A look at who is taking up which medium for photography

N

Neare

Well-known
Local time
2:15 AM
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
1,581
Yes, I understand this is another Film VS. Digital thread, but that is not the point. This has nothing to do with what is better, frankly I don't care. This is just an interesting observation.
I'm interested at what groups of people are taking up Digital and what groups are returning to film.

From what I see, it seems to be that photographers who grew up with film as the only viable option to take a photography have moved on towards the convenience of digital.
Interestingly enough, I see that many people who have grown up in an era when the Digital medium is standard have abandoned it to use film.

Now I know many people on this forum are an exception when it comes to abandoning film but please bear with me. For I would say that members of this forum who use film do so due to their many lifetime inspirations from the film photographers throughout the 1900's.

However, with the rise of 'LOMO' photography, the young generation who has digital available to them, that is affordable, has instead gone after the idea of using film as their medium.
This is contrasting how most professional photog's who started between the 60's-00's moved into Digital as it became widely available.

As I said there are many exceptions. What this is I believe, is a growing trend and now that digital has been taken up all round the board, all that is left is for a slow exodus back to film as it creeps back into being a viable medium for professionals as the generations grow up.

The market for film cameras is certainly in the favor of quality. Leica's, Hassy's, Rollei, Nikon F's, OM series, Contax etc. These cameras are being bought up but many young photographers. Notably this trend is originating out of Asia, that is the main driving force behind this. But I am now seeing a few young people (Myself included) take up film.
Note: this has no relation to photography courses whereby they shoot film for learning purposes.

Could we say that the older generation who moved towards digital did so as they had become comfortable with their work whilst the young who take up film do so to learn and study the core of photography itself?

Your thoughts, or observations? Is this a trend that is prevalent in other countries?

Please keep your ____ is better in the many other threads present, thanks ;).
 
As much as I hate seeing the trend of young people paying ridiculous amounts for crappy cameras with plastic lenses that would be better off as landfill ... I applaud Lomo for what they have done!

Hopefully a lot of these kids, when they get sick of light leaks and artfully vignetted images, will move onto a decent second hand SLR or similar and give 35mm film the support it will need to survive in the modern age when the motion picture industry eventually abandons it!
 
Last edited:
The Lomo, Holga, Fuji Instax hipsterness will undoubtedly lead to more young people using film in more 'conventional' cameras. Like all trends it will peter out leaving behind a few that will be life long converts. But that's it! Will be a drop in the old teacup...
 
This isn't only about lomo. I'm talking about high quality (non-light leaking rubbish) cameras that are being used as well. More so than holga's etc.
 
Finder said:
I am wondering if it is a false dichotomy? Surely there is only one medium in photography, light.
Click to expand...

See the light! If the medium is the message!

Discussing the attributes of the various light capture methods is when the trouble seems to start.:angel:
 
I was walking thru a local mall with an old Minolta SLR several months ago, when I was stopped by twice by 20ish year olds who wanted to tell me that they were taking or had just completed a "real" film photography course and that they had done some darkroom work as well. There may be more of a market for film than anyone thought there was.
 
Maybe using film has become the extreme sport of photography? It's expensive, it's risky, you only have a few chances... :)
 
I am in Australia. For the last 3 years I have seen 2 film cameras in use (except my own). 1 man in his 60, and a kid around 13.

My thoughts? Well, I find the developing process relaxing and use film because I like it. As for the new surging use of film, I can not see it coming.

Locally a film costs from 8 to 15 AUD (35mm), processing from 8 to 15 AUD. The only film cameras on display in the shops are the '24 photos + 3 bonus' photos type. 1 of 2 film scanners on sale is sold because 'I have scanned all my negatives and do not need it anymore' etc. And I believe the film cameras bought by the young ones will in most cases be a cool gadget, their main camera will be their digital.
 
Here in L.A. Most of the film cameras I see, and I see a lot, are in the hands of 20-somethings. When I go into Freestyle photo (I live within walking distance) there are almost always a few younger people (i'm 36 for reference) with film cameras buying supplies for classes. Usually the older people I see are using digital bodies.

Just a couple weeks ago, a couple girls, no older than 19-21 asked me to take their pic with their cameras while I was hiking. One was a point and shoot digital. The other was an SLR, I snapped and looked down to check the shot and was shocked when I saw a film door instead of an lcd screen. I think I even did a double take.. and said something like "whoa, you're a film shooter" heh, heh..

just my observations
 
These threads always consist of anecdotal evidence and wishful thinking. It's a bit like arguments for the existence of God: no-one can produce compelling evidence that will convince the unbeliever.

I do know that some dealers are doing very nicely, thank you, out of film, because it's what they specialize in, and of course film manufacturers talk it up (they would, wouldn't they). I also know that at Arles, I see far more film cameras than digital, and more M-series Leicas in one place at one time than anywhere else in the world. And at photokina, only digital supremacists pretend that film has no future: most other people either don't care, or believe (as I do) that the two can coexist for a long time yet.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
These threads always consist of anecdotal evidence and wishful thinking. It's a bit like arguments for the existence of God: no-one can produce compelling evidence that will convince the unbeliever.

I do know that some dealers are doing very nicely, thank you, out of film, because it's what they specialize in, and of course film manufacturers talk it up (they would, wouldn't they). I also know that at Arles, I see far more film cameras than digital, and more M-series Leicas in one place at one time than anywhere else in the world. And at photokina, only digital supremacists pretend that film has no future: most other people either don't care, or believe (as I do) that the two can coexist for a long time yet.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Well put. But, would you care to elaborate which dealers are doing well with their sales of film? Maybe Freestyle or B@H? Or is it top secret, more deserving of a MI6 case file? Why the secrecy? I'm sure the dealers in question would love their names spilled on a photography forum - free advertising by the best method possible, word of mouth. Because by withholding the names of the retailers you have in essence become a parody of yourself and have likewise employed anecdotal evidence - that line of thinking that you have so aptly highlighted as common to these threads. Go figure.

Accordingly, perhaps one can assume that Pickett Wilson (whose vague predictions of the impending doom of film are strangely missing in this thread - maybe he got chased away by the residue smell of fixer) has never ventured to Arles or photokina.

Cheers.
 
Jaans said:
Well put. But, would you care to elaborate which dealers are doing well with their sales of film? Maybe Freestyle or B@H? Or is it top secret, more deserving of a MI6 case file? Why the secrecy? I'm sure the dealers in question would love their names spilled on a photography forum - free advertising by the best method possible, word of mouth. Because by withholding the names of the retailers you have in essence become a parody of yourself and have likewise employed anecdotal evidence - that line of thinking that you have so aptly highlighted as common to these threads. Go figure.

Accordingly, perhaps one can assume that Pickett Wilson (whose vague predictions of the impending doom of film are strangely missing in this thread - maybe he got chased away by the residue smell of fixer) has never ventured to Arles or photokina.

Cheers.
Click to expand...

That was indeed my point. I can tell my anecdotes; others can tell theirs; and no-one who does not want to believe them will be inclined to do so.

There's no secrecy involved. The two big candidates who immediately spring to mind are Freestyle and Monochrom, while at the other end of the scale small shops like Bernard Hunter in Bristol tell the same story. Then there are people like Fotoimpex, Maco and Bergger. I've never talked to B+H about it so I don't know in their case.

If I sat down and thought hard I could probably come up with a couple of dozen names that I have spoken to personally, but quite honestly, it's still anecdotal so it's not worth the effort.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
I'm a new convert 21 and loving film only as a learning tool. Its a good constraint but if you plan to do it link winogrand then digital seems better.
I use film because of leica
 
My personal experience is....I'm 63 have been shooting more or less serious cameras since I was 16 and have TOO MANY film cameras.....I just recently bought my first digital camera ... a D90. So I guess I don't fall into a convenient catagory. There is a place for D photography in my world but it won't replace my film or darkroom work.
 
I started photography as a hobby about 10 years ago with digital cameras. About 6 years ago I decided to try a film camera as most of the photographers I was inspired by were shooting only film. Eventually I was overtaken by GAS and now have like 12 film cameras and 1 digital, and I don't use the digital anymore. I guess I fall into the latter category.
 
If I think about it. I think you're right. There are of course exceptions like myself. But I know quiet a few young people how are using film along digital.
I sold a nice Nikon FE just a few weeks ago to a young member of my photoclub. She is hooked now.

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema
 
I mostly shoot digital, but after meeting some one shooting 8x10 LF I was hooked on that. I was using a 4x5 view cam for awhile and the cost of film and developing was a bit more than I could afford.

I became interested in the 120 folders and got lucky with a Mockba that a little gun oil fixed right up. Getting those 6x9 BW negatives (buying film in bulk and doing my own developing) is quite gratifying. I grew up developing my own film and using a darkroom in the ...ummm...70's. It's nice to find the magic is still there.

I am of the view that it is all good and fun.
 
Well, as far as I'm concerned, I started out with a dSLR and built up a nice little kit of gear. About 6 months ago, my brother (who has always shot with film) convinced me to buy a Zorki & Jupiter 8 to have a play with.

Fast forward to today, and I find myself with a film camera in my bag at all times, whereas the digital gear only comes out for certain applications. I'm seriously considering selling my digital body and buying an EOS3 or something so that I can still use the lenses I have acquired for my digital..

There's just something about shooting film that I find so much more satisfying. Whether it's because I am aware of the limited amount of shots I get and accordingly I slow down and fully consider each shot, or it's because I am not getting instant gratification from the LCD screen, or it's the feel of the images that are captured on film and the difference it creates in my shooting style, I am not sure. All I know is that I enjoy it more!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top