A boost for film

foc · Jul 20, 2010

In last Sunday Times Culture mag (UK & Ireland Sunday Times) there was an article about Lomography and how the writer thought film was dead but on further investigation found that it hadn't gone away, it was just harder to find. (I couldn't find any links for the article)

The article wasn't just about lomo, and the writer dusted off his old film camera and started shooting film. He explains why it is so different from shooting digital, no instant viewing, the fun of waiting till the film is developed, the undeleated shots because its film. He ended the piece saying "Lomo say the future is analog but I say God shoots film with Leica M6".

My main reason for writing all this is that I own a photo shop/minilab in the North West of Ireland, and 3 people came into the shop today to buy film and mentioned the article in the newspaper. They said that they too took out the old film camera from the back of the drawer and now wanted to shoot a roll of film. If the article had that effect on a small rural community where I live, how big an effect did it have on other bigger towns and cities across Ireland and the UK. It was good to see a positive piece in the media about film.

By the way in another section of the same paper it mentioned that Kodak reckon that there are around 12 billion analog cameras world wide sitting in drawers/presses/cupboards etc. If this could stimulate even 1% to take the camera out and shoot a roll, wouldn't that be something.

bobwysiwyg · Jul 20, 2010

Very interesting. Perhaps we need APUG tee-shirts, something to the affect that "If you like digital photography, try film. You won't be disappointed"

With enough members wearing them about, perhaps it will rekindle interest. Or am I just dreaming?

tac · Jul 20, 2010

I want an APUG Tee-shirt; L please! just the logo would be good for me.

Dave in Kansas · Jul 20, 2010

Me too. I also love the famous quote by Flotsam, but I'm not so sure that would help promote film to the general public.

Dave

Ian Grant · Jul 20, 2010

More than half our problem is the that most of the amateur photographic magazines on sale (UK/Ireland) don't or won't mention that film still exists. So you have a ludicrous situation where Practical Photography had an issue devoted to B&W Photography with absolutely no mention of B&W films, despite the fact that Ilford is British.

Ian

Worker 11811 · Jul 20, 2010

I might suggest that there are a lot of people who think they CAN'T use film any more.

They don't know you can buy film.
They don't know you can get film processed and they certainly don't know that it is possible for them to develop many kinds of film themselves, let alone use digital hybrid technology. (e.g. Scanning their negatives.)

These are people who, for all intents and purposes, have mothballed their cameras, thinking they would never use them again. The article you mention was basically an advertisement for film sales and processing.

That leads me to the question, "Do you think it would be worthwhile for business which sell film and photofinishing services to advertise?"

Something like, "Yes! You can STILL buy film! And, we can STILL develop it for you!"

jernejk · Jul 20, 2010

Better buy some equipment while it's still cheap

Simplicius · Jul 20, 2010

On the Irish Front.
I don't know if there is any upsurge in take-up due to the Sunday times magazine, I'll ask the guy in the local photolab next time I am in.

But I do realise there are loads of cameras sitting out there unused. Which means people generally believe they are worthless. In the 3-4 Short years since i took up photography, I have been gifted redundant cameras by the dozen. lots of practicas, but also a minty Leica IIIC with summar and elmar lens, a mint Autocord. A few nikon slrs and canon ae-1 program all with slections of lens. A mint minolta autowide and a Minolta Himatic S7..... there were some fungus laden monsters too but most surprisingly good nick.

So i am torn between wishing film gets more market share to assist the remaining companies survive and the ability to satisfy my desire for new gear for free.

Vonder · Jul 20, 2010

Every time I see a post like this I hope it's some great thing like "Exxon and Microsoft to invest billions in film technology." or something as optomistic - not "This guy wrote an article about how these other guys use film..."

Film will die out eventually. Not in my lifetime but some day. The home "coat your own film" machine just isn't going to happen.

Ian Grant · Jul 20, 2010

Wolfeye said:
Film will die out eventually. Not in my lifetime but some day. The home "coat your own film" machine just isn't going to happen.

They said that about painting

Instead it liberated painting, and it's liberating film and traditional photography, particularly LF work, and alternative processes.

It just needs more people writing enthusiastically again.

Ian

perkeleellinen · Jul 20, 2010

foc said:
My main reason for writing all this is that I own a photo shop/minilab in the North West of Ireland, and 3 people came into the shop today to buy film and mentioned the article in the newspaper.

Great news. Reminds me of a conversation I had with a shop owner when I lived in Sweden. He owned an analogue-only shop (www.fotokompaniet.com) and told me that after the local newspaper (www.gp.se) ran an article on alternative processes, lots of new people came into the shop, curious about things and wanting to give them a try.

foc · Jul 20, 2010

Worker 11811 said:
That leads me to the question, "Do you think it would be worthwhile for business which sell film and photofinishing services to advertise?"

Something like, "Yes! You can STILL buy film! And, we can STILL develop it for you!"

I tried a half page advertisment that ran in the local paper over a 2 week period saying " WANTED - YOUR FILMS -WESTILL DEVELOPE FILM". The next day after the 1st advert appeared, a woman walked into the shop with a bag of 17 colour 35mm films. As we got talking, she told me that she had cleared out a drawer after seeing the advert. When I asked how old were the films she replied that they were about 3-4 years old.

She thought film was finished because of digital and so decided not to have them developed. When she came to collect then she view the first few packets of prints and laughed out load as it brought back the memories she had forgotten about. I must admit it's a long time since I heard a customer laugh out load when viewing their photos. Why because with digital they have view them already, even as they print them, so the surprise is gone.

Remember I am not anti digital, 95% of our output is digital prints (RA4) but I like film and so want to keep that 5% and provide the service for it. 5% is still 5%.

Jeff Kubach · Jul 20, 2010

Once a in while I'll run into someone who still uses film. Maybe one day it will film will come back!

Jeff

foc · Jul 20, 2010

Ian Grant said:
More than half our problem is the that most of the amateur photographic magazines on sale (UK/Ireland) don't or won't mention that film still exists. So you have a ludicrous situation where Practical Photography had an issue devoted to B&W Photography with absolutely no mention of B&W films, despite the fact that Ilford is British.

Ian

I understand your point Ian and it seems an up hill battle to get the media to even mention film in any form. Do the advertisers in magazines dictate the editorial content? Could Fuji and Ilford insist on editorial coverage of a film product when they advertise in a publication.

Maybe film and black & white home processing has to be given a make over to make it seem cool. How that is done I don't know. Maybe a Jamie Oliver type of the film world to champion the film cause. Maybe it's time I go and lie down!!!

Vonder · Jul 20, 2010

Ian Grant said:
They said that about painting

Instead it liberated painting, and it's liberating film and traditional photography, particularly LF work, and alternative processes.

It just needs more people writing enthusiastically again.

Ian

I shoulda said roll and sheet film will die out. Plate camera people will be plying their craft well into the next century. I think that's when people will start looking at photography as art again.

Worker 11811 · Jul 20, 2010

foc said:
Remember I am not anti digital, 95% of our output is digital prints (RA4) but I like film and so want to keep that 5% and provide the service for it. 5% is still 5%.

I agree. I'm a photographer, not a digit head. I make pictures by whatever means I believe will do the best job for the situation I am in. Some of the times I use film. Some of the times I use digital. (For the last 6 months, it has been 90%-10% favoring film.)

Even if your film processing business is only 5%, that's 5% of business you wouldn't have had, otherwise. Right?

How many of those 5% buy something else from your store after your film services get them in the door?

Stephen Prunier · Jul 20, 2010

We need more articles written about the continued use of film. You should thank the writer for going back to "the dark side".

One of the magazines that I subscribe to has a monthly column that makes me want to cancel. EVERY month in this column the writer has to make a jab at film with comments like, "back when we used film" "back in the days of film" or "you would be better off investing in a DSLR then you would be buying a scanner with the hope that you can even find film today" It makes my blood boil. It's writing like that which miss leads the masses. Did I mention that he's a leader in the "NEW" process and he has an "Institute" that advertises in the mag!

I was thinking about pitching them a column on "film today and how they can both have a place in the photography world" Then I remember "I have terrible grammar skills so that ended that idea" :rolleyes:

Steve Smith · Jul 20, 2010

Jeff Kubach said:
Once a in while I'll run into someone who still uses film.

You should drive more carefully then. There are too few of us film users around already!

Steve.

Ric Trexell · Jul 20, 2010

As for photography magazines, they are just shills for the camera makers. I'm 58 and got into photograpy in my 20's. I remember then that authors were writing articles saying, "I used my SLR for this shot and couldn't have done it with anything else". When zoom lenses became popular I was reading that "I can't be bothered with carrying even two lenses, so I have to use a zoom". With every new invention for cameras there was some photographer that said he couldn't take that sort of picture until they invented the Blah Blah N-678 camera. Now I read that you can't take that sort of picture with film. At one time I believed all that stuff and I'm sure there are young guys out there that have read that unless you have a digital camera you can't take a picture of a bug on a leaf. Well, I know that if you take a picture of a sunset with that digital, you risk destroying the sensor. And if you do that with film, you risk under exposing your picture. Ric.

