The Demise of Film
Discussion
Digital Rules
Highstreet store Dixons has stopped stocking 35mm cameras and begun phasing out films because it says digital cameras are more popular.
The chain, which once only stocked film cameras, said when current batches run out they will not be replaced.
Marketing director Bryan Magrath said: "Last year, we pulled the plug on video recorders, but today's announcement is in many ways a more sentimental event.
"35mm cameras were the first products we ever sold and film processing has been a part of our lives for several decades. Time and technology move on though, and digital cameras are now the rule rather than the exception.
"We have decided that the time is now right to take 35mm cameras out of the frame."
Just 16-years-ago, in 1989 sales of the 35mm peaked at 2.9 million in the UK. But since digital cameras were introduced in 1990, the quality of prints have improved and prices have become economical.
This year sales of the digital cameras outstripped the 35mm 15 to 1. The best selling Digital SLR was the Nikon D70 which out sold Canons 300D by 5 to 1.
Highstreet store Dixons has stopped stocking 35mm cameras and begun phasing out films because it says digital cameras are more popular.
The chain, which once only stocked film cameras, said when current batches run out they will not be replaced.
Marketing director Bryan Magrath said: "Last year, we pulled the plug on video recorders, but today's announcement is in many ways a more sentimental event.
"35mm cameras were the first products we ever sold and film processing has been a part of our lives for several decades. Time and technology move on though, and digital cameras are now the rule rather than the exception.
"We have decided that the time is now right to take 35mm cameras out of the frame."
Just 16-years-ago, in 1989 sales of the 35mm peaked at 2.9 million in the UK. But since digital cameras were introduced in 1990, the quality of prints have improved and prices have become economical.
This year sales of the digital cameras outstripped the 35mm 15 to 1. The best selling Digital SLR was the Nikon D70 which out sold Canons 300D by 5 to 1.
My brother and his fiancee went to a wedding fair about 6 months ago for the wedding which is this Saturday. When there, they saw a photographer who showed all his work and his major selling point he was pushing was "I use film, NOT digital".
They (my brother+bird) looked at other photographers both at the fair and elsewhere and decided the 'film' guy's pictures looked the best (this will also be down to the quality of photographer himself though).
A couple of weeks ago they met to discuss types of pictures for the wedding, and he mentioned 'oh, I've gone all digital'. Though an obvious answer, they asked why, and he exclaimed film was becoming more difficult to get hold of, digital cheaper and better, and he just could not hold off anymore.
They (my brother+bird) looked at other photographers both at the fair and elsewhere and decided the 'film' guy's pictures looked the best (this will also be down to the quality of photographer himself though).
A couple of weeks ago they met to discuss types of pictures for the wedding, and he mentioned 'oh, I've gone all digital'. Though an obvious answer, they asked why, and he exclaimed film was becoming more difficult to get hold of, digital cheaper and better, and he just could not hold off anymore.
It is becoming noticable that, other than the disposables, film is getting quite scarce.
Boots have extensive stock usually. My local Asda has a reasonable amout of the typically popular 35mm stuff but that limits the choice and their special price packs of Kodak are much cheaper than I have previously seen anywhere.
The local Tesco had very little stock of film last time I was there - and then only in the film processing area rather than the main store aisles.
The processing people are obviously not that busy either - it never seems to be a problem to get a film, or even several, processed using the 1 hr service.
Quite sad really.
Boots have extensive stock usually. My local Asda has a reasonable amout of the typically popular 35mm stuff but that limits the choice and their special price packs of Kodak are much cheaper than I have previously seen anywhere.
The local Tesco had very little stock of film last time I was there - and then only in the film processing area rather than the main store aisles.
The processing people are obviously not that busy either - it never seems to be a problem to get a film, or even several, processed using the 1 hr service.
Quite sad really.
It was with astonishment last year, as I was replacing the F70 with the D70, that I realised I was about to take my last-ever shot on film. The rolls of film and resulting packs of prints, numbered and listed, that had been such a continuous thread in my life since 6th form had suddenly come to an end. And yet, it was a natural evolution which made perfect sense. Evolution won, and with breathtaking speed.
As with any new technology, there comes a time when desirabilty/quality/cost etc make it 'better' than what went before. And IMHO between 2002-2004 digital reached that point.
I suspect that digital vs film will now settle down rather like CD vs vinyl (interestingly also a digital/analogue contest). There will always be a market for film, but it will be increasingly specialist.
As with any new technology, there comes a time when desirabilty/quality/cost etc make it 'better' than what went before. And IMHO between 2002-2004 digital reached that point.
I suspect that digital vs film will now settle down rather like CD vs vinyl (interestingly also a digital/analogue contest). There will always be a market for film, but it will be increasingly specialist.
simpo two said:
I suspect that digital vs film will now settle down rather like CD vs vinyl (interestingly also a digital/analogue contest). There will always be a market for film, but it will be increasingly specialist.
My family was discussing this very point last night - Dixons is for the mass market and the masses have turned digital. There will always be some of us who use film and there will always be shops to cater for it, the likes of Dixons, Currys, etc. won't be stocking film cameras but I imagine Jessops will continue to do so for a very long time.
Nige, off to town to drop 2 films off at the chemist, if I don't get there before 1130 I won't see the pics until Thursday.
This does make me laugh. When I first went digital 5+ years ago I used to try and extol the virtues on a colleague of mine. He would have none of it, saying 'I'm a real photographer, I still use film'..... Until he went digital of course. Now it's the best thing since sliced bread (and in many ways it is). Like many, he's now a complete convert, digital expert and wouldn't touch film with a barge pole.
Funnily enough, in the last couple of weeks, I have been shooting film again, just for the fun of it. There is something strangely satisfying and refreshing about using hand held light meters and purely mechanical cameras.
Funnily enough, in the last couple of weeks, I have been shooting film again, just for the fun of it. There is something strangely satisfying and refreshing about using hand held light meters and purely mechanical cameras.
DustyC said:
It is of course due to digital that film is in demise but the other reason that here are les 35mm films on the high street is because its so much cheaper on line.
highstreet £5
on line £1
And that online price is for better film too!
I got a 5 pack of Kodak 200 (24x) in Asda that worked out at about 1.50 per film. No time to wait for delivery.
But the very fact that the price is so low suggests the market will soon disappear as far as most consumers are concerned and that suggests that prices may rise and availability of processing decline as the film based world becomes more specialist.
On the other hand not everyone wants or needs all the support tools required to make full use of digital. But the availability of small dedicated viewers and printers will surely increase to fill the gaps.
LongQ said:I can't personally see the processing being too much of a problem as essentially, silver prints from digital are (the expensive) half of processing a film. There will surely be enough people wanting to process film for companies to retain the film developer and scanner parts of their minilabs.
But the very fact that the price is so low suggests the market will soon disappear as far as most consumers are concerned and that suggests that prices may rise and availability of processing decline as the film based world becomes more specialist.
DustyC said:
Is it possible to create the same effects as infrared film with a digital camera?
yes given the right equipment.
Wedding photographer should have been using medium format and developing himself anyhow, thats still available and higher def than digital.
DSLR's should ahve killed off 35mm easy by now and as for point and shoot its a landslide for digital.
Film still has advantages (dynamic range) but there getting fewer all the time.
DustyC said:
Is it possible to create the same effects as infrared film with a digital camera?
I've looked into this a bit - if you take your remote control for your TV point it into the camera lens and take a photo, you should see light being emmitted from the remote in the resulting image.
The brightness of the light you see here will determine approximately how effective your camera is at taking infra red photographs.
After that it's just a case of buying a suitable infrared filter for your camera and away you go!
I can't see myself ever switching completely to digital.
Digital is convenient. It allows you to experiment at no cost, and you can fire off shots until you get a good one.
Despite this I still prefer shooting with film. It makes me think more about what I am doing. I tend to take longer composing shots rather than point, fire of 10 and see what comes out.
I also like the process of shooting film. There is something about looking through some newly developed prints that I just don't get with reviewing digital images.
Maybe I'm a bit old fashioned, but then my favorite camera is my 1950s Microcord TLR.
Digital is convenient. It allows you to experiment at no cost, and you can fire off shots until you get a good one.
Despite this I still prefer shooting with film. It makes me think more about what I am doing. I tend to take longer composing shots rather than point, fire of 10 and see what comes out.
I also like the process of shooting film. There is something about looking through some newly developed prints that I just don't get with reviewing digital images.
Maybe I'm a bit old fashioned, but then my favorite camera is my 1950s Microcord TLR.
I reckon that most people who argue about film vs digital don't actually take proper photos, and like to spend their time comparing 100% crops of test images 
Both have their advantages and disadvantes, so like a few others on here, I use both.
I still don't think you can beat the look of a good slide on a lightbox, and while the convenience of digital is one of it's strong points, I also like the anticipation of waiting for a set of slides to be developed.
One fact that is sometimes forgotten is that film isn't just 35mm, and while a good 35mm DSLR will produce better results than 35mm film, once you head into MF territory, the size advantage of the format starts to makes a big difference. Then again, there is always MF digital
One thing that I have noticed though is that the same image shot with film (Velvia) and digital comes out differently. I'll try to post up a couple of examples later tonight, and it'll be interesting to see if anyone can tell which is which
Both have their advantages and disadvantes, so like a few others on here, I use both.
I still don't think you can beat the look of a good slide on a lightbox, and while the convenience of digital is one of it's strong points, I also like the anticipation of waiting for a set of slides to be developed.
One fact that is sometimes forgotten is that film isn't just 35mm, and while a good 35mm DSLR will produce better results than 35mm film, once you head into MF territory, the size advantage of the format starts to makes a big difference. Then again, there is always MF digital
One thing that I have noticed though is that the same image shot with film (Velvia) and digital comes out differently. I'll try to post up a couple of examples later tonight, and it'll be interesting to see if anyone can tell which is which
Bacardi said:
This does make me laugh. When I first went digital 5+ years ago I used to try and extol the virtues on a colleague of mine. He would have none of it, saying 'I'm a real photographer, I still use film'..... Until he went digital of course.
I'm guilty of that too. But the reason for the change of heart is that digital technology has made leaps and bounds in terms of quality, resolution and especially cost - so that whilst it didn't make practical sense a few years ago, it does now.
robdickinson said:
Is it possible to create the same effects as infrared film with a digital camera?
yes given the right equipment.
Assuming the sensor is sensitive those wavelengths. I know you can do tricks in PS to emulate IR but whether you can shoot true IR I'm not sure.
robdickinson said:
Wedding photographer should have been using medium format and developing himself anyhow, thats still available and higher def than digital.
You haven't seen Bacardi's big 25Mp weapon then! Wedding photos aren't printed any larger than any other photos, in fact probably smaller. I've never seen a 30x20" wedding photo on somebody's mantelpiece.
ehasler said:
One fact that is sometimes forgotten is that film isn't just 35mm, and while a good 35mm DSLR will produce better results than 35mm film, once you head into MF territory, the size advantage of the format starts to makes a big difference. Then again, there is always MF digital
I wonder how many people who argue that digital is just as good have used MF or even LF film.
The detail in an 11x14 contact print has to be seen to be believed. To replicate that in digital would take some incredible hardware. Mind you, view cameras aren't exactly point and shoot.
Tank Slapper said:
One fact that is sometimes forgotten is that film isn't just 35mm, and while a good 35mm DSLR will produce better results than 35mm film, once you head into MF territory, the size advantage of the format starts to makes a big difference. Then again, there is always MF digital
I wonder how many people who argue that digital is just as good have used MF or even LF film.
Me
. It costs money though.............. a lot of money. For a comparison of 22mp capture and 5x4 and 10x8 film check out 'John Henshall's Chip Shop' here: www.phaseone.com/Content/PressInfo/Reviews.aspx
Broadly speaking (I say broadly because of so many variables, chips, bit depth, format ratios, lenses, software, film, scanning etc), but broadly, 6-8 mp will match or better 35mm, 11-16mp will match or better medium format (6x6-6x9), 22mp, as seen in the above review, is very close to 5x4. 22mp backs with multi shot capture (takes 16 captures and interpolates them.... useless for motor sport ;-), will match or exceed 10x8.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff