How much life is left in film based photography ?

[aashton]

In the last month two events have taken place that I believe bring the end of film photography in the mainstream one step closer to the end.

1) The British arm of Ilford has gone into receivership and laid off nearly half of the staff. This is the section of Ilford responsible for black and white supplies - the Swiss operation looks after the digital side. Maybe time to stock up on some Pan-F.

2) Corbis one of if not the largest image library in the world (founded by Bill Gates) has announced that it will in future only accept images submitted digitally.

So is the future rosy for film or is the writing on the wall and if so how long do you give it. Will there be a film resurgence in 20 years much like vinyl ?

All the best - Andrew

[Gary]

I understand that digital cameras are now so far advanced that they are now being used by professionals.

This reminds me of CDs taking over from vinyl. But it's even more significat as one does not need professionals to develop their pictures.

[Steve Hoffman]

I had a photo session (for a magazine commercial) and my usual pro photographer shot me completely in digital. His usual giant Nikon setup was GONE. He said he's never going back. I'd say this was a done deal.

Just the Artsy's will still crave the look of film; that's me of course, but then I don't do it for a living, just fun.

[Khorn]

I suppose over the next few years any advantage to film will be overcome by digital. Up until just recently I thought if I were to invest in a top quality outfit again it would be film based but now I'm not so sure.

[Pug]

I work for a printing company that designs. I run the photo department, and I can't even tell you the last time I shot a job with film. Even aspect of our company that involved film has been replaced digitally.

I agree with Steve. There will be some art applications for film. Some tricks can't be duplicated as well digitally. When I shoot work for myself, it's on film.

Shame to hear about Ilford. They made the best film!

Sean

[Ron Stone]

I think regular film has become the province of people who can't or won't mess with computers, largely reduced to an ever-shrinking clientele at the in-house developing labs at WalMart, CVS, etc.

Eventually you'll see those services reduced to the core: only 35mm color accepted for standard-sized prints. When the single stores can't justify the expense of having their own labs, they'll send it out to a central location for ever-longer waits, until one day the service disappears.

[indy mike]

A train magazine I read mentioned Kodak was closing their last U.S. Kodachrome processing lab in New Jersey (they still have 2 open in Japan and one in Switzerland). A photographer friend switched to shooting mainly digital - the cost effectiveness was a big lure...

[-=Rudy=-]

Uh oh...I still have some rolls of Kodachrome 64. :sigh:

As far as the mass market is concerned, film is just about dead. Looking at the local Target store, just a few years ago they had a decent array of film. Today at our local store, the film area is, I kid you not, on a half-height display that is about three feet high by four feet wide. Just your basic film, Kodak and Fuji. A far cry from the days when Kodak made the Ektar film, and I bought at least a dozen rolls for $1.50 because they had just expired. :sigh:

Even on display, the digital cameras used to take up half a display case. Now they are spread across two cases, while 35MM and APS cameras shrink down even more.

The Adray store in Dearborn still has a lot of film varieties, so I know the more advanced photographers are still using film. I have a newer Maxxum 4 that I like, as well as the original Maxxum 7000, a Canon AE-1 Program and a Ricoh Mirai. I've been considering getting a medium format camera because I like taking landscape and nature photographs, and would like to take an image that I could have printed at a larger size for display on a wall, for instance. I like shooting digital with my Olympus point/shoot, but unfortunately, I can't yet afford a digital camera that is comparable to a standard 35mm with lenses.

[thxdave]

This thread cuts close to my heart, folks. I've made my living in photography all of my life and I'm sad to see film disappearing so quickly. In the publishing world that I deal with, digital is the only way to go. It gives me a level of control that I never had before but it also throws a whole world of responsibility on my shoulders that I never had to bear before. The days of sending off an E6 chrome to an artist are almost gone. Back then, I could throw up my hands in genuine dismay when something didn't reproduce in the correct shade or tone. If my work was on the money, it was somebody's job "downstream" from me to make it come out correctly on the printed page. Now, I'm involved MUCH earlier in the reproduction process. Now, all the time I used to waste going back and forth to labs is taken up sitting in front of a monitor in Photoshop. And don't get me started on archival issues with digital files. What a nightmare it's going to be down the road. Sorta like 2" tape v. hard drives, huh?

[Khorn]

Just to show how its changing, read what the lab that I used to use for internegatives to make large prints from says concerning Internegatives vs Transparency Scans.

Click on the link below then on Photographic then, click on the 'Internegs' box. The note referred to will be in the upper left corner of that page.

Sylvano Color Labs (http://www.silvanoimaging.com/)

[proufo]

Locally, film for the masess is very much alive, as many people do not have the disposable income to switch to digital.

But those that can have switched already.

I believe most local pros still use film, as the cost of a real good digital outfit is too high, especially if you need to buy lenses and the such.

All newspapers are digital, though, with equipment provided by the company.

[RDK]

I still don't have a *good* digicam, so I'm still shooting film (but mostly snaps of the kids).

Actually, most of the film I've been shooting lately has been with a 3-D Viewmaster camera from the '50s, so slide film is still it for me! ;)

[stereoptic]

Actually, most of the film I've been shooting lately has been with a 3-D Viewmaster camera from the '50s, so slide film is still it for me! ;)

The last roll of film that I bought was for my VM personal also!

[quadjoe]

I for one am going to miss film photography, but I do see the inherent advantages of digital. Archiving your images is going to be better, but no longer will you be able to trust what you see in the media (film, tv, newspapers, etc.): images can be "doctored" so perfectly that you won't be able to tell reality from fiction. This was the drawback for film: images were more difficult to manipulate convincingly. Now even motion pictures are being photographed digitally (The Lord of the Rings, for example), allowing the director to use special effects that are totally convincing. Will we see a resurgence of film in 20 years? I don't believe we can reasonably expect that, after all, when was the last time you sat for a Daguerreotype?

[quadjoe]

I for one am going to miss film photography, but I do see the inherent advantages of digital. Archiving your images is going to be better, but no longer will you be able to trust what you see in the media (film, tv, newspapers, etc.): images can be "doctored" so perfectly that you won't be able to tell reality from fiction. This was the drawback for film: images were more difficult to manipulate convincingly. Now even motion pictures are being photographed digitally (The Lord of the Rings, for example), allowing the director to use special effects that are totally convincing. Will we see a resurgence of film in 20 years? I don't believe we can reasonably expect that, after all, when was the last time you sat for a Daguerreotype?


Oops, I guess I'd better go and shoot my last roll of Fujichrome Velvia! :shake:

[Wufnpoof]

I'm going to guess that in a few years there will be a forum somewhere for diehard film buffs who insist that digital just doesn't sound, er I mean, look the same ;)

They'll probably be right, too! :agree:

[quadjoe]

I'm going to guess that in a few years there will be a forum somewhere for diehard film buffs who insist that digital just doesn't sound, er I mean, look the same ;)

They'll probably be right, too! :agree:


I don't doubt it for a minute! I love film photography, and it will always be near and dear to my heart; furthermore, I don't really want to give it up. In fact, I don't mean to until I have no source of quality film. The fact of the matter is that in order to get a digital camera with a lens the quality of my Nikon FG-20 film camera, I would have to spend well over $1,000. Now, I do believe that once the pixel size gets small enough, you won't be able to tell the difference, and this is largely because of the quirks of human visual acuity . Consider these facts: the sharpest area of your vision is the area of the retina most densely populated by the cones (the cells which perceive color) nearest the optic nerve and this area translates to a small visual field of acuity about the size of a quarter (that's why you're scanning these lines as you read them, you can't focus sharply on the entire page); next, color vision is entirely dependent on the amount of light available and all but disappears in very dim/dark situations, that's when the rods take over (monochrome vision) and since they are more sparsely arranged on the retina, your dim light vision isn't as sharp as your bright light vision. Now, I realize that we can see millions of colors, but that is really just a very, very small part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

[OcdMan]

What is the digital equivalent of slides? I have about one hundred slide reels here handed down from other family members and they look...wow! They sure beat looking through a photo album. What would I need to do that with digital? How much would it cost?

[quadjoe]

What is the digital equivalent of slides? I have about one hundred slide reels here handed down from other family members and they look...wow! They sure beat looking through a photo album. What would I need to do that with digital? How much would it cost?

The nice thing about digital media is that you don't need separate types of media for different displays. To view any digital image as you would a slide all you need is an LCD projector capable of SVGA resolution or better, and PowerPoint or some other type of presentation software. Keep in mind that the higher the resolution the more RAM and hard drive storage you will need, and of course, the more everything will cost. Naturally you can view the images on your monitor and save the expense of the projector. Also, you can have your slides transferred to digital. Be sure to keep your film slides in a cool, dry place and not in a metal container.

[Ere]

Archiving your images is going to be better, but no longer will you be able to trust what you see in the media (film, tv, newspapers, etc.): images can be "doctored" so perfectly that you won't be able to tell reality from fiction.

As you note the images are more vunerable to tampering. This makes them less trustworthy as records. How is that better? From the preservation standpoint, there is no officially sanctioned (ISO, ANSI, etc) archival standard for digital images. Their storage on electronic media that is constantly changing and subject to market whims, not to mention hardware failure, viruses, etc., renders them at constant risk of loss.

[cwon]

I still think film offers the best ultimate quality, but the gap is shrinking.
Digital beats film in terms of speed and convenience - it IS like comparing vinyl (or analog tape) to digital.
There's also the issue of all the "accidental" images that will be lost when people delete images they weren't planning to shoot and keep.
I'll miss film if it ever disappears completely.

[-=Rudy=-]

Locally, film for the masess is very much alive, as many people do not have the disposable income to switch to digital.

One other thing I've noticed in the mass market stores around here is that you can still get a cheap, functional 35mm film camera for not very much money. They would never suit my purposes, but for someone who just wants to take some snapshots of the family or vacation, a $40 film camera with a few rolls of Kodak Gold does the job to their satisfaction; one hour processing gives them their prints very quickly, and they can always opt to get the digitized version of their prints on a CD. Digital still can't touch that price level yet, so I believe that for the time being, the low end will still be buying film cameras until digital closes that gap. After that, I'd believe only some professional photographers, "art" photographers and film buffs will be shooting film.

There is one additional factor: how do digital camera consumers view their pictures? At least today, you can take your memory card to the photo processor and have prints made from it. There are also camera/printer bundles available that let you print without using a computer. But that really doesn't take full advantage of using your digital photos in a computer either, and that could be something that keeps many prospective digital camera customers from buying a camera: how can they use or view their photos if they don't have a suitable computer? Many homes have computers, but I would guess that the majority doesn't as of yet.

To be honest, if an SLR came along with the features and resolution similar to the Canon Rebel Digital, with a price matching a comparable 35mm SLR, I'd probably jump right into one. I just have more flexibility with my SLR setup--different lenses, polarizer, special filters, depth of field manipulation, etc.--that I can't get out of a comparably priced digital camera. With technology as fast paced as it is, I don't doubt that we'll see quality going up and prices coming down rapidly on digital gear in the next 5-10 years. I'll still enjoy film, but the added expense and bother of having to buy film and get it processed in future years may curtail that.

[quadjoe]

As you note the images are more vunerable to tampering. This makes them less trustworthy as records. How is that better? From the preservation standpoint, there is no officially sanctioned (ISO, ANSI, etc) archival standard for digital images. Their storage on electronic media that is constantly changing and subject to market whims, not to mention hardware failure, viruses, etc., renders them at constant risk of loss.

I didn't mean better as records, per se, but better in that digital images are less sensitive when stored on CD to the ravages of time. (I really should have been more specific, sorry.) All color films suffer from shifting colors as they age, although some are better than others. For example, Kodak Ektachrome film shifts to the blue in as little as 10 years, depending on storage, while Kodachrome retains its original brilliance for decades (again, proper storage required), but eventually the colors will fade (I have some old Anscochrome (GAF) slides my Dad took back in the '50's where the images are almost completely gone, and yes, they were properly stored, the Kodachrome slides in the same box are still vibrant). Even B&W film loses quality with age. Digital can offer somewhat more permanence, but it is still too early to tell how long the media will last. (Theoretically, at least, a CD could last for hundreds of years, but who really knows.) I do agree that we need some standards for archival storage, after all, we are talking about the permanent record of our civilization. I realize that no storage medium is perfect and in reality both film and digital have strengths and weaknesses.

[Ere]

A properly processed silver halide b/w negative or print will last hundreds of years with little care and feeding beyond moderate temperature, humidity, and light controls. Assuming that the physical media of a CD with electronic images on it will last even fifty years, what assurance do we have that software will be backwards-compatible enough to view them?

I'm not saying film is always better than digital (even though I prefer the resolution and impact of a medium format negative produced with a sharp lens and can easily print b/w negatives my Dad took at KSFO fifty years ago) especially when it comes to convenience and instantaneous gratification; but the photographs most important to me get captured on film, then get scanned for convenience only.
http://a6.cpimg.com/image/E4/07/38513636-11be-00530080-.jpg
:)

[Steve Hoffman]

KSFO? Print them and post them!