apconan
-
Sorry. lomography is a trend, not an indication of film's survival.
Look at their branding, and where their products are sold. They are marketing aggressively to a very specific customer, because they know they will lose this market segment in a few years when they grow up, or when something even more kitsch and novel comes along, whichever comes first.
Look at their branding, and where their products are sold. They are marketing aggressively to a very specific customer, because they know they will lose this market segment in a few years when they grow up, or when something even more kitsch and novel comes along, whichever comes first.
aizan
Veteran
the lomography "trend" is almost 20 years old, and shows no signs of going away. =( just kidding. i think it's nice that young people are still being turned onto film.
I didn't read through this entire thread, but this is a key post and so is the word 'niche'. Film is too precious for it to go under. Some brands (as the OP asks) or film products thereof might in fact disappear, or be undertaken, but film itself will not. It is too different from the digital sensor and will always remain so because of the structural difference between silver halides and pixels. I have seen some remarkable work with digital, but to these eyes there is nothing like film.
This poster's fifty Kopeks.
40oz
...
What the Lomography Society has done is called "marketing." You can call it "trendy" if it makes you happy, but that doesn't change the fact that they are marketing film and film cameras as something other than junk. And they are making money because they are marketing to people with disposable incomes. Look at their branding and where their products are sold.
The Lomographic Society sells to an existing market, a subset of the people who use film.
It's fashionable to use digital cameras these days. And along with that it's also fashionable to predict the demise of film. It makes people feel good about themselves to think they are somehow on the forefront of a trend. You know, "trend," like what you called the Lomography Society. But the fact is that digital photography is a fashion statement.
Simple proof that digital photography itself is a fashion trend - People who use film say they do it because they like it. People who use DSLR's say they use digital because "it's the new thing these days."
There's nothing wrong with following trends to feel better about yourself. There is something wrong with trying to belittle other people to feel better about yourself, but that's what a lot of people following a trend tend to do.
Last edited:
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
"Film is too precious for it to go under."
Film is and always has been a consumer product. It will "go under" when companies making film deem it no longer profitable to make. I doubt many investors in EK actually care what they sell, much less consider film "precious." "Precious" is the emotion of a lover speaking, not an investor.
Film is and always has been a consumer product. It will "go under" when companies making film deem it no longer profitable to make. I doubt many investors in EK actually care what they sell, much less consider film "precious." "Precious" is the emotion of a lover speaking, not an investor.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
"Simple proof that digital photography itself is a fashion trend - People who use film say they do it because they like it. People who use DSLR's say they use digital because "it's the new thing these days."
That's ridiculous. People - 99 percent of consumers - use digital because it's the dominate medium in photography. They can buy a $100 digital P&S at Wal-mart and never have to spend another cent on "film." Or, for many, prints. As for DSLR's, most folks buying DSLR's don't even consider film as an alternative, much less adopting it deliberately because it's "the new thing." For most folks, it's the "only" thing.
It's kind of hard to make a fashion statement wearing a digital camera like 40 million other people bought last year.
That's ridiculous. People - 99 percent of consumers - use digital because it's the dominate medium in photography. They can buy a $100 digital P&S at Wal-mart and never have to spend another cent on "film." Or, for many, prints. As for DSLR's, most folks buying DSLR's don't even consider film as an alternative, much less adopting it deliberately because it's "the new thing." For most folks, it's the "only" thing.
It's kind of hard to make a fashion statement wearing a digital camera like 40 million other people bought last year.
KM-25
Well-known
Pickett, you gotta let it go man, until you talk to everyone about why they use what they use, you are shaving precious years off of your life by speculating how others live theirs...
jwc57
Well-known
Not that it has anything to do with whether film is going to die in a few years or not but....
I thought of this thread recently while shopping in a local drug store and walked over to the photo section. Among the rolls of film and digital media was about twenty rolls (two different ISO) of APS film. I didn't even know any of those cameras still existed. In a town of 5,000 people, I thought it interesting that there is a market for APS.
I thought of this thread recently while shopping in a local drug store and walked over to the photo section. Among the rolls of film and digital media was about twenty rolls (two different ISO) of APS film. I didn't even know any of those cameras still existed. In a town of 5,000 people, I thought it interesting that there is a market for APS.
scottgee1
RF renegade
By coincidence, I too saw a bunch of APS film at a local store last weekend -- in the bargain bin. All of it well past expiration date.
Did you happen to check the dates on what you saw?
jwc57
Well-known
No, didn't think to check, but I probably would have if it had been in a bargain bin and not in the regular photo section. Considering the store is new and opened not long ago, I would have thought APS would not have been even considered for sale.
scottgee1
RF renegade
40oz
...
Film is film. I have a nice Canon Elph I bought for travel because it's smaller than a pack of smokes. I'm not a huge fan of the lens (as in I get better pictures from other lenses) but it's ok, I can still buy film for it, and it still works as good as new. It doesn't take that many people like me to keep the stuff on the shelf.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
As a footnote to this thread--I guess it's a footnote--I read yesterday, I think in Barron's that Kodak just surprised everyone by posting a strong dividend. I recall it was something over $1 per share. I'll see if I can find my way back to that article for the exact amount.
It didn't say what, or whether, the turnaround had anything to do with film. So it doesn't prove wrong anything that's been said here. But it does suggest that the reports of the death of Kodak may be exaggerated. So FWIW, it was nice to read.
It didn't say what, or whether, the turnaround had anything to do with film. So it doesn't prove wrong anything that's been said here. But it does suggest that the reports of the death of Kodak may be exaggerated. So FWIW, it was nice to read.
apconan
-
Sorry, this is the most pretentious thing I've read on this site. I don't own a digital camera, and I love film and printing color in the darkroom and the whole process.
I don't claim that everyone using digital is doing it for the trend. Calling digital photography a trend is like calling daycare a trend. People do it because it's convenient and to them, film isn't an alternative.
Grow up and get off your high horse.