Future of Film

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

"And now, from Wimbledon, the tennis results:

 

"Miss Film took the first set, 55-53. Miss Digital took the second set, 79-77. The third set has been halted due to darkness with the score 165-all, and will continue tomorrow."

 

Bink-bonk, bink-bonk, bink-bonk.......

 

"and here sits a figure one always forgets (Andy b.) - The Umpire, on whom the sun never sets...."

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[twittle]

LOL.

[thebarnman]

Sixty megs for a 35 mm film scan is nothing. Check this out:

 

- ADOX CMS Film -

 

 

I haven't been this excited about film in years! I was blown away with the example. It reminds me of the time (in the 70s) when I exposed some 32 ASA B&W Kodak film. (I think it was 32 ASA, though it was a real fine low speed film.)

 

Funny, in this text, they don't even mention Leica...

 

"If you want high resolution pictures you need to open your lens aperture to one stop below maximum opening. Otherwise the lens defraction will lower your lens' resolution down to half of what this film can capture. Best lenses are F1,4 high speed high quality lenses like Nikkors, Summiluxes, Zeiss, Rokkors or Canon lenses."

 

I remember a sales person talking about lens sharpness and most lenses had to be about one stop below maximum aperture. There was only one exception and that was Leica...where it could be closed down to about 2 or 3 stops from maximum aperture. Don't know if that's true, however I do remember being told that.

[AlanG]

"And now, from Wimbledon, the tennis results:

 

"Miss Film took the first set, 55-53. Miss Digital took the second set, 79-77. The third set has been halted due to darkness with the score 165-all, and will continue tomorrow."

 

Bink-bonk, bink-bonk, bink-bonk.......

 

"and here sits a figure one always forgets (Andy b.) - The Umpire, on whom the sun never sets...."

 

Yes that is funny. Tomorrow I'm on assignment shooting with my wet collodion camera, so someone else will have to take up the slack for my team. I can't believe so many photographers are wimping out and moving to dry plates. There's no craft in that. Being older, it is easy for me to get wrapped up in nostalgia for styles, techniques, and equipment that I grew up with. And of course all of the photographers and photographs that influenced my development (no pun intended) were prior to the advent of digital photography.

 

Anyway, I figured I'd switch sides for a post or two and try to make the case for why I like film over digital.

 

It is more difficult to shoot film and the cost of shooting it (especially on large format) often contributes to me making more of a commitment to the image. For reasons I don't understand, I get more satisfaction and sense of accomplishment from having mastered the craftsmanship in film photography and traditional printing than from the craftsmanship in digital photography.

 

The main reason I don't shoot much film any more is that it doesn't work well for my business where fast, cheap, easy and "good enough" are important factors. I also feel I have gone about as far as I can go with film and my abilities. I appreciate having new tools and techniques to explore and utilize and digital is where the action is. However I can certainly see why others would get more satisfaction from using film vs. digital or feel that the best way to express their vision is with a specific film process. (But I think you need to make your own prints too.)

 

I feel all of what I listed above are good reasons to use film and I'm sure there are more. But I think it only re-enforces the direction where film is heading... to committed enthusiasts and artists almost exclusively. Why not be positive about the fact that film use will be more of a "special" thing in the future and be happy about trying to live up to it by making your pictures special too? For typical snapshots, use a digital.

[twittle]

Funny, in this text, they don't even mention Leica...

 

"If you want high resolution pictures you need to open your lens aperture to one stop below maximum opening. Otherwise the lens defraction will lower your lens' resolution down to half of what this film can capture. Best lenses are F1,4 high speed high quality lenses like Nikkors, Summiluxes, Zeiss, Rokkors or Canon lenses."

 

Of course they do.

[thebarnman]

 

Of course they do.

 

Well, that's one hell of a compliment. Summiluxes being f/1.4 lenses. Says something about Leica.

[Xmas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I really don't know what to say about cost or how you prefer to work. I certainly wouldn't try to persuade you to change from what you are doing. But can you show that most people would be able to get better pictures with a film camera than with a similar digital camera?

 

I did not say better pictures, or most people, I said cheaper and more available.

If you have a customer who wants a picture now then you need to use digital and pay the piper, DSLR or M9 or whatever.

If you are a rich point and shoot person then the M9 is ideal, except may need more post processing, than other compacts.

If you don't need such immediacy then you don't need digital necessarily and it is a free choice, apart from cost and availability, or quality if you need quality, or whatever.

If you wanted landscapes like AAdams then a large camera may be the best compromise.

35mm buried 5x4 Speed Graphcs for hot news because of the immediacy, not quality. A Contax II or Barnack could capture in bad light, cause it was there, golf ball grain from HP2, did not matter.

If you are shooting in fast changing illumination/environment then XP2's long exposure scale is difficult to beat, a M7 with conventional mono chrome is possibly more at risk, a M9 even more at risk perhaps, depends on your skill at sunny side f/16 and using semi spot auto (M7), etc.

If you can work with digital, I'd not change.

Some people buy digital cause they need a camera and it is the only variety in the shop...

Some people have sold their M8 or M9, I know two, one for a DSLR the other for a M6, cost was the driver in both decisions.

 

Noel

.

[bill]

Why do you think this has anything to do with you, Bill? I gave up on trying to have any reasonable correspondence with you long ago.

But if you don't think you can see a difference in images on my site but you know film images must be different somehow... how large or in what form does the image need to be for you to see the difference? What makes a film image intrinsically different from a digital image?

 

Ignoring your snide digs, Alan, I will have another go at answering your question and getting through to you.

 

Please read the following very carefully:

 

Once an image is displayed on the web, it is a digital image. The means of capture is irrelevant. It exists as a ghost of it's original self; a recording, or even a pastiche.

 

Your question indicates the fundamental difference between us. For you it is all about the end result. Whatever gets you there quicker and cheaper floats your boat. Hence my McDonalds analogy a few pages back, to which you objected so strongly without really understanding it. A Happy Meal is in your hands in seconds, it is "fast, cheap, easy and good enough" - it fills your stomach. Job done.

 

But.

 

It does not satisfy your soul. There is no enjoyment in ingesting something that, let's be honest, doesn't even require teeth to masticate. There is no subtlety, there is no complexity, there is no depth, there is no service, there is no experience. You sit at a formica table on a plastic chair in a hollow, booming room with a group of other impatient refuellers, surrounded by the slack-jawed businessman and the harassed mother, not to mention the screaming kids, who will know no different because they have not been given the choice by their parents.

 

Changi airport is a marvel of modern architecture and efficiency; it is a temple to the modern world, with "retail opportunities" all around the traveller. But try to get a decent meal there. Nothing fancy, but just one that involves table service and knives and forks. Find a "restaurant" that doesn't operate for its convenience rather than yours. Find a meal that cannot be eaten with fingers. You can't. It is a joyless and sterile space. It does its job cleanly and efficiently. It lacks soul. It is the travelling equivalent of a digital image. The old Britannia Airways (now part of TUI) would have fitted in there; they referred to passengers as "self-loading freight"...

 

Now fly from Lydd Airport, in Kent. You check in and are directed to the bar/restaurant. Service is courteous and with a smile. Food is cooked to order, and served to your table. When the flight is ready to depart, the Captain strolls around the tables and invites you to join him. A few minutes later you are on a 'plane, and in the air.

 

It is enjoyable. It is an experience.

 

You probably don't see where I am going with this, but I will persevere just a little longer.

 

I have said it before, and I will say it again. For me and many others, photography is a journey, not just a destination. Using film, in a film camera, is part of that journey in a way that digital is not, and never can be. All your questions, and indeed looking back, the thrust of your posts, are about ways to achieve the end result faster, cheaper, easier and "good enough". Your way is efficient. My way is enjoyable. I do not have the commercial imperative that you have. I could have done, some years ago, when I considered making a living from my photography, but I decided against it because I knew it would suck the joy from it for me.

