Is there really a strong interest in film photography?

[Brendan Quirk]

I play records. I shoot film. I print in the darkroom. I just never stopped. That is all... (Listening to Paddy Reilly at the moment!)

 

[Sirius Glass]

I play records. I shoot film. I print in the darkroom. I just never stopped. That is all... (Listening to Paddy Reilly at the moment!)

Well said.

 

[Cholentpot]

I play records. I shoot film. I print in the darkroom. I just never stopped. That is all... (Listening to Paddy Reilly at the moment!)

Good point.

Some of us grew up doing none of these at all. All of it was a foreign idea.

By the time I was 7 years old records were replaced by CDs and Cassettes, darkroom was replaced by the lab but film was still going strong. However, your average snapper was using a disposable or point and shoot. By the time I hit my teenage years digital cameras were on scene, even if very expensive, and when I hit my late teens film collapsed.

Picking up records, film and darkroom printing were novel to me. Exciting and something to talk about. It was fresh and unnecessary, perfect for a hobby and a stepping stone to the greater world of photography. I now have an extensive collection of records, a few enlargers, a shelf of cameras of all formats and a freezer full of film. I don't do this to be ironic or hip, I enjoy it. It's fun and challenging. And if I grow tired of it I can leave it behind and I won't lose out much.

I have a DSLR, an inkjet printer and streaming music. In a pinch they'll do.

 

[reddesert]

I am cool with highschool age kids when I break out the film stuff. It wasn't like this 10 years ago. People slightly older than me (40+) are offended when I use film, I mean they're honestly bewildered. People a bit younger then me don't understand why I would use a camera of any sort when I have a phone. ...

Film is dead. It is a niche market for hipsters (who will most probably drop out after a while), hobbyists and some art photographers. Darkroom printing is also a lost art that no-one wants to bother with anymore. ...

Without trying to prolong an argument, I think these attitudes are related. Film is less convenient, and for some people, if you pull out a film camera, they may feel you're an annoying hipster trying to look cool. What is less understandable is why many of us on Photrio also are frustrated by the annoying hipsters trying to look cool. We should be celebrating and encouraging annoying hipsters trying to look cool. Who cares what someone else's motive for photography is? How do I know I'm genuine - maybe I'm the film poseur.

Back in the heyday of film and early internet forums (and before that photo magazines), "serious" photographers often disdained simple amateurs and their consumer cameras and blurry vacation snaps. But of course the vast number of consumers were the demand keeping the film infrastructure affordable. That there is still some demand, even if vastly decreased, is a positive sign. I don't know if home darkrooms will ever really come back, younger people can't afford the space.

 

[Cholentpot]

Without trying to prolong an argument, I think these attitudes are related. Film is less convenient, and for some people, if you pull out a film camera, they may feel you're an annoying hipster trying to look cool. What is less understandable is why many of us on Photrio also are frustrated by the annoying hipsters trying to look cool. We should be celebrating and encouraging annoying hipsters trying to look cool. Who cares what someone else's motive for photography is? How do I know I'm genuine - maybe I'm the film poseur.

Back in the heyday of film and early internet forums (and before that photo magazines), "serious" photographers often disdained simple amateurs and their consumer cameras and blurry vacation snaps. But of course the vast number of consumers were the demand keeping the film infrastructure affordable. That there is still some demand, even if vastly decreased, is a positive sign. I don't know if home darkrooms will ever really come back, younger people can't afford the space.

If you shoot film I could care less who you are and what you do. Go ahead, shoot film. The more the merrier.

One great thing about the film collapse is the jerks all moved to digital and the people that genuinely cared about film stuck around and passed the information. In the bad old days people would horde their knowledge, it was silly. 'How did you do that?' would be answered by 'trade secret' or something.

Now with the internet someone, somewhere will know how something was done. It turns out that a lot of the 'trade secrets' were run of the mill skills. The talent wasn't in the lens or process, it was up to the photographer. We still have people floating around on here making dentist jokes. I haven't seen a dentist with a camera in decades.

 

[faberryman]

One great thing about the film collapse is the jerks all moved to digital and the people that genuinely cared about film stuck around and passed the information. In the bad old days people would horde their knowledge, it was silly. 'How did you do that?' would be answered by 'trade secret' or something. Now with the internet someone, somewhere will know how something was done. It turns out that a lot of the 'trade secrets' were run of the mill skills. The talent wasn't in the lens or process, it was up to the photographer.

Was that your personal experience? I can't say I ever experienced that. You could read all about how people, like Jerry Uelsmann or Sarah Moon or whomever, did stuff in Popular Photography and Modern Photography magazines. I don't remember there being any really big secrets anyway.

We still have people floating around on here making dentist jokes. I haven't seen a dentist with a camera in decades.

The dentist joke is not about film enthusiasts. It is about amateur photographers who own Leica cameras, and extends to amateur photographers who own Leica digital cameras. I don't see many dentists or anyone else with any kind of camera when I am out and about. To be honest, I wouldn't know if a person were a dentist just by looking at him. You could usually tell who the dentists were in dentist offices by whether they were wearing a white coat with their name and DDS stitched on it. Now everyone, including the insurance clerk, wears scrubs.

 

[Agulliver]

There's definitely been a lot of snobbery down the years. I didn't feel at all welcome as a teenager (who already had 10 years of experience in photography) joining local clubs because I didn't have the "right sort of camera". One club was basically Nikon and another Canon....if you had anything else such as a Pentax SLR you might just be tolerated but if you had a Praktica you were looked down upon...I remember one comment "I suppose that just about qualifies as an SLR". If you had any other sort of camera, you weren't welcome either. Very cliquey. It wasn't at all about fun, or about sharing knowledge, skills or ideas....it was about a load of guys congratulating themselves for spending lots of money on their equipment. They'd invent competitions which were always won by one of the organisers or his friends. Utterly joyless.

Fast forward to the 21st century and people turning up their noses at the "hipsters" and practitioners of Lomography. Neither are my thing, but why spurn them? In the end aren't we all just trying to enjoy film?

 

[Cholentpot]

Was that your personal experience? I can't say I ever experienced that. You could read all about how people, like Jerry Uelsmann or Sarah Moon or whomever, did stuff in Popular Photography and Modern Photography magazines. I don't remember there being any really big secrets anyway.



The dentist joke is not about film enthusiasts. It is about amateur photographers who own Leica cameras, and extends to amateur photographers who own Leica digital cameras. I don't see many dentists or anyone else with any kind of camera when I am out and about. To be honest, I wouldn't know if a person was a dentist just by looking at him. You could usually tell who the dentists were in dentist offices by whether they were wearing a white coat with their name and DDS stitched on it. Now everyone, including the insurance clerk, wears scrubs.

My Hungarian grandmother used to tell us about friends that would do this thing where they would give out a recipe but leave out a key ingredient so that no-one can ever be as good as theirs. It's petty and childish and I've seen it in the photography community in the past. Thankfully the community has grown up somewhat and this kind of thing is rare and frowned on.

My mechanic wears scrubs.

There's definitely been a lot of snobbery down the years. I didn't feel at all welcome as a teenager (who already had 10 years of experience in photography) joining local clubs because I didn't have the "right sort of camera". One club was basically Nikon and another Canon....if you had anything else such as a Pentax SLR you might just be tolerated but if you had a Praktica you were looked down upon...I remember one comment "I suppose that just about qualifies as an SLR". If you had any other sort of camera, you weren't welcome either. Very cliquey. It wasn't at all about fun, or about sharing knowledge, skills or ideas....it was about a load of guys congratulating themselves for spending lots of money on their equipment. They'd invent competitions which were always won by one of the organisers or his friends. Utterly joyless.

Fast forward to the 21st century and people turning up their noses at the "hipsters" and practitioners of Lomography. Neither are my thing, but why spurn them? In the end aren't we all just trying to enjoy film?

Lomo is great. Lomo is fun. I don't lomo like the lomos but I respect it and lomo in my own way. The one thing that film really has a major step over digital is the experimentation with multiple formats. Roll 16mm through a 2x3 press camera? Why not! Modify a point and shoot to square frame? Go for it! Dunk your film in blood and who knows what? Might as well! Shoot film from the 1930's? Yep!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Without trying to prolong an argument, I think these attitudes are related. Film is less convenient, and for some people, if you pull out a film camera, they may feel you're an annoying hipster trying to look cool. What is less understandable is why many of us on Photrio also are frustrated by the annoying hipsters trying to look cool. We should be celebrating and encouraging annoying hipsters trying to look cool. Who cares what someone else's motive for photography is? How do I know I'm genuine - maybe I'm the film poseur.

Back in the heyday of film and early internet forums (and before that photo magazines), "serious" photographers often disdained simple amateurs and their consumer cameras and blurry vacation snaps. But of course the vast number of consumers were the demand keeping the film infrastructure affordable. That there is still some demand, even if vastly decreased, is a positive sign. I don't know if home darkrooms will ever really come back, younger people can't afford the space.

I never see hipsters shooting film. In fact I rarely see anyone shooting film.

The most expensive thing about darkrooms, especially these days, is the dedicated space needed.

 

[Pieter12]

I really don't care who is shooting film. All I care about is (black and white) film is still being manufactured. Unfortunately, there are many factors that could lead to its likely demise.

As far as camera clubs are concerned, unless they have facilities available that would otherwise be unreasonably expensive to use, I really don't want to hang out with a bunch of camera nerds on a regular basis. Photography is a pretty solitary pursuit unless you're working with talent and a crew. An occasional workshop is about all I might consider.

 

[faberryman]

As far as camera clubs are concerned, unless they have facilities available that would otherwise be unreasonably expensive to use, I really don't want to hang out with a bunch of camera nerds on a regular basis. Photography is a pretty solitary pursuit unless you're working with talent and a crew. An occasional workshop is about all I might consider.

This is my experience too. Over the decades, I have gone to a few camera club meetings in the various places I have lived, and I didn't find them useful, much less fun. I may have mentioned before that the last one I went to a couple of years ago one of the members was showing his photos on a projection screen. He started off by giving a little information on his background and experience, saying that since he had a BFA in photography he didn't need to use a meter. I thought he would have been better off if he had used a meter. The upside of him not using a meter was that we didn't have to listen to him tell us which brand of batteries he used in his meter, which pretty much eliminated the possibility of fistfights breaking out. Participating on Photrio is miles ahead. You can learn stuff here, and some of the photos in the gallery are pretty good.

I am not saying that all camera clubs are a complete waste of time. I am sure that there are some good camera clubs out there. I just haven't experienced them. I hope everyone's camera club experiences have been great.

 

[MattKing]

I really don't care who is shooting film. All I care about is (black and white) film is still being manufactured. Unfortunately, there are many factors that could lead to its likely demise.

As far as camera clubs are concerned, unless they have facilities available that would otherwise be unreasonably expensive to use, I really don't want to hang out with a bunch of camera nerds on a regular basis. Photography is a pretty solitary pursuit unless you're working with talent and a crew. An occasional workshop is about all I might consider.

I am a member of two photography groups - although one is on hiatus due to Covid.
The people in the two groups - one primarily film and darkroom, the other mostly digital but several use some film - are fun and interesting and generous and knowledgeable. They are fun to be around, and a really good source of valuable advice and constructive criticism.
You are right in that photography can be a very solitary pursuit. One of the biggest reasons I am involved with the two groups is that it shakes up that tendency.
The group members love photography. Many of them also love gadgets and gear. The two are not necessarily exclusive.
And by the way, there is at least one recently retired dentist in the group, and he makes really good (digital) photographs, and really good prints from them.

 

[Don_ih]

Fast forward to the 21st century and people turning up their noses at the "hipsters"

People have been turning up their noses at hipsters since the 50s, at least.

It is total snobbery that people criticize the kinds of cameras other people use, the film other people use, and what they do with those things. It's not like they're going to steal the available photos. It's not like they are going to ruin anyone's ability to take photos. Lomography has bred a great many by now serious film photographer.

 

[TJones]

One great thing about the film collapse is the jerks all moved to digital and the people that genuinely cared about film stuck around and passed the information. In the bad old days people would horde their knowledge, it was silly. 'How did you do that?' would be answered by 'trade secret' or something.

Now with the internet someone, somewhere will know how something was done.

I doubt the composition of the film shooters changed much; as you say, the Internet just made it easier to find the people willing to share info.

 

[Cholentpot]

I never see hipsters shooting film. In fact I rarely see anyone shooting film.

The most expensive thing about darkrooms, especially these days, is the dedicated space needed.

I just saw someone using a film camera near the Rock and Roll Hall about two hours ago, I mean aside from me.

 

[Pieter12]

And by the way, there is at least one recently retired dentist in the group, and he makes really good (digital) photographs, and really good prints from them.

Take a look at Howard Schatz's work. A former ophthalmologist, and for years an excellent photographer: https://howardschatz.com

 

[Helge]

He started off by giving a little information on his background and experience, saying that since he had a BFA in photography he didn't need to use a meter. I thought he would have been better off if he had used a meter. The upside of him not using a meter was that we didn't have to listen to him tell us which brand of batteries he used in his meter, which pretty much eliminated the possibility of fistfights breaking out. Participating on Photrio is miles ahead. You can learn stuff here, and some of the photos in the gallery are pretty good.

I am not saying that all camera clubs are a complete waste of time. I am sure that there are some good camera clubs out there. I just haven't experienced them. I hope everyone's camera club experiences have been great.

Best thing by far in this thread!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I've been buying records to listen to since I was 16. I never stopped, even though there was a point where I couldn't find a record player. For a while, I had a huge Westinghouse cabinet. That actually sounded better than anything else I've ever had (I now have a Harmon Kardon turntable), even though most cabinet record players sound mediocre.

But I know I'm not the reason vinyl has come back.

It's more than nostalgia. Unlike all alternatives, records offer a physical object that is worthwhile in its own right. A 12x12 album cover with artwork, an insert with more artwork and lyrics, and the record itself. It's an appealing thing and acts more like a souvenir than recording medium. Smaller bands sell them by the stacks after their shows - the people buying them want something real. My oldest son buys records but has never owned a record player.

No one wants cds, anymore. If you're going to buy a physical copy of some music you love, you're going to buy the most beautiful option. That's why it's come back.

Sort of like reading a book instead of reading it on your cellphone.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Take a look at Howard Schatz's work. A former ophthalmologist, and for years an excellent photographer: https://howardschatz.com

Really creative work. Very inventive.

 

[Helge]

Film is dead. It is a niche market for hipsters (who will most probably drop out after a while), hobbyists and some art photographers. Darkroom printing is also a lost art that no-one wants to bother with anymore. While film sales may be up (and down) temporarily, aspects like cost, water usage and chemical waste are also of concern. Most people do not take into account what may go into the manufacturing process of their digital products, nor their disposal. But with film, it can be something one is more in touch with and can be a concern.

The environmental care virtue signalling of this post... The amount of water, materials and chemicals used for producing and processing a roll of film, is absolutely minuscule compared to what is used for everything else personally by most people, and even more globally.
And the argument becomes even more ridiculous when you consider that amount of resources used for producing, charging and discarding phones and digital cameras. Not to speak of the watts, space and money used to store and transmit a trillion never to be seen again digital photos.

There is definitely a rising and robust interest in film photography.
Robust as in that it has been going for several years (really picking up steam in 16), and robust as in having been able to survive Covid19 and even thrive in it.
It might not be felt in less affluent and provincial areas, but in the main cultural hubs of the world it is very visible.
Of course there will always be many posers and hipsters riding on the coattails of any trend or tendency (often souring it for the originators), as opposed to the people who are really effortlessly hip.
It's usually a quick way to get a "personality" and an identity. Some of those people will stick around when they outlive that phase or actually become hip. Most will not. But that goes for anything in life. Sturgeons Law really.
But it's fine. And if even five percent of those people continue to buy film we are good.

The discussion of whether to just let people be and not advice them, or even whether to chastise them for certain things is an important one.
It's easy to think you are getting a patronising treatment by "gatekeepers" (favourite new concept for people thinking they are their ultimate version of themselves at 22) when all you doing is really aping other people who know basically nothing.
People with low self-esteem, using film knowledge as an ego lever certainly exist, but they are pretty rare, and some of the ones that do exist, are mild cases.
So it's important to be really careful in the amount and kind of advice dealt.

Something like the Lomo "movement" as much as spending on film is good, is something that can potential sour someone on film permanently, making an impression that it is a fad and a waste of money and time, when they are over the honeymoon.
Lomo is really a holdover from the 90s that should have morphed into something completely different decades ago. But is still completely recognisable as the relic it is.
Same with accepting bad scanners as a normal, and in that, the implied whimsy and technical inferiority of film. That, from people who have never seen (or realised that they saw) a really good and large wet print. Let alone a really good scan.

 

[Cholentpot]

The environmental care virtue signalling of this post... The amount of water, materials and chemicals used for producing and processing a roll of film, is absolutely minuscule compared to what is used for everything else personally by most people, and even more globally.
And the argument becomes even more ridiculous when you consider that amount of resources used for producing, charging and discarding phones and digital cameras. Not to speak of the watts, space and money used to store and transmit a trillion never to be seen again digital photos.

There is definitely a rising and robust interest in film photography.
Robust as in that it has been going for several years (really picking up steam in 16), and robust as in having been able to survive Covid19 and even thrive in it.
It might not be felt in less affluent and provincial areas, but in the main cultural hubs of the world it is very visible.
Of course there will always be many posers and hipsters riding on the the coattails of any trend or tendency (often souring it for the originators), as opposed to the people who are really effortlessly hip.
It's usually a quick way to get a "personality" and an identity. Some of those people will stick around when they outlive that phase or actually become hip. Most will not. But that goes for anything in life. Sturgeons Law really.
But it's fine. And if even five percent of those people continue to buy film we are good.

The discussion of whether to just let people be and not advice them, or even whether to chastise them for certain things is an important one.
It's easy to think you are getting a patronising treatment by "gatekeepers" (favourite new concept for people thinking they are their ultimate version of themselves at 22) when all you doing is really aping other people who know basically nothing.
People with low self-esteem, using film knowledge as an ego lever certainly exist, but they are pretty rare, and some of the ones that do exist, are mild cases.
So it's important to be really careful in the amount and kind of advice dealt.

Something like the Lomo "movement" as much as spending on film is good, is something that can potential sour someone on film permanently, making an impression that it is a fad and a waste of money and time, when they are over the honeymoon.
Lomo is really a holdover from the 90s that should have morphed into something completely different decades ago. But is still completely recognisable as the relic it is.
Same with accepting bad scanners as a normal, and in that, the implied whimsy and technical inferiority of film. That, from people who have never seen (or realised that they saw) a really good and large wet print. Let alone a really good scan.

One of the most active threads on here is 110/16mm and how far you can take that format. Sometimes it's not about the mainstream ideals of image quality.

 

[Helge]

One of the most active threads on here is 110/16mm and how far you can take that format. Sometimes it's not about the mainstream ideals of image quality.

That you can get really quite good IQ out of a frame almost three times smaller than a half frame camera, says something about just how underrated film in general is.

 

[Cholentpot]

That you can get really quite good IQ out of a frame almost three times smaller than a half frame camera, says something about just how underrated film in general is.

With good technique, a steady hand, and good 'ol ironheaded stubbornness you can make it work. I'm loath to admit but I think color looks better than b&w in 16mm/110

 

[markjwyatt]

...
And by the way, there is at least one recently retired dentist in the group, and he makes really good (digital) photographs, and really good prints from them.

Is this a set-up?Ok, let me ask- what type of Leica does he use?

 

[MattKing]

Is this a set-up?Ok, let me ask- what type of Leica does he use?

IIRC, he had been using high end Canon DSLR's, but switched to Fuji mirrorless cameras because he liked using them while travelling.
I have only seen him a couple of times since Covid shut our group meetings down.