Attracting new film users

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I totally agree that a respectful approach is needed. After all, it is ALL photography, and no approach is better than the other. Just different.

I will say, however, that it took me about five years to become a decent darkroom printer, and it took me about two weeks to become a decent inkjet printer.

The difference, I think (and this is my opinion), is that when you're shooting film you are almost 100% responsible for the results. You use tools that are rudimentary and tangible, hand tools, basically, AND it's a process that takes a long time whether you get a good print or not.
Digital can take time too, and for some it might require as much time as the darkroom, but once you learn a work flow it still baffles me that anybody would find it difficult to get an inkjet print right - especially from a nicely exposed digital capture. No joke or ill meant comment, but I honestly think it's almost too easy as long as you have the right materials in a good printer and good software.

I mean absolutely no disrespect to digital shooters and printers, this is my experience; but my opinion is that darkroom work is much more difficult than a digital work flow.
With multiple toning techniques, lith printing, selective bleach back and re-development, re-development in lith developer, various stages of using several contrast filters within the same print, getting the exposure and development of film *just* right to eke the maximum possible out of a frame of film, the list goes on and on. It is my feeling that it takes a lot more to arrive at the maximum possible from the darkroom than it does from the computer.
The results can be blindingly good from digital. I know this. It's how the world spins these days. But I just can't get along with the fact that it takes as much work with digital as it does with film and darkroom. I just will not agree with it.





Digital can be plug and play the same way shooting film can be too; when one drops off their rolls of exposed film to be developed and printed.

Digital can be just as hands on as film processing too. They both can require loads of time in the darkroom, masks, layers, dodging, burning, both can require just as much time consuming work in their respective darkrooms.

One does not require more or less technical acumen, aptitude, drive patience, and curiosity then the other.

I have convinced MANY digital shooters to use film and they will try film if one does not jab or badmouth digital, and if one sells film for it's look, it's dynamic range, and the awesome anticipation one feels before getting the developed negatives and/or prints.

A friendly RESPECTFUL approach to digital shooters is a must. Telling them lies about how film is better, or how digital sucks, or that real photographers shoot only film is unproductive, and evidence of one's stupidity.

I was sold on film by a film shooter that also loved digital but showed me the look, feel, tonal graduations and wider DR that film provides...that caused me to switch to film.

The way I convince others is by the prints that came from film....that is the strongest argument.

[Scotto]

Posted wirelessly..

Yeah, just be visible using film and willing to discuss it.

As a new-again film user, I couldn't agree more. If you are shooting, let other people take a picture or two. I carry a camera just about everywhere with me and find that people are very curious. I always offer people people to give it a try. Most people tell me that they don't want to waste the film in my camera because "film is expensive." As soon as they release the shutter, they instantly smile. I think letting a stranger burn through a couple frames without looking uptight always reassures people.

I would also offer to give them advice on where they might buy a camera. Recommend that they go to camera shop you're familiar with. Digital users do everything on the computer these days, especially research and shopping. I think many shoppers have become so accustomed to shopping from their desktop, that they are intimidated by stepping into a physical shop where they'll be "sold" something they don't understand. Obviously, purchasing their first film camera on an auction site can be risky. A camera with a shutter that's off or has light leaks is frustrating enough for most to mentally write off their losses and give up.

[Mainecoonmaniac]

"Attracting new film users."

Gosh, I feel for you; however, please let me tell you this.

Our TCPPA (Twin Cities Professional Photographers Association) meets each month at a Vocational School located in Eden Prairie, MN. At our last meeting, I visited with an instructor at his office and noticed several D-2 Series Omega Enlargers on a cart. They were taking them out as they came to the conclusion that the future for the young new photographers is to be involved in digital in the capture, process and viewing stages.

Sorry to be the bearer of this news. But digital has changed photography. If you want to make a living in this industry then you have to go where the bucks are. If you have a day job in another field or income from another source then bless you and go for it.

Otherwise to advise a new student to go into film as a career is a mistake from several vantage points. Or go into photography as an art or passion, whatever, but don't go into it to make a decent living. It's hard enough as it is w/o throwing out road blocks to achieve some sort of financial success with photography with a film medium.

Now crucify & have at me for my comments. However, I've done OK in the photography industry.

I don't think it's an either or proposition. The success a photography business is decided whether he or she shoots film or not. There's nothing wrong with a photographer learning both. I think learning analog photography first will improve a photographer's skill. The business of photography has changed and will continue to change. The successful ones will adapt to markets, equipment and technology of photography and film can be part of the equation of success.

[Christopher Walrath]

Posted wirelessly..

I like Scott's answer the best.

[z3guy]

Bill,
Yes, in the commercial world to survive one must use digital.
Our students cover a wide age range, teen to seniors. Most take it for their own use and those younger ones who do go on in photography realize that to be commercially successful they must do digital, but many continue to use film for their own personal work as they have come to appreciate fine black and white prints.`

Paul

[wclark5179]

Paul,

I had tears in my eyes when I saw the Omega enlargers stacked on a cart like excess baggage. So be it.

Appreciate for your comments.

And your dedication toward film.

I still use it as I take at least one film camera for each gig I do.

Thanks for your thoughts.

[SilverGlow]

I totally agree that a respectful approach is needed. After all, it is ALL photography, and no approach is better than the other. Just different.

I will say, however, that it took me about five years to become a decent darkroom printer, and it took me about two weeks to become a decent inkjet printer.

The difference, I think (and this is my opinion), is that when you're shooting film you are almost 100% responsible for the results. You use tools that are rudimentary and tangible, hand tools, basically, AND it's a process that takes a long time whether you get a good print or not.
Digital can take time too, and for some it might require as much time as the darkroom, but once you learn a work flow it still baffles me that anybody would find it difficult to get an inkjet print right - especially from a nicely exposed digital capture. No joke or ill meant comment, but I honestly think it's almost too easy as long as you have the right materials in a good printer and good software.

I mean absolutely no disrespect to digital shooters and printers, this is my experience; but my opinion is that darkroom work is much more difficult than a digital work flow.
With multiple toning techniques, lith printing, selective bleach back and re-development, re-development in lith developer, various stages of using several contrast filters within the same print, getting the exposure and development of film *just* right to eke the maximum possible out of a frame of film, the list goes on and on. It is my feeling that it takes a lot more to arrive at the maximum possible from the darkroom than it does from the computer.
The results can be blindingly good from digital. I know this. It's how the world spins these days. But I just can't get along with the fact that it takes as much work with digital as it does with film and darkroom. I just will not agree with it.

If you shoot digital raw, it's going to take you a heck of a lot longer then 2 weeks to learn how to master the print. With raw you often don't expose "perfectly"....you expose to the right of the histogram then master the image in the darkroom.

I think that the length of time it takes to master a wet or dry print is not a good metric to judge a medium by.

Both film and digital take a very long time to learn to do right and at a master level.

Despite what many may say, both mediums afford the photographer a huge amount of control; one not more then the other.

[wclark5179]

"The success a photography business is decided whether he or she shoots film or not. "

Not anymore.

Never hear of a client asking for film anymore. Sorry. I feel the same as you but reality is reality.

As I said, if you have another means of financial support then go for it, otherwise, sooner or later you must face the music.

"Both film and digital take a very long time to learn to do right and at a master level."

I find it is a constant learning process! I'm learning everyday! Smiles!

[Thomas Bertilsson]

If you shoot digital raw, it's going to take you a heck of a lot longer then 2 weeks to learn how to master the print. With raw you often don't expose "perfectly"....you expose to the right of the histogram then master the image in the darkroom.

I think that the length of time it takes to master a wet or dry print is not a good metric to judge a medium by.

Both film and digital take a very long time to learn to do right and at a master level.

Despite what many may say, both mediums afford the photographer a huge amount of control; one not more then the other.

In the interest of not trashing this thread I will not keep arguing my point. But I disagree with you. Doesn't mean you're wrong. I just disagree.

[David William White]

I like Cesaraugusta's suggestion of showing some work by the masters. Maybe within the context of history, if necessary. But you can explain that it's all still viable (with materials & equipment available), and preferable by many of today's leading fine art photographers -- Burtynsky and Geoffrey James are just two Canadian examples that quickly come to my mind.

I agree with Bill Clark that the majority of photography from now on will be digital, but there is still a lot of film photography being done, especially by established photographers who are doing just fine with what they are set up to to, so it's not an either/or.

I'm sure if you show some examples from the masters, there will be a few that, for whatever reason, find it intriguing enough to wade in. Lots of good history to leverage.

[wclark5179]

Oh Thomas, you're not a nerd like me! Grins!

Digital is equally hard as darkroom, perhaps even more difficult as what can be accomplished with each device. We need to sip a glass of wine or two and discuss this further! I've got both, you can head to the darkroom & I'll get some computer screen time in!

It would be fun!

I would learn from you and maybe you may learn that I'm not as bad as a SOB as I sometimes make comments here on APUG.

We should get together with our MN group. I've got a barbecue! Fun!

Let me know!

[Marcus S]

Why must a professional be a digital photographer? I believe it is the style and quality of work, combined with a certain amount of business savy makes a pro successful, not the type of camera, digital or film.

I find it rather sad how photographic quality seems to be going down the river. Take a journey through photographers websites and what do you see? Blown out wedding dresses and tuxedos without details seem to be the norm. The gaudy colours of wedding photographs are rivaling Vegas.
In black and white, it is not unusual to see a white dress bleeding into the background with no detail in the dress whatsoever.

When I tell my customers that any film in any format can be digitized, they are pleased as punch.
On one of my assignments for a political journal, it was requested that film be used!

There is a place for everything and sometimes it is better not to follow the crowd blindly!

[Tom-Sircy Maggio]

Well...my wife Sircy got her BFA Photography from the University of Utah so I'm learning photographpy mainly from her. We have a few point and shoot digital cameras around the house, but she has two Nikon FM-10's that she used while in school.

My parents finally sent me, after 30 years, their Canon AE-1. I'm rather somewhat excited to work with film. My wife has done pinhole, 35mm and other stuff that I can't remember, but she loves the darkroom. I'm thinking I might as well.

Our older son has a Nikon D300, digital of course but he is interested in photography himself and I believe has a medium format camera himself.

My apologies if this is way off topic.

But I do believe that attraction is better than promotion as someone said on this post. :) My thing is, I am interested in photography as an art form. I have ideas on what I would like to do on film so this isn't a big stretch for me.

[clayne]

As a traditional photography instructor at a non-profit in central MA I am wondering how other attract new students to film. The instant gratification of the digital age makes it an uphill fight but I find that some "see the light" once they experience the darkroom. The question is how to get them through the door?

Thanks,
Paul:confused:

I think the deeper problem is with an instant gratification society. :-/

My general attitude towards the whole thing these days is "f 'em I'll shoot with what I want to shoot." Commercial and/or professional markets rarely cared much for anything but the monetary edge anyways.

[Emil]

You know that half dozen cameras you've got lying around, that you don't use anymore? Put them in the local classifieds as free for pickup and throw in a roll of film as well (if you put the ad online, be sure to include some pictures to show how cool the camera looks) and when a kid shows up at your door, show him/her a few of your best prints and recommend your favourite lab. That'll get them hooked for sure, and you'll feel much better giving someone a break you wish you'd had when you started in photography!

Emil

[alexmacphee]

You know that half dozen cameras you've got lying around, that you don't use anymore? Put them in the local classifieds as free for pickup
Another good way is to make use of the Freecycle system. Just join your local Freecycle group, and post free ads which get e-mailed to everyone in the local group. Easy enough to find on the 'net.

[Willie Jan]

I currently see a lot of young people buying a lomo for fun. They are borred by the digital camera already...

We started an analog group here in the netherlands www.ffotone.com and are going to spread the word probably end of the year when we have a nice portfolio.

The problem is that there are still a lot of analog users, but they are not organized and when you tell them they are not the last mohican they seem to look surprised...

[jnanian]

I think the deeper problem is with an instant gratification society. :-/

My general attitude towards the whole thing these days is "f 'em I'll shoot with what I want to shoot." Commercial and/or professional markets rarely cared much for anything but the monetary edge anyways.


you can say that again !

[viridari]

Put up some prints that are 4' on the long side from a high end DSLR and the same from a decent MF SLR, invite students to inspect them at a close distance.

[Darkroom317]

"The success a photography business is decided whether he or she shoots film or not. "

Not anymore.

Never hear of a client asking for film anymore. Sorry. I feel the same as you but reality is reality.

As I said, if you have another means of financial support then go for it, otherwise, sooner or later you must face the music.

"Both film and digital take a very long time to learn to do right and at a master level."

I find it is a constant learning process! I'm learning everyday! Smiles!

If one's turn around time is decent, I highly doubt that the client will care which medium is used. The major issue is, is it cost effective? This greatly depends on regional economics and demographics. I have found medium format to be a lot cheaper than medium format digital, the unfortunate problem is that people have settled on 35mm or smaller sensors.