The comeback?

[Eric Rose]

You also must play the piano.

 

[removed account4]

Bullshit. Its exactly as aguilliver stated, and its always the same people. same thing as happened here

LOL you've been here since 2005 and never read countless posts ...

all i gotta say is
not really

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Who is we? The topic of this thread is about the COMEBACK of film, not its SURVIVAL. Stop twisting things for your own agenda.

I'm sure you would hate to see film ever make any kind of comeback. That would go against all the incomplete, inaccurate info your students have been taught.

I take your point. Yet survival of film, in the context of its' dive since 2003, was never assured or currently understood.

Film's position with the 10 public colleges within a 20-mile radius of my school, including schools I always thought "did" film, is rapidly disappearing. It is no secret that throughout our educational institutions the place of Art is disappearing along with sports programs. Old High school darkrooms are used for storage. As budgets get tighter and national enrollment at colleges, which has been dropping from 7-15% per year since 2014 with the current high employment, departments like Art, Graphics & Photo are melding to reduce costs. Amidst that, the focus and drive that keeps photography vibrant and prominent is being undermined by administrators who are looking to save money anywhere they can.

Low producing classes like film are on the chopping block for cancellation; a truly blunt instrument that may save money in the short term. In my view, we must, instead, try and understand why these classes do not produce and where film fits in our society. My method is to try and understand films real value today and set-up Instructors and curriculum that will be durable into the future.

"The comeback?", the title of this thread, begs its' own definition through discussion. So what I said above, "We are trying to establish an evaluation of analogue survival", with the exception of those who routinely sabotage discussion, is a pretty apt description of what is happening here. What is film really doing and, in that, what can we build on? Absent that film classes will just end up on the cutting room floor.

So perhaps I should say "future survival." Unless we understand the circumstance in some substantial way, film may find a place next to cyanotype and tintypes in 20 years.

 

[foc]

Is film photography coming back? Do you have any story to share? Either positive or negative?
This thread is meant to collect some anecdotal evidence on the subject. Please feel free to contribute with any personal story of "feeling" about the topic. I would love to hear about that.
Marco

This was the original question asked at the start of this thread. A lot has been discussed in the mean time.

My own contribution is very simple.

In my own local market (Ireland) my lab has seen an increase of 10% year on year on, in film processing. But most striking to me was the film sales, 25% up on last year (remember the sales relate to our in store sales).

Yes there is a renewed interest in film but how localised it it? Without industry figures, it is all a guess ( a good guess)

 

[faberryman]

In my own local market (Ireland) my lab has seen an increase of 10% year on year on, in film processing. But most striking to me was the film sales, 25% up on last year (remember the sales relate to our in store sales).

Percentages without quantities don't paint an accurate picture. Has processing gone from 10 rolls to 11 rolls a week? 100 rolls to 110 rolls a week? Same with sales numbers. If sales are up 25% but processing is only up 10%, are people sending it elsewhere, doing it at home, or not actually shooting it? Are current users shooting more, or are there new users? What are their shooting habits. One roll a week or one roll a month? Do they order prints or scans? How do they present their work? Black and white or color? Lots of questions need to be asked and answered.

 

[George Mann]

Why are we obsessing over the "comeback" of the things we know and love instead of doing our own personal best to keep these niches alive?

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Is film photography coming back? Do you have any story to share? Either positive or negative?
This thread is meant to collect some anecdotal evidence on the subject. Please feel free to contribute with any personal story of "feeling" about the topic. I would love to hear about that.
Marco

This was the original question asked at the start of this thread. A lot has been discussed in the mean time.

My own contribution is very simple.

In my own local market (Ireland) my lab has seen an increase of 10% year on year on, in film processing. But most striking to me was the film sales, 25% up on last year (remember the sales relate to our in store sales).

Yes there is a renewed interest in film but how localised it it? Without industry figures, it is all a guess ( a good guess)

Stories to share build a narrative, an understanding. I'm talking about using those concepts to help film survive. But you cannot just build on beliefs.

Industry numbers are elusive, even protected. Net and periodical articles and personal contacts with industry folk seem to be the best we can do. I've done a lot of collecting of this info, sharing it on this site. It boils down to this. From 1 billion rolls worldwide in 2003 to 20 million as recently at 2016. Labs and suppliers closed in that time but some survived by diversifying and/or retooling. No 35 mm cameras are produced except for Leica and Nikon. With what is left there seems to be a sense of growth now that the major bleeding seems to have stopped. That is one part of the puzzle.

So what I am trying to do is measure the community's sense of things at a personal level, expression in academic institutions, and from the businesses participating on this site. In that we see the effect on the self-taught, those who use schools, those who have photo businesses who earn a living with photo, snd those who do it simply because they like it.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Why are we obsessing over the "comeback" of the things we know and love instead of doing our own personal best to keep these niches alive?

Fair enough, but what sorts of things are "our personal best?"

 

[George Mann]

Fair enough, but what sorts of things are "our personal best?"

Only you can decide what personal contributions to make (what importance does it hold for you?).

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Only you can decide what personal contributions to make (what importance does it hold for you?).

Given the circumstance of film I wonder if this a matter of methodology of support.

In the past keeping film alive was not an issue as we bought it by the case/emulsion number from any of a half-dozen suppliers in SF. From that standpoint we thought we were leading film use. According to Kodak insiders film was actually sustained by the other 98% of users (Mom, Dad, Ted, Sis, Uncle bill and Aunt Betty). Film simply "was". Industries and classes were very active. Kodak and Hasselblad personally visited my studios.

As independent artist, ones' role in the community is pretty simply defined. Shooters do what they do. Now film users, being a pretty small portion of photo, don't have the other millions of shooters to sustain their supply. Suppliers are fewer, films are fewer, cameras are fewer, classes are fewer. That said, the old model of incidental support might not be powerful enough. That said, we have to look yo new methods to keep film alive.

Sites like this, which build community, are vital. I am personally working very hard to find out where to plant my back foot and this site is key to that, along with my Professional/Technical Advisory Board and community contacts. If I cannot figure this out film will die quickly at school. Neither plain stubborness nor tilting at windmills will do it and, so far, that is all I have seen just about everywhere. As an educator, as a person responsible for institutions in my lifetime, I am not eager to lose our film knowledge if only for its intrinsic value. Business as usual won't do it.

 

[warden]

Why are we obsessing over the "comeback" of the things we know and love instead of doing our own personal best to keep these niches alive?

I don't think it's an either/or situation. Many of us here shoot, develop and print film as well as participate on the forums.

 

[Wayne]

LOL you've been here since 2005 and never read countless posts ...

What are you talking about "never read countless posts ...". Thats a sentence fragment, and has no meaning.

Since you make us work so hard to understand your writing, I'll just assume it relates to your frequent recent complaining that you were somehow persecuted for posting digital or hybrid content during those years when this site didn't allow such content. It was called APUG, after all. I never read countless posts criticising anyone except when it was against the rules and purpose of APUG. And now you've been freed from that terrible abuse you suffered all those years! But the fact is,the personal attacks in this thread and the one I linked were always, or almost always directed at analog users.

all i gotta say is
not really

Indeed. Thanks for proving my point, again. Show me one time in 14 years when I have ever directed snide remarks at you John.

 

[removed account4]

again,
no, not really wayne..
i never uploaded anything that wasn't allowed in the gallery

 

[DonJ]

This thread is meant to collect some anecdotal evidence on the subject.

The most recent anecdotal evidence I have is from a juried show I'm participating in. What was striking was the virtual absence of traditional darkroom prints. There was only one gelatin silver print (out of 70 photos), and no work using alternative darkroom processes. Aside from a couple metal prints, all the rest were inkjet or C-prints. The juror has decades of experience in traditional and alternative darkroom processes, so I don't believe there was any bias toward digital output. Also, a significant % of participants were old enough to have had many years of darkroom experience before digital was commercially viable, but elected to use all-digital or hybrid processes.

There's no way to know how many of the photos were made with film, but the trend I've observed for the past few years seems to indicate that traditional darkroom printing is becoming far less common, and that the measurable (though somewhat modest) comeback of film is being driven by the availability, relative ease of use, and quality of hybrid processing.

 

[faberryman]

Where would film use be in the absence of digital scanning?

 

[Wayne]

Where would film use be in the absence of digital scanning?

In the darkroom.

 

[DonJ]

Where would film use be in the absence of digital scanning?

Probably with one foot on a banana peel.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

In the darkroom.

I don't have a darkroom at home anymore but do have access to the schools darkroom at any time. That darkrooms exist for some and not for others is a huge factor.

 

[Wayne]

I don't have a darkroom at home anymore but do have access to the schools darkroom at any time. That darkrooms exist for some and not for others is a huge factor.

The question was "Where would film use be in the absence of digital scanning?"

In the absence of digital scanning, darkrooms would be abundant and film use would be ubiquitous.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

The question was "Where would film use be in the absence of digital scanning?"

In the absence of digital scanning, darkrooms would be abundant and film use would be ubiquitous.

In order for that to be true, such users must be willing to deal with finding spaces in their homes or in the community, and willing to express a capital outlay for equipment and/or build-out. That said, as scanners slowly disappear (for the sake of argument) will darkrooms increase in number to a point significant to support all the people who use a hybrid process?

 

[DonJ]

The question was "Where would film use be in the absence of digital scanning?"

In the absence of digital scanning, darkrooms would be abundant and film use would be ubiquitous.

In order for that to be true, such users must be willing to deal with finding spaces in their homes or in the community, and willing to express a capital outlay for equipment and/or build-out. That said, as scanners slowly disappear (for the sake of argument) will darkrooms increase in number to a point significant to support all the people who use a hybrid process?

And would the hybrid folks switch to darkroom use, or go all-digital? I don't see many people changing from hybrid to an inconvenient, time-consuming process that uses a bunch of chemicals that have to be prepared and disposed of, when a fully digital process is available.

 

[jtk]

There's little reason to shoot film if you personally do not print it, one way or another.

Me, I shoot digital or film but I inkjet bring both.

 

[markjwyatt]

As I said back here:

...(personally disagree with [faberrman's negative] comment on scanned film- this could be a huge part of saving film)...

I still think without film scanning film stands a lesser chance of survival. I do understand the quandary of shooting film then scanning, but even many photo labs today prefer to print even silver emulsion prints (as well as ink jet) from digital files. I still like the look of film, even scanned. It has unique characteristics, and though a lot of it can be simulated, I (personally) am not big on simulating everything (in my day job I am heavily into numerical simulation, but for very practical reasons). It just seems odd to me. It is like people that develop fake meat- looks like meat, may even taste like meat, smells like meat, has the texture of meat, and often not for moral or ethical reasons. Why not just eat meat? Or if you have reasons not to eat meat, eat something else. In fact with fake meat you can do much more than real meat. You can have a meat the has the texture of rabbit, the taste of beef and the scent of bacon. Personally, I do not want it. Call me old fashioned. I come from the "where's the beef" generations.

At the same time digital photography should not be constrained to being like film. It needs to spread its own wings and move into new areas. There is a huge overlap with film photography, and that is fine- both can produce beautiful images, "true" to the scene (or not), etc. Part of the art of film photography is working within the limitations of film (and this should apply to digital photography also). Shoot low ISO film with fine grained developer, or incorporate the grain into your style, take advantage of your position on the S-curve, etc. I am less excited, for instance, about taking a digital image and adding simulated grain; though that often looks much better than sensor noise, so remains a valid exercise. I do find FUJI's approach to the Acros simulation interesting (where the noise is manifested as a grain like pattern) and the [non-Bayesian] X-sensor, so I do remain open minded on this issue. Digital photography should not be excluded from the overlapping areas (with film photography).

I hope film survives, and I think that scanning film is one very significant way to keep film and the film look alive (I have no stats to back that up, but I bet the number of film scans on Flickr and other places that have been turned into prints is very low). Maybe some day I will set-up a darkroom (or a rental darkroom may show up in a location convenient to me). Until then I intend to shoot film and scan it, but also work with digital images, most of which (mine) do look closer to film then uber-processed graphics arts creations, but that is where I am coming from. I partially chose a Fujifilm digital for this reason. I think digital will innovate into new areas, and hopefully these will also be very interesting (and probably already are). I should mention that at different times and places and for various reasons I have been involved in producing graphics arts images, sometimes incorporating photographic images (film and digital), but I never considered it photography, rather I considered it graphic arts.

 

[Wayne]

In order for that to be true, such users must be willing to deal with finding spaces in their homes or in the community, and willing to express a capital outlay for equipment and/or build-out.

You are answering a different question than what was asked. You are answering the question "given the fact that digital has eliminated most darkrooms, where would film use be if digital scanning disappears?"

 

[Sirius Glass]

Where would film use be in the absence of digital scanning?

Actually doing quite well, thank you.