All Alone

[AgX]

I do not want photography to be limited to artists I'd like it to include Uncle George too.

 

[Xmas]

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.

My hot news chum is concerned that the camphone users are getting photos to the picture editors screen by email before him and hense onto paper or web site.

Most people have phones with two cams for selfies, on train or bus, everyone else is nose into web browser, not a gendre I take photos of now if they were to kiss...

Some of our Ch tourists have film cameras, as well as camphones, many have excellent English, eg

Ch tourist photog student asks me where can he buy a Rolli and film - he has gfriend in tow and her parents.

I walk the family to first shop, only a block away. On the way he asks

'why does your M2 not have a lever under the shutter release like mine?'

'the delayed release lever was an additional cost option on '58 models.'

And no I don't have an expensive digital camera only a smart phone.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

It is, in that most of those crap photos will evaporate when the storage devices become unreadable - or just degrade.

 

[Chris Lange]

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.

 

[MattKing]

At one time, you would regularly see people with movie film cameras.

More recently, they were carrying video cameras.

Now they carry cel phones or DSLRs or extravagantly priced 4K cameras.

Most likely, products from the most popular current segment of the marketplace will be most visible in a place like Rome.

The last time I was out shooting was Sunday. The only other camera I saw that day was an 8x10, wielded by another APUG member.

So timing is everything!

 

[RattyMouse]

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.

Yep, I went there. Nice shop, but no Acros or Portra 400 (120) in stock.

 

[RattyMouse]

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.

No, China is digital crazy, outnumbering film cameras 5000:1 or more. It may be cheaper to shoot film, if you buy used cameras, but China has so much money, so much cash that no one cares about cost. The locals buy THE most expensive gear that they can, to show off their new found wealth.

 

[RattyMouse]

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.

There are no Starbucks in Rome!

 

[RattyMouse]

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.

I'm out walking the streets of Rome, not going into tourist areas (aside from a few churches and the Vatican museum, the one paid place I went into). I've walked by the Colosseum, but did not go in it, for example. I just kept on walking.

Every day this week I have gone for 10-12 hour walks, walking from one end of the city to the other. While I might not be seeing Roman photographers, the other tourists are 100% digital. That's where I'm alone.

 

[darkosaric]

There are no Starbucks in Rome!

Yes! I remember this now , coffee in Rome (and in Italy) is on every corner - and much better than starbucks (and I do like starbucks, don't get me wrong).
Tip - stand next to the bar, do not sit on the terrace, and espresso will cost you around 1€ instead of 3€ .

But in general you know what I mean.

About China and digital - so it is like everywhere, for a moment I was hoping that they actually have more "APUG" way of thinking than other countries. Eh...

 

[baachitraka]

I may say you are not alone, rather you are unique.

 

[Bateleur]

A year or so ago, we were sitting outside the San Francesco di Paola ai Monti catching our breath. A fellow walked past with a Voigtländer and popped of a shot of us. One of the very few times in recent years I have seen a proper camera in Rome or anywhere else for that matter. So I don't feel alone ;-)

 

[David Lyga]

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 francs 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

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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.

 

[waynecrider]

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.

Down here in S. Floriduh the digital shooters remark about my film camera(s). I can imagine their later conversations about seeing a "rare" film shooter. What luck for them in seeing such a rare and prized thing.

 

[pentaxuser]

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

 

[kb3lms]

Ratty, this fact that you don't see any film shooters is pretty normal for the rest of the world. Sounds like you are very fortunate in China. But, this is why a lot of us get all upset with KA, Fuji and their lack of any sort of promotion. (I'll leave out TIP and Ilford because they do make efforts at appropriate promotion.)

but from what I've heard 1970's wages still predominate in the U.S.

</ Start of Soapbox>
In terms of real purchasing power, yes, that is largely true. Not to go all political but in the last quarter, something like 529,000 full time jobs were lost, only to be replaced by 799,000 part time jobs. While our government thinks they can "celebrate" the net "creation" of 270,000 jobs, in reality 529,000 probably decently paying jobs with benefits were replaced by low-paying part-time jobs without benefits. Not really economic progress.

There is nothing particularly new about trying to replace full-time workers with part-time workers but, the forced imposition of "Obamacare" has turned it into an epidemic. I'm all for people having good health care, but they ought to be getting it by having worthwhile, well-paying full-jobs with benefits and not low-level part-time work that generates government dependency.

Part time work, especially retail, usually pays minimum wage, or maybe a little more. Today, the US minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. When I started working in 1978, minimum wage was $2.75. By 1984 it was $3.45 or something like that. Given the difference of 30 years and inflation, $7.25 vs $3.45 doesn't impress me.
< End of Soapbox />

 

[Prest_400]

I'm based around Barcelona and every once in a while I spot film cameras. Some days I see many, others none.

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.

THAT is an important point.
I'm 19 and have some perspective about this. I got a decent camera in the phone and recently got myself into MF through a Fuji 6x9, using the former for snapshots and the latter for more careful and purposed photography.
Every once in a while I print off to 4x6 some snaps and a couple of months ago I decided to give a few of these prints to some friends (photos of them). All (6) loved it, and most gave me back a very positive feedback about it. A couple are happy that they have something to remember and keep in their cold student dorms and one told me it was a long time since he had a print.

On another online discussion I saw mentioned that "there are too many photos and too little attention", sadly yes. I take care of all my keepers, at least archive them [digitally if so], for the future when they may be proved valuable... Which brings me to the point that people don't take care at all of photographs! I learnt the hard way when I couldn't by the life of me obtain some original files on an event which I wanted to print. Had to make do with my friends' cellphone snaps and very degraded copies from facebook.

On the topic of loneliness, these friends convinced me to get an Instagram account, and that's a personal flop IMO.
I don't like the environment and still haven't found a niche there. I feel very lonely in between a sea of snaps!

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)
I grew up with photography being a medium for holding a context into time, and this is why I've got this rather particular view and use of this medium.

The "single use" attitude is a society thing however, same happens to music for example ("2012 song? Old song! Sucks!") and for sure in other fields and media.

 

[darkosaric]

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)

Thanks for the link! Great story, all is very nice, even when he is promoting his workshop .

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

I will be a better tourist in paris when sitting on computer in istanbul and reading research papers on da vinci mona lisa than to be in louvre and try to see the painting in hundreds of people holding their cell phones and taking pictures. And David Lyga is right interrail or euro rail is super expensive than yesterday but it was extremelly expensive 20 years ago also.

I read an story from Turkish university girl and she says when going to france , train passes the swiss at 4 am at the morning and swiss police awaked her and asked the swiss visa , she was not knowing swiss is not a member of eu and she had hard times until police released her to go.

I think train travel is not funny when crossing the every border and try to proof you are not a terrorist .

There are some words in english I love most , armchair sailor , traveler , adventurer .

 

[Truzi]

I went to see fireworks in Westlake (Ohio), and felt kind of odd carrying a camera; I've never taken pictures of a fireworks display. I'm sure there were many snapping with smart phones, but I saw only one other person with a tripod and camera (a DSLR - Nikon D90), so we sat next to him. I guess we were both alone in what we were doing.

He showed me some of his previous fireworks shots on his iPad, and gave a few tips. He used to use film. We had a nice little conversation, then watched the show.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Truzi,

Summer nights and strangers , good combination to fall in love .

 

[Truzi]

We were alone in that we were the only ones taking pictures of the fireworks with actual cameras. I was with my best friend and my mother as well.

 

[dmitchell40]

With family in Italy I travel to Rome often. I occasionally see some film shooters but on my most recent visit a few weeks ago did not see any at all. Which is a shame since Rome looks absolutely fabulous with tri-x.

In my hometown of Toronto it seems the film culture is quite alive and healthy. Last weekend I spotted a Mamiya 7 shooter, as well as a Pentax SLR, and Leica's are quite common as well.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/dwmitchell/14471587584/in/set-72157645327628933
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dwmitchell/14286177208/in/set-72157645327628933

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

So yesterday I'm sitting under an umbrella at an outdoor café, waiting out a passing rain shower. Not an unusual way to pass the time in Washington state. Even on a July 5th.

My camera bag sits on the table under the umbrella with my GF670 folder resting on top. Once opened and locked, the camera usually stays that way. The UV filter and metal shade preclude easily reclosing it as both must be removed to do so, and I also use a separate right-hand bracket with cable release for better handling. So I wait.

While I'm waiting up walks a nice elderly lady who notices and asks about the camera. After I explain, she tells me that she just bought a wonderful vintage Zeiss Ikon 6x9 folder for use as her "new" regular working camera. She uses Ilford film (atta' girl!) and does her own developing and printing.

She recently learned these things by taking a series of classes at a community college in Portland, Oregon. They let her continue to use their darkroom facilities, as she currently has none of her own. But she wants to start looking into what it would take to set up a simple one at her place.

She looked to me to be in her early 70s, and said that this is her first go around with photography of any type. After she walked away I was just grinning from ear to ear...



Ken