The Future of Film Photography

ricksplace said:

I am a Professor. Bravo to the student who goes the extra mile with research. It's one thing to pour over the books, it is another to speak to people who are doing what you are studying. You will learn more about reality talking to people than you will from books.

Click to expand...

Quite correct but I would not accept the responses from an internet forum anymore than I would accept Wikipedia as a source. Too many unknowns.

mark said:

Quite correct but I would not accept the responses from an internet forum anymore than I would accept Wikipedia as a source. Too many unknowns.

Click to expand...

Um, accept them as what? These answers are leads for the OP to follow. As stated (unless I misread), this is a first step in a research project.

As for your initial bit of advice, I have spent a lot of time in libraries through my life, but I have yet to find any books on the shelves that tell me what the future will be. Perhaps your libraries are better.

Individuals, not companies.

Where the future of film photography lies?

As handicraft and as hobby. When color film started to be used by common people in the sixties "everyone" saw the death of BW-film.. It did not die and can be bought even to this day when people are predicitng the death of film alltogether. I think color film will go the same way as the BW did, nothing else.

This is just the same with many other technologies, they do not die just because proffessionals are abandone it. Even vacuum tubes for amplifiers can be bought new today. Digital is a disruptive technology, and as such it is not better on what the old technology was good at, it is better on something new. If that was not true, then we would just be talking about development of the old technology.

Mankind once invented machines to make clothes, but there are still people making their own socks, stockings and what not.. even from yarn they have colored them self. Who buys mechanical clockworks with pendulum today? Hobbyists making beatiful home made clocks of course, not factories.

Manufacturers that want to still be around making film, papers and chemicals have to realize this and adapt their products to hobbyists and artists occasionally doing it all by them self in their own little darkroom. Individuals, not companies. The professional labs working with film will go extinct, exept for a very few.

But usually manufacturers often do the opposite. When everything just go about as usual, those who do something will be seen as pragmatics and those making up fantacies will be seen as radicals. This get turned upside down under a disruptive shift since the new is not as good as the old, especially not on what the old was really good at. Those looking out the window and just observes what is happening, will be treated like radicals. And those proposing things that has a better fit with the old ways will be regarded as pragmatics.

This was very obvious when the digital cameras came. Hasselblad was very early in doing research around digital, allready at the California olympics 1984 they had a machine that scanned film and could communicate that back home to the editors back home. It was really a revolution and their machine became profitable very fast. Allready back then they had started to think about having that directly in the camera. But year 2000 they closed their electronic department!

Now in the mirror it can be seen as the foolishness it was, but back then? When sales started to drop, they did not invest in what their large customer base did not ask for, and even saw as inferior. At year 2000 digital cameras was very inferior even compared to a compact small format camera. They behaved very predictable.

Another example. In Sweden we had one of the largest manufacturers of mechanical calculators. A world wide concern buing up competition all arounf the world and so on. Its name was Facit and it was really huge, just as huge as Ericsson or Volvo. Then the electronics came. Facit saw the threat very early, even started a lot of cooperating with japanese manufacturers. In the early seveties they even made computers, and those where regarded even better than the ones from IBM. But when sales begun to drop, they closed everything electronic. In the mid seventies the large multinational went bankrupt.

Shure, they saw the threat. But the possibility that the new should take over as they had nightmares of, became sorted under the unthinkable. So they looked at their large old customer base. They did not ask for minicalculators - they have not even a paper roll! And much less computers.. Who needs a huge power consuming machine nobody understands when the mechanical calculator fills our needs.

But this can be seen the other way around too. The future for C41 and E6 will probably mirror BW to a large extent, become hobby and art done by individuals, not companies. But what are Kodak and Fuji doing? The same as Hasselblad did year 2000, they are looking at the large base of the old type of customers, of whom the used to make money. Thus dropping the products that are better suited for hobbyists.

DLawson said:

I have spent a lot of time in libraries through my life, but I have yet to find any books on the shelves that tell me what the future will be.

Click to expand...

Adding to that. At wikipedia anyone can edit, but also, anyone can correct. I have yet to find a library where i can correct things that i found wrong in the books.

In a way it boils down to how we view the world. I see it as 999 people out of 1000 are fully sane, kind, gentle and all the good aspects. The reason that wikipedia works as good as it does, is that every time that single maniac turns up, there are 999 that can correct it. And this is important, i do not deny that the 1000:d person exist, but they can be seen as professors or political/company puppets writing books too. Especially when we look at old books, it becomes quite obvious. The world develops, and we with it, but books do not. Once written, every fault there was will still be there. A really old encyclopedia can sometimes even be funny, a historical statement over things we today would regard as plain out stupid. Politics and its changes can also be read out. Old fact-books could be anything from racist to sexists and what not. In every time, our time too, there are things and facts that cannot be written. Encyklopedias reflect this, afterwards, never in current time.

