View Full Version : Does film photography have a future?
shutterfiend
04-03-2007, 11:40
We live in an age when most digital SLRs and some serious digital P&S cameras rival the clarity and grain of medium format. Most professionals have switched to digital already and even film-loyal prosumers are taking the dive in droves. Startup cost, perhaps still the only deterrent, is plummeting fast. Does film (especially 35mm) stand a chance in the long run?
Silva Lining
04-03-2007, 11:50
Theres been a lot of debate on this one. IMHO Film will continue as a niche art product for enthusiast and hobbiests. Many people suggest the variety and choice will drop, but I think that it might actually increase in certain areas - with 'speciality' films commanding a premium price. I've been using digital for 5-6 years - but probably shoot more film now than I have ever done...... :D
Bill Liss
04-03-2007, 12:01
I agree. I think it will become even more of an art form, rather than a tool. Digital, for the most part, seems more practical, but film is more like a classic art. Sort of like how I still like to write and take notes on a notepad, rather than a keyboard. Different strokes for differents folks, is what my dad used to tell me.
I have been shooting for 31 years, the last 16 years as a full time living with 12 of those using digital.
I own 10 camera bodies, only two are digital. While I shoot at least 80,000 digital images a year, film use has seen a sharp increase in the past two years. I just like it.
In fact, I like it so much that I have over 5,000 feet of great black and white films in my freezer for future use. My clients are loving it, they have been missing looking at great chromes on the light table and many still have the budget to get high end drum scans.
So for pro use, digital versus film is split about 60/40 in favor of digital. But for personal use, it is 100% film. I think many people are tired as heck at chasing the latest and greatest not to mention spending far too much time in front of a computer looking through hundreds if not thousands of raw or jpeg files.
It will be around for some time, especially in the fine art markets.
KoNickon
04-03-2007, 12:32
I think 35mm will be around for the foreseeable future. Someone pointed out in another one of these threads that just as photography didn't mean the end of painting, so too will digital not mean the end of film. Casual picture takers will migrate overwhelmingly to digital, I expect.
I am concerned that medium format could get squeezed out, so I encourage folks to take a lot of MF (and since the equipment is so inexpensive these days relative to where it was, it's a great time to get into it).
I think 35mm will be around for the foreseeable future. Someone pointed out in another one of these threads that just as photography didn't mean the end of painting, so too will digital not mean the end of film. Casual picture takers will migrate overwhelmingly to digital, I expect.
I am concerned that medium format could get squeezed out, so I encourage folks to take a lot of MF (and since the equipment is so inexpensive these days relative to where it was, it's a great time to get into it).
I have purchased about 400 rolls of Ilford 120 film in the last 6 months..:D
film is dead, therefore your leicas are as useful as doorstops -- they are also highly toxic, so package them up with hazmat stickers, lots of air packs and mail them to me for proper disposal.
There will be no need for film in the future. Digital will eventually surpass film in every way. Notice how I said "will". IMO, digital is not there yet. It is better than film in many respects, but also trails film in others.
I don't post much but I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I would imagine that it may get harder to buy film locally (I went to Bromfield Camera, one of Boston's oldest camera shops, the other day and they had NO medium format film and very little 35mm) but I can't imagine that main stream 35mm films will be gone soon. Tri-X for example can't be that expensive to make. I'm not the only one who thinks so. Considering rangefinders alone, camera's like the Leica MP and the Ziess Ikon RF are examples that major manufacturers agree. It may be harder and more expensive to get chemicals, but, as people move towards digital, other darkroom stuff will get cheaper. Just look at the enlargers on ebay!
I sure hope I'm right 'cause I'm LOVING my new (to me at least) M6!
Hi!
Film will survive in a niche, I agree.
During the last months I have met many people who experienced a similar development I did.
In the 1990s I shot film (of course). Starting in 2000 I increasingly shot with digital cams, but about 1 year ago I've started to shoot on film again. It is a haptic thing, isn't it?
Now, I use either or even both.
April ´07 Dec ´06
E100G 135-36 (USA) 6.49 5.99
E100GX 135-36 (USA) 6.49 5.99
E100VS 135-36 (USA) 6.75 6.29
E200 135-36 (USA) 9.25 8.95
EPH P1600 135-36 (USA) 15.20 14.95
EPL 400X 135-36 (USA) 13.99 13.99
EPN 100 135-36 (USA) 11.70 10.95
EPP 100 Plus 135-36 (USA) 11.70 10.95
EPR 64 135-36 (USA) 12.49 11.95
EPY 64T 135-36 (USA) 10.99 10.59
KL 200 135-36 (USA) 7.25 7.19
KR 64 135-36 (USA) 6.59 6.49
PKR 64 135-36 (USA) 11.49 11.49
RAP Astia 100F 135-36 (USA) 4.99 5.49
RDP-III Provia 100F (USA) 4.59 4.49
RVP Velvia 100 (USA) 5.55 5.25
Sorry I did not make a pdf file.
First price is April 07, and second price is Dec 06 all from B&H.
I was just looking at my table that I created in Mid Dec ´06 of B&H prices and just looked at today´s prices from B&H. I did not go through every film, just looked at a few chromes.
Film will be a niche, but at what price? :D
Cheers
MArk
Quito, EC
As a mass product for a mass market film is already dead. Here you get a very limited range of film at some electronics chains, it has almost vanished from super markets, safe Fuji Z200, and totaly vanished from gas stations.
If it weren't for rangefinders, I wouldn't use film anymore.
With rangefinders I buy B/W online and drive some 60 miles to get developer.
We have had cameras at our disposal for nearly two centuries, and computers for about half a century. And yet, people still pick up canvas, brushes and paints, and designers still pick up pencils and paper to illustrate.
We have had cameras at our disposal for nearly two centuries, and computers for about half a century. And yet, people still pick up canvas, brushes and paints, and designers still pick up pencils and paper to illustrate.
How many painters per computer?
How many guitars per MP3 player?
Agfa and Forte are history, Kodaks labs in germany were closed in 2005, CeWe Color is converting to digital and so on.
It's a niche market already and will become even more niche within this year.
I will find my films somewhere on the internet, but one day I may find it to expensive.
Socke. Things go full circle.
One day commercial film will become too expensive, so people will resort to DIY emulsions (which is used as a niche currently) and that means using old large format cameras.
Maybe Europe is different, but I can find virtually any film, chemical, DR equipment etc at more than 3 locations within a 10 minute drive from home. Henry's has a wide selection of all of these, and so do the smaller mom&pop stores. And I'm not even in a major centre.....right now I have several rolls of Tmax, APX, Tri-X, Delta, HP5, PanF....and there's even more selection in colour.
I find it kind of weird that in the land of Leica where there must be a huge number of M's still being used there is difficulty getting film......
notanothercamera
04-03-2007, 13:22
Good Gawd, I hope film survives!! I have two digital compacts, a Canon A510 and a digital ELPH my wife uses. Neither one of us likes the prints rendered from a digital image, but we do tend to use them as "snap shot" cameras.
It could be the quality of the lens, or camera, or whatever; but I am not in a position to spend $6,000 plus for a digital SLR in order to get results that I would be happy with.
I guess I am just an old film burner at heart. I still use film for my "serious" photography :)
darkkavenger
04-03-2007, 13:27
The successive taming of horses, invention of wheelcarts, bicycles, cars, trains and planes didn't stop us from walking, and so it is with any other technique. You may spend your days on a car, but if you want, you can use a bike. You're free to do so. and if you want to build a drakkar (langskip) for your personal needs, you can also do it. It's not just a matter of bleeding-edge technology. It's a matter of will. You can use old chemical processes like those used in the beginning of photography. Film is going to die ? We've heard that one for years and years. Did the introduction of the CD killed the production of audiocassettes ? Or the introduction of DVD killed the VHS format ?
I second what Ash says, in a way. If people want, they can even do their own old-style homemade emulsions. We are not forced to dive into technology. Just my point of view. :)
But who knows what the future will bring ? Immediate developing film ? digitally stored data into a roll of film ? epson and other firms are already developing electronic paper. We just don't know. and in case, i can always buy 100 bulk rolls of fomapan 100/400 and freeze them for eternity ;)
yep, I just ordered Foma 100, 200 and 400.
Pherdinand
04-03-2007, 13:41
yeah vhs and audio tapes are pretty much dead.
The only thing that kept them alive for a while was that cd,dvd burning was expensive.
You can't compare this film thing to cars versus walking.
You can't go to the toilet by car. But you don't normally walk from prague to paris. These are two different things and both are necessary.
Same holds for painting vs photography. One does not replace the other, because it works differently and it results in a different thing.
A more fair comparison would be the replacement of some pigment materials, or,back to vehicles, replacement of steam engines with diesel or electric.
People can keep the film business alive. We, people. If we question its survival, that's one first nail into its coffin.
Pherdinand
04-03-2007, 13:46
by the way - surprisingly, while film did disappear in its full scale from most shops here, only a few c41's being still available in most photo shops, there still stands the hema, a general store of low price everything from cloths through kitchen utensils to food, and hema still sells the same iso125 and iso400 black and white film. Yes, traditional. People say it's ilford fp4+ and hp5+... Could be but it's considerably cheaper...
There are a few of these hema shops in at least every town in the Netherlands.
Does anyone think TriX or E6 gets used by non-hobbyist consumers today, or even 5 years ago?
mtbbrian
04-03-2007, 14:06
I am growing weary of this question..
Ultimately, I believe it does and will remain my aesthetic.
If you believe that it is still a viable option then go for it.
Brian
foto_fool
04-03-2007, 15:04
Does anyone else see convergence? I like shooting film. When I get a good image it is much better and more rewarding than digital. But I like to scan my negs and use a digital darkroom.
- John
We live in an age when most digital SLRs and some serious digital P&S cameras rival the clarity and grain of medium format. Most professionals have switched to digital already
Well, let's clarify a point or two. Dslr clarity rivaling mf film is, at best, an opinion. At this point in time there is no...NO...objective test to make a definitive conclusion. Beauty, it seems, is still in the eye of the beholder.
Yes, many pros have gone digital. In speaking with alot of pros as well as reading articles and news posts from many pros the decision to move to digital was primarily a business decision driven by cost of the deliverable end product. Many, many of these guys shoot film when they are doing fine art work or for their personal enjoyment.
Film will be around for a long time yet. And it will continue to serve as the standard digital seeks to achieve.
Best Regards,
Bob
NickTrop
04-03-2007, 19:04
Though I can't source it, heard/read a couple years ago - can't recall where, that a BILLION rolls of film were sold world-wide. The (let's see 1,2,3...) 3 labs (one of which is a pro lab that does my medium format color)/3 drug stores that are within a 10 minute drive from my house in the suburbs of Philadelphia all seem to be doing quite well, the A thu Z bins stacked with processed prints.
To me - "I" represent a "market". And this market refuses to shoot digital, which I think from the cameras to the images "suck" - from their annoying as hell blown highlights to their bland, dull, computer dependent, battery eating, software dependent, crappy slow 3.5-5.6 zoom lenses, to their finicky and expensive to run inkjet printer dependent crappy images to their futzy little cheap plastic buttons to their annoying drop-down menus, to their "firmware updates". I might be a "niche market" we digital haters... but we're a market none-the-less. And where there's a market, there will be someone to fill it.
There's a reason why TV shows with any type of budget shoot on beautiful, evocatie FIL-UM, and leave digital to cheap reality TV shows and cheap soap operas. Could it be their bland computer generated "captured images" aren't evocative enough for drama? What would that crappy digital image look like blown up to the size of a huge movie screen that 35mm film does without a problem?
Are they coming out with digital slide film anytime soon? Or will I have to spend thousands on a digital projector for the priviledge of viewing horrible, crappy projected digital images? Pros who shoot digital do it for a cost savings. A concession. You get what you pay for.
One question might be, do digital cameras have a future? Might people - pros and amateurs alike, eventually get sick of buying a new $250, $350, $500, $1000, $5000, $10,000 camera every couple years? My "newest" camera is 17 years old. My oldest - still functional, a Russian Iskra (cost with CLA $160) is about 47 years old... still taking great pics, still going strong. What number DSLRs produced in 2007 will be snapping pics in the year 2054? Bet not a lot. Bet not any.
antiquark
04-04-2007, 07:22
Aren't disposable cameras (which use film) still selling well? I thought they were in fact a growth market.
Anyways, if disposables continue to be popular, that should keep the film infrastructure alive.
You're right about disposable film cameras being a growth market.
Does film photography have a future? It does in my house and my wife supports this Don Quixote!
Last year she bought me a Leica M6TTL, 35mm 'Cron ASPH, Leitz Focomat V35 and she's made room for 900 feet of film in the freezer/fridge for me. She even encouraged me to buy a CV 21/4 Skopar two weeks ago. Of course I seem to manage to make good photos of her and the kids. What can you do? I'm lucky!
Cheers from filmworld,
Alex
p.s. If film goes down, I'm going down with it - all the way baby!
darkkavenger
04-04-2007, 07:35
Pherdinand you have a very good point and I was sure that someone would bring it up. :)
... well, i have a freezer full, just in case!
Film will be around long after we've 'logged out'
Film has a great future in the short term. I'll be shooting some tomorrow :-)
Ian
ibcrewin
04-04-2007, 09:14
Did you know you can still buy Betamax tapes..
Case closed..
Last year she bought me a Leica M6TTL, 35mm 'Cron ASPH, Leitz Focomat V35 and she's made room for 900 feet of film in the freezer/fridge for me. She even encouraged me to buy a CV 21/4 Skopar two weeks ago.
OK, and what did you have to get her in return? (I've been married for nearly 20 years, and there definitely ain't no such thing as a free camera :D)
Well Alan, nothing. My wife just really likes me. I give her a VERY good lifestyle (wife of a diplomat). She just really likes it when I have something to do that is creative. What can I say, I'm lucky - seriously!
Best from Jerusalem!
Alex
mike goldberg
04-04-2007, 13:08
Hi... here's my 2-cents worth.
Film will be around for a long time.
Those who are not computer savvy, the elderly, and those committed to
fine film photography, like RFF and other Forums... WILL help to keep
film alive.
There's a lot of hype in the digital camera industry, with the megapixel wars and 'built-in obsalescence.' The 1-hour Labs, have every right to have 'their
day in court' as well. Business is, in effect, the Law of Supply & Demand.
Yes, there are zillions of people walking around with P & S digicams... worldwide.
And, it seems that in a lot of places worldwide, film is still available.
Oh my... we can talk this subject to death, hmm?
Let's get out there and use the good stuff :D
Cheers, mike
Well Alan, nothing. My wife just really likes me. I give her a VERY good lifestyle (wife of a diplomat). She just really likes it when I have something to do that is creative. What can I say, I'm lucky - seriously!
You certainly are, Alex :)
Cameraphones now account for 9% of all consumer still images; that's double what it was a year ago. Cameraphones are eating up the disposable film camera market much faster than anybody (especially Kodak) thought possible. Super cheap one-time digitals are already on the market; they will take over the wedding/party portion of the disposables market in no time. In the US, film disposables will most likely survive in "evidence kits" and other legal applications where digital is considered too easy to manipulate/forge/fake. But the entire casual photography market is going all-digital really, really soon. Pros will be 90% digital by 2010; they are already 70%+ digital.
So...where does that leave us? I think we're going to go through a period of very limited film availability pretty damn soon. Maybe we're already in the midst of it. BUT...if all the majors get out of the film business, smaller players will emerge to serve the film diehards of the world. We've seen this happen with almost every other "obsolete" consumer technology and it's much more likely than not going to happen with film. There are about half a billion 35mm cameras in existence; even if only 1% of them remain in use, it would be enough of a market to support several small suppliers.
Just be prepared to pay though the nose and possibly other orifices for your film, folks.
George Bonanno
04-04-2007, 22:58
designers still pick up pencils and paper to illustrate.
That's hilarious... surely you jest.
They use Wacom tablets.
Best,
George
Film would not be disappeared. You see, Cosina is still producing the Bessa series. I don't afraid I could not get couple rolls when I need them.
Did you know you can still buy Betamax tapes..
Case closed..
Start here: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rls=HPIB,HPIB:2006-10,HPIB:en&q=Beta+Tapes
Bob
Earlier, Pherdinand mentioned the widespread dutch chainstore "Hema" who sell their own brand of colour-negative, b+w and transparency films in 35mm. I have used the b+w film (sold in packs of three !) a few times quite reasonably and used their cheap E6 frequently, for testing camera shutters etc.
This evening I went back to get a few rolls of E6, but I was told that it will no longer be stocked and that the black+white is under review. This has happened just in the last week or so, oops.
I also recall reading that Ilford intended to stop making own-label films for other sellers, so perhaps that will be another problem for the future of any Hema b+w film - depending on their supply contracts etc of course.
:(
Al Patterson
04-05-2007, 15:25
Last I heard, one can still purchase canvas and put paint on it... Wasn't film supposed to eliminate the need to mess up canvas with sloppy paste of many colors?
This has to be the silliest question on photo fora, which is why my answer is also silly, I.E., Ask a silly question...
One of the main issues I have with digital is the equipment. I went out shooting with a friend the other day, me with my R3a, him with a Nikon DSLR. Now he is perfectly happy with it, but boy the size of it... he takes a fair sized rucksack with him wherever he goes. Now I could never do that - it would stop me shooting. He finds it no problem - fair enough - but says that he never shoots street (in the loosest sense) photography because he doesnt feel comfortable doing it, and I can see why - he looks like a paparazzo.. That's not to say he doesnt shoot seriously good pictures.
Plus I want 3 basic controls - shutter speed, aperture, focus. I cannot be arsed with menus, screens, buttons etc. I would consider an M8 when everything is shaken out with it but I weigh it up against the MP and for me it is a no brainer. So for the modest type of photography I aspire to , simpler & smaller is better for me, and that means film.
As an aside, I also have a couple of standard 8 cine cameras I occasionally use, (one of which I think dates back to the 30's) which as a format was supposedly rendered obsolete in 1965 and as a technology in the mid 80's - I can still get the film so whilst I try not to be complacent about the future of film (keep buying!) I am stoical.
MadMan2k
04-05-2007, 16:28
Where do you find the standard 8 film? I've looked for some, but it seems pretty rare, and expensive considering the camera (kodak brownie 8mm movie camera) I have cost $2.50...
Bike Tourist
04-05-2007, 16:33
I have determined that film has a future at least ten years beyond my own.
Therefor, it's not my problem.
I think film will be around for quite some time, but in a broad historical sense I think we're approaching the sunset of film's day. After that perhaps a long twilight. After that, maybe just a few campfires on the hillside. It's still some way off but digicams just keep getting better and better. I use both film and digital and although it's a totally personal opinion, I believe they're at par right now, with each having strengths and some shortcomings. My much devalued $0.02 CAD.
Gene
NickTrop
04-05-2007, 17:35
40th Anniversary of Super 8 film
Kodak celebrates 40th anniversary of super 8 film announces new color reversal product to portfolio
ROCHESTER, NY, May 9 -From its beginnings as the home movie medium of the 1960s, Super 8 film is alive and well, and serving a vital segment of today's filmmaking industry...
...Kodak remains committed to the Super 8 format, as evidenced by the new film announced today. Kodak is building on a product line that covers the needs of enthusiasts, from a choice of stocks in negative, black and white, and reversal films.
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/about/news/super8.jhtml
----------
Gim'me a break. This article came out in 2005, when Kodak introduced a NEW SUPER 8 FILM. 35mm still camera film will be available to your grandchildren. My question is, does still digital capture have a future given its poor quality relative to film, major inconveniences, slow processing on home PCs, need to manipulate every image you shoot to get one that's acceptable, reliance on batteries that drain in hours, reliance on computers and software, need for unreliable storage devices certain to crash or become unreadable, reliance on competing file formats sure not to be around years from now, and accelerated obsolescence cycle that caused people like me to return to film???
I mean you don't need this near perfect product - get a decent camera that lasts for decades (or even a lifetime if you bother to CLA it every couple decades), buy a roll of film for a few bucks, snap away, drop it off on almost any corner in the nation, and get a bunch of prints back for about a quarter a pop, in about an hour. Perfect... Nope, nope none of that. You need this thing - this futzy complicated new plastic gadget that costs $300 for a point and shoot than can't do above 200 ISO that requires a computer, expensive short lived batteries, has 1/3 the resolution of film, a printer, expensive inks, expensive software, mass storage... and will take you hours going cross-eyed in front of your PC or Kiosk to get the same number of prints you can get at any drugstore in about an hour for $8.00 if you used film.
Digital imaging and its so-called "advantages" is the biggest scam ever perpetrated by the marketing departments of Japanese consumer electronics companies. They managed to convince an unsuspecting public that a darn near perfect product (film and film cameras) that is superior in nearly every way to digital, is actually inferior to a new technology, convincing people to throw away perfectly good - actually better cameras that take better more evocative, deeper, richer, more visually interesting, and more sophisticated images, more easily, which are much more fun and simplier to use...
...and run out and plunk down hundreds/thousands of dollars on an inferior new technology...
Brilliant!
Big tobacco, I'm sure, is taking notes...
Leica - to their credit, resisted this lunacy until they nearly went bankrupt. Their engineers, I'm sure, are still scratching their heads - Let me get this straight. You want to put this outstanding piece of high-end glass on that crappy low-res (relative to film) highlight destroying digital sensor? Er, okay, whatever...
But a lot of this "logic" seems to be going around these days. We had people in high places who convinced a nation that attacking a country that didn't have anything to do with a tragic and infamous terrorist attack, actually takes precidence over capturing and punishing the actual perpetrators of the attack... ...going on five years, thousands of lives, and hundreds of billions of wasted dollars later...
... so I guess anything is possible
Where do you find the standard 8 film? I've looked for some, but it seems pretty rare, and expensive considering the camera (kodak brownie 8mm movie camera) I have cost $2.50...
Here is a useful list of suppliers:
http://www.standard8.org/film_stock.php
Due to standard 8 film's close relationship with 16mm, and lack of dependence on a cartridge, I suspect it will be around longer than Super 8 paradoxically...
Hmmm now I've got the Bolex H8 lust again
amateriat
04-05-2007, 19:12
To echo Dick's sentiment: I don't have an infinite future, either, but I expect to be using film for some time yet. Just what I'll be shooting with, say, in five to ten years' time is anyone's guess (and, who knows, perhaps a true "killer" digital system will emerge in that time; it isn't here now, IMO), but I'll find material to work with. And I don't take for granted what I have to work with now.
- Barrett
My question is, does still digital capture have a future given its poor quality relative to film, major inconveniences, slow processing on home PCs, need to manipulate every image...(and on and on)
Sorry Nick. When I shoot kids with my M4, they run around behind me expecting to see the picture on an LCD. Film's future is a question, but digital is here to stay.
we have newspapers, radio, and television. I use all three on a daily basis for news and entertainment. I also use my PC for the same. At the introduction of each new media, there was alot of handwringing about how the existing media were now "dead." It never ceases to amaze me how many people fail to learn from the history that stares them in the face every day. (Let's take bets on how many people respond with a comment on how they heard newspapers are in trouble because of internet advertising :) )
Film won't be "dead" until people stop asking if it is :/
yeah, and they still make horsewhips and buggies and so on. But nobody makes real to real audio tapes anymore.
pesphoto
04-06-2007, 04:47
When I have kids in the near future they sure as heck will know film and darkrooms way before they know anything about digital cameras.
NickTrop
04-06-2007, 05:04
Sorry Nick. When I shoot kids with my M4, they run around behind me expecting to see the picture on an LCD. Film's future is a question, but digital is here to stay.
Again, people are used to a new technology being better than the technology it replaces. Japanese consumer electronic companies are aware of this assumption, and brilliantly exploited this consumer assumption to sell an inferior technology - digital, to the masses. They were able to get the picture quality good enough on digital (from a resolution standpoint) on small prints to dupe the world into throwing out their perfectly good but "old" cameras in favor of a new technology with a good "hook"/gimmick - seeing you pictures immediately on a tiny LCD screen. Big deal. Because some people are conditioned to this gimmick (as the novelty wears off for others) does not predict the longevity of the inferior medium.
Digital is inferior in almost every way to film. Film blows it away from a quality standpoint, a convenience standpoint, and a cost standpoint (beyond a certain volume, which is why "pros" shoot it for crappy commercial work). Film and film cameras are a near perfect technology. Buy a roll of film - cheap. Drop it off and have it developed (cheap if your not doing 100 rolls). Pick it up in an hour. Blow it up to near any size without concern of images getting blurry or pixelated. No need for batteries on "the best" of the cameras (the all manual ones). Perfect. Want to project an image? No biggie. Shoot slide, and project the image on a billboard if you want. Cameras? Last a lifetime under normal use, with a CLA ever couple decades. No need for computers, short-lived expensive rechargable batteries, finicky short-lived printers, printer inks, cables,
or software, "firmware updates" to fix problems after release, bugs - like an unwanted "IR Mode" on pricey cameras etc., etc., etc...
Film - a perfect technology with - what, proven three times the resolution of digital? Better control of highlights? More interesting, rich, deeper images that cause TV producers to /INSIST/ on film for dramas, leaving the crappy digital capture for soap operas cheap reality TV shows...
Why?
Because they know digital is cheap but not evocative. If digital capture was evocative enough, ALL TV would be shot on it. Why do you think this is not the case in 2007?
And again,
1. Film is a near perfect technology the blows digital away in nearly every aspect from cost to image quality. People are beginning to recognize this.
2. Digital imaging and its so-called "advantages" is the biggest scam ever perpetrated by the marketing departments of Japanese consumer electronics companies.
3. Hey, people get duped sometimes. But - like the war in Iraq, start to catch one after a while.
So, again, my question is, does the inferior technology, digital, have a future?
Al Patterson
04-06-2007, 05:30
And again,
2. Digital imaging and its so-called "advantages" is the biggest scam ever perpetrated by the marketing departments of Japanese consumer electronics companies.
Nick,
While I agree with you, try posting this quote over at www.dpreview.com and see what the response is...
pesphoto
04-06-2007, 05:53
i have to agree that for me film is the only way to go.
But digital does have a place...especially in the commercial world and wedding world. My wife shoots weddings and digital has revolutionized the wedding photography industry. The only drawback is that so many people now think they can just buy a digital camera and call themselves a professional photographer. But in terms of making the whole process easier, quicker and aslo more profitable makes digital so worth it for professional use.
robert blu
04-06-2007, 08:58
I do really hope film will have a future . I just bought a new film scanner !
rob
I appreciate a well-reasoned argument in favor of something I personally love dearly, but the cultural shift toward digital's instant gratification and perceived quality is already complete. Nobody in the mass market cares that my Leica is almost as old as I am; nobody in the mass market has cared much about camera longevity since the Polaroid Swinger. Photography equipment is a huge industry that runs like all other corporate interests: in pursuit of profit. Average people - who buy 90%+ of everything the industry makes - are not sorry to see film go; "good riddance" is a fair summary of their attitudes towards film. Many, many people who stopped taking pictures years ago have now bought digitals and are snapping away. One study says there are probably already 500 billion digital images among consumers, only a tiny fraction of which will ever be printed. 11% of Americans have more than 10,000 digital images; how many Americans EVER had that many film negatives? Cameras are now PC peripherals for the vast majority - and people are delighted with this. From their point of view, those of us that prefer to shoot film are like the cranks who still argue that no word processor is better than a Remington Noiseless Junior typewriter.
Film may be a nearly-perfect technology as you describe it; it is also a technology that average people have RUN, not walked away from as soon as there was a viable alternative with compelling new features. The allure of the P&S digital camera among average people is astonishing. I know people who never really figured out their VCRs and who are constantly shooting video clips instead of stills because they can't even remember to make sure their digicam is set to "Auto" - but they will still tell you how much better their shiny new plastic wonder is than their old film camera. The truth is they hated loading film, they hated unloading film, they hated taking film to be processed, they hated waiting for it to be developed and printed, they hated that 17 shots out of 36 sucked but they had to pay for them anyway. Just the single fact that they can now instantly review and discard their failures absolutely dooms film for them. Digital is a dream come true for this sort of person, meaning 90%+ of all people who ever press a shutter release.
The simple fact is that we film enthusists are a drop in the global photography industry bucket. Thankfully it is a very large bucket, so I do expect film to continue for those who really want it and are willing to pay for it. But the last new film camera I bought - a very nifty Rollei Prego for my wife - is literally worth less than nothing today. It has depreciated completely, while an early digital I bought a year later can still draw eBay buyers. In the mass market, film is dead and nothing short of a reversal in the laws of physics is going to bring it back.
Japanese consumer electronic companies are aware of this assumption, and brilliantly exploited this consumer assumption to sell an inferior technology - digital, to the masses.
2. Digital imaging and its so-called "advantages" is the biggest scam ever perpetrated by the marketing departments of Japanese consumer electronics companies.
I'm trying to figure out why it's only the "Japanese" being singled out.
toyotadesigner
04-06-2007, 13:10
But nobody makes real to real audio tapes anymore.
Wrong. Studer Revox does.
Funny, I've been doing the "digital dance" for the last week or so, and finally got out to a store to handle some of my candidates.
I was surprised at the decent quality and feel, the speed to "ready" when turned on-
But I can't buy any of them. At least not as a hobby camera, and that's what photography is for me, a hobby.
They either rely on the LCD screen (bigger now, but still difficult for me to enjoy), have a miserable little peep-hole, or an execrable electronic viewfinder that works better if I close my eyes. The SLRs are way too big. I just wouldn't enjoy using them. It outweighs any convenience in not having to develop and scan.
As for image quality, I have to agree with Nick-slides are so far ahead, even 35mm. I hope someday scanners can do them justice so the silly internet comparisons might quiet down.
Frankly, my 2.2 MP Nikon Coolpix seems to do all I need from a digital right now.
Al Patterson
04-06-2007, 15:08
To be entirely fair, my digital P&S has replaced my film P&S in which I used mainly color print film. My slides and B&W film use is still done with either SLRs or Rangefinders.
Slides aren't better than a decent digital SLR, sorry to say that. Up to ISO100 you may get more resolution out of a 35mm slide if you use equipment far more expensive than a Canon 1d or Nikon D2x.
Only projected slides have an advantage and that's mostly due to the low resolution digital projectors.
ISO 800 slide film as clean as an image from a Canon 20d hasn't been invented yet. Even at ISO400 the Canon digital is better.
C-41 has a slight advantage in lattitude and traditional B/W has a big one.
But there is no film with Velvia resolution, Plus-X lattitude and E100 colours.
And film isn't cheap! The cheapo Fuji Z200 stuff they sell here for 1.75 Euro a roll is plain ugly. Grainy and and an ugly yellow cast, horrible skin tones, not worth the 3 Euro for 3 days processing. My Canon d60, five years old and three times obsoleted but I still use it, is far better than that stuff.
So I compare to Fuji Superia, 2.75 a roll ISO200 plus 13 Euro for 1 hour processing, 4x6 prints and a CD with highly compressed 1300x1800 jpegs, make that 16 Euro per roll. One roll a week for a year buys you a decent dSLR with a decent lens!
That's why I shoot Elitechrome 100 and Sensia 100, 3 Euro a roll including development with 3 to 5 days turnaround, ISO 200 is more than double that, ISO 400 is a whopping 6 Euro per roll PLUS 3 Euro processing and thus out of my range.
E6 one hour processing? Yes, we still have a lab doing this, 6 Euros a roll and 20 Euros for the chemicals. We used that lab for a comercial shot where we needed more than the 8 MPixel from a 1D MkII.
5 Rolls Ektachrome 100gx for 32 Euro, 50 Euro processing, 15 drum scanns for 270 Euro, total 352 Euro! 10 Jobs like that and a Hasselbald H3D Kit has been payed for.
I shoot film because this is the only way too use the cameras I like.
Perhaps scanned slide film is not up to Canon SLR spec, but I prefer to look at slides directly or projected. I seldom use slides at over 100 ISO. On prints, I doubt anyone could tell the difference, or care.
The economic argument is sound, if that is one's priority. Obviously we're all happier with our old cameras!
Socke made it quite clear... now we can have it while it last or while we can.. handle the cost.
Socke made it quite clear... now we can have it while it last or while we can.. handle the cost.
I shoot film because this is the only way too use the cameras I like.
Amen to that...I don't want an M8 because it sounds like a gravel crusher to me, but if they had got it right I would have been first in line. I don't have a DSLR and have abandoned my last film SLR because after playing with a rangefinder for any time at all, I just can't stand looking down that damn tunnel!
I'm trying to figure out why it's only the "Japanese" being singled out.
My thoughts exactly. Especially since it's also a certain Japanese company that keeps on producing film and improving the technology required to make them (btw, the new Velvia50 will be out on April 15 :)). And aside from that German camera manufacturer, aren't all the new rangefinders produced in Japan? Oh, and do you know that that German manufacturer loves the Japanese so much they even make a Japan-only model and established their first retail store in Tokyo? ;)
What about that American camera company that killed its film photography business in favor of digital?
And AFAIK, no Japanese camera manufacturer have claimed that digital image quality is better than film. All the advertisements I've seen here only claim to approach the image quality of film.
NickTrop
04-06-2007, 18:06
I'm trying to figure out why it's only the "Japanese" being singled out.
No offense. We're talking digital cameras, most are made by the big Japanese consumer electronics companies. They monopolize the market.
toyotadesigner
04-07-2007, 14:25
http://www.vividlight.com/articles/1513.htm
This says it all.
The world is analog, so there will always be a device to convert analog to digital, meaning: there will always be some sort of scanner, be it 2D or 3D or whatever.
http://www.vividlight.com/articles/1513.htm
This says it all.
The world is analog, so there will always be a device to convert analog to digital, meaning: there will always be some sort of scanner, be it 2D or 3D or whatever.
And the computer that doesn't support CDs supports your scanner?
And the computer that doesn't support CDs supports your scanner?
I've got two scanners hardwired to my computer that are more than capable, but nobody has yet invented a CD drive that is compatible :)
toyotadesigner
04-08-2007, 02:42
I can connect an 'old' SCSI Scanner to my new computer, yes. But there are many CDs which have been archived 6 years ago according to the manufacturer's spec that no computer can read anymore.
But I'm lucky - I can re-scan the negatives and slides. Today at an even higher quaility.
In addition analog equipment is upgradable. New film emulsion with finer grain and improved colors = better results.
Analog being expensive? No, because I can't write off a MF digiback as fast as it's loosing value.
Last but not least: once the digi cam market will be saturated the pendulum will swing back. Even today there are many 'John Doe' users returning to film, not to mention all those once fanatic digi tech pros.
I can connect my Canon FS2710 SCSI scanner to my computer as well, but the old Windows NT4 driver is a pain in Windows XP. Thanks to VUEScan and the ancient Adaptec ASPI layer I can still use it. But I don't expect to use it when my next PC comes with Vista :(
OTOH, it works great with Linux :)
Luckily I don't need my pictures digitized, others have no choice.
Pherdinand
04-08-2007, 04:03
socke,it is not a valid comparison, i think.
If they make new scanners, you still can scan your old slides etc on the new one (even in better quality). And film scanners are made to scan...film, so i don't expect future film scanners that could not handle...film :)
Of course it is very much possible that noone will make scanners in five years anymore.
But as you said, you don't need the pictures to be digitized. You can enjoy slides with a loupe (which, i guess, won't go obsolete that soon)... While digital pictures are not pictures without a device that can read the files and an algorithm that can make an image out of zeros and ones.
Pherdinand, my DVD player can make a slideshow from jpg images on a CD or DVD, it runs on embeded Linux.
When we started selling and supporting Document Management Systems we used Magneto Optical (MO) Disks to store the scanned documents, the 5.25" 650MB disks are perfectly readable in contemporary drives which support the new 16.700 MB disks.
I have more doubts about the longevity of harddisks and I'm sure proprietary and undocumented filesystems like Windows NTFS may pose a thread to data integrity in the not too far future.
All in all it's up to the user, take care and with little work an archive will be safe.
My negs from the 1980's are mostly gone, discoloured and the emulsion is brittle and falls off. I should have stored them in the proverbial shoebox instead of archival sleeves in binders.
Or better, I should have made copies :)
The vividlight article makes too many assumptions that have no basis in fact. Same rehashing of all the half-truths.
The lack of _affordable_ film scanners is the near future is going to be a very likely scenario, much more likely than CD-Rs not being supported.
My 6 yr old CD-RW's and 7 year old CD-R's are still readable.
NickTrop
04-08-2007, 07:21
Okay, let's end this argument right now. This information is a little dated (2000) however it's the best I can find:
This is from
Impact of Digital Cameras On Rate of Growth of New Photographs
http://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much-info/film/details.html
I won't snip much of the article, but here's a table (everything after 2000 is a projection):
Table 1: Photographic Exposures (Billions)
Chart of the annual production of film used in conventional photography in the United States.
Year:
1992 US - 21 billion World - 56 billion
1997 US - 24. 9; World 84.4
1998 US - 26.9; World 83.3
1999 US (data not present); World 82
2000 US - 34.4; World (data not present)
2002 US not projected; World 89 (projected)
2005 US - 41.2 (projected);
Yes, digital cameras have supplanted film cameras in both the professional and consumer markets. However, the overall photography market is growing.
From the article:
Kodak describes the photography market as follows: 82 billion picturesprocessed a year throughout the world with 750 million rolls of film processed annually in the United States and 2.9 billion rolls consumed worldwide. Kodak also estimates that of the photographs that are processed approximately 2 percent are later reprinted or reused in some way.
Granted, the data is dated. But we're talking 90 BILLION - with a "B" processessed FILM exposures here people. Even if that market shrinks enormously to, say, half-a-billion within your lifetime (that's a wild arse conservative guess) you will still have film to play with.
Do note on the projections. That, projected, there are more people projected to shoot film exposures in 2005 than in 1992 when your only choice was to shoot on film. That's because of the projected growth of the overall imaging market. And, yes, they also projected digital to overtake film in 2004 at the time of the article, which it did.
Another interesting article is:
Is 35mm film dead?
By Bill Bennett
February 22 2003
Icon
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/21/1045638480193.html
1. Disposable Cameras Growing Well:
If disposable film cameras are included in the numbers, digital camera sales are just a drop in the ocean. A report by US-based Photo Marketing Association International says disposable camera sales grew by 10 per cent in 2002 and now account for one in five processed images.
2. Consumers Use Film and Digital for Different Reasons:
While the figures indicate we are still using film cameras, our picture-taking habits are changing as more people buy digital cameras. For a start, we're taking more images. Many digital cameras have an LCD screen on the back so we can instantly review pictures taken to decide whether to keep the image or retake the shot. And memory is also increasing quickly, allowing us to take up to 100 snaps on one occasion...As more households have both film and digital cameras, more of us have to decide whether we want to shoot with a digital camera or film camera, or both...Ross says camera makers expect their products to be used differently to film cameras...
3. Quality/Cost
f you want to buy a digital camera that outperforms 35mm film, you have to spend big money...
... Canon says its EOS-1Ds is the first digital camera to match 35mm photography. It's a professional camera with 11.1 megapixel resolution and state-of-the-art features. A snip at $16,499....
(Note since this article was written, the 17 megapixel $8000 (body only) behemoth 1DS2 came out. Eight grand? No thanks. That said, I can see why pros might want use it... But I have to get an 11 megapixel camera to give me what my $40 (fourty dollar) old GSN has? Hahahaha! (This is by Canon's own admission. Want 35 film quality? You need to buy our 11.1 megapixel camera for 16 grand back with the EOS 1DS came out.
Here's an article "bragging" about the EOS DSII being,
The First Digital Camera Better than Film
Can a digital camera really outclass color film?
According to tests done by Popular Photography, Canon's new 16.7 megapixel EOS 1Ds Mark II took better pictures than a regular SLR camera (Canon's EOS 3) shooting high-quality ISO 100 film.
Interesting, as a few years ago Popular Photography predicted that digital cameras would have to reach at least 24 to 30 megapixels before they'd compete against film cameras in quality. But that stance seems to have changed, as they are now claiming the better color and lower noise of the EOS 1Ds Mark II gives digital cameras the winning edge.
http://zonezero.com/magazine/articles/popularp/index.html
Ummmm - you can keep your $8000 (for the ergonomic disaster of its camera body only) 17 megapixel DSLR which "brags" to be better than my $40 GSN and a roll of film. (Bet it still blows out highlights by the way...)
4. Future of Digital? Cell Phones!
Your next digital camera will probably be your mobile phone. According to Strategy Analytics, a US-based research group, 10 million camera phones were sold in the first nine months of 2002. Japan and Korea accounted for 96 per cent of total sales. The group predicts that by next year, camera phones will outsell digital cameras.
So, all those camera companies who ditched their film camera production for the non-serious "consumer" digital market may rue the day they perpetrated the fraud that is the "convenience" (ahem) of digital.
75% of all phones sold in 2009 will have cameras
80% of Americans bougth a disposable camera even though they had a regular camera at hand
80% of cameraphone owners also carry their digital camera*
*(My note: "for now", until their camera dies. Then it will be "why bother"? Their cells will have 4 megapixels by then if they don't already...)
The future of "digital photography"?
Cell phones!!!!
No thanks to that...
PS
Only 13% of digital images get printed. Consumers are funny. Run out and buy that latest 7 megapixel $500 camera because your $400 two year old only has 5 megapixels, but then don't bother to print anything. Instead, display it on your LCD which needs - what, 1/2 megapixel of resolution?
How much of this supposed "growth" in digital camera sales is due to people buying a new camera every couple years to keep up with the megapixel wars?
What will happen to the digital camera industry when consumers ditch their digitals because their cell phones have become their "cameras"?
Do digital cameras have a future?
I think I can explain why only 13% of digital images get printed, here the labs print every negative from a roll and you can give back the prints from bad negs. But for Kodak or Fuji they got printed, somebody payed for the paper.
Another thing, prints from digital are more expensive here, at least the usual consumer stuff. A 4x6 from the cheapest source, I use them as proof before I scan, is 1 Eurocent from film and 9 Eurocent from digital.
In 2002 we shot some 20 rolls a week for our magazine, this year we shot none.
From 45 accredited PJs at this years 6 days bicycle race one shot film. Not counting me, but I'm not a PJ, I run the computers :)
What will happen to the digital camera industry when consumers ditch their digitals because their cell phones have become their "cameras"?
First, cell phone cameras are digtial cameras. I thought we were talking about film here. Film is over in the mass market, period; it will represent less than 5% of all frames this year. You seem to have shifted the subject to camera-based digitals vs. standalone digital cameras.
Second, if/when photographically useful camerphones are marketed, they will say "Canon" and "Nikon" on them.
John Camp
04-08-2007, 17:28
Film will be a niche product. I'm not sure there's much of a future for personal wet darkrooms, either, because of environmental problems with disposal of metals an d chemicals.
I'm a photo collector, and I own some very beautiful silver prints by some of the best printers of the 20th century. IMHO, the technical quality of the best digital prints is better.
In color printing, there's very little doubt that digital color prints will last much longer than any wet-printing technology, which will also affect use by artists and professionals. I've got some color Kodak prints of my kids (now grown) from the 1970s, kept in dark scrapbooks, in drawers, and many of them are faded.
I don't think film is dead; I just think that now, digital is to film what film was to glass plates.
JC
I haven't read through all these threads but my take is that Kodak may eventually hang theirselves, but there will always be a company somewhere making film & chemicals. Besides there building drug stores like CVS & Wallgreens on nearly every street corner here in N.Carolina. Walmarts everywhere else, and they all have C-41 processing. and stores like Walmart and such even have the machines in house to develop your prints, and I'm sure they aren't cheap. When Agfa died, look how Ilford has stepped up to the plate. Nah worry!... Not me!
dostacos
04-08-2007, 19:38
I have determined that film has a future at least ten years beyond my own.
Therefor, it's not my problem.
:eek: well said, well said indeed:D
caffeineshutter
04-08-2007, 20:11
Since this is RFF, and I suspect 95% of us own a film-based RF, I suspect the replies here will be a bit biased toward the "sure it has a future".
And I think the people saying that are correct.
There's been much hand-wringing, taking of umbrage at the news of "such-and-such plant is closing", and issues like the speculation about Kodachrome's future availablity.
The current state of camera film & darkroom supplies seems to mirror the state of the vacuum tube industry of the 1980s: Manufacturers in the USA were terminating production, and the MI (musical instrument) press sold many magazine issues containing articles like: "THE END OF VACUUM TUBES?" and "SHOULD I BUY A SOLID-STATE GUITAR AMP?"
As late as 1988 or thereabouts, things looked pretty bleak. However, the valve/vacuum tube market is once again as healthy as ever, in my estimation. And this is the 21st century.
In the late 80s, companies in eastern europe, Russia, and China entered the market, making tubes plentiful again. In fact, I recall reading that one eastern european vacuum tube company purchased Telefunken's (!!) manufacturing equipment.
Today, there are a variety of choices of the 'staples' of tube amplification, such as EL34, 6L6GC, and 12AX7 sizes--essentially the Kodachrome/Tri-X of the MI and audiophile equipment industry.
So the photo film industry is going through a bit of a shake-up. Not a big deal.
There are still NEW tube-based guitar amps and boutique audiophile amps being sold. One small US manufacturer (based on the west coast, IIRC) has entered the tube production market.
In sum, there is such a huge 'installed base' of cameras requiring film, and valid reasons to choose film over digital, there'll be companies around to serve that market.
-CJ
We live in an age when most digital SLRs and some serious digital P&S cameras rival the clarity and grain of medium format. Most professionals have switched to digital already and even film-loyal prosumers are taking the dive in droves. Startup cost, perhaps still the only deterrent, is plummeting fast. Does film (especially 35mm) stand a chance in the long run?
toyotadesigner
04-09-2007, 03:38
I'm not concerned that we won't have films in the future. I think we'll have enough films to shoot and play with.
But what really concerns me is the bare fact that the labs are closing down.
I'm shooting 6x9 and 135mm, mostly slides with the unparalleled Fuji Provia 100F. Last year we had to labs in our province that developed E6. One of them closed down November 2006. Reason: not enough customers to pay for the chemicals. Customers didn't want to wait a week for their slide films. But the costs to run the machines twice a week had been too high.
So there is one lab left over. The next one is 500 km away. Sometimes when I turn in my films they tell me I'd have to wait 2 days because they don't have collected enough for the E6 process. I can wait, but others don't.
So I can already predict when they will stop the E6 development as well.
This will be our real problem, not the supply of film. No digicam can deliver the quality of a 6x9 slide, scanned with a Nikon Coolscan or Imacon. But what the heck will all this equipment be worth if we can't have our precious and high quality films developed? Not a single cent, believe me.
Let's turn to Far East. Sure, there are still some shops selling film. Color negative, no slide films. But there is almost no lab that can process E6. OK, in Japan I've heard from a friend there are some labs, but they charge 15 Dollars and more to develop one single C41 film - slide film is even more expensive.
Let's face it: shooting film consists and relies on a long process chain, and if one of the parts will stop service we've reached the end of the high quality and the good times.
Sad but true.
My real doubts are not regarding the future of the films, but the way the substitute seems to taking. I'm not an adept of the old chemical way to take photos, i would gladly accept a new technology came to make things better.
When the first digital cameras came out some years ago, i dreamed about a new era for us old-fashioned: digital backs with a full frame sensor to refit the old SLRs, digital film in form of a film roll, even the end of the SLR era (why sticking with a mirror between lens and sensor when you can use an high resolution, frameable, perfect compositioning LCD screen?)
But....what the real? No digital backs, no full frame sensor (at least at human price), no digital film, no high resolution screens....nothing. Nothing we can dream about, nothing we can say "film has gone",....NOTHING BETTER THAN WHAT WE JUST HAVE. What they offer? Plastic. Plastic everywhere. Plastic in the body and in the lens. Plastic silver painted cameras where the silver goes away with just the prolonged touch of our fingers. Plastic LCD that become every day more scratched. Plastic buttons and dials made to break after the guarantees period.
Sensors? With the "anti dust vibro technology"? Don't make me laugh. What we want, what we need, is a 24x36 mm sensor with a decent resoution and a good dinamic range, to manage highlights and shadows. What we have? Damn small sensors, full of poor pixels, smaller, smaller, smaller....Even Leica, even Contax, even Rollei are not able to offer a full frame sensor for their cameras, and their best offer still stand at a price of a new car...
..ok, sorry for my angry..There are too much examples in others places where the tecnology does not mean an evolution, but just a easier way to get profit. Audio CD quality is really better than vinyl? VHS is better than Betamax? MP3 is better than audiotape? LCD monitors are always better than CRT?
Digital sensors can be better than film? Surely, but the story tell us that probably it will never. Digital photography seems taking the direction of the mass market, instead the direction of the evolution.
toyotadesigner
04-09-2007, 11:34
What we want, what we need, is a 24x36 mm sensor with a decent resoution and a good dinamic range, to manage highlights and shadows. What we have?
It's already there. I use it every day. Film. 36 brand new sensors for each image. No dust problem. No hot spots. No dead pixels. Example: Provia 100F. Excellent tonal / dynamic range capable to render all details in shadows and highlights. Works at minus 45° C and plux 45° C. In extremely dry and humid environments. No electronic gadgets needed to view them. Simple to store and archive. Easy to convert into bits and bytes with almost no post scan editing required. Scan it with a Nikon LS 5000 or 9000 or Imacon and you'll know how much potential film really does have.
If you want to kill digital, just use good ZEISS or Leica lenses to blow off their minds. Or use a 6x9 Fuji GW690 III with a Fuji EBC Fujinon 3.5/90 to stop them breathing forever.
Don't think digital. Think molecular. A stellar experience.
No dust problem.
I've had slides developed at both big labs in germany, Eurocolor and CeWe Color, both have a dust problem.
And a scratch problem and a cut inside the frame problem and a develop slides in c41 problem .....
Realy great when you get your spoiled slides back and they give you a free film but no free flight back to wherever you've shot what they spoiled :bang:
toyotadesigner
04-09-2007, 15:34
As long as you can't prove it by scanning and posting it's tell tale, hearsay and rumors from other forums you've read, nothing else.
If you want to kill digital, just use good ZEISS or Leica lenses to blow off their minds. Or use a 6x9 Fuji GW690 III with a Fuji EBC Fujinon 3.5/90 to stop them breathing forever.
Don't think digital. Think molecular. A stellar experience.
Don't worry, i'm here to learn what is the real art of photography just to evily smile at the blowed faces of my digital converted friends!
:D
I create images using both electronic image-sensor cameras, and silver emulsion technology. I enjoy both, but find that, for my vision, there are certain aspects of silver emulsion image making that I find irresistable. So I would wish that the world revolved around my whims and desires. Sadly, it doesn't.
Despite that, the reality is that film is manufactured in batch processes. There is a certain break-even point below which it is not economically advantageous to even start up a batch production line.
And that's the 'fly in the ointment' regarding the possibility of film always being a "niche market", as many are apt to prognosticate. You cannot manufacture film in batch process for a niche market. The two concepts are diametrically opposite one another. What actually happens is that entire product lines get obsoleted, because sales drop below the critical break-even point, and equipment is too expensive to keep running properly or replace. And the knowledge base of experienced technicians get lost, when people get layed off.
Yes, there will be smaller companies trying to do this. But there will be no guarantee that the materials that you and I have struggled with for years to learn their finer properties will even be available. Most likely, the variability in manufacturing quality brought about by intermittent production runs on old, outdated film manufacturing equipment will cause all but the most diehard film advocate to give up.
And while electronic imaging technology continues to be refined (think of where all the R&D money comes from - sales), film technology will straggle further and further behind; as manufacturing quality drops by the rise of "niche manufacturers", film will begin to look worse and worse by comparison, helping to complete the self-fulfilling prophecy of film's demise.
Think of it like this: you just spent the last 6 months getting to know the properties of the "new" eastern european or Chinese film that came out at the beginning of the year; yea, there has been obvious quality issues that were never a problem when Kodak and Ilford was in business. Now, you've just found the perfect developer combination that balances granularity with tonal rendition, and you've just recieved news that this brand of film is no longer available. But wait, a new eastern european startup company has just introduced a new film. So you place an order and have to start the learning curve all over again...that could be the future for film advocates.
I recently had a discussion with someone about "old" photographs, who was under the impression that granularity and scratches were the norm for photographs of the late 19th century. In fact, this person was talking about mimicking the 'look' (or what they thought was the 'look') of 19th century photography, in Photoshop. Of course, most 19th century photography was large format, thus granularity was not the issue. But my point is how quickly people forget what a medium actually looks like, once they've been told that it's obsolete, and been forgotten.
When the lessons of 100 years of manufacturing legacy are lost, when Kodak and others leave the film business all together, or drop key legacy product lines, what company is going to produce a film that looks like Tri-X, has equivalent quality, doesn't violate patent rights (yes, companies will defend patents in court that they aren't even manufacturing, just for the mere principle of protection of intellectual property) and doesn't have unpredictable defects and flaws? Oh, and they have to do it to make a profit.
Sadly, I wish that these harsh realities were mere fantasy. But one cannot ignore the realities of the economies of manufacturing. Companies are in business to make money. They are not a charity, catering to the whims of fickle hobbiests.
I happen to work in the semiconductor manufacturing business. That's 'chip making' in layman's terms. I understand the economic advantages of scale brought about by shrinking silicon circuitry onto ever larger sized wafers. These represent the advantages being made every year in the world of electronic image making. And, other than "2 electron sensitization", I don't see any new silver-based technology being developed for manufacture in the film world. In fact, what we've been holding onto in the last several years with the availability of traditional B/W materials is the mere fact of their very existence. We're not even asking for continued technological improvement; just that they survive in the market place. And it doesn't look good.
Platinum RF
04-11-2007, 05:14
NO, No future
NO, No future
Cute.
Flippant, but cute.
If photography were to cease today - truly cease - it would not be the end of the world. Not by a long shot. In fact, it may bring about a revival in the other visual arts.
We've heard this argument before: there'll always be a niche market for 'traditional' black and white photographic materials, so not to worry. That argument is predicated on the faulted assumption that film manufacturing scales linearly; that you can just 'crank down' the rate of production until you're at the level of the cottage industry, and it would therefore be indefinitely sustainable.
Like other large-scale chemical/industrial manufacturing, there's a certain minimal level of production below which the process won't run. That's especially true with a coating line, which requires a certain minimal amount of paper or film base, and chemicals, commited to the run in order for it to even work.
It ain't buggy whips. You can manufacture buggy whips in a cottage industry setting. In fact, you can still purchase buggy whips, even today. But film manufacturing ain't buggy whips. It doesn't scale linearly.
Some may say 'surely this ain't the end of photography; it still progresses forward'. True. In some form it most likely will. You can go to a museum and stand in front of an Edward Weston contact print. In fact, the flippancy with which some of these retorts are delivered makes me believe that most here have never viewed a silver chloride contact print in person, especially one crafted by an artist such as Edward Weston.
But the fact is that today, you cannot purchase silver chloride contact printing paper (aside from resales of old production runs). It is no longer manufactured. It didn't scale down to the level of cottage industry. The last brand going was Kodak's Azo. There's talk of Michael Smith having a new silver chloride paper manufactured. There's also Ron Mowry, over at APUG, who's hand-coated a silver chloride paper. But they're not available today.
When we lose the materials of our craft, we don't lose photography; it will go on. What we lose is our art, for art is inextricably interwoven with the materials dear to the craftsman. And that is why we should be concerned.
350D_user
04-11-2007, 13:34
But the fact is that today, you cannot purchase silver chloride contact printing paper (aside from resales of old production runs). It is no longer manufactured. It didn't scale down to the level of cottage industry. The last brand going was Kodak's Azo. There's talk of Michael Smith having a new silver chloride paper manufactured. There's also Ron Mowry, over at APUG, who's hand-coated a silver chloride paper. But they're not available today.
When we lose the materials of our craft, we don't lose photography; it will go on. What we lose is our art, for art is inextricably interwoven with the materials dear to the craftsman. And that is why we should be concerned.
We humans are an inquisitive rabble. Long gone photographic processes are still continuing, albeit a very niche thing... http://www.alternativephotography.com/
Sadly not, except for a few people who are enthusiasts who will be forced to pay more and more for their obsession
We humans are an inquisitive rabble. Long gone photographic processes are still continuing, albeit a very niche thing... http://www.alternativephotography.com/
Interesting website, thanks for the link
As a mass product for a mass market film is already dead. Here you get a very limited range of film at some electronics chains, it has almost vanished from super markets, safe Fuji Z200, and totaly vanished from gas stations.
If it weren't for rangefinders, I wouldn't use film anymore.
With rangefinders I buy B/W online and drive some 60 miles to get developer.
I'm not sure where you are, but in Midwest USA film is everywhere. And eveybody is happy to develop it. For MF I have to go to a Pro lab, but its always been the case. But even a well known chain here like Walgreens will develop just about any film - it may take a bit longer for true B&W and slides. So, I don't really see much of a change here. Just on a top of film - other digital choices. But thats "with", not "instead of" film.
Like other large-scale chemical/industrial manufacturing, there's a certain minimal level of production below which the process won't run. That's especially true with a coating line, which requires a certain minimal amount of paper or film base, and chemicals, commited to the run in order for it to even work.
It ain't buggy whips. You can manufacture buggy whips in a cottage industry setting. In fact, you can still purchase buggy whips, even today. But film manufacturing ain't buggy whips. It doesn't scale linearly.
Interesting and thoughtful posts.
The issue of scalability is only partly true. There was a discussion on APUG a little while ago about the possibility of a new European venture starting up using Agfa's old equipment to produce film. This came straight from the horse's mouth (Adox) and it was far from clear whether it would actually happen.
The key to the success of the venture relied on the company using Agfa's smaller scale research product testing equipment to do the film runs rather than the huge mass production line equipment that became unprofitable to continue with. Thus there may be scaled down versions of film and paper production possible. In other words, an innovative company might be able to produce or maintain scaled down versions of film production equipment. It wouldn't be a cottage industry, but it would be viable for the forseeable future. There is also talk of new and improved emulsions being developed.
The discussion is here (look especially at the posts from Adox/Fotoimpex on page 2):
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum172/34823-another-agfa-paper-rumor-confirm-anybody.html
I think the main problem with this debate is that we just don't know what the future holds and it is actually quite unpredictable. And furthermore there is a large element of luck and unpredictability in the way that the market evolves and changes. Even when there is demand for something the market itself doesn't always work out the best solution despite what orthodox economists think.
bottley1
04-16-2007, 01:08
The photographic industry has always lived on the profits of the amateur user, these profits funding the more rarified enthusiast / pro market. From sale trends here in the UK. sales of film cameras are plummeting, most snappers now opting for digital cameras. Just read that Nokia (yes, Nokia) is now the worlds largest camera manufacturer!! As stated elsewhere on this thread, film/chemicals/light sensitive paper consumables will become increasingly economically unviable. My take on all of this is that film will become extinct within 10 years, in the west, with manufacturers in China (huge home film market) coming in to fill the gap
sales of film cameras are plummeting, most snappers now opting for digital cameras.
Again it depends on which part of the market we are talking about. For example, large format is actually thriving. Someone from Robert White said recently in a letter to BW magazine that they can't get enough Ebony cameras to meet demand. View Camera magazine also echoed similar sentiments in articles last year.
jaffa_777
04-16-2007, 07:03
I don't know how many people are like me out there, but as I have said on this forum before, I started on digital having never shot film in my life. I thought it was the best thing since sliced bread. Instant gratification, super clean, super sharp, silky smooth images. Thousands of possibilities of the final outcome of an image when shooting RAW and using photoshop. Digital did help me in learning the fundamentals quicker and cheaper than I would have with film and I will still continue to use it for most commercial work for cost factors.
Now after a while, the novelty of sitting in front of a computer and digitally enhancing every single image that I wanted to use wears off. It takes so much time, with so many possible outcomes, and my eyes start to feel like they were gonna fall out their sockets. In my opinion RAW can be a blessing and a curse.
I began to check out a lot of peoples images and to me, the digtal stuff started to all have a similar look, or better say emotional response. This stuff I find comes from the majority who shoot and post/print and don't know much about post processing to get artisically what they want out of there work. Digital is so accurate, faithfull, sharp and lifeless to me, its boring if nothing is done with it. The people who do know what they want artisically are usally excellent at photoshop and can produce some amazing work. I love that I can insert a certain roll of film to gain a desired outcome instead.
I looked into film a while ago and it has been a love affair growing over a number of months. I love the colours, vibrancy, tones, graduations, grain and the emotive response I feel when looking at the images from films like provia, ektachrome and velvia. I love the warm skin tones in films like portra and cold ones from nps. And don't get me started on b&w. I don't know about you but I don't get this from digital.
To sum up in short, I find digital to be true, accurate, perfect and boring, (without extensive knowledge in photoshop). I find film to be impressionistic, artistic, imperfect and emotive.
What do you think?
Gabriel M.A.
04-16-2007, 07:07
Isn't a better question...which lens is sharper? :angel:
toyotadesigner
04-16-2007, 07:18
Isn't a better question...which lens is sharper?
Sure. You've asked, so here is the answer:
EBC Fujinon lenses (MF), Zeiss lenses (35mm and MF), Leica lenses (35mm), Schneider and Rodenstock (Large Format) can't be beat. Everything else doesn't even come close (to be honest: not even my fantastic Nikon prime lenses)
:D
BTW, did you know that Fuji invested some 30 million Euros into a new R&D plant in Japan - for film? They wouldn't do it if they wouldn't see a great future for film.
If this is still going at Christmas perhaps we could all have a nice game of football?
:angel:
Gabriel M.A.
04-16-2007, 07:30
Sure. You've asked, so here is the answer:
EBC Fujinon lenses (MF), Zeiss lenses (35mm and MF), Leica lenses (35mm), Schneider and Rodenstock (Large Format) can't be beat. Everything else doesn't even come close (to be honest: not even my fantastic Nikon prime lenses)
Now, that's what I call a "fair and balanced" answer. I'd think that the MF Pentax lenses ought to be lumped together with those. Most Nikon prime lenses give an awful blur (there are some notable exceptions), and Canon primes are unfortunately too soft and don't come close to the Zeiss or Leica primes.
Of course film photography has a future; it is unfortunate that many good emulsions are dying (i.e. Kodachrome) or have died (i.e. Techpan) in the wake of "digital".
The question comes up periodically, and this horse really has been beaten to a fine mist (imvvvvvvho).
I think film definately has a future given that most baby boomers and members of generation 'X' grew up using film rather than digital, and old habits tend to die hard. I'm sure that a small percentage of them will resist going digital to the last, and film will also have a novelty/retro value to the younger generations which ought to help sustain it awhile longer.
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2007/04/velvia-50-resurrected.html
There you go!
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.