Film gone by the end of the decade?

<p>In reference to the article above, what makes me smile are all the pointers to professional photographers, especially newspaper photojournalists, and what they use. And the assumption that what they use MUST be right and everyone else is a fool that is not using what they are using. And then the whole equipment-centered, or media, lahdilah starts again...</p>

<p>P-journos work criteria mean their choice of equipment and media does not in fact leave them with much choice if they are to stay in business. Besides, how many percent of p-net visitors are pro's versus hobbyists? And how many percent of those pros are newspaper photojournalists compared to fashion/landscape/fine art photographers? The argument that "film slows me down" is equally moot. Just because you have a camera which will do 7FPS and Googlebytes of storage doesn't mean you HAVE to be shooting AK-47 style. But in some situations, I suppose, it is also a required method.</p>

<p>I recently got a motor drive for doing macro work with my OM-3 because advancing the film by hand means the whole setup moves between frames. Does it mean I will be shooting at the 5FPS it can do? With manual focus, aperture and exposure rings that have to be set, I don't think so. I could of course use my DSLR rig, but I am after a particular look, which means a particular film (Fuji Acros 100), particular developer, particular dilution and temperature and even a particular agitation method. Not to mention what follows in the printing process...In this situation, I'm not sure I could get that look with the DSLR even if spending hours "going bug-eyed" in front of the computer. So I won't even try.</p>

<p>Or, as any wood-worker with fewer than ten fingers could tell you, it pays to know your tools...</p>

<p>Concerning b&w film, it will cease when the materials and energy to produce it will get to the point of being so expensive that the great majority, or what's left, will not be able to afford to buy it over things that are more necessary to life. Already prices are up on Ilford paper due to silver prices and people are looking for cheaper alternatives. The next reasonably bad recession, or threats thereof, will send silver as a hedge up to prices that what we see now will probably be reasonable. Along the way, as silver prices increase, and silver hits close to a $100 an ounce, I feel that b&w photography film will effectively cease production. The only ones left shooting it will be people with freezers full of stock. From what I read, the end of 2012 will be a hard time overall. In color I would suspect the same as concerns materials. If companies stop producing materials that go into producing film, paper and chemistry because there is no market, or too expensive to market, the day is done. Right now is the best time to stock away product. Interest rates are as low as they can go and if they should increase, product prices will go up with them.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just because you have a camera which will do 7FPS and Googlebytes of storage doesn't mean you HAVE to be shooting AK-47 style.</p>

<p>That is an interesting observation, at work I call that type of shooter a law of averages photographer. If you shoot enough frames then you should eventually stumble upon a good one. </p>

<p>Then there are the photographers who grew up shooting with sheet film or medium format cameras so they tend to be more contemplative and will hit the release at the decisive moment since they might not be able to quickly get a second shot.</p>

<p>I have to confess that when I use my digital cameras I don't really worry a lot about how many frames I take so I tend to over shoot and wind up having to do a lot of editing or chimping.</p>

<p>One reason we finally shut down our darkroom at work was because the city was stepping up the inspection of our waste water not sure what it's like in other jurisdictions. </p>

<p>The end of 2012? You mean 12/21/2012? </p>

<p>A bag full of FD lenses, hmm I've been looking at the Novoflex adaptor for FD lenses that will work on some 4/3 camera bodies. Just haven't figured out which body I like the best. Novoflex also makes one for Leica M lenses, downside is the 2x magnification factor of the adaptor. Granted that would make my FD 200mm macro interesting.</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>John Kelly- If I "learn to draw" how do I know some b***ard won't discontinue pencils.</p>

<p>Wayne,</p>

<p>Do you honestly think that film and paper prices are that reflected by prices of silver?</p>

<p>Three months ago, I posted in the b&w film forum a question about pricing of Acros 100. It had been 2.59 a roll. Then jumped up to almost 4 dollars a roll. I thought it might be because of the Japan earthquake.</p>

<p>It's 2.59 a roll again. Despite the price of silver. Silver is going to be one of the smallest parts of the price of film(or paper). Labor in production is the highest. Distribution is a major cost of a product. The cost of the cellulose to make the film backing and the box is a notable cost. The gelatin is going to be pretty inexpensive comparatively speaking. The silver probably less that the gelatin.<br>

The silver nitrate is a tiny fraction of the part of film production and distribution(the get it to you price).<br>

Additionally, if you have a pound of silver nitrate, 7.2 ounces of that pound is the nitrate.</p>

<h1>Film gone by the end of the decade?</h1>

<p>That sure is an interesting obsession, ye of the "buggy whip" comment many, many moons ago... I guess "inquiring minds" still wanna know...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>All we really need to know:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"The beauty with film is a lot of wonderful properties are inherent and don't require work afterward" whereas digital can involve heavy computer manipulation to get the same effect, DiSabato says.<br>

"In the extreme, they call it `stomped on,'" he said. "But a lot of photographers want to be photographers, not computer technicians. And some prized film capabilities — grain, color hues, skin-tone reproduction — can't quite be duplicated no matter how much stomping goes on."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>To address Bob's original question of whether film will be gone by the end of the decade, I do not know and neither does anyone else. My own wild guess is that it will be around. Beyond that I do not wish to speculate. My guess is based on a presumption that the end of this decade is too short a time for film to die.<br>

A lot may depend on the the Movie (Film) industry, which is still film-based and uses piles of film to this day. </p>

<p>To me, photography is loading up with a roll of 36 colour negative (100-400 speed), having some fun taking photos then dropping it off for 1 hour process and scan at the High Street lab. Get home and watch them on my TV and then perhaps upload some of the better ones or print/make a calender/greeting cards using some of the online services.<br>

I don't have a printer, scanner or computer editing systems (apart from Google Picassa) but I have fun with my photography and a quite pleased with the results.</p>

<p>If film were to go then I may or may not start using digital seriously. A decision that I can only make if and when that time comes.</p>

<p>Jeff Z:<br>

Your comment about 'buggy whip' reminds me of something I learned from a previous coworker whose wife raised horses. Generally, when buggy whips are mentioned it is in the theme that automobiles made the the manufacturers of buggy whips obsolete. This in turn comes from Theodore Levitt, a Harvard Business scholl professor in the 1960's wrote a rather famous article about it, called Marketing Myopia. However, my friend said that the modern buggy whip was actually invented after Henry Ford came out with the tin lizzie (model A ford). And while it is a much smaller market than it was, the market still exists today. I would imagine the same thing will exist with film. Yes, it will probably still be available, but it may only be available at speciality stores, and more expensive like a niche product.</p>

<p>Ian Rance:<br>

I still don't see there is any fundamental difference between taking a roll of 36 color negative film, shooting it, and dropping it off for processing with a film camera, and taking the modern digital camera, putting in a memory card, taking your pictures, and dropping off the card to get prints made. And all of the places I'm familiar with will make a CD which is an analogue to your negatives. You just don't have to scan the images, since they are already in digital form. Nothing says you have to do post processing on a computers with digital images, just like you don't have to have a wet darkroom and develop your pictures and do the darkroom post processing like dodging and burning.</p>

<p>Some differences do come to mind:</p>

<ul>

<li>With my larger memory cards, I can take 1,000 pictures, compared to a roll of 36 pictures on film. But nothing says you have to shoot 1,000 images.</li>

<li>You do have to charge the batteries every so often.</li>

<li>You are not paying for a roll of film, and you can select which images to print, unlike with film, where you generally have to print the whole roll at once. If you only take one picture, you can print it immediately. You don't have to take 35 more pictures before developing the shots (when I was growing up there were people that when they finally took in their film to get processed, they had 2 or 3 Christmas's worth of pictures on the roll).</li>

<li>It is somewhat more environmentally friendly in that you eliminate the whole process of making negatives. Printing will still consume the same resources, but the step to get the negative is eliminated.</li>

<li>You don't have to scan in the image, since you have a digital image already.</li>

<li>You can change ISO and white balance on the fly.</li>

</ul>

<p>Richard it is my considered opinion that Fuji is dumping film into the American market at that price.<br>

Yes silver is only one part of a whole, but when it reaches $100 an ounce what will that say from an economic standpoint? It's not like the general public is going to see their incomes match inflation so that we can all go out and buy the same amount of product. We already know that American incomes are declining compared to expenses and for that to turn around will take an act of GOD. There are also many more factors that will play into the health of the "American" photographic film marketplace. Any real life disturbances (actually playing out all the time) affect sales. What I'm saying is that a tipping point is close and that once that happens the market may be dead instantly; No long drawn out affair. One only needs to look critically at "all" life's situations as they now stand and how they can inflict on "any" marketplace.<br>

The only saving grace may just be low labor costs for product from Asia, but, if the middle class in America doesn't have jobs which pay good salaries, what will it matter? (BTW, didn't Kodak buy a percentage of Lucky last year?) Essentially the market should effectively crash when the quantity of raw materials reaches a point that it's too expensive to produce in small quantities and the energy costs to high to produce finished product at a reasonable price. Personally, once they reform Medicare and Social Security my film shooting days are done. I'll be spending all my money in taking care of my parents and on food and electricity to live.</p>

<p>Wayne:<br>

If Fuji is dumping film in the US market, it may be a sign that they feel the market is shrinking and that they are trying to unload stocks that were already made months ago while they can. Obviously if you are selling something at the end of its product lifecycle, and you are planning on reducing production levels for future runs, you don't announce that fact ahead of time, as it can make people panic.</p>

<p>In a way, I'm in the same boat as the people shooting film, as I shoot with Olympus DSLRs, and Olympus has pretty much signalled that the DSLR side of things is ramping down, and the micro 4/3rds cameras are in a different market space than the traditional DSLRs (I actually own both E-1/E-3 DSLRs and a micro 4/3rds E-P2). Is it distressing that things are changing, you bet. Do I wish things were different, you bet. But I don't want to turn into the old guy who yells at kids to get off my lawn, or goes on about how it used to be better in the old days. Change happens, whether we want it to or not.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To me, photography is loading up with a roll of 36 colour negative (100-400 speed), having some fun taking photos then dropping it off for 1 hour process and scan at the High Street lab.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you still have a local 1 hr processing lab you're lucky. The ones close to me all went out of business years ago. I suspect that as more go that way it will further hasten the decline of film. When it becomes a chore to get it processed (if it isn't already), only the really dedicated will stick with it.</p>

<p>As for displaying the scaned negatives on TV, well TVs, DVD and Blue-ray players that will take a memory card and display the images on a TV are already here. Makes digital even easier. My Blue-ray player (for which I paid $29.99) will even read images off a memory stick. You can also buy card readers that connect directly to any TV.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you still have a local 1 hr processing lab you're lucky. The ones close to me all went out of business years ago. I suspect that as more go that way it will further hasten the decline of film. When it becomes a chore to get it processed (if it isn't already), only the really dedicated will stick with it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My location is east coast near a large town (not a city), and we have two different places that I suppose would qualify as "one hour labs" (the wait is often sooner, depending on personnel and how busy the stores are). Plus, at least two that send film out. No problems in that regard.</p>

<p>Two of the young people that work in the place I use most are film photographers- they prefer film. One is pretty avid, and tells me how much he loves his Minolta SRT-102! it's enjoyable talking with them and they are surprisingly (and thankfully!) knowledgeable. In the midst of a very noisy job several days ago, the achilles heel of using the N6006 for serious work reared its ugly head- the film door latch broke, and one thing led to another in the field, and I couldn't rewind the roll. Thankfully, it was the last roll of the day. I thought there were some good images on it, so I carefully kept the back shut as best I could, and took it to them along with my other rolls. Well, one of my young buds pulled out a portable film changing tent (not sure of the terminology), and quickly went to work! Rewound the film by hand, and I only lost a few images on the entire roll and none of the better shots. </p>

<p>So, now it's time for me to finally buy a stronger film body to replace the broken N6006. I'm thinking that an F100 will probably last even longer than the nineteen years I got out of the N6006.</p>

<p>It's strange to hear all this rah-rah stuff about digital photography in real life. I often run into people when I'm out photographing that seem happy to see me shooting film- they seem downright wistful. Younger people that love photography are especially vocal; many of them have told me that they are shooting film more and more, and planning to buy certain film cameras. The only people I know around here that are into all the high tech and digital are boring and older (like me:)). But most of the musicians I work with use cheap digital as do the suburbanites. They think my film photography is great:). It helps a lot to have a good scanner- gives one the best of both worlds. Film photography seems so much simpler and even elegant compared to all the stuff that comes along with digital, and one is out of the rat race to a large extent. I know that I love it. Jmho.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I know digital makes more 'sense' and has many advantages, however without really trying I have accumulated too much film gear dated from 1905 to 2005 that it seems a shame not to use it as intended. If I were to make a serious switch to digital (and I am tempted) then what would happen to all the older cameras I have accumulated? More than likely they would end up as a 'collection' which would mean that they would slowly gum up and end up as junk. It is an effort to continue with film but as with my keeping VCR's running - and looking out for tapes - to not use what already exists is a waste of its potential.</p>

Seems to me Bob that what you have accomplished better than anything in this thread is shown everyone just what

happens when you make a lot of excuses: you don't make very many photographs. I am not sure how many art books

or coffee table books I would be able to find or even want to buy that were authored visually speaking by "Bob Atkins",

but I know of several fairly new and future titles by the likes of Mary Ellen Mark ( "Twins" ) David Alan Harvey (

American Family ) that were recently shot or are being shot on film. These people are not excuse makers, they are

well aware of the challenges in keeping quality stock in their inventory to use, but the bottom line is that they use it

because they like it, film suits their strong styles and that in of it self is far more practical than trying to bond with a

medium that is only just now starting to mature at all levels, consumer to elite professional. To be complete in my information, Mary Ellen Mark uses strictly film, David Alan Harvey uses both. And I know of several very talented young shooters who are of the same partial or strictly film use category.

 

What I see most in what you are writing is why you personally have made every excuse to not use film. That is what I

meant in the previous post of "same thing, same people, different day". If you are going to tell it like it is, then do your

homework and try not to be biased and full of boring excuses...that is why these kinds of threads are not only pointless

due to the lack of complete information, they are boring as hell.

 

I have been shooting digital for 17 years now, that is 17 years full time professionally, most of my career, even bought

the fun to use new Fuji X100 recently, so I am not anti-digital. But I also shoot far more film now than I ever have for

every single genre of my business, including deadline photojournalism. It took me only a little longer to soup Tri-x, edit

the selects, scan them and then email them to a hip / modern ski magazine than it would have had I shot digital. The

value added being that I have nice black and white negatives to prints from in a real darkroom, something that many of

us more creative and less technical photographers love to do. And as far as lenses that are incompatible with digital, a good example would be my fabulous lenses for the Hasselblad Xpan.

 

Black and white film is the most exciting part of my future as a creative and professional photographer. If the day

comes that I can no longer find the supplies to do it arrive, I will most likely smile back on a wonderful life as a

photographer, hang up my gear and find a rewarding new path in life. Because as far as I am concerned, a world

without film of any kind is a world without photography....

<p>Daniel I guess I fall into the excuse category. I am no longer going to live with the problems of having film processed. It's to hard. The good news is I am just a family guy and I can make do with most any camera. I have been doing that for decades and was never willing to spend that much on gear or other toys for myself. I am a very good family snapper.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Seems to me Bob that what you have accomplished better than anything in this thread is shown everyone just what happens when you make a lot of excuses: you don't make very many photographs. I am not sure how many art books or coffee table books I would be able to find or even want to buy that were authored visually speaking by "Bob Atkins",</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Always easier to attack a person than ideas, isn't it, doesn't take nearly as much effort. Also interesting how "art" and "coffee table" books become the measure of someone's photography, commercial effort seems far more important to you than what someone might actually produce photographically.</p>