Film is dead, long live film
If you are even the least bit into photography, you have probably heard the news that Canon recently announced that they are no longer going to manufacture film cameras. This follows on the heels of a near identical announcement that Nikon made a few months prior. Is this a clear signal that film based photography is on its way out? Is it only a matter of time before large conglomerate companies like Kodak and Fuji stop manufacturing film? If you are talking about consumer photography, in my opinion, the answer is yes to both questions. The time is fast approaching where less than 5% of the general public will use film cameras as their primary picture taking device. It is clear that John Q. Public likes the instant gratification and cost efficiency of digital cameras. Furthermore, manufacturing film is a highly intensive, high overhead process. It just won't make business sense for most companies to continue to manufacture it.
There are many people, like myself, who believe that film will always be available in the future. It will just be much more expensive to purchase and process. It will only be offered by specialty companies who are willing to fill a niche market; the retro, old school, film based, amateur photographer. My guess is that the variety of film (film speed, color/B&W, slide/print, etc.) will diminish and there is a possibility that the quality of all remaining film on the market (taken as a whole) may go down.
I see a striking similarity to the digital revolution in the music industry. When the compact disc technology made it to the consumer market, the transition from vinyl records to CDs was quick and dramatic. It didn't take long before most music stores no longer carried vinyl records. However, many years later, there still is a small, but strong niche market of people who still prefer to hear their music on vinyl using their analog, tube amplifiers and their belt driven turntables. Believe it or not, new records of new releases are still being pressed today; just in very limited quantities and I would presume at very high prices.
In 10 – 20 years, film photography will not be same as it is today. But at least for those like myself who still enjoy using film, it will still be there, albiet in a somewhat limited capacity. It gives me a certain pleasure to know that my old Minolta SRT 102 35mm film camera will still continue to receive some sporatic use rather than live out the rest of its days in a dusty basement storage bin.
4 Comments »
Leave a Reply
-
Recent
-
Links
-
Archives
- May 2011 (1)
- April 2011 (3)
- December 2010 (1)
- July 2006 (1)
- June 2006 (3)
- May 2006 (4)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
I’m not sure what I feel about film…or digital…
I’m naturally an ambivalent person…
-Zack
I wonder if John Q. Public realizes the hassle of maintaining a viable digital store of his photos. With film, a shoebox full of negatives can last a lifetime without any worries. With digital, you have to avoid a single point of failure. The average person won’t maintain that solution themselves unless it becomes very simple which it probably won’t because of changing formats and storage technology. Their simplest option would be a subscription based online service. And, they would pay for it all their lives. What happens after that? Memories go into the ether
Anyway, that’s why I tell everyone I know to make prints of their favorite digital photos. I wouldn’t use digital at all if I could afford to be prolific with film.
@samgrover: Coincidentally, today on TheOnelinePhotographer Blog there is a post on digital printing for the regular consumer. Kind of mirrors your thoughts.
Yea, I saw that earlier today and was about to mention this in the comments when I noticed that someone had already said similar stuff.