Young people flock to film

<p>A few of them anyway. I heard this piece on NPR this evening:</p>

 

<h1><a href="http://www.npr.org/2013/03/11/174043507/film-cameras-help-young-people-act-on-nostalgia-for-a-time-they-never-knew">Film Cameras Help Young People Act On Nostalgia For A Time They Never Knew</a></h1>

<p>Of course people like film for its surprises and unpredictability. Yep, when Kodak was still designing new films, that is what we tried to provide. <g></p>

<p>Heard that same broadcast. It was interesting to hear the similarities to my pet theory about why retro digital effects are so popular - that same longing for nostalgia by proxy.</p>

<p>If it makes people happy, that's good enough.</p>

<p>I am glad that young people taking on film. It's irony that they like it for its surprises and unpredictability and I worked on making film predictable and no surprise.</p>

<p>Mr. Andrews: </p>

<p>May I refer you to: </p>

<p><a href="http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/539426/kodak-expects-film-and-paper-divisions-to-stay-put">http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/539426/kodak-expects-film-and-paper-divisions-to-stay-put</a> </p>

<p>for some more Kodak news? </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>I'll tell you. Ron. It's not just young people. Old mechanical camera's, and the film used in them, is great source of historical fun and the utilization of fundamental photography skills for kids of all ages. As I quote from a <a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00ZfEM">post </a>I did a couple of years ago on one of my old Canon rangefinders, "In some ways...using these old cameras is like turning back time and living a bit of history I never knew".<br>

<br>

It's more than nostalgia, I think. It's about mastering the basic skills of photography much in the same way we learned, as Boy Scouts, about making fire from scratch even though we all had access to lighters. Delayed gratification can be very sweet.<br>

<br>

It's also one of the reasons that the Classic Manual Camera forum here is one of the most active, and most enjoyable, on photo.net.</p>

At least it will teach them process and discipline.

<p>I'm a 59 year old, and here's a list of camera's I own, and use regularly:<br>

Nikon F3, Nikon FA, Nikon FM3a, Contax G2, Pentax 67II, and a point & shoot digital.<br>

Film technology has never been this good, and its great to tune the character of the scene to the films unique characteristic. I aslo like to use film as a reference to how the scene was to keep post inline.<br>

The film camera's listed above are in great condition as I purposly took great care to keep them going. A couple of CLAs later life is good! </p>

<p>I get a kick out of using well crafted MF SLR's from the past. They are so cheap I'm always trying out something new (but old) I develop B&W C41 and E6 here at home and a part of my hobby is the hands on satisfaction of being part of the process. Not practical for most maybe there is a signature look in a film image. </p>

<p>I'm not holding my breath, but maybe that will get Fuji to bring some film back to the market. :)</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p>I just don't see a lot of evidence on this, actually, but that doesn't surprise me. NPR is the left's version of FOX News. I don't listen to either because I like my news to be, well, news. Not biased editorials.</p>

<p>Whenever I see young people interested in my old cameras (pretty easy to do, since compared to me, nearly everyone is younger), I always let them hold them, and even take a shot of they feel confident enough. But whether or not that initial interest goes any further, I couldn't say.</p>

<p>Steve, I'm not sure the purported biases of the media outlet matter. Most film related feature and opinion pieces I've read over the past few years are equally touchy-feely, regardless of the website, newspaper or magazine. Most emphasize inarguable factors such as nostalgia, pleasure and enjoyment that cannot be proven or refuted.</p>

<p>To further emphasize that aspect, the NPR broadcast I heard also referred to the tactile and audible sensations of film cameras and asked listeners to send in brief descriptions of their own impressions of sounds and sensations associated with film photography. Besides emphasizing that this was not a news or even an opinion piece, just a bit of lifestyle feature filler, I suspect the producers are hoping for audio segments to use in a followup story. </p>

<p>Heck, maybe Jad at RadioLab will do a segment on the sounds of film photography. He's a musical wizard with sound design. Could be fun.</p>

<p>Similar vein: one of our sons got a very nice turntable (our present actually), better than our clunker. And he's picking up records, borrowing ours.</p>

