"The goal", although there is not any, is not to take best technically correct image. The goal is to see things, do things, enjoy things, show things, use, monetize, whatever. Various tools to ones liking lead to either success or happiness. So....
I did not see any rise in photography in my social bubble though.
I wonder if a small part of it may be the huge advance in mobile phone cameras, both technically, but especially software wise, resulting in some hobby photographers wanting to distance themselves from it and ditching their DSLRs and Mirrorless kit in favour of something more 'pure' and separate from the masses. Just a thought.
For me, if I was to get back into it, it would be the fun of developing - watching the picture come out and thinking 'I created that'. I used to do my own developing back in the 70's and 80's and really enjoyed it.
Alan
Which, in a way, is kind of where I'm coming from. Whilst it's not the same as watching the image appear, digital photography was, for some time, still something you'd created, but software is playing an ever greater role now. Having only recently been able to buy my first serious camera and lenses, I won't deny being a little sad that many of the skills I'm trying to learn can be fabricated by anyone with the tap of a screen on a mobile, so can very much see the appeal of going the film route just to feel a bit more 'reward', if that makes any sense!
I tried to search the internet for statistics regarding film sales. I could not find any data to support any sign that film photography was "bouncing back". If it is bouncing back, I suspect your explanation fits. With billions of cellphone pictures taken daily and millions in not billions of them posted on the internet, it seems harder and harder for an individual photographer to stand out.
Film photography might be a way to differentiate oneself from the masses. That would fit with a couple of other trends I have seen. There seems to be a rapidly growing interest in night and astro photography. Gear and techniques are needed that take this approach beyond the cellphone snaps.
We have also seen a rapid increase in using advanced post processing software. I call it shock and awe photography and another attempt to stand out from the masses. Digital art is an advanced form of this. I have friends who are skilled photographers but are almost embarrassed to show a straight photograph. They want to overlay filters or use something like the Topaz oil painting effect. I am reminded of the history of "pictorialism" where many early photographers tried to make their photographs look like "art". I have one friend who does not even bother to take pictures. He makes his composite creations from old images and frequently from images he finds on the internet.
I have nothing against any of these approaches. Personally, I will stick with the approach of developing my artistic expression and style without the embellishments,
I can only presume it is bouncing back, but my local dealer is doing a brisk trade in old film gear. The new additions page on his site shows that certain film cameras are much sought after and sell very very quickly.
It very well be the human ear may prefer the distorted version of reality while a robot might prefer the "purer rendering." Unless the music is performed for the recording in a sound room where all echos are absorbed and all reverb is removed the CD is not reality either. Very few venues are are echo free and if they are empty they are not full of people so that means that live performances of music is not "reality." For me sitting in a Jazz club in Georgetown listening to Miles Davis or Monk with all the acoustic imperfections is much preferable to the cleans CD of a studio recording.
Film and digital are basically different mediums and record the light differently. That results in a different rendering. The good news is with today's image processIng S/W can recapture the rendering of say good old 1972 TriX by the appropriate editing protocol of my digital camera output without having to sniff nasty out gassing of darkroom chemicals.
Yes watching the emerging of the image on the print under the safelight was orgasmic - but with my Leica Q2M and my Epson P900 I can produce comparable prints without spending the time in the darkroom. I can even get close using my XPro3 converting to B&W. On the other hand how does one capture the uniqueness of film photography and wet processing without having gone through the process? While film is not a new medium is is a new medium to many. I think any increase in popularity has to do with people wanting to explore and learn the medium. I can recapture the rendering of 1972 TriX developed with HC110 Solution B or 1980 PanX developed in Rodinal 1:100 with digital capture and image processing only because I know the rendering of these (and other films) only because I know them from the wet darkroom. I can find a paper that renders a print like Oriental Seagull surface G only because of the amount to times I printed on it.
Digital has removed much of what could go wrong with film making photography a bit sterile. But with film mistakes are inevitable which can be surprisingly curious and fun. The unexpected is good for creativity and imagination.
“Eastman Kodak’s still film production more than doubled in the last four years” kosmofoto.com/2020/01/eastman-kodaks-still-film-production-more-than-doubled-in-the-last-four-years/
“Eastman Kodak seeks more film technicians as demand continues to boom” kosmofoto.com/2022/10/eastman-kodak-seeks-more-film-technicians-as-demand-continues-to-boom/
“Film photography's resurgence is leading to huge price increases” www.axios.com/local/raleigh/2022/06/22/film-photographys-resurgence-is-leading-to-huge-price-increases
Etc…
The unexpected can also be produced by taking shots you otherwise might not have… because it costs “a dollar” (or whatever) to press the shutter.
Again, I’m not taking an anti-film stance here. I’m just uncertain I’m conceding this one to film.
If a ball originally dropped from 100 feet was bouncing back one foot yesterday and today it’s two… Do we consider that a rebound?
I’m not questioning film’s survival. Its popular resurgence is another question.
Well, film can't be loaded incorrectly into a digital camera, right? :-)
Can film be loaded correctly into a digital camera?
Yes, it’s an inelastic collision.
Interesting question, but I'm not an expert on things digital. Still, I just checked the back of my Lumix GX9 and while the monitor flips up there didn't seem to be spools underneath. Hmm.. maybe a Leica S? :-)
As good a description as any for film’s bounce back.
