How long does film have?

[Tuolumne]

Why?

I guess the reasons for using film are:
a) using the image in a medium whereby the superior technical qualities of film are significant (ie print enlargements from MF or LF, projection of slides)
b) intended use is only restricted to film (IR photography, x-rays and forensic evidence are what I can think of)
c) going to places where only a film camera would do (underwater, freezing environments, long photoassignments in the desert or amazon)
d) use of vintage film cameras by enthusatic collectors & retro lovers
e) people who prefer to use film for emotional reasons
f) you live in a less develop region where electricty, computers or money is scarce

Are you just off the starship from another galaxy?
Over 50% of the posts at RFF have to do with this topic!

/T

 

[P. Lynn Miller]

I need a small spring for my Robot Royal shutter. It has to stamped out of a sheet of spring steel. The tooling alone would set me back some 400 Euro! So I have to wait for a donor.

I have not seen a schematic of the spring you need, but I am quite sure that any decent gunsmith can make that spring for you for a very reasonable price. There is a huge wealth of skill and knowledge about manufacturing small and very precise parts in the gunsmith industry. A gun is not dissimilar(not talking about their end use) to a mechanical camera, a device the works by pure mechanical systems, levers, springs, gears, and cams. There are many very old guns from centuries gone by that are fully fucntioning and parts are frequently made to keep them in service. Add the vast pool of knowledge and talent in the clock and watch making industry, and any mechanical camera can be kept in fully functioning order indefiinitely at a reasonable cost.

 

[edho]

I'm new to this forum, so I hope a poll like this hasn't been posted before... although I guess everyone talks about this. Please don't flame me if I've added a double poll, I did have a look before I posted.

The thing is, I'm only just seriously discovering photography, and I really love the analog processes and results (not to mention the beautiful gear), so I want to be able to use film for a long time.

Will I be able to, or will digital crush the analog format entirely?

Have Leica added a nail to the coffin with the M8?

I know a few film companies have folded already, will that continue?

etc.

I guess I am a late comer of this thread. I didn't have time to go through every post but still want to drop my point here.

I don't think anyone can tell how long film will still last, even those film manufacturers can't tell as there are too many un-predictable factors. Places with advance photographic technology such as Japan, or places with people rushing for upgrading their new digital gears every season like HK, there still exist certain % of people in love with films. There is an emotional factor which can't be ignored.

My conclusion is, don't worry how long film will last. Just use what you like to use. If you prefer drawing with your pencil, or painting with oil on canvas than photogshopping in front of a computer, by all means just stick to it!

 

[windraider]

Are you just off the starship from another galaxy?
Over 50% of the posts at RFF have to do with this topic!

/T

Depends on how representative RFF forum members are to the entire phototaking population of this planet .

I presume that RFF forum members:
a) constitute less than 1% of the phototaking population in the world
b) who fall under categories (d) & (e) make up 90% of the forum
c) will be vastly outnumbered by the CURRENT number of photographers who solely use digital or phone cameras

The last point is not to say that digital users outnumber film users currently - maybe it is true maybe not, I don't know. I'm sure in certain parts of the world it is more practical/cost effective to use film. But most people around me, family members, colleagues and friends tend to use digital exclusively now. Even my father, who had owned a Nikon SLR system since 1970 and a Rolleiflex since the 60s only uses digital now.

 

[P. Lynn Miller]

I can't believe I wasted the time to read this thread, but since I did, I am going to jump on the soapbox.

Film is commercially dead, for commercial purposes with rare exceptions, digital has replaced film and will continue to do so. To use film is not practical or economical. I am not talking about the select few wedding photographers and etc that still use film. And I know many pro's that do mix and match film and digital, but for the most part, if you are a professional, you are using digital. It just makes sense.

But I am guessing petty theft will keep film alive for a long time. Example, wealthy, computer savy family loses all their computers and laptops to a burglary. In spite of all the street smarts, the time was never taken to back-up all the photos from the past two years of family holidays in Europe, Asia and North America. Gone just like that. Yep, their own stupid fault, they should have used all the archival technology that has been discussed here, but sometimes there only so many hours in a day. I know a family that has just switched from digital to film! Burgulars tend to steal a laptop quicker than a photo album. And yes, the could have lost the negatives to a fire, flood, etc.

As for film or digital being more archival, while I am no expert, film wins hands down. Do not start the tehno talk, because there are fewer people archiving digital as discussed here than people still shooting film. Nothing more needed than a dry, dark place and a light source to retain and retrieve the data from film, just too simple and easy. I am a bit of scavenger, stopping to dumpster dive and check pile of discarded rubbish. I see piles of computer and hard drives, I never think, I bet that hard drive is full of photos. But I often find boxes of photos and negatives, and I can quickly scan contents to see if there is anything of historical interest. So film is still the easiest method of preserving images, whether they are worth anything or someone else will ever want to see these images is another subject.

In reality, digital or film, both are vulnerable to irreversible damage from fire, water and acts of God. As for how long will film be around, I think, it will be around for a very long time and digital will continue to improve.

I just can't believe how lucky I am to live right now, when I have so many choices to make images, film, digital or a little of both.

That is all from me, I would rather be taking photos than talking about them.

my 2¢,

 

[P. Lynn Miller]

Have you had custom gunsmithing done lately? The cost to have a precision part made by a gunsmith - and that for a gun, not a camera - is, ummm, impressive! Having any custom part hand made except for the most high end camera would simply not be practical. There are few classic cameras where the cost wouldn't exceed the value of the camera.

I have a gun safe full of hand-made rifles and shotguns. I know how much a good gunsmith costs. While expensive, it costs much less than the cost to make a PCB. As for value, I have rifles that I have spent 10 times the value of the gun having parts made. I know I will never get my money back, but then I did not get my money back from the last boat I restored either. And I have a $50 1970 Peugeot bicycle that has had a $2000 rebuild, and the most I could sell it for is $500. The last service on my grandfather's pocket watch cost me 4 times the value of the watch. If is all about money, well, join the masses, it is cheaper and easier.

The point I was making, is that making mechanical parts is low-tech, you are paying mostly for skills and time, not expensive tooling or machinery.

I like steel bicycles, wooden boats, film cameras, and listen to LP's.

 

[wgerrard]

P. Lynn:

If digital has replaced film, it can't, logically, continue to replace it. The deed has been done. But, I know what you meant.

I'm pretty sure petty theft will not be the thing that keeps film alive. The issue of digital security and archiving is part of the broader issue we all face with all of our digitized data. Someone will come up with a reasonable solution and get very rich. For now, I keep copies on portable drives at home and also at a (reasonably secure) off-site facility. If I had anything really worth anything, I'd store it on portable drives kept in a bank lockbox.

 

[sepiareverb]

John Updike has just declared film dead in the latest New Yorker (last '07 issue).

 

[amateriat]

Yeah, he sorta does, but it's not exactly earth-shaking when taken in the context of the article. Besides, what does Updike write with these days?


- Barrett

 

[kevin m]

That's weird, I though Updike was dead!

 

[amateriat]

That's weird, I though Updike was dead!

I was sorely tempted to do a "God-is-Dead/Nietzsche-is-Dead" riff in that post, but I thought I'd leave that one to you.

(Alternate riff: "He is, but no one's had the heart to break the news to him.")


- Barrett

 

[amateriat]

sitemistic: Yep, I've tried to grok this myself. And here comes a subject for a new thread: for decades, photography has been ballyhooed as "the universal language", but the thrust of Updike's piece upends this notion, and not just a little. The subject has been brought up before from time to time (the movie Blade Runner touches a bit on this, which reminds me: the "third" cut of this great sci-fi flick is in theatres now). Without knowing the story behind, for example, random snapshots from poeple we've never met, what do these pictures actually tell us, besides perhaps a place and approximate time?

I'm going on about this too much already here...


- Barrett

 

[Socke]

Why?

f) you live in a less develop region where electricty, computers or money is scarce

I might be interested in photography after I put food on the table. Then it's probably digital, why should I repeat the 20th century when I can jump right into the 21th?

 

[antiquark]

"
Seriously, do we really need to save 4,000 photos a minute coming into Flickr? To what end. With billions of photos being snaped every year, who is going to look at them in the future, anyway. Say we lose a few trillion to data loss over the next 100 years? Would anyone really miss them?

The only way to conclusively answer those questions is to ensure that those pictures survive into the future.

 

[kevin m]

History might suggest that in 100 years it is more likely that the world population will be down to a few hundred thousand people, and there will be no electricity.

Has everybody been reading The World Without Us or what?

 

[kevin m]

We create "instant collectibles" pretending that everything is worth preserving for the future, while the future doesn't really want or need much of the detritus of the past.

It's all crap. Or most of it. Every time I go to our local antique stores I can't help but think that most of the junk inside needs to be incinerated or recycled.

 

[iamzip]

You can still find 110, 126 (instamatic), 127 and other long "dead" film formats if you look, so I think the biggies (135, 120) still have a lot of life left. Still lots of disposable cameras for sale, and companies are still making point & shoot 35mm cameras.

 

[Tuolumne]

Who still makes P&S film cameras?

/T

 

[iamzip]

That was quick. I know Fuji does, don't know who else.

 

[Tuolumne]

The only film P&S cameras at B&H are made by Olympus. And they are all out of stock, which probably means Olympus isn't making them anymore. I will venture to say that if you can find any film P&S cmeras available in the US, they are all old stock. I don't think any new ones are being manufactured.

/T