Maybe there is a growing awareness of the analog revival as not just being "Nostalgic"...

[4season]

Were he still around, I imagine that Oskar Barnack would be baffled to hear folks singing praises to "slower, more deliberate" cameras, whereas he might taken pride in the the technology embodied in his creation.

For me, one of the attractions of "obsolete" technologies is that the more popular ones become almost timeless and not subject to the whims of Big Tech.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Were he still around, I imagine that Oskar Barnack would be baffled to hear folks singing praises to "slower, more deliberate" cameras, whereas he might taken pride in the the technology embodied in his creation.

For me, one of the attractions of "obsolete" technologies is that the more popular ones become almost timeless and not subject to the whims of Big Tech.

While I do slow down slightly with larger format cameras, much of the slowing down is because I have a much larger view finder to study while I am composing. Given the larger view finder, I take more time to make sure that there will be no unwanted objects in the composition such as pole rising up from heads or Walk-Don't Walk signs hanging out of the subjects ears. The last was pointed out to me by my brother, who was the subject of one of my first photographs with my Kodak Brownie Hawkeye camera and was the first time I learned to use constructive criticism to improve my photographs.

 

[dpurdy]

There is a massive amount of people now doing daily photography with their phones, they don't identify with being a photographer at all. They would never even consider doing darkroom work or going to a film lab for photos. I am sure they far out number the people who identify with being a photographer. In my small world the friend and family demand for my family photography has gone to nearly zero. The return to analog must be entirely amongst those photographers who are doing fine or sort of fine art. I think that probably once an artist dips his toes into analog process photography it opens a different door to a different medium. It is still a compelling medium to work in. I would guess a lot of professional photographers consider their digital work for commercial work and their analog work for their art.
My step daughter is great at making photos of her kids, really great photos. I mentioned to her that she is a really good photographer and she replied that no she just had a really good phone.

 

[TomR55]

Well, strictly speaking, the original Kodak ads said something to the effect of “you push the button, we do the rest.” Hence, one could argue that those millions of cell-phone users are closer to the original conception of “the photographer” than many of “serious” photographers.

I am sure that many “reflective” photographers maintain about fewer images over a lifetime than many of the cell-phone snap shooters. That said, I bet that fewer of those images snapped on cell-phones are ever even seen (never mind edited and used) by the photographer.

In a world awash with images, I’m not surprised that your family expresses little interest in your (or anyone else’s) photographs; perhaps most people suffer from image fatigue.

I make film photographs. That said, my interests lie in the artifacts (the negative, prints, ...) and the process by which they were produced. I doubt that most people think about these kinds of things, and certainly not during their leisure time.

 

[Prest_400]

I am sure that many “reflective” photographers maintain about fewer images over a lifetime than many of the cell-phone snap shooters. That said, I bet that fewer of those images snapped on cell-phones are ever even seen (never mind edited and used) by the photographer.

In a world awash with images, I’m not surprised that your family expresses little interest in your (or anyone else’s) photographs; perhaps most people suffer from image fatigue.

I make film photographs. That said, my interests lie in the artifacts (the negative, prints, ...) and the process by which they were produced. I doubt that most people think about these kinds of things, and certainly not during their leisure time.

I attest to that, because to some extent are both. I once backed up and cleared 72GB of images off my phone, which amounted to less than half a year of casual snapshooting. To me it is a visual diary, I do go through past pictures once in a while, as need to put them into cold storage. Say those 5-10K images were also very heavy because I have enabled saving RAW files. Of which I have only bothered to edit about a handful, literally.

But it is different types of tools. I run tiers and parallel mediums in my photography. Film is indeed very thought out in shooting but when asked or discussed as in this thread I actually don't know what to exactly pinpoint aside of personal tradition.

Interest in photographs, family and friends, has been positive. The film images have a different workflow and gifting a print makes a huge impression. A friend's mom said "there is something in your photos, as in a way that they are not anymore done like that".

 

[Pieter12]

I like my games in physical media.
I like my books printed.
I like my movies pressed in BR or DVD.
My photography is no different - it's quite "there" and I just prefer the physical/"analog" workflow and results I get with no computer involved.

A challenge and a set of limitations can and often is vital for one's output. Unlimited options can be counter productive at times.

Why don’t you like your movies on film?

 

[Pieter12]

I haven't seen many large format digital sensors, and I've only seen a price on a few of them, but I can buy myself a LOT of 4x5 film for even the cheapest I've seen so far, and given the price of film and the rate I'm taking large format images I question my ability to take enough to make up the price difference before I die. And I haven't even hit 40 yet.

Maybe because there are no real large format sensors with the exception of a few very rare and expensive examples.

 

[Pieter12]

Another benefit of film: interchangeable sensors.

You don't like how Delta 100 renders the scene? Why not give Adox CHS 100 II a try?

Want color? Sure, try Portra.
Want to project slides? Sure, try Provia or Ektachrome.

Don't like how a given software algorithm processes your image, but like the camera sensor? Try different developer...

But that is exactly one of the advantages of digital. A raw file can be modified in many ways, through predetermined algorithms or personal preferences to render an image in many different ways. And you don’t have to change anything at the time of exposure. Add to that the practically limitless number of exposures and an extreme ISO range.

 

[Pieter12]

I started shooting film again after years of digital because medium-format film was the cheapest way to produce high-resolution digital images at the time. Then I got caught up in the personal and artistic challenges of darkroom printing, that I felt were more rewarding to me. No nostalgia, no refusal to change or work in the digital realm (my color work is still all digital).

 

[Ivo Stunga]

But that is exactly one of the advantages of digital.

Sensor tech gets upgraded with time and the type of sensor and its properties doesn't change in one's camera body, giving you a RAW file with a predefined flexibility/starting point that's typical of the camera model, and it can and does get boring, making people invest in another body/sensor. All digital cameras are the same, give the same magic RAW file, right?

Why don’t you like your movies on film?

But I do - when I get the chance to experience movie either scanned or on film, I will go to the theater projecting dumb film (some movie festivals can offer this) and will enjoy my cigarette burns and reel changes.
For me it's way more fun to translate and read a movie to live audience next to 35mm projection equipment and a projectionist being in next room, rather than next to an empty empty room that houses server with blinking lights and projection equipment.
One offers way more tangible feeling of "being there". To me.

 

[foc]

she replied that no she just had a really good phone.

I think that statement shows that a lot of people think it is the equipment/tech that is important and not the content (image).

I shot weddings professionally for 30 years and people regularly said to me that if they had a good camera like mine they could take just as good photos as me.

Of course, I agreed with them.

 

[dpurdy]

I think that statement shows that a lot of people think it is the equipment/tech that is important and not the content (image).

I shot weddings professionally for 30 years and people regularly said to me that if they had a good camera like mine they could take just as good photos as me.

Of course, I agreed with them.

My response to her was "Paint brushes don't make paintings, pencils don't make drawings, keyboards don't write novels and cameras don't take pictures".

 

[koraks]

Moderator note:
People, this is a kind reminder to try and steer clear as much as possible from a "film vs. digital" debate. We can all sum up the pros and cons from either perspective as this has been done countless times over the past 25 years and I think all of us, without exception, have been involved in such exchanges (or at least have taken note of them) plenty of times.

Exploring the inherent characteristics of either is fine. The line is drawn where this is used to come to a normative evaluation (e.g. "so x or y is just better than z").

I understand that this is a difficult balance to maintain in a thread like this. I'm saying this mostly because I see some signs of arguments that lean towards a "my x is better than your y" / "preferring y over x is snobbish". This is the kind of exchange we may/will cut short with a thread lock.

Thanks for your understanding.

 

[Luckless]

Maybe because there are no real large format sensors with the exception of a few very rare and expensive examples.

That was kind of my point - a handful of actual large format sensors have popped up here and there over the last decade or so, but most have been basically one-off fabs or a few dozen sensors at best as far as I'm aware, and a few different takes on a mechanical scanning backs for still-life/product style photography.

Google is sadly failing me for the closest I've seen for a practical 'full frame' monochrome back, but even that one was only like 100mm x 100mm or something [trimmed down from 4x5, but still a solid bump up in area from medium format crop sensors], and they were still looking for something like $60,000 for a setup a few years back. I would be pleasantly surprised if that price point has moved by a useful degree, but not exactly holding my breath for it. And even if a high quality digital back option does make it to my collection that I like and actually use, I would still split my time between it and film just because I like handling the negatives.


But it really boils down to the point that every from of art relies on making choices in mediums; all mediums are ultimately tools for expression, and all tools have pros and cons to them. The costs of some of those choices can be a limiting factor, if not an outright complete barrier. Market isn't exactly being flooded with sculptors working in larger-than-life marble compared to people doing pieces suited for desktop art...

Different photography goals lead to different choices. 8x10 slide film is probably not 'the most practical' choice for modern sports photography or daily snapshots of your kids, but I still do some sports and wildlife photography on film just because it is a fun challenge. Still haven't lugged the 4x5 out for it, but some day... I can be fairly casual with film snapshots to the point that I often forget my phone is a very capable and practical option for a lot of things I'll point a camera at. But for me the main issue with my phone as a camera is that it just has terrible ergonomics for it.

And for me the biggest factor for my film work is simply "Because I like it". The vast majority of my negatives aren't likely to get printed, but I still enjoy flipping through my collection on a light table and re-evaluating my printing queue.

For me the physical negatives and fun of playing with my old mechanical cameras is more than enough of the goal for me to pick film for most of my photography. And given that I barely did any photography as a kid I can't really claim my dive down into it is in any shape or form of nostalgia. I would find it a fun and enjoyable practice even if it were a new invention. [But I'm also the type who finds digital fun and enjoyable for its own reasons.]


We have a lot of overlap in possible choices currently. Just a shame that slide film options aren't feeling all that robust.

 

[koraks]

the closest I've seen for a practical 'full frame' monochrome back, but even that one was only like 100mm x 100mm

LargeSense seems to be a fairly practical product and they have true 4x5 and 8x10 sensors: http://largesense.com/
However, I don't expect they've sold (or manufactured) more than a handful of backs.

Fact of the matter is that (true) large format digital is a niche that has virtually no demand. Most large format shooters I know of, are pretty much married to film for one reason or another. And most digital photographers I know of wouldn't even think about lugging such a big contraption around. And quality-wise, smaller format digital (i.e. 35mm and quasi-medium format) has enough to offer for the vast majority of applications, so the technical need for a large format solution seems to be absent.

 

[Pieter12]

LargeSense seems to be a fairly practical product and they have true 4x5 and 8x10 sensors: http://largesense.com/
However, I don't expect they've sold (or manufactured) more than a handful of backs.

Fact of the matter is that (true) large format digital is a niche that has virtually no demand. Most large format shooters I know of, are pretty much married to film for one reason or another. And most digital photographers I know of wouldn't even think about lugging such a big contraption around. And quality-wise, smaller format digital (i.e. 35mm and quasi-medium format) has enough to offer for the vast majority of applications, so the technical need for a large format solution seems to be absent.

Much of the work that had required the movements of large format film cameras is now done with digital technical cameras. Although they might not have the extent of movements of a LF film camera, there really is little need for a 4x5" or 8x10" digital sensor now that stitching is a common practice.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Much of the work that had required the movements of large format film cameras is now done with digital technical cameras. Although they might not have the extent of movements of a LF film camera, there really is little need for a 4x5" or 8x10" digital sensor now that stitching is a common practice.

Doesn't taking multiple photographs, making sure that the exposure, contrast, viewing angle . . . are all properly balanced and aligned take much more work than using a larger format camera and taking only one photograph?

 

[koraks]

Doesn't taking multiple photographs, making sure that the exposure, contrast, viewing angle . . . are all properly balanced and aligned take much more work than using a larger format camera and taking only one photograph?

You imply there's some kind of tradeoff here, but there isn't. The alleged "single shot" with the large format film camera would just as well be possible with a single digital exposure - and vice versa. Keep in mind also that cameras and/or lenses with movements are used for digital just as well for applications where it's useful, such as architecture and some product photography. The latter is likely to be replaced to a large extent by entirely computer-generated images in the short term, but that's a different matter.

 

[Pieter12]

Doesn't taking multiple photographs, making sure that the exposure, contrast, viewing angle . . . are all properly balanced and aligned take much more work than using a larger format camera and taking only one photograph?

I have seen many stitched shots made by competent, non-expert photographers that look pretty seamless to me. I believe the software takes care of balancing exposure, contrast, etc. It does not take much time to slide a digital back on a technical camera and alignment is not an issue, so there is less chance of such changes between frames. Mark Power's later work is a good example of technical camera stitching for panoramas. https://www.markpower.co.uk/photographic-projects/good-morning-america-2019-photographs/?id=82

 

[Agulliver]

For me personally, as a man in his early 50s, of course film was the only option when I started. And I started young, learned on my dad's Ikonta in the late 70s. By the time I was six, I was actually absent from my official school class photo......because I took it. I did take one on a timer where I attempted to run and join my classmates but I didn't get there in time and the teacher thought he'd heard the camera click later than it did. I first tried home development circa 1980. I was that gifted, polymath child who burned out....not to blow my own trumpet too much but I was also a musical prodigy on the violin, gifted at maths, physics, foreign languages, creative writing and electronics. By age 11 I'd hand built a 4 track recording studio in my bedroom. Towards the end of my time in school, I did burn out.

Anyhoo enough of my biography. I am an outlier in that I took to fully manual photography very early on and couldn't really see the point in point & click cameras of any description. "Press the button and we do the rest"....where's the fun or challenge in that? And I admit, part of the reason why I still do film photography is because it can be a challenge. These days, while people are no longer aghast to see a film camera out and about....they are quite sceptical that I'll get any results in some of the places I use them. Or in the choice of equipment. These days I sometimes like the simplicity of a box camera and the challenge of using it's limitations to create something a more sophisticated camera could not.

But I also kept up with digital, and with 90s film SLRs...so the change from knobs and buttons to menus didn't faze me. Now, I prefer my knobs and buttons but I don't need to read all of that 500 page manual to use the menu on a DSLR or mirrorless camera. For those coming to photography with such a camera either totally new, or from a history of pre-1990s film cameras....there's a lot to learn. It's not as intuitive as a few rings and dials with numbers printed on them....at least my generation and those which came before find those intuitive.

From what I can glean from younger friends and from talking with retailers....the young folk driving the resurgence are discovering this all new and trying to learn....often starting with something easy to use. I leant a 22 year old friend a really simple 110 camera with built in flash a couple of weeks ago and she got some nice shots composition wise. I've now lent her a Halina 35X because it's more complex but basically no worry if it gets damaged....on which she's going to photograph Pride in London next month. That kind of story, progressing from something simple to more flexibility seems to be echoed in "kids" coming in for P&S cameras and then a year or so later moving up to something with more controls and which is still more tactile than most digital cameras.

Film is also less ephemeral than digital can be. One needs to expend time and effort backing up digital files for them to remain available for years/decades. With film, store the negatives with vaguely reasonable care and they will outlive you without any further effort. You can revisit them any time you like. I think that also appeals to people 20-30 years younger than me, who mostly missed out on film as kids.

I am even seeing some interest in shooting super 8, though cost of film and developing really does put people off that. Probably a pipe dream but if Kodak or someone else could get a significantly cheaper super 8 film on the market (B&W or colour it really doesn't matter)....there are people who would be buying it. Me among them, but I'm the madman who shoots std 8mm at a jazz club.

Further thoughts on analogue/obsolete tech. I work with teenagers at a school. I have a turntable in my office. For a few years now I have been seen as "cool" because I listen to vinyl records at work. I've had kids come into my office and sing along to Led Zeppelin....had a young Muslim girl just a couple of weeks ago asking "what's that amazing groove" (Miles Davis Bitches Brew). But most aren't yet similarly impressed by film photography....though they are more aware of it than five years ago. None know what a cassette recorder or reel to reel tape recorder is. Few have any memory of a VCR either. Someone found a VHS cassette on site last week and removed the tape, so it flew around the school grounds, getting stuck in trees and fences. The vast majority of the kids and even some of the staff didn't know what it was. So it's not always nostalgia. The young people driving the increase in interest in film weren't brought up on it. Nor were they likely to have been brought up with records. They have no nostalgic connection to either item.

 

[Pieter12]

About film being less ephemeral than digital, so many of today’s film users don’t even pick up their film once it has been scanned. My experience is that a lot of today’s young film shooters are looking for the quirks and flaws of film and the sometimes mediocre performance of aging cameras and lenses. For them, film and film cameras add some sort of character and appeal they find missing in digital capture.

 

[Don_ih]

For them, film and film cameras add some sort of character and appeal they find missing in digital capture.

For people younger than 30, taking photos is a routine part of normal activity - it's something they do almost automatically to include in text messages or post more openly using phone apps. Getting a film camera (even getting an offline digital camera) turns taking photos into its own activity. So there may be more to it than the mediocre performance of the equipment. That the negatives don't matter to many of them isn't surprising. They don't find photos that precious, anyway. When I was a kid, it was unusual if my parents shot two rolls of film within a year. All those photos were viewed as important and irreplaceable. That sentiment is hard to maintain when you can end up with 500 photos at the end of any normal week.

 

[Kino]

When I was a kid, it was unusual if my parents shot two rolls of film within a year. All those photos were viewed as important and irreplaceable. That sentiment is hard to maintain when you can end up with 500 photos at the end of any normal week.

This is true. I clearly remember my Mother having 126 film rolls processed with Christmas from one year, The first day of School, Easter and onto Christmas of the next year all on one roll. Duplicate prints were ordered for other relations from the processor and traded/exchanged at Family Reunions to fill out the many photo albums.

 

[Sirius Glass]

About film being less ephemeral than digital, so many of today’s film users don’t even pick up their film once it has been scanned. My experience is that a lot of today’s young film shooters are looking for the quirks and flaws of film and the sometimes mediocre performance of aging cameras and lenses. For them, film and film cameras add some sort of character and appeal they find missing in digital capture.

[silly flag on] Which begs the question: If I started scanning my film and then throwing the film out, would I be come younger? Please advise. [silly flag off]