Outlook of Medium Format

[vinay_patel]

Jeff is 100% on the mark about so-called emerging markets. In India for example, the poor were never film consumers, and the rich are as up-to-date as any American in terms of preferring digital. Places like China may eventually be the source of film, but not for the general populace of any country on earth, it will be for the few die-hards who want to use film for whatever reason they decide to tell themselves and/or others. As long as those people are willing to pay handsomely for it, no doubt someone will make it. Processing is another story. There obviously will not be enough film users within the next few years to support a lab in smaller cities, let alone one every couple of miles the way it has been. Processing will have 2 options, DIY or mail. Jeff's is probably an unusual case, because he's looking for darkroom printing by a lab. The person who either does his own home darkroom printing, or has a scanner and prints digitally, probably won't be too upset about mailing colour film just to be developed.

 

Someone mentioned Hasselblad and Leica as potential casualties in the future. Hasselblad, unless I misunderstand, has already been bought by some Asian consortium, and the products they seem to be pinning their future to are made by Fuji. Leica is an entirely different story and quite anomalous, because there is a very strong collector aspect to the brand. I happen to be a Leica collector and I know the mindset of many of my fellows. As long as there is at least one type of black-and-white 35mm film available somewhere on this planet no matter the price, there will be a market for collectible Leicas. Furthermore the allegiance to the brand is so strong, Leica does not have to keep current with digital technology. As long as they offer some kind of digital body for the M-rangefinder lenses, they will continue to sell those lenses (their main profit items), at least as long as their current body of customers is alive. As an indication, they plan to announce such a body in about 6 months, which will have a sub-35mm chip, about the same megapixels as a Nikon D200, and cost at least $5000US, and dealers already have waiting lists.

[rdkirk]

>>Mamiya's Demise Greatly Exaggerated <<

 

Well, the camera division has been sold to a small ($10,000,000 USD) company that has no photographic experience and has only stated an intention to continue in the digital market. This is not something to be confident about, if one is interested in a continuance of Mamiya film cameras, nor even of any significant future digital development.

 

At least Kyocera was a huge company that was already selling cameras when they bought the Contax name.

[davecollopy]

Randall Ellis said:

 

"No one can tell the future despite that fact that there is no shortage of people wearing digital sandwich boards extoling the death of film. So far there have only been signs of the market adjusting to a new level of demand as with any product. As long as there is a demand someone will be there to fill it - leave the future to the Nostradamus-clones and use what ever you want."

 

Randall Ellis is right. No one can accurately predict the future. People extolling the death of film don't really have crystal balls. They simply find film frightfully old fashion. And having a good fashion sense, I believe they're only trying to be helpful, suggesting us film users get hip. I think there's a disconnect, because for film users fashion rarely enters into the equation. And neither does third world emerging consumer markets, usually.

[rich815]

Good points Dave. I'm not a digital Luddite (I have three digital cameras myself) but I much prefer film. If we listened to the naysayers of film we'd all be pulling our hair out today trying to find a place to buy film or trying to get it processed. On this site about 3-4 years ago there was talk of film being gone and dead within 5 years. Instead we've had at least 4-5 new emulsions introduced lately in slide, color film and B&W, and this last Xmas the line at the film counter at my local Target was 10-15 people deep for days at a time. No doubt the trend is there, but it's slowing and it will be many, many years, and perhaps not in our lifetimes, before film disappears, if at all. Film is still being used and being processed and will be for a while yet.

[wayne_crider4]

Like all things manufactured, if there is no customer base that sustains your production, you stop production. Medium format went from being the pro's choice to the enthusiasts desire, but I doubt that the enthusiasts will buy as much film. This all is proven by the number of labs that offer mf film developing that have shut done. Right now I would say that if you are a die hard mf fan, once the handwriting is on the wall, whenever that may be, buy all that you can and stock it for the rest of your life. Film can be kept and b&w developers can be mixed from scratch. It's the color developers for enthusiast that will probably die first.

[raymax]

I hate to disagree with the opinions expressed here, but I must. I think many of the

contributors to this thread are being very optimistic. I suggest that 120 film has a very

limited future. I would suggest that it will be difficult to find in five years and gone in ten.

If it is available it will only be affordable by the very rich hobbyist.

 

The overwhelming majority of 120 film is used by professionals. Professionals cannot

afford to continue to use film. It costs a battery charge to shoot digital. You can deliver

digital files to your client the same day as the shoot. You deliver them electronically. I

can archive 100 shots from my 22 mega pixel back on a 4.7 Gigabyte DVD that costs a

dollar. That means my consumable cost is one cent per shot. Now, what professional can

afford to absorb film costs, lab costs, and courier costs? In another year there will be very

few professionals using any film at all. Those that are still using film will have a problem

competing with those that shoot digital.

 

I have a Hasselblad 500 system with a Leaf digital back. I also have a Canon 5D. I can get

sharper 16�x20� inkjet prints from my Canon 5D then I could from 120 film. I can get 30�

x 40� prints from my Leaf back that as sharp as any thing I used to get from 4� x 5� film.

 

More bad news�There is only one medium format camera manufacture that is on sound

financial footing today. Contax is gone. Rollie is gone. Pentax and Maymia are not in great

shape. Hasselblad is the only one left standing. There are three companies that are

making digital backs for the medium format cameras. Leaf, Phase, and Imacon are all that

is left in this field.

 

What I am trying to say is that full frame 35mm digital cameras have replaced medium

format cameras in professional circles. Medium format digital systems have replaced

4�x5� film systems.

 

�The times they are a changing.�

 

Ray

[conrad_hoffman]

It gets worse. 120 requires special hard to get backing paper, printed with the appropriate arrows and numbers. It requires injection molded plastic spools. It's labor intensive to assemble. If you were a film company looking for something to cut back on, 120 film would probably be your first target. There's more demand for 35mm, and the cutting and boxing of 4x5 is pretty easy, so they'd be the last to go. IMO, 120 will be the format that disappears first.

[rich815]

Sorry, Ray, but you sound like another person who has spent multiple thousands on digital equipment and sure wants to feel good about it. Seems those who just purchased a $5000+ Canon Digital SLR or spent even more on some high-end MF back are the ones so sure that the death of film is right around the corner or within only a few years. <p>

 

There are thousands upon thousands of medium format cameras out there, I have one from 1932 which works like a dream, another from the late 50's and another complete system from the 1960's. They are built like tanks and will likely outlast the remaining 40 or so years I have left. Medium format 120 film, be it made in Japan, the US, China, Hungary or somewhere else in the E.U. will be around for a long time, even as a niche product. It might cost $5 or more USD a roll (like the rolls of 620, 828, 127, etc.) but it will be around, as will still be many of the other so called "alternative processes" of photography, which are still here but should have "died" years and years ago.<p>

 

<i>"There is only one medium format camera manufacture that is on

sound financial footing today..."</i> <p>

 

You forgot Holga. Not sure who makes those but does it matter? Now there's a niche that has exploded in recent years. Enough to "save" medium format on a large scale? No, not likely. Enough, along with all the others who have cameras that will last for a long time, to keep a few of the niche film producers in business making B&W 120? <p> Easily.<P>

 

Gone in 5? Dead in 10? You sound like those same people 3-4 years ago...<p>

[feli]

As long as people continue to buy 120/220 format film, someone will keep making it.

Keep hitting that shutter button folks, if we want to stay one step ahead of the technological

Grim Reaper.

[fotografz]

The future of MF is Digital.

 

Imacon and Phase One lifted the bar way over the head of DSLRs with the 39 meg 1.1X

645 backs. Not for the casual weekend shooter, but a significant improvement for pro

shooters ... and something the casual shooter can look forward to at a more reasonable

price after the next few leaps forward. In the meantime backs like the Imacon 96V can be

had for less than the Canon 1DsMKII and provide images that are superior.

 

So the most you are really risking with any demise of film (real or exaggerated) are

obsolete film backs.

 

In the mean time there is film. If color processing declines to the point of no return,

there's always B&W. If that declines, there's the freezer, and powdered chemicals that store

indefinitely. Probably better to process your own B&W anyway.

[kipling]

regardless of the fact that film is a better than digital in a lot of situations, it's doomed because most people are too lazy, impatient, pressured and stupid for film to have any future. i'm not saying this because i regret films disapearence, it's just very obvious.<p>

a commercial photographer i worked with last week, who shoots almost exclusively digital with only a couple of exceptions in situations where digital backs don't preform well (dark shadowy situations), had just finished a job and told me how he only uses film as a back-up for his digital files and also just to compare things to every once in a while. a day later we were going over the post processing of a shoot and he gets a call from his assistant who tells him that he'd accidently loaded e-6 film instead of tungsten for the last job. the film they shot (as a back-up) was screwed. <p>

that kind of thing only happens with film. lab screw ups, eaten, badly scratched and or lost film, improper film, bad scans, etc. with digital all the stupid little mistakes that can happen and do happen, can be seen immediately and corrected. with film you have to be extreemely careful or you're screwed. and besides that, everyone is spoiled rotten with the immediacy of digital.

ask any photographer who has shot with film, they all have their horror stories. digital has a great safety mechanism, you (and/or your client) can see it immediately and therefor eliminate 99% of everything that can ruin a job.

[rich815]

As I was reading your post Kipling I thought you were going to tell that story of the assistant who accidently re-formatted the memory card. Heard of a few people who had done that, some right after a wedding shoot. My father did it right after his trip to Alaska. Good thing it was only 1 of 4 memory cards he had filled that trip.

[robert_clark]

Just to give another point of view and take issue with Jeff and Vinay - I was in Darjeeling recently where almost all of the thousands of Indian tourists were using cheap point and shoot FILM cameras. I went into the 3 main camera supply shops and asked the dreaded question - they all said they sold far more film cameras than digital, in fact they had only a few digital cameras, yet dozens of film cameras.

 

In Bombay where I lived until last year, and have visited since, hardly a backwater, film is very much still alive and many of the pros there are still using it.

 

Yes, the majority of press have switched to digital and no doubt it will become more universal; even so there are still millions of city dwellers there who can afford a cheap plastic Kodak and the odd film for weddings, births and divali etc. but cannot afford any form of digital.

 

What this means for the future of film is hard to say, but B&W film technology at least is pretty simple and I imagine it'll be around so long as there are a few people who like dabbling in it.

[fotografz]

Kipling is right for many correct reasons, but there are others: Like less and less

commercial clients are willing to pay $30 to $70 for film scans.

 

Virtually all commercial application printing is now digital and all images have to be in

digital format. A catalog with 150 items thus would have film, processing, and scanning

expenses totaling upwards of $5,000.

 

I haven't shot a commercial job on film in 5 years, nor have I had a re-shoot since the

client is right there approving the shot on an Apple Cinema.

 

However, I still shoot a lot of wedding work on film so I don't have to process 400 pictures

after the fact ... and neg film is more forgiving of some harsh lighting situations frequently

found at weddings ... and the skin tones look nicer.