The future of film

Digital film digital film

Digital film digital film

I have noticed a marked decrease in film supplies here in Ohio. Still available but shrinking. But thank god for the web, lots available via internet. Developing not a problem.

As for shooting I only use B&W for film, IMHO digital b&w leaves me feeling a bit flat. But for quick, instant feedback and those tough pics of the kids at play, digital is a godsend.

I love them both hopefully the film manufacturer feels the same.
 
I still think that film will be here for a long time. The 'negative' will always have and hold more value than a digital file, especially if something historical or a important event, a famous person is captured on film.

Example unseen contact sheets and negatives of famous rock musicians and rock groups, ex. Jimi Hendrix, John Lennon, The Who, Janis Joplin, Led Zeppelin, Jim Morrison, or "Keith Richards" :D

keith_ron_contact.jpg

Keith Richards & Ron Wood, Los Angeles, CA 1979
Keith Richards & Ron Wood, Lear Jet contact sheet 1979 Sizes: 20x24 Black and White Type: Silver Gelatin Edition of: Limited Edition Signed
Photographer: Henry Diltz
http://www.morrisonhotelgallery.com/set/default.aspx?setID=215&photographID=1891




Don't tell me you would like a digital print now? :D


Mark
UIO
 
YES YES YES ~ my 1960's vintage negatives of Bob Dylan, Janis Joplin, and a bunch of others still print as well as they did forty years ago and people are still purchasing the prints. Then there's the Seminole and Miccosukee Indian stuff from the 1970's. I got an Email just yesterday from a woman who wants to use some of the Indian shots in a project she's working on for a historical society. Those negatives are like money in the bank!

At least you can hold negatives up to the light and SEE that there are pictures there. Will your grandchildren have a clue as to what those little sivery discs are? Will they have access to the ancient electronic equipment, in working condition, to retrieve the pictures on those discs. Will the files still be "uncorrupted"? I suspect that an entire generation's "photographs" will be discarded, either because they're corrupted or unreadable. Very few people bother to get prints made from those files. Nowadays people are more likely to show me the latest pix of their grandkids on their telephone. That's smaller than a contact print from a Rolleiflex negative! We used to think that "wallet size" was tiny.
 
The question of digital vs film archival qualities has been debated to death here. Do we really need to revive it again? (No insult meant to anyone who discusses it. Just tired of reading the posts about it.)

/T
 
The future of film has to be bright...it's what I use most of the time. :)

Then, too, as I mused some time ago in another thread, the future of still-image photography may not be as bright as we'd all like to think: witness the blurring of lines between still-image and motion-video in cameras such as Nikon's D90 and Canon's 5D MkII. We might be only a handful of technological clicks from hi-def video becoming the dog, with the still image, via random frame-grab, as merely the tail, falling just sort of an afterthought.

That's my darkest scenario, but I only think about that stuff when I'm in a rather foul mood. When I'm in a good mood (most of the time, lucky me), I just say, buy a brick if Ektar 100 and keep the faith. (Hey, the Mets won today...so there.)


- Barrett
 
Film will be around for many decades but many of our favorite films may not be but black and white film will not die out. Even if there is nothing left but Lucky, Era, Shanghai, EFKE, Foma, they are indeed good enough.
 
At the Photokina Kodak and Rolleifilm (and others) have been showing new films, Alpa has developed a new 6x9 filmback in cooperation with Mamiya, Voigtlander/Fuji are showing their new rangefinder... there is still life in te market. Even if it is reduced and much more specialised.
 
What makes a larger profit - the Kodak film division or the Kodak consumer digital sensor division? I think the answer to that question is relevant.
 
40oz said:
What makes a larger profit - the Kodak film division or the Kodak consumer digital sensor division? I think the answer to that question is relevant.
Click to expand...


Companies spend millions of dollars a year on marketing to increase market share, preserve market share, preserve brand value or all of those. Kodak film is still the very core of Kodak the company and still very much defines its brand value. Kodak will continue to make film and not necessary based on short term profit alone.
 
When we say "film", we're mostly talking about three things:

- Using film-cameras, which is driven by: nostalgia, mechanical-feel, built-quality, in different order and emphasis depending on the photographer.
- Picture quality, grain is still yet to be duplicated in digital photography. Many think that this has been equaled or surpassed by digital post-processing, I personally do not think so.
- Printing process, a wet-darkroom printing process is as valid a craft as it was years ago.

These three "spheres" do not necessarily coincidence with each other for a given photographer, although I suspect that most of us have taken the liking of all three from time to time.

The future of film, as such then, depends on how many of us holding the above view. Is there enough of us to support a niche industry of film manufacturing? Only time will tell, but at least we ought to know which variables are at play.
 
I hate to beat a dead horse, but everyone is predicting that film will be around for decades. I would like to emphasize again, that without readily available analog cameras, the demand for film will drop like a rock. Unless everyone here anticipates switching to bellows cameras, once we can't get our 135's and 120's serviced, I would say we have a problem.
 
Harry Lime said:
I hate to beat a dead horse, but everyone is predicting that film will be around for decades. I would like to emphasize again, that without readily available analog cameras, the demand for film will drop like a rock. Unless everyone here anticipates switching to bellows cameras, once we can't get our 135's and 120's serviced, I would say we have a problem.
Click to expand...
There are currently nine different film rangefinders that can be purchased new on the market. There are new medium and large format cameras available as well. It's only 35mm SLRs that aren't available to purchase new at the moment. Oh wait, Nikon F6!
 
Before digital, film was both a medium for recording visual information (photojournalism, ad photography, family snapshots, etc) and for personal expression (art, if you will).

Now, arguably, digital technology is a cheaper and more efficient method for recording images.

But film is still a valuable artistic medium and as such there will always be demand for it. Not as much as before, when it filled both roles, but some. Just as photography never replaced painting as an artistic medium, so digital will not replace film. I've met hundreds of young art students who are excited about film photography. These kids own plenty of digital cameras. They are looking to do something you can't do with digital. Holga sales are growing 50% per year! And NOBODY wants a digital Holga.

There is also a huge growth in interest in wet-plate collodion techniques. Again, it is a search to do something other than digital.

I can still buy oil paints at the corner art store, probably more cheaply than Rembrandt did. I expect to be able to buy film for the rest of my life, since the demand has bottomed out and is in fact growing. If not, I'll be happy to shoot family holidays on my dSLR and then laboriously coat wet plates to make the images I really care about.
 
I don't know. As long as motion picture companies prefer film as a capture and projection medium, which will be as long as theatres and audiences all over the world demand 35mm film, we'll have plenty of options in plenty of sizes.

What I find funny is when people tell me film will eventually be like B&W. I'm sorry, that's all I shoot. Should I be worried? I mean, I don't currently have a hard time finding it.
 
photogdave said:
There are currently nine different film rangefinders that can be purchased new on the market. There are new medium and large format cameras available as well. It's only 35mm SLRs that aren't available to purchase new at the moment. Oh wait, Nikon F6!
Click to expand...

I know. (substitute a vernacular version of this for your own reading pleasure.)

Why do people act as if film cameras suddenly ceased to exist?

Some people really need to read Kodak's quarterly report before opening their mouths, is all I have to say. Ignorance about things which you haven't exposed yourself to is no proof. Kodak makes money from film. Kodak loses money from digital. End of story, film at 11, you don't have to go home but you can't stay here. Thank you very much.
 
40oz said:
I know. (substitute a vernacular version of this for your own reading pleasure.)

Why do people act as if film cameras suddenly ceased to exist?

Some people really need to read Kodak's quarterly report before opening their mouths, is all I have to say. Ignorance about things which you haven't exposed yourself to is no proof. Kodak makes money from film. Kodak loses money from digital. End of story, film at 11, you don't have to go home but you can't stay here. Thank you very much.
Click to expand...

Now, now, now mon ami. No reason to get your nickers all twisted in a knot.

I'm not talking about tomorrow or next year. I am talking about 10 or more years from now. You know, the long term view, not next quarter.

Ultimately what will kill film is the lack of cameras to use it in. It's that simple.

Remember supply and demand from economics 101?

Kodak, Fuji and Ilford will only make film as long as there is demand and demand depends on the easy availability of reasonably priced and reliable cameras.

This means that:

- Someone has to continue to make analog cameras and I don't just mean the Holga or an 8x10. Most people want to shoot 135 or 120 in a normal camera

- Existing camera have to be repaired and serviced. It is becoming more difficult to find a reliable repair center and spare parts are running out for certain models. Now imagine the situation 10 years from now, when the technicians who are in their 60's retire. There are tens or hundreds of millions of cameras out there, but if they aren't functional, they are useless.

As far as the movie business is concerned film still is king, but for better or worse digital has made some serious inroads over the past 2 years. Not only in capture, but also projection.

So, yes. Film is not going away tomorrow and perhaps not for a very long time, but you can't ignore the elephant in the room, the vital link, which is the camera you shoot it in.
 
Last edited:
I think the growth in digital has caused me to get more creative with traditional techniques and to put more emphasis on the handmade object.

Large format cameras that I could have only dreamed of when I was younger can be had for less than the cost of an entry level DSLR. I've got three apo enlarging lenses that I couldn't have afforded years ago either, but nothing beats a big contact print.

I feel I'm in control. I mix most of my chemistry now from bulk chemicals and I've been doing more work with alternative processes--mainly albumen printing. A lot of great photography was done before there was film. If I had to coat my own plates and paper, I feel that I could do it and just might do it anyway, because the results are interesting. I've seen a hand coated 8x10" contact print using a silver chloride emulsion on drawing paper recently that would really make you wonder what the big deal was about Azo. Maybe a manufactured paper is more convenient for the purpose of being able to produce a large volume of prints, but if the goal is to produce a few beautiful objects, then the contrast and tonal control that comes from mixing your own emulsion and choice of a wide range of paper surfaces may make handcoating a more attractive option.

Meanwhile, film and paper production are adjusting to the scale that reflects the real demand out there, and new products are continuing to make it to market, so I think we'll continue to have choices for the foreseeable future.
 
40oz said:
I don't know. As long as motion picture companies prefer film as a capture and projection medium, which will be as long as theatres and audiences all over the world demand 35mm film, we'll have plenty of options in plenty of sizes.
Click to expand...

There is a far greater shift to digital in the movie business than most people think. Cutting the cost of film is a huge benefit to budget. With Red dropping the price on fully professional digital movie cameras that shoot "raw" from hundreds of thousands, from folks like Arri, to under a hundred thousand, maybe even $50,000 with limited lenses and accessories, digital will take another leap forward. Just as in stills - docs, ads and features are moving to digital.

And, for several years, one of the multiplexes I go to regularly has had a digital projector in one of its auditoriums. That is experimental - for now.

Bill
 
Bill Pierce said:
There is a far greater shift to digital in the movie business than most people think. Cutting the cost of film is a huge benefit to budget. With Red dropping the price on fully professional digital movie cameras that shoot "raw" from hundreds of thousands, from folks like Arri, to under a hundred thousand, maybe even $50,000 with limited lenses and accessories, digital will take another leap forward. Just as in stills - docs, ads and features are moving to digital.

And, for several years, one of the multiplexes I go to regularly has had a digital projector in one of its auditoriums. That is experimental - for now.

Bill
Click to expand...

That's great. But according to Kodak's reports, they actually made more money off films sales in 2007 than they did in 2006, despite a 15% drop in sales. (Film sales declined by ~30% from 2005 to 2007, and digital sales fell 18% during the same period) Profits from the film division were $462 million higher than from the digital division, which actually lost close to $100 million. Unless something changes, I think it will be a while before Kodak makes more money off digital than film.

Kodak's film division has the lowest sales but the highest profits by far. So I really have to question the idea that they will let that business totally dry up.

Make all the predictions you want, but I would hope the financial data would indicate that film is actually a rather healthy industry to be in for Kodak. Sales and profits are falling, but only their Graphics Communications group is seeing higher sales. So I'd suggest that the general state of the economy world-wide combined with ever-increasing competition has caused falling sales in most industries, not just film.

I didn't look up Fuji's numbers, but there might be some more interesting information there.

Realistically, in your average Hollywood production, how significant is the cost of the film itself? And does everybody throw their cameras away after every movie? I'd guess there never was all that many people buying brand new motion picture cameras in a given year. One more player in the market is going to hurt low volume camera manufacturers, but I don't know how much impact that is going to have on high volume film sales. Any theatrical release is going to be output to film for distribution anyway. I'd think the Red camera appeals more to companies who already record to video right now, like news teams and small production companies.

The digital projection system in your local theater is significant for it's rarity. I'd think the outcome of the experiment would be obvious by now, but then people would say I'm stuck in the past :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom