There are plenty of people who sincerely enjoy the aspects that make older tech less convenient or practical. Maybe it's an appreciation for the engineering or "comprehensibility," often it's because older tech produces unique outputs that can't be adequately captured by newer technology.

Reducing people's interest to "social signalling" comes off as dismissive.

Vinyl (IMO) isn't about it being retro or having "better" sound quality (whatever that means, it's mostly subjective), but about having a collectable, physical item. I think CDs were a step backwards, not because the sound quality was off but because the boxes were smaller and fragile; I've never owned any music CDs.

Digital music is neat for listening to music, but it also feels like it lowers the value of it.

I use Lightroom 6 that I paid for, it still works and is still useful for my needs.

But as said needs are mostly general curve + highlights down + shadows up, it's possible they could simply be a jpeg preset in camera.

This line made me chuckle as well:

> Since I was a teenager I’ve used digital cameras

Digital cameras didn't exist when I was a teenager; and they cost about as much as a car when I was in my twenties. Overall I don't miss film cameras, although the scarcity was interesting. Taking a picture was an actual decision, unlike today.

It reminds me of people buying vinyl... signaling...

It's absolutely partly this.

But, for me today, as a sometimes hobbyist, it's also about the process...

Digital is too good. The cameras are too good. The results are too good. There's no anticipation.

The analog experience is, to be trite, so much more analog. A good vintage film camera (and probably new Leica too) feels so good in the hand. Like a nice watch, it's a piece of mechanical art. It takes time to focus and set exposure. Sometimes is goes horribly wrong, but sometimes whatever went wrong produces an unexpectedly delightful result. There's also something to be said about receiving the negatives and scans weeks or months after shooting the film - the delayed gratification is something that's lacking in today's instant-everything world. Plus, the cost of film and processing makes me slow down a beat and think about what I'm doing - no spray and pray when a roll of Portra 400 + processing is $25 or more.

I am not a professional. But I had done some film photography in its last days. The photos that I took during the time, just casually, tops any photo that I take now a days with by DSLR.

It is not in raw "quality". But what are we trying to capture when we take a picture? Is it raw pixels? or is it some emotion that we originally got when we were looking at something.

For some reason, I think film captures and regenerate that emotion when you look at the photograph in a way that a digital capture cannot.

I cannot explain it, but the the closest thing that I have found that could explain it is..It is in the context of b/w but I think the same applies to color as well..

https://leicaphilia.com/the-difference-between-black-and-whi...

> someone who started with film and spent a fair amount of time in the darkroom

This is a very important part of your message. You did have the opportunity of "being thought by the slow medium" simply by those being the default. Taking the "teachings" of more limiting, analog (in these cases) technologies became part of your process, your underastanding of the core principles, your motivation, your subjects and something deeper about photography.

In a time where basicaly limitless technologies are the default, for generations that were born into a world where decision fatigue is a bigger issue than scarcity artificial limitations are still a great path to learning something meaningful and having fun.

There is zero intrinsic value to taking pictures, listening to or making music or any of the activities that see a revival of their "retro" versions - analog or otherwise.

I was born when digital photography was the default and my first cameras were digital. I have had way more fun taking my <1000 analog photos, have way more connection to them (partly because I physically had to touch those photos developing and retouching them) than my 100k+ digital photos sitting on some zfs pool. Sure, digital photography is more efficient in every way but -eapecially as commercial photography is dying out to AI - if we strip the commercial element of things that humans are doing for shits and giggles - the analog/retro/slow/whatever version of these activities might prove to be better at serving the basic human needs (the shits and the giggles).

I started out with film and took my camera all over everywhere with me for years. I switched to digital as soon as I could, before it was really even practical, fully embraced it, and ran with it for a long time. But I eventually got bored, and stopped carrying a camera at all for while.

Last year, though, I got back into film, and I'm having a ball! The point of the retro process is not that it's better, it's that I'm enjoying the time I spend with it. The constraints are interesting. The technique is challenging. It's not so much about the photos as it is the photography: I enjoy the practice of making images, and dealing with the challenges of vintage equipment is part of the skill I'm practicing.

It doesn't actually matter whether I take any of these photos or not, you know? I'm not a professional; I'm not making unique art, or documenting historic events. I'm doing this because I enjoy watching the light, looking for interesting frames, and trying to capture them. Right now, the most enjoyable equipment for that purpose happens to be an all-mechanical, medium-format film camera.

Yeah, I agree it's a form of signaling. Once the tech gets old enough to not be considered "everyday use", signalers will find it appealing. I dated a girl, who insisted on taking pictures with her 2000 style digital camera rather than the phone - you know the kind which puts the date and time in the bottom right in an orange font. A few years ago these early digital cameras were untouchable - not retro enough to beat polaroids, significantly worse than phone cameras. Now the time window has moved enough...

> I think it's more about signaling some cultural identity than any objective benefits of the "retro" process.

I think it could be that, or simply that people want to try a different experience. Digital photography started out as the easier, faster, and cheaper option, but the experience of using it and even the culture around photography itself has changed over time. Going back to the roots once in a while can feel refreshing. And paying for a monthly subscription is probably overkill for most casual photographers.

On the point of film, I agree, although I won't say it's necessarily a bad thing overall. Just a bit silly when people try to claim film is somehow "superior" or whatever.

Film is absolutely a cultural experience for many people shooting it today. The main argument I have to confirm this is to consider that most people's photos are not good, to start with. (Talking about the average joe, not pro photographers.) So any comment about film's technical capabilities is moot. You can take bad photos on film or digital. Also you can take good photos on film or digital! Unless you're really doing some good experimental photography, you gotta admit that the film motivation is vibes.

Also on editing applications, Lightroom does have pretty good all round features , which is hard to find elsewhere. For example Darktable technically works, but the UI is poor, the performance is poor, and it's generally slower to achieve the same results. If someone wants to make an open source Lightroom clone, I'll be all for it!

> If you want to limit yourself to 36 unreviewed shots, you can do that with digital too.

I’m not sure that’s true. At least, not nearly as hard-constrained as with film.

I agree with your broader point, but let’s be completely honest. Digital is not a free lunch. You do lose something somewhere.

The medium you use “leaks” deeply into the whole experience of life (be it a vacation trip or something else). So all of this is a big deal.

Analog technology is infinitely complex, as is the real world. Digital is not. AS within as without. If you want to lack soul and wonder, why.

>I was delighted to discover the hassle-free simplicity and dependability of digital photography, so it is a bit mind-boggling that people want to go back to the old way of doing things for their everyday snaps.

The OP didn't go "the old way". They made it even more about "hassle-free simplicity", with a digital Fuji that shoots great out-of-the-box colors that they don't correct.

That said, the problem with the "hassle-free simplicity and dependability of digital photography" is that it cheapens everything and takes the fun and skill out of it.

For me, trying film after growing up in the post-digital world was more about exploring the experience of the medium and why we ended up where we are. It's given me an appreciation for why slowing down with your subject can increase "keepers".

Personally, I’ve spent a lot of time on both film and digital and currently I’m a lot happier with the results of my film work. Is it a combination of the camera, lens, medium, and process? I’m sure it is. Could I get similar artifacts out of digital? Probably but the key difference is that I don’t and the medium for me doesn’t make me want to. In the end creative work like photography has as many manifestations as people and your comment reads as rather dismissive than curious.

I'm just waiting for daguerreotypes to come back into fashion.

I started on 35mm and dark rooms then went to digital. 35mm is more fun and more rewarding.

Can’t forget the cost of all that film. That’ll easily outpace the Lightroom sub.

vinyls have secret songs on them ;)

Film gets better results with less effort - but more money.

>"It reminds me of people buying vinyl"

Myself - I do not use vinyl but being close to start using it again. Not like every day but when in a mood. The whole process is like coming back to a better and forgotten times. Definitely touches some strings.