‘You only have one shot’: how film cameras won over a younger generation

[jsrockit]

These kind of articles are by nature limited in scope, rely heavily on tired platitudes, etc. It happens every time a complex subject is distilled for wider (mainstream) understanding. The key takeaway is that the subject is important enough to warrant the attention. That was not the case until recently.

What irks me most is the subtle and not-so-subtle tone of dismissiveness towards film photography that keeps cropping up here and in other forums ad nauseum. Yeah we get that you've seen it all before and you're too smart or emotionally advanced to doddle in ancient history. Talk about clichés.

I guess being a Gen Xer in 2022 leaves me in a strange, in-between sort of place. Not young enough to be cool, not old enough to rest on my laurels (or retire).

I've been cringing and pleasantly trying to ignore the petty jabs since the Sony Mavica came out, if not before.

If we are too smart for our jaded responses to a thread being made for articles like this every time one crops up in the mainstream, what are you for summarizing our responses and telling us how it really is?

 

[bluesun267]

If we are too smart for our jaded responses to a thread being made for articles like this every time one crops up in the mainstream, what are you for summarizing our responses and telling us how it really is?

I don't understand your proposition.

I guess you're trying to say that if I criticizing something it makes me no better than the thing I'm criticizing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

I recall the ABC did something on take up of film photography perhaps a year or two ago. And I'm sure there's been one or two other pieces I've seen from the mainstream media, but the subject hasn't exactly been done to death in Australia. It might be old news to some members of this international, (but predominantly Northern Hemisphere-populated) forum, however I'd suggest the content wasn't written with those members foremost in mind, but to a wider audience of readers who are not necessarily photography enthusiasts. 😉

Young people who are using film don't need to present new reasons for shooting film to other photographers. (For clarity, I'm not suggesting that I can personally relate to some of the stated reasons given in the article and I'm certainly not "young", being in my mid-50s). Clearly, their reasons are good enough for them. If those reasons aren't logical to RFF members, or are not new reasons to them,—whilst there may be some cognitive dissonance in their rationale—they're not hurting anyone and seem to be happy using film. Personally, I'm just glad they are. Their reasons for shooting film might not align with my own, but their use of it is contributing to its continued viability for me in Australia. As far as I'm concerned, this is a good news story.

 

[Mos6502]

I think something else that might be driving interest in film is that people are just computered-out. Particularly after the past two years, when people have been spending more time than ever behind screens, taking one's photo hobby offline might be appealing to a lot more people. Film gives the amateur photog a bit of an escape from incessant computer use, and I can see how a lot of people would find that attractive right now.

 

[Pál_K]

I am now seeing a late 90s trend on Instagram where people are using those 1,2,3 MP early digital cameras. That was unexpected. …

Confession: I am looking for an HP C30 1-megapixel camera.

Why?

About 15 years ago, a coworker found one in a dumpster at work. The camera worked. Soon afterwards, I found one in a dumpster as well and it also worked, but its battery compartment needed to be taped. I used this camera for a year, making photos on walks and in various places. Eventually I got my own 8-MP camera, a Konica-Minolta DiMAGE X1 (which I still have and use today - I just got a new battery for it). So, I packaged up the C30 in its original box and placed it on a shelf at work with a note saying that it works and is free. I assume someone took it and used it. However, I should’ve kept it. Looking at those 1-MP photos today, they have a certain charm. Hence my quest.

 

[Out to Lunch]

How people find cameras in dumpsters is of some interest to me but let me not digress. The main attraction of film photography to millennials is that it is something 'new'. Also interesting -as acknowledged by Kodak managers, is that social media -in particular Instagram, is pushing film consumption and its popularity to new heights. Whether this trend is sustainable remains to be seen: there is the high cost of film, processing, and gear and there are also environmental concerns. In Saigon, there is a small film revival in a rather grim film landscape: where there used to be dozens of film shops and labs, today less than a handful survive. Those involved in the local film scene are mostly rich kids who might very well discover something new tomorrow, on Instagram. Cheers, OtL.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

That's great to hear!

A thought occurred to me this morning: if this is sustained, I wonder if it will spawn a new - albeit small - resurgence in new younger camera repair people to service these cameras to support future demand?

I’m back to site in Toronto and on public transit. I see young ones with less cameras of all sorts, especially with film. It is fourth largest city in NA.

It might be some regional, local trends. I have seen it happened in Toronto before. Kids around me were asking for film cameras, not anymore.

To me now it is same rainbow unicorn as Fuji insta.
Cameras were collecting dust at many stores, next to never seen using it outdoors or else or buying film packs.

