Is the film craze dead?

[Alan Edward Klein]

Think of that credit card fee as an incentive to use cash at a restaurant. The card company charges their fee not only on the base price but also on the tip (which reduces the amount of the tip). Furthermore, the tip gets recorded in the transactions and the staff needs to report it as income. (Frankly, who would blame any restaurant worker for not reporting their cash tips as income?)

Restaurants charging this fee may just indicate that it is getting more difficult to make a decent living owning or working in a restaurant.

I've charged the meal but left the tip in cash. Just draw a line through the tip section and total the bill to equal the food amount.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Actually Patrons tend to pay higher tips if they're charging them. So the waiter is actually make out more with a charged tip then receiving it in cash even if the owner deducts the charge company's fee. Taxes are another matter.

 

[BrianShaw]

It ranges between the ones that have had a phone in their hand their entire life and helped fuel the craze. On the other end, the curmudgeons who have been too stubborn to give it up.

Got it… so that “certain age” that aspersions were being cast upon (not by you) would be translated to “any and every current and future film user, and some past film users too”. Some “new craze” this is!

 

[BrianShaw]

@BrianShaw The prices in retail include VAT, you don't need to calculate the extra tax before paying. The receipt you get will show price (including VAT) and the VAT rate. VAT analysis is also provided and you know the amount of VAT and the net value paid.

Thanks very much for that clarification. I clearly recall the convenience of paying only the posted price without additional costs but, apparently, didn’t recall (or read) the receipts in enough detail!

 

[Cholentpot]

It ranges between the ones that have had a phone in their hand their entire life and helped fuel the craze. On the other end, the curmudgeons who have been too stubborn to give it up.

Yep.

And the returnees. People who made the switch, swore it off and now are returning after a while.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I use film in different formats for my landscape studies. Film allows me to spend time on the process which is slow and easy and contemplative. However I use digital for everything else such as parties and travel and family shots.

 

[bluechromis]

Well I'm in the middle of hipster Brooklyn and a week doesn't go by that someone who sees me shooting asks where I get my film developed. After I tell them I do it myself, and the pleasantries of impressiveness pass, they ask how they can get their TriX or HP5 developed. I say there are 2 places that will do the developing and quality scan for $20 ($25 for 120), so lets say a roll per week costs $10 per roll and 20 per dev and scan, so $120 per month. That's a night out for one in a neighborhood where a crappy 2-bed is nearly $4000 month. So I don't think the price or access to services is the problem, around here at least. I think the biggest problem is that few people under the age of 40 knows how to use a manual camera.

People in the digital world think the shift from DSLR's to mirrorless is a major trend. But in the big picture, it is a minor development. The major trend is phones replacing all kinds of stand-alone digital cameras. This started with low-end digital cameras but is creeping up to fancier ones. There may always be a need for stand-alone cameras for specialized needs. But in society in general, the notion that stand-alone cameras are what one uses to make still images is going away. Young people are so accustomed to using their phones for everything it will not occur to them to use a stand-alone camera. In the future, young people that get interested in film will increasingly never have used a stand-alone camera at all, much less one with manual controls. This could be a mixed bag for analog. It will be more of a novelty to use a camera instead of a phone. But the transition may be more difficult because it seems less familiar to them.

 

[Hassasin]

People in the digital world think the shift from DSLR's to mirrorless is a major trend. But in the big picture, it is a minor development. The major trend is phones replacing all kinds of stand-alone digital cameras. This started with low-end digital cameras but is creeping up to fancier ones. There may always be a need for stand-alone cameras for specialized needs. But in society in general, the notion that stand-alone cameras are what one uses to make still images is going away. Young people are so accustomed to using their phones for everything it will not occur to them to use a stand-alone camera. In the future, young people that get interested in film will increasingly never have used a stand-alone camera at all, much less one with manual controls. This could be a mixed bag for analog. It will be more of a novelty to use a camera instead of a phone. But the transition may be more difficult because it seems less familiar to them.

Phone camera was a craze, I don't think that's the case any more. Analog shooting is not comparable to anything digital, more so today than ever before.

I heard some now decades ago, when Tiger Woods was still to win his second major, that he was gonna be the one and only and same guy predicted in 10-15 years there would be no computers as we knew it, just a wrist watch to do it all. The history has shown both where they belong, even if one just wasted his talent by engaging in awkward positions all too often, the other remains to be a wrist based toy, even if more capable than ever.

 

[Cholentpot]

Phone camera was a craze, I don't think that's the case any more. Analog shooting is not comparable to anything digital, more so today than ever before.

I heard some now decades ago, when Tiger Woods was still to win his second major, that he was gonna be the one and only and same guy predicted in 10-15 years there would be no computers as we knew it, just a wrist watch to do it all. The history has shown both where they belong, even if one just wasted his talent by engaging in awkward positions all too often, the other remains to be a wrist based toy, even if more capable than ever.

We've been hearing about the death of the PC for years. Yet they're still around. You can't match the power and speed of a desktop.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

We've been hearing about the death of the PC for years. Yet they're still around. You can't match the power and speed of a desktop.

Large screen and large keyboard are the pluses for me.

 

[Yashica]

Long over...decades actually.

View attachment 332846

Well, that's only one part of the story...nowadays, Film is moving up, for enthusiasts, not quite as into 2000-1, but the younger generation pushed the film, which is a good thing, Kodak is hiring people...so is Acros. They simply can't keep up with the demand, you've to wait sometimes 3+ months for a color film here into germany, and when it's being avialable, it's sold out into like a couple min, no joke. I started into 1984 with Film, as kid.

Film is back, and hopefully to stay. I love 35mm. And i will shoot this forever, all my life, if the cost doesn't get that insane, so it's no longer being affordable.


Good light,
Marc

 

[Cholentpot]

Large screen and large keyboard are the pluses for me.

Ability to upgrade and replace parts. They also tend to last longer. Laptops fizzle out too quickly for me.

They also look cooler.

 

[bluechromis]

Phone camera was a craze, I don't think that's the case any more. Analog shooting is not comparable to anything digital, more so today than ever before.

I heard some now decades ago, when Tiger Woods was still to win his second major, that he was gonna be the one and only and same guy predicted in 10-15 years there would be no computers as we knew it, just a wrist watch to do it all. The history has shown both where they belong, even if one just wasted his talent by engaging in awkward positions all too often, the other remains to be a wrist based toy, even if more capable than ever.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that the shift from digital cameras to digital phones equates to a shift from analog cameras to phones. I agree that analog is a different situation and that may be its salvation. The trend might prove beneficial for analog.

I am not sure what you mean when you say, "Phone camera was a craze." The shift to using phones as the predominant way of making images is a huge, long-term trend. When I grew up, my mother had film SLR's. So it was not a big shift to use a DSLR. Cameras were seen as THE way to take still pictures.

We are in a paradigm shift where phones have become normalized in society as the thing used to take photos. Young people are so accustomed to using phones for everything that they would need an overriding reason to use, or even think of anything else. This is going to have a long-term effect. Vogue magazine urges its readers to avoid pro's for wedding pic's and instead use their friend's phone pic's. A number of news organizations have fired their photojournalists and now rely on viewers' phone pics. I am not saying those trends are good, but it is a reality.

Camera manufacturers admit that phones have cut deeply into their sales of cameras, starting with low-end models, but it may not end there. Competition with phones may have contributed to the departure of Olympus from camera manufacture and it is unclear how the others will fare in long term. One could dismiss phones as only for low-quality amateur snaps, but that scenario is changing and it is hard to see where it will end. I don't think the use of phones for photography can be dismissed as a passing fad.

Minor White says that when he showed up for an advanced photo workshop, in the 30's I think, he was mocked by the other students because they had view cameras whereas he had a Rolleiflex, which they regarded as an amateur toy. Eventually, medium format became accepted for serious work.

Similarly, 35 mm film was initially dismissed as only for "miniature" cameras ill-suited for serious work. Over time with better films, 35 mm gained greater acceptance. Large format never went totally away but receded to a specialized niche. A similar thing may happen with high-end stand-alone digital cameras. A lot of the criticism of phone photography is similar to that leveled against 35 mm film at first. But improved technology boosted the status 35 mm, and the same may be happening with phones.

 

[BMbikerider]

Can everyone just hold on for couple of seconds! This thread is rapidly starting to be another film V digital topic which I find incredibly boring and they have a a habit of sometimes becoming offensive.

 

[ic-racer]

Film is back,


Good light,
Marc

Welcome "Yashica."

From my stand point Film never left!


BTW I'm a Yashica fan with a small collection of Yashica bodies and lenses.

 

[Yashica]

Film is way more emotional, and haptics medium, vs. digital. With digital, one can always think sort like "mhmm, i can delete that later...or fix it in post.." With film, every exposure counts, every shutter actuation literally costs money, so one does think more about composition simply, before hitting the shutter. Usually 2-3x more than digital. I like photons to photos more than photons to pixels....plus, a LCD on the back of any camera doesn't look aesthetically pleasing, it breaks the design language of the body...furthermore, it's somewhat silly to chimp on a small screen on location, with a non-color calibrated LCD....i don't do that....digital is just a RAW file floating (or perhaps JPEG) on a memory card, it doesn't give me any kind of emotional feedback...in fact, it's boring...and i've lost too many countless precious lifetime hours into PS.
Digital is ok sometimes, but never the same like Film. YMMV.

 

[Cholentpot]

Just to be clear, I am not saying that the shift from digital cameras to digital phones equates to a shift from analog cameras to phones. I agree that analog is a different situation and that may be its salvation. The trend might prove beneficial for analog.

I am not sure what you mean when you say, "Phone camera was a craze." The shift to using phones as the predominant way of making images is a huge, long-term trend. When I grew up, my mother had film SLR's. So it was not a big shift to use a DSLR. Cameras were seen as THE way to take still pictures.

We are in a paradigm shift where phones have become normalized in society as the thing used to take photos. Young people are so accustomed to using phones for everything that they would need an overriding reason to use, or even think of anything else. This is going to have a long-term effect. Vogue magazine urges its readers to avoid pro's for wedding pic's and instead use their friend's phone pic's. A number of news organizations have fired their photojournalists and now rely on viewers' phone pics. I am not saying those trends are good, but it is a reality.

Camera manufacturers admit that phones have cut deeply into their sales of cameras, starting with low-end models, but it may not end there. Competition with phones may have contributed to the departure of Olympus from camera manufacture and it is unclear how the others will fare in long term. One could dismiss phones as only for low-quality amateur snaps, but that scenario is changing and it is hard to see where it will end. I don't think the use of phones for photography can be dismissed as a passing fad.

Minor White says that when he showed up for an advanced photo workshop, in the 30's I think, he was mocked by the other students because they had view cameras whereas he had a Rolleiflex, which they regarded as an amateur toy. Eventually, medium format became accepted for serious work.

Similarly, 35 mm film was initially dismissed as only for "miniature" cameras ill-suited for serious work. Over time with better films, 35 mm gained greater acceptance. Large format never went totally away but receded to a specialized niche. A similar thing may happen with high-end stand-alone digital cameras. A lot of the criticism of phone photography is similar to that leveled against 35 mm film at first. But improved technology boosted the status 35 mm, and the same may be happening with phones.

Yet there lies the rescue of film.

Shooting on a phone is great. I use it for everything. But when I want to make a photograph I grab a camera. Video I stick with the phone because I don't feel compelled to make artistic movies. For stills it's still recognized that a dedicated camera, be it film or digital, SLR or point and shoot, will net you a photograph rather than a snapshot.

