Reading mode: Light Dark

‘Mistakes are romantic’: the revival of point-and-shoot cameras

Go to last post
Overrank

Overrank

Veteran Member
Messages
7,916
Solutions
14
Reaction score
4,435
Article in The Guardian (UK broadsheet newspaper)

www.theguardian.com

‘Mistakes are romantic’: the revival of point-and-shoot cameras

Models, athletes and TikTokers shun phone cameras as 35mm sales surge and a new Pentax film camera is launched
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

Blog post by Paul McKay from AnalogueWonderland who was quoted in the article

analoguewonderland.co.uk

Gen Z and Film Photography: Is It A Trend?

We explore the relationship between Gen Z trends and the resurgence of film photography - drawing from recent national coverage and an exclusive community survey
analoguewonderland.co.uk analoguewonderland.co.uk



The top three reasons for using film were
  • To slow down
  • To create something physical
  • To take unique photos
(my main reason for using film is so I don’t have to sit behind a computer editing !)
 
Overrank said:
Article in The Guardian (UK broadsheet newspaper)

https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...tic-gen-zs-revival-of-point-and-shoot-cameras

Blog post by Paul McKay from AnalogueWonderland who was quoted in the article

https://analoguewonderland.co.uk/blogs/film-photography-blog/film-photography-and-gen-z

The top three reasons for using film were
  • To slow down
  • To create something physical
  • To take unique photos
(my main reason for using film is so I don’t have to sit behind a computer editing !)
Click to expand...
So, what are you doing with your (processed) films?
 
flektogon said:
Overrank said:
Article in The Guardian (UK broadsheet newspaper)

https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...tic-gen-zs-revival-of-point-and-shoot-cameras

Blog post by Paul McKay from AnalogueWonderland who was quoted in the article

https://analoguewonderland.co.uk/blogs/film-photography-blog/film-photography-and-gen-z

The top three reasons for using film were
  • To slow down
  • To create something physical
  • To take unique photos
(my main reason for using film is so I don’t have to sit behind a computer editing !)
Click to expand...
So, what are you doing with your (processed) films?
Click to expand...
Slides can just be viewed directly, although for practicality everything (slides and negatives) is scanned. But this takes up very little time compared to post processing of files from a digital camera. Once the scanned films are saved I won’t normally do any further editing.
 
Overrank said:
Article in The Guardian (UK broadsheet newspaper)

https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...tic-gen-zs-revival-of-point-and-shoot-cameras

Blog post by Paul McKay from AnalogueWonderland who was quoted in the article

https://analoguewonderland.co.uk/blogs/film-photography-blog/film-photography-and-gen-z

The top three reasons for using film were
  • To slow down
  • To create something physical
  • To take unique photos
(my main reason for using film is so I don’t have to sit behind a computer editing !)
Click to expand...
I agree with you here. Film has made photography a LOT faster for me as well.

Most of my time is spent photographing, rather than sitting in front of a computer editing raw files.

The "something physical" is very true for me as well. Whether it is instax/polaroid, negatives, or slides, having that physical connection to the photo is nice.
 
Dancis said:
Dancis said:
I agree with you here. Film has made photography a LOT faster for me as well.
Click to expand...
I develop and print and it sure isn't faster than digital processing
Click to expand...
Depends on your digital workflow.

In a typical shoot, I can go with anywhere from 300-500 raw files (this is for a studio shoot, add a multiplier for weddings).

Shot on a modest FF D800/850, downloading the files, uploading to LR, picking, editing, curves, etc. is a LONG process in front of a computer.

With film, I shoot 2-3 rolls per shoot. I pre-plan the "look" I want and choose the appropriate film. If I want warm, I choose Portra. If I want something more vibrant, I choose Ektar or maybe Superia.

I drop off the film, get my scans, upload to LR and choose from 36-108 shots max (less usually as some of my rolls are from a 6x7 camera).

I don't have to mess with presets and making my RAW files look like Portra (my old workflow).

I guess I define "faster" as in - faster in front of a computer. Which for me is a great blessing!
 
Overrank said:
flektogon said:
Overrank said:
Article in The Guardian (UK broadsheet newspaper)

https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...tic-gen-zs-revival-of-point-and-shoot-cameras

Blog post by Paul McKay from AnalogueWonderland who was quoted in the article

https://analoguewonderland.co.uk/blogs/film-photography-blog/film-photography-and-gen-z

The top three reasons for using film were
  • To slow down
  • To create something physical
  • To take unique photos
(my main reason for using film is so I don’t have to sit behind a computer editing !)
Click to expand...
So, what are you doing with your (processed) films?
Click to expand...
Slides can just be viewed directly, although for practicality everything (slides and negatives) is scanned. But this takes up very little time compared to post processing of files from a digital camera. Once the scanned films are saved I won’t normally do any further editing.
Click to expand...
So, there is no difference (as to the required sitting in front of computer :-) ) between you, shooting film and me, shooting digital. Like you, I as well don't like doing too much post processing, so I shoot (almost exclusively) JPEGs.
 
All good but you are not developing negs and printing , there is no way digital pp takes more time than developing and printing film
 
i develop and scan my own film and my time per image is wayyyy faster with digital over film. it takes me a lot of time to convert and color balance a film negative. i’m assuming those who say film is faster are getting lab scans, but it’s entirely possible i’m just not good at converting.
 
Overrank said:
Article in The Guardian (UK broadsheet newspaper)

https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...tic-gen-zs-revival-of-point-and-shoot-cameras

Blog post by Paul McKay from AnalogueWonderland who was quoted in the article

https://analoguewonderland.co.uk/blogs/film-photography-blog/film-photography-and-gen-z

The top three reasons for using film were
  • To slow down
  • To create something physical
  • To take unique photos
(my main reason for using film is so I don’t have to sit behind a computer editing !)
Click to expand...
Mistakes can be made by any camera....purposeful or not.

I think the young are gravitating towards these point and shoots (film and digital) because many simply do not understand the mechanics behind photography. Many need a point and shoot as might also be the case with older adults who have long forgotten how to shoot manual. But here is the kicker and the difference. I don't believe the younger generation has the long-term cognitive ability to 'stick with it' or learn a process that is essentially analog in basics.

I was a teacher most of my life and thru many years I have seen this concept I put forth slowly progressing. The young are creative no doubt as I look at some of their finished work, be it images or paintings or whatever. But while creative, they also lack a lengthy cognitive ability to sit down and really work out problems. They are too prone to instantaneous satisfaction and the point and shoot cameras (film or digital) allows them to do just that. Mistakes or not....they fit their shooting style.

Thus why the Pentax 17 is successful and perhaps why the Mint Rollei might not be as successful.

--
jim lehmann https://jimlehmann.squarespace.com
 
Last edited:
mollyc said:
i develop and scan my own film and my time per image is wayyyy faster with digital over film. it takes me a lot of time to convert and color balance a film negative. i’m assuming those who say film is faster are getting lab scans, but it’s entirely possible i’m just not good at converting.
Click to expand...
Yeah, my digital workflow also would be super fast if I were handing some other person card taken out of a camera and waiting for photos they process from my RAW.
 
mollyc said:
i develop and scan my own film and my time per image is wayyyy faster with digital over film. it takes me a lot of time to convert and color balance a film negative. i’m assuming those who say film is faster are getting lab scans, but it’s entirely possible i’m just not good at converting.
Click to expand...
Do you use a scanner or a camera ? I use a scanner and pretty much never colour balance on new film. For slides I do pretty much nothing other than move the frame around as I have a IT8 calibrated workflow
 
Last edited:
tapirek said:
mollyc said:
i develop and scan my own film and my time per image is wayyyy faster with digital over film. it takes me a lot of time to convert and color balance a film negative. i’m assuming those who say film is faster are getting lab scans, but it’s entirely possible i’m just not good at converting.
Click to expand...
Yeah, my digital workflow also would be super fast if I were handing some other person card taken out of a camera and waiting for photos they process from my RAW.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should use film and get lab scans ? I used to do that, it’s super relaxing :-)

(I scan myself now because it’s cheaper)
 
Overrank said:
mollyc said:
i develop and scan my own film and my time per image is wayyyy faster with digital over film. it takes me a lot of time to convert and color balance a film negative. i’m assuming those who say film is faster are getting lab scans, but it’s entirely possible i’m just not good at converting.
Click to expand...
Do you use a scanner or a camera ? I use a scanner and pretty much never colour balance on new film. For slides I do pretty much nothing other than move the frame around as I have a IT8 calibrated workflow
Click to expand...
Right now I camera scan and use NLP. I actually think NLP is my problem and am working on a manual PS workflow for converting. But I am seriously considering a Plustek 8300.
 
Overrank said:
tapirek said:
mollyc said:
i develop and scan my own film and my time per image is wayyyy faster with digital over film. it takes me a lot of time to convert and color balance a film negative. i’m assuming those who say film is faster are getting lab scans, but it’s entirely possible i’m just not good at converting.
Click to expand...
Yeah, my digital workflow also would be super fast if I were handing some other person card taken out of a camera and waiting for photos they process from my RAW.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should use film and get lab scans ? I used to do that, it’s super relaxing :-)

(I scan myself now because it’s cheaper)
Click to expand...
Well, one, as you say, it's way cheaper to scan at home vs get lab scans and two, my lab is closing in two weeks.

I actually don't mind editing, digital or film. I get frustrated with the inconsistency of NLP conversions, but I don't mind the concept of scanning. So as I said in the above post, I'm considering getting a dedicated scanner in the near future.

But regardless, a film workflow will never be considered quick vs digital. I can go out in my garden, shoot a photo, and have it posted on the internet in less than five minutes if I'm really fast. That same photo on film takes me a couple of weeks to finish the roll, a couple of days at my lab for development, then a couple of hours to scan and process. I like the non-instantaneous workflow of film, don't get me wrong. But the only way film is "fast" is if you aren't factoring everything that happens up until the lab emails you scans.
 
Overrank said:
tapirek said:
mollyc said:
i develop and scan my own film and my time per image is wayyyy faster with digital over film. it takes me a lot of time to convert and color balance a film negative. i’m assuming those who say film is faster are getting lab scans, but it’s entirely possible i’m just not good at converting.
Click to expand...
Yeah, my digital workflow also would be super fast if I were handing some other person card taken out of a camera and waiting for photos they process from my RAW.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should use film and get lab scans ? I used to do that, it’s super relaxing :-)

(I scan myself now because it’s cheaper)
Click to expand...
I've shot my last roll of film about five years ago and am not looking back in that direction.
 
mollyc said:
Overrank said:
mollyc said:
i develop and scan my own film and my time per image is wayyyy faster with digital over film. it takes me a lot of time to convert and color balance a film negative. i’m assuming those who say film is faster are getting lab scans, but it’s entirely possible i’m just not good at converting.
Click to expand...
Do you use a scanner or a camera ? I use a scanner and pretty much never colour balance on new film. For slides I do pretty much nothing other than move the frame around as I have a IT8 calibrated workflow
Click to expand...
Right now I camera scan and use NLP. I actually think NLP is my problem and am working on a manual PS workflow for converting. But I am seriously considering a Plustek 8300.
Click to expand...
The user Filmrescue has said on here that their “experience is that anything with a bayer pattern sensor won't do color optimally...especially if it needs to be inverted” ( https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66944821 ) and I’ve seen elsewhere people complain that the filter colours used in a Bayer array are suboptimal for digitising film ( https://photo.stackexchange.com/que...or-rgb-separation-and-its-effect-on-the-image for the graphs, but I can’t find the original quote).

High end film scanners (e.g. for movies) that “photograph” the frames appear to use a monochrome sensor and three separate colour filters to take three images and then combine them.

I used to use a Plustek 8200i for quite a few years and it does a very good job of scanning film, particularly given the price point and warranty etc. The only issues I’m aware of with it are it’s not really 7200ppi, it’s more like 3600ppi if you scan at 7600, and 2800 if you scan at 3600 ( https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64756705 ) and pushing the film holder through can get tiresome (but the 8300 is faster than the 8200). I used SilverFast with the Plustek. I now have a Nikon CoolScan V as my main 35mm scanner and it’s excellent (but no warranty, difficult to service etc).
 
