The Promotion of Film use....what are we missing?

[Jay DeFehr]

If a LF photographer is asked why he (almost always a he) bothers with big cameras and film, his response is much more likely to be given in technical terms about resolution, enlargement factors, dynamic range, etc. than anything approaching whimsy. That being said, I think lots of people do see old cameras as being very cool, and there is often a hint of admiration that they can be made to work at all. It's discouraging that old cameras are seen as novelties, but encouraging that people find them interesting. It's discouraging that people are impressed by the ability to make a film camera work, but encouraging they think it's cool. I think the best thing any of us can do to promote the use of film is to emphasize the experience, and not its results.

[MDR]

One of Films main problems is that most people want easy instant gratification. Modern people lack the attention span for something that takes a while. Proof are modern movies with about 60 cuts a minutes only 20 years ago people were watching movies that had at the most 1 cut a minute. Show an old movie to most people and their attention will wander because of the lack of speed. Polaroid was at least somewhat able to offer the instant gratification, maybe we should all use high speed monobath developers and make contact copies max time 30sec from photo to print Large cameras + instant gratification must be a winner.

Jay maybe you could develop a monobath developer that is cool and attracts future film shooters.

Dominik

[rdenney]

There's a difference between an activity that is fun and one that brings deep satisfaction. And there is a difference between fun and joy.

People use film because it is deeply satisfying and brings them joy, not because it's merely fun.

Holgas are not marketed as fun, they are marketed as hip. The difference in marketing strategy might not be that visible to the old, I admit. Is hipness sustainable as the hip age? Only if the activity transitions to joy and satisfaction. Mere fun or a desire to be hip won't keep people enduring the inconvenience.

In any case, one does not ask a population of people who know satisfaction and joy to preach their cause on the basis of fun and hipness. They have perhaps outgrown that. That does not make them negative, or elitist, but it does put their motives beyond the reach of those of any age who lack a willingness (or the maturity) to seek joy. Most who take pictures are happy with images on Facebook or snapshot-sized prints. They seek neither joy nor hipness; only convenience. The film market will have to survive without them.

Digital is fun for me. Film is satisfying, and brings me joy.

Rick "build a marketing campaign around that" Denney

[Ben Syverson]

Digital is fun and fast, but we all know the gut feeling you get when you see a LF image in-person. It doesn't come across on the internet very well.

When non-photographers see that print from 4x5 or an 8x10 Polaroid or a platinum contact, they generally "get it" instantly. It's like the difference between a Snickers bar and a high-end chocolate cheesecake.

[rdenney]

Digital is fun and fast, but we all know the gut feeling you get when you see a LF image in-person. It doesn't come across on the internet very well.

When non-photographers see that print from 4x5 or an 8x10 Polaroid or a platinum contact, they generally "get it" instantly. It's like the difference between a Snickers bar and a high-end chocolate cheesecake.

Your strategy is aimed at the users of photographs. But the customers of film are mostly the makers of photographs. The users have already made their decision.

Rick "knowing the difference between stakeholders and customers" Denney

[Drew Wiley]

Lomos and Holgas are a short-term cornball fad that will turn sour just as fast. Wouldn't
place much trust there. And contrary to the reactions some of you get, around here just
about every time some young folks see any of my view cameras propped up on a Ries tripod along the trail, about the first thing they do say is, "Cool"; "Wish I had one of those
things" ... then ask to look under the cloth and ask a bunch of other questions. And mind
you, the locals are way more tech saavy than most. The bigger hurdle is the lack of darkrooms. It's getting real difficult for young folks to buy a house, even at the relatively
low current mortgage rates, let alone have extra space, cash, and time to print properly.
Lots of them are amazed that film still exists. But they do seem to understand the difference qualitatively, at least with large format. They still refer to it as a "real camera"
and "real film".

[John Kasaian]

Lomos and Holgas are a short-term cornball fad that will turn sour just as fast. Wouldn't
place much trust there. And contrary to the reactions some of you get, around here just
about every time some young folks see any of my view cameras propped up on a Ries tripod along the trail, about the first thing they do say is, "Cool"; "Wish I had one of those
things" ... then ask to look under the cloth and ask a bunch of other questions. And mind
you, the locals are way more tech saavy than most. The bigger hurdle is the lack of darkrooms. It's getting real difficult for young folks to buy a house, even at the relatively
low current mortgage rates, let alone have extra space, cash, and time to print properly.
Lots of them are amazed that film still exists. But they do seem to understand the difference qualitatively, at least with large format. They still refer to it as a "real camera"
and "real film".

True that!

[Kodachrome25]

The problem (as I see it) with your "film is fun" approach is that film isn't. At least not in the way digital is fun. For me, the fun is in experimentation, using old cameras that shouldn't still work, but somehow do, making something with my hands, and yes, sharing my results with others who might understand the process enough to allow intelligent conversation about it. I suspect the one thing that does more to promote the use of film than any other, is social networking and image sharing sites like Flickr.
There's no point in pretending film is easy -- it's not, at least not compared to digital -- or that it isn't demanding, because it is. There are a million ways to screw up a roll of film, and it's not much fun to be disappointed when your expensive (relative to digital) prints come back from the lab because you screwed up the exposure, or forgot to wind the film, or any of a million other potential disasters befell your film.

