• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Film photography makes a stunning comeback

dwross said:
All the better if a goodly number of photographers take up emulsion making. Making paper can be done in a bathroom darkroom, but of course, that's not for everyone. The really important thing is to find some corner of photography, dig in, and own it.
Click to expand...

1+ !!!

dig in and own it is right !!
 

Sure that works for a while but I would think in 25 years it will be hard to find a decent working film camera (other than the best fully manual Leicas) with failing electronics and general wear and tear. I recently bought a Canon A-1 with a lens just for the lens. The body was in perfect condition but the shutter won't fire. I tried fixing it but it's beyond my knowledge to fix it and a decent body costs less than repair. So, I will use it for parts. There goes another camera and the slow steady drum beat of dying cameras will go on... Eventually there will be another Voightlander type company that builds a new line of cameras but right now we are in the golden age of super cheap used cameras but I am already starting to see signs of that shifting as prices are rising.
 
I found this gem of a Usenet discussion from 1991 about the outlook for photography for the next ten years and beyond.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.photo/ZnqcQVzAln0

It's easy in hindsight to see the types of errors that were made in predicting the future, and occasionally someone gets it at least partly right. It's interesting to see discussions of 100,000 ISO and CCDs vs 35mm and new camera gear as a safe investment.

It's impossible to predict what will happen, but I hope film is as least as cheap and widely available for enthusiasts and pros in the future as it is now.
 
(Incorrect. Fujifilm has, sadly, ended all film camera production.
Polaroid is nothing but a holding company and manufactures nothing so I'm not sure why they made your list).

My apologise. You can still buy Fuji Natura Classica on line from Japan.
I thought that the Polaroid Instant Cameras could be considered as analog...I could be wrong with my perception.
 
It seems to me, as an obsessive eBay watcher, that some lines of used gear are creeping upwards in price. Primarily MF stuff; I wonder if the kids that wanted to differentiate themselves by shooting film are now having to differentiate themselves from the 35mm "losers" (I joke, but hey...) Kids who differentiated themselves with vinyl until old turntable prices shot up.

There was an interesting development that many shooters missed a few years back. Black Magic Designs had developed digital "cinema" cameras that were somewhat affordable ($2-3k) and shot raw footage. Beautiful stuff. Then they released their Pocket Cinema Cameras ($1k, occasionally sold for $500) that had a sensor the size of super-16mm film.

Almost overnight, prices for Super-16 lenses skyrocketed and everyone became experts on which were the sharpest, which had the most character (sure, you could use Nikon or Canon glass on the camera, but when you needed 8mm and 12mm glass to shoot wide, forget it) which models worked well. Some classic doc-shooter glass, like Angeniuex zooms, were restored to prices that matched their former glory. $10 glass shot up to $100, $200 and more.

I wonder about what could happen that would do that to some of the used stills gear out there. Much of the super-16 glass was considered throwaway or sat on shelves for years - and suddenly had a new life.
 

That is the theory, especially with cameras that depend on electronics. But...mechanical cameras will be fine, that is the restoration market I have my eyes on as a conduit of entrepreneurial spirt.

And in 25 years, one never knows how it might be possible to develop replacement electronics for at least some cameras that depend on them. Finally, out of all the cameras that sell and see prices creeping upward, ones that depend on electronics typically fetch lower prices than mechanical ones. For less than $150 I picked up a spare F100 to be a backup / parts cam to the one I have owned since purchased new in 2001.....and that sucker has seen some serious miles in 15 years of pro use.

All hands on deck, move the needle in the right direction and we will all be fine.
 
farmersteve said:
... I would think in 25 years it will be hard to find a decent working film camera (other than the best fully manual Leicas) with failing electronics and general wear and tear. ...
Click to expand...

What I think will still be working in 25 years (this includes situations where the meter may be inoperative, but the camera can be used without the meter and without battery power):

-Leica rangefinder through M6
-Leicaflex through SL2, also R6, R6.2

-Nikon rangefinder through SP
-Nikon F, F2, FM, FM2, FM3a
-Nikkormat through FT3

-Canon rangefinder (e.g. Canon 7, G-III 17)
-Canon FL and FD mount SLRs through the Canon EF Black Beauty (no A-series, no Canon EOS)

-Minolta SLRs through the SRT series
-Pentax M42 mount SLRs through the KM, K2, KX, K1000
-Exaktas (Exakta VX works forever)

-Hasselblad 500 series
-Mamiya RB67 and TLRs
-Fuji GW series
-Rolleiflex TLRs

-Large Format cameras

-all sorts of rollfilm and folding cameras from the early to mid-1900's

The list above is based on my belief that the longest-living cameras are those where electronics aren't needed to control any aspect of the exposure, i.e. where fully manual operation is always possible
 
Last edited:
in 25 years you will be either shooting self coated 35mm or expired .. you might as well get
a lf camera or make something that can take a larget contact printable negative ...
as much as i am hoping 35 and 120 will be around who knows ...
 
jnanian said:
in 25 years you will be either shooting self coated 35mm or expired .. you might as well get
a lf camera or make something that can take a larget contact printable negative ...
as much as i am hoping 35 and 120 will be around who knows ...
Click to expand...

I'm not saying there won't be film cameras around. There are literally millions of them out there collecting dust waiting to be used, but not everyone wants an old rangefinder or folding camera. I'm just saying to broaden the base of users in the future, it would be nice to have a modern film camera enter production that didn't set you back a month's salary...
 

The only way there will be modern film cameras around is if film users continue buying new film cameras on a more or less regular basis. Digital users seem to have bought into the idea that they need to continually update their kit to remain relevant. Film users, and I am a prime example of this, revel in our ancient, bargain-shop gear. Who wouldn't be happy to have a free Rolleiflex, or a couple of C 330s thrown our way? Nobody loves a deal like a film shooter. These are fantastic cameras, and with a little bit of care, will outlast our lifetime. (as half my cameras outlived their previous owners) But legacy gear does nothing to support the current industry. I will agree that there is more value to a 50+ year-old film camera than there is to a 15 year-old digital shooter, but in the long run, what is most important that there will be new film cameras to continue the legacy engendered by a century or more of craftsmanship and innovation in the analogue realm.

This spring I bought my first new film camera in over a decade. (a spanking-new Chamonix 045n-2... A fantastic piece of engineering) I'm embarrassed that it took me so long for me to do so, but I had, (and made) a million excuses as to why it was never the right time for me to buy new. I consider myself a part of the problem. Add to this the fact that I've been constantly on the lookout for expired film and paper, and all manner of discarded darkroom gear, and I am the problem. How many of us, whilst whingeing about the costs in a dwindling market, have done the same?

Sorry to rant on; this has been on m chest for sometime. I feel very passionately that if we value analog photography, we have to support the analog industry, not just its thrift store remnants.

Tom
 
Toffle said:
...But legacy gear does nothing to support the current industry.
...
Click to expand...

Legacy gear at relatively inexpensive prices allow new people to become film photographers. All of us using these cameras support the continued manufacturing of film.

Right now, I can't think of a single currently manufactured film camera, as few as they are, that is more attractive to me than the high-end cameras I already own.

The only film camera introduced in the last 20 years that was attractive to me is the FM3a - and I bought it. The F6 is far less attractive to me than my F4s's. The Leica M7, M-A, M-P I consider inferior to my M3's and M6's.
 

