The comeback?

[blockend]

Personally I like my Canon 7D with the battery grip for an eye level camera, and I have yet to use a camera body that was easier to hold securely and comfortably. And mirrorless/electronic viewfinders still have a long way to go to catch up to the power needs for the way I use my cameras for

Agreed on both counts. It's a truism that the worse a camera looks, the easier it is to hold. Classic cameras are difficult to handle without a strap, and impossible in wet/sweaty conditions. By contrast an AF SLR is ergonomically in a different league. And yes, mirrorless cameras are incredibly power hungry if left in the on position many photographers favour. The difference between battery powered metering and autofocus, and screen, EVF and operating system is born out in the shot count between DSLR and mirrorless cameras. This can be as low as 15-20 minutes vs a day or more of hard use.

Read wyofilm's article. Part of it refers to Popular Photo suggesting that digital surpassed film in the early 2000s. Interesting. Meeting or exceeding film is problematic for a number of reasons concerning micro-contrast, resolution of proximate points and several other factors. I think that a part of this is simply in how we have habitually looked at images which has been set up through film.

The default digital photograph is a screen viewed image. Very, very few ever reach hard copy. In film days everything was "analogue" (negative, slide, contact sheet) and most photographs ended in a print. The things manufacturers are pushing and consumers desire today, are predicated almost exclusively round the electronic screen. Either we embrace that reality, or we hark back (as I do) to the photographic print as a viable, unmediated, technologically mature, semi-permanent way of recording and viewing the world unfettered by plugs, monitors, hardware, software, cables and sockets.

What we can say in 2018 is reports of the death of film were premature. Whether it's on life support or in remission is as yet unclear.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

This!!!! The tools chosen are (or should be) based on which works better for the artist in furthering his/her vision. Arguments over "superiority" are moot, as both are capable of delivering compelling results. Their differences are for the creative person to exploit in a way to achieve their imaginative goals.

Of course you're right. The viewer doesn't care how the artist got there. Either the result works or it doesn't.

 

[removed account4]

This!!!! The tools chosen are (or should be) based on which works better for the artist in furthering his/her vision. Arguments over "superiority" are moot, as both are capable of delivering compelling results. Their differences are for the creative person to exploit in a way to achieve their imaginative goals.

but you see eddie,
the only people who will say this sort of thing
are folks who don't use minute things as wedge issues
to drove people apart .. in the end the only people who care about
this nonsense are people who insist it is important and try to get people over to
their "tribe" ... but i guess it must matters to some so what do i know ...
it was recently suggested i use film because it is "charming" ...

i am just hoping when the 36,000 people where i live buy rolls of the new "come back kid"
they figure out where to process it since no one for 60+ miles in any direction runs an E6lab

 

[Lee Rust]

As with all evolving technologies, quantum-level perfection is always just over the horizon ahead, while practical sufficiency may be far behind in the rear-view mirror.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[alentine]

The comeback?
Re-visiting the front page(page 1, only):

Has it been somewhere...??

I never stopped shooting film

I've been in photography for 77 years and there seems to be more B&W films being made now than at anytime in my lifetime.

For those of us that dumped film for digital are sticking their toes back in because they miss it.
There is a large selection of film products available these days.

After sustaining(for years) a recession any market in the history could not tolerate, then regaining its power for few years, then reviving with new factories, super-fine products and joining of many penitent customers, after all of that, I'm confident that the film will stay as far as the Art will stay. I like that, will iterate:
Film Will Stay As Far As The Art Will Stay.
Reading the contraries on the context of a receding young digital market for few years and the recent announcement of the End of Digital SLRs era by mirrorless digital cameras, can be understood but not appreciated.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

It's emotionally OK to be happy with our limitations. "Sufficient" is often fine. Quest for perfection can be unproductive and can take away from artistic intentions.

I never had problems with soft corners when, for a dozen years, I relied on a Durst 609...regularly confirmed alignment, and relied on anti-newton glass holders. Had simple routines to almost always eliminate dust (one simple solution to film dust involves proper handling/filing after processing). Used that Durst with point source for a while, which tested corners even further...but after that exploration I lost interest in the look. That enlarger did have better condenses that Omega or Beseler, which is why they offered better condensers as options.

"Expectation of viewers" only means something if we're mind readers. It also has to do with situation and the particular viewers. Viewers may or may not be happy when we try to impose "expectations". If viewers like big prints and galleries don't light prints well, big is often better that little.

perfection is the arch enemy of good enough

 

[Cholentpot]

Agreed on both counts. It's a truism that the worse a camera looks, the easier it is to hold. Classic cameras are difficult to handle without a strap, and impossible in wet/sweaty conditions. By contrast an AF SLR is ergonomically in a different league. And yes, mirrorless cameras are incredibly power hungry if left in the on position many photographers favour. The difference between battery powered metering and autofocus, and screen, EVF and operating system is born out in the shot count between DSLR and mirrorless cameras. This can be as low as 15-20 minutes vs a day or more of hard use.

The default digital photograph is a screen viewed image. Very, very few ever reach hard copy. In film days everything was "analogue" (negative, slide, contact sheet) and most photographs ended in a print. The things manufacturers are pushing and consumers desire today, are predicated almost exclusively round the electronic screen. Either we embrace that reality, or we hark back (as I do) to the photographic print as a viable, unmediated, technologically mature, semi-permanent way of recording and viewing the world unfettered by plugs, monitors, hardware, software, cables and sockets.

What we can say in 2018 is reports of the death of film were premature. Whether it's on life support or in remission is as yet unclear.

My C3 is ugly. Does not fit in hand.

Works as a great door stop though.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

We have just discussed this topic in this recent thread:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/mini-lab-seeing-increased-volume.161732/
Take some time and read it. You will get lots of information.

Also have a look at instagram: Hundreds of thousands of film photographers there, and the number is increasing.
For example the hashtag #filmphotography has more than 10.900.000 postings:
https://www.instagram.com/explore/tags/filmphotography/

think of all the images they could have taken in the time they wasted on posting.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

LOL. I have read articles like this before and they don't mean squat. There is no way anyone is going to convince me digital surpassed film around 2000, let alone today or in the near future. Reality check--sensors that have wonky outputs that must be processed to a large degree by algorithms (computer guess work), and then converted to a compressed format (data loss) resulting in images with poor dynamic range and tonality is not my idea of a medium surpassing film, where a negative is very high quality to begin with, and requires no further manipulation, just printing, for high quality images, whereas a digital image is manipulated from start to finish--sorry, not buying it.

Fair enough but it is hard to disregard the science being used. Also: "just printing"? Oh, is that all?

 

[Berkeley Mike]

think of all the images they could have taken in the time they wasted on posting.

Instagram growth is like the "comeback." Nice to see increases but this can simply be discovering a community and a consequent gathering of diaspora

 

[Angarian]

Interesting. I have not seen that.
Would you please help me with a more specific source for that number? Here is one of my sources:

"PDN June 6, 2016

According to PMA Market Research, roll film sales have plunged from a high of 948 million rolls in 2000 to just 31 million in 2014."

Your input is appreciated; just trying to get this right.

Sorry for my late reply. Too much work.
The data of the film sales record was published both by Fujifilm some years ago (I think it was in one of their annual financial reports; I only have written down the number) and in several European photo magazines (data was from market research companies like AC Nielsen and GfK).

Concerning PMA: The PMA is an organisation collecting data only for the north American market, not for the global market.

 

[Angarian]

My Fuji engineer told me at my last Frontier service that there was no R&D in RA4.

Sorry to say, but then your service technician don't know what is happening: Just some years ago Fujifilm published a press release that they have even increased their R&D budget for RA-4 papers. And in the following time Fujifilm has introduced new silver-halide papers, especially for photo books with real photo paper, which is an increasing market. And just some days ago at Photokina Fujifilm has introduced another new silver halide paper:
Fujifilm Crystal Archive Professional Paper Maxima. With 40% increase in image lifespan. And colour gamut increase of 20%.
I think that could be an interesting offer for your lab clients.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Sorry for my late reply. Too much work.
The data of the film sales record was published both by Fujifilm some years ago (I think it was in one of their annual financial reports; I only have written down the number) and in several European photo magazines (data was from market research companies like AC Nielsen and GfK).

Concerning PMA: The PMA is an organisation collecting data only for the north American market, not for the global market.

Thank you for getting back to me on this. Numbers are very hard to get

My quote from 3 sources were about American markets.

•Time Magazine January 26, 2017
“The film market peaked in 2003 with 960 million rolls of film, today it represents roughly 2% of that,” says Manny Almeida, president of Fujifilm’s imaging division in North America.


KOSMO 12/29/17
But the new films released in 2017 can’t hide some major issues film photography has not yet been able to overcome. Part of it is due to scale; the nearly one billion rolls of film a year sold in the US at the height of the film market in the early 2000s has dwindled to a few tens of millions a year.

•PDN June 6, 2016
According to PMA Market Research, roll film sales have plunged from a high of 948 million rolls in 2000 to just 31 million in 2014. Fujifilm continues to scale back its roll film offerings and raise prices, repeatedly saying that demand is drying up.


So, yeah, US.

 

[Svenedin]

Are fountain pens, typewriters and vinyl records making a comeback?

I never stopped using a fountain pen. Was that meant to be sarcastic? I can't even imagine using a biro,

 

[KenS]

While walking the dog in the nearby park (yesterday) there were three people photographing (hand-held) some bright green moss on the trunk bark on an old-OLD tree that I suspect the city will be forced to remove before it finally falls over during the next strong Chinook wind. To claim that they were 'chimping' might really be an understatement... But while I have to admit that I could not hear much in the way of shutter noises (en passent) , BUT.. I would bet that there were 50+ exposures made in the time to pass by the group. Had I been REALLY tempted it might have been fun to nip back to the house and get my LInhof, tripod.. and the ONE film holder and light meter and 'set up' in an attempt to make the one required exposure . (MY BAD!!!!)

Ken

 

[removed account4]

to add to the film revival hysteria
met a kid on thursday
bought a bronica on craigs list
was carrying it around when i saw him
he was IDK 18-20? not sure what he was
up to, class personal interest &c, but he was psyched.
( and i was too )

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Was in a small camera store in a mall near me to buy fixer. First time in there since 2008. Back then they reduced their film stock a few rolls of HP5, FP4, TMY, in 35 and 120. One piddly little shelf behind the counter. If I wanted fixer, they had to order it in. I even had a bit of an argument with the manager who told me I'm wasting my time shooting film and that I should buy a dslr. Well he's gone, thankfully. The current manager is pro film. They now have a pretty healthy selection of Ilford, Kodak, Bergger, and other films, as well as paper, and chemicals... and a cabinet of used film gear.

 

[MattKing]

Was in a small camera store in a mall near me to buy fixer. First time in there since 2008. Back then they reduced their film stock a few rolls of HP5, FP4, TMY, in 35 and 120. One piddly little shelf behind the counter. If I wanted fixer, they had to order it in. I even had a bit of an argument with the manager who told me I'm wasting my time shooting film and that I should buy a dslr. Well he's gone, thankfully. The current manager is pro film. They now have a pretty healthy selection of Ilford, Kodak, Bergger, and other films, as well as paper, and chemicals... and a cabinet of used film gear.

Kerrisdale Cameras?

 

[Helinophoto]

How did people do mass-group photos before?
I mean, I was in a wedding and did several group-shots and every time I do that, I need to use most, if not all the photos, and move heads around, to get ONE photo where everyone is actually looking into the camera, and does not look like they just shot up some heroin.

I would never attempt such a stunt with film at all.

Or did the photographers of the past take 70 rolls for one group and picked the least bad one of the bunch?

I am glad film is still around and I love shooting it and using the old cameras, but I am actually glad that we have the *D* option for things like group-photos, or taking near 800 photos during a whole wedding day, ranging from ISO 100 to ISO 6400, with or without flash and taken in natural and artificial light.

If I was asked to do few B/W shots and create prints from such a session, I would be happy to....but to cover a whole wedding-day?

OMG.....no wonder I remember the photographers at various venues to be a grumpy bunch

 

[faberryman]

How did people do mass-group photos before?

They just took the photo. If someone looked goofy, it was because they were goofy looking.

 

[Helinophoto]

They just took the photo. If someone looked goofy, it was because they were goofy looking.

=D=D=D

Doing group-shots after the ceremony is extremely difficult, all the damn relatives and friends with their friggin phones, wanting the attention....maybe it was easier before camera-phones.

 

[Luckless]

How did people do mass-group photos before?

Crowd control - A photographer who has the ability to command a room and demand attention has a far better chance of getting a good photo with only two or three frames for a group setting, whether on film or not. I know I'm personally terrible at this whenever I'm doing photos while not feeling like I have any right to authority over the group, but I can thankfully usually manage halfway decently if I'm working with a group who sees me as doing something official and important.

Environment control - If you're the only photographer there and no one is on your far left or right with another camera drawing people's attention, then it is also far easier to get a good group photo in only a few shots. Increased distractions from different angles translates into far harder crowd control to manage these days than when cameras weren't in everyone's pockets.

 

[RPC]

Crowd control - A photographer who has the ability to command a room and demand attention has a far better chance of getting a good photo with only two or three frames for a group setting, whether on film or not.

And in my experience people can start to get impatient and less focused after about the third shot, especially if kids are involved, so 2-3 shots is about optimum.

 

[Helinophoto]

I must be great then, because I only did 3 shots of the 50 people group present, and they were all smiling (I made everyone say "money", which always works), so I just picked one.

Smaller groups of bride and groom, family, extended, friends and the kids however.....effin nightmare (excuse the rant), people with phone cameras everywhere, calling the attention of individuals in the groups while I tried to do my work.....you will need to work the group and take at least 6-7 shots to edit later. :E

No respect, but as the groom's brother.....what to do, can't tell the inlaw-family and friends to pack the hell outta there =D

Photoshop then! (and that's why I swear to digital for such jobs).

Still......before the phone, there was the old, dreaded compacts that our mom and pop had.....so I suppose the problem was present even back then.
- But I remember from my childhood that the photographers were more respected back then as well.....uuuuuhhhhh it's "the photographer", he is rushed for time and a very serious man

 

[Berkeley Mike]

The variables in group shots exceed the number of people. You have to have command of your environment, you have to have command of your group, you have to have command of all the people were standing around trying to take pictures. Success comes in the way that you manage this. With a sense of humor you can turn to all the people around you and let them know what it is that you need to do. I often suggest that I will set up the shot for them, take my shot and then they can come in to take all the shots they want.

And then, of course, you have to have control of the group. This is a matter of expressing a sense of grace and command at the same time, to enjoin the group in your effort. You have to be able to find the people that are going to lack focus and get right next to them and communicate to them directly. That takes charm and grace. That done you have to be fast and you have to create sustained and focused direction, to get attention For just a few moments.

It is important to move right along. All of this requires that you are in fact in charge. People will know if you are in charge. You don't have to tell them that; you must simply have the demeanor.