Level of interest in film photography

<p>Guess which company has the top three best-selling products in the Camera & Photo category on Amazon?</p>

<p>Have a look:</p>

<p>https://www.amazon.com/best-sellers-camera-photo/zgbs/photo/ref=zg_bs_nav_0</p>

<p>I do not know what is going to happen with film. Maybe it will become real popular and maybe it will vanish. I just do not know. However I just shoot 35mm B/W film is all these days. I am not going to do anything else any more. I have an Olympus OMD and I took it out earlier this week and took a few shots of my Granddaughter and then packed it up real nice and put it back in the closet. Maybe I will take it out again some time but probably not. It's about as much fun to use as pushing the vacuum around. <br>

Anyway I will shoot film. Right now it's HP5 but I might go cheap and shoot Kentmere 100. I don't know. I have about 90 feet of HP5 at the moment and a few singles rolls of Kentmere 100 to try out. </p>

<p>It is not surprising to me that there is a good level of interest. It is not a question of either-or but simply that film photography and even darkroom printing are engaging activities and will likely have continued interest by photographers. The market decline and producer withdrawals has reached an adjusted level that should remain constant with the remaining industry supported by film photographers. Having both options is advantageous. </p>

<p>Sorry, Daniel, but we both know the key vital sign of film's "health" is the number of pro labs. So far, the usual magical thinking about film use since early 2012 and Kodak's crash never talks about labs reopening or restoring film services.</p>

<p>Don't have to apologize to me Mr. Watson, you are the one who always pegs the industry on the dated models of labs when the ones that are left and people are aware of are getting hammered with work. A properly running lab needs quantity to keep a top notch offering and that is what labs like Praus and Bluemoon do. Less labs with excellent online / internet business running at capacity are indeed representative of a healthy niche film resurgence. <br>

I think that is the biggest problem with the old guard thinking, because the new business model does not look like the old business model, it is discounted as being wrong or not sustainable. I don't shoot a lot of color film but what I do shoot I have no problem at all in sending it out for processing. <br>

Yet another nice nod to film as a great niche alternative to all things software is to be found <a href="http://time.com/4649188/film-photography-industry-comeback/?xid=homepage">here</a>.</p>

<p>From Daniels linked TIME article...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Many modern film photographers are portrait and wedding photographers in their 20s and 30s who are looking to “differentiate their art and their work by shooting film,” Almeida tells TIME. “That usually allows them to charge for a premium product because film has a different look and feel than digital.”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Where's the evidence to support such a specific claim? How does anyone find out the ages and specific photographic genre? Was there some big crowd of portrait and wedding photogs standing around waiting to take a vote at CES? Was CES the only place to conduct such data gathering? Now I'm beginning to understand the meaning of the term "Fake News".</p>

<p>Why is it some unknown person gets interviewed by a well known news organization making a claim without any supporting evidence and says this is the truth? Them just saying it is the evidence? COME ON! I expect more out of a TIME interview than that.</p>

<p>I know of at least 6 wedding shooters in my area and in Denver who shoot film on very high end weddings. Most use either a Contax 645 or a Mamiya 645 and shoot either Portra or Fuji NPH color neg films. <br>

It's not fake news, it just the word on the street, people like me who know other pros sharing the info. The buzz is out, even if only a niche fraction of it's former self, film is back and that is that. <br>

The notion that film is dead....is the only thing that is dead.</p>

<p>I am friends with a guy that is a Wedding/Event photographer and he shoots only film. He is a very good photographer and people seek him out because he is skilled and film is what they want. He lives in Portland which is a very Art oriented community. However other then him I do not know anyone in the world that shoots film except myself and my son. Not a big deal as I only know one person in the world that shoot digital unless you count cell phones of course.</p>

<p>I went hiking at Pinnacles National Park today and I commented somewhere that there are no photographers out there. As I was walking back to the car from my 4 hour hike and guy got out of his car with a monster digital camera and the biggest lens I have ever seen. He carried it about 10 feet from his car and sat in his chair with the camera on a tripod. To me it's obvious that he is waiting for Condors as they are up there flying around. A monster lens because they look like they are about 3000 feet up in the air. I would have to look them up but I think they have up to 10 ft wingspans and are the largest bird on earth. . I did see a Condor today land on a rock in the High Peaks from a fair distance. I imagined myself seeing that bird when I got up there also and I was going to snap a shot for sure. By the time I got up there I had forgotten about the bird and was just walking and sweating. One of these days I will see one up close however. It's bound to happen..I shot a roll of film in B/W mostly with my orange filter. I'm kind of tired so I will not develop the film until tonight.</p>

<p>Well then I guess we have a consensus enough to keep film manufacturing and lab processing in business.</p>

<p>It is fake news intended to get attention and create a groundswell of those who think and assume it's a lasting business model.</p>

<p>Very similar to the nutrition scientist that deliberately sent out a fake claim that eating chocolate will help you lose weight just to prove that the media was desperate for content enough to not conduct thorough fact checking.</p>

<p>The scientist even created a special fake named science study organization that also garnered an air of respectability and reliability the media relied upon to support the fake facts. http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/05/28/410313446/why-a-journalist-scammed-the-media-into-spreading-bad-chocolate-science</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Most use either a Contax 645 or a Mamiya 645 and shoot either Portra or Fuji NPH color neg films. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

That's a beautiful recipe. Portra is crisp and rich, while NPH is more dreamy. However, I am a little tired of the admittedly very nice, rich, open, bright look that is popular now. I'll show you an example:<br>

<br>

https://www.littlefilmlab.com/customer-work/stop-and-stare/<br>

<br>

Nothing wrong with it. I think this is the look which a certain photographer made popular, and that might be an example (I just looked him up - Kirk Mastin, from Seattle, the pesto of cities). Well I'm sure you know what I mean. I don't always like that technique as it can take away richness and warmth from skin tones. But that's part of the fun - to come up with something different every now and again.<br>

<br />Some digital cameras have their own b&w algorithms which are admittedly very nice - e.g. the high contrast b&w setting in the Sony A7. But that's a bit off-topic. :-)</p>

<p> I shot a wedding on a cell phone once. The Professional was a no show so everyone just took photos. Apparently he got drunk the night before and had some issues. I generally do not take a camera to a wedding unless it's one of my kids. But it was no problem getting folks to smile at the phone. Turned out to be ok and I made a photo album of shots. I was able to get a few pictures from the other phone photographers as well. The couple was able to add cell phone shots/CostCo prints themselves also as the pictures came in from their friends. </p>

<p>Ross, I did that too. I was the nominal photographer and I was supposed to shoot a few rolls of film but I never got around to it. I was too enamoured with my anamorphic lens attachment. The couple did not really complain as I was not charging.</p>

<p>I'll ask again, Daniel, what % of your money shots are film? Assume the daring wedding shooters you mentioned are delivering via scanned film? I'm living in one of N. America's larger cities(Toronto)and can vouch that pro-grade film services have atrophied to near invisibility here. Film work is best sold as a novelty and salesmanship is key, as always.</p>

<p>In 2016 it was 45% film. Because I just bought a home with 500 square feet of basement / darkroom space, I expect it to go much higher until it is where I want it at which will be 80%.<br /> <br /> For example, I just closed a deal on 8x 10' to 13' foot murals that were shot in a marble quarry on 4x5" Tmax 100. They had to be drum scanned for this size output but that is how a lot of reproduction happened with film well before the digital age so there is no point in saying my film got turned to digital as a means to marginalize the use of it. This job paid over $12K and will likely lead to a fair number of silver gel darkroom prints so it is really the best of all worlds.<br /> <br /> Straight up man, film is back and people really dig it!</p><div></div>

<p>Daniel, whatever you drink in the morning, I want some of it.</p>

<p>Just another Daniel Bayer infomercial. Guy can't find the off button.</p>

<p>+11 C Watson.</p>

<p>Mr. Watson & Mr. Citysnaps,</p>

<p>In the past, I have given names of those who earn a living using film like Michael Turek, Michael Gordon, Danny Wilcox Frazier, Jose Villa, Karen Wise and Elizabeth Messina just to name a few. <br /> I have also given examples in how I do it, direct examples of ad campaigns, magazine articles and in the case of the above, a magazine article turned murals. I have also given the names of labs that are doing well with healthy throughput of film keeping the lines at a high quality. <br /> If you want to sit around and say the sky is falling and only focus on metrics that relate to the mainstream and ignore the niche that film use now is, have at it.</p>

<p>But when asked a question and I give a precise answer, I expect in turn your respect for that effort and for you to conduct your self within the guidelines on this site, so Mr. Watson, you have been reported.<br>

These kinds of remarks are uncalled for and ad nothing to the knowledge base of this site.</p>

