...or in other words: real photoraphy, using a real camera and real photographic film. It seems like yesterday...to some of us 
...that this was the only option available to us. When digital photography appeared, serious photographers pooh-poohed it as a passing fad, or something to which only the rankest amateur would stoop. If you wanted to produce beautiful images...you used film.
Fast forward a couple years...or decades...and film seems pretty much dead for the vast majority of users. The inevitable advances in digital photography combined with its convenience and cost savings have essentially...and rightfully!...killed film. I assume that film is still used by the most avid purists, but they probably use it because of its limitations and challenges, rather than any perceived or real benefits to the end product.
I have recently started to consider finally getting an actual camera, as opposed to relying upon a smartphone. I was a fairly avid photographer when I was in school, and had a nice little darkroom set-up in my parents' basement. To me, the creation and manipulation of the image in the darkroom was the appeal; putting the paper into the solution and watching an image magically appear in front of my eyes was a thrill that never got old. When I moved out on my own, it was years before I could devote that kind of time, space and money to the hobby, so it sort of fell by the wayside. By the time that I could even consider getting back into it...film was on its way out.
I know that creating photographs...as opposed to just taking pictures...would still be enjoyable to me. But I want control over exposure, I want manual focus, I want to do the work myself, rather than having some microscopic chip inside a camera figure out what is needed. I admit that one of the biggest drawbacks to film photography...i.e. the cost and inconvenience of constantly loading, unloading and reloading rolls of film with only 36 exposures per roll, and then needing to pay for the development of every shot I take...is something I won't miss. Imagine: you had to take the pictures, and then pay to have them developed/processed and wait days or weeks for this to occur...and you had no idea what they looked like until after you finally got them back! I have grown accustomed to taking dozens of shots of something in order to capture just the right one, quickly reviewing and deleting as I go to get a few good ones; yeah, I'm spoiled.
So, I was intrigued when I received a promotional email from Kodak, pushing their new film camera. I figured that this giant of the photo industry was about to produce just what I wanted: a real camera, rather than a computer with a lens on the front.
Nope! In what seems to be a stunningly stupid marketing move, they are making a number of different 35mm cameras...all of which seem to be cheap plastic, with literally no user controls whatsoever. Fixed focus...no adjustments for exposure or shutter speed...no mention of lens material, which probably means it's the cheapest lowest-grade plastic they can source. These things start at less than $20US! I haven't looked at the price of film...or for that matter, how available it even is...but I can guarantee that the cost of a 36-exposure roll of film plus processing is going to be way over twenty bucks!
Who the hell is going to buy and use one of these wretched things? They seem to be the ultimate expression of the worst of both worlds; all the disadvantages of both, with none of the advantages of either. Am I missing something obvious here?
Any comments, from either real people or idiot AI's, will be appreciated.
...that this was the only option available to us. When digital photography appeared, serious photographers pooh-poohed it as a passing fad, or something to which only the rankest amateur would stoop. If you wanted to produce beautiful images...you used film.Fast forward a couple years...or decades...and film seems pretty much dead for the vast majority of users. The inevitable advances in digital photography combined with its convenience and cost savings have essentially...and rightfully!...killed film. I assume that film is still used by the most avid purists, but they probably use it because of its limitations and challenges, rather than any perceived or real benefits to the end product.
I have recently started to consider finally getting an actual camera, as opposed to relying upon a smartphone. I was a fairly avid photographer when I was in school, and had a nice little darkroom set-up in my parents' basement. To me, the creation and manipulation of the image in the darkroom was the appeal; putting the paper into the solution and watching an image magically appear in front of my eyes was a thrill that never got old. When I moved out on my own, it was years before I could devote that kind of time, space and money to the hobby, so it sort of fell by the wayside. By the time that I could even consider getting back into it...film was on its way out.
I know that creating photographs...as opposed to just taking pictures...would still be enjoyable to me. But I want control over exposure, I want manual focus, I want to do the work myself, rather than having some microscopic chip inside a camera figure out what is needed. I admit that one of the biggest drawbacks to film photography...i.e. the cost and inconvenience of constantly loading, unloading and reloading rolls of film with only 36 exposures per roll, and then needing to pay for the development of every shot I take...is something I won't miss. Imagine: you had to take the pictures, and then pay to have them developed/processed and wait days or weeks for this to occur...and you had no idea what they looked like until after you finally got them back! I have grown accustomed to taking dozens of shots of something in order to capture just the right one, quickly reviewing and deleting as I go to get a few good ones; yeah, I'm spoiled.
So, I was intrigued when I received a promotional email from Kodak, pushing their new film camera. I figured that this giant of the photo industry was about to produce just what I wanted: a real camera, rather than a computer with a lens on the front.
Nope! In what seems to be a stunningly stupid marketing move, they are making a number of different 35mm cameras...all of which seem to be cheap plastic, with literally no user controls whatsoever. Fixed focus...no adjustments for exposure or shutter speed...no mention of lens material, which probably means it's the cheapest lowest-grade plastic they can source. These things start at less than $20US! I haven't looked at the price of film...or for that matter, how available it even is...but I can guarantee that the cost of a 36-exposure roll of film plus processing is going to be way over twenty bucks!
Who the hell is going to buy and use one of these wretched things? They seem to be the ultimate expression of the worst of both worlds; all the disadvantages of both, with none of the advantages of either. Am I missing something obvious here?
Any comments, from either real people or idiot AI's, will be appreciated.
