if kodak dies

[sepiareverb]

Originally Posted by maddoc

BTW, does anybody know if Fuji still produces any BW film or are they just selling off their stock ?

Good question. From the dwindling supplies available it seems like maybe the answer is no.

[FalseDigital]

Originally Posted by sepiareverb

Good question. From the dwindling supplies available it seems like maybe the answer is no.

I keep hearing different answers about this but all of them make me cry inside. Sounds like if it's not discontinued yet, it will be in the near future.

[jsrockit]

The "Lomography" people will buy Kodak's B&W and then charge three times the price for it... or more.

[Kolame]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

The "Lomography" people will buy Kodak's B&W and then charge three times the price for it... or more.

After putting it into an oven at 100°C for an hour …

[tunalegs]

Aren't you forgetting Ferrania? They still make 35mm color film, unless they called it quits. (In fact they may be the only ones making color print film in 100 ASA these days?)

[tunalegs]

Why bother imitating Tri-X?

If you want something to look like Tri-X, then use Tri-X.

Did we not learn anything at all from the pictorialists? Use a medium to its best advantage. Contriving ways to make it look like something else is a waste of time and of the process's inherent qualities.

Or simply, if you want something to look like it was rendered in charcoal, get out the charcoal, not the water colors.

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by HHPhoto

Furthermore there are
Filmotec (Germany)
Shanghai (China)
Tasma (Russia)
Ilford Suisse (Ilford Micrographic color film).

Just for the record, Tasma nowadays produces mainly technical films for non-photographic imaging applications. Their only photographic products are a few B/W movie films that are pretty much on the way out, and unperforated aerial photography films. The main customer for the movie stock seems to be the Russian railway company, who still uses them in automated defect monitoring for railroad tracks. The bulk of the remaining production are special-purpose films for medical (X-ray) and technical inspection applications. They don't seem to make any film that you could put into a camera directly without at least repackaging, possibly perforating it.

So while they do make film products, for a photographer there isn't really much in it.

[thegman]

Originally Posted by tunalegs

Aren't you forgetting Ferrania? They still make 35mm color film, unless they called it quits. (In fact they may be the only ones making color print film in 100 ASA these days?)

Colour print film at 100 ASA in production, Kodak Ektar, Fujifilm Reala, AgfaPhoto Vista. There are also some Lomography ones, but they are probably the Agfa emulsions.

[shadowfox]

Originally Posted by claacct

As far as my own modest aesthetic requirements are concerned, I think I can live without Tri-X with no problem... This sample picture is a digital conversion, it might not hold up to pixel peeping but to me it looks Tri-x'ish enough. The method of conversion takes less than five minutes... And I can apply the same conversion preset to other RAW files which gives me consistent look... And this is a RAW from a two year old p&s...

Sure, but your statements here only represent people who tweak digital photos in computers *exclusively*.

Remember that there are still a lot of people who print the negatives optically and enjoy doing so.

Given that the loss of Tri-X will not stop me from using other films and keep printing, but the *trend* of losing choices means increasing cost to the consumers, which also will have a negative impact on newcomers to photography who would like to experience film photography. You may not believe it, but there are young people who like darkroom printing.

Schizophrenia of film vs digital? not for me, it's fun to use both (in some instances, even to *combine* the two)

[tunalegs]

Originally Posted by claacct

The look of b&w photograph is a standard set by b&w film and tri-x especially, so unless a new look is invented this standard has to be followed for those who're after this particular look.

Yes and the pictorialists thought photographs should look like paintings because that's what people were used to.

Then photographers realized that they ought to just get on with what photography does, and forget imitating other mediums.

In other words the less digital photographers focus on imitation, the faster the inherent visual qualities of digital will be accepted as "normal".

[tunalegs]

Originally Posted by thegman

Colour print film at 100 ASA in production, Kodak Ektar, Fujifilm Reala, AgfaPhoto Vista. There are also some Lomography ones, but they are probably the Agfa emulsions.

I believe the lomography films are made by Ferrania. I heard that the Agfa films were too, but there seems to be confusion on this point.

I'd quite forgotten about Ektar and Reala though.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by claacct

The look of b&w photograph is a standard set by b&w film and tri-x especially, so unless a new look is invented this standard has to be followed for those who're after this particular look.

I can get the same look with film and with digital (at least 85% with digital). That 15% is lost in computer monitors and something that future software will take care of... The expense and time for film also makes that 15% acceptable, and before someone jumps about film being cheap, I should say that I'm not one-roll-a-month photographer, I shoot a lot because I'm not good enough to "get it" in one shot...

Have you ever seen a good black and white silver halide print, let alone made one? Yes, it's very easy to make a mediocre imitation that looks OK on a computer monitor. But it's very, very difficult to duplicate the look of a good wet print for even a modest range of subjects, and (I suspect) impossible to do it with all of them.

Cheers,

R.

[Phil_F_NM]

What ever happened to the notion of craft for the sake of personal satisfaction?
One may make a nice rocking chair by hand just to sit in and be satisfied that it was made by hand, by oneself.

The same goes for photography. Why do we all need to have others pay attention to us and what we make? Perhaps a lot of us are very happy with creating "squat" for the sake of its creation and participating in the craft from beginning to end.

Phil Forrest

[traveler_101]

Originally Posted by thegman

I really hope Kodak comes through this . . .

I agree with sentiment and with all those of you whom have expressed relative optimism about the survival of Kodak or Kodak products. Apparently, the company's problems are not as severe as Wall Street has made them out to be, and they certainly are not about to go bankrupt. The most likely scenarios are either they will be bought out by another firm, or they will return to profitability. Let's hope for the later. It would be too bad to see such a storied firm fade away. See analysis here
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2971...ff-is-overdone

[Nigel Meaby]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Have you ever seen a good black and white silver halide print, let alone made one? Yes, it's very easy to make a mediocre imitation that looks OK on a computer monitor. But it's very, very difficult to duplicate the look of a good wet print for even a modest range of subjects, and (I suspect) impossible to do it with all of them.

Cheers,

R.

I'm with you 100% Roger and I'm sure the majority who have ever produced a print in the darkroom are too. But don't take the bait from Claacct. The more he writes the more it is evident that either he doesn't know what he is talking about or he is trolling on this forum. I mean what is the point of giving us a poor example of a picture that "looks like Tri-X" on a computer screen?!! That tells me all I need to know about Claacct

[traveler_101]

Originally Posted by Phil_F_NM

What ever happened to the notion of craft for the sake of personal satisfaction?
One may make a nice rocking chair by hand just to sit in and be satisfied that it was made by hand, by oneself.

The same goes for photography. Why do we all need to have others pay attention to us and what we make? Perhaps a lot of us are very happy with creating "squat" for the sake of its creation and participating in the craft from beginning to end.

Phil Forrest

Yes, film photography is more craft-like. Who will see the photograph if it isn't on Facebook. I will see it; my friends and family will see it. That's enough in itself as Phil suggests above, but if I am good enough, people viewing exhibits will see it . One's idea is that we should all be defined by electronically mediated culture. Perhaps I shouldn't assign books to students anymore. They can read blogs instead.

[Nomad Z]

Originally Posted by claacct

My satisfaction is going out, walking for hours, and trying to capture something that satisfies me... Sitting on my bum in front of the fire and admiring prints is not for me...

You'd rather sit on your bum and admire the limited tonal range and graduation of a computer monitor?

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by Nigel Meaby

I mean what is the point of giving us a poor example of a picture that "looks like Tri-X" on a computer screen?!! That tells me all I need to know about Claacct

In all fairness, this forum is full of people who can look at 640x480 pixel JPEGs for hours on end and discuss how they subtly express the gorgeous blacks of Tri-X in whatever your favourite developer is, or how they illustrate the sharpness and micro-contrast achievable with the Leica lens of your choice.

[Nomad Z]

Originally Posted by claacct

Do I have a choice?

Of course.

[sevo]

Originally Posted by tunalegs

Aren't you forgetting Ferrania? They still make 35mm color film, unless they called it quits. (In fact they may be the only ones making color print film in 100 ASA these days?)

Hard to determine - Ferrania once called it quits in 2008, but may have revoked since that. I haven't been able to find any authoritative information on whether they merely sell off their stores or are still actively producing.

[IK13]

Originally Posted by rxmd

In all fairness, this forum is full of people who can look at 640x480 pixel JPEGs for hours on end and discuss how they subtly express the gorgeous blacks of Tri-X in whatever your favourite developer is, or how they illustrate the sharpness and micro-contrast achievable with the Leica lens of your choice.

Well said!

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by claacct

The tragedy is that all those "good wet prints" means squat if no one sees them or if they're scanned and put online --- not to mention to anyone who's not a photography nerd, which means 99.99% of normal people...

But also, a good wet print is a sheer waste of time and effort if its subject is yawn-inspiring...

Quite. In much the same way as nobody ever goes to photo exhibitions, or McDo doesn't have any Michelin stars.

There are always those who are perfectly happy with rubbish.

Cheers,

R.

[cosmonaut]

I think all of the members here should buy the film division out and run it ourselfs.lol

[sanmich]

Originally Posted by claacct

You are demonstrating exactly the opposite of your point.
Technically, it's really an abysmal picture. And I'm usually not picky...
I would suggest to have a look at post #489 here:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...=90895&page=20
to see how a picture can show more than 300 pixel and 4 levels of grey.

No offense, of course. You behave here with such a level of courtesy, I would hate to offend you.

[tunalegs]

Originally Posted by claacct

If simple digital b&w was pleasing to the eye, it would have been accepted but its not...

I hate to tell you this, but compared to what we see naturally, ALL black and white looks quite weird. It is an acquired taste, period. Photographs were really quite shocking to most people in the 1840s, who had never seen anything like them before.

They look less weird to us because we've known them all of our lives. Eventually, digital will become accepted as the normal look, even if it isn't quite the same as what we are used to.