This year Kodak announced the demise and passing of Kodachrome. I'll miss it. After the moment of silence and carefully consoling and soothing the remains of a few cans of Ektachrome I had on the shelf. I realized the standard of the industry took an awful long time to vanish especially since Digital has been here so long. If it wasn't still selling, why were they still making it. Someone was using it.
We all know it passed on because I believe one place in the world was left that would process it finally succumbed. Environmentally it should of vanished years ago as it was an acid reduction process and dangerous to the environment.
Film is not totally dead, close but not totally dead and a few hands still hanging out. In some circumstance with big bucks on the line, several of the pros we interviewed went back to their roots and backed up the bucks on film.
LIMITATIONS:
• One of the things we hear is that Digital cannot do everything
film can do as yet. That comes from from a high dollar shooter. Got this also from a lot of the heavies who still understand large format or medium format for that matter.
Soon when medium backs and processors come down in price and you don't have to spend 45,000 dollars for a Phase One, you will see a resurgence in that format amongst the money makers if they still have their gear and live long enough in the industry. I see this in the pro ranks, not on the semi-pro level.
• Film is still the way digital is
measured. You always hear statements like “well it’s almost as good as Velvia”.
• There is also a comfort level in having something that works and has given you a sense of comfort and financial security. The old “Don’t fix it if it isn’t broke” holds true in many cases of those I had interviewed.
• Pixel counts are not the singular determining factor in image quality. Big wrong thinking here. Rather a combination of pixels with the correct color ability to decipher contrast, hue and tone is the matrix for success. Canon announced in their G11, they will cut the pixel count from 14.5 to 11.00 to allow greater low-light capability.
• Some (few, very few is better) real graphic publications still prefer film. Several magazines are top-enders with extremely high standards of quality. They have a look of authenticity, not creativity required in their publications. If you look at some medium format at
four times the size of the 35mm film you might need a century series camera
with 100's megabytes or better. Though digital has approached those numbers, it's a concern for the feel or message the image presents.
TWO KINDS OF SHOOTERS:
I decided to do my own
research finally settling with a varied group of Wedding Photographers who are at
both ends of the financial spectrum. I gave up looking for those who shot pictures of flowers, birds, commercial shooters, hobbyists, sports shooters, and hooter shooters.
HOOTER SHOOTER - Thats those who do models for mainly the models enjoyment. That way I could see if the digital revolution or evolution has impacted cross the board. Yes, the hooters shooters told me "with no labs needed, they have expanded their horizons!". They commented it's a New Dawn for them! But they couldn't remember if "Dawn" was her real name.
Forget it, most were hobbyists, couldn't find enough of them who were making money at it. Just didn't come together because there was very little work for those guys. So I spoke with Wedding shooters primarily.
THE GROUP:
• TYPE A: Astute recognized professional business people with studio, secretary,
solid bookings and a presentation or gallery room for setting for doing business. The answers by the pros were not surprising.
They were very protective of their investment in time and money spent in equipment, training, confidence, and redundancy.
Medium equipment price wise is at an all time low and many felt they had no restrictions on size and quality with that size which reflects in profits.
In addition, no post processing. They know their craft, the front end, posing, exposure, design, style, and their client’s preferences and spend very little time on the back end.
As one said, my lab knows what I want. I quote, " I'm out getting more business, not glued to a computer correcting my mistakes. I pay the lab for that and my costs are the same maybe 30 cents a print differential for film and development.
For a 4000 dollar job, it means nothing. My time is worth more than that".
The quality of the print is better with film. (Very common answer, they didn't like the "look" of digital. I know I'll get referrals and good clients generally send you more of their peers; It could only happen with a strong clientele base and good business practices.
• TYPE B: Part timers, sometimes called “Weekend Warriors” who were looking
to supplement their income. None of the part timers had a photo studio or facility and about
half had a business license or work permits as their location was their home.
However a few of the part timers were very good at what they did. Nice portfolios, and could almost shoot on par with the pros with a few exceptions.
Delivery presentation, options like multiple table books, large size prints and ultimately customer satisfaction for an educated or sophisticated buyer. Thats a buyer looking for a prejudged set of markers like an accepted studio name, longevity in their social circle, maybe confidence. Some of the warriors did not own the proper dress for a high end occasion.
Most had full time jobs and thats understandable. With the costs of health care and other insurances and licenses, this was their only way to go. About 25-30 percent did nice work and offered books and upgrades. And then there was the balance who offered less. Few were ever exposed to film and went directly to digital. This was a younger group as was expected. They saw digital as a problem solver.
Major reason for Digital, the cost of film. In their budget realm, twenty-thirty dollars was a lot of money for film per job and if they could put that in their
pocket, it paid for their gear and they could fix their mistakes. Most didn't offer prints but offered a CD-ROM as
testament to their work, they never really saw what they created. They offered their clientele HI-RES Discs. Most were newer shooters and just breaking into
the business. Few had enough business to make it full time and
couldn't afford to do so. Bottom line is film is not dead for some, the question is how long can they keep breathing.
THE KILLERS:
• Quality is not a criteria anymore in some arenas. It's what is acceptable. It's the ease in which things can be manipulated. Over saturated prints with grotesque colors and super-high contrast content, and shifts are acceptable and called "Craft" today. You don't need film.
• Quantity, not quality. Thats when a shooter does 3000 pictures at a VFW wedding and send them three discs of low-res product. You don't need film.
• Social change - The bottom line is the economy and the rise of the new generation of highly trained and astute picture critics with cell phones and texting skills that might replace journalism. Can't use film. They can however use their cell phone to transfer images. Like bodies for "sex-ting, drunk friends and other social communication skills".
SOUTH END OF THE DIAPER - THE BOTTOM LINE:
These are the changes that will ultimately send that last roll of film into the basket because the bar was not only lowered, but dropped clear to the ground. The respect a photographer had when with careful and precise regimens could produce the image as close as possible to what actually happened has less meaning today. In a moment of time WITHOUT a lot of manipulation an image was formed.
Today if it was not formed correctly, it is a manipulated to some form of acceptance.
It's not a question of film being dead, it is basically dead, but it's legacy is not. Our needs, economy, methodology and end results being accepted did however change. On that note...Rest In Peace.