The future of film, film cameras and film processing labs

[waltflanagan]

<p>The vinyl analogy is good. </p>

<p>Most albums are not released on vinyl but a few are. Vinyl maintains a small dedicated following. The big box electronics stores stopped selling record players but you can still buy brand new record players from specialty stores. </p>

<p>Film will go the same way. There will be fewer types of film. The price will go up. It will be gone from retail stores but you'll be able to buy it online and from specialty stores in big cities. Unless you live in a big city you'll have to mail it to process it or do it at home.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Keith Aldrich wrote:</p>

<p>"is bleak....<br>

Film and processing used to be the bread and butter of most shops. With digital, you see many of those shops either dissapearing or making major changes to thier business models. The rough part is, that as those film finishing shops dissapear, even less film gets used (due to difficulty in finding suppliers). Its a downward spiral, and very unfortunate. It is almost as if film is becoming obsolete, which it really isn't."<br>

All the better suppliers of film have plenty of it. Most of the labs I felt safe in dealing with are still running film.<br>

Film does not need the casual shooter who wants it as fast as they can get. Film needs the passionate and patient shooter who does not mind mailing off his or her E-6 and waiting until it returns. When I was a kid, I would bring my Kodachrome to the drug store and they would mail it out. I would get it back in 3-5 days and it was like Christmas all over again. Having that approach to photography in the day and age when every bloody thing in life is done on a computer is not a bad thing in my eyes.<br>

The majority of the shops you refer to were one hour places that dealt with the average customer, certainly not the current one that will keep film alive.<br>

Those who want to use film will work around the limits of the new age and make it happen, period.</p>

 

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>Part of the answer is in your question. Repairs. What people don't understand is that good camera repair men are MUCH rarer than processing labs and MUCH rarer than used cameras. Unfortunately, many serviceable cameras are thrown away all the time. I think what will definitely happen is that electronic cameras from the 80's and 90's will all die. Circuits have a finite life. But you don't REALLY need matrix metering, auto focus, auto winders and time and date stamp do you? Ironically, I'm willing to bet that the cameras that end up lasting the longest will be some of the cheapest made. Basically, simple things have less parts to break. So while your N80 might just be a useless pile of electronics and precision parts, the Kodak Brownie's of the world will still be clicking away. And while that Nikon F100 might be just dead junk, the original F's will probably still be going. My recommendation? Buy and use up all the 80's and 90's cameras you can while they last. Enjoy them for their technological innovations and gagetry while it works, and when they finally die, pull out grandpa's classics and shoot them. Proper care and storage and excercise will keep many ancient cameras running for a long time to come. Just look at the classic car industry. Today you can buy CUSTOM parts for cars they stopped producing 70 years ago. You can bet that their will always be someone around with machine-shops setup for doing precision work. How about S.K. Grimes? What started as one man doing repair and customizations has become an incorporated business of a handful of talented young artisans. If more people follow that model, the knowledge won't die. There are a few websites with detailed repair instructions for a few cameras, but that really could and should be expanded. </p>

[steve m smith]

<p>Some film is still being used by the casual shooters who have perfectly good cameras and don't want to be bothered with computers and USB leads and such.</p>

<p>What's easier than dropping your film off and picking up your prints the next day?</p>

[Robert_Lai]

<p>Dave Sims: Why is a fountain pen "ridiculous"? I use one every day due to the fact that I write a lot. Fountain pens write by capillary action, so that the ink flows as soon as you touch pen to paper. There is no need to press, as with a ball point pen. Hence, the action of writing requires a LOT LESS effort. Furthermore, each pen is built to last several lifetimes. The only part that is likely to wear out is the point, and you have tradespeople who do retip pens. The point is made from a platinum family metal, often rheuthenium, traditionally iridium. The ink container or sac may also wear out, but they too are replaceable. The point is that these pens don't end up in landfills by the billions each year, as do the disposable Bics. These finely crafted pens, often with precious metal decorations are usually passed on generation after generation.</p>

<p>The same would apply to a fine mechanical film camera. Some parts may wear, or need adjustment, but there is usually someone with enough skill to repair or restore them. I'm using a Zeiss Super Ikonta C of 1937 vintage, for example. It works fine. If you want an SLR, think of the Nikon F or F2, which are all mechanical. So are the FM, FM2. I use an F3 which should be good as long as spare parts hold out. Usually it's the electronics which give out first on the modern cameras. My F3 has had a couple of CLAs in the past quarter century. These cameras are not meant to be disposable, and should give a long working life in the decades to come.</p>

[d_f11]

