Why I think they think "film is dead".

[Wallendo]

The sense that "film is dead" comes, to some extent, to its absence from public media. There was a time Kodak advertised continuously in general purpose magazines and on television. "Kodak Picture Spots" were everywhere at Disney World. "Kodak moment" was a part of general conversation. Characters in movies and on television were seen with cameras. Every cruise ship had "Kodak Ambassadors".

The film market is now mature. I can't remember when I have seen an ad by any film company in a general purpose magazine (or even a photo magazine). TV ads are non-existent. The general public doesn't see film, and assumes it no longer exists.

Fortunately, Google is our friend and film is easy to find online.

 

[Prest_400]

The sense that "film is dead" comes, to some extent, to its absence from public media. There was a time Kodak advertised continuously in general purpose magazines and on television. "Kodak Picture Spots" were everywhere at Disney World. "Kodak moment" was a part of general conversation. Characters in movies and on television were seen with cameras. Every cruise ship had "Kodak Ambassadors".

The film market is now mature. I can't remember when I have seen an ad by any film company in a general purpose magazine (or even a photo magazine). TV ads are non-existent. The general public doesn't see film, and assumes it no longer exists.

Fortunately, Google is our friend and film is easy to find online.

Nor it should be advertised to the wide public, as it is not the target market and a huge amount of resources would have to be spent for too little retun. At least, according to what practices in business recommend.
Marketing of film should be through these platforms, social media, etc; where all of us and interested people can find it. Photographic magazines and sites would be great.
Film is nowadays a niche, and it should be strengthened. New shooters should come from a photographic background or related interest, not from the general public (ie. mom that shoots snapshots). Ilford did great with Simon's presence here. Kodak have a quite bare presence on FB and Fuji are doing great with the Instax line. The latter could slip bits of their Peel Apart, E6, C41 and B&W line with it...

As I see it, having grown in the era of transition, is that the new thing became the norm and people forgot about the former. No memory of things!
Ask people about Blackberries, and it is a complete thing of the past, they were all the rage phones back in 2010! iPhone came, surpassed it in some way, and people forgot about the old good thing.
What I dislike is the disrespect that some have towards that. BBs were the main medium once, and nowadays dissed. Something despisable about a consumerism based society.

 

[pdeeh]

We're all DOOMED

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Who are "they" and why should I care what "they" think? F*%# them.

 

[Rook]

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what most people think. For me, and most regular visitors to this forum, film is very much alive and part of our lives. Film is still available (although perhaps not quite to the extent or selection we wish). Film can still be processed and printed. In addition, many of the great film cameras of yesteryear can be acquired at low cost, and sometimes next to free with a little luck.

 

[Saganich]

"Film is dead" only means film is no longer the center of the photographic universe. Film was the foundation of photography for 2 generations maybe 3 and is responsible for a constellation of moral and ethical principles regarding imaging, work practices, publications, etc. A new credible process necessarily undermines that entire history and for those who live(ed) in that history this may be troublesome because their world is no longer based on the objective reality of film. The faith one has in the credibility of the image is shaken. The ethics and morality regarding the image has become more subjective within context and subjective within the individual. I'm thinking war correspondence using an iPhone, or crowd-sourcing images. The end product is still the power of an image but how it gets produced has become less relevant. The salient issue remains making powerful and relevant images but there is no longer only film. I do believe that since "smart phones" and images have so much cultural relevancy and importance that the intersection of the two is quite powerful. I can see a time near where I may see cell phone images in major collections because they can go places no other devices can. Probably already happened. This isn't a problem with memory of the past, it's that film is no longer everyone's objective reality and image making has become more nihilistic as a result. I do agree that the principles and practices that make powerful images less of a random event should be taught in art schools and journalism, but, the degradation of education is a related but separate topic.

 

[Sirius Glass]

"Film is dead" also comes from journalist, who never had an original thought in their life and will never have an original thought in their life, desperately inventing stories to post on the internet, in blogs and in the news. Since they are dying career-wise they will make up anything.

 

[Rook]

"Film is dead" also comes from journalist, who never had an original thought in their life and will never have an original thought in their life, desperately inventing stories to post on the internet, in blogs and in the news. Since they are dying career-wise they will make up anything.

I don't think it's necessarily because of journalists downright inventing stories, but rather a case of journalists constructing stories which are based on uninformed assumptions and opinions. Nowadays, diligent research and fact checking is often lacking in journalism. Especially among bloggers.

To someone not familiar with the present film scene, on the surface it may very much look like everyone is shooting digital only. But proper research will reveal this not to be true.

 

[Truzi]

I always considered "Film is Dead" to be a pejorative statement, not an actual thought or belief, by those who say it. For some reason my younger brother believes I (rather, everyone) need to do what he feels is right. He had once condescendingly informed me that "no one uses film anymore." I responded that, apparently, I am must be no one.

 

[removed account4]

to most of the general public, film is dead, and has been for about 12 years
a journalist who makes the statement "film is dead" ( didn't the former ceo of kodak say the same thing 12 years ago? )
really isn't too far off. it's just not part of the main stream ...

one could say it's not the journalist who is uninformed, but us folks who still
enjoy using film, paper, chemistry, funky cameras and lenses and the red light
are really the uninformed --- we don't care, have an interest or realize what the rest of the world is doing.
and we dont' realize the infrastructure ( both supply and photofinishing ) has contracted &c &c ...

nothing wrong with film being dead, i'm kind of liking it.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

to most of the general public, film is dead, and has been for about 12 years
...

Where?

In 2003 the digital camera capable of pictures taking and somewhat IQ was at very high in price. My family as mid-income was still using SLR for family pictures in 2007. Film purchased and processed at local Walmart and their film lab was very busy in 2007 (8 years ago).
And only in 2009 we have purchased really capable DSLR. It was hell a lot of money >$1K. Our EOS 200 was something way more affordable under $200 price tag in 2000. It 2012 I looked at pictures taken with $200 SLR and went back to film.

 

[Don Promillo]

"Film is dead" for journalists, because they write for people who do not want to be informed about news or what is going on, they want to be entertained and want to see their prejudices being confirmed.

Film is still there for us, people using it. And most probably it is not going to change soon. For both, journalists and us.

 

[removed account4]

hi ko.fe

most everywhere ?
maybe your situation / storyboard isn't typical ( maybe it is ? )
if it is typical then i would guess millions ( maybe billions ) more would be
buying and using film ?

i'm happy you are enjoying film and enlarging
digifolks are missing out on some fun

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Oh dear god in heaven... can we please stop beating this dead horse? The poor thing's been jellyfied and whipped into a mousse by now. WHO CARES that people think this way or that way about film? WHO CARES what "they" say? "We" are not going to win over "they" by discussing it or diatribing about it or whatever else "we" do. You want to keep film alive, put down the keyboard and go shoot a hundred rolls a month.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

No reason for flying in in flame here.
You have to read my initial post where I asked question as person who is really not aware how it was here in the Western world.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

No reason for flying in in flame here.
You have to read my initial post where I asked question as person who is really not aware how it was here in the Western world.

KoFe - there is a very long history here of this topic being over-discussed. Trying to figure out WHY at this point is counter-productive - whether it's journalists' fault, digital camera makers' fault, or someone else's or nobody's, doesn't really change the facts as they are now. IF we want a solution to the problem, the solution is for all of us to be out shooting film in the volumes that professionals used to shoot it - hundreds of rolls a month. This topic also seems invariably to turn into a digital-bashing thread which is also counter-productive. No amount of finger-pointing is going to change the presence of digital photography on the landscape or its impact on the medium as a whole. Yes, for me it is joyless and relatively uninteresting, as it probably is for most of us APUG users. That's a perfectly valid reaction. If you don't like it you don't like it. But for those who were chiming in with the "digital sucks because I don't like it/it sucks because it killed my favorite esoteric film/get off my lawn damn teenagers/etc" comments, again, not productive. Be a positive evangelist by working with film, showing what it can do, and not rising to the bait that some people in the pro-digital camp (fortunately seemingly fewer every year as time goes by) like to troll film users with.

 

[removed account4]

KoFe - there is a very long history here of this topic being over-discussed.

scott:

nearly every photography subject has been overly discussed here ..
from general chemistry questions, to esoteric topic questions to the world is clueless you can still buy film cheerleading threads

SSDD

===

Don Promillo
"Film is dead" for journalists, because they write for people who do not want to be informed about news or what is going on, they want to be entertained and want to see their prejudices being confirmed.

Film is still there for us, people using it.

i've never read that you can't buy film or chemistry or that chemical photography is dead ( not being practiced anymore or analog prejudices ) just the opposite
... besides "dead" in the subject of chemical based photography doesnt' mean isn't alive, it is a metaphor for not popular .. and more and more every year there
are journalists who write how film photography is coming back .. and NOT DEAD ..after all they used to say "disco's dead" but now it is musak music being pumped
into grocery stores and shopping centers and background music for tv commercials ... not dead at all ..

 

[wiltw]

I don't think 'film is dead'. I love film, I grew up with film and have almost 50 years history, from 16mm to 4x5 sheetfilm, both shooting and processing film and making black and white and color prints from negatives and transparencies alike. I still have 135 thru 4x5 systems, a 4x5 color enlarger and Jobo processor. I am stating all of this simply to assert my roots are NOT DIGITAL, and I am not a 20-something who is 'discovering' the wonder of film.

Having said that, "Film is not dead, but it sure is far from heathly!" As time goes buy I have witnessed:

• the very last Kodachrome processing lab go out of business and the discontinuance of Kodachrome film
• the discontinuance of the Ilfochrome (neé 'Cibachrome') print process which was beloved by so many...it was my true joy to spend a day or evening making big Cibachromes for exhibit!
• as every year passes they eliminate film formats from availability, like 220 rollfilm, so cherished for covering events/weddings with a medium format film and cutting in half the film loading effort during the day.
• as every year passes they eliminate so many emulsions that I loved to use in the past, or that pros came to rely upon for certain characteristics (e.g. for the color reproduction accuracy of EPN)
• even in areas like Silicon Valley, where many product photographers thrived and color processing labs were plenty, in 2010 Calypso Color closed its doors leaving only Superior Color Lab to do 4x5 E-6 processing.
• retail C-41 processing is leaving many outlets, leaving only the 'bulk' processing labs that are contracted to serve the diminishing retail volume of even big chains like CVS

While I want to continue to shoot film and process my own film and print it, every time I turn around I am defeated by the shrinking of the industry and the products and services that are available. None of what I have said reflects an opinion on the state of film photography, they are all recounting FACTS!

Finally an opinion...It is sad to watch to above.

 

[pdeeh]

KoFe - there is a very long history here of this topic being over-discussed. Trying to figure out WHY at this point is counter-productive - whether it's journalists' fault, digital camera makers' fault, or someone else's or nobody's, doesn't really change the facts as they are now. IF we want a solution to the problem, the solution is for all of us to be out shooting film in the volumes that professionals used to shoot it - hundreds of rolls a month. This topic also seems invariably to turn into a digital-bashing thread which is also counter-productive. No amount of finger-pointing is going to change the presence of digital photography on the landscape or its impact on the medium as a whole. Yes, for me it is joyless and relatively uninteresting, as it probably is for most of us APUG users. That's a perfectly valid reaction. If you don't like it you don't like it. But for those who were chiming in with the "digital sucks because I don't like it/it sucks because it killed my favorite esoteric film/get off my lawn damn teenagers/etc" comments, again, not productive. Be a positive evangelist by working with film, showing what it can do, and not rising to the bait that some people in the pro-digital camp (fortunately seemingly fewer every year as time goes by) like to troll film users with.

With the exception that I don't see "pro-digital trolling" at apug (I do see a lot of anti-digital trolling though) perhaps this could be made a sticky?

 

[michr]

Agreed entirely. Film's not dead, it's moribund. Things will never be like they were, the ship has sailed. Film's place as the dominate medium for image making has been ceded to digital.

What we have to strive for at this point is to maintain a viable niche market for film, and the tools for working with film, cameras included. If we support those businesses making film and tools for professionals, film will continue to be relevant.

 

[MattKing]

I see some misunderstanding about the thread title.

Would this be better: "Film seems healthy to me. Others seem to think it is dead. I think this is why they think that."

Verbose enough?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I see some misunderstanding about the thread title.

Would this be better: "Film seems healthy to me. Others seem to think it is dead. I think this is why they think that."

Verbose enough?

"The film industry is stable and healthy although I wish it was stronger. Others seem to think it is dead because they are not interested in film and can only think about digital. Those naysayers are too busy taking selfies to learn anything."

 

[removed account4]

I see some misunderstanding about the thread title.

Would this be better: "Film seems healthy to me. Others seem to think it is dead. I think this is why they think that."

Verbose enough?

or how about:
" some people think that film is dead because they dont' know any better, their local lab went belly up
and they can't find anyplace local to buy film or get anything processed so they believe the hype that film isn't around anymore, when
it isn't dead, there are plenty of places to get film and get it processed, one just has to look a little bit harder"

 

[gzinsel]

I would contend that, The Majority of people like to "move along with" technology. Even though "this technology" has problems. in some ways, i believe, people feel a sense of comradery in "moving" technology along. like some kind of progression of "states" of development. its like a civic duty or something. I don't think many of the Majority think about quality, per say. its just . . . . convenient.