Seems to make sense to me that, over time, shooting film in our cameras will be considered an alternative process to the current norm. That norm being digital.

Salted paper, cyanotypes, Van Dykes are all considered alternatives to silver based printing today, but in their day were the state of the art. It seems logical to me that one day, our cameras and film will take the same road. When? Who knows.

-- jeff voorhees (debontekou@yahoo.com), February 08, 2002

Answers

Jeff,

In many areas and by all sorts of measurements, this is already the case. Digital is the norm, film the alternative.

And film will remain a mass market alternative as long as digital photography requires home computers, specially equipped labs and very high entry ticket. That gives you quite few years, if not decades, to migrate...

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), February 08, 2002.

A long long time. Salted papers and Cyanotypes were replaced because there were cheaper more advanced processes that could be used. It will be decades before there will be a digital camera that can record the vast amount of data that a negitive can and for the cheap price of a roll of film. Even the labs are investing hundreds of thousands of dollars into hybrid film digital machines.

Then there is the problem of the home computers. Back in the 70's IBM was advertising that every home would have a computer and computers would run the world. Well only about half of all american homes have computers. That number far exceeds the percentage of homes that have computers throughout the world. I would venture a GUESS that over half the worlds population has not even seem a computer. What I am saying is film is produced golbally...in order for film to become an alternative process this problem between camera / output / home computer will have to be fixed ona global scale.

-- Rob Schopke (schopke@attbi.com), February 08, 2002.

Film's days are much more numbered than the above posts indicate. It's most noticeable at the labs, where customers are dropping off quickly because they are printing at home.

It's true that most people want to just take something to a lab and get back their prints. However, labs will soon be offering a USB connection and your pix are downloaded and printed on the spot. Then there is really no mass market for film. It's also worth noting that these people drive the market for Gold 100 and Walgreen's-branded film, not for high quality film in a wide variety of emulsions.

With the professional market for film rapidly dwindling and the rapidity with which the low-end consumer market is disappearing, there is't much room left for a thriving film market. I certainly wouldn't expect Kodak, Fuji and Agfa to cater to the small market that will be left.

I find that the state-of-the-art in digital cameras today is easily the equal of 35mm, in terms of finished output. I expect to dump my 35mm gear in the near future for digital, although I also expect that it will be a few years before digital can replace medium format at a reasonable price.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), February 08, 2002.

It's true that most people want to just take something to a lab and get back their prints. However, labs will soon be offering a USB connection and your pix are downloaded and printed on the spot. Then there is really no mass market for film. It's also worth noting that these people drive the market for Gold 100 and Walgreen's-branded film, not for high quality film in a wide variety of emulsions.

a lot of people can't even program their VCR clock, let alone operate a computer to download their images from a web site then print it on their home printer (or even upload it in the first place!).

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), February 08, 2002.

I basically agree with Jeff. Digital is gaining fast.Basically a 3.3 megapixel can produce up to an 8X10 image comparable to film. If you go to photo.net it seems as though more people are submitting digital images than from film. Some very nice.However I think there will be enough film users for many years for at least one or two existing companies to continue to market a decent variety of film. The problem as I see it no firm will continue to spend money on improving their existing products for a shrinking market. Film in the last 20 years or so has shown great improvement. 400 speed films of today are better than 100 speed of the past. As digital gets better and better ,we probably will see super sharp enlargements made digitally in years to come from SLR size cameras that present day film of any format(which won't be improved) can't touch. If there is demand scanners will be produced but will the improvements we have seen in the last few years continue? You can still buy a phono cartridge but how much improvement has there been since CD's came out and how many choices are there for purchasing and at what cost? There probably will be enough diehard users to make it profitable for a smaller number of manuf's to produce film and related products but in say 2010 the film technology will be of 2002 or so. If unforseen digital or other progress advances to where every "joe" can make more impressive photos more easily than those of us with our Barnack technology then more people will switch over and film might be dead except for a very small cult like group of people.

-- Gerry Widen (gwiden@alliancepartners.org), February 08, 2002.

I expect to dump my 35mm gear in the near future for digital, although I also expect that it will be a few years before digital can replace medium format at a reasonable price.

Well my take on this is slightly different.

I expect to convert my 35mm gear in the near future to digital, although I also expect that it will be a few years before digital can replace medium format at a reasonable price.

Yeah, that sounds better.

;-)

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 08, 2002.

I've been told that over 95% of ALL film sold is to amateur photographers. This being the case, once the masses go over to digital, the makers of film will only be supplying the more serious. Will R&D cease, what about the cost? I think film will always be available, but at what price.

-- Don M (Maldos@home.com), February 08, 2002.

A lot depends on where you live as to the outlook you have on digital. I don't know where you live Jeff, but here in Edmonton, Canada (pop. 750,000) what you say just ain't true. I am the industrial sales manager for one of Western Canadas largest pro photo retailers. Eight stores, 6 of them with mini-labs. Last year was our best year ever (in business since '48) in our photofinishing department. Best by 18 percent over the year 2000 (which was our best year before last). 93 percent of the output from these labs was from negs, though we have the aforementioned state of the art crossover Konica machines as mentioned above. Don't count your chickens (digital-wise) before they hatch...

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), February 08, 2002.

Film will be available as long as there is a viable market for film. Period. Dat's Kapitalism!! I record photographic images on both film and digital media. Most of the world only shoots snapshots and therefore only need reasonable quality 4x6 images. Presently available 3 mp consumer digital camera already can produce very nice 4x6 up to 8x10 prints. Certainly as good as most point and shoots. In my neighborhood you can take your flashcard down to Ritz or the local pro lab and have prints back in an hour or two. To do this YOU DON'T NEED TO OWN A COMPUTER! So much for the cost of entry. If you do have a computer you can also upload files and have the prints sent to your house for a competitive price. I have framed 11 x 13 prints from my Canon D30 that are just wonderful. Let's not stay in denial folks, these are the facts.

At the MOMENT affordable digital cameras cannot compete with film in that they don't record as much information as 35mm film. Also, it is a rapidly evolving technology with a short product cycle so your camera becomes out of date quickly as newer better CCD sensors become available. All of the consumer digital cameras I have used have an amazingly long autofocus/shutter lag (most around 1 second!) which turns photography into an exercise in capturing the "indecisive moment". In contrast a 40 year old M3 is just as effective a photographic tool today as it was in 1956, the lenses have steadily improved, and if a new "better" film comes out all I have to do is load it in my camera to "upgrade" it. There is also the aesthetic pleasure of using a finely crafted mechanical camera that can't be described in technical terms. I enjoy shooting with old rangefinders more than present digital cameras.

Primarily for the aesthetic reasons, as well as the fact that I cannot stand using a camera where I have no idea when the image is being recorded, I now use an integrated approach where I primarily shoot film and then scan the images I want to print. Best of both worlds for the moment. But have no doubt, when good inexpensive sensors become available that can record 20 MB files film will only be of interest for artistic, aesthetic, or nostalgic reasons. Then if Leica or someone else doesn't bring out a digital body with such a sensor that can use Leica glass they will surely go out of business.

-- Steve Rosenblum (stevierose@yahoo.com), February 08, 2002.

Also look at it this way (sorry, I accidentally hit the enter key). We all know that they now make efficient electric and hybrid automobiles. They have for about 10 years now. But one of the main reasons there has been no mass switchover (though it probably will eventually) is because of their cost and the fact that there is such a huge base of internal combution engined cars out there. With (latest stats) over 80 percent of households in North America and Europe having a film camera and under 10 percent a digital there is a huge market for film. Now the average person takes 3 ot 4 roll of film a year (don't laugh, the millions that do this is where the majority of film sales lay - not the pro or advanced amateur). This is not the kind of users who's going 'Wow, for only $1000.00 )less computer and relate gear) I can save the 12 bucks a year I spend on film.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), February 08, 2002.

I spend most of my workday on a computer. When I come home, I briefly use our personal computer for email, check the weather outlook and maybe scan through an online newspaper from some other country. My wife only does the email and Martha Stewart. Once in a while I drop in on a photography forum such as this for a few minutes. I see such, "Digital will kill film" posts as this quite often. But it always strikes me as a very skewed discussion since everyone participating not only has access to a computer but also both the expertise and inclination to access an online forum. The true Techno-Neaderthals or even those who are just indifferent to high-tech aren't represented since they simply aren't here. And among those 50% of the North American households that supposedly have computers, those with internet connections who actually post to a photography forum is probably a pretty small percentage. The great masses who are supposed to be rapidly switching to digital are the great silent masses. A great many of them easily fit into the 3-4 rollers that Bob Todrick mentioned above, and many have the attitude that anything having to do computers is crap.

Our househld fits this catagory in one respect. We shoot maybe a half-dozen rolls of color print film a year for family snapshots etc. But I don't fit this in another sense in that I love my black & white photography. Modest by some other's standards, but maybe 40 - 60 rolls of B&W a year is about what I shoot. I've done my own B&W darkroom work for nearly twenty years. The laundry room serves well as a makeshift darkroom. I've maybe $300 invested in simple, basic darkroom equipment. Our household cameras consist of a 27-year-old Nikomat and three lenses, a Nikon L35AF P&S, a Leica M2 with 50 Summicron, an Olympus XA2 and a trio of old vintage 35mm fixed-lens cameras (Argus, Balda and Paxette). The XA2 and Balda were recent rummage sale bargains, the M2 a bequest from a late uncle. Everything else was acquired before spouse, except the L35AF which is hers.

Ignoring the quality factor, just assume that digital can easily match 35mm up to 8x10, which is as large as I ever go anyway. To "go digital" I'd have to replace our printer, upgrade our old computer, then buy a camera with enough megapixels to at least match the 35mm cameras. I'd have to sell all the 35mm cameras and darkroom equipment (except the M2 for purely sentimental reasons if nothing else), then probably at least triple the amount I'd get out of the sales just to get the basic digital equipment which could, "do just as well" as what we have now.

While I'm proficient with a computer in my employment, that doesn't mean I don't often find a computer incredibly frustrating at times. On the other hand, last weekend I spent over two hours in the darkroom printing negatives from a recent trip. I came out with 18 personally satisfying prints, and the two hours of solitude left me quite relaxed and refreshed. If I already had digital equipment, the same 18 images probably would have taken nearly the same amount of time to print, all of it in front of a computer screen, contending with software challenges which would likely have left me tense, drained, and with a stiff neck. Photography is my escape and my recreation to get away from my normal daily challenges, which includes computers. With this in mind, why in the world would I possibly *WANT* to go digital? Maybe I'm alone, but I doubt it.

-- Tod Hart (tghart@altavista.com), February 08, 2002.

Jeff:

Kodak is just starting up plant in Xiamen China that cost the best part of a billion dollars. What for? To make film and paper!!! Among the upper middle class western cognoscenti, digital is catching on but there are literally billions of people for whom a $20 camera and 2-3 rolls of film a year is a miracle. We may be buying film made in China along with almost everything else we use. The best tubes for the best-sounding audio amplifiers (IMHO)come from Russia, China and Czech Rep. because they are still "behind" us. Lucky Film in China make very good B&W film and OK colour film, for a large market, which we may soon be part of.

Having said that, I will (soon?)keep my lenses, get a digital body, keep my enlargers for "Old Times Sake" and double click images. I will also keep the 8x10 View and coat Pt/Pd paper by hand.

An exciting world of imagemaking lies ahead and it will take many forms. I recall having read that when moveable type finally made it to Medeival Europe, many learned men in robes decried it as the end of learning and scholarship, because monks would no longer have to learn by transcribing tests by hand in cold dark scriptoria.

Ansel Adams in his book on The Negative kept open the option of digital photography, as it was in it's infancy in 1984 when he died. He kept to B&W because of the then lack of control over the finished product of colour media. Talk about control today.

Galen Rowell (www.mountainlight.com) has switched over to Digital scanning & printing (onto Fuji Crystal Archive paper) for all his exhibition prints and he claims they are far superior to even the best Cibachromes ar other trad'l methods.

Yes, fim will be an alternative process, but a viable one for the unique qualities it offers, which is not mass production of certain styles of images.

People still pay good money for hand made Swiss watches, jade carvings, one-of-a kind violins, not to metion estate bottled Australian wine.

Cheers

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), February 08, 2002.

PS

See Jack flesher's post below this one for Vivid Light on-line magazine and look in the back issues for G. Rowell's article on the digital printing proces he uses.(You may well be surprised to learn from that article who is the REAL father of Windows and the mouse.)

PPS: Last night I just bought a brick of 20 TRiX and I have my Coolpix 950 on the desk beside me.

Cheers again

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), February 08, 2002.

Kodak is just starting up plant in Xiamen China that cost the best part of a billion dollars. What for? To make film and paper!!!

Who would say that what Kodak has done over the last ten years has been good for them?

With (latest stats) over 80 percent of households in North America and Europe having a film camera and under 10 percent a digital there is a huge market for film.

I saw the 10 percent number about two years ago, and I think it's changed since then. However, more importantly, how many households have cassette players? How much of the market is a cassette player? The fact that people don't throw things out does not mean they use them.

I don't think it's just digital. I can't remember the last time I went anywhere where video cameras didn't outnumber still cameras by at least five to one. This includes "third world" countries in which you would expect income levels to be prohibitive beyond a point and shoot, but videocams are everywhere. And computers have become much more common in those places too.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), February 09, 2002.

Steve mentioned above about how prints can now be made directly from a digital camera storage media at Ritz or other places. Has anyone had this done? How do the images look? Is the cost about the same as prints from negs? How do you let them know what you want printed-- surely they aren't going to print all the images that are present on the whole storage card? Do you have to delete things you don't want printed? I'm very interested in how this would work, because I think the instant review aspect of digital would be very useful for some of the shooting I do, but I am not interested in the hassels and cost of printing everything myself. If this becomes an affordable alternative to film developing and printing, and if the quality is as good as or better than D&P from negs, this could be an up and coming think for sure. Any input would be appreciated.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), February 09, 2002.

I wanted to clarify what I meant above by "The hassels and cost" of digitally printing everything myself. I mean not just the cost of upgrading all my computer equipment to something more designed for photographic quality work, but also the cost of good softwear and the mental wear and tear dealing with the learning curve and time involved to print a bunch of 5X7 images I might need.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), February 09, 2002.

Jeff - actually stats released by PMA (Photo Marketing Association) state that as of Dec 30, 2001 there are 9.8 percent of households in the US with a digital camera. These people track the sales of cameras throughout the world (and are in fact the people that bring you the upcoming PMA show). As they stated in there last monthly newsletter, sales of digital cameras for the year 2001 were dramatically off what was forecast. As well you mention the cassette recorder. How about the synthesizer. In the early 70's many were predicting that it would kill real musical insturments because it could replicate any insturment and sound 'nearly' as good. Gee, I went to see the ESO (Edmonton Symphony Orchestra) a couple of weeks ago and there was not a synthesizer to be seen. It's a crap shoot Jeff - digital will take over - eventually. But all this 'film will be dead in a couple of years crap is just that - crap.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), February 09, 2002.

I think Bob said it the best. It's a crapshoot. I have nearly convinced myself many times that going digital is they way to go for me. But then the downsides and costs for me as a pure amateur are to many/high for me to do so.

So I'll just have to wait until I think that we may have reached the lip and try to offload my equipment then.

Thanks

-- (bubblegrass@yahoo.com), February 09, 2002.

I agree that more and more people are converting to digital. The issue for me is the quality of the images captured with film vs. digital. I haven't heard anyone say digital image capture is superior to film. Some feel the digital darkroom is superior to the wet darkroom but that is a seperate issue. I don't need instant images. I am more concerned with quality. Therefore, I haven't yet bought a digital camera.

-- David Enzel (dhenzel@vei.net), February 09, 2002.