Positive news: Film at Photokina photo fair

[c_watson1]

<p>Karim, please tell Kodak and Fuji how to monetize "the magic." Neither company ever risked ad campaigns 5-8 years ago aimed at heartstrings and nostalgia, especially Kodak in the N. American market.<br>

For digital-vs-film in the motion picture industry, this is worth a look:<br>

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/movies/how-digital-is-changing-the-nature-of-movies.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0</p>

[James G. Dainis]

I still remember developing my first roll of film, nervously opening the developer tank, pulling out the film and, voila!, seeing the perfectly developed negatives. It really did seem like magic.

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>I have already sent my suggestions to Kodak. They are welcome to do as they please with them. I'm aware of the changes going on in cinema and TV to some extent - in fact one of my favourite cameras is the RED Scarlet. I'm looking forward to seeing <em>Side by Side</em>.</p>

<p>Right now, digital is my wife but I'm having affairs with film. That could change but I have to put the photography first and the medium second.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It really did seem like magic.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that's most people's reaction! :-) I've said it before, but I'll repeat it here FWIW: the originating film (e.g. camera negative) is a direct witness to the subject that it captures. It's a time capsule and not completely abstracted from the moment of exposure. That's part of the allure.</p>

<p>I have a few 35mm trailers. One of which is one of the Indiana Jones films. This trailer touched the negative that touched the negative that touched the negative... that touched the camera negative. I like that. If you don't care, I'm cool with that.</p>

[rossb]

<p> Interesting article but around here the last lab has closed. My F100 is boxed up and my last brick of Portra is unopened. Now I am shooting my DSLR and I find it as boring as watching paint dry. Soon I will probably admit that photography is not my hobby anymore. </p>

[jeff_z.]

<p>As for Kodak, it was my understanding that despite being given virtually no advertising/marketing support, that Kodak film remained profitable on the whole, and that it was perhaps Kodak's only profitable division. Hasn't this been talked about here at length? I thought I'd read that Kodak's profit problems stemmed mostly from gross executive mismanagement and the huge miss-allocation of investment dollars into commodity businesses that were already saturated by established companies. Despite this, and the admittedly huge drop off in film volumes in the past several years, that film had remained profitable for them, and perhaps, still is...?<br /><br />Karim, I still think it's magic. I've had absolutely no complaints, only surprises on the faces of those that are completely into digital photography when I answer them as to what equipment was used. Then, they suspect "medium format", and when I tell them no, 35mm, they start looking real close trying to find something wrong I guess. But most people just flatter me, and I especially appreciate my artist friends' opinions who are painters and don't think about what kind of equipment I use.<br /><br />ross, sorry to hear that. I guess you must've thought about doing C41 yourself? I've been reading here about that, and it sounds promising. I guess we're lucky here or something, as there are still plenty of places that process C41 (and sell T-Max and BW400CN, too) and when one of them had a machine break-down a couple weeks ago, they were so backed up a couple of days later with film to do, that they couldn't accept my order. It worked out great though, as I found another store on the other side of town with a machine only a year old, and the kids there were very interested in film. If I were you, I'd look into a home processing system, as the modern C41 emulsions of Kodak's particularly (the b&w also!!) are just great, imho.</p><div></div>

[rossb]

<p>Hi Jeff; I thought about home processing but I have decided not to for various reasons.</p>

[blakley]

In 1990, if you wanted to take a picture, you shot film. Not because film was "best", or even "cheapest" - but just because it was the only way to get the job done. Huge volumes of film were sold because everyone who wanted to take pictures HAD to use film.

 

In 2010, if you want to take a picture, you use your (digital) phone. You only buy film if you want to take a FILM picture.

 

The question, for film manufacturers, is "how many people want to take FILM pictures" - how many people want to work in the medium of film.

 

Sooner or later the size of the population of film-medium people will be known, and film supply and demand will stabilize. Film won't "die", and it won't "revive" - it will just tick along at the rate that can be sustained by the population of film-medium people.

 

We're probably approaching the point of stability; a few more years and we'll be back in a normal - but smaller - market. And then there will be nothing left to argue about (well, probably not...)

[photom]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=400184">Bob Blakley</a> , Nov 16, 2012; 12:05 p.m.</p>

 

<p>In 1990, if you wanted to take a picture, you shot film. Not because film was "best", or even "cheapest" - but just because it was the only way to get the job done. Huge volumes of film were sold because everyone who wanted to take pictures HAD to use film.<br>

In 2010, if you want to take a picture, you use your (digital) <a id="itxthook3" href="../film-and-processing-forum/00azlQ?start=50" rel="nofollow">phone<img id="itxthook3icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a>. You only buy film if you want to take a FILM picture.<br>

The question, for film manufacturers, is "how many people want to take FILM pictures" - how many people want to work in the medium of film.</p>

 

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>The more important question that the consumer asks is: "What choices do I have to view the final result?". For many photo-junkies on this and other websites, it seems it is more about taking the picture than viewing the final image. For the average consumer today, film has too many steps to see the outcome, and is way to expensive to get to a nice viewable (and shareable) image. If there was a machine they could stick their film camera into which produced a free 8 x 10 print 30 seconds later, maybe some would consider buying such a machine and using their film camera (actually, this would not even be enough because of the hassle/cost of buying and developing the film). Currently, the investment in digital imaging devices and LCD-viewing-systems is well worth it to the consumer in terms of short turnaround, convenience, and per image incremental cost - for the final image this system can produce - when compared to any other options available. </p>

<p>By the way, the viewing device is almost free because it is already being purchased for all the other things it does. Ipad type devices will be another huge dagger. Oh, yea, for many people the camera is free too if they only use their phone. So the choice the average consumer sees is: free and instant vs. expensive and slow.</p>

<p>Sadly, every year there is a new generation of consumers with money to spend that has never looked closely at a good photographic print and does not even really understand what it is or how it is made. For them, the only choice is which digital brand, not film vs. digital.</p>

<p>= tommy</p>