Young people flock to film

Discussion in 'Film and Processing' started by randrew1, Mar 11, 2013.

  1. Heard that same broadcast. It was interesting to hear the similarities to my pet theory about why retro digital effects are so popular - that same longing for nostalgia by proxy.
    If it makes people happy, that's good enough.
     
  2. I am glad that young people taking on film. It's irony that they like it for its surprises and unpredictability and I worked on making film predictable and no surprise.
     
  3. I'll tell you. Ron. It's not just young people. Old mechanical camera's, and the film used in them, is great source of historical fun and the utilization of fundamental photography skills for kids of all ages. As I quote from a post I did a couple of years ago on one of my old Canon rangefinders, "In some ways...using these old cameras is like turning back time and living a bit of history I never knew".

    It's more than nostalgia, I think. It's about mastering the basic skills of photography much in the same way we learned, as Boy Scouts, about making fire from scratch even though we all had access to lighters. Delayed gratification can be very sweet.

    It's also one of the reasons that the Classic Manual Camera forum here is one of the most active, and most enjoyable, on photo.net.
     
  4. At least it will teach them process and discipline.
     
  5. I'm a 59 year old, and here's a list of camera's I own, and use regularly:
    Nikon F3, Nikon FA, Nikon FM3a, Contax G2, Pentax 67II, and a point & shoot digital.
    Film technology has never been this good, and its great to tune the character of the scene to the films unique characteristic. I aslo like to use film as a reference to how the scene was to keep post inline.
    The film camera's listed above are in great condition as I purposly took great care to keep them going. A couple of CLAs later life is good!
     
  6. I get a kick out of using well crafted MF SLR's from the past. They are so cheap I'm always trying out something new (but old) I develop B&W C41 and E6 here at home and a part of my hobby is the hands on satisfaction of being part of the process. Not practical for most maybe there is a signature look in a film image.
     
  7. I'm not holding my breath, but maybe that will get Fuji to bring some film back to the market. :)
    Les
     
  8. I just don't see a lot of evidence on this, actually, but that doesn't surprise me. NPR is the left's version of FOX News. I don't listen to either because I like my news to be, well, news. Not biased editorials.
    Whenever I see young people interested in my old cameras (pretty easy to do, since compared to me, nearly everyone is younger), I always let them hold them, and even take a shot of they feel confident enough. But whether or not that initial interest goes any further, I couldn't say.
     
  9. Steve, I'm not sure the purported biases of the media outlet matter. Most film related feature and opinion pieces I've read over the past few years are equally touchy-feely, regardless of the website, newspaper or magazine. Most emphasize inarguable factors such as nostalgia, pleasure and enjoyment that cannot be proven or refuted.
    To further emphasize that aspect, the NPR broadcast I heard also referred to the tactile and audible sensations of film cameras and asked listeners to send in brief descriptions of their own impressions of sounds and sensations associated with film photography. Besides emphasizing that this was not a news or even an opinion piece, just a bit of lifestyle feature filler, I suspect the producers are hoping for audio segments to use in a followup story.
    Heck, maybe Jad at RadioLab will do a segment on the sounds of film photography. He's a musical wizard with sound design. Could be fun.
     
  10. Similar vein: one of our sons got a very nice turntable (our present actually), better than our clunker. And he's picking up records, borrowing ours.
     
  11. I recently received the new revamped version of Aperture, and found it interesting that the featured portfolio was...camera porn. The Veneration of the Old. Odd how it was juxtaposed with that old go-to for lazy photo editors, Winogrand (I'm not against Winogrand, but sure they could have come up with something less safe).
    I think young people have two reasons for returning to film: 1. fashion, the same force that has brought back bell-bottoms. 2. the realization that the digital revolution has spawned both a hyper-consumer frenzy and, more importantly, the software to easily falsify the imperfections of the previous medium (imagine software which puts hisses and pops onto music tracks...), and thus the commodification of nostalgia. In the face of all that's virtual, perhaps young people yearn for something authentic, or at least more authentic than what's being offered to them.
     
  12. I teach a high school photography class and a few of the group are interested in film. I recently held a contest for the class and I gave the winning student a Maxxum 300SI with 35-80 Maxxum zoom. We've also develped film in class and made contact prints from 6x6 negatives.
     
  13. Lomography is just an attempt to "brand" film photography.
     
  14. I (we) got our first film SLR in 2000/01 when I was 22, 26 got a Nikon D70, 28 got a film SLR (F100) and more recently have shot more film than digital in terms of total frames. The digital camera have just sat there doing maybe 10 frames a month ... than all of it gets deleted, when I travel I normally only take the film camera. I did get a used D2h but sold that after a few yrs not using it much, I guess the pro nature, one of the top model cameras lust didn't get to me. I am looking at kitting myself a Hasselblad 500, I have pretty simple needs just 3 primes. For the Nikon I am happy with just two slow aperture zooms like a 18-35 and a 80-200 or 4 primes. I have now used all my slides with 6 rolls of color neg left, will try b/w film I have 2 rolls in the freezer that was given to me. I would like to replace my 135 format with 120 format. I may take a FM2N when I want a rectangle frame also.
    Even if I get a D600, it would be nice, more dynamic range, can PP, color, b/w etc .. can crop to pano, more pixels. Higher ISO can use it walkabout at night for that documentary feel but it doesn't feel/sound very satisfying. Rather push 400 b/w film and have less of a technical quality.
    To me as a hobbyist, it seems like wasting money when cameras are released all the time, while it is correct I don't need every model but my D70 is considered a dinosaur and should I upgrade every 5 or 10yrs as digital equipment are current they do cost a decent penny at least initially. While film is like picking up a coffee each time for the D+P and all that process and enjoyment one gets from it. But even the initial cost, since I don't machine gun it I may only shoot 20 rolls a year together with a second hand film camera (even larger formats), they may even be less than an average digital SLR. If I was just taking pictures at the picnic etc .. I would just use my 6MP dSLR and post it on Facebook and if anyone else wants a 6x4 or 8x12 print. I''ll email them the JPEG that they can print at the kiosks.
     
  15. All is not lost.
    At both of our universities offering courses in visual arts, the whole of year 1 photography must be done using film. Only after students master this do they then take on digital imagery.
    One would think that new students might resent this, but it's not the case. Accordingly, the same curriculum in New Zealand and Australia was harmonised in this direction, so we are now graduating students with a working knowledge of film and digital photography.
    An added bonus are the price increases for used, manual film cameras. A well worn but properly functioning Nikon FM2n will now cost you $350-400 and over $700 for an FM3a. Prices are also rising for the Canon, Minolta and Pentax equivalents.
    90% of my work is in digital, but now I can get interns or job experience students who have an up front advantage on the global visual arts disciplines and the scarce jobs are going to them.
     
  16. I just don't see a lot of evidence on this, actually, but that doesn't surprise me. NPR is the left's version of FOX News. I don't listen to either because I like my news to be, well, news. Not biased editorials.


    I think you're responding to the headline of this thread ("flock", and he qualifies the headline in the next line), not to NPR's assessment. I keep hearing about this left-bias of NPR, but I just don't hear it. I ask that a reporter give me accurate information, and NPR does that. This piece is part of a clearly-labeled series on old technologies.
    And as a photo-center shop owner (until 18 months ago), I did find that this was the thinking of the young who were still drawn to film. They kept the shop going the last few years, not the old-timers (like me).
     
