Is there really a strong interest in film photography?

[Photowithfries]

What if some artistically oriented photographers have thought about Film and Digital photography as being two separate mediums? Painting and printmaking are in similar relation. So Digital photography has lately been the solution for those who need instant gratification, but there were the days when people or things were shot in the evening, then processed and printed images needed to be delivered buy 8AM next morning. Delivered usually by car, thru traffic, rather than on horseback thru the countryside (or by courier, with costs). Digital often puts you back in the same position by spending much time at the computer doing post, just like as if doing lab work without the smell. Once all the costs were figured they were not all that different, more like pay up front or pay as you go. Like "an arm and a leg or thru the nose" for what you have to absorb bean wise doing commercial work. So it seems that commercial work is mostly digital, while personal work can be either or both, of a combination of the two. All of this, you folks most likely already know. So if it were me, I would do all of it, while working toward some studio lighting and design as well, knowing that as I get older, it all just seems to weigh more. So the trick is, shoot in a studio, buy some roller skates, have the shot set up, shoot it, and skate away...

 

[Photowithfries]

If you want to use your medium of choice to communicate anything, look to how it has been done before, artistically, and take it forward. That may mean skipping the mowing and saving the water for the darkroom where you can use it to communicate stuff instead. Or just take a bath. This pandemic has been really weird...

 

[Photowithfries]

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.

 

[Agulliver]

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 know it's only more anecdotes, but in the last 3-4 years I have definitely seen more people out and about shooting film. I am no longer even the only one at the jazz club. I have even, I think, seen a hipster shooting film on an older NIkon SLR....I mean he had the appearance of a late teen with a well groomed beard. Last year at England's Medieval Festival, the sort of event which in the 21st century would see only phones and the odd digital camera, I counted at least three other people shooting on film....a Pentax K100, a Praktica BX20 (in addition to the TWO BX20S bodies I had going) and one of the more modern Canons. At one point, BX20 dude sat down for a beer at the same table as me and our three black Prakticas adorned the table looking quite at home.

Just before the pandemic a man walked into a pub, Centon SLR and big strap around his neck with a large flash attached.....Hell, I can even take a film SLR to the beach again without being accused of all sorts of unpleasantness.

 

[Photowithfries]

Living now in the country, with only a septic system, as far as film and chemicals, there is no problem at all. Steelwool absorbs silver. All else evaporates. Very tiny bit of electricity used. Minimal water usage for processing. Film, relative to a phase one digital back's original cost, is very small, even over the years. Images captured on film that are twenty years old or older are still scanable and printable, as well as useable for serigraph images, even tho that does require water, but not bad because it's a waterbased process. So, to reply, for artsy fartsy types it's well worth it and fun as a process. And as a geeser, and retired commercial shooter, it's still a blast! I'm trying to get a better handle on your interests and opinion tho, because in art school, I worked with many mediums along the way. To you, I'm pretty sure that a computer darkroom is far less "Task Driven" than it is to me. It's not that different. Only difference that I can see is what you were brought up using. Film cannot be hacked. Film is not dead! Why? For me because I've got a bunch of it in my freezer! So, if you back everything up digital should work even better, hybrid even better than that. Again I would try both, as well as other related mediums for your message. Sketching should outlast them all! Many good ideas were created sketching on a napkin. Cheers!

 

[Photowithfries]

Well, my slide shows weren't really all that bad*, but with the carousel begging for 80 or 140 slides, a few less than gallery level slides might have slipped in here and there from time to time. I don't think I have the attention span to watch a slide show of 80 to 140 images of even [insert your favorite photographer here]. If I were to do slides again. I would probably go with 30 tops like a printed portfolio. Weren't Leica projector trays 35 slots? I think there is some truth to the saying that you are judged by your weakest image.

* Some who actually had to sit through them might disagree, but they aren't my friends anymore so their opinions don't count.

 

[Photowithfries]

I did work in a studio for a wonderful photographer in Dallas once, we all did studio work while he traveled, and after seeing a full slide tray of his images, each and every one was a stand alone image! He traveled all over the world and was known for "the sun coming out everywhere he went". I've never seen anything like it. Later, his eyes gave out, but we kept working. Then, years later, my eyes did the same. Fortunately eye doctors are much better now, so here I am, thankfully, doing film and digital, as well as collecting and doing something artistic, and having good times again. It's great to be here!!!

 

[faberryman]

Just before the pandemic a man walked into a pub, Centon SLR and big strap around his neck with a large flash attached...

Was the available light such that he needed a large flash? Did he also have a large lens?

Hell, I can even take a film SLR to the beach again without being accused of all sorts of unpleasantness.

Probably people don't want to be photographed in their bathing suits. I haven't been to the beach in a while, but from what I remember, it is understandable why people don't want to be photographed in their bathing suits. And then there is the issue of photographing children. I'll go out on a limb and say you would get the same reception if you took a DSLR to the beach.

 

[faberryman]

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

Some of these reports of seeing a person with a film camera sort of remind me of Sasquatch sightings.

 

[Cholentpot]

Some of these reports of seeing a person with a film camera sort of remind me of Sasquatch sightings.

He had a beard, maybe Sas likes Elvis.

 

[Tel]

There's a problem with the equation of strong with popular. All film shooting needs to survive is a small but dedicated community (strong in another sense of the word) and a few suppliers like Ilford and Adox who cater to a niche market. The glory days of Kodak and literally everyone in the world shooting their film are well and truly over, but that's not the sole viable business model. As cameras lose out to cell phones for the disposable snapshot market, DSLRs will likely begin to fade away too.

 

[Cholentpot]

There's a problem with the equation of strong with popular. All film shooting needs to survive is a small but dedicated community (strong in another sense of the word) and a few suppliers like Ilford and Adox who cater to a niche market. The glory days of Kodak and literally everyone in the world shooting their film are well and truly over, but that's not the sole viable business model. As cameras lose out to cell phones for the disposable snapshot market, DSLRs will likely begin to fade away too.

DSLRs or Mirrorless will always have a dedicated community. Pros will never do a wedding on a phone. We want cameras and lenses.

 

[Helge]

There's a problem with the equation of strong with popular. All film shooting needs to survive is a small but dedicated community (strong in another sense of the word) and a few suppliers like Ilford and Adox who cater to a niche market. The glory days of Kodak and literally everyone in the world shooting their film are well and truly over, but that's not the sole viable business model. As cameras lose out to cell phones for the disposable snapshot market, DSLRs will likely begin to fade away too.

There will almost always be some kind of correlation and coincidence between the two.

The best and strongest correlation is in a situation when you can have a segment begin to criticize and stealth envy-hate the consumers and/or fans of a given product or idea for being elitist and snobs, all the while they deep down wish to be part of the group themselves.
But they imagine the bar of entry to be too high.

It happened to Apple, it happened to Sony, and many other companies through history, and Fuji, Kodak, Ilford, Adox et al. is collectively in much that position.

There is the conspicuous consumption aspect to it, but also the sneaking suspicion from people who whemenently oppose or ridicule film that they are really missing something important, and that film is in fact in many ways superior.

 

[Minolta93]

NAC was one, RTM sent me pre-production samples of their improved C90, and Panggung as they were restarting production after a couple of years mothballing their machinery.

The LP analogy is really just to show that in the right circumstances, something which was written off as dead can come back into the mainstream. FIlm certainly isn't there yet, but if the upswing continues it could be. What is of no help to anyone in these forums is being a grumpy old fart, saying film is dead and that any upsurge in interest is going to be reversed soon....because presumably one has read it in one's tea leaves.

I've never heard of Panggung but it's nice that they're back in production.

 

[markjwyatt]

Just to explore this topic more, one idea is that if color film goes, so goes film. I.e., monochrome alone will not keep film alive.

Younger people seem to prefer color film. Even among all film users, color is bigger than monochrome.

On the flip side, color takes a lot more technology to maintain- multi-layer coatings, dyes and chemicals, C-41/E6 proesses (and ECN2). Very few people today (Kodak and Fuji realistically- wish ADOX Godspeed) really have the capability to produce quality color film. Many people can produce monochrome films.

Since cinema is driving a lot of film usage, and cinema requires color, this helps, but most cinema films are ECN2. If color defaults to ECN2 only, how big an issue is this there are ECN2 home process kits)?

My thought is if color ends monochrome may survive, but would likely become a very expensive boutique item. Thoughts?

Any thoughts on this?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I think there is more of an interest now than there was five years ago, because my enrollment is increasing each year...or that could just be down to my sparkling personality...

