"Film is dead."
I have heard it so many times I don't even listen or read beyond this statement anymore. And I don't care. I have enough fim in the freezer, and developer, to last me for more than 10 years. I scan my negatives, and make my own prints. Film can go the way of the dodo tomorrow, for all I care. I am self-sufficient. For color, I am happy with digital.
I wonder how true that statement is, however. It may be so in the western world, or in developed countries in general. Certainly, these are the people hanging around online forums heralding this doomsday prediction. But what about the rest of the world. What about in third world countries. Where many households don't even have computers, let alone photoshop. Where people do not have the luxury to chat idly on the internet?
Counting India and the People's Republic of China, that would probably describe half of the world's population.
Let's talk about my recent trip to Morocco. Almost all the western and Japanese tourists were using digital camera's. The "pro's" (using that term loosely) at the usual tourist spots were using old 35mm SLR's. One guy sold us a group picture - taken with an old AE-1. Local tourists visiting the major cities - many still used film cameras.
Yes, film sales are down. That's just natural since an alternative is now available when once it never existed. And becoming more cheaply available. Same thing happened to hotdog sales when hamburger was invented.
Sure, Kodak is pulling out of film. They're also pulling out of digital and concentrating on cellphone cameras. Doesn't mean digital is dead. Just that Kodak can't compete profitably with Fuji, Canon and Sony in a contracting market.
Talking about digital...
Of the digital users I saw on the trip, only a handful had DSLR's. Point and shoots made up more than 99%. I think this reflects the digital market in general.
Typically, these people use their cameras on vacations, birthdays and special occasions. They do not travel with backup batteries, let alone backup cameras. They often have just one memory card. They shoot with image quality less than fine or large jpg, because they want to be able to shoot 500 images on their one card.
Many non-enthusiast DSLR users (typically those migrating from film SLR's) that I have seen are like this as well. And they have no other lens than the kit lens that came with the camera. They have no interest in switching lenses. They just want a zoom that will cover their foreseen needs.
These people don't use photoshop. They bring their cards with their medium quality jpegs to walmart or CVS, choose the images they like, and make glossy 4x6's.
This is the majority of the digital market.
That is why manufacturers provide features aimed to please this market - in camera processing and sharpening, vivid saturation settings, etc. Things that don't really matter, or you actually don't want if you shoot in RAW or do your own post-processing.
People will buy digital if they like the unedited 4x6 pictures straight from their memory card off the 1 hour photo kiosk.
They will buy digital if these pictures surpass what they used to get with film.
That is another reason why megapixels are important. A med quality jpg from an 8MP camera looks better than a med quality jpg from a 5MP camera. They don't care about maximum print sizes.
Going back to film... no, I don't know if it is dead. Or dying. But the answer lies far beyond the skewed opinions debated in niche groups on the internet. Ironically, it lies with the masses of consumers who, really, couldn't care less one way or the other.
