Level of interest in film photography

david_henderson · January 16, 2017

About 6 months ago I re-structured my website. Out of 30+ galleries/albums, I decided fairly whimsically to title one of them "By the sea-film photography". No other gallery has a title with any indication of whether the content is film-based. Reality is that I've been fully digital since 2009 and all told about 85% of the site's photographs are digital in origin.

But I have visit counters on each gallery and these indicate that this gallery has between 3 and 4 times the number of visits than the second highest gallery, and about 4x the visits of the average gallery. Its getting 3.5 x the traffic of another, similarly named gallery called "By the sea -digital photography. It isn't in a particularly prominent place; the photographs on it are all at least several years old and have been on my sites forever, though not over this title. I don't believe the quality of this photography is notably better or worse than you'd find elsewhere on the site.

I'm curious as to why this might be happening. Anyone seen any objective signs of a resurgence of interest in film stuff? My web guy has checked the way visits are being counted is the same here as on the other galleries. I guess I'm surprised that a fairly arbitrary way of dividing up an 80 shot portfolio into two 40 shot galleries is having such an effect.

aplumpton · January 16, 2017

I wonder how easily one can distinguish differences in picture quality on an Internet site where the dpi is perhaps optimally 125 but often only 60% of that? Consequently, any perceived quality differences between digital and film produced images would be obscured by the limited resolution, unless for some reason your film images possess significantly better tonal rendition than your digital photos, which would be unusual if you are at a high level of technical performance with both systems.

Without further information, such as seeing the images in person, I can only guess that the film images are qualitatively different from the digital images and their subject and compositions somehow more appealing to viewers. I know that my film images are often composed more leisurely than many of my digital images, often owing to the time required to set up the camera on a tripod and to verify exposure or bracket it. This may not be a factor allowing additional reflection time in your photography (assuming you reflect similarly when shooting digitally).

My guess is that for that or another reason your photographic approach and perceived compositions were different when you were using film rather than digital. The choice of medium probably had little to do with the differences apparently registered by the visitor appreciations.

As for greater interest in film, I think the situation between the two is relatively stable over the past few years but perhaps the low cost of used darkroom equipment is enticing more to try darkroom printmaking, its pleasures and level of print quality. Scanning film is probably more prevalent as a route, but present scanning equipment of high quality is not so readily available.

Julie H · January 16, 2017

I think film has become a novelty. Title a gallery 'Two-headed Chickens' and it will also get a lot of traffic.

bebu_lamar · January 16, 2017

I am very interest in film photography but I have no interest in B&W photography. I found most of the film photographers tend to do B&W which makes sense but it's not my interest.

charles_stobbs3 · January 16, 2017

Can you differentiate between first visits and repeat visits? People who have never used film might be

paying a one time visit but people with a serious preference for film might be making repeat visits.

marc_rochkind · January 16, 2017

Anything we say is just guesswork, of course. My guesswork is that film photography has changed from something people still do because they have always done it that way or because their favorite camera (the one with all the lenses) is a film camera. The change is to doing film photography because it in some way aligns with their artistic intent better than does digital. Or, perhaps because it's cool. My college daughter got interested in photography a couple of years ago, and only wanted to shoot film.

My even-younger daughter is taking a high-school course in photography, and it's all digital. I think she and her classmates would think that shooting on film is too weird to take seriously.

The old man in the family, namely me, used to shoot film, as did everyone, but went to digital and likes it about 9,000 times more. I can do things in post that go far beyond anything possible in the darkroom, and it's fun, not work.

I love film cameras (my collection has about 150), but hate using them.

I agree with the other posts here that ascribe the ascent of film, if it's real, to the novelty factor.

david_henderson · January 16, 2017

Charles. No I can't do that . Maybe I could have done had I asked, I don't know, but all the count is there for is to tell me which galleries get traffic and which don't. Clearly, over time the latter get changed or replaced.

I just can't imagine people visiting the same gallery and seeing the same 40 pictures, time after time, within a short time frame . Unless I have a stalker!

aplumpton · January 16, 2017

Julie, interesting comment. Perhaps though it is digital and its ever expanding gadgetry and performance that is a novelty. Digital is a powerful imaging tool, whether for the casual smartphone photographer or the larger camera user. But most things, at least in B&W, can still be done with film and silver based papers.

If there is any novelty for some with film, it is perhaps that of returning to slow and less easily predictable photography?

rossb · January 16, 2017

Being a film photographer I do not really look at on-line photos very much. The times that I would is because I know that the photos were shot with film. So recently I have been looking at the photos that are in the classic manual camera section for the weekly postings. I have started posting a few pictures there also. However I see probably the largest portion of photos on facebook. They are all pretty much taken with a cell phone and posted up without editing.

Anyway I am not going to look at galleries of digital photos. I just have no interest. But if something of interest comes along like Michael Kenna then I will check it out. I watched a you-tube interview with him a couple days ago and went to his website to look at photos. Those 10 hour exposures are quite amazing.

Robin Smith · January 16, 2017

I agree it is the novelty factor. Many people might look at a film collection, just to see what the difference is and hope to be impressed by the different aesthetic etc etc. Also people just don't see so much film stuff these days so it piques their interest. I'd probably check that folder out too over the digital ones and I gave up film in 2009.

vincent_peri · January 16, 2017

I don't think film is a novelty. I use it, and judging by the eBay sales of film cameras and lenses, a lot of other people are using it too. If film were a novelty, why would Kodak reintroduce their Ektachrome transparency film? They might even bring Kodachrome back. Besides Kodak, you have Fujifilm and Ilford producing film too. Film isn't going anywhere any time soon.

marc_rochkind · January 16, 2017

... judging by the eBay sales of film cameras and lenses, a lot of other people are using it too.

</blockquote>

I would draw a different conclusion: Because the cameras are no longer being used, they are put up for auction. And, I doubt that there are any statistics available about the number of completed eBay sales of film cameras in 2016 compared to, say, 2006 or 1996.

As for the re-introduction of Ektachrome, that is being done by Kodak Alaris, a spinoff of Kodak that manufactures film. Given that that's their mission and market, this action, in their view, advances their business. It doesn't mean that film is doing better, only that this company is trying to do better in that niche.

User_6502147 · January 16, 2017

Well, film is something other than the current "standard". Since many humans are curious, this may account for this behavior.....or/and the 'novelty' factor.

Les

JDMvW · January 16, 2017

I'm wit' dose guys and gals. However, I just bought a 'new' film SLR (Nikon F90 (=N90)) this last week. It's all part of my little 'history' of AF cameras from the 1980s to the early digital models (keep your eyes on Modern Film Cameras). The F90 turns out to be significant in the Great Transition:

In collaboration with Nikon, Kodak used F90 and F90s bodies as the basis for the Kodak DCS 400 series of digital SLRs. The DCS 410 and early DCS 420 models used the F90 (badged as N90), and the later DCS 420, DCS 460, and NC2000 used the F90x (badged N90s). The cameras were mounted, with minor modifications, on a Kodak digital back. (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_F90">link</a>)

</blockquote>

I think there is a lot of "photographic re-enactment" going on in which many of us get to own and shoot cameras we only dreamed of when they were new (e.g., my originally $35,000+ Kodak digital). . . 8-}

I think "filmomania" has little to do with a resurgence of film, per se.

rossb · January 16, 2017

I would draw a different conclusion: Because the cameras are no longer being used, they are put up for auction. And, I doubt that there are any statistics available about the number of completed eBay sales of film cameras in 2016 compared to, say, 2006 or 1996. As for the re-introduction of Ektachrome, that is being done by Kodak Alaris, a spinoff of Kodak that manufactures film. Given that that's their mission and market, this action, in their view, advances their business. It doesn't mean that film is doing better, only that this company is trying to do better in that niche

</blockquote>

Japan Camera Hunter has brought out a new film. It's called StreetPan400JCH and I do not know much about it but it might be an agfa film that was used back in the day for a B/W cine film. Now reformatted for 35mm. Like I said I am not sure about all that. Anyway I ordered some to try out or my son did and is bringing it over next time he is here. Also in Hong Kong a new/old Cine film is introduced. It's called CineFilm800T (tungsten). Apparently it is colored balanced for night shooting and reformatted to be C41 process. It's a Kodak Cine film and I do not know if it's a newer film or something from back in the day. I am not going to try it out as I do not shoot C41 any longer. Along with Ektachrome it seems that film itself is coming along fine. I am not going to shoot any of the Ektachrome either as I just shoot B/W these days. All the money I have for photography is consumed with B/W so that is all I am doing except my cell phone of course. Also the instant films are popular these days.

For myself being a B/W film photographer there are plenty of films to choose from. My favorite being HP5 which I buy in 100 ft rolls. I do like other films however. I hope the StreetPan works out real nice but it's expensive so I doubt I will shoot much of it.

I do not know about camera sales. I suppose if film makes a solid comeback then new 35mm camera's will start popping up. As it is now the camera's are all getting pretty old. My regular shooter is a 1997 FM2n. I guess I figured in the years to come I could purchase a Leica as they still make then and they can be repaired. Only if I had to do that however. Possibly my FM2n will last until something comes to an end either film or me or just my budget for it.

david_henderson · January 16, 2017

This thread is taking a turn that I did not intend

rossb · January 16, 2017

Well I think most of us film shooters also have a digital camera so it's not much worth in arguing which is better or not. I suppose you just grab the camera you want to shoot and go snap it off at something. For me the film thing is fun. I like the film, negatives, processing etc.. Last night I mixed up a new batch of D76 and that was fun to me. I have a gallon of it and I use it 1:1 so it's effectively 2 gallons of developer. 300ml per roll or enough to develop 100 ft of HP5 which is how I do it. So a roll of film is $2.25 a roll and developer and fixer is about $0.50 a roll total. The cost is low enough to have fun with it.

Anyway I enjoy the hobby and plan to keep with it.

steve_mareno1 · January 16, 2017

The long and the short of it is that B&W film is far better than digital despite all the accolades digital gets, and people that are interested in photography know that. But, you have to know what you're doing, and things like film choice and filters and developers can make a big difference. The tonal range of film is huge compared to digital because you can still get deep blacks w/o blowing out the highlights. The ratings they give digital are make believe. That big range they use is for bragging rights. The top end and low end are totally unusable. No digital camera made today can duplicate the tonal range of B&W film, and probably never will be able to. It's apples and oranges.

As for your website results, people assume that someone that shoots film knows something about photography, so they are going to that site w/ the expectation that the images will be superior and fundamentally different.

Digital has it's place, and for convenience you can't beat it. Still, no digital colour image comes close to colour slide film for beautiful, saturated colour, and no digital file looks as good as a B&W negative film like good old Tri-X (assuming, as I said, that someone knows what they're doing). Even on big budget feature films, the gold standard is to shoot on film to capture the very best look and the best image quality, then transfer that to digital for editing purposes.

david_henderson · January 16, 2017

For information, the photographs on the gallery getting the extra viewers are all in colour; taken on Velvia and Provia slide films. That will be in all cases clear to viewers before they enter the gallery.

steve_mareno1 · January 16, 2017

OK, like I said, slide film is the real deal for colour image quality. Difficult to expose correctly, hard to find someone to process it right if you don't do it yourself, but worth every penny.

tholte · January 16, 2017

"Don't we all secretly yearn for those "film vs digital" days of the past..." I sure do!

bebu_lamar · January 16, 2017

OK, like I said, slide film is the real deal for colour image quality. Difficult to expose correctly, hard to find someone to process it right if you don't do it yourself, but worth every penny.

</blockquote>

Hard to find someone to process it right??? Color slide films are best to be processed by a good lab not a good candidate for DIY.

john_tran14 · January 16, 2017

We should take advantage of the low prices of film cameras now to get and keep the dream cameras that we love. Chemistry is still improving, one day film will come back, the Glorious Day of Film Return.

AlanKlein · January 16, 2017

Interesting. I just checked my site and my film albums get more hits than the digital albums. Hadn't noticed that until you brought up the observation on you site.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums

JDMvW · January 17, 2017

one day film will come back, the Glorious Day of Film Return.

Still, no digital colour image comes close to colour slide film for beautiful, saturated colour, and no digital file looks as good as a B&W negative film like good old Tri-X

</blockquote>

Yeah, I'd like to see someone rival or equal this GAF 500 slide with any stinkin' digital!

;)<div></div>

Sign In

Level of interest in film photography

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in