PDA

View Full Version : End of 35 mm Cameras


cameramanic
08-08-2005, 00:24
Dixons the UKs Biggest Photography Retailer and Processor ends sales of 35 mm Cameras.

Will this Quicken the demise of 35 mm Photography , and the thing that worries
me most, will it become difficult to get 35 mm film Processed ?
here is the press release.



'Right time'

Mr Magrath said digital cameras were now the rule rather than the exception.

"We have decided that the time is now right to take 35mm cameras out of the frame."

In 1989, sales of 35mm cameras peaked at 2.9 million in the UK, but now Dixons says it is an "increasingly niche" market.

Improved quality and lessening prices have seen digital cameras grow in popularity and this year sales will outstrip the 35mm by 15 to 1.

However, the firm will continue to sell some 35mm cameras at its airport branches, to cater for professional photographers looking to buy duty-free products.

Cameramanic

Roger Hicks
08-08-2005, 00:30
When did ANYONE last go into Dixons for a camera? They are just putting a brave face on the fact that everyone goes elsewhere nowadays, to Jessops or to mini-labs. I think I may have tried to buy a battery in Dixons 5 or 10 years ago, but I don't think I've gone in there to look at a camera in 20 years or more.

Cheers,

Roger

cameramanic
08-08-2005, 00:36
You are right Roger, I made the mistake of thinking it was Jessops who had made this announcement. Doh

Regards

Cameramanic

cameramanic
08-08-2005, 00:51
Hi Mango.
One of the reasons I thought it was Jessops who had put out the press release, was when I was in one of their stores last week, It was hard to find a film camera on sale, exept on the used shelf.

Cameramanic

pendevour
08-08-2005, 04:25
35 mm users have already become the minority in camera clubs. All new members want to learn their photography using digital cameras. Beginners photography classes at the local college have never been so busy thanks to digital cameras. Finding club members and photographers generally that still produce slides is increasingly difficult and is proven by the fact that national and international slide competitions, exhibitions and salons are rapidly moving towards PI (projected images).
So it doesn't matter what Dixons do because they and all other businesses only respond to the market and that's us of course. Its not them stopping sales, its us stopping buying.

In Welsh, "Fe ddaw be' ddaw" or in Italian "Che sera, sera."

rover
08-08-2005, 04:40
Hey:)

Yes the end is nigh. All your 35mm cameras will soon be useless pieces of junk that no-one will want and which take up valuable space which could be used for your/your wife's (delete as appropriate) shoe collection.

Help is at hand, however. As an officially appointed camera disposal operative, I can take that pointless waste of space off your hands, and all at a very reasonable cost. Just send your camera(s), with a cheque for US$100.00 (per camera) and all your worries will be over. My address is...

ManGo

You beat me to this exact response. How about we split the responsibility of relieving our friends here at RFF of their film camera burden. I will take the Americas, you have the Old World, and we can probably bring on a third partner to handle Asia and OZ.

Socke
08-08-2005, 06:09
Ok, so I chime in with Nikons finanical report http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050808/bs_nm/tech_japan_nikon_dc
Get rid of your old cameras and make room for dSLRs ASAP!

Pherdinand
08-08-2005, 07:08
I agree w Roger. Although dunno about Dixons in the UK, but Dixons in the Netherlands is a big mix of everything electronic on a price that is higher than in the specialized shops, and the sellers know **** about the stuff they (try to) sell.

OTOH, it IS a fact that every shop over here sells less and less 35mm film cameras while digicam sales increase. But i still have not seen a photography shop that does NOT sell ANY 35mm cameras or does NOT accept 35mm film for processing.

dmr
08-08-2005, 07:38
everything electronic on a price that is higher than in the specialized shops, and the sellers know sh*t about the stuff they (try to) sell.

Oh, that sounds almost like Radio Shack here in the states. The only store I ever remember where the average customer knows more about what's in stock than the employees! :(

GeneW
08-08-2005, 08:36
We who collect 35mm will progress from being 'quaint' to being 'cult figures' -- even though we just keep shooting as we always have. Before long reporters will be dropping by to interview us about our cool, arcane equipment and techniques from BD (before digital). Brace yourselves! :D

Gene

kiev4a
08-08-2005, 08:45
We who collect 35mm will progress from being 'quaint' to being 'cult figures' -- even though we just keep shooting as we always have. Before long reporters will be dropping by to interview us about our cool, arcane equipment and techniques from BD (before digital). Brace yourselves! :D

Gene


From the responses I already get when I bring up the subject of film cameras in general, rangefinders and/or my FSU camera collection, I don't think "quaint" is the term usually used. The rolling of the eyes by my listeners suggests they probably are thinking "Get a life!" or "Looney Tunes." The best I can say is my mate of 38 years tolerates my interest and our grown children ignore it. I suspect they have decided there are worse things that could be occupying my time and money.:)

wlewisiii
08-08-2005, 09:15
All the comment's I've gotten lately have been "Cool camera" and the like. Of course, carrying around a Moskva 5, Kiev 5 or Speed Graphic tends to show that it's definately not digitial... :D

And those who don't "get it" tend to stay away from me... Especially when I start pulling out sheet holders <LOL>

William

dll927
08-08-2005, 09:21
Wasn't it Mark Twain who reportedly said that the news of his demise was a bit premature? The same thing once happened to Bob Hope - the announcement went around the House of Reps (in DC) that he had died. It took a little doing to undo the news. Of course, he later did so.

Little Prince
08-08-2005, 09:23
Hey:)

That's a deal Ralph. I'll get my people to get in touch with your people. :D :D

ManGo

Though I'm currently located in the States, I am quite willing to handle the Asian brethren. I like to do some volunteer work once in a while :) .

rbiemer
08-08-2005, 09:31
We who collect 35mm will progress from being 'quaint' to being 'cult figures' --
Gene
My emphasis added.
Great :mad: I'm just about sorted out on a working RF set up and now I get to start thinking about what my cult members will wear while out canvassing strangers for donations...and what the required offering should be to join my cult...And a chant. :rolleyes:
At least when my cult shoots family, strangers and then themselves, it shouldn't be fatal.
And NO kool-aid at our picnic, I promise.
Rob

reagan
08-08-2005, 10:32
Yeah, film may be a problem one day, but already I'm having a hard time finding batteries to fit any of beloved FSUs! :rolleyes:
Help is at hand, however. As an officially appointed camera disposal operative, I can take that pointless waste of space off your hands...
That's what I like about this place... there's always some good-hearted guys & dolls ready and willing to go the extra mile to help out! Thanks folks!

Didn't I see some Russian Western movie on a couple of weeks ago where the commrade on the horse said, "You can have my Zorki when you pry it out of my cold dead fingers." .... yeah, it was Johninski Wayne-ovich....... or something like that ...... I dunno. :cool:

And yeah, yeah, I get the looks too at family/friends gatherings where cameras are standard equipment. Of course, I'm the only one with film bulges in my back pocket.

But recently I went on a short hike & picnic with friends, one of which has a real interest in photography and not long ago purchased a veeeeery capable digital cam and 2 or 3 lenses. She's actually getting to know her way around it, or so I thought, since I really like some of her shots. She's even shot a couple of weddings for friends.

Sitting around the picnic table, I'm holding her camera, looking it over and going “ooo-ahhh” and, obviously knowing nothing about digital cameras, I asked, "So when you download the pics, does it automatically convey with the pictures the settings you used on each particular shot?"

"Yeah, I think so," she says, taking the camera back and flipping through some menus. "Anyway, each shot has these numbers with it," pointing at the tiny screen.

"Uhhh yep..." I said. "Those would be the frame number, shutter speed and f-stop."

Her response? "Right. I'm not too good with that stuff yet."

The next day, she gave me a disk with her shots of our outing and an explanation, "I like some of 'em. But just ignore the last 4 or 5 shots. They're bad out of focus .... my battery was getting low."

I dunno guys. I plan on getting a cheapo digicam for the wife soon. But at this point I’d hate to stop buying film and start buying batteries. I’ve shot film for 40+ years. I guess if can buy, beg, borrow or steal a roll of film here and there for a few more, I’ll just “keep dancin’ with who brung me 'til the music stops.”

nwcanonman
08-08-2005, 10:57
Having a digi-cam P&S for two years now, they do use-up the batteries. BUT - when you get two sets of NiMH (I'd only buy the camera that uses AA) and use the highest 'mah' like 2300. They last a long time and are quickly recharged using the correct charger. DON'T use your old NiCad charger for NiMH's though, wrong charge rates will kill your batteries.
Carrying an extra set of good NiHM's I've never run out of power and since the Olympus P&S uses AA's I can find them anywhere.
BTW - I still prefer my Bessa R, which took this of my SIL and nieces last week. :)

pendevour
08-08-2005, 11:01
Originally Posted by GeneW
We who collect 35mm will progress from being 'quaint' to being 'cult figures' --

I hadn't considered this but I think you're quite right Gene. At the moment I'm considered to be a photographic "anorak" because I enjoy using old film cameras and I'm really looking forward to becoming a "cult figure" which is a "respected anorak" of course. I'll be just like that little old man (about 90 years old) that came to give us a talk about chemical toning of prints and was still measuring his chemicals in grains and drams etc. What should we call our cult? Any ideas anyone?

John Robertson
08-08-2005, 16:04
Dixons haven't been photographic dealers for years, they are camera "sellers" a very different thing. The last time I bought anything from them must have been twenty years ago. I was looking for a 49mm Orange filter, the salesman looked blank for a moment, then came back with a Paterson Water filter, saying"you should be able to filter orange through that" I left and have never returned. No great loss I think!!!!! :rolleyes:

jlw
08-08-2005, 16:09
What should we call our cult? Any ideas anyone?

"People Whose Pictures Will Still Be Around 100 Years From Now"?

GeneW
08-08-2005, 16:13
What should we call our cult? Any ideas anyone?
Photography? :D

Gene

ErnestoJL
08-08-2005, 17:16
Well, having noticed that 35mm cameras and film are coming to a soon to reach end, Iīve decided to open the National 35mm Camera Disposal Facilty (as some of you suggested in previous posts). As suggested, Iīll charge a small amount for the service of picking cameras and dispose of them properly..... So, the south of South America is under my responsability!!

Well... now seriously, IMO pehaps in a close future, 35mm film will still be available, but at premium prices, as well as other formats, just made for a "selected group of amateurs who still keep alive the original photographic technniques" (no doubt also, film will come from China). Digital technology is here to stay, but the quality is not yet on par with big film sizes. Then, the transition from film to full digital will take some time, perhaps 10 years or so for that range... maybe less...
Iīm sure that this will benefit collectors and users of 35mm RF as prices will fall steeply, much lower than they are today.

I think we have to admit weīre kind of dinosaurs ... but alive today!
Long live to dinosaurs!!

John Robertson
08-08-2005, 17:36
Yes and Dinosaurs were around on Earth a damn sight longer than us human beans! ;)

einolu
08-08-2005, 18:25
Film will be around for a long time. Kind of like vinyl came back to a niche market. Im just an analog kid I guess. I like how tangible analog things are. for example, on my records the music is actually there, I can just take a pin and scratch it to hear, or like on a negative, the picture is right there. I dont need a computer or a DA converter just to see or hear it.

ErnestoJL
08-08-2005, 19:29
Film will be around for a long time. Kind of like vinyl came back to a niche market. Im just an analog kid I guess. I like how tangible analog things are. for example, on my records the music is actually there, I can just take a pin and scratch it to hear, or like on a negative, the picture is right there. I dont need a computer or a DA converter just to see or hear it.

Your post, Einars, made me think on another issue: there should be some correlation and/or similarity between the many factors involved in the equation which defines the people in RFF...
Age?, Profession?, and how many others....
I do like and still have many vinyl discs, and love the estar or polyester based images, still use transistors and electron tubes in my audio system, I still print with a conventional enlarger...

Perhaps Iīm a bit nostalgic...but I donīt regret for the benefits of many of the technologies of today. Anyway, hope film do not dissapear from one day to the following.

Ernesto

blakley
08-08-2005, 19:31
Dinosaurs still ARE around. Just ask an alligator.

kuvvy
08-09-2005, 00:16
Dixons is where I bought my first serious camera, a Canon AE-1 many years ago. Mainly because I could buy it on instalments. Dixons have always been regarded as a bit of a joke by real photographers. Inexperienced staff trying to flog you the latest shiny box with an expensive warranty. Last time I was in Dixons, not too long ago, I asked to look at a Nikon D70. The assistant handed it to me and I was horrified as it was covered in a layer of dust and had a couple of big greasy finger marks on the lens!

I saw the announcement about Dixons on the TV news. What worried me more was the fact that they showed Patrick Lichfield agreeing with the statement that digital was the way to go, while he was shooting a model with the Olympus E-1. Is he right?

Paul

GeneW
08-09-2005, 00:23
Dinosaurs still ARE around. Just ask an alligator.
Actually they are, but as birds, not alligators.

Gene

Azinko
08-09-2005, 00:46
So why did Dixons, a company at the cutting edge of technology (according to their managing director!!) feel it vital to get into print and TV time to tell the ignorant British public that they will simply not be able to stock those quaint old film cameras anymore??????...........

Could it be that the British 'high street' is having its worst time for about 3 years and takings in all high street chain stores are badly down????......Could it be that a bit of free publicity and advertising was always handy to a large and not too clever company feeling the pinch??????.....Could it be that the relatively few film cams stocked by any Dixons branch is getting in the way of all those tellys, Karoake machines, portable DVD's, baby alarms, MP3 players and all the other sh*t which makes Dixons so avoidable by anyone with half a brain????????........Could it be that that is the reason why takings are down???????

satbunny
08-09-2005, 02:43
Your post, Einars, made me think on another issue: there should be some correlation and/or similarity between the many factors involved in the equation which defines the people in RFF...
Age?, Profession?, and how many others....


Well I am 40 and I like digital and analogue technology. I use CDs, DVDs, MP3, my EOS300D, but I also like vinyl, archiving old tapes, my Leica and my Bronica..

The fullest range is fun, so I am happily in love with 35mm and yet also quite happy to dig out a memory card when I need that approach.

satbunny
08-09-2005, 02:45
So why did Dixons, a company at the cutting edge of technology (according to their managing director!!) feel it vital to get into print and TV time to tell the ignorant British public that they will simply not be able to stock those quaint old film cameras anymore??????...........
Same reason they announced the death of VHS at Xmas. They'd stopped selling them in numbers but it is a significant decision to make. It cements the view of Dixons as cutting edge, leaders, and influential. All bollocks IMHO of course but good publicity for them, so a good marketing ploy.

Ray Kilby
08-09-2005, 03:05
I have no idea if it's the beginning of the end of 35mm photography. But I do know it isn't the end of photography. It is more about a retailer making ends meet. Now I do worry about 35mm slipping away at some point as I have a very fine M6 that I would hate not to be able to use. But my gut tells me that I'll be able to get film for a while.

Therefore I will buy that much desired quick mechanical wind on leicavit and enjoy it while it lasts. Then when the sun sets on 35mm and film in general I'll use digital cameras exclusively. But I'll still take pictures and that surely is the most important thing.

p.ath.
08-09-2005, 05:02
azinko is absolutely right. dixons has only ever supplied the mainstream highstreet consumer consumer market and its obvious that the largest slice of the market wants digital.
it takes no real leap of logic to follow that its to dixons advantage to infer that analogue is dead.
fortunately dixons doesnt decide how we take pictures and never will. neither do other consumers, however numerous they be.
as long as there are people like us for whom digital just doesnt give the pictures we want (dont bother having this discussion with a digital clingon), there will be an analogue option.
btw, i also shoot digital (slr) but i couldnt imagine not having the option.
if you shoot primarily digital, you can of course buy another battery and another card to keep shooting. but for the same price you can have an analogue backup on which the photos are safe from hackers, hardware failure and nuclear war (well, nearly).

paul

bmattock
08-09-2005, 07:00
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/233248_digi20.html

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Photo companies struggle to keep up with digital revolution

By DAN RICHMAN
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

...

Grasping the brief lifecycle of digital products has been one challenge for retailers, including Glazer's Camera, a 70-year-old, family-owned business at the south end of Lake Union.

"The life of a film camera is measured in years," said operations director Swan Mossberg. "It holds its value. Today, you better sell every single digital camera you have on the shelf within 3 1/2 or four months, because it will be obsolete."

Early in the digital era, about five years ago, the store "got stuck with some $75,000 digital camera backs that didn't sell," said general manager Ken Smith. "You can't afford to make many mistakes like that."

...

Originally called Seattle Film Works, that company grew to an 800-person, $100 million business by the late 1990s through mail-order and kiosk-based film processing. By 2000, the unexpectedly rapid rise of digital photography had caught it by surprise. Four years later, revenue had dropped to $20 million and the staff to 250.

"Consumers adopted digital technology much faster than anyone anticipated. I don't know why Film Works weren't able to adapt," said Phillipe Sanchez, who was appointed chief executive in October 2003 after it ejected his predecessor.


On the bright side, the niches that still process film are doing well:


Seattle has a few traditional photo labs that continue to optically print both color and black-and-white images. And, in an ironic twist, they're flourishing.

At Panda Photographic Laboratories Inc., on lower Queen Anne, revenue has increased this year as the 12-person company picks up business from shuttered color labs elsewhere in the city, said co-owner Dana Drake.

"We're counting on film to remain viable, even if it becomes a narrow niche," Drake said. "We're picking up a lot of business that used to go to mom-and-pop places, which have closed."


Many of us love film, and we still agree that film does many things that digital cameras cannot (yet, if ever). However, the market has spoken, and that's the end of that. Doesn't matter how stupid the market is, dollars talk.

And no, there will be no niche market - not after the last film manufacturer shutters their factory. Unlike many other niche and hobbiest markets, film slitting and coating is probably not something the average enthusiast can do at home, and it will cost too much to do business on a very small commercial scale.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

hughjb
08-09-2005, 11:25
"However, the firm will continue to sell some 35mm cameras at its airport branches, to cater for professional photographers"

Pretty soon only pro photographers will be the only ones using film, cool I can raise my wedding prices :-)

John Robertson
08-09-2005, 13:43
<<I saw the announcement about Dixons on the TV news. What worried me more was the fact that they showed Patrick Lichfield agreeing with the statement that digital was the way to go, while he was shooting a model with the Olympus E-1. Is he right?>>

No -- he's no doubt being well paid either in money or in kind to say so!!

Byuphoto
08-09-2005, 13:46
Well anticipating the demise of film I just acquiered 4 cases( 2 of Fuji Superia 100 and 2 of Suoeria 400) of 35mm film. Anticipating a world shortage I will be able to sell each roll foa Kazillion dollars each. It is out of date but in the future it will not matter. So buy it now while it is a measly $10.00 a roll.

Stephanie Brim
08-09-2005, 13:52
My boyfriend has wondered why I tend to stockpile film. I have various kinds in copious quantities at all times. I do not want to be caught someday without a roll of my favorite film. In fact, once I get a job again I'm going to buy bulk rolls of the film I really love so that I can put it in the freezer. To tell you the truth, I see film going that route instead of necessarily completely dying out.

TimF
08-09-2005, 14:11
I saw the announcement about Dixons on the TV news. What worried me more was the fact that they showed Patrick Lichfield agreeing with the statement that digital was the way to go, while he was shooting a model with the Olympus E-1. Is he right?

For someone like Litchfield, whose film and processing costs came to something like Ģ10,000 a year, undoubtedly digital made financial sense. I think a lot of companies are trying to put a squeeze on the costs of photography - presumably so the poor old directors can shovel more cash into suitcases on the way out, and such would make it harder to pass such costs on to the client.

For the vast majority of us here, it'd take many years to amass that kind of spending on film.

I do occasionally go into Dixons, just to kill some time between coming back from "the smoke" on the train, and catching the bus home. Its no surprise they don't sell (m)any film cameras when they're stuffed away in a remote corner of the display.

As an aside, they are worth getting batteries for your Leicas in. Last time I paid under Ģ2 for a Duracell DL 1/3N (Jesssops charge about twice that).

Socke
08-09-2005, 14:26
My boyfriend has wondered why I tend to stockpile film. I have various kinds in copious quantities at all times.
And my girlfriend thinks I'm totaly mad because I stock film in my fridge :-)

phototone
08-09-2005, 14:42
There is no demise of film photography. It is just shifting to a niche, rather than a universal medium.

Gabriel M.A.
08-09-2005, 14:58
Rock and Roll, the Macintosh, B&W photography, Medium Format, Large Format, Painting, married couples, and now 35mm film...their demise will be in the news for decades to come.

Silva Lining
08-09-2005, 15:11
Dixons haven't been photographic dealers for years, they are camera "sellers" a very different thing. The last time I bought anything from them must have been twenty years ago. I was looking for a 49mm Orange filter, the salesman looked blank for a moment, then came back with a Paterson Water filter, saying"you should be able to filter orange through that" I left and have never returned. No great loss I think!!!!! :rolleyes:

Ha! I must say that it is unusual to find a Dixon's salesman with even that amount of product knowledge!

Lord Lichfield is a well known paid up (and paid) member of the Olympus Fan club. He has 'famously' converted to digital and flount's his E1 at every opportunity. And fair play to him, I have it on good authority that the Olympus E-1 is a fabulous camera, and if it makes him happy then thats just smashing.

Makes no difference to me though!. I think that, over the next decade, Film cameras and more importantly film stock will become more of a specialised art product. This will inevitably mean some of our favourite films disappearing (as some already have) especially those produced by the large companies.

Pesonally, I think Film production will continue in the Czech Republic, Russia and China, and other places by companies like Ilford, Foma, and Efke/Adox etc that will be aimed at the specialist market in Europe/Us as well as the still considerable film markets in India/China/ Far East.

In the final analysis though, it will depend whether users like us conitnue to buy it!

phototone
08-09-2005, 16:51
There are many "obsolete" technologies that are quite healthy today, regardless of the fact that they have been scaled back in quantity manufactured.

Vacuum tubes for audio, for example. Still the preferred method of amplification for Guitarists, and many audiofiles, with new equipment regularly designed and marketed. Tubes are manufactured in Russia, Chec (sp) Republic, Slovakia, China, USA, and perhaps other sites.

Brooms. While vacuum cleaners have been shown to be more efective in sucking up dirt, the broom lingers on.

Bicycles....even though no way has been yet designed to air-condition them.

Single-edged razor blades....just the thing for scraping paint.

Coffee Percolators....no good reason, they just are. I use one myself. I will not completely give into the drip revolution.

Dish Pan....even though the dishwasher is more fun. Also good for warming darkroom chemistry bottles in.

Pot Bellied Stove.....won't these always be manufactured?

Radio....what a concept...sound without pictures.

Wax

canonetc
08-10-2005, 07:50
While I don't live in jolly old England but would love to visit, I occasionally see "camera" stores (like one in Sedona, Arizona) that focus 80% of their store product on digital. I think this trend as nothing more than cheap and fearful Kodak capitalism. "Sell what sells". The sky won't fall for awhile; in the future we will be able to find someone in Borneo with a Canon A-1 hanging from his neck, shooting in black-and-white.

And phototone, great listing of obsolete items that WORK without digital needs! Too cool.
From a time when there was more moral responsibility by business to the PUBLIC in making quality products that would last, and not made simply to go obsolete or break in x-years so you have to buy another. That, I feel, is the great crime behind the digital industry. Making things over time for profit potentials, instead of making available NOW a full-frame 12MP camera for under $1000.00. Anyway, my ranting has ended, as it's a lovely day!

Chris

Bertram2
08-10-2005, 07:55
Pesonally, I think Film production will continue in the Czech Republic, Russia and China, and other places by companies like Ilford, Foma, and Efke/Adox etc that will be aimed at the specialist market in Europe/Us as well as the still considerable film markets in India/China/ Far East.

In the final analysis though, it will depend whether users like us conitnue to buy it!

I am also absolutely sure that film will survive, but in a western and Japanese niche. Maybe it will be produced in the east, but it has turned out already that China , India or far east are NO film markets.
The folks there want the absolutely latest thing and this is digital, no "old" and obsolete technologies. Kodak has learned this already, film sales does not work as expected in China as they report.

I think this is what we had to expect, the third world consumer does not want to wear the worn out shoes of the west. When the CD once came the far east did not keep the turntable market up, the western afficionados did that.

WE are the niche ! So buy film friends!! Buy lot's of it . And and keep on shooting like mad !! Or you can put all your analog babies on the shelf soon !! :D :D :D

Emulsionly ,
Bertram

bmattock
08-10-2005, 10:11
There are many "obsolete" technologies that are quite healthy today, regardless of the fact that they have been scaled back in quantity manufactured.

I hate to keep banging this gong, but hey, I gotta do something. Film manufacture is fundamentally different than the niche technologies you mention.


Vacuum tubes for audio, for example. Still the preferred method of amplification for Guitarists, and many audiofiles, with new equipment regularly designed and marketed. Tubes are manufactured in Russia, Chec (sp) Republic, Slovakia, China, USA, and perhaps other sites.

Name one NEW manufacturing plant that has been built to manufacture vacuum tubes. There are a few 'boutique' plants that operate on obsolete / retired / recycled tube making equipment, and as long as it is economical for them to continue making them and there is a market for them, I imagine that they will.

But you won't be seeing GE tooling up to make tubes again any time soon.


Brooms. While vacuum cleaners have been shown to be more efective in sucking up dirt, the broom lingers on.


Not too hard to make a broom - by hand, if labor is cheap enough.


Bicycles....even though no way has been yet designed to air-condition them.


Again, low-or-no tech for consumer goods, high-end enough to justify exotic manufacturing techniques (and prices) for racers, off-roaders, etc. Would you buy boutique 'racing quality Tri-X' for $2,000 per roll? Didn't think so.


Single-edged razor blades....just the thing for scraping paint.


Easy to manufacture.


Coffee Percolators....no good reason, they just are. I use one myself. I will not completely give into the drip revolution.


Hot plate with a tube stuck on it.


Dish Pan....even though the dishwasher is more fun. Also good for warming darkroom chemistry bottles in.


Probably the simplest shape to press out of plastic that there is.


Pot Bellied Stove.....won't these always be manufactured?


And why not? If there is a demand, lost-wax investment casting of cast iron is pretty easy to do in any primitive manufacturing plant - it is shipping that eats up the money, as the things weigh so much.

Film is (sadly) not like these. It is a plastic transparent base coated on both sides with various layers of fairly exotic chemicals - to a uniform density and thickness. The manufacturing process requires great precision and expensive slitting and coating equipment - the investment is huge. Kodak recently spent hundreds of millions upgrading their B&W manufacturing plants (looking forward, well-done Kodak), and nearly as much investing in the Chinese 'Lucky Film Company' so they could modernize their plants in China. That was the first major investment in manufacturing infrastructure that the entire industry had seen in decades - and it will be the last ever seen.

And even assuming that one could knock together a plant to make B&W film on a 'boutique' basis, the environmental problems would eat their lunch for them. These chemicals are bad news. Most plants today exist only because of grandfather clauses - if they had to adhere to modern standards on emissions and leakage into groundwater, etc - they'd go under. I'm amazed that Kodak managed to get away with building a new plant.

So, I do predict that the existing plants will go through many owners, as bigger companies sell off and close the plants, and smaller companies willing to work on smaller margins and operate more efficiently come in and produce on ever smaller scales. Due to lack of environmental controls, the plants in Eastern Europe and China will probably be the last to close.

But when they close, that's the end of it. Sorry. I love film too.


Radio....what a concept...sound without pictures.
Wax

The FCC in the US has mandated that analog AM & FM go off the air in a couple years' time. All digital FM broadcasts (IBOC), old receivers will get nothing but static.

IBOC was originally going to be forced down our throats, as it has been in Europe. However, the FCC has been hammered upon, they are going to phase in IBOC with 'hybrid' broadcasts for now.

Analog radio is still doomed, it has just bought some time.

Wither your tube oldy-timey radio now?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

phototone
08-10-2005, 10:51
I hate to keep banging this gong, but hey, I gotta do something. Film manufacture is fundamentally different than the niche technologies you mention.



Name one NEW manufacturing plant that has been built to manufacture vacuum tubes. There are a few 'boutique' plants that operate on obsolete / retired / recycled tube making equipment, and as long as it is economical for them to continue making them and there is a market for them, I imagine that they will.

But you won't be seeing GE tooling up to make tubes again any time soon.



Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Well, I believe that there have been a couple of "NEW" ventures in tube manufacturing in the last few years. Western Electric re-opened a plant to manufacture brand new 300D tubes for the audiofile market. Vaic Vacuum Tubes in Eastern Europe is a relatively new manufacturing venture. True these are "botique" factories. New tubes have been introduced by several of the existing factories to fill a market for higher quality audio tubes. There is more choice available now than there was 10 years ago in brand new tubes.

While we may see film dwindle in quantity, and the manufacture may eventually only be in Eastern Europe and the Far East, it will still be made in the forseeable future. There are literally zillions of feet of film produced yearly for motion picture release prints, and this is not going away quickly, no matter what people say about digital theatrical projection. If a plant can make movie film, it can, with little difference make camera film. Same coating lines. 35mm film is the univeral release format for movies, and all the theatres in the 3rd world countries are not going to convert to digital. No way. Can't afford it. So, our availability of stuff to put in our cameras may not be totally dependent on consumer film sales for still cameras.

VinceC
08-10-2005, 11:45
<<So, our availability of stuff to put in our cameras may not be totally dependent on consumer film sales for still cameras.>>

And so we go full circle. The earliest Leica "miniature" cameras were designed to be used with motion-picture film, opening up a new niche market.

Kevin
08-10-2005, 11:59
I met another frustrated digital user last weekend. He lost about 18 months worth of pictures because he did not take the necessary backup steps. He concluded by saying he was switching back to a film camera.

Let's face it. Film is much better for most people because they are lazy when it comes to saving their digital files. Sooner or later, every digital user loses images, except Socke, who would have me build pyramids in Germany.

Most consumers do not realize this. They think they are saving time and money by going digital. But they are not factoring in all parts of the photographic workflow, and that is sad for them.

Film will make a huge comeback because of this. Just wait and see.

RObert Budding
08-10-2005, 13:10
Film will be manufactured for a long time. Sorry, but making film is not that complicated. We're not talking about the manufacture of integrated circuits here!

Huge investnments? Hardly. And it should be easy for someone to buy a plant or two on the cheap when Kodak exits the market.

Film is a mature product, but there is still room for improvement and investment - I'd pay a premium for a true 3200 speed film that has really fine grain. Of course, the amount anyone will invest will depend on the size of the market. Future investments will be smaller, and I may never see a fine-grained 3200 speed film. But I can live with that because the current state of the art is pretty amazing!

Robert

DerekF
08-10-2005, 13:26
I met another frustrated digital user last weekend. He lost about 18 months worth of pictures because he did not take the necessary backup steps. He concluded by saying he was switching back to a film camera.

Let's face it. Film is much better for most people because they are lazy when it comes to saving their digital files. Sooner or later, every digital user loses images, except Socke, who would have me build pyramids in Germany.

Most consumers do not realize this. They think they are saving time and money by going digital. But they are not factoring in all parts of the photographic workflow, and that is sad for them.

Film will make a huge comeback because of this. Just wait and see.

Kevin,

Good points, and I've also often considered the "backup angle" as a way for film to make a future revival, but I think it's only a matter of time before some entrepreneur (or large megacorp) builds a backup solution (maybe distributed over the Internet) that is as easy as simply inserting your CF card into a slot reader to create reliable backups. After all, for years, printer makers have been marketing printers that let you directly print from your digital cameras. The CDs and hard drives being made today will eventually begin to fail (maybe at around the same time in the future?), causing many unsuspecting consumers to lose their digital archives. When that happens, consumers won't ditch their digital investments, but will instead demand better (read: easier) backup solutions.

And if someone tries to patent such a solution in 5 or 10 years, remember, you read it here first. :angel:

parks5920
08-10-2005, 13:28
then why do film manufactures keeping making new, better film?

ruben
08-10-2005, 14:29
Dixons the UKs Biggest Photography Retailer and Processor ends sales of 35 mm Cameras.

Will this Quicken the demise of 35 mm Photography , and the thing that worries
me most, will it become difficult to get 35 mm film Processed ?



Hi Cameramanic !

Once upon a time there was a Brittish Empire, at the center of world politics, world culture, world economics, world industrial production, etc. Since many decades ago it vanished, its place taken by the USA. Therefore I cannot understand your logics, and it seems that even your fellow Brittish here don't agree Dixons comes first within the island.

Anyway if you hear that Kodak or Ilford are going to close their film lines, by any means keep us posted.

Cheers,
Ruben

phototone
08-10-2005, 15:58
The big question, or I guess it would be an observation is...does the average consumer, snapshot soccer mom type photogapher even consider the archiving of the files, or the negatives. I think that there are many casual snap-shooters that consider the "PRINT"
to be the file, and erase their cards after the prints are made. Then when they want
more prints, they just do that on the Kodak Do-It-Yourself Scanning Kiosk at Wal-Mart.

Of course these prints are either Fuji Frontier prints (RA-4), or Kodak Kiosk prints (dye-sub)
and have a limited life span, certainly far less than pigment based ink-jet, or darkroom
silver based b/w prints.

All in all, the average "snap-shooter" and this type of customer is what drives the market,
doesn't give a flip about long term storage of digital files, or film negatives. Doesn't even
know why they should care about it. After all they got the prints.

Kevin
08-10-2005, 16:58
All in all, the average "snap-shooter" and this type of customer is what drives the market,
doesn't give a flip about long term storage of digital files, or film negatives. Doesn't even
know why they should care about it. After all they got the prints.

True, I have also heard of people who keep the photolab prints and throw out the negatives. Sad.

Our negatives become historical documents one day, and they should not be discarded. Ever.

Imagine flickr full of images from Roman times. Family snapshots, picnics, daily stuff posed and unposed. Would be special, wouldn't it?

Kevin
08-10-2005, 17:01
Once upon a time there was a Brittish Empire, at the center of world politics, world culture, world economics, world industrial production, etc. Since many decades ago it vanished, its place taken by the USA.

I was under the impression that the British Empire still rules the USA (and slowly most of the rest of the world). Please correct me if I have been fooled.

parks5920
08-10-2005, 17:08
Nah, they still do, only it's more discreet. :D

jaapv
08-11-2005, 03:07
I was under the impression that the British Empire still rules the USA (and slowly most of the rest of the world). Please correct me if I have been fooled.

Hah!! In reality Bill Gates rules!

airds
10-17-2005, 15:14
Heavens! Who buys anything in Jessops, never mind Dixons .......

Toby
10-17-2005, 15:52
The problem is accountants rule the world. Film appeals to people who understand look and feel rather than an abitrary megapixel number. This is a site where people praise the virtue of 50 year old lenses even though they don't resolve 200 lines per mm. We live in a world where the people know the cost of everything but the value of nothing. A manual camera used with film requires a degree of human endevour to get the best from it *but* sad to say it we live in a world of instant gratification. The average man in the street doesn't want to work for his great photos, he doesn't want to wait an hour for developing -instant is 'better'; instant coffee, TV dinners, the pattern was long established before digital photography. Camera companies want to apply the PC model to photography. In other words ideally your camera should be obsolelete before you get it out of the box and within a year it should be an ashtray. Camera companies have no incentive to produce cameras which last 20 years. This is a society that all of us in the west have participated in since the 19th century, the loss of film is just a small symptom of a larger disease. Let's shoot some film and stick it to the man! :D

ErnestoJL
10-17-2005, 16:14
The instant gratification concept is something many people wants, irrespective of what is the quality of what they get "fast". Then fast food, and so many other things that wouldnīt deserve a second look. Kind of no thinking... i guess....
It reminds me when digital wristwatches had their time... they were better than mechanical watches, cheaper, had lots of added functions.... and lots of people, (me included) bought one. Later, the same people slowly got back to the roots, it is hand showing the time, and a little later back to automatic watches. Today, I find that too many people is complaining about that they need battery replacement, so automatic watches again have a niche were to survive. Otherwise, Seiko, Citizen, Orient and some other traditional swiss makers wonīt be doing what they do.
I hope that thereīll be many people like Us who still push a mechanical button to get pictures for a long time. I donīt know if the kind of cameras we like would be or not manufactured again in the future, most probably not, but there is still some interest in them, and lots of people are taking a second look over this cameras. Otherwise, ZI, CV and Leitz wouldn-īt be doing what they do today.
Ernesto

GeneW
10-17-2005, 16:51
It reminds me when digital wristwatches had their time... they were better than mechanical watches, cheaper, had lots of added functions.... and lots of people, (me included) bought one. Later, the same people slowly got back to the roots, it is hand showing the time, and a little later back to automatic watches.

When digital watches became a big thing, a professor I knew made an observation I've never forgotten:

The problem with digital watches is they tell you what time it is. What you want to know is how much time is left ...

Something you can tell at a glance with an analog watch face, but not with a digital.

Gene

ch1
10-17-2005, 17:09
When digital watches became a big thing, a professor I knew made an observation I've never forgotten:



Something you can tell at a glance with an analog watch face, but not with a digital.

Gene

Gene,

Precisely (more or less). :)

Your comment is directly "on point". Just because it's new, doesn't mean it's better.

Not to say the opposite, often it's true. After all, we are "talking through the web".

But as you noted with those "digiwatches" - sometimes technology can be "stupid".

Not sure how this "thread" got resurrected but, just like the digiwatches, the garbage piles of the world are going to become filled with cheapo digital cameras that were rendered obsolete (usually monthly - sometimes weekly).

Film is dead - long live film. Anyone want to start a "boutique" film company? Done correctly, we will make a fortune.

BTW: those same landfills that hold all those digiwatches do not contain any Rollex analogs! :p

Aardvark Aallen
10-17-2005, 18:11
Toby, you write well as usual you've got a point. Don't start me up puhleeezz. Disposable/instant / number crunching what a world.

