The End of Film

PhotonWrangler

Flashaholic
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
14,432
Location
In a handbasket
The writing has been on the wall for awhile now; film is on the way out, and the traditional film and camera manufacturers are under a lot of pressure to either adapt or become history. I saw a glaring example of the panic in the traditional film market when I noticed a sign in a photo store that proclaimed "Let us develop your digital film!"

Uhh, right. :duh2:
 

CLHC

Flashaholic
Joined
Dec 25, 2004
Messages
6,001
Location
PNW|WA|USA
That news report stated that some of the BIG names in the film industry are faring badly, with the exception of Canon!
 

Sub_Umbra

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
4,748
Location
la bonne vie en Amérique
Someone on another thread said that all of the one hour film developers actually digitize the image during the process and he stated the resolution. I'd imagine that many who have their film developed that way could be kind of miffed...and wonder why they should keep shooting with film since the end product is being digitized anyway.
 

idleprocess

Flashaholic
Joined
Feb 29, 2004
Messages
7,197
Location
decamped
The expense of developing film (be it commercial or home development) weighed heavily against its continued use by the masses once digital became inexpensive and easy to use. The masses were subsidising the professionals, funding R&D and maintaining economy of scale.

Given the continued advances in sensor density and quality, I expect that film will go the way of the LP - only diehard holdouts will keep using it, insisting on marginal advantages that the vast majority of people cannot discern. Digital eliminates one major processing step and cuts huge costs out of the process; your "originals" never lose quality over time so long as your files aren't corrupted and perfect duplication of orginals is trivial.

I think that film supporters miss the tradition of developing film and playing with the development for artistic/aesthetic effect. I don't doubt that the best film cameras and film can beat out the best digital cameras for quality ... but I suspect it's already a game of diminishing returns.

I also wonder if the defense of film vs digital is about elitism, much like audiophiles bemoan "mass-fi" then rant endlessly about how terrible that CDs are vs vinyl with their fixed audio quality, how they can tell the difference, blah blah blah... A good digicam can take excellent photos without as much effort and know-how as it used to take. Of course, displacing the low-level technical know-how doesn't compensate for lack of higher-level know-how, like good composition, lighting, etc...

As for the retail places that will "develop" your "digital film," that's actually looking to be a solid business model. They buy a commercial-grade photo printer and print your photos on nice paper with better results at a lower cost than if you did it yourself with one of those spendy "photo" printers. It cuts out the "developing" and people get high-quality prints out of the deal.
 
Last edited:

carrot

Flashaholic
Joined
Dec 6, 2005
Messages
9,236
Location
New York City
I am pretty surprised that film is on its way out so soon. I knew digital was overtaking film, but I didn't see this coming for at least a few more years. I don't think that digital has reached a point where you get the same or better quality than film for the same price. I'm not even sure that high-end digital is up to par with high-end film. But apparently, quality matters less than convenience to consumers.

Though I love digital things, I cannot help but feel some regret that film is going. I remember developing my own photos, in black and white, and I feel like digital is... less... something. Maybe... less meaningful? Gee, now I know what it feels like to have been a fan of vinyl when CDs rolled around.
 

PhotonWrangler

Flashaholic
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
14,432
Location
In a handbasket
carrot said:
Though I love digital things, I cannot help but feel some regret that film is going. I remember developing my own photos, in black and white, and I feel like digital is... less... something. Maybe... less meaningful? Gee, now I know what it feels like to have been a fan of vinyl when CDs rolled around.

I can relate. Developing one's own film is a process that takes time and craftsmanship, and it has it's own set of visual, tactile and olfactory sensations about it. There's something nostalgic, almost romantic about handling old negatives form years gone by.

Digital has none of that. The digital process almost seems "cheap" by comparison - not in dollars, but in sweat equity.

On the other hand, I love being able to throw off the shackles of processing! I take more photos now and I have more chances to get the right photo with digital cameras.
 

KevinL

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
5,866
Location
At World's End
I finally learned why film will forever have a place - for some folks who can't manage a computer. I'm just appalled by people who have been using computers for more than a decade, who cannot figure out how to download photos from a point and shoot and then burn them to CD (despite the fact they've been burning CDs for so long). It's all in the manual, but all they do is whine to me that "it's complicated". IT IS, SO DON'T BADGER ME ABOUT IT!!!

Maybe these folks should really just go back to film, where it's as simple as throw it to the lab and get them to do it for you. At least the labs are paid, I'm not. I really resent doing computer technical support. Nobody taught me anything - I learned it the hard way. The bang-head-against-the-wall-till-it-bleeds way. If these people want to go digital, they can damn well put up with the learning curve as well.

I'm burnt out, frustrated and sick and tired of teaching people how to use a computer. I'm not paid to do that.
 

James S

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 27, 2002
Messages
5,078
Location
on an island surrounded by reality
The one hour photo places CAN usually digitize your photos for you if you want them also on a CD, but the machine develops and prints regular old film. Back when Walgreens was rolling them out everywhere they were paying close to $50k a piece for them I think. It's been a while since I worked for them, but that is what I remember.

Film for SNAPSHOTS is going out of style, and thats as it should be. Since you take a snapshot with a lower level camera to start with, there is no point in polluting the world with color film processing chemicals so that you can throw away the picture of uncle ed in 20 years ;) But for art work, or large format photographs and studio portraits and stuff, there is still nothing like large format film. And those industries are still doing just fine. 35mm can go away, but you can have my 4x5 when you pry it from my cold dead hands :D
 

Big_Ed

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Messages
1,768
Location
Sycamore, Illinois
I converted to using mostly digital cameras about 3-4 years ago. It's just so much more convenient. I can look at the picture I just took a few seconds ago instead of waiting for however long it takes to finish the rool of film off and get it developed. If I don't like the picture I just took, I can take another picture right then and there. Then I can see the pictures on my computer without having to pay for processing. Almost all of the pictures I've taken in the last few years are just digital, not printed. If I want a lower quality copy, I can simply print one on my printer. If I want a high quality print, I just take the memory card from my camera to Walgreens and have it printed, no problem.

If I had to pay for processing of all the pictures I've taken over the last few years, it would have cost me thousands of dollars. I never would have taken as many pictures. Digital cameras makes taking pictures so much more affordable.

On the flip side, I hope that 35 mm film doesn't disappear altogether. I haven't done it for a few years, but I used to take time-lapse photography of the night sky, leaving the shutter open for many minutes at a time, something that I can't do with my digital camera. I'll always love my good old Argus C3 and C4 cameras for uses like that.
 

Chris201W

Enlightened
Joined
Oct 27, 2005
Messages
340
Location
MA
As carrot and PhotonWrangler have said, quality is not the only reason many people are reluctant to give up film. Black and white processing is an incredible hobby in itself that adds a whole other aspect to photography than focusing and pressing the shutter. I remember in my photography classes in high school, I would spend one or two days shooting a roll of film for a specific assignment, then one or two weeks in the darkroom getting just one picture right. There's something magical about seeing that perfect print appear in the developer.

While black and white film is great, digital photography obviously has its merits. It's definately great for people who just want to do point and shoot at birthday parties or whatever, but there's also a lot that can be taken from digital photography by more serious amateur photographers. I've been using a digital SLR a bit recently and I must admit, it's very nice to have all the functionality of a true SLR (like manual shutter speed and aperture) combined with the amazing new digital technology. I certainly take a lot more pictures knowing I have space for 500 pictures or so (2 GB compact flash) instead of 24 or 36. Also, I really like image stabilization on the higher end Canon lenses :).

In summary, while digital photography does take away half the fun of the hobby, it adds a great deal to it as well.
 

HarryN

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
3,976
Location
Pleasanton (Bay Area), CA, USA
I am not sure this is as much a "digital" vs "film" or just a basic "auto vs manual" comment, but I have had a heck of a time getting decent pictures from a good quality point and shoot digital, compared to a manual focus film camera.

My wife points out that "now we are sure if our pictures are good or not, since we can preview them", but, I was always pretty sure with my film camera without the preview.

There have been some remarkably common pictures that we have really struggled to take - and I am talking snapshots - not pro stuff here.
 

TedTheLed

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
2,021
Location
Ventura, CA.
Big Ed. Argus C3 ! That brings me back, you still have one of those -- that rectangular box of a camera? That was my 2nd camera after my plastic box Brownie (hey, I just realized I started taking pictures on 120!) - borrowed from my brother..

Then it was a Miranda D. I loved the sound of that mirror clunking up and down !

