Is there really a revival of analog photography

[Robert Maxey]

I don't think authenticity has anything to do with anything. most every photograph has already been taken with a camera, nothing authentic left.

I occasionally peruse the pictures posted here and sometimes, i visit some of the Photrio member's web sites. I see great images of common things and public places that I might not be able to capture in the same way.

Perhaps everything has already been photographed. What each photographer does with a subject is different than what the previous photographer did. Each new take on a well photographed subject adds a little something that nobody else can add without blatent copying.

Everything has been photographed, but every image is different. This is a good thing.

Bob

 

[Cholentpot]

Photography in general is having something of a revival. Film is tagging along.

 

[4season]

In a small way, yes I think the film revival is real in the same way that the vinyl record revival is real, but not yet at the level which would sustain sprawling production facilities like the days or yore. Today's is more akin to a vibrant cottage-industry.

 

[Helge]

I respectfully disagree. What has been happening is a few rock stars will take most of the work and the work left over other photographers can't make a living with. What makes is worse are the new photographers trying to get work by charging below their value. That's why I quit being a pro when digital cameras brought more photographers into the field.

So you say you disagree, but you wholeheartedly agree?
A field dominated by a few "rockstars" as you put it, is not a field with much stability or staying power.

It's not something permanent I think. I'm not a total naive pessimist and cynic.
But there has been a tremendous cheapening of photography recently, in the last twenty years or so, due to digital and especially smartphones.
The reputation of the whole field is running on fumes really.

Everybody and their mother thinks they can ride with the best, because of infinite retries and cheap paste-pot effects.
In the same way everybody thinks they are a qualified art critic ("you can't discuss taste" and other idiotic platitudes).

If I had a krone for every time I heard someone say "I just want a camera that can blur the background", because that was the main thing they had noticed from more expensive cameras, I'd have two or three-hundred kroner, at least.
And that is from people who should really know better.

If that is the extent of peoples grokking of photography in general, I'm at the same time elated and tired to the point of needing a nap, because there is a lot of work cut out for us to make it clear to people what they really like, in their heart of hearts, but can't express with words or internal reasoning.

 

[Helge]

In a small way, yes I think the film revival is real in the same way that the vinyl record revival is real, but not yet at the level which would sustain sprawling production facilities like the days or yore. Today's is more akin to a vibrant cottage-industry.

Vinyl has been going a lot longer (did it ever really "almost die"?).
Vinyl is a lot simpler to manufacture.
Vinyl is a consumption medium. Not an art medium for personal expression. That makes it immediately 100x more popular since most people whether they admit it or not doubt whether they have to something worthwhile to express or even document.
And lastly vinyl is often faux authentic and a simulacrum of quality. With the source just being any old digital master, quickly tweaked and compressed so it won't overload the needle or RIAA preamp.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Here we go again with the analog/digital thingy.

If you photograph with a roll of film, send it to a lab to be developed and have a machine spit out some prints, or If you take a digital photograph and allow the camera, computer, and printer to control things, the resulting photographs will meet a baseline of acceptable quality for the equipment used.

It's when a photographer injects themselves to control and manipulate the equipment, processes, and materials toward a certain end that the magic happens.

Saying one or the other is better just demonstrates close mindedness, or insufficient knowledge about the other process to understand its capabilities.

 

[Robert Maxey]

But there has been a tremendous cheapening of photography recently, in the last twenty years or so, due to digital and especially smartphones.
The reputation of the whole field is running on fumes really.

Everybody and their mother thinks they can ride with the best, because of infinite retries and cheap paste-pot effects.
In the same way everybody thinks they are a qualified art critic ("you can't discuss taste" and other idiotic platitudes).

When video recorders arrived at a price many could afford, we saw a decline in movie film sales. We did not see great movies, just an abundance of terrible videos. This is an age old problem, I'm afraid. I do remember the breakthrough that was Polavision. Terrible product; we sold very few systems. But it gave the user his or her movies in an "instant." Should have been more popular.

When mini labs and one hour processing arrived, we printed fewer photographs because the mini-lab was good enough for many people. I am sure most here can see a drastic increase in the number of "professional photographers" in their area. They all cannot be great.

