Whats in store for Film Camera's?

[mark45831]

With Digital camera's becomming more and more popular, whats going

to happen to film shooters? will the price of film and chemicals

become to expensive?

Will Film choice be of less choices when you can only have a few

selections?

Ive considered purchasing a Digital to play around with but ive yet

to see a final image that compares with Medium format procesed in a

good lab or at home, there just seems to be somthing missing in a

digital image even though some of them look fantastic.

On the bright side, The price's of the equipment may go down so I

can buy more but Id hate to have it become outdated and sitting on a

shelf and have my grand kids ask me how to operate it like trying to

expain to kids today how to drive a 3 speed on the colume :-).

Just woundering what everyones thoughts are;

Thanks

[bret_williams]

Everything you said will probably happen. But the crucial question is timeframe. Will it happen in a timeframe that matters to you? I suspect no one presently concerned about the death of film and its complete unavailability need worry. It will probably cost you more green guys though.

[marbing]

What is happening is that digital cameras are becoming more and more 'fashionable' and that means, people who values things based on their 'cool' factor are now seriously undervalueing film cameras.

 

I was just browsing on a popular auction site and saw things like Zeiss lenses for 645 cameras going for a couple of hundred dollars when they should be a couple of thousand.

 

Contax 35mm bodies are going for next to nothing...and yet...our 35 and MF cameras are just as capable image taking machines as they ever were. The fact that they are now undervalued by the 'cool crowd' only means that we who still see the practical value of these tools now have access to incredible bargains!

[bret_williams]

On second thought, no, there will be a complete revival of film in about ten to fifteen years. Most people will lament that they have no hard copies of their pictures and have lost the electronic versions that they thought they "saved" on their computer. Also, and this is important, people will realize (subconsciously of course) that they miss the visual and TACTILE experience of flipping through a photo album of prints. All the old equipment will be worth a mint!

[jeff_schneider]

I think interest in film will hit bottom soon, with nobody but hobbyists buying it anymore. After that, it will become "cool", and have a small but permanent and enthusiastic following. I'm keeping all my film gear, but buying digital, too.

[ilkka_nissila]

I do hope there will be continued interest in film, but it sure does look like slicky smooth digital is the only one most hobby photographers will be exposed to. Pros and crazy enthusiasts like me will continue to use film into the foreseeable future, that is as long as we live. When we're dead then no one will care or remember what film was.

[mark45831]

I thinking film has yet to hit its low and it will withstand time.

I look at the CPU im on now, 3 years ago when I bought it, it was the top of the line and now its comparable to the cheaper one being sold. Its just that electronic's advance so fast now that by the time you think you have somthing new and cool its out of date, thing is, if there comes a time when I can purchase a Blad for a couple hundred bucks and lense, im gona have to rent a storage cantainer to keep them, because im gona buy as many as I can.

I think Digital has its place, when customers ask me about Digital photographs I tell them, if your shooting a backyard BBQ great, but if yout doing that family portrait or formal wedding photo's and you want them to be around for your ancestors to see go film.

I mean, I remember when 8 tracks where the thing, I still have a few, I have no player to put it in, and I think thats what Digital may be headed too.

[peter_evans4]

<p><em>if there comes a time when I can purchase a Blad for a couple hundred bucks and lense, im gona have to rent a storage cantainer to keep them, because im gona buy as many as I can</em></p><p>I thought one, two, or at most three would be enough for most people. What's this though -- do they wear out that quickly?</p>

[spanky]

I was in the same spot you are in now a couple years back. I wasn't sure shelling out a couple grand on a RZ67 system would be wise but I did and boy am I ever glad I did!

The "coolness" factor is a real thing though. I know several people who have perfectly good 35mm cameras switch to digicams because when they would go out shooting they didn't like being the only one shooting film. For others it's just a easy and lazy way to take pics. Why bother learning anything like exposure, composition ect when you can just keep blasting away until you get an image you like.

I also believe film will be around for quite some time...some people are still using ancient glass plate type negatives used at the dawn of photography. So if you want to get into MF this is the best time to do so. Lastly trust me on this one point: Walking around with a MF camera really marks you as somebody serious. I've had many people with digital cameras come up to me and admire my RZ so don't let anyone try to convince you to shoot digital "because everyone else is".

[thomas_sullivan]

well, if the worry is whether your medium format cams are going to go to waste....take a look <a href="http://www.digitaltransitions.com/"><u>here</u></a>. It doesn't answer the film question, but it sure makes certain MF purchases something to think about.

[stp]

I shot with Nikon 35mm for many years, got the D70 but ended up giving it to my

son, switched to Canon because of their digital offerings, shot with a 20D as well as a

Pentax 645 system, and found that every time an outstanding scene appeared I

reached for the Pentax. I now save the 20D for birds and backyard barbeques, and

my Ebony large format will arrive next week. Over the years I've learned that the

process is just as important as the end result.

[SCL]

Film shooters are going to grow old and then lazy and some of them will switch to digital (or whatever it will be called 10 years from now). Film & chemicals will be more expensive than now because of smaller market demand, likewise for film choices....you're already seeing some of that now. Get a digital & have fun with it (not MF because that's for pros right now), learn to use it and then do a comparison with film. I use both film & digital in 35mm and have done so for several years. In MF I only use film, although I've seen some impressive digital stuff ($$$$). No matter what you do, 20 yrs from now your choice will be woefully outdated...you may be happy with that, as I am with my Leicas, or you may try to figure out how to get rid of the old junk you accumulated.

[shambrick007]

"...if there comes a time when I can purchase a Blad for a couple hundred bucks and lense.."<p>That time is now --> KEH, bargain condition.

[bhneely]

At this stage and moving forward, I think it's something of a mistake to call film work and pixel work by the same name. Within ten years there'll be an understanding that there's digital imaging and that there's photography. I have no disparaging comments for my brothers and sisters who use pixels to create representations of reality, or to create completely new ways of looking at reality, but at the same time, it's not photography. It's digital imaging.<p>

 

100-120 years ago there was fear amongst "real" artists that painting would die. Why buy a painting when you can just take a picture? Remember about a decade ago when all of a sudden B&W photography was discovered? All these photographers who'd been shooting art and weddings and portraits exclusively in color suddenly lost cache as B&W was the way "real" photographs were made in the minds of part of the picture-buying public. The same thing will happen with digital imaging vs. photography. If you believe any method of making images truly dies, I know an artist who uses a straw to blow dry ink onto papier-mache sculptures to recreate the look of cave art. That's only been around for 40,000 years or so.<p>

 

So what do I say? Use both, if you like both. The one you like to use will be the one that you use most, but unless you give up image making altogether, you'll want that photography gear.

[heller_harris]

There's one important question: Are they going to continue to make film?

If the answer is "No", then we're going to left with our, uh, <em>lens </em> in our hand.

 

Anyone have any hard info on Fuji and Kodak's committment to film, especially 120 film?

[marbing]

There are desktop film processing units like the <a href="http://www.phototherm.com/sk8rh.html" >Phototherm </a> which will allow us to develop our films without the need of a full darkroom or major plumbing renovations to our house. It also doesn't require the handling of chemicals.</P>

What if some bright company created a home machine that could place emulsion layers on blank stock and allow us to produce our own film?</p>

Years ago, photogs used to have to make their own wet plates 'in the field' and, although modern film is composed of many layers of different emulsions with dozens of different chemicals for each layer, a machine could make the complex task possible for the average person (or group). It would be an expensive piece of equipment (at first) but perhaps something that a large camera club could invest in and produce film for the members.</p>

[nolan_ross]

Film is a huge shrinking business. Everyone is down sizing but it will eventually level out. Don't forget about millions of disposable camera's, the people who still shoot film (vast), 3rd world countries that prefer film. In my camera club the digital craze consumed almost everyone but now it seems that using both systems are in vogue at least in the small group I am in. It is a valid format and things that are valid remain. Just keep on shooting and enjoy your format whatever that may be. As one company drops out another picks up on the new business potential. Nikon and Minolta just recently gave the 35mm format to Canon. From my perspective it will be time to worry if Canon drops their film camera's. Just my thoughts on the thing.

 

nolan

[Spearhead]

<i>3rd world countries that prefer film</i><p>

 

Which countries are those? How much time have you spent in those countries?

[mike_bates]

There hasn't been a new camera sold that shoots 127 or 620 film in more than 30 years (maybe longer), yet you can still buy these films from specialty suppliers. The selection is thin and the prices are higher, but they are still available.

 

Imagine how many 120 film cameras are out there today, even being sold new. There will be a market for 120 film for many years. Someone will fill the need.

 

In the mean time, those of us riding the "trailing edge of technology" are buying cameras and lenses we could only dream about five years ago. Thank you, digital revolution.

[john_layton]

I've been teaching film based photo workshops at Dartmouth College for over twenty years

- and they are now as popular as ever. What I'm currently noticing is a significant degree

of "infectious enthusiasm" - digital savvy students who become inspired by photography

generally and want to try "going traditional." Once this happens, nearly one hundred

percent of these students will relate that the "new (traditional) way" of making a

photograph is much more satisfying than the "old (digital) way." To be sure, most of these

students will continue using digital along with traditional, but now they at least have the

experience with each so that they can truly evaluate their own best use of each.

 

From my experience with these young photographers, I see a large part of the "problem"

being a simple lack of exposure to silver based photography, combined with the aspect of

more or less instant gratification which digital offers. The net result is that these young

folks simply lose any basis for making a choice - and digital wins.

 

So I take it as my responsibility, as one who can show this younger generation a thing or

two about silver based photography, to do just that, whenever possible.

[q.g._de_bakker]

The <i>"There hasn't been a new camera sold that shoots 127 or 620 film in more than 30 years (maybe longer), yet you can still buy [...]"</i> type argumentation rather ignores the fact that what we are discussing here is the possible end of film. Not of one film format.<br>Film choice will be less, because film (not a particular format; film) is used less.<br>Then the question becomes whether it remains economical viable to keep producing film (film. Not a particular format).<br>Two brands (Agfa, and now Konica) have quit the business already. What will Kodak (stopped investing in film a few years ago) and Fuji do?

[john_panagulias]

I think an interesting parallel is to understand what happened to vinyl records when CDs came out. There was a tremedous shift to digital. It looked like the death of vinyl and analogue playback (turntables,etc.) Fast forward 25 years (or so) and what do we see? CD sales are down. Vinyl sales are actually increasing. Yes, it's a smaller market. But it is comparatively healthy and growing. There are some fantastic companies producing (and reissuing) great recordings--on analogue. I suspect this situation will repeat itself. Stay tuned!

[bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa]

I don't understand why these debates essentially equivalent to discussing tomorrow's weather attract more people to forums than discussion of photography or photographs. Pity, really.

 

Film, just as developers and other materials will be as available as demand requires. An analogy is paint. There's enough demand for paint by artists (and non-artists) to be manufactured and sold at your nearest arts and crafts store. Painting isn't nearly as popular as photography, IMO. There's nothing to worry about availability of photo materials for as long as photographers demand film. Now I feel sorry for wasting time on this thread.

[thomas_sullivan]

"...I don't understand why these debates essentially equivalent to discussing tomorrow's weather attract more people to forums than discussion of photography or photographs. Pity, really..."

 

Dan, at one time it was the way you would like it, but it seems that some people got booted off pnet....and now it's this way. really can't get too worked up about posting pics all the time when they get buried with crap like this thread...the continuity gets lost...even if you mention that medium format cams will still be in demand with the use of digital backs....they wanna talk about the demise of film...guess they just wanna complain. 2004 was the year to be here..........that was great for posting pics.

[bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa]

Thomas: That's why I want ball-saal.com membership.