# Film still on the up



## gsgary (Nov 4, 2013)

Retro photography trend triggers darkroom plan | Amateur Photographer


----------



## limr (Nov 4, 2013)

I wish they'd open something like that in the States, but I'm not sure we're seeing the same kind of uptick in film use over here.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 4, 2013)

Ray Ko in San Francisco will rent you darkrooms for very reasonable prices. Whenever I go there on business I try to bring a couple negatives along and rent 3-4 hours some evening.

Color, B&W, up to 4x5.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 4, 2013)

limr said:


> I wish they'd open something like that in the States, but I'm not sure we're seeing the same kind of uptick in film use over here.



They are behind the times


----------



## limr (Nov 4, 2013)

Hey, there's an interesting concept: being 'behind the times' in going retro 

I might be able to get darkroom time at my college or maybe at a high school where my friend works. Not sure if there are any other options on the east coast.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 4, 2013)

Side business! Build a darkroom, and rent it out!


----------



## cgw (Nov 4, 2013)

gsgary said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > I wish they'd open something like that in the States, but I'm not sure we're seeing the same kind of uptick in film use over here.
> ...



The article riffs on the same old magical thinking about the "resurgence" in film use. Lomography stores in major N. American cities have closed for lack of business. It's a nano-trend.


----------



## limr (Nov 4, 2013)

Oooh, it's deja vu all over again. I'm having flashbacks to my newbie days here


----------



## vintagesnaps (Nov 4, 2013)

I'm coming over. 

Not really... but I 'lost' my darkroom at a local university due to the building being remodeled into something else; supposed to be getting a new art building but I'm not exactly holding my breath. Oh how I miss that darkroom, and Elvis and the perpetual radio. Good times.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Nov 4, 2013)

limr said:


> I wish they'd open something like that in the States, but I'm not sure we're seeing the same kind of uptick in film use over here.



Uhhhh...

Denton, TX.
Something clicked | Denton Record Chronicle | News for Denton County, Texas

manhattan, NY.
Darkroom Rental in Lower Manhattan NYC

Houston, TX.
Houston Darkroom


Theres darkroom rentals EVERYWHERE. And Freestylephoto.biz in California is dedicated to all things film, so if there's not one near you, screw a red bulb into your bathroom fixture.


----------



## compur (Nov 4, 2013)

cgw said:


> The article riffs on the same old magical thinking about the "resurgence" in film use. Lomography stores in major N. American cities have closed for lack of business. It's a nano-trend.



Lomography's ups and downs do not represent "film photography" as they were never a part of mainstream photography even during the heyday of film. Lomography is an overpriced exploitation of a perfectly valid form of art that arose in the 1980s-90s but was based on the use of scrounged cheap-o cameras costing a few dollars at most. The Lomo fad has taken that once-great movement from the sublime to the ridiculous by marketing its low-IQ  plastic cameras for upwards of hundreds of dollars. A business model that is hard to justify when  one can buy a nice used TLR for $100-$300  or a Nikon for 50 bucks. Sooner or later the public had to realize that Lomography made no sense.

 More indicative of mainstream film photography's health are news items such as Ilfords' opening of its USA lab services in August 2013 or Kodak's emergence from bankruptcy, etc. or watching the growing list of Hollywood motion picture projects shot on film.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Nov 4, 2013)

And there's currently an upswing in wedding photos going back to shooting weddings in film. Really, check around.


----------



## limr (Nov 4, 2013)

I knew there were still developing labs, but I didn't know there were darkroom rentals as well. Closest one to me is Manhattan but it's still still not as convenient as trying to pull some strings at the college where I work. I can still develop film in my bathroom and have a red light to develop paper pinhole negatives, but I would need to go somewhere else if I wanted to do any printing. Of course, first I'd have to learn what the hell I was doing  In the meantime, I'll practice with some contact sheets.

I'm curious - why would there be an upswing in film for weddings?


----------



## gsgary (Nov 5, 2013)

cgw said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



Not in the UK

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## gsgary (Nov 5, 2013)

limr said:


> I knew there were still developing labs, but I didn't know there were darkroom rentals as well. Closest one to me is Manhattan but it's still still not as convenient as trying to pull some strings at the college where I work. I can still develop film in my bathroom and have a red light to develop paper pinhole negatives, but I would need to go somewhere else if I wanted to do any printing. Of course, first I'd have to learn what the hell I was doing  In the meantime, I'll practice with some contact sheets.
> 
> I'm curious - why would there be an upswing in film for weddings?



Because of the look, i have been asked by 3 couples in the last month because i shoot film and thsts what they want 

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Nov 5, 2013)

limr said:


> I'm curious - why would there be an upswing in film for weddings?




Because digital photography has reached a saturation point. All you need is a decent camera and a set of photoshop actions, and you too can be a wedding photographer!

Theres a certain look that comes with the craftsmanship of a film photographer.


----------



## timor (Nov 5, 2013)

PhotoWrangler said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > I'm curious - why would there be an upswing in film for weddings?
> ...


I like your answer. Let's ad to it, that any "set of actions" on the computer could eventually be automated in "one touch" action. No matter, how complicated. That's what computers are for, to simulate.


----------



## cgw (Nov 5, 2013)

gsgary said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



Tell me, do you see more smart phones or old Spotmatics snapping pictures?


----------



## amolitor (Nov 5, 2013)

I don't know why you keep insisting that one market's size has anything to do with the viability of the other, cgw.

The global market, in terms of gross revenues, for jet fighters is so much larger than the global market for cellular phones that, obviously, the market for cellular phones is not viable. All those cell phone makers should just give up now and do... well I don't know what. Should they start building jet fighters? What IS your point, anyways?


----------



## gsgary (Nov 5, 2013)

cgw said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > cgw said:
> ...



I dont know anyone who uses there smart phone as a camera
My club has 53 members and 10 still shoot film

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## compur (Nov 5, 2013)

cgw said:


> Tell me, do you see more smart phones or old Spotmatics snapping pictures?



What is your point? Do you think that anyone here is saying that there are more phones than Spotmatics?

Film is mostly shot with cameras that are now considered vintage.  Shooting film is not a mainstream activity and no one is claiming that it is. 

Are you of the opinion that only activities that the majority engage in are valid? 

Those on this forum simply enjoy shooting film. Why must you post your curmudgeon-like put-downs whenever anyone posts something upbeat about the state of film photography?

Some people just like film.  *Get over it!*


----------



## runnah (Nov 5, 2013)

This issue arises when people have a personal preference which they claim to be the "best" just because they like it.


----------



## limr (Nov 5, 2013)

The funny thing about this? I've got my Spotmatic with me today, loaded and ready to go 

(And yes, it was ready to go before I read these new messages.)


----------



## timor (Nov 5, 2013)

compur said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me, do you see more smart phones or old Spotmatics snapping pictures?
> ...


From other posts and discussions I think cgw is using film beside digital so it is not, that he doesn't like it or oppose it. He is just less enthusiastic about it, more pragmatic etc.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 5, 2013)

cgw said:
			
		

> Tell me, do you see more smart phones or old Spotmatics snapping pictures?



I see plenty of smart phones snapping pictures. But the Spotmatic user pays money for each roll of film loaded into the camera, and pays money for film developing, perhaps prints, maybe enlargements, perhaps occasional poster prints as well. Since the film shooter's end goal is very often a PRINTED image, the film shooter is often in the market for frames and albums. The film shooter also buys consumable products like negative file pages, and if doing home developing, also regularly buys darkroom chemicals, and perhaps either enlarging paper, or if doing scanning, buys inkjet paper and inks. As one can see, there's a large associated revenue stream for the suppliers of those who shoot film. Kind of different when we examine the issue, rather than try to reduce the whole issue to a glib throwaway sound bite about Spotmatics versus smartphones.

In a sense, the Spotmatic crowd is made up largely of people who are willing to *invest in* their photography; the smartphone set mostly just wants *free pictures*, which coincidentally just happen to be one of the features that comes with their phones. Of course, BMW and Mercedez-Benz each control less than 1.5% of the overall market for new cars, and are definitely niche players--and yet, both are doing well. They each make good profits out of a tiny,tiny slice of the overall pie. See how that works?


----------



## gsgary (Nov 5, 2013)

Since digital came along years of social history will be lost because probably only about 20% ever get prints, every film shooter i know prints or gets prints done, most films i shoot there will be at least 2 prints and not cheap prints

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Derrel (Nov 5, 2013)

gsgary said:


> *Since digital came along years of social history will be lost because probably only about 20% ever get prints*, every film shooter i know prints or gets prints done, most films i shoot there will be at least 2 prints and not cheap prints
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2



Gary brings up a very troubling issue, and I think he's got a real concern. Ken Rockwell mentions the same thing. He URGES, he IMPLORES people to MAKE PRINTS of their most important photos. He's right too. Digital images are very ethereal data sets.

I've heard some historians are concerned that digital photography is altering documentary photography, because so,so,so many people just delete images that do not fit into a preconceived notion of "good", and the reality that we used to find in film rolls between 'the keepers' was preserved regularly. In prints done by machine, the good, bad,and the so-so were *all printed out*, and negatives on rollfilm were always kept, the good frames right next to the bad, and so a more-balanced, more-truthful reality was recorded and kept. But now, if a picture is not so good, it is often just deleted.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 5, 2013)

Digital photographs are, paradoxically, both far more permanent and far more ephemeral than the prints of yore.

They're stored, nominally forever on the redundant disk arrays of google and facebook. You'll always be able to get to them, for some value of "always". But _you won't._ Because most photo sharing is done chronologically, most recent first, pictures from last week are _pragmatically considered, gone._

The digital revolution has made the problem of curation, even on a personal level, essentially intractable. It is quite literally changing mankind's relationship with photographs, and turning Sontag completely on her head.


----------



## timor (Nov 5, 2013)

amolitor said:


> They're stored, nominally forever on the redundant disk arrays of google and facebook.


  Remember the end sequence of "Riders of the Ark " ?


----------



## o hey tyler (Nov 5, 2013)

gsgary said:


> They are behind the times



Or it's the other way around.


----------



## cgw (Nov 5, 2013)

Derrel said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The problem remains the number of shooters, i.e., *demand* for film materials and all those things it involves. That's what's missing in this "discussion" that can't be explained away or dismissed. Models/stylists/photographers/designers carry their "look books" on iPads. If you think the "whole issue" amounts to more or something other than *demand* for film materials, you're a good deal less numerate/observant than I thought.

BTW, Mercedes and BMW aren't comparable to Kodak.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 5, 2013)

Derrel said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > *Since digital came along years of social history will be lost because probably only about 20% ever get prints*, every film shooter i know prints or gets prints done, most films i shoot there will be at least 2 prints and not cheap prints
> ...



My friend shoots lots of what he calls record shots for the future of building,roads,shops anything he thinks might be changed or demolished (always on film) even though he has an M9 and nearly every Leica made

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## amolitor (Nov 5, 2013)

It's not at all clear that cgw even has a point, only a desire to argue.

Is the film market very small? Yes, yes it is. cgw and everyone else agree on this point.
Is the film market currently trending up up down? That depends on the timescale and geographical region you're measuring it. cgw and everyone else agree on this point.
Will there be a market for film in 10 years, sufficiently large to support manufacture of film? Unknown. cgw and everyone else agree on this point.

I'm not sure what points of disagreement there actually are, but cgw sure seems to want to pick a fight.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 5, 2013)

amolitor said:


> It's not at all clear that cgw even has a point, only a desire to argue. >SNIP>> but cgw sure seems to want to pick a fight.



Yes, pretty much spot-on. I keep wondering if he's a payed on-line voice for one of the "new" up and coming companies, or works for some type of Canada-based digital imaging provider that is NOT Nikon, and NOT Canon...I've encountered him in a number of posts here where he keeps pushing a vision of photography that seems very focused on mirrorless cameras as the answer to all our woes.

The past few months I've been scanning old family slides, shot by my grandfather in the late 1940's, and throughout the decade of the 1950's. It's pretty surprising how well the old slides have kept their color for 50+ years--without once being "backed up" onto new media as the old medium became obsolete or archaic...Meanwhile, some of my earliest scans of prints I stored on Zip Drive cartridges, before CD burners dropped down below the $600 price point and each CD was like $3 per disc...


----------



## terri (Nov 5, 2013)

He does seem to show up in these kinds of threads and is generally playing the role of self-appointed devil's advocate, or at least it appears that's what he is trying to do. Unfortunately as others in the discussion (and we didn't need quotes around the word, cgw, that alone is dismissive and inflammatory in nature) try to respond, he returns with more adversarial comments. 

If y'all get tired of it, just report a post and we can take it from there. I've enjoyed this thread so far. Carry on! :salute:


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Nov 5, 2013)

limr said:


> The funny thing about this? I've got my Spotmatic with me today, loaded and ready to go
> 
> (And yes, it was ready to go before I read these new messages.)




Isnt a 35mm with a nifty fifty a requirement in any film shooters daily bag?


