My great heresy
3 1I love my LC-A. Let me restate that so that there is no question. I have a real, Russian, LC-A that I absolutely love taking pictures with. I have a Holga modified to shoot from the hip. I have a Yashica Electro GSN. My Rollei B35 is a mechanical marvel. My Pen EED brings a smile to my face in half frame. Then, there is the first one I ever purchased. The one that started it all for me. My Lubitel 166B. Total, I’ve spent $850 on all these cameras. Film is now approx $12.50 (U.S.) per roll. Outfitting all of these with film costs almost $80. Having each roll developed and scanned (so that I can put it on my camera) costs $20. That’s $120 to develop a roll from all six cameras. So, I spend $850 to buy cameras, and $200 for film, development, and digitization. I have it digitized to put on my computer so that I can make things out of it (from websites to mugs).
I purchased two used Olympus Pen E-PL2’s, a 14-42mm lens (28-84mm 35mm equivalent), and a 17mm lens (34mm, 35mm equivalent). Total cost was $800. I’m adding a Holga lens ($20), and a pinhole lens ($30). I’m purchasing Tiffen dfx 3.0 for Aperture. It will do all the various popular films (apply the film characteristics of different manufacturers film, including one’s I can no longer get anywhere, to a digital image), and processing techniques (like cross process). Cost is $199.95. The reason I have two E-PL2 bodies is because I want to make one functional in the Infrared spectrum.
Now the rub: I don’t have to spend any more money to take pictures. I will have replaced every lomo camera I own, the need to buy film, and the need to process, for one flat cost.
I totally get the love of film. I REALLY do. My concern is this: have you noticed the cost of film going up? That’s due to dwindling supply. The more scarce something is, the more it costs to get. Basic rule of economics and all that. I wonder if the best use of resources is to support film. Granted, not all art forms make the best use of resources. It’s art, it doesn’t have to. All I’m saying is, with the cost of film sky rocketing is it acceptable to be able to do the same thing digitally (so that the product of the art form isn’t lost)?
Here’s where I see a hole in the logic of “an analog future.” What process do you the reader use to get your film based pictures on this website? You scan them. That means you digitize them. A scanner is a digital camera folks. You can find directions on line how to convert a scanner to a large format digital camera. Same principle, slightly different execution is all. If people weren’t using digital devices to take “pictures” of their film “pictures”, this website wouldn’t exist.
I love my film cameras. I won’t sell my LC-A or Rollei B35. Ever. On occasion it’s fun to use film. However, the rest of the cameras are going on E-Bay/Etsy over the next week. I’m having so much fun with my E-PL2, I don’t have time to worry about the rest of my cameras. Sad? Why, at the end of the day, a scanned picture and a picture from a digital camera look the same on a computer screen. Hipstamatic makes prints of my square frame pics, snapfish makes prints of my rectangular frame pics, and Apple produces nice books, calendars, and cards.
Digital things allow me to share my pictures with the world. If I can’t share with anyone I want to, that makes this whole thing the equivalent of masterbation, doesn’t it?
written by wn7ant on 2011-12-22
3 Comments