Is there really a strong interest in film photography?

[Cholentpot]

I do wonder how much crossover there is. I was shooting film at a micropub in Gravesend a few weeks ago, as they had a guitarist performing there. He was quite interested that I was shooting him on film, as his wife/partner had a digital camera and he felt the film would add a certain something to the pictures and asked if he could see them with a view to using them for marketing. His partner was *pissed off*.

Said pub has an event every Thursday where they get out a thoroughly decent turntable and invite punters to bring their own records. My local jazz and blues club does something similar once a month, as well as having a couple of regular film shooters attend gigs. One photo I shot there on my Yashica Minister III did in fact end up adorning a 12x12 LP cover - purely because the musician loved the shot I took of him playing and offered to throw money at me.

Music and film...two of my passions...

Mmm tube amps.

Guitars that were designed in the 50's are still the most popular guitars ever made. Then again, they're still flying a bomber from that era.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...making photographs requires making prints.

Online sharing doesn't share "photographs". What we see online merely refers to something else, something that barely exists...whatever it is cannot be a photograph.

Have you ever considered how rude it is to post something like that? There are people who practice photography in many different ways. One way is exposing transparency film and subsequently scanning it, then presenting their photographs digitally on a screen. Your words claim they're not engaged in photography. That seems to be argumentative for the sake of provocation in this mixed workflow forum category.

What is the goal of such an approach to posting? Convincing those who engage in mixed workflow photography to abandon it as "not valid?" Or?

 

[faberryman]

Have you ever considered how rude it is to post something like that? There are people who practice photography in many different ways. One way is exposing transparency film and subsequently scanning it, then presenting their photographs digitally on a screen. Your words claim they're not engaged in photography. That seems to be argumentative for the sake of provocation in this mixed workflow forum category.

What is the goal of such an approach to posting? Convincing those who engage in mixed workflow photography to abandon it as "not valid?" Or?

Sort of seemed like to me that he was just expressing his opinion. And of course, you have posted your opinion to the contrary, so that seem fair. Do you think you are being rude by disagreeing with his opinion? Do you think you are being rude by suggesting that he is being rude?

I think it perfectly appropriate to make a comment about the primacy of making prints in a mixed workflow forum. There is more to mixed workflow than shooting film, scanning it, and posting it on social media. A lot of people around here use a mixed workflow to make prints. I make all kinds of prints using a mixed workflow.

To be honest, I don't know why any of this is in the Industry News subforum of the Mixed Workflow forum. I guess sometimes threads wander.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Sort of seemed like to me that he was just expressing his opinion. And of course, you have posted your opinion to the contrary, so that seem fair...

There are many people who have opinions based on not accepting the real meaning of words. When those opinions are stated as fact in a provocative manner, it's rude. Nothing fair about it.

...It seems perfectly appropriate to make a comment about the primacy of making prints in a mixed workflow forum. There is more to mixed workflow than shooting film, scanning it, and posting it on social media. A lot of people around here use a mixed workflow to make prints. I make all kinds of prints using a mixed workflow.

There's nothing appropriate about making a comment in this PHOTRIO category about the "primacy" of making prints. There is more to mixed workflow than shooting film, scanning it and making prints.

 

[faberryman]

There are many people who have opinions based on not accepting the real meaning of words. When those opinions are stated as fact in a provocative manner, it's rude. Nothing fair about it.

People disagree about the meaning of words all the time. There are probably a couple of thousands posts here on Photrio where film enthusiasts have said digital is not real photography.

There's nothing appropriate about making a comment in this PHOTRIO category about the "primacy" of making prints.

I disagree.

There is more to mixed workflow than shooting film, scanning it and making prints.

I agree.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yes, there is. All you have to do is look at the catalog of a place like Freestyle. Film hit its nadir about 2008. Somewhere here I have a post of that year lamenting the very, very few film and paper options at Freestyle. Literally, just a few. And, if not there, where?

And look at Kodak resuscitating many of their old films.

There's a huge fan overlap between audiophiles and photographers. Probably most here know of the resurgence in analog audio.

Like many here, I used digital cameras and digital audio, but for fun and satisfaction, it's back to analog. As many are discovering, even the young. Nothing like holding a piece of art in that 12"x12" LP cover. Versus some scribble on an MP3 player.

We are analog creatures!

Film even slips in and out like records do in their covers and players. We're tactile as well as analog.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

There are many people who have opinions based on not accepting the real meaning of words. When those opinions are stated as fact in a provocative manner, it's rude. Nothing fair about it...

People disagree about the meaning of words all the time. There are probably a couple of thousands posts here on Photrio where film enthusiasts have said digital is not real photography...

Exactly. Note the word "real" in my post. "Disagreeing" about the real meaning of a real word and posting that disagreement as if the unreal opposing "opinion" represents some factual reality is rude. And unfair to those who practice whatever mechanization of photography the unreal opposing "opinion" is denigrating.

 

[faberryman]

Exactly. Note the word "real" in my post. "Disagreeing" about the real meaning of a real word and posting that disagreement as if the unreal opposing "opinion" represents some factual reality is rude. And unfair to those who practice whatever mechanization of photography the unreal opposing "opinion" is denigrating.

People disagree about the "real" meaning of the "real" word "photography". Expressing their differences of opinion is not rude, and certainly not denigrating, just because you disagree.

 

[MattKing]

The world in general, and Photrio in particular, would be a better place if instead of saying "X is the case" people more often said "I think/believe that X is the case".

 

[albireo]

Actually you're right about the noun-ness vs verb-ness, so I'll reframe: making photographs requires making prints.

Expressing their differences of opinion is not rude, and certainly not denigrating, just because you disagree.

Great to see you welcome different opinions, @faberryman. Here's another opinion for people to consider and reconcile with (not saying I personally share it in its entirety, but I do know several people who do):

Photographing and printing are separate art forms. Making film photographs means making negatives or positives. After the shot has been taken, whatever one does with those negatives, or positives, is entirely their business. It's 'film photography', not 'print photography'.

Whether I look at my negatives/positives backlit through a window, frame them in a piece of glass and put them on the mantlepiece, invert them digitally, re-photograph them through a device to compress them on a severely non-linear physical medium, scan them, project them on my neighbour's barn wall - the photography has already happened.

Let me repeat this: the photography has already happened. There was a photographer, a subject and a camera involved, and simultaneously present at an instant in time and space. A set of conscious decisions, minutes to milliseconds before pressing the shutter, were taken, and led to a photograph. That's when the photo happened. All that happens after is a re-photograph at best, and of secondary importance to many people, to varying degrees.

The world is changing. Your grandchildren's generation is now interested in what was once your beloved hobby, and different rules apply for them. It would be nice to all coexist and respect one another, especially in a hybrid photography forum.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

People disagree about the "real" meaning of the "real" word "photography". Expressing their differences of opinion is not rude, and certainly not denigrating, just because you disagree.

The real meaning of a word is established by usage over time and "codified" by those who monitor that usage, then continuously revise dictionaries to reflect it. Today's common usage of "photography" can be seen here

Photography - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and an "official" definition is found here:

Definition of PHOTOGRAPHY

the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (such as film or an optical sensor)… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Stating as "fact" an opinionated "definition" of photography that contradicts both current established usage and dictionaries denigrates those who agree with the rest of the world. Doing so implies that their photography is not "real." That's most definitely rude.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Not their own "facts"

The world in general, and Photrio in particular, would be a better place if instead of saying "X is the case" people more often said "I think/believe that X is the case".

Or "I disagree with the definition of this word. To me, it means something else entirely, even though it doesn't."

 

[MattKing]

For me, there is a completely symbiotic relationship between the act of "capturing" an image and the process of printing or otherwise preparing the result of that "capture" for presentation.
That applies to film and digital cameras equally.
Admittedly, printing or projection remains my main goal, and that no doubt affects how I think of things, but I would suggest that unless your intention is to never do anything more than look at your photos on the camera or phone that you used to take them, it is a mistake not to think of the rest of the steps in the "capture" to "presentation" progression as part of your photography.
The printing part of the process can be a stand alone artistic endeavour, and I'm happy to talk about that, having printed for others in the past, but even when you do that, unless you have no input from the person who made the original "capture", and your "brief" is to re-interpret the negative or digital file in your own way, the result is still part of the photographic whole, not something separate and distinct.
And no, I'm not comfortable with the prevalence of the term "capture", but it does tend to make it clear when one's comments are intended to be medium non-specific.
Just for fun, here is an example of where the taking and printing parts of the process are quite separate - the long ago "Lets All Print One Negative" negative exchange, the results of which are shown at least partially in the earliest images of the associated Photrio Gallery: https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/categories/lets-all-print-one-negative.15/

My Darkroom Group has done something similar - it is a lot of fun.

 

[MattKing]

Continued arguments about what words mean are just going to result in either post deletions or thread closure or both.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yes, there is. All you have to do is look at the catalog of a place like Freestyle. Film hit its nadir about 2008. Somewhere here I have a post of that year lamenting the very, very few film and paper options at Freestyle. Literally, just a few. And, if not there, where?

And look at Kodak resuscitating many of their old films.

There's a huge fan overlap between audiophiles and photographers. Probably most here know of the resurgence in analog audio.

