Are we losing something?

[trace_dibble6]

Don't get me wrong with this: I'm not an aged, anti-technology nut

case pining for the past, killing a little time in the community

room of some assisted-living facility. When CDs went on the market,

my entire collection of 33 1/3 vinyl LPs tumbled with considerably

noisy protest into a plastic garbage receptacle. No regrets, other

than the potential antique value they may have contained.

 

Havig said that, I fear something of notable human artistic value is

being forfeited, is slipping into oblivion unnoticed, lost in the

pandemodium of cell phones and GPS positioners and MPS players:

That, of course, being the simple, yet paradoxically complex and

very difficult art of manipulating silver-based emultions into

serving your purposes. Fewer and fewer of these emultions are

available, as the digital cancer eats away at the demand for them.

Ektar, Kodachrome 25 and those of their ilk are a distant, if

cherished memory. The few that remain are of the speed-is-

everything, quality-is-nothing persuation.

 

There's an historical precedent to all of this: when photography

first appeared, it did so in a form that threatened paint art.

Pictorialism mimicked paint, was a bastardized poor-man's short cut.

The Ansel Adams of the world stepped in to clarify the matter, to

separate the art forms, each with their own distinct history and

methods.

 

To wit, there is no Ansel Adams to preside over the subdivision of

film photography and digital photography. Digital consumes film in

the manner that bigger fish eat the smaller. And a great era of

human artistic expression comes to a close, in much the same manner

that historical buildings are razed to make way for asphalt parking

lots.

[Spearhead]

There is more photography around than ever before. More people enjoy and share photographs than ever before. So many people document so much more of their lives now, it's become a part of daily life.

 

I would expect this to be a cause for celebration, especially for people who care about photography.

[rowland_mowrey]

I think that the average consumer does not want high quality, they want fast picures just as they want fast food. This is why the point and shoot digital and even film single use cameras are selling very well.

 

High end digital cameras also have a place in some areas that need the turn around time.

 

But there will always be a place for those who love photography as an art and for the extremely high quality it is capable of achieving. Digital may match that someday just as good photography can equal the art of a master painter.

 

But, IMHO there will always be a place for conventional photography just as there is a place for painted pictures and even, no joke intended, for buggy whips.

 

Ron Mowrey

[john_wire]

Use it or lose it. I have too many 35mm film choices today. My favorite, Kodachrome "keeps on ticking" and is available in the right places. Not a pharmacy item though as it used to be, but who ever bought film at the pharmacy?

 

Now, 120 is a different story. I've had to wait for out-of-stock Kodak film from Adorama, so I switched to Fuji or Agfa products that were in stock. Plenty of choices.

[andre_noble4]

Rather, as green fields are torn up to make way for asphalt parking lots.

 

Agreed.

[sean_quigley]

I was a designer of analogue hi fi equipment at the time CD hit the market place in 1983, today we have a resurgence of analogue turntables etc, CD is still missing something (not noise scratches etc)that analogue captures I will not go into those areas.

 

I love film's 3D look, but hate grain unless for effect, but some digital is now to my eyes making it, that along with the hassle of buying film, processing, etc is driving me digital and sadly I will buy a 22mp back for my large and medium format gear as much for the lack of grain, convenience, and not having to hunt for it in a shop and find someone to process it before I print it etc.

 

I personally see film putting up less of a fight than analogue records did, having said that it will be a very long time and prohibitively expensive, to replace my 10x8. Unfortunatly to strengthen digital's rise further, auto everything will mean Digital will win very quickly, as the demise of a number of big names has shown. I also personally see the standards of photographic skill is declining, will younger people whom want to take pictures even have a remote idea how to use a light meter etc in 5 to 10 years I very much doubt it. Does it all matter as said earlier, if the picture gives you or someone else pleasure who cares.

 

Keep the film gear though it is still fun.

 

Sean

[kelly_flanigan1]

Many digital images are never printed. They are just documents of something that happened; not works of art for a gallery. Here is a tire blowout I had last week;at slow speed. A nail went thru the corner; and pierced the sidewall; which must have been weak already. The tires had only 12K miles. <BR><BR>The first 3 images are 1/3 full res. The last one is at full pixels; the diameter of the brake drum can be read in the original file.; which is a compressed 180K jpeg of a 1.3 digital megapixel image. <BR><BR>There is alot of weird green cast at one side; maybe grease on the lens while I was changing the tire. I bent 3 of the wheel studs; and broke one off; in removing the flat tire. The tire was a SOB to remove; the stock lug wrench is what was used. The tire monkeys must have really overtighted the heck out of the lugs when the tires were installed. These are just cellphone images from a KOI Kyocera phone. ( you know the guys that stopped making digital cameras. ) . <BR><BR>Folks are using their gizmos in alot of weird applications. Here I just shot several images of the tire job I was doing; by pulling the phone out and snapping some images. Images like these can be sent by phone linked to email. There are still folks who think a cellphone cannot ever ever be a real camera.<BR><BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/TireBlowout/TireHole.jpg" alt="Image hosted by Photobucket.com"><BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/TireBlowout/TireNail.jpg" alt="Image hosted by Photobucket.com"><BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/TireBlowout/TIREHUBsmall.jpg" alt="Image hosted by Photobucket.com"><BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/TireBlowout/TIREHUBdetail.jpg" alt="Image hosted by Photobucket.com">

[kelly_flanigan1]

In a recent conference in New Orleans; a Kodak exec mentioned that cellphone cameras might be just a passing fad. I suppose I could have shot these images with Kodachrome in 120 on a Rolleiflex TLR too :); If I had the time to clean up my hands; had the film; and a local Kodachrome lab for 120.

[rich815]

Yeah, Kelly, real shame you didn't wash up and use that TLR. We would have had some really beauties there! ;-)

[Gup]

Kelly, glad you survived intact! That is some nasty damage. I shudder to think what it might be like to have that happen on the front of my motorcycle.

 

Gup.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Gup; thanks for the concern. It was a very strange tire flat. I was only going a 10 MPH; and hit the nail; which was really long and went thru and then hit the sidewall too. It was more of a whoose than a bang in the noise from the tire.

[rustys pics]

The level of quality and workmanship of that tire, are analogous to the camera cell phone

you shot the pics with. The people who made the tire didn't care, nor did the salesperson

who sold it, nor the "mechanics" who now overtighten every lugnut into an impossible to

remove jam.

 

I will use digital for snapshots too, but for personal work I will continue to shoot, process

and print my own film. Anything less simply reflects how uninvolved people are with their

daily lives and communities in the big "Global Village".

[joseph_albert]

My wife uses a digital camera professionally. She is a real estate agent, and her Olympus 1.3MP camera is still working splendidly for her application, which is to email images of houses to clients or upload them into listings. Viewed as small images on a computer screen, the images have no detectable noise or grain, so this little camera the size of a pack of cigarettes is the perfect tool. No film camera could ever match it for convenience nor would quality be detectably better given how the images are viewed.

<p>

On the other hand, I do not use cameras professionally, although I have sold images before. I plan to shoot film until 120 E-6 processing is no longer readily available, and at that point, I will either: 1) switch to digital; 2) do B&W and do my my processing and printing; or 3) give up photography as a hobby. The film camera I am keeping for posterity is a Mamiya C220F with 3 lenses (55, 105, 180). I think option 3 may be a little more likely to happen than option 1. I just can't see spending my hobby time fiddling with photoshop, calibrating monitors, buying higher end computer equipment etc. etc. Of course part of the problem with that is that I am a computer scientist professionally.

<p>

I think it is sad that our world is turning into a disposable culture. Fortunately, my acoustic piano is still holding its own against the electronic keyboards that have failed miserably to replace it.

<p>

Joseph Albert

[kelly_flanigan1]

The old rear tires cost only 85 dollars apiece; 1/4 what the cellphone cost. The 30 penny nail is 4 1/2 inches long and went thru the corner of the tire and out the sidewall from the inside of the tire. Maybe Leica tires would have been better; and there would have been no flat.:) I wonder how many tires would survive a double puncture; where the sidewall was ripped open from the inside by a 30 penny nail?

[paul_sauer]

Call me crazy, but nothing looks like a real optically printed b&w print, be it from 35mm or larger. That's why I just bought a complete Beseler 23cII darkroom outfit for $200 used. That's why I bought a Pentax 645 for $450 complete.

 

I love my D100 and I've taken lots of really good images with it. I use it more than my film gear. But I still love b&w film.

 

Plus there's much less equipment angst with film gear. A Nikon FM is as good as it ever was!

[troyammons]

Its just another tool. The entire digital revolution has pretty much been floated by the point and shoot crowd, snapshots and such and I will admit i have a P150 and I love it, but I also have a MF and a LF setup. I don't think much is lost, except for maybe the flood of photographs on the Internet diluting the art, I do think sometimes something is gained, like 10 years ago you could not have scouted a location with a digital camera and go straight to the spot the next day and know your setup with an 8x10. It has also gotten a lot of people back into photography in a big way, me included. I used to spend hours in a darkroom years ago, and now I am actually considering buying another enlarger !!

 

Unfortunately for people like me (a painter) interested in selling photographic prints, the fine art photography market is rather diluted, or maybe better explained as too commonplace, now that there are a zillion D cameras around. I had a art gallery owner tell me to forget fine art photo prints (not that I will) but it did make an impression. 150 years ago photography was a mystery and rare. Today its just another part of life and is common as talking on the phone. Camera on a cell phone. My grandpa is probably rolling over in his grave.

 

Considering that we now live in a shock culture and everything has been done to death, it takes something really different to get noticed. As far as what we have lost, I still question it. Photography is just not as fresh and pure as it used to be, but there is still a lot of room for beautiful work. It would be nice if people just took it more seriously as an art form. This is one site I found recently that I like a lot.

 

Break out the wet plate cameras !!

 

http://www.alternativephotography.com/artists/artists.html

[mark_warren1]

What will be missing in 30 years is the ability for our kids kids to go through boxes of

photographs of their grand parents. Digital images will die on a hard drive which has

crashed, or lost on some old cd burned and mislabled.

 

The soft quiet sound of sorting through pieces of paper processed from negatives is what

will be missing.

[dave_moeller]

Thanks to advancing technology (the Internet), there are now more film chioces available to me than there were 20 years ago. I no longer have to buy what the local stores stock; rather, I can buy whatever films anyone in the world is selling via the 'net. Some emulsions have disappeared, but the choice to each of us has gone up.

 

The "death" of Kodachrome has more to do with the rise in the use of E6 emulsions than it has to do with the advance of digital. Fuji still sells enough film to justify having Velvia, Provia, Astia, and a host of other reversal films available. Kodak renames and reworks their E6 emulsions on a cycle that seems to get shorter every time, but they're still making plenty of E6 film. E6 is easier to develop; Kodachrome lines always needed dedicated technicians to keep the process going. Even the "simplified" Kodachrome machines took too much labor when compared to E6.

 

In black and white, there are definately more films available today than ever before. A few favorites have fallen by the side, but many more have come along to replace them.

 

Film will slowly become a "boutique" item, just as other artistic media have before. You used to be able to buy oil paints at the corner store; now you must go to an art store. You may not be able to buy film at the local mega-store in five years, but film will still be around. As long as photographers want film, someone will provide it.

 

The real loss, as stated above, will be the shoe boxes full of old prints that the next generation won't have the luxury of stumbling upon. The pictures that aren't deemed as "keepers" by the vast majority of people will simply be discarded rather than stuffed away to be re-discovered in the back of the closet in 20 years. The 20th century will leave behind more images than the 21st.

[john_wire]

Dave..... when did Kodachrome die? Maybe in 120 format, for sure not in 35mm, and I understand Super 8 is still moving. Try a roll and be surprised with the amazing slides, which, will still be around after at least 50 or 60 years. Long after the E6 stuff fades away.

[gregory_c]

DO not forget !!!!I am a old school photographer, started shooting when i was 12, "I was raised on a waist level finder" is my saying.My last waist level Hasselblad is soon to be on ebay. Manual cameras & film darkroom, espically darkroom knowledge is a declining art. I have not printed a picture in mine in 18 months, now days of CN film, digital labs that can turn color negs into descent B&W,(I did say descent)digital camera/computer that do color or B&W at one click,crop,edit etc.. So I guess the days of dodging, dektol, photoflo, polymax RC, fixer, t-max are soon to be forgotten, or never known by todays' photographers. Learn the old things of photography, & apply it to the new things. Shoot it right the first time, not correct it in photoshop.

[john_amiet2]

To answer the original question: YES, we are in danger of losing not just the "old skills" but the images of "today". As previously mentioned, many don't get printed etc.

 

Currently I am weeding (really just sorting!) all the old prints (analog) that get thrown on the workroom table as either "maybe rejects" or to be used as reference prints. I am re-discovering old favourite images that I WILL resucitate and use after having temorarily distanced myself from them. I have untold boxes of such images, all numbered on the back for future ease of finding negs etc.

 

Being inherently lazy, I have yet to find a similar EASY technique to manage my digital files. They are in danger of disappearing by virtue of their technology.

 

I am about to send of a series of six colour images for a competition. I have laboured over the prints digitally for about a week. All scanned from colour neg. The prints are pretty good. On impulse, I took the negs into the (analog) darkroom and emerged two hours later with prints that just blew the digital equivalents away. I know (and exlpoit the fact that) digital has some fine virtues that are very difficult, or impossible, to duplicate in the darkroom, so why are my analog images a walk away winner? I know they will survive. I have know idea how my digital images will survive.

 

Sorry, just beating around the bush that is this thread.

[david_m]

Conventional film will be available for decades. The choice, however, will shrink drastically and the price will rise drastically. Just as when color took over from black and white. B&W processing is more expensive than color because its regarded as 'exotic' and 'unusual'. Pretty soon, conventional film will be seen as 'unusual' and 'exotic' and will be priced accordingly. The good news is the price of non-digital photo cameras will plunge to next to nothing. People will throw them in the trash, they already are doing. I'm finding $100 cameras at thrift stores for $2-$3.

[dave_moeller]

John-

 

Regarding Kodachrome: I know that it's still available...the word death in quotation marks in my post because (to paraphrase the words of a much better writer and wit than me): The reports of Kodachromes death are greatly exaggerated.

 

I also understand the benefits of Kodachrome. I've been shooting transparencies for thirty years. But I can shoot E6 and have my slides back in an hour from a couple of pro labs in my area or from my own darkroom. At the peak of it's popularity, this was a miracle with Kodachrome. If you were lucky enough to have a Kodachrome line in your town you might get your shots back in four hours...24 was much more usual. If you had to mail out the film (as most people did) then you waited anywhere from four to seven days. Today seven days is a miracle; I think there's one lab left in the US that makes a daily Kodachrome run. At least one site lists processing times for Kodachrome as "one to six months".

 

I also know first-hand the longevity benefits of Kodachrome. So far my E6 slides from the 1980's and onward (mostly various Fujichromes) are doing fine...but the older stuff is all shifting color even though it's seen light perhaps a half dozen times in the intervening years. My Kodachrome slides are all doing fine regardless of their age.

 

Woulds't that every film had the benefits that Kodachrome has. But the cost of running the lines meant that Kodachrome was never a convenient film, and the development of E6 over the years has been good enough that photographers have been willing to trade off the benefits of the K14 film for the convenience of E6.

 

(There are interesting parallels between the K14/E6 tradeoffs of yesterday and the film/digital tradeoffs of today. Basically, many people will settle for something that's "good enough" - a purely personal judgment - if the convenience factor is high enough. The difference between then and now is in the number of pictures actually being kept: Back in the '70s you got all of your slides back and weeded out the ones that were good enough to show, _but kept the others around_ whereas today the ones that don't make the cut are destroyed rather than uncerimoniously dumped into a box for future reference.)

 

Be well.

[mike dixon]

<i>The choice, however, will shrink drastically and the price will rise drastically. Just as when color took over from black and white. B&W processing is more expensive than color because its regarded as 'exotic' and 'unusual'.</i><P>

There are probably more b&w emulsions available now than before "color took over," and they are no more expensive (and often less expensive) than most kinds of color film. Commercial B&W processing is more expensive largely because of the lower volumes but also because, unlike color processsing where all film gets the same processing, different b&w emulsions require different processing times. There was never really a time when you could drop off your (non-chromogenic) b&w film at the minilab and have prints ready in an hour.

[philippartridge]

Trace, I don't think so; instead we stand to gain other options. Mainstream users behaviour is changing fast to buy and use a vast range of electronic goods, but you and I don't have to. A guy stumbled through a heavy mist into a hard-to-find high country hut I stayed in last month, visibility 200 metres max, using a GPS..it made the difference to him, gave him confidence and ability. A great tool, I will now get one, to help with the map and compass work I do now.

 

Film is being helped by digital processes, on balance. Scanning technology and digital preparation/ printing have wrought a dramatic jump in the quality of colour output. The truly interesting thing is that scanned high quality medium and LF film images looks so much better than anything else, and retain their signature palettes and other characteristics. [i want some bloody company to produce a decent MF film scanner for the right price, say double an Epson flat bed. ]

 

The emulsions you mention were killed by the film industry's improvement of the product - in the form of very high quality emulsions in the 100-160 ISO range. I realise it is a matter of taste, and therefore is beyond debate, but the pro nature market deserted K'chrome when Velvia 50 was released, I have read. Do you not think Reala, NC160, NPS, Velvia, Provia, Astia, E100, are fine emulsions?

 

Fuji recently said that pro film sales are standing up quite well, but amateur film has fallen away. This seems consistent with the rapid takeover by digital of the huge P&S market sector. Not a market I, and I suggest, you should care overly much about. It was probable that pro film developments have been driven by the pro film market, now as then, rather than digital. Around 80% of all prints are still made from film - the rate of growth in digital camera sales has already peaked, due to near-saturation level penetration and the rise of camera phones. One can think of the 'photographic' digital market as the DSLR and backs market - and this sector makes up just 7% of the digital camera market broadly defined; and most of that share is recent, and is because of heavy discounting of entry-level Nikons and Canons; it's more a small wave than a tsunami..

 

How good is pro film today? You would struggle to find many colour film photographers who cannot find a very suitable high quality emulsion for their needs today. Almost ten new or revised E6 films were introduced by the majors in 2003-5.

 

You can buy and use digital music and appreciate its accuracy, but nothing sounds as smooth and full as a decent table and a clean vinyl disc. Too bad the music media companies had control of both the media supported *and* the product, popular music. Glad it is not that way for photography, since the industry controls only the means to produce output. The film sector is moving quickly towards the high quality end of the market (as 35mm P&S and SLRs are declining), larger formats, better films, lots of choice regarding processes and printing methods. All this now as a predominantly advanced amateur category. It looks good to me - I believe enough active photographers will stay with it until something better is delivered, with as good quality for reasonable cost, for film to do well enough, and be a better quality sector.