Photography & the free-market

[leica ron]

How much responsibilty do we as consumers bear for the growth of

digital and the loss of popularity of film ?

 

I ask this question and invite comment because having just decided to

plunge into the world of LF and invest a small fortune on a used 4x5

monorail, I began to look around for LF developers and printers.

 

When I talked to my nearest professional imaging centre (my prior

source for excellent development and printing services) I was advised

that they had gone completely digital. They did refer me to a guy

where they send their LF stuff to ...

 

When I spoke to him he said that he was doing his best to hang in

there, but it was getting tough. His saving grace is that the local

photo college sends all of their students there to have their LF

developed and printed. But he lamented that even the college is

heading toward digital.

 

Now, the professional market is forging forward into the world of

digital to satisfy the short timelines demanded by their customers.

The commercial photo schools have to head in the same direction

otherwise the school will not be competitive. If the students stop

developing LF then the local LF developer will either close down or

himself move to digital.

 

And ultimately, with the commercial world demanding speed and lower

cost over absolute quality, commercial photography will enevitably

become almost completely digital ??

 

Where are we to take or E6 masterpieces to get developed ?

 

As LF shooters, we live on the outskirts of mainstream photography,

so if Kodak decides that it isn't making money off LF sales won't

commercial pressures force it to cease production ?

 

I personally hope not, but what's your vision ??

[maury_cohen]

We consumers bear TOTAL responsibility for this shift. Retail shops can only survive by stocking and selling what we will buy. They cannot make a profit stocking items that sell infrequently and manufacturers won't continue building items that don't sell.

Some individuals might argue that they're manipulated by the tools of the industry; magazines and advertisements, to desire the newer technology, but these folks are avoiding responsibility for their own decisions.

[robert_cardon]

Good question, one that�s been kicked around a lot on this forum. I�d like to think that digital and traditional will start to diverge and go down different paths, peacefully coexisting long enough to keep me in film until I pass. Probably a pipe dream since life isn�t like that. Anything good, true, and just, must be compromised and destroyed it seems. But, hey, so long as somebody�s making a buck ...

 

To me there is a fundamental difference between traditional and digital prints. The digital, even though it requires tremendous skill (probably more than traditional printing), is more akin to a lithograph � copies are idenitcal (or as close to it as the technology will allow). A traditional print is more of a hands-on craft, with no two prints of the same image being identical. I�d like to think that for the non-professional, there�s value in that, knowing that something unique has been created. It�s like the difference of getting love letter printed off an HP printer vs. getting one your sweetie wrote out by hand. Since they still sell greeting cards and stationary, I have some hope that print makers will see traditional prints as valuable enough to stimulate an viable demand for supplies.

 

As far as consumers dictating the market, they do vote with their dollars, but the ballot is often determined by the suppliers. Corporations wouldn�t spend billions each year on advertising if they didn�t think they could shape the market, mold consumer preference. The other thing is that consumers place a huge importance on being tendy, having the latest, most fashionable products, often putting these factors ahead of value. Digital is "hot" right now, to use the media�s own wornout phrase. I just hope that the retro contingent remains strong to prop up the demand for film, cameras, and lenses.

 

RJ

[wayne_crider4]

I don't know how big your town or city is, but I have 2 local labs that develop

4x5 and 8x10 and I don't see then stopping; But things are changing as you

noted, so all we can do is continue till we can't anymore. At that time just

shoot b&w and develop yourself. B&W will be around for a long time to come.

Btw, enjoy the camera and shoot film!

[david_goldfarb]

Here in New York City I can't even count the labs that process sheet film, some even up to 11x14" as a regular service.

[domenico_foschi]

I don't think traditional LG photography will disappear .

Actually i think that this digital revolution will put everybody in their

place as far as quality .

WHo really cares about the craft will find ways to perpetuate their

passion by means of alternative processes, which will find an

increase in proselites , more than what they are experiencing

now , actually i think that this digital "invasion " is a good thing, it

is a process not unlike natural selection .

