You aren't signed in     Sign In    Help

Light and time may not be endangered species but we are still always losing them.

Light and time may not be endangered species but we are still always losing them. by Zeb Andrews.
“Light makes photography. Embrace light. Admire it. Love it. But above all, know light. Know it for all you are worth, and you will know the key to photography.” -- George Eastman

It is not often I post things to my stream that were not taken by me, but this is one occasion. Simply, this is a glass negative found across the street at the Salvation Army. If I had to guess I would say it is probably a bit over 100 years old, considering that was the era when glass plates were being shot.

Say the 1890's. Amazing huh?

So at about 3 pm today I found myself holding a piece of glass with an image of three gentlemen on it over 100 years old.

I love my job.

But more importantly, I love photography. This really just sort of blows my mind. I start thinking about the fact that I am holding a once-sensitized piece of glass, that contains the imprint of light that bounced off of these three men over 100 years ago. In a sense it is almost a "light shadow" cast by them and captured on this glass.

And here I am using a state of the art scanner to digitize that image and bring it on to the web. Once again, amazing.

I don't want to make it seem like I am taking a dig at digital photography (digital imaging is why this image exists on the web right now) but this is a very big reason why I shoot film. The tangible nature. Being able to hold a piece of film that was struck by the very light that came off of the subject. Thinking that, that very same piece of film may one day be pulled from a box in someone's attic 80 years down the road, and that someone can hold it up to the light and see what I saw. They will even be able to still print it or scan it.

But it is not the ability to still print it or scan it that so amazes me. It is the physical evidence that light has left behind on this particular piece of film, or paper, or glass. Digital doesn't have that. The sensor carries no trace of that light, rather it is converted into electronic bits and bytes. A digital copy. A replica of what that light cast. There is nothing tangible, nothing physical to hold unless a print is made, which so often it never is.

And in some way this makes me deeply uneasy. I don't like thinking of the work of my life as being so intangible. It scares me in a sense and I never feel quite easy with digital images, despite the many amazing shots I have taken on digital cameras. And also despite how careful and redundant I am in backing those same images up. But it is not just my work. I think of all the pictures snapped every day. All those snap shots of sons and daughters. Mothers and grandmas. Beautiful sunsets and sunrises. And I think of what awful percentage of those images will have ceased to exist within ten years. Or twenty. Let alone a hundred years from now.

I know that even film is not permanent, nothing is really. Not our negatives. Nor us. Or our planet, or even our universe. But nonetheless, I am pretty certain that I will not be able to pull any of my CDs of digital files out of a box in 100 years and still have them be usable. Nor any CF cards. My external drives won't last more than 10 years I bet. My digital files won't ever be anything more than bits and bytes. Sure I can print them, but those are just copies of copies. Better than nothing, but still far lacking.

And so I shoot film, because I like to think each of those negatives carries the physical effect of light off of a beautiful waterfall striking it. Or the light bouncing off of my son Owen playing when he was 6 months old. And then again when he was 12 months old. Or even the very light that reflected off of an old friend no longer living. It is not so hard to hold a negative, or a plate like this, in your hand and feel like you are holding just a tiny shred of some past time itself. The last physical remainder of a moment long extinct, and that when I hold a negative in my hand, I am touching that light again. And that is one of the things that drives me to shoot film. That deep sense of not just recording light and time, but preserving it.

“What makes photography a strange invention is that its primary raw materials are light and time.” -- John Berger

-------------------------------------------------

If you have not browsed through it, the photo stream run by the Library of Congress is amazing. Really sit down and take your time taking it in. Don't just browse, really give yourself the time to look.


If you are interested in pricing for my images, or just plain curious, more info can be found at my website: www.zebandrews.com 

Comments

view profile

manyfires  Pro User  says:

Hear, hear. And those Library of Congress images are pretty amazing. I'd write more, but I'll have to expound tomorrow... soo tired.

