Large amount of P1 backs for sales

[BJL]

For the vinyl revival:

- in 1994: 680 millions CDs were sold in the US vs 600,000 vinyls -> ratio of 1,100
- in 2017: 87 millions CDs were sold vs 13 million vinyls -> ratio of 7 (yes, I know, CDs were replaced by downloads and then streaming)

Lacking pre-CD-era data (and I cannot resist the historical note that by the time CD's arrived, LPs were in second place for sales behind cassette tapes!), I will take that 680 million as a conservative estimate of total music sales, which were probably rather more  (about one billion?) by 2017 counting all music consumption sales including downloads and streaming subscriptions. So vinyl has rebounded to somewhere around 2%.

Speaking of vinyls alone, they went from 300,000 in 1993 to 13 millions in 2017, meaning 43 times increase in 25 years.

That is the big percentage increase from a very very small share to a very small share that I expected.

Today, vinyls represent about 7% of music sales in the US.

No! Only as sales of music on physical media ("vinyl plus polycarbonate"), which your data indicate are only about 10% or less of all sales.


Getting back to film, my hunch (based on what I see on the shelves of cameras stores and in student photographic works) is that there is a similar trend, with black and white film increasing its share of total film sales. People who choose to go retro tend to avoid half measures!

[BernardLanguillier]

No! Only as sales of music on physical media ("vinyl plus polycarbonate"), which your data indicate are only about 10% or less of all sales.

Yes, you are correct.

Cheers,
Bernard

[eronald]

But don't you think the Petra Effect is all about style, regardless of camera?

I did all my distant career on film; today, starting over, it wouldn't make sense for me, anymore than it finally did for Lindbergh. He can make his Nikon pix look any way that he wants them to look.

If you are talking about an ultimate fate as a gallery print, on WSG, then yeah, film is a great idea. But, for commercial reproduction? It's pretty much a conceit, nada mas.

Rob

Rob,

 It's a fashion.
 Explaining to people that it *has to* be film etc etc, is like explaining that it *must* be an 80MP Phase back etc etc.

 On the other hand, I never understood why the commercial infrastructure for film disappeared so completely.  I think it's a case of the wedding ring getting thrown out during the housecleaning, everybody involved in the film industry panicked and investors pulled the rug out from under them. The disappearance of Polaroid is a case in point, instant photography remained economically perfectly viable, as Instax prove every day.

Edmund

[Martin Kristiansen]

Rob,

 It's a fashion.
 Explaining to people that it *has to* be film etc etc, is like explaining that it *must* be an 80MP Phase back etc etc.

 On the other hand, I never understood why the commercial infrastructure for film disappeared so completely.  I think it's a case of the wedding ring getting thrown out during the housecleaning, everybody involved in the film industry panicked and investors pulled the rug out from under them. The disappearance of Polaroid is a case in point, instant photography remained economically perfectly viable, as Instax prove every day.

Edmund

It did all vanish very quickly didn’t it. I worked in labs. It was my thing. Never wanted to shoot commercially. Wanted to do art photography in my spare time. The one lab I worked at went from 80 employees to 10 in two years. Not because they panicked but because they stopped getting work. The huge dip and dunk E6 processors are tough to keep in tolerance below certain throughputs. Costs go up as you try to keep it going and then long leases are them alive. It happened so quickly there wasn’t money to downsize. In 1995 the slide began, they went bankrupt in 1998.

[Bo_Dez]

Rob,

 It's a fashion.
 Explaining to people that it *has to* be film etc etc, is like explaining that it *must* be an 80MP Phase back etc etc.

 On the other hand, I never understood why the commercial infrastructure for film disappeared so completely.  I think it's a case of the wedding ring getting thrown out during the housecleaning, everybody involved in the film industry panicked and investors pulled the rug out from under them. The disappearance of Polaroid is a case in point, instant photography remained economically perfectly viable, as Instax prove every day.

Edmund

The problem with Polaroid was that the company fell into the hands of a fraudulent individual, now in prison, who ran the company into the ground.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Petters

[Rob C]

The current dominant aesthetic is film.

Fashion photography has always been about style. Petra has a genuine sensibility to her work that is also tied in with her aesthetic and the camera she uses. Same for Harley Weir who is mostly responsible for the change in aesthetic that fashion has gone though.

Like I said earlier, there are some commercial projects I wouldn't consider on film and there are some clients that wouldn't entertain the possibility of film either.

Thing is, nothing this pair does is new. Think Corrine Day, the two Sorrenti brothers. Teller? Even the younger Richardson?

To be brutally honest, I think fashion photography has forced itself into an ever-tightening noose of self-reference. Nothing is new; everything is derivative. I'm just waiting for the new Lillian Bassman to appear (unless I just missed her!).

That's a reason for my admiration for Peter Lindbergh: he has always been the same guy, working the same old aesthetic with the same aplomb and success. I think the same could probably be said of Albert Watson. They are so good at what they do that there is just no need to change or loose it; I can't say I see any difference between Hans Feurer today and the Hans Feurer of the 70s. The thing is, when you are just so goddam good, you are indestructible.

If there is any weakness, it's in the clients who are so worried about their image that they can no longer see beyond it, to the extent that I believe they fail to see the mess some of their solutions really turn out to be. But who's gonna tell them? Too much money involved, too much insecurity in the entire business. In an episode of Canada's Fashion television series with Jeanne Beker, Helmut Newton declared that fashion had changed for the worse, simply because everything had become such a big deal, so much money was involved in it, and he regretted the passing of the days when photographers were let out onto the streets of Paris like mad dogs...

Even back then, I understood exactly what he was saying.

[Rob C]

Rob,

It's a fashion.
 Explaining to people that it *has to* be film etc etc, is like explaining that it *must* be an 80MP Phase back etc etc.

 On the other hand, I never understood why the commercial infrastructure for film disappeared so completely.  I think it's a case of the wedding ring getting thrown out during the housecleaning, everybody involved in the film industry panicked and investors pulled the rug out from under them. The disappearance of Polaroid is a case in point, instant photography remained economically perfectly viable, as Instax prove every day.

Edmund

Yes, and so stupid, when it can be replicated perfectly well via digital processing. The single advantage that I can see to shooting film on a job today is this: you won't have a dozen noses snitching up a monitor and "improving" your own vision which, ironically, was presumably why they picked you to do the shoot in the first place!

So quickly? Not in the top echelons. Many people continued with film for as long as it was possible, especially if they were big enough to do their own lab work. Watson talks about this very thing in a video where he is on about large digital printers; he didn't, at the time, think digital was good enough.

I did my own black/white lab work because I was odd: I felt it was part of who I thought myself to be. I did not do my own colour, because having done it in an industrial photo-unit for about six years, I understood the problems and cost of replenishing colour lines. It was nothing to a massive engineering company, but my capital, relatively speaking, was all rolled up in a small bandana.

Polaroid. I had a back for it for the Hasselblads. I hardly ever used it. As with many at the time, we got the work because of our visual quirks. It never worried me as a photographer, either; today, in a digital commercial context, I think that exposure confidence would be missing, that I'd start to be the chimper that I never am. Depressing, isn't it? Tools taking over the mind.

[Juanito]

It did all vanish very quickly didn’t it.  The one lab I worked at went from 80 employees to 10 in two years. Not because they panicked but because they stopped getting work. The huge dip and dunk E6 processors are tough to keep in tolerance below certain throughputs. Costs go up as you try to keep it going and then long leases are them alive. It happened so quickly there wasn’t money to downsize. In 1995 the slide began, they went bankrupt in 1998.

If a film lab went out of business in 1988, it wasn't because of digital. I was still doing two lab runs a day in 1998. Back then, the only viable digital cameras for professional work were multishot backs with color wheels and that was for product photography only. The rank and file of pro photographers were nowhere near ready to transition to digital throughout the 90's. The Nikon D1 wasn't released until 1999 - that was the first ready-for-primetime pro camera. The end did come quickly, but I think it was 2001/2002 or so once the Nikon D1X, D100, Fuji S2 and Canon D30 and 1D all hit the market.

In the summer of 2002 I bought a D100 and never again set foot in a photo lab.

[Martin Kristiansen]

If a film lab went out of business in 1988, it wasn't because of digital. I was still doing two lab runs a day in 1998. Back then, the only viable digital cameras for professional work were multishot backs with color wheels and that was for product photography only. The rank and file of pro photographers were nowhere near ready to transition to digital even through the end of the 90's. The Nikon D1 wasn't released until 1999 - that was the first ready-for-primetime pro camera. The end did come quickly, but I think it was 2001/2002 or so once the Nikon D1X, D100, Fuji S2 and Canon D30 and 1D all hit the market.

In the summer of 2002 I bought a D100 and never again set foot in a photo lab.

In 1995 I started working with a Kodak DCS420 and by 1998 I had a DCS460 and a DCS465 back. I never shot another roll of film commercially after 1996. By 2000 I employed a team of 4 photographers and 6 retouchers. We digitized every single item sold by the three largest FMCG retailers in the space of 4 years and every single furniture retailer as well. I wasn’t the only one that got on that bandwagon. The first ready for prime time camera in my opinion was the DCS 560. Rear LCD, FireWire, reasonable battery, 6MP CCD. Released in 1998 I bought a demo in 1999. Still have it I think

Between 1995 and 1998 that lab went from two E6 shifts a day to less than 50 rolls a day.

[Martin Kristiansen]

And there it is.

[Juanito]

In 1995 I started working with a Kodak DCS420 and by 1998 I had a DCS460 and a DCS465 back. I never shot another roll of film commercially after 1996. By 2000 I employed a team of 4 photographers and 6 retouchers. We digitized every single item sold by the three largest FMCG retailers in the space of 4 years and every single furniture retailer as well. I wasn’t the only one that got on that bandwagon. The first ready for prime time camera in my opinion was the DCS 560. Rear LCD, FireWire, reasonable battery, 6MP CCD. Released in 1998 I bought a demo in 1999. Still have it I think

Between 1995 and 1998 that lab went from two E6 shifts a day to less than 50 rolls a day.

Ah... that must have been a lab with a specialty client base of studio shooters. Portrait and lifestyle shooters were still tied to film at that point.

[landscapephoto]

The problem with Polaroid was that the company fell into the hands of a fraudulent individual, now in prison, who ran the company into the ground.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Petters

According to that article you cited, Tom Petters acquired the Polaroid brand in 2005, that is 5 years after Polaroid went bankrupt (in 2001).

[Bo_Dez]

Thing is, nothing this pair does is new. Think Corrine Day, the two Sorrenti brothers. Teller? Even the younger Richardson?

To be brutally honest, I think fashion photography has forced itself into an ever-tightening noose of self-reference. Nothing is new; everything is derivative. I'm just waiting for the new Lillian Bassman to appear (unless I just missed her!).

That's a reason for my admiration for Peter Lindbergh: he has always been the same guy, working the same old aesthetic with the same aplomb and success. I think the same could probably be said of Albert Watson. They are so good at what they do that there is just no need to change or loose it; I can't say I see any difference between Hans Feurer today and the Hans Feurer of the 70s. The thing is, when you are just so goddam good, you are indestructible.

If there is any weakness, it's in the clients who are so worried about their image that they can no longer see beyond it, to the extent that I believe they fail to see the mess some of their solutions really turn out to be. But who's gonna tell them? Too much money involved, too much insecurity in the entire business. In an episode of Canada's Fashion television series with Jeanne Beker, Helmut Newton declared that fashion had changed for the worse, simply because everything had become such a big deal, so much money was involved in it, and he regretted the passing of the days when photographers were let out onto the streets of Paris like mad dogs...

Even back then, I understood exactly what he was saying.

Harley Weir is new. She's a genuine and real talent the likes of which a generation will only see one or two of. She changed the face of fashion. Not entirely single handedly, (Hawksworth was the other main leverage) but she is the one most emulate now. They can emulate her but they don't have what she has. They copy the colour palette, the lighting, the camera and film stock but her aesthetic isn't really what is unique about her work.

