Chow Chee Yong is a local artist, photographer and educator. He also was my lecturer back in Temasek Polytechnic, from whom I had learnt much about photography, including darkroom technique and process. I thought it was a good idea to talk to someone who shoots in large format and teaches others about it.
30 October 2013, 3.30pm
1.
A year ago we thought that photography books were dying; people are just putting their images online, why is there a need for books? So last year, a friend started the Singapore Photo Book Day, not knowing what's going to happen. But I tell you, it was amazing. We just called for entries for the fun of it. The whole day, it was packed with people. There were around 60 books for sale, some of which we've never seen. And personally I sold a lot of books that day - it's strange! Because you put the book at Page One and it hardly even goes. This year they just had it at the National Library and it was so packed with people! People are still buying books - why?
2.
Digital has really improved over the years, and I think to a certain extent, it has almost surpassed film in terms of sharpness. Depending on what you're comparing with, of course. But in most cases, digital is strongly and widely accepted. When digital first came about, the quality was so poor that advertisers and photographers didn't want to use it because it makes the products look so terrible. But now, everything is shot digitally. So the question would be - why still use film? Why are there still people using film?
I think there are a few reasons. For the younger people, it's just fascination. A fascination with, "How on earth can this piece of plastic have an image? How does this work?" It's like going into a chemistry lab where you mix this, you mix that, and bingo! Something magical happens. And it's really that magical moment of film that interest people. The immediacy of things is no longer so interesting. In the past the immediacy of things was very interesting, because in the film days we couldn't see what was happening. We had to wait. But now it's so common that we're kind of gelat already, "Oh man, this is terrible. Actually I don't want to see it immediately." It's like eating instant noodles all the time. When it first came about, it was such an interesting phenomena for people to eat noodles within 3 minutes. Everybody was into it. I remember it was one of the biggest things when we were in the army. Today, it's like, "Oh please, don't give me instant noodles." You want to go to a hawker centre; and some people line up for 1 hour to wait for the char kway teow! But it's okay, I can wait, I don't want to eat instant noodles. It tastes horrible. The aftertaste of digital is no longer that shiok anymore, I would say.
And I think digital images - most of them - somehow have this very clinical, robotic, cold look. It doesn't look human at all, it's like some futuristic cyborg at work. It's too clean and mechanical. In fact, digital - it's probably the software - is so so sharp that photographers decide to go the other way. When they get the details that they want, they start softening images. And as a result, bokeh today is such a big thing. You want it softened, you don't want it too sharp! Simply because being too sharp is not how the human eye sees things. The human eye sees things in variations, some soft and some sharp. You don't see things super clean or super sharp. Even if you're focusing on something, yes it's sharp, but we don't see it so sharp that we see the dust on it, the texture… But today's camera can capture that. And it has become a little distasteful, it's no longer so nice. Film, to me, retains that human touch. It is sharp, but not so sharp that you start getting irritated by things like that.
The second big thing, for me personally using film, is that it really makes you think more. Because you simply cannot rush it. It's costly. For example, every shot I make costs me $20 because I use large format. Whether I make it, or fail, it will cost me $20; I have no choice. Now, digitally it costs you nothing so to speak. If you make a wrong shot, just delete it. To me, it promotes laziness and a wishy-washy mind, a haphazard way for working. But film doesn't allow you to do it. At the back of your mind, you know you only have that 1 shot and it's going to cost you. Sometimes it's not even about the cost, it's your last shot, you don't have any more film. Am I really going to click the shutter? If I make a wrong choice, then I'm burnt, that's it. So that requires the photographer then to really think carefully, to make a really decisive decision, "Yes, I've made up my mind, the light is good, the conditions are all good, I'm going to start working." Rather than "Just try la, try la, we can do it later in Photoshop." With that kind of mentality, you almost have a very careless and carefree mentality, which is no good in most situations. Unless you really treat digital with a film kind of mentality… So that, to me, are the main reasons why someone would want to use film, besides being able to touch and hold the images up. Whereas in a phone or iPad, it's somewhere inside. No matter what you do you're just touching the frame, the device. Of course the sound of the shutter is also quite nice to hear, but that's just the appetizer, something that comes along the way.
So for me, even when I shoot digitally, I convert the file so that it looks like it's film. Because there is a difference. One has a very artificial look, and the other one is human. And I prefer the one that's human. Skype is good, but nothing beats face-to-face. Digital is like Skype; it's better than nothing, but if you can meet… It's even better. For example, if I give you a choice of buying clothes online versus I bring the clothes to you. I think 99 out of 100 will want to see the real clothes, and not seeing it through a screen. Your 5 senses are involved now, you can see, you can smell, you can feel the texture, whether the material is cold or warm. I think all these has an effect on us as humans.
