Another sign of the future

Was in a long-standing camera store yesterday (been in business since

I was a kid) and was told they're no longer accepting trades or

buying used film cameras because there's no demand for them, the only

thing customers coming in want are digitals. On-topic, they had a

couple Leicas which were way overpriced for their condition. Could

be the real reason their used gear doesn't sell, but the point is

that's not what they're telling people and so contributing to the

accelerated demise of film. The thirst for computer-industry product

turnover and profits is great among camera stores which for decades

depended on new customers to stay in business as a camera purchase

was normally regarded as something to last indefinitely.

i give it 10-15 years when new parents of today will be looking around for photos of their children back when (now) and can't find any discs or software to access the pics. happened to me already with pics i took 6 years ago on those floppy disc sony cam's. remember those???

 

negs you throw in a box and pull em out 50 years later and makes some enlargements.

 

maybe i'm nuts??

I see that happening here in Europe too, Jay. In fact, I decided a few months ago that my old reliable photo school era Minolta X-700 had sat on the shelf long enough. I tried for years to ignore my memories from it, I finally overcame them, and not one store in Zürich was interested. (Excellent condition with 3 Minolta lenses too!)

 

Normally, that camera was a great student camera, so I thought that it would be appealing. Not so.

 

(On top of that, my XPAN has lost almost all of its already weak trade in value. (because of the XII)) That's another matter...

 

OTOH I can't imagine any non-SLR digicam being worth ANYTHING in 10 or 20 years. So maybe a few hundred francs for my c.25yr old Minolta isn't so bad. ;-)

 

R Fred

Photography is going toward every year a new product, so there will be last is best and we'll have to buy the ultimate release. I don't think there's someone to blame, just to realistic, used cameras will go for collection . I also think the future is unpredictable, so maybe someone will do a digital back for the old voigtlander or the rolleiflex(leica m is sure). The prophets are often wrongs.

There's more to it than that! For many years the neighborhood camera shop had many people convinced that their photo finishing service was better than the corner drugtore's. Odds are that they both used the same lab. It was the profit center, along with film sales, that paid the rent. Now the big chain drugstores, often open until 11 PM or even 24 hours, all have in-house one hour mini labs, and sell film at huge discount just to entice you in the door. The new niche market for the "camera" shop is digital cameras, and they hope that you'll upgrade to a new one every year. They are sure not going to make big bucks selling the average amateur "film" cards!

I assist my local store in disposing of their inventory of used cameras on Ebay for a small commission and a discount on everything they sell to me or process for me. Last year, we sold 6 Leicas, 4 Contax, 4 Nikon RF's and about 20 lenses; there is NO local demand, as Jay says. They do an OK business in manual focus cameras, but that case appears to be getting full too.

What a bunch of whiney Luddites.

 

I just found a CD I made about a decade ago, using one of the early CD burners I had

at the office, and found on it a bunch of my old pictures from the middle 1980s,

scanned with a Macintosh Plus and Thunderscanner. I had no trouble reading it or

opening the file, even though the application that made it has been gone for nearly

20 years. Photoshop read it with no problems, I've re-saved it now as a JPEG image.

 

I would say, based on looking through this old CD, that I have more usable, printable,

clean looking 15 year old images from it (379, to be precise) than I have in my photo

shoebox that goes back 30 years, even though I was shooting far more film than

making digital images until 1996 or so.

 

Godfrey<div></div>

It's happenning all over now. Did you know there is a glut of Mamiya medium format cameras on ebay right now selling at ridiculous prices. I just bought a COMPLETE, Excellent condition Mamiya RB67 system, including 90mm lens, finder, and 120 back, for $389, including a 15 day inspection warranty from a reputable camera store (Columbus Cameras) on ebay. I was the only bidder. This caliber of Medium format camera was $600-700 on ebay a year ago. The $2400 Leica MP will soon be a $1000 anachronism.

The value of all this stuff is in the using of it.

 

I've kept most of my RZ gear and Hasselblad system, and use

both with digital backs and film. There are times when there is

no substitute for film (not as often as before, I'll admit). I even

repurchased a Hassy 503CW I had sold, which I don't use a

digital back with...because there are times I just want to shoot

and hand the film over to lab.

 

And for some of my wedding work, there is absolutely no

substitute for Leica Ms using film. I use a pair of M7s at every

wedding...dispite also using the latest, greatest full frame, high

meg. digital cameras. Some of my clients might not know the

difference, but I do. But a few clients have noticed a certain

quality to pics shot with the Leica...without knowing anything

about the gear I used. That's what keeps me using them.

This picture of my daughter's nearly thirty years old. Will anyone be able to share pictures from digital in thirty years time? Possible but on all the evidence, unlikely. It's not just that the stuff degrades but you just can't be sure there'll be hardware around to read the format.

 

Personally, I'm grabbing the bargains while I can - I can see film making a comeback as the problems of digital become more obvious.<div></div>

godfrey, if you are finding that you have more useable digital images now than you do film ones from the same era, something is not lining up. i also wouldn't exactly call that image you posted useable. check out the scan/whatever-they-are lines off centre.

