Is it true?

[Murchu]

I see colour film becoming a bit of a luxury. B&W I can see remaining buoyant. Also last time I checked, Plustek weren't going anywhere in the consumer scanning market, although I'm not sure what's going to happen to the really high end scanners that cost in the tens of thousands.

Biggest question mark for me at the moment, is Fuji and their film division. I think the future of film is too important to remain in the hands of large corporate companies who couldn't really care less about it. Ilford is in good hands, as is Kodak now, or seems to be. Fuji is slowly strangling the life out of its film division however, and would love to see Fuji's great film products in the hands of someone who actually cares about them. Pity someone like Mr K of Cosina didn't care to enter the film production market, and negotiate with Fuji to take over the rights to its analogue range.

 

[konicaman]

How about compared to the 1990s though?

Sure, prices have gone up since the 90s, but hardly enough to call it a luxury (yet).

 

[jsrockit]

Sure, prices have gone up since the 90s, but hardly enough to call it a luxury (yet).

Agreed... I think many feel its becoming a luxury item because they compare it to digital (but digital is expensive to get started in too). Photography, done right, has never been cheap.

 

[j j]

Photography is a luxury isn't it?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Color film is kind of expensive, no bulk versions, needs special chemicals to develop and scanner which costs around $500.

B/W 135 is $50 per 30m, cheap $100 scanner will do and you could develop in instant coffee.

Film cameras were made in multiple millions. Many of them are mechanical and cheaper compare to those modern digital P&S.


But in Switzerland even Mc'Donalds burger is priced at luxury level...

 

[thompsonks]

Let's back up a bit re: the alarmist pricing of scanners. Many studios sold their Imacons when they went to digital, and old Imacons aren't $10-20K! I got mine for $2K, and Hasselblad restored it to original specs for a couple of hundred dollars (I recall the shipping cost more than the CLA).

The best digital BW prints rival gelatin silver, and digital color is more 'archival' than Type C printing.

OK, I'm not so young anymore; but I'm sure the prospects for scanning and printing of files-from-film extend beyond my lifetime.

 

[sjones]

For me, film offered a more affordable option. One of the reasons why I switched from digital to film in 2008 is that I wanted a rangefinder. At the time, the Epson model was aging, yet it was still about US$3,000 if I recall. The Leica M8 was around US$6,000 to US$7,000. I had funds for neither, and the only feasible option was a film variant.

Even starting with a new Bessa R2M, at US$550, and a then new Nikon V ED, also at about US$500, this not only saved me thousands of dollars more vis-à-vis the digital route, but it was also financially possible.

Plus, at the time, the Leica was not even full frame, and yes, this mattered only in that the sensor size rendered an array of wonderful 50mm lenses into short-teles. So not only was the Bessa significantly cheaper, it resolved any 'full frame' dilemmas.

I recently picked up an enlarger, so I will be doing wet prints for the first time ever. Moreover, this too possibly saved me a significant amount of money, since I had considered buying a dedicated negative scanner for medium format, whereby the recently released OpticFilm 120 would set me back by roughly US$2,000; a used Nikon 90000 perhaps even more. I can now think about picking up a TLR 6X6 in the future.

There are other reasons why I switched to film. The whole process of photography is important, not just getting the shot, and just the tactile joy of using a film advance lever is motivation enough.

But in my case, as a hobbyist and not a professional, film has actually been the cheaper solution for my personal preferences. And on average, I go through about a 36-exposure role once every two to three weeks. Not that I want Tri-X to get any more expensive, but even if it did, I could cope (especially as I don't drink or smoke, so, just sayin').

 

[Roger Hicks]

Photography is a luxury isn't it?

You beat me to it.

Hell, eating good food is (increasingly) a luxury. "Film as a luxury" is a rich-country whinge.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Range-rover]

Back in the 80's when CDs first came out, they all said Records would go
bye-bye but there still here, I still have my Turntable and still buy records
it's more of a specialty item which I think film and film cameras will be or are
When I was in B&H Photo during the summer the used department was
packed with film cameras last week they were pretty much cleaned out
it's the college kids for school hopefully a few of them will keep it going.

Range

 

[thegman]

Yes, unfortunately it is. Film prices will continue to skyrocket. It will be a niche market. You're only kidding yourself if you don't see. We here on RFF are just an extremely small percentage of film aficionados.

Depends on your definition of 'skyrocket', inflation taken into account, in the UK, film is cheaper now than it was in 1995, film's heyday.

If we're using sensationalist terms, I'd prefer 'plummet', but in reality, film prices are roughly the same as what they were 20 years in the UK and USA, perhaps just a little bit cheaper now, depending on brand.

Sure it feels more expensive because the numbers are higher, but money is worth far less now that it was 20 years ago.

 

[Luis]

Does this bankruptcy mean the end of Ilford inkjet papers?

 

[mdarnton]

Relative to the scanning problem, the guys at the Large Format forum are already on it. If you want to see some amazing stuff being done, follow the links in the first post: http://www.largeformatphotography.i...DSLR-Scanner-Stitching-and-Blending-of-Images

Their objective is to use a DSLR to equal the quality output of a drum scanner.

I've been "scanning" all of my 35mm film, and some 6x6, with my Nikon D300 for a couple of years. Problems with things like alignment aren't that hard to work out. Look at any of the B&W in my flickr stuff for examples, including one post on how it's done.

 

[mugent]

I don't think film is a luxury, if you buy from the right locations, prices aren't any worse than they were, and with brands like Foma, sometimes cheaper.

Yes, it's more costly than digital*, but I think we are still far from 'luxury' status.

* No, your digital camera isn't 'obsolete' just because a newer version came out, it still takes the same quality photos it did when you bought it.

 

[charjohncarter]

Maybe, film will become a mystic product. People will buy it because it is like a Porsche, or a Rolex. Or maybe digital will become so easy and predictable that film will become boutique, like digital discs versus vinyl.

 

[Ranchu]

Well I agree photography is a luxury, if you do it right. However the article is not about film photography being a luxury as the title says. It's actually about Cibachrome disappearing, which is a shame, but Cibachromes were always fairly uncommon, which is also a shame. The author of the article is ignorant of what they're talking about. Then there's this guy tacked on to the end.

Stern believes that digital photographs and video have already replaced the traditional media of contemporary art, such as painting and sculpture.

"The ‘ease’ and immediacy of the result enable you to spend much more time on the concept rather than the physical creation of the work. That means that knowing how to make your art has taken a back seat to the ideas behind the work, and the artist is freed from technical constraints."

Lol. Anybody buying that line? This is the way people talk when they don't actually do.

Equally important, are those archives of negatives and slides going to become impossible to print well in any way unless you own a top of the line scanner that costs between 10 and 20 thousand dollars?

People are using a light table and a macro lens to 'scan' their film quite happily.

 

[Ranchu]

.....wrong button...

 

[jsrockit]

Or maybe digital will become so easy and predictable that film will become boutique, like digital discs versus vinyl.

Digital can't be predictable when a human is taking the photos... it's up to the human to make it less predictable. Film is already a boutique item in many ways.

 

[jsrockit]

Lol. Anybody buying that line? This is the way people talk when they don't actually do.

Yes, I buy it, but then again I'm into conceptual art.

 

[noisycheese]

...Not that I think film is the only way...not at all ... but as long as it is still possible to use film ... why not?

My thought exactly.

Film photography is time consuming so it may not make financial sense for commercial photographers, since time is money to these folks. Those of us who do not dance to the jig of client demands and editorial deadlines can afford to slow down, use film and enjoy the process.

There's not as much money to be made in freelancing and fine art photography (for most of us) as there is in commercial work, but cash flow is not the be-all and end-all of life.
There are other kinds of enrichment to be had in the world of photography. 😉

 

[charjohncarter]

Digital can't be predictable when a human is taking the photos... it's up to the human to make it less predictable. Film is already a boutique item in many ways.

Boutique, to me, implies something expensively cool. People see me using film and they think I'm nuts.