 

[bluechromis]

Another slant on the fortunes of analog is Fuji's instant products. Many experts love Fuji's digital cameras. But Fuji's instant products are a huge and growing source of revenue for them. For one thing, people have to keep buying instant films. With digital cameras, there isn't the same ongoing revenue stream.

There have been small digital printers, and I think there have been some digital cameras that could spit out a little print. But those options don't seem to be the most popular. It seems to be something more than the ability to quickly make a print that drives the popularity of instant analog. Fuji instant cameras have been low-end, but there are increasing options to use instant film with more sophisticated cameras.
https://petapixel.com/2022/05/18/fujifilms-business-is-booming-thanks-to-the-success-of-film/

 

[Yashica]

Yet there lies the rescue of film.

Shooting on a phone is great. I use it for everything. But when I want to make a photograph I grab a camera. Video I stick with the phone because I don't feel compelled to make artistic movies. For stills it's still recognized that a dedicated camera, be it film or digital, SLR or point and shoot, will net you a photograph rather than a snapshot.

Like i said always, phones are good (enough) today, but only for snapshots, even some folks do better work with this, and i've had some better compositions with it, because it was the only camera being avialable, at your fingertips. But the thing is, it's just a computer inside a barren, it doesn't have a viewfinder, neither exchangeable lenses, it does suck in terms of high ISO by design, does have limited DR in terms of real gear (36x24mm Sensor) and it doesn't have a physical shutter, furtherway shooting at one's armslength into blazing sunlight...good luck...it does have too much internal real time processing, which leads to oversharpened looks, -artifacts, un-natural bokeh, etc...and it doesn't have any real aperture, or DoF effect, because of the very small Sensors, a typical phone uses today, yet alone these 1" Sensor phones, which are albeit being uber expensive...and after 24 months being literally some sort of waste from brave yesterdays...usually, since there are no more updates being avialable....not every brand does support their phone for 4-5 years with OS and firmware updates, especially nowadays....mind you.

Phones are for snapshots, even "high end" ones, not serious things.

 

[Don_ih]

How long until the thread gets closed?

 

[BrianShaw]

Definitely on the countdown now!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Cell phones are much better for skipping across ponds than serious cameras. Some view cameras will float, so are reusable in that respect. But you want noisy obnoxious phones to sink.

 

[Don_ih]

Cell phones are much better for skipping across ponds than serious cameras.

Kodak Disc cameras would be great for that. Definitely not serious cameras, though.

 

[Cholentpot]

Like i said always, phones are good (enough) today, but only for snapshots, even some folks do better work with this, and i've had some better compositions with it, because it was the only camera being avialable, at your fingertips. But the thing is, it's just a computer inside a barren, it doesn't have a viewfinder, neither exchangeable lenses, it does suck in terms of high ISO by design, does have limited DR in terms of real gear (36x24mm Sensor) and it doesn't have a physical shutter, furtherway shooting at one's armslength into blazing sunlight...good luck...it does have too much internal real time processing, which leads to oversharpened looks, -artifacts, un-natural bokeh, etc...and it doesn't have any real aperture, or DoF effect, because of the very small Sensors, a typical phone uses today, yet alone these 1" Sensor phones, which are albeit being uber expensive...and after 24 months being literally some sort of waste from brave yesterdays...usually, since there are no more updates being avialable....not every brand does support their phone for 4-5 years with OS and firmware updates, especially nowadays....mind you.

Phones are for snapshots, even "high end" ones, not serious things.

And yet, cellphones are a perfect gateway for many people to expand their photography world.

Everyone now has a camera. A percentage of them will want to further their view. A small percentage of everyone is a very large number. And of that percentage a percentage will want to move to film. Again, a percentage of a percentage of everyone is still many many people.

All film needs is for a few out of every big numbers of people to catch the photography bug. I think it's happening.

How long until the thread gets closed?

More interesting than tax code though.

 

[Don_ih]

More interesting than tax code though.

Definitely. But not as amusing as whether or not the Nikon F2 is the best camera ever.