<p> Carlos, you've nothing to worry about. Don't listen to the "film is dead" crowd. It's an observation (wish?) from their myopic perspective. The ever-worsening economy is putting obvious dents in BOTH the digital & film sphere, so one can't accurately foretell which camp is headed where, and why they want to spend their time doing just that, well, they could be out taking photos instead. Anyhow, film shooting/usage is experiencing a re-emergence.</p>

[profhlynnjones]

<p>With regard to professional photograpy, PMAI, PPA, WPPA, AS MP, and NPPA all pretty much agree that film photography in the profession is dead by 2010.</p>

<p>Hobbiest and Fine Art photographers will, however, continue to buy and use film as long as manufacturers can sell the necessary volume for profitability. My personal guess is that there should be film around for 20 to 25 years. I'm a long time pro and I train pro photographers, however I still like film and use it about 20% of the time, especially for my swing lens panorama camera.</p>

<p>Lynn</p>

[jim_z]

<p>I look at the whole film thing much like the old video tape war between Beta and VHS. VHS may have "won", but sales of equipment and tapes was split among how many companies, each one cutting its prices to beat out the other guys until nobody was making any money. Meanwhile, the highest quality video system remained Beta, and it is the main choice for tv broadcast quality video. And who owns 100% of the Beta market? Sony. So while the Beta market is far smaller, Sony makes 100 PERCENT of the money in that market, and as VHS fades away Sony just keeps laughing all the way to the bank. I'm willing to bet their profits from Beta are more than the other 10 or so companies were each making splitting the VHS market into smaller and smaller pieces. The bottom line is, the last man standing makes all the money, thus a much smaller niche can actually prove to be quite profitable. If everyone has their own niche they make all the money and it will be profitable, even in a much smaller market. </p>

<p>So lets look at film and see what might happen there. Several companies have decided to be "the last man standing" in certain areas and are positioned to make all the money in their chosen niche if they win. Yes, there will be small bit players doing quite well if they offer a unique product (think Apple vs the PC), but 90% of each niche will be owned by a single company. In my view, based on reading the various press releases and such from all the major players, I think the market could eventually look like this: Kodak will kill off the E-6 slide films, so Fuji will own the color slide film market. Ilford will own the Black & White market, period. The only question is who will own the color negative market. In my view it will be Fuji. Yes, Kodak could compete here (the new Ektar 100 is a hint they might try since they say it should attract E-6 slide users), but considering they can't seem to decide which way to go, digital or film, they may stupidly walk away from the film market completely (why they cannot figure out there is no reason they can't go BOTH directions I don't know). For film sales Freestyle will own most of the market for selling film products. As for processing, Dwaynes (the ONLY lab still processing Kodachrome and thus making 100% of the money from that market) will be the last remaining processor of all color film. </p>

<p>Far fetched? Who knows?? But if this scenario comes to pass there will be no problems buying film or having it processed (albeit not locally) for a long time to come. My best guess? Well, I just picked up a slightly used Canon Elan 7N film camera and had my old Konica rangefinder film camera repaired ... </p>

 

[silverscape]

<p>I wonder if we can go for a whole month in the <strong>Film and Processing forum</strong> without someone saying "oh film isn't going to be around for much longer" and without people wandering in from the <em>digital</em> forums saying the usual crap about "oh film is dead, it'll be gone in 5 years."<br /><br />Has anyone else noticed that most people who come here and claim that film is "dead" mostly hang around in the digital forums? Is that a coincidence? I don't think so. If you like digital, fine...shoot digital. But for those of us who like film, let's just go out and have fun and take pictures with film.<br /><br />All these kind of topics do is just draw people in from the digital forums. It happens every single time. These topics end up on the "Active Threads" list on the forums, or even on the front page of Photo.net...and of course, it just ends up drawing people in from the digital forums who want to tell the the whole world that film will be gone tomorrow. If you're using a digital camera exclusively, then you've already made your choice. Why bother posting in the film forums? <br /><br />Look at the people who say "film is dead" and "fillm will be gone," etc...and you will see that most or all of their other posts are in the digital forums. They don't use film, they don't post in the film forums, and they only come here whenever topics like this show up.<br />Just stop all the doom and gloom (which is bogus anyway) and just go out and have fun taking pictures with FILM.</p>

[rossb]

<p>I am with Ellis. I think the weak link is the lab situation. Once the profit margin is gone the lab will stop processing film. In my county the situation is bleak for processing. If you shoot film you better be ok with driving some distance or mail order.</p>

[dave_s]

<p>Robert Lai, 5:59 PM. Actually we agree. All I'm saying is a fountain pen is not my cup of tea, but he can still get ink for the damn thing, even though some would say it's 'obsolete'. </p>

<p>We are on the same page about film cameras. I use Canon F1s and a Mamiya RZ, although I concede a 5DII or something similar is probably in my future.</p>

[patrick_mont]

<p>If anyone is having trouble with a lab turn to Dale Labs. I have had lab trouble and I switched to them and I am having great luck. They are expensive but they give me what I want. A flawless mail order lab!<br>

Dalelabs.com</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Lynn Jones wrote:</p>

<p>"With regard to professional photograpy, PMAI, PPA, WPPA, AS MP, and NPPA all pretty much agree that film photography in the profession is dead by 2010."<br>

I am a pro and a member of two of those organizations mentioned above. Even though I shoot digital and have for over 14 years, I plan on using film for the rest of my career. So the statement is inaccurate, "Almost Dead" would be better than generalizing.</p>

<p>Words play a powerful role in perception on the internet, let's not make false statements.</p>

 

[luca_stramare2]

<blockquote>

<p>Has anyone else noticed that most people who come here and claim that film is "dead" mostly hang around in the digital forums? Is that a coincidence? I don't think so. If you like digital, fine...shoot digital. But for those of us who like film, let's just go out and have fun and take pictures with film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Standing ovation!<br>

I agree 101% with you. Most of the people that see me taking pictures with my cameras keep telling me "don't you realize that film is dead". Then I ask them "When was the last time you bought and processed a roll of film?" Just because you don't use something anymore it does not mean that that something is dead.<br>

I am going to place an order for 100 rolls of "dead stuff" (i.e. slide film) today. I will share it with some "dead friends" that enjoy taking "dead pictures" with "dead cameras" that we will bring to "dead labs" for development and then we will enjoy looking together in "dead slide shows" with alive beers and cups of coffee in our hands. <br>

Besides, I too write with fountain pens!</p>

[lilserenity]

<p>I must admit I'm surprised I'm even going to reply to this but the way I look at it is that there is <em>just</em> photography, not film photography and digital photography, just photography.<br>

Now I happen to shoot film between my 35mm EOS 3 and Leica M2, and 120 in my Mamiya C330F and I'll keep right on doing that until I can't buy it any more. I'm not an oracle and I don't know when that will be but I'm not going to worry about it. I'll carry on shooting, getting prints (isn't it odd that prints just don't seem to be appreciated as much, I find computer screens so inferior to gathering around and looking at photos, maybe that's my gregacious nature!) and working in my darkroom.<br>

When that death knell tolls, then I'll figure it out from there but really, I'm just going to enjoy photography and cross that bridge when it comes to it. Who knows what will happen, if I do become an oracle, mystic or likewise I'll be sure to let you know when the death will happen ;)</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>It's okay. The basics of black and white film technology are out there for all to see. It's the same for the mechanics of film cameras. The technology can last because the basics of the science are in the public domain.</p>

<p>Handmade illustration ads of the 1950s are gone; but illustrators go to work every day. Some of the technology may change, but the basics are still there. Enjoy your film, and don't worry too much about the future. </p>

<p>Why would people continue using it? Why would they return to film, or why would film see a resurgence? Why not? The quality of the technology is good; that's good enough reason for there to be a chance for it to survive. Many things that go by the wayside didn't have such a long history of working as well as the basics of black and white film photography. Even though more sophisticated technologies have emerged, they came along only after film had firmly established itself. </p>

<p>Would film become a niche market? Well, isn't all photography a niche market, compared to the masses of people who consume images, but don't make them for commercial publication? Almost all photographers are participants in a niche market. Even the most prolific of professionals could not begin to counter the massive number of images that he probably sees professionally published on a given day. </p>

<p>Overall, I'd suggest, take heart. I know that there are weaknesses, but there are also some well demonstrated strengths to consider. Even from a cynical, profit-based viewpoint, (a way of looking at things which might offer more benefits to film than we might first consider) there are some good reasons why a set of products with such a long history of successful use would be considered a good investment. </p>

<p>Film photography has been around longer than the electric toaster. Why not expect or consider it to be a valid investment for industry? The toaster fixes a cooked piece of bread. Film cameras can provide users with even more possibilities. That adaptability, its durability as an object, and its long history are good examples of why it can be a good investment. Someone, somewhere, will want to invest in its future because it has served well enough to be considered as its own kind of commodity. Proceed with confidence. Things can get always get worse; but we can always have a chance to make them better.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I look at the whole film thing much like the old video tape war between Beta and VHS</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This reminded me of some old standard eight home movie films my wife's great aunt had. Many years ago she had them transfered to video to make it easier for people to watch them in the future. The problem was she had them copied to Betamax.</p>

<p>We watched them a couple of months ago - using a projector.</p>

[luca_stramare2]

<p>OT here... Steve, at least you kept the originals. A friend of mine, about ten years ago got the crazy idea of having all his slides converted into digital files. He said that film was dead and he got rid of slides and negatives. Some years after the media (I don't recall whether it was CD, Photo CD or DVD) became unreadable and got trashed. He would had saved the money by trashing everything from the very beginning.<br>

I agree with all the people. Let's enjoy film and film cameras while they last. By doing this, we will increase the chances for them to last longer, and if the day will come that film cameras will become useless, well, let's see what the technology will offer at that time. Could well be that digital (as we see it today) will be dead as well, replaced by 3D holographic images, who knows. ;-)</p>

[steve m smith]

<p>That's why I think it's crazy when I see posts from people asking for scanner advice to 'archive' their collection of 3000 slides.</p>

<p>Why bother? They have the archive there already. Scan them as and when you need a scan, don't waste your life scanning everything.</p>

[mike_pallas]

<p>I would recommend film users do a SWOT analysis with respect to their film based photography. For those who don't know it the SWOT is a business tool for analysing Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats.<br>

<br /> Sit down with a pen and paper and be honest. Make a list for each heading. Once you're finished decide for yourself the future of film.<br>

<br /> At a personal level I have a stack of film equipment which I now rarely use. I've tried to offload some stuff on ebay. You can get a good price for certain film cameras and hardly anything for others.<br /> I use digital because it is economic, saving on film and processing. It is quick and convienant, results are available right away. It is private, in that processing staff can't see my work unless I choose to let them. It is less stressful because I can verify the results on the spot. It is more accurate as I can make adjustments and re-shoot in the field without material limitations. At a professional level many clients raise an eyebrow if you use a film based camera. I also save a great deal of time from having to scan slides and negatives, with digital I simply copy to the hard disk.<br>

<br /> Looking at all the benefits of digital it is easy to see why the future of film is limited. I hate to appear like a philistine, I have loads of film gear I love, but I wish I had offloaded the stuff when the going was good a few years ago, when all the sentamentalists were buying up all the film gear on ebay at fairly high prices.<br /> As someone who has studied business at University level I have to conclude that despite all our best wishes, the future of film is most definetly finite and none of the feel good comments on the forum will change that.</p>

[nozar_kishi]

<p>Once painting was used for all sorts of jobs: portrait, nature, documentary, etc. Then photography came along and took many of those responsibilities away, and left painting with pure art form. If one needed only his portrait for sake of keeping in history, then he went to phography, and let painting alone. Photography came to purify the painting.<br>

So happened when color photography took randon picture takers out and left the pure and fine art B&W in place.<br>

I think the same is now being done by digital photography; taking the noise photographer (only birthdays and swiming pool photography) out and leaving behind the serious photography. Here in passing I have to add that, professionals will surely choose digital because they use photos to bring bread home, not for joy of art.<br>

As for your answer, then, the number of film users will surely drop, but instead the quality will go up. Higher tech labs will surface, better films will be intyroduced, etc; but of course less available and more expensive.<br>

Film will not go away.</p>

[luca_stramare2]

<p>James. From a Spock (mere logic) point of view, you are absolutely right. You listed all the reasons why I moved to digital for my business pictures, i.e. documenting what went wrong with one of our products at customer's site and doing it quickly at the lowest cost. <br>

On the other side you forgot the one and only reason why I take pictures of the places I go: the joy of it. I mean the process and not only the results. The joy of getting the images of the placed I go using the photographic equipment I love in the way I like.<br>

I don't know if I am the only person on earth who still loves to use old manual cameras and traditional (slides and prints) supports. I want to give my FM2 another chance to enjoy me. And then another and another... I know myself and the reason why I am still addicted to film, willing to use it in spite of all the SWOT analyses that tell me "move to digital, NOW!"<br>

I don't know how many people like me still exist and till when they will justify the film business existence. Film could disappear in one year or be there 100 years from now, with digital disappeared and replaced by something else. The only thing I can do is to support something I like doing by purchasing film and having it developed, with the hope that companies will have enough film & old equipment enthusiast people like me to keep the business alive as a profitable specialty. I put my coin in the box, hoping that enough people will put their coin and at the end the amount of money is enough to keep the show going on. Will it happen? For how long? Who knows... if we look at pure logic, a lot of things that we still use everyday should had disappeared 5, 10, 20, 50 years ago.<br>

If not, well, maybe I'll follow the crowd and move to digital or maybe I will do something else than taking pictures.</p>

[mike_pallas]

<p>Hi Lucas. Thanks for responding. I understand that the 'joy of the picture taking process' is possibly the most cited reason for continuing with film.</p>

<p>In that case I wonder if a qualitative comparison could be made between film and digital capture in terms of user satisfaction.</p>

<p>In order of hierarchy you place the protracted process of film capture as more joyful than digital.</p>

<p>In order of herarchy I place the immidiacy of digital as more joyful than film.</p>

<p>If you can think back to a time when digital capture was but a mere fantasy of sci-fi novelists would we as photographers been willing to sacrifice our film gear for such a dream. I think we would. Why? I can't think of any photographer who enjoyed seeing ruined negatives, poor results or wasted opportunities due to technical failure, quite often at the hands of poorly trained or negligent lab workers.</p>

<p>Quite often digital enthusiasts are accused of being philistines when dismissing the use of film in today's technological age. On the other hand, it could be that film users are the philistines by denying the genius of technological progress and not revelling in it, but instead burying their heads in the sand and pretending its not really happening.</p>

<p>As a user of both film and digital I believe it is time to accept the winds of change. Allow those winds to blow out the cobwebs of antiquity and herald in a new age of progressive change and achievement which should lead us as photographers to attain ever higher standards of output which can only be a good thing for both the customer, our personal growth and the art of photography.</p>

<p> </p>

[luca_stramare2]

<p>James, I understand your points. I don't want to turn this thread into the next digital vs. film debate. I am not questioning the technical superiority of digital, or its many advantages. Those things have been repeated ad nauseam. Over the last 10 years, at least one hundred people, after seeing my slides, have started to convince me that digital is better. I routinely use for my business purpose and I don't even think of going back to film to document a faulty product. I also took a digital SRL and a couple of lenses on vacation and came back with my CF cards loaded with pictures. I took nice pictures but I did not enjoy taking them the way I do when I have my FM2 and a bunch of primes. This camera is a companion of a lifetime, not just a tool to take pictures.<br>

IMHO the reason for this thread is not to state the superiority of one medium over the other, if digital is inferior to film in something, it won't take long to catch up, because a lot of money goes into the development of new sensor, new cameras, new softwares, new computers. Just think of yesteryar cameras. I take for granted that digital is better, faster, cheaper, ... you name it. The reason for this thread is not to list the rationale to move to digital, but to ask the question, or better, try to ask the question, to make the best guessing based on the information we have, if there will be in the future enough people shooting film to keep this medium alive, for the next 1, 5, 10, ... years. And I think the answer can come only from the people who actually shoot film, because they are the ones with hands on experience on how shooting film has changed and will change in their area.</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>James, would you walk into an art gallery and ask the painter if he chose his paint based on those credentials? Some people, myself included, simply don't like digital cameras themselves or the images they generate. I don't find them more convienent or easier to operate in ANY way, and I'm really tired of hearing people try to explain to me how a 5-disk CD changer with 7 different modes and a remote control is in any way easier to use or better quality than a Hi-Fi record player. And guess what, 20 years after the introduction of CD's people still make records and record players, and people still buy and enjoy them. If you allow the industry and the mass market tell you what everyone should be doing, you end up in situations like our current auto industry. Gasoline and rubber tires successfully killed early electric vehicles and trolleys, and now all this time later a whole lot of people are realizing that it wasn't just a mistake, it was an orchestrated attack on the American consumer and manufacturers of electric cars and trolleys. And now we are in a position where the entire industry needs to be turned upside down, but there isn't room in the consumer language for electric cars and trolleys yet, because of all those decades of negative propaganda by oil companies worked so well. You just walked into an electric trolley enthusiasts convention and asked us to believe that gasoline powered buses are the future and the ONLY future. You say the film user is somehow willfully ignorant of the digital world... how could it be that people using the INTERNET to talk about film could be willfully ignorant of the very medium they are using and are completely inundated with its rhetoric. The fact is and always has been, that more options are better for everyone. Oil painters were accused of the same thing when acrylic paint became available in the 1950s. To this day oil paint is still used in both fine art and in painting houses... why? Because it does some things better than acrylic. The problem that these arguments basically all have is that all the digital heads are asking the filmheads to casually dismiss something they LOVE. Is it illogical that people love antique cars or records or film cameras? Sure. But so are trips to the beach, hiking in the woods, silly days in the park, a night out with friends having drinks. If you are living your life based on logic alone, I can assure you that you will miss out on all of the better parts of life.</p>