Another film discontinued

[richard_milner2]

In 25 years no-one will use film except artists and traditionalists, but it will be available as long as there is a viable market. Film is a cheap and simple item to manufacture, so a small proportion of users across the world should be able to sustain a specialist market.

 

I'm worried about availability of processing and printing (for colour). The minilabs are considerably harder to justify keeping in production than film and chemistry.

 

I'm more worried that old style cameras with manual focussing etc will simply not be produced any more; it will be digital auto-everything. The Cosina-Voightlander rangefinders give me some hope here.

[._._z]

I don't think any but a tiny minority feel that pleasure of looking at slides on a wall or

under a loupe, Diego. More people want to share photos with people -- prints, emails,

even websites. :-)

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> I'm more worried that old style cameras with manual focussing etc

will simply not be produced any more </blockquote> </i><p>

 

Peope in their twenties expect their cameras to focus for them. It's a little unnerving to

me, but that's the market today.

[diegobuono]

Z,

I completely agree with you, people are not anymore used to quality. But with this assumption you don't need a big resolution, for web sites, e-mail and small print a point&shot camera is more than enough. And even in the past people wanted print, why someone (pros and serious amateur) has ever used medium format? In the past the quality was important and today not? Is speed more important than quality? Do we prefer send an e-mail with a low res picture to our friends or we prefer to show them on a wall? Have you tried theyr reaction to an e-mail and a real slide show?

[thomas_sullivan]

ive been shooting film since 1973...I've lost Vericolor II, Panatomic-X, and Kodachrome 25. Ya know what? Porta is better, TMX is better, and Velvia is almost as good...yeah, there's nothing like K25, oh well.

 

I also owned manual focusing cams until about 2 1/2 years ago, only because focussing in the dark is tough for old eyes did I go to AF. Ya know what? I love AF....at least the ones that let me go back to manual when I choose. The Canon EOS is awesome for going from auto to manual.

 

Things change. The trick, for amateurs and hobbyists, is to wait until most of the R&D on a new type product is paid for. Like "Z", I think a 10D (or 10D type functions and options) for $1000 is that point. At least that's my thoughts on it. I do plan on getting a Canon A80 soon though........seems a nice compromise between cost and quality and functions.......at least it has a usuable histogram built into it........now THAT is the greatest thing, IMHO, about a digital cam........seeing it then and there, not waiting a week for development.

[thomas_sullivan]

er...that would be Portra.....

[diegobuono]

When I compare my original slide wit the digital version (professional scan, or print) I know I will stick with film untill it will be available, then (but I think this will not happen during my life) I will find another hobby. I have scan of picutre that I don't show in my portfolio on photo.net because are not comparable to the original slide. Do it yourself this comparison with your slide and then decide. I sit in front a computer for my job (who don't sit in front a computer for job today?) and dont' want for my hobbu too.

[richard_milner2]

>Z, I completely agree with you, people are not anymore used to quality.

 

That's true, but 50 years ago photography was to some degree the preserve of a well-off technical elite. The reduction in price of cameras and processing, plus the increase in technology (auto-exposure, auto-focus), has opened photography to millions of people who couldn't do it before. These kind of people aren't interested in quality, they want cheap and easy snap-shots, and they get them increasingly from digital cameras. My brother bought a digital compact camera a month ago and has already shot 1,000 images.

 

This does not produce art, but it does allow people to make visual records of their daily lives, their families and so on, and has a social value in that respect. I think that compact digital cameras will quickly be replaced by camera phones, as soon as the cost of multimedia messaging comes down, because the convenience and ease of use will be so good.

 

On the other hand, some kind of high end manual film cameras will probably always be available for people who can afford them, and may become a status symbol (for what it's worth).

[michael_dimarzio]

I had all of my equipment robbed in Brasil, an M645, a beater F4s, a dozen MF and 35 mm lenses, and my girlfriends FM3a.

 

I replaced the M645 and F4 with a used Contax (for the possiblity of buying a digital back, but will always shoot b+w).

 

I tried to talk my girlfriend into replacing the FM3a with a digital camera, but she's decided she wants a Leica M6, pre ttl. Go figure.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> manual film cameras will probably always be available for people

who can afford them </blockquote> </i><p>

 

We see that already. For most people it's cheaper to buy a $200 digital camera and

select prints from a screen (on their computer, or on a kiosk) than to spend $150 on a

point and shoot and then $15 per roll on processing and prints. For most people in

their teens and twenties, it's cheaper and more convenient to have a cameraphone.

Considering that 3MP cameraphones have been announced for sale later this year in

Japan, and considering that wireless companies are subsidizing phone prices to lock

people into their networks, cameraphones will be a ubiquitous tool in the near future.

And film cameras? Ten years from now it will probably primarily be a geeky subculture.

[diegobuono]

Cameraphone???!!! Are we talking about serious photography or toys?

 

Do you really think that cameraphone will replace film or digital camera? Will they have interchangeable lenses? 35mm or MF have replaced Large format that are bulky, heavy and slow to use? They need to have a blak curtain over your head and to the eyes of a non expert they look very old, do they seem a subculture?

[michael_dimarzio]

You have to agree with the Z. I wrote a post a few months ago (and was flamed for it) where I thought that film, one day will become high end and digital will be the norm. A beautiful, perfect silver print will be done by photographers, and digital will be post processing wizards. My reference was a really (IMHO) average color scan, decolorized, processed and ooohhhd and aaahhhd over in it's new form. In this and many cases, the processing makes up for a lack of photographic ability.

 

Does anyone consider illustration art? Artists don't. What would the book Robinson Crusoe, illustrated by N.C. Wyeth, an artist, be with out it? I always cionsidered it art.

 

So without a doubt, imaging is art, wether from a camera phone or from a 8x10 mahogeny masterpiece, some is just going to cost a lot more to produce and buy.

 

http://www.deadmentellnotales.com/onlinetexts/robinson/pictures.shtml

[._._z]

I've seen serious photography from toy cameras, and I've seen museums and collectors

buy it too. Someone needs to open their eyes to what photography is and can be.

 

Besides, I was responding to the existence of film and film cameras in the future, not

what a tiny subset of film-friendly snobs will sniff at (or away from) as technology

marches onward.

[brett_kosmider]

Really guys, STOP IT! This isn't the first film-doomsday thread on photo.net and it

won't be the last.

 

I predict, film will surpass ALL of our lifetimes (even that of the young punks who are

generally the first to decry the death of film). I too considered the implications of film

manufacturing longevity, but B Kosoff and others are right - film stocks come and go.

Get over it. If you're in love with an emulsion - figure out how to replicate it in

Photoshop - it's not that hard to recreate film stock curves. If you don't know how,

learn it.

 

I work in commercial video production and in my sophomoric 12-year career I've

gone from film cameras to tube cameras to CCD cameras and now to HD CCD

cameras. Things change, just create, and stop the doomsday gloating. Its annoying.

 

(Oh, and they're still shooting motion picture film out there, Kodak just introduced 2

new MP stocks the other year - I bet they stop maping film NEXT year, right?)

 

Happy shooting

BK

 

And Trace, really man, get over it.

[john_philllips]

Reports of my death are greatly exagerated -- Mark Twain

[._._z]

So wrote a man now dead.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> why someone (pros and serious amateur) has ever used medium

format? </blockquote> </i><p>

 

Most pros use what clients want. Clients are often uneducated herd animals, hence the

expectation in certain NYC circles (until recently) to see slides with those little

Hasselblad notches on them. <p>

 

Many "serious amateurs" are gear addicts and snobs.

[claudia__]

love the smell of ilford pan F plus

 

would switch in a minute if they could get that onto a memory card ;)

[diegobuono]

Z, those little Hasselblad notches are not visible on mounted and projected slides, have you ever seen an Hasselblad (or any other MF) slide projected?

But I agree with you, clients are ineducated, I have recently seen a wedding album of frieds, al picture shot digital: the white of the bride' dress is whashed out and without details so the man's dress. Add color fringe and a general flatness (people look like cut and pasted over the scene). When they saw the slide I shot (just for fun and my memories) they was amazed about details, smootness and texture. They asked imediatly prints from them. WE MUST EDUCATE PEOPLE IN HOW TO SEE THE (TECNICAL) QUALITY!!!!!