Kendall Jenner is being credited for a surge of sales in film cameras after she beamed about her Contax T2 during a TV chat show appearance.
I think it’s fair to say Jenner is one of few famous faces trying their hand at photography who actually possess a degree of skill. She’s at a great advantage, of course, but of the images we’ve seen from her so far, many are highly commendable and hold their own against the work of creatives twice her age. At this point, she’s shot many editorial spreads for leading magazines, so it’s perhaps not surprising that she’s now discovered the wonderful world of film photography.
Last year, she appeared on “The Tonight Show,” taking with her a newly-purchased Contax T2 film camera — a camera that originally released in 1990, before Jenner was even born. She took a portrait with host Jimmy Fallon, promising to send it over once developed. “Yeah, let me know, because we can’t Instagram that. We have to develop it first,” Fallon joked at the time.
Bellamy Hunt, a camera dealer who also goes by the name of the Japan Camera Hunter, raises the point that for Jenner, whose every move is splashed across the media, film photography may be something that feels like hers: “[Her film photos] are not going to be hacked, no one’s going to get a hold of them. She doesn’t have to post them online. It’s something that cannot be taken from her.”
Jenner shares the same sentiment, remarking that film feels more authentic. And now, there’s been a huge spike in the Contax T-Series point and shoot film cameras with prices allegedly tripling, or even quadrupling. Hunt says the compacts he used to sell for $200 can now reach anywhere between $1,000-1,500. “I started getting hundreds of emails asking for them […] There aren’t that many left.”
[via The Lily]
How do you know that she does not have her own dark room, complete with enlarger and all the papers and chemicals she needs?
I thought your statement was about her photos getting hacked or not, and that she will digitize them anyway... I guess that unlike a lot of photogs who started with film back in the day, she has the benefit of having digital scanning technology available, so she can digitize her photos as soon as the negs are developed (while I have, as many other photogs probably, huge stacks of negatives that will never be all digitized).
But even then, the review for scanning is another step where she can decide if a particular photo will be digitized or not, for various reasons, compared to photos taken with digital cameras that are all digital from the get-go and more readily hackable.
If she had a darkroom, everybody would know.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but digital does not match film in dynamic range. Although the number of stops may be similar, negative film has much more latitude in the highlights and digital more in the shadows.
Also, the tonal characteristics of film in larger formats is unlike digital. And yes, you can try to emulate it digitally, but there is a different quality to it.
Perhaps by authentic she’s referring more to process than result, but who knows?
For sharpness and convenience, digital is king.
Haha oh Bob, so anti-film. Even medium format has a different tonality than digital that would be tough to reproduce. As for thinking the film process is more authentic than digital, isn’t that a matter of individual taste and not ignorance? Isn’t authenticity a measure of truthfulness and isn’t that up to the artist?
I think we get too caught up in tech and forget that this is a craft and an art form. Live and let live.
As for the experiment you mentioned, I think that’s a wonderful idea! I’ll see what I can do.
Actually, I forgot I wrote an article about that a while ago: https://fstoppers.com/education/awesome-highlights-power-negative-film-1...
Ah, reread it. You want a comparison of different digital cameras exposing for the highlights and comparing to film? What would that prove? I’ve already said digital is better at pulling detail from the shadows. By underexposing the image it would be a test of shadow retention. Digital wins.
Sounds a bit tedious. Both methods can produce acceptable results while being very different in their execution. Isn’t that enough? Also, there are far too many variables on the film side to come up with a consistent result. Film stock, developer, technique (ie stand develop, etc), darkroom filtration, scanner will all affect the results. I’d rather be happy saying they both can do a good job in hands of a skillful person.
The mediums are very different but both are fine depending on the artist’s preferences.
That’s what I said at the beginning. The number of stops are similar but the range is different. Range isn’t the absolute value. It’s the specific numbers. You wouldn’t say that a temperature range of 32 to 64 is the same range as 50 to 82 would you?
"For detail, sharpness, less noise, cheaper, faster, more capable another ways, such as in-camera panoramas and HDR, and more convenience, digital is king."
From pure technical comparisons I agree that digital can do so much more. Film isn't advancing and compared to the technology that comes out each year for digital cameras and the race has already been won for sheer image quality and bang for your buck.
Do you make such arguments about how modern cars are much better than classic American muscle? People who keep, maintain, and drive their classic cars probably share a similar feeling that those who are keeping film alive do. Many of us film shooters get a better feeling from the process it demands like not being able to afford spraying hundreds of photos to get a few keepers. I know I speak for more than just myself when I say I think differently and more creatively when I shoot on film. Maybe you don't and there's nothing wrong with that but it doesn't mean we can't chase that connection it makes us feel.
Just like how people get a different feeling when they drive down the road in a 67 Camaro than they do in a modern version. Sometimes a little more analog can feel great and more romantic.
