Young people flock to film

[Dave Luttmann]

To address your questions C Watson....Kodak released the Portra line. Lomography has released a half dozen files in

everything from MF down to 110. Other companies have released film as well. That however is a red herring to the

discussion. Film is available in stores. According to manufacturers, sales have stabilzed. That ks the factual information.

Myself, I've never had elderly people comment on my film cameras. I have however photographed weddings for over 20

years and at each one I am surrounded by young people....many who ask about film cameras and film...none who ask

about the DsLRs.

[john_h.1]

>>>Market data: I've talked about it with my main distributor, who operates internationally. He has been

so kind to give me the current numbers:<<<

 

There is another problem with these figures in terms of context beyond what has already been

discussed. Citing a stabilization of sales or increased percentage of sales is too isolated. There has to

be a reference point. If sales are abysmal, a percentage increase doesn't mean sales are no longer abysmal.

If a product is one percent of market share, then a 25% increase means its still a minute part of market

share. As to sales, without regard to market share, its hard to know if the increase is enough to make

the sale of the product viable for long. Whether it is a worthwhile product for the seller. Its all relative to

whether the overall profit is sustainable enough to justify the products existence. If a company makes

some profit, a 25% increase could be significant. On the other hand, the company might need to sell

much more. A quadruple increase may be needed for example.

 

The most the data tells us is that sales in some particular categories are not in free fall so it might bring a

more steady marketplace for such items. As for squawking on internet forums about the state of film, it doesn't reveal a

"resurgence". If some people here or there begin to enjoy it or come back to it, great. But its not

a 'comeback'.

[john_h.1]

>>>>guess you have never seen young people buys clothes for the cool factor. Seriously, if you think a cool factor doesnt exist in purchasing decisions, you have a lot to learn<<<

 

Context is everything. Cool has its limits. Young people are going to buy clothes no matter what so, sure, they get what's fashionable along the way. Film, for all its glory, is burdensome for people accustomed to instant gratification and compatibility with what they already are doing.(Using devices ect) Young users will have to go out of their way to deal with film stuff and then scan it anyway to go online which many would want to do. Its a motivated hardy demographic we are taking here, not fickle shopping square types.

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>If sales are abysmal, a percentage increase doesn't mean sales are no longer abysmal.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

This is what vinyl sales are about. Sure, they've gone up as a percentage, but it's meaningless. Especially when people try to compare them to CD sales.<br>

<br>

BTW, as someone who has worked in the music biz and is still fairly involved (although "the biz" is no longer what it was), there is still a substantial portion of vinyl sales that has to do with DJ servicing rather than consumer purchasing.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>Thanks, John H, for making the point(s) yet again. Garnier's and other village explainers' fact-free discussions are consistent with the breathtakingly innumerate flame wars that raged at apug.org after Kodak skidded into Ch. 11 in January 2012. They'll never get it.</p>

[donbright]

<p>My point, Cool factor won't cut it..simply means film sales aren't dependent on the whims of fad, or what is or isn't cool. Who thinks Photographic method is fashionable? That's just non-sense. Although I'm sure someone, or more than I know buy camera's, expensive camera's, because of a vogue factor, but this group doesn't qualify as Photographers. Photographers priorities are such to outweigh the wimms of the day, but not to be confused with the quest for a better mouse trap so to speak. From what I have heard through younger Photo enthusiasts, they're not confused on the issues of what tool to use to express their art form. Perhaps their Photo classes are also teaching them to veer away from social media threads.</p>

[roman_p]

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, sales of MILC is increasing, but not that fast as many manufactures expected. Moreover , this increasing was a result of massive commercial campaign by reducing prices and paying of million dollars of rebates. All of this was supported by public media advertising (that’s might be one of the reason of losing revenue). Sorry, but film doesn’t have anything like that.</p>

<p>Well, this this is one of the example showing that many posts over here lack of comprehensive judgments. Many photoneters, including some “heroes” and mediators are acting like typical digital equipment propagandists – saying one thing, by some reason, they are forgetting or intentionally hiding another side of the problem. Probably following CIPA or PMA guidance instruction…</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My point, Cool factor won't cut it..simply means film sales aren't dependent on the whims of fad, or what is or isn't cool.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess it’s right. The film photography is just a tradition; one of the best tradition of visual art. This is art of Ansel Adams, Dorothea Lange, Wolker Evans, Steve McCurry etc. And preserve it and safe it for future generation must be an honor for every artist who value it instead of keep yaking abot low percentage of film sale.</p>

<p>And in my opinion the digital popularity in most cases has been nothing but a fad. A fad that CIPA has brought to its official policy. Using their mighty financial leverages and public media they just flooded humane race with idiotic ideas about bright feature of digital photography and death of film for the sake of making their high record profits. This has nothing to do with real art.<br /> And I believe it’s absolutely nonsense to flush those goofy figures about digital equipment sale and percentage - anyhow all these cameras will turn into junk in 3-4 yrs. I don’t think that you guys are so naïve not to understand where these figures came from , who and what forces are really behind it.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>"<em>And in my opinion the digital popularity in most cases has been nothing but a fad. A fad that CIPA has brought to its official policy. Using their mighty financial leverages and public media they just flooded humane race with idiotic ideas about bright feature of digital photography and death of film for the sake of making their high record profits. This has nothing to do with real art.</em><br /><em> And I believe it’s absolutely nonsense to flush those goofy figures about digital equipment sale and percentage - anyhow all these cameras will turn into junk in 3-4 yrs.<strong> I don’t think that you guys are so naïve not to understand where these figures came from , who and what forces are really behind i</strong></em><strong>t</strong>."<br>

<br /> I just <strong><em>knew </em></strong>it!!! Digital is an industry-supported conspiracy to knock off film! Surprised?</p>

[john_h.1]

>>>And in my opinion the digital popularity in most cases has been nothing but a fad.<<<

 

Much like the horseless carriage.

[roman_p]

<blockquote>

<p>Much like the horseless carriage.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, if art of photography for you is same as a horseless cartridge, well.. that kind of photographer you are.</p>

[wblynch]

<p>In the end the Horseless Carriage seems to be more a curse.</p>

 

[john_h.1]

"John, if art of photography for you is same as a horseless cartridge, well.. that kind of photographer you are."

 

I am confident, now, that you are better at photography than analyzing analogies. Despite access to digital resources to do so quickly now.

[francois_p._garnier]

<blockquote>

<p>There is another problem with these figures in terms of context beyond what has already been discussed. Citing a stabilization of sales or increased percentage of sales is too isolated. There has to be a reference point.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Those with this argument often use the year 1999 / 2000 as a reference point. That was the sales record in films history with about 3 billion photo films sold worldwide.<br>

They then further say today it is at best 10% of that, therefore film is doomed.<br>

That's wrong.<br>

For a film shooter only one thing is important: Whether he can buy film now and in the future or not. Therefore historic data or reference points are irrelevant for him. Relevant is only, whether some film companies are able to produce film on the current and future demand level.<br>

For example the CEO of Impossible Project has explained in an interview that they don't need the former high volume production anymore. Now they only need a minimum of one million filmpacks p.a. to be profitable. That is tiny compared to some years ago, but now it is sufficient. And that's what matters.<br>

Same is valid for Ilford, Foma, and Fuji: They have downscaled and can now operate with significantly lower volume. And new companies like Adox and InovisCoat have started right from the beginning with small volume production.</p>

[jascha_oakes]

<p>I live in Singapore (iv'e lived and worked in 6 countries), film here is thriving, and there is plenty of evidence and it's not anecdotal really. Of course digital is everywhere. There are more camera shops here than you could imagine selling film and film cameras, new and used. One shop has row upon row of Leica M's, there are 4 Leica shops from last count. I bought my Mamiya 7 here new for under 2.5k. There is a store entirely dedicated to black & white film photography, chemistry & paper. Film and processing (120 portra US$6) is cheap and fast. There are many people walking around with film cameras. I have asked the shop owners and they say film is very much alive and surging back into the market or else these stores wouldn't exist. They teach it at the university. Whilst living in Beijing briefly, walking through a high end mall, there was an interior being photographed with a 4x5 film camera...The chinese are designing and making large format cameras. <br /><br />My home town of Sydney, film (and most things) are expensive. Cameras are more expensive. I had recently been back home, shot some photos of a friends wedding and had it developed an scanned. I had one lab 'hand print' one of the negatives and I was shocked at the quality. This lab used to be one of the best, doing ilfochrome and negative optical hand prints. Because I do my own B&W dev & printing I could see that the image was either out of focus or just poorly done. Turns out, the lab scans the neg on some flatbed scanner and then prints it on RA4 paper. For me this was just unacceptable....<br /><br />The second issue with film is scanning. I have experimented with different scanners, and in my experience the only scanners that are acceptable are the high end flextights or drum scanning which does not exist here (only privately and in the university). I own an epson V700 and for negatives at least, they are only getting 60% out of the film so I only use it for scanning prints. So they too are unacceptable for scanning negatives. Scanning negatives is difficult, and requires allot more skill. The minilab scanners here are rubbish, probably the operators mostly. Jonathan Canlas seems to get allot more out of these frontier type scanners, but here for some reason they again are just not acceptable. Even if you do, printing 16x20 will yield inferior results to that of an optical print, no question.<br /><br />So knowing what information is actually in the film, I decided to do colour RA4 printing with an enlarger. At first I was concerned that it would be too problematic. I fact at the beginning it was impossible to source the chemicals here. The chemicals cannot be shipped but the paper easy enough to get from B&H and other places. I finally managed to source the chemicals here wholesale. And what did I pay? A little over $100 dollars for 16 liters of chemicals (dev & blix). And to my surprise they print perfectly at room temperature (it is warm here though). I recently bought a colour analyzer (way off in the beginning but calibrating now) as everything is now working. I simply just process in trays, as I would in B&W. Actually colour has a superior range than B&W so it requires less manipulation, almost none. The printing and developing times are less than half that of B&W.<br /><br />What you get on a piece of RA4 paper is everything the film has, and it simply stunning. Forget scanning, print it. The irony is although there is so much film here in Singapore, there are no 'pro' labs such as you get in the US and UK. There are NO facilities for RA4 optical printing (maybe at the university??). People shooting on film are also missing out on what it can actually do on paper as it was designed and have prob never held an optical colour print in their hands. I have no doubt they will be blown away (I do use a mamiya 7 which is one of the best film cameras in the world) with a print from a quality lens and enlarger. I cant even see the grain on a 16x20 print with 100 speed film....Although sharpness and grain is not what it is about. William Eggleston's new work on digital, to me, is another photographer from the days of his dye transfer prints.<br /><br />I have used digital too, and I look forward to advances in digital technology. Nostalgia & coolness aside, speaking objectively, for me film is my medium because I like it and I am glad I have stuck with it. With a bit of skill, training and patience and some good quality equipment you can get everything out of today's superior film technology with results that are truly outstanding. Yes, there is a learning curve that’s pretty big for those brought up on digital.<br>

<br />If anyone needs any hand prints done here in Singapore, let me know……<br /><br /><br /><br /></p>