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
What worries me is the fact that we are not seeing many new camera models being released recently. And without that continuous supply (and demand) of cameras, the use of film is expected to decline. In fact, I believe that the manufacturers don´t have much interest in pursuing the film camera market. They prefer to invest in digital models that are "obsolete" in just a few years than to make something that can be passed from one generation to another. It is sufficient to see what happens to Leica. In my belief, they make an excellent camera, but the used market does not help them much.
 
:rolleyes: Geeez! Are we still on this?
Ok, film is dead!
We all can throw away our Leicas, Ikons, Bessas, etc. I'm sure now all the Leica lenses will become very cheap, as not many can afford M8. Or even Epson. So, Cosina should close their doors now. Everybody should get their Digi Canons, Nikons, etc and forget all about RF, Medium format, etc.
Anyone wants my M6 and Hexar? Since film is dead they are useless now, right?:bang:
 
fawate said:
What worries me is the fact that we are not seeing many new camera models being released recently. And without that continuous supply (and demand) of cameras, the use of film is expected to decline. In fact, I believe that the manufacturers don´t have much interest in pursuing the film camera market. They prefer to invest in digital models that are "obsolete" in just a few years than to make something that can be passed from one generation to another. It is sufficient to see what happens to Leica. In my belief, they make an excellent camera, but the used market does not help them much.
Click to expand...

We don't see many Super 8 cameras being made these days either, and Super 8 film has virtually vanished from anywhere but specialist retailers; nevertheless, it is still being manufactured in a range of different speeds for professional and enthusiast use.
 
fawate said:
What worries me is the fact that we are not seeing many new camera models being released recently. And without that continuous supply (and demand) of cameras, the use of film is expected to decline. In fact, I believe that the manufacturers don´t have much interest in pursuing the film camera market. They prefer to invest in digital models that are "obsolete" in just a few years than to make something that can be passed from one generation to another. It is sufficient to see what happens to Leica. In my belief, they make an excellent camera, but the used market does not help them much.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. This has been a fundamental problem in the transition of traditional film-based camera companies to digital, and that is the basic understanding that a digital camera is more like a PC than it is like a film camera.

A film camera was an investment, and it was expected to work as part of a system and to fit the other parts you already had, and it was expected to have a certain lifespan and to be repairable. Manufacturers sold people on new cameras based on new features, such as AE, AF, and so on. Film cameras did not become 'obsolete' as long as there was film made for them. A 1964 Canon FX would mount and use the latest Canon FD glass, and vice-versa (with certain restraints). Same for Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, and so on.

Now, however, cameras are not like film cameras of old. Because their electronics are embedded within them and cannot be upgraded beyond the basic firmware upgrades to fix bugs, when a bigger or more sensitive sensor comes out, or a memory card with more capacity, or a faster on-board processor, the camera is obsolete.

This is the part that the traditional manufacturers did not get at first - there is no need to build cameras of transient value to the physical standards of film cameras. The first Kodak digital SLR cameras were huge hulding beasts built on Nikon and Canon flagship SLR models with the electronics added on. Monsters - very well made. But obsolete within a couple of years - yet the bodies were designed for a decade or more of use.

This represented a huge problem for consumers, who would not and could not spend tens of thousands on a camera that would be obsolete in a couple years.

So a paradigm shift was necessary. The manufacturers learned that they needed to build the hardware to a standard that was not 'decades' but 'five years' and 'three years' long. This helped them bring down costs to the point where they could sell a new digital SLR every three years to the people who want digital SLRs.

People do not complain that their PC is made of cheap metal. They don't complain that the plastic isn't designed to hold up over the long run. Very few use a PC even five years, let alone ten. It is understood that it is a commodity item, and you'll ditch it and buy another one every couple three years.

Cameras are a different world now. People do remember the good old days and complain that cameras are not built to those standards, but really, that's a bad business model.

This was something I mentioned when Leica came out with their Modul-R digital back (do they still sell those?). Great Leica build quality - not a great idea. A digital back designed to last 20 years when the technology will be obsolete in two years is just a fail condition. Lose, lose. Leica did not 'get it'.

It would appear that Leica is now trying to strike a compromise - by making a high-quality digital M that you can scoop the guts out of every few years and upgrade. Hmmm. I see the logic, and there is no denying that Leica buyers are different than typical camera buyers, but I just don't know if this model will work for them.

Leica's problem is that there may be no business model that will work for them. They just don't make commodity items, but that's where the market is now.

They may end up making more money licensing their name to Panasonic as they do now. Hard to say.
 
Ade-oh said:
We don't see many Super 8 cameras being made these days either, and Super 8 film has virtually vanished from anywhere but specialist retailers; nevertheless, it is still being manufactured in a range of different speeds for professional and enthusiast use.
Click to expand...

Niche enthusiast markets are generally served as long as there is some product that can be modified. Kodak has the film - they can split it and spool it to 8mm fairly easily.

I would imagine that when Kodak stops making those emulsions for other purposes, that will end their commitment to Super-8. It won't be that Super-8 demand goes up or down, just that other factors will conspire to kill it.

Just a guess, however.
 
I'd say that's a pretty good guess.

When Kodak (or Fuji) exit the film business there will be very few players with the wherewithal to maintain the kind of QC those two (and Ilford) maintain. Some of the smaller players are having QC problems with film and paper, from what I have heard.
 
I just spoke with a Fuji rep today. He said their color film business has been dropping by roughly 40% each year since 2004 and they expect this to continue. However with the restructuring they've done and by removing certain SKUs they are still making a profit.
He said B&W film sales haven't changed significantly since the advent of digital. The biggest loss was the weekly newspaper market which used to buy bulk B&W film.
This is just what I was told.
 
It's an asymptotic trend. I think B&W is near the bottom already. The production line is likely fully paid off. I don't expect to panic any time soon.
 
Yes, it likely was. Not the first time, nor last, that a company ditched a moneymaker to buoy up another goal-see Ford and Aston Martin.

Really-I think you and Bill have overstated the obstacles to film production and availability. I was in manufacturing for quite a while-this isn't a hard thing to make, the R&D is done, and heck, I've worked in the mechanical part of the equation. I know, I know, all the youngsters are going to shoot video.

We'll see in 2 years. I've marked my calender-again.
 
aad said:
Really-I think you and Bill have overstated the obstacles to film production and availability. I was in manufacturing for quite a while-this isn't a hard thing to make, the R&D is done, and heck, I've worked in the mechanical part of the equation. I know, I know, all the youngsters are going to shoot video.

We'll see in 2 years. I've marked my calender-again.
Click to expand...

I also suspect that they've overstated the obstacles. And why this focus on Wal-mart? The if-it's-not-sold-at-Wal-mart-it-is-doomed argument isn't really convincing.

bmattock said:
I found a riding shop that sells buggy whips. I suppose a return to horse-and-carriage days is just around the corner.
Click to expand...
Well, the transport sector was dependent on horses in the 19th century, horses were everywhere. Then came cars, an expansion of the railway system, airplanes &c; horses were, as it were, simply not sold at Wal-mart anymore. So they disappeared.

Eh ..., no, they didn't disappear. Horse technology was reconfigured and lived on but in other sectors; what had been a widespread transport technology continued to be a leisure and sport thing. (In addition to continued use in military transport, as documented by David Edgerton ...)

So much so that you can even find whips.

sitemistic said:
Buggy whips are a little easier to make then 400 ISO color film.
Click to expand...

While whips perhaps are "simple", you need to think of the buggy whip as part
of a technological system surrounding horses. And this system is not "simple", but rather a complicated system of veterinarians, stables, transport vehicles for horses, riding instructors and all the other things that keep the equestrian sports sector going.

Quite a few people I know ride horses. They pay money for it and devote many hours to horses. That money and that time makes the sector go round.
 
bmattock 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.
Click to expand...

Interestingly Fuji states you can freeze their Packfilm. (FP-100C, don't know about FP-100B.)

Eugen
 
Plate holders, glass plates, and homebrew liquid emulsion at the ready. But I don't think that will be a necessity in my lifetime. Just for fun, maybe.
 
Deal with it; as and when it happens. Until then, it's perhaps wise to make use of what you have.

It seems like many won't actually miss the process of using film, but rather more the discussions regarding when it will end.

When will the world end?


Benjamin
 
It could be interesting to repeat this poll and see what photographers mean today on the future of film. Film production demands a certain critical mass of volume to go through the industrial process. Then we have this economical crisis that the world is living through these days. It's hardly a bright future for film.

Does anyone know; are radio tubes made any longer?
 
Vacuum tubes, yes, they're in production for guitar tube amps and hi-fi tube amps. It's a niche market, but some people love the sound and will not accept a solid state alternative. I have radios that use tubes and you can find replacement tubes in NOS, but that's about it.

Tubes and film will die when that big asteroid hits us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom