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

chikne

12-26-2007, 11:20

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, 11:32

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, 11:44

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

rbsinto

12-26-2007, 13:06

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, 13:31

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, 13:56

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, 14:59

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, 15:19

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, 15:25

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, 15:34

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, 15:38

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, 16:08

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, 16:30

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, 16:38

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, 16:47

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, 16:47

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, 16:49

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, 16:52

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, 16:53

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, 17:05

cmedin

12-26-2007, 17:17

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, 20:32

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, 20:57

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, 21:18

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

12-26-2007, 23:23

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

12-26-2007, 23:26

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, 02:24

" 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, 02:29

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, 02:53

Pherdinand

12-27-2007, 03:10

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, 03:24

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, 03:29

(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, 05:05

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, 05:13

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, 05:28

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, 05:35

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, 06:00

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, 06:03

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, 06:04

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, 06:07

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, 06:14

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, 06:21

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, 06:26

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, 06:26

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, 06:30

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, 06:33

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, 06:34

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, 06:35

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, 06:39

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, 06:40

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, 06:49

...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, 06:55

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, 07:13

... 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, 07:23

...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, 08:03

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, 08:09

...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, 08:09

...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, 08:12

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, 08:22

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, 08:36

...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, 08:40

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, 09:07

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, 09:23

...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, 10:00

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, 10:17

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, 10:28

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, 10:48

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, 11:00

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, 11:12

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, 11:22

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, 11:23

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, 11:27

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, 11:38

The nose knows....

sjw617

12-27-2007, 11:45

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, 11:50

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, 11:59

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, 12:30

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, 12:31

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, 12:51

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, 12:52

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, 13:38

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, 14:28

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, 14:31

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, 14:34

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, 14:34

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, 14:40

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, 14:41

:)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, 14:47

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, 15:06

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, 15:15

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, 15:21

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, 15:31

...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, 15:32

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, 15:37

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, 15:43

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

Oh good Lord.

Pherdinand

12-27-2007, 15:47

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

kevin m

12-27-2007, 15:49

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, 15:53

...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, 15:56

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, 16:03

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

sjw617

12-27-2007, 16:27

Nick, that article is from 2004.

cmedin

12-27-2007, 16:33

Nick, that article is from 2004.

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

sjw617

12-27-2007, 16:53

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, 16:54

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, 16:55

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, 17:08

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, 17:57

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, 18:51

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, 18:54

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, 19:02

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, 19:10

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, 00:10

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, 00:14

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, 00:48

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, 01:05

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, 02:04

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, 02:38

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, 02:43

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, 03:09

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, 03:34

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, 04:19

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, 04:43

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.

kevin m

12-28-2007, 04:50

"video killed the radio star" (anyone what to name the group?).

The Buggles.

Sadly, I didn't have to use google to know that. :( :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LB6Q_oycfQ

mfunnell

12-28-2007, 04:59

The Buggles.

Sadly, I didn't have to use google to know that. :( :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LB6Q_oycfQ'tis sad, but (unfortunately) I share your sadness :o

...Mike

cmedin

12-28-2007, 05:00

I don't really get why you'd need a $7k DSLR to get good results. As mentioned before, 6 megapixel was when it got 'good enough' for me -- I get superb 8x10 prints (the biggest I print usually, if I want large prints I break out the MF gear). The DSLR I currently used set me back $350 including a lens. Then again, I look at the results (prints) and whether I am happy with them rather than fiddle with lab tests to see which is 'better'.

sjw617

12-28-2007, 05:01

Nick,
I read the article. Try http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml which says a 6MP camera surpassed 35mm quality.
You can now stop the $7000 rant.
Coffee 'tastes better' or watches have 'coolness' is just your version of perceived value. You may think they are better but you can not really give anything other than an opinion, not facts.

Steve

Kent

12-28-2007, 05:03

Here we go again... film vs. digital!
This discussion is, as we all know, kind of otiose.

I shoot with a EOS 350D and some fine lenses. To get similar results on film, I not only need equally fine lenses and excellent film material, and even then I am not sure if 35mm film is better or worse!

If you want to compare, you either need to blow up the prints to gigantic formats or you need a professional scanner to scan the negs in high resolution.

Is that the typical everyday usage of anybody here?

What do you normally do with your shots? Print out on 10x15cm, maybe 20x30? Either medium can do that.

We are not talking about professional slide shows or product photography, ok?

So, please let's stop with the "which-one-is-better" discussion again and, if at all, let's discuss if film will be there in some years. My 2c.

BTW, I like Ade-oh's statement:
I will have enjoyed taking photographs throughout, whichever format I use. Enjoy your photography...

mfunnell

12-28-2007, 05:24

As mentioned before, 6 megapixel was when it got 'good enough' for me -- I get superb 8x10 prints Agreed - and in a practical sense, even more so. In the pre-digital days I couldn't do a colour (or even B&W) darkroom, so if I needed a crop or an enlargement or (heaven forfend!) both, I was at the mercy of some incompent overcharging lab who never (and I mean never) did a good job. My only alternative was to pay big (I mean BIG!!!+++ with bullet) dollars for a "real" lab.

These days I can do most of that at home (up to 13"x19") and for not much money get far larger prints that I control myself. I can take a crop of a 6MP (from Canon 300D) photo, blow it up to 10"x15", mat and frame it, and have it look 'just right' in a way I could never, ever, get affordably done in my 35mm days.

That's not just worth money, as someone's ad says, that's bleedin' priceless.

...Mike

(P.S. of course, I can do the same with a scan from 35mm in a way I could never get done previously, either. And do.)

NickTrop

12-28-2007, 05:35

The quality of a 6 MP camera is "good enough". Good enough for consumers, good enough for bridezillas.

Common knowledge - to match 35mm, originally it was thought that you needed a 25 megapixel camera. Now, Pop Photography (whose reason to be is to sell digital cameras and accessories), which I cited, says you "only" need around a 17 megapixel camera - a "victory"(?) for those duped by savvy marketeers into thinking their crap digitals are (somehow) "better" than ->small<- format film cameras.

I've read that joke of a Luminous Landscape article cited: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...shootout.shtml

Look at the two pics below from the article - I find this absolutely hilarious. The one of the windows where they point to the grain and say, "The 1Ds doesn't start to look this noisy until about ISO 800".

Hilarious!!!

1. (And this is virtually all the pro-digital comparisons) Look at the two photos! Look at the windows of the first photo (below). Look on the right of the digital pic. It looks like is was made with a crayon! Plastic-y and blurred. Not "real" at all! Compare it to the film crop below it! Puleeease!

On the right side, where are the horizontal parts in the center of the window clearly visible in the film crop?!?! The de-noising algorithm of the digital blurred this detail right out of the photo! Unacceptable! Complete crap!

2. Noise is "much, much, much" more obtrusive than film grain. The article makes the faulty assumption that film grain = noise. Hilarious!

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images6/shootout2274-grain.jpg

Note that the film crop below actually looks crisp, not like it was drawn with a crayon and shows all the detail, like the center horizontal part in the windows on the right which are ->completely<- blurred out in the digital image.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images6/shootout-67-grain.jpg

See all the detail and the crispness?

This is a hilarious example of why "digital is better" lol. Yeah - that's what I want, some computer algorithm to smudge out detail and make the image look like it is a crayon drawing. Don't believe what you see, folks. Believe what I tell you.

cmedin

12-28-2007, 05:53

Um, Nick, I hate to be the one to rain on your parade, but take a look at those two samples. They aren't of the same exact area; the windows on the right side aren't 'blurred' -- they're different windows. In both samples the window on the left is approx 92 pixels tall; on the digi sample the window on the right around 58 vs around 85 in the film sample. They're just of different sections of the buildings (look at the lower row on the right for an example of the shorter window).