<p>I recently received the new revamped version of Aperture, and found it interesting that the featured portfolio was...camera porn. The Veneration of the Old. Odd how it was juxtaposed with that old go-to for lazy photo editors, Winogrand (I'm not against Winogrand, but sure they could have come up with something less safe).</p>

<p>I think young people have two reasons for returning to film: 1. fashion, the same force that has brought back bell-bottoms. 2. the realization that the digital revolution has spawned both a hyper-consumer frenzy and, more importantly, the software to easily falsify the imperfections of the previous medium (imagine software which puts hisses and pops onto music tracks...), and thus the commodification of nostalgia. In the face of all that's virtual, perhaps young people yearn for something authentic, or at least more authentic than what's being offered to them.</p>

<p>I teach a high school photography class and a few of the group are interested in film. I recently held a contest for the class and I gave the winning student a Maxxum 300SI with 35-80 Maxxum zoom. We've also develped film in class and made contact prints from 6x6 negatives.</p>

<p> Lomography is just an attempt to "brand" film photography.</p>

<p>I (we) got our first film SLR in 2000/01 when I was 22, 26 got a Nikon D70, 28 got a film SLR (F100) and more recently have shot more film than digital in terms of total frames. The digital camera have just sat there doing maybe 10 frames a month ... than all of it gets deleted, when I travel I normally only take the film camera. I did get a used D2h but sold that after a few yrs not using it much, I guess the pro nature, one of the top model cameras lust didn't get to me. I am looking at kitting myself a Hasselblad 500, I have pretty simple needs just 3 primes. For the Nikon I am happy with just two slow aperture zooms like a 18-35 and a 80-200 or 4 primes. I have now used all my slides with 6 rolls of color neg left, will try b/w film I have 2 rolls in the freezer that was given to me. I would like to replace my 135 format with 120 format. I may take a FM2N when I want a rectangle frame also.</p>

<p>Even if I get a D600, it would be nice, more dynamic range, can PP, color, b/w etc .. can crop to pano, more pixels. Higher ISO can use it walkabout at night for that documentary feel but it doesn't feel/sound very satisfying. Rather push 400 b/w film and have less of a technical quality.</p>

<p>To me as a hobbyist, it seems like wasting money when cameras are released all the time, while it is correct I don't need every model but my D70 is considered a dinosaur and should I upgrade every 5 or 10yrs as digital equipment are current they do cost a decent penny at least initially. While film is like picking up a coffee each time for the D+P and all that process and enjoyment one gets from it. But even the initial cost, since I don't machine gun it I may only shoot 20 rolls a year together with a second hand film camera (even larger formats), they may even be less than an average digital SLR. If I was just taking pictures at the picnic etc .. I would just use my 6MP dSLR and post it on Facebook and if anyone else wants a 6x4 or 8x12 print. I''ll email them the JPEG that they can print at the kiosks.</p>

<p>All is not lost.<br>

At both of our universities offering courses in visual arts, the whole of year 1 photography must be done using film. Only after students master this do they then take on digital imagery.<br>

One would think that new students might resent this, but it's not the case. Accordingly, the same curriculum in New Zealand and Australia was harmonised in this direction, so we are now graduating students with a working knowledge of film <strong>and</strong> digital photography.<br>

An added bonus are the price increases for used, manual film cameras. A well worn but properly functioning Nikon FM2n will now cost you $350-400 and over $700 for an FM3a. Prices are also rising for the Canon, Minolta and Pentax equivalents.<br>

90% of my work is in digital, but now I can get interns or job experience students who have an up front advantage on the global visual arts disciplines and the scarce jobs are going to them.</p>

 

<p><em>I just don't see a lot of evidence on this, actually, but that doesn't surprise me. NPR is the left's version of FOX News. I don't listen to either because I like my news to be, well, news. Not biased editorials.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em><br /></em>I think you're responding to the headline of this thread ("flock", and he qualifies the headline in the next line), not to NPR's assessment. I keep hearing about this left-bias of NPR, but I just don't hear it. I ask that a reporter give me accurate information, and NPR does that. This piece is part of a clearly-labeled series on old technologies. </p>

<p>And as a photo-center shop owner (until 18 months ago), I did find that this was the thinking of the young who were still drawn to film. They kept the shop going the last few years, not the old-timers (like me). </p>

