Why is film coming back

[ujjwaldey8165]

To add- only to the point Bigyin is making, and not the utterly pointless discussion on film vs digital - snapshots can also be good and bad, and require reasonable photographic skills.

For example, most of what I shoot are snapshots. Thats the purpose, and thats the end. Does not mean it does not include photographs of places, streets, buildings, or landscapes, but the primary purpose of the photographs I take are for my memories sake. Nothing more and nothing less.

When I am gone, they will go to the bin, having no other purpose to serve.

I do not see why that is any less valid a reason to persue and improve upon my photography - compared to, say, taking pictures of dawn breaking on a distant sea shore, or a man selling 'Big Issue' on a streetcorner in London.

 

[david1701]

To add- only to the point Bigyin is making, and not the utterly pointless discussion on film vs digital - snapshots can also be good and bad, and require reasonable photographic skills.

For example, most of what I shoot are snapshots. Thats the purpose, and thats the end. Does not mean it does not include photographs of places, streets, buildings, or landscapes, but the primary purpose of the photographs I take are for my memories sake. Nothing more and nothing less.

When I am gone, they will go to the bin, having no other purpose to serve.

I do not see why that is any less valid a reason to persue and improve upon my photography - compared to, say, taking pictures of dawn breaking on a distant sea shore, or a man selling 'Big Issue' on a streetcorner in London.

I think he defines snapshot as point and click in auto mode so you have the memory without thinking about the process

 

[G2EWS]

Chris - the problem with this statement is confusing the media with the intent of the photograph. It's quite right that you become a better photographer when you start to learn the art of photography.

However, the thousands of photo's you have just found, were snapshots. Nothing more, nothing less, and none the worse for that. The fact is that the general populace don't want, need or even try to take what we'd call good photographs. They want a shot of Aunt Alice and Uncle Robert sat on the bench in Peasholme Park, Scarborough - they want a shot that triggers a memory of a day, a time, or a feeling. That makes them powerful stuff to the people involved, or people who know the people on the photo. Sadly (and I know this from my own experience of having to go through 4 shoeboxes of the same last year) a few generations down the line, they can mean little or nothing.

Fast forward a few generations and there will be people doing the same thing with boxes of images shot on point and shoot cameras. Whilst I was in the supermarket yesterday, a Young family were collecting their holiday snaps - 4 envelopes of 'em - they'd literally just taken the memory card out of the camera and said "print all of these, please" This pleased me immensely, as I like the idea of photographs as being something tangible and on paper, not a disk that you view on your television (and won't be able to view in a few years time when the format's have progressed and the dye's in the CD-R have degraded.

Just because there was a box of shots on film that didn't fill your artistic expectations doesn't mean film is bad, it just means that the person who shot the photographs on film didn't care if they were artistically valid. And the same could well be said of 90% of the people who take snaps. It doesn't mean that they're bad - it just means that we, as photographers, expect more of ourselves - that shouldn't mean that we expect more of everyone, not everyone will like our shots either... I remember back when I was working in an office, I'd go away for a fortnights hill-walking, come back with half a dozen rolls of film shot, take 'em in for processing and when back in the office, the only comments i'd get would be "they're nice, but there's nobody in them... were you on your own all the time?"

Hi TheBigYin,

If it came over as me pulling down film it was not meant to. On the contrary the point is exactly as you make it, the media is totally irrelevant. The key point is if we are able to take a good photo or just a snapshot, whichever we choose on whatever media we choose.

For us on this forum I guess we want to become photographers and the important lesson is to take your time when using a digital camera, just like you have to when using a film camera. For different reasons but for the same results - a better photograph.

For what it is worth my Aunt saw Herself as a photographer not a snapper!

Best regards

Chris

 

[STOWITBELOW]

I used a film camera back ~80s, later bought a digital compact, late ~90s it re-awakened my interest, bought a bridge camera, subsequenlty a DSLR (recent). I feel a lot more comfortable with this than the bridge, which was a bridge too far! It was just too technical & trying to remember how to use it spoilt many a photo oportunity. The DSLR very like a 'normal' camera, and is great. However I have some film cameras to sell for a relative (Ebay) & hanker for the film experience, & so quite fancy some of them myself. I don't know if film's returning, but it has a different appeal, it seems slower & offers more promise.

 

[Daryl]

Was brought up on film. Used nothing but film since I started this game in 86.
Then in 2000 went digital. Would never ever go back to film. Except on 10x8 neg.
Pointless and time wasting. Even in the sports agency we shot film in 94, then it went to scan. so we photoshop the images for the papers... so to go straight to didge was fab.

So glad for digital..........

When we shot in the studio we would have to do polaroid first... pain in the butt. thank the gods for Digital.

 

[Kev M]

Pointless in a professional sense I can agree to a degree, more so if it's sports related or anything requiring a fast turnaround. Scanning is soul destroying, wet printing is life affirming.

 

[Daryl]

Funny ol game this Photography lark.... Im all for and full on for digital over film.
But on the lab side? A wet lab wins everytime. The hassle over whitesbgs when you use a dry/dyesub lab. The whites have to be pure white.... unforgiving. Unlike the wet lab.

Plus you can not beat the feel of a real photograph.

 

[Starastin]

that's the same with the cars . If I want to beat the track record I'll probably use the most advanced technology there is today. If I'll want to have more control over it, and have more fun, but in risk of killing myself (read - ruined film etc) , I will use manual gearbox, no anti slip etc. just a good LSD, engine, brakes and so on. just feels better.