Is there really a revival of analog photography

[removed account4]

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.

trickle down / voodoo economics doesn't work
just ask the "very rich people" who got their tax break a few years ago, did their $$ go back into the economy?
nope it went into their SBA.

 

[Robert Maxey]

... 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.

There are writers sites serving up web copy at a buck or so. Guess what? Good writers still work and sell and prosper. They ain't selling 750 words for a buck fifty. Sure not writing for 1.5 cents a word. Some sites claim that their stable of writers are the top copywriters in the country.

Bob

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

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.

No you can't reverse progress. I remember a student stopped by my office. He asked me what I studied in college. I'm sure he thought computers or even filmmaking, I told him I majored in art and photography in college back in the 80s. He was surprised. I told him that digital cameras, and the internet didn't exist in college. What I learned in photography in college was no longer relevant and I went back to school to learn about computers. My point to him is there may be jobs in the future that he isn't studying for because the technology doesn't exist. My lesson for him is to stay curious and flexible for what ever comes along to stay economically viable.

 

[Cholentpot]

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

Duh. Always there are 3.

 

[PerTulip]

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

Actually, the Austrian School is not the universal economic doctrine in Austria. You will find more "Austrians" in LSE,George Mason, NYU and Auburn. Ok....now how do we bend this back to photography....One of the core concepts of the Austrian School is "consumer sovereignty". Any film resurgence or sustainable film business will be driven by how many rolls of film are bought by consumers, triggering production. I for one, am really happy "film photography" is a thing among younger photographers/influencers/whatever. And digital accessibility, while killing photography as a business, made it easier to become a photography enthusiast. We often dismiss "phone photography", but that's the entry point for photography today. Interest in making "good photos", sharing them over Instagram, is where interest in photography starts. And if the "film look" or "film filters" are trendy, good for us. Because some of them will buy a used film camera (good for those shops), buy some rolls of film (good for manufacturers), have them developed (good for chemistry makers), etc. At the end of the day: good for us all. We might argue that film was never really dead. But any "resurgence" (or increase in sales) is good for us. After all, we want to be able to buy our film, developers, etc. in 10, 20 or more years.

 

[Robert Maxey]

trickle down / voodoo economics doesn't work
just ask the "very rich people" who got their tax break a few years ago, did their $$ go back into the economy?
nope it went into their SBA.

From the Seattle Times:
Jeff Bezos, chief executive of Amazon and the owner of The Washington Post, paid $973 million in taxes on $4.22 billion in income, as his wealth soared by $99 billion, resulting in a 0.98% “true tax rate.”

This has to make a few people mad.

Bob

 

[Robert Maxey]

Duh. Always there are 3.

Good! I see you paid attention at the meeting with Flarmbuckto and the Sovereign Overlord Training Battalion.

Klaatu Barada Nikto-HiYall

 

[PerTulip]

Since there are some fans of economics here: actually, I wrote a paper on "Economic effects of digital photography" back in 2000.

I am quoting Wikipedia since it's late: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition The essential part: "Competition reduces price and cost to the minimum of the long run average costs. At this point, price equals both the marginal cost and the average total cost for each good (P = MC = AC)".
MC (marginal costs) for a digital photo is $0 (or very close to 0). Short term: AC is irrelevant, only MC applies. Market entry is easy (for some areas), very low barriers or note at all (again, for some areas). My conclusion back then: prices will race to the bottom, reaching $0. I got a "very good" and now seeing stock photos in great quality being sold for $0 (like at Unsplash) proves the validity of applied economic theories.

 

[Robert Maxey]

My conclusion back then: prices will race to the bottom, reaching $0. I got a "very good" and now seeing stock photos in great quality being sold for $0 (like at Unsplash) proves the validity of applied economic theories.

I write. I sell this and that. I restore this and that. My prices will NEVER hit $0.00. Please clarify because I am obviously missing something. As for stock photos, I have seen free images, but many sites attach conditions. I found a font I really like and it was free. For personal use. Not free the way I need to use it.

Bob

 

[George Mann]

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

Only in the US.

 

[faberryman]

I think there is a something of film revival. Without historic stats on number of rolls sold, it is hard to quantify the extent of the revival. It would be interesting to know, for example, how many rolls per year the young newcomers are shooting.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

No you can't reverse progress. I remember a student stopped by my office. He asked me what I studied in college. I'm sure he thought computers or even filmmaking, I told him I majored in art and photography in college back in the 80s. He was surprised. I told him that digital cameras, and the internet didn't exist in college. What I learned in photography in college was no longer relevant and I went back to school to learn about computers. My point to him is there may be jobs in the future that he isn't studying for because the technology doesn't exist. My lesson for him is to stay curious and flexible for what ever comes along to stay economically viable.

Sounds like sound advice.

 

[Cholentpot]

Good! I see you paid attention at the meeting with Flarmbuckto and the Sovereign Overlord Training Battalion.

Klaatu Barada Nikto-HiYall

It's definitely an 'n' word...

 

[removed account4]

This has to make a few people mad.

Kinda - sorta. ..
at least he thanked his serfs for making his rocket trip possible

 

[Helios 1984]

Kinda - sorta. ..
at least he thanked his serfs for making his rocket trip possible

Made possible by all the money they saved by not paying for lunchtimes and denying pee breaks.

 

[Robert Maxey]

I think there is a something of film revival. Without historic stats on number of rolls sold, it is hard to quantify the extent of the revival. It would be interesting to know, for example, how many rolls per year the young newcomers are shooting.

Perhaps a look at Kodak's financials might reveal a little data. Don't forget, other manufacturer's products must be considered as well.

Bob

 

[mshchem]

From the Seattle Times:
Jeff Bezos, chief executive of Amazon and the owner of The Washington Post, paid $973 million in taxes on $4.22 billion in income, as his wealth soared by $99 billion, resulting in a 0.98% “true tax rate.”

This has to make a few people mad.

Bob

973 million on 4,200 million. Bezos needs to find a new tax guy. That's over 20%
However Bezos is a jerk. This should really make him feel impotent. We all remember Bezos and his 10 minute rocket joy ride.
Now this is a rocket.......

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

From the Seattle Times:
Jeff Bezos, chief executive of Amazon and the owner of The Washington Post, paid $973 million in taxes on $4.22 billion in income, as his wealth soared by $99 billion, resulting in a 0.98% “true tax rate.”

This has to make a few people mad.

Bob

You don't figure taxes not paid on supposed wealth for stock you haven;t sold yet. That's fake news to deceive the public. If you buy real estate or stock or any asset and it triples in value, that's paper profits. You don't pay taxes on it until you sell it and get the cash from the sale at whatever value it is at the time you sell it. What if the stock collapses and the company fails before you sell the stock?

Including paper profits and wealth to show a 0.98% tax rate, about 1%, is deceptive. His actual tax rate is 23%. That sounds pretty fair to me.

 

[removed account4]

Now this is a rocket.......

you can say that again !
and that photograph looks like it came right out of the 1930s, its pretty amazing.

 

[Cholentpot]

You don't figure taxes not paid on supposed wealth for stock you haven;t sold yet. That's fake news to deceive the public. If you buy real estate or stock or any asset and it triples in value, that's paper profits. You don't pay taxes on it until you sell it and get the cash from the sale at whatever value it is at the time you sell it. What if the stock collapses and the company fails before you sell the stock?

Including paper profits and wealth to show a 0.98% tax rate, about 1%, is deceptive. His actual tax rate is 23%. That sounds pretty fair to me.

Taxes are the road to tyranny.

Let me tell you how it will be...

 

[jvo]

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.

I miss the darkroom, the process, the time alone with a negative and making an image...

I never thought I'd be saying this - but now I make more images and art, of more things. the digital world is not easier to produce good work, you can just produce more of it... a very good thing.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

... stock photos in great quality being sold for $0 (like at Unsplash) proves the validity of applied economic theories.

There is another force here - people want their work to be seen and appreciated. The cost of taking a picture is always greater than $0 but people will give their work away just for the exposure. If you take a picture and nobody sees it, why bother?

 

[mohmad khatab]

There has been an increased film sales showing an interest in analog photography by young people, especially in the US, but I wouldn't call it a revival if analog photography was never dead; I'm not sure I agree with Borut saying "digital is generic, analog is more organic and authentic". His videos are great though.

+1

 

[Dismayed]

You don't figure taxes not paid on supposed wealth for stock you haven;t sold yet. That's fake news to deceive the public. If you buy real estate or stock or any asset and it triples in value, that's paper profits. You don't pay taxes on it until you sell it and get the cash from the sale at whatever value it is at the time you sell it. What if the stock collapses and the company fails before you sell the stock?

Including paper profits and wealth to show a 0.98% tax rate, about 1%, is deceptive. His actual tax rate is 23%. That sounds pretty fair to me.

The real scam is that his heirs will be allowed to mark shares to market on the day that they inherited them, so taxes on gains are never paid.

 

[Arthurwg]

Depends on how you look at it.
I am completely aware that there are some professionals shooting film, but those are edge cases. In professional photography, film is essentially dead.


You've heard of the Photo-Secession? That was a rebellion against the practices and pictures produced by "professional photography." That's what we need today. Let's put an end to photography by computer and return it to an art practiced by humans.