What may kill film

[40oz]

The film market is in decline, soon it will be a niche in most of the world, just ask anyone who works in a photo shop how much film processing they do now compared to a couple of years ago and you have your trend, clear and simple. I shoot mostly film, so I'm not celebrating this, just noting it. It seems odd to me to deny the obvious. Film will never die out, but it'll never again be the mainstream, and that was the only point I was making, I wasn't proposing some thesis about the superiority of digital. It's already quite difficult to find any high street shop in central London with the facilities to process b&w film (apart from C41), and the photo shop in easy reach of where I work in the centre of London only stocks Tri-X because I asked them to, I'm the only regular customer for it that they have. This is London remember, a major city full of photographers.

Things are different at the moment outside the industrialised West, where film and music cassette tapes still sell in quantity. It's only a matter of time though...

Ian

have you not read the responses so far in this thread? Can you not see that you are wrong? There is as much film available today as there was 20 years ago. Arguably, traditional B&W was "dead" with the advent of color, yet here we are with a website dedicated to rangefinder cameras, and many members shoot B&W regularly. Not quite as "mainstream" as C41, but hardly gone for good. In my rather modest city, there are more than a few photography clubs that are rather heavily traditional B&W enthusiasts. There are several public labs for rent. B&W photography is still alive and well. C41 is far more popular, as is digital, but that does not mean that silver-based B&W is anywhere close to "dead." So why do you keep pushing the idea that all film is "dead?" Is there some sort of personal justification in your insistence? There is no evidence to support such a claim, either in the US or anywhere else in the world according to the information posted here and elsewhere.

Give it a rest. Shoot what you want. The only thing dead around here is the horse you won't quit beating :/

 

[Iskra 2]

Read the Walmart piece in a recent issue of the New Yorker. I like the part where they tell a US vendor, we won't buy your product anymore until you relocate your manufacturing facility to China so we don't have to pay so much for your stuff.

Bye, bye, American jobs.

Unfortunately, our politicians, bureaucrats, Wall Street and big business have already sold out the "American worker". :bang: Fortunately, film still belongs in the class of products that remain available to the underemployed in the US, like cheap underwear from Wally. 😀 Capitalism in the US has been replaced by Oligopolies.😡 I didn't say that, did I?🙄 Regards. :angel:

 

[iml]

have you not read the responses so far in this thread? Can you not see that you are wrong? There is as much film available today as there was 20 years ago.

Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Anybody who thinks digital isn't displacing film as the mainstream photographic format has his head in the clouds. Show me some hard figures demonstrating that more film is being sold in the industrialised West now than 20 years ago, I'd really love to see them. Show me some hard figures for the amount of film being processed in the high street now compared to 20 years ago.

Arguably, traditional B&W was "dead" with the advent of color, yet here we are with a website dedicated to rangefinder cameras, and many members shoot B&W regularly.

We are not the mainstream, we are a small minority of enthusiasts. How hard is it for you to grasp this very elementary point?

So why do you keep pushing the idea that all film is "dead?"

If you actually bothered to read my posts, you would see I've made no such claim at all. I've said film is dead as the mainstream photographic format for the general consumer in the industrialised West. Try reading what people write before jumping in with irrelevant responses.

Give it a rest. Shoot what you want. The only thing dead around here is the horse you won't quit beating :/

This is a discussion forum, where people express opinions. Don't have the arrogance to tell me what I should or shouldn't contribute.

Ian

 

[Nikon Bob]

have you not read the responses so far in this thread? Can you not see that you are wrong? There is as much film available today as there was 20 years ago. Arguably, traditional B&W was "dead" with the advent of color, yet here we are with a website dedicated to rangefinder cameras, and many members shoot B&W regularly. Not quite as "mainstream" as C41, but hardly gone for good. In my rather modest city, there are more than a few photography clubs that are rather heavily traditional B&W enthusiasts. There are several public labs for rent. B&W photography is still alive and well. C41 is far more popular, as is digital, but that does not mean that silver-based B&W is anywhere close to "dead." So why do you keep pushing the idea that all film is "dead?" Is there some sort of personal justification in your insistence? There is no evidence to support such a claim, either in the US or anywhere else in the world according to the information posted here and elsewhere.

Give it a rest. Shoot what you want. The only thing dead around here is the horse you won't quit beating :/

Look this is film dying is getting very old and to a good deal it depends o where you live as to the outlook you have. In my home town of 100,00 people the variety and quantity of C41 film available at most retailers has drastically shrunk over the last few years. Trying to get slide or traditional B&W locally is a joke. So from where I sit I think in my area for the average consumer film is a dying if not dead issue. I know no pros in my area that still use film although there may still be a few holdouts. Time to smell the roses and enjoy film while it is here at a reasonable cost.

Bob

 

[40oz]

Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Anybody who thinks digital isn't displacing film as the mainstream photographic format has his head in the clouds. Show me some hard figures demonstrating that more film is being sold in the industrialised West now than 20 years ago, I'd really love to see them. Show me some hard figures for the amount of film being processed in the high street now compared to 20 years ago.



We are not the mainstream, we are a small minority of enthusiasts. How hard is it for you to grasp this very elementary point?



If you actually bothered to read my posts, you would see I've made no such claim at all. I've said film is dead as the mainstream photographic format for the general consumer in the industrialised West. Try reading what people write before jumping in with irrelevant responses.



This is a discussion forum, where people express opinions. Don't have the arrogance to tell me what I should or shouldn't contribute.

Ian

One, the burden of proof is on you to prove your point if you are going to make claims. I'm responding to your unproven claims, so I have no responsibility to provide any data. If you wish to prove your points with data, that is your option. And my statement was there is as much film available. I've made no claims as far as sales figures, because that is irrelevant. If you yourself lack any hard data, why are you arguing the point? How can you even make statements like you have with no supporting data?

Two, how is the fact that rangefinder users are a minority of camera users relevant? The very fact that we are a small minority yet have no problems sourcing B&W materials proves my point. Your pointing out that we are a minority is merely a digression into the obvious.

Three, how many ways are you going to hedge your statements? Regardless, I still dispute your claim, and there is more than enough anecdotal evidence that is easily verified in this thread to disprove your claims. If you want to claim film is dead on High Street, fine. Who the hell cares about High Street? Certainly most of the world could care less what London retailers do or do not carry. There is a camera shop and drug store on almost every block on the island of Manhattan, and they all carry film and every drug store has one hour processing, if we are going to duel by metropolis 🙂

Fourth, you are more than welcome to discuss any topic you care to consider, just as other members are free to discuss their exasperation with the number of times this claim has been brought up. IMHO, if you have to tell people film is dead, it obviously isn't. Because if it was, we all would have noticed by now.

You won't change your mind. Until you do, people will dispute your arguments. So go on claiming film is dead [insert whatever qualifications you wish here] and you are the only one smart enough to identify the signs. Just don't be surprised if you end up preaching to the choir and everyone else has gone home, stopping off to buy some film and drop off a few rolls on the way.

 

[css9450]

Some claim digital has the best color. That seems to be the consensus. Eh - I didn't see it. My camera had difficulty with greens and sometimes reds. It clipped highlights, which I HATED. No latitude, dynamic range a joke.

I'm always leery of blowing out the highlights, and digital advocates assured me this wouldn't be a problem with the D word. Yet I always see complaints about it! Evidently all that digital R&D money hasn't solved this, to me, important issue. No thanks, I'll stick with film.

 

[jaffa_777]

I just bought $700 dollars of film stock to take on a new documentary project. I consider the project too valuable and worthwhile to shoot on digital. Funny that.

This thread and the current value of the US dollar is making me wonder if I should start stockpiling more film now before the good times run out.

 

[iml]

One, the burden of proof is on you to prove your point if you are going to make claims. I'm responding to your unproven claims, so I have no responsibility to provide any data.

Right, I'm going to say this once more, and then I'm going to ignore you until you demonstrate some reading comprehension.

Here is my first post again:

It's already dead as a general consumer format, in the industrialised West anyway. It's only a matter of time before Walmart and the like will no longer develop it at all, and it becomes an entirely specialist/enthusiast format.

My only point was that as a mainstream general consumer format in the West (the words are all there in the orignal post, but it seems I have to emphasise them again and again), film is in steep decline, and will quite soon be dead. All of the replies about how film is better than digital, artists like film more than digital, etc etc, are entirely irrelevant to this very simple point.

You've made a claim that film sales are as high or higher than they were 20 years ago. I merely asked, reasonably enough, for some substantiation of that claim, because, if it is true, then the entire photographic industry is suffering from a mass delusion when they base their long term strategies on the demise of film as anything other than a niche format for a small minority of enthusiasts and art photographers.

Anyway, you seem to prefer to raise straw man arguments arguing against things I haven't said rather than addressing the points I actually have raised, so I can't see any point prolonging this discussion.

Ian

 

[itf]

Here in the UK there's a large chain of minilabs and, if they are all like my local one, they are doing a good job of killing film. My sister took a roll of colour film there and it seems that after they processed it, they put it in the sleeves still damp and then folded the whole lot in half (vertically, not horizonally which would be fine). Unfortunatley this ruined the majority of the keepers.

She also had prints done, and it seems the prints were done after the film had been ruined because most of the prints were showing the damage on the negatives. Another problem is that prints seem to be made from a fairly low res scan, not such a problem as you don't usually expect so much from a set of minilab 6x4's.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

IIRC there were far more serious amateur photographers 20 years ago.
They used film because there was no digital yet.

The $200 digital camera popular now is just another throwaway consumer appliance
and for most does not represent any real commitment to photography as hobby or art.

Chris

 

[raid]

I don't worry too much about film availability. When "the time comes", I will use whatever is available then, even it is digital. My camera gear will be then a collection.

Raid

 

[Socke]

Two, how is the fact that rangefinder users are a minority of camera users relevant? The very fact that we are a small minority yet have no problems sourcing B&W materials proves my point. Your pointing out that we are a minority is merely a digression into the obvious.

I have a problem sourcing B/W materials, else I wouldn't have to buy chemicals by mail order in a town with 600,000 inhabitants.

 

[Socke]

Certainly most of the world could care less what London retailers do or do not carry. There is a camera shop and drug store on almost every block on the island of Manhattan, and they all carry film and every drug store has one hour processing, if we are going to duel by metropolis 🙂

I can fly to London for 19 Euro, NewYork is slightly more expensive. And here your choice of film is limited to Fuji C200 in some super markets and Ferania in a couple drugstores.

 

[JonR]

Just another thought....
Many have in this discussion thread and others expressed the concern that it becomes harder and harder to get hold of film and to process film. That is of course true and simply a fact but it does not concern me so much since Internet will become the channel to order I am pretty sure. You will order film online, get it by post, send the film in for processing and then get the scanned photos on the web. There may be very few players, maybe not even one player in each country but as long as ther processing is done with quality this will work fine. I do this today and I actually think it adds flexibility even if the days are gone when I could go to my local shop and get lot´s of different sorts of film...

/jon

 

[raid]

I agree with Jon. I mainly buy film online and not locally. With respect to B&W developing, I am mailing my film to friend in Miami who develops the film for me at the same cost as I would have locally at the only B&W lab here. I am used to online purchases. There are far more options than I could get in any store.

Raid

 

[tedwhite]

Yesterday I called Freestyle and ordered some inks for my Epson R2400. While I was chatting with the salesperson I asked her about black and white film sales.

She said they were booming, that most of the films they stock are European (Ilford, Arista, Efke, Forte, Fomapan, etc.), and that these manufacturers seem to be filling a US market that Kodak is slowly pulling out of. The same seems also true of photographic papers.

Worldwide, there are lots of folks and institutions well aware of the questionable durability of digital images over time, whereas there are no such questions regarding film.

As an example, two days ago I scanned, for a client, four original C.S. Fly (a turn-of the century Tombstone photographer) photographs that look just as good as the day they were made, which was probably around 1900. One shows the surrender of Geronimo, the Apache chief, another his camp, etc.

The client had sold the photographs (I would assume for a considerable sum) and wanted copies for herself. I printed them using Epson Enhanced Matte paper and the Epson Matte Black ink. The paper and the ink are obviously made for each other and the black and white results are striking.

Anyway, I guess what I am saying is that film has value in terms of archival and historical preservation, whereas digital images - at least at this point - leave a question mark in one's mind. What will they be like in 100 years...

 

[Socke]

Ted, judging from the prints and negs I had processed at the 1 hour at Disneyworld in 1985 I don't think that much of that will be left in 10 years.

 

[Nachkebia]

People without taste and aesthetic feeling might kill film 🙁

 

[harmsr]

I don't think film is dead by any means. Sale of new film cameras seems to be virtually dead, but there are a lot of film cameras still being fed many rolls.

The majority of my experience with the 1 hour photo labs in non-photo stores is absolutely horrible. "Sometimes" you can find one that develops ok, but I haven't found one that prints well at all. I only use them when I am just doing a quick test roll or for when I am in a hurry and shot a roll to plan for a real shoot.

If you really want to get the full range and detail out of your film, take it to a true pro lab and discuss with them what you want. I do this with my film, then scan them at a proof level setting on my scanner to see which ones are worth the time & effort for the better scans and post-processing time.

Stay away from the "Walmarts" unless, high contrast, low detail, over saturation, and scratches are acceptable. Unfortunately, it does seem to be acceptable for the majority of people.

Best,

Ray


PS. If you shoot color, try some of the new "red label" Kodak Portra films. (Improved color and scanning)

 

[Xmas]

I use more film today, than 20 years (or 40 years) ago, and there are two (C41) mini labs within walking distance of my front door. But all the dedicated photo shops have gone, unless you want a Dcam phone.
The results are the same as 40 years ago, but cheaper in real terms. My colleagues in work go ooooh B&W. My photo chum who has a showcase full of Nikon film SLR, when I e-mail a mini lab scan to says 'flat and how did you get your scan toned serpia, but they are sharp'!
But Kchrome 25 is long gone.
Mr. GWarming may hit D more than F, only worry about the big things, be happy.

Noel
P.S. 1/10 of frame edge Kodak 400 Zorki 1a 1/100 f/5.6