Film photography, a good business in the future ?

[Kirk Gittings]

[QUOTE=David Luttmann;783193]

Yes, seriously. Two people standing side by side photographing a building. One is using the Nikon D3X...the other an Olympus point and shoot.

Ask the public which one is the pro on assignment. According to you, they'll pick the point and shooter. According to me, the D3X user.

Pretty simple really. It's appears you're in the minority thinking different. That's fine.

I don't mind being the the minority when I have 30+ years professional experience to back up my views. I think looking professional has little to do with the camera and more to do with how someone comports themselves on a shoot. There are lots of professionals who think that they have to an expensive camera to impress their clients. I never worried about it. Heck for 20 years I used a $175 Calumet Widefield. I always tried to impress clients with my images. I take charge of a shoot-having cars moved, windows cleaned, blinds raised, lighting set up etc. I always have at least one assistant and usually a couple of helpers from the client. We bring a team to the shoot. A photo shoot is a team effort and the photographer is the director-a leader. Act like it. Don't be a poser with a cool camera. I find it funny that you think that all one has to look professional is have a nice camera. The camera is a small part of a successful shoot.

[johnmsanderson]

Mamiya c330 with 180mm lens, bracket and flash is a real attention getter.

Whenever I take it out on the nyc streets people look and many will ask about it.

I took it out with my friends to some bars in brooklyn and it really is a conversation starter which is good for me.

Its strange but people seem less guarded if you photograph them with a TLR. its great that cameras can be be.more applicable to various.situations

[Merg Ross]

Hi Kirk, right on! When I started as an AP, a few years before you, my Calumet Wide turned a lot of heads; architects at the time were more familiar with 35mm, so the 4x5 made me look like a real pro. However, as you know, the proof was in the prints delivered, and they never knew that I was making them on a 1940's DII enlarger! That would not have impressed them, although I use it to this day.

To add to the irony of the impressive equipment syndrome, Morley Baer was making five times my daily rate using an old beat-up wooden Agfa/Ansco 8x10. You have seen his work, and know the results from his rather unimpressive equipment.

[toyotadesigner]

I take charge of a shoot-having cars moved, windows cleaned, blinds raised, lighting set up etc. I always have at least one assistant and usually a couple of helpers from the client. We bring a team to the shoot. A photo shoot is a team effort and the photographer is the director-a leader. Act like it.

These are prerequisites we really don't need to talk about on a professional level.

But back to the original topic: Film does have a future. In Europe we had a project called EDCINE for long term storage of electronic information. Leading partner was the Fraunhofer Institute. However, the awareness and conviction changed, and they started to archive information on film**, because film proved to be more reliable for long term storage. [**Isn't it absurd to re-transfer data back to film which had been transferred from film to digital just a few years ago?]

So, after the big hype of the 'digital heaven' now back to the roots and proven technology? Who knows what the future will look like. Only time will tell.

I think the film photography business will have a good future until someone will develop a revolutionary technology to capture images with reliable archiving technology inherited.

Look, film doesn't need any technology (mechanical or electronic) to be stored, archived, viewed and post processed. It's the final medium from the very beginning. No need to boot a computer to view the images. We need something similarly simple for the future. I don't think the Petabytes of hard drives for a long term storage are a good idea. There are too many variables that can fail (power shortage, mechanical breaks, outdated file formats, etc.)

IMHO digital is a perfect medium for fast paced environments (events, sports, news, weddings, cheap and fast information which will be outdated by tomorrow), film is a perfect medium for demanding and sophisticated applications (high quality prints, large format prints, archiving, documentations, art, high resolution technology).

Both media (hopefully) will peacefully coexist, despite the never ending and superfluous discussions in forums.

[Richard Mahoney]

... But back to the original topic: Film does have a future. In Europe we had a project called EDCINE for long term storage of electronic information. Leading partner was the Fraunhofer Institute. However, the awareness and conviction changed, and they started to archive information on film**, because film proved to be more reliable for long term storage. [**Isn't it absurd to re-transfer data back to film which had been transferred from film to digital just a few years ago?] ...

Look, film doesn't need any technology (mechanical or electronic) to be stored, archived, viewed and post processed. It's the final medium from the very beginning. No need to boot a computer to view the images. We need something similarly simple for the future. I don't think the Petabytes of hard drives for a long term storage are a good idea. There are too many variables that can fail (power shortage, mechanical breaks, outdated file formats, etc.) ...

A number of people in this thread have tried to play down the serious issues associated with the integrity of long term digital storage. Regardless, it is generally recognized that there is actually good reason for concern. A few of us may be interested in the approach adopted by this project:

The Rosetta Project
http://rosettaproject.org/

The Rosetta Project :: The Technology
http://rosettaproject.org/disk/technology/


Kind regards,

Richard

[Marko]

A number of people in this thread have tried to play down the serious issues associated with the integrity of long term digital storage. Regardless, it is generally recognized that there is actually good reason for concern. A few of us may be interested in the approach adopted by this project:

The Rosetta Project
http://rosettaproject.org/

The Rosetta Project :: The Technology
http://rosettaproject.org/disk/technology/


Kind regards,

Richard

But they are still going forward with it, aren't they? Evidently, the reason for concern is not quite good enough to go back to physical storage.

On the other note, and in keeping with the topic, there was an article in WSJ the other day about Kodak and it's long(?) term prospects. They are essentially seen as going under or disappearing in about two years. The conclusion fully matches the performance of their stock.

When that happens, Fuji will be the only remaining color film producer. Provided that they remain in the film market.

How good could be a business based on such a supply chain?

[tgtaylor]

On the other note, and in keeping with the topic, there was an article in WSJ the other day about Kodak and it's long(?) term prospects. They are essentially seen as going under or disappearing in about two years. The conclusion fully matches the performance of their stock.

When that happens, Fuji will be the only remaining color film producer. Provided that they remain in the film market.

How good could be a business based on such a supply chain?

Excellent point! Both technologies with the different look that they are able to bring to the table, are immensely useful to all image makers. Instead of driving the nails into the coffin of one, we should strive to keep both technologies alive and well. It's only to our advantage.

Thomas

[Jack Dahlgren]

Excellent point! Both technologies with the different look that they are able to bring to the table, are immensely useful to all image makers. Instead of driving the nails into the coffin of one, we should strive to keep both technologies alive and well. It's only to our advantage.

Thomas

Just because someone points out that there are major advantages to digital for commercial photography (and there are advantages elsewhere) does not mean they are driving nails into the coffin of film. There are reasons for both. The idiocy is in thinking that advocating the advantages of one means that you are denigrating the other.

I am very dismayed by this sort of attitude which is found in other areas such as politics. I better stop there.

[tgtaylor]

Just because someone points out that there are major advantages to digital for commercial photography (and there are advantages elsewhere) does not mean they are driving nails into the coffin of film. There are reasons for both. The idiocy is in thinking that advocating the advantages of one means that you are denigrating the other.

I am very dismayed by this sort of attitude which is found in other areas such as politics. I better stop there.

Keep your shorts on Jack. The observation that I posted is not accusatory of any particular person but it is undeniable that a number of people, including some here on this forum, are actively engaged in an active campaign to denigrate film photography. Consider the topic of a thread running concurrently on this forum: This (digital) betterthan that (film). Marko, IMO, posted a valid observation about the future of the film industry and it was my point to point out that it is to all of our advantage that both technologies survive. Whether or not Marko is a film or digital enthusiasts I don't know and frankly isn't important.

Thomas

[toyotadesigner]

Fuji will be the only remaining color film producer.

Agfa in Belgium (Agfa-Gevaert N.V., the division for film production is Agfa Materials) is still producing color & b&w film. But they are only dealing on a B2B channel, that means their films hit the market with many different names. In Europe some supermarket chains label them with their own brand.

**If** Kodak should ever be forced to close, there will be some investors to take over the film production. It still is a multi million Dollar business. As far as I remember Fuji's film sales last year had been around 280 million US$. Kodak's film sales should be at the same level. I don't have any data from Agfa.