I like what Cartier-Bresson said, and I paraphrase him, "The difference between a good photograph and a not-so-good photograph is just millimeters. But it is essential." I translate it into Singapore's context, and since I'm in education, "Chee Yong, why you fail me? My classmate and I have similar pictures, she/he got an A but I failed. It's just that she/he had a man walking past, but I don't. That's the only thing that is different." My reply would be, "The difference between 4D or Toto, is that one number. If you get that winning number, you get that million dollars. But one cannot say, 'Hey I only got 1 number differently, can you give me some of that money?' " And it's that kind of situation. The difference between digital and analogue sometimes may appear obscure. But the difference is essential and important. And it makes a person feel better or otherwise.
3.
It's like visiting a place, feeling the wind, hearing the leaves fluttering. Compared to looking at a painting where it's static, nothing is moving. So it's that feeling that's different. When you look at a digital watch, on the outside it's moving; you can see the numbers changing. But with a mechanical watch, the thing that watch enthusiasts are fascinated with, the first thing they do is to put it to their ears to hear its ticking. The sound of the ticking… I can't explain it. Some people will say it's just amazing to hear the sound, it's so satisfying, therapeutic. Once in a while, crazy people like me will open up the watch to see the mechanical parts moving. That's like wow… So fascinating. A few hundred parts, put together, and this thing works. And the moment one part is removed, everything stops. But for digital watches, when you open it up, nothing is moving. It's just electricity running inside, and you can't see it. It's like it has no life. You take out the battery and put it in, nothing happens. You only see the screen appear and disappear, but the internal parts are dead. It's like listening to our own heartbeat. We don't normally see your heart, but when you hear it, it's therapeutic. Because of this fascination, a lot of high end watch companies have made glass backs, so you can see the parts moving. It's this kind of fascination that fills up that emotional void in digital. Maybe one part of our emotions have to do with this touch, with seeing things work. Humans cannot live without touch. There was this study where 50 babies where they were provided for, but they all died because nobody touched them; there were no relationships. And I think a mechanical thing seems to have relationships. Some people call it 'soul'. It's like the more I touch and use a camera, the more I know it and the more the camera seems to know me. And there is this strange relationship between the camera and the photographer, the turntable and the listener.
4.
I think humans do not like to be controlled, they like to be in control. With digital it seems that somebody else is controlling it, somebody inside your iPod, your phone… And you just don't quite like it. You prefer to want to be in control. I want to process the film for a certain amount of time, I don't want the digital camera to do it for me. It will just automatically be done. With film, I will blame myself if I make a mistake, because I made that decision and I feel responsible for it. As a result, I feel there is a certain life that I put in. I made it alive, I put an image on the piece of plastic. But digitally, it doesn't seem that way.
5.
Some of the mechanical watches are ridiculously expensive - it has become a status symbol, a prestige. The film camera itself is not expensive, but the film is expensive, you have to keep feeding it. The turntable itself is not expensive, but the continuity to feed it is expensive. So it's a very status thing. With digital you just need a CF card. But similarly, the soul is missing. And I think the cycle of life is becoming shorter and shorter. Meaning fashion will turn around in a shorter time. For mechanical watches it took 15, 20 years to revive. For film cameras, it's about 10 years? Around 2 years ago we started to see a renewed interest. I went to a conference in San Francisco where I met a few professors from around the world, and I talked to them about this. They said, "Ya, our students like to shoot in film." We do a hybrid now, which is what I do too, where we shoot in film then scan it in. But that initial part is therapeutic. And I think there will be more and more interest.
I just taught the 2nd year students darkroom processing yesterday, and they were so fascinated. They enjoyed it, that magical moment. And this kind of magical moment doesn't occur in digital. The image just appears. The 3rd year students were grumbling about not learning darkroom, because in their year a lot of chemicals were unavailable so we didn't do it. And they want to learn.
6.
Actually I started my interest in watches and cameras at the same time, back in 1987. I was interested in photography, so I went to this place that made leather bags. I commissioned this uncle to make a leather camera bag for me, and I went down everyday to see the progress. What interest me was that he wore a vintage Rolex watch. And I didn't know such things exist, and that's how I started my interest in watches.
7. So what was it about the watch that caught your attention?
Initially it was just the mere look of seeing something that you don't usually get to see. Everybody has a G-Shock but not everyone has a vintage Rolex. It's just being able to own something special and uncommon.
