I just finished reading an interesting article in the current issue of Digital Photopro magazine. It talks about where the camera manufacturing industry is headed. He made some interesting, if not controversial prognostications.
Nikon announced that they will stop manufacturing film cameras in 2007. The author believes this will be the case with all 35mm camera manufacture very quickly. He believes that film will become prohibitively expensive for pros to use and will disappear faster than film photographers think. He believes only the amateur market will keep it alive for a while.
Bronica no longer makes cameras. He believes there won't be a medium format film camera left to manufacture at all in short order. He sees companies like Mamiya and Pentax disappearing.
The industry believes that the sale of point and shoot digital cameras will peak in 2007 at around 27 millions units and will decline after that to be around 23 million by 2010, and go down from there. He thinks there is still growth in the DSLR segment of the business but not in the point and shoot end.
He sees a big shakeup in the DSLR business. Companies like Pentax won't make it. Canon will be the ruler and Nikon the #2 survivor of the shakeup. Electronics companies that have entered the market recently (Sony, Panasonic etc.) may or may not continue to make DSLR's into the future depending on how their experiments in the industry go.
My crystal ball isn't even as good as the author's so I have no way to judge the comments. It is interesting fodder for debate, though.
I think that is definitely the minority. I saw a wedding photographer using a 10D, and his wife using a Digital Rebel, and that's all they had. One lens each. Not someone I would hire.
Why does the equipment that the photographer uses matter if they get the shots and the customer is happy and likes their style?
As for film, maybe it is a vinyl vs CD thing. I can't say that music from vinyl sounds any more pleasing to my ears than music from a CD, but I can say that if I look at a black and white print made with silver process from an Ilford film, it looks much nicer to me than the digitally captured and printed equivalent. And that's not just in my head. It's in the grain and it's in the tonal range.
Nor in my head, which is why I sold my dSLR and bought film equipment again. This kind of thread comes up from time to time, and for film users who want to believe that the magic of analogue photography will always be with us, they can be depressing. So, here is one quantified, non-controversial piece of information from which we can take some encouragement.
Ilford went through a financial restructuring a while back (i.e. its management bought it out of an insolvency procedure which allowed the business to dump £10 million of debt). They published their first set of accounts since then earlier this year, and they showed a net profit of £5 million (that's around $US 10 million) for the first year of trading. Now, the new management at Ilford said from the start that the company would be the last man standing in b&w film, but talk is cheap, and one year's results don't tell us anything about how the world will look next year ($2 = £1, that doesn't help), or in 5 or 10 years, but it's a good start. And my freezer can hold a lot of FP4+ if everything does go pear shaped.
Thom
And I beleive Hassy film backs and accessories cost about as much as the H lineup is right now.
Im going to take exception to matt as well.
Is it just lip service we all pay, when we say it isn't what's in the hand but in the head that makes a photographer what he is.
Unfortunately that kind of statement just increases the number of photographers who have to have a ton of equipment then think that it automatically makes them a better photographer. Oh well just one more opinion heard from. Mine that is...
Are wedding photographers the only working pro's out there anymore? :p
What about commercial and fashion photography? Medium format digital is very dominant in these categories.
Is that a large enough market to maintain MF? Personally I do not think so. Also as younger photographers work their way up in the world of commercial photography, they will bring with them the equipment they are conformable using.
Another thing to add to the debate is the sale levels of Canon & Nikon should let them develop cheaper manufacturing cost and new technologies quicker
I just finished reading an interesting article in the current issue of Digital Photopro magazine.And that should have been enough to let you know what the slant of that article would be. ;)
Doom! Gloom! Death to film! See who pays for the advertising for this crappy rag! :lol: Film is out, it's dead, it's dying, for god's SAKE don't buy anymore because we expect to keep you on the treadmill of buying next season's whiz-bang plastic crap with more megapixels than you'll ever need in your lifetime! But we'll convince you it's STILL not enough - cause we have NEXT quarter to think about! :lmao:
There are plenty of reasons to shoot with film, and plenty of reasons to shoot digital. But seriously, how many of you really think photography is going to pay your mortgage or put the kids through college? ;) You're already chasing the pixel, God luv ya. Have at it.
Top Ten of 2005 - Editorials::
The popular media (that is, non-academic or industry publications) began to paper offers a traffic camera mashup, one related to Whither MapQuest?
http://www.directionsmag.com/editorials.php?article_id=2056HOME |
I love digital. It's making beautiful MF systems amazingly affordable. Hey, digital's gotta be good for something other than landfill fodder within 5 years. woo HOOOOOOOO! 4x5 is next for me, baby! :cheer:
Enjoy!
This is one of the more depressing threads I've read. Digital file storage seems so potentially corruptible. Yes, negatives can also get destroyed, but still, there's something terrifying about how a digital file can be gone in a nanosecond if something isn't exactly right. My day job is in radio, and we were completely knocked off line the other day by a ten-second power outage. It's not hard at all (or even that expensive, with current HD prices) to back up files, you know.
Ah, but I didn't say it was the only medium, just that I prefer it... digital can of course produce some great stuff. But... I find that in a darkroom I can make consistently good enlargements, while with digital I'm continually calibrating and profiling in an attempt to get black to look black. I just don't think most photo printers designed for home use are really designed for black & white... I like the grain... and although I agree there are situations where digital would be preferable even for black & white work, there remain situations where it wouldn't be... they're both good for different things and we should be able to use both. Ultimately you made the point yourself... film is not the only medium. They are not just an old and a new technology, they are different media. Film isn't the only medium. But neither is digital, and why should it be? Therefore in addition to shooting digital I will continue to buy and shoot film, to make my very small contribution to the companies who make it... otherwise prophesies like this are of the self-fulfilling variety.
Is that a large enough market to maintain MF? Personally I do not think so.
You do not think so?
The marketing, commercial and fashion is the major part of the photographic industry. It's where to top dollar is.
Also as younger photographers work their way up in the world of commercial photography, they will bring with them the equipment they are conformable using.
I'm sure I'd be pretty comfortable shooting with that 39mp hassy back. And I'm a young photogrpaher. :mrgreen:
As to the film vs digital - canon seems to be the only one who's not dropping their whole lineup. They just aren't developing anything new at the moment.
Velvia 50 is being introduced again. Should be available next year.
it makes me so sad to think that film will disappear, but i have no doubt that it will, eventually...i just switched last month to digital, because buying film this past wedding season was difficult....my supplier, a fuji shop, couldnt even get the film.....and then my usual film was discontinued and what i could get was $11 a roll...ouch!!!!! cutting alot into my profit margin!! until a month ago, i was the last photographer in my area using film....i hung on as long as i could!!
Also...just want to 'rebut' what Digital Matt said...you wouldnt hire someone with that equipment they had....well, weddings are not a place where you have time to switch off lenses, set up elaborate shots etc...its about getting great shots, on a time frame...a very fast moving one...you have to be prepared...a couple of bodies ready to go, different lens on each! Thats how you get the job done, without monopolizing their day! (but that's a little off topic..so we'll let that go now!)
Let me guess, Terri, you haven't gotten into digital photography yet have you?:lol:
Ya think? ;)
Fred that is a lot of questions & comments to answers with just one yes or no. I agree with most of that you said.
I think the future of film is mixed. B&W will survive because it seems to have already moved to the fine art & hobby market. Along with the easy developing and printing makes it possible for home processing. Color is a different question. My believe is that E6 has similar advantages to B&W. But I do not know of any manufactures other that Kodak & Fuji. The problem is with C41 and what effect the decline consumer films will have on the financing of color pro films? Time will tell but I don’t think it looks good.
To MF question my option is in time MF film will become what LF is today, B&W fine art and hobby. Also I think this will happen sooner that most people do. Is that good are bad who knows? As for MF-D replace MF film? I think that I have already expressed my option on that. IMO MF-D cost needs be cut 40%-60% to compete with DSLRs
One big problem I see with the decline of film maybe cost of film scanners rise.
Matt
I have a Hassy 500C/M and a Canon 1D MIIn. People are going to call me crazy :crazy: but I think the Canon is better in always. In fact I think it’s too good sometime.
-- Even Canon advertises it's 1DS MKII as "finally, a magazine quality dslr". 16 mp is just the fringe of magazine quality.
