Film still on the up

[cgw]

Tell me, do you see more smart phones or old Spotmatics snapping pictures?

I see plenty of smart phones snapping pictures. But the Spotmatic user pays money for each roll of film loaded into the camera, and pays money for film developing, perhaps prints, maybe enlargements, perhaps occasional poster prints as well. Since the film shooter's end goal is very often a PRINTED image, the film shooter is often in the market for frames and albums. The film shooter also buys consumable products like negative file pages, and if doing home developing, also regularly buys darkroom chemicals, and perhaps either enlarging paper, or if doing scanning, buys inkjet paper and inks. As one can see, there's a large associated revenue stream for the suppliers of those who shoot film. Kind of different when we examine the issue, rather than try to reduce the whole issue to a glib throwaway sound bite about Spotmatics versus smartphones.

In a sense, the Spotmatic crowd is made up largely of people who are willing to invest in their photography; the smartphone set mostly just wants free pictures, which coincidentally just happen to be one of the features that comes with their phones. Of course, BMW and Mercedez-Benz each control less than 1.5% of the overall market for new cars, and are definitely niche players--and yet, both are doing well. They each make good profits out of a tiny,tiny slice of the overall pie. See how that works?

The problem remains the number of shooters, i.e., demand for film materials and all those things it involves. That's what's missing in this "discussion" that can't be explained away or dismissed. Models/stylists/photographers/designers carry their "look books" on iPads. If you think the "whole issue" amounts to more or something other than demand for film materials, you're a good deal less numerate/observant than I thought.

BTW, Mercedes and BMW aren't comparable to Kodak.

 

[gsgary]

Since digital came along years of social history will be lost because probably only about 20% ever get prints, every film shooter i know prints or gets prints done, most films i shoot there will be at least 2 prints and not cheap prints

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2

Gary brings up a very troubling issue, and I think he's got a real concern. Ken Rockwell mentions the same thing. He URGES, he IMPLORES people to MAKE PRINTS of their most important photos. He's right too. Digital images are very ethereal data sets.

I've heard some historians are concerned that digital photography is altering documentary photography, because so,so,so many people just delete images that do not fit into a preconceived notion of "good", and the reality that we used to find in film rolls between 'the keepers' was preserved regularly. In prints done by machine, the good, bad,and the so-so were all printed out, and negatives on rollfilm were always kept, the good frames right next to the bad, and so a more-balanced, more-truthful reality was recorded and kept. But now, if a picture is not so good, it is often just deleted.

My friend shoots lots of what he calls record shots for the future of building,roads,shops anything he thinks might be changed or demolished (always on film) even though he has an M9 and nearly every Leica made

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2

 

[amolitor]

It's not at all clear that cgw even has a point, only a desire to argue.

Is the film market very small? Yes, yes it is. cgw and everyone else agree on this point.
Is the film market currently trending up up down? That depends on the timescale and geographical region you're measuring it. cgw and everyone else agree on this point.
Will there be a market for film in 10 years, sufficiently large to support manufacture of film? Unknown. cgw and everyone else agree on this point.

I'm not sure what points of disagreement there actually are, but cgw sure seems to want to pick a fight.

 

[Derrel]

It's not at all clear that cgw even has a point, only a desire to argue. >SNIP>> but cgw sure seems to want to pick a fight.

Yes, pretty much spot-on. I keep wondering if he's a payed on-line voice for one of the "new" up and coming companies, or works for some type of Canada-based digital imaging provider that is NOT Nikon, and NOT Canon...I've encountered him in a number of posts here where he keeps pushing a vision of photography that seems very focused on mirrorless cameras as the answer to all our woes.

The past few months I've been scanning old family slides, shot by my grandfather in the late 1940's, and throughout the decade of the 1950's. It's pretty surprising how well the old slides have kept their color for 50+ years--without once being "backed up" onto new media as the old medium became obsolete or archaic...Meanwhile, some of my earliest scans of prints I stored on Zip Drive cartridges, before CD burners dropped down below the $600 price point and each CD was like $3 per disc...

 

[terri]

He does seem to show up in these kinds of threads and is generally playing the role of self-appointed devil's advocate, or at least it appears that's what he is trying to do. Unfortunately as others in the discussion (and we didn't need quotes around the word, cgw, that alone is dismissive and inflammatory in nature) try to respond, he returns with more adversarial comments.

If y'all get tired of it, just report a post and we can take it from there. I've enjoyed this thread so far. Carry on! :salute:

 

[PhotoWrangler]

The funny thing about this? I've got my Spotmatic with me today, loaded and ready to go

(And yes, it was ready to go before I read these new messages.)

Isnt a 35mm with a nifty fifty a requirement in any film shooters daily bag?

 

[PhotoWrangler]

I see plenty of smart phones snapping pictures. But the Spotmatic user pays money for each roll of film loaded into the camera, and pays money for film developing, perhaps prints, maybe enlargements, perhaps occasional poster prints as well. Since the film shooter's end goal is very often a PRINTED image, the film shooter is often in the market for frames and albums. The film shooter also buys consumable products like negative file pages, and if doing home developing, also regularly buys darkroom chemicals, and perhaps either enlarging paper, or if doing scanning, buys inkjet paper and inks. As one can see, there's a large associated revenue stream for the suppliers of those who shoot film. Kind of different when we examine the issue, rather than try to reduce the whole issue to a glib throwaway sound bite about Spotmatics versus smartphones.

In a sense, the Spotmatic crowd is made up largely of people who are willing to invest in their photography; the smartphone set mostly just wants free pictures, which coincidentally just happen to be one of the features that comes with their phones. Of course, BMW and Mercedez-Benz each control less than 1.5% of the overall market for new cars, and are definitely niche players--and yet, both are doing well. They each make good profits out of a tiny,tiny slice of the overall pie. See how that works?

Sometimes I can't stand you. But sometimes I think I love you. Well said sir.

 

[Derrel]

I see plenty of smart phones snapping pictures. But the Spotmatic user pays money for each roll of film loaded into the camera, and pays money for film developing, perhaps prints, maybe enlargements, perhaps occasional poster prints as well. Since the film shooter's end goal is very often a PRINTED image, the film shooter is often in the market for frames and albums. The film shooter also buys consumable products like negative file pages, and if doing home developing, also regularly buys darkroom chemicals, and perhaps either enlarging paper, or if doing scanning, buys inkjet paper and inks. As one can see, there's a large associated revenue stream for the suppliers of those who shoot film. Kind of different when we examine the issue, rather than try to reduce the whole issue to a glib throwaway sound bite about Spotmatics versus smartphones.

In a sense, the Spotmatic crowd is made up largely of people who are willing to invest in their photography; the smartphone set mostly just wants free pictures, which coincidentally just happen to be one of the features that comes with their phones. Of course, BMW and Mercedez-Benz each control less than 1.5% of the overall market for new cars, and are definitely niche players--and yet, both are doing well. They each make good profits out of a tiny,tiny slice of the overall pie. See how that works?

Sometimes I can't stand you. But sometimes I think I love you. Well said sir.

Ummm, thank you...I guess??? lol. Yeah, I knowwhatcha' mean PW. As to the "nifty fifty" on the Spotmatic, I think the 55mm f/1.8 might actually have been more common than their 50/1.4. I own one I bought last year for $19 at Goodwill...it's a challenging lens to focus without a split image rangefinder screen...the focusing is very long throw and slow.

 

[compur]

The problem remains the number of shooters, i.e., demand for film materials and all those things it involves. That's what's missing in this "discussion" that can't be explained away or dismissed. Models/stylists/photographers/designers carry their "look books" on iPads. If you think the "whole issue" amounts to more or something other than demand for film materials, you're a good deal less numerate/observant than I thought.

OK, so what is the number of shooters? What are the stats on the demand or lack thereof? Be specific, please, and cite your references. I'm sure we'd all like to know.

But, something tells me you don't have a clue what the answers to those questions are -- correct?

 

[gsgary]

Tell me, do you see more smart phones or old Spotmatics snapping pictures?

I see plenty of smart phones snapping pictures. But the Spotmatic user pays money for each roll of film loaded into the camera, and pays money for film developing, perhaps prints, maybe enlargements, perhaps occasional poster prints as well. Since the film shooter's end goal is very often a PRINTED image, the film shooter is often in the market for frames and albums. The film shooter also buys consumable products like negative file pages, and if doing home developing, also regularly buys darkroom chemicals, and perhaps either enlarging paper, or if doing scanning, buys inkjet paper and inks. As one can see, there's a large associated revenue stream for the suppliers of those who shoot film. Kind of different when we examine the issue, rather than try to reduce the whole issue to a glib throwaway sound bite about Spotmatics versus smartphones.

In a sense, the Spotmatic crowd is made up largely of people who are willing to invest in their photography; the smartphone set mostly just wants free pictures, which coincidentally just happen to be one of the features that comes with their phones. Of course, BMW and Mercedez-Benz each control less than 1.5% of the overall market for new cars, and are definitely niche players--and yet, both are doing well. They each make good profits out of a tiny,tiny slice of the overall pie. See how that works?

The problem remains the number of shooters, i.e., demand for film materials and all those things it involves. That's what's missing in this "discussion" that can't be explained away or dismissed. Models/stylists/photographers/designers carry their "look books" on iPads. If you think the "whole issue" amounts to more or something other than demand for film materials, you're a good deal less numerate/observant than I thought.

BTW, Mercedes and BMW aren't comparable to Kodak.

David Bailey still does shoots on film

 

[gsgary]

The problem remains the number of shooters, i.e., demand for film materials and all those things it involves. That's what's missing in this "discussion" that can't be explained away or dismissed. Models/stylists/photographers/designers carry their "look books" on iPads. If you think the "whole issue" amounts to more or something other than demand for film materials, you're a good deal less numerate/observant than I thought.

OK, so what is the number of shooters? What are the stats on the demand or lack thereof? Be specific, please, and cite your references. I'm sure we'd all like to know.

But, something tells me you don't have a clue what the answers to those questions are -- correct?

Just under 20% at our club

 

[gsgary]

The funny thing about this? I've got my Spotmatic with me today, loaded and ready to go

(And yes, it was ready to go before I read these new messages.)

Isnt a 35mm with a nifty fifty a requirement in any film shooters daily bag?

i have a 50F1.5 on my M4-2 and 28F2 on my M4-p thats all i need

 

[webestang64]

I wish they'd open something like that in the States, but I'm not sure we're seeing the same kind of uptick in film use over here.

A friend and I are going to have rental darkroom here in St. Louis as soon as funds allow. Building is paid for and we have all the equipment. Just working on funds to remodel the building. We have a photo tour business that's helping.

 

[PhotoWrangler]

From the freestylephoto.biz newsletter that I just received a few minutes ago...

Our commitment to traditional photography remains as strong as ever. It seems that many educators are dedicated, as well. With the fall school semester off and running, we are happy to report that film and darkroom paper sales have shown a substantial increase for the first time in four years. This is a great sign as it appears that educational budgets and photo programs have expanded, student enrollment is up and an interest in traditional photography is growing.

 

[cgw]

I see plenty of smart phones snapping pictures. But the Spotmatic user pays money for each roll of film loaded into the camera, and pays money for film developing, perhaps prints, maybe enlargements, perhaps occasional poster prints as well. Since the film shooter's end goal is very often a PRINTED image, the film shooter is often in the market for frames and albums. The film shooter also buys consumable products like negative file pages, and if doing home developing, also regularly buys darkroom chemicals, and perhaps either enlarging paper, or if doing scanning, buys inkjet paper and inks. As one can see, there's a large associated revenue stream for the suppliers of those who shoot film. Kind of different when we examine the issue, rather than try to reduce the whole issue to a glib throwaway sound bite about Spotmatics versus smartphones.

In a sense, the Spotmatic crowd is made up largely of people who are willing to invest in their photography; the smartphone set mostly just wants free pictures, which coincidentally just happen to be one of the features that comes with their phones. Of course, BMW and Mercedez-Benz each control less than 1.5% of the overall market for new cars, and are definitely niche players--and yet, both are doing well. They each make good profits out of a tiny,tiny slice of the overall pie. See how that works?

The problem remains the number of shooters, i.e., demand for film materials and all those things it involves. That's what's missing in this "discussion" that can't be explained away or dismissed. Models/stylists/photographers/designers carry their "look books" on iPads. If you think the "whole issue" amounts to more or something other than demand for film materials, you're a good deal less numerate/observant than I thought.

BTW, Mercedes and BMW aren't comparable to Kodak.

David Bailey still does shoots on film

He was once married to Deneuve, too. That ended in '72. He's barely active now.

BTW, off to Toronto Image Works(the last full-service film pro lab in N. America's fourth largest city) this a.m. to get some E-6 120 done. No one else left standing. Happily, they do great work.