My guess is people love digital because it is essentially free and instant and accessible. More or less.

Bob

 

[Helge]

Here we go again with the analog/digital thingy.

If you photograph with a roll of film, send it to a lab to be developed and have a machine spit out some prints, or If you take a digital photograph and allow the camera, computer, and printer to control things, the resulting photographs will meet a baseline of acceptable quality for the equipment used.

It's when a photographer injects themselves to control and manipulate the equipment, processes, and materials toward a certain end that the magic happens.

Saying one or the other is better just demonstrates close mindedness, or insufficient knowledge about the other process to understand its capabilities.

No, it demonstrates preferences and discernment.
Same as with many other choices in life.
I know quite well how a digital camera works. And I'm pretty well into the basics of how film works.
That's what guides my clear preferences for film.
I'm not dogmatic or religious about it. If I have to use digital or it's the only thing that makes sense, I will.
A more instinctual approach can work too of course. You will be easier to sway with FUD from people who know just enough to be dangerous though.

 

[Robert Maxey]

Here we go again with the analog/digital thingy.

(Snip a tad)

Saying one or the other is better just demonstrates close mindedness, or insufficient knowledge about the other process to understand its capabilities.

I think it depends upon the requirements and goals and needs of the photographer. Not to mention, the patience. I make no bones about my view of digital vs. film. Nor do i offer an apology for my admittedly narrow minded view of how I THINK things should be. That said, i am well aware of how good digital is getting. It will not work well for my specific needs, so it is film, trays and dark places for the time being.

I have been searching for a way to scan 5" by many foot films. It is very hard. Especially at a price point I will pay.

This is what I want in a photograph: absolutely the finest grain possible and tack sharp negatives. Sure, the image must be pleasing, but it must also be grain free and sharp. Right now, my process demands these two critical factors.

Everything else being equal, large format is better than smaller formats. Again, by my standards and specific requirements. As good as digital is, it is not perfect. Yes, i know it is rapidly improving. If I were shooting a No. 16 Cirkit Camera, with slow and fine grained film, and if I do my job, no digital image can touch a 16 inch wide by 18 foot long negative. But this is not a friendly format and totally impracticable.

There are some very legitimate reasons to prefer film over digital. But not for most people.

Bob

 

[Helge]

When video recorders arrived at a price many could afford, we saw a decline in movie film sales. We did not see great movies, just an abundance of terrible videos. This is an age old problem, I'm afraid. I do remember the breakthrough that was Polavision. Terrible product; we sold very few systems. But it gave the user his or her movies in an "instant." Should have been more popular.

When mini labs and one hour processing arrived, we printed fewer photographs because the mini-lab was good enough for many people. I am sure most here can see a drastic increase in the number of "professional photographers" in their area. They all cannot be great.

My guess is people love digital because it is essentially free and instant and accessible. More or less.

Bob

There is very often a reverse proportionality between how easy and cheap something is and how good it is. Both WRT simple thermodynamics and entropy, but more apt in this case WRT social currency and noise floor.
There is very quickly an accelerating inflation in any economy where the participants are allowed to print money. On the other hand images is such an important part of human culture that It's probably in our DNA in some way.
Having a piece of film you fought for and paid for and that is hard to fake or alter, is very real artistic currency.

 

[Robert Maxey]

Vinyl has been going a lot longer (did it ever really "almost die"?).

I think a certain segment loves and always will love records. I do not think vinyl really died, just handed its hat. It did fall out of favor by the consuming masses that seem to want hundreds of songs available in a tiny package. Like digital camera users that want hundreds of pictures rather than 12, 24 or 36. I want 70mm and lots of frames. One cannot always get what one wants, however.

Perhaps film, records, 8-track tapes, fountain pens, reproduction vintage motorcycles, book binding and such will always be niche products/services teetering on the edge of oblivion, only to be occasionally rescued. You know, like stereoscopic movies.

You know, the alternative photographic folks have the right idea: no silver, no film, no dependence on Kodak. They seem to be happy.