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Nov 5, 2013)

Derrel said:


> I see plenty of smart phones snapping pictures. But the Spotmatic user pays money for each roll of film loaded into the camera, and pays money for film developing, perhaps prints, maybe enlargements, perhaps occasional poster prints as well. Since the film shooter's end goal is very often a PRINTED image, the film shooter is often in the market for frames and albums. The film shooter also buys consumable products like negative file pages, and if doing home developing, also regularly buys darkroom chemicals, and perhaps either enlarging paper, or if doing scanning, buys inkjet paper and inks. As one can see, there's a large associated revenue stream for the suppliers of those who shoot film. Kind of different when we examine the issue, rather than try to reduce the whole issue to a glib throwaway sound bite about Spotmatics versus smartphones.
> 
> In a sense, the Spotmatic crowd is made up largely of people who are willing to *invest in* their photography; the smartphone set mostly just wants *free pictures*, which coincidentally just happen to be one of the features that comes with their phones. Of course, BMW and Mercedez-Benz each control less than 1.5% of the overall market for new cars, and are definitely niche players--and yet, both are doing well. They each make good profits out of a tiny,tiny slice of the overall pie. See how that works?




Sometimes I can't stand you. But sometimes I think I love you. Well said sir.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 5, 2013)

PhotoWrangler said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > I see plenty of smart phones snapping pictures. But the Spotmatic user pays money for each roll of film loaded into the camera, and pays money for film developing, perhaps prints, maybe enlargements, perhaps occasional poster prints as well. Since the film shooter's end goal is very often a PRINTED image, the film shooter is often in the market for frames and albums. The film shooter also buys consumable products like negative file pages, and if doing home developing, also regularly buys darkroom chemicals, and perhaps either enlarging paper, or if doing scanning, buys inkjet paper and inks. As one can see, there's a large associated revenue stream for the suppliers of those who shoot film. Kind of different when we examine the issue, rather than try to reduce the whole issue to a glib throwaway sound bite about Spotmatics versus smartphones.
> ...



Ummm, thank you...I guess??? lol.  Yeah, I knowwhatcha' mean PW. As to the "nifty fifty" on the Spotmatic, I think the 55mm f/1.8 might actually have been more common than their 50/1.4. I own one I bought last year for $19 at Goodwill...it's a challenging lens to focus without a split image rangefinder screen...the focusing is very long throw and slow.


----------



## compur (Nov 5, 2013)

cgw said:


> The problem remains the number of shooters, i.e., *demand* for film materials and all those things it involves. That's what's missing in this "discussion" that can't be explained away or dismissed. Models/stylists/photographers/designers carry their "look books" on iPads. If you think the "whole issue" amounts to more or something other than *demand* for film materials, you're a good deal less numerate/observant than I thought.



OK, so what is the number of shooters?  What are the stats on the demand or lack thereof?  Be specific, please, and cite your references. I'm sure we'd all like to know.

But, something tells me you don't have a clue what the answers to those questions are -- correct?


----------



## gsgary (Nov 5, 2013)

cgw said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > cgw said:
> ...



David Bailey still does shoots on film


----------



## gsgary (Nov 5, 2013)

compur said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> > The problem remains the number of shooters, i.e., *demand* for film materials and all those things it involves. That's what's missing in this "discussion" that can't be explained away or dismissed. Models/stylists/photographers/designers carry their "look books" on iPads. If you think the "whole issue" amounts to more or something other than *demand* for film materials, you're a good deal less numerate/observant than I thought.
> ...



Just under 20% at our club


----------



## gsgary (Nov 5, 2013)

PhotoWrangler said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > The funny thing about this? I've got my Spotmatic with me today, loaded and ready to go
> ...





i have a 50F1.5 on my M4-2 and 28F2 on my M4-p thats all i need


----------



## webestang64 (Nov 5, 2013)

limr said:


> I wish they'd open something like that in the States, but I'm not sure we're seeing the same kind of uptick in film use over here.


A friend and I are going to have rental darkroom here in St. Louis as soon as funds allow. Building is paid for and we have all the equipment. Just working on funds to remodel the building. We have a photo tour business that's helping.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Nov 6, 2013)

From the freestylephoto.biz newsletter that I just received a few minutes ago...



> Our commitment to traditional photography remains as strong as ever. It seems that many educators are dedicated, as well. With the fall school semester off and running, we are happy to report that film and darkroom paper sales have shown a substantial increase for the first time in four years. This is a great sign as it appears that educational budgets and photo programs have expanded, student enrollment is up and an interest in traditional photography is growing.


----------



## cgw (Nov 6, 2013)

gsgary said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



He was once married to Deneuve, too. That ended in '72. He's barely active now.

BTW, off to Toronto Image Works(the last full-service film pro lab in N. America's fourth largest city) this a.m. to get some E-6 120 done. No one else left standing. Happily, they do great work.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 6, 2013)

Even Kenny Rogers shots film 

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## cgw (Nov 8, 2013)

gsgary said:


> compur said:
> 
> 
> > cgw said:
> ...



Funny but my old club dropped slides from competions--digital files and prints only. That was in 2004. That's when I left.


----------

