Waltz over to APUG, the all things analog photography internet site, and you'll find that most of that population is folks who never stopped using film. And make no mistake -- it's a huge community. The "newbs" that come around are more interested in film developing, enlarging, and alternative processes than they are cross-processing their Holga images.
So I don't think Lomo saved film photography, per se, but I do think it's helping to keep the fire burning amidst all the bleak news about Kodak, film discontinuations, etc. They definitely target a younger audience, which I think it important. In that sense, maybe they will end up saving film photography. But I wouldn't crown them with that honor just yet.
Seriously, film is dead. It's a niche product that people will use because they like the aesthetics of it. Digital is where most people want to be.
I think I tend to agree, though it's not like I have any knowledge of what heavyweight pros in the industry are using. Film does have a certain romance to it. I grabbed a slr that I found at work yesterday just to mess around with. I never shot fim with my strobes and wanted to just for the heck of it. Force myself to be sure of my settings before I shoot.
The number of emulsions is vastly reducing (Kodak, Fuji are all cutting versions).... If you look at movie film, it's all but gone. I expect Kodak will die but Fuji will continue. The other nich film makers are out there but not on the scale of the two giants.
I love film and I suspect unlike most here do use it a little but bottom line it's still a fraction of images I take. Funny thing is I am not using my film SLR's but my fathers 1962 rangefinder and I know it's mostly nostalgia (I got to use it rarely as a kid sometimes on holidays) because I have memories of that camera all thru my childhood. I love having pictures of my kids with that camera but it's an irrational thing. I think I'm in love with the manual film advance lever :-) I also scan the negs anyway, so it's like using a poor quality digital camera in the end :-)
There's no shortage of speculation as to why Kodak fell, but most agree it has to do with a failed diversification strategy going back several years -- not to mention poor leadership. Fujifilm did things right and they're still viable. Harman Technologies, which manufactures Ilford film (another "giant"), recently reported that sales and profits rose substantially in 2011.
Film isn't what it used to be for purposes of consumer imaging. No one will argue that. But it's hardly dead. Not even close.
There's no shortage of speculation as to why Kodak fell, but most agree it has to do with a failed diversification strategy going back several years -- not to mention poor leadership. Fujifilm did things right and they're still viable. Harman Technologies, which manufactures Ilford film (another "giant"), recently reported that sales and profits rose substantially in 2011.
Film isn't what it used to be for purposes of consumer imaging. No one will argue that. But it's hardly dead. Not even close.
It was a joke. For all practical purposes, Kodak is merely an IP holding company that happens also make some films.
