Ya, ya, everyone has their opinion on this, but according to Pop Photo, latest issue "of the billions of pictures taken every year, over 95 percent are on film". Digital may be coming, but don't throw away the film camera yet..........

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), February 14, 2002

Answers

Bob,

Thats an interesting stat. Based upon everything you see about digital don't you think its just alittle on the high side for film. My local dealer told me consumer point and shoot on new stuff is entirely digital. The pro's in the magazines seem to tout- and have switched to digital- in ever increasing numbers. Most of B&H Photo's 40 something page ad in Shutterbug is digital related. Whats their source?

-- Bob Haight (rhaigh5748@aol.com), February 14, 2002.

Yes, I too think it's probably a bit high and suspiciously precise (how can anybody know? does it include digital pictures that are deleted before printing or saving?).

It's too bad there ISN'T a way to gauge the film-to-digital ratio, because in the next 3-4 years it's going to really change fast and it would be interesting to monitor. With the advent of computers, fax machines, the internet, etc. it seemed like people gradually, steadily increased their purchase and use of each technological advance, with a steady upward slope in sales. With digital photography, on the other hand (capture, I mean), I have this sense that millions of photographers are waiting for just the right moment to switch from film to digital (I know I am; it'll be soon after the first full-frame EOS digital SLR is introduced). This week's Foveon announcement, while it won't immediately convert many photographers (who'd buy a $3000 camera that only takes Sigma lenses?!), is surely sending shockwaves in the R&D depts at Canon, Nikon, etc., the responses (via new products) from which WILL in turn convert a lot of photographers. Should be very interesting to watch the next 12-24 months.

Fwiw, I've always loved film, but I can certainly see the advantages of digital and for all kinds of reasons (money, environment, convenience, etc.) will peacefully make the transition when it makes sense to do so.

.........

-- Terry (tcdvorak@aol.com), February 14, 2002.

I read in the NY Times that 30% of the consumer cameras sold in 2001 were digital. I also heard that stat reported by Steve Jobs as he unveiled iPhoto at the MacWorld Expo last month.

It will be interesting to see what the percentage will be in, say, 2005.

-- Luke Dunlap (luked@mail.utexas.edu), February 14, 2002.

Okay - some hard and fast statistics that I know are true - they're from the larges independent photo retailer in Western Canada, where I've been the industrial sales manager for 10 years. In 1995 our average sales per month in our digital dept (this includes video) was in the neighbourhood of $50000.00 and our cnventional dept was $195000.00 per month. For the last six months of 2001 the figures were: digital $165000.00 and conventiona $240000.00. Yes - digital has increased dramatically - but as you can see, unlike what some think, that conventional is disappearing it is still a very healthy market. Of course in time digital will take over, all I (and others) have said is that film will be around a long while yet. We're a small cog in the photo biz worldwide and if we're doing a quarter million a month in film technology it's still a good moneymaker which is what drives the system.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), February 14, 2002.

While the statistic is imprecise (how do you get an accurate count of the # of digital images that are taken when so many are deleted w/in a few seconds/minutes of being taken?), it captures an important fact: despite the rapid growth of digital, traditional film still has a huge legacy advantage. Even if *every* camera being sold right now was digital, there are literally a bazillion (to be precise!) old film cameras out there that are being used every day around the world. Of course, every camera being sold is *not* digital & the growth of that medium is still restricted mostly to the relatively small # of rich, industrialized countries where lots of people own computers (the same group of folks who you find posting on the internet). Computers, digital cameras, & the associated infrastructure all have to become much, much cheaper, reliable, & common (e.g., like cell phones) before digital will really replace film. It's coming, alright, but certainly not overnight.

-- Chris Chen (Washington, DC) (furcafe@cris.com), February 14, 2002.

The PMA statistic I would bank on is that in 2001, discounting disposable cameras, 30% of all new camera sales were digital cameras. That is expected to grow by up to 20% this year, and a similar amount next year.

Now consider if the habits of digital camera owners are anything like mine ...

I have about 12 film cameras that I use regularly, from Minox to Rolleiflex. I shoot about 100 rolls of film a year, mostly 24 exposure loads. That's 2400 frames exposed per year.

I bought my first digital camera three and a half weeks ago. Since I bought it, I've exposed well over 800 frames, about 200 of which are actually pretty darn nice photographs. So that means that, at a 25 frame/roll average, I'd have shot 32 of my 100 annual rolls of film in 3 weeks. So, by projection, I'll be shooting FAR FAR more then 100 rolls of film per year with a digital camera.

Conclusion: if 30% of this years camera sales are digital cameras and digital cameras expose an order of magnitude more frames per year than film cameras (due to cost and dynamics, ease of use), then Pop Photog's numbers are woefull inaccurate.

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), February 14, 2002.

From Newsweek (February 18, 2002, page 4), there is an article “Getting the Right Shot.” They talk about Olympics at Sydney in 1998, they had one photographer shooting digital, now they all are at Salt Lake City. It’s just a matter of time...

-- Hung Huynh (hungqhuynh@hotmail.com), February 14, 2002.

The "95% film" statistic likely comes from photo labs. The percentage of prints they make from film vs CF/Smartmedia cards is probably 95%. Most consumer film shooters use minilabs vs film scanners, whereas most digital camera users do their own printing with inkjets. That would explain POP Photo's statistics.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), February 14, 2002.

Godfrey, if you think the average consumer buying a digital camera has 12 film cameras - whooo boy are you ever wrong. In all honesty at least a third of the digitals we sell are to companies - documentation in shipping depts and the like - another third are to computer aficianados (notice I didn't say geeks) and the remaining third to photographers getting into digital. On average I'd say this last third maybe owns a couple of cameras. This is where the misconception over the 'onslaught' of digital occurs. You are embracing it - maybe a couple of your friends are - but stats say that most people are happy with their film cameras, and this includes pros. If I'm a paramility gun nut (and please, you that are, don't get me wrong) and all my friends hang out in military surplus shops - does that mean I can conclude that the average citizen wants to overthrow there country...

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), February 14, 2002.

Kodak recently found that 2/3s of all cameras sold on the N.American market cost <$200.Also consider that 1980 was the peak unit sales year for SLR bodies(the Canon AE1 was the all-time best seller).And why do I see so many poxy digital p&s cameras clogging return counters at discount retailers? Why am I helping so many trendoid friends buy "vintage"(their term, not mine!)35mm outfits? Analog capture still rules. But what fun a competently-run Fuji Frontier is when it's fed a good 120 XP2 neg! That's where "digital" sings.

-- Gary Watson (cg.watson@sympatico.ca), February 14, 2002.

My comment wasn't to indicate that I think most people have 12 film cameras (I actually have well over 40, btw). The comment indicates that despite the fact that I have 12 film cameras I use a lot, I shoot about 100 or so rolls of film a year with them, and with ONE digital camera I've exposed about 30% of the same number of frames as I would normally do in a year in less than four weeks.

If there were billions of pictures shot last year and 95% of them were on film, and this year digital cameras account for 30% of the camera sales, then some grossly larger number less than 95% of the number of pictures shot per year will be on digital cameras.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), February 14, 2002.

Film sales dropped 5% in 2001 (this was at some market research site on the net), maybe that is how Pop Photo came up with their number. Dr. Wood claims his lab, which runs the DR5 process for black and white slides, is going to go out of business because of digital. Disposables are what will keep film going, because you can't get a digital disposable for $20 yet. Once you can, film will drop off fast.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), February 14, 2002.

A few weeks ago I read an article by a Saudi newspaper columnist. He noted that bookstores in Western countries reported sales of the Koran and literature about Islam had skyrocketed after 9/11. He then went on to cite that statistic as proof millions in the West would soon be converting to Islam.

I won't even go into the spin which the accountants for the American company Enron put on numbers to serve their viewpoint.

My point is - raw sales numbers tell a story, but one which can sometimes be misleading when taken by themselves.

If digital serves your needs or torques your crank in the right direction, go for it. If film meets your needs or gives you personal satisfaction, why switch just because "everybody" on the 'net says it's the coming thing?

-- Tod Hart (tghart@altavista.com), February 14, 2002.

I saw the comment in Pop Photo, too, Bob, and wondered where they got the number. Being a Leica user, I obviously support the use of film, even though I use digital, as well.

I wondered, though, is there someone up there counting everytime a photo is "taken"? How does one go about counting the pictures "taken" on digital cameras? Does the CF or SmartCard send up a little beep to a sattelite that's watching us? What happens to film-based photos that are taken, but never developed? Or, for that matter, digital images that are taken, but deleted?

Might the comment have been an unsupported opinion? What is Pop Photo coming to these days? ;-)

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), February 14, 2002.

Almost all of my shooting is travel related. It's obivious to me that with all the new security rules for air travel, that film is on the way out. It's worse on cruise ships. Every time you leave or board the ship, your stuff is X-rayed. Public buildings that draw lots of people have X-ray machines now, along with metal detectors.

I love film, but I've got to evolve with the times we live in. As soon as a body with a full-frame sensor is released by Nikon (I have too many lenses to switch), I'll get one. I'll still use film for local stuff...especially B&W, but I imagine digital will become my mainstay.

Just my personal feelings.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), February 14, 2002.

Film forever! :D

Okay, film is here to stay. I don't think that shooting digital will replace shooting film entirely. I'm impressed that not everyone has fallen to digital completely which is a good sign.

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), February 14, 2002.

1) I don't count images "deleted soon after being taken" as pictures taken. Unless the picture actually gets to a permanent storage/print device it's like a tree falling in the forest with nobody there to hear it - it never existed.

2) Lots of sales of digital cameras to consumers - i.e. those folks who used to run through two 24-exposure rolls every year. Now they're shooting 48 digital pictures every year - not exactly racking up the digital image count, are they? Meanwhile the sports illustrated photographers (among other pros) are shooting film at 48 pictures per 30 seconds.

95% sounds about right to me. Calculate for yourself what percentage of what you see on TV was film originally - it's still over 50% 45 years after video tape was invented.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), February 14, 2002.

Wait, doesn't the film industry use.... wait for it...film?

Ok, so it's not the same emulsion, but ah I'm sure that both Kodak and Ilford possibly Fuji will service not just that market but also a smaller and varibly expanding/contracting market of still film users for a good number of years to come. Hey they've got all the facilities to make the stuff and R&D is not really necessary in this day with all the fine emusions, so what if Portra and whatever Fuji calls their product these days is not available in the range we have today, great pohots were made in a day when little existed.

And yes vinyl records are still made and the gear to extract the info as well as vacuum tubes used in so many guitar amps and higher end audio products (including the analog section of cd players).

Why worry, go take pictures/make photos.

-- Dave Doyle (soilsouth@cox.net), February 15, 2002.

I guess nobody here still sets up the screen and projetor, cooks up some pop corn, and has the neighbors over for a slide show of your last vacation. Boy, I would hate to think of having the gang over huddled around the computer getting melted butter all over the key board while viewing my didgital images. :-)

Steve

-- Steve Belden (otterpond@adelphia.net), February 15, 2002.

Using film or digital depends mostly on the final use of the image, family shots and low quality travel shots are best serviced by a digital camera. Pro images made for press or immediate publication are also better shot with digital cameras. But 4x5 or 8 x10 inch transparency film still are some of the best means for getting an advertising image. The transparency film sells wonderfully, as a pro photographer this is still for me a wonderfull sales tool. As for medium format I think that the available digital backs are catching up fast with the quality and are cost efficient if one is used to shoot hundreds of photos for medium quality , weekly advertising. eg. short lifespan catalogs. And now as a Leica user ( R and M ) the use of film is still mainstream for B&W , with the developing and printing done for maximun quality on mind. I can do 16 x 20 prints with a 35mm. neg. with awsome quality and tonal reproduction, just the right thing for exhibits or hanging on a wall. As for color enlarging is concerned I scann my slides and print them on an Epson, getting better colors than Cibachrome or Kodak's R3. I will eventually add a digital back to my Hasselblad system and keep with film when it's a better option for shooting, storage and reproduction.

-- Marco Hidalgo (marco_hidalgo@hotmail.com), February 15, 2002.

Put 100 pics on a light box with a good 8 times loupe and you can find the shots you want in about 60 seconds. For the life of me I can not do that on my computer even using two monitors linked to a most powerful mac. Thumbnails are a useless way to select so forget that solution too!! E6 the way to go!!

-- kiong liu (kiong@paradise.net.nz), February 18, 2002.

Kiong, I agree with you.

-- Marco Hidalgo (marco_hidalgo@hotmail.com), February 19, 2002.

one reason for me to go backwards from a high spec digital slr to trusted old film was that i was taken so many more pictures. of anything i would take one ot two on film i took about ten digitally. but they weren' much more keepers. that's the problem with inflation i think.

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), February 19, 2002.

Okay friends, here's a wild thought. A digital adaptor for the Leica M! Hey, teenagers used to put V-8's into Model T's.

Actually, I don't think film will ever die, or fade away. There will always be a following for film.

To this day there are large format photogs who swear by glass plates. And they are lovely. The large format camera is virtually the same camera Mathew Bradey used.

Nothing ever really becomes outdated in photography. The 1921 Kronstadt 78x129 with a Woebegon 181/11 is a relevant as the M-7 we all have on our minds at this moment. It the product, not the camera! (To coin an a screamingly original phrase.)

But all that said, the horizons that digital opens makes one's head spin.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), February 19, 2002.