but, aside from the argument about the quality of the images, it never seems to happen; I already have them on my computer so why bother with the cost and effort? I already know what they look like, so the curiosity about what they might look like has gone. And so has the fun.

Posted by: Charlie Devereux | 30 Aug 2005 13:34:53

The comments to this entry are closed.

Back to openDemocracy Email us Powered by TypePad