Film photography, a good business in the future ? [Archive]

QT Luong

24-Sep-2011, 00:03

cyrus

24-Sep-2011, 00:44

This blog post has a good point about new business models http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/09/21/welcome-to-the-demand-economy/ however what caught my attention was the comment by Mike Moss:

"[...] It’s important to remember that there will be a backlash against digital and specialist will become necessary. Photography was a profession in a mechanized economy so the key to making it a profession again is to go back to film. [...]
Of course, everybody is going to say that film is dead and there is no need for it anymore. Don’t bet on it! Digital technology is now commonplace and digital photography is essentially worthless. People have little respect for it. However, film photography is starting to be viewed as an art form and folks working in that medium will be able to maintain status above digital shooters. This status can lead to a demand for high fees and a reformation of the photography profession. [...]"

What do you think ?

It depends on the type of photography you do. If you're a commercial photographer for things like magazines, truth is the client doesn't care HOW the photo is created. He just wants it fast and cheap and easily to manipulate (thus, digital.) I think what Mike Moss is referring to is the divergence we are experiencing between commercial and artistic photography. In artistic photography the craft becomes more of a factor to consider in juding the value, and not just the end product. If we're limiting the discussion to fine art photography, then I agree with him. The very characteristic of digital photography - its massive, easy availability - is what undermines it as a respected art form. When any 9 year-old armed with a cellphone and PS can create 20 digital images in an hour, no one is going to take that too seriously. So, once commercial photography totally goes its merry way, I suspect that art photography will indeed thrive using the old techniques once again.

And, on top of that, I think these discussions need to first define what's meant by the term "photography" because there were certain types and processes that were never threatened by digital. No digital image can ever replace a photogravure or a wet plate for example. Wet plate is now more popular than ever too

Armin Seeholzer

24-Sep-2011, 01:02

In my opinion he ( Mike Moss ) is an dreamer, but of course there are some niches in which he may have right, but its also just a dream of myself;--)))

Cheers Armin

sanchi heuser

24-Sep-2011, 01:03

No.
Just because 'digital technology is now commonplace' and everybody can shoot a
sharp and exposed photo with a digital camera doesn't mean everybody shoots good pictures (good in terms of sufficient to satisfy e.g. the advertising agency, photo editor, art collector etc.).
Aspects like lighting, composition, the right moment and at least the concept of a single photo or a series are still there and need the experienced photographer, that's makes the specialist IMO (I'm shure I forgot many more aspects)

I think digital is used in the commercial photography because of economic factors.
Business is making money.

edtog

24-Sep-2011, 01:09

I would love to shoot film commercially but in reality those days have long gone for editorial and commercial shoots.
Maybe there is a niche in portrait and weddings which could be exploited?

Like the previous poster mentioned, clients don't care how I get the images to them, as long as it's quick.
4 years ago I went from a 1dmk2 to a 1dsmk3, not one person noticed, except myself :(

Do agree with the oversupply, and the resulting drop in quality...

GPS

24-Sep-2011, 01:13

...
This status can lead to a demand for high fees and a reformation of the photography profession. [...]"

What do you think ?

Artists with high fees for their art??? :) One in ten thousands..?

darr

24-Sep-2011, 01:50

Wishful thinking ...

Richard Mahoney

24-Sep-2011, 04:26

"Of course, everybody is going to say that film is dead and there is no need for it anymore. Don’t bet on it! Digital technology is now commonplace and digital photography is essentially worthless. People have little respect for it. However, film photography is starting to be viewed as an art form and folks working in that medium will be able to maintain status above digital shooters. This status can lead to a demand for high fees and a reformation of the photography profession. [...]"

What do you think ?

I wouldn't expect many `clients' to be overly concerned with this distinction, possibly only certain `patrons'.

Kind regards,

Richard

Robert Brummitt

24-Sep-2011, 06:21

It is wishful thinking that depends on an info structure like film continuing to be made, chemicals being made and people who know how to use them. Then there is the evolution of digital. I mean digital has been making leaps and bounds at getting better and better.
I remember when I worked in a professional commercial film lab and photoshop first appeared. My bosses looked at it and thought it never replace film or photo paper.
Boy, were they off! I have help close two labs because of digital.
First because photoshop and digital output. Then came digital cameras which just killed the film processing side of both labs.
But that is the commercial side of photography. The fine art side took a running start to it's history. A backlash to digital. Some went to platinum and now wet plate to get back to basics. Will it last? We'll see? Will film come back? Maybe.
But, I see digital not standing still either. I see it going on with it's evolution. It can only get better and better. Offer us more and more options to expand our creativeness.
There are too many computer engineers and companies who try new things with digital and lots and lots of potential cash customers to beg them on.
But let's see?

Jack Dahlgren

24-Sep-2011, 06:23

"[...] It’s important to remember that there will be a backlash against digital and specialist will become necessary. Photography was a profession in a mechanized economy so the key to making it a profession again is to go back to film. [...]
Digital technology is now commonplace and digital photography is essentially worthless. People have little respect for it. However, film photography is starting to be viewed as an art form and folks working in that medium will be able to maintain status above digital shooters. This status can lead to a demand for high fees and a reformation of the photography profession. [...]"

What do you think ?

Wrong in so many ways.

The argument that because digital is common it will become worthless has no basis. Photographers earn money because of what they do, not what technology they use to do it. They are and always have been the creators of value, not the film they load or the sensors they use.

As for a backlash against digital (based somehow on the fact that it is too popular and common) leading to a reformation of the photography profession, that implies that digital photography was just one big mistake. This is either intentional blindness or incredible stupidity. Maybe both. Digital photography is popular because of clear advantages it has over film. People are not going to give those advantages up. They may still use film where it does have an advantage, but the clock won't run backwards.

bob carnie

24-Sep-2011, 06:34

I am in a niche film , enlarger print business, as well I am in a complete digital business.

I agree with the idea that we will be printing silver for the time length that Silver paper is being manufactured. I also think wet alt prints will be the way of the future and to do that the niche player will need great digital skills married to wet printing skills.

At this point in my career , I can continue printing silver and alt wet prints and live very comfortably with my client base, and new clients wanting my prints.

For someone starting out fresh , I believe there also is this business model and therefore I am teaching two young ladies how to print , silver and alt. They will be in a position by the time I retire to take over.

But we are not giving up on digital technology, quite the opposite, we plan to stay on cutting edge, This will allow us to pay for Staff and Building costs.

There are k billlions of film strips that have never been printed or scanned and for a young person starting out, keeping this in mind could prove fruitful

Jim Jones

24-Sep-2011, 07:34

A creative and ambitious person with technical ability and business acumen can create a niche with older traditional photographic processes in the right locale. After most photographers upgraded to color film, the upscale Lou Charno studio in Kansas City would make portraits with a tri-color one shot camera and dye transfers for those willing to have unique (and expensive) photographs.

GPS

24-Sep-2011, 07:39

Jim, a niche is not an equivalent to a good business. Not always and not generally.

Robert Oliver

24-Sep-2011, 07:55

Like everything you post GPS... I disagree completely.

A niche can be a great thing as long as there isn't a lot of competition for what you are doing. Sometimes it's better to be a big fish in a small pool.

Jim, a niche is not an equivalent to a good business. Not always and not generally.

GPS

24-Sep-2011, 07:59

Like everything you post GPS... I disagree completely.

A niche can be a great thing as long as there isn't a lot of competition for what you are doing. Sometimes it's better to be a big fish in a small pool.

I didn't say "it cannot be" but it is not generally or always. Learned the difference?

Steve Smith

24-Sep-2011, 08:25

Jim, a niche is not an equivalent to a good business.

The phrase I heard a few years ago was "there might be a gap in the market but is there a market in the gap?".

Steve.

Marko

24-Sep-2011, 08:59

Wrong in so many ways.

The argument that because digital is common it will become worthless has no basis. Photographers earn money because of what they do, not what technology they use to do it. They are and always have been the creators of value, not the film they load or the sensors they use.

As for a backlash against digital (based somehow on the fact that it is too popular and common) leading to a reformation of the photography profession, that implies that digital photography was just one big mistake. This is either intentional blindness or incredible stupidity. Maybe both. Digital photography is popular because of clear advantages it has over film. People are not going to give those advantages up. They may still use film where it does have an advantage, but the clock won't run backwards.

I agree on all points except on the first one. It's not just wrong, it is ideologically polemic in the worst tradition of Marxism-Leninism (or whatever it was called).

Backlash against digital? That's where I stopped reading, really.

Once upon a time, there lived a fellow called Nedd Ludd. He led a backlash against dehumanizing technology of his day which replaced the skilled manual labor with soulless mechanical contrivances.

We all know how that backlash ended, but some of us prefer to keep repeating the same thing over and over again, expecting it to suddenly catch on and start producing results. ;)

QT Luong

24-Sep-2011, 09:15

Brian Ellis

24-Sep-2011, 09:19

I think it's complete nonsense. Among other reasons, most people - like 99.9% of the world - don't know, can't tell, and don't care how the original image was made.

Tobias Key

24-Sep-2011, 09:30

I think it's a mistake describe any kind of resurgence of film as a backlash against digital. I think there are young photographers out there discovering film and using it, I think there are older photographers going back to it for some things. I don't doubt that the vast majority of them have digital cameras as well. I don't see it as some kind of technological war, people will just use what they want to use. Could you build a career at this moment exclusively with film shooting? I think you'd be making a hard career choice even harder by limiting yourself in that way. By all means use what you want to use on your own dime but be pragmatic when working for others. There may be niches out there if you can market yourself in the right way but it's not that expensive to have both film and digital at your disposal. I think it certainly helps my photography that I use both.

Greg Lockrey

24-Sep-2011, 09:30

I think it's complete nonsense. Among other reasons, most people - like 99.9% of the world - don't know, can't tell, and don't care how the original image was made.

Dittoes..... It has been my experience too. All they want is for it to look good and be delivered in a timely manner.

GPS

24-Sep-2011, 09:35

I think the main point here is that using film would supposedly make people perceive you more as an artist. An artist tends to do things differently. Does that make sense ?

So the observation applies mostly to fine art photography, with the cross-over that sometimes someone would also want an "artist" to shoot their commercial/editorial project.

Maybe, once the film will be regarded as such an ancient technology as we regard wet plates today. And maybe some people will be fascinated by that as they are by the wet plate today. But from there to a good business is still a long way to go - is a wet plate a good business today? Doesn't seem so...:)

QT Luong

24-Sep-2011, 10:08

I think it's complete nonsense. Among other reasons, most people - like 99.9% of the world - don't know, can't tell, and don't care how the original image was made.

True, but 99.99% of the world does not buy original art. What matters is whether those who do care.

Brian Ellis

24-Sep-2011, 11:06

True, but 99.99% of the world does not buy original art. What matters is whether those who do care.

The 99.99% of the world to which I referred includes those who buy original art. The .01% consists of some of the members of this forum, APUG, and few others.

ic-racer

24-Sep-2011, 11:16

What do you think ?

Old news.

Greg Lockrey

24-Sep-2011, 11:17

True, but 99.99% of the world does not buy original art. What matters is whether those who do care.

IF you are lucky enough to be in the right location where there is a sufficient number of those .01%'rs who care have the disposable income to buy and if your reputation as an artist will bare the extra cost that photographing in film will bring to the photo.

Jay DeFehr

24-Sep-2011, 11:50

How can I put this so that I don't offend? People care about photos, not about photographers. Here I'm speaking of professional photographers, not artists. Collectors care about photographers more than individual photos, but for the rest of the world, the photographer doesn't matter, let alone what equipment/materials/process is used to make a photo, and if a photo is not online, it doesn't exist. Agencies look for images online, not for photographers, and when they find an image, they don't care if the photographer ever made another photo. Every image must stand on its own, and the skill, experience, or reputation of the photographer are irrelevant beyond the image in question. This puts amateurs on an equal footing with pros, however pros feel about it.

QT Luong

24-Sep-2011, 12:51

The 99.99% of the world to which I referred includes those who buy original art. The .01% consists of some of the members of this forum, APUG, and few others.

What makes you so sure of this number ?

I sincerely don't know the answer, but I've seen some anecdotal evidence here and there: a pretty high proportion of successful artists working still working with film (certainly much higher than amongst amateurs), people talking with me at exhibits expressing satisfaction after hearing pieces were shot on film, a friend who makes a good portion of his living from art shows reporting favorable reaction to film and unfavorable to digital ("because digital = photoshopped").

Jim Jones

24-Sep-2011, 13:06

. . . most people - like 99.9% of the world - don't know, can't tell, and don't care how the original image was made.

That may unfortunately be true. However, we can take the time and make the effort to educate more of them. In my market area 0.1% leaves several people who have shown that they care. In a major metro area there might be hundreds or thousands of more sophisticated people who should also care. It's such people that make well-crafted photography and other art worthwhile. The previously cited Lou Charno found it very worthwhile indeed. A generation ago eight of her photographic portraits were valued at $48,200 in a court case.

Mike Anderson

24-Sep-2011, 13:17

I could certainly see a studio that specialized in a traditional methods niche be successful if it was in a city and was marketed well. People will pay more for something slightly different that has the air of artisan-ness.

In the right market (I'm thinking San Francisco) people pay a premium for handmade wrapping paper, handmade candles, etc. and I'm sure they'd pay a premium for silver print portraits. A metro market will be saturated with digital shooters (and there's the competition from Uncle Ernie and his new ink jet printer) so the "gimmick" of film and optical printing could be a useful distinguishing feature.

...Mike

cyrus

24-Sep-2011, 13:25

I think everyone is in agreement that as far as "business" (commercial) photography goes, yes digital killed film but that's not what Moss was talking about - he was talking about fine art photography which is now diverging from commercial - which is a good thing IMHO since it is ironic that it has only been a generation or two since photography in general was even considered a mainstream art form. But now with the digital-analogue divide that seems to be the main indicator of the commercial-art divergence, analog photography is coming into its own as a "pure" art form, and there is no reason why it cant continue and thrive as such. I think analogue photography will take its place next to printmaking, etching, silkscreen, painting etc. And like any other art form, there will be many hobbyists but few who actually make a living at it. Now you can say that 99% of the people don't care how a photo is made but they also don't care how a lithograph is made either. Clearly, they aren't your market, if you go into analog photography with ideas of making money. They arent the art market. If you want to reach them, go sell paintings of dogs playing cards and hot chicks holding power tools.

In fact this 99% isnt even terribly profitable for the digital art market. Mosses second point is that the digital art market will be saturated and will suffer in quality. Prices there will also fall. How many " collectors" of digital art photography do you think there will be willing to pay bucks for images that may be downloadable and printable by billions of people all around the world? Digital art photography will basically be "virtual" and as such it wont be any more profitable than digital stock photography. Throw in the fact that technological advances will make it easier to produce even more minimally good digital photos (wont even need to focus anymore) and then you realize that if you want to collect art photography, the only thing worth collecting is the old fashioned type of photography.

And yet another irony in the ubiquity of digital photography: digital photography acts as a cheap and easy entry and introduction to the field of photography. Inevitably, some of the folks who enter through that door will want to progress and explore further, and will take up analog photography. This is already happening, as the Youtube generation is watching videos of 19th century processes. So, the more digital photographers, leads to more
[not less] analog photographers!

paulr

24-Sep-2011, 13:31

I think there's always a small minority that feels that the old way is always better, whatever it is. And a small minority that likewise feels the new way is always better. And thankfully, there's a majority that doesn't care about the details of your process, what brand typewriter you used, or what designer stamped her name on your sunglasses.

Brian K

24-Sep-2011, 14:30

Film and digital both have their strengths and weaknesses. Because I work predominantly in B&W I prefer film. If I were still doing commercial work and predominantly color I'd be using a high end digital back.

The only real "better than" arguments pertain to specific uses, conditions and end products.

Digitally produced prints are gaining wide acceptance in the art world, and especially in the gallery world where many buyers want very large prints.

mdm

24-Sep-2011, 14:41

When we are talking about a print that one hangs on the wall, something that is tangible, then perhaps film may hold its own. Since we see so many images on monitors, televisions and in magazines and other advertising, perhaps people may prefer not to look at such images for a long period of time, perhaps we no longer accept artificial perfection as art. I know I would never hang a heavily manipulated and over dramatised image on the wall but would walk across hot coals for a csant alt print or Erik Larsens tree kallitype or even a Ken Lee inkjet print.

cyrus

24-Sep-2011, 15:04

Digitally produced prints are gaining wide acceptance in the art world, and especially in the gallery world where many buyers want very large prints.

That's not due to the digital-ness but due to the largeness, and even that is temporary. It used to be quite hard and expensive to produce a large digital print, so a large digital print is a somewhat rare commodity, worthy of a gallery's attention. Give it a few years and that won't be the case. Even now you can already download and print by mail-order v. large digital prints online from Snapfish etc. - how much profit is there in it for a gallery to host large digital prints when the sort of people interested in that can just go to snapfish and get as many copies of a print as they want in whatever size they want esp as print-on-demand tech improves (and standards fall)? Again, the ubiquity and ease of digital working against it!

emh

24-Sep-2011, 20:22

Brian Ellis

24-Sep-2011, 21:37

What makes you so sure of this number ?

I sincerely don't know the answer, but I've seen some anecdotal evidence here and there: a pretty high proportion of successful artists working still working with film (certainly much higher than amongst amateurs), people talking with me at exhibits expressing satisfaction after hearing pieces were shot on film, a friend who makes a good portion of his living from art shows reporting favorable reaction to film and unfavorable to digital ("because digital = photoshopped").

Does your friend understand that using film doesn't preclude using Photoshop?

QT Luong

24-Sep-2011, 22:38

Richard Mahoney

25-Sep-2011, 01:36

... The only real "better than" arguments pertain to specific uses, conditions and end products. ...

Agreed. But putting aside the making of images for a moment, it's just occurred to me that film may, in certain circumstances, have certain `social' advantages.

As film and all that is becoming increasingly uncommon, perhaps its also becoming a little like one of Monty Python's dinner table cue cards -- it's use may be something to kick off a conversation. Failing something more interesting, perhaps film is something to chat about. God knows, surely such a conversation must be more interesting than sensors and files and plastic this and plastic that and God knows what else digital imaging consists of ;)

Kind regards,

Richard

Kirk Gittings

25-Sep-2011, 06:17

[QUOTE]I sincerely don't know the answer, but I've seen some anecdotal evidence here and there: a pretty high proportion of successful artists working still working with film (certainly much higher than amongst amateurs), people talking with me at exhibits expressing satisfaction after hearing pieces were shot on film, a friend who makes a good portion of his living from art shows reporting favorable reaction to film and unfavorable to digital ("because digital = photoshopped")./QUOTE]

What I find disconcerting in such situations is the amount of deceit that is obviously going on with film shooters claiming that they don't manipulate images when they obviously do. They are trying to artificially maintain a divide and elevated position of being more "truthful'' than digital photographers when the difference is simply a matter of degrees (maybe). Frankly I think such claims are pathetic. I freely acknowledge that my film based prints are manipulated (as it always has been) because I am an artist, but I feel like I am in a minority in being truthful about this.

GPS

25-Sep-2011, 07:30

Agreed. But putting aside the making of images for a moment, it's just occurred to me that film may, in certain circumstances, have certain `social' advantages.

As film and all that is becoming increasingly uncommon, perhaps its also becoming a little like one of Monty Python's dinner table cue cards -- it's use may be something to kick off a conversation. Failing something more interesting, perhaps film is something to chat about. God knows, surely such a conversation must be more interesting than sensors and files and plastic this and plastic that and God knows what else digital imaging consists of ;)

Kind regards,

Richard

To get even more of this "social advantage" to promote your film photography business how about putting a cobra on your camera? What hell of a kick for the conversation would that be..!:rolleyes:

Brian Ellis

25-Sep-2011, 09:26

He does. Like many, he shot film (MF) in the past, digital in the present. But it could be that the general public doesn't. Like any good art fair seller, he talks a lot to people. BTW, you haven't replied to my question.

Sorry for not answering the question. I didn't mean to suggest that 99.9% was an exact number. I used that number just to make the point that I think there are very very few people who much care whether a photograph originated from film or from a digital source, especially considering that the print may be made digitally even when the original source was film (i.e. people like your friend aren't necessarily precluding the purchase of a digital print by insisting that the original source be film). I think the important thing to almost everyone, including almost everyone who buys prints, is whether they like the print or not. If they otherwise like it enough to buy it I don't think many people would then reject it when they learn that it didn't start out on film. And if not many people do that then presumably there wouldn't be enough photographers who would buy enough film to sustain the business.

But I freely admit I don't know the answer to your question any more than anyone else here does. You ended your message by asking for thoughts and those were mine. To even make an educated guess as to an answer someone would need not only an objective basis of some kind for determining the number of potential customers, they'd also need to know much more than I do about the economics of making and marketing film.

Erik Larsen

25-Sep-2011, 10:57

It seems to me if I were using film and trying to survive or make money in the art fair or gallery circuit and interacted with my customers before a sale was made I would from a purely marketing position try to distinguish myself from the masses of digital photography competition and make sure my potential customers new the way that I worked compared to the competition and somehow make a distinction that what I was doing was somehow more rare and more valuable and see if the suckers fall for it:) Fair or not, I think it is a valid marketing decision as rare or uncommon can equate to value in some circumstances. With commercial photography assignments, no chance I would think. Just one man's opinion.
regards
Erik

darr

25-Sep-2011, 11:35

GPS

25-Sep-2011, 12:08

Or maybe it just took the way of Western films? :)

Frank Petronio

25-Sep-2011, 13:06

Marketing yourself based on technique or equipment is pretty bush league in my opinion. I think making portraits with a view camera or shooting 35mm B&W has a lot of value but if that's the only reason to hire me then I know it will be a crappy job.

Now if it's a Polaroid 20x24.... lol that's a different story!

Richard Mahoney

25-Sep-2011, 15:02

Marketing yourself based on technique or equipment is pretty bush league in my opinion.

In the best of worlds, absolutely. But people always like a story. So shouldn't we take the lead:

Peter Lik Biography
http://www.peterlik.com/bio

Bestest,

Richard

cyrus

25-Sep-2011, 15:20

Jay DeFehr

25-Sep-2011, 15:50

...you can't just hang a pretty picture up and expect to sell it.

Really? If an image doesn't stand on its own, I don't think a sales pitch is going to sell me.

johnmsanderson

25-Sep-2011, 16:04

In the best of worlds, absolutely. But people always like a story. So shouldn't we take the lead:

Peter Lik Biography
http://www.peterlik.com/bio

Bestest,

Richard

So funny! The salespeople are told to talk about his Linhof Technorama in terms of "used only by a few photographers" and "demanding of technical skill".

his marketing model is incredible and works wonders on the naive wealthy group.

mdm

25-Sep-2011, 16:14

Really? If an image doesn't stand on its own, I don't think a sales pitch is going to sell me.

The sales pitch is what gets you to look at the picture in the first place. If a Peter Lik falls into your lap, one expects you would look at it before you pass it on. If one of my horrendous prints fell in your lap you might pass it on without a look. Thats because of marketing.

myoptic

25-Sep-2011, 16:15

I find it very interesting to find some active members of the LFF being so anti-film. By anti-film, I mean seeing little value to it, or the images produced by it due to the overwhelming advances and advantages of using digital technologies. Its like going to a Republican convention and finding a vocal group of Democrat supporters....
My two cents is that the camera, the process and the output matter, but only to serious collectors, people wanting LF portraits, and those who appreciate the 'craft' of traditional photography. Would Elliott Erwitt, Frank Capa have embraced digital, most likely. Would Steichen, probably not. Digital will continue to improve and get cheaper, but as it gets better, the look will continue to go past what traditional media could offer in sharpness and colour fidelity, making traditional more differentiated. I think people doing portraits and work in 8x10 and bigger are quite safe. Until there are 'filters' to mimic every film and lens out there, traditional shooters will be able to create work that is different from completely digital. As long as there is a difference, and as long as silver lasts longer than digital prints, then there will be a market. The argument for ever better technology and the inevitable progression of science ends when digital tech allows a camera not much bigger than a thimble to take a picture with the quality of a Hasselblad. At that point digital photography will feed on itself as any and every schmuck will be able to, and with luck will, produce images as good as the masters.

Jay DeFehr

25-Sep-2011, 17:10

David,

????. I don't know what you mean. How do I get the sales pitch before I see the image? If I had one each of Lik's photos and yours, I might be able to tell them apart , only because I've seen a few Liks, and a few of yours, but to be perfectly honest, I don't think I'd be very interested in buying either- it's just not the kind of work I'm drawn to, and no offense meant, but no sales pitch is likely to change the way I feel about either photo.

Myoptic,

I'm not an expert, or an industry insider, but I think it would be hard to prove many collectors care about film. I think it would be more accurate to say the only people who care about film are the people who use it, and the people who make it, in that order. I also think it's a mistake to think photographers who use film don't also use digital, and your argument that as digital continues to improve, film will gain status by being different, is a little strained. Also, one doesn't need film to make prints that last.
I use film exclusively, but that doesn't somehow blind me to the reality of the state of the medium. There is some very beautiful work being done with digital cameras, much of it by people who wouldn't have the slightest idea how to estimate exposure, or calculate effective aperture, or use a densitometer, because they don't need to know those things to make the images they make. I know almost nothing about digital cameras or workflows, because I don't need to....yet.

tgtaylor

25-Sep-2011, 17:52

Also, one doesn't need film to make prints that last.

On the other hand many digital cinematographers consider a film-based separation master necessary for archival purposes:

Some studios opt for a film negative master for archival purposes. There are after all numerous extant examples of original 19th century film footage which were manufactured under primitive conditions, with no consideration given to archival value, but whose original images are still clearly visible and recoverable with relatively simple equipment. As long as the negative does not completely degrade, it will always be possible to recover the images from it in the future, regardless of changes in technology, since all that will be involved is simple photographic reproduction. In contrast, even if digital data is stored on a medium that will preserve its integrity, highly specialized digital equipment will always be required to reproduce it. Changes in technology may thus render the format unreadable or expensive to recover over time. For this reason, film studios distributing digitally-originated films often make film-based separation masters of them for archival purposes.

Quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinematography#Archiving

Thomas

Jay DeFehr

25-Sep-2011, 18:23

Brian Ellis

25-Sep-2011, 18:43

People appreciate craftsmanship and hands-on skill. All they need is a bit of education & to be given some background info about the process - you can't just hang a pretty picture up and expect to sell it.

True. I saw an exhibit recently where the photographer's statement said his photographs were handmade - with a Jobo. : - )

Brian Ellis

25-Sep-2011, 18:45

Richard Mahoney

25-Sep-2011, 18:52

How would I know your prints were horrendous if I didn't look at them?

That you should even ask that question Brian shows that David -- despite protestations to the contrary -- is a very canny marketeer, though hopefully not a Lik in the making.

Kind regards,

Richard

P.S. And not to be so easily fooled, David, I'm going to take your word for it and not enquire any further ;)

Marko

25-Sep-2011, 20:26

The sales pitch is what gets you to look at the picture in the first place. If a Peter Lik falls into your lap, one expects you would look at it before you pass it on. If one of my horrendous prints fell in your lap you might pass it on without a look. Thats because of marketing.

I think you are giving marketing too much of a credit and not nearly enough to yourself.

I don't know you personally and I may disagree with some of the stuff you say here, but I'd pick one of your images over Lik's any time of the day.

Marketing has nothing to do with it, it's the picture that gets you to look at the picture. If the picture is not there, no amount of marketing will work.

Marko

25-Sep-2011, 20:30

On the other hand many digital cinematographers consider a film-based separation master necessary for archival purposes:

Some studios opt for a film negative master for archival purposes. There are after all numerous extant examples of original 19th century film footage which were manufactured under primitive conditions, with no consideration given to archival value, but whose original images are still clearly visible and recoverable with relatively simple equipment. As long as the negative does not completely degrade, it will always be possible to recover the images from it in the future, regardless of changes in technology, since all that will be involved is simple photographic reproduction. In contrast, even if digital data is stored on a medium that will preserve its integrity, highly specialized digital equipment will always be required to reproduce it. Changes in technology may thus render the format unreadable or expensive to recover over time. For this reason, film studios distributing digitally-originated films often make film-based separation masters of them for archival purposes.

Quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinematography#Archiving

Thomas

On the other hand, The Library of Congress is actively and resolutely going the opposite way. (http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/library/)

I don't know about you, but I'd trust the Library of Congress over Wikipedia any day.

Marko

25-Sep-2011, 20:31

True. I saw an exhibit recently where the photographer's statement said his photographs were handmade - with a Jobo. : - )

Where those photographs taken on a Velvia, by any chance? Or was it B&W film of some sort? :D

jnantz

25-Sep-2011, 20:44

On the other hand, The Library of Congress is actively and resolutely going the opposite way. (http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/library/)

I don't know about you, but I'd trust the Library of Congress over Wikipedia any day.

individual states have been going the opposite way for years.
jpg files and ink jet prints is what some of the "local" habs-stuff has become...
( local meaning some of the new england states )

Merg Ross

25-Sep-2011, 21:13

[QUOTE]

What I find disconcerting in such situations is the amount of deceit that is obviously going on with film shooters claiming that they don't manipulate images when they obviously do. They are trying to artificially maintain a divide and elevated position of being more "truthful'' than digital photographers when the difference is simply a matter of degrees (maybe). Frankly I think such claims are pathetic. I freely acknowledge that my film based prints are manipulated (as it always has been) because I am an artist, but I feel like I am in a minority in being truthful about this.

It has long been by contention that photography is a manipulative process, turning three dimensional realities into two dimensional images. I'm not sure that how we get there, grain or pixels, makes much difference. I happen to prefer the complete silver process, always have, and will continue to do so. I'm sure that it will outlast me.

However, I would be the first to admit that my images are manipulated, along with my fellow proponents of "straight photography". One need look no further than Ansel's numerous incarnations of his iconic images.

So, let us concentrate on image making, with less emphasis on process. There are no winners in this debate, only some with louder voices.

Mike Anderson

25-Sep-2011, 21:46

Marko

25-Sep-2011, 22:32

Maybe not to the NSA but there are many kinds of digital media that are effectively obsolete to most of us. A few are listed here:

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/dpm/dpm-eng/oldmedia/tapes.html

Digital obsolescence is a real problem and the readability of the media is just part of the issue. Stewardship is required to keep digital info from evaporating (hence the Library of Congress effort linked to by Marko above). Stewardship of cans of film is in some ways easier than stewardship of their digital counterpart.

I know this is veering off topic but there's a perception that digital info somehow has greater permanence than nondigital info and this is far from being proven in practice.

...Mike

Digital information definitely has both greater permanence and greater reproducibility than non-digital information. In fact, the vastly greater permanence is due precisely to the ability for flawless reproduction.

It should be noted that this is entirely separate issue from the permanence of the media. Digital media is indeed less permanent than non-digital one (keeping things in context, in reality there is no such thing as "digital" or "non-digital" media - they are all optical, magnetic, ceramic, celluloid or whatever other physical material is used as a base), but it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because this is the first time in human memory that we have such a complete separation of information from its container/media.

The real key to information permanence lies in the process rather than in material and process can be - should be! is! - adjusted along the way. Stewardship of cans of film requires physical storage and upkeep, along with actively establishing and maintaining conditions optimal for minimizing the decay of the carrying substrate. It is physically impossible to preserve it forever, simply because that's the nature of the material.

Information, on the other hand, can be preserved indefinitely - theoretically - given appropriate stewardship, which in this case includes only the replication process and, occasionally, file format conversion (which is, again, also just a process).

IOW, given equal amount of qualified care invested in preservation of both digital and non-digital content, there is really no contest and no question of digital information somehow "evaporating". If there is a problem with digital information, it exists between the chair and the keyboard, as the old saying goes.

mdm

25-Sep-2011, 22:39

morie

25-Sep-2011, 22:51

As matter of fact, the whole analogy image industry is gone.
Film photography along cannot revive.

Jay DeFehr

25-Sep-2011, 23:13

Just the same way you get the message before you buy a bottle of Heinz Tomato Ketchup.

Ketchup is ketchup, and there's no way I can taste it by watching a commercial on tv, or hearing one on the radio (do these media still exist?), or reading about it in print, but what little I know about your photos and Liks, I know from looking at the images. I've had photographers at art fairs pitch me their film spiels, and I can assure you they wasted their breath. If an image doesn't capture my attention, its making is of no interest to me. I don't know if Lik's images are made with film, or digital, and I don't care; they're not my cup of tea. For me, the image comes before everything else- the artist, the process, the sales pitch, etc. Maybe I'm a hard sell.

Rory_5244

25-Sep-2011, 23:20

Uh, um, this is the large format photography forum, right? Home of the dying breed and last bastion of the film user posse, right? Process is irrelevant? Nobody cares about that in the modern age of digital enlightenment, huh? Wow, well best I chuck my view camera down a cliff and buy a digital P&S. Poor old QT Luong lugging all that 5x7 gear and Astia into 58 US parks: what a waste of energy.

But of course it wasn't. He took the time to explain why it was important. His process inspired me. In turn my process has inspired nearly ALL the photographers with an internet connection in my backwater country. Landscape photography was almost non-existent in Trinidad before 2000. So, yes, people do care, and the ones who do, inspire others.

Darin Boville

26-Sep-2011, 00:06

>>Ketchup is ketchup, and there's no way I can taste it by watching a commercial on tv<<

Unless I wire up your brain to respond to my ketchup advert. We're all floating in Descarte's vat, after all...

--Darin

Mike Anderson

26-Sep-2011, 00:25

Digital information definitely has both greater permanence... questionable in theory and practice I say.

... and greater reproducibility than non-digital information. In fact, the vastly greater permanence is due precisely to the ability for flawless reproduction. I agree with you here except for the part about "vastly greater permanence". I do believe one of the main benefits of digital tech is how it facilitates replicating information - not flawless, but almost always flawless.

It should be noted that this is entirely separate issue from the permanence of the media. Digital media is indeed less permanent than non-digital one (keeping things in context, in reality there is no such thing as "digital" or "non-digital" media - they are all optical, magnetic, ceramic, celluloid or whatever other physical material is used as a base), but it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because this is the first time in human memory that we have such a complete separation of information from its container/media.
I think the idea of information being separate from it's media is simply incorrect. It's an illusion helped by the ease and fidelity of copying enabled by digital technology, the growing inexpensiveness of media , and by pop-culture-science writers.

The real key to information permanence lies in the process rather than in material and process can be - should be! is! - adjusted along the way. Stewardship of cans of film requires physical storage and upkeep, along with actively establishing and maintaining conditions optimal for minimizing the decay of the carrying substrate. It is physically impossible to preserve it forever, simply because that's the nature of the material.

Information, on the other hand, can be preserved indefinitely - theoretically - given appropriate stewardship, which in this case includes only the replication process and, occasionally, file format conversion (which is, again, also just a process).
For most cases your probably right here, it boils down to replication and file format conversion. And a conscientious steward.

IOW, given equal amount of qualified care invested in preservation of both digital and non-digital content, there is really no contest and no question of digital information somehow "evaporating". If there is a problem with digital information, it exists between the chair and the keyboard, as the old saying goes.
Digital information is lost every day and of course it's usually human error. But what is more error prone, keeping a can of film from getting too hot for n years or stewarding digital information for n years?

...Mike

Jack Dahlgren

26-Sep-2011, 04:21

questionable in theory and practice I say.

I agree with you here except for the part about "vastly greater permanence".

Digital information is lost every day and of course it's usually human error. But what is more error prone, keeping a can of film from getting too hot for n years or stewarding digital information for n years?
...Mike

Celluloid film anyone?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IoU3bEFUwWc/THqAKg7RgyI/AAAAAAAAKMI/zTG9A0jAYHc/s1600/Nitrocellulose+Film.jpg

Film stock is lost and tossed every day. Almost all of the color film and prints fade over time. Sure, you can slow and protect it, but that takes an effort. Digital images are easier to store, duplicate, and archive - identifying the time the photograph was taken is orders of magnitude easier with digital - everything is timestamped, and I expect location to become quite common as well. Knowing what you have and it being useful to you makes the probability of stewarding the information more likely. And pulling up images on a large computer screen is easier and faster than pulling out the loupe and looking at old negatives.

The idea that we won't be able to access digital data in the future because we no longer have the technology is a concern for some media but I think that the current generation will figure out how to deal with that.

jnantz

26-Sep-2011, 06:29

Ketchup is ketchup ...

actually jay, not all ketchup is the same
tomato ketchup is something altogether different
from the other kinds of ketchup ( fish sauce )
that have been around since before marko polo found china. ;)

Jim Jones

26-Sep-2011, 06:33

Digital information definitely has both greater permanence and greater reproducibility than non-digital information. In fact, the vastly greater permanence is due precisely to the ability for flawless reproduction. . . .

There is certainly the potential for greater permanence of digital information. Analog information can enjoy such permanence mainly as a conversion into digital formats. Better such a preserved conversion than an analog original lost forever. Much of my appreciation of photography came from the digital conversion (halftone printing) of photographs. Large format photographers understand what I'm missing with limited access to the originals.

Digital preservation of photographs is almost as old as photography itself. Much of its present technology has been accomplished in the past very few decades. We should expect this trend to continue. Perhaps future experts will look upon today's technology as we look upon 19th century halftones. Therefore, it is important that the preservation of original analog as well as digital information be promoted. Fine analog photography should not suffer the fate of many home Kodachrome movies that are disgarded after conversion to convenient, but ephemeral, digital storage.

BetterSense

26-Sep-2011, 06:49

I freely acknowledge that my film based prints are manipulated (as it always has been) because I am an artist, but I feel like I am in a minority in being truthful about this.

The distinction between physical image making and digital imaging does not have to hinge on any ideas of "manipulation". It does not have to hinge on any ideas of "look" or "tone" or supposed "image quality". There is great overlap between the two image making techniques in all these areas; you will not find an absolute distinction between them by looking at any of these qualities. The difference between the two things is fundamental, not superficial. I agree that it's foolish to market physical photography as superior to digital imaging based on any superficial quality. I think that it should be valued because it is what it is.

I feel that even those few lay people who specifically ask for film, are not basing their desire on superficial qualities; they are asking for film because they want film. If they wanted some superficial quality of film, then surely digital masters would serve them an impeccable facsimile of that quality. In fact, if you see it the way I do, pretty much the majority of digital imaging consists of creating accurate facsimile of physical photography, although this situation is changing as more young people grow up exposed to digital imaging exclusively and begins to obtain its own 'looks' (like HDR).

Marko

26-Sep-2011, 06:58

questionable in theory and practice I say.

[...]

I agree with you here except for the part about "vastly greater permanence". I do believe one of the main benefits of digital tech is how it facilitates replicating information - not flawless, but almost always flawless.

Questionable in what way or aspect exactly? What do you mean by "almost flawless"?

When a digital file is copied, the copy is exactly the same, to the last bit, or the operation will fail. There is simply no question that an existing copy IS in fact flawless - if it weren't, it wouldn't exist.

All that needs to be done to ensure permanence of the information contained within the file is to make sufficient number of copies at reasonably spaced intervals at different physical locations. It doesn't even require persistent human attention beyond setting up an automated procedure and ensuring that the entire system is operating as it should.

The only truly "questionable" aspect in all that is the operator's competence - the human factor - but that is no different than with any other technology we use since the invention of the stone axe.

I think the idea of information being separate from it's media is simply incorrect. It's an illusion helped by the ease and fidelity of copying enabled by digital technology, the growing inexpensiveness of media , and by pop-culture-science writers.

Again, please elaborate. "Simply incorrect" how exactly?

If I take a CD (optical medium) and copy information stored on it to my hard drive (electro-magnetic medium) or my SSD (semi-conductor medium), and then FTP-it (electrical, opto-electrical and/or radio signal) to my web hosting service and to my cloud backup (another set of hard disks or SSD), I have just created three additional, fully identical, flawless copies on several different storage mediums that could easily be situated in three completely different parts of the physical world. And then each of those copies gets replicated, again flawlessly, several times over, every day or week at the least, provided that my computer, my web hosting service and my cloud storage are all set up for regular (and multiple) backups, as they should.

If that is not a complete separation of information from the containing physical media - each time it gets moved - I don't know what is.

When I loggin remotely to one of my office computers using either my laptop or my ipad or even my iphone and retrieve information, alter it in some way or the other and then send it back I know it is definitely not an illusion because all affected websites reflect the change.

Pop-culture writers have nothing to do with this, it is all just technology. The same one that is actually putting them out of business, so I would take whatever they say about it with a big bag of salt.

Digital information is lost every day and of course it's usually human error. But what is more error prone, keeping a can of film from getting too hot for n years or stewarding digital information for n years?

No, digital information is not lost every day. There is no such thing as "digital information" or "non-digital" information. Information is information, regardless of how it is stored. An image is an image and words are words. It's only the storage method that varies and even that is always physical. It's only the processing of that information that can be described as digital, chemical, physical or something else.

To answer your larger point - If I could set up an automated process to make a dozen perfect or flawless - as in "identical" - copies of that can of film every day and distribute them around the world in the same instant, there would be some merit to that question.

But I can't, nor can anybody else. It all comes down to preserving information. If that information is inseparable from the medium that contains it, then the physical properties of the medium become the limiting factor. And there is no physical medium that can last forever. Other than diamond, of course, but the cost of that medium would even more severely limit the preservation ability of the majority of currently existing information, photography included. ;)

Jay DeFehr

26-Sep-2011, 07:13

Rory,

You misunderstand. Obviously film is important to we users of film, but that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about the viability of marketing film-made photography to the general public, and the general consensus seems to be that no one but film users care how an image is made. If you're using film instead of digital because you believe it will give you an edge in the marketplace, then you probably should chuck your kit. As your own post confirms, the people who care about film are the ones using film, whether they're new users, or long time users. If this thread was about how to get more people to use film, I think most of us would agree that demonstrating what can be done with film is as good an approach as any.

Steve Smith

26-Sep-2011, 07:19

Digital images are easier to store, duplicate, and archive

But once you stop regularly copying and updating, it will disappear quite quickly.

Steve.

cyrus

26-Sep-2011, 07:20

The idea that we won't be able to access digital data in the future because we no longer have the technology is a concern for some media but I think that the current generation will figure out how to deal with that.

Its not that we won't have the technology, its that the technology will be obsolete and therefore economically impractical to maintain/update. Heck I've got a bunch of files on 5.25" floppy disks sitting on a shelf - I haven't owned a floppy drive in more than 10 years tho & not about to find one.

As for permanence (http://photodude.com/2003/09/08/archival-is-not-permanent):

“Colour photography, among the fastest-growing artforms, is particularly in danger. ‘Our research shows that after 50 years colour photos deteriorate quickly and after 100 years they simply don’t exist,’ says Rolf Steiger, a Basel University scientist and technical consultant at the specialist photographic company Ilford Imaging.”

“This finding could have a huge impact on the art world, as collectors’ investments are potentially rendered worthless. ‘German artist Andreas Gursky’s photographs are selling for 1m, but they will not exist in 100 years’ time, so what value do they have?’ asks Claudio Cesar, an American collector of photographic art.”

Marko

26-Sep-2011, 07:24

Speaking of separation of content, I just noticed that the conversation has completely veered off topic again. Or maybe not. It all depends on what is the cause of all this anti-digital angst, possibly even including the original question in some way.

Is it the inability to understand and accept the new technology or simply the unwillingness to deal with the transition?

Back in my old journalistic days, one of my editors had a very simple principle for writing a good headline: write it, then write the exact, literal opposite and see if it makes sense. If it doesn't, than the original makes no sense either, so scrap it and write another one.

Extending it to photographs, a simple question to ask is: does a photograph such as any of these (http://www.google.com/search?q=famous+photographs&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=P4qATor1G8jnsQKk_NEC&ved=0CD0QsAQ&biw=1433&bih=1281) lose anything of its impact by being displayed in a newspaper, in a book, on a TV screen, computer screen or a billboard? Does the story it tells change with the medium?

Therein lies the answer to the OP, IMO. The real question is whether a business should be centered around the image or around the medium. There is nothing wrong with either, but they are two different crafts and two different business models.

cyrus

26-Sep-2011, 08:22

Extending it to photographs, a simple question to ask is: does a photograph such as any of these (http://www.google.com/search?q=famous+photographs&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=P4qATor1G8jnsQKk_NEC&ved=0CD0QsAQ&biw=1433&bih=1281) lose anything of its impact by being displayed in a newspaper, in a book, on a TV screen, computer screen or a billboard? Does the story it tells change with the medium?

Yes, of course. Similarly, the same thing happens to a oil painting, or an etching, or a lithograph.

BetterSense

26-Sep-2011, 09:23

But once you stop regularly copying and updating, it will disappear quite quickly.

Steve.

This, exactly.

There is no known way to archivally store digital data. Hard drives are right out. CDs and DVDs are right out, besides that they don't have enough capacity. The only known way to archivally store digital information (100+ years) is to print it out to film.

It's been pointed out that "well, 'someone' can just keep copying it". Yes, somebody can. But somebody won't. And then the information is gone.

The reason film wins the storage argument is that it can survive "benign neglect". A stack of film cans in a cool, dry location can be ignored for decades and does not require a person or corporation to continually invest money in preservation.

Yes, you can keep digital image information stored on spinning rust, duplicated 20X across the world...but as soon as you stop paying for all that datacenter space, some business's payroll database is going to be copied right over it. As soon as the bean counters decide that the possible profit from preserving the content is not worth the constant cost of preserving it, it will be lost. As soon as resources are pulled from the conservation effort, it's curtains.

There is no way we would have the film records that we have now, if storing and maintaining those film records had required constant maintenance and upgrade and electricity cost to preserve. The only reason we have them is that the film studios could go out of business, change hands, and otherwise ignore the film records without them disappearing. A storage system that depends on the availability of electricity and humans to regularly maintain it, cannot prevail. For short-term storage, yes it can be done. For long-term storage, there is still no beating film.

David Higgs

26-Sep-2011, 09:42

Film has reached niche status, its the under-dog, an old technique, nostalgic - some people will always seek that.

I've been lucky enough to more than pay for my 'hobby' by selling prints in Galleries and Art Shows (3 gallery shows this month!). I'd like to think my images are saleable however they are taken, but the fact that they are all on film does make a difference.

I spent yesterday at a gallery opening and like most of them that I do, I bring my Linhof and stick it on a tripod in the corner. Its a conversation starter, it gets people interested, they know this is something different and they value that.

Most of the men that came yesterday all had Lumix's or Dslrs with them, I've always thought it near impossible to sell an image to a photographer. Now 'everyone' is a photographer it can be harder, especially here in the UK where I feel that photography struggles to be valued as an art form.

I sell 90% of my images to women, without sounding like a sexist old fart when i'm really a young liberal, they are the home makers, and decorators, they buy the presents - they furnish their partners offices. I can't sell an image to a couple when the man has the latest DSLR on his shoulder if I took them with a DSLR - I need a USP, almost an excuse - there's a dance along the lines of 'of course you could have made this image, if only you had a big old fashioned camera, had a darkroom, made the house smell of fixer' etc.

There is still, in the UK at least, a feeling that film is for Fine Art and digital isn't. This can help in getting your images looked at in the first place.

Of course we all know, you need good images, but using film gives me that edge in the sales patter. The reality is that I could have used digital and lets not kid ourselves here - few people, very few people would notice the difference. I continue to use film, because I can tell the difference with B+W, much less so with colour. Also for me I cannot afford the MFD I'd need to compare with the resolution from LF, I make large prints.

As for a reaction against digital, I haven't seen it, I think its just another medium, watercolour/oils? LPs or CDs.

Have fun - whatever you do!

Jay DeFehr

26-Sep-2011, 10:15

Bettersense,

I don't find your argument persuasive. Keeping cans of film cool and dry requires stewardship, and we're not talking about a few cans of film in some out of the way corner of Granny's basement; we're talking about climate controlled warehousing, and warehousing requires corporate administration. In short, all the dangers you apply to digital information is far more applicable to physical media. Unlike virtual space, physical space is a limited commodity, and as the human population grows, it becomes more precious, so that the physical space physical media requires becomes the greatest threat to its existence. Faced with a shortage of warehouse space, stewards will have to decide to A) continue to dedicate the space and resources necessary to preserve the physical media B) Dedicate resources to digitize the physical media C) Destroy the physical media. Once destroyed, physical media is lost forever. Don't confuse what has been the best archival media with what will be.

emh

26-Sep-2011, 10:28

The original question is whether film photography can be a viable business. I believe there is a niche that could be filled, although I'm not sure how lucrative it can be. Like any business, whatever sets you apart from the competition can be marketable.

I've been doing art festivals for close to 20 years and, when digital first entered the festivals, people flocked to it. Now, I'm seeing more people interested in traditional work. Regardless of the reasons (nostalgia? exclusivity?), there seems to be a new appreciation for the hand-crafted photograph, especially in BW.

darr

26-Sep-2011, 10:43

I sell 90% of my images to women, without sounding like a sexist old fart when i'm really a young liberal, they are the home makers, and decorators, they buy the presents - they furnish their partners offices. I can't sell an image to a couple when the man has the latest DSLR on his shoulder if I took them with a DSLR - I need a USP, almost an excuse ...
That is being sexist. BTW, being sexist is not based on "age," but on attitude.

As for a reaction against digital, I haven't seen it, I think its just another medium, watercolour/oils? LPs or CDs.
Um, they call it photography!

Photography is the art, science and practice of creating durable images by recording light or other electromagnetic radiation, either electronically by means of an image sensor or chemically by means of a light-sensitive material such as photographic film. Spencer, D A (1973). The Focal Dictionary of Photographic Technologies. Focal Press. p. 454. ISBN 240 50747 9

BetterSense

26-Sep-2011, 10:46

I don't find your argument persuasive. Keeping cans of film cool and dry requires stewardship, and we're not talking about a few cans of film in some out of the way corner of Granny's basement;

Climate-controlled warehousing is the ideal; film can indeed be stored in Granny's basement. There have been many 'lost' films recovered in the firm of private copies stored essentially 'in granny's basement'.

Unlike virtual space, physical space is a limited commodity,
I don't understand why you think that 'virtual space' can store information. Information storage takes up real space. If you don't think so, you should tell that to datacenters that talk about $/sq ft and GB/sq ft. Floor space in a datacenter is precious, and they don't donate it; they sell it by GB-month. Stop paying your bill, and there goes your data.

Most of my information is based on a large 2003-era paper on this very issue, which I have on my home computer. It's a very interesting paper, for example, Pixar still archives its digital movies on B&W separation negatives. It's possible that things have changed in the meantime but I doubt they have changed fundamentally.

Greg Lockrey

26-Sep-2011, 11:25

All this talk of film and data storage points to the fundamental reason that most photography and those images that get lumped into it hasn't been taken seriously as "art". When said image can be reproduced thousands of times for hopefully 100's of years relegates it to the equivalent of a reproduction of a original drawing or painting. It's "just a print" and I can always get one. Where is the value in that? Oh sure posters made in the 30's bring in big dollars even though tens of thousands were made, but today only a few remaining giving value to those that survived. I can go on but I have an appointment....:)

GPS

26-Sep-2011, 11:36

Climate-controlled warehousing is the ideal; film can indeed be stored in Granny's basement. There have been many 'lost' films recovered in the firm of private copies stored essentially 'in granny's basement'.
...

Yap, even Ansel Adams left some in a basement, quite a lot of it, but even with the time gone it did not bring the riches in a good business someone hoped for. His bad that he forgot to sign it. A prove that it is not the art that sells but the name...?:confused:

Jay DeFehr

26-Sep-2011, 12:14

BS,

Are you arguing that Granny's basement is a better long term archive than storing digitally?

Unlike physical media, the relationship between digital information and real space required for storage is not fixed. In 2003 they might have operated in terms of GB/sq ft, but I'm sure that has since become TB/sq ft, and that's significant, since 2003 isn't exactly the distant past. As of 2009, the storage capacity of the entire Internet was estimated to be around 500 exabytes (1 EB=1 billion GB). In 2011 alone, one manufacturer of hard drives (Seagate) sold 330 EB of HDs. This is evolution at work. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences currently houses 140,000 films in their four climate-controlled vaults . At 2GB/film, that's equal to about 273 TB. Using current, over the counter technology, the same archive could be stored digitally in less than one cubic foot. There's a curve that shows the increasing capacity of digital data storage that follows Moore's law pretty closely, so that space requirement is always shrinking, unlike that for physical media. I can buy 4TB of storage for about $250, and if I fill it this year (not very likely), it will be cheaper next year.

myoptic

26-Sep-2011, 12:55

Years ago I worked for IBM in sales and training. One thing I realized very quickly was the storage requirements of multimedia and photography. I still use a scanner that is years old, and the scans can chew up a lot of disk space. It is on the security side that I began to find reasons to 'come back' to film, after shooting almost exclusively digital for a decade. One malicious programmer (country, organization) who targets .jpeg files is all that is required to bring this whole digital photography business to its knees, and cause families and corporations to lose billions, if not trillions, of images. Sure film can get dust and can be affected by heat and cold, but it can't be targeted by a malware code warrior.

Brian C. Miller

26-Sep-2011, 13:21

OK, I read the whole thread.

This blog post has a good point about new business models http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/09/21/welcome-to-the-demand-economy/ however what caught my attention was the comment by Mike Moss:

"[...] It’s important to remember that there will be a backlash against digital and specialist will become necessary. Photography was a profession in a mechanized economy so the key to making it a profession again is to go back to film. [...]
Of course, everybody is going to say that film is dead and there is no need for it anymore. Don’t bet on it! Digital technology is now commonplace and digital photography is essentially worthless. People have little respect for it. However, film photography is starting to be viewed as an art form and folks working in that medium will be able to maintain status above digital shooters. This status can lead to a demand for high fees and a reformation of the photography profession. [...]"

What do you think ?

Marketing, marketing, marketing, MARKETING!!!

Businesses are promoted on marketing. The only reason Andreas Gursky's images are valuable is due to marketing. There will always be rich people. There will also always be rich people with bad taste, please note the interior decoration of Graceland. There will be rich people with good taste, too. There will be walls that need that blank space filled.

The relevance of artistic content, permanence, etc., are actually completely irrelevant. It is not the image that is king, but the marketing surrounding it. Artistic photography is not artistic, it is commercial. Artistic photography is meant to be sold! Chopped nautilus, naked babe with gas mask or animal skull mask, chance roadside pictures, banal street scenes, whatever. It takes advertisement and marketing to convince people that they want it and it has value in their lives.

Is the idea of manipulation that of radical manipulation, or dramatization? Are people expecting to see Ansel Adams or Jerry Uelsmann? Same materials, radically different prints. Both have markets, and buyers. Maybe the same ones, maybe not.

What kinds of subjects do people want to see? Peter Lik, William Wegman, or Anne Geddes? All have a market.

The blog entry makes the point that film offers a (now) unique selling point. Use that to your advantage. It isn't a panacea, it isn't a horn of plenty, it's a tool. It's an advertising point. Why do people buy hand-crafted bicycles? The frame alone can run $2,000 to $5,000. For a bicycle. People perceive value, so they buy it.

Define your market, and then go find your buyers. Drive your business and be a success.

Jay DeFehr

26-Sep-2011, 13:22

Myoptic, the list of threats to film is much longer than you imply. In fact, film begins to degrade even before it's exposed. How many images have been lost to malware vs degraded/destroyed film? I think your image jihad is very unlikely, if it's possible at all.

Pawlowski6132

26-Sep-2011, 13:31

I went to a street art fair here in the Detroit area this weekend and had the following thoughts. One, all four of the photography booths sucked. It was either hotel art or gimmicky (sports, cars, etc.) Two, the items that at first seemed ordinary - things like glass ornaments, wooden toys, etc. - became very interesting when the process and tools used were discussed with the artist.

I think that if two hypothetically IDENTICAL photographs were presented and one was digitally created and printed and the other was created on a LF camera and the negative hand developed and the final image optically printed and mounted, etc. the latter would sell every time (instead of the digital) assuming price was the same. Like the OP quoted, it is just special. Especially if you had the actual equpiment and raw chemicals, film, etc also available for viewing and demonstration.

What used to be so common is now unique and special. Even though most everything I buy today is desinged on a computer, made by a robot, mass produced, etc. I will always be drawn to the same thing that is made by hand, from scratch and by a person. I'm even willing to pay may more for it.

If you came to my house and I told you that the bread you're eating was made from flour that was ground from wheat I grew in my field and that the butter was churned by hand from milk that came from my cow, you would think it was special and perhaps take note and savor it and appreicate it more than normal.

If I told you that same story 100 years ago, you would have said, no shit. Where the hell do you think that stuff comes from.

cyrus

26-Sep-2011, 13:59

So I think the wrap-up on this issue is that yes film can be a good business for artistic photography especially if accompanied by marketing that educates the buyer about the distinct qualities of craftsmanship that goes into making an analog image.

Jay DeFehr

26-Sep-2011, 14:06

cyrus,

I don't know how you get that impression. The question is: Film photography, a good business in the future ? Even if there are successful businesses based on film photography today (has anyone referenced one?), it's far from certain they will continue to thrive into the future. I would never invest in a business based on film-made photos.

darr

26-Sep-2011, 14:11

cyrus,

Even if there are successful businesses based on film photography today (has anyone referenced one?), it's far from certain they will continue to thrive into the future. I would never invest in a business based on film-made photos.

x2

Doug Howk

26-Sep-2011, 14:33

JDef,
As soon as you place an image file on a magnetic hard drive, it will degrade. Whenever you retrieve the file, the technology relies on error correcting codes that make a best-effort attempt to reproduce the image. Digital storage technology is far from the permanence you'd like to think.

cyrus

26-Sep-2011, 14:35

Brian C. Miller

26-Sep-2011, 14:41

Even if there are successful businesses based on film photography today (has anyone referenced one?), it's far from certain they will continue to thrive into the future.

Previous in the "On Photography" section, Photographer turns Seattle upside down (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=70934). Granted it is wet plate, but he is successful.

(added) There is nothing that is certain any business will thrive into the future. Plenty of businesses which have lasted for over 100 years have gone out of business. Car manufacturers, banks, aerospace, all have been mighty and fallen. We change, and we adapt.

sanking

26-Sep-2011, 14:46

artistic photography was specifically the type of "business" I was referring to.

One artistic photography business based on film and hand made prints is http://www.fatali.com/gallery/

"Fatali is committed to making his photographs by hand using the "old" classic optical process, instead of "new" digital technologies which are often used for digital ink jet printing."

Sandy King

BetterSense

26-Sep-2011, 14:52

Are you arguing that Granny's basement is a better long term archive than storing digitally?

In the big picture, quite possibly. Of course, if you have the budget and the expertise (and ONLY as long as you have the budget...) then storing the data digitally on spinning hard disks in datacenters mirrored across the world, is a superior solution for digital data. But my grandma doesn't have the budget or expertise to maintain digital archives. Heck, my grandma's going to die soon. Given the human factors, the basement wins out in terms of "will the film be viewable in 100 years".

In 2003 they might have operated in terms of GB/sq ft, but I'm sure that has since become TB/sq ft,

And in the exact same time period, I am positive that the demand for storage increased by at least the same amount. Demand for data storage is hyperelastic. Today HD, next decade 2k, then 4k, 3D...

At 2GB/film

2GB per film!!?? I think you are several orders of magnitude off. The Red camera records in RedRaw10 (lousy 10bits per pixel, Bayer interpolated) at about 15MB per frame. That's 21 GB per MINUTE of shooting. 1 reel of film is 11 minutes long, so if the red camera is equal to 35mm film in terms of data density (laughable considering the resolution of modern color negative stocks and especially the extreme latitude compared to 10bit digital--4k is only a 15" print at 300dpi: we all know 35mm has more than that, and 10 bits is a lousy 1024 brightness values) let's just round to 200GB per reel. Given a shooting ratio of 10:1 (which is unrealistically conservative especially since "digital is free") then a 2-hour feature comes in at roughly 25TB. Now consider hard drives fail, so you have to mirror it. How much electricity does 20 hard drives consume? Given 10W hard drives and .15/kWh electricity, I would swag about $500 per year just for electricity, if its your own computer hardware and you administer it yourself.

Jay DeFehr

26-Sep-2011, 16:18

BS,

Your grandma probably doesn't have the budget or expertise to maintain film stock, either. There's a reason the Academy keeps their archive in climate controlled vaults.

Increasing demand for data storage does not make it less reliable.

You're right; I was way off. I was thinking about how much HD space a movie requires for viewing at home- not at all the same as the amount of information contained in the filmed footage. Your figures are off too, but not nearly as much as mine . Baraka, shot on 65mm with a 96 minute run time generated 30TB. If 65mm generates 3X the information of 35mm, that puts a 2 hour, high resolution 35mm color film at something like 13TB. A significant portion of the Academy's archive consists of short run B&W films, many on 16mm, so it's hard to estimate with any precision how many TB the entire collection represents, but it's likely to be on the order of petabytes, and require more physical space than the film stock. But, as I noted previously, digital data density is is going up while its storage cost is coming down. Film stock doesn't shrink, but the cost to store it continues to rise, and both trends are accelerating. I don't know how much electricity it takes to run 4 climate controlled vaults, but I'm guessing it's more than $500/year.

cyrus

26-Sep-2011, 16:55

Frankly if profitability of investment in a business was the sole or even primary consideration, we'd all be dry cleaners or dentists instead of photographets, digital or otherwise.

Greg Lockrey

26-Sep-2011, 17:18

One artistic photography business based on film and hand made prints is http://www.fatali.com/gallery/

"Fatali is committed to making his photographs by hand using the "old" classic optical process, instead of "new" digital technologies which are often used for digital ink jet printing."

Sandy King

For the money I would prefer to get one of your carbon prints. Fatali's images, I would have to see up close, but none of them tell me "can't be done digitally". Yours do. He chose to shoot transparency and print on Cibachrome. OK.... Back in the day Cibachrome was for the kitchen printer where temperature controls weren't that critical. If it's different today, I don't know since I haven't printed the stuff in about 30 years. I didn't care for the too warm color cast either. Transparencies had to be masked to get the most out of them too. How is that really different than shooting digital and bracketing the exposures and then combining them in HDR? I'm not into making any argument as to "what is better" because I do know the processes and merely pointing out if the image will look the same either way then telling me it's X-process or it's not Y-process is meaningless. Am I supposed to be talked into liking it more because of it? Frankly, film prints have shortcomings to color correctness and fidelity that a digital print would never be allowed to have. Vice verse black and white.

Jay DeFehr

26-Sep-2011, 18:08

Frankly if profitability of investment in a business was the sole or even primary consideration,...

cyrus,

Do much investing? If profitability is not your primary consideration, what is?

tgtaylor

26-Sep-2011, 18:42

My thinking is that if your business model is transmitting your images electronically for display on a monitor, then shooting and scanning film, if that floats your boat, is just as viable as shooting digitally. Current HD monitors are 1080P (or I) which is similar to 2K in cinematography and easily achieved by either medium.

If your business model is selling prints, then....well, what's the features and benefits of your prints? Why would I buy your print rather than someone elses? If you can answer that, then you'll probably make/increase sales and be sucessful.

Thomas

Greg Lockrey

26-Sep-2011, 19:02

Why would I buy your print rather than someone elses? If you can answer that, then you'll probably make/increase sales and be sucessful.

Thomas

Because you like the image???? :)

cyrus

26-Sep-2011, 20:24

.

cyrus,

Do much investing? If profitability is not your primary consideration, what is?

Ummm... Art? Self-expression? All the stuff that makes a life worth living after you make money and pay bills?

Since when did we become investment bankers? :p

If you're doing photography because you like it, and happen to make money at it too, good for you. If you're doing this with a primary consideration of making a profit, Now THAT is a HARD way to turn a buck. I have nothing but respect for you but I respectfully suggest there are more profitable ways to spend the time and effort. Like I said, be a dentist, a plumber...

Jay DeFehr

26-Sep-2011, 21:28

mdm

26-Sep-2011, 23:03

You deserve your own reality show. I picture you as the bad guy on Dragons Den. Let those wannabes pitch their idea to the hardened Hank Paulson like investment banker. Who needs the cold north when you can have your own show.

cyrus

26-Sep-2011, 23:14

cyrus,

I said I wouldn't invest in a business based on film-made photography, and you said profitability is not the primary consideration in investing in a business. Art and self expression are not very reliable considerations for investing in a business. Clearly, I do not confuse my photography with any kind of business, and if someone came to me to pitch their business plan based on their love of photography and self expression, I'd pass.

Earlier on I made a distinction between commercial and artistic photography so I should be clear here and say that I didn't look on artistic photography as a business driven by profit.

And naturally I would pass on a business investment in a commercial photography business based entirely on film (unless there's some specific reason to use film.) But If we were talking about an artist with vision and skill who did amazing photography, that would be a good business investment. I would invest in that even if there were more profitable uses for my money.

Bottom line is we do what we do because we like it, not because it is the most profitable way to spend our money. I think that even the most mercenary of commercial photographers realizes that he can make more money by, I don't know, becoming an electrician for example. But does what he does because ultimately, he just plain likes it.

Richard Mahoney

26-Sep-2011, 23:19

Art and self expression are not very reliable considerations for investing in a business.

You realize, Jay, that you are now taking issue with many forms of patronage? ...

It would seem to me that yet again another thread, one that promised to be especially interesting and useful, has degenerated. This appears to be happening a great deal of late. The reasons are beyond me but I'm beginning to find it all a little dispiriting. Hopefully I'm not alone and that things will soon begin to improve ...

Kind regards,

Richard

darr

27-Sep-2011, 05:24

The original question posted was: Film photography, a good business in the future ?

I think the discussions based around 'business + film photography' (artistic or commercial) are appropriate and not going off topic. It has me engaged enough to want to read. :)

Marko

27-Sep-2011, 06:53

You realize, Jay, that you are now taking issue with many forms of patronage? ...

It would seem to me that yet again another thread, one that promised to be especially interesting and useful, has degenerated. This appears to be happening a great deal of late. The reasons are beyond me but I'm beginning to find it all a little dispiriting. Hopefully I'm not alone and that things will soon begin to improve ...

Kind regards,

Richard

The way I understand it, patronage is not really a business - it is more of a symbiosis between art and money, a way for art to be created but not used as a tool for generating profit. It is in fact the opposite - patronage effectively uses money to generate art. But since it is one person's money and other person's art, it is mostly the exclusivity and ownership that comes into play.

Business, on the other hand, has profit as its primary goal and, in this case, uses art and/or photography as a primary tool. That's what Jay was trying to explain.

But yes, the thread has indeed degenerated, as most threads dealing with this topic do here, and as most threads regardless of the topic do lately anywhere. A lot of people are a lot angrier than before, most for obvious reasons but some for any reason or even no reason at all. Throw in a doze of pettiness, lack of logic and such and it does indeed become dispiriting very fast indeed. You are certainly not alone, but I'm not sure that things will going to improve any time soon. At least not before the overall economy starts improving, and we all know how that prospect looks.

al olson

27-Sep-2011, 08:00

Thomas,

I'm not sure how your post is relevant to the discussion, and I'm not sure how accurate the cited article really is. Binary code is not particularly difficult to read, but I'm no expert. Is there any historic digital media that's unrecoverable today?

Well-ll, Yes-s-s-s! It depends on what the cost and to what extreme to are willing to go to recover the data.

I am presently trying to read two JAZ disks that contain images that were stored 15 years ago. I have the JAZ drive. It requires a SCSI connector (already obsolete on most modern machines). Fortunately I have an old computer that has a SCSI. I installed the JAZ software, however for some reason the computer does not recognize the JAZ drive. The SCSI address is set to 3, and I have tried various settings. No success.

Needless to say, I don't have the drive specs so I could not rewrite the software to read the binary and to reformat it.

An alternative would be to find someone who has an operational JAZ drive. But I will bet that there is not another operational JAZ drive within 200 miles. Because there is personal information on the disks I want to be present to watch the data being offloaded. If I am not willing to go to the extreme to recover the data, my photos, including family photos, may never be recovered. I may end up smashing these disks and contributing them to the dumpster.

I did have success in recovering files from 10 ZIP disks. I have the ZIP drive which uses the parallel port (another obsolescence). Fortunately I still have a computer with one parallel port so I could recover them. If not, I might still have found someone with an older computer. But as time goes on, technology changes. The lesson is that if you aren't continuously converting your data files to the latest storage fad, eventually you will be losing it.

Jay DeFehr

27-Sep-2011, 08:16

Thank you Marko, for making a distinction between business investment, and patronage, and I hope the distinction between either and working as an artist is obvious.

It seems a few people here have the idea I'm somehow anti-film, though I use film exclusively, and print optically, and that I'm anti-artist, which couldn't possibly be further from the truth. My photography is strictly personal, and while I aspire to artistry, I don't pretend to have achieved it. Profit, in any form, has never been a motive in my photography, and perhaps that allows me to maintain some objectivity regarding these issues, and I might appear cold to some as a result, but the truth is that my passions lie much closer to home.

If asked the question, "Do you think film-based photography will be a good basis for a business in the future?", I'd guess in most cases it won't. If asked, "Would you like for film-based photography to be a good basis for business in the future?", I'd say, absolutely. I think diversity in the marketplace is as good as diversity in other places, and unlike some of the examples given in this thread, film-based photography is dependent on film manufacturers, who have minimum production volume requirements to remain viable.

But, considering the examples of some artists doing business in film-based, or other chemical-based photography, I think my idea of a business (employees, profits, etc.) is a little different than what some others are suggesting, and these artisan "businesses" should theoretically be able to operate for as long as their materials are available, and their success probably depends largely on their ability to market themselves, as Brian has suggested. I don't think these are the kinds of businesses that generate a lot of profit, and I would never invest in one, except as an act of patronage (Richard). I think the real businesses are a tier or two above the artisan, as in those that supply them, but I don't think I'd invest in one of them, either.

So, if the question is rephrased as, "Is a business that consists of an artisan selling film-based prints, and not primarily concerned with profit a good business in the future?", I'd say, as good as it's ever been, for as long as the materials are available.

cyrus

27-Sep-2011, 08:24

So, if the question is rephrased as, "Is a business that consists of an artisan selling film-based prints, and not primarily concerned with profit a good business in the future?", I'd say, as good as it's ever been, for as long as the materials are available.

Yay! :)

Kirk Gittings

27-Sep-2011, 08:26

It seems a few people here have the idea I'm somehow anti-film, though I use film exclusively, and print optically

No matter how much film you shoot, anyone who tries to inject some sobriety into the anti-digital romanticized film discussions here will be accused of being anti-film.

cyrus

27-Sep-2011, 08:30

Just out of curiosity, was photography ever really a profitable business anyway, whether film or digital based?

Kirk Gittings

27-Sep-2011, 08:33

Yes both.

Greg Lockrey

27-Sep-2011, 08:39

Just out of curiosity, was photography ever really a profitable business anyway, whether film or digital based?

Commercial like portrait and wedding and some advertising but as "art" I don't know any personally that doesn't also teach or have a either a frame shop or printing business. Shooting events like car or horse shows is down and dirty but lucrative if you have the hustle and a printing service in partnership willing to be at the event with you making prints for delivery while the event is in progress.

Jay DeFehr

27-Sep-2011, 09:12

Al,

I'm sorry about your lost images; I place a very high value on family photos. I've lost a lot of my own family photos moving around the country as a young man, and I still regret it.

Digital family photos go back to about 1995, for the most part, and the technology has evolved quite a lot since then, and that has consequences, positive and negative, but I think it's hard to argue the negative consequences outweigh the positive ones.

My archive is stored on film for a number of reasons, none of which have to do with the claimed superiority of that approach. I would prefer to have, in addition to my negatives and prints, high resolution scans of every image, but I can't afford the equipment, or the time required to digitize my thousands of images, and I worry that film scanners will go out of production before the technology improves enough to make the job manageable and affordable. Digital capture enjoys a huge advantage here, if the preference is for digital storage.

I don't think it makes a lot of sense to consider the present, and the past, without considering the trends. If one considers the evolution of digital technology, and its accelerating rate, it's hard to argue in favor of declining technology.

For most people, the primary quality of an image is shareability, not printability. Family photos are most commonly shared online, even when those sharing are in the same room. Not many pull a family album off the shelf for visitors these days; more typically they open a laptop and scroll through an image set, or in lieu of setting up a slide projector, run a slideshow on their HDTV.

To be sure, we're still learning how to manage digital archives, but we've come a long way in a short time, and picking up speed all the while. I hope you can recover your family photos.

Jay DeFehr

27-Sep-2011, 09:14

No matter how much film you shoot, anyone who tries to inject some sobriety into the anti-digital romanticized film discussions here will be accused of being anti-film.

Noted. Thanks, Kirk.

tgtaylor

27-Sep-2011, 09:17

I remember a business model that used a large format camera and film at art fairs, historical re-enactments, etc. Remember when you could dress up in antique clothing and stand in front of a background made from Civil War memorabilia? Maybe it is a Southern thing, but I have not seen too much of it in the past few years. I guess the demise of Polaroid took a part of it away. Now this is something I could do with my P45 and Ebony, but the money is probably not there or it would not have gone to the wayside. :(

Actually this is something that can still be done, not with Polaroid instant film of course, but it could be done with either film or digital and even a Daguerreotype could be made on the spot. I wouldn't use a modern camera but an ancient studio camera with period lens which would add to the ambiance of the experience for the consumer. Add a gunpowder flash to the mix like they used in the 19th century and you really have an attention getting spectacle at a fair! A film negative could be transferred to an assistant in a makeshift darkroom tent – just like in the 19th century – where it could be developed in 10 minutes, dried in about 5 minutes, and then contact printed, matted and even framed for the customer. How much time are we talking about here? Maybe an hour from shoot to matted and framed print. They could pay a deposit and pick-up their print later in the day. After all, they probably wouldn't want to be walking around the fair carrying a print. Alternatively you could have a digital back in the camera and a digital printer in the tent resulting in a much faster turn-around and more choices in print size.

I think that if you could iron out the bugs something like that could still work and work big at the right venues.

Thomas

David Luttmann

27-Sep-2011, 09:26

This is precisely what I see happening right now. I went out recently with a few friends for an afternoon of photography in Cathedral Grove on Vancouver Island. I brought a Mamiya RB67 and a few rolls of Ektar 100 and Astia 100F. Another friend had a Canon 5D2 and and the other two had a Nikon D3X and Nikon D700. When people came up to us, guess who they talked to....yup....me. They viewed me as the "real" photographer because I was using this large camera and using film. They viewed that as difficult....so therefore I must be more knowledgeable and must obtain better results.

I get the same using a couple of Nikon F5 bodies to photograph weddings. People are impressed I'm using film.

Film has become the alternative process....a niche process...and it is gaining more respect as many simply see digital as point and click.

GPS

27-Sep-2011, 09:27

...

I think that if you could iron out the bugs something like that could still work and work big at the right venues.

Thomas

LOL. Be the photographer, the film developer, the printing guy, the framing guy and all that while talking to the streaming clients - all in one. Just iron out the bugs and here you are - in a successful business. :rolleyes:

Greg Lockrey

27-Sep-2011, 09:27

I think that if you could iron out the bugs something like that could still work and work big at the right venues.

Thomas

They do this sort of thing on "Tin Types", made of aluminum, at Cedar Point Amusement Park. And they will sell the negative for a nominal fee.

David Luttmann

27-Sep-2011, 09:32

My personal experience is that there has been a renewed interest in traditional photography. In the last 18 months, or so, I've been contacted about 6-7 times about shooting weddings with B&W film. (Unfortunately, I stopped doing weddings 25 years ago).
At the art festivals I do, there seems to be an increased interest in analogue photos. My buyers usually mention that they appreciate the time taken to create the images, as well as the dedication to "old" processes. Rightly or wrongly, I think digital has become so ubiquitous, with so many people printing their own, that traditional methods are gaining a certain "cachet".
So, yeah, I think there's a potential market for portraits, weddings, and fine art. For commercial work, I don't think there's a viable market.

That's been my experience. When people come to my home to setup a wedding or portrait session, they see my 4x5 and Mamiya rigs. I've been doing more work with 4x5 for portraits because a younger generation thinks it's cool and retro. They're amazed at the results as well. I no longer have any Type 55 left, but the New55 project is coming along and people seem interested in that look as well.

A lot of wedding and portrait photographers have migrated from digital back to film with excellent results. A niche service can set you apart from others.

tgtaylor

27-Sep-2011, 09:33

See. I knew it would work!

Greg Lockrey

27-Sep-2011, 10:46

See. I knew it would work!

Because it is labor intensive you make it "brain dead" as possible by not changing exposures, lights or set ups, just get the families to dress up.... shoot, move in the next group, Batch process the film and hand out the pics in a couple of hours. I used to work with a couple of event photogs who'd send their film to me to process and print. We'd just make 8x10's on spec and their assistants run the prints back to sell at $20 a pop. This was all done before one hour labs came into service. Today with digital it's a whole lot easier and the client picks his shot before we make it and the costs is dramatically reduced. And you get the OOOH WOW! from the client getting the print minutes after it's shot. One time a person asked if I could mail her pic to her and I told her I could but before she had the check made out I had her print in her hand.... People were new to digital at that point too.

Kirk Gittings

27-Sep-2011, 10:56

Greg Lockrey

27-Sep-2011, 10:57

Really? No matter what camera I take out I get the same response, whether I am out with the Phillips 4x5, the Hassleblad or the Canon 5DII.

I think you are perceived as a "real photographer" if you are acting like a professional on assignment regardless of the camera you use.

It's that photo vest.... ;) ;)

GPS

27-Sep-2011, 11:01

Because it is labor intensive you make it "brain dead" as possible by not changing exposures, lights or set ups, just get the families to dress up.... shoot, move in the next group, Batch process the film and hand out the pics in a couple of hours. I used to work with a couple of event photogs who'd send their film to me to process and print. We'd just make 8x10's on spec and their assistants run the prints back to sell at $20 a pop. ...

There is the week point - you would need assistants, not only one. Someone takes the pics, someone develops the film, other assistant prints and yet another one frames the art... At the end of the day when you paid your assistants you got the idea about the brisk business - well developed. :)

GPS

27-Sep-2011, 11:06

It's that photo vest.... ;) ;)

From what I know a good lens shade is even better...;)

Greg Lockrey

27-Sep-2011, 11:10

There is the week point - you would need assistants, not only one. Someone takes the pics, someone develops the film, other assistant prints and yet another one frames the art... At the end of the day when you paid your assistants you got the idea about the brisk business - well developed. :)

Yeah... it's a team effort but you can make great money and typically today I work with up to 3 photographers and one "manager" who directs traffic, takes the order and helps the client with their decision and leaving me to make the prints. We all split the total and all share in the cost. Win win for everyone. At a 3 day horse show you can make $8000.00 over costs. Expect to work your butt off though.

GPS

27-Sep-2011, 11:13

Yeah... it's a team effort but you can make great money and typically today I work with up to 3 photographers and one "manager" who directs traffic, takes the order and helps the client with their decision and leaving me to make the prints. We all split the total and all share in the cost. Win win for everyone. At a 3 day horse show you can make $8000.00 over costs.

I think I MUST keep my film camera...:)

Greg Lockrey

27-Sep-2011, 11:14

From what I know a good lens shade is even better...;)

and the camera has to be black or it ain't professional.....;) ;)

Greg Lockrey

27-Sep-2011, 11:15

I think I MUST keep my film camera...:)

I could get the step van back in service and do location work with you rather than my van and 4 dye-sub printers... :D

GPS

27-Sep-2011, 11:16

Of course! Even my lens shades are all black - I'm the real pro!

Greg Lockrey

27-Sep-2011, 11:21

Of course! Even my lens shades are all black - I'm the real pro!

wrapped in masking tape with reference numbers of some kind. ..:)

GPS

27-Sep-2011, 11:27

wrapped in masking tape with reference numbers of some kind. ..:)

Well, the sequence goes like this - first they stand around you at a polite distance. Then, thinking you have a free moment (which usually is not true...) they ask you about "that thing there". Then you speak about contrast and color saturation and what follows is a) their jaw drops down and then they shut up; b) they first shut up in awe and then the jaw drops down... Awesome situations! :)

Greg Lockrey

27-Sep-2011, 11:31

Well, the sequence goes like this - first they stand around you at a polite distance. Then, thinking you have a free moment (which usually is not true...) they ask you about "that thing there". Then you speak about contrast and color saturation and what follows is a) their jaw drops down and then they shut up; b) they first shut up in awe and then the jaw drops down... Awesome situations! :)

When I do these location jobs I have a sigh that says "Printer Operator will Bite" with a photo of a growling dog. :eek: it's surprising how they leave me alone now. :D

pipoca

27-Sep-2011, 12:07

toyotadesigner

27-Sep-2011, 14:48

It's funny, but I am still working with film. I really don't understand the statement that you can't make a living if you shoot film. It's one medium of at least two to capture images. So what's the catch? Should I switch to digital (PhaseOne)? How - no bank would give me credit. Any ideas?

Besides this: who is shooting digital MF here? I mean Hasselblad or PhaseOne with more than 60 Megapixels? With a large set of prime and shift lenses?

Inquiring minds want to know.

David Luttmann

27-Sep-2011, 16:23

I've heard from friends similar things. One in particular drove by a persons house and asked if he could photo their garden. The owner agreed (naturally) he broke out his 35mm and started loading film. The owner saw this and said that they were impressed that he was using film and commented that he must be a real photographer.

I'm hearing this all around....without exception. Virtually everyone has a DSLR now. When I took the family camping...everyone had one. When I went to Disneyland with the kids, you see a mountain of DSLRs and point and shoots.

Pull out my D700 and I don't get a second glance. Pull out the 4x5 or RB67, and all eyes migrate to me. People come up and ask quesions, etc. I've handed out many, many business cards through those conversations.

r.e.

27-Sep-2011, 16:47

Pull out my D700 and I don't get a second glance. Pull out the 4x5 or RB67, and all eyes migrate to me. People come up and ask quesions, etc.

People love antique shows :)

cyrus

27-Sep-2011, 18:19

"Analog photography requires doing math. I don't do math." That's one reason I heard for sticking to digital. I suppose that makes me a genius of some sort.

Kirk Gittings

27-Sep-2011, 19:10

I'm hearing this all around....without exception. Virtually everyone has a DSLR now. When I took the family camping...everyone had one. When I went to Disneyland with the kids, you see a mountain of DSLRs and point and shoots.

Pull out my D700 and I don't get a second glance. Pull out the 4x5 or RB67, and all eyes migrate to me. People come up and ask quesions, etc. I've handed out many, many business cards through those conversations.

Yesterday I was shooting a new hospital that is just finishing construction with a Canon 5DII. Probably twenty people came up to me asking what I was doing, who I was shooting for, what kind of camera and lens I was using, where can I see your work etc. etc. So what? Its always been that way even long before digital. Its been that way since I stared shooting professionally 32 years ago and digital hadn't even been thought of.

Maybe that attention makes you feel like a "real" photographer, but it means NOTHING.

If you want to base a business plan on that, I have some swamp land in Florida I'd like to sell to you.

Ivan J. Eberle

27-Sep-2011, 19:47

I think there might be a good if modest business opportunity with film cameras yet, hewing to a venerable tradition of generations of street photography done old-school. This fine fellow camera has a camera that's at least 100 years old, I read!
http://www.cnngo.com/mumbai/play/hunting-vintage-cameras-jaipur-390184

Richard Mahoney

27-Sep-2011, 20:02

... Probably twenty people came up to me asking what I was doing, who I was shooting for, what kind of camera and lens I was using, where can I see your work etc. etc. So what? ... Maybe that attention makes you feel like a "real" photographer, but it means NOTHING.

And if one is seeking attention by wandering around with a monorail then it can completely backfire. More than once I've been taken for a surveyor. Now that's a blow to one's ego ;) Sometimes I wonder why I bother at all. Surely there must be easier ways to get noticed?

Best,

Richard

tgtaylor

27-Sep-2011, 20:11

"Analog photography requires doing math. I don't do math." That's one reason I heard for sticking to digital. I suppose that makes me a genius of some sort.

Very true. I constantly use dimensional analysis to determine mixture ratios and elementary algebra to determine the temperature that each component must be to bring the the mixture to 68F. Example: If the temperature of 250mL of Xtol stock is 74F, what must the temperature of the added water be if the the mixture is to be 1:3 and final volume is to be 850mL at 68F?

tgtaylor

27-Sep-2011, 20:22

Richard Mahoney

27-Sep-2011, 20:43

Yep. And when the camera is an 8x10 monorail you get even more attention. ...

And it's not only people who notice. A while back I was in that other world under my dark cloth when I was overcome by a feeling that something was up. I couldn't hear anything, just had a strong sense that something was wrong, so withdrew. It turned out that about twenty yards down the way a rider, his mare, and a yearling he was leading were standing, stock still. Typically, he wasn't rude enough to ask what I was up to, just quietly asked if I could stop. Apparently the youngster hadn't seen a `photographer' with view camera before, didn't know what to make of us, and was becoming spooked ... So there you go, don't for a moment think you're safe under your dark cloth. Who knows who's watching ...

Kind regards,

Richard

David Luttmann

28-Sep-2011, 08:08

Yesterday I was shooting a new hospital that is just finishing construction with a Canon 5DII. Probably twenty people came up to me asking what I was doing, who I was shooting for, what kind of camera and lens I was using, where can I see your work etc. etc. So what? Its always been that way even long before digital. Its been that way since I stared shooting professionally 32 years ago and digital hadn't even been thought of.

Maybe that attention makes you feel like a "real" photographer, but it means NOTHING.

If you want to base a business plan on that, I have some swamp land in Florida I'd like to sell to you.

That may be the case Kirk....but it's not the same siutation as I mentioned. I can tell you that if you had someone beside you with a 4x5 monorail or an RB67...you wouldn't get much interest in passersby in comparison. That's been my experiebnce without exception. Does it really matter?

Well, I get people coming up to me after weddings or outdoor portrait sessions when I'm shooting with the RB or 4x5 gear. They ask lots of questions. I hand out cards. I get business from it. That rarely happens when I'm using a DSLR.

So for me, it has resulted in booked business and money in my pocket. No swamp land involved! :D

cyrus

28-Sep-2011, 08:08

Very true. I constantly use dimensional analysis to determine mixture ratios and elementary algebra to determine the temperature that each component must be to bring the the mixture to 68F. Example: If the temperature of 250mL of Xtol stock is 74F, what must the temperature of the added water be if the the mixture is to be 1:3 and final volume is to be 850mL at 68F?

LOL this particular person was referring to apertures and shutter speeds.

toyotadesigner

28-Sep-2011, 08:54

OK, obviously nobody here is shooting with a PhaseOne or Hasselblad. Just with toy cameras with 'full frame' sensors.

Lot of hot air unless your biz is events, weddings, sports, action and wildlife. For many situations film is unsurpassed.

To pick up David's argument: I've always a back loaded with Fuji Instant 100 sheets in my bag. If somebody approaches me with questions and more than a general interest, I just snap in the pola back, make a second shot, and hand him/her the **tangible** result, sign it on the back and clip my biz card to it. They have always been fascinated and this tiny trick usually results in a new profitable contact. Just two minutes work, an investment of a few Euros, but considerably cheaper than the acquisition of a new customer by phone, mail, e-mail and all the blahblah.

Sometimes it's amazing how many decision makers are crossing my path when I've set up a camera. Obviously most of them are more open minded and curious than 'Joe Average' and pretty much fed up by the below the line quality of the 'we deliver your images tonight' guys.

As long as I can't afford a digital back like the PhaseOne 180, film photography will be a very good business for me. Maybe in ten or fifteen years, when an 80 MP back will be around 10 K and if I could afford the very short lenses for this crop factor, I might do the switch.

What is the best camera for me? The one that fits my needs and feels natural in my hands.
What is the best (capture) medium for me? The one that exceeds my needs and doesn't require a bank to finance it. In my case it will be film. :D

Bob Salomon

28-Sep-2011, 08:58

Kirk Gittings

28-Sep-2011, 09:38

That may be the case Kirk....but it's not the same siutation as I mentioned. I can tell you that if you had someone beside you with a 4x5 monorail or an RB67...you wouldn't get much interest in passersby in comparison. That's been my experiebnce without exception. Does it really matter?

Well, I get people coming up to me after weddings or outdoor portrait sessions when I'm shooting with the RB or 4x5 gear. They ask lots of questions. I hand out cards. I get business from it. That rarely happens when I'm using a DSLR.

So for me, it has resulted in booked business and money in my pocket. No swamp land involved! :D

Nonsense. The one who gets the attention is the one who looks like a professional and frankly I don't want it. I'm there to do a job not schmooze with bystanders.

So now you are a passionate film shooter? It wasn't too long ago that all you did was argue the benefits of digital.

tgtaylor

28-Sep-2011, 09:39

That may be the case Kirk....but it's not the same siutation as I mentioned. I can tell you that if you had someone beside you with a 4x5 monorail or an RB67...you wouldn't get much interest in passersby in comparison. That's been my experiebnce without exception. Does it really matter?

Well, I get people coming up to me after weddings or outdoor portrait sessions when I'm shooting with the RB or 4x5 gear. They ask lots of questions.
:D

That has been my experience as well when shooting 4x5 and especially 8x10. In fact a lot of the people carrying DSLR's will come up and ask question and some will actually follow you to shoot what you are going to shoot. Families passing by with small children are especially prone to stop and explain the camera to the kid and you graciously fill in the details. Shoot, if I'm all set-up and ready to go I'll pull the darkslide and let the kid pull the triger. Conversely I have never noticed strangers approach a DSLR shooter in that manner.

It was probably the security that Kirk was running into:D

Thomas

David Luttmann

28-Sep-2011, 09:40

How much do you spend on film and processing a year? And I do not sell film, processing or digital cameras. Just curious.

Technically, I don't spend anything as my clients pay for the processing as I've built that into my plans.

I average about 15-20 rolls of film for each wedding...so about 625 rolls a year there. About another 175-200 rolls for portrait session. So about 825 rolls of 35mm a year. About another 250-350 rolls of 120. I only go through about 400-500 sheets of 4x5 a year.

That's me....about a combined 1000-1250 rolls of film and maybe 500 sheets. I don't forsee that changing for a long time. Well, unless Kodak goes belly up. But then there's still Fuji, Ilford, etc, etc.

David Luttmann

28-Sep-2011, 09:43

Nonsense. The one who gets the attention is the one who looks like a professional.

How does one "look" professional?

Sorry Kirk....I've been seeing this for years. Many of my friends comment on the same thing. The public perceives the professional by the gear they see first....unless you're trying to tell me that if you're shooting with a Kodak point and shoot the public will assume you're the pro as opposed to the person using the D3X beside you.

Sorry, it's not nonsense. Oh, and I've always been the passionate film user. I've also always understood what advantages there are with digital capture. But that isn't really the topic in the discussion now, is it?

David Luttmann

28-Sep-2011, 09:52

That has been my experience as well when shooting 4x5 and especially 8x10. In fact a lot of the people carrying DSLR's will come up and ask question and some will actually follow you to shoot what you are going to shoot. Families passing by with small children are especially prone to stop and explain the camera to the kid and you graciously fill in the details. Shoot, if I'm all set-up and ready to go I'll pull the darkslide and let the kid pull the triger. Conversely I have never noticed strangers approach a DSLR shooter in that manner.

It was probably the security that Kirk was running into:D

Thomas

That has been what I've seen so many times...I can't even begin to count. Make sure you carry some business cards with you....it's amazing how much business you can get from this.

toyotadesigner

28-Sep-2011, 10:06

How much do you spend on film and processing a year? And I do not sell film, processing or digital cameras. Just curious.

Bob, max 1.000 Euros to 1.200 ~ US$ 1.352 to 1.634 as per today. Plus scanning (in house or subcontracted to a service bureau in Barcelona or Berlin).

The average cost per image is around 80 cents (Euro) including professional development for roll film, for 4x5 it's 2.80 - 3.00 Euro per image.

Kimberly Anderson

28-Sep-2011, 10:09

READ THIS. (http://popphoto.wordpress.com/2011/09/28/matthewturley/)

David Luttmann

28-Sep-2011, 10:32

READ THIS. (http://popphoto.wordpress.com/2011/09/28/matthewturley/)

Great article....and wonderful images as well.

Kirk Gittings

28-Sep-2011, 10:56

[QUOTE]How does one "look" professional?/QUOTE]

seriously?

toyotadesigner

28-Sep-2011, 11:03

READ THIS.

Amazing. Wow. Thanks for posting the link!

toyotadesigner

28-Sep-2011, 11:09

How does one "look" professional?

Would have been my question as well. Do we need your face to look professional? Or a D5 whatsoever? Or some sort of specific outdoor shoes or pants with hundreds of pockets?

The statement The one who gets the attention is the one who looks like a professional is hilarious or lunatic, whatever you prefer.

David Luttmann

28-Sep-2011, 12:00

[QUOTE]How does one "look" professional?/QUOTE]

seriously?

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.

toyotadesigner

28-Sep-2011, 12:10

Now add a third photographer with an exotic Plaubel 69W Proshift on a tripod... My guess is everybody would point to the guy with the Plaubel on the tripod as being the professional.

David Luttmann

28-Sep-2011, 12:22

Now add a third photographer with an exotic Plaubel 69W Proshift on a tripod... My guess is everybody would point to the guy with the Plaubel on the tripod as being the professional.

More than likely. I'm not sure why Kirk is on this so much. Why would anyone think the public would view a P&S the same as a pro camera? I've never heard anyone make such a claim. The public looks at the gear 1st...the person second.

Michael E

28-Sep-2011, 12:49

The public looks at the gear 1st...the person second.

I was working on a monument documentation project with my DSLR on a tripod. A man came up to me and identified himself as an amateur photographer. "Of course," he said, "I only have a Nikon and not such a professional Pentax like you have".

The camera on my tripod was a Nikon, just my jacket had Pentax printed on it.

Michael

toyotadesigner

28-Sep-2011, 12:54

The public looks at the gear 1st...the person second.

Correct. Which is too bad, but it's the same game everywhere. Imagine Sebastian Vettel appearing with a Renault Clio at the race course, stating he will win the race.

People expect a certain set of tools. Of course, anybody with brains can shoot the title for the Time magazine with a simple box camera, but when it comes to paid work and reproducible results, execs prefer to rely on people (professionals) with tools they know they can master, as well as material that has proven to be reliable and superior. OK, Kirk might have good references and portfolios to show up with a toy camera, but if you are not 'famous' you will lose reputation and value if you show up with the wrong tool set on location. Simple as that.

toyotadesigner

28-Sep-2011, 12:57

DSLR on a tripod

Buzzword: Tripod. In addition to a smooth organization on location and a workflow that looks like perfectly tuned gears (every movement and gesture of your body and hands, made a million times before) makes you stand out from the crowd.

Chuck Kimmerle

28-Sep-2011, 13:06

I can tell you that if you had someone beside you with a 4x5 monorail or an RB67...you wouldn't get much interest in passersby in comparison.

I think you're confusing curiosity with respect.

David Luttmann

28-Sep-2011, 13:16

I think you're confusing curiosity with respect.

They won't have respect for you until they come up and talk to you....and they'll only do that if they are curious by what they see....otherwise, they'll just walk on by.

And guess what makes them more curious....a DSLR like everyone else they see has....or an RB67 or 4x5 camera? I'll give you a hint...it ain't the DSLR. :D

toyotadesigner

28-Sep-2011, 14:06

I'll give you a hint...it ain't the DSLR.

It'll be this one:

http://www.sacalobra.com/samples/photonet/minox_dcc51.jpg

(digital toy camera made in Germany)
:D :D :D

Brian Ellis

28-Sep-2011, 20:24

I'm hearing this all around....without exception. Virtually everyone has a DSLR now. When I took the family camping...everyone had one. When I went to Disneyland with the kids, you see a mountain of DSLRs and point and shoots.

Pull out my D700 and I don't get a second glance. Pull out the 4x5 or RB67, and all eyes migrate to me. People come up and ask quesions, etc. I've handed out many, many business cards through those conversations.

I've been photographing outdoors all over the United States and a few foreign countries for over 20 years. In all that time and all those different locations I've been approached maybe 3 or 4 times by people expressing an interest in my camera. And each time it was a large format wood camera, never with a 35mm camera or a medium format camera, never with a metal Linhof 4x5.

Yet all eyes migrate to you when you use a medium format camera. And they come up to you and ask questions? Many many of them. And knowledgeable ones too - they see your Nikon F5 and know it's a film camera. That's incredible, the three people who approached me knew nothing about photography. They were mostly interested because my wood cameras looked old.

Sigh - I guess I just don't look "professional."

Richard Mahoney

28-Sep-2011, 20:32

Sigh - I guess I just don't look "professional."

One the other hand it may just be all the extra shoes you carry around with you that puts people off :)

Best,

Richard ``with his laces well tied'' Mahoney

Kirk Gittings

28-Sep-2011, 20:52

[QUOTE=Kirk Gittings;783165]

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

28-Sep-2011, 21:00

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

28-Sep-2011, 21:10

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

28-Sep-2011, 23:19

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

29-Sep-2011, 00:25

... 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

29-Sep-2011, 07:41

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

29-Sep-2011, 07:53

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

29-Sep-2011, 08:02

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

29-Sep-2011, 08:25

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

29-Sep-2011, 08:27

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.

Marko

29-Sep-2011, 08:28

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

If you think striving to keep alive and well a technology that can't do it on its own any more might be a good business in the future, you should go ahead and start one.

Personally, I don't do any of this as a business, I do it as a hobby and I will happily use what is available. I've been using film since the early 70's or so and digital since 2003. I still use both and I like them both, but it is not my business to keep any of them alive or even promote them.

I'm simply commenting on what is (or should be) obvious. And I leave ideology to ideologues.

Brian Ellis

29-Sep-2011, 09:04

. . . 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. . . . .

And you base your opinion on what? With Kodak's film sales declining every year, with wet labs disappearing, with the major camera manufacturers not even making film cameras any more, and with almost nobody using film for any purpose (including those purposes for which you think film is perfect), I'd say the film business isn't looking very good. What do you see that makes you think differently?

As for "archival" properties, film and the prints made from it aren't inherently "archival." They have to be properly fixed, washed, and stored. And most importantly, kept. I have many family photographs from the turn of the 20th century forward. Some of the prints look great, many don't. My grandmother pasted prints in photo albums. They're pretty much ruined. Others that were stored loosely are bad because they were just thrown in boxes and put who knows where. Others are bad most likely because they weren't properly fixed and washed.

But most importantly - I don't have a single negative from all of those prints. Nobody bothered to keep them.

Brian Ellis

29-Sep-2011, 09:29

. . . **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.

From Kodak's quarterly report for the second quarter of 2011:

"Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group second-quarter sales were $396 million, a 14% decline from the year-ago quarter, driven by continuing industry-related volume delines. Second-quarter earnings from operations for the segment were $2 million, compared with earnings of $36 million in the year-ago period. This decrease in earnings was primarily driven by significantly increased raw material costs, particularly silver, and industry-related declines in volumes , partially offset by cost reductions and price actions across the segment. . . . " (emphasis added)

Decreased sales and decreased profits aren't good and don't generally attract investors, especially when they're consistent with the historical pattern of declining revenues and declining profits in the film business that's existed for the last decade or so.

And this from the Kodak president sounds a little ominous:

"We are investing in these growth businesses to create a new profitable, sustainable digital company by 2012.”

Kirk Gittings

29-Sep-2011, 09:35

Jeez, that is scary. With those kind of numbers, I see Kodak dumping film sooner rather than later.

Greg Lockrey

29-Sep-2011, 10:28

Jeez, that is scary. With those kind of numbers, I see Kodak dumping film sooner rather than later.

Yeah, then if you want to stay in business you'd have to learn to shoot with "toy" cameras.:rolleyes:

Kirk Gittings

29-Sep-2011, 10:33

:rolleyes:

Doesn't affect my commercial business at all, but it sure as hell might impact my b&w personal photography!

Brian C. Miller

29-Sep-2011, 10:41

Mark Stahlke

29-Sep-2011, 10:43

This decrease in earnings was primarily driven by significantly increased raw material costs, particularly silver, and industry-related declines in volumes...I wonder how much of the decline in volume is self inflicted. Kodak discontinued a lot of products and packages like Readyloads. See also the many threads about the availability of current film products. If none of the dealers have Kodak films in stock then we're forced to buy other brands.

Richard Raymond

29-Sep-2011, 10:46

Q.T.,
From a strategic investment perspective one of the real issues with the film photography business is the use and disposal of chemicals for both manufacturing and processing of film. It is quite possible that the expense of meeting increased environmental standards will be a major factor in limiting the business. This will be true also for those who wish to do their own processing as the availability of chemicals will be severely limited. Chemicals for making film may not be available at even a higher cost, film manufacturers may not want to pay for cleaning of the chemicals used and the same goes for film processors. This risk is even more pronounced in a market with down sloping demand curves ... and the farther into the future one projects the greater this risk is. So, no, film is not a good business investment for the future as the product margins do not cover the increased risk.
Ric

toyotadesigner

29-Sep-2011, 10:47

with the major camera manufacturers not even making film cameras any more

Aha? What about Cambo, Mamiya, Fuji, Linhof, Arca Swiss, Silvestri, Tachihara, Horseman, Ebony, Canham, Gottschalt, Plaubel, Gaoersi, and several others?

Seems you don't know how long you have to wait for an Arca Swiss or Ebony or Linhof or Cambo or...

They still make cameras, in most cases with two options: with a Graflok back or an adaptor for digital backs. The majority of the cameras however is sold for film backs.

In this particular context I remember the wise guys back in 2001, when they claimed that film is dead. Since that time Kodak and Fuji have developed new emulsions, and we have seen new film manufacturers entering the market (for b&w).

Obviously you prefer to hide many facts on the film side.

Greg Lockrey

29-Sep-2011, 10:50

:rolleyes:

Doesn't affect my commercial business at all, but it sure as hell might impact my b&w personal photography!

You could always learn to make your own coatings and continue from there. If it ever gets that bad.... Think of the marketing tool that would derive.

toyotadesigner

29-Sep-2011, 10:54

<snip> one of the real issues with the film photography business is the use and disposal of chemicals for both manufacturing and processing of film <snip>

But the production of plastic doesn't pollute the environment? The garbage will end up in the landfills somewhere. I'm only waiting for a smart politician to impose a plastic tax on all products from Far East. In Europe such a tax is currently in consideration, which I think is a good development.

dwross

29-Sep-2011, 11:12

Apparently Perez is trying to do what Nokia did. Nokia used to be a logging company. However, Nokia changed when technologies were young and markets were undeveloped. Kodak is trying to change when technologies are ubiquitous and markets are saturated with competition. Why buy a cheap point-and-shoot from Kodak when your cell phone has a camera and there's choices from at least five other competitors?

OK, so back to the topic for this thread (Kodak business thread here (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=81179)), film photography is an attraction factor for a photography business.

Besides esthetic process, there is also the very real measurable effect of the final product. Using a small film format, such as half-frame or Minox, results in real grain. The larger formats render grainless images, and can be used with real alternate processes. In the possible event of a total demise of film, there's hand coating glass plates, which is an effective business model now.

There is a selling point to a 100% optical-chemical image path. Use what you have to make an effective business. Find the profitable niche, fill it, and advertise it.

Totally agree. I can't help myself from adding one more point, though. We are not limited to glass plates. Handmade film is even easier to make and handles just like commercial. In addition, I don't see any real danger of the constituent ingredients disappearing anytime soon. I'm a bit more concerned (and that's not much) that some of the digital photo equipment will follow the same kind of trajectory that audio has followed. All your grandma's music on tape? Ouch.

The attached images were photographed with a Baby Graphic (2-1/4" x 3-1/4") on handcoated sheet film.

Denise
www.thelightfarm.com

Brian Ellis

29-Sep-2011, 11:27

Aha? What about Cambo, Mamiya, Fuji, Linhof, Arca Swiss, Silvestri, Tachihara, Horseman, Ebony, Canham, Gottschalt, Plaubel, Gaoersi, and several others?

Seems you don't know how long you have to wait for an Arca Swiss or Ebony or Linhof or Cambo or...

They still make cameras, in most cases with two options: with a Graflok back or an adaptor for digital backs. The majority of the cameras however is sold for film backs.

In this particular context I remember the wise guys back in 2001, when they claimed that film is dead. Since that time Kodak and Fuji have developed new emulsions, and we have seen new film manufacturers entering the market (for b&w).

Obviously you prefer to hide many facts on the film side.

By "major" I meant in terms of sales volume - Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, et al, companies that used to make 35mm cameras and don't any longer (except for Nikon's F6). AFAIK the companies you mention aren't public companies so they don't make their financial information public. But I doubt that their combined annual sales equal one day's sales by Nikon or Canon.

Waiting periods don't necessarily mean a business is prospering. They may mean the company has cut personnel to the bare bones and so it takes them a long time to fill orders. Or it can mean they have cash flow problems and suppliers have cut off their credit so they can buy supplies only when they have orders and money in hand. I'm not saying that's the case with any of the companies you mention. I'm just pointing out that waiting periods aren't necessarily a sign that a company is doing well.

I never said film is dead. I think there are enough 35mm film cameras out there to support somebody making some kind of 35mm film for quite a while. And as long as there's 35mm film there will probably be at least one LF film. What it will cost, where it can be bought, how it will be processed, etc., those are all open questions. But I don't think film is "dead" or going to be dead any time soon.

I don't know how you think I'd be in a position to hide anything "on the film side." I don't possess any information that anyone else can't find.

Jay DeFehr

29-Sep-2011, 11:57

According to a graph I saw recently (linked by Marko), it seems the number of film-made photos at present is around 1960s levels, and dropping precipitously. The progress of film-made photos has effectively gone into rapid-reverse, so that in today's market some manufacturers, technologies and products that were viable in the 60s are viable again, and we're looking forward to looking back even further, to coating simple emulsions at home, or using WPC. Fascinating!

cyrus

29-Sep-2011, 12:30

Totally agree. I can't help myself from adding one more point, though. We are not limited to glass plates. Handmade film is even easier to make and handles just like commercial.
www.thelightfarm.com

Just wanted to say that you're my hero!

Greg Lockrey

29-Sep-2011, 12:36

But the production of plastic doesn't pollute the environment? The garbage will end up in the landfills somewhere. I'm only waiting for a smart politician to impose a plastic tax on all products from Far East. In Europe such a tax is currently in consideration, which I think is a good development.

I used to work for a company that made plastics for the electrical and computer industry, Plaskon Products formally Allied Chemical. They are very specialized high dielectric strength plastic composing of 98% paper pulp 1% sheep's piss (amino in man-made version) and total of 1% inert additives like sand and formaldehyde to be used in computer chips. The technical name for this product was Amino Molding Compound. The point is that all three are naturally originating chemicals just through combining process with heat and pressure they become "plastic".

I also owned a custom photo lab in the city of Toledo, Oh who on a regular routine would make sure that I disposed of my chemicals in hazardous waste drums and I had to pay extra for those to be correctly collected and disposed of.... the very same chemicals that any amateur could buy at the local camera store and dump down the drain.

David Luttmann

29-Sep-2011, 14:10

Jeez, that is scary. With those kind of numbers, I see Kodak dumping film sooner rather than later.

I have to agree there. And I agree with a lot of what you say about the professional being the whole package. My reference went simply to what attracts the publics attention.

Oh, and a great interview by the way.

Kirk Gittings

29-Sep-2011, 14:47

Thanks David. Nice to see your professional website these days. Looks like its going well for you.

rdenney

29-Sep-2011, 15:17

Aha? What about Cambo, Mamiya, Fuji, Linhof, Arca Swiss, Silvestri, Tachihara, Horseman, Ebony, Canham, Gottschalt, Plaubel, Gaoersi, and several others?

It's much easier to build a niche business around cameras than around film, especially with the production model of a Kodak or Fuji. I'll bet the combined production of all the film cameras produced by the above in the last five years, if used every day, could not keep one film line going at Kodak.

There is a difference between impressing bystanders and impressing clients, too. Most clients are impressed when people show up with lighting equipment, cameras in durable and experienced cases, beefy tripods, and confidence in the correct use of the above. After all that other stuff is added up, the black lump at the top of the tripod isn't that big a deal. I've had more "you must be a pro" comments carrying around my 5D with a white-barreled lens and a Bogen 3036 than when setting up my Sinar. With the Sinar, people don't think I'm a pro. They think I'm an artist. :eek:

And I don't think "good business" is the right question, but rather "good living". As in the now-archaic question from my parents' generation: Is there a living in that?

There is probably some marketing advantage to the whole handmade process for selling prints at a craft show. But I doubt that people buying photography because they want pictures (as opposed to wanting art) care, and I doubt people buying stuff because it is Important Art care. So, maybe it matters in the middle a bit. Is there a living in that? Not if the supplies dry up, no matter how good the photographer markets the "traditional handmade" aspect.

There are people who hate digital technology who are not photographers. But they still don't know what they are looking at. I showed a photo to the wife of a friend, and she said, "You just can't make good photos like that with a digital camera." I'd made it with my 5D, of course. She was conflating big, black SLR with film, and cigarette-pack sized point-n-shoot with digital. What made the print look good to her was that it was done properly.

And most of the arguments I see against digital apply equally to film--the latest film cameras made for the last couple of decades have nearly the same level of automation as a digital camera. There is not much operational difference between my Canon Elan II and my Canon 10D--or my 5D. The Uncle Harrys of the world can hide their lack of technique equally using the automation of the Elan as with the 10D.

As to data storage vs. film storage--that's not much of an influence on the "Is there a living in that?" question. I did a wedding last weekend, and gave the film or digital choice to the bride and groom. DIGITAL! Why? They wanted to share the pictures with their friends on Facebook, etc., easily. (Brian K had it right: The product delivery drives the choice of equipment.) The model of the photographer owning the images and making money on the enlargements is long gone in the lower rungs of professional photography, it seems to me. You provide a Blurb book and a DVD now, and leave the archival permanence question to the newlyweds. The last wedding I shot on film, despite always offering that choice, was six years ago.

But I don't shoot very many weddings compared to years ago. I used to show up with a Mamiya C330 and a potato-masher flash, and in those days that was seen as professional equipment. Now, it would probably attract stares. Put your 5D in a Newton bracket or Stroboframe with a coiled cord from the camera to the flash, and you're more pro than most people can conceive, if they are only measuring on appearance. Methinks Kirk's clients are making their judgements with a little more sophistication, such as with what they saw in his portfolio and in his demeanor.

Sorry for the rambling answer, but I just read the whole thread at once and my head is exploding.

Rick "thinking those who extol the virtues of film had better be able to point to prints that demonstrate those virtues, if they are going to make a living based on that schtick--and they had better buy Kodak stock, too, and lots of it" Denney

dwross

29-Sep-2011, 15:30

cyrus,

:D Me, grinning ear to ear. Thank you.

Richard Mahoney

29-Sep-2011, 17:17

... And I don't think "good business" is the right question, but rather "good living". As in the now-archaic question from my parents' generation: Is there a living in that? ... As to data storage vs. film storage--that's not much of an influence on the "Is there a living in that?" question. ...

Yes it's been a while since I've heard people talking of making a living. Once relations also used to ask `What are you going to do with your life?' But that seems to have fallen by the wayside too. It's the same with `positions' and `posts', now everyone's just `got a job' (cringe) ...

Now as to storage and archiving ... actually, I do think it is germane. Film is, it seems to me, *relatively* inexpensive to store. I'm uncertain, sometimes, if people realize just how expensive digital storage really is. Leaving aside the cost of power (which isn't negligible) and the cost of the box itself it can be sobering to add up the likely cost of disks over one's working life. I haven't looked into the reliability of disks recently but historically one could only expect a consumer grade disk to last about two years. A server grade disk on the other hand could be expected to last for five years -- at about five times the cost in this part of the world. While it's true that in practice many disks do last longer, one was has to accept the increased risk, which for critical data is unacceptable. And I'm not even going to broach the costs associated with data migration ...

I'm certainly not in any way anti-digital but I do think that it sometimes makes business -- or even hobbyist -- sense to sit down and do your sums. As Jens has said, when one has taken everything into account, sometimes digital is just not worth it, and film remains a reasonably cost effective option.

Kind regards,

Richard

mdm

29-Sep-2011, 18:07

cyrus,

:D Me, grinning ear to ear. Thank you.

Me too, your 3 Graces print and the breaking wave print on your website are both some of my favourites. Show them the way.

Greg Miller

29-Sep-2011, 18:37

Yes it's been a while since I've heard people talking of making a living. Once relations also used to ask `What are you going to do with your life?' But that seems to have fallen by the wayside too. It's the same with `positions' and `posts', now everyone's just `got a job' (cringe) ...

Now as to storage and archiving ... actually, I do think it is germane. Film is, it seems to me, *relatively* inexpensive to store. I'm uncertain, sometimes, if people realize just how expensive digital storage really is. Leaving aside the cost of power (which isn't negligible) and the cost of the box itself it can be sobering to add up the likely cost of disks over one's working life. I haven't looked into the reliability of disks recently but historically one could only expect a consumer grade disk to last about two years. A server grade disk on the other hand could be expected to last for five years -- at about five times the cost in this part of the world. While it's true that in practice many disks do last longer, one was has to accept the increased risk, which for critical data is unacceptable. And I'm not even going to broach the costs associated with data migration ...

I'm certainly not in any way anti-digital but I do think that it sometimes makes business -- or even hobbyist -- sense to sit down and do your sums. As Jens has said, when one has taken everything into account, sometimes digital is just not worth it, and film remains a reasonably cost effective option.

Kind regards,

Richard

Let's do some quick math here. You can buy 1TB drives for about $50 (I'm being conservative here - here's a decent 2TB external drive for $80 with free shipping and 2 year warranty (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148579)). A 1TB drive would hold about 1,000 1GB files. Buy a set of 3 drives for $150 and you can have 3 identical copies of each file. That comes to a grand total of $0.15 per file ($0.05 per copy x 3 copies).

Backup drives are mostly going to last at least 5 years, because they sit idle except for 10 minutes per day when they are being written to. They don't spin if they are not being read or written to. Yes, some will fail in less than 5 years, but about as many will last more than that.

Migration cost is virtually $0.00. You replace an old drive with a new drive, whatever type of technology, and you just copy from the old drive to the new drive. Tiff, jpg, psd files will be supported for a long, long time. With billions of images in each format, they will not be obsolete in my lifetime.

Electricity cost is actually negligible. When's the last time you saw a hard drive spec that mentioned wattage. Nobody cares because it they draw so little current.

There generally is no space cost, because for photographers they just sit under the desk or on a shelf.

We don't need to account for risk, because we have 3 copies to account for that (at least one copy should be offsite to protect against fire, theft, water, lightning strikes,...). The risk is actually smaller than with film because with film you carry that risk of fire, theft, water, lightning strikes, fungus, mold,...

So for about $3 per image, let's say $4 to account for electricity and other misc. costs, and you can have 3 copies of a 1GB file for 100 years. And that assumes that the storage cost will not go down in that time frame (which is virtually impossible). Let say I am crazy and more than double it to $10 per image (that's $0.10 per year). Is that really too much to ask for 100 years of storage? One archival sleeve for 4x5 will cost about that much.

tgtaylor

29-Sep-2011, 18:43

Totally agree. I can't help myself from adding one more point, though. We are not limited to glass plates. Handmade film is even easier to make and handles just like commercial. In addition, I don't see any real danger of the constituent ingredients disappearing anytime soon. I'm a bit more concerned (and that's not much) that some of the digital photo equipment will follow the same kind of trajectory that audio has followed. All your grandma's music on tape? Ouch.

The attached images were photographed with a Baby Graphic (2-1/4" x 3-1/4") on handcoated sheet film.

Denise
www.thelightfarm.com

Thank you for that wonderful post Denise. It's comforting to know that if film does reach the point that it is no longer produced commercially, one can still coat their own. Actually coating your own may be the better avenue to pursue for those of us that are always searching for that truly unique point of view.

Thomas

tgtaylor

29-Sep-2011, 18:50

There is probably some marketing advantage to the whole handmade process for selling prints at a craft show. But I doubt that people buying photography because they want pictures (as opposed to wanting art) care, and I doubt people buying stuff because it is Important Art care. So, maybe it matters in the middle a bit. Is there a living in that? Not if the supplies dry up, no matter how good the photographer markets the "traditional handmade" aspect.

I may be wrong but I venture to say that anyone purchasing "pictures", excepting those that purchase for purely commercial reasons, also wants "art."

Thomas

mdm

29-Sep-2011, 18:56

You are all missing the point. Who cares about negatives or digital files, make archival prints, thats what photographers do. Do people care about Uncle Earls negatives, no, they care about original Ansel Adams prints. I suggest you incinerate all your negatives and smash all your archival drives sometime before you die. Really, who cares other than you. leave some nice prints behind and the world will be better for them.

Brian C. Miller

29-Sep-2011, 19:29

... And I don't think "good business" is the right question, but rather "good living". As in the now-archaic question from my parents' generation: Is there a living in that?

There is probably some marketing advantage to the whole handmade process for selling prints at a craft show. But I doubt that people buying photography because they want pictures (as opposed to wanting art) care, and I doubt people buying stuff because it is Important Art care. ...

Rick "thinking those who extol the virtues of film had better be able to point to prints that demonstrate those virtues, if they are going to make a living based on that schtick--and they had better buy Kodak stock, too, and lots of it" Denney

Different clients, different market. What sets apart one business from another? Why should someone go with photographer A rather than photographer B? Are you selling a commodity, or a (semi-)unique item?

I'll jump for a moment to something which is also near and dear to my heart: coffee. When was the last time you drank Starbucks coffee, straight and black? Did you enjoy it? Did you immediately wish you had another cup?

Every business has a selling point. Are the goods and services a better value at one company than another?

Photography, as has been lamented since the late 19th century, has become a commodity, with everybody able to participate. I understand that modern wedding photography came about after WWII, beings that newly-discharged military photographers would descend on a wedding, with several offering photographs to the bride and groom. Previously, based on my granparents, they got one formal photograph, and that was it.

So what in our modern age sets apart a photography business? Good product, certaintly. Unique product, even better. There are lots of successful photography businesses. There are plenty of books on how to run a photography business. And most importantly, most of it comes down to actually running a business, not dreaming about it.

Marko

29-Sep-2011, 20:16

Then again, here's Schneider's take (http://www.iprolens.com/) on this question...

Richard Mahoney

29-Sep-2011, 20:26

Let's do some quick math here. You can buy 1TB drives for about $50 (I'm being conservative here - here's a decent 2TB external drive for $80 with free shipping and 2 year warranty (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148579)). A 1TB drive would hold about 1,000 1GB files. Buy a set of 3 drives for $150 and you can have 3 identical copies of each file. That comes to a grand total of $0.15 per file ($0.05 per copy x 3 copies). ....

Greg, I think we may be talking at cross purposes here. I'd wouldn't consider putting important data on the type of hardware you're suggesting. For starters, you might like adjust your calculations to include disks that have slightly better performance and are a little more dependable:

HP 600GB 6G SAS 15K rpm LFF (3.5-inch) Quick-release ...
http://h30094.www3.hp.com/product/sku/10196918/mfg_partno/574758-B21

Best,

Richard

Greg Miller

30-Sep-2011, 02:43

Greg, I think we may be talking at cross purposes here. I'd wouldn't consider putting important data on the type of hardware you're suggesting. For starters, you might like adjust your calculations to include disks that have slightly better performance and are a little more dependable:

HP 600GB 6G SAS 15K rpm LFF (3.5-inch) Quick-release ...
http://h30094.www3.hp.com/product/sku/10196918/mfg_partno/574758-B21

Best,

Richard

Yes, that's a nice drive. But total overkill for these purposes. You are mostly paying for the 15K RPM as opposed to 7200 RPM - completely unnecessary for this purpose. That drive is used in servers in enterprise data centers very high performance (speed) needs of a data center typically running large databases with thousands of users. Just try to find a workstation that has a SAS 600 controller card.

Again, for the typical photographer on this forum, who might run to backup drive for 10 minutes a day, the drive I suggested is perfectly adequate when used in sets of 3.

If you insist on using the drive you suggested, they you need to compare it to the absolute highest standard for archiving film.

rdenney

30-Sep-2011, 07:05

Now as to storage and archiving ... actually, I do think it is germane. Film is, it seems to me, *relatively* inexpensive to store. I'm uncertain, sometimes, if people realize just how expensive digital storage really is. Leaving aside the cost of power (which isn't negligible) and the cost of the box itself it can be sobering to add up the likely cost of disks over one's working life. I haven't looked into the reliability of disks recently but historically one could only expect a consumer grade disk to last about two years. A server grade disk on the other hand could be expected to last for five years -- at about five times the cost in this part of the world. While it's true that in practice many disks do last longer, one was has to accept the increased risk, which for critical data is unacceptable. And I'm not even going to broach the costs associated with data migration ...

Yes, it's relevant. Much of what we need we'd buy anyway, because of the other needs we have for computing power and storage.

In my home network, I have a network-attached storage unit with RAID mirrored drives. I run automated nightly backups to this device. Thus, my image files are stored on my local drive, and also on two separate redundant drives.

I have also added a BluRay writer to the system, which will allow me to make a BluRay backup of my critical image files (at least) and store that backup in a different location. If I had fast internet service here, I would consider a backup service.

Will anyone maintain any of this when I'm gone? Probably not. My prints might survive, but the image files certainly will not. I think that is also true of my negatives and transparencies, however. I think those will end up in a dumpster and then a landfill. Houses these days are not designed to last generations and the attics are no longer easy places to store things.

Most artist-photographers will be remembered by their actual prints, not by their negatives. Some have destroyed their negatives (Brett Weston being the most famous example), and others weren't famous during their life so that after they died anyone cared. Those few who arranged for their negatives to end up in an archive would have had to have been pretty well-known for any archive to be interested.

Thus, I think it's important to make good prints of our best work. And this is the challenge I do not myself live up to--I just don't have any place to put them and frankly nobody seems to want them.

Yes, it's cheap to store negatives for a long time while we are alive, compared to digital storage. But I'd have that digital storage system I outlined above anyway, for storing professional and financial records, writings, and other things that are difficult to print out. The marginal cost of photo storage for many people is not zero, but it's also not as much as the cost of every piece of equipment we might have.

It's true that many are careless about storage, but that's true with film, too.

Rick "waaaay behind on making prints" Denney

rdenney

30-Sep-2011, 07:24

I may be wrong but I venture to say that anyone purchasing "pictures", excepting those that purchase for purely commercial reasons, also wants "art."

Nah. When people want wedding photos, they want a record for their friends and family (supposing that their friends and family care a lot about that record, which is probably not as true as they think it is), and they want a record for themselves. They will use that record by occasionally pulling it off the shelf and reliving that happy day. The preservation and feeding of their memories is their goal.

They will want the pictures to be competently composed and demonstrate good craft. I try not to confuse art and craft, but I know the distinction is difficult, and the source of many an argument among artists as well as photographers.

Even stuff people buy to put on their walls often falls into that category. They either feed memories (I went to the Grand Canyon and this photo of the Grand Canyon really takes me back) or they feed fantasies (I would really like to go there). Sometimes people buy something because it moves them in some way they can't explain, or because they acknowledge that the work is important, or because they think they'll impress their arty friends, or because doing so is a way to show off to their snobby friends. They might even buy it because they think it will have increasing value as art. We hope that it's mostly the first of these reasons, but we have to recognize that art photography is a tiny piece of photography, and even photography that affects people in a truly artistic way is just a fraction of all that purports to be art photography. It's true with other media as well.

Rick "being realistic" Denney

rdenney

30-Sep-2011, 07:26

Mark Stahlke

30-Sep-2011, 08:16

Don't destroy your negatives. You probably don't know which shots have historic value.

A friend of mine is fascinated by Arctic and Antarctic explorers. He recently acquired a couple of negatives from the 1930s. One is a 4x5 showing Byrd in his snow cat. The other is a pano of one of Byrd's ships in a harbor taken by a no-name amateur who happened to be in the right place at the right time.

Brian Ellis

30-Sep-2011, 09:22

None of like to believe that this is true, but I can't find any reason to argue against.

Rick "whose negatives will end up in a dumpster" Denney

Exactly. I don't know who other than pros and high-end amateurs worries about keeping negatives for any length of time (and the high-end amateurs are mostly deluding themselves if they think anyone will care when they're gone but that's another subject). I have well over a thousand prints, mostly family, from the late 1800s through the 1970s. There isn't one single negative in the bunch. Some of my cousins have lots of other family prints. They don't have a single negative either. I'm sure the negatives from which all those prints were made were very "archival." But since they were thrown away somewhere along the line what difference does it make?

A digital image on a disc or an external hard drive might not be kept either. But it at least has a better chance than boxes and boxes of negatives just because it takes up so little space and is easy to store and take along when someone moves. Sure, they may have to be updated as technology changes and blah blah blah.

It seems to me that either digital or film is equally "archival" (whatever that term means) as long as someone cares enough to worry about it. The only difference is in the methodology.

Steve Smith

30-Sep-2011, 09:45

For images we really want to last forever, we should print them out and get Bob Dylan to paint them.

Steve.

Mark Stahlke

30-Sep-2011, 09:46

It seems to me that either digital or film is equally "archival"... I respectfully disagree. Digital files are more fragile than film or prints. Corrupt a few bytes of an image file and the whole file is probably useless. By contrast, a negative or print with a few scratches or fingerprints is still quite usable.

Brian, how many of those old family photos have scratches, creases, torn corners, or fingerprints?

Rory_5244

30-Sep-2011, 09:47

^ Great examples there, Mark! (Referring to the explorers examples, that is)

Marko

30-Sep-2011, 11:06

Digital files are more fragile than film or prints. Corrupt a few bytes of an image file and the whole file is probably useless.

I'll see your Fragile, Probably" and "Corrupt a few bytes" and raise you my CRC and Checksum.

:D

darr

30-Sep-2011, 11:24

For images we really want to last forever, we should print them out and get Bob Dylan to paint them.

Steve.

:D

Mark Stahlke

30-Sep-2011, 11:27

Marko, your CRC and checksum only tell you if your file is damaged. They won't tell you the extent of the damage or, more importantly, repair the damage.

darr

30-Sep-2011, 12:25

9/30/2011

http://cameraartist.com/forums/LFP/kodak.jpg

Brian C. Miller

30-Sep-2011, 12:33

Kodak business thread here! (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=81179)

Back to the original question: Film photography is a good business now, regardless of Kodak. The Twins Lens Life (http://www.twinlenslife.com/) blog is run by some wedding photographers in California, who in January compared a Canon 5D to film. Film is good! Like we didn't know that already.

They make a business out of it, and if somebody wants to do it, they can too.

David Luttmann

30-Sep-2011, 12:34

Marko, your CRC and checksum only tell you if your file is damaged. They won't tell you the extent of the damage or, more importantly, repair the damage.

Sorry, that's not correct. A large amount of the error correction is built upon recording a large amount of redundant data.

rdenney

30-Sep-2011, 12:35

Marko, your CRC and checksum only tell you if your file is damaged. They won't tell you the extent of the damage or, more importantly, repair the damage.

No, but your redundant storage methods will.

Rick "recognizing that redundancy increases the amount of equipment that has to be bought and maintained" Denney

David Luttmann

30-Sep-2011, 12:36

Marko

30-Sep-2011, 13:02

Marko, your CRC and checksum only tell you if your file is damaged. They won't tell you the extent of the damage or, more importantly, repair the damage.

No, but as David and Rick pointed out, properly set redundancy - say RAID 1 as a minimum - will make it moot.

Now, did you ever have such a damage happen to you personally?

I have had many color films and prints fade beyond recognition, some of them as young as 15-20 years. And I've had many negatives scratched over the years because the ol' shoebox got ratty.

Richard Mahoney

30-Sep-2011, 14:28

Dear Greg,

Yes, that's a nice drive. But total overkill for these purposes. ... If you insist on using the drive you suggested, they you need to compare it to the absolute highest standard for archiving film.

Whether one considers a piece of equipment necessary or not depends on one's needs. This thread is about film photography as a business and for businesses there is nothing special about this type of storage, it is simply a typical commercial server grade disk. I've been using an earlier incarnation from HP in a redundant RAID 1 array for a long time. And yes, I've experienced disk failure, but with a hot swap fail over always waiting for the inevitable, never any data loss. Why would I willingly risk a client's -- admittedly non photographic -- data by using substandard hardware? Decent hardware is simply a cost of doing business, and as I suggested above, it is a significant cost that has to be factored in for the secure storage of digital images. And as you suggest, businesses primarily based on film will have other more pressing concerns ... dark cool dry rooms and acid free boxes. But unless they are based in Manhattan they should find that suitable storage is a little less costly than the digital equivalent. And that, in a nutshell, was all that I was trying to suggest.

Kind regards,

Richard

Mark Stahlke

30-Sep-2011, 15:00

No, but as David and Rick pointed out, properly set redundancy - say RAID 1 as a minimum - will make it moot.Ever managed a large disk farm? Ever have multiple concurrent disk failures? It's painful. Thank God for tape backups.

Now, did you ever have such a damage happen to you personally?I've never lost any image files but I have experienced many total and partial media failures. From floppy disks gone bad to the above mentioned disk array failure.

I have had many color films and prints fade beyond recognition, some of them as young as 15-20 years. And I've had many negatives scratched over the years because the ol' shoebox got ratty.Here (http://extras.denverpost.com/archive/captured.asp) is some 70 year old color film for your enjoyment. Disclaimer: I have no idea how this film was stored or what manner of analog or digital restoration work was done to it.

Marko

30-Sep-2011, 15:37

Ever managed a large disk farm?

Yes, actually, I have. That was a part of my job for quite some time.

Ever have multiple concurrent disk failures? It's painful. Thank God for tape backups.

[...]

I've never lost any image files but I have experienced many total and partial media failures. From floppy disks gone bad to the above mentioned disk array failure

The conversation was about file corruption that you mentioned, not media failure. Media security is a very different animal from data security. Let's not confuse the two, shall we?

So, you have never lost an image due to file corruption. I didn't think so. :D

Here (http://extras.denverpost.com/archive/captured.asp) is some 70 year old color film for your enjoyment. Disclaimer: I have no idea how this film was stored or what manner of analog or digital restoration work was done to it.

If you have no idea how it was stored, maintained or possibly restored, what is the point of bringing it up?

Mark Stahlke

30-Sep-2011, 16:31

Marko, most file corruption is a result of partial media failure.

The main reason I linked to those interesting 70 year old photos was to share them with the folks here as penance for my role in causing this thread to drift off topic. :)

Marko

30-Sep-2011, 16:48

Marko, most file corruption is a result of partial media failure.

Mark,

You said that "digital files are more fragile than film or prints. Corrupt a few bytes of an image file and the whole file is probably useless." Which is what led to this sub-discussion.

Media failure is something else entirely and irrelevant to this discussion. The entire point is that digital files themselves are perfectly and easily reproducible in a way that relegates the media itself to nothing more then temporary shell, akin to film holders.

You mitigate media failure by using proper backup strategy and sufficient redundancy while you prevent file corruption during transfer using CRC, checksum and other techniques.

If anything, these two actions combined (as they should be) make digital files more robust rather than more fragile compared to film or prints.

You show me a corrupted image file and I'll show you a pile of scratched, faded and otherwise physically destroyed film. Actually, I can show you these anyway, if you wish. :)

Greg Miller

30-Sep-2011, 17:11

Dear Greg,

Whether one considers a piece of equipment necessary or not depends on one's needs. This thread is about film photography as a business and for businesses there is nothing special about this type of storage, it is simply a typical commercial server grade disk. I've been using an earlier incarnation from HP in a redundant RAID 1 array for a long time. And yes, I've experienced disk failure, but with a hot swap fail over always waiting for the inevitable, never any data loss. Why would I willingly risk a client's -- admittedly non photographic -- data by using substandard hardware? Decent hardware is simply a cost of doing business, and as I suggested above, it is a significant cost that has to be factored in for the secure storage of digital images. And as you suggest, businesses primarily based on film will have other more pressing concerns ... dark cool dry rooms and acid free boxes. But unless they are based in Manhattan they should find that suitable storage is a little less costly than the digital equivalent. And that, in a nutshell, was all that I was trying to suggest.

Kind regards,

Richard

Are you storing your data backups on 15K SAS drives? We are not talking about primary storage here, we are talking about backups. Very few photographers need hot swaps for backup drives. Very few photographers need it for primary storage either.

Why not buy a 10K SAS drive for 1/3 less money? Or a 7200 SATA drive with a 5 year warranty for even less? You obviously felt some need for that 15K speed, which is nice for primary storage, but is overkill for backing up film scans.

Server drives are engineered to be spinning 24x7x365. That is necessary for servers providing direct access to live data by large user groups. A backup drive holding films scans by one photographer sits idle for 99+% of it's life. So a poor man's RAID (note the "inexpensive" in the acronym) of 3 separate external drives provides the redundancy to deal with single drive failures. And in my example you could double the number of drives to 6 and still only pay $0.20 per year per image.

Mark Stahlke

30-Sep-2011, 17:12

In my non-professional opinion, offering clients a choice between film and digital could give the photographer a marketing advantage. I think a commercial photography business based solely on film would be doomed to failure. A fine art (whatever that means) photography business based on film could be quite successful.

Mark Stahlke

30-Sep-2011, 18:00

Richard Mahoney

30-Sep-2011, 18:28

There is one thing missing in the discussions about the archival nature of various media: the client. What are the client's requirements? Who is responsible for maintaining the archive?

If I was a professional photographer, I would prefer to do commercial assignments as a "work for hire" and turn over all materials to the client. The last thing I would want is a contractual obligation to maintain a film or digital archive on behalf of a client.

And it seems to me, Mark, that this sense of obligation or responsibility is one of the distinctions between an amateur and a professional. If one is working only to please oneself then one may feel happy to take a cavalier attitude and play fast and loose with one's data. If one has been engaged by someone else then everything changes and what may previously have been seen as acceptable risk may become totally unacceptable.

But then there are also people who just have a sense of pride in their work and who take the long view, preferring not to cut corners. The fellow who produces my drum scans is a case to point. He is not obliged to keep an archive of my scans but chooses to, it is part of the service, and consistent with his attention to quality in everything he does -- and it goes without saying that he uses a decent set of arrays. Yet it would be naive of me to think that this is inexpensive. It is just that cost of this service will be built in to the business as a whole.

Kind regards,

Richard

mdm

30-Sep-2011, 18:31

A local guy?

Mark Stahlke

30-Sep-2011, 18:37

And it seems to me, Mark, that this sense of obligation or responsibility is one of the most significant distinctions between an amateur and a professional.Yes, indeed. That's the main reason I have no interest in turning pro. I simply don't want the responsibility. I'm afraid that would take a lot of the fun out of it.

Other people are willing to take on that responsibility and some of them make a decent living from photography. I admire them but I also realize it's not for me.

rdenney

30-Sep-2011, 19:36

If I was a professional photographer, I would prefer to do commercial assignments as a "work for hire" and turn over all materials to the client. The last thing I would want is a contractual obligation to maintain a film or digital archive on behalf of a client.

That's certainly the way the wedding biz around these parts has gone.

In terms of storage, let's think about that again. The photographer my wife and I hired for our wedding was a well-respective and highly productive high-end pro in this area. She had a room devoted to nothing but storage. And the indexing requirement, based on how she seemed to do it, wasn't insignificant. She had recently retired and was glad to be out of it because she said she spent all her time dealing with enlargements and film storage.

My NAS, on the other hand, is roughly a six-inch cube, with a wall wart power supply and a cable going to the network switch. It's big enough to store about 150,000 images from my Canon 5D, or maybe a couple of thousand high-res scans from large format. That would last an art photographer a long time, it seems to me. Might need several of them for that lady we hired.

It does not cost me much to store my film, but then I don't store it in a way that provides the level of customer service needed that kind of commercial pro. Probably the bin in which an art photographer stores his stuff isn't much bigger than my NAS. The NAS costs more than the shoe box, but I'd need it anyway and it still was not particularly expensive.

Rick "whose NAS duty cycle is a few minutes a day for the incremental backup, plus several hours each month for the full backup" Denney