Discussion in 'Film and Processing' started by exposed|1, Jan 12, 2012.

  1. Why are there so many negative comments about film not being around anymore, or "dying"? Do people really hate film that much? On the other hand, why do some hate digital?
    I know why I like film. I know why I like digital, but I do not hate either. They both have there place. Sometimes I think there are a few that are just waiting for Kodak to close shop just so that can say "I told you so"... very sad to think that way.
  2. Because many people love a train wreck. Human nature is not a kind nature.
  3. A lot of people (digital fanboys) take pleasure in the thought of "winning." They enjoy being able to say, "See, I was right....digital won." They don't care as to whether or not the artistic medium of choice for the other person was taken away.
    I would say those people are gearheads and not photographers.
  4. People who like and use film don't hate film. Many people who use digital technology for photography might not see any further need for film and it might seem like they "hate" film. People who prefer film technology indeed seem to "hate" film because many simply don't want to convert to a new technology, for a variety of reasons. The fact of the matter is that film availablility has declined and is likely to keep declining. If it will stop declining is yet to be seen.
  5. Randy, I posted similar to this a day or two ago. "Come on guys, enough now" (sorry, I dont know how to link). The answers you have received so far are more constructive than some I got. Thats fine, I have broad shoulders but it is getting fairly tiresome that, as you say, so many people seem to feel the need to point out that theirs is better than someone elses, film is dead, etc etc.
    Of course, everyone is entitled to an opinion and to share it but maybe its time for a ****vs**** forum
    Maybe it is because some people need a little self re-assurance about their chosen make, medium, format, method and to get it, berate all others. Of course, thats only my opinion, but I am sharing it.
  6. Photography became viable in 1839 as a means of communication and expression. For most of its history, photography has been a chemical based industry. In the latter part of the 20th century, photography came under intense pressure over environmental issues. The film manufacturing facilities and the facilities that develop and print were deemed polluters. Photography evolved and despite the pressure the industry became, for the most part, good neighbors.
    Nevertheless, photography continues to evolve. The casual snap shooter has abounded chemical film and the apparatus that uses film. The typical snap shooter now uses a phone that by-the-way is a camera. The backbone of film manufacturing was always the snap shooter along with motion picture and medical and scientific users. The advanced amateur together with the professional market only represents a thimble full as compared to the Pacific Ocean. In other words, the major players making film face shrinking markets that is unsustainable as to their operations. The only survivors will be tiny specialty manufactures which may or may not be under the auspices of the current major players. This makes me sad because it was my career for 50+ years. However, I am a realist looking ahead with satisfaction and envy at your future.
    Digital appeared on scene only a short time ago. It quickly destroyed the amateur home movie film segment. It has all but destroyed medical imaging. What follows next is the ending of the armature film business. Now the professional film market and the apparatuses that hold, process, and print film cannot long survive. However, a few specialty groups will linger. Consider the poor buggy whip makers.
  7. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I'd like to see references to comments by people who say they "hate film."
  8. I doubt you will find any on this forum as this is where I come to get away from "Those People."
  9. Like film vs digital, I own an iPod and many CDs, but still appreciate the better quality of LPs. I appreciate the convenience of digital and recognize film's inconveniences but for some of us those are NOT sufficient reasons to abandon film entirely. YMMV
    BTW - every see a platinum print? You'd never shoot another jpg again, except they have to be contact printed, the process is really cumbersome, and the raw materials are difficult to obtain and to work with and are expensive too.
    Henry Posner
    B&H Photo-Video
  10. When Kodak does file for bankruptcy, will they still provide film for the movies? I hope so, cuz I haven't seen a decent looking DDD movie that compares to Kodak and Technicolor.
    "Wolf Creek" was the best looking I seen so far shot with a Sony digicam, but it still didn't have that richness of film.
  11. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I doubt you will find any on this forum as this is where I come to get away from "Those People."​
    I've never seen any of "those people" (ever thought of running for political office?) say it anywhere, and due to my role on photo.net, I see most of the posts on most forums. There seem to be far more accusations of people "hating" than any evidence of it.
  12. Times do change and so does the taste people have. I love a good old B&W movie. My kids hate them. That said, What is the norm today will not be the norm tomorrow. Yes like Henry I love the sound of an LP. Can I take one in my car and play it? Not too easy to do. :)
  13. What does it matter if some people express negative thoughts about film? Why should you care? Somebody may not like a tool you are using. So what? While some beautiful films are no longer produced, you can now buy an N70, a sweet little AF camera with a good meter, for $14 at KEH, which also sells an F100 in excellent condition for less than $250.
  14. Jeff I think you know me well enough to know that that was Tongue in cheek. Oh and I can never hold political office as I am more like Ron Paul then even he is. :)
  15. Chapter 11 for Kodak will not result in the end of film production there -- it's the only part of the company running a profit. Best thing for the creditors is to make money with the reorganized company. That would be running the film division economically, with less management overhead, which Kodak is notoriously heavy with. (When you have monopoly profits, you can afford to be sloppy with expenses. The monopoly has been over for 20 years.)
  16. No only 13 years 1999 It turned a huge profit ...
  17. Steve.... I wonder what was used to avoid skipping? LOL
  18. I would say those people are gearheads and not photographers.​
    That's funny!!!
  19. I've had the same sentiments as Randy after reading the many posts of the last few days. They don't have to literally say "hate" in order to convey this impression; at the least, they seem to have an agenda. And why they need to come to the film forum to say it is even more damning. And why the moderators allow them to continue to spread negative rumors is troubling...

    I would say those people are gearheads and not photographers.​
    "Gearheads" are one thing, but imho, they are childish buffoons, at very best.
  20. I love film and I love digital. They both offer something very different in my photography. If I could get faster turn around
    on my E-6 slides I would use film more often but it's becoming more and more time consuming not to mention difficult
    lately. I've tried several labs in the past year and all have failed. Some have lost my film and sent me someone else's and
    others have developed my film in either dirty water or tainted with something but either way I've had to spend hours fixing
    them once they are digitized. That's another thing! In order to achieve the best quality scans I have to pay through the
    nose because an affordable scanner is not capable of doing a good job.

    I now shoot film alongside digital just for fun and to keep the dream alive. Not as many but just enough to have a few for
    later. It's like when my doctor said not to eat fried foods anymore. I don't for the most part but I still do every once in a
    while just so I don't loose the habit.

    My two cents
  21. Eddy, have you tried Dwayne's? I've only had one bad experience with them, and that was actually the post office's fault. Also, with a local drug store's scans, my images looked better in our local paper than most of the contributors using cheaper digital cameras. Nothing against quality digital, but these scans were much better than I expected, and were the equal of the best digital shooter there.
  22. I do now all my own processing for B&w and C-41 I still send my E6 out and I can't complain to my workflow... I may start my own e6 as I just noticed I have 500 rolls in the freezer..
  23. Thanks very much Brian! I've been paying attention to this issue for a long time, and feel I have to call it like I see it. Unfortunately, imho, a lot of negative nonsense, rumor, and/or innuendo has been attempted to be spread here about film, along with the wonderful help and information, which I greatly appreciate. I can't beat around the bush with the b.s. anymore as I love film photography and don't want to see it unfairly maligned into extinction. I'm no great pro, but I've won a nice first place award recently, have sold into some private collections, have images currently in use by an actor on IMDb who landed a role on a major TV series, and one is the sole image on his personal website. All were within the last two years and made on modern Kodak films.
  24. A Bain Capital type company will come in and strip the high legacy costs of running the business left over when Kodak was on the Dow. It will then get rid of the losing products and keep the winners and turn Kodak into a leaner and smaller but profit making company providing film for years to come.
    Think positive not negative.
  25. You all sound like end time prophets. I hate to say this but even film users depress me these days because the talk more than they shoot. I have shot in the last 10 days 12 rolls of film 120 and 35mm... Shoot don't worry..
  26. I like the train wreck comment. I use to race motocross. Some would come to watch us race and others hoped for bad crashes.
    Back in 2001 or so a number of contest sites appeared that would publish only digital photography. The film folks would bash (with some justification) early digital as inferior. This would piss off the digital pioneers. The whole thing unfortunately became a Chevy/Ford, Nikon/Canon, Democrat/ Republican type of divide. As one who enjoys both mediums I think crazy to get uptight over such foolish thing. Oh wait we live on Earth right? Never mind.
  27. I am for Ron Paul... Check it out... it is real freedom... :) Michael You can't understand it all but you do understand it to a point. I shot Basket ball games in the 70s and er had arguments on pushing film and the developer and even the flash if any that was used.. One guy was using a Speed Graphic... But I have to say He had better pictures than some as he knew where to place himself for a winning shot...
  28. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I still haven't seen any references to any of these offenses committed here. In fact, I see far more whining about it than I do what the whining is about. Aren't there any references?
    Also, re Ron Paul, the guy's a racist. If you followed his ideas, my family will be toast. Sorry, no dice.
  29. Did you not notice the grin Jeff... I am Jewish and others.... all in one white package that tans easily.... I sad on the first of the year that I would not take film is dead seriously and I am finding I was right for this.. there are other things that are more important. :)
  30. bms


    Eddy, have you tried Dwayne's?​
  31. I don't "hate" film. I just don't see it as relevant technology, just like the buggy whip, FM radio, CDs, analog cable, and books. I am an avid reader, often reading about 40 or more books a year. My personal library is over 1200 books. I have not bought a single new book since 2009, when I got an Amazon Kindle. People now ask me if I hate books. Apparently people cannot differentiate between indifference or seeing a technology as obsolete and hatred.
    I've been on this forum nine years, and I have never seen them "film haters" that are getting referenced so often. I have however seen digital haters, and received a pretty nasty private message from one recently.
  32. First; Both mediums have their place. Perhaps like many of you, I loath this conversation. So you may ask, well, then WHY are you contributing? I wish I could be the one to articulate a point that would stop the debate that has become more about our wanting to be heard than the merit of the debate. Are we that freaking fragile that we need to continue the practice of bleeding this to oblivion? Here is what I'm looking at. This tension didn't exist before the advent of digital. What are the cultural, and generational influences on this issue? I've had this happen in the field, Where a digital camera operator has literally insulted me for operating a film capture camera. What is that? This attitude is enshrouded within a belief system that the latest is the greatest, so get out of my way, I'm younger, better, smarter. Its just an arrogance that seems to permeate so many corners of our culture today. I know arrogance has always been with us, I'm not that naive, but I've yet to have someone my junior stop and ask a question about a problem that they're having with their photography, presuming that someone their senior might know something about something based on being on the earth longer than they have, and being on the earth longer doesn't get it either, its just that I can recall as a kid starting a job at 16 years old, we never doubted our senior colleagues, to do that was disrespectful. We squeezed them for what they knew. There are too many Photographers, some with tremendous artistic expressional ability, that run the other way when it comes down to doing the work. How many of those Photographers ran away screaming from film capture because they don't want to deal with exposure accuracy within 3rd stops? Many are shooting digitally because of that. This all seems to be fear based. I don't know, someone will now pick these comments apart and render what I've seen as non-grata. Or perhaps help by taking a seed of thought that I've presented and improve on it.
  33. Been awhile since I posted, but since I read the forums when I need to kill time that can't be spent making images, I figure
    I can throw a post in once or twice a year. Why worry about what people think one way or the other? I used to and then I just got ticked..

    You can not and should not take the online world as the sole word on any subject, you are just asking for heartache if you
    do. Last week, I had a blast shooting Portra 400 and Ilford HP5 in my blad. Last night, I had fun shooting my D700 with a
    35 1.4G on a short job that was in super low light. Today, I placed an NPS order for a D4 and then for 100 rolls of Tri-X in 120,
    all relevant technology, none obsolete, all of it coming alive in the hands of a photographer who cares more about his vision
    than the glasses he uses to see the world with....

