Lots, obviously, but the death of film photography, is a little different to how we consume music.
I can still make a photograph, the only difference is that the recording medium is different, digital instead of analogue. The smarter labs turned to making digital prints from digital files, or went very upmarket. Instead of being limited to B&W in my darkroom, I can process and print colour pictures on a printer in my living room.
Where do I start. The only thing that has changed is the recording medium. Instead of a roll of film in my Nikon 801, I have a digital recording device in my Nikon D850 or Nikon Z7. I was on holiday in London last week, and visited the Belfast. The pictures I made a ISO2000 were superiore to Kodachrome 64, regarding grain and dynamic range. Also thanks to sensor stabilization, I made a set of pictures that would not be possible with film, given I could not use a tripod.
5x4, was always expensive to run. 3 frame HDR composites of Architectural subjects with my D850 and a shift lens come pretty close to the shots I made back in the day. I can explore far more shooting angles and experiment, as the film is free. My digital photography is much better I think.
Back in the nineties when I changed country, I spent a couple of Boho years doing theatrical and music photography, whilst I learnt Italian. I worked with one of Italyās leading Opera houses, and an important dance company I then carried on part time when I returned to Engineering. I can imagine shooting a show now is far more pleasant and productive with digital capture. No more nights in a dark, damp and smelly darkroom developing a lot of film rolls, and then making enlarged contact sheets. Time wasted physically delivering the contacts and often time wasted with postal delivery.
I can imagine the artistic director can choose the frames he wants right after the show, and then a morning spent post processing the Raw files. The results are then sent out instantly by electronic transfer. Much more efficient and healthier.
I manipulate my digital files in the same way I manipulated by darkroom prints. Capture One, just does the dodging and burning electronically. This shot was manipulated in Capture One in much the same way that I manipulated the silver print.
I agree that shooting 2000 frames of a subject, is madness, but that is just a case of a photographer spraying and praying.
Just like I do not miss vinyl , I definitely do not miss film.
They just switched over to laying digital cabling.
The smarted camera stores have survived. As in any buisness, those who exploit new possibilities survive.
Even if the entire music industry collapses: music wonāt die.
I was recently talking to a record shop owner who often gets bands and solo artists in to perform. Many of those from abroad find it difficult to cover their costs and rely on the merchandise they bring with them. They now have to pay tax up front on everything they bring in to the country to sell at gigs and is another reason for the decline in live music.
During a recent interview with Richard Thompson on BBC, he said that payment from royalties accounted for less than 5% of his income. Previously with CD or LP sales, it would have accounted for around 50%.
A much greater reliance on income from touring.
I was sorry that Bronica ceased because they introduced a digital interchangeable back which gave the best of all worlds.
I have no doubt that much of what you say is true and digital photography must be a boon for professional photographers who are working to tight deadlines. Modern cameras and applications like Photoshop and Lightroom are a must for anyone working in the industry.
However, for most people photography is a hobby and time spent waiting for the right light, getting the best composition, setting the camera settings etc is part of the enjoyment. For those like me who still like film, spending time in a ādark, damp and smelly darkroomā getting the result you envisioned is a joy for many. The anticipation waiting for the slides and films to come back from the photo labs is now pretty much a thing of the past.
I bemoan the fact that film photography is barely supported these days by the same people who we gave our hard earned cash to in years gone by - the camera and film manufacturers. Hats off to Leica for continuing to recognise that not everyone wants digital. Yes, you can still get hold of film, there are some labs out there that will process it or you can do it yourself but itās a very expensive niche market these days.
But thatās progress I guess, we live in an instant world where everything is āneededā immediately.
As for music I love vinyl. Digital does almost everything right it sounds clean, uncluttered and Iām sure all the notes are in the right order but thereās something missing. Not sure what it is but itās there in vinyl and not in digital Bit like film and digital really.
Regarding photography, one small thing I miss is walking past a chemist and seeing someone come out with a wallet of just-processed photos, riffing through them as they walk, completely oblivious to strangers seeing their face light up.
I just do photography now for my own pleasure.
Only the recoding medium has changed, but with each exposure costing me nothing, I can explore many more artistic possibilities and experiment far more. Artistically digital has opened so many doors and made my photography much more affordable.
I agree with you. I really donāt have any grumbles with digital at all but there are lots of photographers out there who still enjoy using film.
On the face of it only the recording medium has changed as you say, but cameras have become a lot more sophisticated now. You only have to look at all the menus on digital cameras to see the tens if not hundreds of choices available for you.
There seems to be a resurgence of interest in film photography with a number of retailers offering the analogue alternative. There is an abundance of film cameras to be had but theyāre obviously not just second hand but old - some very old.
My gripe is that without support film photography is on borrowed time, itās a pity that both cannot survive. Minority interests usually fall by the wayside.
Itās the same with vinyl but look at the cost of them. For Ā£10.99 per month you can stream all the music you want. Four months subscription would buy you one LP! Iāll buy the odd LP but I go along with the majority and stream and to be honest enjoy it.
Ultimately, both vinyl and film are not sustainable, which is a shame.
To get back on topic.
I have looked at streaming, and the all you can eat for ā¬10.99 But I go through phases of not buying any CDās for a few months, and then buying several at a time. A few months ago I tidied up the CD cupboard and went through a phase of playing forgotten favourites, that I came across.
I just do not want to be tied to a subscription service. I guess I will give in eventually. But I quess I coud be happy not ever buying another record.
I stopped buying CDās a couple of years ago when I realised all I was doing was ripping them to my Unitiserve.
The cost of one CD is equivalent to a monthly subscription to Tidal for all the music I want.
Streaming is a raw deal though for the musicians. For every one megastar like Taylor Swift there are 1000ās of other musicians struggling to make a living. Itās time the music industry and streamers had a reboot and came up with a fairer deal.
Canāt say Iām too worried about the āmusic industryā if by that we mean the big companies of old. Things move on, times change - they always have.
I get slightly confused though when I see statements suggesting streaming is killing music. Iāve never been exposed to such an amazing variety of talent; each week provides a plethora of new releases Iād like to give a listen to but there simply isnāt the time.
By the amount of tribute bands I see getting gigs, there should perhaps be more capacity/space for new bands, but maybe the issue these days is simply getting the word out - very little music on TV and who watches now anyway. My kids seem to latch on to what ever is doing the rounds on TikTok. I donāt know the artists they listen to and they donāt know the ones I listen to, thatās just the way things are now, but itās not the fault of streaming - itās much broader.
Against my better judgement I just upped my vinyl game but I told myself, no reissues, no lost tapes, no big bands. I only buy records from lesser known artists whose material may not be available via streaming over the long term
Interesting times but music most certainly hasnāt died.
Iām on the cusp of giving up on vinyl as there always seems to be something that needs adjusting or fixing. Like the new bands, no reissues approachā¦.
I have just been reading an extract from a book about Jazz and the state of the industry. It echoed a recent article in the Guardian. The top names are still making a lot of money, whilst the rest are struggling.
It seems there are too many musicians chasing fewer small and mid sized venues. The money the second and third division musicians are getting for playing live, has fallen. Some musicians even pay the venue to play. Unless you get millions of views, steaming pays a pittance. The Guardian article mentioned some fairly famous acts, who need day jobs to pay the bills. An interview with a quite famous Jazz musician, teased out the fact that he need other work like teaching and writing to stay afloat. We are talking about a musician who records on the Blue Note label.
The elephant in the room is that musicians do not get paid fairly for streaming. A whole source of income has basically evaporated. To pay musicians fairly, the subscriptions would have to rise dramatically. Spotify runs at a loss. Amazon is a loss leader for their sales site.
I use Spotify to check out interesting stuff I see reviewed positively. But I buy the CD of stuff I like. I like to have the details of who is playing and other information. I still play CDās I bought 30 years ago.
I gave up on Vinyl 40 or more years ago. It might sound nicer, but the old problems remain.
Itās complex - how much would streaming have to go up by to provide a decent income to lesser known artists and then after that how many subscribers are lost considering that a lot of those subscribers are kids or students.
Maybe if the hosts started paying for downloads/streaming on a logarithmic scale might be fairer.
But the problem is the the power lies with the providers, who obviously want to pay out as little as possible. ECM resisted giving their music to Spotify, for quite a while, but in the end caved in, just as artists who take down their music for some reason or other, eventually come back with thier tail between their legs.
Rick Beato makes some good observations here, particularly in Act 2.
