If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
No film shooters
I'm back from a trip to New England and I didn't notice a single
person shooting film. (This may not be exactly true since many point and shoots look like their digital brothers). Another thing I noticed is that there were very few people using disposable cameras either. It seems that people are willing to buy a digital camera where in the past they weren't willing to buy a reloadable film camera. I must say that the trend towards shooting while looking at the back screen is now almost universal. Nobody seems to use the viewfinder (if they even have one). This posture can't be good for minimizing camera shake, especially since many older folks need to hold it fairly far out to see the screen in focus. I did meet a few people with battery problems which put a sudden end to their shooting. -- Robert D Feinman Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs http://robertdfeinman.com mail: |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
No film shooters
"Robert Feinman" wrote
I'm back from a trip to New England and I didn't notice a single person shooting film. On a trip to Montana's Glacier National Park last year I saw 3 other people shooting film, and one of those only has the benefit of doubt: I couldn't see the camera but he was using a tripod -- it was also the only other tripod I saw. But that's a whole lot more people than I saw using view cameras. In a dozen visits over the past 40 years I have only seen two other view camera photographers. Are the number of die-hard film shooters enough to sustain film production? Ferrana [?] in Italy still makes 126 Instamatic film and I haven't seen a 126 camera in use for 30/35/? year. If 0.1% of the public takes pictures on film that leaves 300,000 film photographers in the US. ~600,000? in the ROW. Is that enough to sustain film? At 0.1% one would meet someone else with a film camera around their neck very, very rarely. I notice that on vacation folks with digital cameras usually have them dangling from their wrist and are easy to spot. In the late 70's early 80's I noticed lots of Suburban Dads with a cheap automatic SLR on a strap around their neck and always with a mounted 80-200 f5.6 zoom dangling down as a substitute phallus. Now Suburban Dad has Viagra and only needs a DP&S. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
No film shooters
Robert Feinman wrote: I'm back from a trip to New England and I didn't notice a single person shooting film. (This may not be exactly true since many point and shoots look like their digital brothers). Another thing I noticed is that there were very few people using disposable cameras either. It seems that people are willing to buy a digital camera where in the past they weren't willing to buy a reloadable film camera. I must say that the trend towards shooting while looking at the back screen is now almost universal. Nobody seems to use the viewfinder (if they even have one). This posture can't be good for minimizing camera shake, especially since many older folks need to hold it fairly far out to see the screen in focus. I did meet a few people with battery problems which put a sudden end to their shooting. -- Robert D Feinman Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs http://robertdfeinman.com mail: I'm just back from Austria and saw at least five people shooting film. Three of them, apparently members of a photographers club, flocked around my Pentax K-1000. Almost drooling. Beats me why, it isn't that special. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
No film shooters
"Huisman" wrote in message
ups.com... I'm just back from Austria and saw at least five people shooting film. Three of them, apparently members of a photographers club, flocked around my Pentax K-1000. Almost drooling. Beats me why, it isn't that special. Those of us that tend to buck trends are going to be seeing this more and more, as our legacy film cameras are perceived as exotic items. And they can even take great shots, too! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
No film shooters
Huisman wrote: Robert Feinman wrote: I'm back from a trip to New England and I didn't notice a single person shooting film. (This may not be exactly true since many point and shoots look like their digital brothers). Another thing I noticed is that there were very few people using disposable cameras either. It seems that people are willing to buy a digital camera where in the past they weren't willing to buy a reloadable film camera. I must say that the trend towards shooting while looking at the back screen is now almost universal. Nobody seems to use the viewfinder (if they even have one). This posture can't be good for minimizing camera shake, especially since many older folks need to hold it fairly far out to see the screen in focus. I did meet a few people with battery problems which put a sudden end to their shooting. -- Robert D Feinman Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs http://robertdfeinman.com mail: I'm just back from Austria and saw at least five people shooting film. Three of them, apparently members of a photographers club, flocked around my Pentax K-1000. Almost drooling. Beats me why, it isn't that special. I still see lots of people shooting with film. It has been an invaluable medium for years and years. Digital is here to stay, but so is film. It's just a matter of choice, and for me film is more tangible than digital. Kudos to you "Huisman" for using a perfect classic SLR camera as the Pentax K1000. It does exactly what an SLR should do, depending on the photographer to make all the decisions. It brings one back to the perspective and the basics of "taking a photograph". Helen |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
No film shooters
"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote "Robert Feinman" wrote I'm back from a trip to New England and I didn't notice a single person shooting film. If 0.1% of the public takes pictures on film that leaves 300,000 film photographers in the US. ~600,000? in the ROW. There's like, what, 300 million US citizens? There's like 7 billion people in the world in total. Your calculation might be off by just a wee bit. Cheers, ink |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
No film shooters
Robert Feinman wrote:
I'm back from a trip to New England and I didn't notice a single person shooting film. (This may not be exactly true since many point and shoots look like their digital brothers). Another thing I noticed is that there were very few people using disposable cameras either. It seems that people are willing to buy a digital camera where in the past they weren't willing to buy a reloadable film camera. I must say that the trend towards shooting while looking at the back screen is now almost universal. Nobody seems to use the viewfinder (if they even have one). This posture can't be good for minimizing camera shake, especially since many older folks need to hold it fairly far out to see the screen in focus. I did meet a few people with battery problems which put a sudden end to their shooting. It has been over a year now since I have seen someone using a film SLR. It is rare to see anyone shooting film now and mostly they are using either a cheap point and shoot or a disposable camera. Two years ago it was rare to see someone using a DSLR now I see it all the time. On an Alaskan cruise we took this spring we only saw one couple that was using film, during a whale watching tour. Whereas not one battery ran down they ran out of film just as the whales were getting active. I don't believe any of my friends are still shooting film any many of them were film camera buffs. When I first stated using a digital camera the question I heard most often was how was I going to get prints made? In 10 years I image people using film will be asked, but how do you get prints made? Scott |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
No film shooters
Scott, your relentless digital cheerleading is getting tedious.
"Scott W" wrote in message ups.com... Robert Feinman wrote: I'm back from a trip to New England and I didn't notice a single person shooting film. (This may not be exactly true since many point and shoots look like their digital brothers). Another thing I noticed is that there were very few people using disposable cameras either. It seems that people are willing to buy a digital camera where in the past they weren't willing to buy a reloadable film camera. I must say that the trend towards shooting while looking at the back screen is now almost universal. Nobody seems to use the viewfinder (if they even have one). This posture can't be good for minimizing camera shake, especially since many older folks need to hold it fairly far out to see the screen in focus. I did meet a few people with battery problems which put a sudden end to their shooting. It has been over a year now since I have seen someone using a film SLR. It is rare to see anyone shooting film now and mostly they are using either a cheap point and shoot or a disposable camera. Two years ago it was rare to see someone using a DSLR now I see it all the time. On an Alaskan cruise we took this spring we only saw one couple that was using film, during a whale watching tour. Whereas not one battery ran down they ran out of film just as the whales were getting active. I don't believe any of my friends are still shooting film any many of them were film camera buffs. When I first stated using a digital camera the question I heard most often was how was I going to get prints made? In 10 years I image people using film will be asked, but how do you get prints made? Scott |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
No film shooters
"Robert Feinman" wrote in message ... I'm back from a trip to New England and I didn't notice a single person shooting film. ************************************************** *********** Here in rural Wisconsin I can go into any mom and pop store or conveinience gas station and get 35mm film. I can't get digital film at many of these places. (Not that I tried as I don't have a digital.) Why do they carry it? Usually it is something like $5.00 a roll where as it is $3.50 at Wal-Mart. This is a tourist area and perhaps we rate high on the hick scale but if you are out in the booneys and you can get 35mm film anywhere, then that tells something about film. If nobody was using it, you can bet these places would not be selling it. Ric in Wisconsin. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
No film shooters
In article .net,
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote: If 0.1% of the public takes pictures on film that leaves 300,000 film photographers in the US. ~600,000? in the ROW. Is that enough to sustain film? At 0.1% one would meet someone else with a film camera around their neck very, very rarely. With SLRs, how you can tell from a distance? Yes, if people are looking at the back of the camera, it is probably digital. I assume that the majority of the people who continue with 35mm film use SLRs (after single use cameras). -- That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canon 5D vs. Medium Format (Film) | Progressiveabsolution | Digital Photography | 185 | October 19th 06 01:03 PM |
Pro film dropping faster then consumer | Scott W | 35mm Photo Equipment | 51 | February 13th 06 09:25 PM |
Elementary questions on film handling. | Liopleurodon | In The Darkroom | 22 | December 8th 05 06:37 AM |
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... | Todd Bailey | Film & Labs | 0 | May 27th 04 08:12 AM |