are film cameras a dead issue ?

[DaveG3]

How long until traditional film cameras are not even considered an option by the average buyer?

After reading these statistics it makes me wonder if its not already almost their http://www.bytephoto.com/showarticle.php?s=&threadid=882

 

[Paul Grupp]

It's already a done deal. For the average buyer (whoever that is) the advantages of digital far outweigh the disadvantages. There will always be a lunatic fringe, or more politely, a group of nostalgists, who will continue to use film for any of several reasons -- much as there are still folks who eschew CDs in favor of analog turntables.

And to be fair, there are certain applications, typically involving 6x7cm and large format cameras, where digital is not making inroads very quickly yet.

But go to any tourist destination, and you'll see the battle is essentially over. Ditto for photojournalism, and increasingly, portraiture, weddings, and events.

Regards,
Paul
http://www.pbase.com/pgrupp

How long until traditional film cameras are not even considered an
option by the average buyer?

After reading these statistics it makes me wonder if its not
already almost their
http://www.bytephoto.com/showarticle.php?s=&threadid=882

 

[Sean Keegan]

Yep, film is dead for me... I will never use another 35 mm film camera!!! I get much better results from my Fuji S2 Pro then I ever got with my 35mm SLR!

Regards,
Sean

And to be fair, there are certain applications, typically involving
6x7cm and large format cameras, where digital is not making inroads
very quickly yet.

But go to any tourist destination, and you'll see the battle is
essentially over. Ditto for photojournalism, and increasingly,
portraiture, weddings, and events.

Regards,
Paul
http://www.pbase.com/pgrupp

How long until traditional film cameras are not even considered an
option by the average buyer?

After reading these statistics it makes me wonder if its not
already almost their
http://www.bytephoto.com/showarticle.php?s=&threadid=882

--

 

[Angelo78]

I use digital way more than my film camera. Although I'll be keeping my film body around for back-up and for the occasional urge to shoot B&W.

Angelo

How long until traditional film cameras are not even considered an
option by the average buyer?

After reading these statistics it makes me wonder if its not
already almost their
http://www.bytephoto.com/showarticle.php?s=&threadid=882

 

[pso]

Not until the prices of dSLR's have to come down very close to the prices where film SLR's are and cropping factors go out the door. That's what is holding me back right now. Even $900 is too much for a digital Rebel, although it is a good value considering how much other dSLR's cost in comparison.

And of course I still prefer film for b&w.

How long until traditional film cameras are not even considered an
option by the average buyer?

After reading these statistics it makes me wonder if its not
already almost their
http://www.bytephoto.com/showarticle.php?s=&threadid=882

--
pakety

 

[BobTrips]

Not until the prices of dSLR's have to come down very close to the
prices where film SLR's are and cropping factors go out the door.
That's what is holding me back right now. Even $900 is too much
for a digital Rebel, although it is a good value considering how
much other dSLR's cost in comparison.

So, would you describe yourself as a low volume shooter? If so, sticking with film makes sense (if you don't mind spending time scanning...).

If one shoots even a couple of rolls a month then it only takes a couple of years to make up the difference between a film and a digital body. (Hardly any time if you factor in the cost of a scanner.)

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Two Hours in Delhi'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.

 

[Forbes]

There is an assumption that everyone is PC and digital savvy, it is simply not the case. There will continue to be a market for film. It will be up to Kodak, Fuji & Canon etc to switch everyone over to desirable digital products that are so easy to use that people will absolutely want digital over film. It just has not happened yet. Relatively few really have time for all this digital post editing. If you take the PC out of the equation and simply have the picture takers go to the WalMart Kiosk, there are still so many people around who would not be able to handle getting the pics off the camera or flash memory and into the lab, these are people who would simply prefer to shoot a couple rolls of film and take them in for developing. I guess it can happen, eventually.

Kodak has to figure out how to get people to spend just as much if not more, doing it the digital way as compared with the film and chemical way, and to use Kodak products in doing so. And they need to do it fast. They need a line of printers which need to outperform others, more compelling products than what we see now. How are they going to do that? The photo places need to be using Kodak equipment, I don't always see that they are. Kodak probably still needs people to desire and use film products for the forseeable future. One thing is for certain -- market share for film products isn't going to be increasing. Rather, it is a question of how rapidly it will be declining. But that is a long way from saying it's all over. The folks at Kodak must be going crazy. Don F.

Not until the prices of dSLR's have to come down very close to the
prices where film SLR's are and cropping factors go out the door.
That's what is holding me back right now. Even $900 is too much
for a digital Rebel, although it is a good value considering how
much other dSLR's cost in comparison.

