And they say that film is dead =) [Archive]

chikne

12-26-2007, 12:20

Who exactly are 'they'?

All things change and all good things come to an end ..... but not yet I hope.

Maybe the ones who say that film is dead =)

This "film is dead/ film is not dead" arguement has been going on for a while, and I for one find it tiresome. I shoot only slide film, and find it both easy to get and process, so I really don't understand what all the fuss is about.
My own belief is that this whole business was started by Digital people having doubts whether they made a good choice switching or not, and shouting about the "impending end" of film helps them rationalize their choices.
It is dead. It isn't dead. Who knows? First we'll see, and then we'll know.
In the meantime, just shoot with what you like, but please, just shut up about it and leave the other guys alone.

Hello sir,

you are indeed correct, who knows? But the fact of the matter is that Fuji introducing some old/new emulsions is actually the subject of the thread, though I noticed there were people (myself included) directing the topic towards a film VS digital, which is fine....

We do not know each other, and, for me to care about what you think, I would first need to care about you

My point is that if you are saying that I should shut up for being excited enough to start a thread on that matter, then I advise you to do the same and also not to frequent posts where it is apparent that this kind of subject might come up, unless of course you enjoy being in pain, a lot of people do.

Who knows?

venchka

12-26-2007, 12:32

Truth be known, Velvia 50 never disappeared. The new stocks and the old stocks overlapped a bit. Internet rumor has it that the film is the same.

Kent

12-26-2007, 12:44

"Film is not dead, it just smells funny!" (Flickr) :D

rbsinto

12-26-2007, 14:06

chikne,
I appreciate your obvious deep concern for my emotional well being, but please let me assure you that stale arguments on meaningless topics such as this one, neither sadden nor pain me, and since they keep you occupied and focused, I suppose they do perform a useful purpose.

jlw

12-26-2007, 14:31

Akiva, please, send it to me. I have the resources for resurection of this film

I can just visualize you and Igor with the roll of Velvia strapped to the table, waiting for a thunderstorm... :P

Pherdinand

12-26-2007, 14:56

The 20 or so rolls I have on the shelf are dancing a conga to Prince's "1999." They look reasonably alive to me. ;)
[...]
- Barrett
Just put on "gett off" and u r up to a miracle:D

chikne

12-26-2007, 15:59

they keep you occupied and focused, I suppose they do perform a useful purpose.

Hehe, you're damn right and must have a very acute sense of observation!

At least, the entire rest of the world can witness how those topics do not keep you occupied ;)

Dogman

12-26-2007, 16:19

It hurts my eyes. Fuji Velvia, I mean.

I really think this stuff was the forerunner of tasteless digital manipulation with its oversaturation and insipid skin tones.

giovatony

12-26-2007, 16:25

So Fuji intends to be the Last man standing do they?
That in itself don`t sound all that promising to me.
John

sjw617

12-26-2007, 16:34

I shoot only slide film, and find it both easy to get and process, so I really don't understand what all the fuss is about.

I am finding my choice of film VERY limited at local shops - usually Velvia 100 in 35mm only. I do not have another choice of films and can not buy 120/220. And I live only 20 miles outside of NYC.

I have family photos of my great grand parents taken in the early 1900s in a box that has been kept in a desk drawer for as long as I can remember. They havent faded in 48 of my years. Can digital do that I wonder?

Why would digital pictures fade when placed in a box in a drawer?

Steve

cmedin

12-26-2007, 16:38

Why would digital pictures fade when placed in a box in a drawer?

Steve

I think he's hinting at the inability (currently) to stick a CD, DVD or HD in a drawer and expect to read it fifty years down the road. Digital does require more 'maintenance' to keep alive though it's not that much work if you think about it; keep a couple of backups and once every decade or so transfer over to a new storage medium whatever it happens to be at the time.

If he's talking about the actual PRINTS, it seems like inkjet prints might well have an edge over traditional at least in color as far as archivability goes.

NickTrop

12-26-2007, 17:08

Cameras: It's so nice to be cable free, battery independent (for the most part), shoot with a fast fixed lens and a nice compact camera with a few easy controls. My Konica Auto S3, for example, is "expensive". Cost me $100 bucks w/ CLA. Got a deal, admittedly. But that's 1/2-1/3 the price of an average digital P&S. They're fun to collect and play around with. Tons of interesting samples from the golden age.

Film: It's so nice to play around with different film stocks. I really enjoy developing my own negs. It's so nice not to chase megapixels, having a "high" megapixel camera that's "full frame" - that digital always trys to compare itself to.

It's nice knowing I already have the standard, ranther than chasing the standard.

Prints: Still get a charge waiting for my prints to "see how they looked". Nice to drop off a roll or two and for a reasonable fee, get them back in an hour. It's an art and a craft the darkroom is... also a lot of fun. Gotten away from it this year (doing some work in the basement) but looking forward to getting back to it.

Ahhh... film. Love it. Everything about it.

cmedin

12-26-2007, 17:30

It's so nice not to chase megapixels, having a "high" megapixel camera that's "full frame" - that digital always trys to compare itself to.

It's nice knowing I already have the standard, ranther than chasing the standard.

I know it's all subjective, but not all digital users are 'chasing' megapixels or 'the standard'. Personally, I think that when digital SLRs hit ~6 mpix (I had a 300D, a 10D and now a GX-1S, all 6mpix cameras) that was all I'd ever need. It suffices for any print I want to make, the files are a reasonable size, and just about any DSLR has decent autofocus, metering and whatnot. What else do you need?

Granted, a LOT of digital users suffer from upgrade-itis, but honestly, how is it different from pining for the next great Leica lens? Gearheads are gearheads whether using analog or digital. Just look at this forum; how many people are always on the lookout for a new camera, lens, case, whatnot?

I love film too, but that doesn't mean I can't like digital as well. :)

kevin m

12-26-2007, 17:38

I love film too, but that doesn't mean I can't like digital as well.

I'm sorry, but you're attempting to interject common sense into a religious discussion, and that simply can't be allowed.
:D

cmedin

12-26-2007, 17:47

I'm sorry, but you're attempting to interject common sense into a religious discussion, and that simply can't be allowed.
:D
You're right.

To hell with [digital/analog] and its users because they [shoot too much/cling to dinosaur technology], besides [digital/analog] is worthless because [it can't be archived/you only have one copy of the original] and the cameras [will be obsolete in three weeks/are outdated and nobody will work on them].

Better? :)

LeicaTom

12-26-2007, 17:47

I think when it comes to archiving material, digital will bite everyone in the a** in the long haul and film will STILL be the way to preserve everything worthwhile, CD`s DVD `s and digital media, break down alot faster then film stock and costs about 10 times as much to keep preserved.........

So much for digital technology, there`s always a catch to harder, faster, quicker stuff, it still pays to shoot everything that`s important on real film or slide

Tom

wgerrard

12-26-2007, 17:49

I Digital does require more 'maintenance' to keep alive though it's not that much work if you think about it; keep a couple of backups and once every decade or so transfer over to a new storage medium whatever it happens to be at the time.

The problem of long-term digital storage is really the problem of the eventual unavailability of the hardware and software needed to transfer old stuff to a new medium.

For example, someone in 1978 might have recorded lots of data on a personal computer running the CP/M operating system and using 8-inch floppy disks. That was a typical setup back then. Or, maybe a similar piece of Commodore hardware with 8-inch drives using a proprietary operating system. Now, 30 years on, you might have to look hard to find hardware and software that could read those disks.

Who knows what we will be using in 30 years and if anyone then will have a commercial incentive to maintain compatiblity with 2007 tech?

charjohncarter

12-26-2007, 17:52

No, film is not dead:

http://www.shorpy.com/files/images/00093u.preview.jpg

http://www.shorpy.com/node?page=161

I hope that covers rule 6, and I agree with rule 6. (photographer Ansel Adams)

cmedin

12-26-2007, 17:53

The problem of long-term digital storage is really the problem of the eventual unavailability of the hardware and software needed to transfer old stuff to a new medium.

For example, someone in 1978 might have recorded lots of data on a personal computer running the CP/M operating system and using 8-inch floppy disks. That was a typical setup back then. Or, maybe a similar piece of Commodore hardware with 8-inch drives using a proprietary operating system. Now, 30 years on, you might have to look hard to find hardware and software that could read those disks.

Who knows what we will be using in 30 years and if anyone then will have a commercial incentive to maintain compatiblity with 2007 tech?
Did you not read what I posted? I said that you have to put up with switching storage medium every decade or so. When something is clearly fading out of existence, you spend an afternoon moving the digital files over to whatever is current, and wait another decade. If you had all your stuff on ZIP disks, it probably became pretty obvious that the format was dying out some time ago, and you could've moved it over to CD.

The upside is that most likely whatever new medium it is will have much greater storage capacity; witness how many floppies can be put on a CD, how many CDs on a DVD etc. Before long your entire 2000-2010 archive will easily fit on a single disk/stick/magic card.

It's maintenance, as I said, but it certainly isn't a hurdle that can't be overcome; merely a slight inconvenience. Besides, you can easily have 2-3 backups of everything while you only have ONE negative and are only a minor disaster/fire away from losing it.

As for your example, if you had something valuable on CP/M formatted 8" disks in 1978 you'd be a fool if you didn't move it over to something newer until 30 years later. Though I'm fairly sure with a little searching you could easily get the data off those disks even today.

Al Patterson

12-26-2007, 18:05

cmedin

12-26-2007, 18:17

I have some CP/M format disks on both 8 inch and 5.25 inch media. The 5.25 is Commodore 128 CP/M 3.0. I doubt I can get at those files today. Well, the 128 might actally boot up, but I don't have 8 inch floppy drives just laying about.

Mm hmm, and how many non-photographer people have suitable film scanners just laying about for when they find that shoebox of odd-format negatives from grandpa's camera in a closet? Take it to Wal-Mart to get them scanned? What will Wal-Mart do with 620 or 828 or 127 film?

Yep, it'll take some effort to get to those pictures too...

JoeV

12-26-2007, 21:32

As for your example, if you had something valuable on CP/M formatted 8" disks in 1978 you'd be a fool if you didn't move it over to something newer until 30 years later. Though I'm fairly sure with a little searching you could easily get the data off those disks even today.

Well, not actually. In 1978 there were competing, non-compatible formats; not the standardization toward 2 or 3 main systems like we have today. CP/M files were not compatible with Apple II files, which weren't compatible with Commodore 64/128 files, etc. You simply couldn't stick an 8" CP/M disc in a Commodore drive and expect to port over the file. Plus, Commodore had 5.25" floppies, not 8". And you couldn't stick a Commodore disc in an early IBM PC and expect it to read, either.

The point is that you have to maintain the entire hardware platform to make the data archivally readable. Kind of like 8-track tapes; there's plenty of them still floating around, many in great shape; but how many players are still working?

And we didn't have common hardware protocols like USB and Firewire today, or common languages like HTML, so porting a file cross-platforms was near impossible.

Mm hmm, and how many non-photographer people have suitable film scanners just laying about for when they find that shoebox of odd-format negatives from grandpa's camera in a closet? Take it to Wal-Mart to get them scanned? What will Wal-Mart do with 620 or 828 or 127 film?

Flatbed scanners with film scan attachments are cheap and plentiful, and can be made to work with a wide variety of films. I shoot oddball film formats in pinhole cameras, many of these cut to custom sizes from larger sheets of film; my el-cheapo Epson 2480, designed to only scan 35mm negative strips and slide mounts, works fine.

Still, one would be in denial to say that film isn't dead in some quarters. Like photojournalism; sure, there's the exception (David Burnett for example, but he doesn't shoot exclusively film; it's just another option in his tool kit.) Let's agree that film is no longer a universally common format, but rather has evolved to be a specialization.

~Joe

jlw

12-26-2007, 21:57

Hey, after reading and thinking about that New York Times article, I just figured out The Answer... the answer to the film industry's preservation problem, and the solution to our tediously endless debates:

Take your digital data and archive it optically, on film. I can't imagine how many gazigabytes of high-resolution "barcodes" a thousand-foot can of movie film might hold, but I'll be it would be a lot.

That way we could have the convenience, clean high-ISO performance, and degradation-free duplication of digital, combined with film's fully-evolved infrastructure and documented archivality. (B&W film would be ideal for digital storage, so we wouldn't even have to worry about color fading.)

As to data formats, any future technician (terrestrial or alien) should be able to figure out just by looking at it that the stuff contained digital data, and anybody capable of hooking up a photodiode to an A-to-D converter would be able to make the apparatus needed to read it.

Best of all, all the digital photographers would still be "film" photographers, so we could stop having all these threads!

maddoc

12-26-2007, 22:18

As to data formats, any future technician (terrestrial or alien) should be able to figure out just by looking at it that the stuff contained digital data, and anybody capable of hooking up a photodiode to a D-to-A converter would be able to make the apparatus needed to read it.
This was exactly my idea, too ! The ideal tool for archiving digital data is simple low ISO BW film with very high resolution (like the one used as repro-film). Should be stable for decades and easily accesible. The only problem might be the data format ...

Regarding "film is not dead" ... there was some interesting article in Shutterbug from October this year about the 29th Tokyo Used Camera Show. In the article it is written that many Japanese professional photographer get "bored" with digital, and also many serious amateurs keep shooting film. This is quite what I have observed here in Japan. Lot's of digital P&S (which are more and more replaced with the high quality cell phone cameras) for the simple family snap shot and lots of film cameras (mostly 135 SLR but also 120 and RF cameras), used by amateur photographers.

Paul Jenkin

12-27-2007, 00:23

When all's said and done photography is photography. Film, digital....who cares? I happen to believe (though don't ask me for a valid reason) that film will be around longer than me. I hope so or I've just wasted a LOT of money buying an M6 and three good lenses.

However, digital is also here to stay. The two are NOT, as far as I can see, mutually exclusive. You pays your money and you takes your choice. I have a foot firmly in both camps.

For the film die-hards, havea look at what the latest crop of digital SLR's can do. I've just (also) bought a Nikon D300 and I am amazed at its capabilities and the quality of results.

For the digital revolutionists (and many who have never used film extensively - or at all) don't knock it until you've tried it. The image quality is different - not necessarily worse (or better for that fact).

Agfa has gone to the wall, as has Ilford (though the brands have been resurrected to a degree). Kodak has moved from predominantly film to almost exclusively digital and Fuji are one of the few companies that seem genuinely interested in film users as well as producing superb digital products.

Can we not just get on with it instead of getting defensive over an issue that is happening whether we like it or not?

larmarv916

12-27-2007, 00:26

If we look at the whole film Vs digital image capture. We only need to look or read many discussions at the point in time when photograpy came on the scene. It was regarded as a non artistic...cheap and dirty way to get around the need for illustration, painting and etchings for newspapers and books. Film was deemed as never being able to outlast durability of an oil painting. In some sense the durability of paintings is amazing, our world seems to be moving more and more towards the "instant gratification" addiction. Look at Polaroid "fad" that is now in the rear view mirror of photography.

Digital will help elevate apperciation for traditional film to a higher artisitc status. Digital will be both a blessing and a curse. As it becomes the lowest common denominator for imagery and also for those chasing the colage photo image school to reach farther. The stock and mico stock products often are fetching very few dollars....which proves the real value of that product.

Film and traditional photograpy will become a more apperciated artistic craft. More fine art high end galleries are seeing the marketability of real photographic creativity. This allows for a wider photography consumer depth as more people become collectors. That is happening. So in the end it really is a win-win situation for image creators and consumers.

Pherdinand

12-27-2007, 03:24

" know it's all subjective, but not all digital users are 'chasing' megapixels or 'the standard'. Personally, I think that when digital SLRs hit ~6 mpix (I had a 300D, a 10D and now a GX-1S, all 6mpix cameras) that was all I'd ever need. "

cmedin, that is one funny thing to say :)

Situation was similar with me and film cameras.
As soon as i got my hands on a contax iia, a rolleiflex, then a better rolleiflex, and a leica m2 with a 50/2, and something longer, a 90/2, next to it, and just to satisfy my wider needs, a konica hexar af, and a super ikonta for MF portability, and a few semi-disposable fixed-lens rf's, that's all i needed. For now.
I ain't chasing anything, no.
We ain't chasing anything here on this forum.
LOL.
People are funny.

Pherdinand

12-27-2007, 03:29

Stop wasting your time on "film is dead" blah blah. Stop wasting your time saying "all the pros went digital" blah blah.
Bullocks.
Go to any major photo exhibition of CURRENT work and see for yourself. Half of them are made on black and white F I L M.
Or maybe the Netherlands is twenty years behind, but that's what i see here all the time. Noorderlicht, World press photo, etcetera, etcetera, tens of photographers exhibiting, and a LOT of them working on film.
Of course many of them also work with digital technology. Very well. Why not to use what is available and get the best out of it.

Al Patterson

12-27-2007, 03:53

Pherdinand

12-27-2007, 04:10

wrong argument, sitemistic.
I also did not spend $4000 on a digital camera, or any camera for that matter.
I am nobody on the camera market. A nobody with a big mouth :)

People who bought two M8's on the other hand.. they might spend $4000+ on a new 6x6.

But your argument on disinterest is valid.
Probably it's the only valid argument in this whole discussion.

telenous

12-27-2007, 04:24

Sitemistic, I agree with you on this:

Film's survival problem is connected to the problem of film camera survival.

But I don't understand why you deny the prospect of niche survival to film when you admit yourself that there are niche camera makers:

Voightlander is an anomaly catering to a very niche market.

Canon and Nikon have effectively abandoned film.

(I suppose you say 'effectively' because they are still selling film cameras albeit in small numbers for a niche market).

If Leica were to produce another film M, would anyone here actually buy it?

(You know the answer to that when you are asking this question in this particular forum, right?).

All in all, it seems to me you are pursuing a conclusion your very own premisses cannot support. No one would disagree I think if you had inferred instead that film can survive as niche product and for as long as the economy of scale allows it to be affordable to its users.

Best,

Al Patterson

12-27-2007, 04:29

(I suppose you say 'effectively' because they are still selling film cameras albeit in small numbers for a niche market).

This brings to mind a question I've had regarding just how many film cameras Canon and Nikon have stashed in a warehouse somewhere. I doubt they are still making film cameras, just selling off the remains of their last production runs.

While film isn't quite dead yet, the long term prognosis is obbvious.

NickTrop

12-27-2007, 06:05

I think when it comes to archiving material, digital will bite everyone in the a**

Tom

In 1996-1997, I had a digital capture card installed on my Windows 95 PC. It was "Matrox Rainbow Runner Studio" and it came with Ulead Media Studio Pro. A fine package, especially for its time. Got it because I wanted to digitize and edit those analog Hi-8 videos into something watchable.

It used a proprietary CODEC, for the "Matrox MJPEG" AVI files it created. That was 4 computers ago. That one crashed. Can I find "Matrox MJPEG" codecs? Nooooo. Nowhere. Hours of my daughter's first years, and son - gone.

Learned my lesson. Still have the snaps I took with my Vivitar 3000S K-Mount SLR though. Tons of them.
|

cmedin

12-27-2007, 06:13

In 1996-1997, I had a digital capture card installed on my Windows 95 PC. It was "Matrox Rainbow Runner Studio" and it came with Ulead Media Studio Pro. A fine package, especially for its time. Got it because I wanted to digitize and edit those analog Hi-8 videos into something watchable.

It used a proprietary CODEC, for the "Matrox MJPEG" AVI files it created. That was 4 computers ago. That one crashed. Can I find "Matrox MJPEG" codecs? Nooooo. Nowhere. Hours of my daughter's first years, and son - gone.

Learned my lesson. Still have the snaps I took with my Vivitar 3000S K-Mount SLR though. Tons of them.
|
Matrox MJPEG codes are part of various (free) codec packages downloadable right now; just do a quick google search.

Though I'll be damned as to how your choosing a proprietary codec and then complaining about it has much of anything to do with this discussion...

Also, for all the ones waiting to argue "Well my GEMpaint file from my Amiga 500 in 1988 can't be opened in MS paint digital sucks oh my god it's all lost", remember that personal computing was in its infancy up until probably the mid-late 90s where things stabilized a bit, and even keeping THAT in mind I'd be hard pressed to come up with anything from the past couple of decades that couldn't be read/decoded/copied with a little effort. Trust me, JPEGs and GIFs aren't going to just up and leave overnight and be relegated to obscurity... you'll have time to convert them should that happen.

wgerrard

12-27-2007, 06:28

Did you not read what I posted? I said that you have to put up with switching storage medium every decade or so.

Yep, I read the post. Didn't mean to annoy you. It's just that the need to transfer data to a new storage medium is, in fact, a problem. Maybe not a technical problem, but certainly a scheduling, remembering, and cost problem. In other words, a hassle.

cmedin

12-27-2007, 06:35

Yep, I read the post. Didn't mean to annoy you. It's just that the need to transfer data to a new storage medium is, in fact, a problem. Maybe not a technical problem, but certainly a scheduling, remembering, and cost problem. In other words, a hassle.

Yes, but we're talking maybe once ever TEN years. Honestly, is that so much hassle? Cost? CDs and DVDs are near-free, and just about any machine sold in the past several years can burn a DVD... I really don't think it's much of an issue.

Just curious: where are your storing your negatives to keep them safe and archival?

wgerrard

12-27-2007, 07:00

Yes, but we're talking maybe once ever TEN years. Honestly, is that so much hassle? Cost? CDs and DVDs are near-free, and just about any machine sold in the past several years can burn a DVD... I really don't think it's much of an issue.

Just curious: where are your storing your negatives to keep them safe and archival?

Yes, it's a hassle. Remembering to do something 10 years out is a hassle. Finding a trustworthy business to do the conversion is a hassle. Paying for it all is a hassle.

The negatives and slides I want to keep are stored in a box. My father's slides from 40 years ago are stored in a box, and they're just fine.

The digital stuff, images and otherwise, that I want to safeguard are stored on my Mac's drive, on a Lacie drive, and on a server in a commercial facility on the other side of the country.

The boxes of negatives and slides as well as the digital stuff are subject in equal measure to fire, earthquakes, plagues and famines. But the digital stuff requires more nursemaiding.

cmedin

12-27-2007, 07:03

Yes, it's a hassle. Remembering to do something 10 years out is a hassle. Finding a trustworthy business to do the conversion is a hassle. Paying for it all is a hassle.

The negatives and slides I want to keep are stored in a box. My father's slides from 40 years ago are stored in a box, and they're just fine.

The digital stuff, images and otherwise, that I want to safeguard are stored on my Mac's drive, on a Lacie drive, and on a server in a commercial facility on the other side of the country.

The boxes of negatives and slides as well as the digital stuff are subject in equal measure to fire, earthquakes, plagues and famines. But the digital stuff requires more nursemaiding.

If your house burns down though, it sounds like your server on the other side of the country would be just fine.

No argument that digital needs more tending to, but I think the actual effort of it is vastly overestimated. If copying some files over every decade is too much hassle, then you probably are best of sticking to film however.

Ade-oh

12-27-2007, 07:04

I think there's little doubt that 35mm film is 'dead' as a mass-market product but I would be amazed if it went out of production completely in the next ten or twenty years. I strongly suspect that there are more than enough enthusiasts around to keep some production going, which is more or less what we're seeing now. I have film and digital cameras but I find I use the film cameras more because I enjoy the process more; for me, a day spent in my darkroom producing a good BW print is a day spent well. I can't say I get the same satisfaction from fiddling with histograms in Photoshop.

The huge majority of people who take pictures are amateurs, not professionals, and a substantial number of them will carry on using film because they enjoy it. We won't have the same variety of 35mm film that we had ten years ago, but it isn't just going to disappear, either. As an example, I own a couple of Minox 8 x 11 cameras for which film is still being produced, even though it was never a popular or really practical format.

Part of the problem is the photographic press. Reading most of these magazines, you'd be forgiven for thinking that if you don't have the latest Nikon or Canon DSLR, you might as well be using a camera obscura and charcoal. The reality, in my case anyway, is that I haven't really got to grips with the capabilities of my two year old (and thus obsolete!) DSLR yet.

kevin m

12-27-2007, 07:07

Well, you can still find projectors for those old 8mm movies from the 60's and 70's, but how often does anyone watch 8mm home movies from the 60's? Most people that wanted to save them converted them to VHS years ago because the film stock was deteriorating and fading to purple. Now, of course, the VHS tape is deterioriating. But film and digital seem to have suffered similar fates.

A paragraph full of both negativity and misinformation.

My parents visited for the holidays and my dad brought four 8mm movies he shot while in the Navy in the mid-1950's, but had never seen. They had spent the last 50 years in their yellow Kodak boxes, but once the projector light hit the film, the original colors lit up the screen. Packards, Hudsons, the San Diego Zoo and my 20-year old dad cavorting with two unidentified woman in flouncing skirts. :D

I have 8mm movies of my wife getting on the school bus for the first time, visits from grandparents long dead and the birth of our daughter, all on Kodachrome, which, I can assure you, does not fade to purple! :bang: Even Ektachrome and the B&W stocks hold up well if not exposed to moisture. Any Kodak 8mm film stock is more archival than VHS or digital storage by a country mile.

Ade-oh

12-27-2007, 07:14

Points to you. There is a finite pool of film cameras on the planet. Old cameras are breaking and being trashed at a faster rate than they are being replaced from the tiny trickle of new cameras. We only need to do the math. At some future time, demand for film will sink below the level needed to support any for-profit business. The same applies to dreams of setting up cottage film factories, or making film in the kitchen. If you need to make a profit, sooner or later you'll be in the position of a guy trying to sell buggy whips in 1930.

That strikes me as somewhat too apocalyptic. If I want a beer, I can walk to my nearest convenience store and buy a six-pack, or I can go to my local pub and get it there, in a vast array of different types, flavours and strengths. Alternatively, I can go through the lengthy hassle of brewing my own at home: depending on how seriously I'm doing it, that might mean experimenting with different recipes, mashing grains, boiling a wort, fermenting it, bottling it and maturing it. Most people couldn't be arsed to do that, but there are enough who do to support an industry supplying home-brewing products here in the UK.

kevin m

12-27-2007, 07:21

Film's survival problem is connected to the problem of film camera survival. And there is no future for film cameras, beyond the tiniest niche market.

More fact-free doom and gloom. This is the same argument that bombed in the thread you started, isn't it?

As of today, the B&H website is still selling lots of film cameras, and even if they stopped tomorrow, the 'survivors' would be much larger than a "niche market."

I can still get my Super-8 cameras repaired, buy film stock, have it developed and what year did VHS replace Super-8 in the consumer market, 1980-something? How many film cameras do you think are out there relative to the number of Super-8 cameras? Ten-fold? Ten-thousand? I'm absolutely confident that there will be someone out there fixing, say, Nikon F bodies long after you and I are dead and buried. Your argument is nothing more than your pessimism expressed via typing.

Ade-oh

12-27-2007, 07:26

Your argument is nothing more than your pessimism expressed via typing.
And on this note, as a professional writer, I have never written an article, book or film script with anything other than a word processor or computer. Presumably, this means that pen users are antediluvian dinosaurs who are about to be left behind on the scrapheap of progress.:D

HankOsaurus

12-27-2007, 07:26

Hello Forum.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is how it is that notes are written on the back of old photos. When I and my family members look through old boxes of old photos, we are constantly flipping them over to see who and what the images were about. What would be the digital equivalent of that?

To this day, we still make a point to write names and dates on the back of photos we take, figuring that some of them will wind up in a box of family snapshots, peered over by descendents who will wonder who we were and what we were about.

To the points about moving digital files forward, I can say that the important data files and associated programs from my first PC, an early 80s Olivetti relabled as an AT&T, are present on my computer today. I used a utility called laplink earlier, and now I guess I would use the net, Ethernet, or a thumb drive. The only concern, and as suggested by others, is remembering to do it and keeping serviceable backups. Keeping a box of film and prints is more idiot proof, I suppose.

Happy day.

kevin m

12-27-2007, 07:30

And on this note, as a professional writer, I have never written an article, book or film script with anything other than a word processor or computer. Presumably, this means that pen users are antediluvian dinosaurs who are about to be left behind on the scrapheap of progress.

Yeah, think what that Shakespeare guy could have accomplished with his own Mac Book Pro! :rolleyes: :D

Nachkebia

12-27-2007, 07:33

film is here to stay but it is only for chosen people! like me and you :)
Alkis! How are you? its been a long time :)

Ade-oh

12-27-2007, 07:34

Yeah, think what that Shakespeare guy could have accomplished with his own Mac Book Pro! :rolleyes: :D

Macbeth with embedded images and hyperlinks: proof that Shakespeare can't have been a genius or he would have come up with a decent laptop computer as well as all the plays and poetry.

cmedin

12-27-2007, 07:35

Hello Forum.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is how it is that notes are written on the back of old photos. When I and my family members look through old boxes of old photos, we are constantly flipping them over to see who and what the images were about. What would be the digital equivalent of that?

To this day, we still make a point to write names and dates on the back of photos we take, figuring that some of them will wind up in a box of family snapshots, peered over by descendents who will wonder who we were and what we were about.

You're sort of comparing apples to oranges here though. If you make a print from a digital file you can write on it just like you would on a print from a negative. You're not making notes on the actual negatives; so why worry about making them on the digital 'negatives'?

If they're TIFFs or JPEGs you could always stick it in the image as EXIF data though.

wgerrard

12-27-2007, 07:39

I think there's little doubt that 35mm film is 'dead' as a mass-market product but I would be amazed if it went out of production completely in the next ten or twenty years.

Isn't the issue, though, how many of the used film cameras in circulation today will exist in usable condition 20 years from now? Where are parts going to come from? Where are new service techs coming from to replace retiring and dieing techs?

If not 20 years, then in 30 years, or whatever.

ray*j*gun

12-27-2007, 07:40

This a little off task, but I recently attended a juried art show in Manayank PA (near Phila), and there were many photo art stands at the show. Those that were selling prints from film had prominent signs advertising that fact and were doing a MUCH better business and....the producta were much better. Somwhere in our hearts we still respect craftsmanship and real beauty as opposed to a "PS3" reality!!

One digital vendor was bragging about how he had changed the color of a ship he had photographed to make it more life like.......made me laugh out loud.

kevin m

12-27-2007, 07:49

...how many of the used film cameras in circulation today will exist in usable condition 20 years from now?

Enough to meet the demand at that time, plus some.

Where are parts going to come from?

...and how do they get those widgets into the Guiness can!? :confused: :D

Ade-oh

12-27-2007, 07:55

Isn't the issue, though, how many of the used film cameras in circulation today will exist in usable condition 20 years from now? Where are parts going to come from? Where are new service techs coming from to replace retiring and dieing techs?

If not 20 years, then in 30 years, or whatever.
I don't think that really is the issue. I have no doubt that in 20 or 30 years time a relatively small number of people will still be using 35mm film and cameras, but they will be enthusiasts and those kind of people will generally make the effort to learn how to do these things. It will happen in the same way that other 'enthusiasms' for using and restoring vintage technologies work.

HankOsaurus

12-27-2007, 08:13

... If you make a print from a digital file you can write on it just like you would on a print from a negative. You're not making notes on the actual negatives; so why worry about making them on the digital 'negatives'? If they're TIFFs or JPEGs you could always stick it in the image as EXIF data though.
Interesting points, cmedin. I don't question whether or not one could edit EXIF data, but would they? Are people doing this now as a matter of course? Maybe so. I am still looking to add a digital capability, but I have not done it yet... well, except for scanning negatives, that is.

To be sure, I would not write on a 35mm negative at all. From what I have seen, it appears to me that a lot of what is shot on digital stays digital, and is viewed via a computer, and not out of a shoebox. One needs to purposely transfer that to paper to do the shoebox thing. But why would they do that as a matter of course, given the conveniences of the emerging technology?

Will the next generation of grandmas showing off images of their grandkids have a piece of jewelry which doubles as a thumbdrive for the purpose? Could be.

It seems to me that recording information about the image will be a bit more inconvenient and tedious, and also less likely to happen. Will the nextgen of imagemakers be knowledgeable enough and inclined to record the data in the EXIF? Maybe so, but I think many will probably err on the lazy side and do nothing. On the flip side and to be perfectly fair, that limitationn already happens even with the prints. Some of those shots in the family box of snapshots have nothing written on the back, leaving my generation to wonder about details of who and what. Some have notes added since by relatives who did remember.

kevin m

12-27-2007, 08:23

...just because you've been able to get 8mm film and have your antique equipment repaired doesn't mean that is going to continue.

Indeed. But in the interim, I've thoroughly enjoyed using it. I've shot my own family movies by the score, made EPK's, music videos and many short films on both consumer film stock and Pro-8 negative film emulsions, and made enough money doing so to keep doing it, and buy the odd six-pack. ;)

Twenty-five years since it's 'demise' and it's still a viable, if diminished, medium. The point being that if Super-8, which has a FRACTION of the market penetration of still film, can hang on for nearly thirty years, then still film should be able to live even longer after its 'death,' despite all the hand-wringing and nay-saying on the internet, much of which, I think, is nothing more than the misdirected musings of middle-aged men facing their own mortality. :eek:

Yes, digital is the new dominant capture medium. It's self-evident. Outside of that, what is your argument, exactly? :confused:

wgerrard

12-27-2007, 09:03

Kevin: Doesn't the demand work the other way around? The pool of film cameras is shrinking and is not being replenished. Inevitably, at some point, the pool will be too small to sustain commerical film production.

Ade-oh: Enthusiam offers no guarantee that people can make money supporting the enthusiasts. History is packed with examples of technology that attracted a few enthusiasts long after they became obsolete, but were incapable of sustaining a business.

Film and film cameras need each other to survive. The cameras are going away.

wgerrard

12-27-2007, 09:09

...notes are written on the back of old photos.... What would be the digital equivalent of that?

Interesting point. It would be possible, I think, to write software that accepts notes and permanently links them to an image.

Flickr does this. The notes become visible when you cursor over the right spot.

kevin m

12-27-2007, 09:09

...the product survival rates of yesteryear are very different than they are now or in the future.

"Yesteryear?" How about 'olden days' next time? Jeez, if you want to make an argument, then stick to the facts and use neutral language.

And you don't know what the future holds, so you can't state it as a fact, as you have done here. Make your best guess, and back it up with something.

kevin m

12-27-2007, 09:12

Inevitably, at some point...

Sure. But no one here knows when that point will come. I'm stating that it will last longer than the life spans of the middle-aged gents here who are worrying the subject to death, I've backed my argument up with examples from other industries that faced a similar situation.

wgerrard

12-27-2007, 09:22

Kevin, et al, it seems a truism to me that old cameras disappear much, much, faster than any niche industry can replace them. Apart from a few folks, it's film cameras that sustained the use of film, not the other way around. People bought film because they needed it to get pictures out of their camera. They didn't buy cameras to get pictures out of their film.

It's possible, perhaps probable, that film will survive thanks to support from artisans who do not need to worry about profit. Analogies from other industries, I think, don't have to apply because circumstances always vary. E.g., lots of people are enthusiastic about being pulled around by a steam-powered locomotive. There's no steam-powered locomotive niche industry. I suspect making film is a much more complicated and expensive procedure than brewing ale at home. You can't put grain and water in a barrel and wait for the little yeasties to do their thing.

It seems to me a truism that commercial film production depends on the existence of a sufficiently large pool of film cameras in use. That pool is shrinking at an unstoppable rate. Sooner or later, commercial film production will stop.

kevin m

12-27-2007, 09:36

...it seems a truism to me that old cameras disappear much, much, faster than any niche industry can replace them.

You and Sitemistic are getting way ahead of yourselves. Film is not yet a "niche" industry. Nikon F6's and Canon EOS-3's are still available right now on the B&H website. Check for yourself. So there's no need to fix and maintain anything yet, as it can still be had brand new with a manufacturer's warranty.

And the crap cameras are already disappearing, consigned to meet their fate at Salvation Army thrift stores across the land. Hopefully, in the future, they will, like consumer grade audio gear, disappear from the new product market entirely, to be replaced with higher quality gear designed with the needs of the remaining enthusiasts in mind.

The power of nostalgia and the inertia of its remaining users dictate that film will remain around for quite awhile yet. If you're going to forecast doom, bring something to the argument to bolster your gloomy outlook.

Ade-oh

12-27-2007, 09:40

I suspect making film is a much more complicated and expensive procedure than brewing ale at home. You can't put grain and water in a barrel and wait for the little yeasties to do their thing.

That certainly isn't the point. Brewing ale at home requires all kinds of equipment, including boiling vessels, fermenters, storage barrels, bottling widgets etc etc etc. The fact is that an industry exists to support this entirely 'amateur' hobby which doesn't rely on cast-offs from the professional brewing industry. I suspect that 35mm film photography will continue to work in the same way for many years to come.

wgerrard

12-27-2007, 10:07

Kevin: I'm not forecasting doom, just what I see as economic reality. The fact that B&H is selling two film cameras seems to me the very definition of niche. The film industry is not going to survive because a few shops still have a stock of two cameras.

Ade-oh (and Kevin): I'm an expert in neither brewing or film production, but I suspect film production is more complex and costly. But, in the end, the ability to make homebrew film is not relevant to the commercial survival of film, because there won't be cameras to put the film into.

That doesn't mean that some people won't try to make film at home, or even try to hand craft parts for old cameras, but it won't be a commercially viable industry.

kevin m

12-27-2007, 10:23

...because there won't be cameras to put the film into.

What's your prediction of that event? 20 years? 100?

Long enough to quit worrying about it and make a career and/or life for yourself in the interim? :confused: :D

sjw617

12-27-2007, 11:00

Film is not yet a "niche" industry........ If you're going to forecast doom, bring something to the argument to bolster your gloomy outlook.

I think film is either a niche already or on the doorstep.
From the Kodak website - 2001 analog sales were $9 billion and in 2007 they expect $918 million. That is a 90% drop in 6 years. Fuji does not provide information for just film sales on their site. I have to guess that it is similar to Kodak's. Yes $918 million is a lot of money but Kodak has said they are reinventing themselves as a digital company. More than half of their sales are digital now.
Will film survive? Yes, for a while. Demand for film is dropping and will probably continue to do so.
The users on RFF, AGUG, Large Format Forum, LUG, etc... are a small number of dedicated film users. We are not representitive of picture takers in general. Our numbers will get smaller as time goeson.

Steve

kevin m

12-27-2007, 11:17

I'd be surprised if there is a viable 35mm film market it 10 years. Things are changing fast.

And I've got the cost of a brand new M8 that sez you're off by at least half. What odds will you give me?

The film industry is not at all equivalent to the slide rule industry. And the thing that's dying on this forum is, frankly, it's predominately middle-aged membership. We'll be knee-deep in cataracts before film is no longer available. :D

chikne

12-27-2007, 11:28

I think film is either a niche already or on the doorstep.
From the Kodak website - 2001 analog sales were $9 billion and in 2007 they expect $918 million. That is a 90% drop in 6 years. Fuji does not provide information for just film sales on their site. I have to guess that it is similar to Kodak's. Yes $918 million is a lot of money but Kodak has said they are reinventing themselves as a digital company. More than half of their sales are digital now.
Will film survive? Yes, for a while. Demand for film is dropping and will probably continue to do so.
The users on RFF, AGUG, Large Format Forum, LUG, etc... are a small number of dedicated film users. We are not representitive of picture takers in general. Our numbers will get smaller as time goeson.

Steve

I've come to a point where I think twice before believing big numbers and statistics. I'm not saying that you are making them up, just that they should be taken with a pinch of salt :)

mrtoml

12-27-2007, 11:48

I think film is either a niche already or on the doorstep.
From the Kodak website - 2001 analog sales were $9 billion and in 2007 they expect $918 million. That is a 90% drop in 6 years.
Steve

TOTAL UK MANUFACTURING SALES OF PRODUCTS IN ANALOGUE PHOTOGRAPHIC INDUSTRY

Value £000’s
2004 249,915
2005 259,971
2006 243,859

Source: Office for National Statistics (UK)

Doesn't seem to be declining here.

Joop van Heijgen

12-27-2007, 12:00

Isn't the issue, though, how many of the used film cameras in circulation today will exist in usable condition 20 years from now? Where are parts going to come from? Where are new service techs coming from to replace retiring and dieing techs?

If not 20 years, then in 30 years, or whatever.

This will be a big problem in the near future; there are no longer manufacturers that make film cameras. At the moment you have only Leica; Zeiss en Voigtlander.

Only when Canon or Nikon make new film cameras film can survive.

The last film camera of Nikon was the F 6 a few years ago!

Al Patterson

12-27-2007, 12:12

I've come to a point where I think twice before believing big numbers and statistics. I'm not saying that you are making them up, just that they should be taken with a pinch of salt :)

Didn't you know that 93.7% of all statistics are made up? ;)

amateriat

12-27-2007, 12:22

Okay...

Canon, near as I can recall, still has the greatest number of film-based SLRs still in production, from the Rebel to the EOS-1v.

Nikon has two film-based SLRs, at both extremes of the market (FM-10/20 on the low end, F6 on the high end).

Leica? Self-explanatory.

Cosina? Ditto

Zeiss (via Cosina): Present and accounted for.

And that's just for 35mm.

But, yes, other than a smattering of p/s cameras, everybody else has pretty much disappeared. The Fat City days of film are past, no kidding ourselves about it.

But then, there's perspective: We're coming down from what was a spike in film consumption brought about by the advent of those high-tech, idiot-proof p/s cameras that entered the market at a trickle in the late 80s and mushroomed throughout the 90s. This was augmented by the phenomenon, and proliferation of, one-hour labs, stoking the desire for near-instant gratification. (Think about it: between the auto-everything conpact cameras–many of which were pretty darn good, and some simply amazing–and these quick-turnaround labs, we really had come back to "you push the button, we do the rest").

I think we are now returning to a pre-90s (probably pre-80s) level of film consumption. Is this sustainable in the '00s? I think it can be, but I've no strings to pull on this one. Can anybody here pull up some numbers for film consumption from, say, 1975-1990?

- Barrett

kuzano

12-27-2007, 12:23

Didn't you know that 93.7% of all statistics are made up? ;)

That's actually 92.8% based on a made up recount.

chikne

12-27-2007, 12:27

That's actually 92.8% based on a made up recount.

Oh boy!!!

If you follow the news you'd know that it's actually 93.7% of those 92.8%.... Seriously :rolleyes:

chikne

12-27-2007, 12:38

The nose knows....

sjw617

12-27-2007, 12:45

Why? Well, yeah why?

Chances are that if every person that you come across tell you "God is gr8", for every day of your life, there are chances that after a while you will believe that it is true...

Kodak annual reports are legal documents for shareholders and the SEC. They would be very foolish to lie in them.

kevin m

12-27-2007, 12:50

Hang onto that expensive Leica film gear. I'm sure it's just going to keep appreciating when you can't buy film for it.

Let's recap:

Digital is now the dominant capture medium. Self evident. No further discussion necessary. Internet worry-warts claim, therefore, that film is "dead." When pressed for proof of this, especially in light of the fact that brand new film cameras are still available TODAY from Nikon, Canon, Leica, Zeiss Ikon, Voigtlander, Olympus, and others, and film can still be ordered in any quantity desired, the hemming and hawing starts:

'Well, not completely "dead" YET, but, by gosh, any day now. Ten years, tops! OK, twenty at the outside, but that's IT. Yep. Film is dead. Almost. J-u-s-t around the corner. You bet.

Oh yeah, and even if you COULD get film, which you can't (I mean, pretty soon, anyway!) then your film cameras will all be dead, too. And no one can fix them. I swear! Even though there's a long track record of consumer products downsizing, adapting and even improving once they leave the consumer mainstream, film cameras will disappear. And the human ingenuity necessary to even fix them will spontaneously disappear, too! I'm serious!'

If there's any facet of your ridiculous 'argument' that I've missed, please pm me. :)

Kent

12-27-2007, 12:59

Gentlemen! Again this turned in some kind of religious discussion.
It is always the same: "digital or film" - which one is better? Which one will survive?

I love that! (As long as everybody respects the opinions of the other "participants".)

Of course, digital photography is used more often now. Of course there still is and there will be film and film cams around. In what way these things really develop nobody knows. And that's good this way. Keeps up the tension... ;)

amateriat

12-27-2007, 13:30

This calls for a bit of levity...gonna take me a few hours (between tech gigs) to cook it up, but I promise to make it (mostly) worthwhile. Let's jsut saying I'm going to borrow heavily from a Very Hilarious Source. :)

- Barrett

wgerrard

12-27-2007, 13:31

What's your prediction of that event? 20 years? 100?

Long enough to quit worrying about it and make a career and/or life for yourself in the interim? :confused: :D

I'm not worried about it. I'm just disagreeing with the assertion that enough film fans exist to keep it a viable commercial industry after film disappears from mainstream retail outlets. I'm not about to predict a date, but I'd guess that will happen within a year or so of Fuji's and Kodak's refusal to supply film to WalMart at the price WalMart demands.

NickTrop

12-27-2007, 13:51

Digital sucks. You can "literally" keep it. If somebody gave me an M8, I would sell it and buy film equipment. Images are okay but making digital images - to me, is "zero" fun. As hobbiest, I way prefer film. It's not just about nostalgia either. There are practical advantages and I think the pics look better. Especially MF which blows 35mm and (of course) digital away.

If there are 1 of "me" with this opinion, it's 1*X^8 world-wide which = "a market".

- I prefer hockey to football, football is way more popular. I can still go to many a hockey game.

- I prefer John Coltrane to all popular music that's out now... I can get all the 'Trane music I want.

- I prefer tuna "raw" sushi-style. Most would much, much rather ruin -er,,, "cook" it.

Point is - digital can be the lion's share of the consumer photography market. I could care less. Film is "college hoops" to Digital's "NFL"; Film is "'Tran's Ole" to digital's "Jessica Simpson"; film is "Uni" to digital's "#3 wit cheeeeze and a Sprite, biggie-sized". Film is the "BBC News" to digital's Fox Noise..er, "News" channel.
|
|

wgerrard

12-27-2007, 13:52

Let's recap:

Digital is now the dominant capture medium. Self evident. No further discussion necessary. Internet worry-warts claim, therefore, that film is "dead." When pressed for proof of this, especially in light of the fact that brand new film cameras are still available TODAY from Nikon, Canon, Leica, Zeiss Ikon, Voigtlander, Olympus, and others, and film can still be ordered in any quantity desired, the hemming and hawing starts:

'Well, not completely "dead" YET, but, by gosh, any day now. Ten years, tops! OK, twenty at the outside, but that's IT. Yep. Film is dead. Almost. J-u-s-t around the corner. You bet.

Oh yeah, and even if you COULD get film, which you can't (I mean, pretty soon, anyway!) then your film cameras will all be dead, too. And no one can fix them. I swear! Even though there's a long track record of consumer products downsizing, adapting and even improving once they leave the consumer mainstream, film cameras will disappear. And the human ingenuity necessary to even fix them will spontaneously disappear, too! I'm serious!'

If there's any facet of your ridiculous 'argument' that I've missed, please pm me. :)

Kevin, you really haven't refuted anything. You're assuming that new camera sales under a very few labels, and new camera production by even fewer, will maintain film sales.

You're assuming that parts for decades-old cameras will still be available, somehow, when those cameras stop working. (For example, I believe it's almost impossible to get a CL repaired due to lack of parts. I own a Hexar RF that's likely about 10 years old. If you know a source of parts and repairs, I and lots of RF users will be grateful.)

You're assuming that 20-somethings will somehow decide to build careers in repairing cameras as old as their grandparents, and will then acquire expertise by communing with the dead.

Film is self-evidently on a downward spiral. Those who want to argue that the decline will stop short of complete commercial oblivion need to point to something that will stop or reverse the decline. I haven't seen anyone do that, other than the general assertion that enthusiasts will keep it alive, just as enthusiasts support LP's and an analogue audio industry. But, as I've said, there's no link between that industry and film. The same thing may happen, or maybe not.

kevin m

12-27-2007, 14:38

You're assuming that new camera sales under a very few labels, and new camera production by even fewer, will maintain film sales.

No, I'm not. I'm simply saying that, counter to the assertion made by you, Sitemistic and others, film's not dead, and I've offered analogs that, I believe, show that there's hope for the future of film, even in a digital-dominated world.

I don't care that film's not the dominant medium; I don't care that film camera sales are shrinking, and that they'll eventually disapear from the mainstream consumer market; I don't care that many makes will disappear due to lack of parts availability (which is why I sold my Hexar RF a year ago, BTW.) None of that matters. Film is not "dead," it's just not the mainstream anymore. Fine. Better than fine, actually, it's GREAT! The remaining manufacturers of film cameras, film and paper will no longer have to cater to the great, yammering consumer horde.

My example of the vinyl industry in particular, I think, is very apt. Turntables need new LP's, and record presses are expensive and cumbersome. But what do you know, there are a better selection of better quality vinyl LP's right now then there have ever been before. Is film manufacture SO much more difficult and cumbersome than pressing records? :confused:

Film will become a niche product, IMO, the day B&H stops stocking new film cameras and stops sending me new bricks of film. That day will arrive eventually, perhaps in the next few years, even. THEN film will be a niche product. But even at that day, which has yet to arrive, film will not be "dead," so the claim put forth by you, Sitemistic and others is simply false.

Pherdinand

12-27-2007, 15:28

My question:
Who cares?

You definitely can use for some time your film equipment. A few years at least. In those years we shall see what happens.
Since asit was so nicely pointed out:P, there are practically no new film cameras made today and won't be made in thsoe few years. So we can happily use, buy, sell our old ones! If u r worried about "investment" then just don't invest. Go ahead and buy a digital one that fits your need. In a few years you'll most probbaly buy a new one anyway - or more.

My point: Will you not "lose" your investment anyway (no matter film or digital)? Is it really an investment that you want to keep value or is it a tool that you would like to use and enjoy using, like a car? Question differently put: are you a collector, a camera-keeper, or are you really interested in the future of film?
And if you are all positive in your answers: Can you not afford to "lose your investment" in a few years that you put into the gear you bought today?
I am sure most of us bragging here for hours CAN afford it.

So why not use it until we can, then dump the whole thing (or sell it to a collector, or put it on a shelf, or put it away for our grandkids who might be more optimistic) and get something that is available at that moment.

Pherdinand

12-27-2007, 15:31

I'm not worried about it. I'm just disagreeing with the assertion that enough film fans exist to keep it a viable commercial industry after film disappears from mainstream retail outlets. I'm not about to predict a date, but I'd guess that will happen within a year or so of Fuji's and Kodak's refusal to supply film to WalMart at the price WalMart demands.

Sorry but if you rely on WalMart film sales then what is your point? John Doe either uses a disposable camera on his oce a year holiday or bought a digital P&S logn time ago.

FallisPhoto

12-27-2007, 15:34

Mm hmm, and how many non-photographer people have suitable film scanners just laying about for when they find that shoebox of odd-format negatives from grandpa's camera in a closet? Take it to Wal-Mart to get them scanned? What will Wal-Mart do with 620 or 828 or 127 film?

Yep, it'll take some effort to get to those pictures too...

828 film (and 126 film) is just about exactly the same size as 35mm. All three formats were developed from splitting 70mm movie film. No problem getting any of those developed. 620 film is exactly the same size as 120 film (just goes on a skinnier spool); no problem getting it developed either. If you do your own film development, and use plastic reels, you won't have a problem with 127 either. Ever notice the odd size between adjustments of 35mm and 120 format on your reel? That's for developing 127 film. Now where you might run into difficulty is when you get into 116/616 film formats and bigger. Film formats like 122, 103 and 105 could present problems. Even there it's not totally hopeless though. Some of the companies respooling defunct film formats (from cut down aerial photography film) also develop them.

wgerrard

12-27-2007, 15:34

Kevin, none of the "claims" put forth by me or others here can be proven true or false. They're predictions. You think film will survive as a niche industry, much like there is niche industry that attracts analog audio people. I don't think so, primarily because film cameras will eventually fade away. You're prediction requires that people begin to hand craft parts for cameras, including shutters, electronics, and lenses. I don't doubt that some will attempt that. Just not enough to support a niche industry.

However, I will say that B&W will be the longest lasting part of film. Enthusiasts and serious artists will pay, dearly, for their B&W tools.

wgerrard

12-27-2007, 15:40

Sorry but if you rely on WalMart film sales then what is your point? John Doe either uses a disposable camera on his oce a year holiday or bought a digital P&S logn time ago.

Pherdinand, I think it's important because WalMart and similar retailers control so much of the market. Those are the stores where most people buy their film, and where they get it developed. If they stop selling film, Fuji and Kodak lose what I suspect are their biggest customers. Commitments to film, in a shrinking market, might well be reevaluated after the loss of the customer buying most of it.

Don't bash the guy buying that disposable camera. He's very likely the reason Fuji and Kodak still make film.

Pherdinand

12-27-2007, 15:41

:)Well
For collectors / investors the death of film is better than for us, users.
No film - no more scratches on those nice camera bodies.

Pherdinand

12-27-2007, 15:47

w,
i ain't bashing anybody. My own family does the same. It's peoples' own business.
What i wanted to say is, i am not sure about WalMart not living in the US but the world market is not restricted to the US...and here people who buy film mostly buy them in shops that are called photography shops. And the people buying in larger quantity all buy from an internet store.
Sure, the choice is now very limited in those shops. But the choice was never bigger in walmart-type shos over here, i think.
Example: Hema. Hema is a walmart-type store in the Netherlands, Belgium, and some parts of Germany. Hema sells a few types of C41, one or two slides i think, and ilford HP5+ and FP4+ rebadged to HEMA. They sold exactly the same seven years ago.
Do they sell a lot of it? No i dont think so. But i'm not sure if they ever had a serious market share in film sales.

wgerrard

12-27-2007, 16:06

Point taken, Pherdinand. In the U.S., WalMart is well known for demanding that its suppliers set their prices at very low levels. The size of the WalMart market is such that wholesalers can go out of business if they lose their WalMart business. They can also go out of business if they meet WalMart's price. For example, a noted U.S. manufacturer of plastic houseware, RubberMaid, attempted to meet WalMart's demand for reduced prices (prompted by cheaper Chinese imports). They went under.

My local WalMart stores each devote a couple of display racks to film and disposable film cameras. Most of it is ISO 400 C41, but at least one store offers BW400CN. The local drugstores sell the same.

I don't think these stores will stop selling film tomorrow. But, I do think that they will drop film as soon as Fuji and Kodak won't meet their price demands. I also don't believe that films sales via photo shops are enough to sustain the industry. We will see.

cmedin

12-27-2007, 16:15

Is film manufacture SO much more difficult and cumbersome than pressing records? :confused:

I'm sure making buggy whips and flint stone tools is a lot easier than that, yet a blossoming market for either has failed to materialize and sustain itself. :confused:

cmedin

12-27-2007, 16:21

828 film (and 126 film) is just about exactly the same size as 35mm. All three formats were developed from splitting 70mm movie film. No problem getting any of those developed. 620 film is exactly the same size as 120 film (just goes on a skinnier spool); no problem getting it developed either. If you do your own film development, and use plastic reels, you won't have a problem with 127 either. Ever notice the odd size between adjustments of 35mm and 120 format on your reel? That's for developing 127 film. Now where you might run into difficulty is when you get into 116/616 film formats and bigger. Film formats like 122, 103 and 105 could present problems. Even there it's not totally hopeless though. Some of the companies respooling defunct film formats (from cut down aerial photography film) also develop them.
I'm well aware of the different formats (I own quite a few oddball format cameras), but let's look at this scenario like everybody seems to look at digital. If you or I or anybody else would find a bunch of 127 negs, no problem. Hell, I can just stick it between glass in a larger format holder in my Omega D2 and go to town. No big deal.

However, you take somebody who doesn't have a clue about photography, things aren't quite so easy. In fact, on local Craigslist photography section I've seen several posts where people are asking/begging for help to get these 'weird old negatives' printed; in most cases it's just plain 120 but if you don't know anything about photography and don't have any good labs around, then what? Go out and spend $200 on a film scanner and learn how to use it?

If you think about it like that, a 3.5" floppy from an old PC or even a 5 1/4" C64 floppy from the early 80s would be about the same to somebody who isn't versed in it.. a hassle, though you can certainly get the stuff off it if you're inclined to.

kevin m

12-27-2007, 16:31

...film cameras will eventually fade away. You're prediction requires that people begin to hand craft parts for cameras, including shutters, electronics, and lenses. I don't doubt that some will attempt that. Just not enough to support a niche industry.

My prediction requires nothing of the sort. But you underestimate human creativity and overlook the track record of niche industry manufacture. I certainly can't predict exactly how the future of film might look, but I can, like any sensible person, take a look at the history of similar industries and see how they adapted, rather than just react on 'gut' feelings and native pessimism.

I also don't believe that films sales via photo shops are enough to sustain the industry.

No fooling. Nobody is making that claim. The industry is already a shadow of its former self, and its likely to change even more. Much as did, again, the vinyl record industry. That's my positive argument. Can you, or Sitemistic, or anyone else offer a positive argument of your own that illustrates how a dominant industry has simply disappeared, even though demand for its products continued at a level to ensure some profitability. Something more than simply refuting my argument. And forget the slide rule and buggy whip analogies!

Prosaic

12-27-2007, 16:32

Just not enough to support a niche industry.

With several million film cameras still in use today I dont expect the death of the industry nor the then »niche industry« anytime soon.

kevin m

12-27-2007, 16:37

I'm sure making buggy whips and flint stone tools is a lot easier than that...

Ah, right on cue comes the "buggy whip" analogy.

Vinyl is like film in that there's a decent residual demand for the products, and a strong nostalgic draw for both mediums. Where, outside of Amish country, is there a demand for buggy whips?

Next analogy, please. :D

kevin m

12-27-2007, 16:43

...it can't support the film industry.

Oh good Lord.

Pherdinand

12-27-2007, 16:47

so u mean Amish ppl will keep on using film?:) ;)

kevin m

12-27-2007, 16:49

Actually, I think most of the film cameras out there are on eBay, and they aren't using any film

And still, despite your claims to the contrary, the film industry is not "dead."

If these threads are going to be anything more than barber shop chatter to fill time between here and the grave, then it would be nice if you would read what others post and respond accordingly, rather than just repeat the same pessimistic opinion over and over again. :angel:

jjovin

12-27-2007, 16:53

...Much as did, again, the vinyl record industry...

And the best record players of all time are being built now.
Some manufacturers who stopped building record players are
coming back to the craft of building some of the finest record players (Goldmund for example).
Remember the vacuum tubes?
They are still alive and are occupying their rightful place in some of the finest audio systems.
Thanks to Zeiss (Ikon) and Nikon (F6), the film/camera industry might follow a similar path as not so gone other industries.

Digital has its place and so does film and the two can coexist in harmony.
My wife uses digital, I use film and we could not be happier living together.
Happy new year to all.

wgerrard

12-27-2007, 16:56

My prediction requires nothing of the sort.

If no one is making parts for XYZ camera, and cameras that can be cannibalized for parts no longer exist, how else do you propose getting those parts?

Can you, or Sitemistic, or anyone else offer a positive argument of your own that illustrates how a dominant industry has simply disappeared, even though demand for its products continued at a level to ensure some profitability.

I don't think demand for film will continue at a level sufficient to ensure a profit. That's my point.

In any case, demand does not ensure a product will survive. Businesses will put their money in products that produce the largest profit, abandoning products with smaller, but real, profits. Regardless of what they say now, I'm convinced Kodak, et al, will move their film money into digital when the numbers are right.

Pherdinand

12-27-2007, 17:03

OK now it's late, i will go to sleep.
Nostradamus

sjw617

12-27-2007, 17:27

Nick, that article is from 2004.

cmedin

12-27-2007, 17:33

Nick, that article is from 2004.

http://www.beyondthematrix.com/xf.jpg

sjw617

12-27-2007, 17:53

Photo Marketing Association..... From Aug 2006:
"In the same period( edit June 2005 to May 2006), sales of 35mm cameras plummeted 49.5 per cent. Unit sales of one-time-use cameras declined as well by 26.5 per cent. Overall, demand for analog cameras declined by 50 per cent in May versus the same month a year ago. The sales volume of SLR cameras also posted losses of 72 per cent in unit terms."

http://marketnews.ca/news_detail.asp?nid=2013

dadsm3

12-27-2007, 17:54

I thought Luddites were supposed to destroy new technology, not old. One gets the impression some people here are hoping for film's demise, which is odd since this IS a film-based forum afterall (how many members have and RD-1 or an M8?)
Film and chemicals are so readily available now at photo superstores and and the old mom & pop's (and online) I actually believe I have a better selection of both now than in the 80's; there were no superstores back then that carry so many brands (eg. Henrys in Canada).
I'd venture a guess that there are still more film users than people who play LP's, and even that's a thriving niche market. Even if the film market was a paltry $100M a year worlwide, there would be MANY suppliers; that's the beauty of capitalism.
Film will be around forever, and it seems some people here just can't stand it.

Chris101

12-27-2007, 17:55

Ok, ok. Film is dead. Fine. There's no film, no film photography.

Just don't tell any of those artists that make their living using film, ok?

ps, dadsm3: Shhhhh!

kevin m

12-27-2007, 18:08

Well, someone just started a thread on whether M cameras are a good investment vehicle. Want to go over there at take a whack at it?

Another change of topic? Well, since you can't offer any sort of argument or evidence to support your claim that "film is dead," I guess I can't blame you. Do you deny that B&H still sells new film cameras and all the film you could desire, or do you ignore it just because it doesn't suit you?

If no one is making parts for XYZ camera, and cameras that can be cannibalized for parts no longer exist, how else do you propose getting those parts?

I don't know. Not my job, or concern - I sold my Hexar RF already for that reason, remember - but I doubt they'll be "hand made." I also don't doubt that if there's any residual demand, someone will meet it. How, exactly, I don't know. But twenty years ago I never would have imagined that so long after the demise of vinyl LP's I'd be able to buy the best turntables ever made, either.

antiquark

12-27-2007, 18:57

You can still buy buggywhips, but they're called stockwhips these days:
http://www.aussiewhipmaker.com/Stock_whips.htm

Price range: $186 to $372 AUD.

If you want sliderules, go to ebay, there seems to be an infinite supply there.

Some companies still manufacture brand new slide rules for aviation, like the E6B:
http://www.asa2fly.com/E6-B-Flight-Computer-P78_product1.aspx

Price: $30.

Not that I think these are comparable to film, because film is an artistic medium unlike whips and sliderules, but people always bring up these examples to say "yeah, these once-common things are now extinct", but the fact is, they aren't.

wgerrard

12-27-2007, 19:51

Film will be around forever, and it seems some people here just can't stand it.

I'm not cheering for film's demise or its survival. I just don't see it as economically viable in the long term. Just because I might think something is going to happen doesn't mean I want it to happen.

wgerrard

12-27-2007, 19:54

I don't know. Not my job, or concern - I sold my Hexar RF already for that reason, remember - but I doubt they'll be "hand made." I also don't doubt that if there's any residual demand, someone will meet it. How, exactly, I don't know.

So, you don't have any evidence for that, eh?;)

wgerrard

12-27-2007, 20:02

Personally, I think like "quartz watches" manufacturers have taken something "perfect" but an old and stagnant market for a durable consumer good that lasted decades (mechanical watches), "re-invented" it as cheap crap (quartz) that has one meaningless advantage (improved accuracy over mechanicals - a meaningless matter of seconds per day) but introduced a host of deficiencies.

They benefited the manufacturer in that they drove the labor costs out of watch production, they dangled this shiney "new" mousetrap in front of us and sold an inferior "cheap" technology to the masses as "somehow" better. And like dopes, we "bought" it. We now have a drawer full of uninteresting "dead" cheap ("better") quartz watches that kept accurate time...

... until the battery died. Then we realized it didn't make sense to replace the battery, it cost as much as a brand new watch.

The advantage of quartz watches -- their affordability -- outweighs any of the alleged evils you find with them. I buy a watch so I can tell time, not to wear a finely crafted piece of jewelry on my arm.

Nor are people "dopes" for buying cheap watches. Just the opposite. I'd argue it makes less sense to buy a $500 watch just to you can admire its build quality.

Nor is there anything wrong with digital technology that brings cheap and functional tools to everyone and is cheaper to replace than repair. It's the wave of the future. Get used to it. Craft that serves no purpose other than to boost costs and reputation is pointless.

kevin m

12-27-2007, 20:10

So, you don't have any evidence for that, eh?

I provided the analogs of the super-8 industry and vinyl records, the two best I could think of, to illustrate how a technology no longer mainstream could survive - thrive, actually - in a niche. Neither you, Sitemistic nor anyone else has provided an example of a technology that disappeared completely, as you claim film will, while there's still some demand for it.

Again: Film is no longer the dominant imaging medium. Everyone with a pulse knows that. But you claim that makes it "dead," and that's simply not the case.

amateriat

12-28-2007, 01:10

SCENE: 2:00 AM, New York City. A man wheeling wheeling a cart along the old Camera District near Herald Square. On the cart are the bodies of once-prominent camera- and film-manufacturing men. Rollei, Contax, Agfa, Minolta, among others, lifeless and still, piled high like rag dolls.

CART MAN: Bring out your dead!

From a building doorway, a sallow-looking man in a shabby overcoat struggles to drag a body toward the cart. The CART MAN slows his pace for him.

CART MAN: Five bucks!

OVERCOAT MAN: Here.

The man in the overcoat hoists the body in an unsteady manner, but manages to heave the lifeless form onto the cart. The dead man wears an old Spiratone t-shirt that had also seen better days. The CART MAN resumes his pace.

CART MAN: Bring out your dead!

From the other side of the street, another man was urgently approaching the cart with a body that seemed at least slightly animated: it was a man, quite along in years, with a full shock of white hair and a matching beard that could rival Father Time's. Once alongside the cart, the BODY BEARER thrusts his upper body forward, heaving the man in his arms so as to land him, sideways, atop all the other bodies. The man now atop the cart was wearing a red-and-orange sweater with the curious inscription "25 or 64?" across the upper chest. This intrigued the CART MAN.

CART MAN: Well then, who's this?

BODY BEARER: Him? Kodachrome...I think.

KODACHROME: Call me...KC...

CART MAN: Huh!?

BODY BEARER: What...? I didn't hear anything.

CART MAN: I did! I heard this guy say somethin'!

BODY BEARER: Can't be...

KODACHROME: It...was me...

CART MAN: Wait a minute...

BODY BEARER: It's nothing!

CART MAN: I don't think he's...

BODY BEARER: Trust me, he's dead as dumbwaiters

KODACHROME: I'm NOT dead...

CART MAN: Look, man, I can't have this.

BODY BEARER: Look, I say he's dead! Here's your fiver...

CART MAN: Hey, YOU look! I can't take someone who's not dead

BODY BEARER: He's...got one foot in the grave, dude. Look at him!

KODACHROME: I'm not dead...

BODY BEARER (to KODACHROME'S ear): Shut UP!

CART MAN: I can't have this...this goes against my Code.

BODY BEARER: Look, here's ten bucks if you just cart him off...

CART MAN: I told you...nothing doing, he ain't dead.

At that moment, three men come running up to the cart from behind, all out of breath. One, a slightly foppish-looking, middle-aged man, is wearing a bright yellow sport jacket and fire-engine-red necktie, the second, a trim, elderly Asian gentleman with shoulder-length grey hair and wire-rim spectacles, is wearing a a blue tracksuit with white piping and a large SONY logo on the back. The third appears to be a bedraggled newspaper photographer, shoulders brimming with a pair of well-worn Nikon dSLRs, trying to get off a few quick snaps of the scene.

YELLOW JACKET MAN: Can I talk to you fellows a moment...?

BODY BEARER: Oh, you...stay outta this, okay?

CART MAN: You two know each other?

BODY BEARER: Oh, you mean Mister Rochester here? Uh...kinda...

KODACHROME: Ya hear me...? I'm NOT DEAD...!

YELLOW JACKET MAN: Yes, about this man...

BODY BEARER: Skip it, would you? He's a stiff!

PJ: I sorta remember that guy...is he alive?

CART MAN: This is gettin' to be a f----- circus!

BODY BEARER (irritated): Why don't you guys just have a damn seance, here!?

PJ: He really still alive? Slow down, I wanna grab a quick one o' this!

KODACHROME: I'm feeling a little stronger now...

CART MAN: That's it, he's coming off the cart.

BODY BEARER: NO!

SONY MAN: He likely hasn't long to go...

CART MAN: Who are you to say?

SONY MAN: Well, I...

CART MAN: Hold it...wow...you look just like...Akio Morita!

SONY MAN: Well...you could say I am he...

CART MAN: Yeah, but...whoa, you've been dead a dog's age...!

SONY MAN: We had a somewhat nasty couple of quarters, true, but...

CART MAN: No, no, I mean YOU...you're dead!

The cart slows to a crawl. There is an occasional blaze of light from the PJ's flash units as he circles around the cart while the other men continue to argue.

PJ: Damn...left my other two CFs in my other pants pocket...

SONY MAN: Er...I got better

KODACHROME: I'm GETTING better...!

BODY BEARER: Would you just pipe down and die already?

CART MAN: I can't take this...he's coming off the cart, NOW.

BODY BEARER: Hang on a bit...I think he's fading

YELLOW JACKET MAN (chuckling): "Fading"...! THAT'S a good one...

KODACHROME: I feel as bright as fifty years ago...!

BODY BEARER: Nobody's falling for your act here, Ko', you're marked with death all around the edges.

SONY MAN: Hmm...we bought ourselves a "Ko"-somebody a while ago...forgot what they were known for...

KOODACHROME: Know what I feel like...?

BODY BEARER: Buying the big casino, maybe? Please???

KODACHROME: I feel like singing...

(Collective groan from the others)

KODACHROME: There was this nice young fellow from Queens...lovely at putting down a tune, had a few hits with a friend of his...he wrote this song, about me, wouldja believe...!

BODY BEARER: Look, man, can't you pull a string or two for me with this guy?

CART MAN: Look, I'm late already because of you...the Swedes up the block are probably wondering where the hell I am! They've got a few stiffs waitin' to go!

BODY BEARER: Look, okay...when are you next around here, anyway?

CART MAN: Week from next Tuesday. Holiday, you know.

KODACHROME: How's it go, now..."when I think back on all that crap I learned in...College...

YELLOW JACKET MAN (whispering): High School...

BODY BEARER: I can't take him back...

CART MAN: Oh? Why?

BODY BEARER: Got my reasons.

YELLOW JACKET MAN: Caught your wife with a Phase One again, huh?

BODY BEARER: You can kindly shut up.

KODACHROME: ...and everything looks worse with Barry White...

YELLOW JACKET MAN: Um..."black-and-white", K...

KODACHROME: Yeah...! Reminds me, how's TX doin' since he moved across town? He doesn't write much...always busy...

BODY BEARER: Can SOMEONE help me with this?

KODACHROME: ...I give you those nice, bright colors...

CART MAN: Yeah, like how?

YELLOW JACKET MAN: Y'know, not to make waves here, but I think he's looking...

SONY MAN: Bright colors? How about megapixels?

KODACHROME: ...makes ya think alllll the world's a sun...

Suddenly, in a blur seen from the corner of nearly everyone's eyes, there's a loud, metallic THWACK as the PJ clubs KODACHROME over the head with a 200mm f/2 lens. KODACHROME'S body convulses for all of three seconds, arches, then collapses, going totally limp. YELLOW JACKET MAN turns blue in the face at this sight, turns and runs back down the street, struck totally wordless.

BODY BEARER (glad-handing PJ): Whoa, smooth!

PJ (muttering): Never could stand that song...

BODY BEARER (to CART MAN): Well...?

CART MAN: Yeah, okay, but it'll cost you fifteen for the aggro, got it?

BODY BEARER: Here's a twenty. Don't spend it all at once, eh?

CART MAN: Yeah, whatever

PJ: Anyone know if that D3X is comin' out in July?

FIN (perhaps)

- Barrett

Ade-oh

12-28-2007, 01:14

Here is Ken Rockwell's take on the subject: personally I think he's right on the money.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmgoingaway.htm

Bryce

12-28-2007, 01:48

Barrett-
Excellent!

Ade-oh-
Ken Rockwell takes a lot of heat here, but I think he's got plenty to say that makes sense. Exaggerated for clarity often, but usually not entirely bogus. This one he's hit squarely.

projectbluebird

12-28-2007, 02:05

It's the wave of the future. Get used to it.
My local library now offers E-books for download, as part of their Library 2.0
"services for the new millennium," does that mean that books are dead too?
Craft that serves no purpose other than to boost costs and reputation is pointless.
I think that there are several companies that make a lot of money off of that very principal. Ferrari, Lamborghini, Bentley, Rolex, TAG, Goetz... to name just a few.

Granted, a personalized Leica a'la carte fits into that category quite well, but how does film itself?

Kodak is positioning itself to exit the film market,
and Ilford keeps hanging on by a thread, but Fuji? Not hardly.
Not to mention Efke, Berger, Adox, and several others.

Film may change, but it will never disappear completely.
There's too much money to be made.

Toby

12-28-2007, 03:04

The problem with counting on film continuing as a niche product, is that the factories and tooling that Kodak and Fuji must be currently using must surely be geared for production on a huge scale. It may well be that for these facilities to adopt niche production is just not possible - in that case film from the giant producers may disappear more quickly than first imagined. They're surely not going to build smaller plants, so possibly someone like Harman technology may end up being a 3rd party producer for Kodak's monochrome line - but they didn't do that with their paper, they just let it die.

projectbluebird

12-28-2007, 03:38

Curiously, Kodak still seems to be committed to the processing side of film.
(for now at least)
Not only that, but they're also showing more commitment to the home user.
At least, they've discontinued the larger bulk packaging, useful for institutional users.
I was in charge of the photo lab at my alma mater,
and it was a real pain when they stopped shipping the 5gal fixer concentrates.
not to mention the HC-110 to make 5gal!
Both are still available to make 1 and 2 gals (2.5?) though we switched to D-76 in the end.

kevin m

12-28-2007, 03:43

Ken Rockwell is working on the same assumption that the way things have changed in the past is how they will change in the future, but I disagree with that.

OK, Sitemistic, now comes the point in the argument where you, um, make an argument. Pardon me, but given the recent history, I'm not inclined to accept the "gut-feelings" of Texans at face value any more. ;)

Kodak and Fuji are relentlessly bottom line oriented. Shareholders are not photo enthusiasts. There is a number, a bottom line figure, that is going to end film production for the cameras we use. And you can bet a bean counter is watching it every day.

(Sigh!) More generalizing? Here's more "fact-based" history for you to overlook, then. Fuji is on record as saying they're sticking with film. And Kodak has, historically, loved its darlings past the point of fiscal sanity. I ordered many rolls of sound-striped Super-8 Kodachrome direct from Kodak when they announced the end of its production. In 1999. And they finally ended production of all Super-8 Kodachrome just last year. After years of fighting the tougher environmental regulations that made it impossible for them to even develop it in this country any more. Given that track record, I'm not inclined to believe that they'll simply give up on film entirely.

Trying to understand the future (even short term future) where digital vs film technology is concerned while looking at the past is, in my opinion, a flawed methodology.

Yes, you keep saying that. We should all ignore history, experience and evidence and simply listen to you, which makes your opinion, what, faith-based? :confused:

kevin m

12-28-2007, 04:09

Sitemistic, "your argument is flawed" is not an ad hominem attack, but calling someone a "stalker" sure is. And there's no real discussion from you, there's just repetition of your opinion, without you bothering to lay out the reasoning that led you to that opinion. An opinion has to be supported by something other than the certainty of the person holding it, otherwise it's just b/s.

Pherdinand

12-28-2007, 04:34

oh my God, i can't believe this is still going on and on. Without improvement.
Come on, nobody convinced yet the other party?

sjw617

12-28-2007, 05:19

Hilarious. Brainwashed digital camera-philes claiming "victory" because you need a "17 mp camera" to match small format 35mm film and it used to be "25 MP" (until the digital people changed the rules - see snip).

Here's what I need to spend "just for the camera" - not the computer, printer, software, storage, spare batteries (the list is endless) to match small format 35 mm film output.

Nick, Come on now. You already have a computer, don't need a printer, software comes with the camera, storage is your computer, batteries are rechargable and you can shoot in JPEG to avoid photoshop and post processing.
When people were predicting what would be able to 'replace' the 35mm quatity, they had to guess and they overestimated. I beleive that 10MP is the current 'replacement' quality needed and those cameras are well under $1000.

Kevin, Are reel to reel 'albums' still available? or Cassettes or 8 tracks or 78's ? I have not seen them if they are.

Steve

NickTrop

12-28-2007, 05:43

Nick, Come on now. You already have a computer, don't need a printer, software comes with the camera, storage is your computer, batteries are rechargable and you can shoot in JPEG to avoid photoshop and post processing.
When people were predicting what would be able to 'replace' the 35mm quatity, they had to guess and they overestimated. I beleive that 10MP is the current 'replacement' quality needed and those cameras are well under $1000.

Kevin, Are reel to reel 'albums' still available? or Cassettes or 8 tracks or 78's ? I have not seen them if they are.

Steve

You are, again, making the huge assumption that:

New (always) = Better.

As I posted already, according to the "pro digital" article, "the first digital camera that is better than a small format 35mm film camera is the $7000, 16.7 megapixel EOS 1Ds Mark II" according to Pop Photography (which owes its existance to selling ad space to people trying to sell you a $7000 EOC 1Ds Mark II).

So, I need to spend "$7000" for a digital camera to match what I get in a decent film camera?

In marketing there is such a thing as "perceived value". Worked in companies where - as a marketing team, we tested and tried to improve the "perceived value" of a service we were marketing. Perceived Value = how can we get the buying public to perceive greater value for the product than is actually there? And example is, "there are more that $1000 worth of coupons in this Sunday's newspaper". Wow - a $1000 of (perceived) value and alls I'm paying is $2.00 for $1000 worth of "savings"! Discount clubs use this concept a lot. (Why, the money you will save is far more than the annual membership fee!)

Digital cameras = "perceived value", and "perceived convenience".

Here's where - to my way of thinking, "New" does not equal "better"...

Digital vs film cameras
(film cameras take better pics, unless I want to spend $7000 on a dslr)

Automatic vs manual transmissions
(less expensive to buy, less expensive to repair, more fun to drive, better fuel effeciency, more control over vehicle)

Automatic coffee makers vs Stove top coffee pot
(Coffee tastes better, last forever, no "$^#^%$ I'm out of $&^%#* filter" moments in the morning when I want my coffee...)

Quartz watches vs mechanical movements
(No batteries! No drawer full of useless watches whose batteries have died! I spend - litereally, 10 seconds setting and winding the thing, last for decades and decades... Plus, there's a coolness facter. My favorite mechanical is a 70's Timex with day/date I bought serviced on eBay for $1.00)

Examples where New actually is better:

Yes, calculators are better than slide rules.

Cars are debatable. Yes, they're faster than the horse and buggy but if Al Gore is correct - and he most likely is, our grandkids will pay a high price for our extra speed.