LFF statistics [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Dan Fromm

7-Jun-2009, 10:36

There are others??You're teasing, aren't you?

There's an LF site in Germany. I haven't bookmarked it and visit it rarely 'cause my German is so weak. Ich war ein jahr in Deutschland aber ich kann nicht Deutsch. If you're not acquainted with it, Otzi, you should look for it.

There is also a French site, of which our Emmanuel is one of the leading lights. http://www.galerie-photo.info/forum/ In my opinion, galerie-photo.info is superior to largeformatphotography.info and its forums are superior too. The site is at a higher level and much more actively maintained. The forums are more literate, more literary, and on the whole more enjoyable. At least, to my taste.

Don't take my comments as criticisms of Q-T, whom I respect highly. He's a lone worker, the French have a team.

More seriously, Kirk, I have the impression, not supported by any data, that photo.net's and apug.org's LF sections are in decline. This forum may be attracting refugees ...

Cheers,

Dan

Kirk Gittings

7-Jun-2009, 12:10

Might be worth isolating the For Sale forum if you can, and then recrunching the numbers for posts and new threads to see what weight of the overall growth that forum is carrying. I'm guessing it's pretty hefty.

Thanks Amy, I can't do it that way as far as I can tell. I can't separate out individual forums from the numbers. Nor can I do:

Can you look for "dead" or inactive registrants (those active in 2007 but absent in 2009) in your data, make an assumption that they have moved on (though hardly likely to something better!), and subtract them from the new registrations since 2007 to determine actual increase? It's the old births minus deaths equation.

Daniel Grenier

7-Jun-2009, 12:56

The gloom & doom explanation of this surge in LFF traffic:

Film is too expensive to go out & shoot. Gas is too expensive to just drive around. Trips are too expensive to take. Restaurants, plays, movies, books.... all too expensive. We're all staying put, not going out, blankly staring at the damn computer all day (LFF, of course) hoping for better days..... SIGH.... :(

BrianShaw

7-Jun-2009, 13:23

Hey... I have an idea... this study would make a nice little VC article, don't you think? :D

Capocheny

7-Jun-2009, 18:42

I'm not terribly surprised given that this is "THE BEST" forum for large format photography.

... the best among english-speaking LF photography forums, of course :D

Hi Emmanuel,

Fair enough. :)

My fluency in either French or German is pretty much non-existent! :>0

Cheers

Brian Sims

7-Jun-2009, 20:35

Isn't there some hidden growth in the numbers? Didn't we still have the busy "off topic" category in 2007? Then again, the growth in numbers is not all that surprising. The "How old are we?" surveys suggest that we are in a growing demographic. I was just talking with a friend about how strange it is that there is a strong impulse to create art and craft as young children, then it disappears or is stiffled in teens and younger adults, and then resurfaces in middle age. Perhaps as teens and young adults we are so busy "creating" ourselves and our families that it diverts our creative impulse, and once that is well under way, we refocus our creativity on photography, woodworking, needlework, you name the artisitic pursuit....

adrian tyler

8-Jun-2009, 01:08

if you look at the evidence there is a growth in all apects of photography, more images in circluation and more people taking photos more photobooks etc... than ever before.

this site is certainly a very good resource, independently of the format you shoot so it's not surprising that people are discovering it, i learned large format photography here quickly and efficiently and i'm very grateful to everyone involved.

many people can't justify lab costs of shooting sheet film but the information here serves well on any format, including digital, so i would expect continued growth.

verney

8-Jun-2009, 01:53

Interesting. I think it was about a year ago that I had a telephone conversation with Keith Canham. He mentioned that Kodak, Ilford, and Fuji reps had each told him at that time that LF film sales were increasing again. This would be consistent with the statistics that you described.
There was propably a very dramatic drop in film sales when pros were turning to digital and dumping their equipment and film caches to the market. I exploited one such case and I still have some left. Surplus film must now be either used or unusable and film sales are going up again.

Gary L. Quay

8-Jun-2009, 03:01

Is digital already dying?:D

Probably not for the majority of snapshooters and pros on tight deadlines, but the art market for film is thriving.

Interestingly enough, a friend of mine who badgered me for 5 years about switching to digital is now proud owner of a 60-year old canon rangefinder. He lost most of the photos of his family, his beloved daughter specifically, to the ever-shrinking jpeg.

--Gary

Kirk Gittings

8-Jun-2009, 08:09

the art market for film is thriving.

Maybe. What I see, in my narrow little slice of the world, is a second wave of photo artists switching to digital. With the only lab in our town closed and cameras like the 5DII and other reasonably priced full frame DSLRs at 20+MPs, there is whole new wave of people switching.

Ivan J. Eberle

8-Jun-2009, 09:56

Perhaps some of the interest among enthusiasts is being stoked by the irresistible draw of professional caliber film equipment being dumped on the market for $.10-.20 on the dollar?

ic-racer

8-Jun-2009, 10:18

I see a lot of similarities between film and "Vacuum Tube" audio and HiFi. Tube circuits can be very simple to build, so beginners, and those on a budget, like them. Then there are the high-end products that cater to the tube mystique, and are offered to those that want something different than what transistors offer.

Likewise developing film and printing pictures is way inexpensive compared to digital, so beginners, and those on a budget, benefit. Film will also fill the high-end niche for those that want something different than digital.

The it has been about 30 years since RCA stopped making vacuum tubes in the USA and, in spite of that, tube audio is alive and well.

Kirk Gittings

8-Jun-2009, 12:42

ic-racer, like many points here (including some of mine) that is an explanation of why LF may be growing in popularity generally. It does not explain necessarily why this forum is growing in particular (and some posters speculate that LF sections of some forums are shrinking). It is likely that it is more than one factor. Another factor may be the singlemindedness of this forum via LF i.e. very little discussion allowed that is not directly linked to LF. If you want to talk LF, this is where you come. It may also be simply that we virtually own the Google search response for LF or LFP. So if one is looking for LF info on Google, this is where you are sent.

Drew Wiley

8-Jun-2009, 16:04

I just found out that the local lab in the SF area that processed my c-41 and e-6
8x10 film had abruptly shut down after decades in business, but that another lab
providing comparable service was already up and running, plus the local digital lab had
installed a dip-and-dunk machine and only lacked 8x10 hangers to supplement the
4x5's. If even these digital specialists are taking film seriously I don't think there's much need to panic, especially if you take time to consider the import of investing in
expensive lab equipment during an economic downturn. And frankly, I don't recall a time when there was ever so big a selection of really good sheet films on the market.
Yeah, I wish that dye transfer materials weren't so tricky to concoct, or that I could
just drive down the street and pick up Cibachrome rather than ordering it months in
advance, but the fact is, digital output is excellent for the majority of printers, and
most of the remaining darkroom types are probably only doing black and white. Plus
there are starting to be all kinds of tweaks in hybrid technique. With each new shift in
the technological ocean there are going to be some up and down waves, but there will
always be those persons who find the hands-on experience of a real craft rewarding
and keep it profitable for select manufacturers.

Kirk Gittings

8-Jun-2009, 16:08

Drew, any thoughts on the topic of the thread? What does that info mean in terms of the grow of this forum?

Barrie B.

8-Jun-2009, 16:43

Out of curiosity I checked some statistics for the forum comparing January and February of 2007 and 2009. Don't ask me why those periods. Just a random check. The LFF appears to be alive and well. Rough rounded numbers look like:

Site visits are up 30%
New Registration up 10%
New threads up 25%
Posts up 15%

I am retired and now find more time top use my large format ( 4 x 5 ) camera AND[U]I find the info on this forum very interesting.
Barrie B. Melbourne Australia.

Drew Wiley

8-Jun-2009, 18:19

Kirk - one hunch is that the ebb and flow of digital versus traditional, which seems to produce sudden temporary spikes in the availability and affordability of used
conventional equipment, is something which drives curiosity in those who might have had some latent intent to experiement in large format. At least among
people who stumble into me using the 8X10 around here, a surprising number have expressed the intention to someday try out a view camera. When a lot of good deals happen to be floating around, it is quite easy to start web surfing for "what if"
information, and a few individuals are going to nibble at the real thing. The biggest
problem seems to be the hurdle of constructing an actual darkroom space. The
demographic of people I tend to encounter on the trails either seems to be in their
teens and 20's, or baby-boomers like myself who grew up with an enormous amount
of outdoor activity. I wonder if our generation is going to be the "fittest"one for our
age group? Plus a number of us have retired already (not me anytime soon). And
this is the age group which identifies "real" photography with the great view camera
practitioners of the past. This does not mean they are not technologically saavy -
indeed, many of them seem to have already made their mark in the computer industry - but there seems to be a nostalgia for the craft and lifestyle of the good old days. It would be interesting to see how this compares with the age profile of
people using this site, as well as responses from other parts of the country. In this
area (Northern Cal) people tend to be relatively outdoorsy.

Drew Wiley

8-Jun-2009, 18:49

Postscript - (got interrupted) - I'm not suggesting that only older people are interested in view cameras. Around here a lot of students are too, but there is a great lack of rental darkroom space, with personal lease spaces being far to expensive for anyone but the well-heeled. A kid down the street from a relatively
redneck family always working on hotrods and boat engines picked up a nice antique
4x5 and wooden tripod on a whim somewhere. It looked cool, so he bought it at a
bargain and went to one of the parks to try it out - have no idea how far he'll pursue
this. I meet young people in the redwoods who ask if they can look through my
camera to see what I'm taking a picture of. After their eyes adjust, they typically
say "cool", and "wish I had one of those...if it wasn't so heavy". I think I've made
quite a few hypothetical converts, even among the Japanese tourists who worship
technology and the latest DLSRs. And yes, I do know some young people who have
purchased battered starter 8X10's and are learning to contact print in their bathrooms. But they tend to be more the type who want to talk to an old fogey like me who's been through the school of hard knocks with film rather than ask a school
art instructor. Color large format is a different issue, at least in the common perception, because it is so much more expensive to get into and requires a more serious darkroom committment. Digital printing is a formidable opponent in this
specific arena. How all this relates to your original question I'm not certain, but it might be an ingredient of some validity in the overall stew

percepts

9-Jun-2009, 09:07

Vick, yes that appears to be true. I'm curious about people's opinion of this increase. To me that seems like pretty healthy growth for a site that is dedicated primarily to "old technology", but perhaps that is our strength. There are many sites that provide info on the latest digital stuff but ever fewer that concentrate on older technologies? Whatever, we seem to have a growing niche.

Lies, damned lies and statistics...

The number of posts has not risen in line with the number of new threads. What does that tell you? I would have thought the most pertinent number is the number of active members now compared to 2007. Mind you, that says nothing about the quality of content of posts or whether it is the same ground being covered for a second, third, fourth or nth time which is a turn off for members who have been around a while.

Drew Wiley

9-Jun-2009, 10:10

I wonder how search engines factor into this. "Large Format" is something of an insider
term to someone already practicing. Beginners seem to be much more familiar with
terms such as "4x5" or "view camera". Even when someone has a hunch what I'm
shooting, they have to be explained what "large format" means. On the other hand,
people who enter multi-format forums are potentially picking up the term there and
searching onwards. I know that in the schools photo students are generally given at
least a look at what a large format camera is, but seemingly always under the
classification of "view camera".

Bill_1856

9-Jun-2009, 11:20

I believe that the surge in LF usage is directly tracable to the advent of digital darkroom replacing the expensive and labor intensive wet darkroom of the good/bad old days.
Although used 35mm and Medium Format "stuff" are going "cheap," I don't find that LF equipment (other than darkroom) is particularly inexpensive as compared to the days before digital became the norm.
Of course prices went crazy for a while but they have essentially returned to "normal," ($1900 for a Super D Graflex, now down to a reasonable $500-600).
The price of materials, however, has risen pretty steep. I am heading next week to a workshop which is pretty much large format B&W oriented, and thought that I'd shoot some 5x7 with my 4x5 Nagaoka back extension (which I've never used). I was shocked to discover the price of a box of Tri-X. With processing, I could easily spend $10 a shot, and I'm sure that color would be even worse.

Sal Santamaura

9-Jun-2009, 11:32

...and thought that I'd shoot some 5x7 with my 4x5 Nagaoka back extension (which I've never used). I was shocked to discover the price of a box of Tri-X. With processing, I could easily spend $10 a shot, and I'm sure that color would be even worse.Bill, where are you seeing a price of more than $8 per sheet to develop 5x7 black and white? Tri-X in that size is, even after quite substantial Kodak price increases over last few years, less than $2/sheet. Not that I've used Praus (all my film developing is done in our downstairs bathroom :) ), but the price list there shows $4.25/sheet.

Kirk Gittings

9-Jun-2009, 18:08

Lies, damned lies and statistics...

The number of posts has not risen in line with the number of new threads. What does that tell you? I would have thought the most pertinent number is the number of active members now compared to 2007.

There is no way that I can figure out how to pull numbers of active members in 2007, but if memory serves me right as I mentioned this number in a thread back then (I will try and find it, as my memory may very well be wrong), I remember it was around 2200 active members.

I found it but it was June of 2008 (not 2007) in a thread about "Comparing Forums (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=37751&highlight=Comparing+forums)":

June 27 2008-Threads: 32,221, Posts: 340,521, Registered Members: 13,693, Active Members: 2,234

Currently it is:

June 6 2009-Threads: 43,682, Posts: 449,519, Registered Members: 15,496, Active Members: 2,500

So regardless of what you think of statistics, IMO these numbers show real growth in one year.

percepts

9-Jun-2009, 18:32

So regardless of what you think of statistics, IMO these numbers show real growth in one year.

Yup 14% or so which is pretty good but that doesn't necessarily correlate to a 14% increase in large format use. The increase could have been caused for many reasons, not least good fortune through certain search engine phrases being used and found in the forum. We'll never know. Or at least those of us without access to the full site stats won't. At best it's an indication the forum is healthy.

I didn't mean to imply statistics are bad but rather great care has to be taken when interpreting them. Somtimes they can be very accurate, others times very misleading.

Kirk Gittings

9-Jun-2009, 18:55

The increase could have been caused for many reasons, not least good fortune through certain search engine phrases being used and found in the forum. We'll never know. Or at least those of us without access to the full site stats won't.

Not sure what this means? Educate me please. I am not a IT guy or a statistician. The above bold numbers were simply pulled from the bottom of the index page which is visible to everyone.

percepts

9-Jun-2009, 19:55

Not sure what this means? Educate me please. I am not a IT guy or a statistician. The above bold numbers were simply pulled from the bottom of the index page which is visible to everyone.

I mean you have at to look at how people came to find the site. That information may be in the VBulletin stats or it may not. I don't know because I don't have VBulletin so don't know what stats information is held in it.

The raw log files for the site will contain the information if the files are available. Primarily the search phrases people used to find the site or whether they linked from other sites or whether they came via direct link from their browser in which case they usually visited before. But if you haven't been monitoring that, then you won't be able to see the trends and changes unless you have that data over a period of time.

Obviously if someone does a search on "large format photography" they find you but its very probable that there are other phrases that people find the site via. Some new phrase in the site content can potentially cause a sudden increase in finds of the site and therefore an increase in registrations. That kind of increase in site activity does not infer any increase in the use of large format cameras. It just implies a healthy site.

Bill_1856

9-Jun-2009, 20:31

Bill, where are you seeing a price of more than $8 per sheet to develop 5x7 black and white? Tri-X in that size is, even after quite substantial Kodak price increases over last few years, less than $2/sheet. Not that I've used Praus (all my film developing is done in our downstairs bathroom :) ), but the price list there shows $4.25/sheet.

Hi Sal.
Dalmation Labs in North Carolina quote $9/sheet for developing plus $2.25 for contact proof. There's also a $10 shipping/handling fee. MV Labs in NYC doesn't list 5x7, but their 4x5 & 8x10 prices are in the same ball park. I don't know Praus.
The cost (and time constraints) have convinced me to give up 5x7 for this trip, and I'll be taking my last couple of boxes of 4x5 Polaroid type 52, and about half-a-box of type 55.
If I were to be shooting a significant amount of sheet film, I'd set up my darkroom again in the laundry room with the old Omega D2 and E3 enlargers, which have resided in my garage since moving from a house to a small retirement villa, and develop the film in trays.
I do miss it!

percepts

10-Jun-2009, 06:51

Regardless of how they found the site, the point is they signed up, they are now new members most kely practicing large format photography, or they would have left. This means added sales in film, which follows the increases reported at Photokina 2008, and from Fuji reps and others. The point is large format photography is growing, how it got there doesn't matter. It could have been due to Photokina type shows, point is everyone is seeing a upswing in film sales.

Youe are seeing what you want to see. You cannot infer a direct link between LF sales and this site as there is nothing in this sites statistics which make a direct link to sales of anything. Like I said, "Lies, damned lies and statistics".

LF sales may well be increasing, there is just no provable direct link from here to those sales and no link that shows that an increase in use of this site is directly as a result of increased sales. You may like to think there is but you can't prove it because the data to prove it doesn't exist. i.e. you are jumping to conclusions. So saying people joined and this means added sales is a dreamt up assertion on your part.

percepts

10-Jun-2009, 11:05

Vick, yes that appears to be true. I'm curious about people's opinion of this increase. To me that seems like pretty healthy growth for a site that is dedicated primarily to "old technology", but perhaps that is our strength. There are many sites that provide info on the latest digital stuff but ever fewer that concentrate on older technologies? Whatever, we seem to have a growing niche.

I would add that a big plus of this forum is that it is non commercial. Sure there are one or two scavengers as there are with most forums, but unlike some forums where the moderation policy is designed to suit advertisers, this site has a much more relaxed atmosphere and you are not stopped short being a only little less than politically correct.

GPS

10-Jun-2009, 11:25

Vick, yes that appears to be true. I'm curious about people's opinion of this increase. To me that seems like pretty healthy growth for a site that is dedicated primarily to "old technology", but perhaps that is our strength. There are many sites that provide info on the latest digital stuff but ever fewer that concentrate on older technologies? Whatever, we seem to have a growing niche.

Paradoxically, the old technology starts to be seen as a novelty to the digital photographers generation. That could explain a part of the increase in the membership. This increase is not projected to the higher level of posts though, quite the contrary, which is also understandable.

Bruce Barlow

10-Jun-2009, 14:21

Maybe we just have more fun than the digital guys?

percepts

11-Jun-2009, 11:32

Don't think I'd ever be asking you to intepret anything for me if I wanted an objective answer.

Dan Fromm

11-Jun-2009, 14:31

percepts, I'm with you. The relationship between the number of people talking about using film on a bulletin board and the amount of film used by all shooters has to be very loose. There's no guarantee that they move together. Same goes for the number of posts on a bulletin board and the amount of film used.

The best way to find the trend of film sales is to measure film sales directly.

Getting back to indirect measurements, or perhaps measurements of related series, it seems to me that the number of stores selling film keeps falling. This is not a good sign.