Three major markets have driven digital photography, the internet, professional photographers and home camera point and shoot users. Home users for all the obvious reasons, have computers so they save time by downloading and printing or emailing shots. The internet for all the reasons we know and are at this website among just a few. Professional photographers because the print and electronic mediums want digital images. That's where the world is today technologically speaking.

Amateurs are all that use this stuff and art photographers who want to use special printing processes. Still these markets are growing in real numbers there are more people using film today than ever before. The problem is the giant film companies are crumbling because they cannot continue growing at the velocity they used to and people unload the shares because they too are not performing which leads to layoffs, downsizing etc.

Find a couple of small quality film and paper producers and support them. The giants will be selling the rights to them for lots of their marginal products soon. We won't disappear.

ErnestoJL
10-17-2005, 18:17
Gene,

Not sure how this "thread" got resurrected but, just like the digiwatches, the garbage piles of the world are going to become filled with cheapo digital cameras that were rendered obsolete (usually monthly - sometimes weekly).

Film is dead - long live film. Anyone want to start a "boutique" film company? Done correctly, we will make a fortune.

BTW: those same landfills that hold all those digiwatches do not contain any Rollex analogs! :p

Think that someone placed the finger in the right spot!

No one of Us will never see a pile of junk made of metal built mechanical cameras... properly used, they will survive a lot, even as only a collectorīs item, what cannot be said of any of the cheap digicams made by zillions we have today.

I guess that what most of Us is trying to do, is to keep ourselves able to decide what to do after thinking what kind of picture do we want to have in the end of the chain, not leaving a preprogrammed silicon chip decide if momīs face will be just a white spot over a nice green grass background, or worst, getting a blurred picture just because the mode selection confirmation button wasnīt pressed...

Would HCB if alive, use a digicam??

I guess he wouldnīt.

Ernesto. :bang:

ch1
10-17-2005, 18:44
Think that someone placed the finger in the right spot!

No one of Us will never see a pile of junk made of metal built mechanical cameras... properly used, they will survive a lot, even as only a collectorīs item, what cannot be said of any of the cheap digicams made by zillions we have today.

I guess that what most of Us is trying to do, is to keep ourselves able to decide what to do after thinking what kind of picture do we want to have in the end of the chain, not leaving a preprogrammed silicon chip decide if momīs face will be just a white spot over a nice green grass background, or worst, getting a blurred picture just because the mode selection confirmation button wasnīt pressed...

Would HCB if alive, use a digicam??

I guess he wouldnīt.

Ernesto. :bang:


Ernesto,

Thank you.

But there is one "fly" in my ointment.

And that is keeping film tech "alive" for new generations.
It will be a very tought (and perhaps unwinnable) battle to convince enough future "pro-am" photographers that film is a better avenue for artistic expression.

Film is indeed "dead" when it comes to mass consumer "picture taking". The challenge is to find a marketable level of demand for film as an afficianado's "artistic" endeavor.

This is what I meatn by identifying a "boutique market niche".

The challenge is - how do we nurture a sustainable level of "desire" for film photography given that it will NOT be based on mass consumption?

The "majors" (i.e. Kodak) are going to have to abandon film (their stockholders will demand that they do so - Big K is a very "troubled" company). Maybe one (hopefully more that one) major will survive (e.g. Fuji?).

But 35mm film will necessarily have to become a "niche" industry. Hopefully, at a level that will sustain future techonlogical research and advances.

ErnestoJL
10-17-2005, 19:54
Youīre right copake_ham.
35 mm film is going to be soon something that companies like the bigs F and K would abandon soon as their stockholders cry enough regarding profits. I know that film photography will come to an end unless something happens very soon. One thing that can be done is to increase the film demand from the general public, be it B&W or colour.
IMO, one way to demonstrate that there is some interest in it (and generate some more) is to show to other people the pictures we make, and tell them how they were made.

After showing my pictures to some friends of mine, it was easy to convince them to bring back to life some old cameras they have, what they did. Then, they will need film ... and all this is because some people want to show everyday things in a different way: theirs.

As long as we can do anything that would bring old film cameras back to life, there will be the need for film. This will (hopefully) make some small manufacturer to think about a specialized market of amateurs able to pay boutique prices for something rare and special.

Ernesto

dmr
10-17-2005, 21:47
Film is indeed "dead" when it comes to mass consumer "picture taking".

Agreed with one reservation -- the disposable pre-loaded point and shoot. Just a few hours ago in a Las Vegas gift shop I noticed that there was more shelf space given to disposables than to roll film. Those disposables aren't just a cardboard box with a hole in the front anymore. Some of them almost look like real cameras, and yes, I've noticed various tourista types using them -- LOL -- even for night shots. :) :) :)

The "majors" (i.e. Kodak) are going to have to abandon film (their stockholders will demand that they do so - Big K is a very "troubled" company). Maybe one (hopefully more that one) major will survive (e.g. Fuji?).

I get the impression that YellowBoxCorp is in the mode of many corporations, their management chaotically pushing buttons hoping for something, anything, that will drive their current period's numbers higher.

I also get the impression that GreenBoxCorp is much more enthused about the film side of the business.

photogdave
10-17-2005, 22:47
Hello,
I've been lurking for a while, but after reading this thread I'm compelled to say something!
Everyone has had some interesting, well-informed points. I work at a professional camera shop in Canada (not telling which one) and in our market digital has definitely superceded film in all-over sales. The last brand-new professional SLR I remember selling was a Canon EOS 1 about 2 years ago. We sell a couple of consumer SLRs a month. We only stock one consumer P&S (Olympus Stylus Epic :D) We sell used SLRs every single day, and a fair bit of used MF. It's extremely rare to move any new MF equipment, and Leica RF is very slow too. We sell bucketloads of DSLRs - more so than P&S digicams. We have consolidated our film stock and got rid of one fridge.
Do I think 35mm film is dead? NO WAY!
Get ready to smile - Our sales of new Voigtlander Bessas and lenses is very healthy - outselling every other film camera. Many of our pro customers still shoot film exclusively and many more shoot both - whatever the job demands! The majority of our "enthusiast" customers are still with film too.
The last couple of years have seen new emulsions from Kodak and Fuji. It's easy for them to produce so it doesn't seem likely they'll stop, but it's definitely getting more expensive.
Most interesting to me is noticing how mostly older photographers are abandoning film, while the students and upcoming pros seem more facinated with it than ever. I agree with those who predict film and chemical processes are going to be a niche market, but what a lovely niche to be in!

taffer
10-17-2005, 23:16
As I mentioned sometime somewhere, and at least for my experience here, B&W and slide film WERE already almost dead for the vast majority of the consumer market since long ago.

In that regard, thing hasn't changed much :)

Toby
10-18-2005, 00:32
It's interesting to see voigtlanders doing well - I wouldn't mind guessing they're an affordable second camera system to a pro DSLR -leica take note!

Bertram2
10-18-2005, 02:30
This is a society that all of us in the west have participated in since the 19th century, the loss of film is just a small symptom of a larger disease. Let's shoot some film and stick it to the man! :D

A disease one can call it indeed, in any case it's a very basic system fault.
The "throw-away-and-buy-new" period begins each time a market is saturated the first time, and from then on the innovation cycles must get accelerated more and more if you want to keep your market grow. Technical progress is the fuel you need for the acceleration.
Necessarily things which are thought for a shorter period to last must lose worth,
the shorter the period gets the more they lose .
So far it is no exaggeration to say that in our electronic and digital age something is obsolete from the moment on you have bought it.
Indeed the companies try to get the next generation ready for market while you believe to be on top of the current technology with that thingy you bought yesterday.

And since a long time already the members of this society have internalized that it is important to be "modern" , to own always the very latest thing , otherwise you are considered as a loser who could not make "IT".

What happens now with digital is the S.O.S (Same OLd S**T). we had it already when the P&S hype enlarged the photo market by including all those who had used Instamatics before, and when the SLRSs were more and more computerized, promising that now aunt Ida could make art with such a wonder thing.
The market is built up new now with digital, you can sell a P&S again for €uro 600.- and consumer SLRs for Euro 1500,- no prob.

The aspect of a instant result with digital is of course important too in times we are so accelerated that we ain't got time to eat decently. But the driving basic principle is still the same, as you said , from the 19th century on.

BTW that means also that you guys out there with your 50yo film cameras , you are a bunch of subversive antii-capitalitic elements ( not to speak of the FSU gear owners extremely suspicious !!) and if you don't learn soon the worth of "progress" you saboteurs will land in a re-education camp where you got taught (consumer) manors ! Ouch, ouch, ouch... ! :D :D :D

Bertram

Andy K
11-16-2005, 06:36
I apologise if his has already be posted elsewhere on RFF.

Ilford are proposing to produce new stock, for example a Delta 25 film. They are also producing new chemicals and may bring back postcard paper.

How do I know this? There is a member of the Ilford management team who has been replying to questions regarding product availability over on APUG. See the relevant thread here (http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=20862). Apologies to Jorge for posting a link to another site, but hey, we're all photographers, right?

I saw in this thread someone mention the environmental impact of film production. That is nothing compared to the environmental impact of the chemicals used in the production of computer chips and CCDs.

Gabriel M.A.
11-16-2005, 06:49
In other breaking news, paper will cease to be used in the office, now that computers can be used to send documents from one place to another, from one person to another. We expect to see the usage of paper dramatically decrease to the point where it will in a few years be declared obsolete. :rolleyes:

nwcanonman
11-16-2005, 06:58
SNIP.........

I saw in this thread someone mention the environmental impact of film production. That is nothing compared to the environmental impact of the chemicals used in the production of computer chips and CCDs.
......................
OR the tons chemicals used on mega-acres of golf courses, which are beautiful to photograph on film (note the tie-in?) :D

Beniliam
11-17-2005, 03:38
Paco Rabanne said in 2000 that one russian satellite (MIR) would fall on Paris...and the world would finish. These commentaries have the same validity... Always will be exist visionaries

Beniliam
11-17-2005, 04:03
Paco has a good taste

Uncle Bill
11-17-2005, 04:43
Hello,
I've been lurking for a while, but after reading this thread I'm compelled to say something!
Everyone has had some interesting, well-informed points. I work at a professional camera shop in Canada (not telling which one) and in our market digital has definitely superceded film in all-over sales. The last brand-new professional SLR I remember selling was a Canon EOS 1 about 2 years ago. We sell a couple of consumer SLRs a month. We only stock one consumer P&S (Olympus Stylus Epic :D) We sell used SLRs every single day, and a fair bit of used MF. It's extremely rare to move any new MF equipment, and Leica RF is very slow too. We sell bucketloads of DSLRs - more so than P&S digicams. We have consolidated our film stock and got rid of one fridge.
Do I think 35mm film is dead? NO WAY!
Get ready to smile - Our sales of new Voigtlander Bessas and lenses is very healthy - outselling every other film camera. Many of our pro customers still shoot film exclusively and many more shoot both - whatever the job demands! The majority of our "enthusiast" customers are still with film too.
The last couple of years have seen new emulsions from Kodak and Fuji. It's easy for them to produce so it doesn't seem likely they'll stop, but it's definitely getting more expensive.
Most interesting to me is noticing how mostly older photographers are abandoning film, while the students and upcoming pros seem more facinated with it than ever. I agree with those who predict film and chemical processes are going to be a niche market, but what a lovely niche to be in!

Thank you for saying this! I go into a few camera stores and I am regarded as some subversive freak for not packing a DSLR. You based in Toronto?

Bill

djon
11-17-2005, 13:25
I've resisted serious digi cameras for several years, knowing something credible would eventually be introduced. Nikon D200 has my attention, but I probably won't have the cash next year. I'd take the Pentax seriously (because of its viewfinder) except for the lack of wide lenses. I don't think we'll ever see a digital rangefinder, but we'll see a 10mp APS this month from Sony...problem is, it's shaped like a Klingon space ship, the lens is physically too long (who needs that much lens?) and it doesn't even have a tube viewfinder.

ErnestoJL
11-17-2005, 18:31
Iīve been following this thread for some time and what is most important to me is something thatīs not noted behind the market reasons which would bring film photography to an end. I donīt recall if someone pointed this out, but for me itīs very important: film photography (and the way Iīm doing it) means to keep a single instant of time and life frozen, to be seen, studied, enjoyed and preserved for, perhaps (I hope) eternity.

There is a way to edit any single picture we make no matter if itīs digital or digitalized from regular colour or BW negs. But what is most important, the original picture is preserved, it is not edited, not modified, not altered in any way, just the real thing, nothing else, nothing less. So we allways can go back to the roots and see what was it.

I said in another thread that my idea of photography is one thatīs similar to HCBīs one (Iīm not comparing myself with him!) the decisive moment. To keep this for the future generations of mankind is something Iīm not allowed to resign by myself. Thatīs why I īll be glad to pay premium prices for a boutique item like 35mm film would become to be.

I know very well what is market presure and that big companies wouldnīt do anything against their shareholders, this would be the death sentence for film.
But as long as only one film manufacturer remains active, this activity will be less harmful for the environment than any small imaging chip manufacturing facility. Chemicals used for film manufacturing and developing can be easily cleaned and recycled than those from a chip manufacturing facility.
This is something we all have to tell all the other people interested in the "instant satisfaction" concept.

Ernesto

Socke
11-17-2005, 22:55
Just to the environmental impact of film vs. chip production.

It's not the problem as long as it's economical feasable to controll.
Wastemanagement is expensive, recycling, resusing and proper dispose of something all cost money. In the old days we didn't care and when we found out rare elements weren't that rare in mothers milk anymore we started to wory about what we did and this put presure on the manufacturers to change production to a less risky one.

In the late 80s beginning 90s I worked for a windowglass producer, Thermopane Glass, the two sheets of glass were bonded to a frame and sealed with bitumen. The tools used clogg up when not in use and so had to be cleaned after production stopped for the day.
This was done with a solvent I know as 1,1,1-Trichlorethan. The workers washed the pipes and nozles in open barrels of that stuff.
Around 1989 it was certain that it induces cancer and users had to report every ounce of Tri used and proof proper disposal. At my company there usualy wasn't anything left to dispose off, because it evaporates pretty fast.
So production was changed and the pipes and nozels are frozen to stop them from clogging after work and cleaned once in a week instead of twice a day.
The cleaning is done in a sealed system where nearly no Tri can evaporate.
In the end it turned out, that it was cheaper this way and the equipment for freezing pipes and nozles was payed for with the savings in Tri within two years.

Here in germany we have strong environmental protection and if chip foundries were environmentaly unsafe, we wouldn't have chip production here.
It is doable as long as the cost are earned!

Recycling of electronic components is still a problem and usualy exported to third world coutries with lesser or none environmental controll. In europe this will end soon and every producer selling electronics will have to provide environmentaly safe disposal of goods as well as proof to the safe disposal.

It's our obligation to keep this planet in a usable state for the generations to come.

Bertram2
11-18-2005, 01:43
Ernesto,

I donīt recall if someone pointed this out, but for me itīs very important: film photography (and the way Iīm doing it) means to keep a single instant of time and life frozen, to be seen, studied, enjoyed and preserved for, perhaps (I hope) eternity.

This is what I called "pictures without parents" in another thread meaning ther is no material source from a digital pic. If all my complaints about the look of the photos and handling of the cameras had no reason any more there would still remain THIS prob !

There is a way to edit any single picture we make no matter if itīs digital or digitalized from regular colour or BW negs. But what is most important, the original picture is preserved, it is not edited, not modified, not altered in any way, just the real thing, nothing else, nothing less. So we allways can go back to the roots and see what was it.

Exactly. A neg was burned with the light of THAT certain slice of time you wanted to keep and so it is a piece of frozen time. That is something Very different from some magnetic points on a HD I'd say ?
Concerning the modification issue i often got the answer that EVERY pic can be modified or manipulated, it always could, since photography exists.
Well that's as true as trivial and does not meet my point. I am not talking about what others do but about MY life and MY negs which are indeed a kinda materialized piece of frozen time. :)

II know very well what is market presure and that big companies wouldnīt do anything against their shareholders,

It is worse IMO. The market pressure is made by the companies itself, they must get the old technolgy outta the way to accelerate the market penetration for the new stuff.

So for me it is clear that I buy products only from companies who show a clear commitment for film or from those who try to survive in the niche like Ilford.
That's hard, I love Tri-X and BW400 too, and I used Kodak Extra Color slides ! :mad: Will I manage to be consequent enuff ? not sure :rolleyes:

Best,
Bertram

Socke
11-18-2005, 02:02
Bertram, my father and grandfather used to work directly on negatives. One of the reasons to gradualy introduce computers into their workflow from 1986 on was the ease of undoing actions and the quality of the digital copies.

It is possible to wash paint from negatives but it's tedius and prone to error. You can easily destroy the negative in the retouching process and when it is retouched you normaly can't get back to the original state.

taffer
11-18-2005, 02:06
Iīve been following this thread for some time and what is most important to me is something thatīs not noted behind the market reasons which would bring film photography to an end. I donīt recall if someone pointed this out, but for me itīs very important: film photography (and the way Iīm doing it) means to keep a single instant of time and life frozen, to be seen, studied, enjoyed and preserved for, perhaps (I hope) eternity.

There is a way to edit any single picture we make no matter if itīs digital or digitalized from regular colour or BW negs. But what is most important, the original picture is preserved, it is not edited, not modified, not altered in any way, just the real thing, nothing else, nothing less. So we allways can go back to the roots and see what was it.

I said in another thread that my idea of photography is one thatīs similar to HCBīs one (Iīm not comparing myself with him!) the decisive moment. To keep this for the future generations of mankind is something Iīm not allowed to resign by myself. Thatīs why I īll be glad to pay premium prices for a boutique item like 35mm film would become to be.

I know very well what is market presure and that big companies wouldnīt do anything against their shareholders, this would be the death sentence for film.
But as long as only one film manufacturer remains active, this activity will be less harmful for the environment than any small imaging chip manufacturing facility. Chemicals used for film manufacturing and developing can be easily cleaned and recycled than those from a chip manufacturing facility.
This is something we all have to tell all the other people interested in the "instant satisfaction" concept.

Ernesto


Ernesto, while I agree with most of your post, there's a weak point on it, and if you allow me I'll point you to it :)

When we see those unforgettable images from HCB or Ansel Adams, just to name a couple, we're looking at their (and most times somebody else's) interpretation of a negative. Images from both of them are known to have had a huge stage of work involved in the printing process to end in the way we all know them nowadays.

My point is that nobody asks to see the true negative from those images (if it ever still exists), and I'm sure that if we could, some times we could even become dissappointed on how 'normal' they looked when compared to the extraordinary prints we normally see in exhibitions.

I'm a convinced film user and mostly for the same reasons you mention, but afaik, we only have one live to take pictures, so it might be a better idea to adapt to whatever is coming than to trying to fight against it ;)

Albest,

Oscar

Andy K
11-18-2005, 02:19
Ernesto, while I agree with most of your post, there's a weak point on it, and if you allow me I'll point you to it :)

When we see those unforgettable images from HCB or Ansel Adams, just to name a couple, we're looking at their (and most times somebody else's) interpretation of a negative. Images from both of them are known to have had a huge stage of work involved in the printing process to end in the way we all know them nowadays.

My point is that nobody asks to see the true negative from those images (if it ever still exists), and I'm sure that if we could, some times we could even become dissappointed on how 'normal' they looked when compared to the extraordinary prints we normally see in exhibitions.

I'm a convinced film user and mostly for the same reasons you mention, but afaik, we only have one live to take pictures, so it might be a better idea to adapt to whatever is coming than to trying to fight against it ;)

Albest,

Oscar

But the original negative is still there, for future generations to use.

No one is trying to 'fight against' digital.
What (as I have seen many times) people are fighting against is what appears to be some kind of digital 'evangelism' for want of a better word. It's the 'Oh, you're still using film, you should get this/that/the other Dslr etc. etc.' What these people don't seem to get is I use film because I prefer film. I think prints made in a darkroom from a negative look better than inkjet prints. I have seen some very nice digital images, but I have not seen a single one I would want to hang on my wall. (BTW has anyone seen the small print in Canon's latest printer ads? About the 'longevity' of their prints? If not I suggest you find a Canon ad and take a look)
Digital can only ever emulate film, it can never match film. I have seen hundreds of discussions about 'How do I get that film look in PS?' or 'How do I get my images to have grain in PS?' My advice to those people would be, if you want your photographs to look like film photographs stop wasting your time sitting in front of a computer and get a film camera.

taffer
11-18-2005, 02:30
That's exactly why I like film, the neg IS there, and is (IMHO) the best possible way of image backup that you can have.

>It's the 'Oh, you're still using film, you should get this/that/the other Dslr etc. etc.

Hehe, still remember a guy at work when I told him about my CL. 'But with that money you could have bought a digital!!!' :)

Yes of course, I guess I could have bought a 4MP P&S ;)

That said, it's priceless to see some faces people put when seeing the inmediate results. Both mediums have their pros, what I don't fancy is the idea that one of them has to dissappear, but I have no power over global markets...

Socke
11-18-2005, 02:31
Andy I'm with you and others that digital is not film. But on the other hand, Velvia 50 is not Tri-X :-)

Inkjet printing isn't baryt either, but I have two digital pictures (wet)printed on baryt paper. It's quite expensive but impressive.

http://www.polycolor.de/

Brian Sweeney
11-18-2005, 02:36
I went into a Pawn shop, looking for "these old discarded cameras" last month. The owner told me that 35mm SLR's are very popular with the police department, and many of the officers buy them up.

Defence Lawyers can make Mince-Meat out of Digital Images.

Bertram2
11-18-2005, 04:27
It is possible to wash paint from negatives but it's tedius and prone to error. You can easily destroy the negative in the retouching process and when it is retouched you normaly can't get back to the original state.

Socke, this is ALL true ! But does not meet my point. Which is: I don't give up the neg as the original source !

This does explicitely not exclude digital from the later workflow of postprocessing
I work with scanned negs, I use PS and I will do inkjetprinting one day too, for colour only tho. Because I prefer a ink colorprint based on a scanned colour neg to a lab print, which is not exactly postprocessed as I want it to and which is anyway (AFAIK at least) scanned too before is printed. B&W ? Dunno yet, some friends ahve sent me B&W inkjet prints which look different but at least partly quite convincing.Depends on inks and printer.

To exclude all misunderstandings and wrong assumptions. I am NOT one of those
self-proclaimed guardians of the holy analog grail which you can find at APUG so often. ( Not sure if they are the majority, some sound quite o.k.) That's not me, I hate this elitist and condescend attitude of some stuffed shirts, so far out yet that some of them find it to be a lack of taste to shoot colour film at all :bang: Not to speak of the way how those are treated who who scan negs ! Which is in the purist's catechism a sin, different from scanning prints tho. :confused:

Again, that's not me, I personally just want this celluloid burned by the light, it's a very important part of the magic of photography for me and at this point I am afraid nobody and no technical "advantage" can convince me to use a chip instead of film. Still absolutely therapy resistant !!! :p

Regards,
Bertram

Andy K
11-18-2005, 04:40
To exclude all misunderstandings and wrong assumptions. I am NOT one of those
self-proclaimed guardians of the holy analog grail which you can find at APUG so often. ( Not sure if they are the majority, some sound quite o.k.) That's not me, I hate this elitist and condescend attitude of some stuffed shirts, so far out yet that some of them find it to be a lack of taste to shoot colour film at all :bang: Not to speak of the way how those are treated who who scan negs ! Which is in the purist's catechism a sin, different from scanning prints tho. :confused:




The difference between a scanned neg and a scanned print is that a scan of a print is a scan of a completed analogue photograph. The shutter opened, the scene was recorded on the film, the film was developed, the negative was enlarged onto photosensitive paper, the paper was developed, the print was scanned.
A scanned neg is a scan of an incomplete analogue photograph.

I recommend you try your own developing and enlarging. You will not look back to scanning negs. I know, I used to scan negs, then I learned to make my own prints in the darkroom. A scanned neg no longer 'does it' for me.

Socke
11-18-2005, 05:32
Bertram and Andy, you're right because nobody can argue against what you feel and think when you have a neg to work on and put it in a sleeve afterwards and finaly hang a print on the wall.
Obviously there is more to photography than a picture on a website, in a magazin or on a wall.

"You smell that? Do you smell that? Rodinal, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of rodinal in the morning."

Bertram2
11-18-2005, 07:03
A scanned neg is a scan of an incomplete analogue photograph.

Ah, the English group of APUG has spoken. Notice benevolently, I did not say British ;) No more faux pas !
My whole post was about negs tho, and I thought I was clear enuff about complete and incomplete ? I don't care how complete my workflow is.
But thanks anyway for explaining, it's brightening my understanding of the APUG basics.


I recommend you try your own developing and enlarging.
I did that already, 20years ago. My lab was sold, now I got not enuff room to build a new one up and so my approach was via scan this time . If anything shall get enlarged the lab gets postprocessed scans from me.

You will not look back to scanning negs. I know, I used to scan negs, then I learned to make my own prints in the darkroom.
For me it's the other way round, I think about going back by installing again at least something like temporary wet lab for my bathroom. For B&W only tho.

Let me add a remark which does not point on you personally: Scanning properly is an art of it's own. A long way to go until you get out of the neg ALL what is technically possible. You did it, you know it.
Printing with an ink jet is another art of it's own. Also a long way too go until you control it completely, many have given up after a while.
I have doubts if all those purists at APUG, who again and again try to exclude scanned negs from the gallery, really do know what they are talking about ? The quality of some of the scanned prints in the gallery let me doubt. They are obviously presented under the premise, that the principle is more important than the result.

I subscribed at APUG because I saw that there are many very talented and knowledgeable photogs , trying seriously and successfully to make really good photos based on film.

It's a bitter disappointment tho to find out how narrow the basics are defined and how narrow minded some folks are there, narrow minded enuff to let those who scan negs exist in a little subforum, for which one needs a seperate access.
As a "compromise" as it is said. Wouldn't it be more honest to exclude all "scanners" from the forum completely ? Wouldn't be THAT the iron consequence some always talk about there ?

The question is however how to control of what kind the posted gallery files are. Scanned negs or scanned prints ? ;)
It's an old political essential: Don't make laws you can't control.

Regards,
Bertram

Bertram2
11-18-2005, 07:24
Obviously there is more to photography than a picture on a website, in a magazin or on a wall.

"Y

Yes. I was hooked when at the age of 8 , in my father's darkroom,I saw the first time the latent pic coming outta the paper bathed in dev, in this moment I began to understand what all the fascination is about ! :D
B.
("Frühe Prägung"). You can't get rid of those.

Socke
11-18-2005, 07:41
My background is print, so I'm more used to screend pictures printed on offset presses than on baryt paper :-)

For ages the best results in printing, not enlarging, have been made from negatives or slides, not from paper.

That was the reason why my father and grandfather worked on the negative and not on a "print". Prints were only used for layout and proof purposes not for the cataloges.

When we still sold high end printers we had drumscanned negatives to show the capabilities of our Tektronix Phasers a scanned print wasn't good enough.

Even Linotype Opal and Saphire scanners won't come close to a dedicated slide scanner in the same price range.

And with the help of Lysonic or MIS inks and good papers you get very pleasant results from scanned negatives on inkjets, if you have the ICM profiles even a Fuji Frontier colour print from a scanned B/W negative can be very good. And then we have the possibilty to enlarge on materials unsuitable for wet printing, I have some awesome prints made on Kodak Endura Metallic Paper

Andy K
11-18-2005, 07:49
A scanned neg is a scan of an incomplete analogue photograph.

Ah, the English group of APUG has spoken. Notice benevolently, I did not say British ;) No more faux pas !
My whole post was about negs tho, and I thought I was clear enuff about complete and incomplete ? I don't care how complete my workflow is.
But thanks anyway for explaining, it's brightening my understanding of the APUG basics.


I recommend you try your own developing and enlarging.
I did that already, 20years ago. My lab was sold, now I got not enuff room to build a new one up and so my approach was via scan this time . If anything shall get enlarged the lab gets postprocessed scans from me.

You will not look back to scanning negs. I know, I used to scan negs, then I learned to make my own prints in the darkroom.
For me it's the other way round, I think about going back by installing again at least something like temporary wet lab for my bathroom. For B&W only tho.

Let me add a remark which does not point on you personally: Scanning properly is an art of it's own. A long way to go until you get out of the neg ALL what is technically possible. You did it, you know it.
Printing with an ink jet is another art of it's own. Also a long way too go until you control it completely, many have given up after a while.
I have doubts if all those purists at APUG, who again and again try to exclude scanned negs from the gallery, really do know what they are talking about ? The quality of some of the scanned prints in the gallery let me doubt. They are obviously presented under the premise, that the principle is more important than the result.

I subscribed at APUG because I saw that there are many very talented and knowledgeable photogs , trying seriously and successfully to make really good photos based on film.

It's a bitter disappointment tho to find out how narrow the basics are defined and how narrow minded some folks are there, narrow minded enuff to let those who scan negs exist in a little subforum, for which one needs a seperate access.
As a "compromise" as it is said. Wouldn't it be more honest to exclude all "scanners" from the forum completely ? Wouldn't be THAT the iron consequence some always talk about there ?

The question is however how to control of what kind the posted gallery files are. Scanned negs or scanned prints ? ;)
It's an old political essential: Don't make laws you can't control.

Regards,
Bertram

You have completely misunderstood the purpose of APUG.

Analogue Photography Users Group.
Photoshop, scanning, inkjet printing etc. are digital methods. APUG is the only dedicated Analogue Photography website on the entire internet, there are no others. There are thousands of websites where people can discuss digital methods. Why try to insist APUG should become like them?
Yes there are galleries on APUG, but they are very much secondary to the forums. Most people, myself included, post scans of their prints, I spend very little time scanning, I scan resize and post, thats it. The internet is not my primary means of showing my photographs, so why should I waste time in front of a computer messing with PS when I could be having fun in the darkroom?.
There are several print and postcard exchanges always happening. Where members exchange actual prints.
I have never seen anyone on APUG flamed or insulted because they posted a neg scan, I used to post them myself and no-one flamed me. If it wasn't for APUG I would probably still be scanning negs instead of making my own enlargements. Something I have intended to do ever since I started using my first 35mm camera back in 1972.
That is the value of APUG, there is no better resource on the internet for information on analogue processes.
Before I found APUG I tried Photo.net. I asked a beginners question about developing and was subjected to insults and abuse from quite a few digital users. I will never go back to Photo.net, as far as I am concerned it populated by nothing but assholes.
Bertram, I'm sorry you don't like APUG.

Ps. I do NOT speak for 'the English group of APUG'. I speak for myself and my own experiences of APUG.

Bertram2
11-18-2005, 08:36
You have completely misunderstood the purpose of APUG.


Partly, yes, when I joined. Maybe my own fault but I cannot remember having read anything really clear about the basics.

Yes there are galleries on APUG, but they are very much secondary to the forums. Most people, myself included, post scans of their prints, I spend very little time scanning, I scan resize and post, thats it. The internet is not my primary means of showing my photographs, so why should I waste time in front of a computer messing with PS when I could be having fun in the darkroom?

Because you work earns a presentation as good as possible?. Because you want others to have fun with your pic ?
I read that recently. "Who the f.... cares about the gallery !!??" That sounds really strange to me, either you HAVE a gallery or not, and if you have one I find it a very strange attitude to say who cares about the stuff people put up there.
No matter if the web plays a big or a small role for you. Looks like a kinda demonstrative contempt ?

"Nothing like assholes " at p.net ? I would not second that. In principle you are right, but the principle always offends those who are different and post there too.. And there ARE some non- a---s ! Very few tho I admit.

B.

Andy K
11-18-2005, 08:49
You have completely misunderstood the purpose of APUG.


Partly, yes, when I joined. Maybe my own fault but I cannot remember having read anything really clear about the basics.

From APUG's front page:

"APUG.ORG is an international community of like minded individuals devoted to traditional (non-digital) photographic processes. APUG is sponsored by member and corporate donations. The site is based on an 'open source' model. In other words, this site is driven by the feedback and content we receive from our members. APUG is an active photographic community; our forums contain a highly detailed archive of traditional and historic photographic processes. We'd like to thank all of the photographers out there who have given us the encouragement to see this concept through."


Because you work earns a presentation as good as possible?. Because you want others to have fun with your pic ?
I read that recently. "Who the f.... cares about the gallery !!??" That sounds really strange to me, either you HAVE a gallery or not, and if you have one I find it a very strange attitude to say who cares about the stuff people put up there.
No matter if the web plays a big or a small role for you. Looks like a kinda demonstrative contempt ?

The best possible representation of my work is the print. That is why APUG has print exchanges.

rayfoxlee
11-18-2005, 10:17
There is another point here, too. Film cameras tend to be fairly basic - certainly RFs. Focus, shutter speed, aperture...........but with digital, the choice of compression, JPEG vs. RAW, white balance, saturation blah, blah, blah tends to get in the way of taking the picture.

Maybe I'm just a foolish old refusenik.

Ray

Andy K
11-18-2005, 15:27
Maybe I'm just a foolish old refusenik.

Ray

Or a 'Luddite elitist' which is what us analogue users are usually called. :rolleyes:

Bertram2
11-18-2005, 16:55
Maybe I'm just a foolish old refusenik.
Ray

One does not get automatically a foolish old refusenik because one does not want to take part at the "chip imaging revolution" I'd say.! ;)
Sometimes it is hard to explain the own POV however. It is fascinating how very indoctrinated the public opinion is about this issue. And the less somebody knows about photography the more he is amazed about somebody who does stick with film. These marketing windbags have done a perfect work.

Bertram

Socke
11-18-2005, 18:50
Yes, strictly potographic process from the beginning to the end, that is different. I know an advertising photographer who replaces the Sinar Scanback against sheet holders for his personal work. He does a lot of product shots day in and day out and once in a while he just has to get his fingers dirty and shoots traditional B/W in 13x18cm. He doesn't even use PE paper :-)

But his bread and butter is digital from one end to the other.

Socke
11-18-2005, 19:10
There is another point here, too. Film cameras tend to be fairly basic - certainly RFs. Focus, shutter speed, aperture...........but with digital, the choice of compression, JPEG vs. RAW, white balance, saturation blah, blah, blah tends to get in the way of taking the picture.

Maybe I'm just a foolish old refusenik.

Ray


With film you have to make a choice which film to use, the filter while you shoot, the developer, dilution, agitation, paper grade, filtration and so on.

It's not so different after all.

The fun thing with film is the way you restrict yourself, you have to make the film in your camera work for the picture as you can't change it easily.

And it is very satisfying when the shot turns out well although you had a slow slidefilm but the lack of a mirror and the fast lens let you shoot where the dSLR users with their f4-5.6 zoom lenses went home to wheeo into their pillows :D

Andy K
11-19-2005, 00:24
With film you have to make a choice which film to use, the filter while you shoot, the developer, dilution, agitation, paper grade, filtration and so on.

It's not so different after all.

The fun thing with film is the way you restrict yourself, you have to make the film in your camera work for the picture as you can't change it easily.

And it is very satisfying when the shot turns out well although you had a slow slidefilm but the lack of a mirror and the fast lens let you shoot where the dSLR users with their f4-5.6 zoom lenses went home to wheeo into their pillows :D

The fun is pre-visualising the photograph you wish to make and then choosing which materials would be best to make it with.
For example, if I was making a photograph looking at a town from a high point (or any subject requiring detail) I would choose my medium format Isolette I and a slow film, so as to capture the maximum detail possible.
If photographing at a party I would choose either my OM-1n MD or QL17 GIII and use fast film so that I don't have to use flash.
I never feel restricted.

Bertram2
11-19-2005, 03:14
He does a lot of product shots day in and day out and once in a while he just has to get his fingers dirty and shoots traditional B/W in 13x18cm. He doesn't even use PE paper :-)
But his bread and butter is digital from one end to the other.

So what are your conclusions ? What could this tell us :D :D
Bertram

Socke
11-19-2005, 03:39
The conclusion should be obvious, he earns the money to do traditional silver based photography with digital :-)

There is no demand for product photography which is not digitized at some stage.

Andys type of shooting is what I call the Zen of photography, I hope I'll some day reach the state where I can anticipate what equipment I will need.

Bertram2
11-19-2005, 04:59
Andys type of shooting is what I call the Zen of photography, I hope I'll some day reach the state where I can anticipate what equipment I will need.

If you can anticipate anything before you have seen the place you are going to,
this IS Zen indeed ! :D
But as long as I haven't reached that level of beeing I must try to keep me as flexible as it is necessary. BTW going to a place I don't know i never carry my camera loaded. The film stays in my pockets, until I really know which one I need.

B.

Andy K
11-19-2005, 05:31
If you can anticipate anything before you have seen the place you are going to,
this IS Zen indeed ! :D
But as long as I haven't reached that level of beeing I must try to keep me as flexible as it is necessary. BTW going to a place I don't know i never carry my camera loaded. The film stays in my pockets, until I really know which one I need.

B.


It is sensible to know or research your subject before you photograph it. If you don't there is a good chance you'll just be wasting film.
I waited for three days for the light and weather to be right before taking these. 1 (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/Minitar1/Prints/SouthendPier091005.jpg), 2 (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/Minitar1/Prints/PalacePrintSmall.jpg)
The first with the OM-1 the second with the Isolette. Marks on the prints are from my dirty scanner glass.

Bertram2
11-19-2005, 08:41
It is sensible to know or research your subject before you photograph it. .

I said "anticipate anything before you have seen the place you are going to"

If you travel for example you take it or leave it. That was what I meant. If I'd shoot places only which I can explore before and to which I can go back then anytime later when the circumstances are ideal I would feel myself too restricted.
I like it to go out with the camera and try to pick opportunities.

B.