Good news or bad news for classic camera users?

[gerry_rosen]

<p>I'm a one store survey but if I'm any indication it is happening. Two years ago in a fit of something I now regret deeply I sold a very nice, small collection of old rangefinders and "went digital". IMHO the digital SLR's are feature filled, produce fine images and lack something indefineable. I just bought a Spotmatic F, a bunch of Fomapan R and even some Kodachrome 64 and am having a ball. I'm reading this forum again and visiting all my old vintage camera websites.</p>

[silverscape]

<p>Yeah, I think most of us have seen clear signs that a lot more people are interested in film and vintage cameras. I think it's great news. </p>

 

[joshroot]

<p>Statistics lag behind facts, economic reports are all over the place these days, anecdotal evidence can be viewed in 50 different ways and people believe what they want to believe. All of these things will cause legitimate arguments to be able to be made for either side of this argument. Making it a useless argument to have.</p>

<p>If people want to think that film interest is up, so be it. If people want to believe that film is about to fall over on it's nose, that's fine too. But there's no point in fighting about it. Because really, who cares? Go shoot film or go shoot some 1's and 0's. Photography doesn't care how images are made. Neither should you.</p>

[silverscape]

<p>It didn't seem like anyone <em>was</em> fighting about it though. Steve was simply saying that he has noticed more people in their 20's and early 30's using vintage film cameras. And I have to agree, being in that age level myself, and being more drawn to vintage cameras in the last couple of years.</p>

<p>This was similar to a topic I posted a while back, and it is nice to hear how young people are interested in classic cameras. </p>

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="../classic-cameras-forum/00TLvE">http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00TLvE</a></p>

<p>It's great to hear how more people in general are interested in vintage cameras. I personally think we had a great discussion going, especially from the regulars who post in the Classic Camers forum frequently.</p>

<p> </p>

[joshroot]

<p>Back down off the soapbox Chris. I said it was useless to argue about this stuff, not that it was useless to talk about it. There's no winner in the "film is dead vs film is alive" argument. It's a waste of life for anyone to involve themselves in. <a href="../learn/film/open-letter-to-film-users">I think I've made my feelings on that pretty clear</a> .</p>

<p>A bunch of you want to sit around and talk about how you think the second coming of film is happening because there are fewer film cameras on ebay? More power to you. A bunch of digital guys want to sit around and talk about how 1's and 0's rules the world because film sales are sinking? More power to them. But one group arguing with the other is a waste of time. That's something I won't hesitate to point out whenever I get the chance.</p>

[alex macphee]

<p>Is that what's called irony?</p>

 

[steve m smith]

<p>I think there are several things going on here:</p>

<p> First you have the enthusiast photographer who has had a go with digital and decided to go back to film (that's me) or who uses it alongside digital.</p>

<p>Then you have the youngsters, some of whom use it for the retro look of the cameras and others who have perhaps done a photography class at school and got hooked on it.</p>

<p>Then there is the general consumer. I think many people have realised that it's easier to drop a roll of film off at a mini-lab and pick it up the next day than it is to spend hours messing about on their computer and then make sub-standard prints on their average consumer grade inkjet printer.</p>

[silverscape]

<p>I hope this isn't considered spamming. But does anyone here ever go on Flickr?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/classic_film_shooters/">http://www.flickr.com/groups/classic_film_shooters/</a></p>

<p>Don't let the number of members fool you. I literally just started that group 2 days ago :) There are HUNDREDS of film groups on Flickr, and some of them have over 30,000 members and over 800,000 photos in the searchable Pool (all from film). LIke this one:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/">http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/</a></p>

<p>and oh yeah...I just saw a banner ad at the top of the page for Kodak Ektar 100 film, which is very cool. But I also got an ad for Netflix and flowers for my anniversary...except that I'm not even married. Is anybody else seeing this, or is it time for me to run Ad-Aware again?</p>

[kevin h. y. lui.]

<p>I notice there are plenty of youth playing with Film SLR in Hong Kong. I don't know why but it seems it won't stop right now.<br>

I don't mind if the classics become popularagain. It is good for the new generations to learn more about the camera's history. It can matain the market and the production of film too. But I agree Steve's word that they will prefer computer editing instead of actual shooting.</p>

 

[john_robison3]

<p>One point not noted so far is that, except for a dribble of cameras from Cosina (with various labels) there are no new 35 SLR's coming to market. The major producer of medium format, quantity wise, seems to be the Holga manufacturer. So.....I don't know, but, it would seem that without a stable supply of new film cameras what we have is all that we'll ever have and that could be a factor in used prices.</p>

<p>Pentax is also to blame, now that those old wonderful M42 Takumar primes have found new life on their digital bodies. :)</p>

[steve salmons]

<p>Just to clarify; be assured that I wasn't trying to <strong><em>prove</em> </strong> anything. To try to do so would be a colossal waste of time as Josh has intimated. What I was trying to do was to establish whether what I have been seeing and hearing lately was just the effect of a rose tint in my spectacles. It would appear that a large number of us have been seeing a similar change in behaviour. Whether this "anecdotal" evidence has any significance for future developments both technical and behavioural in the history of image making only time will tell. From a purely selfish point of view however I am very pleased to see any evidence (anecdotal or otherwise ) that indicates that the skills required to fully understand and exploit the analogue photographic process will continue to exist alongside those demanded of our digital brethren.<br>

Steve</p>

[the celt 2]

<p>More, and more people that I talk to seem to be pining for the days of film. I personally think that the "novety of digital has lost some of it's lustre. An awful lot of folks have hundreds of photos in their cameras, or their computers, but rarely have prints to show any one. When I tell people that I still have a dark room, and that I do my own B&W work, they always seem impressed, and nostalgic about it. I'm lucky to live near a great photo store where I can get all my film, paper, and chemistry. Maybe I'll start teaching again, I can always use some extra $$$. Who knows, we may go back to family slide shows. Who's got the popcorn? </p>

[rustys pics]

<p>I'm quite surprised the tone of this discussion has taken.....it was just a happy little post that some of us (my position as a college photo instructor DOES give a bit of perspective on the resurgence of film) made about the small resurgence in film camera use.<br>

To an extent I agree with Jeff Spirer that anecdotal evidence can be used by both sides to support claims. Sure it's pointless to argue which is which. But it seems the tone of the photo.net film and classic camera forums is getting rather stuck up. Comments such as:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If people want to think that film interest is up, so be it. If people want to believe that film is about to fall over on it's nose, that's fine too. But there's no point in fighting about it. Because really, who cares? Go shoot film or go shoot some 1's and 0's. Photography doesn't care how images are made. Neither should you.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This sets a tone for the Classic Camera Forum which is less then friendly. I don't think any of us live their life for this argument. In fact the Classic Camera forum is a fun place for me to visit during breaks in work. I could spend my online leisure time at Facebook, Twitter, FLickr.com, or any number of Photo related sites. But I chose this forum because it's a friendly and supportive fun place to burn a few minutes during my hectic day. I don't mind when people try to poke holes in the film resurgence debate so long as it's done in an informative spirit. But the implication that some discussions are a waste of time by someone in a position of authority puts a nasty spin on the whole forum....<br>

We all have bad days. Hopefully it was just a cranky Monday for us all.</p>

[daniirwan]

<p>Oh wow, seems I'm a bit late. Oh well, here's my 2 cents anyway...over here in my neck of the woods (Malaysia), there is a DEFINITE increase in the number of people using film cameras...and I'm not talking about the plastic fantastic ones. I'm talking about real vintage & classic gear. I recall reading a previous post about how medium format & quality 35mm gear are flying off the shelves...it's the same here! And surprise surprise, from what I've seen, approximately 75% of the film camera users here are under the age of 35 :)</p>

<p>It's a pity then, that pro films are quite hard to get here. The ones that can be found in shops, are damn expensive. And processing is a PITA too...there's only one (read: 1!) lab in this whole country that can do E6! :(</p>

<p>IMHO, all this increase in the purchase/usage of classic cameras is good news. Of course, prices will go up...but at least film will still be 'alive'. That's what counts. Hmmm, I do have to admit..I wish I had gotten into this classic cameras stuff way back then, when they were real bargains. Oh well... :)</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<blockquote>

<p>Then you have the youngsters, some of whom use it for the retro look of the cameras...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Then they have them cameras as a fashion statement and not to take photographs? How sad for them...can you explain how the retro look makes the photograph more interesting?</p>

 

[joshroot]

Russ,

 

I fail to see how encouraging people to get away from the historicaly belittling angry and downright nasty "film vs digital" arguments

does anything to bring down the forum. In fact, given the amount of email I get from film users who feel that these

arguments are detrimental to photo.net and the "yes let's get past that crap" response to my vivafilm article, I would say

your opinion is in the minority by a wide margin.

 

But again, lest anyone read to much into it, allow me to state this: As far as photo.net is concerned, you are welcome to

argue about film/digital, ford/chevy, or apple/orange until the cows come home. Keep it civil and within the site's guidelines

and you can post all day long on the subject.

 

But as someone who has to listen to how alienated and attacked film

users feel and who would like to encourage as many photographers to

try film as possible, I maintain that worrying/arguing/etc about

film/digital is a waste of time and accomplishes little. That's my opinion

and it's as valid as anyone elses. As is my option to state that opinion.

[silverscape]

<p>Russ, I've always enjoyed your posts. Maybe we both learned from this, not to take bait from trolls. </p>

[k5083]

<p>Don't lose heart Russ/Chris, just note that all of the responses by the classic forum regulars are in the good-natured spirit that was intended.</p>

<p>I concer with the observations, especially on ebay. Ebay, by the way, is the most efficient, dynamic, and responsive price-setting mechanism ever created, reflecting the economic preferences of some 84 million users, for items that were previously the subject of thin, local markets. You would have to be profoundly uneducated in economics to dismiss its prices as merely "anecdotal" evidence of demand. The upward trend that we are seeing in classic camera prices is meaningful; it's "hard data". Of course, that is entirely consistent with a continued decline in film sales, because even today, nobody pretends that classic camera hobbyists are the primary market for film. The real point, as again I think the regulars all appreciate, is that increasing mainstream interest in classic cameras may be establishing a demand floor for film at which production and processing will continue to be sustainable.</p>

 

[steve salmons]

<p>That is very well put August. One cannot dismiss the response of the market and Ebay is a very pure market mechanism: "red in blood and claw" as they say.<br>

As far as the earlier point goes regarding the tone of some of the replies, I would say it behoves all of us to proof read our posts a couple of times before hitting that confirm button. It's so easy to convey a unintended impression where there are no visual or audible clues.</p>

[patrick_stack]

<p>Steve/Russ</p>

<p>Pertinant thoughts, stated with clarity. I've noticed more and more folks, getting out the old cameras that were considered retired. The two best stocked film sources in my area are now seeing an increase in sales, sufficient to justify keeping more available, as opposed to ordering on demand. The technician I use for service on my classic cameras confirms a substantial increase in business, just a couple of years ago he said work was "just trickling in now."</p>

<p>I have hopes that enough of the professionals will use film and digital combined, so as to warrant continued support in manufacturing film for them and amateurs like me. The 35mm SLR's that I donated to high schools offering photography courses are much appreciated and being used regularly. I have been invited a few times to attend classes and show some of my work, demonstrating TLR's, LF and rangefinder cameras. I really do believe there exists considerable interest in film photography, there is surely room for both film and digital, neither is at all better than the other. Even though as has been stated, "a photo is a photo regardless of the medium," they are different both in how they are captured, and to some extent the final product.</p>

<p>If I do upgrade to the full frame sensor camera I'm lusting after of late, it will have to make a little room and co-exist with my lovely old Retina IIa and Rollei E-2. For whatever reason, I still give the nod of favor to a good B&W that just makes me happy to have taken it. Best regards, all.</p>

<p>Patrick</p>

<p> </p>

[jeff_z.]

<p>Steve, From my observations over the last six months, of the 4 people I came in contact with in that age group that mentioned buying a camera, all wanted film cameras. One boy bought a medium format body right in front of me, and, both he and his buddy were also looking for Nikon F-4's or similar. Then, about 6 weeks ago, I met a couple of nice young women expressing their desire to get film cameras when they saw my film body and lenses. I thought it must be some sort of fluke until reading this post (and a few others in the recent past). I do know one person who bought a digital camera, but it was in the point and shoot category, and she'd never had one up to this point; she is in her mid-forties.</p>

<p>The 4 younger folks all had been brought up with digital cameras, but voiced dissatisfaction with digital photography. I don't know too much more about their motivations, but that much was clear. Also, yesterday, one of my middle aged brothers called out of the blue, and told me that he'd just bought a Nikon n6006 film body because he missed the slides he used to make, and he has a D80.</p>

<p>Fwiw, I virtually completely agree with Russ and Chris' take on this discussion. I read all the way through, and couldn't quite believe those interjections as I thought it was a completely pleasant discussion.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>I gave a co-workers teenage daughter a roll of Tmax 400 for the mint Yashicamat 124G she inherited. I showed her how to load the camera, advance the film and gave her a bit of metering advice. Later I developed the film of which only 4 were printable. One shot was very cool. Funny her favorite photographer is Diane Arbus as well. This young lady seemed to have no interest in digital.<br /> Attached is what I think is a pretty cool shot from a teenager using a TLR for the first time.</p><div></div>

[richard_beisigl]

<p>As my late mother would say, 'This is a tempest in a teapot." Meaning it is really not worth arguing about.<br>

I do agree with what Josh Root said, any data can be used for or aganist a subject that is being discussed. Some people will say a glass is half empty and others say it is half full.<br>

So can we all agree to disagree and still be friendS?<br>

I am one of those who is/has gone back to shooting film, but will still shoot digital when needed. I just can not get use to the limitations my D40 has and besides, I love my N80 camera.<br>

Please, lets all be civil on this , my favorite forum.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Then they have them cameras as a fashion statement and not to take photographs? How sad for them...can you explain how the retro look makes the photograph more interesting?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If the look of something draws you into it and you end up using it then why not. I will admit that some of the cameras in my collection were bought for looks rather than function.</p>

<p>Not a particularly valid reason for buying something but it is common.</p>

[tom_price1]

<p>I just supplied my 30 yr old daughter with her second film camera, a GAF L-17 (Chinon), chosen because it will use her existing M42 lenses and has a dedicated multiple exposure capability. She uses her Canon P&S camera for color snapshots and the film cameras for B&W film. She is taking photography courses in Portland and has intermittent access to a darkroom.<br>

Nostalgia? Rebellion against digital-everything? I think this resurgence is mainly B&W oriented as she has the belief that digital won't produce the best B&W images.</p>