Is film dead?

[Wallendo]

When looking at the lifespan of "film" photography, it seems that sometimes we latch onto certain phases and overlook the big picture. The earliest analog cameras used glass plates and a complicated workflow which limited their use to professionals only. It wasn't until George Eastman and others began producing roll film and providing processing services that "common photographers" arose. From there on out, the "common photographer" has pursued a course of increasing convenience (and generally smaller film size). From Eastman Kodak's roll film size of the month, to instamatics and disk film. It wasn't until camera manufacturers created modern easy loading 35mm cameras that 35mm film became the standard. A few flirted with APS but then, when digital achieved reasonable quality and improved user friendliness, they moved on to digital cameras and eventually cell phones (I guess implanted chips are next).

The masses have moved on and sales numbers are down, but there is still a core group of manufacturers, developer, and most importantly users to maintain a vibrant film community for at least another generation.

 

[cliveh]

I hear things like this a lot and they don't make sense to me. The medium has a huge effect on the end result partly due to the way the medium renders and partly because of the way the medium affects the picture making process (think about the type of images created by people who lug 8x10 view cameras around).

Isn't this a contradiction of your previous post?

 

[kal800]

I'd say - shoot with whatever suits you best, keeping your mind open. i chose film, simply because I am not able to get decent photographic results using digital technology - as simple as that, but I'm sure there are a lot of photographers with totally opposite aproach, and if they are able to create awesome photos using bits and pixels, that's pretty fine.

i have done my first steps in photography in late 90s when film was in its pinnacle - digital photography was just starting, but digital post production was strong already, anyway in photo school I was mainly taught how to create B&W photos, print them in the darkroom, zone system usage, and image composition of course. Being computer geek I switched to digital though couple of years later - I started with D70, then upgraded to D200, tried D300, D700, etc. You know what? If I wanted to count my decent photos with that gear, I would need only five, maybe seven fingers and printed photos... well, null. For a ten years - as a result I stopped bringing my camera with me, or it was in the bag during travels - why should I get myself frustrated - first quite nice photo on the tiny camera screen and total disaster after upload to the Photoshop. Then I switched to Hassy for a hybrid workflow - yes, the magic came back, I started to take good photos again, but the overall situation has not changed - instead of photos stacked in the filesystem, my negatives were stacked in the drawer. Scanning was even worse experience than pure digital workflow - frustration was back - I hated the moment I was putting my negs on the scanner and that disapointment when the sh*t appears on the professional grade, calibrated LCD display I own. Then I switched to iphone - at least photos looked good on the phone display and I could share them using whatsapp . Finally I built my darkroom and I'm back - doing 2-3 rolls of 120s weekly, out of which I make 5-6 30/40 prints and I love them! I love photography again and I'm happy.

why it did not work for me? no clue. I'm familiar with computers, graduated Computer Science in good technical university, but I felt that I was not controlling the image in no stage. I was lost with myriads of buttons, sliders, drop downs, effects, sharpening tools, callibration, etc - that's so complicated that I could not simply grasp it. And the most frustrating experience was that I could not find a moment when the software started to degrade quality of my image. Scan - photo is pale grey, no contrast, crap, trying to make something out of it on the photoshop - pixels appear and the crap remains. I'm taking the same negative to the enlarger, and the print is brilliant... so for me, there is absolutely no reason to even think of moving back to digital, it does not work for me, period. If they stop making films, chemicals, papers, I quit photography, as simple as that. Of course I got digital camera - built in iphone 6s, that's all I need in terms of digital photography - more than enough to make some party photo and send it to the whatsapp room.

I truly hope that the film will live. Otherwise at least one photographer would quit his passion, and I'm sure there are more of us, much more, and if the demand sustains, there always will be some party to fulfill that demand earning money - if not Kodak or Fuji, some smaller players that appear nowadays, there will be only some change in the business model. Now, cell phone cameras have already phased out small digital compacts, entry level DSLRs are under pressure as well. Professionals - mainstream commercial, wedding, press photographers will stick with their pro DSLRs, but who knows - maybe there are some plans for film cameras reedition - I'm sure at least one producer considers it.

 

[Ai Print]

Well, I just picked up two magazine assignments this afternoon, both pretty good and I could use either film or digital on either one but one in particular I would normally use a combo of digital for the action/low light and then 4x5 film for big views and long exposures:

Dead Link Removed

I'm going to go scout it this week as I got the thumbs up from the art director to shoot the whole thing in black and white film, Leica & 4x5. If I need to pull in digital for what ever reason though, that stuff is more than capable too, all purely a creative decision, nothing more.

You see...?...it's all good in this day and age.

I don't know about you all but I feel blessed to have *so* many great tools at my disposal, never bored that is for sure....

 

[blockend]

Being computer geek I switched to digital though couple of years later - I started with D70, then upgraded to D200, tried D300, D700, etc. You know what? If I wanted to count my decent photos with that gear, I would need only five, maybe seven fingers and printed photos... well, null.

Unlike yourself, I only bought my first digital camera in 2011. Until then I assumed it was infant technology and as I never read photographic magazines, digital barely registered on my radar. When I bought my first DSLR I was initially disappointed with the results, and realised it behaved almost nothing like negative film and I would have to re-learn a skill set. Digital worked most like slide film, expose for the highlights, crush the shadows. I'd suggest successful digital photographs still mostly work on that principle. There is no intervening medium, "grain", to bind a shot together, and noise has yet to develop aesthetic advantages, so must be avoided.

In a bid to avoid noise, digital camera technology is based around a single goal - the highest possible ISO performance without it. This has maintained digital camera sales year on year, although the evidence is consumers are jaded with incremental advances marketed as innovations and sales have slowed. The biggest downside of the first fifteen years of consumer digital cameras apart from noise, was lack of tactile feedback. This was due to the preceding professional model, the film SLR, which was a plastic shelled, autofocus, LCD readout, auto-exposure bracketing monster that required a hefty battery and weighed a ton.

In my opinion, most of the best shots taken today are digital, because the overwhelming majority of photographs taken are digital. If you want to print large and use a hand held camera, digital has very little competition except perhaps a Mamiya 7. If you shoot medium format freely, you'll need a liberal film budget to do so. So what are the advantages of film? Black and white film looks much nicer than monochrome digital photography, which is a desaturated colour image (Leica Monochrom excepted). Large format film photography has no digital equivalent this side of a NASA budget, and a good medium format film camera gives full frame digital a run, even in a professional setting. If you don't print large, 35mm colour negative film has a distinctive appearance. Film cameras can be bought for a pittance, although that's true of digital cameras over four years old.

The downside of film is the technology is past tense - there is unlikely to be any technical innovation because serious research is zero. Cameras are (slowly) dying, as is the ability to repair them in many cases and the parts supply is drying up. Collectors continue to place the better mechanical examples in display cabinets. Film manufacturers seem to walk a financial tightrope, or are bought by investors demanding a profit, meaning higher prices for the consumer. The biggest supporters of film seem to be older people with disposable income for their hobby, and young people trying to differentiate themselves through film and film cameras. Whether those two drivers will support film long term is anyone's guess. My fridge has over two hundred rolls of film, but silver haired film nuts like me won't keep an industry going.

 

[FujiLove]

If you want to print large and use a hand held camera, digital has very little competition except perhaps a Mamiya 7.

You're right in that the Mamiya 7 (and 6) are the only interchangeable lens medium format cameras (that I can think of) that have a similar form factor as the modern DSLR, but there are loads of other medium format cameras that can be used hand held to create huge enlargements. My Rolleicord for instance weighs less than half that of a high end Canon body + lens, and I regularly carry it around all day. It's lens is razor sharp and you could blow the images to...well honestly, I have no idea what size! A lot bigger than most amateurs or art directors would ever want to print, that's for sure.

Or for something modern, what about a Fuji GF670? Folds down much smaller than a modern DSLR and weighs less. Insanely sharp lens and huge 6x7 negatives.

Heck, a Hasselblad 500CM + 80mm lens weighs less than a Canon 1d!

 

[blockend]

You're right in that the Mamiya 7 (and 6) are the only interchangeable lens medium format cameras (that I can think of) that have a similar form factor as the modern DSLR, but there are loads of other medium format cameras that can be used hand held to create huge enlargements. My Rolleicord for instance weighs less than half that of a high end Canon body + lens, and I regularly carry it around all day. It's lens is razor sharp and you could blow the images to...well honestly, I have no idea what size! A lot bigger than most amateurs or art directors would ever want to print, that's for sure.

Or for something modern, what about a Fuji GF670? Folds down much smaller than a modern DSLR and weighs less. Insanely sharp lens and huge 6x7 negatives.

Heck, a Hasselblad 500CM + 80mm lens weighs less than a Canon 1d!

The digital camera market developed to replace the 35mm camera, almost exclusively. The fact the output compares with larger formats is a testament to technical innovation. The form factor of a DSLR is identical to that of a latter day film SLR. The big push is for mirrorless cameras the size of a compact film camera that turns out photographs like a 6 x 9.

For most photographers, formats larger than 35mm never existed, and that's equally true of the digital era.

 

[lxdude]

Film is dead. I certainly hope so, it would be hell of a job loading it into the cameras if it wasn't.

Now there's a good signature line!

 

[FujiLove]

The digital camera market developed to replace the 35mm camera, almost exclusively. The fact the output compares with larger formats is a testament to technical innovation. The form factor of a DSLR is identical to that of a latter day film SLR. The big push is for mirrorless cameras the size of a compact film camera that turns out photographs like a 6 x 9.

For most photographers, formats larger than 35mm never existed, and that's equally true of the digital era.

That's all true. But what I'm saying is that if your desire is to print very large (why? see below) and use a hand-held camera, there's absolutely no reason to go out and buy a modern DSLR. There are tons of options in the world of film cameras that are exceptionally high quality and amazing value. For the price of a mid range DSLR body, you can buy a lovely medium format film camera, have it professionally serviced and still have enough money left over to buy and process a hundred or more films. The question is why aren't people doing that, and yes, you're right in that most people probably have no idea that these cameras exist and produce outstanding results. If they did, they most likely wouldn't want to use film anyway because a lot of people these days think of a photograph as something that appears on a screen. Photo = JPEG, Photo album = instagram/facebook. The physical photo is secondary at best.

Going off on a tangential rant for a minute...

People put way too much emphasis on resolution and print size (in digital and film). I've had several conversations with people proudly showing off their new Nikon or whatever, and they smugly say (usually while sneering at my XA3), "45 mega pixels! You can make prints ten feet wide!". I usually say, "That's quite a camera you have", but what I really want to say is, "Wow! Show me one. One of your ten foot prints." Chances are they rarely, if ever, print a 5"x7" let alone anything ten foot wide. The six/eight/ten foot print is nothing but a dumb sales pitch spewed out by the Nikon marketeers. Honestly, what amateur in the world regularly (or ever) prints like that? The largest prints I have in my house are 12"x16" and I can only display about ten at a time. A six foot square print? Where on earth would most people display that?! For almost everyone a 12"x16" print will be more than enough in terms of both print quality and having good enough resolution to share a photo online. Unless you're a pro with specialist requirements, chasing mega-resolution is a completely futile exercise. And that's what I see when I look at modern digital cameras. A fake upgrade spiral of ever-increasing resolution and gimmicky features, most of which are useless to everyone except very specialist users.

So, going back to the original question...film is very much alive and well, and will certainly be around for another couple of decades. After that? It probably depends on whether this generation of teenagers wakes up and embraces it. I see loads of positive things online to suggest they are, but probably not yet in large enough numbers to make a tangible difference. If I was a betting man, I'd say film will see out the century and be alive and kicking when everyone on here is dead and gone.

 

[removed account4]

I'm referring to the general use photography that most hobbyist do where I see no great advantage of digital apart from the fact that everything is very easy. It's easy to take a photo because many cameras are highly automated and it's easy to manipulate photos with software.

film cameras aren't highly automated or very easy ?
your argument sailed away in 1880s when george eastman sold the consumer camera ( you push the button we'll do the rest ).
there are plenty of heavily automated film cameras, just as there are p/s ones.

it is just as easy to manipulate images with software, as it is under an enlarger.
doing things well is the hard part.

I hear things like this a lot and they don't make sense to me. The medium has a huge effect on the end result partly due to the way the medium renders and partly because of the way the medium affects the picture making process (think about the type of images created by people who lug 8x10 view cameras around).

i am one of those people who lugs large cameras around. i always shake my head when people suggest "how difficult" using large format is, cause it isn't difficult at all.
people who make images no matter the medium can make things easy or difficult as they want, it is their choice, and it nothing to do with the medium they use.
you can easily go through the archives here and and other places and read the great lengths people go through to do what they need to do, you can also search the same archives
and find people who just point and shoot.
i find it naive? to just attach the words "easy or difficult " to anything.

have fun arguing !

 

[blockend]

That's all true. But what I'm saying is that if your desire is to print very large (why? see below) and use a hand-held camera, there's absolutely no reason to go out and buy a modern DSLR. There are tons of options in the world of film cameras that are exceptionally high quality and amazing value. For the price of a mid range DSLR body, you can buy a lovely medium format film camera, have it professionally serviced and still have enough money left over to buy and process a hundred or more films. The question is why aren't people doing that, and yes, you're right in that most people probably have no idea that these cameras exist and produce outstanding results. If they did, they most likely wouldn't want to use film anyway because a lot of people these days think of a photograph as something that appears on a screen. Photo = JPEG, Photo album = instagram/facebook. The physical photo is secondary at best.

Your error is to conflate want with need. Comfortably built middle aged men with white lenses the size of their forearm and full frame DSLRs do not need them, but that's the market who'll per-order the next digital camera before it's left the factory. Most photographers don't even need Raw files. I don't need to spend hours processing colour films every week, then scanning them to see which are worth optically printing, but I do. Apply logic to amateur photography and it falls apart.

 

[FujiLove]

film cameras aren't highly automated or very easy ?
your argument sailed away in 1880s when george eastman sold the consumer camera ( you push the button we'll do the rest ).
there are plenty of heavily automated film cameras, just as there are p/s ones.

it is just as easy to manipulate images with software, as it is under an enlarger.
doing things well is the hard part.



i am one of those people who lugs large cameras around. i always shake my head when people suggest "how difficult" using large format is, cause it isn't difficult at all.
people who make images no matter the medium can make things easy or difficult as they want, it is their choice, and it nothing to do with the medium they use.
you can easily go through the archives here and and other places and read the great lengths people go through to do what they need to do, you can also search the same archives
and find people who just point and shoot.
i find it naive? to just attach the words "easy or difficult " to anything.

have fun arguing !

I really hope I've misunderstood your post and you're not trying to tell me that taking a photo with an iPhone, then sending it over the wifi to an inkjet requires the same effort and skill as lugging your large format camera on location, choosing a film stock, loading it, metering the scene, appraising it in the ground glass, lugging the equipment home, choosing the chemicals and times to process the film, mixing them, processing the film, setting up your enlarger, choosing your paper and darkroom chemicals, creating test prints, dodging and burning the final print, then toning and mounting it?

If that is what you're saying then I'm sorry, but it sounds completely ridiculous.

Additionally, if you honestly believe the medium used is irrelevant to the end result and adds nothing to the photographer's enjoyment of picture making, why in the world would you lug that large format camera around?! My god, save your back and just snap the photo with your iPhone or digital point and shoot! Job done.

The fact that you don't, speaks volumes.

 

[FujiLove]

Your error is to conflate want with need. Comfortably built middle aged men with white lenses the size of their forearm and full frame DSLRs do not need them, but that's the market who'll per-order the next digital camera before it's left the factory. Most photographers don't even need Raw files. I don't need to spend hours processing colour films every week, then scanning them to see which are worth optically printing, but I do. Apply logic to amateur photography and it falls apart.

Ha ha, yes...and probably all other hobbies that men pursue.

 

[FujiLove]

Ha ha, yes...and probably all other hobbies that men pursue.

Trainspotters. I'm looking at you

 

[blockend]

This reminds me of a Martin Parr interview in which a young shaver asked MP if he might be a little obsessive. Parr replied the problem with most photographers is they aren't nearly obsessive enough.

 

[removed account4]

I really hope I've misunderstood your post and you're not trying to tell me that taking a photo with an iPhone, then sending it over the wifi to an inkjet requires the same effort and skill as lugging your large format camera on location, choosing a film stock, loading it, metering the scene, appraising it in the ground glass, lugging the equipment home, choosing the chemicals and times to process the film, mixing them, processing the film, setting up your enlarger, choosing your paper and darkroom chemicals, creating test prints, dodging and burning the final print, then toning and mounting it?

If that is what you're saying then I'm sorry, but it sounds completely ridiculous.

Additionally, if you honestly believe the medium used is irrelevant to the end result and adds nothing to the photographer's enjoyment of picture making, why in the world would you lug that large format camera around?! My god, save your back and just snap the photo with your iPhone or digital point and shoot! Job done.

The fact that you don't, speaks volumes.

what i am saying is that it takes just as much or as little effort to put film in a point and shoot camera
( or "automatic" 35mm ) or any MF camera i have used. drop it off to a lab and get a cd and prints.

not exactly sure why saying that is ridiculous . i don't prescribe to photographic elitism.

not everyone who shoots large format proceeds as you suggested, i know i don't.
i don't hunt films down, i don't ponder light meter readings, i don't choose from a variety
of chemicals or papers, i don't take hours to set up and zen-out.
i set the camera up, focus/frame, do a sunny 16 calculation, expose,
process it in dektol/coffee, and maybe print using the same chemistry.

no matter the medium the user makes the choices of how much or how little complication
he or she wants to put in the end.

why.. ?
why not ?
its fun, and i'd rather have a tangible record of my efforts.
i like the mystery of not knowing if what i exposed worked out or not. and, i like to see how things look when on paper or film or a piece of metal or glass.

 

[skorpiius]

After putting film away for a decade I came back to it just by chance when some 1950's cameras ended up in my possession.
Digital is fine for action (pro: lots of wasted pics are 'free'), and very low light (pro: ISO in the millions for some cameras now), but the reason film is now firmly back in my toolkit is I like the look, but also I find with digital I tend to think less about the photo I'm taking, and I take with post processing in mind. It's nice to take a film photo and know it likely will be perfect right out of the camera.

 

[Luckless]

Comparing ease of use between tools as radically different as a large format camera and a modern smartphone is kind of an interesting topic. In the time it would take to setup and position a tripod, unpack a large format field camera, compose the shot, load film, etc, etc... Well, someone with a smart phone taking a similar photo probably already has a Like on the photo from that one obsessive friend who always seems to be online 24/7.

But ironically, the reason why I rarely ever use the camera in my phone? Because the thing is annoying hard to hold on to and use as a camera. I would much rather lug around an SLR or even a TLR to take photos with than using something shaped like my phone, regardless of lens and capture medium.