Positive news: Film at Photokina photo fair

<p>Why are people so passionate about these arguments? </p>

<p>Film is a feeling, film is inspiration. The bean counters don't get it. They couldn't feel a scene, if it reached out and bit them on the back side!</p>

<p>I shoot film too, not cos it is superior. Just cos I like it, my childhood was film, I like history, I like the slower style etc. I also like Velvia colors :-)</p>

<p>I am also trained in accounting. It depends, it's not just no.'s they need to think about non financial stuff as well and if they would adversely impact onto their image. But in terms of no.'s, it might not be just growth. Growth yes but so what. How much profitability is that really, if they ditch their film dept what can they do better. What is the focus of the company?</p>

<p>Kodak maybe supported Kodachrome for so long b/c the non-financial reasons.</p>

<p>Ilford might be seen a specialist film company so for them maybe they need more calculate more emotion costs. For Fuji or Kodak. Kodak's slide might be so little that maybe they wanna pull out, I guess maybe Fuji is better in the slide film dept anyway. Most pro's afaik have pulled from film so they have lost a lot of revenue. Maybe many pro's just want a easier way to do their job to meet their clients needs. To meet, not to provide "the" best. Maybe b/c clients demand Photo CD, Online gallery, maybe they are now much pickier in terms of getting it more soon.Maybe b/c clients think digital is newer so that must be better so they want their work taken by a digital camera. Maybe b/c film costs have increased and clients don't wanna pay for it. Maybe a lot of pro's now switched to digital so finding quality staff can be hard. Maybe Kodak have other things they want to get into, I know that Fuji as I heard gets into printery or commercial printery.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>> lomography.com</em><br /> OK, so according to your numbers (260,000 users) if every Lomographer used just 1 roll of film per week that would be 13, 520,000 rolls per year, which is circa 80% of yearly film sales in the US. And the sites mentioned by you cannot possibly represent 80% of all film users, so something is not right with these numbers, eh?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're not right because you have not read what I've written. You're mixing up numbers.<br>

I've given the numbers from the market research published in the European magazine. More than 1 million low fidelity photographers worldwide shooting about 30 rolls p.a. on average. That is what the market researchers have evaluated.<br>

About 125,000 are registered on lomography.com. And there are lot's of groups for that photography style on flickr, too. In total there are millions of pictures from these photographers online, therefore you can easily see that your statement that these photographers only carry their cameras, but not using it is simply wrong.<br>

This community is a world wide community. On lomography.com you can browse pictures by country selection, where the photographers come from. You will find photographers from more than 50 different countries. And it are not only 'hipster snapshooters'. There are thousands of photographers there, who really do great photography with inspiring pictures. They take much better pictures than many of their critics. Therefore all this general bashing of this photo movement is very arrogant, showing a lack of knowledge.</p>

<p>"<em>Therefore all this general bashing of this photo movement is very arrogant, showing a lack of knowledge.</em>"<br /> Francois, do you have any idea how much film pros of all descriptions once burned through? If so, you'd realize that 30 rolls annually is a drop in a once-huge bucket where, for example, PJs could shoot that much 35mm in a day. Lack of knowledge, indeed.</p>

<p>Stinking "Pros" don't count as far as film goes. They never really did, since amateurs always outnumbered "pros". "Pros" were first to abandon film for digital. They want faster easier results; not necessarily quality. Flash, snap, push it out the door.</p>

<p>Pros have no place in the future of film. Oh sure there might be a handful, shooting an occasional sheet or roll, but all I ever hear is, "I use digital for work and film for personal". I don't even believe them because time is time and they tick it off like a taxi meter... losing money, losing money, wasting time.</p>

<p>It's hipsters, photo students, amateur photographers and hobbyists that will keep film alive. Pros need to just shut up now.</p>

 

<p>You're kidding, Bill. Right? Pros shot huge amounts of film. When they shifted to digital, the clock started ticking for labs since the volume pros pushed through kept it going for the amateurs. Why have "pro" labs' film services disappeared in many areas of the US and Canada? Why has cheap C-41 dev/print 35mm service nearly vanished from the mass market? You fill in the blank.</p>

<p>Bill L:<br>

I've ran around 500 rolls YTD. Granted, it is only circa 2000 frames (6x17cm, 4 frames per roll...) but a roll is a roll is a roll. So, I've managed to shoot as many rolls as 16.6 "lomographers" :-)<br>

How many rolls have you used, BTW? </p>

<p>As for "lomography" and other "lo-fi movements" I'm puzzled as to why lens, camera, film, processing and technique flaws have suddenly been elevated to the status of "art." </p>

