The Future for Film

[andybarton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am actually quite surprised that students are taught any film work at all these days.

 

Skills taught and not used are skills soon forgotten. How many of these students will be able to process a film or do darkroom work in 10 year's time, I wonder...

[lambroving]

I am actually quite surprised that students are taught any film work at all these days.

 

Skills taught and not used are skills soon forgotten. How many of these students will be able to process a film or do darkroom work in 10 year's time, I wonder...

 

Andy & Andy,

 

It is extremely difficult to learn to read the light without ever having worked with film, done your own developing and printing. From most of what I've seen, photographers who have make much better use of digital capture and tend to be more demanding. While I can get rusty from lack of use, I tend to pick it up again fairly rapidly.

 

These university courses I'd expect would be primarily vocational, as computer courses were for graphic artists some 15 - 20 years ago.

 

As for learning how to "see", I'd expect that you'd get more out of workshops with skilled photographers who have the sort of vision you admire. The tool you are using must also assist the way you see. That choice is critical too. The rest is up to you.

[Advertisement]

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

[andybarton]

It is extremely difficult to learn to read the light without ever having worked with film, done your own developing and printing.

 

Surely that assumes that you are recording said light on film and processing the film for printing in a darkroom?

 

What about folk who have never used film in their lives? How can they take successful photographs at all?

[lambroving]

Surely that assumes that you are recording said light on film and processing the film for printing in a darkroom?

 

What about folk who have never used film in their lives? How can they take successful photographs at all?

 

With great difficulty from what I''ve observed. Doubt you'll find many who make a living with their cameras who don't also know how to make B&W prints, even if they haven't had to do their own in decades. They STILL know what is possible.

 

I'm not going to debate this with you here. Just take a survey of pros in your film-deprived country. I've yet to meet a pro who owns 6x7 or 6x6 or 4x5 or Leicas who disagreed.

[albertwang]

And doesn't the Nikon F6 point out that film is still a viable option?

[john_r_smith]

Well, there are plenty of recording engineers these days who have never used analogue tape. And lots of electric guitar players who do not own an acoustic instrument. So I have no doubt that future photographers, amateur and professional, will mainly use digital cameras.

 

However, does that leave enough of a niche market amongst B/W diehards, art photographers, and stubborn old fogeys like me, for film production to survive, albeit at a very reduced level? Perhaps it can. After all, in the late 1970s it looked as if B/W was doomed as colour negative swept all aside in the mass market. And yet, against all expectation, you can still buy a roll of 120 HP5 in our local Jessops. And it still has the little numbers on the backing paper

 

John

[leicamann]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think it breaks down to this..for traditional and long standing film users..

 

1) film for quality and uniqueness

2) digital for convenience.

 

1) film for "art photography"

2) digital for commercial and consumer photography

 

I for one will always use film and if it does look like Ilford or Fuji is going to "close down"..then I will stock up as much as I can and hold out as long as I can.

 

Right now I have 10 100ft rolls of Agfa Apx 100 and 400 in the fridge....

 

Thanks for the post

 

Regards, Leicamann

[albertwang]

Also the add that film is more viable for larger than 35mm where the cost of digital backs are still remarkably high for MF and LF.

 

And some people do prefer that "grainy" look that even digital programs can't provide. Actually, looking at recent work by Daido Moriyama, I am pleased that the grainy look just looks very "dotty" looking but pleasing rather than the splotchy look that digital offers. High ISO color film is still very impressive too, particularly with Fuji Press or Kodak Portra 800, both of which provide high level of saturation.

 

Dynamic range is still the best reason to shoot film... You can get an impressive number of stops!

[fotografr]

...and I don't need to worry about purple fringing, memory cards or batteries & chargers when travelling.

 

True, but you DO need to worry about x-ray machines.

[fotografr]

I think Leicamann John Mead nailed it on this one. I jumped into digital with both feet about seven years ago and shot it nearly 100% for about five years. I talked up digital to every photographer I knew and pushed a couple of diehard film users into finally taking the plunge. A couple of years ago it dawned on me that I really missed two things: I missed using my M cameras; and I missed the look of film. Now, I shoot all personal work and projects on film with the M system. For commercial work I have to shoot digitally because that's what editors demand, but I've found I really do prefer the special qualities of film--the depth, texture and character it gives to a photograph--and am kind of turned off by the razor sharp smoothness of digital images. It's kind of funny now because I run into the same photographers who I persuaded to go digital and they don't shoot film at all anymore. And what do they see me shooting? My M6 or M7. For me, film can't be beat.

