Film Vs. Digital...Future of Film Photography? Polaroid Insolvent!

[schopke]

I would like to know your oppinions on the future of Film Photography and M Photography. I was reading the current issue of PDN (Photo District News). On page 18 of the December 2001 issue is a report on Polaroid. In the article PDN has stated:

 

<p>

 

"...It was just a matter of time before computer chips would capture and store images, and film would go the way of glass plates...We are all [Professional Photographers] in the midst of a transformation to digital imaging....for many photographers, this transformation resulted in a signifcant drop off in the use of professional Polaroid film [film], and of course OTHER FILMS TOO."

 

<p>

 

Does this concern other people also? I have two Hasselblads, five Hasselblad lenses, an M6 and three Leica M lenses. I am by now means trying to brag. My point is only that I have all of this equipment and I often worry about how long 35mm,120 and 4X5 film will be available. I once emailed John Sexton about this his reponse was:

 

<p>

 

"I don't have any real answers or advice about the future of "traditional" vs "digital" photography. I am reminded of the fact that not long after the turn of the 20th century many photographers where bemoaning the "death" of platinum and palladium printing as commercially viable products and procedures. Today, however, there are still many dedicated photographers using these materials based on their aesthetic desires and choices. I'm sure it will remain the same with "traditional" silver imaging.

 

<p>

 

Even John Sexton was unsure to some degree of the mainstream livelyhood of traditional silver film and paper. Is film on the way out? what are your thoughts?

[joshroot]

Film will be around for a long time. There will be a slow decrease in

the various emulsions, I'm sure. But I seriously doubt that it will

disappear entirely.

[tony_rowlett2]

I promise, neither you nor I have anything to worry about during our

lifetime. Just like Mr. Sexton said, there are still many

photographers using materials and processes that are now well over 100

years old. I highly doubt that any living soul will ever wake up some

day in a world with no film to load. What will happen, however, is

the digital industry will continue to evolve, and commercial

photographers will continually move toward digital imaging. But this

is only because of certain monetary conveniences and a mad rush to get

that bottom line image to the publisher right now. These are things

that aren't typically a priority for hobbyists and artists. And many

pros will still be using film cameras for hobby/art for probably

forever. I think the "fixed image" is here to stay. It just won't be

the only image.

[oliver_s.]

While I agree that film will be around for a while, I'm not sure

it will be easily available. If the alleged ease of use of digital

image capture & processing doesn't kill it, environmental laws well

almost may. (No matter how harmless b&w development chemicals are,

film production wastes aren't.) Of course, silicon processing leaves

us with at least the same amount of toxic waste--but all the IT

industry has a 'clean' image in the public whereas we've all seen

smoking chimneys over chemical factories, and politics is about image,

not about improving anything.</p>I'm afraid silver-based imaging

accessories will be like oil painting equipment withing 20 or 30

years: used by a small group of aficionados who create amazing art,

but considered an esoteric and superfluous craft by the

majority.</p>What I consider so abonimable about the change is the

craze for digital created by popular photography periodicals and

advertising. Weren't 1.3 Mp cameras the death of film just yesterday,

and you'd better hurry to get one for your holiday snapshots? Oops,

the 2.1 Mp version's out, and of course you <u>need</u> it

<u>now</u>. Now if many digitalists weren't so brazenly arrogant! The

next one to tell me I'm a dinosaur that should vanish instantly will

learn that some reptiles are venomous.

[sait_akkirman]

I am positive about the future of our equipment. There are

already digital backs available for most makes of 120 and 4x5

camera systems. I am also sure that we will have film for a long

time yet. However, polaroid film is very important as proofing

material and if it dissapeared soon we could be in serious

trouble. Unless of course Fuji buys Polaroid.

[nesrani]

Oliver, how can I resist that? You're a dinosaur mate! Ouch! Ouch!

[dlegaspi]

remember during the advent of affordable personal computers, floppy

disks and high-volume digital storage many have predicted

about "paperless office" and similar things? heh...it never happened.

 

<p>

 

and also, remember the vinyl records? yeah, on the virge of death

because of compact discs! only audiophiles and collectors actually

buy vinyls nowadays...

 

<p>

 

so what happens to film now that digital image storage has become

affordable? it's either going the first or the second scenario.

 

<p>

 

but i think it's more of the first scenario...because i think it's

more rewarding to at my perfectly-exposed slides on the light table

and a good loupe rather than staring at a gamma-corrected digital

image on a computer monitor.

 

<p>

 

i must admit, though, that if the price digital SLR has dropped about

$1,500...you'll find my Nikons on eBay or photo.net classifieds...and

it's getting close...D30s are now $2,300 last time i checked!

 

<p>

 

...but no matter what happens, i'm not selling my M6!

[steven_alexander1]

Will there be film around for me to use in the future? Let us look at the

capture of the image not the entire workflow. This question was asked 25

years ago by motion picture cameramen as video nibbled at the edges and

promises of a new revolution in making films was at hand. You can today use

either technology, film...video for capture and both are alive and well and

defined as to the audience and purpose of the project.

 

<p>

 

I know that the large selection of color and black & white films on the shelves

today will narrow, the dizzing amount and variety of equipment for film will

shrink; however, materials that create profitable revenue streams for

companies will continue to be available.

 

<p>

 

Today it is difficult to find daily newsppapers that depend on film to illustrate

their stories and the sale of digital cameras this past gift giving season far

over took film cameras. However, some manufacturers are experiencing

steady or slight growth in film camera sales the past two years. Yet I was

unable to find FG7 (not expired) at several dealers and ID-11 was not

available at another large international store. Demand will shape the market

and the supplies we will use in the future.

 

<p>

 

I will continue to use my Leicas and Ilford film as long as I can, my digital

camera is fun for some family events yet I still wouldnot depend on it to get

even family happy snaps that are important or meaningful.

 

<p>

 

Does my ZIP disc contain images or my client list, I'll turn on the light box and

find out.

 

<p>

 

Happy New Year and new age of mixed image making.

 

<p>

 

Steven

[tod_hart]

Recently I acquired a magazine issue which was devoted to addressing

the revolution in photographic technology. The leading editorial

comments were:

 

<p>

 

"If we were to take seriously some of the current advertising and

statisical overstatements we might well conclude that the end of

*traditional photography* is close upon us; the advance of *new

technology photography* photography cannot be stayed, and it is only a

question of time before it completely ousts *traditional

photography* , relegating it to an insignificant role. How far, in

such a pronouncement, the wish is father to the thought remains to be

seen. Certainly commercial considerations will play their part, for

the industry lives by turnover, not by ideals and aesthetic

considerations."

 

<p>

 

The lead article then included submitted insights on the issue with

hopeful statements to the effect, *traditional photography* will

diminish, but never completely disappear, to the practical statement

that editorial demand for *new technology photograpy* images for the

professional and decreasing costs to the amateur user will surely doom

*traditional photography*. Then there was the prophetic, "... the

younger generation will automatically take up *new technology

photograpy* without ever having bothered with *traditional

photography*. This puts an end to the problem: people use *new

technology photograpy* because they do not know any better, and

because anything else would be old-fashioned."

 

<p>

 

Everything in quotes above is verbatim from the magazine, except

replace all occurrences of *traditional photography* with *black &

white photography*, and all occurrences of *new technology

photography* with *colour photography*. The magazine? Leica

Fotografie, Issue #5, from 1964.

 

<p>

 

I guess all of us who have taken up B & W since about 1965 can join

the dinosaur crowd. Digital - we'll have to wait 37 years to see.

[bob haight]

My opinion from reading the newspapers and talking to dealers is that

consumer level photography on a new or replacement basis is now

almost entirely digital. Nobody is selling film point and shoots.

Commercial photography is rapidly going digital. If you do not

believe it, pick up a copy of PDN, which you have done, all digital.

Film will be around but as said above, the selection will limit and

availability will be in larger stores such as B & H. A limited group

will always shoot chromes, but over time this group will shrink. We

have just gotten to be a computer world and the digital camera and

imaging is where the future is in general photography. I fear even I

will eventually buy a digital camera.

[Spearhead]

I think there's way too much angst over this topic.

 

<p>

 

I'm a lot more worried about whether I can produce some interesting

images in the next year than whether I have to switch mediums.

[jay_.]

I think it's a given that film will not either disappear or become

prohibitively expensive or hard to obtain until such time as digital

offers the same level of convenience (vis-a-vis memory media and

battery consumption)and image quality as film. At this juncture only

those with large investments in certain camera brands--especially

Leica-- anguish *this* much over the issue. Nikon, Canon and most

all medium-format owners already can breathe a sigh of relief that

digital bodies or backs will permit them to continue to use their

multitudes of lenses (the most expensive part of photographic

investment). Whether the other brands will eventually provide

digital bodies (before their customers have entirely defected)remains

to be seen. At present one can obtain adaptors to use Leica R lenses

on Canon D30 and 1D bodies (albeit in stop-down mode with no auto

diaphragm). I just bought a used Fuji S1 (no intention to drop 5K on

a D1X when I know it'll be obsolete in 6 months)but mostly for e-mail

use. I don't like messing with any kind of processing, so for me

whether it's film or a memory card I'd still take it to someone to

process. There's no huge advantage for me to digital.

[ralph_barker]

Film will cease to be available in 2012, as will digital cameras. That

year, after all, is the end of time according to the Aztec calendar.

 

<p>

 

Seriously, my bet is that film will be around for a long time. The

economics may shift due to low-end digital taking over much of the

consumer market, but 35mm, 120 and 4x5 formats all have healthy lives

ahead. We may also see film availability from Kodak dwindle due to

short-term greed driving the stock market (and, thus how American

companies manage their businesses and product lines), but the need for

film for both commercial, art, and hobby applications has a long curve

ahead.

 

<p>

 

Consider, for example, that while digital has made inroads in news and

certain segments of commercial photography (notably catalog

production), many (most?) magazine editors still prefer

transparencies. This is due mainly to the fact, I believe, that film

fits nicely with the manual nature of pre-production work flow of

magazines, while digital doesn't. That is true even though the

ultimate production of most magazines is completely digital.

 

<p>

 

That might change, of course, when someone designs a 6x7cm Flash

memory card with a built-in display panel that runs off body heat and

static electricity. Additionally, high-end digital needs to drop in

price by at least an order of magnitude, and become far more portable

through a similar drop in power consumption, before it takes over more

segments of the commercial market. In the interim, however, I'm not

too worried.

[kirktuck]

I would love to say that digital will never supplant film but I have only to look at my own business to see that it is not true. We had requests a year ago

from one of our good clients, Dell Computer. We've shot their executive photos for years and they wanted to change over to digital capture since most

of their uses are for the web, but,,,,, they wanted high enough quality to be able to send "photo quality" 5x7's to magazines and advertising agencies for

use in production. We bought an Olympus E-10 and found the quality very, very good. While we bought the camera ostensibly to service one client,

by the end of the first year 50% of our requests were for digital capture. To retain margins we charge a digital use and archiving fee. It is a sensible

solution when documenting large trade shows and events as well. I also wish I could say that only our low end clients request digital, but the truth is that

the companies driving the shift are our blue chips, IBM, Motorola, Dell, Time Warner. The only clients who still DEMAND film are, oddly enough, the

magazines and trade publications. I see a future where in two years every working photographer has changed over to 90% digital and only uses real film

when a job requires a blow up over 11x14. In five years the professional transition will be complete. I'll be sad and nostalgic but I will try to stay in front

of the curve to maintain my income in the business. That's as honest as I can be.

[nesrani]

What Kirk says is very interesting. Obviously stock and assignment

agencies find digital files very convenient to handle and deliver,

but magazines and publishers are often more backward, in the sense

that they have a culture of using film and are afraid of change.

Grazia Neri was telling me a couple of weeks ago that Italian

magazines are very slow to accept the use of digital files and prefer

slide dupes (which they can feel free to lose or tread on) because

that's what they know how to use.

 

<p>

 

Of course there are also issues of digital image theft, but that's

inevitable when you can scan an image from a mag and reprint it from

the scan or use it online.

 

<p>

 

Anyway, my impression is that the agencies and photographers are the

ones who are pushing the use of digital (and I would count myself in

on that, even though I still shoot slide), while the publishers are

generally slow to adopt new technologies.

 

<p>

 

As to Polaroid, surely digital backs are the most convenient way of

proofing a shot rather than looking at a polaroid? In terms of both

convenience and cost, it seems to me polaroid is a poor competitor to

digital, which is probably why its gone belly up.

 

<p>

 

Someone mentioned that film shooters would be making incredible works

of art in twenty years time? I don't think the medium has anything to

do with the quality of the image. Technical parameters are pretty

irrelevant compared to the human/graphic/whatever content of your

images.

[andrew_schank]

I noticed in this month's Shutterbug the B&H ads had pages of digital

cameras and only a few P&S 35mm cameras listed. They used to have

several full pages of P&S cameras listed. I think the pros will

mostly go high end digital in the near future, and that P&S customers

will pick up the $200 digital cameras instead. Left in the middle

are the ameteur enthusiasts like many of us, and someone will supply

us will film and prcessing for quite some time, but maybe not

indefinately. This may be an ad you'll see common 15 years from

now "for sale, antique Leica 35mm equipment for display or digital

conversion"

[Robin Smith]

I think that what many people say will probably happen. As someone who

takes mainly slides and makes prints only occasionally, I am the sort

of person who is currently at a disadvantage come the revolution, as

there is so far no real substitute for film slides, but who knows what

may happen in the future?

 

<p>

 

On a purely Leica note, I feel it inevitable that if Leica continues

to exist then it will get a digital body of some sort. It may take a

while, but there again most Leica users are not digital fiends and are

happier with traditional materials and will only change when digital

is really equivalent to 35mm in terms of quality and convenience and

so on. The interesting thing about the sale of digital P&S is that the

quality of "home snaps" is taking a nose dive in quality compared to

the quality of conventional snaps. What once would have considered

unacceptable, is now being touted as "excellent" - solely because it

is "digital" and "new". This will continue for a while, but the

serious amateurs I think will hold off until they can confidently

replace film. I for one cannot afford a top notch Canon or Nikon

digital camera even if I wanted one.

 

<p>

 

Whether the eventual Leica digital is more likely to be an M or an R

is anybody's guess, but I think a digital R is certainly easier to see

a reality as they could quite easily license (in principle) a version

of one of the big Japanese digital cameras and modify accordingly. The

M Leica is such as fetish object that to change it at all is more

risky and would require a bigger investment. Still I suppose a fetish

object is no use if there is no film for it, in which case r/f users

may have to change the body type and size to keep the Leica r/f going.

 

<p>

 

A digital camera with Leica optics I think we will all see in due

course, assuming the company continues to exist. The camera will not

just be an M6 with a chip in it though. I think the camera will need a

more thorough redesign. What might be even more likely is that Konica

or VC, or someone else will beat Leica and produce a good digital M

camera -- many Leicaphiles might find this difficult to resist I

think.

[andrew n.bra hrefhttp]

Something no-one appears to have mentioned yet

is the simple approach of using film for image

capture, but digital for final delivery.<P>

 

This is what I have been doing now for years.

Shoot onto C41 film, loupe the negs for the keepers

and then scan them in. Supply the results as JPEGs

or TIFFs or QuickTime MOVs. Easy. None of my

clients have ever seen my original film masters,

and frankly never will!<P>

 

Have saved myself $10Ks doing this by keeping off

the "upgrade your pro digicam every year"

merry-go-round. And you enjoy the advantages

of both worlds: film's archival storage and

high resolution + broad dynamic range; digital's

ease of manipulation and delivery and replication.

[andrew_schank]

This question comes up every month or so on many of the photo related

forums. When the day comes where all the major 35mm camera brands

STOP OFFERING ANY quality film cameras for sale, that's when you can

look forward to the demise of film within a decade or two. In the

meantime, people are still buying tens of thousands of new film based

camera every year, Nikon, Canon, etc are still coming out with new

expensive models, and millions of dollars are being invested in

upgading developing equipment, with chemical/digital hybrid systems

like the Fuji Frontier becoming more popular.

[david_killick]

The film /scanning combo is a good idea, but it's a case of horses for

courses. My newspaper got rid of its darkrooms a couple of years ago

and now well over 90 per cent of images shot are on digital. A

fraction are still shot on film (then scanned) where high quality is

needed. (A full-page cover shot for a feature section, for example).

 

<p>

 

 

The demand is for immediacy, and digital is faster. Theoretically. In

practice, processing neg film and scanning does not seem to be much

slower. Another advantage of digital is that the high initial cost can

be set against savings on buying film. Early on, the pros inexplicably

lost images; that's improved, but it still seems easy to wipe a set of

images by mistake. Insufficient memory is a problem. And the cameras

are more power hungry than a politician.

 

<p>

 

 

Where the photojournos go, there will others follow? Or not? Not for

wedding and many commercial users where quality, not immediacy is the

over-riding concern. And not for amateurs, at least not straightaway,

I feel. First, the cost has to come down - a lot. But it would be

interesting to ask again in a year's time.

 

<p>

 

 

Cost savings would appear to be a double-edged sword. Anything with a

computer built in seems to triple the purchase price. With a digital

camera you will save on film - over the long term (though you have to

be a very heavy user). However, the technology itself will become out

of date and devalue very rapidly, even as the camera is being taken

out of its nice shiny wrapper. And will today's storage media

(flashcards, etc) still be the standard in two yars time, let alone 20

or 100?

 

<p>

 

Your Hasselblads and Leicas are mature products, superbly built; the

quality of images solely dependent on the individual who uses them.

Digital cameras are immature products. I suspect, at least for most

individuals who don't bother about claiming depreciation on tax, you

will lose more money by buying new digital cameras now, than by

hanging on to your film cameras, which are already "outmode

[preston_merchant]

Don't forget that color photography in newspapers is a relatively

recent phenomenon, which is driving digital as well. As someone has

already pointed out, the immediacy of digital delivery is more

important than image quality. Where would the NY Times be today if

it were waiting on rolls of film to be airlifted from Mazar-e-Sharif?

 

<p>

 

It seems that the real threat to film (fewer film and camera choices,

fewer places to have it processed) will be evident only when digital

makes more inroads in the middle market--somewhere between the high-

flying PJs and the weekend family snappers, both of whom are markets

unto themselves.

 

<p>

 

Most of us in the middle really do fall somewhere in between,

shooting casually often and semi-professionally when the

opportunities arise. We partake of both ends of the spectrum, but

camera makers don't see us a big market.

 

<p>

 

Another thing to think about is that not all camera buyers are

wealthy folks in the First World, buying digital cameras, computers,

scanners, printers, cartridges, glossy paper, and over-priced

connecting cables--all to print vacation snaps! The demand for

inexpensive C-41 duplicate prints worldwide is enormous. Look at

where your grey-market Fuji film comes from.

 

<p>

 

The operators may not change their chemicals often enough or pay as

much attention as we would like when they run the machines, but you

can get one-hour prints just about anywhere on the planet. You can

also buy a roll of Konica ASA 100 from a stall at every site ever

visited by three camera-toting tourists.

 

<p>

 

Will digital dislodge all that anytime soon?

[msitaraman]

"My opinion from reading the newspapers and talking to dealers is

that consumer level photography on a new or replacement basis is now

almost entirely digital. Nobody is selling film point and shoots. "

 

<p>

 

My own two bit opinion as follows :-)

 

<p>

 

Somehow, I don't think consumers drive photography too much-they are

consumers of whatever is put out. 20 years ago everybody and his dog

was buying SLRs. Then we all had to have that nifty P&S. 99% All

these handy image production machines are gathering dust, because

(outside of Japan) people take pictures only a few times a year, and

that too as sparingly as using large format film (I exaggerate).

 

<p>

 

Photographic technology will evolve at the hands of professionals.

 

<p>

 

Hardly anyone here has mentioned Leicas. Surely what is to be feared

is the loss of simplicity?

 

<p>

 

Digital cameras are notable for their user unfriendliness and ghastly

ergonomics. The history of PC, video camera, and VCR camera design

is marked by clunkiness. In fact design thinking today is far far

removed from the near forgotten design ethos of the mechnical

engineering heyday that prevailed before 1960.

 

<p>

 

I daresay no digital camera designer has ever used a Leica or

appreciated its direct, no frills or distractions approach to image

capture...

[bobtodrick]

This from the December 2001 PMA (Photomarketing Association) U.S.

Consumer Photo Buying Report (to which most photo retailers in North

America and much of Europe are part of). QUOTE "the number of U.S

households with a digital camera remains less than the hopeful

predictions of the late 1990s". The figure has stabilized at about

9.3 percent (whereas film cameras are in about 75 percent of

households). They then go on to state that there is a much lower rate

of first time buyers of low end digital cameras switching to a higher

end camera - the reason they feel being that many owners quickly

become frustrated with digital and return to silver halide. Don't

count film out for quite a while...

[kirktuck]

Mani suggests that digital cameras are not user friendly or simple to use. I don't agree. I've owned a Nikon F5 and spent time tracking down custom

function numbers and other equally arcane settings. I find the Olympus E-10, the Canon G-2 and even the Canon D30 to be as convenient and almost

as fast. A previous poster feels that the success of digital will depend on people outside the first world having access to c-41 prints and that conversion

is already happening as all manufacturers of mini-lab equipment are introducing and agressively pricing mini-lab machines that will take a compact flash

card directly and handle the images just like film and for the same basic cost. For the lab, especially outside Camelot, a total switch to digital would

obviate the need toprocess film and the water + filtration and treatment required. I give film five years for amateurs and one year for pros. Further, I

would say that while film will continue to be available for 20 or more years as the quantity and demand decline the costs will soar. Who will be willing to

pay $30 or $40 a roll when digital will be as good and infinitely cheaper. I just found out that several of the larger machine manufacturers are switching the

output of the machines to a high speed/high quality inkjet process that will be indistinguishable from optical C-41 prints. You may already be using inkjet

materials while sneering about the quality of "available technologies". Kodak is one of those manufacturers.

 

<p>

 

Just trying to keep it all in perspective.

 

<p>

 

Kirk

[msitaraman]

Kirk, you say "I've owned a Nikon F5 and spent time tracking down

custom function numbers and other equally arcane settings. I find the

Olympus E-10, the Canon G-2 and even the Canon D30 to be as

convenient and almost as fast. "

 

<p>

 

I think that just illustrates my point. An F5 is not as simple to

use, or as handy as an M6, or as carryable even if it is blazingly

fast. I'd love to see a small light digital camera, with no shutter

lag, dead easy scrolling through pictures, and just aperture,

shutter, and ISO controls (ok, maybe white balance as well).

 

<p>

 

And by the way, since digital chips are much smaller than the image

circle of 35 mm lenses, how come no digital camera optical viewfinder

shows you what's outside the frame, ala Leica M? That way you would

have the best of both the rangefinder and the SLR worlds.

 

<p>

 

I think the absence of a little design detail like that just

illustrates that today's design thinking is just not inspired along

the lines of usability and ergonomics. We should all be demanding

that digital cameras be more usable than just the F5.