Quote Originally Posted by batwister View Post
If the work didn't receive acclaim and contemporary photographers stopped using film, where would we be? How many millions of Flickr photographers shoot film because they and their middle class hipster friends are exposed to this work and the process at art college? I believe the consistently increasing interest in this work is providing continued interest in film during a critical time.
Nah. I don't it's film that supports huge prints because it's easy to make a huge print from digital, even to give it a look as if it was shot with a nice grain structure. All of that is trivially fakeable, including the resolution.

And likewise, I don't think it's art schools, most of which have closed or are closing their darkrooms, that gets people into film. You mention flickr: it and its competitors are much more important; people get into photography, they get online, they see what everyone else is doing and they gravitate towards what they like. This whole "internet brings the disintermediation* and democratisation of X" where X can be nearly anything: it's not actually bullshit.

As ever, 90% of everything is crap. It's up to you to find the 10%.

* in this case, the internet is disintermediating photography by taking away the art-school barrier to good technical skills, and it taking away the role of galleries in getting work shown. I have an offline friend who has been doing B&W film for 30+ years, he's amazingly good at it and he does a couple exhibitions a year. I get two orders of magnitude more eyeballs than him, just through flickr, and I can't claim to be anything special.