Film sales now 1/50th what they were in 2000

[colin_d]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I still think the analogy between film and vinyl, for the sake of supporting the point of view is fine. I understand that some people extrapolate it out into technical jargon and raise all sorts of sceintific facts to demonstrate some dispute, but not sure that is really necessary on a users blog where we are generalists, we're not talking about voting in the Nobel Peace Prize for science are we?

Edited June 6, 2011 by colin_d

[giordano]

When - as has been usual for the last 20 or 30 years - the vinyl disc derives from a digitally-recorded master - the analogy is simply false. The rest of the time it's weak.

 

Likening film to (analogue) magnetic tape is a far stronger analogy, right down to format trade-offs (tape speeds, track widths, reel-to-reel vs cassette, etc.) and the distinction between the original recording and copies that may have been edited and dubbed onto a different format or medium.

[Advertisement]

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

[earleygallery]

Good grief, this is all getting rather pedantic isnt' it?!

[Xmas]

That's indeed the case.

 

Digital recordings have a much greater resolution than the resolution that can be recorded on a CD. Also, the D/A converter in an audio studio is bound to be of a higher quality than the one in a household CD player.

 

Hence, the music reproduced from a CD will have artifacts which the LP will not have. The artifacts introduced by the LP are much easier to ignore than the digital ones.

I thought some vinyl was direct cut?

 

Noel

[JBA]

Good grief, this is all getting rather pedantic isnt' it?!

 

And dull.

[adan]

Colin, I guess where I come down is that a point of view is only as good as the factual case supporting it.

 

And hopefully one doesn't start with a point of view, and then find analogies to support it - instead one starts with evidence (which may include a good analogy) and then develops one's point of view from that evidence.

 

Not intending to imply any "moral" equivalence, but - thousands have died in the past decade because someone's "point of view" was based on a phony fact: "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction." I could give several other examples from very recent history, but don't want to turn this into a Barnack's Bar thread.

 

So I'm scared as hell by the idea that "all sorts of scientific facts...aren't really necessary" - in any discussion. Once we leave facts aside, we start, at least intellectually, flying planes into buildings and the like.

[stunsworth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I thought some vinyl was direct cut?

 

The disc they cut live wasn't sold directly. It was used to produce a pressing master and that is what was used to produce the LPs that were sold.

 

In the early days of Edison cylinders the original recording _was_ sold because there was no means of reproducing the cylinders.So the performer would perform to a bank of machines. Possibly the same with Berliner's original disks - though I need to do a bit of research as I can't remember if that was the case or not.

[maurometallo]

... And so are vinyl records! But they are still out there, people still buy them (I surely do!) and and they STILL represent the ultimate listening experience!

[Xmas]

The disc they cut live wasn't sold directly. It was used to produce a pressing master and that is what was used to produce the LPs that were sold.

 

In the early days of Edison cylinders the original recording _was_ sold because there was no means of reproducing the cylinders.So the performer would perform to a bank of machines. Possibly the same with Berliner's original disks - though I need to do a bit of research as I can't remember if that was the case or not.

Hi Steve

 

The point was that some vinyl wont have any digital artifice, unless the recording cutting tool was digital, so the sound will only have vinyl cutting and playback artifice, e.g. like mistracking. which I never liked.

 

Dont think they the did a large number after analogue recording.

 

Noel

[AlanG]

Is any resurgence in purchasing LPs somehow causing or influencing a resurgence in the use of film? I don't think so. Did the decline in use of 7" tape and cassette tape cause a decline in use of film? I don't think so.

 

We can make all kinds of analogies but unless they are linked in some way I don't see how they matter other than to provide hope to some. But plenty of things have faded away from use for various reasons and anything going on with LPs didn't stop that from happening.

 

As Glenn Beck would say, (via Lewis Black) - Hitler had a mustache. Mother Teresa had a mustache. So Mother Teresa equals Hitler.

Edited June 6, 2011 by AlanG

[italy74]

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

 

Good point. Film is no longer essential rather a choice. Yet, there's more.

I think we have two different trends here and the truth is that noone of us can say how they will effectively overlap.

 

On one hand there's the obvious diffusion of digital devices (phones, cameras, whatever) used to take pictures, which is of course expanding by the time because of the availability and the affordability ( ! important word ) of new technologies to the masses.

 

On the other hand there's film trend.

 

Think of Leica. 50 yrs ago it had probably the 90% of the whole cameras out there. Nikon, Canon, all the rest came later. If one had enough money to be a photographer, it almost surely would have preferred a Leica (or a Nikon F as soon as it became available) just because they were the "best" and immediately recognized as a reliable and long lasting tool which was also indicating your status. Yet, numbers were still much LOWER in terms of figures compared to nowadays, but the business was still enough to survive.

Now, I bet there are out there more cell phone cameras than any brand film slr and p/s ever sold.

 

On one graph we put sales about film cameras and rolls. For many years we have two parallel lines: increasing the first, increasing the rolls sold. Then, around 2000, dslr came and here come the second graph: dslrs sales. In this graph we DO have to include, since a few years ago, the presence of other devices (cell phones, p/s) because de facto they are eroding the film sales. If only film was available ( = essential ) 100% of photographers would be still using it. Yet digital is available, handy and affordable under several forms so people are naturally choosing it for the big figures of graphs. Of course in the first years we had a countertrend: raising the digital, decreasing the film. Yet, in these last years the things have changed. I think the trend of film sales is LOWER (of course) than 10 yrs ago yet I'd like to see how sales changed in the past 3-4 yrs, I bet we'd see an increase. I don't know if it's enough to justify film - of course I hope so, yet what I truly believe is that this increase is going to increase furtherly.

 

Actually, what once was coupled ( increasing dslr decreasing film) has now been decoupled in two different and independent trends. The effective result is still to be seen and ultimately I think film will last longer than expected.

Edited June 6, 2011 by italy74

[Xmas]

 

Think of Leica. 50 yrs ago it had probably the 90% of the whole cameras out there. Nikon, Canon, all the rest came later.

 

The slide started earlier. Canon were competing more than 50 years ago, but only holding their own in volume, Nikon trailing...

 

Think the Nikon F was available in '61, Nikon manufacturing were in the position Leica and M9 was last year as they could not keep up with demand. Leica were still making M2 and M3 in volume but not at peak...

 

The Pros and hams went mad for the F, some hams went for Pentax. Many pros used a F with normal, port or zoom with motor drive and a M (or Canon P) with a 35mm. Zeiss suffered more then Leica or Canon, the Contarex bombed and the Contax II(I)a had not been developed.

 

There was a movement of pros away from TLR (or larger) to 35mm.

 

Noel

[AlanG]

Leica never had more than a tiny fraction of the overall camera market. They did have a big segment of the 35mm professional rangefinder market and now they have virtually all of it. At one time Rollei twin lens, Graflex large format SLRs, Speed Graphics, and 8x10 Deardorfs were also popular among pros. Mamiya twin lens cameras were popular among wedding shooters. 9.5mm Minox and 16mm sub-miniature had their following too. And until recently, film was the only choice. Bronica and Rollei 120 SLRs are gone and while Hasselblads and Mamiya SLRs have survived, they are mostly purchased for digital photography despite having a few film models. Likewise with the offerings from Sinar, Linhof, Arca, Cambo, and Alpa. Even simple tiny p&s digital cameras can turn out high quality images today and some are quite versatile. So it is obvious why digital cameras are so popular across the spectrum and consumers who use film are mostly doing it out of habit or lack of interest in digital or lack of knowledge and skills. Enthusiasts and artists have their reasons for sticking with film.

 

Now film is almost always not a reasonable choice among pros in most fields and as we keep saying again and again it is only a question of where the bottom will be in overall film sales. (Consumer, pro, motion picture, medical imaging, etc.) We can all post our opinions on where the bottom will be but what does it matter? If you want to use film cameras, either you'll find the film, chemicals, and processing you want over time or you won't. Right now you still have a pretty good selection in 35mm, 120, and some sheet film formats. But a lot of stuff has disappeared or become a hassle.

Edited June 6, 2011 by AlanG

[Xmas]

At one time Rollei twin lens, Graflex large format SLRs, Speed Graphics, and 8x10 Deardorfs were also popular among pros. Mamiya twin lens cameras were popular among wedding shooters. 9.5mm Minox and 16mm sub-miniature had their following too. And until recently, film was the only choice. Bronica and Rollei 120 SLRs are gone and while Hasselblads and Mamiya SLRs have survived, they are mostly purchased for digital photography despite having a few film models. Likewise with the offerings from Sinar, Linhof, Arca, Cambo, and Alpa.

...

Enthusiasts and artists have their reasons for sticking with film.

...

If you want to use film cameras, either you'll find the film, chemicals, and processing you want over time or you won't. Right now you still have a pretty good selection in 35mm, 120, and some sheet film formats. But a lot of stuff has disappeared or become a hassle.

Hi AlanG

 

You omitted 220 color, i.e. last 220 mono has gone... makes even a 6x7 with backs a bit slower. Hassle is wrong word, still easy, but more money, more apt caveat.

Local supplier offering to recycle used hypo...

 

Noel

[AlanG]

Hi AlanG

 

You omitted 220 color, i.e. last 220 mono has gone... makes even a 6x7 with backs a bit slower. Hassle is wrong word, still easy, but more money, more apt caveat.

Local supplier offering to recycle used hypo...

 

Noel

 

Hassle is not the wrong word if you were used to using 4x5 ReadyLoad and have to use sheet film holders instead. Besides the hassle of having to pre-load, label, and then download the holders, dust becomes a bigger problem. With ReadyLoad and QuickLoad, you could easily bring a lot of "extra" film.

 

And hassle is not the wrong word if you were used to having quick E6, C41 or b/w processing and contact printing in your neighborhood and don't have that service anymore. When I shot jobs on b/w I could not be bothered to take the time to process them myself even though I had a darkroom. Especially a large volume of sheet film. It would be pretty typical to drop off the film at the end of the day, have the lab process it and send the proofs and/or chromes to my client the next day while I would be out on another shoot.

Edited June 6, 2011 by AlanG

[Xmas]

Hi AlanG

 

Yes all that is hassle, and so is loading a back every 10 shots, instead of 20, but I did not make the point clear.

 

When I got to the supplier for the last purchase of mono 220, I bought all the stock although the $ had nearly doubled from last purchase. Had it not been discontinued I'd a waited until it was expired and remaindered.

 

Noel