But hey, I am just a dumb consumer happy with 6MP so pay no attention here... it's not like I ever shot film or anything.

PS: it's not really kosher to link images off other people's sites unless you have permission to do so.

NickTrop

12-28-2007, 05:59

Um, Nick, I hate to be the one to rain on your parade, but take a look at those two samples. They aren't of the same exact area; the windows on the right side aren't 'blurred' -- they're different windows.

Hmmm... Ready for something you seldom hear on a blog? "I stand corrected". Novel concept, eh? The digital photo /still/ sucks. Plastic-y, blurred, like it was made with a crayon.

As far as posting pics from different sites, it's "fair use", I cited the article, and provided a link.

It's been fun.

Continue your debate...

Now I gots stuff to do :)

mfunnell

12-28-2007, 06:03

PS: it's not really kosher to link images off other people's sites unless you have permission to do so.Really, I think under these circumstances that would have to be "fair use" - if not legally (which it might well be) but certainly morally.

...Mike

cmedin

12-28-2007, 06:18

Really, I think under these circumstances that would have to be "fair use" - if not legally (which it might well be) but certainly morally.

...Mike

It's very bad Internet etiquette to do so since the owner of the site is the one paying for the bandwidth. But we don't need another heated debate in this thread, there's plenty already. :)

PS: I too have a ton of film; some 50+ rolls of Ultra 50 alone last I inventoried the freezer. Plenty of cameras to use too; in fact my one and only digital I've had for all of a week... (though I've had a couple DSLRs in the past!)

NickTrop

12-28-2007, 06:25

Wait a minute, where does it say they're different windows? Re-read it, didn't see where it said that. Every other comparison uses exactly the same portion of the photo. Also, note that the drum scan looks much better. These comparisons were done with a high-end scanner but using 2000 technology. At the end, he has a crop of the same image scanned with a drum scanner - obviously better.

If I get time, I would find other examples of digital/film comparisons were detail is "clearly" blurred out by in-camera noise reduction software.

And - one again, before I roll, remember:

The First Digital Camera Better Than Film

Can a digital camera really outclass color film?

According to tests done by Popular Photography, Canon's new 16.7 megapixel EOS 1Ds Mark II ($7,000 at B&H) took better pictures than a regular SLR camera (Canon's EOS 3) shooting high-quality ISO 100 film.

Interesting, as a few years ago Popular Photography predicted that digital cameras would have to reach at least 24 to 30 megapixels before they'd compete against film cameras in quality. But that stance seems to have changed, as they are now claiming the better color and lower noise of the EOS 1Ds Mark II gives digital cameras the winning edge...

http://www.zonezero.com/magazine/art...arp/index.html

cmedin

12-28-2007, 06:35

sjw617

12-28-2007, 06:42

Wait a minute, where does it say they're different windows? And - one again, before I roll, remember:

The First Digital Camera Better Than Film

Nick, it doesn't say that, someone here noticed it. They are different size windows. I am surprised they did use different areas. You are right they should use the same spot.

Again (what 3rd time) with the same OLD article. They found out that less would equal 35mm.

Must remember to believe Nick and not my eyes... must remember.....

wgerrard

12-28-2007, 08:10

Kevin, I haven't said film will vanish completely. I said film's days as a viable commercial enterprise are numbered.

The analogy with the LP and tube-powered audio folks is interesting, but analogies aren't evidence. We're all making judgment calls. Mine is that commercial production of film is on the way out because film cameras are, rather literally, disappearing; and because almost all cameras are purchased by people who do not consider themselves photographers and see film as an annoying and expensive nuisance.

Film camera are hanging on by a tiny, thin, thread. Nikon's FM10 and F6 are vestigial remnants. Leica is very probably one bad business decision from big trouble. Cosina and Zeiss are selling into a niche (RF) of a niche (film) market. Nothing here bodes well for film.

I like film. I think it's great that there's such a large market for used and classic cameras. But, the river has emptied into a lake, the lake is drying up, it has not rained for a long time and the forecast calls for bright sun.

If film and film cameras survive in any commercial context, I'd think a better analogy might be the antique car restoration game. People willingly maintain and restore ancient autos, buying essentially handcrafted parts from vendors who may, or may not, be dependent on making a profit. And it's all really, really, expensive.

But, even that analogy is wobbly. It would be more appropriate to think of gasoline as the counterpart of film. How many people would restore old cars if they also had to find someone to make gasoline?

wgerrard

12-28-2007, 08:18

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?

I was referring to the replace-don't-repair nature of digital devices.

In the end, it's content that will or won't drive the transition away from books. People will buy the device that delivers the content they want. I'm a book lover, but if I found a digital device I liked that would hold some humongous number of books, I'd tear down my shelves.

Al Patterson

12-28-2007, 08:24

Somehow I think the amount a capital it takes to build and run a film production line is lower than that for a company that hand build turntables or makes vacuum tubes. While it is certainly true that as long as there is 35mm film being used by Hollywood that there will be cartridges available, I'd expect that once Hollywood goes digital, film will be deader than the horse we've been kicking here.

I intend to use film as long as I can get it. If I get forced to convert over to digital at some point, fine.

If we're lucky, film may last another ten years or so, but when it goes I'd expect it to go very quickly.

Kim Coxon

12-28-2007, 08:30

No chance. :eek:

It is the same comments by the same people as in the last film v digital thread
and the one before that
and the one before that
and....

It would actually be much quicker just to cut and paste a whole thread than type it all out again. ;)

At least it hasn't degenerated into name calling which is an improvement. :rolleyes:

Kim

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

wgerrard

12-28-2007, 08:30

Here's more "fact-based" history... Fuji is on record as saying they're sticking with film. And Kodak has, historically, loved its darlings past the point of fiscal sanity.

Kevin, it seems you are asserting that Fuji and Kodak will continue to make film even if they lose money doing it. Why would they do that? Do you believe a publicly held corporation's managers could get away with retaining a money-losing product line based entirely on personal sentiment?

kevin m

12-28-2007, 08:41

Kevin, it seems you are asserting that Fuji and Kodak will continue to make film even if they lose money doing it. Why would they do that?

I dunno. Call 'em up. I gave an example of an occasion when they had done so in the past, what have you offered as support for your claim, other than your own opinion?

Possibilities: Corporate pride. Image. Loss leader. Corporations do this all the time.

Again: You, Sitemistic and other doom and gloomers need to offer up your own examples, your own evidence, even your own anecdotes to support your claim that "film is dead." Saying "nuh-uh" over and over again to anyone who thinks it has a future doesn't count. ;)

kevin m

12-28-2007, 08:42

The analogy with the LP and tube-powered audio folks is interesting, but analogies aren't evidence.

They're the next best thing: a historical track record. Past experience is often used to predict possible future outcomes.

And it's a damned sight more than anything you've offered to support your position.

wgerrard

12-28-2007, 08:43

Kent, it's actually a spat about film's commercial viability, not whether or not film is better than digital. The "which is better" debate can't be resolved unless you want to ignore subjectivity and go strictly by lab measurements.

Al Patterson

12-28-2007, 08:46

Kevin, it seems you are asserting that Fuji and Kodak will continue to make film even if they lose money doing it. Why would they do that? Do you believe a publicly held corporation's managers could get away with retaining a money-losing product line based entirely on personal sentiment?

It's not really about losing money per se. If the return on investment isn't high enough, Kodak will pull the plug in a heartbeat. At some point it will be better to invest in bank CDs than run a film plant that earns too little money on the investment.

Now Fuji may be able to remain in business if Kodak exits it, but at some point even they will be forced to exit the business. These are corporations, not non-profit charities.

sjw617

12-28-2007, 08:52

They're the next best thing: a historical track record. Past experience is often used to predict possible future outcomes.

And it's a damned sight more than anything you've offered to support your position.

Music on reel to reel, music on 8 track tapes, music on cassette tapes, music on 78's. All were viable 'industries' but I do not see them around now.

kevin m

12-28-2007, 08:52

We're all making judgment calls. Mine is that commercial production of film is on the way out because film cameras are, rather literally, disappearing...

Then your judgement is suspect.

Again: Super-8 cameras can still be repaired. Some with parts cannibalized from other cameras, some with wholly new fixes. Human ingenuity, right? Most of the models ever made have gone to meet their makers, sure. And there will come a point when the remaining cameras dwindle down to nothing. But that day hasn't yet arrived, and Super-8 cameras left the building some 30 years ago. Film cameras, (let me clear my throat here) ARE STILL AVAILABLE BRAND NEW AS OF TODAY!

Considering the fact that film cameras had a penetration that was gigantic compared to that of movie cameras, and that they're STILL AVAILABLE BRAND NEW AS OF TODAY, I'd say that film cameras will outlast both you and me. Will they disappear eventually? Sure. Or maybe not. I don't know. But they ain't "dead" yet.

Another side theory that beats this "film is dead" crap: Projection. Middle aged dudes with failing eyesight projecting their realization that (*gulp*) the grim reaper is coming for them, too. Therefore: THE END IS NEAR! :D

chikne

12-28-2007, 08:53

oh my God, i can't believe this is still going on and on. Without improvement.

Same here =)

cmedin

12-28-2007, 08:58

It's not really about losing money per se. If the return on investment isn't high enough, Kodak will pull the plug in a heartbeat. At some point it will be better to invest in bank CDs than run a film plant that earns too little money on the investment.

Now Fuji may be able to remain in business if Kodak exits it, but at some point even they will be forced to exit the business. These are corporations, not non-profit charities.

Well said.

As for the 'commitment' to film from Kodak and Fuji, does anybody honestly believe they'd see a statement like "We believe film is a dying market and plan to exit it once it becomes unprofitable" in an annual report? That'd no doubt do wonders with their existing customer base, small as it might be...

MikeL

12-28-2007, 08:58

Same here =)

Yup. Why can't we just summarize these threads into a single post.

"I'm right."
"No, I'm right because of x."
"No, because of my individual and limited experience I'm right."

Rinse, Wash, Repeat.

cmedin

12-28-2007, 09:00

Yup. Why can't we just summarize these threads into a single post.

"I'm right."
"No, I'm right because of x."
"No, because of my individual and limited experience I'm right."

Rinse, Wash, Repeat.

Don't forget the people who claim to hate these threads yet somehow have to read them and comment on them. ;)

wgerrard

12-28-2007, 09:02

They're the next best thing: a historical track record. Past experience is often used to predict possible future outcomes.

And it's a damned sight more than anything you've offered to support your position.

Kevin, with respect, what I've offered is the obvious fact that the reasons film exists -- film cameras -- are disappearing. Used cameras do break. It is a fact that parts cannot be found for them. The people who know how to fix old cameras are disappearing.

You said you sold an RF because of the lack of parts and repair facilities. Do you really imagine that a cottage industry will spring up to build new Hexar's, including all the electronics, the glass, the lenses, etc.?

All that is reality. My judgement is that this trend will continue until film is no longer commercially viable. Your judgement says otherwise. Neither of us has any evidence to support our opinions because the future hasn't happened yet. C'est la vie.

kevin m

12-28-2007, 09:04

Music on reel to reel, music on 8 track tapes, music on cassette tapes, music on 78's. All were viable 'industries' but I do not see them around now.

Is there any residual demand for their products? Compared to vinyl?

You should really do your own homework on this one.

When was "reel to reel" music ever part of the commercial mainstream? "Never" is the answer I'm coming up with.

8-track and Cassette tapes were always cousins of the LP mainstream, not the mainstream itself.

78's were the forerunners of the vinyl LP; they were replaced by the much superior format much as calculators replaced Sitemistic's slide rule.

cmedin

12-28-2007, 09:05

Out of curiosity, how much of film production goes to still camera film vs motion picture?

wgerrard

12-28-2007, 09:05

Then your judgement is suspect.

No, just not the same as yours.

And, that's clearly an ad hominem attack.

kevin m

12-28-2007, 09:07

You said you sold an RF because of the lack of parts and repair facilities. Do you really imagine that a cottage industry will spring up to build new Hexar's, including all the electronics, the glass, the lenses, etc.?

No, I don't. That's why I sold it. I'd still buy the lenses in a heartbeat, but not the bodies.

As with Super-8 cameras, only the hardy will survive. The junk and the orphans will get weeded out pretty quickly.

Care to place a side-wager as to when the last Nikon F body fires off its last frame? ;)

Kent

12-28-2007, 09:08

Let me put some fuel into this discussion:

http://www.leicagallery.com/filmvsdigital.htm

But remeber, that is NOT my opinion, I just like his/her (?) "surprising conclusions". :D

kevin m

12-28-2007, 09:08

No, just not the same as yours.

And, that's clearly an ad hominem attack.

It wasn't meant as such. I make my best effort to vigorously attack an argument, but not the person making it. Sorry if I crossed the line.

sjw617

12-28-2007, 09:20

Is there any residual demand for their products? Compared to vinyl?

You should really do your own homework on this one.

When was "reel to reel" music ever part of the commercial mainstream? "Never" is the answer I'm coming up with.

8-track and Cassette tapes were always cousins of the LP mainstream, not the mainstream itself.

78's were the forerunners of the vinyl LP; they were replaced by the much superior format much as calculators replaced Sitemistic's slide rule.

Reel to reel was available until the 70's. There are about 1000 on ebay now, many with bids. Cassettes started the downfall of the LP. They could be played in the car ... etc. The Walkman made them more than a cousin to LP's. They were replacing the LP. CD's were the replacement for portable music.
You are asking what industries have gone and hold up the LP as one that has not gone. Well cassettes were a major industry, not just a poor stepchild of LP's.
Vinal LP's were basically replaced by cassettes and CD's.
Film analogy - film replaced the glass plates. Maybe people still use it but such small numbers - like the LP.

Steve

Pherdinand

12-28-2007, 09:24

Yup. Why can't we just summarize these threads into a single post.

"I'm right."
"No, I'm right because of x."
"No, because of my individual and limited experience I'm right."

Rinse, Wash, Repeat.

yeah but we forgot the development step!
At least a proper fixing would help clear the film :D

Pherdinand

12-28-2007, 09:27

My prediction is, this thread will survive film (and digital too!)

kevin m

12-28-2007, 09:31

ou are asking what industries have gone and hold up the LP as one that has not gone.

No, I asked for an example of an industry that had folded its tent even though there was a demand for its product. CD's killed the Cassette dead. There is no demand for Cassettes, as there is with vinyl LP's.

wgerrard

12-28-2007, 09:31

Kevin, or anyone, out of curiosity, what's your price limit on film? How expensive would a roll of 35mm have to be before you wouldn't buy it?

If film survives commercially via small artisans, then surely the price will increase.

newsgrunt

12-28-2007, 09:34

If film is a couple of nails away from death's door, whenever that is , why are the Chinese making large format and ultra large format cameras today ? Chamonix and Shen Hao are the two I'm thinking of. I consider sheet film more niche than 35mm.

Love what you use and use what you love.

wgerrard

12-28-2007, 09:39

There is no demand for Cassettes, as there is with vinyl LP's.

You can't prove lack of demand for cassettes by citing the commercial success of small-time vinyl LP makers. All you have demonstrated is that the demand for cassettes is too small to support commercial production, not that demand is nonexistent.

That's why this is all a judgment call. I think demand for film will drop below the point of commercial viability. You don't. It's impossible for either of us to present evidence to support our judgements because we are talking about events in the future. I argue that old cameras break, parts disappear, techs die, and new camera sales shrink. All true. You argue that the example of LP's presents a possible escape route for film. That's true, too. But, neither of us know. We're just making predictions.

Ade-oh

12-28-2007, 09:43

No, I asked for an example of an industry that had folded its tent even though there was a demand for its product. CD's killed the Cassette dead. There is no demand for Cassettes, as there is with vinyl LP's.

Actually, pre-recorded cassettes are readily available for certain specialised applications like 'audiobooks'. One of my sons was just given the latest Harry Potter book on cassette for Christmas. I Ebayed my Sony Professional Walkman recorder earlier this year and received considerably more than I paid for it.

amateriat

12-28-2007, 10:00

oh my God, i can't believe this is still going on and on. Without improvement.
Hey, I gave it my best shot to lighten things up a bit. :D

- Barrett

Pherdinand

12-28-2007, 10:02

u did it well, Barrett:D

aizan

12-28-2007, 10:11

i shot the sheriff, but i did not shoot the deputy.

sjw617

12-28-2007, 10:14

No, I asked for an example of an industry that had folded its tent even though there was a demand for its product. CD's killed the Cassette dead. There is no demand for Cassettes, as there is with vinyl LP's.

I don't think CD's killed the cassette market. Yes, the demand got too low once the superior sound of CDs came along. But there was still demand. There are poeple who consider cassettes superior to LP's.
This year the largest UK eectronics store stopped selling cassettes -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/07/ntapes07.xml

Surprised me, but there must have been some demand.

Al Patterson

12-28-2007, 10:32

I don't think CD's killed the cassette market. Yes, the demand got too low once the superior sound of CDs came along. But there was still demand. There are poeple who consider cassettes superior to LP's.
This year the largest UK eectronics store stopped selling cassettes -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/07/ntapes07.xml

Surprised me, but there must have been some demand.

MBAs in electronics manufacturing companies killed CDs, just as they will kill film at what they think is the appropriate time.

And I like vinyl better than cassettes, they make better Frisbees....

chikne

12-28-2007, 10:36

Perhaps a different approach would be to figure out ways to keep film well alive, rather than having each one of us giving our own predictions for the future...

Al Patterson

12-28-2007, 10:43

Perhaps a different approach would be to figure out ways to keep film well alive, rather than having each one of us giving our own predictions for the future...

Buy as much as you can as often as you can. Repeat as necessary.

Besides, this is fun as the folks here are better behaved than certain other fora around the net.

sjw617

12-28-2007, 10:47

Perhaps a different approach would be to figure out ways to keep film well alive, rather than having each one of us giving our own predictions for the future...
Someone will have to buy the equiptment and formulas from Kodak when they give up. Fuji did say they will be the last one standing.

chikne

12-28-2007, 10:53

Someone will have to buy the equiptment and formulas from Kodak when they give up. Fuji did say they will be the last one standing.

Fine but what else can we do before they give up?

sjw617

12-28-2007, 11:02

Fine but what else can we do before they give up?

IF (see the large if?) sales have dropped because of digital taking most professionals, the point and shoot market and people like us leaving, I am not too sure there is anything to be done. Film will be around for a while, but who knows what emulsions, speeds or price.
The next problem may be the chemicals to develop film. If envronmentalists and the EPA look around they may think they are too dangerous to have on the market. 1 or 2 chemicals could be a tipping point for film photography.

wgerrard

12-28-2007, 11:38

Unless we invent another use for film, the only thing that will extend its lifetime is to convince more people to buy more film cameras.

Here's one idea, transmogrified from another thread: A cheap interface unit for cameras that allows images to be acquired from exposed film and digitized and dumped directly to a computer. Make it cheap enough to add to disposable cameras. Make cheap little standalone versions for other kinds of cameras; something that knows how to open a 35mm cannister.

Of course, that's essentially a digital film developer, which I imagine had been mooted about here before.

But, anything that prolongs film as a commercial product will need to find a way to mesh it with digital toys.

kevin m

12-28-2007, 17:37

That F6 can't look toward another 25 years of film to keep it alive.

Another opinion stated as though it were a fact. :rolleyes:

I still contend that a middle-aged brush with mortality is the cause for all the "film is dead" nonsense on this forum. Projection. 'I'm dying and so is film!' :D

Al Patterson

12-28-2007, 17:41

wgerrard

12-28-2007, 18:37

Another opinion stated as though it were a fact. :rolleyes:

I still contend that a middle-aged brush with mortality is the cause for all the "film is dead" nonsense on this forum. Projection. 'I'm dying and so is film!' :D

Of course, it's an opinion, not fact. But the trend is certainly pointed in that direction and I think to counter predictions of its commercial demise you need to cite a counter trend. You haven't presented anything to the contrary except your own opinion that the example of niche LP sales means film will follow the same path. It doesn't. It's an illustrative example. It doesn't show cause and effect.

BTW, speaking of middle age. Years ago, when Johnny Carson hit 45, he made a big deal on the air about finally, finally, hitting middle age. He went on and on about it. Eventually, Ed McMahon leaned over and said, "Middle age, eh? At 45. Johnny, how many people do you know who are 90?"

Ouch.

kevin m

12-28-2007, 19:02

Again: The example of strong LP sales shows that if demand remains for a product after it leaves the commercial mainstream, there's a chance the product will survive. And I believe the residual demand for film is at least as great as that for LP's.

No "cause and effect," but a decent analogy that illustrates a possible outcome. And it's based on historical events. Your opinion that film will disappear completely and film cameras will all self destruct is based on..... what?

I'll leave you and Sitemistic to enjoy your negativity in the time you have remaining. :D

G'night!

wgerrard

12-28-2007, 19:13

Your opinion that film will disappear completely and film cameras will all self destruct is based on..... what?

Come on, Kevin. My prediction is based on the fact that film and film camera production and sales have been rapidly declining for years and nothing is on the horizon to reverse the fall.

Basically, I'm pointing at the car the drove over the cliff and saying, "It's gonna keep falling until it crashes unless something intervenes."

You seem to be pointing to the same car and saying "i once dropped a cookie but caught it before it hit the floor, so that car won't crash."

Nothing audio fanatics have done with LP's has any bearing on the future of film.

amateriat

12-28-2007, 19:19

Being a few weeks away from 52 myself, all I can say is that, perhaps a result of being a child of the Cold War, there's no reckoning the future of anything, never mind film. I think it'll be around for some time yet, though slimmed-down in choices. There's also the possibility that the specific aspects of higher-end digital cameras that currently drive me up the wall will be adequately addressed by the time some of my current-fave emulsions hit the corporate casualty list. Meanwhile, I vote with my wallet, which is the only way Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford can really register "what's up" with film. Wishin' and a-hopin' alone never saved anything. Buy the film, use the film.

- Barrett

HankOsaurus

12-28-2007, 20:07

Hi Folks.

I admit it. I just have a soft spot for beautifully crafted old stuff that continues to work well for generations on end. Notwithstanding, there must be space for the new and improved too. Nothing becomes better than it is without change, but as pointed out upthread not all change is categorically better either.

Could it be that emerging developments might yet change the shape of our opinions in the film and digital discussion?

