The Resurgence of Film

[davidfink_photography]

 

What is often underestimated (or sometimes completely overlooked) in

the "film vs. digital" discussions that appear ad infinitum on this

site is the explosive and accelerating advancements that have

occurred in home film scanner technology over the past couple of

years. Minolta, in particular, has brought to market a series of

excellent new products at bargain basement price points. For those

of us heavily involved in DSLRs, who have become dependent on the

benefits of working with digital images, and who have grown

accustomed to Photoshop and the digital darkroom, it is user-

friendly film scanner technology that will fuel the coming

resurgence of film photography.

 

The huge advancements in scanner technology have not gone unnoticed

by film manufacturers. And it is the traditional film companies who

will leverage this development to their advantage, by providing

intermediary systems to facilitate the film-to-digital process in an

easy and cost effective way.

 

I predict that very soon Kodak will shake up the industry by

announcing its new ScanReady� technology. The ScanReady system

will consist of two parts:

 

1. There will be an add-on kit made available to C-41 labs, which

will automate the process of preparing negatives for efficient

consumer scanning. The kit will cut negatives in six-frame strips

and then mount each strip in a thin light plastic edge holder. The

holders will provide enough rigidity to prevent curling of the

negatives, and to hold the strips flat for scanning, but will not

interfere with printing from the negatives if desired. The

consumer will drop off a roll of film for ScanReady processing

($5.99), and will receive back the mounted strips, which after

scanning can be sleeved and archived in three-ring binders, just as

many of us do with negatives today.

 

2. There will be introduced a line of Kodak ScanReady scanners,

made expressly to accept the mounted strips of negatives returned by

the lab. Initially there will be two models, a 2820dpi Home model

(street price $99.99), and a 4000dpi Pro model (street $149.99).

The scanners will have software built-in, with precise sensitometric

data for the full line of Kodak films, plus perhaps a "generic"

setting to be used with film from other companies. The scanners

will interface via USB2 and Firewire, and (considerably lighter and

not much bigger than a 1Ds camera) will be portable enough to take

on vacation with a laptop. Kodak's scanners clearly will be loss

leaders for the company, with an eye to spurring renewed growth in

its film sales.

 

Soon thereafter, Fujifilm will announce its own line of ScanReady-

compatible scanners, with software optimized for its own film stocks.

 

Third party manufacturers (Minolta, Epson, etc.) will jump on-board

with competitive models touted to scan optimally with all films.

 

There will of course be adapters available allowing mounted slides

to be scanned in the ScanReady scanners. E6 labs may also have

ScanReady kits to cut and strip-mount the slide film.

 

Why will some photographers choose to embrace the Kodak ScanReady

system, rather than move to digital capture directly? Well the

answers are numerous and obvious, at least to those who take the

side of "film is not yet dead" in the currently ubiquitous on-line

debates. I won't recapitulate those arguments here, except to

mention the glaring differences in cost and maturity between top-

line SLRs and DSLRs.

 

Will Kodak's new initiative spell the end of digital photography, at

least on the capture end? Of course not! There will still be

many who prefer the speed and convenience of card media, or who

prefer to skip the processing labs as an integral step in the

photographic art. Digital will continue to thrive, and probably

continue to outpace the film-based side in revenue growth.

 

But, at the very least, Kodak's ScanReady initiative will solidify

film's place as a viable alternative to digital capture for many

years to come. The benefits will accrue to manufacturers,

stockholders, and consumers, and not least to those of us who

believe that photography flourishes best in an environment of many

choices.

 

Best wishes,

 

David

 

 

[mike_morgan1]

Scanners are labor intensive. They are great if you have several hours to scan and sort. They are great if you have a lab that doesn't introduce defects on your film surface. But if you have a family, they take too much time.

[mike_morgan1]

Also, it would be more efficient for the lab to scan the negatives after processing, and provide them on a DVD in TIFF format. One scanner could cover several hundred customers. That is, if a large demand for TIFF files can be created. I don't think it can.

