adan Posted May 31, 2011 Share #21 Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm still trying to get my head around the idea that cellphones replacing previous forms of digital imaging does anything to negate decreases in film use. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," but I don't see how that applies here. Horse-carriages replaced ox-carts, and cars replaced horse-carriages - but I don't see that the change to using cars did anything to revive the use of ox-carts. The article says, in summary - digital imaging is replacing film and has cut sales by 98%. Why does it matter whether the "digital imaging" is produced by cameras or phones (or sunglasses - thanks Alan!)? Does that change the "98%" bottom line? Edited May 31, 2011 by adan 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Hi adan, Take a look here Film sales now 1/50th what they were in 2000. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
250swb Posted May 31, 2011 Share #22 Posted May 31, 2011 "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," but I don't see how that applies here. Horse-carriages replaced ox-carts, and cars replaced horse-carriages - but I don't see that the change to using cars did anything to revive the use of ox-carts. And yet neither horses nor oxes became extinct. The use of working horses has plummeted since the 1900's, so something else must be going on to justify the billion dollar equine industries around the world. And that is exactly what is happening to film at the moment. From being essential it has become a choice, and as soon as all the new digital cameras and phones etc are common to the worlds population (like cars are now) then film will have hit its rock bottom but there will still be millions of people who will buy film every year. Steve Steve 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted May 31, 2011 Share #23 Posted May 31, 2011 Steve, I think the vast majority of 'happy snappers' have already moved on - digital cameras were the N01 Christmas present for a few years, not sure they still are. In fact, it would be far more interesting to see a chart of worldwide digital camera sales over the last 10 years. I suspect that sales of the typical consumer P&S have plummeted over the last few years, as phone cameras have become better. Who doesn't have a camera on their phone these days? Who doesn't have a mobile phone these days? Why does a happy snapper want to bother with a separate camera when they already have one that is fine for facebooking their holiday snaps? Well, my mother, who is in her late 70s, still has a 35mm film camera (a Leica compact as it happens, which my father bought some years ago) and she will continue to use it simply because she does not have a computer and is comfortable with a known 'technology', and because she can still take a film along to the local photo dealer and get enprints made - like she always has. Its a familiar system to her. She's not good on mobiles either and I doubt that she knows (or cares) whether hers has a built in camera - to her its a portable telephone - and texting has been quite a discovery. If/when her current camera stops working she has said that she will buy (or rather get me to buy) a digital compact, but not until then, and, as it shoots just a few rolls a year, if that, I suspect that it will last her out. I also suspect that there are many older people who are just like my mother and that film will continue to be used by them until they stop taking photos. IMHO her generation is probably buoying up film sales to some extent. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted May 31, 2011 Share #24 Posted May 31, 2011 Just as a completely random aside, I spent Saturday morning at the Chelsea Flower Show. I was pleasantly surprised at the number of film cameras in evidence - a couple of Pentax Espios, an OM2, a Nikon F6 (the first I've ever seen), a couple of FM/FEs (not close enough), a Contax Aria, a Mju Zoom, a Fuji something and a couple of others that I couldn't identify. They weren't in the hands of the very young or the very old, either - it was an even smattering of ages. Regards, Bill Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 31, 2011 Share #25 Posted May 31, 2011 You can look at the amount of silver consumed by the entire photographic industry year by year. But I don't know how you'd break it down further. Once you take out motion picture use, X rays, low end consumers, older enthusiasts, and some other specialized applications, the amount used by the "base" users (whatever that is) and younger consumers may not add up to enough to keep the industry very large in the future. X-rays? I don't know ANYBODY who still does non-digital X-rays, hospitals included. In fact, it is on the brink of being declared illegal because digital X-rays only use 10-20% radiation. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share #26 Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) I had my ankle X-Rayed in a private hospital about 2 years ago. The image was on a piece of plastic about the size of a sheet of A3 paper. I assume that was film. As a further aside, when I was a kid in the 60's, the shoe-shops had X-Ray machines that anyone could use to see the bones in their feet. There was no operator intervention, you just stood on the machine and put your feet through a hole. http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/shoefittingfluor/shoe.htm Edited May 31, 2011 by andybarton Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 31, 2011 Share #27 Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) That figures - I don't know any British hospitals.. But you are right, I realise now that the Italian state hospital in Merano where Patricia was X-rayed a few weeks ago still used film. Our doctor tossed the X-ray in the bin and sent us to our local small hospital for proper diagnostics, as he put it:o The point is health authorities over here have tightened up immensly on radiation levels over the last few years making it nearly impossible to meet the requirements using film X-rays. A bit overdone imho. Edited May 31, 2011 by jaapv Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted May 31, 2011 Share #28 Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) From being essential it has become a choice, and as soon as all the new digital cameras and phones etc are common to the worlds population (like cars are now) then film will have hit its rock bottom but there will still be millions of people who will buy film every year. I've no idea why the horse argument is so often trotted out (excuse the pun) in these 'debates' - the shift from horse power to combustion engine power really has little in common with the 'does film have a future?' question. There are, I think, better analogies*. That said, I agree wholeheartedly with your point above and that is pretty much why I am not concerned about whether I will still be able to buy film for as long as I am likely to want to use it. *A better analogy, I often think, is the now unloved audio cassette tape. Being a mass market product that requires significant plant and infrastructure to be manufactured (it isn't going to be produced in small batches by a local craftsman) it has a lot in common with film. The market for cassette tapes has gone from one time dominance (as the medium for listening to and recording audio) to mass market irrelevance. Even so, you can still buy the tapes. I'm not sure if you can buy them in the local supermarket but a quick Google search shows it is easy enough to buy them online for only a few quid (pack of 5 TDK). Interestingly enough my Google search also brought up old doom and gloom predictions from industry 'experts' BBC NEWS | Technology | Not long left for cassette tapes and recent news of a Lomo style renaissance for the medium amongst the 'trendy' Return of the audio cassette | Music | The Guardian. Edited May 31, 2011 by wattsy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted May 31, 2011 Share #29 Posted May 31, 2011 Steve (and Wattsy): My point was not that anything is going extinct - but that if film sales are down, it - does - not - matter that they are down because of digital SLRs, or because of cellphones and new media replacing DSLRs, or because of people going back to pen and pencils instead of cellphones. Seem like James and plasticman were critiquing the original article because it didn't investigate whether DSLR sales may be down, too. Or something - I'm still not sure what. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share #30 Posted May 31, 2011 The point is health authorities over here have tightened up immensly on radiation levels over the last few years making it nearly impossible to meet the requirements using film X-rays. As someone who has had more than his fair share of CT and PET scans recently, the odd diagnostic X-Ray doesn't worry me unduly Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 31, 2011 Share #31 Posted May 31, 2011 I can understand that. However health regulations don't care if you make one individual patient light up like a neon sign, they concern themselves with totals and averages and digital easily wins the numbers game. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted May 31, 2011 Share #32 Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) My point was not that anything is going extinct - but that if film sales are down, it - does - not - matter that they are down because of digital SLRs, or because of cellphones and new media replacing DSLRs, or because of people going back to pen and pencils instead of cellphones. Indeed. That was also my point (and question to James) much earlier in the thread. I can't help but think that a certain amount of schadenfreude ("sales of digital imaging equipment and materials are also declining") underlies the point made about the mass market transition from P&S digital cameras to smart phone cameras. Edited May 31, 2011 by wattsy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted May 31, 2011 Share #33 Posted May 31, 2011 Steve (and Wattsy): My point was not that anything is going extinct - but that if film sales are down, it - does - not - matter that they are down because of digital SLRs, or because of cellphones and new media replacing DSLRs, or because of people going back to pen and pencils instead of cellphones. Seem like James and plasticman were critiquing the original article because it didn't investigate whether DSLR sales may be down, too. Or something - I'm still not sure what. Surely the cause of the reduction in film sales matters? Mobile phones don't seem to be catagorised in the same way as digital cameras. My point was it's not just a move from film to digital cameras, its a much wider change in the way 'consumers' (that is non enthusiast occassional photographers for this purpose) use photography. I'm not questioning the fact that film sales have declined, but the article seems to suggest that the only people using film now are those who are waiting for their film cameras to break, who will then buy a digital camera. The majority of such people will already have a digital camera in their mobile phone - and are probably using it instead of film, so the argument is flawed. The article seems to ignore the fact that there are and will be a % of photographers and cinematographers, who will choose to carry on using film, as well as the newcomers who will take an interest in the medium and maintain and possibly grow that user base. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 31, 2011 Share #34 Posted May 31, 2011 The interesting thing is that digital still photography is set to go the same way as film within little more than a decade imho. The advent of HD video in still cameras is the writing on the wall, the advent of 3D imaging is even more threatening. In ten years we will have forgotten about the Mp race and will be witnessing the MegaVoxel race... It may well be that film and our current perception of digital photography will be existing on the same niche level. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted May 31, 2011 Share #35 Posted May 31, 2011 The interesting thing is that digital still photography is set to go the same way as film within little more than a decade imho. I rather doubt it. Will printed books and magazines also be supplanted by 3D tablets and other gizmos in the same timescale? Presumably we'll also all have personal rocket ships like the Jetsons in 2020? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted May 31, 2011 Share #36 Posted May 31, 2011 ...its a much wider change in the way 'consumers' (that is non enthusiast occassional photographers for this purpose) use photography. I'm nit-picking here, but I think that the words we use - and the underlying thinking - is increasingly important. People capture, share and consume images. In the past that was via "analogue" means - photo albums, slide-shows, people getting together in the same place, photos and postcards being sent. I remember the "tyranny" of producing the "photos of the year" when my son was little, getting multiple prints from negs and sticking them in Christmas card envelopes and those bloody multi-hole photoframes so that the grandparents could put them on the walls. Today, we share via Flickr, Youtube, Faceache, Twitter and the like. We both share and consume what we want, when we want, often when out and about on the move. Images are now more like graffiti than whole sentences - they are consumed out of context, in staccato fashion, illustrating our lives whether someone else is interested or not. Much has been said recently about the rise of the "citizen journalist", capturing on their mobile phones the events in Libya, Syria and elsewhere. The old certainties are gone and new structures are still evolving and will continue to do so for some time to come. I have a camera on my iPhony, detest using the thing - it is as ergonomic as a bar of soap and produces results that an Olympus Trip can beat with one hand tied behind it's back. But - people know no better and value convenience over quality. "Take two bottles into the shower...?" Convergence is a fact of life. It is also a fact of life that the photographic telephone is good enough for most peoples needs. I suspect that dedicated, single-function image capture equipment of all types is destined to become more and more niche, regardless of the storage medium it consumes. Film will simply be a niche within a niche. There will always be a need for, and those who value and use, the tool for the job, but those tools will become more specialist in order to survive and thrive. The middle ground will be left to the mediocre machines and the easily-pleased consumers. Regards, Bill 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StS Posted May 31, 2011 Share #37 Posted May 31, 2011 Not really a surprise. As a side notice to used camera prices - common sense has stopped me to pick up an OM4, but I keep monitoring their prices. One of my standard dealers has a special section for newly arrived cameras on his website. He just offered an OM4 for 400 Euros, it didn't even make it to the "Olympus" section before being sold. About one year ago, the market price was around 200 Euros. For Nikons and Canons the offering is too large to make this happen. One might wonder, why the 0.58 MP never made it from "newly arrived" to the "Leica" section recently. Kind regards Stefan Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share #38 Posted May 31, 2011 I rather doubt it. Will printed books and magazines also be supplanted by 3D tablets and other gizmos in the same timescale? Presumably we'll also all have personal rocket ships like the Jetsons in 2020? Amazon sell more download "books" now than printed ones. It seems that every man/woman and his/her dog have either a Kindle or an iPad, these days. My parents, both in their mid-70s, have Kindles and love them. Real books will never die out, in the same way that film will (probably) never die out, but there is a sea change going on with regards to digital content and its mass acceptability 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted May 31, 2011 Share #39 Posted May 31, 2011 Well you could perhaps compare the take up of 'e books' which are now outselling printed books in the US Ebook sales pass another milestone | Books | guardian.co.uk Does this mean that we will soon see the last ever printed book roll off the presses? Could it just be the gimmick factor and a momentary blip? Are bookshelves necessary anymore? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted May 31, 2011 Share #40 Posted May 31, 2011 Well you could perhaps compare the take up of 'e books' which are now outselling printed books in the US Not really unless Amazon accounts for the entire printed book market in the USA. That said, the Amazon sales figures are interesting and a surprise to me. I had no idea 'ebooks' were so popular (I've had an iPad for over a year but it's never occurred to me that I would want to read a book on it). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.