Jump to content

Imminent demise of Medium Format?


joseph_therrien1

Recommended Posts

For a topic that has been flogged to death this one has got a lot of responses. As I said I love film and do all of my personal work on 4x5 and 2 1/4 in that order. I was trying to trade my Leica (which I rarely use anymore)in on a Nikon D-70. I want to learn that media and add it to my image making tool-kit. I am not one of those digital evangelists who scoff at film lovers and sing hyperbolic hymns of praise to the new Messiah. My investigations into digital and how things are changing have made my head spin. I guess I am experiencing some Future Shock. Digital however can't be ignored. My experience trying to trade-in what has been for me a wonderful camera in a city of a million people has been disheartening. I agree with most of the posters that medium and large formats as we know them will be around for awhile yet and I intend to continue to enjoy them. The impact of digital technology on photography will be massive and the dust has far from settled.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

a disappearance??? not for at least another 20 years..

the same was said of LP records back 20 years ago.

when CDs were starting to enter the mainstream, these days a dj using vinyl is known as a "turntablist" perhaps as medium format film users we'll be known as "filmists"??

Personally I'm holding on to my Mamiya 1000s's, J's, 645E's w/a death grip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very interesting thread with many resonant topics for those of us strandling the brave new world of digital.

 

Without reiterating the many good points made here, I would like to add that the perspectives expressed here - esp. those expressing anxiety about the future of film - fail to take into account the perspectives reflect those of mostly people in those countries of the affluent developed world. In most of the rest of the world, where photography is practiced, digital is a long way from dominating.

 

What we tend to forget, focused as we are on cameras, is that digital requires a much more elaborate and extensive infrastructure than film --at least when considered from the point of of view of producing and processing black and white and color negative and E6 materials. Digital requires several industries working in conjunctions, huge economies of scale, and individual computers and periferals, which themselves require continuous maintenance and updating. In short, digital, wonderful and promising as it is, is extremely complex and dependent upon technological, economic, and political factors much greater than those of film. Countries such as the US and those in Europe already have much of the infrastructure in place to enable the digital explosion, but most of the rest of the world does not, and probably will not any time soon.

 

Another related issue is long-term storage. It is simply not clear how and to what degree photographers can depend on secure, reliable, long term arhiving -- and accessibility -- of their digital images. In fact, the best approach, at the moment at least, is a silver-to-digital workflow: shooting film, and scanning. This leaves the photographer with a high quality original, and ultimately, freedom from the vaugeries of the digital infrastructure --which, as we know from experience, is unpredictable (and I take issue with those who see the advance of this technology a kind of vaccum of pure technological "progress," in which things are always getting better, without taking into account the huge costs and and other complicating factors).

 

To summarize, there is more driving the film-digital debate and the ultimate place of film in the photographic world than simply the acceptance of digital among professional photographers in the affluent, developed nations. Moreover, the huge dependency and complications inherent in computer technology, on which digital is dependent, puts film in an attractive light in many respects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

means you can have just about any film camera you want....i'm happy. may have to send for film made in bulgaria, but artists will still want it and be able to get it, along with oil paint, and printing presses. no more mass market for film though, that is for sure. yesterday i saw disposable digital cameras on sale at Longs Drugs. yes, i know someone will tell me that i will not be able to find one single roll of film anywhere in the future etc etc. heard it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be happy when the market finds a settling point, and then the hand-wringing that goes on will be finished. As long as there is demand, there will be a product to fill that demand. There are plenty of Eastern European firms with plenty of b/w film and chemicals to meet the needs, in addition to Kodak's recent weak efforts, Agfa and Ilford (and Fuji).

 

Seeking bankruptcy protection doesn't mean going out of business. That means you get time to get your finances in order. Some companies emerge from bankruptcy protection. Some go into Chapter 7 liquidation.

 

Put that Leica up for sale on eBay. You'll have plenty of offers, and you'll get much more than some camera shop would offer. Try selling a five year-old digicam anywhere. If it's not an SLR, you'll be lucky to get $50 for something that probably cost you $500.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of good points above. Personally, I would just buy a film scanner and

keep shooting film. The whole digital thing for enthusiast usually comes down

to Photoshop, and you don't need a digital camera for that.

 

Secondly, as noted, it's all a case of selling you new stuff ( including computer

related items) as often as possible cause it's about people making money,

and I bet a majority of those people are probably overseas.

 

Check out Apug.org and join the growing list of dedicated film shooters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole issue of the attractiveness of digital comes down to the time saved from scanning. This is especially true for medium format. There are no relatively inexpensive scanners that allow you to feed a 120 or 220 roll into it and specify the frames to be scanned and get automated scans. Scanning on a Nikon 9000 or Flextight is very time-consuming. Imacon is apparently coming out with an automated scanner for 120 film for about $20k that may solve part of the problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I recently tried to trade my Leica R4 with 2 lenses in at every major camera store in the city where I live. Not one would take the stuff."

 

There's your problem right there. Try trading an _M4_ and 2 lenses, see how their eyes light up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: <i>Bankruptcy is just a process whereby a company screws its customers, employees and shareholders.</I><BR><BR>A nearby company owes our company 2300 bucks; and is in bankruptcy. Their employees get paid first; then the IRS ; state tax dept; and local taxes are paid. Vendors like us might get zero to 5 cents on a dollar; just maybe years down the road. The bond holders get their piece too. The stockholders are last in line; and will probably get nothing at all. Customers just see the business die; and often just go to another vendor; with no loss of even a penny. The employees get paid off the top of the bankruptcy money; and are lightyears away from the risk that a vendor or shareholder has; with a total loss. In most all the bankruptcies I have tried to collect on; only a very small fraction pay even one cent on a thousand dollars owed. One time we got 17.59 on a 1700 plus dollar claim; this is one of the best ones ever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your question's presumptions are wrong, and imply a misunderstanding on your part.

Given the inability of film zealots to comprehend the reality of the steeply declining

market for film, and their unwillingness to do anything but whine at the messengers,

I'm not surprised at the resulting replies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In medium format, Verichrome Pan, APX 25, Ultra 50, Kodachrome and other well-

regarded films have been discontinued. 120 film sales overall have declined by more

than 65% in the last four years. (Look at Kodak's yearly 10-K filings with the US

Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as wordwide sales figures reported by

market research firms.) MF cameramakers have stopped dead in r&d of new film

and film-only bodies. Several well-regarded 120 films have been discontinued in the

last two years. 220 is dropping even more quickly and is a distinctly tiny niche product

today.

 

In five years, 120 film sales could easily be 5%-10% of what they were in 2000. You'll

still be able to get film, but a much reduced selection will be available, and commercial

processing will be difficult to find, good commercial processing even scarcer. Will there

still be Ilford, Agfa, Kodak 120 film in 5 years? If so, how many emulsions might be left?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zzzz..,

 

If you are correct about current Mfg's of film and there demise, is it not possible new players in other parts of the world will produce smaller volumes profitably for a smaller market? I think so.

 

Will they need the mfg control like today, probably not, almost all pro's will be using digital, right?

 

Will film users need to process this new film, maybe.

 

So who is worried, not me. Maybe by that time digital will have improved enough to be cost effective for me, maybe some other people too.

 

In the meantime, enjoy the film we have today. There's nothing anyone can do about its future short of outlawing digital. Rushing to digital is too expensive and irrational for most of us low volume/"slow clicking" users now anyhow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...