 

I don't much print at home anymore because I can get Fuji Frontier 4x6 prints for $0.19/each. I only print large prints at home (12x18).

 

Regarding your post: Very creative thinking. We'll see if you're right. (I've been wrong with technological fads before, so that I think you're wrong here might be good news.)

 

Digital will kill the consumer film market, in my opinion, though. My uncle just went digital. My mother is about to go digital. My sister went digital. I went digital. I only use film for slides (rarely) and B&W. The others in my family don't shoot slide film or B&W.

 

Mind you, my mother will and my sister does just bring their film cards to the local lab and pay for only the prints they want. They don't even use the computers.

 

Many people, it seems to me, are spending less time using their PC (if they have one) and more time with the family.

 

My uncle prints his own photos. However, I don't know why. It can be done so much more quickly and cheaply at the lab. He claims that he could run up and print a photo in 5 minutes for a dinner guest as an example. But, except to show off the first time or two, I doubt that will become a habit when he has guests.

 

Basically, the question comes down to this: Is it cheaper to manufacture scans and prints at a centralized location, or with distributed systems.

 

We may go distributed, but that will be a fad, and people will sooner or later figure out that Walmart is a more cost effective way to get good prints than slaving over your scanner/computer/printer.

[davidfink_photography]

Hi Mike,

 

Of course you objections are valid points. (And I hope your history of erroneous predictions of technological trends remains intact. lol.)

 

A couple of quick rejoinders:

 

1. It is precisely the issue of scanning being time and labor intensive that continued improvements in scanner technology will address. The Kodak system will involve inserting a holder strip into the scanner, selecting the film type, and pressing a button. Not much labor! (Though you'll have to repeat the process of insertion and button-pressing 3 to 5 more times, depending on the number of frames in the roll of film.) As to time, this too will improve, and the Kodak scanners will be quite speedy.

 

2. Although I think you're right that most folks will find it easier to have 4x6 prints done at a Wal-Mart or lab, there is also the matter of wanting to work with and display images on the computer. The ScanReady system will compete directly with digital capture in that regard.

 

Thanks for your responses.

 

Best wishes,

 

David

[Ken Katz]

While this in an intriguing theory, I don't think any "easy to use" scanner is going to have any significant consumer appeal, since for most P&S users, they simply want to drop off their flash cards and pick up prints 1 hour later or plug their cameras into a printer and get acceptable prints. Why mess with scanners, computers, and photo editing software? For enthusiasts (like myself) such a scanner may get me to shoot more film, but I would not want to be locked into Kodak or Fuji only products (knowing Kodak, they would probably not offer settings for Portra or any Pro slide film). Such an initiative will not save Kodak financially or materially change the future economic dynamics of film manufacturing in the US or the developed world.

[carl smith]

In the US digital P&S for the consumers are taking off. They've hit the $200 compulsive buying range, and they're easy enough to use and deliver quality just as good and even better than many of the film P&S cameras did.

 

All a consumer has to do is drop off a CD, or take the camera and memory card and have the files transferred to have prints made. It still seems cumbersome to me but for consumers the necessary infrastructure exists to make digital convenient to them, and the sales of digital cameras show this.

 

For professional usage there's still some gaps, however in certain fields digital is a clear winner.

 

Fuji and Kodak have made some improvements in their materials that aid scanning, although not all seem to be well publicized. I don't particularly expect to see a major push like this since it's too late to grab consumers attention IMO and many pros are looking for ways to go digtial.

 

Also, those prices are amusing but unrealistic if you expect them to be any better than primefilm scanners.

[mike_morgan1]

Just wanted to add, I have a Nikon LS-2000. My wife used to shot APS, so I bought an APS adapter for it. Works well. The film is only very rarely damaged (i.e., I don't have to use ICE to remove film surface defects with APS as I do with most 35mm). I can scan a whole roll of APS easy. Insert, load, preview, adjust, scan.

 

However, I have about 70 rolls of APS that I have not scanned, and have no intention of scanning. (Not to mention the unscanned 35mm film, which isn't as straightforward as scanning APS.)

 

As easy as it is, it is still too much work.

 

Now, if I could buy a DVD with the film scanned at 4000 dpi with a dynamic range of 4+ for $2.99, and if most mini-labs kept their machines maintained to not produce film surface defects, and could handle the likes of 160VC, I think that might be good for film. That is, until I can obtain a 6MPixel full frame DSLR for less than $2000.

 

But if you can get a high quality film scanner for $150, I bet you'd be able to get an 11 Mpixel full frame DSLR or P&S on the cheap, too. Maybe $500 in a few years. And a 16G CF card for $99.00.

[daniel_taylor]

The growth in film scanners can't touch the growth in digital. Three years ago I wouldn't even entertain the thought of wasting money on a digital P&S, so low was my opinion of their output. Today my 10D out performs Provia 100F, and that's set to ISO 400!

 

Yet nothing has happened in that same three years to make me wish I had a newer film scanner. I'm still using my 2700 ppi Acer ScanWit to scan old film, or on that rare occasion I shoot some 35mm (still love Velvia 50). No new films have appeared that make me think "wow, this has an advantage over my DSLR."

 

If somebody offered a $150 4000 (or even 2700) ppi scanner that dramatically improved work flow, I might buy it. $150 is an "impulse buy" price point. Would it cause me to put down my 10D and start buying boat loads of film again? Not likely. For one there isn't a film as clean as a DSLR in 35mm. For two, all the disadvantages are still there: pay for film, wait for developing, pay for developing, wait for scanning, clean up dust. Plus no instant review. This isn't a gimmick feature as film fans claim, it's a way to verify proper exposure that is as big an advance as light meters were IMHO.

 

Even if this system were created, it would not create a film resurgence. I do not believe film is going any where for a while. Too many old bodies, too many people totally uninterested in computers and electronic gadgets. Film will continue to be produced and supported. But film is fast taking a back seat to digital, and nothing will change that.

 

What I really wish Kodak or somebody would come out with would be a <$500 dedicated film scanner for MF and 4x5. That I would buy. That I would use. But film would still represent <10% of my shooting, the rest being done on my 10D.

[EricM]

Daniel,

 

"$500 dedicated film scanner for MF and 4x5."

 

Check out the Epson 3200.

[markci]

That's the big idea that's going to save film? Marginally less painful scanning? Right.

[davidfink_photography]

Well, I'm clearly in the minority on this matter it seems.

 

Having spent the better part of four years shooting exclusively digital, it has been nothing but a pleasure for me over the past six months to discover how far film scanners have come. Speed, resolution, dmax, cost. It's led to my *own* resurgence of interest in film. It just seems to me that a key to the two media surviving together (and what would be wrong with that?) is the ability to utilize the strengths of both. Scanning is a bridge you might say.

 

Realizing that many find the process of scanning tedious and/or painful, I will confess that I actually find it rather enjoyable. (Odd bird, I.) To the extent that it could be made better/easier/faster/cheaper might be the single best way to keep more people interested in film who wonder what they're missing in digital, and to offer those who've taken the digital plunge a reason also to explore shooting film as part of their photographic repertoire.

 

Yes, perhaps a more efficient solution would be for labs to offer reasonably priced high resolution scans on CD. But again, there are some of us (or perhaps it's only me?) who enjoy having that bridge between film and digital on our own desktop.

 

Best wishes,

 

David

[markci]

Less painful scanning might be nice, but your proposal doesn't accomplish it, since it really has nothing to do with feeding in the negatives.

 

A better proposal might be to get rid of the orange mask and generally optimizing the negative for scanning. The death of optical printing opens up a lot of possibilities for better representing image information on film that would result in easier scanning and better color fidelity and overall quality.

[davidfink_photography]

Hi Mark,

 

Ah, that is an intriguing idea to be sure. And I agree with your implication that the most *frustrating* part of scanning currently is the difficulty of getting the exposure/color balance right for each type of negative. As you know, Vuescan makes an attempt to help with this, but often with imprecise and unpredictable results.

 

That's where better and more accurate film type sensitometric data in the software comes in. Seems it would be in Kodak/Fujifilm/Agfa/Ilford's interest to contribute to software solutions in this area, n'est pas?

 

Personally, I like your idea of getting rid of the orange mask.....but I have to imagine that there will be those film shooters who will continue to WANT optical prints.

 

Best wishes,

 

David

[scott_eaton]

<I>While this in an intriguing theory, I don't think any "easy to use" scanner is going to have any significant consumer appeal</i><P>It won't have any at all. Film scanners are clunky, inefficient devices when it comes to the consumer film market and will increasingly become irrelevant as consumer digicams improve to 5-megapixel and beyond. About the only possible way this product will dent the curve of decreasing consumer film sales is by also introducing a new camera that internally processes and scans film with an infinate free supply without it ever leaving the camera. Get my drift?? It would be like the RIAA introducing easier to open CD cases and expecting the new case technology to win back MP3 downloaders.<P>Kodak can exploit a niche in the retail film scanning market because the main limitation of the current crop of higher end desktop scanners is the software and not the hardware. Kodak has historically been very good at the software end of digital technology, especially when it comes to involving film in the loop, and it's becoming pretty cheap now to manufacturer this level of electronic device. Just look at how old the PhotoCD system is, and yet it's still in use by many labs. No brainer here, other than this is just another religious proclamation about film with an increasingly apethetic market.

[jsbc]

David, you are in the minority.

 

Your method aims to provide digital images for the mass but with the following features:

(1) more time consuming - you still need to go through the trouble to physically develop the film;

(2) more expensive, given it takes $7 in film plus development costs for 36 shots

(3) no instant feedback. They still wonder after the trip whether they have go the shot

(4) a bulkier package to carry - camera, scanner, laptop, rolls and rolls of film, plus a foolscrap to notedown the dates, exposure details. vs a 1GC microdrive

(5) more work in scanning

 

I think if Kodak includes a free Photo CD with every roll of film developed, film will still die a quick death. I don't think anyone will be tempted.

[oskar_ojala]

I've heard that the importer here has a 2 month waiting list for new Digital Rebels from Japan. On average, people here buy a digicam that costs between 300-400 euros and they buy them a lot. This isn't restricted to young people: the majority if my parents friends have digicams and even my dad who only shoots a couple of rolls/year with his 70's SLR and doesn't give a damn about gadgets says he needs to get one of those digicams. To top it all, mobile phones with cameras are enormously popular and given that everyone here as at least one mobile phone, it's easy to see where this leads...

 

Lets face it: consumer film has no future. (although I hope they won't nuke pro films, especially 120 and sheet films, very soon...)

[scott_eaton]

<I>Views of Kodachrome and Velvia through a Microscope </i><P>I know Les is simply trying to pass on a provocative Web-Site, but I have to drop my .02 on this one. <P>It's typical, if not cliche' to compare high rez samples between Velvia, Kodachrome and digital capture, but it's also irrelevant. The general picture taking population is better served by using Gold 100 vs Velvia or Kodachrome because of the limited consumer reproduction capabilities of slide films. The potential resolution of slide film (under ideal conditions) then becomes irrelevant.

[davidfink_photography]

Why are we so quick to confine the discussion to "consumers," the use of which term in several replies is obviously meant to describe the casual "all I want is quick, easy 4x6 prints" shooter? Enthusiasts, advanced hobbyists, semi-pros, and pros are also "consumers," and many in this category care very much about quality differences between, for example, Gold 100 and Velvia. For them the issue is decidedly not irrelevant.

 

Sure, the economics of the issue are weighted heavily toward the mass market casual shooters, and when most of them have abandoned film (as is the accelerating trend, at least in developed countries) it will be very tough to support economically the business model on which the film world has been based.

