What’s the thing with young people using disposable cameras instead of their phone cameras?
I saw a piece on TV ….is this really the new thing to do? Why?

Who knows, they probably are just copying something they saw on TikTok. I don't know why it would be easier. I could see it if you didn't have much storage space. But I have a Samsung and it's easy to seamlessly move photos to Google photos. They cost about $15 and the Kodak only has 27 photos, Fuji also. Despite climate change, it seems to me young people are the ones who care least about their environmental waste. This is yet another example.

Nothing to do with easier.

There is a trend towards analog. Doesn't matter if it's instant cameras, old film cameras, new film cameras.

Just people being people.

This is a short term trend, like so much of Gen Z and Gen Alpha tends to latch onto, it will be gone in a...flash. They also have discovered other popular 90s trends. Never thought I'd see comb headbands and scrunchies return. But they have, much to my dismay.

disposable.... must have a special place.... I could go on

I think it's great that more people are discovering film photography. I'm a great fan of disposables if they're not too plasticky. I used to buy lots of Ilford FP5 cameras that I gave to my son to photograph with on holiday. I think we're discovering that digital usual means "loss of signal" Of course now, with AI addes to anything and everything: already the resource use dwarfs any waste that comes from using film for photography.

They’re experimenting with a different technology and I think that’s great. They’ve grown up with digital and want to try an alternative, one which requires different skills.

With disposables, sometimes it’s because they don’t have an alternative.

There are sometimes advantages to the old technology. For instance the Polaroid technology where you get an instant hard copy photo still amazes me. Sometimes it's nice to have a physical photo, in no time flat.

I take your point about analogue technologies becoming more popular, Nick. Look at vinyl - everyone under 40 is doing that now. I understand why - vinyl still has a sweet sound. And tapes are in theory a technology that works well for recording (until the tape becomes unravelled...).

Lavandula

I wouldn't say it's about the advantage for most of these people. It's just trend following.

To be honest the high cost of film and processing today means virtually none of these people will develop the basic knowledge to get "good"

There used to be a joke that people would send in a roll of film with their holiday snaps on it. Christmas, summer vacation and next Christmas. All on one roll. With current prices we're seeing something similar today. The Fuji instant film is about €1 per frame. 35mm B&W film isn't much cheaper if you want prints.

Or look at the new home movie camera Kodak released this year. IIRC about $6K for the camera. The film is about $40 for two minutes of film. PLUS processing.

Young people are very much aware of the effect of plastic and sustainability. In fact, I've learned to embrace the idea of replacing my plastic containers with glass from the younger generation. Now let's talk about McMansions.

Younger people have lower inhibitions when it comes to trying out new things. It's natural development. Let's give them the credit they deserve. After all, they are the ones that will be taking care of us as we grow older.

I was in Singapore the last couple of months. It's somewhat of a cult city for vintage film cameras and lenses. Huge and active subculture and I think it's great people are going back to physical media like film. Reader, I bought a very esoteric Chinese lens there.

YT is awash with tutorials on how to develop your own film and print it yourself, or do a digital negative and run that through a printer. Analog photography is different from the mediocre photo taking with phones. You need to choose and consider before pressing the button.

With media companies now deleting entire digital archives with human artefacts in them: printing is forever.

During covid there was an interest in a Russian camera that had lousy optics. Some clever chap had bought the company and was putting the optics in nice new bodies, bodies that could have lego type extras added to it etc. This allowed for double exposures and etherial type photography with each camera producing different things. I suspect the craze has blown through but one of my nieces did some interesting work for an Arts degree in Glasgow/Auckland using hers.

I personally don't need a video to teach me how to process film. I've done virtually all the mainstream processes. I can mix my own chemicals up from raw chemicals. I can print. I have all the gear.

But if you think you're going to do it on the cheap I think you're dreaming.

Even a cheap C41 (Normal colour film) setup will cost you hundreds in gear. Real problem there are people buying movie film because most stills film is hard to find these days. Cine film has a remjet backing that ups the difficulty level beyond most home users.

B&W is of course easier.

But how many of these people are actually analog printing? Developing B&W film is relatively easy. Becoming a half decent printer takes time and lots of practice. Becoming a master art printer? Far longer. The number of people today willing to spend 40 hours a week inside a darkroom isn't that large.

Needing to consider the shot? I'm old enough I've framed and processed the shot in my head before I raise the camera. Doesn't matter if it's a phone, a ML camera or if I pulled one of my LF cameras out of storage. It's not the device that's the problem. It's a lack of practice which gets back to the problem with many of these new film users. Spending money on a new camera doesn't make you Adams, Weston, Strand fill in your favorite. All you've done is drain your bank account.

A couple of years back (Two? Three?) a big budget Hollywood movie used rehoused Soviet lenses. We're talking a film with a $300 million dollar budget.

Lousy optics just mean they don't fit your vision.

"The young folk these days are losing it," my Grandad use to say.

Yeah quality-wise, it don't make sense.

My niece invested in a camera that took polaroids. You know, watch it develop right before your eyes. I'd almost rather have hemroids.

Many of the young ladies a couple of years ago started wearing army boots in my city. Oh some youth follow right in line, do not they?

As a guy who sometimes misses the darkroom, I completely understand.

I'm a collector of Russian glass. What's especially lousy about it? If you want your work to have a specific look, you need to use a specific lens. Even if it's Russian

I used to do analog photography for a job. Perfectly acceptable to send it to be printed. Not to your supermarket photolab of course, but to a good printer. I think people now know that if it's not analog, it will never be yours. People store their stuff online or don't back up properly and use entire collections of work. Hence the interest in tangible photos.

using film sharpens the practice exactly because you have to be judicious. They already know how to frame and shoot if they have an interest.

I'm not sure the lens was glass