DiscussionRant: film is not a 'vibe'

Saw a young fella in the camera store yesterday ask for "the film that looks like film" and then buy a disposable for $40 because it "has the aesthetic." Forty dollars! For a plastic camera that'll take 27 underexposed photos of his lunch.

When I started on Kodachrome in 1981 nobody called it an aesthetic. It was just photography. You metered, you thought about it, and you waited a week to find out you'd blown it. Now the whole thing's a costume, and a roll of Ektachrome costs what dinner used to.

That's it. That's the rant. I feel better.

k64forever said:

Now the whole thing's a costume

Half agree. Film isn't a filter and it drives me up the wall too, especially when it's people slapping fake grain and light leaks on a phone picture and calling it "film photography". Film is chemistry. It's knowing what HP5 does when you push it, why your shadows are empty, what happens if your fixer's tired. The look is just what's left at the end of all that.

But that kid with the disposable is how half of us started, and some of them end up in a darkroom. I teach a beginners' printing night once a month and nearly every one of them came in through exactly that door, a disposable, then a cheap compact off eBay, then "how do I make a real print". The ones who were only after the aesthetic drift off after a roll or two, and that's fine, nobody's lost anything. The ones who stay are the reason there'll still be paper to buy in ten years. Let him have his lunch photos, pal.

lucyinthedarkroom said:

that kid with the disposable is how half of us started

Half of us started on a Brownie our dad handed us, not a $40 prop.

the kids buying film are the only reason theres still film to buy though? like genuinely, Kodak is not making Portra for six old men in Rochester. half the people I know who shoot film started with a disposable at a festival. and I still complain about the prices every single week so I'm not exactly on their side either

I'll have you know there are at least eleven of us.

k64forever said:

nobody called it an aesthetic. It was just photography.

I was going to stay out of this... but. When I started, the bloke behind the counter at our chemist told me I was wasting my pocket money on "arty" black and white when colour was the future, and I'm sure someone told him he was wasting his on roll film when glass plates were perfectly good. There's always been someone sneering at whoever's newest, isn't there? My dad called Polaroids a gimmick for people who can't wait. Then he bought one, and then he bought three more and a boxful of expired packs off a market stall in Lewes.

Isn't the real question whether anyone's having fun? The kid with the disposable is having fun. The fella with his Ektachrome is having fun too, though you wouldn't know it from this post. And honestly, what's an "aesthetic" except a look people liked enough to chase? Kodachrome had one. We just didn't have the word. Ilford's still making HP5. Let them have their vibe.

as someone who got into film in 2023 because of the aesthetic... sorry? i do meter now though. mostly. started with a disposable at a wedding, then an XA off ebay, now i'm scanning my own negs and swearing at colour inversion every weekend. so it worked on me i guess

Removed a post. Disagree with each other all you like, but leave the "ok boomer" stuff out of it please. - Ash

For the record I'm 64, I'll take boomer. Fine. I admit Lucy and Hannah have a point about the kids keeping the lights on, and Pete's dad sounds like a man after my own heart. I walked past the same store today and there were three teenagers at the counter asking about a used Pentax, so maybe the disposables are doing their job. Doesn't mean I have to like the disposables.

Nobody's making you buy one.

k64forever said:

Doesn't mean I have to like the disposables.

Nobody likes the disposables. Not even the kids. That's why they end up buying a proper camera.