I welcome digital , i despise digital , but i think it will work for me

in the sense that people who are looking for craftmanship will

have a restricted market , which will display quality .

Finally , people who have a genuine love for the craft , will cater

to experts who know the difference between a silver print , a

giclee, a carbon print , or ambrotype etc.....

[per_volquartz1]

There was large format photography before Kodak, Ilford, Agfa and Bergger got on the scene.

If these companies decide to stop making light sensitive materials artists who wish to work in the medium will find ways to continue.

 

 

Never worry...just work!

[john_kasaian1]

Ron, Welcome to LF! If the lack of a local lab is the #1 problem, try developing your own film. It can be done, and it is (usually) easy to the point of approaching boredom. The local, retired Pro I often turn to for guidence developed color 8x10s in trays for his commercial clients(!) As for the availability of materials in the future, I imagine color materials will become scarcer, if not from digital then because it will have priced itself out of reach of many amateurs---and LF, IMHO, is becomeing more and more the domain of serious hobbyists as the commercial world becomes more and more digitalized out of commercial neccesity. Does this make a difference? Probably not! In fact it is probably an advantage as professional quality gear gets sold off so cheap that guys like me can aford it. You could become a LF "survivalist" coat your own glass plates and photo paper, even assemble your own lenses from diopters and build your own camera I suppose(perhaps you'll be able to buy a cammie Gandolfi!) Until that time comes, I will enjoy the stuff that comes in the Yellow(or whatever color) Box and concern myself with taking photographs. B&W Film I'll bet, will be around for a long long time. Have FUN!

[scott_fleming1]

I've said this before. I think there is already a digital backlash. It's why I have a LF outfit. I just as well could have gone MF but what the heck ... why not go all the way?

 

I had become bored with photography and actually nearly abandoned my meager efforts. I had a few 8 x 10 prints around done with 35mm that impressed the non-initiated but I knew just enough to use fill flash and what dof actually was. Not much more.

 

I got the bug again due to my environment and a desire to capture it in two dimensions. I started the search for a new camera as 35mm just didn't cut it. I went the gammut. In the process I looked deeply into digital photography. The experience ultimately horrified me. I won't go into it but if anyone really looks at what they are getting into with pro level digital ... and how many tens of thousands of dollars they are going to be sorely pressed into spending ... it's extremely off-putting.

 

Once one has used REAL cameras it would be pretty hard to go back to a Nikon F80 or a Canon Rebel. That's what you do if you go digital. Unless you get the 1Ds. Then of course you'll have to have some new L glass. Then you'll need a top of the line computer with all the memory you can shoe-horn into it. Then you need two huge memory cards. It never stops.

 

Then you have to become a PhotoShop expert. THAT is a bottomless pit. I believe the digital world is being driven by extreme gear-headedness. Maniacal gear-heads dragging each other into obsessive distraction and away from the art of photography.

 

If one is an amateur one should pay no attention to what the pros have to do to run their businesses. They don't shoot for pleasure or art. They have to make a living. It's worth following what they are up to in order to keep up with the latest tech but just because the pros do something is NO reason for the dedicated amateur or artist to follow. Quite the opposite in many cases. One musn't confuse envy or hero-worship with common sense.

 

Whatever form of photography keeps me out from behind this infernal machine the most ... is the form I shall pursue.

 

Recently I looked back to see what had transpired after I fled. What did I find? The fiasco of the Kodak 14n. What a nightmare. And to think I almost thought I wanted one ... before it was finally proven to be vapor-ware. Five Thousand Dollar vapor ware.

[ed_pierce2]

I welcome the rise in popularity of digital photography because of the new opportunities for expression it presents, particularly in the way images are communicated. That said, I won't touch it with a 10 foot pole...I spend too much time with computers already and I actually like the odor of fixer and playing with all the materials.

 

I have no doubt that silver based imaging will eventually become too expensive, and digital will be so good and so cheap, that silver will be a thing of the past. Not in my lifetime however. And in the meantime, the growing use of digital just means my work will be more unique.

 

There was an interesting article in Newsweek recently about using digital technolgy with large format photography.

[james_chinn]

I don't know if anyone knows how many LF shooters there are in the US, but I see almost every LF camera offered on Ebay is bought by someone. I have also noticed that if I look at back issues of View Camera or Shutterbug or the archives going back to 97/98 there seems to be a greater availability of LF film in size and mfg.

 

Every few days we have posts from new LF shooters or posts by 4x5 shooters who want to move up to a larger format. There is a major resurgence in ULF cameras and alternative processes. If there was no demand you would not see old B&J or Empire 11x14s selling for close to $3000.

 

The demand for film is there and thanks to the www and sites such as these, it is very easy to get started in LF because of the huge knowledge base about gear, processes, printing etc available on the web. I agree that there will be a shakeout of mfgs. I will not be suprised if Kodak gets out of B&W entirely. But that leaves more market for others to persue.

[leica ron]

I'm happy to see that many of the posters share the same views. Without doubt LF shooters are typically passionate about the craft.

 

My worry is, if a large number of commercial sheet film users completely switch to digital then the demand for LF sheet film may fall dramatically. And there may not be enough of us to warrant Kodak, Fuji et al to continue to make sheet film. The thing is, filling the void left by the big boys might not be so easy. Making photographic film doesn't look too easy ! So we'll have to support the smaller manufacturers to make sure they survive.

 

As for digital in itself, I agree with most of the posters, it has a place, but not with me ! My move into LF is a partial backlash against digital, but more to do with slowing down, taking in the scene and 'making' a picture, enjoying the experience and the process not just the end result.

 

Here's to life under the cloth !

[brian_c._miller]

All companies must follow the money, else they die.

 

According to the B&H Photo-Video catalog, there are only two producers of color sheet film: Kodak and Fuji. I don't know how film runs are done, but it seems to me that as long as the manufacturer is producing color film, there will still be some offering in the sheet film products. I think the base would change to that of 35mm or 120, but sheet film would still be available.

 

If all color sheet film were to be stopped being made, does anybody suppose that Polaroid could make a color version of Type 55? (if Polaroid survived in that market climate, that is)

 

I bet that some east European company would get some of the cast-off color film equipment and start producing something. It wouldn't be like Kodak or Fuji, but it would be available.

 

Hmmm, what if the original color negative processes returned? I was at the Ilford site, and their calendar features images from Louis Lumiere's original Autochrome plates. Surely, if all color manufacturing went down the tubes, there could be enough demand to profitably produce Autochrome!

[james_megargee]

This is a rather timely question considering what we see happening in the

commercial field. Be it studio, magazine, journalism,etc. There is a strong

movement and considerable investment being made in digital. The recent

news that Time/Life will be closing their lab next month is just one indication

of this. For those that produce their work for themselves or Fine Art (gallery)

photographers this is probably of not much concern. But for those that make

their living in photography (shooting or processing), digital is becoming a

hard reality that can not be avoided. Don't be surprised if in 5 years 100% of

the published work you see in magazines were shot or reproduced on digital.

As one editor told me recently ".....we are asking all our photographers to

begin shooting digital......screw those processing costs......"

[brian_c._miller]

Yesterday I bought $500 worth of Kodak 400UC for a friend who is trekking the Pacific Crest Trail this year. (Me and my big mouth, I decided to be his camera & film sponsor) The salesman said that with everything going digital, he was happy to see somebody buying film.

[john_kasaian1]

FWIW, I see this whole issue as a maturing, albeit forced by technology, of traditional photography as an art form. The "press the button, we do the rest" appeal of the past finds it's followers switching camps to digital. "Commercial Photography" has correctly been redefined as "Digital Imageing" for the most part, since digital is the modus of print media, but IMHO this is not tthe harbinger of doom and gloom for film, just as photographs have never been a substitute for oil paintings, Synthesizers aren't regarded or even considered as replacements for symphony orchestras, and fiberglass hasn't put ant marble quarries out of business in the arena of sculpture. Heck, they still build wooden boats! As long as there is a demand, we'll have the materials to work with. Don't stress!