Landscape, Nature And Travel Photography

Printed digital files are without doubt absolutely superb and are now often better than scanned 35mm film but have you compared a 35mm slide projected on a quality projector against a projected digital file from whatever digital camera you want on whatever projector you want to mention. The digital camera may well in some cases produce files with more information than 35mm film but the problem is they cannot be projected at the same resolution. Why view a digital file projected at say 25% its resolution when you can enjoy a slide that knocks spots off it. If your goung to project images you are better projecting slides. Making a slide of a digital file somehow defeats the object, why not go out and take a thought out 35mm slide.
I am a member of a club that has just about maintained a slide catergory in its competitions but there is definitely a small increase in interest in slide projection.
Keep buying film and it will survive. Ignore it and it will pass away.

People love to say something is obsolete, for it gives them the feeling they can be cutting-edge... I still use b&w film (Kodak Tri-X and Ilford HP4 mainly) and make sure I have enough stock to continue comfortably for as long as possible. So while it may be dead for you, it's very much alive for me, hopefully for many years to go. I have the camera's, I have the subjects, it only takes one or two film/paper producers (and developers and stuff), and I'm satisfied.

Cindy great to see you comment on the blog. I read the article and found it interesting that Douglas still takes digital photos of his transparencies. Douglas Kirkland: From 8x10 To Digital And Back.

For the record I'm not against film although I haven't used it in years. It's just not used enough for many stores to keep supporting (if they weather the changing market) and is becoming niche. It's a shame more comments aren't showing up on this there were close to 100. I'm working with Disqus to sort out the problem of why they're not all showing. Stay tuned I'm trying to get them to display. Great comments made and I look forward to the conversation continuing.

DPP just wrote an article about Douglas Kirkland and his return to film. Remember, it's not the media, it is an individual's connection to the tools he chooses to use and the environment he chooses to interpret. Have you had a look at Michael Kenna's work -- it is film baby. There is a quality to film that digital does not have -- look again!

Cindy great to see you comment on the blog. I read the article and found it interesting that Douglas still takes digital photos of his transparencies. Douglas Kirkland: From 8x10 To Digital And Back.

For the record I'm not against film although I haven't used it in years. It's just not used enough for many stores to keep supporting (if they weather the changing market) and is becoming niche. It's a shame more comments aren't showing up on this there were close to 100. I'm working with Disqus to sort out the problem of why they're not all showing. Stay tuned I'm trying to get them to display. Great comments made and I look forward to the conversation continuing.

DPP just wrote an article about Douglas Kirkland and his return to film. Remember, it's not the media, it is an individual's connection to the tools he chooses to use and the environment he chooses to interpret. Have you had a look at Michael Kenna's work -- it is film baby. There is a quality to film that digital does not have -- look again!

And of course, digital black and white is rubbish.

I recently took a trip into the centre of York (England) to put some films in for processing at the Klick/Max Spielmann shop. When I got to the shop I found it had closed; it was empty. The local branch of Jessops (camera shop) still does film processing, but I was too demoralised to go there (I liked Klick). I still take pictures on various old Minoltas (yes, Minolta went out of business before digital kicked in), probably because my concept of photography was formed in the late 70s, but I have finally to admit that film is on its deathbed. The cost of film and processing is now extremely high, relative to digital: you might as well have a smoking habit. Digital is incredibly convenient (it even has the edge in cost of prints) and overwhelmingly immediate. I even have to admit that resolution-wise digital is superior -- painstakingly-crafted transparencies taken on slow film in bright light may hold their own, but it's not comparing like for like; most of my pics are hand-held shots on medium-fast film in moderate light.

Of course, film has its cherishable qualities -- the texture, the tonal range, expression of modelling and bokeh (the everything-is-sharp quality of most digi pics is pretty sterile), but for everyday photography, capturing everyday events for the record) digital is king, and its dominance can only become more and more complete.

And of course, digital black and white is rubbish.

I recently took a trip into the centre of York (England) to put some films in for processing at the Klick/Max Spielmann shop. When I got to the shop I found it had closed; it was empty. The local branch of Jessops (camera shop) still does film processing, but I was too demoralised to go there (I liked Klick). I still take pictures on various old Minoltas (yes, Minolta went out of business before digital kicked in), probably because my concept of photography was formed in the late 70s, but I have finally to admit that film is on its deathbed. The cost of film and processing is now extremely high, relative to digital: you might as well have a smoking habit. Digital is incredibly convenient (it even has the edge in cost of prints) and overwhelmingly immediate. I even have to admit that resolution-wise digital is superior -- painstakingly-crafted transparencies taken on slow film in bright light may hold their own, but it's not comparing like for like; most of my pics are hand-held shots on medium-fast film in moderate light.

Of course, film has its cherishable qualities -- the texture, the tonal range, expression of modelling and bokeh (the everything-is-sharp quality of most digi pics is pretty sterile), but for everyday photography, capturing everyday events for the record) digital is king, and its dominance can only become more and more complete.

Pretty much... yeah.

I was a diehard film enthusiast, with several SLRs in my collection: my favorite being the Olympus OM-2S. But even I have finally switched to digital. I bough a Canon G10, and I'm loving it.

Film will still be around... in the way that VCRs are still technically "around." But who's using them?

It's just too cost-intensive to shoot film anymore... especially B&W. I was paying over 20 dollars a roll!

R.I.P. Film.

You will be dearly missed.

Pretty much... yeah.

I was a diehard film enthusiast, with several SLRs in my collection: my favorite being the Olympus OM-2S. But even I have finally switched to digital. I bough a Canon G10, and I'm loving it.

Film will still be around... in the way that VCRs are still technically "around." But who's using them?

It's just too cost-intensive to shoot film anymore... especially B&W. I was paying over 20 dollars a roll!

R.I.P. Film.

You will be dearly missed.

An update of sorts from my comment in February where I just bought an EOS Elan 7. I finally burned through the two rolls of B&W and got them developed at the local photo booth. It was an experience that left a bad taste...

It's the only place to get film developed within about 15 miles of where I live. I dropped off the two rolls on a Monday but was told "our machine here is broken, we'll have to take it to our store in the next town. Tomorrow alright?" Fine, says I.

Back the next day, the envelope isn't among the approximately 10 envelopes of film in their box. "Oh, it wasn't the B&W was it? We had to get the chemicals in, it probably won't be here until Friday."

Friday I go in... A different guy behind the counter "Machine is still broken, I hand-processed one roll, they look good by the way, but I'll still need to do the second. Have them for you Monday?"

The next THURSDAY I go in (work kept me from going in earlier). Still not there! Woman at the counter calls up the main store to tell them that I'm really wanting my photos and can you drive them over here? I say don't rush, I can't pick them up until tomorrow (work again).

FRIDAY I go in. Pictures are there! But... They didn't make sure the negatives were cleaned, water spots all over them and therefore the prints. Didn't look at them until that night, so now I have to take them in and try to get either money or new prints back... with clean negatives!

Don't remember this from my youth... drop off a couple rolls of film, get some lunch, pick them up afterwards and take them home. No wonder film is dead.

Photo labs: Have been an employee and ran them for years. Consumer photo labs ARE dead and if you think you can make any money at it (one can't live on the dedication of the film enthusiasts: They represented a small percentage of the revenue) you are kidding yourself.

???... ??????, ???????? ?? ? ???????...

@Alvaro There is a lot to be said with never straying too far from your roots. As a former film photographer I find a certain degree of comfort with the film in the fridge. I do plan to shoot with it. I just hope its before it goes bad. That being said I'm constantly amazed at the amount of people migrating from digital to film. If anything I hope that increased over time as a balance is struck between film and digital photographers. None the less I don't think enough will in order to get film sales back to its former levels.
-
@Marc You make a sound point that its not even the turn around time on development as much as the impact of digital printing on film. I'd say this is as much a culprit to films demise as anything. I remember torturing my local developer with tweaking large prints I'd make from my slides. Poor guy I drove him nuts but it was good business back then. Now with digital printing that type of exchange of services is obsolete.
-
@Jay I hardly thing Digital is DOA. It seems to be going quite strong, but to your point there are other factors that make running camera stores profitably quite difficult. Since I wrote this post Ritz and Wolfe camera stores went under as a result of liquidity issues in the credit market and to @Stephen's comment its about Volume. Unfortunately the margins are so thin these days the slightest hiccup in the economy can really throw things for brick & mortar stores.
-
@John Wall how prophetic your comment was. I still can't believe that NewLab went out of business. I get back from Costa Rica and the local landscape has been changed forever. Amazing.
-
@Jay, @Zeb & @John Wall I would say the clock is ticking on still photography. At some point expectation will be squarely on video and its very likely still photography will end up as a niche market as a whole. Time will tell.
-
@Michael your comment was the news of NewLabs demise for me. I saw it upon returning from Costa Rica. So sad.
-
@John Wall thanks for the tip on Photoworks for development.
-
One last thought now that I've caught up on comments...
I passed by this store last weekend and saw someone with a medium format digital camera taking a picture of this letter in the window. If anyone knows who this photographer is let me know I'd love to see the image. If I wasn't rushed I would have taken a photo of the film photographer taking a photo of the out of business note on the film store window with my iPhone.

I am WAY behind on seeing how this post has exploded with comments. Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to read my post and comment. There are so many great comments since I last checked I'm going to have a tough time replying to them all.
-
@Miriam Thanks for the detailed and though provoking comment. I agree what we're seeing with longevity is merely the tip of the iceberg. Digital has a lot to prove in the long run. Funny thing is from time to time I hear about people backing up digital to film. A sad irony.
-
@Janne I think you could make this point quite easily. How long do SLRs have? If its not cell phones it will certainly be video. Just as my argument is made in relation to film the same can be made of still photography in general. Time will tell. In 5 years even digital still photography could go the way of the Dodo bird.
-
@Sam Hiser Thanks for the comment. I agree while the general statement holds true for a vast majority of film there will always be a use for it and a cult following giving it life. It's just not the life it once was.
-
@Brian B. Ainsworth Thanks for the comment. I'm happy to hear that film is going strong somewhere. Sadly not long after @John Wall commented the large local film development shop here in SF closed their doors. A sad commentary on the industry... or perhaps just a certain degree of destiny. I personally never thought I'd see the day one of the biggest development houses here in the city would go under and they did a lot more than film development. Far more of an impact to the local photography community than Star who was a very small player.

phew, I was worried my last resort for E-6 was going to be ritz/wolf.

went to the newlab site... appears they're only moving to folsom?

Photoworks has a new E-6 vendor.

whatwhatwhat the hell? what happened to newlab?

is photoworks' E-6 sendout completely screwed now?

This is so strange. While stopping for coffee, I accidentally came upon one of the stores in your photographs a couple of months ago and had similar thoughts to those you've expressed. The letter they'd written was very poignant.

Now, it appears NewLab has joined the ranks. I was just beginning to develop a relationship with them and now they're gone before it really started.

I fully understand the advantages of digital to professionals in a time sensitive world. I'm no professional but I have digital equipment here, there, everywhere.

Still, I'm over at the shopping sites searching for my newest 35mm so I can shoot Kodachrome and send it off to Dwayne's. I want what I want. What can I say?

I went into a camera store today looking for an antique camera. The salesman was so surprised and said "You want to buy a film camera?"

Jay and Zeb reminded me of the funniest dang thing I saw on the tv news recently. The tv cameraman zoomed in on what appeared to be someone's video cameraphone footage of a tornado. It actually looked pretty good -- good enough for tv news anyway.

That is a really good point Jay. The major newspaper in the city I live in has been reducing its photo staff, particularly its editors, and I have talked with some of the pj's who work there that reinforce the claim that less of their job is about still imaging and instead just recording video, going through the video later to pick out particular frames to make into still photographs for on-line or printed press, plus the advantage of already having the live video of the story in case they choose to feature that as well. I had a friend who moved to New York to attend a photography school there, who became discouraged and left after a number of his instructors informed their classes that the age of the photojournalist who shoots stills is rapidly coming to an end, in favor of the pj who shoots video. Mix in the release of the Canon 5D Mark II and its amazing ability to shoot video and a trend is really becoming apparent.

How much longer before this video capability becomes a wanted commodity in the mass market then? And as more and more consumers decide they would rather have their digitals shooting video instead of film, I guess it is possible we may see another evolution in the photography world in this manner. Interesting hypothesis. Though I find it hard to believe at this point that even future digital cameras that were designed primarily for video would not incorporate some type of still frame photography, even most of the old super 8mm cameras had single frame capabilities.

It shall be interesting to watch, as fast as technology moves along, it is inevitable that what we consider to be the cutting edge of digital imaging is going to be rendered obsolete sooner rather than later. The same thing that has happened to film, is inevitably going to happen to digital too. That is the way progress and technology works, for both our benefit and not. For better or worse, so to speak.

There is another debate rising that i can see happening sooner than films demise.The death of Digital still imaging.Not entirely and i am not saying this to flame, let me explain:
Most studios switched to Digital to get away from film costs because in the end most of the pictures they take for publications are discarded after use and the quality of digital was good enough, so they reduced a lot of waste and cost by switching.It was their biggest motivation for switching and Digital is safe in that type of environment.Photojournalists switched for the fast transfer times between camera and printing press and the quality was good enough so they switched.But their motivations are not necasarilly a good reason for others to switch.The only difference in workflow between digital imaging and Motion picture camcorders is the camera and some software.Digital motion picture cameras is where a big revolution was in technology also.So if the average person is going to invest in that workflow, why not go to motion picture?For what it costs to get a decent quality digital camera you could have a good quality camcorder that takes good enough quality still.As Newspapers across the country begin to disappear in favor of the internets video capability,Many photojournalist will begin to carry small portable video cameras that have some still capability instead of the DSLR they now carry with limited video.Soon digital still imaging may become a smaller niche market than film.Serving only the printed publication needs or a gadget to sell a phone but even they are becoming video phones...It's already happening.Many of the claimed benefits of digital cameras are also untrue or exaggerated benifits in reality.

For instance,the claim if you miss a shot with a digital you can see immediately and take it over as being a major benefit over film.I have never blown the exposure on negative film that bad that i didn't get something in the shot or couldn't be corrected at a lab and with the latest film camera metering systems, it usually came out pretty good if it was just set to auto exposure,It's rare that it doesn't.My rate of blowing it seems to be much higher with digital and In this case most digital camera owners themselves will just say they will fix it later on the computer.Also,although you can see on the lcd screen that something didn't come out right you can't just rewind time and take the shot over in many cases.A missed shot can be a missed shot either way.

What really is the benefit of a delete button on your family or vacation photos?Your not looking for a prize winning photograph...You just want the memory.

So For the average person that just wants nice prints for memorable purposes in a photo album to pass around the room without having to boot up a computer everytime.Film is going to be tough to beat for that purpose and lab service is nice to have for the person that doesn't have time to sit in front of a computer to do it themselves.

Digital still imaging may have been a shooting star that is now burning out in the mass market for many reasons.It actually has a lot more going against it than film today IMHO.

This discussion has really brought up a lot of good points. I think there is a lot of validity to Jay's insights. Most of the stores I have seen closed were not film based camera shops. Maybe at one time they had been, but they converted to largely digital-based equipment, and then closed at some point after that. It is a tougher market to sell digital equipment as opposed to film cameras, but I think this is not a digital vs. film, but rather a new vs. used. I work in a camera store that deals primarily in used film equipment. We also do film processing and do not sell any digital (or new film to be fair) cameras at all. There is less overhead on the inventory and the prices remain much more stable over time. We have actually seen a lot of our film equipment start to regain value. Manual focus Nikon lenses have doubled in value over the last two years, driven yes by digital users, not film users mind you.

But this illustrates an important point. Many people want to treat this as a very black and white issue with film clearly one one side and digital clearly on the other. But the two markets are heavily intermingled. Most printing labs are not either film or digital, but both. Just as many camera shops that offer mostly digital cameras still sell some film. The store I work for does not sell any digital bodies, but we sell lenses that will work on them, we do digital printing, and accessories like tripods are cross compatible. There is a lot more gray area than people realize here, just like there are lots of people out there who either use both film and digital cameras, or even though they only shoot digital now, still have lots of negatives from before their switch. It is this lack of a true divide between the two that has played a role in film not being dead.

And I think the whole term "film is dead" is a bit of a misnomer anyway. Dead is dead, right? As long as anybody is making film, as long as there is at least a single roll on the market to buy, as long as you can keep loading that old SRT 101, film is not dead. You can argue that it is dying. I can see some possible validity to that. But it is not dead. Not that I think film in that bad of shape, it has evolved and adapted to its new place in the market pretty well and has stabilized over the last couple of years, and in some ways has begun a small rebound (see my post above). I think people like to attribute more drama to the whole scenario than is warranted, because we do like our drama.

I shoot both film and digital. I enjoy both immensely. I love having a physical negative I can file away and know that no matter how many hard drive crashes occur I still have that negative. At the same time, I don't print in the darkroom myself anymore either, all my film is scanned and edited via Photoshop. I see it as the best of both worlds. Photographers who come down too strongly on one side or the other are missing the point, that each medium is its own medium. There are strengths and weaknesses on both sides. The beauty of this art is you get to decide for yourself what applies to you and how you are going to use it, and sometimes I am left wondering why some of us feel so strongly that we have to try and impress our opinions upon others, when that is all they really are, opinions.

Maybe you ought to place a call over to New Lab. If the big labs start running into trouble too, who you gonna blame.

Most of the stores that have been closing are digital camera stores up front with film processing in the back.The sign reads at the top "Express Digital + photo" .Film paid all the Bills at one time but Digital never could or will.So if film is dead, digital is Dead on Arrival.Many Digital camera manufacturers lack profits because they now have to compete with major electronics corporations like Sony that never made cameras before.I think what bothers me about this is the electronics industry and cameras are manufactured in Japan,Korea or China.Film created jobs locally manufactured and processed.So if Film does die it looks like it's an entire industry disappearing and being replaced with nothing else.But i am sure film processing could survive in another store. Maybe something like a custom frame and photo album store with film processing as a service.Film is not dead,But digital camera stores are closing everywhere...That should be the headline.

@Marc. Yeas companies constantly upgrade cameras. That doesn't mean you need to. I find it best to skip every other upgrade. Actually, I have kept a camera far longer than that. My S5Pro was doing just fine and only just recently did I buy a D700. It's just like computers. I don't buy the cutting edge and I keep the computer running far longer than the manufactures want me to. Yes, at some point it will go down in a ball of flames, but when it does, that's when I upgrade.

I was taught photography on film. I spent countless hours in my darkroom processing b/w film and countless dollars have been spent paying for color processing. I love film, but yes, it is dead. As of 2 years ago, I switched totally over to digital. I had started to like digital, and my S5pro was producing amazing results. It was actually a sad day for me. The last film camera I used was also my first SLR. It was an old Pentax my father picked up on his way home from Vietnam. It actually had more sentimental value than anything. But it produced wonderful images. Sure the old lenses had some mildew growing on them, but it only added to the beauty.

Film is DEAD, D. E. A. D. It's kind of like an old person on life support. A bunch of machines may be keeping the body alive, but the mind is gone and the person unconscious. Yes there are a niche group of people who still use it, but that group of people won't keep it alive. What makes film profitable is shear volume. Manufactures are going to slowly shut down their process. As that happens the film stock that is available will rise in price. That will make it prohibitively expensive and more people will leave. Prices are already on the rise. Eventually the major players will get out of the game all together. You're stock will disappear and you will have to leave.

Volume my friend, that's what makes anything profitable now. Those items which can not compete on volume anymore, go away. That leads me to my final point. Why even keep film around. Yes you say that digital doesn't look like film, it doesn't have the same feel. Well you right, it doesn't it has a digital look. However, that is the beauty, it's digital. I can make my digital file look like any film out there. I have yet to find a film look which I can not duplicate in Photoshop.

But there in lies the problem. The photographers who refuse to switch to digital do so only because they don't want to relearn something or give up something they spent years learning. That's why I didn't switch to digital sooner. You may simply feel that you don't get you hands dirty enough. For those types, I ask why? I know there is some feeling of connection you get from making it that way, but I gave that up so that I could create my true artistic vision.

Anyway, FILM IS DEAD. Sorry, but it is. You vocal minority need to accept it. I guess we could all go back to tintypes, or daguerreotypes.

I appreciate all the comments concerning the pros and cons as to whether film is deceased.

I too remember my neighborhood shops competing as to who could develop film fastest but at the sacrifice of quality.

The key to film for me has always been the quality of the lens that I could use and afford, and my technique looking through the viewfinder. The caveat was always the developers quality. No matter how well you take that shot with film, if the technician fails to do a proper job of maintaining and adjusting his machine for exposure, your shots will be developed poorly. I think many who talk about the demise of 35mm photography forget that point.

Hence, when one sees that poorly developed print, the immediate result is "aha if I had a digital camera this would not have happened because I could adjust the result myself."

So to those who state the digital offers convenience to those who cannot wait, I heartily agree. Who wants to pay $15.00 to develop poor prints when for the same money you can digitally correct your prints before printing them on paper and print twice the amount.

On the other hand, with the camera manufacturer's constantly changing DSLR models for more megapixels, faster speeds, and more advanced features, it becomes impossible to keep up financially. Today's state of the art model becomes obsolete six months later. Who wants to spend $1000.00 for a DSLR, and then find out it is only worth $300.00 six months later on the used market. And again, the same argument applies here that the quality of the image depends on the lens and the photographer's technique no matter how sophisticated his camera. In other words, quality applies here, too.

I still have my old Minolta 35mm SLR, and my old Minolta Digital, and I am always learning. I alternate shooting between both because in the end, it is whatever format gives me pleasure, and isn't that what photography is all about, the final resulting image, no matter how we got there?

Use whatever format makes you happy.

For me it was a few years ago when I noticed that Meijer, Target, and the like were no longer offering next day film developing. They used to fall over themselves trying to get your photos back to you faster than everyone else. I realized that film was on its death bed, and that I would soon need a digital camera.

There is no much more to say, but just a few of my thoughts and views:

- Nobody can discuss that film is not going to be mainstream anymore, digital is convenient and cheaper, for example in my case for certain things I can't think of using film (aviation photography for example)

- Since film has ceased to be a commodity is not possible to have a broad offer business based around it, especially very local offers.For example my trusty lab is one of the very few survivors in Madrid Spain, but they are still going strong and processing all the work of small shops and the other labs that have close, in the end is going to be them and two others as all the offer in Madrid (capital of Spain) So their business hasn't shrink.

- My photography has grow and got better exponentially since I started shooting film again. The fast, many, chipping and choosing corrupts the photographer mind. If you enjoy photography you should at least shoot a roll a month.

- Why the people that shoot film at some point, are much better photographers than the only digital ones. (flickr is clear example of it) For experimentation digital is great but for really learning you need to shoot film, mistakes are clear and concepts work.

- For me is not a matter of been death is just ceased to be mainstream.

I will keep shooting film for as long as I can, it just makes photography fun. But of course I will keep my digital at hand for the kind of photography that makes film cumbersome or not fast enough.

P.S. Jim, if film starts to take needed space on your fridge I accept some :)

With 54 years in photo, I'm still processing all the films. 80% of the images we make do however,come to us over the net. The U of Florida still teaches two view camera classes and our E-6, C-41 & B&W dip n'dunk get more than enough film to keep them in control. There are several view camera clubs active in the U.S., and they supply us with plenty of 4x5 film to process.
Having started in the business before color, when it came out that was to be the end of B&W. One PRO photographer we service has gone back to using film for 40% of his work. He says that he understands the results he will get with film.
I was a film product manager for the old GAF corp.(ansco)and at 73 I still like all photographic output. We have a photo tool box today that covers all photographic needs. Still having fun!

Since I rediscovered film I have never been in a camera store. Because there are none even if I live in big enough town in Sweden. I send my films to a big company in Stockholm which I guess take over the filmprocessing from stores like that.

The question isn't 'Is film dead?' but 'In what way(s) is film dead?'

The old way -- which one might call The Instamatic Way -- of film for casual snapshots and processing at the local developer drop surely is dead.

Consider though that the absense of easy processing means development goes underground. What I mean is, only those people who value film and the time committed to its handling will use it. That's not a large number of people.

Mainly only art photographers value film in this way. But it's one of the reasons you see Kodak investing realy money in a new formula for TMAX400, for example.

By and large, film is dead in the old ways we used it, but it will be maintained indefinitely for a small group of people who, for another example, find value in being able to change the sensor in their camera among many different qualities of grain and light-sensitivity, etc. Certainly this point will be lost on most ditigal users, but not on a few.

My response, Jim, to your interesting post is, "Yes, but it depends."

It is a shame to see such businesses fall under, but I have to think a lot is part to what Mat mentions in the first comment - adapting to a new market and new demands.

I have seen digital only businesses booming like Sutterfly and MPix offering printing and mounting services that go a bit beyond what typical desktop consumer printers do. Look at all of the Photoshop plugins, book printing and canvas printing services, ink jet supplies, and digital imaging training classes. It really seems like a local shop could benefit from tapping into some of these markets and offer a bit of that local, person to person advice.

Digital might have squashed the old models of film processing and the like, but it certainly created just as many, if not more market opportunities to replace them.

I hope it's not completely dead.... I just picked up a used EOS Elan 7 and a couple rolls of B/W film from eBay and I'll need to process it somewhere! ;)

As a mainstream format film is of course dead, and has been for a while. Still viable as a niche medium though, and likely to persist more or less indefinitely.

However, as a mainstream technology the _camera_ is dying - digital and analog alike. We were at Universal Studios Japan in Osaka before Christmas, where you have huge crowds, all snapping away at characters, Christmas decorations, outdoor shows and so on. And the one thing that hit me was the proportion of cameras in use

There were a few people with film cameras. For every such person, there must have been ten with a DSLR. For everyone of them, there was ten with a pocket digicam. But completely swamping all of the "real" camera users were the crowds simply using their cellphone. It was not ten to one, but perhaps thirty to one, or more.

Low resolution, noisy image with bad dynamic range and heavy lens distortion; fine detail smeared out by heavy-handed noise reduction and a white balance setting completely unrelated to reality. Lousy handling, half a second or more focus lag - that is, unless the cam is fixed-focus - and another half a second to actually take the picture. The images are printed (if they are printed at all) in automatic kiosks giving you a strangely colored print the size of one of my medium format negatives.

None of it matters. You don't hear people complain about any of those things, and they don't complain because this level of imaging really is good enough for what the photography mainstream wants. And that means that a free camera function in your cellphone will completely trump even the best designed, inexpensive pocket camera in the market.

The standalone camera is itself becoming a niche market, something for the enthusiast or gearhead. The very idea of buying yourself a camera is becoming an oddity. The mainstream camera market is dying.

Hm, might have to make a blog post about this.

The glowing panacea that has become digital imaging could benefit from looking back at the history of computer soft storage (hard drives) and music media hard storage (CD-R, etc.) before playing the "it's dead, Jim" card. The immediacy and transferability of digital data is convenient, rapid, and of high capacity at increasingly affordable expense, but longevity remains the greatest problem.

Images, unlike other media, are typically personal projects. They serve to document a memory, a life experience, a special event. Whereas film emulsion has survived decades and even over a century when properly stored, digital media cannot enjoy this owing to degradation and the maligned digital rot. And while one could challenge this obstacle by trying to make backup copies, that becomes its own continuing expense and rat race with no ending which few people are prepared to commit. The rest dump their digital images on a CD, an external drive, or a flash memory card and believe that grandma's face will pop back out at them in five years, or even 10.

I know this not to be a strong guarantee, but digital media consumers have yet to discover this en masse on their own. Unlike an old Ektachrome from 1959, where the images might hue badly and deteriorate, an image nevertheless is often salvageable for viewing or copying. Digital media, once digital failure ("rot") occurs, is beholden to the limits of error correction schemes. When those aren't enough, there isn't a degraded image, but an interrupted image -- if any image at all. Once it's gone, it's gone. Moreover, for those data storage formats used a dozen years ago, how many are obsolete to the point of being difficult to retrieve on basis of format alone, to say nothing of digital rot? How many people still use their Zip or Jaz drives, their magneto-optical (floptical) drives, their SyQuests, or any of the other crazy formats which failed to endure the test of time?

The other is the amount of money people willingly spend on digital cameras every couple or so years. The amount spent on a digital camera and lenses (if SLR), especially a decent one, must be weighed in consideration t how much film it would take to shoot and process to match the amount of digital images shot before upgrading to a new camera with the latest technological enhancements. This is another detail which most digital converts of late haven't really considered, but with people watching their money more often these days, this is liable to be a revisited point. If a camera whose build, if designed for film, would last for decades instead lasts only three, maybe four years (as a digital-only system), how long will it take before the consumer simply wants to stick with something that remains stable and familiar over time?

Then there's the issue of dumping old digital cameras into waste. Even parts that can be recycled (solder, wiring, certain plastics) require a process to separate these raw materials into a new raw product. Even then, there needs to be a wholesale market demand available to make full-circle recycling economically viable. Presently, the recycling industry is hurting badly and are unable to sell these reclaimed materials at a profit. So over time, we should anticipate seeing many digital cameras being inadvertently (and maybe illegally) dumped in landfill rather than disposed of as a hazardous material (PCBs, polycarbonates, etc.). Re-using (freecycle, craigslist, eBay) will only work for perhaps a single turnover until the second owner can no longer find utility and then dispose of the camera themselves. In the question of sustainability, digital cameras as we know them fail this long-term mandate.

So what I anticipate here Jim is, instead of a dead film industry, a consumer equilibrium will be reached as general knowledge of the above is understood and considered by people who now run off to a superstore to buy a new camera at cost. When they can't see old images due to an inability to recover the files, and they calculate how many thousands of dollars they spent on upgrading cameras for no reason other than they were "obsolete" and "not as good as the newest technology", they will reconsider the economics of their personal experience and ask what else they can do. What can they do?

They can continue to shoot digital and keep on doing the same, or they can shoot film, then have that film developed and scanned to disc at their nearest druggist lab, local dedicated photo lab still standing, or mail-in lab, for a price which would yield hundreds of rolls of processed film at the same cost as buying a new DSLR at the big box. And of instant gratification? That's what a camera-integrated handheld device (Blackberry, mobile, iPhone) can be used for -- an a visual information tool, not a memory tool.

If memories are what they want to cherish and preserve, then until a technique which can preserve digital media in a format and protocol that guarantees multi-generational longevity is affordably available, digital alone won't do the trick. Holistically embracing digital and analogue film for imaging, on the other hand, is an equilibrium which I suspect will find itself in the coming years with the main consumer market, as it yields the best of all personal requirements when those needs are required. In fact, it remains a matter of time before a single product which can shoot to digital media or film on the fly is at the disposal of the consumer. While you might know this to be the case with $40,000 Hasselblads, I suspect the maker of an SLR which creates the first F/DSLR for the mass market will ultimately lead the next big jump into imaging trends.

As for film-only adherents? The market has consolidated, but in so doing, the market is more resilient because of it, and distribution channels for making film available online increases volume through dedicated film sales dealers and thus a stronger likelihood of fresh emulsion each and every time. This too is a consequence of digital convergence with an analogue technology. And for this, online sales are an ally in preserving continued film sales revenue. Even if film development came to worst, there will always be grocery shelf chemicals to process (black & white, at least) film, such as instant coffee. An those Taster's Choice-developed photos will presently last an order of fifty times longer than a digital image on a piece of 2009-era media.

Anyway, my internal editor broke, so thanks for enduring the length of this comment.

I learned on film too simulataneously as digital. Once the RAW format became easier to use then I never looked back though. Students learning on film will probably be considered standard for years to come but most of the market has always been rooted in mom and dad, uncle joe, etc... and those people are not using film these days. Also for most who shoot professionally it really makes little sense financially and from a workflow perspective to do so. How I see the trajectory for film is it will be a starting point for some, a niche hobby for others, and for limited professional use such as panoramic, large format, B/W. Gone are the days when everyone who wanted pictures would always use film. It is fairly obvious since the general perception of film has gone from being the norm to being a novelty.

Also what I am wondering is if the film development industry is being propped up by demand from the movie / filming industry?

I agree with you there too Jim, it is a trend I have seen a bit of in the field of education as well. The large number of students being taught on film is in no small part because a large number of teachers are committed to teaching on film. Whether this trend continues or progresses downward remains to be seen. On a somewhat related note, I have also noticed a disturbing trend amongst teachers teaching digitally to no longer teach the fundamentals: shutter speed, aperture, depth of field, etc. I have seriously heard of some teachers dismissing needing to know these things and instead instructing their students in the use of the automatic functions and justifying it by saying that the LCD screen and histograms tell them all they need to know. But this is not a problem with digital, just poor teaching.

Anyway, thanks for your continuously well thought out articles Jim, I enjoy reading them. I just had to pop in and add my two cents worth on this one. :-)

film is not dead. its on the rise again!
go to www.lomography.com
There are thousands of film photographers out there, professional and amateurs. I started my love for photography just last year, around february 2008, it sparked off with film photography. The interest for film photography is gradually increasing, and i'd say that it will hit the world that film will never be dead.

@Zeb Excellent points and thanks for sharing your perspective. I've always imagined that film will persist but on a very niche level. You raise a really interesting aspect of film's evolution in regard to students. Art schools require film work, exposing students to all formats. There are so many film techniques that have artistic significance, but I can't help but think that the pool of those using film will always be on a downward trajectory. When film using instructors transition out to the next generation I don't see the students of today and instructors of tomorrow being as committed to the format. I could be wrong, but thats my perception. I do hope film sticks around even if it is a niche format. As stores supporting film development go under the lack of exposure (no pun intended) certainly will not help it maintain its current use.

If film is really dead, then I should be out of work. I'll start off by admitting that I have a slightly...different point of view on this situation as I actually work in one of those types of cameras stores. Granted, our business is not just film processing but also the sale of used film cameras. I am not sure if that makes us twice as blessed or cursed. ;-) And we are certainly not getting fat and rich off of it and planning a move to Jamaica, but we are also holding our own, and by gods, actually showing growth.

Anyway, in my experiences I think it is a bit overdramatic to describe film as dead. I usually explain it as film has "evolved". The market is surely different than it was even ten years ago. Many cameras stores have either had to transition to digital, or go out of business. The photography world lost Agfa. Kodak discontinued Tech Pan, HIE, EIR, among others. Ilford nearly went out of business. Polaroid has gone on now too. The average consumer doesn't even remember how to load their old film point and shoots anymore, and as you say Jim, snaps everything with a cell phone, DSLR or digital compact. Some photographers can now claim to have never even shot a roll of film.

If you look at these facts, it does in fact look like film is dying, except...

Agfaphoto has replaced Agfa. You can once again buy Rodinal, as well as other Agfa chemicals and films. Kodak revamped their Portra films, introduced the Ultra Color films, just released a new Ektar 100 film, and after having spent the last few years claiming film was dead themselves, recently stated that "if you come back in ten years, you will still be able to buy Kodak film." Ilford restructured and is going strong, they even brought back SFX and certain papers they had discontinued. They have become the largest distributor of black and white paper today. Fuji picked up a bit of Polaroid's slack, releasing three replacement peel-apart films, that actually perform better than their Polaroid predecessors. I will not spend much time talking about the Impossible Project other than to mention it. Fuji also reintroduced a remade Velvia 50 in response to demand from photographers.

Lomo grows bigger every day. Holgas, pinholes, Dianas, Horizons and the like everywhere, in a variety of styles and colors.

And I could go on. The point is not to prove that film is going strong, that is too misleading a word. I think you are right in that it is certainly no longer a viable business within the mainstream of the photographic industry. It isn't and never will be again. It has become a niche market, but a very strong one, one that is not just old timers hanging on. In fact a large portion of our business, which has grown steadily in the last seven years, not shrank, is students. Young, middle aged, and old alike learning, and choosing film to do it. Not to mention the odd trend of the all-digital photographer realizing that there are things his digital just cannot give him, and acquiring a supplemental film body. I see this happening more and more with each passing month. And don't forget the "artist" shooting cross-process, infrared, cyanotype, strip photography, or whatever their imagination conjures up. There are certainly a number of them still out there too making things interesting.

The point is that there are several groups of photographers out there using film and film cameras. There are several companies, new and old, that are supporting them and will continue to do so. Film is beyond it's best years, but is by no means into the frail or sickly ones. It has seen many downs, but several ups too. And I have a feeling it will continue to be like that.

My guess is that it isn't film we should be worried about dying first, but ourselves, as I imagine film in some form or another is going to outlive all of us.

Thanks for posting this article Jim. I am one of those employees, that guys like you used to come in and talk to. I never worked at Star Photo, but our story is the same. I worked at a small pro shop called Motion Picture & Sound that survived for over 70 years (yes, 70) before closing down in 2007.

I still keep in touch with many of my old coworkers, in fact we write a photo/video blog together. I talk about our past here: http://www.binarycrumbs.com/2008/12/from-histor...

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I think what you really mean is that small, locally-owned camera shops are dead. Why? For a number of reasons: markup on camera gear is very low (i.e. a $1000 camera is upwards of $850 at store cost), nobody buys/develops/prints film much anymore, very few people regularly print their digital photos, and lastly, it is very difficult for small shops to compete with big-box-store prices.

Anyway, I appreciate you showing some respect.

to be honest, I was using printing as a singular example. obviously, there is also a market for scanning film as well. if there wasn't, places like rite-aid and walgreens wouldn't offer it, and independent, local processors might not either. a majority of people probably don't have a scanner adequate for scanning film, and since people want things digitized nowadays, they will turn to companies to do their scanning for them, if they are still shooting film.

to anyone who says the cost of scanning would be prohibitive, I say you must be nuts. There are many consumer-oriented scanners out there for less than 300 dollars and I could probably scan an entire roll of 35mm or 120 film in less than 20 minutes at a resolution acceptable for the average consumer (we'll say 1600px in either dimension), and a high-end dedicated film scanner could certainly do it quicker, but would take longer for a store to "pay off." again, another avenue to adapt to changing technology is available or retailers and at a reasonable price point, depending on how serious they are about offering that service or how much of a snob they are about scan 'quality'.

I'm also not gonna order prints unless they're gonna be used (given to someone, sold, whatever). it's a waste of paper and ink if they're just gonna sit in little archival sleeves in a drawer in my desk. while its technically hurting photo printers, it allows me to take that money and spend it on getting more rolls developed, which should help keep film alive longer than getting prints made would.

so, I do stand by my remarks that that certain storefront should have adapted to the market in order to survive. it really is survival of the fittest in the consumer world and that becomes an even tougher battle in times like we are experiencing right now.

Interesting discussions as the closure of this local independent institution affected me and my friends. The post by Mat mentions that the business itself is somewhat to blame for their demise. Probably to an extent it's true, but the market has changed. Take for example that most consumers and photo buffs don't even print their photographs anymore. They keep their digital shots in hardrives and for people like me who still use film, I get my film developed and never get it printed only to be shown online or on a computer screen if even that. I know I'm guilty of it.

well, at least at this location, film is indeed dead. However, I continue to use film, and I will probably begin processing my own b&w film at home again (I did this 30 years ago). The last time I brought my Tri-X here for processing, I was disappointed that turnaround time for developing was more than 2 weeks (!!!). They sent their B&W to an outside lab for processing. After they got the film back, they would do contacts in-house. The whole process was frustrating for me as I had to make numerous phone calls and trips to the area, which is miserable for parking.

Thanks for posting this.

--Warren

I knew film was going to die the first time I saw C-41* chemicals listed as sources of pollution.

*The standard colour film chemical developers.

From the general consumer market as a whole that could be a fair assessment. There are certain niches however like large format and B/W where film is still the preferred medium. I think this market will probably be consolidated into a few processing labs at some point in the future unless the existing ones evolve with the times. It doesn't really make a lot of business sense in my opinion to keep feeding a dying breed no matter how great it was before. Same thing happened with Kodachrome. As of a few years ago only a few labs had the ability to develop it then it got down to one lab in the country and now the film has been discontinued all together. Kodachrome was awesome but the demand just wasn't there to be sustainable after a certain point.

I think the 'film is dead' debate isn't really about whether film is a viable medium. It is and will continue to be so long as there is interest and someone is willing to use it. And even if it is only a niche market, someone will continue to make it. But that isn't really the point Jim is making. I think the point he's making is that at the consumer level, film is anything but kicking well. Keep in mind...if you're a regular reader of Jim's blog, chances are you are an artist and have a very viable reason to love film and will continue to do so. But our little niche is not enough to keep most of these places (especially mom-and-pop stores) in business. Store fronts can't survive on niche alone. They need joe-somebody to come in regularly. And lets face it...digital cameras are at a cost point where it's actually prohibitive for joe-somebody to buy anything but a digital camera. A half decent P&S digital camera can be had for about $100. Sure, the 35mm film equivalent is only $20-30 - but develop three rolls of film and you break even.

But alas...film is now niche and it has gone the way of oil paint - it's a novelty act performed only by artists and serious enthusiasts.

But to answer the question that Jim had posed...here's my take:

The first indicator that film was dead the moment that digital point-and-shoot cameras were affordable (below $300) which was already about 5 or 6 years ago. Once that happened, it was only a matter of time before people would think of cameras as a long term investment. Consumers don't really want to print all of their pictures...just a few here or there. Digital has allowed them to save money in the long-run, despite the initial up-front cost for the camera.

The last and final blow was when storage (hard drive space and flash cards) became cheap. Now, film is almost free. Even a low-end computer comes with a hard drive several gigs larger than most people need. And you can get Terabyte drives now for less than $150. That was the final nail in the coffin.

So sorry all opposed...Jim's right. Film is dead, and there's nothing you can do about it. There won't be a resurgence in the consumer market. But that's fine...those of you who will continue to use film will earn a lot of respect and credibility. It's like the audiophiles (like myself) who still like vinyl.

By the way, I used to take my Velvia to Star Photo and I'd get my slides back the next day. They shipped the film all the way to . . . Fillmore Street! Once in a while I'd drop my film off at Fillmore, take in a movie at the Kabuki, and pick it up afterward. I stuck with film after that store stopped doing E6 a couple years ago because Gasser's still did on-site processing with 24-hour turnaround. However, a year after the Nikon D200 came out I went over to digital. Still, as someone who used, processed and printed film for many years, I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for it.

The nearly 8,000 members of this Flickr group beg to differ. ;)

http://www.flickr.com/groups/film_is_not_dead/

@Brian Auer Funny how its a bit of a vicious cycle. Film photographers are in a tough spot... support existing companies that support film development or do it yourself. I was a long time supporter of my local film processing stores, but ask around and you'll find that many ship out their development. When I was using slide film several years back every local store in California shipped out slide development (for Fuji processing) to two large facilities. In the end one closed and the other remained I believe in the San Diego area. Even then demand was fading These days if you're a brick & mortar business you have to have other revenue streams to survive. One of the best known film processing businesses here in San Francisco is mailing out constantly about digital printing and other non-film processing services. I just got an email the other day that their drum scan rates are 1/2 of what they used to be when I used them. It's amazing how digital has transformed the market. I've been impressed with your interest in film and how you've taken to it, but I can't help but think how you're a very small minority in the larger market.

@Mat the businesses you've referenced like NewLab, Wolf, Ritz, etc. have transitioned away from film development as being their bread and butter. With that said this is an important item to distinguish. Digital printing appears to be a viable business. As we all know camera and camera accessory sales are a viable business. Film is not. Demand on film processing has cratered and is not a viable business. You're right people with the advent of digital have transitioned expectation to wanting results now. The case in point of this neighborhood store closing is that 24 hour turn around couldn't match expectation. I'm surprised particularly since use of Shutterfly and other online services for print take longer when you factor in delivery time. In the end film and film processing from a brick and mortar business standpoint are dead because of expectations around immediate gratification and ease of submission. It's far easier to upload digital files online than hunt for parking, waste gas and drive to a store. Of course this is all relative to the casual shooter. Just as color film did not kill b&w film I doubt digital will entirely kill film. It will have its place in art schools, for a time, and with other extreme enthusiasts (like glass plate photographers or wet contact printerers). Film for all intents and purposes in the larger market is dead and hardly a factor in revenue generation for companies and it will continue to diminish for the plain and simple fact demand has plummeted to a quarter of a fraction of what it used to be.
-
@the_wolf_brigade More power to film photographers who stick it out. Companies and photographers that support film are a rare breed these days. I predict this crowd is going to be thinned even more in the near future.
-
@LisaNewton You raise another good point about digitals ease of use and latitude for photographers to get more out of their work. Whether you're fixing imperfections and technical short comings or gaining better control over the fine tuning of your work digital is in another league. To this day I still cringe looking film scans. The slides are sharp, but the scans even on a drum scanner are considerably softer. They are in my eyes two different animals.

You had to know this article would drag me into the discussion... But for as much as I don't like the phrase "film is dead", I won't argue that it's not true.

I think the phrase "dead" applies only to mainstream society though. Once the hardcore enthusiasts stop shooting film, then it can be considered "extinct"... but it's not.

I've still got 3 or 4 local places that will process film for me. Most of them have other aspects of their business that keeps them going. If they happen to all shut down for some reason, I'll just have to develop my own stuff. In fact, I've been doing my own b/w, and I'll probably get set up for color long before all the shops close down.

But that's just it -- a lot of enthusiast film photographers are like me, eager and able to do their own developing, processing, printing, scanning, etc. We aren't helping the situation with the film shops either because we find it easier and cheaper to do it ourselves.

As long as Ilford keeps making film, I'll be a happy camper.

I started taking pictures many years ago, when there was only film. My greatest issue with it was the cost of seeing your images and then being disappointed with the final result.

I stopped using my camera for many years, but with the advent of digital, I recently started again.

I'm still learning my way around, but digital gives a "regular" person the ability to enhance their pictures via software, processes them within seconds, and finally seeing the results of a day of taking pictures.

I don't want film to die, but for me, digital is a layman's dream. I could never learn as much as I'm now learning, at the same cost, with film.

I would like to add though, that I'm thankful that the big companies seem to still be supporting the professional realm as mat points out. I may not be a professional, but I'll tag along for the benefits :D

Firstly, film in your fridge unused! If you have some obsolete stuff in there I'd highly recommend sticking it on ebay or passing it on to someone who'll do it justice - I'm pretty sure you mentioned on an edition of Photonetcast that you were happy not to be dealing with film anymore :)

As for film being dead? Yeah I guess in the mainstream, or at the very least it's dying. Around my area there are a few young guys like me discovering it for the first time a little too late, but mostly it's the older generation who's hanging on since they don't have much time left on the earth and refuse to leave what they know. However, even my Granfather has switched to digital and I'm eagerly awaiting the day he passes on his K1000 to me.

In reply to mat, things will often differ from country to country, however I think America and Australia and sharing similar traits in film's demise as a consumer pursuit. You mention that camera stores can switch to digital printing. This is true, though the major chains and online stores often offer the prints for much cheaper than the traditional lab could even dream of.

Even though there are 3 photo labs within my immediate area, and all have ttried their best to adapt to the change in pace photographically, I can see one of them not surviving for too much longer. He's reduced his floor space to cut down on rent, and is even at the point of not doing b/w processing anymore since the reps are reluctant to help keep him stocked with chemicals since his turn over is so low.

Film labs are obsolete in the traditional sense, though as with all technology, some processes just can't survive the shifts in popular culture.

Me? I'll continue to shoot film until the day I die.

sorry, I'm gonna have to say I think you're wrong, film isn't dying, it's businesses that can viably support them and adapt to the market that are. Now, I don't know anything about this particular business, but their statement saying that "they are obsolete" shows their lack of commitment to the photo processing business as a whole. processing isn't just developing, it's printing as well, and there is money to be had in printing, no matter how the picture originally was captured. the lab that I go to for all my B&W, C41, and E-6 processing is nearly fully integrated into this 'digital age' that we are in. you can upload digital files from your computer or from flickr and have them printed at the store. they're still in business and I have seen no large indication at all from them that they will be closing anytime soon, and this is mostly do to their ability to adapt to the technology of the time. had they not adapted, they would probably be out of business. (i think you might know where I'm talking about, but I didn't want to drop a name)

the store owners said they got in on a new, "cutting edge" process back in the 1980s. Well that's nice, but where were they when newer technologies were beginning to replace the old ones? it seems like they were still twiddling their thumbs only doing the one hour photo gig. if you don't adapt to the market, you'll die like this shop did.

sure, I'll concede that a lot of the old great films are no longer with us, and film cameras aren't being developed very much at all anymore, but film will always be relevant to professionals and those wanting to achieve the look that only film can give. film may be dead to the consumer, but fortunately the average consumer isn't going to dictate how companies like fuji, kodak, and ilford conduct their business in the professional film realm.

you'll notice that most everyone has a digital camera nowadays (3 years with a DSLR for me), and you'll notice that the consumer market is driven by convenience. in other words, people are lazy and they want what they want, when they want it, and they want it NOW. perhaps society is to blame for the advent of film's recession into the background?