Wcarpenter
Established
Hello all,
An interesting series of questions were brought up by fellow member PKR in regard to the youth (my generation’s) attitude on photography – primarily film vs. digital and then also the inherently temporarily nature of digital photographs.
My aim here is to address some of these questions, as they’re important for me to reflect on, and furthermore, for the older population of Rangefinder Forums to understand.
So, first, some background:
I’m 16 year old, male, high school sophomore.
I attend a co-ed boarding school with an emphasis on the Humanities. The opinions I express in my answers come from highly educated, very engaged kids. For this reason, it might be a slightly tainted study.
I’ll continually revise and add to the questions below, so check back!
First:
What’s the attitude towards Digital and Film photography?
Digital is certainly the norm due to its overwhelming convenience. Film is seen as the medium for “art” though. People are never surprised by my film cameras or dedication to the medium, but rather see it as the expected for a “serious” photographer. Essentially, film is art and digital is for snapshots. There are a surprising number of film photos floating around facebook, though. This is in large part due to the entirely film based photo program at the school.
As an extension of the previous question: What do kids think of the wet darkroom? Is it too much work?
In a word – yes. Photo students at my school tend to favor scanning and digitally printing film images. The immediacy for the edits and the ability to undo is wonderful. You can have a perfect print in two goes, rather than 7 in the dark room. Save for a few students, the wet darkroom is more or less despised. I, personally, find it relaxing until I actually have to get something done. Then, its hell.
On the archival quality of digital images:
As far as opinions from kids my age, I have none. No one my age is thinking a year ahead, yet alone a lifetime. However, I do remember being quite amazed to find contact sheets of my father made by my grandmother from thirty-five years ago. That’s when “archival” hit me. Where will all my family pictures be in thirty years? I have no idea, and that thought is a little scary.
I can say that there are exactly zero prints made by people of my age. The Internet has proven such a powerful sharing tool, that prints have been rendered obsolete for anything short of Christmas cards.
There are lots more to come, and I might amend my previous answers as I see fit. I’m sorry for the length. I guess I’m thinking more sociology paper than forum post. We’ll see if this gains any traction. I hope so.
Thanks,
W
P.S. I'd love some other like aged kids to chime in with their thoughts on the matter.
An interesting series of questions were brought up by fellow member PKR in regard to the youth (my generation’s) attitude on photography – primarily film vs. digital and then also the inherently temporarily nature of digital photographs.
My aim here is to address some of these questions, as they’re important for me to reflect on, and furthermore, for the older population of Rangefinder Forums to understand.
So, first, some background:
I’m 16 year old, male, high school sophomore.
I attend a co-ed boarding school with an emphasis on the Humanities. The opinions I express in my answers come from highly educated, very engaged kids. For this reason, it might be a slightly tainted study.
I’ll continually revise and add to the questions below, so check back!
First:
What’s the attitude towards Digital and Film photography?
Digital is certainly the norm due to its overwhelming convenience. Film is seen as the medium for “art” though. People are never surprised by my film cameras or dedication to the medium, but rather see it as the expected for a “serious” photographer. Essentially, film is art and digital is for snapshots. There are a surprising number of film photos floating around facebook, though. This is in large part due to the entirely film based photo program at the school.
As an extension of the previous question: What do kids think of the wet darkroom? Is it too much work?
In a word – yes. Photo students at my school tend to favor scanning and digitally printing film images. The immediacy for the edits and the ability to undo is wonderful. You can have a perfect print in two goes, rather than 7 in the dark room. Save for a few students, the wet darkroom is more or less despised. I, personally, find it relaxing until I actually have to get something done. Then, its hell.
On the archival quality of digital images:
As far as opinions from kids my age, I have none. No one my age is thinking a year ahead, yet alone a lifetime. However, I do remember being quite amazed to find contact sheets of my father made by my grandmother from thirty-five years ago. That’s when “archival” hit me. Where will all my family pictures be in thirty years? I have no idea, and that thought is a little scary.
I can say that there are exactly zero prints made by people of my age. The Internet has proven such a powerful sharing tool, that prints have been rendered obsolete for anything short of Christmas cards.
There are lots more to come, and I might amend my previous answers as I see fit. I’m sorry for the length. I guess I’m thinking more sociology paper than forum post. We’ll see if this gains any traction. I hope so.
Thanks,
W
P.S. I'd love some other like aged kids to chime in with their thoughts on the matter.
Last edited:
mgeary
Member
I'm an 18 year old and feel that I'm getting caught up in this age of sharing pictures over screens rather than printing them.
