Does film photography have a future?

Slides aren't better than a decent digital SLR, sorry to say that. Up to ISO100 you may get more resolution out of a 35mm slide if you use equipment far more expensive than a Canon 1d or Nikon D2x.

Only projected slides have an advantage and that's mostly due to the low resolution digital projectors.

ISO 800 slide film as clean as an image from a Canon 20d hasn't been invented yet. Even at ISO400 the Canon digital is better.

C-41 has a slight advantage in lattitude and traditional B/W has a big one.

But there is no film with Velvia resolution, Plus-X lattitude and E100 colours.

And film isn't cheap! The cheapo Fuji Z200 stuff they sell here for 1.75 Euro a roll is plain ugly. Grainy and and an ugly yellow cast, horrible skin tones, not worth the 3 Euro for 3 days processing. My Canon d60, five years old and three times obsoleted but I still use it, is far better than that stuff.

So I compare to Fuji Superia, 2.75 a roll ISO200 plus 13 Euro for 1 hour processing, 4x6 prints and a CD with highly compressed 1300x1800 jpegs, make that 16 Euro per roll. One roll a week for a year buys you a decent dSLR with a decent lens!

That's why I shoot Elitechrome 100 and Sensia 100, 3 Euro a roll including development with 3 to 5 days turnaround, ISO 200 is more than double that, ISO 400 is a whopping 6 Euro per roll PLUS 3 Euro processing and thus out of my range.
E6 one hour processing? Yes, we still have a lab doing this, 6 Euros a roll and 20 Euros for the chemicals. We used that lab for a comercial shot where we needed more than the 8 MPixel from a 1D MkII.
5 Rolls Ektachrome 100gx for 32 Euro, 50 Euro processing, 15 drum scanns for 270 Euro, total 352 Euro! 10 Jobs like that and a Hasselbald H3D Kit has been payed for.

I shoot film because this is the only way too use the cameras I like.
 
Perhaps scanned slide film is not up to Canon SLR spec, but I prefer to look at slides directly or projected. I seldom use slides at over 100 ISO. On prints, I doubt anyone could tell the difference, or care.
The economic argument is sound, if that is one's priority. Obviously we're all happier with our old cameras!
 
Socke made it quite clear... now we can have it while it last or while we can.. handle the cost.
 
Socke made it quite clear... now we can have it while it last or while we can.. handle the cost.
 
I shoot film because this is the only way too use the cameras I like.

Amen to that...I don't want an M8 because it sounds like a gravel crusher to me, but if they had got it right I would have been first in line. I don't have a DSLR and have abandoned my last film SLR because after playing with a rangefinder for any time at all, I just can't stand looking down that damn tunnel!
 
Kin Lau said:
I'm trying to figure out why it's only the "Japanese" being singled out.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. Especially since it's also a certain Japanese company that keeps on producing film and improving the technology required to make them (btw, the new Velvia50 will be out on April 15 :)). And aside from that German camera manufacturer, aren't all the new rangefinders produced in Japan? Oh, and do you know that that German manufacturer loves the Japanese so much they even make a Japan-only model and established their first retail store in Tokyo? ;)

What about that American camera company that killed its film photography business in favor of digital?

And AFAIK, no Japanese camera manufacturer have claimed that digital image quality is better than film. All the advertisements I've seen here only claim to approach the image quality of film.
 
Kin Lau said:
I'm trying to figure out why it's only the "Japanese" being singled out.
Click to expand...

No offense. We're talking digital cameras, most are made by the big Japanese consumer electronics companies. They monopolize the market.
 
Last edited:
Socke said:
And the computer that doesn't support CDs supports your scanner?
Click to expand...

I've got two scanners hardwired to my computer that are more than capable, but nobody has yet invented a CD drive that is compatible :)
 
I can connect my Canon FS2710 SCSI scanner to my computer as well, but the old Windows NT4 driver is a pain in Windows XP. Thanks to VUEScan and the ancient Adaptec ASPI layer I can still use it. But I don't expect to use it when my next PC comes with Vista :(

OTOH, it works great with Linux :)

Luckily I don't need my pictures digitized, others have no choice.
 
socke,it is not a valid comparison, i think.
If they make new scanners, you still can scan your old slides etc on the new one (even in better quality). And film scanners are made to scan...film, so i don't expect future film scanners that could not handle...film :)
Of course it is very much possible that noone will make scanners in five years anymore.
But as you said, you don't need the pictures to be digitized. You can enjoy slides with a loupe (which, i guess, won't go obsolete that soon)... While digital pictures are not pictures without a device that can read the files and an algorithm that can make an image out of zeros and ones.
 
Pherdinand, my DVD player can make a slideshow from jpg images on a CD or DVD, it runs on embeded Linux.

When we started selling and supporting Document Management Systems we used Magneto Optical (MO) Disks to store the scanned documents, the 5.25" 650MB disks are perfectly readable in contemporary drives which support the new 16.700 MB disks.

I have more doubts about the longevity of harddisks and I'm sure proprietary and undocumented filesystems like Windows NTFS may pose a thread to data integrity in the not too far future.

All in all it's up to the user, take care and with little work an archive will be safe.
My negs from the 1980's are mostly gone, discoloured and the emulsion is brittle and falls off. I should have stored them in the proverbial shoebox instead of archival sleeves in binders.
Or better, I should have made copies :)
 
The vividlight article makes too many assumptions that have no basis in fact. Same rehashing of all the half-truths.

The lack of _affordable_ film scanners is the near future is going to be a very likely scenario, much more likely than CD-Rs not being supported.

My 6 yr old CD-RW's and 7 year old CD-R's are still readable.
 
Okay, let's end this argument right now. This information is a little dated (2000) however it's the best I can find:

This is from

Impact of Digital Cameras On Rate of Growth of New Photographs
http://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much-info/film/details.html

I won't snip much of the article, but here's a table (everything after 2000 is a projection):

Table 1: Photographic Exposures (Billions)
Chart of the annual production of film used in conventional photography in the United States.


Year:
1992 US - 21 billion World - 56 billion
1997 US - 24. 9; World 84.4
1998 US - 26.9; World 83.3
1999 US (data not present); World 82
2000 US - 34.4; World (data not present)
2002 US not projected; World 89 (projected)
2005 US - 41.2 (projected);

Yes, digital cameras have supplanted film cameras in both the professional and consumer markets. However, the overall photography market is growing.

From the article:
Kodak describes the photography market as follows: 82 billion picturesprocessed a year throughout the world with 750 million rolls of film processed annually in the United States and 2.9 billion rolls consumed worldwide. Kodak also estimates that of the photographs that are processed approximately 2 percent are later reprinted or reused in some way.


Granted, the data is dated. But we're talking 90 BILLION - with a "B" processessed FILM exposures here people. Even if that market shrinks enormously to, say, half-a-billion within your lifetime (that's a wild arse conservative guess) you will still have film to play with.

Do note on the projections. That, projected, there are more people projected to shoot film exposures in 2005 than in 1992 when your only choice was to shoot on film. That's because of the projected growth of the overall imaging market. And, yes, they also projected digital to overtake film in 2004 at the time of the article, which it did.

Another interesting article is:

Is 35mm film dead?

By Bill Bennett
February 22 2003
Icon
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/21/1045638480193.html

1. Disposable Cameras Growing Well:

If disposable film cameras are included in the numbers, digital camera sales are just a drop in the ocean. A report by US-based Photo Marketing Association International says disposable camera sales grew by 10 per cent in 2002 and now account for one in five processed images.

2. Consumers Use Film and Digital for Different Reasons:
While the figures indicate we are still using film cameras, our picture-taking habits are changing as more people buy digital cameras. For a start, we're taking more images. Many digital cameras have an LCD screen on the back so we can instantly review pictures taken to decide whether to keep the image or retake the shot. And memory is also increasing quickly, allowing us to take up to 100 snaps on one occasion...As more households have both film and digital cameras, more of us have to decide whether we want to shoot with a digital camera or film camera, or both...Ross says camera makers expect their products to be used differently to film cameras...

3. Quality/Cost
f you want to buy a digital camera that outperforms 35mm film, you have to spend big money...

... Canon says its EOS-1Ds is the first digital camera to match 35mm photography. It's a professional camera with 11.1 megapixel resolution and state-of-the-art features. A snip at $16,499....
(Note since this article was written, the 17 megapixel $8000 (body only) behemoth 1DS2 came out. Eight grand? No thanks. That said, I can see why pros might want use it... But I have to get an 11 megapixel camera to give me what my $40 (fourty dollar) old GSN has? Hahahaha! (This is by Canon's own admission. Want 35 film quality? You need to buy our 11.1 megapixel camera for 16 grand back with the EOS 1DS came out.

Here's an article "bragging" about the EOS DSII being,

The First Digital Camera Better than Film
Can a digital camera really outclass color film?

According to tests done by Popular Photography, Canon's new 16.7 megapixel EOS 1Ds Mark II took better pictures than a regular SLR camera (Canon's EOS 3) shooting high-quality ISO 100 film.

Interesting, as a few years ago Popular Photography predicted that digital cameras would have to reach at least 24 to 30 megapixels before they'd compete against film cameras in quality. But that stance seems to have changed, as they are now claiming the better color and lower noise of the EOS 1Ds Mark II gives digital cameras the winning edge.

http://zonezero.com/magazine/articles/popularp/index.html

Ummmm - you can keep your $8000 (for the ergonomic disaster of its camera body only) 17 megapixel DSLR which "brags" to be better than my $40 GSN and a roll of film. (Bet it still blows out highlights by the way...)


4. Future of Digital? Cell Phones!

Your next digital camera will probably be your mobile phone. According to Strategy Analytics, a US-based research group, 10 million camera phones were sold in the first nine months of 2002. Japan and Korea accounted for 96 per cent of total sales. The group predicts that by next year, camera phones will outsell digital cameras.


So, all those camera companies who ditched their film camera production for the non-serious "consumer" digital market may rue the day they perpetrated the fraud that is the "convenience" (ahem) of digital.

75% of all phones sold in 2009 will have cameras
80% of Americans bougth a disposable camera even though they had a regular camera at hand
80% of cameraphone owners also carry their digital camera*
*(My note: "for now", until their camera dies. Then it will be "why bother"? Their cells will have 4 megapixels by then if they don't already...)


The future of "digital photography"?

Cell phones!!!!

No thanks to that...


PS
Only 13% of digital images get printed. Consumers are funny. Run out and buy that latest 7 megapixel $500 camera because your $400 two year old only has 5 megapixels, but then don't bother to print anything. Instead, display it on your LCD which needs - what, 1/2 megapixel of resolution?

How much of this supposed "growth" in digital camera sales is due to people buying a new camera every couple years to keep up with the megapixel wars?

What will happen to the digital camera industry when consumers ditch their digitals because their cell phones have become their "cameras"?



Do digital cameras have a future?
 
Last edited:
I think I can explain why only 13% of digital images get printed, here the labs print every negative from a roll and you can give back the prints from bad negs. But for Kodak or Fuji they got printed, somebody payed for the paper.

Another thing, prints from digital are more expensive here, at least the usual consumer stuff. A 4x6 from the cheapest source, I use them as proof before I scan, is 1 Eurocent from film and 9 Eurocent from digital.

In 2002 we shot some 20 rolls a week for our magazine, this year we shot none.
From 45 accredited PJs at this years 6 days bicycle race one shot film. Not counting me, but I'm not a PJ, I run the computers :)
 
What will happen to the digital camera industry when consumers ditch their digitals because their cell phones have become their "cameras"?

First, cell phone cameras are digtial cameras. I thought we were talking about film here. Film is over in the mass market, period; it will represent less than 5% of all frames this year. You seem to have shifted the subject to camera-based digitals vs. standalone digital cameras.

Second, if/when photographically useful camerphones are marketed, they will say "Canon" and "Nikon" on them.
 
Film will be a niche product. I'm not sure there's much of a future for personal wet darkrooms, either, because of environmental problems with disposal of metals an d chemicals.

I'm a photo collector, and I own some very beautiful silver prints by some of the best printers of the 20th century. IMHO, the technical quality of the best digital prints is better.

In color printing, there's very little doubt that digital color prints will last much longer than any wet-printing technology, which will also affect use by artists and professionals. I've got some color Kodak prints of my kids (now grown) from the 1970s, kept in dark scrapbooks, in drawers, and many of them are faded.

I don't think film is dead; I just think that now, digital is to film what film was to glass plates.

JC
 
I haven't read through all these threads but my take is that Kodak may eventually hang theirselves, but there will always be a company somewhere making film & chemicals. Besides there building drug stores like CVS & Wallgreens on nearly every street corner here in N.Carolina. Walmarts everywhere else, and they all have C-41 processing. and stores like Walmart and such even have the machines in house to develop your prints, and I'm sure they aren't cheap. When Agfa died, look how Ilford has stepped up to the plate. Nah worry!... Not me!
 
The demise of film.

The demise of film.

Since this is RFF, and I suspect 95% of us own a film-based RF, I suspect the replies here will be a bit biased toward the "sure it has a future".

And I think the people saying that are correct.

There's been much hand-wringing, taking of umbrage at the news of "such-and-such plant is closing", and issues like the speculation about Kodachrome's future availablity.

The current state of camera film & darkroom supplies seems to mirror the state of the vacuum tube industry of the 1980s: Manufacturers in the USA were terminating production, and the MI (musical instrument) press sold many magazine issues containing articles like: "THE END OF VACUUM TUBES?" and "SHOULD I BUY A SOLID-STATE GUITAR AMP?"

As late as 1988 or thereabouts, things looked pretty bleak. However, the valve/vacuum tube market is once again as healthy as ever, in my estimation. And this is the 21st century.

In the late 80s, companies in eastern europe, Russia, and China entered the market, making tubes plentiful again. In fact, I recall reading that one eastern european vacuum tube company purchased Telefunken's (!!) manufacturing equipment.

Today, there are a variety of choices of the 'staples' of tube amplification, such as EL34, 6L6GC, and 12AX7 sizes--essentially the Kodachrome/Tri-X of the MI and audiophile equipment industry.

So the photo film industry is going through a bit of a shake-up. Not a big deal.

There are still NEW tube-based guitar amps and boutique audiophile amps being sold. One small US manufacturer (based on the west coast, IIRC) has entered the tube production market.

In sum, there is such a huge 'installed base' of cameras requiring film, and valid reasons to choose film over digital, there'll be companies around to serve that market.

-CJ





shutterfiend said:
We live in an age when most digital SLRs and some serious digital P&S cameras rival the clarity and grain of medium format. Most professionals have switched to digital already and even film-loyal prosumers are taking the dive in droves. Startup cost, perhaps still the only deterrent, is plummeting fast. Does film (especially 35mm) stand a chance in the long run?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom