One reason for the probable survival of film

Alright, alright, I'm an analogue guy too. Large format down to 35mm. Love it. But come on, VHS? Some analogue formats need to die. I don't pop in a cassette for the 'analogue quality.' I put on a record.

I really do think video looks better on DVD, and WAY better on Blu Ray. However if I'm watching a movie, I'd prefer it to be shot on film. It's a Catch-22. 🙂

THAT SAID! Pixel Vision cameras...AWESOME.

Digital is wonderful for somethings, film is wonderful for others. Your weekly catalog advertisements really should be shot digitally because they don't matter. Trust me, I'd rather the 4x5 sheets go to creative impulses than the sale of Snuggies. The problem is the idea that one medium is obsolete because another now has replaced the 'everyday' uses of film.

I think the key to survival of film must come from new business models for the production and marketing of film based photography. We have to embrace that it's a niche. My mother may never shoot a roll of film again, but I just picked up five from the lab.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Fred,

And smaller chips will inevitably be cheaper still, and allow for smaller, lighter cameras with faster lenses and longer-range zooms.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I don't know much about the actual cost of producing sensors of different sizes but I imagine at some point it will get fairly attractive for manufactureres to put "outdated" APS-C and APS-H sensors in compact cameras. A Canon 450D with a 12.2MP APS-C sensor costs $480 now. I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard to put this sensor in a slightly smaller body (the 450D isn't big to begin with), call it a compact and slap an $800 price tag on it. And it will probably be easier than trying to develop a better tiny sensor.

Sensor size has been a marketing angle in the DSLR world for a long time and I don't know why they shouldn't use that same angle with consumer products. They are already doing it with Micro 4/3 and the fact that they put Kevin Spacey in an ad for the EP1 talking about holiday photography shows what audience they're trying to reach.

Digital compacts are dirt cheap nowadays compared to a few years ago. In order to raise prices again they will have to introduce a new main feature like a bigger sensor.

Take mobile phones as an example. For years the main marketing angle was size. Every year the phones got smaller which was a big reason for consumers to upgrade to a new phone. Then it reached a point were the phones were small enough and people no longer had to upgrade in order to have a small phone. Right about the same time cameras (and color displays) were introduced in mobile phones. And of course the phones with a camera were large and bulky again because of that new feature. Then the whole cycle started all over again and they kept getting smaller each year.

What I'm trying to say is that in order to convince consumers that they need to upgrade to a new model there has to be a sort of comprehensible development path. For years it was megapixels with the basic idea of "the more, the better". I think we're getting to a point now with 14MP compacts where people start to feel that it is enough for what they need so sensor size seems to be a reasonable marketing angle to pursue next.
 
Jamie123 said:
I don't know much about the actual cost of producing sensors of different sizes but I imagine at some point it will get fairly attractive for manufactureres to put "outdated" APS-C and APS-H sensors in compact cameras. A Canon 450D with a 12.2MP APS-C sensor costs $480 now. I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard to put this sensor in a slightly smaller body (the 450D isn't big to begin with), call it a compact and slap an $800 price tag on it. And it will probably be easier than trying to develop a better tiny sensor.

Sensor size has been a marketing angle in the DSLR world for a long time and I don't know why they shouldn't use that same angle with consumer products. They are already doing it with Micro 4/3 and the fact that they put Kevin Spacey in an ad for the EP1 talking about holiday photography shows what audience they're trying to reach.

Digital compacts are dirt cheap nowadays compared to a few years ago. In order to raise prices again they will have to introduce a new main feature like a bigger sensor.

Take mobile phones as an example. For years the main marketing angle was size. Every year the phones got smaller which was a big reason for consumers to upgrade to a new phone. Then it reached a point were the phones were small enough and people no longer had to upgrade in order to have a small phone. Right about the same time cameras (and color displays) were introduced in mobile phones. And of course the phones with a camera were large and bulky again because of that new feature. Then the whole cycle started all over again and they kept getting smaller each year.

What I'm trying to say is that in order to convince consumers that they need to upgrade to a new model there has to be a sort of comprehensible development path. For years it was megapixels with the basic idea of "the more, the better". I think we're getting to a point now with 14MP compacts where people start to feel that it is enough for what they need so sensor size seems to be a reasonable marketing angle to pursue next.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly. But APS is not 'full frame' 24x36, which really WOULD make for bigger, more expensive cameras & lenses.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Quite possibly. But APS is not 'full frame' 24x36, which really WOULD make for bigger, more expensive cameras & lenses.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Sure, but that's where the path inevitably leads. Yes, a FF sensor would probably make for bigger cameras and lenses with current technology but I think it could still be done within reasonable limits. No one says that the lense on a FF compact for the consumer market has to be very good. You could have lenses with some vignetting and, unlike with film, this could be compensated in software. Remember that most consumer film compacts also didn't have great lenses.
 
Jamie123 said:
Sure, but that's where the path inevitably leads. Yes, a FF sensor would probably make for bigger cameras and lenses with current technology but I think it could still be done within reasonable limits. No one says that the lense on a FF compact for the consumer market has to be very good. You could have lenses with some vignetting and, unlike with film, this could be compensated in software. Remember that most consumer film compacts also didn't have great lenses.
Click to expand...

Not, I think, inevitably. But both viewpoints, yours and mine, are a matter of belief, not pure logic.

Formats have ALWAYS shrunk, historically. I see little likelihood of that being reversed.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Not, I think, inevitably. But both viewpoints, yours and mine, are a matter of belief, not pure logic.

Formats have ALWAYS shrunk, historically. I see little likelihood of that being reversed.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's true that formats have always shrunk but in order to do that they need room to shrink. They will have to get bigger in order to shrink again.
This was what I was trying to say with the mobile phone example. I think the market for compact cameras has now reached a point where every housewife can get a very small camera with a high MP count for very little money. I think it will be hard to convince them that they need smaller cameras with more MPs. If, however, you can convince consumers that their tiny 12mp sensors are junk compared to big 12mp sensors you can also easily convince them that this "new" technology needs more room. And then you can start to shrink them again.
 
Payasam is correct, I think. How much of a factor this will be is unknowable, though.

People do seem to like effective use of DOF. In my experience, though, they attribute it to the camera, not to the photographer.
 
Jamie123 said:
Yes, it's true that formats have always shrunk but in order to do that they need room to shrink. They will have to get bigger in order to shrink again.
This was what I was trying to say with the mobile phone example. I think the market for compact cameras has now reached a point where every housewife can get a very small camera with a high MP count for very little money. I think it will be hard to convince them that they need smaller cameras with more MPs. If, however, you can convince consumers that their tiny 12mp sensors are junk compared to big 12mp sensors you can also easily convince them that this "new" technology needs more room. And then you can start to shrink them again.
Click to expand...

Possibly. But I doubt it. We'll see.

Cheers,

R.
 
How do you convince consumers, who were once happy with snapshots from DISC cameras and APS film cameras that bigger sensors are better? Most folks shooting photos in the world have no concern about such things.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
How do you convince consumers, who were once happy with snapshots from DISC cameras and APS film cameras that bigger sensors are better? Most folks shooting photos in the world have no concern about such things.
Click to expand...

How did they convince consumers who were happy with their 2mp compacts to buy a 10mp compact? How did they convince them to buy digital cameras in the first place if they were happy with APS film in the first place?
One way to do it is to convince them that they are dinosaurs if they keep using that old camera.
 


I've got nothing to contribute to this fascinating discussion :bang:, but I would like to show this photo I shot with film yesterday on a Leica M7 and 50 1.0 Noctilux and a B+W ND filter @ F1.0. Think of it like a commercial or a picture in a magazine. I love photo forums but sometimes discussions like this make my head hurt. They just seem to go around and around and around and never go anywhere.

Gregory
 
Last edited:
Jamie123 said:
How did they convince consumers who were happy with their 2mp compacts to buy a 10mp compact? How did they convince them to buy digital cameras in the first place if they were happy with APS film in the first place?
One way to do it is to convince them that they are dinosaurs if they keep using that old camera.
Click to expand...

Marketing is an interesting field of endeavor. I'm no expert, but I note that Nikon's foray into consumer advertising (eg, television adverts) for their dSLR cameras concentrates on ease of use, ability to do macro, and ability to show people your photos on the back of the camera.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSBNqffvEOI&NR=1

Different advertising campaigns focus (no pun intended) on other aspects of dSLR cameras, for example in Canada:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG_Z6-u81PY

What do they talk about? Frame rate, autofocus, megapixels, low-light, automatic flash, etc. They show the entire family of lenses/flashes to build a sense of 'system' for those perhaps more interesting in enthusiast photographer than the average Joe.

Nothing about DoF at all. I agree that they COULD emphasize the larger sensor in the dSLR and what advantage it gives, but they don't. Why not? I guess they feel that the average consumer doesn't care.

Chicken or egg? Marketers try to emphasize what they think the public cares about, or at the manufacturer's insistence, they'll push what the manufacturers think the major advantages are. I have yet to see a mainstream advertisement that lists a larger sensor or increased ability to control DoF as an advantage.

Kevin Spacey for Olympus EP-1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk5ZuAAWV4o

Pentax point-n-shoot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8cRpgDxciY

Canon Rebel XSi:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BQfCoqbubE

The last commercial (Canon) is very much like the old Kodak television commercials of the 1970's. They tell a story, show emotion in the form of photos, and concentrate not on the camera, but on what you do with it. Family, home, the sights, sounds, and feelings of togetherness. That's what photos do, the advert tells us; without using words to do so. You need this camera to do that, we're told. Nothing about technology; just about the photos (or movies):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68N1PuZVie0

When new technology has to be explained, they show you why you should want it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0vt_dRbd1A

So yes, they could talk about DoF if they wanted to. But they never have in the past, and there's no reason to believe they will in the future. Anything could happen, though.
 
payasam said:
The attached photo was taken today with an Olympus ("Four Thirds") digital reflex camera. Angle of view is roughly that of a 50mm lens on a 36 x 24 film camera, but depth of field can be seen to be that of a 25mm lens, which many still consider an extreme wide angle. With a 50mm lens on a 35mm film camera, f/2.8 would have isolated the dyer and his work somewhat; and an 85/90/100/105 would have been even better in that respect.
Click to expand...

Mukul, I agree that the subject would have been more isolated with a 50mm lens at f/2.8 on full frame, but...I believe the depth of field in this instance is more accurately described to be the same as a 50mm lens at f/5.6 on a full 35mm frame.

I.e., 25mm at f/2.8 on 4/3 sensor has an effective field of view of 50mm and the effective DOF of f/5.6 when compared to full frame 35mm.
 
Jamie123 said:
How did they convince them to buy digital cameras in the first place if they were happy with APS film in the first place?
Click to expand...

I think we often overlook the two biggest reasons digital is successful:

1. You don't need to buy film and pay someone to develop it.

2. You can see your pictures as soon as you take them, and then dump then onto your computer and send them around the planet.

People do not want to do the former, and very much want to do the latter. You email grandma, you don't write her a letter and stick a print in the envelope.
 
I come from a strange place where a picture is something that is printed on paper. I have been educated this way. Unfortunately I do not see very often good quality prints from most people shooting digital. I have seen sometimes quite nice ones, though. I am not today interested in shooting digital because I could not afford sufficient good digital printers, scanners and computers to obtain the quality I need and want in my prints.

If the majority of the world is satisfied by pictures that are not real, I mean they are only a computer code, lost somewhere in a HDD, I think it is great. Otherwise they would complain.
 
I'm finding more & more people who shoot digital really don't have a clue about photography. For instance one person over on flickr states they wanted to try film so bought a film SLR. Loaded the camera with 400 asa color film, went to the beach on bright sunny day & now wants to know what they did wrong & why their photos came back overexposed.Basicly this is the how the Q&A went

What were the settings on the camera?

I shot @ 60th of a sec. (remember they are on the beach, sunny day & 400 asa film)

You can use sunny 16 rule! IOW set your lens on f16 & since your using 400 speed film
set your shutter speed on 500.

What's f16? Is that the numbers on the lens?

I see this all the time on flickr. I'm convinced all people want to do is P&S. As far as learning the basics of aperture & shutter speed as how to control the amount of light & dof only a few are willing to learn! Most are too interested in learning HDR!
 
gb hill said:
I'm finding more & more people who shoot digital really don't have a clue about photography. For instance one person over on flickr states they wanted to try film so bought a film SLR. Loaded the camera with 400 asa color film, went to the beach on bright sunny day & now wants to know what they did wrong & why their photos came back overexposed.Basicly this is the how the Q&A went

What were the settings on the camera?

I shot @ 60th of a sec. (remember they are on the beach, sunny day & 400 asa film)

You can use sunny 16 rule! IOW set your lens on f16 & since your using 400 speed film
set your shutter speed on 500.

What's f16? Is that the numbers on the lens?

I see this all the time on flickr. I'm convinced all people want to do is P&S. As far as learning the basics of aperture & shutter speed as how to control the amount of light & dof only a few are willing to learn! Most are too interested in learning HDR!
Click to expand...

That would be correct, but it should not surprise anyone. Digital photography allows people to begin taking photographs immediately, and with even less chance of having unwanted results than the traditional point-n-shoot digital. There is even rapid feedback in the form of the LCD screen; if a person were to put a thumb over the taking lens somehow, or leave a lens cap on, they'd know it right away when they chimped the results.

The world moves faster now. People don't want to learn to play the guitar, they want to learn some quick chops and begin jamming; some have become famous and cannot read music or really play their instruments in any meaningful sense. People don't want to take years to study and develop traditional martial arts training; they want to learn how to kick ass on the street and forget all that bowing, gi-wearing, belt-earning, traditional stuff. They want microwave ovens and instant mashed potatoes.

One could complain because the world moves so fast and that people are so unwilling to learn older ways that are superior in so many ways to what is being desired now, but what's the point? It is what it is. 'Some would blame the management, some the employees; goodness me, could this be industrial disease?'

Whilst it's true 'the things they think are precious I don't understand', it doesn't matter in the long run; it is what it is.

The good news is this - as digital photography becomes ever more popular and ubiquitous in cell phones, etc, more and more people are taking photographs than ever before. Some small percentage of them will develop a taste for it, some will want to explore and learn more. Some will explore film, some will master older more traditional methods and will understand that they are superior.

If anything CAN keep film alive, it would be this. I remain doubtful that film has a future in the long term, but I would not be so quick to come down on the no-nothing digital happy snappers; it is from their ranks that any renewed interest in film photography will come. Chase them away at your own risk. Me, I'd welcome them in with open arms, even if you think they figuratively worship the devil for liking digital.
 
I must admit I find myself a bit lost in these discussions which is why I try to say as little as possible but for me photography has always been about the pictures. I'm like it with computers, sit me down in front of a Mac, Windows, Linux -- I don't mind generally and I'll use each with aplomb.

So first and foremost -- pictures for me. Secondly film in my case. But only because it **helps** (that is a key word, helps, not gives, but assists me a little) me with the aesthetic I'm looking for and I enjoy the darkroom a lot. That doesn't guarantee is a future though. So I'm just gonna plod along taking pictures and doing my thing, and if the whole film thing goes belly up then I'll figure out where I go next. But it'll always be the pictures for me.

I could be dead tomorrow, but I'm not gonna worry about it. It'll happen some day. But today is today.

I'm sure there are flaws in my thoughts but it works for me.

Vicky
 
Digitalintrigue: "but...I believe the depth of field in this instance is more accurately described to be the same as a 50mm lens at f/5.6 on a full 35mm frame."

Robert, I wasn't considering field of view. I did not say it explicitly, but I had in mind the actual focal length of the lens.

Bmattock: "Some small percentage of them will develop a taste for it, some will want to explore and learn more."

Clueless happy snappers are the ones who keep camera manufacturers in business, with Leitz and Hasselblad being among the few exceptions. Top-line equipment needs expensive research and development, and the money for those must come from somewhere.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom