Film use declines faster than ever
A few years ago (2003) I wrote some guidelines for people looking for a camera. In it I confidently expected that whilst digital was the future, film would be round for ‘quite some time’.
In a recent AP report, based on US data, it seems that I was being seriously optimistic.
Based on PMA researarch (U.S. Photo Marketing Association) it seems that film use has declined 95% since the turn of the century, whilst film camera sales (not incl. disposables) have dropped 99.5% from the near 20 million sold in 2000.
In the UK, a couple of major photo supplies outfits (primarily aimed at the pro and serious amateur) recently said that over the last decade (2000-2010) film sales (and associated dark room equipment) have dropped by 90%
Most of the remaining 10% was for universities/colleges and a small amount going to a few serious amateurs and then a few pro’s still working in film.
When the universities stop teaching film, much of it’s support infrastructure is likely to go all together, as the remaining market (~2% of 2000 levels) is not enough to support the industry. Kodachrome has gone – more will follow.
Should film use still be core to photography courses?
In a recent discussion on a Pro Photographers list, people wondered if film use should still be taught to students looking for a career in photography? (note the career bit!)
Whilst I’d like to see it as an option for people to explore -if they want-, the days of its general use for the business of photography are gone.
Whilst several people essentially suggested that it was ‘too easy’ with digital, I found myself agreeing with the person who pointed out the complaints when people moved from glass plates to the very much cheaper roll film:
“It does make you very lazy using a film with 36 frames rather than a box of glass plates.”
If you want to learn with chemical based systems, I’m minded to think that people should perhaps look at large format.
If you want to learn about movements, then a view camera and MF back will help (or my homemade DSLR view camera adapter). However, given the looks of curiosity I get when using Canon tilt/shift lenses, it looks as this isn’t a popular course option ;-)
As to general photography – learn digital, it’s what you’re going to be using if you ever get a real paying job. If I’m hiring someone, I’m not really that impressed if they can tell me the correct dilution of D76 for Tri-X at 20C – actually I’m more interested in their people and communication skills.
Perhaps, because I’ve only ever used digital in my professional work, I just don’t see the relevance of film as a -mainstay- of any course. There will always be some attracted to the craft (and perceived ‘artiness’) of film, so I’d put film into the optional parts of any course.
I don’t agree with the ‘slow it down’ movement either – then again I rarely ever use a tripod for my landscapes (architecture/interiors yes, landscape no)
I’ve long regarded many of the ‘purity of film’ style arguments as indicative more of people’s comfort with the old and familiar, than any real reflection on the capabilities and challenges of the new. I just don’t buy all the ‘taking time’ stuff – if you want to play it like that, send people out with just one 512MB card and insist they use RAW (to fill the card up quickly)
Moving to digital and the ability to experiment, iteratively at minimal cost, and rapidly compare techniques and approaches has worked wonders for both the technical and creative sides of my own photography.
I’d argue that my digital work shows a much deeper understanding and interpretation of light than I ever managed with a purely chemical approach (manipulation in itself). Certainly I’d not have been happy trying to produce the equivalent of a 12 foot long panoramic B/W woodland print that I recently worked on (and printed on our Canon iPF8300, which lives in my old darkroom)