"Real" Cameras Out in Force

[smieglitz]

Bill,

Although I haven't really noticed the swing back towards film that you may be seeing, I wouldn't be surprised if your prediction of a downturn in digicam sales occured. I think the market will or has peaked and the short upgrade cycle will put many people off. I think the average consumer will not be convinced they need to upgrade if they are only making pics for email or small prints. I think many conventional photographers see differences in quality that the average consumer doesn't so what incentive will there be for the latter group to upgrade after a certain marketshare has been reached?

Our enrollment in the college's Photo course sections is down and at the lowest point I've ever seen. I think it will all recover in the next couple weeks except perhaps for the color course and that will be the first to change orientation to digital if a move in that direction occurs in our program. OTOH, the local Kalamazoo Institute of Arts is holding their annual photography workshop this week. The instructor is George Losse and the theme is large-format photography. The interest and enrollment in the workshop is the strongest they have seen in many years, so I guess it is a mixed bag 'round these parts.

Joe

 

[leeturner]

As mentioned earlier the cell/mobile phone is probably going to kill off a lot of digital p&s sales. There are already 4-5 MP phones one the market. OK the lenses are usually crap and the data is stored in jpeg but to the average punter they're after a 5x7 max print size. Most single use cameras and cheap p&s film cameras had pretty much useless optics so they're not going to see a great deal of difference.

As to film, there is a small company below my office that has a large format Epson printer plus some pretty decent scanning equipment. 90% of his work is produced for exhibition and out of that a good 90% is scanned from film, mostly 120mm. The interesting thing is the new papers that he's been getting. Fuji have introduced a "Baryte" paper that tries to emulate a traditional FB gloss paper. It doesn't look too bad but it's not quite there yet but it looks like quite a bit of fine art photography will be a marriage of the two mediums, with film for capture and digital for output. The advantage for analog photography is that with the increased use of a fibre base in digital output, we are ensured of a good supply of the base product.

 

[copake_ham]

As mentioned earlier the cell/mobile phone is probably going to kill off a lot of digital p&s sales. There are already 4-5 MP phones one the market. OK the lenses are usually crap and the data is stored in jpeg but to the average punter they're after a 5x7 max print size. Most single use cameras and cheap p&s film cameras had pretty much useless optics so they're not going to see a great deal of difference. .....

I have never quite understood how cameras became the "option of choice" for cell phone makers. Why not an MP-3 player or even an FM radio etc.

It seems to have been a stroke of genius that makers saw that consumers would flock to camera phones. Perhaps it's a "Dick Tracy" kind of thing?

 

[leeturner]

I have never quite understood how cameras became the "option of choice" for cell phone makers. Why not an MP-3 player or even an FM radio etc.

It seems to have been a stroke of genius that makers saw that consumers would flock to camera phones. Perhaps it's a "Dick Tracy" kind of thing?

Some of the new phones have all three options built in (including itunes). One of the reasons that phones are using more megapixels is that upon transmission the amount of data is larger, therefore more cost to transmit. What the phone companies want to do is find any medium be it video, stills, music that has to be obtained via their networks and which can be charged for. The main money earner for most networks is not voice but text messaging. I spent most of yesterday trying to explain and demonstrate to a work colleague that you can't get a large print size out of a small scan. He'd come back from holiday with keyring size images (around 2" x 1 1/2") and couldn't uderstand why a decent 5x7 couldn't be obtained from a scan.

One of the other problems is that most digital capture devices, be it phones or cameras, do not default to their highest image setting when switched on so that once in a lifetime picture is recorded at medium to fine res. Again I explained that all my images were captured by default at ultra high res

 

[Aggie]

Just read this thread. Last Wednesday night at the Festival I had one of the funniest things happen. A man was taking my picture with his DSLR. Now this is not unusual in any way for me these days. What was funny was it was about to rain. I do my usual thing with a Scottish accent holding my metal shears up high and say, "Ta yee above me, donna piss upon me head. I would then ha to take me shears to thee nether regions." This time I dded a post script to the guy with the DSLR, "And may the man above strike the digital camera to the ground." Right at the moment as if I had been heard there was a lightening strike really close that shook the ground. The man with the DSLR dropped his camera and stared at me. I couldn't help it, I along with the rest of the crowd laughed. I don't know if his camera survived the drop, but he did come back and buy some of my work.

At the Festival I see about 1/4 are film cameras. That is a pretty good percentage for today's digiwhiz world.

 

[ben-s]

At risk of getting roasted
I just think that it's worth adding that I started off with a digital camera, then a DSLR.
I now use a lot of film as well, in 35mm, 645, and 5x4.
I do my own processing and printing of b&w work.

I think that digital has a place, particularly when very rapid turnaround is needed, but I also believe you can't beat film for many things.

I have found that I greatly prefer film for black and white, and I am one of Velvia's greatest fans - I don't believe that any current sensor can match such a film.

I often find myself shooting something digitally, then going back and doing a "proper job" with film.
I would be really lost without film now.

I find that film cameras and pictures have more "soul" - something really indefinable

 

[Michael W]

Today I was talking with a guy who works for Fuji. He said the biggest growth in camera sales are the one shot disposable film cameras. Sales were up 40% last year. No one had predicted this. They reckon it's because the point & shoot digital cameras that most people own are quite fragile & break down easily. It can cost nearly as much to fix them as to buy a new one, & not everyone has the money for it. So they go & buy disposable cameras, especially when the breakdown has occurred on holidays.

 

[reellis67]

Ben,

I think that a number of people who feel that way on this site. We are not out to bash digital, but rather have a place where we can have non-digital photographic discussions. Welcome!

- Randy

 

[Terence]

At the Hoboken (New Jersey) Arts & Music festival this past Sunday I saw no less than 6 Leica M-series cameras, 4 Nikon 35mm cameras of various vintages, and one Speed Graphic. I only saw two "street" photographers using digi-SLRs. There were plenty of digi-snapshooters, as would be expected.

More than half of the photographers with booths were actively promoting the fact that they used traditional processes from beginnning to end. Even those with color photographs predominantly used film. There were, of course, a few digiheads, including a couple that massively altered there images, but they were a definite minority.

I must say, I was surprised. Now if we could just get photos of something other than the Jersey Shore, Venice, Buddhist temples and slot canyons . . .

 

[DougGrosjean]

Yesterday I was wandering around The Henry Ford and Greenfield Village near my home here...

Also... I was in my favorite camera store (Adray) afterward and mentioned this to my usual sales friends. Although they had no input on any "trend", they did tell me that sales of d*gital gear was down significantly. This was not being offset by film camera sales however, but they did tell me that film sales are consistently strong as is their c-41 processing service. They said comments and complaints have been common about the huge expense of consistently upgrading d*gital gear. One went so far as saying that he thought the digital gravy train was coming to an end and many have expressed frustration that the process is not as easy and fulfilling as is widely reported. In fact, I got the distinct impression that they were a little worried about he drop in business....

Bill

No data from me.

What I was struck by is that I do the same thing. My weekends are spent in Dearborn at my SO's home, and we have a membership to the Ford museum. So sometimes my 12 y/o son and I, or my g/f and I, will head over there on bicycles for a walk. I may have been one of the people you saw - I use a Rolleicord or Rolleiflex when I go, and a Widelux. GV and FM are prime photo opps, always something there.

Hey, you notice they recently put a Kodak Panoram on display in the camera case?

Doug Grosjean
NW OH / SE MI

 

[DougGrosjean]

Also, local small Ohio farm town where I live, several young women have asked me about using b/w film. They like film, soup their own negs.

I'm 44, have a great g/f, so with that in mind the young women and I are talking about getting together to share film knowledge and technique. I have scanner, old TLRs, 120 and 35mm expertise. They're younger, 35mm. All of us can soup negs.

Anyway, I take it as evidence that different people choose different techniques, that's all.

 

[Steve Smith]

Last weekend there was a display of classic cars on the seafront in the town where I live. I went to have a look with my son and took my Rolleicord. It got plenty of comments of the 'I used to have one of those' type.

I was also asked if I could still get film for it from someone using a Canon T90. I thought he would have known that 120 film was still available - from the same places he buys his 35mm film.

I will post some pictures from this display soon.


Steve.

 

[Mr_Rocketkiller]

I just started a black and white photo course at the local community college, and I'm having a blast. Previously, I shot all slides, and had the photos scanned digitally for editing later. My early black and white prints were all converted from color inside Photohop; but I wasn't satisfied with the results. So, I've spent an average of 12 hours or so a week in the darkroom since class started. That's outside a full time job, and remembering to spend time with friends/family/fiance and my dogs

We have quite a young crowd in the class, around 20 or so (I'm 26). I've noticed that the desire to learn film photographic techniques just isn't there with this younger crowd. It's week 5 in the class, and many still aren't taking photos with decent exposure, learning to use the light meter, utilizing the developing chemicals properly. I was in the darkroom the other day, and some girls were complaining, "This takes too long. I don't understand why we have to do it this way. I don't like getting these chemicals on me. Digital is soooo much better!" I just wanted to kick them out so I could develop in peace.

This is a country of covenience; we love things which are fast and practical. So, in a recreational sense, film is dying and digital is king. It depresses me somewhat, as I feel like I should have been in the darkroom at an earlier age. But at the same time, it makes me feel like I'm part of some sort of exclusive club The emulsion crowd where many years from now, I'll still be doing this and wowing people for sticking with an ancient art. And I'll run into some of you people and feel like I'm in-like-Flynn

Overall, I suspect that the 35mm format could possibly go away, or just become really expensive to use. It seems digital is still straining to reach LF, and so I still see a market for MF, LF emulsions. Yep, we'll just have to rely on those companies dedicated to emulsion photography to keep it alive for us. (Or create our own emulsions...but I'm not a chemist I can't imagine what I'd end up creating)


Man, didn't mean to write an essay...

 

[DougGrosjean]

I'm guessing, based on new interest by the young in film, that film isn't going to die. Instead it'll go into the same status as flint-knapping, folks who build muzzle-loading guns, artists who *paint* scenes.

My Dad still drives a couple Model T Fords, and tells me taht parts are easier to get now than they were when he was a kid (1930s) - you just don't get them from a dealer nowadays.

There are some activities / hobbies that people just don't like to let go when they are no longer mainstream, because there's a joy in the doing of the thing that makes up for the fact that it's no longer "modern". I suspect that film photography will be one of those hobbies.

 

[copake_ham]

I look at this way. I'm in my mid-fifties. What hair remains is going grey. The paunch has gotten larger etc.

In other words, I'm looking more and more like an old geezer - particularly to young folk. Therefore I owe it to the "yunngins" to play the part - and using a film camera is part of the act.

It makes me look old, makes them feel young and "with it" using their digis - and I get to play with my film cameras! Win-win.

 

[Claire Senft]

I have noticed in my walking the dog, that it appears that the film and digital cameras are represented equally.

Unfortunately, I have seen no one with a camera.

 

[Bromo33333]

Apostate

At risk of getting roasted
I just think that it's worth adding that I started off with a digital camera, then a DSLR.
[...]
I find that film cameras and pictures have more "soul" - something really indefinable

Me, too! I was a digi guy and when my wife hauled out her old medium format stuff and showed me some of her old 4x5 slides I was amazed at how much better it looked than film.

I have a digital SLR and P&S, but boy do I like film better.

I agree about the soul - for some reason the whole process gives the medium real life. And good photographs (regardless of the camera quality) tend to have a sort of "it" factor I have never seen in digital. I guess the old cliche is true "the medium IS the message"

I suppose I am a apostate having been a digital early adopter (c.1998) and now back to film. And I am really glad to have found a group that feels the way I do. While I am still learning how to do passable photography (and my wife has a way better eye) it is a lot more enjoyable with film.

 

[Markok765]

I saw a lot of nikons about.. even a Bessa RF

 

[CGross]

One of the local folks I use for developing until I get the darkroom finished has mentioned that they have seen a very significant rise in film developing lately. But similar to what Bill mentioned in the original post...."no big rise in film gear sales".
Although I have also noticed that prices have been creeping up lately for certain camera types in LF an MF.
Last week at a function with my kids, I drew lots of attention with my Mamiya C33 and Minolta gear. Had several folks mention that they have recently started to use some of their older cameras, but 95% of the several hundred people had digital P&S.
The way I look at it is the more of us out there using film, the more awareness there will be.
I am still buying and freezing bulk film now just in case. In fact I have dedicated stand up freezers for film and paper.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

When I was at a photo gear trade fair a while ago many merchants were saying that their clients were coming back to film because they didn't get what they want from digital. It's worth what it's worth, but I think the digital craze has solidified people's understanding of what film really is.

For my part I see two possible scenarios out of this situation. The first one, which I hope more for, is that film is a strong niche, readily associated with arts, intimate reportage, alternative processes, specialty applications, and disposable point and shoot as a safe backup.

The other:

I was walking on a commercial street some time ago to try taking candid shots of people from the hips. Miserable results, but that is another story. In a display window I saw a kid's toy. It was a small toy car that you push with your feet. What piqued my attention was that the car was a kind of Model T type of car, with the pittoresque hand-crank starter at the front. The car equivalent of a fully manual camera. When was the last time you could buy a new car that did not rely on a battery for startup? I thought so.

We like the idea of things more than things themselves. Toy makers can still sell a make-believe car with a hand-crank, but no automobile maker would ever dare so. The "vintage" aspect is strictly dedicated to restauration and conservation of original models. Eventually, these models will all wear down, and only copies or ersatz will be left.

I feared the same thing could happen to film and film cameras. One day, all we will want is the memory, the idea of film. Not care about exposure, development and printing. We just want the cool trinket, the vicarious nobility. The digital Rolleiflex. My local photo store has decided to take old SLR and coat them in orange paint for their fall display. That is the saddest photo thing I've ever seen. These cameras could be users, but we kill them by turning them into museum pieces. To be venerated, the "classic" camera has to be dead.

Go find Chris Marker's (of La Jetée fame) film "Les statues meurent aussi" if you want to see what I mean. Or else just ask me and I'll upload it to you.

 

[copake_ham]

Damn, everytime I get set to pull the trigger and buy a MF on eBay I read one of these threads and get depressed.

Who wants to be the last one to buy an expensive paperweight?

 

[Karl K]

I was shooting a four-generation family portrait with my Contax NX. After about a half-dozen shots, the six year old boy came running up to me and wanted to see the shots on the LCD. When I told him that I was shooting with film and there was no LCD, he ran over to his mom for some comforting. She had to explain that not all cameras can display the results immediately. The poor little kid had never before seen a 35mm SLR . Talk about being deprived!

 

[roteague]

I suppose I am a apostate having been a digital early adopter (c.1998) and now back to film. And I am really glad to have found a group that feels the way I do. While I am still learning how to do passable photography (and my wife has a way better eye) it is a lot more enjoyable with film.

I don't think you are an apostate at all. I've handled a D200 and it has a nice solid feel, and I like all the little buttons, menus, etc. - it is like toys for grownups. I guess it comes along with being a computer nerd. I just don't like the images they produce, and that is why I don't have a DSLR.

 

[Bromo33333]

I don't think you are an apostate at all. I've handled a D200 and it has a nice solid feel, and I like all the little buttons, menus, etc. - it is like toys for grownups. I guess it comes along with being a computer nerd. I just don't like the images they produce, and that is why I don't have a DSLR.

I am an apostate all right. I bought into the digital thing for quite a while and found myslef NOT making any photos. Then I picked up our old Nikon FM2 and took tons of film pictures, having a blast all the time, and started to get better pictures, too. So I abandoned the new "religion" for the "old" one, which defines apostacy pretty much.

I have a D100, actually, and hate it. We bought it in a panic when my wife was trying to develop a roll of 120 film for slides (she was shooting her artwork in her studio to apply to gallery shows) and the lab converted and "went digital." We thought we saw the writing on the wall, and went to the local store (we lived in Northern CA at he time so went to Keeble and Schucat). Toyed breifly with the idea of LF, and ended up getting a Nikon D100 and Coolpix5000. We used the 5000 off and on, but never did for the D100 (probably took <20 pictures on it total). The images aren't good, and shutter lag was pretty bad. I hated the D100, and didn't like the 5000 for a number of reasons.

I hate the D100 as well as the 5000, so in our move to NY, finding the film gear was great and have gone through about a dozen rolls having a lot of fun.
I updated the 5000 with a Canon S80, and again, didn't like it very much. Not as much fun as film.

Now I am knee deep in a GAS attack, but the cameras we *have* are doing yeoman's work and they are a lot of fun. (Though a good film scanner is probably in the offing!)

I can see with all the kiosks and digital pics people have - that the experience on the "back end" is actually more time consuming than the previous "drop off your C-41 rolls and pick 'em up when checking out of the grocery store." Not that I expect people to flock back to film, but interesting how people are putting up with a lot more than they would with film!

 

[copake_ham]

.....I can see with all the kiosks and digital pics people have - that the experience on the "back end" is actually more time consuming than the previous "drop off your C-41 rolls and pick 'em up when checking out of the grocery store." Not that I expect people to flock back to film, but interesting how people are putting up with a lot more than they would with film!

Yes, the desire of many to own the latest techno toy often blinds them to the fact that it doesn't really improve anything! But being the first on you block to have the latest thing (whatever it is) has been a common syndrome since the beginning of time!

Oh well....