Film is back, says NYT

[Newt_on_Swings]

Most any name brand auto loading point and shoot with DX coding and AF, in combination with a roll of Tri-X is the most fool proof combo you can get. I used to carry prints around in a portfolio just to show people that its not all lomo, film produces high quality and detailed images.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Well, no camera is entirely "fool proof". People still manage to stick their finger in front of the lens just as the shutter trips, or obscure the flash of Aunt Grettel managing a rare smile with the sun beaming down behind her.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

Indeed I stand corrected, almost fool proof haha.

 

[PKM-25]

Incompetent jorurnalism plain and simple. A decent 110 camera can beat any camera phone made, and 35mm is so far ahead it isn't worth comparing.

I mean no disrespect, but I am not in agreement with this.

I did a show last year of photos from my iPhone 4, not even the 4S, in Hipstamatic that were printed in 10" x 10" and two of them at 30" x 30", all looked great, sold enough on the opening night to pay for 15 new iPhones. I can tell you with full confidence that even an ASA 100 film shot in 110 would not begin to compete with the above.

I'm sorry but it is this kind of statement that really makes the non-film using community laugh, does us no good...at all.

As for the article, meh, I have read better in the NYT, and I shoot for them several times a year...

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

I cant believe people buy hipsmatic prints lol. But yes cell phone quality is decent in bright light. My previous nokia n72 had an AF zeiss lens with an actual xenon flash tube. It took amazing 5mp photos in the day, and the flash was and still is leagues ahead of the LEDs now. No funky inphone image editors back then either.

But the cell phone is as I view it a last resort, I've probably taken only 75 or so shots with my iPhone 4 these last two years ive had it.

I'm hoping this phase of photography ebbs soon. too much lomo for my taste not everything requires over saturation and vignettes.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've got a good use for cell phone cameras. You see, just below the platform of my big Ries wooden
tripod there a little hook where you can hang a mesh bag. Sometimes even with an 8x10 camera there's too much wind for a steady shot. So you take a bunch of rocks or cell phones or whatever
and throw them in that little mesh bag to add extra weight and stability. Now that's technology!

 

[Alan Klein]

I read the article "in the flesh" so to speak. My diner has the Times on a small stand so I "borrowed" a copy to peruse during my lunch. I was disappointed that they only focused on the non-traditional Lomography, Polaroid etc and not more on traditional uses of film that still have a strong following. However, I agree with the poster above who says young people don't read newspapers anyway. Most youngsters get interested in film from what other youngsters are doing with film. Youngsters mimic each other as they do in all generations. If film remains interesting to some youngsters, it will be interesting to others, notwithstanding what the Times says or not.

Also, much of the spread of film, and this is a guess, may be through social sites like Facebook which allows you to post your Lomography. Which reminds me. My daughter gave me this little box for my birthday. It has all these little colored translucent plastic pieces. You're suppose to place it in front of the lens for interesting colored shots. Now I think I figured out what to do with them.

 

[cepwin]

I have to agree with a lot of the discussion here that there was a bit too much emphasis on the lomography/flawed aspect of film (although some of their cameras look like a lot of fun) but it was nice they were discussing film. I would have liked to have seen some mention of the large format work being done in film that is the total opposite end of the spectrum from what the lomography folks are doing. (Not to mention a lot of fine art photographers are still using film.)

 

[Moopheus]

I have to agree with a lot of the discussion here that there was a bit too much emphasis on the lomography/flawed aspect of film (although some of their cameras look like a lot of fun) but it was nice they were discussing film.

The problem was not really that there was too much emphasis on Lomo, since that was clearly the actual topic of the article. The real problem was it didn't make clear that that was the real topic of the article. The point of the article was that some people like Lomo because it gives you something very visually different from the clinic sameness of the usual digicam. It was just expressed very poorly. If it had been clearly expressed that what they were talking about was a subset of film photography, it would have been a better article.

 

[benjiboy]

If The New York Times says it, it must be true.

