How long does film have?

How long does film have?

  • Film? Film is already dead! Long live digital.

    Votes: 5 1.4%

  • A few more years.

    Votes: 38 10.8%

  • A few more decades.

    Votes: 123 35.0%

  • Film will be around forever!

    Votes: 185 52.7%
  • Total voters
    351
When photography came along in the 1830s the masses said no one will ever need to paint again.
There sure are masses of fools out there as Abe Lincoln said and history has proved .
 
According to Wal-Mart and Target's web sites, they have P&S film cameras in their stores. Maybe the reason there aren't any at B&H is becuase people who shop at B&H aren't looking for a new, cheap P&S film camera.
 
Your negativity on this subject is well-documented, sitemistic. You're in Dallas, he's in Philly. Perhaps WalMart stocks different items at different stores? I know my local Wally World has a few film P&S's remaining.
 
Folks:
I just scanned a 26 year old negative and after a bit of playing in PS I posted it on my blog. I wonder if I would be able to use my digital images in 25 years.
fotorr
 
Film is disappearing at a very rapid rate. It will soon be a very specialized, niche market. Other than disposable cameras, my guess is that there will be no film in stores within three years. Eventually, film will only be available from large outlets purchased online. That could last 20 years or so but not too long.
Remember that the new generation growing up doesn't even think about film. And they insist on the instant gratification that digital provides.
Eric
 
Eric T said:
Film is disappearing at a very rapid rate. It will soon be a very specialized, niche market. Other than disposable cameras, my guess is that there will be no film in stores within three years. Eventually, film will only be available from large outlets purchased online. That could last 20 years or so but not too long.
Remember that the new generation growing up doesn't even think about film. And they insist on the instant gratification that digital provides.
Eric
Click to expand...

I agree with this. But there is a little hope.

We know of two photographers in our area have been asked on number of occasions to shoot weddings in film. Black and white mostly. The families want to have, what in their opinion, is a permanent record of the event. Not a bad idea.

If film lasts 20years it will see me out, or close to it.
 
Film is going to be around for a while. The Lomo crowd will make sure of that. Here in Manila, they are pretty much the bulk of film users now buying up stock as if the 35mm format were disappearing tomorrow. The largest photography club in the country is Lomomanila and it is composed of members who are predominantly twentysomethings and it's not unusual to see them running around with their Holgas and LC-As.
 
Last edited:
We can only hope the insanity is permanent. The kids even buy up expired film stock now and have them "redscaled" for maximum effect. Strangely enough, a lot of them don't even bother with prints. They have the rolls developed and scanned immediately to CD.
 
Well, I just found this place:

http://www.lomography.com/

and don't think it's going anywhere. I may have a go myself. 🙂

Film give it 20 years until we need a Hubble each to locate it. It'll take that long for digital to go beyond it's ugly sharp look it has now and develop into something more pleasing.

But that will mean the big players need to realise more pixels does not equal better images, and that is like telling Americans that more engine equals more speed.
 
http://shop.lomography.com/shop/shop_product_view.php?cat=Lomographic_Cameras&artID=5599

That is my next buy! 🙂

Digital hasn't won, there isn't a competition. Why is everyone obsessing over what will win? People DO see the difference when confronted with it. Everyone I know didn't like the look of the new Star Wars Trilogy. Everyone I have spoken to about it can 'see' that something is 'wrong'.

In the same vain, everyone I show the HD version of Kong to can 'see' that it looks (in the non-CGI parts) 'right'.

What they are seeing is what we all go barmy for, that good old film look. I don't think because we pay more attention we can see better than other people, I don't like to dumb people down that way. For snaps, digital is easy and it means they can keep shooting. That is why people use it. But if you want to a great image with heart and feeling, digital wont give it to you for years yet.

How do I know this, because I work on feature films and it's my job to make things shot on modern technology look like something shot on 50 year old technology.

A.
 
Shelf space for film is rapidly diminishing in most stores .
Thats a real fact . I would have to believe it`s going to be available for a few more years but in fewer places and with less choices.
When shelf space gets down to the size of 2 square meters as it presently is in my local Wal Mart , you have accept the fact that some day soon it will dissapear entirely at least locally. I mean if Wal Mart itself can`t support the sluggish sale of film, who can?
Presently I`m having a lot of fun with my FSU`s and film but when and if I have to return to 100% digital I won`t be too sad. No one likes change but it won`t be the end of the world either. Digital has far too many advantages to ignore.
John
 
Last night, I gave a small print to a couple, of their dog.

"Wow, what beautiful color! your camera is awesome!"
me: "Thanks!"

them:" I should figure out how to take the pictures off my camera!"
 
I belong to the BPOE, Best People on Earth a.k.a. the Elks. Every Elks lodge in existence has a place with photos of all the Past Exalted Rulers.

The lodge I started out in had color prints in a lobby with fluorescent lighting. The farther back you went, the more faded the prints.

I now belong to Santa Maria, CA lodge, third-largest lodge in the nation. The photos of the PERs are all black & white. They go back to 1927, and they all look like they were put up there yesterday. Whoever made the decision to go with b/w seems to have had some talent for prescience. (The pictures of the current officers are b/w, too.)

We seem to live in a time whn we expect everything to be in color, and a lot of ink has been spilled over the question of longevity of prints. Some of the current paper producers claim 100 years or more. Well, when the time comes, consult your great-grandchildren.
 
Yes and no....

Yes and no....

fotorr said:
Folks:
I just scanned a 26 year old negative and after a bit of playing in PS I posted it on my blog. I wonder if I would be able to use my digital images in 25 years.
fotorr
Click to expand...

The files will survive on whatever media you archived them on. The challenge will be to find devices to read the media you used for storage, IF you have not migrated the files to new technology over that time.
 
Larky said:
http://shop.lomography.com/shop/shop_product_view.php?cat=Lomographic_Cameras&artID=5599

That is my next buy! 🙂
Click to expand...

Trust me. You do not want that camera. It was my first MF camera and was a serious plastic POS. Lasted only about 6 months when the front element and entire front focusing cam fell off in my hand---and no matter what I did it never focused right and kept falling off again and again. It would be one thing if it gave you some kind if "lomo-graphic" type of image but it does not. It actually took unvignetted, sharp images. Not bad. Until the camera simply broke. A complete waste of money. Instead spend $50-75 USD on a used working (but likely ugly) Rolleicord or similar. At least they will last the year out, and likely many more years beyond that.
 
these questions are never end.
Digital won in commercial photography, and in mass-market .
Film will remain for artistic purposes only.
I think it will last long but in small quantities - same as analog audio equipment, classic cars and mechanical Swiss watches
 
These discussions of what was better before always amuse me. So vinyl sounds better than digital. Then carry your damned records with you!!

I'm an organist, among other things. Until the day of "hi-fi" in the 1950's, they didn't even much try to record organ music. Then all of a sudden, organ music became almost the standard to judge everything else by, especially speakers.

There is a church in Paris, St.-Sulpice, that has a pipe organ built in 1862. Yes, by current standards it's a monster, but it still WORKS. Charles-Marie Widor was the organist there for 63 (yes, sixty three) years. There are really no recordings of him playing, since he died the year I was born, and they didn't have the technology back then. So Virgil Fox could be excused for claiming it didn't matter how composers meant their music to sound, because they arent here to hear it. (Fox was known for his display of his own talent, but he died in 1980.)

Digital may be here to stay, and I have no particular complaints. George Eastman shot himself (in 1932), partly because he claimed he had done everything he wanted to do. He should have stayed around a while longer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom