Younger film users?

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.
 
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 said:
Of course I agree. But what is it? And how is it distinguishable even by non-photographers?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
Gradskater said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Lilserenity said:
. . . 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Roger Hicks said:
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...)
Click to expand...

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!
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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!
 

Attachments

  • send1.jpg
    send1.jpg
    30.8 KB · Views: 0
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
 
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. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom