What's happening with Photographic Film in 2025? Is this robust niche still growing?

What’s happening with Photographic Film in 2025?

It re-emerged as a robust niche in 2010, but is it still trending upward?

By Jason Schneider

By the mid 1990s savvy photo industry insiders were hip to the fact that digital imaging was poised to supplant film as the primary image capture medium, but film was still king as Y2K arrived, and it didn’t really fall off the cliff until 2004. By then sales of digital cameras such as the broad-spectrum Nikon Coolpix 8800, the prosumer Sony Cybershot DSC-V1 and Nikon D70 SLR, and the pro-aimed Canon EOS IDs were really taking off, and (with rare exceptions such as M-series Leicas) film cameras were virtually dead. Panicky film shooters switching to digital were unloading their analog classics at bargain basement prices and you could snag a clean Hasselblad 500C for $50-$75!

Then, somewhere around 2010, film photography began to re-emerge as a niche market, consisting mostly of younger photographers fascinated with the charm and quirkiness of the analog process and its distinctive rendition, art photographers seeking to set their work apart, and older traditionalists re-discovering the joys of silver-halide. While film sales have increased noticeably as the result of these trends, they are nowhere near the peak they achieved in 2000-2003, but roughly 1% of that elevated figure! Prices of the most desirable high-end analog cameras also began to recover at that time and are now approximately the same (in constant dollars) as they were before the “crash.” Unfortunately for analog fans, the prices of film, paper, and chemicals, and to a lesser degree processing, printing, and scanning services, have escalated dramatically over the last 15 years, and a typical roll of film (type unspecified) now costs about 2-3 times as much as it did back in 2000! So far, film shooters have been willing to pay the tab since there’s no viable alternative other than ditching film and going back to digital. What further price increases would it take to discourage film shooters and shrink the market, and what does film manufacture and marketing look like going forward? We’ll do our best to address both questions in due course.

The digital camera designed by Steve Sasson and currently on display in the Selections gallery...jpg
The digital camera designed by Steve Sasson and currently on display in the “Selections” gallery of George Eastman House is now 50 years old. The photo was taken by Todd Gustavson with a Nikon F2 (from 1974) on Kodak Tri-X film.

Sasson Digital Camera, 1975

Eastman Kodak Company

Loan Courtesy of Eastman Kodak Company

Steven J. Sasson, an electrical engineering graduate of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, was hired to work in the Kodak research labs in 1974. One of his first assignments was to investigate the imaging potential of the charge-coupled device (CCD), acquired from Fairchild Semiconductor. Since he was working for a company that made cameras, Sasson took it upon himself to build a hand-held camera. Since he was an electrical engineer, he made it all electronic/digital—with no moving parts. The result, a toaster-sized hand-held camera and playback system, said to be the world’s first handheld digital camera. In use, tripping the shutter on the Sasson camera captured the photo and stored it in an in-camera digital memory. This was accomplished in fifty milliseconds. Following this capture, the digital file representing the image was then transferred to the magnetic tape for the permanent storage of the image. This storage operation required twenty-three seconds. The digital tape was then moved to the playback unit so the image could be displayed on a TV screen. With this groundbreaking innovation, Sasson helped to introduce digital technology in camera and photography systems and claim for Eastman Kodak Company its first digital camera patent granted in 1978 (US Patent number 4,131,919).

An overview of worldwide film sales over the past 25 years:

It’s difficult to provide precise year-by-year data for worldwide photographic film sales from 2000 to the present in a graph format since much of the information is proprietary and found in specialized market research. However here are some general market trends that can be understood based on available search results,

Worldwide photographic film sales experienced a significant decline from 2000 to the present, followed by a recent resurgence. Here's a breakdown of the trends:

Early 2000s: Sharp decline: Following the peak in the late 1990s, the early 2000s saw a dramatic decrease in film sales as digital photography gained popularity.

2010s: Continued decline: This decline continued into the 2010s, with a significant drop in all camera shipments between 2010 and 2023, largely attributed to the rise of smartphones.

