Coming back to film

[Colin Corneau]

http://thephoblographer.com/2010/09/07/associated-press-shutterbugs-ditching-digital-for-film/

 

[Mats_A]

This is what I have noted also. There is a slow resurgence of analog technology and film is part of that.
Better start buying up old cameras now as prices will rise

r

Mats

 

[fotch]

Hurray, its about time.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Well, just sample the introduction threads here on APUG. More than a few tout returning after a spell spent away from film photography. I think it more of an reawakening than a resurgence.

 

[wclark5179]

I started my photography journey using film back in the 1950's. I still use it, that's why I'm here. However, for my business it's the other way of capture. There are several reasons. The other form is now my dominant workflow and with prices coming down I need to do more volume, hence the other medium.

Since I'm 62 and this is not my sole source of income, I can do things differently, as I'm looking with different colored glasses, than the younger pro who is still are at a point in their life that they need to produce to earn enough for a decent living for their family. I find most all of the younger (those in their thirties or less) people have never used film for capture. Maybe they will pick up on it someday.

Although I did recently post an interesting link to an article I found in the September issue of Professional Photographer magazine. I wonder if they scan the negatives and process with a computer? Then print, which way?

At any rate, no matter what a person does there are only 24 hours to each day. Time and profit are the most important factors for most of my business decisions.

 

[paulie]

film photography has hit its rock bottom and is now rising once more, after all photography for most is a pastime , and that word indicates the desire to spend time in creating a photograph.

digital is just all over too soon ,click , chimp and its done, not much of a pastime in my eyes.

+ i guess in pro terms it gives you a edge if you do both digital and film, i know i do.
well i own a digi canon but havent used it for a few months lol

i just hope that colour papers and films can be saved in time, b and w will be ok , but im really worried about colour, sad.

 

[wclark5179]

Just received the fall 2010 issue of Aperture, the back cover is a nice ad for Kodak Ektar 100 film. The ad shows, "New! Now in 4 by 5 and 8 by 10 formats." Kind of nice to have Kodak still working the film business. Let's support Kodak! And the other film makers as well!

 

[paulie]

i second that

 

[CGW]

"film photography has hit its rock bottom and is now rising once more..."

Sounds like the "dead cat bounce" again. These chipper articles miss some sad but undeniable truths concerning the "ecology" of film shooting. For starters, home dev/print is a necessity for most--that's only mention of development issues in the video. The article sidesteps the carnage among pro labs(make that any lab) capable of competent full range service. Film is harder to find and pricier than ever for many. I'd like to support Kodak but here in Canada, Kodak has shunned small labs by making huge orders of paper and chemistry a necessity for maintaining an account--a gift to Fuji. Repair shops tanked for lack of business. I intend to hang on as long as possible but high costs and inconvenience are cutting into my shooting. The last gasp was the recent demise of cheap, sometimes iffy processing/printing from big boxes like Walmart and Costco.Giveaway 35mm kits lose their sparkle quick when a 20-something finds out a 24 of Fuji Superia will cost $10-12 to process and print, plus take a week.

 

[Colin Corneau]

My take is film is just taking its place alongside digital as a means of image creation - people, especially creatives both amateur and pro, like having options beyond 10 megapixel or 12.

It'll never be huge or dominant and people are fooling themselves to think digital a 'fad'. That said, more people do seem to be making a deliberate choice.

 

[CGW]

bump

 

[Terrence Brennan]

Supplies

"film photography has hit its rock bottom and is now rising once more..."

