The hopeful future of film photography

[Glenn Kroeger]

Melchi:

Steam trains survive because their survival doesn't depend on railroads making a profit on them. If they needed different track, they would be gone! UP and BNSF aren't offering steam train service for recreation. Museums and a few small companies run them (Durango-Silverton) on a limited basis.

Likewise, B&W can probably survive with a few small companies producing film on a part time basis. I can't see E6 color films surviving under that model. The capital investment in plant, and the small volume would seem incompatible. As the cost rises, even smaller numbers of recreational users will partake of color sheet film. A vicious spiral of higher cost and fewer uses quickly makes all business models unsound, and the capital won't materialize.

A hobby club can refurbish a steam locomotive. I am not sure I can envision and E6 hobby club operating the Fuji coating plant on weekends.

[K.E. Carter]

This type of dialogue is what makes this and similar newsgroups worth logging onto everyday. I too feel that the as long as demand holds up, film will be produced. That said, it would seem unlikely that Kodak, Fuji, etc. will continue to be our suppliers, due to profit requirements and a heavy committment towards the digital side of things. The number of niche companies that have sprung up in just the last decade, particularly within the large format community, is quite promising. There were certainly not nearly as many choices in view cameras, especially in the "high end" of quality a few decades ago. We will still be around and groups like this will have an even greater purpose in promoting our continuation.

[Ed Eubanks]

If I may chime back in for a few thoughts...
Everyone's responses are, I think, what I expected. To follow up on what Neil Shields, and others, said, I guess I would sum up what I was trying to say in this way: sooner or later (and probably sooner), digital photography will hit a practical, if not a technological, wall, and at that time the hype will be over. Then, folks will just start looking for the best way to photograph again-- and many, I speculate, will find that in traditional film.
Maybe I should have simply said that in the first place...NAH!!!

[Bryan Willman]

In all of this, perception versus reality in the market matters.

In particular, the photo market in the US, or in the G7 countries, is not the same as the rest of the world.

The question is not "when will there be so little C41 film consumed in the G7 that the factories that produce got turned into something else."

The question is "when will there be so little c41 film consumed *in the world* that groups of photographers can no longer get special orders of sheet film made somewhere far away and shipped into the US?"

[John Flavell]

One solution I never see in this debate is that we might just simply have to go full circle and paint our own homemade emulsions onto glass plates. It's been done before.

[Wayne Crider]

Interesting speculation. I will tho disagree, and this based on the fact from what i see now, which is, more and more of my friends and family turning to digital cameras and having their pictures processed at the likes of Walgreens and Walmart's. If anything, I could see photo paper surviving much better than film. In the end these types of conversations are just redundate. We all know that some larger film will survive, just as the older processes have, but it will be a smaller field, as it is already. The only thing that may happen, and has at times thruout history, albeit for small amounts of time, is a back lash by the younger generations to shun the established norms. Digital will prevail over film, has already in many commercial applications, and will continue to do so as pricing comes down just like it as for computing equipment. We who shoot film are rapidly becoming tomorrows dianosauers. At least there is still enough interest, and film cameras, to create a supply line for now. I doubt in a hundred years it will be 1/10th of what it is now, just as alot of the alt processes are so much less practiced than yesteryear. Of course this may all be a moot point if the Christian philosophy of an impending end to life on our planet does come true, in which case I wouldn't doubt there will be plenty of 12 megapixel camera phones around to capture the event for off planet data transmission.

[Philippe Gauthier]

Neal and Melchi are raising a relatively seldom heard, but very true point about the digital technology: while we tend to see it as a new technology, it is actually a mature one that has been around for nearly 20 years in science application. It has nearly reached its limits. To be honest, this "limit" will be satisfying to about 98 or 99% or photographers.

But LF digital photography is likely to remain too expensive for anyone but the high volume studio for a long time, perhaps forever. As long as there's a fair number of hobbyists, there will be film - at least B&W film. I agree that color emulsions require more complex, capital intensive technology and that there is no guarantee that C41 and E6 it will be around forever.

I'm pretty sure, however, that in reaction to standardized, clean and easy to manipulate digital images, art collectors will tend to give some premium value to more artisanal and somewhat less perfect silver or alt process images. The fact that silver gelatin prints are hand and not machine made will always make them more intresting, pretty much in the same way as painting has always been valued more than silver photography.

[mark blackman]

Photography never did completely replace painting, nor is it likely ever to do so. Speak to any painter and they will moan about the high costs of their oils, some even make their own in an effort to save money. However, and this is the important part, companies around the world continue to profit from their manufacture. If we make the comparison with digital v chemical I expect the same will hold true. Sure, the big monolithic companies that are slow to change will suffer, and I doubt if we'll be able to buy Fuji or Kodak tranny film in 10x8 sheets in 5 years time. I do not doubt that there will be an enterprising individual who starts selling his/her own handmade emulsion to a few friends and within a few years is making quite a tidy living from it. The film may cost £20 per sheet, but, like the painters, there will be enough people around the globe willing to cough up for it.

[CXC]

Film is *already* a niche market. Digital has already exceeded the needs of 99.99% of photographers, that is, normal people who take pictures of themselves and each other to remember events in their lives. A recognizable, in-focus face in a 4x6 print is what people want. My Logitech 1.3MP fully satisfies this need. The *only* advantage of film in this real-world sphere is that it need not depend on batteries...but so much of our lives depends on batteries that this advantage carries no weight.

Recently the growth area has been in gee-whiz and convenience. A combo phone-pda-mp3-camera is a fun toy, and it reduces the number of things you need to carry around. Kiosks where you can view a cardful of pictures and print 3, brightened and cropped, in 5 minutes, are incredibly convenient. Why wait till you get home from your trip to Vegas to see the pictures?

My only hope is that people decide they don't want to wait even 5 minutes for their pictures, and go back to instant, keeping Polaroid alive for a couple more years...

[Chris Ellinger]

It seems to me that while many manufacturers would like film photographers to throw away their cameras and jump on the digital merry-go-round -- replacing cameras and printers every couple of years -- there are also a few manufacturers who will be able to make a living supplying film and paper to those of us who are quite happy to spend our time and money making images instead of replacing and testing new equipment.