 

[Agulliver]

Was the available light such that he needed a large flash? Did he also have a large lens?



Probably people don't want to be photographed in their bathing suits. I haven't been to the beach in a while, but from what I remember, it is understandable why people don't want to be photographed in their bathing suits. And then there is the issue of photographing children. I'll go out on a limb and say you would get the same reception if you took a DSLR to the beach.

I think you miss my point. In the days when it was common for people to take photographs with cameras rather than phones, people took cameras of all descriptions to the beach. And nobody objected. Because it was understood that people wanted to take snapshots. I do not indiscriminately photograph other people's children or people in bathing suits. And that's the point. I've been accused of such in the 2010s before I even lifted the camera to my eye...on multiple occasions. Because literally nobody else had a camera, even though scores of people were snapping wide angle photos on their phones and no doubt including everyone else's children and people in bathing suits. Now, cameras are a more common sight and it's actually possible to take one to the beach again without being accused of all sorts of things.


The chap in the pub didn't seem to take any photos there, but the pub was quite dimly lit. As I recall he had a zoom of some description but probably the usual 35-70mm.

I've never heard of Panggung but it's nice that they're back in production.

PT Panggung of Indonesia made the Panarec brand as well as OEMing tape for other better known names, including Maxell after Maxell stopped making their own.

 

[Agulliver]

Any thoughts on this?

It is highly likely that monochrome film would survive in the event of colour film disappearing completely. Ilford and Foma seem very well prepared to keep manufacturing it indefinitely, and I suspect Adox will get there if they're not already.

 

[Cholentpot]

Any thoughts on this?

ECN-2 in C-41 and digitally scanned looks fine. Takes only a slight correction and the results are excellent.

 

[faberryman]

Any thoughts on this?

I think that if color film goes, it will let all the air out of the film renaissance (or whatever you want to call it). After Eggleston, there is just no going back. Black and white was a niche even before digital.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Living now in the country, with only a septic system, as far as film and chemicals, there is no problem at all. Steelwool absorbs silver. All else evaporates. Very tiny bit of electricity used. Minimal water usage for processing. Film, relative to a phase one digital back's original cost, is very small, even over the years. Images captured on film that are twenty years old or older are still scanable and printable, as well as useable for serigraph images, even tho that does require water, but not bad because it's a waterbased process. So, to reply, for artsy fartsy types it's well worth it and fun as a process. And as a geeser, and retired commercial shooter, it's still a blast! I'm trying to get a better handle on your interests and opinion tho, because in art school, I worked with many mediums along the way. To you, I'm pretty sure that a computer darkroom is far less "Task Driven" than it is to me. It's not that different. Only difference that I can see is what you were brought up using. Film cannot be hacked. Film is not dead! Why? For me because I've got a bunch of it in my freezer! So, if you back everything up digital should work even better, hybrid even better than that. Again I would try both, as well as other related mediums for your message. Sketching should outlast them all! Many good ideas were created sketching on a napkin. Cheers!

The water usage for film processing is minimal. The release of rare earth elements and hazadous materials from dumping electronic cameras both film and digital into landfills as people abandon one electron camera for the next is in the long run a greater hazard.

 

[faberryman]

The water usage for film processing is minimal. The release of rare earth elements and hazadous materials from dumping electronic cameras both film and digital into landfills as people abandon one electron camera for the next is in the long run a greater hazard.

If you are worried about wasting water, just skip showering on the days you develop film. You'll probably need to skip showering two or three days when you are printing, depending on whether you have removed the flow restrictor disk from your showerhead.

 

[Tel]

There is the conspicuous consumption aspect to it, but also the sneaking suspicion from people why whemenently oppose or ridicule film that they are really missing something important, and that film is in fact in many ways superior.

And, of course, it is.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If you are worried about wasting water, just skip showering on the days you develop film. You'll probably need to skip showering two or three days when you are printing, depending on whether you have removed the flow restrictor disk from your showerhead.

I am not worried about saving water. Living in the US Southwest I know how to do that. I am much more concerned about chemicals leaching out of landfills and contaminating the land and water.

 

[jtk]

Dead batteries are greater concerns than waste film/paper chemistry because hardly anybody does wet processing these days. There's close to no problem with inkjet printing because the paper is pristine and the dyes are minimal. Batteries and memory waste remain questions.