I truly share your interest in archiving my photographs somehow. I don't care too much if people see them in the future, I just think it would be nice to have them stick around and give my hobby a purpose. As of now it feels pointless to spend countless hours shooting when all my photographs do is rot on a hard-drive.
It feels as though if I print a select few images which I deem worthy, I will be missing out on the "big picture" of my photography as a whole. When wet printing and contact sheets were the norm, an observer could peer into the thought process of the photographer by looking at a contact sheet, as well as the printed works from a roll in question. I feel that my workflow is almost close-minded in the sense that all that I "publish" will only be what I myself have reviewed. No one will ever see deeper than what I chose to show.
Maybe I'm straying off topic a little with this concept, but I think it affects our generation as we work towards developing our concrete workflow and style.
I truly share your interest in archiving my photographs somehow. I don't care too much if people see them in the future, I just think it would be nice to have them stick around and give my hobby a purpose. As of now it feels pointless to spend countless hours shooting when all my photographs do is rot on a hard-drive.
It feels as though if I print a select few images which I deem worthy, I will be missing out on the "big picture" of my photography as a whole. When wet printing and contact sheets were the norm, an observer could peer into the thought process of the photographer by looking at a contact sheet, as well as the printed works from a roll in question. I feel that my workflow is almost close-minded in the sense that all that I "publish" will only be what I myself have reviewed. No one will ever see deeper than what I chose to show.
Maybe I'm straying off topic a little with this concept, but I think it affects our generation as we work towards developing our concrete workflow and style.
filmfan
Well-known
Which prep school do you go to? Proctor Academy perhaps?
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Walker,
Thanks very much for that analysis.
Don't apologize for the length. It was VERY readable.
To add what I can to the debate, from the perspective of someone 44 years older than you (aaargh...) I can only add that my 'adopted daughter' (a long story) fell on a film camera with glad cries at 18/19, but uses it only for happy-snaps, and that the only other young photographer I know well, who really is into the 'art' side and was 14 a month ago, is firmly in the digital camp.
Cheers,
R.
Thanks very much for that analysis.
Don't apologize for the length. It was VERY readable.
To add what I can to the debate, from the perspective of someone 44 years older than you (aaargh...) I can only add that my 'adopted daughter' (a long story) fell on a film camera with glad cries at 18/19, but uses it only for happy-snaps, and that the only other young photographer I know well, who really is into the 'art' side and was 14 a month ago, is firmly in the digital camp.
Cheers,
R.
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
I know loads of young folks (age ~19-24) who shoot film, and, surprisingly I've met a good bunch more at university. most of them don't have the greatest artistic or professional ambitions, they just enjoy the medium I suppose! some of them wet print too.
but, of course, I circulate in a certain environment and there's still 100x more digital shooters. I guess as long as I can get (and afford) my tri-x, I'm good. and everyone can do stuff their way.
I sat down next to a young girl in the train yesterday. she looked at me and smiled, I had no idea why (but I smiled back, she was cute!). then just before she got off the train, she pulled out one of those blue plastic Diana Fs and I realised she must had noticed that I was carrying a film camera (she obviously didn't smile because she thought I was cute
).
film is slowly infiltrating the digital empire again, it seems
but, of course, I circulate in a certain environment and there's still 100x more digital shooters. I guess as long as I can get (and afford) my tri-x, I'm good. and everyone can do stuff their way.
I sat down next to a young girl in the train yesterday. she looked at me and smiled, I had no idea why (but I smiled back, she was cute!). then just before she got off the train, she pulled out one of those blue plastic Diana Fs and I realised she must had noticed that I was carrying a film camera (she obviously didn't smile because she thought I was cute
).film is slowly infiltrating the digital empire again, it seems
Last edited:
Neare
Well-known
It's just the information age, everything has to be 'now now now'. I think you're on the right mark and snaps for you for keeping up with film and wet printing!
About film being for 'art'. Well yes, the artistic possibilities that you gain from using film is incomparable to using digital. You've got different formats, film types, developers, craft knives, coffee etc etc. It's a natural process as art should be rather than a digital one. But as much as I dislike digital, if you rub digital off as for only making snapshots you may make some enemies.
But I think its difficult to speak for an entire generation. I know personally that more younglings are picking up film than they were 5 years ago. But I also know that most people your age don't care a lot about taking photos or what camera you use, as far as they are concerned their phone's camera is adequate. The artistry of using a camera has diminished in teens, photography courses at school are all that's left.
But yes, your generations photos are temporary mostly. They are uploaded to facebook before being deleted off the camera. Then after a few years they decide to delete all those 'ugly' photos of themselves and there it goes, gone forever.
21 btw.
About film being for 'art'. Well yes, the artistic possibilities that you gain from using film is incomparable to using digital. You've got different formats, film types, developers, craft knives, coffee etc etc. It's a natural process as art should be rather than a digital one. But as much as I dislike digital, if you rub digital off as for only making snapshots you may make some enemies.
But I think its difficult to speak for an entire generation. I know personally that more younglings are picking up film than they were 5 years ago. But I also know that most people your age don't care a lot about taking photos or what camera you use, as far as they are concerned their phone's camera is adequate. The artistry of using a camera has diminished in teens, photography courses at school are all that's left.
But yes, your generations photos are temporary mostly. They are uploaded to facebook before being deleted off the camera. Then after a few years they decide to delete all those 'ugly' photos of themselves and there it goes, gone forever.
21 btw.
jnoir
Well-known
I'm barely 25 and since 10+ years I'm doing film, mostly medium format with old cameras. I have never attend to a photo school or course, I learned from books and practice, and I do it for my own enjoyment.
I do only have one digital camera. At first I printed almost every photo - I guess that's what I'm used to. Now I only print digital pictures that are worth it, and therefore I rarely upload something to print. I find digital SLR a great backup when travelling abroad, but nothing else for me. Like the OP, I'm highly concerned about the archival grade of digital files. This may happen also to film negatives: I have seen a lot of negatives from the 1980s deteriorating rapidly, but I have also contact printed and enlarged negatives 90+ years old.
I enjoy taking some time for composing, thinking the picture, being able to measure distances and amount of light by deduction, developing my film, printing my negatives... even at home without big mess.
I do not have Flickr account, nor Facebook, nor Twitter, nor any other social network. I take pictures for me, for my own enjoyment. A few people who has seen some of my work liked it, and indeed it is encouraging, but that's not why I do it.
I don't think film will become unavailable in the near future. And, even if it does, I will be preparing my own emulsions as I am doing today with glass negatives and old plate cameras. As others have said, broad assumptions may not be valid, but I think people of all ages will always enjoy the magic of the image appearing out of nowhere in the darkroom. At least, I do.
I do only have one digital camera. At first I printed almost every photo - I guess that's what I'm used to. Now I only print digital pictures that are worth it, and therefore I rarely upload something to print. I find digital SLR a great backup when travelling abroad, but nothing else for me. Like the OP, I'm highly concerned about the archival grade of digital files. This may happen also to film negatives: I have seen a lot of negatives from the 1980s deteriorating rapidly, but I have also contact printed and enlarged negatives 90+ years old.
I enjoy taking some time for composing, thinking the picture, being able to measure distances and amount of light by deduction, developing my film, printing my negatives... even at home without big mess.
I do not have Flickr account, nor Facebook, nor Twitter, nor any other social network. I take pictures for me, for my own enjoyment. A few people who has seen some of my work liked it, and indeed it is encouraging, but that's not why I do it.
I don't think film will become unavailable in the near future. And, even if it does, I will be preparing my own emulsions as I am doing today with glass negatives and old plate cameras. As others have said, broad assumptions may not be valid, but I think people of all ages will always enjoy the magic of the image appearing out of nowhere in the darkroom. At least, I do.
Wcarpenter
Established
Certainly, anything tangible is assigned more value than the intangible. Because posting online is both effortless and costless, much less energy goes into ensuring quality. Just go to Flickr and take a look at all the crap (to put it lightly) that's posted. Though, clearly, there is a lot of good, too.
Conversely, the internet allows for people like me to show my photos to an audience far, far wider than I would physically be able to do. For that, I love the internet.
I certainly wasn't. Thats just the general sense I get from my peers. I see the value in both. Honestly, I would blame the advent of the hipster for this. As film becomes ironic, it also develops a level of innate coolness. Go figure.
Last edited:
Wcarpenter
Established
Also,
I'm slightly disappointed that this got moved to "Film vs. Digital." Thats not what it's about at all. This is a longterm exploration of attitudes towards different types of photography. I hate to see it so quickly dismissed as a mere comparison.
I hope everyone understands that this is in no way an expression of preference or a comment on the legitimacy of digital photography. I see and appreciate its purpose. We're in an interesting transition period for photography, and I thought PKR's questions regarding the stance of kids my age on photography might interest some of you.
I'm slightly disappointed that this got moved to "Film vs. Digital." Thats not what it's about at all. This is a longterm exploration of attitudes towards different types of photography. I hate to see it so quickly dismissed as a mere comparison.
I hope everyone understands that this is in no way an expression of preference or a comment on the legitimacy of digital photography. I see and appreciate its purpose. We're in an interesting transition period for photography, and I thought PKR's questions regarding the stance of kids my age on photography might interest some of you.