Young people turning to film

ElectroWNED said:
As a 24 year old film-only user, I can't help but feel a little guilty or ashamed that this film-resurgence is simply the result of people doing something because it is trendy.
Click to expand...

If you haven't noticed, photography as a whole is trendy right now.
 
ElectroWNED said:
As a 24 year old film-only user, I can't help but feel a little guilty or ashamed that this film-resurgence is simply the result of people doing something because it is trendy.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I am 21 years old, I shoot film and I certainly didn't start photography (or using film for that matter) and invest $$$ into it because I thought it was trendy.

But I can see your point - that's why a Lomo camera can get marketed for $200.
 
I wouldn't worry about the trendy folks, they never last. They will give it a try, probably realize that it isn't for them, and drop it after a few months. If any of them realize that they genuinely enjoy working with film and stick with it, well then thats awesome. I've only recently gotten into film, for reasons mentioned in an earlier post, but it seems to be a nice fit for me.

Edit: Actually I started with a 35mm camera my dad passed down to me several years ago. I used it for a few months until I could no longer afford film and development costs. Then I saved up my money and got a DSLR. I had been using that until I started to outgrow it earlier this year. My options were to drop over a grand and upgrade my body (no way that was going to happen) Or I could get a used but modern SLR and a cheap scanner. I ended up going the film rout and all is going well.
 
Last edited:
I've been shooting since 17 (now 23) and I've owned maybe 10-12 film cameras and only one digital. And to be honest, the reason I'm sticking with film is for preservation. HDD failure is something I'm majorly afraid of, it's happened to me a few times in the past, thankfully not with digital images on it. But really, an analog archive might even outlive me, at 23, but who knows if computers in 15 years will read these ridiculous proprietary RAW formats.

I chose to avoid the LOMO crowd, because it is to me simply a trend hop: like all fashions coming back every 10-15 years, people adopt LOMO cameras and film as "retro", ie not contemporary tools but a vestige of the past. So the main focus with this style of "retro photography" is for it to look like film. We can also see this trend in iPhone apps that make square images with vignetting and warped colors to imitate holga photos...

Truth is that film can be even better at reproduction than digital in most cases. But I feel that when people cross-process, or use cheap plastic cameras to accentuate the "vintageness" of film, it cheapens it people's eyes.

Anyway, I'm getting pretentious and ranty, so I will just say that I have and will always prefer film.
 
wolfpeterson said:
I've been shooting since 17 (now 23) and I've owned maybe 10-12 film cameras and only one digital. And to be honest, the reason I'm sticking with film is for preservation. HDD failure is something I'm majorly afraid of, it's happened to me a few times in the past, thankfully not with digital images on it. But really, an analog archive might even outlive me, at 23, but who knows if computers in 15 years will read these ridiculous proprietary RAW formats.
Click to expand...

SSD = problem solved
 
Wes. said:
SSD = problem solved
Click to expand...

I know that SSDs are supposed to last longer, but my main point was to celebrate the long life of well preserved negatives.

Digital images do not exist in real space so it's hard for me to trust they will last. SSDs are still succeptible to techincal failure too.
 
wolfpeterson said:
I know that SSDs are supposed to last longer, but my main point was to celebrate the long life of well preserved negatives.

Digital images do not exist in real space so it's hard for me to trust they will last. SSDs are still succeptible to techincal failure too.
Click to expand...

What are the chances of SSD failure? Slim (at best). Personally, I save my digital images onto my SSD, back them up to my HDD, and save them on a DVD. There is probably a better chance of you misplacing/destroying your negatives than there is of me losing my images.

But I can appreciate your point of view. :)
 
Wes. said:
What are the chances of SSD failure? Slim (at best). Personally, I save my digital images onto my SSD, back them up to my HDD, and save them on a DVD. There is probably a better chance of you misplacing/destroying your negatives than there is of me losing my images.

But I can appreciate your point of view. :)
Click to expand...

Let us agree to disagree :D.

I'd like to see people's pros/cons of young people getting into film:
 
Wes. said:
What are the chances of SSD failure? Slim (at best). Personally, I save my digital images onto my SSD, back them up to my HDD, and save them on a DVD. There is probably a better chance of you misplacing/destroying your negatives than there is of me losing my images.

But I can appreciate your point of view. :)
Click to expand...

If a freak fault doesn't kill it (as you said, unlikely), time will. That is guaranteed. You can transfer to another again and again, but when you don't care to do it anymore how do you know anyone else will? And then poof!

End of the day, film photography is something that is physical, Digital is not. It is simply a computers interpretation of the scene in front of it and then it converts it into numbers. Software then makes a image out of that. I absolutely hate that idea, I didn't want to take pictures that were nothing more than air. And I'll testify to that, of the 1000s of photos I took when I originally started photography on digital, only 5 still exist. Only 5 and they are in good ol' average flickr quality. While it is true that I deleted many so it is my fault, at the time you never think about it. Now when I look back to see how I've progressed as a photography, quite a large portion of my own growth doesn't exist, or perhaps never really did.
But my film negs are all alive, the good shots and the bad and anyone can see them, hold them and appreciate a 'real' interpretation of the light that made that photograph.
 
wolfpeterson said:
Let us agree to disagree :D.

I'd like to see people's pros/cons of young people getting into film:
Click to expand...

I think that lots of younger people are getting into film photography because 1. it's cheap (well, it can be) and 2. they think that as long as you use film, you will get that vintage, cross processed look.

I think that's why lomography is so popular. It doesn't really bother me, though. it's just a fad that will probably die out in a couple of years.

Neare said:
If a freak fault doesn't kill it (as you said, unlikely), time will. That is guaranteed. You can transfer to another again and again, but when you don't care to do it anymore how do you know anyone else will? And then poof!
Click to expand...

And when you don't care to take care of your negatives anymore, nobody will either. The argument goes both ways...

Neare said:
End of the day, film photography is something that is physical, Digital is not. It is simply a computers interpretation of the scene in front of it and then it converts it into numbers. Software then makes a image out of that. I absolutely hate that idea, I didn't want to take pictures that were nothing more than air. And I'll testify to that, of the 1000s of photos I took when I originally started photography on digital, only 5 still exist. Only 5 and they are in good ol' average flickr quality. While it is true that I deleted many so it is my fault, at the time you never think about it. Now when I look back to see how I've progressed as a photography, quite a large portion of my own growth doesn't exist, or perhaps never really did.
But my film negs are all alive, the good shots and the bad and anyone can see them, hold them and appreciate a 'real' interpretation of the light that made that photograph.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you thought that I was trying to say that digital is better. Both have their pros and cons, but I agree with what you said. Film photography is much more romantic.
 
jonmanjiro said:
Not sure if these two girls shot digital before converting to film, but when I met them at MAP Camera in Tokyo a few months back they the both enthusiastically said "I love film" :)


Film girls at MAP Camera, Shinjuku - Nikkor-O 2.1cm 1:4 by jonmanjiro, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Going to Japan is what got me into photography. I went on a family vacation and prior to leaving, I wanted to buy a nice camera so I could take some nice pictures. Long story short, I bought a Nikon D60.

Now that I look back, I get depressed when I think of the tons of camera shops that I didn't walk into. I was impressed by all the new stuff at the big electronic stores, but none of that matters to me now. I wonder what kind of gems I could have found at the smaller places, used places. :(
 
I'm just glad to see youngsters getting interested in photography!, recently for old tmes sake - I shot a roll in a camera from my fifty plus year collection, sent it away for dev. then scanned and printed a few images, afterwards I sat down and said to my self - 'what the f#*k am I doing this again - for!', then I got my wife to give my ass a good kick, and get my DSLR out of the cabinet!.....your mileage not only may vary, of course! - but vehemently will!, but this old codger's in the twentyfirst century:D;)
 
What I'm really wondering is, will film die?

A large majority of the people who use film are people who grew up with film and are too comfortable (or maybe too stubborn :D) to switch to digital. Once that generation dies out, who will want to use film? A small niche market like tokek pointed out? Or do some of you believe that there will be a resurgence?
 
The old film brigade is getting web savvy and posting about film and some of the younger brigade are curious enough for a quick dabble
 
The Lomo store here in Toronto is great for film. They have a very good selection with lots of rare emulsions . They have much more than any other "pro" shop.
 
They won't ever stop making film simply because there are many photographic processes in which to do, film is essential for them to be carried out. But they can (as they already are) cut back on production and discontinue the less popular emulsions.

But Polaroid is making a huge comeback thanks to theimpossibleproject.


On another note, using 'film' in the movie industry is gaining huge popularity because now many people are now starting to dislike the 'digital' look in motion picture. Even the RED camera, the most advanced digital movie camera ever made is having a film core and magazine made in for it which will be in mass production shortly. So the top of the line digital is now a hybrid, quite an interesting turn of events no?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom