Where do you think digital cameras are going? What is lacking in your photos that make you dissatisfied? Do you think there are enough digital photographers who are similarly dissatisfied and who will turn to film?
Is there really a strong interest in film photography?
-
A
- Thread starter gone
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Nikon FM kit
- Started by MCB18
-
For Sale Unopened 5x7 EDU Ultra 200
- Started by Rick A
-
For Sale Huge filter collection for sale!
- Started by Early Riser
-
For Sale FS: Yamasaki Tele-Congo 240mm f/6.3 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale E6 and Color Chemicals, Stainless Steel Tanks Reels and film storage sleeves.
- Started by orbitaldebris
Forum statistics
Where do you think digital cameras are going? What is lacking in your photos that make you dissatisfied? Do you think there are enough digital photographers who are similarly dissatisfied and who will turn to film?
All very good philosophical questions
, I don't have many good answers other than my own feelings and opinions I guess; I just generally prefer the look of film images these days, but I think older digital cameras which perhaps were trying to attract the film crowd over definately feel like they offer something more akin to 'filmic' looks than say more modern over sharpened digital images with XXXMB images.
Yes, and I’ve commented on that here in the past, that is, that digital tends to remove the “hand of the artist.” And now that AI is making digital art, are humans even necessary?
All very good philosophical questions
I've been impressed with Postcard Exchange prints and that inspired me to look again at Bronica 6X6....which I can almost afford. However the truth is that I would not buy any camera that required film....I'd insist on having a good nearby (same day E6 processing) lab. I've processed lots of slide film and wouldn't mind doing that again HOWEVER I've just amazed myself once more by inkjet printing a series, shot APSC...that's my answer to the question.
What constitutes "the hand of the artist" when shooting film that is missing when shooting digital?
That is, of course, a very good question. To me it is what the image does not have, such as HDR filtering and other artifacts that tend to be popular in digital. I also don't mind seeing a bit of grain and even a dust speck that didn't get spotted out. Of course, I listen to vinyl and don't have a problem with surface noise from that medium.
Maybe just stay with an older digital camera if it gives you the look you like.
So, no "hand of the artist", just film artifacts. I shoot film and like some film artifacts too, though not dust spots. I like some photographs with grain; in other photographs I think grain is a distraction. The presence or absence of grain can result from the intentional choice of film and developer, and thus reflect the hand of the artist. I am not a big fan of digital HDR, but it was a choice implemented by the photographer to express his vision. HDR shows the hand of the artist. You don't have to like it. I do not think it is a stretch to say that the hand of the artist can be reflected in both film and digital images, so I don't think that is a valid distinguishing feature.
Last edited:
I intend to.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,744
- Format
- 35mm
That's not the camera talking there...it's the user making decisions after the fact.
I don't disagree with that. What I was referring to was work that is so overly processed that it lacks something and the something that came to mind was the phrase "hand of the artist" which I see as the human touch. Maybe it's like Velveeta vs a nice bleu.
There is no doubt that it is easier to overdo digital than film, though I think it is a toss-up between HDR and Lomography film as to which is the greater evil.
With every conversion such as yours, it gets closer. Please go out, buy and use film. That alone will get a better place in your version on Heaven.
HDR is a crutch for what digital cannot yet do that film does. When digital can, the it will join the big boys [girls].
Having read this entire thread so far, I will endeavor to reply to the OP and implicitly a few others who have touched on aspects of my own view; and will attempt also to include a new element for consideration by those who may find it interesting. However, I will have to limit what I say about it, in order to avoid straying into areas, such as international policymaking, that are not directly germane to the thread.
I will be making a presentation on B&W film photography this weekend; we’ll see who, besides my daughter and a friend, may come. In preparation, I have researched the rebound in various ways, including calling U.S. camera stores and distributors. While I can’t quantify “strong” from the OP’s question, it is indeed true, from everything I know, that film and processing sales volumes are continuing to increase. One Midwest camera store, which is also a distributor, said half its (growing) film business is now B&W.
