Why?

<p>Why are there so many negative comments about film not being around anymore, or "dying"? Do people really hate film that much? On the other hand, why do some hate digital?</p>

<p>I know why I like film. I know why I like digital, but I do not hate either. They both have there place. Sometimes I think there are a few that are just waiting for Kodak to close shop just so that can say "I told you so"... very sad to think that way.</p>

<p>Randy</p>

<p>Because many people love a train wreck. Human nature is not a kind nature.</p>

<p>A lot of people (digital fanboys) take pleasure in the thought of "winning." They enjoy being able to say, "See, I was right....digital won." They don't care as to whether or not the artistic medium of choice for the other person was taken away.</p>

<p>I would say those people are gearheads and not photographers.</p>

<p>People who like and use film don't hate film. Many people who use digital technology for photography might not see any further need for film and it might seem like they "hate" film. People who prefer film technology indeed seem to "hate" film because many simply don't want to convert to a new technology, for a variety of reasons. The fact of the matter is that film availablility has declined and is likely to keep declining. If it will stop declining is yet to be seen.</p>

<p>Randy, I posted similar to this a day or two ago. "Come on guys, enough now" (sorry, I dont know how to link). The answers you have received so far are more constructive than some I got. Thats fine, I have broad shoulders but it is getting fairly tiresome that, as you say, so many people seem to feel the need to point out that theirs is better than someone elses, film is dead, etc etc.<br>

Of course, everyone is entitled to an opinion and to share it but maybe its time for a ****vs**** forum <br>

Maybe it is because some people need a little self re-assurance about their chosen make, medium, format, method and to get it, berate all others. Of course, thats only my opinion, but I am sharing it.</p>

<p>Photography became viable in 1839 as a means of communication and expression. For most of its history, photography has been a chemical based industry. In the latter part of the 20th century, photography came under intense pressure over environmental issues. The film manufacturing facilities and the facilities that develop and print were deemed polluters. Photography evolved and despite the pressure the industry became, for the most part, good neighbors.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, photography continues to evolve. The casual snap shooter has abounded chemical film and the apparatus that uses film. The typical snap shooter now uses a phone that by-the-way is a camera. The backbone of film manufacturing was always the snap shooter along with motion picture and medical and scientific users. The advanced amateur together with the professional market only represents a thimble full as compared to the Pacific Ocean. In other words, the major players making film face shrinking markets that is unsustainable as to their operations. The only survivors will be tiny specialty manufactures which may or may not be under the auspices of the current major players. This makes me sad because it was my career for 50+ years. However, I am a realist looking ahead with satisfaction and envy at your future.</p>

<p>Digital appeared on scene only a short time ago. It quickly destroyed the amateur home movie film segment. It has all but destroyed medical imaging. What follows next is the ending of the armature film business. Now the professional film market and the apparatuses that hold, process, and print film cannot long survive. However, a few specialty groups will linger. Consider the poor buggy whip makers.</p>

<p>I'd like to see references to comments by people who say they "hate film." </p>

<p>I doubt you will find any on this forum as this is where I come to get away from "Those People."</p>

<p>Like film vs digital, I own an iPod and many CDs, but still appreciate the better quality of LPs. I appreciate the convenience of digital and recognize film's inconveniences but for some of us those are NOT sufficient reasons to abandon film entirely. YMMV</p>

<p>BTW - every see a platinum print? You'd never shoot another jpg again, except they have to be contact printed, the process is really cumbersome, and the raw materials are difficult to obtain and to work with and are expensive too.</p>

<p>Henry Posner<br /><strong>B&H Photo-Video</strong></p>

<p>When Kodak does file for bankruptcy, will they still provide film for the movies? I hope so, cuz I haven't seen a decent looking DDD movie that compares to Kodak and Technicolor.</p>

<p>"Wolf Creek" was the best looking I seen so far shot with a Sony digicam, but it still didn't have that richness of film.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I doubt you will find any on this forum as this is where I come to get away from "Those People."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've never seen any of "those people" (ever thought of running for political office?) say it anywhere, and due to my role on photo.net, I see most of the posts on most forums. There seem to be far more accusations of people "hating" than any evidence of it.</p>

<p>Times do change and so does the taste people have. I love a good old B&W movie. My kids hate them. That said, What is the norm today will not be the norm tomorrow. Yes like Henry I love the sound of an LP. Can I take one in my car and play it? Not too easy to do. :)</p>

<p>What does it matter if some people express negative thoughts about film? Why should you care? Somebody may not like a tool you are using. So what? While some beautiful films are no longer produced, you can now buy an N70, a sweet little AF camera with a good meter, for $14 at KEH, which also sells an F100 in excellent condition for less than $250.</p>

<p>Jeff I think you know me well enough to know that that was Tongue in cheek. Oh and I can never hold political office as I am more like Ron Paul then even he is. :)</p>

<p>Yes like Henry I love the sound of an LP. Can I take one in my car and play it? </p>

<p>Yes!<br /><br /><a href="http://media.techeblog.com/images/portable_record_player.jpg">http://media.techeblog.com/images/portable_record_player.jpg</a> </p>

<p>Chapter 11 for Kodak will not result in the end of film production there -- it's the only part of the company running a profit. Best thing for the creditors is to make money with the reorganized company. That would be running the film division economically, with less management overhead, which Kodak is notoriously heavy with. (When you have monopoly profits, you can afford to be sloppy with expenses. The monopoly has been over for 20 years.)</p>

<p>No only 13 years 1999 It turned a huge profit ...</p>

<p>Steve.... I wonder what was used to avoid skipping? LOL</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would say those people are gearheads and not photographers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's funny!!!</p>

<p>I've had the same sentiments as Randy after reading the many posts of the last few days. They don't have to literally say "hate" in order to convey this impression; at the least, they seem to have an agenda. And why they need to come to the film forum to say it is even more damning. And why the moderators allow them to continue to spread negative <em>rumors</em> is troubling...<br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would say those people are gearheads and not photographers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Gearheads" are one thing, but imho, they are childish buffoons, <em>at very best</em>.</p>

I love film and I love digital. They both offer something very different in my photography. If I could get faster turn around

on my E-6 slides I would use film more often but it's becoming more and more time consuming not to mention difficult

lately. I've tried several labs in the past year and all have failed. Some have lost my film and sent me someone else's and

others have developed my film in either dirty water or tainted with something but either way I've had to spend hours fixing

them once they are digitized. That's another thing! In order to achieve the best quality scans I have to pay through the

nose because an affordable scanner is not capable of doing a good job.

 

I now shoot film alongside digital just for fun and to keep the dream alive. Not as many but just enough to have a few for

later. It's like when my doctor said not to eat fried foods anymore. I don't for the most part but I still do every once in a

while just so I don't loose the habit.

 

My two cents

<p>Eddy, have you tried Dwayne's? I've only had one bad experience with them, and that was actually the post office's fault. Also, with a local drug store's scans, my images looked better in our local paper than most of the contributors using cheaper digital cameras. Nothing against <em>quality</em> digital, but these scans were much better than I expected, and were the equal of the best digital shooter there.</p>

<p>I do now all my own processing for B&w and C-41 I still send my E6 out and I can't complain to my workflow... I may start my own e6 as I just noticed I have 500 rolls in the freezer..</p>

<p>Thanks very much Brian! I've been paying attention to this issue for a long time, and feel I have to call it like I see it. Unfortunately, imho, a lot of negative nonsense, rumor, and/or innuendo has been attempted to be spread here about film, along with the wonderful help and information, which I greatly appreciate. I can't beat around the bush with the b.s. anymore as I love film photography and don't want to see it unfairly maligned into extinction. I'm no great pro, but I've won a nice first place award recently, have sold into some private collections, have images currently in use by an actor on IMDb who landed a role on a major TV series, and one is the sole image on his personal website. All were within the last two years and made on modern Kodak films.</p>

<p>A Bain Capital type company will come in and strip the high legacy costs of running the business left over when Kodak was on the Dow. It will then get rid of the losing products and keep the winners and turn Kodak into a leaner and smaller but profit making company providing film for years to come.</p>

<p>Think positive not negative.</p>