OT: Film cameras and photography comeback?

[slowpoke]

Originally Posted by benb

I especially don't get it with an XA4. Really chunky and has a 28mm f/3.5 lens and probably limited metering and control and then you have to pay $20 every 24-36 frames?

The XA4 is actually one of my favorite cameras for its simplicity. No autofocus lag. And cover the DX reader and push the film to 1600. I use it for taking photos of friends and family.

Digital is the rational choice without a doubt, but we shoot film because of the romanticism. Photography is often bout the abstraction of daily life, no? Film will do it easier than post-processing some Sony files. And adding grain to digital files seems a bit backwards.

[raygunner]

Good thread! I actually wanted to pursue a hobby of film photography. I have this room in my basement I was thinking would be perfect for a darkroom but I have no experience doing so.

There's no limit to my various interests in hobbies but I'm short on free time. And pretty short money too but I really want a Contax G2.

[slowpoke]

But I would say the current film fad may be at its peak as millennials age out. It seems like Gen Z is all about 2000s digital cameras (what they grew up with).

https://petapixel.com/2022/10/26/gen...e-early-2000s/

[Alistair]

Originally Posted by slowpoke

But I would say the current film fad may be at its peak as millennials age out. It seems like Gen Z is all about 2000s digital cameras (what they grew up with).

https://petapixel.com/2022/10/26/gen...e-early-2000s/

Early digital P&S seems like the worst of all options.

[Alistair]

Originally Posted by raygunner

And pretty short money too but I really want a Contax G2.

Those Contax looks really sweet, but wow, the prices.

[slowpoke]

Originally Posted by Alistair

Early digital P&S seems like the worst of all options.

You need to think of it as price/accessibility for young people and what means to them. "No one" wants early digital P&Ss, so they're cheap, and they have a look Gen Z grew up with.

Kind of like bands releasing their music on cassette tapes in 2024.

[raygunner]

Originally Posted by tbike4

How about a 20 x 24 view camera to shoot some polaroids. I sold my 8 x 10 cameras, lenses, polaroid equipment years ago. Managing a hundred sheets of 8 x 10 film from several photo shoots in the dark was challenging. Loading the film holders was easy IMO.

https://the.supersense.com/collections/20x24

This is the best! I love my Fuji Instax wide but for a family photo I'd gladly pay the insane price!

[gavingould]

Film cameras seem to enjoy cycles of interest like vinyl records.

i do occasionally run a roll through my Bronica 6x6… it’s been a couple years now since I have. everything else is done on digital.
I haven’t looked into what this new camera is going to offer but I’d imagine there are many existing semi-vintage cameras out there collecting dust that likely do the same things.

film is expensive. processing is expensive, and there probably aren’t a lot of 1-hr places anymore. so it’s more of a DIYer’s game at this stage or a patient, well-funded persons hobby.

[Alistair]

Originally Posted by gavingould

... there probably aren’t a lot of 1-hr places anymore...

Approaching zero. But even when they did exist, you had to be careful about which one you used - many wouldn't return the negatives, just the prints, stuff like that.

But there are still several mail-in labs that do good work. Usually process and scan within a few days of receiving the film, you get the scans quickly, and the negatives come in the mail a few days later.

[.RJ]

Originally Posted by raygunner

Good thread! I actually wanted to pursue a hobby of film photography. I have this room in my basement I was thinking would be perfect for a darkroom but I have no experience doing so.

There's no limit to my various interests in hobbies but I'm short on free time. And pretty short money too but I really want a Contax G2.

I cant imagine its really worth it, unless you really need either the speed, or enjoy being in a darkroom.

There's probably either a lab or film photography collective, or other hobbyists nearby that would let you develop a few rolls to see if you like it before you invest.

[cash05458]

Originally Posted by BumbleBeeDave

After spending a career in photojournalism and shooting film, I never, EVER want to go back to it for so many reasons. The chemicals are the main ones. Smelly, unsafe, turned my fingers brown and stained so many clothes. You never forget the frames you lost when you messed up rolling the film onto the developing reel in the dark, or when the loading tube didn't engage properly with the drive shaft in the Wing-Lynch processor and you lost half your 8-roll take from an important football game . . . and the perfect shot you thought you had was always right at the waterline where you could see half of the frame you lost, confirming it would have been a front pager or an award winner if only . . .

If you're a veteran of the film era and want to go back to it, then good luck. If you're younger and have never used film, printing paper, and chemicals, then take my word for it that the old guys telling you about the romance of the "Good Old Days" of film are leaving out an awful lot of frustrating, annoying, and just outright dangerous chemical stuff that you will not enjoy finding out about.

