Film photography as fashion and the decline of the hipster

[Truzi]

I've gotten some nasty comments because I use film. Not all of them, but enough. However, they seem to be waning the past couple years.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've never faced any derisive comments out in the field for shooting film. Usually people are interested, if they say anything.

 

[Rudeofus]

how is asking "if they still sell film for that" .. "digital is much easier" .. " why don't you get a digital camera so you can do weddings" ... &c "demoralizing and aggressive"

These are all phrases that imply that the film shooter sort of missed the invention of digital cameras or is somehow incapable to make the "proper" decision to switch. So yes, I would consider these statements slightly aggressive/demeaning, and if heard multiple times, demoralizing. These people neither know nor inquire about the film shooter's body of work, history and reasons for choosing that medium, but somehow feel compelled to dish out pointless advice in a condescending tone.

The good thing is that there are quite a few things that digital shooters feel insecure about, so it's quite easy to throw mud that will stick in their direction.

 

[removed account4]

sorry i still don't see how asking if you can still get film for a film camera is demoralizing
or how someone asking such questions is aggressive or harsh ...

 

[StoneNYC]

I think it depends on how approachable you are, if you look like aqualung, they might just leave you alone... Lol! Maybe that's the trick! Need to dress up like a bumb and smell like one too!

 

[Zedwardson]

Actually had a conversation with a neighbor about film, as he saw me carrying a box of film and was "Wow, you still do film? Do you have to buy it online?"

Had a nice 20 min talk about filming and the concert he was going to. Online I had a few people like "When will you join the digital age" then they look at my photos and they shut up. Not that my photos are world beaters, just that they are a step above snap shots.

Then a lot of people think its cool that I do black and white and they fondly remember taking it in high school or college and learning how to develop film. In fact, the only time I been harassed by shooting was one person who thought I was trust-passing (I was on public right of way, but it wasn't worth fighting over).

 

[removed account4]

<<nevermind>>

 

[Rudeofus]

sorry i still don't see how asking if you can still get film for a film camera is demoralizing
or how someone asking such questions is aggressive or harsh ...

It all depends how the question if phrased. Asking "Where can you get film for this camera?", or stating "I didn't know you can still get film for this camera" is one thing. But asking "You still can get film for this camera???", while this camera is obviously in use with suitable film, contains quite a bit of condescension of the "I can't believe people still use this old junk" or the "give it another year and you'll be SOL with your camera" type. Such "inquiries" are particularly annoying because I don't think Stone asked any of these people for purchasing recommendations or advice in general.

Imagine how you would react if someone responded to your prints with "Are you really trying to sell these???" vs. "Are these for sale?" ...

 

[ME Super]

I was approached by a young lady during or town's fourth of July parade. The first question out of her mouth was "How old is that camera?" I was shooting the Debonair at the time. I told her it is probably older than me. She asked if the photos it took looked vintage. I said yes. I was not offended at all.

People here diss Instagram, however, I think we have the ability to get square pictures at local photo finishing places because of its existence and insistence on square pictures. Even though I myself do not have an Instagram account, long live Instagram!

 

[winger]

I'm with Rudeofus and Stone - it's not usually the actual words, it's the tone in which they're delivered. And I got that attitude more from people in camera clubs than on the street / in the woods.
But I have seen some interesting work on deviantArt from people who might be considered hipsters. And I've seen boring work from all types.

 

[removed account4]

LOL

right rudeofus .. in this thread those weren't the questions being asked / talked about.

from what was posted, : "do they still sell film for that" .. "digital is much easier" .. " why don't you get a digital camera so you can do weddings"
were questions asked, not what you suggested, and that is what i was responding to ...

where in this thread did someone suggest an onlooker called the camera an olde piece of junk, piece of crap, or anything else like that.
and people say the last sentence to me all the time ( THAT stuff is for sale, you sell THAT stuff .. ? ), both ways you have written it ..
and i just smile and say YES! it is all for sale ... and i give them my last name and tell them type it in google or yahoo.
sometimes i ask THEM if i can take their portrait and i go back and give them a print / their portrait or email it to them
( have done that a lot ).

what i find it funny that people want to be "noticed" with a 1940s weird looking exacta or crazy vintage camera
or a sheet film camera &c looking like answel adams or arthur felig, and when someone asks if the user can "still get film for that old camera"
they get offended ... its like someone covered with tattoos, piercings, huge guages in their ears,
and coiled metal around their neck ( like beautiful tribal african women wear )
or some sort of Tshirt with stuff written on it and they get offended for asking about
their body-art, tshirt or looking at them wondering what the 5paragraphs tatoo'd on their chest means
... again, kind of lame

yeah analog photography is outdated, and it is expected that people will ask " can you still get film for that "
its a film camera ...
and i expect people to ask questions even more so since the main film/paper &c supply company here in the usa that people know about
has been on the news for years every night and just went bankrupt ...
not to mention most local camera shops (or drug stores ) don't sell film or paper, or process film &c ...
obviously people who don't know anything except what they hear from their friends, the news, local camera shops,
their former drug store mini lab, &c will ask " can you still get film for that "
and it is too bad people who shoot film feel as though they have to lash out, sling mud &c
at people asking questions because of clueless-onlookers.

 

[ME Super]

+100

 

[Rudeofus]

from what was posted, : "do they still sell film for that" .. "digital is much easier" .. " why don't you get a digital camera so you can do weddings"

were questions asked, not what you suggested, and that is what i was responding to ...

The last two phrases in your list imply that the addressee needs some education about modern photographic technology, and some blah advice how to run a photography business. Note that these friendly people shoving their advice down our throats are rarely the experts we would ask for it anyways.

where in this thread did someone suggest an onlooker called the camera an olde piece of junk, piece of crap, or anything else like that.

How else would you interpret the dialog "do they still make film?" Yes "but why? Isn't it a pain?" ?

Ok, ok, the camera wasn't addressed directly in these comments, but if film is such a "pain", a camera that won't work without film doesn't look all that good, does it? The funny thing about these people is: they think we are stuck in the past, when in fact they are. 15 years ago you were the big dare devil in photo journalism when you got yourself a DCS. Oh, and remember that "legendary" luminous landscape article where the author preferred a Canon D30 over Fuji Provia 100, igniting a huge flame war. These times are over, and so are most easy venues in photography business unless you can offer something very unique (or are willing to work for peanuts). If you think now you can save a fledging photography business by buying more modern equipment, you will be in for a surprise. Dishing out that kind of advice to a guy with a large format camera is beyond clueless IMHO.

and people say the last sentence to me all the time ( THAT stuff is for sale, you sell THAT stuff .. ? ), both ways you have written it ..

You got to be kidding me. I don't exactly have a reputation for being overly diplomatic in my responses, but that kind of statement would not occur to me in the presence of an artist, and the work of your's that I have seen online should not give anyone a reason to say such a thing. I hope these people weren't the reason why your work in the APUG gallery looked a bit melancholic lately.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Speaking of "sling[ing] mud", I guess I must be "lame" then, because I'm one who enjoys using an "arthur fellig" camera out in public. In fact, several of my gallery posts, including my most recent ((there was a url link here which no longer exists)), were made using one of these cameras.

I have found antique cameras to be one of the best ice-breakers around. No one denigrates my use of one as "weird", except here. To the contrary, people are almost always intensely fascinated. So much so that I have both short and long versions of a standard explanation spiel for their questions. Contained in both spiels are the phrases "APUG" and "Freestyle".

And I don't use it to get "noticed" either. In my case I don't have that desperate psychological need.

I primarily use it because it often produces highly cooperative subjects whose demeanor regresses back to the earlier days of photography when having your picture made was an event. Something worthy of putting everything else on hold while it happened. ("Hold on. I'll go get the Kodak...") This often produces a more classic level of interaction completely different than the studied indifference, or the overindulged selfies, of today's styles.

I also use it because of the beautiful tonalities I can get in my hand-made darkroom prints. In film photography, nothing beats square inches.* And when loaded with Ilford FP4+ and scanned on a decent scanner for online digital reproductions, I can get hundreds of usable pixels from the 4x5 negatives. Something not possible with the vast majority of non-NASA pro/consumer digital cameras, and for only a tiny fraction of the cost of those.

