I was thinking: I was never in China, but it is possible that digital craziness did not reached maximum in whole population in China? In West Europe (and I guess USA and Japan) every body has expensive digital camera - maybe majority of people in China still can not afford 500-1000 camera? And it is cheaper to use film.
Exactly.
Economical cameras in the hands of consumers has always resulted in zillions of crap photos...the sort of photos that are meaningful only because it shows that Uncle George traveled to Rome 40 years ago or because that's what Aunt Betty looked like before she got fat. They are family memories. That's all.
Maybe digital is a really, really good thing in the sense that today, all the crap photos are taken digitally. Maybe that will result in a perception of film as something only used by artists. That wouldn't be so bad.
In Rome there are enough film shooters to support an analogue photography shop so there must be some more people around taking photos without using digital. This is the shop: http://www.ars-imago.com/ I have no affiliation with them apart from being a happy customer of their Swiss branch.
I was thinking: I was never in China, but it is possible that digital craziness did not reached maximum in whole population in China? In West Europe (and I guess USA and Japan) every body has expensive digital camera - maybe majority of people in China still can not afford 500-1000 camera? And it is cheaper to use film.
You described past and present tourist situation very well.
When I look movie "Roman Holiday" - I see romantic times long gone, not so many tourist, nicer than it is today, more original, nostalgic... But - as you say - flying is become available to much more people than in past (for me too, I am not complaining). Together with cheap hostels, airbnb, you can look in internet forums where and what is cheap... Many people I know are trying to get some originality in culture when they travel - they are complaining that "all is the same". You go to starbucks in Rome, same as back home, surfing in hotel like at home... So what they are trying is to visit some non touristic places (like Georgia - country, not USA part, or Mongolia) - to run away from this tourist places like west Europe, or Disneyland. But this can be more costly and/or risky.
I carry a film camera around NYC all the time. I see other film users daily (strangers and not in neighborhoods I hang out in, just passerby on the street/subway). It's possible that you may not see other film users out and about because I think most local photographers are not interested in being out and about during "tourism" hours, much less tourism locations. Additionally, remember you're there on vacation, you probably don't have a day job at home that let's you wander with a film camera, so the other film shooters in Rome probably don't either...
Not to worry, they're out there.
There are no Starbucks in Rome!
Fifty years ago, if someone from my home town traveled to Rome, odds are they would take a bunch of 35mm color slide photos. Of course, 50 years ago, such a trip was (economically speaking) completely out of the question for people who grew up in my economic circumstances. A trip to Europe was one of those markers that separated the well-off families from the rest of us.
I do beg to differ, omaha: in 1970 I went to Europe for six months, First class Eurailpass for three of those months, Icelandic Airlines each way. TOTAL cost, including airfare: USD 800. The three month Eurailpass cost an extra USD 250.
Try that today with the dollar in the poverty class. TODAY a three month Eurailpass costs ten times as much! Indeed, THEN, I got four Swiss franc for one dollar. TODAY, 0.8 Swiss francs for one dollar. TODAY you have to have money to visit Europe. I am happy I went then. THAT Europe no longer exists. - David Lyga
David- you're also talking about 43 years worth of inflation. Not exactly a fair comparison. $250 adjusted for inflation today is $1532. So, if the today price is $2500 instead of $250, the difference in 1970 dollars is actually $157. So not nearly as far off as you're making it sound. That's about a 60% price increase. I'd bet you're making more than 60% more than you were in 1970.
Not to go off on a tangent, but from what I've heard 1970's wages still predominate in the U.S.; Of course depending on class.
That's the first good explanation I've seen of why Ilford sells you guys its products so much cheaper.
pentaxuser
but from what I've heard 1970's wages still predominate in the U.S.
THAT is an important point.In every western city I was - I see like 1-2 film user on whole weekend. 99,99% of people like their facebook, instagram or whatever over proper photo made on paper (from film or from digital source). They don't make photos to have memory of it, or to make some nice art, or to enjoy photography as a craft, ... they do it to share on line with virtual friends - who are doing the same - and funny and sad is that nobody is looking on those photos: author nor virtual friends. If there is a digital photography - but no internet - there wold not be so many pollution of senseless digital images.
As of photography being important, I recently saw a video by a LA photographer explaining a story of a tramp he gave a print... and he kept that print for 27+ years. That is some love for what is in the photograph and behind. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTnxIPX0XP0)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?