Film photography, a good business in the future ?

[Greg Lockrey]

I think it's complete nonsense. Among other reasons, most people - like 99.9% of the world - don't know, can't tell, and don't care how the original image was made.

Dittoes..... It has been my experience too. All they want is for it to look good and be delivered in a timely manner.

[GPS]

I think the main point here is that using film would supposedly make people perceive you more as an artist. An artist tends to do things differently. Does that make sense ?

So the observation applies mostly to fine art photography, with the cross-over that sometimes someone would also want an "artist" to shoot their commercial/editorial project.

Maybe, once the film will be regarded as such an ancient technology as we regard wet plates today. And maybe some people will be fascinated by that as they are by the wet plate today. But from there to a good business is still a long way to go - is a wet plate a good business today? Doesn't seem so...

[QT Luong]

I think it's complete nonsense. Among other reasons, most people - like 99.9% of the world - don't know, can't tell, and don't care how the original image was made.

True, but 99.99% of the world does not buy original art. What matters is whether those who do care.

[Brian Ellis]

True, but 99.99% of the world does not buy original art. What matters is whether those who do care.

The 99.99% of the world to which I referred includes those who buy original art. The .01% consists of some of the members of this forum, APUG, and few others.

[ic-racer]

What do you think ?

Old news.

[Greg Lockrey]

True, but 99.99% of the world does not buy original art. What matters is whether those who do care.

IF you are lucky enough to be in the right location where there is a sufficient number of those .01%'rs who care have the disposable income to buy and if your reputation as an artist will bare the extra cost that photographing in film will bring to the photo.

[Jay DeFehr]

How can I put this so that I don't offend? People care about photos, not about photographers. Here I'm speaking of professional photographers, not artists. Collectors care about photographers more than individual photos, but for the rest of the world, the photographer doesn't matter, let alone what equipment/materials/process is used to make a photo, and if a photo is not online, it doesn't exist. Agencies look for images online, not for photographers, and when they find an image, they don't care if the photographer ever made another photo. Every image must stand on its own, and the skill, experience, or reputation of the photographer are irrelevant beyond the image in question. This puts amateurs on an equal footing with pros, however pros feel about it.

[QT Luong]

The 99.99% of the world to which I referred includes those who buy original art. The .01% consists of some of the members of this forum, APUG, and few others.

What makes you so sure of this number ?

I sincerely don't know the answer, but I've seen some anecdotal evidence here and there: a pretty high proportion of successful artists working still working with film (certainly much higher than amongst amateurs), people talking with me at exhibits expressing satisfaction after hearing pieces were shot on film, a friend who makes a good portion of his living from art shows reporting favorable reaction to film and unfavorable to digital ("because digital = photoshopped").

[Jim Jones]

. . . most people - like 99.9% of the world - don't know, can't tell, and don't care how the original image was made.

That may unfortunately be true. However, we can take the time and make the effort to educate more of them. In my market area 0.1% leaves several people who have shown that they care. In a major metro area there might be hundreds or thousands of more sophisticated people who should also care. It's such people that make well-crafted photography and other art worthwhile. The previously cited Lou Charno found it very worthwhile indeed. A generation ago eight of her photographic portraits were valued at $48,200 in a court case.

[Mike Anderson]

I could certainly see a studio that specialized in a traditional methods niche be successful if it was in a city and was marketed well. People will pay more for something slightly different that has the air of artisan-ness.

In the right market (I'm thinking San Francisco) people pay a premium for handmade wrapping paper, handmade candles, etc. and I'm sure they'd pay a premium for silver print portraits. A metro market will be saturated with digital shooters (and there's the competition from Uncle Ernie and his new ink jet printer) so the "gimmick" of film and optical printing could be a useful distinguishing feature.

...Mike