Saturday Shout: Is the End of Film Imminent?

#1 GARY POGODA

I was not saddened or delighted by the announcement. I just hope
they do not discontinue those disposable film cameras. They come
in handy when your digital camera breaks down.

2:22 pm - Sunday, January 15, 2006

#2 Scott Levine

I definitely felt a pit in my stomach while reading the press release. I don't use much 35mm any more, mostly Medium Format and a little 4x5. I think there are enough used Nikons floating around to satiate those still dedicated to 35mm. I don't think I would ever give up my F3's. Also, with Zeiss getting into the Nikon mount, there should be something for everyone.

2:56 pm - Sunday, January 15, 2006

#3 Marc

I think what we are starting to see is less choices and higer prices. This will continue. Will film ever completely stop being made? I hope not but I'm also not too optiminstic. I think wet darkroom items like paper and chemistry will go first. If enough people shoot film and scan their negs film will still be around but for me, if I can't print my b&w in a darkroom because paper is too scarce and expensive that may be the day I put away my RZ67 for good. However, companies like Ilford and Kentmere seem committed to keeping the product flow going. Other companies like Foma and Forte also are producing, but I've heard they have had quality concerns in the past. Let's hope they have solved these issues. The more materials we have to choose from, the more people will stick with film.

5:19 pm - Sunday, January 15, 2006

#4 Nicholas

Film for me is dead. I just realized this this week. With my digital camera in for repair, I got tired of using back-up. I dug out my almost new Mamiya 645E and my four lens. I was going to shoot some film Fuji sent me as samples. I was about to open the film when I realized I need my instant feedback on a shot, I would have to get the film pocessed, etc, etc.. I realized that I no longer want to deal with film. The 645 is right near my PC, just sitting there.

To predict when and/or if the 'end of film' will occur one must look at film on a global scale. World wide economic conditions would indiate film has a long life ahead of it. Not many people can afford the computer side of digital photography. Just my humble opinion.

Regards, Nicholas

2:01 am - Monday, January 16, 2006

#5 nick in japan

"Imminent" has to be put into perspective, because presented this way is a bit misunderstood... IMHO. When a camera manufacturer produces a camera they are obligated to support that camera with repair, and, or replacement, for 10 years. This was an established law to protect the consumers, I believe this law is still in effect in Japan. Nikon suspends manufacture of a few models this year, including the F5, so in reality support for the F5, as well as the F6 will continue well past 2015.
Many folks would rather take a fine grained film, negative or positive, and scan it on a relatively cheap scanner and produce an image that can only be gotten with a high-priced digital camera.
I see folks everyday dropping off film for processing, and it suprises me, but, I think you are right, Nicholas, lottsa folks are very reluctant to change, for many reasons, economics, lack of knowlege about the entire process, and the fact that the greying population doesn't want to consider all the capital it takes to get into digital, with respect to computer manipulation , software , etc., And, they don't have the motivation to sit down and learn about it, computers and the mysterious new-fangled digital world in general.
I have about 20 more years left in my sensible life and I expect film will still be around when I get ready to check out. Meanwhile, I plan on enjoying it all! I plan on a nice scanner soon, thousands of slides and negatives to digitize, and, that 4x5 polaroid holder that I've never used is gonna get used this spring or summer, gotta learn about quick-loads first tho.

4:04 am - Monday, January 16, 2006

#6 Mladen RADMAN

At 10 - 20 rolls of film a year (FUJI Velvia mostly) my F80 was a steal two years ago - cheaper than D50 these days. Seriously thinking to move to digital photography, negative scanner produced by KONICA MINOLTA Dimage 5400 II would be my choice.
My vote today goes to film, I still know where all my negatives/slides are after shooting for over 25 years. Actually feel pity for army of digital shooters running WINDOWS who run risk loosing precious memories, in that respect my next purchase would be APPLE platform.

7:26 am - Monday, January 16, 2006

#7 nick in japan

Sorry Gary, let me take this please!!!
Mr. Radman, you are lucky,Congratulations! I cant find alot of my negatives and slides from 25 years ago, BUT, you will be real suprised if you look at the older ones, the less saturated images are fading away!!!!You better get a high priced scanner and salvage that color before it is all gone, that's EXACTLY why I gotta do it too!
Please don't pity we users of Windows, we are very happy, mostly, some of us are actually using Outlook Express too, thank you very much!
I'm looking at the Canon that does 4X5 and medium format too. Epson seems to be very popular here in Japan too.

8:39 am - Monday, January 16, 2006

#8 Stan Banos

The walls are definitely closing in, not a comfortable feel. But no panic here. I haven't been a pro for years, so I have the luxury of choosing the most obsolescence resistant image storage medium ever devised-
the B&W negative. My film Nikons are long obsolete, so no worry about re-obsolescence every three years.
Panic will set in should film and darkroom materials cease altogether, particularly since I can neither afford nor currently produce exhibition quality scans or prints.
Fortunately, used film bodies will be around for the remainder of my lifetime, and those dSLRs are butt ugly!

10:05 am - Monday, January 16, 2006

#9 nick in japan

Stan, keep the shutters excercised, and mold out of the lenses, those "Obsolete" gems will never be , really, obsolete! I am a collector and continually marvel at the design, beauty and function of all my cameras, even the Nikons....Something kinda religious about an "F" and a roll of TechPan!

12:29 pm - Monday, January 16, 2006

#10 GARY POGODA

I am happy to see all these comments being aired. Manufacturers will
see them, and it will definitely make a difference in the final outcome.

Not!! Unfortunately, the economics of the situation will be determined
by the preferences of the masses. It has been suggested the masses
do not have the economic wherewithal for digital photography (due to
its associated computer hardware and software costs), but in actuality
the opposite is true.

You can buy a good digital camera, with a decent sized memory card,
for dirt cheap these days, shoot a few hundred pictures, then take the
camera to your neighborhood photo shop, have your pictures printed,
in triplicate, additionally have them stored on a CD, and all for a lower
cost than you could achieve with a film camera (once you factor in the
cost of continual film purchases). No computer, no software. It really is
that simple.

The quality of high-end digital cameras is now on par with the best film
cameras; however, the convenience of digital far outweighs that of film.
So, if film should survive, it will be only as a niche market. And as is the
case with all niche markets, expect the cost to rise considerably, as the
cost of digital continues to decline.

BTW the most practical obsolescence resistant storage is the 24k Gold
CD-R, which costs a couple bucks, and lasts a few HUNDRED years.

http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/news/articles/story_1996.html

6:11 pm - Monday, January 16, 2006

#11 Earl

I think film will go quicker than most people anticipate. Go down to your local big box electronic store and observe. People want a nice small, cute easy to use camera with as many megapixels as they can get for as cheap as they can get. When people look at a photo, they are moved by the content, not by the process to get there. Digital is easier for the majority of people. Click, don't like, delete, take another. People aren't going to scan film either - way too time consuming and not immediate enough, no instant gratification. Digital cameras will continue to improve and get cheaper every year. Camera manufacturers need to make a profit and will cater to the majority of people where their profit is made. Selling NEW cameras makes profit. Digital outsells film anyday of the week.

That being said, I still shoot film.

8:16 pm - Monday, January 16, 2006

#12 Barbara

Change is the only constant. No sense raging at the wind - just make the best choice you can and remember, that in the end, its the image not the tool.

8:38 pm - Monday, January 16, 2006

#13 fxk

I was not surprised by Nikon's announcement. I was a bit surprised, however, that they included "film lenses" as well as camera bodies. I think we all were used to having a bevy of lenses to choose from in the Nikon line, but does this mean they will only produce lenses with image circles to cover the APS-C 1.5 crop factor sensors? Without dredging up all the rhetoric of full-frame vs 1.5 sensors, it does seem that Nikon may be shutting the door permanently, more or less, on full frame digital possibilities. It is one thing to say one is going only with 1.5x and another to only produce a lens line up to cover the smaller sensor - all providing I understood what they meant.

10:23 pm - Monday, January 16, 2006

#14 nick in japan

....and "how you use it!" We will all find our own nitch . Being in japan, you must remember that this society is WAY behind times and THIS greying society holds on to tradition much more than in America, IMHO. Lottsa disposable film cameras, and old FD, "K" mount, as well as manual Nikons can be seen here with the older folks. VIDEO camcorders , and compact digital cameras with the middle range ages, and LOTTSA cell phone cameras with the 18-25 year olds.

10:25 pm - Monday, January 16, 2006

#15 nick in japan

Here is a neat "nitch"... My new Tokina, digital 12-24 works, for tremendous wide angle shots, mounted on my EOS IXE.

10:31 pm - Monday, January 16, 2006

#16 John Bailey

Film is coming to the end. Perhaps not this year, perhaps not this decade, but soon.

For the camera manufacturers, it makes sense to push digital. A good SLR could last a lifetime with just the occaisional lens being bought. Expensive initally, but divide it by the years of use, and you see the problem for the company.

I started off with a second hand K1000, and still see them being sold second hand. Still in perfect working order, and just as good as the day they were released. A digital camera is only going to last a few years before it becomes under specified and the owner starts drooling over the next new bit of kit selling for about the same price as their ex pride and joy. Its only economic sense for camera manufacturers to want everyone to go digital. And once its out of guarantee, it becomes impractical to repair. New camera and money for the manufacturer.

The second hand digital market is small and short lived. Nobody can even give away six year old digital cameras, so the manufacturer wins again.

The old camera is given/sold for a token amount to a friend/kid who gets to play with a camera that they wouldn't even be allowed to touch if it had been their parent/relative/friend's pride and joy SLR. Future customer for the camera company when they outgrow it.

The great thing about digital for the manufacturers is that they can sell more cameras and keep selling more cameras to replace the obsolite ones they already sold us a few years ago. Film is dead, but not of natural causes.

5:34 pm - Friday, January 20, 2006

#17 Rob

Nikon's decision is a commercial one. They had to make the choice to survive as evidenced by the demise of Konica/Minolta. But is film really dead? For the happy snap photographer yes, for the pro - probably. But there are those of us in the middle who are using film as an archival medium. My single biggest worry with digital is am I going to be able to look at those pictures 10 or 20 years down the track? At least with a slide or negative I have something physical. The archival nature of CD's and DVD's is largely unknown, let alone knowing if the disk format will survive or if the TIFF, JPEG or RAW file formats will still be readable. I have a funny feeling that film will have a resurgence down the road.

4:41 am - Monday, January 23, 2006

#18 Barbara

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june04/bettmann_06-10.html

This link will tell you that film negs will corrupt and fail over time, just as any other medium. There is no guarantee whether negatives, CDs, or prints. Several major collections are currently in the process of being analyzed for deterioration and digitally scanned for preservation. Few negatives or images (and that includes all types of films) have been in protective condition. We are at risk of losing it all. Specialists have stated that most film would have disappeared in the next 100 years if these steps had not been taken. The collections are being moved into special caves as we speak. Forget your illusions. Film is not safer than digital. It just has different risks. All important images must be moved to advanced archiving systems as soon they are developed. If not, they will disappear. Its a process and should be planned for if you want your images to survive.

5:22 am - Monday, January 23, 2006

#19 Paul

For the average user I believe digital is safer than film. If you implement a good backup strategy.
As has been said, film definetly deteriorates over time, without constant storage in a controled environment. I have seen it on most of my old negs and slides. It can actually happen very quickly in hot humid climates.
If you have images which you consider important stored digitaly you can make a backup very quickly and easily. With the advent of cheap DVD writers and media you can store thousands of images at a very reasonable cost.
I make 2 copies of all my image DVD's and then at 3 to 5 year intervals, depending on how worried you are you can check to see if the disks are still reading OK, if one isn't you can just make 2 new copies from the good one. In reality I found that CD's rarely deteriorate in less than 6 to 10 years and as technology improves this will never happen.
By the way, I don't mean they all deteriorate in that time, but 1 or 2 may have.
The other aspect is that, unlike film, when it deteriorates digital media is either readable or not, even a failing disc can still have many images recovered from it in perfect original form.
And that is the basic advantage of digital. As long as you have a sensible backup program your images will NEVER deteriorate.

9:53 am - Thursday, March 9, 2006

#20 Paul

And by the way, you can backup hundreds to thousands of images to DVD for less than the cost of developing and printing one roll of 35mm film.

9:55 am - Thursday, March 9, 2006

#21 Marc

Digital is the current "gimmick" of the moment. I have spoken to several of my friends who are professionals and while they use digital for some of their work, they still use their pro film cameras when they want the best possible sharpness. Remember the adage that is not so much the camera body that makes the image but the eye of the photographer, and a good quality lens. Moreover, if you looked at the current line of digital slrs, I would say that they are oversophisticated. One thing which nobody has said, that at least with film, once you snap the shutter, the image is captured permanently until you have it processed or inadvertently open the back and expose the film. With digital, press the wrong button, and you can erase a treasured moment that you may not be able to recapture under the exact conditions. So for those who want the latest fashionable gimmick, I say go with it but film will still be a market, eventually specialty but I think it will still be around for a long time as long as there is a demand. Even analog records made a resurgence.

7:09 am - Sunday, March 12, 2006

#22 Marc

Oh by the way just to add that in fairness I know with digital you can see the image immediately, and correct mistakes while with film you have to wait until it is developed but with most sophisticated slr's, when they are set in full program, it is pretty much foolproof. In the end, it is what you want out of photography. I think no matter what format you decide to use film or digital, it should be whatever gives you pleasure taking that great once-in-a-lifetime photograph.

7:38 am - Sunday, March 12, 2006

#23 nick in japan

"Gimmick" is the term used by folks that are ignorant to the fact that digital is superior to film in all ways, not in a cheapo consumer camera, but in high-end sensors that are slowly, but surely, becoming available to the public pocketbook.
A professional is someone that sells their pictures, not a gauge of perfection, there are just as many opinions as there are morons in this arena. Film of many types produce images of quality equaled by pixels now, and, some folks prefer to play the guessing- game with their hobby, mainly because they are unable to transition to digital capital investment, so they pretend that digital is inferior. Awaken to reality, it's here, here to stay.

7:51 am - Sunday, March 12, 2006

#24 Rob Johnson-Taylor

Film is dead! Long live Film!
I think roomers about the death of film are somewhat premature.
First off I am a grey haired computer geek that has spent some 35 years of my life designing & building them. Photography is a hobby/passion of mine and I for one do not intend to spend any more than I have to of my life stuck in front of a computer screen. Photography is not about technology its about enjoyment, getting up early or going out late evening, rain, snow, wind & whatever getting out with camera, tripod and coffee and visualising then capturing those images. Memories that can haunt you for the rest of your life. Film, particularly medium format, but especial large for forces you to stop and think about what you want. Large format photographers may only take few shots in a day, preferring to take none if the image is not their. Photography should not be about getting good or even excellent photos, but photos that inspire and given the nature of digital photography I can not see how it lends its self to this.
Yes I know many professional photographers use digital but how many of them still revert to film when work is done!

7:24 pm - Saturday, May 13, 2006

#25 bob olbricht

digital,digital,digital....that's the current buzzword,and most are jumping on the electronic chip. I shoot 4x5,and 6x17,and 6x7. When digital provides the same info. as those do you will have my attention. Meanwhile my fuji s7000 is great for macro,and pics of the kids.

12:24 am - Wednesday, May 17, 2006

#26 Rob Johnson-Taylor

Digital or No-Digital
I have to explain a few things to the digital camera fraternity the first may surprise them. Digital cameras are err not actually digital! The sensor, the bit that captures the image is analogue; the light that they capture causes them to produce a voltage which is converted to a digital signal by an analogue to digital converter. The thing is with all electrical analogue devices is that they are unstable to varying degrees, and their characteristics change with time, temperature, humidity and dust (the latter is a double whammy as it not only block light but changes the electrical characteristics), true these things also affect but not to the same extent. And the fact that I still have film of my great- great- great- great-grandparents in the 1860 is a testimony to their longevity. The same is not true of either CD’s or DVD’s which only have a lifespan of a few years, even if you pay for archival version (not readily obtainable) they still only achieve a lifespan of 10 or 20 years. Digital Camera sensors too get maximal light must have light wave aimed at right-angles to the sensor plane, this is not true for film which is not so bothered just as long as it gets there, which explains why film camera lenses do not tend to work well with digital cameras. Digital camera lenses have been designed to ensure that most of the light arrives at an angle suitable for the sensor, its nothing to do with being “better” lenses its just that they are designed to meet different requirements.

9:01 am - Wednesday, May 17, 2006

#27 nick in japan

Sure wish I had some of that 1860's film, my slides from 1980 are starting to fog! And , I swear, some of my old negatives are fading.

9:53 am - Wednesday, May 17, 2006

#28 Rob Johnson-Taylor

Colour shift is affected by a number of facturs, the film charachteristics, the method of storage, temperature, humidity, also altitude (but dont ask me why). Colour transparecies, seem to fair better than prints. But BW prints and Tranies are much more stable. My oldest prints from the 1860's are from a Mercury vapour process - never got into how this worked but it sounds dangerious to me

10:11 am - Wednesday, May 17, 2006

#29 nick in japan

My medium format, and smaller slides and negatives are kept in the dark, air-conditioned room with my camera collection. Less dense reversals of the early '80s are begining to become obviously lesser in density. I have quite a project awaiting me with scanning/ storing. Gotta decide on a scanner soon, too busy taking pictures.

10:24 am - Wednesday, May 17, 2006

#30 Rob Johnson-Taylor

The Scanner I use and would recomend is a dedicated film scanner that takes tranies and negs from 35mm, through a range of MF and includes 5x4 LF and thats the Epson F3200. Its very fast and gives what I consider to be good results. There is also a good manufacturer of archival CD's and DVD's in Japan but I can't remember their name. If any one knows can they put it on this blog.

10:30 am - Wednesday, May 17, 2006

#31 nick in japan

Thank you, I will research the F3200, Epson is very popular here , I think the camera shop I frequent has a connection. Trouble is that the Yen is really bad, no-one is buying now, gotta wait till it goes back up to 120/$, or better.

10:54 am - Wednesday, May 17, 2006

#32 Andrea

I would like to inquire from this group if anyone encountered circles, like coins in their digicam pictures. These are most prominent if you soom and brighten them on the computer, but these are well visible on the camera rewind also. They are scaterred in the area and looked 3D. Not all pictures have them, but the circles are common in very old cathedrals, like the Vatican's crypt where the dead popes are buried. Some are also present in nature pictures like waterfalls, night locations, etc.

I am using a Sony cybershot 4.1 pixels. Thanks for anyone's help. If you send me your email add i will send you samples.

11:27 am - Monday, May 22, 2006

#33 sam

When digital provides the same info. as those do you will have my attention. Meanwhile my fuji s7000 is great for macro

1:13 pm - Tuesday, February 12, 2008