Why Gen Z is falling in love with film photography – and rejecting the algorithm along with it

[LimyG]

Every generation does that.

True. SEGA should take note and re-release the SEGA Saturn, then 2 years later the DREAMCAST.
Such consoles would be totally cool. Gen Z would have never seen anything like it. (PS1 too)

 

[LimyG]

Gen Z is the generation that "discovers" everything that's been discovered 20-40 years ago.

As a Gen X myself I thing a 21" 4:3 black & white CRT TV would be amazing.
8k 108" OLED - How boring is that!!

 

[dangh]

And then they scan them in or photograph them again with their phones to upload them to instagram, where they become a compressed jpeg. Otherwise, how would there be analytics indicating to write this article?

If you pay for service or item with a card, you are leaving a lot of information in the shops, including your age, so it is trivial for sellers to create such statistics.

 

[RudyBob]

Folks used to actually take time to compose pics back then. (Most of them were still awful though.)

MTakes talent to compose the "perfect," picture regardless, digital or ye olde film.

Edit: Remember company, Kodak?
EDit of edit: @ShadowDeath, post #18 does.

Yes

 

[Underdog]

I don't think it has anything to do with an appreciation of film. More of an urge to be seen to be 'different' and 'edgy' on social media. It's not like they are just taking pictures, developing them and shoving them in a photo album. They are shoving them down everyone's throat on social media.

Because the poor dears don't know there is a world outside of social media.

 

[Underdog]

Not so modern.
A let the lab do developing of color films and do film scanning somewhere around year 2000 in my backwater town of 15.000 citizens.

PS: I used to develop B&W films on my own.

I discovered that B&W expressed my artistic shots much more effectively than colour. Less distraction I think, for the viewer.

 

[mjuice7]

Not even this is true any longer. Modern photo labs digitally scan the developed negatives, then print them from the digital files. So there's no way to guarantee that even a film print wasn't altered or edited along the way.

you know all about image manipulation. we've all seen the AI images you upload trying to convince us normal people that USA & Israel good, rest of the world bad. where's that image of the antifa mask you claim exists?

 

[captaincranky]

Gen Z feels obligated to be as trendy ads possible. I have an associates degree in photography that I obtained just before digital appeared. (This was about the time Nikon offered its 1st DSLR, a pro body for about $10,000. IIRC, it was either 1 or 2 MP.)

In any case, I've done all the "wet work" involved with film photography. I even made blackouts for the kitchen windows, and developed and printed in B & W. What these people apparently don't understand is how critical temperature is in color processing. In fact, every pro's favorite slide film, "Kodachrome" (Remember Paul Simon's song?), can't even be processed outside of the lab.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these the same people who are always doggedly arguing about how much better their cell phone is than my DSLR's?

Without special "push processing", film tops out at ISO 400. Any DSLR newer than about 2014 will pull down quite decent images at ISO 3200, which is a full 3 stops faster.

If anyone remembers, Google was giving away filter sets awhile back, which again IIRC, contained a few film simulations.

So, for a generation constantly complaining about having to work three jobs just to pay the rent and eat, where are they finding the time to screw around with film photography?

I could go for pages. But the simple fact of the matter is, from what I've gathered from YouTube, these people think that because they're using film, it somehow automatically confers the title of "artiste", upon them. Dream on kiddies..

 

[captaincranky]

I discovered that B&W expressed my artistic shots much more effectively than colour. Less distraction I think, for the viewer.

What really amused me was B & W infrared film. Regular B & W, not so much. I'm thinking about sending out a DSLR for IR conversion. What's holding me back is not being able to make up my mind about what wavelength filter to specify.

850 nm would give the B & W effect without too much post processing. but only B & W, no color. I keep thinking I should send out two bodies, one color IR, one B& W. I wonder if I could get a discount on two bodies.

On a side note, a couple of the most popular, "erotic art houses", ("MetArt" in particular,) have taken to including a dozen or so B & W shots with some of their offerings. It seems kind of thoughtless though, mostly the same shots from the color set, just flipped to monochrome. But then they haven't managed to figure out that porn is front, flat lit, but art is either side or back lit. Their B & W crap is just mostly flat, muddy., and all mid tone.

 

[captaincranky]

The point isn't quality of the resulting image. The point is ungluing the phone from your hand. A point-and-shoot will take just as good (probably better) pic than most smart phones, do so without involving any kind of app pestering you to share it (even passively, by offering it as a place to share it when all you wanted to do was save it to your hard drive), and fit into a pocket or small bag.

That depends on what you\re calling a "point and shoot". It''s am expansive category. Nikon had their "Coolpix" line. Thehigh end of which had 10:1 zooms, something like 10 or 12 MP., and cost a thousand bucks. I saw something like a 20" x 14" print from one, and it was at least as good as the 11 x 14s we were getting from film. As for the low end of the realm being "as good as a smart phone, I doubt it. (Keep in mind I'm usually arguing the exact opposite, with phoners telling me their phone is better than my DSLRs)

I think I may still have a fixed focal length film P & S laying around the house somewhere. The only use I ever found for it was as a prop in a CD cover shoot.

Here's Nikon's (tentatively) "current" high end P & S: ($1050.00)

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1877284-REG/nikon_26541_coolpix_p1100_digital_camera.html/?ap=y&ap=y&smp=y&smp=y&store=420&lsft=BI%3A514&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=21061288000&gclid=CjwKCAjw9szSBhBNEiwAC57Sq2jX11RCjlZJsHrU3c4wOfhXnoAf6uZS7XBcbapli3bQgysqAYpV9xoC_WQQAvD_BwE

 

[captaincranky]

Edit: Remember company, Kodak?

The only time Kodak has a reasonably public presence nowadays, is once a year (?) when they put their alkaline batteries on sale at local supermarkets.

Not only that, but the batteries suck. They leak like crazy, as bad as zinc / carbon.. I ruined a couple of remotes with them chasing "the bargain".

EDIT: I missed this on the original quote, "36 shots is all you get". Here's some esoteric trivia: Nikon offered a 250 shot back for their pro film bodies. Which was likely much appreciated by sports and wildlife shooters. Of course you had no chance that the local drug store would process that for ya. The camera was about a foot wide when it was attached,

Th internet raped and ravished the Nikon D7500 for not having a 2nd card slot. Since when did you get to shoot a backup roll with film? Speaking of which, it has 8 FPS capability and a 50 shot depth buffer in RAW..! Think about that. You just push the button, an 4 1/2 seconds later, your 36 shot roll is all gone. It's by a long way, not the fastest burst shooter around either. The new mirrorless bodies would get rid of a 36 shot roll in a little over 2 seconds.

 

[captaincranky]

I love my d-slr that I still use today (Nikon D-7200), but I miss the "warmth" of the analog shots.

Then just shoot in RAW, and drop the color temperature when you import your photos.

Film was balanced for a 5500 degree kelvin "daylight". Nikons are notoriously slightly blue. up around 6000K.

I had a lengthy "discussion" with a gentleman here about exactly was "daylight balance"/ He kept pitching 6300K as being the calibration point in modern gear for daylight. For as long as I've been playing with cameras, noon, June, daylight, was around 55 or 5600K. And, 6300K is pretty damned blue.

 

[captaincranky]

As it is by far not all of GenZ getting into film, in fact it is more a tiny minority. The 42 million mentioned in the article may sound like a lot, but there is about 2 billion Gen Z's so there is that.

The ones who were serious about photography are abandoning Nikon and Canon, and embracing mostly Sony mirrorless. Just ask them, they'll straighten you out. You simply can;t take a good photo with a DSLR relic.

 

[p51d007]

Then just shoot in RAW, and drop the color temperature when you import your photos.

Film was balanced for a 5500 degree kelvin "daylight". Nikons are notoriously slightly blue. up around 6000K.

I had a lengthy "discussion" with a gentleman here about exactly was "daylight balance"/ He kept pitching 6300K as being the calibration point in modern gear for daylight. For as long as I've been playing with cameras, noon, June, daylight, was around 55 or 5600K. And, 6300K is pretty damned blue.

Raw is ALL I shoot. I've post processed all my photos in Photoshop for YEARS. I shoot raw+jpeg in case someone needs a photo "in a hurry" and then I'll post process later. Removing background garbage is a lot easier today, with the gen AI removal tool in photoshop. Not as much back editing to do after you remove it like you did with delete/fill.

 

[captaincranky]

Raw is ALL I shoot. I've post processed all my photos in Photoshop for YEARS. I shoot raw+jpeg in case someone needs a photo "in a hurry" and then I'll post process later. Removing background garbage is a lot easier today, with the gen AI removal tool in photoshop. Not as much back editing to do after you remove it like you did with delete/fill.

OK, that's all well and good. But, what does any of it have to do with my suggestion of dropping the color temperature on RAW import?

You're the one complaining about, "lack of warmth", not me, To WIT, "I love my d-slr that I still use today (Nikon D-7200), but I miss the "warmth" of the analog shots".

And I'm telling you that Nikon's "color science" is biased to toward blue. Specifically, AFAIK, to avoid over saturation in the red channel, to avoid smearing details.(Which BTW, is the same reason Nikon yanked the AA filters from all their DSLRS.)

Speaking for my results on film, I never took a sunset that didn't come back too orange Trust me, I don't miss that even a little.

But, if you're up for a "measuring contest", I have 2 D7200s, a brand new D7500, along with a closet full of other Nikon bodies, going back to a D3000.

So, if you're "missing the warmth", at least give dropping the color temperature on import a try. If it doesn't float your boat, you can always come back and give me the big, "I told you so".

 

[mbrowne5061]

That depends on what you\re calling a "point and shoot". It''s am expansive category. Nikon had their "Coolpix" line. Thehigh end of which had 10:1 zooms, something like 10 or 12 MP., and cost a thousand bucks. I saw something like a 20" x 14" print from one, and it was at least as good as the 11 x 14s we were getting from film. As for the low end of the realm being "as good as a smart phone, I doubt it. (Keep in mind I'm usually arguing the exact opposite, with phoners telling me their phone is better than my DSLRs)

I think I may still have a fixed focal length film P & S laying around the house somewhere. The only use I ever found for it was as a prop in a CD cover shoot.

Here's Nikon's (tentatively) "current" high end P & S: ($1050.00)

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1877284-REG/nikon_26541_coolpix_p1100_digital_camera.html/?ap=y&ap=y&smp=y&smp=y&store=420&lsft=BI%3A514&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=21061288000&gclid=CjwKCAjw9szSBhBNEiwAC57Sq2jX11RCjlZJsHrU3c4wOfhXnoAf6uZS7XBcbapli3bQgysqAYpV9xoC_WQQAvD_BwE

The ones I have seen used teens these days seem to have one consistent quality: the lens fully retracts into the body, and the whole contraption fits easily into a small bag (such as a purse or cross-body). I'm sure there are kids out there with used point-and-shoots they got off ebay for a couple hundred bucks at most, and there are probably ones out there dropping thousands of dollars on some new and/or 'hip' models.

 

[captaincranky]

Yeah, many of the real "Hipsters", and, "content creators"', have taken somewhat of a liking to Sony mirrorless stuff. I met one at the Heintz Wildlife Refuge. (Adjacent to PHL), Well, they, "drained the swamp", and all the birds left, so I have absolutely no idea what he thought he was going to accomplish with that $5000.00 camera and lens. Iceland seems popular for photo excursions these days. In fact there is so much dry land there now, I told the park ranger that they better pump in some water quick, or tRump will want to build another immigrant detention center on it.

In any event, this video will tell you all you ever needed to (not?) know about Gen Z's adventures in film photography. I wasted 20 minutes of my life watching this bimbo screw up with film, there's no reason you shouldn't as well. (If only out of sympatico). Keep in mind she has 1.2 M subscribers, The video got 35K views, and 1.7K likes

I frankly don't understand how you can take, "more intentional pictures" with a film camera that has the same approximate focal length as your phone. But then, I'm about 40 years past "Gen Z" status, so I wouldn't.

Captaincranky AAS photography (Yeah that' a bit too pretentious)

 

[LimyG]

The ones I have seen used teens these days seem to have one consistent quality: the lens fully retracts into the body, and the whole contraption fits easily into a small bag (such as a purse or cross-body). I'm sure there are kids out there with used point-and-shoots they got off ebay for a couple hundred bucks at most, and there are probably ones out there dropping thousands of dollars on some new and/or 'hip' models.

I know anyone here who knows anything about, "film," knows this, but just to say such a small camera, especially with a fully retractable lens probably has zero or maybe 3 x true optical zoom capabilities.

Likely a point a shoot more of less. Perhaps with exposure time setting and a couple more, or maybe not. If no optical zoom, and no settings then it's a point and shoot.

Just in case: I mean a camera which ONLY uses film and no digital capability at all.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, this post is based on the pre-digital camera era.

 

[LimyG]

Thanks for the vid. but I just can't bring myself to watch it after what you said.
I'm also appox 40 years past Gen Z status.

(Reply to The Captain's post #42 above)

 

[mbrowne5061]

In any event, this video will tell you all you ever needed to (not?) know about Gen Z's adventures in film photography. I wasted 20 minutes of my life watching this bimbo screw up with film, there's no reason you shouldn't as well. (If only out of sympatico). Keep in mind she has 1.2 M subscribers, The video got 35K views, and 1.7K likes

I frankly don't understand how you can take, "more intentional pictures" with a film camera that has the same approximate focal length as your phone. But then, I'm about 40 years past "Gen Z" status, so I wouldn't.

Captaincranky AAS photography (Yeah that' a bit too pretentious)

She is mildly rage baiting film photogs to get clicks, and the rest is her own inexperience showing. Most of her content seems to be that way. Lots of videos on lots of topics, without really mastering any of them. Such is the way of most popular youtubers.

As for "more intentional" pics: the theory goes that by physically limiting your exposures (compared to a memory card), you have to take fewer photos, so the ones you do take need to be "right" the first time, so you slow down and pay attention to camera settings. I.e. the shot was "intentional".

I look at it like a retro-coded "nifty 50": most people learn how to shoot with an interchangeable lens system by buying a prime 50mm lens first. Its forces you to pay attention to framing in particular, exposure (in that you only have exposure to worry about), and keeps you from compensating for bad framing by adjusting focal length ("zoom with your feet").

But that is the film renaissance. This "dumb digital" renaissance is more about just not having google/iOS/apps/whatever involved while shooting. Taking a pic without getting a notification. Going to save the pic off the camera without a bunch of apps being offered up as suggestions under the "share" menu, when all you wanted was to save it your preferred storage location off-device. etc.

 

[captaincranky]

Thanks for the vid. but I just can't bring myself to watch it after what you said.
I'm also appox 40 years past Gen Z status.

Well, my comment about the video by, "a waste of time", was a bit misleading. It is verily, 20 minutes you'll never get back. OTOH, it's an object lesson in just how incredibly detached, "these kidz today" are, from the world we grew up in.

They're also detached from the world they live in. I firmly believe that Madison ave, and video gaming are almost solely responsible from that separation from reality. God knows, they can't, (nor can most of our generation), tell a lie from the truth. Which led us to having the biggest piece of sh*t imaginable as POTUS. But I digress.

For example,when she decides to try B & W, she ends up with a roll of Tri-x Pan. (ISO 400). It's a film we only used in low light emergencies. It's got grain the size of golf balls..

In any event, I could go on for pages about showing at college in my mid forties,(Nikon F-100 w/ 80-200mm f2.8 AFD zoom) as opposed to the youngsters with $300.00 bodies and a 50mm f1.8 to "fulfill their dreams". Bah humbug. I wouldn't photograph a wedding if you paid me..(I freely admit my social and financial opinions about them are way left of typical.)

ADDENDUM: If you are in fact interested in art and photography, here's a link to an artist / photographer at Pbase, "Fabienne". (AI tells me she is a female,but who knows if that's true.) he also does amazing and elegant art with AI. It's none of the fake crap making the rounds on the web

(Hopefully,) Enjoy: https://pbase.com/fabi123

Right click and download is disabled. However, screen grabs from a 2k monitor contain more than adequate detail to be worthwhile. I'd post one, but I'm not sure how aggressively they would pursue copyright infringement..

 

[LimyG]

Well, my comment about the video by, "a waste of time", was a bit misleading. It is verily, 20 minutes you'll never get back. OTOH, it's an object lesson in just how incredibly detached, "these kidz today" are, from the world we grew up in.

They're also detached from the world they live in. I firmly believe that Madison ave, and video gaming are almost solely responsible from that separation from reality. God knows, they can't, (nor can most of our generation), tell a lie from the truth. Which led us to having the biggest piece of sh*t imaginable as POTUS. But I digress.

For example,when she decides to try B & W, she ends up with a roll of Tri-x Pan. (ISO 400). It's a film we only used in low light emergencies. It's got grain the size of golf balls..

In any event, I could go on for pages about showing at college in my mid forties,(Nikon F-100 w/ 80-200mm f2.8 AFD zoom) as opposed to the youngsters with $300.00 bodies and a 50mm f1.8 to "fulfill their dreams". Bah humbug. I wouldn't photograph a wedding if you paid me..(I freely admit my social and financial opinions about them are way left of typical.)

ADDENDUM: If you are in fact interested in art and photography, here's a link to an artist / photographer at Pbase, "Fabienne". (AI tells me she is a female,but who knows if that's true.) he also does amazing and elegant art with AI. It's none of the fake crap making the rounds on the web

(Hopefully,) Enjoy: https://pbase.com/fabi123

Right click and download is disabled. However, screen grabs from a 2k monitor contain more than adequate detail to be worthwhile. I'd post one, but I'm not sure how aggressively they would pursue copyright infringement..

Your post really gave me a belly laugh. I love the Cynicism! Very nicely written.

I might check out that video, after all.....just not today.

Oh, and thanks for the "pbase," link. That looks worth checking out. Today possibly.

 

[Loadedaxe]

@captaincranky, I have to give you credit...you may be the only person in this thread who actually remembers when photography involved chemistry, patience, note taking, and the occasional ruined roll instead of tapping “vintage filter #7” and declaring oneself an artiste.

And you're absolutely right about one thing...film is not technically superior to a decent modern DSLR or mirrorless body. Pretending otherwise is nostalgia wearing a beret. Modern cameras destroy film in low light, flexibility, repeatability, storage, cost per exposure, and the ability to fix your own stupidity five seconds after pressing the shutter.

That said, I think a few people here are arguing past the actual attraction.

The point of film isn't necessarily that it produces a “better” photograph. The limitation itself changes how some people shoot. When you have 24 or 36 frames, each one costs money, and you won't know whether you screwed it up until later, suddenly composition, exposure and timing receive a little more attention. That's not magic. It's just a constraint changing behavior.

Which is why “just use a film simulation” misses the point in the same way telling somebody with a restored '69 Camaro that a new Camry is faster, safer and gets better mileage misses the point. Yes. Congratulations. Nobody was confused about the technology.

The sillier claims in this thread are something else entirely.

Film is not automatically “authentic.” The moment it is scanned, edited, printed digitally or uploaded to Instagram, congratulations, you're back in the digital world again.

Owning a film camera does not prove artistic talent.

Using black and white does not automatically make something profound.

And Gen Z did not “discover” film any more than Millennials discovered vinyl, Gen X discovered muscle cars, or our grandparents discovered sex.

Every generation rummages through the previous generation's attic and announces that it found something amazing.

The amusing part is watching people become personally offended that younger people might enjoy an obsolete technology for reasons other than measurable technical superiority.

Sometimes people do things because they're slower.

Sometimes because they're inconvenient.

Sometimes because they're fun.

And sometimes, because spending $18 on a roll of film and another pile of money developing 36 questionable photographs apparently builds character.

Although I remain disappointed that nobody has yet shown up wearing a scarf, carrying a Leica, and explained that the grain represents the existential loneliness of late stage capitalism.

Give it time.

 

[captaincranky]

@Loadedaxe Verily I say unto thee, in the same spirit and ulterior motive, in which the "Big Bad Wolf", said unto "Little Red Riding Hood", "my what lovely basket of apples you have there"; I propose this, "my, what a nasty can of worms you've opened there".

In any case, due to this site's recalcitrance to load pages, and the difficulties of selective response quoting, I'm going to try a different approach, still point by point, by giving us different colors of print. If it's OK, you'll be bright yellow, and I'll be "site white".

"I have to give you credit...you may be the only person in this thread who actually remembers when photography involved chemistry, patience, note taking, and the occasional ruined roll instead of tapping “vintage filter #7” and declaring oneself an artiste."
Well, I have a justification for that. two years wasted in Philly Community College, (Which my sociology instructor derided as, "13th & 14th grade.) working toward a mostly worthless, "AAS" (associate in applied science), degree in photography. In which, all "captures" were done via film. Oddly, "art" isn't mentioned in the certificate.

That said, I think a few people here are arguing past the actual attraction.

"The point of film isn't necessarily that it produces a “better” photograph. The limitation itself changes how some people shoot. When you have 24 or 36 frames, each one costs money, and you won't know whether you screwed it up until later, suddenly composition, exposure and timing receive a little more attention. That's not magic. It's just a constraint changing behavior."

The internet is rife with people suggesting not moving to mirrorless, or going back to DSLR if you have, for the exact same reasons.

Perhaps it's because I studied with film, that I attach the same discipline to shooting digital. A 24MP APS-C camera gets 1300+ shots per 64MB card in RAW. That's 36 rolls of 36 exposures. I have no problem, going out and limiting myself to only the pictures I want to take, not the ones I feel, "obligated to take". I feel I take all of the factors you mention into consideration, before pulling the trigger, and not to have or need a roll of film to spank me into line. Briefly, I have no problem going out with "36 rolls", and coming home with 35 rolls left. I usually ponder, "would this good look hanging on a wall", before hitting the shutter button.

Film is not automatically “authentic.” The moment it is scanned, edited, printed digitally or uploaded to Instagram, congratulations, you're back in the digital world again.

And if you're online pissing and moaning about you're failures with film, you're well into the digital world trying to make money off them. Incompetence and stupidity can earn you clicks, who knew?

Owning a film camera does not prove artistic talent.

I have a brand new Nikon FM-2 in the closet, never used. I've come to think of it as a souvenir, rather than something that bestows artistic ability.

Using black and white does not automatically make something profound.

As evidenced by the fact that Metart's photographers will take a particularly popular model's shoot, yank maybe 20 frames out of it, and convert them to B & W digitally. You know, just click "monochrome". They're rank, ugly, gratuitous, and I cull them immediately to save space on my HDDs. Which is not to say B & W can't produce beautiful results, just that you're highly unlikely to see it on the cover of, "Swimsuit Illustrated".

And Gen Z did not “discover” film any more than Millennials discovered vinyl, Gen X discovered muscle cars, or our grandparents discovered sex.

Every generation rummages through the previous generation's attic and announces that it found something amazing.

Perhaps, but it's more of a faddish herd of trendy sycophants and nincompoops playing "follow the leader", who's doing the rediscovery. Tic-Tok, Tic-Tok......

The amusing part is watching people become personally offended that younger people might enjoy an obsolete technology for reasons other than measurable technical superiority.
I simply don't suffer stupid well at all. If you can't even thread a film camera, you shouldn't be screwing around with one. And yes, I do examine into my own limitations, before using the "S-word" on another . Over on Quora the questions asked can be so damned dumb, that one has to wonder, "are you really that stupid, of do you need attention that desperately"?

Actually, if you're printing B & W negs, some of the older, high silver content papers might be superior in longevity, at the very least, to something coming out a Canon or Epson printer. Ostensibly, possibly, hypothetically, enlarging papers might be cheaper than allowing yourself to be digitally d*cked around by HP. But you still have to build and stock a darkroom.

Sometimes people do things because they're slower.

Sure, by you really have to have and overabundance of time, money, and ambition to "want to".

Sometimes because they're inconvenient.

You betcha..! Setting up a darkroom in a kitchen, then mixing chemicals, filling trays, checking temperatures for a nights printing is inconvenient with a capital **** that.

Sometimes because they're fun.

Darkroom work is not fun, it's work. Getting something you can enjoy, sell, or share, is the light at the end of the tunnel.

That's more than likely my advancing years saying that. Nowadays, I'm more apt to consider watching "Hudson & Rex" reruns for the 3rd time, and yammering online, "fun".

And sometimes, because spending $18 on a roll of film and another pile of money developing 36 questionable photographs apparently builds character.

Would that be, "Character", or "Characteristics"?

Photography has taken an ugly turn for me. There are so many 14 years olds with 9 mils running around, willing to use them on broad daylight, there's no free parking anywhere where you can stop, take few shots and then move on, and lastly, I no longer possess anything that resembles a circadian rhythm. The final nail in my photography's coffin, is the fact they, quite literally, "drained the swamp", at the Heintz Wildlife Refuge. Crap, just after I bought myself a "poor man's wildlife rig". (Nikon D7500 w/ Tamron 100 to 400 zoom).

Recently I've taken to contenting myself, with attempting to take the Russian mob's "pros", jpeg junk, and trying to turn it into Vogue covers for desktop slideshows.

A couple of my "luckier shots" are here https://www.techspot.com/community/topics/some-random-snapshots-sort-of.290135/

Strangely, the thread only loads 2 instead of 3 images. The ducks stay, but the barn swallow and skyscape exchange places. Who knows, maybe I do need Windows 10. Google's been bugging me about my, "browser being no longer supported".

Chase won't even let me on the site. It's cool though. I can pay them from my bank, call for my balance, and they stand no chance in hell of making me relinquish paper statements.

Do I get a little testy after arguing with so many itinerant iPhone users here, about how, "their iPhone is better than a DSLR"? You betcha..!

"Although I remain disappointed that nobody has yet shown up wearing a scarf, carrying a Leica, and explained that the grain represents the existential loneliness of late stage capitalism."

At once, astute and hilarious, bravo.

MPB keeps leading its emails with either a film Leica or an ancient Hassie. Annoying? You bet.

Did you not mention a beret because you used it before in the post, or just forget it? Because a beret would absolutely complete that "ensemble".

>>the existential loneliness and alienation of late stage capitalism<< FIXED

And so adieu, with the heartiest, "Cheers", I can muster at 5:30 AM.

EPILOG Once upon a time, when film was "king", (all that was available) "Kodachrome" ruled the land. If you expected to be offered magazine work, it was your ticket, Slow as molassas, @ASA 25 and 64, while requiring to be sent back to Kodak for processing. Dyes had to be injected into the emulsion to provide its color. No home processing kits were available. Stalwart DIYers, had to resort to "Ektachrome". Both these are "slide", or "reversal" films. Which meant you had to resort to reversal (positive to positive) printing papers. Color neg, didn't, or perhaps still doesn't, scan particularly well. On top of all that, film cameras don't have the ability to light balance. You ether have to buy film balanced for the light source you were expecting to shoot under, (Tungsten or Daylight) or carry around light balancing filters, which robbed the little speed you had, and cost a bunch of money,
The only film I would be even remotely interested in, is Kodak HIE, B&W infrared. It's discontinued, and people are trying to scalp it for $50.00 a roll. Film, particularly infrared, has to be kept cold. So, not knowing how these $50.00 rolls were stored, could get you ripped off, big time.

So, I can get a DSLR converted to infrared for $275.00, or 6 rolls of dodgy infrared. With the price of a Nikon D5200 or D5300 hovering between $200.00 & 300.00, I could buy and convert a camera, for less than a dozen rolls of film..

 

[Loadedaxe]

@captaincranky, fair hit. You got me with the photographic equivalent of a rolled up newspaper. I have to ask...why yellow?

I think you actually strengthened some of my argument while trying to throttle it.

You don't need a 36 exposure roll standing behind you with a cattle prod because film already trained that discipline into you decades ago.

You can walk out carrying the digital equivalent of 36 rolls and come home with 35 of them metaphorically still shrink wrapped, because you're already asking, “Would I hang this on a wall, or am I just photographing another damn duck because it had the audacity to exist?”

That's learned behavior I guess.

Some kid raised on a phone with effectively unlimited storage, instant review, computational photography, burst mode and a delete button has never had Kodak standing behind him whispering, “That mistake just cost you money, dum dum.”

So when a younger photographer says film makes them slow down, I don't necessarily hear...“Film is technologically superior.”

I hear...“I have voluntarily purchased an expensive mechanical babysitter to teach me something Captain learned when dinosaurs still roamed Philadelphia.”

It's certainly more reasonable than the other possibility, where ownership of a film camera instantly transforms someone into an artiste and they begin referring to underexposure as “emotional texture.”

And yes, I omitted the beret from my original Leica/scarf ensemble. You caught it!

That was an unforgivable oversight.

The full uniform is obviously...

Leica.

Scarf.

Beret.

Black turtleneck.

One roll of Tri-X.

A messenger bag that costs more than the camera.

And the ability to stare solemnly at a badly exposed photograph of a rusty shopping cart and explain that the grain represents the existential loneliness and alienation of late stage capitalism.

Preferably while drinking coffee from a cup small enough to require tweezers.

You also win the darkroom argument.

People romanticize film the same way people romanticize restoring old cars.

They remember the smell of gasoline, the rumble of the engine and the Sunday drive.

They somehow forget six hours lying on concrete while a rusted bolt personally challenges their belief in God and their Mother.

Darkroom work sounds much the same.

“Ah yes, the magic of analog photography.”

Which apparently meant blacking out the kitchen, mixing chemicals, checking temperatures, breathing fumes and praying nobody opened the refrigerator and fogged three hours of your evening.

Fun Fun!

I also enjoyed the MetArt example because only you could begin a discussion about black and white artistic composition and somehow arrive at a technical lighting critique of Russian internet pornography.

That wasn't even a tangent.

That was a Captaincranky scenic route...

As for the people insisting that film is somehow automatically “authentic,” I remain fascinated by the logic.

Shoot film.

Develop film.

Scan film.

Edit scan.

Upload JPEG.

Post it to Instagram.

Then announce triumphantly that you have escaped the digital world.

That's like driving to an Amish village in a Tesla and congratulating yourself for rejecting electricity.

So yes, Captain, point taken.

You don't need film to teach you restraint because film already did the spanking decades ago.

The youngsters are merely paying $18 a roll to enroll in the accelerated course.

And apparently tuition includes grain.

Cheers.