View Full Version : Kodak: Most photographers prefer film
\
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Kodak_Most_photographers_prefer_film_news_128432.h tml
:)
I guess that's why digital camera sales are languishing ... :)
Gene
landsknechte
07-15-2007, 01:54
Suprising that 55% prefer digital for black and white work.
Even if the client wanted a TIFF file she is not going to care whether it was from a Canon DSLR or a Coolscan. The photographer still has the freedom to shoot whatever he wants.
Even if the client wanted a TIFF file she is not going to care whether it was from a Canon DSLR or a Coolscan. The photographer still has the freedom to shoot whatever he wants.
The average client will not pay extra for film and processing when the final result needs to be a file and when a digital camera will produce "perfectly good" results. A photographer who "chooses", "uses" or "insists" on film will often take himself out of contention for a job. So does that mean the photographer has the freedom to shoot whatever he wants?
Of course there are non-average clients......
Superbus_
07-15-2007, 03:00
I prefer film and I'm from Europe. Am I a professional??? ;)
I prefer film and I'm from Europe. Am I a professional??? ;)
You must be!!!
If feathers are light, and the sun gives off light, it must be the sun gives off feathers.
I won't even venture what that makes me?
Anyway, this may mean that Ilford can keep making film. :cool:
Michael I.
07-15-2007, 05:14
I think I smell crack smoke from kodak's headquarters.
Counterintuitive as it sounds, this does make sense given that it came from a survey of professional photographers. Although we tend to think of "professional" in the sense of high-profile advertising and editorial shooters whose work is for publication, the fact is that numerically, the largest segment of professionals is in the wedding and portrait field.
And while publication shooters need to deliver files (since virtually all publications are produced on computers nowadays), workers in the wedding and portrait fields need to deliver prints on paper. For this application, film is still a very good way to work, with lots of advantages over digital.
These do include some technical advantages, such as less risk of blown highlights and greater dynamic range.
But they also include significant advantages in the business process, based on the fact that wedding and portrait shooters can call on a well-developed infrastructure of film-based services.
If you're working in these fields and you work from digital capture, you're pretty much 100% responsible for your own color management, quality control, and post-shoot finishing. The time you spend on these services comes out of your own workday and means less time available to spend on the things that generate revenue for you: shooting jobs and selling to clients.
If you shoot your weddings and portraits on film, you can job out virtually every non-revenue-generating aspect to vendors: they'll take care of processing, proofing, retouching, making enlargements, and assembling albums or print packages.
Meanwhile, the key advantage of digital capture for publication shooters -- the fast availability of end product -- isn't as big a plus for the wedding/portrait photographer. The new graduate or wedded couple already has a lot of stuff going on in connection with the recent big event, and doesn't really need to walk out with prints in hand. In fact, newly married couples may be more interested in seeing the photos after the actual event has had time to recede into memory slightly.
Note that I'm not a wedding or portrait shooter (thank you, God!) and am just analyzing this from a common-sense business viewpoint. But I think it's a good theory for demonstrating why film is still a preferred medium for a numerically large segment of professional users.
PetarDima
07-15-2007, 05:47
Suprising that 55% prefer digital for black and white work.
Can't understand that. My general dissapointment about digital is B&W.
Yes, you can have fantastic results in post-processing, but how will it look
on paper? I don't have a chance to see huge prints in photo galleries here...
also, classic B&W print can last 100 years, how much digital prints will live?
Time will show ...
350D_user
07-15-2007, 12:14
My general dissapointment about digital is B&W.
Likewise.
Yes, you can have fantastic results in post-processing, but how will it look on paper?
Average, at best, compared to film.
classic B&W print can last 100 years, how much digital prints will live?
Time will show ...
Going off a photo printed out from an inkjet printer, from a few years ago, it's fading already. Compare that to a colour photo, printed from some multilab thing, longevity with digital prints isn't guaranteed.
kshapero
07-15-2007, 12:20
hard to believe but sounds good to me.
The digital camera manufacturers are their own worst enemy. Although the technology is grand, the ever continuing climb in cost will eventually do them in. Also, without any truly effective (and cost efficient) method of archiving images, a high price in the form of lost images and inaccessible technology will be paid.
Chris101
07-15-2007, 13:17
http://plus.maths.org/issue30/reviews/book4/index.html
The digital camera manufacturers are their own worst enemy. Although the technology is grand, the ever continuing climb in cost will eventually do them in. Also, without any truly effective (and cost efficient) method of archiving images, a high price in the form of lost images and inaccessible technology will be paid.
Yep! Wetplate is the way! My grandfather was right after all, these tiny negatives on inflamable material are not worth the effort. :D
I'm not a pro but at one time it was my ambition to become a Pro Wedding Photographer. The few events and Weddings I do I use 35 film as my primary medium. Simply because all I have to do is be a photographer and I pay someone else to make the prints. I have two complete camera setups based on Canons Elan 7N cameras, 580EX, camera brackets, Quantum Turbo batteries and chords plus all the right lenses. These cameras use E-TTL-II and so do the flashes. I shoot in Color and B&W, using Kodak Portra 160NC and 400CN films. Most prints are 4" x 6".
I also use film in my M5 and Summilux 50 for my walk around film camera and I use a dedicated film scanner in my home and print at home using the HP 8750.
I never use the Canon film Elan 7N camera's for fun and play. They are work tools as is my EOS 1-V. Well I do use the EOS 1-V for birding as I have two film only Sigma telephoto lenses the 500 f/4.5 and 800 f/5.6. The 1-V will also do sports at 10FPS.
For other fun and birding I use any one of 4 Canon DSLR's and a Pentax K100D DSLR for the instant feedback and download to my computers. The prints are fine. My Pentax is an all manual DSLR when I set it to M and use K and M42 screw mount lenses. Just like a film 35mm camera except it uses a sensor and SD card instead of film.
350D_user
07-15-2007, 14:08
For other fun and birding I use any one of 4 Canon DSLR's and a Pentax K100D DSLR for the instant feedback and download to my computers. The prints are fine. My Pentax is an all manual DSLR when I set it to M and use K and M42 screw mount lenses. Just like a film 35mm camera except it uses a sensor and SD card instead of film.
My 350D can be set to behave exactly the same way. Stick it into manual mode, switch the AF off, away you go.
At the end of the day though, inkjet prints fade. Yep, film photos fade as well, but at a slower rate, if at all.
landsknechte
07-15-2007, 16:02
The digital camera manufacturers are their own worst enemy. Although the technology is grand, the ever continuing climb in cost will eventually do them in. Also, without any truly effective (and cost efficient) method of archiving images, a high price in the form of lost images and inaccessible technology will be paid.
Of course, since nobody uses digital cameras these days and likely nobody will in the future, there's no economic motive for companies to develop means to pass on digital information as technology progresses, and to read obsolete technology.
Paper rots. Film rots. If done properly, digital information can be kept absolutely intact and undegraded indefiantly.
That argument against digital is about as logically sound as saying that we should abandon film because spare parts for enlargers are going to be difficult to come by in the future.
sepiareverb
07-15-2007, 16:12
....And while publication shooters need to deliver files (since virtually all publications are produced on computers nowadays), workers in the wedding and portrait fields need to deliver prints on paper. For this application, film is still a very good way to work, with lots of advantages over digital....