<p>Further evidence: As I write this, I'm sitting in the Pho Tay district of Saigon, where a lot of the younger back-packer type tourists stay. Film cameras aren't rare here; I notice a couple every day, and as the NPR article notes, the shooters are from around the world. When I ask them about film, most just say "Film is cool." "You get some wild stuff with film," another told me. And when I see them shoot and then stow the camera before moving on, I observe (what I interpret as) a sense of satisfaction in their knowing that they cannot see what they've just created. That photograph, at least, will just have to wait.</p>

<p>in part it may be the joy of taking the exposed film out of the tank and holding it to the light and seeing the image for the first time; the mechanical simplicity of a old folder even the sensation of hearing the shutter firing... <a href="http://youtu.be/BOXSPuk0-eA">http://youtu.be/BOXSPuk0-eA</a></p>

<p>Is it ironic that Photo, Camera shops began folding in droves as digital camera's arrived?</p>

<p>Rudyard Kipling, in his brilliant "Jungle Book", wrote of the Bandar-log, the monkey people. They would carry a stick around all day planning to do great things with it, but invariably would drop it and forget all their plans when something new came along. I can't help but wonder if our young people are the Bandar-log - their attention span seems short, unless of course it's walking around blithely looking at their cell phones as cars dodge them. There are lots of reasons a young person might take up film use, but the ephemeral "coolness" is not going to be much hope for future film production.</p>

<p>Give me a person under 30 who uses film because he likes film, not because it's cool or retro, and I'll buy stock in Kodak and Ilford and Fuji.</p>

<p>Patrick S. I use film because I like film. I'm 27. I've used it professionally alongside digital and I use it now (medium and large format) in my own work. I use it largely for the look that I can get and for the other things that I can't get elsewhere, such as shooting from a WLF with a Rolleiflex. I use it, largely, for the reasons one generally uses large and medium format, and I use the digital for the things one would largely have used 35mm to accomplish. I use film and film cameras because they are tools that help me do what I want to do with my images. I develop all of my color and my black and white on my own and I print in my bathroom or scan negatives as I decide.<br>

<a title="Christine-20 by Ryan M Long Photography, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7271/7661697192_f427c6511f_c.jpg" alt="Christine-20" width="628" height="800" /></a></p>

<p> Bronica 645 ETRS Fuji Pro 400H Dev'd at home and scanned.<br>

When film finally reaches its point of stability -- which it will so long as there is a market -- I will continue to shoot film when I need to in order to do what I want to do.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>but the ephemeral "coolness" is not going to be much hope for future film production.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely agree with this. But ironically the expressions like “nobody shoots film anymore” or “films are no longer available” I can hear much more often from older people (55+) than from young ones. Many college students around my area snowing quite lively interest to film photography and gladly interacting with me telling the stories how they got his/her dad camera, bought a few rolls of film, shot it, developed them ect. The digital for many of them is just boring. </p>

<p>Another irony is that that sales of digital cameras continue to decline and declines sharply. Many folks around me (my age, mid 40’s) have ditched their “so long anticipated” DSLR (roughly after 3 yrs having them) and even not talking about them anymore. But each of them might have 2 i-pads and upgraded their i-phones at least a couple times. The DSLR’s for them already look like dinosaurs. Having DSLR was just a matter of fashion or “coolness”. Now it’s gone, “the stick” has been dropped. And surprisingly or not the film sale shows quite robust and stable figures. And this is happening when the film and film photography have been left without any advertising, commercializing, without any support from our highly corrupted public media and pro photographers associations. And even without any support from film manufacturers also (I don’t think that Fujifilm is really supporting its film products).</p>

<p>In my opinion to move the world of photography toward digital basically is the CIPA policy. In near future those “digital bureaucrats” probably will continue to flex their financial muscles to “digitalize” us (similar to Nikon latest announcement to outlaw photography for its 2013 photo contest. I guess Nikon can take award for most meaningless decision in history of visual art). Most likely in 5 years from now or so the digital photography will be transformed to something else (i-pad photography for example, whatever). But pretty much sure that the film will be film, and this is beauty of the film. </p>

<p>Yes that is true! We the over 55 crowd do use film and are afraid of it's going away. We're afraid that it's inevitable like death.</p>