The Future for Film

[imported_peter_m]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Perhaps, but here's another indication: Currently viewing the Digital Forum: 49

Currently viewing the Film Forum: 3

 

Good point Brent, I noticed that as well everything you come here there is a lot of people viewing the digital forum and just a hand full on the film forum.

One thing is for sure digital is more popular just about any box store sells cheap digital cameras now and not much to offer in the film department.

This is a rater good topic with many good views on the subject.

Peter

[Advertisement]

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

[superfrog]

I was talking to a police officer who works at crime scenes the other day.

He mentioned that they still use film for ultra-violet photography (for finding evidence invisible to the naked eye) as digital cameras cannot match the sensitivity of film.

That said, all their other work is most definitely digital!

[fotohuis]

Update from the new Rollei films:

 

The Rollei B&W slide DIREKT film is a orthochromatic microfilm based material to produce B&W slides with the RHS developer. Slow speed E.I. 25 maybe till 50.

 

The Rollei CN400 pro scanfilm is a C41 film without the orange mask. Clear PET layer and N.C. layer for perfect flatness.

 

Next month available but not in all configurations yet.

I've got some samples for testing of both films.

 

best regards,

 

Robert

[haris]

As I've already stated, I'm one of those luddites who still prefers the look of film and the process of getting film based images. That said, I think the answer to the question about the survival of film can perhaps be found right here on our forum home page. If you look at it now, you'll see the following stats:

 

Film Forum.........................17 threads

 

Digital Forum.....................518 threads

 

We are a dying breed.

 

Well, digital is relatively young, and not developed fully yet, so people have need to talk about equipment, asking technical advices and like. Then if you have in mind that every 6 months there is new camera, new software, new plug-in... Film camera and film, developer, paper, etc.. when once developed is to stay for decades, there is part of answer.

 

We, film photographers, learn quickly about equipment and basic technical stuff, so we have less need for those question. And even new film photographers can very fast to accept basic equipment and film/print developing facts. Same time digital imagers have much more basic technical things to learn when start to make images (which camera (resolution, Dmax, etc...) what kind of computer (speed, HDD size, removable memory type), CRT od LCD monitor, calibration, which software, how to do contrast, colour, pure black in particular software, noise, sharpness, rescue deleted image files, etc...). And as this forum is more technically and equpment than artisticaly or phylosophy (in photographycal terms speaking) oriented, I am not surprized.

[haris]

Oh, and, by the way, even if I am only film user, I do visit digital part, just for curiosity, so be carefull when compare numbers...

 

And I am sure there is many people who use digital 9for work or like ) and film (for personal work)...

[fotohuis]

The first results from the Rollei CN400 pro scanfilm:

Untitled-4web on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

+Very easy to scan

+Transparant layer

+Super flat and easy to load

+Needs hardly any color correction

+Standard C41 development

-Take care of the light pipe effect when loading/unloading

[Findus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Personally I don't see much future in 24x36 film for the digital era is catching up with the quality fast.

 

Other formats however kick the sh*t out of any digital construction on the market today and possible tomorrow.

I think I can safely say that 99% of 24x36 images can be taken with digital and produce similar quality prints up to 40x60cm, large enough for anyones wall. Blowing the image up to huge formats, the film will surely produce a better quality, if viewed with a magnifying glass!

 

But if you are into huge format it would be stupid to use 24x36, one would progress to 6x6 or larger. Digital cannot toucht his quality (yet)

 

But most people, even here on the forum shoot snapshots for the web or family albums, a smaller majority will project slides, and although lacking tonal ranges, projecting a slide is still nicer to watch than having a digital image projected, even here digital projectors are getting more sophisticted and cheaper.

 

I still shoot film for the love of it, but in decreasing amounts. I use a Canon DIIs which makes absolutely perfect images, but I dislike using it, I have pre-ordered my M8 and will see what comes out of that.

Beside that I will always use my MP and M6 with a roll of Tri-x or APX100

[wilfredo]

Andy writes:

 

"So far this year I have applied and been accepted for eight courses in photography which were mainly film based and all eight courses have been cancelled due to insufficient applicants/interest. The digital courses are over subscribed and they cannot put enough courses into the academic year!"

 

I think this is yet another clear sign indicating where film is headed. At best it will be a small nitch market. We are all witnessing the end of an era in photography which has never stopped evolving since its inception. I bought an M7 last year at full price and quite frankly I wish I had held off on the purchase. For now I will hold on to it, primarily for B&W photography, but since I don't make big bucks, I am not happy with the fact that the price for a used M7 has already dropped considerably. As much as I love the feel and handle of the M7, it is a disappointment to see the value drop.

 

Buying the new M8 is something I'm not sure about primarily due to the expense. I would still have to invest in a very very expensive new wide angle lens to make up for the crop factor. I currently own a 35mm ASPH Summicron, which would be close to a 50mm lens on the M8. All this thinking about Leica bucks is giving me a Leica headache.

 

Even with Leica as part of my gear, I still value the versatility of my Canon 20 D, and will probably purchase a 5D before I purchase an M8. With the 5D I would spend less, and won't need new glass.

 

The bottom line is that one really needs to be very convinced about rangefinder photography to spend the bucks on a new M8 and lens, or one has to be a professional who will make so much money from the new M8 that the cost will be no big deal, or one simply has money to throw away without any significant consequences.

 

Wilfredo+

Benitez-Rivera Photography

[leicajh]

I was talking to a police officer who works at crime scenes the other day.

He mentioned that they still use film for ultra-violet photography (for finding evidence invisible to the naked eye) as digital cameras cannot match the sensitivity of film.

That said, all their other work is most definitely digital!

 

Your friend is correct. We used IR film sometimes to photograph bruises on people of color. Regular C41 film doesn't reproduce the shades properly.

[Lucklik]

Andy writes:

 

I bought an M7 last year at full price and quite frankly I wish I had held off on the purchase. For now I will hold on to it, primarily for B&W photography, but since I don't make big bucks, I am not happy with the fact that the price for a used M7 has already dropped considerably.

 

I've also bought an M7 (a la carte) last year and I'm not regretting it.

I still prefer the magic of film above the magic of digital.

 

rgs

Luc

[wilfredo]

Luc,

 

I am happy for you. I would feel better if Leica were not so aggresive in their price increases.

 

Wilfredo+

Benitez-Rivera Photography

[Sandokan]

I was talking to a police officer who works at crime scenes the other day.

He mentioned that they still use film for ultra-violet photography (for finding evidence invisible to the naked eye) as digital cameras cannot match the sensitivity of film.

That said, all their other work is most definitely digital!

Hi,

 

I am surprised crime scenes are not captured on film. I sometimes do forensics for IT and I use film as with the original slides, I would not have to convince a jury/judge/experts that the images are untampered. Most of the work I have to do for this is all spent trying to get proof that the digital data I have analysed is the original data and not changed by any of the processes followed in getting it off a hard disc. Anyway that was the excuse I used to buy a film camera for work

[wolfee]

Actually, I don't think it is that bleak. Reduced variety of film offerings for sure, but complete demise of film won't occur in the lifetime of anyone old enough to have grown up with film. I don't agree with those that make a comparison with CD's taking over for vinyl records. That process was sudden, near total, and turned vinyl into something less than a niche. Within just a few years they became a specialty item available, not readily available at retail. Digital has been attacking film for more than 10 years now and made a pretty good dent, will become the mainstream standard for sure, but never eliminate it. Today, there is still no digital format in a realistic consumer price range that can come close to matching a projected 35mm image. And, nothing on the horizon. The reason TV and movie production companies still spend a lot of money to use film instead of digital video is that film simply pleases the eye better. Note that NFL Films says that if they switched from their legacy 16mm to digital capture, "nobody would look at our product".

 

I think a better comparison might be to observe how digital DATA is replacing data printed on paper. We don't need paper, it is slowly fading, but we still like it in some instances and probably always will.

[SteveYork]

Actually, I don't think it is that bleak. Reduced variety of film offerings for sure, but complete demise of film won't occur in the lifetime of anyone old enough to have grown up with film. I don't agree with those that make a comparison with CD's taking over for vinyl records. That process was sudden, near total, and turned vinyl into something less than a niche. Within just a few years they became a specialty item available, not readily available at retail. Digital has been attacking film for more than 10 years now and made a pretty good dent, will become the mainstream standard for sure, but never eliminate it. Today, there is still no digital format in a realistic consumer price range that can come close to matching a projected 35mm image. And, nothing on the horizon. The reason TV and movie production companies still spend a lot of money to use film instead of digital video is that film simply pleases the eye better. Note that NFL Films says that if they switched from their legacy 16mm to digital capture, "nobody would look at our product".

 

I think a better comparison might be to observe how digital DATA is replacing data printed on paper. We don't need paper, it is slowly fading, but we still like it in some instances and probably always will.

 

People predicted the demise of paper books because of the internet or whatever.

 

Another good analogy is archery vs firearms. The introduction of firearms made archery obsolete, but you still see it in sport and hunting.

 

Because the teh complexity of society and how electronic it has gotten, there are some folks who will want more basic items -- manual watches; manual transmissions, writing pen to paper instead on the computer, ect., and you can add to that list a manual camera. And for a manual camera you only have one options and that is film. Not very articulate and not the best analogies, but I think you all see the point I'm trying to make.

[stunsworth]

I think a better comparison might be to observe how digital DATA is replacing data printed on paper. We don't need paper, it is slowly fading, but we still like it in some instances and probably always will.

 

I wish someone would tell that to the companies who jam up my letterbox with junk mail ;-)

[reddawn]

Actually, I don't think it is that bleak. Reduced variety of film offerings for sure, but complete demise of film won't occur in the lifetime of anyone old enough to have grown up with film.

 

Hi

 

But the reduction in variety or availabilty of one's fav film is in itself a major frustration - it's just as good as film being dead.

 

If I dislike Kodak print film today, I'm not likely to run it through my M even if it is the only film left in the world produced in China.

 

Running cheap film is tantamount to a reduction in image quality, which in turn reduces the satisfaction of using one's (Leica) film gear, and will eventually make one rethink the film only route.

 

I don't use film simply for film's sake. I use film because 1) my Leica gear is film only 2) There're certain films that produces certain looks that I value 3) It is still ecnomically viable to do so, and convenient enough to obtain.

 

But I use DSLRs for work, and everyday, the siren call grows louder for me to even use it for my personal stuff as well. Esp with the introduction of the M8....

[earleygallery]

Originally Posted by wolfee

I think a better comparison might be to observe how digital DATA is replacing data printed on paper. We don't need paper, it is slowly fading, but we still like it in some instances and probably always will.

 

Hmm, where I work we have to keep a hard copy of every e mail we receive or send, I've yet to witness the so called paperless office.

 

More OT, see this; LEE'S CAMERAS (HOLBORN) LTD. Specialists in Cine, Audio Visual & Photographic Equipment - bit of an eye opener!

[stunsworth]

James, I remember people talking about the paperless office in the late '70s. I'm still waiting :-)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[leicanewbie]

In the consumer market, the verdict is already in; digital is the technology of choice as

it is cost-competitive on the hardware side, allows total freedom in image capture and

manipulation, and allows for greater design choices in cameras -- lens manufacturers

are finding themselves also creating lenses for other devices such as cellphones, which

was unthinkable 4 years ago.

 

In the professional market -- and I'm not a pro -- I think it is a matter of quality and time,

so there is the same adoption trend as we see in the consumer, but these customers

demand more quality, durability and upgradeability. It is a challenge for the camera and

sensor manufacturers at the moment, because they know that sensor technologies have

not reached a "standard" that will dislodge film entirely. It is also about time savings in

the transmission and distribution of images; in business, time is money.

 

That leaves the last segment, the artist/hobbyist/student/etc . Those that grew up with

film have an attachment. In much the same way that some people love their four-barrel

70's muscle cars. The new generation is growing up around the digital technologies, and

so their habits and preferences are being shaped now, in favor of digital. In the

educational arena, whereas schools had budget for photography equipment, chemicals,

etc, today that is not the case. And so they will encourage students to work with digital

and still apply the same concepts -- though now there will be more focus on image

processing.

 

I believe that anyone can be persuaded to drop film in favor of digital. It's just a question

of providing something of compelling value, and it will be done in two ways -- giving

the person more choices and capabilities ( lenses, sensors, features ) and by also

making it more difficult to get film and get it processed. That is a gradual shift.

 

So I think what we'll see ( or have seen ) is that the film processing outlets will be the

first to suffer, and the first to exit. Less people buying film cameras means less people

processing film, which means that at some point, it is not longer profitable to have your

own lab, and so they will move to larger, shared services. And that will cause delays

in processing and results, which in turn will drive consumers away from film.

 

 

I give it 20 years or less.

 

 

but I will enjoy those 20 years with my R8

[abrewer]

 

That leaves the last segment, the artist/hobbyist/student/etc . Those that grew up with

film have an attachment. In much the same way that some people love their four-barrel

70's muscle cars. The new generation is growing up around the digital technologies, and

so their habits and preferences are being shaped now, in favor of digital. In the

educational arena, whereas schools had budget for photography equipment, chemicals,

etc, today that is not the case. And so they will encourage students to work with digital

and still apply the same concepts -- though now there will be more focus on image

processing.

 

I believe that anyone can be persuaded to drop film in favor of digital. It's just a question

of providing something of compelling value, and it will be done in two ways -- giving

the person more choices and capabilities ( lenses, sensors, features ) and by also

making it more difficult to get film and get it processed. That is a gradual shift.

 

So I think what we'll see ( or have seen ) is that the film processing outlets will be the

first to suffer, and the first to exit. Less people buying film cameras means less people

processing film, which means that at some point, it is not longer profitable to have your

own lab, and so they will move to larger, shared services. And that will cause delays

in processing and results, which in turn will drive consumers away from film.

 

 

I give it 20 years or less.

 

 

but I will enjoy those 20 years with my R8

 

Well, I was with you about consumers (convenience) and pros (volume), but when I got to the third paragraph I began to find your statements a little different from my own experience.

 

I work on the campus of a major midwestern University and I can tell you they just moved into a large, modern, beautifully-fitted School of Arts with probably twenty-thousand square feet of wet lab in the basement. If you look at the curriculum, there's still required courses in chemical darkroom and traditional printing methods required to get a degree or even a certificate in Photography at Indiana University. Also within that space there is a solitary room about eight by fourteen dedicated to a dozen computer work stations to process images digitally. So somebody here apparently didn't get your memo.

 

Nor do I see it reflected in the catalog from the large California educational photographic materials supplier Freestyle, which continually runs quotes of educators from all across the country on the the importance of instruction in essential wet darkroom and printing technique for Fine Arts study.

 

As a lark, I picked up my digital camera last week and put on some new Canon L glass to have a go with it again. I can tell you that you might persuade me to go digital, but I'll say to you that I'm damn sure not impressed enough to stay digital! The colors are flat, the images are flat, the emotion is flat...it's a far, far different experience in many respects, none of which is favorable in my opinon.

 

As to fewer outlets that process all the film that is out there, coming from film cameras in the hands of aging baby-boomers like myself, I haven't seen that either. If my observation of what has happened to vinyl is true, you'll see consolidation but there will still be a film lab in every city of any size, of better quality and with more services, plus more options for express and overnight processing, and hybrid film/digital delivery methods that keep film alive for a long, long time.

 

Just my two cents!

 

Thanks.

 

Allan