 

[RattyMouse]

If The New York Times says it, it must be true.

Can Lomo and Holga save film?

 

[PKM-25]

Lomo, Hippo, I had my fun with it, like any medium, if you pair it up nicely with the right subject, it rocks....it's not like film has not had passing fads before...

I don't really shoot in Hipstamatic anymore and the one show is the only one I will ever do. That said, I love, love Love the app called "Viewfinder Pro" to pre-visualize a potential shot before even setting up my view camera...

 

[Chan Tran]

I failed to find out the reason why Lomo has to be done with film? I thought it can be better done with a digital like the cell phone.

 

[benjiboy]

Can Lomo and Holga save film?

It's just another post for people who can't face facts, and like clutching at straws.like the ones who can't accept that that Kodachrome is no more.

 

[eddie]

I failed to find out the reason why Lomo has to be done with film? I thought it can be better done with a digital like the cell phone.

These days, very little needs to be done with film. To say that it can be "better done with a digital" misses the point of why we choose film.

Every time I see the dismissive attitude towards Holgas/Dianas, I'm pretty certain it comes from someone who has never tried a Holga/Diana. We use them because they're a lot of fun...

 

[brianmquinn]

It's just another post for people who can't face facts.

Be nice Wallace. If Gromit decides to shot some film, ANY film, it may not bring film back but it will help will help us all out by keeping some of the lines running for a bit longer.

 

[B&Wpositive]

As head student leader of a university photography club in 2008, I started seeing this trend, and I was annoyed by it. People started bringing up Holga...this was before Lomography was really popular. I really didn't see the point in equating film with cheap plastic cameras. People were assuming that one automatically went with the other, even 4 years ago. And this was before IPhones really took off.

But I'll tell you, I got a handful of members interested in trying the legendary Kodachrome. We bought a bunch of rolls off of PKM-25 for a good price. I think people enjoyed the experience of shooting Kodachrome before it ended.

 

[MattKing]

The up side of the Lomography "movement" is that it tends to counter the growing perception that film is no longer a casual, everyday medium.

Most people who shoot with Lomography equipment do so because they enjoy it - and when is that not good?

It would be nice, however, if there was a better appreciation of the alternatives.

 

[Joe VanCleave]

I actually like the plastic aesthetic of Lomo and Holga cameras, but my biggest objection is their lack of exposure control, typically offering two apertures and one shutter speed - two if you count bulb. Their operation relies on film's dynamic range and the auto-exposure employed in the typical photo lab's printing technology to get adequate prints from over or under exposed negatives.

-Joe

 

[TexasLangGenius]

It's been a while since I've haunted this place, due to business in academia.

I'll take any article with good news, as well! I'll also do my darndest to save the art one frame at a time and take the opportunity to educate anyone who's willing to listen.

One of my Japanese classmates graduated and I shot some graduation pictures of him and his mother with E100G and Super 8. I just sent the film off to get processed and I just know the results will be excellent. He told me that he didn't think he could learn to shoot film and I told him "Nonsense. It took me an afternoon to learn the basics of film."

I'll be sure to post some links once I get the film back!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Let's see ... all you need is an f-stop setting, shutter speed per ASA, meter reading, and focus.
Anything else is redundant. That makes a basic film camera about a thouand times easier to use
than something which comes with an owner's manual as thick as a phone book (remember those?),
and that you have to open up seventy-nine optional programs and turn all but one off before you
push the button. But the problem I always have, is where do you attach the darkcloth on a digital
camera?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Let's see ... all you need is an f-stop setting, shutter speed per ASA, meter reading, and focus.
Anything else is redundant. That makes a basic film camera about a thouand times easier to use
than something which comes with an owner's manual as thick as a phone book (remember those?),
and that you have to open up seventy-nine optional programs and turn all but one off before you
push the button. But the problem I always have, is where do you attach the darkcloth on a digital
camera?

I have been unable to learn chimpin'. Is there a remedial chimpin' class available?

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

Put a pinup sticker on the camera back, it'll get you to chimp