Why is Film photography bouncing back?

I once did photography semi professionally for our local theatre. It was all Tmax 400 pushed to 1600 or golf ball grained Fuji 1600 transparencies back then in the nineties. A whole lot of skills including changing film in the dark every 36 shots was needed. Then there were hours spent in a dark smelly and probably unhealthy darkroom. Right, the darkroom is not something I miss. I guess all areas of photography can list the downsides of film photogrphy compared to digital. Doing colour at home was a nightmare even if you had a good darkroom.

I am making copies of some of my old Kodachrome slides. My D850 has lower grain and more dynamic range at 4000ISO than my 64ISO slides. I can take 30 second exposures without reciprocal failures effecting the exposure time needed when I shoot architecture. My Capture One software can do things I could only dream about in the darkroom with no waste of materials. I even can do things to scans of my old negatives that were impossible in the darkroom.

The nostalgic return to film seems to have a lot of parallels with the equally strange phenomenon of the rebirth of the vinyl LP. I am assured by a musical consultant for one of Italy's leading Opera houses, that a CD or high quality files streamed, are far superior to an LP when it comes to technical sound quality, if it is well mastered (ECM are gold standard in this area). The so called "warmth" of an LP is in fact distortion. Recorded music on an LP is technically inferior in other areas as well. I will not get started on the dust licks that are inevitable.

I see the prices of old analogue cameras steadily rising. I predict that soon an old FM2 will cost more SH than a D800, a still very valid camera which is crashing downwards in price. I am starting to face palm at the second hand value of some of these relics.

So why is analogue photography gaining popularity?

It's an expressive medium with is own characteristics, same as watercolor or acrylic. That more folk are turning to it of late may have to do with the unsatisfying "almostness" of Fuji film emulation profiles... :D

Friend, this has been talked about ad nauseam. No point dredging this up again. I'm sure you can find many replies and ongoing arguments all over the net regarding this subject. To be short and without getting into specifics due to where these conversations always go, I shoot film because I prefer the look of the images MUCH more than digital images (among other aspects). I listen to lps over digital because I MUCH prefer the sound (among other aspects). And as a professional recording studio owner and record producer for several decades (as well as photographer) I MUCH prefer tracking to analog rather than digital because I MUCH prefer the sound (among other aspects).

These discussions always get around to many digital lovers calling young film shooters the tired old "hipster" name as some sort of putdown in all these conversations and talking of 'film emulation" software is just as good. Hopefully we won't go there AGAIN. btw . . so you know, I also have digital cameras, cds and digital multi-tracking in the studio that I will only use under duress. I care what I shoot not what other people shoot. Remember, you are at a digital camera forum. Go to an analog site and ask . . you will get opposing answers. Maybe staff can move this to the film forum here so you can get answers there.

A Nikon FM or FM2 is not a "relic." It is a mechanical miracle (as well as an object of beauty if one admires mechanical design) that if treated with care can last and function indefinitely provided it is still possible to acquire and make photos with film. So long as there are still inventive mechanical-minded people around who care about cameras and film photography, that FM2 may be repairable and usable in perpetuity with innovations such as 3-D printing. This is why prices continue to rise for cameras of this type while the price increase is slower for the automated and computerized cameras produced near the end of film camera production. Same idea with Leicas and with Hasselblad V cameras in MF. Same will not be true of the D800. When those computerized electronics go, all will go dark.

It's become an alterative process. There are lots of those, with quite skilled practitioners. I'll bet that some of the best gum bichromate, cyanotype, and Pt/Pa printers ever are working today.

Us film photographers mostly hang out in the Talk Photography forum - perhaps you could request Admin to move this post there? Thank you.

Because to a quite a few people, photography is more than just minimal grain, noise, superior colour transitions, etc etc etc. It's about the whole process, and film is way more hands on than just sitting in front of a computer screen, and zooming in to 400% to assure ones self that they have the "best" gear.

A digital file does not contain any music or photos, they only contain digital information. Digital is just a series of 1s and 0s. There is nothing in-between 0 and 1. There is nothing beyond 0 and 1. It is just soulless. So when it comes to art, analog has the advantage because it is tangible and it captures something real. If the way the work is further presented as analog, like a photographic print or a vinyl record, it provides the complete experience for the audience.

Exactly which forum would you like it to be moved to?

Yikes!! How about the "Film Photography Talk" forum? Egg on my face!

And the Mona Lisa is just a bunch of ancient paint. And Michelangelo's David is just a bunch of rock.

It's not the medium, it's how the medium is used to create an expression of the artist's intention.

And a negative is just a collection of silver or dye specks. I know for many years I used a grain magnifier in the darkroom. The amplifier on a HiFi turns the vibrations of a diamond capped stylus into sound. Oil paint is just a liquid with coloured pigments.

It is the end result that these technologies produce that counts. Below is the result of a scan from an old negative. It was turned into ones ans zeros for part of the passage into print. Does this print lose its soul because it was printed on an ink jet printer, rather than in the darkroom?

Yes, this I understand, and I can understand that some like mastering and using the process.

I was, according to my colleges, who shot theatre with me, very skilled in the darkroom, I had to know the difference between a print made for magazine or newspaper repro, and a print made for exhibition. I selenium toned my exhibition prints. Part of my selling proposition, was print quality.

But having spent hours in the darkroom, I embraced digital when it was able to equal what I could do in the darkroom. In the old scan below, I was able with Capture One to dodge and burn far more accurately, I was able to use different contrast grades on different areas of this difficult negative.

Nigel, do you remember that feeling watching you first B/W emerging slowly as it developed right in front of your eyes. I do and have never felt anything like that since.

There are alot out there that do it every day and it's great to see. It's not for me anymore, but some love that process. Others just get them developed by other companies for sure, but they enjoy it just the same.

Danny.

My question was made, because I want to understand why analogue reproduction of light and sound are regaining popularity. I wanted some insights, that's all. Maybe I spent too many hours in a dark smelly darkroom to have any nostalgia for film.

I have been digitising my old performing arts negatives. They were shot with equipment that is technologically primitive compared to what I shoot with today. Autofocus could not be relied on so it was MF, metering was done in my head as the dark backgrounds made the light meters of the time untrustworthy, unless I used a spot meter. The concerts I have shot with mirrorless are just so much more easy. I can forget so many technical problems and concentrate on the image.

But these old negatives do produce pictures with a certain period charm.The large grain and being in monochrome, gives them a certain vintage look, which maybe fits the subject. My digital captures are just different, but the content and how the subject is captured is just the same. I can chose between colour or monochrome for the output. Digital gives me far more choice. I can even recreate that vintage look if I care to do it, which I do not.

Now let us talk about the Vinyl LP . In the mid eighties the quality of most disks was appalling. The disks had become thinner and often came warped. They were easily damaged and wore out easily. You can never play and LP without hearing clicks and pops. I heard an early CD player at a friends house, and bought one the very same week. The music seemed clearer and the problems with Vinyl were gone. The sound quality over the years has improved. With a good HiFi setup, a well recorded and mastered CD the sound is the closest I can get to being in the concert hall. Yes I do go to concerts and I often listen to acoustic music in an Opera house.

As I have said, I have a friend who is a musical consultant for a leading Opera house. He has explained to me the technical reasons why the LP as a music carrying support is inferior to a CD. With a Vinyl LP you are listening to a distorted version of reality. Maybe this distorted version of reality is more pleasurable to listen to, and I am sure it could be engineered to CD if wanted.

Yes, the image slowly emerging form a blank piece of paper was amazing even after having done probably thousands of prints. I can understand sombody enjoying the process.

But I imagine doing the pictures I did back then with digital. It would have avoided hours in the darkroom, often deep into the night to get a press release ready for the next morning.

Us film photographers mostly hang out in the Talk Photography forum - perhaps you could request Admin to move this post there? Thank you.
[/quote

No, I posted this in the general forum on purpose, to get a wider range of opinions. Posting in a film forum just guaranties a one sided debate.

Okay. I think film is gaining in popularity because more people are shooting it.
Edit: That could also be the reason film photography is bouncing back.