Future of Film

Did anyone go to the LF conferance and hear what the film companies

had to say about the the outlook for film. I have heard some rumors

that everything is still pretty strong in large and medium format. I

would assume if Fuji is still developing films that they are not

seeing a reduction in sales. What is everyone's thoughts on this?

Ian

I only have one piece of hard evidence right now from Fujifilm's Director of Marketing Communications. RVP 100 (the "new" Velvia, not to be confused with 100F) will be available in LF (4x5 cut, QL, and 8x10) immediately upon launch, so they clearly are thinking this is an important market segment.

<p/>

Until a digital back comes along that is cost-effective and usable for shorter exposures, LF film won't be going away anytime soon, IMO.

<p/>

-D<p/>

<a href="http://coyoteimages.com">Coyote Images</a>

Kodak is still making 8mm movie film. When was the last time anyone even saw an 8mm movie camera. But it seems there's still a market for it.

 

So I would not worry about the future of film. There will be a consolidation (already started), some know brand may disappear and be replaced by another. And traditional photo store will have a hard time just to survive. But now I'm buying my film supplies over the internet, so i'm not worried at all.

 

Digital camera sales are about to taper off. Olympus recently reported its first financial loss in several years and is proceding with layoffs. And what I've been noticed recently is that some digital camera users are now acquiring film cameras. Dont know how long this will last but to me, it's a sign that something is still missing with digital.

 

Have you looked at the different alternate photographic processes that are still available today ? And even Ilford has annonced plans to re-enter the film plate business.

 

Like Yogi said...

Film company reps are nothing more than civilian politicians. In a room full of large format photographers they will say film is here to stay. We are investing in new film, coating, production and oh yeah, Tri-X in readyloads in 4x5 and yeah, yeah, 5x7 too.

 

Then it's back to Rochester, Japan or England and it's cut, slash and burn.

 

It's up to the little guy with the mail-order business that will keep film and paper alive.

I actually believe myself that film will most likely be around for a long time just maybe in more limited use.But on the other hand I also have heard that a lot of people that got started with digital are now venturing into film, maybe digital technology has just developed a curiosity for people to try film. Large formats may even increase in use in the near future. I just was intersted in what these people are saying. Thanks

Ian

I use 8mm movie film all the time. You can't buy new cameras but i if you buy a good used one it will last for years. The wind up ones are the best. I bought a couple of Bolex 8mm form the 1950's and they work like a champ.

I had to leave Springfield early, and I missed that last session.

 

I think Steve Simmons reported in one of the fora that the manufacturers who were represented all essentially said the same thing - they wanted to maintain the status quo, but their ability to do so depended on photographers doing their part by buying the product.

 

My opinion (which ain't worth a whole lot) is that there is going to be a shakeout, but there will be survivors who will continue to make film. However, the price of that film is going to increase. I think it is likely that there will also be a reduction in the number of product offerings, with redundant products and products with low market share (like SFX) disappearing.

As usual I'll take the Devil's advocate position on this: <B>Film will disappear -- someday.</B> Digital imagery will continue to improve, and eventually there will be a point where film-based photography has such a small user base that no company will make the investment to manufacture film. This will be a result of what our society calls "progress."<P>

But who can say when that will be? I'd feel awfully dumb if I wasted the opportunity to participate in this anachronistic art of ours. I'll be shooting until film goes away, or until I do...

If film goes away, I'll switch to paper negatives. If paper goes away, I'll figure something out with Platinum/Paladium. If that goes away, I'll be old and dead and gone anyway. Long live traditional large format black and white!

I say...let's all quit shooting film. That'll show `em! Eventually they'll quit making film and we'll quit trying to enforce our beliefs (or wants) that film'll never go away. Theeennnnn, we can sell our film equipment on eBay for huge profits and really get one over on `em.

 

Seriously though, I'm 51 and forsee affordable digital backs for both MF and LF before I'm gone. I still shoot film and, once in a blue moon, use my digital SLR and, as soon as I can afford a Canon EOS 1D MkII I'll dump my 35mm film cameras and make the switch but, it'll be awhile before I can get a digital back for my 4x5. I'm a firm believer that film is going away...no matter what format. That includes B&W too.

Well, considering that many pro E-6 labs are having their best year in quite a while, I'd say

there are some interesting things happening in the film/digital "war." Here are some

reasons why I believe film will continue to have a relatively strong market, at least among

professionals and many serious amateurs:

 

- Digital is hardware intensive, nebulous (i.e. no truly stable archival media - even memory

cards go corrupt in-camera with surprising regularity), and time consuming to archive

properly in a way that provides good retrievability, especially over time as storage media

and file formats change. This scares the heck out of many pros I know, including Frans

Lanting, Jack Dykinga, etc. It's comparatively easy on the other hand to archive film. Even

scribbling "Yosemite, June 2005" on a box of slides stuck on a shelf in a closet ensures

that you'll be able to track down an image in decades. With digital, in order to ensure that

you'll be able to access your 2005 vintage camera raw files in the year 2050, you'll have to

periodically update and backup all of your image files to new file formats and media as

computer and software technology progresses. Does anyone still have a SCSI-compatible

machine that they can read their old Syquest discs on? No? They were state of the art in

1993! All the while, one has to worry whether they've made backups of everything on the

off chance that unbackedup image data doesn't simply corrupt and go "poof" (yes, I know

film degrades over time, but it doesn't tend to simply disappear). When you are talking

tens or hundreds of thousands of images, that's a lot of time, effort, and expense just to

keep the image archive accessible.

 

- A 4x5 sheet of Fuji Velvia can capture the equivalent of about 1.5 gigabytes of data.

Smaller, 35mm and medium format style digital cameras will probably never be able to

achieve this due to limits in lens resolution. Until there is a self-contained digital back that

can capture, preview, and store many GB of high-quality image files without being

tethered to a computer, film will remain the practical and elegant solution for view camera

photographers.

 

- My Nikons made in 1983, 1990, 1997, and 1999 are each capable of making the same

high-quality image. With digital, photographers get locked into a computer-industry-style

obsolescence rate, in which they feel considerable pressure to upgrade expensive gear at a

ridiculous rate in order to stay competitive or keep up with the Joneses. I feel that

frustration with this may result in some photographers returning to film after the novelty

of digital wears off.

 

- Because there are no real standards for digital color management among photographers,

many publishers and other clients often specifically request film because they get a

reasonably predictable standard of image quality and have more control over the finished

product. I know a number of working photographers who thought they were being clever

switching entirely to digital but have been frustrated that many clients still want film.

 

- And last but not least, there's the issue of dirty sensors. This is probably the number one

technical problem that digital shooters bring up in our photography workshops. People

constantly moan about the repeated trips their cameras have made to Canon or Nikon to

have the sensors cleaned, and those who have been brave enough to clean the sensors

themselves describe mixed results. It is amazing to think that many photojournalists who

have to shoot digital for their work consider it a reasonable solution to dedicate one zoom

lens to each body and tape around the lens mount to seal them. To me this points to a

massive problem with the technology.

 

Personally, until there exists a digital camera as compact and lightweight as a Nikon F100

with the image quality at least as good as a 100MB drum scan from Fuji Velvia, a sensor

that doesn't gather dust like a magnet, and some kind of truly stable archival medium, I'll

stick with film, thank you very much. Yes, digital has some compelling advantages,

particulary for wire service photojournalists and as a learning tool, but film remains an

elegant solution to many photographic problems.

 

My best to all (including the digital shooters among you, of course),

 

Justin Black

Mountain Light Photography

Bishop, CA

"Film" encompasses quite a broad area - black and white, color, 35mm, medium format, large format, ultra-large format, xray, movie, etc. etc. Clearly some types of film will disappear from the market, more and more as time goes on. Since excellent black and white prints can be made digitally from color film, so that now a choice between the two isn't necessary, and since color is clearly more popular than black and white, I'd guess that black and white film in all formats but especially 35mm and medium format, will go first. Then of course the more specialized types of color film, e.g. 8x10, ultra-large, etc. But as long as there are millions of film cameras out there somebody will figure out a way to make a profit selling film for them. Whether it will be the kind we use, who knows. If an affordable ($3,000 or less for me) 4x5 digital back came along with the quality I get from film and no major downsides I'd buy it in a heart beat but I don't know if the potential market is big enough to provide incentives to develop such a back.

Justin,

 

I do have a Syquest drive attached to my computer's scsi port. I can read my SYQUEST disks from 1988. But I don as all the data is still on the hard drive.

 

Both my scanners and tape units are SCSI 50 pin.

I appreciate your comments and sound points Justin -- lately -- I have been shooting a lot of digital -- Since my camera is at canon again to have the sensor cleaned, I am considering a film eos to go along with the several dandy lenses I have been using on my digital -- just so I will always have something to shoot. I think there may be a good argument that a digital camera (with interchangeble lenses) might be ready to be a professional tool in a clean room -- but it's nowhere near the robust performer that my 4x5, my 45 year old Mamiya, or my Canon F1N is. 10 days on the road with the camera shooting outdoors and invariably the sensor becomes ugly.

 

The tether to the computer is really problematic -- because I don't camp nearly as much any more, needing that motel to recharge all my batteries. This means that photography isn't as moch fun. I am considering a wilderness trip of 12 days -- I know look at my 4x5 and my canon F1n and come to the conclusion that it's easier and cheaper to buy film -- with increased reliability -- than enough flash cards and rechargable batteries to support a lengthy trip.

 

Personally -- I think the film market will stay strong for some time, simply due to the difficulties with the digital format. We all know that the technology will improve -- but I think it is going to take a while before these issues are resolved. Film has a look and feel in the finished product that is distinct and different from digital -- and despite a considerable effort to get equal results with digital -- I think film is still better.

 

One of the things to consider -- is that digital isn't necessarily going to replace film - but rather it may divide and expand the niche that photography once occupied, much in the same way that photography did with the niche that painting occuppied. They will coexist. So don't throw away your film backs just yet. The arguement need not be about which -- and should really be a conversation about both.

 

Incidently -- there is a past thread here that discusses a Kodak anoumcement that indicates they are moving away from their reliability on the film market. I think the original Kodak press release mentioned the current size of the film market -- and I don't think anyone is going to turn their back on that just yet.

"Digital is hardware intensive, nebulous (i.e. no truly stable archival media - even memory cards go corrupt in-camera with surprising regularity), and time consuming to archive properly in a way that provides good retrievability, especially over time as storage media and file formats change."

 

FUD. Do you really want to compare the time/cost of archiving 10,000+ images on dual DVD-R sets and a backup HD to creating 30,000+ duplicate negatives? Because if all your film is in one location with no copies it's not nearly as safe or archival as my images. Fire, flood, earthquake, landslide, etc. can all destroy your work in an instant. For my archives to fail, events sufficient to destroy a fire proof safe would have to occur in two different locations nearly simultaneously.

 

Memory cards *rarely* fail. Firmware problems may lead to a corrupted file, but the hardware in a memory card is very resiliant. They've survived, images intact, when cameras have been shattered from drops and other accidents.

 

"With digital, in order to ensure that you'll be able to access your 2005 vintage camera raw files in the year 2050, you'll have to periodically update and backup all of your image files to new file formats and media as computer and software technology progresses. Does anyone still have a SCSI-compatible machine that they can read their old Syquest discs on?"

 

You can put a SCSI card in any PCI equipped PC.

 

I suppose sometime between now and 2050 my archive will move from DVD-R to something else. But I doubt I'll translate anything. Even if TIFF and JPEG change (which I doubt), they are well documented with tons of available open source code. They'll be readable long past 2050.

 

AFAIK the Canon RAW format I'm using is also documented, though not by Canon. RAW needs to be resolved, but anyone truly worried about it can mass convert their RAW files to a common, open RAW format. Adobe has provided the tools.

 

"When you are talking tens or hundreds of thousands of images, that's a lot of time, effort, and expense just to keep the image archive accessible."

 

Let us know when all your neg dupes are ready to go into a safe.

 

"My Nikons made in 1983, 1990, 1997, and 1999 are each capable of making the same high-quality image. With digital, photographers get locked into a computer-industry-style obsolescence rate, in which they feel considerable pressure to upgrade expensive gear at a ridiculous rate in order to stay competitive or keep up with the Joneses. I feel that frustration with this may result in some photographers returning to film after the novelty of digital wears off."

 

FUD. My 10D makes the same high quality images today that it made when I bought it. No pressure to upgrade.

 

This argument has always struck me as odd. Let's say Canon did release a DSLR, at the 10D/20D price point, that produced images so wonderful that I became miserable about my 10D and had to upgrade. What would that mean for film? My 10D already spanks my best 35mm work. To pressure me to upgrade Canon would have to release a DSLR with MF quality at a $1,500 price point. If that happens, how much pressure will 35mm users feel to upgrade?

 

Your argument is basically this: "Digital is improving so fast that the great images coming from your DSLR today will look like 110 film compared to what's coming out in a year or two. Better stick with film *which isn't improving at all.*" ????

 

"Because there are no real standards for digital color management among photographers, many publishers and other clients often specifically request film because they get a reasonably predictable standard of image quality and have more control over the finished product."

 

Unbelievable FUD. Take a negative or slide to three different labs and you will get three different prints in terms of color balance. Take a JPEG or TIFF file to three different labs and you'll get three identical prints. They don't even have to be pro labs. The Fuji Frontier at Walmart can nail the color on your digital files.

 

If there are no real standards, then how come the Fuji Frontier prints I get back from WHCC look identical to the R800 prints made at my house, both of which match my monitor?

 

"And last but not least, there's the issue of dirty sensors. This is probably the number one technical problem that digital shooters bring up in our photography workshops. People constantly moan about the repeated trips their cameras have made to Canon or Nikon to have the sensors cleaned, and those who have been brave enough to clean the sensors themselves describe mixed results."

 

Do you really want to compare this to dirty film? Every frame of film I have scanned in my life has required significant dust spotting. I only have to deal with dust on digital at f/16 and smaller, and it's many times easier and faster than with a film scan.

 

"It is amazing to think that many photojournalists who have to shoot digital for their work consider it a reasonable solution to dedicate one zoom lens to each body and tape around the lens mount to seal them. To me this points to a massive problem with the technology."

 

To me this points to people who need Prozac.

 

"Personally, until there exists a digital camera as compact and lightweight as a Nikon F100 with the image quality at least as good as a 100MB drum scan from Fuji Velvia, a sensor that doesn't gather dust like a magnet, and some kind of truly stable archival medium, I'll stick with film, thank you very much."

 

I can name several cameras that will meet those requirements. What's your price range?

 

I don't care if you shoot film, and I think it will be around for a while. A good photo is a good photo, regardless of the medium. But spare me the digital FUD.

If film is made at all, it will be coated in rolls. It's no biggie to chop it up into sheets, put it into boxes, and sell it. No special backing paper to worry about, no cassettes, no tape, darn little labor. Thus, IMO, LF film will be the "last man standing", both because of the nature of the product, and the difficulty of coming up with a solid state alternative.

A lot of the 35mm amateur photography is digital as is the medium format , the film companies considered that their gravy . but what I see is that any LF equipment offered for sale has many prospective buyers in auctions you could believe these are collectors but then you see that all the utilitarian accessories sell as well you have to wonder.

So I believe the future for LF film is ensured for the long run however companies who consider that too small of a market might discontinue some emulsions, other more boutique type companies are appearing in Europe.

 

It is very difficult to establish the actual usage of the film but I believe in the LF the usage is way up from a couple of years ago and will be larger than it was.

 

Who are these users

 

1) pros who use LF solely ( small niche market) 2)pros who use various film formats and digital much larger market 3) pros who use LF for their personal work ( considerable market)4) amateurs who use LF for their personal work ( the largest market and getting larger).

 

So Ian you want reassurance and it is understandable.

In the same manner in which you are concerned whether film will be made film companies are curious as to whether you will want it.

 

the reference I made as to equipment going from grandpas attic to new owners is an indicator of a huge resurgence of LF which is not easily measurable because these new buyers are on their first steps and unlikely to be as outspoken and obviously more curious than you as to whether film will be made.

 

I think if we notice that all these LF cameras /holders/etc are being acquired we have to assume that people either find them to be inexpensive decorations or most these people will use some film.

 

A lot of people are realizing that "Digital" is more of a storage convenience after experimenting and a few years of working with it many of the most established and the novice alike are slowly starting to find ways to use both film and digital for different reasons.

 

I think you could compare the issue of gas and electric cars since film is also made out of oil and digital is somewhat electronic . will the gas engine be obsolete? sure but not in your (creative lifetime ) it will be a transition so will be the case with film.

 

In the urgency to obtain resolution because we seem to have to have resolution it has to be one or the other except I don't believe it is going to work like that .

 

There are those who used LF for ages for certain reasons and now their gear is being obtained by a new generation seeking new frontiers and adapting the old to the new .

 

Nobody is pushing LF and yet it is flourishing , it isn't needed anymore and yet it is sought voluntarily . That sounds good to me.

I checked this thread because it was in the Large Format forum and had a title of the "future of film" and made mention of some inside information from heads of industry. Somehow, it degenerated into another flame war.