[ddp]

I find myself in similar shoes as Brent - I've been shooting all digital for my corporate day job for 6 years now, and for clients that want it on the side. But when it comes to my personal work, I still find that film gives me a certain satisfaction and look that makes me happy. And really, that's what it comes down to for me. Looking at chromes on a light table is not such a bad thing, and I still have certain clients that want the look of film. They complain about digital being too sharp, too "perfect." I'm not expecting a massive backlash against technology, but it's nice to pick my M's up and slow my thought process down a bit.

[leicajh]

I'm not a pro shooter anymore. I only shoot for myself and my family now..so when I want to relish the scene, I shoot my M-6, and M-7. I will shoot film as long as I can. I still wear a mechanical watch - Submariner, and write using a fountain pen. Snobish? Who cares. At this time in my life I don't worry too much what others think. Just my inputs.. jh

[haris]

I shoot film, write letters with fountain pen, and use pocket wach. Russian...

 

It seems that future of b/w film for now is safe. I don't know for colour. It seems that after few months lately (dissapearing of Konica, Agfa, discontinuation of some colour films from Kodak and Fuji, but then introducing some new films, etc...), it seems things are stabile now. I think b/w film has relatively secured future, colour could be more in danger, but total dissapearing of colour film I don't belive...

 

Then, it is my feeling, who knows...

[haris]

I am actually quite surprised that students are taught any film work at all these days.

 

Skills taught and not used are skills soon forgotten. How many of these students will be able to process a film or do darkroom work in 10 year's time, I wonder...

 

In Academy of art here, photography is part of every art study, no matter if it is theory, or painting, or sculpture, or desing, or... And it is exclusevly done with b/w film. And since majority of students in this school are female, we here have cute situation. Male are almost exclusevly digital shooters, film shooters are mostly girls 17-25 years of age. And some of them continue to be film (b/w) photographers later, thay fall in love with it during studies...

[JHAG]

That's why I qualified my original statement.

 

Most people are not audiophiles, nor do they have access to audiophile equipment.

 

For most people, CDs sound better than vinyl, if only for the lack of pops and clicks...

 

(I am not an audiophile, but recall the first DDD CD I ever bought. I couldn't listen to it, as the sound was so bright and harsh, it gave me a headache)

 

You name it : most CD's produce a sound which is no more related to the original

sound of musical instruments, meaning the high fidelity is no more the criterion,

bur rather some kind of hyperreralism. In this, I see a parallel with digital vs. film.

 

But true to say, some CD's are very well produced,with a sound that's true to

the instrument — or human voice.

The same is true with electronic instruments, from which the human gesture (struming

of chords, percussion of hands, etc.) is no more implied in the process.

[treeplanter]

Destined to become a small niche market for large format and 120 roll cameras only, perhaps only in B/W

 

I agree with this, but I'd also include 35mm.

 

It looks like J & C Photo, here in the U.S., has purchased the old film-coating machinery from the now-gone Agfa. If things go as planned, they plan on producing their own B&W films. This was quite the topic on APUG during the summer. Look there for the details.

 

Jim Bielecki

[hamey]

Well Gentlemen who said Film is Dead.

 

Kodak upgrade for Portra colour neg film

Kodak is introducing ‘enhanced’ versions of its Portra colour negative films,

boasting finer grain, improved skin tones, more vivid hues, and better scanning performance.

 

REMEMBER USE IT, OR LOOSE IT.

 

Film for ever.

 

Cheers to Kodak and Fuji.

 

Ken.

[john_r_smith]

Well, that's good news, because I really like Kodak Portra (160 and 400). And I note that they are still supplying it in 220 rolls, which is good for us here at work with loads of 220 backs for Mamiya and Pentax MF (this is the reason we use Tri-X for our aerial photography, because Ilford stopped supplying 220). Next week we are doing some building recording work here in Truro, which will all be on MF B/W film for archival purposes.

 

John

[Lucklik]

How many times has this question been posed in this forum?

As long as (enough) people use film, film will be available.

I don't understand why so many people are affraid.

Perhaps this fair is used by the digital boys to sell more new cameras.

Fair is a strange thing. Every year +40000 people die, in the US, in a car accident, but the gouverment tells the citizens they have to be affraid of ....

So don't worry (be happy) keep on shooting on film but beware of driving a car, because that is a real thread.

Luc

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[treeplanter]

As long as (enough) people use film, film will be available.

I don't understand why so many people are affraid.

 

I'm hardly an expert on this, but from what I've read elsewhere, the only way today's modern film factories can make money is to operate essentially flat out, at full capacity. With today's diminshed film market, it's no longer economically feasible to keep these large plants going.

 

That's what makes the J & C Photo thing so intruiging. By buying the old AGFA coating equipment and operating with a skeleton staff, on a as-needed basis, J & C could keep B&W film around for many years to come. Of course, film will be more expensive, but that's the price we will, literally, have to pay to keep our film cameras operating.

 

Jim Bielecki