The photographers who refuse to abandon traditional film cameras

[ozphoto]

The BBC have a rather interesting piece on their website:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32337778

 

[IloveTLRs]

Edgar England, a manager at London's West End Cameras, which specialises in film and film developing, says that a decade ago a pallet of hundreds of rolls of film might take six weeks to sell out. Now it only takes a few days.

I find that quite surprising. And reassuring.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Ah! Nice to see it. And Charlie and Tori being mentioned.
Thanks Nanette!

 

[summicron1]

reminds me, time to order another brick of tri-x and some more acros.

 

[shutterlight]

I don't understand why negative film's great dynamic range, and particularly highlight retention, doesn't get more mentions in articles like this. Every now and again, someone will allude to it, but usually not. Whenever someone asks me why I use film, this is usually one of the first things I say or write.

 

[MDR]

I think it's funny that BBC film hater (do no longer accept documentaries etc that originated on film as their, worst quality, compression algorithm for digital broadcasting supposedly can't handle the grain even from Iso 50 films) number one in the UK does a piece on film photographers. But I am happy that they have seen some light maybe it will shine into the heads of the board of directors especially the technical ones. Thanks for the link.

 

[John Bragg]

It has taken a while for the wheel to turn full circle, but film is cool again. It is the material of choice for many, and it is testament to it's value as a medium, that people young and old are converting to film from digital and liking it ! I never took the digital route, as I saw film as a mature technology. Buy cheap film cameras while you can, as the price will start to climb again. I fully intend to "collect" a few more Pro Nikon bodies while I can. They are great to own, and seem to have soul and personality, where digital cameras do not.

 

[Jeff L]

Thanks ozphoto. Very nice article.

 

[TheTrailTog]

Good read. Thanks for the link

 

[ToddB]

What struck me about these guys is how they described how their vintage camera drew positive attention. Which leads to asking to take a portrait. This has worked for many times. People respond in a very positive and enthusiastic manner. Yea.. I just loaded my shopping cart at B andH with precious film. Stock piling for big trip in June.

 

[benjiboy]

I think what's more to the point is that companies who manufactured film have largely "abandoned"film camera users, not the other way round.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Nice article. Also nice is not being attacked again by brainless journalists who never had an original idea in their lives.

 

[gr82bart]

Film's not dead, obv!

Great article from the BBC
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32337778

Regards, Art

 

[pdeeh]

already spotted & under discussion here (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[bvy]

Very nice. I saw this on Patrick Joust's Facebook page. He's a hero of mine.

Now if we can just get some of these guys to print their work...

 

[nbagno]

What struck me about these guys is how they described how their vintage camera drew positive attention. Which leads to asking to take a portrait. This has worked for many times. People respond in a very positive and enthusiastic manner. Yea.. I just loaded my shopping cart at B andH with precious film. Stock piling for big trip in June.

I noticed this first hand using my folder on the streets of sf.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Great article! Thanks for sharing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Please merge these threads

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Threads merged.

 

[RPC]

I don't understand why negative film's great dynamic range, and particularly highlight retention, doesn't get more mentions in articles like this. Every now and again, someone will allude to it, but usually not. Whenever someone asks me why I use film, this is usually one of the first things I say or write.

Agreed. It is probably not mentioned because the writers are writing about something they know little about.

 

[hoffy]

TIL (today I learnt).

Vladimir Putin saved film photography! Is there nothing this man can't do?

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20434270

Back to the article.....
Interesting to note that Patrick Joust sees the film camera as a bit of an I've breaker with his photography. I'm currently on holiday in Phuket and last night I walked around the weekend night markets with my SQAi. There is something to be said using such a camera and the interest it garners. Some people just couldn't stop starting at this massive lump in my hands and were more than happy for their photo to be taken!

Good article indeed

I think what's more to the point is that companies who manufactured film have largely "abandoned"film camera users, not the other way round.

While sales may be up from 10 years ago, they are not a patch on sales from 20 years ago... Before blaming companies business practices, lets not lose sight of the facts.

 

[pdeeh]

I don't understand why negative film's great dynamic range, and particularly highlight retention, doesn't get more mentions in articles like this ... Whenever someone asks me why I use film, this is usually one of the first things I say or write.

To be honest, I think If that was my first response to a casual enquiry from a stranger in the street, I wouldn't be surprised to see their eyes glaze over and have them hasten away from me.

 

[Xmas]

Ah! Nice to see it. And Charlie and Tori being mentioned.
Thanks Nanette!

Charlie spells his surname different.
Tori is a class wet printer but I don't try her surname.

 

[shutterlight]

To be honest, I think If that was my first response to a casual enquiry from a stranger in the street, I wouldn't be surprised to see their eyes glaze over and have them hasten away from me.

I said it was one of the first things, not the only thing. It is what it is-- I use the film I do for two big reasons. One is because it's effectively a 4x5 aspect ratio, as I actively dislike 3x2 and strongly prefer 4x5. The other is for the dynamic range. I also use negative film because I find that it suits my pictures of people more than digital. Digital works okay, but not as well (for me).

If that's too technical, or something that the "man on the street" can't understand, I can't say I'm concerned about it. Of course, I also don't really talk about pictures with people I don't know, so it's mostly academic.

 

[David Goldstein]

I think what's more to the point is that companies who manufactured film have largely "abandoned"film camera users, not the other way round.

Not so sure they abandoned, as they had to move on or try to find some other viable business model, (with mixed results). As mentioned in the article, Ilford had to come back from bankruptcy and Kodak is pretty much kaput.