Can the increase in popularity of toy cameras save film?

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Mainstream film production will never come back, but smaller companies will keep making it.

 

Will never come back? Has it gone away then? What's 'mainstream' to you? I think you need to look at the bigger picture!

 

Kodak: Film No Compromise: Image Quality

 

http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Products/Customer_Testimonials/Why_Compromise/Cost_one-sheet.htm

 

http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Products/Customer_Testimonials/Why_Compromise/archive_one_sheet.htm

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[earleygallery]

I love this quote in particular from the Kodak websites linked above;

 

Film has been around for more than 100 years, and it remains the state-of-the-art image capture format available today. In all of that time, the evolution of film technology has never outdated the investments people have made in cameras and related equipment. With a fresh roll of film, a filmmaker is as technologically advanced today using cameras that were made 30 or 40 years ago.

[Xmas]

I love this quote in particular from the Kodak websites linked above;

 

Film has been around for more than 100 years, and it remains the state-of-the-art image capture format available today. In all of that time, the evolution of film technology has never outdated the investments people have made in cameras and related equipment. With a fresh roll of film, a filmmaker is as technologically advanced today using cameras that were made 30 or 40 years ago.

 

Hi

 

Good spot, I thought that was risible as well, Kodak in total denial.

Kodachrome 25 was available 40 years ago, but not today, creamy E6 instead.

Leitz were not selling multi coated moulded Aspheric then, like Leica today.

If you want a fine grain mono cine, we have canceled it, use 5222 (-xx) instead

Kodak have developed the tabular grain crystal technology, but applied that in mono only(?).

Who do they think they are kidding?

 

Noel

[ndjambrose]

... Toy cameras are an inexpensive way for an experimental person to try out film for the first time. There is always the possibility that the person may become serious and start looking to purchase a more professional quality camera and fill it with more professional quality film at a later date.....

 

That is one of the funniest things I've read on this forum.

 

Toy cameras aren't the domain of people who can't afford professional cameras. They're used because of their aesthetic values, mostly by people who are already good photographers, and who have substantial investments in cameras of all types and sizes. For many people, learning to use a vintage/toy camera is an end point in their photography journey, not the starting point. No one embraces a plastic camera with one shutter speed, a point and guess viewfinder and zone focusing unless they're appreciative of its character and have the skills to get the most from it. Anyone using a toy camera knows that instinct and reflex are their primary tools - and any photographer knows those are the skills that are hardest to acquire.

 

Take a look at the Lomo groups of Flickr and get a feel for the average posting rate, or drop into any of the hundreds of lomography fan sites. There are thousands of people out there who are perfectly happy to burn through half a dozen rolls every day, many of them producing remarkable work in the process, and almost all of it characterised by excellent skills in composition and timing. This is not the domain of beginners. And I would hazard a guess that as a group they shoot far more film than any collective of 'professional camera' owners.

 

Interestingly more than a few toy camera users are noteworthy professional photographers. Perhaps one of the more accessible is Chris Anderson, formerly of VII agency, now of Magnum, but in some circles better known as a prolific Holga shooter. There are occasionally some surprisingly famous personalities behind the Flickr user names ....

[Gentleman Villain]

That is one of the funniest things I've read on this forum.

 

Toy cameras aren't the domain of people who can't afford professional cameras. They're used because of their aesthetic values, mostly by people who are already good photographers, and who have substantial investments in cameras of all types and sizes. For many people, learning to use a vintage/toy camera is an end point in their photography journey, not the starting point. No one embraces a plastic camera with one shutter speed, a point and guess viewfinder and zone focusing unless they're appreciative of its character and have the skills to get the most from it. Anyone using a toy camera knows that instinct and reflex are their primary tools - and any photographer knows those are the skills that are hardest to acquire.

 

Take a look at the Lomo groups of Flickr and get a feel for the average posting rate, or drop into any of the hundreds of lomography fan sites. There are thousands of people out there who are perfectly happy to burn through half a dozen rolls every day, many of them producing remarkable work in the process, and almost all of it characterised by excellent skills in composition and timing. This is not the domain of beginners. And I would hazard a guess that as a group they shoot far more film than any collective of 'professional camera' owners.

 

Interestingly more than a few toy camera users are noteworthy professional photographers. Perhaps one of the more accessible is Chris Anderson, formerly of VII agency, now of Magnum, but in some circles better known as a prolific Holga shooter. There are occasionally some surprisingly famous personalities behind the Flickr user names ....

 

some might consider the term "prolific Holga shooter" to be pretty funny

 

Sure, some people will shoot toy cameras solely for the look and low cost might not be a factor. However, others will use them because it's an inexpensive way to experiment with film. There are a myriad of reasons as to why a single person might choose to use a toy camera. I merely mentioned one single reason and that doesn't mean that it's the only reason on earth....Isn't this just obvious? not sure why I would find myself having to explain the seemingly obvious

[stephen.w]

some might consider the term "prolific Holga shooter" to be pretty funny

 

Sure, some people will shoot toy cameras solely for the look and low cost might not be a factor. However, others will use them because it's an inexpensive way to experiment with film. There are a myriad of reasons as to why a single person might choose to use a toy camera. I merely mentioned one single reason and that doesn't mean that it's the only reason on earth....Isn't this just obvious? not sure why I would find myself having to explain the seemingly obvious

I agree. One look at the Lomography marketing campaign is enough to conclude that these cameras aren't being aimed at professionals. It's about democratising 'serious' or 'experimental' photography. About on Lomography

[FiZZ]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That is one of the funniest things I've read on this forum.

 

Toy cameras aren't the domain of people who can't afford professional cameras. They're used because of their aesthetic values, mostly by people who are already good photographers, and who have substantial investments in cameras of all types and sizes. For many people, learning to use a vintage/toy camera is an end point in their photography journey, not the starting point. No one embraces a plastic camera with one shutter speed, a point and guess viewfinder and zone focusing unless they're appreciative of its character and have the skills to get the most from it. Anyone using a toy camera knows that instinct and reflex are their primary tools - and any photographer knows those are the skills that are hardest to acquire.

 

Take a look at the Lomo groups of Flickr and get a feel for the average posting rate, or drop into any of the hundreds of lomography fan sites. There are thousands of people out there who are perfectly happy to burn through half a dozen rolls every day, many of them producing remarkable work in the process, and almost all of it characterised by excellent skills in composition and timing. This is not the domain of beginners. And I would hazard a guess that as a group they shoot far more film than any collective of 'professional camera' owners.

 

Interestingly more than a few toy camera users are noteworthy professional photographers. Perhaps one of the more accessible is Chris Anderson, formerly of VII agency, now of Magnum, but in some circles better known as a prolific Holga shooter. There are occasionally some surprisingly famous personalities behind the Flickr user names ....

 

I disagree completely. Toy cameras are EXACTLY the domain of those who can't afford professional cameras. Consumers who don't want to spend an X amount on dSLRs, thinking it's cheaper to buy a toy camera. And they're right. I find them insulting, that they follow the "don't think, just shoot" mentality and they're regarded as photographers. You might as well get a paint ball gun and shoot some colours on a canvas. It's an insulting to anyone who uses a proper camera that isn't made of cheap plastic parts and has intentional light leaks. What skill and reflexes are involved with pointing a camera at anything and shooting, not knowing if it's a hit or miss? As an avid film shooter, I find it insulting because photography is more than a technical trick, it's a state of mind. Going around hoping that the crap plastic lens is going to give you wild colours is nothing more than technicality. How many of them do you know visualize the scene in front of them and render it EXACTLY how they want to on their film? Leaving it to luck is not photography. The only luck aspect that should be involved in photography is being in the right place at the right time. Everything else should be skill, and that means composition, not blindly pushing a shutter button.

 

That being said, my only issue is that lomography takes a hold on film and starts releasing it under the lomo name and starts charging a ridiculous amount of money on it. Having switched to colour film, I want good emulsions that give realistic colours, not films that are supposed to give wild colours intentionally.

 

Holga started out as a toy for kids, and then some photographer liked the results and started marketing it as a "good" camera. You have no idea how many kids come up to me and tell me they're artists and that their work is good photography because they like the light leaks and the plastic look of the images. I feel like smacking them and failing them their photography courses (don't worry nothing yet, in fact, I give them an appreciation for SLR cameras once they're done.)

 

It costs 3$ to make a Holga, yet it's sold for 12-50$ depending on the "model" that you're getting. A 3$ piece of plastic won't take a picture as good as a 1500$ camera. Yes, equipment does play a factor. If you don't think it does, you're just deluding yourself.

 

(Sorry for the rant, I just HATE toy camera wielders who think they're photographers. That title is a privilege not an activity based name.)

[redbaron]

I'm glad I never took one of your classes.

[FiZZ]

I'm glad I never took one of your classes.

 

I'm actually not that tough. Just when a class is on photo basics, I want you to learn how to shoot with an SLR and ONLY an SLR. Lomography has it's place, but it's not art and not in my class. That simple.

 

I actually saw one student who did good work with a Diana+. She was documenting the differences between the old parts of town and the new parts. Her compositions were fantastic, and the effect just added to the work, and didn't make it the focus of the work. That is what I would accept from a toy camera.