We have to be critical allways. Some kind of authority is not a guarantee to anything, they are people just as the rest of us. They will also be affected by the times they live in, the zeitgeist of the day.

When Ron Mowry (Photo Engineer) joins this thread and declares that film will continue to be available forever, or at least for the foreseeable future, I'll believe him. Until then, it just doesn't matter how fervent our obsession is with film. It's a product that costs an enormous amount of money and space to produce, and just will not continue to be manufactured if enough people choose other mediums. It's been established many times over in other threads that film is NOT analogous to other endangered items, like vinyl LPs, because it isn't practical for it to become a cottage industry...too much is involved.

jovo said:

It's been established many times over in other threads that film is NOT analogous to other endangered items, like vinyl LPs, because it isn't practical for it to become a cottage industry...too much is involved.

Click to expand...

Whilst that is true, it's not the actual manufacture of the products which is analogous but the interest people have in using them.


Steve.

Hmmm...what I'd like to know then, is WHO is buying all that used film gear on Ebay? And, if they aren't going to use it, then WHY are they spending so much good money on it?

My point being, that film must still have quite a following, even in the midst of such a digital rage. We simply must not be able to fathom the amount of film users at it's peak if there are still so many buying film cameras today!
Jed

Agree with you Jed.

When ebay closes his analogue equipment category, its propably over.

Yes, but sooner or later the supply of old cameras will dry up. Will anyone start manufacturing new cameras? That is the question.

r

Mats

I suspect that the "who is buying" is people like me who can't believe how inexpensive good gear is and can't resist buying even when you don't really need *yet* another camera. GAS

Am I using them? YES! but not all 16 at once. LOL

Steve Smith said:

Whilst that is true, it's not the actual manufacture of the products which is analogous but the interest people have in using them.

Click to expand...

The whole analogy however being that, since people - no matter how few - still have an interest in using something, other people are still making the things they are interested in, so the continued interest in using the thingy is met by a continued supply of that thingy.

That doesn't work with film for the reason mentioned.

Jedidiah Smith said:

Hmmm...what I'd like to know then, is WHO is buying all that used film gear on Ebay? And, if they aren't going to use it, then WHY are they spending so much good money on it?

My point being, that film must still have quite a following, even in the midst of such a digital rage. We simply must not be able to fathom the amount of film users at it's peak if there are still so many buying film cameras today!
Jed

Click to expand...

The question of course is how many is "so many".

How do sales of film using cameras on places like eBay compare to the numbers needed to keep supplying those film cameras with film feasible?
Does a completed sale equate to an x-amount of extra film being used? Or are perhaps the most of these film eating cameras bought by people who already use film, and will it then be a case of running one film through either the newly bought camera, or through one already owned, i.e. no extra film consumption at all (as in: "Am I using them? YES! but not all 16 at once.")?

Who knows?

And the answer to the "who"-question could as well be people who hope/pray/believe that they will find a good enough supply of film to feed their newly acquired cameras, for long enough.

shimoda said:

Yes, but sooner or later the supply of old cameras will dry up. Will anyone start manufacturing new cameras? That is the question.

r

Mats

Click to expand...

Most of the used stuff that I window-shop on eBay seems to be from either estate clearances (including, "this used to be my Dad's . . .") or retirees clearing an inventory when moving to a smaller place. By the time those are all sold, some more of us will die and repopulate the eBay pool.

Personally, I'm amazed at how much clean, lightly used gear is available considering that everything I'm looking at was discontinued over 25 years ago.

I got a 2x3 grafmatic yesterday. The outside looks like it could be fresh from the factory.

DLawson said:

Most of the used stuff that I window-shop on eBay seems to be from either estate clearances (including, "this used to be my Dad's . . .") or retirees clearing an inventory when moving to a smaller place. By the time those are all sold, some more of us will die and repopulate the eBay pool.

Personally, I'm amazed at how much clean, lightly used gear is available considering that everything I'm looking at was discontinued over 25 years ago.

I got a 2x3 grafmatic yesterday. The outside looks like it could be fresh from the factory.

Click to expand...

These are indeed good times to be an analog photographer. Films are available, pro-cameras are cheap. But if NO new cameras are added to the pool it will shrink. Cameras break down, houses burn down, elephants tread on them..... Every year X amount of film cameras are destroyed. So we should treasure this period of time now because in 50 year a functioning Rolleiflex for $1200 will look like a bargain.

What I hope for is that there is a small countermovement in the coming decade that will make it possible for some company to start making some new cameras. As I am in IT I know how difficult it is to maintain a digital archive. In 10 years we will not have any CD-players on our PC:s.

Every time someone asks why I use film when digital is so much simpler I ask him (always a him) how his grand children will be able to look at his pictures. While he ponders that I tell him that I plan to put my negs in a folder and be done with it.

r

Mats

tiberiustibz said:

I personally prefer film because the cost of every shot causes me to shoot less than I did when I used the shotgun digital method. Would you rather look at 36 pictures or 600?

Click to expand...

More like the "UZI" method... lol Some people just fire away hoping to get a great shot.

shimoda said:

What I hope for is that there is a small countermovement in the coming decade that will make it possible for some company to start making some new cameras. As I am in IT I know how difficult it is to maintain a digital archive. In 10 years we will not have any CD-players on our PC:s.

Every time someone asks why I use film when digital is so much simpler I ask him (always a him) how his grand children will be able to look at his pictures. While he ponders that I tell him that I plan to put my negs in a folder and be done with it.

Click to expand...

Well there are quite a number of film cameras made new even today.

There are a number of medium formats, even Rolleiflex is still manufactured. Large formats can also be bought new from at least a handful of makers. In small format we also have some brands to chose from. In the high end we have for example Leica, Zeiss Ikon, Voightländer Bessa R*

But there are also some chinese makers of SLR cameras with Nikon or Pentax-K mount, like the Phenix brand (link to swedish dealer):

http://www.photax.se/kmrr/phenix/ek180/phenixek180.htm
(K-mount)
or
http://www.photax.se/kmrr/phenix/dn66/phenixdn66.htm
(Nikon mount)

Phenix is actually one of the largest camera makers and those two models are actually quite good in quality, and cheap too. Vivitar also have a model that i suspekt is manufactured by Phenix, but i do not remember the model name. Do google.

There are also some Russian brands like Zenit or Kiev but i do not know anything about those.

shimoda said:

Every time someone asks why I use film when digital is so much simpler I ask him (always a him) how his grand children will be able to look at his pictures. While he ponders that I tell him that I plan to put my negs in a folder and be done with it.

r

Mats

Click to expand...

The worlds oldest usable negative ( http://www.edinphoto.org.uk/1_P/1_photographers_talbot_smm_latticed_window.htm ) was dated 1835, I wonder if the digital captures of today will survive till 2185... In 2185 technology of today will of course be consider extremely ancient. Of course I cannot predict the future, but I think the digital formats we know today will be eventually unsupported. But I bet you the negative from 1835, 350 years old in 2185, if store properly will still yield a usable image, without the need for an electronic viewer of some sort.

shimoda said:

But if NO new cameras are added to the pool it will shrink. Cameras break down, houses burn down, elephants tread on them..... Every year X amount of film cameras are destroyed. So we should treasure this period of time now because in 50 year a functioning Rolleiflex for $1200 will look like a bargain.

Click to expand...

True enough in the eventual case, but there is a huge existing supply.

About 12 years ago, when eBay was new and I was just getting back to my cameras, I snapped up some Graflex equipment that I knew I wasn't going to use any time soon. I wanted to make sure that I had it when I need/want it. I think there is 10-20x the volume of Graflex on eBay now as there was then. The pool we're drawing from, for many camera types, is huge.

The new supply that I'm concerned about is film shooters. I figure (roughly) that all current adults (in the US at least) have some personal experience with film, even if that's limited to their baby pictures. That's a minor hook for some of them experimenting with film. But most of those younger may not know film at all, outside of old movies.

So what will be the introduction to film that will keep a market populated as the old farts retire or die? Art school? Lomo? Retro hipsterness? Whatever it is, *that* is what will determine the mid-to-long term future of film.

What I hope for is that there is a small countermovement in the coming decade that will make it possible for some company to start making some new cameras.

Click to expand...

Yes, you're right about this.
When not producing enough new cameras the medium film is going to its end sooner or later.
The very specialized brands like Leica, Zeiss, Arca Swiss etc. will be not enough to support film for the future.
And I doubt if camera useres like Holga, Diana etc. will generate enough for keeping film up.
So we need something in between, like Cosina-Voigtländer is doing. Affordable for everybody who has serious interest in film photography.

Regards,

Robert

RobertV said:

So we need something in between, like Cosina-Voigtländer is doing. Affordable for everybody who has serious interest in film photography.

Regards,

Robert

Click to expand...

Those with a serious interest will not keep film alive. A film camera has to be appealing and cheap enough for the non-serious person as well. At this time Cosina-Voigtländer is not inexpensive enough for the casual user. I am afraid the POS Lomo, Diana, etc... have a better chance of keeping film around than the much higher priced cameras.

IMO*-Faced with the cost of the Cosina-Voigtländer and the similar cost of used MF cameras the MF camera will win for those serious about film photography. Bigger negative=better quality.


*My opinion is terribly biased. I have not even considered shooting 35mm in over 9 years. I landed a good deal on a MF camera and now shoot LF. The bigger neg/tranny is just so much better.

*My opinion is terribly biased. I have not even considered shooting 35mm in over 9 years. I landed a good deal on a MF camera and now shoot LF. The bigger neg/tranny is just so much better.

Click to expand...

Indeed biased while in that case you have no idea how fast and vertisile a 35mm camera can be, especially a good 35mm rangefinder. With the right film choice and developer you can reach huge results. it's not always the quality of the photo who makes a picture succesfull. The circumstances you can shoot in 35mm can differ a lot compared with LF.

I shoot 35mm (Leica-M, different SLR) till 6x7cm and can handle a general Tri-X film till a special ATP (Advanced Technical Pan) film in my cameras and everything which is in between so I can assure you there are a lot of possibilities in 35mm shooting .

Cameras like the 35mm Phenix EK 180 and the 6x6 Seagull 109 are still made in China afaik.Film use may grow in developing markets, I know little of what goes on there.Making tabular grain films is something that may have a high barrier to entry.

Well, read more or less all the thread.
On film production, I remember PE mentioning long term film making on one of these similar threads. 35mm and 120 are hard. Sheet film a bit less. Plates should be no problem as we know. Color is 20 times harder to manufacture.

In the large format world, there are enough manufacturers. MF and 35mm... a few, but they don't really suit all the markets.

mark said:

Those with a serious interest will not keep film alive. A film camera has to be appealing and cheap enough for the non-serious person as well. At this time Cosina-Voigtländer is not inexpensive enough for the casual user. I am afraid the POS Lomo, Diana, etc... have a better chance of keeping film around than the much higher priced cameras.

Click to expand...

Okay, let's suppose that exists. How do you bring back those consumers to film? The marketing system has them locked on digital, and it will be hard to bring them here. Those consumers who still use film are older people who don't work with computers and film is suiting them well; also on the developing world, I read on a flickr thread about crossing russia in the transiberian that film and processing was well available and used in the rural areas. Also, of course, is a lot of marketing. Ask anyone young about film and most will answer "what the heck is that?".

I can talk of experience, I had been one of those until two years ago.
A few thoughts that can run in a consumer mind are: Film is obsolete, I can see, digi shots are free and can be erased, I can share easily, I can see what I'm shooting, I can shoot video too in the same gadget...
The big Digi companies have them well strapped, something very nice and big would be needed to make them come to film.

Film could come back.

Many people I talk to think that CD's and DVD's last forever. When I tell them that some people have lost the use of a CD in 5 years, they are shocked. When many of the young kids today that are using digital and copying them to CD's find out in a few years that their CD's don't work, they will start to look at film. If not, it will be a dying art. From what I'm seeing, most digital pictures are not even transfered to CD's, they are just left in the camera or deleted. This is the saddest part of digital photography that so many historical shots are lost to people no longer seeing any need for them. I have shot slides and negatives since I was 11, and now at 58 I have a collection of family pictures that few digital photographers will have. As for those that say film cameras will be obsolete, I have bought mamiya rb67 pro s's and will be able to attach a digital back if film dies out. As they are non electronic, they will be able to be fixed for years to come.

What seems to be happening with DSLR:s is that the race for more and more pixels have come to a stop (as it must) and they are now all adding video to their cameras. This is the next logical step. First you teach the customer to take hundreds of pictures (it's free you see) and then it's a small step to video the whole event and pick out the pictures you want from that. So I predict that there will be a small movement back to film from people who don't want to run video cameras.

What's most important for Nikon and Canon is adding new features to their gadgets. Photographers now are used to renewing their obsolete equipment every four year. If Nik/Can can't find enough new features to cram in they will start to move the cameras towards video.

And by the way, B&H are selling new Nikons F6:s.

r

Mats