I assume that is compared to MF film. If that is so, when why buy a MF-D back
The archiving issue is interesting and a little worrisome. Some people believe that we are archiving things on media that won't be readable by future equipment. I've already had problems with CD-RW. I'm about to invest in a NAS RAID to handle the archiving. But hard drives not only can but all evenually do fail. So I guess I'll buy at least one extra drive for the RAID. When one fails, I'll replace it and then find something to back it up - and something to back up the backup. It's a little scary. The Outsourcing Debate - ClickZ::
Within the SEM (define) industry, one debate seems to rage on endlessly for both SpotRunner Nabs Coast-to-Coast Army of Camera Pros - Jan 23, 2008
http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=3618286HOME |
AltWeeklies.com | B&G Sides::
Tags: B&G Sides, The Hard Lessons. Whither the Album? Chicago Reader 1210 words Tags: music industry, MySpace, Digital Rights Management, iTunes, web culture,
http://www.altweeklies.com/music/b_g_sides/Topic?oid=435286HOME |
I don't think film will completely die, for a while. But I do agree with many of the points made in this article; especially Canon and Nikon being on top.
Point and shoots will stay popular in my opinion; the average person isn't like us. They want something that fits in their pocket and takes pictures that are good enough.
The price of digital technology gets cheaper and cheaper, and at a certain point, the only way to go is up. Up in resolution, and up in sensor size. You can only cram so many megapixels into an area of 24x36mm. I think within 5-10 years, the amateur market will be full frame DSLRs for under $1000, and Digital MF cameras for under $5000. The highest megapixel MF sensors will still always command a high price to start, as does all technology when it first breaks, but the ones we see now, like the 39mp backs will come down, and the 22mp backs will start showing up under $5k. You tell me what pro photographer has not spent $5k or much more on their equipment? Even a basic wedding kit consisting of 2 bodies, 2 flashes, and a few lenses runs you more than that in todays prosumer 6mp market.
That's a sensible scenario. It could certainly go that way. I guess all my Nikkor DX lenses will become obselete. Sigh! Better start saving up.
Interesting predictions. Not convinced that film will fall by the way side. I can see why they are not manufacturing film cameras any more.
Photography is in an uncomfortable position at this moment in time. Digi has brought convience and ease that a lot of us have never seen before. The camera industry is not withering. Just going through growing pains.
Doc, I realize they are doing fine. So is Mamiya. But their sales are declining like crazy. Hassys have always been expensive but the digital ones are REALLY expensive. That just cuts out more and more of the market. It cuts out virtually all the consumer market (the largest part) except for the wealthy. The pro market is too small to support a medium format camera manufacturer.
I think he was printing them out himself on a plain printer and photographic paper. They weren't the best prints, but I don't think that the average conusmer that was at the sale could tell the difference of the quality of his and my pics.
there is a lesson there for a lot more photographers around here. Shooting more than the buyer sees is great for the ego but does little for the pocketbook if he cant afford your prices.
I think it will be a matter of choice with some people as long as there is a choice.
For me I shoot one piece of film or paper a day, It isn't cost effective but it isnt prohibative either. I like all of it the loading of film holders, the spending twenty minutes setting up the shot, the exposure calculations, the shot itself, the loading and processing of the film, even the scanning of it and working it through my digital darkroom. For me and me alone, I see no reason to change to digital.
Thats just me. I no longer have a problem with digital users since that is about all that's left in the world, except those few film users who will soon be called retro photographers as well as me.
But you aren't typical of photographers in general, Mystery Scribe. You love tinkering with the old gear and with your exposures. That is how you pursue the hobby. It is great, but certainly not typical.
I had sticker shock the other day when I had to pay $10 to have a roll of 120 E6 processed. If that were $20 I would either make the commitment to shoot more and process myself or I would abandon 120 E6 entirely.
Even the black and white 120 stuff that I process myself gets digitized for printing and viewing. Super image quality but not overwhelmingly better than what comes out of my D80 Nikon. With the D80, I slip out the memory card, slip it into the card reader and I'm off and running.
Not many people want to go through all that stuff to get an image. I realize you and I do, but it isn't typical.
I hope MF backs come down. But I see film for amateur becoming something akin to vinyl for music. It will stay around, become an odd niche, there will be some who feel strongly that it's better - but ultimately there will follow a generation that can't even fathom a world where there was no digital version.
I miss film the same way I miss vinyl. I remember handling the medium carefully but the equipment more roughly, I felt wasteful a first for replacing items I already had ananalog versions of, and now that I'm all digital I couldn't see going back.
I think the analogy with vinyl is a good one. There has even been a small resurgence recently in the making of vinyl discs. I have thousands of them and I rarely play them mostly because it is fussy and time consuming. I've recorded most of my vinyl onto DAT tape and I can play those tapes much more easily. Kind of like a digital scan of a negative or transparency. One day I may even get a iPod. Who knows?
I don't see a company like Mamiya disappearing as long as they can use digital backs.
To jeffs post I can add only 7k will buy a lot of beer..
but i'm not a beer drinker
Depends. At the last wedding I was at, the Photographer was using a D70, 18-70, SB-800 Combo for the entire thing, and from what I could tell talking to the family afterwords they were rather happy with the results. Granted, this person was no doubt in the minority (at the other weddings I was at over the summer the Photo setup was often much more elaborate), but some survive on less.
I think that is definitely the minority. I saw a wedding photographer using a 10D, and his wife using a Digital Rebel, and that's all they had. One lens each. Not someone I would hire.
The prices of digital technology keep getting cheaper and cheaper, not just in the consumer DLSR market only. The fact that you can buy a MF digital back for under $20k is proof. Photography has always been expensive. The market is used to that, as are the photographers.
Yes, we can only hope that the reduction in cost will come soon enough to save the MF camera manufacturers. I have no idea whether it can or can't.
I realized after all this talk that I have more than enough film laying about to last more than the amount of time I personally have left in photography sooooo... Who worry not me.
My post does stem from assumption that Hassy was never big with the amateurs. Maybe I got the wrong impression somewhere.
I just thought that at least from the late 70s and onward, it was mostly 35mm for amateurs and the blad for the pros. I might be wrong though
Don’t have much to add this debate. Other that I agree with the article, but I do think Sony could become #1 consumer DSLR maker.
As for MF I think it a dead market. How many wedding photographers are going to shoot a 10k plus D-Hassy over a 3k plus Canon 5D and make profit? Yes D-MF will be better but not 7k better. The dollars speak for them self.
As much as I like film, I don't shoot it much. Ilford has become prohibitively expensive and why should I even bother? I get more control in digital and it's much faster.
List of E games by letter W page 1 - CheatCodesPlanet.net::
network clip show that makes fun of the entertainment industry. where I first learned that the camera-shy Amish were selling fireplaces that
http://www.cheatcodesplanet.net/E/W/HOME |
The Hindu : Karnataka / Bangalore News : Exhibition::
tools and associated industries, organised by the Tool Whither water? Appointed. Passport despatched. Caught on camera, but sari stealers give the slip
http://www.thehindu.com/2008/02/07/stories/2008020754410500.htmHOME |
I don't know if film will be completely elliminated. The DSLR explosion is mostly happening in the countries with healthy economies. The less fortunate parts of the globe will keep producing it.
The question is - why shoot film? Why should I spend time and money, if I can just keep it digital? There is no solid reason anymore. A 500 dollar SLR gives you wonderful quality pictures.
I believe in reasonable prints but i dont see how he could make a print that cheap.
Film is not at all sensible for professional photographer in most situations. I am a film person and realized that several years ago. I am not in the business any more so I can shoot my one exposure a day.
I think he was printing them out himself on a plain printer and photographic paper. They weren't the best prints, but I don't think that the average conusmer that was at the sale could tell the difference of the quality of his and my pics.
To jeffs post I can add only 7k will buy a lot of beer..
I think it will be a matter of choice with some people as long as there is a choice.
For me I shoot one piece of film or paper a day, It isn't cost effective but it isnt prohibative either. I like all of it the loading of film holders, the spending twenty minutes setting up the shot, the exposure calculations, the shot itself, the loading and processing of the film, even the scanning of it and working it through my digital darkroom. For me and me alone, I see no reason to change to digital.
Thats just me. I no longer have a problem with digital users since that is about all that's left in the world, except those few film users who will soon be called retro photographers as well as me.
Accurate or not it does seem a fairly depressing vision. So companies like Pentax will go (as Minolta already did)? And there will only be the big two left? Excellent. Obviously the benefit to the consumer will be enormous, since choice is a terrible thing and it's not like those other companies were innovative or made good glass anyway. Clearly Canon and Nikon between them will make everything that every photographer could ever want... Did any of that sound a little facetious?
As for film, maybe it is a vinyl vs CD thing. I can't say that music from vinyl sounds any more pleasing to my ears than music from a CD, but I can say that if I look at a black and white print made with silver process from an Ilford film, it looks much nicer to me than the digitally captured and printed equivalent. And that's not just in my head. It's in the grain and it's in the tonal range. And until compact digitals have more manual control and can handle noise at higher ISOs much better than they do currently, old film cameras will be much more flexible and a better option for those who can't afford a DSLR but want more control over their image. So yes, I would very much like to see film remain available and affordable.
For me it's a bit like saying "As of next year no-one will make paintbrushes, the cost of paint will go way up and you won't be able to find anyone who makes it anyway. But hey, that's business, and who cares because paint is old technology and the images you can make with a computer and tablet look just as good."
Peruse a few issues of
http://http://www.bandwmag.com/current/index.html
and tell me film is the only medium for B+W photography. I used to think the same thing about digital B+W until I started to read it. There is some amazing B+W work being done with digital.
The only and I mean only thing that I have a problem with film is it's expense... So far, all I have is a film camera and I have racked up close to a $800 bill since August when I got the camera. I love film and plan on using but I can't really right now until I get better so that I can justify taking pictures with it. I just got a Canon d30 so that I can practice for free until I'm comfortable with my talent so that I can sell my film prints and get a profit. I was trying to sell some prints just this last Friday, and in my opinion they were rather good pictures, but there was a guy with what I'm assuming a digital camera selling his a $1 a piece. I can't compete with that because with the film I was using it cost me about $5 total for each print. I was selling my 5x7 prints at $7.50 and 8x10 at $10 and he was selling his 8x10 for a $1. Man, I felt stupid.
I hope MF backs come down. But I see film for amateur becoming something akin to vinyl for music. It will stay around, become an odd niche, there will be some who feel strongly that it's better - but ultimately there will follow a generation that can't even fathom a world where there was no digital version.
I miss film the same way I miss vinyl. I remember handling the medium carefully but the equipment more roughly, I felt wasteful a first for replacing items I already had ananalog versions of, and now that I'm all digital I couldn't see going back.
I agree with everything being said. I tested digital when it was 4mega pix as the largest and told my son in law to go out and sell his 645 because it was going to be useless.
Since then the printing of the files got a million times better so now there is little difference. For me now it is the ritual not the actually image alone. No thank god I'm not typical. If what I do was typical, then everyone would know what a no talent hack I am.
It is my hope the film and chemicals stay around till the end of my live. I have a feeling I'm going to bemore in favor of free trade though. The black and white I shoot comes from hungary. The color most likely will come from China. I expect china will make some version of the old kodak films for a while and japan might continue to make fuji/ If not korea might. If worse comes to worse I will pack up the two hundred bucks worth of 35mm and convert all my 120 cameras to cutfilm. Make a few glass plates and learn to eat more eggs.
Oh I'm with fmw I don't have a printing darkroom anymore. I never liked that as much as working with cameras. Probably because even as a pro, I sent the stuff out. A color darkroom isn't practical unless you have a high volume and black and white photography stopped being profitable years ago for the average portrait studio.
I never much liked following the pack, so I think that if I went into photography today. I would probably work weddings digitally and try to shoot custom retro portraits during the week. There is a quality difference but most people are not willing to pay the price for it. Especially not in my area.
Color film will most likely go first since it depends on very high volume sales to stay afloat. But even those plants may get moved part and parcel to the smaller nations to boost there economies.
Ben Laudin might wind up chairman of the kodak clone for all we know. No I think digital will phase out film but I thought that a long long time ago and still I built film cameras. I'm like the guy who has the 1957 chevy belair. He can't really afford to drive it and the parts are hard as hell to find, but he has no plans to sell it.
And therein lies the whole problem. Digital backs for MF cameras are REALLY expensive. Not many photographers can afford to put a $25,000 digital back on a $1500 camera body. It is the lack of availability of affordable digital backs that will be the ruin of medium format photography, in my opinion.
The prices of digital technology keep getting cheaper and cheaper, not just in the consumer DLSR market only. The fact that you can buy a MF digital back for under $20k is proof. Photography has always been expensive. The market is used to that, as are the photographers.
This is one of the more depressing threads I've read. Digital file storage seems so potentially corruptible. Yes, negatives can also get destroyed, but still, there's something terrifying about how a digital file can be gone in a nanosecond if something isn't exactly right. My day job is in radio, and we were completely knocked off line the other day by a ten-second power outage. We had our tech guy running around trying to bring all the broadcast and production studios back on line. We lost revenue from commercials that didn't happen (outage at a daypart change -- oops!), and everything that was "in medias res" in production was lost. In the old days, when you worked with analog boards and edited tape with a razor blade, a ten-second power outage was a minor interruption. Now it's a money-losing disaster. So I for one have never been convinced of the superiority of new technology. There's something comforting about a Zeiss Contarex that works without batteries or processors. Maybe I'll just go back to glass plates. I always wanted to try 8x10 anyway.
the only working archives are living archives ... not CD or DVD, but Harddrives + harddrive backup which are replaced
every couple of years by the new standards ...
and as mentioned. this is becoming cheaper and cheaper.
read that article as well ...
a lot of speculation in there though :)
I don't see a company like Mamiya disappearing as long as they can use digital backs.
And therein lies the whole problem. Digital backs for MF cameras are REALLY expensive. Not many photographers can afford to put a $25,000 digital back on a $1500 camera body. It is the lack of availability of affordable digital backs that will be the ruin of medium format photography, in my opinion.
Pro photographers aren't selling off MF gear because film is expensive. They are selling it off because they can't get affordable digital backs for their equipment and the DSLR is the more practical way for them to turn digital. Even Mamiya's new digital body is $12,000. That's a big price to pay to use $3000-5000 worth of existing lenses, regardless of how good the lenses are.
The least expensive Hasselblad digital is around $12,000. The 39 mp one is $25000. I can see a few commercial pros using them but not many wedding photographers. You need high dollar billings to amortize that kind of equipment. I just don't think the available volume of business is enough to keep these products alive. Pros are a small part of the camera market. These companies need amateurs to provide volume. It isn't going to happen with $25,000 Leaf or Sinar digital backs, regardless of how good the image quality is.
The only hope for medium format, in my opinion, is the development of affordable digital backs. I don't know enough about the sensor business to even have an opinion about whether or not that is possible. If I were Mamiya I would be in a life or death struggle to try to solve the problems, however.
Is that a large enough market to maintain MF? Personally I do not think so. Also as younger photographers work their way up in the world of commercial photography, they will bring with them the equipment they are conformable using.
I think it's a huge market. Advertising/marketing has got to be one of the largest industries in the world. Billions of dollars are spent yearly on advertising and so much of that money is spent in high quality stock photography, and commerical photographers hired to "sell" a product. Pick up any Vogue, InStyle, Elle, etc... 90% of the magazines are ads, and I'd be willing to bet that 75-80% of the photography is medium format digital, if not medium format film even. I seriously doubt the companies placing those ads are going to settle for 6mp photos. Even Canon advertises it's 1DS MKII as "finally, a magazine quality dslr". 16 mp is just the fringe of magazine quality.
Depends. At the last wedding I was at, the Photographer was using a D70, 18-70, SB-800 Combo for the entire thing, and from what I could tell talking to the family afterwords they were rather happy with the results. Granted, this person was no doubt in the minority (at the other weddings I was at over the summer the Photo setup was often much more elaborate), but some survive on less.
Now Now leave Terri alone. that bus would be awfully lonely if i was the only one one it.
Accurate or not it does seem a fairly depressing vision. So companies like Pentax will go (as Minolta already did)? And there will only be the big two left? Excellent. Obviously the benefit to the consumer will be enormous, since choice is a terrible thing and it's not like those other companies were innovative or made good glass anyway. Clearly Canon and Nikon between them will make everything that every photographer could ever want... Did any of that sound a little facetious?
As for film, maybe it is a vinyl vs CD thing. I can't say that music from vinyl sounds any more pleasing to my ears than music from a CD, but I can say that if I look at a black and white print made with silver process from an Ilford film, it looks much nicer to me than the digitally captured and printed equivalent. And that's not just in my head. It's in the grain and it's in the tonal range. And until compact digitals have more manual control and can handle noise at higher ISOs much better than they do currently, old film cameras will be much more flexible and a better option for those who can't afford a DSLR but want more control over their image. So yes, I would very much like to see film remain available and affordable.
For me it's a bit like saying "As of next year no-one will make paintbrushes, the cost of paint will go way up and you won't be able to find anyone who makes it anyway. But hey, that's business, and who cares because paint is old technology and the images you can make with a computer and tablet look just as good."
there is a lesson there for a lot more photographers around here. Shooting more than the buyer sees is great for the ego but does little for the pocketbook if he cant afford your prices.
True dat... True dat... I'll mark that down in my brain for next time
Medium format hell, 8x10 with a barrel lens.
I agree film will not die that quickly ... but developing labs will. And that has started already as they did depend on all those tourist snapshots, which these days are almost exclusively made digitally and often printed at home.
My son in law and I had this same discussion yesterday and he left all upset.
A carperter with twenty years experience and a new hammer that cost ten bucks is somehow worse than a new carpenter with a fifty dollar hammer. I don't see it but evidently some do. I think I would be more concerned with the job they do than the cost of the equipment in their hand but hey that's just me.
If the equipment matters so much why would anyone hire someone that doesn't shoot medium format? Then you could get into the argument if they are shooting MF then it should be the highest end Blad. I think experience and the photographer having an eye for it is much, much, much more important than the equipment.
The first thing you learn in any kind of photography school is the equipment doesn't make the photographer but the photographer makes the equipment.
Why does the equipment that the photographer uses matter if they get the shots and the customer is happy and likes their style?
My son in law and I had this same discussion yesterday and he left all upset.
A carperter with twenty years experience and a new hammer that cost ten bucks is somehow worse than a new carpenter with a fifty dollar hammer. I don't see it but evidently some do. I think I would be more concerned with the job they do than the cost of the equipment in their hand but hey that's just me.
What about commercial and fashion photography? Medium format digital is very dominant in these categories.
well, since those are the categories where the real money is ;)
In Pro-Fashion it is almost MF only ... as it is with Playboy and Penthouse ;)
I use film too. I like film too. But the huge, vast majority of photographers, professional and amateur are running away from it like the plague. I took advantage of the super cheap prices of medium format cameras just last month. There is no problem with liking film. I don't see anything positive in lambasting digital. After all, it has become the standard.
I don't think there is any question that digital will put film out of business in the same way CD's put vinyl out of business - or at least turn it into a small specialty sideline. The question is whether Canon, Nikon and, perhaps, Sony and Matsu****a will put the medium and large format camera makers out of business. I doubt seriously that Ilford will be the last company standing in the b&w film business. It will likely be a Chinese company. I'll shoot Delta 100 as long as it is available and then I'll put the medium format system away for the duration.
I also doubt seriously that film will disappear completely. Vinyl certainly hasn't since the first CD's hit the market about 25 years ago. It will get expensive and people will have to work with it themselves. There won't be new equpment available to use it but it is likely to continue as a side line to digital photography for a long time to come.
Personally, I've never had a problem embracing digital technology. I did it with music and I did with photography. Not a problem. It works just fine.
Yes, we can only hope that the reduction in cost will come soon enough to save the MF camera manufacturers. I have no idea whether it can or can't.
I don't know why you think that, but Blad is not doing bad.
Their 16 megapixel back that fits the 500 series cameras is "only" 10 grand (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=2788&A=details&Q=&sku=437384&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation). There is LOTS of them sold and it's not a huge price to pay if you're a working pro to transition to digital... heck - I'm a hobbyist student and I've spent about 8 grand on equipment in the last 2 years... and keep spending.
As far as business goes, blads are not expensive. You can get a top of the line, newest, double everything blads for 100K. If you compare it to other businesses investments, it's peanuts.
Not to mention, the prices keep coming down. Give it 5-10 years and the camera prices will settle to what they used to be. We're seeing it now with the consumer SLRs. The digital rebels cost the same what the film rebels used to. The full frame is catching up too - 1V used to cost 2K and now the 5D is around 2500.
In 10 years, the same thing will happen to the MF market. It has to - there is no more demand for cameras now than there was back in the beginning of 90s. We'll just have to wait out the "boom" and be patient.
(Actually, I'll be patient and you should upgrade your bodies everytime something new comes out. This will give them more money for research)
Its like my signiture says for me. I said I got no use for it, never said I wouldn't use it. It's just a tool, but it isnt my favorite one.
I'm still trying to figure out what the hell makes digital photographers think they have the would by the testicles. It's still just a tool.
You do not think so?
The marketing, commercial and fashion is the major part of the photographic industry. It's where to top dollar is.
I'm sure I'd be pretty comfortable shooting with that 39mp hassy back. And I'm a young photogrpaher. :mrgreen:
As to the film vs digital - canon seems to be the only one who's not dropping their whole lineup. They just aren't developing anything new at the moment.
Velvia 50 is being introduced again. Should be available next year.
Commercial photographers of the sort that would buy a digital Hasselblad number in the 10's of thousands around the world. If every one of them bought a hasselblad that might be enough - maybe - just barely but I doubt it. Hasselblad won't survive without the volume it earned from film cameras. It just can't - not at those prices.
I'm willing to bet Canon will abandon film cameras pretty soon too. They are the largest camera maker in the world so their volume can justify production longer than other companies but not very long. Sales of film cameras are falling faster then ripe apples in a wind storm. I can't imagine anybody making 35mm film cameras within a couple of years. It's possible, I suppose, but not very likely. The question for me is still MF and LF cameras. It's hard to tell how large the amateur market might be for them.
Velvia 50? Well, that certainly is a plus. Nice to see that.
As for MF I think it a dead market. How many wedding photographers are going to shoot a 10k plus D-Hassy over a 3k plus Canon 5D and make profit? Yes D-MF will be better but not 7k better. The dollars speak for them self.
Are wedding photographers the only working pro's out there anymore? :p
What about commercial and fashion photography? Medium format digital is very dominant in these categories.
The price of digital technology gets cheaper and cheaper, and at a certain point, the only way to go is up. Up in resolution, and up in sensor size. You can only cram so many megapixels into an area of 24x36mm. I think within 5-10 years, the amateur market will be full frame DSLRs for under $1000, and Digital MF cameras for under $5000. The highest megapixel MF sensors will still always command a high price to start, as does all technology when it first breaks, but the ones we see now, like the 39mp backs will come down, and the 22mp backs will start showing up under $5k. You tell me what pro photographer has not spent $5k or much more on their equipment? Even a basic wedding kit consisting of 2 bodies, 2 flashes, and a few lenses runs you more than that in todays prosumer 6mp market.
I do hope the thirt world continues to make at least 35mm film med format would be good but who knows. I always said it is pure economics.
film is prohibitively expensive for pros now. whatever it is vs nothing is too expensive.
I believe in reasonable prints but i dont see how he could make a print that cheap.
Film is not at all sensible for professional photographer in most situations. I am a film person and realized that several years ago. I am not in the business any more so I can shoot my one exposure a day.
Accurate or not it does seem a fairly depressing vision. So companies like Pentax will go (as Minolta already did)? And there will only be the big two left? Excellent. Obviously the benefit to the consumer will be enormous, since choice is a terrible thing and it's not like those other companies were innovative or made good glass anyway. Clearly Canon and Nikon between them will make everything that every photographer could ever want... Did any of that sound a little facetious?
As for film, maybe it is a vinyl vs CD thing. I can't say that music from vinyl sounds any more pleasing to my ears than music from a CD, but I can say that if I look at a black and white print made with silver process from an Ilford film, it looks much nicer to me than the digitally captured and printed equivalent. And that's not just in my head. It's in the grain and it's in the tonal range. And until compact digitals have more manual control and can handle noise at higher ISOs much better than they do currently, old film cameras will be much more flexible and a better option for those who can't afford a DSLR but want more control over their image. So yes, I would very much like to see film remain available and affordable.
For me it's a bit like saying "As of next year no-one will make paintbrushes, the cost of paint will go way up and you won't be able to find anyone who makes it anyway. But hey, that's business, and who cares because paint is old technology and the images you can make with a computer and tablet look just as good."
Peruse a few issues of
http://http://www.bandwmag.com/current/index.html
and tell me film is the only medium for B+W photography. I used to think the same thing about digital B+W until I started to read it. There is some amazing B+W work being done with digital.
Let me guess, Terri, you haven't gotten into digital photography yet have you?
 Where's The Advantage In Windows Genuine Advantage?
 Stocks Bounce After S&P Joins Bear Market
|
PRINT
Add to favorites