The Worst of Times, The Best of Times

What about storage, how are we going to save thousands of snaps made

a year, I still feel that having something digitaly is like not

having any thing at all, I trust silver, are we going to trust bits?

As for Leica developing a digital M body, dream on. I am not

counting on that ever happening. There is a better chance of another

manufacturer developing a multiplatform back that can be used for

Leica M,R, Contax, or other manual lenses that can allow for a market

larger than Leica lens owners alone. That will likely be a Japanese

or Korean company, not Leica, if it even happens at all.

<p>

It is not beyond imagining that we will have to buy film mail order

from a few suppliers in the not too distant future, and obtain

processing the same way and at higher cost. 35mm technology is the

best developed and most popular photographic format in the history of

still photography, but look at what video did to 8mm film. And don't

think that the developing world will endlessly keep the technology

afloat. Sure, you can still send a cable or telex to many places

but few do anymore; current technology spreads quickly everywhere.

Here's what I think is really funny. Two years ago on this very site

are a number of posts saying things like "in two years film will be

dead" -- "digital taking over" -- "we need a digital M". All of which

kind of makes me believe that the posts in this thread, which say

exactly what was being said two years ago (or seven years ago in PC

Magazine) are, just as someone above stated 'farts in the wind'.

Again I'll bring out my standard reply to the CD analogy - 20 years

many were saying the synthesizer would revolutionize music and

replace instruments. I go to our local symphony 4 times a year and

have yet to see a damn synth on stage. Boy they must be behind the

times!! Sure digital is coming. Sure it will replace a lot of film

applications. But as I've said before - with a few billion rolls of

film sold last year alone (mostly to Gramps and Grandma and old aunt

Mable - who sure aren't racing to buy a computer or a digi-cam) film

isn't going anywhere fast. To whoever above mentioned the lack of

supply of the different types of film - more new films were

introduced last year than old films discontinued - please check your

facts.

Hello Dan. Not until the movie houses are completely converted to

digital "projection" could I see Kodak consider discontinuing

35mm.film stock. Regards.

Sheridan,

35mm motion picture stock shares little in common with 35mm

photographic stock, except the misleading 35mm name.

As for the "Best of / Worst of ", IMO it'll never be better than now.

Digital has reached a point of real useability, yet no one is forced

into using it because film is also readily available. Sadly, we've

lost a few great film emulsions just like we've lost silver rich

enlarging papers. But not because of digital. In return, we've

gained some hybred films that perportadly are made for

scanning, as well as some truly wonderful fast films. In fact, I

think speed may (MAY) be the one thing that will stave off films'

supposed demise. A 3200 or 6400 ISO film with the grain of

T-Max 400cn is quite concievable. Ahhhh, my M (insert #) with a

50/Noct at 6400 and grainless 11X14s. For personal

photography, my digitals may end up sitting on the shelf instead.

---Marc Williams

This is a silly debate, which has been discussed several times before

on this forum. People who use digital cameras and find them very

convenient get it into their heads that 35 mm film is on its way

out. This is unlikely for many years to come, and thos eof you who

think so ought to know better. It has been around too long, too many

people are heavily invested in 35 mm camera systems, and there are

too many photogrophers who don't use or don't like digital

photography for film to disappear in the next few years. I heard the

same nonsense when digital cameras were first introduced and the same

nonsense that cassette tapes were about to disappear when CDs were

introduced. We still have cassettes, LP records, and film will not

disappear any time soon. By the numbers, the vast majority of

photographers do NOT use digital cameras today. And the professional

market is not the largest market for 35 mm film.

<p>

Enough of this stupidity. It's getting tiresome. If anyone wants to

make a ten thousand dollar bet that 35 mm film won't be available in

three years, I'll be happy to oblige. It's a sucker bet.

The trouble is that something modern coming up doesn't mean we have to

get rid of our old stuff. Like I built a harpsichord and I'm now going

to work on a clavichord. (That's <i>my</i> problem.) Both of these

instruments started to conk out as early as 200-250 years ago due to

their successors but there are apparently still lovers thereof. I

still listen a lot to my LPs, because -- apart from all of the the

modern advantages of a CD -- many of my LPs unfortunately never came

out later as a CD. Cameras ditto, e.g. re an M3. That means that even

when digitals may eventually some day "win", there will still be

thousands of us around with our Ms, until we, too, ourselves conk out.

That's all very personal, but to conclude... <i>me,</i> I'm not

worried about anything here.

I think this is an interesting discussion. Digital is here in the way

autofocus is here. In the midst ofbreathtaking breakthroughs in

photo equipment isn't it amazing that the good old Rangefinder is

undergoing a revival? I mean until--what?--1999 there was no

Cosina Voigtlander. Remember looking for used extenal clip on

meters? How about suffering with old cloudy and scratched LSM

lenses for you IIIf? What about dreaming about a Leicavit for your

M4-P? Or, hey, can you believe there was a time when your only

choice for an auto exposure M camera was a used CLE? Now,

suddenly, all the stuff RF users either had to get used or dream

about is out there new.

<p>

There is the digital trend, as there was an SLR trend, and an

autofocus trend. But one must consider counter trends and revivals.

Suddenly people are rediscovering manual focus SLRs--notice the

new Nikon FM manifestation. The truth is that electronic

photography is still young and frankly not quite up to film in many

respects. It may never be ------- !

<p>

Here's what really amazes me. I can still buy 110 film easily while

the 110 camera is basically a dead duck. No one makes them as far

as I know. (I went on a Pentax 110 kick a few years ago--totally

nuts but fun.)

<p>

Or get this: Here in Japan you can buy mini copies of Leicas, Nikons,

Rolleis, Hassies, etc. that use Minox film. Now talk about an ultra

specialized photographic field--Minox. But these characters are

bestsellers. You ought to see young Japanese women looking at

these things and going, "EEEEEh! Kawa--iiiii!"

<p>

I have a feeling our 'luxes, 'crons, and Ms have a few years left

before they become curious decorations like typewriters. (Anyone

miss typewriters, by the way? I don't. I never want to see another

typewriter again. But a vintage Mamiya 6x6, an Olympus Pen--

another story!)

I just thought of another counter trend that will make Leica people

happy--if you believe analogies mean something. The fountain pen

revival in the midst of the computer revolution. Until a short time

ago if you wanted a flexible nib fountain pen you had to search for it

at garage sales. Where you would find now expensive RF stuff that

no one wanted.

Might I respectfully suggest that all of us who love film and have

even the slightest concern that it may disappear in the next two (or

next twenty) years, spend one hour less per week on internet forums

lamenting and instead shoot at least one roll more of our favorite

film emulsion per week. Money talks and continued demand for a

product speaks much louder than endless cyber-jawboneing. And in the

end we'll definitely end up with more photos from the increased

volume, and probably better photos from the increased pratice.

Yeah, fountain pens are back. What is the point? Pens are low tech,

can be filled with bulk ink, which is also low tech and the process

cycle ends when the ink meets the paper. Unless paper disappears,

then that is all she wrote, so to speak. Photography requires a

supportive industrial infrastructure pre and post exposure and for

most shooters the availability of expensive processing machines

(yeah, yeah, I could shoot only B+W, do my own chemistry, enlarge and

print, but I don't want to, and besides, that requires support that

is even more tenuous than commercial processing). We in Leicaland

are subject to the larger industry trends and those trends are going

digital, at all levels of photography.