Film photography’s days are numbered
Posted: January 3rd, 2011 | Author: Wade | Filed under: Technology | 28 Comments »The last lab in the world to process Kodachrome is right about now shutting down its K-14 service forever. Rolls arrived from all over the globe in the lead-up to the December 31 midday deadline, and all that remained was to fulfil as many of those orders as the last canister of blue dye would allow for.
As much as it’s a nostalgic moment for many and the end of an era for all of us, let’s not mourn the passing of film for too long. Not only is the future equal or better in quality terms, it’s faster, cheaper, more profitable, and far more accessible. And the future is already here.
Digital photography’s shortcomings have been steadily eroding for more than a decade, such that we’re now at a point where it no longer poses any meaningful disadvantage. Some people disagree with that sentiment when I have expressed it, however their reasons now tend not to be about resolution or quality or cost or reliability, but rather personal preference alone. Fair enough, but decisions like Kodak’s mean it’s going to become increasingly expensive for those stalwarts to hold out while they can.
Meanwhile, there are tertiary institutions still spending as much as a year teaching students film-based photography. I have to assume their philosophy is to let the fundamentals be learnt in the most traditional environment, and that makes sense in principle. But what if the traditional environment is now the antiquated one? And not only is the digital platform the only one students will use in any mortgage paying capacity once they graduate, I would have thought its immediacy makes it an unbeatable learning tool anyhow?
Either way, the market consensus is that the clock is ticking and it won’t be for much longer.
(P.S. Does anybody want to buy a film camera?)
Your opinion for this matter is a bit broad in assumption and narrow in perspective. It may be true that the Kodachrome’s primary characteristics are now simply substituted by digital imaging equipment, but this medium hardly encompasses all aspects of film.
The best thing for this communication art, imo, is to know your way around both worlds, the history and the trends. For those who remain knowledgable with traditional methods while capitalizing on the new image making technologies will stand to have wider gamut of palettes (mentally or otherwise) to create with, thus remain competitive in commercial market.
Anyone choosing to be one track minded in keeping only one way or the other, has to absolutely be the best in that one sided field to survive. It’s competition, it’s simple to understand. Besides, it won’t be a lost to most of us film people if the mega companies shut down and let other smaller international companies pick up the film and chemical production/internet distribution.
This is one organic translation method that will never die.
Sincerely,
Peak
Digital photography will die before film! Digital images will be captured to form part of an image that is multilayerd. the single digital image is dying as people use photoshop and other software to enhance the image.
Digital Image Maker is the correct term for what most people do with a digital camera.
“..the future equal or better in quality terms..”
“..And the future is already here..”
With TriX i can shoot a portrait in a medium-to-poor lighted
room, standing against a window which supplies the scene
with a bright midday lighting.
After development, i can reduce (by masking) the (white)
window by 6-7 stops down, revealing the outside environment
with every detail.
Can you do this with digital?
But I do worry about that ‘Auto’ setting on the camera… the mode which sets the photographers apart from the amateurs. I am glad that I got told to put down my digi equipment on day one of my course, but not so glad that I have to pick it up again.
In my opinion sir, It ain’t over till the fat lady sings
(And yes I am looking to buy a Nikon FM2 )
Surprisingly enough (NOT) the pic is getting a really warm appreciation from friends and acquaintances. I guess it’s the magic of film photography.
I am still buying film cameras.
One big problem with digital is ARCHIVAL space. How do you keep those freaking files safe without spendind the equivalent of a lifetime mortgage for an on line storing service? Any solution or suggestion?
I am keeping my negatives safe and dry and that’s all I have to do, I have never lost a single frame, while not long ago an HD crashed and I have lost hundreds of files.
Pros and Cons of the trade.
your prediction. Film will get more niche, probably more expensive
still but I doubt it’ll go completely anytime soon. Other droppings
include: “film has served it’s purpose” – sorry Wolt… Some
clangers from DonkyBhoy “Digital photography will die before film!”
“the single digital image is dying” “Digital Image Maker is the
correct term for what most people do with a digital camera.”
