Future of Medium Format?

[richard_milner2]

Given unexpected leaps in technology there may be some imaging device available in 10 years that makes current digital cameras and MF film laughable.

 

Don't try to secondguess the future.

[._._z]

The "situation of the moment" is a study of a market in free-fall. Just today, Kodak

announced that <p>

 

<i><blockquote> demand for traditional film... is falling faster than it anticipated just

six months ago. Kodak said worldwide film demand will tumble as much as 12 percent

this year, faster than the 9 percent projected in January. The drop is even steeper in the

United States, where digital cameras are biting into film demand at an annual clip of 18

to 20 percent compared with a 10 to 12 percent decline projected earlier.

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

Only ostriches stick their heads in the sand.

[edgar_njari]

I heard all that million times, but it has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I can use the word "situation"

as I wish.

 

It seems that this forums has so many repetitions in statements and

peoples opinions that everyone expects the same posts over and over again, and responds with same sentances over and over again.

 

Can you give me one quote (of me) from wich you got the imression

that I think that film has a bright future? Everything you said

is true, but we are talking apples and oranges.

 

My original statement was that, when i go into a store, I see

a perfect balance: digital cameras, film cameras, film etc.

You can buy everything today. What will happen next week does not

fall under "now" cathegory. I am not discussion the situation in economics. I am just a man going to a store to buy a box of film

today. And when I get to the store, i see a lot of boxes of film,

and a lot of digital cameras. I see both choices in front of me.

I am talking about stock in the stores, I am not talking about sales and market.

 

Oh my god, I don't know why I am typing so much..

it was just a simple statement, you understood id differently and complicated the whole thing. Let's just drop it, shall we?

[b_kosoff]

Film is not going to dissappear any time soon, and for simple economics. It's

cheap to produce and profitable. The serious money needed to make and

sell film is the cost of creating a manufacturing facility and tooling it to make

film and those costs have already been incurred. Labor is not a big cost in the

manufacture as film is made in a highly automated manner. Marketing and

advertising costs are high, but when film becomes more of a niche product the

amount of advertising will decrease dramatically. The raw materials of film

are not terribly expensive either and whatever costs go up there will merely

be forwarded to the consumer.

 

What will happen with film is that less profitable film lines will dissappear,

some companies might sell their film divisions. But the simple reality is that if

you have reasonable labor and materials costs, and you already have the

factory and machinery, and there is a small but dedicated market you might as

well sell film.

[q.g._de_bakker]

B Kosoff,<br><br>What you say is quite corect. But you focus lies heavily on the cost factor. There's another side to it too: if people stop buying something, it hardly matters how cheap you can produce it. There's just no money to be made.<br><br>That, not rising costs, is what is threathening film, and the MF camera industry, today. People decide to spend their money on something else.<br><br>Now don;t get me wrong. I'm a "film guy" too. Yet i don't know how to take sides in this war-of-two-tribes. Why not benefit from the good things both have?

[l_a_k_h_i_n_d_e_r]

<i> And personally, I wish sometimes, it would be great if there was no digital world in this universe. I prefer film world.</i>

<br><br>

What is striking is the fact that this question was asked even when clearly his choice is Film! And amazingly, a couple of people have gotten them selves bloodied in this debate!

[b_kosoff]

QG, There are still companies making 11x14 and even 20x24 cameras and

there is film available for them, so I think the demand fo MF film should be

sufficient for quite a while to come.

[grant_.]

<i>According to the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, Kodak is winning the battle to ditch film with more people taking and printing digital images with its products. Sales of digital cameras, printers, and accessories nearly doubled during April, May and June, while traditional film sales fell by 8%. The decline of film has been quicker than expected and its plans to cut 15,000 jobs by 2007 are ahead of schedule, with profits of $253m higher than Kodak's previous predictions.

</i>

<br><br>

oh well...

[b_kosoff]

Grant, Kodak built a new facility to produce B&W film just 2 years ago. Cutting

employees in a given division does not necessarily mean the elimination of

that division.

[photoinnature]

I thought it was a boring topic but am happy that so many folks are interested to discuss here.

 

Once again, many thanks folks taking your time to post your comments here.

[grant_.]

we'll see

[jo_irps]

This is a very complex marketing situation we are in. It normally takes one generation that new technologies are replacing old ones (whereby one generation is about 20 to 25 years). There are millions and millions of film cameras around, 90% of them P&S, which need film. The mayority of people are not dumping film cameras and replacing them with digital P&S. Digital cameras are bought by the next generation. 90% of all digitals sold today are P&S. How often is a P&S camere being used generally? Holidays, birthdays and x-mas. The rest of times it stays in a drawer somewhere. As sales of film P&S are almost replaced by digital P&S, film sales decline, no argument, but film will be needed until the old generation of film P&S users are exstinct.

 

MF is still a different cattle, this is pro territory. The sheer resolution of grain cannot be surpassed by pixels, again no argument. Much of wishfull thinking has been put foreward by the pro-digital lobby. I would like to direct your attention to this recent thread in Nature Photographer:

 

http://forums.naturephotographers.net/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=8306088241&f=1286003941&m=7410035352

 

and also to this:

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?s=95adb690fa7a195230459c29485e895b;act=ST;f=16;t=43

 

and it shoud become quite clear where the limits are.

[edgar_njari]

Z, and other who may know...

 

Is there any data on the sales of professional film rather than film in general, or separate statisatics for MF, LF and 35mm professional film?

[._._z]

There's no official breakout, but I know someone at a Big NY Camera Store and he says

pro film (and medium format) sales are tanking faster than consumer films. This same

store revamped their layout as a result and has a larger area for binoculars than large or

medium format gear. Ostriches unite!

[richard_milner2]

With regards to the generational argument, the first digital still camera was introduced by Sony in 1981. So we are now approaching the 25 year mark.

 

The clear fact is that digital has some capabilities which can be totally compelling. Chimping, for instance, is hugely popular with general users. Speed of delivery is vital to pros -- news photogs can now send images to their picture desks within two minutes of snapping them. It was done at Wimbledon this year, using a WiFi equipped Nikon D2. These factors are nothing to do with ease of use, processing or cost, which are all arguable. But if you are not interested in these capabilities, you can happily go on shooting film.

 

There are huge numbers of good quality film cameras in circulation. It's difficult to see that no-one in the world will ever want to use one ever again after 2006. The fact that the line on the graph is downwards doesn't mean it will hit zero. If firms like Maco can do well selling small quantities of highly specialist IR film, there can be a profitable film business in the future; it just won't be large enough to sustain several big companies like Kodak and Fuji. The range of films will drop, the cost will go up, and you will probably have to mail order. But it will still be there.

[q.g._de_bakker]

B Kosoff, <br><br>Yes, there are still "companies making 11x14 and even 20x24 cameras and there is film available for them".<br>However, the MF camera industry is not similar. Though it is producing goods for a niche market, it is not made up of one-man cottage industry firms. The way the matkert is going today can not support the MF industry as it is today. The companies involved will fold, close, go out of business.<br>Maybe someone somewhere will try and built cameras comparable to Rollei 6008 (AF), Hasselblad H1 or 205 FCC, etc. in a shed at the bottom of his garden. Just like those 11x14" building companies. But somehow, i can't believe that is possible. Can you? Someone good with a hammer and screwdriver building Kodak Brownie type cameras, that i can believe. Wooden view cameras too. But the MF machines we use today? No way.<br><br>So i'm afraid that there are no analogies to be drawn with exotic LF manufacturing and marketing. Once the market drops enough that it will no longer be able to sustain the MF industry, MF is gone.

 

so I think the demand fo MF film should be sufficient for quite a while to come.

[q.g._de_bakker]

And again i do apologize for the spelling and poor editing.

[photoinnature]

Many thanks you all for taking your time to reply on my post.

[syd]

Film is an aesthetic to me as much as anything else and a big reason why I prefer it to Digital. Admittedly, I am a bit of a retro grouch and my idea of a good time is playing with finicky old objects that have a ton of character. For this reason Digital doesn't quite move me in the same way. As to the future of MF; I think of it in the same terms as those people who are still able to buy and shoot with camera's from the 1900's. These old cameras may be surpassed at some point but there will always be people out there using the format and shooting it.

 

I am planning to stretch out further into my film formats and have recently decided to move into LF and 4x5. I already shoot 35mm and MF and I'm maintaining my interest in all three formats. I was chatting to the repair guy at my local camera store recently and he made a comment that I agree with, and that was that "for many people...now is probably the worst time to get into digital". I have nothing against Dig and I have seen some beautiful photographs taken using digital, but for my personal aesthetic, and interest, it's not my bag.

 

I'll be buying lots of film and utilzing that process to cast my vote for the ongoing survival of film... I don't see it going away but people need to understand that the mass consumer market embrace every new bit of tech that gets thrown their way and this lends huge weight to the Digital push. What I don't see is all the professional landscape photographers that I know and respect shooting digital. Thats the barometer for me.

[david_cassidy2]

Not this question again ... Film vs Digital.

 

Who cares?

 

I shoot both. I like both. I like making images, and I don't care how they're made. I've seen great images from both.

 

I'll keep shooting both until I can't. Then I'll just move on to what I *can* shoot. Maybe it won't even be digital *or* film ... maybe it'll be some mind-blowing new technology that involves a film/digital/ice cream hybrid.

 

It's the images that are important, not the medium.

 

Just ... simply ... make images.

 

Enjoy!

[q.g._de_bakker]

David,<br><br>Reviving an ancient thread that has been dead for the best part of a year, only to say: Oh-no,-not-this-again...!<br><br>???<br>The mind boggles. What are you doing?

[david_cassidy2]

Dhruba, I'm doing what I said ... making images. I shoot film and digital. As I said, this whole argument is ridiculous and a waste of time. One should not spend a great deal of time worrying about whether to go "film or digital". What does it matter? People should just shoot what they like. Just make images. I don't care if an image came from a Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Fuji, Olympus, Mamiya, Bronica, film or digital. It's the image that counts, not the medium.

 

Use what *YOU* like and be proud of your images!