bmattock
Veteran
I found a riding shop that sells buggy whips. I suppose a return to horse-and-carriage days is just around the corner.
How long does film have?
- Thread starter rlightfoot
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 460
- Views 8K
Krosya
Konicaze
bmattock said:
I understand that with this comment you are trying to be funny, but it really proves my point - if you did, indeed, find them, it just means that however small demand may be, there will be someone willing to supply the product. BUt you can beleive what you want, as you are always right............ 🙄
sleepyhead
Well-known
I love film - partly for nostalgic reasons, partly for the look (B&W) - but we shouldn't dispair it's demise (sooner or later) too much because PHOTOGRAPHY is far from dead.
A good picture and a beautiful print is what I want, I actually don't care exactly how it was captured. (Let's hope there are people left who can judge these qualities...)
WHAT I'M MISSING RIGHT NOW in this "nearly completely all-digital" world is a relatively straigtforward means of getting beautiful B&W prints from my digital files (whether scanned film or digital capture) - I mean archival prints on good paper that feel nice in the hand and have great tonality.
I know that digital printing has come a long way, but MORE THAN FILM, I'm hoping for some silver-based means of producing prints from digital files in the future. Something that would make the print more unique and feel less like a cheap thing that can easily be produced again by a few clicks on a computer.
A good picture and a beautiful print is what I want, I actually don't care exactly how it was captured. (Let's hope there are people left who can judge these qualities...)
WHAT I'M MISSING RIGHT NOW in this "nearly completely all-digital" world is a relatively straigtforward means of getting beautiful B&W prints from my digital files (whether scanned film or digital capture) - I mean archival prints on good paper that feel nice in the hand and have great tonality.
I know that digital printing has come a long way, but MORE THAN FILM, I'm hoping for some silver-based means of producing prints from digital files in the future. Something that would make the print more unique and feel less like a cheap thing that can easily be produced again by a few clicks on a computer.
Ade-oh
Well-known
You're probably right about this. I would guess that colour print film is the most likely to disappear completely but I would give it 10 years before this happens here in the UK where I live. I see a lot of people still using film cameras of one sort or another and it's still very easy to drop a roll of C-41 35mm off at a minilab and pick it up a couple of hours later, together with a CD of scans which can be uploaded to the net.bmattock said:
It's easy for people like us who are photography enthusiasts to forget that Joe Average doesn't necessarily have his eye on 'the next great thing' or the acme of photographic perfection. There are a lot of people out there who still use their film cameras because they work and... well... why not? I went with my family on holiday last year to France with some friends of ours and when I whipped out my digital point and shoot for happy snaps, our friend produced his Canon T90. He is a documentary film producer, so no stranger to digital technology, but simply didn't see the need to change over. His pictures were very good. I suspect this kind of attitude suggests that there will be a residual 'consumer' demand for film for a few years yet, while Kodak and Fujifilm restructure their film businesses for the specialist 'prestige' market of the future.
As for Polaroid, I'd guess their core business was the professional market which wasn't sustainable against digital. I would imagine that my experience with Polaroid cameras was not atypical: I bought a point and shoot for about £25, put a few films through it at parties and so on, and left it gathering dust in a cupboard for the next 15 years: I might see if I can get a film for it now 😀. Polaroids were a very slow way to 'chimp' medium format shots and their large format stuff must have had very, very limited use.
Ade-oh
Well-known
bmattock said:
Specialist markets! Less than three hundred yards from where I live in central London is a shop that sells 'buggy whips' amongst much other horse tack, and right next to it is a convenience store which is selling C-41 print film and disposable cameras. Maybe they should merge?
literiter
Well-known
sitemistic said:
More interest in 400 ISO color film though.
icebear
Veteran
Hi folks,
some are obviously really passionate about convincing others that their opinion will turn out as THE truth in 20 years down the road ...keep it going 🙄 .
For my part, I still remember buying my first CD back in '85 and well, everyone and his grandmother was telling about the demise of the vinyl record - and yes, it does not contribute to major turnover figures of the "record" industry - but neither is it competely dead. There are still audiophiles around swearing any oath that vinyl is the one and only for them. Maybe the CD will be dead 20 years from now because of MP3, I-Pod & Co. I think there are still enough working film cameras out there and people who will not dump them for some cheap PS digital. Happy shootin' - whatever recording medium.
some are obviously really passionate about convincing others that their opinion will turn out as THE truth in 20 years down the road ...keep it going 🙄 .
For my part, I still remember buying my first CD back in '85 and well, everyone and his grandmother was telling about the demise of the vinyl record - and yes, it does not contribute to major turnover figures of the "record" industry - but neither is it competely dead. There are still audiophiles around swearing any oath that vinyl is the one and only for them. Maybe the CD will be dead 20 years from now because of MP3, I-Pod & Co. I think there are still enough working film cameras out there and people who will not dump them for some cheap PS digital. Happy shootin' - whatever recording medium.
bmattock
Veteran
literiter said:
You haven't been where I have recently, then.
People seem to love to beat each other with riding crops. I'm not one of them, I just take the photos.
I don't just argue, I also take photos. Weird, I know.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wigwam/sets/72157603926369879/
literiter
Well-known
I never get invited to those parties, which is too bad. I like the parts where a girl rides on your back and ............bmattock said:
ian_watts
Ian Watts
bmattock said:
You can't freeze Polaroid film (well you can but it's not a good idea).
bmattock
Veteran
ian_watts said:
Ah, I see. Shows what little I know about Polaroid film. Mea culpa. Salt it away, then. Or whatever one does with the stuff to try to make it last. Seems many were caught flat-footed, was my point.
bmattock
Veteran
Whatever will Ted Serios do now?
eavis
Member
Some thoughts
Some thoughts
1/ I recently asked the guy who runs my local development place what % of the people who come in for prints come in with digital files or film. He said it was 50-50 today, which I thought was amazingly high for film. That said, lots of people who use digital never even go to prints. The other qualifier is that he said the film users were older.
2/ A very small % of the people bitten by the photography bug will go from digital to digital + film (I did -- I think the results my M8 give are pretty awful, and it's by far the best digital in terms of low-ISO image quality --but I recognize I am a tiny minority). But here's the thing: The growth in digital cameras will level off at some point, and that could happen faster than we think, due to a combination of the lackluster image quality, the cost and the boredem factor. That will prompt companies to look for new ways to make money and if they raise film prices -- as they will -- the margins could be there.
3/ I think the fixed costs of making film have long been covered. I wld guess -- and it is only a guess -- that Kodak and Fuji can make some money on their film plant going forward, if they keep product ranges narrow and charge more.
4/ Movie film. Surely this is a big business that will have staying power becuae of the much higher storage costs for digital? The synergies between movie film and stuff we use must be large.
Some thoughts
1/ I recently asked the guy who runs my local development place what % of the people who come in for prints come in with digital files or film. He said it was 50-50 today, which I thought was amazingly high for film. That said, lots of people who use digital never even go to prints. The other qualifier is that he said the film users were older.
2/ A very small % of the people bitten by the photography bug will go from digital to digital + film (I did -- I think the results my M8 give are pretty awful, and it's by far the best digital in terms of low-ISO image quality --but I recognize I am a tiny minority). But here's the thing: The growth in digital cameras will level off at some point, and that could happen faster than we think, due to a combination of the lackluster image quality, the cost and the boredem factor. That will prompt companies to look for new ways to make money and if they raise film prices -- as they will -- the margins could be there.
3/ I think the fixed costs of making film have long been covered. I wld guess -- and it is only a guess -- that Kodak and Fuji can make some money on their film plant going forward, if they keep product ranges narrow and charge more.
4/ Movie film. Surely this is a big business that will have staying power becuae of the much higher storage costs for digital? The synergies between movie film and stuff we use must be large.
JTK
Established
With cheap 10MP APS rangefinder-format style coming from Sigma as well as relatively cheap, low noise DSLRs with waaaay over 10MP (Sony, Pentax) it's hard to believe many of us will keep shooting film...or buying M8...or GRDII...or G9...
It's also hard to believe current Canon/Nikon lens-stabilization has a future beyond 2008, implying a new form factor/concepts from them.
It's also hard to believe current Canon/Nikon lens-stabilization has a future beyond 2008, implying a new form factor/concepts from them.
bmattock
Veteran
literiter
Well-known
eavis
Your thoughts are likely accurate.
I would also add that film is a consumable, sorta like toilet paper. $1000.00 worth of film has more of a margin of profit than $1000.00 worth of camera. If I were making film I'd want to capitalize as long as I could since the infrastructure is already there.
I usually end up in pro camera stores to buy my film, I've actually never been inside a Wal-Mart. Never needed to. Never looked for film where they sell pickles and lawnmowers.
Your thoughts are likely accurate.
I would also add that film is a consumable, sorta like toilet paper. $1000.00 worth of film has more of a margin of profit than $1000.00 worth of camera. If I were making film I'd want to capitalize as long as I could since the infrastructure is already there.
I usually end up in pro camera stores to buy my film, I've actually never been inside a Wal-Mart. Never needed to. Never looked for film where they sell pickles and lawnmowers.
bmattock
Veteran
sitemistic said:
I agree. Wal-Mart is not the enthusiast's choice for film. However, consumer sales from outlets such as Wal-Mart drive the market. If Kodak had to survive on what it makes from selling film to 'pros' and enthusiasts, the whole company would be gone already.
Of course Wal-Mart is a good indicator of where film sales are going. And car stereos and big screen tv's and so on. Industry analysts track these things with great enthusiasm - Wal-Mart is a terrific market indicator.
bmattock
Veteran
literiter said:
This is a very typical argument - it argues that we (enthusiasts) are the market. Well, we're not. We're not even a tiny drop in the bucket - a blip on the radar screen of film sales. Number one and by a huge margin is single-use disposable cameras. Those sales drive the market. They're sold at Wal-Mart. When Wal-Mart stops selling those, your sources for high-end film will run out too, because the people who make both will walk away from a losing business.
And businesses that manufacture typically don't hang in there until the last item they made is sold. They hit a predetermined point where it is no longer possible to make a profit, and they pull the plug and walk away - just like Polaroid just did. It doesn't taper off - it slams shut and that's that.
JTK
Established
A big investment bank representing Bahrain or Singapore will buy Kodak while the dollar's weak (it'll instantly get stronger both when interest rates rise and we get out of Iraq). IMO 🙂
Investors own Kodak specifically wanting them to quit film. A big part of the stock's current value is baked into the potential for terminating film: share price increase, caused automatically by firing people and trashing/writing-off machinery iis eagerly anticipated by shareholders. The production capability, people and factories, hold down price.
Investors buy troubled companies for potential, not for current earnings and they typically demand dividends...and dividends work against company investment in new technology.
If Kodak 's film-side went private , that might preserve fillum...Levi Strauss did that in similar circumstances. But the new owner would have to find a genuinely stupid investment banker that would give them the money to do that., like Leica did. Levi Strauss's original family did that buyback, didn't need to see wonderful results. Maybe George Eastman's family's been doing silver recovery?
Investors own Kodak specifically wanting them to quit film. A big part of the stock's current value is baked into the potential for terminating film: share price increase, caused automatically by firing people and trashing/writing-off machinery iis eagerly anticipated by shareholders. The production capability, people and factories, hold down price.
Investors buy troubled companies for potential, not for current earnings and they typically demand dividends...and dividends work against company investment in new technology.
If Kodak 's film-side went private , that might preserve fillum...Levi Strauss did that in similar circumstances. But the new owner would have to find a genuinely stupid investment banker that would give them the money to do that., like Leica did. Levi Strauss's original family did that buyback, didn't need to see wonderful results. Maybe George Eastman's family's been doing silver recovery?
Last edited:
literiter
Well-known
bmattock
Your arguement also appears to be somewhat typical, at least on this site. But you are predicting the demise of film and I think that most are in agreement with this.
I will state here and now that I believe, firmly, that film will one day cease to be manufactured. Probably color, then finally B&W. One day digital will certainly be no longer even though I haven't the wit to speculate on what could replace it.
Give us a rough estimation (an opinion) of the date we will no longer have film.
Your arguement also appears to be somewhat typical, at least on this site. But you are predicting the demise of film and I think that most are in agreement with this.
I will state here and now that I believe, firmly, that film will one day cease to be manufactured. Probably color, then finally B&W. One day digital will certainly be no longer even though I haven't the wit to speculate on what could replace it.
Give us a rough estimation (an opinion) of the date we will no longer have film.