Nope, we are living in a digital world now. There's forums dedicated to film photography, but digital is easier to get started, cheap and provides good results. So the film portion of photography is kind of a niche market.
Is it just me or are there just not many film shooters here?
Hello.... 21st century here! People still using film probably see no reason to upgrade Windows 98. I think film has been relegated to art projects, especially for those who have never worked with it. Film processing & wet darkroom photographers have unknowingly formed an exclusive club with built-in bragging rights. "Look, I did it the old-fashioned way with superior results.... and BTW, digital sucks."
borderlight wrote:
Hello.... 21st century here! People still using film probably see no reason to upgrade Windows 98. I think film has been relegated to art projects, especially for those who have never worked with it. Film processing & wet darkroom photographers have unknowingly formed an exclusive club with built-in bragging rights. "Look, I did it the old-fashioned way with superior results.... and BTW, digital sucks."
Well, at least you 'smiled' when you said it. I run Windoze 7 and a iMac with OSX. As to film, I just enjoy the process. It also seems to make me slow down when shooting; not a bad thing with either media. I still shoot digital, as well.
Kenny , there are more film shooters here than you may think , some are just keeping quite.
There are members here that frequent both APUG and Rangefinder forums . And as you know there are hundreds of thousands of young people 16 to 25 that love film and are very active .( Whats old is now new again) No different than skate boards or hula hoops. And then there is me .
I shot film professionally for 30+ years - 35mm, MF, LF. Stopped using it around 2003. The expense of maintaining a B&W darkroom - the various chemicals, printing paper, space & time required ... the whole thing ended up more a chore then a joy. Eventually I used a lab to process all my work, most of it shot on color transparency film. I remember the arguments against digital soon after it was introduced, most of it true until around 2005/6 or about the time a decent full-frame digital camera was available. After that point it became harder to make a case for film unless wall size prints were required. It might be beneficial for some to experience the whole photography trip (again) by shooting film and processing it, but I've learned it is all about the final image, not the steps taken to get there.
Cole Thompson, an internationally recognized photographer, shoots digital only. His final images are like Ansel Adams... and is much more diversified IMO.
I can understand and accept your decision; everyone's decision-making calculus is different.
Fortunately, I'm not shooting professionally so the media and processing expense is not what it might be; otherwise, I might be in your camp. Hopefully, there are enough of us around to keep the film manufacturers manufacturing. Like I said, I enjoy the process more than the outcome.
It won't be long before there are no film choices to speak of. LF and MF are dead soon. 135 will last longer due to sheer volume. Considering that very few new film cameras are made and practically no SLRs, it is only a matter of time.
EB-1 wrote:
It won't be long before there are no film choices to speak of. LF and MF are dead soon. 135 will last longer due to sheer volume. Considering that very few new film cameras are made and practically no SLRs, it is only a matter of time.
EBH
yes, film will eventually be like 45 records, tapes, slide rules, dial telephones, etc.