 

I also do not feel the need for constant innovation. I use the latest Smartphones and PCs not because I get a thrill from it, but because I need them for my job. I have an HD TV, but not Blu-Ray or 3-D because I don't need them to enjoy the experience. I am not a technophobe, but I am a realist; I do not need the adrenaline rush of the new; the "action", as you call it, may be there, but it does not excite me.

 

I will leave you with the last word, because I know that is important to you:

 

The main reason I don't shoot much film any more is that it doesn't work well for my business where fast, cheap, easy and "good enough" are important factors. I also feel I have gone about as far as I can go with film and my abilities. I appreciate having new tools and techniques to explore and utilize and digital is where the action is.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[stunsworth]

Hence my McDonalds analogy a few pages back, to which you objected so strongly without really understanding it. A Happy Meal is in your hands in seconds, it is "fast, cheap, easy and good enough" - it fills your stomach. Job done.

 

Yes, all that's true, but it's a flawed analogy - aren't they always? You can have crap fast food at McDonalds, but you can also have great fast street food all over the world - and if you've ever gone to McDonalds at peak times you'll know that it's anything but fast. Is slow always good? Is a meal more satisfying if it takes an hour to arrive after ordering the first course?

 

Personally I'm not all that interested in the journey you describe. For me the end result is the point of the journey. When I shot film I wanted to see the results ASAP. I wanted to see what I'd photographed. Now I know that people say that the instant gratification of digital is a bad thing, so why don't they put their film in a drawer for 6 months before having them processed? Surely that will increase their 'non instant' gratfication? Yes, I'm aware that some people are likely to do this.

 

I happen to feel I take better photographs with a rangefinder, so that's what I use. I don't have the time to process film these days so I shoot digital. Do I prefer digital to film? I guess I do, but if someone wants to shoot film that's fine, it's there preference and they are perfectly entitled to do so - which to end, is the same stance that Alan's taken throughout.

[jaapv]

Bill, if you want to go to a restaurant why do you go to an airport?

[bill]

Yes, all that's true, but it's a flawed analogy - aren't they always? You can have crap fast food at McDonalds, but you can also have great fast street food all over the world - and if you've ever gone to McDonalds at peak times you'll know that it's anything but fast. Is slow always good? Is a meal more satisfying if it takes an hour to arrive after ordering the first course?

 

Steve, like any analogy it is as good as you want it to be.

 

I didn't say that McDonalds food was crap. But it meets Alan's "fast, cheap, easy and good enough" criteria to a T. Slow is equally not always good (which is why I also use digital). Is a slower meal always good? No. But I would rather have something cooked from scratch in a proper kitchen than assembled by somebody with no stars on their badge. Plus you are equating speed of service with satisfaction; the Slow Food movement is closer to what I was alluding to. It is all about the time and care taken in the selection of the ingredients and in their preparation rather than the speed with which it is served. Again, the journey is placed in equal importance to the destination. I appreciate that this is a polarising view and I respect others' right to be satisfied only with the destination - all I ask is that they extend the same respect - if not understanding - in return.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[bill]

Bill, if you want to go to a restaurant why do you go to an airport?

 

Trust me, Jaap, I would not have done by choice. I was on a 5-hour stopover from Hanoi on my way back to London...

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[jaapv]

When I travel by air I switch off all senses - the only way to make the experience bearable if not forgettable. I don't need a nice restaurant in that state, just fuel will do...:(Yes - I've recently been traumatized by an KLM experience...

[pgk]

But.

 

It does not satisfy your soul. There is no enjoyment in ..... there is no experience.

 

Bill

I have to disagree (Steve's right on the 'flawed analogy' statement IMHO). Experience is to an extent a matter of attitude and varies from person to person. I. personally, get as much pleasure out of achieving a digital image which pleases me, as I did from a film image. I've actually tried going back to film, but (and I'll get rounded on for saying this) for my images, I personally achieve 'better' results (IMO) both technically and aesthetically, shooting digital than I did from film, and for me I have realised that there is no going back.

 

But to steer back towards the OP's question, I personally see the future of film as being somewhat bleak in the short term - diminishing sales - and finally film will probably become a highly specialised market ,which is when it may become more interesting again. What I can't see is significant technical progress as this has to be driven by sales and in a mature product like film involves expensive research.

[redbaron]

I had a 'meal' at the Burger King at Changi after a trip to France. A sad comparison I later used in several travel articles. But it also reminds me of a very appropriate analogy. Just near the Burger King is the smoker's outside lounge. While we ate I watched with private satisfaction as those desperate for a nicotine fix searched for the lounge. I'm an ex-smoker, but I never, ever tell those who chose to smoke about why they shouldn't smoke.

[wattsy]

Now fly from Lydd Airport, in Kent. You check in and are directed to the bar/restaurant. Service is courteous and with a smile. Food is cooked to order, and served to your table. When the flight is ready to depart, the Captain strolls around the tables and invites you to join him. A few minutes later you are on a 'plane, and in the air.

 

Things must have changed on that route. I flew from Lydd in the early '80s and I thought I'd inadvertently joined some SOE reenactment society. All it needed was a bit of AA flak and someone to boot us out of the door mid-flight ("go, go, go!") for the experience to be complete.

[earleygallery]

But to steer back towards the OP's question, I personally see the future of film as being somewhat bleak in the short term - diminishing sales - and finally film will probably become a highly specialised market ,which is when it may become more interesting again. What I can't see is significant technical progress as this has to be driven by sales and in a mature product like film involves expensive research.

 

Surely everyone who wants to switch to digital photography has already done so. I doubt film sales will decline from where they are today (sales to keen amateur/pro photographers that is), indeed there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that some film sales are increasing.

 

As for technical progress, Kodak have just released a new film, but if no further new films were produced I don't think anyone would complain, it's a mature product as you say and probably as good as it can get.

[pgk]

I doubt film sales will decline from where they are today (sales to keen amateur/pro photographers that is), indeed there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that some film sales are increasing.

But there are many people out there who still shoot film as they always did (I know some) - but would not fall under the 'keen amateur/pro" category. They are generally older people or people who are not interested in computers and who still use film because they still have their old film cameras. These people will not be around forever, and so they will finally leave just the 'keen amateur/pro" category to maintain the film market. How big this group will be and whether they will be able to sustain a viable film manufacturing industry only time will tell.

 

Kodak may have released a new film, but others have gone.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

And the emerging markets in China and India are making the switch to digital - it may have a huge impact.

[Nikkor AIS]

Im shooting more film than ever. I just added another Twin Lens Rollei 2.8 to my growing stable of film camera's. Getting back into medium format is a trip and the XP2/Ektar negatives are done in 30 minutes from my local lab. How fast do you need them? The fast food anaolgy is lost on me because my neatives where done from my last trip before I had a chance to done load my D3 capture's at home.

If Im souping tradional B+W at home, I can have them done in less than an hour or scanned.

 

Im still carrying and using my D3(the other died and is back at Nikon) but I find carrying an extra bag loaded with Leica M Widelux F7 and now the Rollie twin, worth the extra trouble, expense and effort.

 

Im comforted by having negative to back up my digital files and vice versa.

 

On a professional level being able to offer a client differnt choice in format is a bonus. From a creative stand point, working the film camera's and the medium of film offers a wide varity of looks and formats to choose from.

 

I have never been a one camera guy and see reason to start now. Especailly with the deals to be had in film camera these days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Voigtalnder 12 ASAP on Leica M3 taken on 160 film

 

 

 

 

Non-Leica image deleted

 

 

 

http://rogaltacdesign.smugmug.com/Other/LEICA-WINTER-2010/97150007/1063865133_TXZ8Y-L.jpg

 

Leica M3 and Voigtlander 12 ASPH on Ektar 100

 

 

http://rogaltacdesign.smugmug.com/Other/LEICA-WINTER-2010/97130022/1064397579_U67t4-L.jpg

 

Widelux F7 with 160 asa film