Good news or bad news for classic camera users?

[Rob_the_waste]

<p>The good news or bad news comes down to individual preferences. I have a daughter that insults my collection of junk. Her perfect camera is automatic everything digital even though the vast majority of pictures that she takes are just awful. Meanwhile, an old friend that I haven't seen for a number of years came by, saw the cameras, and got all excited about getting back into film photography. He got out of it a number of years ago because developing films was more expensive than it is today and money was tighter. He loved some of the medium format shots I had as they had much more detail to them. I know at least one person that will be looking for a classic camera.<br>

:-)</p>

[k5083]

<p>Personally, I am going to buy an Olympus OMG, even though it is not a great camera, just because the letters of its model designation have taken on a new meaning in the cyber world that I think is cute/stylish. I wish I could find a Pentax WTF or a Canon LMAO, but those are harder to come by.</p>

 

[alex macphee]

<p>August, you are a photo.net treasure. I can't stop laughing.</p>

[silverscape]

<p>did you guys see my infamous "OMG" post in the <em>Film and Processing</em> forum, when I shot my first roll of Kodachrome? That was a really fun thread...but oh man, a few people wouldn't let it go and kept teasing me about the 'OMG' thing the whole time. I got excited, and what else can you say when you hold a Kodachrome slide in your hand for the first time...except "OMG" ??</p>

<p>If you ever do find a Canon LMAO, I'll buy it from you!</p>

<p> </p>

[bob_miller4]

<p>It's possible to have too many bells and whistles. Those who opt to enter the classic SLR + film world today are probably looking for a cheaper, simpler, more understandable path to good photos. Other attractions may include the workmanship and materials in older cameras, and the fun of using old technology.</p>

[alex macphee]

<p>

<p>I have noticed some prices creeping up, and although eBay is a good guide in the longer term, caution should be taken in interpreting day-to-day prices fetched on eBay. I've seen the same lens go for widely different amounts within the same week, with lately the 20mm Flektogon fetching three times what I paid, and the 35mm Flek has quadrupled ; though it's possible that a fair deal of that increase is due to demand generated by dSLR users. </p>

<p>A Yashica zoom lens I bought a fortnight ago for GBP 16 sold the following week for GBP 19, and yesterday an identical example sold for GBP 4. Some film bodies don't fetch a lot, yet the second-hand prices of others have in a number of cases crept close to the new price, and that for recent film cameras, like the CV Bessa R3A, which was GBP 385 new. Robert White has one for GBP 350, and I've seen them elsewhere for over GBP400. CV lenses for this camera are around 20% dearer than when I bought my assortment around two years ago. Inflation in a recession doesn't account for this. I noticed two Yashica FX-Ds go for wildly different prices, one below GBP 25, the other at over GBP 100. The only difference was the cosmetic condition, which could only account for less than GBP 10. I'm looking at a 50mm CZJ Tessar currently fetching GBP 50, when a couple of years ago mine cost me GBP 2.50. </p>

<p>As has been pointed out, these observations are largely anecdotal. I do know of people who have taken up film use again, one a die-hard digital user who is also a professional photographer, and who for recreation has taken up film years after saying he'd shot his last silver halide frame. I'm not sure how this would be reflected in film sales, at a time when the global recession, deeper than it's been for the best part of a century, will be depressing sales right across the spectrum of luxury and recreational goods. Film kit prices dropped dramatically over the last couple of years, and have perhaps rebounded off the bottom. Las</p>

<p>Someone has already touched on one of the reasons I find film, almost paradoxically, convenient. Whatever photographic problems I have, processing speed is not one of them, so the immediacy of digital solves a problem I do not have. Dropping a film off for processing and picking it up three days later (it saves money over the one day or one hour services) is ideal for me, and even gives me time to do scans on the previous film. I can't afford to shoot thousands of frames with my dSLR, not from the economic perspective, but because I haven't the time to process them, nor the space to hang them. I have to have a good reason to put a picture on wall space, or in an album in an album set that runs to scores and scores. Film photography matches my photography rate at a level I can manage.</p>

<p>I see and understand what Josh is saying about the independence of image-making from the technology employed. It doesn't work quite like that for me. Though it may seem irrational to some, the process is part of the product for me. If going from A to B were the only consideration in travel, I'd have no need to choose a high-end car over a clapped-out but working Ford, but I like to journey in comfort. I like to take photographs with cameras that please me and feel right, and I like the process of using film. That this means nothing to anyone who views a photograph I took doesn't matter, it only has to matter to me, although I know Josh recognises this. </p>

<p>The frustration with the digital vs film debate is understandable. It's a tired debate, which exhausted itself (and us) a long time ago. This debate only has something useful to say when the perspective is 'digital and film' instead of 'digital or film'. Otherwise, it begins to become indistinguishable from creation/evolution debates, or climate change/denial debates.</p>

</p>

[silverscape]

<p>You guys have no idea what's going on out there. Trust me, there IS a definite interest building in classic film cameras. Do you ever go on Flickr? There are literally HUNDREDS of groups just for people who like to use film. And there are more being added every day. The "I Shoot Film" group is one of the most active groups on Flickr...it has over 30,000 members and over 800,000 photos posted in the searchable pool.</p>

<p>I am in 15 groups, just for FILM.</p>

<p>Then you have people like Patrick Mont...he's only 14, but he shoots with vintage film cameras. (The funny thing is that he has been shooting with slide film a lot longer than me).</p>

<p>I just created a new film group on Flickr, and I'm already getting new members joining every day. We already have about 30 pictures posted in the group pool...all from film.</p>

<p>And today, I just got a bunch of comments in my pictures on Flickr from a 17 year old kid who uses 35mm and Polaroid cameras. I looked at his photo stream, and probably <strong>80-90 percent</strong> of his pictures are from FILM. Don't believe me? Here's one of his sets, showing his cameras. They're ALL vintage film cameras, including a Brownie.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/primafotograf/sets/72157619071236722/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/primafotograf/sets/72157619071236722/</a></p>

<p>I never would have expected this a few years ago. To me, it would just be silly to ignore all this and say that SOMETHING isn't happening. If it wasn't true and this was all just anectdotal, then I would expect that those film groups on Flickr might have maybe 100 members or so. It would be dead. But on the contrary, the film groups are becoming some of the MOST active on the entire website.</p>

<p>Sure, the Film VS Digital debate is tiring. But who says we have to debate? Why can't we just look at things at face value and notice that there IS some kind of a pattern and a trend. All we're saying is that it appears there does seem to be an interest growing in film and vintage cameras. What's wrong with that? It's not a statement against digital...all we're saying is that it appears more people are becoming interested in classic cameras and film, including people who you wouldn't think would be interested. And I think that's great.</p>

[alex macphee]

<p>I'd just like to clarify the use I make of the word 'anecdotal'. I am pretty sure that film is attracting more use than it did a couple of years ago. At least, that concurs with my experience, but I have performed no rigorous or semi-rigorous examination by trying to find out things like trends in film sales, so I can't quantify my feelings with any numbers of any kind. 'Anecdotal' in this context doesn't mean a 'just so story' that's as likely to be untrue as true. I'm merely cautious about trying to pin more on my opinions than I can produce in justification. </p>

<p>A friend I have known for many years is one with whom I have a running tongue-in-cheek thing about digital/film. I am a film chap, and film to him is stone-age stuff. He is a Nikon digital man, who must have the latest gadget, this being the reason, he says, God invented disposable income. Neither of us can resist the opportunity for a dig at the other.</p>

<p>He had been interested in trying to achieve a film look in monochromatic portraits, specifically that of Tri-X developed in Rodinal, using Photoshop. I made the obvious suggestion. Despite having said many times that he would never return to film, and had not had a film camera for decades (he started with the first Sony Mavica), he got hold of an old Zenit and had a play. He sent the film to me to process, and I did that and sent him the negatives and a CD of the scans. He confessed to being surprised that he preferred the Tri-X self portrait to the digital one he had also taken, and to this day he uses it as his 'avatar' picture. A short while later, he got hold of an old Lubitel to try medium format. Then his aunt gave him an old Ikonta. Then he tried one of those plastic cheapo things for the Holga effect. It gave me the opportunity of a sweet coup de grace to observe, with feigned casualness, that this digital-only photographer who'd never shot film for over twenty years and who uses his digital kit professionally now had more film cameras than digital. </p>

<p>Now, that's an anecdotal story. It doesn't prove more people are returning to film, but it certainly adds to my sense that it's true when I hear others tell similar stories. </p>

<p>I have one criterion that will convince me fully that there's a film revival, and although it's only half-serious, and more in hope than expectation : it's that Kodak wake up one day and re-start Kodachrome 64. Ah, a chap can dream. But if Fuji can do it...</p>

 

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>It has to be noted that stastics on film sales don't say anything about the popularity of classic cameras. I'm 100% positive that the bulk of the film market is currently and has always been PNS/disposable camera users. There is also a percentage of that market that is movie film and there is a highly anticipated drop in that sector of the market. You've also got to factor in X-rays, police evidence, and various other professional services. It is very likely that many of these non-consumer sectors have been continuing to use film well into the current era only to be forced to drop it now in attempts to save costs in the shrunken economy. I'm sure even the "disposable, personalized, wedding camera" market has been hit by people scaling back on the scope and size of their weddings. All of these factors effect film sales and absolutely none of them have anything to do with young people going on trips to graveyards with K1000's. ;)</p>

<p>Armchair critics of film like to pretend that no-one is using film at all, but apparently they haven't been "in the field" and had to wait longer for processing, or found empty shelves where film should be because stores are stocking less and running out. This is another factor that has actually made me mad for some time now. The department stores and drug stores are helping to kill film sales because they are basing their stocking on armchair critic perception instead of actual sales. Thus, almost every store I go into has empty film shelves. Logic would dictate that if people are buying the stuff, the stores would continue to stock it. So here is the hidden factor in statistics about film sales... how many people stopped buying film because they stopped SEEING in the store? This has to have a profound psychological effect on the buyer, seeing empty shelves is frustrating and depressing. How many people went to the store, saw no film on the shelf and that day went out and bought a digital camera, the rumors of the death of film "confirmed" by their own eyes?</p>

<p>It has been like this for about 4 years now, ever since film was declared dead. The stores stock less in anticipation of the day when they won't sell anymore... they don't want to be caught with their pants down with hundreds of boxes of film they can't sell... but all they are doing is shooting themselves in the foot by not having enough on stock to SELL to the people who would still buy it! Then those numbers trickle back up to Fuji and Kodak showing less and less film sold... without the corresponding numbers that show that the shelves were understocked. As I said, this process has been happening steadily and steadily for years now.</p>

<p>If you don't stock an item, people can't buy it.</p>

[silverscape]

<p>Alex and Patrick, you guys both make excellent points.</p>

<p>Alex, no worries...we actually agree and you're right that we can't "prove" that more people are using film, or that more people are interested in classic cameras. I was just saying that sometimes too many people discount personal observations, especially earlier in this discussion. (Although I can tell you at exactly which point the discussion changed, and some of you already know what I'm talking about). I think that if we take all the signs and our personal observations - vintage cameras selling for higher prices on ebay, more young adults using vintage cameras, all the film groups that have sprung up on Flickr, and the fact that Kodak has also made a NEW film available in both 35mm and 120 - then I think putting all that <em>together</em>, you can safely conclude that there does seem to be a very real pattern.</p>

<p>Patrick also made a great point...that sometimes things are self-fullfilling. If a store listens to rumors and decides to stop carrying something, then the next person who comes to look for that product is going to be very disappointed and they might stop looking for it out of frustration. I'll give you an example. There's a local camera shop where I live (about maybe 15 minutes away). It's a small shop, but they usually do a pretty good job of stocking film, paper, and chemicals. When Kodak started selling Ektar 100, this place did NOT have it...and at first it seemed like they had no interest in it either. I asked the clerks about it, and they hadn't even heard of Ektar. So for a while, I just ordered it online from Freestyle Photo Supplies. Well, on my birthday, my parents decided to go back to that camera shop and my mom knew that was one of the films I liked (I talk about it all the time) so she just decided to check with them just in case. (I'm easy to shop for now...everyone knows just to get me something for photography!) Anyway, lo and behold on my birthday one of the things my parents surprised me with was a bunch of rolls of Ektar 100. It turns out that apparently someone had the good sense to look into it, and that camera shop had finally started to carry Ektar. Now, they also have the 120 rolls.<br /><br />But what if they hadn't done that? I would have lost out, and they also would have lost potential sales. I've probably bought around 10 rolls from them. I've also talked with the manager at the photo lab where I take my color film now, and she liked my pictures so much that she has started using Ektar 100 too. And she buys it from the same camera shop.</p>

