A boost for film

Steve Roberts · Jul 21, 2010

Some of the responsibility for lack of film sales and related business must lie with the manufacturers and retailers. In the 'good old days' (cue sepia tint and soft focus!) photographic shops were stuffed full of 'point of sale' material - the cardboard Kodak girl lurking outside the shop (often complete with pencilled-in moustache), the large imitation cardboard film boxes dangling from the ceiling on strings, mobiles with company logos fluttering in the breeze, a Fuji Film shop open/closed sign and a stash of film in full view of the 'cuzzy' (as run-of-the-mill shop customers were called - those who caused the staff grief were blessed with other names). It's possible to walk in and out of many photographic shops now without even realising that they deal with film. OK, so they'd rather push digital, but it doesn't have to be an 'either/or situation' when it could be 'and'. My neighbours are the most non-technologically minded people one could meet and now no longer take photographs because of the mistaken belief that film is dead and the fact that they are "sh*t scared" (their expression!) of anything with the word 'digital' involved.

On a positive note, my local London Camera Exchange, which has for a few years had very few film cameras in its display window, lately seems to have started pushing them again, with selected cameras bearing a jazzy star saying "Film Camera". One swallow doesn't make the proverbial summer, but it's always reassuring to see such things.

Steve

Ian Grant · Jul 21, 2010

Go to a Camera fair in the UK and young people are snapping up film cameras, and they know what they are after. Whther it's toy cameras box brownies or higher end SLR's.

In the UK it was Jessops who thought Digital cameras were their saviour ditched film cameras overnight, stopping all second hand sales as well, and that had been quite a good service/income for them. Those outside the UK won't appreciate just how dominant Jessops are in the UK, until recently they had a store in just about every major town in the UK, and some times more than one in larger places., and they'd price match any competitor.

That situation changed they went technically bankrupt and restructured recently, they aren't competitive any longer a roll of B&W film was nearly60% more in their stores than elsewhere.

We need the smaller more flexible stores and small chains (like LCE) to sell what we need & want rather than just what a marketing dept thinks we should be buying. I guess that's the same in any country.

Ian

steven_e007 · Jul 21, 2010

Ian Grant said:
Go to a Camera fair in the UK and young people are snapping up film cameras, and they know what they are after. Whther it's toy cameras box brownies or higher end SLR's.

In the UK it was Jessops who thought Digital cameras were their saviour ditched film cameras overnight, stopping all second hand sales as well, and that had been quite a good service/income for them. Those outside the UK won't appreciate just how dominant Jessops are in the UK, until recently they had a store in just about every major town in the UK, and some times more than one in larger places., and they'd price match any competitor.

That situation changed they went technically bankrupt and restructured recently, they aren't competitive any longer a roll of B&W film was nearly60% more in their stores than elsewhere.

We need the smaller more flexible stores and small chains (like LCE) to sell what we need & want rather than just what a marketing dept thinks we should be buying. I guess that's the same in any country.

Ian

The problem with the Jessops steamroller is that about 10 years ago they were buying out absolutely everybody they could. Wolverhampton had about 5 camera shops - Jesspos bought three of them.. Much the same in Birmingham and I guess most other UK cities. Jessops swallowed everyone - then 'resized' and closed them all down. Now Wolverhampton has 1 camera shop - a Jessops that only recognises the existance of digital

(Actually - there was a pro dealer on a buissness park somewhere. I forget their name, so can't check if they still exist?)

Last time I visited a Jessops was in Northern Ireland. I needed some B & W film. The local Jessops had NONE at all, and very little colour, either. In the same shopping centre was a Boots chemist... with a reasonable range of Ilford films and a bigger range of colour at lower prices. Just about sums Jessops up....

2F/2F · Jul 21, 2010

What I really cannot believe is how many people gladly and willingly made the 100% switch to digital, forgetting that film ever existed, and never giving it a second thought once they made the switch.