Stephen Prunier · Jul 20, 2010

I'm 52 so I know were your coming from. I'm sure you have seen the mag then. OP?

srs5694 · Jul 21, 2010

Stephen Prunier said:
I was thinking about pitching them a column on "film today and how they can both have a place in the photography world" Then I remember "I have terrible grammar skills so that ended that idea" :rolleyes:

That's what editors are for. Seriously. I write about computers for a living, and everything I write for pay is reviewed by editors. When I write books, there are typically at least two or three editors involved, plus proofreaders and others who can change the text. Magazines may have just one or two editors or proofreaders going over the text, but if it's a professional publication the editor(s) will be able to clean up any but the least intelligible submission. I've been told that my writing requires few edits, but I still see plenty of them, so I figure that the worst writers must submit drafts that are barely intelligible before they're edited. I have friends who've worked in the fiction publishing business, and they've told me about famous authors who submit drafts that are pretty dreadful in spelling and grammar.

So the bottom line is that if you think you have something worthwhile to say, go ahead and pitch your column. Write a sample column or two. If the publication isn't interested, you can always put the columns up on your personal Web site. FWIW, that's how I got started writing about computers: An editor saw one of my Web sites and asked me to write a book on the topic!

E76 · Jul 21, 2010

I am always excited to see people (re)discovering film and articles written on the subject, but my question is: how many of those who become interested actually stick with it? Do they decide it's too expensive and that a $5000 digital camera is "cheaper" because there are no "film costs?" This is what I find the biggest misconception about film to be. It's not that they don't think the materials no longer exist, it's that they think it's very expensive, difficult, and not worth the trouble.

Another barrier to entry is the lack of education about analog processes—it's just not taught like it once was. I attend a university known for its photo programs and the traditional darkroom has been nearly eliminated from the entire curriculum. There are even some faculty members that go so far as to actively discourage any exploration in the area! Some introductory courses remain, but that's about it. While the school still offers a technical photographic chemistry course, there is talk that it might be eliminated in the coming years. Nobody is interested in having "the best of both worlds."

steven_e007 · Jul 21, 2010

foc said:
Do the advertisers in magazines dictate the editorial content?

I'm sure they must.

Very depressingly the other day I scanned the shelves of the local magazine merchant (WH Smiths) for a copy of 'Black and White Photography'. It is the only magazine I've seen for sale that has been including some film articles and coverage. Alas, this content seems to have been diminishing - and for the last couple of months I haven't seen it on the shelves at all. What you do see is dozens of glossy magazines, always with 'Digital' in the title... They're all the **** same! - Basically sales catalogues and equipment reviews for techno widgets with a few articles on 'how to fight against your cameras automatic systems to try and force it to do what you want it to do'.
Not one single magazine gave even the slightest nod towards the existence of film.

It is understandable that many people think film is dead...

Ian Grant · Jul 21, 2010

The BJP has no anti film agenda, and is no even better than ever, and available in W.H.Smiths.

Ian

Rudeofus · Jul 21, 2010

steven_e007 said:
It is understandable that many people think film is dead...

I understand that some here feel desperate when they see the digital steam roller crushing over everything film related, including media presence. I still take a difference view point though:

The media hype for digital gets a lot of people into photography, in fact I've never seen as many advanced cameras ever before, even in tourist locations. And I do notice that quite a few of these folks get bored with umpteen megapixels after a while and start looking for something more challenging and more rewarding. You can't imagine how many folks ask for analog equipment now after years of pure digital shooting. Until then they've also resolved all their "is my lens sharp?" and "which settings do I use for sports?" questions :rolleyes:
Thanks to the internet, even "fringe" hobbies can survive. There may be only a few remaining dark rooms in my home town, yet I can ask questions here on APUG, and get valuable answers, too. If I can't get material locally, I can locate and order it world wide. I am 100% hobbyist. 20 years ago I'd go to the next photo store, and they'd have 5 different kinds of film. Today I can read reviews online and order film online. While there may be fewer color films made today, practically there's much more choice available to me.

A boost for film

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency