do you think film cameras are going to disappear?

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Frederic Dazet, Jan 23, 2004.


  1. I think that because, like I said, there are literally hundreds of
    millions of film cameras in use throughout the world today and they are
    still selling in the many millions world-wide (according to InfoTrends, 11
    million in the USA alone last year - only slightly less than digital sales).
    Even if no more film cameras were sold from this day forward, it would take
    years for digital to replace the existing film cameras. But that's not
    happening - film cameras are still selling.


    In each of those examples, the marketplace (music records, video tapes,
    etc) was dominated by a relatively small group of media companies which
    stood to gain handsomely from replacing existing media with new lower cost
    media sold at higher prices. That driving force isn't as clear in the
    photography market. Profits from digital cameras are high now, clearly
    prompting camera makers to go after that market. But, as prices are driven
    down by competition, those same camera makers will no longer have the same
    incentive to so strongly promote digital products. Instead, they will go
    after whatever market sells cameras, which will very likely include the film
    market. At the same time, film companies will continue to promote film,
    insuring their place in any future photography industry.


    Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

    http://www.qsl.net/w5net/
     
    Dwight Stewart, Apr 2, 2004
    #81
    1. Advertisements

  2. Frederic Dazet

    Mike Kohary Guest

    That's a good point, though I don't know how much effect it will really
    have. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Nothing against film, I
    just have never seen an analog technology resist the onslaught of equivalent
    digital technology when it began to mature (as digital photography is
    currently doing), so it would surprise me if film were the first.

    When they start releasing cameras that can go to ISO 12800 with no noise,
    taking perfect indoor pictures without flash, watch out. ;)

    Mike
     
    Mike Kohary, Apr 2, 2004
    #82
    1. Advertisements

  3. Frederic Dazet

    Alan Brennan Guest

    On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 10:31:08 GMT
    Dwight Stewart ( )
    wrote
    It's true that film cameras will be around for a long time. But already
    digital sales have passed film, and best guesses ar that in the USA,
    digital cameras will outnumber film in 2008, and in the rest of the
    world a year or two later.

    But it won't be a gradual process. Think back to the eclipse of LPs by
    CDs. After a period of a year or two when both technologies existed side
    by side, there came a time when manufacturers stopped supporting the old
    format, and everybody changed very quickly. There will come a time when
    the film developing kiosks start to disappear, due to falling demand,
    and that's when film will disappear from the general consumer and
    average hobbyist's world and revert to only the high quality
    professional and artistic uses which will exist for many decades yet.
     
    Alan Brennan, Apr 3, 2004
    #83
  4. That's what I always thought... Until I learned that professional
    photographers nowadays use *exclusively* digital. It makes sense,
    of course, once you think about it. But it actually surprised me
    when first hearing it (because of what you mention above).

    Maybe film photography will be a hobby not unlike building ships
    inside a bottle... The only reason to do that would be the fact
    that it brings personal pleasure.

    Carlos
    --
     
    Carlos Moreno, Apr 3, 2004
    #84
  5. Frederic Dazet

    Ian Pettman Guest


    actually I know a couple of professional comercial photographers, who hate
    digitals, and one of them says 'unless you spend tons of money, he could get
    better results with a throw-away'.
     
    Ian Pettman, Apr 3, 2004
    #85
  6. Frederic Dazet

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Some people are technophobes; such statements are clear indicators of that
    and, IMO, aren't to be taken seriously. It's their loss...

    Mike
     
    Mike Kohary, Apr 3, 2004
    #86
  7. ....and I wonder if any of them have actually tried a modern digital camera.
    I have heard similar arguments from people who either are afraid of stepping
    outside their comfort zone of familiarity, or perhaps feel they can't afford
    the time to learn a new system. Either way, I think it is their loss.
     
    Dennis Bradley, Apr 3, 2004
    #87
  8. Frederic Dazet

    ian green Guest

    yes they're gone
    would you like to change 1 your cdr to 583.(3) floppies?

    no they aren't dead
    still got some 5" live floppies back from 80s,90s

    all the fuzz (spelling?) about data lost/can't be recovered come from people
    1. who never really used old mediums
    2. didn't value data on their old mediums

    so who cares?

    --

    ian green
    Xeto : photo & graphic project
    http://xeto.front.ru
    ..
     
    ian green, Apr 3, 2004
    #88

  9. Agreed. And since that answers the subject line of this thread, nothing
    more needs to be said.


    Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

    http://www.qsl.net/w5net/
     
    Dwight Stewart, Apr 3, 2004
    #89

  10. It very much depends on which professional photographers you're talking
    about, Carlos. In the editorial world, for example, that is certainly true.
    High end portrait photographers, on the other hand, will be a little slower
    to adopt digital (for reasons beyond just image resolution).


    Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

    http://www.qsl.net/w5net/
     
    Dwight Stewart, Apr 3, 2004
    #90

  11. Well, you're certainly free to not take it seriously, but you might try to
    understand it, Mike. Many professional photographers have spent years
    developing an image in their photography - a certain look and feel that is
    partly based on the films they use. These people are not just going to so
    quickly dump that in favor of a new technology, especially when it offers
    them so little. They know how to take pictures without depending on computer
    editing. They pass on film and processing costs to their clients. They deal
    only with professional processing labs which offer high quality results and
    fast service. In the end, these people have the least to gain from digital.


    Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

    http://www.qsl.net/w5net/
     
    Dwight Stewart, Apr 3, 2004
    #91

  12. Well, since you're keeping count, you can add me to the list of those who
    don't drop film the second they touch a digital. I have a considerable
    investment in both, but film remains the focus of my photography and will
    for many years to come.


    Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

    http://www.qsl.net/w5net/
     
    Dwight Stewart, Apr 3, 2004
    #92

  13. And I've never seen any technology that has been fully replaced by
    digital. Take a look around. Even typewriters have survived into the digital
    age.


    Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

    http://www.qsl.net/w5net/
     
    Dwight Stewart, Apr 3, 2004
    #93
  14. I disagree. They are the people that have the most to gain from
    digital -- provided, of course, that digital offers them high
    quality results, which has been the case for quite a while for
    high-end (high-$$$) cameras.

    It is true that they [professionals] are the ones that least
    need the benefit of "instant trial and error" that digital
    cameras offer to us, common mortals that otherwise have to
    shoot and wonder if it's going to come out right. (I wonder
    if in the near future, P&S cameras are going to be divided
    into two categories, to distinguish them: P&S and S&W; the
    digital cameras are P&S, or point-and-shoot, and the film
    cameras are S&W, or shoot-and-wonder ;-))

    You also mention that film and processing cost is irrelevant
    since they pass it to their customers -- this argument is
    totally flawed; on one hand, they don't always necessarily
    work based on that scheme. Maybe some photographers take
    tons of pictures on their own, and then sell them, or use
    them to do something else that they're going to sell. In
    any case, the result is that their services are, all else
    equal, unnecessarily more expensive. (ok, this argument
    is attenuated by the fact that maybe the difference is not
    noticeable compared to what they charge for their service
    and for their name -- but still, how do they benefit from
    using a technology that makes them more expensive than the
    other photographers out there?)

    Carlos
    --
     
    Carlos Moreno, Apr 4, 2004
    #94
  15. Frederic Dazet

    Michael Guest

    Typewriters, Typewriters, What office environments have you visited
    lately that are still using Typewriters? The only ones that I have seen in
    offices today is usually one that they keep around to type small labels
    that can't fit into the office digital printers. Hence a small specific
    niche. That is until you can't by ribbons "Film" for them.

    Michael....
     
    Michael, Apr 4, 2004
    #95

  16. There is nothing to agree or disagree with, Carlos. I wasn't offering an
    argument. Instead, I was simply explaining why some photographers might
    respond in the manner an earlier person described.


    Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

    http://www.qsl.net/w5net/
     
    Dwight Stewart, Apr 5, 2004
    #96

  17. If you already knew an obvious answer, why did you even ask the question?
    Mine is a rhetorical question, by the way.


    Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

    http://www.qsl.net/w5net/
     
    Dwight Stewart, Apr 5, 2004
    #97
  18. Frederic Dazet

    Michael Guest

    Your statement of, "Even typewriters have survived into the digital age" is
    rhetorical? Or just back-stepping? Not trying to correct you, but when
    did you last step into a modern (post 1990) office environment?

    If you did, I am sure that you would be shocked to see the Dictaphones
    missing also.

    Michael....
     
    Michael, Apr 5, 2004
    #98

  19. I don't need to back-step, Michael. You asked "what office environments
    have you visited lately that are still using Typewriters" and then went on
    to describe typewriters you're personally seen being used in offices today.
    Since you answered your own question, nothing further was needed from me.
    Your very own answer has proven my claim that "typewriters have survived
    into the digital age."


    Good day, Sir. I don't waste time on those who can't participate in a
    civil discussion without attempting to insult.


    Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

    http://www.qsl.net/w5net/
     
    Dwight Stewart, Apr 5, 2004
    #99
  20. Huh?!! I know this is not my discussion... What were you on when
    you read the previous message? (because let me tell you, I wanna
    try it! :))

    What do you mean he has proven that "typewriters have survived into
    the digital age"?? No they haven't; and Michael clearly pointed
    out that if you think they have, then you would have to visit a
    modern-day office, where relics like typewriters simply no longer
    exist... How is this equivalent to proving your statement??

    Carlos
    --
     
    Carlos Moreno, Apr 6, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.