The sudden demise of film photography

[rogerg]

Are we right now experiencing the critical point of the demise of film photography?

I personally expected film photography to remain reasonably strong for another 5 years or so, and always have a reasonable presence as people continue to use it for various reasons (be them pro or amateur).

However I have noticed in about the last 4 months a sudden and sharp decline in the availability of film resources:
- Pro labs not selling many pro film's any more leaving limited choice
- Film developers closing up shop making processing inconvenient and harder
- General sudden unavailability of many once common films.

The last few months have really surprised me.

I always assumed & hoped I'd be able to keep using film in a small way, but right now it's looking like it's going to faded to become almost impossible to use in the very short term. There's several things I still miss about film that I don't have in digital, for the same budget.

My partner still uses film and with the recent closures and 'out of stock' situations here in Perth it's looking to me like soon she will be forced to migrate to digital simply because the resources won't be available for film.

Interesting stuff.

I don't think it's necessarily a good thing that the switch to digital has been so strong, quick and all encompassing.



Roger.

[erick]

The trouble I had locating a suburban slide developer in January was unexpected! :scared: I think you may be right! Maybe I have to bring forward the project of installing a Toucam in a camera body!

[leon]

Your Right Roger, it is sad actually that film is fading from our memeories and suppliers.

I for one have all my life used film, in the times when hypered film could be order over the phone and sent in a freezer pack to your door.
But they don't even make the film anymore.

I know we all have choices, but i to have turned to digital imaging, and although i do enjoy this new learning curve i still sometimes get out the Olympus OM4 and shoot some lightning strikes.

I still have all my developing equipment and darkroom, and do spend time in there, but not as much as i would like.

The thing about film is, you always had a negative and it would last 100 years if you want.

Cheers Leon :thumbsup:

[mickoking]

Film has one major advantage over Digital, Latitude. Digital has a latitude of about 5 stops, similar to slide but colour negative film has a latitude of 7 stops. B+W film has a latitude of 9 stops.

Also the use of film makes you slow down and think about the art of picture taking where as with Digital you can blast away at a subject and select the least worst image :P Also as Leon mentioned, negatives last a long time. How long will the digital images last?

But, digital is convenient.

[astroron]

I have been trying to get some fast film over 800 aso-iso but all that is available is 400

[RB]

The local Camera House used to have a big 2 door upright fridge full of all sorts of film, a kaleidescope of choice.
Now they sell bottled spring water out of it, and only one brand.....:P



I agree, it's a two edged sword.
It's too easy to just fire away and chimp at the screen to see the best shot. :rolleyes:

Convenient yes, economical yes, but........:whistle:

[leon]

Speaking of fast film, i remember not so long ago using Konica 3200 ASA, but alas that is also gone, however my Camera House Shop that i visit often still stocks all darkroom equipment, may it be paper, chemicals etc, and also stock specialised films in there fridge.
A film like Fuji Provia 800 ASA Slide film, is always one hand.


Cheers Leon

[Ric]

I have resisted the call of the digital camera and would prefer to stay with film for my general photography but finding a decent film is getting harder as is a decent shop to have them developed.
I think that the day is rapidly approaching when my trusty film Minolta will have to be retired in favour of a digital replacement, however old habits die hard and I think I will still be sitting around at studying the area for the right shot/light/angle rather than just point and shoot in the hope I get a few good ones.

Cheers

[netwolf]

I was actually thinking of buying a film camera body to try my hand at this art.
How easy is it to develop the film yourself and use a negative scanner to grab a very high dpi scan of the image. Given the price drop in film cameras especially the second hand bargains that are coming up this seems to make sense.

However one aspect of film photography is that you needed a very good mount with low PE to do the job right. With digital one can do lots of smaller exposures and add them together. I suppose you could do this with film by scanning and adding negatives. The benfit of digital is that the old requirment for a very good mount is fast becoming unnecessary. Short exposure digital photography allows use low budget starters to get nice round stars and you dont even really need to guide.

So while we could save on the film camera you would end up paying more for the film scanner and or great mount with low PE. When you could obtain similar results more cheaply using short exposures on digital cameras, on budget mounts.

I am no expert, and this is just my humble understanding of the present situation.

Regards

[ballaratdragons]

I am shocked.

The supermarkets etc here in Ballarat still sell those cheap and nasty disposable film cameras, which we bought for our kids to take away on school camp. But the 'fast developing' shops have dissapeared from Ballarat so we can't get them developed!

They were big chain stores too, "Rabbit Photo", "Fast-Foto" and "Kodak". They have closed their doors and gone!

Why the hell are they still selling those disposable film cameras then?

[Jonathan]

I still prefer film most of the time but it is a pain getting good quality film, and then getting it developed and then scanning it. 35mm print film is easy to get processed in Adelaide but slide film is a bit more difficult. I use Fuji Velvia slide film most of the time (but not for astro) and I don't bother buying it locally. It's way overpriced from what I've seen, so I import it in bulk packs from the USA for a fraction of the price. So far I haven't had a roll damaged by x-rays or heat so that's a definate money saver.

I can't see film disappearing anytime soon. The image quality of the larger formats in particular isn't about to be challenged by any affordable digital camera.

[xelasnave]

Speed of use and the fact that the best camera company in the world has a 39 meg camera says the end is near for film. We dont have vinel records anymore they were nice but having served there purpose in time are finished.
A horse drawn carriage in nice but now a novelty. Call it progress whatever but film is dead, it is just a question of how long it rots on the ground before it is buried for good. Just show a film camera to a kid and see their responce... whats that old thing? where is the photo? etc
alex

[Omaroo]

For me it's about the processes involved - and the skill it takes to orchestrate those processes for a desired result. My father and I used to do all our own development and enlarging as well - but leave that up to dedicated photo studios like "Trannys" in Sydney these days. I used to prefer to work with a "hardware" medium, and loved having to manage chemicals, light, exposure timings, dodge & burns, etc, etc. It's all been (somewhat) simulated now on the computer- but it isn't the same.

Digital photography requires a different set of skills - but skills nontheless in post-shoot processing. Tools like Registax and Photoshop simplify this process for the operator, but a good knowledge of colour and the way it works is absolutely required if someone wishes to effectively translate good results from camera to computer to the printed page.

Both mediums can be satisfying to master - and there are not many people who can claim that they have truly done either.

Like Alex says, vinyl records are dead........ but could someone explain to me why I still prefer to listen to mine than an equivalent CD?

[rogerg]

Film scanners are relatively expensive (or at least last I looked at them), but you are right that the camera's are cheap. In my 'last days of film' I was just getting them developed and scanned by the lab, I believe that was most cost effective. Probably not an option in many places now.


Actually, I disagree. If you are doing 5 minute exposures with digital, you probably have at least half to 2/3 of your PE cycle included in that anyway. Once you go that far, you just have to make the same corrections over and over again. I never had a problem with manually guiding film exposures up to an hour (I had failures, but it was OK). I'd argue that digital requires a higher level of precision with the small pixel size. With either you can autoguide no problem, in the same way as you would for digital for film.

Roger.

[Dujon]

Perhaps you are addicted to 'pop' music, Chris? :P

No, I'm joking; there is something about the vinyl recordings that marks them as different to the digital medium (apart from the Rice Bubble snaps, crackles and pops). I think though, and here I am not joking, that the vinyl media had a tendency to 'mellow' the original sound. Naturally the pre-amp, amplifier and speakers do have to come into the equation but I'd rather listen to a brass band, for instance, from a CD recording than one from an EP.

Don't panic though, I'm off to see the doc in a few weeks in order to get my ears de-waxed. :(

[Jonathan]

Hi Alex,
Who is the best camera company in the world? Any links for that camera? I somehow think the cost of that camera is going to be more than the price of a family car (you can buy a lot of film for that!). Anyway 39mp will only rival 6x7 medium format, which is probably enough for most jobs but it still won't come close to 4"x5" and even larger film used in landscape photography.

Here's how to get a (at a minimum) 100mp camera for under US$2000, it also explains a little about why scanned pixels are better than what comes out of a digital camera.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/100mp.htm

[wavelandscott]

While I am not a film buff, I do appreciate the "art" of the film development process and have found it neat to see the handywork of capable artisans of this field...

However, I am never amazed at the speed with which a new technology change can replace the previous technology...the production cost economies of scale quickly tip in the favor of the new technology (especially if it is deemed by the masses to be a helpful replacement).

As the new technology gets cheaper the old technology gets more expensive and before you know it, the old stuff is no longer commercially viable on a large scale...

In my opinion...
As our world becomes more globalised and even more consumercentric (my newly coined phrase) I would expect each successive wave of new technology to be adopted faster and faster contributing to the consumption treadmill and reinforcing the growing attitudes of a consumption based "throw away" global society...but I am not bitter about it!

[xelasnave]

Hey Johnathan thanks for the link:) :thumbsup: .
I should not have said best camera in the world as I refer only to my world..the one that I know about so far.
Here is a link but if you goggle there is a lot out there on them.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=270
Thanks again alex

[ballaratdragons]

They are on thier way back Alex.

Kmart and some other stores now sell new record players, and one company in New Zealand started releasing new music on vinyl only 2 years ago.

There are several places in USA and UK that still release artists on vinyl too.

People requested record players and records, so they are making them both again.

[xelasnave]

Yes Ken I know just testing the market;) :lol: :lol: :lol: . I have found a heap of them at Dad,s thinking Ebay for the first time in my life. Turntables one year sold (as a musical instrument) more units than all other instruments together in the Liverpool district in the UK. saw a turntable in Kmart like outta the 50's and radios...

I built a camera from balsa wood :eyepop: (like the ones in the old days where you removed a slide to expose the film) to take large astro prints cant remember the size (looked near 3inch by 2 inch) but it was the biggest the shop had ..I got the size and then built the camera but never used it, as an astro camera er in fact never used it at all:lol: :lol: :lol: , but I could not figure a way to find focus with the system and went to rebuilding a disposale 35mm to get over that problem but it was still the same:lol: :lol: :lol: ..anyways thats when I bought a very good 35mm cam (and the attachement to the scope and a cable release) but I took a few rolls of astro photos but never developed them as the 300d came along at that time:) .
Still should do it after reading that wonderful link..still focus would be a problem that I cant figure how to get around.
alex

[avandonk]

I know this is about the end of film. So bear with me. I used to work in Kodak's research labs and digital leaves film for dead as long as it not a point and shoot.

An entry level Canon DSLR leaves film for dead in dynamic range etc etc.
My Canon 5DH has 14.3 stops of dynamic range. Film has a quantum efficiency of about 2% any digital colour camera is better than 40%.

As for vinyl you are absolutely correct as the human ear is exquisitely tuned to harmonics and find non harmonics (odd frequencies) discordant. Unless the the digital system from recording to final playback samples the sound at some high frequency that does not introduce these false harmonics even the untrained ear will pick this up.

Sorry if I am a pain!

Bert

[Jonathan]

Thanks Alex. I thought you might have been talking Hasselblad! When they (or someone else) can make one for under $5k I'll be there :D

[GrahamL]

WellI bought A new slr body in 2003 and by 2004 the company had ceased production .

An example of how complete its demise is looking .A friends brother is a well known photographer who does get a lot of work in vogue ect . Vogue still demands film stock btw but not many others do .He recently heard of a pro developing lab for sale and rang to enquire about its price , the seller offered it to him for $500 if he picked it up by next week.
When he arrived the seller showed him an even larger machine$130 K worth that was getting cut up for scrap the following week
simply because he couldn't sell it .. or keep his buisness afloat
without changeing over .

[acropolite]

I can't help but agree with the comment on exposure latitude of film. I once had one film (one of two) overdeveloped by the processers. Even though the negatives looked unusable, the final print quality from the botched film was as good as that from the correctly processed roll. That said, I don't miss film, it's much nicer to be able to slightly alter an image to achieve a better result and the ability to simply shoot dozens of images means that there is less chance of missing that once in a lifetime shot. The ability to print without messy chemicals and dedicated darkroom is also a bonus. As far as the resolution of landscape camera's is concerned it's largely irrelevant as modern software allows stitching of composite images to record larger (gigapixel even (http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel.htm)) images, try that with film.

[merlin8r]

The decline of 35mm film isn't soley the responsibilty of digital. Back in the mid 90's the film companies and the camera companies colluded into forcing the masses into using the dreadful APS system. The irony is they knew full well that digital was coming, but decided to start rolling back the production of 35mm film. Many of the companies are now paying the price for their forcefullness.

Clear skies,
Shane

[fringe_dweller]

your not imagining this latest rapid development (pardon the pun) Roger - I too can smell the stink of defeat in the air at pro labs lately (there dont even seem to be pros doing the developing anymore! - work experience kids and/or someones mum filling in - like its tuck shop duty !!! yikes - one thing I bitterly resent and dislike in this historical transition, is the price of old second hand high quality lenses you can get for a song, for old 35mm film cameras versus the cost of buying the equivalent quality primes for my canon for 'widefield' photography - (which is really all i am interested in - ie big bright comets - outside of a little moon/planet stuff) - where is the cheap second hand market for these lenses?! not even close to started - maybe in 10 years they will do the same!?! - so its back to a rich boys/credit card/second mortgage game again,to have a full selection of lenses that is - ahh the short lived proletariat heyday!

[leon]

Ken you can actually buy a record player from Dick Smith, that you can plug into your computer and download the tracks, just like you do from CD's.

Cheers Leon

[Jonathan]

G'day Phil,
You're right about the exposure latitude of negtative film (different story for slide film unfortunately!). I once forgot to change some settings after shooting some fast action in low light at Bathurst and then went on to shoot in very bright daylight conditions without realising until it was too late! Much to my suprise the negatives came out superbly without any loss of detail even though they were over exposed by 5 or more stops. I wish my digital cameras could do that :lol:

When it comes to using film these days I think you (and possibly many others) have got the wrong idea about how things are done. Some people still do their own enlargements but there's a far better and easier way.....
Once the film has been exposed in the camera you obviously get it developed (or DIY), but after that there's no use for the messy chemicals you're talking about, and there's no need for a dark room either, it's far more simple than that. You simply put the film into a scanner at home whether it's a dedicated film scanner or a good flat bed, or if you're after the absolute best quality you give it to the lab to do a drum scan. Either way you end up with a high resolution digital file that can be manipulated on a computer the same as a file out of a digital camera. After that you get it printed the same as you normally would with any other digital picture. So stitching images together from film is the same as digital. It's good for long panoramic shots but it still leaves you with the problem of perspective distortion, that is several photo's taken with a telephoto lens will look very different (and often very odd) compared to one image taken with a normal or wide angle lens over the same field of view. Nothing beats large format film for landscapes. When you want hundreds of megapixels worth of image to play with there's no substitute...... yet!!!

I've got to say that digital rules when it comes to holding the button down for a long burst to make sure you get that one magic shot! I remember doing that many times with film only to have the damn thing hit the end of the roll! One thing that is annoying though is that 35mm SLR's have been able to take 8+ frames per second for a many years, but most digital SLR's are 5fps or less, the classic example is the Canon 5D that has superb image quality but it's only rated for 3 fps which I wouldn't even consider taking to a sports event. A 35mm SLR for one tenth of the price can do that. It seems you have to spend well in excess of $5k to get a fast DSLR like a Canon 1D or Nikon D2H or D2X instead of about $1.5k for a fast 35mm SLR. That said, I'm happy with 5fps out of both my main digital and film cameras anyway :thumbsup:

[Jonathan]

That's a good point Shane. Another problem is that amateurs seem to always want to use the same gear as pro's regardless of what they're trying to achieve. So when pro's started going digital several years ago so did many amateurs but they neglected to realise the difference in image quality. The pro's were more worried about getting their photo's in for the next mornings paper than getting the best quality image. Most of us want our images to be a bit better quality than what you see in a newspaper.

Another problem in Australia was Kodaks dominance in the film market, or Fuji's lack of interest in Australia. I use a fair bit of film and I wouldn't use Kodak unless I was paid to, it's completely inferior to Fuji for what I do (that's my opinion only!!). If Fuji slide film was as easy to buy and get processed as Kodak was I think there would be more people using it, such as it is in the USA.

[bojan]

There is a store in Tokyo, on Akihabara station, specialized in "good old" stuff.
Turntables (Nakamichi is just one among them, of course), valve amplifiers, huge speaker systems (I wonder how they fit them in their average, tiny homes) etc. And the business is still blooming....
We are not dead yet ;)