...If you're working in these fields and you work from digital capture, you're pretty much 100% responsible for your own color management, quality control, and post-shoot finishing. The time you spend on these services comes out of your own workday and means less time available to spend on the things that generate revenue for you: shooting jobs and selling to clients.
If you shoot your weddings and portraits on film, you can job out virtually every non-revenue-generating aspect to vendors: they'll take care of processing, proofing, retouching, making enlargements, and assembling albums or print packages.
Meanwhile, the key advantage of digital capture for publication shooters -- the fast availability of end product -- isn't as big a plus for the wedding/portrait photographer...
Very well stated. I can see many of these services available for hire to digital based photogs as well, but if I was one of these photogs I'd be shooting film and drawing it to the attention of the client as a bonus. There is a built-in longevity to film that I think is important for certain things, and a wedding is one of those (call me old-fashioned- I won't argue :D)
I was at a wedding two weeks ago, and it was all shot digitally and I was surprised at that. The 'no rush' of wedding work does seem to make it a natural for film- choosing your stock for the situation/location another benefit.
Both the photogs were shooting and chimping every shot- despite that they were obviously seasoned shooters- something else that surprised me.
ChrisPlatt
07-15-2007, 16:36
Paper rots. Film rots. If done properly, digital information can be kept absolutely intact and undegraded indefiantly.
I can easily find 150 year old photos and negatives that are still quite viable.
Now where can I read this 20 year old 5.25" 360K floppy disk? ;)
Chris
sepiareverb
07-15-2007, 16:44
I can easily find 150 year old photos and negatives that are still quite viable.
Now where can I read this 20 year old 5.25" 360K floppy disk? ;)
Chris
I can't even read the discs I made ten years ago, carefully backing up all my files so they wouldn't be lost when I upgraded to a new machine.
I can easily find 150 year old photos and negatives that are still quite viable.
Now where can I read this 20 year old 5.25" 360K floppy disk? ;)
Chris
No problem, I'll send you a 5,25" HD diskdrive if you cover shipping. Still have 5 in the cellar :-)
As to the 150 year old photos, where would you get that material today? I expect a Fuji Fontier print to last as long as another Fuji Fontier print. Scanned negs or direct digital can't make any difference there.
photogdave
07-15-2007, 18:19
This survey is meaningless. "Almost 3000" photogaphers participated. Just a drop in the bucket I'm afraid.
landsknechte
07-15-2007, 18:20
I can easily find 150 year old photos and negatives that are still quite viable.
Now where can I read this 20 year old 5.25" 360K floppy disk? ;)
Chris
That's exactly what I mean about it not being done properly.
amateriat
07-15-2007, 19:00
Corollary: most of Canon's film SLR lineup is still in production. ('Course, I don't shoot with SLRs much anymore, so...)
("Garçon, another brick of E200 please!")
- Barrett
mllanos1111
07-15-2007, 19:53
Can't understand that. My general dissapointment about digital is B&W.
Yes, you can have fantastic results in post-processing, but how will it look
on paper? I don't have a chance to see huge prints in photo galleries here...
also, classic B&W print can last 100 years, how much digital prints will live?
Time will show ...
With a digital enlarger you can print true B&W prints on fiber base paper. I had this done recently from a digital file and processed traditionally on fiber paper and received an honorable mention at the San Diego County fair.
It looks fantastic, but not sure a digital file has that last bit of depth that good B&W film has.
350D_user
07-15-2007, 22:57
As to the 150 year old photos, where would you get that material today?
Dig up the recipe, substituting chemicals as and where applicable...
http://www.alternativephotography.com/
My 350D can be set to behave exactly the same way. Stick it into manual mode, switch the AF off, away you go.
At the end of the day though, inkjet prints fade. Yep, film photos fade as well, but at a slower rate, if at all.
I'm afraid that's not true anymore. The latest generation of pigment inkjet printers are all rated with greater longevity than chemical prints. My HP b9180 has a archival rating of 200 years if you use the right paper.
Well, nobody's looked at a 200 year old inkjet print but ink technology is certainly improving all the time. The right printer, with the right inks and paper, can certainly produce very long-lasting prints, particularly if they are under glass.
I scan my negs and print them digitally, I dont have room to wet print. The results are excellent. If they start to fade after my death I can't say I'm too bothered :-)
Ian
Dr. Strangelove
07-16-2007, 00:29
I can easily find 150 year old photos and negatives that are still quite viable.
Now where can I read this 20 year old 5.25" 360K floppy disk? ;)
Chris
Send it to me. I have a 5.25" 1.2M drive, which can read (but not write) 360K disks :D
In earnest: archiving digital pictures so that no periodic maintenance and transfer to a newer medium is not required really is very difficult. If you have the time, money and discipline, you can certainly keep all your digital files intact almost indefinitely. Or you can contract a service provider to do it for you, in which case you only need money. But it requires either a fairly large amount of effort or a fairly large sum of money over the years...
Negatives, prints and slides will rot too, but properly storaged they will easily last for a lifetime. Is that major selling point of film cameras? Of course not, since most people do not really plan things so well. Digital cameras also have advantages that for most consumers and even for most amateur photographers are much more important than problems with archiving. On the other hand film will not die any time soon, but it will be marginalized.
Dr. Strangelove
07-16-2007, 00:35
Corollary: most of Canon's film SLR lineup is still in production. ('Course, I don't shoot with SLRs much anymore, so...)
- Barrett
Are you sure that they are actually still in production or are the just selling old stocks? Last I heard even the Nikon F6 was not really being produced any more, even if you can still buy one from most pro Nikon retailers.
Call me an old cynic but there is a grand tradition in UK politics. A minister is in trouble. The Prime Minister issues a statement saying "Minister so and so enjoys my full support and backing". Within a week said minister is clearing the desk and looking for a new job.
Kodak have put out statements about being committed to stuff previously and then dumped the products weeks later. Didn't they do this for some of their (or was it all?) the Kodak wet B+W printing papers?
Al Patterson
07-16-2007, 04:49
I can easily find 150 year old photos and negatives that are still quite viable.
Now where can I read this 20 year old 5.25" 360K floppy disk? ;)
Chris
Hey Chris, I have a box of 8'' floppies written in CP/M format. I think that's where my resume is...
I really wonder about the long term ability to read various digital media even 20 years from now.
keithwms
07-16-2007, 05:39
At first I was totally shocked to hear that so many "professionals" prefer digital for b&w....
But then I remembered that digital b&w has one nifty feature: you can convert to b&w in an infinite number of ways using channel mixer and such. So there is a lot of flexibility. Admittedly, a lot of people really like that. Maybe that's why the number is so surprisingly high.
For me, channel mixing isn't nearly fun enough to give up the tonality and range of b&w film. I mean, I'd do digital b&w if it weren't for...
acros,
fp4+,
hp5+,
delta 3200,
the Rollei IR films,
agfa scala...
fuji fp100b...
and last but certainly not least type 55 polaroid...
oh and tonable output on real matte fiber paper....
sepiareverb
07-16-2007, 09:36
Back to the same old arguments. We have to agree to disagree.
