How long does film have?

[pesphoto]

IMO, film as we knew it is already dead. There are die-hard dinosaurs still roaming the planet claiming film will be around forever. But for the most part film has been out-performed in absolutely all regards by it's digital counterpart and there isn't a need for it anymore. Start-up cost used to be the major advantage of film but with consumer DSLRs under a grand producing images that compete with medium format film in sharpness and clarity; film, 35mm film in particular, does not have a prayer.

I have a need for film and there will always be a group of shooters that will appreciate the value of film. Call it being a dinasaur if you will, but I for one am proud to be one. I dont care about digital performance for the most part. I enjoy using film and it's that simple.

 

[shutterfiend]

I don't have a single digital camera myself. I consider myself more T-Rex-ish than Triceratop-ish.

 

[MikeL]

But for the most part film has been out-performed in absolutely all regards by it's digital counterpart and there isn't a need for it anymore.

It's not about performance, it's about a look. As long as people want a certain look (e.g. black and white), film will be around. Even if it can be emulated digitally.

 

[Finder]

IMO, film as we knew it is already dead. There are die-hard dinosaurs still roaming the planet claiming film will be around forever. But for the most part film has been out-performed in absolutely all regards by it's digital counterpart and there isn't a need for it anymore. Start-up cost used to be the major advantage of film but with consumer DSLRs under a grand producing images that compete with medium format film in sharpness and clarity; film, 35mm film in particular, does not have a prayer.

Unfortunately, there is no basis for any claims in this paragraph.

 

[MikeL]

Unfortunately, there is no basis for any claims in this paragraph.

But Finder, I hear and see this all the time. Just by shear volume, it must be true.

 

[Dogman]

But if you repeat it often enough, it must be true.

After all, that's what the politician's do.

 

[wgerrard]

Film will be around for as long as someone, someplace, makes money on it. That's a patently self-obvious statement, but film's survival has everything to do with economics and hardly anything to do with the preferences of photographers.

In that light, does anyone know the role disposable cameras play in the film business? How important are they to the film producers? Could the film that's not sold in Walmart or Walgreen survive on its own, or is it propped up by revenue from throwaways, house brands, etc.?

It's also worth remembering that digital photography usually requires a larger investment in infrastructure by the person taking the pictures. I.e., you need a computer. The market for digital cameras is effectively confined to those parts of the world where PC ownership is routine. That doesn't mean everyplace else is a ripe and ready market for film, but if you did want to sell them cameras, you'd need to sell them film.

Digital cameras will not be repaired. They will be replaced. It won't make financial sense to repair an obsolete device when a comparable amount of money will secure the latest and greatest. When was the last time you repaired a radio or a TV?

 

[jbf]

Your analogy of "T-REX vs Velociraptor", if anything... slightly amusing.

What do you say to my generation who are extremely computer savy, use digital technolgoy day in and day out and who still prefer film?

I do visual effects work on a dailey basis. I am constantly working with digital technologies... so obviously when I want to relax and have fun the last thing on my mind is to go out and use more digital.

I want analog. I want substance. I want something that you can hold in your hand physically that if stored in an archival safe box will last for decades if not centuries.

Digital? It has no archivability. You can constantly switch files from hard drive to hard drive and continuously backup if you want, but to me its a waste of time. Digital has no certainty (in any sense) of lasting at all.

Technology obsoleces and it will only be a matter of time before the means and methods for reading and writing that technology also disappears.

It happend with vhs, it's happend with betamax, it's happend with every form of "new technological medium" thus far with the exception of film.

You want to take your digiatl files and continuously have to transcode them into another format as the years pass? Your going to lose at least some sort of quality due to the inherent signal-to-noise problem of digital.


Also, the general consensus of the photographic department at my college is a love of film. Digital as seen as a method for reportage and commissioned work (not art) such as weddings, stock photography, etc... but that is the extent of it's usage.

Film is still the only photographic medium (contemporary medium that is) that is considered for the most part fine art.

 

[rlightfoot]

Nice post, jbf. Sadly, though, I think that the majority of people in our generation do actually consider film to be a relic.

 

[shutterfiend]

Your analogy of "T-REX vs Velociraptor", if anything... slightly amusing.

What do you say to my generation who are extremely computer savy, use digital technolgoy day in and day out and who still prefer film?

I do visual effects work on a dailey basis. I am constantly working with digital technologies... so obviously when I want to relax and have fun the last thing on my mind is to go out and use more digital.

I want analog. I want substance. I want something that you can hold in your hand physically that if stored in an archival safe box will last for decades if not centuries.

Digital? It has no archivability. You can constantly switch files from hard drive to hard drive and continuously backup if you want, but to me its a waste of time. Digital has no certainty (in any sense) of lasting at all.

Technology obsoleces and it will only be a matter of time before the means and methods for reading and writing that technology also disappears.

It happend with vhs, it's happend with betamax, it's happend with every form of "new technological medium" thus far with the exception of film.

You want to take your digiatl files and continuously have to transcode them into another format as the years pass? Your going to lose at least some sort of quality due to the inherent signal-to-noise problem of digital.


Also, the general consensus of the photographic department at my college is a love of film. Digital as seen as a method for reportage and commissioned work (not art) such as weddings, stock photography, etc... but that is the extent of it's usage.

Film is still the only photographic medium (contemporary medium that is) that is considered for the most part fine art.

Spoken like a true rebel of your time. This how most cults get started, BTW. I have to agree that the film cult is artistic at the very least.

 

[jbf]

jbf, the problem is that film faces the same archivability problem as digital. What's going to happen when you can't bypass the computer? When you can't buy photographic film, paper or chemicals? Sure, you may still have the negatives, but what are you going to do with them? Scan them and print them digitally? Doesn't that kind of fly in the face of your argument?

The technology to reproduce film negatives in a wet darkroom will become as obsolete as my Serial ATA hard drive will eventually.

Claiming that photographic paper and light sensitive materials will cease to exist is not a proven fact. The film, and papers we have used have remained in our society for over a hundred years so far.

The same CANNOT be said for digital technology. The technologies created for various other "digital mediums" has been proven to disappear and no longer exist. Take the .pict file by apple. There is not a program out there that will access it. It does not exist. That was a photographic file format. Take certain magnetic tape formats out there. There is almost no way to get any means of reading some of these formats.

Papers and optical printing methods have been around for years. There is no hard evidence to suggest their complete demise and withdrawal from the market.

Digital reading technologies, however, DO disappear. Computer operating systems phase out digital formats. These digital systems break and parts are no longer available to fix them. The digital circuitry and pcb bords do not last. They short, they break, and they are no longer made.


In contrast, there will always be a means of optically projecting film into a surface, which means there will always be ways to create traditional photographs.

Light sensitive material which can be used for photographs will always be available. Light sensitivity is an elemental property. It does not disappear. It is a part of nature. It simply requires one to take the time to take those light sensitive materials and put it into paper format.

It was done by hand a hundred years ago, and it can be done by hand today.

The same can not be said for digital.

 

[Dogman]

"The technology to reproduce film negatives in a wet darkroom will become as obsolete as my Serial ATA hard drive will eventually."

Oh, come now! The technology required for traditional photography is so simple there are people all over the world making their own light-sensitive materials and using them in archaic large-format cameras. Sally Mann comes readily to mind with her wet-plate process and homemade emulsions. You can mix the chemicals yourself from various readily available substances.

And a traditional camera is not even necessary. A light-tight box with a pinhole drilled on one side and a plate-holder strapped into the other can be used.

The point that film will be available as long as someone can make money producing it is a worrisome argument, however. It's no longer a requirement to make a decent profit. These days you have to make massive amounts of money with a product to justify it.

 

[rlightfoot]

the problem is that film faces the same archivability problem as digital.

I really can't agree with this.

If I archive a roll of developed film properly now, and also put a set of digital JPEG images on a DVD or HDD or whatever in the safe with them... I am sure the film has a better chance of being in a usable condition and compatible with something 100 years from now than the digital files do.

Simply because there are less variables. With film, you have a simple transparency image... If you have a method of copying transparencies, the film will be useful, even if the analog processes are long dead.

With JPEGs on a DVD you have to worry about SO much more... Will there be DVD readers in 100 years? Will JPEGs be readable or convertible? Will we even be using the same kind of computers at all, or will we have moved onto quantum computing with solid state drives that only communicate wirelessly? Or something else, equally incompatible with the old DVD or HDD.

Of course, it's all totally speculative, humanity might not even survive 100 years to care if we can still look at old photos.

I think that people are tending to write off film too quickly... Although I
can see why, and I have no real argument with people who support digital, I just think that we're not going to see the total death of film the way many are predicting.

Film still has it's uses and it's charm... I think that people will always be interested by it and there will always be people who want to use it. Many painters and artists enjoy using charcoal to make pictures with, a method the cavemen used!

You can never overestimate the human drive to cling to old ways of doing things while simultaneously marching forward.

 

[Tuolumne]

Film is dead - Kodak is dead

Film is dead - Kodak is dead

Or at least many analysts have considered it so, until Kodak started restructuring and growing its digital business. From today's Wall Street Journal:

"Ulysses Yannas, a broker for Buckman, Buckman & Reid, said, "The bulk of the restructuring is over. I like the trend. For many analysts, this is a dead company. But this is obviously not a dead company."

/T

 

[spysmart]

This year I've used and printed, in a darkroom, more film than ever, as I've got over my inferiority complex, gained as everyone rushed to 'superior' digital systems.

I would love to try autochrome plates - I believe the demand dwindled and the factory closed with the secret process lost, perhaps forever.

I suspect a 35mm film branded Tri-x will be the last man standing in 100 years ( independent from Kodak corp ). For colour, I think when/if Fuji eventually pull the plug on NPZ and NPH, I will be very upset.

I do think the writing is on the wall for E-6 after K-14.

 

[aad]

Dogman, how many of your kids great-grandkids, finding your stash of 10,000 35mm negatives, are going to start coating their own photograph paper and mixing their own chemicals, to print them. While doing so may be possible, it will simply be not practical to do so. More likely, if they are interested at all and don't just throw them in the trash, they will input them into some unimagined digital device and show them on a handheld digital device of the future.

I have a word for you-slides.

It's fun and gratifying to see the reaction a set of slides in even a cheapie Pana-Vue will bring.

 

[dmr]

Well, maybe Kodacrome slides if stored correctly. But, Ektachrome and those like it are not very stable over time.

I'm not a photo chemist, but those who know things like that better than I do have professed that the later Fuji E6 films and the later Kodak films such as the Elite Chrome now have an expected longevity that rivals Kodachrome.

They also tell me that the worst enemy of Kodachrome, as far as breakdown of the dyes is concerned, is the heat of a projection lamp, in other words, viewing them as they are intended. I've never owned a slide projector, so I guess mine are safe.

As far as my experience with older color slides -- most of the color I shot in the 1970s was slides, all Kodachrome and Ektachrome. The Kodachrome, as you would expect, are all perfect, both those processed by Kodak and those processed independently. The Ektachromes vary, with some being amazingly well preserved, particularly those which were processed by Kodak. Some of them, however, have faded some to magenta, and some in the cyan direction.

What is amazing is that of those color negatives I shot in that era, most of them are in excellent shape, and for many of them I've scanned, I've done better prints than the original machine-produced wet prints.

 

[aad]

Every slide and negative I shot from the '70s are in great shape. The slides from my parents, shot in the '50s and '60s ('til Polaroids and movie cameras) are all fine as well except for the dirt and mold from years of moist basement storage-split evenly between Kodachrome and E6.

 

[kino eye]

I work in advertisng as an art director and on a professional level film is dead or at least in advertising. It's a huge advantage as an art director to be able to see the shot on set. Yes we did this with Poloroids before but its not the same. The pro advertising photographers who still shoot film don't get much work. But, it's a different story when it comes to shooting TV commercials. We only shoot film. I think part of the reason is the technology isn't there yet plus I can see everything in a monitor while it's being filmed. We only shoot digital when we have a very limited budget of $75K or less.

In my personal life though it's the opposite. I really only shoot film and 90% Kodachrome 64 at that. My DSLR collects dust most of the time.