    I'll check back in a few months.
  34. Daniel,
    I have to agree. I, like you, use both. Right now I am on the look for a small, 35mm camera that I can use hiking. I also enjoy the use of my Olympus E-pl2 for hiking. I use the camera that gets done what I vision, not what is the most current or the one that will make me look "more pro".
    Couple of other things I ask "why"? Why do people call hiking a walk to the store?
    HDR.... is that just slide film?
  35. I doubt you will find any on this forum as this is where I come to get away from "Those People."​
    I've never seen any of "those people" (ever thought of running for political office?) say it anywhere, and due to my role on photo.net, I see most of the posts on most forums. There seem to be far more accusations of people "hating" than any evidence of it.
    I still haven't seen any references to any of these offenses committed here. In fact, I see far more whining about it than I do what the whining is about. Aren't there any references?​
    Jeff, I'm quoting two of your responses, partly because I'm not entirely clear on what you're saying, but my best guess is that you're saying that you don't see the rumor mongering, general negativity expressed or implied towards film photography by several people on photo.net, and in particular, that come into film forums? If so, I am really confused because I've felt it for years, and a simple quick search of the archives refreshed my memory all too clearly. Perhaps this is a question of semantics between us, as I've felt a clear bias by many over the years here.
    My only reason for participating in these discussions is because I do think that the negativity that I clearly have read and felt, does in fact dissuade some people from continuing with film photography; it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, and I personally know casual photographers whose needs would likely be well met with the film equipment that they own and understand, along with a drug store scan for email, etc. But they've told me that out of peer pressure, real or perceived, they "went digital" and now regret it. I have more advanced interests, and certainly, my choice of film photography is not holding me back whatsoever. And I know many more people at my level of interest that continue to appreciate and practice film photography.
    Here's a post that's six and a half years old (and other negative posts exist right up to the present). This is one that I'll never forget (along with one of his statements) because it was be a moderator, no less.
    What would you pick as the next product on which the Kodak axe will fall? Kodachrome? Any B&W film other than Tri-X?​
    And he states the same false thing about Kodak's still profitable film division, while their ill-begotten digital ventures continue to bleed red ink to this day.
    "... I can't blame Kodak. They're goal is to make money, not support analog photography. They're a public company, not a not-for-profit foundation to keep film alive."​
    And currently, we have Doug Harl, who after arriving here less than a year ago, continues to peculiarly post intense doom and gloom about film photography over and over and over and over and.............. Here are just a few of his choice comments that I found among many, many more:
    "...Kodak must leave the film business and other business lines or it will die. Period."
    AND you can keep using it until you're blue in the face but the fact is, it's going away. Didn't do any good for Kodachrome, the Ektachromes that were ditched, Plus-X, Portra NC and VC - Oh, they were combined "wink" "wink", etc ....
    Make fun of me all you want, poo-poo what I say.. but every time there's an announcement here of a film being discontinued, I just see more and more confirmation of the reality of what's happening in the film industry.
    This is a classic case of a "disruptive technology" and it's AWESOME to watch!
    Doug Harl , Nov 25, 2011; 04:45 p.m.
    My bad, I just got back from Publix and they still had 4 rolls of Kodak color film on their rack. And Walmart still has the FUJI something or another there too with the mailers that go to Dwaynes.
    Just want to be accurate ....
    EDIT: And if Walmart is selling FUJI film .... that may explain what FUJI is still making it. Hmmmmmmm.
    Doug Harl , Nov 25, 2011; 05:06 p.m.
    Mods ... if you'll indulge me one last statement on this thread - and I promise this WILL be my last ...
    I thought what is happening to Kodak now, wouldn't have happened until 2018. In other words, Kodak's FPEG division is 6 years ahead of my schedule of its decline.
    My worst case scenario has turned out to be a pipe dream.
    Doug Harl , Jan 11, 2012; 02:29 p.m.
    As of the Third Quarter of 2011, Kodak's Film, Processing, Entertainment Group (FPEG) income decreased 98%.
    See page 26 of their 3rd quarter 10-q.
    Whether that will continue, we won't know because FPEG was merged into other groups - to my great annoyance because this was an economic curiosity for me.It's not often where you see a disruptive technology drastically change an industry. Although, my fiancial model of the FPEG division shows them operating at a loss for the first quarter of 2012.
    It is quite interesting that the hint of eliminating the film business sent the stock up almost 50% yesterday. I think that gives some indication of Wall Street's opinion of Kodak's film business.
    Over the last day, I have been trying to ascertain the scope of this reorg. From what I've seen, Kodak isn't reducing redundancies (ex. canning people, closing facilities). It looks like this is an accounting reorg.
    But here's something quite telling about Kodak's Management's thinking:
    “As we complete Kodak’s transformation to a digital company, our future markets will be very different from our past, and we need to organize ourselves in keeping with that evolution,” Perez said.
    (Bold added by me.)
    My prediction is that Kodak will exit the Film business by year end 2012.
    Ilford, Foma, and other film companies are strictly B&W companies and their market is geared towards the artist market.
    Although, the decline in traditional photographing is an industry wide phenomena, I do not have access to their financials so I cannot comment on their business structure or profitability or their sales for that matter.

  36. Daniel, Thanks for that; I'll be leaving shortly on a road trip up the coast of California. This will be that precious chance to get away and practice the art of exclusion. When I get back, I'll heed the advice and keep the perspective. Love that Steinbeck Country.
  37. Jeff Z.-
    Doug Harl does seem to be out to illuminate things for us poor benighted souls. He makes a big deal out of declaring that film use is declining- like the rest of us can't read.
    He has a problem with interpreting data, though. I repudiated his claim of a 98% drop in one quarter, and that the drop was year over year, when it was a comparison of like periods of consecutive years. He claims to study this stuff, but he's clearly an amateur.
    He says the recent reorganization enabled Kodak to rid itself of that "albatross around its neck- the Film Group". That in spite of the fact that film is only reason Kodak has been able to stay in business, and the only Group in his cited example to show a profit.

    To the OP I say, what the hell- it's the internet!
  38. Film can't be dead? I just shot and processed 3 rolls today and found a new lab that is doing E6 in my town.... Ohh My....
  39. The lab I work with, just recently re-tooled for film bringing on good old fashion, 'Dip and Dunk,' Tanks for E-6, and they do beautiful work. If you are in a need to know, ask the labs. The real labs. Could this issue be perpetuated by Photographers that refuse to understand exposure and tonality? I referred in an earlier comment about the guy who insulted me for using film capture. Well, thats not the norm. Actually I end up from time to time spending valuable shoot time talking to interested people about film. I apologize for dwelling on that incident. I was just shocked, I guess.
  40. Nitch... Way to go.. invest in them give us all the details.. maybe some of us will too.
  41. Jeff L., Exactly!

    Don, My experiences with people in the field are almost always very positive, also, when talking about film. The director of an independent movie I shot some stills for several months ago, told me straight away of his love of film photography (he was also one of the videographers, and does some professional still photography). Moreover, they all loved my pictures and use them. :)
  42. Shoot film enjoy be happy if it does not make you happy shoot something else.
  43. Don't be negative about film!
  44. @Don - I had a film-ophile verbally attack me in the field for using digital cameras and daring to touch the photos after they "came out of the camera". He was rude, loud and in my opinion ignorant as heck. I let it bother me for, oh, at least four minutes. I let go of it, moved on and enjoyed the rest of the day and the last two years since then shooting photos (and working them in post). It runs both ways, and I really, really wish these threads would stop. Funny - I should ignore them, but I just can't. Like somebody said earlier it's like watching a train wreck, you just can't look elsewhere when its going on.
  45. I like driving antique cars and flying in classic airplanes. I like film for the same reason.
  46. I like Henry's perspective, and share it. Film has advantages that digital does not, and vice versa. I have not heard many people say that they "hate" film or digital formats on this site, and I agree that anyone who takes that extreme perspective is merely trying to get reassurance for their chosen format. I have shot film in the past, and loved the quality of the images I got using it. Yet, I like the flexibility and ease of use that digital offers. It all comes down to different strokes for different folks. Anyone could argue for either format, but to what purpose.
  47. Larry I'm with ya on the Ron Paul thing. Some try to brand him as ultra conservative in a attempt to tarnish his appeal but both he and his son Rand have some fine ideas about the welfare of the US and about where it should mind it's own business.
    (PS I did two batches of E6 at home. First was a flop and the second attempt beautiful.) Not sure it's worth it but I had fun.(kinda)
  48. James G. Dainis

    James G. Dainis Moderator

    Note from moderator:

    Let's save the political comments for the Off Topic forum.
  49. Film haters just jealous. Film is cool, people shooting film are great, big film cameras attract other people attention...
  50. "Note from moderator: Let's save the political comments for the Off Topic forum"
    No problem.
  51. The "film is dead" argument is ridiculous when one considers what they would pay to whoever bought the film production facility from Kodak for a roll of 120 film.
    Seriously, I wouldn't have any problem with 8 bucks a roll as long as they keep making it.
  52. I think perhaps the younger generation, who did not grow up with film, could think "film is dead". I saw film die quickly around 2004-2005 when the Nikon D70 and other digital SLR cameras were released. The company I worked for decided that photographers need to shoot digital, and began to push them in that direction. Some of the early submissions were total garbage. Instead of submitting finely exposed 35mm, medium format, or large format transparencies, we would get these horrible over-processed 17.5MB TIF files, with completely blown highlights and blocked up shadows, and when we asked the editor for the RAW file, putting the submission into the archive on hold, the editor would override our request and the image would end up available for sale.
    The initial digital submissions from the new full frame Canon 1DS were superb. Clean files, no film grain, and well exposed. They needed no cleaning, no scanning, and were ready to drop on to the site for sale. Saved the company a ton of money. And then over the next few years, people started complaining about film grain because digital redefined the state of the art image quality, which was grainless. Even fine grained film got complaints. We had to explain over and over again why there was grain in the image, because it. was. shot. on. film...
  53. I will use film until it is gone.
    When it's gone I will use something else.
  54. I would like to add that last week in the Caribbean I shot about 200 film frames and 100 digital frames. I could instantly see that my digital shots were all crap.
    I have to wait until tonight, 6 days later, to see that my film shots are crap. At least I had those six days of blissful imagination that they were all perfect! :)
  55. I want the last word..... It is all I know. :)
  56. When I was in High School I had a 45 record player that was in my 60 Chevy 2 door sedan.. It would stack 10 records. I think I paid $12.00 for it but by the time I was out of the Army the record player thing in cars was gone. So was my car actually. My friend had an album player in his 62 Impala. I looked around on ebay and such one time and I see none of them for sale. Seems like some of the players would have survived. I think Chrysler came out with a record player in one of the luxury models that was factory equipment. I did meet a car mechanic a few years back that said he had a record player in his 55 Chevy Hot Rod hobby car. However I never saw it or the car.
    On the film thing I shoot film and digital. I do love film, the history of film and the wonderful images captured over the decades. It gave us a good look at many moments in History as well as some wonderful art. Shooting film is a wonderful hobby. Not sure why people hate film. Some of the things I have been called here are Luddite, dinosaur, old school, and such. I am actually none of those. I embrace new and old stuff. However I prefer saving money over spending it so I do not buy much stuff and what I do buy I shoot it until it's worn out. Right now I am in the process of wearing out a F100 and a D200. Looking like many more years to do that job.

Share This Page