What do you think the exposure time would have been for this? Meaning, are we past the point in history where everyone had to sit extremely still for long periods of time, while the light did its magic?
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Wallen Arts says:

This image reminds me of those found in the Scottish Rite building. The lake of emotion on the faces gives back emotion ten fold in the overall feeling to the shot itself. Light, afterall, is what its all about.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Jamie Larson  Pro User  says:

Is that Jake in the middle?
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

Morbit Photography [deleted] says:

nice :)

--
Seen in my contacts' photos. (?)
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

tourist_on_earth says:

I love the way that sitting for a photo used to be like sitting for a painting. Great find. I agree about the digital. Sometimes I wonder if we have re-entered prehistory because if our technological civilisation fails then none of our ideas that are stored virtually will exist...we will be a forgotten part of the development of humanity.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

GERMANO ZUCCA says:

how many pixels camera has??:-)
I like old photos
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Wendi Andrews  Pro User  says:

This post reminds me of one of the most memorable conversations we have had about photography, when you first explained to me about why negatives mean so much to you. You talked about Josey and how the negatives of her held actual light that bounced off of her and so it was like the negative held a piece of her. It was so lovely listening to you talk about that, so filled with emotion which is exactly what photography should be about. Your love for not only the finished product but the process and all of it's parts, well...it just makes me smile and makes me so happy that you have found something that is so fulfilling for you and that you are able to make a living from it and provide for our family. It is such a blessing, it really is. And it makes my heart so, so happy simply because it brings so much to your life. I think even if I wasn't interested in photography I could listen to you talk about for an endless amount of time, I suppose it is more about how you say it than what is being said. But if I go on any more I risk making my comment even longer than your post ;-)

I will just add, that this negative is quite amazing. Quite amazing.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

manyfires  Pro User  says:

Okay, I'm back.

Jamie's comment almost made me laugh milk out of my nose.

And I agree with Wendi; I love that conversation as well, and the passion you exude when you talk about these things. Not to mention the pure magic of that concept... that light, captured on film, those little photons that were actually there. It almost makes me want to turn a camera on myself for all the most important moments of my life that don't normally get recorded: the hopes and dreams found in midnight conversations sitting in a certain park under a certain bridge. The first kisses in my life, those moments when you greet a loved one at the airport and you can't help the silly grin that lights up your face. All the shiny happy moments. So that one day I could pick up those negatives, look at them, and think that not only do I have those memories, but I have that tangible connection to certain precious moments - like you said, that I can touch that light again.

It's a very life-affirming thought. I wish everyone could realize the magic of it - of film, of the precious nature of memories, of photography in general.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

jesse.millan  Pro User  says:

Great find. I love the touch of the portrait of George Washington hanging on the wall.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Heywood Industries  Pro User  says:

"And I think of what awful percentage of those images will have ceased to exist within ten years."

Exactly. A whole generation of images will be lost. Somewhat ironic considering the increased number of photos people take with their digital gear as compared to film.

I found photos of my grandfather and great-grandfather over the weekend. The photos of my grandfather are pre-WWII (one is dated 1934), so who knows how old the shots of my great-grandfather are.

As my grandfather died before I was born and these photos had been misplaced for years, it was quite something to finally see - after literally 33 years and two days - what older generations of my family looked like.

I find it annoying and, i guess, sad, that something like that may not be possible for someone in two or three generations' time.
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

sawtoothphoto  Pro User  says:

Yep, I have scanned and printed my dad's slides and black and white negatives from the 60's and 70's and they look like they were just shot.

I have some of my early digital images saved in a format no longer used on media no longer produced...guess my kids won't be looking at them in 20 years.

Great image, thanks for posting it
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Daniele Muscetta  Pro User  says:

I also love to scan and share old photos that survived generations:

The Grita Family, 1921
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

little m:)  Pro User  says:

f.n. AWESOME! god, you are really smart to find this and process. love it! and your quotes~m
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Heywood Industries  Pro User  says:

further to my comment above, here's the first photo i've scanned...

My great-grandfather on a white horse
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

AGrinberg  Pro User  says:

Wonderful essay, Zeb.

It made me think about the impermanence of light, and that maybe digital is more "true" to the fact that light is something one can not hold in one's hands. Kind of like a performance piece.

Then this showed up:
www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/disembodime nt.shtml

----------------------------------
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Chris (archi3d)  Pro User  says:

Hi, I'm an admin for a group called FOCUS LEGACY / Post 1-Award 3 / Invitation Only / or +20 favs, and we'd love to have this added to the group!
Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

thecaveofthedead says:

And what's with all this modern ISO400 nonsense? Trying to make images all lickety-split. No magic. All whoosh and nonsense. Give me ISO4 any day ;)
Posted 15 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

monkey4life says:

i was just commenting on this to a friend the other day. while photography is still alive and well as an artform, the general purpose of taking pictures has changed. no longer is it expensive and cumbersome to take pictures of events (no film, no large camera). it is now easy to snap a photo with your phone or point and shoot digital camera. because it has become so easy to put the resulting photos online to share with others, the reason most people take pictures is to share experiences with friends. i know that i have only owned one film camera in the last 10 years, and it was useless to me because i couldn't do anything with the pictures i took.

now im not saying film is dead. there is still a very great use for them in capturing the detail and beauty of a certain place or time. if i were to become a photography hobbyist i would definitely be getting a film camera. i love seeing the art generated by those who know how to use a film camera to get the perfect shot.

just an 20 year old average joe's 2 cents.
Posted 15 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

tanvach says:

Truthfully, I used to love film, the way it looked, the physical space it occupies, and how it holds in your hands. It's nostalgic, and I often feel like I've been thrown back to times where we used to take our snaps, and share them physically to our friends.

However, that era is gone, and we must accept a new metaphor, one that is intangible, containing only pure information to describe the world we live in now. This is what we need to 'keep up' with the world.

Let me explain. This new world changes constantly, never stay still to accommodate new technology, new ideas, and importantly, the Internet.

You play with information, the real values of the photos that you've carefully captured and processed. You mix and match exposures, colour distributions, distortions, casts, white points, black points, saturation, filters, and goodness forbid, photoshopping these photos to bits. It's like going from a waltz to electro-punk-hiphop-experimental-break dance fusion all at the same time.

Frankly it's a mess, but it's exciting, it's fresh, and you're all alone trying to make sense of what's left.

My personal feeling is this medium has been completely redefined and we're all still trying to explore what's possible.

But your point about longevity of digital medium is very valid. We are in serious need for permanent storage solution.
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Ross_Hannant  Pro User  says:

reading your note makes me want to go and buy a film camera.
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

sawtoothphoto  Pro User  says:

.....several film cameras!! "that era is gone"?? humm....
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

joe sacco says:

100 years old?? amazing!
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

charlesxcharles says:

tl;dr
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

ryan-c.com  Pro User  says:

Awesome. Film FTW.
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

goblynn says:

Oh, how lovely--the light, how the details around the edges get a bit fuzzy...all of it. I understand what you mean when you talk about holding a bit of time in your hand...for me, it's that connection to the subject(s) in the picture, knowing that the original photographer, family members, friends--they all touched it, held it, marveled at it, displayed it proudly--went to it for remembrance and comfort when someone departed...and there I am, looking at and holding that same thing, that same object and record. It's a string between then and now, something concrete.

Which makes it all the more painful to think about the fact that my husband's grandmother (who's in her seventies) THREW AWAY an entire box of negatives. Why? Because none of us knew the people in the pictures, anyway, so it didn't matter. *sigh* I would have loved to have seen them...
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Mike Stringer  Pro User  says:

Edward Burtynsky has a pretty good solution to this problem: carbon transfer prints with magenta, cyan, and yellow inks made out of ground stone.

blog.longnow.org/2008/07/24/edward-burtynsky- the-10000-ye...
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

thadg  Pro User  says:

"I start thinking about the fact that I am holding a once-sensitized piece of glass, that contains the imprint of light that bounced off of these three men over 100 years ago. In a sense it is almost a "light shadow" cast by them and captured on this glass"

Get out of my brain!

I agree completely in regards to the "coolness" of film and your ruminations on digital photography.
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

maticulous  Pro User  says:

The same is true for film negatives. Take a light source that could shine light through the negative image, through the camera lens and you would have the scene you took a photo of however many years ago.

But 100 years is quite impressive.
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Silvr  Pro User  says:

Hmm. You must be a very romantic person. :)


--
Seen on digg.com
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

oldglass  Pro User  says:

To the comment above me: Indeed, world would be worse than hell if it were not for romantic people who took the time to express themselves with thoughts, not banality.

To Zeb: Insightful writing, thanks for sharing it with us.
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

regrowth says:

you're all a bunch of fucking tools
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

trurokvazaggio says:

To be perfectly honest I do love the mystique and romance that your prose captures about the process of 'capturing' light on film; however, I don't believe the medium we so love is as different from digital as you think.

The truth is that at no point is it possible to actually capture light. All we can do is transfer the data the light held into some sort of different physical form that is more permanent. In film, the data is held in chemicals that have had their state changed by the presence or absence of light. The data stays stored in the actual chemicals. In digital, the photosensors react to the incoming light by changing their state and reporting those state changes to a reading device. The data is then stored as magnetic charges, representing all of the original light values.

Simply because you can see one set of data and can't see the other does not mean one exists and one doesn't. You cannot perceive the digital set of data without having help from the rest of the world (ie. someone must build you a computer,) but, likewise, without knowledge of the process of development you aren't going to be able to perceive the truth of the data in chemical form, either.

I also think your statement about the 'durability' of film vs. digital as evidenced here by the glass plate having remained intact over 100 years is slightly miscalculated. This one glass plate remains, and truthfully that is a miracle. It's existence is really a testament to the wealth of the people in the picture, and their subsequent ancestors/community who preserved this uniquely North American Faberge egg. But how many other glass plates were destroyed by carelessness? How many pictures from the sixties still haven't faded and left existence altogether? You don't see the far greater tragedy of these losses.

In addition, it's not possible to ever recreate the original picture without degrading it in some form. Since the chemicals are inherently photoreactive each exposure to the particles we need to perceive the photo destroys the very information we want to preserve. Digital doesn't have this drawback. The light is stored directly in a physical media/form that allows it to be copied easily and stored in exactly the same format on any number of storage devices. The likelihood of us 'forgetting' how to decode a .jpg file (and then not being able to figure out how to do it again) is so close to zero as to most likely be less likely than us destroying the Earth.

I don't, however, take issue with your love of light. Your love of the moment. I too feel this. This glass plate is a treasure. Thank you for sharing.
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

quazeck says:

Since it's over a hundred years old, why not make the full resolution copy available on this page? The copyright on it expired a long time ago.
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Nimages DR  Pro User  says:

Very inspiring! Thank You!
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Scott Ingram Photography  Pro User  says:

Awesome find and great thoughts to go with it.
Digital is great but something tangible is always more appealing.
I just bought some prints of some of my recent shots and I cant wait to get them. Nothing like having a framed image to add a sense of permanance.
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

DON3k says:

I always find it interesting, in old photographs, when other photos within the scene are captured, knowing that likely they no longer exist, except within the photo that now bares witness to their existence.

On the mantel, a lady dressed in finery, a young couple, a girl, in stockings and dress, sitting on a draped box or table. The pair of photos, framed in the background, of an older couple. Images captured of family and loved ones, now all lost to time, with no one able to identify them.
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Rob Scumaci  Pro User  says:

Faved for the words.
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Rob Scumaci  Pro User  says:

Zeb, would you mind if I put a link to this on my stream. It is incredibly well said.
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Andrew Curtis  Pro User  says:

I followed a link from digg, saw the image and went right into the description. Halfway through I thought, gee this sounds like Zeb! Turns out I was right...
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Mike LaPalme  Pro User  says:

Very true. That is why I like reading the Boat Lullabies.
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Zeb Andrews  Pro User  says:

Wow, ok so this photo hit somewhere along the front page of Digg and picked up quite a bit of interest, way too much for me to respond to all of it but there were a couple of points made that I wanted to comment on:

Tanvach: I do agree, the era of film cameras is gone, at least the era in which film was the dominant style with which to photograph. But film itself is not gone, nor will it be anytime soon. Not as long as either you or I live I am willing to be. So yes, digital is the new era, how long it shall last itself remains to be seen. On that point, you are quite right. I disagree as much with those people who try to desperately hold on to film as the last true way to make photos as I do to those who claim digital is the only way to make quality images too. And this is why I disagree with the next claim you make that we have to accept the new metaphor. We don't. Not at all. We can choose to, and many do. But many don't either. In truth I am not an old school film curmudgeon as some have claimed (those some obviously have not read much else of what I have written). But nor am I throwing everything else to jump on the rollercoaster ride of digital. The way I see it, we have the freedom to use one, or the other, as we need to. Or heavens forbid, both at once. See, what a lot of people don't seem to want to realize is that the world of photography is not black and white, there are shades of gray. There are still things that film accomplishes that digital just plain cannot do at all. There are also things that both do that film still does better. There are things digital does that film cannot, and things that both do that digital does better.

There is a fanaticism we use to approach our photography sometimes that people want to convince themselves of one or two narrow ideas, and not see or believe anything else. Lately the predominant idea is that digital is the be-all, end-all of photography. When you are buying a thousand dollar camera that will last you five or so years and then be obsolete because it is based on transitional technology, versus a two hundred dollar camera that could last you five decades, I can see how some of us need that perspective to justify their approach. And if I wanted to be harsh I would also say that there are those who use their equipment as sort of a status symbol to bolster others' view of their photography. These are the sort of attitudes I am trying to combat. Ultimately I believe the equipment is all pretty secondary and of less importance than we tend to believe it has...