I had to learn digital because it was a necessity for what I was shooting 2005 - 2009. I tried to use it for personal work as well, and for a time shot more digital than film, really just putting the cameras and processes through their paces. However, this was a short time. I finally got fed up with the results and the process for personal work. I used to use my digital cameras daily. Now I use them a handful of times each year. I get better general-purpose results with a $5 auto exposure camera (Yashica Electro 35) than I get with a high-end digital SLR. Add in manual cameras, SLRs, and larger formats, and the results absolutely smoke digital - easily - and the process is so much more smooth and enjoyable, and stunningly cheaper. I just don't get it. I can't believe how many people truly believe that digital suits their needs better. They believe it to such a degree that film is a novelty - a joke - to them. What gives? How did film die SO quickly? People are really consumer idiots, man. They grew up with film all around them, and now they don't even know it exists.

Ric Trexell · Jul 21, 2010

I suppose one of the reasons people think film is dead is that, for example, even though I use film, when I give a picture to someone, I scan it and email it to them. They don't get the connection that it was a film camera that took the picture originally, they just know it was a digital picture. So maybe film users are sending the wrong message (literally by email) that this was shot with a digital camera. If you took it with a MF or LF camera, they will probably be saying, wow, those digital cameras really are nice and sharp, I got to get one. Think that could be the case? Ric.

wblynch · Jul 21, 2010

Lately I have taken to having extra prints made from my film photographs. I give the extras to the friends and family that are in the picture and they are amazed and happy to have a real photograph in their hands.

My brother recently lost every digital photo he and his wife took over the past 3 years. He was thankful for the 2 dozen prints I had sent them.

Sirius Glass · Jul 22, 2010

Ric Trexell said:
I suppose one of the reasons people think film is dead is that, for example, even though I use film, when I give a picture to someone, I scan it and email it to them..

No, make a print or have a print made and then send them the print. As soon as they see it, they will know the difference. This is an easy way to get someone to look at using film.

Steve

Simplicius · Jul 22, 2010

Most who take up film now scan negatives too and digitise them and are missing the full potential.

I dunno if this is an unfounded but I got the impression few times I have seen darkroom prints mixed in with a majority of digital prints, that people see the difference but they don't recognise it as a neg print but that it is a poorly manipulated digital picture. it is like the modern eye is used to digitals underlying uniformity ( as opposed to grains randomness)
Of course there is also another factor that just occured to me as I typed. the average standard of darkroom printing has gone down... most of us are part time amatuers, myself included. I have held prints by Les McLean and John Blakemore in my hands so I know how far I and most other stuff I see in darkrooms around need to go.

in summary though, the eye now is used to digital's uniformity and darkroom prints seem 'incorrect' and lack of darkroom and printing accesibility is also ensuring film's full potential is not being realised.

Worker 11811 · Jul 22, 2010

Sirius Glass said:
No, make a print or have a print made and then send them the print. As soon as they see it, they will know the difference. This is an easy way to get someone to look at using film.

Steve

When you make that print, put an adhesive sticker or something on the back with your name, address and e-mail on it.

Make a small, 4x5 print. That would be small by a traditional photographer's standards but pretty large by most people's standards. Give a few of those prints away, every once in a while. (Don't give away too many. Just once in a while.) Those little prints with your name and contact info on the back become photographic business cards.

If people want enlargements of those pictures they know who to call in order to buy them.

So, not only will this give traditional photography a boost, it might also give your wallet a boost too.

This is probably more suited to amateur or hobbyist photographers than pros. I'm not out to become a pro but it would be nice to subsidize my hobby with a few sales every once in a while.

That's why I got the idea of making photographic business cards.

drkhalsa · Jul 22, 2010

We have a subscription to Skateboarder magazine (thanks to my son) and in looking through it I've been intrigued by a monthly recurring page for Skateboardermag.com Daily Film Blog described as "Skateboarder photographer John Bradford's blog at Skateboardermag.com. Daily Updates with one rule: NO DIGITAL"

The image on the magazine page is of a Minolta camera with a Rokkor 55mm f1.7 lens.

Before posting this I had finally looked at the web page Dead Link Removed and enjoyed some of the black and white skate photos.

Glad to see the use of film for a digital dominated industry.

perkeleellinen · Jul 23, 2010

drkhalsa said:
Glad to see the use of film for a digital dominated industry.

Have a look through the photo forums as skateperception.com, there's lots of people either shooting film, about to start shooting film, or curious about film:

http://forums.skateperception.com/index.php?showforum=33

drkhalsa · Jul 23, 2010

Thanks Steve.

eggen · Jul 24, 2010

I'm very happy to read your writing. Here in Finland very same trend is going on. To write just about digital shooting. I'm annoyed by this. Most of my friends don't know that film is still alive. Sad. My personal counterstrike is to build a darkroom into my new log house (free time house) and show to all my friends how to develop films and make prints.

To develop films and make prints is much more funnier than watching TV.

I want also an APUG T-shirt!!

E76 · Jul 24, 2010

drkhalsa said:
We have a subscription to Skateboarder magazine (thanks to my son) and in looking through it I've been intrigued by a monthly recurring page for Skateboardermag.com Daily Film Blog described as "Skateboarder photographer John Bradford's blog at Skateboardermag.com. Daily Updates with one rule: NO DIGITAL"

The image on the magazine page is of a Minolta camera with a Rokkor 55mm f1.7 lens.

Before posting this I had finally looked at the web page Dead Link Removed and enjoyed some of the black and white skate photos.

Glad to see the use of film for a digital dominated industry.

I've noticed that some of photographs accompanying the articles in the high-technology magazine WIRED appear to be shot on film. They will include the rebate and you can see the distinctive Hasselblad and 4x5 borders, as well as the film code (usually Fuji)! Of course, it could all be faked, but if that's the case it's being done accurately compared to what I see on Flickr and other sites.

wblynch · Jul 24, 2010

E76 said:
Of course, it could all be faked, but if that's the case it's being done accurately compared to what I see on Flickr and other sites.

Sadly it's a huge trend now to try and make digipics look like they were shot on film. A lot of fakery going on. Quite popular is "the Polaroid look".

wartree · Jul 24, 2010

The future will be a strange place , people will mimic chromatic abberation and compression artifacts to get the digital look.

Crono · Jul 24, 2010

actually... i have a question about "film is dead" as well...

I am wondering if the film processing in US is increasing now or if it is always that expensive?
I am from Hong Kong and the price there is very cheap,
because it is such a small place, we dont have any problem in finding films as there are only a few big stores that we know,
of course we won't need a delivery.

and i can see more people are moving from digital to film now, because of the LOMO thing.
They are really boosting film usage in Hong Kong

wblynch · Jul 24, 2010

Hong Kong people are lucky, it's such a big city that everything is available and never far away. I haven't been there since 1979 but I loved that place.

35mm color developing and printing is still pretty cheap in the US. B/W and medium format are expensive because there's less competition and the remaining providers know they can screw us.

srs5694 · Jul 24, 2010

In the US, film processing prices vary a great deal depending on where you go. For instance, the mail-order lab Clark Color Photo does a 36-exposure roll of 35mm, with 4x6-inch prints, for $4.30 ($3.00 + $1.30 shipping). A somewhat more upscale mail-order lab, such as ABC Photo Lab, offers the same service for Dead Link Removed (it's not clear offhand if return shipping is included in that price). An outfit like Dale Labs, which bills itself as a mail-order "pro lab," charges $19.75 ($17.00 + $2.75 shipping) for this service. I don't recall offhand what my local Walgreens 1-hour lab charges, but I believe it's something on the order of $10 or $15 for a 36-exposure roll.

FWIW, I've used all these services in the past, although only Walgreens in the last five years or so, since I've been doing almost all my own developing since then. Clark is definitely one to be avoided if you want quality, but the others all seem to do a decent job.

mathomas · Jul 24, 2010

wblynch said:
Sadly it's a huge trend now to try and make digipics look like they were shot on film. A lot of fakery going on. Quite popular is "the Polaroid look".

Funny you say that. I have returned to film (part-time) because I was starting to feel a bit dirty as I painstakingly edited my color digital images in Silver Efex Pro (great stuff) to make them look like B&W film. Eventually, the light went on: buy a film camera and shoot film again! I bought an M2 to go with my M8 a few months ago. I've been developing my own film. I even have a Fuji GW690III on the way (have never shot MF before). It's been fun -- and authentic.

wblynch · Jul 25, 2010

More fun.

A boost for film

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency