To fight back or not to fight back?

It struck me the other day while reading a thread on the seemingly

never ending debate about digi versus film: why do none of the film

companies or film camera makers "fight back".

 

Now, I'm not suggesting that they try swimming up stream, but it

seems that they have just rolled over without any attempt to position

the sensible and indisputable differences / advantages of film

photography.

 

The most sensible debate concludes "different horses for different

courses". Certain types of shooting; types of post process use etc

arguably get superior results from film than most digital imaging

available today. Both consumer shooters and professional users can

achieve superior results with film.

 

So, why is it that dual media (digi and film) equipment and media

makers don't seem to use that in their marketing and positioning. Why

just roll over? Why not show an image made with Velvia and the same

image made with an 8mp sensor providing a clear argument?

 

Of course there is and has been an massive appetite for digi cameras

of all types and users get great benefits in many uses - but not all

uses benefit from digital imaging. Yet there is no evidence of fight

back such as "when digital imaging becomes a blur and the finest

natural details are best produced on film - our film delivers....."!

 

These fora are littered with such commentary and the obvious

conclusion is that each media has its strengths. So why not sell

film's strengths?

 

Hasselblad seems to have at least adopted the positioning statement

that it is a dual media company. But Leica just tries to defend the M

cameras in statements about its own quality or that there will be a

digi M soon or that it now has the DMR. It never seems to make well

thought out positioning/marketing statements in its promotional

material so always seems to be in technology catch up mode.

 

I just wondered if others think the same?

That's why Leica's goin to the dogs.

 

Regarding 'defending film's strength':

 

Nikon just released the F6. It may not answer your question directly, but is all I can say.

Why assume that "film camera makers" have some idealogical interest in preserving film?

With few exceptions, most also sell digital cameras, which are among the "hottest"

consumer products on the market today. Companies are in it for money. Leica, for

example, isn't rolling over but rather, trying to survive in a changing world.

 

Regarding the advantages of film, I suspect that these appeal to a very small segment of

the market, not enough to justify an ad campaign like the one you proposed. Just my

opinion.

But it is all about different use!

 

Last saturday I shot at one of our first open air parties this year. Although it was a bit cold I knew I'll shoot with focal lengths from 17 to 300 mm and that I'll get some hundred pictures on that evening.

Different lighing on a stage, two dancefloors and the space around the pool, groupshots in crowded areas and isolated people in the middle of the pool.

Of cause I took the dSLR for it!

Simon, I think a majority of people just want to "take a picture" and see it (most don't bother to print it) - and digital let them do that in the quickest and "easiest". Also the majority of people will not see the "Leica" glow too. :-) Best for Leica to position themselves as "For those who care about their photos ... consider Leica" - Forget the film/digital duo branding as many people still see "film" as somewhat outdated (ie. inferior/slow). Having said that, It would be suicidal for Leica to compete in the mass market against the likes of Nikon/Canon.

Hmm...

 

"Leica -- for when it matters"

Today the consumer electronic companies are the shepherds. You either join their flocks or die. Leica, Agfa, etc, are dying. Who cares? Just keep using whatever you like using until the bitter end. ;*)

Isn't that more than a tad better than "Your point of view"?

Poor quality consumer processing killed consumer interest in film. They think they can make better prints on some home printers. Some can, but most can`t.

 

Then there is the issue of processing costs. If you don`t like it, don`t print it.

 

Camera companies can make a new model digi every 6 months and sell it. A lady in a local store was absolutely HOT to trade her 6 pixel in for soon to be released 7 or 8 something or other. I just smiled.

 

What nobody realizes is the time involved in decent home printing. Now you have to get a file to Fuji store some way or other. Ritz does have a nice file transfer program so I scan my negs, and send them to Ritz for proofing. When enough work has been accumulated, I open the darkroom which nobody has space for anymore.

Digital is perfect when you only get one keeper every 50 shots. I gave a digicam to Tim, my 5 year old, for Christmas - he shot 189 pics on the first day! Several days later, he asked me when his prints would be ready. I explained that we would just print his best shots, which he accepted. Lucky me - who wants 47 pics of the Christmas tree.

 

Several months ago, Tim asked for a real camera like Dad's camera. I told him that a Contax IIIa and Zeiss glass was not in the budget. But I did find him a nice little Olympus Trip 35 zone focus camera. He loves it! And we discussed how he only uses it for the photos that really matter, when he wants to take his time and really compose his shots.

 

So, sometimes digital is best for experimentation. But when Tim is serious, he pulls out his film camera.

 

Robert

But your question shows a lack of appreciation and porportion in light of obvious history. The <i>fact</i> is, 35mm film isn't nearly as good as 120 film, in it's various final dimensions, and there is also an obvious and clear advantage to LF quality. The simple answer has already been staring at us ever since 35mm cameras came on the scene: Convenience!

Only one way to get the market back interested in film as a long term proposition. Convince tens of millions of people to dump their digital cameras permanently and buy back into film and film based cameras again.

 

Even at the slightly more 'elevated' level of consumer DSLRs, Canon and Nikon were producing 80,000 + units per month, each, for the last year (2004/5 figures. Maybe even more now.) for the D70 and EOS300D/350D models. Over a year that is roughly 2 million new DSLR users. Add on the pro-sumer models like the 20D and the pro DSLR models and all the DSLRs sold by other companies (Olympus, Minolta, Pentax etc) and that is an awful lot of new SLRs. How is any company going to be convinced to make a case for film against trends like that? The Nikon D70 is the biggest selling Nikon SLR ever. It has only been around just over a year. That is only the market for keen amateur SLR users, a niche.

 

If people here want Leica to somehow force back this 'tide' then I think that is a fantasy.

When Leica are shifting 80,000 + units a month of anything they make (whether digital or film based) then they will have enough clout to influence the overall market, maybe.

 

Digital has already left 35mm behind in absolute image quality so the quality argument will not work on anyone who has used both media to their respective limits.

There is a market, but no offerings for a

 

1) manual focus

2) rangefinder

3) mass market (inexpensive)(CV value proposition)

 

and optionally

 

4) interchangeable lens

5) modular back (allows future chip and image processing upgrade)

 

digital camera.

 

But Leica won't be the one offering it (too stoopid to think clearly). Bye bye Leica.

 

This camera will arrive when N,C,P,KM have completely saturated the market with DSLRs and digicams and have to pursue the long tail*.

 

* Search in google. By the 90s, they were. That's why you saw the Contax T2, Hexar AF, Hexar RF, Contax G, CV and the FM3a appearing on the market. Then digital appeared and they were saved.

If you are a company that makes film cameras and digital cameras, you can't say things like: "Film, for when it matters." Because then you've told everyone to just ignore all your digital models. Does a car manufacturer put down its own $20K car when it advertises its $45K car? No. Most ads treat them as separate and distinct lines. Just what the film and digital camera companies do. Move on, take some photos.

Take a major 'film' company like Kodak. They determined that they made most of their money from making prints for consumers.

The 'professional' market was never large enough to support a major corporation and so everything rested on the shoulders of the casual snapshooter with a cheap point and shoot taking 'snaps' on their holidays.

 

It became obvious that with digital's marketing push to the consumer market, that the technology was making inroads and eroding the photo industry's revenue base. Kodak discovered, also, that consumers with digital point and shoot cameras took far MORE shots than consumers with film point and shoot cameras. What they needed was to find a way to convince the new digital user NOT to print at home but to bring their 'digital film' to a Kodak kisok to make thier prints. This would shield the user from the 'complexities' of needing to use a computer...AND they could charge just as much per print as they used to with traditional film technology. The users weren't saving any money..in fact...because they took MORE shots they were also printing MORE and they were getting enlargements made...something that rarely if ever happened with their film shots.

 

There was real $$$$ to be made printing digital shots and, it was natural that the corporation (who have an obligation to their stockholders to make money and NOT to support a specific technology) have followed the cash and have made every effort to exploit the digital printing market.

 

What I find amazing is that despite the obvious fact that digital printmaking now has the revenue generating potential to support a major corporation like Kodak that people still persist in the claim that digital is 'free'. Where is the money coming from if it isn't from the digital users? Also, there must be a lot MORE money coming in from digital than there is from film which is why there is a shift from traditional processing and print making to digital 'processing' and print making. The product is the same...an image on a piece of paper...but there is money being made and it MUST be coming from the digital users...so how could it be 'free'? They are paying...and paying big time...but they just don't know how much because they are enamoured with their new toys.

 

Guess what will happen to the market when Apple releases their iPod digital camera?

I suppose there was similar hand-wringing in the 70's during the transition from slide-rules

to electronic calculators...

Actually, Brad, there was a certain beauty to slide-rules, and I kept mine. They require, and lead you to, an understanding of maths that calculators simply bypass. I think there's a quite a good parallel there. Slide-rules aren't better, and in many ways they're bloomin' awkward and limited, but they aren't useless. I had to use mine just the other evening when I couldn't find a calculator.

To Robert Budding - I like your thinking. I presented both my kids with digital P&S units in recent months. My son, an aspiring artist on too many levels, likes to use his to shoot stills of his clay figures, which in turn he views while scrolling them as quickly as possible on the back of the digicam - this is his "animation studio", and he is utterly in love it.

<p>

I can't afford to feed him 100' of film a month. And why in the hell should I slow him down because of my poverty? Kid's got ADD as it is, let him rock and roll at warp speed is my thinking.

<p>

<hr>

As for the various other remarks here:

<p>

a) Not everybody wants to be "master printer" or "photographer par excellence". Not many of us are all that concerned with, ahem, the Leica glow. I can get that with my $20 Franka Rolfix 6x9 with the coatings rubbed off.

<p>

b) Film, contact prints in the sun on paper, asphalt plates, CMOS chips - who cares how it gets done provided it gets done? To the person who made the comment about film capturing all of nature's details... what a load of tripe that one wheelbarreled into the thread. I could argue it further, but it's pointless to argue with anybody afflicted with such a livid case of myopia.

<p>

Pick yer poisons and start framing compositions. If you got deep pockets, buy yer Leicas til the cows come home and keep yer dear Leica alive and kicking into the future. Otherwise, don't be surprised when companies go tits up due to lack of income - nobody promised anybody an enternity in business. Your wanting it to stay alive doesn't have much to do with it. Dollars and cents.

<p>

For the record, I shoot film and digital as I see fit, or as my limited budget can manage. I struggle with film and digital - there are shots where I had only the Fuji S5000 on me and I curse every saint in sight for not having my Yashica Lynx 5000 loaded with home-rolled Tri X! And so it goes. We keep after it.

<p>

I've been shooting less than 2 yrs now, and I am hungry to experience/learn as much as I can as quickly as possible. It burns me to see such pointless discussions as this one.<p>

And finally, in pointed manner of answering Simon's question:<br>

<i>But Leica just tries to defend the M cameras in statements about its own quality or that there will be a digi M soon or that it now has the DMR. It never seems to make well thought out positioning/marketing statements in its promotional material so always seems to be in technology catch up mode.</i><p>

Greed, Simon. Greed and lack of concern. Companies fall victim... hard to look at them as victims... companies find their ruin in the selfishness of company directors, every day, every week, every month, forever it seems. Like the heavy drinkers who somehow feel surprise at the diagnosis of liver damage, it never ceases to amaze me.

The last time I looked at <I>American Cinematographer</I> magazine Kodak was

running these drop-dead gorgeous two-page ads for film. The jist of these advertisements

was that film is best (vs HD video) for film makers. So, I'm a little surprised that Kodak

hasn't done something similar with (at least) the pro market. Dunno. On the other foot, I'm

surprised Kodak hasn't come out hot-n-heavy in the CF card market. Seems like a natural.

Does anybody know what Kodak <I>is</I> doing?

"Does anybody know what Kodak is doing?"

 

--Looks to me like they are marketing digital products and getting out of film. EPP100 now costs $15.00 a roll. K25 is gone. Kodachrome is going altogether. Kodak paper is gone/going. I think they want out.

And if so, good on 'em. Somebody there finally woke up and said: "Hey man, we're in deep shee-it here. Time to dump the tea overboard and start rowing."<p>

Maybe they will survive intact. Other film sources exist - I shoot Fuji, Efke, etc., whatever I can get my hands on. It's not the end of it all.

Big market players bet on the future, not the past. If today you're still using 35mm film, you're probably just taking pics of your grandkids. That's okay, but even you will soon catch up. No, don't tell me you refused indoor plumbing too.

Unfortunately, to the extent that the majority of people who use cameras (both digital and

traditional) never get beyond viewing the results of their efforts and those of others in

venues other than emails/print media/desktop printers - who in other words aren't

generally familiar with the experience of viewing well crafted photographs in a gallery

setting - nor are they familiar enough with "the process" to have a true appreciation of the

potential that film offers over digital, not just in terms of absolute image quality, but in

the more subjective qualities facilitated by the "older media" in its arguably more visceral

(wet darkroom) approach - digital wins.

 

To be sure, I have seen some very lovely, well crafted, and thoughtful digitally captured

and digitally printed photographs, but until I can have a "digital experience" similar to that

which I have while viewing, live and up close, original works by those like Adams, Bullock,

Weston, Caponigro (the elder!), etc. (dinosaurs? I think not!), I'm not removing any

darkroom plumbing. And until I can have a "digital experience" similar to that which I

have while photographing with my Leicas, my Rolleiflex, or my view cameras, these will

remain also.

 

Case in point: I photograph in Ethiopia every year for a foundation - using two Leicas and

one Canon digital. Try as I might, I cannot duplicate the feel, in the actual imagery, of the

Leica photos. But the digital photos serve their (foundation website) purpose. The Leica

photos go well beyond this, but their relative lack of convenience (in getting them to the

"end use" stage) means that they don't go onto the website, but instead onto gallery walls,

where I will argue they are much more effective and impactful, although much less widely

seen.

 

So for me, so far, the strength of digital is that it "serves a purpose," but I'm not holding

out for any digital epiphanies.

 

But back to "unfortunately." In the arena of electronic/print media/advertising/commerce,

digital is so much more convienient, efficient, and cost effective than film - and thus large

companies like Kodak are virtually not only forced into this market, but are also forced to

divest themselves of efforts to further evolve "traditional" technologies in order to stay

competitive - which is truly unfortunate because I, for one, don't believe that traditional

technology has yet matured.

 

The other "unfortunate" is that we have an up and coming generation of photographers

who will never become familiar enough with "tradition" to fully evaluate for themselves

which of these media best serves what purpose. But having said this, I think there is still

hope - in that those of us old enough to be "steeped in tradition" can take responsible

roles in passing these traditions along to the new generation of photographers.

 

For over twenty years I've been teaching photography workshops to the Dartmouth college

communtiy, and to this day these remain film camera/wet darkroom based. To this day

also, even with the majority of my students also owning and using digital cameras, these

students prefer their film cameras. Why? Its because nothing matches the excitement and

depth of experience offered by traditional cameras and wet darkrooms. The magic of the

image popping out before ones eyes in a tray of chemistry simply cannot be duplicated by

an inkjet printer - nor can the feeling of empowerment and "ownership" of the artistic

process be so deeply felt, and in such a visceral, holistic manner, by using anything other

than traditional materials. And don't just ask me about this - ask the over fifteen hundred

students I've taught since the advent of digital technology. And believe me, while by

reading this others may conclude that I'm merely indoctrinating my students - nothing can

be further from the truth.

 

My conclusion? That we need to truly embrace both digital and traditional technologies

for what they TRULY offer each one of us - whatever this embrace entails in terms of time,

cost, and relative convenience - industry "trends" be dammed!

I wonder how many of us would go digital today if we did not already have the investment in film stuff?