NYT discovers film is not dead

[FPjohn]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/te...l?ref=business

yours
FPJ

[v_roma]

Although this was a pro-film article all in all, "The pictures are rarely perfect." seems like a idiotic thing to say. That may be the case if you use cameras from some of the places that are quoted in the article. If you use regular film cameras, your pictures will be "perfect" as often as they are "perfect" with digital cameras.

[jsrockit]

Hmmm, I'm suspicious. When an article like this comes out in the mainstream press, I would usually assume that the trend is dying. However, the times supports photography pretty well, so... I'll relax. However, the title could read ...

Just When You Got Digital Technology, Film Is Back (or a hipster's how-to on toy camera photography).

I love this though... "Analog cameras require a little more precision to operate than digital ones." That's a generalization if I've ever heard one... especially when considering the film cameras written about in the article.

[Mackinaw]

Some parts of the article were stupid, but the writer was exactly right about an old Polaroid camera. Over the past few months, I've been asked to photograph a few parties and benefits. The hit of both have been my Polaroid Spectra camera loaded with Impossible Project film. Everybody but everybody came over to watch as the picture came out of the camera and became a print a few minutes later. And everybody wanted a pic taken of themselves. Even the digi crowd was asking where they could buy the camera and film. People love this thing.

Jim B.

[Steve M.]

I wouldn't expect much from that dreadful paper these days. It used to be a real newspaper. Hard to say what it is now, other than it's the LAST place I'd look for any professional, ethical, unbiased news.

[maddoc]

Originally Posted by PKR

I found the line about "taking your eyes away from the smart phone screen" the most revealing.

Great sport in many high tech cities is watching phone users, who have their eyes glued to the palm of one hand - bumping into each other or into parked (or sometimes moving) cars as they walk. It's something that may eventually increase the IQ of our population, by culling out these folks from the gene pool.

.... speaking about Japan ...

[one90guy]

Since the article came out sellers on the bay are increasing film camera prices:^)

[Speedfreak]

Originally Posted by FPjohn

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/te...l?ref=business

yours
FPJ

Not a single word on labs, processing or scanning.

[kuzano]

Originally Posted by one90guy

Since the article came out sellers on the bay are increasing film camera prices:^)

I've been selling film cameras on eBay for about 8 years, and making reasonable profits. Re-directing camera's from Craigslist and a couple of smaller auction sites on the internet, over to sales on eBay, has shown me rising prices on film cameras for 3 or 4 years now. Doing fine on upper end camera's. Bought a kit Canon AE1, with three Canon lenses (all primes) and a Canon flash for $100 last week. Fully expect to turn that into $400 in the next couple of weeks. I can buy 3-5 Canon GIII's a week, for under $50 each, put a seal kit in them and test them, and sell them consistently for $100 on eBay.

Mediium format has also been surprisingly rising in prices. Large Format is very hot for the right camera. In fact, just last week I saw a Toyo 45A with significant wear and a real POS bellows sell for $681. The bellows was visibly crumpled and misfolded for 3-4 inches on each end.

I purchased a LN Toyo 45CF for $225, sold it to a Thailand buyer for $500 in a week.


All my large format stuff has been going overseas. My last 4 large format cameras sold in the Federation of Russia for very good prices. In fact, I only buy/sell top end very clean items.

This article has nothing to do with current rising prices... they've been going up steadily. Yet at the same time locals on various Craiglist and Nickel are giving away film cameras.

It's nice to see the public attention to film. All the community colleges I know of, including the one where I teach have solid SRO lines for registration for film classes. Mostly BW.. and mostly manual focus manual with some automation cameras. I donate cameras to the class on a regular basis if I can't double my money or better.

The real fact of this matter is simple. I can see people (due to the classes I teach) becoming fed up and frustrated with digital. Many, as can be seen on this forum, are ditching digital and returning to film. In addition, a lot of people who started in digital are taking up film. I've had people in my digital camera classes who are now shooting film.

I'm pretty much done with digital myself, except for my Car Show work where I need to shoot a lot in one or two days.

My film work in Medium and Large Format is much more rewarding to me personally.

[KoNickon]

I'm curious about that LomoKino -- so how long are the movies, like 2 seconds? But it's an interesting concept.

I agree with the others' comments about the article stating that part of the attraction is the imperfections in the results. Yes -- if you're using any of the pieces of junk they mention in the article.

But while I'm ranting here, has anyone tried one of those Blackbird Fly (stupid name) 35mm TLRs?

[Fawley]

Her comments about the difficulty of useing film cameras almost makes want to give them up! Gee I didn't know they were that hard to operate! I guess I must have bee fooling myself all this time.

I wonder where she got her information. For me, the amount of directions needed or unexplained complexity to the operation of digital cameras are what has kept me away from them.

[nimcod]

Originally Posted by KoNickon

I'm curious about that LomoKino -- so how long are the movies, like 2 seconds? But it's an interesting concept.

They vary, from around 40-80 seconds depending on how fast you want the frames per second.

its horizontally shot on the 35mm film in a wide format (super 35 ish)

[paulfish4570]

i also want to know about the fly ...

[Teuthida]

It's fascinating to see the perceptions (often mistaken) of the digital generation about film photography. I get the sense most equate film with the low-fi retro craze like lomo etc and have no clue about the precision and beauty of which it is capable.

Makes me feel old. And superior.

[River Dog]

Poor article, phoned in from a vacation.

[loquax ludens]

I wasn't all that impressed with the article because it discusses film as though Lomography and instant film (The Impossible Project, Fuji Instax) are the only choices. There is no mention of the myriads of other high quality film cameras, or film stocks, available. It also implied that film images are going to be somehow inferior to digital images.

It mentions that many chain drugstores and professional photo shops still do film processing. You'd think from the article they all exist to process film from artsy streaky blurry lomography cameras.

The best comment in the article: "There is also something refreshing about not immediately knowing what your image will look like." (Why don't they just say "No chimping?") While this is true from the standpoint of someone accustomed only to digital cameras with LCD screens, in fact, I do have a very good idea what my film images will look like when I shoot them.

Some film exposure (pun intended) is better than none, I guess.

Another article that appeared on the sidebar of that one is entitled "Daddy, What Were Compact Discs?" That one positively made me want to puke. To soothe myself, I will now go put a nice, relaxing, David Sanborn LP on my phonograph.

[Lauffray]

yeah it isn't very serious, sadly a lot of people will take it seriously

[ColSebastianMoran]

I did not like the article.

By excluding any mention of serious (quality) film photography, the article draws the equation that film equals kinky, hip, Lomo-style images.

That's not generally the kind of film photography we are talking about here.

[buzzardkid]

'You live and learn'

From a result of the above wisdom, I've read the thread before reading the article and as a result I'm not going to dignify that article with spending my time reading it




EDIT: instead I chose to read this: http://www.pdnonline.com/features/Wo...hoo-5800.shtml


Much better read and a far better update on the current condition of film

[AZSunGod]

I don't think the author of the article was alive when the only choice was film. She makes it seem like it's really, really, hard to load film and FOCUS a camera. Makes me wonder how photographers ever got good shots before digital cameras and camera phones were widely available....

[stewmander]

Oh Hipsters...

I always thought the simpler mechanical functions of film cameras to be one of the appeals over digital. No extreme precision required for my XA, GIII Q17, or FE

Rarely perfect pictures? Isnt that the point of toy cameras?

The article seems to think Lomo and Poloroid are the end all and be all of film

[kuzano]

Originally Posted by ColSebastianMoran

I did not like the article.

By excluding any mention of serious (quality) film photography, the article draws the equation that film equals kinky, hip, Lomo-style images.

That's not generally the kind of film photography we are talking about here.

These people are not a "spit in the bucket" number to be ignored. There may come time, very soon, when we will be counting on the "kinky" side of photography for the numbers we need to preserve the availability of film.

Any "photographer" serious or otherwise by whatever standards are welcome to walk up beside me at any photo counter to order and pay for a brick of film. Likewise they can order from whatever source, on line or retail. Just keep buying film folks.

[Pastor Chris]

Originally Posted by ColSebastianMoran

I did not like the article.

By excluding any mention of serious (quality) film photography, the article draws the equation that film equals kinky, hip, Lomo-style images.

That's not generally the kind of film photography we are talking about here.

+1. The article provides the impression that only these sorts of clown cameras, Polaroid excluded, are arrtractive or useful any more. I think that I get far more comments on my film shots than I do on digital, especially when showing prints. Perhaps because I have put more though, effort, or relationship into the subjects and how they were shot.

[Keith]

A lot of fluff and very little fact in this article and I'm sure any committed film user will sn!gger when they read that Lomography and co are saving the medium ... as we all know the hipsters by their nature will move on to the next trend when it suits them! They also fail to mention that of the world's two largest film manufacturers ... one is in the throws of bankruptcy and the other has cut back on numerous emulsions and is busy selling digicams as fast as it can make them.

I did find one sentence I liked though and it's definitely one of the major attractions of film for me!

There is also something refreshing about not immediately knowing what your image will look like. It instills a kind of patience that has all but disappeared!

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Originally Posted by kuzano

...
It's nice to see the public attention to film. All the community colleges I know of, including the one where I teach have solid SRO lines for registration for film classes. Mostly BW.. and mostly manual focus manual with some automation cameras. I donate cameras to the class on a regular basis if I can't double my money or better...

Kudos for that.
Regards
Brett