 

My lingering point, acknowledging that I may indeed be a minority of one, is that for C-41 (and perhaps E6) film to survive as a niche market, the higher level segments of the photographic population must find a way to combine the best of both film and digital. I'm talking about *knowledgable* "consumers" who care about quality and can discern it from trash. To this end, it seems to me that continued improvements in scanner technology and processes provide the most hopeful path.

 

But even so, I recognize that the smart money is on film eventually being reduced to the status of LP records.

 

Best wishes,

 

David

[scott_eaton]

<I>Why are we so quick to confine the discussion to "consumers,"</i><P>Because that's like, 90% of the market buying C-41 film who have no business buying slide film in the first place. <P>No change in scanner technology is going to change the physical attributes and limitations of film technology, nor alter the advantages of one over the other. <P>The comparisons made on that site are *irrelevant* because neither Velvia nor Kodachrome yields superior prints than Gold 100 even if the slide films had resolving power down to a quantum level. In anything, the highest quality consumer photo finishing still gives a serious advantage towards color neg than slide, and those same labs will likely yield even better prints from direct digital capture vs color neg. <P>What you don't seem to realize is that as the photographic reproduction system becomes increasingly digital based, then digital capture devices make more sense and increase their advantages. A film scanner *is* nothing more than a digital camera designed to capture film, and film is a second generation copy of the original scene. Thus, the only advantage/arguement that film has is an artistic one and not a utilitarian one. When you shoot slides you are limited by the dymanic range factor and difficulty of transposing to a print medium, and when you shoot color neg you are limited by the interpretation of a color negative. Better scanner software can reduce these headaches, but not reduce the advantages that digital capture has in a digital repro system.

[davidfink_photography]

Hi Les!

 

I just figured out that you and I are old buddies from the E10 forum at dpreview, right?

 

I saw a post of yours there a long while back in which you were defending your renewed interest in film.

 

Seems like you and I have gone down somewhat similar paths of late.

 

Hope all is well for you.

 

Best wishes,

 

David

[._._z]

<i> I predict that very soon Kodak will shake up the industry by announcing its new

ScanReady� technology </i><p>

 

I just did a trademark search at the US Patent & Trademark Office and 'ScanReady'

does not appear to be a trademark of Eastman Kodak.

[Spearhead]

<i>as is the accelerating trend, at least in developed countries</i><P>

 

It's a myth that the trend towards digital capture is only in the "developed" countries. I just returned from three weeks in a country that is not only 150th in terms of personal annual income (that's very poor) but also "communist." Everywhere I went, labs advertised themselves as "digital", broadly displaying the ability to print from memory devices. Computers were often prominent for image processing and control. There were no scanners - there was only automated printing from negatives or digital media.<p>

 

There's no question in my mind after this trip that film is going to become a tiny niche market at some time in the not-too-distant future. I shot film while I was there (although when I needed something different than what I brought, it was unavailable) but I don't think I'll travel with a film camera again. The benefits, especially the ability to shoot at a wide range of speeds, far outweight any benefits film may have.

[carl smith]

Les, sounds like they don't feel like spending on new equipment to me. ;) I ran in to a similar operation where they had just put in all new film equipment for handling their work (did it in the past 5 years) and are really kicking themselves now. Oops.

 

Jeff, thanks for sharing though. That's really interesting. I knew in the US its already almost over as far as the consumer market is concerned (the death bells are tolling and the tides are turning), but I had wondered how the rest of the world faired. If it is as you say (and those shops aren't just mainly serving tourists) than it is a far more dire situation for film than I had thought.

 

Sounds quite dramatic don't it?

[James G. Dainis]

Yes, there has been quite a resurgence of film - digital film.

[oskar_ojala]

Actually things like digital cameras and mobile phones are pretty popular in all places where there is electricity and some basic standard of living. I wouldn't count too much on what people in developed countries do - even the US has at times seemed backwards in some areas! People in developed countries generally already have film cameras, many shoo only a couple of rolls a year and the only prints they make are the 4x6" proofs at the 1-hour lab. These people buy digital cameras as gadgets, they don't really care so much about quality as long as the moment is captured.