Saying "a lot" is relative. Compared to digital very few people are using film. Look at how few people have actually posted in that forum compared to all the digital forums. I personally don't know anybody who uses film.
Yes, with good housekeeping, there really is no need for the negatives to become contaminated with dust.
If you were to draw a Venn diagram of the set of people who post on DPR and the set of people doing film photography there would be a tiny overlap, so DPR probably isn’t the best place for stats on the size of film photography.
Change your Q to read "...a definition of..." and you might get from me: anything that you think looks like a film rendition, - but only in passing, because, like you, I reckon it's semantically pretty vapid.
Yes, you're right. It's a niche, but slowly picking up steam.
I wish I had the foresight to do that. Sealing them in an envelope and properly storing them would have saved me a lot of trouble but back then I had no idea that scanning film would ever be a thing.
I tend to look at it as a percentage of film users vs Digital. As such 1.5 million is a tiny number compared to the billions taking digital photos.
“serious” cameras (ILCs and the like) are already pretty niche (e.g. Fujifilm sell more film cameras per year than total ILC sales) so it comes down to a rather silly “my niche is bigger than your niche”. Phones dwarf everything and pretty soon (if not already) embedded cameras will dwarf phones, so film and ILCs are just on the edge of the sea, hunting for scraps.
Remembered? Lots of us are still out here shooting B&W film. I've actually had to make a couple of trips to Freestyle these past couple of weeks as they've been out of my favorite emulsions.
My go-to for low light is HP5+ pushed two stops. I love the gritty look, but next batch I'll be experimenting a different developer (XT3) -- maybe go less gritty.
Hi! Aaron here. Nice to meet you. Now, between me and Smaug, you know two!
Everything considered and since you are obviously talking about 35mm when you mention 36 exposures you could buy a used Canon 5D II for less than $500. That camera is superior in every way to any 35mm film camera ever made. There is no reason to replace cameras every 2-4 years.
Yes but neither did I but I did assume I'd want to print my negatives again and that required protecting them.
Yes but every single one of those film users is deliberately and consciously making photographic images, whilst the vast bulk of smartphone users are just casual snappers with little thought behind their pics.
I don't think that's relevant to the issue. Besides the number of serious photographers using film is still very small compared to those using digital. I don't know what it's like where you live but where I live nobody sells film so you have to buy it online. Why is that? Because the local camera stores wouldn't sell enough to make it economically viable to keep it in stock. Is film making a "comeback"? Yes, but it's just a blip in the total sales.
The camera shops around where I live (UK) sell a variety of film, even the local supermarket has started selling it again.
1%-2% proves my point. Thank you.
Kodachrome was 'better' than Mother Nature.Yes, it does have some attributes of having been processed using HDR, however; I have always enjoyed beautiful scenes of what "Mother Nature" has created.The irony, if someone showed that picture today, I would would say it was overcolored and over-processed. :-DA beautiful scene: However, you are referring to a FILM TYPE Look. All different types for film that I used for many years each had a different Film TYPE look and NOT a general overall Film look.Here is a scan of a Kodachrome 64 image from 1989.
I don't think any digital camera could recreate this without post-processing. The colors, the contrast, the vignetting...
Regarding your comment concerning creating this scene with a Digital Camera requires Post Processing in order to get a comparable results. In my opinion, that also is true for most images exposed with Digital Cameras -- meaning-- most images can be improved by appropriate post processing.
I am NOT referring to post processing to turn images into a "Disney Land" type of JUNK
I’d mentioned those figures before ( https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65603225 ) and there have been responses ( https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65603871 , https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65603785 ) so they don’t really prove anything. At this point film, ILCs etc etc are just fighting for scraps - go into a camera shop selling new digital cameras, the ones I’ve seen are on their uppers because there are few people wanting to buy new ILCs.
And far, far, far fewer want to buy new film cameras so that proves nothing. Fact, there are far, far, far more people shooting digital with a dedicated camera than film. Why anyone would want to argue against this FACT is beyond me. This minor uptick in film usage is a temporary thing before the novelty wears off and the inconvenience of film sinks in. Digital camera usage is here to stay even if it isn't at the huge numbers seen before.
“In 2019 Fuji sold more Instax cameras than the entire digital camera segment” ( https://fstoppers.com/gear/if-fujis-instax-cash-cow-should-it-produce-digital-cameras-559719 )
I think that’s a straw man argument - I don’t think anyone is saying that, what is being said is that there does exist a film market rather than “even though no one is really using it.”
I’m not sure that doubling your output and being unable to keep up with demand ( Kodak ) is a minor uptick, but you’re entitled to your opinion
I agree, and the numbers will be bigger than before, but the growth will be in phones, cars, CCTV systems etc
