# Where is the future of 35mm taking us?



## TylerTarris (Feb 8, 2011)

Well, I will always love shooting digital, but what I truly enjoy from photography, is the shear thought that you have to put into a photo when shooting film, and the amount of time its worth to you, and then the genuine suprise, and anticipation of waiting to get it devloped, or in some instances when fortunate running the process yourself. Now where im going with this is, what companies as of now are currently selling cheaper 35mm SLR's and rangefinders, and why have the bigger brands stopped making them almost entirely?


----------



## dxqcanada (Feb 8, 2011)

Very few companies venture into 35mm film cameras ... except for some almost novelty items.
Nikon is still one of the few that have SLR's (FM2 + F6).

There is no market for them ... all professional photographers are going digital. Even the old Hasselbladers.
It is more profitable using Digital.

Leica still has their M series film cameras.

The investment in photofinishing equipment for film is more than digital.

Camera manufacturers go where the sales/profit is.
Those of us that shoot film will most likely buy a used camera instead of new as the price is so attractive ... so there is no reason for the manufacturer to continue making new ones (especially when the used market is full).


----------



## dxqcanada (Feb 8, 2011)

The future of 35mm photography is in recycling.

Those of you "Digital" shooters that have suddenly "seen the light" and want to shoot film ... keep 35mm film production alive.

Film developing/printing is a hard guess for the future.
I see 35mm film becoming a B+W only area for those wanting to get their hands wet (literally).

For us old timers ... we will continue to live with both worlds and dread the day we cannot get chemicals and paper.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 8, 2011)

TylerTarris said:


> what companies as of now are currently selling cheaper 35mm SLR's and rangefinders, and why have the bigger brands stopped making them almost entirely?


None that I know of.  I think Canon & Nikon still have one body each in production, but I wouldn't exactly call them cheap.

Why did they stop?  I can only assume it's because the market isn't there anymore.  Of course, people will still want them - but not enough people to make it profitably for them.

Companies don't stay in business long if they don't stay profitable...  That's just the way it is.

I think current designs are just now starting to move away from the way it way with film too...  IS/VR for example - people are always asking why Canon & Nikon have it in the lens instead of the body like Sony.  Film is why.
Canon & Nikon had IS/VR before there was a such thing as digital cameras.  You can't just move a single frame of film around to do it in body...


I still pretty much only shoot film.  I probably will be for a while too.

I don't think it will go away for a very long time.  Sure, the selection will get smaller and more expensive though, and that's already happening.

My favorite films keep getting discontinued.  Fuji cut a bunch from it's line in the last couple years.  Kodak is cutting them too.

What pisses me off though, is that it's only the pro films getting cut.  They don't seem to be touching the cheap drug store ones.  I think the future is - you will only have one 'pro' film to pick from per brand.  Maybe two - a 400 speed and an 800 speed.

I can walk into any drug store and get a 3 pack of Kodak Gold, but try finding a roll of Portra 160NC...

I think I'm going to be shooting a lot more B&W soon since it's getting harder to find my favorite color films.  Even ordering on-line there isn't much to choose from.  I used to use Fuji Pro 160S almost exclusively, and now I can't even find it.  B&H used to sell it in 100' bulk rolls, now they don't even have a single 36 exposure roll.

I just ordered 100 feet of Arista Premium 100 (which is Kodak Plus-X, from what I've read) and a few rolls of Fuji Neopan SS 100 from Freestyle (should be in tomorrow).  There's still a pretty wide selection of B&W films, and they last (a lot) longer anyway - so I think I'm going to start stocking up and hoarding.  


So...  The future is - fewer, more expensive choices.  It will still be around for a long time though.


----------



## Sbuxo (Feb 8, 2011)

hopefully after getting the hang of 35mm it will take you to 120


----------



## thingsIsee (Feb 8, 2011)

you can't buy a 57 Chevy or a 68 Camaro anymore ether. they will go the way of the used, and restored.


----------



## skieur (Feb 8, 2011)

Sbuxo said:


> hopefully after getting the hang of 35mm it will take you to 120


 
and then the Kodak Brownie. 

skieur


----------



## dxqcanada (Feb 8, 2011)

Where is the future of 35mm taking us?

Towards digital imaging products.

Beyond that ... ?


----------



## Sbuxo (Feb 8, 2011)

skieur said:


> Sbuxo said:
> 
> 
> > hopefully after getting the hang of 35mm it will take you to 120
> ...


----------



## Jakefreese (Feb 8, 2011)

I am afraid the epa will be the end of film.  When they catch up with the chemicals used for it I think it be it.  I still shoot some film, the digital is just soo convenient and I am hardly even an amateur so it is nice for me to be able to see my picture and reshoot if needed.  One thing I do like is you can get film bodies CHEAP  I paid $200 for my EOS 1 they were like $2000 new.  I hope it is a very long time before film is something that was remembered.  There is still a different look and feel that digital just does not have.  Plus medium and large format can get you awesome looking pictures enlarged that I could not afford a digital even close to the quality that the medium format could get me.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 8, 2011)

TylerTarris said:


> Well, I will always love shooting digital, but what I truly enjoy from photography, is the shear thought that you have to put into a photo when shooting film, and the amount of time its worth to you, and then the genuine suprise, and anticipation of waiting to get it devloped, or in some instances when fortunate running the process yourself. Now where im going with this is, what companies as of now are currently selling cheaper 35mm SLR's and rangefinders, and why have the bigger brands stopped making them almost entirely?



Because 35mm film SLR's are dead as a profit center, and dead as a sales staple. The demand for them is easily met by the remaining millions of used bodies and lenses still on the market. 35mm rangefinders have been a niche market for many decades now, and Leica and Cosina are easily able to the tiny amount of demand for 35mm rangefinder cameras and lenses. Old, used Leicas work well as shooters, and new Cosina-made Bessa rangefinders function well as low-priced shooters. Canon and Nikon used to be rather high-volume rangefinder camera makers, back during the period when rangefinders had yet to be ovrtaken by the advancing Japanese 35mm SLR "system" cameras, but both Canon and Nikon abandoned 35mm rangefinder production decades ago.

Cosina's "Voigtlander Bessa" cameras and lenses are a good example of a product produced by a company headed by a single man, a man who actually has a passionate love for the 35mm rangefinder camera. COrporations, where multiple levels of leadership have to justify costs and profit margins and so on, have for the most part, abandoned both 35mm SLR production and 35mm rangefinder production simply because the profit potential is so slim in both of those product categories.


----------



## usayit (Feb 8, 2011)

dxqcanada said:


> Leica still has their M series film cameras.



btw.. Leica too has stopped production of the M7 and MP.  I think they basically have a large stockpile of parts from which they can assemble film bodies if necessary.  

Small company with limited resources refocused on the three lines: M-body, S-body, and X1.


----------



## dxqcanada (Feb 8, 2011)

... but I am still saving up for the gold MP3 !!!


----------



## usayit (Feb 8, 2011)

dxqcanada said:


> ... but I am still saving up for the gold MP3 !!!



Gold Spray Paint? lol

Might work... there's a bunch of people painting their Chrome M3 bodies black for some odd reason.


----------



## dxqcanada (Feb 8, 2011)

Not the same


----------



## Overread (Feb 8, 2011)

I expect film will continue to slump down in the market; however I expect that the 35mm film camera got enough hold onto the market that it won't ever be phased fully out - at least I expect not in my lifetime. I expect that one or two companies will eventually start up to resurrect a limited market in the film industry - supplying (at costs of course) mail order films (specialist and basic) as well as mail order developing of those films. 

The US and European markets would, I think, generate enough income for a dedicated company or two like this to operate provided that those in charge had a dedication to keeping film alive. They might also slip into production of limited feature film bodies (or if they can nab up the rights, to a high spec one) as the used market becomes more limited with working bodies - at the very least they would have to stock and make supplies for second hand repair (As well built as they are, working parts always wear down over time and need replacing/tuning up). 

So I don't see it as dead (esp since every school and arts uni still teaches it), but it will slip into the domain of the hobbyist and the more exclusive/poverty stricken artist/pro. Canon and Nikon might throw film one more bone in the shape of a new edition camera body (if one does the other will), but I expect it would only ever be top range and with a high price - as said the second hand market is where those with a lighter pocket are buying film gear


----------



## Derrel (Feb 8, 2011)

What is kind of bumming me out is the shrinking of the 35mm film scanner market...the manufacturers artificially kept the price of high quality 35mm film scanners very high for many years, despite the fact that the technology is SIMPLE and they were ripping people off to an almost criminal degree. Whereas the flatbed scanner's price was also kept artificially high for around a decade, the many manufacturers finally allowed the price of flatbed scanners to fall to affordable levels. Not so the high-quality, dedicated film scanner. I'm pretty cheezed off that Nikon,Canon, Minolta, etc,etc. hv not sen fit to provide their loyal customers with capable products with decent software at fair prices, but have basically sort of screwed us over,and sort of forgotten about the long-time,loyal film users who have large archives to digitize, as well as who continue to expose film.

Perhaps now, with the advent of "digital labs" that an offer high-rez, affordable scans at development time, maybe there simply no longer exists much of a market for higher-qualitiy, dedicated film scanners?


----------



## compur (Feb 8, 2011)

usayit said:


> btw.. Leica too has stopped production of the M7 and MP.



No, that rumor was false.  

See:
Leica: "We are still producing film cameras" - British Journal of Photography


----------



## usayit (Feb 8, 2011)

I predict that people will become so freakin tired of digital (and its strive for perfect reproduction of the original) that film will make a return as a more artistic, retro, or even classic look.  

Most of us hang a portrait photo.... 

others that want to make a statement and commission an oil painting...

perhaps future photo lovers... will commission something Like a Platinum/Palladium Print



like this guy's prints.. (local in NJ)  Michael Massaia Photography

I've seen his work/print in person up close... OMG... so well done.


----------



## usayit (Feb 8, 2011)

compur said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > btw.. Leica too has stopped production of the M7 and MP.
> ...



Its been in debate.. I'm still in the boat that this is a marketing move by the likes of Leica.  Most likely they can assemble from parts if necessary is what they mean.   They've been having extreme difficulties meeting demand over their lenses and M-bodies that I highly doubt they still keep any resources dedicated to such a low volume line.   M9's still slowly trickle in to big time sellers with local shops keeping waiting lists (more than a year later after release).  Until the recent months, BH has had their entire Summilux-M line AND Summicron-M on back order.  Even now, they only have 21 summilux and 35 summicron in stock and I bet they have less than 3 of each.   There are posts of people on the Leica focus'd forums asking anyone anywhere in the world to find them a current version 50mm Summilux Asph which has been in continuous short supply since its release in 2006.  Good luck finding the 50mm Noctilux 0.95.  My local high end shop has been complaining about it... a lot.  They've got buyers but they sometimes loose sales simply because of lack of stock.   Its painful for them because these are big ticket items.

Something tells me they are too busy to keep a production line of film cameras...

whether or not its true... doesn't matter to me.. I sold my M6 realizing for film, I still love the original M3 (or slightly newer M2).   Btw.. rumor started here:

http://leicarumors.com/2010/06/23/leica-has-not-stopped-making-film-cameras.aspx/


----------



## compur (Feb 8, 2011)

usayit said:


> Most likely they can assemble from parts if necessary is what they mean.



That's how Leicas are made.  They're assembled from parts.


----------



## usayit (Feb 8, 2011)

compur said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > Most likely they can assemble from parts if necessary is what they mean.
> ...



Lol..   I guess when someone tells me they are still in production, I'm thinking the manufacturing of parts... not just the assembly of them.  Those marketing and sales guys can sometimes have funny logic at times.  

Its the same crap in the automotive industry.  Made in USA often still means more than half of the parts are manufactured outside of the US.


----------



## compur (Feb 8, 2011)

I'm willing to bet that all the parts that are used to assemble Leicas were in 
fact manufactured. 

Manufacturing Leica parts + assembling them = Leicas _are_ still in production.

Just because they do it in batches doesn't mean they've stopped making 
them.  It's common practice to manufacture high end specialty items in 
batches.

I'm sure Nikon F6s are made the same way and the re-animated Rollei 
cameras and most other film cameras that remain in production plus many 
other specialty items.


----------



## usayit (Feb 8, 2011)

compur said:


> I'm willing to bet that all the parts that are used to assemble Leicas were in
> fact manufactured.



So Canon lied then... being that they still have stock of new 1V camera bodies and parts.  Same with Nikon.

My point being...  once the "batch" is gone, I doubt they will be manufacturing any more... hence stopped production.

Semantics...  another think we like to twist.


----------



## compur (Feb 8, 2011)

I think the M7 will be around for a while yet.


----------



## christopher walrath (Feb 8, 2011)

Cheap 35mm SLR still being produced?  Vivitar 3800N.  Comes with a 50mm kit lens.

Wanna do it right, bide your time for a Minolta MD mount or a Pentax K1000 body to come along and then start collecting lenses to go with.


----------



## kalliela (Feb 8, 2011)

Well, I know the future of film is that it's more expensive and hard to find film you like. I paid 7 bucks a roll for Ilford B&W 100 speed. I think I paid half of this price a few years ago. So, prices are going up..which even makes me want to turn away in a sense but I just bought an F100 so I am not turning until film is just not made anymore or I simply can't afford it anymore. I give film 5-10 years max..then you won't be able to get film much anywhere if at all I don't think. I will always appreciate film though. Sad really..but changing times I guess, has been for a while. Still not sold on digital here though as far as quality. Film has such a better look to it. Love film, love it. Ya, the cheap crap films aren't being cut, just the pro kind. Kodak gold? ugh. It sucks that one day I won't be able to buy good film or darkroom chemicals. You know? The film section gets smaller and smaller everytime I go to my local photoshop.


----------



## j-dogg (Feb 9, 2011)

Film will be a niche market for artists, nostalgists and collectors alike. The youth are keeping film alive right now. I love it every time I see a 19 year old with a Nikon SLR or something similar. Our photography class with only one or two exceptions is almost entirely 35mm film SLR. I am proud of this generation for once.

As for availability, it's increasing locally. The local photo store used to only carry 3 or 4 different films and 1 120. Now I can get 4 slide films, 3 black and whites, Portra in every flavor, they JUST started carrying Ektachrome 100vs, there's 5 different 120's and even cut sheet film for the box guys. They just ran out of Ektar 100 and Portra 160vc and have it on backorder. I love my photo store.


----------



## djacobox372 (Feb 9, 2011)

thingsIsee said:


> you can't buy a 57 Chevy or a 68 Camaro anymore ether. they will go the way of the used, and restored.



Well the new Camaro is trying it's best to be like a 68... so I don't think that analogy holds up.


----------



## maris (Feb 10, 2011)

I suspect that 35mm will be the first of the present film formats to go and sheet film will be the last.

35mm film based pictures offer the worst possible technical quality in regular photographic production. Everything bigger offers dramatically less grain, more sharpness, greater detail, and stunningly superior tonal quality. Plus 120 format roll-film and sheet film typically 4x5 and 8x10 sizes are just as easy to process. 

So why 35mm? Reasons:

Small hand-holdable lightweight cameras.
Quick to use for unpredictable photo opportunities.
Fast lenses for low light work.
Fast shutter speeds for moving subjects.
Many shots, usually 36, between re-loadings.
Low film costs per exposure.

Those reasons were powerful in the past as compensation for the wretched picture quality. But no more. Everything 35mm could do is equalled or exceeded by present day digital cameras which deliver more pictures, better, quicker, cheaper, and at a fraction of the effort and mess of 35mm. 

Now if you are doing 8x10 platinotypes or gelatin-silvers you are stuck with making pictures out of light sensitive materials which assuredly digital does not do. Things like this will be the last hold-out for film.


----------



## iamacyborg (Feb 10, 2011)

maris said:


> I suspect that 35mm will be the first of the present film formats to go and sheet film will be the last.
> 
> 35mm film based pictures offer the worst possible technical quality in regular photographic production. Everything bigger offers dramatically less grain, more sharpness, greater detail, and stunningly superior tonal quality. Plus 120 format roll-film and sheet film typically 4x5 and 8x10 sizes are just as easy to process.
> 
> ...



Wretched picture quality? What?


----------



## compur (Feb 10, 2011)

You can see some of the wretched quality 35mm photos here and here and here and ...


----------



## usayit (Feb 10, 2011)

> Small hand-holdable lightweight cameras.
> Quick to use for unpredictable photo opportunities.
> Fast lenses for low light work.
> Fast shutter speeds for moving subjects.
> ...



Don't be too quick to shrug off "maris" point... 35mm was considered a "toy" format for photography in its infancy.   It was a time when medium and large format dominated because that was the minimum quality many accepted.  The popularity of the 135 was in part due to warfare and war photographers who saw it necessary to get closer to the action even at the expense of the lower image quality of a smaller negative.   They did so for the reasons "maris" pointed out.   Digital brings many of those aspects with some added advantages... no doubt the same advantages that caused many old time wedding/event/journalist photographers to switch to small frame digital cameras.

Now I wouldn't say "wretched" quality.... its pretty darn good... but compared to larger formats.  Eh yes.. there's a very noticeable difference.  

On the same note...  A oil portrait is considered "wretched" quality by photographic standards but they are still sought after.  Not near as common as photos.   I still believe film will be around (yes 35mm too) for the "look" just like many still choose polaroid, watercolor, oil, etc.   as a medium.


----------



## iamacyborg (Feb 10, 2011)

usayit said:


> Don't be too quick to shrug off "maris" point... 35mm was considered a "toy" format for photography in its infancy.   It was a time when medium and large format dominated because that was the minimum quality many accepted.  The popularity of the 135 was in part due to warfare and war photographers who saw it necessary to get closer to the action even at the expense of the lower image quality of a smaller negative.   They did so for the reasons "maris" pointed out.   Digital brings many of those aspects with some added advantages... no doubt the same advantages that caused many old time wedding/event/journalist photographers to switch to small frame digital cameras.
> 
> *Now I wouldn't say "wretched" quality.... its pretty darn good... but compared to larger formats.  Eh yes.. there's a very noticeable difference. *
> 
> On the same note...  A oil portrait is considered "wretched" quality by photographic standards but they are still sought after.  Not near as common as photos.   I still believe film will be around (yes 35mm too) for the "look" just like many still choose polaroid, watercolor, oil, etc.   as a medium.



A fair enough point, but how many photographers do you know that have shot 135 film and really pushed it to it's absolute limits, to the point where it made no more sense to shoot it?


----------



## 12sndsgood (Feb 10, 2011)

i see film going to the wayside. it will probably take some time but it will eventually go. i don't see kids sticking with film. retro is in right now but give it another few years and the trends will change and the youth will forget about film. it will go the way of the cassette tape and the sony walkman and the floppy disc


----------



## compur (Feb 10, 2011)

... and rock & roll.


----------



## ghache (Feb 10, 2011)

I still have 150 roll of 35mm film in my freeze, im good for a couple a years.


----------



## usayit (Feb 11, 2011)

iamacyborg said:


> A fair enough point, but how many photographers do you know that have shot 135 film and really pushed it to it's absolute limits, to the point where it made no more sense to shoot it?



I know a lot...  (my answer isn't going to be what you expected).

Any journalist in which pictures need to be delivered in the terms of minutes not hours or days has pushed film to the limits.  Film's limit in terms of turn-around time has been pushed to the max already... digital took over from there.


----------



## iamacyborg (Feb 11, 2011)

usayit said:


> iamacyborg said:
> 
> 
> > A fair enough point, but how many photographers do you know that have shot 135 film and really pushed it to it's absolute limits, to the point where it made no more sense to shoot it?
> ...



Well yes, but that leap has already happened, and 135 is still going relatively strong.
Turn-around time, is a very important factor for photojournalism, obviously, but that's just one particular aspect of the film. There are many other factors to consider, and as I said above, turn-around time has been irrelevant for quite a while.


----------



## Vautrin (Feb 13, 2011)

I think it's important to differentiate the _purpose_ of the photos.

Black and White Film is still light years ahead of digital black and white.  
Kodak Ektachrome VS and G, also looks much different then digital, and is much higher quality in medium and large format.

But these are mediums really used for art photography...  That demand is still there and isn't going away soon

The demand that is going away is the demand by the average consumer.  Joe Sixpack who wants to take photos of his family vacation is going to prefer a $100 powershot to a film camera that costs $10 a roll (including processing and prints) for crappy photos (let's face it, they were always price oriented and walmart photo lab just doesn't do a great job)

That's the demand that goes away.  

So we'll see a retooling of who uses film.  I'd predict medium & large format art photography will be here for a long time.

Maybe though, it'll be supported by brands like Efke, Rollei and Fomapan, while Kodak will go off to support more profitable digital markets

So to summarize:

Family vacation portraits?  Digital all the way
Wall sized art photos: medium and large format film


----------



## tcarney57 (Feb 23, 2011)

The EPA has been in existence since 1973 (it was created by Richard Nixon!). It's had almost forty years to regulate and restrict photo chemicals. It hasn't. Is there any evidence it intends to do so now, at a time when digital has all-but wiped out the use of such chemicals? Is this a Tea Bag .. uh ... Tea Party attack on the EPA?


----------



## Vautrin (Feb 23, 2011)

I don't think photo chemicals are that dangerous.  Least not compared to whats in batteries, or computers, or any number of things...


----------



## usayit (Feb 23, 2011)

My limited understanding of the manufacturing of various components for computers tells me that the pollution and toxic materials in the manufacture of these digital cameras are far far far far worse than the heavy metals in spent developer.   Furthermore, digital cameras (like most consumer electronics) have a very short lived time span which further worsens the situations.   I'm sure anyone with a much better understanding of the manufacturing process will agree and add more detail (Garbz?)

Its similar to the notion that the Prius is less polluting than a gas efficient vehicle of similar size... once you figure in the toxins from the batteries and the cost of shipping parts all over the world to make a single Prius, its not a good picture.

What I do know very well is that blind and blanket application of technology doesn't always solve problems... it simply makes them more complex.  I see it everywhere as less informed consumers ooooooo and aaaaahhh at marketing material.   

I'm sure some here should recall the idea of a "paperless" workplace environment that was so popular in the 80s and 90s.


----------



## Mike_E (Feb 23, 2011)

12sndsgood said:


> i see film going to the wayside. it will probably take some time but it will eventually go. i don't see kids sticking with film. retro is in right now but give it another few years and the trends will change and the youth will forget about film. it will go the way of the cassette tape and the sony walkman and the floppy disc



They're still making tubes of oil paints, brushes, knives and canvases along with watercolors, pastels and charcoals.

Film isn't going anywhere.


----------



## Snaphaan (Apr 30, 2011)

usayit said:


> My limited understanding of the manufacturing of various components for computers tells me that the pollution and toxic materials in the manufacture of these digital cameras are far far far far worse than the heavy metals in spent developer.   Furthermore, digital cameras (like most consumer electronics) have a very short lived time span which further worsens the situations.   I'm sure anyone with a much better understanding of the manufacturing process will agree and add more detail (Garbz?)


 
I agree. Many computer parts are far worse for the environment than a roll of film or darkroom chemicals. We have not "saved" paper or reduced the amount of energy and materials necessary to produce a image. We have compacted most of the tasks into a portable electronic device that is produced and manufactured through a process that is (for obvious reasons) far worse than the building of say a daguerreotype or even a 40 year old Pentax.

Plastic is one really BIG problem and todays camera utilizes a LOT of it. Especially lower end P&S and your entry level DSLR's. Its become the norm. I have a old Pentax and the build quality is not only excellent but really environmentally friendly. 

About film. It WILL die out. Due to the simple reason that technology will eventually surpass it. Make your peace. The only real issue I see with the electronic processes and storage is that they tend to fail after more or less 2 decades. I have lost a lot of stuff lately due to old backups getting corrupted for unknown reasons. In 20 years time I will need to replace all my drives with newer storage tech and the old stuff will "recycle" back into the environment creating a viscous flow of virtually indestructible "cost effective space saving" hardware. 

Don't for a minute think that your helping your environment when you are using your digital camera. When the world was sniffing chemicals and shooting 35mm they were environmentalists without even knowing it.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 30, 2011)

Snaphaan said:


> About film. It WILL die out. Due to the simple reason that technology will eventually surpass it. Make your peace. The only real issue I see with the electronic processes and storage is that they tend to fail after more or less 2 decades.


 Funny.  Right after you say that film will (eventually) die, you cite one of the reasons that I believe it won't.

YES, film will get more expensive than it already has gotten.  Yes, selection will suffer.  Yes, it will be harder to find the chemicals.  But, I don't think it's going anywhere.  Not in my lifetime anyway...



And as far as technology surpassing film, is film not 'technology'?  New films are still coming out...  As technology advances, so will film.


----------

