Scott Bourne On Film

Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
1,000
Location
Arizona
Real Name
Chris
I've never heard of Scott Bourne, so I'm not sure why I should care about his opinion, but his essay was short, so I read it. He's right on a couple points, and wrong on others. If you need clean low-light shots at high ISO, newer digicams are the way to go. The grain from any film shot at ISO 3200 is amazing, but if that's not what you want, don't use film.

But then I get to his contention that 100 years from now, nobody will ask if he shot film or digi, he totally right. They will know it's film, cause its unlikely they will be able to see his digital work, unless it's printed archivally. And who does that with digi prints?

ps, Scott, it's a beret, not a beanie. If you're gonna be an arteest critic, get yer terminology straight.
 
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
151
Location
Slovenia
Where can I see some Scott Bourne's pictures?

(that I would want to look at again 100 years from now)
 
Joined
Dec 16, 2012
Messages
573
Location
Louisville KY
His view seems slightly underexposed
I agree with many of his points
Yes, no photoshop, poor low-light capability, bio-hazards released with each processed roll

All true, but there was a magic and peace with silver photography that he's either missed or forgotten

It's not always only about the potential or the result; the walk down the path to get there, and how we handle the obstacles and the pleasant surprises we find, they're all bigger parts of the experience. Once something's finished, it's done and has a life of its own, and soon after we start planning the next path to take

He's right on the money about so many of the limitations of film, but that's part of the beauty too. Some of the best work is realized when work has to be done inside of severe restrictions. Think Robert Frost's 'freedom is riding loose in the harness'
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
1,000
Location
Arizona
Real Name
Chris
... bio-hazards released with each processed roll
...

The hazards of film chemistry are overblown. The only toxin that is not biodegraded with film use or manufacture is silver. Compare this to the multitudes of hazardous heavy metals associated with electronic manufacture and disposal.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
1,000
Location
Arizona
Real Name
Chris
Yeah, I know what chemicals are used in film processing. And while some chemistry is quite hazardous, the bulk of processing chemistry is biodegraded on exposure to sunlight and other factors. Most organic reducing agents used for development fit into this category. Stop bath is acetic acid, also known as vinegar. Ammonium thiosulfate breaks down into sulfur dioxide, which is a pollutant, but the amount from photo fixing is small, even when you consider commercial developing. Some specialty chemicals, especially bleaches and toners, used in alternative processes can be quite the hazard. And of course spent fixer is silver rich. Most commercial developers reclaim the silver, and regenerate thiosulfate.

This is not to say that there are no hazards, but normal cautions one should take with any chemical handling will protect you from that.

Now compare this to the amount of chemicals that get dumped into the environment by the manufacturers of our cameras, computers and other electronics.
 

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom