Where do you see Analogue photography in (say) 20 years time ?

[Michael Firstlight]

Film will never make a mass market comeback. That said..

My best guess (if past is a predictor of the future):

It's a bit too speculative to predict 20 years, but in 10 years I think analog film will still be in use by die hard analog aficionados and curiosity seekers - B&W definitely, and maybe some color here and there if the supplies stabilize. A few personal darkrooms will still be around, but it will be an extremely elite niche - more so than it is now. I am loving that so few do analog end--to-end now; I don't think digital print exhibits get hardly any respect these days, but hand-made analog darkroom prints are starting to gain far more respect over digital with so few able to do it - let alone do it well.

My cameras and darkroom gear will certainly be in fully operable condition in 10 years, and likely in 20 years too; most of it is currently in mint or like new condition or has been fully refurbished. I had most of my original camera and darkroom gear for 40 years (I've always taken exceptional care of all my gear). The best analog gear is built to last many, many decades, save for a few seals to be replaced here and there. I expect it will all work fine in 10 and 20 years from now the way I care for it. There will even fewer material suppliers as the market won't be able to support the (even) smaller niche market than exists now. There will be two classes of users 1) those experimenting/learning ancient processes, and 2) craftsmen and craftswomen that take it very seriously - not unlike it is now, but leveling off to a fairly constant (relatively) small population.

I am loving it now. I don't debate the quality or flexibility merits of film vs digital; digital kills analog in so many ways technically and cost for volume work. When all is said and done, I find shooting, developing, and hand (wet darkroom) printing far more challenging and simply far more FUN than digital. Having immersed myself in pro-digital since the late 90's, I began to lose my passion for photography. Going back to analog brought the passion back in full force. For production work analog isn't practical at all; so I do both for different reasons.

From an investment side, the best classic film cameras are already going for collector prices, as is the best darkroom gear . My Pentax 67II is in mint condition and worth over $2500 just for the body and AE prism alone. My Nikon Coolscan 9000 I bought for $2K is now selling for $3K.. My completely refurbished Sidekick SK-8 is easily worth $3-3.5K resale, and high-end enlargers will continue to see higher resale prices as the scant eBay inventory continues to evaporate. The best glass will be out of sight price wise. In fact, resale prices might go so high as to warrant a handful of small startup manufactures to build new products to serve the niche market. I'll likely add a full 4x5 high-end setup soon before that gets out of reach.

While film will never make a mass market comeback, a niche market for analog is here to stay for the foreseeable future - at least that's what my crystal balls tell me.

MFL

 

[Helge]

Film will never make a mass market comeback. That said..

My best guess (if past is a predictor of the future):

It's a bit too speculative to predict 20 years, but in 10 years I think analog film will still be in use by die hard analog aficionados and curiosity seekers - B&W definitely, and maybe some color here and there if the supplies stabilize. A few personal darkrooms will still be around, but it will be an extremely elite niche - more so than it is now. I am loving that so few do analog end--to-end now; I don't think digital print exhibits get hardly any respect these days, but hand-made analog darkroom prints are starting to gain far more respect over digital with so few able to do it - let alone do it well.

My cameras and darkroom gear will certainly be in fully operable condition in 10 years, and likely in 20 years too; most of it is currently in mint or like new condition or has been fully refurbished. I had most of my original camera and darkroom gear for 40 years (I've always taken exceptional care of all my gear). The best analog gear is built to last many, many decades, save for a few seals to be replaced here and there. I expect it will all work fine in 10 and 20 years from now the way I care for it. There will even fewer material suppliers as the market won't be able to support the (even) smaller niche market than exists now. There will be two classes of users 1) those experimenting/learning ancient processes, and 2) craftsmen and craftswomen that take it very seriously - not unlike it is now, but leveling off to a fairly constant (relatively) small population.

I am loving it now. I don't debate the quality or flexibility merits of film vs digital; digital kills analog in so many ways technically and cost for volume work. When all is said and done, I find shooting, developing, and hand (wet darkroom) printing far more challenging and simply far more FUN than digital. Having immersed myself in pro-digital since the late 90's, I began to lose my passion for photography. Going back to analog brought the passion back in full force. For production work analog isn't practical at all; so I do both for different reasons.

From an investment side, the best classic film cameras are already going for collector prices, as is the best darkroom gear . My Pentax 67II is in mint condition and worth over $2500 just for the body and AE prism alone. My Nikon Coolscan 9000 I bought for $2K is now selling for $3K.. My completely refurbished Sidekick SK-8 is easily worth $3-3.5K resale, and high-end enlargers will continue to see higher resale prices as the scant eBay inventory continues to evaporate. The best glass will be out of sight price wise. In fact, resale prices might go so high as to warrant a handful of small startup manufactures to build new products to serve the niche market. I'll likely add a full 4x5 high-end setup soon before that gets out of reach.

While film will never make a mass market comeback, a niche market for analog is here to stay for the foreseeable future - at least that's what my crystal balls tell me.

MFL

Almost sounds like you want film to die a slow death so you can revel in it's rareness and exclusivity?

There was always two markets. The cheapskate mom type who would take three years to finish a roll out of cheapness and lack of enthusiasm.
They bought cheap film and only got standard drugstore prints.
They where only really interested in documenting their own banal lives in the most obvious way possible.
If they bought a better to good camera, it would be to show off as a status symbol necklace more than anything else.
These people where a huge part of the old film economy and infrastructure only because of their vast numbers.
Those where the people who skipped to digital the first moment possible, strictly because it was "free pictures".
They are the people on iPhones now and if they have money they want to flaunt, with a DSLR with the mode button cemented to P.

And then there where people who actually had some kind of aspirations and creative blood in them.
Those are the people who never left film, or who are now coming back.

And film is obviously technically superior where it counts.
High quantum efficiency belongs to cats, spiders and squids.

 

[TheRook]

Almost sounds like you want film to die a slow death so you can revel in it's rareness and exclusivity?

There was always two markets. The cheapskate mom type who would take three years to finish a roll out of cheapness and lack of enthusiasm.
They bought cheap film and only got standard drugstore prints.
They where only really interested in documenting their own banal lives in the most obvious way possible.
If they bought a better to good camera, it would be to show off as a status symbol necklace more than anything else.
These people where a huge part of the old film economy and infrastructure only because of their vast numbers.
Those where the people who skipped to digital the first moment possible, strictly because it was "free pictures".
They are the people on iPhones now and if they have money they want to flaunt, with a DSLR with the mode button cemented to P.

And then there where people who actually had some kind of aspirations and creative blood in them.
Those are the people who never left film, or who are now coming back.

And film is obviously technically superior where it counts.
High quantum efficiency belongs to cats, spiders, squids.

Well said!
I'm not sure if it is because of selective memory or perhaps the result of living in some kind of highly concentrated social bubble, but many serious photographers seem to have the impression that the casual shooter market is a relatively new phenomenon, brought on by the rise of digital photography. But it has actually been around long before that - ever since the introduction of inexpensive, easy-to-operate cameras to the market.

 

[BrianShaw]

... since about 1888.

 

[Helge]

It’s like putting children’s watercolours and enthusiast aquarelle in the same bucket.
Sure they are very generally in the same category, but the aims and aspirations are so vastly different they might not have been.

The first dint in the casual photo market was already in the eighties with the allure of reusable videotape.

You could speculate that in the long run film is probably better off without those people.
As long as there are movie makers and professional photographers using film, I wouldn’t worry.

 

[jtk]

What makes you think film technology will stand still, and what makes you assume that digital still images has that much more room for improvement within the current paradigm and materials commonly used?

Several interesting points by two smart people

A response: the largest remaining operator of minilabs in the US is making return of processed film after printing optional. Think about that. As well, pro DSLRs now record more tonal range and detail than 6x6 film...and they shoot a lot of the motion you see from Hollywood.

 

[Arthurwg]

Film photography will ascend to become the premier medium for art and reportage, and digital photography will be relegated to selfies and such.

 

[Helge]

Several interesting points by two smart people

A response: the largest remaining operator of minilabs in the US is making return of processed film after printing optional. Think about that. As well, pro DSLRs now record more tonal range and detail than 6x6 film...and they shoot a lot of the motion you see from Hollywood.

Even if we go with the common conservative estimation that a 35mm Barnack frame resolves about 25MP (which I do not agree with), a 6x6 would have the potential to hold the equivalent of well over a 100MP.
And there we are just talking high contrast resolution, all the other parameters that are actually important in making a good-looking image, are also far better taken care of by film.

There are prograde Cine cameras that are 4K, most of the time they will be projected at much lower resolutions though.
There is a few 8K cameras but they run into problems with dynamics and colour.

There are very good reasons why important filmmakers who know their shit and have the clout to insist, shoot 35mm and 70mm.
Even 16mm can be scanned at 4k and give very satisfying results though.
But it doesn't stop there. I'd have sworn Super 8 was a toy format until I saw this:

4K scanned Super 8 actually makes sense. That is something from a piece of film smaller than my little fingernail and that in an of itself tells you a lot about the medium of film.

I'm not sure what the minilab thing is supposed to tell us? It certainly tells about cutting one to many a corner to maximize profits, and selling it as a feature.
It also tells us something about the laziness and cluelessness of consumers, even people who shoot film. ;-)
I'm not sure what it tells us about the staying power of film though.

 

[jtk]

Even if we go with the common conservative estimation that a 35mm Barnack frame resolves about 25MP (which I do not agree with), a 6x6 would have the potential to hold the equivalent of well over a 100MP.
And there we are just talking high contrast resolution, all the other parameters that are actually important in making a good-looking image, are also far better taken care of by film.

There are prograde Cine cameras that are 4K, most of the time they will be projected at much lower resolutions though.
There is a few 8K cameras but they run into problems with dynamics and colour.

There are very good reasons why important filmmakers who know their shit and have the clout to insist, shoot 35mm and 70mm.
Even 16mm can be scanned at 4k and give very satisfying results though.
But it doesn't stop there. I'd have sworn Super 8 was a toy format until I saw this:

4K scanned Super 8 actually makes sense. That is something from a piece of film smaller than my little fingernail and that in an of itself tells you a lot about the medium of film.

I'm not sure what the minilab thing is supposed to tell us? It certainly tells about cutting one to many a corner to maximize profits, and selling it as a feature.
It also tells us something about the laziness and cluelessness of consumers, even people who shoot film. ;-)
I'm not sure what it tells us about the staying power of film though.

"It also tells us something about the laziness and cluelessness of consumers, even people who shoot film. ;-)
I'm not sure what it tells us about the staying power of film though."

I hate to have to break this to you: film manufacturers are capitalists. They live for or die with consumers.

Given that minilabs live for C41 only, if the biggest stops returning film without special request, that dooms C41. If C41 is doomed, so is film. Cine use is insignificant by comparison.

My daughter uses a "pro grade" 4K camera for her PBS broadcast videos as well as motion picture projection

Cutting corners to maximize profits is the reason most still film is 35mm rather than 70mm.

I'm glad you use film. Me, too...when appropriate.

As you probably know, several current medium format DSLRs hold well over 100MP. In any case, the primary users of 70mm still film (call it 120) are still wedding photographers...

 

[faberryman]

Given that minilabs live for C41 only, if the biggest stops returning film without special request, that dooms C41. If C41 is doomed, so is film.

Why? If you want your film back, ask for it. If you don't, don't. What's the big deal? The big boys are out of the game already. CVS, Walgreens and Target no longer develop film. Walmart does but doesn't return the negative. C41 isn't doomed without them.

 

[jtk]

Why? If you want your film back, ask for it. If you don't, don't. What's the big deal? Walmart currently doesn't return film. If you want your negatives back, go somewhere else.

I agree 100% Unfortunately big minilab operators are in process of killing what's left of their once-golden egg.

 

[jtk]

fwiw I just took delivery on 6 rolls of 135/36 Acros

 

[faberryman]

I agree 100% Unfortunately big minilab operators are in process of killing what's left of their once-golden egg.

With 98% of the photofinishing business gone, there is no more golden egg, and the big boys are already out of the business. Just the remaining 2% is left, which is holding steady or increasing according to some, and which will be handled by the independents. The sky is not falling.

 

[jtk]

With 98% of the photofinishing business gone, there is no more golden egg, and the big boys are already out of the business. Just the remaining 2% is left, which is holding steady or increasing according to some, and which will be handled by the independents. The sky is not falling.

In the US the "big boys" are Walgreens and Costco.

 

[faberryman]

In the US the "big boys" are Walgreens and Costco.

And they have both been out of the game for a couple of years. You are keeping up, right?

 

[Helge]

"It also tells us something about the laziness and cluelessness of consumers, even people who shoot film. ;-)
I'm not sure what it tells us about the staying power of film though."

I hate to have to break this to you: film manufacturers are capitalists. They live for or die with consumers.

Given that minilabs live for C41 only, if the biggest stops returning film without special request, that dooms C41. If C41 is doomed, so is film. Cine use is insignificant by comparison.

My daughter uses a "pro grade" 4K camera for her PBS broadcast videos as well as motion picture projection

Cutting corners to maximize profits is the reason most still film is 35mm rather than 70mm.

I'm glad you use film. Me, too...when appropriate.

As you probably know, several current medium format DSLRs hold well over 100MP. In any case, the primary users of 70mm still film (call it 120) are still wedding photographers...

I honestly don't follow your reasoning.
Bad businesses concoct bad shortsighted business. Consumers, who to many an economists surprise isn't homo economicus, remember being shafted and the cheapness of the whole product, feel vengeful an take business elsewhere, or stop the business entirely.
Bad business goes out of business.
Oldest story in economy.

Cheap at any cost, is like peeing in your pants on a cold day to get warm.
Might work in the moment, but...

Lets hope film users will find labs waiting with open arms elsewhere.

Cine users use thousands and thousands of feet of film for a single movie, while a single 36 exposure roll is five.
Also there is the obvious prestige and commercial value connected with getting in the credits roll.

Two very important things Kodak could do right now would be to:

A: Make a simple to use, relatively inexpensive, development machine for the three major processes.
A heating element, sensor, a motor and an easy way to load the film in daylight would be the ticket. The rest could be handled with an iPhone app for timing.

B: Make a small, high quality, reasonably priced scanner agnostic of film format.
The flatbeds most people make do with, give film a bad name. Many people assume that when they paid the relatively high price for a V850, that they will get the best on the market. Not so!
The better 35mm scanners are also expensive, won't scan anything else, and still has problems with film flatness.
A good small, low res, monochrome CMOS sensor, with colour selective backlighting would be an ideal starting point for a scanner that would rival just about anything, and cost very little to make and take up a fraction of what a drumscanner or Imacon takes up.
Think home Pakon only way better and smaller with twenty years of Moores law.
(no, I'm not thinking of the embarrassing webcam based, rebranded, craptacular piece of shit they announced some time ago)

Those two products would not only be a great seller guaranteed, it would also ensure Kodak less dependence on labs for their still business.

 

[faberryman]

Also there is the obvious prestige and commercial value connected with getting in the credits roll.

Why? Everyone has left the theater by the time they get to the bottom of the credits, so no one sees your name.

 

[jtk]

I honestly don't follow your reasoning.
Bad businesses concoct bad shortsighted business. Consumers, who to many an economists surprise isn't homo economicus, remember being shafted and the cheapness of the whole product, feel vengeful an take business elsewhere, or stop the business entirely.
Bad business goes out of business.
Oldest story in economy.

Cheap at any cost, is like peeing in your pants on a cold day to get warm.
Might work in the moment, but...

Lets hope film users will find labs waiting with open arms elsewhere.

Cine users use thousands and thousands of feet of film for a single movie, while a single 36 exposure roll is five.
Also there is the obvious prestige and commercial value connected with getting in the credits roll.

Two very important things Kodak could do right now would be to:

A: Make a simple to use, relatively inexpensive, development machine for the three major processes.
A heating element, sensor, a motor and an easy way to load the film in daylight would be the ticket. The rest could be handled with an iPhone app for timing.

B: Make a small, high quality, reasonably priced scanner agnostic of film format.
The flatbeds most people make do with, give film a bad name. Many people assume that when they paid the relatively high price for a V850, that they will get the best on the market. Not so!
The better 35mm scanners are also expensive, won't scan anything else, and still has problems with film flatness.
A good small, low res, monochrome CMOS sensor, with colour selective backlighting would be an ideal starting point for a scanner that would rival just about anything, and cost very little to make and take up a fraction of what a drumscanner or Imacon takes up.
Think home Pakon only way better and smaller with twenty years of Moores law.
(no, I'm not thinking of the embarrassing webcam based, rebranded, craptacular piece of shit they announced some time ago)

Those two products would not only be a great seller guaranteed, it would also ensure Kodak less dependence on labs for their still business.

Kodak built its glory-days business on doing the customer's photofinishing. Japanese minilabs started Kodak's decline. Kodak tried to right the ship by rebranding Noritsu.

Kodak happened to own a digital motion picture camera at the time, but was too dumb to market it or improve it for purposes other than motion analysis. They had a huge business with motion analysis film at the time, so (presumably) hid the digital tech. I blame Kodak's demise on bad character, not on competition..

Kindermann and Nikor and Omega all made "relatively inexpensive, development machine for the three major processes." I use Kindermann.

Nikon scanners (like mine) have no "problems with film flatness." But Nikon undoubtedly saw Kodak's demise coming.

 

[Helge]

Why? Everyone has left the theater by the time they get to the bottom of the credits, so no one sees your name.

Credits are not for the audience.

 

[Helge]

Kodak built its glory-days business on doing the customer's photofinishing. Japanese minilabs started Kodak's decline. Kodak tried to right the ship by rebranding Noritsu.

Kodak happened to own a digital motion picture camera at the time, but was too dumb to market it or improve it for purposes other than motion analysis. They had a huge business with motion analysis film at the time, so (presumably) hid the digital tech. I blame Kodak's demise on bad character, not on competition..

Kindermann and Nikor and Omega all made "relatively inexpensive, development machine for the three major processes." I use Kindermann.

Nikon scanners (like mine) have no "problems with film flatness." But Nikon undoubtedly saw Kodak's demise coming.

Kodak simply didn't holistically have the notion of how important software and UI is, like a lot of old mastodons in the eighties and nineties.
Some, like Sony where lucky enough to have some disobedient cells, doing their own thing, eventually saving them.

But computers and software was always something very much to do with product development at Kodak. Not the end product in itself.
That is something you'll see when you read the reviews of the old Kodak digital cameras.
Most people never got past the horrible frontend, and those who did really loved the sensor and the colour management, but eventually had to bail out because of usability issues.

So it was not being dumb or product infighting. It was as with Xerox and their Parc lab, a question of the whole DNA of the company.


Those processors you mention are neither cheap, nor small, and not low maintenance either.
I'm talking prices resting right on the border of impulse buy.
Something a average curios person would be inclined to try, without being afraid of space or finance.

Nikon scanners where never inexpensive nor small.
And now, they are certainly not low maintenance.

 

[Eric Rose]

In any case, the primary users of 70mm still film (call it 120) are still wedding photographers...

I don't know of one professional, full time, successful wedding photographer who uses 120 film.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

The same could be said for the digital communities, or any community for that matter.
There's a steady and even growing influx of new recruits all the time to film.

hope being the only father of this thought.We've heard this for more than a decade and still...

 

[Eric Rose]

Film has seen it's hay-day and a half hearted last gasp of interest. Once it's status as the flavour of the month is over with the "hip/cool" people it will return to a minimal steady state. Only the leanest film/paper/chemical suppliers will be able to survive.

 

[jtk]

I don't know of one professional, full time, successful wedding photographer who uses 120 film.

With all of your qualifiers you're surely right.

 

[jtk]

Kodak simply didn't holistically have the notion of how important software and UI is, like a lot of old mastodons in the eighties and nineties.
Some, like Sony where lucky enough to have some disobedient cells, doing their own thing, eventually saving them.

But computers and software was always something very much to do with product development at Kodak. Not the end product in itself.
That is something you'll see when you read the reviews of the old Kodak digital cameras.
Most people never got past the horrible frontend, and those who did really loved the sensor and the colour management, but eventually had to bail out because of usability issues.

So it was not being dumb or product infighting. It was as with Xerox and their Parc lab, a question of the whole DNA of the company.


Those processors you mention are neither cheap, nor small, and not low maintenance either.
I'm talking prices resting right on the border of impulse buy.
Something a average curios person would be inclined to try, without being afraid of space or finance.

Nikon scanners where never inexpensive nor small.
And now, they are certainly not low maintenance.

Nikon scanners were cheaper than good enlargers with good lenses, not cheaper than junque. Certainly NO maintenance if properly cared for (re dust and abuse).

You're proving that it would take divine intervention to deliver significant film biz to Kodak's irrelevant ghost, like dream of clean coal.