Young people flock to film

[RaymondC]

<p>After I got my dSLR I went and got a 2 film cameras before I was 30 and I am now shooting more film, next would 120 not too sure about 4x5 cos I have to send them overseas to process b/c it is so expensive here. I also import film from Freestyle b/c the delivery cost is so much more cheaper than B&H. </p>

<p>I don't do any of events, sports photog so the cost benefits of digital doesn't apply to me. I do a bit of night walk and about Tokyo style photography which higher ISO would be beneficial ... I may just find a workaround for that or shoot it less or differently. 400 speed slides and pushing it gets really costly. Have to say that for me, film is so much more satisfying. </p>

[Member69643]

<p>Ryan Long: That shot shows a lot of vision - you knew what you wanted to get and your film choice delivered. I wish I had half your talent!</p>

[brian_m.1]

<p>I hear vinyl is making a come back too. </p>

[liebermann]

<p>I'm not sure if the insinuation that young people will ditch film as soon as they get bored with it is fair. I believe that many will ditch film when something newer and more faddish distracts them, but the exact same thing has happened to the vast majority of the shooters of film of 20 years ago! So I don't think this aspect of human nature and marketing pressure has evolved.<br>

<br /> Witness the disdain for film that began showing up en masse on photonet about ten years ago... (and elsewhere too) It seemed that film was so uncool and these great new digicams and their electrically-controlled lenses were the long-desired way to achieve perfection! Film! Good heavens. How could we ever go back to that dinosaur of non-precision, film! Art would simply not be possible! After all, Ansel Adams said something once about electronic cameras, so that proves it.<br>

<br /> I'd bet that (hope that), of the kids shooting film today that never knew a world where film was king, a higher percentage of them will be shooting film in ten years than the percentage of the 'old' film shooters do today. Either way, it'll probably be a small percentage, and might not be enough to keep the film business going long-term.<br>

<br /> But to say that those young (and old maybe) folks newly interested in film don't really love it and will abandon it sounds to me like yet another instance of transference...<br>

<br /> p.s. and disclaimer - I'm (I think) in between young and old, and /never/ gave up film as the primary medium - I didn't see the benefit. I'm holding on to my books, too, and records. Despite npr and it's constant propagandizing computer-books and super-duper telephones that finally pull us into the future and make our lives ever-more dreamy and give us <em>such connection to the world</em>, I think - like the argument for film - that such fad- and market-driven talk is just <em>nuts!</em></p>

[Member69643]

<p>There's another way of looking at it, this film kick the youngsters are on. Maybe they're trying to cultivate more self-control in our instant gratification world? It's easy to make good digital images with little skill. Great images are hard to create in either medium but with digital you can learn (and delete) as you go. With film no such thing. You have to know what you want beforehand. Vision. Getting cool random results Lomo-style isn't vision, it's luck. Kinda like that elephant that paints. </p>

<p>Isn't there is a famous quote though, "I'd rather be lucky than good." ?</p>

[roman_p]

<p>C’mon Bebu! Isn't it too early to think about death when you are only 55?!</p>

<p>Ray, -<br>

if you want to move to MF you got to do it now. The prices for MF cameras are rising skyrocketing since less and less decant shape bodies are coming on E-Bay. I did it 1.5 yr ago. I realized that Nikon is no longer the company that is going to run my photography in nearest feature. I had good collection of Nikon bodies (like F6, brand new FM3a plus more) and a solid numbers of fancy ED and Nano fast glasses. I put everything on e-bay and got a hefty pile of money. I could easily buy D4 but instead I invested in building a good MF system. I’ve got full Contax 645 system with 4 lenses and Fuji GF670. I loved it so much so that I’m currently searching for a decent body Mamyia 6 with 50mm wide angle lens. This is absolutely different world. I just blame myself that I didn’t do much early. </p>

[brian_m.1]

<p>"There's another way of looking at it, this film kick the youngsters are on."<br>

There is no such thing. This is like soccer moms that never existed. The main reason we shoot film is because we already have the gear and like working them. If my film gear magically turned digital, I would't miss film. Heck, all images posted online are digital anyway.</p>

[donbright]

<p>Some still print because that's what we started out doing. </p>

[roman_p]

<blockquote>

<p>Heck, all images posted online are digital anyway.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The main reason we shot film because we love film and the film gear now is much more affordable. Investing money in film cameras appears to be smarter thing than in digital (unless you are a wealthy professional). Yes, all pics on the web are digital but most of them are taken with low end cameras or smartphones. No many of them are good anyhow. You might spend hours workin with PS to make you image look like Portra or Velvia. But for me is just a matter of swapping the magazine or throwing anther roll into the camera.</p>

[douglas_vitello1]

<p>Roman<br>

You also could spend hours in PS working with HDR (high dynamic range) trying to duplicate the dynamic range of Porta or Velvia too, especially if you own a slightly older model that does not do it in camera.Digital sensors still have a few weak points compared to film.Cost will probably finish off slide film because at the current per roll cost of Velvia (approx.$9.00 US) and $15 to process it does not take long to justify a all digital workflow.I'm a film guy but it is hard to ignore the handwriting on the wall if you are young or older.I figured this would happen soon after Kodak dropped out of the game for the E6 guys.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>The film "revival" is a nano-trend. Cost is what sours it quickly after the expense and hassle of getting even a roll of c-41 35mm processed and printed, much less 120 or any E-6 material now. Very few move on to home b&w development and hybrid workflow. It takes a rare love of film to move into this survivalist territory. Some will but most won't.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

Ryan Long has the best reply as to why some young people are enjoying film and then people like Brian M. just spout off

meaningless crap in order to feel the wonderment of playing his tune on the alphabetic keyboard.

 

The young people I talk to who use film, and there are a lot more of them lately it seems all say the same things. They

basically are sick and tired of all the hype of the digital age and want a more detached and hands on experience in their

lives to round it out. They grew up watching their grandparents make things by hand, playing an acoustic guitar, tactile

things. They are also very smart and educate them selves as to the history of photography, go to great galleries and are

far more cultured than the bitter old farts on here give them credit for.

 

Photo.net is a dying place, because it lacks enough of the open minded tack and vision of today's youth. If film ever dies,

which it won't in terms of black and white, it won't be because young people don't want to use it, it will because ugly

companies like Nikon and older photo wanabees who were never any good at shooting film in the first place can't wait to

see it go.

 

But you older folks who claim that young people using film is some high school level fad are truly killing this place.

[c_watson1]

<p>Sorry, Daniel, but spare us the apug.org party line. The ventriloquism stunt("The young people I talk to who use film...")isn't very convincing, either. No one appreciates the implication that young people who don't use film are idiots--nor is anyone else. Lots of people "do" photography lots of different ways; but are they not doing photography if it doesn't conform to your paradigm? Most photographers--amateurs to pros--who I know are way more ecumenical about photography and don't spout the sort of tribalism you're pushing here and elsewhere.</p>

<p>We all know where demand for film products is and what brought it there. I'm tired of the fabulism and parochialism about film photography. It's fun and I enjoy it. Why insult people you don't know who disagree?</p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<p>I think there is a lack of really good market research. Everyone can post their anecdotal stories but that isn't a scientific study. A lot of what was posted in this thread is probably right to some degree. If you've been to NYC it is kind of hard to have faith in the hipster crowd crawling all over the place with plastic cameras. At the same time the alleged demise of the DLSR is a bit overstated. They were everywhere in NYC. I was really amazed. Where is it all going to shake out? Who knows.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's irony that they like it for its surprises and unpredictability and I worked on making film predictable and no surprise.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can thank our friends over at lomography for spreading that misinformation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>NPR is the left's version of FOX News.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Any proof?! Every metric I've seen says NPR is a pretty good objective news source.</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>But you older folks who claim that young people using film is some high school level fad are truly killing this place.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> The problem, Daniel, is that this is anecdotal and carries no weight. If you don't have some sort of statistical evidence, it's meaningless.<br /> <br /> I'll give you a similar example. Everyone I talk to supports gay marriage. People claiming that gay marriage are wrong are just figments of the press. I know this because I talk to a lot of people. I truly have not run into one that opposes gay marriage.<br /> <br /> That ignores the fact that I live in San Francisco, mostly talk to people in the performance community, and otherwise to people in the art or literary world. However, it does reflect my experience and therefore it's true.<br /> <br /> You see the logical disconnect? There's no point in self-selecting data. It has to come from unbiased sources or something very obvious. And what I can tell you from my experience lately is that there are almost no people using film cameras. I do occasionally see Leicas as jewelry, but there's only person I've seen using a Leica in the last year. There are probably a thousand people I have seen in the last few months using DSLRs, about half that using digicams, and about three times that, at least, using phone cams. I'm out a lot, on the street, in clubs, at tourist locations, at public events, and that's my experience. It's meaningless. The only thing that matters is independent data collected by unbiased observers.<br>

I have a good window into what young people are using, I have a son in college. I talk to him and his friends, I see what they are doing, and I see what the other kids on campus are doing. It's in line with what I see on the street in San Francisco, 800 miles away, but it's only my experience and it has as much relevance as yours.</p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>The film "revival" is a nano-trend. Cost is what sours it quickly after the expense and hassle of getting even a roll of c-41 35mm processed and printed, much less 120 or any E-6 material now.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Walmart send out service processes 220 C-41 for $0.84 with no prints. Honestly if people care about the art they have to spend <em>some</em> money. I know of no time in the history of film when it was this cheap to develop a roll of color 120 or 220. 220 E-6 is less than $6/roll. <a href="/film-and-processing-forum/00ahJs">I started a thread about it late last year</a>. If you live outside the US I don't know what to tell you.</p>

<p>Certain Walmarts do not seem to return 35mm C-41 negatives. Everything else has worked out fine for me. I haven't been doing much C-41 or E-6 lately but when I ramp back up I will post some more to the thread. Send a test roll through your local Walmart and see what you get back. You may be pleasantly surprised.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>"<em>Walmart send out service processes 220 C-41 for $0.84 with no prints. Honestly if people care about the art they have to spend some money. I know of no time in the history of film when it was this cheap to develop a roll of color 120 or 220. 220 E-6 is less than $6/roll. <a href="/film-and-processing-forum/00ahJs" rel="nofollow">I started a thread about it late last year</a>. If you live outside the US I don't know what to tell you.</em><br>

<em>Certain Walmarts do not seem to return 35mm C-41 negatives. Everything else has worked out fine for me. I haven't been doing much C-41 or E-6 lately but when I ramp back up I will post some more to the thread. Send a test roll through your local Walmart and see what you get back. You may be pleasantly surprised.</em>"</p>

<p>Glad it works for you but not everyone everywhere will necessarily get the same deal. I suspect Walmart will end this when traffic(already slow)shrinks. Just curious why you're not taking advantage of the "deal" you've gone on at such length about?<br>

Cost is still a deterrent for anyone with an iPhone.</p>

[francois_p._garnier]

<p>Market data:<br /> I've talked about it with my main distributor, who operates internationally. He has been so kind to give me the current numbers:</p>

<p><em>1. Digital:</em> The digital camera market has started to become in trouble over the last 12-18 months. The organization of Japaneses camera manufacturers (CIPA) had published the sales numbers of the last 12 twelve months at the end of last year:<br /> Digital compact cameras: - 55% (yes <strong>minus, </strong>the sales are in free fall)<br /> DSLRs: - 9%</p>

<p><em>2. Film:</em> Professional color film and BW film sales begin to stabilize (in some countries they are even a bit up). Amateur color film is still declining.</p>

<p>Instant film (Impossible and Fuji Instax) is significantly increasing (in the 10 - 25% range dependant on country). Especially Fuji Instax is booming in lots of countries (primarily in Asian and European countries). The demand is so strong that Fujifilm even had to built a new factory for Instax film production in South Korea (by the way one of the strongest markets for Instax).<br /> Customers of Instax: Almost exclusively young people, and more than 60% of the users are young women.<br /> The interesting thing: All the "film is dead" people have been so convinced that instant film will of course die first, and will be the first victim of the digital tsunami.<br /> But now this film segment is the first which sees a real revival.</p>

<p>My distributor says that about 90% of the film market is color film. Therefore he is convinced that color film will certainly survive. May be not with Kodak (we will see in the next months what will happen there), but certainly with Fujifilm and maybe another one (e.g. Agfa-Gevaert in Belgium or InovisCoat in Germany; InovisCoat is already making the color film base for the Impossible film, have a look here:<br />

)</p>

<p>Development costs: There are still enough pro lab options with reasonable costs. And we all have the option to do it by ourselves. No matter whether BW, C-41 or E6. It is all very easy and cheap to do it at home (the whole BW market is for decades surviving because of home development). My distributor told me that he is seeing significantly increasing demand for C-41 and E6 home development kits.</p>

<p>In Europe in most countries professional development of C-41 and E6 is extremely cheap and widely available (mainly by drugstore chains, plus lots of smaller professional labs with mail order service).<br /> You even can get C-41 and E6 processing for only 0,95 - 1,85 / 2,55€ (!).</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>Sorry, Francois, but this is the usual anecdotal, evidence-deficient stuff.<br /> In case you missed it, recession and until recently a high yen have hurt camera sales.<br /> No data for film production and sales. Any PMA data?<br /> Survivalist home processing can't even begin to reverse the secular decline in demand for film materials.<br>

Love the claim that Instax is so popular in the home of the Samsung Galaxy smartphone.</p>

<p> </p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>Glad it works for you but not everyone everywhere will necessarily get the same deal.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>C Watson that is not what you said. This is what you said...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The film "revival" is a nano-trend. <strong>Cost is what sours it quickly after the expense and hassle of getting even a roll of c-41 35mm processed and printed, much less 120 or any E-6 material now</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A big problem is people who don't use film spreading misinformation about it. Walmart had been processing medium format and E-6 for dirt cheap for years right under my nose and I didn't even know it. If the same thing happened to you just admit it. There is no shame in that. If you have recently taken a roll of 120/220 C-41 to be developed through Walmart's send out service and they charged you $12 for developing only please post your findings in the thread I started for this purpose. If not please refrain from idle speculation. I can't survey prices on the entire planet. But I know I went to three different Walmarts across two different states in order to gather the information I posted. If you do the same and find contradictory information we would all love to see your scanned price stamps as well. That was the whole point of me starting the thread. I wanted to know the good, the bad, and the ugly. But only from people who actually took the time to send a roll. There has been so much idle speculation about that topic it was finally time for someone to do a quick, easy, and cheap test and report objective findings.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I suspect Walmart will end this when traffic(already slow)shrinks.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again that is not what you said. You said developing is expensive <em>right now</em>. Back tracking and making this baseless speculative statement doesn't alter what you initially said.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just curious why you're not taking advantage of the "deal" you've gone on at such length about?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do you still beat your wife? Nice question. I just posted a link showing multiple scanned in price stamps from my trips to Walmart. What more proof do you want?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><br /> Cost is still a deterrent for anyone with an iPhone.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes I would assume after dropping $649 on a device with built in obsolescence money would be tight.</p>

[francois_p._garnier]

<p>Dear Mr Watson, sorry, but I have to contradict:<br>

The data I've posted is from the CIPA, the film manufacturers and photo distributors (digital and film). Selling photo materials is the daily business of these companies, therefore that is not "anecdotical" like you said. These people know their numbers of course better than you.<br>

Further data (e.g. for film sales), page 19:<br>

http://www.showdailys.com/E-publisher/Photokina2012_day2/<br>

More than 300 million films expected to be sold this year worldwide.</p>

<p>The CEO of IP, Mr. Kaps, currently said in an interview that IP expects to sell 1 million IP films this year (after 750,000 last year). They sold 12,000 refurbished Polaroid cameras last year, but the demand for their refurbished items has been double of that, so they can't satisfy the big demand at all and are even considering production of a complete new model. Their 'instant film lab' (making instant photos from your smartphones), introduced last Photokina, will hit the market this spring.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>In case you missed it, recession and until recently a high yen have hurt camera sales.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, that is wrong, because<br>

- there has been a recession only in some countries (like US), but not on a global scale. Asia (meanwhile the biggest market for digicams), Northern and Eastern Europe and most of South American and African countries have had no recession, but ( partly even very strong) growth<br>

- even in this time of the high yen (compared to Dollar and Euro and Suisse franc) the digital camera manufacturers have either hold their prices stable or even reduced their prices. Therefore price effects could not have a negative influence on sales (only on margins of manufacturers).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Survivalist home processing can't even begin to reverse the secular decline in demand for film materials.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I remember a statement from the CEO of Harman technology / Ilford Photo: He said the market for BW photo film is about 15 million films worldwide, and that about 90-95% of these films are developed by the Photographers themselves, not by labs.<br>

So this complete segment is kept alive by home developing. As e.g. the E6 market is probably smaller than the BW market, home developing of course can contribute significantly to a long term stability of this segment.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

Jeff wrote:

 

"The problem, Daniel, is that this is anecdotal and carries no weight. If you don't have some sort of statistical evidence,

it's meaningless."

 

It may not carry the weight of well executed market studies, but how it is meaningless? It may only apply to my region and

mine is indeed very wealthy and has more than likely an even higher density of the arts per capita than even SF so

maybe that in it self is not fair, but it is info. I doubt the increase in analog use I am seeing locally amounts to more than a

microscopic dent in overall use, but more important than numbers, it represents a mindset change and can effect other

changes.

 

I just think it is ashame that people like "CGW" from APUG come over here under a different name and keep firing off the

same bullets of negative info round after round. Fortunately, I do not in any way encounter people like that in real life.

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Market data:<br />I've talked about it with my main distributor, who operates internationally. He has been so kind to give me the current numbers:</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />These numbers are proof that people are capable of using statistics incorrectly. First of all, these are sales numbers, not usage numbers. With film, usage can be tracked by sales, with digital, they cannot.<br>

<br />Second, this completely ignores the reason that digital compact camera sales are dropping. The reason is very simple and widely documented - phone cameras have replaced them at an incredibly rapid rate. It's a bit like people who claimed the drop in CD sales, and the drop in CD market share vs vinyl, was an indication that vinyl was having a huge resurgence. Of course, these numbers were being used deceptively as they failed to include pure digital sales.</p>

<p>Third, interchangeable lens digital camera sales are increasing. "MILC" sales are now about 20% of all interchangeable lens digital cameras sold worldwide and have reached the 50% mark in Japan.</p>

<p>Fourth, there's a difference between unit sales and revenue. Not surprisingly, revenue for interchangeable lens cameras have been dropping slightly while unit sales are slowly increasing.</p>

<p>And fifth, there's no data on film usage other than hand waving. But back to the two biggest problems - this casts sales as usage, which it isn't for digital devices, and ignores that phone cameras are quickly killing off the digicam market.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I would assume after dropping $649 on a device with built in obsolescence money would be tight.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Another misuse of data. In the US, nobody pays $649 for an iPhone. The cost gets buried in the monthly usage, which they would pay for regardless of their phone. The only part that might get cut would be data if one didn't have a smartphone, but data is something people now expect. And the camera is just part of the functionality, so nobody is paying $649 for a camera when they buy a phone.</p>

<p>I might be able to find a copy or two of <a href="http://books.google.com/books/about/Misused_Statistics_Second_Edition.html?id=hT_ELDzB99gC">this book </a>for those of you that enjoy misuse of statistics. You would probably learn a lot.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>I guess, Jeff, that the exception proves the rule. Not.<br>

Funny but film is what I mostly use, bro. I live in the 5th largest city in N. America and film processing worth the $ is hard to come by compared to just 2-3 years ago.<br>

No answers to your appeals seem to suggest few people are using film or are happy with their exploitative labs.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>Jeff wrote:<br /> "The problem, Daniel, is that this is anecdotal and carries no weight. If you don't have some sort of statistical evidence, it's meaningless.<em>"</em><br>

<br /> <em>"<strong>It may not carry the weight of well executed market studies, but how it is meaningless</strong>? It may only apply to my region and mine is indeed very wealthy and has more than likely an even higher density of the arts per capita than even SF so maybe that in it self is not fair, but it is info. I doubt the increase in analog use I am seeing locally amounts to more than a microscopic dent in overall use, but more important than numbers, it represents a mindset change and can effect other changes.</em><br /> <em>I just think it is ashame that people like "CGW" from APUG come over here under a different name and keep firing off the same bullets of negative info round after round. Fortunately, I do not in any way encounter people like that in real life.</em>"<br>

<br /> "Meaningless" because neither Jeff nor I or anyone one else could possibly verify anything you or the apug.org film fabulists claim. I'm OK with private opinions. It's private facts I have trouble with here or anywhere else. You're trading in private facts. "Negative info" I guess amounts to inconvenient truth, right?</p>