Van Camper's interpretation of Kirk's report of activity here reminds me of the assertion that falling prices of 35 mm cameras is good news for the future of 35 mm film. Its been made on APUG; IMO it reflects wishful thinking much more than reality.

On the other hand, 9.5 mm cine hasn't completely vanished yet.

Cheers,

Dan

Kirk Gittings

11-Jun-2009, 14:49

Just so the original point doesn't get lost. The numbers I sited IMO represented the health of the LFForum and nothing else.

Eric Leppanen

11-Jun-2009, 15:42

Everyone is talking about film stabilizing and on an upswing, so why not expect increased traffic here?Who is objectively talking about film being on an upswing? Don't just focus on the LF market segment, which has historically been a tiny fragment of total film demand, and which by itself is almost certainly insufficient to justify continued film production.

Take a look at Fuji's reported 2006-2009 film revenue here:

http://www.fujifilmholdings.com/en/investors/performance_and_finance/sales_trends_by_products/index.html

Fuji film demand over the last four years has experienced a consistent linear decline. If this trend continues, Fuji film sales will reach zero within four years. I'm not at all predicting that it will (the recession is certainly impacting film sales, as well as digital migration), but let's have no illusions that we are in a declining market. That being said, the behavior of Fuji, Kodak and Ilford indicates that they expect film to be a viable business for many years. Why not be happy and leave it at that?

Brian Ellis

15-Jun-2009, 09:20

There is no way that I can figure out how to pull numbers of active members in 2007, but if memory serves me right as I mentioned this number in a thread back then (I will try and find it, as my memory may very well be wrong), I remember it was around 2200 active members.

I found it but it was June of 2008 (not 2007) in a thread about "Comparing Forums (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=37751&highlight=Comparing+forums)":

June 27 2008-Threads: 32,221, Posts: 340,521, Registered Members: 13,693, Active Members: 2,234

Currently it is:

June 6 2009-Threads: 43,682, Posts: 449,519, Registered Members: 15,496, Active Members: 2,500

So regardless of what you think of statistics, IMO these numbers show real growth in one year.

The numbers threads, posts, and members have certainly increased. But I don't know what conclusions can be drawn from that except that the numbers have increased. Some people equate the increase with a growth in the number of LF photographers in general and a renewed interest in film-based photography. I don't think it necessarily means that. It could actually mean the opposite. To take an extreme case, suppose all new members joined so that they could sell something and all additional threads were in the FS section but all the additional posts were from existing members in other sections. What would that mean? To me it would tend to indicate that interest in LF photography and film in general is declining because people are trying to sell their equipment but nobody is buying it.

Obviously all the additional members and threads weren't in the FS section alone (though I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a disproportionate number were). But the point is that I think the numbers you've posted need to be refined before any conclusions other than the obvious - i.e. there's been an increase in participation in this forum - can be drawn from them.

Eric Leppanen

16-Jun-2009, 00:14

I recommend you read up a bit more before you draw false conclusions. Everyone is aware film sales have stabilized, and by this they are referring to larger formats 120 and above. Obviously you haven't been following the trend.First, there is no consensus that film sales have stabilized. Look at this post made several months ago by Simon Galley, Ilford's rep on APUG (http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/56632-ilford-state-photo-world.html):

Following PHOTOKINA I have seen lots of very 'optomistic' posts about analog, some are true, but the fundamental is that the use of analog materials is always ' over estimated ' and continues to decline, and will continue to decline, all be it at a gentler pace than previously.

If you believe that Mr. Galley does not understand the true demand for his products, and needs to read a bit more before drawing false conclusions, you are certainly welcome to tell him so.

Secondly, the question of whether film sales declines mostly emanate from 35mm, 120/220 or LF is of limited value, since all these formats together comprise total film demand, and total demand is what determines whether Fuji, Ilford and Kodak stay in the film business. Even if LF film demand has stabilized, its revenue numbers are so small that they will have absolutely zero impact on whether these companies stay in the film game or not. To illustrate this, let's do a quick exercise. There are currently 2,500 active members on this LF forum. Let's assume that, for every active member, there are another 19 photographers somewhere who are also shooting LF (i.e., one active forum member equates to 20 LF photographers). Let's also assume that each LF photographer on average shoots 200 sheets of 4x5 film per year, at an average cost of $2.00 per sheet. This adds up to 2,500 x 20 x 200 x $2.00 = $20 million worth of total LF film sales per year, or $5 million per quarter. Almost all of this LF film demand gets split between Kodak, Fuji and Ilford.

In their latest fiscal quarter, Kodak reported traditional film-related quarterly revenue of $503 million, representing a 31% decline from the same quarter the previous year. The majority of this revenue came from motion picture film sales, which is the primary driver of Kodak's film business (this is why all of Kodak's recent product development has focused on negative films, as motion picture film for image capture is strictly color negative). Compared to this, $5 million of LF film sales is mouse nuts. It's actually smaller than mouse nuts, as Kodak has only a partial LF film market share. Even if you feel my LF film demand figures are too low, any upward revisions will make no difference in the overall dynamic.

Frankly, I am very happy that Kodak continues to ship LF film at all, as they make relatively little money from it. Presumably they do it for the P.R. value as much as anything else. And clearly, at least for Kodak, motion picture film is the straw that stirs the drink. As long as the motion picture business remains viable, the still photography business will remain as long as its numbers hold up. If the motion picture business goes away, the still photography business will be shut down or sold, regardless of how much its numbers have "stabilized."

percepts

16-Jun-2009, 20:41

digital backs fit on LF cameras. There is every reason to keep your LF camera range upto date.
Seen all those digi LF lenses on the market?

Eric Leppanen

16-Jun-2009, 21:13

Actually, I think LF photography has held up remarkably well considering the digital transition and economic headwinds that we are all facing. We have many choices of film, cameras, lenses, workshops, etc. as well as a rich selection of both traditional and digital printing materials. The recession/depression notwithstanding, in many ways it is a great time to be an LF photographer (particularly an amateur like me who doesn't have to make a living from photography).

All I've been trying to say is that our little niche, however successful it may be, is still subject to the overall long-term trend in the film industry, which is down (to use Wall Street parlance, film is a secular bear market, albeit a gradual one). But as long as the overall film market remains viable LF will be just fine.

Obviously LF camera manufacturers such as Ebony, Canham, Shen Hao, Chamonix, etc. are in a different position than Kodak, Fuji, Ilford et al. These are tiny, nimble companies that can adapt swiftly to market changes; they don't require large, long-term capital investment and high volume manufacturing to be successful. Film availability will be our challenge in upcoming years.

But I agree that Kodak would be not developing new emulsions if they didn't believe film to be a viable business for the foreseeable future. Heck, even Fuji recently decided to market Acros in 4x5 sheets (non-Quickload) in the U.S. MF digital will not be cost-effective for most amateurs as long as that industry adheres to its current business model (which will undergo additional turmoil as Canon/Nikon continue to invade the MF marketspace).

So I say be happy, don't worry, and to paraphrase Yosemite Sam, keep on shootin'! :)

Eric Leppanen

16-Jun-2009, 21:22

digital backs fit on LF cameras. There is every reason to keep your LF camera range upto date.
Seen all those digi LF lenses on the market?This is true for the lower resolution backs (for example, photographer Richard Sexton, who wrote a number of articles on the Ebony web site, uses an Ebony SW45 and 16MP digital back for his architectural work). But the higher resolution backs require a dedicated digital technical camera to achieve best results, and even this can be dicey. If you haven't read these articles already, see:

http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html
http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html
http://www.josephholmes.com/news-fellowphotographers.html