Last edited:
lmans100 said:
Overrank said:
Article in The Guardian (UK broadsheet newspaper)

https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...tic-gen-zs-revival-of-point-and-shoot-cameras

Blog post by Paul McKay from AnalogueWonderland who was quoted in the article

https://analoguewonderland.co.uk/blogs/film-photography-blog/film-photography-and-gen-z

The top three reasons for using film were
  • To slow down
  • To create something physical
  • To take unique photos
(my main reason for using film is so I don’t have to sit behind a computer editing !)
Click to expand...
Mistakes can be made by any camera....purposeful or not.

I think the young are gravitating towards these point and shoots (film and digital) because many simply do not understand the mechanics behind photography. Many need a point and shoot as might also be the case with older adults who have long forgotten how to shoot manual. But here is the kicker and the difference. I don't believe the younger generation has the long-term cognitive ability to 'stick with it' or learn a process that is essentially analog in basics.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely not my experience - I work with lots of people in the 20 - 35 age range and from my interactions with them I learn new things every day, but YMMV.
Jaime100 said:
I was a teacher most of my life and thru many years I have seen this concept I put forth slowly progressing. The young are creative no doubt as I look at some of their finished work, be it images or paintings or whatever. But while creative, they also lack a lengthy cognitive ability to sit down and really work out problems. They are too prone to instantaneous satisfaction and the point and shoot cameras (film or digital) allows them to do just that. Mistakes or not....they fit their shooting style.

Thus why the Pentax 17 is successful and perhaps why the Mint Rollei might not be as successful.
Click to expand...
 
mollyc said:
Overrank said:
tapirek said:
mollyc said:
i develop and scan my own film and my time per image is wayyyy faster with digital over film. it takes me a lot of time to convert and color balance a film negative. i’m assuming those who say film is faster are getting lab scans, but it’s entirely possible i’m just not good at converting.
Click to expand...
Yeah, my digital workflow also would be super fast if I were handing some other person card taken out of a camera and waiting for photos they process from my RAW.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should use film and get lab scans ? I used to do that, it’s super relaxing :-)

(I scan myself now because it’s cheaper)
Click to expand...
Well, one, as you say, it's way cheaper to scan at home vs get lab scans and two, my lab is closing in two weeks.

I actually don't mind editing, digital or film. I get frustrated with the inconsistency of NLP conversions, but I don't mind the concept of scanning. So as I said in the above post, I'm considering getting a dedicated scanner in the near future.

But regardless, a film workflow will never be considered quick vs digital. I can go out in my garden, shoot a photo, and have it posted on the internet in less than five minutes if I'm really fast. That same photo on film takes me a couple of weeks to finish the roll, a couple of days at my lab for development, then a couple of hours to scan and process. I like the non-instantaneous workflow of film, don't get me wrong. But the only way film is "fast" is if you aren't factoring everything that happens up until the lab emails you scans.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say film is fast, but the processing takes little of my time (lab does it) and the scanning is similar (machine does the scans once I’ve set it up). So it takes up little of my time, but it’s not elapsed time fast.
 
Jaime100 said:
But while creative, they also lack a lengthy cognitive ability to sit down and really work out problems.
Click to expand...
I still lecture and teach and find their ability to network and problem solve a lot better that the generation 20 years prior
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

paul613
  • Locked
Guardian article explores why many are returning to point-and-shoot film cameras
2 3
Replies
49
Views
50
Overrank
Overrank
Giovanni_1968
For those of you who shoot both Z and D - lenses character D vs G vs S
2
Replies
38
Views
39
JHern
JHern
Martin Ocando
Retrospective: Before DPReview
2 3
Replies
57
Views
58
Bobby J
B
rangel28
Demise of Point and Shoot Cameras
4 5 6
Replies
102
Views
103
Eric32414
E
BrentSchumer
PetaPixel: Point and Shoot Cameras are Basically Dead
3 4 5
Replies
82
Views
127
sportyaccordy
S

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top