There is a young photographer who posted on Photo.net that said the following, and I agree with him:

"I am one of those younger photographers who began shooting digital (save from a few shots when my dad would let me use his yashica) and eventually turned to shooting film too.

I think the number one barrier to my getting into film in the first place was a misguided perception about the level of knowledge I would need and the relative difficulty of getting great results with film and wet processing.

I think that many, like me, fear letting go of the training wheels of digital exposure. I think that many, like me, love it once we do.

That being said, film shooters could do a few things to support their cause which may be a little irksome to the quality die hards.

For one, we need to be able to explain that processing film and scanning or printing really isn't that difficult (gasp) even if we all know that doing so well and doing so according to an artistic vision may be.

We need to not fly off the handle when recommending equipment, or things we think that a new photographer needs. A tank, somewhere completely dark (bathroom with towels stuffed around the door or a changing bag) a reel, developer and fixer are all you really need to get started in processing your negatives. The rest can be acquired as you go, or even used as modified equipment from other sources (i.e. using a glass measuring cup for measuring chemicals vs. a graduated cylinder).

I spent hours trying tog figure out just what I needed to get started because it's too easy to begin to think that you need these premium negative clips and stainless steel or plastic tanks.

Simplify what someone from the outside perceives as a complex process and you remove much of the fear or uncertainty from the equation.

Another point is that most of your new shooters will have a similar workflow to mine, meaning that you will more likely see a digital/film hybrid, rather than a purely film workflow. We need to be more understanding and willing to point out how the two can complement each other. For instance, while I still have an F100 and FM2N I have a hard time justifying shooting them, because they are either bulkier than my X100 or the results are equal or worse than what I get with my D700. Yes, this comes down to many variables on my end, but I'll be frank, once I finish the last of my 35mm film these cameras are going out for sale. For me 35mm just doesn't have a place in my workflow.

However, my Rollei, Pentax 67, Bronica ETRS and my Speed Graphic all see regular use and I put hundreds of rolls (not as many sheets) a year. And it's not all about quality. It's about style, and it's about the feel of the camera and the look of the scanned image as well as the wet darkroom print.

We need to encourage this type of exploration.

I particularly think that we need to encourage newer shooters to look at medium format and large format for a couple of reasons. First, because it is often such a different way of shooting (WLF anyone), and because it's much easier to get a sharp scan from even a crummy scanner than it is from 35mm. As much as a new shooter may love the distinctive look of film, many will be much more likely to stick with it if they see that they can get that look plus a sharp image. Secondly, I know that many new shooters would love to shoot a Rolleicord or Yashica 124 if they got the chance, just because they are so different and I think once they try it they are very likely to stick with it.

I'm sure there is far more that film shooters could be doing, but aside from keeping on shooting film, these are just a few thoughts that come to mind.

Also, for those of you who are interested, take a look around flickr if you need some encouragement. You'll find that the ranks of new film shooters are surprisingly thick."

It is simple, you just have to make it that way and embrace the unexpected as you hone your personal journey with it.

[Drew Wiley]

It's analogous to books, and how people are saying books will be extinct because electronic readers are now available. Nonsense. There will always be people who want to
relax on a rocking chair on the porch or beside the fireplace with a good book. It's tactile,
still perfectly usable for decades, easy to find the page in, not eye-straining, and you
don't have to worry about it going techno-obsolete every two years. I'm more worried about the next generation going blind from staring in screens at two young an age, or
dying of childhood diabetes from junk food or lack of exercise, or of ending up just plain
illiterate. Or else they'll be taken away by Social Services because their parents were too
cruel to buy them the latest computer game. Take 'em on a long hike or horseback ride in the woods with a 35mm film camera and let them get hooked. Then get a good ole slide
projector and let them see how good the shots look real big and bright - and tell Aunt
Maude to leave her slides of the Peoria vacation at home!

[Lynn Jones]

I've been a photographer longer than most of you have been alive (over 65 years), a camera manufacturer, lens creator, hi tech film processor designer as well as a shooter. The reason some of the great films (the last Plus X as an example) is that we didn't buy enough of the stuff to make it profitable.

What would happen if Kodak stopped making film?
First, Fuji would get much more profitable.
Second, the Kodak Coating Alleys would be sold to the highest bidder and making film of questionable quality.
Third, the European and Asian film makers would make a bit more.

However, before that, Kodak and Fuji would still be making "car loads" of color print paper since that is what all of the pro labs use to print digital images with. Ink jet color prints cost 4 to 6 times as much as conventional color paper, other methods are even more expensive.

Eventually, there would be NO MORE FILM!

Lynn