(thanks for straightening that up) Sheesh!
This is for me the only import point…film photography is a lot of work and expensive vs digital cheap and very hight quality,everyday digital photography make new step for good.
I love film to but i think is over.
‘Meaningfulness’ does not correlate with the amount of money you spend. It’s individual-base. For that, the mass (consumer-amateur) may as well be contented with all the little moments coarsely captured, for the personal love of it. To that extent, commercials can thrive on the fleeting medium for the shorter attention span side of the population.
‘Value’ in commercial, as well as in science, education, police evidences, quick news reporting, etc., require different criteria for it to work or be appreciated. That is valid, and where digital imaging is doing a great job providing the creator’s honesty not to alter their images in the cases of factual representation.
However the larger value, as in virtue to cultural contribution at large, are measured by a two additional components, physical integrity and craftsmanship. Of both criteria, I have a hard time placing digital medium above film.
I assure you, film will still be here as long as you and I are alive.
Regards,
Peak
I already bought my Mamiya 7 and i think in buy another lens.
I was talking with the film vendor in Adorama camera store and b&h in Manhattan and they give a opposed answer:no future for film photography and i think that in this country is all about money.
If the film company no make money probably they stop make film in some moment,this is the other reality.
Sorry about my English.
it ranks right up there with “photojournalism is dead” and “digital ruined photography”.
I’ve been a professional photographer for almost 50 years. I’ve always been careful about processing and storage of my negatives (though not obsessively so). But there is no denying that film and the acetate film base is subject to deterioration. Some of my earlier negatives are already beginning to showing signs.
I take the view that if my home/office were to burn down or flood (a not unlikely event in the current Australian climate), my negatives and prints would almost certainly be destroyed. If my computer and all its hard drives with the digital files went with it, my pictures (at least those I still derive income from) would still exist on several servers at photo libraries around the world.
A couple of years ago, I sold some pictures the the Australian National Library. They were quite content to accept digital scans…and when I questioned them, totally confident of their ability to preserve those files.
In nearly ten years of shooting digital, I’ve yet to have a CF or SD card fail . On the other hand I’ve had a couple of major disasters with film. I once had 22 rolls of film drop unnoticed to the bottom of the processing bath at a commercial lab, totally destroying a very valuable and unrepeatable shoot. I’ve had a similar number of rolls of film run through a Nikon F4, with a faulty shutter while on an assignment for Australian Geographic. The camera appeared to be operating normally, but it was not until the film was processed that the problem became apparent.
I often think too, of the pictures that got away when I was reloading a camera after frame 36. Or even anticipating the end of roll reloading before the end. On a single 8gb CF card, I have the capacity to store hundreds of high resolution RAW files. If I were to choose to shoot Jpeg, the capacity would be the equivalent of 50 or more rolls of 35mm film.
No, I have no rose-tinted filters on my spectacles, no nostalgia, when it comes to film. I am quite content to see the back of it. And I delight in the immediacy of feedback I get with digital, not to mention the thousands upon thousands of dollars I no longer have to shell out for lab bills.
I can’t speak for Wade, but imagine that he is offering his perspective from the point-of-view of a professional newspaper photo editor, as I was, from my perspective as a professional with 49 years of experience.
Sure, there’ll be film users long into the future. I have friends who make platinum prints; there are photographers who make tintypes and Daguerrotypes. I know people who drive vintage cars and I will occassionally play 78rpm records. Thankfully the world is a diverse place and there always be those who will swim against the trend, but if I were to stubbornly ignore the advantages of digital photography I would no longer be competitive (a point you raised).
But to take just a couple of the other points made in this thread:
@ Jonnek…all of the versatility available to you in Tri-X (and more) is available to you with digital photography…though why you would shoot a portrait against the light with a 6-7 stop differential eludes me.
@peak: you mention some sort of Polaroid rennaissance; in my opinion this is more wishful thinking. Polaroid is a product I know very well. I’ve worked as a consultant to the corporation and been involved in several product launches. While off-beat and interesting in its own quirky way, it should be quite obvious that Polaroid is fighting a desperate holding action when it appoints Lady Gaga as its “creative director”. Like the Daguerrotype, Polaroid is unlikely to be anything more than a backwater of photography.
Nigel makes the point about CDs becoming obsolete as though this is inevitable. As I said before, I play 78rpm records…and sometimes even digitize the music. Old disks, contents still accessible, nearly 80 years later. And you can still play 100 year-old wax cyclinders.
You’ll also note that Wade was pointing out the “market consensus”: this is a link to a couple of graphs showing Kodak’s performance for the past five years; http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00X/00XQGG-287365584.jpg
The euphoria amongst dedicated film users that happens everytime there is an announcement of increase in film sales (usually anecdotal) appears not to be reflected in these examples of this once major film producers performance.
Sean, I always carried spare batteries when I used a film camera; for the meter, for my flash and the motor-drive. The 7 spare cards I now carry are contained in a slim wallet; about 60gb; even at the largest file size they are the equivalent of nearly 150 rolls of film. Unless I’m driving, I don’t take a computer on extended trips, so that’s not a factor.
On the other hands, seven 20 roll slabs of film is heavy and takes up a hell of a lot of space. This is about the amount of film I would have carried on any travel assignment in pre-digital days…and I no longer have to worry about refrigerating it in tropical climates or argue with security guards at airport x-ray machines, a constant concern and aggravation in the past.
Sure, film will be around for a long time to come and that will provide comfort and joy to its enthusiasts. But technologies evolve. And you don’t have to look far to find enthusiasts for almost any obsolete form, even the cassette tape: http://www.tapeheads.net/
There continues to be a difference between timeliness and timelessness, practical and emotional productions – where one does not disqualify the other.
Specifying more accurately the title for this article to The Days for Film Photographers in Journalism Numbered … Well, I believe that this has already been over for quite some time… nicely sealed with the latest POYI selection.
At the end of the day, you would just hope you are able to be true to yourself and others, no matter which method of expression you choose to do it. Between now and then, some of us can, within reason, make a little bit of noise – despite our individual backgrounds. At least we can be visible enough for products we are attached to, to remain available. Wishful thinking? So be it. The day I no longer aspire, it’s the day I no longer live.
Once dSLRs got to around 8-10MPel, they could produce a 10×8″ print just fine.
35mm film requires a dedicated film-scanner to get anything acceptable out of it.
MF (6×6 and larger) and LF can be scanned on a flatbed. Economically, it makes sense for me to ignore 35mm film and have digital for most purposes and keep proper film for when I serious quality/size requirements. (Or fun. Or movements.)
Try emulating a MF shot with a new dSLR such as the 60D; you’ll find you have to concentrate to get the narrow DoF (for the same aperture and angle of view), to get the same 6000px image, and to get the tonality of b&w film. It’s possible, if you stitch several longer-zoomed images together, which means you have a trade-off between 3hrs rendering a digital image versus 3hrs juggling developer and foul-smelling fixer in the darkroom and watching film dry.
But, if you’re just out to have fun, you might try film again. You can have nearly any film camera from any era for just a few dollars on ebay. You can have a professional level film camera for 1/10 of the price of an entry-level digital SLR. It’s a great time to exercise an old clunker of a camera. You’re only cost – film and developing. Film is fun!
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/8104609/six_reasons_to_try_a_film_camera_again.html?cat=15
35mm transparency film, when I last used it, inclusive of processing, used to run out at over $30 a roll (unmounted). Larger formats about the same. Even a modest two roll a week habit is going to set you back $3,000 a year…about the same as a reasonable digital camera and a good PC.
I don’t know about you, but I still enjoy driving a manual car or riding motorcycles in an open road once in a while, dining out occasionally to experience new cuisines, trying some new wine, visit friends in different parts of the world, and now even planning to have children! None of these things are practical but sigh…
the things we do for love.
I’d rather cut out sillier options like living in an expensive city, or making payments on inflated prices of housing/cars/electronics/jewelries or merchandises in order to enjoy more of life, the way I define it. Yes, film is on the top of my list.
For me, digital is sterile by comparison.