Have you noticed - the word analogue (analog) is zeitgeist right now? Why is that? It’s a conundrum that in a world of increasing digital convenience, people should see analogue technology as fascinating and magical. The thought process being: ‘Ah, this is how we used to live before algorithms governed our lives’. This is certainly true of some artists, filmmakers and musicians who have grown up with the internet as ubiquitous as electricity was to the generation before them. For them analogue technology is a novel process, another approach. A creative choice.

So is this analogue fascination just a passing dalliance - the dying gasps of technologies heading for well earned retirement? Maybe. Certainly in music, the visual arts, cinema and television - digital platforms permeate; succeeding in terms of convenience, speed, cheapness, predictability and fidelity, hitherto unmatched. Looking forward we can also predict that artificial intelligence (AI) will create its own artistic genres in terms of fine art, music and content creation that will inevitably deliver a significant ‘wow factor’ for us mere mortals. In fact that’s already happening. The first silicone-based fine artist / musician / filmmaker of merit is just around the corner.

But give it time for the AI phenomenum to bed in and the hysteria to die down. Will we continue to be captivated by something that is so clearly an algorithmic emulation of our deepest creative instincts? Or will we want to know that artistic creations are innately human? At the very least would one expect content, however it’s generated to be curated by humans? What after all is the function of all of this story telling and high drama we humans love to engage with? Assuming we gain some control of the climate crisis and various very pressing geo-political matters, where are we technological beings headed, as generators of narrative and artistic enlightenment; and what do we want our legacy to be?

Perhaps at this point we should pause and define exactly what analogue actually means in the context of this article / website. All creative endeavours - no matter what tools were used to create them, result in something that is analogous to our experience - so in a sense all art forms result in something that is analogue. What we’re trying to identify here however, are the techniques used to get to that point and whether there is continued merit in working with tools that explicitly do not use ones and zeros to generate the first creative marks. It’s taken as red in this article, that the subsequent editing, distribution and enjoyment may well be by digital means and these channels continue to evolve. In fact it’s worth noting that we can only guess at what the next big digital step will be, but the speed at which it is evolving means the digital creative tools we’re currently using will likely be obsolete within a decade or less. Not so with the analogue tools.

In the case of filmmaking - the art form closest to our hearts - it’s the difference between using a digital motion picture camera, that presents ease and convenience with the removal of a costly, unpredictable and fragile medium (film); and it’s counterpart, a mechanical film camera using a photo-chemical medium that responds directly to the light present in that moment and introduces it’s own innate ‘look’ to the footage. It’s salient to point out here that each and every frame in the latter is entirely unique with a grain structure that can never be repeated. To the filmmaker, the decision to shoot digital or film (or both), is a judgment call - as both systems of course have artistic merit.

But to come back to our main question. Can we justify shooting film? Is this analogue zeitgeist something more than a fad? Let’s consider what shooting film is for (creatively speaking) and what it entails.

Shooting on analogue motion picture film is not only to do with the wonderful look, heritage or nostalgia that is imbued within it. It’s also to do with the creative process involved in using non-digital tools. A digital cinema camera has an ultra precise high resolution sensor, near limitless run times and is extremely light. But (and this is the peculiar part about us humans) the decision to shoot on the more demanding, expensive and unpredictable medium (film) is exhilerating, altering the creative process and outcomes. Through its limitations, both physically and financially it demands a deal of focus, energy and decisive thinking that for some filmmakers garners better performances from themselves, their cast and crew. Furthermore, embracing some of the limitations of analogue film, can lead to elegant work arounds in cinematography, grading and editing. Using a mechanical means of image capture is also extremely rewarding for many filmmakers. As much as the creative journey and final look differ from digital, the weight and physicality of the medium and equipment used, demands some reverence. It is also hugely enjoyable and challenging to operate in equal measure.

Let’s also not forget the longevity of analogue film. Stored correctly the film and images should last over 500 years. This is why digitally shot features are backed-up on film. Yes you read that correctly - digital features are backed up on three channel digital separation masters. Black and white film masters exposed to the three primary colours red, green and blue of the original digital file. In fact it’s the only motion picture film stock that Fuji still make - see this link. Digital storage systems are subject to corruption, errors and changes in operating systems over very short periods of time. How many of us are still browsing the web on Windows 95 or loading programmes onto the main frame using punch cards?

To summarise - film looks beautiful, is a thrill to shoot, and will last a very long time. Its storage and the images it contains are not governed in any way by the ever evolving information technology landscape.

The analogue versus digital process could be likened to a guitarist wanting to record their favourite guitar tune. With the technology now available, they could record their tune without even touching a fret board, using VR guitar software on a digital audio workstation. It will sound great and be very quick and easy to accomplish. Or they could, from their years of practice at honing their technique, select their favourite guitar and play the tune live into their recording device. It goes without saying that a proficient guitarist, with time on their hands would most likely favour the latter. Why? Because it’s what they love and gain the most pleasure from and the sense of accomplishment and personal touch are far greater. Moreover the pleasure of the playing, that energy and focus will be transcribed into that recording and will arguably result in a more emotive final product. Warts and all. So one could say the same applies for analogue filmmaking in the 21st century. It’s as much about the craft of generating it, as it is the beautiful final product it creates; and with over 130 years of continuous refinement in analogue motion picture film production, why should we expect anything less?