Kodak: "There is a very real resurgence for film"

[compur]

see this

 

[Neil S.]

This is kind of interesting, but I dont see how film will ever "make a comeback" at least for photography.

It has become so easy to shoot with digital, and you can take up to thousands of photos without needing to change cards. Also the ability to review your shot on the LCD is useful is so many ways.

Digital is such a fast workflow too, and film cant even begin to compete in this aspect.

Dont get me wrong as I am a huge fan of movies, and know that film is still widely used in their production even to this day. It seems to me that it will be a while before digital technology replaces film in this area, and I am not even sure that I ever want it too personally.

 

[Derrel]

Yes, there's a resurgence for film in almost all Kodak articles about film. That's why they took two different film stocks, Portra Natural Color and Portra Vivid Color, and "merged" them into one,single emulsion. So, instead of two,separate,different print films, they now offer one type in that category. Where before there was more choice of what the film's look would be, now there is less choice. Because there's a resurgence in film.

 

[Neil S.]

Derrel...

Do you have a lot of experience with film photography?

I have like zero lol. I used my mother’s and grandmother’s cheap 35mm cameras as I child some, and then the occasional disposable.

I am a member of the 1st digital generation, and I grew up on apple II the first Nintendo.

Sometimes I wish that I could get into film, but that wouldn’t be anytime soon I think, because it would be hard for me to get a good film SLR when I could put the money towards the latest FF DSLR.

 

[supraman215]

Derrel has extensive experience with film. I have a little experience. In HS I developed my own B&W prints and negatives. I never developed color since it's a much harder process with much more toxic chemicals. But unless your developing your own prints and negatives because you enjoy that hobby I am at a loss as to why people would still want to work with film, especially color. Just like mentioned in the article all color film print processing is digital so at the end of the day your image is being processed by a CMOS or CCD so why not make it the first step in the process and not the last? Maybe you like an old lens or something that won't fit on a newer digital body? Thoughts? I must be missing something because I see a people say they are shooting color film more often then I expected.

 

[ann]

well, my local camera store has recently gone back to selling film cameras, they had stopped as there wasn't a market ; however, they are back in the business of carrying film bodies.

More and more teenagers take my summer darkroom workshops; so does this mean film will be king again? Of course not, but it is still out there

 

[Mike_E]

Film can't come back and be the main player in photography because there is a much higher profit margin in making digital cameras assuring that the camera makers new product will be digital.

However, because of the huge number of good to really good to great film bodies which are already owned or can be had a great prices, people who want good photos or even just the panache of shooting some kind of SLR and don't want to or can't pay the huge upfront cost of a DSLR are shooting away with film.

There is also the nostalgic aspect where younger people who didn't grow up where film was the only option feel a connection with the "old" days by using film.

 

[supraman215]

Film can't come back and be the main player in photography because there is a much higher profit margin in making digital cameras assuring that the camera makers new product will be digital.

??? Are you ignoring the demand for DSLR? I'm confused by this statement.

However, because of the huge number of good to really good to great film bodies which are already owned or can be had a great prices, people who want good photos or even just the panache of shooting some kind of SLR and don't want to or can't pay the huge upfront cost of a DSLR are shooting away with film.

Yeah but lenses that can be used on both cameras are still just as expensive. Outdated used DSLR bodies can be had for cheap, not as cheap as film but not $1500 either.

There is also the nostalgic aspect where younger people who didn't grow up where film was the only option feel a connection with the "old" days by using film.

I concur there is a nostalgic aspect to film. The nostalgic aspect to me, is working in a darkroom and developing your own negatives and prints. Just shooting color to take to your local 1hour photo shop and get prints doesn't seem nostalgic to me. Atleast not in a good way lol. I always thought it was so expensive to buy film and get prints made. I can't imagine what it costs now.

 

[Early]

I'll believe in a resurgence when they bring back Kodachrome.

 

[Overread]

I think digital is here to stay as the main form of photography for the forseeable future. I don't see film making a return to its original hayday unless something major occurs in the world (like Japan vanishes... or something).

However I do think that film will live on - albeit in a reduced scale. I suspect most countries will whittle down into a few key film developers and that you'll have to mail off your negatives to get processed and order the chemicals by mail as well if you want to do it at home.
Most pros will shift over to digital - even the medium and large formate users are slowly shifting as the price of the digital units is reducing and the quality (mostly dynamic range) is slowly catching up. Though some will corner a nostalgic market in film only work - probably for wedding photography - esp if they combine it with black and white (there is a market for this in the wedding world).

This change will most likely also speed up if the schools start dumping film as a part of their course (along with universities) and it will be interesting to see if film can live in as an art for of if economics pushes it into the sidelines. This not only affects direct sales of chemicals and other things for companies but also means that generations will grow up without basic access to film setups - thus lessening their chances of getting involved.

The hobbyist will become and remain the main market for film and since hobbies tend to remain quite sturdy things (even through crisis periods) a film hobby market should be able to keep a limited film market and industry running.

 

[ann]

What is interesting, many colleges dropped their film programs several years ago and now finding they are re-building their darkrooms, not at the same scale, but going back to offer film as well as digital.

Of course schools like the Art Institute folks are very committed to digital.

ALso, i find this interesting that more and more people are doing wet plate and tintype , who would have thought that would happen.

Again, i am not saying that film is ever going to be top dog again, but there are a lot of people around that will keep several small companies in business.

 

[white]

ALso, i find this interesting that more and more people are doing wet plate and tintype , who would have thought that would happen.

That is what I'm interested in doing soon. I'd like to make Daguerrotype at some point.

I got into photography when everything was digital, so I guess I am a little burned out by it. There are a lot of alternate ways to make a photographic image, and digital seems very lackluster by comparison.

 

[Mike_E]

Supraman215, to clear up the profit question.. The fact that digis have a higher profit margin than film means that the camera companies won't be going back to film because they would make less money per camera sold. (this is an extrapolation based on everything else electronic being cheaper then mechanical +labor)

There are a lot of old lenses out there too. They may not be f2.8s or f1.4s but are plenty good enough for film cameras being shot by Joe Normal. When you say not $1500, I say Not $150. You can buy a Minolta or Pentax or whatever with a 28-something and an 80-200 zoom and 5 rolls of film for under $70 with little trouble.

So even buying a used DSLR with lenses and the other needed supplies along with a software program for rudimentary post production (even if it's free there is a huge investment in time learning the software and time, my time at least , is expensive) you're looking at between $500 and $700.

Considering how much Joe Normal actually shoots, the difference might actually be most of a lifetime's worth of snapshots.

 

[guajero]

I think what has changed is the workflow. Film+scanning can lead to some really awesome and rewarding results. There are also instances where film's dynamic range makes more sense. The challenge now is finding a decent lab.

 

[Mike_E]

I think what has changed is the workflow. Film+scanning can lead to some really awesome and rewarding results. There are also instances where film's dynamic range makes more sense. The challenge now is finding a decent lab.

Here you go.. Photography Darkroom Supply List - Teacher's Lounge - Freestyle Photographic Supplies