Film gone by the end of the decade?

[hjoseph7]

<p>If you look at the chart there was a big drop in film from 2001-2003. This is when Professional Studio Photographers, Photo Journalist, magazines and other big users of film switched over to digital.</p>

<p>There was another huge drop in 2005, this is when pro-summer cameras finally cought up film in terms of quality in my opinion and allot of small shops, semi-pros & hobyist switched over, including myself.</p>

<p>After 2005 the corner drug stores either stopped selling film, or their inventory was very low, offering only certain brands like Tri-X and kodak gold 200. Labs that processed film began closing, or offering digital services. After that there is a slow and steady decline in sales as 'consumers' who were not that much into film cameras anyway, switched their little film point and shoots to digital point and shoots.</p>

<p>I doubt that there is going to be another big drop, since the major players in the market have switched over already. The remaining film die-hards will probably remain at the bottom of the chart for a while, or until the film manufacturers decide to call it quits.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Obviously film used to have film based special effects. Even 2001 was made without CGI and that was shot the late 1960s. Still looks great.</p>

<p>However nobody does it now. They subcontract to ILM and let them do it digitally.</p>

<p>Personally I consider 35mm and roll film to be a huge pain in the ass. Shooting it is fine, it's the processing and scanning that's messy, time consuming and generally a waste of time. That's why I've processed only a handfull of rolls in the last decade and why I have a freezer containing several shoboxes of expired film that I doubt I will ever use. I'll admit that a few years ago I thought it might be fun to shoot a roll of B&W film. It wasn't.</p>

<p>Film was good in it's day. In fact I just scanned a slide from 1998 because somebody actually wanted to buy that image from me, but I can't think of any reason I'd want to shoot 35mm film again. There's just no point (other than to be "artistic", or at least "different"). I can stilll see the point of large format 4x5 and 8x10 work for special applications.</p>

[james_c1]

<blockquote>

<p>It's simple. Film (what's left of it) will become an artists medium, much like oil paints and watercolors. The mistake many will make is the false correlation that using an artist's medium makes you an artist. It doesn't. Neither does shooting in B&W, using a pinhole camera, shooting polaroids or carrying around a 1950s Kodak Brownie. Often it just makes you a poser.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That’s a statement that makes no sense.<br>

So all the people who do not consider them self’s an artist and still use oil paints, watercolors or FILM are labeled as a poser.<br>

Using an artists format does not make you an artist I agree. But using the tool of choice does not make you a poser either. People should be able to use what they like. Not what society dictates they should be using.</p>

[photo5]

<p>Ross, you can always shoot Kodak 400CN film, which is C41. It has a nice fine grain texture, and the speed is nice too. You can also just process your own film, but I know that is easier said than done. I used to process my own in Heico chemistry in the 1990s but of course that stuff is long gone. Sure was nice, came in bottles and no need to deal with powder, etc. My local community college has a black and white darkroom lab but the darkroom lab fees for one quarter are pretty high ($225). The last time I worked in there was last summer, and I decided I'm done with that. I have so much shot film to scan I don't want to add any more to it. I'll still shoot slide film as long as I have some in the freezer (around 40 rolls left) but when it's gone I think I'm all done with film. Am selling off my Nikon F3 and other Nikon film bodies. They just don't get used enough for me to keep them around on the shelf gathering dust. Will keep my recent Nikon F2 as I haven't had a chance to get out and use it yet, plus I think I like it better than the F3 anyway.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>"Shooting it is fine, it's the processing and scanning that's messy, time consuming and generally a waste of time."<br />==========================================================<br />Yea you got a point there, processing film is very time consuming especially when you have to clean up afterwards. The thing I like about my film cameras is that if it rains it rains, if it snows it snows, if it's hot it's hot, if it's cold it's cold. I just pick up the camera and go. There are no batteries and weather to worry about. The cameras are small and light and so are the lenses, plus they can take a licking. I can stick 3 lenses in my pocket, a couple of rolls of film and I'm off.<br /><br />I don't bother with scanning unless I want to put a picture on the web. For color I have the lab develop the film, then I ask for thumb prints. I pick the ones I want and have them printed, or I print them myself at home.<br /><br />For B&W I develop the fim myself(takes about 1/2 hour), then I enlarge them to 8X10, or 11X14 in my darkroom. No Photoshop, no complicated channels, just dodging and burning. I can get 50+ real 8X10 prints with $15 worth of chemicals, not including the throw-aways.<br>

I don't do this all the time, but for me it's relaxing. Soon I'm going to try developing color slides at home and see how I like that. Nothing Artistic about it, it's just something I allways wanted to do. I mean sometimes I feel like I'm addicted to my CRT !<br>

<br />Of couse for paid assignments, I switch to my trusty digital cameras, lenses and Photoshop that is a given, unless a client asks me they want something artistic made with film.</p>

[rossb]

<p>Thanks Dave, I actually have about 5 rolls of the C41 Kodak B/W film. I like that film a lot however in my ara there is no place to get it developed. Zoom photo quit on film a few months back. Their machine just got old and quit and they are not going to fix it as there is no film coming into the store to make it worthwhile. I could drive it over to a Pro lab but it would take about $25.00 in fuel costs to do that as it's pretty far. A lot of time also. Mail order is really the only option from my little town but I have been burned to much to keep with that. I am finished with it. As far as home processing I do not want to deal with the chemicals. Having it recycled is more then I want to go through. I do not want to put it down my septic system either. I did go to the Illford site and they state that photographic chemicals are not ok to flush in a septic system. I will take them at their word on that. A new leach line would be huge problem.</p>

[ingemar_lampa1]

<p>Digital kills film, same as TV killed Radio, mobile phones killed land lines. etc. ad nauseam.</p>

<p>It won't happen.</p>

<p>Logically speaking, it is completely natural that Mr. Consumer switches to new technologies as and when they become both technically and economically viable. The emphasis is and will always be on economics. And compared to for example single-use film cameras, which were the bulk of the market at its peak, Mr. Consumer is far better off using a digital P&S instead. So is the environment. Best of all, I don't have to reluctantly go through stacks of family holiday snaps stuck under my nose at dinner parties anymore. When Mr. Consumer fires up his laptop, I just get very busy conversing with the other guests :)</p>

<p>Seriously. Film as a medium won't "die". Like other technologies,e.g. vinyl records, the medium will decline to fractions of when it ruled the marketplace. This will mean at least two things: 1) big companies like Kodak or Fuji with their overheads won't find film manufacturing economically viable anymore and will spin-off those divisions to smaller companies who will pick up where they left off. 2) Economics of scale dictate that as volumes go down, prices will rise. Yesterday I bought 50 rolls of consumer grade Fuji C-41 films in 135/36 and paid about US$2.30 each. One litre of petrol now pumps at US$2.10 over here and I got at least one year worth of C-41 film-stock for my needs for less than it costs to fill my car up with petrol - once. Comparatively, film is still very reasonably priced.</p>

<p>When will points 1 and 2 happen? Who knows. But an educated guess would be within the next 5 to 10 years, for sure. Perhaps quicker, perhaps later.</p>

<p>So, the question becomes: does it matter? That is entirely up to the individual. Photography, for me, is just a hobby. I have other hobbies as well, classic cars & bikes - even used to do racing - which I enjoy and am prepared to pay for. Those are much more expensive than photography but I still dabble with them (except the racing which did get too expensive) out of pure enjoyment. When it comes to photography, I enjoy using film more than digital because of many aspects. Like some perhaps jokingly say "I love the smell of fixer in the morning". The fact of the matter is that yes, I do, but that is just one of the aspects! And as long as I can afford to do what I enjoy, I will keep it up.</p>

<p>Film won't be gone by the end of the decade. It will just get harder to get at low prices and the selection may slim down a bit.</p>

[bobatkins]

<blockquote>

<p>It's simple. Film (what's left of it) will become an artists medium, much like oil paints and watercolors</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think it makes perfect sense. When there's no practical reason to use film, and lot of practical reasons not to, the only reason to use it will be for artistic reasons, real or imagined.</p>

<p>The only practical reason I can think of for using 35mm film is if you don't own a computer, or live in a place so remote that batteries are unobtainable and you solar battery charger is broken. Of course you'll then have to use a fully manual camera and your chances of getting the film processed will be slim.</p>

<p>It's like writing a novel with a crayon. No practical reason other than to be artistic - unless all you have access to are crayons.</p>

<p>If you just like film, then you're an artist. They do all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons and are prepared to suffer for their art.</p>

[richardsperry]

I think the analogy would be more accurate if you wrote, writing a novel with a typewriter.

[richardsperry]

Ingemar,

 

I have not had a landline for almost 10 years.

Netflix killed Blockbuster and Hollywood Video.

And I turned off cable and can get more on demand content from Netflix than I need. I don't even do the mail thing

with them. I've had the same disk for 3 months now.

 

Anyway I believe there will be black and white film for as long as remain on this planet.

After that it won't affect me.

[ingemar_lampa1]

<p>I don't have any land line either for about the same years. But I still see land line phones and even pay phones in places, so even if I don't use them they still exist. Netflix can't be had in Asia. Too much pirating going on. Same goes for voddler and spotify. But I see your point.</p>

[dave_s]

<p><em>The only practical reason I can think of for using 35mm film is if you don't own a computer, or live in a place so remote that batteries are unobtainable and you solar battery charger is broken.</em><br /><em></em><br />Ya know, if anyone but a moderator wrote this, we'd say he/she was trolling . . .</p>

<p>OK, how about these:</p>

<p>(i) You only use 30 or 40 rolls of 35mm a year, so the cost of film and processing is not a big deal.</p>

<p>(ii) You already have a set of kickass primes that are digital-incompatible.</p>

<p>(iii) You like the color rendition of film, just as it comes back scanned from your lab.</p>

<p>(iv) You also use 120 C41 film, so it's convenient to throw in a few rolls of 35mm.</p>

<p>(v) You shoot in sandy/dirty environments, where you don't want to worry about dirt on your sensor (and you don't care if you trash a $200 manual-focus camera).</p>

<p>(vi) You like silver prints, and now and again you like to print optically.</p>

<p>Should I go on? All the above apply to me and thousands of other people on photo.net.</p>

<p>The bottom line is if you have a certain way of working, film still makes a lot of sense. When something changes, like my favorite labs shut down, I'll be digital in the time it takes to drive across town and buy a new camera. Until then, there's no reason to change.</p>

<p>There was a guy on the Leica forum in 2003, a dentist (natch) named Jay, who confidently predicted there would be no 120 film in five years. To quote Mr Lawrence Berra, it's like déjà vu all over again.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>The only practical reason I can think of for using 35mm film is if you don't own a computer</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do own a computer but don't understand how this is a reason for me not to use 35mm. Care to explain?</p>

[randrew1]

<blockquote>

<p> kickass primes that are digital-incompatible</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are there such lenses?</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Permit me to add just one pratical reason to Dave's list:</p>

<p>vii) You're shooting in a remote or very cold environment where the use of batteries is problematic.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<blockquote>

<p>kickass primes that are digital-incompatible</p>

<p>Are there such lenses?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure there are. Try the FD 55/1.2 SSC Aspherical (or 50/1.2 L) for one, and the FD 85/1.2 SSC Aspherical (or 85/1.2 L) for two.</p>

<p>I paid around $1100 for the two SSC Asphericals. Their digital-compatible EF equivalents would run me around $4000 before sales tax, and the EF 50/1.2 L is <em>optically inferior </em>to both of its FD predecessors.</p>

[james_c1]

<blockquote>

<p>The only practical reason I can think of for using 35mm film is if you don't own a computer, or live in a place so remote that batteries are unobtainable and you solar battery charger is broken. Of course you'll then have to use a fully manual camera and your chances of getting the film processed will be slim.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What’s more practical than using a format of choice, instead of others telling you it’s impractical. There is more to it. Many reasons people choose to use 35mm film. It’s not a matter of you don't own a computer it’s a matter of making your own decision of how and what you want to do. Not everyone wants to be tied to a computer for another activity. Computer for everything you do is just not fun and leaves you bug eyed.<br />Imagine actually possessing your own film. It can be done by you. (without a computer) Lets hope film will always be around, it’s hands on and a pleasing way to take pictures.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> The only practical reason I can think of for using 35mm film is if you don't own a computer

 

Another practical reason is if you do own a computer, but haven't learned digital post-processing. And the

results you get from your "lab" (ie Costco, Walmart, corner drugstore, etc) are good enough. Letting a film

mini-lab machine (operated by a person not into photography) make decisions for you can work if you're

not too fussy

[meissner]

<p>Brad: If we are talking about consumers using the corner drug store to process their pictures without post processing, just about every place that does prints these days has one or more stations where you take your memory card (or plug in the camera if your camera supports being a removable disk and you thought to bring the cable) put it in the machine, and out pops prints with the standard mini-lab machine making the same decisions as it does for film (once it is developed, but before it is printed). In fact, I use it on vacations at times, when I want a quick print to share with people. And if you have an aversion to a touch screen monitor, you can always give the card to the person behind the counter, and you get exactly the same interface as you had previously, except you don't get negatives.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Shooting 35mm film is a good way for some to make use of the equipment that they have.<br>

Personally I enjoy printing in the darkroom and like the results that I get so as long as I can still get B&W film I will always shoot some.</p><div></div>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I guess there should be a digital pic as well.</p><div></div>

[bobatkins]

<p>If you enjoy printing, that's a good enough reason to shoot film I guess. Personally I hate it. I can get better results, faster results and more reproducible results printing digitally than I can in a darkroom, plus I don't have to soak my hands in noxious chemicals and breath the fumes.</p>

<p>If you like silver prints (or platinum) you can still make them from digital files. In fact a lot of fine art photographers are doing just that. You process the digital file as you with (doing all the dodging, burning etc.) and make a negative. Then you print that just as you would a regular negative, except that you can do it by contact printing which means you don't need expensive enlarger optics whih inevitably degrade the image.</p>

<p>Note I didn't say <em>having</em> a computer was a reason <em>not</em> to use film. I said <em>not having </em>a computer was a reason <em>to</em> use film. There is a difference! Of course you don't even need a computer to shoot digital since as one of the posters above pointed out, there are many, many places where you can take your memory card and get prints made for you.</p>

<p>There are very few (if any) lenses that you can't mount on a DSLR, even a full frame DSLR. There are a few (including Leica rangefinder lenses). In that case, if you're wedded to the lens, shooting film makes sense. If you're stuck with a bag of FD lenses you may have to go to a 4/3 format DSLR unless you want to get the mounts switched so you can use them on other cameras. It can be done and people have done it.</p>

<p>As for adverse conditions, digital cameras work just fine under most conditions. They work fine at the South Pole. You might need a few extra batteries but most of the Nature Pros who shoot in the arctic and antarctic use digital. Sports photographers who shoot in all weather conditions don't reach for the film camera when the rain starts.</p>

<p>If you shoot 40 rolls of film a year film and processing would come to between $600 and $800 if you get it done commercially (buying film and A&I mailers from B&H). If you do it all at home it gets cheaper of course, but consumers (rather than enthusiasts or artists) won't be doing that. In a few more years you may not have the option of getting film developed and printed locally. Fewer and fewer places are offering such a service. Minilabs are on their way out.</p>

[randrew1]

<p>This thread may be winding down a bit, but film lovers can expect more comments from their friends. The AP picked up the NPR story and it is now popping up in various places. There is at least one related story that refers to the AP release:</p>

 

<h1><a href="http://www.stltoday.com/news/multimedia/pictures/article_6c260dfa-8bb6-11e0-b030-001a4bcf6878.html">Is photographic film dead?</a></h1>

<p>The title is dire, but the author is a film fan.</p>

 

[dave_s]

<p>LOL, probably the only human urge more powerful than the drive to reproduce is the drive to tell other people what camera to use!</p>

<p>Bob, there are much easier ways to get a silver print from a digital file than making an internegative. You send the digital file to mpix, or a few other labs, and they burn a print direct to Ilford BW paper, using a lightjet printer. But you knew that.</p>

<p><em>If you're stuck with a bag of FD lenses you may have to go to a 4/3 format DSLR</em></p>

<p>Ain't no such animal as a 4/3 format dSLR, or at least not that will accept FD lenses. If you're 'stuck with' a bag of FD lenses, you might as well shoot film. Thousands of us do, and we're happy with the images we make.<em> <br /></em></p>

[jtk]

<p>Maybe some of us will learn to draw. How bad would that be?</p>