Film is not dead: Demand soars for vintage cameras in developing trend

[ic-racer]

It’s not realistic for the average person to print all of the work they want to have as viewable.

So then, in the same way it is not realistic for a painter to paint all the paintings they want to view?
Makes no sense to me to scan. They make digital cameras to avoid the hassle of all that if one can't be bothered to make art.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I liked the Thrifty ice cream.

When it was announced that Kodak was discontinuing UltraColor 400 film, I walked over to Thrifty and asked the manager if I could just buy all the film in the UltraColor section to free up his shelf space. I no longer remember what I paid, but I bought 5 feet of shelf space, three rows high for not much money per roll at the time. I still have that film frozen in my freezer.


Yes, but I already had an ISP for internet so that cost did not go up.

Well, the cable company's charge for cable usually includes a connection to the internet. My Comcast charge which includes a 200MB bandwidth, TV stations, and landline ISOP telephone runs around $225 a month about $75 more than they charged two years ago. The problem is there is no competition for us. We're stuck with Comcast if we want cable. Then you add Netflix, Amazon Prime, and other services, communication services really starts to add up. Oh, then cell phone service, XM Serius for two cars, etc. I guess it's better than trying to get rid of the snow on TV's from rabbit ears antennas.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It’s not realistic for the average person to print all of the work they want to have as viewable.
Scanning serves many functions.

- A good replacement for contact sheets and drugstore prints, to simply see what you got.
- A way to share your work with others quickly and in a multitude of ways.
- A way to print really big without having to master that and get giant trays.
- A way to do with all the data on the film, what would be hard or impossible to do in a darkroom.

What’s more colour/RA4 is not as accessible as B&W to the beginner. So it’s a good way to get colour prints, if and only if the scan is good.

Scanning is here to stay. You might as well embrace it. You have almost all the benefits of film combined with the benefits of digital manipulation.

What’s more, other processes in the past and today for capturing and reproducing film images also involved steps and media that didn’t have the characteristics of photo paper or was in some respects almost digital.
Various types of printing for books, magazines and posters come to mind.
Never heard sneering or particular bias towards those.
On the contrary photo books are very respected as reproductions of an artist oeuvre. Whether captured from prints or directly from the negative or chrome.

Your missed slide video shows for Youtube and for your home TV and desktop monitor, as well as your friend's cellphones. Here are some I have on Youtube (Scuba is scanned film, rest are originally digital) with lots more on my 4K TV that I don;t post on Youtube because they're personal.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDzogShfhgCHh2rVvEsFOJQ

 

[Agulliver]

That's what I thought. Yet the owner of CatLABS in the recent thread hawking his new film told me I was wrong when I said most young film enthusiasts don't have darkrooms. Sometimes it's hard to know what's true on the internet.

As far as I can make out, there is increased interest in *using* a full dark room. But few people have one in their homes, especially younger folk. Housing costs for one thing, fewer people have the space to construct one or money to buy the gear. Hence the Ilford pop up dark tent.

 

[Helge]

So then, in the same way it is not realistic for a painter to paint all the paintings they want to view?
Makes no sense to me to scan. They make digital cameras to avoid the hassle of all that if one can't be bothered to make art.

Sigh...! Film has a number of characteristics that make it better image sensor than even the best CMOS. So a camera can "scan" better image, especially when cropping and stitching, than the camera would be able to on its own.

Your missed slide video shows for Youtube and for your home TV and desktop monitor, as well as your friend's cellphones. Here are some I have on Youtube (Scuba is scanned film, rest are originally digital) with lots more on my 4K TV that I don;t post on Youtube because they're personal.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDzogShfhgCHh2rVvEsFOJQ

Thanks. True, but I was thinking of example two as that.

 

[Helge]

As far as I can make out, there is increased interest in *using* a full dark room. But few people have one in their homes, especially younger folk. Housing costs for one thing, fewer people have the space to construct one or money to buy the gear. Hence the Ilford pop up dark tent.

Someone should reintroduce the daylight enlarger. An enlarger that is set up for one or up to three smaller sizes, with a bellows or cone covering the projection and paper.
This would truly make wet printing avalible again. But of course would overemphasize one size and would make burning a dodging trickier (masking would still be possible).
But totally worth sacrificing that for just being able to print.

 

[faberryman]

As far as I can make out, there is increased interest in *using* a full dark room. But few people have one in their homes, especially younger folk. Housing costs for one thing, fewer people have the space to construct one or money to buy the gear. Hence the Ilford pop up dark tent.

We had bathrooms before we had the Ilford pop up tent. Do young people not have bathrooms? And what about the changing bag and kitchen counter for developing film.

Of course being able to quickly develop your own film eliminates the exquisite sense of anticipation of waiting four or five days to get your film back from the film processor, which young people cite as one of the main reasons they shoot film.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Sigh...! Film has a number of characteristics that make it better image sensor than even the best CMOS. So a camera can "scan" better image, especially when cropping and stitching, than the camera would be able to on its own.



Thanks. True, but I was thinking of example two as that.

The point I was making is that scanning allows you to present your art in different ways and to a wider audience than just printing chemically one image at a time.

 

[gone]

Alan is right. I spent over 10 years scanning B&W negs and printing them on an inkjet at home or sending the file online to be printed.
Why? Because I thought the whole do-it-yourself thing would be immensely complicated, expensive, and I didn't have a dedicated darkroom.

Step by step I got away from that. First, I did home film developing. After a few mistakes, that process was wonderfully easy! Then the prints.....no darkroom turned out to be no problem. A bathroom, kitchen or bedroom turned out to be fine. Just wait until it gets dark, or block the windows out, and I cobbled together a great enlarger and everything else needed to print for less than $200.

No matter how much we try to lead people towards taking charge of their image from beginning to end, it all looks really, really expensive and difficult to a newbie. It's a process no one does, at all, so it seems like a huge thing to master. But it's not.

Manufacturers could sell it as a kit: one purchase gets you a 10 sheet box of 8x10 RC paper, a roll of film, developing and fixing chemicals, and a simple enlarger. It could be made pretty cheaply. For a newbie, making initial decisions on something you have never done is daunting. Just give 'em some Tri-X, Dektol, fixer and D76 and let them do their thing.

 

[VinceInMT]

Well, the cable company's charge for cable usually includes a connection to the internet. My Comcast charge which includes a 200MB bandwidth, TV stations, and landline ISOP telephone runs around $225 a month about $75 more than they charged two years ago. The problem is there is no competition for us. We're stuck with Comcast if we want cable. Then you add Netflix, Amazon Prime, and other services, communication services really starts to add up. Oh, then cell phone service, XM Serius for two cars, etc. I guess it's better than trying to get rid of the snow on TV's from rabbit ears antennas.

No wonder people are complaining that they have a hard time making it financially these days.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well, the cable company's charge for cable usually includes a connection to the internet. My Comcast charge which includes a 200MB bandwidth, TV stations, and landline ISOP telephone runs around $225 a month about $75 more than they charged two years ago. The problem is there is no competition for us. We're stuck with Comcast if we want cable. Then you add Netflix, Amazon Prime, and other services, communication services really starts to add up. Oh, then cell phone service, XM Serius for two cars, etc. I guess it's better than trying to get rid of the snow on TV's from rabbit ears antennas.

My provider does not charge for the television since I use and modem and a router.

 

[Sirius Glass]

So then, in the same way it is not realistic for a painter to paint all the paintings they want to view?
Makes no sense to me to scan. They make digital cameras to avoid the hassle of all that if one can't be bothered to make art.

Who is this Art of which you speak? And just why does he need to use a digital camera? I use film and do not scan.

 

[Sirius Glass]

As far as I can make out, there is increased interest in *using* a full dark room. But few people have one in their homes, especially younger folk. Housing costs for one thing, fewer people have the space to construct one or money to buy the gear. Hence the Ilford pop up dark tent.

I have always maintained that the biggest cost item for a darkroom is the space used. If one does not have the space to either set up or dedicate for a darkroom the cost of the equipment does not matter.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Someone should reintroduce the daylight enlarger. An enlarger that is set up for one or up to three smaller sizes, with a bellows or cone covering the projection and paper.
This would truly make wet printing avalible again. But of course would overemphasize one size and would make burning a dodging trickier (masking would still be possible).
But totally worth sacrificing that for just being able to print.

Better yet self developing film. I bet that would be real popular.

 

[dutchsteammachine]

I dont have the space, money and time to make darkroom prints. I dont even have a printer.

 

[faberryman]

I dont have the space, money and time to make darkroom prints. I dont even have a printer.

So you're like those old-timey photographers who push the button and let Kodak do the rest. Sort of returning to photography's roots. Admirable. There may be a market for bustles for women photographers and bowlers for men photographers. The evolution of the hipster.

 

[dutchsteammachine]

So you're like those old-timey photographers who push the button and let Kodak do the rest. Sort of returning to photography's roots. Admirable. There may be a market for bustles for women photographers and bowlers for men photographers. The evolution of the hipster.

Been thinking of getting a printer capable of A3 paper, it could be really fun to make a portfolio of my favourite images.

 

[Helge]

We had bathrooms before we had the Ilford pop up tent. Do young people not have bathrooms? And what about the changing bag and kitchen counter for developing film.

Of course being able to quickly develop your own film eliminates the exquisite sense of anticipation of waiting four or five days to get your film back from the film processor, which young people cite as one of the main reasons they shoot film.

And when the enlarger is not in your bathroom?
I think you overestimate the amount of space the average film shooter has.
Both in the bathroom and in the rest of the apartment.
I’d estimate that there is probably almost an inverse reciprocity between how likely someone is to shoot film and who wants to print and how much space they have available.

People who live in a house and in large apartments tend not to have the time for or interest in film.
With a tonne of exceptions of course.