Petra is new. She rejected the media that middle aged white men where force feeding teenage girls with Dolly Girl and Vogue Teen and created her own thing. It was real and blunt and girls her age loved it. She represents an era that recognised and rejected what was on offer and had the tools in place to make their own thing and give that generation what they wanted.

But the way fashion works is everyone has to move with what the industry decides to follow. That's what fashion is. Anything outside of that small defined box becomes irrelevant until the next thing that pops up a decade later.

But to be honest, I much prefer the aesthetic of film and I love the craft, heritage and history it stands for. Photography got hijacked by mediocrity and I think digital allowed that to happen. Going back to film is like reclaiming something special that I didn't want to give up in the first place.

[Bo_Dez]

According to that article you cited, Tom Petters acquired the Polaroid brand in 2005, that is 5 years after Polaroid went bankrupt (in 2001).

Polaroid was still producing and selling all the films years after Petters got a hold of it.

If Polaroid fell into the hands of someone like the guy who bought Leica, or all the people trying to save it at the time like the Impossible Project, then it would be a different story.

He ran that company into the ground and all the machinery was destroyed.

[pschefz]

the pentax 67 was THE camera to have in the 90s, lindberg, bruce weber,....wasnt for me, the mirror slap is crazy! but a lot of the most iconic images from the "supermodel era" were shot on that camera......which is probably why it is popular now....google search, which camera used, aha!
i did my first digital shoot, manipulation and print in 93 while still at brooks, in the first digital class offered, run by a friend of mine since there were no instructors....its funny to think back to that now but i was totally hooked then....did not start shooting digital frequently until 98? bbut by then the tide had started to turn....labs were already turning into post production houses....
whenever i read about a fresh photographer to watch or to come out, they almost all (at least say) they shoot film....i think its great, i am pretty sure they all can and do shoot digital as well....
but even for celebrity, even if you only get 2 minutes, having that old, analog, big, slow, film camera sitting there right now will probably get you another few minutes and a little extra interaction, maybe little extra because people actually get excited about having actual film shot.....even if the shots that run are from the digital camera anyway.....
and once everybody shows up with a 4x5 and starts to fiddle with holders and the whole things starts to take forever...again...it will be all digital, but its great to have the option.....

[Bo_Dez]

In 1995 I started working with a Kodak DCS420 and by 1998 I had a DCS460 and a DCS465 back. I never shot another roll of film commercially after 1996. By 2000 I employed a team of 4 photographers and 6 retouchers. We digitized every single item sold by the three largest FMCG retailers in the space of 4 years and every single furniture retailer as well. I wasn’t the only one that got on that bandwagon. The first ready for prime time camera in my opinion was the DCS 560. Rear LCD, FireWire, reasonable battery, 6MP CCD. Released in 1998 I bought a demo in 1999. Still have it I think

Between 1995 and 1998 that lab went from two E6 shifts a day to less than 50 rolls a day.

That's very similar to my own path. I agree the 560 was a game changer. But for me, the whole time I didn't really like digital, but it was a way for people at the time to make a lot of money. It's always been like the industrialisation of photography. I think it made the industry loose sight of a lot of good things about photography, and that isn't really about making money. I think we've lost a lot.

[Rob C]

That's very similar to my own path. I agree the 560 was a game changer. But for me, the whole time I didn't really like digital, but it was a way for people at the time to make a lot of money. It's always been like the industrialisation of photography. I think it made the industry loose sight of a lot of good things about photography, and that isn't really about making money. I think we've lost a lot.

Oh, I agree with what you say about photography having lost a lot; it might sound odd reading this today, but I can remember photographers writing in the BJP, even in the 80s, that it felt as if the best days were already behind the profession, that a new mindset had overtaken it, and that a lesser kind of standard was being sought by clients mainly because they were, in turn, increasingly being run by accountants rather than visionaries.