 

nice pic harvey...i'm with you on this one.

WOW I'm glad we got that all clear up for a moment I thought my 1959 IIIg had stopped working all of a sudden. It was working just fine last night at 1:00am when I was taking photo's in and around the local bookstore that had a midnight party for the release of the latest Harry Potter book. Reading the posts on this I thought I might have been mistaken hearing that ever so quiet shutter click away at f1.5 and a 1/15th getting shots of the little kids (and the Big Kids) and the Christian protester standing along the walk waiting for hours to get in to buy a book.

 

So I just don't see the problem if the cameras get cheaper then their cheaper good. BUT the fact that they sell at any price means that their will be a demand for film and film photography..

 

IMHO

 

Mark W.

 

screw mounter

I also think that part of the "decrease in demand" is due to Ebay

itself. The times, they are a changin.....

>godfrey, if you are finding that you have more useable digital<br>

>images now than you do film ones from the same era, something is<br>

>not lining up. i also wouldn't exactly call that image you<br>

>posted useable. check out the scan/whatever-they-are lines off<br>

>centre.<br>

<br>

 

sigh. Do you think I was referring to high quality work? Yes, those are scan lines ...

but I'm saying that I have better useable pix and more of them on the CD than I do in

the photo <b>shoebox</b> ... Do you keep your high-quality photographs in a

shoebox? I sure don't. But that's where most people have their treasured snapshots,

and they're deteriorating faster than anything digital does.

<br><br>

That was a fairly low-res, crappy quality scan in 1986, and it hasn't changed one iota

since. Moreover, with a bit of image processing work, I can probably correct it to be

quite a nice photograph now.

<br><br>

Godfrey<div></div>

>Will anyone be able to share pictures from digital in thirty years<br>

>time? Possible but on all the evidence, unlikely. It's not just that <br>

>the stuff degrades but you just can't be sure there'll be hardware <br>

>around to read the format. -- harvey platter<br>

<br>

Talking about inability to find hardware in 30 years. I am just wondering, will you be able to easily (if at all) find a lab in 30 years that will have an enlarger for 35mm film, paper, chemistry, AND a semi-knowledgeable printer to re-print your current negatives?

<br><br>

Just to be clear, I am not saying that the digital cameras are the answer to all your problems. I have not gone digital myself, yet. I am just pointing out that in 30 years you may have similar issues with your film in the shoebox as digital shooters with their "negatives" on cd's or on other media.

You guys keep arguing about stuff that's exaggerated beyond

belief. It makes me wonder if you know what you are talking

about. Or you're arguing just for the sake of arguing, and say stuff

with little regard as to it's basis in fact. Or you're scared witless

that film is going to suddenly disappear.

 

Camera stores are being killed in the used markets because the

internet is cutting out the middle man and the sellers can get

more for their gear. Local stores are dying on high end stuff

because more photographers are buying from out of state giants

to avoid the huge local sales taxes. Digital gear plummets in

value in a year or two, and provides entry level cameras to those

who would have bought a new film SLRs for about the same

amount ( I recently turned down a Canon D60 for $700.) It's just

a different market these days.

 

CDs and DVDs last 100 years once they're burned, 5 years if

not. Hard drives are hard drives...if you keep the program CD

and a reader you can put it on a hard drive and use it, even 100

years from now. If you save in Tiff or J-peg it will always be able

to be read...unless they change the very standard that was set up

to avoid the "obsolete" problem.

You're arguing a nice theory, Marc, but whereas people regularly print 100 year old negatives there are no 100 year old CDs to test. Accelerated aging tests are a nice idea but they only prove that something survives an accelerated aging test.

 

Beyond that, the last 30 years shows us only that storage technologies die out even before the data on the media. How many people can read a fourteen inch disk pack or an eight inch diskette? What about one inch video tape? Just how many eight track players are still usable?

 

Of course, the past is only a guide to the future and it's possible that the CD/DVD standard will remain around for a long time but it's equally possible that the corporates will decide they've saturated the market and start pushing a new standard with much higher capacity (which is good) and zero backwards compatibility (which is not). In 1985 the three and three quarter inch diskette seemed like an anomally with little commercial potential because the market used five and a quarter inch floppies. Ten years later you really had to hunt for a five and a quarter drive. Today, I can think of very few places that have them.

 

As to the storage life of hard disks, well, even assuming the coating doesn't degrade there's the question of how long the interfaces will remain available for previous generations. These aren't exagerations, they're genuine concerns for anyone concerned with archival storage or even keeping their old images around to look at in their old age.

marc,

 

in all due respect (as you really do know far more than i when it comes to digital anything and i totally respect and appreciate your views), how do we know that cd's and dvd's can last that long once burned? they haven't even been around half that amount of time to be tried, tested and true. i've got some old cd's that won't play in certain players. what's up with that?

 

even if cd's can last that long, will that format even be around in 15 years?

 

i love debating (not arguing ;-)....big difference imho.

 

but alas, this debate has been flogged over and over again in the past years. however, every time it comes up , i feel the urge to pipe in :-)

 

cheers all.

Before digital cameras became affordable & usable, we didn't have any choice. We

only had films and prints. Now we have lots of choices and lots of ways to store a

memorable moment in time, and we are totally confused.

 

At least I am. I am confused. I used films, moved to digital "all the way". Now I am

both. I am fed up with the never ending digital upgrades, so I came back to M.

 

As for storage, I have both films and jpeg/raw files. I am afraid that colour of my

colour slides/prints will fade (which they will). I am worried that my hard disks will

crash (2 of my hard disk which I bought in 1997 crashed on "the same week"). I have

not backed up all the digital photos to a CD. Oh, god!

I agree with Marc that the market is changing. I believe that used cameras (film and eventually digital) will trade briskly on the internet rather than at local camera stores where sellers get less and buyers pay more. The particular old-time store I was talking about (and Marc will know the one I'm referring to) had a beater M3 and a beater M2 both priced at least $200 over value, and a IIIg with evidence of top-plate dent repair and some DIY reglued chipping vulcanite priced about $500 over value. I'll bet they paid the owners $100 or less for them. Another store just down the street is going out of business...I've never seen anything but swap-meet junk in that other store, and always priced at least 30% over value. You can lament the plight of the mom&pop camera store all you want but a lot of them have it coming.

Marc and the group; I have burned many hundreds of CD's. Several of them that are 4 to 7+ years old have readablity problems; these were burned on high buck name brand CD's; and were checked/verified after being burned; and are rechecked on a regular sampling basis now; and being rewritten; because CD's DONT last...... <BR><BR>With old shoebox stored slides; the mold and dust take a toll; but at least there is some image to work with. With the few troublemaker CD's of mine that have images that are lost; they were kept in Jewel cases; away from chemicals; and in a temperature controlled room; and never were written on with a pen or anything. I have also several Kodak Photo CD's that are 7+? years old; that now SOME have images that cannot be read at their highest resolutions; at least I have the slides that can be rescanned.......<BR><BR>In a couple of the "troublemaker CD's"; the images were for a customers advertising posters. The images were Photoshop combinations; with added text; many hours/days of work lost due to the CD's not being readable.............Several of the 80Meg *.tiff files are readable ONLY with the top half of the image; and all garbled/line wrapped at the bottom half...............The redo of the poster required starting from scratch; the "saved CD" done with a 5 dollar "best archival CD" FAILED; when stored under lab conditions.............Now I am saving SEVERAL copies of the same data; on TWO different brands of media; and storing them in two different places.<BR><BR>Some Cd's probably will be readable in 100 years; others are unreadable after 5 years; at least by my collection on probably 700 to 1200 Gigs of data.<BR><BR>

The local Wallyworld sells alot of cameras. The mix has radically changed. They have a token Canon and Minola slr; a zoom for each.....Then their are about eight 35mm P & S cameras........The last lone APS camera sometimes is on display; sometimes not; not sure if they are still carrying them; or burning off old stock......................Then their is digital ; several dozens of models; tops are 5 Megapixel. Realtors and appraisers LOVE the Sonys that still take a floppy; they shoot a floppy or two for each house; and drop the floppy in their file cabinet with he appraisal paperwork..................They also sell a HUGE amount of 35mm disposables; their volume is greater than all the film/digitals combined; by a wide margin.....................

Attorneys here use 35mm disposables; plus the local sheriffs dept; and police.....Also tourists by a huge amount of disposables...........

Dear silly people, please don't confuse the lifetimes of removable storage media formats and devices, or the failure rate of internal storage devices, with the "lifespan" of digital data.

 

There are simple ways to preserve digital data indefinitely. Burning a CD and forgetting it is not one of these methods.

 

Can digital images last for 30 years? If you get a 30 year mortgage, will the mortgage company "remember" you owe them money for 30 years, or will it lose that information when 3.5" floppy disks are obsolete? Will the contents of your 401k disappear in 20 years when somebody notices that the DVD that held your information "went bad"?

 

No, of course not, because people don't use these silly methods for preserving important data. If data cannot be preserved for 30 years, then you have _far_ greater worries than just your photos.

Kelly, our ad agency has CDs that are over 7 years old (that's

when we started storing files on them), and they are all readable

at the resolution burned. I recently expressed worries about the

life span of a photojournalist friend's documentation of

Michigan's current Governor, and he sent me a white paper on

the subject. I've since deleted it, but I'll ask for it again and

forward it to you. If I remember correctly, there was something

about burning at the lower X rate for archive type files. Also, it

was that document that I was using for the 100 years/5 years

figure.

 

Jay, not only are the mom & pop stores dying, the swap meets

around this area are crap these days. Nothing but junk they can't

move on the internet...or hugely overpriced gear.