View Full Version : There is hope for the younger generation of photographers.
jamesdfloyd
09-12-2010, 09:36
This weekend I was hanging out at my local "real" photography store and something very surprising happened. I watched 4 families come into buy Tri-X and batteries for film SLR's. I was amazed.
It seems that the local high school photography instructor does not allow digital or Photoshop for Photo I students. My friend who runs the store said that on Tuesday he got 50-rolls of Tri-X for the start of school and only 15 remained when I left the store Saturday.
Of the 4 students I saw come in, 2 had Pentax K1000's, 1 Minolta and 1 Olympus OM-1n. Most of the kids told me that the cameras belonged to the grandfathers.
There is hope for the younger generation.
Now that digital photography has become main-stream, I believe that film photography will become cool. Just my opinion.
jamesdfloyd
09-12-2010, 09:48
I subscribe to that theory...just look at the number of 15-year olds wearing Beatles t-shirts...or better yet, listening to Beatles music.
What's old is new again.
Pickett Wilson
09-12-2010, 09:52
I dunno. It's so much faster to get feedback from digital, I'm not sure of the real utility of forcing 21st century kids to learn photography with 20th century tools. But I guess if it sells some film...
In the consumer marketplace, there seems to be many instances of "back-pedalling" to retro designs and fashions. I'm thinking auto and motorcycle designs, cameras, even Coke "Classic". I'm sure there are more examples. The word "classic" is used a lot in advertising.
In 1415, or was it 1314 .. anyway at agincourt the army could lose ten to twelve shafts a minute, it was the start of the twentieth century before we could shoot round at the same rate, abyssinia iirc, we won both btw
reality is often not involved in these things
There is clearly a "coolness" to shooting film right now and, from what I can gather, it is growing. Of course it is impossible to discern how large this market is, at what rate it is growing, and how long it might last.
A local art photographer I've had the pleasure of meeting recently teaches photography at one of the city's universities. It is required that he teach darkroom skills. He can't stand it and feels it's the equivalent of teaching someone how to use a buggy whip.
Although I still only shoot film and remain a film lover, I can't really disagree with him.
Creagerj
09-12-2010, 10:07
I'm young, and since i picked up my M2 I've almost completely stopped shooting digital. I think that there is still a lot of interest in film.
Paddy, would art schools not offer painting courses because photography (film and digital) is faster/easier/more convenient/ more applicable to the current marketplace? Of course not.
Stewart, you lost me there.
and great. The teacher should be nominated for the Nobel prize for teachers.
This weekend I was hanging out at my local "real" photography store and something very surprising happened. I watched 4 families come into buy Tri-X and batteries for film SLR's. I was amazed.
It seems that the local high school photography instructor does not allow digital or Photoshop for Photo I students. My friend who runs the store said that on Tuesday he got 50-rolls of Tri-X for the start of school and only 15 remained when I left the store Saturday.
Of the 4 students I saw come in, 2 had Pentax K1000's, 1 Minolta and 1 Olympus OM-1n. Most of the kids told me that the cameras belonged to the grandfathers.
There is hope for the younger generation.
Now that digital photography has become main-stream, I believe that film photography will become cool. Just my opinion.
I agree. Just look at the number of kids shooting w/ Holgas.
I don't think I've ever seen a Holga outside of a shop or any kids my age with film cameras, but I did see a guy with a Yashica-mat t-shirt outside of my chem lab.
I think film is cool...
jamesdfloyd
09-12-2010, 10:17
True about the Holgas.
Last weekend I was at the Redbull Flugtag in Philadelphia, using my Nikon D3 and I came across a group of 5 college kids using Holgas. I asked them their motivation for using them and it all came down to the "coolness" of it. I do have to admit, that their comments and use of the cameras struck me as a fad and not a hobby however.
In the consumer marketplace, there seems to be many instances of "back-pedalling" to retro designs and fashions. I'm thinking auto and motorcycle designs, cameras, even Coke "Classic". I'm sure there are more examples. The word "classic" is used a lot in advertising.
Also, at Agincourt the English knights were dismounted allowing the archers to rain arrows in a killing field that decimated the gallant but disorganized flower of French knighthood. Perhaps proving that a step backwards can often prove very effective.
The Holga/Lomo thing may be fad-dish, but it can be a useful intro to the film world.
The Holga/Lomo thing may be fad-dish, but it can be a useful intro to the film world.
Indeed. My 23-year old daughter shot a lot w/ a Holga in college, then took a photography class and learned to develop film, and is now shooting 35mm bw and color. She's got a digicam too, but I think only uses it for casual snaps.
At the Palo Alto friends of the library monthly used book sales (one is going on this weekend), a few times a year they have boxes of green film cameras, fixed focus and exposure, for 0.25 cents each. I'm guessing they are used for some kind of educational program, and cost less than holgas. We tried 2 a few years back, one was pretty good, and one had a bad light leak, so we just trashed both to not waste more film in them.
I'm thinking that film photography, like analog electronics and physics labs with lasers and actual lens elements are going by the wayside, since being phased out in the '80s or so.
Now kids have Wikipedia, and no real experience on how stuff actually works. They'll be fully prepared to design the next generation of Ford and GM cars from their ipads ...
I'm thinking that the Holga/Lomo thing is yet another example of reaching back into history, both for that imperfect vintage "look" , and for use of simpler technologies.
I'm also thinking that many people are feeling that the optimum point/level of technology has been passed, and that now technology has gone too far, creating more problems than solutions, hence the attraction to "retro classic" in many areas.
Paddy, would art schools not offer painting courses because photography (film and digital) is faster/easier/more convenient/ more applicable to the current marketplace? Of course not.
Stewart, you lost me there.
drink can do that :) it is that just, that progress is what it is, and it isn't always better than what went before ... just easier, sadly
drink can do that :) just progress is what it is, and it isn't always better than what went before ... just easier, sadly
Ahh, that's what I thought. :)
Steve Bellayr
09-12-2010, 10:59
If you were to teach photography at a university and given the cost of college today, combined with the cost of living and books, what camera would you have students purchase? How much would you expect the student to pay for a good camera? A good digital camera new with a viewfinder and interchangeable lenses, add on photoshop, and a printer would cost how much compared to a used film camera? Also, when you move photography to the Art Department from the Communications Department you change the emphasis of the medium.
Mackinaw
09-12-2010, 11:16
Young people get their start with digital and a certain percentage try film, most just for the hell of it (or their photo teacher tells them too). A certain percent of those like film and stay with it. No idea what that percent is but I hope it's a big enough number, world-wide, to allow for the continuous production of film in various formats for some time to come.
Jim B.
Ahh, that's what I thought. :)
but; it should have been fire not, shoot, for a gun .. sorry :) as in "bring fire to"
Naumoski
09-12-2010, 12:13
Clever!
There must be someone to give advice on young man before jumping in photography and choosing his first camera.
I still can't believe that I paid that much euros for a Canon S5is "advanced" P&S digital camera back in 2008, rather than buying a SLR/RF with a 35/50mm lens for less than 50 euro (+/-) and spend the rest of the money in learning the light (including buying films, developing and scaning + printing eventualy).
I'll give that advice on a young man who would start photography now.
wgerrard
09-12-2010, 12:33
One of my local shops is running newspaper ads proclaiming "We don't do just digital!". It's a Holga pitch.
What is now wrong so there is need for hope?
This weekend I was hanging out at my local "real" photography store and something very surprising happened. I watched 4 families come into buy Tri-X and batteries for film SLR's. I was amazed.
It seems that the local high school photography instructor does not allow digital or Photoshop for Photo I students. My friend who runs the store said that on Tuesday he got 50-rolls of Tri-X for the start of school and only 15 remained when I left the store Saturday.
Of the 4 students I saw come in, 2 had Pentax K1000's, 1 Minolta and 1 Olympus OM-1n. Most of the kids told me that the cameras belonged to the grandfathers.
There is hope for the younger generation.
back alley
09-12-2010, 12:39
What is now wrong so there is need for hope?
apparently, there is a great conspiracy and young people have not been allowed to choose film until recently...?
Advertising and marketing has been tauting digital photography as being better than film photography. Some bought the hype, others didn't. Some who did are now thinking they may have been mistaken. That about sums things up, don't you think, Joe? ;)
back alley
09-12-2010, 12:45
Advertising and marketing has been tauting digital photography as being better than film photography. Some bought the hype, others didn't. Some who did are now thinking they may have been mistaken. That about sums things up, don't you think, Joe? ;)
i see, the great marketing conspiracy!
i see, the great marketing conspiracy!
That's not a joke. There's more money to be made selling digital gear which is more like computer gear that needs upgrading, rather than buy one good film camera for life and then pass it on to your kids.
Marketing drives consumerism.
Nokton48
09-12-2010, 12:51
When I show my just about anybody my Wife's excellent digital photos, and mine, shot with film, the status quo is that the film stuff is -way more cool-. That's good enough for me.
johnnygulliver
09-12-2010, 12:51
I subscribe to that theory...just look at the number of 15-year olds wearing Beatles t-shirts...or better yet, listening to Beatles music.
What's old is new again.
it was ever thus, many moons ago I was teaching video production in a well known London art school when pro quality colour video became available. After a year the coolest students all wanted to edit in B&W... after installing digital video FX, a year later they wanted to shot 8mm... everyone wants a different look and feel to the mainstream :cool:
keepright
09-12-2010, 12:57
This weekend I was hanging out at my local "real" photography store and something very surprising happened. I watched 4 families come into buy Tri-X and batteries for film SLR's. I was amazed. … There is hope for the younger generation.
What you witnessed was a number of people buying what their course required them to do - I'm sure that the campus bookstores are also experiencing a resurge of activity, but that doesn't mean that textbooks are going to replace novels any time soon.
I understand and appreciate the sentiment behind this thread, but people have been looking at those unlike themselves as either their redemption or damnation for, well, at least a couple of decades now. :D
If a nineteen-year-old went onto this forum and enthused that there's hope for the older generation of photographers, because many of them are buying computers, would there be the same sense of satisfaction?
And these children that you spit on
As they try to change their worlds
Are immune to your consultations
They're quite aware
of what they're going through
What you witnessed was a number of people buying what their course required them to do - I'm sure that the campus bookstores are also experiencing a resurge of activity, but that doesn't mean that textbooks are going to replace novels any time soon.
I understand and appreciate the sentiment behind this thread, but people have been looking at those unlike themselves as either their redemption or damnation for, well, at least a couple of decades now. :D
If a nineteen-year-old went onto this forum and enthused that there's hope for the older generation of photographers, because many of them are buying computers, would there be the same sense of satisfaction?
Some people I know would be smug about it. :rolleyes:
Jason Sprenger
09-12-2010, 13:15
A beginning course today should involve at least an APS-C DSLR, a fast normal and Photoshop. And if one must, put some vinegar and hypo behind their ears so they smell like photogs to crusty, old-timers.
Since with any luck, the course will give the student a lifetime appreciation for photographing, I think the prerequisite for gear should be any successfully snagged gear off ebay, or a home made Nikon F3 from Rayco's F3 building class, or equivalent...
Get them off to a good start!
At the Palo Alto friends of the library monthly used book sales (one is going on this weekend), a few times a year they have boxes of green film cameras, fixed focus and exposure, for 0.25 cents each. I'm guessing they are used for some kind of educational program, and cost less than holgas. We tried 2 a few years back, one was pretty good, and one had a bad light leak, so we just trashed both to not waste more film in them.
I'm thinking that film photography, like analog electronics and physics labs with lasers and actual lens elements are going by the wayside, since being phased out in the '80s or so.
Now kids have Wikipedia, and no real experience on how stuff actually works. They'll be fully prepared to design the next generation of Ford and GM cars from their ipads ...
A year or so back I had a "30 something" client (I take photos for a living) ask to have a days shoot resized and sent to her iPhone for editing. I thought this a bit crazy. I spent a fair amount of time doing a pre-edit on a calibrated monitor. I questioned her judgment and got a "you should keep up with the times" kinda response.
In contrast, there are 3 local art schools here, and lots of the students are shooting film. The schools have darkrooms and quality film scanners.
It seems that the local high school photography instructor does not allow digital or Photoshop for Photo I students.
...
There is hope for the younger generation.
Sounds more like persistence of the 'older generation' to me. :p I think there's definitely some merit to teaching photography with film nowadays; although, the idea of 'negatives' is losing some of its relevance.
Still great to hear.
/
Now that digital photography has become main-stream, I believe that film photography will become cool. Just my opinion.
you're a little late - this has been the case for years already.
What's that quote, "each revolution is created with the tools of the past" - something like that.
Sounds more like persistence of the 'older generation' to me. :p I think there's definitely some merit to teaching photography with film nowadays; although, the idea of 'negatives' is losing some of its relevance.
Still great to hear.
/
"Relevance". Interesting choice of words.
p.
It's not that complicated. Look at vinyl records. It's not a fad because when you actually buy music why wouldn't you want all the beauty and fedelity that comes with a record and a stereo?iTunes is so disposable in comparison.
Why wouldn't someome who's going out to take pictures for the enjoyment of taking pictures want a similar tangible feeling? Digital is for work and screwing around. It pays the bills and keeps the effort low. But loading a film camera is sexy and rewarding.
People still ride horses. There is such a thing as craft. I hear you can even still buy paint and brushes too.
I'm only 23 so I hope that puts me in the 'young' category, my knees say otherwise though.
I find it a struggle to shoot digital ever since I acquired my Bessa R3a. From what I have seen, film photography is firmly implanted in the 'retro' craze.. That beig said, there are still a number of us out there who still use good old film.
At my university's visual arts department, the only difference would be materials and camera.
Photoshop (full Adobe suite) and computers w/ professional level pigment printers are supplied as well as ink. The students must supply paper.
A black and white darkroom, with chemicals, enlargers and dryers is supplied. The students must supply paper and film.
The cameras are supplied by the students. Cameras obviously are about equally priced when of comparable quality, although I would assume used digital cameras can be had for a tiny fraction of new cost?
Many Nikon (and other) film cameras (FM FE Nikkormat, etc. non collectables) can be had for under $200 with a lens. They may not be pretty, but function properly. With the 3 art schools and other colleges in the area (SF) there is one camera repair/dealer who makes a good living repairing and selling film cameras and darkroom gear to a customer base of mostly students.
back alley
09-12-2010, 21:13
It's not that complicated. Look at vinyl records. It's not a fad because when you actually buy music why wouldn't you want all the beauty and fedelity that comes with a record and a stereo?iTunes is so disposable in comparison.
Why wouldn't someome who's going out to take pictures for the enjoyment of taking pictures want a similar tangible feeling? Digital is for work and screwing around. It pays the bills and keeps the effort low. But loading a film camera is sexy and rewarding.
People still ride horses. There is such a thing as craft. I hear you can even still buy paint and brushes too.
do you think the craft is merely in the medium?
I am using Tri-X in generally and last month when i went to my local store in istanbul, i could not found any Tri-x. The owner of store said he had ordered a huge amount of Tri-x and finally 1000 (one thousand) roll film arrived. Last weekend i went store to buy some roll and he said he has only 3 roll. i shocked. he sold 1000 roll Tri-x in a month. i bought that last 3 roll and now i am waiting for another huge party :(.
My point, used film and used digital are pretty much the same price.
Sony, for instance, will sell you a refurbished - α230 DSLR (with a warranty) for $319.
My only point is [was] cost has little to do with university decisions... it's about the same.
I was in agreement.. sorry if it came out looking other wise. I actually think photo students would benefit from both, film and digital. If I had to teach composition (painting, photography ..) I would use cheap digital cameras. It's like using the newer TI graphic calculators to teach math.. especially trig and calculus. The student gets an instant visual. x^2 = y or show the rule of thirds in composition..with a digital point & shoot.
I am using Tri-X in generally and last month when i went to my local store in istanbul, i could not found any Tri-x. The owner of store said he had ordered a huge amount of Tri-x and finally 1000 (one thousand) roll film arrived. Last weekend i went store to buy some roll and he said he has only 3 roll. i shocked. he sold 1000 roll Tri-x in a month. i bought that last 3 roll and now i am waiting for another huge party :(.
Amazing what goes on in the rest of the WORLD is`nt it:eek:
These discussions would have more relavence with a consideration as to what may be happening elsewhere. What are the young in China up to? Europe?
oringinally posted by gns
And these children that you spit on
As they try to change their worlds
Are immune to your consultations
They're quite aware
of what they're going through
Quite apt
regards
CW
Only people who have shot with film can appreciate it. Now most new photographers under 30 have not done that. Consumerism has won.
However, it seems these 4 children have been redeemed.
"He who saves one life saves the world."
:)
sorry, I had not realised that shooting film had ever stopped being cool!
Mike Walker is building LF cameras faster than ever, he told me a few days back. Thats has to be good news.
If you were to teach photography at a university and given the cost of college today, combined with the cost of living and books, what camera would you have students purchase? How much would you expect the student to pay for a good camera? A good digital camera new with a viewfinder and interchangeable lenses, add on photoshop, and a printer would cost how much compared to a used film camera? Also, when you move photography to the Art Department from the Communications Department you change the emphasis of the medium.
That's an important point - to have students work using capable tools that don't overstress their budgets.
But there's yet another consideration: If you want to teach theory and practice of photography - how would you like your students to work on their projects? With deliberation, pondering every shot beforehand, or would you like them to take their pictures machine-gun style?
Film cameras are actually forcing students to use the former approach and to work with more premeditation.
So, it might very well be part of the educational effort to have them use analog cameras.
Nikkor AIS
09-13-2010, 02:42
I love these discussions and I really think it's great that film is being talked about. There are those that threw there film cameras under the bus and think digital is the cat's meow. I just ignore them since no amount of discussion or proof of film "greatness" will sway them. Film has always been cool. Always will be cool. And will never die.
From a teacher's perspective, film is the ideal medium as it "challenges" the student to pre-visualize in their mind's eye. And while digital has its place, it will never replace the film process, in my opinion. "Film is photography" ™. Hey, I like that.
The craft of loading a roll in the camera, pre-visualizing the image and then setting exposure, focus, shutter speed ...OO to printing and presentation.
I'm so relieved to know that the next generation is tracking on film. There is more to the craft of photography than just hammering the shutter with your eyes closed using the P setting on a digital camera.
And the time is ripe for the younger generation to get themselves a kick-ass film camera in 35 mm, 2 1/4, 4X5, 8X10 and beyond. Check out KEH or my pal at Vintage Visuals for your dream film system on the cheap. I was looking at a local used camera store and I was in awe of how little you need to get a Blad with 80 2.8, 40 f/4 and 150 2.8.
They're giving them away right now. But trust me, this trend isn't going to last. I predict in the coming years, classic film cameras will be worth big bucks. Especially if you've got the film, chemicals and paper to feed them.
I dug this 16-20 from a box of prints yesterday. Taken more than 20 years ago.
It's a shot of my cousin when we were both starving artists.
I just want to show a film shot that exhibits the cool factor.
Check out the story behind the image on the Nikon Cafe film section.
There is a little bit of a Leica invasion happening over there as well :).
"Film is photography"
http://rogaltacdesign.smugmug.com/Other/Early-Work/DSC94952/1004844577_62nid-L.jpg (http://rogaltacdesign.smugmug.com/Other/Early-Work/11862178_etGoA#1004844577_62nid-A-LB)
Nikon 135 2.0 AIS F2AS with MD2 on Tri-X pushed to 1600 ISO
wgerrard
09-13-2010, 04:14
Consumerism has won.
:)
I'd call it convenience rather than consumerism. Digital eliminates the people in the middle that other people need to pay to get pictures out of film. People want to view and share their photos online. You have to mail a glossy print from the drugstore to grandma. We don't use the post office to communicate with friends and family any more. Granny wants email or a text, too.
Aesthetic differences exist between film and digital (I'd argue most people can't really see them in the kind of routine snapshots they take.) Those differences are important to some rather finite number of people, a demographic many of us around here fall into. But, it is usually wrong to assume a personal aesthetic preference should govern the behavior of others.
alistair.o
09-13-2010, 04:29
Interesting where the mind will lead one.
Lots of young people are 'forced' to wear school uniforms but it does not mean that after hours they all dress the same!
I started in digital (recent start as opposed to the 60's/early 70's which was film or film). After some time I wanted more than the chip could provide; the chip manufacturer or Nikon never offered me the pleasure of films/developing etc., etc.,. and so I am not offended by them and have not binned the Nikon D (God Forbid) in fact I use it for interior shoots - clients want instant and web designers want instant.
As has been said already, there will be those who look for more i.e. a different experience.
Al
jsrockit
09-13-2010, 04:53
Now that digital photography has become main-stream, I believe that film photography will become cool. Just my opinion.
Uh, that's already happened. So many 20 year olds are disappointed when they find out my Leicas are digital.
I just don't get why so many people are so concerned over film vs. digital. It's all photography... digital is no less real than film. I've used both extensively and it is nonsense that people assume film is the only real way of doing serious photography.
charjohncarter
09-13-2010, 06:44
I dunno. It's so much faster to get feedback from digital, I'm not sure of the real utility of forcing 21st century kids to learn photography with 20th century tools. But I guess if it sells some film...
This may be correct, but it is hard to get them to use the 'manual' setting (which is the only way they will learn).
jsrockit
09-13-2010, 08:28
...but it is hard to get them to use the 'manual' setting (which is the only way they will learn).
I think this is more important than the film vs. digital debate.
shadowfox
09-13-2010, 09:04
do you think the craft is merely in the medium?
the craft is in the medium *and* the processes *and* the history *and* the practitioners.
Mikeds80
09-13-2010, 10:39
I am by no means a world class pro but digital seems almost too easy, or formulaic. You look for interesting angles and compositions, autofocus, fiddle with some manual settings and take the picture. Then you can edit them or upload them online but thats about it. If you screw up you know instantly and just redo it. If you aren't sure if the shot is even worth taking you just take it anyway. It's done with minimal time, or personal investment. I always end up with hundreds of images I don't care about and a few that I think are pretty "neat". Film is probably less convenient to shoot in every single aspect. But I love the idea of this because then you have to ask your self if the shot you are about to take is worth a place on your roll. You also do more work to make the image in your head a photo in reality, and that makes you much more personally invested in your work.
That is what draws me, a digital shooter, to film. I can't speak for all of my young peers, some probably just like the "vintage" look, but I know that it's about more than that for at least a few of us.
film gets you cheap full-frame. thats how it got me.
Prest_400
09-13-2010, 11:01
Advertising and marketing has been tauting digital photography as being better than film photography. Some bought the hype, others didn't. Some who did are now thinking they may have been mistaken. That about sums things up, don't you think, Joe? ;)
Exactly. They make anyone completely forget about film and thinking it's not the way, digital is the way instead.
I am younger than 20 and have been shooting for 2 years. I began with the need of a more serious camera and obviously the only thought choice was a DSLR, but the thing was expensive (it must be THAT one, not another).
So one day we had a family event and I wanted to cover it, my father reminded me of his old Nikon AF and film. It's heavy and noisy but used it.
When I got back the film processed with prints (Kodak 400) I was impressed. Even with that crappy kit, it was really impressing and much better than I thought. That colour rendition was good.
Marketing just makes you think "film is bad, obsolete; Digital is good, modern, etc", at least in my case.
After that, I researched the Olympus legacy (Brand I was interested in) and found the OM-1, lovely design.. Found someone who sold one refubrished on ebay and began to use it.
Not for coolness, it's just because I like film and how it is. Specially slides.
"Relevance". Interesting choice of words.
p.
well, 'relevant' in the sense that I don't think there is a correlation to the concept of 'negatives' in digital photography (maybe Raw processing?). One could say that the conversion of a negative to a positive is analogous to the post-processing step in digital, but then the digital post-processing step is optional, while the film conversion is necessary. It's not really crucial (relevant) to teaching the concepts of photography nowadays--unless one is teaching what some call 'analog' photography.
I think the real benefit of using film to teach photography is that it instills a sense of discipline (on the front end of the process) with respect to composition and choice. But one could just as easily transfer those editing skills to the back end of the process, which in itself is a valuable skill. (As a film photographer, I find it very hard to delete digital images.)
Anyway, kudos to the teacher for showing these kids the magic of film. No doubt, a couple of them will go forward properly exposed. ;)
/
jsrockit
09-13-2010, 12:00
A lot of mis-information in this thread... :O
ianstamatic
09-13-2010, 13:01
My young lady friend who was visiting new york asked if she could borrow a digital point and shoot.
I said no. I gave it away last year.
I lent her a Yashica Electro 35 and gave a 10 minute lesson in how to use aperture, lightmeter LED's and focus.
We took a ride on the statan island ferry and walked brooklyn bridge.
The neopan 400 that she shot came out looking AWESOME, with no retouching at all. There is a distinct and utterly beautiful quality to her snapshots that day she knows would not be there with a digital point and shoot.
She loves and adores those photos. She cant wait to shoot more film. It's also kinda humbling how good her shots came out considering it was her first ever time shooting film.
I find this thread relates to me since I'm an 18 year photographer.
My first experimentation started on my father's D5000 just last Christmas. I messed around and shot hundreds of photographs of the same subject, hoping that at least one of them would turn out alright (as many digital photographers do). I kept this up for a while, with the camera on Auto of course, until I had a few glimpses of the analog side of things.
A photographer himself, my grandfather introduced me to his collection of cameras and told me of his darkroom he had as a kid. It intrigued me, but I kept going back to heavy computer editing and HDR scenery. I signed up for a photography course this past year in high-school and kept with my old ways until our analog unit came around. I fell in love with it all immediately, the K1000s the teacher handed out felt so much different than the digital cameras I was used to and darkroom work became an obsession. I bought an OM-1, and loved to use it, but I hit a block once the school year ended. I no longer had a darkroom to use, I was moving to an apartment and onto university and would have no time or room for darkroom printing; so I went digital.
I mainly shoot a D90, but as much as I can, I shoot the way I would with the OM-1. My 50 1.8 stays locked to the front, I turned automatic previewing off so that the screen stays dark while I shoot, I shoot in manual modes only and I think about what I'm shooting before I do. All the HDR processing has been ditched along the way in favor of black & white.
To a young photographer like myself, the process of shooting film made a huge impact on the way I shot and processed. I'm sure that once I have more free time, more money and more space, I will begin to shoot more film than ever. Until then, I'll follow my photographer heroes with the new-age D90.
I would highly recommend that any new photographer should try black & white film at least once and get a feel for photography's roots.
Some universities may still have darkrooms for student use?
Yes I'm quite sure my university does, I'm going to have to look into it to see if it's up and running. I know it would probably even out in the end cost wise compared to digital, but I may not be able to afford buying film along side my D90, which was partially a gift. I will for sure keep shooting film, but not at the rate I would like.
ianstamatic
09-13-2010, 14:23
mgeary:
An easy solution for small apartment living.
Diafine: a 2 part developer that is not temperature or time critical. no heating water to temp just use room temp, and around 3-4 mins in dev time for almost any bw film. Lasts forever and is cheap. Diafine can produce excellent results. Its fine grained on slow films and can make tri-x look great at asa1250.
get a second hand tank and reel from ebay $10-15, get a new darkbag $25. developer $12 Fixer is $7 thats all you really need.
Also buy a bulk loader of ebay for $20. A 100ft roll of film is only about $40. works out at penny's per shot.
A lot of mis-information in this thread... :O
This kind of feels like a drive-by shooting.
This kind of feels like a drive-by shooting.
Yeah. I guess adding nothing of value is better than adding something of value.
/
You guys have convinced me to try harder to get back into film. Oh man, there goes a good chunk of my food budget :p.
I find this thread relates to me since I'm an 18 year photographer.
My first experimentation started on my father's D5000 just last Christmas. I messed around and shot hundreds of photographs of the same subject, hoping that at least one of them would turn out alright (as many digital photographers do). I kept this up for a while, with the camera on Auto of course, until I had a few glimpses of the analog side of things.
A photographer himself, my grandfather introduced me to his collection of cameras and told me of his darkroom he had as a kid. It intrigued me, but I kept going back to heavy computer editing and HDR scenery. I signed up for a photography course this past year in high-school and kept with my old ways until our analog unit came around. I fell in love with it all immediately, the K1000s the teacher handed out felt so much different than the digital cameras I was used to and darkroom work became an obsession. I bought an OM-1, and loved to use it, but I hit a block once the school year ended. I no longer had a darkroom to use, I was moving to an apartment and onto university and would have no time or room for darkroom printing; so I went digital.
I mainly shoot a D90, but as much as I can, I shoot the way I would with the OM-1. My 50 1.8 stays locked to the front, I turned automatic previewing off so that the screen stays dark while I shoot, I shoot in manual modes only and I think about what I'm shooting before I do. All the HDR processing has been ditched along the way in favor of black & white.
To a young photographer like myself, the process of shooting film made a huge impact on the way I shot and processed. I'm sure that once I have more free time, more money and more space, I will begin to shoot more film than ever. Until then, I'll follow my photographer heroes with the new-age D90.
I would highly recommend that any new photographer should try black & white film at least once and get a feel for photography's roots.
Great stuff! :)
If you want to continue to shoot film (and it sounds like you do), you can shoot C-41 and have it processed at a 1-hour lab. If you don't have a scanner, have them scan your negs to CD. There are options for processing at home easily and cheaply, and you can find decent film scanners on Craigslist.
Good luck!
/
SimonSawSunlight
09-13-2010, 14:56
I have to confess, too... I am 22 years old and I shoot and develop ~100 rolls of 35mm tri-x per year, plus the other 35mm and medium format film. I feel more comfortable and secure with film rather than digital.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyxktRPuSrk&feature=related
back alley
09-13-2010, 14:58
Yeah. I guess adding nothing of value is better than adding something of value.
/
another drive by shooting...
Naumoski
09-13-2010, 15:05
It's a shame not trying all this spectar of different types of cameras, 35/120 (etc.) films, lens, developers, printing.. today, when everything is less expensive, before going to digital.
We can always go digital, and later even it's better, technology wouldn't be worse in future, but better.
Only people who have shot with film can appreciate it. Now most new photographers under 30 have not done that. Consumerism has won.
However, it seems these 4 children have been redeemed.
"He who saves one life saves the world."
:)
If someone chooses the digital medium to express themeselves without ever experiencing film I don't see the problem.
Would clattering around the streets in a horse and buggy for three months be a prerequisite to better driving skills in a car ... perhaps I shouldn't suggest such a hypothesis because there will be numerous zealots jumping up and down in their chairs right now going ...
"Of course!" :p
another drive by shooting...
really?? i was agreeing with Frank.
/
If someone chooses the digital medium to express themeselves without ever experiencing film I don't see the problem.
Would clattering around the streets in a horse and buggy for three months be a prerequisite to better driving skills in a car ... perhaps I shouldn't suggest such a hypothesis because there will be numerous zealots jumping up and down in their chairs right now going ...
"Of course!" :p
Isn't an informed choice (based on experience) preferable to an uninformed choice?
SimonSawSunlight
09-13-2010, 15:32
Isn't an informed choice (based on experience) preferable to an uninformed choice?
not if you're happy with your uninformed choice, I guess =)
Yes but when someone makes such a choice and we hear about it (choice being important I agree) there's this attitude around here of ...
"Hallelujah brothers and sisters ... another sinner has been saved!"
It's tedious IMO!
Someone like our Joe has tons of experience with film photography and has now chosen digital as his preferred medium. That's great. But there are many (younger) digital-only photographers who have never been exposed to film photography. Some may find that film suits them better given experience with both media, just as Joe has chosen digital based on his experience with both.
film gets you cheap full-frame. thats how it got me.
One of my reasons to get into film too.
I enjoy all threads and all topics Frank because there is usually something in most of them to keep a viewer warm on a chilly evening ... but the same protagonists preach the same sermons in too many of these types of threads a lot of the time!
Digital verses film has many guises ... like the devil! :D
Rather than film OR digital, I would use film AND digital. They both have their roles and we are lucky to have both media. Film was not so cool when there were no digital cameras. I love to go to a vintage car show, guess why?? ;)
Dan.
There is hope for the younger generation of photographers.
Who decide to use film ... the ones who don't are destined for a life of photographic emptiness obviously.
The premise of the title of this thread is where the problem is for me ... it was a bait for the zealots!
but as Frank reminded me ... there are other threads! :D
SimonSawSunlight
09-13-2010, 16:04
Who decide to use film ... the ones who don't are destined for a life of photographic emptiness obviously.
The premise of the title of this thread is where the problem is for me ... it was a bait for the zealots!
but as Frank reminded me ... there are other threads! :D
I agree, it felt a little awkward.
Brian Sweeney
09-13-2010, 17:12
I started with Digital when I was 23, used film since I was 6. Digital was still pretty new when I was 23. Film was somewhat new when I was 6. Kodachrome II had just come out, moving Kodachrome from ASA 10 to ASA 25. I still have some Kodachrome in the Fridge. The ASA 10 kind.
Started with a Brownie 127. Upgraded at age 8 to Verichrome Pan loaded into an Instamatic 150- Woo Hoo. Spring Wound Motor. I still have that camera.
Cannot buy Panatomic-X anymore. Bummer.
back alley
09-13-2010, 17:59
Who decide to use film ... the ones who don't are destined for a life of photographic emptiness obviously.
The premise of the title of this thread is where the problem is for me ... it was a bait for the zealots!
but as Frank reminded me ... there are other threads! :D
it's like two camps are being set up...and frankly i'm tired of the attempts made by others to make me feel 'less than'...just because i use digital.
atlcruiser
09-13-2010, 18:48
I shoot digital every single day...usually for work but also jsut to knock around with a camera...the M8 with 28 elmart does that rather well :) Great PICs, easy, not at all cheap. I hate computers, printers, scanners but I use them every day and through necessity have found the "good" in digital for me.
I love film. I love to touch it, mess with it, soup it, enlarge it just love to use it. I try to shoot film every day and average 5 rolls a week of assorted formats.
As much as I hate all of technology I am firmly in the hybrid process camp and will stay there. it makes too much sense time/money wise not to do it this way....again; for me.
When I get E6 120 from my mamiya 645AF i am always floored. Digital cant do that and i doubt it will ever be able to do that. Not that it is better than the MF digital but it is VERY different and I believe more different than 35 mm film is to 35mm digital.
I see lots of folks with Holgas and older SLRs. Good for them no matter the age. Just go take pictures :)
I really think if easy, cheap, consumer level scanning technology had been available 10 years ago we would be in a slightly different situation but the internet and digital pictures jsut sort of go together...thank you porno! Porno drove many of the early advances in the internet and I think directly helped the market for digital camera and video.
The debate is null as I think there is nothing to debate.
Brian Sweeney
09-14-2010, 02:02
This has turned into a film vs digital, with a lot of venting going on.
More film vs digital threads turn into venting.
From the post above, words of wisdom.
"The debate is null as I think there is nothing to debate."
Can I use that quote? It is much nicer than my normal "Face it Flounder, you trusted me".
I started with film around a year ago because i couldn't afford a digital slr kit and i desperately wanted to try photography. i found an old spotmatic with 50mm lens for $40. I was forced to learn black and white developing because photo labs here in the Philippines don't offer it anymore.
I think it was a great choice because i was able to appreciate photography more with film. now I have a fed-2, rolleicord, yashica-d, and a moskva folder. hoping to get my first leica next year for my 20th birthday gift/ graduation gift.
Brian Sweeney
09-14-2010, 03:26
I've given away at least a dozen film cameras to the younger generation, and think it is wonderful to see them used. None of them Leica's- but Kodak Retina Auto III through to a Nikon N6000 with zoom, with mostly SLR's from the 60s and 70s in between. As the "older generation" looks at the horde of cameras accumulated, maybe look around for some good hands to put them in.
amateriat
09-14-2010, 15:39
Last night, I was tweaking the computer of a client in the neighborhood when her younger daughter said she was going to write her friend a letter. For a moment, I thought she was going to need the computer I was working on, but she said she was going to use her new typewriter. Yeah, typewriter. She'd just gotten a lovely portable Royal, and when I saw this eight-year-old haul the case holding the 50s-era Royal down the stairs I couldn't help but grin. "I think typewriters are so cool, and I've wanted one for a long time", she told me, so I have the feeling this was more than a sudden fancy for her.
Then I got into a conversation with her dad about technology, and, in reference to his younger kid's fascination with typewriters ("Mom, where's the Wite-Out?"), I mentioned how I do most of my writing with fountain pens, not from nostalgia but because I find writing much more comfortable and pleasant with them. Then I handed him one of my pens (for the record, a Pilot Custom 823...here comes trouble for mentioning that here), he was amazed at how it felt to write with it.
I'm not using my Konica POP much these days. I should ask her folks if that girl has a birthday coming up soon...
- Barrett
I like that the Pilot pens you get at the big marts and Walgreens are still made in Japan (last time I checked). Although the pen closest to my hand right now is a nikko hotels international by Bic China.
In college, I worked p/t as a chemist in the Gillette paper-mate factory when they were doing the first erasable pen inks. Who would have thought, pens made in Santa Monica!
Last night, I was tweaking the computer of a client in the neighborhood when her younger daughter said she was going to write her friend a letter. For a moment, I thought she was going to need the computer I was working on, but she said she was going to use her new typewriter. Yeah, typewriter. She'd just gotten a lovely portable Royal, and when I saw this eight-year-old haul the case holding the 50s-era Royal down the stairs I couldn't help but grin. "I think typewriters are so cool, and I've wanted one for a long time", she told me, so I have the feeling this was more than a sudden fancy for her.
Then I got into a conversation with her dad about technology, and, in reference to his younger kid's fascination with typewriters ("Mom, where's the Wite-Out?"), I mentioned how I most of my writing with fountain pens, not from nostalgia but because I find writing much more comfortable and pleasant with them. Then I handed him one of my pens (for the record, a Pilot Custom 823...here comes trouble for mentioning that here), he was amazed at how it felt to write with it.
I'm not using my Konica POP much these days. I should ask her folks if that girl has a birthday coming up soon...
- Barrett
remegius
09-20-2010, 11:41
Parker 51's and Vacumatics...that's all I write with.
Cheers...
Rem
This may be correct, but it is hard to get them to use the 'manual' setting (which is the only way they will learn).
I think this is more important than the film vs. digital debate.
Yes! I couldn't stop thinking this, reading through this thread. Honestly, my only problems with digital are that the cameras are too automated by default and you must be disciplined if you want to avoid the camera thinking for you. A kid learning on an OM-1, say, will develop a skill in exposure-making. Limitations are almost always good for us. You can go back to it once you've earned your stripes.
Richbuckle
09-29-2010, 02:08
I use both, and I find some things are much harder to achieve with digital than film.
Film is so much easier to get good results on bright days, because of greater exposure latitude and better rendering of image areas of lesser-sharpness, and I find digital really doesn't perform well at smaller apertures. People generalise about seeing instant results with digital and simply retaking the shot: there's certainly no digital with a screen that can tell me whether a shot was good or not within my budget. I only find out if a shot was good or not when I go to process the RAW file. Sure, it's cheaper to bracket with digital, but a machine-gun approach is never pleasurable (and rarely productive).
I find it easier to achieve what I want with digital in low light conditions, and with fast moving subjects.
Actually, shooting with digital I find no less pleasurable than film. Just don't choose a massive DSLR (for goodness' sake, you need to be able to make eye contact with your subjects), and set aperture and speed manually. Use an old-style optical finder and scale focus rather than chimping sometimes.
Would I want to go fully digital? Certainly not with the quality of digital cameras currently available in the price-range / at the size I want.
If these caveats could be removed by new gear releases next week? There's still an element of 'character' that's introduced by film that is enjoyable - an element that is left somewhat beyond my control (at my experience / skill level, anyway). I suppose when the availability of the technology improves significantly, I'll cut my film consumption a good deal.
For myself, film will only remain a viable choice for as long as it offers qualities that digital can't, or can't at an equal price. I think it will remain a viable choice for a good while yet, and for a good while longer for those starting out on a tight budget.
This is, however, the perspective of someone who does not develop his own prints in a darkroom (perhaps at some point in the future...).
If it means anything we have a fine photo shop here that is very high end film as well as digital. To my surprise I recently noticed an array of brightly coloured Holgas. The proprietor said that so many people asked him if he stocked them he decided to do so and they steadily sell.
damien.murphy
10-04-2010, 00:31
Most general photography college courses here in Ireland up to maybe the last 3/ 4 years would have been rooted in film, as a result of the investment required to fitout with computers/ printers/ scanners for digital, and the darkroom facilities already in place. I think this put a lot of people off, myself included, when the only courses with any digital content were dedicated post-processing courses. Things have changed in the last 3/ 4 years, with many colleges now dismantling some, if not all, of their darkroom facilities, and general photography courses now having quite a strong digital flavour.
I think people should be able to make up their own minds, without having film or digital exclusively foisted upon them, especially given the fact digital has brought many people to photography. Digital brought me to photography six years ago, although my current shooting habits are entirely film-based, with my film M's being constant companions, bolstered by my Rolleicord or Hasselblad.
In Ireland, there is a big swing towards film, and most people I know (that are not the photographic masses), shoot film in some capacity.
It is sad to see college darkroom facilities going to the wayside, and feel film is a great medium to learn photography with. That said, I'm not of the opinion that in order for film to do well, that it has to be foisted upon people. There is a nice niche developing for film here, and its devotees from young to old, are all film users by choice.
-doomed-
10-04-2010, 16:08
I have to confess, too... I am 22 years old and I shoot and develop ~100 rolls of 35mm tri-x per year, plus the other 35mm and medium format film. I feel more comfortable and secure with film rather than digital.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyxktRPuSrk&feature=related
At 25 I feel the same , I bought a digital SLR as my for sale shots and color camera. I love my film gear and use it daily.
Hundreds of rolls, and every time I pull the negs from the reel I am still amazed at the whole thing, the feeling doesn't change.
My digital SLR produces clean color images, but the process feels cold, and I'm never excited to just download and process the images on screen.
A "technical" quibble: everyone continually makes the same film vs digital comparisons - they forget one serious aspect of film: light. Film responds to light very differently than digital in the face of upper mids and highlights.
Digital uses linear curves. Beyond the curve == clip.
Film/analog uses non-linear curves. Beyond the curve == saturation.
This is not a minor thing - but ends up continually overlooked in the face of resolution and other arguments. It's one of the main differences between digital and analog technologies, in general (not just cameras).
How do you make use of this free tonal compression with film? By knowing how to extract what's been saturated after the fact. "Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" isn't just some BS founded on old principles. There is a method to the madness. If you have access to an enlarger, do your own tests. Shoot a roll a +1, +2, +3, +4 stops beyond what is needed for balanced exposure of a scene. Then, after "developing for the highlights," enlarge (or even contact) the film with various grades of filtration (or straight graded paper) using locals (dodging/burning) to re-expand the tonal ranges which went off into the shoulder of the film.
Can't even come close to doing that with digital. You have nothing to bring back once you're past the limit.
Brian Sweeney
10-17-2010, 15:29
Digital sensors have a Linear Response, film response goes non-linear at the extremes. This helps preserve highlights and shadows. This has been discussed on RFF before. Film can "saturate", at which point the image is clipped. It also has a lower limit, and has reciprocity failure at long exposures. In the early 70s, one company modified a Nikon F with small lamps to raise the "baseline" for sensitivity. A certain number of photons hit the film with no effect, and the idea was to use low-power electric lamps to overcome the baseline. Kind of like avalanche photo-detectors (APD's), but for film. ASA 1600 Tri-X without push-processing.
The Digital "equivalent": set exposure using Histograms, minimize clipping at each end. Use a lower-contrast lens to compress the intensity distribution and fill out the histogram. Post-process using Photoshop "Curves" or equivalent to attain desired contrast in the finished product.
Amazing what goes on in the rest of the WORLD is`nt it:eek:
What are the young in China up to?
I bet they get Lucky.
Younger people love the idea of film developing and darkroom printing. They have computers and hi-tech this and that rammed down their throats as soon as they leave the cradle, if not before. By the time they are teenagers something which requires THEM to do it rather than rely on a machine is a breath of fresh air(and fixer). It's just so sad the dumb schools and colleges ripped out most of the darkrooms. You'd think the teachers would have seen that but unfortunately not in most cases in the UK.
I was talking to a schools inspector (ofsted) recently. She had just done an inspection of a kindergarten at the UK HQ of a very big software company. She said it was a fantastic facility for young children. Her only recommendation was that they install computers for them to use because there were none. How sad is that? A computer company don't want their own kids having computers rammed into them at a very young age and the schools inspectors think they should.
Fact is that a very large percentage of people just aren't interested in computing and the massive learning curve you have to go through just to be moderately proficient with PC's. For them a PC is the devil. Why should they be force fed with it? It's no surprise to me that young people like real film and developing and printing just like many of us older kids do.
tom.w.bn
10-19-2010, 03:53
Fact is that a very large percentage of people just aren't interested in computing and the massive learning curve you have to go through just to be moderately proficient with PC's. For them a PC is the devil. Why should they be force fed with it? It's no surprise to me that young people like real film and developing and printing just like many of us older kids do.
I'm sure you can quantify this based on some study. I know some kids in our community and we talked about photo courses in school. None is film. All of then love computer and digital stuff. My very personal subjective estimation is, that there might be some interest for film in 2-5 out of 100 kids.
JayGannon
10-19-2010, 04:26
Younger people love the idea of film developing and darkroom printing. They have computers and hi-tech this and that rammed down their throats as soon as they leave the cradle, if not before. By the time they are teenagers something which requires THEM to do it rather than rely on a machine is a breath of fresh air(and fixer). It's just so sad the dumb schools and colleges ripped out most of the darkrooms. You'd think the teachers would have seen that but unfortunately not in most cases in the UK.
I was talking to a schools inspector (ofsted) recently. She had just done an inspection of a kindergarten at the UK HQ of a very big software company. She said it was a fantastic facility for young children. Her only recommendation was that they install computers for them to use because there were none. How sad is that? A computer company don't want their own kids having computers rammed into them at a very young age and the schools inspectors think they should.
Fact is that a very large percentage of people just aren't interested in computing and the massive learning curve you have to go through just to be moderately proficient with PC's. For them a PC is the devil. Why should they be force fed with it? It's no surprise to me that young people like real film and developing and printing just like many of us older kids do.
So you your a technophile then right =)
I think that the larning curve for IT is no different than the learning curve for darkroom work. In fact its easier for most people.
As for the 'very large percentage' I would love to see that as fact instead of an anecdote because tech is a part of everyday life and most people do not have any issues with it.
I'm sure you can quantify this based on some study. I know some kids in our community and we talked about photo courses in school. None is film. All of then love computer and digital stuff. My very personal subjective estimation is, that there might be some interest for film in 2-5 out of 100 kids.
Sure I can. A mere 35 years working as software developer and analyst working with end users who hate the bl**dy things because they don't understand them or how they work. Working with client companies full of young people who have been brought up in the digital age and as soon as something doesn't work they are clueless as to how to fix it. They are nearly all completely disinterested in computers. People who hang out in photo forums tend to be at least moderately technically savvy. Just my opinion based on 35 years experience working in many companies as a consultant systems developer.
JayGannon
10-19-2010, 05:22
Sure I can. A mere 35 years working as software developer and analyst working with end users who hate the bl**dy things because they don't understand them or how they work. Working with client companies full of young people who have been brought up in the digital age and as soon as something doesn't work they are clueless as to how to fix it. They are nearly all completely disinterested in computers. People who hang out in photo forums tend to be at least moderately technically savvy. Just my opinion based on 35 years experience working in many companies as a consultant systems developer.
I agree that people have no interest in the mechanics, fully agree, but people are not familiar with the mechanics of the cars that take the to work either. Its frustrating for someone in the know but not abnormal. And the larning curve to be proficient as an end user is very mild.
For example, the learning curve for an end user of the internet is load up browser and type address. The learning curve to be proficient in the mechanics of BGP networks and peering and IOS configurations is a lifelong curve. Two opposite end of the spectrum.
I'm sure you can quantify this based on some study. I know some kids in our community and we talked about photo courses in school. None is film. All of then love computer and digital stuff. My very personal subjective estimation is, that there might be some interest for film in 2-5 out of 100 kids.
And how many of those 100 kids have ever actually done any darkroom work? How would they know if they would prefer it or not. Sliced bread is always the best if that's all you have ever been fed.
I'm 17 and shoot film. I feel like photography for my generation has been degraded to taking a ton of pictures on a digital point and shoot and filling up an 8gb memory card in one night so they can be filtered through and posted on facebook the next day. I hate that kids don't care about how they can take good pictures by just learning a few basics of photography. For me, film pushes me to compose aesthetically pleasing pictures. And the reason why younger people like myself purchase old film cameras is simply because we cant afford a brand new bessa R4 or leica M7.
Also FWIW I hate the Beatles.
amateriat
10-24-2010, 17:53
Also FWIW I hate the Beatles.
Well, you're one for two here. ;)
Great story. Glad to have you here!
- Barrett
There are two types of photographers. The first are the 'photographers', the one's that have a keen eye or a desire to get out there and take shots, be them arty, well composed, well thought out or just to see what they can get. The second type of photographer is the happy snappy family type that only uses a camera for events like holidays, birthdays, weddings etc. The unfortunate thing is that these outnumber the first type by a million to one. Digital is the perfect format for the masses. They live and breath it and the photographic outlets encourage them to live and breath it. Moving the masses from film to digital was the first stage. The second stage was to make sure they all 'hear' that the technology has improved, the pixel count is higher and spending more money will give you better results. It's a money making machine that the manufacturers are thriving on. There's no stopping it.
This said it all for me today. I went in to Costco to drop a film off for developing. I ask the guy a question and it goes something like this:
"You getting much film in here these days?"
"No, not a lot. Mainly digital because it's so much better."
I said "That's subjective isn't it?"
He looked at me confused. "No, you can do so much more with it and the pictures are far better quality than anything a film camera can do".
So I pointed out "But a decent film camera will match anything a digital camera can do for much less money. I have an older camera(Hexar AF) that cost me £300 and it will wipe the floor with an older digital camera that would cost £300 today. It will even wipe the floor with a brand new £300 digital camera".
So he comes back with "Well if you see some of the digital pictures we blow up big here, they are far better than anything a film camera would give at the same size. Plus you can go into the settings and do all sorts of things in the menu and apply special effects and manipulate the images in software on a pc".
I just looked at him and said "I'll be back in an hour for my pictures".
It's this mentality that we are dealing with. It's not a poor mentality, just a subjective one that has been harvested from VERY good marketing and driving public awareness to the pros of digital photgraphy. It suites the manufacturers that the public think this way and it suites the photographic outlets too. After all, it's raking in pots of gold from the consumers out there.
Paul
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.