<p>So yeah, sometimes it isn't that people won't use film...it's that a store arbitrarily just decides to stop selling it because they listen to bogus rumors. I think I personally have contributed to that place selling at least 20 rolls of Ektar...between me and the people I have recommended it to.</p>

<p>And guess what...here's some more good news. Since I first started going to that camera shop a little over a year ago, they are doing an even <em>better</em> job of keeping film and chemicals stocked. I used to just see a few bottles of developer and fixer. Now the shelf is always full. And it's not the same stuff sitting there for months. I come in one time and it's almost empty, I come back in maybe a couple of weeks or a month later, and they have ordered more. So people are obviously buying and using the stuff. Every time I go there, I do see people coming and buying film. Sure, there are a lot of people looking at the digital cameras...BUT, I also see people buying film. <br /><br />There is plenty of good news out there...you just have to see it.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Digital cameras are nice when you want to post a quick photo of your film classic in this forum. :). Seriously, I'm pleased to see a revived interest in film cameras among younger photographers. My oldest son, who has a digital, has gotten interested and already has a Minolta SRT 200, Yashicamat 124G, and a Maxxum HTSI Plus. He is also interested in learning black & white developing from me.<br>

The days of the small town mom and pop camera shop are mostly over,so we have to be a little more patient in obtaining supplies, but as I explain to young people new to film, it is worth the wait to order supplies.<br>

I am fortunate to have grown up in a family where photography was important. My dad kept a darkroom so I learned B&W processing while still in grade school. I also learned a lot from him using 35mm, medium format, and 4x5. Sharing what we know with others is one of the good things members at Photo.net do well.</p>

[cadillacmike]

<p>I've watched ebay for a few years. Prices are definately dependent on what is being sold. high quality glass like an Canon or Minolta F1.2 lens are going to skyrocket, as is a mint F-1, but I picked up a near mint SRT 102 (with mirror lockup) for a song and got a MC Rokkor 50/1.4 for a good price as well. <br>

Problem is the few items i'm really looking for are the high priced L or aspherical Canons and a black Pellix!<br>

I have a mini digicam that black Canon 14.7 MP job, haven't used at all out here because i don't want the dust to kill the lens motor / gears. Can't buy film here either so not much action on my end until i get home or go on R&R to Aruba, where i WILL take a mint Lake Placid F-1 and a few FD lenses with me.<br>

I use film cameras (mainly F-1s) for nearly all important events that i go to. My wife will shoot 200 images on her little Canon SD1100 but it's always my enlargements that everyone wants!</p>

 

[cesar_gomez1]

<p>I'm in my 20's and I own nothing but film cameras. I started out in junior high school with a then-new Canon Rebel G and what was in the photo magazines back in the mid 90s were the EOS-3, and the EOS-1 series cameras. That was all I lusted after in my early days. As I grew older, I bought a Canon F-1, a few FD lenses and some rangefinder cameras and I never really wanted a digital camera. I'm sure when people see me on the street with my vintage film cameras they must think I'm being "retro" but the reality is I have always shot film. I love it and I can't picture myself letting go of film...</p>

[nicholas_herndon]

<p>I've been a photo.net forum browser for a couple years now, and registered on photo.net just so I could weigh in on this discussion...<br>

I'm a 30 year old hobbyist who got into photography about 6 years ago. My first camera was a Canonet. I went with the Canonet for two reasons: one, the pictures from my childhood were all taken with my parents' Yashica Electro 35, and they all had a "look" (that I now recognize as quality compared to the all-auto-everything p&s film and digital cameras I was used to) that I wanted to emulate, and Google pointed me in the direction of the Canonet; and two, I couldn't afford a nice digital SLR. It was so much cheaper to buy a fixed lens rangefinder and then shoot film as I went along. 6 years ago it wasn't very trendy, and truthfully, I lusted after a D40. But I did just fine with the Canonet.<br>

I've been shooting and collecting a lot of Olympus OM gear lately, as well as an E-410 that I got for super cheap used, and it's dawned on me...for people interested in photography, the shortest, cheapest way to high quality photos is shooting with used film gear. There are some wonderful photogs who use all modern gear (the guy who shot my wedding was AWESOME), but the difference in price between a high end digital lens and a "vintage" quality manual lens that is 30+ years old is astounding. For me, $200 is expensive for an old used manual focus lens made for a film camera. My most expensive Zuiko was my 85/2 that I got for about $100! However, that same lens can give me quality that is similar to some $1000+ lenses on the latest Nikon and Canon DSLRs. That's a big driving factor behind the use of manual lenses on DSLRs--high quality at a relatively low price point. Just like me, there are a number of young people interested in photography who want good quality at a low price. And spending $100 on a CLA'd Canonet (like I did) is a much better investment than spending $300 on a 15 megapixel autofocus p&s digicam that will be obsolete in 6 months. Guess what? There is BOKEH in pictures shot with a Canonet; bokeh doesn't exist in a Sony p&s digicam.<br>

I also like the point made earlier about film being a more manageable medium; for hobbyists like me, film is much more enjoyable to shoot, and easier to catalogue and enjoy. However, when I shoot assignments (mostly for my church) I only use digital. Much more convenient. If I were a pro photog, I'd stick to digital.</p>

[louise bridge]

<p>Earlier Josh Root said: "Statistics lag behind facts [...]"<br>

Truth is so classic.<br>

--Louise Bridge</p>

[brenda_nelson]

<p>Reading this thread helped me feel a little better today. I just tried to drop of a roll of B&W 35mm to get it developed in the store and discovered that WalMart no longer does this. I found one Walgreens and I know that there's one camera shop in our town (about 40,000 people). Otherwise film has to be sent out to be developed now. <br>

I just started to get into photography purely as a hobby. I've always loved it, but never really got into it too much until taking a photo class in grad school about 4 yrs ago. I doubt I'll ever have more than an occasional, and accidental, great shot. So I've been trying to buy the old, original point and shoots - as in box cameras. It's my goal to have all the colors of the Rainbow Hawkeyes, Sabre 620 and Brownie Starflash. I know they don't have great lenses, but the effects are just fun for me - that's why in my early 30s I'd rather use those. AND, even though technology doesn't scare me, I really like the idea of having to compose my pictures without using all the settings, so I have to pay attention to the natural light more and I like the way that I've become much more aware of my daily surroundings because of this. There are no flashes on the 50th anniversary Brownie or even more than one aperature setting. It really forces me to think about the photograph.<br>

Yes, I'd like a nice Mamiya or Yashica, but I can't afford those right now - meanwhile I've amassed a nice display of workable, useable and just plain fun $10 cameras!<br>

Now - I just gotta move into a bigger place so I can set up that darkroom...!</p>

[phyllis_ollari]

<p>actually an Ilford rep told me that their film sales have skyrocketed. As I've said many times to many people, film is going become like vinyl records. In the 80's record companies started to make vinyl thinner, it warped easier. So the consummer would think they were getting an inferior product. (compare a vinyl record from the 60's to the 80's, you'll see the difference.)CDs started to come down in price and become affordable as did the players. Everyone rushed out sold their players, and vinyl collection. In the early 90's you could get an original Bob Dylan album used for about 5 bucks in mint condtion. Now, it's 50.00 dollars. Record companies have also started to put more releases on vinyl again. The demand is there, the supply isn't, at least for the records. The same thing is happening with film and digital. The fact is marketing was/is ignoring the demand film. Personally I prefer film because I like hard copies. I'm a hybrid photogrpaher. And in reality I'll shoot anything. I'm also sick of camera companies marketing and fear mongering. (if you don't have the newest and best you won't be taken seriously as a professional photographer, etc.)</p>