I also know that the majority of the sales are driven by a younger sector of the population, reportedly 18-35; that the vast majority is color; and that some celebrity appearing on so-called social media platforms favored by young people, sporting some specific disposable or other P&S camera, immediately produces a sale spike. So, yes, a retro fad is driving the sales, as far as I know.
However, I am neither a statistician nor a social scientist. I do have nearly 50 years’ experience engaged in global political, economic, and cultural matters nearly daily, and my view with respect to the rebound of film photography derives from my knowledge of aspects of that context. I think there’s something very interesting underneath it. I don’t suggest that film will rise to anything like its former levels, but perhaps it is part of, a reflection of, a more profound change occurring historically.
A neighbor of mine, a recently retired high-level IT engineer for one of the top companies, suggested several years ago a book he had just read, “The Revenge of Analog: Real Things and Why They Matter” (2016). The author explores a number of areas of older technologies regaining some lost ground, as well as certain cited failures of other features of the rise of digital, for instance, computers in classrooms. He records and remarks on characteristic comments that have been subsequently borne out in various studies, indicating that—I’ll say it this way, not wishing to spark reaction—there is something about engaging in physical processes and unmediated, deliberate person-to-person communication that tends to resonate in us.
This coheres with what I see as a thread weaving through countless interviews, articles, comments, blogs, etc. on film photography. Those in the smaller percentile who go beyond the casual use of a camera for snapshots (others in this thread have already noted that the majority has always used photography for simple snapshots since the technology allowed it) say that they like that the film camera, in comparison with digital media, requires them to slow them down and makes them think about what they are doing; they like the physical process; they like producing a physical product; they like the limitations it imposes; some express the excitement of anticipation in not being able to instantly see the capture. The director of the film-based Bronx Documentary Center, a photojournalist, in a recent interview noted that U.S. recent-generation children have many times not produced much with their hands.
If I can express the following view without over-stepping the proper line of this forum, I will say that I believe that many very significant changes are afoot in the world that will tend to make quite a few people begin to think about how positive change from many of today’s broad problems may best be brought about, and that the kind of interest that underlies the new engagement not only with film photography but other “analog” technologies, will cohere with some of the answers that arise in the discussion. We invent technologies of all sorts; how we define our relationship to their use sometimes takes some sorting out.
I will be making a presentation on B&W film photography this weekend; we’ll see who, besides my daughter and a friend, may come. In preparation, I have researched the rebound in various ways, including calling U.S. camera stores and distributors. While I can’t quantify “strong” from the OP’s question, it is indeed true, from everything I know, that film and processing sales volumes are continuing to increase. One Midwest camera store, which is also a distributor, said half its (growing) film business is now B&W.
I also know that the majority of the sales are driven by a younger sector of the population, reportedly 18-35; that the vast majority is color; and that some celebrity appearing on so-called social media platforms favored by young people, sporting some specific disposable or other P&S camera, immediately produces a sale spike. So, yes, a retro fad is driving the sales, as far as I know.
However, I am neither a statistician nor a social scientist. I do have nearly 50 years’ experience engaged in global political, economic, and cultural matters nearly daily, and my view with respect to the rebound of film photography derives from my knowledge of aspects of that context. I think there’s something very interesting underneath it. I don’t suggest that film will rise to anything like its former levels, but perhaps it is part of, a reflection of, a more profound change occurring historically.
A neighbor of mine, a recently retired high-level IT engineer for one of the top companies, suggested several years ago a book he had just read, “The Revenge of Analog: Real Things and Why They Matter” (2016). The author explores a number of areas of older technologies regaining some lost ground, as well as certain cited failures of other features of the rise of digital, for instance, computers in classrooms. He records and remarks on characteristic comments that have been subsequently borne out in various studies, indicating that—I’ll say it this way, not wishing to spark reaction—there is something about engaging in physical processes and unmediated, deliberate person-to-person communication that tends to resonate in us.
This coheres with what I see as a thread weaving through countless interviews, articles, comments, blogs, etc. on film photography. Those in the smaller percentile who go beyond the casual use of a camera for snapshots (others in this thread have already noted that the majority has always used photography for simple snapshots since the technology allowed it) say that they like that the film camera, in comparison with digital media, requires them to slow them down and makes them think about what they are doing; they like the physical process; they like producing a physical product; they like the limitations it imposes; some express the excitement of anticipation in not being able to instantly see the capture. The director of the film-based Bronx Documentary Center, a photojournalist, in a recent interview noted that U.S. recent-generation children have many times not produced much with their hands.
If I can express the following view without over-stepping the proper line of this forum, I will say that I believe that many very significant changes are afoot in the world that will tend to make quite a few people begin to think about how positive change from many of today’s broad problems may best be brought about, and that the kind of interest that underlies the new engagement not only with film photography but other “analog” technologies, will cohere with some of the answers that arise in the discussion. We invent technologies of all sorts; how we define our relationship to their use sometimes takes some sorting out.
So since I use film and have never left using film, might it be possible that my birth year might get adjusted so that I could again be in the 18-35 year old group with all the physical and medical ramifications? Please advise as soon as possible. At this point time and timing is important.
I have frequently read that list of reasons for shooting film, and they they don't resonate with me, and I have been shooting film for 50 years, with the exception of creating a physical product, but I consider a physical product a print and not a negative which is scanned and filed away, assuming it was returned by the film processor, before being uploaded to the internet. When you want to share your images with others do you carry along a binder with your negatives in PrintFile pages? Then there is the fact that you can create physical products with hybrid and all digital means, so that reason for shooting film seems pretty iffy to me too. And where among the reasons for shooting film is its unique aesthetic characteristics? I sort of thought that would be the primary reason for shooting film. Don't the other reasons for shooting film pale in comparison? Why else go through all the rigmarole?
Last edited:
-
- jtk
- Deleted
HDR is a generic label that applies to images produced by multiple exposures. It's not necessarily the result of post-processing. For example, my Pentax K70 has two HDR settings (flip of the switch) that cause the camera to record multiple exposures in a moment and combine them into one image. The setting that I use routinely looks deeply into shadows while retaining highlights and producing a unique and somewhat theatric digital image...that prints beautifully without any post processing at all. I previsualize this setting.
I didn't mean to suggest that the reasons I gave were the only ones; I'm sorry if I gave that impression. The aesthetic is certainly a commonly expressed reason.
Like you, I work toward the fine print. I have a variety of reasons for never having engaged in digital photography for serious work. I love darkroom work, as I have since 1968.
I'm afraid I'm the wrong person to ask. I lost more than 13 years to having to work another job for financial reasons, before returning slowly to my cameras a few years ago. Picking up my 26-lb LL camera and tripod combo for my first serious outing thereafter quickly convinced me of the advisability of a lighter package.
I'm sorry, but this is one issue that really pushes my buttons.
Not worth the cost?!?!?!?! Compared to what? Would you compare the cost of overhauling a pristine 1955 Alfa Romeo Spider to buying a new Toyota Camry?
Hell no. You compare it to the ability to use what was one of the world's great cameras from time past. It's a Contessa. It isn't pre-war, but it was a pretty high end camera from 1950 to 1961. This is one of the earlier models. There are people on APUG who would drool at the thought of its nightmare operation, especially if that light meter is still working.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,744
- Format
- 35mm
Compared to being able to buy 4 cameras that'll give you the same results for the price of an overhaul?
I have shelves of cameras and have only had CLA on 5 of them. Crown Graphic (Which need an RF adjustment again), Century Graphic, Olympus Pen F, Kodak Retina IIc and a Signet 35.
For these specific cameras I felt I could not get the same results or feel out of the dozens of SLRs, RFs or scale focus cameras. Otherwise if a camera goes kaput it goes to the dead shelf. I have fixed other cameras myself with varying degrees of success.
-
- jtk
- Deleted
-
- jtk
- Deleted
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |