bjhurley wrote:
And cell phones account for probably 95 percent of that market.
Film has surged enough that Capture One just added a set of film conversion tools to its app, and Lightroom may not be far behind (watch out, Negative Lab Pro). And 1.5 percent of a huge market is actually pretty significant, as Apple showed back when it had only 1 percent of the personal computer market but was one of the most financially successful companies around (worth more at the time even than the other big "Mac," McDonald's).
I'm here for it! Also worth noting that Eastman Kodak has "taken back" production and distribution of several films from Alaris over the past year. Off the top of my head - Gold 200, Ultramax 400, Tri-X 400, Ektachrome and Ektar 100. Plus the two "new" stocks of Kodacolor 100 and 200.
Hope the growth continues, but digital is too technically sound and convenient for film to be anything but a niche choice I suspect.
icarus_ wrote:
Hope the growth continues, but digital is too technically sound and convenient for film to be anything but a niche choice I suspect.
Oh, I agree! I still shoot plenty of digital myself, mainly concerts, dances, and portraits, and anything where I need to be sure I got the shot. My older brothers, who both were accomplished film photographers (I was their darkroom assistant and got their hand-me-down cameras) think I'm crazy for shooting film again.
And this press release from Kodak Photo Systems on 8/23/24 titled "A Legacy Revived: KODAK Photo Chemicals Return to Production." I'm really grateful to see this.
icarus_ wrote:
I don't think it's having a major impact on the photography segment - meaning, the boardrooms at Sony, Canon, and Nikon are not paying any serious attention. If the percentage of photographers using film goes up from 0.5% to 1.5% that qualifies as "surging" since it's up 300% but that still means digital is 98.5% of the market.
I agree, but the 1.5% is probably the number of people that used a film camera in the past year or like that. In no way does it cover the percentage of images captured. 30 years ago I'd travel with 165 rolls of film or about 6000 frames worth as that was all you could hand carry. Now it's not unusual to capture 7200 in 90 minutes.
A very small limited market, but at least there is a market. I would feel more confident in these claims if Fujifilm would actually start making and marketing film. I found Fujifilm in Japan, but not much here in the U.S. Also, since when are high prices good marketing when you’re trying to expand a market? Optimism and reality don’t always play nice.
bjhurley wrote:
And cell phones account for probably 95 percent of that market.
Film has surged enough that Capture One just added a set of film conversion tools to its app, and Lightroom may not be far behind (watch out, Negative Lab Pro). And 1.5 percent of a huge market is actually pretty significant, as Apple showed back when it had only 1 percent of the personal computer market but was one of the most financially successful companies around (worth more at the time even than the other big "Mac," McDonald's).
Someone did read my post about Capture One!
There's an interesting video on the Negative Supply site.
I've become rather cynical in my seasoned years. Probably because I worked in marketing. The "article" appears to be a marketing piece for Kodak. I wouldn't question the couple of facts mentioned repeatedly, but I question the conclusions drawn.. IMO this is "paid content" either written on spec to solicit money from the industry, or commissioned. It isn't wrong or underhanded, because advertising is intended to inform, but it is not a complete picture. (pun intended) For example: what are the numbers for Fuji, Ilford etc? It is encouraging .
James Markus wrote:
I've become rather cynical in my seasoned years. Probably because I worked in marketing. The "article" appears to be a marketing piece for Kodak. I wouldn't question the couple of facts mentioned repeatedly, but I question the conclusions drawn.. IMO this is "paid content" either written on spec to solicit money from the industry, or commissioned. It isn't wrong or underhanded, because advertising is intended to inform, but it is not a complete picture. (pun intended) For example: what are the numbers for Fuji, Ilford etc? It is encouraging .
The company that posted this appears to be a photo lab supply distributer, so yeah definitely some marketing going on here. Still encouraging that some numbers indicate a healthier film market than previously.
icarus_ wrote:
Those of you who like bourbon may have noticed in the last year or two it's become a lot easier to get bottles that were quite hard to come by from like 2016-2022 or so. Buffalo Trace, Jim Beam, Bard, MGP, etc all have new production facilities that they started 10 years ago and are finally coming online. I recall when this HH BiB was either not available at all or you had to pay double MSRP. Now it's just sitting on the shelf in rows, waiting for a customer.
All alcohol is dropping hard after the covid spike... Also, exports are almost nil...collateral damage
icarus_ wrote:
I don't think it's having a major impact on the photography segment - meaning, the boardrooms at Sony, Canon, and Nikon are not paying any serious attention. If the percentage of photographers using film goes up from 0.5% to 1.5% that qualifies as "surging" since it's up 300% but that still means digital is 98.5% of the market.
I personally shoot film quite a bit and enjoy doing so. As a result, I pay fairly close attention to film and development costs which have only gone up in the past year I've been shooting film. Hopefully film continues to surge in popularity which in turn may lead Kodak, Ilford, and [one can only hope] maybe even Fujifilm to spin up additional production. As of now, the rise of popularity doesn't seem to be translating to business decisions.
Those of you who like bourbon may have noticed in the last year or two it's become a lot easier to get bottles that were quite hard to come by from like 2016-2022 or so. Buffalo Trace, Jim Beam, Bard, MGP, etc all have new production facilities that they started 10 years ago and are finally coming online. I recall when this HH BiB was either not available at all or you had to pay double MSRP. Now it's just sitting on the shelf in rows, waiting for a customer....Show more →
I'm waiting for the day Pappy returns to MSRP. Weller pretty available now everywhere too
Its not hard to see the appeal of film looking at the supposed screen time numbers. Using film might reduce screen time and also it's something not on a screen.
I think film will always have appeal, just like vinyl records have survived among music nerds for so long. The people who get it, get it, and the people who don't care can continue using whatever digital medium is in vogue that week.
My film resurgence is definitely over - I am back to shooting less than a handful of films per year after peaking in 2017-2020 with even predominantly shooting film over digital. Why?
+ Price of film: Severe lackluster for me in recent years. Glad I have stored away a bunch of rolls of film in my fridge since a couple of years and mostly full and barely used 50 meter film rolls in my darkroom.
+ Good alternatives to film: This is another significant factor for me to go back to digital: Leica's monochrome M cameras. Never exactly the same as B&W film of course but getting there to > 90%. Easy to take my M 246 with me on travel without being concerned to take enough film with me or where to get it if needed. Not having a concern with film being scanned at the safety check-in is a relief, too.
+ Color film is mostly matched by digital and a bit of PP: very true. Been there, done it - scanned and PP lots of different color negative films only to find out that a similar digital color photo doesn't look worse and very similar. Slide film is different - much more saturated colors which pop not easy to reproduce with digital. But you can with a bit PP spent. Each on their own to decide if the color negative/positive outcome is worth the spent money for the film. I decided mostly against it now and rarely take color negative/positive photos anymore.
+ Darkroom/silver gelatin prints: many think that you need to have physical negatives to make darkroom B&W prints. Not true. Lesser known but nearly equally well performing is the so-called digital negative process. After the Dektol developer solution is calibrated with a printed B&W pattern on the monitor screen and adjusted, an inverted digital B&W photo can be printed onto a thin film with an inkjet printer. This printed plastic foil is then inserted into the negative carrier under the enlarger. The rest is the same as printing from a regular negative.
This said, I continue using film - mostly B&W now, and only when I have a task in mind to use film specifically. It's a lot of fun for me to develop my own film. Also slows me down when taking photos with my camera - and who doesn't love using mechanical film cameras!
retrofocus wrote:
My film resurgence is definitely over - I am back to shooting less than a handful of films per year after peaking in 2017-2020 with even predominantly shooting film over digital. Why?
+ Price of film: Severe lackluster for me in recent years. Glad I have stored away a bunch of rolls of film in my fridge since a couple of years and mostly full and barely used 50 meter film rolls in my darkroom.
+ Good alternatives to film: This is another significant factor for me to go back to digital: Leica's monochrome M cameras. Never exactly the same as B&W film of course but getting there to > 90%. Easy to take my M 246 with me on travel without being concerned to take enough film with me or where to get it if needed. Not having a concern with film being scanned at the safety check-in is a relief, too.
+ Color film is mostly matched by digital and a bit of PP: very true. Been there, done it - scanned and PP lots of different color negative films only to find out that a similar digital color photo doesn't look worse and very similar. Slide film is different - much more saturated colors which pop not easy to reproduce with digital. But you can with a bit PP spent. Each on their own to decide if the color negative/positive outcome is worth the spent money for the film. I decided mostly against it now and rarely take color negative/positive photos anymore.
+ Darkroom/silver gelatin prints: many think that you need to have physical negatives to make darkroom B&W prints. Not true. Lesser known but nearly equally well performing is the so-called digital negative process. After the Dektol developer solution is calibrated with a printed B&W pattern on the monitor screen and adjusted, an inverted digital B&W photo can be printed onto a thin film with an inkjet printer. This printed plastic foil is then inserted into the negative carrier under the enlarger. The rest is the same as printing from a regular negative.
This said, I continue using film - mostly B&W now, and only when I have a task in mind to use film specifically. It's a lot of fun for me to develop my own film. Also slows me down when taking photos with my camera - and who doesn't love using mechanical film cameras!...Show more →
It may not surprise you to learn that film is particularly picking up in popularity with the younger Gen Z and Gen Alpha kids who never experienced film photography. Their entire lives have been in the era of digital, rapidly scaling improvements in clinical precision, flawless autofocus, and increasingly perfect color reproduction. For them, photography was as easy as taking out your smartphone and letting the computer aids craft a perfect picture in any circumstance.
Now, in a rejection of clinical perfection, some are seeking out the "flaws" and "defects" of film and vintage lenses. No surprise we've even seen a shift towards so-called character lenses in the last several years too. I kind of dig it. There's an artistic merit in seeking out representation, rather than reproduction, of the world around you. It's what the impressionists were doing.
All of that is true, and also because film cameras and lenses entry price can be super low so the younger gens can just pick some gear and a few rolls for the weekend and have a blast for essentially little to no investment.
In addition there is a broader international trend of 90s-early 2000s digicams coming back into vogue, along with gizmos and gadgets from that area. Partially related to the cultural aesthetic throwback reference due to groups like New Jeans (due to their art director) and resurgence in Japanese tourism.
ftllens wrote:
All of that is true, and also because film cameras and lenses entry price can be super low so the younger gens can just pick some gear and a few rolls for the weekend and have a blast for essentially little to no investment.
You can pick up a used digital camera for very little…then there is zero expenses after that…unlike with film developing and scanning.
chez wrote:
You can pick up a used digital camera for very little…then there is zero expenses after that…unlike with film developing and scanning.
I think the cheapest full frame mirrorless you can get with a lens is probably around $500 and DSLR would be a little cheaper than that. Some film bodies especially those popular P+S compacts and old Canon film SLRs are like $20-100. If they wanted to leave the hobby, it's not as impactful as $500 (yes, I do realize most of FM is in a different bracket). And even with light seals breaking down or other fidgety things, most of the older film bodies work vs. older digitals being more of a complete failure due to 1 component vs a gradual function loss. And they get to experience the whole thing with their friends and not spend time looking at more screens to process etc. The younger gens aren't even drinking anymore and pretty health-oriented. Overall, a good trend I think.
I was pretty surprised when traveling to Japan recently at how many youth were flooding the all the shops where normally it would just be middle aged Japanese men. I can see some of them shifting to the cheaper used digital market after film stuff inflates due to lack of supply though.
