The Future for Film

[nachkebia]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don`t care if labs are closing, I develope myself and soon I will print myself....

 

Quote from article in BJP today:

"The closure of London pro labs Sky Imaging UK and Ceta is shocking, but sadly not that surprising. Way back at the start of the year, US-based organisation Photo Marketing Association reported that total volumes of traditional film processing declined by 11.5% in 2005 and the volume of prints made from digital camera images increased by 62%. The figures for 2006 will no doubt be similar, if not more dramatic, and figures like that don't leave much room for traditional labs."

[kamilsukun]

I agree on CD - LP, however,listening to direct encoded data playing back through custom DACs directly from disk is to me even better sound than vinyl - it is vinyl without the ultimate loss of quality through wear and teat on the LP.

 

Yes, exceptional equipment with exceptional results are another reality.

[cme4brain]

I honestly don't care if DSLR's can outresolve my film. I have no choice at my day job, so digital it is. It's great in many applications - but it has also fostered a culture of instant gratification amongst art directors, PR people and any others involved with the planning of the shoot. I like being busy - but few understand why it may take some time to tweak images just right for different applications.

 

As an M shooter, I find it odd that the M8 does little for me in the way of equipment "lust." I like the way my images look on film when shot with my MP or M3. The DMR almost had me, but I decided to sell all the R gear and further feed my lust for the M system.

 

I've had too much first hand experience with failure of various DSLR's in the field, and the lifespan of this stuff makes some prone to upgrade-itis. I can't imagine my MP being close to obsolete in 5 years...but an M8?

 

Only the high end Canon 16.7MP camera can out-resolve film at this point, if I am not mistaken. And Canon "L" lenses on the whole are not up to Leica or Zeiss or even CV standards. I am an amateur photographer with feet in both film and digital puddles. I hope film survives! I love my M6 and my lenses and the latitude that film gives me. The M8, which I will probably get, has to use IR cut filters and C2 photoshop programs and what not to get a good image. Film is so easy- no photoshop learning curve nor computer investment needed. I acknowledge the convenience of digital, but to bridge the gap (if I don't get the M8) I will buy a better film scanner and be done with it as long as they make color film.

[Guest malland]

Mind you - the little Ricoh GR with the 21mm adaptor (wash my mouth out!) looks good!

Abso-filmlike-lootly:

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

[mwilliamsphotography]

I am sure that film has no future, except as a oddity practiced by a few eccentric photographers.

 

I say this a film lover, who honestly believes that the "collective eye" is becoming deadened by cooly logical technological perfection, compulsive immediate need gratification, and insecurity when not being able to see those immediate results.

 

Any protest concerning digital capture is met with an overwhelming mathematical bludgeoning, and expert witnesses providing testimony to the contrary. Over time, film's a lost cause when faced with those odds.

 

Film nor digital, and what ever comes next, isn't photography any more than oils, acrylics or buckets of Dutch-Boy are painting. But each medium produces it's own inherent aesthetic that becomes an integrated part of the larger whole.

 

IMO, the emotional response to the aesthetic of film is being competitively eviscerated by tech junkies promoting their pixelized cult. To me it seems that just about the entire photographic community is drinking the deliciously frosty and smooth Cool-Aid ... and smiling vacuously as the electronic cataracts form over their eyes.

 

BTW, my take on the analog verses digital music is not the same as the standard argument. To me, film is like sitting in front of the musician and listening to them play, verses listening to a digital approximation of that experience. Not logical, but then again art rarely is.

[Guest malland]

Only the high end Canon 16.7MP camera can out-resolve film at this point, if I am not mistaken...

If resolution were the most important thing, we'd all be using the Spur Orthopan UR film that Erwin Puts speaks about and keeping our Leica-Ms permanently affixed to 100kg tripods. Where I have trouble with digital is the smooth medium format look that top-end digital cameras, like the M8 up to ISO 640, produce. Indeed, from what I can see, the M8 produces exceptionally good files; and people complain that, at ISO 1250 and 2500, the M8 is too noisy: if I were to buy the M8 those would be the only senstivities I would use because I like the "35mm aesthetic" and don't want a medium format look.

 

It seems to me that only small sensor cameras produce a 35mm look — Sean Reid calls these small sensor cameras a new format, the way 35mm was a new format when the first Leica came out. That is the reason I have been using the Ricoh GR-D, which has an extremely good 28mm-equivalent lens; and the 21mm-equivalent adapter seems to be as good as my Leica-M 21mm ASPH lens, which is pretty good for an add-on lens. But what I miss with the GR-D is a 50mm-equivalent lens, which is why I just got the Leica D-Lux 3. I'll have to see how that compares to the GR-D.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

[Guest malland]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

..I say this a film lover, who honestly believes that the "collective eye" is becoming deadened by cooly logical technological perfection, compulsive immediate need gratification, and insecurity when not being able to see those immediate results...

IMO, the emotional response to the aesthetic of film is being competitively eviscerated by tech junkies promoting their pixelized cult. To me it seems that just about the entire photographic community is drinking the deliciously frosty and smooth Cool-Aid ... and smiling vacuously as the electronic cataracts form over their eyes....

Marc, reading your posting just after writing my last one, it seems to me that we're saying similar things abiut this quest for the ultra-smooth, grainless digital look.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

[mwilliamsphotography]

Don't get me wrong here, I LOVE the digital medium and am a heavy user. I just hate that it has to be at the expense of another medium that I also love to use for it's specific aesthetic qualities.

 

IMO, those qualities go beyond the usual argument of "smoothness" or lack of such Mitch. There is something else at work there that is hard to quantify (thus making it difficult to engage in web arguments that always reduce everything to quantifiable statistics). A writer/musician friend of mine calls it "soul" for lack of a better term. I subscribe these characteristics to all types of film formats including MF which I shoot a good amount of. It's not logic at work, but a raw visual response to seeing something and intuitively feeling it.

 

It amazes me that more accomplished photographers aren't more heavily engaged in the use of film. In fact, it worries me a bit ... not because of the obvious "fear factor" due to losing labs and such ... but because we are being robbed of the possibilities these image makers may have brought to the party via a different aesthetic medium. Like if electronic keyboards made real pianos extinct ... or if the introduction of Acrylics eliminated the use of Oils as a painting medium.

 

BTW, this is in reference to color works. B&W film is something that we will be able to always do during our lifetimes IMO. The technology is such that one can easily store quantities of B&W rolls and process them ourselves with mixtures from dry chemicals.

[davidada]

I'll believe in the paperless office when I see the paperless toilet. And yes, I'm a designer of digital type, but 'digital paper' will also need type -- so I've no axe to grind.

 

The old man from the Age of Lead Type

Sorry but it is here! check this out http://www.totoneorest.com/home.html

Paper is pretty barbaric compared to this

[HenningS]

Hallo,

 

Film will definitely survive. BW, color negative and slide film. Why?

Today we have about 500 million photographers worldwide. Because of the rapid economic growth in countries like China, India, Brasilia, the east european states, Russia etc. we will have 600-700 million photographers worldwide in the next six to ten years.

So, even if you have a pessimistic look to the future and think that only five to ten percent of all photographers will use film in the future, you will get a number of 30-70 million film users worldwide. These film users will probably be enthusiastic photographers and film lovers, who will need 30, 40 or more rolls of film per year. So we will get a film market of at least over 2 billion dollars/year, probably more. That is enough to let film and several manufacturers survive.

Don't worry, be happy and use film and your Leicas.

 

Best regards,

Henning

[Guest malland]

No way! Have you traveled throughout India and China? The poorer regions that don't have camera owners will go straight to digital, not to film. Have you tried to get B&W film developed or printed in Beijing?

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[HenningS]

No way! Have you traveled throughout India and China? The poorer regions that don't have camera owners will go straight to digital, not to film. Have you tried to get B&W film developed or printed in Beijing?

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

 

Hallo Mitch,

Yes, I was in China in Bejing and Tianjin. No problems at all to buy film. Most of the Chinese photographers I've seen used film. And I've seen lots of Chinese with small compact film cameras.

Similar experiences in eastern europe and Russia.

Don't forget that you need a minimum infrastructure to use digital, either a computer or a printer for direct home printing. The barrier for a photographer with a low income is significantly higher using digital equipment.

 

But nevertheless, I think it doesn't really matter whether the photographers in all of these countries will go straight digital. Take the number of 500 mio. Photographers we have already at this time. If you are pessimistic and think that only ten percent of them will stay with film, the number will be sufficient to give film a future.

 

And in my personal environment I can already see a small trend in the beginning. People, who start their photography with digital, look with interest to the classic techniques with film. It's new to them, and the possibility to change the sensor immediately for only two or three Euros seems very attractive..... .

And I've watched that more and more computer experts love to go to the darkroom, because they don't want to sit before a computer monitor their whole life, during their work and in their free time. They like the complete different feeling with film and want to escape from the "Microsoft-World" (because digital photography is a part of it, no doubt).

 

If you look at trends in the economic history, you will see that almost every trend is followed after some years by another trend in the opposite direction, a "retro-trend". The retro trend is not as strong as the original trend, but it has a stabilizing effect (in this case a stabilizing effect to film sales).

 

Remember the end of the sixties and beginning of the seventies, when colour negative film came into the market and the sales of BW-film decreased. People said BW is dead and has no future. But what happened? In 1980 we see the bottom of the volume of BW-film sales, and after that the sales were again increasing. Furthermore, lots of innovations in BW were made after 1980, e.g. chromogenic films, T-Grain (Kodak), Delta crystals (Ilford), great improvements with multigrade papers, hydrochinone-free developers, microfilms for conventional photography (gigabitfilm, Spur Orthopan...) etc.

I think we will see a similar development in the next years concerning digital vs. film.

 

Best regards,

Henning

[mwilliamsphotography]

From your lips to God's ears Henning : -)

 

That in fact is exactly what has happened to me. I became a digital zealot quite a few years ago, abandoned film almost entirely (even sold my Leica's which was a huge error in judgement), and now am migrating back to film use ... not at previous levels, but a LOT more than none ; -)

[Bruno Frisch]

Film will always be there if only for a few excentrics like myself. A couple of years ago one could still argue about the fine printing processes and the abbility to develop a film in a certain manner in order to obtain "the Look" allas not anymore, there are so many digital processing capabilities which make personalizing prints so much easier, the use of film and processing oneself can only be argued by the love of the smell of the chemicals.

 

I'm certain the comparison with vinyl and cd's has been brought up ... pretty much the same thing, I have a vast collection of 78 and 33's and play them regularly, not because the quality is better, for it isn't... it's the total pleasure of getting them out of the cover, cleaning the record, positioning the needle, the cracks also add to the atmosphere but only because I was brought up with "cracks and ticks" in records.

 

I have a number of digital cameras in Mid format and small format, I also shoot film in mid format and small format, film is for the Zen of things, digital for the fast result......

[mwilliamsphotography]

I don't agree that post processing digital files can result in the same viseral feel as film delivers on it's own. I'm very good at digital post processing, and know some of the best digital retouchers in the business. They don't think it's the same, and don't try to mimic it either. Digital stands on its' own with it's own charms and attributes ... but it'll never be film ... at best, it'll only be an attempt to parrot the properties of film.

 

It's not a matter of chemicals or the chemical process, except that it develops the film to it's own unique properties ... which are made up of random grain, not regimented pixels.

[smallfilms]

In the last year, I bought an R5 (which I love and don't understand why it is not more appreciated), a CL, and, finally, after a lot of soul searching ("my friends all have Porsches"), an M7. I usually have buyers remorse after making big purchases, but I've not had a moment's this time. I've been shooting digital the past few years, and I like what I can do, but I am one of those who feels what is being called "the soul" of the camera here. I love the feel. I scan on a Nikon 9000, but I've decided to go back into the darkroom with my best negatives. Giving myself permission to muck up the photos in Photoshop was a big release. I no longer feeled constrained by the "either/or" fallacy. Working with the film both digitally and traditionally, I get a lot more that is useful to me. And, I always have a Leica in my hand.

[lieberdavid]

I am a dedicated film user, but I fear that the future for film is bleak. An earlier poster suggested that if only 10 % of camera users stayed with film there would still be about 70 million people using film, plenty to keep the film industry busy.

 

10% is much too optimistic I think. I attended the Royal Flower Show a few weeks ago in Chiang Mai, Thailand, where the crowds were enormous. I scanned the crowd looking for people using film. Except for myself with my MP, I saw not one other person using film.So I suspect that even 1% is too optimistic, and that perhaps 1/10th of 1 percent is more like it. That means 700,000 film users for now, not 70,000,000. Moreover, most of the film users are probably tradtionalists like me. We'll die off, and we'll be replaced by younger folks who will have modern ideas and will never ever use film even once.

 

I'm using my MP and my R cameras as much as possible now, so that when the day comes when I have to switch to digital, I can do it feeling that I've managed to get a lot out of my old film cameras.

 

Image quality is an entirely different issue. Up to now images made with film are better than anything I have seen so far from digital. (The standard I use is the projected slide.) Digital has still a long way to go before it can match that, but the gap is closing, and it is closing fast, I fear.It won't be much longer before digial is really better.

 

But the issue of image quality is irrelevant to the market. Most tourists and people who take family photos don't care one iota about image quality, so long as it's "good enough". Digital has clearly already reached that stage.

[wbesz]

"but I fear that the future for film is bleak"

 

Hmmm, Kodak continues developing new film, see:

KODAK PROFESSIONAL PORTRA Films: Innovation

 

As is Fuji and others manufacturers.

[Guest malland]

Image quality is an entirely different issue. Up to now images made with film are better than anything I have seen so far from digital. (The standard I use is the projected slide.) Digital has still a long way to go before it can match that, but the gap is closing, and it is closing fast, I fear.It won't be much longer before digial is really better.

Sounds a bit like Rip Van Winkle: the gap has already closed, and been reversed: the Leica M8 has the quality of medium format film, not to speak of the Canin 5D.

 

—Mitch/Sydney

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[john_r_smith]

No, Mitch, this is not true. The previous poster was using the "projected slide" as his marker for quality. Something like an M8 can produce a digital file which when printed is the equal of a print from film, but no digital projector I have yet seen or used can equal the quality of projected 35mm film, let alone projected MF slides. The resolution from the projector just isn't there, at least not yet. The best ones I have here at work can manage 1024x1280 resolution, which is just over 1MP equivalent. By the time the M8 10MP file has been down-ressed to that, the image quality is actually pretty poor.

 

John