 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / August 200635mm film, how much longer?
I have a D70s digital SLR, but recently I'm finding an attraction to going back to film. I'd like some professional estimations on how long 35mm film will still be available, and used in the U.S. Not necessarily main stream, but still fairly common? Thanks, Tom > I have a D70s digital SLR, but recently I'm finding an attraction to going > back to film. I'd like some professional estimations on how long 35mm film > will still be available, and used in the U.S. Not necessarily main stream, > but still fairly common? If you are thinking about going back to film why not go to a format that will give you better images then digital, like MF. As far as profession estimations of how long 35mm film will be around I am not sure what profession would be in a position to know. Kodak is still is selling a few billion dollars of film a year so it will probably still be around for a few years yet to come. But if you try to look out 10 years I don't think anybody really knows. Scott > I have a D70s digital SLR, but recently I'm finding an attraction to going > back to film. I'd like some professional estimations on how long 35mm film > will still be available, and used in the U.S. Not necessarily main stream, > but still fairly common? I picked up some developed medium format slide film yesterday and to judge by the "film" bin at the store (a higher end store catering to dedicated amateurs and pros), there was still a lot of avialable film and processing going on. The "better" films will probably be with us for a while yet.  Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > > I have a D70s digital SLR, but recently I'm finding an attraction to going > > back to film. I'd like some professional estimations on how long 35mm film [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > The "better" films will probably be with us for a while yet. I had trouble today getting film developed ... in anything less than 24h that is, because the machines at the place I normaly develop film were simply too busy. Summer appears to have brought on a large increase of film use compared to ... say spring. UNprecedentedly warm and cludless summer in Europe probably helped. SignatureSander +++ Out of cheese error +++ The nice thing about 35mm is that it is still widely used in the motion picture industry. > I have a D70s digital SLR, but recently I'm finding an attraction to going > back to film. I'd like some professional estimations on how long 35mm film [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Thanks, > Tom > The nice thing about 35mm is that it is still widely used in the motion > picture industry. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> Thanks, >> Tom But not the same emulsions. Remember the old Seattle Filmworks stuff: ends of motion picture film runs that they processed to negatives and slides. Absolutely awful. SignatureMichael | "He's dead, Jim." > But not the same emulsions. Remember the old Seattle Filmworks stuff: ends > of motion picture film runs that they processed to negatives and slides. > Absolutely awful. Seattle Filmworks had horrific quality control issues. I don't know if it was in the lab, the way they acquired, stored, and shipped the raw stock, or both. A little over a year ago, I experimented with Fuji Eterna 500, an ISO 500 tungsten balanced movie film. You can view some of the results here: http://webwhat.home.comcast.net/Eterna.htm If you want a roll of the stuff, I can probably arrange it. I bought 200' at about 0.13 a foot. SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb-of...@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. Movie film has a black anti-static, anti-halation backing, called "rem-jet", that is removed by the movie processing equipment. If you process it in ordinary minilab equipment, the backing can (and usually does) come off and gum up the works. If you process it in small tanks or rotary tubes, you can remove it by hand with gentle rubbing. Otherwise the differences between movie emulsions and ordinary camera emulsions are not critical. David Foy > > But not the same emulsions. Remember the old Seattle Filmworks stuff: ends > > of motion picture film runs that they processed to negatives and slides. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > If you want a roll of the stuff, I can probably arrange it. > I bought 200' at about 0.13 a foot. I think a true worse case scenario is that you would need to buy film through mail-order or internet sources. In other words, your local drugstore or department store might not carry them. If you live in a big city, you should still be able to find several choices, but I think more rural dwellers will need to go to sources that will ship film to them. The lack of local film sources could at some point mean shipping off your film for processing. Another option would be processing at home, simple for B/W and slightly involved for colour films. There will probably be several processing choices always in North America, though if you do not live near one you will need to arrange shipping. So basically, your D70 will give you instant gratification. If you really want to continue using film, at some point in the future your "gratification" will be greatly delayed, at least by a few days time. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> > I have a D70s digital SLR, but recently I'm finding an attraction to going > back to film. I'd like some professional estimations on how long 35mm film [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Thanks, > Tom > I think a true worse case scenario is that you would need to buy film > through mail-order or internet sources. In Cleveland we are there already. The last real camera store closed last year. There are still some Ritz/Dodds stores, but they sell digicams and frames. "'Kodachrome', what is that, is it for an Epson?" The Future is Now. The Future is Here. The Future is _not_ Fun. >I think a true worse case scenario is that you would need to buy film >through mail-order or internet sources. In other words, your local [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Ciao! Since I presently buy all my film in packages of 20 rolls at a time from internet sources, It won't matter to me if the local stores stop carrying it. Of course, if I were a pro and had to travel to exotic far away places by air....then I might have a problem with that.....I would probably be forced to switch to digital.....But as a hobbyist, it really doesn't matter. > I think a true worse case scenario is that you would need to buy film > through mail-order or internet sources. In other words, your local [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > really want to continue using film, at some point in the future your > "gratification" will be greatly delayed, at least by a few days time. I've been shipping my film for several years, since there is no pro-lab near me (still a number of places with minilabs). I don't find the delay frustrating, and it has just become a part of my workflow. It actually takes less of my time to take a package of film to the post office and then get them back to my door than it did to drive to a lab. anyway, and there are always motorcycle couriers for really urgent jobs. I'm just used to it now, and it isn't a problem. Peter > I have a D70s digital SLR, but recently I'm finding an attraction to going > back to film. I'd like some professional estimations on how long 35mm film > will still be available, and used in the U.S. Not necessarily main stream, > but still fairly common? Let's see... On foot. Heading North: Supermarket 5 min away, consumer color negative. Supermarket 10 mins away, consumer color negative. Heading West: 2 Supermarkets 10 min away, consumer color negative. Heading East: Nothing within 20 min. Heading south: Supermarket 10 mins away, consumer color negative. 2 Supermarkets 15 min away, consumer color negative. Drugstore 15 min away, consumer color negative & slide. 1 - hour lab 15 min away, good choice of negative, slide and B&W (only 35mm though). For 120 format film or more specialized films (infrared, tungsten light or orthochromatic), I need to ride my bicycle or take a bus for 25 min. Film sure is dead! >> I have a D70s digital SLR, but recently I'm finding an attraction to >> going back to film. I'd like some professional estimations on how [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Film sure is dead! I live in a somewhat better location then, inside the beltline in Raleigh, NC. From my house there are two good local camera stores within 10 minutes walking distance. Both stock consumer color negative, consumer transparancy and pro film (Polaroid type 55 P/N; B&W, color neg & transparancy in 35mm 120, 220, and 4x5). They both also stock darkroom supplies, lighting, all sorts of accessories, digital stuff AND have fairly good selections of used & trade in merchandise. One has a good on-site repair shop (not sure about the other, it's a new location - I think they have a consolidated repair shop for several shops). One's reachable in 5 minutes or less on foot, and the other would almost be if I didn't have to pass a Krispy Kreme donut shop on the way if I choose to walk there, instead of just stopping on my way to somewhere else. >I have a D70s digital SLR, but recently I'm finding an attraction to going >back to film. I'd like some professional estimations on how long 35mm film >will still be available, and used in the U.S. Not necessarily main stream, >but still fairly common? Probably another ten years on shelves in at least some stores. But, with ready availability of goods via online shopping, inability to buy locally will not be an issue. I haven't been able to get a replacement diamond stylus for my stereo cartridge for well over two decades, but I can get them online from several sources, and have them delivered overnight if necessary. Don't listen to all the Chicken Littles that predict that the sky is falling. Consumer film applications will shrink, simply because most consumers will go digital (and, for consumer applications of photography, digital has compelling advantages over film. Switching is the right thing for consumers to do.) But there will be film and processing available for a long, long time. It just may be that it won't be available at your local store. Go ahead and buy yourself a good film camera outfit. If it ever becomes obsolete (doubtful within our lifetimes) it'll be worth money as a collectors' item. Besides, even if you got 5 year's use out of it ("worst case scenario") how many digital cameras would you have purchased in that same period of time? >>I have a D70s digital SLR, but recently I'm finding an attraction to going >>back to film. I'd like some professional estimations on how long 35mm [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > case scenario") how many digital cameras would you have purchased in that > same period of time? In my case, I will have to wear out my film scanner to the point where it would be cheaper to buy a good digital camera rather than get it repaired. Since it only cost $600, I am sure that this will take several more years. - (Digital cameras would have to drop a lot in price before they are comparable to that.) > I have a D70s digital SLR, but recently I'm finding an attraction to going > back to film. I'd like some professional estimations on how long 35mm film [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Thanks, > Tom Until there's no more demand for it. If there's enough shooters, there will be someone who will provide the film. Probably Fuji. Accord to Al Gore 10 years is all you need to worry about. Buy all your film now and put it in a deep freezer, it will last 10 years. >I have a D70s digital SLR, but recently I'm finding an attraction to going >back to film. I'd like some professional estimations on how long 35mm film [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Thanks, > Tom For me, the real question is: how long will there be quality film photofinishing and printing? Film will be available indefinitely, but more and more retailers are experiencing poor returns for the square-footage they've dedicated to film processing. They can use the floor space more profitably. And there will be fewer lab techs who know what they're doing. Stockpile all the film you want in your freezer. But be sure there's a lab around that can process it. -CD > I have a D70s digital SLR, but recently I'm finding an attraction to going > back to film. I'd like some professional estimations on how long 35mm film [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Thanks, > Tom > Stockpile all the film you want in your freezer. But be sure there's a > lab around that can process it. The shift toward mail-order photofinishing for film is all but certain. Frankly, there haven't been many decent one-hour processors out there anyway. They tended to use cheap enlarging lenses and the ones I tried here in Philadelphia did not have the greatest temperature control on their chemicals. Colors were often washed out. It has always been frustrating for me to have used excellent quality equipment and fine lenses, only to see the final results look like they were taken by an inexpensive camera--the kind that are sold in blister-packs. So I've limited my print processing to only Kodak (Qualex), where there is courier in-store pickup and delivery daily, and my mail order business has always gone to Dale Labs (www.dalelabs.com) which still prints optical prints (their Nikkor enlarging lenses cost over $10,000 apiece!) and has always given me excellent results, albeit at a price substantially higher than the one-hour labs. But one gets what one pays for. I'm going to try Dwayne's Photo for some Kodachrome work. They sell the film and process it, too. Their web site listed a number of interesting services, including hi-resolution scans of Kodachrome slides (15 MB) for only $4.00 per roll. With today's superior mail options, it isn't the big deal to send film out for processing that it once was. More people should try it. After a few rounds, it becomes second nature. If all those inferior drug-store labs disappeared overnight, would it really have a negative impact on us? I think that it might actually result in better quality images, as it would require us to have our film processed by folks that really knew what they were doing, not by some high school kid. > I'm going to try Dwayne's Photo for some Kodachrome work. They sell the > film and process it, too. Their web site listed a number of interesting > services, including hi-resolution scans of Kodachrome slides (15 MB) for > only $4.00 per roll. That's a great price but 15 MB for a 35 mm film scan isn't exactly high resolution. It's less than 2000 dpi, in fact. A 4000 dpi scan using 24-bit color is just under 60 MBytes. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > > I'm going to try Dwayne's Photo for some Kodachrome work. They sell the > > film and process it, too. Their web site listed a number of interesting [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > A 4000 dpi scan using 24-bit color is just under 60 MBytes. Yes but normally that extra 45 MB buys you very little in detail. The bigger question is not how many pixel the scan has but how good of a scan is it? For $4/roll I would worry that the scans are not very good. Prerhaps Jeremy could post a crop from one once he gets one done. Scott Scott >> I'm going to try Dwayne's Photo for some Kodachrome work. They sell the >> film and process it, too. Their web site listed a number of interesting [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > rafe b > www.terrapinphoto.com I was surprised to see 15 MB scans at $4.00 per roll. That is less than it costs to get a Photo CD from Kodak--and their scans are nowhere near 15 MB! These scans may be fine for less-than-critical applications, such as for making 4x6 prints from slides. Especially if one wants to get scans without having to go the do-it-yourself route. For $4.00, it might be perfect. If there