“Film is dead, it’s just there is nobody there who’d pay for the funeral”

<p>Tell us the whole truth, Mr. de Bakker. How much film and for what purpose do you consume exactly? </p>

Apparently lots more than you, Oleg. <br>You are separated from reality quite a bit if you think it's difficult to get and use film. Or be a troll, of course. The two aren't mutually exclusive though.<br>In the past, Oleg, i had to walk no less than 400 - 500 meters to the store where i bought mine! Nowadays, i don't have to anymore. It's delivered to my front door.<br><br>What purpose???<br>A troll, yes. But not a very good one, you are.

<p>I have an impression that what you have been saying does not make neither you nor me LESS intelligent, but for different reasons. I feel ashamed and in the same time unable to fully comprehend your remarks because of their bottomless-ness. In other words, your flow of conscience seems to have no bottom and flies, flies away. It's transcendent.<br>

You should get outside more often, of course, whan the guards let you do so.</p>

Here's an idea Oleg: if you too would go out more, you'll find that the world is a bit different than your paranoia makes it appear to you.<br>And then we'll both be happier people. ;-)

<p>Went to a Kim Weston (famous photography family) presentation last night and he just upgraded from a Mamiya Pro S to a Pentax 6x7. He makes his entire living selling fine art photography and it's all from film. Also the images are dodged and burned in the dark room, not in Photoshop.</p>

<p>Pretty much what I am doing now Michael...but don't tell Oleg that, he will get further distraught at the notion that film will continue to be used for a long time...and it won't be throw away free.</p>

<p>We often forget, in the fury of these endless and boring "film is dead" posts, that shooting film and digital often involve different approaches. I shoot both film and digital but for different reasons. I had just bought my system digital camera about 5 or 6 years ago when I opted (another first time event) for a weekend workshop on an island not far from my home. During the two days of photography I photographed a lot (visualising, finding subject matter, waiting for atmospheric change, etc.) but shot a total of only 39 frames, with perhaps a half of those shot and reshot a second time (total of about 60 clicks). The other participants, with more experience and culture of digital photography, each shot something like several hundred images to more than 1600.</p>

<p>The point here is that the film photography approach does not have the same multiple image craving that film photography has, and the price per final photo is thereby often very small, whatever the cost of Ilford, Kodak, Fujifilm or Adox film. Shooting film is a relatively slow and methodical approach, much time often being spent in assuring the conditions for exposure and composition are close to what is desired or required. So the cost of the film is only a small part of the total spent before scanning or darkroom printing. </p>

<p>Have a look Oleg and others at the cost of digital printing papers for final output (if the target is other than a simple internet sharing of an image, before the electronic file is either lost or equipment advances make it impractical to retrieve or guard in storage). The high cost of those better quality papers (to match the quality of traditional photosensitive papers) is added to the cost of inks. Black and white darkroom printing is arguably no more expensive than digital printing. With little used darkroom equipment being very inexpensive, the overall cost of the film-darkroom route is not high, compared to the very large investment required for digital inks, printers, back-up devices, digital papers and screen/printer calibration devices. Unlike darkroom equipment, these change often, inciting extra expense to keep up with the digital technology.</p>

<p>If there is any rip-off, or high cost or over-consumption, I think that I would cite the digital market rather than a film market where increase in cost of the latter products reflects inflation factors and to some extent lessened demand. Some digital cameras and associated equipment have life cycles of only a few years, inciting continuous "upgrading" or change. The cost of film is nothing in comparison. </p>

<p>The important thing is that some companies (among those listed above, or some newer arrivals - the people who bought up the Agfa film or paper-making chains) are placing their confidence in the film and traditional darkroom sectors, which will likely continue as long as those who prize traditional photography will demand the products. New films, papers, chemicals and even film cameras (Fuji's recent 6x7 camera, large format builders in China and elsewhere) are seeing the light. The specific approach of film photography is far from dead, just leaner than it was when mass film camera had not been supplanted by digital cameras.</p>

 

<p>Since most of OP's arguments pertains to where he lives, may be he should have put his residence in the title of the thread. I can get 4 rolls of 24-exp Fuji 200 for under $7 at Walmart. </p>

<p>Looks like I'll continue using 120 film (b&w) and intend to have it printed occasionally. The smell of chemicals still lingers....since early 70's. Sooo, I'll stash the film and if the need arises, I'll get some or a lots of Rodinal and scan the results. Regardless where you are, you can order in large quantity (film and chemicals)...in one package vs ordering the same items 100 times and paying unnecessary fees. Like it's been said, good equipment (35mm or 6x6) can be had for reasonable cash. Anyway, Oleg, the rest is up to you.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p>@<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2347092">Arthur Plumpton</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub7.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 18, 2013; 03:00 p.m.<br /> Dear Arthur,<br /> I fear to even start to think in the direction you pointed out. Higher costs mean plainly that those young people who are 18 or 20 today will associate the word "photography" with the output of their smart-phones only, being unable to afford anything more serious.<br /> But I think that another scenario to be more likely: the cost of semi-professional digital equipment will drop dramatically during the next year or two, and all these young people will be able to afford Nikanons and Psigmas to definitely NEVER smell this odious fixer again in their bathroom. I am over 40-ty, the other guys who post here must be over 50-ty and some of them even older. We have been talking about the toys of our GENERATIONS now.<br /> The rest is not in the least degree is up to myself or any particular individual. Nobody can chose anything in today's world. Today, all of you who can afford it play with Galaxies, iPhones and iPads. Let me axe you one question: did these devices arise from any particular NEED? No, they were a "gift". "Beware of the Trojans bringing you their gifts". I believe, that these "gifts" will finally kill the digital SLR as a concept either.<br /> Today, we witness the end of the epoch. At the moment none of us can change anything. My personal belief is: you are buying the stock "till the stock lasts". Don't ask me where I live. It is all the same everywhere. Not only people, but the whole worldwide industries may be reduced to dust for the sake of instant profit today. "This is what happened. Don't lie to your kids."*<br /> * taken from "Men in Black -III".</p>

<p>"If there is any rip-off, or high cost or over-consumption, I think that I would cite the digital market rather than a film market where increase in cost of the latter products reflects inflation factors and to some extent lessened demand. Some digital cameras and associated equipment have life cycles of only a few years, inciting continuous "upgrading" or change. The cost of film is nothing in comparison."<br>

Once the market is saturated with digital SLRs, their price "USED" will drop to nothing. I once held in my hands the Nikon D200 and looked through it's viewfinder. What a hole! I think that this junk will be given free to 7 years old kids to amuse themselves during the breaks in the primary school. </p>

<p>"Regardless where you are, you can order in large quantity (film and chemicals)...in one package vs ordering the same items 100 times and paying unnecessary fees."<br>

Impossible to do outside the United States and the EU. No photographer in Russia or other 3-rd world country would stake his money on a "one very big order". Unless he wants to familiarize the Customs Officers with the joys of film photography.</p>

<p>Just today I was thinking about it. Film is not dead but is shrinking in sales volumes with Kodak and Fuji gradually disappearing. Efke is out. The remaining manufacturers include Rollei (which rebrands emulsions from Agra Gevaert), Adox (with its in house productions), Ilford and Foma in the foreseeable future.<br /> So, film is still available, at least where I live (Italy). But digital is undoubtly cheaper in any way.<br /> I don't want to delve into which is better: digital or analog. I feel that both are good, it depends on what you're after. Art is art and it's independent of the medium. No one ever wondered how Michelangelo grabbed his chisel when he was creating his Mosé.<br /> Art Blakey is Art Blakey whether he's playing Gretsch or Tama or Pearl or you name it.<br /> Sebastião Salgado now uses digital in his workflow. So what. Do his works are better or worse? Neither. <br /> So, personally I'm phasing out film (I have to use my last 92 rolls and then I'll sell my Nikon outfit) in favor of digital.<br /> For example: a 10x15 colour print made on Fuji Crystal Archive from a digital file is 0.09€. A 10x15 print on the same paper but from a 35mm negative is 0.4€.<br /> Where on earth analogue is on par with digital?</p>