PDA

View Full Version : How long does film have?


Pages : [1] 2

rlightfoot
10-26-2007, 14:58
I'm new to this forum, so I hope a poll like this hasn't been posted before... although I guess everyone talks about this. Please don't flame me if I've added a double poll, I did have a look before I posted.

The thing is, I'm only just seriously discovering photography, and I really love the analog processes and results (not to mention the beautiful gear), so I want to be able to use film for a long time.

Will I be able to, or will digital crush the analog format entirely?

Have Leica added a nail to the coffin with the M8?

I know a few film companies have folded already, will that continue?

etc.

navilluspm
10-26-2007, 15:30
Depends what kind of film. I found some unexposed Seattle Film Works film in an old box. That film is dead!

Seriously though, what kind of film or format? I don't think film in every format will die. Digital has a long way to go before it surpasses Large format photography.

If film goes, I think color will die before BW film, and I don't think BW film will die anytime soon.

For the typical consumer, I can see 35mm film dying within a decade. For the artist and enthusiast, film will last a long time. We might not be able to get it at a local store, but we will be able to get it over the internet.

rlightfoot
10-26-2007, 15:39
Well, I'm mainly thinking of 35mm b&w, as it's rangefinder/slr and street photography I'm most interested in.

I agree that colour will probably die first and that it'll die out in the consumer market way before the art market... but the idea that more and more film companies are cutting back on their film production, like Agfa a few years ago and now Polaroid ending production of their Time-Zero film does worry me.


As long as Ilford keep making 35mm and 120 b&w film for the next 50 or so years, I'll be happy. :)

wgerrard
10-26-2007, 15:43
I think it 's anyone's guess how long film will be around. New films are still being rolled out. People who make movies have not yet gone completely digital. But, a key part of its future will be, I think, the ease, or lack thereof, with which film manufacturers can downsize their production facilities in order to remain profitable.

I've seem some folks predict that smaller niche producers will step in to meet demand for a niche product, perhaps buying production facilities from the big but defunct film companies. I don't have any way of knowing if that's a realistic possibility. Can you operate a niche-sized film plant and still make money?

Another important question to ask: How much would you pay for film?

jbf
10-26-2007, 15:46
I think we will see traditional motion picture film to be created for years and years. It will always be a staple of true filmmaking.

If there is still movie film, there will be 35mm still film in my mind. You can always adapt movie reel film (35mm) into still cameras.

Thats how 35mm still cameras came to be anyway.

FrankS
10-26-2007, 15:52
I think we will see traditional motion picture film to be created for years and years. It will always be a staple of true filmmaking.

If there is still movie film, there will be 35mm still film in my mind. You can always adapt movie reel film (35mm) into still cameras.

Thats how 35mm still cameras came to be anyway.


As long as there is movie film, there will be film in all formats. From what I've read, film is produced in wide rolls, and then cut to different widths for the different formats.

Mackinaw
10-26-2007, 15:52
I suggest you consider joining APUG (Analog Photo Users Group) if you're really interested in film. A ton of folks on there, all dedicated to using film. See:

http://www.apug.org/forums/home.php

As for how long film will be around, that's anybody's guess. As long as folks buy enough of the stuff to make it profitable to produce, somebody will make it.

There are problems though, most of today's major film companies (Kodak, Ilford, Fuji) are currently producing film in large, modern factories that are only profitable at largish production volumes. If demand falls below this, one of these companies may pull the plug on film.

My own guess (and that's all it is, a guess) is that 35mm B&W will be around at least another ten years and maybe even as much as 25 years. I suspect that 120 will be around somewhat less than this.

Jim B.

sam_m
10-26-2007, 16:04
Everyone thought vinyl would die with the introduction of tapes and CDs, ironically, vinyl as a niche product may just out live CDs with the way electronic downloads are going...

amateriat
10-26-2007, 16:13
I think that, in the near-term, the remaining film manufacturers will be scaling back more or less to where they were prior to, say, 1985, before auto-everything p/s cameras really took off in the marketplace, and created a sizeable spike in film sales, which were approaching something of a zenith when digital cameras were only starting to gain traction in the market. If the remaining big three (Kodak, Fuji, Ilford) can manage this shift with some degree of stability–and I think they can–I thiink the current hand-wringing about film's utter disappearance will be seen as simply unnecessary drama.

Remember, too, that personal computers and the "Internets" have altered people's approach to photography as well: relatively few people shooting digital bother to have prints made of their images, prefering to send image files as e-mail attachments to family and friends, and using their desktop for wallpapering.screensaving those images as well. Then again, photo albums seem to be gaining in popularity, so who knows? ;)


- Barrett

Keith
10-26-2007, 16:39
As long as there are companies producing retro style cars and there are other products that are aimed a specific market ... there will be film!

I can't see any reason why it wont be available in fifty years ... because as human beings we seem to have this tendency that the further we go forward the more we want to look back. It will be expensive I supect but hobbies are to be paid for after all! :p

rlightfoot
10-26-2007, 16:41
As long as there is movie film, there will be film in all formats. From what I've read, film is produced in wide rolls, and then cut to different widths for the different formats.

Is movie film identical to still film then? With the same ASA ratings etc?

There're some interesting posts here, especially amateriat's idea that film production will scale back to the pre-boom period.

I personally think film will be around forever, even if it eventually becomes a niche product that only enthusiasts and purist professionals use.

My personal feeling is that film vs. digital photography is similar to oil paints vs. graphics tablets and digital art mediums such as 3d, Photoshop painting or whatever. While a lot of impressive work can be done with eletronic tools, many serious artists will always prefer to get their hands messy and work with real paint.

I can't really believe that eletronic artists will ever match the awesome work created by people like Rembrandt, Monet and Van Gough... And so it is with film, I feel. The analog camera is a supreme tool, and I can't imagine it will ever lose it's place in the imaging world.

At least, I seriously hope not... I plan to invest in a Leica M one day in the not-too-distant future, and I hope it will last me a lifetime!

cp_ste.croix
10-26-2007, 16:48
Longer than vinyl and they still make lps.

gb hill
10-26-2007, 16:56
Can you operate a niche-sized film plant and still make money?

Another important question to ask: How much would you pay for film?

I think so. If Mr.K can make Bessa Rangefinder cameras and make a profit off of that I think a small company can make a good profit off of film. Holgas seem to be selling quite well for some reason also.

Pablito
10-26-2007, 17:00
I agree with Keith. Fifty years, maybe more. The cameras will still be around 50 years from now and people are curious! It's just that it will be expensive, a niche item. And there will be a smaller selection to choose from. Like typewriter ribbons today.

rlightfoot
10-26-2007, 17:02
Longer than vinyl and they still make lps.

Yeah, true. Vinyl has been through one of the biggest format shakeups in history... and it's still around, albeit in a pretty tiny niche.

A tiny niche is all I need, though... I've never been a big fan of the mass market.

Mackinaw
10-26-2007, 17:26
Here's an interesting thread currently on APUG. It's long, but well worth the read.

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/43354-who-who-world-film-manufacturing.html

Keith
10-26-2007, 17:38
There's one thing I meant to mention that I believe could see a sharp decline in film usage. Part of the reason for wanting film to be available for a lot of us is so we can still interact with our M2's IIIf's TLR's etc with our lenses of choice. Flexible sensor technollogy may be a reality so I've read ... not now but like all technology eventually ... and when it happens a digital insert for a film camera could be possible. There's plenty of room in there and with a battery on one side and the electronics on the other ... something removable that you plug into your PC to downoad the raw files when you get home, if reasonably priced, would definitely have a market! :)

Traut
10-26-2007, 17:44
I think environmental concerns will kill film before business conditions dictate. Think lead paint, mercury batteries, peroxide blondes (the judges are locking them up).

rlightfoot
10-26-2007, 18:15
Here's an interesting thread currently on APUG. It's long, but well worth the read.

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/43354-who-who-world-film-manufacturing.html
That was very interesting, if a little bleak.

There's one thing I meant to mention that I believe could see a sharp decline in film usage. Part of the reason for wanting film to be available for a lot of us is so we can still interact with our M2's IIIf's TLR's etc with our lenses of choice. Flexible sensor technollogy may be a reality so I've read ... not now but like all technology eventually ... and when it happens a digital insert for a film camera could be possible. There's plenty of room in there and with a battery on one side and the electronics on the other ... something removable that you plug into your PC to downoad the raw files when you get home, if reasonably priced, would definitely have a market!
Interesting... If film has to die one day, this would be a definite comfort, allowing our classic cameras to remain in use.

I think environmental concerns will kill film before business conditions dictate. Think lead paint, mercury batteries, peroxide blondes (the judges are locking them up).
I'd say electric cameras pose more of an environmental hazard than film production... a digital camera surely calls for far more resources and power to make and operate than a mechanical camera and some film. Add to that the fact that even the best digital cameras cannot hope to match the working lifespans of mechanical Leicas and the like.

Mackinaw
10-26-2007, 18:34
That was very interesting, if a little bleak.

Bleak? Maybe it's better to say realistic. Folks who think film will be around forever don't understand the economic realities of making the stuff. Or the fact that designing and producing film is hard and that the number of people who really understand the processes involved are dwindling. The one poster in the APUG thread, Photo Engineer, worked in the industry (Kodak) for years and is a person I've learned to respect.

That being said, I don't intend to stop using film until I'm dead or film is no longer being made. Digital, right now, doesn't interest me in the least.

Jim B.

rlightfoot
10-26-2007, 18:48
Bleak? Maybe it's better to say realistic. Folks who think film will be around forever don't understand the economic realities of making the stuff. Or the fact that designing and producing film is hard and that the number of people who really understand the processes involved are dwindling. The one poster in the APUG thread, Photo Engineer, worked in the industry (Kodak) for years and is a person I've learned to respect.

That being said, I don't intend to stop using film until I'm dead or film is no longer being made. Digital, right now, doesn't interest me in the least.

Jim B.

Yeah, well I tend to find "realism" to be pretty bleak these days.

I'm in the same boat, I'll use film until I can't.

literiter
10-26-2007, 18:49
Tomorrow morning, at 9:15 PST film will be discontinued. All film will be returned to wherever they make film and then we can't have it any more.

Sorry to tell you all this.

alien8
10-26-2007, 19:04
Personally, I fear that film won't last nearly as long as most of us here hope that it will. I don't have any inside scoop on the technical or economic/financial aspects of manufacturing film but I strongly suspect that it is one of the many industries that is highly dependent on economies of sale for its viability. As the market for film continues to shrink I suspect that more and more manufacturers will come to the conclusion that their market share is just too small to profitably continue their manufacturing. Others will decide to market their films as premium products for a niche market, which will have the effect of driving yet more consumers to digital. The fact that some of the up and coming producers of film now reside in former eastern bloc countries like the Czech Republic (where I presume that digital photography has less penetration - please correct me if I'm wrong) I think just affirms that dominant trend. That is to say that I suppose that the overall trends are just a few years behind there as compared to wealthier regions but that they will soon catch up.

Overall, I think that as film fades out of existence the selection of products will obviously continue to diminish but at the same time the quality of the products will also diminish due to the fact that the shrinking niche market will make it more and more difficult for smaller manufacturers to live up to the quality and consistency that the larger producers of yore were able to provide. And I think that it will all happen in relatively short order, say 5 to 10 years.

Yes, I'm a pessimist. I have just come back to film and plan to stick with it for as long as possible.

Rayt
10-26-2007, 19:07
As long as there are film cameras and people using them there will always be film however it may not be the film you want. The best films are made by huge companies who one day might decide it is not enough of a money maker to continue. But then there are the small companies in Eastern Europe, India and China making black and white films but with quality a throw back to the 50's. Photography might just get more interesting as a result.

Papa Smurf
10-26-2007, 20:06
Yeah, well I tend to find "realism" to be pretty bleak these days.

I'm in the same boat, I'll use film until I can't.

You are correct. Reality is that film is like any other product being manufactured today, it is at the mercy of the suits in the Board Room. The quaterly earnings report has spelled the dealth knell for many a good and otherwise sound company. :bang:

Our only hedge is to create an artificial market by buying and stockpiling as much film as we can afford and encourage others to do the same. I have enough film on hand to keep me shooting for the next couple of years. My cameras are certainly going to out last my stash of film:( The tri-x was manufactured in the 80's or early 90's. It works better at 320 or even 250 now, but it still works!:)

wgerrard
10-26-2007, 20:06
Longer than vinyl and they still make lps.

And really expensive equipment stuffed with vacuum tubes.

wlewisiii
10-26-2007, 20:44
Eh, painting wasn't killed by photography so I doubt that digital will completely kill film. I might add that some paint production is even nastier ecologically than film production yet I can walk into a number of stores here in Madison and buy a tube of titanium white provided I'm willing to pay for it. Sheet film and possibly a resurgence of dry plates (easier tech to produce) will be around as long as it's financially viable.

Oh and I might add that the eco cops will be after the digi cams far sooner than the film folks. There are seriously nasty byproducts to the production of any ICs/CPUs/Sensors that make film look seriously green... :eek:

William

Athena
10-26-2007, 21:39
Oh how many times I've seen threads like this on RFF.

The only thing that amazes me is that old timers who've also seen them keep responding.

Film will last as long as people keep using it.

If you like analog photography then just enjoy yourself and keep shooting.

Oh, and you might want to check out APUG - where this question is never asked.

literiter
10-26-2007, 21:45
Eh, painting wasn't killed by photography so I doubt that digital will completely kill film. I might add that some paint production is even nastier ecologically than film production yet I can walk into a number of stores here in Madison and buy a tube of titanium white provided I'm willing to pay for it. Sheet film and possibly a resurgence of dry plates (easier tech to produce) will be around as long as it's financially viable.

Oh and I might add that the eco cops will be after the digi cams far sooner than the film folks. There are seriously nasty byproducts to the production of any ICs/CPUs/Sensors that make film look seriously green... :eek:

William

I wanted to say this.

biomed
10-26-2007, 21:47
Just enjoy it while it is still available! There are plenty of things to fret over. I just heard the Sun is only going to last another five or six billion years!!!! :D :D

Keith
10-26-2007, 22:26
I sometimes wonder what will happen to all the fossil fuelled vehicles on the planet when we've finally exhausted the oil ... I guess they can be broken down to their basic elements and remanufactured into devices that fit better into a non carbon based energy system.

Will there be a huge recycling plant somewhere in the world grinding up our Leicas and Rolleiflexes to be made into 20 megapixel camera phones when film stops being manufactured? Actually I'd rather not think about that! :eek: :angel:

ltketch
10-26-2007, 23:07
Maybe we should be asking "how do we make our own silver halide film at home?"

wlewisiii
10-26-2007, 23:19
Maybe we should be asking "how do we make our own silver halide film at home?"

Major honking bit*h. Look for Photo Engineer on APUG and you'll begin to get an idea. Then you can start looking for the info that's out there. It _can_ be done. But making a silver halide in gelatine emulsion that can be used to coat a dry plate is almost as bad as making properly corned FFFFG powder at home. No, it's something that will always be better done with factories involved, but that doesn't mean it can't be economically feasable at a fairly low production level if you don't have, forex, EK's huge plants that need to run 24/7/365.

William

40oz
10-27-2007, 00:56
B&W has been a tiny niche for what, 40 years or more? I don't think it could get any tinier, and yet, we can all still get film whenever we please at local camera shops. Prices of used classic cameras haven't fallen through the floor yet, so I think we are doing OK with film yet.

mike goldberg
10-27-2007, 04:03
Yes, some types of film are disappearing from store shelves, yet... the fact that Kodak has just introduced a new, improved sharp and fine-grained Tmax 400,
is a very encouraging sign!

rlightfoot
10-27-2007, 05:16
The poll results so far are rather encouraging. I think I'll take the advice to just get on with it and stop worrying. :P

Although I must say, I think the results would be entirely the other way around if I posted the poll on a digital forum, and there'd probably be 10x the number of voters...

aad
10-27-2007, 05:32
May be time to think about getting into the boutique film business...

FrankS
10-27-2007, 07:05
Like I said before, as long as the motion picture industry prefers film to digital, film users will be supplied. The film used may not be the same, but the machinery used to make it is, and the issue is whether there is enough demand to keep a few (or 1) of these factories going. As long as the motion picture industry, even a smaller artsy segment of it, demands film, it will be made. IMO

Mackinaw
10-27-2007, 07:06
May be time to think about getting into the boutique film business...

That's exactly what Adox is trying to do. From what I understand, instead of being saddled with a large, high-production manufacturing plant, they'll be using the old Agfa research facilities (designed to produce photo-sensitive products in small batches) to make both B&W film and paper. I signed up to test their version of Agfa MCC which I received a few weeks back and hope to try out this dreary Michigan weekend. If Adox can pull this off (not guaranteed at this point), they hope to produce new versions of APX 25, APX 100 and APX 400 in 35mm, 120 and sheet film. Take a look at this APUG thread for more info:

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum172/40721-resurrection-mcc-progressing.html

Jim B.

pesphoto
10-27-2007, 07:12
wow, that would be cool. I love the APX 400 film.

sanmich
10-27-2007, 07:24
There's one thing I meant to mention that I believe could see a sharp decline in film usage. Part of the reason for wanting film to be available for a lot of us is so we can still interact with our M2's IIIf's TLR's etc with our lenses of choice. Flexible sensor technollogy may be a reality so I've read ... not now but like all technology eventually ... and when it happens a digital insert for a film camera could be possible. There's plenty of room in there and with a battery on one side and the electronics on the other ... something removable that you plug into your PC to downoad the raw files when you get home, if reasonably priced, would definitely have a market! :)
You get a point about the use of our beloved cameras, but I really think there is more to this and most of us like the film media.

Personnaly, I'll shoot BW film and kodachrome as long as it's available for one reason:
Archival conservation. I can't think of all the mess that is needed to ensure a perfect long term conservation of these CD's and DVD's..

NickTrop
10-27-2007, 07:57
As long as there is movie film, there will be film in all formats. From what I've read, film is produced in wide rolls, and then cut to different widths for the different formats.


1. true
2. they still make super 8 movie film, came out with a new one a few years ago.
3. the film processing business still seems pretty brisk from the 19 thousand c41 processors where I live.
4. Last year Kodak came out with an improved Portra, and very recently an improved TMAX line.


I have digital cameras - there I said it. There are many like me. I prefer a manual transmission, they still make those. I like spring-wound mechanical watches, wearing one now. No problem getting them. I'm the only one in my immediate family who shoots a digital camera sometimes. Father, sister, daughter (my influence) uncle all shoot film.

Not everyone wants to plug some contraptions into their computer and futz around with Photoshop (or go through the learning curve) or stand in front of a kiosk.

Not everyone thinks digital is an improvement over film. It's still a market in the billions.

gb hill
10-27-2007, 08:13
Last three days here in N.C. rain, rain, & more rain. We needed it, bad, but for the last couple of days every local station on our digital cable has been a bunch of messed up tiny blocks. No better than the sign that used to appear on my tv screen as a kid...oops the film broke, Please stand by;)

mike goldberg
10-27-2007, 09:34
Originally Posted by FrankS
As long as there is movie film, there will be film in all formats. From what I've read, film is produced in wide rolls, and then cut to different widths for the different formats.

Thanks for the encouragement here. I mentioned the new improved Tmax above. Agfa and Ilford films are also, still widely available in Israel... as is Fuji in color print & color slide.

dmr
10-27-2007, 10:56
Is movie film identical to still film then? With the same ASA ratings etc?

Not to try to steer you to another system, but I might second the suggestion to check out some of the current threads over on APUG. (www.apug.org) There is a retired photo engineer from Kodak who has recently been discussing just this from the perspective of the continuity of the film market.

Nikon Bob
10-27-2007, 11:18
Reality bites, film is fading. Will it disappear altogether and when is anybodies guess. The number and types of film available in most places is a shadow of what it was even 2 years ago. Enjoy it now and be prepared to pay even more for the privilege of using it in the future. Personally I don't think it will die out completely.

Bob

BillBlackwell
10-27-2007, 11:34
The answer is:

Film will be available for a few more decades, or less. At some point, film will vanish like the LP. But, like the LP, it will still be available in limited quantities for some time to come.

With all due respect, it is ludicrous to link still-camera film usage with movie film. It would be like comparing the production of trucks for consumers to that of troop carriers for the military. Once (consumer) usage/demand drops below its production/supply levels (just as we have seen) then production will drop - and eventually (for all intensive purposes) stop.

Besides, on the production of movie film: It is only a matter of time that we will see movies in theatres projected from (a variation of) a high definition DVD.

photogdave
10-27-2007, 12:23
Geography has a lot to do with the impression that certain things are becoming less available or disappearing. In Vancouver there are plenty of camera shops and labs that sell and process every kind of film. Most neighborhoods that I have lived in have 2-3 record shops within walking distance that offer a nice selection of vinyl LPs. Ijust bought a brand new 2-LP reissue of a Blue Note Freddie Hubbard disc for $15! Less than a CD!

FrankS
10-27-2007, 14:01
The answer is:

Film will be available for a few more decades, or less. At some point, film will vanish like the LP. But, like the LP, it will still be available in limited quantities for some time to come.

With all due respect, it is ludicrous to link still-camera film usage with movie film. It would be like comparing the production of trucks for consumers to that of troop carriers for the military. Once (consumer) usage/demand drops below its production/supply levels (just as we have seen) then production will drop - and eventually (for all intensive purposes) stop.

Besides, on the production of movie film: It is only a matter of time that we will see movies in theatres projected from (a variation of) a high definition DVD.


My point is simply that the same machines in the same factories make both movie film stock and still camera film stock. As long as the movie industry is wiling to pay to use film, and I recognize that the film segment of this industry is becoming smaller, it is not only the demand of still film camera users that will determine how long it remains economically feasible to continue to keep these machines and factories running. If the film-making machines continue to be maintained for movie film production, doing a run every now and then to supply the still film camera users, is no big deal. Keeping the machines running for only the still film camera users may not be so viable. Ludicrous? I don't think so.

sepiareverb
10-27-2007, 14:12
Without a direct link to a quote I'm hesitant to chime in here, but heard much this same thing from Kodak on the radio some time back. Movies are what is keeping film in production. Thankfully there are a great many directors who prefer film to digital, and not just the 'old' ones.

dmr
10-27-2007, 15:16
Without a direct link to a quote I'm hesitant to chime in here, but heard much this same thing from Kodak on the radio some time back. Movies are what is keeping film in production. Thankfully there are a great many directors who prefer film to digital, and not just the 'old' ones.

There seems to be one other factor, which is brought up occasionally, particularly when talking about what's keeping Kodachriome alive, and that is military use.

There's some speculation that although there's only one major lab for non-military anymore, there may be a few or several military labs still rockin' and rollin'.

One person on "another network" who is in a position to know has commented "let's not go there" or words to that effect.

So I won't. :)

FrankS
10-27-2007, 15:22
There is also museum and government use (I'm thinking library of Congress here). Apparently they have some concerns with the archival properties of digital.

Kim Coxon
10-27-2007, 15:50
Some police forces still need to use film for legal reasons although much of their work is digital.

Kim

Al Patterson
10-27-2007, 16:30
I just hope that film is available as long as I want it. However, if digital cameras improve as much as computers have from my Commodore 64 to the current class of MACs and PCs, I'm sure that when film is gone I'll find an acceptable digital camera. It may be there now for all I know, I'm just not looking all that hard...

NickTrop
10-27-2007, 21:11
My point is simply that the same machines in the same factories make both movie film stock and still camera film stock. As long as the movie industry is wiling to pay to use film, and I recognize that the film segment of this industry is becoming smaller, it is not only the demand of still film camera users that will determine how long it remains economically feasible to continue to keep these machines and factories running. If the film-making machines continue to be maintained for movie film production, doing a run every now and then to supply the still film camera users, is no big deal. Keeping the machines running for only the still film camera users may not be so viable. Ludicrous? I don't think so.

I heard this many times. I agree. Not ludicrous...

rlightfoot
10-28-2007, 05:19
I think the important thing is that there will always be people who want to use film. Both in the motion picture industry and in stills. I simply can't imagine that the time will come when all people forsake such a powerful and simple imaging medium. There will always be people who don't want to have to recharge their camera at a plug socket in order to keep shooting or into a computer to see their shots.

Of course sales may reduce, as they has been for some years, but as long as there is a reasonable demand, I'm sure there'll be people out there who will be willing and able to meet that demand.

There will always be a large number of people who feel passionately about analog photography and filmography.

Digital, at the end of the day, is a seperate format, not a sucessor. It has strengths and weaknesses that are different to those of film, and so nither format should be totally embraced or totally shunned.

In my opinion.

varjag
10-28-2007, 07:01
If we talk about black and white film, their production is fairly interdependent with cine industry indeed. 35mm has started as motion film, and even after appearance of dedicated films for still cameras, a lot of emulsions were cut both for short cassettes and long cine rolls. Consider the Kodak trio (Plus-X, Double-X, Tri-X), or AGFA films.

As for wet printing being integral part of film photography, that's personal. To me photography and printing are two separate processes. I never really enjoyed wet printing in times when it had no alternative, hence happily gave up on it with advances in scanning. As HCB put it, good hunter isn't necessarily a good cook.

yaadetgar
10-28-2007, 14:07
Hi!

I think film will stay with us.
Well, at least for the next 40 or 50 years.
It won't disappear, like painting didn't when photography started.
I know that I use a lot of new digital staff, but there are things that I will always do on film. Like black & white.



Yaad Etgar

Papa Smurf
10-28-2007, 15:35
Some police forces still need to use film for legal reasons although much of their work is digital.

Kim

I believe that you are correct. It has been my understanding that even though there are software "verification" programs, there are legal jurisdictions that do not believe that they cannot be fooled by a skillful hacker and will not accept "originally digital" images as evidence. This may change in time, but I do not think so, like any security software, hackers are always hard at work to break them.

I believe that Kodak has dropped production of its Police Films and now recommends other film products. If film dies, IMHO it will be in the Corporate Boardroom. I spent half my life in manufacturing and trust me, the men in suits do not care one iota about quality, aesthetics, art, tradition, or anything other than profits. Personally, I plan to stockpile and use film as long as I have film to shoot and the quarterly profit reports be d****d!

On the bright side, they still make black powder and knapped flints for the Brown Bess musket! Someday we may be a very small niche of purists, but we will still be shooting!;)

wgerrard
10-28-2007, 16:19
True, but, film gives you the choice of using electric automatically controlled cameras or fully manual. .

Yes, but we are so completely dependent on electricity for everything else we do it seems a bit silly to me to revel in the delight of not needing a battery to take pictures. I say that acknowledging a personal preference for mechanical cameras, but I can live with a battery replacement every year or so.

rlightfoot
10-29-2007, 02:22
Yes, but we are so completely dependent on electricity for everything else we do it seems a bit silly to me to revel in the delight of not needing a battery to take pictures. I say that acknowledging a personal preference for mechanical cameras, but I can live with a battery replacement every year or so.

I'm not so much talking about batteries for light meters, those can last for years... It's the fully-auto electric cameras that I'm talking about, especially ones with auto focus.

I like to travel, and I'm not always near a power source... digital cameras would die on me in those situations.

I guess you could say that carrying a few batteries is no worse than carrying a few rolls of film, but I don't know about that... Besides, fully electric cameras tend to be more delicate and shorter lived than their mechanical ancestors and I'll always prefer the tool that lasts longest.

Sonnar2
10-29-2007, 03:45
I'm not sure how much time movie film will have. My feel is that most productions, i.e. for television, are digitally now.
For still picture cameras, I guess it's simple: film will be available as long as a sufficient amount of buyers will buy it. I estimtae sales is already down to 30% to what is was 15 years ago, and probably will cut to a half again, then be stable.
Of course, there will be no farther development going into film, leading to no better, faster, or film with finer grain.

kully
10-29-2007, 08:30
Film will be alive for as long as we decide.

There are people, as I type, spreading emulsion on glass plates and when did film kill that technology?

Choice is decreasing but any companies in it for moderate/low profit will keep going for a long time.

Now, let's all bugger off to buy some bulk packs of HP5+ :)

NickTrop
10-29-2007, 18:06
I don't think your reasons for liking mechanical cameras are as irrational as you make out... I personally feel that mechanical cameras are the ultimate imaging tools. Like clockwork watches, they are finely crafted pieces of precision engineering that are built with a single purpose in mind... beautifully simple. I can take a fully manual camera apart to fix or clean it, I can understand every part and know it's function. For the vast majority of photographers or camera enthusiasts, this would be impossible with a digital camera.

I own a DSLR and I like it, but mechanical cameras are wonderful tools as well, and I don't believe they should ever be written off.

The only thing that digital has done was drive the labor costs out of manufacturing. Same as watches. You "invested" in a manual camera - it lasted a lifetime. You "invested" in a manual watch (which I own and prefer) it lasted a lifetime. Both required skilled labor to create.

The new photographic model is to create a product that's inferior in every way:

- inferior build quality
- inferior ergonomics
- inferior picture quality
- inferior longevity
- inferior durability
- inferior cost of total ownership
- inferior flexibility (no negatives, no slides, no acceptable black and white)
- inferior serviceability

And -zero- charm.

Build in "planned obsolescence", drive out skilled labor costs, charge inflated prices.

Marketing's task is to "sell" the masses that the product is somehow better. (And the next generation is "better", and the next, and the next, and the next...) You might have purchased two quality cameras in your lifetime in the "film" days. Now you "get hooked" chase megapixels and purchase ten inferiour products - throw the other nine away.

rlightfoot
10-29-2007, 18:37
Yes indeed. The same holds true in many, many other areas of production... quality is sacrificed in favour of mass market appeal and higher turnover and profits for big business.

I often find myself drawn to "old fashioned" products and thinking that things were better in the past, I think I was born in the wrong generation!

Dr. Strangelove
10-30-2007, 02:15
Like I said before, as long as the motion picture industry prefers film to digital, film users will be supplied. The film used may not be the same, but the machinery used to make it is, and the issue is whether there is enough demand to keep a few (or 1) of these factories going. As long as the motion picture industry, even a smaller artsy segment of it, demands film, it will be made. IMO
Yes, and motion pictures will not transition to digital very quickly or uniformly around the world. That will provide the film manufacturers a chance to downscale their production lines accordingly or sell the film business to some other companies. I am not optimistic about the future of film in 50 years time, but I am almost certain that you can still buy both color and B&W still film ten years from now, simply because motion picture makers around the world will not make an overnight transition to digital. Hollywood will make it sooner or later, but there are a LOT of movies made outside of the big Hollywood studios.

rlightfoot
10-30-2007, 03:00
Oh, I'm certainly not saying digital is "inferior in every way," I realise that's not true...

Are you really saying that digital cameras last longer, though? I must bow to your professional experience, of course... but I just can't believe that if I were to buy a Leica MP and a digital camera in the same class (maybe the M8?) and then use them both heavily that the MP would (irreparably) break first.

However, I'm NOT trying to say that the M8 is inferior in every way, I am certain that it is a fantastic camera, as is your 1DS Mk. III, my argument here is that digital and film are both very strong mediums... both have a lot to offer the photographer and I don't think either format should be heavily criticised or written off in favour of the other.

I think Leica are showing everyone how camera companies can produce high class tools in both formats, not shunning either.

rlightfoot
10-30-2007, 05:13
Interesting point... I'd always thought that the Leica look was the natural result of pursuing "the ultimate camera," but you may well have a point about them building to expectations.

I believe my main point still stands, though... Lets say we compare the MP with the Canon 1Ds Mk. III ? From a longevity point of view, which one would you bet on becoming irreparable first, both given the same amount of use?

Apart from electronic or mechanical failure, don't you agree that DSLRs also suffer (for want of a better word) from a measure of "built in obsolescence" ? The memory cards and batteries advance almost as fast as the technology in the camera itself and in 10 years, it'll probably be hard or impossible to get hold of the right consumables for today's cameras. They might make adaptors to fit the latest stuff, but by that time the camera body will be so outdated that you might as well just upgrade...

My point is not that digital cameras are bad. My point is simply that they have their failings, just as any tool or machine has... You say that you don't buy into the "everything was better in the past" argument... well, nor do I! But nor do I think that everything is better now... I see good and bad in film, and I see good and bad in digital.

I just can't agree with the people who say digital is film's perfect successor and that film is now obsolete.

Ken Ford
10-30-2007, 06:00
My take on film: it will likely be available for many years - as an art supply. Limited emulsions, spotty availability, high price.

lushd
10-30-2007, 06:10
I watched episode 1 of "The Genius of Photography" on BBC 4 last night and there was a long segment devoted to a contemporary photographer who produces beautiful daguerrotypes.

Now there's a technology that's been replaced several times over and is still alive (just about).

I also recall the editorial in AP mourning the death of Kodachrome 25. The editor laid the blame squarely on the photographers, taking them to task for not buying enough of it to keep it alive.

If you want film to be available in the future, spend money on it now and it will be.

Solinar
10-30-2007, 06:15
My take on film: it will likely be available for many years - as an art supply. Limited emulsions, spotty availability, high price.

I agree - In fact, I'm already buying locally some of my darkroom supplies at an art supply store, film too.

varjag
10-30-2007, 06:27
rlightfoot, it doesn't take *that* much to knock an M out of senses. The rangefinder assembly is fairly vulnerable.

Pro digital gear can be as repairable in a workshop as M cameras, but is sure worse in long-term parts availability department. This lending simply to film Leica bodies using much more basic components and technology.

But of course if I got stuck with a dead camera in the woods it'd rather be something mechanical and simple like M Leica :)

rlightfoot
10-30-2007, 06:58
Ha, I probably do have a slightly fantastical picture of Leica robustness, it's true.

But it's like this... I ride bicycles, and I really like old style steel or alloy frames even with modern carbon frame models around. Steel bikes are heavier and in some cases, they're probably technically weaker than carbon, but I like them because I have a much greater chance of being able to fix anything that goes wrong... I could even make my own steel frame in our workshop at home without needing much extra equipment or skills.

I also like cars which don't use computer chips in the engine, even though I know those chips aid performance and sometimes even reliability... I like the simple engines, because I can work on them myself... I can understand every part and know it's function, but at the same time, I think that modern advances in motoring are amazing and very valuable.

And I really like that quality in my tools... I like knowing that they're totally within my understanding and that I don't need much in the way of external support in order to operate, even when things go wrong. I believe it's very often the case that the best tool for any job you care to mention is usually the one which serves it's purpose with the least amount of complication and effort...

I think I'm starting to get off-topic here, so I'll stop. I suppose that it's just a matter of personal opinion for me. And I'm not trying to knock digital cameras, as I said, I own a DSLR and I like it. But I firmly believe that both formats have a place in the photographic world and we shouldn't write either one off in favour of the other.

EDIT: Basically, my point is that while I accept that technological advances bring with them many benefits, they often do so at a cost and we should always be aware of that.

shadowfox
10-30-2007, 07:26
I just can't agree with the people who say digital is film's perfect successor and that film is now obsolete.
We need more who think like this.
Welcome to the club, there are more people with the same view in and outside of this forum, and I suspect they are growing in number.

One observation, you handled yourself very well against the skeptics in this forum. But remember that there are some people who argue just for the sake of arguing :), so start shooting film and start enjoying it as an art form. And stop thinking about film availability.

*If* it ever dissapear, at least you will have tons of negative and slides to remember it by. ;)

FrankS
10-30-2007, 07:32
rlightfoot, I really appreciate your view of the world. I am very similar. I love my older BMW motorcycle which even I with limited mechanical skills can work on. Setting valve clearances and balancing dual carbs, oil changes, etc. Modern bikes certainly have better performance, but need to go into a the shop where they'll hook up the electronics to a diagnostic computer.

I hate to say it, but I appreciate sitemistic's view of the world as well. It is perhaps more realistic and rational, but no one can force those on me when it comes to my passions of photography and motorcycling.

I also applaud how you two have carried on this discussion in such a civil manner!

Socke
10-30-2007, 07:41
I believe my main point still stands, though... Lets say we compare the MP with the Canon 1Ds Mk. III ? From a longevity point of view, which one would you bet on becoming irreparable first, both given the same amount of use?

Don't know about the MkIII, a MkII or MkIIn usualy gets 100,000 frames on the clock before it needs to go to CPS. I'm talking press work, i.E. outside in the rain.


Apart from electronic or mechanical failure, don't you agree that DSLRs also suffer (for want of a better word) from a measure of "built in obsolescence" ? The memory cards and batteries advance almost as fast as the technology in the camera itself and in 10 years, it'll probably be hard or impossible to get hold of the right consumables for today's cameras. They might make adaptors to fit the latest stuff, but by that time the camera body will be so outdated that you might as well just upgrade...

A memory card is not expensive, but my 1998 32MByte CF card works fine in a 1DMkIIn, although it is far to small.



All in all, yes, a current dSLR is pretty tough, even my old Canon D60 shows no signs of ageing after some 70,000 shots.
2,000 films through a mechanical camera without any service, I doubt that's possible.

Just like old cars, on my 1978 VW Beatle I once had I had to adjust ignition timing and change Oil every 5000 km on my 2007 Miata not. I could fix my Beatle and I can't fix the Miata, but with the Beatle I had to and the Miata just works.

Al Patterson
10-30-2007, 07:51
The only thing that digital has done was drive the labor costs out of manufacturing. Same as watches. You "invested" in a manual camera - it lasted a lifetime. You "invested" in a manual watch (which I own and prefer) it lasted a lifetime. Both required skilled labor to create.

The new photographic model is to create a product that's inferior in every way:

- inferior build quality
- inferior ergonomics
- inferior picture quality
- inferior longevity
- inferior durability
- inferior cost of total ownership
- inferior flexibility (no negatives, no slides, no acceptable black and white)
- inferior serviceability

And -zero- charm.

Build in "planned obsolescence", drive out skilled labor costs, charge inflated prices.

Marketing's task is to "sell" the masses that the product is somehow better. (And the next generation is "better", and the next, and the next, and the next...) You might have purchased two quality cameras in your lifetime in the "film" days. Now you "get hooked" chase megapixels and purchase ten inferiour products - throw the other nine away.

Nick, I agree with you, even though one thing the march to digital has done is enable me to buy up old film cameras that I couldn't afford when new at bargain prices.

Let's all vow to now upgrade ever year as they want us too. I'm still waiting for a digital SLR, and can wait as long as I can buy film...

That said, I might just buy another digital P&S now that they are becoming relatively cheap. There are cameras I wouldn't have bought for $1,000 that I might buy now that they are $300 or so. Even $500 isn't out of line if I like the camera.

Socke
10-30-2007, 08:12
The digital P&Ss are what makes me use film :-)
Sorry, nothing beats any ISO400 film in my Contax TVS.

rlightfoot
10-30-2007, 09:16
Well, sitemistic, it's been very interesting debating this with you and I really appreciate your point of view... I think that we both have largely the same feelings, but express them in slightly different ways. Maybe your greater experiance in photography has given you a more realistic view of things, but I think you'll join me in saying that I'll shoot film until I can't? :) Alongside digital, of course.

After what's been said in this topic, I've come to the conclusion that there's not a lot of point in worrying about the future of film... The thing to do is to go out and shoot in the format that suits you and your work best, do what makes you happy and if film is meant to stick around, then it will.

FrankS and shadowfox... Thank you for your kind words! I look forward to joining in with more interesting topics on this forum. :) And I'll find some of my work to post as well, if I can find anything I'm not too ashamed to show people! I'm afraid I'm very much a learner. ;)

FrankS
10-30-2007, 09:23
Thats the beauty of photography, rlightfoot, we are all still learners. There is no destination, only the journey!

rlightfoot
10-30-2007, 10:26
Yes! it's excellent. :)

If anyone's interested, I do have some work up on deviantART, including shots from a pinhole camera I made myself, which I wrote about here: http://tripleeight.deviantart.com/journal/14745587/#comments

Kim Coxon
10-30-2007, 12:23
Wasn't the saying in the He-Man series "Good Journey" ;)

Kim

Thats the beauty of photography, rlightfoot, we are all still learners. There is no destination, only the journey!

Socke
10-31-2007, 03:40
Availability of spare parts is a problem with mechanical devices, too.

Why do they "fix" M3 finders by fitting M6 finders into it?

Socke
10-31-2007, 06:36
I need a small spring for my Robot Royal shutter. It has to stamped out of a sheet of spring steel. The tooling alone would set me back some 400 Euro! So I have to wait for a donor.

iridium7777
11-01-2007, 09:48
i replied that film is already dead.

a viable global study that has been conducted by national photographie agency in yerevan, armenia found staggering statistics:

they estimate that by the end of 2007!! the global supplies of danastes hercules, a beetle whose ooze when mixed with octahedropolymorphonate (OHPMP) procudes the chemical which embedded into the film layer reacts to light and produces images is critically low.

on top of that, there seems to be a current epidemic which is wiping out the farming supplies of the beetle the cause of which has not yet been determined.

i have bought out the current supply of walgreens special color 800iso speed. i know it's not the greatest but with demand greatly exceeding supply in the next couple month i know my venture will be a profitable one.


i know some of you say that production will shift to eastern europe when the west is no longer capable of producing film, but current eastern europen film only has shelf life of no more than 4-8 weeks and often doesn't produce realistic looking images.

palec
11-01-2007, 10:16
i know some of you say that production will shift to eastern europe when the west is no longer capable of producing film, but current eastern europen film only has shelf life of no more than 4-8 weeks and often doesn't produce realistic looking images.

I read this joke for the first time, good one :)
I don't like Foma films, but they don't deserve such rumour.

rich815
11-01-2007, 12:38
I need a small spring for my Robot Royal shutter. It has to stamped out of a sheet of spring steel. The tooling alone would set me back some 400 Euro! So I have to wait for a donor.

And that single camera being one of the last mechincal cameras left in the world you are certainly screwed.

Socke
11-01-2007, 12:41
And that single camera being one of the last mechincal cameras left in the world you are certainly screwed.


Replacing it would be cheating! We want to proof that mechanical cameras can be repaired indefinitely :-)



Note to self, install spell checker immediately.

JoeV
11-01-2007, 12:44
8-10 minutes, Rodinal 1:50, semi-stand development.:rolleyes:

~Joe

BJ Bignell
11-01-2007, 13:24
How long does film have?
I'd say that it has about 100ft, give or take 24 exp... :)

Finder
11-02-2007, 08:06
Replacing it would be cheating! We want to proof that mechanical cameras can be repaired indefinitely :-)



Note to self, install spell checker immediately.

Can the photographer be "repaired" indefinitely? My cameras just have to outlast me.

Tuolumne
11-02-2007, 08:43
"Revenue in the consumer digital business increased 1.3% to $1.12 billion as stronger-than-expected sales of digital cameras and retail print-making kiosks were offset by declines in photofinishing. Film revenue declined 18% to $488 million, led by a 32% drop in U.S. sales."

/T

shutterfiend
11-02-2007, 08:56
IMO, film as we knew it is already dead. There are die-hard dinosaurs still roaming the planet claiming film will be around forever. But for the most part film has been out-performed in absolutely all regards by it's digital counterpart and there isn't a need for it anymore. Start-up cost used to be the major advantage of film but with consumer DSLRs under a grand producing images that compete with medium format film in sharpness and clarity; film, 35mm film in particular, does not have a prayer.

pesphoto
11-02-2007, 09:01
IMO, film as we knew it is already dead. There are die-hard dinosaurs still roaming the planet claiming film will be around forever. But for the most part film has been out-performed in absolutely all regards by it's digital counterpart and there isn't a need for it anymore. Start-up cost used to be the major advantage of film but with consumer DSLRs under a grand producing images that compete with medium format film in sharpness and clarity; film, 35mm film in particular, does not have a prayer.


I have a need for film and there will always be a group of shooters that will appreciate the value of film. Call it being a dinasaur if you will, but I for one am proud to be one. I dont care about digital performance for the most part. I enjoy using film and it's that simple.

shutterfiend
11-02-2007, 09:07
I don't have a single digital camera myself. I consider myself more T-Rex-ish than Triceratop-ish.

MikeL
11-02-2007, 09:33
But for the most part film has been out-performed in absolutely all regards by it's digital counterpart and there isn't a need for it anymore.

It's not about performance, it's about a look. As long as people want a certain look (e.g. black and white), film will be around. Even if it can be emulated digitally.

Finder
11-02-2007, 09:34
IMO, film as we knew it is already dead. There are die-hard dinosaurs still roaming the planet claiming film will be around forever. But for the most part film has been out-performed in absolutely all regards by it's digital counterpart and there isn't a need for it anymore. Start-up cost used to be the major advantage of film but with consumer DSLRs under a grand producing images that compete with medium format film in sharpness and clarity; film, 35mm film in particular, does not have a prayer.

Unfortunately, there is no basis for any claims in this paragraph.

MikeL
11-02-2007, 09:55
Unfortunately, there is no basis for any claims in this paragraph.

But Finder, I hear and see this all the time. Just by shear volume, it must be true.;)

Dogman
11-02-2007, 10:20
But if you repeat it often enough, it must be true.

After all, that's what the politician's do.

wgerrard
11-02-2007, 10:20
Film will be around for as long as someone, someplace, makes money on it. That's a patently self-obvious statement, but film's survival has everything to do with economics and hardly anything to do with the preferences of photographers.

In that light, does anyone know the role disposable cameras play in the film business? How important are they to the film producers? Could the film that's not sold in Walmart or Walgreen survive on its own, or is it propped up by revenue from throwaways, house brands, etc.?

It's also worth remembering that digital photography usually requires a larger investment in infrastructure by the person taking the pictures. I.e., you need a computer. The market for digital cameras is effectively confined to those parts of the world where PC ownership is routine. That doesn't mean everyplace else is a ripe and ready market for film, but if you did want to sell them cameras, you'd need to sell them film.

Digital cameras will not be repaired. They will be replaced. It won't make financial sense to repair an obsolete device when a comparable amount of money will secure the latest and greatest. When was the last time you repaired a radio or a TV?

jbf
11-02-2007, 10:25
Your analogy of "T-REX vs Velociraptor", if anything... slightly amusing.

What do you say to my generation who are extremely computer savy, use digital technolgoy day in and day out and who still prefer film?

I do visual effects work on a dailey basis. I am constantly working with digital technologies... so obviously when I want to relax and have fun the last thing on my mind is to go out and use more digital.

I want analog. I want substance. I want something that you can hold in your hand physically that if stored in an archival safe box will last for decades if not centuries.

Digital? It has no archivability. You can constantly switch files from hard drive to hard drive and continuously backup if you want, but to me its a waste of time. Digital has no certainty (in any sense) of lasting at all.

Technology obsoleces and it will only be a matter of time before the means and methods for reading and writing that technology also disappears.

It happend with vhs, it's happend with betamax, it's happend with every form of "new technological medium" thus far with the exception of film.

You want to take your digiatl files and continuously have to transcode them into another format as the years pass? Your going to lose at least some sort of quality due to the inherent signal-to-noise problem of digital.


Also, the general consensus of the photographic department at my college is a love of film. Digital as seen as a method for reportage and commissioned work (not art) such as weddings, stock photography, etc... but that is the extent of it's usage.

Film is still the only photographic medium (contemporary medium that is) that is considered for the most part fine art.

rlightfoot
11-02-2007, 10:37
Nice post, jbf. Sadly, though, I think that the majority of people in our generation do actually consider film to be a relic.

shutterfiend
11-02-2007, 11:46
Your analogy of "T-REX vs Velociraptor", if anything... slightly amusing.

What do you say to my generation who are extremely computer savy, use digital technolgoy day in and day out and who still prefer film?

I do visual effects work on a dailey basis. I am constantly working with digital technologies... so obviously when I want to relax and have fun the last thing on my mind is to go out and use more digital.

I want analog. I want substance. I want something that you can hold in your hand physically that if stored in an archival safe box will last for decades if not centuries.

Digital? It has no archivability. You can constantly switch files from hard drive to hard drive and continuously backup if you want, but to me its a waste of time. Digital has no certainty (in any sense) of lasting at all.

Technology obsoleces and it will only be a matter of time before the means and methods for reading and writing that technology also disappears.

It happend with vhs, it's happend with betamax, it's happend with every form of "new technological medium" thus far with the exception of film.

You want to take your digiatl files and continuously have to transcode them into another format as the years pass? Your going to lose at least some sort of quality due to the inherent signal-to-noise problem of digital.


Also, the general consensus of the photographic department at my college is a love of film. Digital as seen as a method for reportage and commissioned work (not art) such as weddings, stock photography, etc... but that is the extent of it's usage.

Film is still the only photographic medium (contemporary medium that is) that is considered for the most part fine art.

Spoken like a true rebel of your time. This how most cults get started, BTW. I have to agree that the film cult is artistic at the very least.

Dogman
11-02-2007, 12:51
"The technology to reproduce film negatives in a wet darkroom will become as obsolete as my Serial ATA hard drive will eventually."

Oh, come now! The technology required for traditional photography is so simple there are people all over the world making their own light-sensitive materials and using them in archaic large-format cameras. Sally Mann comes readily to mind with her wet-plate process and homemade emulsions. You can mix the chemicals yourself from various readily available substances.

And a traditional camera is not even necessary. A light-tight box with a pinhole drilled on one side and a plate-holder strapped into the other can be used.

The point that film will be available as long as someone can make money producing it is a worrisome argument, however. It's no longer a requirement to make a decent profit. These days you have to make massive amounts of money with a product to justify it.

Tuolumne
11-02-2007, 13:47
Or at least many analysts have considered it so, until Kodak started restructuring and growing its digital business. From today's Wall Street Journal:

"Ulysses Yannas, a broker for Buckman, Buckman & Reid, said, "The bulk of the restructuring is over. I like the trend. For many analysts, this is a dead company. But this is obviously not a dead company."

/T

spysmart
11-02-2007, 14:02
This year I've used and printed, in a darkroom, more film than ever, as I've got over my inferiority complex, gained as everyone rushed to 'superior' digital systems.

I would love to try autochrome plates - I believe the demand dwindled and the factory closed with the secret process lost, perhaps forever.

I suspect a 35mm film branded Tri-x will be the last man standing in 100 years ( independent from Kodak corp ). For colour, I think when/if Fuji eventually pull the plug on NPZ and NPH, I will be very upset.

I do think the writing is on the wall for E-6 after K-14.

aad
11-02-2007, 16:15
Every slide and negative I shot from the '70s are in great shape. The slides from my parents, shot in the '50s and '60s ('til Polaroids and movie cameras) are all fine as well except for the dirt and mold from years of moist basement storage-split evenly between Kodachrome and E6.

kino eye
11-02-2007, 18:01
I work in advertisng as an art director and on a professional level film is dead or at least in advertising. It's a huge advantage as an art director to be able to see the shot on set. Yes we did this with Poloroids before but its not the same. The pro advertising photographers who still shoot film don't get much work. But, it's a different story when it comes to shooting TV commercials. We only shoot film. I think part of the reason is the technology isn't there yet plus I can see everything in a monitor while it's being filmed. We only shoot digital when we have a very limited budget of $75K or less.

In my personal life though it's the opposite. I really only shoot film and 90% Kodachrome 64 at that. My DSLR collects dust most of the time.

rlightfoot
11-03-2007, 03:47
sitemistic, you seem to have a very cynical view of the future generations and their interest in the past!

Speaking as a young person in this generation, I have a substantial interest in the creations of my ancestors, both in the near-history and the ancient. I would definitely not discard any artifact that I happened across, even if it didn't work with my iPod or my computer!

I really don't think there's ever going to be a time when people simply turn off to any kind of media that won't work in their digital equipment... There will always be archaeologists and people interested in the past, there'll be collectors and people who want to recreate the past, just as there are now and always have been...

Think of archery! Surely the bow was well and truly made redundant by the rise of the rifle hundreds of years ago? Yet I can still find plenty of companies making new ones, and there's actually been a lot of r&d leading to high-tec modern compound bows, made of carbon fiber and other composites, which need to be made by specialist factories. There's a large group of people who still enjoy archery, either as as a hobby or as a means to hunt (or both) ...

People simply do not abandon tools which have given them so much... even if those tools are superseded.

Dogman
11-03-2007, 04:24
Sitemistic--

The archival issue is not so important to me. My negatives will most likely end up in a landfill shortly after my demise anyway. But the idea of not having the technology in the future to make light sensitive material and produce images with it is just plain silly. As is the argument on practicality. Given the availability of nicely packaged sheets of film and photographic paper of consistent quality, it's already impractical to "roll your own" and yet people are doing it today. People are motivated to do things for many reasons other than practicality. If people only went with what was practical, life would be rather boring, don't you think?:)

Solinar
11-03-2007, 04:32
Sitemistic-- If people only went with what was practical, life would be rather boring, don't you think?:)

How true - While it is generally more convenient to follow the herd, there are times when it is more gratifying to stray from the current norm a bit.

Solinar
11-03-2007, 05:11
Sitemistic - For my dad's 78th birthday - I printed up some B/W negs that he had in a shoe box since the early 1950's. - He is home bound and two years later still has them posted on his wall next to his................................. computer.:)

A close friend's computer was attacked by a virus and he looking for someone to rescue thousands of images from his hard drive.

varjag
11-04-2007, 08:29
sitemistic, I have an 8" floppy, and a DEC reel of magnetic tape. They all are somewhat problematic to read now, despite that this tech is barely 30 years old.

True that a lot more computer hardware being produced in modern times, so chances for CDs or compact cards are much better. But 100 years is extremely large timespan for technology. The state-of-art computing device in 1907 was crank-driven cash register.

Tuolumne
11-04-2007, 08:56
I find it amazing that people have enough time, much less the interest, to look at their own pictures of 10-35 years ago. I have a hard enough time keeping up with the ones I shot yesterday. I have a huge box full of old negatives and slides covering some 25 years of film shooting in my basement. I have no - zero - repeat nada - interest in seeing them. The ones that were of enduring interest have been redered as prints where they live in photo albums and on walls. That's enough archivability for me. I recommend the same approach to anyone who cares about the future of their photographs. I now print out a much larger portion of my photos than I ever did, since I enjoy seeing them. Many of them I print quite large - 13x19 - since I enjoy the impact. For me, that is the archival record. To think that I or anyone else will ever scan thorugh my tens of thousands of digital files is just plain ridiculous. Even I don't do that. Get real folks.

/T

Tuolumne
11-04-2007, 09:02
sitemistic, I have an 8" floppy, and a DEC reel of magnetic tape. They all are somewhat problematic to read now, despite that this tech is barely 30 years old.

True that a lot more computer hardware being produced in modern times, so chances for CDs or compact cards are much better. But 100 years is extremely large timespan for technology. The state-of-art computing device in 1907 was crank-driven cash register.

I don't understand why people pick such archaic methods, not technologies, when talking about the archivability of digital media. No one in their right mind should consider any fixed media as archival, even for next week. The DVD you write today may not even be readbale tomorrow.

People who are serious about archiving their digital output use terabyte++ hard drives, in fully redundant mode. That is, each file is mirrored on a second disk in the two drive array. That way, there is never a single copy of the file, even if you don't use backup software. Then, as you upgrade computers or storage systems, you copy the files from an older to a newer drive. At that point you have 4 copies that are readable. And none of this requires an ounce of computer savy.It's just the way the drives work when set up as a Raid 0 array. You can, of course, also use trickle backups to online services, if you are really paranoid about your output.

/T

Tuolumne
11-04-2007, 10:43
"Advertising agencies want the assignment they gave you today, two weeks ago. If you have to skimp on quality and real meaning behind a photograph in order to get your shot in quickly they do not care so long as they get something that they deem "good enough". It's all about getting the shot, then the next and the next and the next. It's become a systematic process of simply getting a commercialized end result to the company. The value of the individual photographer and their work diminishes."

Sounds like all work in the 21st century to me.

/T

varjag
11-04-2007, 12:22
I don't understand why people pick such archaic methods, not technologies, when talking about the archivability of digital media.
Because that's the digital equivalent of Kodachrome in shoebox, the most likely future scenario for 98% of users?
People who are serious about archiving their digital output use terabyte++ hard drives, in fully redundant mode. That is, each file is mirrored on a second disk in the two drive array. That way, there is never a single copy of the file, even if you don't use backup software.
There is a hundred of ways for RAID array to die painful death, and I've seen half of them. It is getting tiring to repeat that RAID *is not a backup solution at all*, and it was never meant as such. Redundant arrays were meant to increase availability/online time of a system, they do not substitute proper backup routine. Having all your data on hard drives in same room, within single chassis, fed from same power supply, managed by same controller, synced by same software, one user action away from disaster is really really bad idea.

Finder
11-04-2007, 14:53
I have a hard drive with tons of info. I just wish I could find a SCSI to USB cable.

Finder
11-04-2007, 14:56
BTW, I am really happy the Bernice Abbott picked up that box of old photos Aget was throwing out.

climbing_vine
11-04-2007, 16:13
See this is the problem I have with almost everything you comment about "art" and it's value. You are approaching the longevity of film and it's lifetime as well as it's worth purely on the basis of how it is valued in a commercialized corporate sense such as photojournalism and advertising agencies.

Your increasingly strident posts are utterly missing his point.

The issue at hand is continued availability of film. Without some kind of market--and whether you like it or not, that means a commercial one--film will effectively cease to exist. And this is surely going to happen, and sooner not later.

No matter what kind of rant you want to get on about "commercial vs art" (and I was an English major, and am the most bomb-throwing anti-reactionary-capitalist you'll find who doesn't actually, um, throw bombs ;) ), the realities are:

1. Technologies to view that "archival" film will not be available to the average person in a century, and maybe earlier.

2. Nobody will care, because most of the images worth seeing will be available as prints and carried forward on contemporary (digital) storage.

3. No matter what you want to say about digital files disappearing to viruses, malfunction, whatever, it is *dwarfed* by the number of film frames lost to camera malfunction, accidental exposure before ever being processed, mold and other destruction from improper storage, simple deterioration due to unstable chemicals, those thrown away without ever being looked at, those lost to house fires, floods, tornadoes, moving lossage.....

etc.

It's an utterly bogus argument. Film is not *remotely* archival, unless treated as such; and given that basis, a digital file is exactly as archival (and easier to store for well-motivated but poorly-funded interested groups who do most archiving--and this is one critical point often overlooked).

So, get over yourself already and learn to read the argument a person is actually making. We all want to think we're artists, but that isn't the point here (and probably isn't even true--I would bet the mortgage that neither you nor I have taken a picture that hasn't been done better by someone else, except of our loved ones).

antiquark
11-04-2007, 16:32
Film is not *remotely* archival, unless treated as such; and given that basis, a digital file is exactly as archival
What is the definition of "archival" here anyways? Everyone's throwing around the word, but it appears that everyone thinks it means something different.

Perhaps there are degrees of archival storage. On the upper end, you have silver halide negs being stored in humitity and temperature controlled facilities. In the middle of the scale, you have prints stored in shoeboxes and photo albums. At the low end of the scale, you have photos stored in .pict format on 5.25 floppy disks.

Maybe shoeboxes and photo albums are "practically archival," because they're known to last for 50+ years. If we're comparing shoeboxes to floppy disks, I'll put my money with the shoeboxes.:)

climbing_vine
11-04-2007, 16:43
What is the definition of "archival" here anyways? Everyone's throwing around the word, but it appears that everyone thinks it means something different.

Perhaps there are degrees of archival storage. On the upper end, you have silver halide negs being stored in humitity and temperature controlled facilities. In the middle of the scale, you have prints stored in shoeboxes and photo albums. At the low end of the scale, you have photos stored in .pict format on 5.25 floppy disks.

Maybe shoeboxes and photo albums are "practically archival," because they're known to last for 50+ years. If we're comparing shoeboxes to floppy disks, I'll put my money with the shoeboxes.:)

Maybe a floppy, yes... but that's specious. Nobody uses a floppy now. It was a makeshift technology during the infancy of an industry. I might as well claim that "analog" isn't "archival" based on the fading of salt paper prints. Utterly inane and childish, frankly.

The majority of those "shoeboxes", the large majority, are already lost or unsalvageable, and more are following every hour.

And as someone already said, this idea that there are file formats (namely .pict) that can no longer be read is an utter fiction. Mythology. I'm not even a pro and I have at least three programs on my laptop at the moment that can read a .pict file. :P

I am at pains to stress that I'm not interested in digital except for the occasional usefulness of immediacy. I've owned dozens of cameras and my standby continues to be a self-serviced FED-2. It doesn't matter. Reality is what it is.

climbing_vine
11-04-2007, 16:50
And as someone already said, this idea that there are file formats (namely .pict) that can no longer be read is an utter fiction. Mythology. I'm not even a pro and I have at least three programs on my laptop at the moment that can read a .pict file.

Update: at least six. Two of them built-in.

antiquark
11-04-2007, 16:57
Maybe a floppy, yes... but that's specious. Nobody uses a floppy now. It was a makeshift technology during the infancy of an industry.

In 100 years, people will be saying that about CDROMs and DVDs! :D

Socke
11-04-2007, 17:11
I have a hard drive with tons of info. I just wish I could find a SCSI to USB cable.


Try this http://www.usb-ware.com/usb-scsi-adapter-u2scx.htm and an old SCSI external HD enclosure.

FrankS
11-04-2007, 17:56
Sitemistic, your view of this topic/issue is so different from mine. I've got to think it is due to you photojournalistic background, where today the image has value because it's news, and tomorrow it is worthless old news. Not everyone thinks like that about old images. I think my grandkids will be very interested in seeing images I've made/am making, just as I value the old photos of my grandparents and great grandparents and their lives.

Bob Michaels
11-04-2007, 17:57
Maybe a floppy, yes... but that's specious. Nobody uses a floppy now. It was a makeshift technology during the infancy of an industry.

You know I think punched paper tape and punch cards (both round and square holes) were some 30 years after this electronic computing thing got started. The floppy disk is sort of a modern invention.

And how quickly will it come that people will talk about how they used to store data on rotating hard disks read by heads. They'll say that as they plug in their 5 T-byte memory cards or something large, fast and cheap.

The point is that technology will move so fast that we'll always be hard pressed to retrieve data stored on mediums that quickly become obsolete. I remember that data I archived to 5 1/4" floppies.

FrankS
11-04-2007, 18:02
Originally Posted by climbing_vine
Maybe a floppy, yes... but that's specious. Nobody uses a floppy now. It was a makeshift technology during the infancy of an industry.

Crystal ball gazing: The computer industry is still in its infancy and the changes still to come will make past developments all look makeshift.

rich815
11-04-2007, 18:21
Film will be pretty much gone in the next 3-5 years. Know how I know? I read it on the internet.....about 4 years ago.

So...anytime now....

FrankS
11-04-2007, 18:23
I'm thinking that one of the qualities of film is that film images are somehow more worthy. Digital is just so easy, there is little value imbued onto the images, other than newsy stuff, they are quite easily disposable. If you have to work or wait for something, it has a greater perceived value.

FrankS
11-04-2007, 18:26
I'm thinking that one of the qualities of film is that film images are somehow more worthy. Digital is just so easy, there is little value imbued onto the images, other than newsy stuff, they are quite easily disposable. If you have to work or wait for something, it has a greater perceived value.


It's sort of like painting vs photography. A painitng is more difficult to produce, takes longer, and often has a greater perceived vlaue than a mere photo.

FrankS
11-04-2007, 18:32
That's a double negative, right?

Certainly the market is different, but there are still new film (RF even) cameras being developed and produced.

Niche market for sure, but still surviving and thriving. Film will be the same IMO.

FrankS
11-04-2007, 18:41
If it's not easier, why are so many people buying digicams instead of film cams?

One reason that it is easer, is photoshop type software. Fix your mistakes after the fact.

FrankS
11-04-2007, 18:45
Actually, I should bow out of this discussion at this point. My pro-film and anti-digital bias is showing, and I freely admit to that. Just the way I am. Film does it for me, digital doesn't. Fortunately I'm not in the photo business where I am forced to use digital or go under.

Kin Lau
11-04-2007, 18:53
I'm thinking that one of the qualities of film is that film images are somehow more worthy. Digital is just so easy, there is little value imbued onto the images, other than newsy stuff, they are quite easily disposable. If you have to work or wait for something, it has a greater perceived value.

Funny but wedding shooters who shoot film claim film is _easier_. Drop it off at the lab, pick up the prints later. No effort required for colour correction etc.

Many film users I know could care less about film itself. They kept the prints (maybe) and dumped the negs.

Digicam users today are the same people who used a P&S and a 1hr lab.

colyn
11-04-2007, 19:01
I retired a year ago but recently went to work part time for a local commercial photo finishing company. We print, mount, etc for working photographers across the country.

While the bulk of our printing involves printing from digital images we do see a lot of film work coming through and it has increased since I started working there.

As I see it film still has a long life ahead..

A personal observation: Most of the digital images we get from so called professional photographers is nothing but crap. Out of focus, poorly composed, terrible color rendering, etc while the film images are well done and of professional quality..

climbing_vine
11-04-2007, 19:01
You know I think punched paper tape and punch cards (both round and square holes) were some 30 years after this electronic computing thing got started. The floppy disk is sort of a modern invention.

Not in context. You are talking about industrial computing in the pre-microcomputer era, not consumer computing. The two are exceedingly different things. The topic of discussion here is the era of pervasive high-level digital technology in the consumer sphere, and in that context floppies are decidedly ancient--an artifact of the infancy of that market.

Why did 35mm film become a standard? It happened to be the medium of choice in the leading cameras in the consumer marketplace as the consumer marketplace for cameras became an everyman proposition. Everything that came before that was more laborious due partially to smaller "volume" (ie, fewer frames per roll or no rolls at all). Similarly, floppy diskettes mostly predate the mainline consumer arrival of the computer (I grew up solidly middle-class in the 1980s and knew exactly three people with a computer until the mid-90s--I am not anomolous). They also (for all practical purposes) predate digital photography. Talking about them in our context is the very definition of a strawman.

And how quickly will it come that people will talk about how they used to store data on rotating hard disks read by heads. They'll say that as they plug in their 5 T-byte memory cards or something large, fast and cheap.

And actual human beings will continue to transfer the files that they actually care about to new computers or other devices as they are purchased--or print them. It's facile to suggest that there will be a day when we all wake up and are suddenly screwed because nothing will read a DVD anymore. The people who are bitten by that will be exactly the same ones who already come around one day to discover that their mystical box of photos in a box in the attic is rotted beyond use.

In other words, plus ca change. Big deal.

[QUOTE}The point is that technology will move so fast that we'll always be hard pressed to retrieve data stored on mediums that quickly become obsolete. I remember that data I archived to 5 1/4" floppies.[/QUOTE]

I utterly and completely reject this. It's simply untrue and silly, I'm sorry. In the past decade not a single common digital storage medium has been lost to the sands of time. The last one that was, was really the 5.25 floppy--and even those, honestly, are easy to find a reader for if you really care. The use of it as an example in these discussions is, again, silly and facile, and not something anyone should be proud of harping on. If you really and truly want to get a file off an old floppy and can't manage to do it with a few hours of effort, then you're doing something wrong..... or just didn't want it as much as you thought you did, which is (again) the real crux of this discussion in the real world.

climbing_vine
11-04-2007, 19:08
Originally Posted by climbing_vine
Maybe a floppy, yes... but that's specious. Nobody uses a floppy now. It was a makeshift technology during the infancy of an industry.

Crystal ball gazing: The computer industry is still in its infancy and the changes still to come will make past developments all look makeshift.

Not in the sense in which I used the word, Frank.

Future tech will make the stuff of the past look antiquated. Almost a tautology.

HOWEVER, and this is the point: personal computer technology has now had ten solid years in the mass market. It has a "maturity" via inertia that it did not have previously. Comparing the pre-1995 (or so) era to what has happened since just doesn't work. It just doesn't. As I said, it's like comparing the markets and issues of pre-silver halide, and particularly pre-35mm, film days to post. One has, in terms of markets and hence what materials and resources are commonly available, little to nothing to do with the other.

Socke
11-04-2007, 20:24
Sentimental value won't help because shareholders usualy don't invest in it.

But sentimental value helps to prolong an archives livespan, we tend to preserve what we care about.

Some 25 years ago it was hard to copy a floppy for me. I had only one floppy drive and copying meant reading portions to RAM, changing the floppy, writing from RAM to the new floppy, changing back and reading the next portion ..... until everyting was copied. It was tedious and stupefying, but I did it.
If my memory serves me, a single sided 8" floppy had 72 Kbytes and it took 10 swaps to copy it.
In 1990 my job included setting up some used HP 3000 for new subsidiaries, the machine we used here had a reel to reel tape drive and the "newer" ones had QIC tapes, so I had to copy data from one medium to another, in 1991 the machine in the headquarter was exchanged against a, then, brand new HP 3000/937 which had DAT drive. So I had to copy all the old tapes with financial information from the past 10 years onto DAT.
Later came MO drives, then with some 650MB storage, which where replaced with CD-Rs two years ago.
1990 it took me two hours to copy 60MB from reel to reel tape to QUIC tape, from the same reel to reel tapes to DAT was a little faster since the DAT held the amount of 20 reel to reel tapes and I saved some time rewinding.
Copying the MOs to CD-Rs took roughly half an hour per medium, but that was fully automated then.
We didn't loose anything because we care! And with every step the copying process needed less attention and got faster. I can copy a DVD in some 20 minutes with a very cheap two drive setup whereas it took me weeks to copy this amount of data on 8" floppies on a single drive setup I could barely afford.
Do I still have the data I stored on magnetic cards with my HP 41 calculator? No. Do I still have the data I stored on micro cassettes with my Sharp 1260 calculator? No. Do I care? No! Thats why I don't have it anymore.

But I still have my fathers first computer drawings made on a Amstrad PC with GEM Artline back in 1987, I do care about those. The original 3.5" disks are long gone as is the software, but the files are intact and usable with modern software.

Socke
11-04-2007, 20:41
Film will be pretty much gone in the next 3-5 years. Know how I know? I read it on the internet.....about 4 years ago.

So...anytime now....

Some 3 years ago I could buy Kodak Gold at any gas station here, it's gone now. Every supermarket hat at least two brands, usually Agfa and Kodak and some had Ilford B/W and I could drop of my films to get them developed at the supermarket. Not so today. One brand, one type in one sensitivity. ISO 200 Fuji C200 is the only one I've seen in smaller supermarkets this year.
Even photo chains are clearing their shelfs from film to make room for digital products.

So your prediction isn't too far from reality, three years ago I wouldn't have thought that one day I'll stock up on film because I might not find some when I needed it. I never had more than the two or three rolls I intended to shoot.

antiquark
11-05-2007, 08:01
Could 4x5 and 8x10 photography keep film alive, or is it too tiny of a market segment to matter? As far as I know, there is no digital equivalent to large format. (Except for scanning backs, which are useful only for stationary scenes.)

From what I learned in university, a digital sensor of 4x5 or 8x10 in size would be mind-blowingly expensive to manufacture. Like on the order of $100,000 per unit.

antiquark
11-05-2007, 08:14
I'm sorry. In the past decade not a single common digital storage medium has been lost to the sands of time.
I think that looking 10 years in the past is not a reliable way to interpolate to 100 years in the future.

climbing_vine
11-05-2007, 11:36
I think that looking 10 years in the past is not a reliable way to interpolate to 100 years in the future.

I think you're wrong, specifically because I'm not only looking ten years in the past.

I'm comparing the arc of the consumer computer industry with the arc of every single other consumer industry in the history of mankind.

Once something is thoroughly commodified in the consumer sphere, seismic shifts do not come fast and furious. In the real world, people who wanted to save the data on their 5.25 floppies had years of overlap with other technologies to do so, and still can--and that was even before the commodifcation of the microcomputer industry was complete. There is simply nothing, nothing, in all of human history to lend credence to the idea that the media used by basically everyone in the western world to record most of their data will, with any swiftness whatsoever, become obsolete and unusable.

Point me to an exception, please. Nobody can, because none exist.

The point being, one more time: in the real world, people who care about their images will find film or digital exactly as easy to carry forward as the other.

People who don't, will without any doubt at all have less trouble getting files off a forgotten hard drive in 100 years than they would restoring a bunch of slides that have been molding in an attic for a century (someone will likely be able to do it, but it will cost five years' salary for the average person).

Face it: film and slides deteriorate and rot, are lost to fire, are simply ignored and never looked at. Almost nobody takes care of them properly. For those people, their digital files will be no less accessible in 50 or 100 years than their film images.

Nobody has been able to provide a rational support for the contrary viewpoint.

pinafore2
11-05-2007, 12:31
According to CIPA, Camera & Image Products Association, of Japan, film camera's are still built and exported from Japan.
I do not believe theese camera's are bought by people who intend to stop using film in just a few years.

Personally i believe that due to the evolution of digital media's the current stock of digital camera's will run out of memory-chips before we run short of film.

Tuolumne
11-05-2007, 12:40
I think the problem is with "dead". In truth, no manufacturable item is ever "dead". You can still make a flint knife out of a piece of flint rock by banging a stone against it. You can go hunting bears with your bare hands and your home made flint knife if you so choose. Nevertheless, hand made flint knives and bare handed hunting are "dead" as a way of getting food. They are a hobby of a few quirky individuals. We get our food in other ways now. In that sense - film is already dead. The main path of imaging development has left analogue technologies and is going in another direction. It doesn't mean there aren't and won't be hobbyists who continue on with it. And there will even be some money to make serving their needs. But a lot less than there used to be. And over time, the analogue film line will become more and more marginalized until it becomes - well, a bunch of people making flint knives by banging rocks against stone and going out to kill bear bare handed...

/T

climbing_vine
11-05-2007, 12:49
According to CIPA, Camera & Image Products Association, of Japan, film camera's are still built and exported from Japan.
I do not believe theese camera's are bought by people who intend to stop using film in just a few years.

Personally i believe that due to the evolution of digital media's the current stock of digital camera's will run out of memory-chips before we run short of film.

Huh??

What makes you think that memory chips are going to run out before film? I don't see that making any sense at all.

Also... there are nearly zero film cameras still in production that aren't one-time-use or dimestore junk. Not to mention that what people "intend" to do is irrelevant. What matters is whether there are enough of them to warrant keeping the current huge factories in production, or start up smaller new ones.

I'm not predicting the disappearance of film. I'm predicting the disappearance of consistent films usable in 35mm still cameras, sooner than we'd like.

antiquark
11-05-2007, 12:58
The point being, one more time: in the real world, people who care about their images will find film or digital exactly as easy to carry forward as the other.


I think you meant to say "in a perfect world."

People may care deeply about their images but may not have the knowledge or motivation or money to back them up repeatedly over the years. And even if someone doesn't care, who's to say that their children, or grandchildren, won't care? At least with a shoebox, the grandchildren can decide for themselves if the pictures are worthwhile.

As for your offer to decode outdated storage media, I have a few rolls of paper tape (http://www.science.uva.nl/museum/papertape.html) I've been trying to decipher... :rolleyes:

climbing_vine
11-05-2007, 13:15
I think you meant to say "in a perfect world."

People may care deeply about their images but may not have the knowledge or motivation or money to back them up repeatedly over the years. And even if someone doesn't care, who's to say that their children, or grandchildren, won't care? At least with a shoebox, the grandchildren can decide for themselves if the pictures are worthwhile.

This is what I keep trying to say, and nobody has addressed. You have zero evidence, zilch, that that shoebox will be any more usable than a hard drive. All factors that I can think of say exactly the opposite.

Seriously, I want to know what makes you think this. Can you explain your reasoning, instead of just declaring it again and again?

As for your offer to decode outdated storage media, I have a few rolls of paper tape (http://www.science.uva.nl/museum/papertape.html) I've been trying to decipher... :rolleyes:

You apparently missed the part of your own link where they offer use of their equipment to decipher any kind of paper tape made.

And if you're talking about the IBM standard "tape" or punch cards, the equipment to read them is not difficult to come by.

But, yet again--again!--this is a red herring anyway, as it is irrelevant to the topic of this discussion which is pervasive, establish CONSUMER markets! How come nobody wants to acknowledge this? It's one strawman after another...

antiquark
11-05-2007, 13:43
This is what I keep trying to say, and nobody has addressed. You have zero evidence, zilch, that that shoebox will be any more usable than a hard drive. All factors that I can think of say exactly the opposite.

Go to eBay.com and search for "photo album 1900". They exist! People are selling them! People are buying them! The photos are still visible! Is that good enough evidence? Or are you going to dismiss those ebay listings as elaborate hoaxes?

I really wish that I could find a 100 year old hard drive to test my theory, but alas, there were very few (if any) hard drives from the early 1900's.

But, yet again--again!--this is a red herring anyway, as it is irrelevant to the topic of this discussion which is pervasive, establish CONSUMER markets! How come nobody wants to acknowledge this? It's one strawman after another...

According to your own definition, the consumer market for digital storage is only ten years old. Of course it's not impossible to read digital data from the last decade. If you're willing to look beyond "digital data storage in the last decade" to other forms of information storage, I can think of a few that are either completely obsolete, or well on their way out.

climbing_vine
11-05-2007, 13:52
Go to eBay.com and search for "photo album 1900". They exist! People are selling them! People are buying them! The photos are still visible! Is that good enough evidence? Or are you going to dismiss those ebay listings as elaborate hoaxes?

I really wish that I could find a 100 year old hard drive to test my theory, but alas, there were very few (if any) hard drives from the early 1900's.

This is the crux of the issue. What percentage of the images taken do those represent? I daresay it's a tiny fraction of one percent.

And, again: irrelevant in a larger sense. You're talking about a period when very, very few people had cameras, so what pictures are available were treasured keepsakes like a family portrait painting.

I'll say it one more time, and I don't know how to be any more clear: we're talking about mature, pervasive, commodified consumer industries. Anything else is apples and oranges. It just is. If you disagree, you should have a compelling argument because it would be an extraordinary claim.

According to your own definition, the consumer market for digital storage is only ten years old. Of course it's not impossible to read digital data from the last decade. If you're willing to look beyond "digital data storage in the last decade" to other forms of information storage, I can think of a few that are either completely obsolete, or well on their way out.

Please, name one. I asked for this a number of times, and nobody has.

Tuolumne
11-05-2007, 13:54
"Go to eBay.com and search for "photo album 1900". They exist! People are selling them! People are buying them! The photos are still visible! Is that good enough evidence? Or are you going to dismiss those ebay listings as elaborate hoaxes?"

Preserve photographs? Yes.
Preserve negatives? Who gives a bleeping F****?

This is one of the points. If you want to preserve your heritage of images you better print them out and put them in archival albums. No one will give a ble*p about your negatives 50 years from now.

/T

climbing_vine
11-05-2007, 13:56
"Go to eBay.com and search for "photo album 1900". They exist! People are selling them! People are buying them! The photos are still visible! Is that good enough evidence? Or are you going to dismiss those ebay listings as elaborate hoaxes?"

Preserve photographs? Yes.
Preserve negatives? Who gives a bleeping F****?

This is one of the points. If you want to preserve your heritage of images you better print them out and put them in archival albums. No one will give a ble*p about your negatives 50 years from now.

/T

Well said. Thank you.

Socke
11-05-2007, 14:14
Go to eBay.com and search for "photo album 1900". They exist! People are selling them! People are buying them! The photos are still visible! Is that good enough evidence? Or are you going to dismiss those ebay listings as elaborate hoaxes?

I really wish that I could find a 100 year old hard drive to test my theory, but alas, there were very few (if any) hard drives from the early 1900's. .

And where would you buy those proven emulsions today?

antiquark
11-05-2007, 14:17
This is one of the points. If you want to preserve your heritage of images you better print them out and put them in archival albums. No one will give a ble*p about your negatives 50 years from now.

An ebay search for "negatives 1900" returns a few results too.

Tuolumne
11-05-2007, 14:20
An ebay search for "negatives 1900" returns a few results too.

No doubt in 2057 your great great grandchildren will have your negatives for sale on eBay with the comment:

"Our idiot great great grandfather left us this pile of plastic junk and we don't know what to do with it. Best offer takes it...or into the trash it goes." :D

/T

feenej
11-05-2007, 14:21
One of my old profs from grad school maintains several old computers for the purpose of recovering data from obsolete storage media. Once in a while I refer people to him who need that service. I think it will be fairly easy to recover pictures from negatives in 2057. You just need to shine some light thru them, etc.

Tuolumne
11-05-2007, 14:24
One of my old profs from grad school maintains several old computers for the purpose of recovering data from obsolete storage media. Once in a while I refer people to him who need that service. I think it will be fairly easy to recover picutres from negatives in 2057. You just need to shine some light thru them, etc.

The point is --- who will care?

/T

Pherdinand
11-05-2007, 14:26
i don't know how long film has but mine is longer!:P
though i heard someone having a thousand feet roll in his fridge!
now that's long!

Pherdinand
11-05-2007, 14:27
i mean a thousand feet long film roll, of course
not something else :D

Socke
11-05-2007, 14:28
Please, name one. I asked for this a number of times, and nobody has.

Syquest comes to mind, they had issues with the 200MB drives although mine works find, never had Bernulli drives but there where issues, too.

Iomega Jazz, my printer, offset not film, still has one or two 1GB drives in working condition, I think there was a 2GB version but I have never seen one so with one of those I'd have a problem.

In the 90s there was a phase change drive with media looking like a CD but totaly different, manufactured by Plasmon I think, wouldnt know how to read one today.

Anything magnetic is a problem, tape or floppy or Syquest or Zip or Jazz, you name it. I wouldn't trust my data more the three years to any magnetic medium, this includes harddrives. MO and DVD-RAM are my choice at the moment, those are good enough for the professionals so they should be good enough for me, oops, I am a professional :D

Socke
11-05-2007, 14:30
An ebay search for "negatives 1900" returns a few results too.


Be carefull! Pre Safety Film is highly combustible.

antiquark
11-05-2007, 14:36
Please, name one. I asked for this a number of times, and nobody has.

Here are some relevant pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drum_memory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_tape_data_storage

I didn't investigate these lists thouroughly, but I'm guessing that at least one of these devices would require an engineering effort in order to access the data on them.

And one thing that everyone is forgetting is whether or not a hard disk or a CDROM is itself archival. That is, even if the technology exists to read it, will the data still have the integrity to be readable.

aad
11-05-2007, 14:38
This story grows tiresome...

I have to pick up my negatives in a few minutes, where the Walgreens is very, very busy printing and developing. 50% of all print jobs there are film as of this date.

2 years ago a respected member of this forum predicted C41 would not be easily available by January 2008. This particular Walgreens had not yet been built, and now has added yet another of the many options within 8 miles of my rural home.

Of course, they don't carry or develop stuff like Efke 25, a bunch of which just landed on my doorstep.

I'll buy the "film is dead" argument when I can't buy the film.

climbing_vine
11-05-2007, 14:42
Here are some relevant pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drum_memory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_tape_data_storage

I didn't investigate these lists thouroughly, but I'm guessing that at least one of these devices would require an engineering effort in order to access the data on them.

And one thing that everyone is forgetting is whether or not a hard disk or a CDROM is itself archival. That is, even if the technology exists to read it, will the data still have the integrity to be readable.

And I'll say once again, these are both irrelevant as they have nothing to do with pervasive consumer computers. It was a different market that has nothing to do with what we're talking about (and in the instance of magnetic tape, it's easy to read--they're still in wide use).

And the thing that everyone else is forgetting is that the integrity question applies just as much to all the film and negatives that people have sitting around. Even more so now that people are putting so many images online, where they're subject to redundancy, the wayback machine, etc, etc, etc. Film does not win that competition. Not even close.

Pherdinand
11-05-2007, 14:45
Yesterday i went to a local orthodox church and told them Jesus is dead.
They did not seem to care.
Those poor fellows.

I am a worshipper of Queen Beatrix. I wonder though how long she still has.

FrankS
11-05-2007, 14:46
When all is said and done, some people are just no fun to argue with. ;)

Socke
11-05-2007, 14:47
Here are some relevant pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drum_memory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_tape_data_storage

I didn't investigate these lists thouroughly, but I'm guessing that at least one of these devices would require an engineering effort in order to access the data on them.

And one thing that everyone is forgetting is whether or not a hard disk or a CDROM is itself archival. That is, even if the technology exists to read it, will the data still have the integrity to be readable.

With magnetic tape it was common practice to respool them every three month and copy them once a year, magnetic tape was known to be somewhat delicate.

Drum memory was extremly expensive and thus rare, and we're talking a couple of megabytes at best with drum memory. There are probably printouts of the data stored on the drums.

CD-Roms, my Brothers in Arms CD works well, better than vinyl I have from the 80s. I still have a couple Kodak CD-Rs from 93 to 95 stored in folders which are fine today. But I keep them for testing only, they have long been copied to other media.

Have you heard about the missing Dr. Who episodes? They cleaned out the film spools to make room for new ones.

It is easy to copy digital media witout any loss, if you follow standard procedure you're fine.

antiquark
11-05-2007, 15:09
And I'll say once again, these are both irrelevant as they have nothing to do with pervasive consumer computers.
Since your definition of "pervasive storage" is anything that was in use 10 years ago and is still in use, then of course it's impossible to find "pervasive storage" that was in use 10 years ago but is no longer in use. It's a logical contradiction.

I agree with aad, this argument is getting tedious.

Tuolumne
11-05-2007, 15:21
Getting back to the topic at hand: The long-term trend is against film. Just look at Kodak's quarterly results, posted by me in this thread earlier. I don't care how many people are in line at your Walgreens to develop film. That's a single datapoint anecdote. If film is to be anything other than an eccentric hobbyist past-time in the future, someone will have to come up with an argument stating why and when the drastic contraction of the film market as evidenced by the results reported by manufacturers will cease or stabilize. Absent such an argument, you're just playing around, which is Ok, too.

/T

MikeL
11-05-2007, 15:30
Yesterday i went to a local orthodox church and told them Jesus is dead.
They did not seem to care.
Those poor fellows.

I am a worshipper of Queen Beatrix. I wonder though how long she still has.

Perdinand, you are on a roll today!:D

MikeL
11-05-2007, 15:33
That's a single datapoint anecdote.
/T

Speaking of single datapoint anecdotes........

Tuolumne
11-05-2007, 15:37
Speaking of single datapoint anecdotes........

Yes? ... (extra typing to make the editor happy).

Socke
11-05-2007, 16:01
I followed Fotoimpex film manufacture project on their forum. They set up the former Agfa Lab equipment for emulsion testing and very small production runs in case another of their suppliers goes bust. They expect to produce at reasonable cost, i.E. not much more than expensive B/W film today.

So emulsion and coating is possible, but what is with the base? You need a fully fledged chemical plant to produce PE foil and it has to be made to very tight tolerances.

So as long as they make PE foils good enough for film, I think we'll have at least B/W film.

cmedin
11-05-2007, 16:53
Take the .pict file by apple. There is not a program out there that will access it. It does not exist.

Photoshop CS2 has an option for opening .PICT files.

Tuolumne
11-05-2007, 17:08
I remember the exact same kind of threads 10 years ago. They were just as pointless, had the same arguments, etc. etc. Some things never change.

/T

wray
11-05-2007, 17:45
Photoshop CS2 has an option for opening .PICT files.
GraphicConverter will also open .pict files along with about 200 other formats!

cmedin
11-05-2007, 18:12
GraphicConverter will also open .pict files along with about 200 other formats!

Heavens, next they'll unearth something that can read those long-obsolete 5 1/4" disks! :eek:

climbing_vine
11-05-2007, 19:48
Since your definition of "pervasive storage" is anything that was in use 10 years ago and is still in use, then of course it's impossible to find "pervasive storage" that was in use 10 years ago but is no longer in use. It's a logical contradiction.

I agree with aad, this argument is getting tedious.

Oh, for chrissakes.

I haven't uttered the phrase "pervasive storage" once.

I said "pervasive" in the context of consumer markets.

If you don't want to find some common perception of reality and discuss from it, that's fine. Ignoring or misrepresenting all of what is presented to you is just tiresome. So be it! Have fun in your fantasy land where film and slides are there waiting to be discovered and used in perfection by everyone a millenia from now, and all digital media will disappear into a vortex in five years.

Just, seriously. Christ on a stick. :rolleyes:

windraider
11-06-2007, 02:49
Here is a far out notion:
Whilst adoption of digital imaging is growing rapidly and usage of film stagnating or declining, can we be sure that digital will take over film as the next imaging medium for photographs?
What if digital is just an interim imaging solution?
As it is camera phones are emerging as an alternative to point & shoot compacts, could another more advance/pervasive medium of storage evolve before digital media firmly establishes itself? Going out of a limb here... eg light waves?

Perhaps even film might survive longer than digital as an imaging medium.

Ok ok back to reality - I don't see a viable replacement for digital in the near future yet but I love film.
It is more fun & less work in front of the computer.

Beemermark
11-06-2007, 03:58
I figure film is good for another 30 years (which is how long I figure before I croak). As long as I'm alive I'll at least keep Ilford & kodak in the the film business.

Tuolumne
11-06-2007, 08:24
" Ok ok back to reality - I don't see a viable replacement for digital in the near future yet but I love film.
It is more fun & less work in front of the computer."

How is film less work in front of a computer, unless you just have the lab process it altogether, or use a wet darkroom? I know that I sit for hours in front of my computer scanning film I have shot. It is less by a factor of 3x or 5x when I have an all digital workflow.

/T

windraider
11-06-2007, 18:45
" Ok ok back to reality - I don't see a viable replacement for digital in the near future yet but I love film.
It is more fun & less work in front of the computer."

How is film less work in front of a computer, unless you just have the lab process it altogether, or use a wet darkroom? I know that I sit for hours in front of my computer scanning film I have shot. It is less by a factor of 3x or 5x when I have an all digital workflow.

/T

Well with chips & processors inside them aren't all digital cameras computers :D ?
Ok didn't mean to be flippant but I don't usually scan my negs after processing them. Even with digital I don't usually do image manupilation on the computer after downloading.

When shooting with digital, I tend to adjust the camera settings (ie ISO, WB, vividness etc) based on the light conditions and mood I'm trying to capture. While this thought process do improve the technical quality of the image, the flurry of button pressing tend to distract & detach me from the atmoshpere of the scene. Also digital tends to feed the perfectionist streak in me, thus multiple shots at different settings in the pursuit of getting the perfect picture tend to make the final image manufactured.

I'm no pro and I don't work in the photographic industry, I just take pics for my pleasure to capture moments with my loved ones and my life. Hence my shots are mainly on events, people and expressions.

It is simpler with film, I just pop my fav slide or neg films and let the light conditions and compositions determine the shots that I'll take. Less flexible but more natural. All I do is focus on is capturing the moment. Also pics taken by film tends to emotionally connect you to that moment in the past. I don't usually get that with digital - either too many images (didn't print) or can't recall the event because too busy fiddling around with the camera.

Hard to choose which is better for the future of photography.
I like having digital around as it provides a great technical solution for making images. But I'm just glad that film is still available to meet another aspect of image making - for me it is the emotional one.

Whatever it is I like my images good out of the box - don't make me tweak a finished product:mad:

amateriat
11-06-2007, 20:44
" Ok ok back to reality - I don't see a viable replacement for digital in the near future yet but I love film.
It is more fun & less work in front of the computer."

How is film less work in front of a computer, unless you just have the lab process it altogether, or use a wet darkroom? I know that I sit for hours in front of my computer scanning film I have shot. It is less by a factor of 3x or 5x when I have an all digital workflow.

/T
Well, this depends on a lot of things, but I do know my film scans require a good deal less PS tweaking than my digital-capture stuff, and I know at least one other photographer who has had the same experience; he ditched his dSLRs and went back to film for this very reason (but like me, he keeps a pretty good digital p/s for assorted things). This is NOT a "film rulz/digital sux" diatribe, but simply making the point that there are a lot of differing experiences out here. In the end, it's really a matter of approach, but sometimes the "straightest" route isn't necessarily the most obvious.


- Barrett

Tuolumne
11-06-2007, 21:25
Well, here is my film scanning work flow:

1) Hold film up to light until I see something that might be pretty good.
2) Put on white cotton gloves.
3) Adjust white cotton gloves that never fit very well.
3a) Cut film into scannable strips, unless processor has already done this. But the strips are usually too long so cut them anyway.
4) Remove film from its plastic holder the processor put it in, being careful not to scratch or dirty it.
5) Place 1 film strip in negative carrier.
6) Adjust negative carrier so film is flat and fits properly into the carrier.
7) Readjust white cotton gloves that don't fit very well.
8) Readjust film so it is flat again and positioned properly in the negative carrier.
8a) Use blower to remove dust from negative and scanner bed.
8a') Readjust film in negative carrier after the blower blows it out of alignment.
8b) Place negative carrier on scanner platten.
8c) Make sure you don't jostle negative when placing it on platten.
8d) If jostled out of position, adjust white cotton gloves and go to 5).
9) Start initial scan
10) Highlight negative of interest and do another preliminary scan.
11) Start real scan
12) View image in post-processing software of choice.

Total elapsed time for 1 negative - about 10 minutes. (And that's without Digital Ice. If you use Digital Ice, total elapsed time for 1 negative will be closer to 30 minutes.)
By the same token, I can view and correct about 40 digital only files in Picasa in about the same 10 minutes, usually much more because most of my digital files don't need that much adjustment.

The amount of time it takes to scan has nothing to do with post-processing. All the time is taken by selecting and adjusting the negative and then doing the actual scan.

If your scan times are appreciably faster than this, please let me know how.

/T

rich815
11-06-2007, 22:09
I have found that spending just a bit extra on quality white gloves has made all the difference in my photography....

Well, here is my film scanning work flow:

1) Hold film up to light until I see something that might be pretty good.
2) Put on white cotton gloves.
3) Adjust white cotton gloves that never fit very well.
3a) Cut film into scannable strips, unless processor has already done this. But the strips are usually too long so cut them anyway.
4) Remove film from its plastic holder the processor put it in, being careful not to scratch or dirty it.
5) Place 1 film strip in negative carrier.
6) Adjust negative carrier so film is flat and fits properly into the carrier.
7) Readjust white cotton gloves that don't fit very well.
8) Readjust film so it is flat again and positioned properly in the negative carrier.
8a) Use blower to remove dust from negative and scanner bed.
8a') Readjust film in negative carrier after the blower blows it out of alignment.
8b) Place negative carrier on scanner platten.
8c) Make sure you don't jostle negative when placing it on platten.
8d) If jostled out of position, adjust white cotton gloves and go to 5).
9) Start initial scan
10) Highlight negative of interest and do another preliminary scan.
11) Start real scan
12) View image in post-processing software of choice.

Total elapsed time for 1 negative - about 10 minutes. (And that's without Digital Ice. If you use Digital Ice, total elapsed time for 1 negative will be closer to 30 minutes.)
By the same token, I can view and correct about 40 digital only files in Picasa in about the same 10 minutes, usually much more because most of my digital files don't need that much adjustment.

The amount of time it takes to scan has nothing to do with post-processing. All the time is taken by selecting and adjusting the negative and then doing the actual scan.

If your scan times are appreciably faster than this, please let me know how.

/T

rich815
11-06-2007, 22:12
Oh, and a decent film processor, scanner and neg carrier AND keeping the room less dusty has helped too.

There. That eliminated about 8 out of your 12 steps right there.

Tuolumne
11-06-2007, 22:29
Film processor = Dwaynes
Scanner = Epson 4990 and Minolta Dimage 5400
Negative carrier = stock + anti-newton glass to keep neagtives flat (takes even longer to adjust than stock carrier and doesn't help much anyway)
Dusty environment = not very, but every puff of blower before scanner saves 5 minutes in post-processing

So, how long does it take you to scan a negative, beginning to end?

/T

MikeL
11-06-2007, 22:42
1. Plop negative (s) into tray.
2. Blow off dust.
3. Plop into machine.
4. Scan all at decent resolution. Do something else while it's scanning.
5. Come back and review scans.
6. IF any worth rescanning, do it then. Do something else again.
7. Remove from tray, keep negative if it has any I like.
Done. I don't get the big fuss. If you don't like it, digital first, is a nice alternative. I don't get the whole RAW thing. If you have an LCD, like others have argued, you can check out white balance and histogram there.

Tuolumne
11-06-2007, 22:57
1. Plop negative (s) into tray.
2. Blow off dust.
3. Plop into machine.
4. Scan all at decent resolution. Do something else while it's scanning.
5. Come back and review scans.
6. IF any worth rescanning, do it then. Do something else again.
7. Remove from tray, keep negative if it has any I like.
Done. I don't get the big fuss. If you don't like it, digital first, is a nice alternative. I don't get the whole RAW thing. If you have an LCD, like others have argued, you can check out white balance and histogram there.

So, 10 minutes?

/T

MikeL
11-06-2007, 23:01
Yeah, about 10 minutes for 12 images, which includes reviewing. Some of the Epsons are nice since you can scan 24 at a time.

photogdave
11-06-2007, 23:09
Well, here is my film scanning work flow:

1) Hold film up to light until I see something that might be pretty good.
2) Put on white cotton gloves.
3) Adjust white cotton gloves that never fit very well.
3a) Cut film into scannable strips, unless processor has already done this. But the strips are usually too long so cut them anyway.
4) Remove film from its plastic holder the processor put it in, being careful not to scratch or dirty it.
5) Place 1 film strip in negative carrier.
6) Adjust negative carrier so film is flat and fits properly into the carrier.
7) Readjust white cotton gloves that don't fit very well.
8) Readjust film so it is flat again and positioned properly in the negative carrier.
8a) Use blower to remove dust from negative and scanner bed.
8a') Readjust film in negative carrier after the blower blows it out of alignment.
8b) Place negative carrier on scanner platten.
8c) Make sure you don't jostle negative when placing it on platten.
8d) If jostled out of position, adjust white cotton gloves and go to 5).
9) Start initial scan
10) Highlight negative of interest and do another preliminary scan.
11) Start real scan
12) View image in post-processing software of choice.

Total elapsed time for 1 negative - about 10 minutes. (And that's without Digital Ice. If you use Digital Ice, total elapsed time for 1 negative will be closer to 30 minutes.)
By the same token, I can view and correct about 40 digital only files in Picasa in about the same 10 minutes, usually much more because most of my digital files don't need that much adjustment.

The amount of time it takes to scan has nothing to do with post-processing. All the time is taken by selecting and adjusting the negative and then doing the actual scan.

If your scan times are appreciably faster than this, please let me know how.

/T
Gee, if you don't like the film workflow, why don't you just SAY so?! ;)

Tuolumne
11-06-2007, 23:12
Yeah, about 10 minutes for 12 images, which includes reviewing. Some of the Epsons are nice since you can scan 24 at a time.

No, I meant 10 minutes for a single image that you want to keep and print. If you're going to do a batch scan you have to include the time for loading all of the strips, adjusting them, etc. This was in response to the comment above that if you use film and scan, you spend alot less time in front of the computer. For an equal number of photos, I spend alot - alot - more time in front of my computer with film and scanning than with an all digital workflow.

/T

MikeL
11-06-2007, 23:15
Tuolumne, film is obviously not working for you. Are you still using it? Given the frustration evident in your description of your workflow (especially the white gloves), you should drop film and go full digital. Look ma, no gloves!:)

MikeL
11-06-2007, 23:20
No, I meant 10 minutes for a single image that you want to keep and print. If you're going to do a batch scan you have to include the time for loading all of the strips, adjusting them, etc. This was in response to the comment above that if you use film and scan, you spend alot less time in front of the computer. For an equal number of photos, I spend alot - alot - more time in front of my computer with film and scanning than with an all digital workflow.

/T

Got it. Digital is easier and less time consuming, especially when you are not developing black and white. I'm doing that too. I just don't judge what I'm doing solely on time. Process can allow me to take a break from all the other stuff, so I don't mind it. If I did mind it as much as I'm getting from you, I'd go full digital. It's supposed to be enjoyable, unless it's your living and the sh++ just needs to get done.

Tuolumne
11-06-2007, 23:54
Tuolumne, film is obviously not working for you. Are you still using it? Given the frustration evident in your description of your workflow (especially the white gloves), you should drop film and go full digital. Look ma, no gloves!:)

I do still use film, but I find that I only enjoy using it for unique formats that I can't replicate in digital: Noblex panoramics, Xpan panoramics, and various medium formats. When it comes to shooting 35mm, I find myself picking up the R-D1 to the exclusion of everything else. I just can't seem to justify all the time it takes to fiddle with 35mm negatives on a scanner. The other formats do things no digital camera in my price range can do, so I don't feel so impatient when dealing with those negatives.

/T

amateriat
11-07-2007, 04:53
Tuolumne: Digital is always going to be faster on the draw here...that's a big part of the reason it exists.

On the other hand: I did a photo shoot for a fave local music duo late yeserday afternoon. Needed a relatively quick turn-around, but I did the bulk of the shoot on b/w film (yes, chromogenic, both for the sake of quick local processing turnaround plus the ability to use Digital ICE on my Minolta 5400), plus a few quick digital snaps for good measure. Had the film in my hands about an hout and a half later (would've been earlier, but I had some other stuff to do before picking it up), and, since I didn't have time to look at anything last night–digital or otherwise, I'm getting set to scan and review as I type this up. Should have the bulk of keepers done before taking off for another computer-tech gig at noon, then come back, run off a bunch of small JPEGs and e-mail them. Slower than an all-digital shoot? Yep. But fast enough to hit my deadline, and working in a manner I prefer.

Vive la Differénce, and all that. :)


- Barrett

feenej
11-08-2007, 06:54
I'm thinking about getting a Jobo color film dev setup, rather than buying a digital camera. For me, the most difficult thing about film is the time and expense of having to have the color film developed at the nearest good lab from me, which is 25 miles away from where I live.

Tuolumne
11-08-2007, 10:46
I'm thinking about getting a Jobo color film dev setup, rather than buying a digital camera. For me, the most difficult thing about film is the time and expense of having to have the color film developed at the nearest good lab from me, which is 25 miles away from where I live.

Just 25 miles? I live in New Jersey, near Manhattan, and send mine to Dwayne's in Kansas!

/T

windraider
11-08-2007, 19:04
Just 25 miles? I live in New Jersey, near Manhattan, and send mine to Dwayne's in Kansas!

/T

Why?
You seem to be some kind of a sado-machoist when it comes to using film :eek: .
If you intend to store or use the images in the digital format, images off a good digital camera would always be better than those scanned from the best scanner and off the most perfect negative/slide.
I guess the reasons for using film are:
a) using the image in a medium whereby the superior technical qualities of film are significant (ie print enlargements from MF or LF, projection of slides)
b) intended use is only restricted to film (IR photography, x-rays and forensic evidence are what I can think of)
c) going to places where only a film camera would do (underwater, freezing environments, long photoassignments in the desert or amazon)
d) use of vintage film cameras by enthusatic collectors :D & retro lovers
e) people who prefer to use film for emotional reasons
f) you live in a less develop region where electricty, computers or money is scarce

Back to the original question on the survival of film, I agree with those that say that film will last as long as it is economically viable. But based on the reasons above, apart from (f), all other reason seems to reflect niche uses. And as IT & computers becomes more advance, cheaper and more prevalent in the less developed countries, digital would seem to be the more efficient & logical imaging tool for the mass market of photographers.

In the event that digital replaces film in the mass market (a dark day for me:( ), I suppose film could survive as a niche product, but costs might be higher and choices limited. But digital imaging is still evolving, with the convergence of cameras, communications and other applications, the face of photography is changing radically (imagine today they are selling refrigerators which you can watch TV and have a video conference:confused: ). Film might even outlast memory cards and hard drives as a storage medium.

Tuolumne
11-08-2007, 19:38
Why?

I guess the reasons for using film are:
a) using the image in a medium whereby the superior technical qualities of film are significant (ie print enlargements from MF or LF, projection of slides)
b) intended use is only restricted to film (IR photography, x-rays and forensic evidence are what I can think of)
c) going to places where only a film camera would do (underwater, freezing environments, long photoassignments in the desert or amazon)
d) use of vintage film cameras by enthusatic collectors :D & retro lovers
e) people who prefer to use film for emotional reasons
f) you live in a less develop region where electricty, computers or money is scarce



Are you just off the starship from another galaxy? :rolleyes:
Over 50% of the posts at RFF have to do with this topic!

/T

P. Lynn Miller
11-08-2007, 22:03
I need a small spring for my Robot Royal shutter. It has to stamped out of a sheet of spring steel. The tooling alone would set me back some 400 Euro! So I have to wait for a donor.
I have not seen a schematic of the spring you need, but I am quite sure that any decent gunsmith can make that spring for you for a very reasonable price. There is a huge wealth of skill and knowledge about manufacturing small and very precise parts in the gunsmith industry. A gun is not dissimilar(not talking about their end use) to a mechanical camera, a device the works by pure mechanical systems, levers, springs, gears, and cams. There are many very old guns from centuries gone by that are fully fucntioning and parts are frequently made to keep them in service. Add the vast pool of knowledge and talent in the clock and watch making industry, and any mechanical camera can be kept in fully functioning order indefiinitely at a reasonable cost.

edho
11-08-2007, 22:21
I'm new to this forum, so I hope a poll like this hasn't been posted before... although I guess everyone talks about this. Please don't flame me if I've added a double poll, I did have a look before I posted.

The thing is, I'm only just seriously discovering photography, and I really love the analog processes and results (not to mention the beautiful gear), so I want to be able to use film for a long time.

Will I be able to, or will digital crush the analog format entirely?

Have Leica added a nail to the coffin with the M8?

I know a few film companies have folded already, will that continue?

etc.

I guess I am a late comer of this thread. I didn't have time to go through every post but still want to drop my point here.

I don't think anyone can tell how long film will still last, even those film manufacturers can't tell as there are too many un-predictable factors. Places with advance photographic technology such as Japan, or places with people rushing for upgrading their new digital gears every season like HK, there still exist certain % of people in love with films. There is an emotional factor which can't be ignored.

My conclusion is, don't worry how long film will last. Just use what you like to use. If you prefer drawing with your pencil, or painting with oil on canvas than photogshopping in front of a computer, by all means just stick to it!;)

windraider
11-08-2007, 22:30
Are you just off the starship from another galaxy? :rolleyes:
Over 50% of the posts at RFF have to do with this topic!

/T

Depends on how representative RFF forum members are to the entire phototaking population of this planet ;) .

I presume that RFF forum members:
a) constitute less than 1% of the phototaking population in the world
b) who fall under categories (d) & (e) make up 90% of the forum
c) will be vastly outnumbered by the CURRENT number of photographers who solely use digital or phone cameras

The last point is not to say that digital users outnumber film users currently - maybe it is true maybe not, I don't know. I'm sure in certain parts of the world it is more practical/cost effective to use film. But most people around me, family members, colleagues and friends tend to use digital exclusively now. Even my father, who had owned a Nikon SLR system since 1970 and a Rolleiflex since the 60s only uses digital now.

P. Lynn Miller
11-08-2007, 23:41
I can't believe I wasted the time to read this thread, but since I did, I am going to jump on the soapbox.

Film is commercially dead, for commercial purposes with rare exceptions, digital has replaced film and will continue to do so. To use film is not practical or economical. I am not talking about the select few wedding photographers and etc that still use film. And I know many pro's that do mix and match film and digital, but for the most part, if you are a professional, you are using digital. It just makes sense.

But I am guessing petty theft will keep film alive for a long time. Example, wealthy, computer savy family loses all their computers and laptops to a burglary. In spite of all the street smarts, the time was never taken to back-up all the photos from the past two years of family holidays in Europe, Asia and North America. Gone just like that. Yep, their own stupid fault, they should have used all the archival technology that has been discussed here, but sometimes there only so many hours in a day. I know a family that has just switched from digital to film! Burgulars tend to steal a laptop quicker than a photo album. And yes, the could have lost the negatives to a fire, flood, etc.

As for film or digital being more archival, while I am no expert, film wins hands down. Do not start the tehno talk, because there are fewer people archiving digital as discussed here than people still shooting film. Nothing more needed than a dry, dark place and a light source to retain and retrieve the data from film, just too simple and easy. I am a bit of scavenger, stopping to dumpster dive and check pile of discarded rubbish. I see piles of computer and hard drives, I never think, I bet that hard drive is full of photos. But I often find boxes of photos and negatives, and I can quickly scan contents to see if there is anything of historical interest. So film is still the easiest method of preserving images, whether they are worth anything or someone else will ever want to see these images is another subject.

In reality, digital or film, both are vulnerable to irreversible damage from fire, water and acts of God. As for how long will film be around, I think, it will be around for a very long time and digital will continue to improve.

I just can't believe how lucky I am to live right now, when I have so many choices to make images, film, digital or a little of both.

That is all from me, I would rather be taking photos than talking about them.

my 2˘,

wgerrard
12-21-2007, 09:04
P. Lynn:

If digital has replaced film, it can't, logically, continue to replace it. The deed has been done. But, I know what you meant.

I'm pretty sure petty theft will not be the thing that keeps film alive. The issue of digital security and archiving is part of the broader issue we all face with all of our digitized data. Someone will come up with a reasonable solution and get very rich. For now, I keep copies on portable drives at home and also at a (reasonably secure) off-site facility. If I had anything really worth anything, I'd store it on portable drives kept in a bank lockbox.

sepiareverb
12-21-2007, 14:48
John Updike has just declared film dead in the latest New Yorker (last '07 issue).

amateriat
12-21-2007, 18:49
Yeah, he sorta (http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/12/24/071224crbo_books_updike?currentPage=1) does, but it's not exactly earth-shaking when taken in the context of the article. Besides, what does Updike write with these days? ;)


- Barrett

kevin m
12-21-2007, 19:12
That's weird, I though Updike was dead! ;)

amateriat
12-21-2007, 19:29
That's weird, I though Updike was dead! ;) I was sorely tempted to do a "God-is-Dead/Nietzsche-is-Dead" riff in that post, but I thought I'd leave that one to you. :D

(Alternate riff: "He is, but no one's had the heart to break the news to him.")


- Barrett

amateriat
12-21-2007, 19:48
sitemistic: Yep, I've tried to grok this myself. And here comes a subject for a new thread: for decades, photography has been ballyhooed as "the universal language", but the thrust of Updike's piece upends this notion, and not just a little. The subject has been brought up before from time to time (the movie Blade Runner touches a bit on this, which reminds me: the "third" cut of this great sci-fi flick is in theatres now). Without knowing the story behind, for example, random snapshots from poeple we've never met, what do these pictures actually tell us, besides perhaps a place and approximate time?

I'm going on about this too much already here...


- Barrett

Socke
12-21-2007, 19:53
Why?

f) you live in a less develop region where electricty, computers or money is scarce


I might be interested in photography after I put food on the table. Then it's probably digital, why should I repeat the 20th century when I can jump right into the 21th?

kevin m
01-02-2008, 17:19
History might suggest that in 100 years it is more likely that the world population will be down to a few hundred thousand people, and there will be no electricity.

Has everybody been reading The World Without Us or what? :D

kevin m
01-02-2008, 17:20
We create "instant collectibles" pretending that everything is worth preserving for the future, while the future doesn't really want or need much of the detritus of the past.

It's all crap. Or most of it. Every time I go to our local antique stores I can't help but think that most of the junk inside needs to be incinerated or recycled. :)

iamzip
01-14-2008, 11:00
You can still find 110, 126 (instamatic), 127 and other long "dead" film formats if you look, so I think the biggies (135, 120) still have a lot of life left. Still lots of disposable cameras for sale, and companies are still making point & shoot 35mm cameras.

Tuolumne
01-14-2008, 11:01
Who still makes P&S film cameras?

/T

iamzip
01-14-2008, 11:02
That was quick. I know Fuji does, don't know who else.

Tuolumne
01-14-2008, 11:07
The only film P&S cameras at B&H are made by Olympus. And they are all out of stock, which probably means Olympus isn't making them anymore. I will venture to say that if you can find any film P&S cmeras available in the US, they are all old stock. I don't think any new ones are being manufactured.

/T

parsec1
01-14-2008, 11:08
When photography came along in the 1830s the masses said no one will ever need to paint again.
There sure are masses of fools out there as Abe Lincoln said and history has proved .

iamzip
01-14-2008, 11:21
According to Wal-Mart and Target's web sites, they have P&S film cameras in their stores. Maybe the reason there aren't any at B&H is becuase people who shop at B&H aren't looking for a new, cheap P&S film camera.

kevin m
01-16-2008, 13:09
Your negativity on this subject is well-documented, sitemistic. You're in Dallas, he's in Philly. Perhaps WalMart stocks different items at different stores? I know my local Wally World has a few film P&S's remaining.

fotorr
01-16-2008, 13:52
Folks:
I just scanned a 26 year old negative and after a bit of playing in PS I posted it on my blog. I wonder if I would be able to use my digital images in 25 years.
fotorr

Eric T
01-16-2008, 13:59
Film is disappearing at a very rapid rate. It will soon be a very specialized, niche market. Other than disposable cameras, my guess is that there will be no film in stores within three years. Eventually, film will only be available from large outlets purchased online. That could last 20 years or so but not too long.
Remember that the new generation growing up doesn't even think about film. And they insist on the instant gratification that digital provides.
Eric

literiter
01-24-2008, 03:09
Film is disappearing at a very rapid rate. It will soon be a very specialized, niche market. Other than disposable cameras, my guess is that there will be no film in stores within three years. Eventually, film will only be available from large outlets purchased online. That could last 20 years or so but not too long.
Remember that the new generation growing up doesn't even think about film. And they insist on the instant gratification that digital provides.
Eric

I agree with this. But there is a little hope.

We know of two photographers in our area have been asked on number of occasions to shoot weddings in film. Black and white mostly. The families want to have, what in their opinion, is a permanent record of the event. Not a bad idea.

If film lasts 20years it will see me out, or close to it.

kshapero
01-24-2008, 03:41
I just yanked out a roll of film from my camera. My film has about 6 feet to it. I wonder how the photos will turn out.

palec
01-24-2008, 04:39
Funny thing is that in my birthtown (80.000 inhabitants) in Central Europe the B&W film has the same stock as 12 years ago :)

hipTrip
02-17-2008, 03:57
Film is going to be around for a while. The Lomo crowd will make sure of that. Here in Manila, they are pretty much the bulk of film users now buying up stock as if the 35mm format were disappearing tomorrow. The largest photography club in the country is Lomomanila and it is composed of members who are predominantly twentysomethings and it's not unusual to see them running around with their Holgas and LC-As.

hipTrip
02-17-2008, 04:46
We can only hope the insanity is permanent. The kids even buy up expired film stock now and have them "redscaled" for maximum effect. Strangely enough, a lot of them don't even bother with prints. They have the rolls developed and scanned immediately to CD.

Larky
02-17-2008, 05:41
Well, I just found this place:

http://www.lomography.com/

and don't think it's going anywhere. I may have a go myself. :)

Film give it 20 years until we need a Hubble each to locate it. It'll take that long for digital to go beyond it's ugly sharp look it has now and develop into something more pleasing.

But that will mean the big players need to realise more pixels does not equal better images, and that is like telling Americans that more engine equals more speed.

Larky
02-17-2008, 06:07
http://shop.lomography.com/shop/shop_product_view.php?cat=Lomographic_Cameras&artID=5599

That is my next buy! :)

Digital hasn't won, there isn't a competition. Why is everyone obsessing over what will win? People DO see the difference when confronted with it. Everyone I know didn't like the look of the new Star Wars Trilogy. Everyone I have spoken to about it can 'see' that something is 'wrong'.

In the same vain, everyone I show the HD version of Kong to can 'see' that it looks (in the non-CGI parts) 'right'.

What they are seeing is what we all go barmy for, that good old film look. I don't think because we pay more attention we can see better than other people, I don't like to dumb people down that way. For snaps, digital is easy and it means they can keep shooting. That is why people use it. But if you want to a great image with heart and feeling, digital wont give it to you for years yet.

How do I know this, because I work on feature films and it's my job to make things shot on modern technology look like something shot on 50 year old technology.

A.

giovatony
02-17-2008, 06:23
Shelf space for film is rapidly diminishing in most stores .
Thats a real fact . I would have to believe it`s going to be available for a few more years but in fewer places and with less choices.
When shelf space gets down to the size of 2 square meters as it presently is in my local Wal Mart , you have accept the fact that some day soon it will dissapear entirely at least locally. I mean if Wal Mart itself can`t support the sluggish sale of film, who can?
Presently I`m having a lot of fun with my FSU`s and film but when and if I have to return to 100% digital I won`t be too sad. No one likes change but it won`t be the end of the world either. Digital has far too many advantages to ignore.
John

aad
02-17-2008, 06:43
Last night, I gave a small print to a couple, of their dog.

"Wow, what beautiful color! your camera is awesome!"
me: "Thanks!"

them:" I should figure out how to take the pictures off my camera!"

dll927
02-17-2008, 07:09
I belong to the BPOE, Best People on Earth a.k.a. the Elks. Every Elks lodge in existence has a place with photos of all the Past Exalted Rulers.

The lodge I started out in had color prints in a lobby with fluorescent lighting. The farther back you went, the more faded the prints.

I now belong to Santa Maria, CA lodge, third-largest lodge in the nation. The photos of the PERs are all black & white. They go back to 1927, and they all look like they were put up there yesterday. Whoever made the decision to go with b/w seems to have had some talent for prescience. (The pictures of the current officers are b/w, too.)

We seem to live in a time whn we expect everything to be in color, and a lot of ink has been spilled over the question of longevity of prints. Some of the current paper producers claim 100 years or more. Well, when the time comes, consult your great-grandchildren.

kuzano
02-17-2008, 07:30
Folks:
I just scanned a 26 year old negative and after a bit of playing in PS I posted it on my blog. I wonder if I would be able to use my digital images in 25 years.
fotorr

The files will survive on whatever media you archived them on. The challenge will be to find devices to read the media you used for storage, IF you have not migrated the files to new technology over that time.

rich815
02-17-2008, 07:40
http://shop.lomography.com/shop/shop_product_view.php?cat=Lomographic_Cameras&artID=5599

That is my next buy! :)

Trust me. You do not want that camera. It was my first MF camera and was a serious plastic POS. Lasted only about 6 months when the front element and entire front focusing cam fell off in my hand---and no matter what I did it never focused right and kept falling off again and again. It would be one thing if it gave you some kind if "lomo-graphic" type of image but it does not. It actually took unvignetted, sharp images. Not bad. Until the camera simply broke. A complete waste of money. Instead spend $50-75 USD on a used working (but likely ugly) Rolleicord or similar. At least they will last the year out, and likely many more years beyond that.

Ducky
02-17-2008, 07:45
Judging from the steady increase in prices of film cameras on eBay, I'm betting film has a lot of life left.

minoltist7
02-17-2008, 07:48
these questions are never end.
Digital won in commercial photography, and in mass-market .
Film will remain for artistic purposes only.
I think it will last long but in small quantities - same as analog audio equipment, classic cars and mechanical Swiss watches

dll927
02-17-2008, 07:51
These discussions of what was better before always amuse me. So vinyl sounds better than digital. Then carry your damned records with you!!

I'm an organist, among other things. Until the day of "hi-fi" in the 1950's, they didn't even much try to record organ music. Then all of a sudden, organ music became almost the standard to judge everything else by, especially speakers.

There is a church in Paris, St.-Sulpice, that has a pipe organ built in 1862. Yes, by current standards it's a monster, but it still WORKS. Charles-Marie Widor was the organist there for 63 (yes, sixty three) years. There are really no recordings of him playing, since he died the year I was born, and they didn't have the technology back then. So Virgil Fox could be excused for claiming it didn't matter how composers meant their music to sound, because they arent here to hear it. (Fox was known for his display of his own talent, but he died in 1980.)

Digital may be here to stay, and I have no particular complaints. George Eastman shot himself (in 1932), partly because he claimed he had done everything he wanted to do. He should have stayed around a while longer.

Al Patterson
02-17-2008, 07:53
Nobody here REALLY nows how long film will last. Due to the fact that at a certain point it will become economically unrealistic to keep even one film plant running, film WILL disappear at some point, and fairly quickly when it does. Now, while I hope that film will last my lifetime, I wouldn't take bets on it. So, rather than buy that MP I want, I'll play with my $50 rangefinders and my CL until I'm forced to put them on display for lack of use.

Maybe by then some of the things I don't like about digital will no longer be an issue.

Gabriel M.A.
02-17-2008, 08:36
With the invention of color photography, B&W photography has been dead for decades. Nobody does B&W photography, as clearly everybody shoots color.

It is absolutely positively clear that color photography won. No B&W photographs are being made anymore. Zilch.

And the proof of that is that no matter how much a handful of people think they do B&W photography, they are crazy.

Also, the Earth is flat, and until it's shown to me the Earth out some window of some spaceship that I've never ever seen, I will hold on to the absolute truth of that assertion. No matter what other people say; specially those NASA nuts.

:angel:

Nikon Bob
02-17-2008, 10:09
That's hilarious!

No, that is reality in most places.

Bob

aad
02-17-2008, 10:45
Well, of course young folk don't care about image quality. They just want instant results. That's why Polaroid rules the photo world.

Seriously, some folk should hang 'round "young folk " more often instead of reading "Geezer News Weekly".

George S.
02-17-2008, 10:50
John,

I never saw an Olympus Stylus go for $10. If one did, its an aberration.

Same for Ade-oh and your $1000+ Om-3. Look at Ebay. $400 for one WITH a nice 35/2 lens. Many more sold for $300 to $595. I think your buyer may have thought he was getting the -Ti version...

projectbluebird
02-17-2008, 10:53
I realize I may have a minority opinion, but...

I will use film until I can't. Either I will be dead and gone, or film will. If film goes first, I'll shoot digital.
To me making photographs is the most important thing, format is secondary. That said, I have invested a great deal of time and money in 35mm film. I hope it sticks around as long as I do.

Chris101
02-17-2008, 10:59
There still seem to be a number of disposable cameras sold, and you can get one hour C41 done just about anywhere.

Eric T
02-17-2008, 14:13
I used to think that film would always survive as a small niche market. But with the demise of Polaroid's instant film recently, I am no longer so confident. Polaroid films became a niche market in the art world. I thought that was a big enough market to sustain these films for many years. But I was wrong.
So now I suspect that a few years after film is essentially relegated to the art world, it will disappear. I suspect that we are not far away from film simply being a niche market especially with very few new film cameras available and with very few young people using film.
So here goes my prediciton: film will be restricted to niche use by 2011. Film will be gone by 2015.
I'll miss film but picture taking around the world will be stronger than ever.
Eric

brachal
02-17-2008, 15:14
It's probably already been said in this thread, but I can still buy vinyl LPs and vacuum tubes if I want to.

Socke
02-17-2008, 15:22
The first 8 pictures show the demolition of the Agfa Building in Munich this weekend.
http://www.stern.de/politik/panorama/:Hochhaussprengungen-Eben-Haus%2C-Schutt/611402.html?cp=1
Agfa doesn't do any R&D there anymore.

mw_uio
02-17-2008, 15:34
So why does not everyone here spend 10 minutes each and call the following:

Kodak 1-800-242-2424 ext. 10
585-724-4000

Fujifilm
732.857.3000 800.659.3854


Go and call them and ask about their Film Production!!! :D

Call Now - Operators are standing by!! :D


MArk [Aperture Priority]
Quito, EC

Rayt
02-17-2008, 16:55
There are enough film users in this world for Fuji to come out with new emulsions every few years. Kodak just revamped its Portra line which is very good by the way. If you shoot b/w there are many companies outside of Ilford to choose from and they range from bad, great to interesting. Film will outlive me that's for sure.

chikne
02-17-2008, 17:32
The first 8 pictures show the demolition of the Agfa Building in Munich this weekend.
http://www.stern.de/politik/panorama/:Hochhaussprengungen-Eben-Haus%2C-Schutt/611402.html?cp=1
Agfa doesn't do any R&D there anymore.

Was that shot on film or digital?