CO

In an article dated May 30, 2018, Canon has announced that after 80 years it will discontinue its last film camera - the EOS-1V. Nikon still has the F6 and FM10. I guess there has still been a small market for film.

Here is the article:
https://petapixel.com/2018/05/30/canon-is-now-out-of-the-film-camera-business-after-80-years/

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

The market for film has been increasing over the past few years. The problem with new cameras like the EOS-1V and the F6 is that they are expensive and the market is flooded with good used film cameras going for far less money.

anotherview Loc: California

Film photography has become obsolescent. Canon made a business decision in view of this fact.

Film photography will, however, remain a niche technology like other former means of doing photography.

Observation also tells that diehard film photographers steadfastly tout film photography as inherently superior to digital photography. Yet, experts say digital photography surpassed film photography years ago.

Experienced photographers who formerly shot film say that digital photography provides the photographer with more control.

Kuzano

BS from another deserter from the film market. The proverbial "Film is Dead" acolyte. Worship the digital gods.

Why am I still making money selling used film gear. Growing biz for me. New film emulsions regularly. Niche market - sure. Good business decision by Canon yes. But people still have opinions about what's best for themselves.

Your admission that film will be a niche, but I submit a growing niche, ultimately larger than you may think. As far a discussion about which is better, no research will ever prove out which will prevail, but digital is likely because it requires no taste, or artistic endeavor, and is surely a faster turnaround for income, which leads the mark in what will prevail. Surely not for art's sake.

Your last comment that photographers are control "freaks" likely has more to do with the reason it will prevail, along with faster income stream. Can you ever imagine going "out of control" for your art.

My favoritely owned and used Canon "Kwanon". Kwanon came from the phrase meaning Buddhist Goddess of Mercy.

A type IIIF Leica clone.... bottom load
A Canon EF (F1 era) manual focus camera popularly called "The Black Beauty" FD mount
A Canon T90 predecessor to the EOF but manual focus. Program modes
A Canon EOS A2E (eye mode focus). Used at Car shows with 28-105 USM

Pic here:

(Download)

anotherview Loc: California

Malarkey: "As far a discussion about which is better, no research will ever prove out which will prevail, but digital is likely because it requires no taste, or artistic endeavor, and is surely a faster turnaround for income, which leads the mark in what will prevail. Surely not for art's sake."

Diehard film photographers paired with marketers have saved film photography from a steeper decline and together have even attracted newbies to this obsolescent mode of photography.

Photography presents as an art form, whatever the means of practicing it.

Further, the craft of photography may rise to art in the right hands regardless of the mode involved.

CO

I remember when digital cameras started to appear some people were concerned about the "machine gun" approach photographers were adopting. Some people would take hundreds of shots at a location and sift through them later hoping to have a good one. I saved up this article from an issue of Shutterbug magazine called "Film & Digital, Discipline & Whimsy; “In The End, The Photographs Always Win”. The author was shooting digital but would return to film sometimes to regain discipline and planning in his photography. The article is online here.

https://www.shutterbug.com/content/film-digital-discipline-whimsy-“-end-photographs-always-win”

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

There is certainly a grain of truth in the contemplative nature of film versus digital, at least in my opinion. Shooting sheet film or medium format is an inherently slower process. When I'm in the mood for contemplative shooting, I will haul out the old film cameras and make a day out of it.

I'm afraid it's the old 35mm stuff in my kit that tends to languish. My approach with 35mm was somewhere in between - in truth, I think I shot it more like digital, with more multiple attempts to get it right rather than finding the one perfect image. At the time, 36 whole images in one sequence seemed like an enormous lot, and we often carried two bodies at the same time. Digital has just increased this tendency, of course.

This makes me think about the future of photography...

Andy

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Digital is very convenient. I learned photography using film cameras and I still have a couple of them, the original Nikon of 1963 (no meter) and the more modern Nikon F-100. I have film in my freezer but I seldom use it.
Digital has a dynamic range superior to any film in use today. As long as metering is correct and the highlights are not overexposed the files should be of excellent quality. Always expose for important bright areas.

Slide film has a dynamic range (contrast range) of only 5 stops while color and negative film are pretty close to 8 stops. The instant feedback, the histogram to check the exposure and the excellent editing programs available today make digital what it is. It is considerably cheaper than using conventional film and with film we are at the mercy of a technician when it comes to printing. Calibrate your monitor and your file will render colors like they should when printing the file in a professional lab.

I like film, I grew with it but digital is too convenient and excellent in quality.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

No doubt, and I do agree. I'm thinking about the process, the activity of making photos, and how I look at it today as opposed to fifty years ago, when I was an enthusiastic teenager. I love the images I produce today, I love the process of making them (even though it's more darkroom, err, LightRoom than field work!) in terms of composition and design than ever before. I can rescue images that weren't exactly what I wanted through PP, and I can still put lots of time and thought into each one. It's the same process, but with a bit more emphasis on some areas than others.

I have noticed this, though. Enthusiasm for film among young people seems to be growing. When we attended the PHSNE Photographica show in Boston a few weeks ago, the demographic had notably shifted from what we'd see a few years back. Even though the dealers are overwhelmingly old and male, the buyers seeme to skew toward those in their twenties, and were at least fifty / fifty in gender.

Does anyone else see this in their observations in the "real world"? Although most of the people I see shooting with "real cameras" instead of phones seem to be a bit more mature, when I do notice people shooting film, they seem to skew to a younger demographic, especially the ones lugging field and view cameras.

I feel motivated to haul out my bag with the Super Ikonta and Rolleiflex if we go on a drive later today. Film is still fairly cheap and you can always process and scan instead of process and print.


Andy

CO

I haven't seen people shooting film lately. I did see a young photographer out with a view camera some years ago. It would be great if film made a comeback. I used to shoot some Kodak HIE black & white infrared film from time to time. I was disappointed when Kodak discontinued that film. Kodak's infrared film had a glow that no other infrared film had because it didn't have an anti-halation layer. I don't think that a digital camera that has been converted to infrared could give the same look as Kodak's infrared film.

Smudgey Loc: Ohio, Calif, Now Arizona

I spent many many hours in the darkroom, I had brown fingernails from chemicals, now I set in front of a computer and drink a beverage, while I expand my artistic expression a thousand times greater than ever before through post processing. I loved the film experience, but digital is so much better.

rfmaude41 Loc: Lancaster, Texas (DFW area)

Nikon also has the FM10, which is not extremely expensive; I have both the F6, F90s and several of their Rangefinders (if you think the F6 is expensive, try one of these, LoL). A excellent SP will run you double to triple the F6, eh ?

anotherview Loc: California

Well said from the voice of experience.

You could've added that film never produces true colors, only an engineered look. Digital means of photography can produce true colors.

anotherview Loc: California

The voice of experience speaks. Thanks.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

The rangefinders look great. Hopefully Nikon's mirrorless will take some cues from them. I have a Canon L2 rangefinder, however, I still really want a Nikon S2.