The Future of Film Photography

Prest_400 said:

Those consumers who still use film are older people who don't work with computers and film is suiting them well...

Click to expand...

I must be an outlier on the scatter chart then...

I'm in my mid-50s, have made my living writing computer software for the last 20+ years, don't own a single digital camera, and consider the best moment in photography to be when I first plunge my hands into a tub of water at the start of a new darkroom session.

If you don't need a towel, well then it can't possibly be Photography.

Right?

Ken

Ric Trexell said:

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.

Click to expand...

Indeed.
When I use digital, I feel like those shots will disappear in some time. A family friend died a year ago, I had a few shots and when looked for them, I didn't find them. I guess I forgot to transfer the files to the PC and they got erased in the process. I can't withstand file maintenance, I'm lazy with it that I never do it.
For the archival concerned people, film has this advantage. It keeps well with a low maintenance. Most of us have family shots that have their age, and some like mine, didn't have any maintenance and are well.
Well, on the obsolete topic... MF and LF formats can use digital backs. But 35mm cameras? When people mean film, it's usually 35mm format. Most don't know what MF is.

I agree shimoda. They have to keep putting something to persuade the consumers to upgrade/renew their "outdated" product. That's how the system works nowadays with lots of stuff.

Ken Nadvornick said:

I must be an outlier on the scatter chart then...

I'm in my mid-50s, have made my living writing computer software for the last 20+ years, don't own a single digital camera, and consider the best moment in photography to be when I first plunge my hands into a tub of water at the start of a new darkroom session.

If you don't need a towel, well then it can't possibly be Photography.

Right?

Ken

Click to expand...

But.. You are an enthusiast.
Well, my terminology wasn't really correct, because consumers would mean everyone who uses the product (film).
I used it to mean the non photographer sector, snapshooters, you know. The Joe and Jill who use their camera for taking a picture of Joey posing like a statue next to that famous monument... No pun intended

Film will be around long after all of us are dead and gone, and that is a great thing! The only negative would be the possible high cost of film, chemicals, paper and related materials.

Film is leaving the commercial arena, and will be deeply entrenched into the hobbyist and finearts worlds going forward and 100+ years into the future.

Once all the currently alive film guys are dead, the future film shooters will no longer jab and badmouth digital, and these future film users will see film and digital as two different mediums that can be used to make awesome pictures, fine-art, and exceptional images. Both mediums will be perceived as important, relevant, and excellent ways to make pictures.

Over the years I have purchased thousands of dollars in film related equipment, so I've put my $$ where my mouth is...in short, I am betting film will be around for a very long time.

To the OP: Buy lots of film equipment because film always be available in your life time.

The future film shooters will not have an ax to grind, nor feel so threatened as to be scared of any and all other mediums. Future film shooters, as a group will be more objective, and fair, and I suspect these guys will be more into the picture and not the medium, and equipment (as we all should be now).

I shoot 90% film and love it more then digital, and it would be a very sad day in my life if the day comes when film is no longer available.

To no one in particular: It's the picture, stupid!

Why do you always assume that whatever is discussed, it is about having an axe to grind, and that you are the only one having a healthy, balanced view of things?
Why, one would almost begin to believe you have an axe to grind!

dbonamo said:

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.

Click to expand...

Since you brought this longevity thing up, I will say that if you want your pictures to last their absolute longest, scan and digitize your negatives... the digital files can last centuries longer then the best kept negatives. I think this urban ledgend that digital shooters will lose their pictures soon is an outright lie, and mythology that a lot of film shooters propagate to justify their film usage. As a film shooter I will not propagate such myths to justify my love for Tri-X, and Plus-X captures. I insure the longevity of my negatives by scanning them into digital files, several copies kept in several geographical places, and the harddrives replaced every 3-5 years with newer and better technology...and this is very cheap $$ wise too.

With extremists and xenophobics, the first fatality is truth, sadly.

Q.G. said:

Why do you always assume that whatever is discussed, it is about having an axe to grind, and that you are the only one having a healthy, balanced view of things?
Why, one would almost begin to believe you have an axe to grind!

Click to expand...

Why are you always intolerant to other views? Why are you so controlling?
Why do you ask questions that have obvious answers? Should all lovers of film have the same opinions?

I have my opinions and you have yours. Yet we both love and shoot film....imagine that! So get over this and find some other "ax to grind".

Now we are discussing something where I am competent to partake.
SilverGlow: How many do you think have the knowledge and drive to do what you do with their digital negs. 10% tops. The rest WILL lose their pictures. This is not a myth. It is a fact.

90% of all digital pictures taken during the 00-decade will be gone in 20 years. This is an other fact.

r

Mats

I think we in the western world have a tendency to forget that we are a small part of the world. More than 75% of the worlds population lives in central asia (all those *stans) and china/india. They are still far from entering the digital age in broad layers. This is one reason that Phenix have 18 manufacturing plants and still is manufacturing good ol cameras like those many of us remember from the eighties.

There are also the Seagull brand that makes lenses, a cheap TLR and a number of different large format cameras with accessories. I even own a 17mm/f4 Seagull lens with K-mount that i bought new a year ago, i find it quite decent. Very decent compared to its price.

shimoda said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes. Digital requires everlasting work. When we do that never ending copying, digital preserves better due to exact copies, or rather duplication of originals. But it is work, that never ends.

This is one reason that i have gone back to shooting anything family and travel on film. My digital camera is only used for stock images and if i need to just document something fast i use the phone. Another reason is that i do not like all that automation, i like manual focus and focusing screens made for focusing, and the simplicity of old mechanical cameras.

All kind of valid reasons to make photos on film. But the only way film can survive is to sell enough cameras to keep things going on a minimum level so that an average factory like Ilford or Foma can survive.

Less and less photos are printed so also in this chain losses of minilabs are there, worldwide.
A lot of photographers working on film are scanning and are taking the hybride way.
Less chemicals are used. E6 - Kodachrome are running at the end and the question is which part will survive.
But also new markets are found by special application in other industrial fields. Also from this point film can be made. Rollei-Maco is doing this sucessfully already for some years.

RobertV said:

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 .

Click to expand...

No, if I want speed and quality I go for the Digital SLR. If I want to immerse myself in the act of photography I go for the MF and the LF cameras. Two mind sets requiring two different tools. Just the way I work.

mamiya7 said:

Please let me know your thoughts on the destiny of film photography. For example, is it worth the investment of perhaps several hundreds, even thousands, of pounds in film equipment?

Click to expand...

When buying equipment, it is not necessarily an either/or proposition. Let's look at some instances, assuming the worst case:

1. Medium format. Many systems will work with a film or a digital back. Shoot film for your own work and (later) digital for commercial, if the client demands. The cost of the pure film part is minimal--a few film backs, when compared to the total cost of the dual use system. (Of course, right now the digital backs are very expensive. But they should come down later.)

2. 35 mm. The trend is toward full frame digital sensors, ones with the sensor the same size as a 35 mm film frame. The film body may become obsolete in the future, but the lenses, filters, lens hoods etc. will all work on digital. The major companies like Nikon, Canon and Leica, have a history of making their new cameras compatible with their existing equipment. You may not be able to use all the features of the future digital super camera, but if history is our guide, you should be able to use older film equipment on the new bodies. Camera companies have been making mass market 35 mm cameras for over 50 years. I don't think they will completely abandon the 35 mm format any time soon.

3. 4x5. Digital sensors are getting bigger and cheaper. I don't think it will be too long before there will be a full 4x5 digital back which is affordable for most studios. (It might take quite awhile for individuals to afford.) There are too many commercial and architecture shooters who need the movements of a view camera. The 35 mm size view cameras don't seem to be catching on, but who knows in the future. Many of the MF digital backs are adaptable to 4x5 cameras. The camera, lenses, dark cloth, tripod, etc. work with film now and should work with digital in the future.

4. Darkroom. This is the one area where individuals can really make a difference with home made emulsions, hand coated papers, small batch commercial emulsions, etc. Look at the work of Ron on this web site. Digital negatives may replace silver, but you still have to print the digital negative on something. (Right now many alternative printers are using ink jet negatives for their work, regardless of capture on film or digital.)

**********

I think the post above about being western focused is on point. It will be quite a while before the rest of the world catches up. New films are coming out of China and the old Soviet Block countries. There will be a market for film for quite awhile. We will probably have fewer choices, and it will become more expensive, but some will be available.

Of course, you could always follow my path. My interest in photography was rekindled by digital. But, I quickly learned I don't enjoy digital as much as analogue. I don't enjoy doing photography on a computer, primarily because I work several hours a day on a computer. It is too much like work. I went back to film and my man cave/darkroom. Each year my photography goes farther back in time, so that now I am firmly set in the 19th century--wet and dry plates, albumen, platinum and gum prints, salt prints, cyanotypes, etc. As long as the raw chemicals, water color paper and glass are available, I'll be able to make my photographs. I suppose I could even make my own paper, if digital were to replace watercolors, but I don't even want to think about that.

Allen Friday said:

My interest in photography was rekindled by digital. But, I quickly learned I don't enjoy digital as much as analogue. I don't enjoy doing photography on a computer, primarily because I work several hours a day on a computer. It is too much like work.

Click to expand...

I think that's the same for a lot of us. It certainly is for me. I bought a Nikon D100 in 2003 and quickly realised I didn't like all of the computer time involved so I started buying film cameras and building a darkroom.


Steve.

is that a real photograph. oh well never mind

The end result is not always the end.Sometimes the journey is the subject.

steelneck said:

I think we in the western world have a tendency to forget that we are a small part of the world. More than 75% of the worlds population lives in central asia (all those *stans) and china/india. They are still far from entering the digital age in broad layers. This is one reason that Phenix have 18 manufacturing plants and still is manufacturing good ol cameras like those many of us remember from the eighties.

There are also the Seagull brand that makes lenses, a cheap TLR and a number of different large format cameras with accessories. I even own a 17mm/f4 Seagull lens with K-mount that i bought new a year ago, i find it quite decent. Very decent compared to its price.

Click to expand...

I lived in Central Asia for two years, and people there tend to use their mobile phones or digital point and shoots just as in the west. The mobile phone is a very wide spread technology even in poor countries, and many phones come with cameras.

Erik Petersson said:

I lived in Central Asia for two years, and people there tend to use their mobile phones or digital point and shoots just as in the west. The mobile phone is a very wide spread technology even in poor countries, and many phones come with cameras.

Click to expand...

Yes of course, they will also have a faster transition to digital than we had, since the technology is developed. That phone with camera can many times actually be the first camera they have ever owned. Look at it this way, here in the west every photographer is digital now, the film camera is a sidekick for long time photographers in a way. In asia they have not come this far yet, they have a much higher percentage of film shooters among middle aged people. Part of it is of course due to a lower standards of living and that the society is not nearly as computerized. Digital cameras become, shall we say a bit strange for serious work without "the digital darkroom", even if that is possible too.

I can only imagine if i lived in a situation without computers, shure i would make snapshots with the cellphone if i had one, but i would not even consider a digital camera for serious work without a computer. Remember that it is a change in progress over there, not as here where the process is over for all that counts. Regarding cameras we could say that we have already entered the post-digital era, that the digital revolution is over. That revolution is far from over in most parts of asia, it has just begun.