"Film Drop-Off Sites Fade Against Digital Cameras" -New York Times, 10/09/2007

For your consideration:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/business/09film.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Maybe they need to convert to "Digital Media Drop Off Sites."

 

Things change. Some adapt others just go away or into some other endeavor.

 

Nice article about the state of the film business.

Ditto Bill Clarks's comments.

 

Thanks for posting.

 

The labs around my area that are doing well do both digi and film. Usually it seems the labs, er, printing facilities that do well with film, have a local college nearby where film photo techniques are still being taught.

How sad. It is just the beginning.

...... and in their place, inexpensive one hour film processing and CD writing at Wal-Mart, Target etc etc. I'm actually happy. Seeing new Fuji machines and in most cases competent operators producing outstanding results is neat. Film continues to be an outstanding value IMHO. My recent purchase of an inexpensive Fuji Z1 convinces me that film remains competitive when image quality and cost is a concern. Regards.

Let's also add the inevitable: "reduced risk & liability!" As more companies base business decisions partially upon risk analysis ( per Sarbanes-Oxley etc), and reduced profitability, levels of customer service will continue to decline. There is nothing like hearing a rant that someone's film was lost or ruined and how Alice Q Customer and 50 of her best friends will never shop there again! . . . or substitute John Q Customer and his lost fishing trip memories! <p>

Digital tosses the liability and risk back into the average customer's lap!<p>

Discouraging and depressing.

Thank you.

I for one welcome our new digital overlords...

 

I still shoot some E6 but how many of you really get good C41 results from Walmart/drug stores? The processing is fine but the automated color/exposure corrections and clueless operator destroy the print. I always had to take it to my pro lab 20 min away and spend $18 to get 36 4x6 prints. A contact sheet wasn't much cheaper. I love just printing the 4 pics I actually want for 25 cents each plus with digital many of the kiosks and web site uploaders have a "turn off corrections" box so the print actually looks like your screen did.

I take my really important photos to Ritz photo near me as I vaguely know two of the people who work there and they actually for the most part know what they are doing. That being said all of my other shots I take to target as they do the development work for half the price.

 

36 4x6, development and a index print is around $13 from Ritz or $6 at my local Target...and I haven't had any prints screwed up by Target so far and the color correction is pretty good from the one I take my photos to. Ritz gets photos such as from my honeymoon and for big trips, target gets everything else, results are on also quite good, I just trust them a little more.

It's hit and miss. Here in puget sound a local Kits Cameras (a division of Ritz) do an acceptable job, they will even print my half-frame negs side by side on 4X6 prints. Costco has been a mixed bag though. I have a choice of two about equidistant from my home. At one I dropped off a roll of Fuji C41 for d&p at their instore lab. I picked up the prints an hour later but they were too light and way too red, however the person who ran my roll acted like they couldn't understand what I was talking about when I complained so I took them to the other Costco where I knew the operator. He took one look at the prints and said he wasn't busy at the moment and come back in 15 minutes. He reprinted them right, I handed him the old batch to destroy, and that was that. Sometimes you just have to find the right person.

Digital is a brilliant, cost-effective (in many ways) technology. Film is, however, a different-looking medium, and I hope I'll continue to shoot it so long as the technology maintains a heartbeat. Though it isn't my area, at least medium-format should keep up for a few more years; large-format, even longer (digi-cams. that can match or beat 8"X10" negatives aren't yet a practical technology, as far as I know).

<small><i><blockquote>

 

It is just the beginning.

 

</blockquote> </i> </small><p>

It's the end of the beginning. Film sales have been decreasing by double-digit percentages since 1999. The only strong (but still decreasing) part of the market -- accounting for around <b><u>half</u></b> of all film sales -- is in cheap one-time-use cameras.

......... let's see now ...... my C41 120 goes to the local photo pro who runs it through his machine and writes a CD for about $7 and the the E6 120 goes to Dwayne's with my Kodachrome for about the same price. I haven't read the NYT for years so I'm still OK with film, right? Please stop alarming me with "yellow" journalism. GRIN. Regards.

<b>Arjun</b> - <i>"Digital is a brilliant, cost-effective (in many ways) technology."</i>

<p>

Well, yes and no - if you're just taking "happy snaps", then fine, but if you want specific "non-average" features to turn out at least as good as film, like in low-light, then you need a higher-end digital camera. An EOS 5/30/40D or 1DSmkII were all big $$$ last I looked - a decent film camera is far cheaper currently. You have to be taking an awful lot of pics and/or selling them to make equivalent digital cameras cost-effective.

<p>

I'm not saying it isn't possible, it's just frequently the cost-per-picture argument in favour of digital ignores the issue of the qualities of film vs. the output of the digital camera (high ISO, colour negative properties vs. slide, etc).

Glenn, agreed: A good DSLR can still be more expensive (last I checked) than a very good film SLR. Depending on how much you shoot, though, even as a pro., digital can save you money: Whereas film involved a lengthy process of taking more than one picture of an important image, then running several prints until you found the one that suited you "just right," digital is rather instantaneous. Don't like what you see on the LCD? Try again, right then and there. As for "consumers," of course it behooves them, as point-and-shoot digicams. are now very affordable, and easily end up costing a small fraction of film technology once one factors in cost if film, processing, and printing (you also get to save a few trees by choosing to print only those images you like). Digital also offers a few unique perks, such as ridding one of those pesky color casts at the end of long exposures. Of course, I'm an Exakta sorta guy...

That's my other pet peeve with digital arguments: You may save a few trees with digital, but you're burning more coal to power your computer to process them :) Depending on where you are, of course. The whole "digital is green" argument tends to ignore power consumption, as well as disposal of more electronic parts when they die, which is becoming a big problem worldwide.

 

Also, I'm not sure about film taking more time - there's an argument on this point on the Wedding forum here periodically. Those wedding photographers who still shoot film say it takes them quite a bit less time, as when it's shot properly their (pro) labs take care of any colour corrections, and it only ends up costing them $100-200 max. in material/processing costs (on a several thousand dollar job). Whereas, some of the digital photographers indicate they spend 15-20 hours per job tweaking, etc.

 

But yes, the "instant" nature of digital is an argument in its favour.

<<Whereas, some of the digital photographers indicate they spend 15-20 hours per job tweaking, etc.>>

 

Better technique = less post-processing. It doesn't matter if you're shooting film or digital. Also, who says these people /have/ to spend that much time? Just because you can do something doesn't mean you need to.

 

Digital is about a level of control not available to photographers before. To some, having the opportunity to be responsible for the entire process is a frightening thing. To others it is a revolution.

Glenn, you can't deny that printing only the images you want to print does save paper, which, in turn, cuts fewer trees and costs the photographer less money (and gives him less crap and clutter to deal with). As for how long a person takes in front of the computer screen, that's a personal thing; you might spend three hours in front of the monitor, or six in front of the enlarger -- it depends on you.