 |
 | 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 / Darkroom / March 2005is it a forgone conclusion...
that this ng will be irrelevant in a year or so? i certainly hope not, but film seems to be dieing a slow, painful death. i'm 43, and it sucks to think that in a decade, or less, that film--as we knew it--will be gone. bummer, dude.... On 2/24/2005 12:42 AM Joe Mama spake thus: > that this ng will be irrelevant in a year or so? i certainly hope not, but > film seems to be dieing a slow, painful death. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > bummer, dude.... Maybe not (gone, that is). Like the famous statement attributed to Mark Twain: "the news of my recent demise is premature". Film can still do some stuff that digital can't (or can't do as well). Probably will for the forseeable future.  Signature"I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon." - Former President Gerald Ford to his golf partners, as related by the late Hunter S. Thompson > that this ng will be irrelevant in a year or so? i certainly hope not, but > film seems to be dieing a slow, painful death. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > bummer, dude.... Why are people so keen to "predict" the death of film? What evidence do you have to support this? OK, so more and more digital bodies are being sold, but there is still a lot of film bodies still out there. Why has Fuji just announced three new films? Why are film scanners still being announced? Large format film is still available, although there are few users of that. Why have Ilford just been rescued with a management buy out? What about the death of B&W when colour hit mainstream? Film might become harder to get hold of, with consumer print film becoming more difficult to get hold of, but I reckon slide & B&W film will still be readily available for some time to come. Steve > new films? Why are film scanners still being announced? Large format > film is still available, although there are few users of that. Why have There are few users of LF film, but they are the least likely to go digital :-) Therefore I predict a long and healty life for this NG, even though there will likely be fewer roll film users present as time marches on. Bob >> new films? Why are film scanners still being announced? Large format >> film is still available, although there are few users of that. Why have [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Bob Absolutley. I am one of those who has gone from digital to LF. Well not totally true, as I still do digital, and have not yet exposed a single sheet of LF, as I have only had it a few days. Film is still well and truly alive, and will be so for a considerable time to come. Steve > Absolutley. I am one of those who has gone from digital to LF. Well not > totally true, as I still do digital, and have not yet exposed a single > sheet of LF, as I have only had it a few days. Film is still well and > truly alive, and will be so for a considerable time to come. Yea! A convert! Ring the Bells! Glory to the Trinity! Praise Allah! Slaughter a goat (er, can we make that an Angus, a nice young tender one...). SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ >>Absolutley. I am one of those who has gone from digital to LF. Well not >>totally true, as I still do digital, and have not yet exposed a single [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yea! A convert! Ring the Bells! Glory to the Trinity! Praise Allah! > Slaughter a goat (er, can we make that an Angus, a nice young tender one...). Yeah, here's another one. Well, I'm just learning, doing a course based on (at the moment) MF and LF. I've actually only posted here twice after discovering the group the day before yesterday (: I'm back in the darkroom and I'm really looking forward to getting into it more and producing some nice B&W prints! Previously I'd used colour film and had a lab do all the 'work' for me, then I moved exclusively to digital SLR work, and now I'm back again to film, hopefully mostly LF and MF. I thik that means i'm going kinda backwards and sideways (: Scott. > Yea! A convert! Ring the Bells! Glory to the Trinity! Praise Allah! > Slaughter a goat (er, can we make that an Angus, a nice young tender one...). I'm another film convert. I started with a digital, moved up a couple of models, and then finally realised that the resolution of film is much better if you use a large enough format, not to mention the better dynamic range. On top of it all, I've yet to find a way of making digital prints that are good quality, relatively easy to make, and cheap. Lightjets still cost >$100,000, and even high quality inkjets cost a lot per print, and I'm not wowed by the quality, either. I still love digital and use it for a lot of stuff, but I sure wouldn't call it superior. I will be very grumpy if large format film stops being available. Ewan >> Absolutley. I am one of those who has gone from digital to LF. Well not >> totally true, as I still do digital, and have not yet exposed a single [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Yea! A convert! Ring the Bells! Glory to the Trinity! Praise Allah! >Slaughter a goat (er, can we make that an Angus, a nice young tender one...). feb2605 from Lloyd Erlick, Slaughtering an Argus might be more appropriate ... regards, --le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ Boy, I go away for a few years, poke in every once in a while and see nothing that doesnt depress me, and then I come see this thread. Its the most encouraging thing I've seen in years, makes me want to pick up my LF camera and fire up the darkroom for the first time since 2002 or so ( I too, have been too depressed and deprived of inspiration by the revolution). People are now coming from digital to film? I must be dreaming. > Boy, I go away for a few years, poke in every once in a while and see > nothing that doesnt depress me, and then I come see this thread. Understood. Some time ago I went to a show and lecture by a photographer who discussed his three or four books - all B&W MF and he said towards the end that he will be moving to Digital. He rationalized it very well in economic terms. My heart just sank to the pit of my stomach, BUT I do not, and I suspect you do not, depend upon publishing work to survive. Then last week he asked me to participate in a photographic reshoot of a region to compare subjects done in the area in the early 1900's. It's a large project. I suggested that it would be best for me to do it in 4x5 color. An eerie, subtle silence ensued. : > new films? Why are film scanners still being announced? Large format : > film is still available, although there are few users of that. Why have : There are few users of LF film, but they are the least likely to go : digital :-) : Therefore I predict a long and healty life for this NG, even though : there will likely be fewer roll film users present as time marches on. According to the sales rep at Calumet the sales of LF film is increasing. It looks like us hobbiests are picking up cameras and lenses on ebay and are starting to pick up some of the slack!! :-) SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com Ilford don't seem to think film is dead -- Tony > What about the death of B&W when colour hit mainstream? Hmm. Can't get B&W at the drugstore any more: they used to have Panatomic-X, Plus-X, Tri-X, Verichrome, Royal pan. One carried 4x5 and Tri-Chem packs. You could tell when the pharmacist was also a photographer. The drugstore now has a larger display of write-able CD/DVD and ink jet supplies than it does of film. Been a while since I have seen a drugstore with an 'Authorized Leica Dealer' decal on the window. Last one I saw was somewhere in NW Minnesota, late 70's/early 80's. The last _real_ store-front photography store in Cleveland (Foto Center) is closing in a month. I have been going there for 40 years. OTOH, DIY B&W is doing fine and doesn't seem to be threatened by digital as long as you are willing to deal via the internet. B&W may have tanked about as much as it is going to tank. If it goes completely under it will be because it is replaced by something _demonstrably_ better such that nobody will miss silver B&W. So far, digital isn't it. Plus ca change, plus c'est la mem chose. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ >> What about the death of B&W when colour hit mainstream? > > Hmm. Can't get B&W at the drugstore any more: they used to have > Panatomic-X, Plus-X, Tri-X, Verichrome, Royal pan. One carried > 4x5 and Tri-Chem packs. You could tell when the pharmacist was > also a photographer. My Walgreens, 3 blocks away, has 3 B&W films: TriX, TMax, and the C-41 stuff. > that this ng will be irrelevant in a year or so? i certainly hope not, but > film seems to be dieing a slow, painful death. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > bummer, dude.... Hahahahaha-ha! You need a good slap. The best way to insure the life of film is to use it, lots of it....or at least buy it. Now get out there and make some good pictures and no more crying about the demise of film :-) SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > that this ng will be irrelevant in a year or so? i certainly hope not, but > film seems to be dieing a slow, painful death. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > bummer, dude.... A friend of mine won't stop talking about how film is dead and how much he loves his digital and how I need to buy one. But why? For now, at least, all of my cameras shoot at a much higher resolution than any digital cameras I'm likely to be able to afford right now. Plus a couple of mine are hand-made or plastic contraptions that take their own unique photos simply because they're so broken-down and stupid. Strangely enough, I shoot better photos with these than my other cameras most of the time. Foregone conclusion is such a strong phrase. I think that the vacations and family photos crowd is already jumping from colour film to digital because it's so cheap in the long run, but that doesn't mean anything. The accessibility and versatility of film will win in the more artistic community. - max > Foregone conclusion is such a strong phrase. I think that the vacations > and family photos crowd is already jumping from colour film to digital > because it's so cheap in the long run, but that doesn't mean anything. Actually it means quite a bit. When you take away all the film that journalists used to shoot, and all the film that product photogs used to shoot, and all the film that wedding photogs, portrait studios, and the like used to shoot, and add to that all the film that the vacation and family crowd used to shoot, well it doesn't take too much to realize that at some point there will no longer be a large enough market to justify manufacturing 35mm color film any more. Just like there's no LP records, and soon there will probably be no VHS. There's some, true enough, but not for most people's vision of reality. Bob > Actually it means quite a bit. When you take away all the film that > journalists used to shoot, and all the film that product photogs used to > shoot, and all the film that wedding photogs, portrait studios, and the > like used to shoot, and add to that all the film that the vacation and > family crowd used to shoot, well it doesn't take too much to realize > that at some point there will no longer be a large enough market Hmmm. All these switched to color from black&white 20+ years ago. So these markets going digital shouldn't have much impact on B&W - famous last words, I know. > to justify manufacturing 35mm color film any more. For print film, I'll agree. I hope against hope color slides will hang around ... Apres Kodachrome, le deluge. > Just like there's no LP records, Have you seen the market for record turntables -- $25K for an 'entry level' turntable; 99.9% snake oil technology, though. > and soon there will probably be no VHS. Disc convenience will beat tape every time. And tape data capacity will stay ahead of disc. Wait for optical tape. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ You make a very good point, but I still have to differ just slightly. Old formats die ridiculously hard. I'm sure you'd be shocked--literally *shocked*--that magnetic tape still has a near and dear place in everyone's heart as a significantly better means of backup than optical, simply because it takes up such little space and is almost universally readable. Plus it never goes bad. You can fit a kilometer of tape on a shelf somewhere and it'll be good for a millennium. Vinyl, on the other hand, has lived so long because it is an aurally superior storage of music. No matter how good CD's become, their discrete nature will always be won out easily by a 78rpm vinyl or Bakelite disc. In the same vein, actually, three-inch magnetic tape is even better. At, say, 30 inches per second recording, it's as good as live if not better. VHS is dead because it just isn't as good as DVD. Its advantages, few though they were, are now gone and there's just nothing left to keep people buying them. Even the VCR has been easily phased out by the hard drive based equivalent: a TiVo. Sorry for the rant . . . my background is as a deejay and my majors are computer science and physics ;-P My point is that as long as film still has something on digital, which it does right now, it will live on. And even then, there's always nostalgia. Just as hipsters resurrected Pumas, film could easily be resurrected if it ever dies out completely. - max >> Foregone conclusion is such a strong phrase. I think that the >> vacations and family photos crowd is already jumping from colour film [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Bob > Old formats die ridiculously hard. I'm sure you'd be shocked--literally > *shocked*--that magnetic tape still has a near and dear place in > everyone's heart as a significantly better means of backup than optical, For 9-track, not shocked at all. It is the death of 1/4" and cassettes I had in mind. > Plus it never goes bad. Oh yes it does ... the binder turns to goo. > it'll be good for a millennium. Ask Warner Bros. > Vinyl, on the other hand, has lived so long because it is an aurally > superior storage of music. No matter how good CD's become, Now here we part company. I am an engineer, after all. But I grew up on records and I think they sound great. I have been listening to the same scratches, dirt and gouges since forever and if they are gone the music just isn't the same. > three-inch magnetic tape is even better. At, say, 30 inches > per second recording, [it's better than live] If it's rap music and the tape has turned to goo, I will agree with you. > Sorry for the rant . . . my background is as a deejay and my majors are > computer science and physics ;-P Fallen from Grace, you say. Or is it that you _were_ a DJ and are now studying 'computer science' (if it has to say it is a science in the name you know it is not. 'social science'? Like 'mouth watering' on the menu: my mouth always waters right before I throw up; don't know why the restaurants want to advertise it.) - switch to engineering - engineering is applied physics. > My point is that as long as film still has something on digital, which > it does right now, it will live on. Yes, but digital has a long long way to go before it reaches its limits. > Just as hipsters resurrected Pumas ... Whaaa? SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ Hahahahaha oops. I have the distinct feeling that I'm clearly the youngest person on this entire newsgroup. You're totally right about cassettes. Those died long ago. But that's missing the point! The introduction of a new format does not necessarily make the old one obsolete. Digital still has a lot of potential, and it's an exciting technology for those it can benefit the most. Personally, I feel like if I bought a digital camera for anything other than movies (I can't afford film for my super-8. . .), then I would never use my film cameras. It's probably an irrational fear. I love the process of bringing my images from concept to print. I learned photography as part of a vocational program in high school while I was learning lithography, so I consider it kind of like a trade. I don't want to see it die just like I don't want to see lithography die (which it clearly hasn't, even though there's xerography to "replace" it). All I'm saying, and all I've said to all of my digital fan friends, is that if you're so down on film, just shut up about it and leave the rest of us alone. There are magical things that happen in the body of a film camera that it's difficult for me to imagine reproducing in the digital world. My pinhole cameras that I've built, for instance, each see the world in a unique way. I think folks are a little too quick to the draw, even if it really is a foregone conclusion. - max PS - Pumas are shoes. They were really popular in the eighties and now crowds of young folks are wearing them again. "Vintage" has somehow become a marketable term for new clothing; not sure how that works, but whatever. >>Old formats die ridiculously hard. I'm sure you'd be shocked--literally >>*shocked*--that magnetic tape still has a near and dear place in [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Whaaa? ... >PS - Pumas are shoes. They were really popular in the eighties and now >crowds of young folks are wearing them again. "Vintage" has somehow >become a marketable term for new clothing; not sure how that works ... feb2605 from Lloyd Erlick, Uh-oh. My geezerhood is no longer incipient. The eighties have become vintage. (The nineteen-eighties...). regards, --le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ > PS - Pumas are shoes. They were really popular in the eighties and now > crowds of young folks are wearing them again. Strange, usually kids are more comfortable with their grandparents' fads. > "Vintage" has somehow become a marketable term for new clothing 1980's are 'vintage'? No, the 1880's are vintage -- I see corsets are making a comeback, can bustles and hoop skirts be far behind? Hip-hop in a hoop-skirt: it just might sell. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ hahahahaha yeah I guess. I'm in my early twenties and my childhood has become cool again when most of it should've just been left where it was found. I do like my pumas though; they're mostly worn out. As for my grandparent's fads . . . I don't know if I'm willing to slip into a zoot suit just yet. I've not seen too many corsets out on the streets. They're more of an undergarment. Are push-up bras too far behind though? Also there are innumerable kinds of corset-like tops out there. hahahaha I've just about had it with this thread. It's gotten way out of hand! First we're talking about digital, then magnetic tape, then pumas, and now corsets. - max >>PS - Pumas are shoes. They were really popular in the eighties and now >>crowds of young folks are wearing them again. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Hip-hop in a hoop-skirt: it just might sell. > Vinyl, on the other hand, has lived so long because it is an aurally > superior storage of music. No matter how good CD's become, their [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > people buying them. Even the VCR has been easily phased out by the hard > drive based equivalent: a TiVo. I can buy VHS tape a lot more places than vinyl records. Bob ... > A friend of mine won't stop talking about how film is dead and how much > he loves his digital and how I need to buy one. But why? For now, at ... Why do digital evangelists have to prophesise that film is dead? Do they need some extra justification for their switch to digital? Why can't they be content with their digital, and let others make there own decisions? Steve : ... : > A friend of mine won't stop talking about how film is dead and how much : > he loves his digital and how I need to buy one. But why? For now, at : ... : Why do digital evangelists have to prophesise that film is dead? Do they : need some extra justification for their switch to digital? Why can't : they be content with their digital, and let others make there own decisions? I think that most of them are trying to justify going digital to themselves. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > : ... > : > A friend of mine won't stop talking about how film is dead and how [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I think that most of them are trying to justify going digital to > themselves. No. They REALLY do believe digital produces better quality images than film. (But believing doesn't make it so.) And anyone, who isn't a believer -- say, Hallelujah! -- is a poor, unfortunate, misguided, dumb as a post soul, who must be saved or be lost in photo hell forever. (Another Hallelujah, please.) Such is the way of the arrogant: They're always right and everyone else is wrong, irrespective of the facts. Fanatics have a tremendous capacity to explain away the truth, if it doesn't fit their ideology. SignatureStefan Patric NoLife Polymath Group tootek2@yahoo.com > No. They REALLY do believe digital produces better quality images than > film. Of course they do. Nobody says "I shoot digital because it is inferior and I am a dumb-a.s". and Nobody says "I shoot film because it is inferior and I am a dumb-a.s". > But believing doesn't make it so. Blasphemy. I will pray for your immortal soul. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ : > : ... : > : > A friend of mine won't stop talking about how film is dead and how [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] : > I think that most of them are trying to justify going digital to : > themselves. : No. They REALLY do believe digital produces better quality images than : film. (But believing doesn't make it so.) And anyone, who isn't a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : facts. Fanatics have a tremendous capacity to explain away the truth, : if it doesn't fit their ideology. I still think the reason for most of the evangilism in the film newsgroups is based on insecurity of the poster. I know a number of people that have and use digital cameras (myself included). A number of them have stopped using film camera and are completely digital. Most of them are secure in their reasons for going digital and will only talk about their reasons if the subject is brought up by someone else. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > No. They REALLY do believe digital produces better quality images than > film. (But believing doesn't make it so.) And anyone, who isn't a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > facts. Fanatics have a tremendous capacity to explain away the truth, > if it doesn't fit their ideology. This zeroes in on the fundamentals better than other posts. For some, digital is the new religeon, and film advocates are blasphemers - godless baby killers to the true fanatics. The advent of photography did not bring about the end of painting, the method of recording images before photography. The advent of color film didn't eliminate black and white. Video didn't wipe out still images, and digital won't eliminate film. The reality is that film and digital are different. Digital offers characteristics that film doesn't have and never will. And film offers characteristics that digital doesn't have yet, and probably won't ever offer, at least in my lifetime. (Try taking a digital image into court and you'll learn an enormous limitation of digital.) Bob in Las Vegas > [...] (Try taking a digital image into court and > you'll learn an enormous limitation of digital.) Indeed. The existence of a negative or transparency, especially if the subject has variations on the same roll, offers something that digital has not yet. For reasons similar to making an authoritative statement, offering the negative along with an original print is another thing digital cannot supply. >>[...] (Try taking a digital image into court and >>you'll learn an enormous limitation of digital.) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the negative along with an original print is another thing digital cannot > supply. The Canon 1Ds, and I assume the new 1Ds Mk II, do have an optional "authentication" module, that is supposed to verify an image as unmanipulated. It is intended for use in forensic evidence. Steve > The Canon 1Ds, and I assume the new 1Ds Mk II, do have an optional > "authentication" module, that is supposed to verify an image as > unmanipulated. It is intended for use in forensic evidence. Very interesting, Steve. I will read up on that. Thank you! > The advent of photography did not bring about the end of painting, the > method of recording images before photography. True, but photography didnt say it WAS painting, even though it tried to imitate it, the way Digital Imaging says it IS photography as if there is no difference. The advent of color film > didn't eliminate black and white. Video didn't wipe out still images, and > digital won't eliminate film. I hope not. > The reality is that film and digital are different. Says you. You must be a film user. :-) Digital offers > characteristics that film doesn't have and never will. And film offers > characteristics that digital doesn't have yet, and probably won't ever > offer, at least in my lifetime. (Try taking a digital image into court and > you'll learn an enormous limitation of digital.) > > Bob in Las Vegas > > The advent of photography did not bring about the end of painting, The portrait painting business went pretty belly-up. Artistic oil/water painting may lose out to digital via Fractal Design Painter, Photoshop ... SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ > Artistic oil/water painting may lose out to digital via Fractal > Design Painter, Photoshop ... Highly doubtful, the type of person that buys original handmade artwork is quite educated to its value and takes a rather dim view of anything like that kind of reproducible. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >> > The advent of photography did not bring about the end of painting, > > The portrait painting business went pretty belly-up. > > Artistic oil/water painting may lose out to digital via Fractal > Design Painter, Photoshop ... Won't ever happen. > that this ng will be irrelevant in a year or so? i certainly hope not, > but film seems to be dieing a slow, painful death. > > i'm 43, and it sucks to think that in a decade, or less, that film--as > we knew it--will be gone. There is one absolute: Progress begets obsolescence. And its corollary as it relates to capitalism: If it's not profitable, you can't afford to sell it. But do I think film will disappear entirely in the next decade or so? Or ever? No. No more so than wainwrights, blacksmiths or shepards have. Even though they are rare and the services they provide are from another era and forgotten by most, they are still needed, and they exist because a market for those services exist. Such will be the case with film. And just as some are compelled to embrace the new and abandon the old, just because it's new, there are always a few traditionalists, who find satisfaction in the old ways, even though they are considered relics of the past by those who think "new and improved" always means "better." So, as long as there are photographers who need film, there will always be those competing to provide it. That's what makes capitalism and free enterprise better than any other economic philosophy. Only when traditional photographers and those who appreciate traditional photographs cease to exist will film become truly extinct. And when might that be? Why can't digital and film co-exist, each on its own merits? Why must one displace the other? SignatureStefan Patric NoLife Polymath Group tootek2@yahoo.com : > that this ng will be irrelevant in a year or so? i certainly hope not, : > but film seems to be dieing a slow, painful death. : > : > i'm 43, and it sucks to think that in a decade, or less, that film--as : > we knew it--will be gone. : There is one absolute: Progress begets obsolescence. And its corollary : as it relates to capitalism: If it's not profitable, you can't afford [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] : they are considered relics of the past by those who think "new and : improved" always means "better." : So, as long as there are photographers who need film, there will always : be those competing to provide it. That's what makes capitalism and : free enterprise better than any other economic philosophy. Only when : traditional photographers and those who appreciate traditional : photographs cease to exist will film become truly extinct. And when : might that be? : Why can't digital and film co-exist, each on its own merits? Why must : one displace the other? They can and are co-existing. I personally have a digital camera as well as a number of film camera. They both have their place and advantages. (as well as disadvantages) SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > : > that this ng will be irrelevant in a year or so? i certainly hope > : > not, but film seems to be dieing a slow, painful death. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > well as a number of film camera. They both have their place and > advantages. (as well as disadvantages) Not in the eyes of the digital bigots. To them, we are currently in a transitional state where digital photography is in the process of supplanting and forever eliminating film photography. With the digitals, there can never be co-existence. Why would there need to be? Digital is, after all, totally superior in every way to film. To me, digital cameras are just another tool in my kit. Superior in some ways to film, but not in others. And that means I have a greater choice in picking the proper tool that fits the job. What could be better? SignatureStefan Patric NoLife Polymath Group tootek2@yahoo.com > To me, digital cameras are just another tool in my kit. Superior in > some ways to film, but not in others. And that means I have a greater > choice in picking the proper tool that fits the job. What could be > better? To realize that they are different kits. ... > Why can't digital and film co-exist, each on its own merits? Why must > one displace the other? Is it because our digital friends can only work in binary states: i.e. digital or none-digital, and one has to be good, the other bad :-)? Steve > So, as long as there are photographers who need film, there will always > be those competing to provide it. That's what makes capitalism and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Why can't digital and film co-exist, each on its own merits? Why must > one displace the other? You kinda answered your own question before you asked it. Color film, in particular, isn't very condusive to small production runs. Current generation of minilab machines include a film scanner to enable printing film. (They scan it so that they can print it -- they don't enlarge anymore). How far does demand for film printing need to drop before Wal-Mart decides to stop paying for film scanners? It's not a question of the artistic merit of digital v. film, it's a question of business economics, and businesses are going to make an effort to force the issue. Bob ... > It's not a question of the artistic merit of digital v. film, it's a > question of business economics, and businesses are going to make an > effort to force the issue. > > Bob If businesses are going to "force the issue", I would call that a little bit more than business economics. Steve > ... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Steve I don't follow. Businesses force all sorts of issues because of economics. When was the last time you saw an LP at the mall? There would still be a lot of people buying LPs on a regular basis, if they were commonly available for sale. But at some point LP sales dropped to a point below which the record companies decided to stop making them. Same thing will happen with film. You can buy Steely Dan's new release on LP... in Europe. But you can't get it in 8-track. When was the last time you tried to buy Kodachrome in 120 size? Or super8 movie film with a sound stripe. I've got an old camera that uses paper backed roll film. I don't even know what the size is, but I know it isn't available. If I could get film, it would be fun to use it, but... Interesting reading: http://www.bythom.com/2005predictions.htm He says that Nikon has stopped production of non-slr 35mm film cameras and Konica sold off their film plants. Bob > I've got an old camera that uses paper backed roll film. I don't even > know what the size is, but I know it isn't available. If I could get > film, it would be fun to use it, but... Maybe you could find out what the format is: 127 film is still available! Film will be available to those of us with enough interest, curiosity and initiative for the rest of our lives! It just might not be at the corner shop anymore. ... Konica sold off their film plants. >Bob mar105 from Lloyd Erlick, Who bought them? regards, --le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ > If businesses are going to "force the issue", I would call that a little > bit more than business economics. It's an unfortunate expression. Perhaps it is better to say that the marketplace determines the outcome, and the outcome will be digital. >>If businesses are going to "force the issue", I would call that a little >>bit more than business economics. > > It's an unfortunate expression. Perhaps it is better to say that the > marketplace determines the outcome, and the outcome will be digital. Yes, the business economics aside, why do you think that there is a "the" outcome? Why can't digital and film coexist? There seams to ba a lot of assumptions made that there can only be one. Why? Steve > Yes, the business economics aside, why do you think that there is a > "the" outcome? Why can't digital and film coexist? There seams to ba a > lot of assumptions made that there can only be one. Why? > > Steve What it boils down to is wether photographers choose film. If one supplies ones work digitally it is a different non related issue. But relevant only when film is no longer available or when work turn around is the key consideration no quality issues are required to see the differences (although they are important). I think film and digital capture can certainly coexist, however that remains to be seen as to how long,.... aside from the knee jerk sky is falling mentality some people seem to subscribe to. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > Yes, the business economics aside, why do you think that there is a > "the" outcome? Why can't digital and film coexist? There seams to ba a > lot of assumptions made that there can only be one. Why? There is no reason besides economics. My prediction is the transition will go fairly quickly, like DVD. Thom predicts Nikon and Canon will both have discontinued *all* 35mm cameras by the end of the year. If consumers aren't buying film cameras, and professionals have largely abandoned them, that leaves only the relatively low volume of the serious amateur. Will you still be able to get it? Sure. Just like BetaMax tapes. Sony only discontinued production of BetaMax recording gear a year or so ago, but in most people's minds Beta was "dead" around 1980. Bob >> Yes, the business economics aside, why do you think that there is a >> "the" outcome? Why can't digital and film coexist? There seams to ba a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > professionals have largely abandoned them, that leaves only the > relatively low volume of the serious amateur. And yet late last year Canon refused to stop making APS cameras claiming they're making too much money on them. At the same time we keep hearing wide ranging complaints from digital camera makers about losses,margin squeezes and falling average selling prices. Lets be honest. Camera companies are spending no R&D dollars on film cameras. They sure aren't spending any ad money either. Shutting down those production lines won't do them any good. I'd also like to point out that nobody was really buying 35mm cameras 10 years ago either. The world has been flooded with cameras for a long time. Nick > Lets be honest. Camera companies are > spending no R&D dollars on film cameras. Far as I can tell, film makers aren't spending much on R&D either. When's the last time a new B&W (non c-41) film was released? P3200? What's the most recent development in color film? The last thing I can recall is Kodak MAX, but I honestly have never paid much attention to color film. There are developments in disposable cameras, and they will probably be popular until digital is cheap enough to replace them ($3 pricepoint) > They sure aren't spending any ad > money either. Shutting down those production > lines won't do them any good. Shutting down the lines will free up capital (both money and people) that they can use for other (read digital) purposes. Bob > Shutting down the lines will free up capital (both money and people) > that they can use for other (read digital) purposes. To lose more money? The low end digital market is basically gone. Watch digital cell phones wipe out that market. Nick >>Shutting down the lines will free up capital (both money and people) >>that they can use for other (read digital) purposes. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Nick The plants aren't in Japan. They can layoff the workers, close the plants, and bring the managers home. Even if the managers sit idle they will loose less money than if they continue to pay workers to assemble materials that there are no buyers for. That's doubly true if they can sell the plants and some of the equipment. I'm pretty sure there is plenty of business in producing digital cameras in the future, even if it isn't in the low end. Maybe there's a Nikon brand cell phone in your future ;-) As long as they can keep working on reducing the shutter lag and improving the ISO ratings, there will continue to be an upgrade market in the advanced amateur category. Bob > > Lets be honest. Camera companies are > > spending no R&D dollars on film cameras. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > What's the most recent development in color film? The last thing I can > recall is Kodak MAX, but I honestly have never paid much attention to > color film. There are developments in disposable cameras, and they will > probably be popular until digital is cheap enough to replace them ($3 > pricepoint) > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Bob I hope you all don't mind the input from an interloper, I don't do any darkroom work currently but did a fair bit of it in the early 70s. First off let me say that I would be a bit surprise if film disappears within the next 10 years, it might be hard to find places to process it but my guess is that it will be around in some form. Having said that I will also say that I don't know enough about the film business to really know what will happen. These are a few of the questions that I don't know the answers to, how small of an operation can you have and still produce high quality film that is affordable? Is the same equipment that makes print paper also used for making film or is it another whole production line? Since the high quality prints are using photographic print paper for their output it is a pretty good guess that they will be producing print paper for sometime to come. This means that at least someone will be coating paper with photosensitive emulsions in the future, this would seem to give film a good chance of surviving for some time to come. The other thing that will help keep film alive for a while is the disposable cameras, this is the only area of film sales that has not seen large drops in volume. I would expect to see the number of people doing their own photographic printing 10 years from now to be a small fraction of what it is today. Scott > First off let me say that I would be a bit surprise if film disappears > within the next 10 years, it might be hard to find places to process it > but my guess is that it will be around in some form. I'd speculate that there will be as many, or even more people using sheet film in 10 years as there are today. I wouldn't be surprised if there was essentially no availability of 35mm color film. As long as there's an Ilford, there will be B&W film. Hopefully now that the film group is out of bankrupcy they will remain a viable company. The variety of their product offerings will probalby continue to diminish. > The other thing that will help keep film alive for a while is the > disposable cameras, this is the only area of film sales that has not > seen large drops in volume. I wonder what the odds of them switching disposables to APS are? > I would expect to see the number of people doing their own photographic > printing 10 years from now to be a small fraction of what it is today. People are discarding enlargers today. That was pretty unheard of 10 years ago. Bob ... > People are discarding enlargers today. That was pretty unheard of 10 > years ago. And people are snapping them up. Steve .. > Far as I can tell, film makers aren't spending much on R&D either. > When's the last time a new B&W (non c-41) film was released? P3200? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > probably be popular until digital is cheap enough to replace them ($3 > pricepoint) If you are not paying attention, then what weight should we put to your opinions? As I have posted here at least once, Fuji have just launched three new colour films. Kodak have rejuvenated their colour film line up within the last few years. That is not the sign of a dying industry. Steve > .. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Steve Read the press releases on kodak.com and fujifilm.com and see if you still feel the same. It's kind of interesting that the competition is to make better 400 speed films, and mostly Kodak talks about the new film being better suited for scanning... How about this article from a year ago: http://www.rochesterdandc.com/biznews/0722V54VVJK_business.shtml QUOTE::: Kodak had said it would accelerate downsizing if film sales were to decline faster than expected. That is now coming to pass. The company initially projected a 7 to 9 percent drop worldwide; it now sees a 10 percent to 12 percent decline this year. The decline in the United States may reach 20 percent, Kodak said. :::END So: Agfa spins off it's film division Konica sells it's film plants Ilford goes bankrupt Sales at Kodak and Fuji decline Read Fujifilm's 2004 annual report -- Their Imaging Solutions segment revenue was down 23%; they mention falling film sales and increased digital camera sales at lower prices. Read Kodak's 2003 annual report (most recent on their website). Nearly every occurance of the word "film" is accompanied by the word "decline." Oh, and they discontinuted their Carosel slide projectors. If those arent' the signs of a troubled industry I don't know what are. Bob ... > Read the press releases on kodak.com and fujifilm.com and see if you > still feel the same. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Bob Nobody is denying that overall film sales are declining. The market is shrinking, even if you do exagerate your case. Read http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pr/prht.html. And so what if new film is more suitable for scanning. How does this prove that film is dead? Obviously there will be some restructuring, but not of this makes your case. "Car sales decline - car industry dead in two years" - I don't think so. Steve > Nobody is denying that overall film sales are declining. The market is > shrinking, even if you do exagerate your case. Since all the facts I reported come from either press releases or annual reports, I'd be interested to know what you think I've exagerated. > Read > http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pr/prht.html. Yes, I referenced this in one of my first posts on this topic. As I said, Ilford wants b&w materials will continue to be available for a long time. The fact that they went bankrupt recently makes it appear that their goal might not be an easy task. > And so what if new film is more suitable for scanning. > How does this prove that film is dead? I never said it did. > Obviously there will be some restructuring, but not of this makes > your case. "Car sales decline - car industry dead in two years" - I > don't think so. You're ignoring the more interesting bits, and inventing a very short timeline -- putting words in my mouth. A more accurate headline would be: "Detroit switches to fuel cells; Exxon reeling" Your analogy is flawed because it isn't car sales that are down (Camera sales are up). It's just that the growth segment (digital) doesn't require gasoline (film). Sure there's still a billion film cameras out there, but as more and more people stop buying film how long will it remain viable to run huge plants to make the stuff? Did you read the part of Fujifilm's annual report where they mention that the growing segment of their film business is motion picture film? It's not for shooting pictures, it's for distributing them. You gotta know that Hollywood wants to migrate that to digital too. I bet that in 2 years Kodak will sell fewer types of film than they do today. I bet in 10 years Kodak will not sell consumer film at all. I bet that they will still sell "professional" film, but that most of the buyers will not be professionals at all, but guys like us. Bob ... > and falling average selling prices. Lets be honest. Camera companies are > spending no R&D dollars on film cameras. They sure aren't spending any ad > money either. Shutting down those production lines won't do them any good. ... But they _are_ launching new models, and they _are_ being advertised. You won't see these adverts in the mainstream press, but the specialist photography press. Its the same with B&W, but that has supposedly been dead for years. Steve > Just like BetaMax tapes. Sony only discontinued production of > BetaMax recording gear a year or so ago, but in most people's > minds Beta was "dead" around 1980. I thought there was a 'professional' version of Beta still kicking around. It takes an embarrassingly long time for a technology to die out. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ >>Just like BetaMax tapes. Sony only discontinued production of >>BetaMax recording gear a year or so ago, but in most people's [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It takes an embarrassingly long time for a technology to die out. That's the gear that Sony recently discontinued. Tapes are still available, but once the supply chain is clear of the gear, there will be no more. Bob ... > There is no reason besides economics. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Bob Why have Nikon recently launched a top end 35mm SLR? How many film SLRs have Canon launched recently? Who is Thom, and why does his prediction carry so much weight? But even if the launch of new film cameras slows down, you appear to be confusing film cameras with film. There are still a lot of film users out there. And economics suggests that whilst there is a market, there will be a supplier. Steve > But even if the launch of new film cameras slows down, you appear to be > confusing film cameras with film. There are still a lot of film users > out there. And economics suggests that whilst there is a market, there > will be a supplier. > > Steve Whats more if Canon and Nikon stop making film camera that does not doom photo to only a digital world,...other companies can certainly will answer a market that exists to buy those film cameras it may just be a leaner smaller company that supplies to that need. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >>But even if the launch of new film cameras slows down, you appear to be >>confusing film cameras with film. There are still a lot of film users [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > certainly will answer a market that exists to buy those film cameras > it may just be a leaner smaller company that supplies to that need. Like Leica? Bad joke. But at that point, when only small specialty firms market camears and film for them, my prediction will have come true. I've said all along that 35mm film will continue to be available. The quesitons are availability and price. Bob > Why have Nikon recently launched a top end 35mm SLR? How many film SLRs > have Canon launched recently? Who is Thom, and why does his prediction > carry so much weight? Thom Hogan. His predictions cary weight because: a) he is an expert on Nikon b) he has a fairly good track record. I posted links to his current predictions just a few posts ago, but you can read annotated versions of his predicitons for the past several years and judge for yourself. (he has added commentary to point out which predictions came true and which did not) > But even if the launch of new film cameras slows down, you appear to be > confusing film cameras with film. There are still a lot of film users > out there. And economics suggests that whilst there is a market, there > will be a supplier. Here is an analogy: Suppose car manufacturers decided that as of today, there would be no more gasoline cars, only hydrogen fuel cell. It's true that there are plenty of cars out there, and there would be strong demand for gasoline today. But surely you can see that eventually the demand for gasoline will drop to a point that the corner gas station will no longer carry it. Before that happens, of course, they would drop the mid grade, and then the regular grade. Eventually there would be a number of people with cars that still run just fine, who would have difficulty obtaining fuel. Try to buy film for a disc camera recently? Bob .. >> But even if the launch of new film cameras slows down, you appear to >> be confusing film cameras with film. There are still a lot of film [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Bob How is this for another prediction? My two year old DSLR will be dead before my four year old film SLR. Because the sw I require to use it will be outdated long before film supplies dry up. And will they still be making compatible storage devices when the film dries up? And then there is the replacment for the digital camera. That will not be too far away. Steve > How is this for another prediction? My two year old DSLR will be dead > before my four year old film SLR. Because the sw I require to use it > will be outdated long before film supplies dry up. And will they still > be making compatible storage devices when the film dries up? And then > there is the replacment for the digital camera. That will not be too far > away. Longevity of cameras is a way different topic than availability of film. Bob > Longevity of cameras is a way different topic than availability of film. But very relative and intrinsically linked. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >>Longevity of cameras is a way different topic than availability of film. > > But very relative and intrinsically linked. Not necessarily -- Just because there might be billions of functional film cameras does not mean that there will be billions of people wanting to buy film for them. Bob > Not necessarily -- Just because there might be billions of functional > film cameras does not mean that there will be billions of people wanting > to buy film for them. > > Bob Its a quality issue. The more incentive for makers not to make a quality product at an affordable price the more you will pay to get that quality back, end of story. If your spending 3k now to get 1/2 the quality a 6x6 MF camera which might cost 3k for an outfit that would otherwise have free clear life span ( Once paid for////I paid for mine after a few jobs). Now that 3k buys you a system that is obsolete in 3-5 years,..........what do think it will cost in 5 years to re-buy a better system to stay on par with the competition? But there are whole lots of issues like a shrinking pro market that can afford that 3k+ system on a three year cycle so makers are less inclined to build better systems that have no obsolescence built in. Of course as a pro I can deduct that 3k+ in one year thanks to Uncle Sam so maybe I shouldn't complain. But I have to have enough good jobs to pay for it,....plus everything else :-) SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 ... > Longevity of cameras is a way different topic than availability of film. > > Bob The reasons might be, but the end result is the same. Lack of film is just one reason why, but why not consider others, and those specific to digital? Steve > ... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > just one reason why, but why not consider others, and those specific to > digital? I don't understand what you're getting at. I've been attempting to explain why I feel a lack of demand at the consumer and professional level for 35mm color negative film, paried with a conversion of movie distribution from film to digital, will result in the disappearance of 35mm color negative film from the marketplace. It doesn't matter if the cameras continue to work for 100 years. I've got a camera that works which takes 125 film. I've likewise got a camera that takes disk film. The fact that the cameras continue to work doesn't mean that film will be available for them. My turntable works just fine too, and I bet there were more of those in the US marketplace than 35mm cameras. I am aware of no store within 100 miles of my house that sells LPs. You can still buy turntables, btw. Bob > Why can't digital and film co-exist, each on its own merits? Why must > one displace the other? Good questions, to which I will add, Why is one trying to displace the other? Why does one insist it IS the other? I have no problem with digital (I use it for documentation at work, but not for photography), as long as it admits it is radically more different from chemical processes than any of the chemical processes are from each other. It is a fine, worthy art form in its own right and deserves its own category, its own award ceremonies, its own newsgroups. >> Why can't digital and film co-exist, each on its own merits? Why > must >> one displace the other? > > Good questions, to which I will add, Why is one trying to displace the > other? It's about the marketplace and profit. Perhaps we will be fortunate to continue to find film made by a private company not driven by the dynamics of stockholders. > It's about the marketplace and profit. Perhaps we will be fortunate to > continue to find film made by a private company not driven by the dynamics > of stockholders. Where would they come up with the money to build the plants, if not from stockholders? I don't know what it costs to build a plant to manufacture film, but it can't be cheap. Bob > Where would they come up with the money to build the plants, if not from > stockholders? I don't know what it costs to build a plant to manufacture > film, but it can't be cheap. Study foreign economics. >>Where would they come up with the money to build the plants, if not from >>stockholders? I don't know what it costs to build a plant to manufacture >>film, but it can't be cheap. > > Study foreign economics. I've got enough credits in economics to have a degree. Bob > Good questions, to which I will add, Why is one trying to displace the > other? Money. > Why does one insist it IS the other? That's a new one on me. > I have no problem with > digital (I use it for documentation at work, but not for photography), > as long as it admits it is radically more different from chemical > processes than any of the chemical processes are from each other. In digital: light passes through a lens, falls on a photo sensitive receptor and is recorded. In film: light passes through a lens, falls on a photo sensitive receptor and is recorded. What's the "radically more different" part? > It is > a fine, worthy art form in its own right and deserves its own category, > its own award ceremonies, its own newsgroups. In most cases, the award criteria seem to revolve around subject matter and composition. There's little point to two awards, unless points are awarded for darkroom technique, I suppose. There are digital newsgroups, of course, but I think this is an on-topic discussion here. As people consider whether or not to invest time and money setting up a darkroom, considering the future of film is very relevent. Bob . > > Why does one insist it IS the other? > > That's a new one on me. Digital imaging is photography. Never heard that one eh? New in these parts? :) > > I have no problem with > > digital (I use it for documentation at work, but not for photography), > > as long as it admits it is radically more different from chemical > > processes than any of the chemical processes are from each other. > > In digital: light passes through a lens, Thats where the similarites end, and the denial begins. falls on a photo sensitive > receptor and is recorded. > > In film: light passes through a lens, falls on a photo sensitive > receptor and is recorded. > > What's the "radically more different" part? The computer. The digital. The hard drives, hardware, software. Thats the radically different. The other parts are just very, very different. Except for the lens. You got me there! ;-) > > It is > > a fine, worthy art form in its own right and deserves its own category, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and composition. There's little point to two awards, unless points are > awarded for darkroom technique, I suppose. denial, denial, denial. >There are digital newsgroups, Thats because it is different. > of course, but I think this is an on-topic discussion here. As people > consider whether or not to invest time and money setting up a darkroom, > considering the future of film is very relevent. I agree. "Wayne" <wayne99@fastmail.fm> wrote in message > > > Why does one insist it IS the other? > > > > That's a new one on me. > > Digital imaging is photography. Never heard that one eh? New in these > parts? :) > > In digital: light pas |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message