how long will they keep producing?

L

lawless23456

Messages
261
Name
lawrence
Edit My Images
Yes
hi all

whilst having a conversation with my fiances aunty and nan it came up that her nan should upgrade to a digital camera from her film camera as they both seemed to think that they will soon stop producing film, whilst i thought this was entirely untrue, so my question is how long do we think they will keep producing films for? or will it be indefinately, perhaps they will slow down the rate at which they produce them?

lawless
 
I think they'll stop making film when the sun turns into a red giant and envelopes the Earth.
If not then, shortly after it for certain.

Seriously though, whilst ever there is a market, they will produce it, film production has already slowed, manufacturers monitor sales and will cut a film line when it isn't proffitable.
On the other hand, they still R & D and introduce new films as replacements all the time.
There are some things that only film will do for.
Personally, I think I will have been dead a long time by the time they stop producing any film at all.
 
I am sure I read an article that said that one of the film companies was actually increasing film production as demand has increased over the last couple of years
 
I'm sure that's probably true, when digital began to get competitive, it was seen generally as the second coming of the messiah.
We've had time to evaluate it from all angles and it turns out it isn't "all that" to a lot of peeps.
Another factor is the peeps that wouldn't have got interested in any kind of photography were it not for digital, now taking it step further and exploring other avenues of photo production.
So there's a demand for film right there that wouldn't exist without digital beginners.
 
joxby said:
Another factor is the peeps that wouldn't have got interested in any kind of photography were it not for digital, now taking it step further and exploring other avenues of photo production.
So there's a demand for film right there that wouldn't exist without digital beginners.
Click to expand...

That would be me, started off a couple of years ago with a 400D and now starting to try film. From the small amount of film I've done i think im preffering it to digital for landscapes and stuff like that but would never get rid of my Dslr, I could never shoot sports with film.
 
I am old enough that I can reasonably expect that film production will last as long as I will.
 
More expensive I'd guess, as less of it gets done then the economies of scale reduce. In AP this week Kodak report an increase in sales of B&W film but I doubt it would bring costs of developing down, besides a lot of people are trying their own B&W developing as the experiment with film as this forum will testify.
 
I've recently tested the water in film, proving to be a mite mor interesting than digital!
 
I give it 10 years tops and all major production will stop

Digital is advancing at an astounding pace, and some companies (i.e. DxO) can produce software that mimics film anyway

I'm guessing that within those 10 years we'll have dynamic ranges well in excess of film's capabilities, and resolution is already above

While there will always be a die-hard Pro and enthusiast love for film, there'll be a point where the shareholders see that producing milk-cartons (or something) will be more profitable and the plug will be pulled

There may continue a small market (relatively) for those die-hards, but everything film-wise will get more expensive, and eventually even the specialist smaller producers will disappear

I just can't see the 'romance' of smelly chemicals, working in the dark and having to wait to see if you shot crap/brill images capturing younger photographers

:(

DD
 
Aha - this is turning into the old Digital v Film war. Complete tosh is generally spoken on both sides. DiddyDave is quite right - if you don't like smelly chemicals then don't use them but enjoy using your digital camera. Enjoyment/pleasure is what photography is for 95% of people and I hate when I see so called experts brow-beating about the "best" method - it's all so much tosh. I am a 'die-hard' luddite when it comes to my own photography because I work with computers all day so the last thing I want to do when I'm enjoying a bit of quality time is to be playing with chips and pixels. I have a foot in both camps and know the advantages of both but I would never criticise anyone for their choice of camera.
Anyway, having got that off my chest (!) film should be good for ten years. I reckon colour neg will go first as it offers so little compared to digital, E6 will be next because of the complications of production and processing. BW...hmm..hopefully people will still want to play with it for many years to come.
Keep having fun with photography which ever way you do it
 
Why worry? We have film in our freezer that is old enough to vote and it still develops okay.

Just stock up while you can !!
 
well my honest hope is that they will keep producing film for a VERY long time to come yet as i get so much enjoyment out of it, i think when i get my own house i will want to have my own darkroom for developing films and prints, and i think and hope they will keep producing film for as long as there is demand
 
Jayst84 said:
It's not all about dynamic range, or 'that film feel' either, there's still stuff that you can do with a film camera that Photoshop, et al can't.
Click to expand...

While that may be true (and an explanation would help???) the 'end game' will simply come down to profitability

It won't matter how many thousands, tens of thousands or even millions are still using film - all that matters is their profit margin over doing something else, and whether shareholders will stay with them as those margins fall

Those new to photography, whether young or older, don't start with film anymore; more & more Pros are turning to digital too; meaning film is a dying format as it's users change or simply die off!

It will be a sad day when someone picks up a dust covered F6 to explain...

"This is how it used to be done" to a child's disbelief and laughter, but it will come

DD
 
I didn't start with film, in fact, I've never owned a film camera until yesterday. I picked up a cheap Nikon F801s and a roll of Ilford HP5. I just finished shooting and developing my first film this afternoon :) It turned out great! I haven't enlarged the negatives yet but will do this tomorrow.

Could this camera (or a more recent, featured packed film camera - F5 or F6 maybe?) replace my D300? Not a chance. I couldn't afford to go down that route and don't have the time to develop all my own films. However, I find it a fascinating process and it's quite exciting when you're developing a film to see what the results are. It's a lot less immediate than digital, obviously, but in a good way. I'm hoping that some of the techniques I'm going to have to pick up shooting film will rub off on me when I'm shooting digital - ie. slowing down the shot and thinking about it, rather than just blatting off a few frames and picking the best.

I really enjoy working with film - more than I thought I would do - and will be investing in a medium format when any spare money makes itself known. It's doubtful that I would have ventured into using film at all if I hadn't started with digital though.
 
I don't think there is an endgame.
Film production will always be profitable to someone in the same way art supplies are, not everything boils down to commercial endeavour, its just an opinion from a particular angle, not an actuality.
I don't remember the bottom falling out of oil paints with the advent of the camera, and I don't see it falling out of the digital camera scene with the arrival of perfect CG.
Quite what the market will be in the future, who knows, but the next big change is to lose the camera altogether in the commercial arena.
Will that stop peeps shooting digital, or film for that matter in a non commercial environment.....I don't think so.
Film has had to slim down, that is to be expected, its not dying, just cutting its coat to fit the cloth, digital will do the same, in one way or another.
 
DiddyDave said:
While that may be true (and an explanation would help???) the 'end game' will simply come down to profitability

It won't matter how many thousands, tens of thousands or even millions are still using film - all that matters is their profit margin over doing something else, and whether shareholders will stay with them as those margins fall

Those new to photography, whether young or older, don't start with film anymore; more & more Pros are turning to digital too; meaning film is a dying format as it's users change or simply die off!

It will be a sad day when someone picks up a dust covered F6 to explain...

"This is how it used to be done" to a child's disbelief and laughter, but it will come

DD
Click to expand...

i have to disagree with you here, when i did my photography A level the premise was that we would only be using film for the first year and a half and digital prints/shooting would not be accepted until the second half of the final year as they wanted us to learn about film, developing it, making prints etc etc so from a point those kids that take up photography as an A level, or even do a gcse in it at school will be learning film first, now im not sure if learning film first is done right across the board or just the college i was at
 
lawless23456 said:
i have to disagree with you here, when i did my photography A level the premise was that we would only be using film for the first year and a half and digital prints/shooting would not be accepted until the second half of the final year as they wanted us to learn about film, developing it, making prints etc etc so from a point those kids that take up photography as an A level, or even do a gcse in it at school will be learning film first, now im not sure if learning film first is done right across the board or just the college i was at
Click to expand...

We've had over 20 newbies to photography at our camera club in the past 2 years, none has bothered with film and even those still at school didn't bother to do the courses offered. My daughter has mates doing art & photography and they think it's a pain too, to the point of slowing their creativity

I stand by my assertion that the majority of newcomers to photography will never touch film. They will be youngsters, teenagers possibly, who already have computers and digi-phones so are used to the medium. A DSLR is the only obvious extension for those keener to take better pics


And don't for a second think I'm against film, I used it for the first 25 yrs of my photography - I like the idea horse & steam travel too, and we know how common they are now

DD
 
Chris Reed said:
I have never read a more misinformed statement.
Click to expand...


How many togs at this forum do you know that shoot film commercially ?
Now how many togs at this forum do you know that shoot film ?

Nothing is immune to market forces, but its quite clear what I mean.
There are enough togs shooting film for the hell of it, therefore the use of film is not entirely commercially dependant.

I think its mis-interpreted rather than misinformed
 
My kids have no idea what a 33 LP is (12" black vinyl disk with one spiral groove on each side and a label in the middle).

I very much doubt that they'll ever shoot film.

Their kids wont.

Fin
 
I think there might eventually be a slight increase in the use of film or at least a slow down in the slow down if you get what I mean. Not necessarily from the school kids starting formal education but the likes of me who started with digital and became disillusioned with the immediacy of it, digital photography has no soul. The way I feel when I use my Bronica means I could quite hapilly (if not practically) never use my DSLR again.

Whilst the take up of film is nowhere near that of digital the number of people transferring the same way as me on this forum shows there is a growing interest in film.
 
joxby said:
How many togs at this forum do you know that shoot film commercially ?
Now how many togs at this forum do you know that shoot film ?

Nothing is immune to market forces, but its quite clear what I mean.
There are enough togs shooting film for the hell of it, therefore the use of film is not entirely commercially dependant.

I think its mis-interpreted rather than misinformed
Click to expand...

I think any interpretation of that statement it remains misinformed. The basis for human interaction is trying to get something from some some one, and the less you can get this for the better. some people feel shooting film will give them some kind of "street cred" and that iss why they do it, they then trade this for various things, like a snobby attitude towards those who do not shot film, or sexual favors. Sometimes they trade the images for money. All of these would be economic interactions, and determined by various market forces.
 
DiddyDave said:
We've had over 20 newbies to photography at our camera club in the past 2 years, none has bothered with film and even those still at school didn't bother to do the courses offered. My daughter has mates doing art & photography and they think it's a pain too, to the point of slowing their creativity

I stand by my assertion that the majority of newcomers to photography will never touch film. They will be youngsters, teenagers possibly, who already have computers and digi-phones so are used to the medium. A DSLR is the only obvious extension for those keener to take better pics


And don't for a second think I'm against film, I used it for the first 25 yrs of my photography - I like the idea horse & steam travel too, and we know how common they are now

DD
Click to expand...


To be fair, the vast majority wouldn't even be interested in photography were it not for digital, I dunno what that says about the yoof of today, or peeps in general for that matter.
Sometimes I HAVE to get from A to B as quickly as possible (InterCity 125), but when I don't have to, I'd rather go the scenic route by bike.
Do you base your opinion on how much easier digital has made it for you to make money, or do you genuinely feel you've been there, done that and film just isn't for you ?
 
........
 
Chris Reed said:
I think any interpretation of that statement it remains misinformed. The basis for human interaction is trying to get something from some some one, and the less you can get this for the better. some people feel shooting film will give them some kind of "street cred" and that iss why they do it, they then trade this for various things, like a snobby attitude towards those who do not shot film, or sexual favors. Sometimes they trade the images for money. All of these would be economic interactions, and determined by various market forces.
Click to expand...


You've lost me there with the basis for human interaction is to try to get something from someone for nothing...
What's that got to do with shooting some film for fun..:thinking:

yeah I shoot film for street cred, the kids in my street think I'm the dogs *******s walking about with a big square box/lighmeters/checking the wind direction/tripods no preview screen like some kinda weirdo......yeah I'm creded up to the nutz streetwise....fer shure
It must be why peeps do it, I never thought of it that way.



eh...
 
joxby said:
Do you base your opinion on how much easier digital has made it for you to make money, or do you genuinely feel you've been there, done that and film just isn't for you ?
Click to expand...


Interesting question...

Even though I used film for so long I never had the opportunity (or the inclination to be fair) to process it myself. Sure I've been in a darkroom often enough, and witnessed the 'magic' of an image appearing - but it left me cold

As a hobbyist or Pro I'm after only one thing - fab images. Film or Digital is simply a tool to my ends, as it happens, I'm happy with computers, PP and the immediacy of digital in helping me achieve my aim of excellent (well it is my opinion :D) images

It took me quite a long time to 'Go Digi' as for some time I wasn't convinced the quality was there. Then, about the time I was seeing fab digital prints for the first time my lab destroyed 4 rolls of film of about 10 kids shot in the 2nd week of December. There was no way to re-shoot for Christmas for the various families' presents, so in true anger I went out and bought a D100, a much more powerful computer, an A3 printer and Photoshop all in one day. Within just a week I was turning out the same sort of quality I was used to in film, without the perceived hassle and risk of someone else cocking up my work

I've never looked back

Do I love digital then? Not really, it's just a tool. As & when a better one comes along, if it has proven benefits, I'll change again. Then I'll have 2 'Been there, Done that' t-shirts :LOL:

DD
 
lawless23456 said:
the first thing i will do when i have kids is teach them film photography, as soon as they are off age.
Click to expand...

How old do you have to be to be 'of age' for film ???

And how old are they now ???

And lastly... why ???

When they are 17 will you teach them how to ride a horse and cart, or a car?

BTW - not being sarcastic, lippy, etc. just interesting in your thinking :thinking

(y)

DD
 
I started with film and didn't really like it, not sure why just when I started out there was soo much to learn.

Then got a DSLR and learnt more on that about lighting, comp and stuff

Now I've gone back to film mainly cos I like the idea of doing BW at home and feeling part of the photo more, than just a sensor creating the image.

End of the day it's still photography no matter what you pick...........film.......digital
 
DiddyDave said:
Do I love digital then? Not really, it's just a tool. As & when a better one comes along, if it has proven benefits, I'll change again. Then I'll have 2 'Been there, Done that' t-shirts :LOL:

DD
Click to expand...

I know you shoot for fun sometimes, would/could/do you shoot film for fun ?
That question could have already been answered were it not for the fact that "for fun" isn't risking a customers never to be repeated irreplaceable kiddy Christmas shots or the pay cheque for that week.
 
DiddyDave said:
How old do you have to be to be 'of age' for film ???

And how old are they now ???

And lastly... why ???

When they are 17 will you teach them how to ride a horse and cart, or a car?

BTW - not being sarcastic, lippy, etc. just interesting in your thinking :thinking

(y)

DD
Click to expand...

when they are old enough to physically hold the camera and operate it so around 4/5 i guess, because i genuinly believe the more people that teach younger people the magic of film more people can enjoy it, dont get me wrong im not rubbishing digital at all i myself have a d40x, and use it frequently when i need instant results, but i cant get over the excitement i feel when taking pictures with a film SLR in my case a fully manual pentax k1000 of which i have two, one has a broken light meter so use this for night time photography, and i want my children to enjoy this excitement as i do, but i will also teach them digital when they have learnt iso, shutter speeds etc from a fully manual SLR film, baring in mind its up to them if they wish to learn photography at all i do not wish to "ram it down there throat" as such, i do not have kids yet, although my partner and i are trying for a baby and when they are 17 i will not be teaching them to drive anything i will be paying for them to see a driving instructor haha as i myself cannot drive so dont feel i could teach them anything, to anyone reading this thread i love both formats and for as long as physically possible will continue to shoot both, and by physically possible i mean for as long as they keep producing film
 
joxby said:
I know you shoot for fun sometimes, would/could/do you shoot film for fun ?
That question could have already been answered were it not for the fact that "for fun" isn't risking a customers never to be repeated irreplaceable kiddy Christmas shots or the pay cheque for that week.
Click to expand...

Tricky - for fun eh?

Nope, no fun whatsoever to be had from film IMO - but then digital isn't 'fun' as such either

It's all about the image for me, the way to capture it isn't the fun - but the images and fun of shooting is. Shooting film would allow someone else the chance to screw up my holiday snaps, they've done it more than once - they won't get a chance no digital is here

The only way I'd use film now would be for landscape work on MF - but I don't have any such gear, and rarely the time presently to shoot many landscapes; which is okay as I love shooting people more anyway

DD
 
lawless23456 said:
when they are old enough to physically hold the camera and operate it so around 4/5 i guess, because i genuinly believe the more people that teach younger people the magic of film more people can enjoy it, dont get me wrong im not rubbishing digital at all i myself have a d40x, and use it frequently when i need instant results, but i cant get over the excitement i feel when taking pictures with a film SLR in my case a fully manual pentax k1000 of which i have two, one has a broken light meter so use this for night time photography, and i want my children to enjoy this excitement as i do, but i will also teach them digital when they have learnt iso, shutter speeds etc from a fully manual SLR film, baring in mind its up to them if they wish to learn photography at all i do not wish to "ram it down there throat" as such, i do not have kids yet, although my partner and i are trying for a baby and when they are 17 i will not be teaching them to drive anything i will be paying for them to see a driving instructor haha as i myself cannot drive so dont feel i could teach them anything, to anyone reading this thread i love both formats and for as long as physically possible will continue to shoot both, and by physically possible i mean for as long as they keep producing film
Click to expand...



Fair enough

You'll have to report whether they saw the magic of waiting a week or so as fun as the magic of immediacy

I always wanted a K1000 as a kid, but had to settle for Chinons instead. They lasted 14 & 17 years before dying on me. Up to that point both worked perfectly and any metering anomalies had been learnt many years beforehand. Were they out of date? I suppose so - but did they do the business, every-time, YEP sure did

Will even such as my D2Xs & D300 still work in 17 years? Will they be relevant? I doubt it

Oh, and... is there a TP 'Nomination for longest sentence award' - if so, I'll nominate you for it here :LOL::LOL::LOL:

DD
 
DiddyDave said:
Tricky - for fun eh?

Nope, no fun whatsoever to be had from film IMO - but then digital isn't 'fun' as such either

It's all about the image for me, the way to capture it isn't the fun - but the images and fun of shooting is.
DD
Click to expand...

I can live with that as a reason not to shoot film, although the shooting can be pretty similar.
Unfortunately, it renders the other perceived disadvantages used to argue against shooting film.....irrelevant..:LOL:

I love both digital and film, I shoot digital for money because I have to, I shoot film for recreation because its more full filling, I'm angry with myself because I'm not good/confident enough to shoot paid work on film, that doesn't mean film is good for nothing, it just means I'm useless, but entertained.

I get miles more entertainment per quid spent out of film than I'll ever get out of digital, it never leaves the studio except for maybe some sports stuff, but I always have my film camera with me...:shrug:

IMO - If you want to earn a living shooting dslr sized film, don't bother trying, if you want to shoot photographs where the sum of the parts equals more than the whole, shoot film.
And don't dis either till you've tried both as an art rather than a commercial enterprise...:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top