  17. Further evidence: As I write this, I'm sitting in the Pho Tay district of Saigon, where a lot of the younger back-packer type tourists stay. Film cameras aren't rare here; I notice a couple every day, and as the NPR article notes, the shooters are from around the world. When I ask them about film, most just say "Film is cool." "You get some wild stuff with film," another told me. And when I see them shoot and then stow the camera before moving on, I observe (what I interpret as) a sense of satisfaction in their knowing that they cannot see what they've just created. That photograph, at least, will just have to wait.
     
  18. in part it may be the joy of taking the exposed film out of the tank and holding it to the light and seeing the image for the first time; the mechanical simplicity of a old folder even the sensation of hearing the shutter firing... http://youtu.be/BOXSPuk0-eA
     
  19. Is it ironic that Photo, Camera shops began folding in droves as digital camera's arrived?
     
  20. Rudyard Kipling, in his brilliant "Jungle Book", wrote of the Bandar-log, the monkey people. They would carry a stick around all day planning to do great things with it, but invariably would drop it and forget all their plans when something new came along. I can't help but wonder if our young people are the Bandar-log - their attention span seems short, unless of course it's walking around blithely looking at their cell phones as cars dodge them. There are lots of reasons a young person might take up film use, but the ephemeral "coolness" is not going to be much hope for future film production.
    Give me a person under 30 who uses film because he likes film, not because it's cool or retro, and I'll buy stock in Kodak and Ilford and Fuji.
     
  21. Patrick S. I use film because I like film. I'm 27. I've used it professionally alongside digital and I use it now (medium and large format) in my own work. I use it largely for the look that I can get and for the other things that I can't get elsewhere, such as shooting from a WLF with a Rolleiflex. I use it, largely, for the reasons one generally uses large and medium format, and I use the digital for the things one would largely have used 35mm to accomplish. I use film and film cameras because they are tools that help me do what I want to do with my images. I develop all of my color and my black and white on my own and I print in my bathroom or scan negatives as I decide.
    [​IMG]
    Bronica 645 ETRS Fuji Pro 400H Dev'd at home and scanned.
    When film finally reaches its point of stability -- which it will so long as there is a market -- I will continue to shoot film when I need to in order to do what I want to do.
     
  22. but the ephemeral "coolness" is not going to be much hope for future film production.​
    Absolutely agree with this. But ironically the expressions like “nobody shoots film anymore” or “films are no longer available” I can hear much more often from older people (55+) than from young ones. Many college students around my area snowing quite lively interest to film photography and gladly interacting with me telling the stories how they got his/her dad camera, bought a few rolls of film, shot it, developed them ect. The digital for many of them is just boring.
    Another irony is that that sales of digital cameras continue to decline and declines sharply. Many folks around me (my age, mid 40’s) have ditched their “so long anticipated” DSLR (roughly after 3 yrs having them) and even not talking about them anymore. But each of them might have 2 i-pads and upgraded their i-phones at least a couple times. The DSLR’s for them already look like dinosaurs. Having DSLR was just a matter of fashion or “coolness”. Now it’s gone, “the stick” has been dropped. And surprisingly or not the film sale shows quite robust and stable figures. And this is happening when the film and film photography have been left without any advertising, commercializing, without any support from our highly corrupted public media and pro photographers associations. And even without any support from film manufacturers also (I don’t think that Fujifilm is really supporting its film products).
    In my opinion to move the world of photography toward digital basically is the CIPA policy. In near future those “digital bureaucrats” probably will continue to flex their financial muscles to “digitalize” us (similar to Nikon latest announcement to outlaw photography for its 2013 photo contest. I guess Nikon can take award for most meaningless decision in history of visual art). Most likely in 5 years from now or so the digital photography will be transformed to something else (i-pad photography for example, whatever). But pretty much sure that the film will be film, and this is beauty of the film.
     
  23. Yes that is true! We the over 55 crowd do use film and are afraid of it's going away. We're afraid that it's inevitable like death.
     
  24. After I got my dSLR I went and got a 2 film cameras before I was 30 and I am now shooting more film, next would 120 not too sure about 4x5 cos I have to send them overseas to process b/c it is so expensive here. I also import film from Freestyle b/c the delivery cost is so much more cheaper than B&H.
    I don't do any of events, sports photog so the cost benefits of digital doesn't apply to me. I do a bit of night walk and about Tokyo style photography which higher ISO would be beneficial ... I may just find a workaround for that or shoot it less or differently. 400 speed slides and pushing it gets really costly. Have to say that for me, film is so much more satisfying.
     
  25. Ryan Long: That shot shows a lot of vision - you knew what you wanted to get and your film choice delivered. I wish I had half your talent!
     
  26. I hear vinyl is making a come back too.
     
  27. I'm not sure if the insinuation that young people will ditch film as soon as they get bored with it is fair. I believe that many will ditch film when something newer and more faddish distracts them, but the exact same thing has happened to the vast majority of the shooters of film of 20 years ago! So I don't think this aspect of human nature and marketing pressure has evolved.

    Witness the disdain for film that began showing up en masse on photonet about ten years ago... (and elsewhere too) It seemed that film was so uncool and these great new digicams and their electrically-controlled lenses were the long-desired way to achieve perfection! Film! Good heavens. How could we ever go back to that dinosaur of non-precision, film! Art would simply not be possible! After all, Ansel Adams said something once about electronic cameras, so that proves it.

    I'd bet that (hope that), of the kids shooting film today that never knew a world where film was king, a higher percentage of them will be shooting film in ten years than the percentage of the 'old' film shooters do today. Either way, it'll probably be a small percentage, and might not be enough to keep the film business going long-term.

    But to say that those young (and old maybe) folks newly interested in film don't really love it and will abandon it sounds to me like yet another instance of transference...

    p.s. and disclaimer - I'm (I think) in between young and old, and /never/ gave up film as the primary medium - I didn't see the benefit. I'm holding on to my books, too, and records. Despite npr and it's constant propagandizing computer-books and super-duper telephones that finally pull us into the future and make our lives ever-more dreamy and give us such connection to the world, I think - like the argument for film - that such fad- and market-driven talk is just nuts!
     
  28. There's another way of looking at it, this film kick the youngsters are on. Maybe they're trying to cultivate more self-control in our instant gratification world? It's easy to make good digital images with little skill. Great images are hard to create in either medium but with digital you can learn (and delete) as you go. With film no such thing. You have to know what you want beforehand. Vision. Getting cool random results Lomo-style isn't vision, it's luck. Kinda like that elephant that paints.
    Isn't there is a famous quote though, "I'd rather be lucky than good." ?
     
  29. C’mon Bebu! Isn't it too early to think about death when you are only 55?!
    Ray, -
    if you want to move to MF you got to do it now. The prices for MF cameras are rising skyrocketing since less and less decant shape bodies are coming on E-Bay. I did it 1.5 yr ago. I realized that Nikon is no longer the company that is going to run my photography in nearest feature. I had good collection of Nikon bodies (like F6, brand new FM3a plus more) and a solid numbers of fancy ED and Nano fast glasses. I put everything on e-bay and got a hefty pile of money. I could easily buy D4 but instead I invested in building a good MF system. I’ve got full Contax 645 system with 4 lenses and Fuji GF670. I loved it so much so that I’m currently searching for a decent body Mamyia 6 with 50mm wide angle lens. This is absolutely different world. I just blame myself that I didn’t do much early.
     
  30. "There's another way of looking at it, this film kick the youngsters are on."
    There is no such thing. This is like soccer moms that never existed. The main reason we shoot film is because we already have the gear and like working them. If my film gear magically turned digital, I would't miss film. Heck, all images posted online are digital anyway.
     
  31. Some still print because that's what we started out doing.
     
  32. Heck, all images posted online are digital anyway.​
    The main reason we shot film because we love film and the film gear now is much more affordable. Investing money in film cameras appears to be smarter thing than in digital (unless you are a wealthy professional). Yes, all pics on the web are digital but most of them are taken with low end cameras or smartphones. No many of them are good anyhow. You might spend hours workin with PS to make you image look like Portra or Velvia. But for me is just a matter of swapping the magazine or throwing anther roll into the camera.
     
  33. Roman
    You also could spend hours in PS working with HDR (high dynamic range) trying to duplicate the dynamic range of Porta or Velvia too, especially if you own a slightly older model that does not do it in camera.Digital sensors still have a few weak points compared to film.Cost will probably finish off slide film because at the current per roll cost of Velvia (approx.$9.00 US) and $15 to process it does not take long to justify a all digital workflow.I'm a film guy but it is hard to ignore the handwriting on the wall if you are young or older.I figured this would happen soon after Kodak dropped out of the game for the E6 guys.
     
  34. The film "revival" is a nano-trend. Cost is what sours it quickly after the expense and hassle of getting even a roll of c-41 35mm processed and printed, much less 120 or any E-6 material now. Very few move on to home b&w development and hybrid workflow. It takes a rare love of film to move into this survivalist territory. Some will but most won't.
     
  35. Ryan Long has the best reply as to why some young people are enjoying film and then people like Brian M. just spout off
    meaningless crap in order to feel the wonderment of playing his tune on the alphabetic keyboard.

    The young people I talk to who use film, and there are a lot more of them lately it seems all say the same things. They
    basically are sick and tired of all the hype of the digital age and want a more detached and hands on experience in their
    lives to round it out. They grew up watching their grandparents make things by hand, playing an acoustic guitar, tactile
    things. They are also very smart and educate them selves as to the history of photography, go to great galleries and are
    far more cultured than the bitter old farts on here give them credit for.

    Photo.net is a dying place, because it lacks enough of the open minded tack and vision of today's youth. If film ever dies,
    which it won't in terms of black and white, it won't be because young people don't want to use it, it will because ugly
    companies like Nikon and older photo wanabees who were never any good at shooting film in the first place can't wait to
    see it go.

    But you older folks who claim that young people using film is some high school level fad are truly killing this place.
     
  36. Sorry, Daniel, but spare us the apug.org party line. The ventriloquism stunt("The young people I talk to who use film...")isn't very convincing, either. No one appreciates the implication that young people who don't use film are idiots--nor is anyone else. Lots of people "do" photography lots of different ways; but are they not doing photography if it doesn't conform to your paradigm? Most photographers--amateurs to pros--who I know are way more ecumenical about photography and don't spout the sort of tribalism you're pushing here and elsewhere.
    We all know where demand for film products is and what brought it there. I'm tired of the fabulism and parochialism about film photography. It's fun and I enjoy it. Why insult people you don't know who disagree?
     
  37. I think there is a lack of really good market research. Everyone can post their anecdotal stories but that isn't a scientific study. A lot of what was posted in this thread is probably right to some degree. If you've been to NYC it is kind of hard to have faith in the hipster crowd crawling all over the place with plastic cameras. At the same time the alleged demise of the DLSR is a bit overstated. They were everywhere in NYC. I was really amazed. Where is it all going to shake out? Who knows.
    It's irony that they like it for its surprises and unpredictability and I worked on making film predictable and no surprise.​
    You can thank our friends over at lomography for spreading that misinformation.
    NPR is the left's version of FOX News.​
    Any proof?! Every metric I've seen says NPR is a pretty good objective news source.
     
  38. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    But you older folks who claim that young people using film is some high school level fad are truly killing this place.​

    The problem, Daniel, is that this is anecdotal and carries no weight. If you don't have some sort of statistical evidence, it's meaningless.

    I'll give you a similar example. Everyone I talk to supports gay marriage. People claiming that gay marriage are wrong are just figments of the press. I know this because I talk to a lot of people. I truly have not run into one that opposes gay marriage.

    That ignores the fact that I live in San Francisco, mostly talk to people in the performance community, and otherwise to people in the art or literary world. However, it does reflect my experience and therefore it's true.

    You see the logical disconnect? There's no point in self-selecting data. It has to come from unbiased sources or something very obvious. And what I can tell you from my experience lately is that there are almost no people using film cameras. I do occasionally see Leicas as jewelry, but there's only person I've seen using a Leica in the last year. There are probably a thousand people I have seen in the last few months using DSLRs, about half that using digicams, and about three times that, at least, using phone cams. I'm out a lot, on the street, in clubs, at tourist locations, at public events, and that's my experience. It's meaningless. The only thing that matters is independent data collected by unbiased observers.
    I have a good window into what young people are using, I have a son in college. I talk to him and his friends, I see what they are doing, and I see what the other kids on campus are doing. It's in line with what I see on the street in San Francisco, 800 miles away, but it's only my experience and it has as much relevance as yours.
     
  39. The film "revival" is a nano-trend. Cost is what sours it quickly after the expense and hassle of getting even a roll of c-41 35mm processed and printed, much less 120 or any E-6 material now.​
    Walmart send out service processes 220 C-41 for $0.84 with no prints. Honestly if people care about the art they have to spend some money. I know of no time in the history of film when it was this cheap to develop a roll of color 120 or 220. 220 E-6 is less than $6/roll. I started a thread about it late last year. If you live outside the US I don't know what to tell you.
    Certain Walmarts do not seem to return 35mm C-41 negatives. Everything else has worked out fine for me. I haven't been doing much C-41 or E-6 lately but when I ramp back up I will post some more to the thread. Send a test roll through your local Walmart and see what you get back. You may be pleasantly surprised.
     
  40. "Walmart send out service processes 220 C-41 for $0.84 with no prints. Honestly if people care about the art they have to spend some money. I know of no time in the history of film when it was this cheap to develop a roll of color 120 or 220. 220 E-6 is less than $6/roll. I started a thread about it late last year. If you live outside the US I don't know what to tell you.
    Certain Walmarts do not seem to return 35mm C-41 negatives. Everything else has worked out fine for me. I haven't been doing much C-41 or E-6 lately but when I ramp back up I will post some more to the thread. Send a test roll through your local Walmart and see what you get back. You may be pleasantly surprised."
    Glad it works for you but not everyone everywhere will necessarily get the same deal. I suspect Walmart will end this when traffic(already slow)shrinks. Just curious why you're not taking advantage of the "deal" you've gone on at such length about?
    Cost is still a deterrent for anyone with an iPhone.
     
