Very interesting and encouraging (and seemingly, authoritative) recent article discussing the resurgence of film photography, especially since 2020 (see link below). All kinds of new films, new cameras (albeit, low end cameras) have hit the market. Most encouraging of all is investments made by both Ilford and Kodak in new manufacturing facilities/partnerships. Film is definitely not dead!
Digital Fatigue is the bullet point I was after. You see this in music where even CD's are making a comeback because they are a tangible object in a published form despite being a digital format.
There is a hybridization in a lot of media formats. The revolution for film is the ability to edit it digitally, correct it, and therefore see it's upmost potential. All while having an a kinetic relationship to the format and the experience of a mechanical device.
I would quibble with their argument that sustainability concerns are a driver...I mean maybe they are but I think they're misguided. They claim that digital camera bodies "typically become obsolte within 5-7 years due to technological advancement..." but that was true of film cameras back in the day as well. I was the regular recipient of my older brothers' hand-me-down cameras in the 1960s and 70s as they strove to get the latest and greatest technology.
And I have no trouble keeping my digital cameras going for 10 years or longer; one of my digital cameras is from 2013, one is from 2014, and two are from 2016, and my digital point-and-shoot is from 2006 (still working fine and even the battery still keeps a good charge). Just because something is "obsolete" doesn't mean it can't still be used to take good photos...as all those obsolete film cameras we are using demonstrate.
I still haven't seen a rigorous cradle-to-grave analysis of digital vs. film, but most analyses I have seen in journals and on youtube focus mainly on film cameras and the chemicals used to process film. That's only part of the equation: film has upstream impacts in terms of raw materials extraction and processing, manufacturing, distribution, etc. Digital cameras also have upstream and downstream impacts of course, plus there are energy impacts associated with digital storage of images, etc., but every roll of film has upstream environmental costs built into it, along with the downstream impacts of processing and disposal.
All of the credible analyses of electric vs. conventional vehicles conclude that the environmental impact of conventional vehicles is a lot bigger because of the fuel consumption; electric cars have plenty of upstream and downstream impacts but overall they are smaller than the impacts of ongoing fuel consumption for gasoline or diesel vehicles. I wouldn't be surprised if it works out similarly for film vs. digital cameras. I love shooting film and I rarely shoot digital anymore, but I'm pretty sure I'm having a much bigger environmental impact than when I only shot digital.
There is a hybridization in a lot of media formats. The revolution for film is the ability to edit it digitally, correct it, and therefore see it's upmost potential. All while having an a kinetic relationship to the format and the experience of a mechanical device.
Exactly this for me. Pre digital - back when everyone shot film because that’s what we had - I could see much more info on the negs compared to the lame prints I got back.
Now because I scan my own film, the results are what I dreamed for back then. The hybrid workflow made it possible.
Mostly I really like what the kids are thinking these days
Been setting up old p&s's this week (apparently kind of in the same vein) for a teenager dying to use them they'd never seen film !!! Fortunately had a roll of scotch 100 sitting around (unopened!)
Yes, I saw this video a little while back of 2 teenage boys trying to figure out how to use a rotary dial telephone. They tried for like 2 minutes and then just gave up. Hilarious!
I want a link to that video with the rotary dial telephone!!! hahahahahahaha
Sometimes I get a question about my film camera, and when I say that it works without batteries, people are just amazed. Then I tell them I can theoretically go from capture to print with electricity required only for a light bulb in my enlarger and they are like woooooowwwwww.
Apparently the idea that I can do stuff without worrying about charged batteries is revolutionary.
Desmolicious wrote:
Aging myself, I remember the first time I saw a phone that had push buttons instead of the rotary dial.
I had just witnessed the future!
When I was growing up we still used letters at the beginning of telephone numbers: my phone number when I was a kid was PE7-7106. And on the radio stations we listened to from New York City they would say things like "Call Murray Hill 9, 1000." That's why they have those letters as well as numbers on the phone buttons, it's kind of weird that they persist even today on cordless phones.
bjhurley wrote:
When I was growing up we still used letters at the beginning of telephone numbers: my phone number when I was a kid was PE7-7106. And on the radio stations we listened to from New York City they would say things like "Call Murray Hill 9, 1000." That's why they have those letters as well as numbers on the phone buttons, it's kind of weird that they persist even today on cordless phones.
Desmolicious wrote:
Hello operator? I would like to send a telegram.