In fact, I'm eagerly anticipating boosting my "lame[ness]" quotient if and when the New55 product reaches the market. With a Type 55 holder in place and a portable container of sodium sulfite in tow, I can't wait to try instant photography with my upgraded "arthur fellig" camera.

I wonder what I will be called when that happens...



Ken

* Just as in classic hot rods "nothing beats cubic inches..."

 

[lxdude]

I have found that some people are genuinely mystified why anyone would be using film over digital. They are usually not into photography, and considering that all most people hear these days is about digital, it doesn't surprise me at all.
I have gotten in the past a few snide remarks (hence my sig line), but now it seems most people are intrigued by my using film.

After Kodachrome was discontinued, and it hit the TV news with the "sign-of-the-times" stories about it, with famous pictures ("Afghan Girl" especially), then people were impressed to see a Kodachrome box end on my camera. It was like they saw me as a real photographer, using this legendary film. More than once, I heard, "Wow, Kodachrome!" when they would see on a tripod my 35mm camera or ETRSi with pano back.

There are always big-mouths wherever you go. I have gotten sarcastic comments about my old Honda motorcycle from people with their shiny Harleys. Some of those were obvious newbies, but common among all of the snarkers was, IMO, a need for their choice of bike and biking community to confer upon them an identity. Funny how belonging to a 'rebellious' subculture requires such conformity! I ride alone and have nothing to prove, so I ride what I want and it is paid for. I'm not spending film money on some fancy new bike or the insurance for it.

 

[Zedwardson]

I did get a nice camera today due to someone not knowing that non-35 mm film is still produced.

However, the "They still make film for that" is almost always not belittling you, people hear that film is dead, and it a great moment of outreach when people find out that film is still alive. You never know that you confirming that film can be bought might get them to get a old camera and start shooting analog, or at least dispose of it to someone who will use it.

For all that people know, we film users are hording the last bits of film for use, when that actually limited to 126 users.

 

[removed account4]

The last two phrases in your list imply that the addressee needs some education about modern photographic technology, and some blah advice how to run a photography business. Note that these friendly people shoving their advice down our throats are rarely the experts we would ask for it anyways.

huh, you mean to tell me that someone shooting a wedding, bar-bat mitzva nowadays where the client wants 4000 exposures to look at / proof
with a "fancy" slide show on film doesn't need a bit of advice ? i find that to be kind of strange seeing most of pro labs are closed down or instead of
having an e6 /c41 line that runs every 6 hours it is every week or 2 . so a assignment/ wedding &c shooter would have to be kind of behind the times
to run his business that way, i would also ask a film shooter why they do this too, and i am both a professional who uses FILM as well as digital ..
there is very little market for commercial film work unless you have a stable of clients who expect film, do novelty work
or you are a commercial super star who can do whatever s/he want.
i shot a church directory in may ... i would have had to be an idiot to shoot it in film. yes i used a digital camera and all the images were sent to a printer.

How else would you interpret the dialog "do they still make film?" Yes "but why? Isn't it a pain?" ?

i agree with them 100% it IS a pain. and i wonder all the time why i shoot film. i have 7-8 rolls of film i have to process sometime soon, and i have to find the time to do it, which isn't easy.
if i shot these rolls / views using a digital camera i wouldn't have the trouble and would already have post processed the images.
it is a personal choice why i accept the pain in the neck of shooting film. i enjoy doing it, and i find the images i can conjure from a sheet of film to be more fun
than with an electric camera. it isn't because of any other reason. the whole not knowing what will happen at all, until i see the negatives or prints
on film or paper is why i do it, its fun. i can understand why some people don't like that. they don't like the unknown, they like immediacy and they don't have
the $$$ to send film to a lab and then scan it to share with their friends, or maybe they aren't very good and can't afford wasting time and exposures that will just look like crap.
or they don't or never have processed their own black and white and don't have the time
space, energy to do it. at least they are taking pictures and enjoying themselves, and i don't ask why they are shooting digital because it doesn't matter to me, at all.
and why i shoot film, i don't think, matters to them either, they are just curious.

You got to be kidding me. I don't exactly have a reputation for being overly diplomatic in my responses, but that kind of statement would not occur to me in the presence of an artist, and the work of your's that I have seen online should not give anyone a reason to say such a thing. I hope these people weren't the reason why your work in the APUG gallery looked a bit melancholic lately.

no, im not kidding you at all ... i say it all the time, i don't have an ego like an "artist" and it really doesn't matter to me if you would tell people it is for sale
and give them a web site, last name, url &c ... , i have done, it, do it, and if i have a business card in my camera bag i it has my website on it and give it to them.
i don't really see what is strange / wrong about that. a couple of weeks ago some guy was asking me questions about my graflex slr ( its beat on, looks like it went through the war )
and was going on about how all the newspapermen used the same cameras. i took his portrait and have a print to give him when i return to the place i go to ... if he doesn't die first!
i did the same thing with a guy i saw with a 62 bug. i took his portrait, and emailed him a copy of it and sent him a link to my website. i'm still
confused what is wrong with this LOL someone shows an interest i gladly give them information ...

if no one in the general public has seen my work how will they know what it is, i can't explain " well it is done on film, but it looks like a painting
because i paint on it, and the developer makes the negative look different so when i print it it looks like ... " utter waste of time.
i've thought of bringing a flip book of my prints to actually show them instead of giving them my web address but i haven't had the time /
energy to do it ... and it doesn't really matter anyways ...
my work has been melancholic for decades, it has nothing to do with people i meet in the general public.

i don't have photos here in the gallery here for a variety of reasons. when i first joined apug i used to leave photos in the gallery for a few hours or a day and remove them.
then i started to leave them in there. but i don't think it is fair to the site owner for me to leave 6000-7000 of my images on his server, so once a year or more i delete everything.

 

[pdeeh]

. Funny how belonging to a 'rebellious' subculture requires such conformity!

Sounds like APUG ...

 

[Rudeofus]

huh, you mean to tell me that someone shooting a wedding, bar-bat mitzva nowadays where the client wants 4000 exposures to look at / proof with a "fancy" slide show on film doesn't need a bit of advice ?

AFAIK Stone didn't try to shoot a wedding with his large format camera. The suggestion "get a digital camera and shoot weddings" in his situation is not a suggestion to improve his work flow, but to change his life, and I don't think random strangers are entitled to shove such a suggestion down his throat, unsolicited.

i agree with them 100% it IS a pain. and i wonder all the time why i shoot film.

No pain, no gain, as they say. When the advice "digital is sooo much easier" was voiced, I don't think Stone was jumping around cursing his camera and the film holders, or otherwise actively soliciting advice.

Let me give you some perspective: I am electrical engineer with a doctor's degree, have spent some time in a semiconductor research facility clean room and with mixed signal ASIC design, I have programmed image processing algorithms aimed at the output of digital machine vision cameras. Most people giving me the "digital is soo much easier and better, why don't you" treatment don't know what a Bayer matrix is, what "full well" capacity means and where it comes from, and how most image sharpening or denoising algorithms work. These people telling me about the virtues of digital sensors are like someone telling you, John, that there are other developers and processes than TMY/D-76 and MGIV/Dektol.

If my results are less than stellar, I can rarely blame film's weaknesses but rather my lack of creative vision and imagination. It's a journey for me, and ISO 104600 and 3000 shots per day at near zero cost won't make it more pleasant or efficient for me. Digital photography had its place, most photographic pursuits, especially non-artistic commercial ones, can be done easier and better with digital technology, but that doesn't mean I should chuck my RZ67.

 

[removed account4]

<<post removed>>

 

[StoneNYC]

:munch:

 

[removed account4]

YAWN

 

[Zedwardson]

Getting back on topic, I wonder how much film the Holga's and Lomos ate that where fresh film that kept companies going, or old expired films bought for cheap. I am the first to say that I do not know the answer.

 

[removed account4]

... because I'm one who enjoys using an "arthur fellig" camera out in public.

so you gain some weight, wear high waisted pants, (pulled halfway up your chest)
a wide tie, probably spats, a hat, half chewed cigar in your mouth and greased back hair
when you go out with your camera ?
that is the weegee look i am talking about, not just taking photographs with a press camera.

seeing your profile picture i wouldn't imagine you being
able to pull the look i was talking about off
if you can and do pull it off... more power to ya ...

 

[StoneNYC]

:munch: