The comeback of film?

[Bob Salomon]

My wife taught at a private k-12 school until 2016 which had both a wet darkroom as well as media lab for digital. The film classes were always full as film to the kids was “new” as digital was all they knew. It never will be back to where it was, but we are still seeing a resurgence of film use now that we retired in New Mexico . She now conducts tours at the O’keeffe house . She said there are usually a couple of participants, primarily younger that bring film cameras, mostly 35mm and several oldsters shooting medium format on her tours. In asking them why film, most replies are that they realize that using film will help them With composition etc and hopefully make them better photographers. Also, with new small makers such as Intrepid and Standard Cameras many more are moving into large format from what I’ve seen online. Myself, I just bought a used Chamonix 4x5 and am looking forward to working with it !

Why would film help them with composition over shooting the same thing with a digital camera?

The only difference would be the medium used to record the image. In fact, if they use a digital back then they could be using the same lens and camera that they would use for film.

[Drew Wiley]

Even a limited amount of experience with film and elementary darkroom technique has definitely helped certain friends of mine with composition. The reason is, there was no penalty to promiscuously shooting digital frames. Once they had to think of spending money and time per shot, it became more important to make each shot count. One of them gave up digi photo completely, and went MF film. In fact, every really good digital printmaker I know was previously an excellent darkroom technician.

[Bob Salomon]

Even a limited amount of experience with film and elementary darkroom technique has definitely helped certain friends of mine with composition. The reason is, there was no penalty to promiscuously shooting digital frames. Once they had to think of spending money and time per shot, it became more important to make each shot count. One of them gave up digi photo completely, and went MF film. In fact, every really good digital printmaker I know was previously an excellent darkroom technician.

Just give them a smaller capacity card and increase the resolution. Don’t let them erases duds and they then have the same appx capacity as film.

[Drew Wiley]

Get a bigger battery with a wire and alligator clip and attach it to their nose. Every time they trip the shutter, they get shocked. It's called conditioning.

[John Kasaian]

... you just can't stay away from that Muffler Shop Hall of Fame on Herndon Ave can you, John? Ahh, the smell of oil .....

Man cannot live by the smell of Fixer alone!

[John Kasaian]

Just give them a smaller capacity card and increase the resolution. Don’t let them erases duds and they then have the same appx capacity as film.

Probably because when you have to compose upside down and backwards you learn more slowly, which gives the ol' brain more time to let things sink in.

[Roger Cole]

Film is too expensive to buy, develop and print (if they even want prints) for most people. And digital prints, if the Photoshop guys can keep their booger hooks from over saturating colors, look pretty good.

I'll still shoot film because I enjoy it, just like some painters still paint with oils because they enjoy it.
Heck, I still enjoy painting with oils---the fumes make me feel like this guy---
Attachment 185141

Film isn't too expensive for most people, or wouldn't be if they didn't (probably) want an absurd number of images combined with instant gratification. The former is expensive and the latter impossible with film. (Ok, leaving aside Instax and Impossible or any left over Fuji peel apart like the two dozen or so packs stashed in my fridge.)

I'm not suggesting people be content with 12 images with some being from the 4th of July picnic and others from Christmas parties on the same roll as was common in days gone by (and when film cost as much or more to use as today, adjusted for inflation, there was just no alternative) but most people could afford to shoot a roll or two or three now and then and have them professionally processed and printed if that was something important to them. The $500 - $1000 smart phone and $100/month data plan they have for their main imaging device (albeit good for many other things) proves that. But they won't be able to shoot a thousand shots nor see and upload or email or text them instantly.

[Bob Salomon]

Probably because when you have to compose upside down and backwards you learn more slowly, which gives the ol' brain more time to let things sink in.

You still would with a digital back if you use the ground glass. If you are comparing say 35 to a DSLR there s absoluteley,no difference!

[Bob Salomon]

Film isn't too expensive for most people, or wouldn't be if they didn't (probably) want an absurd number of images combined with instant gratification. The former is expensive and the latter impossible with film. (Ok, leaving aside Instax and Impossible or any left over Fuji peel apart like the two dozen or so packs stashed in my fridge.)

I'm not suggesting people be content with 12 images with some being from the 4th of July picnic and others from Christmas parties on the same roll as was common in days gone by (and when film cost as much or more to use as today, adjusted for inflation, there was just no alternative) but most people could afford to shoot a roll or two or three now and then and have them professionally processed and printed if that was something important to them. The $500 - $1000 smart phone and $100/month data plan they have for their main imaging device (albeit good for many other things) proves that. But they won't be able to shoot a thousand shots nor see and upload or email or text them instantly.

I have the iPhone X and use Consumer CEllular which costs me 28.00 a month less my AARP discount which brings it down to 25.00 a month.
CC uses the AT&T network so I have exactly the same coverage that I had on AT&T. Just far less per month!

[Roger Cole]

You still would with a digital back if you use the ground glass. If you are comparing say 35 to a DSLR there s absoluteley,no difference!

Marginal cost per shot is much higher in 35mm (though lower than in larger formats) and then there's the lack of instant feedback. Both tend to encourage one to take more time to get it right and just-so than a DSLR where one can, as we say in the (firearm) shooting world "spray and pray."