Recently I read that here in the southeastern US, there are now a few schools offering classic B&W film imaging and processing. It appears that some young folks who have cut their teeth with automation-centric digital gear are now curious to learn about the classic manual and chemical methods too. Will the magic of seeing an image come up in the tray under red light help drive a sustained interest in older methods? I hope so.

A few weeks ago, I heard a local syndicated talk show host appealing for "care package" contents to send to American troops overseas. One of the items specified was single use cameras. The reason cited was that the digital cameras that soldiers have taken with them into the desert don't work anymore. No reason was given as to why that is so. I wonder if they know what extreme heat does to film.

I plan to keep and use both technologies. As I am already 60, I am almost certain that film will outlast me. My beloved old film burners will too. I still wind my 1959 rangefinder and my 1961 watch, write with a nice fountain pen, and even occasionally use a beautiful mahogony slide rule too. So far, nothing about the emerging digital technologies has rendered such old stuff nonfunctional to those of us who still enjoy it. And nothing keeps one from enjoying the new also ... or instead.

Now I am looking to ADD a DSLR that will mount my wonderful old Nikkors ... with near certainty that it will be essentially worthless long before those lenses. Such is the way with PCs and electronic gadgets akin to them, I suppose. Could it be that in a few years time a used M8 might be worth less than a used M6?

Happy day. :)

mike goldberg

12-28-2007, 22:09

Is it cameras or people... or both? Yes a few models of NEW film cameras are still being made. We all know, there are zillions of used film cameras around... be they 50 year old screw mounts or early Bessa's.

Our member Gabor [maddoc] in Japan, told me recently, that 80 people were in line for an Oly film camera; further, young people are returning to film in significant numbers. Note that Japan is a high tech innovator, and their DoMoCo camera phone blows away the others [only available in Japan].

Further, I wonder about Europe. For sure digicams abound there, yet Fomapan film made in the Czech Republic is very popular. Also a new line of Rollei technical films will be announced at Photokina 2008. See Link:

http://shop.fotohuisrovo.nl/product_info.php?products_id=278&language=en

For sure, the trends described above are influenced by M6's and Nikon F's. Perhaps the hype in the digital camera industry that creates obsolescent models every half year or so, is creatng a backlash as well. Remember tho' it is people [RFF!] that are making the choices.

Finally, it has been said in other forums, so long as the movie industry is using 35mm film stock, film will be around. Film will very likely, outlast most of us writing herein.
Ciao, Mike

Ade-oh

12-29-2007, 01:21

Actually, I wonder how long the consumer digital camera will be around in current numbers. The last three mobile phones I've owned have each had increasingly good digital cameras incorporated into them; is there any good reason to think that the average 'snapper' will want to carry a seperate camera when they can get equally good quality from their phone? What that will mean for the 'prosumer' market I have no idea; maybe Canon and Nikon will just stick to producing pro-level equipment and leave the enthusiasts to fend for themselves. The economic logic is not dissimilar to the case for abruptly abandoning film.

JonR

12-29-2007, 01:41

Having read this long (and endless) discussion I think most of you take the wrong angle. The "thing" that is changing is not so much "film" but the "hardware technology" i.e. the cameras and where we see a very strong move from film cameras -> digital cameras -> integrated cameras in phones and gaming platforms etc.

I think the availablity and functionality of the actual cameras will for the big number of users (mass market) be the determining factor:

1. I fear that there will be fewer and fewer new film cameras with a high level of functionality around and that will have a dramatic impact on the use of film (for example my son started taking photography at school and they start from the manual angel but only with digital cameras today)

2. I think todays hugh number of "Point-and-shoot" cameras (and maybe also DSLR´s) will also have a difficult future when the phones and other handheld electronic devices such as gaming modukes will have very good camera functionality.

So - if we want to push for film and make that a sustainalble part of this space we should lobby the camera manufacturers to launch new film cameras!

Jon

JonR

12-29-2007, 02:06

Agree, Sitemistic.... but there will come a time when the cheap SLR´s on Ebay will run out of supply and that will be the crucial moment for film I guess... I have picked up several cheap film cameras - many more now after I switched to Digital than before when I was only film!!
Jon

Kent

12-29-2007, 02:37

Now I am looking to ADD a DSLR that will mount my wonderful old Nikkors ...

Go for a Canon EOS, they work fantastic with old Nikkors!
Perhaps the EOS 40D would be perfect...

(Just some OT).

wgerrard

12-29-2007, 05:23

Barrett: I think there's much truth in your remark abut the Cold War's effect on us boomers. Knowing that both the Good Guys and the Bad Guys are willing to blow up the planet affects your outlook. Meanwhile, like a lot of people, I've got film stashed in the fridge. I don't see any antagonism toward film here, just a dim view by some of its future as a business.

Henry: I like beautiful old things, too. Trouble is, a lot of them increase in value because they are old, not because of inherent capability and advantage. They become antiques, collectors item. That's when I look elsewhere. Cameras in Iraq: Heat doesn't do any good, and it's a pretty dust place, too. Is it the zooms and the autofocus mechanisms that go wonky when they get dusty?

Mike: Both the hype and the real technological progress in digitals is mirroring what we've seen with PC's. Products become 'obsolete' and unavailable because there's pretty convincing evidence that old tech doesn't sell. Over the long run, prices of PC's have dropped, but not by orders of magnitude. More or less, bottom feeders still cost $300-400, mid-range $900-$1800, and the very best costs $3000 and up. What changes are the capabilities available at those price marks. I'm sure we will see the same happen with digital cameras. We will also see the same mixing of digital camera tech with other consumer tech, e.g., phones, as we have with iPods, etc. (As Ade said, most folks don't really want to carry around a separate camera.) That highlights one area in which film cannot compete: Immediate integration of our photos into the rest of our digital doings.

Digitals today offer lens stabilization, which I hear is a pretty nifty deal. (Of course, if they weren't so big....) Perhaps down the road they will be able to incorporate technology that allows one fixed lens to effectively substitute for a range of focal lengths. Hmm... a small, light camera, fixed lens but lots of focal lengths, big bright digitally enhanced viewfinder...

Luddite Frank

12-29-2007, 06:00

I think film will continue to survive for some years to come for at least two significant reasons:

1) Cinema ( the medium that gave birth to practical "miniature" photography in the first place, with Oskar Barnack's UR Leica "exposure test camera" of 1914): I have worked for the last dozen years or so for a Not-for-profit performing arts center that runs a film series.... we first heard about the "certain and swift" demise of 35mm projection cinema nearly 10 years ago... we were even courted by a couple of digital cinema vendors to use our facility as a test-venue (couldn't guarantee them enough "screen time" given the live events that the facility also presents).

Exhibitors and digital entrepenuers are still wrangling over which systems/digital formats will become "standard", and "who's going to pay for the changeover to digital equipment".

We do have a Cinemark 20-plex here in NE Penna that has a few digital screening-rooms, and in fact does live digital broadcasts from the Metropolitan Opera now... as far as I know, they are the digitally-equiped cinema in the area.

My facility has a 35mm projection system, with a fairly new Kneisley 3k xenon lamphouse, reconditioned Century D projector (c. 1960), and Kelmar red LED sound pick-up, fed by a Potts three-deck platter system. Aside from having to upgrade the optical pick-up last year, to acoomodate the new cyan-dyed sound-tracks, the system works very reliably.

Digital is "easier to handle": no Goldberg cans, no make-up & break-down, no splicing, no "brain-wraps"; but there's also software & hardeware glitches that can disrupt the program. ( I hate it when the digital image "seizes" and breaks-up into little "cubes" like one of Dali's "nuclear dis-integrations" ! )

2) Archival use: the Library of Congress uses non-digital media (film, books, micro-film, wax cylinders) to keep important information for long-term purposes (talking Centuries, here)... while things like magnetic tape do not age well (metallic oxides begin to flake-off after 50 years), a 2-minute Edison wax cylinder sounds as good today as it did 100 years ago. And keeping the Edison cylinder phonograph in working order is well within the abilities of most any reasonably skilled home handyman.

As far as the LOC is concerned, it's not a just a matter of finding a viable, stable STORAGE medium for the information, but also a RETRIEVAL system that can be made to work 500 years from now....

I cannot argue that the average "point & shoot" family-photographer is forever a lost-cause as far as film goes; digital photography offers a tremendous convenience factor ( instant scrutiny, DIY printing & "dark-room" tricks, e-mail).

Certainly from an economic standpoint, we need to "use it or lose it" in regards to whether EKC, Fuji, Ilford, etc are going to keep making the stuff.

We're eventually going to come to the point where film will be mfr'd in small quantities by "specialty vendors", available only via mail-order and internet, and it will become quite expensive.

I'm sure this will happen in my lifetime ( I'm 40 now)... I just hope that I get my darkroom set-up and working, and get to enjoy "old-school" photography to the fullest before film goes extinct.

( And I love to chuckle when the techno-geeks starting cursing and foaming at the mouth when their beloved PC or lap-top decides to give them the "blue screen of death"... I holler over my cubicle: "Did you keep your carbons? " )

For what that ramble was worth...

"Modern technology is great... when it works..."

Luddite Frank

wgerrard

12-29-2007, 06:46

Things have always broken and worn out. That's why we pay people for parts and repairs. Digital tech doesn't lend itself to repair, other than swapping out boards and such, because the things that tend to break cannot be repaired by us primates. You can't perform corrective surgery on a hammered integrated circuit.

Economics and the pace of development mean, though, if you spend X amount every X years to replace your tech toys, you will always buy more capability. That can't be said for some other industries, even allowing for inflation.

wgerrard

12-29-2007, 06:56

Could you even find a 5-meg drive today?

If Leica still makes the M8 or an equivalent in 10 years, what are the odds it will still cost five grand? (He wrote with a snark.)

jjovin

12-29-2007, 06:56

Nothing audio fanatics have done with LP's has any bearing on the future of film.

Oh my, here is an example of a liberated mind.
I guess what everyone should do is join the herd, jump on the digital band wagon and declare a victory.

I certainly do not have a digital crystal ball to tell what the future will hold and what the intended market is for F6, as some members of this forum seem to do. I can only tell that some of these older technologies still have a glorious present and I want to enjoy them while they last.

With that said, I am bailing out of this discussion as I have more important things to do like listen to a few LPs and expose a few roles of film.

Oops, I better be quiet about it as I run the risk of being labeled as a fanatic.

Happy new year everyone once again,
Zoran

Ade-oh

12-29-2007, 07:02

Economics and the pace of development mean, though, if you spend X amount every X years to replace your tech toys, you will always buy more capability. That can't be said for some other industries, even allowing for inflation.

Maybe, but for many of us in the old days of film, cameras were actually more or less free. If, like me, you generally bought them secondhand, then provided you looked after them, you would be able to sell them on at more or less the same price that you paid for them when you decided to move on. With digital this is certainly not the case: the resale value of obsolescent digital cameras is very poor, as I've discovered to my cost, so the investment in upgrading the technology every couple of years is that much greater. Apart from refocusing myself on film, this has led me to conclude that the next time I buy a DSLR, it won't be a pro or pro-am model (like my current D200) but a basic 'D40' equivalent.

kevin m

12-29-2007, 07:14

I also find it amusing that those who disdain technology are sitting at a computer posting on an Internet forum.

Enjoy your lonely chuckle. But nobody's "disdaining" technology, just trying to figure out, using our god-given faculties, which technology works best for which application. If I want to listen to Frank Sinatra's voice the way he and Nelson Riddle intended it to sound, I'll pop on a 50-year old Capitol mono LP, and leave you to your bud earphones and MP3 files. If I want to shoot color images in near-dark conditions, I'll put away my film cameras and grab the DSLR.

Pherdinand

12-29-2007, 10:31

Can you make images with film?yes you can.
Can you sit behind a typewriter and post messages at an Internet forum? No you can not.

sitemistic, you are funny:)

wgerrard

12-29-2007, 10:32

Zoran, you're not a fanatic for listening to LP's. If you spent thousands on equipment to play that LP, then maybe...

But, in any case, if you see how analog sound systems will impact the future of film, can you explain?

Remember, too, that no one has been bashing film or film users (which include me). The argument is not about the virtues of film or digital. The argument, mine, at least, is that film will disappear as a commercial product. Will film still exist after that? Probably, but not in commercial retail channels.

Pherdinand

12-29-2007, 10:43

cmedin

12-29-2007, 10:51

you know what's funny with the digital "stuff"? like images, or storage media?
In most cases, when somehing goes wrong with film, the image gets worse. Fades, loses some colours, gets damaged here and there. But mostly there's still some kind of image.
However, error in the digital world is digital itself. You either have it or you do not have it. If it breaks, it's all gone. And you have to e a real guru to get anything back once a small mistake happened.

Yes, but unlike film you can have not just one but any number of BACKUPS, which are 100% identical to the original. If you are sensible about this, then a damaged file just means pulling it from a backup, while a damaged neg is gone.

Not even a guru will bring back a negative that's suffered a 'small mistake'...

Pherdinand

12-29-2007, 10:54

cmedin: yes that's true. But...
Still!
:D

wgerrard

12-29-2007, 10:56

One nice innovation would be a camera that locates and jumps on a net connection and automatically backs up your files to a remote server of your choice, as you shoot.

cmedin

12-29-2007, 10:59

cmedin: yes that's true. But...
Still!
:D

Look, I know where you're coming from. My 16 month old daughter's life has been 99% chronicled on digital and it really bothers me. I've shot a fair bit of film of her, thankfully, as I still have a something irrational fear of the loss of digital data. We have a pretty good backup scheme so the chances of things going wrong are very slim. Still, it does concern me not to have something tangible like a negative. From a purely logical standpoint, clearly being able to keep multiple copies (we even keep 'offsite' copies) is superior to a single negative which when damaged is just flat out done for... but yet, it still bothers me, reasonably so or not. :)

So understand that I can definitely relate to some of the anti-digital sentiments, but in the end logic and reason ought to prevail, and I can't come up with a good argument AGAINST digital even though my personal feelings on the subject might differ...

cmedin

12-29-2007, 11:02

One nice innovation would be a camera that locates and jumps on a net connection and automatically backs up your files to a remote server of your choice, as you shoot.
I saw something that's almost there. http://www.eye.fi/

edit: if that could be configured for any server rather than one of the ones listed, it would be fantastic. Then again, with file replication services you could easily have it send all the files that are uploaded wirelessly to your home network somewhere else as well. :)

wgerrard

12-29-2007, 11:42

I saw something that's almost there. http://www.eye.fi/

edit: if that could be configured for any server rather than one of the ones listed, it would be fantastic. Then again, with file replication services you could easily have it send all the files that are uploaded wirelessly to your home network somewhere else as well. :)

Neat. It's JPEG-only now, but, as you said, it's headed in the right direction.

sjw617

12-29-2007, 12:02

I saw something that's almost there. http://www.eye.fi/

That seems to replace a card reader only.

aad

12-29-2007, 12:19

When my mom died, I had already got hold of the family slide collection. I use it today.

Her computer was thrown away. Kind of old, it was. I wonder what was on it? I do have 2 floppies with letters. I don't have a floppy drive.

On the other hand, and in contrast to my earlier Walgreen's film roll count, a rural WalMart tells me they do less than 30 rolls a day, but do a huge amount of digital and uploaded prints.

Larky

12-29-2007, 12:55

I haven't read all 12 pages of this thread because I want to enjoy the next decade doing stuff other than reading posts on a forum! ;)

However, I'll add my bit. I work in the film industry, feature film, my trade is computer generated visual effects (think Jurassic Park) so I'm about as computer literate as any non-freakish person can get (I may have stepped over the line without knowing) but also love film.

Digital is obviously here to stay. It's more expensive, causes us much much more hassle, looks nowhere near as good. A good example which is still fairly current is the difference in look between Revenge of the Sith and King Kong (new version). Lucas shoots digital, Jackson shoots film (old stock if he can find it). Lucas' work looks horrid, Jackson's doesn't. Now, the colour grading process in features is very heavy, but I know from personal experience it's a lot heavier at ILM than at Weta. ILM have to work harder to make digital look up to par than Weta do, and this is 100% down to the fact they always get given film.

Digital is faster, the camera is more capable, you can forget about dailies and see what you are getting as you shoot, and in real time it's going to the editing suite for initial prep whilst also being backed up onto a minimum of two other servers (which in real world terms, if you are thinking of a desktop machine, it gets stored on 20 machines) which means it's very safe. Finding content takes seconds, and storage is cheap so letting cameras roll between shots is not a big deal anyway.

Film requires more skill on set, more people to pay, having to wait to see what you shot, more insurance and licensing costs and paying for your chemicals to be got rid of. It requires the same digital storage as it gets scanned anyway, but also requires hugely expensive archive storage to keep it pristine. That requires more people to pay. The scanners are about as much to buy as a house but cost more to upkeep, and did I mention the people you have to hire to scan the film! Then you have the 20+ people who's job is to manually clean each frame of dust and goop (at about £28,000 per year plus insurance etc plus £50,000 gear costs per person) etc etc. The hassle with film is huge, digital is easy, we all know this.

However, at this point, after people like me have created creatures and the Shake and Discreet boy's have done that part of the job, the Symphony and Color people have it easy. Each shot can be graded in minutes, the digital crews take hours, days, I've even seen it takes weeks to get the digital shot you are working on match the one in the room next door. At more money per day than your car, per room, this get's more expensive than film.

So you have a choice. One is not better than the other, they are different technologies and you have to work them differently. We all know this, but it seems we all forget it. We must validate our choices and purchases, and this sometimes comes out as a rant or attack. I think maybe the better validation would be the end result.

I prefer Kong, but that's just me. :)

newsgrunt

12-29-2007, 14:35

I think this is something that is very much worth reading. No sides taken, just viewpoints on where we're going and have been.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110008086

I usually refer to this when I get pulled into our current topic.

wgerrard

12-29-2007, 14:49

[QUOTE=Ade-oh the resale value of obsolescent digital cameras is very poor[/QUOTE]

You're quite right, Ade. Blame it on the rapidity of technological development. You could sell a used film camera for a great price because that technology hadn't progressed at the rate we see in digital.

The trick to buying digital toys (besides watching what I buy and buying the same thing one month late when the price is cut in half) is to avoid the top of the market.

wgerrard

12-29-2007, 14:52

The argument here is whether the success of digital imaging will inevitably lead to the 'death' of film as a viable medium for photography.

That won't happen. People still use pinhole cameras after all. But it will be very, very difficult, and very expensive, to find anyone who sells film. Film's viability as a photographic medium has little to do with its commercial future.

cmedin

12-29-2007, 15:07

That seems to replace a card reader only.

I'd say it does a tad more than that. Unless your card reader automatically uploads to your flickr account, which would be neat...

Anyway, it's a small step away from sending your pics to a secure server of choice via a wireless connection automagically. It's a pretty neat concept.

cmedin

12-29-2007, 15:30

Yeah, it's amazing the pace of technology. I actually had TWO 5 meg drives hooked up to my Amiga 500 using an ALF card. Those were the days.

When I first moved to the US I worked in a computer store (Computer City, now CompUSA, soon to be nothing), and back in 1996 the biggest drive we carried was 540 meg and a 16 meg stick of ram cost $599.

As for the cheap point and shoot D3 clone, in 4 years do you think point and shoots will be around at all or replaced by cell phone type devices with built in cameras? I wonder if it won't be down to 'serious' cameras (DSLRs) and built-in ones at that point.

sjw617

12-29-2007, 15:42

[quote=cmedin]I'd say it does a tad more than that. [quote]
You're right, I read further. You need your Wi Fi connection within 50 to 100 feet, and it can go to your computer and a service through their server.
2 GB is a large card, over 800 pictures on my 8MP P&S

Kim Coxon

12-29-2007, 15:48

No! By then we will all be able to have an implant in our eye which will record what we are looking at with a blink. We will then be able to view out images by replaying them in our brains. How stealthy will that be for street photog! :cool: It would also get round the problem of cameras being banned. :D :D

Kim

As for the cheap point and shoot D3 clone, in 4 years do you think point and shoots will be around at all or replaced by cell phone type devices with built in cameras? I wonder if it won't be down to 'serious' cameras (DSLRs) and built-in ones at that point.

cmedin

12-29-2007, 15:52

You know, a camera embedded in glasses/sunglasses that will take a picture at a voice command or a blink would probably be near-doable today.

Al Patterson

12-29-2007, 15:53

The trick to buying digital toys (besides watching what I buy and buying the same thing one month late when the price is cut in half) is to avoid the top of the market.

Me, I always buy last year's digital toya t the closeout price just before the newer models come out. Sure I'm a year to 18 months behind the curve, but at quite a reduced price point.

So far I've never paid more than $300 for a TV or $500 for a camera.

Rapscallion

12-29-2007, 15:57

cmedin

12-29-2007, 16:03

Me, I always buy last year's digital toya t the closeout price just before the newer models come out. Sure I'm a year to 18 months behind the curve, but at quite a reduced price point.

So far I've never paid more than $300 for a TV or $500 for a camera.

I do the same with computers and game consoles; finally picked up an Xbox this past summer when they could be had for $50. :) Nothing wrong with letting somebody else deal with the depreciation, and it was still a big step up from my Dreamcast!

MickH

12-29-2007, 17:29

...anyroad up, I think 35mm still has a few years to go.

DavidH

12-29-2007, 18:58

Based on this article, I don`t think the movie business will abandon film soon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/bu...erland&emc=rss (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/business/media/23steal.html?ex=1356066000&en=e0c41eeae3346782&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)

The long and the short of it is that`s extremely expensive to store digital media versus film. The film industry has recognized this issue for some time.

Hmmm, I read this article with a degree of scepticism...

Digital HD tape is cheap (even HDCAM SR - a 1:1 mastering format), robust as hell, doesnt need environmental controls, can be dubbed (identical copies) for a couple hundred dollars. I have the field tapes for several HD TV series stored for around 1000 UKP a year - that's some 600 hours of material - a lot more than would be shot for a movie.

I don't believe for a moment that it costs less to store rolls of film.

Interesting to see the subject (original article) twisted to suit such a point of view though. ;)

wgerrard

12-29-2007, 19:16

film will be around for something more like decades than months, even if variety decreases and cost increases over those time-scales.

...Mike

I agree that film's lifetime shouldn't be measured in months. I really do think it's doomed in mainstream U.S. retail channels as soon as WalMart demands a price cut Kodak and Fuji can't handle. That might happen next year, or next decade.

Specialist use of film -- medical, legal, whatever -- alone will ensure that film of some sort will be available for some time longer, but I question if it's fair to call that a retail market.

I have no idea if film sales to Hollywood help float the kind of film we're interested in. However, it's worth noting that Hollywood's film handling costs will not decrease, while their digital costs will. Also, film entails the added cost of digital conversion.

The issue of long-term digital storage is a vexing one, across the board. Someone will eventually conjure up a "good enough" marketable solution and become very, very, very rich.

wgerrard

12-29-2007, 19:27

You know, a camera embedded in glasses/sunglasses that will take a picture at a voice command or a blink would probably be near-doable today.

Would certainly appeal to street shooters.

Use big plastic frames, conceal a lens in the nosepiece, and a shutter in an earpiece. Put power and storage in the other earpiece.

Didn't Q build this for James Bond?

Larky

12-30-2007, 00:41

"You know, a camera embedded in glasses/sunglasses that will take a picture at a voice command or a blink would probably be near-doable today."

Already do-able. In fact I could build this pretty quickly, it's not hard at all. I'd have to have a wire gong to your back pocket or something otherwise the glasses would have to hold the CPU and storage. But yeah, it's not hard, and it's also dead easy to make it focus on people faces for you.

A part of the research side of my own company deals with exactly this sort of stuff, not for any commercial reasons, just because we find it fun to build stuff. Right now however we are looking more towards new interface designs because the keyboard and mouse have got to go.

Anyway, film isn't going anywhere I don't think. At least it better not, I'm buying up old gear and chemicals like there's no tomorrow! :)

Just wish somebody would release a decent digital RF, the Epson I tried was pretty bad and the Leica was the size of a small country.

Pherdinand

12-30-2007, 02:34

You're quite right, Ade. Blame it on the rapidity of technological development. You could sell a used film camera for a great price because that technology hadn't progressed at the rate we see in digital.

The thing is, when you had (have) a film camera, and you made sure it works as it should, the only advantage in getting a newer one was in laziness. New developments in film camera bodies, as well as lenses, are not that spectacular in the last fifty years. Things like, autofocus, motor drive, light metering, on-camera flash (yuck), zoom lenses, high frame per second, mega zoom lenses, even higher frames per second, are made all counting on peoples laziness. Not a bad thing of course, but you could make the same good image with a very basic camera. There were of course still some categories, but once you bought a hasselblad you never really needed to "upgrade it".
The only real development happened in the quality of films and printing material and a bit of the cheaper category lenses. And you "upgraded" to the better film, paper, anyway, because you just ran out of it.

With digital technology however, there is a REAL development WITHIN the cameras. The sensor being fixed inside them, there is no way around in improving your results but buying a new camera body every x years. And x depends only on your budget and GAS. To this we have to add the capacity increase and change of type of recording media, the image processing algorithms (some of these can be upgraded without buying the new body, some not) and more.
Of course, we all know that Brian S uses a fifteen y old digital camera :D but lets be serious, how many more people on this world are doing it? Seven? Eight maybe? And he also has newer ones.

So there is no way out. Using film means / always ment cheap "upgrade" in image quality. Using digital means expensive upgrade in image quality.
The rest is just mumbo jumbo.

newsgrunt

12-30-2007, 04:54

I would say my F3 and F4 are as reliable and rugged as any digital camera I've ever laid my hands on and that's including the D3 (thus far at least). This is for daily newspaper work.

I also have the freedom to use film for whatever assignments I think would work better with it. Doesn't happen much but it's a nice break from the computer.

newsgrunt

12-30-2007, 05:19

Still have my F3p, the F4 is not used much as the strap eyelet is loose because of a micro crack in the body and not worth the expense of fixing. I would say the F3 is as tough as my F2 in terms of taking knocks. Sleek looking thing as well.

kuzano

12-31-2007, 18:26

And I gotta say, no batteries! Oh my how I hate batteries...I will consider a digital the day they create one that does not rely on batteries. ciao

I once watched a television show where the children in a household had to pedal a bicycle in order to watch television. They traded off 15 minute intervals. I've also taken note of all the radios, flashlights and other devices that you shake or crank to provide electrical power.

I anticipate that the Canon 14D MkVIII will have some sort of manually powered electrical generation system. Or at least be tethered to a generator that can be pedalled or handcranked by a photographic assistant. At that time digital will have reached the technological equivalent of our old rangefinders, in some respect. Until then they suffer the same setbacks as all the cameras that required batteries to even function in the technological heyday of the 70's.

wgerrard

12-31-2007, 18:47

I anticipate that the Canon 14D MkVIII will have some sort of manually powered electrical generation system. Or at least be tethered to a generator that can be pedalled or handcranked...

Perhaps, but I'm skeptical. A digital without a computer is as useless as a film camera without a darkroom. Both have their own required support structure. If you need a handcranked camera, you probably also need a handcranked PC.

Given sufficient power, there's no reason why you couldn't stuff a chip in a digital powerful enough to run Photoshop, and do all kinds of image processing in the camera. The 'sufficient power' thing, though, is the sticking point. Today's PC CPU's need a fair amount of juice and generate an awful lot of heat.

kuzano

01-01-2008, 09:18

Perhaps, but I'm skeptical. A digital without a computer is as useless as a film camera without a darkroom. Both have their own required support structure. If you need a handcranked camera, you probably also need a handcranked PC.

Given sufficient power, there's no reason why you couldn't stuff a chip in a digital powerful enough to run Photoshop, and do all kinds of image processing in the camera. The 'sufficient power' thing, though, is the sticking point. Today's PC CPU's need a fair amount of juice and generate an awful lot of heat.

The world computer that was designed for children in 3rd world countries (What ever happened to the second world?) was intended to be hand cranked... I wonder what the outcome of that became. I know the final price ended up a bit higher than intended and the program to distribute was changed to "buy one, donate one" but did it have a crank?

newsgrunt

01-01-2008, 11:14

A co-worker got one for his young son...and another child, somewhere else, will be getting one as well.

http://www.laptopgiving.org/en/index.php

chikne

01-01-2008, 14:55

OK let's come to a conclusion, which is better, film or digital? Which will outlive the other? :D

projectbluebird

01-01-2008, 15:21

OK let's come to a conclusion, which is better, film or digital? Which will outlive the other? :D
Neither. The real wave of the future will be affordable hard light holography!
Haven't you ever watched star trek?;)

chikne

01-01-2008, 15:29

Oh yeah, I did when I lived in the future....

Eric T

01-01-2008, 15:44

I bought one of the "one-laptop-per-child" computers (http://www.laptopgiving.org/en/index.php) as part of their donate one, receive one program. So I paid for one which was donated to a child in a developing country. I paid for another that was delivered to me.

It is a fascinating little machine. What intrigues me is its low energy use. it uses about 1/30 of the power of a traditional laptop. It has no fan and hence is very quiet.

It has a multitude of functions including a word processor, a browser, a calculator, various games, and wireless internet connections. It's screen is small but bright and in color. It is Linux-based and all software is open-source. You can even view and modify the code of any of the programs easily through the terminal. It could make thousands of future programmers in these countries.

It did not come with a hand crank but I believe such a crank will be available in the recipient countries. I am looking into a small solar panel to power the thing but, for now, it is plugged into an AC outlet. The battery is very novel and generates much less heat than a typical laptop battery.

Can it satisfy my everyday work? No - but is a terrific learning device for children and is fine for just browsing online.
Consider donating one to a deserving child and help bring technology to the developing world. They are $200 each.

Happy New Year to you all!
Eric