So, would you describe yourself as a low volume shooter? If so,
sticking with film makes sense (if you don't mind spending time
scanning...).

If one shoots even a couple of rolls a month then it only takes a
couple of years to make up the difference between a film and a
digital body. (Hardly any time if you factor in the cost of a
scanner.)

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Two Hours in Delhi'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.

--
Don F.

 

[pso]

Hi Bob,

So, would you describe yourself as a low volume shooter? If so,
sticking with film makes sense (if you don't mind spending time
scanning...).

I am a medium volume shooter b/c I am not a pro. I used to own digicams but was disappointed by the point and shooters. I love SLR photography but cannot at any time immediately shell out more than $1K for a camera and I would want the 10D instead of 300D.

Yeah the cost comparison is a simple one but the fact is, many people including myself can't throw down that kinda cash for a dSLR at any one time.

And the crop factor is still a very nagging issue for me. For that money, I would expect the crop factor to go away.

I don't think it will be "that" long until the dSLR prices come way way down and the sensor factors go away. Until then, it is easy for me to wait.

--
pakety

 

[Doug MacMillan]

My younger grandson had a birthday in July. There was the usual mayhem of grandparents, great-grandparents, aunts, uncles and parents. The year before it was 80% film, 20% digital. This year it was 100% digital. I took that to be a sign of the times.

Someone mentioned that the average Joe is not computer savvy. I think us digital geeks forget that not everyone runs their photos through PS or some other editor before taking them to Wally world or printing them out on their printer. Yes, with a little work some of the images would look a lot better, but from what I've seen, the output from their digital P&S is so far superior to the average film P&S that they're just tickled with what they get straight out of the camera.

My big concern is the economy of scale. From what I know of the process, making film is only economical when done in large quantities. Also, it is a perishable item. I'm afraid we're nearing digital critical mass and that film will disappear as quickly as LP's did. BTW, you can still buy LP's of some releases, but they cost $35. How long will it be before a roll of TMax will cost $20?

Doug

How long until traditional film cameras are not even considered an
option by the average buyer?

After reading these statistics it makes me wonder if its not
already almost their
http://www.bytephoto.com/showarticle.php?s=&threadid=882

 

[fannta]

a Nuclear War . Due to the EMP and high radiation levels digicams will not work !
Ok , film cameras will have "some stars" on the pictures but they will work .

Ok , a more realsitic issue , with film you have the option to make pictures that represent your taste , by this i mean playing with the chemicals (concentration/timing) when developing the photos , you can add "effects" .

I guess you can do similair things with PS but that is not the same , you would miss the "feeling" .

regards

How long until traditional film cameras are not even considered an
option by the average buyer?

After reading these statistics it makes me wonder if its not
already almost their
http://www.bytephoto.com/showarticle.php?s=&threadid=882

 

[BobTrips]

There is an assumption that everyone is PC and digital savvy, it is
simply not the case. There will continue to be a market for film.
It will be up to Kodak, Fuji & Canon etc to switch everyone over
to desirable digital products that are so easy to use that people
will absolutely want digital over film. It just has not happened
yet. Relatively few really have time for all this digital post
editing. If you take the PC out of the equation and simply have
the picture takers go to the WalMart Kiosk, there are still so many
people around who would not be able to handle getting the pics off
the camera or flash memory and into the lab, these are people who
would simply prefer to shoot a couple rolls of film and take them
in for developing. I guess it can happen, eventually.

Taking your flash card in and simply having the pictures printed has been an option for some time. One of our local camera shops has been offering this service for over a couple of years. Take in your card, they'll copy the files, pick up your prints in an hour.

Right now one can take their flash card to some place such as Costco, slip it in a reader (the staff will assist you with this difficult task), choose those images that you want printed by touching them on the screen, pick your finished prints up a bit later.

Editing in computer is a digital bonus. The option to 'shoot and print' is viable for those who don't want to be bothered to work on their images.

Kodak has to figure out how to get people to spend just as much if
not more, doing it the digital way as compared with the film and
chemical way, and to use Kodak products in doing so. And they need
to do it fast. They need a line of printers which need to
outperform others, more compelling products than what we see now.
How are they going to do that? The photo places need to be using
Kodak equipment, I don't always see that they are. Kodak probably
still needs people to desire and use film products for the
forseeable future. One thing is for certain -- market share for
film products isn't going to be increasing. Rather, it is a
question of how rapidly it will be declining. But that is a long
way from saying it's all over. The folks at Kodak must be going
crazy

I suspect the folks at Kodak have been asleep. Fuji is dominating the in-store printing business with Noritsu coming in second. Kodak has placed some print consoles in places such as Kmart but done little to educate the public about their use. I've walked past one a few times, never seen anyone use it. It actually looks more like a shipping carton that got left out at the end of the aisle.

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Two Hours in Delhi'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.

 

[W Fenn]

Some people just haven't realised it yet. The MAJORITY of new camera buyers will not even consider a film camera at this point. The ghost of film is floating around out there somewhere but it is fading fast. Hasta la vista baby - or something like that.

Regards,
W Fenn
http://www.fennfoto.com

 

[xenon101]

I think you have to look at different markets. For most "young" photographers (under age 40), and a large segment of the professional market - yes film is a dead issue except for certain areas that require a medium or large format camera.

However, there is still a very large group of people who continue to use film - including point-and-shoot, and one-use cameras. Switching these people to digital is difficult for a number of factors: 1). they don't own a computer and digital anything is difficult for them to use. 2). if they own a computer they don't want to spend the time learning how to get photos "out" of the camera and printed. 3.) they are occasional snap shooters who can't justify the cost or time involment for going to digital.

My wife has been photographing for 25 years. She's comfortable with her Nikon FM2 and sees no need to switch to digital. She owns the camera, two lenses and doesn't want to think about spending money on another camera or body. Also, she would much rather drop a roll of film at the photo lab and pick up prints the next day. Her attitude is that she can be doing something else while the lab is making the prints for her.

Lastly, there is still a core group of photographers who enjoy working with the film process and equipment - and have little interest in digital cameras. You wanted a prediction? I think you'll still see film readily available for at least 20 or more years.

And, after that? It will still be available in selected sizes because of a "niche" demand for the product. Will Kodak and Fuji still be in the film business - don't know. Will someone still be manufacturing film? Yes. Will some people still be using film? Yes.

Finally, there is the issue of storage. While some people postulate that even those with no computers can make digital photos, the question still is how do you store the files for a long period of time? While CD's are currently a popular storage medium, there is a high probability that within the next 5-10 years they will be eclipsed by a better technology as the storage medium of choice. Also, cheap cd's have been shown to degrade over time - I doubt most mass processing services use gold-based (archival) cd's. While many people are rapidly jumping on the digital band wagon - my feeling is that 10 years from now, many will not be able to read/retrieve/print the pictures they are taking today.

 

[JayC]

Forbes,

Just saw an add in the latest "People" mag for a Sony Cybershot 5Mb camera using of course their memory stick. The add pictures Sony's printer alongside the camera. You take the memory stick out of the camera insert it in the printer and out pops as many 4x6's as you want.

Don't know the prices but they're going to drop. If I recall correctly Kodak is offering something similar.

JayC

Kodak has to figure out how to get people to spend just as much if
not more, doing it the digital way as compared with the film and
chemical way, and to use Kodak products in doing so. And they need
to do it fast. They need a line of printers which need to
outperform others, more compelling products than what we see now.
How are they going to do that? The photo places need to be using
Kodak equipment, I don't always see that they are. Kodak probably
still needs people to desire and use film products for the
forseeable future. One thing is for certain -- market share for
film products isn't going to be increasing. Rather, it is a
question of how rapidly it will be declining. But that is a long
way from saying it's all over. The folks at Kodak must be going
crazy. Don F.

Not until the prices of dSLR's have to come down very close to the
prices where film SLR's are and cropping factors go out the door.
That's what is holding me back right now. Even $900 is too much
for a digital Rebel, although it is a good value considering how
much other dSLR's cost in comparison.

So, would you describe yourself as a low volume shooter? If so,
sticking with film makes sense (if you don't mind spending time
scanning...).

If one shoots even a couple of rolls a month then it only takes a
couple of years to make up the difference between a film and a
digital body. (Hardly any time if you factor in the cost of a
scanner.)

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Two Hours in Delhi'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.

--
Don F.

 

[JayC]

Pgrupp,

I just read all the postings including Fantta's who doesn't want to "miss the feeling" of the darkroom. Thirty years ago, I did B&W processing in my darkroom. I miss the occasion when (using a churchkey) I slashed my hands opening negative container. I miss the smell of sodium thiosulfate and acetic acid. I miss the ambience of the red lights.

For anyone who likes to shoot and shoot, unless they have big bucks, digital is the only way to go. Furthermore, digital processing, ie photoshop, is tons more expressive and controllable than any wet lab. That's why so much film gets scanned into a computer.

I say just eliminate the first step (film) ... or maybe if your that much of a purist, go back to working with glass plates and fulminate of mercury.

JayC

And to be fair, there are certain applications, typically involving
6x7cm and large format cameras, where digital is not making inroads
very quickly yet.

But go to any tourist destination, and you'll see the battle is
essentially over. Ditto for photojournalism, and increasingly,
portraiture, weddings, and events.

Regards,
Paul
http://www.pbase.com/pgrupp

How long until traditional film cameras are not even considered an
option by the average buyer?

After reading these statistics it makes me wonder if its not
already almost their
http://www.bytephoto.com/showarticle.php?s=&threadid=882

--

 

[Forbes]

I have used the Kodak kiosk during some promotional periods, it works just fine and we were able to scan & reproduce things with Kodak-like results - it's a special dedicated PC/HP printer/scanner (and probably now, a card reader). I am not nixing this idea, it is just that there is a huge segment of people who don't want to do anything but turn in a disposable camera or film (or hand over a camera to the person behind the counter) and get their pictures back. Here's a thought - has it come along yet? A disposable (re-useable) digital camera (the housing could be replaced if needed), the battery is replaced or re-charged, and it goes back to Kodak or Kodak-sponsored process centers for the developing and servicing. No film at the camera end and they could even do away with chemicals at the print end if they feel that has to be.

I've seen the little 4x6 picture printer-docking units, I'm not too impressed. Seems hoplessly intricate -- I mean, it doesn't look like a long life product, and the images left me wanting.

No I agree - the WalMart or Costco or local camera store print center solution for printing pictures is pretty neat, I have just started using the system and I posess the printer and special papers at home (I've done lots of home-grown graphics printing in the past) so I have a choice. Right now, I'm choosing the photo-center.

We'll see where it all leads. Film sales are on the decline and it is a dilemma for the film manufacturers to save their sorry as@#s to foster growth in a massive industry that is changing so rapidly. I don't want to see film go away but keep in mind it has to be economically viable for the producers.

I think Kodak had something to do with the invention of digital picture taking. Go figure. Don Forbes

Just saw an add in the latest "People" mag for a Sony Cybershot 5Mb
camera using of course their memory stick. The add pictures Sony's
printer alongside the camera. You take the memory stick out of the
camera insert it in the printer and out pops as many 4x6's as you
want.
Don't know the prices but they're going to drop. If I recall
correctly Kodak is offering something similar.

JayC

Kodak has to figure out how to get people to spend just as much if
not more, doing it the digital way as compared with the film and
chemical way, and to use Kodak products in doing so. And they need
to do it fast. They need a line of printers which need to
outperform others, more compelling products than what we see now.
How are they going to do that? The photo places need to be using
Kodak equipment, I don't always see that they are. Kodak probably
still needs people to desire and use film products for the
forseeable future. One thing is for certain -- market share for
film products isn't going to be increasing. Rather, it is a
question of how rapidly it will be declining. But that is a long
way from saying it's all over. The folks at Kodak must be going
crazy. Don F.

Not until the prices of dSLR's have to come down very close to the
prices where film SLR's are and cropping factors go out the door.
That's what is holding me back right now. Even $900 is too much
for a digital Rebel, although it is a good value considering how
much other dSLR's cost in comparison.

So, would you describe yourself as a low volume shooter? If so,
sticking with film makes sense (if you don't mind spending time
scanning...).

If one shoots even a couple of rolls a month then it only takes a
couple of years to make up the difference between a film and a
digital body. (Hardly any time if you factor in the cost of a
scanner.)

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Two Hours in Delhi'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.

--
Don F.

--
Don F.

 

[Forbes]

My younger grandson had a birthday in July. There was the usual
mayhem of grandparents, great-grandparents, aunts, uncles and
parents. The year before it was 80% film, 20% digital. This year
it was 100% digital. I took that to be a sign of the times.

Someone mentioned that the average Joe is not computer savvy. I
think us digital geeks forget that not everyone runs their photos
through PS or some other editor before taking them to Wally world
or printing them out on their printer. Yes, with a little work
some of the images would look a lot better, but from what I've
seen, the output from their digital P&S is so far superior to the
average film P&S that they're just tickled with what they get
straight out of the camera.

I'm the one who said that but it's been addressed I think and the points you make are viable ones. I do agree with the "economy of scale" I was trying to go there but you said it more clearly. I still think there will be film but the "digital critical mass" thing is real. for the point & shooters who do not under any circumstances want to manage files in their PC or who don't have a PC there needs to be a good way to archive the photos. So I guess they must order a CD at the same time they drop off their images for processing. Now, they are into storing individual CDs rather than envelopes of negatives. I guess it works. The high cost of a roll of film will seal the deal for the mass market. For the last couple of years, the film mfgrs have been giving film away in 5-packs, discount prices - I still have some collecting dust. I don't know what it's selling for now but probably the same. The processing is $4 - $8 per roll or so. I suppose the prices including the CD are compatible for digital vs film rolls & developing right now.

What about all the Hassleblad folks out there, or Hassleblad-type cameras - there are some good ones and they make great photos. They will be around for a long while. A lot of it will have to do with the cost, I think you have a point. But at this moment I don't think film will disappear.

My big concern is the economy of scale. From what I know of the
process, making film is only economical when done in large
quantities. Also, it is a perishable item. I'm afraid we're
nearing digital critical mass and that film will disappear as
quickly as LP's did. BTW, you can still buy LP's of some releases,
but they cost $35. How long will it be before a roll of TMax will
cost $20?

Doug

How long until traditional film cameras are not even considered an
option by the average buyer?

After reading these statistics it makes me wonder if its not
already almost their
http://www.bytephoto.com/showarticle.php?s=&threadid=882

--
Don F.

 

[BobTrips]

.... Here's a thought - has it come along yet? A disposable
(re-useable) digital camera (the housing could be replaced if
needed), the battery is replaced or re-charged, and it goes back to
Kodak or Kodak-sponsored process centers for the developing and
servicing. No film at the camera end and they could even do away
with chemicals at the print end if they feel that has to be.

Disposable digitals have been out for a while. I believe that they are available at Ritz stores among others. Personally I don't think that disposable digitals have much future. Two meg digitals are already approaching the $100 price level.

As for Kodak's future, it seems to me that large US companies often lack foresight.

Look at how the Asian car manufacturers have captured such a large percentage of US car sales because they produced fuel efficient and reliable vehicles while Detroit continued to turn out over-sized and "planned obsolesce" units.

Look how the large steel manufacturers have gone under because they failed to move to more energy efficient production techniques.

Perhaps it's not just a US phenomenon but happens with many large, once successful companies. Success can lead to complacency and as you sit back and watch the profits roll in you fail to see the innovation coming that will undercut your future.

Kodak had the opportunity to become a major player in digital. They produced the first dSRLs and are producing the highest resolution dSLR on the market today. But they don't seem to be pursuing the market with the vigor that will make them a winner.

IMO they need to deliver a 14n that will produce great images at a higher ISO and is as feature rich as the Canon 1Ds and hold their current pricing level, even if it means taking a significant loss per unit. By doing so they will pick up a lot of pros and landscape photographers who need more resolution than the 10D/D100/S2 can deliver.

They need to bring an APS sized 6-8 meg, Nikon mount dSLR to the market and sell it below $1k. They need a 'first step' digital that will let Nikon lens people purchase Kodak and become 'brand loyal'.

They need to deliver a strong statement of "Quality" so that people will take their consumer cameras seriously. Canon must sell millions of A70s, etc. because "the big boys shoot Canons".

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Two Hours in Delhi'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.

 

[BobTrips]

What about all the Hassleblad folks out there, or Hassleblad-type
cameras - there are some good ones and they make great photos. They
will be around for a long while. A lot of it will have to do with
the cost, I think you have a point. But at this moment I don't
think film will disappear.

You might want to spend some time reading forum posts at http://www.luminous-landscape.com . Folks seem to be moving away from medium format film cameras quite rapidly.

For the typical pro the film/dev cost savings and scanning time savings that one gets from a 14n/1Ds/MF digital back quickly pays for the camera. When your studio spends thousands of dollars per month on film/dev and dozens of employee hours per month scanning film the digital decision becomes easy.

MF film will linger for the weekend landscape photographer who makes a few shots a year that get printed large. But my guess is that within 5 years we will see 'affordable' 10+ meg cameras and only the die-hards will stay with film.

There were some great plow horses too but people switched to tractors. You can still find plow horses if you look. People keep them as hobbies, often at great expense.

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Two Hours in Delhi'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.

 

[Adam65058]

fannta,

a Nuclear War . Due to the EMP and high radiation levels digicams
will not work !
Ok , film cameras will have "some stars" on the pictures but they
will work .

I suspect the camera's film would be immediately exposed by the radiation/heat blast. (You'd probably die very quickly as well.) So, mechanically, the camera might work except that most SLRs have CPUs in them that wouldn't work thereby rendering the camera inoperative anyway. It would be difficult to snap the picture at about 2000 degrees...

I don't know for sure, but I suspect a film SLR would be just as useless as a digicam in that case. Hey...let's try it! Anyone have a nuke we can detonate to try this?

Adam