Now I know why people abandoned film

[cbender]

<blockquote>

<p>able to shoot off 2,000 per week</p>

</blockquote>

<p>2000 per week? Photography is a serious hobby for me, and I don't shoot 2000 frames / year. Probably more along the lines of 1/4 - 1/2 of that. What on earth are people doing with 2000 frames per week? That's 100,000 frames per year, equivalent to the shutter accuation lifetime of some of Nikon's mid level film cameras.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>@Chad - ok not every week on average but when they gone for trips and they incorporate holiday they do shoot that much. We had a member give a presentation, she did 6 weeks in China / Nepal where they went with a photography tour group, she said she came back with over 10,000 images. Someone was mentioned how he went to South Africa continent, ~ the figure of 40,000. We run on the UK system and people can get honours when they pass with their portfolio they put forward. Someone got theirs and they said he shortlisted 2,300 images initially, then that was down 200 odd photographs which was printed out and upon closer examination a final 10 was chosen for the portfolio. </p>

[eddy_d]

<p>2,000 frames per week? That's a wedding photographer, then you have to photo shop them. No thanks. I would not want to take that many photos a week film or digital. I can't imagine looking at that many photos, time consuming. </p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>I do wish that film was cheaper all around. Black & white is still cheap provided you process yourself. It's even cheaper if you have a bulk loader. And I am again looking quite fondly at b&w photography - even if it has to be a digital camera with the Bayer array removed.</p>

<p>I can easily shoot 500+ frames in one session. Once I shot over 1,000. I don't spray-and-pray but I do believe in exploiting digital cameras for all they're worth. Otherwise, what's the point?</p>

<p>Today, a $200 flatbed can give you pretty good scans without the long waiting times of dedicated film scanners. I'm currently working on a system which might give surprisingly good results. I'll let you know.</p>

<p>If you want the best digital sensor in the world for DR (not for resolution) you'll have to buy the RED EPIC Dragon. Probably $30,000 or so. More than 16 stops of DR - more than any film in existence. That's a gauntlet that I hope Kodak picks up and throws it right back. But it is the size of a Hasselblad. Not exactly the most ideal travel camera!</p>

<p>We do live in exciting times, do we not?</p>

<p>I just bought a Minox 35. More on that in a couple of weeks in the Modern Film Cameras forum.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

It sounds like your either you can not afford photography or your expectations are misaligned a bit.

 

The prices you quote sound quite reasonable to me for what I would expect from a lab all my life, develop and print, right?

But now we have this expectation of scans of *each* one of the photos...?....odd, must be a digital thing, right? So lets go

digital, buy a decent DSLR if that is your thing and there is a grand. Get a decent computer with an array of backup and

the editing software and printer with a reasonable supply of inks sets, there is at least a few hundred or another grand.

 

So lets say you spend $1,500 on your budget minded hobby, that would be 100 rolls of film souped at the *good* lab. I

am not sure how much film you like to shoot but if the 4-pak of film you buy at Walmart for $7 lasts you a long time like

you say, then at $15 a roll, you could get at least a few years out of it.

 

We live in strange times these days, people don't account for inflation, rising healthcare costs for companies, raw

materials and then want more now out of their el' cheapo lab than we ever used to get in the heyday of film.

 

I don't do much C41 or E6 because I am not interested as much in scans or digi-prints as I am in making hand crafted

black and white prints to earn a living off of. But when I do send out C41, I pay extra to have Bluemoon camera do it and

make real optical prints from my negs. I have also gone and bought 100 sheets of Velvia 50 for a new macro project that

will take me 3-5 years to complete. Now that is expensive....we are talking $1,000 total for those 100 pictures once

souped.

 

Sounds like you need a new hobby because no matter if it is digital or film, this one is too expensive for you. Most people who claim digital to be their personal lord and savior never print, if they did, the choir would be off key.

[wblynch]

2000 shots no one will ever see are meaningless.

 

If you shoot 2000 hoping to get 10 or 20 you need to rethink your habits/talents.

 

Just because 2000 shots are cheap to take and store think about the time wasted taking them and sorting through them

to even find the 10 you like. Then none even get printed. It's as if they were never even taken.

 

Film is cheaper in real price, than 30 years ago making it even cheaper in inflated money.

 

Processing and printing are cheaper than 30 years ago and you get a scan cd included.

 

People lose their phone and all their pictures lost with it. They don't care because they never look at the pictures anyway

so don't even notice they were lost.

 

Maybe in 30 years someone will find their old phone in a shoe box and spend an afternoon reminiscing over the pics.

 

Of course film and prints found in a shoe box are not dependent on the prayer that the tech device will even still work.

 

What is "expensive"?

[donbright]

<p>Daniel, $1,000 for a 3-5 year project? That at least is a project! You're still ahead of the crowd that posts subject matter like this one, that spend $2,000- even $3,000 every two years on what I call, Band Aids for pictures.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>For me, IMO.</p>

<p>For the masses that shot film, your average Joe and Kate, tourist kiosks etc. Film is out of fashion. Even if film was cheaper back in the day sof 2004 people were switching to digital. Eg when dSLRs were 6 or 8MP, ie that Nikon D70 or Canon 350D. A lot of my camera club members back then had a digital. I knew some people were buying a $1,800US these days or more like $1,500US for a 3MP Canon IXUS. We had it in our university hostel, they just took pictures and it was great they could email it instantly and put it on the website.</p>

<p>For those amateurs who are into photography, again I think that the trend is now digital. If one is into IT they would upgrade as well or if they are into cellphones. You do get some dedicated film shooters but it is made difficult due to the cost and the less labs and b/c digital is so convenient that maybe they shoot film but only for the more special moments. Many may not use a film camera and take pix in a moving car, lunch at McDonalds or us watching TV at home at night.</p>

<p>I've been with a camera club in NZL, since 2006 we have never done a slide projection. All the work have been thru a digital projector using a laptop computer. The people who use film are few, for image critique (prints) nights when we get a visiting professional in, the odd film image might be scanned and printed or at the lab, the odd one might have been printed in their darkroom. There is a dakrgroup SIG for our club, it's pretty much just monthly event they meet up and then end of the year they do a presentation amongst the other SIGs but to be practical with the club, the images are then probably scanned and presented thru the digital projector.</p>

<p>For the costs with most people who don't have an interest in photography. They already have a computer for Facebook, emails, web use etc. They're quite happy to just shoot JPG and print them fro the digital kiosks. $200 or $400 point and shoot is not that expensive or many just use their phones now. Even the amateurs, the computer is already there. It depends how much one shoots. You can get a film body for $45US and then get film and lab services. But where I am, 10 rolls of slides cost $320US and $180US for develop only. There is still C41 or B/w .... And it's unlikely one won't get a digital camera and just have a film camera, so for the 98% of people if they have a film camera they would probably have a digital camera too. of some sort.</p>

[lenny_eiger]

<p>There is much of this conversation that is related to 35mm. In my opinion, 35mm is not good for printing to 16x20 regardless of whether its film or digital. Most people don't want to print that large. However, this discussion leaves out serious artists who are interested in superior printing quality. They have always utilized med format and large format film and are after the quality these bring. Many of these people have discovered just how good a hybrid process is. Someone that lugs around a 4x5 or an 8x10 doesn't really care what film costs, its a small part of the bargain. A digital camera does not compare to the quality a 4x5 can deliver and it likely never will. It's clearly not required for family snapshots or casual travel photos.</p>

[donbright]

<p>Lenny,<br>

I agree much of your point, but I'm not sure where your going with 35mm not good for printing 16x20s. I have portfolio cases full with sharp, nice impact 16x20s from 35mm. From slides, carefully exposed, usually mirror lock, cable release, Tripod all care's taken, both wet print, and digitally scanned. I think 16x20 is the threshold though for 35mm. Maybe that's what is meant. </p>

[patrick_mont]

<p>Miller's Professional Imaging has an incredible "proof special". For around $8, for a 12 or 15 exp. roll of 120 film, they develop, sleeve, proof, and scan the negatives to CD, with free FedEx overnight return shipping and free USPS shipping (or $4.95 FedEx) to get it to them and the quality is OUTSTANDING! Best film processing I have found. </p>

[allen_gara]

<p>"digital is better then film"...yawn. This thread has convinced me that I'm going to keep shooting film, damn the expense. If only to be a constant annoyance to former film shooters who now shoot digital exclusively and think anyone else who doesn't is an idiot. There isn't one purpose for a camera, and each technology has it's time and place for the person holding the camera. I don't understand why people focus so much on the technology, instead of whether or not the thing the person is holding makes them a better photographer. <br>

I recently bought a Canon T3i and 50mm macro with the 1:1 extension. Compared to my processed film scans (mine, not Dwayne's, NCPS, Walmart, etc.) the out of camera jpegs are mediocre no matter how you tweak the "picture style". RAW files are the only way to shoot, and you spend 10-15mins tweaking them to get the dynamic range/color accuracy and saturation/proper black and white levels/sharpening that they need. Am I complaining? No. Just making a point that each has it's own strengths and weaknesses. I wouldn't use my Aires 35-III to take a macro shot of a butterfly any more then I'd use my Canon T3i to capture a nostalgic photograph of a collapsing old barn at sunrise. Could I PS the hell out of the T3i image to make it look like the Aires? No, but I could come close sort of, if I spent enough time in PS. But why bother when I can have the real one? <br>

<br />But back to the OP. Yes, high quality film image results takes time and money and skill and expertise and equipment and it's a PITA and you either dig it or you don't. </p>

 

[lenny_eiger]

<p>Don, I have no reason to diss your prints. It wasn't my intention. I've seen a 60 inch print from 35mm that was very tight. That required everything to be just right. Whenever these discussions arise, they have to be taken in context. Specifically, the context of what one considers quality, and what one is intending to do. I am an artist, and one who does b&w. I love platinum prints and the like. I am all about the delicate tones-between-the-tones that a beautiful, soft print can have. I am not particularly interested in a commercial look, impact, or other concerns. Cibachrome generally makes me ill. That doesn't mean others don't use it to great advantage. There is a wide range here, of people at all levels. Regardless of the fact that you have skills at the 35 mm, I would suggest you move up in film size. You would like it.</p>

<p>As much as the OP didn't make any friends with his way of putting the question, its a valid one. I scan for a living. They range from $95 to $150, depending on the size of the original. While I can say that others charge as much as over $1000 for the same scan, it isn't cheap. Scans, whether you acquire the equipment yourself or buy it from someone like me, are an investment. People call me and say they have 200 images to scan. I generally tell them, "No, you don't." Not even the greatest photographers in the History did more than that many good images in their lifetime. This is a matter of editing, and then editing further and further, until it makes some sense...</p>

[d_f11]

<p>Nobody "abandoned" film. It became less and less available because the Tech Giants purged the Big 3 of film. They want a world that's digital. Simple.</p>

[brian_m.1]

<p>Earlier I raised this point that Kodak should have committed itself to the entire film "cycle", instead of just making films. I understand they did have a film developing service but somehow it disappeared. The name Kodak alone had enough cache for people to choose them over the competition. Why didn't Kodak know that if its film business were to remain viable, people should have access to quality, affordable processing too? No use taking pictures that you can't develop. Could it be that the people running the company weren't really into film?</p>

[mike dixon]

<i>It became less and less available because the Tech Giants purged the Big 3 of film. . . . . Could it be that the people running the company weren't really into film?</i><P>

I know this isn't as much fun as bizarre conspiracy theories about the demise of film, but this is basically how it's gone down: As the quality of digital imaging has gone up and the cost has gone down, more and more people are using digital for most of their photography, and fewer and fewer people are using film (and film processing). The greatly reduced number of people needing film processing and printing means that it's no longer profitable to have one-hour express places all over town--processing services are becoming more centralized and less convenient.<P> The "tech giants" didn't send teams of assassins in to wipe out the film companies. The people running Kodak didn't hatch a plan to intentionally destroy the market for the product which had made the company so profitable for almost a hundred years. One of the reasons Kodak is in such trouble is because they <b>didn't</b> effectively change their focus quickly enough.<P>

The market has shifted. Most people prefer cars instead of horses and buggies, most people prefer flat-screen TVs instead of huge console radios, and most people prefer digital photography instead of film. There isn't a grand plot against film designed to bring misery to those who prefer it--it's just the way the things have worked out.

[brian_m.1]

<p>For the inquiring minds.....I chose The Darkroom for my first mail order film processing since, well, when the FTb came out. The closest competitor price-wise was Dwayne's but I went with the Darkroom for two reasons. I rationalized the lousy "standard" scan by realizing that if I ever want enlargements I can just have the negatives scanned. Second, their prepaid envelope saved a trip. I will make sure to come back and post some of their work.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

It may not be so much that many people prefer digital to film but that they have digital and not film. Even if I were to give my college student granddaughter a digital camera she would just look at me kind of funny and say, "But Grampa, I have an iPhone".

[mike dixon]

Actually, James, I think that's why many people "prefer" digital over film--they can share photos much more easily and quickly and with a wider circle of friends and family than they can with film. For most people, that's a primary purpose of photography. Using an iPhone instead of a separate camera is a logical extension of that preference.

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I think you may have misspelled "Now I know why one guy whose price point was arbitrarily stuck at $10 for professional quality processing, printing and high resolution scanning without regard to economic realities abandoned film."</p>

[brian_m.1]

<p>Dang! Why didn't I think of that?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Hey, I miss the good old days of good, cheap minilab processing for $5 or less too. Including the no-fault policy some places offered where they wouldn't charge for bad photos, even if it was the customer's fault. </p>

<p>But that business model depended on very high volume. And that existed for only about a decade, from the early 1990s-early 2000s. That pricing just wasn't sustainable without high volume. If it was sustainable they'd still be doing it.</p>

<p>Film and processing prices are just returning to approximately the same level our parents and grandparents paid, adjusting for inflation, etc. Which is why many families shot only one or two rolls of film a year. Ever heard the anecdotes about the one roll of film per year, with Christmas trees on both ends and birthday cakes, Easter bonnets and graduation pix in between? That's pretty much the history of my grandparents' snapshots until the 1960s when they got a Kodak Instamatic in 126 and shot a few rolls of Kodachrome on every vacation. And like those days most of us will have to settle for send-out processing and wait several days or even a couple of weeks to get the prints back.</p>

[eddy_d]

<p>I have dropped many a film cameras, picked them up and they still work. Can you say that with a digital camera? Doubt it. Medium format digital cameras are way more expensive then any medium format film camera ever was, and now poorly made as well by comparison. The digital game is all a race of megapixels and what company can beat out the next and for what price.</p>

<p> </p>

[eddy_d]

<p>This podcast has been around for a few years and already known around the world so anyone who thinks film is dead or not that many people are shooting it is wrong.<br />

[mike dixon]

"Can you say that with a digital camera? Doubt it."

 

I can. Only camera I ever put out of action by dropping it was a Canon FT (and it was a fairly short fall onto a carpeted floor). There were several film cameras that I've had to send out for maintenance/service because of jammed shutters or other problems. The digital cameras I've used have been far less troublesome.

 

". . . anyone who thinks film is dead or not that many people are shooting it is wrong"

 

Nobody said film was dead. Quite obviously, though, not enough people are shooting enough of it to make it profitable to have processing places in every neighborhood.