Recent Resurgence: In recent years, film photography has seen a comeback, particularly among younger generations and art photographers seeking the unique aesthetic qualities and nostalgic experience of film. This resurgence is supported by the availability of new film processing labs and the growing interest in analog photography.

Current market size and growth: The global photographic film market was estimated at USD 2.69 billion in 2023 and is projected to reach USD 3.54 billion by 2031, growing at a Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 4.3% during the forecasted period 2024 to 2031.

Market Share by Region (2024): North America holds the largest market share (over 40%) at USD 1144.6 million, followed by Europe (over 30%) at USD 858.5 million, Asia Pacific (around 23%) at USD 658.1 million, Latin America (more than 5%) at USD 143.1 million, and the Middle East & Africa (around 2%) at USD 57.2 million.
As noted above, specific year-by-year global sales volume data for the entire period (2000-present) are not available in a single readily available graph, chart, or table format. However, the provided information clearly illustrates the overall trend of initial decline and recent resurgence in the photographic film market.

DSC_1939a.jpg
The Dear Departed: Kodachrome officially bit the dust on June 22, 2009. The last Kodachrome lab closed in Dec. 2010.

Another view on Worldwide Trends in Film Sales Over the Past 25 years

Worldwide photographic film sales (2000 - present)

The period between 2000 and 2025 has seen a dramatic shift in the photographic film market, marked by a sharp decline in the early 2000s due to the rise of digital photography, followed by a recent resurgence driven by a renewed interest in analog photography, according to ScanCafe and Shotkit.

Here's a breakdown of the key trends:

  • Early 2000s: The Decline
    • Film sales peaked around the late 1990s and early 2000s, with Kodak selling over a billion rolls in 2003 alone according to The VANTAGE Voice.
    • Digital cameras rapidly gained popularity, offering convenience, instant results, and lower ongoing costs compared to film.
    • According to Forbes, digital camera sales surpassed film camera sales in Japan in 2001, and in North America in 2002.
    • This led to a sharp decrease in film sales, with the market bottoming out around 2015.
  • Present: The Resurgence
    • Film sales have seen a significant increase since 2015, driven by a renewed interest in film photography, especially among younger generations seeking the aesthetic qualities of film and a tactile experience.
    • Cognitive Market Research estimates the global photographic film market size will be USD 2861.5 million in 2024 and projected to reach USD 4026.4 million by 2031, growing at a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5%.
    • Key drivers of this resurgence include nostalgia, social media trends, and the distinctive look and feel of film images.
    • Instant cameras, such as the Fujifilm Instax series and a revived Polaroid, have also contributed to the market's growth, accounting for a significant share of film camera sales.
    • While film sales remain a niche market compared to their peak, the growing interest in analog photography indicates a continued upward trend.
Trends in Film Prices from 2020-2025: Ups & Downs, But Trending Up

Based on the available data from 2020-2025, the price of photographic film has seen fluctuations but generally trended upwards, particularly in recent years

Here's a breakdown of the trend:

  • Early 2020s (including the pandemic): Prices were impacted by supply chain disruptions, leading to increased costs and scarcity for some film stocks.
  • 2024: The average film price saw a 5-10% decrease, making it a good time to stock up.
  • 2025: Prices have risen significantly since the beginning of the year. For example:
    • The average film price for US customers increased by 9% between February and July.
    • Fujifilm stocks have become considerably more expensive, with some premium slide films increasing by $5/roll since February. Fujifilm also announced a price hike of 21-52% in Japan in April, with reversal films seeing the higher end of that increase.
    • Ilford film prices have also gone up, though not as drastically as Fujifilm's.
    • Some individual films, like Kodak Tri-X, have remained at 2024 levels, while others, like Kodak Portra 160, have seen only small increases.
It's important to note the following:

  • Price fluctuations are not uniform: Different film stocks and brands experience different price changes.
  • Factors like tariffs, shipping rates, and currency exchange rates can impact the final price for consumers:
  • Rising raw material costs and increased demand are contributing to higher film prices: According to Analog.Cafe and Moment.
Overall, while there was a brief respite in 2024, the trend for photographic film prices from 2020-2025 is upward, with significant increases observed in the first half of 2025.

The State of the Film Market in 2025: The view from behind the counter

What do retailers say about film sales in their stores, what kinds of film are customers buying, what analog services are they using, what is the demographic profile of a typical film shooter, and how do they see the future of this market niche going forward? To find out, we interviewed half a dozen retailers, large and small, from across the country and here is an overview of their observations:

Without exception, all 6 retailers we contacted saw an expanding market for film and associated services (such as processing and scanning) in their stores. Four store managers said the film sector was expanding rapidly; the other two described the expansion as “moderate” over the last 2 years, but still noticeable.

Customers aged 20-40 years comprised 50-75% of film buyers and shooters, and many of them started out shooting digital and gravitated to film as something “cool and retro.” Older film shooters returning to silver halide (about 10-15% of film users) were likely to be motivated by nostalgia, the desire to re-engage their knowledge base, and the more immersive and deliberate character of “making photographs” rather than just snapping away with a smartphone of digital point-and-shoot.

The most popular film type used by today’s digital shooters is color negative (C-41 process) because it’s easier and less expensive to get processed than black-and white film and can be output as full color image files or easily converted to black-and-white image files. The second most popular film type is traditional black-and white (at around 20-50% less than C-41 depending on the store) while E-6 color transparency are a distant third, comprising only 1-2% of the film market. By far the most popular film format is 35mm, with 120 roll film (in formats from 4.5 x 6 cm to 6 x 9 cm) in a solid and steady second place, and favored by serious enthusiasts and pros. Yes, there are folks still shooting sheet film in sizes from 4 x 5 to 8 x 10, but few if them have it developed or scanned by camera stores.

In today’s brave new film world, the end- product is, in most cases, not a traditional chemically based reflection print, but a digital image file which is shared directly with others, rather than being printed out .Only a tiny percentage of these scanned film files are printed out or enlarged as display prints, and most film shooters entrust their enlargements to commercial labs offering these services. Only a minuscule percentage of today’s film shooters have set up or have access to a traditional wet darkroom, though some-black- and-white shooters develop and scan their own film and print out enlargements themselves, typically on a high-end, large format inkjet printer such as a Canon image PROGRAF PRO-1100 Professional (maximum 17 x 25 inch print size) or an Epson SureColor P900 (maximum borderless print size 17 x 22).

Film Brands & Types: Kodak, Ilford, and Fuji dominate the photographic film space, and all three of these esteemed companies manufacture films of excellent technical quality in all three major types—C-41 color negative, black-and-white, sand E-6 color transparency. Depending on the specific type, these films cover a film speed range from ISO 50 to ISO 3200. There are also a host of smaller film brands including CineStill, Kentmere, Rollei, Flic, Arista, dubblefilm, Adox, Ferrania, KONO, Amber, Wolfen, Adox, Foma, Lomography, REVOLOG, Film Photography Project, and Bergger that market a staggering variety of films under their name. But how many of them truly manufacture the films they market is an open question. But irrespective of their provenance, film shooters have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to selecting films that have the rendition, look, and color balance that express their creative vision in satisfying and predictable ways—something that cannot be accomplished by simply switching memory cards!

“Eyeball” films: Shocking but Cool. An increasing percentage of today’s film shooters, especially those in the teens-to-30s age bracket, are now opting for color negative and slide films that capture color in unique and even bizarre ways. The object: to create an instant visual impact that’s not possible with traditional films that are typically aimed at delivering something close to natural color reproduction. Examples: 1. Lomograohy LomoChrome Purple is a “Surreal Purple-Hued Color Negative C-41-proess film with an ISO of 100-400 rating that can be overexposed by 2 stops, with the exposure affecting the color response.” 2. REVOLOG Kosmos 400 color negative film which “adds extraterrestrial effects of blue stardust.” 3. Flic Film Street Candy Psychedelic Street Color Negative Film “designed to give a unique retro color profile to your photographs.” All the films in this popular category are designed to capture distinctive images that set the photographers’ images apart and express their personal vision—a key aspect of today’s “analog movement.”

Instant-Picture films: Both Fujifim (Instax) and Polaroid (I-Type) continue to produce instant-picture cameras and films and they’re a lively and important component of the film market, offering a unique esthetic, a nostalgic and personal connection, and the unique joys of holding and sharing a physical print shortly after it’s been shot.

3 Top Film Manufacturers Opine on the Present and Future of Film

To get a big picture view on the economics, challenges, and opportunities of film manufacture now and in the foreseeable future, we contacted credentialed experts in the field at Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford and had freewheeling discussions that included such subjects as film production, marketing, pricing, the advancement of film technology, and whether film as a capture medium is likely to endure. Here is an encapsulation of their views.

Kodak: Kodak is firmly committed to film, present and future, and we believe we are best positioned to manufacture films (all types) of the highest quality at the lowest possible production cost, both now and going forward. Should the consumer film market expand, we are technically capable of increasing film production tenfold. Although our only remaining coating facility is in Rochester, New York it is probably the best such facility in the world in terms of output and achieving consistent quality. We recently shut it down for 4 months to make technical improvements and it is now turning out the best quality film Kodak has ever made with amazing efficiency.

The real bottleneck to increasing output is not film coating per se, but cutting, spooling, boxing, and shipping those boxes to wholesalers and retailers. Should the need arise the first three elements of these operations could be upgraded at relatively modest cost. Because of these economies if scale, Kodak is really in the catbird seat when it comes to film—we can set the price based on maintaining a healthy profit margin and others are likely to follow our lead. We certainly don’t want to set prices so high that the film market shrinks because we believe that analog photography will endure so long as people want to experience the unique visceral joys of shooting pictures on film and Kodak to be an integral part that experience.

Some industry insiders have been hoping that Kodak will purchase Alaris, the separate company responsible promoting and distributing Kodak film, bringing the entire operation under one roof for the first time in many years. Will it happen? Maybe, but Kodak isn’t saying.

Ilford: Like Kodak, Ilford has been making film for a very long time—the company was established in 1879 by Alfred Hugh Harman, who began making gelatin dry plated in the basement of his house in Ilford, UK. Initially known as Brittania Works, it became Ilford Limited in 1902. In 2018, Harmon Technology (the manufacturer of Ilford film in the UK) appointed Roberts Distributors, LP as the US distributor for Ilford, Kentmere and Harman-branded products. Ilford specializes in black-and-white film offering a wide variety of types and speeds ranging from ISO 50 to ISO 3200, and Ilford Ortho. Its color negative (C-41 process) films including IlfoColor Vintage Tone 400 Plus, and the newly released HARMAN technology Phoenix II ISO 200 color negative film claimed to have a “vibrant but more neutral” color balance than the original Phoenix, along with better image quality and easier scanning capability.

When it comes to film, Ilford is in it for the long game, and we understand the importance of meeting the needs of the film community. Right now, we’re experiencing a big R&D push and the new Phoenix II film is one part of that, but there’s lots more to come. We see the film sector as dynamic, and we believe the future will be better than ever for analog shooters.

Fujifilm. Fujifilm was established in 1934 with the initial goal of manufacturing photographic film, and it still produces some of the most highly regarded films in the world, including Fujifilm Neopan Acros II black and white (ISO 100), Fujichrome Velvia 50 and Provia 100 color transparency films. Over time Fujifilm expanded into analog and digital cameras in 35mm and medium formats, Instax Instant Picture cameras, and medical imaging, but it never lost its touch for producing topnotch silver halide products. Some have questioned Fujifilm’s commitment to continuing film manufacture, citing the discontinuance of some popular film stocks such as Pro 400H, but due to the recent resurgence in analog photography, the company has restarted production of C200 and C400 color negative film for the Chinese market, and Fujifilm’s Instax instant photography film has been a major success, driving much of the company’s imaging business revenue.

The rallying cry of film fanatics all over the world is “Film Forever!” With any luck they just might get their wish!
 
Last edited:
And dynamic range and micro contrasts. Again, I think that digital has it. Now, yes, this camera cost a packet but we'are not discussing whether or not one medium is better than the other in a certain price range but simply the one we think is better and which we prefer. I have some battered old M bodies which crank out very nice images. Check out the dynamic range on the pic of the ship, from pitch black to blinding white with no loss of detail. Double-cllick it to get it enlarged as much as possible and regard the detail. And the second photo, an old one of Rhodies I took years ago on an M9 with the lovely Amotal, deliberately exposed down at EC -1. There is lovely color and definition. Again, I make no claim for artistic merit, only for what a digital camera can do with an image.

As a youngster I rode horses, I was mostly on Corkie, a 30 year old Morgan who loved more than anything to canter. He could not or would not trot worth a damn. But get him out on that open field and you would get a great ride at a canter. He just loved to run. A great horse. With the incredible luck that seems to follow me I was the only person allowed to ride that old trooper. He was one hell of a horse. But he was a toy not a tool. My position is that there will always be folks who prefer film and who can advance reasons for that stance. Fine. I have been down this road with analog vs digital recordings, too. Yes, I have a record player and every LP I ever bought going back to 1954. But I do not play them. I play digital, I shoot digital.

OK, enough gassing, the images, first the Oregon Responder at night, second Rhodies over by Chinook, WA, in spring. I am getting out my helmet to protect me from the brickbats. ;o)

B0000029 by West Phalia, on Flickr

L1002835 by West Phalia, on Flickr​
 
Last edited:
OK, my feeble nearly senile brain cells have been churning on this film question. It is a lively one that has been going on now for at least 25 years. And it is an echo of other analog vs digital arguments in other media. But is film other than just a way we rate other image capturing? Is film superior or just what we use as a baseline, a "gold standard". There are some folks who maintain that the old Edison cylindrical recordings are the most accurate. OK And the local camera gathering likes to tout old mono prints as "superior" to current and to digital. "Platinum prints are better" is the cry. And sometimes these folks promote even older methods. Funny thing, none of them have hand crank cars.

Now when we look at pics we judge color, dynamic range, micro-contrast and so on without ever seeing the original scene captured by the still image. So how can anyone say the color is "right" or "accurate" or "real"? All we are really saying, it seems to me, is "I like this one." I cannot say how long image memory lasts in our minds with any degree of accuracy but it all seems like conjecture to me.

So, OK, what do you folks think about this line of thought?
 
I don't understand why it's necessary to turn every thread where film is mentioned into yet another tiresome comparison with digital.

I prefer to shoot with my film cameras, and I like the images I get from them, especially for black and white. I will readily concede that the images from even my 15 year old DSLR, let alone virtually any digital camera made since then, including most recent smartphones, are technically "better" than what I can get from my 35mm film cameras. In fact I subjectively prefer the color images I get from my DSLR to my results with C41. It's certainly more convenient (and cheaper) to get those digital images either online or into prints. I can almost always turn a digital file into an image I like, and if I really want to go nuts, I could get digital files printed in any way I way I want, including platinum prints.

But I don't care. I keep my DSLR right next to at least one 35mm SLR loaded with film and I grab the film camera nearly every time, simply because I enjoy shooting with it, whereas to me using a digital camera just feels like more time I have to spend futzing around with a computer.

So I'm happy that film is doing well and likely to remain available for the foreseeable future. I'll continue to shoot film as long as I can afford to. I'm also happy digital cameras will be around for those who prefer them, and I'm not planning on getting rid of my old DSLR either.
 
I grab whatever strikes my fancy. I have my PZ-1p in the car today. Who knows about tomorrow?

I am going on a road trip from Wisconsin through Indiana to Dayton Ohio (the USAF museum at Wright-Patt) and then onto Memphis before going home. I plan to take my K-3 digital, my PZ-1p film body and my Rolleiflex Automat so I'll happily play with both. May take awhile to be able to _afford_ to dunk and scan that much C41 but eh, that's the way it goes.
 
B...... photography existed before the creation of any image composed 0s & 1s on a screen. Photographs can be taken and have been taken in all kinds of light & in all kinds of conditions for over a hundred years.
IMO it's not just about film but about the entire process ending with a tangible print...(ultimately not made by a printing machine). If digital suits your needs that's great....but as mentioned the original post was about the state of film photography.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand why it's necessary to turn every thread where film is mentioned into yet another tiresome comparison with digital.
IMO it's not just about film but about the entire process ending with a tangible print...(ultimately not made by a printing machine). If digital suits your needs that's great....but as mentioned the original post was about the state of film photography.
It's indeed a conglomerate of photographer preferences with the medium, with or without a technical advantage and factoring heavily the characteristics of the medium, even including technical limitations as attributes that have become desirable by users. It's not a versus anymore but and.

For B&W I lend towards a completely traditional darkroom workflow, whereas color I keep hybrid. There is still an aesthetic to capturing on film that even Hollywood are using film intermediates from Digital just for the look.
Other photographers (eg. younger) enjoy the limitations such as frames per roll, the waiting for development and they may even not ever claim their color negatives from the lab. But the photos have "vibe" and "tonez".

I find some schadenfreude in how phones have taken over the compact camera market and would vouch that they are better: Always available, more than sufficient results, the ultimate snapshot (and video) tool. Many complain about the haptics, but many others do not.

A couple years ago I found rather fascinating that quite a lot of the social media film scene was happening due to Youtube influencers. But, it is a thing and to end the post I can paraphrase one who created a video on an 80s compact as a fun rebuttal of a "this 80s compact sucks" video of another influencer: It's to just have (silly) fun.
 
I don't understand why it's necessary to turn every thread where film is mentioned into yet another tiresome comparison with digital.

I prefer to shoot with my film cameras, and I like the images I get from them, especially for black and white. I will readily concede that the images from even my 15 year old DSLR, let alone virtually any digital camera made since then, including most recent smartphones, are technically "better" than what I can get from my 35mm film cameras. In fact I subjectively prefer the color images I get from my DSLR to my results with C41. It's certainly more convenient (and cheaper) to get those digital images either online or into prints. I can almost always turn a digital file into an image I like, and if I really want to go nuts, I could get digital files printed in any way I way I want, including platinum prints.

But I don't care. I keep my DSLR right next to at least one 35mm SLR loaded with film and I grab the film camera nearly every time, simply because I enjoy shooting with it, whereas to me using a digital camera just feels like more time I have to spend futzing around with a computer.

So I'm happy that film is doing well and likely to remain available for the foreseeable future. I'll continue to shoot film as long as I can afford to. I'm also happy digital cameras will be around for those who prefer them, and I'm not planning on getting rid of my old DSLR either.

I agree 100%. On the other side of the table is the fatigue of being told again and again that film is better. I get it, you enjoy film and digital. Great. The world is full of choices. But the continued unsubstantiated idea that film is "better" is tiresome. It is different. It may be better for some folks. But that is not the same as universal acceptance. Film has its peculiar qualities. Likewise digital.

I have a lovely Contax II with a very good CZJ 5cm f/2.0 on it. It has a nearly spent roll of XP2 in it. Soon that roll will be developed and scanned. I'll get the negs back but for what purpose? But I am eager to see what this old charmer can do. It was the best 35mm camera almost a century back. And it is fun to use it, yes. And the Contax III that fell into my lap when buying the CZJ 5m f/1.5 will soon be off to Oleg. Do I dare try color?

So I remain unconvinced that film/analog is intrinsically better I do admit it has its charms. But, as an example, I hope to go out and shoot the local pinball league here in town again tonight. That would not work with XP2. There is just not enough light. I'll try the Sony A7. But maybe I will take the II along on the outside chance the meter will convince me here is enough light.
 
I agree 100%. On the other side of the table is the fatigue of being told again and again that film is better. I get it, you enjoy film and digital. Great. The world is full of choices. But the continued unsubstantiated idea that film is "better" is tiresome. It is different. It may be better for some folks. But that is not the same as universal acceptance. Film has its peculiar qualities. Likewise digital.

I have a lovely Contax II with a very good CZJ 5cm f/2.0 on it. It has a nearly spent roll of XP2 in it. Soon that roll will be developed and scanned. I'll get the negs back but for what purpose? But I am eager to see what this old charmer can do. It was the best 35mm camera almost a century back. And it is fun to use it, yes. And the Contax III that fell into my lap when buying the CZJ 5m f/1.5 will soon be off to Oleg. Do I dare try color?

So I remain unconvinced that film/analog is intrinsically better I do admit it has its charms. But, as an example, I hope to go out and shoot the local pinball league here in town again tonight. That would not work with XP2. There is just not enough light. I'll try the Sony A7. But maybe I will take the II along on the outside chance the meter will convince me here is enough light.
So boojum, why do you come to a very well researched and informative topic about film.....and keep on crowing about digital?
Isn't it tiresome for you as well?
 
Last edited:
So boojum, why do you come to a topic about film.....and keep on crowing about digital?
Isn't it tiresome for you as well?

Not really. If I see or hear something I believe to be incorrect I will react to it. As this forum is about cameras and image capture is would seem an appropriate forum.

I have been giving this film vs digital some thought and other than the execution of the capture wonder how many folks could distinguish one image from the other in a test, maybe a double-blind. I doubt few if any could separate film from digital. That's my conjecture and conjecture only. But it would be an interesting exercise. So perhaps it is the process which draws.

But I think it will always revert to the horse vs car analogy. Yeah, horses are fun but very, very few folks use them to go grocery shopping. As always, YMMV.
 
I'm 40, which I think probably makes me a little on the younger side here, though older than a lot of the people driving the most recent film resurgence. I got my first camera when I was 6. It was a toy 110 camera. I had a couple film point and shoots in my teens and early 20s. I got my first digital camera, a Sony P&S, for Christmas in 2005, then a more serious one (Canon 40D) in 2007. With the exception of 2006 and 2007, I've always shot film. I also shoot digital.

Bottom line: I shoot film because I enjoy it. I don't think I or anyone else needs any reason beyond that. I read paper books, but also have a Kindle. I listen to music on vinyl and reel-to-reel tape alongside CD, my digital library, and occasionally streaming. I'm a ham radio operator and have used morse code almost exclusively on the air since I was 15, but I also lined up and bought the first iPhone on day 1. I develop my own film and print in the darkroom, but I also make my living writing (iOS) software where I often work on low-level digital video, image, and audio processing and analysis. I own a car, but still love to ride my bike (and at one time rode horses somewhat often). I go camping despite having a very comfortable bed in a nice house in the city. If every decision I made about how to spend my time and accomplish tasks was made based on what's objectively "better" (however that's defined), I'd find life very boring.

We have a very active photo community here full of young people (I'm on the older side in the group) that does monthly photo walks, publishes a zine, etc. If I had to guess I'd say 60% of the people at any given event are shooting film, and about 40% are shooting digital, and literally no one cares which one other people are using. We just enjoying being together and taking photos. We have six labs in the city processing film, two of which do E-6 in house. I have 4 camera stores within a 15 minute drive. One is nearly all used analog, two others about half and half used/new film/digital, and the fourth all digital for gear, but they do sell both film and darkroom supplies.

From my perspective, film photography is thriving, which makes me happy.
 
Back
Top Bottom