Another Main Stream article on the interest in Film Photography

cmacd123 · Feb 20, 2025

BBC item that came into my News feed.

Bright picture develops for photo film and prints

More youngsters are wanting to use the technology of yesteryear, say two Northamptonshire firms.

www.bbc.com

interesting that one of the quotes used was
"
"I think people like something tactile, they like to have a physical item."

He explained that in the digital age, it was still easy for people to lose photos.

"They haven't backed them up or they lose a phone and they're losing those memories, so I think now there's this push to print photos again," he said.
"

BrianShaw · Feb 20, 2025

Interesting!

Agulliver · Feb 23, 2025

I think another quote is that Gen Z are looking for "authenticity"....which they see in images captured on film.

Pieter12 · Feb 23, 2025

Let's see. Today's film shooters send their film off to be processed and scanned, often disposing (or having disposed) the negatives themselves. They can print them--as they can with digital camera files--or they can just be more digital files to be lost in a crash or haphazardly filed away somewhere on a computer. I don't see that film makes anything more tactile today than a digital image. Maybe the contrast being drawn is with smartphone photos, but even then many phone back up to a cloud service so even if the phone is lost or destroyed the photos are still there. It's just that there are a thousand times more of those than film-originated images. That can devalue the significance of an individual image, plus be overwhelming to sort through and organize.

RalphLambrecht · Feb 23, 2025

Pieter12 said:
Let's see. Today's film shooters send their film off to be processed and scanned, often disposing (or having disposed) the negatives themselves. They can print them--as they can with digital camera files--or they can just be more digital files to be lost in a crash or haphazardly filed away somewhere on a computer. I don't see that film makes anything more tactile today than a digital image. Maybe the contrast being drawn is with smartphone photos, but even then many phone back up to a cloud service so even if the phone is lost or destroyed the photos are still there. It's just that there are a thousand times more of those than film-originated images. That can devalue the significance of an individual image, plus be overwhelming to sort through and organize.

Losing images is not a matter of media but proper filing.

Sirius Glass · Feb 23, 2025

Interesting thoughts. Thank you for posting.

Hassasin · Feb 24, 2025

If someone is using phone for photographic purposes with intent to make "end" product as in "not-just-memories" then he makes proper back up and files them accordingly. To that end there is zero difference to any other way of making photographic images. When such images are made for "memories" it's whatever they choose to do with any back ups, remember or forget has always been part of that game. I just don't see how any of it has anything to do with shooting on film.

There is no mass return to film, and I've seen no indication there is anyone who actually believes film will have large enough market to put up hope for scale pricing and as such relative affordability. Lack of emulsion choice aside, high prices will always be a huge factor in tamping down hopes for change in this trend. Film is now niche market and is not likely to change. Best hope is just to see it cruise along for a long time to come.

Just like vinyl "made-it-back" but at what cost ???? Paying thrice CD price for analog sound ?? That's not being back, that is just a trendy way to publish music these days, whoever chooses to pay for it, and only for as long as there are enough who do.

Good thing is, for now, film has found enough new support to improve supply chain for everyone who uses it. But what is going on with the "young" interest in it ? It does not look any different than any other "trendy" infatuation that may die on short notice. One can only hope suppliers will stop gouging prices of relevant products, sell them on sufficient yet sane margin, and market will stabilise in that sense.

As is however, there are infinite potential customers who will not shoot on film, thus affect demand, when putting food on the table is the other alternative.

koraks · Feb 24, 2025

Pieter12 said:
I don't see that film makes anything more tactile today than a digital image.

But apparently, they do.
I can also sort of see, why, although it's not just about a tactile experience. Fumbling with film in a camera is a different physical experience than pointing the smartphone glued to a hand at something. I can see how that's 'tactile' (and indeed, I also experience it as such).
Another part of it, I think, has to do with the fact that from the viewpoint of the typical Gen-Z user you've described, there's this element of 'magic' involved where the film roll is handed over to the lab and after some time, images appear on their phone/computer etc. If you've grown up with digital tech all around you, I imagine that's more magical than the instant result associated with digital - which, ironically, was of course more magical for the preceding generations! And this supports that I started out with - if you're trying to understand their reasoning from your perspective, you're likely to draw a blank.

Also, I don't think all Gen-Z-ers have the same attitude of "discard the negatives and just give me the photos." While this may true for the majority, the other flavors are also there:
* Give me the negatives AND the digital scans
* Give me prints, not scans
* I'm not going to give you my film; I'm going to do this all by myself, thankyouverymuch!
And all all possible combinations thereof.

film4Me · Feb 24, 2025

Give me prints any day, from film.

Agulliver · Feb 24, 2025

I've started developing B&W film for a couple of friends in their early twenties, and they specifically desire the negatives so they can keep them for later use. Talking with my local lab, I don't see much evidence - at least around here - that people are leaving negatives unclaimed. If anything, it's the film shooters in their 30s and 40s doing that. Us older farts know the value of negatives, and the real youngsters also value negatives.

the fact that London now apparently has a back street "dodgy film dealer" says it all really. There's definitely something going on with new people coming to film.

The article does mention the tactile experience. Film cameras themselves offer tactile experiences that phones do not. Some digital cameras do also, of course. Negatives are physical objects, prints are physical objects. Digital photos are files which are intangible and take quite a bit of effort to back up. Even as someone who prefers film, I have 2Tb of digital photos to back up....I dread to think what that would cost in "the cloud". Phones don't just store hundreds of photos, they store tens of thousands. One must either religiously back up, spend a lot on cloud storage or run high risks of losing some images. I find it is actually easier to store negatives in a binder than to keep backing up digital photos. Maybe some of the Gen Zers are finding the same.

Next they'll discover cassette tapes and I'll probably be making mix tapes again....

Don_ih · Feb 24, 2025

Pieter12 said:
Let's see. Today's film shooters send their film off to be processed and scanned, often disposing (or having disposed) the negatives themselves. They can print them--as they can with digital camera files--or they can just be more digital files to be lost in a crash or haphazardly filed away somewhere on a computer. I don't see that film makes anything more tactile today than a digital image. Maybe the contrast being drawn is with smartphone photos, but even then many phone back up to a cloud service so even if the phone is lost or destroyed the photos are still there. It's just that there are a thousand times more of those than film-originated images. That can devalue the significance of an individual image, plus be overwhelming to sort through and organize.

If you read the posted article, you would have noticed half of it was that more younger people are getting photos printed now.

Agulliver said:
I have 2Tb of digital photos

Which is a different problem: what is the point of having that many photos? I don't know how many I have - but it's more than I'll ever want to sift through. I'm sure I could print 1-2% of them and delete the rest and never miss them.

Also, the phone camera has introduced the idea of photos for temporary use. I'll take a photo of a floor plan, for example, to use one day at work. Or I'll take a photo of something to send in an email. I'll take a photo of where I parked in an underground garage. None of those photos are needed or wanted a short time later. It has a side-effect of impressing upon people that photos aren't that valuable, anyway. The more practical something is, the less valuable it becomes once it ceases to be practical.

Agulliver · Feb 24, 2025

Sometimes I come back to a set of photographs from a gig or from my travels and decide I like some which previously I'd decided were not "keepers". 2Tb really isn't a whole lot of data these days, in the grand scheme of things.

Photos as short term memos are certainly a thing with phones, and that's something I definitely use my phone for. Photographing a menu, a parking space, or just something I want to remind myself of for later. Those don't get backed up. But I think that at least some of Gen Z now see photos as something more long term for preserving memories. And increasing numbers are choosing to use film.

I know this isn't directly relevant and is just one anecdote but I shoot 8mm and super 8mm cine film quite a bit. In the mid 80s when i started, it was an outdated practise but still well within memory of any adult. In the 2010s and 2020s I've been accused of being mad, stupid or even dangerous by passers by. Until last year. For the first time people approached me not to say I'm nuts, but to ask if that was a real 8mm camera, where I got the film, what it cost, how to get it processed etc. And these are not all Gen X and older who might have seen cine cameras in their heyday. These are people who are clearly adults but under 40. The fact that they know what an 8mm camera even looks like, and are curious about how one uses such a machine in 2025 is a big change to attitudes just two years ago (I was accused of "firing lasers" around a nearby field in 2021, among many other things).

Don_ih · Feb 24, 2025

Agulliver said:
2Tb really isn't a whole lot of data

No, but it is a whole lot of photos.

Agulliver said:
at least some of Gen Z now see photos as something more long term for preserving memories

That likely has more to do with their current age than any identifiable "generation ___" thing. Teens and people in their twenties usually don't think that much about keeping any kind of a record. Most people need a certain amount of age before they realize exactly how much is forgotten and how some things will never be seen again.

loccdor · Feb 24, 2025

Let me try to figure out why I got started with film at age 24 in 2010 -

* Small machines that work without batteries are cool
* Old cameras were more beautiful and not made out of as much plastic
* We were shown a lot of reel-to-reel movies on a projector which were produced in the 1970s, in school when we visited the library. I always liked how they looked
* Digital images did not look beautiful to me. They looked harsh. I couldn't get them to look how I wanted
* An old camera and assortment of lenses was about a tenth of the price vs. digital. Lower barrier to entry at a time which I did not have much money to spend
* So much history to learn, and understanding the progression of technology into what we have today
* Using a manual camera is more interesting because it requires more knowledge and input/decisions from the photographer
* I was already going to school for computers and making that my career. I didn't want to do even more with computers in my free time

Sirius Glass · Feb 24, 2025

Hassasin said:
If someone is using phone for photographic purposes with intent to make "end" product as in "not-just-memories" then he makes proper back up and files them accordingly. To that end there is zero difference to any other way of making photographic images. When such images are made for "memories" it's whatever they choose to do with any back ups, remember or forget has always been part of that game. I just don't see how any of it has anything to do with shooting on film.

There is no mass return to film, and I've seen no indication there is anyone who actually believes film will have large enough market to put up hope for scale pricing and as such relative affordability. Lack of emulsion choice aside, high prices will always be a huge factor in tamping down hopes for change in this trend. Film is now niche market and is not likely to change. Best hope is just to see it cruise along for a long time to come.

Just like vinyl "made-it-back" but at what cost ???? Paying thrice CD price for analog sound ?? That's not being back, that is just a trendy way to publish music these days, whoever chooses to pay for it, and only for as long as there are enough who do.

Good thing is, for now, film has found enough new support to improve supply chain for everyone who uses it. But what is going on with the "young" interest in it ? It does not look any different than any other "trendy" infatuation that may die on short notice. One can only hope suppliers will stop gouging prices of relevant products, sell them on sufficient yet sane margin, and market will stabilise in that sense.

As is however, there are infinite potential customers who will not shoot on film, thus affect demand, when putting food on the table is the other alternative.

As a counter point: I started using a new digital camera, Nikon Z7II, for taking digital photographs in Antarctica so that I would not have to worry about dropping film wrappers on the continent and not having to deal with windy weather. Note: nothing can touch the surface in Antarctica but the sterilized boots provided by the cruise line. That means no putting down packs. No sitting or lying on the ground at all. This is to protect the environment and keeping avian flu from infecting and killing off the penguins, seals, ... Special Note: Tripods are given an exemption as long as the lower legs and feet are sterilized before and after ever expedition. In order to use LightRoom and PhotoShop I need to upgrade my circa mid 2012 Mac Pro Tower, I am spending $11,000 on hardware alone. It would take a lot of film, paper and chemicals to get anywhere near that. However I do agree that the film market is too small to provide leverage to push for lower price.

retina_restoration · Feb 24, 2025

Sirius Glass said:
I need to upgrade my circa mid 2012 Mac Pro Tower, I am spending $11,000 on hardware alone. It would take a lot of film, paper and chemicals to get anywhere near that. However I do agree that the film market is too small to provide leverage to push for lower price.

And it should be mentioned that in recent months, Kodak has lowered the price of many of its film products! You can now buy Tmax roll films for less than many other brands. TMX 120 is as much as $3 less expensive than Delta 100, which is the first time in many years we can say that.
So I don't buy these complaints about manufacturers "price gouging". It's nonsense.

albireo · Feb 25, 2025

loccdor said:
Let me try to figure out why I got started with film at age 24 in 2010 -

* Small machines that work without batteries are cool
* Old cameras were more beautiful and not made out of as much plastic
* We were shown a lot of reel-to-reel movies on a projector which were produced in the 1970s, in school when we visited the library. I always liked how they looked
* Digital images did not look beautiful to me. They looked harsh. I couldn't get them to look how I wanted
* An old camera and assortment of lenses was about a tenth of the price vs. digital. Lower barrier to entry at a time which I did not have much money to spend
* So much history to learn, and understanding the progression of technology into what we have today
* Using a manual camera is more interesting because it requires more knowledge and input/decisions from the photographer
* I was already going to school for computers and making that my career. I didn't want to do even more with computers in my free time

Wow you are so much younger than I thought!

And as someone approximately your age I love your bullet points.

Unlike you however I started in the nineties as a teenager, switched to digital early 2000s, hated digital cameras and the look of those images (your point above resonates with me) but liked digital "image distribution" and so I decided to go back to film/hybrid. Best of both worlds.

loccdor · Feb 25, 2025

albireo said:
Wow you are so much younger than I thought!

My beard is going white now so I look 20 years younger or older based on the last time I shaved

Pieter12 · Feb 25, 2025

Ironic how this thread turned so quickly from being about the resurgence of film usage among young people to old farts discussing how to hack their outdated computers.

DREW WILEY · Feb 25, 2025

Real film is strongly on the uptick in here in the SF Bay area, especially among the younger set. Used film cameras are in demand, and the local film processing labs are quite busy. One of them just moved into an even bigger building to keep up with demand.

Most of these new film devotees can't possibly afford their own darkroom space, so make use of local commercial printing services which offer both inkjet prints of any size, along with at least smaller RA4 prints, as well as traditionally developed and enlarged black and white prints (or, optionally, black and white inkjet prints from scanned film negatives). For awhile there were a number of youngish large format black and white contact printers; but recent dramatic price hikes n necessary supplies have thrown the monkey wrench into that.

Digital imaging, and other kinds of digital sweatshop chores, are what lots of young techies HAVE to do in order to make a living. Why would they want to do the same thing recreationally on their time off? And me speaking of these careers as "sweatshops" should be taken in the context that a gruelingly long work week and six figure salary aren't enough to buy a doghouse with a leaky roof in this area.

koraks · Feb 25, 2025

Pieter12 said:
Ironic how this thread turned so quickly from being about the resurgence of film usage among young people to old farts discussing how to hack their outdated computers.

Sorry about that; the tangent your post mentioned has been split off into a thread of its own: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...-zen-and-the-art-of-computer-upgrades.212259/

Pieter12 · Feb 25, 2025

analogwisdom said:
Good video, straight from the horse's mouth.

Kid's full of hot air and can't make a cognisant point.

DREW WILEY · Feb 25, 2025

What's the point of a point if they're just out for fun anyway? I thought the whole point of that was not needing the excuse of yet another point at all.

warden · Feb 25, 2025

Pieter12 said:
Kid's full of hot air and can't make a cognisant point.

He’s doing fine.

Pieter12 · Feb 25, 2025

warden said:
He’s doing fine.

Well, he certainly likes hearing himself talk.

Another Main Stream article on the interest in Film Photography

cmacd123

Bright picture develops for photo film and prints

BrianShaw

Agulliver

Pieter12

RalphLambrecht

Sirius Glass

Hassasin

koraks

Moderator

film4Me

Agulliver

Don_ih

Agulliver

Don_ih

loccdor

Sirius Glass

retina_restoration

albireo

loccdor

Pieter12

DREW WILEY

koraks

Moderator

Pieter12

DREW WILEY

warden

Pieter12

Another Main Stream article on the interest in Film Photography

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency