Bleak Outlook for Film? Yet Another Prognostication

[Lawrence Sheperd]

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/12/11/consistent-quality-photographic-film-will-be-impossible-to-make/.

The Economist paints a gloomy picture for the future of film among commercial users. "Artisanal" films for artists and professionals will become more and more expensive and quality-control may suffer as a result....etc., etc.

More doom and gloom, or a valid assessment? Personally, I think this may be true for color emulsion. Hopefully, black & white films - although they may become "boutique" products - will continue to be produced in sufficient quantities that quality will not suffer.

Your thoughts?

 

[larmarv916]

Well on the other hand we have APPLE and friends trying to buy Kodak patents out of the "BK" process...but those are again only digital. BW is getting more support from the art world everyday. But this entire issue needs to have a dedicated "Film is Art" as a advocate to find both public support and investment. Digital is not archival...call me in 300 years and show me the original digital files sitting on a flash drive...they will be junk.

 

[OurManInTangier]

Digital is not archival...call me in 300 years and show me the original digital files sitting on a flash drive...they will be junk.

Did I miss the 300 year archival negative? Ilford? Kodak? Agfa?

Pretty much anything that survives 300 years does so nearly as much by luck as archival protection.

 

[kshapero]

Hey no problem, if I eventually have classic door stops throughout the house.

 

[kuzano]

Digital Archived on Optical media will simply "ROT" away....

Digital Archived on Optical media will simply "ROT" away....

In far less than 300 years.. Say 30... show me original digital files that have been "archived" to Optical Media CD/DVD (even Gold)

First problem will be finding devices that will read the media.

Second problem will be related to the currently hot topic now in place on the internet for Optical Media.

CD Rot and DVD Rot.

Google or Yahoo those

The ROT problem is a definite loss, as once ROT occurs on Optical Media, there is no recovery system for the data (all files, not just image), as the read surface is no longer contiguous, nor continuous. current software and read devices cannot leapfrog from track to track or sector to sector. Just Gone!

DISCLOSURE: While this is off topic, it relates to the comments in this thread about "archival" retention using Optical Media, If negs should go by the wayside, or the conversion of film negs/transparencies to digital. I still have my film archives in place. No conversion to digital intended.

 

[kuzano]

I can imagine JUST for 100 years Archival

I can imagine JUST for 100 years Archival

Well on the other hand we have APPLE and friends trying to buy Kodak patents out of the "BK" process...but those are again only digital. BW is getting more support from the art world everyday. But this entire issue needs to have a dedicated "Film is Art" as a advocate to find both public support and investment. Digital is not archival...call me in 300 years and show me the original digital files sitting on a flash drive...they will be junk.

I can imagine that whatever digital files survive for even 100 years, will involve dozens of migrations from media to media as electronic media evolves over that time. With even the smallest effect by "signal noise" on file degradation for each migration of media, that 100 years later the files will be quite questionable, IF readable.

Yet, migration will be necessary, because originating reader/writer mechanism will become obsolete every one or two decades, unlike properly stored negs/transparencies.

 

[Pioneer]

Well, film may die eventually, I really don't know. What I do know is it ain't dead yet so I am headed out to shoot some. Digital will just have to wait a little bit longer. 😀

 

[Spanik]

call me in 300 years and show me the original digital files sitting on a flash drive...they will be junk.

We don't even have film based photo's that are that old. And I have plenty of slides that are not viewable anymore. As long as you take care to shift the format in time digital is lossless. Not so with silver based photography.

While I agree that when no action is taken digital will perish faster, the long term archival of digital has a better chance than film.

 

[brbo]

IWith even the smallest effect by "signal noise" on file degradation for each migration of media, that 100 years later the files will be quite questionable, IF readable.

WHAT?! File does NOT degrade.

 

[Pioneer]

This entire digital vs film/archival vs non-archival stewing is a bunch of bs, pardon my french! If your picture is good enough, someone will make sure it survives. Most buildings don't even last 300 years and you guys are arguing about the longevity of your latest photograph of Aunt Martha.

I think this is what is known as "much ado about nothing!"

 

[hipsterdufus]

First world problems, my friends. Shoot what you like until it's gone. If it goes away, then find something else to shoot or quit. It's pretty simple.

 

[rbsinto]

Tempest in a teapot.
Currently, I can still buy slide film (although I don't as I have a fridge full of donated stock) and have it processed, so all the talk about film's demise is just that: talk.
I haven't the faintest idea if film is dead or not.
Best I can say is first we'll see. And then we'll know.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Most photos have likely been lost, thrown out in the trash after the owner dies. I suspect that, considering the billions of photos created each year, few will be at all interested in five year old photos, much less 100 year old photos.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Any particular film's demise has been, for consumers, precipitous, because we are not privy to the trajectory the producer plans for it. When Tri-X is discontinued, for example, it will seem to us gone overnight.

 

[Roger Hicks]

This entire digital vs film/archival vs non-archival stewing is a bunch of bs, pardon my french! If your picture is good enough, someone will make sure it survives. Most buildings don't even last 300 years and you guys are arguing about the longevity of your latest photograph of Aunt Martha.

I think this is what is known as "much ado about nothing!"

No. we're talking about what ANYONE will see of ANYONE'S photographs in 300 years -- other than the ones that are 'migrated across media', either by obsessives or (more worryingly) by those with agendas.

Most things from the past are lost. That's why we often prize the survivors. But if nothing can survive by chance...?

As others have said, though: worry about it when it happens.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Stupid article. Commercial uses of film ended a long time ago. It is now the artists and hobbyists keeping it alive. Prices are still low and quality is still high.

 

[Michalm]

Stupid article. Commercial uses of film ended a long time ago. It is now the artists and hobbyists keeping it alive. Prices are still low and quality is still high.

+1
We may well be dead tomorrow. Don't worry people enjoy shooting film .

 

[Joosep]

These news only make me shoot more on film. Keep `em coming !

 

[burancap]

Hopefully, whoever is looking at your photos in 300 years ... doesn't choke to death on my wife's meatloaf.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

We may well be dead tomorrow.

Nope. We've got until a week on Friday.

😀