  41. Market data:
    I've talked about it with my main distributor, who operates internationally. He has been so kind to give me the current numbers:
    1. Digital: The digital camera market has started to become in trouble over the last 12-18 months. The organization of Japaneses camera manufacturers (CIPA) had published the sales numbers of the last 12 twelve months at the end of last year:
    Digital compact cameras: - 55% (yes minus, the sales are in free fall)
    DSLRs: - 9%
    2. Film: Professional color film and BW film sales begin to stabilize (in some countries they are even a bit up). Amateur color film is still declining.
    Instant film (Impossible and Fuji Instax) is significantly increasing (in the 10 - 25% range dependant on country). Especially Fuji Instax is booming in lots of countries (primarily in Asian and European countries). The demand is so strong that Fujifilm even had to built a new factory for Instax film production in South Korea (by the way one of the strongest markets for Instax).
    Customers of Instax: Almost exclusively young people, and more than 60% of the users are young women.
    The interesting thing: All the "film is dead" people have been so convinced that instant film will of course die first, and will be the first victim of the digital tsunami.
    But now this film segment is the first which sees a real revival.
    My distributor says that about 90% of the film market is color film. Therefore he is convinced that color film will certainly survive. May be not with Kodak (we will see in the next months what will happen there), but certainly with Fujifilm and maybe another one (e.g. Agfa-Gevaert in Belgium or InovisCoat in Germany; InovisCoat is already making the color film base for the Impossible film, have a look here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw4rttFGHiM )
    Development costs: There are still enough pro lab options with reasonable costs. And we all have the option to do it by ourselves. No matter whether BW, C-41 or E6. It is all very easy and cheap to do it at home (the whole BW market is for decades surviving because of home development). My distributor told me that he is seeing significantly increasing demand for C-41 and E6 home development kits.
    In Europe in most countries professional development of C-41 and E6 is extremely cheap and widely available (mainly by drugstore chains, plus lots of smaller professional labs with mail order service).
    You even can get C-41 and E6 processing for only 0,95 - 1,85 / 2,55€ (!).
     
  42. Sorry, Francois, but this is the usual anecdotal, evidence-deficient stuff.
    In case you missed it, recession and until recently a high yen have hurt camera sales.
    No data for film production and sales. Any PMA data?
    Survivalist home processing can't even begin to reverse the secular decline in demand for film materials.
    Love the claim that Instax is so popular in the home of the Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
     
  43. Glad it works for you but not everyone everywhere will necessarily get the same deal.​
    C Watson that is not what you said. This is what you said...
    The film "revival" is a nano-trend. Cost is what sours it quickly after the expense and hassle of getting even a roll of c-41 35mm processed and printed, much less 120 or any E-6 material now.​
    A big problem is people who don't use film spreading misinformation about it. Walmart had been processing medium format and E-6 for dirt cheap for years right under my nose and I didn't even know it. If the same thing happened to you just admit it. There is no shame in that. If you have recently taken a roll of 120/220 C-41 to be developed through Walmart's send out service and they charged you $12 for developing only please post your findings in the thread I started for this purpose. If not please refrain from idle speculation. I can't survey prices on the entire planet. But I know I went to three different Walmarts across two different states in order to gather the information I posted. If you do the same and find contradictory information we would all love to see your scanned price stamps as well. That was the whole point of me starting the thread. I wanted to know the good, the bad, and the ugly. But only from people who actually took the time to send a roll. There has been so much idle speculation about that topic it was finally time for someone to do a quick, easy, and cheap test and report objective findings.
    I suspect Walmart will end this when traffic(already slow)shrinks.​
    Again that is not what you said. You said developing is expensive right now. Back tracking and making this baseless speculative statement doesn't alter what you initially said.
    Just curious why you're not taking advantage of the "deal" you've gone on at such length about?​
    Do you still beat your wife? Nice question. I just posted a link showing multiple scanned in price stamps from my trips to Walmart. What more proof do you want?

    Cost is still a deterrent for anyone with an iPhone.​
    Yes I would assume after dropping $649 on a device with built in obsolescence money would be tight.
     
  44. Dear Mr Watson, sorry, but I have to contradict:
    The data I've posted is from the CIPA, the film manufacturers and photo distributors (digital and film). Selling photo materials is the daily business of these companies, therefore that is not "anecdotical" like you said. These people know their numbers of course better than you.
    Further data (e.g. for film sales), page 19:
    http://www.showdailys.com/E-publisher/Photokina2012_day2/
    More than 300 million films expected to be sold this year worldwide.
    The CEO of IP, Mr. Kaps, currently said in an interview that IP expects to sell 1 million IP films this year (after 750,000 last year). They sold 12,000 refurbished Polaroid cameras last year, but the demand for their refurbished items has been double of that, so they can't satisfy the big demand at all and are even considering production of a complete new model. Their 'instant film lab' (making instant photos from your smartphones), introduced last Photokina, will hit the market this spring.
    In case you missed it, recession and until recently a high yen have hurt camera sales.​
    Sorry, that is wrong, because
    - there has been a recession only in some countries (like US), but not on a global scale. Asia (meanwhile the biggest market for digicams), Northern and Eastern Europe and most of South American and African countries have had no recession, but ( partly even very strong) growth
    - even in this time of the high yen (compared to Dollar and Euro and Suisse franc) the digital camera manufacturers have either hold their prices stable or even reduced their prices. Therefore price effects could not have a negative influence on sales (only on margins of manufacturers).
    Survivalist home processing can't even begin to reverse the secular decline in demand for film materials.​
    I remember a statement from the CEO of Harman technology / Ilford Photo: He said the market for BW photo film is about 15 million films worldwide, and that about 90-95% of these films are developed by the Photographers themselves, not by labs.
    So this complete segment is kept alive by home developing. As e.g. the E6 market is probably smaller than the BW market, home developing of course can contribute significantly to a long term stability of this segment.
     
  45. Jeff wrote:

    "The problem, Daniel, is that this is anecdotal and carries no weight. If you don't have some sort of statistical evidence,
    it's meaningless."

    It may not carry the weight of well executed market studies, but how it is meaningless? It may only apply to my region and
    mine is indeed very wealthy and has more than likely an even higher density of the arts per capita than even SF so
    maybe that in it self is not fair, but it is info. I doubt the increase in analog use I am seeing locally amounts to more than a
    microscopic dent in overall use, but more important than numbers, it represents a mindset change and can effect other
    changes.

    I just think it is ashame that people like "CGW" from APUG come over here under a different name and keep firing off the
    same bullets of negative info round after round. Fortunately, I do not in any way encounter people like that in real life.
     
  46. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Market data:
    I've talked about it with my main distributor, who operates internationally. He has been so kind to give me the current numbers:​

    These numbers are proof that people are capable of using statistics incorrectly. First of all, these are sales numbers, not usage numbers. With film, usage can be tracked by sales, with digital, they cannot.

    Second, this completely ignores the reason that digital compact camera sales are dropping. The reason is very simple and widely documented - phone cameras have replaced them at an incredibly rapid rate. It's a bit like people who claimed the drop in CD sales, and the drop in CD market share vs vinyl, was an indication that vinyl was having a huge resurgence. Of course, these numbers were being used deceptively as they failed to include pure digital sales.
    Third, interchangeable lens digital camera sales are increasing. "MILC" sales are now about 20% of all interchangeable lens digital cameras sold worldwide and have reached the 50% mark in Japan.
    Fourth, there's a difference between unit sales and revenue. Not surprisingly, revenue for interchangeable lens cameras have been dropping slightly while unit sales are slowly increasing.
    And fifth, there's no data on film usage other than hand waving. But back to the two biggest problems - this casts sales as usage, which it isn't for digital devices, and ignores that phone cameras are quickly killing off the digicam market.
    I would assume after dropping $649 on a device with built in obsolescence money would be tight.​
    Another misuse of data. In the US, nobody pays $649 for an iPhone. The cost gets buried in the monthly usage, which they would pay for regardless of their phone. The only part that might get cut would be data if one didn't have a smartphone, but data is something people now expect. And the camera is just part of the functionality, so nobody is paying $649 for a camera when they buy a phone.
    I might be able to find a copy or two of this book for those of you that enjoy misuse of statistics. You would probably learn a lot.
     
  47. I guess, Jeff, that the exception proves the rule. Not.
    Funny but film is what I mostly use, bro. I live in the 5th largest city in N. America and film processing worth the $ is hard to come by compared to just 2-3 years ago.
    No answers to your appeals seem to suggest few people are using film or are happy with their exploitative labs.
     
  48. Jeff wrote:
    "The problem, Daniel, is that this is anecdotal and carries no weight. If you don't have some sort of statistical evidence, it's meaningless."

    "It may not carry the weight of well executed market studies, but how it is meaningless? It may only apply to my region and mine is indeed very wealthy and has more than likely an even higher density of the arts per capita than even SF so maybe that in it self is not fair, but it is info. I doubt the increase in analog use I am seeing locally amounts to more than a microscopic dent in overall use, but more important than numbers, it represents a mindset change and can effect other changes.
    I just think it is ashame that people like "CGW" from APUG come over here under a different name and keep firing off the same bullets of negative info round after round. Fortunately, I do not in any way encounter people like that in real life."

    "Meaningless" because neither Jeff nor I or anyone one else could possibly verify anything you or the apug.org film fabulists claim. I'm OK with private opinions. It's private facts I have trouble with here or anywhere else. You're trading in private facts. "Negative info" I guess amounts to inconvenient truth, right?
     
  49. Dear Mr Watson, sorry, but I have to contradict:
    The data I've posted is from the CIPA, the film manufacturers and photo distributors (digital and film). Selling photo materials is the daily business of these companies, therefore that is not "anecdotical" like you said. These people know their numbers of course better than you.
    Further data (e.g. for film sales), page 19:
    http://www.showdailys.com/E-publisher/Photokina2012_day2/
    More than 300 million films expected to be sold this year worldwide.
    The CEO of IP, Mr. Kaps, currently said in an interview that IP expects to sell 1 million IP films this year (after 750,000 last year). They sold 12,000 refurbished Polaroid cameras last year, but the demand for their refurbished items has been double of that, so they can't satisfy the big demand at all and are even considering production of a complete new model. Their 'instant film lab' (making instant photos from your smartphones), introduced last Photokina, will hit the market this spring.
    In case you missed it, recession and until recently a high yen have hurt camera sales.
    Sorry, that is wrong, because
    - there has been a recession only in some countries (like US), but not on a global scale. Asia (meanwhile the biggest market for digicams), Northern and Eastern Europe and most of South American and African countries have had no recession, but ( partly even very strong) growth
    - even in this time of the high yen (compared to Dollar and Euro and Suisse franc) the digital camera manufacturers have either hold their prices stable or even reduced their prices. Therefore price effects could not have a negative influence on sales (only on margins of manufacturers).
    Survivalist home processing can't even begin to reverse the secular decline in demand for film materials.
    I remember a statement from the CEO of Harman technology / Ilford Photo: He said the market for BW photo film is about 15 million films worldwide, and that about 90-95% of these films are developed by the Photographers themselves, not by labs.
    So this complete segment is kept alive by home developing. As e.g. the E6 market is probably smaller than the BW market, home developing of course can contribute significantly to a long term stability of this segment.

    Your comment on the absence of recession outside N. America is astounding.
    Please tell me the dead link you posted isn't Henning Serger's 2012 Photokina "report."
    You really need to investigate what time series data are and how to use them to be credible.
     
  50. When I encounter people who use film and see perhaps more than I used to, I am not looking for facts, I am just living my
    life as a photographer. When I have my 4x5 setup on a tripod in the runout of one of the steepest and longest double
    black diamond ski runs on earth and it is mostly the young people who stop and say "Awesome, a Chamonix, I would love
    one of those, how do you like it?" while an older guy slowly schussed by and said "Stuck in the past eh?" I am not looking
    for statistics sir.

    I don't really give a crap what the stats are, I want film, especially black and white to have a fighting chance so I promote
    its use and cite any example I can when I see it happening. If you like using film and want to continue to do so, I don't
    understand why on earth you would tell the world in a thread like this that people like me who are just trying to get one
    more person to use it are fabulists. Stats or facts be damned, that is self defeating behavior.

    When an older person, my age of 45 or so and beyond sees me using a Leica, Hasselblad or my 4x5, they almost always say something negative or mostly "Can you still get film for that?" But when a younger person sees the same cameras, it is almost always things like "Wow, I like your camera!" Or "Obviously film on that one"....negative or uninformed and insecure from the older crowd, inspired and informed from the younger crowd. That is what I have personally encountered and I am almost certain I am out with my cameras more than most on here except for Jeff perhaps.
     
  51. "If you like using film and want to continue to do so, I don't understand why on earth you would tell the world in a thread like this that people like me who are just trying to get one more person to use it are fabulists. Stats or facts be damned, that is self defeating behavior."

    The reality we're in now is the product of decisions tens of millions of consumers made about film use beginning over a decade ago. Hard to deny that. Why misrepresent that reality with private facts about film production and film use that have little or no verifiable empirical basis? Labs steadily closing or withdrawing film service in my area, along with dwindling retail film inventories, suggest that it's just possibly due to a collapse in demand that hasn't bottomed out yet--sadly. Those inconvenient stats you disregard nonetheless informed those business decisions. Believing otherwise or fudging causation is fabulism.
     
  52. I have had a 4 friends in the past few years come down with various forms of Cancer...in their 30's, 3 died. We were all told they were terminal, we enjoyed each other's company while we still could, knowing full well what the facts were. Things looked very bleak for the one who still made it and after 6 years of remission, it is back so the fight is on again...
    What I am trying to get at here is that when you are told facts that state you have a battle headed your way that you may lose, you don't stop living, you be positive and fight. So you state that labs in your area ( Toronto ) are folding, but that does not mean other ones are. Blue Moon Camera in Oregon not only does brisk business in C-41 but still optically prints, they are swamped. The Walmart in Glenwood Springs, CO near where I live also does very well, has no intention of closing shop. Same with Englewood Camera in Denver, they are busy as is Reed Photo Imaging and Mike's Camera in Boulder. No, they are not heyday busy but certainly busy enough to run a clean C41 and E6 line and make a profit.
    The bottom line is that all these color labs may eventually fold due to lack of demand but right now they are around and so is the film you can shoot and give them. I have pretty much stopped using color film for the most part because frankly I don't see as good a future in it and it is not where my creative heart lies anymore, my career emphasis in going forward is in doing black and white fine art.
    I am not misrepresenting reality, just trying to shed light on the fact that film use is niche, not gone, but niche and still very much usable. But it is exhausting to me to have to keep defending my self, others, film, etc. so I need to bail on it, carry on...
     
  53. Your comment on the absence of recession outside N. America is astounding.​
    Mr Watson, I highly recommend for you looking at the data of the worldwide economic organisations like the OECD or World Bank to look for GNP growth rates of different countries during the last two years. Then you will find that China e.g. have growth rates in the 7-9% range, most other Asian countries were in the 3-6% range, most South American countries have been in the 2-5% range. Northern European Countries like Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Poland still have been in the 1-2% range. And the the growing economies in Africa have been in the 3-6% range.
    China alone has a population of about 1,3 billion people, India 1,2 billion, Indonesia 230 million, Brazil 190 million. There plays the music nowadays. Not in countries like your country Canada. With its population of (relatively tiny) 30 million people it simply does not a play a role in demand for photographic products (film and digital) considering a worldwide scale.
    All you add in this discussion is:
    - permanently telling your anecdotes about film situation in your home town Toronto and the GTA (interestingly my friends there tell me it is not as bad as you describe it);
    I am currently living in a town with less than 400,000 inhabitants. 4 professional labs here developing film in my town, my preferred lab see increasing numbers of films coming in recently.
    Do I draw conclusions from that to the worldwide situation? No, of course not. And you should not do it from the situation in GTA.
    - saying that companies like Ilford Photo, Impossible Project and Fuji (here with Instax) are lying when they report stable or increasing business. By the way, all of them have introduced new products. They would not do that if there would be no market for it. These people are not as stupid as you think. They know their business.

    Please tell me the dead link you posted isn't Henning Serger's 2012 Photokina "report."​
    No, it is not Mr Seeger's report (which was very accurate by the way; I know for sure because I have been at last years Photokina as well), and the link I've posted has a different topic and is working fine here on my computer:
    http://www.showdailys.com/E-publisher/Photokina2012_day2/
     
  54. Breathtaking. No recession in the Eurozone? No unemployment in Spain, Italy,Eire, France, UK, Germany, Greece?

    What matters is per capita income anywhere. Compare China or other developing countries you cite to Canada and the US, OK?

    Toronto is the 5th largest city in N. America. I'm guessing the film situation here--for better or worse--isn't wildly different than in other large N. American cities. Ask your Toronto/GTA pals how many pro labs are up and running here as of today.

    Film matters to Ilford. Fuji? Not so much. IP is a tiny niche player. You need time series data to measure movement.
    Serger's Photokina report was largely data-free and relied on marketing chatter from booth reps--nothing more.

    Your link is still dead.
     
  55. Are we still in a recession? I have been hearing about a recession for close to 10 years, other than 2007 I have not seen any proof of that. What I have seen is through the roof car sales. It is not unusual for someone to come in for an oil change and drive away in a brand new car. I shot at some local lakes this weekend and could not believe all of the brand new, full size pickups pulling brand new bass boats. I have been on this earth for close to 50 years and I have never seen so many people with so many new expensive toys. Recession, yeah right!
    As for film sales, I dont really see the point in arguing over it. I am just happy it is still available.
     
  56. Update from NPR: http://www.npr.org/2013/03/18/174665717/vintage-sounds-the-whirs-and-clicks-of-film-cameras
    While youngsters delight in the unpredictability of film, oldsters are nostalgic for the sounds of film cameras.
    I always thought photography was about the quality of images.
     
  57. ... the death of a loved one is always painful. but after a period of mourning, balance and cognition must rule over irrationality. get over it,
    people: steam locomotives, buggy whips ... and film ... are dead.
     
  58. Yet another record-breaking thread for photo.net cliches
    You know who likes film? People who like film. Prove me wrong.
    You know who likes "Film Is Dead No It Isn't" threads? Apparently everyone.
     
  59. Record-breaking is easy when you are playing a broken record....

    I call these "Fart in the buffet line" threads.

    Folks like Brian M. and Phil show up, let little stinky squeak-toy-esque colonastic connotations go right next to the guy cutting the roast beef and then leave for fresher inhalation as we get to fill our nostrils with
    their self serving odiferous expressions...
     
  60. Another misuse of data. In the US, nobody pays $649 for an iPhone. The cost gets buried in the monthly usage, which they would pay for regardless of their phone. The only part that might get cut would be data if one didn't have a smartphone, but data is something people now expect. And the camera is just part of the functionality, so nobody is paying $649 for a camera when they buy a phone.
    I might be able to find a copy or two of this book for those of you that enjoy misuse of statistics. You would probably learn a lot.​
    US smartphone penetration only just passed the 50% mark in Q3 2012. There are far more non-smartphone users than there are regular film users. If you are going to write the non-smartphone people off you might as well round the entire film user number down to 0 and say there are none of them as well.
    Up front iphone contract costs at the major US carriers is typically $199 not $0.
    The off contract smartphone market in the US is not 0%.
    Anyway my remark you quoted was just a flippant remark showing that the meme of the "free" iphone and expensive film is not grounded in fact. I had a simple phone for many years. I only got a smartphone about a year ago and only because there was no upfront cost for the phone and I got a massive discount on my contract through work. Otherwise it would not have happened. I analyzed contract and noncontract phones from a broad spectrum of telecom companies prior to making my decision. And that $649 number is real. In fact as many people over at XDA will tell you depending on your needs buying a smartphone outright and skipping the contract can save you hundreds in the long run. So that number could be considered to be on the low end. Some people may need an iphone. Some people may purely be reckless with their money. But I don't think the numbers, assumptions, and comparisons that were being made were valid. That was the only reason I made that quip. I didn't mean to get into this level of analysis.
    I guess, Jeff, that the exception proves the rule. Not.
    Funny but film is what I mostly use, bro. I live in the 5th largest city in N. America and film processing worth the $ is hard to come by compared to just 2-3 years ago.​
    Sorry if I missed where you stated clearly your location. But depending on how that statement is translated you either live in Toronto or the DFW metroplex. If it is Toronto my remarks were quite clearly confined to Walmarts in the United States. That was stated clearly. If you live in DFW a Walmart should be easy to find. Walmart is the largest retailer in the world. It is hardly the "exception." If film processing is expensive in your country I am sorry.
    No answers to your appeals seem to suggest few people are using film or are happy with their exploitative labs.​
    I posted a link to my thread where people from across the US reported their experiences with the Walmart send out service and a couple of them thanked me for the information and creating the thread. Why do you keep posting stuff like this instead of just reading the thread I linked to? Walmart processes 220 C-41 film for $0.84. How is that "exploitation?" If you live in another country and don't have access to similar processing I really am sorry but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist for hundreds of millions of other people. For the record I totally understand in different geographic regions things cost more. I have a passport and I have lived, worked, and studied in multiple countries on multiple continents. Whatever things I experienced, good or bad, in those countries I would never extrapolate to the entire planet. My remarks were about one nationwide retailer in the US. That is all.
     
  61. Breathtaking. No recession in the Eurozone? No unemployment in Spain, Italy,Eire, France, UK, Germany, Greece?​
    Well no overall, general recession in the Eurozone and in Europe. Only in some weak countries. No real recession in the the last two years in UK, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Poland, Suisse, Austria, Czech, Slowakia. Some of these countries even had quite strong growth like Norway, Germany and Poland.
    Don't believe the lies lot's of North American politicians and media tell you...;-).


    What matters is per capita income anywhere. Compare China or other developing countries you cite to Canada and the US, OK?​
    Important is that in China a huge middle class of already 500 million people exist, which have money to buy photo products, I've been there several times. I've seen what is happening there, you have not. There are e.g. huge shopping malls only for photography products, digital and analog!
    That does not exist in North America.


