Where is the future of 35mm taking us?

[iamacyborg]

I suspect that 35mm will be the first of the present film formats to go and sheet film will be the last.

35mm film based pictures offer the worst possible technical quality in regular photographic production. Everything bigger offers dramatically less grain, more sharpness, greater detail, and stunningly superior tonal quality. Plus 120 format roll-film and sheet film typically 4x5 and 8x10 sizes are just as easy to process.

So why 35mm? Reasons:

Small hand-holdable lightweight cameras.
Quick to use for unpredictable photo opportunities.
Fast lenses for low light work.
Fast shutter speeds for moving subjects.
Many shots, usually 36, between re-loadings.
Low film costs per exposure.

Those reasons were powerful in the past as compensation for the wretched picture quality. But no more. Everything 35mm could do is equalled or exceeded by present day digital cameras which deliver more pictures, better, quicker, cheaper, and at a fraction of the effort and mess of 35mm.

Now if you are doing 8x10 platinotypes or gelatin-silvers you are stuck with making pictures out of light sensitive materials which assuredly digital does not do. Things like this will be the last hold-out for film.

Wretched picture quality? What?

 

[compur]

You can see some of the wretched quality 35mm photos here and here and here and ...

 

[usayit]

Small hand-holdable lightweight cameras.
Quick to use for unpredictable photo opportunities.
Fast lenses for low light work.
Fast shutter speeds for moving subjects.
Many shots, usually 36, between re-loadings.
Low film costs per exposure.

Don't be too quick to shrug off "maris" point... 35mm was considered a "toy" format for photography in its infancy. It was a time when medium and large format dominated because that was the minimum quality many accepted. The popularity of the 135 was in part due to warfare and war photographers who saw it necessary to get closer to the action even at the expense of the lower image quality of a smaller negative. They did so for the reasons "maris" pointed out. Digital brings many of those aspects with some added advantages... no doubt the same advantages that caused many old time wedding/event/journalist photographers to switch to small frame digital cameras.

Now I wouldn't say "wretched" quality.... its pretty darn good... but compared to larger formats. Eh yes.. there's a very noticeable difference.

On the same note... A oil portrait is considered "wretched" quality by photographic standards but they are still sought after. Not near as common as photos. I still believe film will be around (yes 35mm too) for the "look" just like many still choose polaroid, watercolor, oil, etc. as a medium.

 

[iamacyborg]

Don't be too quick to shrug off "maris" point... 35mm was considered a "toy" format for photography in its infancy. It was a time when medium and large format dominated because that was the minimum quality many accepted. The popularity of the 135 was in part due to warfare and war photographers who saw it necessary to get closer to the action even at the expense of the lower image quality of a smaller negative. They did so for the reasons "maris" pointed out. Digital brings many of those aspects with some added advantages... no doubt the same advantages that caused many old time wedding/event/journalist photographers to switch to small frame digital cameras.

Now I wouldn't say "wretched" quality.... its pretty darn good... but compared to larger formats. Eh yes.. there's a very noticeable difference.

On the same note... A oil portrait is considered "wretched" quality by photographic standards but they are still sought after. Not near as common as photos. I still believe film will be around (yes 35mm too) for the "look" just like many still choose polaroid, watercolor, oil, etc. as a medium.

A fair enough point, but how many photographers do you know that have shot 135 film and really pushed it to it's absolute limits, to the point where it made no more sense to shoot it?

 

[12sndsgood]

i see film going to the wayside. it will probably take some time but it will eventually go. i don't see kids sticking with film. retro is in right now but give it another few years and the trends will change and the youth will forget about film. it will go the way of the cassette tape and the sony walkman and the floppy disc

 

[compur]

... and rock & roll.

 

[ghache]

I still have 150 roll of 35mm film in my freeze, im good for a couple a years.

 

[usayit]

A fair enough point, but how many photographers do you know that have shot 135 film and really pushed it to it's absolute limits, to the point where it made no more sense to shoot it?

I know a lot... (my answer isn't going to be what you expected).

Any journalist in which pictures need to be delivered in the terms of minutes not hours or days has pushed film to the limits. Film's limit in terms of turn-around time has been pushed to the max already... digital took over from there.

 

[iamacyborg]

A fair enough point, but how many photographers do you know that have shot 135 film and really pushed it to it's absolute limits, to the point where it made no more sense to shoot it?

I know a lot... (my answer isn't going to be what you expected).

Any journalist in which pictures need to be delivered in the terms of minutes not hours or days has pushed film to the limits. Film's limit in terms of turn-around time has been pushed to the max already... digital took over from there.

Well yes, but that leap has already happened, and 135 is still going relatively strong.
Turn-around time, is a very important factor for photojournalism, obviously, but that's just one particular aspect of the film. There are many other factors to consider, and as I said above, turn-around time has been irrelevant for quite a while.

 

[Vautrin]

I think it's important to differentiate the purpose of the photos.

Black and White Film is still light years ahead of digital black and white.
Kodak Ektachrome VS and G, also looks much different then digital, and is much higher quality in medium and large format.

But these are mediums really used for art photography... That demand is still there and isn't going away soon

The demand that is going away is the demand by the average consumer. Joe Sixpack who wants to take photos of his family vacation is going to prefer a $100 powershot to a film camera that costs $10 a roll (including processing and prints) for crappy photos (let's face it, they were always price oriented and walmart photo lab just doesn't do a great job)

That's the demand that goes away.

So we'll see a retooling of who uses film. I'd predict medium & large format art photography will be here for a long time.

Maybe though, it'll be supported by brands like Efke, Rollei and Fomapan, while Kodak will go off to support more profitable digital markets

So to summarize:

Family vacation portraits? Digital all the way
Wall sized art photos: medium and large format film

 

[tcarney57]

The EPA has been in existence since 1973 (it was created by Richard Nixon!). It's had almost forty years to regulate and restrict photo chemicals. It hasn't. Is there any evidence it intends to do so now, at a time when digital has all-but wiped out the use of such chemicals? Is this a Tea Bag .. uh ... Tea Party attack on the EPA?

 

[Vautrin]

I don't think photo chemicals are that dangerous. Least not compared to whats in batteries, or computers, or any number of things...

 

[usayit]

My limited understanding of the manufacturing of various components for computers tells me that the pollution and toxic materials in the manufacture of these digital cameras are far far far far worse than the heavy metals in spent developer. Furthermore, digital cameras (like most consumer electronics) have a very short lived time span which further worsens the situations. I'm sure anyone with a much better understanding of the manufacturing process will agree and add more detail (Garbz?)

Its similar to the notion that the Prius is less polluting than a gas efficient vehicle of similar size... once you figure in the toxins from the batteries and the cost of shipping parts all over the world to make a single Prius, its not a good picture.

What I do know very well is that blind and blanket application of technology doesn't always solve problems... it simply makes them more complex. I see it everywhere as less informed consumers ooooooo and aaaaahhh at marketing material.

I'm sure some here should recall the idea of a "paperless" workplace environment that was so popular in the 80s and 90s.

 

[Mike_E]

i see film going to the wayside. it will probably take some time but it will eventually go. i don't see kids sticking with film. retro is in right now but give it another few years and the trends will change and the youth will forget about film. it will go the way of the cassette tape and the sony walkman and the floppy disc

They're still making tubes of oil paints, brushes, knives and canvases along with watercolors, pastels and charcoals.

Film isn't going anywhere.

 

[Snaphaan]

My limited understanding of the manufacturing of various components for computers tells me that the pollution and toxic materials in the manufacture of these digital cameras are far far far far worse than the heavy metals in spent developer. Furthermore, digital cameras (like most consumer electronics) have a very short lived time span which further worsens the situations. I'm sure anyone with a much better understanding of the manufacturing process will agree and add more detail (Garbz?)

I agree. Many computer parts are far worse for the environment than a roll of film or darkroom chemicals. We have not "saved" paper or reduced the amount of energy and materials necessary to produce a image. We have compacted most of the tasks into a portable electronic device that is produced and manufactured through a process that is (for obvious reasons) far worse than the building of say a daguerreotype or even a 40 year old Pentax.

Plastic is one really BIG problem and todays camera utilizes a LOT of it. Especially lower end P&S and your entry level DSLR's. Its become the norm. I have a old Pentax and the build quality is not only excellent but really environmentally friendly.

About film. It WILL die out. Due to the simple reason that technology will eventually surpass it. Make your peace. The only real issue I see with the electronic processes and storage is that they tend to fail after more or less 2 decades. I have lost a lot of stuff lately due to old backups getting corrupted for unknown reasons. In 20 years time I will need to replace all my drives with newer storage tech and the old stuff will "recycle" back into the environment creating a viscous flow of virtually indestructible "cost effective space saving" hardware.

Don't for a minute think that your helping your environment when you are using your digital camera. When the world was sniffing chemicals and shooting 35mm they were environmentalists without even knowing it.