Flickr and classic cameras

I found out a little more since I posted the last topic. I forgot that the splash pictures on Flickr are not

just generic images, they're actually photos posted by Flickr members. (I wish I could get lucky enough to have

one of my pictures featured on the home page!) At the bottom of the picture, there is a link you can click to go

to the person's photo stream. Here is the girl I was talking about.

 

 

The camera is a Hasselblad. And she is definitely not just using it as a fashion statement. She has a lot of

other pictures from that camera, as well as a few classic TLR's. They're pretty good. Also, she has pictures

that her friends have taken with TLR's. When I looked at her photo stream, most or ALL of her pictures were

taken with medium format film. A lot of her pictures were taken with a Rolleiflex.

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rocamiki/page1/

 

So it definitely seems like something is going on. There is an interest growing in classic film cameras. Not

only are there THOUSANDS of groups just for traditional film photography, but there are also groups just for

people who like using certain kinds of cameras or formats. (Groups for 6x6 and TLR's are pretty popular). So

the renewed interest in film photography is obviously not just hipsters running around with Holgas and Dianas

because of the lomography fad. A lot of people are getting interested in "real" film cameras now. The fact that

film users are starting to get featured and noticed more on the internet is pretty interesting to me.

 

I think Flickr was just slow to catch on and realize what was going on. A lot of their users are actually into classic cameras and film, which probably caught them by surprise until they realized how many film photography groups and film photos there are on the website now. If you do a search on Flickr for "film," "medium format" "35mm," etc you could literally spend all night looking through photos.

 

Heck, if you do a search on Flickr for "Kodak Ektar 100", you'd find a ton of pictures. 94,941 results as a matter of fact. And that's just for one kind of film.

 

That has to mean SOMETHING.

<p>That's kind of cool - I wonder if these are "urban hipsters"? 'Cause I sure as hell couldn't tell you what a hipster is, especially an urban one. And I really don't understand using film for flickr displays or if web display is your final "product"... seems a little like brushing one's teeth through one's ass... not to mention smacks of pretentiousness and a sense of forced attempt at originality... Kind of like the people who threw sh!t at Bob Dylan when he pulled out an electric guitar... But, in the end, if it generates interest, and injects some badly needed money into film and chemicals, I am all for it. Even if I know chances are I couldn't stand talking to most of those people for more than 5 minutes... Then again, I am sure they would love me too :)</p>

I have a Flickr account, and I do like to use Flickr. Almost all of my pictures are from film (the very few digital pictures I have are mostly OF antique film cameras...well, and a few screenshots from a computer game I'm programming). I use it pretty much the same way I use Photo.net, to show pictures I've taken, have discussions about classic cameras and different kinds of film, etc.

 

Flickr is fun, but a web display is definitely not my final goal. I get all my film pictures printed, and I'd say that a print is my final goal. Especially with Ektar 100. Even on a monitor you can easily distinguish it with its poppy red and blue colors. But seeing it on a computer screen does NOT do it justice. When you see it in a print, it will blow you away.

 

And about hipsters...well I guess if I had to define a hipster, I would say they're posers. People who try to look and act in a certain way without having a clue about the larger meaning of things. In the case of photography, to me a hipster would be someone who runs out and buys a Dianna (a $100 PLASTIC camera) from Urban Outfitters because it's "vintage" (yeah, right) and "analog", and they also buy 35mm film from the same Urban Outfitters store for $20....even though they could get a box of it for $6 from a Walgreens across the street. The only difference is that the $6 box of film (with 3 or 4 rolls) is called FILM instead of "analog" and it doesn't have a cute little "lomography" or "analog love" sticker on it.

 

Before Starbucks was on every street corner, (probably back in the mid to late-90's), hipsters were the kind of people who would sit in a Starbucks and try to look trendy and intellectual by sitting at a table and pretending to read a stack of books on philosophy and art, but probably never actually read a single word of it. I used to go to Starbucks with my friends a lot...but not because we wanted to look especially cool, trendy, or intellectual....it was because we were bored college kids and there wasn't anything else to do around here except get a caffeine buzz. (I could tell you a funny story about the time I had some drink with 4 shots of expresso. I couldn't sit still and I was laughing at anything that moved).

 

 

 

Thankfully, I don't think any of my Flickr contacts are hipsters. I only know one person from Flickr who I would describe as very mildly "hipster-ish." She's really into taking pictures of graffiti and she's kind of into the whole redscale thing. But she didn't get into film photography because she saw some crappy overpriced Holga or Dianna in an Urban Outfitters store or lomography website. She's a bit older than me, and from what I understand, I think her dad actually had a darkroom and she learned a lot about photography when she was a kid. She got back into it recently.

 

I got into photography ever since I got a 110 camera for Christmas when I was a little kid in the late 1980's. Actually, before that when I was really little, I think I had some kind of Instamatic camera that used 126 film. I have no idea what kind of camera it was, but I distinctly remember the cartridges. The camera was already really old by then and my parents had just bought it for me from a thrift store or something to play around with. But I loved taking snapshots with it.

<p>Chris - I should rephrase - I understand the sharing aspect of the web, and I think its great. I have no issue with scanning far, far better than I can be bothered (or know how)to, to show your work where you can have it seen by your peers. I just think that if your only goal is to say "I use film, look at how sophisticated I am"... I guess that makes one a hipster, your definition of which (by the way) I wholeheartedly agree with:)</p>

<p>flickr was made for the square format. the site looks so much better with 1:1 images. anything that promotes film is wonderful - plastic cameras, hipsters, etc.</p>

There might be something to this interest in classic cameras among the young. I introduced my Classic Cameras app

for the iPhone/iPad, which has photos, ads, brochures, and reviews from my collection of 60+ cameras, but thought

that the intersection between the demographics (device owners and classic-camera enthusuasts) would be empty.

 

Happily, though, it's been a very steady seller.

 

Of course, I don't think anyone could possibly NOT love these cameras.

<p>Chris, I believe We all are stuck with what we have. My own cameras date from the '40s-late 70's . Who is currently building cameras for film (or ANY cameras at all) with a build quality that matches our beloved classics? Gratefully I get to own and use some of these wondrous pieces of mechanical art but only because most have taken the easy road. Using film IS harder than the new do-everything-for-you plastic that is sold new today. Driving a car used to seem compulcated until I took the time to learn how . Now I almost never bump into stuff, and I still don't have to take the bus. I like doing it myself. Composing myself, setting the exposure myself, focusing myself . I like being in the drivers seat, let the others take the bus of photography. Buses ,after all do have their uses.</p>

 

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157626569256715/">You might not be a hipster if....</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157626690589624/">Signs your a hipster</a></p>

<p> </p>

Both of my daughters use film but they want to share their images with others - this means getting the images

digitized. I find a dismissive attitude towards this by some to be puzzling, to say the least. For myself, I don't have

room for a darkroom. I have a scanner.

 

My younger daughter just absconded with my XA2 and several rolls of color film on a trip to visit a friend in Seattle,

she chose that camera over her mother's digital. Those were her choices, we are on vacation in Portland and she

forgot her K1000 back in Baltimore.

<p>What seems funny to me about urban hipsters is that all the ones I know are from the suburbs.<br>

But if they are going to buy film in large enough quantities to keep it in production I will be happy. I still use film and fear the day when I will no longer be able to get it.</p>

<p>There really is no point in leaving images to print form for an amateur shooter like myself. I am online rather a lot and love reading about classic cameras. I shoot more film than digital and I like to share them. Scanning negatives than print works out cheaper so I rarely print.</p>

I checked out the links that Clay James posted. The first link, to the discussion "You aren't a hipster if..." on Flickr was hilarious.

 

But the blog on B&H photo probably just turned me off from them as a customer. I could be wrong, but I'm assuming that he either works for B&H or is connected with them somehow. But whatever the case, he made a big mistake. He took what could have been a funny article about hipsters and turned it into a snotty swipe at film photography in general. He tried to lump ALL film users in with "lomography." People who use Holgas, Dianas, and vintage film cameras are all the same to him. Heck, I've never set foot in an Urban Outfitters store in my life, and I don't plan to. I don't use film because I'm trying to be "cool"...I use it because I like the great quality I can get from film, and I like working with classic film cameras. The same reason as all of us here.

 

There's a picture of a Pentax SLR in that blog...because he equates using even a classic 35mm SLR with "lomography." That seems pretty freaking ignorant to me.

 

In general, the blog seemed to be a swipe against film photography in general. Nevermind that a lot of B&H Photo CUSTOMERS buy film from them! I wasn't amused.

 

Hey, B&H...are you seeing this? I guess I can see the direction you guys are taking. I've bought film from B&H before...but I might not anymore. I can just as well buy all my film from Freestyle now. Or Adorama. Heck, even Dwayne's Photo sells some kinds of film.

 

I'm all for free speech...but when a website publishes an article that insults a big portion of their customers, that doesn't seem too smart to me.

<p>There is a definite "movement" towards film in Asia since a few years back. Like many new trends over here (especially among young people) it started in Japan and then spreads across the region. I suspect that it may initially have been another expression of "counter-culture" in Japanese society, a anti-tech statement of sorts, before it attracted the hipsters. Yes, many touting film cameras can be put in to this category, but I would say that most that venture in to film do it out of curiosity. Remember, many of these kids grew up with digital and have never loaded a roll of film in their life. Certainly in a high-tech country like Japan. The hipster factor was just an added bonus. And like any "movement" once it got hip, it attracted fashion victims on the fringes. Nothing wrong with that since it promotes the medium, in my view.</p>

<p>Two years back, you would not see one person carrying a film camera here in Hong Kong. Now, you see young people with TLR's, rangefinders, SLR's and whatnot quite often. Whenever I go out shooting with my film cameras, I get at least a few people come up to me and start chatting, asking questions and so on, especially if I am weilding the Hasselblad, but also if using film 35mm SLR's. And if you really need or want attention, travel through the PRC with a TLR, folder or M/F SLR - the further away it looks from anything digital, the more attention you will get. You will stir up a small crowd each time you pull it out for some shots. I would say that 20% are genuinly interested whereas the rest want to have a word with what in their eyes is an odd-ball person. But it is true that you are probably on the pinnacle of hip if you walk down Nanjing or Huaihai road in Shanghai with an odd looking film camera these days. I quietly wonder sometimes how many of those who do actually have any film loaded...:). In more rural areas, or developing countries (e.g. Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam) it's the opposite. People in the poorer places are aspiring for technology and just think of you as either too poor to be able to afford it, or some oddity stuck in time. to many, to be using a film camera becomes like "reverse snobbism" of the state of development of the society you live in or your personal financial situation.</p>

<p>Anyway. It is great to see this growing interest, especially among young people. Some of them produce stunning work, as can be seen on flickr.</p>

<p>I think I am too old to be a hipster, but I scan everything I shoot, as I don't have a darkroom yet, and I share just a little of it on the web including a few on Flickr. I capture images on transparency, or black and white film, because I like the tangible aspect of producing an image on a film.</p>

<p>And most importantly, it is not just about the destination, it is also about the trip. Many old film cameras were beautifully made and finished. They're just a joy to handle, and to use. The process of making the image with them is so enjoyable, and I still can't believe I'm fortunate enough to own cameras such as Hasselblad, Rolleiflex, Contaflex and so on. Who wouldn't want to use these beauties, as often as possible?</p>

<p>Once I used to fix or restore old motorcycles or weird French cars. For health reasons, I can't do that any more. So a part of it is finding beautiful cameras like Rolleis, or Contaflice, that are a bit sick, making them sing like new again, and then, using them. You don't get as cold, wet, or dirty, working on a Rollei, as you do a Citroën or a Ducati, there's not as much grease under the nails, and the cameras are easier to garage. But the satisfaction of making them work again, is just as good...</p>

<p>Like many others I have limited means. Very limited means. I'm not in a position to drop the dollars I would need to equip with a top quality digital SLR body and decent lenses, let alone an M9. Personally, I would rather use the best film equipment I can, than settle for second-rate digital gear. This is a part of the reason I acquired a 500CM. For similar money, to me, it seemed to be a far better option, than an entry level Canon or Nikon DSLR and some kit lenses and also, a means to better image quality.</p>

<p>Holgas, polaroid, lomo cameras, etc. are really not for me. But if younger people are discovering film and actually using it, I for one don't care why or how they are making images with it, they're still helping to keeping film photography viable. So I think it is a little sad, that older film camera users on some of the web forums feel compelled to question their motives for using film. The fact that they are, is good enough for me.</p>

<p>This is one of my favourite blogs, mainly because of all the choice camera porn, but it also seems to support the precept that film capture is alive and well in Asia...<br /><a href="http://tokyocamerastyle.com/">http://tokyocamerastyle.com/</a></p>

<p>Well said Chris. Sadly, I think B&H doesn't feel ticks and gnats like us...</p>

I do think we'Ve beat this thing to death but I do want to share my experience at Photokina. Back in the Fall I worked the Photokina in Cologne. I was handing out DVDs for an on-line Photo magazine. Occupying a hallway (note the "way" ) in one of the wings, not one of the exhibition "halls" our favorite Hogla Lomo group was set up playing "retro" rock music and selling their "vibe". I was passing through, dialogging people and handing out DVDs. I usually hit this area about twice a day. I approached a group of 20 somethings and gave them the pitch. I directed my gaze at the one "hipster" who immediately raised both of his hands backing away (which made me mad) and announced " Hey man I'm analog, strictly analog". I asked if I looked digital to him? I rather coldly informed him that the product was geared to photographers and didn't discriminate. I think he got my drift and was ashamed. So I know the "hipster"!!

That B&H blog just cost them a customer. I have found the prices on Amazon to be better for digital stuff anyway.

<p>Thanks for telling me about the B&H Blog Chris. I won't be buying anything more from them. And nor will the Photo Dept. where I teach. Probably they want to belittle film users because it cuts into DSLR sales. Honestly with the number of cheap, reliable USED DSLRs out there which are only a few years old, there is little reason to buy a NEW expensive DSLR.<br>

As an anecdote a couple of weeks ago I went to my local camera store (Schillers' Photographic) to look for some used Canon FD breechlock lenses. When I went up to the used cases, there was a young, Hipster with a Canon F1 there looking for Canon FD lenses! It was so funny the sales guy had to remark it must be old Canon lens day! According to the same sales guy, OLD METAL cameras and lenses are moving quickly and they're beginning to take in old cameras and lenses they turned away just a few years ago.</p>

<p>what hassleblad is she using ?<br>

<p>Steve - A chrome square type :) Seriously though, it's impossible to tell with positive certainty. I'm sure you could ask her, if it matters. But why would it matter? Intrigue me...</p>

It's one of two: a 500 C or a 500 C/M.<br><br>Good to see a real Classic Camera once in a while, instead of all those 'just old also rans'. ;-)