BBD

This right here...I worked professionally for years...ran a darkroom as well printing for others...spent years and years perfecting the Adams zoner method on the perfect black and white...both via camera and then printing...and it took me a long time to give up real film...but I finally realized that these little computer filters really can do it all via light and to just let it go and ease up...that it's ok to let the machine do the work...as for real camera stuff and printing...I just can't imagine what boatloads of D76 might cost now and good paper and all that perfect printing jazz would run...let alone the chemical baths we used to take literally in the darkroom...and actually, if anyone takes it serious and knows what this is about you do most nearly all of your work via a good print in the darkroom...you don't take it for processing...that is a copout...

On the lighter side, have thought about getting one of the Polaroid land cameras for the instant stuff as those take me back to when I started as a young kid and altho pricey for film, kinda fun...

[charliedid]

Originally Posted by Alistair

Early digital P&S seems like the worst of all options.

Except when the worst is what you after. Think digital Holga.

[benb]

Originally Posted by cash05458

This right here...I worked professionally for years...ran a darkroom as well printing for others...spent years and years perfecting the Adams zoner method on the perfect black and white...both via camera and then printing...and it took me a long time to give up real film...but I finally realized that these little computer filters really can do it all via light and to just let it go and ease up...that it's ok to let the machine do the work...as for real camera stuff and printing...I just can't imagine what boatloads of D76 might cost now and good paper and all that perfect printing jazz would run...let alone the chemical baths we used to take literally in the darkroom...and actually, if anyone takes it serious and knows what this is about you do most nearly all of your work via a good print in the darkroom...you don't take it for processing...that is a copout...

On the lighter side, have thought about getting one of the Polaroid land cameras for the instant stuff as those take me back to when I started as a young kid and altho pricey for film, kinda fun...

This makes sense. If you're only doing a little bit for fun film is fine.

Doing a roll a week is nothing though even for a serious amateur or someone trying to make a little money. I was easily at that back in the early 2000s.

That was a big mess, and scanning them takes too long, and a roll a week was like $1000/yr if you're not doing them in the darkroom yourself. And doing them in the darkroom would of course take a lot of time. At that time that was a stupid amount of money. A $3000 digital camera at the time seemed like a ton of money, but the digital cameras I've had at that price range ended up way cheaper in the end.

And if you went to some sporting event like a bike race and shoot 500 pictures and want to take chances on motion blur and such? That will make you stop using film really fast.

I had forgot about Holga.. that is one of the last film cameras I had/have.. I had one of the build your own kits. It was fun to build, pictures were horrible, but the process of using it was kind of fun.

[cash05458]

Originally Posted by benb

This makes sense. If you're only doing a little bit for fun film is fine.

Doing a roll a week is nothing though even for a serious amateur or someone trying to make a little money. I was easily at that back in the early 2000s.

That was a big mess, and scanning them takes too long, and a roll a week was like $1000/yr if you're not doing them in the darkroom yourself. And doing them in the darkroom would of course take a lot of time. At that time that was a stupid amount of money. A $3000 digital camera at the time seemed like a ton of money, but the digital cameras I've had at that price range ended up way cheaper in the end.

And if you went to some sporting event like a bike race and shoot 500 pictures and want to take chances on motion blur and such? That will make you stop using film really fast.

I had forgot about Holga.. that is one of the last film cameras I had/have.. I had one of the build your own kits. It was fun to build, pictures were horrible, but the process of using it was kind of fun.

Spot on...a roll a week is pretty much zero for a real photographer...and incredibly pricey! I know there are others out here who worked and going thru bulk loading of Tri_X was a weekly thing...can't imagine what a big roll of Tri_X would cost now if even made and then the chems...developer, fixer bath...all this...the point used to be to shoot often and A LOT on jobs...or for self...wander thru your negative sheets you printed and find shots to print...then get it perfect...might take 4 or 5 tries and some burning in or cloudying out...it was an art...that seems crazy now...my damn Iphone shoots better shots than most old cameras and I can shoot as many as I want then go thru and find the one that hits, edit, apply a filter...do a lil work via light and contrast etc...and bingo...I did it for so long and tried to hang on til I guess about 2001 via darkroom stuff and film that I had prolly began in about 80 or so that I realized it was getting to the point of trying to square a wheel...but hey, bless the young if they want to go back and restart that learning process...why not really...kinda like folks buying old plastic record lps and nice stereo stuff as they never had that...pointless and uber pricey but I can think of worst things kids could do with their money...

[Louis]

I have an AE-1 that's been sitting for at least 15 years. I wonder if the shutter still works?

A few years ago I gave away the FM2 I had given my father ages ago. For some reason he never really bonded with it so it got little use. He preferred his old rangefinder, but it finally died.