Is there really a strong interest in film photography?

[Moose22]

Well, art sure isn't what is being made with it for the most part.

The paintings hanging on a parent's refrigerator are art. May not be great art, but if they matter to anyone, they matter enough. Even if only to the "artist."

More to the point, what's important to a person while they are doing it might seem like the most important thing in the world, but tomorrow it will be different. Or gone. Such is the way of things. But for people who want to make things, even crappy snapshots of their friends, if they think of it as art, it's art. If it's interesting to them while they do it, good for them.

Dude, you should read the Old Man and the Sea.

The fact that anyone else wants to share what I'm currently obsessed with is fine with me. It may not matter to anyone, or even be here at all, 20 years from now. But so what? I might not, either. It's nice to see a bit of a renaissance while I'm enjoying the hobby.

 

[Moose22]

I create art. I put effort into expressing myself and my creativity. Hence, art.

Exactly.

Quality -- subjective quality -- doesn't matter. Art is creating something you think of as art.

 

[Pieter12]

Boy, people sure get out of joint when the discussion of art comes up. Wonder why?

 

[Moose22]

Just because you're such a Debbie Downer here.

I wonder why? Are you doing ok?

 

[Huss]

… My gosh, you're more pessimistic that an earthworm at the end of a fish hook.

Lol.

What I love about this site is many of you make me seem like a bright ray of sunshine!

While in the real world I’m out there yelling at clouds.

 

[Pieter12]

Just because you're such a Debbie Downer here.

I wonder why? Are you doing ok?

Sorry, I forgot everyone deserves a trophy.

 

[Cholentpot]

Boy, people sure get out of joint when the discussion of art comes up. Wonder why?

Because those of us in the majority that look at much that passes for millions of dollars of high-art and call it out as vapid and lazy get lambasted for being philistines and rubes.

Exactly.

Quality -- subjective quality -- doesn't matter. Art is creating something you think of as art.

Expressions of creativity if you will.

 

[Pieter12]

Because those of us in the majority that look at much that passes for millions of dollars of high-art and call it out as vapid and lazy get lambasted for being philistines and rubes.



Expressions of creativity if you will.

Don't those statements contradict each other?

 

[Cholentpot]

Don't those statements contradict each other?

Yep! I revel in contradictions.

 

[Huss]

Sorry, I forgot everyone deserves a trophy.

And you didn‘t get yours. Now it all makes sense.

 

[Pieter12]

And you didn‘t get yours. Now it all makes sense.

Because I obviously wasn’t in the aforementioned majority.

 

[Huss]

Because I obviously wasn’t in the aforementioned majority.

Awwwww. Maybe next time?

 

[Agulliver]

And people wonder why newcomers get put off Photrio......

I'll put in my tuppence. Lomography is art. It may not be are that I fully appreciate, nor a technique that I practice....but it's art. Just as much as a carefully composed photograph of a waterfall at sunrise, where the photographer uses sheet film and arrived an hour before...carefully setting up their camera and tripod, later meticulously processing the sheet and printing it on archival paper for display.

they're both art. They're just different art and may appeal to different people. Anyone who ever took up a camera created something using their imagination with a will to create that image.

We have a chance, if *we* don't choose to blow it, for film to make the same kind of comeback that vinyl records have. I think some have difficulty with the fact that it's not driven by middle age folk with high art ideals, but by strange looking youngsters with beards (except for most of the womenfolk) who do strange things with their cameras and film. Though from what I hear locally in my area, the demand is certainly from young people but they're mostly practising quite conventional photography techniques.

 

[dutchsteammachine]

Lomography may be technically severely imperfect but this has no baring on wether it can be art or not.

It is all about subject, lighting, composition and perhaps a little bit of intention.

Who cares about anything else.

^^

 

[faberryman]

And people wonder why newcomers get put off Photrio......

I'll put in my tuppence. Lomography is art. It may not be are that I fully appreciate, nor a technique that I practice....but it's art. Just as much as a carefully composed photograph of a waterfall at sunrise, where the photographer uses sheet film and arrived an hour before...carefully setting up their camera and tripod, later meticulously processing the sheet and printing it on archival paper for display.

they're both art. They're just different art and may appeal to different people. Anyone who ever took up a camera created something using their imagination with a will to create that image.

We have a chance, if *we* don't choose to blow it, for film to make the same kind of comeback that vinyl records have. I think some have difficulty with the fact that it's not driven by middle age folk with high art ideals, but by strange looking youngsters with beards (except for most of the womenfolk) who do strange things with their cameras and film. Though from what I hear locally in my area, the demand is certainly from young people but they're mostly practising quite conventional photography techniques.

Another example of painting with a broad brush. I don't doubt that some photographers create art with Lomography film. But all of them? And young people with beards? Is that now a requirement for creating art? Facial hair? Really? How much? Full beard or can get get by with a moustache and goatee? Thank goodness you excepted women from the requirement. And what if you use the film that Lomography rebrands? Does it have to be in a Lomography cassette?

 

[Cholentpot]

And people wonder why newcomers get put off Photrio......

I'll put in my tuppence. Lomography is art. It may not be are that I fully appreciate, nor a technique that I practice....but it's art. Just as much as a carefully composed photograph of a waterfall at sunrise, where the photographer uses sheet film and arrived an hour before...carefully setting up their camera and tripod, later meticulously processing the sheet and printing it on archival paper for display.

they're both art. They're just different art and may appeal to different people. Anyone who ever took up a camera created something using their imagination with a will to create that image.

We have a chance, if *we* don't choose to blow it, for film to make the same kind of comeback that vinyl records have. I think some have difficulty with the fact that it's not driven by middle age folk with high art ideals, but by strange looking youngsters with beards (except for most of the womenfolk) who do strange things with their cameras and film. Though from what I hear locally in my area, the demand is certainly from young people but they're mostly practising quite conventional photography techniques.

Lots and lots of point and shoots. Most younger people, well, most everyone carries a perfectly good snapshot camera in their pocket via a smart phone. But there's something else about carrying a compact 35mm camera and getting prints. It feels more special. For young'uns buying a roll of film is a treat not a necessity to get a photo.

 

[faberryman]

But there's something else about carrying a compact 35mm camera and getting prints.

Do younger people typically get prints?

 

[Don_ih]

The "young person" attitude toward film photos contrasts with their general feeling about digital photos - aka, the vast majority of photos: they're of little value. The bearded hipsters some people here are referring to are of the Snapchat generation, where a photo was something to be seen once to then vanish altogether. Beyond what they currently have on their phones, most young people don't seem to have many photos.

 

[BradS]

The "young person" attitude toward film photos contrasts with their general feeling about digital photos - aka, the vast majority of photos: they're of little value. The bearded hipsters some people here are referring to are of the Snapchat generation, where a photo was something to be seen once to then vanish altogether. Beyond what they currently have on their phones, most young people don't seem to have many photos.

Geez, this is hideous!
To see how hideous this is, replace "young people" with some other group name like, oh...idk, "black people" or "women" or "chinamen".
Lumping a whole generation or two of individuals into one category and asserting that it is a uniform, homogeneous group is a a mistake.

 

[Cholentpot]

Do younger people typically get prints?

Nope. I do though. On this website I'm younger person but out in the world I'm not.

 

[Oldwino]

Do younger people typically get prints?

I interact with a fair number of people in their thirties, because of my job, and many of them are curious about me always having some old film camera with me. A few actually use film cameras. I always ask if they have prints made (almost none do their own developing). None of them do.

I relate to them that they should, in addition to scans. I tell them about my last big trip to Spain, just before the pandemic, when I took a single Barnack Leica and two lenses as my camera. I shot C-41 and had the rolls lab developed, and I ordered prints. It was a great part of the experience to get my negatives back with prints (just like in the “old days”). They look at me like I’m nuts. I tell they don’t know what they’re missing!

Another young person loves to shoot her Contax SLR, but doesn’t care about which film she has put inside. Sometimes, she doesn’t even remember if it’s color or B&W. She just enjoys using it and the actual photos seem secondary (or maybe even tertiary).

Now, I’m not painting with a broad brush here - these are just a few data points - but I can say that younger people do seem to have a different relationship with photography than someone my age (60) does.

As Vonnegut was fond of saying, “and so it goes”.

 

[VinceInMT]

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.

I’m just catching up on this thread and this comment stuck out to me. Helge, I fully get where you are coming from in the context that you made it, however, for some/many, the “process,” as tedious as it can be, is in integral part of creation and, again for some/many, is what attracts them to the medium.

I work in several mediums outside photography and without the “process,” I probably would be less interested in pursuing them. For example, the process of creating a drawing through stippling involves many hours of placing a pen on paper, making a dot, lifting the pen, and then repeating. Many who have looked at my work, especially other artists, tell me they could never create work like that because the process turns them off. Yet, for me, the zen of the process is what I like best. After all, Wassilly Kandinsky said, “All drawings start with a dot.”

As others have said, it’s that process of film photography that attracts them. I recently helped a neighbor kid, a 17-year old, complete his photography merit badge toward attaining his Eagle Scout rank. When I told him he’d fulfill all the requirements of the badge through film photography, he was intrigued. Over the course of several months he learned how to bulk load film, properly expose it, develop it, and print it. He had full run of my darkroom. One day, after he’d spent several hours of printing, on his way out he said “Think you for passing on the tradition.”

That meant a lot and I think that speaks to why some of us want to continue working in these antiquated modes of creation, to engage with processes of the past, and, in a way, interact with those who came to the medium before us.

 

[Don_ih]

Geez, this is hideous!
To see how hideous this is, replace "young people" with some other group name like, oh...idk, "black people" or "women" or "chinamen".
Lumping a whole generation or two of individuals into one category and asserting that it is a uniform, homogeneous group is a a mistake.

You can validly talk about an identifiable group, and you can validly state accurate general remarks that are true of the majority of a group (or significant portion thereof) without (1) claiming there is any necessity behind the remarks, (2) claiming that the remarks are universal or inescapable, or (3) claiming that there is anything deterministic about the remarks.
There's nothing "hideous" about it. And you'll notice I originally put "young people" in quotes - primarily to indicate that it's a ridiculous grouping. From what I can tell, most people don't have any photos other than what they have on their phone, nor do they care very much about them. But I know from my own kids that they don't think a photo is particularly worth keeping.

 

[BradS]

You can validly talk about an identifiable group, and you can validly state accurate general remarks that are true of the majority of a group (or significant portion thereof) without (1) claiming there is any necessity behind the remarks, (2) claiming that the remarks are universal or inescapable, or (3) claiming that there is anything deterministic about the remarks.
There's nothing "hideous" about it. And you'll notice I originally put "young people" in quotes - primarily to indicate that it's a ridiculous grouping. From what I can tell, most people don't have any photos other than what they have on their phone, nor do they care very much about them. But I know from my own kids that they don't think a photo is particularly worth keeping.

Fine. Show me the data. Otherwise, without data, you're just talking out your back side.

 

[Don_ih]

Fine. Show me the data. Otherwise, without data, you're just talking out your back side.

I'll assume you live in a cave.