You've mentioned your air-force career before and I would then ask if you scoff at the idea of ever wanting to fly an old spitfire when modern fighter jets are more advanced and capable in pretty much every way.
I didn't miss a beat. Your post was calling her an ignorant hipster because she said it feels more authentic and then assumed she meant because it's technically better when there wasn't enough context in her statement to make that connection. It could have been for reasons that I talked about above. Maybe you shouldn't jump to conclusions.
Damnit I forgot about the first rule of Fstoppers again! Bob's always right.
Well even if film does still have measurable additional dynamic range, it really doesn't do anything for you unless you dig it out, and I don't mean dodging and burning. You need selective masking to extract and control specific luminosity ranges. That's A LOT of work in a darkroom. I worked over 10 years doing professional darkroom pre-press production before the digital age, and I sometimes did shit just like that. My comments assumes of course you're staying in the photo-optical domain. If you scan a neg or a chrome into the digital domain, you have other complications, some of which you can mitigate if you multiscan your work into HDR files, itself quite a chore.
But you see, in contrast, digitally you have virtually IMMEDIATE access to the entire dynamic range of a digital image. You have far greater control over creating and fine tuning your final image that you ever could with film, even if you digitize it. The dynamic range of cameras from Nikon, Pentax, Sony, et al are fantastic and really, you have better access to all the data on your image than with film, no matter how much more dynamic range it may have.
Oh absolutely. Hence my emphasis on digital being more convenient. Far more convenient. The amount of effort it takes to manipulate film is an order of magnitude greater than digital. Which is why I say to truly deal with film you really have to love the process. Otherwise, why go through all the trouble?
A point some people on this site can't wrap their heads around. Sometimes it's about the journey and not the destination.
WOW! Aren't you a ray of sunshine....
"'Jenner shares the same sentiment, remarking that film feels more authentic.'
Young and ignorant hipster talk."
Old, ignorant coot talk.
She was born in 95. Maybe she never experienced the process of having to get physical prints to view photos and after years of only knowing digital a tangible copy feels more authentic?
Also, don't bother responding to this, its going to be long winded, self righteous and I don't want to get into it with you.
"Self righteous? No, simply and objectively right on the matter."
Remember Folks! Not just in this matter, but in ALL OF THEM!
When you use an "I'm objectively right" argument you're showing that you cannot clearly argue your point. It's a poor debate tactic and doesn't add any weight to what you have so say. It's you putting your fingers in your ears. So my response will always be to point it out.
If you don't like what I have to say you might as well ignore me. It's a free forum Bob and as you've said to many others that don't agree with you, they don't need to reply if they don't want to.
Note* the inclusion of "I'm" in the quote is clearly not one by you but a part of the type of argument I was highlighting. If you don't like it you're going to have to deal with it.
Those things are more coincidence than your making it out to seem.
Calling someone a Troll because they call you out on your BS sounds a bit childish bob. Why can't you take sarcasm every once and a while? Stop being such a snowflake.
First of all, speaking literally, a film negative is the very definition of authentic. To more directly address her comment, I also agree that film "feels" more authentic. Every part of the process is visible in the final result including technical imperfections, creative choices caused by it's limitations, skill of the photographer, development technique and the printing or scanning technique. Add to this the underlying knowledge that the majority of images presented in advertising, magazines and even celebrity social media posts are digital and heavily altered/retouched, one may be more likely to distrust a digital image. A film image (though possibly manipulated a similar amount, especially once digitized) may give a more authentic feel because one finds comfort in the imperfections and in the assumption that is has not been (or could not be) altered to the same degree.
You are largely missing the point. She thinks it "feels" more authentic. Whether it is or isn't is besides the point. I'm convinced that you understand this but just enjoy listening to yourself talk and dislike young famous people.
It is truly amazing how much influence celebrities like her have over our society.. wish she'd encourage them to take photos of something that needs to be brought to people's attention too
Good for this kid, having a hobby and passion she's skilled in.
Such is life
I agree but it's not really the fault of the celebrity and more society in general.
hhmmmmmm...........
-deleted rant-
This article just screwed up my whole morning, this is such a downer.
"Some douchebag with an army of dumbasses is dabbling in [thing]." I don't want to see a fucking celebrity cum photographer! Who does? It's like, "Oh, yay! Warren Buffet won the Lottery -twice. Awesome!" No! Go back to being a self entitled brat and continue fading away slowly.
At least Paris knew when it was time to leave the spotlight.
...So you wrote that, deleted it, and then decided you couldn't go on without rewriting it? Kurt, you're taking things a bit too seriously. Sounds like you're dealing with some stuff.
I hope your day got better!
back at you :]
"I don't want to see a fucking celebrity cum photographer!"
Someone's forcing you to? Just scroll past it if it ever comes up on your screen, and if it's in print, don't buy the book/magazine, problem solved.