 

Crap, I haven't checked Photo.nerd in quite a while and I see that these debates are still raging strong. These tired debates remind me of the nerds back in university sitting around arguing whether Captain Kirk was a better captain than Captain Picard. Hint: who cares. Personally, I think they should re-name Photo.net to the "Canon DSLR forum" cause God knows photographic technique discussions are all but non-existent around here these days. I guess newbies are only interested in which DSLR and kit lens to get so they can one-up their neighbor. Photo.net a washed up 'ol hack?

I still think these different image formats -- are more different than alike -- both are viable and useful in different situations

 

A recent post here poses an interesting point of view that supports this from seasoned profesional -- I really want to jump into this flame war and argue about digital having huge storage problems -- yeta- yeta - yeta... am resisting.

 

While I agree with Justin -- I also agree with Daniel.

 

What I really like is this article in the NY Times about David Burnett -- and what he says in it.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CUFj

 

A major change has occurred in photography -- but that doesn't mean film is dead -- it means that digital photography is alive. It doesn't mean that film will stop being manufactured and used. Digital is better in many cases -- film is better in many others. The size and scope of your tool set has improved. The world changes -- change with it. Digital is a pain -- and a delight -- so is film.

 

I find it ironic there is an ad on this page for a nikon S1 -- pocket sized 5mpx digital -- smaller than my light meter and easier to carry than my polaroid back -- and cheaper than both. Maybe I should carry it instead of my meter with my 4x5. My canon s70 -- takes a 7mpx image and will record voice notes -- and fits in a coat pocket -- and has evaluative metering -- which is much better than my calculations. I can determine the exposure and image with it -- take verbal notes -- and shoot my wista -- based on that.

 

Like you Mr. Landry -- I am reminded of my past -- when I was in grad school -- there was a perpetual argument about art vs. craft -- i.e what is art? frankly -- do we need to make a distinction? -- Who cares? The historians can sort that out if we manage to take any decent pictures.

 

s

Mr. Landry or should we call you Andreas Feninger?.I agree that preoccupation with statistics is non event but perhaps if you wish to step up to a more intimate and personal opinion as photographic technique you can start your own discussion with a question which interests you rather than being abusive towards others.

 

I have to agree that too much concern over statistics overshadows what is of essence . I personally feel that original vision and creativity is more important than technique and would place these statistics which annoy you as being the least important.

 

If you see that things should take a turn for the better I encourage you to help make it possible yourself.

 

If supplies and gear is ground floor to you and that is too low of a level perhaps one should consider that these statistics are sort of impersonal and if people get subjected to abuse about what they don't really care about, they are less likely to share something intimate as would be their personal research or aesthetic preferences.

 

I have been an active contributor and consultant and assistant for photographic technique to some of the world leading photographers for 20 years and I look forward to seeing your future efforts to help photo.net with your knowledge of photographic technique.

wow -- this is too personal folks -- your not doing photography any justice here -- or doing anything to encourage newbies to the trade ...

in europe some new companys are standing up and extending production of sheet films. efke/foma/maco....

So when the big players leave the scene, the smaller ones will take over.

If you're thinking of buying a 35mm (yuk) camera then just buy it. You can get the things for almost nothing these days and if film for it disappears tomorrow, so what? There shouldn't be the need for a big debate about the merits of film vs digital, excellent cameras of both types are readily available for little money (and that "debate" was totally boring five years ago, there's no word in the English language that can adequately describe how utterly inane it is today).

Gentlemen:

 

The world of business operates on the Offer/Demand priciple.

 

Please, keep on buying lots of film and you will see that film will be there forever.

 

Film today is cheaper than ever, so there is no excuse not for purchasing more of it. Chemistry is at the same price as in 1975 !!!

 

That is my $0.02 worth.

I live in a neighborhood crawling with tourists. They all have digital cameras. I can't remember the last time I saw a film camera on the street that wasn't in my own hands.

 

Isn't low-end consumer the dominant market? Doesn't everybody carry a cel phone? Why would anybody carry both a cel phone and a camera when they can carry one cel cameraphone?

 

Last year I asked at my local pro lab how film business was doing, and the reply was that film was fine. I asked again this year and the reply was that business was off, basically supported by weddings & portraiture, since film produces better skin tones. (How long will that remain the case?)

 

The death of film is accelerating. I have started shopping for a film freezer.