How do younger photographers feel about film if they haven't grown up with it ?

I'm intrigued by how younger "never-used-film" photographers feel about film. This is not about film v digital by the way. I now use digital in addition to film, but all my most-treasured photos are slightly blurry and undersaturated colour prints from my childhood (1960s and 70s). I was given a Kodak Instamatic 33 in about 1970 - and still remember taking the 126 cartridges to Boots and waiting (with excitement and anticipation) for a couple of days to see the results. I knew a photo was good when someone said "Oh that one came out well!" - fond memories.

Since I'm probably about the same age as you I can only give you 2nd hand information and only from young hobbyists rather than full fledged photographers. My 15 year old daughter for example has an Instax camera and for some reason wants to get a disposable film camera. I told her that I can get her something that looks kind of like a disposable camera but takes a lot better pictures and you can use it over and over. Plus you can pick from a variety of films.

 

She's not interested.

 

So I think it's fair to say that she sees film as kind of a fun novelty.

 

Both she and my 20 year old son think my film cameras are cool and like some of the pictures I've taken with them, but aren't inclined to use them themselves. They both have a mild interest in photography and both enjoy the post processing flexibility that digital gives you. My son took a photography class and I'd say most of it was about manipulating photos in post rather than taking pictures.

 

Though I shoot a lot of film one of my favorite photos is one I took with a very early digital camera, - a camera from back when digital couldn't hold a candle to a good film camera. It was of my son at maybe 14 months sitting in a snow bank in a bright blue, red, and yellow snow suit.

 

Very often what makes a good photo is what's in it rather than what it was taken with.

A friend of mine (in her fifties, but a confirmed Luddite) insists on getting disposable cameras to take to gigs, because 'The photos are so much better than digital, and you don't have to spend hours fiddling with them'. I have explained that the images are 'good' as first of all she is only getting 6x4 prints, whereas digital can give larger images, and secondly the lab who processes the films probably do spend an appreciable amount of time 'tweaking' the output to give her the images she likes - but since she doesn't see it, it doesn't happen. I know that at some colleges students are taught the rudiments of photography using basic manual film cameras (Pentax K1000, for example), but unfortunately, not in sufficient numbers to reduce the exorbitant coast of film !! I don't think there is sufficient emphasis on the history of Photography - mention Fox Talbot, or Daguerre to these students, and you are met with a look of polite incomprehension. As Tom says, most photographic education is about PP, and this is evidenced by the content of most photographic magazines nowadays. Film ? Huh ! Wet Collodion for me.

Interest in film, whatever the demographic, is really a matter of accessible/affordable film, processing and gear. Line-ups at Downtown Camera's film/lab counters at opening on Sunday mornings in Toronto tell the tale: everybody from the newly-wed to nearly-dead, brisk film sales, large and small processing orders, discount pricing for frequent flyers, used dept. Friends easily sell good quality film gear thru Kijiji, usually to young photographers. Simply put: no local film infrastructure=scant interest in film.photography. YMMV, as usual.

well most think that instamatic thing that prints off wallet size photos is revolutionary, or actually that its FILM>...... gasp...... 18.00 for 10 shots of black and white where I live..... and I tink 35.00 for a pack of 5 rolls of 120 format tri-x is pricy

 

Yes because with all of their new technologies they don't have something that is compact and can split out print instantly. One can possibly build a system using digital but none did.

Yes because with all of their new technologies they don't have something that is compact and can split out print instantly. One can possibly build a system using digital but none did.

 

My daughter also has an "HP Sprocket" which is a miniature printer that produces 2 X 3 inch prints. It fits in the palm of your hand and weighs only about 5 ounces. Not as convenient as an all in one solution like an old Polaroid but still pretty portable.

 

I'm kind of surprised no one has built that technology into a camera. You could have the digital image you can share online plus the ability to print one immediately. Wouldn't have to be any bigger than an old Polaroid or a newer Instax.

Very often what makes a good photo is what's in it rather than what it was taken with.

That's true, though it doesn't explain away various attachments to media and practices of the past. (Not that you’re claiming it does.)

 

A poet feeling more inspired when sitting with a pencil and paper instead of in front of a keyboard, a pianist preferring the depth and reaction of the touch of the keys on a grand piano to an electronic keyboard, a given photographer being more juiced when using film than digital (and I'm strictly a digital user, myself) makes perfect sense ... even though all would probably agree with you that what's in the poem, music, or picture is the key element.

 

Inspiration and artistic choice can’t always be and probably shouldn’t be explained as one would explain a mathematical equation. Photography, art, and many other things in life have a strong connection to their histories, almost like links in a chain. Some connection and buy-in to that history and it’s methods, whether more technical or more aesthetic, can be important, sometimes even necessary, for understanding and building upon or even revolting against tradition.

 

What makes a good photo is a function of many things, and many of those things are actually external to the picture, like culture, politics, the experience of both the photographer and viewer, and all of the influences that went into its making. What’s in a great photo, poem, painting, or song isn’t simply what’s in it. After all, what’s in it got put there or at the very least chosen, by the person who made it.

Besides from the Instax which I posted the reason above I haven't seen young people who never used film before using film now.

Not too terribly long ago, my sister, brother-in-law, and their 3 kids(13, 9, and 3) were around, and I got a lot of questions from my oldest nephew about just what was going on with the Nikon F2 I was using that day including what I was doing with "the knob with the little fold out crank."

 

He was even more amazed when I hauled out some slides of him as a baby/toddler...of course he didn't exactly appreciate seeing them :) , but was more fascinated at the whole "tiny picture" thing. Among others, and in fact one of my favorites, is a Kodachrome of my grandfather(his great-grandfather) holding him when he was around a year old. He had seen that picture several times(I know my sister has print of it, and if I remember correctly it's framed) but seeing the "tiny picture", along with a couple of others taken in sequence that didn't get printed, was fascinating to him. The comment was something along the lines of "Oh, so that's just like when you take more than one picture with your phone to make sure it comes out." I bit my tongue on the fact that he could be a bit uncooperative in being photographed at that age :)

 

I need to sort out my more recent slides, especially as I have some of the youngest waiting to go to the lab. I'm tempted to haul out the projector the next time they're here :)

"How do younger photographers feel about film if they haven't grown up with it ?"

 

Probably a novelty, but obviously some would treat it seriously and perhaps join the ranks of determined learners and continue with both digital and their new discovery of film shooting.

 

A HP c8180 all in one printer in good working order will pump out auto adjusted 6x4 prints without a computer. The only work needed, besides exposing in the camera, is to get the film developed at a lab, the c8180 does the rest, scanning, adjusting and printing

Even old people have moved on. I live in a 55+ community. We have a photo club. I'm the only one who uses film (and digital). One of the members had thrown out his Hasselblad equipment thinking no one would even want it anymore. I nearly had a heart attack.

I nearly had a heart attack.

At my age, I wouldn't have a heart attack over a camera. I'd save it for sex! :)

At my age, I wouldn't have a heart attack over a camera. I'd save it for sex! :)

 

I won't even enquire, but presumably the camera would need to be on a tripod.

I won't even enquire, but presumably the camera would need to be on a tripod.

It was the heart attack I was saving for sex, not the camera.

Oh, I see - sorry.

I'm old enough to have grown up with film, a few years after I got into 'photography', as opposed to just taking pictures, I was able to afford a used digital camera. For years I used the digital only for colour and it was very much secondary to my film cameras.

 

My wife is a little younger, her only memory of film growing up is the cost, receiving a telling-off for taking pictures of nothing much (as children do) and never being bought another film for the camera she had, so digital must have come as something of a relief.

 

 

 

well most think that instamatic thing that prints off wallet size photos is revolutionary, or actually that its FILM>...... gasp...... 18.00 for 10 shots of black and white where I live..... and I tink 35.00 for a pack of 5 rolls of 120 format tri-x is pricy

Instamatic was Kodak's brand name for consumer cameras, mostly(all?) using 126 film cartridges, it was easy, but certainly not instant. As for Instax, which is instant, in the Polaroid sense, it most certainly is film, in the truest chemical wet squishy sense, just maybe not the film you're used to. A 40 exposure pack of Instax Wide costs me around €30, so not bad once you start to factor processing in. B&W is more expensive. Personally, I like it for it's lack of perfection.

 

My daughter also has an "HP Sprocket" which is a miniature printer that produces 2 X 3 inch prints. It fits in the palm of your hand and weighs only about 5 ounces. Not as convenient as an all in one solution like an old Polaroid but still pretty portable.

 

I'm kind of surprised no one has built that technology into a camera. You could have the digital image you can share online plus the ability to print one immediately. Wouldn't have to be any bigger than an old Polaroid or a newer Instax.

 

They have, you can buy 'Polaroid' branded cameras using the same zInk technology (I think it's thermal printing) as the Sprocket and I think some other brands too, not to be confused with the 'real' Polaroid cameras being made by/for the Impossible Project.

That's true, though it doesn't explain away various attachments to media and practices of the past. (Not that you’re claiming it does.)

 

A poet feeling more inspired when sitting with a pencil and paper instead of in front of a keyboard, a pianist preferring the depth and reaction of the touch of the keys on a grand piano to an electronic keyboard, a given photographer being more juiced when using film than digital (and I'm strictly a digital user, myself) makes perfect sense ... even though all would probably agree with you that what's in the poem, music, or picture is the key element.

 

Inspiration and artistic choice can’t always be and probably shouldn’t be explained as one would explain a mathematical equation. Photography, art, and many other things in life have a strong connection to their histories, almost like links in a chain. Some connection and buy-in to that history and it’s methods, whether more technical or more aesthetic, can be important, sometimes even necessary, for understanding and building upon or even revolting against tradition.

