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

[film_man]

right on cue ! digital bashing AND LOMO bashing
i wonder what is next ? holga? diana ??

Add Cinestill to that list and whoever else comes along with a kickstarter trying to do something about film...

I find it both amusing and frustrating at the same time the elitist attitudes of some people that just because they have used film in the past feel they are privileged in the "history" and "culture" of the "craft" and all that claptrap, completely oblivious to the advances and benefits that digital has brought on for the vast majority of people who were reliant on crap P&S cameras with crap consumer films and crap minilabs. What usually makes it more amusing is that of all the talk about craft and quality most of these people couldn't shoot a decent photo if their life depended on it.

 

[film_man]

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

The exact quote is "clueless dweebs who exist out there with digital cameras hanging about their necks". So?

 

[CMoore]

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.

God Knows i am not Perfect, but........I have said it before and will say again :
Guitars
Guns
Stamp collecting
Fishing
Bicycling
Cameras.......whatever.the topic of The Forum.
"Bashing" of others Should Not be allowed.!
It drives current members away, and discourages others from joining.
You do not like Street Photography, or Color Photography.?.....you do not like Digital Cameras.? No problem, that is OK.
What is not OK, and is Small Minded and Lousy, is to Degrade and Disparage the people that do Like/Practice those other skills.
There is NOTHING Saintly about using film.
I thought we were done with this.....

 

[Sirius Glass]

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...

You assumed wrong. [wrongly?] Assembly and machine language for the IBM 7494. I always believed that both assembly and machine language are always best programmed by someone else.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The exact quote is "clueless dweebs who exist out there with digital cameras hanging about their necks". So?

Plenty of clueless dweebs with film cameras.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

God Knows i am not Perfect, but........I have said it before and will say again :
Guitars
Guns
Stamp collecting
Fishing
Bicycling
Cameras.......whatever.the topic of The Forum.
"Bashing" of others Should Not be allowed.!
It drives current members away, and discourages others from joining.
You do not like Street Photography, or Color Photography.?.....you do not like Digital Cameras.? No problem, that is OK.
What is not OK, and is Small Minded and Lousy, is to Degrade and Disparage the people that do Like/Practice those other skills.
There is NOTHING Saintly about using film.
I thought we were done with this.....

Clueless dweebism deserves. to be bashed, thoroughly and regularly.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Many film users, like myself, use digital when the situation calls for it or if I just happen to have a digital camera with me. I try not to denigrate those who use digital exclusively, though sometimes I fail. My wish is for divisive articles like the one in Adorama to stop.

 

[PerTulip]

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.

Young photographers are "victims of their age" and grew up in a digital world. Do you think disregarding them as "clueless dweebs" and "idiots" makes them want to hear any "history" from you? Film photographers should really get their head out of their ass. You just use another another tool for photography, that doesn't make you some kind of enlightened guru.
I got many people into film, by explaining the process and letting them try. I got people into vinyl, not by ranting about MP3s, but by inviting them to browse (used/old) LPs at the record store. Sadly, in the audio world, there are also too many "prophets of vinyl" dismissing anybody who listens to digital as an "idiot". And at least two co-workers started using fountain-pens, as I do, because they liked my notes. Not because of dismising them as "digital dweebs". Back to topic: most people don't even notice I use film. The few that do, most of the time, show genuine interest. And I am pretty sure they don't ask about film to hear the "film superiority talk", or the "digital dweeb dismissal talk".
And if somebody decides to just use digital...so what? I can appreciate any form of photography, with every tool out there that does the job. It's about fun and creation, not about dogmas.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The most hysterical response (to me, anyway) to my using a film camera is when I'm out shooting large format. They KNOW it's a film camera, but as I'm inserting a film holder into the back, they ask "You can still get film for that?". I'm always polite because I realize the question is coming from ignorance. But I do get tempted at times to say something like, "No, I can't get film... I just haul this thing around and set it up in public so I can answer inane questions from assholes", or "no, I can't get film, so I've figured out how to make my feces light sensitive and smear it on sheets of wax paper. I develop it with a combination of Fireball whiskey and the blood of a virgin...". But most of the time, the cameras are a source of positive conversation with strangers - they're a great ice-breaker when traveling in a foreign country. I've had some fascinating conversations with total strangers in Spain, Argentina, France, Italy and Mexico because I was shooting a medium format film camera. The best one is of course the Rolleiflex, but a close second has been the Mamiya RZ tied with the Lomo Belair panoramic.

 

[oreston]

right on cue ! digital bashing AND LOMO bashing
i wonder what is next ? holga? diana ??

"Bashing." Is that what I was doing? I thought I simply expressed a point of view about contemporary perceptions of film photography. I made that point far less excitably than you. I didn't even mention digital. Not everything has to descend into a slanging match, even on the Interwebs.

 

[faberryman]

Clueless dweebism deserves. to be bashed, thoroughly and regularly.

I am having trouble figuring out whether it is film photographers or digital photographers who are the clueless dweebs. Seems like the phrase could apply to either, depending on who is using it.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

They ask "They still sell film?".

 

[PerTulip]

They ask "They still sell film?".

A valid question, since film was sold everywhere (supermarkets, 7/11s, pharmacies, gift shops at museums,....) and for the average person out there it seems to have dissappeared.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

A valid question, since film was sold everywhere (supermarkets, 7/11s, pharmacies, gift shops at museums,....) and for the average person out there it seems to have dissappeared.

Very true. What I've seen visiting foreign countries, some still use primarily film. But phone cameras are slowly creeping in. Digital cameras require computers, software and printers if you want to print them.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Young photographers are "victims of their age" and grew up in a digital world. Do you think disregarding them as "clueless dweebs" and "idiots" makes them want to hear any "history" from you? Film photographers should really get their head out of their ass. You just use another another tool for photography, that doesn't make you some kind of enlightened guru.
I got many people into film, by explaining the process and letting them try. I got people into vinyl, not by ranting about MP3s, but by inviting them to browse (used/old) LPs at the record store. Sadly, in the audio world, there are also too many "prophets of vinyl" dismissing anybody who listens to digital as an "idiot". And at least two co-workers started using fountain-pens, as I do, because they liked my notes. Not because of dismising them as "digital dweebs". Back to topic: most people don't even notice I use film. The few that do, most of the time, show genuine interest. And I am pretty sure they don't ask about film to hear the "film superiority talk", or the "digital dweeb dismissal talk".
And if somebody decides to just use digital...so what? I can appreciate any form of photography, with every tool out there that does the job. It's about fun and creation, not about dogmas.

You entirely miss the point. For almost ten years I was publicly subject to digi-idiots accosting me and taking me to task for shooting film. I did not approach them or start a conversation with them. If you had put up with that kind of crap then you would not have posted such drivel.

 

[AgX]

Very true. What I've seen visiting foreign countries, some still use primarily film.

I'm curious to know which countries that were.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Then one has to laugh when using an obviously very old camera to the questions, "Can that camera take color photographs?"

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I'm curious to know which countries that were.

I saw it at the Galapagos Islands 8 years ago in Ecuador.

 

[michr]

Add Cinestill to that list and whoever else comes along with a kickstarter trying to do something about film...

I find it both amusing and frustrating at the same time the elitist attitudes of some people that just because they have used film in the past feel they are privileged in the "history" and "culture" of the "craft" and all that claptrap, completely oblivious to the advances and benefits that digital has brought on for the vast majority of people who were reliant on crap P&S cameras with crap consumer films and crap minilabs. What usually makes it more amusing is that of all the talk about craft and quality most of these people couldn't shoot a decent photo if their life depended on it.

Amen to that. The quality of the image I see coming from people who don't consider themselves photographers and don't care about photography is a cut above anything they would have done in the film era. Most of today's cell phones come with lenses that are f2 or so, and get clean enough images beyond ISO 800. While that's nothing exceptional in terms of the kinds of cameras professionals and enthusiasts have always had, it's a huge improvement over the awful selection of amateur gear that was available. I still have my very first camera, a Kodak 110 of some sort with a f7.7 lens. It's amazing what junk these camera makers would pass off on consumers 30 years ago. It's no surprise that non-photographers ditched film gear en masse. I think that's a perspective that people who have had a long career in photography, or have been photographers most of their lives, don't have.

 

[removed account4]

"Bashing." Is that what I was doing? I thought I simply expressed a point of view about contemporary perceptions of film photography. I made that point far less excitably than you. I didn't even mention digital. Not everything has to descend into a slanging match, even on the Interwebs.

yep bashing ...
not really excitable for me ...
LOL whatever // its the same thing different day
mentioning lomo users only want bad images
and don't know what they are doing drivel
almost like they are 1 step above digital users ...
dogwhisteling others to join in
and it gets kind of tired ..
but as i said ... whatever...

 

[oreston]

yep bashing ...
not really excitable for me ...
LOL whatever // its the same thing different day
mentioning lomo users only want bad images
and don't know what they are doing drivel
almost like they are 1 step above digital users ...
dogwhisteling others to join in
and it gets kind of tired ..
but as i said ... whatever...

Goodness me, you ARE an excitable fellow, aren't you? But as you say, whatever...

 

[Eric Rose]

When people find me shooting film they drop to their knees and pray loudly. Many times I have been hoisted up on the shoulders of these admirers and a spontaneous parade is created in my honour. Women are stuffing their phone number into my pockets. It's all so overwhelming I think I will have to sell my film gear and shoot with a smartphone.

 

[MattKing]

When people find me shooting film they drop to their knees and pray loudly. Many times I have been hoisted up on the shoulders of these admirers and a spontaneous parade is created in my honour. Women are stuffing their phone number into my pockets. It's all so overwhelming I think I will have to sell my film gear and shoot with a smartphone.

When this happens, are you wearing pants?

 

[Eric Rose]

Like I said the gals where stuffing their phone numbers into my pockets. However I do generally get similar treatment when I wonder the streets with no pants. . Except in that case the gals use post-it-notes.

 

[removed account4]

Goodness me, you ARE an excitable fellow, aren't you? But as you say, whatever...

as i said, not really excitable
but still, thanks for a great comment !

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.

you forgot "get off my lawn! ! "