But I digress a bit. A friend recently described the division of digital and film as a choice of paints for a painter, such as between watercolor and acrylic. Sure you will get those who will argue that one is better than the other, one is more serious than the other, one uses one type to make art while the other is less credible, and so forth. But in reality, they are both two different ways of doing the same thing. And that is the point I am constantly striving to make. Film does things digital cannot. Digital does things film cannot. Many of us realize the latter, but in the process have allowed ourselves to forget the former.

I would caution all of you not to forget either one of these truths though. When you realize the abilities of both, not just one or the other, you allow yourself a lot more freedom to operate and create.

But as I said, some people want to be convinced solely of one way or the other, for whatever reason. This I think is truly unfortunate...
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

Rob Scumaci  Pro User  says:

Yes there are still reasons to shoot film. Those reasons vary from person to person. For me, it's more emotional and tactile reasons than technical or practical reasons.

I'm 42. Since I was about 12 years old, I had a b&w darkroom in my basement. My father, my brother and I spent hours upon hours in there developing our own 35mm b&w film and printing. So, I have an emotional and tactile attachment to film. The odor of developer isn't offensive to me, it's reminiscent of great times. Watching a print develop from nothing as you agitate a tray by hand is magical.

I now primarily shoot digital IF you count by number of shots taken.

I'm about 50%-50% digital-film if you count by the number of times I use a camera in any given month. But when I go out with film I shoot less than 24 exposures per outing (say 2 hours). With digital I probably average 200-300 in that same time period. So it's more an issue of volume. The number of shots I actually use and print remains about the same between the mediums.

Film has a "quality" or experience that digital does not - both in terms of the process of taking the picture and the results you get.

In terms of process or experience with film you can use finely crafted tools. Shooting with vintage equipment is part of the film experience - for me. The equipment I tend to use is spartan, and solid and well machined. It imparts a tactile experience that plastic digital cameras just don't convey. Even the best digital SLR feels expensive at best - there isn't any real craftsmanship. (Again there is a lot of emotional element here I'll grant you that.)

When shooting film you have limited resources in terms of ISO of the film already loaded in the camera, maybe using only your experience to judge exposure, and I usually have one lens with me. So, the spartan resources heightens the experience. You are more involved with what is in front of the lens than what is in your hands. No chimping. No electronic beeps. No LEDs. No motors focusing your lens or holding it steady. It's all up to you.

In terms of results, it's not about sharpness or resolution. It's like judging good bokeh (a current favorite trend on Flickr) there is just a quality that some films have when the shot is right. A good film print carries with it the knowledge that it was taken with film - one shot - it's there or its not. Film grain also imparts a feeling and depth in the print.

Digital just isn't there yet in terms of the emotional attachment to the result, for me. The new digital tools are excellent, efficient and convenient, but the emotional and tactile experience isn't there yet, for me.
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

~ Nando ~  Pro User  says:

This made me cry!
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

midnighttoadstool says:

About six months ago I deliberately chose film rather than digital for entirely cost reasons: I don't take enough photos to justify even a cheap DSLR setup. I shoot contextual portraits, mostly, with lots of background oof; candid-looking except that they are actually posed. I use my digicam for anything else. I am very careful and get about 50% keepers, 10% stunning. With digital it is more like 5% keepers.

So right now it is still possible to justify film. But I suspect that the end of the disposable film camera will herald the moment I need to seriously consider a DSLR.
Posted 14 months ago. ( permalink )

view profile

- Bernie  Pro User  says:

Wise words in the Roland Barthes style. A negative is an evidence. But a raw file is just... numbers. Incredible shot.
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )

Would you like to comment?

Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).

[?]
view photos Uploaded on August 14, 2008
by Zeb Andrews

Zeb Andrews' photostream

1,032
uploads

This photo also belongs to:

100 Favorites (Set)

77
items
Part of: Favorites

Required reading (Set)

13
items
Part of: Favorites

FILM CAMERAS ONLY! (Pool)

Glass Negatives (Pool)

Blue Moon Camera (Pool)

Film is not Dead!! (Pool)

Film is not dead it just smells funny (Pool)

Reluctant Luddites (Pool)

Tags

Click this icon to see all public photos and videos tagged with old old
Click this icon to see all public photos and videos tagged with 4x5 4x5

Additional Information

All rights reserved Anyone can see this photo

Add to your map