is one or two excellent images, they can always be scanned at home using more dpi. I'm going to try it. It's been a long time since I shot Kodachrome. In fact, I always used Kodachrome 25, never Kodachrome 64, so this will be a new experience for me. And I'll be doing my part to keep Kodachrome off the chopping block, too. > These scans may be fine for less-than-critical applications, such as for > making 4x6 prints from slides. Especially if one wants to get scans without > having to go the do-it-yourself route. For $4.00, it might be perfect. If > there is one or two excellent images, they can always be scanned at home > using more dpi. Costco by my house indicates they will do a scan for 29 cents per slide. I do not know any details as to resolution or bit depth, but it is a place to start on a quest for an economical solution. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >>These scans may be fine for less-than-critical applications, such as for >>making 4x6 prints from slides. Especially if one wants to get scans without [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > on a quest for an economical solution. > Probably fairly low res jpeg at that price. > Probably fairly low res jpeg at that price. Yes, probably. A high-res TIFF might only yield 6 scans per CD ... so I doubt it is a 48-bit color 4000 dpi TIFF. ;-) Still, at 29 cents, your mileage may vary. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >> I'm going to try Dwayne's Photo for some Kodachrome work. They sell the >> film and process it, too. Their web site listed a number of interesting [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > A 4000 dpi scan using 24-bit color is just under 60 MBytes. And if I am going to pay for a scan, I want more than 24-bit color. 48-bit is much more appropriate. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 > And if I am going to pay for a scan, I want more than 24-bit color. 48-bit is > much more appropriate. If you want 48 bit color you will either pay a lot per scan or you will have to scan yourself. But they are most likely scanning with 16 bits /color and converting to sRGB. It would be hard to find a scan that benefits from more then 8 bits in this case. Scott >> And if I am going to pay for a scan, I want more than 24-bit color. 48-bit is >> much more appropriate. > If you want 48 bit color you will either pay a lot per scan or you will > have to scan yourself. But they are most likely scanning with 16 bits > /color and converting to sRGB. It would be hard to find a scan that > benefits from more then 8 bits in this case. sRGB is any bit depth you want; not just 24-bit. Perhaps you are thinking of JPEG, as that is a 8-bit/24-bit color depth ONLY file format. As far as benefitting from a 16-bit scan (48-bit color); that all depends upon your use. If you are using the file as a source for editing and adjusting your image, then the more color available to you for modifications purposes the better. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 > >> And if I am going to pay for a scan, I want more than 24-bit color. 48-bit is > >> much more appropriate. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > sRGB is any bit depth you want; not just 24-bit. Perhaps you are thinking of > JPEG, as that is a 8-bit/24-bit color depth ONLY file format. The point is with the gamma of sRGB 8 bits gives a larger dynamic range. > As far as benefitting from a 16-bit scan (48-bit color); that all depends upon > your use. If you are using the file as a source for editing and adjusting > your image, then the more color available to you for modifications purposes > the better. Can you show a scan where this is true? Scott >> >> And if I am going to pay for a scan, I want more than 24-bit color. 48-bit is >> >> much more appropriate. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The point is with the gamma of sRGB 8 bits gives a larger dynamic > range. Not than sRGB 16-bit, which was my point. > Can you show a scan where this is true? It is common sense as there is more data to work with. I will leave it at that, but there are several others here who will support this point if asked. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 > It is common sense as there is more data to work with. I will leave it at > that, but there are several others here who will support this point if asked. The point is that it is very rare that a 16 bit / color scan makes any differance at all, unlikly you even have one. So why worry about this rather small detail when having someone else scan your film? And if common sense says that more data is better then 100 bits/color would be better then 16/color, but this is clearly not needed. Scott > >> And if I am going to pay for a scan, I want more than 24-bit color. 48-bit is > >> much more appropriate. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > sRGB is any bit depth you want; not just 24-bit. Perhaps you are thinking of > JPEG, as that is a 8-bit/24-bit color depth ONLY file format. The point is with the gamma of sRGB 8 bits gives a larger dynamic range. > As far as benefitting from a 16-bit scan (48-bit color); that all depends upon > your use. If you are using the file as a source for editing and adjusting > your image, then the more color available to you for modifications purposes > the better. Can you show a scan where this is true? Scott > It has always been frustrating for me to have used excellent quality > equipment and fine lenses, only to see the final results look like they were [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > always given me excellent results, albeit at a price substantially higher > than the one-hour labs. But one gets what one pays for. Qualex is the choice of Costco in Minneapolis. A role of slide film costs $4.19 [for E6 ... not sure if they do kodachrome]. The images are always good, but they have a horrible tendency to damage the film or I often find small hairs stuck in the emulsion. The only nice thing is the relatively fast turnaround, which is about 10 days, or as little as 7 days. If I use Fuji mailers, I can expect three weeks! A&I will turn around faster ... for a price; as will Dale Labs. > With today's superior mail options, it isn't the big deal to send film out > for processing that it once was. More people should try it. After a few [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > require us to have our film processed by folks that really knew what they > were doing, not by some high school kid. I use mail order for most of my film anyway. At times, I shoot Kodak Gold 200 for simple family functions [or I just shoot digital] I will use Target, they seem to do alright, but the paper is cheap. In house Costco 35mm film is absolutely horrendous! SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >>It has always been frustrating for me to have used excellent quality >>equipment and fine lenses, only to see the final results look like they were [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > mailers, I can expect three weeks! A&I will turn around faster ... for a > price; as will Dale Labs. Glad I've still got access to the pro-lab in Raleigh to do my E6 - in by 9:00 out the same day. >>With today's superior mail options, it isn't the big deal to send film out >>for processing that it once was. More people should try it. After a few [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > seem to do alright, but the paper is cheap. In house Costco 35mm film is > absolutely horrendous! > Glad I've still got access to the pro-lab in Raleigh to do my E6 - in by > 9:00 out the same day. The nearest prolab for me is more than 20 miles away. I have to have a need for that fast of turn around with the price of gas today. The cost of driving there alone is as much as using a Fuji mailer. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >>Glad I've still got access to the pro-lab in Raleigh to do my E6 - in by >>9:00 out the same day. > > The nearest prolab for me is more than 20 miles away. I have to have a need > for that fast of turn around with the price of gas today. The cost of driving > there alone is as much as using a Fuji mailer. I can get to mine in about 15 minutes on foot. It'd be quicker, only about 5 min walking, if there wasn't a Krispy Kreme donut shop on the way. ;-D I only use the car to get there if I'm on the way to somewhere else I need the car to get to. SignatureThese are my views. If you've got a problem with it, you can blame it on me, but this is what I think. I am not the official spokes-person for any Government, Commercial or Educational institution. John Now that I think of it, the location of film developing places sure matters when deciding whether I want to go on shooting film (especially slides) or not. As it happens, the only place in town (and one of the few remaining in my country) that develops E-6 on-site is only 2 blocks away. They also do nice enlargements digitally, so right now what happens is, I go and shoot film, drop it off for developing, pick it up a few hours later, scan, photoshop, then maybe upload some of the images to the same place where they are printed almost immediately (I usually receive an e-mail notification telling me they're ready for pick-up some 7-15 minutes after I have ordered the prints.) >For me, the real question is: how long will there be quality film >photofinishing and printing? Film will be available indefinitely, but [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Stockpile all the film you want in your freezer. But be sure there's a >lab around that can process it. A good argument for having your own darkroom. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant. Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography Web Site: www.destarr.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >>For me, the real question is: how long will there be quality film >>photofinishing and printing? Film will be available indefinitely, but [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Web Site: www.destarr.com > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Does anyone really believe that all film will suddenly disappear? I think Kodachrome is on borrowed time, but it seems doubtful that the owners of those many millions of film cameras out there will all pack it in. I wouldn't be surprised to see virtually all film being manufactured in the Third World, rather than Rochester. That has already begun with some Kodak consumer emulsions (Gold 200 is one that comes to mind). One day our Kodak and Fuji-branded films may be manufactured under license, but I think that film cameras will go completely out of production long before film itself is withdrawn. Consumers will probably abandon film entirely--at least in industrialized nations. > Does anyone really believe that all film will suddenly disappear? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > film cameras will go completely out of production long before film itself is > withdrawn. It will be awhile before film disappears. I seep posts in the newsgroups all the time indicating that somebody is shooting digital, but are no considering film again for various reasons. A giant reason for me is resolution ... you pay big dollars for big resolution currently ... and then you dollars get coated by smoke residue and dust because of where you changed your lens (I do not smoke!). > Consumers will probably abandon film entirely--at least in industrialized > nations. Nope ... not me. I like to shoot both though. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 > Does anyone really believe that all film will suddenly disappear? Some of the digirati are hoping. > > Does anyone really believe that all film will suddenly disappear? > > Some of the digirati are hoping. One has to wonder why, though it does seem to be the case. I drink tea, but it doesn't mean I want coffee to go away. Some people just make no sense... Peter >> > Does anyone really believe that all film will suddenly disappear? >> >> Some of the digirati are hoping. > > One has to wonder why, though it does seem to be the case. I drink tea, but > it doesn't mean I want coffee to go away. Some people just make no sense... The coffee and tea analogy is not really appropriate as they are concurrent. A more appropriate analogy might be the horse and buggy being superceded by the automobile. The process took about 30 years, but then it was largely complete. Only the Amish hold out now. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 > The coffee and tea analogy is not really appropriate as they are > concurrent. > A more appropriate analogy might be the horse and buggy being superceded > by > the automobile. The process took about 30 years, but then it was largely > complete. Only the Amish hold out now. Don't bet the farm on that prediction. There is no talk whatsoever about digital being able to even come close to the quality of 4x5 or 8x10. Digital is certainly well on its way to replacing film for consumer and advanced amateur applications, but studio work with LF remains the domain of film. Even in Medium Format, the cost of digital backs is still prohibitive. And we have not yet seen whether there will be a backlash from advanced amateurs and certain types of professionals (the kind that shoot landscapes and other types of subjects that do not require instant availability of the image to make today's publication deadline). There have already been articles in the NY Times about some photographers who have complained that there is a "sameness" about digital photos. One photographer said that just about everybody was using the same 3 or 4 lenses. He began working with a Speed Graphic and he was producing prints that were quite different than those of pros that were shooting DSLRs. Film has a distinctive look, analogous to videotape versus film for television pictures. I have no doubt that consumers will switch exclusively to digital. But it would be a mistake to base a prediction for the entire range of photographic uses based solely upon what consumers do. In 30 years, those photographers that continue to use film will not be the equivalent of the backward Amish. >> The coffee and tea analogy is not really appropriate as they are >> concurrent. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > replacing film for consumer and advanced amateur applications, but studio > work with LF remains the domain of film. It hasn't been 30 years either. Digital sensors will grow to accommodate demand and will be priced according the market. Time is all that is required. The writing is on the wall. I wish it weren't so as I really love using slide film. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >>>The coffee and tea analogy is not really appropriate as they are >>>concurrent. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > film. > I expect in the digital world of the future, there'll be a lot more "Amish" hold outs. It's not a bad anology btw, somebody still makes buggy's for the Amish to buy. SignatureThese are my views. If you've got a problem with it, you can blame it on me, but this is what I think. I am not the official spokes-person for any Government, Commercial or Educational institution. John > I expect in the digital world of the future, there'll be a lot more > "Amish" hold outs. > > It's not a bad anology btw, somebody still makes buggy's for the Amish > to buy. It IS a bad analogy. One can make a buggy in one's barn. You can hire a handfull of skilled people and make buggies with a small investment in hand tools. If you are not making buggies, you can make furniture. How much does it cost to make a production run of film? How much does it cost to be able to make one (startup costs?) What do you do with the factory and its employees between production runs? Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ >> I expect in the digital world of the future, there'll be a lot more >> "Amish" hold outs. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > handfull of skilled people and make buggies with a small investment > in hand tools. If you are not making buggies, you can make furniture. The analogy wasn't about the Amish ... that was just a quip. The analogy was the transition from horse and buggy to automobiles. It is a valid analogy. > How much does it cost to make a production run of film? How much does > it cost to be able to make one (startup costs?) In the case of film, when demand slips that far, film will cease to exist, except in freezers or very exoctic uses that don't demand a constant supply (i.e. made to order). It is still a long way off. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 > In the case of film, when demand slips that far, film will cease to exist, They were making film in 1890, can't be that hard to do with horse-and-buggy technology. Maybe the Amish will be the last source for Tri-X? >>> I expect in the digital world of the future, there'll be a lot more >>> "Amish" hold outs. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > supply > (i.e. made to order). It is still a long way off. If the major players were to license the formulae, someone would make the stuff. Of course, it would not be of much value if the photofinishers, chemical manufacturers, enlarger manufacturers, etc. were all to exit the business. But by that time digital will have become as comfortable and versatile as an old shoe, and we won't be fretting over this issue any more. >>>>The coffee and tea analogy is not really appropriate as they are >>>>concurrent. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > It's not a bad anology btw, somebody still makes buggy's for the Amish to > buy. Lots of people do....Check out some of these links: http://www.best-price.com/procSystem,showProductSearchByUserSearch,,0,Horse+Draw n+Carriage.html > > > > Does anyone really believe that all film will suddenly disappear? > > > Some of the digirati are hoping. > > One has to wonder why ... [tea Vs coffee] > horse and buggy ... [Vs] ... automobile. Psychological? Maybe the digirati wonder if they have spent money wisely on a technology in flux [though that does not seem to be an American trait]. And it isn't like the film camp doesn't stick its finger in the binary eye. I think both sides have doubts and cover them up with bombast. >>>>>Does anyone really believe that all film will suddenly disappear? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > stick its finger in the binary eye. I think both sides > have doubts and cover them up with bombast. And then there are some with feet in both camps. I've got film & digital cameras, using them as I think appropriate to the work I want to do. SignatureThese are my views. If you've got a problem with it, you can blame it on me, but this is what I think. I am not the official spokes-person for any Government, Commercial or Educational institution. John >> > > > Does anyone really believe that all film will suddenly disappear? >> > > Some of the digirati are hoping. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > stick its finger in the binary eye. I think both sides > have doubts and cover them up with bombast. Truth is, nobody knows what future developments will bring. I concede that, if digital can yield all the advantages of film, there would be little reason not to switch. Film would go the way of the wind-up alarm clock. But I suspect that there may be some areas where film is more appropriate to produce the results that a photographer wants. So I don't see it completely disappearing, although it may shrink to becoming a very small percentage of the overall photo market. But I do predict that one-hour or drug store photofinishers will one day become as extinct as Fotomat booths. The American consumer is going to be all-digital. Of that I am convinced. >>>>>>Does anyone really believe that all film will suddenly disappear? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > be little reason not to switch. Film would go the way of the wind-up alarm > clock. Of which I currently have two. Hurricane Fran, the power was out for at least a week. No TV, no ice, no microwave popcorn, but the damn alarm clock worked. But I suspect that there may be some areas where film is more > appropriate to produce the results that a photographer wants. So I don't > see it completely disappearing, although it may shrink to becoming a very [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > become as extinct as Fotomat booths. The American consumer is going to be > all-digital. Of that I am convinced. Actually I think the 1-hr places will probably hang in the longest. Most are already digital hybrid, and if you've got a working system that does process film, why not go ahead and process film? I have one I use whenever I shoot 35mm C-41; have them process it w/o any frills i.e. no CD, no cute little mini-contact sheet, no prints at all - "Cut 'em in strips of 5 please. Here's the sleeve to put 'em in." Take 'em home and look at 'em to see if there's anything I want to print. If I do, I scan it, tweak it in Photoshop (levels, curves, crop - spot out dust ... resize to print size) and then take it back to get a genuine digital RA-4 process print. All that's left then is mount it, frame it and find some sucker to buy it. SignatureThese are my views. If you've got a problem with it, you can blame it on me, but this is what I think. I am not the official spokes-person for any Government, Commercial or Educational institution. John >>>Does anyone really believe that all film will suddenly disappear? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Peter Hello Peter, Perhaps because when there is no film, then digital imaging will not need to be compared to film. Also, at whatever future point in time that happens, a digital camera might just be called a camera. The funny thing is that oil paints are vastly obsolete technology, yet there are several companies still making them. I know, not film . . . but at least with B/W films a very small operation can make these, and provide chemicals to process them. If someone really wants to do some unusual imaging, like processes from over one hundred years ago, there is plenty of information available to make it possible. I think it is mostly the practical aspect that when someone's local store, or local lab no longer have anything to do with film processing, or selling film, then film is essentially gone. Just look at Scott W. living on the big island in Hawaii: no place to buy film, no lab to process it . . . leaving no other choices for convenience. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> > Does anyone really believe that all film will suddenly disappear? Yes. Does it matter? People belive in all kinds of weird things. Or conversly, weirldy enough don't believe in well known facts ... Beliefs are not really a goo dindicator of facts or future trends. > I think Kodachrome is on borrowed time, but it seems doubtful that the > owners of those many millions of film cameras out there will all pack it in. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > film cameras will go completely out of production long before film itself is > withdrawn. The manufactire of professional films has not really changed though. > Consumers will probably abandon film entirely--at least in industrialized > nations. That is not so certain. A lot of esp. elderly people won't. Because of ease of use really. SignatureSander +++ Out of cheese error +++ > For me, the real question is: how long will there be quality film > photofinishing and printing? If history is any indication there will be film available as long as there are people who use film. Now is the time to be around if you want very high quality vacuum tubes. They don't come from GE and RCA anymore and the prices are high but no worse than the 10x increase in the price of a car since early 60's. Kodak spun off its fine biochemicals and industrial chemicals business units. They let the chemical spin off call itself 'Eastman Chemicals'. Who knows - we have two Ilfords. >> For me, the real question is: how long will there be quality film >> photofinishing and printing? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > business units. They let the chemical spin off call itself 'Eastman > Chemicals'. Who knows - we have two Ilfords. This may be, but for sure, they must not hire today's teenagers to do their work for them. I can't go to the local sandwich shop and order two sandwiches without their employees screwing up the order. I order a pastrami for myself and a roast beef for my wife, and we get two roast beefs with the wrong condiments. Today's teenagers not only can't read and write, but they can't listen and/or remember anything for more than 30 seconds. They have achieved, "no child left behind", by leaving the whole school behind the rest of the world........ >>For me, the real question is: how long will there be quality film >>photofinishing and printing? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > are high but no worse than the 10x increase in the price of a car > since early 60's. Well, if you shop around, you can find NOS GE & RCA tubes. The Russian made ones are ok, but in the past I've had to go through a bunch of them to find a good matched pair. Maybe their quality control has gotten better. > Kodak spun off its fine biochemicals and industrial chemicals > business units. They let the chemical spin off call itself 'Eastman > Chemicals'. Who knows - we have two Ilfords. > For me, the real question is: how long will there be quality film > photofinishing and printing? Film will be available indefinitely, but > more and more retailers are experiencing poor returns for the > square-footage they've dedicated to film processing. I live in a city with an area population > 500,000. No one does B&W or anything bigger than 120. I talk to the guys that use to do the professional work and they are basically doing 120 as a favor. >> For me, the real question is: how long will there be quality film >> photofinishing and printing? Film will be available indefinitely, but [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > anything bigger than 120. I talk to the guys that use to do the > professional work and they are basically doing 120 as a favor. Emigrate! >>For me, the real question is: how long will there be quality film >>photofinishing and printing? Film will be available indefinitely, but [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > anything bigger than 120. I talk to the guys that use to do the > professional work and they are basically doing 120 as a favor. Bummer. SignatureThese are my views. If you've got a problem with it, you can blame it on me, but this is what I think. I am not the official spokes-person for any Government, Commercial or Educational institution. John |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.