Will Analog Cameras Be Tommorrow's Nostalgia?

[david enzel]

This is an interesting point of view about the future of Leica and

other analog cameras in the digital marketplace:

 

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/colburn.html

[joe_kallo]

The chaps and chapets over on the large format list seemed to have instituted

a drinking game whereby any time the digital/film debate is brought up one

takes a shot of his/her favorite alcoholic beverage. Seems a pretty sensible

thing, though if one plays by the rules it makes reading photo stuff at the

workplace a bit difficult.

 

Joe

 

(take a shot!)

[kevin_kolosky]

I think the black powder/muzzleloader deer season is still going on here in Minnesota.

[george_b1]

As long as a large portion of the world's population still lacks access to computers, Photoshop, etc., analog film will survive.

[carey_russ]

As long as there's film, batteryless cameras will work fine. Lack of appropriate batteries will be more of a problem, like with everything that needs nasty old mercury cells now.

[fotografz]

Oh, come on now. As long as this stuff is around so will there be

innovative souls to provide solutions. Take the Mercury battery thing.

I have a cute little converter that allows me to use my SLII with

abundantly available batteries made for watches and the like. The drug

stores even carry them.

 

The really nostalgic pieces are last years digital gear.

[phill kneen]

Take a look in some of the filmmaking forums. The Film V video/film V digital debate has been raging for years, the film V video argument started in the early 70's!

 

Now then, look at what we have now - a huge amount of filmmakers are still using film, Guy Richie shot 'lock, stock and 2 smoking barrels' on 16mm film, the big Hollywood films are still shot on 35mm or 70mm. I myself shoot raw stock of snowboarding, skateboarding, surfing, etc for the extreme sports TV market. The producers now prefer the footage to be shot on film, not digital.

 

This debate will still be here 20 years from now.

[sal dimarco]

David, First of all, you are taking Jim's column must to seriously. Film will be around for MANY, MANY, MANY years. People seem to forget, as digital get better so does film. Think of Silver Halide photography as the camera being your computer, and the film being software. A new film is an programming upgrade.

Happy Snaps,

[bobtodrick]

I do feel that the digital hardcore converts are far less realistic in their perception of film/photography than the other way around. I love film...always have, alway will, partly because I like the process and it gives me the look I want. But I know how good digital is, how superior it is for certain applications, and, after testing the 9600 Epsson (see previous post), will definitely be spending more time in the digital darkroom. But....I have a friend who shoots, among other things, for Upper Deck sports cards. Two EOS 1d's and now has an order in for the 1ds. He's not the type to frequent camera stores as it's just a job to him...not much interest in cameras and such. Over coffee the other day we got to talking digital/film and he was actually surprised when I told him we still sold a lot of film and that film SLR sales in North America were up about 15% last year (P&S cameras however are a dying issue). He thinks that by the end of next year (2003) you won't be able to buy film. He's serious.

[robin_barnsley]

Will tomorrow's nostalgia be anolag?

I think mostly yes. Of course, digital images can be stored and transferred perfectly in principle, but will require active maintenance. I have all my fathers negs going back over 60 years - relatively young in the lifetime of a piece of film, which is happy to lie forgotten in a draw for a few decades.

Here's a pic taken in 1954 on a Super Ikonta by my Dad of his father on his father's 90th birthday. The neg still scans or prints perfectly. I hope to be around in another 50 years to see how his negs and mine are surviving. I'll try to include post it, otherwise it's here:

http://www.gentlecurve.com/Pic/HSB_pic/hsb2.lo.jpeg

 

In my research (x-ray spectroscopy) we changed from film to CCD detectors 10 years ago, and have no nostalgia for film. But here the data is managed and archived by a dedicated and well-funded group.

[0_007]

Film will be around for a long time..

You can still buy pin hole cameras ...and take pictures with it...which were used long long long long time ago.

DIGITAL and FILM will co-exist. It caters different needs...as a hobbyist, i take pictures because i like the film and the prints i get from my lab.

i dont want to fiddle with my pictures in the computer at home late night to get a couple of prints right.

[Robin Smith]

For those who essentially organize their photography via slides - digital is no replacement. Digital slides are poor and workflow is more complicated. Digital cameras are excellent, but it is not something that I am leaping into. The last thing I want is a "pile" of now useless digital files representing the last x years of my photography.

[douglas k.]

Last night I watched the film "Minority Report." Set in 2054, the film depicts all sorts of futuristic technology: the cops all have individual jetpacks, cars run automatically and go up and down vertical highways, home theaters feature holographic video displays, etc. And when a cop goes to see a photographer, she steps into her darkroom to pull a print from the fixer! I got a hoot out of that!

[markci]

I have to wonder if that darkroom scene wasn't put in as a little bit of a slap at George Lucas, who's been running around telling everyone film is dead.

[cd thacker]

I picked up on that scene in the film, as well. Clearly, it was Spielberg putting in a little friendly plug on behalf of analog and its future. I thought it a nice touch - one of the nicer touches in the movie.

[._._z]

"as digital get better so does film"

 

As consumers migrate to digital, less emphasis will be spent on film r&d. We see this already.

[bobtodrick]

In fact Baily you couldn't be more wrong. More new films were introduced last year than in the previous three put together. Kodak, Fuji and Agfa all introduced a number of new color emulsions in both transparency and neg form. Kodak built a new multi million dollar plant to produce there improved B&W emulsions. More digital mis-information.

[Troll]

These are not "Analog" equipment. It is real stuff. Just because it isn't digital doesn't make it analog. Call it "film based" or some other appropiate moniker. Please.

[doug_hagerman]

I agree that film will be around for a long, long time. But what has already become a problem is the many film SIZES that aren't available any more (or are only available through expensive specialty operations). Disks, 110, Instamatic; even 127 and 2.25x3.25 sheets are hard to get, not to mention whole ranges of other roll film sizes.

 

A huge advantage of the Leica is that it uses 35mm film, which is probably the most common size there is. And with reloadable cassettes, you'll be able to make use of odd scraps of movie film and other floor-sweepings for a long time. Unless you have an M6TTL or M7, of course, which were the first two Leica rangefinders to NOT support the awesome reloadable Leica cassettes.

 

Add this to my list of "wants" for the next M-camera: Cassette opening lug... :*)

[._._z]

"More new films were introduced last year than in the previous three put together."

 

Bob, it takes years of r&d and marketing to bring new film emulsions to market, and we are seeing the fruition of work which has wound down. In recent years Kodak has described in its 10-Q and 10-K SEC filings that it has reduced r&d expenditures.

[bobtodrick]

Bailey, think about it for a moment. Yes R&D takes years. But, for example the B&W plant Kodak started construction of in late 1999 and finished the beginning of this year. From what I understand (from our local Kodak rep, whom I see on a twice monthly basis) this plant was in the neighbourhood of 60 million dollars. As many here have stated for more than the last two years 'the writing was on the wall and film will be soon dead'...well enough in time for Kodak to cancel construction if they felt it would be waste of money. Not even Kodak throws 60 million around willy-nilly. Same with all these other films you mention...companies don't throw good money after bad. If they thought the R&D was fruitless because of the digital onslaught they'd not have gone into production. Kodak, along with companies such as, Agfa, Nikon and Canon have all recently stated (Nikon and Kodak this year) that they forsee strong enough film and camera sales to continue developing them for the next 10 years at least.

[tod_hart]

Thank you Bill Mitchell! I was beginning to think I was the only one who considered "analog" to be a misnomer for film. (Other evidence clearly indicates I'm not the only one still using it.)

[olivier_reichenbach]

Thank you, Bill, for the correction about «analog». I was just

going to post on that. Because it is not digital doesn't make it

analog, contrary to cell phones or audio recording, for instance.

And English is not even my mother tongue.

 

So far, we have seen digital technology work very hard (and very

fast) to produce cameras and CCDs that will approach film

quality. BUT, I think the day is not far (if not already here) where

film manufacturers will have to work hard to approach digital

quality. Is that fun or what? Everybody will benefit from the

competition... and shoot both.

 

You will have read it here first! ;-)

[majid]

The silver halide grains, once developed, are either fully reduced to metallic silver, or removed by the fixer.

[._._z]

"well enough in time for Kodak to cancel construction"

 

Bob, plant construction of a developed product isn't the same as r&d. Manufacturing a cash-cow product until it becomes unprofitable is normal business procedure, as is reducing r&d expenditures of mature products. My understanding is that Kodak flatly reduced film-related r&d expenditures, including salaries. Kodak isn't working on more developers, that much is known, and it's been said for a couple of years now that TMax is likely to be the last majot b&w product from Kodak. Yes, they built a new plant to consolidate far-flung operations and save costs, and they still make money from film. But not as much as they used to, and the writing's on the wall regarding the growth areas of the company. If you know of increased r&d, that would be heartening, but just as surprising.