Can the increase in popularity of toy cameras save film?

[jsrockit]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

 

It will never come back to what it was before digital became the norm. Mainstream means that the general public is using / supporting it. The mainstream consumer user is not using film, film is no longer stocked in many stores that used to carry film, film is no longer processed in many drug stores like it used to be, and film cameras are no longer mainstream cameras. This cannot be disputed.

 

Of course, I can only speak for the US and more specifically, New York City, but there is a huge change between what was available in the 90s and what is available today. Film is no longer mainstream. Film cameras are niche products. I am looking at the big picture.

[jsrockit]

 

(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.)

 

Do you equally hate people with expensive cameras that can't or don't make photos? I'd much rather hang out with someone who loves photography than loves equipment. If you make photographs, you can consider yourself a photographer.

 

The definition of a "photographer" is a person who takes photographs using a camera.

[plasticman]

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.)...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.

 

I honestly think that this post was one of the narrowest, philistine, most offensive things I've ever read on this forum.

 

On a lighter note, I'm guessing Sally Mann would be getting an extra hard slap around the head for messing around with those glass plates of hers...

[Xmas]

I'm guessing Sally Mann would be ... messing around with those glass plates of hers...

 

Sally is not dependent upon fat cats at Kodak, & Fuji keeping their plants running.

 

Noel

[FiZZ]

Do you equally hate people with expensive cameras that can't or don't make photos? I'd much rather hang out with someone who loves photography than loves equipment. If you make photographs, you can consider yourself a photographer.

 

The definition of a "photographer" is a person who takes photographs using a camera.

 

I hate people don't get the gist of what I'm saying and find everything I say as offensive and don't respect the "freedom of expression" that this forum is supposed to have.

 

To answer your question, no I don't. I think it's a waste of equipment because someone more capable than you could be using that camera to make beautiful picture.

 

Again, my issue is with toy cameras, where people think that just because you have a toy camera, issues like composition and lighting don't matter because the "retro" look and the "light leaks"

 

I honestly think that this post was one of the narrowest, philistine, most offensive things I've ever read on this forum.

 

On a lighter note, I'm guessing Sally Mann would be getting an extra hard slap around the head for messing around with those glass plates of hers...

 

I don't understand why this is offensive. Are you saying that equipment doesn't play a factor? The comment about the students was meant in humour. Still having a problem showing that in posts. Maybe a smiley would have helped.

[jsrockit]

FiZZ, it came off as snobbery, that's all. Toy cameras are just like any other camera... some people will make good pictures with them and many won't. I get your point now... with regard to composition, etc.

[Gentleman Villain]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Brent1965 said "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"

 

I think he just summed up my exact thoughts on the subject. The simple fact that people are using film is good for the continued production of film.

 

@Fizz - The spirit of the past democratic era has produced a disdain for the technical craft of photography. In essence, most people believe that advocating for high standards of craftsmanship will result in tyranny. Don't be surprised to encounter harsh reactions against even minimum standards for photographic technique.

[FiZZ]

FiZZ, it came off as snobbery, that's all. Toy cameras are just like any other camera... some people will make good pictures with them and many won't. I get your point now... with regard to composition, etc.

 

Apologies about that. I get really fiery when it comes to issues like this. Erwin Putz said: "Photography is not a technical trick, it's a state of mind." Toy cameras are mostly used as a technicality. Having a disdain for composition and principles that take professionals years to develop are insulting. While yes, some get them quicker than others, and you don't always need them, it shouldn't be the norm. All of a sudden, action sampler shots are "art" and the person who took them considers himself on par to the one who's been shooting for years and has earned a living with it for years.

 

For the record, I don't call my self a "photographer". I think my work is very bland and I'm not happy with any of it. I don't consider myself an expert in photography at all. I just know some things are to be done in a certain way, and I have, what I think, a pretty good eye for other's work.

[Gentleman Villain]

How did the photographic arts degenerate to the point that it's considered acceptable to advocate for composition but not for craftsmanship? Fascinating, isn't it?

[redbaron]

Fizz, you and your comments are offensive, supercilious and arrogant. I certainly will not be reading any more of your comments. Bye bye...

[earleygallery]

Fizz can you define the word photographer for us? Oh while you're at it can you do pretentious as well.

[Gentleman Villain]

A photographer should be defined by his ability to exercise control over the photographic medium. A competent photographer would also be a competent craftsman. He would have a mastery over his tools and technique.

 

The generally accepted modern role of an artist is to convey an idea, feeling, or message through the use of a chosen medium. Many artists will choose the medium of photography, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are competent photographers. In modern times, the value of an artist is mostly judged by his ability to convey an idea or message through a medium and not necessarily by his actual mastery of technique and craftsmanship within the medium.

 

A photographer should be judged by his competence in craftsmanship within the medium, but an artist only really needs to be judged by his competence at conveying a message or an idea by using a medium. It's possible to both an artist and photographer at the same time. However, it is unlikely in this democratic era where it is mostly popular to favor content over craftsmanship.

