Film is dead (again)

This newspaper report may be of interest: "A new generation of digital

image printing technologies producing "perfect pictures" that will

last for more than 70 years seems likely to seal the fate of

traditional photography.

"The writing is on the wall for analogue photography," according to

US image permanence expert Henry Wilhelm. "If it's not dead already,

it soon will be."

Dr Wilhelm, president of Iowa-based independent laboratory Wilhelm

Imaging Research, hailed breakthrough printing systems from HP...as "a

change every bit as profound as the invention of photography itself."

...Data specialist IDC predicts that by 2005, more than 15 billion

digital images will be printed in the US and more than one third of US

households will own digital cameras...

Dr Wilhelm said they can expect prints produced using the new (HP)

ink and paper technologies to be higher quality than photos from

traditional film processes. "Film has grain, while digital photos are

essentially grainless."

Interesting - was the new Epson series mentioned at all?

The US "image permanence expert" (visiting from cloud cuckoo-land perchance)has apparently overlooked the fact that there are other countries, continents even, beyond his domain.

No, just HP. The report says: "After running a seven-month battery of

image tests on HP and other digital printing systems, Dr Wilhelm's

laboratory has vouched for the ability of HP prints to last more than

70 years without loss of quality. "That's better than any traditional

photographic process," Dr Wilhelm told journalists at the HP Print

technology Tour in Singapore. "It's a historic event."

Hmm. So it was an HP event. Epson is probably right up there in terms

of technology. Certainly I like my older Epson. But as for archival

quality, I'm not convinced....

I will be happy when I can slip a digital sensor in my M body in place of film - no more film flatness problems, no more scanning. Input your favourite film characteristics into the latest version of Photoshop and output an image looking like it was shot on anything from K25 to TMZ - yes even add grain back in! Print on whatever medium you like - fiber/supergloss/transparent. Or don't even print display on flat screens on the wall! Whatever the technology of the future I'll still be making pictures the same way - being in a situation and interacting with it - selecting the time and frame and capturing it on a 2d plane.

Face it, the writting is on the wall!

The handwritting was on the wall when Polaroid came out with "instant Photography" in the early 50's.

They are essentially "Belly Up".

\"And the beat goes on".

<i>[D]igital photos are essentially grainless.</i> But what if we prefer grain over noise? And what the hell does that new technology have to do with the pre-printing stages of the workflow? The report says <i><b>nothing at all</b></i> about these. If the latest products from HP are a nail in film's coffin I'll supply the flowers on its grave forever.

Should we be comparing analogue to digital photography at all?????

 

Even IF digital processing WERE better than analogue processing would we all suddenly walk around with 20 lbs of batteries instead of lenses?

 

"Film has grain, while digital photos are essentially grainless."

This is crap, picsels are essentially the same as grain.

 

Look at the discussion on this site (scanned slides Vs. Digital), comparing both technologies would be impossible, especially with larger formats.

http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm

 

Greetings,

And who says grainless is always better! I very much like the look of my low light portraits taken with my 50cron and Tmax 3200 (shot at 1600). One of the things i like best is the beauty of the grain.

Nevertheless, photography is something interacting reality and us with a less mediating. That will never change, and that's why our loved leica lenses will never be outdated.

>Even IF digital processing WERE better than analogue processing would we

all suddenly walk around with 20 lbs of batteries instead of lenses?

 

That is a good point. The limitation of portable technology has always been

the battery.

All Vinyl records are dead. No-one uses them anywhere.

 

All horses are dead. No-one uses them anywhere either for leisure or transport.

 

No-one anywhere in the world ever needs to read a book ever again. All you need for for leisure and information is available elctronically.

 

VHS and DVD have completely killed the Movies. No-one ever visits a cinema.

 

Sex is dead. Cloning will answer all your reproductive needs and technology will answer all your needs for physical pleasure.

 

Love is dead. Shopping will fulfill you completely.

 

I think 'Film is dead' ranks alongside these pronouncements as being somewhat premature and unworldly.

I sort of agree with you, Trevor, but let's face it, shopping <i>is</i> the most fulfilling activity known to man. Love is a nice alternative when the shops are closed.

That's funny, my latest issue of "Studio Photography & Design" just said that most big advertising firms are going back to film after trying digital and not liking it.

I hate to point out the irony, but the story on the "perfect picture" was quoted

from a *newspaper report*. I thought those were dead, too.

BTW, every time I go to Dr. Wilhelm's web page it's down for some reason.

(www.wilhelm-research.com). Not a fountain of digital information.

We have three networked computers 24/7 on cable in this household. I even send emails to my kids in their rooms (bizare!) and I'm still waiting for the 'paperless office'. Technology seems to add more often than replace from what I've seen.

Thats what they said to Vinyl about 20 years ago. Still have to see a CD player beat Vinyl.

I'm confused...what's earth-shattering about 70-year stability from HP? The Epson 2000P, on the market a couple years now, is supposed to give more than twice that. I think also that anyone who believes that the lack of grain in digital prints is significant enough to outweigh the lack of resolution, is not in tune with the thinking of most photographers.

 

To me there are only two factors which make digital capture seductive enough to completely dominate the photo market: immediacy and reduced cost (provided you shoot enough!). However, even those factors will not make digital the dominant (or only) photographic medium. What will do that is the fact that the computer electronics industry has vastly more financial resources to market their wares than the relatively small analog-photo industry.

So film is dead ,long live digital .My Epson Photo 700 now two years old

It printet around 150 A4 glorious color photos.Sadly it just failed repair not possible .While the prints on my wall have largely faded .

The same goes to the fujy digital camera .For me back to the trusty M6

or the still young M3.

Manfred

Yeah, but ELVIS LIVES! Let's get our priorities straight here.

Some questions. What was the newspaper ? Was it an authoritative journal ? Who is Dr.Wilhelm ? What is he a doctor of ? Does he know that a digital image can never be sharper than 50 lpmm ? Has he not seen the best quality digital images and then compared them with the same pictures film and wet processed ? Something tells me this guy is simply talking up his book. The best digital images may catch up with film in 10-15 years so. Maybe he is just talking about research. For certain he is not a photographer.

Dr. Wilhelm (PhD) is an extremely well known and recognized

authority in the photographic field for his independent tests on

the fading characteristics of materials (film, paper, etc.) His

evaluations and testing procedures carry a lot of weight with

museums, curators and with little companies like Agfa, Ilford,

Kodak, & Fujiphoto and organizations like the U.S. Library of

Congress.<P>I don't really expect you to believe me; but you can

look him up by doing a Google.com (or whatever your favorite

search engine is) search.<P>I also really doubt that the

newspaer report carried his full remarks.

I am curious. Why can't a digital image be sharper than 50 lpm? Or is this simply the limit of today's technology?

The Epson 2000P uses pigmented inks; like the outdoor sign inks; these last longer with exposure to light; but have less color gamut/punch.........<BR><BR>The epson 1270/1280 type printers use dye based inkjet; which is water based; it has a great color gamut/good punch; but doesnt last as long as pigmented inks

At this point in time anyways, I doubt that any digital print can look as good as negative printed. I also doubt that film is going to be done away with, or why would the big makers still be making the things? Dont get me wrong, digital is good to have, especially on a vacation where film might be super expensive, but I still like my SLR.