Film is NOT Dead - Article at Salon.com

[DriveIn]

http://www.startribune.com/stories/535/3977799.html

Digital camera sales will surpass film cameras this year
Mai Hoang, Star Tribune
Published July 9, 2003
DIGI09

Loading film into a camera might soon become obsolete.

Digital camera sales in North America are expected to surpass film camera sales this year, and nearly quadruple them by 2008, according to the InfoTrends Research Group of Norwell, Mass.

As digital camera sales rise, photography retailers, fearing a loss of business, are expected to offer more services catering to users.

Richfield One Hour Photo is one outlet attempting to change with the times by offering printing services to film and digital camera users.

"We can print the pictures better and cheaper than people can do at home," said Larry Eastman, the store's owner.

Digital camera users can print images at the store's do-it-yourself photo kiosk, or have the store print them. About 10 percent of the store's business comes from digital camera users, and Eastman said he expects that rate to increase.

In March, the company purchased a machine that produces higher-quality prints from a digital camera for as little as 17 cents a print.

By comparison, ink and paper expenses can drive the cost of printing at home to as much as $1 per photo.

Photography companies have begun to put more of their research-and-development dollars into digital cameras, said Gary Pageau, a spokesman for the Photo Marketing Association, an organization of photography companies.

Digital cameras store images in a small memory card, which allows consumers to edit an image, instantly share over it e-mail, and preview it before printing.

"It's just really about instant gratification and communicating with photos," said Michelle Slaughter, director of digital photography trends for InfoTrends.

Moreover, prices for digital cameras have dropped to near $250, and they're expected to drop to $100 to $200 in the next five years.

According to InfoTrends, digital camera sales will hit 14.3 million year, surpassing film camera unit sales of 11 million. In 2008, digital camera sales will rise to 19.4 units by 2008, while film camera sales fall to 5 million, InfoTrends says. Projected figures do not include one-time-use cameras.

But some people in the photo industry said that although they believe digital cameras will dominate the film market, it will probably be a while before InfoTrends' predictions will come true.

Consumers buy digital cameras usually as a supplement to a film camera, not to replace one, said Gary Moen, co-owner of Custom Camera and Electronic Services in Minneapolis' Uptown district.

"You're talking about converting an entire nation to a filmless society in five years; things aren't going to happen that quick," he said. The quality of digital camera photos is not yet on par with film cameras, Moen added. A cheaper disposable camera can "produce the same thing as a higher-end digital camera," he said.

Pageau, of the photo marketing association, said several things would have to happen in order for digital cameras to replace film cameras in the next few years.

Since most digital cameras require a connection to a computer to download images, digital camera sales would be limited to those who use a computer.

"If the digital camera can become divorced from the PC, it can become widely adopted," he said.

Pat Larson of Richfield, dropping off film at One Hour Photo, said she has been interested in buying one for a few years. But she plans to use a film camera for now. Buying a new digital camera would be too expensive because she would also have to buy a new computer and printer, Larson said. "I don't think our old computer could handle [digital photography]," she said.

Bonnie Reynolds of Minneapolis, who replaced her film camera with a new digital camera last Christmas, isn't dropping film anymore. While dropping off a digital storage card for photo processing, she said she likes being able to select which pictures to keep, and storing images on a CD for easy reprinting.

"I think that it will be a great asset for people who like to print old pictures," she said.

Mai Hoang is at mhoang@startribune.com.

[Nick]

I just read this entire thread and I've decided to use film this weekend. K40 S8mm and Tri-X 16mm.

Cheers,
Nick

[David M. Leugers]

Right on Nick! I always choose to use film whenever possible because I PREFER it.

David M. Leugers

[portosuper8]

I've always compared this subject with many others, but the most significant was the invention of photography. At the time many artists, specaially painters got really revolted with it. Many painters lost their jobs making portraits, but soon there was also another change, a real revolution in painting, that many now call a real boost. Well, i see digital equipment as another incentive to people that want to film, away from the digital technology demands. It's obvious tha film will die, but as the way we see it now, not as film itself. It's obvious why we still film with cameras with 20 and 30 years old, because many of us film users are tired of digital gizmos that change everyday and worse, stop functioning everyday, but this is another discussion, maybe about capitalist economy, and the demand for our money. Let film die, as we know it and let's continue filming in another way.

[Woland]

I don't think it is in any filmmaker's interest to assume your perspective. New technologies always inspire adaptation. "Necessity," it has always been said, "is the mother of invention."

However, this perspective is akin to simply laying down and dying. Though one must adapt to the times, one must also fight for what one believes in -- succumbing to the capitalist economy and its demand for money, in terms of using film or video to make films, are easily controlled by choosing the direction one wishes to pursue.

And though Kodak produces more chemicals than it does film, I don't think it, or any other manufacturer for that matter, will let film die that easily. If this means making film more affordable and less profitable for them so be it. But until the day comes that they can no longer produce it, or I can't figure out how to produce it myself, I will continue to rue the day that film is "dead."

[kodachromearchive]

but I suspect he is underestimating his own influence (and the influence of many others) in this group.

I was once a classic film "cusser", not understanding why anyone would bother with such an inconvenient storage medium. Further, my ire was particularly aroused when so many of our family's 35mm negatives had degraded so severely during 20 years of storage. This would never have happened with digital - I thought.

Sums were spent both time and financial and I am now only months away from completeing the two year archival process. Some hard lessons were learned along the way .... probably the biggest was that digital was not the ultimate panacea I once believed it to be.

The most humbling moment came when I digitized my deceased father in law's 50 year old Kodachrome slides and 8mm films . Oh how I wish, I wish I would have known the properties of this storage material!

Bottom line - I would have been much better off with Kodachromes in the safe deposit box and lower quality copies (JPGs & MPGs) on the hard drive.

Since then, I've purchased boatloads of Kodachrome, 2 projectors & 3 movie cameras.

BTW, I really appreciate what the members of this board are doing to keep this valuable technology alive, and I am hopeful that we will someday see a melding of the digital/film technologies into something ultra reliable and cost efficient.

[Old Uncle Barry]

Live for today everyone and enjoy your film.Worry about future technology will destroy your enjoyment. :roll: