How long does film have?

[varjag]

If we talk about black and white film, their production is fairly interdependent with cine industry indeed. 35mm has started as motion film, and even after appearance of dedicated films for still cameras, a lot of emulsions were cut both for short cassettes and long cine rolls. Consider the Kodak trio (Plus-X, Double-X, Tri-X), or AGFA films.

As for wet printing being integral part of film photography, that's personal. To me photography and printing are two separate processes. I never really enjoyed wet printing in times when it had no alternative, hence happily gave up on it with advances in scanning. As HCB put it, good hunter isn't necessarily a good cook.

 

[rlightfoot]

But, there is a conceit in the quote above. Most film cameras are battery dependant

True, but, film gives you the choice of using electric automatically controlled cameras or fully manual. Digital demands electric cameras with no exception and as a result of the inherent requirement for computer chips in digital cameras, I believe an element of control is taken from the photographer.

Shooting film with a fully manual camera gives the analog photographer a supremely direct connection to his or her subject and powerful control over the end result (being the image on the negative)

Once digitized, film negatives become just another digital file, the smooth analog image broken up into discrete digital steps.

True, but I believe that a film photograph retains a special quality even after being digitised and displayed on a computer screen. I'm no professional, but I can often tell a film photograph from a digital one by sight, even on the internet.

I don't see many people who argue so passionately for film photography do so also for wet darkroom printing. And that was an essential componet of the film "look" for most of the 40 plus years I've been a photographer.

I love the wet darkroom process of making prints, and if I were making prints for sale or display in galleries, I would certainly prefer to do so in the darkroom... However, with modern technology being what it is, I think computer-based darkroom and printing methods have a lot to offer film shooters who perhaps don't have the time, space or money to use a wet darkroom.

I personally would rather think of digital darkroom methods as a new tool for the film photographer, rather than something that's devaluing the wet darkroom or rendering it obsolete.

 

[yaadetgar]

Film will stay.

Film will stay.

Hi!

I think film will stay with us.
Well, at least for the next 40 or 50 years.
It won't disappear, like painting didn't when photography started.
I know that I use a lot of new digital staff, but there are things that I will always do on film. Like black & white.



Yaad Etgar

 

[Papa Smurf]

Film vs digital in legal matters

Film vs digital in legal matters

Some police forces still need to use film for legal reasons although much of their work is digital.

Kim

I believe that you are correct. It has been my understanding that even though there are software "verification" programs, there are legal jurisdictions that do not believe that they cannot be fooled by a skillful hacker and will not accept "originally digital" images as evidence. This may change in time, but I do not think so, like any security software, hackers are always hard at work to break them.

I believe that Kodak has dropped production of its Police Films and now recommends other film products. If film dies, IMHO it will be in the Corporate Boardroom. I spent half my life in manufacturing and trust me, the men in suits do not care one iota about quality, aesthetics, art, tradition, or anything other than profits. Personally, I plan to stockpile and use film as long as I have film to shoot and the quarterly profit reports be d****d!

On the bright side, they still make black powder and knapped flints for the Brown Bess musket! Someday we may be a very small niche of purists, but we will still be shooting!

 

[wgerrard]

True, but, film gives you the choice of using electric automatically controlled cameras or fully manual. .

Yes, but we are so completely dependent on electricity for everything else we do it seems a bit silly to me to revel in the delight of not needing a battery to take pictures. I say that acknowledging a personal preference for mechanical cameras, but I can live with a battery replacement every year or so.

 

[rlightfoot]

Yes, but we are so completely dependent on electricity for everything else we do it seems a bit silly to me to revel in the delight of not needing a battery to take pictures. I say that acknowledging a personal preference for mechanical cameras, but I can live with a battery replacement every year or so.

I'm not so much talking about batteries for light meters, those can last for years... It's the fully-auto electric cameras that I'm talking about, especially ones with auto focus.

I like to travel, and I'm not always near a power source... digital cameras would die on me in those situations.

I guess you could say that carrying a few batteries is no worse than carrying a few rolls of film, but I don't know about that... Besides, fully electric cameras tend to be more delicate and shorter lived than their mechanical ancestors and I'll always prefer the tool that lasts longest.

 

[Sonnar2]

I'm not sure how much time movie film will have. My feel is that most productions, i.e. for television, are digitally now.
For still picture cameras, I guess it's simple: film will be available as long as a sufficient amount of buyers will buy it. I estimtae sales is already down to 30% to what is was 15 years ago, and probably will cut to a half again, then be stable.
Of course, there will be no farther development going into film, leading to no better, faster, or film with finer grain.

 

[kully]

Film will be alive for as long as we decide.

There are people, as I type, spreading emulsion on glass plates and when did film kill that technology?

Choice is decreasing but any companies in it for moderate/low profit will keep going for a long time.

Now, let's all bugger off to buy some bulk packs of HP5+

 

[rlightfoot]

You think a Canon 1D Mk. III is delicate? Even a Pentax K10D has 72 weather seals and will let you stand out in the rain for hours and keep on shooting.

Of course high end DSLRs with their titanium frames and weather seals are pretty robust... but you surely have to admit that no digital camera has the lifespan potential of a well built manual camera.

We simply wont see the same kind of vintage camera market in the future, Canon 1Ds will not end up on eBay for decent prices when they're 50+ years old, I would even be surprised if any are still working in 30 years.

If I were to buy a new Leica MP now, I would be investing a tool that could outlive me! There's no digital camera that has that kind of potential, even if they could keep working that long, they'd soon become outdated to the point of worthlessness.

I don't think your reasons for liking mechanical cameras are as irrational as you make out... I personally feel that mechanical cameras are the ultimate imaging tools. Like clockwork watches, they are finely crafted pieces of precision engineering that are built with a single purpose in mind... beautifully simple. I can take a fully manual camera apart to fix or clean it, I can understand every part and know it's function. For the vast majority of photographers or camera enthusiasts, this would be impossible with a digital camera.

I own a DSLR and I like it, but mechanical cameras are wonderful tools as well, and I don't believe they should ever be written off.

 

[NickTrop]

I don't think your reasons for liking mechanical cameras are as irrational as you make out... I personally feel that mechanical cameras are the ultimate imaging tools. Like clockwork watches, they are finely crafted pieces of precision engineering that are built with a single purpose in mind... beautifully simple. I can take a fully manual camera apart to fix or clean it, I can understand every part and know it's function. For the vast majority of photographers or camera enthusiasts, this would be impossible with a digital camera.

I own a DSLR and I like it, but mechanical cameras are wonderful tools as well, and I don't believe they should ever be written off.

The only thing that digital has done was drive the labor costs out of manufacturing. Same as watches. You "invested" in a manual camera - it lasted a lifetime. You "invested" in a manual watch (which I own and prefer) it lasted a lifetime. Both required skilled labor to create.

The new photographic model is to create a product that's inferior in every way:

- inferior build quality
- inferior ergonomics
- inferior picture quality
- inferior longevity
- inferior durability
- inferior cost of total ownership
- inferior flexibility (no negatives, no slides, no acceptable black and white)
- inferior serviceability

And -zero- charm.

Build in "planned obsolescence", drive out skilled labor costs, charge inflated prices.

Marketing's task is to "sell" the masses that the product is somehow better. (And the next generation is "better", and the next, and the next, and the next...) You might have purchased two quality cameras in your lifetime in the "film" days. Now you "get hooked" chase megapixels and purchase ten inferiour products - throw the other nine away.

 

[rlightfoot]

Yes indeed. The same holds true in many, many other areas of production... quality is sacrificed in favour of mass market appeal and higher turnover and profits for big business.

I often find myself drawn to "old fashioned" products and thinking that things were better in the past, I think I was born in the wrong generation!

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Like I said before, as long as the motion picture industry prefers film to digital, film users will be supplied. The film used may not be the same, but the machinery used to make it is, and the issue is whether there is enough demand to keep a few (or 1) of these factories going. As long as the motion picture industry, even a smaller artsy segment of it, demands film, it will be made. IMO

Yes, and motion pictures will not transition to digital very quickly or uniformly around the world. That will provide the film manufacturers a chance to downscale their production lines accordingly or sell the film business to some other companies. I am not optimistic about the future of film in 50 years time, but I am almost certain that you can still buy both color and B&W still film ten years from now, simply because motion picture makers around the world will not make an overnight transition to digital. Hollywood will make it sooner or later, but there are a LOT of movies made outside of the big Hollywood studios.

 

[rlightfoot]

Oh, I'm certainly not saying digital is "inferior in every way," I realise that's not true...

Are you really saying that digital cameras last longer, though? I must bow to your professional experience, of course... but I just can't believe that if I were to buy a Leica MP and a digital camera in the same class (maybe the M8?) and then use them both heavily that the MP would (irreparably) break first.

However, I'm NOT trying to say that the M8 is inferior in every way, I am certain that it is a fantastic camera, as is your 1DS Mk. III, my argument here is that digital and film are both very strong mediums... both have a lot to offer the photographer and I don't think either format should be heavily criticised or written off in favour of the other.

I think Leica are showing everyone how camera companies can produce high class tools in both formats, not shunning either.

 

[rlightfoot]

Interesting point... I'd always thought that the Leica look was the natural result of pursuing "the ultimate camera," but you may well have a point about them building to expectations.

I believe my main point still stands, though... Lets say we compare the MP with the Canon 1Ds Mk. III ? From a longevity point of view, which one would you bet on becoming irreparable first, both given the same amount of use?

Apart from electronic or mechanical failure, don't you agree that DSLRs also suffer (for want of a better word) from a measure of "built in obsolescence" ? The memory cards and batteries advance almost as fast as the technology in the camera itself and in 10 years, it'll probably be hard or impossible to get hold of the right consumables for today's cameras. They might make adaptors to fit the latest stuff, but by that time the camera body will be so outdated that you might as well just upgrade...

My point is not that digital cameras are bad. My point is simply that they have their failings, just as any tool or machine has... You say that you don't buy into the "everything was better in the past" argument... well, nor do I! But nor do I think that everything is better now... I see good and bad in film, and I see good and bad in digital.

I just can't agree with the people who say digital is film's perfect successor and that film is now obsolete.

 

[Ken Ford]

My take on film: it will likely be available for many years - as an art supply. Limited emulsions, spotty availability, high price.

 

[lushd]

I watched episode 1 of "The Genius of Photography" on BBC 4 last night and there was a long segment devoted to a contemporary photographer who produces beautiful daguerrotypes.

Now there's a technology that's been replaced several times over and is still alive (just about).

I also recall the editorial in AP mourning the death of Kodachrome 25. The editor laid the blame squarely on the photographers, taking them to task for not buying enough of it to keep it alive.

If you want film to be available in the future, spend money on it now and it will be.

 

[Solinar]

My take on film: it will likely be available for many years - as an art supply. Limited emulsions, spotty availability, high price.

I agree - In fact, I'm already buying locally some of my darkroom supplies at an art supply store, film too.

 

[varjag]

rlightfoot, it doesn't take *that* much to knock an M out of senses. The rangefinder assembly is fairly vulnerable.

Pro digital gear can be as repairable in a workshop as M cameras, but is sure worse in long-term parts availability department. This lending simply to film Leica bodies using much more basic components and technology.

But of course if I got stuck with a dead camera in the woods it'd rather be something mechanical and simple like M Leica

 

[rlightfoot]

Ha, I probably do have a slightly fantastical picture of Leica robustness, it's true.

But it's like this... I ride bicycles, and I really like old style steel or alloy frames even with modern carbon frame models around. Steel bikes are heavier and in some cases, they're probably technically weaker than carbon, but I like them because I have a much greater chance of being able to fix anything that goes wrong... I could even make my own steel frame in our workshop at home without needing much extra equipment or skills.

I also like cars which don't use computer chips in the engine, even though I know those chips aid performance and sometimes even reliability... I like the simple engines, because I can work on them myself... I can understand every part and know it's function, but at the same time, I think that modern advances in motoring are amazing and very valuable.

And I really like that quality in my tools... I like knowing that they're totally within my understanding and that I don't need much in the way of external support in order to operate, even when things go wrong. I believe it's very often the case that the best tool for any job you care to mention is usually the one which serves it's purpose with the least amount of complication and effort...

I think I'm starting to get off-topic here, so I'll stop. I suppose that it's just a matter of personal opinion for me. And I'm not trying to knock digital cameras, as I said, I own a DSLR and I like it. But I firmly believe that both formats have a place in the photographic world and we shouldn't write either one off in favour of the other.

EDIT: Basically, my point is that while I accept that technological advances bring with them many benefits, they often do so at a cost and we should always be aware of that.

 

[shadowfox]

I just can't agree with the people who say digital is film's perfect successor and that film is now obsolete.

We need more who think like this.
Welcome to the club, there are more people with the same view in and outside of this forum, and I suspect they are growing in number.

One observation, you handled yourself very well against the skeptics in this forum. But remember that there are some people who argue just for the sake of arguing , so start shooting film and start enjoying it as an art form. And stop thinking about film availability.

*If* it ever dissapear, at least you will have tons of negative and slides to remember it by.