Rumours of Film's demise greatly exaggerated

[digiconvert]

For interest I set up a poll on the amateur photo board
http://www.amateurphotographer.com/...oard=Lounge&Number=289057&page=0&vc=1&fpart=1
Given that this probably best reflects enthusiaastic amateur opinion the results are interesting and seem to show film is a medium of choice -when appropriate- for many photographers. If you are subscribed you can take a look.

Cheers CJB

 

[roteague]

Based upon the various magazines I read, it seems there is still a much greater acceptance of film in the UK than in the US.

 

[manjo]

unfortunately, the market is not based on the needs of amatures, most of the pros have moved to digital and it makes a lot of sence, time is money. When sale of film products drop below a certain point and its no economicaly viable anymore, the industry will kill it. One of the main drawbacks of digital is that, it does not have any archival qualities. Yes you can store on CD/DVD but I in 20yrs these files will become obsolete or lost. I see a lot of posts on another forum where ppl are talking abt archiving digi photo on slide and film. (well why dont they shoot slide/print in the first place ... beats me). Digital photography is like BW in the sence that it requires a lot of post processing. I primarily shoot slides... and dont have any chance to post process. I scan my 220 film, process in gimp and print. But I sure a day will come there will be one or 2 players in film business for a nitch market.

 

[jon]

Yes you can store on CD/DVD but I in 20yrs these files will become obsolete or lost. ..

Try more like 20 months.

 

[winger]

The reason so many people think film is dead is because no one is telling them otherwise. Didn't anyone read The Emperor's New Clothes? That's what this is like. A lot of people still prefer film. But because it isn't a novel thing, it doesn't get mentioned.

 

[Jim Noel]

As I read the various forums to which I subscribe I have come to the conclusion that Europeans are sticking to film in larger numbers than Americans.
I believe this is because Americans are much more prone to live by what is told them by advertisers. If the digital manufacturers advertise that it is the way to go, too many of us believe it and join the chorus.

It is interesting to me that I am running into more and more highly competent photographers who gave up silver for digital and are now returning in one form or another to film.

I for one have not given in to digital and after more than 60 years with film intend to stick with it. I have little doubt that the materials will change, and that quite likely the name on the package will also but I am not concerned that I will not be able to get the supplies I need somewhere. If I have to start ordering from Europe, I will do so.

Sadly in this country the almighty dollar wins out over everything else and the small companies struggle to exist. I am thankful that many in Europe continue to provide us with good materials.

 

[Rlibersky]

As I read the various forums to which I subscribe I have come to the conclusion that Europeans are sticking to film in larger numbers than Americans.....

What information brought you to this conclusion?

 

[roteague]

What information brought you to this conclusion?

I'm not sure how Jim would answer this, but I feel the same thing. My conclusion comes from reading many UK based photography magazines. For example, comparing Outdoor Photographer (US) with Outdoor Photography (UK) is it immediately obvious that the UK magazine is much more film friendly - right on the top banner it says "for Film and Digital". The US magazine hasn't even bothered to review the Nikon F6, nor did it review Velvia 100, until 6 months after it came out - then only after Fuji started a film contest. The UK magazine has Joe Cornish writing for it, an avid film enthusiast, but I can't name one columnist in the US magazine that is - Rob Sheppard writes digital and photoshop books, George Lepp, big time digital guru. But, to be perfectly honest, I haven't read or purchased a copy of the US magazine in about 1 1/2 years.

 

[Jim Chinn]

For ULF and LF shooters this may actually be the best of times. With Ilford making twice a year runs on ULF films and Kodak doing a special run of TMY in ULF sizes along with Efke and all the rebranded Foma, I don't recall another time with such an availability and selection.

 

[JBrunner]

Rumours of film's demise are greatly exaggerated. As a matter of fact my commercial clients are beggining to show signs of recognizing the marketing hype attached with d$#*tal, and are becoming interested in film as an option in all but the quick and dirty. I have been shooting more film for commercial projects as of late. Seems they are finally comming to terms with "new doesn't mean better" in some situations, and the new technology isn't so "new and cool" anymore. Another plus is that most of the hacks have gone fully to d$#*tal. That doesn't say that there aren't good photographers working in the medium, but that it's harder to stand out because of sheer numbers of hacks vs. decent thinking photographers.
Find a photographer thats shooting film, and he's likely a good one. (Except me, of course)

 

[Samuel B]

I would like to think that film's demise is being exaggerated, but from where I sit, (inside a photo lab!) I can tell you it isn't being exaggerated. There may well be a renewed appreciation for film but I can't see here yet. The problem is no one is hearing about film any more, and there's the assumption by most people that digital is *better*, simply because it's digital. No one's promoting film anymore, & the world is being swamped by digital cameras, which makes the future of film difficult.

 

[roteague]

You have to blame the manufacturers for not actively advertising their "traditional" products. I have yet to see an advertising for Kodak film in any magazine I buy or subscribe, and for a long time, I didn't see any from Fuji either, although that has changed. I just saw a Fuji Velvia ad in Outdoor Photographer (I picked it up just to see if there was any mention of film in the latest article), and have seen their ads in several UK based magazines. Seems like Fuji is picking up the ball, advertising its film, and using well known photographers who still use film.

From Kodak, all we hear these days is silence.

 

[Rlibersky]

I'm not sure how Jim would answer this, but I feel the same thing. My conclusion comes from reading many UK based photography magazines. For example, comparing Outdoor Photographer (US) with Outdoor Photography (UK) is it immediately obvious that the UK magazine is much more film friendly - right on the top banner it says "for Film and Digital". The US magazine hasn't even bothered to review the Nikon F6, nor did it review Velvia 100, until 6 months after it came out - then only after Fuji started a film contest. The UK magazine has Joe Cornish writing for it, an avid film enthusiast, but I can't name one columnist in the US magazine that is - Rob Sheppard writes digital and photoshop books, George Lepp, big time digital guru. But, to be perfectly honest, I haven't read or purchased a copy of the US magazine in about 1 1/2 years.

I would agree with this statement. Although the US version of outdoor photographer was a sub standard magazine even before digital. Does anyone if film sales have dropped more in the US or Europe? I'm just curious more then anything else.

 

[Samuel B]

"You have to blame the manufacturers for not actively advertising their "traditional" products."
I agree. I find it strange that Kodak seems to have all but given up on promoting their traditional products, yet they have the most to gain from it. They seem to be fixated on promoting the very products that are causing it's own demise. Strange.

 

[NikoSperi]

I'm not sure how Jim would answer this, but I feel the same thing. My conclusion comes from reading many UK based photography magazines. For example, comparing Outdoor Photographer (US) with Outdoor Photography (UK) is it immediately obvious that the UK magazine is much more film friendly - right on the top banner it says "for Film and Digital". The US magazine hasn't even bothered to review the Nikon F6, nor did it review Velvia 100, until 6 months after it came out - then only after Fuji started a film contest. The UK magazine has Joe Cornish writing for it, an avid film enthusiast, but I can't name one columnist in the US magazine that is - Rob Sheppard writes digital and photoshop books, George Lepp, big time digital guru. But, to be perfectly honest, I haven't read or purchased a copy of the US magazine in about 1 1/2 years.

The beauty of it is Outdoor Photographer (US) - the one that has a scathing editorial about how film is not 6 but 18 feet under and has a moose bathing in front of Denali on the cover - has nearly all (ALL) the feature photos shot on film, from front cover to feature articles! Isn't something wrong in that picture? (pun intended very much)

 

[Rlibersky]

Quote "The beauty of it is Outdoor Photographer (US) - the one that has a scathing editorial about how film is not 6 but 18 feet under and has a moose bathing in front of Denali on the cover - has nearly all (ALL) the feature photos shot on film, from front cover to feature articles!..."

I have never seen an answer to this oddity. But I have used it on my digital friends. Who also have no answer. Just good fun.

 

[roteague]

Quote "The beauty of it is Outdoor Photographer (US) - the one that has a scathing editorial about how film is not 6 but 18 feet under and has a moose bathing in front of Denali on the cover - has nearly all (ALL) the feature photos shot on film, from front cover to feature articles!..."

I have never seen an answer to this oddity. But I have used it on my digital friends. Who also have no answer. Just good fun.

Sad, their readers can't see that.

 

[NikoSperi]

Sad, their readers can't see that.

Really? Which part of the caption "Mamiya - 90mm lens - Fuji Velvia" do you think the readers don't get? At least they have the honesty to caption the photos, but how can one write that sort of editorial and keep a straight face is beyond me.
Oh well, it's not like they're a reference of any sort... :rolleyes:

 

[roteague]

Really? Which part of the caption "Mamiya - 90mm lens - Fuji Velvia" do you think the readers don't get? At least they have the honesty to caption the photos, but how can one write that sort of editorial and keep a straight face is beyond me.
Oh well, it's not like they're a reference of any sort... :rolleyes:

Us Americans seem to be in love with technology of any kind. The average reader will read that and think "I can do better with my digital", but never stops to consider why many top professionals stick with film. Outdoor Photographer (US) seems to have a dilema; the top pros are sticking with film, while the second rate photographers (like George Lepp), who work for it, are extolling the virtues of digital.

These days I read Outdoor Photography (UK), Photography Monthly (UK) and B&W Magazine (UK) - seems like a patter here, all UK magazines.

 

[Samuel B]

Just went to the magazine shop across the road to see if they had said "Outdoor Photographer" magazine in stock, of course they didn't. But I did flick though the small selection of so called "Photography" magazines, and not a single mention of film that I could see. Now I rememeber why I don't buy any photo mags anymore! Except for Lens Work, but only then if there is something I like in it, because it's pretty expensive down here in Oz.