"Photochemical film" and filmmaking seems to be the most precise way of saying what's meant here.
On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 6:07 PM Fred Camper <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark, and CFS, are right about something here. "Analog film" may be > redundant, but it may also be the best solution to a problem, and as it > becomes used more often it becomes, linguistically speaking, correct. > > Years ago, as "disrespected" began to be used commonly as a verb, it was > objected that it was not a word. But it turns out to have been the best > way of saying something, so now it is a word. If "analog film" is the > best solution, fine, let's all use it. I don't have a strong opinion on > how to solve this. > > Fred Camper > Chicago > > On 6/11/2022 12:49 PM, mrktosc wrote: > > Yeah, Pip I think you’re definitely taking this too literally, > particularly for an event which is clearly meant to positively celebrate > the love for a medium (and congrats CFS for the effort!). > > > > And if we want to be strict, “celluloid” is also not accurate, and > pertains only to the nitrate era - but we still use it casually and gladly > in referring to film. So, like “celluloid”, the word “film” has for a > while now come to be fairly medium-agnostic, and it has made sense in > recent years to add the adjective “analog” to clarify, especially for > younger enthusiasts for whom the material was never an everyday presence. > In their contemporary usage in this kind of context, at least in my view, > both “analog” and “film” have implications that extend quite a bit beyond > their historical and now more conservative uses. > > > > And film as a process is analog - film hasn’t just rigidly meant the > physical material in like 100 years… As a term it means much more than the > flexible plastic material called film, and it’s this inclusive and complex > sense of culture/medium/engagement that this festival is clearly meant to > highlight. > > > > Mark > > > > > >> On Jun 11, 2022, at 6:25 PM, Fred Camper <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> I agree that "analog" is redundant, and that electronically recorded > video can be analog, but unfortunately just using "film" is now > problematic, since an overwhelming shift in usage has it applying to > digital video. Shooting digital video is now called "filming," and a video > can be called a "film" We may not like this, but usage has made it correct. > >> > >> My solution is to write "celluloid." One might write, "films printed on > celluoloid," or, to be more restrictive, "films shot and printed on > celluloid." It would be interesting to know if the festival will accept > works shot on video but printed on celluloid, and designed that way, for > the look of, for example, Pixelvision on celluloid. Such things exist. > >> > >> I am all ears as to a better terminology solution. > >> > >> Fred Camper > >> Chicago > >> > >>> On 6/11/2022 12:01 PM, FrameWorks Admin wrote: > >>> Just a comment here: film is not analog. Film is a material. Whereas > an audio or a video signal can be either analog or digital, it is a > misnomer to say “analog film” or “digital film” - please just say film. > >>> - Pip Chodorov > >>> > >>> > >>>>> On Jun 11, 2022, at 1:33 PM, Julian Antos < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>>> We're very pleased to announce our call for entries for CELLULOID > NOW, a four day showcase of recent work and archival rediscoveries > presented on analog film. More info below! > >> -- > >> Frameworks mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> > https://mail.film-gallery.org/mailman/listinfo/frameworks_film-gallery.org > > -- > Frameworks mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.film-gallery.org/mailman/listinfo/frameworks_film-gallery.org >
-- Frameworks mailing list [email protected] https://mail.film-gallery.org/mailman/listinfo/frameworks_film-gallery.org
