Predictions for film for 2010

[dwdmguy]

If interested, here are my predictions for the year 2010 and the powerful comeback in film photography.

http://thephotofather.com/

 

[Prest_400]

Nice read, I enjoyed it. Some of the predictions made me laugh, like the one of the RED camera system.
I suppose that the market will get more stable in the next few years and more people will start/return in film photography. I remember an article analyzing the film market of the last years:
In 2002 a camera shop had lots of hassies from pros that "changed sides", they were dirt cheap and no one wanted them, by 2006/7/8 demand of hassies was much higher, none was left there and they were harder to find. Seems like amateurs didn't want ti lose the opportunity to get a Hassie.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

Enjoyed the article. The predictions are funny. I'm sure that film will make a comeback.

Jeff

 

[BetterSense]

I think that in the future, the hybrid approach will be what saves film. Film makes a damn good sensor.

Film has been displaced as a sensor in areas where digital is vastly cheaper, such as a lot of motion picture applications because film stock is expensive. It's doubtful that medium and large-format image sensors will ever get cheap enough to displace film entirely. I say this as someone somewhat familiar with the semiconductor industry. However, people want the ability to edit and print digitally. They need it! All publishing is going to be done digitally nowadays. Very much color printing is done digitally nowadays.

If commercial forces have to use a digital sensor in order to get digital files, they will. It would be tragic to force them to make that choice, because as we know film has certain aesthetic and technical advantages as a sensor. I'm as much of an advocate for all-analog workflows as anyone else, but that doesn't change the fact that industry needs digital files. I really think there is a "scanning hole" in film right now such that there are more barriers than necessary in scanning. For example, I know my ektachrome slides have just as much detail as a point-and-shoot digicam, yet when I get a picture CD from a photofinisher, the quality of those digital files will often be inferior to those produced by the digicam. As long as this situation persists, people will forget film and use whatever gets them the results they need.

I think film can push on, but it will be the hybrid approach that saves it commercially. Think about vinyl records. There are still vinyl record pressing plants and you can still buy newly pressed vinyl records. Ironically, the vinyl industry was kept alive by electronic artists who valued the physical medium of the vinyl record for manipulation during playback, not to mention a heavy dose of traditional thinking. Most music cut into vinyl nowadays is edited and mixed digitally. Very often, it is actually generated electronically. But the analog playback medium was kept alive because it does certain things well, and because nobody hesitated to integrate it with digital editing techniques. If record mastering companies had made it difficult to get from digital files onto vinyl it would have died.

 

[david b]

Great post. thanks for the laughs.

But as a reviewer at several large photographic portfolio reviews, I am sad to say that I do not see a great surge in film use. About ten days ago, at a juried review, 100 photographers had their work out for the public to see. Out of those 100, I would say that no more than 20 were shot on film and that no more than 10 were shot on film and printed traditionally (b&w or color).

As for the megapixel race, only Olympus has declared that 12 mp is enough for what most people do and they have stopped. Nikon and Canon will continue the race and Hasselblad stomps them all with a newly released 50mp camera and a 60mp on the way.

I shoot film and have a darkroom in my home and love it when I see some traditional prints. But as a museum curator recently told me, "digital and inkjets are the way of the world".

 

[Q.G.]

What is a phoenmona that is making a resurange?

Is this a film vs digital thingy?

And where are the ethics and/or philosophy?

 

[Slixtiesix]

Find it funny! If this becomes true and Apple will release an iPhone capable of scanning 120 Film, I will definitely go for it :-D

 

[Paul Jenkin]

I suspect that:

Pros:

- Sports and photojournalists will want digital due to the speed to the editor's desk.
- Advertisement / fashion product photographerw will choose the medium that will give them the results and manipulation options required to get the job done
- Landscape / Fine Art will probably used a relatively higher proportion of film than other professional users because of its aesthetic qualities.

Amateurs:

- Mostly digital except 'niche' users who particularly like film / analogue process or those who are heavily committed financially (cameras, lenses, darkrooms) to film equipment.

This, hopefully, means that manufacturers will continue to make a broad range of quality and consumer standard film products and types for the foreseeable future. The biggest threat to film may come if / when full-frame digital sensors with exposure latitude equivalent to film become readily available......

 

[Uncle Goose]

The biggest threat to film may come if / when full-frame digital sensors with exposure latitude equivalent to film become readily available......

And even then I don't think the threat will become bigger, people who use film like the way it looks and this can never be duplicated by any digital crap. I used to love digital until my Hard drive crashed and while I got all my photographs back it made me realize that you don't have anything in your hands, just a file with 1's and 0's and nothing more. It's the magic of the negative that does it for many people (me included).

 

[dwdmguy]

Very well written Goose..... Indeed.

I no longer am incorporating Digital into my workflow. I don't have a problem with it but it's not for me. Just too dang flat. I do realaize how sad it is that most need to be digital in the pro area for compitition.

 

[mabman]

The biggest threat to film may come if / when full-frame digital sensors with exposure latitude equivalent to film become readily available......

But only pros would really consider using something like that until it cost in the current prosumer DSLR price ranges - something like $1,000 - $2,000, so while that day may come for full-frame, I don't think it's coming soon.

 

[Q.G.]

So it is a film vs digital thing.

In the philosophy and ethics section.
Very unethical ...

 

[dwdmguy]

No it's not silly goose.
It's a fun piece of humor that should be taken lightly. It's it's all about film anyway.

 

[Uncle Goose]

So it is a film vs digital thing.

In the philosophy and ethics section.
Very unethical ...

Not really, I think digital has it's place in this ever faster moving world. Journalists have to get the photo's quicker (and cheaper) to the editors, clients in fashion stuff want to see direct results so they can alter things right away in stead of waiting for the negatives and so on. Just think of the fact that how bigger your negative goes the slower you start to work. I've noticing that when I changed from digital to 35mm, MF and LF. I settled myself with MF because it's the middle thing, LF is just to cumbersome in some situations (I do mostly abandoned buildings so a lot of crawling and low profile stuff must go on and a 4x5 camera isn't exactly lightweight or low profile). I also belief that cost is an important issue, digital is a one time cost in terms you buy the body and lenses, while negatives do cost money on top of your equipment. If one has the money or doesn't shoot a lot there is no reason why one shouldn't use negatives. On the other hand, if you shoot +10.000 photo's a year digital might be a economical solution although you have a trade off in terms you don't have a negative to hold on.

Overall, there are pro's and con's on every system. The perfect system does not exist. One must choose his equipment on basis of his own needs.

 

[Q.G.]

So it definitely is a film vs digital thing.

And no ethics or philosphy either.