>>3881788I'm probably the last person where using film as the primary method of recording life in general was still common.
Digital won because it was bloody convenient and just 'better' for the happy snappy shit most people recorded with film. All the holiday snapshots you wanted to share when you got home, all the borthday parties and shit. Digital and Facebook meant they could be shared now.
OTOH, I use film gear because it's cheap, effective and I only pay for what I shoot, instead of what I will shoot over the next ten years. Like a subscription camera that charges you a euro each time you click the shutter.
God I hope that never actually comes into being.
But, Digital is great for shit you want to share now. Film is great for shit you want to share in 20 years time. I've snapshit from school tours 20 years ago, family holidays, weddings and long dead relatives preserved in negative form. A lot of the stuff on digital camera we took from the last 15 years is just gone. Lost and evapourated - or hiding somewhere deep in a facebook feed never to be found again until an algorithm digs it up and says 'Hey, remember this time you were happy"
I've used an old EOS camera on holidays to take pictures I want to look at it 20 years time. It works fine.
I've been photographing my parents a lot as they get older. Had nothing of them from the past 15 years - all the digital stuff went away and they're getting old.
I kind of want those photos after I have kill them for the house.
---