Then I got my brother's Leica M3. mmmmm 3 !
It's 50 years old now! works great. Used to bring it into Marty Forscher's in New York for "cleaning lubrication and adjustment" every year or two..

I have hundreds of contacts sheets, and boxes of glassine envelopes full of negatives..

Some day I'll set my darkroom up again, and print out my life in black and white images...

I don't know about this new age stuff. So complex, so dependant on the unseen microcosmic world of integrated circuits -- one good Electromagnetic
Pulse and it's no more pictures...

It seems many CD's aren't holding up too well with time, either, information is lost as the substrate becomes corrupted in various ways..

My vinyl records will still still be fine...
 

Big_Ed

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Messages
1,768
Location
Sycamore, Illinois
TedTheLed,
I have several C3's. The "Brick". Two of them are in good, usable condition, and a couple are for parts. One of them doesn't even have a hot shoe for a modern flash. I have a couple of the old flash units that used 2 C batteries and the old screw-in flash bulbs. Somewhere I even have a couple of the flash bulbs. The C4 is really my favorite. I have a telephoto lens for it, I think. It takes really nice pictures, good and sharp.

My dad still has his C3 he bought in Hawaii when he was in the Navy in the 50's. I always loved seeing his slides. I might have to have him show them again. It's been over 20 years.
 

binky

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 1, 2002
Messages
1,036
Location
Taxachusetts, USA
Usually I'm accused of being a sucker for the latest tech, but in the case of photos I'd rather stick with film for my pics of uncle Ed. I have enough gear to go digital, and I even use Apple's Aperture (and love it) for my wife's digital S400 point & shoot stuff.

But I absolutely cannot get used to organizing and storing and updating the darned digital photos. I just completely hate that.

With film I can take the pics, put the 4x5's on the fridge that I like, and toss the rest of pics & negatives into a shoebox to pull out in 20 years or so. I won't need to worry about crashed drives or being sure it's still in a readable format either, or organizing them along the way.

Seems to me that because the value of the family photos increases with age, and the digital medium is much more of a pain to maintain over the years I'd much rather stick with film. This is all totally aside from the issue of comparing resolutions of digital to what I get even with 35mm on my F5, which to me gets another vote in favor of film.

I'm open to having my mind changed, but for now I'm lamenting the news that film is going away for the family pics.
 

raggie33

*the raggedier*
Joined
Aug 11, 2003
Messages
13,453
argus used to be a main camera type i thought it was just some generic cheap digitals didnt know they had history the argus i had was like 320x240 and no flash lol i think it was even serail port
 

Brighteyez

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 5, 2005
Messages
3,963
Location
San Jose, CA
Digital may be fine for snapshots and even some limited commercial uses, but it just doesn't have the latitude that negative film has. I wouldn't expect to see it phased out of the commercial circles for quite some time to come, though I don't doubt that digital has made a significant impact on the sale of film on the consumer market already.

CHC I wouldn't plan on putting any of your film cameras up on the shelf for a while if you're currently using them. That market is likely to remain in demand. And I doubt that medium or large format film users are going to switch to digital. ... now how do I adjust for parallax on this new fangled do everything for you electronic thing ... :) It's been over twenty five years since thyristor flash have been available and I still don't trust them. If I were to shoot something in a studio, I'd still use an RB67 and a set of Norman strobes. Come to think of it, I'm not too hot on the idea of those puny little 35mms yet :D ... BTW is Pioneer Chicken still around? I used to love their chicken. Good thing Popeye's is around ;)

KevinL Most all of the digital cameras I've seen connect to a computer as a USB Mass Storage device. If a computer user can't figure out how to use drag&drop, I think I'd be inclined to think that they return their computer to the store as well (if you work tech support, you've probably heard that joke already. ;) ). And heaven forbid if they ever had to work on a MVS terminal or punch out a deck of Hollerith cards.
 

Flying Turtle

Flashaholic
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
6,509
Location
Apex, NC
Took a photography course way way back in college (Physics 45, I think). Still have some fond memories of many hours in the darkroom. In fact I still have a couple developing tanks, jugs for chemicals, and a bulk film loader somewhere. Only did black and white, but it was fun. I would hate to see it go, but like many, I haven't shot any film in more than five years.

Geoff
 
Top