<p>Nice shot Daniel. Sharp and great detail with wonderful tones. On the film thing I do not know if it's back or what's up myself. I shoot 35mm B/W family oriented photos and I just carry the camera around if going someplace for the day. It's a fun hobby. While up in the Pinnacles National Parks High Peaks today on a hike I could have used a 10lb lens however as the Condors were putting on a show of magnificence. Just myself with a 50mm f1.8 lens and 4 other retired people that I met on the trail with cell phones. We all had binoculars. </p>

<p> </p>

I can echo Daniel's experiences. I retired from wedding photography a couple years back, but still do a number of engagement sessions and portrait sessions every year. I now focus on street projects. That said, as a wedding shooter, I was about 90% film based...both 35mm and MF. Loved the workflow and the look. People noticed it as well. I work with a number of other local pros and many of us have noticed the increased interest in film and film cameras. I see increased interest in film groups locally as well as with people I know in other cities. Even things like Wet Plate Collodion and other alt media are becoming more common. As more film production comes online from companies like Berger, Adox, and Ferrenia amoung others, we will see more discussion on the topic. As to wedding work, it is becomming far more common now with many photographers to use film to differentiate themselves.

 

The part I don't like here are the snipes at Daniel. With his cred in the industry, many of the forum webexperts here would be better served to listen as opposed to speak.

OMG - I just saw that photo taken with GAF 500. I shot a roll of that stuff L O N G ago. Horrid. I can't say much for any other GAF slide film either. But I did like the way Henry Fonda plugged the stuff. The way he said "GAF" was classic.

Do you count web-crawler hits? These are responsible for a huge number of 'ticks' on web counters, much more than actual site page-by-page visitation. Cache holds and reloads also count as hits.

 

Anyone seen any objective signs of a resurgence of interest in film stuff?

 

Oh dear. Why am I accorded one day off a fortnight, run off my feet teaching 35mm, MF and LF analogue? Here's a reason: people are not that impressed by digital.

 

Film work is best sold as a novelty and salesmanship is key, as always.

 

A "novelty"!? LOL.

Another throw-away comment devoid of basis or fact. Consider: how about those who produce their exhibition work up to a standard, not down to a price? They don't rely on "salesmanship", but skill in their craft and experience, something far too often missing in so very, very much digital photography I have to judge.

 

Maybe some people still think film is better than digital despite they are not being used by pro's

 

Haha. OK, show me the evidence please of this statement. Here is one professional who is not stepping up to digital.

Do you count web-crawler hits? These are responsible for a huge number of 'ticks' on web counters, much more than actual site page-by-page visitation. Cache holds and reloads also count as hits.

 

 

 

Oh dear. Why am I accorded one day off a fortnight, run off my feet teaching 35mm, MF and LF analogue? Here's a reason: people are not that impressed by digital.

 

 

 

A "novelty"!? LOL.

Another throw-away comment devoid of basis or fact. Consider: how about those who produce their exhibition work up to a standard, not down to a price? They don't rely on "salesmanship", but skill in their craft and experience, something far too often missing in so very, very much digital photography I have to judge.

 

 

 

Haha. OK, show me the evidence please of this statement. Here is one professional who is not stepping up to digital.

 

I agree. I don't see why the discussion moves to one media needing to be better than another. Neither film nor digital are better than the other...they are different. It is like arguing whether or not my pinhole 4x5 paper negative is better or worse than my Fuji X-Pro1.....or if water color painting has superior resolution or dmaz to oil based paintings. The question is nonsensical.

I posted the original question. It was never meant to be a film vs digital thread. It was meant to help me understand some rather odd visitor numbers to my web site, and I was hoping that someone might contribute some factual ( possibly even numerical) information about the strength of an apparent ( or possible) upsurge in the extent of interest in film . Didn't really happen, I got little useful information, and after indicating that the thread was moving in a direction contrary to the intent, I kind of lost interest.

 

Silent Spring. To respond to you on web crawlers. I'm not counting visitors to the site. I'm counting visitors to individual galleries within the site. If the crawlers visit a specific gallery, I'm no doubt counting their visits. But isn't it the case that for them to be causing the issue I'm getting, those crawlers will need to be independently deciding to visit the same gallery ( out of 33) ?

It was never meant to be a film vs digital thread

 

For better or for worse, the only form of control (and danged little at that) the OP has in the nature of responses is the wording of the original post. I think

the film vs. digital response was unavoidable here from the original post.