Is there really a strong interest in film photography?

[Andrew O'Neill]

... and I'm not one of those who thinks that film is the only true medium for photography. I have a D850 that I employ when I have the urge to make a tri-colour gum.

 

[MattKing]

... and I'm not one of those who thinks that film is the only true medium for photography.

We sort of figured that out from your YouTube videos .
But speaking a bit more seriously, I do think the relative ease of making modern "moving pictures" is at least as important to the change in the photographic world as are digital still cameras - in or outside of cel phones! And I truly admire the people who still seek to shoot movies on film.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

We sort of figured that out from your YouTube videos .
But speaking a bit more seriously, I do think the relative ease of making modern "moving pictures" is at least as important to the change in the photographic world as are digital still cameras - in or outside of cel phones! And I truly admire the people who still seek to shoot movies on film.

And I heard that many actors prefer working with film, as it's slower, time is needed to change cassettes...etc, giving them time to think about lines, mood, acting, etc...

 

[Cholentpot]

And I heard that many actors prefer working with film, as it's slower, time is needed to change cassettes...etc, giving them time to think about lines, mood, acting, etc...

Or maybe the director can't slave drive them for take #107 on a 16 second scene.

 

[Helge]

Sure, I see film users around L.A., probably as many or more than big pro DSLR users. What is visible out in the world are mainly tourists and tourists never carried much in the way of recognizable gear, even in film's heyday. They might have an instamatic or a Polaroid camera, they bought postcards and slides of major attractions. But the number of film shooters today is ridiculously miniscule when compared to those taking photos with smart phones. Film may not be dead, but it isn't exactly thriving. The hipsters using film cameras will gradually lose interest in film and proceed to the next hip thing, young folks taking up film eventually get frustrated with the limitations and have other priorities. Those who want to pursue a career in photography and actually earn a living will need to shoot digital anyway. There are maybe two places left in L.A. to purchase black and white film in 35 to 4x5 formats. And I don't know if anyone carries 8x10, black and white or color.

While Pieter has an amount of needless pessimism and Eeyoreness about him, in these type of posts, creating FUD in here, and in random the passerby reading this forum; he does have some kind of point.

Film photography is at a crossroads in these years.
It really needs to not be regarded as a fad or someone frivolous and whimsical.

The whole current popular trope about it "being about the process" is terrible IMO.

A. It doesn't really mean anything, to anyone. It's only a pseudo profound, virtue signalling platitude.
B. While "the process" (whatever that exactly means) can be fun and rewarding, its something that is very easily forgotten, likely forever, when life and money get's in the way.
It doesn't make film very resistant to societal hiccups and pressures in the long run.
C. At some point(s) "the process gets old hat, and gets in the way.

What film as an industry desperately needs, is getting into pro territory.
Both motion picture and still.
For that to happen we need for scanners and price, of both kinds of film use to not be the bottleneck.
Both WRT speed of scanning but especially quality. When you are comparing essentially halfhearted 90s tech against modern digital cams, it's not a fair or meaningful compare at all.

Even for motion picture film, it is an issue. Especially lower budget, non "tent pole" movies to downright indie.
They need to be able to shoot film with relatively little effort too.
Motion picture to a much larger extent than people realise drive still use. Both directly and with all of the side suppliers of materials.

Still needs an excellent and affordable scanner, for both pros and amateurs. And they need it now, before it's too late.
I'm not talking about various overpriced holders, lights and "risers" from a few manufacturers.
I'm talking somehow wrapped and ready and small.
When you talk to people beginning to shoot film and who has given it up again, that is the overwhelming number one thing that is missing:
A good (8000 dpi as a minimum, optical and sensor (yes that is useable and necessary)), usable (everything is ready to go and works with modern PCs) affordable ($1000 is possible and is probably what you could convince a very interested enthusiast to pay for something that is worth it (cheaper copies would soon follow), and $10000 for an pro model) scanner.

 

[xkaes]

OMG

 

[Cholentpot]

While Pieter has an amount of needless pessimism and Eeyoreness about him, in these type of posts, creating FUD in here, and in random the passerby reading this forum; he does have some kind of point.

Film photography is at a crossroads in these years.
It really needs to not be regarded as a fad or someone frivolous and whimsical.

The whole current popular trope about it "being about the process" is terrible IMO.

A. It doesn't really mean anything, to anyone. It's only a pseudo profound, virtue signalling platitude.
B. While "the process" (whatever that exactly means) can be fun and rewarding, its something that is very easily forgotten, likely forever, when life and money get's in the way.
It doesn't make film very resistant to societal hiccups and pressures in the long run.
C. At some point(s) "the process gets old hat, and gets in the way.

What film as an industry desperately needs, is getting into pro territory.
Both motion picture and still.
For that to happen we need for scanners and price, of both kinds of film use to not be the bottleneck.
Both WRT speed but especially quality. When you are comparing essentially halfhearted 90s tech against modern digital cams, it's not a fair or meaningful compare at all.

Even for motion picture film, it is an issue. Especially lower budget, non "tent pole" movies to downright indie.
They need to be able to shoot film with relatively little effort too.
Motion picture to a much larger extent than people realise drive still use. Both directly and with all of the side suppliers of materials.

Still needs an excellent and affordable scanner, for both pros and amateurs. And they need it now, before it's too late.
I'm not talking about various overpriced holders, lights and "risers" from a few manufacturers.
I'm talking somehow wrapped and ready and small.
When you talk to people beginning to shoot film and who has given it up again, that is the overwhelming number one thing that is missing:
A good (8000 dpi as a minimum, optical and sensor (yes that is useable and necessary)), usable (everything is ready to go and works with modern PCs) affordable ($1000 is possible and is probably what you could convince a very interested enthusiast to pay for something that is worth it (cheaper copies would soon follow), and $10000 for an pro model) scanner.

Scan with a DSLR.

 

[Helge]

Scan with a DSLR.

I am.
But that is not something you can ask anyone to do.
In fact a very few film users will be willing to put up with that part of "the process".
Even (or perhaps especially?) pros want something that is turnkey, super consistent and doesn't require mental effort per frame.

I can tolerate a DIY setup with manual processing (stitching, reversal, contrast and exposure etc.) of every frame, because I know a thing or two about why and how things work and can work better, I love every frame (or quickly find out if I really do) and my livelihood does not rely on it.

 

[Cholentpot]

I am.
But that is not something you can ask anyone to do.
In fact a very few film users will be willing to put up with that part of "the process".
Even (or perhaps especially?) pros want something that is turnkey, super consistent and doesn't require mental effort per frame.

I can tolerate a DIY setup with manual processing (stitching, reversal, contrast and exposure etc.) of every frame, because I know a thing or two about why and how things work and can work better, I love every frame (or quickly find out if I really do) and my livelihood does not rely on it.

Pros aren't going back to 35mm. And if you're getting paid for work would you just not ship off to a lab?

Film will not be propped up by the professionals. It's a niche hobby like fountain pens, typewriters and vinyl records. It'll hang on as a more expressive artisan form of photography.

 

[faberryman]

Film will not be propped up by the professionals. It's a niche hobby like fountain pens, typewriters and vinyl records. It'll hang on as a more expressive artisan form of photography.

Film is more expressive? Yeah, yeah, film slows you down and people enjoy the exquisite pleasure of waiting around for their scans to come back. Blah, blah, blah.

Artisan I'll give you.

 

[Cholentpot]

Film is more expressive? Artisan I'll give you.

Is it more expressive than a fountain pen to a word processor? Vinyl to a FLAC file?

Film is more expressive due to the effort put into making a photo. You need to load and unload the camera correctly at the very least. From an artistic standpoint putting more effort into something generally makes it more expressive of ones feelings and work. I put effort into making this photo. I sourced the film, chose the right stock, shot roll, developed and then scanned or printed it. I put time and concerted effort into creating my work. This is an emotional attachment. You can say the same for someone shooting digital. Or writing a novel using a word processor. It's an intangible.

The film industry needs to lean into that whimsical intangible feeling.

 

[faberryman]

Is it more expressive than a fountain pen to a word processor? Vinyl to a FLAC file?

No.

Film is more expressive due to the effort put into making a photo. You need to load and unload the camera correctly at the very least. From an artistic standpoint putting more effort into something generally makes it more expressive of ones feelings and work. I put effort into making this photo. I sourced the film, chose the right stock, shot roll, developed and then scanned or printed it. I put time and concerted effort into creating my work. This is an emotional attachment.

Loading and unloading a film camera is expressive? Am I more expressive if I bulk load my film?

You can say the same for someone shooting digital. Or writing a novel using a word processor. It's an intangible.

Did you mean "can" or "can't"? As written, I agree with you.

The film industry needs to lean into that whimsical intangible feeling.

Which has nothing to do with expressivity. Lomography has been leaning into that whimsical intangible feeling for years. I can't see it working for Kodak, but never say never.

Here is the bottom line: Show me the images. Then we can talk about which is more expressive.

You are confusing manual effort with expression. As Dan Burkholder said, you don't get extra credit for it being hard.

 

[BradS]

.... it's not a fair or meaningful compare at all.

Yes, exactly and that's why we should not compare them.

It is an error to compare them. They are different...and this is the precisely point. This is why people (of all ages!) choose to do film photography instead of digital imaging or vice-versa because they are different. Different result, different look, different feeling, different experience.

Movie directors who insist upon using film (eg Tarentino) do so for the look and feel. They do not want to make film look like digital and they recognize the folly of trying to make digital look and feel like film.

We need to let go of the idea that one is better than the other or that one is going to displace the other and stop comparing..because they are different and clearly there is room and a desire for both to exist. It is not a zero sum game.

 

[BradS]

....The hipsters using film cameras will gradually lose interest in film and proceed to the next hip thing, young folks taking up film eventually get frustrated with the limitations and have other priorities.

are you lumping a whole generation of people into one, uniform category? All Millennials or all gen-z are...???

 

[faberryman]

Yes, exactly and that's why we should not compare them.

It is an error to compare them. They are different...and this is the precisely point. This is why people (of all ages!) choose to do film photography instead of digital imaging or vice-versa because they are different. Different result, different look, different feeling, different experience.

Movie directors who insist upon using film (eg Tarentino) do so for the look and feel. They do not want to make film look like digital and they recognize the folly of trying to make digital look and feel like film.

We need to let go of the idea that one is better than the other or that one is going to displace the other and stop comparing..because they are different and clearly there is room and a desire for both to exist. It is not a zero sum game.

So why the long post about film being more expressive?

 

[BradS]

So why the long post about film being more expressive?

is that like a recursive function that never returns?

I'm afraid the stack is blown.
I may have to reboot!
Standby.....

 

[xkaes]

And they're OFF..................

 

[faberryman]

is that like a recursive function that never returns?

I'm afraid the stack is blown.
I may have to reboot!
Standby.....

Be expressive. Get on your hands and knees and unplug the cord from the socket and plug it back in.

 

[Helge]

Pros aren't going back to 35mm. And if you're getting paid for work would you just not ship off to a lab?

Film will not be propped up by the professionals. It's a niche hobby like fountain pens, typewriters and vinyl records. It'll hang on as a more expressive artisan form of photography.

Pros has gone back to film to an extent (a few never left).

There is no reason why that couldn’t become much bigger. I’m not suggesting a major movement, but the difference between film and digital become especially pronounced and accentuated by printing big and by good scanning and display on a big screen.

People absolutely want to pay for that if they know it’s there and they have been taught to appreciate it.

The extra charge per frame is if not negligible, then not that big of a deal for most clients.
The cost of a good photographer is in preparation, total hours a paying off current and future equipment.

Yes, exactly and that's why we should not compare them.

It is an error to compare them. They are different...and this is the precisely point. This is why people (of all ages!) choose to do film photography instead of digital imaging or vice-versa because they are different. Different result, different look, different feeling, different experience.

Movie directors who insist upon using film (eg Tarentino) do so for the look and feel. They do not want to make film look like digital and they recognize the folly of trying to make digital look and feel like film.

We need to let go of the idea that one is better than the other or that one is going to displace the other and stop comparing..because they are different and clearly there is room and a desire for both to exist. It is not a zero sum game.

They are both photography. Of course people will compare them in all kinds of ways. Claiming or suggesting anything else, that is folly.
But also unfortunately by now an ingrown cliché.

It’s a bit like saying one shouldn’t compare waterpaint with oil. Or an electric car with a gasoline one.

Tarantino and Spielberg need to scan their film too.
Motion picture film will die a slow death if it is only quirky directors and “god” directors who get to use film.

 

[Cholentpot]

Pros has gone back to film to an extent (a few never left).

There is no reason why that couldn’t become much bigger. I’m not suggesting a major movement, but the difference between film and digital become especially pronounced and accentuated by printing big and by good scanning and display on a big screen.

People absolutely want to pay for that if they know it’s there and they have been taught to appreciate it.

The extra charge per frame is if not negligible, then not that big of a deal for most clients.
The cost of a good photographer is in preparation, total hours a paying off current and future equipment.


They are both photography. Of course people will compare them in all kinds of ways. Claiming or suggesting anything else, that is folly.
But also unfortunately by now an ingrown cliché.

It’s a bit like saying one shouldn’t compare waterpaint with oil. Or an electric car with a gasoline one.

Tarantino and Spielberg need to scan their film too.
Motion picture film will die a slow death if it is on quirky directors and “god” directors who get to use film.

I gig as a photographer. I guess that makes me a professional. I'll bring along an SLR or TLR on some shoots and shoot a few frames but from my peer group I'm the only one shooting film. For personal use I shoot over 100 rolls a year. Pro work I shoot 0. An odd frame here or there on my personal rolls.

It's not viable or a smart use of my time unless a client is willing to pay to have a shoot fully done on film. I've not yet encountered such a client.

 

[BradS]

....

Tarantino and Spielberg need to scan their film too.
...

Good point. I wonder how Tarentino's latest film, "Once Upon A Time in Hollywood" was transferred to digital.
Clearly, a viable solution exists.

 

[Pieter12]

Is it more expressive than a fountain pen to a word processor? Vinyl to a FLAC file?

Film is more expressive due to the effort put into making a photo. You need to load and unload the camera correctly at the very least. From an artistic standpoint putting more effort into something generally makes it more expressive of ones feelings and work. I put effort into making this photo. I sourced the film, chose the right stock, shot roll, developed and then scanned or printed it. I put time and concerted effort into creating my work. This is an emotional attachment. You can say the same for someone shooting digital. Or writing a novel using a word processor. It's an intangible.

The film industry needs to lean into that whimsical intangible feeling.

You are missing the wet printing stage, where all the magic happens for me. The only reason I shoot film is to be able to print in the darkroom. I have even had LVT negatives made from digital files so I could print them in the darkroom. But film is really a niche player in photography today, and although the industry may experience spikes and dips depending on fads and fashion--most of which is driven by digital social media, BTW--it will never return to the levels from 20 years ago. Even Kodak's recent expansion (really the re-opening of existing lines, not expansion) is just in 35mm color negative film, a niche within a niche.

 

[Sirius Glass]

+1. I remember the time from approximately 2002-2008, KEH was just loaded with TONS of gear at cheap prices. People starting in this hobby in the last 5 years would never believe how cheap gear was during this time. I feel so fortunate to have been able to try lots of different camera systems and if I didn’t jive with them I’d just turn around and sell them, sometimes for more than what I paid. Bronica 6x6, 6x4.5, Hasselblad, Fuji RF, Leica’a, Mamiya 7s, 6s. I tried them all. If I started now I’d never be able to afford the gear that I acquired during that time.

And that is the time period that I loaded up on the Hasselblads and lenses and well as other cameras and lenses. I kept telling people that they needed to buy film cameras then and everyone told me that I was crazy. Crazy like a fox.

 

[Sirius Glass]

While Pieter has an amount of needless pessimism and Eeyoreness about him, in these type of posts, creating FUD in here, and in random the passerby reading this forum; he does have some kind of point.

Film photography is at a crossroads in these years.
It really needs to not be regarded as a fad or someone frivolous and whimsical.

The whole current popular trope about it "being about the process" is terrible IMO.

A. It doesn't really mean anything, to anyone. It's only a pseudo profound, virtue signalling platitude.
B. While "the process" (whatever that exactly means) can be fun and rewarding, its something that is very easily forgotten, likely forever, when life and money get's in the way.
It doesn't make film very resistant to societal hiccups and pressures in the long run.
C. At some point(s) "the process gets old hat, and gets in the way.

What film as an industry desperately needs, is getting into pro territory.
Both motion picture and still.
For that to happen we need for scanners and price, of both kinds of film use to not be the bottleneck.
Both WRT speed of scanning but especially quality. When you are comparing essentially halfhearted 90s tech against modern digital cams, it's not a fair or meaningful compare at all.

Even for motion picture film, it is an issue. Especially lower budget, non "tent pole" movies to downright indie.
They need to be able to shoot film with relatively little effort too.
Motion picture to a much larger extent than people realise drive still use. Both directly and with all of the side suppliers of materials.

Still needs an excellent and affordable scanner, for both pros and amateurs. And they need it now, before it's too late.
I'm not talking about various overpriced holders, lights and "risers" from a few manufacturers.
I'm talking somehow wrapped and ready and small.
When you talk to people beginning to shoot film and who has given it up again, that is the overwhelming number one thing that is missing:
A good (8000 dpi as a minimum, optical and sensor (yes that is useable and necessary)), usable (everything is ready to go and works with modern PCs) affordable ($1000 is possible and is probably what you could convince a very interested enthusiast to pay for something that is worth it (cheaper copies would soon follow), and $10000 for an pro model) scanner.

I never left film photography and I just enjoy it. But I do not need no stinkin' digital camera to scan film for it.

 

[Huss]

It is funny how Photrio - the supposed bastion of film photography - has so many members who seem to wish film dead. And try to convince everyone of their case.

We had a scheduled power outage yesterday so it gave me a reason to play hooky. It was a lovely day and I spent a few hours on my bike shooting four rolls of film in two cameras just of stuff that caught my attention.

It seems I should spend less time shooting film, and more moaning about how film is doomed. Then reminisce about the good old days when people shot film.