The Promotion of Film use....what are we missing?

Discussion in 'Film and Processing' started by db_gallery, Jul 15, 2012.

  1. I can not imagine how Kodak must feel reading some of the threads full of bitching and complaining, people saying they want films like Kodachrome, Plus-X, High Speed Infrared and E6 back when we still have outstanding varieties like TMY, Ektar and Portra…..and the constant dissection of the restructuring.

    And you DO know who Kodak is, do you not? Kodak is not so much the top executives, the shareholders and certainly not Mr. Perez. Who Kodak is are the people who are hard working, passionate about the products and proud of the brand that is Kodak. Who Kodak is are the people like Audrey Jonckheer who are still trying to help film find a way forward…besides buying the film, are you helping?

    There is something else we are not doing…something besides websites like Flickr, APUG, etc. Something besides buying and using film that is not being done and it kept me up until 5AM this morning…it is troubling me..

    Here is the trouble…

    If Kodak were to stop selling film and no one took it over, I think it would be very, very bad for film in general. Here is why: Public Perception based on internet hype. For example, when Kodachrome disappeared, I can not tell you how many people thought that Kodak was no longer making any film and some even thought that meant no film left at all. That's right, one film's disappearance well publicized caused an tsunami of misconception by the general public. The same thing has happened with the C-11 filing by Kodak and all the news that has followed….this is a bad, BAD pattern folks. Because what ever potential numbers in growth that even niche film use there might be with the artistic resurgence of the medium, the growing perception that film is history is hampering a potential market segment that might otherwise give film a try.

    This is not just Kodak's problem, it is Ilford's, Fuji's, Efke's problem and it is OUR problem. As much as I want to see Kodak get really creative in how they market to the potential film user, I think we are missing something really, reeeeally important as the film user. We say we use film, post images, fill our freezers, we do a lot, but we do it for us first, not to help out our film making companies, the ones who depend on us not only to use the product, but get the word out.

    But I really do feel like we are missing the so called boat that Kodak has been said to have missed too…I am not sure what it is, but I am determined to figure it out.

    Maybe it might have to do with crowd sourcing of an ad campaign that is not from the makers of film, but the users of it...something like that can go viral real quick...I think it is something like this that needs to happen, honestly...
     
  2. I think most people see film in an inevitable decline. It's sad but it's the inevitable result of how things have gone with
    digital. If we're lucky, film will stabilize at a new level of production capable of supplying the dedicated film users -- not
    with the variety we once had, but with a small variety of good films. You could probably look at the 8x10 sheet film market
    for and idea. A lot of my favorite films are already gone, but then I can only blame myself since I shoot mostly digital these
    days too.


    Though I have quite a lot of Velvia, Tri-X, Tech Pan, and Kodak HIE in the freezer.
     
  3. Well said and well written Dan! I agree completely! I have tried to promote film use and will always continue. I have been thinking about a campaign to get the message to moms that they should use film to capture their children's memories so that they will have them for a lifetime.
     
  4. so that they will have them for a lifetime
    I suspect I'll be castigated for this, but I do always wonder why people say that. I have absolutely no idea what happened any number of the untold thousands of negatives (and companion prints) I created since the 1970's. Moving, jumbled storage, laziness, some disorganization, damage - all the usual things that apply to any fragile, physical, unique thing. I'm pretty sure I've lost a few digital files along the way, too. But I do know where I have multiple, geographically separate, perfect copies of the vast majority of everything along those lines I've ever cared about keeping.

    Which has nothing whatsoever to do with whether I like film for certain things. But the "for a lifetime" message is probably not going to ring true as a "promote film" message to moms. Their first and foremost purpose seems to be the capturing and immediate, across-continents sharing of those images. Care with negatives and care with family digital archives are both a matter of discipline, and something that doesn't really differentiate the two media as far as I'm concerned.

    Promoting film use - for the huge majority of people who have never used it or have stopped doing so - comes down to plainly showing them something they can get (simple pleasure in the process? the unique properties of very large sheets of film?) that they're otherwise missing out on. If there are truly compelling reasons for re/adopting film, it should be a very easy sell to me, since I come from using miles of it in all sorts of settings. But I'm not getting it, not in the way that you're hoping a new mom will. Very tough sell.
     
  5. What we are missing is a focused marketing effort by Kodak and other film companies. Where are the print and TV ad campaigns for the general public? As long as Kodak treats film as a limited market, instead of a mass market the only news getting out to the mass media is bad news. When times get tough, that's when you need to advertise most.
    I was at the Photo Expo in NYC last year. The Kodak booth was pathetic! Two guys sitting on their collective butts, mindlessly giving away rolls. They looked defeated, not excited by their products, not promoting their products. It made me angry. I'll buy the stuff, I'll promote film to my students who are more interested than most think, but the companies have to pony up, get some smart people in there to target new and established market sectors...and start hammering away with fresh, laser focused messaging. Only then will the word not only get to the public that film is here to stay, but camera manufacturers will respond with new tools to use with them. If Kodak wants to change the paradigm, they need to use marketing muscle to do it. And be very selective of the individuals who represent them at trade shows. To me that represents yet another systemic problem within the company that needs fixing. Kodak has it's work cut out for itself. They will never see their former glory days but they got to stay in there and keep punching if they want to stay profitable in the film business.
     
  6. What Louis said. It's up to Kodak to adapt. So far they've shown little ability or inclination to do so.
    Film use in general is remarkably healthy - totally apart from Kodak's rotting corpse. That's due to the savvy and successful efforts of manufacturers and retailers who do understand the market and have adapted.
     
  7. Film use in general is remarkably healthy​
    I don't know what planet this is in:) As far as I can tell, people are using their cameraphones. It might be healthy in a film specific forum, but in reality? It's like asking why brick and mortar shops are shutting down yet 90% of all photographers goto Amazon or BH, just to save taxes...
    Ironically, I was at a bestbuy this weekend buying a $30 digicam. I saw that they had 5 rolls pack fuji's special for $3.99. I was going to buy it just for fun. Then, I check the expiration date and it read 2009! Did I mention they had like 8 or 9 packs? They might go if they were free...
    It's basic supply and demand, and not (lack of) some swanky creative ad or promotion. Though film will probably never go completely away, it will never gain mass appeal like before...
     
  8. The Tokyo film market, I would say is the only "remarkably healthy" film market on Earth.
     
  9. First off, they need to know who their market is, now, in 2012, as they restructure with a slashed marketing budget, and we need to help with that, tell them in creative ways. No matter how much you want to see $15,000 full page print ads in PDN, Nat Geo and the Sunday magazine of the NYT, it is not going to happen, that is the old way, we all need the new way forward and I can assure you it is not anything any of us have thought of yet.
    I can not tell you how much they feed off of positive talk from passionate film users, seeing fresh new work and hearing a good attitude from those who CAN make a difference. That not only has to keep up for the long term, it has to continue to ride innovation in terms of how creative we all get at showing creative use of film.
    I have not had a pro website for years, have not advertised, not by choice, I simply did not have time to deal with it until now. I have gotten by nicely with word of mouth, people talking about my products and services, being as passionate about what I do as I am. This is what film needs to do more than survive.
    Trust me, Kodak wants to market, but they are tied up in re-emerging as a company that can work in this new scale of economics with their best performing products, that is business. But film, man, we have to meet them half way and try real hard to put out the fire that is the publics misconception that film is gone entirely..
     
  10. Leslie: Why is that? What's happening in Tokyo that's different than other places?
     
  11. Alan, thanks for asking that, it might contain creative answers in broad terms. I don't care about the same old tired arguments about the slipping demand, I care about creativity and moving forward in innovative directions...
     
  12. Leslie: Why is that? What's happening in Tokyo that's different than other places?​
    I'm not sure if there is one sole reason. The demand is high, analog is very popular, great services in the area, big film cameras culture...You ought to get a better answer from a local. I'm just repeating what I read and heard. I would guess high (film lover) population density? A few film shooters told me that I have to goto to Tokyo if I like film. And these folks were from Seoul, Bangkok and Singapore...Sorta like analog mecca? And, of course, the Fuji connection...
     
  13. "I can not tell you how much they feed off of positive talk from passionate film users, seeing fresh new work and hearing a good attitude from those who CAN make a difference."​
    Understandable within limits. But I hope they're neither ignoring nor relying too heavily on internet chatter. These are biased venues with tendencies toward extremes of cheerleading or cynicism - often both within the same week. That's not marketing research. That's just licking finger to test the breeze. It works only in this particular moment in this particular place.
     
  14. "I was at a bestbuy this weekend..."​
    We all have our anecdotes. Yesterday I was at a party. Two people brought out cellphone cameras. I used a compact digicam. The youngest of our group, a college student, is into large format film photography for landscapes and didn't bring her camera.
    According to my sampling group, 50% of photographers are using cellphone cameras, 25% are using compact digital cameras, another 25% are using large format film. Apparently dSLRs are dead and nobody uses 35mm or medium format anymore. And since photo.net is immediately and prominently Googled, I've just contributed to anecdotal noise.
     
  15. so that they will have them for a lifetime
    I suspect I'll be castigated for this, but I do always wonder why people say that. I have absolutely no idea what happened any number of the untold thousands of negatives (and companion prints) I created since the 1970's. Moving, jumbled storage, laziness, some disorganization, damage - all the usual things that apply to any fragile, physical, unique thing.​
    I'll wager that nearly everyone reading this has seen Mathew Brady's Civil War photographs. After the war ended, no one wanted to be reminded of the carnage, and Brady went bankrupt. Most of his negatives were used as greenhouse glass. Twenty years later they were gone; what you have seen is almost certainly a copy of a print - and only because thousands of prints were made during the war. Digital vs film is irrelevant to archival; what matters is that the importance of the image is recognized when it is captured, and the photographer (or someone) takes appropriate steps to preserve it.
     
  16. In the abstract, I love Kodak. I thank them for Kodachrome - probably 90% of my pre-digital shooting was done on that film, mostly on the slowest available at the time I bought it. A bit of night shooting was done on GAF high speed film, but that's long ago passed into nothingness.
    Although the later Ektachrome was much improved, I never cared as much for it, and the truth, I am ashamed to say, is that I have bought no more than 10 rolls of Kodak film since 2005. I have used lots of Fuji and Ilford films. Most of the students here who are shooting film don't seem to use much Kodak either, to judge from what's on sale at the local, still-functioning camera store.
    If Kodak went totally out of business tomorrow, the main change to me and my use of film would be that I would have to find another source for D-76 developer (maybe Photographers' Formulary or mix up my own metol, borax, and suchlike).
    This all makes me very sad, but as those turncoat politicians are always saying, "I didn't leave the party, they left me".
     
  17. Guilty as well...I bought only Tri-x but used Fuji for color and Pan X and delta 3200 before digital.
     
  18. Gulp. This is going to get me branded a troll, but if you have the patience, read on. But first, I've got to wonder about some of what's been written here.
    a campaign to get the message to moms that they should use film to capture their children's memories so that they will have them for a lifetime . . .
    Sorry, but IMO that's nonsense. Either format requires some care for archiving. But I am much more confident that when I die (I'm guestimating forty years from now), my kids will be able to access and use my digital image files than I am that they'll be able to use my film. The traditional B&W film will probably be in pretty good condition, if there is still a working scanner available to them, or if somehow a B&W wet darkroom is running. As for color stuff, the film will probably have deteriorated at least some--my parents' negatives from forty years ago have many fades and color shifts, but mine will probably last somewhat better--but they'll need a scanner, because I don't see a wet color darkroom running. And by the time my kids reach their twilight years, seventy to eighty years from now?!
    Where are the print and TV ad campaigns for the general public? As long as Kodak treats film as a limited market, instead of a mass market . . .
    Sorry, but film is a limited market, not a mass market. What truthful claims could Kodak make to the general public to persuade them to go back to film? IMO, there is no way that Kodak or anyone else is going to convince the general public to drop their iPhone cameras or Rebels and instant Facebook postings to go back to spending $10 to $20 per 24 or 36 frames for film and processing that takes time and effort. Just. Ain't. Gonna. Happen. And advocating it would be doing the public a disservice--for the average person's needs and skills, a decent digital point-and-shoot (something along the lines of my wife's Canon SX230 HS) is a much better picture (and video!) capturing device than any film camera.
    Look, I want film to survive. Yeah, it bothered me the last time I went to order ISO 400 color neg in 4x5 and my options were very limited (IIRC, the only emulsion B&H offered was Portra 400). But we need to take a dose of reality--we meaning Kodak, Ilford, Fuji, and especially some people here. If film is to survive, it is as a niche medium. Something to be practicing in art school, and maybe clubs, or handed down one hobbyist to the next. Something to be taught, learned, and used like painting or maybe more like printmaking.
    Will film survive? I think B&W film will survive for the foreseeable future. Ilford or somebody will be able to sell enough to make a going business. The chemicals and processes are not very exotic or toxic. Now color is another matter--harder to produce, demanding more exotic and/or toxic chemicals, harder to develop, harder to print. I hope a reorganized Kodak can make a healthy ongoing color film business. I really do. But I'm not confident that there's anything that anyone can do to make it happen. So enjoy it while you have it.
     
  19. Dan,
    The next time I am visiting one of my local camera & photography retail stores, and they ask me, "why are you still shooting film?", I am going to have to say, " because it's a lot more convenient than glass plate negatives!" Any other statements about the qualities of film are debated in order to promote digital capture. When the attributes of film photography are sincerely discussed, concessions are often made. I shoot both, but at heart, I am old-school. I know why I love film, and you know why I love film. When I am out shooting digital landscapes, I often think of how I would love to return and get this shot on film -- and sometimes I do.
    I have a revolving library of photography books, and lately I have been seeking and reading some older books devoted to black & white film. I am also shooting some black & white in 35mm and 6x7. It is a niche market for sure, and I am often alone in my photographic interests in film photography.
    The photographic world revolves around digital capture now, and it is easy to understand why. But like you, I want to support Kodak and film photography -- whether it is landscape, street, weddings, or other commercial. When the Nikon Coolscan 9000 was discontinued, it was a blow medium format film. We still have to support the medium through buying, shooting, and promoting film photography.
     
  20. Promoting film in our days is like promoting a thing of the past. World has changed, so is us and our habits. We are living in world where everything runs fast, so is technology, and we want the biggest information/convenience in the shortest time in the smallest package possible.
    Look around us, the world is full of mp3 and IPods, full of mobile phones equipped with so many gadgets for music, telephony, pc and ALL of them work mediocre!!! Strangely enough people declare satisfied with the "quality" so companies are pleased. Why change?
    Film shooters are like vinyl lovers. They will not extinct but they will get lesser by the day. New generation is very hard to be hooked up in something that's not "current" in fashion and needs "time" to get results. Companies know that.
    Companies will not promote something which is good or sophisticated, they will promote something that they will make money out of it, real money and not pennies. If people prefer mp3 over SACD, iPods over turntables or stand alone players, mobile phones for shooting pictures and videos over a camera, external HDs for storing everything instead the traditional stocking up of records, CDs, and photographic albums full of printed photos, don't expect a ressurection of the film.
    Still, there will be people who will continue shooting in film as long as there's the necessary medium (film) in stock out there, and some young people as well, who the same way they discover the warmth of a vinyl and the joy of "reading" the cover alongside hearing, they will introduce themselves to the film era.
    My friends, at a time when someone is willing to invest a fortune to get a Leica Monochrome or the cheapest substitutes (Fuji, etc...) in order to have "film quality" it is very naive to believe that companies want film back. Thank you for reading this!
     
  21. Well said and well written Dan! I agree completely!​
    Me too.
     
  22. The incorrect premise (my opinion) is: The folks working at Kodak are mere pawns... like all other workers. Kodak - management, workers, retirees, and stock holders, like most other companies, is controlled by the accountants and short-sighted marketing people. Their total concern is making money today, with some amount of concern with making money in the future. And they have long ago decided that making money with film is not the way they can make money. Sad... very sad... but true.
     
  23. Sad truth is that, today, everything is driven by "I want it now and I want it cheap". Film does not lend itself to this. Oh yes there are some among us who are prepared to wait a little longer and put in the hard yards to get quality but generally speaking most of the market embraces digital simply because it is instant. It also has to be said that the quality of digital has improved immensely over the years which has also pushed users towards using it. Another consideration is cost, basically digital is cheap.
    What would change this situation, well, maybe it is too late for anything now. Maybe if scanners were much less expensive and a lot quicker it might help but the last time I tried to scan some negs I almost gave up.
    Black and white will probably last longer because the results from neg are still better than those from digital, IMHO, but even more because it is a relatively simple process to do at home. Colour is not within the "easy" capability of most happy snappers.
    In the end I think we will all go with the new technology but I do not lose sleep over this. The new generations of digital are getting ever better and soon will, I believe, surpass film for quality. So why will we want to save film then? Probably purely for nostalgic reasons and to be honest I have to say it's a bit like cars, I would love to have an old M.G. but in reality they were unreliable, uncomfortable and uneconomical. If I have to go on a journey I will take a new Toyota or the like every time.
     
  24. Panayayotis, film is Alternative Process, like oil painting....Adobe Illustrator did not make oil painting a thing of the past,
    people use it with a passion.

    Brian, so I guess the society changing innovations of Apple never occurred then and all those employees are just
    pawns...

    I have risked a lot in life in order to be a successful photographer, that and believing in what you do is how you live a life
    that fills you completely until you slip into the ether....
     
  25. Tony wrote: Sad truth is that, today, everything is driven by "I want it now and I want it cheap".​
    This is exactly what I am talking about, damaging generalizations that are born purely of web hype. It's impossible for "Everything" to be driven like that. If it were, no one would play a guitar, use a paint brush or buy a Silver Gelatin Print from me for $800+ that I made by hand in my darkroom.
    None of us are going to get anywhere by believing what you said and this is a far bigger problem in society than just photography, it is eroding intrepid, innovative thinking. If you just get out and talk to people, you will find that many are already tiring of the hype and are recovering from a technological hangover...they are realizing that none of this want it now living has given us more than 24 hours in one day and and if anything, is actually taking time away from it.
     
  26. I sympathize with you who still love film, and wet processing. As just one person though, I'm lately better able with a middle-tier DSLR (with VR for my shakier aging body), affordable glass, an iMac, good editing software and the Internet to make and share satisfying images, even though thirty years of home film processing and darkroom printing (1969-1999) brought many rewards. But to be honest, my declining abilities would make that older technology less satisfying or effective for me now. In 2003 I passed on my analog equipment and darkroom to a young community college art student, who was thrilled to load it all into her car and drive it away to better use. As for all of those thousands of negatives and slides I produced, will anyone ever "discover" a (de-humidified) basement full of it, so carefully catalogued and stored? Probably not. The world is already filled and still filling with visual geniuses. I hope to enjoy their analog work now. BTW I'll be driving to Oshkosh WI soon, where the Payne Art Center is now presenting an exhibit of Ansel Adams original prints, until sometime in the fall. His film and wet printing mastery still inspires!
     
  27. "I want it now and I want it cheap".
    The interesting thing is that a lot of film users are willing to pay almost whatever it takes to continue shooting film. The most extreme example of this are the folks who continue shooting Polaroid LF products.
    I know I'm willing to pay a lot, but with processing becoming a bigger challenge I'm seriously thinking of digital imaging as a viable option. There are limits and difficulty of processing is what drives my limit.
     
  28. "...Alternative Process, like oil painting"
    Oil painting is not "alternative"... it is a specific media that remains the gold standard for painting. But an avid watercolorist may choose to disagree with that. :)
     
  29. "Panayayotis, film is Alternative Process, like oil painting....Adobe Illustrator did not make oil painting a thing of the past, people use it with a passion."
    Dear Daniel, even though I dont' think this is a good example, I must say that even so it doesn't make film promising or attractive to the masses. So why should someone consider an investment? Why someone should spend money and go out promoting films? To whom? To moms as mentioned before?!!!...Would you be any of those willing to do so? Would you risk your money on that? I surely not.
     
  30. Oil painting and illustrator is a very bad example. I worked with a couple of oil painters and they seriously would have
    kicked your ass for that one...
     
  31. The word "alternative" is a bad word in general.
    We generally apply that to the production of prints using archaic processes -- cyanotype, carbon transfer, etc. Lately it seems to be applied to the use of archaic "film" processes like wet plate. None of these are 'alternative". They are archaic, historical, and in some cases non-silver... but they are what they are.
    Alternative implies that they are a secondary choice made out of some kind of desparation.
    If that is the case, as an avid film photographer I hereby declare digital photography to be "alterntive photography". Ha ha ha.
     
  32. Panayotis, you keep saying for the masses, film is no longer for the masses, it is for those who want an alternative to
    shooting digital, the artist, the person who loves film cameras, the person who loves the workflow. There are millions to
    be made in the film markets, Ilford does really well in this regard and Kodak sells a lot of film, just not the billions that they
    used to or their shareholders used to enjoy the profits from.

    I am not sure why you don't understand this, just because film is not the choice of the masses does not mean there is
    zero demand for it. Also, I feel the same way when I paint as I do when I make a print in the darkroom, that I am making real art, not computer art.
     
  33. Panayayotis, film is Alternative Process, like oil painting....Adobe Illustrator did not make oil painting a thing of the past, people use it with a passion.​
    The only problem with that analogy is that I can make oil paints, right down to squeezing nuts for oil and grinding pigments, on a whim. I can make brushes, and I might have to trade something with someone with a loom for a piece of canvas. Yes, it's a whim that might kill a weekend...
    Film isn't a whim. I can make a coater that would take up a good portion of the basement, and brew up some B&W emulsions, but I'd have to buy chemicals from someone with a technology infrastructure. Ditto the film base itself. There's a certain commitment and critical mass to film. The more advanced the film, the higher the critical mass. Projections are that the EFKEs of the world, little factories keeping a couple of coaters running, churning out a 60 year old emulsion formula, can keep going forever. But I worked the math last year, and we appear to be below critical mass for all color film, everywhere, already. That industry is in a shutdown phase.
     
  34. Ilford does really well in this regard​
    And being black and white only, Ilford does not have a movie business to back it up. They do have other products to maximise the use of their coating facility but they are for the most part in business providing for us.
     
  35. Color is definatley an endangered variety, I think it is riding on the coat tails of the motion picture film industry which is now in a major transition. This is why I have made smaller and more cautious investments in color stock, especially since I scan it for print anyway. But black and white is where I have poured tens of thousands into, it stands the best chance of remaining viable. I will use and promote color as long as it looks viable, but black and white is my future, I'll be doing that as long as I live...
    But in the mean time, I am using my resources, my connections to Kodak and my drive to keep finding new ways to promote film use...You just don't know what can happen if you do not try.
     
  36. "(film photography) ...real art, not computer art."
    This is like the centuries-old distinction between hard sciences and soft sciences. Some claim that the social sciences are not sciences at all.
    These distinctions are arrogant and meaningless. Are you interested in making great images, or just interested in making great images with a specfic technology.
     
  37. I work probably 5 months a year in terms of a 40 hour week in photography and pull in nice healthy 6 figures Brian. I can and do make fine images using digital, but for my fine art work, I use a darkroom because one of the reasons is that the value that has added to my work is appreciated by my customers...I almost always get the "Wow, you did not use digital on this?"

    Can we now move on and throw great, innovative and passion driven ideas into this discussion? That is all I care about, really.
     
  38. it is often what comes around goes around.
    Inb the 1950's autos were basic, even primitive.
    ( i don't think so. my 1950 cars were JUST RIGHT)
    but the cameras and film were plastic pieces of crap
    ( sorry Gene M) ( I like some of these cameras)
    I was totally embarrased and turned away when I saw a grown man with a dinky little instamatic trying to get a good shot.
    or the man taking a photo of a movie with flash.
    Photography for the MASSES was reduced to a very low level.
    poor equipment and so-so results.
    It was done to make money for Kodak.
    and they made a LOT of money.
    the digital " revolution" is more of the same.
    Keychain cameras or a cell phone camera
    ( some do surprisingly well)
    and this is the new "photography for the masses"
    People who could care less if a lens is glass or plastic or if the cameras has a 3 or 4 or 5 elemsnt lens.
    " hey that's aunt Sue and uncle Harry "
    does it work ? yeah-sort of., just like the cheap digital cameras.
    it is clear that digital photography is a LOT cheaper.
    and they do have an impact on consumers.
    Real film cameras used to cost REAL money.
    but now for $25.00 to $50.00 you cam buy a REAL slr.
    that provides outstanding results even with 1950'
    s film
    much better ith the improved films available
    today. sadly slide film and paper and services for these images had either declined or
    completely vanished. ( can you still get slide dupes or slides from negatives ?)
    I know wet printing of slides is long gone.
    But the marketplace and profits. not hundreds or thousands but MILLIONS
    of dollars is at play. is it possible Plus x or Agfa apx100
    or WQW Panatomic x still make money? Yes not not the kind or money
    that enables those with gold, jeweled cufflinks to manufacture these products.
    " hey profits are down 10% lets concentrate on more profitanble
    products "
    this is the same flawed reasoning that cause Kodak to lump inkjet printers with Film
    so that the profits from film would help the ailing inkjet business.
    as long as Idiots run businesses we will have idiotic results.
    I am not saying it is like the old guy who keeps making shirts or shoes or lawnmowed when import undersell him
    and eventually his 80 year old company becomes the towns new parking lot.
    Not common sense is required. Something which seems to be lacking in this world.
     
  39. Walter, what is really lacking in this thread are fresh ideas, fresh perspectives, breaking out of old, tired, worn out to death regurgitating of the same old woe is me film rhetoric. Let me give you an example:
    In another forum, I wrote:
    I am starting to believe that it is the bitter film user that is causing the public misconception the most, not the digital zealots...​
    A bright 18 year old college student in New Zealand replied with the following nugget of insight, gave me permission to quote him:
    This.
    Whether older film shooters realize this or not, young blood is needed to fill in the shoes of those who stop shooting, either because they no longer possess the consciousness and animation to photograph or because photography no longer interests them.
    When I was first getting started in film, the passing comments from fellow digital users that film is dead didn't really bother me, because it obviously wasn't and isn't. What bothered me were the film users who lamented the fact that film wasn't the top dog and go-to medium of choice for 35mm photography (digital MF is still out of reach to most people). Yes, film isn't the prevailing choice for consumers, but plenty of professionals still use film for their personal projects. Most of my lecturers at university use digital only when time constraints prohibit them or as a stand-in for polaroid exposure test shots, and that method of practice influences the student body. I've managed to get a few people shooting film myself. I understand it must suck to see lab after lab shutting down, film after film being taken out of production, but so long as a market exists then there will be products.
    The people who put me off film for so long were the old school users who were constantly spouting doom and gloom and never mentioned one positive aspect about film. The people who gave me that final nudge to give it a go were people who were actually shooting.
    This thread almost made me consider flipping the M6 for a profit, squeezing every penny and getting a digital Leica while neglecting other photographic needs in preparation for the imminent death of film that's right around the corner of next week (or so it seems from reading this thread). Then I scanned some Portra, and it was good, albeit a little dusty.
    Anyway, wouldn't this restructuring be a good thing? Wouldn't the bigwigs see that the chemical printing and film branches were the really successful branches in no uncertain terms? Also, why would someone buy the film and chem. division just to shut it down? Seems like a waste of money to me.​
    A big freaking amen to this man, we need innovation in the way we promote film, period, and that starts with forgoing the ego feeding brow beating of the same old crap, end of story.
    Give me ideas people, not tired speculation, please!
     
  40. "Can we now move on and throw great, innovative and passion driven ideas into this discussion? That is all I care about, really."
    I feel like a schoolboy who has just been reprimanded. I don't need a dismissive reply like that. Sorry you don't want or appreciate my input. You sound like a very succesful photographer -- continued good luck to you.
     
  41. Brian, now you know I feel. I am just trying to get people who are smart enough to think out of the box to get passed repeating the same old thing, come up with ideas. All I am mostly getting is constantly re-educated by people who seem to just want to tell me how it is and how it is going to be and that film is no longer the choice of the masses..
    Sorry if my loaded sarcasm offended, thanks for your input...
     
  42. Daniel, I am under the impression that you don't understand what I am saying or you don't want to understand. Reason due that you keep isolating phrases from my whole written text and keep referring to them ignoring the substance.
    If you think that all these people who contributed their time and experience in answering your original question were tired speculators then nothing more need be said. Good day!
     
  43. I just re-read your first post, you say a lot about how the world has moved on to fast, film is old, some will use film like vinyl, etc.

    You are right, I don't understand what you are trying to say. Since you know film is a viable niche and Kodak makes some
    of the best around and it is still very popular among those who still use it, who were never mainstream users or the
    masses as you call them, what do you mean then, to say that marketing of film, and not necessarily paying top dollar for
    ads, is not worth it?

    Did you read my post about the 18 year old man in New Zealand....because you are fitting that description *perfectly* sir...
     
  44. Here is the bottom line folks, people see me working with ( getting paid to use ) my Leica, my Xpan, my Hasselblad or my
    4x5 and aside from mostly positive things say one of several other things, in order of what I hear most:

    1. Can you even get film for that anymore?

    2. I thought film was gone, where can you get it?

    3. Why are you not using digital?

    4. Ah, old school huh, have you even tried digital, it's better.

    This is what the BS on the Internet has done, this is why I am looking to innovate how people find out about how film is
    being used now, by pros, amatuers, young and old alike.

    If you have a great idea that you are willing to share, I would love to hear it. If you just want to remind me that it is 2012
    and the world for everything that is not digital is coming to an end, with all due respect, you are a BIG part of the problem I am trying to fight, so expect
    that kind of response.
     
  45. Film needs to concentration on what it does best. Here are four areas where film has advantages over digital:
    1. fine art prints--I don't think you can duplicate "Moonrise over Hernandez, NM" with digital.
    2. larger formats--6x9 cm and larger
    3. Single-shot "gigapan" style images--You've probably seen these wide angle shots of Yankee Stadium where you can zoom in and recognize every person. These are combinations of hundreds of digital shots with a telephoto lens. You can find people with 4 arms because they were on the border of successive shots and moved. How about a single picture of a very large crowd all reacting to the same event? An 8x20 in camera should cover it.
    4. One-time-use underwater cameras--There is no easier entry to underwater photography than these waterproof film cameras.
    This is just the start of a list.
     
  46. I hear the same things as I shoot with Nikon, Rollei, Hasselblad, as well as Graflex and another 4x5 camera. The questions are generally inquisitive and relatively innocent. Answer them honestly and let the negativeity roll of of your back like a duck. That's what I do. It works... it really works: they learn something, some might even be convinced enough to give film some credibility in their mind, and I retain peace-of-mind. Try it!
    Re: your parting shot - no, we are not a BIG part of any problem. The problem includes EPA, sucky economy, and poor management of a few companies. YOU are looking for scapegoats. Maybe you should look more earnestly in the right places for fault, or change your name to Don Quixote. Your quest is noble, but offending people is not going to gain you much support.
     
  47. Daniel: It would be great if you could read your comments from a sort of external, comparitively dis-interested third party perspective. You're asking people to passionately come up with new ideas about how to communicate to non-film-users the fact that they should be using film ... and you're lamenting that most of what you hear is the same old reality check stuff from all of us digital peasant-class shooters ... but you're not saying anything new yourself.

    That's the part that has me scratching my head. You seem to be suggesting that you've got this fresh and powerful understanding of what's great and necessary, and it's just about communicating that to the unsophisticates. But ... what are the new facts, the new considerations, the bits of creative-people-will-love-them concepts that you're assuming don't need to be said to this audience, because surely we already know what they are? I feel like I'm really missing part of your message, and that you're sure you don't need to say that part because it goes without saying. And that's the problem: you're asking people to come up with a new way to present information that you're assuming we all have. But we don't have it!

    The only tangible thing you've shared along those lines is that you've got customers who find your end results to be more valuable because of the process you use while making them. The new facts on the ground, for me, would be a real sense of just how many of those customers (as a ratio, or hard numbers) you think there are. How many people do you think will pay more for end results that they find more valuable because of a decision to use a particular tool? This is not a rhetorical jab, I'm serious.

    My wife makes jewelry. She makes chain by hand, link by link. Her customers like seeing photos of the process, and some of them then look more closely at the results, and see the by-definition unique hammered texture of each scrap of the piece, and some minority of that minority then connect with it and with the selling artist, and without as much reservation to the higher price and the longer waiting time for her work. But most people simply step back and say they like, or don't like, the piece. The process is completely irrelevent to the meaningful fraction of the demographic.

    And it's the meaningful numbers that drive the process and tool decisions for her. If it's not about "work," and instead about recreation and historical reenactment, then that's another matter. Using older, slower, less productive methods because some part of her audience likes the theatrical aspects of seeing it done and have romantic ideas about it ... that's performance art, rather than the creation of results that are art. Which is not a bad thing, but it's not the same as - I think - what you seem to be asking other people to come up with a new marketing language to describe.
     
  48. Ron, I hear ya man, I don't agree with all that you have written, but I do understand where you are coming from. And while it is good to spotlight some of these things, I am looking for a more broad approach. For example, you go on a site like this one or Flickr and you see an image that looks like it could have possibly been made with film, so you check the tags, info and find out it is and say, wow, that's a great shot made on film. What kind, Kodak, Ilford, Foma, Fuji, etc. Bingo, instant word of mouth marketing for film, the proof is in the image.

    Same thing with seeing work in a gallery, people see my image of a storm brewing behind the Black Canyon of the Gunnison shot in 120 Infrared, love it and want to know how I arrived at that stark look. They read the gallery's bio on me and say, WOW, he shot that on film and made the print in a darkroom, cool! Word of Mouth, proof is in the image marketing strikes yet again...

    That is generally what is going on in terms of getting people to shoot film the most as it stands, as with any medium, they are inspired by what they see, want to give it a shot, buy film, etc.
    Photo.net, Flickr, Facebook pages for Kodak films, these are current trends in viral marketing, this is not unique to photography, but it is current, not future, not the latest innovation in terms of thinking what *else* can we do.
    Examples of what I am trying to do here in Aspen, CO. Bring back traditional darkroom based workshops because I have people asking for it and I only have so much room in my 880 square foot apartment for dinner parties that include a darkroom sesh. Let kids at the Woody Creek Community Center enjoy using film cameras and the experimental nature of it all. Possibly partnering with the most successful restauranteurs in my area in opening up a low risk, low overhead, easy to move coffee shop called "Caffenol" that you can come in, get a cup of Joe, peruse a classic photo centric coffee table book in cool decor with a darkroom motif and then get up and rent a Leica, a Blad, buy some black and white film, get it developed or do it your self, take a lesson for an hour a day, learn to print, etc.
    We live in an age where innovators thrive on innovators, it has less to do with technical ones and more to do with how creative human beings are at flexing their minds in an age where we are utterly connected. I strongly believe that there is new ground to be broken in terms of both creative use of the film based medium and creative promotion and sharing of it...in fact I am positive it is out there...

    But if there is one thing this thread has taught me, it is that we have to overcome the notion that film or digital is a medium that has to better one or the other and be a mass market item. This is what I mean by tired thinking, the bad parts of the internet overshadowing the creative potential in moving the entirety of the craft of photography forward in unison because of passionate image makers who have yet to have even been born who will relish in having a choice in what they use to express them selves...
    We can solve this problem of tired thinking, we just have to open our minds and stop thinking like a Yahoo news page...
     
  49. No Matt, I am not trying to tell people why they should use film, I am trying to tell them that they CAN....that is the problem Matt, they think they can't because of tired thinking / regurgitating web born rhetoric...
    Brian, I am truly sorry sir, I don't mean to offend you, but that 18 year old young man hit the nail on the head, he is impressionable, he responds to both the folks who told him film is no longer top dog and to his elders who use film and show him emotional, not technical results. Please re-read it, that is what I mean by big problem...he represents who might want to try film, but might not if they hear the wrong messages...and they are wrong...

    And Panayotis...do any of you understand what he was try to teach me..?...I honestly don't.
     
  50. Daniel Bayer, for most people film, throughout it's history, has been overkill. People have facebook now and can order photo albums off the web. I don't really see a role for film for the average consumer. I think it is great for certain kinds of pros. Unfortunately for things like photojournalism editors want a lot of images fast. Shooting film for a newspaper would get expensive real fast. Who do you envision using film and why? I use it because I'm into photography and I hate some of the limitations of digital. Posterization drives me nuts. I like to shoot something that will have a continuous gradation of tone.
    I can't think of anything I operate in my life that requires as many steps as film. It's not that many steps but relative to the automatic and digital world its a lot. You are asking people to show more commitment than they've shown to anything else in their daily lives.
     
  51. Jeff really just hit the nail on the head and - in my mind - summed up the entire argument. Allow me to bring back the oil painting analogy, but put it in a little better context.
    The vast majority of art materials are sold for scholastic, hobbyist, or childrens' use. You can buy a 8 oz or so tube of perfectly acceptable acrylic paint for well under ten bucks. You could probably get it for five, if it is black or white. Meanwhile, a high grade of oil paint might run you twenty dollars for a 4 oz tube - more than four times the price. What is the difference? Generally, the high-end oil paints are almost entirely pigment, with just enough binders or fillers to flow smoothly. Some have so much pigment that you need to add more oil to them to use them normally. A higher amount of pigment means that they can be thinned much more, which allows for much better blending and layering than you could ever acheive with acrylic paints.
    By proportion, almost nobody that buys art supplies has the talent, or even the knowledge, to take advantage of this benefit to its fullest. As a result, there are very few brick-and-mortar art stores that even carry these paints. Even if you live in a town with an art college, there's a good chance that the local store doesn't carry them.
    And yet, they are still in production. They are still sold to service a much smaller market (the market for oil paints shrank drastically with the advent of modern plastics in the 1900s), but it is a market that will pay for them, even if they need to go online or mail order them.
    Film is such a medium. As Jeff said, very few consumers will see, appreciate, or care about the often subtle differences between film stock and a digital sensor. As a result, far fewer people buy film. This isn't a matter of choosing to let something die - it is a matter of the average consumer no longer needing the product.
    Mark my words: film will be available for the forseable future. Consumer grade films will probably all be scrapped, since average consumers no longer shoot film. Black and white films in 120 and 4x5 have seen a bit of a resurgance, as old gear suddenly becomes affordable. Colour films (and processing) will eventually go the way of the high-end oil paints: it will be available, but only if you order it and send it away for processing. Kodak has canned their black and white paper manufacturing, and the end result was someone else buying the patents and making it themselves. The same will happen with Portra, et al. It's in the (very drawn-out) process of happening with Polaroid film.
    I think that the reason that you are upset, Daniel, is that you don't seem to understand where you and the rest of us fit in all of this. We are not average consumers - we are not buying cheap acrylic paints. We are not fighting evolution, or trying to save a medium; we see ourselves as artists, and we simply want the best materials for the work we are trying to create.
    We are encountering no more problems than painters looking for quality paints (or brushes! Do you know how hard it is to find really good brushes outside of a big city?!), or any other artists that has to look around to find materials. To say that this is some sort of terrible thing is, to be honest, a little demeaning and offensive to other artists that have been struggling with this same problem for longer than most of us have been alive.
     
  52. Zach, now that you have taken it upon your self to "Educate" me in areas I already know about, what makes you think I am upset? I am energized to find new ways of reaching potential users of film. I am looking for ideas, not an education, why is this falling on deaf ears here?

    After 50 posts, it has become crystal clear this is not the place for this kind of input. I did get some great ideas today from people I know in the local art, education and pro gallery communities who are internationally connected and happen to agree with me, as does Kodak and Simon Galley from Ilford....
    I think that is the answer to where the innovations and ideas truly lie, outside of the place that seems to harbor part of the problems, the internet.

    Oh well, at least I gave it a shot, back to doing the good work, inside the darkroom and out...
     
  53. david_henderson

    david_henderson www.photography001.com

    I'm a photographer, and my job, and my passion, is to make images. I think about that much more than I fret about media. I'm not any longer sure that I would feel too bad about film disappearing.
    I was dragged into digital more than a little reluctantly, because the stock agencies that carry my work first stopped paying for my slides to be scanned and then decided that their editors wouldn't even look at film submissions any more and so I'd have to scan/have scanned everything I want my agencies to even look at. Of course when I get into it I find a few other things. First that my bill for film and processing has gone from at least £5 000 a year to zero. Second I can see what I'm going to get much better than I could with film, and if I don't like what I've got the first time well I get to go again. I think I'm making better photographs at a lower cost.
    So apart from a general nostalgia I can't feel either a lot of guilt or much enthusiasm for "saving film", and film photography is beginning to get the feel of the vintage car club - limited appeal though strong amongst that minority that feel it. Every purchasing decision I make - whether to buy a book via Amazon or in a bookstore; whether to get groceries at Waitrose or Sainsbury, or indeed to buy my next Canon body remotely or in a local camera store (if I can find one)- potentially and in the aggregate hands some people a job and puts others at risk. Some of the people I'm helping to put at risk every day are good people and nice people, taking a pride in what they do, but I just don't have the emotional capacity to view all or most or even a decent minority of my decisions that way. Whether its lack of time, the need to make sensible economic decisions for myself, or sheer emotional bankruptcy doesn't actually matter, its how things are, so sorry Daniel, I can't see the existence of film mattering enough for me to wrack by brains wondering what I can do to save it- because there's a workable alternative.
     
  54. Daniel, if you're going to get snappy every time someone tells you something that you already know, I recommend beginning all of your new threads with a list of all the things you know about. This is clearly the only way to prevent this from happening.
    Not the part about repeating information ... the part about other people trying to have a real discussion, while you shoot them down because we haven't guessed your answer yet.
    This is a conversation, Daniel. You're trying to run it like a game of twenty questions, where every answer that isn't the one you had in mind is wrong. That is not a way that a conversation works.
     
  55. For example, you go on a site like this one or Flickr and you see an image that looks like it could have possibly been made with film, so you check the tags, info and find out it is and say, wow, that's a great shot made on film. What kind, Kodak, Ilford, Foma, Fuji, etc. Bingo, instant word of mouth marketing for film, the proof is in the image.

    Same thing with seeing work in a gallery, people see my image of a storm brewing behind the Black Canyon of the Gunnison shot in 120 Infrared, love it and want to know how I arrived at that stark look. They read the gallery's bio on me and say, WOW, he shot that on film and made the print in a darkroom, cool! Word of Mouth, proof is in the image marketing strikes yet again...​
    Daniel,
    Can you please post another example of your 120 Infrared photography. I too am attracted to the stark look that you offered in an earlier post.
    Of course, the best is to see the actual prints, so our other choice is to drive down to Aspen to visit friends, and we'll go tour the galleries.
    Thank you, Chris
     
  56. This discussion is going nowhere, and has been from the onset. When all is said and done, just what is here that is different from any other of the huge number of previous discussions?
    One thing the OP is certainly right about, is the need for "great, innovative and passion driven ideas into this discussion", but alas those were not here, not even at the beginning, except, perhaps, for a brief spark or two of passion.
     
  57. I am going to go about my business guys, I am getting some good ideas in play today, a few from LFF, not much elsewhere, what are you going to do, right? I was pretty clear and what I wanted, there is no question that there is a need to curb the public's perception that film does not exist, why would anyone argue with that...?...it baffles me really...
    Christopher, I could not find a jpeg of the photograph I am talking about, so I took a photo of a test print on my desk just now, it is of an edition of 45 10 x 10's I did on Ilford Warmtone Fiber, shot with a Hasselblad 501 C/M on Rollei IR400, enjoy!

    http://www.photo.net/photo/16116554

    I'm outta here for a bit guys....you might want to consider this site could use some new faces and with the usual suspects doing what a lot of you did to this opportunity, you are really killing this site.
     
  58. Dan, I hope I'm not taking this too far out of context, but regarding a couple of comments you made...
    "I am energized to find new ways of reaching potential users of film. I am looking for ideas, not an education, why is this falling on deaf ears here?"​
    and
    "...this site could use some new faces and with the usual suspects doing what a lot of you did to this opportunity, you are really killing this site."​
    It takes a sustained effort to influence and motivate people toward action. And it takes a lot of patience and ability to persevere optimistically in the face of indifference, skepticism and opposition. It's not easy to inspire people. It's easy to give up and dismiss them when folks don't seem to agree or get the message right away.
    You mentioned earlier that you no longer maintain a professional website. Perhaps this is a good time to reconsider. You can use your own blog or website to promote the things you love. And it isn't always necessary or even a good thing to offer a comments or feedback section. If you find it easier to maintain a sense of optimism when you're not bogged down by responding to skeptical comments, then don't bother with a comments section.
    For what it's worth, my theory is that's why Ken Rockwell doesn't have a comments section on his site and hasn't wasted time or energy on sites like photo.net for many years. What he does works for him. Controversial or not, he's effective at what he does and he gets people talking not only about him, but also about his ideas and opinions, without even diluting his energy on discussion forum debates.
     
  59. Well I shoot 35mm film but other then buying a few rolls of film when I need to I do nothing to promote film or photography. I just enjoy taking photos. Film and camera's are easy to come across but lab services continue to dry up every year. I am down to the wire right now with almost no options. Most likely I will have to quit taking photos this year or next. Digital photography works well and everything but it's boring to me. I do not see digital photography as a future hobby. Maybe something I have to do to get family photos but then maybe the kids can take that part over.
    I am not sure what vinyl records have with film but it always gets tossed in with these types of threads. However I know a few vinyl people and they all say that the vinyl market is growing. I also still own and play my records but I do not make a big deal about it. I own the stuff and enjoy music so I play them. Maybe about 300 albums. Once in a while I browse the vinyl store in Santa Cruz and buy something. I quit buying CD's probably 15 years ago. To expensive and the plastic cases always break. I do not like them. I tried the ipod but the kids take my headphones and so I finally gave up on the ipod. It's a pain to fiddle around with the menu's while driving anyway. It seems unsafe to me.
    I hope film stays with us. If nothing else I hope large format B/W stays with us. As Daniel is doing the Silver Gelatin large format prints can be awesome to view. It's the only type of photography that i will buy a ticket to view.
     
  60. Ok from an old geezer who is SORT OF USED to bing put down
    yes I have a couple of digital ( 4mp) cameras but more and higher quality 35mm cameras
    the annoucement from walmart floored me. stupid stupid stupid ( remeber the novel?)
    The masses ingnore negatives and many have NO IDEA what they are.
    The masses are willing to settle for poor results as long as the colors are bright.
    I wanted to start a project at outr church. Kids go places but I would not let them take a $399.00 camera or even a $50,00 camera
    Vut how about a 18mp camera that takes twoo AA cell costs under $5 and
    uses FILm ? ( this was when the 1 hour lab was operating) I bought a box of mixed P&S 25mm cameras and was willing to pass them out.
    the pastor told mre "film is obsolete" and " why bother"
    WHY? does he have several hunbdreds of dollars to buy many digicams ?
    NO they just bought the rest oir the rug. I suggested a POractical solution but NO that was no good enough.
    he would rather miss all the photo opportunities and wait forever.
    It is like the person who delays buy ing a $600.00 ay a used Vivitar
    and at least have that foal length in his bag.
    people vary so much. one lady refuses toke a Nikon P&S ( free)
    preferring one use cameras.
    I think for most of the USA digital will be the thing.
    and these photo files will vanish at the next computer crash.
    Film if you care about quality will still be there for a long time.
    Unless like my Brother-in-law you store the film in a shed and let the mice eat it.
    or the shed burns down ( it happened)
    We still have civil war images.. how long will modern images last
    people do not thing about this/.
     
  61. C-11​
    My mind scrolled backward, many decades to try and recall which process this was<g>.
    So why is painted art still relevant? Surely, much art is created with PhotoShop, Illustrator, and any number of other digital software. Yet oil and acrylic painting thrive. It was not the end for that art form. If you want an illustrated magazine cover, you're not going to use a Norman Rockwell to create it (besides the fact he has moved on). And the art market is both crowded, and making a lot of money.
    Why should photography be any different? In part, it might be us (as you suggest Daniel). Kodak can sound the trumpets for its film products, but isn't it really up to us, as photographers and artists of the medium, to educate the market about why our work is both different and more desirable?
     
  62. Thanks all for some interesting comments (unlike some folk, I do read all comments before posting!). Here are some random thoughts which may or may not be of interest to Daniel or others:
    - Kodak's movie stocks are way better than their stills emulsions. They should take 5219 (500T), skip the Remjet coating and sell it as the new Portra 800 (which has less latitude I think than Portra 400). Also, take 5203 (50D) and call it Portra 50.
    - Has anyone here heard of this scanner which is coming soon: http://plustek.com/usa/products/opticfilm-series/opticfilm-120/introduction.html
    - Lomography seems to be doing okay. Hell, they can sell over-priced plastic toys which are more costly and less capable than old '50s folding cameras.
    - For TV and cinema, film can actually be cheaper than digital (partly due to existing, specialised infrastructure). But for stills, I know from experience than film is more expensive. I don't care, but it's a fact.
    - The key word is 'infrastructure'. Many labs around me will not do E-6 or 120. Can you believe this nonsense? What is a lab for?? Gah!! But the one that did 120 (very reasonable for processing, not so much for scanning) gave me poor scans, which I think was a mistake and not their usual practice. And they charge more for TIFFs. ::sigh::
    - We can appeal to the magical past as long as we are committed to a magical future. I love Gene Smith's photos (he is greater in my heart than HCB), and as a bonus I love that they were made on film. But let's not get stuck in the past, let's be inspired by it and at the same time look forward to the next photograph, and the next, and the next, and the next.
    - The best ads that David Ogilvy ever wrote were not wanky 'creative' ads but informative, how-to ads. It worked for soap powder and it worked for Shell petroleum products.
    - For me, digital images are mere files, mere signals. Film images - camera originals at least - are a direct witness to the events that they captured. No other medium is like this, not even analogue audio tape (as far as my understanding of physics is limited).
    - I have a trailer of one of the early Indiana Jones films. It's made from film coming into contact with film coming into contact with film (with fluid in between). It is wonderful to have that kind of thing in your hand.
    - Simon Singh gets students interested in maths with his Enigma machine. It would be cool if Steven Spielberg took an Arriflex or Panavision camera, and a bunch of his old work-prints, around to primary schools to show students how he works. I would kill to see that stuff. Yes, I would. Okay, no, I wouldn't, but you know what I mean. Please don't call the FBI.
    - One of the biggest - if not the biggest - movies this year is the last of Nolan's Batman projects. It's shot entirely on film, with an hour shot in IMAX. Apart from the visual effects, it's all 35mm and 65mm film. All of Nolan's movies AFAIK were originated on film. I love guys like that.
    - I'm working on a concept for what will be the most compact Super-16mm movie camera every made, even more compact than the Aaton A-Minima. By the time I finish the design, will anyone care? I hope!
    - Film origination and digital finishing complement each other (as far as colour goes). Film can co-opt digital and eventually be seen as the more important part of the hybrid process (which it is, but doesn't always look that way).
    I am perhaps too idealistic. I also love digital, but not more than film. I might be right, I might be wrong, but all I can do is give my views. :)
     
  63. I am not trying to tell people why they should use film, I am trying to tell them that they CAN​
    Now that the request is narrowed down, the answer is that this is accomplished through communication. advertising, word of mouth, signs at galleries, websites, internet postings ect. using examples and getting the word out. There is no magical "innovative" techniques to demand of anyone here. We're not going to be able to come up with brainwave projection patterns to use on the masses. If you are looking for clever marketing content, just say so. Otherwise we have no idea of what you are talking about.
     
  64. "I'm outta here for a bit guys....you might want to consider this site could use some new faces and with the usual suspects doing what a lot of you did to this opportunity, you are really killing this site."
    All I can say is... you're a true leader. :)
     
  65. I've got to be honest that I skipped most of this thread.
    I am one of those younger photographers who began shooting digital (save from a few shots when my dad would let me use his yashica) and eventually turned to shooting film too.
    I think the number one barrier to my getting into film in the first place was a misguided perception about the level of knowledge I would need and the relative difficulty of getting great results with film and wet processing.
    I think that many, like me, fear letting go of the training wheels of digital exposure. I think that many, like me, love it once we do.
    That being said, film shooters could do a few things to support their cause which may be a little irksome to the quality die hards.
    For one, we need to be able to explain that processing film and scanning or printing really isn't that difficult (gasp) even if we all know that doing so well and doing so according to an artistic vision may be.
    We need to not fly off the handle when recommending equipment, or things we think that a new photographer needs. A tank, somewhere completely dark (bathroom with towels stuffed around the door or a changing bag) a reel, developer and fixer are all you really need to get started in processing your negatives. The rest can be acquired as you go, or even used as modified equipment from other sources (i.e. using a glass measuring cup for measuring chemicals vs. a graduated cylinder).
    I spent hours trying tog figure out just what I needed to get started because it's too easy to begin to think that you need these premium negative clips and stainless steel or plastic tanks.
    Simplify what someone from the outside perceives as a complex process and you remove much of the fear or uncertainty from the equation.
    Another point is that most of your new shooters will have a similar workflow to mine, meaning that you will more likely see a digital/film hybrid, rather than a purely film workflow. We need to be more understanding and willing to point out how the two can complement each other. For instance, while I still have an F100 and FM2N I have a hard time justifying shooting them, because they are either bulkier than my X100 or the results are equal or worse than what I get with my D700. Yes, this comes down to many variables on my end, but I'll be frank, once I finish the last of my 35mm film these cameras are going out for sale. For me 35mm just doesn't have a place in my workflow.
    However, my Rollei, Pentax 67, Bronica ETRS and my Speed Graphic all see regular use and I put hundreds of rolls (not as many sheets) a year. And it's not all about quality. It's about style, and it's about the feel of the camera and the look of the scanned image as well as the wet darkroom print.
    We need to encourage this type of exploration.
    I particularly think that we need to encourage newer shooters to look at medium format and large format for a couple of reasons. First, because it is often such a different way of shooting (WLF anyone), and because it's much easier to get a sharp scan from even a crummy scanner than it is from 35mm. As much as a new shooter may love the distinctive look of film, many will be much more likely to stick with it if they see that they can get that look plus a sharp image. Secondly, I know that many new shooters would love to shoot a Rolleicord or Yashica 124 if they got the chance, just because they are so different and I think once they try it they are very likely to stick with it.
    I'm sure there is far more that film shooters could be doing, but aside from keeping on shooting film, these are just a few thoughts that come to mind.
    Also, for those of you who are interested, take a look around flickr if you need some encouragement. You'll find that the ranks of new film shooters are surprisingly thick.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryanmlong/
     
  66. The look of the image produced by film is a matter of good taste. Some have it, some don't. Film images look better to me, not because of notions pertaining to tradition, but the actual look of the image. The advantages are tremendous. I'm not a big fan of a wider, and wider tonal range, it doesn't look like the natural scene. Don't have to worry about moire, noise, there's a certain patina with film images that is attractive. I've been told I'm supposed to like the digital capture because its the latest. I've seen prints from digital capture, and their not better, their different. So don't piss down my back and tell me its raining.
     
  67. Pentax 67, Kodak 125PX. The Noritsu web scan has left its digital signature; I also have an Imacon scan of the image. But forthcoming, I intend to have a professional lab create a medium size silver print. I have been asked, "Why bother with a wet enlargement?" Because, it's just what I want to do -- I want to frame and hang traditional silver prints.
    00acmC-482869584.jpg
     
  68. Zach, now that you have taken it upon your self to "Educate" me in areas I already know about, what makes you think I am upset? I am energized to find new ways of reaching potential users of film. I am looking for ideas, not an education, why is this falling on deaf ears here?​
    Daniel I didn't read the entire thread... too busy processing film, but Zach's post that immediately preceded your post was a very reasonable logical balanced piece of work. I LOVE film. I wish it was more widely available and CHEAPER. But you must recognize the fact the benefits and resolution of film for much of its history have been overkill for consumers. The brownie was a MEDIUM FORMAT camera for Christ's sake. It was considered a cheap consumer item! WTF! We are NOT going back to the day consumers casually shot medium format black and white film. I wish we would but it ain't gonna happen.
    Film and camera's are easy to come across but lab services continue to dry up every year.​
    ross b, try Sam's Club. They develop in house at your local Sam's club so take in a few "test" rolls first to see if they know what they are doing at your location. It's a $1.50 for one roll. They do NOT do medium format. That's what I used to use Wally World for. And I assume Wally World still sends back transparencies... since they are not negatives.
    I was pretty clear and what I wanted, there is no question that there is a need to curb the public's perception that film does not exist, why would anyone argue with that...?​
    Why, Daniel? The general public has very little need for film. Your motivation on a certain level is selfish, "I want other people who have no need for film to buy it so film and film services are cheaper and more available for me." What we need to do is to get the word out to the FEW people that actually have a need for film that it is available and well worth using. Blasting the general public is pointless. What I would be more interested in doing is informing the public about photographers that use good equipment. After digital had been out for several years I saw portrait studios that were using 8 megapixel SLRs and blowing portraits up to ridiculous sizes. Those things looked awful when compared to the FILM portraits my parents had made in the 80s. The resolution of digital cameras has improved a lot so I guess this isn't as much of a problem as it used to be. Still it would be nice if the public recognized the difference between a professional picture taken with medium format Efke 25... vs some BS taken with an iphone.
     
  69. Daniel, To your question, I think what we are missing, is the universal belief that film yields a better print. I've noticed that film enthusiasts get weak in the knees every time a new digital camera comes out. Its like they feel as if they're missing out on something, until you hear the reality, and the regret that these DSLRs buyers are faced with. All that money, yet the pictures produced by medium format film camera's continue to set the standard. Photographers have always tried to buy themselves into better Photography, that hasn't changed. I'm just saying the evidence is right in front of us, the difference is obvious. I don't judge IQ from computer screens. Its the print, and the print is the future, and so are books.
     
  70. I didn't read all the posts made here but I tried to glance through most of them. Here is my take on promoting film usage. Sponsor (pay) the big names in photography that are now working with digital that used to work in film. I remember when digital was making it's inroads, top name photographers were sponsored by Canon and Nikon to promote their digital cameras and why they were so much better than film. We were all too willing to jump on board thinking we would be the next Bambi Cantrell or Moose Peterson or.... you fill in the name( forgive me if I misspelled any names) If Kodak or any other film company could influence (pay them enough money) to say how much better their images are now that they have returned to (whatever rebranding the company would like to call the "new" film). Even if it is the same as the film always was we the public like "new and improved" things and it also gives us a reason to believe it is better. Heck look what the digital marketing has done. Cameras that came out 5 years ago that were the best of the best are now obsolete? Why, well because the marketing people said they are. Can I really see a difference in a print from a camera 5 years and one I bought today? Probably not but there must be because all those websites with the test charts show how much difference there is! So if film can get enough professional websites to show how much better it is than digital they will be right back in business. They just have to hire the right people to tell us that because if these photographers say it, then it must be, even if I can't see it. As George Castanza said on Seinfeld "it's only a lie if you don't believe it" So is the new film that's actually the same as the old film better.....absolutely!! Oh, and please try to pay attention only to the content...not punctuation and typos ;>)
     
  71. What a difference a break and a good night's sleep make. There are some good posts here, and what I mean by that are posts that at least resonate with the overall goal I had in mind with this thread. For example, David Henderson has told us why he no longer uses film and does not see the reason to hang on to it, promote it…why did he post then? After searching through all of his posts, it would seem the only time that Panayotis has posted in the Film and Processing forum was to tell me I am wasting my time and money if I try to promote film, the rest of the time, he has posted in the Nikon and Digital sections…
    Posts like the ones by Karim Ghantous and Ryan Long are what I had in mind, many of the others are not. I did not have a discussion in mind when I posted this, I had a think tank format, share ideas that are positive, that's it, a how to promote film ideas festival. So I would appreciate a modicum of restraint if you have nothing to add but why this is stupid, why you no longer use film, why you use digital, there are plenty of other lovely forums for that, this is not the one..
    Some are saying that I am dreaming if I think there is some magic bullet to be loaded in the film marketing gun…they said that to Steve Jobs too in a manner of speaking, I know that possibly to a greater degree than most because I am good friends of the author of his biography. So there may not be a magic bullet, and the advances in marketing in other areas from grassroots level to corporate level have hit an all time high in terms of innovation and will stagnate from here on out…..yeah….right….
    But…Just in case there *is* a new can of trend whoop ass to be opened, I would really like to be the innovator, not the follower who ignites it and I would like it to ride on the coat tails of the film movement. Lex, I agree with you on getting a site up, I am doing that, but not for my commercial work, I don't need that in the public eye, I need to protect it so it will be for personal and fine art work. And I love the idea of what you said about Ken Rockwell, that makes total sense. The Kodachrome blog is pretty much like that now, Kodak is posting the new entry on the Pro Film Facebook page tomorrow…in fact, I have a conference call with them in 15 minutes, so I have to go…
    But keep thinking about this, keep positive, keep throwing in ideas, I will return to read them and have input. But if you just want to make your self feel good by sharing why film is dead and we are idiots for wanting to market it, please consider moving on….please....this is a think tank, an idea machine, we don't need you here and frankly, if you have nothing to add, you are wasting your time as much as ours. If you post something that you think is not in the spirit of this idea format and you think it is of value but I don't, I simply will ignore it as I should have with the others..

    Thanks, Dan
     
  72. Imagine.....8 pages of nothing but ideas in how to move film forward instead of it interspersed with various and often tiring to read exchanges....I know that is a lofty goal, but that is it really. Film's future is a chess match that we can all play, it's either your move or not your game, give that it's due..and consider how it affects those of us who are still playing.
     
  73. Some are saying that I am dreaming if I think there is some magic bullet to be loaded in the film marketing gun…they said that to SteveJobs too​
    Being told you are a dreamer is probably the only area of overlap between you and Steve Jobs... if you are like most people.
    I did not have a discussion in mind when I posted this, I had a think tank format, share ideas that are positive, that's it, a how to promote film ideas festival.​
    So you want a circle jerk group think session. How did that work out for JFK and that Bay of Pigs thing?
    So I would appreciate a modicum of restraint if you have nothing to add but why this is stupid, why you no longer use film, why you use digital, there are plenty of other lovely forums for that, this is not the one..​
    You obviously didn't read my contribution. I LOVE film. I use it quite a bit, but I am also realistic. Film is overkill for the vast majority of consumers. It was overkill in the day of the Brownie and it is overkill now. The difference is consumers have a choice now. So what do you want me to do? Lie to my friends and family and tell them they need to shoot medium format like me for their Facebook pictures? I am not saying this to discourage you. I am saying this because if you REALISTICALLY define your target market you will have a greater chance of success. I can tell you new semipro photogs are a great market. They shoot DSLRs because they don't know any better. I have seen a number of them convert to film once they are given a taste. These are the easy converts. I HATE to admit it but the marketing geniuses at Lomography have converted quite a few people by going after the hipster market. They have certainly helped things out in the medium format film arena. What I hate about them though is they are teaching a generation of people, "medium format cameras are plastic, have light leaks, and plastic lenses." Medium format is going to be synonymous with bad photography for that generation.
    Anyway growing the market for film is a noble endeavor but you have to be realistic. It will never be the sort of mass market thing it was back in the good ol' days of the 90s. Those days are gone forever.
     
  74. Some are saying that I am dreaming if I think there is some magic bullet to be loaded in the film marketing gun…they said that to Steve Jobs too​
    I don't recall Steve Jobs trying to convince people to go buy pre-existing technology like typewriters and adding machines. I'm pretty confident, however, that there has been plenty of brainstorming on how to market film by those who would profit from it. Honestly, if we had the answers sought, we would likely have provided them already or are preparing to market them to Kodak as we speak.
     
  75. Incredible how the term "Mass Market" and "Those Days Are Gone" keep coming up over and over again. The mass
    market is not what I am talking about guys. And as for Holga / Lomo, I can not for the life of me figure out why so much I'll
    will is flung at this fun and creative sector of the film movement other than the old farts on here feel like is mocking the
    precision of their tools and methods. Tough turnip guys, there have always been varying levels of tools out there. For
    example, it was ok for commercial photographers to pull in over million a year, some might say that souping a great negative film in E6 is promoting junk photography, they would be wrong.

    I ca not define who the market is, that is what I am trying to get at, there are going to be innovative new ways to broaden that horizon. Have you read Kodak's Professional Facebook page? It continually highlights talented people using the product in new ways.
     
  76. I ca not define who the market is...​
    That's a problem then. Well at least I'm helping you narrow it down. I will check out that Kodak Facebook page you mentioned and see if there is anything worthwhile there. Heck I might find some new uses for film for myself.
    And as for Holga / Lomo, I can not for the life of me figure out why so much I'll will is flung at this fun and creative sector of the film movement other than the old farts on here feel like is mocking the precision of their tools and methods.​
    Did you see this quote from this forum... "It's interesting that this type of discussion never occurs in the amateur/professional astronomy community." If a piece of equipment is overpriced junk it is overpriced junk. No need to go on a religious jihad about it. $200 for a crappy range finder with a cheap lens with ONE fixed aperture (f/8)?! I can buy a semipro film SLR off of eBay with a NEW tack sharp 50mm prime for a fraction of the cost of this piece of garbage. If this is the type of business you want to get into no thanks. I have ethics. If I recommend something to someone I want them to come back and thank me not accuse me of being a fraud. A nice and very reasonably priced film SLR like the Canon Elan 7NE is a great introduction to film for amateurs. They have on board metering and automatic exposure as well as automatic settings for portraiture, sports, landscapes, etc. Of course if they want the lomo experience they can just set the camera on F/8 and smear some Vaseline on the lens. Why would you pay MORE money for a crappier camera that is a one trick pony?
    Tough turnip guys, there have always been varying levels of tools out there.​
    Nice strawman. Who said there aren't "varying levels of tools?" My question is why would you pay MORE for an inferior tool? For someone that is interested in marketing film you are missing the biggest recent positive development in the film world... the excellent equipment is dirt cheap!
    For example, it was ok for commercial photographers to pull in over million a year, some might say that souping a great negative film in E6 is promoting junk photography, they would be wrong.​
    Who said anything about cross processing? Have you ever cross processed? You end up making certain image quality compromises when you cross process... which is why I start off with a precisely exposed tack sharp transparency. Please show me the rule that says you must use an over priced crappy hipster camera to get beautiful cross processed images?
    You need to learn about marketing. True marketers run the scam on other people. They don't fall for the scam. Lomography is about lining the pocket of some smart entrepreneurs. It is not about the longevity of film. It is about teaching people film is low resolution, unpredictable, expensive, and cumbersome. For someone that is interested in dispelling myths about film you have fallen in with the biggest liars in the industry.
     
  77. Thats it. There's a new generation of myths. Digital compared to Lomo, which one looks better to you? Lomo is the best thing to happen to digital.
     
  78. >>>Incredible how the term "Mass Market" and "Those Days Are Gone" keep coming up over and over again. The mass market is not what I am talking about guys.<<<
    You're whole discussion was about educating the masses and how any big film production discontinuance would be a disaster and how a broad approach was needed...
    "how Kodak must feel... ...you DO know who Kodak is, do you not? Kodak is not so much the top executives, the shareholders and certainly not Mr. Perez. Who Kodak is are the people who are hard working, passionate about the products and proud of the brand that is Kodak. Who Kodak is are the people like Audrey Jonckheer... ...If Kodak were to stop selling film and no one took it over, I think it would be very, very bad... ...I can not tell you how many people thought that Kodak was no longer making any film... ...That's right, one film's disappearance well publicized caused an tsunami of misconception by the general public. The same thing has happened with the C-11 filing by Kodak.. ...this is a bad, BAD pattern folks. Because what ever potential numbers in growth that even niche film use there might be... ... the growing perception that film is history is hampering a potential market segment that might otherwise give film a try... ...This is not just Kodak's problem, it is Ilford's, Fuji's, Efke's problem and it is OUR problem... ...I want to see Kodak get really creative in how they market to the potential film user... ...Maybe it might have to do with crowd sourcing of an ad campaign that is not from the makers of film, but the users of it...something like that can go viral real quick...

    they need to know who their market is, now, in 2012... ...Kodak wants to market... ...we have to meet them half way and try real hard to put out the fire that is the publics misconception that film is gone entirely...
    I am looking for a more broad approach."


    Even if you desire mass or broad marketing to appeal to a niche market (which makes little sense), its very difficult to help you when the criteria of what you seek is so unclear or changing.
     
  79. Ok, let me re-think this a bit and see if I can not come up with a more understandable request...
    I need to take a break from it today and get my full frame 4x5 neg carrier built...
     
  80. Got in on this late but informed photographers know what is going on and know who Ilford is, etc. It is the know-nothing masses who would be dumb enough to believe all film has come to an end because Kodak goes out of business or quits making Kodachrome. These same know-nothing masses don't know Ilford, etc., even exists.
    Next, to promote film use I'm going to have to have to open a g-mail account named "Film pimp".
     
  81. Tom, you're going to want to go around shooting with a gold-plated, jewel-encrusted Russian Leica copy. :)
    Anyway, I found this over at another site:
    Regarding consumer films, she said that they are considering restructuring
    a new approach aimed at producing these at a reasonable cost in much
    smaller volumes than in the past... She said that basically, as long as they had sufficient orders for
    a minimum of a single master roll "54 inches (almost 1-1/2 meters) wide by
    whatever length - no minimum stated", they would consider examining
    production in terms of the economics involved... She
    added that while small runs of Kodachrome were unlikely, it was not out of
    the question, since they have had numerous inquiries.​
    http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=55564
    What's interesting for me is not the Kodachrome comment (who's going to develop it, anyway?) but the fact that they can make customized batches in small quantities. That makes possible movie film without Remjet.
     
  82. The Lomography Society seems to me like they do a good job of promoting film. I'm always interested in looking at their website to see what's up, plus it's nice to see a website that's optimistic about film. The Lomography Society though promotes a certain kind of film photography, rather than film photography in general, and that's fine - more power to them. The other downside of the society is that the products and services they sell in general seem very overpriced to me.
    First, many of the cameras they sell are basically plastic toys yet they sell for at least $30. If that's what you want, that's fine. But to promote film to new users, they should know that these days you can find a very nice 35mm SLR and lens at KEH with a warranty for less than that, and it will deliver quality photos.
    Second, the film the society sells is very expensive compared to what you can buy for general purposes most anywhere else. WalMart still sells 4 rolls of Fuji in a box for $6.94 at my local WalMart. Why pay $30 for something of similar or less quality from the Lomography Society, unless you just want to, and if so that's fine. But people should know they don't have to pay that much for film.
    Finally, on their website the Lomography Society promotes their own film processing service. It's great they are offering the service, but in my opinion the cost is high. People should know there are other options for film processing that cost less.
    So I guess what I'm saying is maybe we need a commercial organization somewhat like the Lomography Society but that promotes film to a broader market. Blogs and user groups are fine, but we need an organization that can DRIVE film and chemical production rather than just be a consumer of those goods and services.
     
  83. I'm in my late 50's and the only ones I've been able to convince to shoot some film are the ones who have experienced a major loss of digital data that was not backed up (like 90% of digital files).Our IT group at work are my best allies with their 'war stories' about the downside of our brave new world.Face it when the vast majority start to really believe a download from a smartphone camera is as awesome as it gets we know we are in big trouble.Kodak already burst my bubble when they pulled E6 and after Fuji does likewise I'll probably shoot digital too.I'll save the B&W for the important stuff.
     
  84. I just read your post William Y about lomo films. I shoot them. Actually I shot one roll one time and was happy with it so I did purchase their redscale, 100 and 400 speed films. Yes they are pricey as you mentioned, but i was told, at one of the photo places I frequent, that , in August, their prices on their stock of fuji/kodak film is going up %15 in price so those films will probably be more expensive then lomo film.
     
  85. Postscript: If film were coated on a polyester base instead of gelatin, you'd gain maybe 40% in the number of frames you can fit in a given space. That means up to 50 frames in a 135 cassette. That is worth considering.
    William, I didn't know about the Lomography Society. It sounds like a good thing. I agree that their stuff is too expensive, though.
     
  86. Discovered today that my local Target no longer processes film. I had not used Target before, but someone suggested they did ok. So I stopped by, asked the kid in the photo/electronics department where the dropoff box for film was. He told me it was up at Customer Service desk in the front of the store. I went up there, but didn't see any drop off box. Asked the guy at the Customer Service desk, and he told me they no longer process film.
    So locally, that leaves me 2 options. One is WalMart, which takes several days and no longer returns negatives. The other is Walgreens which does a great job, does it in one hour, but is kind of pricey.
    I have to wonder - how much money are these places actually saving by hatcheting the film processing? For the big stores it's usually just a box that someone collects once a week and sends off the orders off to process. How much can that cost?
     
  87. If film were coated on a polyester base instead of gelatin​

    It is. That and acetate.
     
  88. The Lomography Society seems to me like they do a good job of promoting film.​
    William Y, what's interesting though is your post then goes on to say all the negative things The Lomography Society does. I agree that outside of academic institutions (ie community colleges, high schools, universities) The Lomography Society is the only other major driving force introducing people to film and actually getting them to buy film cameras. The problem is unlike academic institutions they are not showing people the true benefits of film in terms of sharpness, resolution, and faithful color reproduction. Like I said I feel very conflicted about those guys. On the one hand they have at least temporarily gotten more people to buy film which is good for me but I have to seriously wonder about the long term damage they are doing with their misinformation campaign.
     
  89. Yep the Lomography Society is rather a double edged sword. On the one hand they promote film but on the other hand they don't really promote what film is really capable of, it's kind of a LoFi funky experience with them that could leave their customers looking at another medium when they need a more regular kind of result.
     
  90. I don't see anything seriously wrong with the Lomo industry, in terms of what photography 'is' in any authentic or artful sense, or even 'can be' in terms of the limits of technical craft.
    There is now, and has for a long time existed, a segment of the population that views the benefits of commodity fetishism above any other activity that would be more 'involved', so to speak. I may purchase a lomo camera one day and I don't expect that to determine anything more about me than the fact that I intend to also purchase the film to go in it.
    We can also read a lot into the reasons for buying high end digital or film camera equipment and using it, conspicuously or not. Identity is important for most of us and it is only enhanced once we accept that it is multiplied (in and out) to everyone's benefit.
    I think William Y's idea is great and it should appeal to anyone currently limited by a lomo-type awareness, as it will attract those who naturally like to 'belong' here and there. I would be among the first to join a 'World Federation of Film Photography Users'.
     
  91. Nothing wrong with lomo film or their cameras. I have a lomo action sampler. It has 4 lens on it. I purchase their film as well. I use different types of films and film cameras for different type of styles and effects. I would rather get it in camera then use any post computer production. That is why I cross process all my slide film for the unpredictable color shifts. I try and be different with my photography and when I do art shows, I want to stand out in that respect. I was at an art show 2 years ago. The artists was primarily a painter. He was displaying expired refridgerated polaroid film he shot. He then scanned it on his printer and printed to poster size. No post production. I was blown away at the results he achieved.
     
  92. ross b, try Sam's Club. They develop in house at your local Sam's club so take in a few "test" rolls first to see if they know what they are doing at your location. It's a $1.50 for one roll. They do NOT do medium format. That's what I used to use Wally World for. And I assume Wally World still sends back transparencies... since they are not negatives.​
    I would give Sam's Club a try I suppose but I do not think they are on the West Coast. Definately not in my area. Right now what I do have is Target in town, we have a Cost Co in the next town over but they quit on film which was a huge loss for me. About 60 miles from the house is a pro lab and they do a great job but it's just to far to go. Wall Mart is not an option as I will not set foot in that awful place. Luckily we do not have a WallMart anyway
     
  93. I dropped off a roll of film at Target this morning for processing. They are still processing film anyway. The last place in the county. I just scan at home on my Plustek. I think it is worth it for them as I then went over and bought some Old Fashioned Oatmeal and milk for breakfast. If it was not for the film I would have just had a piece of toast for breakfast and they would have sold me nothing at all. Usually I buy Oatmeal at CostCo as the place is awesome and they say it's a left wing business.
     
  94. Nothing wrong with lomo film or their cameras.​
    There is something unethical about selling a $200 fixed aperture rangefinder with a crappy lens to amateurs that don't know any better. Not sure how that is even a discussion let alone an argument.
    I use different types of films and film cameras for different type of styles and effects.​
    Good for you. Most consumers don't own a film camera. And of the few who do they don't have multiple cameras for multiple purposes. Selling someone an overpriced specialty niche camera as their first general purpose film camera is unethical. It's not illegal... but it is unethical. I cross process... I would never advise someone to go on vacation with their children and record all the memories on transparency film and then cross process.
    People need to stop looking at this from the perspective of their own niche passion and think about the target market and the longevity of film. Leaving consumers with the impression that film is just about overpriced cameras and film, blurry low fi images, funky color shifts, and tons of light leaks definitely causes harm. It serves to reinforce tons of myths that are already floating around the internet.
    I've seen some cool images taken with a lensbaby... I would not recommend it as someones first lens.
    I may purchase a lomo camera one day and I don't expect that to determine anything more about me than the fact that I intend to also purchase the film to go in it.​
    If you purchase the $200 crappy rangefinder I pointed out what it would indicate is you don't know how to use ebay or contact a used camera store. Or it could simply mean you care more about being a fashion plate than taking great pictures.
    I love this quote. It sums this forum up perfectly. You show people how they can get a camera that is easier to use, takes better pictures, and COSTS LESS and you get back some metaphysical treatise saying why you are 100% wrong. A camera is just a tool. You can discuss tools objectively. Art comes from within an artist not a camera. Using a cheaper sharper lens will not render you incapable of producing art. Some images call for a little soft focus and/or blur, but that does not mean you have to have softness and blur in EVERY picture in order to be an artist. Between Lomo on the "low" end and Instagram on the expensive iphone 4s end we are going to be inundated with all sorts of kitsch "art" for years to come. The judicious use of SOME Lomo cameras or Instagram here and there can have some interesting results but using either for EVERY SINGLE shot for months and months at a time is nauseating... particularly in the hands of inexperienced amateurs.
    I dropped off a roll of film at Target this morning for processing.​
    Lucky you. None of the Target's near me have photo processing. I was getting desperate when I discovered Sam's Club and the Walmart send out service. I hope Sam's Club continues processing. But I still need to find a medium format color print film option. I wonder if Walmart's no negatives policy extends to medium format?
     
  95. Hey Jeff. If someone is willing to pay that amount of money then there is a market for that. I think it is unethical to sell someone a digital camera when the camera will be obsolete in less then a year as well as the comoputer and software to go with it. And if they drop it it then they are really out some big money. I also think it is unethical to sell a medium format digital camera for close to $45, ooo dollars as well but I have not heard anyone say that was unethical . I saw a digital hasselblad. It looks like a box attached to a flash bracket. Again if you drop it you you are out a mortgage payment.
     
  96. Well for me Target is the last man standing. When they quit on me then I have no place to go. I suppose I could develop the film myself or take the DSLR out of mothballs and shoot that. I suppose I will just have to wait until then and see what happens. I tried mail order and I cannot handle it when they lose the film. I am not mailing stuff anywhere again.
     
  97. Hey Ross. Sam's club is owned by Walmart.
     
  98. I have slogged my way through this ten page thread but haven't found a single post which clearly reads that prints from film are superior to digital prints. They are superior, for two very simple, objective reasons.
    First, digital enlargements, especially those with large enlargement factors, stink. Digital enlargements display the pixels as little boxes but enlargements from film negatives might, at worst, be grainy. As you go from 1:1 to more and more enlargement from digital sources, you go from excellent resolution to little pixel boxes, with nothing in between. With enlargements from film, however, all that happens is that the print gets more and more grainy.
    Remember the film "Blow-Up?" The film revolves around David Hemmings discovering what might be a murder as he blows a 35mm negative up to massive size. The plot would be nonsensical if he had used a digital camera rather than a Nikon F.
    Second, digital prints have bad bokeh. Out-of-focus parts of the image aren't pleasing. They are based on pixels. Circle of confusion is meaningless in the digital world.
    I'm an amateur, although I worked in a photo lab while I was in high school 45 years ago. I use a Nikon D300 for table-top photography, and Nikons F and F3HP and various 2x3 large format cameras for pleasure.
    Dan
     
  99. They are superior, for two very simple, objective reasons.​
    You left out a word, and misspelled another...
    two very simple, incorrect, nonobjective reasons.​
    There might have been a grain of truth to your comments, back in 1990. This is 2012, and you don't get the little boxes you describe unless you manage to select a "nearest neighbor" resizing algorithm, which has not been the default for many years. Any more current algorithm interpolates information, adding intermediate shades, and sometimes regenerating edges, between pixels as you enlarge. Even a simple bilinear interpolator, like Photoshop got in version 3, back in 1994, could do that. Better interpolators, like the Lanczos approximation, started appearing in university settings in the 70s, high end RIPs in the 80s, and made it into the consumer desktop with programs like Irfanview (free since 1996) Genuine Fractals (a $80 photoshop plugin, also from 1996) or Qimage (a $40 printing program from 1999).
    (you can also add film grain, to hide the reduced edge accutance, just like real film grain does on real film when you enlarge past the resolution of the original optics that shot the picture. That's the "other" thing that happens as you enlarge film images, the thing that's more important than "the print gets more and more grainy")
    As far as the bokeh, interpolation makes the smooth backgrounds smoother, it doesn't make them "meaningless" due to pixels.
    Your sort of comments are what gets all film advocates branded as a bunch of loons and Luddites. By not making even the slightest bit of effort to learn what the capabilities of the equipment you're bashing actually are, it is you, not the digital image, that gets perceived as "meaningless". It only takes one or two people like you to spoil the efforts of hundreds of people who advocate film from a position of actual knowledge of the differences between film and digital.
     
  100. Well stated, Joseph.
    I think Karim's post shows what Kodak has in mind:
    ...new technology will permit them to continue to produce these in "boutique quantities" using
    single coating machines rather than the huge multiple coaters of the past...Future production would primarily be on an "on demand" basis."
    This would include the infrastructure for processing, probably at a single
    lab, either in Rochester NY, or sub-contracted.

    "On demand" could conceivably include any film Kodak has ever produced.​
    I'd certainly buy some Verichrome Pan and Plus-X if they produced them again.
     
  101. Why add grain to a digital photo To hide something? Maybe for effect but why not have a digital photo look digital? If that is what you are shooting. I never understood this whole make your digital photos look like film. If digital is so great /better then film you should have award winning perfect photos from the camera to the printer with no post production. But for some reason we know that is not the case.
     
  102. Joseph Wisniewski's ad hominem attack, a/k/a flame, is not appreciated and does nothing to advance the goals of photographers. It doesn't help to generalize the attack to include "one or two people like you" Also, he is wrong in saying I am "not making even the slightest bit of effort to learn what the capabilities of the equipment you're bashing actually are." I have owned and used a Nikon D300 since it first came out, having taken close to a thousand pictures. I use Paint Shop Pro ver 12.50 to clean up the images. I know a thing or two about digital photography.
    Apparently, I was wrong, especially concerning high magnification. If you resize an image in PSP, you can select the resampling algorithm as: bicubic, smart size, bilinear, pixel resize or weighted average. If you substantially enlarge the image using, for example bicubic-sampling resizing, you do not get little boxes. HOWEVER, if you magnify an area using "zoom," you do get the little boxes. I use the latter feature a lot, but only rarely use the former feature.
    I also know that at the hospital where I receive health care, is a huge photograph of how the hospital will look after the construction is completed. I walk right by that photograph and from a few inches away, it looks terrible.
     

Share This Page