how do people react when you tell them you shoot film?

[Arklatexian]

There were always people on both sides when they saw me using film, but most were diehard digital users trying to tell me something was wrong with me for using it - as if they needed me to switch in order to justify their own choices. It never bothered me that someone used digital. What bothered me was when someone tried to turn the two choices into a pissing contest, quoting marketing material, and demonstrating no true understanding of the digital tech (which, being in IT, I understand quite well).

It has been very interesting over the past 5 years - I get much less of the above, and more people who think it is okay, or even cool, that I still use film. More people accept my choice and want to talk photography in general, regardless of what they use.

This is very understandable. The pixel wars are all but over, the push to convert people to digital cameras has diminished, and people who use digital cameras are getting flack about not using a cell phone in the same way I got flack for not using digital.

+1, and, for me, the best of all was my teenage granddaughter, who owns a digital SLR, asked me, the other day, to please show her how to shoot film. AND HOW TO DEVELOP the film in my darkroom. It doesn't get much better than that.....Regards!

 

[Truzi]

Who tells people they shoot film? Why? Not something I volunteer unless asked.

Perhaps it comes up in conversation. Who thinks telling people one uses film necessarily implies one always broadcasts it without solicitation?

I keep to myself when taking pictures. It only comes up when someone first asks me about the camera - either how many MP, to which I state it's film, or they notice I'm winding.

The most interesting one was when someone asked about my Realist 45 (stereo) camera. He was really interested until he learned it wasn't a TLR.

 

[CMoore]

Who tells people they shoot film? Why? Not something I volunteer unless asked.

Do you go out in public with a Camera.?
I get asked "the question" all the time.

 

[FujiLove]

They sometimes think I can’t afford a digital camera.

 

[film_man]

I generally get either just some "dude that's a cool camera" comment from younger people or some story from generally older ones about them using film in the past and that are happy to see someone still using one. It tends to happen more when I take a medium format camera out as the Nikons can easily pass for a digital camera (my F3 is black so looks like anything really).

 

[GRHazelton]

I recall putting my barn door Vitessa L on our table at Carroll Street Cafe, a sort of bohemian venue in Cabbage Town. The waitress, probably in her 20's pronounced it an "awesome camera!" A young person of exquisite taste and discernment, if I say so!

 

[MattKing]

It is not surprising that people notice and comment on film cameras. After all, so many people either used them or saw them being used so often, for such a long time.
And then quite suddenly, they seemed to disappear from everyday life.
The transition to digital as being the "norm" was incredibly quick.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I think the weirdest case with this i've ever head was a guy walking up and telling me, 'theres no reason to use that anymore, digital is really good nowadays'. ...

In light of the recent reply to Sirius by Adorama, perhaps an equivalent reply would be, "I've used digital in the past but decided to upgrade my photography."

... most were diehard digital users trying to tell me something was wrong with me for using it - as if they needed me to switch in order to justify their own choices. ... What bothered me was when someone tried to turn the two choices into a pissing contest ...

Exactly. Most people don't care what others use. It's those few that need to denigrate others to elevate themselves - they are the problem.

They sometimes think I can’t afford a digital camera.

Or, worse: that you are too old, too technically incapable, or too feeble minded to use a digital camera.

 

[Sirius Glass]

In light of the recent reply to Sirius by Adorama, perhaps an equivalent reply would be, "I've used digital in the past but decided to upgrade my photography."

While a clever response, I never got into digital photography, so I cannot use that.

 

[Paul Manuell]

A lot of the young ones don't know what film is.

That is SO true. My hobby is shooting models, and a lot of them literally have never heard of film before or worked with anyone using it. A few of them have commented after the shoot, though, that they enjoyed the experience of working with someone who takes the time to set up every shot rather than rattling off loads and selecting the best one from hundreds.

 

[pbromaghin]

Or, worse: that you are too old, too technically incapable, or too feeble minded to use a digital camera.

This is the one that cranks me up. As if letting a computer make the 50 decisions that have to be made every time you trip the shutter was too complicated. And I've been writing software since before the internet was called the internet!

 

[MT ASCP]

i've been asked by friends, family, coworkers . They still make film? Really? Where do you get it developed? All very polite about it , so far nothing negative. The best is when I take a photo of my daughter and she gets a smile and says" can I see it!" I now will make a disclaimer to her that this is film before i take the photo.

 

[foc]

From a slightly different perspective, I own a minilab and photoshop. We still process 35mm film, through the door and via mailorder / website, along with our digital printing etc.

Customers regularly express surprise that film is still available when they see is for sale and also see negs hanging up for scanning. Most are delighted to see it continuing , delighted that people are printing photos instead of looking at them on their phones. Only once did one customer say " why do they bother?"

I also shoot film as a hobby and when out and about shooting it is always a positive when people stop to chat about it.

 

[faberryman]

Do you go out in public with a Camera.?
I get asked "the question" all the time.

Of course. Maybe I am too absorbed in what I am doing and they don't want to bother me.

 

[Sirius Glass]

This is the one that cranks me up. As if letting a computer make the 50 decisions that have to be made every time you trip the shutter was too complicated. And I've been writing software since before the internet was called the internet!

I started programming in October 1963.

 

[Erik D. Herrmann Sr.]

I generally only get comments when I'm out with my TLR. One lady at a renaissance fair was overjoyed to see me with it. She said that she has a Rollicord and that she still uses it. That made my day.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I started programming in October 1963.

Fortran IV, I assume?

I started in 1970, at USC's System Simulation Laboratory with Fortran IV on an IBM 360/44. Later, at UCLA in 1972, I was using PL/1 and S/360 Assembly Language on their Campus Computing Network's IBM 360/91KK.

I don't do online banking, either - the bank clerks look at me and treat me as if I'm some dinosaur incapable of logging on to a computer and using the internet. Then I tell them where I worked and what I did for the last 40+ years...

 

[MattKing]

I don't do online banking, either - the bank clerks look at me and treat me as if I'm some dinosaur incapable of logging on to a computer and using the internet. Then I tell them where I worked and what I did for the last 40+ years...

Prior to the availability of online banking, I had a bank teller make a $250,000+ error on my lawyer's trust account that caused me all sorts of grief, so I appreciate having online banking access that permits me to independently check what happens to my accounts.
But I understand where you are coming from.

 

[cooltouch]

I find it hard to fathom the number of insufferable, clueless dweebs who exist out there with digital cameras hanging about their necks with no clues about the history of the craft that got them to that point. What, surely they've seen older issues of National Geographic? Tell them to grab any issue at random from the 70s, 80s, or 90s -- and try to find fault with the photography within its pages. Hell, tell them to be honset and ask them if they can match the quality of the photography in those pages. Hah. Idiots.

 

[John51]

I don't do online banking, either - the bank clerks look at me and treat me as if I'm some dinosaur incapable of logging on to a computer and using the internet. Then I tell them where I worked and what I did for the last 40+ years...

I've had friendly debates with my eldest about similar. I prefer hardware solutions, he prefers to use software.

Back when lulz, an offshoot of 4chan, was getting publicity for being naughty, I said that they were going to get caught if they only used software to hide their tracks. He disagreed and he was later proved wrong.

 

[oreston]

I find it hard to fathom the number of insufferable, clueless dweebs who exist out there with digital cameras hanging about their necks with no clues about the history of the craft that got them to that point. What, surely they've seen older issues of National Geographic? Tell them to grab any issue at random from the 70s, 80s, or 90s -- and try to find fault with the photography within its pages. Hell, tell them to be honset and ask them if they can match the quality of the photography in those pages. Hah. Idiots.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. There are legions of people out there (many young, but quite a few theoretically old enough to know better) who are so unthinking and whose pool of cultural and historical knowledge is so shallow that they just don't get this. The Lomography movement may have done a certain amount to ensure a continuing demand for film and cameras but equally it's contributed to a latter day obsession with artsy lens flare, light leaks and colour casts and for creating the impression that film is inherently unreliable - rather than the mature, highly developed imaging medium that the World relied upon for a century or so and until only about 15 years ago.

 

[David Brown]

... The Lomography movement may have done a certain amount to ensure a continuing demand for film and cameras but equally it's contributed to a latter day obsession with artsy lens flare, light leaks and colour casts and for creating the impression that film is inherently unreliable - ...

Sadly, yes. It's good news/bad news.

 

[removed account4]

I find it hard to fathom the number of insufferable, clueless dweebs who exist out there with digital cameras hanging about their necks with no clues about the history of the craft that got them to that point. What, surely they've seen older issues of National Geographic? Tell them to grab any issue at random from the 70s, 80s, or 90s -- and try to find fault with the photography within its pages. Hell, tell them to be honset and ask them if they can match the quality of the photography in those pages. Hah. Idiots.

its too bad people have to resort to name calling / insults and belittleing others
to prove their using film is superior.. there are plenty of people who use film
who are clueless about the "history of the craft"
what a bunch of nonsense

I think you've hit the nail on the head. There are legions of people out there (many young, but quite a few theoretically old enough to know better) who are so unthinking and whose pool of cultural and historical knowledge is so shallow that they just don't get this. The Lomography movement may have done a certain amount to ensure a continuing demand for film and cameras but equally it's contributed to a latter day obsession with artsy lens flare, light leaks and colour casts and for creating the impression that film is inherently unreliable - rather than the mature, highly developed imaging medium that the World relied upon for a century or so and until only about 15 years ago.

that movement was around long before LOMO was around.
right on cue ! digital bashing AND LOMO bashing
i wonder what is next ? holga? diana ??

 

[film_man]

I find it hard to fathom the number of insufferable, clueless dweebs who exist out there with digital cameras hanging about their necks with no clues about the history of the craft that got them to that point. What, surely they've seen older issues of National Geographic? Tell them to grab any issue at random from the 70s, 80s, or 90s -- and try to find fault with the photography within its pages.

The history has nothing to do with it. A person using a digital camera is perfectly capable of making great photos with current equipment without needing to know the ins and outs of film development or wet plate processing. They are also very capable of appreciating photos made with older equipment without needing to know how they were made. National Geographic photos of the 70s and 80s are great, perhaps what is more interesting is that all those photographers whose photos filled National Geographic then are still there today shooting digital. Checkout McCurry, Lanting, Vitale, etc...

Hell, tell them to be honset and ask them if they can match the quality of the photography in those pages. Hah. Idiots.

Can you?

Crap photos of cats can be made with Kodachrome, Portra, a Canon 5D or even some 100MP medium format digital.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The history has nothing to do with it. A person using a digital camera is perfectly capable of making great photos with current equipment without needing to know the ins and outs of film development or wet plate processing. They are also very capable of appreciating photos made with older equipment without needing to know how they were made. National Geographic photos of the 70s and 80s are great, perhaps what is more interesting is that all those photographers whose photos filled National Geographic then are still there today shooting digital. Checkout McCurry, Lanting, Vitale, etc...



Can you?

Crap photos of cats can be made with Kodachrome, Portra, a Canon 5D or even some 100MP medium format digital.

The operative word in cooltouch's post is "clueless", not "digital".