Say bye bye to film

[jake431]

Nikon will concentrate on digital cameras:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/12/business/nikon.php?rss

-Jake

 

[Doctor Strange]

I think the *perception* that film is dying is actually much worse that the reality. Yes, film cameras, film emulsions, and photo papers are going out of production... but there are still plenty of great cameras and photo products out there.

In my own case, I'm sorry to see Nikon stop producing film cameras, but honestly, the newest Nikon I use is an F2 Photomic from about 1972! All of my cameras are 50s-70s vintage. All the enlargers, chemistry, etc., I use are products that have been around for many decades. (About the newest are resin-coated photo paper and T-Max film, which were both introduced in the the late 70s. And I do use relatively recent color films, like Fuji Reala.)

Yes, film photography is going to slide into a niche occupied by only a few serious hobbyists and pros. More products will be discontinued, and materials costs will rise (though used cameras and equipment will continue to get cheaper as more hit the market). It will become less commonplace than the ubiquitous digital imaging, and will be a bit of a mystery to the folks who are little kids now...

But, to paraphrase Mark Twain, the reports of the death of film photography are greatly exaggerated!

 

[photobyalan]

...Yes, film photography is going to slide into a niche occupied by only a few serious hobbyists and pros...

But, to paraphrase Mark Twain, the reports of the death of film photography are greatly exaggerated!

Disclosure: I own and use digital SLR's, film SLR's, film TLR's and Graflex graphic 4x5 cameras

Film photography will never die, in the same way that Daguerrotype photography never died.

By that I mean that one day, in the not-too-distant future, using film will be the province of a very few fine-art and specialist photographers. Many, many professional photographers have already turned their backs on film. There simply will be no mass market for film or the cameras that use film. There will be no more mass production of film products, as it will (and in many cases, already has) become unprofitable for the Kodaks and Ilfords and Fujis of the world to maintain film production facilities that are producing less and less film each year. Before too long, you will not be able to buy film in a drugstore or supermarket; as fewer film cameras are sold and demand for film decreases, the demand for shelf space will marginalize film. As the market diminishes, research and devlopment funds will dry up and very few "new" film emulsions will ever exist.

20 years from now, you will still probably be able to buy film, but it's likely you will only find it at a very few retailers who will specialize in film. Many of the emulsions that exist today will no longer be available (look at how many films have disappeared in the last 20 years), and what you will be able to find is liable to be very expensive due to the fact that there will be little competition in the film-manufacturing industry.

Each year, the technology of digital photography makes a quantum leap. Truly, at this point the $1000 digital SLR has surpassed 35mm film in terms of overall image quality. It's only a matter of time before the cameras in that price range can produce images that are superior to medium-format film. There will be no compelling reason to use film except for certain esoteric qualities which, quite possibly, may be duplicated by digital processing in the near future.

Film photography will indeed slide into a niche. What some people are unwilling to face is exactly how small that niche is going to be.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Personally, I'm not afraid of being in a very small niche! My major thrust on every question in life has been to run in the opposite direction of whatever's popular.

Mechanical cameras and chemical photography didn't kill painting. Digital imaging won't kill photography.

It may come to the point where only a small group of folks are machining parts for old Graphics, Leicas, Nikons, enlargers, (etc.), and only a couple of garage operations are making film and paper, and we're mixing our own chemistry from bulk components... but there will be a film faithful.

It will be more of a challenge, and an even more close-knit and helpful community than it already is (and in my experience, most photographers are swell people), but that actually sounds kind of cool and romantic...

As someone with a fair amount of experience with small communities of like-minded types - 16mm film collectors, Minox photographers, flight jacket fans, the folks HERE, etc. - I think it will work out fine.

 

[humblestumble]

Well, isn't that unfortunate? But aren't there other film and camera producing companies?

I KNOW that film photography will never die. There's too many hardcore hobbyist for it. I want a manual camera one of these days, but I also want a digital SLR. Nothing bad about being cheap in the long run...By that I mean, paying a heap for a camera and not worrying about getting crappy turnouts from the photos that looked like diddly. With digitals, you can just delete the crapouts.

But I do love the developing process, although I could do without the stench. That smells so hard to get off your hands!

 

[Andykev]

Nostalgic, but impractical

I have a Pentax ME from 1977, I had it in college. I have only replace the battery one or two times..I think twice. I have a 70-150mm Zoom, a 28mm, and a 50mm lens for it. I haven't taken a "film" 35mm picture in maybe five years! Ever since we have had digital, the "real camera" is collecting dust.

That is sad, but the reality is a "no brainer". You buy the film, load it, maybe a roll or 24 or 36 pictures, and you have "one shot" per picture. Then you send it to the drug store, and have it developed for anywhere between $6.99 to $12 bucks or so depending... Then you have to chuck the ones you don't want, and of course, reprints cost. I used to get the prints, and the images on a CD as part of the deal (best of both worlds).

With the digital, the quality is just fine, if not better. You instantly get to see what you did, and can trash can the mistakes. You can immediately email the picture, or print it on photo paper. Better than inkjet pictures (which do fade) if you buy refill and have the cheaper photo paper, you can go to the professional camera store and have the pictures transferred from digital to "real" paper with high quality paper.

My digital is an "old" (4 years I think) Kodak 4800 3.1. The wife has a new Nikon 4.0 with a 3x zoom, and is 1/2 the size of the Kodak. My kid has a Sony Cybershot 2.0, which is great for a kid (we got it on sale).

The point, technology is getting so good, the companies are going to keep up with the consumer demand.

My grandfather had a Brownie box camera, but why use it today. Even my friends' girlfriend, a professional, uses a Digital Nikon 8.0 megapixel. It's a no brainer.

 

[indyjim]

I've been involved with photography for over 30 years, from a hobby to currently
doing it professionally. I have sold off most of my film cameras and switched to
digital, not necessarily because I wanted to but because it was what was coming, and I couldn't stop it. I spent countless hours in the darkroom and to me there was no greater thrill than seeing your negs for the first time or watching the print come up in the soup. Personally, I love the smell of Dektol in the morning. I no longer have the darkroom, but I have a large format camera and all the equipment, and I'm keeping it, hoping someday I'll get back to fine art B&W. It was always an expensive hobby, so more expensive film won't matter much, I just hope it will still be available. That's why I turned pro, so I could make the hobby pay, now there's no more time for the hobby.

 

[Bebop]

I would be very disappointed if film was no longer produced. I think it is much more fun to set my camera at the settings that I believe will produce the image I want than to shoot away and instantly see if I should shoot again. There is no suspense in digital photography. My favorite camera is a Nikon N90s that I have had for about 20 years. When I bought the N90s, I thought I was going really high tech. There is an inexplicable pleasure in waiting to find out if the shot I thought was a winner actually is. I also have a Nikon D100 that is nice but using it is more like using a computer than using a camera. I am left cold with the instant gratification of digital. It is a nice way to do snap shots in a pinch but I like working at producing hot shots. I have never liked computers all that much.

 

[MrBern]

Digital is efficient.
Film is a luxury.
Its unfortunate bu thats the way it goes.

 

[MrBern]

Minolta withdraws from camera biz

Nikon will concentrate on digital cameras:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/12/business/nikon.php?rss

-Jake

Minolta ends its mechanical & digital camera biz:

http://konicaminolta.com/releases/2006/0119_03_01.html

 

[airfrogusmc]

Still B&W photography is done best (quality & archival) with film and fiber based paper. Until there is silver in the process of digital images tradition B&W process will still be my first choice. The way silver reflects light is very different than the way ink jet grayscale looks.

I just picked up a Canon EOS 5D in Dec and I really like it for color and have already seen an increase in profit and control of my final product. The one thing that was holding me back for so long was a fairly affordable camera with a full frame sensor. The only camera to have one was the Canon EOS 1D mark II and it is almost 8 grand for the body until Canon introduced the EOS 5D. Nikon is going to have to redesign all there lenses to accommodate a full frame sensor.

 

[MrBern]

archival

yeah, frankly I was pretty surprised when galleries started selling inkjet prints. Youre really buying something that could fade away in a few years.

Luke at Starwars. When Lucas fillmed in in `76, he was told the colorfilmstock would last at least 75 years. Less than 20years later he had to refurbish it in digital to preserve the fading colors.

 

[airfrogusmc]

The thing I also worry about is storage of the original image. I was just reading an article that was mentioning the fact that information on hard drives and especially CDs have a limited life span. Some cheap CDs could be as little as two years and hard drives could be 10 years or so.

 

[jake431]

That is a concern. Whatever carries the information - hard disc, CDR, or processed film, it all degrades. The one thing to remember regarding disc storage is this: very few people have the same HD for 10 years, so when you transfer to a new drive, the data's expiration date refreshes, although there is still the (slight) risk of errors creeping into your data. It would be interesting to see an experiment to determine how many times you can copy data from one drive to another, on average, without fatal errors creeping into the data you are transferring.

But I digress. My point was that all storage media have lifetime limitations.

-Jake

 

[Siirous]

In my digital circuits class I'm taking, my professor was actually talking about archival quality in computers. He said a major concern was the fact that not only are hard drives changing, but how many computers are being sold without a 3.5" floppy? And what about the information kept on old punch cards (Not that you store pictures on those, but the idea of information is the same)? What happens when we move from CD's into something else, etc. How much information will we lose then if we don't have good archival systems? Not to mention in about 10 years sharpie ink will eat through the film on the CD that you labeled, losing data.

He said it's an extremely large concern out in the industry, and especially with institutions such as the library of congress. When it comes to printed document and fading ink he said that companies like HP have been working with an archival quality ink they think will last 200 or so years.

Sincerely,
Rob

Sincerely,
Rob

 

[Twitch]

Apart from professionals, purists or dedicated hobbyists who developed their own film digital is FOR THE VAST MAJORITY of people, far superior. The ability to edit your images with inexpensive software, or just delete the poor shots is far and away above traditional film and paper photography. Cost versus value is excellent and quality is far above just acceptable. People will snap a far greater number of pictures when it is FREE also.

As far a computers go who has the same computer you had 10 years ago? Updating and archiving will be a very small problem. I have many 1000s images of classic aircraft and cars and manage them easily. What I want is backed up on CD. It could be on DVD for far greater capacity. It's no more worrysome than transferring your old 8mm films to VHS and then to DVD and next to whatever format will be mainstream.

No one still swears by the quality, practicality and convenience of a tube type floor console radio compared to a stereo CD player or I-pod device.

I'm simply not fearing the future and the technology it holds. Film cameras, like all devices of past technology will become virtually worthless and then climb in value as they become "vintage" so hold on to them!

 

[Robert Conway]

>Apart from professionals, purists or dedicated hobbyists who developed their >own film digital is FOR THE VAST MAJORITY of people, far superior.


Digital is a lot more convenient for certain applications, but can also increase the workload for the photographer. Some wedding shooters are experiencing this. It used to be that you dropped off your rolls at the lab, picked up the prints and sorted out the winners. Now you have to 'develop' hundreds if not thousands of RAW files on your own time.


>The ability to edit your images with inexpensive software, or just delete the >poor shots is far and away above traditional film and paper photography.

It's a two edged sword.
It can lead to a spray and pray mentality, instead observing and following the actions and waiting for the decisive moment.
On the other hand the instant feedback offers a lot of opertunity to experiment.

>Cost versus value is excellent and quality is far above just acceptable. >People will snap a far greater number of pictures when it is FREE also.

Digital shots are not free. You have to pay for storage, back ups, prints etc.
If you are shooting RAW files you can burn through a 200GB drive in no time.

>As far a computers go who has the same computer you had 10 years ago? Updating and archiving will be a very small problem. I have many 1000s >images of classic aircraft and cars and manage them easily. What I want is >backed up on CD. It could be on DVD for far greater capacity. It's no more >worrysome than transferring your old 8mm films to VHS and then to DVD and >next to whatever format will be mainstream.


Longterm storage is a massive problem. You need to constantly migrate your data to new storage systems. You need mirrored hard disk arrays to protect your digital negatives from hardware failure. The vast majority of CD's and DVD's are not archival and have no proven track record. Unless you are using an archival CD/DVD you will with almost certainty lose your data in 5-10 years. The dyes in recordable media are very sensitive and break down quickly and the aluminum coating will oxidize.

Then there are the changing standards and formats. When was the last time you saw a functional Jazz drive? How about a working Metrum drive? 5 1/4 floppy? A Exabyte drive? Changes to operating systems also make stored data unreadable.

Over the past 15 years I have seen hundreds of terrabytes of image data backed up. I estimate that 80% of it can no longer be accessed, because the storage media has either deteriorated or the company that made the hardware / software no longer exists.

>No one still swears by the quality, practicality and convenience of a tube >type floor console radio compared to a stereo CD player or I-pod device.

I and many others do. The MP3 files you are downloading from the Apple store have a lower sampling rate than even a regular CD, which in turn isn't even as good as something like a DAT tape.

>I'm simply not fearing the future and the technology it holds. Film cameras, >like all devices of past technology will become virtually worthless and then >climb in value as they become "vintage" so hold on to them!

No fear here either, but be aware of the technical pitfalls associated with progress.

 

[Twitch]

As I said, apart from pros and aficianados THE VAST MAJORITY could care less. It's less hassle for Joe and Jane Average and that's what matters to them. They can share their vacation photos with the rest of the family anywhere without printing a dozens sets to send to everyone. Despite any valid objections that have been raised most folks just don't care.

I could never, ever afford to own hard copy photos in the 1000s of cars and planes that I do electronically much less store them or organize them.

 

[Robert Conway]

People will care, when 10 or 20 years down the road they lose pictures of their kids first birthday, weddings or any other important event.

Digital is is the mainstream future, but longterm storage is a serious problem, which the industry as a whole, both amateurs and professionals, isjust starting to deal with.