"Demand for film cameras is greater than the production capacity" - Leica

[Guth]

I'm not in contact with them to the point that I hear about how much they are or are not processing.

That’s what I was guessing.

 

[Guth]

I am old and out of touch, nothing that I am ashamed of.
By the way, his car and mine flooded in the next hurricane, so he got another, better car anyway, and paid for a lot of it himself.

As the old saying goes, it takes one to know one. I’m happy to learn of your son’s success early on in life. To hear it the way some around here tell it, this would only be possible we’re he born with a silver spoon in his mouth, which I’m guessing is not the case.

I’m afraid that hurricanes in your neck of the woods and wildfires in my neck of the woods are only going to get worse in the coming years. It’s a very humbling thought at best.

 

[zuiko85]

Olympus has failed in the digital camera market. Their days are numbered. In 9 years (!) of the last decade they made losses with their M4/3 cameras.
The recently published intention of sale of the camera production is just the first step in a "fading out process" in the coming years.
Olympus camera production will be a part of history in some years. That's just the reality.

New film cameras will be based on 35mm DSLRs: You can use a "same parts strategy":
- same prism
- same mirror mechanics
- same AF system
- fine tuned exposure system
- same shutter release
- some other identical parts as knobs or the AF focus selector.
By using this strategy costs can be significantly reduced. Both for the film based and digital model. And at the same time the customers get the most sophisticated and current technology.
That this strategy works was already demonstrated by Nikon with the F6, which was developed simultanously and shared some parts / technology with the D2X and D2h.

Cheers, Jan

Olympus is only one example of old line camera makers driven to extinction by current market conditions. However my comment focused on reintroduced manual, mechanical cameras. The simple to understand, one page instruction manual, use one brand, understand basic operation of any other brand type camera.
The thing about this type of 35mm SLR with a 50 f2 manual focus lens is that, the knowledge acquired learning how to use them is transferable to the auto everything PHD (Push Here Dummy) cameras.
So that, you may take control of the camera, when needed, instead of just taking whatever some automated exposure or auto focus control hands you.
Perhaps an anomalous example but notice that one of the two remaining film cameras produced by Leica does not even have a built in meter. And that is considered a ‘feature’ not a bug.

 

[Guth]

I’ve repeatedly said in this thread that the market is a boutique niche and no one is expecting or saying that film will ever be mainstream again. That was never the point. Nor do I want it to be.

I think that you’ve been plenty clear. The responses of some seemingly have more to do with them, their suffering locals, or possibly both, than it does with any sort of overstatement that you never made.

 

[Forest_rain]

I'm pretty young and I am definitely seeing a film resurgence in Hawaii. There's even a film store devoted to "analog" that isn't even a lab or developer, they sell t-shirts with the word analog written on it and Holgas and Dianas, and overpriced film. Kind of cringy.

Also I don't think the word hipster is outdated, I'm pretty young. There's plenty of hipsters who hang out in the new neighborhood with the "analog" store who ride fixed gear bikes and have beards, although they aren't as "ironic" and '80's clad as the typical hipster in New York was/is. I even recognized some of the people working in the coffee shops as people I used to see at indie rock concerts about 5 years ago before I stopped going.

Perhaps hipsters are going out of style though, and I'm glad if that's true, as that word has come to encompass too many different things at this point to be readily defineable.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

That’s what I was guessing.

So, are you saying there is no correlation between a photo lab being open and processing film, and a photo lab not being open and not processing film?
I'm just reporting on local labs closing and the capacity of processing decreasing. I haven't been called to either do maintenance on or advise regarding maintenance, of machines that I installed, in quite some time. Usually they just work, and work really well. In fact, I have only watched shops close locally. The last shop I worked for no longer does daily film runs, but does do RA4 printing from digital images. The film runs have to hit a threshold which they have said is usually about a week's worth of film collection. This is already a dodgy practice when using a machine that is designed for constant use. Granted, this was all a few weeks prior to the shutdown in late March. Last I spoke to them was the first week in March. The two AGFA D-Labs in that shop run and replenish based upon use. If they are not used for several days, the chemistry begins to "sour" and will have to be replaced. If they are left for a week without being replenished with water and replenisher, the tanks, heaters, thermometers, pumps, filters, racks and rollers, will all gather an accretion of grains which need to be manually cleaned. It's a full day to completely clean a D-Lab then another 6 hours to get it running, up to temperature, profiled, corrected, profiled, dialed-in. Considering the low volume prior to shutdown, I'm not sure that shop could survive.

I think that you’ve been plenty clear. The responses of some seemingly have more to do with them, their suffering locals, or possibly both, than it does with any sort of overstatement that you never made.

Try not to make judgments on the lived experiences of others.
As for what began this "push" against my statements, I was never disagreeing with the OP, I was specifically commenting on what Jan (HHPhoto) repeatedly says in most of their posts regarding the photographic industry.

Phil Forrest

 

[jsrockit]

I think there’s are healthy resurgence for those that care and know where to find it. I think it is hard for us older guys to see because we came from a time when labs and camera stores were ubiquitous and now we just see a shell of what used to be. I think if we see new high quality 35mm and 120 film cameras in the future, that would speak volumes in how much film is being used and produced. In my eyes, it just keeps getting more and more expensive. I’d love a nice 4x5” camera some day and there are even new companies making cheap ones. Of course these cameras are a bit more primitive than 35mm cameras need to be.

 

[Mackinaw]

i think something is happening out there. I live in a small rural town in northern Michigan. I've been approached by the local Arts Council (which I belong to) to possibly teach an online course on how to develop B&W film. Apparently the younger crowd in town are finding their parents old Nikons and Canons and have an interest in developing film. We'll see where this goes.

Jim B.

 

[zuiko85]

Seems from reading this thread that there is a great variation locally in film resurgence.
At least where I live it is a desert, film wise. I’m old, fat, with hypertension and type 2 so must take care. That said in January was able to drive 70 miles north to Seattle to visit a new shop that has just opened. They named it ‘Shot on Film’ and with this pandemic I don’t know how they are doing so far. They have a lot of used cameras in various conditions of serviceability and do processing and seemed to have a good stock of film when I visited.
As far a processing and printing are concerned, even in the old days many of us did our own. That way we didn’t have to go far to complain when we messed up a roll or two.

 

[Forest_rain]

I'm sure they'll do fine if they're in Seattle. The shop that I go to in Hawaii is run by two young guys even, they must have bought it from another owner along with all the equipment because everything seems to work quite well even though the shop looks like it's been there for awhile. There's always someone else in there when I go in.

They sell pretty decent cameras and I notice they often change, so they must be selling cameras quite well even at an (inflated) price.

The other place here is run by an older guy who always seems depressed or in a bad mood. The quality might be just slightly better though, but it takes a lot longer. I don't know how long that one will stay open with the pandemic and that he seems to have trouble running the place on his own unfortunately.

Seems from reading this thread that there is a great variation locally in film resurgence.
At least where I live it is a desert, film wise. I’m old, fat, with hypertension and type 2 so must take care. That said in January was able to drive 70 miles north to Seattle to visit a new shop that has just opened. They named it ‘Shot on Film’ and with this pandemic I don’t know how they are doing so far. They have a lot of used cameras in various conditions of serviceability and do processing and seemed to have a good stock of film when I visited.
As far a processing and printing are concerned, even in the old days many of us did our own. That way we didn’t have to go far to complain when we messed up a roll or two.

 

[Guth]

Try not to make judgments on the lived experiences of others.

If you look back through this thread you’ll find that it is full of judgements and not just my own or yours. This thread perhaps more than any other I’ve seen on this forum has made me realize that there quite a few seriously disgruntled members here. I realize that such behavior does not apply to the majority of members on this site, but the disdain shown towards younger people in this particular thread has been disappointing.

To paint all younger folks with one broad brush stroke as demonstrated by many here is no more off-target than were someone to declare that most everyone on this forum is a washed up drain on our society and it’s resources. In either case such assumptions just aren’t true. Such attitudes do tend to bring out the worst in me and for that I apologize. We can’t do anything about our respective ages, but the one-size-fits-all way of thinking is simply counterproductive to any worthwhile discussion in my opinion.

As far as the state of film photography today goes it would appear that things in many parts of the world are doing better than in the Philly area provided that you are in fact correct that you still haven’t hit rock bottom there. When it comes to film photography it’s safe to say that every single location, be they large metro areas or small towns, has lost plenty of shops and labs over the years. However, I am focused on the activity that is now following what was a steep and dramatic decline — just as I did with the vinyl resurgence in the world of audio. I’m saddened that you are not seeing this where you live, but it is definitely happening here in Portland and elsewhere in the world. No is being forced to accept this and as far as I’m concerned no one needs to share anything more than their own personal experiences. Of course for better or worse, like it or not, only time will tell how (mostly younger) people will shape things moving forward. I’m finding it all to be rather fascinating to watch regardless of the outcome.

 

[das]

I take issue with the sentiment -- "those who can afford film photography." Digital cameras, especially good ones, cost upwards of $2,000. Someone gives you a Nikon FM2 for free, and assuming that a roll of film + processing = $10 a roll, you could shoot 220 rolls of film for the price of a Sony A7III + kit lens. And there is no depreciation on your FM2. If anything, the price for a functioning one will only go up.

 

[css9450]

Digital cameras, especially good ones, cost upwards of $2,000. Someone gives you a Nikon FM2 for free....

The digital cameras, though, are right in the thick of the depreciation curve and used ones from just a few years ago are dirt cheap. Pro-level models as usual are the major exception.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

I take issue with the sentiment -- "those who can afford film photography." Digital cameras, especially good ones, cost upwards of $2,000. Someone gives you a Nikon FM2 for free, and assuming that a roll of film + processing = $10 a roll, you could shoot 220 rolls of film for the price of a Sony A7III + kit lens. And there is no depreciation on your FM2. If anything, the price for a functioning one will only go up.

......& that's not taking into account the cost of a computer & printer....

 

[gavinlg]

I think there’s are healthy resurgence for those that care and know where to find it. I think it is hard for us older guys to see because we came from a time when labs and camera stores were ubiquitous and now we just see a shell of what used to be....

This is definitely an important point - I started taking photos with film as a teenager nearly 20 years ago and that happened to coincide with the lowest dip in the film market. I've experienced it going from older photo labs and chemists 'winding down' their labs and telling everyone that film is 'finished', and having to send my negs overseas to be dev&scanned to having a number of local options that specialize only in film within my near vicinity. Gone from not being able to find pro grade c41 films, or paying 25usd for them, to having them locally available for under half that.

My sense is that expectations of what the 'film scene' should be differ greatly depending on experience with it - to some members who might have experienced film as a ubiquitous presence in daily life, with several labs locale to their areas and film sold in every cornershop I can understand why they may think the entire thing has died. The scene become more specialised and niche, and that's a good thing in my opinion.

*edited for clarity

 

[zuiko85]

Ten dollars a roll for film and developing? Maybe ten years ago but by the time you add shipping both ways, it’s a lot more than that, even if you save up rolls and send 5-6 rolls at the same time shipping is a killer.
Digital has gotten so good for so cheap that $500 will buy a really nice used mirrorless with kit lens a couple of models back.

 

[Archlich]

I take issue with the sentiment -- "those who can afford film photography." Digital cameras, especially good ones, cost upwards of $2,000. Someone gives you a Nikon FM2 for free, and assuming that a roll of film + processing = $10 a roll, you could shoot 220 rolls of film for the price of a Sony A7III + kit lens. And there is no depreciation on your FM2. If anything, the price for a functioning one will only go up.

For that $2000 in the end you get to sell the FM2, undepreciated for sure, for $200.

Don't forget since you buy film cameras used, you can also get very high quality used (FF) digital gear for much, much less than $2000.

Meanwhile we're in the age of Kodak 400 costing $5.99 per roll, plus processing and (almost always) scanning. For "good" scanning that's not done by a Frontier or Noritsu, shell out more.

Film IS an expensive hobby today.

 

[gavinlg]

Film IS an expensive hobby today.

It's cheaper now for me than in the last 20 years.

(and I got a bunch of pro digital gear that I spent thousands on that sits in my camera bag that I can't sell cos it's worth nothing.)

 

[das]

The depreciation is pretty killer on digital. Prices will eventually bottom out and stabilize for older models (like used cars), but eventually drift down to zero as the models get further and further away from the current ones. And when the rechargeable batteries are no longer made for the platform, then it is really done. And look at all the "planned obsolescence" happening with digital today -- in a few years, digital SLRs, the rage for 20 years, will become dinosaurs.

On the other hand, one can buy a Leica M6 today for $2,000 and, and if current trends continue, probably sell it for $2,500 in five years. If you bought a 1995 M6 in 2010, you would have paid a little north of $1,000 for one.

There are good arguments on both sides of this debate. I am just saying that there is an economic case for shooting filmfor the hobbyists -- and that shooting film casually is not "more expensive" than buying a current generation digital camera, even excluding a computer and software that are required to process digital photos.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Film IS an expensive hobby today.

I won't say that photography, as a hobby, is expensive, but it does cost money. In 2020, look at the price of a bass boat, mountain bike, fine road bike, golf club membership fees.... All have a price attached. I'm much more judicious in my use of 20x24" FB silver gelatin paper than i was 10 years ago. I don't typically machine gun my way through film, though if I'm going to Europe, you know I'm taking Kodak & Ilford, not Foma or Ultrafine. There are levels of obsession that you can go to with photography or any activity.....