Film is dead (again)

"It's comparable to the ongoing Arab-Palestinian situations...

 

This is one of the stupidest things I have heard in a long time. "

 

Actually I think it's a refreshing new perspective which has the potential to cast new light on both conflicts. The Palestinians are the equivalent of film, destined to diminish in market share, but with a loyal die-hard following, while the Israelis represent the future triumph of digital media over traditional ways. Can they co-exist? Or will film be pushed into a vast Jordanian refugee camp of manual camera fondlers while digital builds its little swiss chalets on every expropriated street corner?

 

The burning question.

Just a comment on the HP vs. Epson statement.

 

Epson's print life claims have had problems in the past, the 1270 shift and the 2000p print life. I hope their claims are correct for the new printers, but somehow I doubt it.

 

I used to work for HP in the scientific instrument division (SID). HP low balls their specs, or at least they always did at SID. If they said you could get s/n of 20 to 1, you could often easily get 150 to 200 to 1. If HP is claiming 70yrs, it is quite possible that the prints will last double that.

 

just an observation.

Rob: Time for that water piper and beer!

"This newspaper report may be of interest: "

 

What newspaper report? I don't see anything referenced. It would be nice to see the whole article before making a comment.

Permanance is just one problem digital must overcome. Another is its easy manipulation which undermines its integrity for many applications.

Another issue is salesability in the art field. It's somewhat comparable to, say, a limited edition silkscreen compared to a poster. The silkscreen is reproduceable in limited numbers for a 'high' price, the poster easily produced enmasse at a value of 20 bucks a crack. If I go into the darkroom and work like a bugger I can produce maybe 5 or 6 exhibtion prints a day - which I can sell at upto $1000 because they are limited. This compares to all the online photographers hawking their inkjet prints at 15 or 20 dollars a pop. Thank you but I'll keep my darkroom.

So <b>that's</b> what the recently incommunicado Dr. Wihelm

has been doing lately...

Love these film vs digital debates. Shows how the digital based pros are the real professionals for using the choosing the best tool for their job (often a hybrid) while film nuts talk about what *other* photographers are doing, banter on about dead photographers, talk about the superiority of their Arian built cameras, and use hyperlinks.

 

As if I really care, but it boils down what material you prefer for it's aethestic capabilities. The resolution argument is moot unless you live in a cave and only shoot Kodachrome 25/Agfa APX 25 and own a drum scanner.

 

The snob appeal factor is what bother me the most. What exactly does owning a Leica and shooting Tri-X or slow slide films have to do with your average point -n- shooter who has to deal with drug-store processing on crappy, 2nd tier amatuer papers from Max 800 film? If you don't care about their dilema I think they don't care you shoot film, or is that the real problem? Already I'm seeing ink-jet printers crank out color prints that have superior color correction and dye neutrality from consumer digital cameras than most amatuer labs on silver halide paper, so who cares about your $50 hand made Cibachrome of Fiber print? Gotta keep those amatuers in their place.

 

The vinyl vs CD analogy is simply for retards. I'll take a properly mastered CD pumped through a good, after market DAC anyday over the best frisbee player and it's pathetic dynamic range and inherent distortion. I sold my turntable years ago after buying a good GDA-600 because the digital stream simply was more transparent. The talent of the artist and the skills of the studio engineer are the only thing I care about. Vinyl fanatics are always more interested in spending hours talking about how their amp is better than yours and the atoms of copper in a $100 cable have better sonic superiority than a $10 copper cable. Come to think of it, it's is like the film vs digital debate. Bucket loads of snob appeal, flat earth science, and an intense fear the general populace won't pay attention to your mastery of the intermediate process that in essence has nothing to do with the art form.

Define you grownd and realise of what´s new.

 

Digital and analog will never be the same, like photography and painting aren´t any similar now.

 

This two medias tent to split away from each other, just now they seem so close.

Scott,

 

Every photografer DOES use the right tool for his/her work.....

It is YOU who states that professionality depends on equipment, NOT the people in this forum (which is quite unprofessional...).

And while im at it, WHO is snobbish about his dumbass cd-player....

Film is not dead, only the photographers who think things are either film or digital. The dead are those that see only their point of view, and that is also the most common point of view I read on this site. Ignorance from so many that have so much to offer. What a waste.

I have a major problem with all this snobbery on both sides. And, please, stop this 'digital looks so lifeless, there's a certain thing in film digital can't capture' c**p. To be true film would have to capture something that is not transmitted via photons but via something we haven't discovered yet <u>and</u> digital capturing systems would have to be insensitive to it.<p>True, film is alive and kicking. But do Fuji and Kodak make money off Velvia, KR64, Acros, Tech Pan, etc.? Slide films, B&W films (incl. chromogenic ones), and professional colour negative films add up to less than ten per cent of the total film sales volume. P&D and digital workflow accessories offer larger margins for the manufacturers, so once these provide a truly safe income our favourite films will simply be dropped. (Agfa didn't listen to our complaints about the demise of APX 25; neither did Kodak when they discontinued KR 25 as reintroducing it would never have paid.)<br>Add to this environmental legislation in western countries that makes running a lab more and more expensive in many places. So:<p>Colour negative film will be available almost everywhere for another 30 years at least, and be it only for cheap cameras--just because the digital infrastructure (printing stations!) won't be available everywhere. But you'll have to choose between the umptheenth generation of Kodak Gold, the umpteen-plus-one generation of Superia, or three types of B&W films made by small specialised companies, available for $25 per roll.<p>It is this, the diminishing choice, that may drive many of us to digital even if we don't like it.

Well, glad I posted this, seems to have stirred up some thoughts,

which is what it is all about. I like the references to horses, vinyl,

ELVIS (he lives!), the Palestinians...amusing, sure, but they also all

have some truth to them.

 

Tony and Marc: the report is authentic, from The Press, Christchurch,

New Zealand. Check out: www.stuff.co.nz and do a search. Yes, paper,

newspaper. Strange, isn't it? Bill Gates said they would have all

disappeared about two years ago.

 

Dr Wilhelm? Try www.wilhelm-research.com. Seems to be a pretty

clued-up bloke, though prone to boundless, perhaps naive enthusiasm as

is the wont of some scientists. Do the facts stack up? I don't know

enough about it, but would not oppose a better colour printer. Easier,

more convenient, possibly. But better? Not sure.

 

Other musings: I agree you can get to like grain (but you can get fed

up with it first thing in the morning). And yes, you can use Photoshop

to recreate grain, do duotones, make photos look like paintings. But

are they quite the same thing?

 

To Jaime, who says "beloved Leica lenses will never be outdated" -

that's great, but how about the rest of the camera? Here in NZ,

Leica's Digilux is marketed, also, as a "Panasonic Lumix with Leica

optics". Only a lens manufacturer? That's a worry.

 

Trouble is, most of us love Leicas. They are perfect, or just about -

which is not to say they do everything perfectly, but do the job for

which they were designed, brilliantly. So why, then, MAKE them

obsolete?

 

A book called Futurewise has four categories: embracers of technology,

those who couldn't care less, those who use it but have reservations,

and the dyed in the wool traditionalists. Which one are you?

The last thing I'll say on the subject. Scott, what ticks me off about posts from most (NOT ALL) of the digital people, and yours is guilty of it as well is this. Many (NOT ALL) of the people using conventional materials seem to think in terms of "digital can't do everything, conventional can't either but it's what I like to use - so let them co-exist". Many (NOT ALL) of the digital posts run "it's new, it's better, it's gods gift to mankind...OUT WITH THE OLD". Claptrap.

Here is the <a href=http://www.wilhelm-research.com>link</a> to Wilhelm Research kindly provided by David Killick above. It seems like it is down for a while, but I've seen it before and it is a comprehensive resource for image permanence information<br><p>

 

<a href=http://www.wilhelm-research.com>www.wilhelm-research.com</a>.

Someone has asked where the 50 lpmm figure comes from. This is the maximum definition any present day scanner of a negative - which is itself much higher definition than a digital source - can achieve. Hence my point about 10-15 years to wait. The point about depth is that both film and paper images are three dimensional. Digital images are not.

My M3s use NO battery and that is argument enough for me. . . aside from the fact that they have already worked for two owners each over a 45+ years span with no repair or specialized service at all!! Can somebody honestly think of an electronic camera able to go through such a service life? I'm an electronic engineer and certainly can't...

though I'm not too much of a traditionalist, David; anyone who is, is profesionaly very short lived in this field.

 

-Iván

We use and sell 1/2 ton of paper a week...<BR><bR>Since everyone is going digital; paper useage has increased.<BR><BR>The Paperless office (fully digital)will arrive with the paperless bathroom..<BR><BR>