Sounds like the "dead cat bounce" again. These chipper articles miss some sad but undeniable truths concerning the "ecology" of film shooting. For starters, home dev/print is a necessity for most--that's only mention of development issues in the video. The article sidesteps the carnage among pro labs(make that any lab) capable of competent full range service. Film is harder to find and pricier than ever for many. I'd like to support Kodak but here in Canada, Kodak has shunned small labs by making huge orders of paper and chemistry a necessity for maintaining an account--a gift to Fuji. Repair shops tanked for lack of business. I intend to hang on as long as possible but high costs and inconvenience are cutting into my shooting. The last gasp was the recent demise of cheap, sometimes iffy processing/printing from big boxes like Walmart and Costco.Giveaway 35mm kits lose their sparkle quick when a 20-something finds out a 24 of Fuji Superia will cost $10-12 to process and print, plus take a week.

If the local suppliers won't stock what you need, get it in the U.S., as I do.

 

[CGW]

If the`local suppliers won't stock what you need, get it in the U.S., as I do.

Well aware that they sell film in US and do buy when forex rates are good;otherwise, it's the US for selection alone--not price.The real problem is the availability of quality processing at a reasonable price, which reflects volume--or lack of it--at the remaining labs. So much for the return to film...I'll throw in the towel when it becomes necessary to get processing by mail.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

That's great to hear. I hope it continues!

Jeff

 

[jamesgignac]

When I first 'came back' to film I was treated like a bit of a curiosity but I've definitely noticed that many, many people that I meet up with these days have a different response when I tell them I shoot on film. Most of them have this solemn, respectful tone as if they have come across a person who 'really' knows photography. I'd also say that about 25% of the travelers I've met when I was touring around China were shooting on film - and they were all under the age of 30, most of them in their early 20s. It's definitely a good thing but I agree with you Colin it will not recapture the market, and in a sense I'm slightly glad about that.

People use photography in very different ways and the youngsters whom I've met shooting film have all had that slow, sensible approach to image making. I know I'll continue to shoot film as long as I can and will certainly spread the knowledge and enthusiasm about it to everyone I meet...well, as long as they aren't the kind of folks who's only bit of photographic boasting is: "I shot 500 photos today and I still have 90% of my memory card left!"

 

[photoncatcher]

Gee, I guess I've been a "way cool Hippster" for a long time. It's interesting to me at least, that when I tell people that I shoot film, their reaction is always so positive, and in some cases envious. I almost never get the "why would you shoot film" reaction.

 

[angrykitty]

It's just a temporary trend. Lomo is popular amongst the rich hipster kids nowadays, but in the end, they're just hipsters that don't have any actual dedication to the medium, they're just trying to look cool. They do the same thing with cycling. They spend hundreds of dollars on fancy fixed gear bicycles that they ride 2 blocks once in awhile so people can see them and then they drive everywhere else. The hipster trend will quickly fade and I bet you that's at least 50% of lomo business. Hipster is just the new mtv generation, and their tastes will change with the wind. (no offense, photoncatcher, you are likely one of the very few)

I'm pretty sure digital is here to stay, and the technology is only going to get better. At some point I do believe the quality will actually rival film, but it's just not there yet.

I grew up during the transfer from film to digital. I'm 26. At the thrift store I work at, we always get these relic digital cameras from the 90's. I sort of came of age along with digital, those are the cameras I grew up with. But look at the ridiculous amount of progress it's made in the last 10-20 years. Do you remember those things with the half inch screen and gargantuan memory cards, the size of half a brick, boasting 5 megapixels, lol! And if digital cameras, like computers and video games, have the ability to improve exponentially and not linearly, the progress will be doubling itself each year, not just improving incriment by incriment.

I like that I can get darkroom equipment for ultra cheap on ebay. I got my el-nikkor lens for $20. I also got a dichro head for that same price. If film was truly making a comeback, I'm sure these things would no longer be so inexpensive. The lack of demand for these products is what made it possible for me to be able to afford them.

I also like that film is unpopular and a rarity. For one, it makes me look really good. For two, it cuts the superficial photographers from the real ones. You have to have some serious dedication to work with film nowadays, and those who are that dedicated are usually the ones that are going to be the best at it. If someone's shooting film, you know that they bust their butts in a labor of love and appreciation for what they do. With digital, that may or may not be the case, but most of the time it's just not.