Just as everywhere else. Labs used to be open are gone, last remaining getting its small crowd, some makes conclusion about resurgence of film.

 

[Muggins]

I am now seeing a late 90s trend on Instagram where people are using those 1,2,3 MP early digital cameras.

Coincidentally, I may well be doing just this. I came across a Nikon Coolpix 990 when my job moved buildings (you would not believe what people moved because "I don't know what it is" - we literally filled a skip with obsolete lab equipment). Now, I am a member of a local archaeology group, and this little baby has a sensor the size of a gnats nadger, so reasonable DoF even in macro mode, and the RAW files are about 3megapixies - so I can take lots of photos of small finds without too much hunting focus, and not fill my hard drive. There are practical reasons here!

 

[bluesun267]

The takeaway here is that we're at a stage with film where it really does depend on the interests and passions of individuals involved in your locality. If you are unlucky enough to live in a film desert, it can certainly give an impression that film is an irrelevant oddity. The internet of course makes nothing truly limited or local, but having a really decent camera shop in your area changes everything.

 

[oldwino]

The takeaway here is that we're at a stage with film where it really does depend on the interests and passions of individuals involved in your locality. If you are unlucky enough to live in a film desert, it can certainly give an impression that film is an irrelevant oddity. The internet of course makes nothing truly limited or local, but having a really decent camera shop in your area changes everything.

Also part of the equation - the inter webs (Facebook, Instagram, etc) make everything seem bigger than it is. It is a lot of hype. I mean, it seems like EVERYONE'S life is way more exciting than mine (at least online).
Around here, younger people are interested in film, but few stick with it, as it is too much bother in the end. Those who do stick with it are proportionately about the same as the ratio of film:digital users overall (I'd bet).

 

[raydm6]

I came across this website. Pretty cool: https://www.filmphotoaward.com/

The Film Photo Award is open to all emerging, established, and student photographers worldwide. Each award period provides three distinct grants of Kodak Professional Film and complimentary film processing by Griffin Editions to photographers who demonstrate a serious commitment to the field and are motivated to continue the development of still, film-based photography in the 21st century.

One sponsor (https://standardcameras.com) offers modular 4x5 starter cameras:

Standard Cameras is equipping the next generation of image-makers with affordable cameras, equipment, and sweet merch. Formerly photography students ourselves, we understand the woes of acquiring the equipment required to sustain your photography practice. As a result, we will always offer discounts for students AND educators. We are excited to increase this to a 15% discount. If you are interested, contact us from your .edu email address on the Contact page.

I'm sure better package deals can be had with used 4x5 systems (and other formats) but I think it's cool that there is this support there.

Some examples of participants work can be seen here:
https://www.filmphotoaward.com/alumni

 

[zuiko85]

Another 3D printed camera site is Cameradactyl. He has a 4x5 hand held model with nose cones for several focal lengths, as well as ones that use roll film backs. For inexpensive image making you can order a 4x5 plywood pinhole camera that you assemble yourself. Shoot paper as negatives to bring down costs even more plus the material can be handled under safelight.
Certainly not for everyone, but with pooled resources would be a neat teaching tool for youngsters.

 

[bluesun267]

Also part of the equation - the inter webs (Facebook, Instagram, etc) make everything seem bigger than it is. It is a lot of hype. I mean, it seems like EVERYONE'S life is way more exciting than mine (at least online).
Around here, younger people are interested in film, but few stick with it, as it is too much bother in the end. Those who do stick with it are proportionately about the same as the ratio of film:digital users overall (I'd bet).

Probably right. But the ratio of 'sticking-with-it-ness' for any hobby is fairly low long term. My non-internet based experience is that I have had at least 2 conversations in the past 6 months with young(er) people living in my neighborhood who saw me with my film camera, knew it was a film camera, and started up a conversation with me about their own film photography. And I don't live in an especially hip or large urban area. 10 years ago those same conversations were with people older than me who remembered using film cameras.

 

[Bolo Kukus]

The wheel has again rotated full circle - and will go on rotating.

We go through this "rebirth of film photography" every few years. It's good to see, but to me the jury remains out on how durable it will be, and how accurate the so-called evidence is,.

Lest I again come across as a total cynic, may I say I'm as keen as everybody else on seeing film return to the fore. I have enough nice old cameras and a full darkroom to hope this will again happen, and I can go on affordably enjoying my pastime. One of my cherished fond dreams is that the price of 120 film comes down to a price-level where it's again cost-effective for me to dust off my beloved Rollei TLRs and put them back into use.

What I've noticed of late, much more so than a proliferation of film cameras being paraded around by the young'uns, is a great number of older DSLRs again in use.

Several young shooters in the regional centre where I live, are again using Nikon D90s or even older models. Which is gratifying to see, especially so as my partner still uses the venerable D90 I bought in 2009. I have always said these ancients can, in the right hands, create as good images as the newer cameras.

I will be interested in any comments other posters may care to make about this, even if it does come across as "somewhat off-topic" in a film photography thread.

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

The wheel has again rotated full circle - and will go on rotating.

We go through this "rebirth of film photography" every few years....

Do we? Has there been previous resurgences like we’re seeing now since the ‘death’ of film in the early-Noughties?

I certainly haven’t noticed one, but I admit I’ve only been paying attention since ~2010...

 

[Coldkennels]

Do we? Has there been previous resurgences like we’re seeing now since the ‘death’ of film in the early-Noughties?

I certainly haven’t noticed one, but I admit I’ve only been paying attention since ~2010...

Yep. ozmoose is right: it's cyclical. And, in a lot of cases, cynical.

I ranted a bit in a podcast I used to be a part of about how the Lomography-fuelled "film resurgence" of the late 2000s/early 2010s was going to die a death as it didn't allow for growth. They'd successfully sold a lot of film - albeit a lot of it low-quality and/or expired, which didn't really help film manufacturers at all - based on the principle of "don't think, just shoot". And a lot of people were getting into it expecting to get "great" images straight out of the gate with no education, little to no help from Lomography, and very, very poor equipment. It was a recipe for failure, and the "resurgence" burned out fast as a result. All those folks picking up Diana+ cameras at exorbitant prices ended up putting them on a shelf (or throwing them in the bin) and going back to their iPhones instead.

(Frankly, I'm amazed Lomography are still going at all, but that's a separate discussion.)

However, this time around, newcomers to film photography are seemingly picking up higher-quality gear, better film, aiming for less gimmicky results, and generally seem to be in a better place for artistic development. Quite how many will stick around remains to be seen, but on paper it should be a larger (and more stable) retention rate than previous cycles.

 

[Out to Lunch]

As I mentioned above, the booster is not gear. It is Instagram. Cheers, OtL

 

[zuiko85]

Yep. ozmoose is right: it's cyclical. And, in a lot of cases, cynical.

I ranted a bit in a podcast I used to be a part of about how the Lomography-fuelled "film resurgence" of the late 2000s/early 2010s was going to die a death as it didn't allow for growth. They'd successfully sold a lot of film - albeit a lot of it low-quality and/or expired, which didn't really help film manufacturers at all - based on the principle of "don't think, just shoot". And a lot of people were getting into it expecting to get "great" images straight out of the gate with no education, little to no help from Lomography, and very, very poor equipment. It was a recipe for failure, and the "resurgence" burned out fast as a result. All those folks picking up Diana+ cameras at exorbitant prices ended up putting them on a shelf (or throwing them in the bin) and going back to their iPhones instead.

(Frankly, I'm amazed Lomography are still going at all, but that's a separate discussion.)

However, this time around, newcomers to film photography are seemingly picking up higher-quality gear, better film, aiming for less gimmicky results, and generally seem to be in a better place for artistic development. Quite how many will stick around remains to be seen, but on paper it should be a larger (and more stable) retention rate than previous cycles.

Lomography does have 110 film for those who like fooling around with that format. Admittedly sometimes they are out of stock for weeks until the next batch is shipped but they seem committed to keeping that format alive, as long as they can still source it from whoever they are getting their film from.
Huss Hardan, who also comments here, has posted some pretty good color photos using a Rollei A110 over at Photrio on a long running thread about the quality of 16mm. It’s in the ‘Lo-fi’ forum.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Huss Hardan, who also comments here, has posted some pretty good color photos using a Rollei A110 over at Photrio on a long running thread about the quality of 16mm. It’s in the ‘Lo-fi’ forum.

The reason that photographs from 110 negatives are in the Lo-Fi forum at Photrio is that they are lo-fi. Some people like the lo-fi look, and shooting 110 is one way to achieve it.

 

[zuiko85]

The reason that photographs from 110 negatives are in the Lo-Fi forum at Photrio is that they are lo-fi. Some people like the lo-fi look, and shooting 110 is one way to achieve it.

The original question in that thread was how much quality was possible from the 16mm/110 format. The answer turned out that in 1972, when Kodak introduced the format, it was ok for it’s original intended target, album size prints, then 3.5x5 inch size. With the right film and impeccable technique passable 8x10 could be achieved. I still occasionally use a Minolta 16II, which can use any film stock I’m willing to slit down to 16mm.
But I’m drifting way, WAY off this original thread so…..