For years I took photos professionally with a Nikon N70 SLR, using an N50 as a backup. In the early 1990s I purchased these cameras and with them some autofocus lenses. But I also used the camera bodies with non-autofocus lenses such as my 500mm Vivitar Mirror lens and my 19mm Vivitar wide angle. Later, I added a Nikon D50 DSLR. Since I don't "chimp" much when using the DSLR, I have to wonder how you could determine if I was shooting film or digital unless you put your face two feet from my camera gear. Yes, when I use my Rolleiflex or one of my three Bilora Bella film cameras it is pretty easy to see I am shooting film. I personally would not conclude everyone is going with the Big D by just looking at every cameraperson casually. And a lot of us film folks are sneaky, especially on the street.
But let's assume for a minute you are correct. Who cares? If I get out of my 1921 Electric Studebaker, adjust my derby hat and set up my Ermanox glass plate camera with my f 2 lens, why do I care if a swarm of folks around me are using a new Kodak roll-film-on-celluloid camera with its f8 lens instead of "real" glass plates? I'll get better photos than they will.
Nowadays it is easy to spot 99% of digital camera users - even DSLR (live view): they hold camera not on the face, thy hold it half meter away from the face.
Who cares? Well - we care, since we are discussing Ethics and Philosophy here
i am in a smallstate in the usa, there is an art school ( world renown ) down the street, a handful of colleges and universities
Originally Posted by RattyMouse
lots of people everywhere all the time, and while i know of 2 or 3 apug users / film users here, i have seen 1 person in maybe 8 years
using film. even when i lived outside of boston or travel up there on a day trip ... in the last 7 years, except for the apug people
i KNOW who live up there i have never seen anyone with an "analogue" camera, even 20 years ago i never saw anyone using a camera.
i really don't care how many people there are who do or don't use film, or if i am the only one who uses it
and i certainly don't lose any sleep over how much of the market share any of the "analogue" manufacturers have lost over the years.
the problem is, if you are shooting COLOUR FILM and need to get it processed, if no one is shooting film, you have to kind of do it yourself ..
where i am there used to be 4-5 pro labs running all day long, and in boston/cambridge at least 8 that i can remember off the top of my head ..
now ... maybe 1 or 3 where in am AND in the boston area ... not much to do about it and it seems to be a waste to worry about it ...
Last edited by jnanian; 07-02-2014 at 07:21 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Yes, do not really worry. You have your negative/positive to print or project for all your life time.
OM-1n: Do I need to own a Leica?
Rolleicord Va: Humble.
Holga 120GFN: Amazingly simple yet it produces outstanding negatives to print.
You'd never see this kid with his camera waving around two feet in front of him. I've been using viewfinders since Nixon was Vice President and don't cotton to them new fangled fuzzy out of focus electronic thinngamabobs.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
You know I travel a lot and sometimes I never see another soul with a film camera, and sometimes I'm surprised by the number of film cameras I see in one day. It's just a matter of timing and luck.
And as snapguy mentioned, especially if you are a bit further away, it can be a bit difficult to tell if someone is shooting digital or not, especially with certain cameras, and if they're doing it old-school style, i.e. not using the LCD screen to compose. Not that it really matters.
Being a minority in a majority culture (i.e. a foreign resident in Japan) makes me more aware of others like me, not that I go and talk to them because of our shared circumstance. I sort of feel the same way with film users. There's often a flash of recognition of being from the same tribe, but what do we have to talk about? It's more important to get on with things and take pictures!
My favorite thing is to go where I've never been. D. Arbus
He must have missed me when I was in Rome a couple of years ago. I was shooting film and medium format at that.
Fifty years ago, if someone from my home town traveled to Rome, odds are they would take a bunch of 35mm color slide photos. Of course, 50 years ago, such a trip was (economically speaking) completely out of the question for people who grew up in my economic circumstances. A trip to Europe was one of those markers that separated the well-off families from the rest of us. When they got home, they would inflict a lengthy "slide-show" on their friends and neighbors, partly out of general interest and partly as an act of just showing off.
They would shoot slides because processing was significantly cheaper than getting prints made from negatives. Even though they were among the well off, that was a difference that mattered back then.
Today, everything has changed. A trip to Europe is no longer the exclusive province of the ultra-rich. And the tourists are taking digital snapshots with their telephones and sharing them with friends and family in real time on Facebook/Twitter/etc. And why not? If nothing else, we are no longer stuck sitting through four "carousels" of poorly exposed, poorly focused, poorly composed vacation photos. Where does this notion that digital photos are all junk come from? The digital photos they get are at least (mostly) in focus and properly exposed, thanks not only to intelligent exposure meters but also due to the amazing low-light abilities of CMOS sensors. Composition has not changed (still sucks as much as it did 50 years ago, by and large). And the glorious part is if we aren't interested, we can just scroll past them on our FB feed, rather than try to find a way to squirm out of our chair in their living room.
For fine photography, film is better. But 99 44/100% of these shots have nothing to do with fine photography.
For those who use film, the dramatically reduced market and resulting impact on materials and processing is disconcerting, but it is what it is.
I shoot digital when I have to (most of those shots end up here
) and film (occasionally one of those shots ends up here
) when I want to.
Commonwealth... and COLOR (they haven't used the "u" in the last 200 years or so in your small New Inglad commonwealth).
Originally Posted by jnanian
That is what I refered to repeatedly. Only not to be taken serious by some.
Originally Posted by RattyMouse
I know major european cities where I never ever came across anybody with a film camera, though spending months there.