Proffessionally, digital seems to be the most cost effective and time efficient way to go. Quality is the sacrifice for that. Digital is going to seperate art from work. And only the most dedicated artists (or craftsmen, hobbyists or whatever) are going to remain in the film shooting world.

So, it's sort of win-win if you think about it. Pros get an easier job, that is only going to get easier. Trendy kids get a (short lived) education in history. Moms get easy adorable snapshots, every time. And everyone else, who is now a minority, gets cheaper resources and a deep rooted public respect for their dedication to quality, which stands out today more then ever before.

 

[wclark5179]

"Quality is the sacrifice for that."

Great comments angrykitty! Nice to see your desire to capture with film!

Just one area to nit at as I've got some pretty nice 40" x 30" prints on display in my studio made with a Canon (digital) the size of a 35mm film camera. The set up makes all the difference. I find the light, balance available with a garlic light, set up the pose, bring in the people into the scene and use a tripod with remote shutter, manual focus and flip the mirror up and bang, get the shot. Simple! The lab I use mounted the prints on masonite and I have them framed with black aluminum. Smiles!

Just my take. Hope you're OK with my thoughts.

 

[paulie]

i think that people will tire of the constant upgrading to the next new digi camera/computer/photoshop/printer/memory card etc etc

i know i have, and not just in the photography world.

mp3 i bought one of those thingies and as soon as i did it seems as if all the good music has dried up

tv is the same the more new gadgets the worse the films and tv programming.

i now dont own a stereo or a mp3 or a tv / video /dvd game system
i run all my tv via i player and 40d and itv ,all this is done on my laptop via broadband and were about to have our superfast installed (first in england here in bournemouth)

so the only tech i own is a sony laptop , and i have no intention of upgrading for as long as it still boots up.

i used to be a real tech monkey, buying it all (36 year old now) i grew of age when picture in picture was the new thing, cd's killed the audio tape and the sony trinitron.

my feelings are that as tech develops it just gets smaller and the quality gets worse.

so for me at least a laptop is it + my old lf cameras. i dont even use a ligt bulb for printing any more just a array of 60 leds run of a battery

 

[fotch]

.....The last gasp was the recent demise of cheap, sometimes iffy processing/printing from big boxes like Walmart and Costco.Giveaway 35mm kits lose their sparkle quick when a 20-something finds out a 24 of Fuji Superia will cost $10-12 to process and print, plus take a week.

Ha Ha, Back to the beginning. I remember taking film to the local corner drug store and waiting a week to get the B&W developed and printed. I don't remember the cost, was just a youngster, however, probably taking in account for inflation, comparable to today's cost.

 

[wclark5179]

Most of my photography captured back then was with transparency film. I can remember when Kodachrome was either 10 or 25 ASA and Ektachrome was 64 ASA! Wow 64 ASA I thought was fast film! 36 slides including mounting was far cheaper than 36 negatives developed and printed. I still have my Kodak Carousel projector I used back then!

 

[Ektagraphic]

I love these articles. Good news

 

[Grainy]

At my shop we have had increased film sales the last couple of months, very fun After maaany years almost without any customer questions about 120-film or having 120-film in stock, we now start to get a few customers buying it again. So now I stock Ektar 100, Delta 100, 400 and 3200 in 120-format.

I also start to stock more B&W 35mm film, so now I try to have Tri-X 400, Delta 100, Delta 400, Delta 3200 and T-MAX 100 in stock. Not very much, but it's better than nothing.

The thing that makes me most happy is that many of the customers buying b&w film is young people.

 

[IloveTLRs]

... I'd also say that about 25% of the travelers I've met when I was touring around China were shooting on film - and they were all under the age of 30, most of them in their early 20s. ...

My hat goes off to China, which seems to have a very large population of film shooters. Quite a few are on Flickr

 

[jbwpro]

Great stuff, lets hope these articles continue.