Print is Dead: Books in Our Digital Age

Print is Dead: Books in Our Digital Age

What’s developing these days at the Fotomat? Silence.

photo finished

Katie Hafner, writing earlier in the week in The New York Times, had a story entitled “Film Drop-Off Sites Fade Against Digital Cameras.” The story was about how, in an increasingly digital world, drive-thru photo kiosks — a staple for decades that, in the Southern California suburbs where I was raised, meant going to a Fotomat — are becoming an endangered species. “The rate of decline is apparent from film sales — since only people who buy film need to have it developed,” writes Hafner. “Over the last four years, the sale of film has been dropping at a rate of 25 to 30 percent each year. In 2006, 204 million rolls were sold, a quarter of the 800 million sold at the peak in 1999. ‘It’s pretty alarming,’ said Bing Liem, senior vice president of sales for the imaging division of Fujifilm USA.’

And yet, while these photo processing centers are closing down, and the sales of film are tanking, people are taking more pictures than ever. Not to mention that they’re sharing these photos in ways that had been all but impossible in an analog world. For instance, my sister-in-law who lives in another state had a baby last year. And while she occasionally still puts snapshots in an envelope and sends them to us in the mail, most often my wife and I chart our nephew’s growth by looking at the digital photos his mother e-mails us on a weekly basis. And when I got married last year, since our family and guests were scattered throughout the country, the way that most people saw our photos was on our website. And of course while most digital photos are sent via e-mail (or else directly from cameras), photo-sharing websites like Flickr make it incredibly easy to share entire photo collections, not to mention that websites like Blurb allow you to then turn all of those photos into a book (bypassing the need to collect prints in photo albums).

But in terms of Fotomats and the standalone kiosks that had been around for decades, how they worked was simple: you would drive in, drop off your film, go back to living your life, and a week or so later you’d drive by again to pick up your pictures. While that seems positively glacial now, it used to be even worse. In previous decades people had to the mail the film from their Brownies to processing centers that could be in another state; photos could take weeks or moths to get back (which is maybe when they started putting dates on them; so people would remember what they were looking at). So when those huge vinegar-smelling machines came along in the ‘80s that could get you your film in an hour, people were overjoyed (not to mention that it gave us a decent Robin Williams film).

Suddenly, the time from taking a picture to having it your hand was shrinking. And while instant cameras had been around since the late ‘40s, they were seen mostly as a novelty because their quality was not as good as regular film (and anyway, instant cameras were hardly “instant” since that gray square always took a few minutes to develop; and these days, even minutes are too long). But with the advent and now almost total domination of digital cameras, people are able to print photos at home within seconds, on professional-grade paper that makes them look like expensive prints. Not just that, but people these days routinely take a picture with their digital camera and then instantly turn the camera around to check if it’s any good, or to see what they’ve captured. They’re reliving the moment right there in the, well, moment. What used to take months — seeing what your camera sees — now takes mere seconds.

And because of all this, entire generations are getting hooked on the idea of an on-demand world that offers instant gratification at every turn. Want to watch last week’s episode of Ugly Betty in the middle of the night? Dial it up from your DVR (if not the network’s website). Want to buy that silly “You had a bad day” song that’s been in your head all morning since hearing it in the deli, but you’re nowhere near a record store? No problem; access iTunes from your iPhone and download the track that you want. And while watching movies on handheld devices or laptops hasn’t quite caught on, most people I know buy their tickets online (if not from their cellphone). People still may wait online like in Annie Hall once they get to the theater, but they no longer have to do that to buy tickets.

And publishing needs to realize that it has to participate in this new mindset on some level. Because for a new generation, overnight shipping is going to feel as absurdly slow as dropping off film at a Fotomat. Why wait for words you want to read right now? And while I’m heartened by new devices that have wi-fi and a keyboard, the process for buying books online has to be made even easier, along with making sure there’s a wide-enough selection and a price-point that makes sense. And while I don’t think that the Barnes and Nobles of today will suffer the same fate as the Fotomats of yesterday, one of these days people will care a lot more about clicks than they do bricks.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • Furl
  • Simpy
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Reddit
  • Netvouz

8 Comments so far

  1. Wayne October 12th, 2007 11:52 am

    “Why wait for words you want to read right now?”

    I know you talk a lot about books on here, but I’m using this argument for magazines, too. The thing is, I’m not necessarily looking for specific articles when I buy a magazine. I’m looking to see what kind of articles they want to introduce to me for being a reader of their magazine. I’m not typically a buyer of magazines for their cover headlines. I buy magazines that I’m familiar with the type of content they bring - but its rarely a proactive search. Just a thought.

  2. Jeff October 12th, 2007 12:00 pm

    You’re totally right; for magazines even more than books since you may only want the cover story and nothing else. Why wait for the issue to arrive?

  3. bowerbird October 12th, 2007 12:06 pm

    astute observations in this one. good job…

    -bowerbird

  4. Gary Frost October 12th, 2007 3:34 pm

    You are all confirming rather than discounting the role of print. The format is not related to short delivery cycles or deselection reading strategies.

    “The book is a slow form of exchange. It is a mode of temporality which conceives of public communication not as action, but rather as reflection upon action. Indeed, the book form serves precisely to defer action, to widen the temporal gap between thought and deed, to create a space for reflection and debate. The book, as Marcel Proust recognized, is a fulcrum that creates space out of time.” Carla Hesse

    When a reader orders a print book from Amazon there is no delay experienced with the two or three day delivery; the print reader is already cycling books in process of being read at a relatively slow pace. Likewise the print reader does not first tear away content that is not interesting, but lets the work present its whole context as a metatext. A paper newspaper is like this, you look at a quilt of the news assimilating a larger context at the same time that you target portions of interest.

  5. Jeff October 12th, 2007 3:50 pm

    I couldn’t disagree more; to treat print like it’s an asthmatic shut-in that can’t run or play with the big boys is the biggest disservice you can do for it. People who have to wait two or three days to get a book indeed view that as a delay. How can they not? I’ve ripped into books the same way I’ve dug into meals when I’d been ravenous. Our need to have words presented to us is the same as our need for music or film or anything. All those kids who waited in line for the Harry Potter books, and started reading it as soon as they got it into their anxious Muggle hands at a minute after midnight certainly felt that way. When you want something, you want it; be it a book or a kiss or a drink on a hot day. To say that books are somewhow different means to denigrate the thrill you get from them, saying they’re not as worthwhile as kisses or that thirst-quenching drink.

  6. […] scooter thompson wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptAnd while watching movies on handheld devices or laptops hasn’t quite caught on, most people I know buy their tickets online (if not from their cellphone). People still may wait online like in Annie Hall once they get to the theater, … […]

  7. Gary Frost October 14th, 2007 10:53 am

    …er, confirming rather than discounting…

    What criteria is instant gratification actually playing here, in a careful tabulation of screen and print attributes? You are hanging by a thread.

    Print has sustained gratifications for five centuries. As for instantaneity, how simple can the lives of those committed to the screen be? Is there some kind of immaturity or network dependence emerging here that considers resolution of all imponderables as quick?

    Myself, I despair of any mode of expression that narrows, constrains, and builds bias, especially any mode that wishes to be identified with openess. but opts for pop-up consensus and quick searches.

  8. […] came across this post - What’s <b>developing</b> these days at the Fotomat? Silence. - and thought it was worth sharing. I hope you find it interesting too and take the time to read […]

Leave a reply