Loading film onto a spiral can be a real nightmare for someone not used to it. They don’t “just have a sacrificial roll of film” to practice on.
Most people don’t have the tenacity to practice either.
When you got it you got it. But that can take a lot of tries.
And what to do when something unforeseen happens? The film binds, you forgot the scissors, something gets wet or dropped?
There really is no good tutorial or school to learn this for the vast majority of people.

 

[faberryman]

And when the enlarger is not in your bathroom?
I think you overestimate the amount of space the average film shooter has.
Both in the bathroom and in the rest of the apartment.
I’d estimate that there is probably almost an inverse reciprocity between how likely someone is to shoot film and who wants to print and how much space they have available.

People who live in a house and in large apartments tend not to have the time for or interest in film.
With a tonne of exceptions of course.

Loading film onto a spiral can be a real nightmare for someone not used to it. They don’t “just have a sacrificial roll of film” to practice on.
Most people don’t have the tenacity to practice either.
When you got it you got it. But that can take a lot of tries.
And what to do when something unforeseen happens? The film binds, you forgot the scissors, something gets wet or dropped?
There really is no good tutorial or school to learn this for the vast majority of people.

Definitely a million reasons you can't do something you are not really interested in doing anyway. It's a miracle any of us learned to develop our own film and make our own prints. My mom and dad just took our vacation pictures to the drugstore, and that worked out pretty well for them. Same should do for many young film enthusiasts. I'm not faulting them. I like to drive but I never learned to overhaul a car engine. Never had any interest in doing so. I just take my car to a mechanic when the need arises. Besides, I never had a shade tree so I couldn't have learned to do it even if I wanted to.

 

[MattKing]

We had bathrooms before we had the Ilford pop up tent. Do young people not have bathrooms? And what about the changing bag and kitchen counter for developing film.

Tough to do in your shared 600 square foot studio apartment.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ha! It's fun looking at those old Kodak Dye Transfer technique ads and brochures, stating how simple the process was for amateur home users. Well, it was, at least compared to Carbro color. It's all relative. Some people probably complain how inconvenient it is to flip a light switch. Where there's a will, there's a way.

The biggest problem in this area, which is arguably the richest per capita in the world, even given those many of us like me who are not in fact rich, is the sheer expense of real estate itself. "Low income" and perhaps even homelessness, is legally defined as anyone making under $160 per yr in certain cities. And a techie couple making over 300K between them might not even be able to furnish a house they recently purcased. I bought my own property here over 45 years ago, which was a different story. So even though I encounter quite a few young techies who would sincerely like to have a home darkroom, even at their seemingly high incomes they might not be able to afford that kind of remodel, at least as any kind of realistic priority. Some of them have to turn their digs into a flop house filled with all their friends sharing expenses, just to make ends meet. Welcome to the new Industrial Revolution sweatshop reality. If Steinbeck were still around, he'd write a novel about it called the Chips of Wrath.

 

[Helge]

Definitely a million reasons you can't do something you are not really interested in doing anyway. It's a miracle any of us learned to develop our own film and make our own prints. My mom and dad just took our vacation pictures to the drugstore, and that worked out pretty well for them. Same should do for many young film enthusiasts. I'm not faulting them. I like to drive but I never learned to overhaul a car engine. Never had any interest in doing so. I just take my car to a mechanic when the need arises. Besides, I never had a shade tree so I couldn't have learned to do it even if I wanted to.

You never know if you are “really interested” unless you’ve tried it successfully. Then suddenly most people get very gung-ho.

Developing B&W film at home makes a lot of sense for many people.
It’s absolutely cheaper, it lets you “do stuff” with the film most labs charge extra for or won’t do, and it gives you a very real sense of WTF is going on.
It goes from black magic to white magic.

But the big gotcha is for many the loading of the spool in complete darkness.
The recent daylight loader was terrible and needlessly expensive.
Ilford should really consider giving out training film for free. They must have tonnes of the stuff.

 

[Pieter12]

Better yet self developing film. I bet that would be real popular.

Polaroid's been there, done that. A screaming failure. Polarchrome, Polapan and Polagraf 35mm instant films. Very delicate emulsions, the black & white positive film had an interesting look.

 

[albada]

Polaroid's been there, done that. A screaming failure. Polarchrome, Polapan and Polagraf 35mm instant films. Very delicate emulsions, the black & white positive film had an interesting look.

According to this wikipedia article, Polachrome "remained in production for nearly 20 years," suggesting to me that it was reasonably successful.

Anyway, I used the hybrid process (develop+scan) for 20 years or so. It was only when a coworker gave me his enlarger that I built a darkroom and got to enjoy that half of film photography. If hybrid boosts film-sales, I'm all for it.

 

[Pieter12]

According to this wikipedia article, Polachrome "remained in production for nearly 20 years," suggesting to me that it was reasonably successful.

Anyway, I used the hybrid process (develop+scan) for 20 years or so. It was only when a coworker gave me his enlarger that I built a darkroom and got to enjoy that half of film photography. If hybrid boosts film-sales, I'm all for it.

Those were the days when Polaroid was a very successful company and could afford to continue to produce a product that had a pretty limited market.