Are Flower Photos Passe?

Have we gotten so jaded by photographs of flowers that when we see one we say "Oh no, not another flower picture"? I think we can all agree that flowers are beautiful, but is it cheating to take a photo of one and then call it art because they are inherently beautiful and the photographer is doing nothing but documenting that beauty? Is this any different than taking photos of kids or sunsets? Talk amongst yourselves….

10 Reasons Why…

… I won't give up using my 35mm film SLR (not in any particular order):

1. I love that loud distinct "click" when I depress the shutter button.

2. I love seeing the rewind knob rotate whenever I advance the film.

3. I love knowing that I can make an image (at 1/90 of a sec.) even if my battery is dead.

4. I love knowing that I can use 3200 ISO speed film when I photograph in very low light situations.

5. I love the look of my color prints after shooting with Velvia slide film.

6. I love the feel and the weight of an all metal camera body.

7. I love the permanence of negatives and slides (as long as you don't lose the shoe box!)

8. I love the look of my B&W prints after shooting with Kodak BN print film.

9. I love that gritty, grindy sound the self-timer makes before the shutter is automatically tripped.

10. I love how the film canister drops into mid-air and into my open palm after rewinding and popping open the camera back. I actually do this on purpose and say "Tada!" when it hits my hand.

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.