<p>Sure, hundreds of millions in America alone subsidized film for pros. How many worldwide?<br>

You guys sure have an inflated ego about how important you are. You may be important to a pro lab (where no amateur or consumer would step foot inside) but they are all gone now. Out of business. Their egos attached to yours.</p>

<p>If I shoot 85 rolls, my typical year, then 500 = 6 of me. But that is one of you against hundreds of thousands of Lomos. And still millions of amateur film shooters.</p>

<p>How many pros shoot 500 films a year anymore? Come on, you know. A handful.</p>

<p>And certainly any numbers claimed here are just BS since it is impossible to verify. So, maybe I shoot 2.000 rolls per year! Can you prove otherwise?</p>

 

<p>OK, Bill, since "pro" is an obvious irritant, let's try "commercial" photographer, i.e., anyone who got paid to trip a shutter. Commercial photographers once used piles of film materials. If you ever spent any time in or around the industry in the 80s-90s, or even in large urban photo stores, you'd know about the sheer volume consumed. All that flowed back through the labs. No amateur I ever knew shot 20-30 rolls or 20-40 4x5 sheets <em>daily </em>as many did during those years.<br /> I'm thinking you've not paid much attention to just how far and fast demand for all film materials fell in the last ten years. That much was obvious on sites like APUG when Kodak filed for bankruptcy protection early this year. Don't get your hate-on for "pro"(commercial) photographers.</p>

<p>I am just talking about overwhelming numbers. 100 million American families shooting 20 rolls a year have got to wipe out all the volume commercial photographers contributed.</p>

<p>Maybe there were 1 billion amateurs worldwide in the 1990s?</p>

<p>How many commercial film photographers existed with those volumes? 100,000 in the US? Fewer in Europe and Asia. Maybe 250,000 worldwide? Maybe 1 million?</p>

<p>It just seemed big to you because you were inside a bubble.</p>

<p>Absolutely, 99% of those amateurs have also gone to digital. Even if 1% of amateurs remain shooting film and 1% of commercial remain shooting film, those are still overwhelming numbers.</p>

<p>By the way.. I don't have any hate on for professional or commercial photographers, film or digital. I admire them and envy their careers.</p>

<p>I am saying that their percentage of total film and camera sales and usage is much smaller than they can imagine.</p>

 

<p>The same is true with digital. Sales to professionals is a tiny fraction of the amount sold to amateurs.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>All that really matters, Bill, are US film sales reported by the PMA: a billion rolls sold 1999; just shy of 20 million rolls sold 2010. Stark enough for you?</p>

<p>20 million rolls is more than I need. <br>

I can still buy all the film I want. I can still shoot it and I can still get it processed.</p>

 

<p>Thanks for the original post, Francois!</p>

<p>Amazing how the C. Watson's of this world show up, drawn to anything good about film like flies to _. In the film forum. It's what really turns me off about this place. Do film photographers go to the digital forums and parse on, and on, and on, and........................................................................................................................................................................................... "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do film photographers go to the digital forums and parse on, and on, and on,</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Speaking as a moderator, not only do they do it, but they do it when it's off-topic. It's not limited to one "type" of photographer. I don't believe in categorizing that way, I usually do it by what people shoot, but if you are going to do it that way, the answer is "yes." Also, these are open forums. As long as people stay somewhat on-topic, users cannot dictate who can comment. </p>

<p>FYI Jeff Z, film is all I shoot--as if that really matters. The Serger Photokina "report"(sic) cited by the OP is misleading and not very informative, mostly for being light on hard data about the state of film photography. It's impressionistic and full of subjective sales rep chatter. Claims for the redemptive powers of Lomography are simply bizarre. Colbert's term "truthiness" seems a good fit here.</p>

<p>Yep, it is good to know where the ground is before attempting to stand on it with both feet.<br>

Too bad that the film sales worldwide are tanking but it is even worse to make the reality look rosier than it really is, like in the "report" in the OP.</p>

When I used to live in New York I would go into the old B&H store on W.17th st to pick up some paper, chemicals or sheet film. At the check out counter I would often see young people, probably assistants, ahead of me buying not bricks, but I guess you would say, blocks of film, like a cubic foot pile. Buying several hundred rolls of film at a time would assure they all had the same emulsion number for one thing and I assume that film was blown through rather quickly but I wonder if I would see the same today, as often.

<p><em>> blocks of film</em><br /> Yep, especially with reversal film (slide) it was important to have the same emulsion for the entire job/assignment: one could establish EI and filtration, develop a few test rolls and be certain that every roll behaves the same way.</p>

<p>Hi Bill,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How many commercial film photographers existed with those volumes? 100,000 in the US? Fewer in Europe and Asia. Maybe 250,000 worldwide? Maybe 1 million?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>250,000 commercial photographers worldwide, exactly. At least due to a statement of Hasselblad. They should know, it is their market.<br>

Current number of hobby photographers, snap shooters is almost 2 billion. So you are right that professional photographers are a tiny tiny niche in the global photo market.<br>

By the way, my two professional labs which I am using on a regular basis say that they get a significant amount of film developing and prints from professionals. Even a bit increasing lately, especially from art photographers, wedding and portrait work, travel photographers for book projects.</p>

<p>I think it does not make much sense to continue the discussion here. <strong>No one</strong> here, <strong>no one</strong> in the Photokina report on apug, <strong>no one</strong> in the FPP interviews has said all is rosy. The problems have been mentioned. All are aware of it.<br>

Fact is that Impossible Project, Lomography, Fuji, Ilford, Adox, Maco, Kodak, Tetenal, Arca-Swiss, DHW, Fotoman, Linhof, Voigtländer and some specialised film distributors have reported about stable or increasing demand for several of their product categories. And because of that several of these companies have introduced new products. And Ilford has reported increased balance sheet and profits.</p>

<p>Mr Watson and Mr Licsbanzki are saying that is all cheating and the companies all are telling lies. They would know the numbers better than the manufacturers themselves.</p>

<p>By the way, a friend of mine from the UK send me an email today about the current issue of "Professional Photographer", a printed photo magazine concentrating exclusively on professional (digital) photography. In the current issue there is a seven page report about, quote "The great Revival of Film".<br>

I don't take digital photo magazines too serious, but why should they, earning their money by digital adverts, write phantasy stories about a revival of film? Therefore, there is smoke, probably there is some fire, too.<br>

Matthew Wells from UK based AGPhotographic recently reported about increasing demand at his shop for film from both amateur and professional photographers.</p>

<p><em>> Mr Watson and Mr Licsbanzki are saying that is all cheating and the companies all are telling lies. They would know the numbers better than the manufacturers themselves.</em><br>

Hey, have a decency to spell my name correctly.<br>

As to your insinuation, there were NO numbers in the OP, just the marketing talk easy to translate into English. Got any hard numbers for 2011 or YTD? Because judging by the trends for 2009/2010 the 2012 might be a nose-dive year, perhaps less than 10 million rolls in major markets...</p>

<p>"But it's the truth even if it didn't happen." Ken Kesey, <em>One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest</em>.</p>

<p>Words to live by, Francois.</p>

<p>Thank you, Francois, for the link. A very interesting article indeed. All I see are plain facts and no 'spin'. Well, I hope so. :-)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Lomography sell about 500,000 cameras p.a.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>WWWWWHAT. That's many more than I thought. Are you sure??</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>As for "lomography" and other "lo-fi movements" I'm puzzled as to why lens, camera, film, processing and technique flaws have suddenly been elevated to the status of "art."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is not a fair comment. Some Lomography cameras are not lo-fi. They may not be Leica-good, but more like decent-zoom-good. I will agree that some of the cameras are overpriced, even if cool. The La Sardina is a beautiful looking camera which takes nice enough images, but it's too much money. The Belair OTOH is very good value IMHO.</p>

<p>Also, too many people spend too much time filter-wanking on the computer, whatever medium they shoot, whatever software they use. Photoshop is the Powerpoint of photography. I'm not a fan of Instagram, either, or its stupid filters.</p>

<p>BTW I don't think there's any need for ISO 1600 CN films. Portra 400 is so good it can easily be shot at 1600 without pushing. 3200? You'd need to push a bit. VISION3 500T 5219 is good to almost 6400 but it costs... Maybe Kodak should package 5219 without Remjet in 35mm cassettes and call it Varispeed II. :-)</p>

<p>Due to the lower prices of 4K movie cameras such as the RED (my favourite by a long shot) I worry that nobody in film or TV will shoot 35mm after a few years. I said on the RED forums that photography film may as well retire now. I hope not, but I think it might, sorry... Still photography is different as the cost of film is not what I would describe as shocking. It's just more than digital.</p>

<p>BTW, I am passionate about some things, too. And I change my mind a lot on some things, which is not helpful, but it makes it easier to respect other people's preferences.</p>

<p>Digital beats film in most areas. But only film has 'the magic'. You don't agree with any of that? That's okay!</p>