Film Is Officially Dead in Japan

Film has gone the way of the tintype, at least in Japan. According to this report, hardly any film camera were made or bought in Japan in the last two months—so few, in fact, that a trade organization, the Camera & Imaging Products Association, has decided to stop compiling sales figures for film cameras. The question is, are you sad about this?--David Schonauer

Comments

[Daniel]

I think it's inevitable but nothing to be sad about. From a commercial point of view, film is dead, but many pro's like me, still use it and enjoy using it.

At the end of the day, my clients have never received any image and asked if I shot digitally or with film, it's mainly if I kept within the brief.

What it does mean is that home processing and film storing will become more common as suppliers stop stocking the stuff.

[nico sepe]

i think as long as there is a source on where to buy film photographers like me will still be using it. there's a different process and romance with photgraphy using film. it's getting harder and harder i know but you can still source it in the web.

[nico sepe]

i think as long as there is a source on where to buy film photographers like me will still be using it. there's a different process and romance with photgraphy using film. it's getting harder and harder i know but you can still source it in the web.

[Andrew]

The thing is, film cameras are built to last, whereas digital cameras are built to last until the next model is released. Saying film is dead because film camera sales are down is a nonsense. Where are the figures for film sales?

So it may be more accurate to say film camera sales are dead in Japan.

[Cornell]

One reason that digital cameras don't last as long might be that people with digital cameras take more pictures. Digital photos can be downloaded onto a PC/website without any development. Film requires some development and the expense that goes along with it.

Yes, there will always be film cameras; but, as time goes on film will be relegated to a few niche suppliers, resulting in film cameras being used by a relatively few die-hards of declining numbers as they age and by nostalgia buffs.

As newer consumers take up photography they will almost all be using digital cameras. Film cameras will essentially go the way of the daguerreotype.

[Andrew]

'Digital photos can be downloaded onto a PC/website without any development. Film requires some development and the expense that goes along with it.'

There is more expense with digital. A digital camera is useless without a computer, software, internet connection, printer, paper, ink etc.

I shoot medium format transparencies. Buy the film, shoot it, develop it, look at it on a light table. A lot cheaper than what my digital work costs.

'...resulting in film cameras being used by a relatively few die-hards of declining numbers as they age and by nostalgia buffs.'

Why 'die-hards' and 'nostalgia buffs'? Why not experienced photographers who prefer the results they get from film? It is a lot more satisfying making your own photographs from beginning to end, knowing that at every stage you were responsible for that final image.
When I shoot digital I feel like I'm just the monkey who presses the button, and then manufacturers programming parameters take over.

[Vince]

I wonder if film camera sales are doing better in the US or Western Europe. Even so, the loss of new camera sales is hardly surprising, but does not necessarily mean the demise of film is imminent. Japan has a thriving market for used film cameras, and for all but the most high-end models, there is little economic justification to buy a new camera over a used one. Despite the non-existent new film camera sales, film and film developing remain widely available in Japan. A situation I can't imagine changing anytime soon.

[Bob]

These figures do not include single-use cameras which continue to sell in large numbers. Nor does it include the likes of the Holga which also sell in quantity. This is really just another example of using statistics to "prove" your own point of view.

Film is not only used by old fogies and suchlike. Many young photographers are using film alongside their digital cameras for the unique characteristics it brings.

The sadness in the loss of the film SLR cameras is that eventually, once all the used cameras have died, there will be no replacements and *that* will probably spell the end of film over time. I expect that will take at least 15-20 years though, so in the meantime, keep on snapping!

[Nik]

If you are an individual that has in the past used film and want to continue to utilize film for image making for your personal photos, you now have a large problem. The c41 processing lines are being used a lot less, and film is not as plentiful on the shelves of the stores as it once was, or sometimes not even available. The retailers are forcing those that want to continue to use film to accept less quality and less choices. They want to shut down the film processing and do away with the film sales. Photo finishing is getting even more lousy than ever, even with the digital files from the digital cameras being the source of the image for the 4x6's. And the public accepts it instead of asking for better. I have so many people that complain to me about quality and availability and want to know if I will process and print their film, and if I will buy for them from B&H or Freestyle when I order for myself. Film may be dying, but it is because of the maketing tactics and the retailers of digital cameras that shove digital down the throats of mainstream consumers. POPPHOTO sucks too.

[Ted Smith]

Fuji started making Fuji Velvia 50 again a few months ago. What does that tell us? Film is not dead - just decreasing in mainstream use. But for Fuji to start making that film again, there must be serious photographers still who take their time with each exposure instead of just holding the shutter for 1000 frames and hoping for the best.

[John Stockdale]

The problem is that the industry has for decades made products of real lasting value*. I have a few film cameras mostly at least a couple of decades old. I still buy film, but I won't need any more cameras.

* They have now learned not to make products of lasting value!

[Frank Schifano]

"The c41 processing lines are being used a lot less, and film is not as plentiful on the shelves of the stores as it once was..."

Well, you have a point there. Anyplace local to me with a functioning C-41 line has a pretty crappy C-41 line. The RA-4 print processors do a little better, since they are used to produce prints from digital images as well as from film negatives. Still, I do my own. B&W is, of course, dead easy. But running a batch of C-41 isn't any more difficult. If you are in possession of a decent film scanner, you are well on your way to being able to make, or have made for you from your scans, excellent color prints. For the average Joe Snapshooter, this is obviously not the way he'll go. But if you care about the images you produce, and you have a tight budget, it is the way to go. So yeah, maybe new film camera sales are in the dumper. But film still sells, and will for the foreseeable future, I think.

[fergus fitzgerald]

Curiously I have just recently had some bad results with c41 processing myself -the first time ever.This had made me more determined than ever to continue with film.I am now processing my own Black and White HP5 and scanning the negs.Yes I do have a digital camera but it's too clinical no sense of craft involved.I think film will continue as a niche product.Digital is now so easy that purely representitive images are now worthless -now we all have to produce really original stuff.

[Steg]

The craft of film photography is alive and developing! We have a 100% film photo shop in my city.

[Ted Marshall]

Film is not dead yet, and it never will be in my book. It is also to my understanding that Kodak layed off thousands of its employees in the U.S. only for the simple reason to re-open manufacturing plants in China to compete with Fujifilm in Japan. To me, it looks good on Kodak that their film quality is apparently suffering as a result of this move and that Fujifilm with their multi-layer film technology has gained a larger portion of the market share. In my opinion, the digital camera is nothing more than today's version of the Polaroid camera. It gives out only instant photos with questionable print results and no negatives for achiveal purposes. Same crap, different pile until sheepish people eventually wake up to it!I have just reproduced about 100 B&W photos from negatives that used to belong to my grandmother that are now approaching 90-100 years of age in my own personal darkroom with fantastic results. Although I can not expect to be still alive 90-100 years from now, I'd love to know whether or not we still have the capability by then to open the current picture files that most people have stored on the memory cards on their cameras. Perhaps, maybe not. If this holds to be true, I would think that much of our personal history will be lost in this century when personal computer hard-drives decide to "clap-out" and all of the personal photographs that people have taken are all destroyed along with it. It has been my personal observation that digital photographers tend to leave most of their photos on the hard-drive of their PC and seldom make prints or back-up files. Let's see if digital photography can compete with analog technology (film) 90+ years down the road...I don't think that it can. In my opinion, film is still "king" and digital photography will always be considered to be "second rate" by comparison when the day is done.

[SIMON RUSSELL]

Ive just bough myself a medium format camera, and the results are truly striking. A medium format digital camera is grossly out of my buget, so for a skilled amature what other option is there?
as a previous comment mentioned there is the whole new movement of lomography were some very toy like cameras which take medium format film are being produced and sold in great numbers to students and young people experimenting for the very first time with film! to say that film is dead is like saying we listen to computer generated music only now guitars and drums are dead, that would be a stupid thing to say!

[Daniel Molina]

Simon Russell,

Love your comment.

Just bought a Bronica ETRsi medium format camera.

Can't wait to see the images.

[Frank Schifano]

Digital photography has it's place. Looking at economics and logistics, it makes perfect sense for news, sports, and action work. It also makes sense for the family sanpshooters, who are, admittedly, the largest number of picture makers out there. But for the person who is looking to produce high quality images, there's nothing like film. Be it B&W, color negative, or color transparency material; digital can't touch it yet. I'm sure there are many out there who will argue the point. To these folks, I recommend a little education and some close scrutiny. After all, even the camera manufacturers are still touting the fact that their machines produce film like images. Digital capture comes close and can produce outstanding images, but there is an almost indefinable something that is missing. I think it's the way details fall off abruptly with digital capture, rather than gradually as they do with film capture that makes the difference to me. And then there is the satisfaction of making the image itself in the darkroom. No amount of pixel pushing on a computer is as satisfying as watching the print come up in the developer tray. I got hooked on it 40 years ago, and the magic is still there.