PDA

View Full Version : Younger film users?


Roger Hicks
09-30-2008, 02:13
Several manufacturers, importers, etc., told me the same thing at photokina: that they're seeing more and more younger people looking at film cameras, buying film, etc.

Of course the people I was talking to were a self-selecting sample, but given that each of them said it separately -- LF manufacturers, enlarger makers, film sellers and more -- there may be something in it. As one said, "Young photographers have grown up with digital. Film is something new to them -- something different from their everyday lives, and less time in front of a computer screen."

Cheers,

R.

EcoLeica
09-30-2008, 02:22
I guess I'm what you are calling young at the tender age of 23! I used film during highschool, just before digital SLRs became affordable to everyday people. Even though i have grown up in the digital revolution, I love using film! i guess its mostly the excitement I get waiting for the negative to be developed, something digital never gave me. All i can say is thank god for kodak and all the other film companies still pumping out the sweet sweet film!

maddoc
09-30-2008, 02:23
As I have written elsewhere recently ... 40 young people (most of them students of my university) on the waiting list of a small local photo-shop here in Sapporo for the Olympus Pen F ....

infrequent
09-30-2008, 02:29
another youngish film user. there are plenty like me.

EcoLeica
09-30-2008, 02:32
Geeze! now that brings some hope to my luddite heart! Even in NZ almost every young person who does photography wants to know about holgas!

projectbluebird
09-30-2008, 02:59
Geeze! now that brings some hope to my luddite heart! Even in NZ almost every young person who does photography wants to know about holgas!

Holgas may be the antithesis of most rangefinders, but they still take film!
There are many of us youngsters out there, I'll use film until I can't get it anymore. And even then, I'll try my hand at making it. I already mix my own chemicals for development.

Film ain't dead.

sojournerphoto
09-30-2008, 03:01
I started off shooting film at the age about 7 - many years ago. Then life made output difficult and so I didn't do much photography as there was no real joy in shooting pics that I couldn't print myself. Having a family and starting to shoot digital were a real renaissance for me and I fell in love with making pictures all over again. I've now started shooting film again alongside the digital kit and realised that the difference for me is that digital (and a better job) has made the output stage doable again. Whilst it's true that a large format printer takes up the same amount of room as a darkroom can, I used to spend a long time getting silver prints how I wanted and the sessions had to be long. Now I can do a bit and then brak off and do abit etc.

So digital has freed me to make pictures again - but mostly via the printing stage. It's taken me a while to realise this so I now have both digital and analogue cameras.

Mike

steamer
09-30-2008, 03:20
In Tokyo there are a lot of youngsters adorned with film cameras, maybe it's a fashion thing. Frankly I think one looks like a dork street shooting with a big plastic digicam with a foot-long lens, but then what would I know. The micro 4/3 thing might exert a powerful call with it's smaller body and lens size. Still there's something awfully satisfying about film and film cameras

Sorekara
09-30-2008, 03:44
When I got interested in photography in college, I started with film since there was no way I could afford a decent digital camera at the time. I tried digital once I graduated and found a job, but now, in my mid-20s, I've gone back to film. It has the look, it has the feel. Both of my sisters (who are younger than I am) are also now using film cameras.

And like an earlier poster mentioned, here in Tokyo there seem to be lots of young people with film cameras. There may be a slight bias from the parts of town I usually hang out in, but I often see young people with old film SLRs, TLRs, and even rangefinders dangling from their shoulders. It's a great sight!

feenej
09-30-2008, 04:01
My daughter and her high-school chums are taking a film class right now. I set one of her friends up with a recently CLA'ed and re-covered Minolta XG-1, afer her Mom's Minolta XD-5 broke down. Another one of her chums came in, and I tried to set her up with a Minolta SRT, called "the perfect student camera" by Karen Nakamura (on Photoethnicity). She did not like that, so I showed her several other cameras, including fully automated point-and-shoots. She went home without taking anything.

Roger Hicks
09-30-2008, 04:30
Thanks everyone! Keep 'em coming!

'Young' in this context does indeed mean 'under 40 or even 50'. Keith Canham said that whereas at photokina 2004 the majority of people he saw were at least 50, it's now more like even numbers for over 50 and under 30.

I don't want to to Pollyana-ish, but at least it's worth talking about some good news for once.

Oh: and we came back from the show with a couple of review rolls of Ektar 100, and there's another brick of it on the way. Kodak did two (well attended) open meetings called 'What's Film Got to Do With It' and there are still real film enthusiasts in the Big Yellow Jelly.

Cheers,

R.

Toby
09-30-2008, 04:38
I think as digital matures it is gaining its own aesthetic which as time goes on is becoming more and more separate from the aesthetics of film photography in general and black and white photography in particular. Perhaps just as in the 19th century when painting was in some senses liberated from the literal depiction of subjects by photography, so in turn film photography will gain new life as it too is liberated from depicting the hum drum mainstream in our media by digital.

It is this 'separateness' from digital which is enticing the young

Spyderman
09-30-2008, 04:42
I'm 24 now. Started 6 years ago, when dSLRs were expensive and dP&S crappy. When I think about it for a while, the dSLRs are still expensive and dP&S still crappy. So I keep using film. In 2007 I went completely B&W, in 2008 I started to develop myself and roll my own film from bulk rolls.

PS: I have to say that I've owned a Canon G3 since about 3 years, and I recently got an EOS D30 (not 30D!), but B&W film and RF camera are more fun. I guess it has to do with the instant gratification thing...

Al Kaplan
09-30-2008, 04:51
Here in the Miami, Florida area all the colleges are teaching film based photography, and scheduling darkroom time seems to be a major problem. I've let a number of them use my darkroom over the past couple of years. Students notice that I'm carrying film cameras and most of them seem to recognize a Leica when they see it. My next step is to try to find one who'd be willing to trade teaching me a little more about scanning in exchange for some darkroom time and maybe some lessons too.

Sorekara
09-30-2008, 04:58
It is this 'separateness' from digital which is enticing the young

I think this is certainly a big part of it. It probably has a lot to do with the popularity in particular of things like Holgas, color cross-processing, etc. In fact it's pretty easy for these things to become easy signifiers or badges for hipsterness (for example), but that's something many 'alternative' art media have to deal with.

mcgrattan
09-30-2008, 05:24
I was in Prague earlier in the summer and noticed that a lot of the younger Japanese tourists were carrying film cameras. Often quite nice stuff -- classic SLRs, Hexar AFs, Contax T3s, that sort of thing. I didn't spot any rangefinders, though.

Sitting by the river late one night a succession of girls -- part of a tour party, or a bunch of friends, maybe -- stopped in front of us to take photos of one of the bridges, and of the five or six who stopped to take photos, more than half were shooting film slrs. These weren't recent EOS or Nikon models. They were classic compact chrome and black 1960s/1970s style things. Olympus OMs, Canon AE, Pentaxes, that sort of thing.

I've not noticed this quite so much in Oxford, but I think I tune the tourists out more here.

elshaneo
09-30-2008, 05:26
Well my friends, at RMIT University, most of us, young photography students, still use films with 35mm format, medium format and also large format cameras.

Have a great look at this website:

http://www.danieltuckmantel.com/

and check the Still-Life photo gallery section, all of the shots were done on films using 4x5 Plaubel Large format cameras.

Best Regards
Shane Lam

mcgrattan
09-30-2008, 05:27
I think the hispter thing is real, but I wonder if that was why I saw so many classic compact SLRs being carried? I wouldn't have thought they had much hipster caché.

Nice, functional cameras, of course. With good lenses. But not really grungy enough to be hip.

I wonder if people are buying dSLRS and then being encouraged to go out and buy film SLRs with compatible lens mounts?

Al Kaplan
09-30-2008, 05:52
Compatible lens mounts would make good sense on a typical student's budget.

Ronald_H
09-30-2008, 07:00
Welll, I'm 37, so I qualify as 'young' here :D

I do use film in ever increasing quantities. Eleborated on that in many posts, but in brief: It challenges me and it is fun. Besides, the dynamic range of film still trounces digital. Tri-X I love you.

Two young (early twenties) friends who have gotten the photography bug are shooting with film too. One as part of a course on photography, the other one besides digital after she found her father's Spotmatic. She looks dead sexy with it too :rolleyes:

I have to admit I see mostly older people (older as in 'above 40') at swap meets, but film is somehow percieved as 'cool', even by the youngsters.

And something that gladdens my heart: Friends have a young son. One day I was visiting and managed to squeeze of some shots of the little boy with his daddy. Used an old Nikon. Near expired and frankly cr*ppy slide film in there. Not too briljant, but after some massaging in Photoshop and B/W conversion it really was a cute pic.

For the youngster's first birthday, the parents had a mosaique made of the thousands of (digital) pics they made his first year. You know the kind, up close you see individual pics, from further away you see 'the big picture'. Guess what 'big picture' they had chosen...

Sorekara
09-30-2008, 07:02
Perhaps classic SLR use hasn't been as blatantly hipsterized as lomography has, but I think there is a funky/retro type of appeal there. Nice cameras with lenses are often available for shockingly low prices, next to nothing really. That makes them more accessible, and might also add a bit of thrift store chic to them. I certainly know people who would commonly classified as hipsters that have gone this route.

Muggins
09-30-2008, 07:03
I've not noticed it either - though I keep an eye out for odd cameras. The oddest so far was probably the black Polaroid SX-70 at St Giles Fair - the lass using it was very nice over me making a prat of myself by not recognising it! In my defence, I'd only ever seen pictures of the silver version, so the black one was completely new to me.

You do see the odd person, though. There was a chap with an FM2 at Cropredy this year, I ran into two Spanish tourists at the Sheldonian sporting an OM10, good conversation starter as I was carrying mine as well, and I chatted with a chap with a Contaflex last week. One half od the spaniards, and the young lady with the SX-70, would definitely count as young, and I saw a lass of about 20 on May morning using a Kiev she'd bought in Oxfam a week or two before. So they are out there! Chat to the next one you see - it might be me, especially if I'm using a box camera. But I'm probably not that young anymore...

Adrian



Sitting by the river late one night a succession of girls -- part of a tour party, or a bunch of friends, maybe -- stopped in front of us to take photos of one of the bridges, and of the five or six who stopped to take photos, more than half were shooting film slrs. These weren't recent EOS or Nikon models. They were classic compact chrome and black 1960s/1970s style things. Olympus OMs, Canon AE, Pentaxes, that sort of thing.

I've not noticed this quite so much in Oxford, but I think I tune the tourists out more here.

Gaspar
09-30-2008, 07:08
I am 32 and started with digital which I still use, but increasingly I shoot film, Now there are many reasons for this. First film equipment is dead cheap and well built. Second, film slrs are a lot more compact than dslrs. As much as I like my D200, it is huge and heavy and I can get same or better quality with an om-10. Third- DOF apart from ultra expensive full frame DSLRs you can get much bette out of focus effects on film and wide angle lenses are a lot more distortion free I feel.
Last I don't think anything beats the colour rendition of Kodak Portra and the portraits I shoot in this film are in my opinion light years ahead on what I get on the D200.
As for film being hip, that doesn't really come into my equation.

gnarayan
09-30-2008, 07:39
I'm 25. I like the look. I prefer the generally smaller and less conspicuous cameras and faster lenses. In some situations I prefer them for their simplicity. I use both. Scanning film takes longer than editing RAW files and still doesn't look as good as the prints. If I want prints I usually shoot digital.

Cheers,
-Gautham

stuken
09-30-2008, 07:40
Being in the unique position of being an Instructor at one Art School (for kids 2-18) and a student at Emily Carr university I see two major reasons for young people liking film. One, the hipsters/scenesters/lomography crowd. Their alternative life style revolves around vintage, so there is a large, and growing, popularity to shoot classic SLRs ect. My students, who range from 9-18, all love the process of the darkroom, and seeing their prints come to life.

For me, I enjoy the work flow of film. I also enjoy film cameras, they're much more enjoyable to use than my DSLR. I also shoot alot of medium and large format, a process that I can't copy digitally, and I dont have 40,000 dollars lying around to drop on a Hd3 or the like.

All that said, digital has its place. When I'm shooting jobs I rarely use film. The process of digital lends it self very nicely to most forms of professional photography.

Oh yeah, I'm 21, been shooting for 7 years.

gavinlg
09-30-2008, 07:47
Films a different medium to digital that gives different results. I'm 21, use both. Mainly digital now as I'm a photographer in my own business. Love film though - have had m6/bessa r/heaps of slrs and soon will grab a bessa r2a for it's value with some sweet sweet zeiss m lenses.

People get all flustered up about the whole "film is dead" thing because of digital convenience, but I've found if they have a creative block and decide to put a roll through their fathers old film slr "just for fun" they are shocked and amazed at how good the results are.

mcgrattan
09-30-2008, 07:49
I'm 36. I started taking an interest in photography about 6 years ago when I picked up an old Lubitel in Oxfam. So, I started on 120film, then got into rangefinders and 35mm, then into SLRs. I've only started shooting digital in the last year or so.

For me the initial interest was partly just the cost versus performance with old film cameras. That's narrowed now as digital comes down in price.

I wouldn't say I'm a hipster at all, but there is a certain aesthetic pleasure in using old/vintage equipment.

Muggins
09-30-2008, 08:23
:eek::eek::eek: You are me!

OK, perhaps that's going a little far, but you're the same age, in the same place, and started on 120 at much the same time - I started with a Coronet box camera I'd had for years when I discovered some out-of-date 120 in a fridge at work. The closest I get to hip is what creaks when I play cricket, but I'll second the pleasure of using something that was old when I was born. The oldest, in fact, dates to about 1911.

Haven't actually gone digital yet, but thinking about it fairly hard now as there are things like document copying and camera dismantling where it really helps to have an instant replay of your photo.

Quality isn't really a factor, as someone gave me a Nikon F3 body, and someone else gave me a 55mm Micro-Nikkor lens to go with it :cool:.

Tell you what, I'll tell you what I'm likeliest to be spotted using and you tell me what you're likeliest to be using and then we can avoid each other - just in case we annhilate, like matter and anti-matter.

Adrian

I'm 36. I started taking an interest in photography about 6 years ago when I picked up an old Lubitel in Oxfam. So, I started on 120film, then got into rangefinders and 35mm, then into SLRs. I've only started shooting digital in the last year or so.

For me the initial interest was partly just the cost versus performance with old film cameras. That's narrowed now as digital comes down in price.

I wouldn't say I'm a hipster at all, but there is a certain aesthetic pleasure in using old/vintage equipment.

charjohncarter
09-30-2008, 08:28
I put photography on a much higher level than cars, but first you by any old car that just works, then you decide you want something that is special. That is what film is: special.

mcgrattan
09-30-2008, 09:05
Muggins,

The things I am mostly likely to be using: Leica IIIc, a Salyut-C and quite often a Pentax P50 [film slr].


I have other things but don't shoot them very often [a flexaret TLR, fuji medium format rangefinder]. I use my [k-mount Samsung] dSLR quite a bit, but more for family stuff.

Muggins
09-30-2008, 10:14
You must have a better cashflow, or more dedication (or both!) than me. I reckon I'm more likely to be spotted with a Werra, a Welta Perle (I'm going to get a decent roll out of it if it kills me!), a Trip 35 or perhaps a box camera. I rarely take the SLRs (F3, OM10, Nikkormat) into town.

Now we can avoid annhilation! :D

Adrian

Chemophilic
09-30-2008, 10:41
Yeah I am 26 (that is young right?) I started taking pictures with a dslr couple years ago but once my friend let me played with his Hasselblad, I am hooked with film. I just like the look of B&W film and because I am more involved with the processing, I felt a greater sense of ownership and satisfaction with the pictures too.

And I enjoy explaining to kids why there is no screen on the back of the Hassy and why they have to wait for awhile before seeing the pictures.... :)

bhop73
09-30-2008, 11:32
I'm 35. I learned on film cameras in the early 90's, but lacking my own darkroom or the space to set up one, along with the costs of processing/printing and sub-par lab results, drove me to digital a few years back. I was fairly happy with my d70 for a while, but discovering film scanners, photo printers, and $3 film processing, which gives me 100% control over the final print, has brought me back to shooting almost all film. That and the cost difference in Pro level film bodies and pro level digital. I recently paid just $200 for a near mint Nikon F100. A comparable digital body would cost much, much more. I love the feel of my Canonet, or my FE in my hands. The weight and balance. I recently bought a Yashica Electro GS for $25. What digital can you get for that kind of price?

I have been noticing more old film cameras in the hands of younger (teens/20's) people here in L.A. lately. Hipster fad or not, I see it as a good thing. More film users means (hopefully) longer film production. I live near Freestyle Photo. Every time I go in there, it's packed with younger people buying film or photo papers. It's great.

malkmata
09-30-2008, 11:53
Although, I'm not really younger or old either, I belong to a Philippine version of rangefinder forum. Most of the members there are in their early 20's and early 30's.

Personally I shoot exclusively digital with my commercial work and most of my family photos. (they like to see the results right away) But for my personal and fine art work, its range finder cameras and film. I really miss my darkroom which I had to give up for lack of space.

Bill Pierce
09-30-2008, 12:22
I don't know if this is typical,but the young photographers I know shoot both digital and film. In almost all the cases, they use film to give them something they can't get out of digital. Maybe it's large format giving them a quality that they can't get with the limitations their budget puts on buying digital gear. Maybe it's a small, compact camera that still gives them the final print quality of a full 35-mm negative.

Florian1234
09-30-2008, 12:24
I'm 24 and began to use film and came into "real" photography about one year ago. At first I used the fully automatic camera of my parents (Cosina built Porst) but not very soon after came across old screw Leicas which were too expensive (that's what I thought back then) and took a Fed-2 instead.

After realizing that bright-lines in the finder would be very nice, I looked around and found a Leica M4 for which I bought several FSU lenses then.

Now I shot about 30 to 50 rolls of film and have a big amount of them on my flickr page (more or less edited, of course) and develope the black&white stuff myself.
An own darkroom would be cool to have, but its a matter of space and time, being in the final stages of my university study (history major, two minor subjects) time is precious and I mostly read and will begin to write my Magister thesis soon.

Well, now you know some facts about me.
Why exactly I use film - I like to develope myself, see the results and the fact that it will most probably last longer than digital files. At least I hope so. :D And the combination of technical stuff, chemistry and vision attracts me somehow.

My two Euro cents.

*edito: And basically what Bill said above. I can not really afford a huge DSLR with cool lenses (above all I can not afford even "real" Leica lenses), but I really like the quality I can get out of 35mm film negatives. *

JohnTF
09-30-2008, 12:38
I was in Prague earlier in the summer and noticed that a lot of the younger Japanese tourists were carrying film cameras. Often quite nice stuff -- classic SLRs, Hexar AFs, Contax T3s, that sort of thing. I didn't spot any rangefinders, though.
.

I've not noticed this quite so much in Oxford, but I think I tune the tourists out more here.

Having spent many summers in Prague, going back to the Socialist money days, I have always been impressed by the local support for film photography. I spent five weeks in a studio near the Charles Bridge, owned by a well known Czech photgraher, and worked with two models, and two locals, one was a photographer, one wanted to be, and today is an excellent photographer in Seattle and wants a Bessa or Leica now, ;-).

People also seem to have fine photography hanging on the walls, and great exhibits there. Lots of places put up shows.

I hope you got your Gold FotoSkoda card. ;-)

Regards, John

jbf
09-30-2008, 12:45
Same here. I am an avid film user. Yes, there are times when I shoot digital a lot because it is easy... but given the facilties and chance to use film/develop... i love it. I really do.

Thardy
09-30-2008, 12:54
My 16 y/o daughter will be taking photography at school and developing BW film, and is excited to be receiving a new film SLR.

Film lives.

outforalaska
09-30-2008, 13:04
Throw me in - 21 years old. I wanted top notch equipment and couldn't afford digital. While I might not exactly deserve the quality of a Leica in terms of my skill level I really do enjoy using it and I guess that's all that really matters to me.
The first day of my photo class at school I got a double take from the professor on my camera and then a "whoa...". It put a smile on my face.

bob338
09-30-2008, 13:10
there was a discussion on a music forum i read recently about teenagers haunting goodwill and salvation army stores looking for vinyl records. i guess people are getting tired of the cold quality of the digital age.

i live in a tourist destination town and very rarely see anyone, much less younger people, with film cameras. in fact i can't remember the last time i saw a tourist around here with a film camera, and no one has ever started up the old 'i used to have a leica like that...' conversation with me. our local film processor just closed up shop too...

bob

Roger Hicks
09-30-2008, 13:24
Throw me in - 21 years old. I wanted top notch equipment and couldn't afford digital. While I might not exactly deserve the quality of a Leica in terms of my skill level I really do enjoy using it and I guess that's all that really matters to me.
The first day of my photo class at school I got a double take from the professor on my camera and then a "whoa...". It put a smile on my face.

I'm a firm believer in living up to your camera. Use junk, and you can blame failures on your camera (or automation). Use a Leica, and if you get it wrong (or right) it's down to you. So maybe you do 'deserve' it, merely as a result of being prepared to use one (and being willing to learn -- Teach Thyself).

Cheers,

R.

mcgrattan
09-30-2008, 13:25
You must have a better cashflow, or more dedication (or both!) than me. I reckon I'm more likely to be spotted with a Werra, a Welta Perle (I'm going to get a decent roll out of it if it kills me!), a Trip 35 or perhaps a box camera. I rarely take the SLRs (F3, OM10, Nikkormat) into town.

Now we can avoid annhilation! :D

Adrian

Heh, I probably don't have a better cashflow. The Flexaret was my father-in-law's, and the Fuji rangefinder belonged to a friend who kindly gave it to me [on the condition that if I no longer want it, I can't sell, I have to give it away to someone else in need].

The other things, I've been very lucky with prices, and wheeled and dealed a bit on ebay. Selling off some stuff I got cheap and trading up. The Leica is the most expensive film camera I've ever bought and I paid about 120 quid for it.

I do have more stuff than I need, though. Little cheap M42 lenses bought from Oxfam, another K-mount film body that I never use. Have been ruthlessly clearing out for a while but still have a while to go.

Having had the digital now for a year or so, I'm pleased with it, but it hasn't made me want to stop shooting film. I just shoot different subjects with film.

breathstealer
09-30-2008, 13:43
I just hit 18 the other week so I guess that makes me the only actual young person here (:

One thing that bugs me a little about the popularity of film among us kids these days is how it's often portrayed as some kind of automatic muse that makes bad pictures good. Sure, film looks different, but it won't rescue the same stupid fisheye portraits of your friends from the scrapheap, if not raise it to gallery level like it seems is often hoped for. Lots of otherwise horrible photos get tons of praise (in my experience) because "oh cool you used an old camera? can you get still get film for it? woooow i didn't know anyone still used FILM"

Roger Hicks
09-30-2008, 13:54
I just hit 18 the other week so I guess that makes me the only actual young person here (:

One thing that bugs me a little about the popularity of film among us kids these days is how it's often portrayed as some kind of automatic muse that makes bad pictures good. Sure, film looks different, but it won't rescue the same stupid fisheye portraits of your friends from the scrapheap, if not raise it to gallery level like it seems is often hoped for. Lots of otherwise horrible photos get tons of praise (in my experience) because "oh cool you used an old camera?

YES!!

We all shot lousy pictures of our friends in bands, sometime between the age of 16 and 26, and we ALL think we're original with extreme wide angle/fish eye/high contrast/lousy colour balance/huge grain/whatever.

Which is part of learning how to use the medium.

(And from where I'm standing, 18 is REALLY young. I have a friend who was born on my 40th birthday and therefore is now your age. Then again, both you and she are now legally adults!)

Cheers,

R.

sanmich
09-30-2008, 14:18
I'll try a psychological remark, although I am no psychologist.
There is something in the human soul that keeps people wanting certain things over more advanced and theoretically better ones:
1- I hate plastic plants. Why? it is decorative in the same sense and much more practicle....and believe me I am no gardener...
2- I love my all mechanical watch. It is no luxury Item. It is simple, clear, functional, and much less precise than any next quartzwonder I could have bought for one fourth of the price.
3- people around continue to prefer leather and wood over other materials...
4- I love to handle books. Even more old, smelly books.

Does all that make sense?
'caus if it does, we could have some hope concerning film...;)

DriesI
09-30-2008, 14:23
i'm 29.

what I like about film is that it is physical - as opposed to the evermore virtual stuff. It's physical and the results are mine, not some software's.

Its also slow. In an ever increasing pace, ever more instant fullfillment, it is nice to have to wait, to have to do effort.

It away from computers. I live in front of screens 10h a day (pc at work, tv at home, cellphone all day). It is nice to look at the physical world (through a viewfinder or at a print or negative).
That is the one thing I don't like about this forum (and why I don't post often): it is again being in front of a screen.

At last it is emotional. I can be proud of a nice looking print from a digital shot, but I cherish and baby that one unique negative, or those unique prints that took me hours of darkroom effort.

d

ElectroWNED
09-30-2008, 14:25
I was in Prague this summer, toting my Yashica Electro 35 and rolls of HP5.

Only recently (i.e. after I got the entire vacation worth of rolls developed) that the camera has a light leak and 95% of my photos were ruined.

I started with a digital SLR, sold it, quit photography, then came back and learned film. Now, after seeing that film and older rangefinders are so dainty and fallible, I'm thinking of quitting the game again.


PS. I'm 22.

mknawabi
09-30-2008, 14:33
you can definitely call me young. At 18, I bought my first Leica due to the amazing shots I had seen from some of the Austrian street shooters and chris weeks and what not. Their snobby elitist demeanor is what drew me to film; "you gotta have lots of skill to shoot like us" is the vibe I got, and they were right.

Then I picked up color film and have fallen completely in love.

Morca007
09-30-2008, 15:41
I'm a 19 year old film user, and other than a few friends who shoot Polaroids I'm the only film-user in my circle.
I started out using my father's S1 Pro dSLR, loved messing around with it, and might still be using it had it not broken. I'm thankful that it did, though, as it forced me to pick up some of my parent's old film equipment and discover how much I like using film. Now I develop my own B/W negs, have a bevy of film cameras I love and use, and try to remind my friends that there is more than digital.

mknawabi- Chris' street stuff is what got me into RFs and B/W as well.

Revolucion Artistico
09-30-2008, 17:04
I'm 25 and have been shooting film for about 12 years. I have a darkroom, develop my own film, print my own prints. I've owned a couple of digital cameras I.e. D100 and currently an RD1 which are both great cameras in there own way. If I have the option I will always shoot film.

JohnTF
09-30-2008, 21:31
[quote=ElectroWNED;905364]I was in Prague this summer, toting my Yashica Electro 35 and rolls of HP5.

Only recently (i.e. after I got the entire vacation worth of rolls developed) that the camera has a light leak and 95% of my photos were ruined.>>>>>



Not a mistake no one else has not made, and I know several people who shot an entire vacation only to have their camera and single flash card stolen.

After we do this once, then we back up, and if we are not dead sure of a film camera, we shoot a roll of test film.

I took two new Nikons on a 5 week road trip, one with negative color, and the other with slide.

One overexposed (slides) and one underexposed (negative) I lost 30 rolls, and I did have some film developed while I was traveling, but thought it was the camera I gave my friend, so I overexposed her film, which for negative is OK.

I saved the slides with pull processing.

Nikon crawfished on the warranty as I put a scratch on the camera.

It happens.

A thief in Europe will often pass on stealing a film P&S, even one with a Red Dot.

Regards, and it gives you an excuse to go back to Prague, which might just work out for you. ;-) John

maelswarm
09-30-2008, 21:34
I'm 24, started off with film in high school but kinda lost interest in photography in university. In the last two years I've been trying to catch up, and now I'm back to film. Took 3 rangefinders and a F100 on my trip to Europe this summer instead of a D3.

wlewisiii
09-30-2008, 21:48
It's entertaining to watch this from a number of places.

I have a local lab I stop at regularly. I bring in a few rolls of C41 120 (usually 6x6) every now and then. The one guy there I get on with and I were ragging on the idiot holga & lomo shooters that make up 90% of that young "film resurgance" that's out there. It's a bunch of young idiots being stupid because, thanks to no real wet darkroom experience, they have no clue how stupid they are. No, there is no reason, yet, to believe that there is any kind of preference for film. Come back in a decade. If I can still buy a roll of Reala (or, I'll grant, an equivalent emulsion) for less than $20 USD for 36 exposures then I'll believe that film has found it's niche.

In the meantime, I'll burn film like there is no tomorrow... because in my mind there isn't any...

William

wlewisiii
09-30-2008, 22:03
Yep. Never said I wasn't just as stupid.

William

maelswarm
09-30-2008, 22:03
I think they mean people who think that grungy, low-image quality shots taken with a plastic lens = artsy.

mknawabi
09-30-2008, 22:38
Its funny... I dont like those holga/urbanoutfitter cameras, but you have to admit, they cant hate on the kids that give them money to do their business.

tmfabian
09-30-2008, 22:49
I think they mean people who think that grungy, low-image quality shots taken with a plastic lens = artsy.

wait...what?!?!? you mean that's not artsy? crapweasel. ;)

swoop
09-30-2008, 22:52
I'm 26. used film all through college. And even then when I started working professionally. The only time I use digital is if asked specifically or on a tight deadline. otherwise it's film for me.

I like the quality that film provides me. I like that I can't be bothered while I'm working to show people my pictures on the back of the camera. I like that it requires more skill. Sometimes I get asked "How do you know how the pictures turned out?" And i say I've been doing it for so long, that I just know. I know what the photo looks like when I hit the shutter. I like that it's tangible. I like that it requires working with my hands. I like that I don't have to be afraid of a hard drive failure that will destroy my life's' work.

oh yeah. This is probably a "youngish" thing to do. My tattoo. I got it back during my senior year of college when I became a Teaching Assistant and instructed the photo 1 and 2 classes by myself while my professor was away on assignment. I knew right then that this would be the rest of my life. So I got the tattoo.

http://fc96.deviantart.com/fs12/f/2006/322/6/d/Film_tattoo_by_kmnyc.jpg

jan normandale
09-30-2008, 22:52
Film based photography is still very affordable compared to equivalent digital set ups. On a per use basis they seem expensive but the up front cost is a tenth or even less than a digital set up.

Holgas, c'mon I like them! They're different. Is that a bad thing? I don't have a beef with owners of Noctilux lenses, what is the issue with plastic lens cameras? It's a decision that is all.

Young or new entrants using film is good news. Like Bill Pierce noticed no reason for not using both film and digital. I think that is the way of the future.

jbf
09-30-2008, 22:59
Look... you can complain all you want about people who use holgas and take photos, but at least they are getting out there and taking a photograph. Yes they may not necessarily be very good at it, but it beats half the people on here who sit around and take photographs of a flower on their front lawn or of a beer glass with a $4,000 camera. They are no different.

A camera is a camera is a camera. Who the hell cares. The fact is, film is being used in one form or another. So be happy that its being used and let people take whatever photos they want and let them think they are great. At least they are happy.

People with any real knowledge or talent and a photographic eye will be able to tell who has a genuine ability and who does not.

benmacphoto
10-01-2008, 00:00
I'm 21 and got interested in photography my freshman year of high school where we had a black and white darkroom. I learned how to develop film and make prints and all. Ive stuck with film to this day for quality. I love going out with my Leica and some Tmax100 and shooting. I get fantastic results for what I do. "Why fix it if it aint broken?"

I do however work digitally.
http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh273/benmacphoto87/DSC_0015.jpg
http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh273/benmacphoto87/DSC_0027.jpg

These shots were taken with my Nikon D50 with the PB5 bellows adapter and a 1945 101mm Wollensak lens. I made an adapter for the lens to Nikon mount. Digital allows me to experament with things such as this.

I feel that its the same idea in that you choose a lens for a specific shot. It depends on the job for what medium. They all serve a purpose in photography, it just depends on what your shooting. But film is still my main format. Oddly enough I just got an 8x10 Deardorff field view camera to do some work with. So I'm still all about film, with some digital on the side.

chut
10-01-2008, 00:16
I'm 34 now.

I started shooting with an SLR when I was 18 and started developing film when I was 21. I continued shooting film until I got my first digital camera in 1998 but I became disenchanted with the lackluster results of early digital, and my interest waned over the years.

Early this year, I rediscovered my love for photography and photographica. I am now shooting film exclusively once again and have restarted collecting, restoring and using vintage and modern film cameras.

This forum has been an invaluable source of information and support for this renewed endeavor. As well as loads of GAS!

tmfabian
10-01-2008, 00:22
haha, i'm getting a kick out of the people being upset over the jesting over holgas. I know my comment was just made in fun...i actually enjoy using a holga from time to time, and a good friend of mine did a documentary project with a holga and the images were absolutely stunning to say the least. I'm pretty sure most comments making fun of the holga were done in similar jest, but you still can't ignore the hilarity of urban outfitters selling them for $70+ USD...it's positively wonderful.

robbert
10-01-2008, 01:42
fwiw i'm 20 yo and my entire workflow is analogue.

i could do without the smell of fixer by the way

usagisakana
10-01-2008, 02:51
I'm 19 and really like the idea that with film, each image is a physical object. that and I like the look of black and white film, and enjoy developing.

Xax
10-01-2008, 03:13
I am also 24 now, started with digital 3 years ago, discovered film when I bought an old chinese seagull medium format camera at a flea market and my father told me that it uses "120" film,

it was so new to me and such a shock to discover something so big and vast in photography after lingering around with those digital cameras, and inspired by flickr and all those nice pictures by tommy oshima and co, had to dive deeper into 35mm, 120, 4x5, etc ;)

now, about 18 months later, i have 3 leicas and about 10 medium format cameras, and shoot film for myself and digital for paid gigs

i also try to do as much on film as possible in my cinematography work, which is also really really hard in the video world :)

naruto
10-01-2008, 03:15
I started off using a film SLR, and got caught up in the DSLR race. I used one for a year, and later sold off all the digital gear returning to film. I love using B&W film, learning about lens optics, and developer formulation. Oh yeah, I am around 30-ish. :)

kuzano
10-01-2008, 05:57
It hasn't been very long since young art photography types were intrigued (and still are when they can find the film) with Polaroid plastic lens cameras and Time Zero film. The film had a setting time that allowed manipulation with a variety of home made stylus' including popsicle sticks, other blunt objects, etc. There is a lot of work on the internet using these cameras. Most popular was the Polaroid SX-70.

Wouldn't it be great to rig up a 120 roll film back to one of the old rangefinder Auto 100 to 400+ series cameras, or even the high quality lens models like the 195. These models were even renowned for their excellent and accurate Zeiss Ikon rangefinder assemblies that folded out and sat atop the camera body.

Svitantti
10-01-2008, 06:08
Soon 24... I know many (young too) friends using mostly or only film cameras. Still the percentage idoes not seem very high at all here in Finland.

By following some camera forums in here however, I feel the interest is growing... Who knows.

Svitantti
10-01-2008, 06:10
Oh by the way.. I got my first own camera in about 2004. It was a Polaroid camera using Sx-70 film :-). After that I bought a Holga and then felt I need more control and got an SLR. Now I shoot with M4, Pentax SLR and Mamiya 7, sometimes with Olympus XA... Still have Holga too.

Austerby
10-01-2008, 07:10
As an official old person here (I'm 42 don't you know) I'm pleased that I am not (as I feared) at the tail of the film using population. From these comments I believe that film usage will continue for a considerable time yet, that old cameras will continue to have value and be repaired, and that great photo's will be made across many different formats, including digital.

My observation is that it's more likely to be members of my own generation who abandon film in favour of digital because we know the difference in terms of convenience. If you don't have such baggage then I think that one approaches something like photography with a more open mind and a willingness to experiment.

Ben Z
10-01-2008, 07:40
A while back when every second thread on every forum was "death of film", I said that artists have always looked for ways to differentiate and individualize their work. In other art-forms there have always been choices of media. For example, painting has charcoal, pencil, water color, oil. Sculpture has granite, bronze, clay, paper mache, and the welding of basically anything metallic. Now photography has film and digital, and with so many going digital, it's natural that individuals might choose film as a means to express their artistic individuality. The problem is, photography developed a completely different infrastructure than other art forms. Photography is a juggernaut industry. Professional (as in, for-hire) photography is virtually completely digital now. So is non-serious amateur party/vacation snapshooting. The question still remains, will the relatively tiny amount of demand for film and processing be enough to sustain the profitable manufacture of consumables with finite storage life, at prices that those artists will be willing to pay. I hope so, even though I shoot maybe two or three rolls of film a year at most these days.

kuzano
10-01-2008, 07:57
As an official old person here (I'm 42 don't you know) I'm pleased that I am not (as I feared) at the tail of the film using population. From these comments I believe that film usage will continue for a considerable time yet, that old cameras will continue to have value and be repaired, and that great photo's will be made across many different formats, including digital.

My observation is that it's more likely to be members of my own generation who abandon film in favour of digital because we know the difference in terms of convenience. If you don't have such baggage then I think that one approaches something like photography with a more open mind and a willingness to experiment.

In terms of maturity.

Been using film since I was 10. I am a computer technician, so I jumped on digital when Logitech put out a simple camera that shot 640x480 max resolution, only in black and white. I have used digital quite a bit and been through a number of P&S, Prosumer and DSLR phases. In fact, I teach digital photography classes and Photoshop Elements at a local community college.

Bottom line... the more I teach, and the more I see the traps laid out by the industry on digital, the more I pick up my film cameras when I go out. The endless stream of newer and better models is in perfect synch with the economic problems that brought us to the current financial crisis. Somehow, these companies are going to have to learn that enough is enough. Give us your best camera and give us enough time to make it through the menu system at least once.

I have many 35mm and Medium Format cameras and dumped all but two of my P&S digitals. I just picked up a very nice used 4X5 monorail camera and 150 packets of QuickLoad and Readyload film (the film for $100 total).

This is the best time that I can recall in 50 years to buy film camera's and I have no fear of not being able to find film. Large format activity is actually growing.

I am encouraged to see so many young people here and otherwise taking up film, whether they shoot digital as well.

Keep it up youngsters!

Roger Hicks
10-01-2008, 08:44
This is great! Thanks everyone! Almost unremittimgly upbeat observations (no miserable old farts?); lots of interesting insights; and the important point that it's not so much age as freshness, i.e. you can discover/rediscover film at any age.

Cheers,

R.

srichmond
10-01-2008, 08:46
I got into film photography at school in the mid 1990s and loved it, but didn't really have enough cash or access to equipment to pursue it when I went to uni. Got into digital, and loved all the dSLR stuff, but quickly realised that I was taking thousands of photos, but few of any real quality. It was always about volume, not quality (I appreciate this is more a problem with me, not the digital format).

This year I wanted to resurrect my old negative folder, so bought a negative scanner (a reasonable investment), and that triggered my re-entry into film photography. I've always loved B&W, and had the confidence around developing my own film, so it's been really cool since.

Sure, people are shocked when you produce a film camera - but I see quite a number of younger people with them (esp. around certain parts of east London). I think, it's part fashion, part wanting to understand and embrace other aspects of photography. Digital is way too simple. Huge dSLRs look too bling.

Besides, if you want to use an RF, you get a much better pick with film. Film cameras don't go out-of-date, like all technology products. The camera I have now is for keeps. Whatever digital SLR you buy today, will be "old kit" in a few years time.

None of my comments make a compelling case for film - but they're some observations I've made since getting into it.

bean_counter
10-01-2008, 08:57
My daughter (now 12) has always liked cameras - starting with a 110 "Barbie" camera (pink, of course). She was intrigued by my IIIf, so in 4th grade, I bought her a Canonette.

She used it quite a bit - I started teaching her exposure and DOF, and she started shooting chromes. Last year, she was bitten by the digital bug (all the coooool kids had them), so we bought her a nicer Nikon P&S for Christmas.

She shot the memory card full, got her prints, and said "ugh". She's back to her Canonette, hasn't picked up the digital since. And now - she's the cool kid, for shooting "retro" film.

She's hooked on rangefinders; she loves to get her hands on my M4-P :eek: (when I let her - not often). I'm going to get her started on an old SRT soon - to distract her from the M.

irq506
10-01-2008, 09:19
Well it looks like this topic has a lot of interest.
I work in a niche camera store in Seattle, and so niche that we are probably in a minority of less than ten stores of its kind in the US. Basically we are a repairs shop with a retail annex that sells consigned film and digital cameras and darkroom equipment, but we are primarily repairs.
Since September 2006 when the Seattle times came to do an article on the "Death of Film" and how it was going to hit us hard etc, I really couldn't tell the journalist what she was expecting to hear. So the piece became a story on a steadily growing stealth market of film users as a counter-flow against the digital onslaught.
We service all the the schools and some of the colleges in the Pacific Northwest area and they are still firmly in film, and this alone is enough to keep us afloat for at least four months of the year. However, amongst that, we have a HUGE Holga crew who buy a lot of film -almost obsessively (like me). But thats not all, we also have an increasing number of people buying film for cameras that they already have, and some that they are about to buy from us. And again people comming to us from all around the area just to buy film -no we cant compete with B&H but we do our best in the face of it.
I know from our rep, that film sales internationally are up by about 15% over sales five years ago, and he tells me that film sales never really dipped as much as they were expecting in places like Australia and New Zealand, and in places like S.E Asia, Africa and S. America film sales havent been much affected, but that was predicted as these are generally lower take up on technology.

What I hear from adults is that they find it easier to use, and from the kids I hear that they are sick to death of the technology rat-race where value is nil. But something that surprised me actually was the sentiments expressed by alot of younger people that they are after some kind of permanence, a lasting legacy, a record as it were. So we might see some kind of completion of a cycle as we get older folks...

Right now in the midst of the economic strife and political flatulance we might actually see something come from the younger generations.

JohnTF
10-01-2008, 11:31
This is great! Thanks everyone! Almost unremittingly upbeat observations (no miserable old farts?); lots of interesting insights; and the important point that it's not so much age as freshness, i.e. you can discover/rediscover film at any age.

Cheers,

R.


Roger, do you see any parallel with the Renaissance and coexistence of other niche techniques such as Pinhole photography, now with commercial pinhole cameras produced, and its increased use in classes, IMO, due in large part to the efforts of Eric Renner and his books?

I was always interested in it to a degree, but a former student walked up to me years down the line, in a pub, to tell me how his experience in the camera club and my classes led to his interest and eventual PhD in Fine Arts in Photography, and a lengthy discussion of the variety of techniques he became familiar with, and he put me on to Renner.

I was pleased to find that his education included photo chemistry and in general with the overall depth of his training. He was working at time as a fine printer.

No matter what the niche, it would seem to be the case that the Internet has enabled access to necessary and relevant information, and certainly has aided in the access to needed materials to sustain film as, at the very least a viable technique available to all who choose to explore and/ or continue to use it.

As in pinhole work, it finds its proponents.

In fact, I think the types of photography commonly found here and in the majority of your articles have always been an entirely viable niche and I see no reason that it should logically be threatened, but the commonly proffered perception is some sort of war between technologies.

John

Pherdinand
10-01-2008, 11:34
I tend to believe it.
I have two friend, and a friend of a friend, who in the last few months picked up film cameras (a gsn, a minolta x-300, a horizont, an af minolta, a praktica...) ad started using film, although all have digital cameras. Moreover, two out of the three also bought BW film dev stuff and asked me to help them through the first steps.

Pherdinand
10-01-2008, 11:35
Oh and we all are 30, give or take 1 :)

kuzano
10-01-2008, 11:43
Twenty years from now, this overheard in a coffeeshop......

"Wow, 626, 820, Minox spy film, Kodak disc, 110, APS, Digital,...Where did they all go?"

OK with me. I could just use the income from teaching digital for a couple of more years... about the time digital implodes and disappears.

JohnTF
10-01-2008, 11:46
[quote=irq506;905835]Well it looks like this topic has a lot of interest.
I work in a niche camera store in Seattle, and so niche that we are probably in a minority of less than ten stores of its kind in the US. <<<

Good post, I may have been in your store, I think I found a bulb for my Minolta 45M Color head. I also indirectly sent you a student and client, Zuzana, and was very interested in the general atmosphere of photography in Seattle, and spent a night at the Max.

Zu modeled for me in Prague, and developed an interest in photography. We were on our way to pass your way last month but ran out of time. She shoots many formats, and as I met her in a cyber café in Prague, she is both young and tech savvy, the only one who could reset my digital clock in my car, but really appreciates film images.

Always appreciate real "camera stores", I am wondering if a list of some kind is needed to keep the faith? There are a few in Ohio.

Regards, John

JohnTF
10-01-2008, 12:03
It's entertaining to watch this from a number of places.
If I can still buy a roll of Reala (or, I'll grant, an equivalent emulsion) for less than $20 USD for 36 exposures then I'll believe that film has found it's niche.


William


Probably the same price as a gallon of gas, if we are lucky. ;-)

At least we can bulk load film, save those cartridges.

J

snip
10-03-2008, 08:26
I'm 29 and started out with a digital P&S and a 35mm SLR around, maybe 5 years ago or so. I now have a 5D and a 1V, quite a lot of EF glass, mostly L stuff, I have a Voigtlander Rangefinder, Hasselblad outfit, A couple of 70's manual SLR's a couple of TLR's and a whole galaxy of fun and cheery "lomo'ish" plastic camera's including a holga and a Diana, wide angle and 135 modifications for those and also a Toyo View-G 4x5 view camera. I develop my own B&W and E-6 in a jobo processor but has sadly never been in a darkroom, I am desperately applying for the evening course at the local college every year and every year I get my money refunded because the course was cancelled due to lack of subscription. I scan and print my negatives digitally and have labs make prints, sometimes if I feel flush I get a commercial hand printer to knock out a silver/gelatin or two for me. Unfortunately it is not viable for me to attempt to build my own darkroom due to lack of space and a non-understanding wife.

I like using my 5D but I much prefer using my film gear.

flippyot
10-04-2008, 23:50
I'm 24 and got started with photography when I joined the military back in '03. I was stationed in Okinawa, Japan for a year an a half and was like, 'You know I might want to have some pictures to show the family and my buddies back home.' I went on eBay and found a nice Bessa R with a Heliar 50mm. I'm currently waiting on a Leica M6 .85 classic to reach me here in Athens, Greece so I can give my Bessa R3A (and yes my holga) a rest. I love the shots with my Bessa and my Holga, the colors from my holga are vivid and fun while my Bessa takes the ’classics’. And honestly I think my Holga took better pictures of the Old City in Jerusalem.

Pictures with film are earned; pictures with digital are just taken.

JoeV
10-06-2008, 06:40
I continue to be surprised at the interest shown in film photography, especially black and white, by kids. My 9-year old grandson and his friend stayed the night this last weekend. Of course, my grandson is used to my film photography; it's rather ordinary, perhaps boring, to him. But his friend was fascinated.

I had several rolls of 35mm HP5 to develop, using HC-110 direct from the syrup. His friend was fascinated by the whole process of loading the reels in the changing bag (I gave a 'play-by-play' description of what was happening inside the bag); mixing the chemicals; explaining each process step, what the chemicals did to the film and why it was important; and finally the finished product, 2 strips of negative images hanging to dry. Next, he wants to see the process of printing in the darkroom. With proper encouragement, I can imagine another film 'convert' in the making.

My point is that each generation rediscovers the world all over again, as if from scratch. They don't necessarily stand on the shoulders of their forebearers. They don't have the benefit of our hindsight. And rarely do they take our lessons to heart; they have to learn them for themselves. Film will get constantly rediscovered, as long as the materials are available. That's our job to ensure.

~Joe

Jason808
10-07-2008, 13:36
I was all ready to write something pithy but I'll just write some snippets as to why I think there may be a resurgence in youth using film, just random personal thoughts and some things I've heard while on a photo-club "photowalk."

1. No different than the people who get joy in using so-called primitive processes, taking a pic with digital is "easy," while film is harder, more of a challenge.

2. Many people spend their day in front of a computer, photography for many is recreation and they don't want to spend their free time in front of a machine. I can relate to this personally. Even scanning film gives me more of a feeling that I created the work, despite not having made the emulsion, cameras, lenses...

3. It's hip and kitschy. Look at some TV commercials.

4. One thing for me...no chimping. Take the shot and go on. It's nice when doing some PBWA (Photography By Walking Around, taken from LensWork's Brooks Jensen) to just keep walking, enjoying and finding new opportunities instead of walking around with my face staring at the back of the camera. One friend loves shooting at parties, and just doesn't like the gang of people trying to look at the back of the camera.

5. Film has an aesthetic, one that is either mimicked to varying degrees of success with PS plugins or in camera JPEG style settings. Why not take the easy route and just shoot film, especially when you can get a CD with the pics for very little extra.

6. A little bit of useful pressure - if I'm going to pay 20 cents everytime I push this button, I'm going to make it count.

7. I know where my negatives are as well as the 4x6 and the CD. Recently, I was going to reprint one of my all time favorite photos and I THOUGHT I had a digital file backed up several times, but after searching two hard drives, I still can't find it. My digital organization isn't at the level of Sports Illustrated's, but I do have semi-pro workflow system.

8. The Rolex vs. Timex argument. The Timex tells time more accurately, but there's something special about that mechanical Rolex. Pro Digital is just way the heck out of most budgets, yet pro film equipment has that wonderful feel of quality and is within reach and still produces great results - it has elegance.

I'll admit I love both digital and film. For my weekend work, I shoot motorsports and wouldn't dream of going back to film. I like my DSLR for night, high ISO stuff as well. For personal stuff including family, I shoot a candid, "street" style, DSLRs are obtrusive (even small ones) and P&S digitals are too slow - a film SLR or better yet - a Rangefinder - works great.

Shelley-Ann
10-11-2008, 06:57
I started out with a DSLR in 2006, but by summer 2007, I was trying out film cameras. I now have about 7 of them.
Digital is great, but for me, there is something really special about film. I buy film almost obsessively, and to be honest, I use film cameras about 60% of the time, but medium format and 135.
BTW, I just turned 36 (much to my dismay).

kuzano
10-11-2008, 22:38
I had my Olympus OM-1 for sale (purchased here by another RFF'r), and the instructor for the B&W film course at the college where I teach community ed classes emailed me. She asked if I didn't sell the camera, would I consider a donation to her class. I put together a package of 4 camera/lens kits... 3 Minoltas and a Sigma.

When I met with her, I asked about the interest level in the classes.

The college has one B&W class per quarter. Credit classes.. not community ed. They cap the class at 15 and always have a wait list. There are also a couple of other film classes for credit hours.

I find this interesting and encouraging for film. I know that 60 B&W new users a year doesn't seem like salvation for film, but there's more interest than some may be aware of in the market.

aizan
10-11-2008, 23:33
film is the real deal, what else is there to say?

rolleistef
10-12-2008, 10:48
I'm 20 and I use film - I've always used film. I used to use digital (and I've got a rather nice Fuji F100 for basic work) but my DSLR was stollen so I stopped.
This was a completely renewal for me. When I went to britain I decided to take 3 cameras : my new Agfa Isolette, my Rolleiflex and a digicrap.
The digicrap was highly used for sure, but I ddidn't have that many good shots. The Isolette was used for one roll because 120 film is getting pretty unavailable in Britain, especially B&W and the colour rolls were too thick for the camera.
The Rollei ate 3 1/2 rolls in two weeks and was very happy, and so was I with the results. In the meanwhile I bought a correctly working Minolta X700 for the SLR job, along with a flash and a 35-70. I had already got plenty of Minolta glass and it was the reason of the choice.
I have to tell that there is nothing funnier than using a 28mm on a big VF and 1600-pushed bw film. Try this with a 5D...
As for the Rolleiflex, square format rocks! And you cannot get any contact with the people with a DSLR because it's big, black and common.

sienarot
10-13-2008, 09:22
I guess by your definition, I'm "young" at 28!

Yes, I do use digital for "work" related photography where volume is involved, but almost all my personal photography is done with film. The big push for me to go from all digital to mostly film is it feels real. Digital is just too sterile and lacks any character without any major post processing. I find it humorous that people edit their digital photos to look like film photos anyways. I also really enjoy using all mechanical film cameras so that when I get a great shot, I got that great shot, not some computer.

kuzano
10-13-2008, 10:43
The Fuji S100FS (the FS stands for film simulation) is getting mixed reviews.

Fuji has made quite an effort to simulate the saturation of Velvia, with a setting for chrome. Now the company has dedicated a camera to simulation of other emulsion.

I've used a number of Fuji's with the Chrome feature, and they still look digital to me. I think that's what younger people are experiencing.. the real differences in dynamic range plus a rebellion to the corporate theme that with digital, you need a new camera 2-3 times a year.

You still can't get an image from a digital camera that has the dynamic range and can be hung on the wall without Post Processing more than film development and enlargement, without some characteristic that screams digital.

Roger Hicks
10-13-2008, 12:13
. . . , without some characteristic that screams digital.

Yes, but what is it?

I refer to it as an 'airbrushed' look (which is why I normally prefer digital for soft focus shots).

Has anyone else a better definition?

Cheers,

R.

benlees
10-13-2008, 15:51
I started learning more seriously about photography this year, my 37th- the dreaded ''middle'' age grade, to get a bit more control over the end results. Using film was a no-brainer as good cameras are cheap and so is film. As I have progressed (debatable!) I really enjoyed using old cameras and different formats, but have come to the conclusion that digital for colour work, for me, is the way to go. I only shoot b&w film now and will start to develope my own soon- I hope. For colour, I have used c41, Sensia, Velvia, and Kodachrome and have been wowed by them all (especially Kodachrome). Strangely, I am also wowed with digital. I have said this before, but it is amazing that it works so well- and will only get better. I bought a Pentax k200d in July and have already paid for it in terms of film/developement costs compared to how much colour film I had been using. Of course, cost isn't the most relevant aspect of it all: I am just as happy with images from the K200d as I am from my MX.

Next to my K200d sits the Minolta Autocord loaded with HP5. The Autocord has a wonky shutter that doesn't even fire if the focus is closer than 7 feet! Should get it fixed but it still such a pleasure to use. It is small(ish) and quiet. People think you are a surveyor when you use it- am contemplating getting one of those safety vests when I venture out!

Digital vs film to me is silly.

-doomed-
10-13-2008, 21:07
I'm 24 now and i just kind of stumbled into film. Wondering what the hell a rangefinder was i took a ride to my local camera shop and saw the canonet that i ended up buying. I take it everywhere, i love how simple it is as well as its size. Shooting with my 20D is easy and i can fire off a bunch of shots and delete what sucks, i cant do that with film. Since film requires one to actually stop and think, compose the scene and then get the exposure right.

I actually read your article in shutterbug about the new leica summarits. That article made me look at what a rangefinder is , granted i ended up buying the canonet, i then bought a bessa R2A and cannot wait to shoot with it.

Film is exciting to me , learning to take the time and really think about the shot makes this a more enjoyable hobby to me. I like my DSLR for its ease of use and its ability to let me be lazy , these film cameras have me full on.

martin s
10-27-2008, 12:27
Hey you guys, I'm 19 years old and I've been shooting for the past few years. I started off w/ a Canon EOS (?) when I was 14, in school. That was a mandatory class, pretty uncommon for a German school. I used to develop and print my own stuff and I hated it. I have since moved to San Diego (High School) and back to Germany (Business School). I used to have a Pentax k10d, but sold it just to get a Canon AE-1 a few weeks later. Well what was next.. Yep I gave the AE-1 to a friend, just to get a Mamiya DX 1000. I've been shooting with that camera for some time now, and on Saturday I ordered my first m6. Now things have changed, I love going to the darkroom and shooting film. I actually convinced a few people of using film cameras as well, instead of going the all-digital route.

Love to be here,
martin

regularchickens
10-27-2008, 12:50
I'm 27. I started attempting to learn photography last year, and the camera I started with is my great-grandfather's old Nikon Photomic FTn. I've since bought a Leica M2 (yes, I got in over my head a bit early), but the F is still one of my favorite cameras to use. I adore slow-speed black & white film when light permits me to use it, and for everything else there's Tri-X or HP5.

I started out by taking film to a local lab for processing and scanning. I am lucky enough to have two nearby that do black & white processing inexpensively. Later, I started developing film at home and bought a Nikon film scanner to complete my workflow at home. I've been to a local darkroom several times, but as it's fairly expensive to work there by the hour, my time there is limited. Once I have the room, I want to set up a darkroom for printing at home, as the silver prints I've made are prettier than any digital print of my work I've managed to produce.

I've grown up with computers and completed a computer science major in college, so one might expect that I'd be on board with digital 100%. I do have a DSLR, but the experience film gives me is so different from my usual day-to-day that it's extremely satisfying. I'm tapping into a store of knowledge that's much older than me or the computers I use - not to mention, I'm using cameras up to nearly twice my age. That means something to me when computer technology is so disposable.

I keep flirting with the idea of getting into medium format, but I always come back to reality by reminding myself that I have a lot yet to learn with 35mm. :)

David Goldfarb
10-27-2008, 13:37
At the Photoplus Expo here in New York last week there were quite a few student groups, and I'd say they were the majority of people I saw with film cameras on their persons at the show. I spoke quite a bit with Patrick DelliBovi from Freestyle, and he said the Holgas were getting lots of attention, as well as the new "Blackbird Fly" 35mm plastic TLR from Japan. The coolest camera at the show was the new Holga 6x12 Pinhole camera that just came out about a week ago (alas, the Fujifilm 667 was not to be found). Check out the scene at the Freestyle booth--

http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/temp/HipstersandHolgas,Freestyle,Photoplus2008.jpg

Sonny Boy Havidson
10-27-2008, 13:42
Well... Many younger have never owned a digital camera and always shot film! Am I still a "younger" at 28?

dwaoka
10-27-2008, 14:49
28 here.
Never had a digital camera nor zoom lens on any of my cameras, started about 10 years ago in high school with Zenit developing my own Pan 100, 400 and HP5+. Then crappy Canon T70, Konica Auto S3, Yashica GSN, last year ETRSi and Ricoh GR1. This week R4A + CV 25/f4 should arrive to me from cameraquest, hope to be my last 35mm camera ;-)
Never even held a decent DSLR, I'm afraid to get rash or something.

BTW: My first post here.

Peter.

Michael I.
11-23-2008, 19:21
26.
never used a digital camera and dont want to

mcctoronto
11-23-2008, 20:02
24. shooting for 10 plus years and never had a digi. whats the point?

Gradskater
11-23-2008, 20:08
age: 28
I have 9 film cameras (4 rangefinders) and 2 digital ones. The digital ones rarely, if ever, get used. My pictures aren't that good, but when people my age (and younger) see my pictures, they think my pictures are great. Why? because film just has that look about it. It looks "serious" or "real". Something like that.

Roger Hicks
11-24-2008, 01:47
. . . It looks "serious" or "real". Something like that.
Of course I agree. But what is it? And how is it distinguishable even by non-photographers?

Cheers,

R.

Gradskater
11-24-2008, 09:02
Of course I agree. But what is it? And how is it distinguishable even by non-photographers?

Cheers,

R.


I wish I knew what "it" is, but my guess is that our eyes just don't see things like a digital sensor sees things. If you focus on one thing, like the words on the screen you are currently reading, everything in your peripheral vision and behind the screen are out of focus. Our eye-brain connection recreates images in our head in a much more film-like way. Having everything so sharply in focus doesn't connect with us on that intimate level. Also, our memories are hardly digital-sharp, they often are fuzzy or grainy, much more like film captures light versus how a digital sensor records it. Is that "it"? I dont know, but it sounds good to me.

Al Kaplan
11-24-2008, 09:19
The colors never quite look real. "Sharpening" only sharpens edges big enough to really stand out like the legs of a table. The grain pattern in the wood either becomes too noticeable if it gets resolved, or doesn't show up at all. I'm not sure how much of this is just the different look of the film itself or people going nuts in the post processing just because they can.

Roger Hicks
11-24-2008, 12:17
I wish I knew what "it" is, but my guess is that our eyes just don't see things like a digital sensor sees things. If you focus on one thing, like the words on the screen you are currently reading, everything in your peripheral vision and behind the screen are out of focus. Our eye-brain connection recreates images in our head in a much more film-like way. Having everything so sharply in focus doesn't connect with us on that intimate level. Also, our memories are hardly digital-sharp, they often are fuzzy or grainy, much more like film captures light versus how a digital sensor records it. Is that "it"? I dont know, but it sounds good to me.

Sounds good to me too -- at least as convincing as much of what passes for 'expert opinion' on the internet. Thanks.

Then again, I'd add that the incredible sharpness of a good contact print can't be duplicated by digital either -- and that such pictures correspond to those things that are seared at a deeper level than idle recollection. Or possibly they correspond to things we see for the first time...

Cheers,

R.

mariusnilsen
11-24-2008, 13:01
been using film since 1999. and im "only" 27.

http://www.mariusnilsen.com (http://www.mariusnilsen.com/)

hamradio
11-24-2008, 13:14
I just recently started using film (I had maybe shot 3 or 4 rolls of film in my life up until a month or two ago). I really like everything about film; how relatively cheap film is (itself and related equipment), developing it, having a hard copy of everything, etc.

Lilserenity
11-24-2008, 13:30
25 and have a few cameras, mostly use my EOS 3, but also have an Olympus Trip 35 and XA, and also a Mamiya C330 which is so much fun to use.

I develop and do all of my own prints, I do have a scanner but it's only to share over e-mail and Flickr. I don't print digitally as I find the result from the wetprint process is so enjoyable and excellent in every way.

I do have a digital camera on my phone which I'll use but it's not that good (3.2MP of freyed edges and JPEG artefacting, yum) I did have a digital camera once in 2004. It lost all my pictures when the battery compartment door broke (internal memory on the camera.)

I was not at all pleased. I used disposable cameras for the rest of the week in Tunisia and got some of my favourite photos of all time.

I have used digital SLRs and modern point and shoots and their OK for the majority of people, but I enjoy the whole non-digital process. It's fun!

Cost isn't too much of a part of it but I work in IT (web development) and I know how computers go, and I don't want my cameras to be throw away digital equipment, I want them to be things I will treasure in the years and decades to come.

That said, I'm no pro-shooter; if I was, digital would make more sense for quick + easy mass results.

Roger Hicks
11-24-2008, 13:39
. . . I do have a digital camera on my phone which I'll use but it's not that good (3.2MP of freyed edges and JPEG artefacting, yum) I did have a digital camera once in 2004. It lost all my pictures when the battery compartment door broke (internal memory on the camera.)

I was not at all pleased. I used disposable cameras for the rest of the week in Tunisia and got some of my favourite photos of all time.


Great story. Interesting how IT professionals and others who have worked professionally with computers, other than as users, tend to polarize into 'Computers are God' and 'I don't trust the things further than I can throw them'. (I used to write technical promotional material for mainframes and associated software...)

Cheers,

R.

Lilserenity
11-24-2008, 13:45
Great story. Interesting how IT professionals and others who have worked professionally with computers, other than as users, tend to polarize into 'Computers are God' and 'I don't trust the things further than I can throw them'. (I used to write technical promotional material for mainframes and associated software...)

Very well observed, I'm very much of the thinking I don't trust them and so long as I have the mains in my reach, I'm still the boss of it, but without that, I don't think I'd be quite as cocky! I've been very careful whilst enthusiastic about technology and IT/Computers to not become dependent on it and run my life by them. That would be dangerous!

kshapero
11-24-2008, 13:48
I'm not young but I am immature.

Gradskater
11-24-2008, 15:23
One more thing I would add is that a lot of the younger kids, I'm talking like 15 and younger, are so used to seeing and producing digital point-and-shoot and camera phone snaps, that when they see a "real" picture, they are taken aback. Wow. Depth of field. Who knew?

Their frame of reference is so shifted from the film pictures that older people grew up with. I see this with my nephew for sure.

rogue_designer
11-24-2008, 15:49
I shoot both film and digital for my professional work. Depending on the needs of the shoot, and the client (timeframe, cost, final usage requirements, etc.)

My personal work is 98% film - in 135/120/4x5

33 years old. Started shooting in 1985 with a minolta XD-11, and graduated to a Yashicamat 124G shortly afterwards.

Hobbes
11-24-2008, 16:25
I call this passing the torch. This was during a photography field trip taken when the boy showed an interest in film. He was 12. Who knows what attracts younger people to film in an age of instant gratification. All I can say is that the boy was hooked when he saw his first print come up in the developer.

Sorry about the crappy image - I have a cheap scanner. But I have a nice darkroom!

ElectroWNED
11-25-2008, 12:22
well, I'm back in the game... Just bought a NIB Hi-Matic 7s and I'm signed up for a B&W class at my college. Finally gonna learn how to develop and print!

I foresee a darkroom in my future... :D

fuzk
04-07-2009, 03:49
Firstly, I would like to apologise for reviving an old thread. I'm wondering if anyone bothers, but this thread struck a cord with me, so I'm just going to go ahead with my 2 cents. :rolleyes:

I'm 29 this year and I really only got into photography last year. What attracted me? Holga and Lomography. I bought into the hype of 'imperfection' pictures and crazy colour shifts due to cross-processing. Guess what? I'm still loving it. :D

Is that the end of the stroy? Hardly. I do agree that it's all marketing and over-hyped, and I don't agree with their mantra of 'don't think, just shoot'. After fiddling with the Holga for a while, I realised I don't have much control of what I'm doing, so I picked up my dad's old Yashica FX-2 and started to shoot with it. After so long and no dry cabinet, there's still no moulds to speak of! (I live in a very humid country, Singapore.)

In the mean time, I picked up an old LC-A and other 'toy cameras' to fiddle with and is always surprised at how sharp the pictures turn out - with not much control to speak of too.

I 'graduated' into a Yashica GT (amongst other Yashicas) and was introduced into the world of RF. Now, I'm waiting to get a Bessa R to get into the 'serious' stuff.

To answer the question, why film? I guess in the beginning it was all about colours and the excitement of waiting to see if you did something right (i.e. capturing a photo). Then it was about trying to get things right with the proper controls (aperture, shutter speed, etc.) in my hand. Well, I recently also realised why I never had a digital camera. Something new is always coming up and I could never catch up with it. I want something I can use for all if not most conditions. I also love how a photo comes out when shot with film - the grains and everything. Like someone commented, it's funny how for all its advancements, digital cameras are trying to mimic the feel of a film camera.

I guess I have the over-hyped and marketing machine of Lomography to thank because without which, I would never have discovered the wonderful world of film photography. :) Oh, a lot of my friends who are into Lomography are also really well-versed in film photography such as processing and stuff.

Oh. This is my first official post (in public) in RFF. I just have to say I have found this forum to be most friendly and most helpful in me searching for useful information. :)

robbert
04-07-2009, 04:44
Started with digi, shot that for about 6 months, picked up a LTM leica and now I shoot bw with Leica M and colour slide with Hasselblad. I have my own darkroom (I transform my parents' bathroom :P) I bought a 6x6 slide projector the other day, also very nice!

Mattikk
04-07-2009, 05:05
I'm 19 and I feel excactly like th OP said.

Brian Sweeney
04-07-2009, 05:37
> Firstly, I would like to apologise for reviving an old thread.

Great Job reviving this thread, it really makes us "old-timers" happy to see the younger generation using film. The time is great to pick-up and use classic equipment.

And at RFF- you never know when a thread started in 2005 will pop back to the top.

Brian Sweeney
04-11-2009, 16:49
Just to follow-up, I ended up giving away a Konica Autoreflex "T" w 40/1.8 and a Canon AE-1program to two students yesterday. Both expressed interest in shooting film, and had experience with digital. I've placed a Yashica TLR, Kodak Retina Auto III, a few Polaroid 100 pack cameras, and others to people expressing interest. Nothing that cost more than $20 or so and needed a little of my time put into. Most of them were given to "the younger set".

So, if you come by those garage sale bargains you might pick them up and set them aside to get someone hooked into using film. They might like it, and keep the medium going for another generation. Anyway, that's my evil plan.

Roger Hicks
04-11-2009, 16:57
So, if you come by those garage sale bargains you might pick them up and set them aside to get someone hooked into using film. They might like it, and keep the medium going for another generation. Anyway, that's my evil plan.

Dear Brian,

Great stuff!

And thanks to those who revived the thread.

I tend to use digital for record or colour, and film for B+W, where digi is a poor second in my book.

Tashi delek,

R.

Al Kaplan
04-11-2009, 17:24
This is a thread that needs to be kept updated and nerar the top of the list. There are plenty of schools teaching photography and most all the courses I know of are film based. At times it's difficult for them to schedule darkroom time because of too many students and too few darkrooms. It's also difficult for them to find relatively inexpensive used film SLR's, rangefinders, or TLR's. They're always looking for cameras for the students and I've donated a few yard sale finds, most recently a Minolta X-700 that I picked up for next to nothing. I've also let several students use my darkroom.

Roger Hicks
04-11-2009, 17:25
This is a thread that needs to be kept updated and nerar the top of the list. There are plenty of schools teaching photography and most all the courses I know of are film based. At times it's difficult for them to schedule darkroom time because of too many students and too few darkrooms. It's also difficult for them to find relatively inexpensive used film SLR's, rangefinders, or TLR's. They're always looking for cameras for the students and I've donated a few yard sale finds, most recently a Minolta X-700 that I picked up for next to nothing. I've also let several students use my darkroom.

Dear Al,

To use an old formula, God bless you and keep you!

Tashi delek,

R.

Al Kaplan
04-11-2009, 17:33
Thanks, Roger. If there are any students (or not) in the north Miami-Dade or South Broward (Florida) area needing to use a B&W darkroom send me an email [email protected] Lots of SS tanks and reels, two enlargers for 35mm to 6x9cm.

piazza63
04-11-2009, 18:10
I'm 25. Started with my Nikon D80 4 years ago..I went Nikon Because I knew I wanted the option of using old and new glass and canon switch mounts. So I only bought fixed prime lenses and shot away. Eventually I got an FE2 and never looked back. Begining this year I got my First Leica and now I'm not looking back at SLRs. I think Medium Format will be next but I'm holding off for now:) I think there are a lot of kids that are starting digital and moving to film. Digital is just too clean and perfect..Almost flat and boring. Like a Digital vs. Analog audio recording or solidstate vs. tube amplifiers, analog is just warmer and has something special about it.

Al Kaplan
04-11-2009, 18:17
The 'Stones or The 'Dead on 12 inch vinyl is right up there with Kodachrome II.

Baldadash
04-12-2009, 00:02
Al, I've never shot kodachrome II, but I was raised on the stones on 12 inch vinyl, along with CCR, Clapton, Hendrix... my dad didn't have cameras, but he had about 400 albums.
I really only got into film photography around the beginning of last year. I learned the basic principals of photography by learning digital first. The place I worked for used Fuji S1 Pros in 2000 or 2001. I think this turned me off photography for awhile. I guess camera makers had to start somewhere, but 25 sec to write a tiff file and $700 micro-drives that lasted about a week because photogs squeezed them.
Now I'm developing in my bathroom and putting a darkroom in my garage.
All that said, I'm 35 and I feel like a student photographer. I hope I feel this way in 30 years... a student still learning.

KM-25
04-12-2009, 00:10
I started making photographs over 34 years ago, I turn 42 in a few days. I have been shooting digital professionally for over 15 years, helped to work out some of the flash exposure kinks in 94-95 for Kodak / AP.

I am moving away from digital now, the reward of hard work and clients who trust my vision. There is nothing wrong with digital, I just like film better and I know how to shoot it.

And I love how many young people are getting into shooting film, that rocks!

aaron.tam
04-12-2009, 02:09
I'm 22 and I've been shooting for 4 years. Started off with a borrowed Nikon F4 in NYC during reading week. Got myself a D70s afterwards and shot for a year and a half with that. Changed to a D200...got my first gig (http://www.flickr.com/photos/aarontam/sets/72157602240001724/) as a photographer for the university yearbook. That led to an internship (http://www.flickr.com/photos/aarontam/sets/72157602131576141/) at a daily newspaper in Hong Kong (HK Economic Times). That internship pretty much killed the D200 but I was using the F100 and the Bessa R2a at the same time so I plowed on with 400H (http://www.flickr.com/photos/aarontam/sets/72157603801796525/)! Now I have replaced the D200 with a Canon 1D Mkii (http://www.flickr.com/photos/aarontam/sets/72157606829937655/) and I've replaced the F100 with a Leica M2. I'm hoping to use the Canon and the M2 when I'm doing my internship for Reuters in HK this summer!

wakarimasen
04-12-2009, 05:11
I have just turned 40 and up until a few months ago was firmly pursuing the Digital track. Having bought a Canon Powershot S3 IS I found that this had limitations where photographing sports or low-light situations was concerned. Consequently I bought a 40D last year, and set-about buying the lenses I would need. This set me off down the 'only an L-lens will do' path with the corresponding costs involved. I suddenly noticed two things:
1. that I was planning to spend ever increasing sums of money and expecting perfection with every photograph - when viewed at 100% resolution on my monitor.
2. that I rarely printed any of the photographs that I had taken.

Shortly after this I spotted a website comparing 35mm film cameras with 'pro-spec' DSLRs using prints from each in 6X4 format. The conclusion: at this size of printing, most people will see no descernible difference in 'perceived' quality.

Quietly feeling foolish, I started reading about 35mm rangefinders and am having more fun with this 'low-tech' equipment than I have had with my DSLR so far.

I am planning to play around with the cameras that I have bought so far (Olympus Trip, Fed 2e, Fed 4, Zorki 4, Zorki 4K and an Olympus XA) before settling on two or three to keep. I also have a weather-eye out for a meduim format camera: TLR or folding - I can't decide so far!

I won't be selling the DSLR any time soon: it's too useful (some might say appropriate) for rapid FPS shooting for sports. However, when we went to Disneyland Paris recently, it only came around the park with me for the first day. For the remainder of the visit it was relegated to the hotel room for being just too big and bulky.

Sorry for the long post - just had to get that of my chest....
Best regards,
RoyM

NickTrop
04-12-2009, 08:00
To me, having gone from film to digital back "mostly" to film, there's just something about the look of film that has more character and is more interesting than digital in black and white. The old fixed focal length lenses are gems - and many are super cheap. I laugh sometimes when I read threads about DSLR owners asking, what adapter? How do I use this on my automated DSLR - what setting? And the crop factor...

I want to write - spring for $30 - the cost of that M42-Canon DSLR adapter (or whatever), and use that beautiful SMC Takumar 50mm 1.7 you paid $20 on eBay on a proper K-mount FILM camera...

NickTrop
04-12-2009, 08:05
Correction M42 =/= K mount : )

Al Kaplan
04-12-2009, 08:14
It won't work, Nick. There's something in most peoples' genes that compells them to lust after, own, and flaunt the newest, most expensive and complicated piece of technology they can find. Results matter not. Most of them are all too well aware that they couldn't make a decent photo no matter what, so they confine themselves to treating the GAS syndrome.

Then there are always those who would obsess that X brand adapters are .0086mm thicker than brand B, or they have a black body and black lenses and the adapter only comes in chrome.

MarkoKovacevic
04-12-2009, 08:47
I'm 16 and have been shooting film for around 3-4 years. I've shot around 200 rolls so far, and I love how I can get a pro camera for the cost of a cheap digi P&S, and developing and printing my own film is great. Then there's the cameras that have no digital alternative, like the Zorki's and the Olympus XA. Plus film just looks different, more saturated, and more real.

Druid
04-12-2009, 14:23
I'm hardly young at 47 but apart from a bit of early learning off an uncle who was semi-pro (I have vague recollections of using an Olympus Trip and something big, black and complicated on a tripod that may well have been a Rollei SL66 and of seeing his darkroom with the strange bulbous enlarger head that looked vaguely like a Dalek), I didn't touch a camera until a few years back. Then I got interested in digital cameras via the excellent Olympus 5060 (originally bought for the wife)

I got enthusiastic and progressed to a D200 with a big fast 'normal' zoom, and then got some nice old moderate length teles and the new 105 VR ABC XYZ micro, which I still use for my nature-hippy stuff. I got frustrated with the sheer size of it when I developed an interest in urban photography though and moved first to an old F3 which gave me a taste for the film 'look', the feel of solid precision machinery and taking responsibility for focus and exposure.

It eventually occurred to me though, that what I liked about it was what rangefinders are supposed to be good at, so that led me to spend the money I had earmarked for the D700 to gain a different but for me possibly more useful capability. So I got the R2A & Biogon 35/2 kit I've been using lately (although the F3 with an AIS 105/2.5 and maybe an AF 180/2.8 in the bag makes an extremely useful backup, spotmeter and 'everything else' camera)

colker
04-12-2009, 14:35
Being in the unique position of being an Instructor at one Art School (for kids 2-18) and a student at Emily Carr university I see two major reasons for young people liking film. One, the hipsters/scenesters/lomography crowd. Their alternative life style revolves around vintage, so there is a large, and growing, popularity to shoot classic SLRs ect. My students, who range from 9-18, all love the process of the darkroom, and seeing their prints come to life.

For me, I enjoy the work flow of film. I also enjoy film cameras, they're much more enjoyable to use than my DSLR. I also shoot alot of medium and large format, a process that I can't copy digitally, and I dont have 40,000 dollars lying around to drop on a Hd3 or the like.

All that said, digital has its place. When I'm shooting jobs I rarely use film. The process of digital lends it self very nicely to most forms of professional photography.

Oh yeah, I'm 21, been shooting for 7 years.

that's it. i have the same view and i am 52. love rolleis. love contact sheets but i know no pro can afford to shoot film right now. the digital image is too good, workflow is fast and safe and that's how the market is working..
when it comes to independent, personal, art work, film is rulling. large format is booming. galleries are crowded w/ BW contact prints of 8x10.
35mm right now? i don't see much of it going on.

Erlend
04-12-2009, 15:25
I'm 30 and have been a digital junkie for many years, but started shooting just four years ago. Like many others here I became sick of the rat race and sitting in front of the computer all the time, so just for fun I bought a Zero Image pinhole camera and a Holga to play a bit.
The experience blew me away. It was much more satisfaction and fun than going out shooting with the Eos 5DmkII and the other digital cameras I have. With the Holga you just focus on the frame, no settings, and the pinhole is pure meditation when you sit and wait for exposure to be done.

I think digital is great for learning, and I would not have learnt 1/10 of what I know if I used film the 4 years, but now I feel ready to "make" pictures and think film is the way to go for me. I now "know" how the picture turns out before I press the shutter button.
I'm actually tempted to sell the new 5DII and some of the lenses and go medium or large format.

Erlend
04-12-2009, 15:39
and like others have mentioned I love film for the physical aspect, and not just binary code. I do not trust computers either, and have always been insane protective about the digital cameras I've had. Afraid of dropping it, getting dust inside, getting wet and so on. I have a Zorki 6 and even though is a cheap crappy camera I know it can stand a dive in the river for example and still be working after dried.

Larky
04-12-2009, 15:45
Hello. Just turned 31 (not happy) and have been shooting film every year of it. Been a serious digital user for about 4 months, I like digital because the quality is great and like film because my very poor technique with chemicals means I can achieve 'artsy' plastic lens looking pics with much better gear! ;)

In all seriousness I don't think about which I prefer, film or digi, I just shoot with whatever I feel like at the time.

But I wanted to throw this into the ring, I think that (I have no basis for this btw) that if you are teaching/learning photography you should start with film. You should learn to develop, print, play with combinations of film, chemicals, times, experience things going wrong etc. That experience with screw ups and experimentation will do nothing but help, so I find it so sad that all my local educational places have ditched film in favor of leasing a shed load of cheap Canon DSLR's with even cheaper lenses. It's very very sad, and the lack of play means all the students produce the same pieces of sh1t.

Long live film, long live play.

mooge
04-12-2009, 21:02
hei, I'm Dragunov (not really) and I'm 16...

I wanted to learn all the steps of photography- y'know, the stuff that happens after you press and wait on your digital P&S? yeah. so I borrowed a whole Canon F-1 kit from a very kind friend of mine...

I used to think film was superior to digital, and that's why I shot it. or because it was so cost-effective- pro-caliber results for not much. but really, I shoot film because I'm too poor for a good dslr, and I like it. I don't need big enlargements, so all the image quality isn't really needed- I take my colour negatives to the local supermarket anyways, so some of those are crappy.
and besides, shutter lag is so @#$%ing annoying!

and I got to borrow a Leica M4-P recently. the magic wore off a few hours after I got it... the VF is not brighter than my Canon FTb's with a f/1.8 lens. the wind is not smoother than the Canon F-1's (but who cares?). it's not much smaller than my Kiev. it's not much quiter than my Kiev. not worthy of all the hype, but it's a great camera- why do they have to cost so much!?!?... (Kodachrome/slides too. but that I understand.)

cheers.

lukjan
04-13-2009, 04:04
Hi I'm 23 and started photography 4 year ago firstly with a ZENIT ET found in a closed, I really liked the process and part of the results ( probably only two shutter speeds accurate and a not align mirror or focus screen) then I begun searching for a camera. I wanted a digital at the beginning because is easier for learning and you are more independent (go to the shop buy film, go to lab, go to the lab again, etc) but i wanted a real camera, a small one and good quality, more and more I searched I discovered that my ideal digital camera didn't exist even at the hi end when I couldn't afford an used entry level, so I choosed the other way. searching for a film slr a really 'bad' thing happend i discovered rangefinders, it was on a national geographic book where i saw a beautiful picture of wild horses in south of Spain from David Allan Harvey and a Leica m6 was mentioned, so i did the only possible thing brought a Canonet on ebay, waiting for the camera to arrive I found a great deal on a olympus om4 that I couldn't let pas so it's film for me from then. But it has been more difficult that I initially though film is expensive specially if you don't have the money to by a lot at once and labs are even more expensive and difficult to find specially for color so I'm not sure I made the right choose I love my contact sheets but for now I have to stop at them and not print any thing and for the price of develop and contact I could have printed a lot more digital phtos (low quality but always prints). I really like very much the process of making photos with the cameras I have and I know then my negs are there for when I'll have the possibility to print them, but now I'm finishing the last film and is a pain to go to the shop and pay 5€for t-max or 6€ for neopan1600. In the end the biggest problem for film is its price and the lack of good and reasonable labs for all the people who cant do it them self. A long post sorry but if someone asked me for an advice today in my same conditions 4 years ago i will say him to save a little bit more and buy directly a digital(sorry).
Now I have to go back saving for the Leica.
Bye, Lukjan

Cutly
04-13-2009, 05:51
I'm 25 and I started two years ago with a pentax K10D. I felt interrested in photography immediatly, but really disliked the digital look of my pics. And, as I was interrested in printing too, I bought a full darkroom kit + an olympus 35 dc for 200$. Two month after, I already had 4 russian cameras, and soon I sold my pentax and bought a leica m3.
Now I post pics weekly here : kmu-photo.blogspot.com ; and I don't look back on digital.
film is so much beautiful, warm, etc. And I love the process of using film, while I don't fell as much connected when I use digital.
too virtual for me I guess.
So yes, digital leads to film, for me at last.

Roger Hicks
04-13-2009, 14:31
Thanks, everyone. Wonderful stories.

There seems to be a lot of love in film. Maybe it appeals to people who think in a particular way. There are many ways of thinking, often equal in merit; but it's always cheering to share with people who think the same way as oneself.

Tashi delek,

R.

andrewteee
04-13-2009, 14:44
I'm a young 40 and relatively new to photography. Started with digital several years ago and quickly fell in love with the craft. But over time as my own work evolved and I studied the work of others I was drawn more and more towards film photography. I was given a Holga for my 40th birthday and more recently purchased a 35mm Zeiss Ikon rangefinder. I plan to continue further down the path of film and I hope that it remains available.

johannielscom
04-20-2009, 17:09
...'Young' in this context does indeed mean 'under 40 or even 50'. ...

Hey, I qualify! Shooting FP4, TMX100 and TMX400 and Kodak E100G on a regular basis, even got some sixty rolls of Konica Impresa 100 in the fridge.

Have only just started to soup my b&w in Rodinal stand development, will expand that practise, great fun.

bucks11
04-20-2009, 17:24
This is a good thread Roger. I've been reading it for a while but just never posted to it.

I, like some others here, started shooting during the booming digital age and started in digi P&S, moving into DSLR, but still noticed something was missing.

Just transferring pictures to a Hard-drive and calling it a day became kind of boring for me (I'm not much for spending endless hours in PS), so the missing step was ultimately developing film.

Since starting film I become more aware of what I'm going to shoot, and enjoy every process up to sleeving the negs. It's just like chemistry class in your bathroom! I don't turn to digital much anymore if I'm planning on spending a day shooting, just load up some rolls and hit the road.

kshapero
04-20-2009, 18:26
Roger, I may not be young but I am immature as hell (so says my wife) and I have a film camera with me when I leave the house, even if I am doing a digital job.

suzums
04-20-2009, 18:50
Wow, I haven't been really active on here for a couple of years, and it is great to see the increased amount of 'younger' photographers here on RFF. I still remember being one of the youngest on the forum.

I started with film in high school, went through the digital phase the last couple of years, turned around and sold all my digital gear, and now back with shooting film. 35mm, and medium format.

I think lomography/toy cameras/hipster cameras has really kept the film business going. I'm constantly meeting new people getting into photography through lomo cameras. Its a great start to shepherd newbies into more film cameras!

Film lives.

Bradd Cluckey
04-20-2009, 19:00
I suppose I'll contribute.

I'm 24. I've been shooting seirously for about a year and a half now, but I've been taking pictures all my life. I always shot film, and for some reason was never really attracted to digital. I baught a cheap point and shoot, and still have it, but it sits in my camera bag as a backup backup backup.

I am one of the folks that believes that for a combination of value and image quality, film cannot be beat. Period. The range of possibilities with film/format/developer/lens/camera combinations is astounding.

I also have a better grasp of the process behind making a good image using a film camera than with digital media. Photoshop is entirely foriegn to me. I feel I have a greater degree of control over a manual camera. I don't like having to outsmart my little dp&s to get it to do what I want.

As for "trendy-ness" of film and vintage film cameras, why not? A bigger market for film and film cameras is a good thing. Not to mention that I think an old rangefinder does indeed look cool hanging around a person's neck. I feel cool popping up on my tip toes and pretending I'm HCB while snapping a frame, and it wouldn't be the same with a digital p&s. "Oui, non, oui, non OUI! OOP!" as opposed to "oui.. le focus lag....non....oui...non...OUI...le focus lag BEEP...merde" At least that's how it tends to work for me.

I don't mean to digi-bash as it definately has its place in fast paced professional work, but I shoot for myself at the moment, and I enjoy the process of film photography.

Cheers,
Cluckey.

flip
04-20-2009, 19:22
I'm 35 and I mix it up. I shot film when I was a kid and worked the darkroom in H.S. but then it got pricier. As digital moved-in, I was in limbo. Film processing wasn't cheap. Digital cams of any real quality were too pricey. Years went by, undocumented.....

Then I get a 20D and got back into it. But the thing just broke my back. So, by this time living in Japan, I looked around at all the rangefinders in the shops. Size was a factor. So was the draw to reconnect with the process I so enjoyed in school. I bought a Canon P and a 50/1.4.

I still shoot digital, on the R-D1, but I keep film in the fridge and in a couple of bodies. It looks different, qualitatively. It feels different to wait - for the processing as well as the shot. I also like being able to shoot concerts at ISO3200 without a crop factor. Irreplaceable.

Roger Hicks
04-21-2009, 01:50
Right now we have no water supply to the darkroom (burst pipe in winter waiting to be repaired). Yes, we can do some work there -- you don't need running water -- but soon I have to remove an 8x4 foot sheet of plasterboard to get to the pipe, and repair it.

Both Frances and I are getting withdrawal symptoms from lack of darkroom...

Aaaargh!

Tashi delek,

R.

SimonSawSunlight
04-21-2009, 02:49
well, I am 20 (is that young enough?) and I didn't really grow up digital, my first camera was a film one, my parents always used a film camera and still do. Digital fascinated me as everyone else when it started to be serious stuff and not just sci-fi producing crappy pictures. I got a 4mp digital point and shoot before I discovered my actual interest and passion for photography, but when that happened about 1 or 2 years later I learned to hate that thing and lusted for a DSLR. I bought an EOS 20D and became more and more passionate about the whole thing, shooting a lot, learning a lot, but somehow it wasn't enough and I ended up getting a nikon f-301 with 2 zoom lenses not even half a year later. not a great camera setup either but it got me into the film swing and I was looking for better alternatives, accidentally bought an analogue eos body so I could use my 20D lenses on it (thank god I never bought crop lenses) and some time later a Nikon F5, Minolta X-700, some Yashica Mat's yadda yadda and all of a sudden I found myself almost not using digital anymore except for work (I started working in a Studio in Potsdam in the meantime) it was so full of life and uniqueness compared to digital, and, and, and.
I had some little rangefinder cameras too (Kodak Retina stuff for example) and I liked the rangefinder system but the cameras itself didn't really blow me away. then some fellow RFFer lent me one of his M2 for a day during an RFF euromeet and, being sceptic about Leicas being worth all the money they seemed to cost, totally poisoned me. I bought a beautiful M4 for 480€ from the camera store/studio I had worked at by then (used it with a Jupiter-8 50mm f/2 first) and VC Nokton 50mm 1.5 for 350€ a little later. By now I have loads of film cameras, still have my 20D and an additional old EOS 1D (mark1 !!!), I also got me an M2 body and will buy a 35mm 1.2 nokton by the end of the week!
though shalt NEVAR get me away from film now!
it's not that I've become one of those anti-digital militants, I still use my digital bodies but if had to choose between either film or digital I wouldn't waste a second to say 'film, thank you.' :D

KM-25
04-29-2009, 21:17
We worked all day today prepping the rooms, one will be the darkroom, 14 X 14 feet and the other will a mounting / framing / lounge room at 14 X 11 feet.

The ceilings are plaster so we are going to build a "Clean-Room" as the darkroom out of sheet plastic and 2x2's to fill the space, create positive air flow and a filtration system. We sealed the openings with foam today, so that ought to help buffer the nasty Colorado dust. I think we have three enlargers now, my 23C and 45MX and his durst.

The other photographer does 20x24 pinholes so we are going to make a loading area / contact printer for ULF.

All in all, about 340 Sq. feet to get going with in a full blown professional darkroom.

denmark.yuzon
04-29-2009, 21:32
hi im 23... when i started photography.. all i had was a borrowed AF Nikon F60.. i got addicted to the look of film, and eventually bought my very first SLR.. a Nikon FM2n.. and then my passion and interest took off to new heights.. i love using film.. upon obtaining my first RF, Minolta Hi-[proble]Matic 7s.. another level of interest is brewing inside me.. and thanks to this forum.. ive learnt so much about it.. hehe

Al Kaplan
04-29-2009, 21:33
Ifyour going to contact print 20x24 you should really make a vacuum frame to get perfect contact. If you can't find directions for making one I think that I can explain it. Let me know.

Drewus
04-30-2009, 02:45
I'm 26, originally learnt on film back when I was in high school. Which is about 10 or so years ago. Then I switched over to digital once I was out of school.

It's only in the last few months that i've picked up a film camera again, and realised how much I miss it.

It's so much more tactile and fun to use. Everything is mechanical and is directly controlled by my input. A beautifully machined set of cogs, gears, springs and sprockets that allows me to take photo's.
I then get to take my film through a process of development. Rinsing and washing to reveal the images I took weeks before, and only then will I find out if my choice of framing and subject were on target. No chance to revise, but in the process teaching me much more about what is going on behind the scenes than digital ever will.


Digital just feels so cold in comparison. It's such a cliche'd thing to say, but it does indeed lack soul.

minoltist7
04-30-2009, 15:23
I consider myself "young film user", becouse I use film only for 2 years. I was digital snapshooter , but last 2 years changed everything in my life, and I switched totally to film . Now my only digital camera is a cell phone.

Benjamin Oliver
04-30-2009, 15:46
I started shooting film when i was 16 (I'm 19 now) because my dad had a Canon Rebel G that he wasn't using so he gave it to me. I wanted to buy a new camera a year ago. It was probably going to be a digital rebel, but I then discovered medium format. I bought a Mamiya RB67. No regrets there. I now use the digital cameras my work has, but I much prefer the processes of film. I'm about to start printing my negatives for the first time this summer. Can't wait!

Bassism
04-30-2009, 18:06
I'm undoubtably a young film user. I do own a digital body, and try to convince myself to use, but it never seems to do much more than take photos of things I'm selling.

My original interest in photography came from a cheap M42 SLR I inherited from my dad. When that fell apart I bought a Spotmatic I still have to this day. Eventually, like many others, I succumbed to the lure of digital, after which my interest waned somewhat.

It was only my recent return to film that gave me a renewed passion in photography. I couldn't tell you why, but I simply enjoy it more. I prefer shooting my old film cameras, I prefer the results to be had from film, and I prefer crouching in a blacked out bathroom to sitting at my desk.

None of my serious photographer friends shoot film, however. Everybody seems to like my black and white photos, but nobody is interested in moving away from their dslrs.

I think there is somewhat of a movement among young people to shoot film though. Toy cameras like Holgas are incredibly popular among young people. I also saw a girl with a few of her friends buying a TLR the last time I was in the local classic camera shop.

I don't see too much around to encourage young people to shoot film cameras though. My high school had no darkroom or photography course. My university has one darkroom, but it is only available to architecture students as part of one of their courses. Walking into a major photo store you wouldn't even know that film photography existed; the entire store is dedicated to digital cameras and camcorders.

There are at least some of us young people shooting film, though. And as long as some of us are, there will be more.

shayallen
07-01-2009, 13:11
I have never done a creative thing in my life! I grew up playing football and went on to play at Auburn University so I have been mostly a meat head as far back as I can remember!

I bought my first real digital camera(Nikon D90) in December as well as a couple thousand dollars in Nikon 2.8 lenses. I joined the local camera club about two months ago and they have a contest once a month. There was this old guy that beat the pants off everyone every time he entered a photo(which he doesn't do every time) and he was using Film! so I started to get to know him and he told me he developed his first roll of film when he was about 14yrs old and he just turned 75! He thought film photography at two local colleges here for 35yrs.

The next week he took me out and we shot some photos went back to his house developed the roll and went to the dark room to enlarge and when the first photo started to turn in the first tray I knew I was going to sell all my digital equipment the next week and I did!!!

He is a Nikon guy and does more scenic type stuff so I have learned almost everything I needed about rangefinders from this website! Thanks! He helped me get my own darkroom set up at my house and now after buying a Leica M7 and a couple lenses I am now on my way!

JohnTF
07-01-2009, 18:54
Ifyour going to contact print 20x24 you should really make a vacuum frame to get perfect contact. If you can't find directions for making one I think that I can explain it. Let me know.

Al, I had a friend in to printing and printing technology who needed a vacuum frame for his horizontal camera.

He essentially designed a base made of 1/4 or 3/8" composite, scribed a pattern, drilled rather small holes, created a box sealed with silicone, and hooked it up to a vacuum pump which held about anything he put on it. He may have routed small grooves in lines connecting the holes.

Worked first time.

Regards, John

Mattikk
07-01-2009, 19:18
I started seriously photographing in highschool when the digital SLR revolution for customers had just started. I bought a Nikon D50 with my summer job savings and after couple of years I began interested in film.

Now I feel like the film cameras attraction is the build quality and design. They just feel nicer to shoot with and more concrete as a way of capturing light. I don't know what it is about digital, but it just doesn't feel right. I can't understand it.

Anyways, now my only digital camera is the Sigma DP1 and I have a couple of film cameras: a Canon A-1, Petri 7S and Yashica GTN + 8 rolls waiting to be developed.

petronius
07-02-2009, 08:40
I was 15 years old when I started photographing exactly 30 years ago. Film, of course!
My son received his first camera at the age of five (a Lomo LC-A). Later he switched to a Canon Epoca, then he grabbed my Nikon F55, at 10 he received his own F65. One day he forgot his camera at home, so I lent him my A-1 for this afternoon. I never got it back! He likes the feel of the camera and lenses (his favourite is the FD 70-210) and the manual film advance. The pictures he makes now and the joy when I see him handle the camera compensate the payment for developing the rolls over rolls of badly blurred photos he produced in the beginning. (My nephew received a film camera kit from me when he was 10, but I lost him to video/digital when he was 14.)

martin s
07-02-2009, 08:50
Petronius, you're from southern Germany? Do you mind telling where exactly (roughly ;) )? I live in Ulm for another week. I've looked at many of your pictures and really liked them, I never checked your location before though.

martin

Brian Sweeney
07-02-2009, 09:20
A friend at work told me that her 14-year old daughter is very interested in Film photography, learning to shoot and Develop B&W, and taking a Film class this Summer. I'll be putting together a camera kit for her.

Roger Hicks
07-02-2009, 09:23
Now I feel like the film cameras attraction is the build quality and design. They just feel nicer to shoot with and more concrete as a way of capturing light. I don't know what it is about digital, but it just doesn't feel right. I can't understand it.


A fascinating point: the tactile quality, the feeling of weight and connectedness. Thanks. I shall think a great deal about your words.

Tashi delek,

R.

petronius
07-02-2009, 16:43
Petronius, you're from southern Germany? Do you mind telling where exactly (roughly ;) )? I live in Ulm for another week. I've looked at many of your pictures and really liked them, I never checked your location before though.

martin

Martin,
the next city is Bayreuth.

ItsReallyDarren
07-02-2009, 17:01
What's the cut off age for a "young" film user?

It does seem like film is becoming more popular. Perhaps the people who got into photography with digital got curious about the analog method. That's how I got into film.

Kodak missed the boat yet again a few years ago when they updated their emulsions, they should have introduced eXtreme Tri-X!™ when extreme was all the rage.

That would have grabbed a bigger slice of a youth market...

gerbilthemistake
07-02-2009, 17:11
I'm 24,

Started with a film point and shoot when i was 13 or so and soon after my dad gave me his canon AE-1 with a few lenses. From there, I used the camera I was given basically as currency at a used camera store where I would exchange, return, trade cameras constantly. During that few years i briefly handled the Canon A1; Nikon FM2n, F3hp, FE2; and Pentax LX.

I eventually settled on the FM2n, but grew tired of taking pictures and left it for skateboarding. Eventually go into digital, but now I am back to shooting film and the only digital I have is the GRDII. I've learned a lot about developers, developing, and techniques involved in processing film from this forum and in a way is the reason i started shooting film again (and collecting cameras :bang:)

David Murphy
07-02-2009, 17:28
I just sold a Leica IIIa to a precocious 16 y/o in Canada who's a member here and he's out shooting and developing his own film with it! I worked with him to help him pay for it in installments. Hope he weighs in on this discussion.

Roger Hicks
07-02-2009, 20:53
My 'adopted daughter' Aditi (18 at the time, now 19) hated the M8 when she tried it but loves the Rollei 35AF-M (manual override for distance and aperture) that I gave her.

Tashi delek,

R.

AgentX
07-04-2009, 04:33
Personally, I'm 33. Learned b/w film photography in high school and university, and got swept up myself in the antiquarian trend and learned a few 19th century techniques. I suppose it was inevitable, as I was interested in larger-format and generally manual gear from the get-go. Ended up with a large collection of 120 rollfilm cameras--box, folding, TLR, whatever. And I have a truly antique 4x5 box camera and a really rough old 8x10 sitting around still.

And I use some digital gear, too. But am now really enjoying being back into film after 10 years mostly away from it; I'm processing at home in a spare room and got my old scanner running. (I'd purchased it, then switched immediately to a DSLR once I realized the cost and time delay of shooting color slides as a very occasional mountain biking photographer...) And now that my DSLR is well and truly broken, I'm wondering whether to replace it or not.

As a traveler, though, I have to appreciate the photographic possibilities that my little Canon S70 brings to the table...metering, exposure control, flash options, focal length range...all simply amazing, in a relatively tiny package. On vacation, the camera bag with a Leica and maybe a 6x6 folder is fine to take along. When I'm traveling for work, I have enough other stuff to bring and very little time to worry about taking photos...the digital compact is perfect for me then.

NFTN
07-17-2009, 01:58
I'm 16 and started with digital then moved on to film. The the DSLR prices dropped and I got a good deal. Then, now I'm both and tend to use digital for colour and film for B&W.
The biggest downside of film for me as a young user is that I can't really afford it, even though i develop myself.
In my class I know only one person other than me that is a film shooter. And my class is a photo orientated class in on of Sweden's biggest art schools.

Al Kaplan
07-17-2009, 07:01
Digital seems to give a mind set of shoot lots of frames now and discard later. A similar thing happened back in the 1950's when photographers were making the switch from sheet film in Linhofs and Graphics to 35mm. With a 4X5 (9X12cm) camera you'd shoot maybe two or three shots. Suddenly you could shoot 20 for the same money!

You need to get into that film mind set. Be more careful as to when you push the button. Other ways to save money is by bulk loading the film yourself instead of buying loaded cassettes inside of plastic cannisters and individual boxes, both of which add to the price.

Motion picture film can be a lot cheaper than still camera film, but you might not be able to fit the rolls in a bulk film loader. A 400 foot roll of Eastman Double-X Negative Type 5222 (ISO 250) is a lot cheaper than buying four 100 ft. rolls of Tri-X. (Kodak uses the name Kodak for still camera films and Eastman for motion picture films.)

To cut your cost even more buy "ends" instead of full rolls. They load a 400 or 1000 foot roll into the movie camera magazine. When they start getting near the end, or it's just the end of the day, they unload the camera magazine, cut the film and process the exposed film. What's left on the spool is called an "end". "Long ends" are usually close to 200 feet while "short ends" might be as short as 50 feet. The short ends are a lot less expensive than the long ends.

Brian Sweeney
07-17-2009, 14:40
We went to Calloway Gardens in Georgia today, and met a family with a teen-age son out with the Canon EOS and macro Zoom. He was well stocked with film. The parents had a Digital P&S with dead batteries, so he was taking all the vacation shots for them.

I had the Canon VI-T, and made sure Nikki's Digital P&S was charged. I'll post some of her shots with me and the Canon...