Well, even if Kodak is smoking crack (I should know, I'm down wind of corporate hq in Rochester) I welcome the news. I'm not entirely distrustful of the results--most photographers I talk to talk about film in wistful terms (oh, the colors of chromes) and I get the sense that they've sacrificed some quality factors because of efficiency gains and industry standards changing. And anyway, I'm not so sure 3000 is a really bad N for a survey of European professional photographers, if there was some attempt at creating a representative pool.
Whatever, Kodak, keep making film and I know lots of folks, pro or not, who will be happy!
I thought Kodak was phasing film out? Here it says that it will be available from Kodak for a long time to come...
I'd say no matter what, Kodak's management is on crack. Why tell us all that film products will be discontinued, then this?
I feel a strong urge to continue to buy Ilford products.
I thought Kodak was phasing film out? Here it says that it will be available from Kodak for a long time to come...
I'd say no matter what, Kodak's management is on crack. Why tell us all that film products will be discontinued, then this?
I feel a strong urge to continue to buy Ilford products.
why is anyone on crack because you thought something that wasn't true? Who told you all Kodak film products were going to be discontinued? When did "they" say this? Got a link?
I think someone around here might be on crack, but I'm not sure it is the folks at Kodak :)
This is what the board of Kodak were discussing in February this year:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article1343516.ece
There is no doubt Kodak have been sending mixed messages about their film business for a while now.
Ian
I didn't see anywhere in that link discussion of discontinuing even a single film.
Can we please drop the juvenile martyr act with Kodak? They do what they do. If Ilford isn't good enough to use on it's own merits, at least be willing to say so. Suggesting that you only buy from Ilford because you don't trust Kodak unfairly denigrates Ilford and their fine products, and sounds ridiculous to anyone capable of reason.
Trying to turn this public statement by Kodak in support of their film business into a reason to avoid Kodak products is reaching pretty far, and anyone with a shred of logic can see how silly such people are.
I have saw digital enlargers : digital meets analogue darkroom. still expensive
Matthew55000
07-16-2007, 12:17
why is anyone on crack because you thought something that wasn't true? Who told you all Kodak film products were going to be discontinued? When did "they" say this? Got a link?
I think someone around here might be on crack, but I'm not sure it is the folks at Kodak :)
I agree. Bryce can you back up that statement of yours - or is the crack maybe more one of your own vices?
I didn't see anywehere in that link discussion of discontinuing even a single film.
I didn't suggest it did.
But it does say,
"[Antonio Perez, Kodak CEO] declined to comment about a possible sale or spin-off of the film business, but a source close to the company said that the idea had been discussed by Kodak board members and senior executives and was well within the realms of possibility."
Not necessarily discontinuing film, but certainly less committed to making it themselves than their latest marketing suggests.
If Ilford isn't good enough to use on it's own merits, at least be willing to say so. Suggesting that you only buy from Ilford because you don't trust Kodak unfairly denigrates Ilford and their fine products, and sounds ridiculous to anyone capable of reason.
I use Tri-X as my primary film of choice (and Xtol as my primary developer) and will continue to do so as long as it (and I) exists, but there's no doubt at all that over the last couple of years Kodak management have not given a clear indication of what their strategy is for their film business. Sometimes they have implied it is likely to be sold off, at others times they say they have no such plans. I wouldn't bet either way on what they will do in the next few years. I would imagine even if they did get out of the film business the rights to Tri-X would be bought by someone else, so I don't worry about it suddenly disappearing. I would be a bit more worried if I relied on one of their less iconic film products.
I'm not dissing this new survey, merely commenting that Kodak aren't consistent. Let's hope they become more consistent.
Ian
I have saw digital enlargers : digital meets analogue darkroom. still expensiveYes, this is how my local lab makes prints these days... Traditional paper & chemicals with the image projected from a digital enlarger head.
Michiel Fokkema
07-16-2007, 14:37
I was at a wedding two weeks ago, and it was all shot digitally and I was surprised at that. The 'no rush' of wedding work does seem to make it a natural for film- choosing your stock for the situation/location another benefit.
Both the photogs were shooting and chimping every shot- despite that they were obviously seasoned shooters- something else that surprised me.
Well, I'm not so surprised. THE main advantage of digital is instant feedback. You can't redo a wedding. It is nice to know a shot is oke the moment you might be able to do it again when it is not.
I've done a few small weddings on film and was always very nervous until I got the prints. With digital I just know it is oke right away and that makes me sleep much better
Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema
Creagerj
07-16-2007, 14:40
The issue with backing up professional quality digital images is that every storage medium is built with the consumer in mind. Writable CDs and DVDs are built with considerably less quality than their counterparts that are being used by record companies and movie studios. Even then a scratch on the bottom of the CD could jeopardize your files and a scratch on the top will ruin them. However they are the best bet for long term storage if they are used infrequently. Floppy disk are for transferring files and were never built with pictures in mind. Hard drives will store files for a long time, however they are still magnetic and will eventually degauss. Even if you do have a DVD or CD last for 100 years odds are there will be nothing around to read it. Formats are changing all the time. Even if someone digs up a CD drive it would still be a stroke of luck if anyone knew how to read the script for a JPEG, Bitmap, TIFF, GIFF, or RAW. Unless we evolve beyond the need for sight odds are someone will still be able to figure out what a negative is. Digital storage will eventually fail because there will always be something newer and better that will leave the previous format forgotten. When was the last time you used a floppy disk or listened to an 8-track?
sepiareverb
07-16-2007, 15:30
...When was the last time you used a floppy disk or listened to an 8-track?
A 20 year old who even knows what an 8-track is is pretty rare these days. :D
More power to ya!
keithwms
07-16-2007, 17:24
I think many/most of us who shoot film are not averse to digital archiving and output and do it alongside traditional methods. Likewise digital users will, in time, gain interest in traditional output methods.
Look, film covers both bases- traditional and digital output- very well. Some of my film output goes to pigment ink, some to traditional b&w output, some to digital contact prints, some to lightjet, some to RA4, some to ciba... some to polaroid transfer or emulsion lift... whatever works for the image.
Of course, many of the traditional output methods can now be done with digital files as well, particularly in the case of b&w. My experience with that is quite limited but I can attest that the workflow is very flexible, as it literally combines the best of both worlds.
So frankly, I think a discussion about what is archival and what is superior is entirely moot. And hasn't it all been said before? For years and years?!
....oops now I have put myself in a position in which filmies and digies can both pounce on me ;)
40oz., Mathew55000-
Quote-
"Kodak has outlined a plan to phase out film operations, while building up digital sales in medical imaging and commercial printing as well as consumer digital lines. Kodak says revenue from digital products will top film revenue for the first time this year. But the transition has been bumpy."
From:
http://wsjclassroomedition.com/archive/05nov/mktg_kodak.htm
From a 12 second google search. I could search longer if you'd like...
Sadly it is true- Kodak has been saying for the last several years that they plan to drop their chemical photography line, and if memory serves you used to be able to buy B+W paper from them. So when an article like the one this thread was started in response to, I have to wonder- is the company's business model being changed yet again, or does it mean to continue producing chemical photo products?
As has come up repeatedly, Ilford has committed themselves to what is now the king of alt processes.