I actually did that for my Dad one time.
Nowadays they'd call that the concierge service. "Wilfred, go to the east wing and use the tely-phone to call aunt Petunia. Let her know I shall be arriving in 94 minutes. And tell them to leave some space for the Rolls on the driveway this time."
See kids today think AI this and that. It was always there. Like self driving cars: just get a taxi.
The majority of cameras I see around necks downtown here are old film cameras. It's hip, but the fashion shows a desire for authenticity. It takes skill and experience to get a good image and the roll itself is an unmodifiable artifact of the scene - it took the photons at the scene. It was there.
I found the scanner in the storage unit yesterday and there are still a couple rolls of E100G and Tri-X in the freezer...
bjhurley wrote:
When I was growing up we still used letters at the beginning of telephone numbers: my phone number when I was a kid was PE7-7106. And on the radio stations we listened to from New York City they would say things like "Call Murray Hill 9, 1000." That's why they have those letters as well as numbers on the phone buttons, it's kind of weird that they persist even today on cordless phones.
Yes, we had a similar mnemonic for our number, "Cedar." Our number was CEdar4-9363. You only dialed the C (2) and E (3), then the remaining 5 numbers. And of course you almost never dialed an area code as that would incur "long distance" charges. There are still some remote areas in the US west that don't use an area code when using a land line for local calls, but I can't remember where. And notice the verb for describing the action, "dialing," because it was done on a dial. Now it's still called that, even with no dials in use. And for most of us, what is a "local" call anyway? My, I digress.
bjhurley wrote:
When I was growing up we still used letters at the beginning of telephone numbers: my phone number when I was a kid was PE7-7106. And on the radio stations we listened to from New York City they would say things like "Call Murray Hill 9, 1000." That's why they have those letters as well as numbers on the phone buttons, it's kind of weird that they persist even today on cordless phones.
When I was growing up, my rural grandparents were still on a party line. No dial, just pick up the phone and say "Hello, operator", unless somebody was already 'online'. Each customer had a different ring, so you had to make up an excuse when they caught you listening to their call; "Sorry, I thought it was three-long and two-short. My bad." (right...)
Desmolicious wrote:
Hello operator? I would like to send a telegram.
I actually did that for my Dad one time.
I worked for an international nonprofit in the early 1980s when overseas communication was done mainly by telex (different from telegraph of course). We had a telex machine in my office and we all had to be trained to use it; it wasn't easy and typing was very slow. One time I sent a telex to a scientist we were working with in Colombia and immediately got a response back from someone in the Colombian Army (in English) as I must have misttyped the destination number; we had an entertaining near-synchronous conversation via telex for about 15 minutes.
I don't think it's having a major impact on the photography segment - meaning, the boardrooms at Sony, Canon, and Nikon are not paying any serious attention. If the percentage of photographers using film goes up from 0.5% to 1.5% that qualifies as "surging" since it's up 300% but that still means digital is 98.5% of the market.
I personally shoot film quite a bit and enjoy doing so. As a result, I pay fairly close attention to film and development costs which have only gone up in the past year I've been shooting film. Hopefully film continues to surge in popularity which in turn may lead Kodak, Ilford, and [one can only hope] maybe even Fujifilm to spin up additional production. As of now, the rise of popularity doesn't seem to be translating to business decisions.
Those of you who like bourbon may have noticed in the last year or two it's become a lot easier to get bottles that were quite hard to come by from like 2016-2022 or so. Buffalo Trace, Jim Beam, Bard, MGP, etc all have new production facilities that they started 10 years ago and are finally coming online. I recall when this HH BiB was either not available at all or you had to pay double MSRP. Now it's just sitting on the shelf in rows, waiting for a customer.
icarus_ wrote:
I don't think it's having a major impact on the photography segment - meaning, the boardrooms at Sony, Canon, and Nikon are not paying any serious attention. If the percentage of photographers using film goes up from 0.5% to 1.5% that qualifies as "surging" since it's up 300% but that still means digital is 98.5% of the market..
And cell phones account for probably 95 percent of that market.
Film has surged enough that Capture One just added a set of film conversion tools to its app, and Lightroom may not be far behind (watch out, Negative Lab Pro). And 1.5 percent of a huge market is actually pretty significant, as Apple showed back when it had only 1 percent of the personal computer market but was one of the most financially successful companies around (worth more at the time even than the other big "Mac," McDonald's).
