Is there really a strong interest in film photography?

[Pieter12]

Yep. Like I said, you can't make a film shooting phone. Kids already have a digital camera in their phone. Want them to buy a camera? Make a modern point and shoot film camera. It'll be the accessory to have.

Yes you can. And it is being done all the time now. I don't know if they still do it, but many directors would use GoPros all over the place for multiple angles in tight spaces and difficult locations. There's a big difference if a $3-400 GoPro camera gets destroyed vs a $75000 Arriflex and it doesn't put a cameraman at risk.

 

[VinceInMT]

There may or may not be “a strong interest in film photography” depending on what metrics one uses and I don’t think we’ve nailed it down in 41 pages so far. What we do know is that over time some products are discontinued and if the “strong interest” isn’t there, and there continues to be a decline, product availability will be a problem for those still wishing to engage in trading methods.

The question to answer now is, what will you DO when your preferred film, chemicals, papers are no longer available and technicians who can keep the old equipment running have all retired?

We can look at another threads and think about coating our own film, etc. and mixing the chemical from scratch (B&W anyway) and building our own cameras but if the field completely died off, what would you do?

For me, photography is just one of my artistic pursuits and even if the art supply stores shut down I have made my own paper and charcoal so I’ve got that as a backup plan.

 

[Huss]

Leica's taking advantage of the trend by re-issuing its M6. Of course, that will drive down the used prices on their old cameras to a certain degree. But they don't get anything from that anyway.

I don't think it will drive down the price of the old M6s. The new one is $5800 w/ tax in CA. Someone interested in that, but who may find the cost a bridge too far, could look at the old one - which for all intents and purposes looks and functions the same - and go for that.
If anything it may spur renewed interest in old M6s! Look I can get an M6 for 1/2 the price of a new one!

 

[Huss]

Yes you can. And it is being done all the time now. I don't know if they still do it, but many directors would use GoPros all over the place for multiple angles in tight spaces and difficult locations. There's a big difference if a $3-400 GoPro camera gets destroyed vs a $75000 Arriflex and it doesn't put a cameraman at risk.

I recently watched Gymkhana on Amazon. It is racer/stunt driver Ken Block doing insane things. They use GoPros for so many shots because they have no qualms in the cameras getting destroyed, but in the mean time the footage captured is incredible.

 

[Cholentpot]

Yes you can. And it is being done all the time now. I don't know if they still do it, but many directors would use GoPros all over the place for multiple angles in tight spaces and difficult locations. There's a big difference if a $3-400 GoPro camera gets destroyed vs a $75000 Arriflex and it doesn't put a cameraman at risk.

You can't make a phone that shoots analog film.

Clarified.

 

[VinceInMT]

You can't make a phone that shoots analog film.

Clarified.

That’s right but I sort of got halfway there, well, the latter half of the photo-making process. I turn the brightness on my phone up all the way, turn one of its photos to negative, and place the phone on the negative stage of my enlarger. The image is projected to the easel and I make a print like I would using a conventional negative.

 

[Cholentpot]

That’s right but I sort of got halfway there, well, the latter half of the photo-making process. I turn the brightness on my phone up all the way, turn one of its photos to negative, and place the phone on the negative stage of my enlarger. The image is projected to the easel and I make a print like I would using a conventional negative.

Ingenious.

 

[VinceInMT]

Ingenious.

Thanks. Here are a few examples. These are scans of the prints. At 8x10 the pixels of the phone are evident. That doesn’t really show in these scans. They tend to be contrast, probably because they are color images on standard B&W paper, Ilford in this case.

 

[Cholentpot]

Thanks. Here are a few examples. These are scans of the prints. At 8x10 the pixels of the phone are evident. That doesn’t really show in these scans. They tend to be contrast, probably because they are color images on standard B&W paper, Ilford in this case.

Shows how versatile printing can be. Interesting work ya got there.

 

[Pieter12]

I don't think it will drive down the price of the old M6s. The new one is $5800 w/ tax in CA. Someone interested in that, but who may find the cost a bridge too far, could look at the old one - which for all intents and purposes looks and functions the same - and go for that.
If anything it may spur renewed interest in old M6s! Look I can get an M6 for 1/2 the price of a new one!

Which will drive up the price of used M6s.

 

[Agulliver]

Kodak had made high quality cameras at one point the owned and made Graphics and Graflexes but they lost a monopoly case circa 1920's (?) and had to divest making high quality cameras. They also made Retinas, but presently they have no high quality camera design and manufacturing capabilities. To establish those capabilities is too expensive to consider. You can wish all you want, but it is not going to happen, any more that I would like Hasselblad to get back to making Series V cameras, but as long as a Japanese company more interested in digital devices owns the company, that will not happen.

Oh it won't be Kodak. And if it is, it won't be Kodak manufacturing a P&S 35mm camera in the USA or Europe. It'll be subcontracted out to a company in the far East or possibly Eastern Europe, if such exists. I believe Zenit can still technically make cameras, if one asks very nicely.

I doubt that Nikon or Canon have much more capability to make a film camera than Kodak do. THis is something the cine people have had to contend with. Canon made some of the last consumer level super 8 cameras, but even by 2000 there was nobody in the company who knew anything about them nor any spare parts, blueprints or equipment to make any. Sankyo kept a stock of spare parts until very recently but couldn't manufacture a super 8 camera beyond about 1983. Just because Canon used to make the Sure Shot series certainly doesn't mean they could today.....any more than Ford could make a 1978 model car again. But the general idea that if someone was able to, for a reasonable price, it could help fuel sales of film....is sound. Reasonable price might well now be 200-300 dollarpounds because some of those older P&S cameras are fetching that on the open market now. The chap who gave me two Olympus Mju 1 cameras 12 years ago is probably kicking himself.

 

[George Mann]

You can't make a phone that shoots analog film.

Actually, such a thing IS possible. But the size of the phone alone would make it unmarketable.

 

[Cholentpot]

Actually, such a thing IS possible. But the size of the phone alone would make it unmarketable.

I mean you could make one of them Minox sized cameras. That won't make the phone too big.

 

[jtk]

Proof of Kodak's existence (which is Chinese rather than Rochesterian)

Save NOW on Black Friday Specials!

View Online — FREESTYLE PRESENTS — Check out these Great Holiday Gift Ideas and Black Friday Specials from Freestyle (we’re starting early)! Quantities are limited, so act fast!* SAVE 25% ON KODAK M38

myemail.constantcontact.com

 

[jtk]

Yes, and if somebody actually thinks like a photographer, therefore loves big print (or living-room) images, they can invest in (or simply rent) a few full-frame-35mm Black Magic cameras with Zeiss or Canon lenses, splicing them for images waaaay beyond anything seen at Grand Central Station. They'd put less-than-35mm Arri dollars at risk

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1625642-REG/blackmagic_design_cinecampochdef6kp_pocket_cinema_camera_6k.html/?ap=y&ap=y&smp=y&smp=y&lsft=BI%3A514&gclid=CjwKCAiAmuKbBhA2EiwAxQnt73j7sntRIVOqps-fifwzqKb8CVXIeiA1hf4Oy7iWmXw0lvW5D3_nRRoCWtsQAvD_BwE

I recently watched Gymkhana on Amazon. It is racer/stunt driver Ken Block doing insane things. They use GoPros for so many shots because they have no qualms in the cameras getting destroyed, but in the mean time the footage captured is incredible.

 

[MattKing]

Proof of Kodak's existence (which is Chinese rather than Rochesterian)

Save NOW on Black Friday Specials!

View Online — FREESTYLE PRESENTS — Check out these Great Holiday Gift Ideas and Black Friday Specials from Freestyle (we’re starting early)! Quantities are limited, so act fast!* SAVE 25% ON KODAK M38

myemail.constantcontact.com

Proof of Kodak's existence (which is Rochester, not China).

 

[jtk]

Proof of Kodak's existence (which is Rochester, not China).

Matt, thanks, fun to know that Kodak (or whoever) still makes film. Interesting to see the DSLRs that presumably made the video. I assume their auto-focus didn't damage the film.

One of these days I'll use my 4 400TX ( 05/2021 ) and my 3 Acros (10/2019). Waiting for my Rodinal to get old-enough (1+100). Nikon V, Canon Pro-10 printer (I'm into high resolution, sharp grain).

 

[MattKing]

In short, jtk has no strong interest in film photography.
Others do.

 

[Agulliver]

I do not get it. Where is this nonsense going? We know that Kodak makes film in Rochester. This topic has been discussed here time and time again.

People like making stuff up.

I wish they'd take up fiction instead of posting utter rubbish and lies to serious discussion forums.

 

[koraks]

I do not get it. Where is this nonsense going? We know that Kodak makes film in Rochester. This topic has been discussed here time and time again.

I think some people want to remind us from time to time there's more than film-based photography and that when it comes to image-making, the tool is perhaps of secondary importance, and/or it's wise to put the desired end result higher on top of the list than the medium. Well, that would be my twist on it.
Not that I think such a reminder is necessarily in order. I don't have the impression most of us are so focused on film that we have forgotten the advantages of digital or the very commendable progress in inkjet printing.

 

[Cholentpot]

I do not get it. Where is this nonsense going? We know that Kodak makes film in Rochester. This topic has been discussed here time and time again.

I mean I've been there myself. Saw the factory up and running, spoke to the workers. Granted it was about 8 years ago but none the less I saw what I saw.

Taken from out me old office window.

 

[Sirius Glass]

People like making stuff up.

I wish they'd take up fiction instead of posting utter rubbish and lies to serious discussion forums.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think some people want to remind us from time to time there's more than film-based photography and that when it comes to image-making, the tool is perhaps of secondary importance, and/or it's wise to put the desired end result higher on top of the list than the medium. Well, that would be my twist on it.
Not that I think such a reminder is necessarily in order. I don't have the impression most of us are so focused on film that we have forgotten the advantages of digital or the very commendable progress in inkjet printing.

What! There is something besides film? Blasphemy!

 

[DF]

This supposed resurgence in Film Photography is largely a passing fad. It will eventually start to round off, die down.
The first-timers at our community darkroom hold their cellphone in one hand while agitating the film tank with the other.
Sometimes they'll bring them into the darkroom for printing and we have to holler at them - NO !!!

 

[Sal Santamaura]

This supposed resurgence in Film Photography is largely a passing fad. It will eventually start to round off, die down...

Correct. The only unknown is when. Gravity brings down all things that go up.