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, digital represents a convenience at a sacrifice of quality. Whether it’s a CD/MP3 vs the analog counterpart (vinyl) or in this case a roll of film vs one’s and zero’s, there seems to be a loss in emotional connection when converting digital back to analog.
I think it’s the ‘imperfections’ in film that truly capture the emotion of the moment, making it ‘real’.
I like vintage. I feel like the aesthetic connects me to a different time. I look at my dad’s old pictures (he’s in his late 60s) and I like the feeling of “then” being in something now. I do NOT make every image I make vintage but that feeling is nice for some photographs. I think when modern trends became over done, people ran to vintage for rescue. Lol.
I love the vintage look because it helps me tell a story. I like the serendipitous aspect of taking an image of any quality, running it through filters and seeing what happy surprise is revealed.
Separate aspects:
From a visual feel aspect, I think it’s just the desire to see something different than what we’re bombarded with all day long. It’s kind of like being inspired to shoot the city you live in vs. the city you visit on the vacation. The very same spot may have more interest if you don’t see it every day, and vice versa if you swapped places with a person living in the other spot.
Which is the definition of a fad/trend. Once everyone does it, it will lose its appeal because its ever present, and the leaders will have moved on to what will be the same next trend.
On the gear side, there is a level of craftsmanship that comes with operating these older cameras, or working with film. It connects you more with the end result and is a more fulfilling process as compared to the cameras that want to make everything super simple.
It is a fashion that is returning, like everything else , fashions move around in circles. This time this fashion has coincided with huge usage of cameras by everyone so more and more avenues to view pics are appearing so it seems we see it more.
This fashion will die out or evolve like otherstyles, where it is going next is the answer that the clever people know.
The part that annoys me is that by definition Vintage is pre 1950s – gabbling on about cup cakes and wellies is not vintage! photographing bride and groom stood next to each other with no heads is not vintage. Paolo Roversi is vintage but unfortunalty not many “vintage photographers” will understand the art of shooting 10×8 sheet film or polaroid, they will keep banging on about bunting and percy pigs and will happy they are original.