 

There was a time in the arts that it wasn't possible to be a competent artist without also being a competent craftsman. But it's not like that in this age of democracy. Now, anybody with a toy camera can be considered an artist and competence in the craft is of little consequence. People that advocate for high standards of craftsmanship within the arts are often considered un-democratic and can be slurred as elitists or snobs etc.

 

That's just my take on the situation and others are certainly free to disagree.

[ndjambrose]

Fizz, I found your reaction to the concept of toy camera very interesting. One of the most remarkable aspects of it is that your comments seem to lack any understanding of photography as a process. Your reference points are all about photography as a technical endeavour, not an artistic one.

 

I consider myself fortunate enough to know a few world class photographers and mix in their company fairly easily. I have to say that by any (and every) yardstick of photography as I understand it, you appear to be fully illiterate in a visual sense.

 

Perhaps one of the best indicators of this is your claim that "A 3$ piece of plastic won't take a picture as good as a 1500$ camera." That's perhaps a good example of what Germans refer to as Unsinn - it's something that makes no sense because it's based on false precepts. It becomes a point that's difficult to argue because there's no foundation of logic.

 

Any photographer or visual critic of even the most meagre abilities knows that the result of picture making is the end product, not the tool that was used. Measure an image by what it says, how it speaks, what it draws, and your reaction to it - but not by the camera that was used.

 

I was in the Photographer's Gallery today and enjoyed a beautiful series made with a vintage camera (lens value probably closer to $5 than $1500) and which has been syndicated worldwide, printed and exhibited and will probably win prizes in time. The work is meaningful because of what it depicts - both directly, in terms of subject, and indirectly, in terms of the mindset of the photographer.

 

You are of course free to react to art in any way you care to, and to hold any views you choose in respect of its validity as medium or process. If you truly believe that the tool is more important than the product then that remains your prerogative. But such an opinion holds no merit in my eyes, except as a measure of extreme ignorance and misapprehension.

[redbaron]

... and I wonder what da Vinci's brushes cost.

[FiZZ]

Fizz, I found your reaction to the concept of toy camera very interesting. One of the most remarkable aspects of it is that your comments seem to lack any understanding of photography as a process. Your reference points are all about photography as a technical endeavour, not an artistic one.

 

I consider myself fortunate enough to know a few world class photographers and mix in their company fairly easily. I have to say that by any (and every) yardstick of photography as I understand it, you appear to be fully illiterate in a visual sense.

 

Perhaps one of the best indicators of this is your claim that "A 3$ piece of plastic won't take a picture as good as a 1500$ camera." That's perhaps a good example of what Germans refer to as Unsinn - it's something that makes no sense because it's based on false precepts. It becomes a point that's difficult to argue because there's no foundation of logic.

 

Any photographer or visual critic of even the most meagre abilities knows that the result of picture making is the end product, not the tool that was used. Measure an image by what it says, how it speaks, what it draws, and your reaction to it - but not by the camera that was used.

 

I was in the Photographer's Gallery today and enjoyed a beautiful series made with a vintage camera (lens value probably closer to $5 than $1500) and which has been syndicated worldwide, printed and exhibited and will probably win prizes in time. The work is meaningful because of what it depicts - both directly, in terms of subject, and indirectly, in terms of the mindset of the photographer.

 

You are of course free to react to art in any way you care to, and to hold any views you choose in respect of its validity as medium or process. If you truly believe that the tool is more important than the product then that remains your prerogative. But such an opinion holds no merit in my eyes, except as a measure of extreme ignorance and misapprehension.

 

Gentleman Villain said everything I meant to say, but in a more elequant way. I subscribe to most of this post.

 

Your comment about the vintage lens being closer to 5$: That's fine. TOY LENSES that are used JUST for the look are what irritate me. Again, the word here is competence. My issue is with TOY cameras, in particular, the likes of lomography. The pictures can be beautiful, but the majority likes competence.

 

Let me try to put it in another frame: how many people do you know, or have seen, that have a camera, and they don't know how to use it. They put it on full automatic, use a bright flash to wash out the entire scene, and the end result is a picture that is, well, crap. That's the truth, not all photographs are good photographs. Then, these people think they are competent.

 

I did my best work with my first SLR, a Yashica worth 85$. I still have it because it means so much to me. But it took me a few years to learn how to use a camera and be competent enough about certain aspects of picture taking. So, no, I don't think that the tool is more important than the product. I've seen some incredible work done with pin hole cameras made out of a show box. Again, these photographers were competent about their craft and new what they were doing.

 

I'll define my issue about toy cameras one more time: they have the ability to allow the user to rely on luck and no real aspect of issues like composition, etc. There's an anti-lomography website, this is their philosophy: "We are totally against this doctrine, we not only think, we study, we learn, we follow and most importantly we shoot from the heart not the hip."

 

And that is what I subscribe to. I just hope this makes sense.

 

I want to thank all of you who were courteous enough to actually discuss this in a civil way.

[LuxBob]

This is getting a bit serious but just to add to the fray I recently went into one of these stores selling Lomos and Holgas. I can't remember what else they had but it was all at the level of trivial disposable fashion items. "Look dalling, I just bought these scrummy little shoes and this funny little camera." With or without the camera I found the whole concept to be going off on a tangent.

On the other hand it could bring some new ideas into photography and that I don't mind.

[ndjambrose]

...

 

Let me try to put it in another frame: how many people do you know, or have seen, that have a camera, and they don't know how to use it. They put it on full automatic, use a bright flash to wash out the entire scene, and the end result is a picture that is, well, crap. That's the truth, not all photographs are good photographs. Then, these people think they are competent. ...

 

Fizz, thanks for the extension. Your clarification helps a little, and I at least can see the angle you're coming from. As with many things, there's a degree of truth even in opposing views.

 

Yes - there are bad photographs in any gene of photography. And Lomo is just as susceptible to disappearing in a vortex of its own cliche as any other school or style. But bad photographs are the product of the photographer, not the camera. In the right hands any camera can produce sublime work, which is why I would resist any connection between equipment and end product.

 

There are far too many Leica photographers whose measure of excellence is a snap of their cat at f1. And far too may Lomo photographers who photograph their feet with a colored flash. But since there's something in the region of $10,000 difference in equipment value, it's interesting to me that both cameras can produce equally worthless work. It reinforces my opinion that there's no causal connection between quality and action, except what the photographer provides.

 

And I'd maintain that if the photographer is doing the thinking, then the scope of the tool is irrelevant. There are thousands of excellent photographs made with toy cameras (for example, see Chris Anderson's book 'NonFiction' available from the Magnum store) which would seem to indicate that visualisation, reflex and timing are just as significant ingredients as focusing and metering. And, more importantly, that there are capable photographers able to work around the inherent limitations of their equipment to produce strong and interesting work.

 

For which reason, any proposition along the lines of 'toy cameras are crap' has entirely missed the point, in my opinion. It's far more engaging to discuss the image, not the box that made it.

[Xmas]

It's not that film necessarily needs to be saved, but I was just curious to hear any of your thoughts on what the resurgence of 'toy cameras' might mean for this segment of the industry as a whole. There are now Lomography flagship stores selling the Lomo, Diana, etc in many major cities around the world. It might turn out to be nothing more than a fad, and hipsters are the only people I've seen actually shooting these cameras, but might this trend not force film producers to rethink discontinuing some of their 35mm films?

 

Most Fuji Pro C-41 Films Discontinued - Photo.net Film and Processing Forum

 

The manufacturers are not selling all of it so they will make less rather then more, they are dependent on the 'shops' buying it and selling it to us, and we are not buying it. Because of the manufacturing process they will stop the slow sellers, and make less of the better sellers to optimize their profit. They wont want to lose market share Fuji v Kodak, they are wringing the last dollar (oops cent) out of it (their investment in machinery & people).

 

I've seen more film Leica's than Plastic cameras on any day out in London by a large margin, the plastics occur about the same frequency as Barnacks - I am supprised when I see a plastic or Barnack. So the plastic cameras are 'not used' by tourists or street shooters much.

 

If you look at the number of people using the sub forums the best fraction I've seen is 1:5, we have 5x the number of digital people than film on line, when there are a reasonable number of people on line, about 10:60 as I type... On forum outings (i attend) the bulk of the shots are taken on digital, even allowing that I hammer the lever wind on my film cameras, mercilessly...

 

Film is becoming a niche product, fill a big fridge full of fav film, especially if you use monochrome, even if it is only more expensive next year, Kodachrome 25, 64 and 100 cassettes are about to become paperweights...

 

I don't have a dig camera have you a dig camera?, When I open the fridge door bulk film cans falls out not food cans.

 

Noel

[jsrockit]

Wait, are people saying that you cannot be a competent craftsman and use toy cameras as well? Why do people assume there is no thought with a toy camera? I've used toy cameras, taken my composition seriously, and then printed in a real darkroom just like I would with negs from a Leica. I used toy cameras before I knew what lomography was. I don't care why people choose to be into photography. Use what you want and have your own philosophy as to why you do it. The most important thing, if you are not a pro, is to have fun.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[stephen.w]

I don't have a dig camera have you a dig camera?, When I open the fridge door bulk film cans falls out not food cans.

A number of years ago I inherited my uncle's Minolta SLR and lenses, but for the past while I have been shooting only digital (with Canon compacts and recently with an X1). I want to buy an analog M and there is an M6 classic in good condition and for a good price at my local Leica dealer which I check on every few days just to make sure it hasn't been sold. I will buy it or another film M at some point in the near future, but I do worry about investing in a camera system which I may not be able to use in a few years time. Hence the starting of this thread.