BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: Comparison Between Digital and Film Photography

Is film Going Away?

To love this question, log in above
July 04, 2004

To love this comment, log in above
July 04, 2004

Amy

To love this comment, log in above
July 05, 2004

To love this comment, log in above
July 05, 2004

Film use will, of course, continue in the short and medium terms but increasing for use by the "serious" photographer rather than the general population. Simply watch the photofinishing counter in your local "superstore" and you'll see plenty of film is still being consumed.

Perhaps a few years hence, your beach front corner stores will sell memory sticks either along side or instead of film.

In closing, core film and digital technolgies are different with a place for both. But without a doubt, the digital revolution even with current technolgies (i.e. contantly improving) has won the battle and soon the war.

To love this comment, log in above
July 06, 2004

"In an interview with Reuters Nikon's managing director Makoto Kimura has stated that Nikon .... may soon exit the compact film camera market. To quote Mr Kimura, "There is still the matter of timing, but eventually we will have to dissolve this business... ...there really is no region in the world where you can do good business in compact film cameras anymore."

To love this comment, log in above
July 06, 2004

Digital Imaging Trends in 2003-2004

· Digital cameras surpassed film camera sales worldwide in 2003.

· The digital imaging market continues to experience explosive growth as additional features, increased ease-of-use and lower prices lure the mainstream.

Digital imaging has catapulted into the mainstream and continues to expand its reach as it mirrors the traditional camera market in user segmentation and behavior patterns

To love this comment, log in above
July 06, 2004

Weymouth, MA) February, 26 2004... InfoTrends Research Group’s latest study of pro photographers shows that 79% of professional photographers are already using a digital camera. Of those that do not yet use a digital camera, nearly half plan to purchase a digital camera in 2004.

To love this comment, log in above
July 06, 2004

According to a report published by InfoTrends Research Group (www.infotrends-rgi.com) “the shift to digital photography will be nearly complete by 2008”. That prediction may or may not prove to be correct but we cannot overlook a few facts. In 2004, more digital cameras than 35mm models will be shipped to dealers this year and the sale of 35mm cameras is expected to drop by 10 million units. While the decline is most significant in the point-and-shoot category, 35mm SLR sales are stagnant at best, as photo enthusiasts are either buying digital models or simply waiting before making a decision on a new camera. Consequently, the majority of manufacturers are devoting most of their resources to developing digital products, a fact that is confirmed by the scarcity of announcements about new film-based models.

To love this comment, log in above
July 06, 2004

I also doubt that film will actually disappear, just as black & white film did not disappear when color became so popular.

Cameras last a long time and there are millions of 35mm models still in use. Older people especially will not switch to digital en masse.

But I doubt we will see many new cameras developed; and many of the major companies will get out of the film camera market. (e.g. Kodak has stopped making 35mm cameras for the North American market.)

I'm sure you'll be able to find a few new 35mm cameras in stores even 20 years from now and a few types of 35mm film.

Just as you can still buy horses and buggies in some regions, and even buggy whips, today.

But 2004 is clearly the beginning of the end for film-based photography on an overwhelming scale. As prices for digital cameras/accessories continue to drop, as they get even better and simpler to use, the transition will grow at an accelerated pace.

And yet, my 18 year old daughter asked for a 35mm camera for her last birthday. She simply cannot bother with downloading or printing images. She just wants to shoot a roll of film and drop it off at the lab.

She could also drop off a memory card at the same lab and get prints, but a 35mm camera costs $100 while a suitable digital camera costs $250.

So, clearly film is not dead yet.

Cheers! Peter Burian

To love this comment, log in above
July 06, 2004

The growth in the digital camera market has been nothing short of
exceptional. The rate of consumers shifting from conventional
photography to digital has been far faster than many industry
experts had predicted. In 2003, digital camera sales represented
more than 67 percent of all camera sales in Canada. This was up
from 44 percent in 2002. For 2004, CITA anticipates another 30
percent growth in digital camera sales.

CITA forecasts an 18 percent decline in 35 mm film sales
to 34.1 million rolls (THAT IS STILL A LOT OF FILM BEING SOLD), and a 20 percent fall in APS film sales to
3.75 million rolls. Total film sales for 2004 are forecast by
CITA to be 37.85 million rolls.

To love this comment, log in above
July 06, 2004

To love this comment, log in above
July 06, 2004

But like wet darkrooms, large format photography and oil painting, (and horse/buggies), film-based 35mm photography will not be a mass endeavor in 20 years. Or maybe in fewer years.

This may not be a good thing, although personally, I see no need to ever shoot film again. Of course my prefeences (based on 25 years of 35mm photography and 4 years of digital photography) are not shared by everyone.

But as the news items suggest, we are seeing a huge drop in 35mm photography and that is predicted to continue.

But one day, something new will be invented that will be better than "digital photography." Then, digital photography may also decline substantially.

Cheers! Peter Burian

To love this comment, log in above
July 06, 2004

To love this comment, log in above
July 06, 2004

To love this comment, log in above
July 06, 2004

K.S.: Corbis has accepted images made with digital SLR cameras for some time. A tleast images made with the 11 megapixel EOS 1Ds (or medium format digital backs) - for their Commercial files.

I believe they have been also accepting files from 6 MP cameras for strictly Editorial stock.

At this time, Corbis prefers to make their own scans rather than allowing photographers to do so. I guess that will change Oct. 1.

Other stock agencies? Each has its own policy but yes, most accept digital images - if they meet their quality criteria.

Cheers! Peter Burian

To love this comment, log in above
July 06, 2004

Nikon:
Has always been very weak in the 35mm P&S market and was likely to remain very weak. They were a Johnny-come-lately that saw the trajectory of P&S sales and tried to leverage its name to capture a piece of the market segment head-to-head against Olympus and Canon . . . unsuccessfully. They did much, much better, primarily against Canon, with their consumer "N" series SLR's.

Why? Nikon made a strong entry into the 35mm camera market following WWII with the "S" series rangefinders. Mostly a clone in design concept of the pre-war Zeiss Ikon Contax with a shutter patterned after the Leica's, and quite excellent lenses, they captured s significant piece of the high end professional rangefinder market that had been cornered by Zeiss Ikon and Ernst Leitz for decades. Their opportunity was World War II recovery and the rebuilding of all three companies (Zeiss Ikon taking much longer than the rest for geographical reasons and the partitioning of Germany).

Using the revenues from their highly successful "S" rangefinders, they saw what the high end professional market wanted, an SLR. They created one and unleashed the Nikon F on the professional 35mm world in 1959. It was an enormous success and just about killed the German professional grade camera makers by 1970-1972. Nikon has been the Gold Standard in professional 35mm SLR's ever since . . . the one everyone else, including Canon, its biggest competitor, has chased after. They leveraged on their name over the years very successfully with pro-sumer bodies that used the AI/AIS F-mount lenses such as the FE, FE2, FM and FM2[n].

For whatever reason, Nikon didn't (or wasn't able to) respond quickly enough to the 35mm P&S market takeoff starting in the early 1980's (pioneered primarily by Olympus). By the time Nikon was able to enter it, Olympus and Canon dominated the market and Nikon for all its efforts since then has never been able to get a decent foothold in it. So, why did Nikon drop out? Digital may have been a contributor, but they were teetering on the brink already. If it hadn't been for digital, it would have been something else that pushed them over the edge. It was a sound business decision to finally quit throwing money at a market segment they were much too late in entering and would never be able to make headway in against two other financially strong, large, global competitors.

Did digital drive them out of the P&S business? I don't think so; not as the "proximate" cause. Nikon circled its wagons to put more of its money into protecing its core market (primarily from Canon), the one it has dominated since about 1960 when the Nikon F was released, and one in which Canon was gaining on them with their EOS system.

-- John Lind

To love this comment, log in above
July 06, 2004

Kodak's core business has been film and film related products (e.g. paper and developing chemistries) since Eastman started up in the late 1870's. In spite of what Kodak may say publicly, it still is.

Eastman's original claim to fame is the mass production of the dry glass plate he created in 1878 to replace the wet glass plates that photographers found rather messy to work with. Eastman as a company was founded in 1880. His second claim to fame came with adapting the dry plate gelatin emulsion to roll film. Glass plate users were not switching to roll film as fast as he wished. In order to push its takeoff into the marketplace, he created a "consumer" camera that used his roll film, and named it the Kodak. Unleashed onto the market in 1888, the slogan that went with it is telling even today: "You press the button - we do the rest." Kodak has worked diligently to convince photographers of that ever since. Note carefully that the *only* reason George Eastman made the "Kodak" was to sell his film! This has been a "durable principle" business model repeated many times throughout Eastman Kodak's history. To his great credit, the "Kodak" put cameras into the hands of the Everyman and let them make photographs too. However, I'm completely underwhelmed by the quality of its optics in the context of camera lens optics circa 1890.

This concept of unique film and camera for it as a pair became the core of Eastman Kodak's business model and grand strategy that lives on today:
* Design new camera that requires new film format (in secrecy).
* Create film in new format (with different spool diameter or different strip width or different film holder).
* Launch marketing blitz touting it as the greatest thing photographic since sliced bread; one that lets the user simply press the button - Kodak does the rest (or: has already done the rest in the camera design).

Spin forward to 1932. Kodak creates 616 and 620. Difference between that and 116 and 120 (respectively)? The diameter spool it's wound up on! Guess who first made the cameras for them? The mareting blitz Kodak used then touted them as being able to fit into a pocket easier because they were thinner (but not by all that much). A few years later in 1935 Kodak unleashes 828 spool film to take on 35mm format. First camera to use it? The Kodak Bantam. Not much bigger frame size than 35mm, but Kodak made a big deal out of it. This continues repeatedly with 126 Instamatic and its plastic cartrdges in 1963, followed by the 110 Pocket Instamatic with its plastic cartridges in 1972, then the Disc camera and film, and finally the latest is 240 and the Advantix (APS) in 1996.

For all these unique film-size/camera pairs Kodak has created, they have never been able to remain in the market of selling the cameras once competitors (in camera manufacturing) caught up with their own offerings for the film format.

Finally, since the demise of Kodak 35mm cameras was cited, IMVHO the *last* decent 35mm camera Kodak made was the Retina, designed and manufactured by Kodak A.G., its German subsidiary, and released into the marketplace in 1934! More chrome than your grandfather's Buick Roadmaster, and truly excellent optics, it did have a reputation for a somewhat cantankerous shutter mechanism. Even so, a working one in good condition can create startlingly sharp and crisp photographs, in spite of lens elements without AR coatings.

Kodak's Advantix APS cameras leave a lot to be desired compared to what the competition offers at comparable prices. Given their history of creating mediocre cameras as a vehicle to force a new film format into the marketplace, I'm not surprised at all that Kodak announces it's no longer going to make 35mm cameras. They're utterly non-competitive in the camera business and get marginalized quickly in terms of market share once competitors show up with their models.

Kodak's not really a camera manufacture; they're a film maker.

BTW, the longest living still camera *roll* film format, 35mm, was not invented by Kodak! It was created by Thomas Edison for use as cinema film in 1889 . . . right down to its current sprocket hole pitch and their dimensions. Neither did Kodak make the first successful still camera for it. That was done by Ernst Leitz with the Leica "A" designed by Oskar Barnack in 1925. It leveraged on the format to make use of a plentiful supply of cinema film to use in a compact camera . . . without creating some new film format.

-- John Lind

To love this comment, log in above
July 06, 2004

I am not that perfect either but I pursue the perfection of that image because I don't want the computer to take my time away from my photography.

So for now I'm sticking with film and learning how to use my neat little A75.
It does really nice 8" x 10" head shots.
And that's hand held.

Regards, Ken

To love this comment, log in above
July 06, 2004

Agreed; Nikon and Kodak were not major players in the 35mm compact camera market. A major player can withstand a large percentage drop in sales, but a smaller player cannot.

And it's clear from the news items that the sales of 35mm cameras are plummeting as consumers buy digital instead.

"The growth in the digital camera market has been nothing short of
exceptional. The rate of consumers shifting from conventional
photography to digital has been far faster than many industry
experts had predicted."

Cheers! Peter Burian

To love this comment, log in above
July 07, 2004

Picture this scenario.

Canon is #1 or #2 in the 35mm SLR camera market. What if their latest cameras (ELAN 7N, 7NE) were the last new 35mm SLR's that Canon ever introduced?

Would you agree that the shift to digital was the proximate cause?

Well that is exactly what an industry observer predicted in a telephone conversation last week. NOTE: Canon has NOT made any such announcement.

I hope the expert is wrong but I am not optimistic in that hope.

Cheers! Peter Burian

To love this comment, log in above
July 07, 2004

To love this comment, log in above
July 07, 2004

Thanks again to all for your words.
Things are so much more clear for me now.

To love this comment, log in above
July 07, 2004

Cheers! Peter

I switched to digital cameras long before I started a course; in fact, I'm guest instructing the course because I have become such a convert to digital capture. Not vice-versa.

To love this comment, log in above
July 07, 2004

AMY

To love this comment, log in above
July 07, 2004

Angie :)

To love this comment, log in above
July 07, 2004

AMY

To love this comment, log in above
July 07, 2004

They tell part of the story about digital, but the raw figures are confounded by an number of market effects caused by digital imaging being a dramatically different and immature technology . . . and film cameras being a mature technology. In addition, film and digital cameras are being marketed under two very different business models.

Boiled down to abstract terms, the purpose of *every* for-profit company that makes retail products is to get money from the consumer's pocket into their pocket at a rate that at least exceeds their cost of operation. The faster, the better; the more, the better; provided it exceeds operating costs by the percentage the owners (stock holders for "public" companies) expect it to. Furthermore, all for-profit companies are expected to *grow* in revenue. Remain static for long, and the stockholders and Board will boot the CEO, and keep doing so until they find someone who does.

Every product in the marketplace has a sales and revenue trajectory over time. Non-durable goods are things consumed in first use, such as disposable diapers. They have a business model that initially markets it as a Great Improvement over cotton ones, convinces you to switch (or at least try them) and pleads with you in subtle ways to _throw_away_ the reusable, archaic, ancient, old-fashioned cotton ones . . . so you cannot switch back without the transaction cost of replacing them. To wit: the commercials showing folks heaving the cotton ones into the dumpster; gotta be old enough to remember this. Manufacturing companies love a throw-away society; they want it and they do everything to foster it. Once everyone is hooked on the latest and greatest throw-away consumable replacment, sales reach "market saturation." Their hope then is population growth and absent that, finding new and unique ways with which to use the consumable or its underlying technology in a manner that doesn't require much further investment (sometimes merely repackaging the same thing with a different name implying different use). Feelin' hungry? Got the munchies? How 'bout some Rice Krispies Treats, or some Chex Mix, or maybe a Granola bar? Never understimate the "New and Improved" method of stealing market share to increase revenue also . . . to try to break down the barrier of "brand loyalty." How "new" or how "improved" it is oft debatable, sometimes *very* debatable, nevertheless it's the effectiveness of the marking on the box and advertising blitz to convince you of it that counts.

Durable goods have a life-span. In the U.S. certain commodities such as automobiles and major appliances such as refrigerators and clothes washers are defined legally as "durable" goods and must be supported for 10 years after manufacture. Dramatically new technologies of durable goods have a trajectory in the marketplace also, and market saturation is reached when everyone who would buy one finally owns one. Sales and revenue drop to a plateau of replacement (non-economically repairable wearout), young people growing old enough to buy one of their own, etc. All the "New and Improved" and other strategies to shift brand loyalty also apply. With immature technologies, the improvements in them can be substantial, and time between launch of "new and improved" can be fairly short. As the underlying technology matures, improvement is incremental and time between them grows. Enter in "styling" in terms of form and color to create yet another facet of "improvement" even if it's pure perception, with the technology remaining the same.

Then there are combinations of the two; durable goods that consume. Film cameras fall into this category, especially 35mm and medium format SLR's, and technical (view) cameras and lenses. They consume film and print materials, and their underlying developing chemicals. Sometimes the maker's core business is the camera and lenses, and it leverages on existing film (Oskar Barnack's Leica A in the 1920's). Other times, the maker's core business is the consumable and the durable is marketed to get someone to use it (Kodak's Kodak, Instamatic, Advantix, etc.). Durables with a "subscription" also fall into this class: DirecTV, cell phones, TiVO, On*Star, XM, Sirius, etc. It's not the box, it's the "cash cow" subscription they're after.

(to be continued)

-- John Lind

To love this comment, log in above
July 07, 2004

Roll film is a mature technology that's been in the marketplace for over a century and the cameras are durable goods; oft very durable. The strategies have been incremental improvements: Auto Exposure, Program Exposure, Auto-Focus, etc. But the underlying technology has remained unchanged for even longer (over 150 years): light tight box to hold a light sensitve emulsion-coated substrate, with lens on front and a shutter in or behind the lens.

So . . . I'm not that surprised that the sales volume figures are staggeringly high for digital. It's on the upside of its trajectory and hasn't come close to market saturation yet. It eventually will . . . to a point . . . because of its business model (more on that later).

OTOH, sales volume figures for SLR's have dropped. I will admit that some of it is due to digital, but not all. Its market is saturated and has been for decades (since about 1975-1980). There hasn't been an incremental improvement for a number of years; not since auto-focus. A significant piece of the drop is also settling back down to the plateau of wear-out replacement and new users (by virtue of being old enough to afford to buy and use one). Again, film cameras have a different business model compared to digital's . . . comparison of the two I'll post later.

-- John Lind

To love this comment, log in above
July 07, 2004

To love this comment, log in above
July 07, 2004

To continue, Ken

To love this comment, log in above
July 07, 2004

The business models for film and digital cameras are different. Both film and digital cameras are not "stand alone" devices. Most durable goods (not necessarily by the legal definition/classification) rely on other products and industries to function as intended, especially those that consume things in use. Copiers need paper, automobiles need tires and petroleum products, etc.

Film cameras need film (DOH!), print materials and developing chemistries, plus the machines to perform the developing and printing. All these industries are closely coupled. In other words, they rely very heavily on each other and cannot survive without each other. Their relationship is symbiotic and they have a vested interest in protecting that. They consider carefully what the other pieces of the industry they rely on are doing and how their decisions affect them. The business model for a mature industry with durable goods (the camera end of it) is very much like that of the automobile (whose fundamental underlying technology[ies] have not changed in 100 years). It has incremental improvements, and marketing within it seeks to leverage on those while keeping brand loyalty, puting up barriers to people changing brand loyalty (e.g. lens mounts), and trying to capture market share from direct competitors.

Digital cameras cannot stand alone either. They need computers with opeating systems, hard drives, CD-ROM (or DVD) burners, and printers. While digital cameras rely very heavily on the desktop computing industry, and cannot survive without it, the desktop computing industry has no reliance whatsoever on digital photography. They contribute to a miniscule portion of the revenue spent on desktop computing. If digital photography were to suddenly vaporize, desktop computing's major players would hardly feel it. Not that there aren't some "bit part" players on the desktop computing end that cater to digital photography, and are very reliant on it, but they are just that, a small niche. The desktop computing industry's overwhelming core business is general computing for business and home/office automation. Their business decisions are based on what's necessary to make that grow and capture greater pieces of that market share . . . without any regard for what it might do to digital photography. Because of this, digital cameras are entirely at the mercy of desktop computing CPU hardware, operating systems, mass storage devices, and their communications port hardware and protocols and drivers.

-- John Lind

To love this comment, log in above
July 07, 2004

What's the digital camera business model? It's *not* the film camera model. It has an entirely different relationship with the allied industry on which it relies. The major digital camera makers have learned the lessons of durable goods, market saturation and how that affected sales/revenue for their film camera products. They do *not* want to repeat it by following a traditional, mature technology, durable goods model. Instead, they are following a combination the rapid introduction of improvements with an immature technology and the desktop computing industry's "programmed obsolesence" business models that forces periodic replacement, even though the physical objects themselves (the cameras) are quite durable. In other words, it's not a physically "worn out" camera that forces owner replacement, it's compatibility with all the other objects around it, on which it relies completely, that forces replacement. And in following this business model, they have the opportunity to generate more sales, more revenue and more profit. And *that* is what for-profit business is all about . . . profit . . . nothing more; nothing less.

For those early cameras that use 3.5 inch micro-floppies, use Microsoft Windows' 16-bit format for file allocation tables, and create image files in JPEG format, what happens if any of those essential standards or protocols sunsets? If one must connect the camera to a desktop computer to download images, via an RS-232 serial or Centronics parallel or USB or Firewire port, and this requires a special operating system driver to handle the digital camera when it's connected, what happens when the operating system sunsets, or the hardware communication device/protocol sunsets? Easier yet, if an O/S driver is required, all the camera maker need do is wait until Bill Gates releases the next generation of his O/S and not support the camera with a new driver compatible with the new O/S. This has already occurred with droves of digital cameras.

Why? It's not in the financial interest of the camera maker to create a new driver. That costs money for which there is *zero* revenue stream to offset it. It also forces the camera owner to *buy* a new camera that *is* supported, and that *is* revenue stream! The *only* reason a camera maker would create a new driver would be to protect "public good will" toward the company that might affect sales of current products. If it has been on the market for a few years, especially if there are "new and improved" models in the product portfolio (or waiting in the wings and very near production) the likelihood is they won't. The digital camera manufacturers have gone one step further beyond dependence and are leveraging on the rapid computing platform changes, and the rapid obsolescence it forces compared to film cameras. I estimate the "half-life" of a digital camera at about 3 years. The "half-life" of a film camera is at least 10 years; the pro grade are significantly longer than that.

Why are digital sales so remarkably high?
* They haven't saturated the market yet
* The immature technology is still making improvements (perceived or real) that are being chased by significant numbers of owners
* Early models have sunset and are no longer usable requiring replacement

You cannot guage digital sales volumes as if they are long-term durable goods and compare them directly with film camera sales. They're not long-term durables, nor are they intended to be! There are too many early digital owners that are into at least their third camera. You have the same person replacing their camera much more frequently than a film camera owner would ever think of doing.

-- John Lind

To love this comment, log in above
July 07, 2004

My professional photography is a "side-line." It's an avocation; I have a Day Job that has pay and benefits, plus a rapidly approaching retirement that I would be an absolute fool to give up (otherwise I'd pursue the photography with a vengence).

I cannot give much detail publicly . . . for business reasons. I work for a major high technology manufacturer, the largest in its business sector . . . with its future products . . . things you won't see for another three to five years. As such I am part of and see at very close range the major decisions being made weekly about what business to pursue, what not to pursue, who our direct competitors are for specific items in our product portfolio, the WOTS-up analyses that go with them, and the financial business cases assembled and dissected to guarantee (with some level of certainty) that we will, indeed continue to make a sufficient profit to keep our stockholders happy . . . and keep all of us working there gainfully employed!

-- John Lind
P.S.
WOTS = Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats and Strengths . . . and it behooves anyone doing this analysis to do it from their competitors' perspective too.

To love this comment, log in above
July 07, 2004

Next, Ken

To love this comment, log in above
July 07, 2004

So my "buyer #3" will never see a refined, perfected model which will give him up to 10 years of good performance.
That's always been so true John. Now that you have reopened my eyes here, I have seen this trend begin back in the 1970's.
I was a sales manager for a tool distributor to hardware and automotive stores. All tools back then were quality, professional grade. Until the oil embargo caused triple inflations. There was a major increase of consumers fixing their own cars, homes etc. while many businesses were closing we were growing at a super fast pace. Rockwell was the biggest player that started the consumer power tool trend. For $60.00 you could buy a Black & Decker or skil drill motor. Rockwell introduced their $19.95 plastic case drill motor. They sold like hot cakes. And if they quit working, you buy another. So everything you buy today doesn't get fixed. You toss out your burned-out TV and buy another.
And toss away digital consumer cameras will soon be here. Hell, they are here now!
We're already seeing Rebel DI's quit functioning.

some time later, Ken

To love this comment, log in above
July 07, 2004

To love this comment, log in above
July 08, 2004

To love this comment, log in above
July 08, 2004

To love this comment, log in above
July 13, 2004

To love this comment, log in above
July 13, 2004

Peter Burian

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0401/04012903canondvke2.php

Canon Data Verification Kit, the DVK-E2 kit is designed to deliver validation of an unmodified original image from a single camera body. This kit is aimed at law enforcement, insurance, news and other such agencies and can detect single bit discrepancy in modification of an image since it was taken. The new kit is much smaller than the old and uses a unique SM (secure mobile) card which is the same size as a Secure Digital card. The card reader connects to a computer USB port (only Windows 2000/XP compatible at the moment).

To love this comment, log in above
July 13, 2004

One thing I like to do is if a particular pose for a bride is really nice, I'll do my film thing, then pick up the digital and do a few, and show the bride and groom how they are turning out. They love this, and it motivates them to keep going. This is good after about an hour of formals.

Maybe wedding photographers are a bunch of old-fashioned folk. Maybe we can't make the switch due to cost. For me, it seems that film is less hassle and less work. Digital, I admit, is very powerful and very compelling on many levels. But, I just haven't been able to make it work.

I was bound and determined to use it through a reception a few weeks ago, because I was told that in the dark is where it really excels. But, the images just weren't happening. I discovered later that I had the ISO set at 100, so it was user error, and explained immediately why the images weren't looking too hot. I do know that digital is different. And you have to change your mind-set.

I think for some of us photographers, the switch is hard and risky, because it is different, and if film is working, why take the risk. Especially when you are paid for results.

Next year, for 2005, I am thinking about pushing my clients over to on-line proofing only. If I make this huge stride, the next step will be to go digital. The reason, if it isn't obvious, is because the format from digital to on-line is virtually seamless. And, they are comparable mediums. Film to digital is OK, but I think the web and digital are really the same thing - digital to digital.

I don't like the x factor on the lenses. But, I actually have learned to use that to my advantage, so that's OK.

If there is anyone who is really enterprising, I am looking for a company that has a virtual wedding album. Not a CD or DVD or anything on the web, but more like a device that looks like a wedding album, but when you open it up, it is a screen, on the screen is am image, you push a button, and you can page through the images. They can't be copied, downloaded, or deleted, only viewed, just like an analog wedding album. Now, if this existed, that would really be a unique reason and compelling venture for me to go into the digital world.

But, you may be surprised that only one client has ever specifically requested digital. I turned them away because I told them that I did not feel confident enough to shoot an entire wedding digitally. Although, it is essentially the same, like I said, forgetting about the ISO setting, or white balance, or something silly like that, and you could ruin an event.

In fact, just to take it one step further, about 3 weeks ago, I shot a reception party in the afternoon all digital. That's what they wanted. I got it home, up-loaded all the images, then I was looking at my camera settings, I hit a button, then immediately yelled, "No"! All the images were wiped out. It was OK because I had just uploaded them, but it's just testimony to digital being a totally different animal.

I think all of us who shoot for clients have to make sure that we are ready for the switch. I think slowly warming up to the technology, while at the same time, waiting for our clients to catch-up, and waiting for the prices to be more reasonable, is all in our favor.

the manufacturers know that many pros are out there still using film. they also know that if they want those pros to start buying cameras, they need to lower the cost of the bodies. Until they do that, there may not really be a hugely compelling reason to change just yet.

Also, as Gregory stated, as long as the lab keeps processing my film, and as long as BH keeps selling it at fair prices, I'll continue using it, until then there might be a time where it makes sense not to do so.

From a film perspective, I'm not opposed to change, it just doesn't make any sense right now. And, I feel that many other pro photographers feel the same.

Jerry

To love this comment, log in above
July 13, 2004

However, there are plenty of purists who will likely shoot both digitally and conventionally.

As for myself,I am taking a course at NYIP in conventional film photography; I use a Nikon N-75.I plan to go digital, probably with the Nikon D-70.

However,in my humble opinion any serious photographer should master the technical and creative skills of conventional film.

Once that is accomplished go for the megapixels.

To love this comment, log in above
July 13, 2004

Photography, the art of light and shadows, is independent of analog or digital. The concepts are the same. The tactical process of using this camera or that really doesn't matter. It doesn't affect the strategic vision of light and shadows. They are separate things.

The idea is strategic, i.e., 'I want to photograph a person laughing in the rain.' The equipment you use to do that is tactical, it is the execution of the strategic idea.

I have written about this so much because I want to drive home that the concept photography has little to do digital or analog, those things are tactical, and although they must be learnt, the higher-level concept is the same.

What really stikes me funny though is that it appears to me that the technology is trying to emulate the film process. In other words, understanding how the digital capture process works is to also understand film. The only difference is that with digital, there is no chemicals. But essentially, it is trying to do the very same thing. It's sort of like when the computer was first being largely sold in the U.S., it was really trying to replace the type-writer for most consumers. The one thing it did better, and that has changed the world, was editing as you go. And later, spell check. Those two things revolutionized the world in many ways.

I see the digital cameras in a similar way. And, not coincidentally, I think the reason they will grow is the same, editability and control.

Jerry

To love this comment, log in above
July 13, 2004

To love this comment, log in above
July 14, 2004

Thinking digital as a "panacea" that somehow fixes "poor" photography (and the "poor" photographs that result) . . . however you define what "excellence" is (or isn't) does not work. It buys into the notion that a different piece of hardware in your hands will "fix" things. This is The Great Myth that Kodak started in 1888 with their "You press the button - we do the rest" advertising slogan. The camera manufacturers want you to buy into it just as badly regarding their cameras. As one individual put it that shoots medium format . . . it's the "circular waste of time" . . . and to me it's also the "circular waste of money."

All too many times I see *experienced* photographers (some of them professional) using a shotgun approach to their work . . . the concept of that out of a bazillion photographs there will surely be something usable. With film doing "action" shooting (sports and racing), it's the telltale high speed motor drive slapping out three to five shot bursts. IMVHO this is sloppy work that hopes for something useful by accident. I suppose out of the many hundreds of photos generated, there will be something acceptable; perhaps good. But there's *no* substitute for vision, discipline and skill for *consistently* achieving excellence by working to make every shot count. A shotgun approach with digital results in just as many (perhaps even more) pitched into the "bit bucket" and the *real* yield rate is just as low (perhaps lower).

I recommend going to a fairly large library and finding "The Fights" . . . a collection of the photographs Charles Hoff made as the sports photographer for the New York Daily News. It tells a very compelling story visually about boxing; its emotion, fatigue, pain, and struggle during a fight.

His nickname was "One Shot Charlie." How did he get that moniker? Because he used so very little film. As you look at his stunning work, remind yourself that he made them all using a monstrous 8x10 view camera and flashbulbs mounted in reflectors around the ring. Think about his work flow. Each back held two sheets of film, one on each side with a dark slide over it. To make the next photograph, someone had to reload all the flashbulbs, and he had to either take his film back off and flip it over (puting in and removing two darkslides) or replace it completely with another, and cock the shutter.

While Charlie's 8x10 sheet film size provides the incredible detail in his photos, the excellence in his work goes well beyond the technical capability of his film format. His timing at capturing the "decisive moment" was impeccable without the need for motor drives, auto-focus, or programmed auto-exposure using TTL matrix metering. He could do it with one shot. Hoff had great skill that was learned. He wasn't born with it and it wasn't The Great Myth started by Kodak in 1888.

Charlie's baseball photography was also superb . . . but his most famous photograph? The Hindenberg half consumed by flames over Lakehurst, New Jersey. One shot made using knowledge, patience and skill; that's all Charles Hoff needed to tell the story.

-- John Lind

To love this comment, log in above
July 14, 2004

All of us 'photographers' have our nich areas of photography which pretty much dictates to us or we take control and dictate what photo equipment we will use in our work, pleasure, experiences, etc.

High quality digital cameras begin at $5,000.00! These are suppose to be better than 35mm. Especially at 30" and 40" prints. Do you have $5000.00?

Nobody's demanding my 30" prints to be made from digital equipment. All...my...photos...from...film...sell!

My two Elan 7's are only $300.00ea. I use prime lenses for quality photos and zooms for general photography.
I use my digital A75 Canon($275.00) for test shots because it has manual exposure controls, and for general recording.

My digital test camera has really helped me learn more about photography because of instant viewing.

What facinates me is, of all the 'bells and whistles' custom controls on cameras why do most photographers use all manual controls. For auto focus I select only one of the focus points I want to use because the 7 focus points are never focusing on what I want.

My answer and my opinion is a good film camera, prime, prime, prime lenses for the quality and a digital for your test shots and general photography.

regards

To love this comment, log in above
July 14, 2004

To love this comment, log in above
July 15, 2004

But at one time he was . . . and that was my point . . . all the wondrous automagic gizmos didn't stop photographers like Hoff from learning how to make his phenomenal photographs . . . and they got their skill by being disciplined in their work and thinking before shooting. There are other excellent photos by Hoff aside from the Hindenburg and his sports work, pure PJ to support stories of the day, on the NYDN site in their on-line photo archive.

There are two basic ways to go about learning photography . . .

(a) Shooting thousands of photographs guessing at everything and continuing to do so without trying to plan, record anything or deliberately experimenting in a controlled fashion. The result is continuous random stabs in the dark in hopes that in the "noise" of all the randomness that what works will emerge. The usual result is aimless wandering in the wilderness. There's no solid "feedback" loop. If I'm not thinking about what I'm doing and why I'm doing it in making a photo, and I have some very convenient automation on some of my camera bodies, I get many poor photographs . . . automatically.

(b) Reading and study to discover what the fundamental principles are, puting them into practice through disciplined planning, evaluating results, and revising one's practice based on what was done and what it created for continuous improvement. The result of some simple, basice discipline and planning is rapid improvement and the development of solid habits that make shooting simpler and faster.

The extreme of (b) is Ansel Adams' Zone System and calibrating *everything* from camera to film to print materials and their developing processes. It need not be that extreme . . . nor are detailed records necessary most of the time. Indeed, it's somewhat rare if I make records other than date, location and general time of day.

Regarding the Hindenburg photo . . .
Yes, he was there and he was prepared to photograph its landing . . . and his "luck" ended there (notwithstanding the catastrophic disaster to many that day). His skill was in knowing what to do, how to do it, and when to do it (exact shutter release) when it did happen to make the photograph he did. In short, his practiced and disciplined skill enabled him to sieze the opportunity when it occurred. And there was some patience in *not* firing the shutter until it was framed and at the mid-point of the fire consuming it. Patience can be as little as a half-second. And in that regard, he could have been using an 8x10 view camera, Crown (or Speed) Graphic, or a digital point and shoot. It was his skill that made the photo . . . and had he been lacking his skill it doesn't matter what he was using, that very compelling photo wouldn't very likely not exist.

Last Fall, the very large natural gas tower (about 400 feet tall) was demolished using explosives to telescope it onto the ground. There were many thousands of photographs attempted that day. There were also many thousands of failures to get anything resembling a decent photograph of the event. In every single case when I've seen a reasonable photo of the event . . . novice, advanced non-pro or professional . . . I have asked how they did it . . . and the result was sufficient planning in advance thinking what they would do and how they would do it to greatly increase likelihood of success. There are many others I've shown my photos of the event to that remarked about taking a camera and missing getting anything. And in further conversation as they described how they missed it, their error was not thinking much beyond taking their camera (and ensuring there was film in it if it wasn't a digital).

-- John Lind

To love this comment, log in above
July 15, 2004

To love this comment, log in above
July 15, 2004

I do think, however, that although the consumer will pick the digital over the film equipment, they will become disenchanted after a while. The reason is due to the points that Jon is pointing out. They wont be able to produce Ansel Adams like prints without understanding photography.

So, the consumer will continue to take crappy pictures whether digial or film. Being able to delete the crappy ones with the touch of a button is cool. But, once all these consumers, who are not experienced with technology, loose all their pic's because they didn't back-up and their hard drive crashed, and they didn't make any prints. I do think you'll see the view of digital change for the consumer.

just my $.02

Jerry

To love this comment, log in above
July 15, 2004

Later

To love this comment, log in above
July 15, 2004

Not that every consumer lab is bad, but there are plenty that are and they routinely bamboozle their unknowing customers into believing that anything amiss with the photos is either the camera or the camera holder's fault . . . never theirs. Hogwash . . . not that the average consumer doesn't commit gross camera operating errors . . . but I've seen a lot of smoke blown at customers to keep from doing rework. I know enough about the process and how to examine negatives that I don't let them get away with anything less than properly printed prints. They keep redoing it until I'm satisfied that anything left lacking is my doing (what very, very little I hand to a consumer lab anymore).

Dwight's question was more directly answered in another thread . . . regarding "sharpness," and film versus print scanning to make an image that can be emailed. There's a learning curve to it and some of the stuff out there for internet photos (email or web) is severely lacking . . . MicroSoft's "freebie" stuff (Photo Editor ??) being among one of the worst I've ever tried to use. Once past the learning curve with decent photo editing software and scanning film, it's not that hard and can go quickly. I'd bet Dwight's brother is not sending the raw JPEG's straight from his camera either . . . and that he's well past the learning curve on what to do with them to make them look their best. But "sharpness" per se is ambiguous as to its "root" or proximate cause could be any number of things from camera to print from lab to scan.

One last point on which I believe Jerry is dead on . . . digital is still in its "honeymoon" as occurs with nearly all immature products/technologies. Two or three years from now there will be plenty of digitals in attics, kitchen drawers, on closet shelves and stashed in boxes on shelves in basements . . . primarily from those who bought into The Great Myth that they could simply throw money at their photo problems and get excellent photographs (however "excellence" is defined by the camera user). Aside from those that are orphaned by things like changing O/S's (and lack of drivers), there is also a frustration by many with their digital cameras that they're not meeting their expectations or desires . . . the source of innumerable questions here. Some will figure it out by learning photography and how best to use what they have. Others will pitch what they have into the back of the closet with the [insert latest consumer fad here] and throw more money at the problem hoping they have finally found The Magic Pill.

-- John Lind

To love this comment, log in above
July 15, 2004

Many of my clients have digital cameras, one architect client owns a 4 x 5 Arca Swiss which he uses only for that one special shot then I will shoot the rest. My market is still big for Film.

To love this comment, log in above
July 15, 2004

To love this comment, log in above
July 15, 2004

The work it takes to maintain digital files is at least as hard as to maintain analog files. Maybe a little harder.

I've said many times that I don't think digital is better than film. And, I don't think that film is better than digital. The truth is that they are not comparable mediums. They do different things.

For me, I prefer film. That's all. If another photographer wants to shoot digital, go to it. It doesn't bother me, especially at a professional or good amatuer level, because at that level, they are properly archiving.

It's really the consumers who are going to suffer do to the lack of knowledge.

Jerry

To love this comment, log in above
July 15, 2004

Wow! Your website is amazing! I'm sorry I couldn't find me in any of the photos.

Are you using IS lenses? I only have Elan7's. Will a 10D work in this type of photography?

Just like you say, "nothing is ever too late". I am starting a whole new career in photography at the age of 59.

So Amy, are you still out there? We're sorry to have run amuk here with your simple question. It'll never be answered to anyone's satisfaction.

No one is telling me that I must use digital. I'll just go on and produce fine photos and I may or may not go digital. It's just another way of making a picture.

You all must see the new August Shutterbug. The articals this month are about fine art photography using both film and digital mediums by well known photographers.

Anyone want to know how to get perfect density and color corrected photos from your one hour photo store? It's a piece of cake. I can make Kodak film look like Fuji and vise versa.

Regards

To love this comment, log in above
July 15, 2004

Kodak and HP have done a good job by bringing the system along by allowing a person to make prints from their digital without a computer. When they get a good system locked down and the costs start falling digital will take over.

I'm writing about consumer cameras here - the pros have their own systems and will make those decisions without anyone's help. An 11K digital back for my Hasselblad may sound expensive to most people, but if it saves me 40K a year in film and processing, it makes financial sense.

To love this comment, log in above
July 16, 2004

To love this comment, log in above
July 16, 2004

To love this comment, log in above
July 16, 2004

AMY

To love this comment, log in above
July 16, 2004

To love this comment, log in above
July 16, 2004

To love this comment, log in above
July 16, 2004

As a thirty year experienced, what did john call me?, a "Snake Oil Salesman", I'll give you one to get started.

Here are THREE KEYs to getting business(there are many more of course).
1. BECOME WELL KNOWN (don't sell, make lots of friends, they will all remember you because you listened to their stories).
2. WRITE A SIMPLE PLAN TO BECOME WELL KNOWN. So what if you write it over 1o times, it'll just be better.
3. DO-IT, JUST DO-IT NOW!
And soon the puzzle pieces will come together.

Good Luck

To love this comment, log in above
July 16, 2004

AMY

To love this comment, log in above
July 16, 2004

I thrived and was cruel to be number One. Built and maintained 90% of market share in So CA selling Bobcat Loaders and Kubota Tractors over John Deere , Ford Tractors, International, Case Equip,12 yrs. We didn't sell CA, we bought CA.
Micro Precision Spring from Japan. Literally took all the business from US mfrs. Hated this place.
Stairs Parts mfg built this bus from 15mil/per year to 25mil/per year in 3 years, Went national, opened a facility ic Chigago.
And more.

later

To love this comment, log in above
July 16, 2004

To love this comment, log in above
July 16, 2004

Another option is to shoot some chromes. Now that is a real task master. Those babies will really let you know how good your methods are. And if you live in an urban center, You can get them processed pretty easliy; or you can process them your self relatively easily. (You just need a changing bag, a proccesing tank, some chemicals, a watch, and a sink.) To a lab and have it blown up. Making prints from chromes is very easy these days.

To love this comment, log in above
October 21, 2004