Film in a digital age: A discouraging word and the skies are cloudy all day

[JDMvW]

<p><em><strong>Film in a digital age: A discouraging word and the skies are cloudy all day</strong></em><br /><br /><br /><strong>Disclaimer</strong>: the views expressed below in no way reflect the sunnier side of my nature or the management of this forum. However, we’ve had many days of cloudy, rainy weather here, so just hit the back button if you don’t to say that you cannot “unsee” this. Be warned also, that if you didn’t know the definition of <em>prolix</em> before this, you soon will.<br /><br /><br /> <strong>BACKGROUND</strong><br /><br />Archaeology and archaeologists (of which I am) are always having “periods.” It’s part of what we do in order to instill some organization into our chaotic knowledge of the past. So here is a rough presentation of one possible periodization of photography:</p><div></div>

[JDMvW]

<p>Note that older technologies in historical (and prehistorical) ages do not usually totally disappear. Bronze tools are still made for some purposes, for example. Even chipped flint items are still made, but by only a handful of people world-wide (such as users/suppliers of flintlock weapons). <br /><br />As I was contemplating this, my thoughts darkened in whirl of unthinkable anguish (did I mention I read some Lovecraft lately?).<br /><br />(I will stipulate, however, that I was not lurking under a bridge at the time, despite what you may think.)<br /><br />.....was, was use film becoming a skill limited to “re-enactors”, like the gunflint users?<br /><br />At the same time, I also looking back in old issues of photo magazines, researching the transition period to digital. I found a January, 2004, editorial by John Owens in <em>Popular Photography & Imaging</em> - the very name change shortly earlier was itself an omen.<br /><br /></p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Why would film survive?<br>

Nine reasons were given by John Owens:<br /><br /><strong>1. Film Cameras Are A Steal</strong><br />Yes they are, much more than in 2004, because few people want to buy them, the laws of supply and demand are very much in operation. The key variable is that issue of wanting to buy them.<br /><br /><strong>2. Film Is Fast. Low light?</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />For high image quality, you can't<br />beat film. ISO 800 color-print film can give you quite acceptable<br />resolution, sharpness, and even grain…</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p><br />Technology has taken care of this one decisively - digital cameras now commonly go to 25,000 and beyond.</p>

<p><br /><strong>3. Film Can Be Enlarged ... A Lot</strong><br>

<strong> </strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Big prints? Think film.<br />Load ISO 100 print film into any decent SLR, and chances<br />are you' ll get negatives that can be blown up to 20x24 prints<br />cf that are sharp and detailed. For a digital camera to match<br />that, you'd have to spend five times as much.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Again, technology has made this an obsolete objection, never even considering that the vast majority of prints were never made so large as 20x24 inches.<br /><br /><strong>4. Film Is Power-Stingy.</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />When was the last time you<br />changed the batteries in your 35mm SLR? I can't remember,<br />either. That's especially true when your film camera packs<br />lithium cells. Digitals, on the other hand, need regular<br />recharging or constant reinforcements.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />This is still a valid point in working in places well away from recharging ‘stations’, but you have to dig deeply into your collection to find film cameras that work without batteries, anyhow. Most of my digital cameras will work for quite a long time without putting in a new battery also.<br /><br /><strong>5. Film Doesn't Crash</strong><br>

<br />While hard drives do crash, I’ve personally never had one fail on me (admittedly, I’m a lucky son-of-a-gun). On the other hand. my slides (the great bulk of my past photography) are showing the signs of increasing entropy. I live in a damp climate, and things are starting to grow on some slides, and non-Kodachrome slides are either magenta, or have started down that path, depending on who did the processing (Kodak was best). Color negative film and prints, not much will be left by the time another few decades roll around. Some film users greatly exaggerate the archival qualities of ordinary film.<br /><br /><strong>6. Film Doesn't Require Infrastructure.</strong></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>With digital, after your first few<br />hundred shots, you must get some sort of<br />a system. Typically, that includes album<br />software for your computer, CD backups,<br />and online storage at an outfit such<br />as Ritzpix.com, Ofoto.com, or Snap fish<br />.com. It's great, but far more time-consuming<br />than envelopes and sleeves.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />This is simply absurd. After a few hundred slides or negatives you also had to “get a system”. Mine was set up so I made an easy transition to digital using the same system.<br /><br />However, the infrastructure that film really DOES require is a system whereby you can get easy processing. As we saw in a recent post on closing of one-hour processing in the San Francisco area,<br /> http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00csok <br /><br />The supporting local infrastructure is evaporating. The alternatives are mailing your film away or doing it yourself. Neither of these alternatives provide the quick response possible in digital media.<br /><br /> <strong>7. Film Is The Original Photoshop</strong><br /><br />But with film, skill and knowledge on the level of Ansel Adams were necessary if you wanted more than simple, ordinary results.<br />For better or for worse (and the jury is still out), now ‘everyman’ can do these wonderful manipulations. Too dark, pop up ACR and fix it. Glowing HDR edges, buy an add-in program.<br /><br /><strong>8. Film Is RAW.</strong></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>A digital camera's JPEG and TIFF files are,<br />in effect, selective representations of the incoming data . If<br />everything were saved on the image (as it is in the RAW for mat),<br />the file would be huge and difficult (or at least slow) to<br />process.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />How true (about the size, at least). But with current computer technology, these files may be huge, but they are easily stored on 6TB drives and quickly processed on fast central and graphics processors. RAW has a lot more data in it than you can get out of Kodachrome slide, or even C/N film. Film unfortunately is NOT RAW.<br /><br /><strong>9. Film Doesn't Preclude Digital</strong><br /><br />Well this is true so far as it goes, but as the infrastructure for actually using film contracts, the number of scanners on the market gets smaller, and new film cameras get rarer while the old ones get older…. well, it may unfortunately be the case that “digital does effectively preclude film” regardless of the wishes of us old film-using beggars (that’s b_<strong>e</strong>_ggars).<br /><br />Owens was not alone in his views at the time.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>My personal hero, Herbert Keppler, was also among those arguing that film would never die:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />Want to stay with film? Do it; nobody's pushing you into digital. If, like most pros, you find good reason to mix digital printing with film picture-taking, do it. But don't let anyone persuade you one way or another. (2002-10 PP)<br /><br />First, a few simple truths. Film ain't<br />gonna go away. A Kodak exec may have<br />uttered words that sounded like the<br />death toll for future development of<br />new emulsions, and the company<br />seems to be headed whole hog into<br />digital….<br />I am 100 percent interested in<br />taking pictures and 0 percent interested<br />in fiddling around afterward, massaging<br />images via a computer. Time is too<br />precious for me to do that.<br /><br />Will I still be using my 35mm film<br />cameras as well or more? You're damn<br />right I will!<br />(2004-03)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I will at this point, simply turn the discussion to those who will be outraged, agree, ignore, or say "MEH" to what I say here.<br>

Without further comment, I simply put in what is known as DABDA* (Kübler-Ross) as a possible way of identifying your and my response.<br /><br />________<br />*Denial <br />Anger <br />Bargaining <br />Depression<br />Acceptance.<br /><br /><br /></p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>None of the processes from your older periods have completely gone, and neither will film. It'll be a niche, more expensive to run, and harder to find the required chemicals, film itself, CR2 batteries and whatever else - but as a niche, it'll stick around.<br /> Just as some predict the end of the DSLR to be completely substituted by mirrorless. Probably true, to the extend that it sticks around as a niche, as well. Together with Leicas. And vinyl records, classic cars running unleaded fuel and horseback riding.</p>

<p>Oh, darn, I'm boring. Please let's have some zealots igniting the discussion.</p>

[User_5888660]

<p>Prolix, I prefer bloviate.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>None of the processes from your older periods have completely gone, and neither will film. It'll be a niche, more expensive to run, and harder to find the required chemicals, film itself, CR2 batteries and whatever else - but as a niche, it'll stick around.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Earlier I said,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Note that older technologies in historical (and prehistorical) ages do not usually totally disappear. Bronze tools are still made for some purposes, for example. Even chipped flint items are still made, but by only a handful of people world-wide (such as users/suppliers of flintlock weapons).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>NTIM</p>

<p>I can accept <em>bloviate</em>, though I wouldn't use the term myself.</p>

[vrankin]

<p>This is a great start. I loved film. I had my grief, and now I feel better. Besides, how many full time professional photographers have said that digital technology is superior? All of the few whom I've read!</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>DABDA - I am positively at the second "A" - acceptance that film is a thing of the past. Bye and good riddance - I am not missing you at all.</p>

<p>Several infrastructural aspects might be mentioned - digital cards store a lot more images in a much smaller space than required byfilm. The same goes for archival hard drives compared to slide, negative, or print storage. The largest number of slide films I ever had to cope with on a single (6-week) trip was 80 - at total of 2880 images. Film and later the developed and framed slide took up an entire business case. Today, that many images can be stored in less than a square inch of space. Dual cards on most cameras allow even for redundancy while shooting - never an option with film.</p>

[billangel]

The economics can still favor film over digital. A full frame DSLR is relatively expensive. A full frame film SLR is

dirt cheap on the used market. I like the asthetics of shallow depth of field, with only the main subject in focus.

Controlling depth of field in the image is the main reason that I switched from shooting with a digital point &

shoot to shooting with a 35 mm film SLR, as I don't have the bucks to spend on a full frame DSLR. :-(

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>The economics can still favor film over digital. A full frame DSLR is relatively expensive.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To stick with my above example - a trip with 80 slide films - current cost to purchase, develop and scan - about $20-25 a piece (price the last time I did this a year or so ago) - so the total is $1600 to $2000 - about the same as current FX DSLR cameras. Cost recovered after one trip! I actually don't have the money to keep shooting film!</p>

[SCL]

<p>Were it not for a box of films in my freezer, I'd probably have done the 100% digital conversion some time ago. With the introduction of micro 4/3 bodies, I can use many of my legacy lenses, albeit heavily cropped. BUT, do I ever love using those old film cameras which can often be obtained for very little, having grown up with the art, the darkroom, etc. Probably during my lifetime film will have moved into a niche which most will view as "quaint", but let them fondle some of those rock solid top tier bodies and lenses of old, of which legends are made, and they may become curious enough to engage in the world of (God, I hate the term) analogue photography.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I can't help myself. Here are some additional 'fact-based' figures on relative costs of digital and film, then and now.<br>

First, the serious digital camera offerings of B&H in April of 2004 (the non-P&S and 'bridge' cameras - dSLRs, that is):</p><div></div>

[JDMvW]

<p><strong>FILM BODY ONLY PRICES IN 2004 and 2014</strong> <br /><em>CPI index corrected (original price IN 2004, CPI adjusted price in 2014)</em><br /><br />Nikon F100 $825 - (2014)$1040<br />Nikon F5 - $1620 - 2040<br /><br /><br />Canon EOS 3 $740 - 930<br />Canon EOS-1v $1390 - 1750<br /><br /><br />I can’t find in any recent issue of <em>Popular Photography</em> that B&H even lists film cameras in their ads, but they do still sell them.<br /><br /><strong>“Flagship” film cameras</strong> <em>today</em> on B&H website:<br /> <br /> Nikon F6 35mm SLR Autofocus Camera Body $2450<br /> Canon EOS-1V Camera Body $1900<br /><br />cheaper cameras are apparently only sold with a lens by B&H and, perhaps, Nikon:<br /> Nikon FM10 35mm SLR Camera with 35-70mm Lens $310</p>

<p><br />So far as I can see, Canon offers nothing less, in film, than the 1V.<br /><br /><strong>Used Market (today)</strong><br /> On the used market (eBay, that is), Nikon F5 camera bodies are selling for (actually sold) for $250-400.<br /> Nikon F6 bodies on eBay have gone for $850-1000.<br /><br />Canon EOS 1v bodies on eBay - $200-500 sort of range, some wide differences paid.<br />Canon EOS 1n bodies - $100-200<br /><br /><strong>USED DIGITAL</strong> ('pro-am')<br />A Canon D30, their first ‘market’ dSLR (3.2 MP) working has gone recently for $50-100<br /> Canon EOS D60 (6.3 MP) $40-100<br /> Canon EOS-1DII (8.2 MP) ~400<br /><br />Nikon D70 (6.1 MP) $70-150<br />Nikon D1x (5.3 MP) $100-200<br /> There seems to be a collector market for some early digital cameras, and others may be being converted for IR use? The prices are surprisingly high - outside my "pizza" collector standard, anyhow. I should mention that the ranges cited are from the top of the sold lists when listed by most recent first.<br /> <br /><br /><br /> Of course, as I have repeatedly reported in my exploration of old film cameras and old AF cameras, older, high-quality film cameras are usually available for less than a price of a large, thin-crust, anchovy & garlic pizza at my local emporium.</p>

<p>We report, you decide.</p>

[maris_rusis]

<p>Phooey to film. I'm a large format photographer and it would make no difference to my work if all the film makers in the world went broke.<br>

