icemendicant
Established
Truly informative links - thank you for that.
As many of the above posters have said, choosing film or digital is not a lifestyle statement, merely a choice of crayon.
One of the most significant factors is that right now is a fantastic time to get your hands on all sorts of great film gear that a few years ago would have been quite out of reach financially. This applies in particular to medium format gear which will long outperform budget DSLRs, and can now be had for the same price or less. Expect a surge in large format sales - this will become the final frontier of film photography that goes boldy into 8x10 where no digital camera can match under $1000,000. At least, for now....
As many of the above posters have said, choosing film or digital is not a lifestyle statement, merely a choice of crayon.
One of the most significant factors is that right now is a fantastic time to get your hands on all sorts of great film gear that a few years ago would have been quite out of reach financially. This applies in particular to medium format gear which will long outperform budget DSLRs, and can now be had for the same price or less. Expect a surge in large format sales - this will become the final frontier of film photography that goes boldy into 8x10 where no digital camera can match under $1000,000. At least, for now....
Gary Cox
Member
Thank you very much for the link! As soon as friends bring up the Digital vs Film issue with me, I let them know that I will not argue either one. They are to me, different mediums, oranges and apples. Nothing to argue about, simple.
Gary
Gary
mrtoml
Mancunian
Let's look on the bright side
Let's look on the bright side
Actually he uses slide film for colour. I think there was some heavy editing of the interview so that Kodak could squeeze in the stuff about RAW files and digital manipulation which seemed a little out of context. I thought the second video was much more balanced and informative in that regard.
Thinking about this 'either/or' issue with respect to digital/film and whether there is a renaissance of film in the offing I have been looking at the statistics regarding analogue sales and monitoring various websites for a number of years now. I think the future is probably not so bad for film users.
Sales of analogue photographic products seem to have flattened out. There were big falls in the early 2000s, but these have tapered off as the market has restructured. Figures from the Office for National Statistics in the UK show manufacturing output for different parts of the analogue photography sector as follows:
UK Sales from 2003 to 2006 (£million):
Sales of flat film based products- 2003- £162, 2004- £99, 2005- £108 2006- £108
Sales of roll/cassette film- 2003- £47, 2004- £41, 2005- £39, 2006-not available
Sales of paper products- 2003- £26, 2004- £18, 2005-n/a, 2006-n/a
Sales of chemicals- 2003- £79, 2004- £90, 2005- £96, 2006- £82
So the big crash was 2003, by 2006 the flat film market seems to have bottomed out and the chemical market doesn't show any particular pattern.
This confirms Ilford's recent comments on the film market:
Let's look on the bright side
Hi FrankFrankS said:
Actually he uses slide film for colour. I think there was some heavy editing of the interview so that Kodak could squeeze in the stuff about RAW files and digital manipulation which seemed a little out of context. I thought the second video was much more balanced and informative in that regard.
Thinking about this 'either/or' issue with respect to digital/film and whether there is a renaissance of film in the offing I have been looking at the statistics regarding analogue sales and monitoring various websites for a number of years now. I think the future is probably not so bad for film users.
Sales of analogue photographic products seem to have flattened out. There were big falls in the early 2000s, but these have tapered off as the market has restructured. Figures from the Office for National Statistics in the UK show manufacturing output for different parts of the analogue photography sector as follows:
UK Sales from 2003 to 2006 (£million):
Sales of flat film based products- 2003- £162, 2004- £99, 2005- £108 2006- £108
Sales of roll/cassette film- 2003- £47, 2004- £41, 2005- £39, 2006-not available
Sales of paper products- 2003- £26, 2004- £18, 2005-n/a, 2006-n/a
Sales of chemicals- 2003- £79, 2004- £90, 2005- £96, 2006- £82
So the big crash was 2003, by 2006 the flat film market seems to have bottomed out and the chemical market doesn't show any particular pattern.
This confirms Ilford's recent comments on the film market:
The sale of all formats of film has been stable for the last 9 to 12 months, though the brand mix has been undergoing some noticeable shifts. Agfa Photo and Konica films are no longer available, and the statements made by Kodak are causing concern amongst users of black-and-white film. All of these factors have strengthened ILFORD PHOTO’s resolve to continue to not only serve, but to also develop, the market for premium quality black-and-white films.
[END QUOTE]
In the US the situation is not that bad on the whole. The analogue photographic industry has pretty significant statistics (these are from 2006 in US$bn):
Sector: PHOTOGRAPHIC FILM, PAPER, PLATE, AND CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
Total revenue $9.1bn
Gross profit $3.7bn
Total export value $2.9bn
Export growth 7.2%
(see marketresearch.com)
Kodak has had a painful transition, but even here sales of analogue products are still strong (these are for the Film and Photofinishing Systems Group):
2004 $7.1bn
2005 $5.3bn
2006 $4.6bn
So the film industry is still worth a lot to Kodak. And sales have been falling, but again it is bottoming out. And as they say in their annual report:
Although our Film Products Group (FPG), formerly the Film and
Photofinishing Systems Group, might not be thought of as part
of the digital spotlight at Kodak, it continues to generate an
impressive amount of cash to help fund our digital transition. Showing great leadership, our traditional business has successfully
paced its restructuring efforts ahead of the decline in revenue.
Despite competing in a challenging industry environment, we have
maintained strong market positions and significant profit margins.
As a result, we are creating a sustainable business model for
customers who use film and paper.
[END QUOTE]
(My emphasis)
So whatever Kodak's longer term intentions and whether they can be trusted they are surely not just going to abandon this profitable arm of their business next week.
Furthermore 2 recent surveys of professionals (in the US and in Europe) both suggest that around three quarters of pros still use film and want to continue to use it.
It seems to me that people are often worried about the future of film, but many of us
are relying on old news stories and perhaps out-of-date impressions that were fuelled by the digital boom and the great advances made in digital technology. Perhaps things are about to settle down.
On top of this there are smaller innovative companies such as Foto-Impex in Germany who are trying to solve the problems inherent in a shrinking market. They have bought the old R&D production equipment of Agfa so that they can profitably make film and paper on a smaller scale than in the old days. The first results of this are now evident in the reintroduction of MCC paper and hopefully Agfa films in the near future:
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum172/39066-resurrection-some-former-agfa-products.html
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum172/40721-resurrection-mcc-progressing.html
So let's be optimistic for the future of film. It seems to me that there is every reason to be.
FX trading
Established
Not only has the digital marketing whirlwind abated, but I would not be surprised to see it move on from the current (low-margin and increasingly commoditised) point and shoot cameras toward new and more integrated products (phones, PDAs, etc) which bring a higher revenue to the manufacturers.
The net result could ironically be that film begins to reassert it's previous dominance as the de facto medium of choice for the professional and higher-value users.
I believe that the best thing possible would be for Kodak to sell their film unit (and brand licence for, say 5 years) to a private equity group, such as Cerberus, who could then reformulate what could be a very attractive business.
It is time to forget the recent ill-informed panic and look to the future. With proper market positioning, it should even be possible to attract back some of the "serious amateur" market.
The net result could ironically be that film begins to reassert it's previous dominance as the de facto medium of choice for the professional and higher-value users.
I believe that the best thing possible would be for Kodak to sell their film unit (and brand licence for, say 5 years) to a private equity group, such as Cerberus, who could then reformulate what could be a very attractive business.
It is time to forget the recent ill-informed panic and look to the future. With proper market positioning, it should even be possible to attract back some of the "serious amateur" market.
FX trading
Established
Agree fully. In the end, the two processes are fully compatible, with digital likely to continue advancing on the mass processing and distribution side.
It is unlikely that we will, however, see much further decline in the primacy of film as the prefeerred medium for the professional/artistic users, although except for special cases most processing will probably be digitally-based.
One major market which needs revitalization is of course dedicated film scanning equipment, whose role should be further integrated with other processing equipment.
Except for Imacon, it appears that there are no really attractive and sufficiently versatile products in this area; and most certainly none at an accessible price for the broader market.
It is time for a broader and wide-ranging vision to be applied to the photo-imaging market, which is also showing signs of becoming more stable, mature and predictable.
It is unlikely that we will, however, see much further decline in the primacy of film as the prefeerred medium for the professional/artistic users, although except for special cases most processing will probably be digitally-based.
One major market which needs revitalization is of course dedicated film scanning equipment, whose role should be further integrated with other processing equipment.
Except for Imacon, it appears that there are no really attractive and sufficiently versatile products in this area; and most certainly none at an accessible price for the broader market.
It is time for a broader and wide-ranging vision to be applied to the photo-imaging market, which is also showing signs of becoming more stable, mature and predictable.
JohnL
Very confused
I still use film for (1) RF photography, because I'm not happy about the idea of shelling out $5K for an M8 (+ some amount for a shorter lens than I currently own) with its 1.3x crop factor and several "issues", and (2) for MF -- I **really** can't justify the price of digital MF gear. Otherwise, I am almost 100% digital now. The reasons are (1) immediate gratification, (2) better color fidelity IMHO, (3) convenience (elimination of processing and scanning), to name the strongest, in no particular order. If and when these hurdles are ever removed, I'll happily go 100% digital.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Well that's true depending how you define PRO. There are some pros who create art and for that IMHO film is fine. So are they Pros or just artists?sitemistic said:
FX trading
Established
Instead of an M8, I have recently bought an MP and an extra lens. The M8 is wonderful, but the long-term advantages of film for me still outweigh the savings and hassle of taking pictures with digital.
Saying that, unlike photojournalists I do not have to work to any timetables, and my orientation is not high-volume commercial.
For my requirements, film still outweighs any advantages in shooting with digital, and the fact that demand is begining to plateau means that there will be no future worries about it's continued availability. And yes, I am if necessary (I don't want to say it too loudly) more than willing to pay the price which this new reduced market will charge.
Saying that, unlike photojournalists I do not have to work to any timetables, and my orientation is not high-volume commercial.
For my requirements, film still outweighs any advantages in shooting with digital, and the fact that demand is begining to plateau means that there will be no future worries about it's continued availability. And yes, I am if necessary (I don't want to say it too loudly) more than willing to pay the price which this new reduced market will charge.
Last edited:
d_ross
Registered User
The simple answer to the thread question is if you keep shooting film film, people will keep making it !
I have many professional photographer friends who are now totally digital that spend more time sitting in front of the PC processing thier large canon RAW files and post processing in photoshop than they ever did in the darkroom.
I have many professional photographer friends who are now totally digital that spend more time sitting in front of the PC processing thier large canon RAW files and post processing in photoshop than they ever did in the darkroom.
newsgrunt
Well-known
When I suggest to my editors that I think an assignment should be shot on film, they don't do a doubletake. Likewise, they don't gag when I then tell them I need to buy some sodium sulfite and a few boxes of Type 55 or Tri X.
They'll probably raise an eyebrow when I ask about shooting Polaroids with my 8x10 however
Digital is not the devil in disguise and film is not the relic that needs to be hidden away. One can use both and produce wonderful work in either medium.
They'll probably raise an eyebrow when I ask about shooting Polaroids with my 8x10 however
Digital is not the devil in disguise and film is not the relic that needs to be hidden away. One can use both and produce wonderful work in either medium.
FX trading
Established
Agreed- unfortunately, due to recent marketing tactics by the electronics producers, many of which bordered on promoting a state of near-hysteria among potential purchasers, a sort of unnecessarily partisan division was created.
Digital is an excellent additional tool, but does not and cannot substitute film. It does, however, open up new avenues for processng and distribution, and has also assisted in expanding the photo image market by a very significant factor.
It is by it's very nature ideally suited for the mass market, and has thus principally hastened the demise of products in that sector, such as APS.
Digital is an excellent additional tool, but does not and cannot substitute film. It does, however, open up new avenues for processng and distribution, and has also assisted in expanding the photo image market by a very significant factor.
It is by it's very nature ideally suited for the mass market, and has thus principally hastened the demise of products in that sector, such as APS.
Last edited:
Tuolumne
Veteran
kshapero
South Florida Man
sitemistic said:
I guess time will tell.
FX trading
Established
I was in Hyde Park yesterday, and came across a young (18-21) student type carefully taking photos. Upon closer examination as I passed, I noticed she was using a Leica III.
This shows a very important point- it is not only a question of technical merit, but also of perceived and skilfull product placement that will bring new users to film.
Except for Ilford, the market is behaving in a very defensive and shell-shocked manner. It is time to move on from the past 7 years and develop the photo industry and market on an overall basis.
I also believe that this will be made easier as the somewhat jaded timeservers at legacy photo and film companies are replaced by new blood.
This shows a very important point- it is not only a question of technical merit, but also of perceived and skilfull product placement that will bring new users to film.
Except for Ilford, the market is behaving in a very defensive and shell-shocked manner. It is time to move on from the past 7 years and develop the photo industry and market on an overall basis.
I also believe that this will be made easier as the somewhat jaded timeservers at legacy photo and film companies are replaced by new blood.
wintoid
Back to film
FX trading said:
Fuji too! Re-releasing Velvia wasn't something I expected at all.
FX trading
Established
In the end, once the market is looked at with greater lucidity, it is inevitable that greater attention and resources will be allocated to the sector, including a renewal of R&D (even if only initially for environmental reasons).
This will be aided by a more defensive attitude from the digital camera sector itself(whose mass-market products are arguably going the way of the VCR), as well as by a renewal of interest in "true photography" from higher-end consumers.
It would be interesting to invite the Investment Banking community to make note of forums such as ours, for there are great opportunities in this market which could be very easily harnessed and which would be unwise to let pass.
This will be aided by a more defensive attitude from the digital camera sector itself(whose mass-market products are arguably going the way of the VCR), as well as by a renewal of interest in "true photography" from higher-end consumers.
It would be interesting to invite the Investment Banking community to make note of forums such as ours, for there are great opportunities in this market which could be very easily harnessed and which would be unwise to let pass.
Last edited:
LeicaTom
Watch that step!
mrtoml said:
Very good video! and an interesting project he`s working on, I will ALWAYS shoot film, matter of fact I`m shooting more now than I was before, the digital is fine for quick projects and to have photos to market things, but my real film shots done for my Retro business outshine the digital by 20 to 1
Keep on Shooting that REAL stuff!!!!!
Tom
MikeL
Go Fish
When I want to be reminded of why some people don't shoot film, and why some do, I just visit the forums on dpreview.com.