hi farmersteve

im not saying there wont be 35mm film cameras out there. i think there will always be 35mm film cameras out there, just like there are always obscure forgotten roll film boxes, folders, robots, falling plate cameras &c out tnere. what i am suggesting ( sorry to be a wet blanket ) is 35mm film might not be the best format to be hoarding gear, the film itself might not be around in 25 years, but self made or liqud emulsion might be what is being supplied or what someone makes themselves ( it isnt hard to make emulsion, to to thelightfarm.com and see how easy it is ) .. so it might be fun to collect 35mm cameras becuse they are beautiful machines, but it might be more worthwhile to buy/hoard make, whatever .. cameras bigger than 35mm, ( there were some box cameras and pocket folders from 1900-1920 that had 3 1/2 x5 1/2" negatives!) ... bigger negatives might be better than hand coated 35mm.. ( confession: i coat 35mm metal plates and paper and it is a blast . )
 
Last edited:
jnanian said:
its a camera, and cameras allow people record things using reflected light.
there is no difference ...
Click to expand...

Why would anyone bother using analog cameras before iPhones if they were the same thing? Why embrace a slow, limited and quite expensive process that requires total darkness, strict temperatures and carcinogenic chemicals?
 
Last edited:


That legacy gear at relatively inexpensive prices is exactly the stuff that so often features in wailing threads here on APUG as not doing as it should. As equipment ages, problems with reliability and parts replacement will occur and those photographers with stars in their eyes and a roll of film in their camera suddenly feel they have been cheated out by equipment failure. That's before they even know the camera's history of previous owners and use. Forums are an ideal place for sharing around ideas and helping others, but the indisputable fact, with all-mechanical or all-electronic cameras is that faults will develop, the cameras will stop, lenses will not work (even MF lenses)... a whole host of problems. No surprise that somebody leaving digital and going to film would be angry at having their efforts screwed by a camera that is no longer up to it. If a Hasselblad 500C/M could be purchased new, in box with a bog standard 80mm, the new user could rest assured of being given many years of reliable service. But there are now many thousands of 500C/M cameras with any manner of problems (shutters being a case in point) going for a song — the proverbial "buying another person's problems". Frankly, I wouldn't go near any of them, nor the ancient SLRs in a previous post (ie. Pentax K1000, Minolta SRTs...oh God, just throw them out, all of them).
 
Poisson Du Jour said:
... Frankly, I wouldn't go near any of them, nor the ancient SLRs in a previous post (ie. Pentax K1000, Minolta SRTs...oh God, just throw them out, all of them).
Click to expand...

Throw them out and then do what? The very few new film cameras being made are either low-fi simple models (not that there's anything wrong with that) or stonkingly expensive re-creations of older models (e.g. Leica M-A).

Sure, one could always use digital cameras and be on a continual upgrade path offering diminishing feature improvements and increasing costs.

Film enthusiasts are doing the right thing (for themselves): using the equipment which has proven to be most reliable and having them repaired (or replaced) when needed. One doesn't need to be on APUG for very long before encountering posts where a new member has obtained a camera and has had it serviced by an expert such as Sover Wong, Youxin Ye, or Harry Fleenor, to name a few. My point is that these cameras are serviceable and capable of decades more useful service.
 
Theo Sulphate said:
The only film camera introduced in the last 20 years that was attractive to me is the FM3a - and I bought it. The F6 is far less attractive to me than my F4s's. The Leica M7, M-A, M-P I consider inferior to my M3's and M6's.
Click to expand...
Theo,
The MP has no dash. The M-A is the first new 35mm camera from Leica for more than a decade and follows the new naming nomenclature.
 
farmersteve said:
BTW, has anyone seen the prices people are getting for the Olympus Mju II Stylus Epic?
Click to expand...
Prices are related to markets. If I go to Ebay or online shops devoted to analogue stuff where the unitiated and those go who want something immediately, of course I shall pay a high price. Locally I would not have to pay more than 3€ for a Mju II.
Those high prices are indeed an indicator for some interest in the market, but do not reflect the whole market.
 
This all sounds like the debate about painting dying out when photography was first invented. Painting did not die out but it became much easier to capture an image using photography instead of painting a picture. Now that anyone can take a reasonable picture on an iPhone there is never going to be a return to the Golden Age of film. However, there is going to be an ongoing niche for film photography. It is really a question of whether that niche is big enough to continue providing our materials and hardware at reasonable prices.
 
That is.

Last week I received a user condition Nikon F80 for 50€. There is an oversupply of cameras, and once the opportunity of a rather sucessful venture of camera manufacture appears, someone will jump in. Classic Adam Smith economics.
Currently there is concern not about cameras themselves, but shutters for Large Format. AFAIK copal, the main supplier, quit the market. Large Format manufacturing is +- on that way already and for a long time. Small custom manufacturers.

MF there was the Bessa III/GF670. Who knows when they dry up if they have tooling and can do another batch.

I do agree that it would be interesting to have cameras with 2010 decade technology, as the most modern (Nikon F6?) have been surpassed in many features. Anyhow, it is quite interesting how perfectly decent cameras such as the F80 can be purchased for such low prices. There are the Fx's and other high end cameras which are a fraction of the original price. Dan and Rattymouse wrote about it.

I'm 21 so I can expect to see what it's gonna be in 25-50 years.

Don't forget that instant film was deemed to be the 1st to go. IP (yes, with some pitfalls) have redeveloped a decent film and an instant camera. Instax is kawaii and sails on nicely.

The "New Gen" labs -lack of category name, who deliver your scans online and work mail order- that originally catered to the wedding group (FIND, RPL, et al) seem to have gained traction. Infact, the Spanish Carmencita lab who adopted that model, started small 3 yrs ago and seem to be thriving!

OT/OTOH: See what smartphone cameras did to the standalone market of digital cameras.
 
The nature of humans are to touch, feel and experience the tangible Through tangible interaction, people learn to relate or identify. While most people can't distinguish a negative, they can relate to tangible ownership. Digital files don't equal this.
 
Luminousoctaves said:
Why would anyone bother using analog cameras before iPhones if they were the same thing? Why embrace a slow, limited and quite expensive process that requires total darkness, strict temperatures and carcinogenic chemicals?
Click to expand...

because they feel like it ?
because its fun ?
because they like the mystery of not knowing if what they took a photograph of actually "came out"?
because they think it is limitless, not limited ?
because they love seeing what an image looks like "on film / on paper"

not all film users are slow, even thouse who shoot 11x14" negatives, some phone users are slower,
and not all photochemicals are carcinogenic, and not everyone self-processes.

not sure where i read it, but some say the best camera is the one you have with you. maybe
the folks who use their alexander graham bell device just happen to have it with them?
people have been extending their arm and making selfies with p/s cameras for decades,
photographing their food, friends, family and everything else that tickles their fancy ... and they do the same
thing now .. and just as uncle george might have shown a 7 hour slide show of every footstep he took when he
walked a section of the yosemite park 40 years ago, your cousin melvin will show you his unedited
20 thousand images flood on his facebook wall of his trip to the dairy case at the grocery store to buy
cheery garcia ice cream. its pretty much the same thing.

in the end, none of this really matters.
cameras of all types are a lot if fun
 
Last edited:
jnanian said:
in the end, none of this really matters. cameras of all types are a lot if fun
Click to expand...
I think we are talking past each other here. My latest post was a retorical question. The answer is of course that the hard work with analog photography is also the reason why most of us continue to do it. Embrace the process.
 
I live in the NOW...that means I shoot film almost every day. ..
Shoot film
Be happy today
 
Luminousoctaves said:
I think we are talking past each other here. My latest post was a retorical question. The answer is of course that the hard work with analog photography is also the reason why most of us continue to do it. Embrace the process.
Click to expand...

i kind of agree with you and i kind of don't agree with you.
many people, express the notion that analog photography is "hard work"

it is something like a photography fairy tale

like anything else it is as hard an anyone wants to make it.
 
I think we pretty much agree. I know why I'm doing it, it might not be for the some reasons you do it. We all have our take on the analog world. I am very much focused on storytelling and the actual images, but I also find a lot of inspiration and energy in the process of making them (darkroom work etc). Digital is not an alternative, yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register