I suppose this can be seen if one considers the wonderful imagery that Biba would employ, which sold an image very well, but which, in the end, wasn't able to sustain the business for other, managerial reasons which might have been beyond the powers of the directors to control - I don't pretend to have any knowledge of that side of it at all.

As mentioned before, the demise of a truly profitable photo stock market - from the snapper's point of view - simply underlines how the value of photography was seen to be ever diminished within the market. It became possible to pay photographers less and get away with it, a matter, too, of over-supply and a shift in the demographic later making up the bulk of suppliers.

All I can say is that I feel fortunate to have had my fifteen minutes when I had 'em.

[Martin Kristiansen]

That's very similar to my own path. I agree the 560 was a game changer. But for me, the whole time I didn't really like digital, but it was a way for people at the time to make a lot of money. It's always been like the industrialisation of photography. I think it made the industry loose sight of a lot of good things about photography, and that isn't really about making money. I think we've lost a lot.

It was an interesting time. I had arrived back in South Africa after four years away. Spent the last six months of that time riding a bicycle from Jerusalem to South Africa. I had $30 in my pocket and didn’t own a pair of long pants. Desperate times. I saw the gap and got a contract to shoot products. My years in labs meant I had good skills in running production. Never wanted to be a commercial photographer. Still don’t. I stay well clear of creative commercial work. I avoid agencies like the plague. I shoot products. My creative skills are kept for my personal work.

I hear you regarding film. We did lose something. I think the industry lost confidence in itself. I won’t go back into a darkroom but I still print. I love printing. Now its digital but in the end I have a print. I’m just tired of the tech. The direction it is taking. The constant hysteria. Now I see Canon has put its new 120mp sensor up for sale. All I want to see is a good idea well executed. I don’t care how many dam pixels anymore.

To return to the backs for sale thing. I owned 5 digital backs and while amazed by them never liked them. I never liked MF film either despite owning two TLRs, Pentax 6X7, Hassy, RB67, Bronica and more. I liked 35mm and 4X5. They were my favorites. Funny thing is with film I would hang onto kit for ages. We didn’t really chase tech like we do now. I’m sick of it to be honest. I doubt I will ever buy another back. I just don’t see the need for my work. Personal or commercial. Two weeks back I was offered a good upgraded path for my Sony A7rII and I decided stuff it. I couldn’t be bothered. My current gear is just fine. Does what’s I need and I couldn’t be bothered to change. Did pick up mint Minolta 28mm f2.8 for just $35. Kind of excited about that.

[eronald]

Hassy X1D prices are dropping strongly  in Europe, pre Photokina. The Hassy is now cheaper than a Nikon D5, and we can expect used copies to hit the market around the price of an A9 soon.

https://photorumors.com/2018/06/04/huge-price-drop-for-the-hasselblad-x1d-medium-format-mirrorless-camera-in-europe/

Phase remains the pricing exception in the post-Sony medium format world, and I expect quite a few aging Phase landscape photographers will get the message that they can ebay their heavy and rarely used Phase kit and get a Hassy medium format camera that fits in their daypack and still takes good pictures.  Of course Fuji is also expected to release a more compact MF camera soon. Last, not least, I think quite a few sturdy tripods will join their medium format friends on the bay, while Gitzo sell a bunch of lightweight carbon Travelers.

Edmund

PS. I saw a titanium and a black X1D in a shop window the other day, and they do look gorgeous. If anything screams "millionaire impulse purchase" without being painted red with a horse on the front, this is it.

[Bo_Dez]

Well done Hasselblad and Fuji, the game has changed. Elitism and exclusivity in larger formats has finally ended. Thank heavens. Now we can get back to taking photos instead of fussing over ridiculously expensive gear. No body wants to spend that much on cameras anymore because they don't need to. Well, inevitably some will, but I for one am done with it.

I suspect DJI's know how of becoming a mainstream supplier on every high street has and will do wonders. The image quality from these cameras is better than smaller formats in most measurable ways so dropping the price means it will sell like crazy. When the 100MP models are in, Phase One will be forced to change or fold. Maybe it's already too late.

Ironically, more and more, I'm moving back to film.