Hey all, Erik here with a quick guest post about a subject that’s raised a lively debate in our studio. Everyone on our crew has long been shooting with Polaroids, rangefinders, micro 4/3 cameras adapted to accept vintage lenses…even processing digital images to look like they came out of an old dusty camera. Surveying the landscape, it’s clear this tide has been rising for a while now and we’re not the only ones attached to this stuff. So the question I present to you is this:
Why is retro or faux-retro photography so popular these days?
Why, when we have such capable and inexpensive cameras at our disposal, are we reverting to old technology and old aesthetics? Is it pure nostalgia? Is it a palette cleanser from the ease and accuracy of said capable and inexpensive cameras? Is it a passing trend? We have opinions–especially Chase does as you might expect–but we’d like to hear from you.
For me, it’s because when I look at images from that time period I love the in the moment-ness of it, yet calm, so real. The retro images give the feel of real photography. Out modern DSLR gives that computer-y look (especially canon cameras) all shiney etc. Everything that glitters aint gold.
Mind you there are certain times you need what’s given and I do love the power of the new gear with better iso etc. I think the power of the new gear (example having less grain etc.) mixed with the look and feel of the older images makes the photograph a bit sexy…
My input,
Dwayne
Retro is great as a style and artistic choice, but I think people are using it too often right now. Especially for personal photos, and especially on their phones.
There is going to be a whole generation of parents who have no good pictures of their kids because they are all trapped on their phone (or lost when they switch phones) or saved in some kind of cheesy “Retro Camera” format.
I think there’s been a significant revival of many things 70/80s recently – not just photography.
Personally, and I know I’m going to be an outsider here, I’m really not keen on it.
If done well and adding to the mood or feel of the photo – sure it can be good and I appreciate those – but on the whole it’s over done and usually just as a fad / means to cover up technically lacking picture.
A quote that I love takes makes this point:
“One photo out of focus is a mistake, ten photo’s out of focus are an experiment, 100 photo’s out of focus is a style.”
Imagine if history books and libraries were filled with images that were “aged” or made to look like they came from an earlier time? What effect on history will the work you leave behind have? Are you cheating those in the future out of experiencing nostalgia in an effort to experience it now? Just a few questions I ask myself as I try to figure out how I feel about the vintage “look”..
So many great perspectives! My thought relates to when the CD was introduced as the newest form of audio medium. Many purists gave the “digital” sound a resounding thumbs down claiming the “warmth” of the vinyl and the “noise” made the music true. I see now at my local Best Buy that again vinyl is available for purchase on newer albums.
This goes along with the, fad you say, of making images look as if or even having been shot with film. For those of us who have been down the road of processing our own images and spend countless hours in the dark we have earned the right to relive the past. For those who have not known the hardships of the “red light” I suppose it is ok for them to imitate history as well. After all it is the greatest form of flattery!