    Toronto is the 5th largest city in N. America. I'm guessing the film situation here--for better or worse--isn't wildly different than in other large N. American cities.​
    I've been in New York, Boston, Seattle, Portland, L.A., Denver. No problems at all there to get films and development.

    Film matters to Ilford. Fuji? Not so much.​
    Fuji has to manage the boom in their instax films, therefore the new, additional plant in South Korea. They had a complete booth at Photokina for Instax, lot's of people there, mostly very young photographers. In Asia the demand is even much higher than in Europe.
    https://de-de.facebook.com/FujifilmInstaxIndonesia
    They also introduced new RA-4 paper products at Photokina last year; reintroduced Neopan 400 because of increasing demand

    Serger's Photokina report was largely data-free and relied on marketing chatter from booth reps--nothing more.​
    Your bashing is completely unfair (and stupid). You haven't read what he had written. He reported which (new) analogue products has been presented, and the assessment of the manufacturers. He had clearly said that, and he had said at the end of his report that of course the market faces severe problems in many segments. No one is denying that. That was just a report about a visit on the Photokina fair, not more, not less. Not a market research.


    Your link is still dead.​
    Still working fine here. It is a market research article about the global film market, expecting 310 million films to be sold in 2013. And reporting that RA-4 is keeping much more stable than market researchers had expected some years ago. Much bigger market (considering m² volume) than the film market, because a huge amount of digital prints is made on RA-4 via Lambda printers (e.g. very popular in Europe; huge mass volume labs are doing that; e.g. CeWe and Fuji Eurocolor).
     
  62. Proof, meet pudding, not "Lomo"either:
    http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?101220-Teen-photographer
     
  63. These threads are always hilarious. The people who stopped hsing film hears ago always proclaim it dead. These film is
    dead threads have been going on for about 10 years....and yet film is readily available, and new emulsions come out all
    the time. Even 110 film is available again....and I have a handy old 110 camera I'll be making low-fi landscapes from.

    These threads makes no more sense tha the LP is dead comments.....it's been dead for 30 years yet I can still pick up
    virtually every major release on LP.

    Some people just like to have the blinders on when it comes to reality. Film is alive and well because I can buy it
    everywhere and get every format I need. If it was dead....I couldnt.
     
  64. Oh...and I for one can echo Daniel's comments. I live in Victoria, BC...and am regularly in Vancouver and Seattle. I see
    lots of young folks with 35mm, Holga, and other MF film cameras. When I am using my D700 or D2x....I NEVER have
    anyone ask about the camera. When I am using film bodies, people come up all the time asking about them....mainly
    young folks. Friends of mine have commented on the same experience in cities where they live.

    I think I've seen enough of it first hand to know that many young people do have an interest in film and think it has a cool
    factor.
     
  65. Film is a highly evolved technology with numerous years of testing, depicting its subjects in the most realistic way, bringing the Photographer along as a partner to work a little harder.
     
  66. "...new emulsions come out all the time."
    When did Kodak or Fuji last roll out a new emulsion(pun intentional)?
    "When I am using film bodies, people come up all the time asking about them....mainly young folks."
    Funny but it's mainly retirees asking when I'm out with something recognizably analog like a MF camera. "Young folks" use mostly smartphones, occasionally digital p&s, rarely DSLRs or MILCs.
    "I think I've seen enough of it first hand to know that many young people do have an interest in film and think it has a cool factor."
    Maybe but I doubt "many" go the whole nine yards and purchase film cameras and film on a regular basis--"cool factor" notwithstanding.
    Agree with Jeff Spirer that what you're saying is anecdotal and largely meaningless for lack of any supportive data.
     
  67. Cool factor won't cut it.
     
  68. Oh really....guess you have never seen young people buys clothes for the cool factor. Seriously, if you think a cool factor
    doesnt exist in purchasing decisions, you have a lot to learn
     
  69. To address your questions C Watson....Kodak released the Portra line. Lomography has released a half dozen files in
    everything from MF down to 110. Other companies have released film as well. That however is a red herring to the
    discussion. Film is available in stores. According to manufacturers, sales have stabilzed. That ks the factual information.
    Myself, I've never had elderly people comment on my film cameras. I have however photographed weddings for over 20
    years and at each one I am surrounded by young people....many who ask about film cameras and film...none who ask
    about the DsLRs.
     
  70. >>>Market data: I've talked about it with my main distributor, who operates internationally. He has been
    so kind to give me the current numbers:<<<

    There is another problem with these figures in terms of context beyond what has already been
    discussed. Citing a stabilization of sales or increased percentage of sales is too isolated. There has to
    be a reference point. If sales are abysmal, a percentage increase doesn't mean sales are no longer abysmal.
    If a product is one percent of market share, then a 25% increase means its still a minute part of market
    share. As to sales, without regard to market share, its hard to know if the increase is enough to make
    the sale of the product viable for long. Whether it is a worthwhile product for the seller. Its all relative to
    whether the overall profit is sustainable enough to justify the products existence. If a company makes
    some profit, a 25% increase could be significant. On the other hand, the company might need to sell
    much more. A quadruple increase may be needed for example.

    The most the data tells us is that sales in some particular categories are not in free fall so it might bring a
    more steady marketplace for such items. As for squawking on internet forums about the state of film, it doesn't reveal a
    "resurgence". If some people here or there begin to enjoy it or come back to it, great. But its not
    a 'comeback'.
     
  71. >>>>guess you have never seen young people buys clothes for the cool factor. Seriously, if you think a cool factor doesnt exist in purchasing decisions, you have a lot to learn<<<

    Context is everything. Cool has its limits. Young people are going to buy clothes no matter what so, sure, they get what's fashionable along the way. Film, for all its glory, is burdensome for people accustomed to instant gratification and compatibility with what they already are doing.(Using devices ect) Young users will have to go out of their way to deal with film stuff and then scan it anyway to go online which many would want to do. Its a motivated hardy demographic we are taking here, not fickle shopping square types.
     
  72. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    If sales are abysmal, a percentage increase doesn't mean sales are no longer abysmal.​

    This is what vinyl sales are about. Sure, they've gone up as a percentage, but it's meaningless. Especially when people try to compare them to CD sales.

    BTW, as someone who has worked in the music biz and is still fairly involved (although "the biz" is no longer what it was), there is still a substantial portion of vinyl sales that has to do with DJ servicing rather than consumer purchasing.
     
  73. Thanks, John H, for making the point(s) yet again. Garnier's and other village explainers' fact-free discussions are consistent with the breathtakingly innumerate flame wars that raged at apug.org after Kodak skidded into Ch. 11 in January 2012. They'll never get it.
     
  74. My point, Cool factor won't cut it..simply means film sales aren't dependent on the whims of fad, or what is or isn't cool. Who thinks Photographic method is fashionable? That's just non-sense. Although I'm sure someone, or more than I know buy camera's, expensive camera's, because of a vogue factor, but this group doesn't qualify as Photographers. Photographers priorities are such to outweigh the wimms of the day, but not to be confused with the quest for a better mouse trap so to speak. From what I have heard through younger Photo enthusiasts, they're not confused on the issues of what tool to use to express their art form. Perhaps their Photo classes are also teaching them to veer away from social media threads.
     
  75. Third, interchangeable lens digital camera sales are increasing. "MILC" sales are now about 20% of all interchangeable lens digital cameras sold worldwide and have reached the 50% mark in Japan.​
    Yes, sales of MILC is increasing, but not that fast as many manufactures expected. Moreover , this increasing was a result of massive commercial campaign by reducing prices and paying of million dollars of rebates. All of this was supported by public media advertising (that’s might be one of the reason of losing revenue). Sorry, but film doesn’t have anything like that.
    Well, this this is one of the example showing that many posts over here lack of comprehensive judgments. Many photoneters, including some “heroes” and mediators are acting like typical digital equipment propagandists – saying one thing, by some reason, they are forgetting or intentionally hiding another side of the problem. Probably following CIPA or PMA guidance instruction…
    My point, Cool factor won't cut it..simply means film sales aren't dependent on the whims of fad, or what is or isn't cool.​
    I guess it’s right. The film photography is just a tradition; one of the best tradition of visual art. This is art of Ansel Adams, Dorothea Lange, Wolker Evans, Steve McCurry etc. And preserve it and safe it for future generation must be an honor for every artist who value it instead of keep yaking abot low percentage of film sale.
    And in my opinion the digital popularity in most cases has been nothing but a fad. A fad that CIPA has brought to its official policy. Using their mighty financial leverages and public media they just flooded humane race with idiotic ideas about bright feature of digital photography and death of film for the sake of making their high record profits. This has nothing to do with real art.
    And I believe it’s absolutely nonsense to flush those goofy figures about digital equipment sale and percentage - anyhow all these cameras will turn into junk in 3-4 yrs. I don’t think that you guys are so naïve not to understand where these figures came from , who and what forces are really behind it.
     
  76. "And in my opinion the digital popularity in most cases has been nothing but a fad. A fad that CIPA has brought to its official policy. Using their mighty financial leverages and public media they just flooded humane race with idiotic ideas about bright feature of digital photography and death of film for the sake of making their high record profits. This has nothing to do with real art.
    And I believe it’s absolutely nonsense to flush those goofy figures about digital equipment sale and percentage - anyhow all these cameras will turn into junk in 3-4 yrs. I don’t think that you guys are so naïve not to understand where these figures came from , who and what forces are really behind it."

    I just knew it!!! Digital is an industry-supported conspiracy to knock off film! Surprised?
     
  77. >>>And in my opinion the digital popularity in most cases has been nothing but a fad.<<<

    Much like the horseless carriage.
     
  78. Much like the horseless carriage.​
    John, if art of photography for you is same as a horseless cartridge, well.. that kind of photographer you are.
     
  79. In the end the Horseless Carriage seems to be more a curse.
     
  80. "John, if art of photography for you is same as a horseless cartridge, well.. that kind of photographer you are."

    I am confident, now, that you are better at photography than analyzing analogies. Despite access to digital resources to do so quickly now.
     
  81. There is another problem with these figures in terms of context beyond what has already been discussed. Citing a stabilization of sales or increased percentage of sales is too isolated. There has to be a reference point.​
    Those with this argument often use the year 1999 / 2000 as a reference point. That was the sales record in films history with about 3 billion photo films sold worldwide.
    They then further say today it is at best 10% of that, therefore film is doomed.
    That's wrong.
    For a film shooter only one thing is important: Whether he can buy film now and in the future or not. Therefore historic data or reference points are irrelevant for him. Relevant is only, whether some film companies are able to produce film on the current and future demand level.
    For example the CEO of Impossible Project has explained in an interview that they don't need the former high volume production anymore. Now they only need a minimum of one million filmpacks p.a. to be profitable. That is tiny compared to some years ago, but now it is sufficient. And that's what matters.
    Same is valid for Ilford, Foma, and Fuji: They have downscaled and can now operate with significantly lower volume. And new companies like Adox and InovisCoat have started right from the beginning with small volume production.
     
  82. I live in Singapore (iv'e lived and worked in 6 countries), film here is thriving, and there is plenty of evidence and it's not anecdotal really. Of course digital is everywhere. There are more camera shops here than you could imagine selling film and film cameras, new and used. One shop has row upon row of Leica M's, there are 4 Leica shops from last count. I bought my Mamiya 7 here new for under 2.5k. There is a store entirely dedicated to black & white film photography, chemistry & paper. Film and processing (120 portra US$6) is cheap and fast. There are many people walking around with film cameras. I have asked the shop owners and they say film is very much alive and surging back into the market or else these stores wouldn't exist. They teach it at the university. Whilst living in Beijing briefly, walking through a high end mall, there was an interior being photographed with a 4x5 film camera...The chinese are designing and making large format cameras.

    My home town of Sydney, film (and most things) are expensive. Cameras are more expensive. I had recently been back home, shot some photos of a friends wedding and had it developed an scanned. I had one lab 'hand print' one of the negatives and I was shocked at the quality. This lab used to be one of the best, doing ilfochrome and negative optical hand prints. Because I do my own B&W dev & printing I could see that the image was either out of focus or just poorly done. Turns out, the lab scans the neg on some flatbed scanner and then prints it on RA4 paper. For me this was just unacceptable....

    The second issue with film is scanning. I have experimented with different scanners, and in my experience the only scanners that are acceptable are the high end flextights or drum scanning which does not exist here (only privately and in the university). I own an epson V700 and for negatives at least, they are only getting 60% out of the film so I only use it for scanning prints. So they too are unacceptable for scanning negatives. Scanning negatives is difficult, and requires allot more skill. The minilab scanners here are rubbish, probably the operators mostly. Jonathan Canlas seems to get allot more out of these frontier type scanners, but here for some reason they again are just not acceptable. Even if you do, printing 16x20 will yield inferior results to that of an optical print, no question.

    So knowing what information is actually in the film, I decided to do colour RA4 printing with an enlarger. At first I was concerned that it would be too problematic. I fact at the beginning it was impossible to source the chemicals here. The chemicals cannot be shipped but the paper easy enough to get from B&H and other places. I finally managed to source the chemicals here wholesale. And what did I pay? A little over $100 dollars for 16 liters of chemicals (dev & blix). And to my surprise they print perfectly at room temperature (it is warm here though). I recently bought a colour analyzer (way off in the beginning but calibrating now) as everything is now working. I simply just process in trays, as I would in B&W. Actually colour has a superior range than B&W so it requires less manipulation, almost none. The printing and developing times are less than half that of B&W.

    What you get on a piece of RA4 paper is everything the film has, and it simply stunning. Forget scanning, print it. The irony is although there is so much film here in Singapore, there are no 'pro' labs such as you get in the US and UK. There are NO facilities for RA4 optical printing (maybe at the university??). People shooting on film are also missing out on what it can actually do on paper as it was designed and have prob never held an optical colour print in their hands. I have no doubt they will be blown away (I do use a mamiya 7 which is one of the best film cameras in the world) with a print from a quality lens and enlarger. I cant even see the grain on a 16x20 print with 100 speed film....Although sharpness and grain is not what it is about. William Eggleston's new work on digital, to me, is another photographer from the days of his dye transfer prints.

    I have used digital too, and I look forward to advances in digital technology. Nostalgia & coolness aside, speaking objectively, for me film is my medium because I like it and I am glad I have stuck with it. With a bit of skill, training and patience and some good quality equipment you can get everything out of today's superior film technology with results that are truly outstanding. Yes, there is a learning curve that’s pretty big for those brought up on digital.

    If anyone needs any hand prints done here in Singapore, let me know……
     

Share This Page