 

What makes a good photo is a function of many things, and many of those things are actually external to the picture, like culture, politics, the experience of both the photographer and viewer, and all of the influences that went into its making. What’s in a great photo, poem, painting, or song isn’t simply what’s in it. After all, what’s in it got put there or at the very least chosen, by the person who made it.

 

Agree with all of what you're saying. However, in the case of the OP, I don't think it's artistry that makes those "slightly blurry and undersaturated color prints" their most treasured pictures, - it's the memories associated with them.

 

And for very young photographers, once they reach the OP's age, it may well be that it's the pictures from their youth that evoke the same feelings. It won't matter if they're digital or film, blurry or sharp as a tack.

They have, you can buy 'Polaroid' branded cameras using the same zInk technology (I think it's thermal printing) as the Sprocket and I think some other brands too, not to be confused with the 'real' Polaroid cameras being made by/for the Impossible Project.

 

Well, what do you know? It's kind of cool looking but pretty low spec. It sounds like it prints every picture you take if there's paper loaded. Kind of in spirit with an old polaroid I guess.

However, in the case of the OP, I don't think it's artistry that makes those "slightly blurry and undersaturated color prints" their most treasured pictures, - it's the memories associated with them.

Sure, but I had quoted you talking about what makes a good photo. Those "slightly blurry and undersaturated color prints" may well be treasured pictures, especially because of the memories associated with them. I have many myself that I treasure, pictures of loved ones and times long gone. But, IMO, that doesn't make them good photos. It makes them photos of good times and memories ... mementos.

Not too terribly long ago, my sister, brother-in-law, and their 3 kids(13, 9, and 3) were around, and I got a lot of questions from my oldest nephew about just what was going on with the Nikon F2 I was using that day including what I was doing with "the knob with the little fold out crank."

 

He was even more amazed when I hauled out some slides of him as a baby/toddler...of course he didn't exactly appreciate seeing them :) , but was more fascinated at the whole "tiny picture" thing. Among others, and in fact one of my favorites, is a Kodachrome of my grandfather(his great-grandfather) holding him when he was around a year old. He had seen that picture several times(I know my sister has print of it, and if I remember correctly it's framed) but seeing the "tiny picture", along with a couple of others taken in sequence that didn't get printed, was fascinating to him. The comment was something along the lines of "Oh, so that's just like when you take more than one picture with your phone to make sure it comes out." I bit my tongue on the fact that he could be a bit uncooperative in being photographed at that age :)

 

I need to sort out my more recent slides, especially as I have some of the youngest waiting to go to the lab. I'm tempted to haul out the projector the next time they're here :)

 

Perhaps they should reintroduce Polachrome? I guess the little pictures that came out of the cameras is the attraction for the young. I think Polachrome quality is quite poor but it's very cool.

Just when DSLRs were appearing, i remember going out to do some city shots with my 1952 TLR. I was down at our Central train station shooting away...waist level finder and everything...when I noticed that a young man and (what I assumed to be) his girlfriend. The man had a shiny new DSLR and was taking some nice shots of his young lady and showing off his new toy.

The girl noticed me and my ancient gear but, instead of dismissing it as out of date junk, she was fascinated. She started a conversation about the camera. I showed her the waist level finder and how to focus and she thought it was all really great.

However, her young man...with all his fancy new technology...was left standing off to one side...NOT amused!!

It did not help that, as she left me and walked back to him, I heard her say, "You should get one of those"

At my age, I wouldn't have a heart attack over a camera. I'd save it for sex! :)

What's sex?

My wife is a little younger, her only memory of film growing up is the cost, receiving a telling-off for taking pictures of nothing much (as children do) and never being bought another film for the camera she had, so digital must have come as something of a relief.

Yeah! Thats my childhood memory too. Mum frowned upon the neighbor's boy taking pictures of his toys. I had to become a teen spending allowance on film & processing to gain that (surely important?) feedom.

A co-worker's daughter took a manual film SLR requiring class at uni and didn't get hooked enough by the medium, to give me a chance to ditch something on her.

I see younger folks shooting film on YouTube and some seem to have fun, just like we did, back in the day.

I have no insight into the younger ones' minds, but: What should have changed for them?

My dad is 80 dislikes computer work, enjoys the service of getting prints made and sticks to film.

IMO, not many people have the free time or attention span to shoot film or even give it a second thought. Most decent film images get scanned, so it's digital in the end anyway. If they get printed, it's on a digital printer. How many people are doing traditional wet process anymore? I'd still like to, but haven't had the time for decades.

I love old cameras, especially the ones I couldn't afford when I was younger. To use these, requires film.

Like so many others here, my "historical reenactments" are time travel using cameras like the Contax IIa, Contax S and so