I think I smell crack smoke from kodak's headquarters.
Actually, when the wind is right I can smell a whiff of acetic acid ... I love the smell of stop bath in the morning.
The digital camera manufacturers are their own worst enemy. Although the technology is grand, the ever continuing climb in cost will eventually do them in.
Whaaaaat? You think if sales decline they will just say, "Oh well"??? Have you ever seen electronics drop in price to increase sales? Me neither.
I thought Kodak was phasing film out? Here it says that it will be available from Kodak for a long time to come...
Where did they say that? That's one of those internet "facts" that just isn't so. My bet is that Canon started the rumour.
I'd say no matter what, Kodak's management is on crack. Why tell us all that film products will be discontinued, then this?
I feel a strong urge to continue to buy Ilford products.
Well, again ... they DIDN'T say that. But in your logic I suppose buying Ilford film send a signal to Kodak that you want Kodak to keep producing film. Do you think Ilford will take over Kodachrome? Portra?
As as to your quote from WSJ ... well, did you see that the plan included (in the same sentence!) "while building up digital sales in medical imaging" ... uh, WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT PLAN? (In case you missed it, Kodak's medical division is now owned by Onex.) And I don't trust the WSJ's interpretation of what was said anyway. That is not to cast aspersions on WSJ, but it is what they (WSJ) say Kodak said, not a transcript of what EK said.
40oz and others have also replied, but let me just say that just because Perez (an outsider, BTW) says something non-committal doesn't mean the sky will fall. There are lots of people in Kodak who have something to say, and Perez is really only interested in the bottom line, the health of the company. That's not to say that he will always make the right decision, but he does not have the entire decision. There is a board of directors and there are lots of people within Kodak who know how to fight.
And if Kodak WERE to spin off the film division, we would still have "Kodak" films.
ISometimes they have implied it is likely to be sold off, at others times they say they have no such plans.
Ian
I've never seen that implication.
Earl
NickTrop
07-16-2007, 19:49
This survey is meaningless. "Almost 3000" photogaphers participated. Just a drop in the bucket I'm afraid.
Disagree. 3000 photographers would seem to be a statistically valid sample. In fact, it seems a rather largish sample with a small margin of error. Kodak is researching the market, do you think they're not going to survey a big enough sample on which to base business decisions?
My $0.02...
Maybe, at the end of the day, pro photographers prefer to shoot film for the same reason I - as an amateur, do:
1. Because they simply enjoy shooting with film and film cameras more.
2. Because they don't have time to sit in front of a computer wonking with RAW files, correcting colors, or want archiving worries. They wanted to be photographers, and do photography for a living, not be imaging software experts, hardware geeks, and technologists. It's easier and makes more sense to do the "front end" and outsource the "back end" or "post" work to a competent lab they have a relationship with.
3. They know the look - say, of "Portra" or whatever film stock they like/use often, will give them. It's a look they like, are familiar with it, know how the film will react in various lighting situations, and is consistent. There are many such "looks" to choose from. Digital will give them the same (clinical, boring, prosaic, digital-y) look, always, whatever (clinical, boring, prosaic, digital-y)look that one fixed non-interchangeable sensor provides... in every single shot they take with that camera. If they want to have their shot look like Portra VC, they will have to buy (I guess) some Photoshop "plug-in" or something, and manipulate every shot, and we all know the "fake me out" PS plug in Portra still doesn't look the same as the real deal.
Again, when you watch TV, notice that most dramatic television - despite adding greatly to expense, is not shot on digital. It's shot on film... (again, this is TV, bear in mind, not movies). Digital is considered cheap capture. It's used for cheap reality TV crap where they have to shoot thousands of hours of boring people. For images with depth and drama, cinematographers shoot film, probably for the same reason pro photograhers - according to this survey, choose it.
I've never seen that implication.
Well, it's in the article I linked to above. "[Antonio Perez, Kodak CEO] declined to comment about a possible sale or spin-off of the film business, but a source close to the company said that the idea had been discussed by Kodak board members and senior executives and was well within the realms of possibility."
"Sources close to the company" is journalism-speak for an off the record briefing. Some senior Kodak executives, at least, are quite evidently considering such an option.
It's also in just about every story in the business press about Kodak for the last two years, ever since the company announced it was looking to get rid of anything up to two thirds of its traditional production. There is no question at all that Kodak is in difficulties, and Perez has repeatedly said that the primary responsibility of the board is to protect the interest of shareholders (as it is for any company), and that selling off chunks of the business is, therefore, possible.
It would be brave person who would make predictions about what will happen next. But it isn't necessarily going to be what we would all want.
Business Week overview of the company in Oct 2005:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_42/b3955106.htm
I'm not trying to be the voice of doom here, but it is worth being realistic. If we start to see more pro-film marketing from Kodak, maybe that's a sign they are once again committed to it. That would be good, but it hasn't happened yet.
Ian
no offense, man, but some analyst/journalist writing "well within the realm of possibility" is a far cry from "likely to be sold off," or anything like "discontinuing all film products." Those outcomes are so far removed from the presented statements that I don't even know how what to say.
"I'm not trying to be the voice of doom here, but it is worth being realistic. If we start to see more pro-film marketing from Kodak, maybe that's a sign they are once again committed to it. That would be good, but it hasn't happened yet."
What pisses me off are the folks that use any kind of statement at all as a reason to go on the "abandon Kodak" soapbox. Obviously, if one is concerned that Kodak might discontinue their film products, one ought to show their support and buy Kodak film products. If one is not dependent on Kodak for any film-related products, I don't quite know why one would care to post anything at all in a thread related to anything Kodak.
jonmanjiro
07-17-2007, 01:21
Are you sure that they are actually still in production or are the just selling old stocks? Last I heard even the Nikon F6 was not really being produced any more, even if you can still buy one from most pro Nikon retailers.
Sendai Nikon is still making the F6 albeit not in large volumes.
http://www.sendai-nikon.com/eizo/index.htm
http://www.sendai-nikon.com/eizo/slr/index.htm
no offense, man, but some analyst/journalist writing "well within the realm of possibility" is a far cry from "likely to be sold off," or anything like "discontinuing all film products." Those outcomes are so far removed from the presented statements that I don't even know how what to say.
It's absolutely clear what Kodak management strategy is, and it does not preclude selling off the film business. Acknowledging this simple reality is not such a big deal. You will not get anyone from Kodak senior management announcing that they are selling off the film business until after the deal is done and contracts are signed, Kodak customers will be the last people to know if and when it happens. But the continuous drip-drip-drip of information in the business press in the last couple of years makes abundantly clear that it is a strong possibility, and nobody in Kodak senior management has made a public statement denying that it will happen. If it happens, nobody knows what availability will be like, or what products will remain in production, so it isn't silly for individuals to make a judgement that perhaps they should get familiar with other products in preparation. As I said above, I'd be surprised if Tri-X didn't continue in production, so I still use it as my main film. I would be a bit less comfortable if I was relying on one of their less successful products.
No big deal, no Kodak-bashing, just common sense.
Ian
Hey Ian,
I don't think you and I disagree for the most part.
I would question the assertion that, "It's absolutely clear what Kodak management strategy is," as well as, "But the continuous drip-drip-drip of information in the business press in the last couple of years makes abundantly clear that it [selling off the film business] is a strong possibility." Financial news rarely is anything but advertisement and drip drip drip to generate a little buzz to keep investors happy. The articles are fluff pieces generated with the full cooperation and often at the behest of the subject. There is no way you are going to get an "absolutely clear" picture of a strategy unless said party makes an effort to feed you that information in a direct and unambiguous manner. And even then, as they review quarterly reports, somebody always has a brilliant idea that changes their strategy.
To the people who are all about maximizing their shareholder dollar with the highest possible growth and zero interest in owning a piece of something, Kodak teases by making sure the possibility of selling off a division always gets denied or no-commented. I have no doubt some hothead at a stockholder meeting demanded they dump the film division because "nobody uses it anymore." That constitutes "discussion of selling off the film division." But if you actually look at the statements Kodak has made concerning the money they make off film, it's no loss leader and growth is there. They've actually invested quite a bit in it over the last five years as far as I can tell. Sure, I'll agree that somebody has to be either incredibly boneheaded or privvy to information I'm not if they intend to shuffle the film division off into some third party or just up and stop making film some Monday morning. But I won't agree that scenario is the most likely.
As long as I can remember, people have been predicting the demise of Kodak for this reason or that. As far as I can tell, I'll have to listen to the know-it-alls 'til I die. I'd really think it's past time people just put a sock in it and let it either happen or not without trying to be the person who predicted it. Are there a whole bunch of people out there with "I predicted the dissolution of AGFA!" T-shirts or something making people jeaous enough to print their own "I said Kodak was going to die before it was cool!!!" shirts? Have there been generously attended meetings of the "I called the Ilford split" club that I'm missing out on?
This survey is meaningless. "Almost 3000" photogaphers participated. Just a drop in the bucket I'm afraid.
Statisically, the sample size is valid. You do not have to survey every photographer to have accurate results.
Even Ilford will stop producing film at some point. I admit it is (probably) a matter of when, not if.
But, the original assertion was that Kodak has stated they will do this, (which they have not) which gets translated into a "sky is falling" routine and folks getting all puffy about supporting Ilford (or Foma, etc., etc.,) to "punish" Kodak. Not that I am defending Kodak or saying anyone should buy their products just to support them.
But this 2nd and 3rd hand stuff, this "business speak for ...", while it may be true and is always worthy of thought, to me it is worth the fleeting pixels on a screen, that's about it.
I've made a part of my career troubleshooting sometimes difficult and complex network issues for a certain other company in Rochester (not to name any names of "a document company"), and one thing I learned is to get first-hand information, to get facts and vet those facts thoroughly. Same applies to this sort of stuff.
And I happily consume film from Kodak, Fuji, Ilford ... and Agfa when I can find it.
Who said anything about punishing Kodak?
I prefer to support Ilford and Fuji because those companies have both stated and made good on their intentions to continue to support chemical photography. That represents self preservationism on my part- not vindictiveness towards a company that can't seem to find its way.
For what it is worth, I use Dektol and KRST still- and will until I can't, which as near as I can tell may be next Thursday or 'til I die.
Kodak has suffered, in my opinion, from indecision more than anything. As was brought up here earlier, the medical imaging division that was to be their new cash machine as of a couple of years ago has now been spun off. Then there is inexpensive consumer digicams- nothing, then all out, then nothing again.
As a company, it needs to find its niches and concentrate on them. If that means no more film products, as indications looked for several years, so be it.
photogdave
07-17-2007, 17:47
Statisically, the sample size is valid. You do not have to survey every photographer to have accurate results.
What if 3000 different photographers said they would never touch film again? Would the headline be "Most Photographers Prefer Digital", ignoring the first survey, or would you combine the two and say "Photographers Split Fifty-Fifty On Digital and Film"?
GoodPhotos
07-17-2007, 19:14
I feed and house my family primarily with my wedding work so I suppose I should chime in my 2 pence. To be blunt about it, I cannot imagine going back to shooting film for income photography. I shot with film for the first 17 years of my career and I went fully digital in late 2002 with a steep learning curve, but absolutely no regrets.
I'm surprised that so many of you assumed that wedding & portrait shooters are still using film. I don't know ANY full time wedding professionals in my market who are still shooting film exclusively. Most of those who are still holding on to even some vestiges of professional film use do so because they still aren't 100% up on their workflow and so they don't trust digital capture. They complain it is a different look from what they are used to with film, because they haven't learned yet how to achieve the look that they want from their digital images.
There are a few part time shooters who are still shooting film only. While they have a good eye and their labs help them turn out passable quality, they in turn relinquish all control over their own images after they push the shutter. These folks are also mostly shooting 3 hour weddings for the sub $1k market just for extra spending money so that control isn't as crucial to them. To each their own, but they are a VERY small portion of the market here in Northern New England.
My 'digital prints' are printed right along side their 'film prints' on the same Fuji Frontier but my multiple sets of 'negatives' are backed up on removable HD and Gold CDR and Gold DVD media in dark/dry storage on my end and Gold CDR/DVD on their end (with an admonition to my clients to make copies every other year or so to keep up with evolving storage tech.) I don't ever get a 'scratched roll' from a wedding any more. Never have a roll lost in shipping. (If a CD/DVD gets lost, I simply burn another one.) Longevity and safety of my iamges is simply not a problem due to redundancy that I cannot have with film. For even greater longevity of fine art B&W prints, pigment inks or Carbon on Cotton prints properly printed and presented, will equal Silver Fiber Prints or traditional Silver/Platinum/Palladium prints can be made from a good digital file with relative ease at a good lab. (such as Photographic Traditions of Maine (http://www.photographictraditions.com/).)
I upload best quality files within a week of making them and have invited all 250 guests to click through my site to view and order prints and enlargements. I set my prices through (http://www.DigiProofs.com) and the lab handles the money, the order fulfillment and sends me a check once a month. In many casees these no hassle resales match my initial shooting fee from the weddings and also lead to future bookings from further exposure to my work. While I COULD have film scanned and acheive similar results, the scanned files would be much larger to store and upload and would be far more costly to just acheive something close to the quality that is native to my 10MP DSLR.
No ,I don't think film sucks. I rather enjoy my Lieca IIIf and my Rolleiflex MXEVS (and Ikon, Vito III and Retinette) BUT for income, I can no longer justify film as my media of choice.
"While I COULD have film scanned and acheive similar results, the scanned files would be much larger to store and upload and would be far more costly to just acheive something close to the quality that is native to my 10MP DSLR."
That doesn't make any sense. You scan the film and present it at whatever resolution you wish. Are you currently offering 100% captures to your online customers? Are you suggesting you will never use a camera with a higher resoution than 10MP because the files would be too large to store and upload, be far more costly, and deliver no benefit to the consumer?
I can understand your preference for digital capture, but alot of it seems to center around your desire to work the way you do. I don't think it is fair to characterize anyone who has a different workflow preference as "aren't 100% up on their workflow and so they don't trust digital capture." I'd say their complaints that digital capture doesn't look like they want has more to do with them not finding any value in spending time learning "how to achieve the look that they want from their digital images."
Why would a person spend time altering every single digital image to achieve a look they currently get without any addition time investment? They shoot the film, they have it processed and printed, Voila! they get the look they want. You are suggesting they shoot the images, process it themselves and make any necessary adjustments to the images to get the "film look," then send it out for prints anyway. Seems to me the guys shooting film "for the look" have a workflow that reduces the time spent working on a client's images.
One could easily say people like you either prefer the look of digital or haven't figured out how to get the look you prefer with film. Or, that people who shoot digital tend to spend more time fiddling with the images simply because they enjoy that control, despite the fact that it increases the amount of time spent on each job.
I don't think there is anything wrong with your preference, and thank you for sharing your insight and details of your workflow.
Colyn: I wasn't referring to you directly regarding "punishing" Kodak. And I agree that Kodak has been, for years, less than clear on their direction and plans. OTOH, I'm just trying to stick to the facts, ma'am. ;)
john_van_v
07-18-2007, 15:46
I have been going to exhibits of old school photojournalist work, and then I suddenly found negatives from my shooting as a teenager in NYC which I scanned.
There is NO question that you cannot get the results that we got back when (or still get if we have a lab available) with digital.
Digital gives really crisp color photos on a fine day. But digital has produced poor and inconsistant shots for me under overcast skys, as did color film. And when I convert color to B&W it fails to hold up against a real B&W.
Then there is the issue of shutter lag, which I feel is actually a misnomer-- I say shutter action. I really do not think I will get the synchronicity that I got with my Olympus OM-1 with any digital camera-- or any electronic shutter.
So much so that I just eprayed for another OM-1 -- and got a good one !!
I will be shooting bw400cn for the near future until I can get a lab going again.
Below are some examples from my youth: tri-x, D76. I printed on polycontrast, but I will have to dig deeper to find those.
http://thinman.com/images/70s_NYC/medium/File0045-020.jpg
http://thinman.com/images/70s_NYC/medium/File0067-035.jpg
http://thinman.com/images/70s_NYC/medium/File0105-052.jpg
http://thinman.com/images/70s_NYC/medium/File0106-053.jpg
http://thinman.com/images/70s_NYC/medium/File0049-021.jpg
http://thinman.com/images/70s_NYC/medium/File0031-011.jpg
http://thinman.com/images/70s_NYC/medium/File0100-048.jpg
Mario Mazariegos
07-18-2007, 16:20
You sure seem like a candidate for a leica!!! Keep it up!
In looking at the photos above...
...I am not saying this to be a troublemaker (and I'll back that up in a moment) but I'd say they illustrate many of the problems of the film-to-scanner workflow. Their highlights are blown out, their blacks are plugged, and they're covered with dust spots and hairs.
Every one of them would have been a better image, technically, if it had been either shot on film and printed via conventional wet process or captured and presented digitally. The film-to-scanner workflow (or worse yet, the film-to-scanner-to-printer workflow) just combines the disadvantages of both realms with few of the advantages.
Okay, now why I am not saying this to be a troublemaker: the reason I'm saying it is that I tried to walk down that path myself. I bought a good film scanner and told myself that I was going to keep right on shooting film and moving it into the digital realm.
I was bitterly disappointed to find that for someone with my quality expectations and degree of time and commitment available, it just did not work. The images I'd view or print from scanned negatives were never as good as the same negatives printed in a darkroom, and once I got a decent digital camera, they also were never as good as images captured digitally from the start.
And aside from the quality issue, there was the time involvement: I found by actual head-to-head comparisons that getting a good scan out of a negative (admittedly with a slow scanner) took almost exactly the same amount of time as getting a good print out of that same negative, and that was before I factored in the huge amount of time required to retouch dust spots and emulsion defects off every scan (film scanners being much less forgiving of this than my diffusion-head enlarger.)
I was forced to conclude that the hybrid workflow took more time and produced poorer results than either an all-analog or an all-digital workflow. I wish that weren't true, but for me it is. Maybe if you're tolerant of dust and a short tonal range you can make it work, but if you want to shoot film I still maintain that you're better off investing your time on enlarging than on scanning, and if you want to produce digital images I maintain that you'll get better-quality files much more easily by capturing them with a digital camera in the first place.
As I said, I've been down this path, and it made me very, very sad that the path led nowhere.
GoodPhotos
07-18-2007, 17:46
For me going Digital was as much about having total control of my work again as anything else. I spend a whole lot more time investment in my digital work now than I did the many many years that I was shooting wedings on film, but that time pays off in giving me exactly the end product that I (and my clients) want.
I don't know very many Wedding/Portrait shooters who souped and printed their own work. Most of us relied on trying to maintain a good relationship with our pro lab and hoping that they'd produce something from our negs close to what we had in mind when we pressed the shutter. Often, we had to make due with what we got back and on the LAB's schedule or fight for something better. I don't want to have to fight to get the results I want.
Now, all of that control is in my hand. While I use a lab to print my end products, they print them as I've profiled them for the machines that they are printed on.
IF I had the time and money to soup and print 300 images per event by hand in a darkroom, I may have shot film for a few more years. As it was, a purely digital workflow has rejuvinated my business (and my excitedment for my work.)
It is certainly not the ONLY way, but it is the way that works best for me and it has been accepted as preferrable by many many others making some wonderful (and admittedly some crappy) photos today.
john_van_v
07-18-2007, 18:59
In looking at the photos above...
if you're tolerant of dust and a short tonal range you can make it work, but if you want to shoot film I still maintain that you're better off investing your time on enlarging than on scanning, and if you want to produce digital images I maintain that you'll get better-quality files much more easily by capturing them with a digital camera in the first place.
As I said, I've been down this path, and it made me very, very sad that the path led nowhere.
I agree with you 100%. The negatives were exciting to find, sort of personal archeology. I did not have resources back then; I designed boats then too, on whatever scrap paper was handy. I managed to find them too, and I scanned theman put them online.
My old OM-1 offered one thing that I have no experienced anywhere else-- really good shutter action. I was really able to synchronize with the scenes every time; I was never off. I want to get that back; it is non-existant in digital.
I think that the one feature that all photographers attibute to old school film photography and lab printing is warmth.
Here is one other picture that I scanned from a proof sheet; I could not find the negative. I think it shows the dreamy possibilties that film offers, which directly contradict the hyper reality of digital, my present medium.
This was taken in the Museum of Modern Art in NYC, where I did all my learning. Kandinsky is to the right :)
http://thinman.com/images/70s_NYC/medium/File0024-1-006.jpg
flatlander
07-18-2007, 19:54
Most of you may be missing the point. A lot of "pro" work requires view camera cameras (for both the large image and perspective controls). There are also a lot of things you can do with film that just aren't practicle with digital. Don't believe me... just looks through the pages of any major magazine. About half of the photos are still being shot with film. Can't tell which ones... well, you're still new to digital. They do stand out. I'm not say one is better than the other. They are different tools that provide different end results. The other thing that bothers me... there were a few comments that digital was less expensive and clients/customers don't pay for film and processing anymore. Really... glad I don't work for them. Any shooter not charging some sort of digital capture charge needs to re-evaluate their buisness practices. Having said all that; I will say that 90% of my work is digital. Mostly because the clients request that I shoot digital.
