Film revival?

One thing that struck me is that there's not really a digital equivalent of an instant camera, - one that produces prints. Although "instant" doesn't really mean instant. I still can remember my dad pulling a picture from his old polaroid then looking at his watch to wait the requisite amount of time before tearing the paper off to reveal the image.

I have a half dozen boxes of Fuji FP-100C in my refrigerator, and also have one Polaroid currently loaded with some.

I actually never used the "real" Polaroid peel-apart pack film. It was still made both in "Polaroid" size and in 4x5 and the better local camera stores kept it in stock when I first took a serious interest in photography. I never bought any, though, because my budget was limited and my eyes(and money) always went to the Velvia and other transparency films(Kodachrome among them).

Still, FP-100c is an excellent film, although unfortunately Fuji pulled the plug a couple of years ago. They must have made a TON of it as a last hurrah, though, as the major retailers still have it in stock(albeit at steadily increasing prices) and my local store even has a few boxes kicking around if you want to fork over $30.

The real shame is that when it was discontinued, The Impossible Project apparently approached them about buying the equipment, and Fuji elected to scrap it rather than sell.

Even though I grew up with one-step film, peel apart holds a lot of interest for me due to it being useful in a lot of cameras beyond Polaroids. I can shot it in my RB67 and Hasselblad 500c, for example. In fact, I think it remained a viable seller for a LONG time after Polaroid quit making pack film cameras because in the pre-Digital days it was standard practice to use a Polaroid to check exposure, lighting ratios, and the like before starting with "real" film. Some Polaroids have good lenses coupled with good rangefinders(my 250, for example) but it's amazing how much the film "wakes up" when you put it behind a high quality MF lens. I'll also add that the back I have for my Hasselblad IS the back half of a Polaroid(it was made by them, and even says "Polaroid" on the spring door) grafted onto a Hasselblad back attachment.

Even for folks my age who have seen One-Steps in action(and want to grab them and start shaking them-something that in my experience doesn't change developing time but can give green blotches along the bottom-although I think the blotch thing is more of a problem with SX-70 than type 600 since on "real" SX-70 film the image remained "soft" for about a half hour) are often amazed at waiting and then pulling apart a pack film image a couple of minutes later. Of course, there's a lot of mystery as opposed to being able to watch a one-step image appear. It's a shame Impossibles take 30 minutes and not 3 minutes like real Polaroids.

Enjoyed watching the linked video below.

Interesting points.

I liked the comment about matching the film/ camera to the subject.

Film does seem to be making some of the youngsters enthusiastic about taking pictures, even beyond the hipster fad culture.

Take Kayo's take is accurate, at least for Vancouver and Toronto, where the film ecosystem has recovered enough ground from the early 2000s collapse to be viable now, albeit on a smaller scale than before. A few shops selling good selections of film in all formats and a few quality labs are enough to keep it all afloat--and they're busy, too! Frankly, the hipsters ditched film and killed the Lomography schtick several years ago and chased after other bright shiny things. The line-up at the film/lab counter at Toronto's Downtown Camera around noon Sunday opening time is diverse--"newly-wed and nearly dead" and all other shapes and flavors. A sign of health? Think so.

This is rich. Now that we’ve successfully divided the geezer generation into film and digital devotees, let’s obsess not just over whether the younger generation is using film but whether their motives are pure or faddishly “hipsterish” in doing so.

It’s strikingly noticeable how these discussions don’t focus on the photos being produced or the stories being told, the aesthetic or journalistic sensibilities of young people, but instead on the minutiae of the processes they use to tell them.

Evidently, the gear makes the man.

This is rich. Now that we’ve successfully divided the geezer generation into film and digital devotees, let’s obsess not just over whether the younger generation is using film but whether their motives are pure or faddishly “hipsterish” in doing so.

 

It’s strikingly noticeable how these discussions don’t focus on the photos being produced or the stories being told, the aesthetic or journalistic sensibilities of young people, but instead on the minutiae of the processes they use to tell them.

 

Evidently, the gear makes the man.

Sarcasm aside, you don't seem to have grasped much from Kayo's video. What people shoot with film is their business; that they're consuming it some quantities will keep it on the shelves. That's what matters to me.

That's what matters to me.

I got that exactly.

This is rich. Now that we’ve successfully divided the geezer generation into film and digital devotees, let’s obsess not just over whether the younger generation is using film but whether their motives are pure or faddishly “hipsterish” in doing so.

 

It’s strikingly noticeable how these discussions don’t focus on the photos being produced or the stories being told, the aesthetic or journalistic sensibilities of young people, but instead on the minutiae of the processes they use to tell them.

 

Evidently, the gear makes the man.

I assume, maybe incorrectly, that talent isn't something any particular generation has a monopoly on, but I do find it interesting how young people react to a technology that's not native to them.

FWIW I'm not into millennial bashing personally. I chalk it up to what older generations have thought of younger generations throughout history. Plus I've had the pleasure of working with a number of very impressive people in their 20's. For that matter, my high school aged son has some outstanding kids among his circle of friends so I'm not particularly worried about the people who'll be running the world when we're gone.

talent

Since you were responding to me, Tom, I want to make clear that I was not talking about talent. I was talking about the substance of what young people are actually producing, their aesthetics and their interests. For instance, the photographer/videographer I know best who’s under 30 is working on a project documenting a fellow surfer’s creation of a surfboard made from cigarette butts found on the beaches he surfs. The initial idea and short video have gone viral and he’s in the process of doing a full-length feature on it. When we’ve discussed it, we talk about the surfboard, his conceptual approach to the documentary, his ocean-cleanliness activism and the like.

This is rich. Now that we’ve successfully divided the geezer generation into film and digital devotees, let’s obsess not just over whether the younger generation is using film but whether their motives are pure or faddishly “hipsterish” in doing so.

 

It’s strikingly noticeable how these discussions don’t focus on the photos being produced or the stories being told, the aesthetic or journalistic sensibilities of young people, but instead on the minutiae of the processes they use to tell them.

 

Evidently, the gear makes the man.

You are unhinged.

That is strikingly noticeable.

Your bias and personal prejudice is interfering with your ability to discuss the subject of this thread.

Anyone who reads through this thread can clearly see that you introduced personal offense where none existed.

Why must you trash a perfectly fine conversation with personal political bile.

I have APS-C digital camera but most of the time I use my 6x6 film camera. For some reason I enjoy to use/feel analogue tools.

I do not try to be sarcastic or obnoxious about this discussion, but tools sometimes become a safe haven when Muse is leaving for her "personal time."

Another fun to watch film video.

The interesting thing is that all of this film nostalgia is made possible by the digital technology.

The David Chan guy is an endearing personality.

" No no no no no no....."

Were I ever in his neighborhood a visit would be on top of my list.

Enjoy....

Nostalgia is not what it used to be. —Simone Signoret

:cool:

"....Nostalgia is not what it used to be....."

:cool:

Nor is common courtesy......

Nevertheless, there is an inescapable, irrefutable nostalgia for the tactile qualities of film and the cameras that utilize it that is not lost on many, young and old.

No amount of incoherent biased protest can change that fact.

but there's no need

I don't see it as a matter of need. I'm just contributing to a public forum. Just remember, there's also no need for you to respond to things I say, yet you keep doing it, I sense because you're not always driven by need either.

Nor is common courtesy......

Oy. The snowflakery of it all.

In any case, the quote I chose was actually out of courtesy, but I guess it's all relative. There is a much more biting quote I wanted to post but, instead, chose one I thought was just light and cute, pretty inoffensive, IMO, knowing the sensitivity I might run into.

Here's the one I preferred which, out of courtesy, I didn't post. Steel yourself . . . lol . . . or get yourself to a safe space . . .

It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice -- there are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia.—Frank Zappa

Now, don't get me wrong. One of the reasons I can laugh at this is because I'm into nostalgia as much as the next guy. I'm still able to recognize that it can also be a fool's errand.

I'm not responding to things you say

LOL. And yet you quoted THE THING I SAID.

You are marginalizing your opinions with every post.

And that's unfortunate.

Much like the apparent necessity to add an imitation mechanical shutter sound effect to your Iphone, this obnoxious display speaks volumes.....

The Frank Zappa quote is certainly no more relevant to the subject at hand than the "Ship of Fools" alumni you quoted.

The discourtesy is the irrelevance of both presented in such an obnoxious way.

I don't mind rudeness if it's relevant.

In this case, it isn't.

And that speaks volumes.........

And the beat goes on. ;-) Speaking as a charter member of the geezer club (well, not really, just feels like it), I started shooting film in the '50s, graduating from 35mm to MF and then to 4X5 in the early 2000s. That was about the time that the availability (not to mention quality) of C41 processing was rapidly dying off. But for that, I might still be shooting film. But, since then, the move to digital has been satisfying, and I think the quality of my work now exceeds what I was getting with film.

That said, I still love my Olympus OM-1, and would definitely jump on a good digital back for it. Which is where this whole 10-page thread began, right?

"It's a discussion about the process of using film and which you felt the need to respond to in the beginning of this thread by mentioning your use of an iPhone and DSLR."

Come to think of it Fred, the shutter and button you mentioned on your I-phone are misnomers as well, nomenclature lifted from the cameras they imitate.

Imitation of an original now held in contempt by you as a "Fool's errand".

Funny, that.

So is this the "state how you feel good about film revival" thread where alternative views will be seen as combative and argumentative?

I never want to go back to using film. I don't see putting a roll of film in a box with a lens attached and tripping the shutter as craft. The craftsmanship in film are by those lab technicians who make it look as it does along with the chemists who created the dyes and silver grains and embedded it in the cellulose.

Film photographers who like to call what they do a craft are better off taking up macrame, glass blowing or decoupage. At least with that craft you can point to whose hands are responsible for the final results.

Film photographers who like to call what they do a craft are better off taking up macrame, glass blowing or decoupage. At least with that craft you can point to whose hands are responsible for the final results.

This is why the nostalgia bit often rings so hollow. It's nostalgia just for the sake of the ol' days, not for the sake of actual craft. It's about the memories that go along with using film, even if using film meant sending it off to a lab for processing and printing. When there's some substance behind nostalgia, I can get behind it. When it's a superficial Hallmark emotional gesture, it's just narcissistic and annoying.

I'm close with some experienced photographer friends who have a nostalgia for working with film, which actually means, for them, having worked with film, shooting, processing, and developing, not just utilizing film so someone else can work it and send it back to them. It may feel great to heighten expectations and delay "gratification" to wait a few weeks to get a box of negs or prints back and not use an lcd, but it has to be considered how ridiculous that sounds when talking about an art or a craft. The gratification you're getting is from the work someone else did, while you sat home and delayed.

Making a thoughtful argument is one thing.

If you don't see the difference in that and what has been going on here, you and I don't have a baseline to start from.

As for the craftsmanship thing I'll let you remind me where I used that term.

I certainly do not see it more relevant to the digital process than the film process so it is a fallacious argument in the context of comparing the two.

I started taking issue with Fred when he made the discussion personal with the bigoted stereotypical name calling to drive wedges between others. The very person he referred t as an "actual millennial " in some contrived defense from uninspired "geezers" and "gearheads" shoots film and has a collection of vintage lenses.

Simple fabricated conflict to derail a thread he finds politically offensive.

 

Film photographers who like to call what they do a craft are better off taking up macrame, glass blowing or decoupage. At least with that craft you can point to whose hands are responsible for the final results.

And what is digital? It's all computers and software.