Bob

 

[Robert Maxey]

Digital vastly improves. Oldsters like me adopt digital. Film sales drop to none, so manufacturers stop making film. Public is mad. DIY folks develop a desktop film coating machine, packaged emulsion chemicals and a fast desktop processor. Film users rejoice and sales go up. Jeff Bozos smells a dollar and Amazon dot con becomes the sole source of film.

Bob is dead before Bozos becomes involved.

Pros embrace film once again and the sheep follow. Hermes comes out with gold plated 126 film cartridges for $4,500.00. Digital camera sales fall as more manufacturers start making film. Life is once again digital free.

Then the asteroids (there will be three, in total) arrive and almost nothing is left.

People once again discover cave painting, and Photrio becomes filled with "Water colors are better than oil" debates take over.

Bob

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Kodak has always guarded its sales figures.
My Dad was customer service manager for a Kodak processing lab in Canada for 23 years. Customer service was part of the marketing division. All of that sort of information was compartmentalized in order to prevent it from getting into competitor's hands.
In all 23 years, he was never in receipt of information on how many total rolls were processed at the lab where he worked.
The actual number would have been in the tens or hundreds of thousands each month, depending on the month.

As near as I can research, Kodak Alaris film revenue went up from $54 million to $71 million Mar 2019 to Mar 2020 with a gross profit of $19 million. What happened during the last twelve months, I don;t know.
application-pdf

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

So you say you disagree, but you wholeheartedly agree?
A field dominated by a few "rockstars" as you put it, is not a field with much stability or staying power.

No. Not wholeheartedly. You're right about most not having much staying power. I think it's art directors and the public liking the flavor of the day. There are a few photographers that have longevity. They they are few and far between. When I was an assistant, some of the photographers that I worked for were in the business for decades. That was almost 30 years ago during the film days. Back in then, I saw the old timers during the film era seeing their jobs dwindle. Film labs used to used have photographer having large invoices. Then the trend during the 90's there were more photographers but with smaller invoices. Just more photographers entering the field. Digital photography just made it worst. A lot of photographers weren't amateurs gone pro, but quite a few have schooling at Brooks and Art Center of Pasadena. Wouldn't you agree that photography as a profession isn't like the old days?

 

[Helge]

No. Not wholeheartedly. You're right about most not having much staying power. I think it's art directors and the public liking the flavor of the day. There are a few photographers that have longevity. They they are few and far between. When I was an assistant, some of the photographers that I worked for were in the business for decades. That was almost 30 years ago during the film days. Back in then, I saw the old timers during the film era seeing their jobs dwindle. Film labs used to used have photographer having large invoices. Then the trend during the 90's there were more photographers but with smaller invoices. Just more photographers entering the field. Digital photography just made it worst. A lot of photographers weren't amateurs gone pro, but quite a few have schooling at Brooks and Art Center of Pasadena. Wouldn't you agree that photography as a profession isn't like the old days?

That was my whole point.
But in a sense it is like the old days. Only the whole realm has been moved several steps up on the ladder of artificial complexity and distraction.
There are several parallels one could draw from when roll film and box cameras was invented and popularized. And again with the introductions of 135 and connected formats.
In one sense it’s a race towards the bottom.
In another it’s a more complex landscape, ripe for exploration and exploitation of small niches and not so small nooks.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

That was my whole point.
But in a sense it is like the old days. Only the whole realm has been moved several steps up on the ladder of artificial complexity and distraction.
There are several parallels one could draw from when roll film and box cameras was invented and popularized. And again with the introductions of 135 and connected formats.
In one sense it’s a race towards the bottom.
In another it’s a more complex landscape, ripe for exploration and exploitation of small niches and not so small nooks.

Glad we are in agreement. As technology progresses, it's democratized for better and for worse. The better for amateurs to create beautiful images. The worst is the impact on the profession of photography. The world changes and we have to change with it. I gave up my photography career 25 years ago and never looked back. I'll retire next year to play with analog photography. I switched the the brave new world in the 90's of desktop publishing, then the internet then digital film making through working at a university. It's my 23rd year this month and I have no regrets. The digitization of graphic design also had the same impact. I have a colleague that had to retire from graphic design because the work dried up. The changing world is what it is. As humans, we try to make sense of it and adapt the best we can.

 

[4season]

For me, film photography is a form of recycling. I think it's great that film cameras are still valued, because as a class, you can't eat them, they're hard to recycle, and they don't compost very well.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

No. Not wholeheartedly. You're right about most not having much staying power. I think it's art directors and the public liking the flavor of the day. There are a few photographers that have longevity. They they are few and far between. When I was an assistant, some of the photographers that I worked for were in the business for decades. That was almost 30 years ago during the film days. Back in then, I saw the old timers during the film era seeing their jobs dwindle. Film labs used to used have photographer having large invoices. Then the trend during the 90's there were more photographers but with smaller invoices. Just more photographers entering the field. Digital photography just made it worst. A lot of photographers weren't amateurs gone pro, but quite a few have schooling at Brooks and Art Center of Pasadena. Wouldn't you agree that photography as a profession isn't like the old days?

When I was younger, everyone had a secretary. Now you have to type and use your computer and be your own secretary.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

When I was younger, everyone had a secretary. Now you have to type and use your computer and be your own secretary.

I remember those days. That's another part of technology is that it replaces human beings if it's economical. Some jobs you might think only humans could do may be replaced with Artificial Intelligence. Accountants may in the future be replaced with AI. Back in the 50's, machines were supposed to make life easier for people. Technological advances have benefitted humans. However, the wealth created by technology for the most part have profited the wealthy. Even people that work in Silicon Valley my have their jobs replaced by AI.

 

[PerTulip]

Here we go again with the analog/digital thingy.....

I think they are not mutually exclusive. I photograph both with film and digital. Both have their merits.

....If you photograph with a roll of film, send it to a lab to be developed and have a machine spit out some prints, or If you take a digital photograph and allow the camera, computer, and printer to control things, the resulting photographs will meet a baseline of acceptable quality for the equipment used....

In photography, in whatever form, we need those people. Everybody sending their snapshots to be developed bought film, is using a developing/printing service and making those businesses sustainable.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I remember those days. That's another part of technology is that it replaces human beings if it's economical. Some jobs you might think only humans could do may be replaced with Artificial Intelligence. Accountants may in the future be replaced with AI. Back in the 50's, machines were supposed to make life easier for people. Technological advances have benefitted humans. However, the wealth created by technology for the most part have profited the wealthy. Even people that work in Silicon Valley my have their jobs replaced by AI.

But let's face it. You can't reverse progress. Do we go back to the horse and buggy? Should we do away with farm tractors so millions of people can go back tilling the ground by hand?

Technology has raised our standards of living overall. We mainly live better today than in the past - and healthier. Are the poor really poor when they own a car and TV and work 40 hours a week? Sure there are very rich people. But their money eventually gets recirculated back into the economy and create jobs and relative wealth for the rest of us. They can't take it with them.

 

[PerTulip]

.... Sure there are very rich people. But their money eventually gets recirculated back into the economy and create jobs and relative wealth for the rest of us. They can't take it with them.

Not really. Medium income/middle class is best for "recirculation" and "job creation".

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Not really. Medium income/middle class is best for "recirculation" and "job creation".

Middle income people consume most of their earnings. Rich people invest a lot because they can't spend so much. Those investments are the capital that starts new businesses like in Silicon Valley, Tesla, etc. which create new jobs and new wealth. Capital is the heart of a free economy like ours. It's the engine of growth and more wealth.

 

[PerTulip]

Middle income people consume most of their earnings. Rich people invest a lot because they can't spend so much. Those investments are the capital that starts new businesses like in Silicon Valley, Tesla, etc. which create new jobs and new wealth. Capital is the heart of a free economy like ours. It's the engine of growth and more wealth.

Data says otherwise. BTW: I am an economist+MBA, co-teach at our university of economics. Let's discuss photography, not here for my day job.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Data says otherwise. BTW: I am an economist+MBA, co-teach at our university of economics. Let's discuss photography, not here for my day job.

Being from Vienna, I'd thought you'd be an Austrian school economist? But you're right. This is a photo forum.