...I am not saying this to be a troublemaker (and I'll back that up in a moment) but I'd say they illustrate many of the problems of the film-to-scanner workflow. Their highlights are blown out, their blacks are plugged, and they're covered with dust spots and hairs.
Dust can be a problem (I'm lucky enough to live in a very dust free environment, and hardly ever have to do more than clone out a couple of spots), but highlights and shadow detail don't have to be compromised by scanning, surely, as one look at many RFF members' scans demonstrates.
I can understand why some people prefer a fully digital workflow, but there's no doubt that prints from film scans can be excellent. But, like good wet printing, it takes a bit of work, it isn't necessarily an easier option as far as effort goes.
IMO, my b&w (which is most of what I do), got far better when I reverted to film and started scanning, rather than converting digital images to b&w. The prints generally look far better, and even on-screen jpgs seem to have far richer tonality.
Ian
What if 3000 different photographers said they would never touch film again? Would the headline be "Most Photographers Prefer Digital", ignoring the first survey, or would you combine the two and say "Photographers Split Fifty-Fifty On Digital and Film"?
If the sample polled was representative, it will give statistically correct results that can be extrapolated to the whole. Explaining statistics in a forum post would take too much effort, but there are some introductory guides on the Net, e.g. Wikipedia piece on opinion polls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_poll). Check out specifically the passage on Gallup vs. Literary Digest predictions and the section on sampling error.
What if 3000 different photographers said they would never touch film again? Would the headline be "Most Photographers Prefer Digital", ignoring the first survey, or would you combine the two and say "Photographers Split Fifty-Fifty On Digital and Film"?
Are you saying that Kodak first screened the photographers to find their answers and then only surveyed the group that would support a predetermined result? This was a random sampling in a specific goup (professional photographers) and the sample size is great enough to show valid results. The idea that a different random sampling of the same group would show anything statistically different is not likely. It seems from your post you simply don't like what the survey is implying, but that does not make the survey any less accurate or valid.
photogdave
07-19-2007, 07:15
It seems from your post you simply don't like what the survey is implying, but that does not make the survey any less accurate or valid.
You got me all wrong! In fact after shooting my last wedding digitally, I vowed to shoot the next one on film. The digital images looked great but the workflow killed me!
I'm just saying what if the poll randomly surveyed a DIFFERENT group? Maybe in a different part of the world. What would the headline be then? I just found the original article to be a bit general.
Sheesh!
Flatlander, we have a very big Studio here who just scrapped their E6 processor.
They still have some Plaubels and Linhofs, but they use them with the same digital backs they use on their Hassies.
You got me all wrong! In fact after shooting my last wedding digitally, I vowed to shoot the next one on film. The digital images looked great but the workflow killed me!
I'm just saying what if the poll randomly surveyed a DIFFERENT group? Maybe in a different part of the world. What would the headline be then? I just found the original article to be a bit general.
Sheesh!
But the article was clear about who was surveyed. Sure, poll professionals in China or New York City and the results could be different. Who says they wouldn't, but that does not make the survey meaningless.
Sheesh!
shadowfox
07-19-2007, 11:36
You sure seem like a candidate for a leica!!! Keep it up!
Why the need for a Leica? he has the good eyes for composition and an OM-1. :D
Shadow, you are truly an OM-vangelist. :D And yes, he has a great eye.
But as much as I love my OMs and Oly RFs ... and as much as I have not yet truly exercised the glass ...
the other day I was going through some old 35mm chromes, ca. 1985-87. At first I thought they were OM shots because the shots brought back the memory of that day. But as I searched my memory, I couldn't honestly say that I recall holding the OM in my hands and making the exposures. The more I looked at the slides, the more I became convinced that they were M3/SA 21/3.4 shots. There was just something about the texture and 3D depth of the photos.
Would the Zuiko 21/2 be as good? Well, I honestly don't know. If I could go back nearly 20 years and shoot that scene again with both, I would be eternally grateful to the Great Spirit for giving me such an opportunity. And now, I no longer have the M3/SA kit to take with me on summer holidays this year to do a (somewhat) controlled test. (But I do have the Leitz/Brooks finder for the 21 SA ... go figure!)
So perhaps in some instances I can really say that Leica (or Zeiss) glass is "better" for me. And in some instances I don't think Leica or Zeiss glass is materially better than certain Zuiko (or Nikor, or Canon, etc., etc.) glass.
I agree that the OM-1 has wonderful shutter action and that it seldom was a factor in my not getting a shot. (I say seldom because there are shots I missed because of me, not the camera, but at the time it seemed that the "lag" was the culprit. I dunno.) But I can't recall missing a shot/timing when using the SP, RC, XA or LC due to shutter action.
GoodPhotos
07-19-2007, 17:31
"While I COULD have film scanned and acheive similar results, the scanned files would be much larger to store and upload and would be far more costly to just acheive something close to the quality that is native to my 10MP DSLR."
That doesn't make any sense. You scan the film and present it at whatever resolution you wish. Are you currently offering 100% captures to your online customers? Are you suggesting you will never use a camera with a higher resoution than 10MP because the files would be too large to store and upload, be far more costly, and deliver no benefit to the consumer?
I am sorry. I did not mean to imply that which you inferred. What I meant was that it would cost me FAR more to get high end very large scans made of my film (which would be needed if I want to match the native 10MP files of my D200.) All reputable labs that I have dealt with charge a premium per image for a high end scan of quality. I simply do not have time to scan my own work with my workload.
And yes, along with professionally printed first prints (in quadtone and colour), I do provide full resolution 10MP JPEGs to my clients and a license for them to use them as they wish for their own personal use.
I don't think it is fair to characterize anyone who has a different workflow preference as "aren't 100% up on their workflow and so they don't trust digital capture." I'd say their complaints that digital capture doesn't look like they want has more to do with them not finding any value in spending time learning "how to achieve the look that they want from their digital images."
No. That wouldn't have been fair. I'm not 9and was not) speaking about anyone but those wedding photographer whom I personally know are still shooting film and who've told me that they don't want to go digital, mostly because they are convinced that "digital prints don't look like film prints do." I'm pointing out only that that need not be true with some attempt at the learning curve. I have prints from both film and digital cameras in my portfolio from the last almost 23 years of shooting for dollars and none of the folks who make this claim can tell me 100% which print is from which camera.
Why would a person spend time altering every single digital image to achieve a look they currently get without any addition time investment? They shoot the film, they have it processed and printed, Voila! they get the look they want. You are suggesting they shoot the images, process it themselves and make any necessary adjustments to the images to get the "film look," then send it out for prints anyway. Seems to me the guys shooting film "for the look" have a workflow that reduces the time spent working on a client's images.
I don't mean to be leaving the impression that I have any complaint about the way others proceed with their workflow. I've only expressed the reasons that I shoot digitally now having shot the first almost two decades of my career with film. I don't believe that there is a 'dgital look' there are good photos and there are not so good photos. If you learn the complete craft of photography (from composition to end print) you can create any look that you want with either film or digital. I personally find that I have more control to this end using digital. That's all.
I likely sound like I'm evangelising because alomst daily still I hear claims to the extent of "If you really care about getting the best image for your client possible, you will shoot your work on film because digital just isn't there yet." (I'm not suggesting that you are saying this 40oz. only that the 'debate' often ends up there.) Again, for ME, and for most wedding/portrait shooters I know, Digital is not a 'good enough' medium for our work, it is rather a medium that can equal the quality of film in every instance for wedding and portrait photographers (and photojournalists) and it offers us several other advantages for the way that we want to work and have control over our work.
One could easily say people like you either prefer the look of digital or haven't figured out how to get the look you prefer with film. Or, that people who shoot digital tend to spend more time fiddling with the images simply because they enjoy that control, despite the fact that it increases the amount of time spent on each job.
I don't think there is anything wrong with your preference, and thank you for sharing your insight and details of your workflow.
Well, thank you and you are welcome.
:)
shadowfox
07-20-2007, 11:41
Shadow, you are truly an OM-vangelist. :D And yes, he has a great eye.
I learn from the master ;)
But as much as I love my OMs and Oly RFs ... and as much as I have not yet truly exercised the glass ...
the other day I was going through some old 35mm chromes, ca. 1985-87. At first I thought they were OM shots because the shots brought back the memory of that day. But as I searched my memory, I couldn't honestly say that I recall holding the OM in my hands and making the exposures. The more I looked at the slides, the more I became convinced that they were M3/SA 21/3.4 shots. There was just something about the texture and 3D depth of the photos.
... a very honest master :D
So perhaps in some instances I can really say that Leica (or Zeiss) glass is "better" for me. And in some instances I don't think Leica or Zeiss glass is materially better than certain Zuiko (or Nikor, or Canon, etc., etc.) glass.
I agree... there is a reason why Zeiss and Leitz rule the roost for such a long timespan. I remember recently holding a print from the Kiev with Jupiter 8, *a Russian copy* of the Sonnar, and I have to admit that it blows me in a way that not even the zuiko 85/2 has ever did. Somehow the timeless quality that I've been looking for is there.
Still, that doesn't take away my loving anything Zuiko. For the price that they are in today, it's a DARN STEAL.
My old OM-1 offered one thing that I have no experienced anywhere else-- really good shutter action. I was really able to synchronize with the scenes every time; I was never off. I want to get that back; it is non-existant in digital.
Sorry, but that' just plain stupid!
Compared to your OM1 my Contax RTS is not slower, if not faster.
And compared to any digital SLR, your OM1s autofocus sucks, doesn't it?
Here is one other picture that I scanned from a proof sheet; I could not find the negative. I think it shows the dreamy possibilties that film offers, which directly contradict the hyper reality of digital, my present medium.
From a DSLR point of view, unsharp and overexposed, if that was from a Canon digital Rebel, i'd send it in for maintenance.
Jeeze, Socke ... auto-focus isn't the be-all/end-all. I'd say if John doesn't miss shots with an OM, then why the hell does he need auto-focus.
Jeeze, Socke ... auto-focus isn't the be-all/end-all. I'd say if John doesn't miss shots with an OM, then why the hell does he need auto-focus.
At least on a Canon D60 you can switch of AF, but I admit, that most photographers complaining about cameras from 1975 up are inable to switch to manual.
Edit:
I forgot, the Contax RTS (Real Time System) is manual focus, just with an "electronic" shutter. My RTS has a cloth shutter and my RTS II a metal shutter, both are much faster then I am. With a dSLR, the D60 I have myself and the 1D MkIIs I can borrow, shutter lag is close to 0 if the camera found something to focus on, a 1d is much faster then my D60, but on manual focus they are as fast as any SLR, if not faster.
john_van_v
07-20-2007, 20:43
A huge RF collector said he likes the Petri 7s the most. I thought he was crazy, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and eprayed for one (and got two). To be completely honest I can see why he likes them; they are noisy and feel pretty good.
To me the OM-1 is the SLR that can hang w/ the RFs.
Oh, and I do have a Leica:
http://thinman.com/images/cameras//leica_IIIc_industar_61.jpg
I also just got a brand new FED 5, and broke the shutter mechanism w/in 5 minutes of opening the box. But it was not a total loss, the Industar 61 looks pretty good on my IIIc
john_van_v
07-20-2007, 20:49
From a DSLR point of view, unsharp and overexposed, if that was from a Canon digital Rebel, i'd send it in for maintenance.
Hey, the guy's face is middle gray-- that picture was perfectly exposed. If your $1K dSLR takes picts like that, don't send it in -- send it to me!!
Here is another perfectly exposed picture. Obviously I pointed the camera at my hand and up-ed it two stops to compensate for the brother's dark face. Having said that, I guess I will have to worry about accusations of racism!
http://thinman.com/images/70s_NYC/medium/File0005.bmp-001.jpg
Hey, the guy's face is middle gray-- that picture was perfectly exposed. If your $1K dSLR takes picts like that, don't send it in -- send it to me!!
I expose for the highlights
http://www.hett.org/gallery2/d/5941-2/mariachi.jpg
Not digital, HP5 in a Contax G2 with a 28/2.8.
john_van_v
07-21-2007, 04:53
I like HP5 over the others for this simple: you can always add constrast, but you cannot take it away. You do get the inside and outside pretty significantly. If I were printing it, I would try to make the trees a theme, white out the street-- and actually go back for more shots when there are more people to create some drama.
This requires printing of course. As I am learning, the digital scanning of b&w negatives is a wholly disspointing experience.
I am personally in a quandry right now. All my projects are done. I would like to go and re-do a cemetery that has been abandoned <somewhere in NYC, which I won't disclose> in HP5.
I actually have Suzanne Vega (my name is luka) living in my parents' apartment building, and the commerical (and no doubt digital) photogs are butchering her face. She is actually petty hot, but you would not know it from their work-- all of them, they suck.
I really want to approach her about it, but I am shy. Not because I am a shy person (I am not, I would rather go out and kick the mayor's ass), but because I have never planned a shot in my life-- that would be like Capa planning a war, or Lange planning a depression.
I took pictures of a junkie friend/patient of mine just before he started shooting speed --which landed him in the mental hospital and out of reach of my lens. I did it with both film in a Nikon, and electrons in my kodak c875. I think the film may have gotten over heated in my car, but still the comparison is significant.
http://thinman.com/images/andrew//File0127.jpg
http://thinman.com/images/andrew//100_2337.jpg
john_van_v
07-21-2007, 05:05
Sorry, but that' just plain stupid!
Compared to your OM1 my Contax RTS is not slower, if not faster.
And compared to any digital SLR, your OM1s autofocus sucks, doesn't it?
Are you trying to say your RTS has slower shutter reaction than an OM 1, or faster?
Despite the fact that you are an obvious savant (currently my worst insult), your grammer is worse than mine. Sorry, lol
Are you trying to say your RTS has slower shutter reaction than an OM 1, or faster?
Despite the fact that you are an obvious savant (currently my worst insult), your grammer is worse than mine.
I just don't know for sure. The RTS and RTS II freel as fast as the OM-2n I have. The shutter release on the RTS is awesome and I like it much better than the one on the OM-2n.
So I don't think the RTS is slower than an OM-1 and it may be a bit fast.
My grammar is somewhat better in german and worse in spanish and portuguese, but good enough to buy batteries for my cameras in Lisboa and San Juan :)
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.