I imagine it's because of the amount of time it takes to master a film plus the fact that many people try for a consistent look in their work. Having to start again with a new product takes a long time and by implication slows down output. For an amateur this can be a big hassle, for a pro it can mean loss of income. For this reason, you'll notice people tend to be much more 'angry' when a manufacturer gives little or misleading information about a product compared to a phased discontinuance or replacement.
one should hedge with a Plan B and Plan C film choice.
I understand. And given the current climate film users find themselves, in this market, etc, one should hedge with a Plan B and Plan C film choice. It seems to me that the less one trusts what film companies say, the less "angry" they'll get down the road. I think one has to assume right up front that their film choice may be tentative at best. Expect the best, but prepare for the worse.
I understand. And given the current climate film users find themselves, in this market, etc, one should hedge with a Plan B and Plan C film choice. It seems to me that the less one trusts what film companies say, the less "angry" they'll get down the road. I think one has to assume right up front that their film choice may be tentative at best. Expect the best, but prepare for the worse.
Sales of large and medium format film are dwarfed by sales of 35mm format film.
Without 35mm film, there would be no large format.
Why do you think Ilford has 7 types of 35mm film, yet only 3 types of LF film
Are there really more LF new cameras sold than 35mm? I guess I'm really out of touch with the market.
Mike
Although the growth is there, it is never likely to grow to sufficient size to sustain manufacture of film without 135 format. The long term availability of all film is linked to the continued (declining) use of this format.
how about 5 years?
The 35mm format has already been replaced by a dslr, why shoot it, unless you're not comfortable with digial.
I'm trying to keep you happy, it's my personal goal.
My post about five years was just a statement that the market is continuing to change, we won't have to wait 25 year to see the next change. I don't see that as being negative, do you?
You can't go a month here, hardly a week, without someone reporting on a product being dropped and carrying on like it is the end of the world.
I'm not negative about film, I don't even own a digital camera. I don't understand why anyone thinks a company shouldn't change their business model to meet changes in market demand. I'd prefer they change their product offerings if it will keep them in business making analog products. I'm of the persuasion you buy the products that available and move on. It amazes me these threads run on like they do, but it's like a train wreck, I can't keep from looking.
So yes, I guess I do like to poke an occasional stick at that group.
Mike
I'm going to suggest that most photographers would be more profitable if they spent more time selling themselves instead of processing their own stuff.
..I don't think your preaching to any choir here by this statement. How little you understand the high-end user my friend..
I understand. And given the current climate film users find themselves, in this market, etc, one should hedge with a Plan B and Plan C film choice. It seems to me that the less one trusts what film companies say, the less "angry" they'll get down the road. I think one has to assume right up front that their film choice may be tentative at best. Expect the best, but prepare for the worse.
Obviously you do not understand what is going on. With the arrival of digital it was expected that film sales would get cut in half (what else did you expect?). Of course production will get cut in half, well have half the employees, half the film choices we once had. Of course you can expect market restructuring (no more film cameras sold at Wallmart or the average camera retail store). It is a niche market, and now a specialty goods class product as classified by marketing people. Of course it will be handled differently. The market is also in maturity now, characterized by many competitors, many models, many upgrades, and a good decade later film is still around. Why? Because it was the 35mm and 120market (wedding shooters) that all switched to digital. Today the amateur/wedding/sports/magazine/journalist is fully satisfied with a dslr. However, even they want sometimes more quality, and digital backs are not cheap, nor match the quality of the smallest format (4x5 film). Film remains affordable. This is why we still see over 15 mfrs of large format cameras, new mfrs still appearing (Gaoersi, Fotoman, Chamonix at a time a few years ago when things were at there worse around 2006),new models being introduced, upgrades to existing products (eg- to technorama, technica 3000). It is business as usual, and everything in this market one day will be special order (for a niche market). Dont expect to see it just anywhere, and expect to buy your camera and film by mail, even processing may go this route. But the demand is there, and there is still no affordable replacement to 4x5 film. When someone asks you what is high-end photography, the answer still is 4x5 film (and 8x10 is in another league). Photokina 2008 already was having various mfrs (from the horses mouth) reporting stabilization and growth in large format film sales. It will be interesting in a few months what Photokina 2010 brings us for news. We also had a new Fuji 6x7 folder film camera introduced (I think they no a bit more then us, and would not cut their own throat by eliminating all their own films they just cut back to a smaller selection). We have Ektar 100 introduced .so new products are being introduced, rather then staying with the old (which you would expect if it were true and film was dead). The problem is we have too many amateurs who never saw a large format film telling us all film is dead (but know diddly), and the rest who know little about the business end of things .with a lot of bad word of mouth in the end.
35mm replaced by DSLR entirely? What a load of BS. If anything there are more digital people picking up 135 cameras now than before. However that seat of the pants metric has nothing to do with the fact that 35mm film is perfectly adequate next to digital.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?