Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Interesting article (link to follow in the next post.)

Excerpts:

"According to camera maker Ilford’s 2018 global photography survey, just under a quarter of people shooting on film – including many under the age of 40 – had never used this medium before. Rather than nostalgia, they are turning to film because of its aesthetic values and a greater sense of creative control over their photos. Globally, while the film camera market is still very niche, it’s growing fast."

"Work, effort, meaning – these ideas are all interconnected for users and consumers of analogue technology. Whereas work is often seen as a means to an end, from earning a living to exercising, “analoguers” get a buzz out of the processes of setting things up, getting things right, trial and error, and building up skills."

"Over the decade or so of our research, explanations for the analogue revival have shifted from nostalgia, to the desire for something physical in a digital age, to the sense that analogue technology is creatively preferable. The idea that working within limits, and needing to overcome them, is beneficial to art creation is now accepted by many within the creative sectors."

"Is digital technology de-skilling consumers, leading to a sense of alienation? And is this overcome by using more difficult analogue devices? This is the conclusion we have come to. Certain types of “serious leisure”, including sports and creative activities, provide us with intrinsic joy even if they are frustrating to engage in until skills are developed. Using analogue technology is another way consumers can feed this desire to re-skill."

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Hard work and happy accidents: why do so many of us prefer ‘difficult’ analogue technology?

https://theconversation.com/hard-work-and-happy-accidents-why-do-so-many-of-us-prefer-difficult-analogue-technology-227472

One photographer they interviewed on the topic of working with film:

"I like the pace of it, it really slows you down. Your options to take pictures are really limited – you’ve only got two-to-six shots, and the film and processing are expensive. It’s also very labor-intensive getting that shot from inside the camera to print, so you’re really conscious of getting it right. If you make a mistake at the beginning, you can invest a few days and it’s still going to be a rubbish shot. You’re not going to fire off 1,000 pictures like digital, and that really appeals to me."

Whether or not you use film is there value in slowing down and welcoming "happy accidents?"

charles brown Loc: Tennesse

In my film days I had a growing family and buying film for my Canon Ftb was not at the top of my priority list. When I did take pictures, I had to make sure that I got it right as I could ill afford many mistakes. Also, I often had to use the same roll of film for many different types of photographs. When digital came along the first thing that excited me was the ability to change camera settings at any time, especially ISO, and not have to photograph everything using he same setting.

User ID

Even for those who seldom, if ever, have any creative notions cooking between their ears, they can imagine themselves more creative if their "creative process" involves an excessive amount of process.

Unfortunately, "process" is not the creative half of the term "creative process". IOW more process tips the balance AWAY from creativity.

Theres nothing creative about spooling up film reels, mixing chemicals, loading or unloading cameras, etc. Worse yet is a life tied to the need for darkness, plumbing, and ventilation. Analog photography is a ball and chain, not a liberator of creative minds.

terryMc Loc: Arizona's White Mountains

I traded my (good) film cameras for my first digital, but then later bought a used Nikon because i wanted to shoot film occasionally. Originally, I had a darkroom and processed and printed my own black and white (not color because the temp was too critical). I have no place for a darkroom anymore, and while I still have some film in the frig I think it may be counterproductive to shoot for a "film aesthetic" when the negs will just have to be digitized to print anyway.

I wonder if, along with this reported resurgence of film shooters, there will be a resurgence of labs that chemically process and print film...

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

That is pretty much how I see it, too.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Reminds me of Roy Underhill and the Woodwrights Shop. Neanderthal wood workers enjoying working wood w/o electric. I guess they (relatively small group) enjoy it a great deal, possibly for the same reasons a small group prefer film over digital.
Personally, like almost everyone, I hate planning a table top by hand with a jack plane, and absolutely love digital camera's and digital editing. I know I'm not about to buy stock in film company unless they also deal in digital.

therwol Loc: USA

I feel the same way. If film gave me better results than I get with digital, I might consider it. It doesn't. I took thousands of pictures on film before going digital. All of my negatives and slides have been scanned. I look at them, and although some are great pictures and most are pleasing, the end result of the process is inferior (to me) to what I get with digital.

Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

As I see it, there's an almost limitless number of reasons why people might 'revert' back to shooting film. Some may be technical, some may be aesthetic, and others may be purely idiosyncratic and/or psychological. Nevertheless, I'd bet that regardless an individual's reasons, the end result --be that a print that gets traditionally (darkroom) printed or whose print (or negative or positive transparency) is scanned or reproduced in-camera then subsequently gets digitized-- is the primary motivating factor. The 'end result' is what would be key in such a scenario, and the ability to pre-conceive an end point before even choosing or loading the film is no simple matter. That ability is, in fact, what elevates a camera operator/picture taker up and into photographer status. While aspects of that 'ability' might be taught or learned, other aspects depend on more innate factors.

Nothing approaches the visual 'photographic' perfection of --assuming a neg had been purposefully exposed, developed, and printed, and the 'subject' had been sufficiently actualized such that it's become compelling and possesses the qualities that elevates the image into places that are both real and ideal, subjective and objective, personal and universal-- a large format (4"x 5" or preferably larger) silver gelatin b&w, or similarly, via whatever color process (E-6, Ciba, etc., etc.) print. Nothing. Medium format contact prints, and moreso small format contact sheet 'prints', though they can share to some extent a similar sort of sublimity, are simply too small to view as one would want, and can only be considered as preludes to larger viewing versions. Plus however 'good' these mini-views may be, they've lost aspects of what could've been their 'perfection' by requiring enlargement. (Which is NOT to say that enlargements can't be great; they obviously can, but....)

So --for me, if for no one else-- however 'good' any of my small format film efforts may or may not have been, none of those efforts approach the sorts of results I can achieve shooting FF (or even crop sensor) digital. But the film efforts are not without their own sorts of merits, none of which could have pre-visioned when I shot them years ago: they make great starting points for what I prefer to think of as digital 'manipulations'.

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

I would say the only advantage to analog photography is if you can keep the whole process analog. That is, no digital scanning to make prints, just like in the old days. Once you scan the images, what's the point? Of course, to show your work online, you have to have digital images. Are there any labs which make prints via optical enlargement and printing? I do have three OM film cameras and three rolls of color film to use this summer, just as a lark. We'll see....

BebuLamar

Shooting film is fun but in no way more creative.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

I had a good friend, now deceased, who built musical instruments with hand tools. He did beautiful work.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

I became quite active on flickr a few months ago and have found inspiration every day from photos that speak to me - in my limited language - with the photographer's ability to see in a unique and emotional way. Almost none of those have anything to do with "correct" exposure or noise reduction.

On the other hand, those I know on UHH and elsewhere who are are skilled technicians seem to produce results that, for me, don't have a lot of soul. They're kind of sterile, even if perfect technically. They document; they don't create.

There are exceptions, of course, but I think there are lots of happy accidents in digital photography, as well as in post-processing, if one is more right-brain and intuitive, willing to experiment and to feel and to occasionally harvest pixels without plans or preparation.

Mike, I wonder if this realization that "Certain types of 'serious leisure,' including sports and creative activities, provide us with intrinsic joy" comes from a general dissatisfaction with accumulation of stuff that societies have bought as the secret to happiness.

How many big screen tv's and big trucks and size of homes exceeding 2000 sf make a person fundamentally content?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The only people shooting film in 2024 are fossils, the idle rich and hipsters from Brooklyn.

therwol Loc: USA

Which one are you?