The Online Photographer

I’m like a number of other people here, l shot film but have moved on. I’ll probably read it if you write it but I’m definitely more interested in digital and inkjet printing.

Reading the comments here so far, the very mention of dedicated film posts seems to have stirred a hornet’s nest. Some seem to be suffering the equivalent of analogue PTSD! I think you may have to print a disclaimer and I expect the comments to be lively.

As someone who shoots mostly film I would welcome film related topics. Whist I like your posts on the art of photography, the process does interest me as well as it was a part of my job many years ago. I do shoot digital but it is all to easy to relegate craft to the technology leaving a sterile experience. Regardless of which medium, my goal is visual storytelling so always appreciate reading anything that helps in that.

I'll read it because I like you're writing, but film photography doesn't interest me particularly. I was fortunate to be bitten by the photography bug just as digital was coming within reach of a poor kid from Arkansas. I tried film photography but it was too expensive, and creatively constraining. I still have a deep fondness for film cameras as beautiful pieces of industrial design, and keep a few in my house.

I think of film enthusiasts as something like classic car enthusiasts. They're not interested in the car as a tool; an instrument to get from point A to point B. They're interested in the car as a piece of nostalgia, a beautiful piece of design, and a cultural artifact.

However, that analogy could be completely inaccurate. Maybe, Mike, your series on film could help open my eyes to its appeal.

I would like it. I find watching film buffs, and camera collectors on YouTube from news a relaxing distraction from stuff that gives me a headache!
I’ve seen cameras that I lusted after, but were out of my price range, or just plain too exotic. The box camera my parents owned, a kodak brownie. And there are folks out there loading them with film, and making pictures.
So yeah I’d like talk about film use, the darkroom practices, and the cameras and lenses of the past. And today!
Do it!
Regards Fred

I consider the study and use of film photography and other historical versions of producing still images as essential knowledge related to the current digital media. I am a cross-user of the photographic experience and would welcome your writing on the subject as well as related philosophical extensions. Any image examples for support would be great.

For it.

I wouldn't be bothered by an occasional post, which I would probably simply skip, but as the former owner of film cameras and two or three darkrooms for 40 plus years, I felt liberated by a Nikon D3 -- and that was sixteen years ago.

I should add that I'm not much interested in film itself, or sensors, or megapixels. I'm interested in photography, not cameras -- the difference between a race car driver and a race car mechanic. Since Kirk Tuck shut down his blog, I've been thrashing around looking for another blog that focuses on photography (as opposed to gear) and haven't yet found one that's congenial. When I need to know about my Nikons (or some stuff about Fuji) I read Thom Hogan. I guess I'm more interested in photo taking than photo making.

I *am* interested in ways to make photographs better and closer to realistic, so I mess with Lightroom a bit, but I consider that an extension of the photo-creating act, rather than a gear thing..

I’ve basically lost interest in digital. Digital is what I do when I need to take product shots for our business. For pleasure, I’ve switched to film. I’m heating up some C41 chemicals with a sous vide machine as I type this. Bring it.

As a somewhat observant decades long reader, I imagine that, whatever you get from these comments, you will not actually do it. I say this lovingly; part of the attraction of this blog is that you write about what's up in your mind and heart in the moment, not some idea in the past. The content is better for the writer's engagement.

That's a good/bad, from out here. I like the photo related posts and the comments. And the tea, pool, diet posts are largely a quiet murmur.

Could I do without the too many Leica posts, without the many Fuji, pro APS-C posts? Absolutely.

What would most please me as an improvement to TOP would be a change of platform, to something that allows posting photos wider that 470 pixels. Doesn't that sound like an oxymoron? Maybe a bit like a book club that is only allowed to read and discuss book reviews?

Might I smell a hidden catch here? By film, do you really mean monochrome film? Should that be the case, with significant processing content, the likelihood that I would read such posts is even less. I can skim or skip the Leica, Fuji, etc. posts, but how many before I unintentionally lose interest?

It's a shame you had a falling out with Ctein. An important to me facet of TOP has been missing for some time now. I find techie stuff about how and why the photos I take turn out the way they do, and perhaps how to change that, or use it otherwise to my advantage, interesting and useful.

I'm visual, show me images!

I haven't used film since 2004, so not much interest here. That being said, many of us come here for your writing and not particularly the subject, plus, "Film Fridays" has a nice ring to it.

Always enjoy your writing, especially about photography. I would find a piece or pieces about why shoot with film more interesting that how to shoot with film though (already know how to - or at least I know enough to get by).
Was at an artist talk this afternoon with photos shot on film (MF colour) and it's definitely still a thing.
Dave.

YES! Please do write about film photography. Despite the haters who claim thet would never go back to film, there has clearly been a big revival amoung young photographers. I receive comments and questions whenever I am out with a Leica or Hasselblad. This is from all age groups. This topic IS pertinent all over again.

Your writing improves when you're enjoying what you're writing about.

If 'film' is that thing, then do that!

For me, when I create a film photo, it feels like I've actually done something. It's tangible.

Taking a digital image, no matter how amazing it is, is always a lesser experience.

Since film photography is — and always has been — superior to digital, I’d gladly read ALL of your proposed articles on this very worthy topic.

:-)

Would you, please? Every now and then you drop some little tidbit that makes me think either, "Aha, see, I was right," or "D'OH!"

I have taken the opportunity to get my TLR cleaned up, and got my large format monorail back from a friend who had borrowed it for 7 years, give or take a few months. the joy of looking at the world through a square or to contemplate composition under a dark cloth while the world passes by upside down is a completely unique experience.

So, yes to film. i would like to read what you have to write, and would be especially interested about the re-emergence of film, greatly diminished though it may be from past heights.

I look forward to reading your posts on film photography. I occasionally put a roll through one of my cameras and, most of the time, enjoy both the act of shooting on film and the results. I also don't think that the only ones interested in film-photography posts will be film shooters, as long as the writing goes beyond technical issues.

Yes, please, hop on the film photography bus !

Yes please! Although I shoot digital for money, I came back to shooting film about 2012 and almost all my photography for myself is done with film cameras and self-developing and scanning now. It's not really for the look of film now; it's an excuse to play with cool vintage cameras of every format. I still haven't figured out a way to make any money from it though ;)

Film: please, yes. It might help widen your audience to the young who are exploring film. Film-based photographs will remain viable objects into the future, long past the time when digitally-stored images are no longer retrievable. Film-based images are a message to the future.

Wrong demographic for this blog. If you want to write about film, do it on Instagram or other media where young people (way younger than the people here) participate. It could be a great way to expand your reader base as nature thins us out.

I enjoy reading just about every thing you write. I still shoot film once in a while. However, the comments show that some folks are not interested in posts about film while quite few would welcome them. How about one film post a week, maybe on Fridays or another scheduled day. That way the folks opposed to reading about film would know what to expect and maybe more comfortable with the idea.

I also would love to read an article on black and white tonality. Please share your thoughts on that with us.

As a somewhat observant decades long reader, I imagine that, whatever you get from these comments, you will not actually do it. I say this lovingly; part of the attraction of this blog is that you write about what's up in your mind and heart in the moment, not some idea in the past.

That's a good/bad, from out here. I like the photo related posts and the comments. And the tea, pool, diet posts are largely a quiet murmur.

Could I do without the too many Leica posts, without the many Fuji, pro APS-C posts? Absolutely.

What would most please me as an improvement to TOP would be a change of platform, to something that allows posting photos wider that 470 pixels. Doesn't that sound like an oxymoron? Maybe a bit like a book club that is only allowed to read and discuss book reviews?

Might I smell a hidden catch here? By film, do you really mean monochrome film? Should that be the case, with significant processing content, the likelihood that I would read such posts is even less. I can skim or skip the Leica, Fuji, etc. posts, but how many before I unintentionally lose interest?

It's a shame you had a falling out with Ctein. An important to me facet of TOP has been missing for some time now. I find techie stuff about how and why the photos I take turn out the way they do, and perhaps how to change that, or use it otherwise to my advantage, interesting and useful.

I'm visual, show me images!

I haven’t shot any film since 2005 and I’m sure I never will again so I doubt I would read thru more than a post or two for nostalgia’s sake. As others have mentioned, an update on options for scanning negatives given current OS software (in)compatibility with now mostly legacy scanners might be useful. I still would check in everyday but not necessary devour a lot of film content. That said, I would not begrudge you writing such a series for your satisfaction and the enjoyment of others who would find it appealing.

People who say film is too time-consuming and too expensive I don’t understand. I have been shooting a black and white street portrait film project all summer and in the last 20 weeks, I exposed a roll of 120 every weekend so 20 rolls of film, I developed them in my kitchen sink in 20 minutes. and hung them to dry which takes another 45. I then scanned them on a light table/copystand setup. The developing process with Kodak HC110 costs pennies, and timewise it might take 30 minutes to scan and import into Lightroom and tone once the film is dry.

The film was around seven dollars a roll because my local camera shop offers a 10% discount if you buy 10 rolls, so $140 for the film and maybe $10 for the processing chemicals, probably not even. That doesn’t seem that expensive to have been able to make this quantity of photographs. I go out with the intention to make 12 portraits on a roll of 120, each person gets one frame.

The results are at http://AmericanStreetPortraits.com which I hope to turn into a book. The Rolleiflex TLR film camera is what allows me to connect to the people I meet in the street. It would never happen with a digital camera. And black-and-white 120 film it’s just uniquely gorgeous, I use Ilford HP5.

It doesn’t compare to digital, which is perfectly good and usable—I use it all day long for commercial work—but there’s still something to be said for a black-and-white portrait made on film.

Honestly, I have no interest in film photography but will continue to subscribe. I recognize that others have interest and see the benefits of that interest locally - it may be what keeps my local camera store profitable. They do a great business in film, developing, used cameras, and repairs that they seem to do in-house. Great for them!

Wow, 150 comments! I admit, this post had me looking at film cameras again. What's funny is the one I kind of want is probably the closest to digital. The Nikon F6. Readily available, super reliable, good autofocus, can use lots of good modern F mount glass (some even stabilized), a fat grip, but geez it still costs over $1000.

I also kind of lust over a Leica, but that's even more.

In many ways, film lust is just another form of gear obsession, as opposed to image creation. It is for me. Like the guitar player who sells his amps and electric guitars for a nice Martin, but still doesn't write any songs.

Unless you have some unique spin or groundbreaking techniques I wouldn't bother with a film series.

Hi.

I basically gave up on film after developing, I think it was, 18 rolls of film in one day. I don't think I ever finished scanning them.

But, I'd still be interested in film related posts. It would be fun to read them, I feel.

And, there seems no doubt that film is becoming more and more popular these days. Even if this still only represents a small niche market / set of people, that number, whatever it is, probably also represents a relatively large number in terms of potential new readers.

Cheers,
Dean

Sure, I'd read such posts. Just for the guilty pleasure of nostalgically revelling in redundant expertise about expired technologies. Can't imagine ever being tempted to use film again, myself. But there's folk who still inexplicably revere vinyl records, so what do I know?