By
John McLellan
July 15, 2008
Something is happening in the world of photography as digital cameras and their collective accoutrements have caught up to film in many ways.
While professional digital cameras surpassed 35mm film in terms of features years ago, whether or not the quality was better was still in question. No more.
Medium- and large-format cameras typically have had a strong professional niche, but they too are being challenged. Hasselblad, a famous maker of medium format cameras — including the “moon” camera that Neil Armstrong used to produce the famous pictures on the moon — has continually refined and released digital counterparts to its film series.
Film is dying.
The new era is heralded by the news that Polaroid — synonymous with instant film — is officially out of the film business. Enough film was to be created to last through the year of 2009, but no more. Perhaps this is unsurprising, since the era of the digital camera demystified the apparent magic of an instant image appearing before ones eyes.
It will hopefully be a long time before the rest of film follows suit, but with the number of film users declining each year, the end may just be inevitable.
Foreshadowing the end, even the film giant Kodak has closed factories and laid off 12,000 to 15,000 employees around the world during its shift to a digital market, and sales of film for Kodak’s rival Fujifilm accounted for only 3 percent of its total sales in 2006.
To an older generation than mine, film is the staple of photography, whereas those of my generation grew up with the digital market.
For some there may be a sense of nostalgia for the dying format. But for others such as myself, the end of film marks the burning of the bridge to the vast history of photography.
When the end comes, it will be a sad day. Fortunately, it will not herald the end of still photography as a medium. Digital cameras will gracefully fulfill a film camera’s role.
Digital really is superior, if only in that it has taken a somewhat restricted format and broadened the reach to a much larger population.
It is the Polaroid of our era and fits well with our digital generation’s desire for instant gratification. Sharing photos online has become remarkably easy, and from beginning to end, the editing of a photo requires a few simple clicks instead of hours in a darkroom.
Photography may have lost some of its mystery and magic in the shift away from film and chemicals to digital sensors and memory cards, but change is really neither good nor bad. It just is.
2 Comments
#1 Damaso R.
on August 3, 2008 at 7:03 p.m.(Brooklyn, NY)
While it is true that fewer and fewer people are using film this does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that film is dying. Kodak, the same company you site as having laid off thousands of employees and shuttering factories has introduced several new films over the past few years.
As a photojournalist my primary tool for capturing images is film. While that might put me int he minority if you look at sites like rangefinder forum or lightstalkers.org you will find thousands of others, both pros and amateurs who are using film.
For many reasons from its archival qualities to increased dynamic range film is here to stay for a long, long time. To write a story about the death of film without actually talking to or quoting a single photographer is just bad journalism.
Ask around, film is not dead...
#2 James W.
on August 4, 2008 at 6:16 a.m.(Greensboro, NC)
While I agree with many points made, I disagree strongly with the overall message. Current trends show increased popularity in black and white film. Color film seems to also be holding it's own, otherwise Kodak would not have just introduced their new Portra NV and NC film. Efke, Rollei and others are introducing new films on a regular basis. Film is not dead.
My perspective on this issue is unique, having used Kodak's HIE-135 infrared film for my body of work. Kodak had to discontinue HIE-135 this past year due to declines in sales, but it was not all due to digital competition. I conducted an email campaign to attempt to persuade Kodak to reconsider. This campaign resulted in a greater understanding of not just the niche market of infrared film, but all film markets. Film is far from dead.
Many photographers who have jumped on the digital bandwagon seem to have taken themselves out of the loop for film. Manufacturers also seem very short-sighted, producing so few lenses for film SLRs. But the demand for used film cameras, lenses and discontinued films on ebay might be the most interesting indicator of all. Film is VERY far from dead!
The author of this article would benefit from connecting to the film community to find that this information is correct. Try the forums at www.photo.net or www.apug.org. Try reading a recent copy of Shutterbug, or look at their website -- www.shutterbug.com.
I definitely believe that the author is wrong in his closing statement -- the magic and mystery of film and chemicals is very much alive. A photography instructor I know recently told me that she had read a poll indicating that classrooms teaching only digital photography had a dropout rate of over %50, while classic darkroom classes maintained near total completion of enrolled students.
The author needs to reconsider what he says. He is wrong. FILM IS NOT DEAD!!!
James C. Williams
Post a comment