How long do we get to keep film ?

T

Tricky69

Messages
600
Edit My Images
Yes
Just wondering ...

It seems more often we get a post that this film or that is being discontinued.

Then we get posts that 'film will never die' !
so what's the current thinking ?

I keep buying/collecting film cameras when I see them, but if film is realy dieing in the foreseeable future, then I am seeing a need to dump my collection !

I still plan to build a LF camera and make my own glass plates up, but I dont want to get left with a load of old 35/110/aps etc etc. with no film to go in them.

how long do you think we 'got left' ?

Rich
 
It's a completely speculative, impossible to predict possibility. Some people think it is already dead, "you can still get film?!" being common uttered, and some think it will be around forever (diehards). If you asked people 10 years ago - when digital (Nikon D1 et al.) really started hitting viable usability in the professional world - if film would still be around today, a lot of them would've said no!

Just shoot it and enjoy and buy whilst it is here. Besides, film gear seems to be going up in value at present rather than down, and old film lenses will always hold value to the crowd that uses adapters on SLRs and mirrorless cameras.
 
I don't think that film will die in my lifetime now. I get the impression from reading articles that the decline seems to have bottomed out and if anything is very slightly back on the increase. We've already seen the demise of Polaroid and its resurrection as the Impossible Project films and again recently the return of 110 film from the lovely folk at Lomo, love em or hate em they are partially responsible for the continued interest in film.

So I don't think I need to order the hearse and flowers for film yet but I'm not holding my breath for the return of Kodachrome.
 
RaglanSurf said:
I don't think that film will die in my lifetime now. I get the impression from reading articles that the decline seems to have bottomed out and if anything is very slightly back on the increase. We've already seen the demise of Polaroid and its resurrection as the Impossible Project films and again recently the return of 110 film from the lovely folk at Lomo, love em or hate em they are partially responsible for the continued interest in film.

So I don't think I need to order the hearse and flowers for film yet but I'm not holding my breath for the return of Kodachrome.
Click to expand...


Kodachrome (swoon). Seriously though, it's been said..just enjoy it. I've found it has improved my shot making. Gotta think more. Take more time. Let's. Slow. Things. Down....zzz
 
I think I said this last time this came up, but I've enough film in the freezer to last me something like 68 years at my current shooting rate. By that time, I'll be a canny old bugger and I doubt I'll be too worried about my next roll of velvia.
 
TheBigYin said:
I think I said this last time this came up, but I've enough film in the freezer to last me something like 68 years at my current shooting rate. By that time, I'll be a canny old bugger and I doubt I'll be too worried about my next roll of velvia.
Click to expand...

yes but do you have all the developer etc. you need for 68 years? If film did die then the surrounding supporting stuff won't be long to follow.

On a more positive note, I exposed my first shot on 120 film today in a borrowed Mamiya 645. That viewfinder is amazing!
 
Bennp2000 said:
yes but do you have all the developer etc. you need for 68 years? If film did die then the surrounding supporting stuff won't be long to follow.

On a more positive note, I exposed my first shot on 120 film today in a borrowed Mamiya 645. That viewfinder is amazing!
Click to expand...

I managed to acquire an old kodak book with the recipes for all of their developers (at the time) so looking at the recipes we could make our own, most of the components are fairly common
Even if we have to stoop to Caffenol :puke:
 
You can still buy records, ride horses, light fires..Film will be around for a long long time, whether it's of the flavour you want is another matter.
 
Edtog said:
You can still buy records, ride horses, light fires..Film will be around for a long long time, whether it's of the flavour you want is another matter.
Click to expand...

Whilst all of that is true, film is significantly more difficult to manufacture than say a record - and a lot more difficult to do on a small scale, unlike records which can (and often are) done in small batches of pressings. Part of Kodak's problem today is that they increased and made their facilities very efficient for a huge film market, so when digital arrived they were ill equipped to shrink down.
 
erm....and the problem is the capitalist system where money comes first, but maybe the Chinese will continue to supply film for the foreseeable future.
 
The problem isn't the capitalist system. It's that digital is a lot less bother! It was ages before I switched but now I just wouldn't go back. Before with film I'd have to wait a week to be disappointed with the results. Now I can be disappointed instantly :D

Unless someone does produce film in smaller batches for a reasonable price it will just die out as ultimately you can process RAW files to give any filmy kind of look you want.
 
srichards said:
Unless someone does produce film in smaller batches for a reasonable price it will just die out as ultimately you can process RAW files to give any filmy kind of look you want.
Click to expand...



If you accept the idea that digital processing will replace film, (I don't), but if you did, it would be a mistake to think that that was the only element to consider.
 
As long as there's a market for it i think there will be black and white film. It could easily be a backyard business, like microbreweries. Colour film is a lot more complex, but there are a lot of people in the business with the know how who are in it for the love of film - if the large companies do eventually shut down then i can see some of them at least attempting to start something up on their own, Impossible Project style.

It may eventually turn out that the limiting factor in terms of time won't be the availability of film, but the availability of film cameras. Sure, there's a huge amount of them going on the bay. The well made ones can last decades, even some over a century old are still functional (which is due in part to the beautiful simplicity of them). But they can't last forever. There may as well be none being produced now, considering the scarcity and cost. Sure, you can make a pinhole out of anything. But do you think any small company would be able to come up with a simple design, manufacture it for a low enough cost and end up with a camera that people might actually want to use every day?
 
Superewza said:
It may eventually turn out that the limiting factor in terms of time won't be the availability of film, but the availability of film cameras.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly. However despite the recent revival (let's keep talking it up :naughty:) in film there is still a seemingly inexhaustible supply of relatively cheap old cameras on ebay and elsewhere, and no doubt many more sitting in cupboards unused and waiting for the call to come.

I myself have 5 Nikon bodies (I may narrow that down soon ;)). They're hard as nails. I'm pretty confident that if I look after them they'll probably continue to work under gentle amateur conditions and the odd service for the next 50 years, no bother. Discounting the more modern generations of cameras, many of these are very simple mechanical beasts which can be fixed if necessary. If not, there are plenty of others out there to keep those of us who have an interest in relatively affordable cameras.

What we are actually seeing if anything is a preservation too - none of these tough old cameras are being put through the rigours of professional use any more, but they are being repaired, serviced and maintained. I think we're going to be OK for cameras for a while longer. And if they weren't available I'd probably be looking at a nice new one, of which there are still a few being made.

The whole film photography lifecycle - including processing - is still going through the transition from mainstream to niche, but I'm pretty confident it will survive for the large part, as long as we just keep doing it.

A final thought: the internet has a large part in preserving niches these days - we have access to cameras, lenses, film, developing services, camera repair facilities and like minded people (e.g. us) that were not available 20 years ago. That will go a long way towards keeping it relatively easy for us all to keep shooting film and keep it alive.
 
Last edited:
srichards said:
The problem isn't the capitalist system. It's that digital is a lot less bother! It was ages before I switched but now I just wouldn't go back. Before with film I'd have to wait a week to be disappointed with the results. Now I can be disappointed instantly :D

Unless someone does produce film in smaller batches for a reasonable price it will just die out as ultimately you can process RAW files to give any filmy kind of look you want.
Click to expand...

For every photographer that wants instant gratification there is, as you say, digital. Most (and I include myself here) "filmies" will have digital and film cameras in their bags and for each there are good and bad points - but they are not replacements for each other - a film shot is not a digital shot and a digital shot will never be a film shot, no matter the processing used. It is the way of things to be superceded by more efficient options - but I would seriously doubt that digital replaces film at all levels, more the two methods are complementary.
 
srichards said:
Unless someone does produce film in smaller batches for a reasonable price it will just die out as ultimately you can process RAW files to give any filmy kind of look you want.
Click to expand...

Whilst I partially agree with this, I (personally) regarding film photography is far more than just the end image (although obviously this is quite important!). I enjoy using the cameras, the tactileness of it all, wet printing is often very rewarding as is developing and seeing the images appear out of a liquid solution.

I am no stranger to digital - and I definitely admire the results that my D7000 can achieve, and in some situations that would be my go-to camera - but there is so much more to this hobby (y)
 
I've been really surprised by the turn around that I personally have experienced during my time shooting pictures.
I can actually say that I've shot more film than digital despite being introduced to photography initially through digital cameras.
I've shot digital professionally, alongside film as a hobbiest, and now that I don't shoot for money any more, I don't shoot digital for anything.

To a certain extent its true to say digital has killed film photography, on the other hand film photography now relies on digital to keep it alive, the more people attracted to the convenience of digital, the more people will discover film and generate interest in it.
Success will depend on those people realising that the two mediums are completely different things, its why I can't agree with the idea that digital will replace film entirely, with three twiddles of a PS brush.
 
That's it - exactly - Oil Painting didn't stop, just because they came up with Acrylics...
 
TheBigYin said:
That's it - exactly - Oil Painting didn't stop, just because they came up with Acrylics...
Click to expand...

This is very true, but a lot of those folk using Acrylics would tut every time someone insisted on using oils, "it's so old fashioned, it's so slow, what's the point?"
 
I've only been into film for a couple of years, and in that short time, Ive seen the price of film double, and any decent camera equipment gone up by much much more.

I think there will come a time where "I" won't get to keep film ,as I just won't be able to afford it. :shrug:
 
Tricky69 said:
I've only been into film for a couple of years, and in that short time, Ive seen the price of film double, and any decent camera equipment gone up by much much more.

I think there will come a time where "I" won't get to keep film ,as I just won't be able to afford it. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Yes, when my back-ordered Provia 100f came through from 7dayshop at over £8 I'm starting to have the heebie jeebies too...

OTOH for me the point of film is to relearn the basics of photography, so I'll stick with it for a while... :wacky:
 
Tricky69 said:
I've only been into film for a couple of years, and in that short time, Ive seen the price of film double, and any decent camera equipment gone up by much much more.

I think there will come a time where "I" won't get to keep film ,as I just won't be able to afford it. :shrug:
Click to expand...


Allowing say £1000 for a "decent camera" and another £1000 for a "decent" computer to look at/process the pics, and maybe £500 minimum for a "decent" printer - how long will it take to equalise that price increase to bring film up to the price of digital? Even allowing for commercial film developing I suggest it will be a long time indeed.


And that's just the costs. How many digital images result in a tangible picture rather than pixels on a screen... this to me is the greatest loss because without actual pictures you can touch, show around, stick in a box under the bed, those images in digital format will be lost. Be it 5000 on a CD misplaced, a whole lifetime gone in a computer crash, a folder full accidentally deleted - and we've all done it haven't we?


Yet ~I still have pictures of myself and my family from way back, pictures I can pass around, show people, show my children. Pictures I can digitise if I want - so making them as good as a digital image. Pictures of my distant relatives, my grandfather/grandmother - and theirs too, holiday snaps, school end of year pictures, and so on. Not until the digital systems can reproduce this tangible touchableness can they ever be said to be ready to actually replace (as opposed to exist alongside) film.


Yes, some get printed but the charm of film is they all got printed, all physically exist even if only as a negative - they can be tucked away for the future, safe in the knowledge that nothing short of major catastrophe will stop them existing.


I love the immediacy of digital, the simple fact that I can click away merrily until the card is full taking many images just because I can. This for me is the plus of digital, the accessibility of image taking. Film is different, it makes you consider, to think, to slow down... but in honesty sometimes that's a pain in the backside when everything happens at once! Horse for course really - which is why for me digital cannot replace film - only complement it as another tool in the game... which for me means the film is used less than the digital, but it *will* always be there just the same. For the sake of guaranteed longevity... I can slow down a bit when I have to :D
 
Last edited:
Ambermile said:
Allowing say £1000 for a "decent camera" and another £1000 for a "decent" computer to look at/process the pics, and maybe £500 minimum for a "decent" printer - how long will it take to equalise that price increase to bring film up to the price of digital? Even allowing for commercial film developing I suggest it will be a long time indeed.


And that's just the costs. How many digital images result in a tangible picture rather than pixels on a screen... this to me is the greatest loss because without actual pictures you can touch, show around, stick in a box under the bed, those images in digital format will be lost. Be it 5000 on a CD misplaced, a whole lifetime gone in a computer crash, a folder full accidentally deleted - and we've all done it haven't we?


Yet ~I still have pictures of myself and my family from way back, pictures I can pass around, show people, show my children. Pictures I can digitise if I want - so making them as good as a digital image. Pictures of my distant relatives, my grandfather/grandmother - and theirs too, holiday snaps, school end of year pictures, and so on. Not until the digital systems can reproduce this tangible touchableness can they ever be said to be ready to actually replace (as opposed to exist alongside) film.


Yes, some get printed but the charm of film is they all got printed, all physically exist even if only as a negative - they can be tucked away for the future, safe in the knowledge that nothing short of major catastrophe will stop them existing.


I love the immediacy of digital, the simple fact that I can click away merrily until the card is full taking many images just because I can. This for me is the plus of digital, the accessibility of image taking. Film is different, it makes you consider, to think, to slow down... but in honesty sometimes that's a pain in the backside when everything happens at once! Horse for course really - which is why for me digital cannot replace film - only complement it as another tool in the game... which for me means the film is used less than the digital, but it *will* always be there just the same. For the sake of guaranteed longevity... I can slow down a bit when I have to :D
Click to expand...

Well for a start, 'we' already have computers/printers/scanners etc etc, most of us have a digi camera too. Even if we don't, a decent camera can be had for a couple of hundred (doesn't have to be new), as can a computer (even a new one). Printers can be had new for a few tens of pounds. All the above getting cheaper too !

How many film images get to see paper these days ? Those that do, have now become even more expensive . more and more are just being scanned, so that argument starts to go out the window. The images will be all in a cyber world of flickr sites and forums :) so , no ! not lost with a computer crash etc.

Dont get me wrong, I love film too, I'm just saying I can see the cost per shot getting to be a luxury, rather than a hobby !
 
Tricky69 said:
Well for a start, 'we' already have computers/printers/scanners etc etc, most of us have a digi camera too. Even if we don't, a decent camera can be had for a couple of hundred (doesn't have to be new), as can a computer (even a new one). Printers can be had new for a few tens of pounds. All the above getting cheaper too !

How many film images get to see paper these days ? Those that do, have now become even more expensive . more and more are just being scanned, so that argument starts to go out the window. The images will be all in a cyber world of flickr sites and forums :) so , no ! not lost with a computer crash etc.

Dont get me wrong, I love film too, I'm just saying I can see the cost per shot getting to be a luxury, rather than a hobby !
Click to expand...

Point is, you already had means it's still a cost to be considered - not that I'm going to fight about it. *All* film shots are developed as negatives - I never said printed as pictures. A decent film camera can be had for pennies, film is still cheap (£1 a roll in some cases) unless you want esoteric qualities - on a par with more expensive digi cameras maybe? And do you really want to put your images' future on the rigours of an online website that could disappear? Even then, it's only the "best" ones, not all the odd shots that make photography fun.
 
I think we may be in violent agreement here! Film is not cheap, although it could be argued you can buy a lot of film and processing plus a decent camera for the price of top digital camera. We do film because... insert reason here. For me:

- to slow down
- to relearn the basics
- to shot black and white (yes, I know I COULD with digital)
- to get back in touch with something I once knew
- to provide some sort of continuity
- for the look and feel of the image...

... and more. Yes, many of those reasons are near clones, but for me they have subtle differences.

Besides, if I didn't shoot some film I wouldn't get to chat with you mad lot, now would I?
 
srichards said:
The problem isn't the capitalist system.
Click to expand...


What about asset stripping....a small company is doing well, a bigger company takes them over and then decides to streamline/merge for bigger profits and many of the original products are discontinued OR just as bad is:- after take over, the small company's profits go to pay for losses elsewhere :thumbsdown:
 
ChrisR said:
I think we may be in violent agreement here! Film is not cheap, although it could be argued you can buy a lot of film and processing plus a decent camera for the price of top digital camera. We do film because... insert reason here. For me:

- to slow down
- to relearn the basics
- to shot black and white (yes, I know I COULD with digital)
- to get back in touch with something I once knew
- to provide some sort of continuity
- for the look and feel of the image...

... and more. Yes, many of those reasons are near clones, but for me they have subtle differences.

Besides, if I didn't shoot some film I wouldn't get to chat with you mad lot, now would I?
Click to expand...

Oh yes. For me it's number 1 followed by number 1 followed by....you get the idea
It also gives me the opportunity to shoot Medium Format at affordable levels. I'd never manage to buy MF digital, and even if I could I don't believe I'd have anything like as much fun..
 
The one thing about film which digital can't seem to do genuinely is multiple exposures on one frame at seperate times with the true exposure mixing.

I found an old film roll where I'd done this. Probably accidentally but it is something completely different to the photoshop produced idea of multiple exposures.
 
Fishing can be as cheap or as expensive a hobby as you choose it to be.

In fact, besides tooth pick collecting I can't think of a hobby that couldn't potentially be silly expensive.

Its about priorities, I shall sell my digi gear to get the money to pay for film and processing, just as long as I can keep my radios.....and.........house.:)

oh and our lass

:LOL:
 
Aslong as film is around, I'll be making the most of it!

If it "dies", it'll be a shame! I can't see that happening for a fair few years to come but then I think, 'what do I kno?' I hope it lasts :}
 
Last edited:
The article in AP recently about Bailey was quite interesting. He said he pushed things further with film because he had no idea whether he'd got what he wanted. With digital you can check the screen and see straight away so you stop when you've got what you want. Think he still shoots film. I'm sure he'd kick up a fuss if film stopped being available :)
 
joxby said:
If you accept the idea that digital processing will replace film, (I don't), but if you did, it would be a mistake to think that that was the only element to consider.
Click to expand...

I agree.

I see film photography as encompassing both 'art' and 'craft', whereas digital photography involves (to my mind) 'art' and 'science' :LOL:.

(Good) Fine art photography, made with medium/large format film, optically enlarged and printed out on high grade photographic paper is truly a joy to behold, not least of all for the craftsmanship that goes into getting it just right :). It's my photographic ambition to be able to, one day, produce a few such prints - even if they will look the same on a computer screen as the .jpeg from a DSLR :shrug:.
 
I never intended this thread to be in any way a film V's Digi fight !

Like I said in my 1st post, I plan to make a large format camera, and probably make my own glass plates and emulsions.
I have a dark room, and could probably make my own paper too.

I really like 'wet' photography, but already, at the moment at least, I can't afford to buy 10 rolls of 120, like I used to. I just don't have the money. :thumbsdown:
 
Film is definitely dying a little this year, so many losses of good film in the last months.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top