[pop]

(...) Her compositions were fantastic, and the effect just added to the work, and didn't make it the focus of the work. That is what I would accept from a toy camera.

 

Yes. That is what I would accept from any camera at all, be it toy, pro or whatever.

[FiZZ]

Yes. That is what I would accept from any camera at all, be it toy, pro or whatever.

 

Exactly Phillip. That's what I try to teach. When I was in college, I used a camera phone for part of my final project. I only used three of the pictures out of 120 or so. It's not about the effect, it's the composition.

[pop]

Leaving it to luck is not photography.

That's one point where I do not agree. There are indeed some artists (including photographers) whose art includes some kind of "objets trouvées". Some of those works can be real eye-openers. However, I rather suspect that selecting the showable takes might be a non-trivial amount of work.

The only luck aspect that should be involved in photography is being in the right place at the right time.

... with the right equipment and material.

[wattsy]

photographers. That title is a privilege not an activity based name.)

 

LOL.

[plasticman]

I'm glad I never took one of your classes.

 

+1

[Brent1965]

Hell yes! Toy cameras are the Olympus Trips/Box Brownies for the new generation.

These kids are discovering film for the first time.

Save film? It doesn't need saving.

[Brent1965]

FiZZ, your comments really do irk me.

Firstly, ANYTHING that has people buying film, especially less commonly used formats like 120 and stuffing them in cameras and using them is a good thing. You should be less concerned about what they use - as long as they are out there in the world taking part in our world and taking images, developing negs, printing/scanning posting online or whatever - they're out there doing "art" in whatever terms it is to them - and they're sending their stuff into the world. This is good for all of us.

Your comments and your apparent judgement of a photographer by what hangs from their shoulder is so amusingly "camera club" it beggars belief.

 

In the same way an art student or "youth" today might play with a Holga or some other crazy plastic camera - is the same for me as a mature adult choosing to make my images with a 1959 IIIG instead of the far less emotive but much more surgically efficent Nikon F2 I also own, or the luck factor I sometimes have now I no longer use a light meter but choose to sunny 16 - some of my most successful images are ones that people like you would call partial failures, be they caused by lens flare from my old glass, random accidental compositions, sunny-16 "issues" on my part - any number of things.

Photography to some is about knowing the rules, and breaking them thoughtfully. Making Art can be as simple as random light leaks & plastic lenses & unpredictable results.

[delander †]

What is needed to save film is the availablity of good film scanners at reasonable prices. Perhaps the makers of film will see that eventually, the digital camera manufacturers aren't going to.

 

Jeff

[FiZZ]

FiZZ, your comments really do irk me.

Firstly, ANYTHING that has people buying film, especially less commonly used formats like 120 and stuffing them in cameras and using them is a good thing. You should be less concerned about what they use - as long as they are out there in the world taking part in our world and taking images, developing negs, printing/scanning posting online or whatever - they're out there doing "art" in whatever terms it is to them - and they're sending their stuff into the world. This is good for all of us.

Your comments and your apparent judgement of a photographer by what hangs from their shoulder is so amusingly "camera club" it beggars belief.

 

In the same way an art student or "youth" today might play with a Holga or some other crazy plastic camera - is the same for me as a mature adult choosing to make my images with a 1959 IIIG instead of the far less emotive but much more surgically efficent Nikon F2 I also own, or the luck factor I sometimes have now I no longer use a light meter but choose to sunny 16 - some of my most successful images are ones that people like you would call partial failures, be they caused by lens flare from my old glass, random accidental compositions, sunny-16 "issues" on my part - any number of things.

Photography to some is about knowing the rules, and breaking them thoughtfully. Making Art can be as simple as random light leaks & plastic lenses & unpredictable results.

 

1. I have no problem with film being used, as long as I get high quality film, like I mentioned in my post.

 

2. You need to know the rules to break them. Going around gung-ho and relying on "luck" and having no compositions in your pictures irks me. That's my view on "toy" cameras. I don't recall

 

3. The above is my view on photography. No one is asking you to subscribe to my beliefs and to follow my trail of thought. Toy cameras have their place, and pro cameras have their place.

 

To go back to the original topic, I would have no problem with toy cameras helping film, as long as it helps keep my favorite films in business.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[FiZZ]

What is needed to save film is the availablity of good film scanners at reasonable prices. Perhaps the makers of film will see that eventually, the digital camera manufacturers aren't going to.

 

Jeff

 

Canon have started with that. I think they one, the 8800 Canoscan. It does slide/MF/35mm and is, apparently, under 200$. Someone I know got one. So does Epson and HP.

[stephen.w]

But more is needed than just good and affordable scanners. If there is indeed a lively second hand market for film cameras, more camera manufacturers need to realise this and reintroduce their film lines.