Like many here, I used digital cameras and digital audio, but for fun and satisfaction, it's back to analog. As many are discovering, even the young. Nothing like holding a piece of art in that 12"x12" LP cover. Versus some scribble on an MP3 player.

We are analog creatures!

And 2008 was a great year to buy used Hasselblad, Canon, Nikon, ... film cameras and Hasselblad lenses. The 35mm lens market did not show the same price decline because of the lens use by digital cameras.

 

[Pieter12]

There are many artists who make photographs with a camera at all, exposing sensitized materials directly to light. They are sometimes referred to as photograms, but in the pure definition of "writing with light," they are indeed photographs.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I don't have a darkroom. Does that make me chop meat?

 

[Pieter12]

I don't have a darkroom. Does that make me chop meat?

No. Chopped liver.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Continued arguments about what words mean are just going to result in either post deletions or thread closure or both.

For future reference, please point members to where in the PHOTRIO rules/guidelines a series of non-ad hominem posts conversing about the meaning of the word "photography" is considered an "argument" and prohibited.

 

[greg zinselmeier]

This “area” of conversation is fantastic. The petty, trite, tit for tat,. . . I am currently printing this and hanging as my go to page for inspiration? Ba da ba ba ba “ I’m lovin it”

 

[MattKing]

For future reference, please point members to where in the PHOTRIO rules/guidelines a series of non-ad hominem posts conversing about the meaning of the word "photography" is considered an "argument" and prohibited.

When posts are conversant, civil discussions and not disruptive, personalized arguments, they are welcome, and aren't deleted.
And if you have an issue with moderation, bring it up directly with the moderators, or start an appropriate thread in the Feedback and Discussion sub-forum - not in the thread.

 

[McDiesel]

The world in general, and Photrio in particular, would be a better place if instead of saying "X is the case" people more often said "I think/believe that X is the case".

Hehe. This can be automated. Sean can probably configure an automatic and mandatory signature for every comment and every user:

The information shared above is not a fact, but my personal opinion based on limited experience multiplied by over-generalization and spiced with an inflated ego.

maybe that should be enough for not taking ourselves too seriously.

 

[Agulliver]

Mmm tube amps.

Guitars that were designed in the 50's are still the most popular guitars ever made. Then again, they're still flying a bomber from that era.

Oh yes, the majority of (electric) guitarists who I encounter who have valve (tube) or hybrid amps vastly outnumbers those who use solid state. One runs his own business manufacturing new valve guitar amps....some classic 60s designs are back in production...with valve (tube) suppliers offering matched sets of vintage branded valves for the best possible performance.

I am not sure if young people taking up film has anything to do with nostalgia. They don't remember the 1990s and don't get nostalgic for those times....it's more that it's new and tactile to them in an era when so many things are touch screens or voice activated.

 

[mtnbkr]

I am not sure if young people taking up film has anything to do with nostalgia. They don't remember the 1990s and don't get nostalgic for those times

Sure they do. In the 80s and early 90s teens of the time were "nostalgic" for the 60s without having any memory of that time. Lots of kids in my high school affected various levels of 60s dress and music (for the record, I'm 49).

Chris

 

[Cholentpot]

Oh yes, the majority of (electric) guitarists who I encounter who have valve (tube) or hybrid amps vastly outnumbers those who use solid state. One runs his own business manufacturing new valve guitar amps....some classic 60s designs are back in production...with valve (tube) suppliers offering matched sets of vintage branded valves for the best possible performance.

I am not sure if young people taking up film has anything to do with nostalgia. They don't remember the 1990s and don't get nostalgic for those times....it's more that it's new and tactile to them in an era when so many things are touch screens or voice activated.

Sure they do. In the 80s and early 90s teens of the time were "nostalgic" for the 60s without having any memory of that time. Lots of kids in my high school affected various levels of 60s dress and music (for the record, I'm 49).

Chris

I grew up in the 80's and 90's. Oregon Trail generation. It's not nostalgia, maybe it's more of 'My mom/dad had that camera, I wonder what it's like'

We grew up on trash digital cameras that were a pain to use and results were trash. We couldn't afford DSLRs so we had those 1.3mp garbage cameras. The best film camera I used a a kid/teen was a Kodak Funsaver. It never did me wrong as was cheap. I got my first DSLR and 120 TLR at the same time and learned photography side by side.

 

[Steven Michelsen]

Whilst on eBay, I put in "Nikon camera" in the "cameras and photography" category and came up w/ over 120,000 hits. When I changed the category to "film photography", I got 10,000. Hmmmm.

Many years in market research tells me that this means something.

I would guess that this is more an issue of how eBay users decide what category to put their auction in rather than anything else. A Nikon is a camera, therefore it goes in the cameras... category.