Previous    Next

Its 2019, some 15 years since sales of film peaked at just shy of 1 billion rolls / year (for comparison 1.5 billion smartphones were sold in 2018 and highlights how this technological shift has accelerated the democratisation of photography), this photographic medium is still alive and kicking. In fact, despite the contraction of the industry to a niche sliver of its former mass-market appeal, growth is now being recorded suggesting a minor rebound. Contrary to the headline "The last Kodak moment" in the Economist in 2012 the company announced a relaunch of the Ektachrome film stock 5 years later. It surprises some, often attracting comments deriding that hipster fetishisation of archaic technologies is driving a resurgence fueled by style over substance.

I'm optimistic about the future of analogue photography and I think its appeal will continue to grow over time. Our society is becoming ever more digital, in almost every respect, which I think will lead to a natural tendency for some to seek out enjoyment not tethered to a touch screen. Shooting with an old manual film camera forces one to slow down and think more before pressing the shutter. The natural delay in seeing your images with film can be a welcome pause from the instant gratification, and also the space between taking an observing the image does enable a more objective review of the image. Looking at a screen the instant after an image is captured invites a snap judgement and a quick emotional response which I find more often to be negative than positive. Sure this can mean that sometimes you think you've captured a good shot only to find later when the roll is developed that it was a dud. But the limited exposures on a roll of film force you to be decisive at the source of taking the image. In my experience this is much better than the ability to take hundreds of shots of varying angles and exposures which at best just delays the decision making process until later on and at worst wastes time and causes anxiety through overwhelming choice. This is also true on making the choice of shooting B&W or colour. Sure you can just convert your digital images later which retains maximum flexibility but I believe this to be a fallacy. The key to a great photos in colour or monochrome are typically very different and its my opinion that you should generally be conscious of before pressing the shutter. I think many people are fatigued by the megapixel war and I certainly have come to appreciate the imperfections of an image such as grain, motion blur or being slightly out of focus can sometimes enhance the creative impact of an image rather than to always be diminishing. It only takes a quick look through some of the most iconic photographs (e.g. flick through a few pages of The Decisive Moment) taken before digital cameras existed to see evidence of this.

There are some reasons to be cautious with the optimism. Firstly some film stocks are being discontinued and prices are rising. Many labs are using old equipment to process and scan and repairs could prove prohibitively costly or difficult. Then the cameras themselves are ageing and expertise to repair them is limited. However counter to these points a smaller industry could be better for enthusiasts and its better for a smaller selection of film that can be made profitably rather than a wider selection that cannot be. Specialised companies like Ilford seem a sure bet for stability over a conglomerate who will be less tolerant of limited or slow growth. Hopefully Kodak Altaris (owned by the UK Kodak Pension Plan as a result of the Kodak bankruptcy) today is in a better place because it is a company that has a much narrower focus than Kodak had generally before, whereas Fujifilm has had success diversifying and so I think it makes sense that.  As for the labs this is a bit more complex and PetaPixel have published a good article on potential for future developments. Home development is still and option and particularly for B&W it is not very arduous to get started doing this yourself. My main challenge has been with water marks drying on the film due to the hard water in my area but this is a solvable problem. That being said home development relies on chemicals and their manufacturers like Tetanol can also go out of business.

Overall its my belief that film photography is here to stay and there will still be a draw for enthusiasts to use this medium. I think the prices of decent film equipment will continue to rise over time as supply slowly dwindles, although it must be said there are so many great cameras out there that I think people will just be forced by price to discover some of the less popular brands and models, which work well but have a less desirable brand name attached. Old lenses will likely keep their money as these are also very popular with mirrorless (or Nikon DSLR for Ai lenses) bodies and using old equipment can be a good way to stand out by doing something a bit unusual. The community for niche groups like analogue photographers has been greatly enabled by the internet (r/analog, 35mmc and emulsive) and this goes a long way to encouraging and supporting this method of photography. I think also like vinyl records it will continue to keep its cool factor, as an analogue antidote to an increasingly digital world.

N.B. You may have noticed the image at the top of this article was taken with a digital camera and has been processed with Lightroom present emulating Ilford Pan F 35mm film. Its a good example of how digital methods can be achieved to obtain a similar aesthetic to film. I don't personally see this as a contradiction to why one would choose to shoot film and similarly I don't see any problems with emulating the analogue emulsions digitally. Its all down to personal choice, something that should be cherished.