Overheard today at a Hipster Clothing Store....

[rustys pics]

<p>Sales Clerk: So you're a photograper? How many cameras do you have?<br>

Hipster Customer: A lot. TOO many! That happens....<br>

Sales Clerk: Do you have Adobe Photoshop? That really is cool isn't it? <br>

Hipster Customer: You really don't NEED it when you shoot FILM....</p>

<p>I had to smile at that kid! He could not have been more than 20. His gal was with him too, and they both had old film SLRs. These kids probably listen to music on Vinyl. And they say there's no hope for the younger generation.... </p>

<p> </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I wonder how that Hipster gets his completely un-altered film exposures up onto Facebook where his friends can see them?</p>

[starvy]

<p>Matt, the hipster is against facebook but gets the film scanned when being processed and it goes straight to flickr!</p>

[rustys pics]

<p>It's a ray of hope for film photography at least.... Whatever the output chosen.</p>

 

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>"You really don't NEED it when you shoot FILM...."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The same can be said when you don't.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>they say there's no hope for the younger generation....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, they can make silly digital vs. film statements just like the older generations can.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Here in the Austin area there is a chain of used bookstores called Half Price Books. I get some wonderful deals like hardcover versions of Ansel Adams "The print" for $3.95. Anyway I check out my old books and the artsy looking young guy at the register mentions film photography. I told him I shoot a fair amount of B&W film, develop it at home and print in the darkroom. He perks up a bit and says "See I totally respect that." There is an element within the 20 somethings that like B&W film.</p>

[photo5]

<p>Michael, Half Price Books is a huge national chain of stores. We have a bunch of them here in the greater Seattle area. Lately though I've noticed that their selection of photography books dealing with film and film cameras has dwindled compared to recent years. That copy of "The Print" for $3.95 must have been one of the newer softcover editions. The hardcover editions I see for sale are all at least $8.99 each. I bought my copy of it in hard cover new back in 1988, and the other three books in the series, also in hardcover, used. I've spent way way way too much money at Half Price Books. Especially when they have their 20% off everything sales, and the coupon sales with 40% off one item, or 50% off one item. I bought the Ansel Adams At 100 book in the slipcase for $21.99 after the 40% coupon, and it retailed for $150.00 when it was new!</p>

[marc_rochkind]

Indeed, there are maybe 5000 young hipster film shooters in the US, and all of them get reported on the web every

time they venture out. A definite trend. If you ignore the 200,000,000 digital shooters, that is.

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Rochkind…</p>

<p>Although not the high ratio of 5,000 to 200,000,000, I’ll bet that the ratio of real diamonds in jewelry to Cubic Zirconia and “man made” diamonds is at least 5,000 to 1,000,000. </p>

<p>There is nothing wrong with Cubic Zirconia and “man made” diamonds. A lot more people use them than Diamonds. They can be very shiny and beautiful. Most people can’t tell the difference without testing. </p>

<p>Does that mean that real diamonds are no longer worthy of consideration? The trend is certainly away from them. </p>

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

<p>P.S. Those gold colored rings in the pawnshop showcase look pretty also. If you keep them polished up and wash the green off your finger, they could look mighty stylish. Who’d ever know it was not real gold? Who should care anyway? </p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>I see more hipsters with DSLRs these days. But it's still 50:50 according to my limited sample size.</p>

<p>John H., you're right - people assume that digital photography means that you need computer software. That's like saying that shooting film requires a darkroom.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

I'm sure there are people who don't have computers or editing software who use digital like film - take the shots, drop the media card off at the lab and pick up the prints later.

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>I've been seeing a lot of Nikon F100, Nikon F5, F4, F3, Pentax K1000, Mamiya RB67, etc, etc, in the hands of young people.....I feel I can call them young as I'm 42 and they're probably half my age.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_castronovo]

<p>I heard that last year, sales of vinyl records were way above CDs, and Tom Petty's last album was only available on vinyl, no digital whatsoever. Apparently there's more to the equation than signal to noise ratio and convenience.</p>

[peter_simpson1]

<p>There may be hope for the next generation after all :-)</p>

<p>My coworker's high school daughter bought her Pentax ME off the 'bay and is working to get access to the school darkroom so she can develop her own film.</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<blockquote>

<p>I heard that last year, sales of vinyl records were way above CDs,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Looking at it another way, CD account for 66.4% of album sales while digital albums account for nearly about 32.3%. Vinyl album sales grew 41.2% to 1.88 million, but still only account for 1.2% of U.S. album sales.<br /> <br /> But when you look at album sales with track equivalents, which this year totaled 221.5%, the digital format accounts for 52.5% of album with TEA; CD albums comprise 46.6%; and vinyl .85%."</p>

<p>http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/retail/u-s-mid-year-album-sales-up-for-first-time-1005266972.story</p>

[exposed1]

<p>My niece, who is 22, has been using a sony digital P&S along with her iPhone for some time. Awhile back I posted a few shots on a website with photos I had taken using my old Nikon FM2n and Extar film with no photoshop work. They were scanned of course but she asked me why they looked so good. I explained to her that I was not sure, but that maybe it was the film. She now has a Nikon N65 with a bargain Nikon lens on it and she just loves it. She is upto 4 rolls of film a month now and wanting more. She tells me the camera makes her think more about what she is shooting and film, with its "non instance results", also makes her think more. Being a film shoot for over 25 years only, and now shooting both film and digital, it makes this old man proud.... </p>

[palangat]

<p>"I wonder how that Hipster gets his completely un-altered film exposures up onto Facebook where his friends can see them?"<br>

Maybe the hipster prefers to display his prints in his basement for his friends to view, and not necessarily on facebook, flickr or even pnet for that matter! Likely to get more personalized attention, comments and encouragement!</p>

<p>"Indeed, there are maybe 5000 young hipster film shooters in the US, and all of them get reported on the web every time they venture out. A definite trend. If you ignore the 200,000,000 digital shooters, that is."<br>

Am I sensing a little jealousy here for getting noticed despite being an ultra low minority (5000 vs 200,000,000)? :)</p>

<p>In my opinion (yes, just that), good for the hipster!</p>

[bgelfand]

<p>Why must it be an either/or?</p>

<p>I shot film. If it is black and white, I process at home and print in my darkroom. If it is color, I have the film developed only, scan the negatives on a Nikon Coolscan V, and post process in Photoshop CS5. I upload the processed files to Costco for printing.<br>

This gives me the same control over my color prints that my black and white darkroom gives me over my black and white prints. Photoshop works quite well with film.</p>

<p>I also shoot some digital images - with an EVF Canon point and shoot and with my cell phone. The point and shoot can do some things my F100 cannot do with my present compliment of lenses - especially in the macro realm. The advantage of camera on my cell phone - it is always with me.</p>

<p>As for Hipster's answer, it is the smarty answer I expect from the immature.</p>

 

[alan_quigley]

<p>20 year old who uses film: Cool Hipster<br>

50 year old who uses film: crotchety old fart who can't adapt to new technology.</p>

[randyhargraves]

<p>Love it. That's the kind of guy you WON'T find on internet forums talking about dynamic range and lines per mm. Just out shooting his film and rocking his Abercrombie gear.</p>

[sfcole]

<p>"Love it. That's the kind of guy you WON'T find on internet forums talking about dynamic range and lines per mm. Just out shooting his film and rocking his Abercrombie gear."</p>

<p>Of course, he could be just like all those young female Asians that are featured for some reason on Flickr, who like to strut around posing with old cameras but probably have no idea what to do with them.</p>

<p>By the way, here's how old I am: I remember when Abercrombie actually sold high-end sporting gear.</p>

[randrew1]

<p>I have mixed reactions to this post. I'm still a fan of film, but I was scanning and adjusting the tone scale of my film images in Photoshop (v3.04) in 1994. </p>

<p>I was slightly embarrassed on Sunday when I visited Lower Falls Park for the umpteenth time. A young man was riding his bike along the river trail when he had to dismount and walk through the icy area near the falls. He pulled out a film camera (Pentax I think) and started shooting. I was there with my D200 and having problems with the batteries. </p>

<p>FWIW, here's a shot from Sunday:<br>

<img src="http://photos.randrews4.com/photos/i-ZLsvQ4n/0/S/i-ZLsvQ4n-S.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[mike_godwin1]

<blockquote>

<p>20 year old who uses film: Cool Hipster<br /> 50 year old who uses film: crotchety old fart who can't adapt to new technology.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sounds like me..<br>

Some of my friends say the reason my son ended up in film school is 'cause I used to drag him into my darkroom 30 years ago.<br>

Then he dragged me into digital after that.<br>

Payback I guess</p>

<p> </p>

[john_robison3]

<p>I think we have the best of both worlds. I like to dink around with old cameras. Just because they are pretty and make nice sounds. I have available formats from 10X14mm submini to 4X5. There is no way I have room for a 4X5 enlarger in my tiny apartment bathroom so I make do with a 35mm only Durst. But, with scanning I can put the big negs into a form that can be printed bigger than contact prints, if want to. Even with my small, sub 35mm negs I can use a legacy macro lens adapted to my cheap little DSLR and photograph the negs and reverse the tones in any basic image handling program. Sure, I'm an 'old fart', but even some of the 'old farts' who post here are quite adept at computer skills. That's not me. I always have to have help when I sit down at the key board to try anything other than the most basic stuff.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>I agree John. I love being able to use both. I have a multitude of DSLRs for different things....as well as 35mm, MF and 4x5 film gear. They are all tools in my toolbox. I don't need to, and nor would I recommend, having just one!</p>