Film Is Dead. No Really!

Firstly, film in your fridge unused! If you have some obsolete stuff in there I’d highly recommend sticking it on ebay or passing it on to someone who’ll do it justice – I’m pretty sure you mentioned on an edition of Photonetcast that you were happy not to be dealing with film anymore 🙂

As for film being dead? Yeah I guess in the mainstream, or at the very least it’s dying. Around my area there are a few young guys like me discovering it for the first time a little too late, but mostly it’s the older generation who’s hanging on since they don’t have much time left on the earth and refuse to leave what they know. However, even my Granfather has switched to digital and I’m eagerly awaiting the day he passes on his K1000 to me.

In reply to mat, things will often differ from country to country, however I think America and Australia and sharing similar traits in film’s demise as a consumer pursuit. You mention that camera stores can switch to digital printing. This is true, though the major chains and online stores often offer the prints for much cheaper than the traditional lab could even dream of.

Even though there are 3 photo labs within my immediate area, and all have ttried their best to adapt to the change in pace photographically, I can see one of them not surviving for too much longer. He’s reduced his floor space to cut down on rent, and is even at the point of not doing b/w processing anymore since the reps are reluctant to help keep him stocked with chemicals since his turn over is so low.

Film labs are obsolete in the traditional sense, though as with all technology, some processes just can’t survive the shifts in popular culture.

Me? I’ll continue to shoot film until the day I die.

I started taking pictures many years ago, when there was only film. My greatest issue with it was the cost of seeing your images and then being disappointed with the final result.

I stopped using my camera for many years, but with the advent of digital, I recently started again.

I’m still learning my way around, but digital gives a “regular” person the ability to enhance their pictures via software, processes them within seconds, and finally seeing the results of a day of taking pictures.

I don’t want film to die, but for me, digital is a layman’s dream. I could never learn as much as I’m now learning, at the same cost, with film.

@Mat the businesses you’ve referenced like NewLab, Wolf, Ritz, etc. have transitioned away from film development as being their bread and butter. With that said this is an important item to distinguish. Digital printing appears to be a viable business. As we all know camera and camera accessory sales are a viable business. Film is not. Demand on film processing has cratered and is not a viable business. You’re right people with the advent of digital have transitioned expectation to wanting results now. The case in point of this neighborhood store closing is that 24 hour turn around couldn’t match expectation. I’m surprised particularly since use of Shutterfly and other online services for print take longer when you factor in delivery time. In the end film and film processing from a brick and mortar business standpoint are dead because of expectations around immediate gratification and ease of submission. It’s far easier to upload digital files online than hunt for parking, waste gas and drive to a store. Of course this is all relative to the casual shooter. Just as color film did not kill b&w film I doubt digital will entirely kill film. It will have its place in art schools, for a time, and with other extreme enthusiasts (like glass plate photographers or wet contact printerers). Film for all intents and purposes in the larger market is dead and hardly a factor in revenue generation for companies and it will continue to diminish for the plain and simple fact demand has plummeted to a quarter of a fraction of what it used to be.
–
@the_wolf_brigade More power to film photographers who stick it out. Companies and photographers that support film are a rare breed these days. I predict this crowd is going to be thinned even more in the near future.
–
@LisaNewton You raise another good point about digitals ease of use and latitude for photographers to get more out of their work. Whether you’re fixing imperfections and technical short comings or gaining better control over the fine tuning of your work digital is in another league. To this day I still cringe looking film scans. The slides are sharp, but the scans even on a drum scanner are considerably softer. They are in my eyes two different animals.

The nearly 8,000 members of this Flickr group beg to differ. 😉

http://www.flickr.com/groups/film_is_not_dead/

I think the ‘film is dead’ debate isn’t really about whether film is a viable medium. It is and will continue to be so long as there is interest and someone is willing to use it. And even if it is only a niche market, someone will continue to make it. But that isn’t really the point Jim is making. I think the point he’s making is that at the consumer level, film is anything but kicking well. Keep in mind…if you’re a regular reader of Jim’s blog, chances are you are an artist and have a very viable reason to love film and will continue to do so. But our little niche is not enough to keep most of these places (especially mom-and-pop stores) in business. Store fronts can’t survive on niche alone. They need joe-somebody to come in regularly. And lets face it…digital cameras are at a cost point where it’s actually prohibitive for joe-somebody to buy anything but a digital camera. A half decent P&S digital camera can be had for about $100. Sure, the 35mm film equivalent is only $20-30 – but develop three rolls of film and you break even.

But alas…film is now niche and it has gone the way of oil paint – it’s a novelty act performed only by artists and serious enthusiasts.

But to answer the question that Jim had posed…here’s my take:

The first indicator that film was dead the moment that digital point-and-shoot cameras were affordable (below $300) which was already about 5 or 6 years ago. Once that happened, it was only a matter of time before people would think of cameras as a long term investment. Consumers don’t really want to print all of their pictures…just a few here or there. Digital has allowed them to save money in the long-run, despite the initial up-front cost for the camera.

The last and final blow was when storage (hard drive space and flash cards) became cheap. Now, film is almost free. Even a low-end computer comes with a hard drive several gigs larger than most people need. And you can get Terabyte drives now for less than $150. That was the final nail in the coffin.

So sorry all opposed…Jim’s right. Film is dead, and there’s nothing you can do about it. There won’t be a resurgence in the consumer market. But that’s fine…those of you who will continue to use film will earn a lot of respect and credibility. It’s like the audiophiles (like myself) who still like vinyl.

I knew film was going to die the first time I saw C-41* chemicals listed as sources of pollution.

*The standard colour film chemical developers.

Interesting discussions as the closure of this local independent institution affected me and my friends. The post by Mat mentions that the business itself is somewhat to blame for their demise. Probably to an extent it’s true, but the market has changed. Take for example that most consumers and photo buffs don’t even print their photographs anymore. They keep their digital shots in hardrives and for people like me who still use film, I get my film developed and never get it printed only to be shown online or on a computer screen if even that. I know I’m guilty of it.

Thanks for posting this article Jim. I am one of those employees, that guys like you used to come in and talk to. I never worked at Star Photo, but our story is the same. I worked at a small pro shop called Motion Picture & Sound that survived for over 70 years (yes, 70) before closing down in 2007.

I still keep in touch with many of my old coworkers, in fact we write a photo/video blog together. I talk about our past here: http://www.binarycrumbs.com/2008/12/from-history-books.html

I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, but I think what you really mean is that small, locally-owned camera shops are dead. Why? For a number of reasons: markup on camera gear is very low (i.e. a $1000 camera is upwards of $850 at store cost), nobody buys/develops/prints film much anymore, very few people regularly print their digital photos, and lastly, it is very difficult for small shops to compete with big-box-store prices.

Anyway, I appreciate you showing some respect.

@Zeb Excellent points and thanks for sharing your perspective. I’ve always imagined that film will persist but on a very niche level. You raise a really interesting aspect of film’s evolution in regard to students. Art schools require film work, exposing students to all formats. There are so many film techniques that have artistic significance, but I can’t help but think that the pool of those using film will always be on a downward trajectory. When film using instructors transition out to the next generation I don’t see the students of today and instructors of tomorrow being as committed to the format. I could be wrong, but thats my perception. I do hope film sticks around even if it is a niche format. As stores supporting film development go under the lack of exposure (no pun intended) certainly will not help it maintain its current use.

I agree with you there too Jim, it is a trend I have seen a bit of in the field of education as well. The large number of students being taught on film is in no small part because a large number of teachers are committed to teaching on film. Whether this trend continues or progresses downward remains to be seen. On a somewhat related note, I have also noticed a disturbing trend amongst teachers teaching digitally to no longer teach the fundamentals: shutter speed, aperture, depth of field, etc. I have seriously heard of some teachers dismissing needing to know these things and instead instructing their students in the use of the automatic functions and justifying it by saying that the LCD screen and histograms tell them all they need to know. But this is not a problem with digital, just poor teaching.

Anyway, thanks for your continuously well thought out articles Jim, I enjoy reading them. I just had to pop in and add my two cents worth on this one. 🙂

The glowing panacea that has become digital imaging could benefit from looking back at the history of computer soft storage (hard drives) and music media hard storage (CD-R, etc.) before playing the “it’s dead, Jim” card. The immediacy and transferability of digital data is convenient, rapid, and of high capacity at increasingly affordable expense, but longevity remains the greatest problem.

Images, unlike other media, are typically personal projects. They serve to document a memory, a life experience, a special event. Whereas film emulsion has survived decades and even over a century when properly stored, digital media cannot enjoy this owing to degradation and the maligned digital rot. And while one could challenge this obstacle by trying to make backup copies, that becomes its own continuing expense and rat race with no ending which few people are prepared to commit. The rest dump their digital images on a CD, an external drive, or a flash memory card and believe that grandma’s face will pop back out at them in five years, or even 10.

I know this not to be a strong guarantee, but digital media consumers have yet to discover this en masse on their own. Unlike an old Ektachrome from 1959, where the images might hue badly and deteriorate, an image nevertheless is often salvageable for viewing or copying. Digital media, once digital failure (“rot”) occurs, is beholden to the limits of error correction schemes. When those aren’t enough, there isn’t a degraded image, but an interrupted image — if any image at all. Once it’s gone, it’s gone. Moreover, for those data storage formats used a dozen years ago, how many are obsolete to the point of being difficult to retrieve on basis of format alone, to say nothing of digital rot? How many people still use their Zip or Jaz drives, their magneto-optical (floptical) drives, their SyQuests, or any of the other crazy formats which failed to endure the test of time?

The other is the amount of money people willingly spend on digital cameras every couple or so years. The amount spent on a digital camera and lenses (if SLR), especially a decent one, must be weighed in consideration t how much film it would take to shoot and process to match the amount of digital images shot before upgrading to a new camera with the latest technological enhancements. This is another detail which most digital converts of late haven’t really considered, but with people watching their money more often these days, this is liable to be a revisited point. If a camera whose build, if designed for film, would last for decades instead lasts only three, maybe four years (as a digital-only system), how long will it take before the consumer simply wants to stick with something that remains stable and familiar over time?

Then there’s the issue of dumping old digital cameras into waste. Even parts that can be recycled (solder, wiring, certain plastics) require a process to separate these raw materials into a new raw product. Even then, there needs to be a wholesale market demand available to make full-circle recycling economically viable. Presently, the recycling industry is hurting badly and are unable to sell these reclaimed materials at a profit. So over time, we should anticipate seeing many digital cameras being inadvertently (and maybe illegally) dumped in landfill rather than disposed of as a hazardous material (PCBs, polycarbonates, etc.). Re-using (freecycle, craigslist, eBay) will only work for perhaps a single turnover until the second owner can no longer find utility and then dispose of the camera themselves. In the question of sustainability, digital cameras as we know them fail this long-term mandate.

So what I anticipate here Jim is, instead of a dead film industry, a consumer equilibrium will be reached as general knowledge of the above is understood and considered by people who now run off to a superstore to buy a new camera at cost. When they can’t see old images due to an inability to recover the files, and they calculate how many thousands of dollars they spent on upgrading cameras for no reason other than they were “obsolete” and “not as good as the newest technology”, they will reconsider the economics of their personal experience and ask what else they can do. What can they do?

They can continue to shoot digital and keep on doing the same, or they can shoot film, then have that film developed and scanned to disc at their nearest druggist lab, local dedicated photo lab still standing, or mail-in lab, for a price which would yield hundreds of rolls of processed film at the same cost as buying a new DSLR at the big box. And of instant gratification? That’s what a camera-integrated handheld device (Blackberry, mobile, iPhone) can be used for — an a visual information tool, not a memory tool.

If memories are what they want to cherish and preserve, then until a technique which can preserve digital media in a format and protocol that guarantees multi-generational longevity is affordably available, digital alone won’t do the trick. Holistically embracing digital and analogue film for imaging, on the other hand, is an equilibrium which I suspect will find itself in the coming years with the main consumer market, as it yields the best of all personal requirements when those needs are required. In fact, it remains a matter of time before a single product which can shoot to digital media or film on the fly is at the disposal of the consumer. While you might know this to be the case with $40,000 Hasselblads, I suspect the maker of an SLR which creates the first F/DSLR for the mass market will ultimately lead the next big jump into imaging trends.

As for film-only adherents? The market has consolidated, but in so doing, the market is more resilient because of it, and distribution channels for making film available online increases volume through dedicated film sales dealers and thus a stronger likelihood of fresh emulsion each and every time. This too is a consequence of digital convergence with an analogue technology. And for this, online sales are an ally in preserving continued film sales revenue. Even if film development came to worst, there will always be grocery shelf chemicals to process (black & white, at least) film, such as instant coffee. An those Taster’s Choice-developed photos will presently last an order of fifty times longer than a digital image on a piece of 2009-era media.

Anyway, my internal editor broke, so thanks for enduring the length of this comment.

I hope it’s not completely dead…. I just picked up a used EOS Elan 7 and a couple rolls of B/W film from eBay and I’ll need to process it somewhere! 😉

The question isn’t ‘Is film dead?’ but ‘In what way(s) is film dead?’

The old way — which one might call The Instamatic Way — of film for casual snapshots and processing at the local developer drop surely is dead.

Consider though that the absense of easy processing means development goes underground. What I mean is, only those people who value film and the time committed to its handling will use it. That’s not a large number of people.

Mainly only art photographers value film in this way. But it’s one of the reasons you see Kodak investing realy money in a new formula for TMAX400, for example.

By and large, film is dead in the old ways we used it, but it will be maintained indefinitely for a small group of people who, for another example, find value in being able to change the sensor in their camera among many different qualities of grain and light-sensitivity, etc. Certainly this point will be lost on most ditigal users, but not on a few.

My response, Jim, to your interesting post is, “Yes, but it depends.”

With 54 years in photo, I’m still processing all the films. 80% of the images we make do however,come to us over the net. The U of Florida still teaches two view camera classes and our E-6, C-41 & B&W dip n’dunk get more than enough film to keep them in control. There are several view camera clubs active in the U.S., and they supply us with plenty of 4×5 film to process.
Having started in the business before color, when it came out that was to be the end of B&W. One PRO photographer we service has gone back to using film for 40% of his work. He says that he understands the results he will get with film.
I was a film product manager for the old GAF corp.(ansco)and at 73 I still like all photographic output. We have a photo tool box today that covers all photographic needs. Still having fun!

For me it was a few years ago when I noticed that Meijer, Target, and the like were no longer offering next day film developing. They used to fall over themselves trying to get your photos back to you faster than everyone else. I realized that film was on its death bed, and that I would soon need a digital camera.

I was taught photography on film. I spent countless hours in my darkroom processing b/w film and countless dollars have been spent paying for color processing. I love film, but yes, it is dead. As of 2 years ago, I switched totally over to digital. I had started to like digital, and my S5pro was producing amazing results. It was actually a sad day for me. The last film camera I used was also my first SLR. It was an old Pentax my father picked up on his way home from Vietnam. It actually had more sentimental value than anything. But it produced wonderful images. Sure the old lenses had some mildew growing on them, but it only added to the beauty.

Film is DEAD, D. E. A. D. It’s kind of like an old person on life support. A bunch of machines may be keeping the body alive, but the mind is gone and the person unconscious. Yes there are a niche group of people who still use it, but that group of people won’t keep it alive. What makes film profitable is shear volume. Manufactures are going to slowly shut down their process. As that happens the film stock that is available will rise in price. That will make it prohibitively expensive and more people will leave. Prices are already on the rise. Eventually the major players will get out of the game all together. You’re stock will disappear and you will have to leave.

Volume my friend, that’s what makes anything profitable now. Those items which can not compete on volume anymore, go away. That leads me to my final point. Why even keep film around. Yes you say that digital doesn’t look like film, it doesn’t have the same feel. Well you right, it doesn’t it has a digital look. However, that is the beauty, it’s digital. I can make my digital file look like any film out there. I have yet to find a film look which I can not duplicate in Photoshop.

But there in lies the problem. The photographers who refuse to switch to digital do so only because they don’t want to relearn something or give up something they spent years learning. That’s why I didn’t switch to digital sooner. You may simply feel that you don’t get you hands dirty enough. For those types, I ask why? I know there is some feeling of connection you get from making it that way, but I gave that up so that I could create my true artistic vision.

Anyway, FILM IS DEAD. Sorry, but it is. You vocal minority need to accept it. I guess we could all go back to tintypes, or daguerreotypes.

Most of the stores that have been closing are digital camera stores up front with film processing in the back.The sign reads at the top “Express Digital + photo” .Film paid all the Bills at one time but Digital never could or will.So if film is dead, digital is Dead on Arrival.Many Digital camera manufacturers lack profits because they now have to compete with major electronics corporations like Sony that never made cameras before.I think what bothers me about this is the electronics industry and cameras are manufactured in Japan,Korea or China.Film created jobs locally manufactured and processed.So if Film does die it looks like it’s an entire industry disappearing and being replaced with nothing else.But i am sure film processing could survive in another store. Maybe something like a custom frame and photo album store with film processing as a service.Film is not dead,But digital camera stores are closing everywhere…That should be the headline.

This discussion has really brought up a lot of good points. I think there is a lot of validity to Jay’s insights. Most of the stores I have seen closed were not film based camera shops. Maybe at one time they had been, but they converted to largely digital-based equipment, and then closed at some point after that. It is a tougher market to sell digital equipment as opposed to film cameras, but I think this is not a digital vs. film, but rather a new vs. used. I work in a camera store that deals primarily in used film equipment. We also do film processing and do not sell any digital (or new film to be fair) cameras at all. There is less overhead on the inventory and the prices remain much more stable over time. We have actually seen a lot of our film equipment start to regain value. Manual focus Nikon lenses have doubled in value over the last two years, driven yes by digital users, not film users mind you.

But this illustrates an important point. Many people want to treat this as a very black and white issue with film clearly one one side and digital clearly on the other. But the two markets are heavily intermingled. Most printing labs are not either film or digital, but both. Just as many camera shops that offer mostly digital cameras still sell some film. The store I work for does not sell any digital bodies, but we sell lenses that will work on them, we do digital printing, and accessories like tripods are cross compatible. There is a lot more gray area than people realize here, just like there are lots of people out there who either use both film and digital cameras, or even though they only shoot digital now, still have lots of negatives from before their switch. It is this lack of a true divide between the two that has played a role in film not being dead.

And I think the whole term “film is dead” is a bit of a misnomer anyway. Dead is dead, right? As long as anybody is making film, as long as there is at least a single roll on the market to buy, as long as you can keep loading that old SRT 101, film is not dead. You can argue that it is dying. I can see some possible validity to that. But it is not dead. Not that I think film in that bad of shape, it has evolved and adapted to its new place in the market pretty well and has stabilized over the last couple of years, and in some ways has begun a small rebound (see my post above). I think people like to attribute more drama to the whole scenario than is warranted, because we do like our drama.

I shoot both film and digital. I enjoy both immensely. I love having a physical negative I can file away and know that no matter how many hard drive crashes occur I still have that negative. At the same time, I don’t print in the darkroom myself anymore either, all my film is scanned and edited via Photoshop. I see it as the best of both worlds. Photographers who come down too strongly on one side or the other are missing the point, that each medium is its own medium. There are strengths and weaknesses on both sides. The beauty of this art is you get to decide for yourself what applies to you and how you are going to use it, and sometimes I am left wondering why some of us feel so strongly that we have to try and impress our opinions upon others, when that is all they really are, opinions.

That is a really good point Jay. The major newspaper in the city I live in has been reducing its photo staff, particularly its editors, and I have talked with some of the pj’s who work there that reinforce the claim that less of their job is about still imaging and instead just recording video, going through the video later to pick out particular frames to make into still photographs for on-line or printed press, plus the advantage of already having the live video of the story in case they choose to feature that as well. I had a friend who moved to New York to attend a photography school there, who became discouraged and left after a number of his instructors informed their classes that the age of the photojournalist who shoots stills is rapidly coming to an end, in favor of the pj who shoots video. Mix in the release of the Canon 5D Mark II and its amazing ability to shoot video and a trend is really becoming apparent.

How much longer before this video capability becomes a wanted commodity in the mass market then? And as more and more consumers decide they would rather have their digitals shooting video instead of film, I guess it is possible we may see another evolution in the photography world in this manner. Interesting hypothesis. Though I find it hard to believe at this point that even future digital cameras that were designed primarily for video would not incorporate some type of still frame photography, even most of the old super 8mm cameras had single frame capabilities.

It shall be interesting to watch, as fast as technology moves along, it is inevitable that what we consider to be the cutting edge of digital imaging is going to be rendered obsolete sooner rather than later. The same thing that has happened to film, is inevitably going to happen to digital too. That is the way progress and technology works, for both our benefit and not. For better or worse, so to speak.

I went into a camera store today looking for an antique camera. The salesman was so surprised and said “You want to buy a film camera?”

whatwhatwhat the hell? what happened to newlab?

is photoworks’ E-6 sendout completely screwed now?

phew, I was worried my last resort for E-6 was going to be ritz/wolf.

went to the newlab site… appears they’re only moving to folsom?

Photo labs: Have been an employee and ran them for years. Consumer photo labs ARE dead and if you think you can make any money at it (one can’t live on the dedication of the film enthusiasts: They represented a small percentage of the revenue) you are kidding yourself.