Film is just a convenient and possibly transient form of a much grander principle: the making of pictures out of light-sensitive substances. Pictures made out of light-sensitive substances have a relationship to subject matter than no digital technology can replicate. Some people will always value the difference; most won't.</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>The dates are set to come close to convenient intervals. Transitions in "periods" are arbitrary, though not unrelated to cultural change. "Stages" are much more fuzzy. While a 'period' ends at 1900, say, transitions from one 'stage' to another are indistinct, occur at different times at different places. Both stages and periods are necesssarily arbitrary in various ways.<br>

Like other terminology, these are "tools" for the analyst and should not be confused with objective reality, whatever that might be.<br>

<br /> As I said, some stone tool technologies persist into the metal ages, and there are still people I know using wet-plate technology.<br /> Not many, tho'</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>That #6 was not true even in 2004. All the high technology is in the manufacturing of film, especially color negative and color positive film. Sure, making CMOS sensors and related electronics plus all the computer and printer gear and software is complex but making film takes a huge multimillion dollar investment if you don't already have it in place. Yeah, I know, the Ferrania restart on Kickstarter. But there they are salvaging a lot of very expensive equipment.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>From a quality point of view, medium format film is competitive with digital, but 35mm film is becoming a curiosity. I have been shooting film recently, using a Leica M3 and Hasselblad ELD, to see if it's something I want to pursue. I compared the results between the same subject shot with an Hasselblad, using Fuji Reala - a very fine grained film - with one shot using a Leica M9, 18MP, no anti-aliasing filter. Both were shot with a "normal" lens - 80mm on the Hasselblad and 50mm on the Leica. The film was scanned at 4000 ppi, using a Nikon 4000 Coolscan.</p>

<p>The results, in terms of resolution, are nearly equal. The film color is much richer, but was taken a month later in the season, nine years ago.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17883089-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="438" /></p>

<p>A 100% crop was taken from the center of each, shown below. At full frame, the crops would come from a 20"x24" print. The M9 image was resampled to match the MF scan, bringing the horizontal resolution to 6800 pixels (from 3572).</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17883087-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="350" /></p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>I enjoy shooting MF film. It slows me down. Well, besides the weight, I mean. It's like taking a bubble bath rather than a shower. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

And as an archeologist who delved into this matter, JDM, surely you know around when the first digital vs film discussions appeared. I missed that in your timetable.

[steve m smith]

<p>A typical comment from ten years ago:<em> "Film has about five years left".</em></p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>JDM, I realised (after posting) that I was basically saying the same.... NTIM indeed, but wasn't meant to contradict or challenge your OP.</p>

<p>Living in a tourist-rich area, I do see some of the uplift of "hipsters shooting film", there were clearly more film caemras around than 3-4 years ago. I guess there is always this little "step back" as anti-movement, a small counter-revolution. Nonetheless, empirically, I'd say it's a real (small) movement. Not that the Holgas and Dianas will save film-producing companies.<br>

But likewise, on the European eBay shops, prices for a lot of old(er) film gear have gone up the last years. I could sell of quite a few items bought 3 years ago with a profit now (Nikon F3 and a pair of Ais lenses). My latests purchases costed more than I should have made with a sane mind, but luckily I do not have one of those.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>In my home city, here in the UK, we are setting up a new public-access darkroom in response to demand for film and print processing facilities.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>surely you know around when the first digital vs film discussions appeared. I missed that in your timetable.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>QG- indeed I do. The early digital vs film discussions in the photo magazines started with the very earliest digital "still video" cameras like the Mavica. The "I don need no stinkin digital" letters become frequent shortly on the heels of the Kodak/Nikon digital camera and intensify to a crescendo about the time of the articles discussed above.</p>

<p>Interestingly, <em>Popular Photography</em>, and John Owens specifically, by December of 2004, speak of the <em>Tsunami</em> of digital -- and the content of the magazine is overwhelmingly digital.<br /> By that time, the editors are mocking the "don need no stinkin digital" letters</p>

[User_5888660]

<p>Here is my issue with the whole thread: The first post lays out the shift from digital to film. Okay. No big surprise there. </p>

<p>The third post talks about film's survival. </p>

<p>The fourth post talks about the death of film.</p>

<p>Do archaeologists talk about the "survival" and "death" of bronze age tools? </p>

<p>Film is no longer ubiquitous, digital is. But is that the same as film not surviving or the death of film?</p>

<p> </p>