Film as hobby

[winjeel]

Here in Japan, they love cameras, especially SLR cameras for weekend hobby use. I was surprised a few months ago to see a cosplay girl advertising that she'll make herself available for a photo session, with advanced bookings, all advertised in a local major camera store. It really is a serious hobby. Whilst in another camera store I saw a row of books and magazines on photography. Then there was one that caught my eye. I think it was about processing film. I then thought that since the best way for many photographers is not to make money purely from photography but from hosting workshops, beginner courses and such.

Then, how about producing simple books aimed at beginner photographers, especially for processing film and diy prints. Then you've got to bang the drum, get interest in the "real" hobby of photography. I feel that focusing on b&w would be easier and beneficial as a starting point.

Here's the important point in the propaganda war against digital, create the romantic attachment with "real" photography, and make that the focus for the new generation of hobbyists. I'm sure that'll help maintain a supply of film for us into the future.

Could this be viable?

 

[mopar_guy]

I think that there could be an expanded market for film, and papers etc, for the hobbyist market.

Commercial use is digital if there is any kind of deadline. The fine art market has shown little capacity for growth. There is a large potential market for those that are not pros and not fine artists.

 

[Excalibur2]

The only way film is coming back (more than it is now) is for someone to make money......if the market is saturated with digital cameras, then why not advertise that a film camera is cool or whatever, yanno how the corps persuade Joe public to buy things.

 

[elekm]

I think the market is nearly a settling point for film. I think that among film users, anyone who is going to abandon film and "go digital" has done so by now.

I see a small migration of digital users shifting to film. It's hard to say whether this is temporary before an eventual return to digital because of convenience and cost.

 

[Ian Grant]

While in a HiFi/Camera store (buying a tripod) in a small UK city 2 weeks ago I got talking to the manoager, I comment about the low stoks of film on the shelf, he told me that they had young student customers who always bought 30-40 rolls at a time (ordered in specially) and that as far as they were concerned film sales had begun to increase significantly.

2 days later at a camera fair I noticed quite a number of younger people buying higher end film cameras, they stood out from the collectors, most were University students, all the film had sold by the time I got there at 10:30am.

A large problem particularly in the UK is poor stocks of film on the selves in most camera shop and in the case of the largest chain, Jessops, an inability to order in film quickly, I was told 10 days at least, delivery was next day from Silverprint.

We need the shops/dealers to start responding to any increase in sales in more positive ways, it's not the manufacturers at fault it's the middle men.

Ian

 

[markbarendt]

Here's the important point in the propaganda war against digital, create the romantic attachment with "real" photography, and make that the focus for the new generation of hobbyists. I'm sure that'll help maintain a supply of film for us into the future.

Could this be viable?

Sure! I think though rather than "romance" I personally might substitute the words "fun, easy, and cheap" but both thoughts are reasonable.

Holgas, Dianas, and the like are prime candidates for driving the entry level market too. They don't require lots of thought to use, if you toss in some 400 or 800 speed film and actually go shoot you will get very usable results.

I think Medium Format film is also important to the "revolution" first and foremost because it is big enough to actually see some detail with the naked eye. After shooting MF for just a few months now, this advantage is painfully clear in my world; 35mm film is a pain to proof by comparison. The contact prints from MF are incredible, with nothing more than an 8x10 contact proof of 1-120 roll you can tell quite a story about one subject with very usable images.

The other thing I've found after shooting MF a bit is that 36 shots to a roll, or even 24 (220), for most shooting sessions is just way too long. I don't normally want to leave a roll of film in my camera for more than one subject and long rolls lead me to wait longer than I want or to shoot trash I wouldn't normally shoot just to finish the darn roll. 12 shots is much nicer in this respect.

I'm not saying I would give up my Nikons, just that I'm getting to a point where I really have to need the convenience and speed of my 35mm cameras to grab one instead of the RB or Holga.

Using a lab is way easy, even if that means a mailer for people who only want to shoot. Back 30 years ago I used an AE-1 and Seattle film works even with a camera store next door to where I worked. Prepaid mailers and a fresh roll to shoot every time I got the slides back.

Probably the biggest thing needed though is a support network.

I think the reason that digital is so popular for hobbyists is that sharing results is easy and fast. It is not because PS is easy and not really because of cost. At a 500 shots a year digital's real all-in cost is probably more than buying an AE-1 with a short zoom (or similar) and 14 rolls of Superia you have developed, printed, and scanned at Wal-Mart while you get your groceries. (Under $300 all-in with 4x6 prints). I doubt it would be any more for a typical year of Holga shooting.

If we show off our fun contact sheets and nurture any interest we find we may start that revolution.

 

[keithwms]

Here's the important point in the propaganda war against digital, create the romantic attachment with "real" photography, and make that the focus for the new generation of hobbyists. I'm sure that'll help maintain a supply of film for us into the future.

Could this be viable?

I have issues with referring to film as "real" photography. That's just not it in my opinion.

Those of us who use film generally do so because we enjoy the individual product and the creative flexibility of the whole analogue process... or should I say processes. The individuality of the print and the number of options are linked: if you had only one output method then of course the prints would ultimately be far less unique in the fundamental sense of reproducibility. If a print can be reduced to a "file" then the individuality of the print is far less.

With film, there are so many options.

If you just list the many different paths that you can take with film, well, the options are basically enumerable. Those options include a wonderful array of totally different cameras... and therefore totally different ways of seeing your subject. I don't have the same relationship with a subject when I use a view camera or a rangefinder or whatever... these different gear options enable different ways of seeing and relating and thinking.

Digital, on the other hand, tends to compress the craft into far fewer options. Yes, the output options can be greatly expanded with hybrid, but at least for me, most of the enjoyment is in the framing and shooting, the actual "act" of working with a subject in the moment. Film is simply a lot more fun in that respect. And that enjoyment definitely affects the amount of energy that I bring to the whole process. It's gotta be fun or I simply won't feel inspired. I mean I can knock out a few dozen DSLR shots that basically get the job done, but then... well, you may notice that I referred to it as a "job"...

 

[removed-user-1]

Something I don't get with digital that I have, sometimes, gotten with film is KNOWING that I got the shot and itching to see the results. Most film shooters will know what I mean: the lighting was right, the exposure was right, you know your equipment and the photo is THERE, in the latent image, waiting to be developed and printed. Digital removes that anticipation and, in my opinion, reduces the emotional connection I have with the photo.

 

[tkamiya]

Did you get a sense the trend of film use in Japan is a fad or something little more permanent? Japan has a culture of masses doing what is popular and it tends to change very rapidly, let's say a life span of about a year. What's popular this year could be completely forgotten the next.

With a common trend of wanting something quickly and NOW, increased use of digital among non-photo-hobbyist will probably continue. I just can't imagine, popular mass wanting to buy film, take the film in, wait a day or more, and come back to pick it up will return. On the other hand, artistic use of film is likely to remain for its unique result. All-in-all, mass production of film and film related material will either remain the same or slowly decline. In order to see a mass resurgent of film production and related gears, the amount of trade will have to increase beyond critical point - which there is growth and positive cash flow for major manufacturers. I do not believe this will be the case.

I see major manufacturers dropping out of market as in their scale, it just doesn't make sense financially to continue production. Then these materials will be picked up by more nimble and smaller companies that will be willing to produce in smaller scale and provide it to the market that is still present. We, perhaps will pay a higher price at this point.

I also don't see film as "real" and digital as anything other than real. I shoot digital for color and analog for B&W because I like what I see as result. To me, photography is a task to record the image as one see in his/her head. The media of use is not that relevant. The option I'd like to take, if I were to start a movement, is to promote photography in general and offer analog as an interesting option.

In photo class I am taking at an art school, this question was raised by someone. Is film dead? The instructor's answer was that the school still teaches ceramics and it is a popular hobby. Plastic can do the job just the same and is cheaper. As an art form and as a pleasurable activities, it is still viable and up-to-date activity. There is no reason to see it will be one way or the other, or it will be dead and forgotten any time soon.

I agree with this assessment.

Of course, this is my PERSONAL opinion.

 

[df cardwell]

Google "knitting blog".

Zero 'commercial' importance,
massive cultural and social value.

And my wife knits, so I have lots of cool socks.

Photographers differ in one regard, though.
Reading a couple books make you an expert photographer.

Thank goodness I don't have to wear any of my APUG posts to church.

.

 

[markbarendt]

Zero commercial importance? So how much does SWMBO spend on knitting stuff, books, yarn ...

I ask from experience here.

I know that I could support my film habit for what my wife was spending when knitting was her big thing, wearing the slippers right now.

Sewing is another craft along that line, I've bought a variety of cars for less than my Mom-in-law spent on her last sewing machine.

If analog photography can be resold to the public at large as a desirable hobby or true art, art stores could easily replace camera shops.

I can here the sales clerk now, "Do you work with Oils, Water Colors, Wet Plate, or Film?"

Google "knitting blog".

Zero 'commercial' importance,
massive cultural and social value.

And my wife knits, so I have lots of cool socks.

Photographers differ in one regard, though.
Reading a couple books make you an expert photographer.

Thank goodness I don't have to wear any of my APUG posts to church.

.

 

[bobwysiwyg]

Zero commercial importance? So how much does SWMBO spend on knitting stuff, books, yarn ...

I ask from experience here.

Not to mention handbags/purses and shoes. Sheez, how many can one person own/use?

 

[df cardwell]

Well, the 'massive commercial importance' was about supporting huge concerns like Canon.

Mark, you've got some glorious wool down there.

If analog photography can be resold to the public at large as a desirable hobby or true art, art stores could easily replace camera shops. If only photo products were as easy to make as yarn !

We're bound to be a little further up the food chain,
but in time it should settle out.

 

[Ian Grant]

Canon, what a wonderful company, I upgraded from my tired old Leica M3 and numerous Pentax's2 weeks ago and finally bought an Autofocus Canon, boy it was expensive, £10 ($16) brand new - a 300, an all plastic model non or that awful metal except the shutter, the batteries were extra and cost more than the camera !!!. It takes the lenses off my work camera, and now I get a fill frame 17mm

Ian

 

[KenR]

I was walking through a local mall last summer with an old SLR around my neck. On two occations, young people (under 25?) came over to me to discuss my "really cool" looking camera and to discuss film photography. Both had taken film based photo courses in school and were continuing their use of film.
It seemed to me that it was another way that they were trying to stand out from the crowd - if everyone else is using digital, they'll use film just to be different. Maybe it is the start of a trend, but if they don't have access to darkrooms, etc. it really can't continue for long.

 

[markbarendt]

Well, the 'massive commercial importance' was about supporting huge concerns like Canon.

I'm not too concerned about Canon or Nikon.

Mark, you've got some glorious wool down there.

Yes, Tierra Amarilla. Afraid to take my wife there, they have weaving looms now.

If only photo products were as easy to make as yarn !

Fuji, Kodak, and Ilford are the concerns I'd like to see stick around.

We're bound to be a little further up the food chain, but in time it should settle out.

I dunno...

Two decent art supply stores in town, both seem to be growing. One "camera shop" that has downsized twice in the last 3 years roughly.

 

[winjeel]

Did you get a sense the trend of film use in Japan is a fad or something little more permanent? Japan has a culture of masses doing what is popular and it tends to change very rapidly, let's say a life span of about a year. What's popular this year could be completely forgotten the next.

...

Edit: Just to answer the question, I haven't seen a trend. Perhaps some folks haven't made the move, or are pragmatic like me, and use film and digital for the appropriate occasions. [/edit]

Actually, you remind me of a point that is perhaps far more important. Ikea did terribly in Japan the first time the arrived. Nothing they sold could fit in the average Japanese apartment, condominium, or house; it was all too big, bulky, or had unusual angles that made poor use of space.

In July when I went out shooting fireflies, there was one other SLR user there, and he was shooting on film. Digital cannot do long exposures, and so for niche work, film will be needed; at least for now.

So, even for hobbyists, the developing equipment cannot take up much space, and the equipment would be appreciated. The retiring generation here isn't too worried about cost, and so there is the potential of an all-in-one automated film developing (and scanning?) machine. Yes, scanning to digital. I'm pretty pragmatic, especially since the likes of Flickr and such online communities cannot be ignored.

A few months ago I saw a 5mp film scanner for sale at a nice price (kicking myself for not getting it). It was small, and seemed pretty easy to use. If such a compact unit for developing film, and scanning could be made, then you've cornered a new market and a new film lifestyle in Japan... being my attempt at a humble opinion.

 

[markbarendt]

Actually, you remind me of a point that is perhaps far more important. Ikea did terribly in Japan the first time the arrived. Nothing they sold could fit in the average Japanese apartment, condominium, or house; it was all too big, bulky, or had unusual angles that made poor use of space...

So, even for hobbyists, the developing equipment cannot take up much space, and the equipment would be appreciated.

This is exactly why I think MF film is the entry point for hobbyists, the negatives are big enough that contact printing becomes a usable reality. It's cheap and takes up very little room, everything needed can fit in a suitcase.

The other thing I see about contact printing MF film is that it is easy and cheap to scan any final print, contact or enlargement, much easier than film.

 

[removed-user-1]

If analog photography can be resold to the public at large as a desirable hobby or true art, art stores could easily replace camera shops.

I can here the sales clerk now, "Do you work with Oils, Water Colors, Wet Plate, or Film?"

That would be nice. Unfortunately I'm not sure that's right around the corner. One local art store recently placed an ad for sales clerks, which included the requirement that applicants be visual artists, not photographers or graphic artists.

 

[markbarendt]

That would be nice. Unfortunately I'm not sure that's right around the corner. One local art store recently placed an ad for sales clerks, which included the requirement that applicants be visual artists, not photographers or graphic artists.

That is what we need to change, we (analog photography) need to be considered a visual art.

If we all treated it like Weston did we could change the world.

 

[elekm]

I continue to see a small movement of digital photographers trying film. Not huge in a way that will impact the market and convince the big players to resume production of film SLRs but still enough to show that there continues to be an interest in film.

Personally, I could care less if Canon or Nikon fall off of a cliff, as I have no intention of buying any of their products. I still like Pentax, but don't hold out any hope. And you know Olympus is never going back to film. Heck, it was the first to drop film.

I think that any new film cameras will come from the smaller companies, which already understand that they are serving a niche market.

 

[Pumal]

I continue to see a small movement of digital photographers trying film. Not huge in a way that will impact the market and convince the big players to resume production of film SLRs but still enough to show that there continues to be an interest in film.

Personally, I could care less if Canon or Nikon fall off of a cliff, as I have no intention of buying any of their products. I still like Pentax, but don't hold out any hope. And you know Olympus is never going back to film. Heck, it was the first to drop film.

I think that any new film cameras will come from the smaller companies, which already understand that they are serving a niche market.

You seem to forget that Photography is a Vision, Power, Control, and Process.
Besides; all my 200 Nikons and Canons; all they need every 30 years or so; is a good CLA. Fujifilm is going strong and Rangefinders are selling like Cream Puffs today.

 

[elekm]

I'm talking about new film cameras coming out on the market. The commitment by the big players is nil -- or just lip service, at most.

 

[Pumal]

http://www.retrography.com/bessamatic.htm

 

[Ian Grant]

I'm talking about new film cameras coming out on the market. The commitment by the big players is nil -- or just lip service, at most.

Well Lodak were going to launch a new film SLR in tandem with Vivitar, but the project went pear shaped and was dropped. Something about quality issues.

Remnember Cosina is now the major film camera manufacturer and partners other companies like Fuji, Zeiss etc.

I doubt it would be difficult for any other company to return to the film camera matket after all thet have the desighns and expertise.

Ian