Is there really a strong interest in film photography?

[Sirius Glass]

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?

A large hat would help.

 

[Pieter12]

Are the moderators napping?

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Who can say what art is?...

Anyone. They can say it is anything they want it to be. That's why "art" is a meaningless word. If a word means whatever anyone wants it to mean, it has no meaning.

 

[Cholentpot]

Are the moderators napping?

Appeal to authority?

Anyone. They can say it is anything they want it to be. That's why "art" is a meaningless word. If a word means whatever anyone wants it to mean, it has no meaning.

But some art sells for more than I'll ever see or make in my entire life. The rest goes onto my fridge.

 

[Pieter12]

But some art sells for more than I'll ever see or make in my entire life. The rest goes onto my fridge.

So you sell art for big bucks and the pieces that don't sell go on your fridge? Thank goodness you don't make large sculptures.

 

[faberryman]

Anyone. They can say it is anything they want it to be. That's why "art" is a meaningless word. If a word means whatever anyone wants it to mean, it has no meaning.

Fortunately the word "art" doesn't mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, so the word "art" is not meaningless.

 

[Cholentpot]

So you sell art for big bucks and the pieces that don't sell go on your fridge? Thank goodness you don't make large sculptures.

I have a very large fridge.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Photography is also a craft as well as art. Working with different tools is fun, especially for the non-pro. Every hobby has different tools. I spent a lot of money on a 4x5 film setup during Covid because I was bored. But I still enjoy medium format film cameras and also use digital cameras including P&S and cellphones to capture shots. I may not make prints but slide shows instead to be shown on 4K TV screens. In the old days I projected slide shows using chromes or did prints for a photo album. I'm now working on a coffee tabletop book which will be made digitally. The original images will be from both film and digital. It's all interesting and fun and creative. It's not an either/or situation.

 

[reddesert]

We got from the question of whether there is really an interest in film photography, to whether young people interested in photography are faddish hipsters who will give it up, and whether young people make prints, and whether any of the newly interested photographers are making art, or good art. This is goalpost-moving.

It's like "No true Scotsman ..." - one can always define terms such that someone else's interest in a pursuit such as photography is less sincere or worthy than one's own requirements. I don't really care, as long as they are happy doing it and buy some film to keep the film factories running.

Edit to add: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman for explanation of the term (a type of rhetorical fallacy).

 

[Cholentpot]

Photography is also a craft as well as art. Working with different tools is fun, especially for the non-pro. Every hobby has different tools. I spent a lot of money on a 4x5 film setup during Covid because I was bored. But I still enjoy medium format film cameras and also use digital cameras including P&S and cellphones to capture shots. I may not make prints but slide shows instead to be shown on 4K TV screens. In the old days I projected slide shows using chromes or did prints for a photo album. I'm now working on a coffee tabletop book which will be made digitally. The original images will be from both film and digital. It's all interesting and fun and creative. It's not an either/or situation.

We got from the question of whether there is really an interest in film photography, to whether young people interested in photography are faddish hipsters who will give it up, and whether young people make prints, and whether any of the newly interested photographers are making art, or good art. This is goalpost-moving.

It's like "No true Scotsman ..." - one can always define terms such that someone else's interest in a pursuit such as photography is less sincere or worthy than one's own requirements. I don't really care, as long as they are happy doing it and buy some film to keep the film factories running.

Hear hear!

 

[MattKing]

Well we moderators might nap from time to time, we do have lives outside Photrio you know!
There are a few comments here that concern me with respect to the tenor of the discussion - but to my mind they reflect more on the poster than the site.
But as to this thread scaring "young" people off - have you ever been in an actual room with a bunch of people - youngish or not - who are having a spirited discussion about something that is at least slightly philosophical? That is what this thread is, warts and all.
If people are scared off by that, they will be scared off most groups of interested and motivated people where people are encouraged to contribute. And just as with those sorts of discussions, there is at least some effort to keep discussions on topic..
New people are scared off this place by threads that are started by people who ask questions, but get denigrated in response, or responded to with answers that don't come close to be suitable for their needs.
And as to the problem with assumptions and stereotypes, you do remember that this thread is about economic and social trends don't you - it is about large groups of people, and the predominance of certain choices and preferences - essentially broad brush issues.

 

[Helge]

I certainly don't wish film were dead, I am just a realist who sees the signs of it dying or at least being relegated to an archaic process that is expensive and in the near future practiced only by those who derive real pleasure from it, shoot film for the sake of shooting film (kind of like tintypes or collodion) or are just unwilling to adapt.

You're a pessimist.
Even if you believe what you write, why force something so negative, on which the existence of this very forum hinges, on other people? What good will it do?
Words have power, negative words often double so. Someone on the fence and/or impressionable could be swayed by what you write.
If you truly want the best for film, talk it up. Or if you can't stomach what you perceive as a lie, then don't say nothing at all.

Sorry, I forgot everyone deserves a trophy.

How does that even fit into the discussion? This is not a about militant positivism. It's about not being cynical and nihilistic for the sake of it.

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.

The vast majority of the people waxing lyrical about "The Process" has never seen the inside of a darkroom.
For them it entails the grandiose journey of buying film, loading it, snapping away, handing it to some dev-scan place and receiving JPEG files a few days later.
It's making mountains out of molehills. In that case, then many banal things are a process, in the strict sense of the word. And many things should be about those processes.
Darkroom work can be art and artful. But most often it is about getting a fair representation of the negative on the film (or what you gleaned in the contact). Photoshop work on scanned or purely electronic photos can equally be a process and an art.

Anyhow, process without a worthwhile result (or the eventual promise for the trainee) would soon feel super pointless. Shooting film and just getting something that looks like digital would be bad.
It's only slightly worse in the not so long run, to have it look worse than digital all the time (at least a certain kind of worse is something) . Especially when it certainly doesn't have to be that way.

People should engage in darkroom work more, definitely!
But it's not everything that could or should be printed.

We got from the question of whether there is really an interest in film photography, to whether young people interested in photography are faddish hipsters who will give it up, and whether young people make prints, and whether any of the newly interested photographers are making art, or good art. This is goalpost-moving.

It's like "No true Scotsman ..." - one can always define terms such that someone else's interest in a pursuit such as photography is less sincere or worthy than one's own requirements. I don't really care, as long as they are happy doing it and buy some film to keep the film factories running.

Edit to add: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman for explanation of the term (a type of rhetorical fallacy).

The problem is that anyone will give their hobbies up, small or big, if they are put BS obstacles in the way.
Scanning is important and here to stay. If they can't scan their stuff without it costing an arm and a leg, and it giving sub iPhone 3 quality photos, with no creative control, then they will eventually, despite any amount of initial infatuation, give up.

 

[Cholentpot]

You're a pessimist.
Even if you believe what you write, why force something so negative, on which the existence of this very forum hinges, on other people? What good will it do?
Words have power, negative words often double so. Someone on the fence and/or impressionable could be swayed by what you write.
If you truly want the best for film, talk it up. Or if you can't stomach what you perceive as a lie, then don't say nothing at all.



How does that even fit into the discussion? This is not a about militant positivism. It's about not being cynical and nihilistic for the sake of it.



The vast majority of the people waxing lyrical about "The Process" has never seen the inside of a darkroom.
For them it entails the grandiose journey of buying film, loading it, snapping away, handing it to some dev-scan place and receiving JPEG files a few days later.
It's making mountains out of molehills. In that case, then many banal things are a process, in the strict sense of the word. And many things should be about those processes.
Darkroom work can be art and artful. But most often it is about getting a fair representation of the negative on the film (or what you gleaned in the contact). Photoshop work on scanned or purely electronic photos can equally be a process and an art.

Anyhow, process without a worthwhile result (or the eventual promise for the trainee) would soon feel super pointless. Shooting film and just getting something that looks like digital would be bad.
It's only slightly worse in the not so long run, to have it look worse than digital all the time (at least a certain kind of worse is something) . Especially when it certainly doesn't have to be that way.

People should engage in darkroom work more, definitely!
But it's not everything that could or should be printed.



The problem is that they anyone will give their hobbies up, small or big, if they are put BS obstacles in the way.
Scanning is important and here to stay. If they can't scan their stuff without it costing an arm and a leg, and it giving sub iPhone 3 quality photos, with no creative control, then they will eventually, despite any amount of initial infatuation, give up.

I had a darkroom twice. Printing was amazing, I have prints hanging on my wall and in a few businesses. As it stands now I don't have a place for my darkroom. I miss it and the paper sitting in my fridge is only getting older. I'll get back to it at some point.

 

[Pieter12]

You're a pessimist.

Quite the contrary. I am a realist.

 

[Helge]

Quite the contrary. I am a realist.

That’s what every pessimist says.

 

[Subversive Mk II]

It looks like more people are selling digital gear. I’m assuming Nikon produced more “equipment “ from 1950-2000 in analog gear then 2000-2020 in digital gear. If the percentage was the same, more analog gear would be for sale than digital. All things being equal. What appears if your numbers play out correctly, digital gear is being liquidated quite rapidly compared. But why? Please be an honest broker when contemplating such occurrences!! It’s easy being a hater of digital.

From my own perspective...
Before digital, I wasn't too bothered about buying the latest and greatest new whizz-bang tech cameras, so my old OM-1 lasted me for 40 years. I was quite happy, with my manual focus, and couple with motorwind, I was in hog-heaven.
Digital now, different kettle of fish. Even though my old Canon 10D is perfectly capable of producing a quite decent 8x10 print, I've allowed myself to be seduced by the lure of more megapixels. I'm always way behind the curve though, as my 'best' digicam is a 5DII and the most recent is a Nikon D3200, both long in the tooth by current market standards, but both excellent picture taking devices in their own way.
In short, there's more of a churn with digicams.
Moooooaaaaarrrrhhhh pixels, make me bettah photo grapher, innit?

PS. I should add, I never sell a camera.
Should the need arise, the ancient 10D is still excellent kit for throwing into a pannier and taking out and about for some snaps. Same applies to the Nikkormat, the various Pentaxes, the Ricohs, etc, ad nauseum.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Garsh.... here we go again, statistical "proof". ..."data". Well, pollsters are spending millions of bucks at the moment forecasting election outcomes, yet still get it wrong any number of times. Everyone here recognizes that cell phones and web sharing is the predominant mode of popularized snapshot presentation these day. But only a small percent doing otherwise is still a significant number of people cumulatively.

 

[Cholentpot]

From my own perspective...
Before digital, I wasn't too bothered about buying the latest and greatest new whizz-bang tech cameras, so my old OM-1 lasted me for 40 years. I was quite happy, with my manual focus, and couple with motorwind, I was in hog-heaven.
Digital now, different kettle of fish. Even though my old Canon 10D is perfectly capable of producing a quite decent 8x10 print, I've allowed myself to be seduced by the lure of more megapixels. I'm always way behind the curve though, as my 'best' digicam is a 5DII and the most recent is a Nikon D3200, both long in the tooth by current market standards, but both excellent picture taking devices in their own way.
In short, there's more of a churn with digicams.
Moooooaaaaarrrrhhhh pixels, make me bettah photo grapher, innit?

PS. I should add, I never sell a camera.
Should the need arise, the ancient 10D is still excellent kit for throwing into a pannier and taking out and about for some snaps. Same applies to the Nikkormat, the various Pentaxes, the Ricohs, etc, ad nauseum.

Pixel wars ended a while back. Now they've declared war on mirrors and the mirrors seem to have lost before the battle was even fought.

Ve con Dios Pentax.

 

[faberryman]

Yeah, there were never any improvements in film cameras and nobody ever upgraded their film camera. That's why all the film camera companies disappeared in the 1970s. It is a mystery to me where all these automatic exposure plastic blob cameras with LEDs and autofocus lenses on the used market came from. Aliens I guess.

 

[Pieter12]

Pixel wars ended a while back. Now they've declared war on mirrors and the mirrors seem to have lost before the battle was even fought.

Ve con Dios Pentax.

It's just "gotta have the latest syndrome." For me, mirrorless cameras (with the exception fo the Fuji X hybrid viewfinder ones) are not my cup of tea. They eat up batteries like there's no tomorrow. The viewfinder image color and contrast is distorted and most exhibit annoying lag. Of course, many users don't even use the viewfinder, they treat the camera like a smartphone and hold it at arm's length. Once again, not for me. An invitation to camera shake and I find it less intuitive for composition.

 

[Subversive Mk II]

There is no doubt that the market crashed between 2000 and 2010. Like @Sirius Glass I took the opportunity to buy lenses and other gear I could not otherwise afford. the curious thing is that prices are now up again and I could not afford them if I didn't already own them.

Oh, ain't dat de troof.
I went around hoovering up the glass I couldn't afford back in the day. Some of it I haven't used (or barely) even now.
It's nice to have it, though.
In retrospect, there was some glass I should have prioritised, as it was really cheap.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Mirrors? Heck, I just pull out my Pentax 6x7, and once its mirror slaps, the shock wave will shatter every mirrorless 35mm camera within a five mile radius. Survival of the fittest. Backwards brute thinking? Perhaps. But the actual negatives and prints say otherwise.

As far as lack of "improvements" on film cameras go, it was all the added nonsense which ruined so many of them in my opinion. I'd rather put my money into long term functionality and build quality rather than silly redundant features. But the down side to that is in fact that if something works too well, and doesn't need routine replacement, not as many new ones will be sold. Hence today's predominant marketing model of items which are engineered to go either functionally obsolete at a rapid pace, or else go out of fashion just as soon as something even sillier arrives.

But I can appreciate the concept of "mirrorless" in the sense of highly portable videography, though I personally stick with stills. And anything which requires looking at a screen at arms length in bright sun, when even a disposable cardboard camera has at least a plastic peep lens, must have been engineered by an ergo idiot. Yeah, "billions served" that manner, but so are disgustingly greasy burgers and fries.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Anyone. They can say it is anything they want it to be. That's why "art" is a meaningless word. If a word means whatever anyone wants it to mean, it has no meaning.

Fortunately the word "art" doesn't mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, so the word "art" is not meaningless.

Comprehensively search PHOTRIO for incidences where the word "art" is mentioned. Many, if not a majority, of them involve discussions of its meaning. You'll find nearly as many "definitions" a posters. Do a general Web search for the same thing, and you'll find even more "definitions."

No, "art" means so many different things to so many people that it truly is meaningless. It does not serve a useful communicative function.

 

[MattKing]

So a pessimist and an optimist walked into a bar.
The bartender asked - "where is your friend?
They answered: "he is out there, trying to find a parking space that he can live with".

 

[Oldwino]

Things I’ve learned from this thread today:
1. After the Brownie, it was all downhill from there;
2. Film photography really is teetering in the brink! Apparently, just one guy on the internet, in a chat forum, is going to ruin film photography for everyone.