The golden age of film photography?

[don_e]

"The Golden Age of Film photography was 1925-28, just before the Talkies and Technicolor."

 

Give me a week or two mulling over that and I may agree, Bill.

[silverscape]

<i>George Shihanian , Sep 16, 2008; 12:03 p.m. <p>

 

Golden age for us who are probably in middle age and in golden years, but not for the average photog. Take a poll of

everyone who answers this tread and you'll see. Film is deader than Elvis once we peer out past our own little world

and look at the bigger picture.</i><p>

 

Really? I'm 30, and I use film. In fact, I use a LOT more film than digital. I just bought a box of 120, and 2 rolls of

35mm (both Kodak Plus-X) from a camera shop yesterday. I also just ordered photo paper and 2 rolls of Ilford SFX

200 film from Freestyle. I've lost count of how many rolls of 120 and 35mm film I've taken and developed lately.

LOL...I was keeping my 120 paper rolls after I developed the film, I guess kind of as a souvenir. I stopped doing that

when I filled up a box. Meanwhile, my 8 megapixel digital camera has been sitting on a shelf. My parents got it for

me for Christmas, but I hardly use it anymore. Film is just more fun.<p>

 

And yeah, I have to agree in a way this really is a golden time for film. If it wasn't for the internet and eBay, I wouldn't

even have been able to afford all the film cameras I have. If it wasn't for the internet, I wouldn't have found all the

information and help I've been getting. I had no clue how to use a manual camera until I started doing research

online. In fact, the whole reason why I even came to Photo.net was so I could find out how to use a manual film

camera. So if film was actually "dead" I wouldn't even be here. I mean seriously, the only reason I was even

interested in photography at all was because I was curious about antique cameras and I wanted to learn how to use

them. And since then, I feel like I've learned so much. I started with an old 35mm Minolta camera that a friend gave

me...and since then I've started a collection of antique ameras (which I USE all the time) and I moved up to using

medium format as well.<p>

 

So I'm telling you as a young person, who has been around technology and computers all my life, and the internet for

most of my life...film is definitely NOT dead. I love it. I download all my music and listen to my mp3 player. I love

technology and have been around it my entire life. But I still just prefer film because I like the look of it and it's more

fun and interesting.

[alex macphee]

Digital taught me something that film ought to have taught me, but didn't ; and ironically, that was the value of economy of effort - less is more. In my first sorties with the new (S/H) DSLR, I found I could run off scores, sometimes hundreds, of frames, especially at the sports I enjoy, being ice hockey and fencing. t wasn't long before I acquired sets of images, not all usable, numbering in thousands. And the only way to find out what was usable and what was not (the review LCD on my Canon 10D turned out to be too misleading to be reliable) was to sit down and inspect them all. That proved far more tiring and unlikeable than I'd bargained for. As a result, I became much more film-minded when using my digital cameras, making much more effort to press the shutter release only when it seemed worth it, rather than machine-gunning everything that came in to view. The DSLR now sits mostly in the box, and the film cameras are back to the fore for me. The digitals did more than I'd expected to improve my photography, particularly given what was a near antipathy to using them.

 

But film gives me the look I like, and that's that. As to whether it's a golden age, it certainly is for me. My freezer is full of film stock that is, in real terms, far cheaper now than it was when I took up photography as a boy in the sixties. And the quality of emulsions today is simply fabulous, something that those who've only known digital photography are often unaware of.

[jpo3136b]

The golden age of film photography is that moment between the time I advance the film and the time my shutter finishes

closing.

[Member69643]

As I've said before, many times, digital took the dollars out of the learning curve. Many folks were unhappy with the photos they got, especially when some camera store person talked them into upgrading whatever they had to a 35mm SLR. Now they just took crappy pictures with more expensive stuff. That stuff is what's ending up on eBay mostly. After a while playing with, learning from digital, some of them will return and try film again. I did. I'm better as a photographer now because of my digital learning boost. When I pop a roll of Fuji Reala film in my Canon AE-1 I *know* I'm going to get great pictures. And when I shoot a wedding with digital, I don't have to chimp every shot to know I got it right. Trial and error and being beat about the noggin with horrible photos will make you better. Film or digital.

[philip_maus]

I'm still shooting film too and I'll keep saying it over and over again to anyone who cares to listen. In fact, some time ago I sold off a great big bag with my beloved Nikon F100 and about a dozen lenses and kept my old, original FE2 and just one 50mm lens. Following that move, I found a whole new world of photography that didn't revolve around the most sophisticated, automated and expensive cameras, or the biggest, coolest, most alphabet soup laden lenses.

 

I am still a recovering equipment junkie and I do (occasionally) drool over the big black digital beauties in the camera shop, but the truth is, what I REALLY love is the pictures. I know that photography has two appeals; one technical and gadget driven, and one artistic, and driven by our love of creation, expression and all those other intangibles. Many of us became interested in photography in the first place because we admired the work of famous photographer, or just the photographs, and I'll bet had no inkling about the camera or lens that was used to make that magical image.

 

Film or digital, take your pick, just don't forget that, however cliche it sounds, it is still true: It's about the pictures, not the camera.

[antony_glaser]

Occasionally I drool over a DSLR, but in a way it is because they remind me of the 35mm Golden age, because their

adverts would suggest continuity with the past i.e Olympus E 420, a reborn OM1 or Canons EOS 1000D, an attempt to

repeat their marketing breakthrough of their 35mm 1000F. Anyway I will not forsake Film, and have recently gone

E6 with slides. I love their saturation, and clarity, like a memory processed in full colour. It certainly beats

Digital post capture. Now that is a sure way excuse to demand that your metering is spot on, and in turn the 35mm

Camera Repairers are given financial payment for their considered services. I am sure their average age is 55+,

and that figure is based on my limited personal contacts. I appreciate we are at a great age for 35mm Film

Cameras, because they are been traded for the promise of a Digital Camera, but be reminded they are only as good

as the said availability of these Analogue repairers, and whilst this age is golden, it may ripen, unless

enthusiastic can think of limited repairs themselves, i.e light traps, mirror buffers, but lets hope if we select

some nice makes of Analogue Cameras, these requirements will be all there is ! Thank God for my Nikkormat FT2.

[grodis]

Yes I do believe it is the golden age for photography. I can finally afford those spectacular cameras I could only dream of just a few short years ago. This year alone I purchased 13 classic cameras and shot more film than ever. I now have a sweet collection of legendary comeras like the Mamiya 645 Pro, Bronica Chrome ETR, Bronica-S, 4" x 5" Grflex, Leica Screwmount, Canon A1, Nikon FM3a, Edinex, and Zorki - 5 to name a few.

Not a day goes by when I don't search for classics!

 

-joe

[akochanowski]

I was thinking along the same lines myself before I noticed this thread. For me it is the combination of superb new films that are perfect for scanning, and world-class film equipment that is cheap. Since the advent of film digitizing we can control color printing of both C41 and E6 film-- when before could you say that? We can now get a Nikon F100 with a 24/2.8 prime for $350, or a Contax G system with a pair of Zeiss lenses for $500. If you try one and don't like it, a global retail market, eBay, exists for you to sell it to someone else for nothing more than your transaction costs. If you have a fair bit of RAM on your computer, you can simultaneously scan a 5400dpi negative and correct another in PS in minutes. Costco offers C41 developing in minutes for $1.25 a roll. You can drop off a half dozen rolls, pick up your weekend ribeye and Shiraz and they are done before you pay.

[paul_tremblay]

In my experience, no! The last 6 rolls of film I have had developed have come out awful, thanks to the shoddy work done by labs. In the past, I could drop my film off at Target, and pick it up in a few days and get excellent results. Now I take my film to a camera store and I get worse results than I do with a cheap point and shoot digital camera.

 

The golden age for me was when I could drop off a lot of film and get good results, and didn't have 15,000 images on a computer. (Seriously, I am not even close to a serious photographer, and I counted 15,000 images created since 2003. That's just too many!)

 

I'll try mailing my film to Dwayne's. I understand they do good work there.

 

>>Film or digital, take your pick, just don't forget that, however cliche it sounds, it is still true: It's about the pictures, not the camera.

 

Is that you, Ken Rockwell? Seriously, I absolutely agree.

[Glenn McCreery]

It is a golden age for photography in general with the many choices of both digital and film equipment. I have been moving more and more into the digital world, but keep getting distracted by great deals on film cameras that I could not afford just a few years ago. I recently purchased a Mamiya M645 with three lenses, a Fuji GS 645, and a Mamiya RB67 (which I later resold) all for a couple of hunderd dollars each. And B&W darkroom equipment; how could I resist an excellent Omega B8 enlarger for $20 at a thrift store? It's great fun to play with all this stuff, but has this (over)abundance helped my photography? In some ways it has since I now more likely have the right equipment for any situation and I now look for a wider variety of scenes to photograph (such as macro). But in some ways it hasn't helped since my photographic vision has become less focused and more scattered. I think that my very best photograps were taken when I used a 4x5 view canera with one lens (Linhof Technika and 150mm Symmar-S) and all my attention was devoted to finding B&W scenes that fit that format and angle of view. I guess that the answer is to concentrate on using just one camera at a time and leaving the rest at home.