Imminent demise of Medium Format?

[._._z]

Far enough in the past? No, I've provided the recent stats showing an increasing

abandonment of film sales and usage over the last few years, which you could

determine for yourself if you wanted, instead of ostrich-like platitudes about something

that you say someone once said that you think ameliorates real facts now.

[q.g._de_bakker]

.[.,<br><br>The past in important because the future it was predicting is now, so we know how (in)accurate those past predictions were.<br>It shows us how people, even those most involved in the thingies, can get it wrong. There's no guarantee that the pundits predicting the "future"-future will not have it wrong too.<br>they may have it right, but on the other hand... All we know is that past record shows that we'll only know until the predicted future is now.

[._._z]

An interesting sentiment -- because someone, somewhere, once made a bad guess, Q

wants to cling to the belief that plummeting sales of film products worldwide, along

with people in the industry confirming this (and their intentions away from film)

somehow doesn't matter. Sigh.

[claudia__]

now, now, let's not spoil things for .[. Z

 

all we have to do is agree that film is dead, done, zip, nada.

 

.[. Z has provided me with all the evidence i need and i am now a total convert to that point of view.

 

i am going off now to buy a canon 20D and am going to become a street photographer.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Gee, they come in bunches... Yet another one who likes to argue with what <b>he thinks</b> people's position should be, instead of what they are.<br><br>_[_,<br><br>Where did you here me express anything about what my "beliefs" might be? I'm just pointing out that people who say they know what's going to happen usually don't.<br>They can make like they are important, make us think they know something we don't. But in the end we just have to wait.<br.And that goes for captains of industry, the people dealing in this matter, as well as for anybody else. If they could reliably predict what would happen, they wouldn't have to change jobs very 3 to 5 years.<br><br>And i applaud you for taking the trouble of finding so many quotes, but how does that make what <i>you</i> say any more believable? Why do you think you alone know The Truth? (or have you come across one single person yet (here, in other threads on Photo.net, or anywhere) you could agree with?<br>;-)

[._._z]

Q's argument, such as it is, is that since some people have guessed wrong about some

things in history, we shouldn't prognosticate about anything, regardless of the

evidence... as long as it's a subject he whose trends he doesn't like. Groan.

[doug andrews]

To the contrary, I think Q's point is that people should not be so quick to wholeheartedly believe others prognostications as, more often than not, they are disappointed when the outcome is not what they believed. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. As much as the film market is shrinking, ones definition of imminent demise is subjective. Besides, its only a matter of time before digital is superceeded by another technology. I wouldn't be surprised if the life span of digital will be shorter than film.

[._._z]

So Doug: how likely do you believe it is that, depsite several years of accelerating

double-digit decreases in film sales, proven decreases in film processing, increasing

numbers of people who don't use film, and industry decisaionmakers who have bet

their businesses on a clear, increasing market preference for digital, that film and film

body sales will increase -- specifically wrt medium format?

 

It's sad when True Believers close their eyes to the realities before them. It's like the

people who believe in Alien Abductions who want to believe so much they scrounge for

any possible evididence to support flimsy threads of hope, while ignoring massive

evidence to the contrary.

[kelly_flanigan1]

This same digital versus film stuff happened in the process camera arena a decade ago. Volume in film processed tanked; prices skyrocketed. The digital engineering copier replaced alot of the basic process camera enlarging and reducing. Old timers want process camera work still; at 1980's prices.; but they dont want to pay even todays costs to mix a batch of chemicals. About evey process camera has now been scrapped; due to a completely new technology changeover. Many process camera operators stated that this would never happen; but saw the light after being laid off. One process camera operator we had would not want anything to do with our engineering copier; which replaced most of the cameras jobs.

[doug andrews]

I always get a kick out of people who change or even insert words and thoughts into my post in order to prove their own point. It's says more about themselves than me. Please .[. Z, show us where I claimed or even implied "that film and film body sales will increase -- specifically wrt medium format?" You can't because I didn't.

 

My post was to share my interepretation of Q.G. de Bakker's post. Hell, I even admit that the film market is shrinking and I own a medium format rig. I don't care if film goes the way of the dinosaur next week, next month, next year, or next decade. I am not so tied to either the media or format that the prospect of its long term survival or imminent demise keeps me from enjoying photography. Why do you even care if others refuse to see the writing on the wall? You're not one of those people who feel that unless they get the last word in, then no one will believe them. If you have all digital equipment, when film does disappear from the face of the earth you'll be sitting high and dry. At least until the next image capturing technology comes along.

 

Who cares what my thoughts are on the likelyhood of medium format film sales increasing? In truth, you surely don't as you've already made up your mind. The fellow who initiated this thread may, but at this point he's probably walked away from the thread. Guess what, I'm walking away also. I'd rather take photos than bandy words over declining film sales.

[._._z]

Doug, you took it upon yourself to speak for Q, implying that you agreed with his, "Let's

ignore all the facts, we don't know what will really happen because sometime in the

past someone didn't really know what was going to happen" logical construction. He's a

big boy who can speak for himself... and dig a deeper hole for himself as well.

[kai_griffin]

While film sales are irrefutably in decline, it bears mention that the global market for film is still very large, and even a greatly reduced market will still be viable for at least *some* film production players. It would be more accurate to say that the demographics of film use are undergoing big changes (in terms of relative regional usage). While film sales may be negligible within, say, G7 nations (in lieu of the term "Western Nations") in a few years time, that is not to say that camera-happy nations like India or China are going to utterly drop film in a hurry. We are talking about countries where foot-peddle operated Singer sewing machines are still standard amongst tens of thousands of tailors, and 1940's vintage cars are still reguarly seen plying the streets. In other words, places where the kinds of changes we're talking about are simply not relevant. Yet, these are extremely important markets - representing, afterall, over half the world's population.

 

Where there is a market, there will be a supplier, even if the market is a much smaller one than today's. Perhaps some emulsions (and companies) will disappear in the fray, but it's melodramatic to say that all film will cease to exist within an equally dramatic short timeframe. The truth lies elsewhere - and not at all necessarily within white papers and industry quotes, the latter of which of course contain their own agenda.

 

There is also an entire motion picture industry relying on film - the production facilities for the production of film as a medium in the general sense will continue for a very long time, even if it slows to a trickle for the still camera industry. It will be a long time, dare I predict, before digital challenges 35mm motion picture film, let alone 70mm! While such production facilities exist, it is conceivable that small batches of traditional still camera emulsions will continue to be produced to cater for a market that will, after all, continue to exist for some time.

 

In any case, it does seem rather pointless to be firing salvos over the topic: what will happen will happen, whatever it may be; it's hardly worth getting hot under the collar over this stuff.

[._._z]

Developing countries are moving to digital quite quickly, dumping digital along the

way. As people like Jeff Spirer have seen for themselve and noted, rural areas with

spotty electricity have digital printing now. Kodak's investment in China's Lucky Film

may well be another disaster for it.

 

Yes, where there is a market, there will be a supplier. How many suppliers of carbon

paper are there now? How many sellers of manual typewriters? Glass negatives? No one

claims that film will become totally unavailable, but it is clear that there is an

acceleration of a changeover, as amateurs as well as pros move to a different system.

[kai_griffin]

<i>Developing countries are moving to digital quite quickly, dumping digital along the way</i><br><br>

Maybe I have an over-active imagination, but your typo above evoked the image in my mind of happy sari-clad dancers, singing and swaying in unison, as they pluck shiny digital cameras into their baskets, only to toss them right back out to the ground again a few feet along (set to Bollywood film music, of course!). Call it a little musical intermission in this heavy thread...

<br><br>

It is amazing how quickly things like the internet and other technology have made inroads even deep into the developing world, where you'd least expect it. Siem Reap, the sleeply rural village near Angkor Wat in Cambodia could give the casual observer the impression that Cambodia is one of the most highly-wired nations in South East Asia, with its internet cafes lining the streets.

[q.g._de_bakker]

.[.Z,<br><br>You still don't get it that you are the only (!!!) person here stating he does know, without a shadow of doubt, what the future will bring?<br>Because of your enormous confidence, your immense self-esteem, you apparently don't think anybody else might have a point. Ah well...

[q.g._de_bakker]

Doug,<br><br>Yes, your representation of what i was hoping to bring across was very accurate. Thank you.<br><br>The confidence .[.Z shows in the accuracy of his (!) predictions is chilling. Not even the quoted captians of industry share that.<br>They at least know that the accuracy of their "predicitons" will without fail lead to them looking for another job every 3-5 years. Their perfectly acceptable excuse (which is why they indeed can get another job every 3-5 years) is that their jobs require them to make these kind of statements.<br>.[.Z's excuse is... uhmm... beats me. Megalomania?

[._._z]

At first your play-dumb act wrt facts about film's clear downward slide was amusing.

Now that you're playing amateur psychologist, it seems that it's no act.

[._._z]

Quincy, why'd you quote a misspelled word that no one used? Dumb, dumb, dumb.

[._._z]

Q-Bert, please learn to differentiate between verifiable fact and tendentious

assertion. Cheers.