Still think film is here to stay?

[john_wire]

Lex, you must have "one tame" owl. My guy said, "you can't get the tripod, don't use 'fill' and I'm out of here when that T70 'spasms'".

 

This one really fills the 'wall' when projected. Computer screens 'suck' IMHO.<div></div>

[filip_plesha1]

Even now in 2005 discussions about film vs. digital are one of the longest threads and hottest debates. That means film is still alive. When a discussion about film vs. digital turns into a short thread with a few people stating the obvious choice of digital, then film is really dead in the mainstream.

[ben conover]

As we move ahead with mutant consumer technology all around us there will also be a demand for things made by hand, ie. film.

The difference is that there will be fewer people practicing traditional photography. Of course it is not always impossible to predict the future precisely, but then I don't have shares in it.

My satisfaction in life comes from doing things for myself and not for others, the fact that others may appreciate what I do is the selling point and the point of Art. I do not like commercial art because it is for consumers who shop in Bloomingdales for fun.

 

Ikka: I can still find 120 Tech-Pan here in Ireland, but I have to send it off to U.S. for proccessing in special labs who know how to use Technidol. I hope to get some resluts back sometime.

 

Turtles have been around for a very long time as have fountain pens, violins, watercolours, etc. Digital camera's haven't.

 

Cheers.

[alexandru_petrescu]

For some reasons this topic is always boring and hectic at the same time.

 

But it made me (an inexperienced photographer, no DSLR experience) wonder whether an image shot by two neighbouring generations of same-class same-brand DSLRs under the same lighting conditions look the same to the eye, colorwise, leaving the pixelcount effects apart. My immediate presumption is that the pictures are obviously different, but I may be wrong. If I had access to, say a new Canon 1D and a new 1DII (both uncalibrated, out of factory), I'd shot two pictures at same aperture/speed/iso/raw, a unique lens, and then compare the colors. If they are indistinguishable to my eye on a computer screen then I may have many things wrong about stability... just learning...

[steve_swinehart]

Like all niche market products - including buggy whips - black and white materials will be made far into the future. Let's look at some "dead" products.

 

Tube audio products - still made (including tube cd players).

 

Vinyl records - still made.

 

Turntables - still made.

 

Buggy whips - still made (the ubiquitous photo.net canard).

 

You may not be able to get your current "favorite" B&W material in the future - I've never found a substitute for Super XX - but I didn't stop making photographs.

 

Kodak out of the B&W business - others will fill the niche void. It will take awhile for the market to sort itself out, but products will be available.

 

All the while, digital will be getting better so in the future you will have even more imaging choices - fine by me.

[James G. Dainis]

<B>Note from Moderator:</B><BR>

As is to be expected, we have gone from facts to opinons to personal attacks. Facts and opinions based on experience are welcome on this forum, personal attacks are not. I've wasted a good deal of time editing this thread already and would appreciate not having to continue to do so.

[john_wire]

Steve, any pics yet from that new digital Leica? Regards.

[steve_swinehart]

Digital Leica...yep, still working with it. I hope to have time this afternoon to try it out in some difficult lighting situations.

 

So far I've shot some stuff at ISO 800 to see what kind of noise would show up, but I haven't looked at it. The card in the camera is only 512mb - that's 24 photos in RAW mode, so I've been shooting & just dumping the stuff to a directory on my computer.

[sprouty]

Steve your point (above) is well taken, but surely you're not denying that formats of media can, and do, die all the time?

 

Also consider this: is the production and processing film closer to the manufacture of buggy whip or a fountain pen, or more akin to Betamax, laserdisc, and 8-track audio?

[phule]

<< Did anyone besides me find any time to take photos today in between all the handwringing? >>

 

I did, but it was with a Canon A80. Mostly because it was my first time visiting the place I...er, visited, so I didn't feel like "wasting" film. But I will be heading back with a film camera next week (Polaroid's at that!) :)

[rowland_mowrey]

This was a very well kept secret at EK up till the last minute. In fact they were assuring everyone that only color would cease production in Brazil and that B&W would continue.

 

Today's Rochester Democract and Chronicle has an article, byline Ben Rand, that describes the closing but ironically EK stock went up yesterday just a bit.

 

I guess I would have to say I DONT CARE. I use Ilford Multigrade mostly, having found it to be almost identical to Polycontrast. The only difference is that the Ilford product seems to be a bit more pressure sensitive.

 

In any event, I'm working on making my own B&W paper, so in the long run it won't matter to me. I've already made a grade 2 contact speed paper and have begun making contact prints.

 

As long as I am able to work in my lab, I will never want for B&W materials. Color is the one I'm worried about.

 

I agree with James, we are photographers and supposedly have a common interest that can make us friends, not enemies to take jabs at each other. I say that both digital and conventional have weak and strong points. Used appropriately, a good photographer can emphasize the best of either, and used inappropriately, you will see the bad points of either.

 

You can look at the bright side. Kodak has given a gift to Ilford. They have handed them a major portion of the B&W paper market.

 

Regards to you all.

 

Ron Mowrey

[peter_obaldo]

Bob, do you honestly believe that with film slowing down, the film industry will NOT alter their business model as demand for film decreases ? Don't you think that the industry is adjusting to decrease demand ? If you don't believe this, then yes film is dead. But in business sense - as long as there is demand.....there is money to be made, thus film will continue.

[lex_jenkins]

John: Yeh, I dunno how tame that owl was but it sure liked to pose.

 

It was in an enclosure at the Fort Worth Nature Center. Besides having to shoot through a chain link fence, there was a green plastic corrugated roof over the pen. I tried to overpower the unfavorable color problems with flash, and not entirely successfully.

 

It was too hot that day for any real wildlife. The buffalo, prairie dogs and almost every bird except for some white egrets were hiding.

 

Still, a day taking photographs beats a day arguing about photography.

[john_wire]

Amen!

[john_happy1]

>You should actually look at some good digital prints. Most people that complain about digital cameras and their inferior quality are usually just revealing their sloppy digital darkroom techniques and lack of computer skills.

 

I keep looking up all kinds of magazine that shot with digital camera, and many famous fashion wedding photograhers that use digital camera, they all have poor skintone and look weird when compare to film/slide.

 

I do publishing in a small company, so I have seen many digital image that sent to us, none has good skintone, they goes from pink skin, red skin, purple skin, grey skin and green skin, based on the file info, some were even shot with a 1ds, we based these result on cmyk values, so don't blame on mis-calibrated monitor.

[jeff_drew4]

I cannot argue . . . definitely film will be king for me. I'm at a point that I adapt to the

changes instead of whining and going digital. I am so pissed at my digital P&S! 3&4

second cycle time due to memory & battery issues - at a wedding! Great! I have no

trouble getting really good, well-timed shots with film! Digital is a different paradigm

and I'm not there yet. Others can do it and more power to them! Does paper freeze

well? Hey, Ron, do you teach B&W paper making? Some these concepts of doing it

yourself will flourish and I would not hesitate supporting it! Long live small

manufacturers!

[randrew1]

I have a question and a comment for MD:

 

Question: Where can I read more about digital printing becoming the "gallery archival standard"? What kind of printing are we talking about? (I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I want to know.)

 

Comment: There have been digital backs for view cameras for several years. They are scanning backs suitable only for still life shots in a studio. Most catalog shots are done this way.

[boris c han]

"I do publishing in a small company, so I have seen many digital image that

sent to us, none has good skintone"

 

If this is true then you should really start hiring some better photographers.

The key to the rapid success of digital in the professional market is the fact

that you have - if you know what you're doing - a staggering amount of control

over the "look" and color balance of the final image.

[madro]

1. Never happened to you that a gallery owner tried to persuade you that a digital print is not archival enough therefore not good enough? Now, with this news it seems to me that digital printing is or will become standard. This is my private opinion. There are still many galleries that would not accept any other print than classical BW print. I think this is going to change now. I think that even digital color prints become more archival than best BW prints. Kodak Endura paper has "color stability" of up 200 years as per Kodak product info.<p>

 

2. I said AFFORDABLE LF digital back. One that I can carry with me. I think using 4x5" film is still cheaper.

[ilkka_nissila]

I have to agree with John that the skin in many published wedding photographs from digital originals does look weird and unnatural. however, I seem to do okay in natural light with my inkjet prints from the D70, so it's probably a problem with the magazine reproduction people learning to process digital originals without a hardcopy color reference.

 

I do prefer film (even 35 mm) for people photography, but I realize that digital is improving and it should be fine after a couple of decades of development. :-)

[andrew_grant]

Jeff Drew, you would have no problem "getting really good, well-timed shots" with a digital camera either if you used a decent digital camera. Any current generation DSLR from Nikon or Canon will be about as fast as an equivalent film SLR from the same company. As a bonus you won't have to change film every 36 exposures. Get a DSLR and dump the digicam toy.

 

I have both a film SLR and a digital SLR and ironically the only kind of film I still shoot is B&W. Shooting digitally in color and convertin to B&W is convenient but has one major disadvantage over B&W film, exposure lattitude. Ilford XP-2 seems to have about 9 stops, way more than any digital camera. The other nice thing about XP-2 is you can scan it easily or print it in wet darkroom on B&W paper just as easily as a conventional B&W film (just not Kodak paper for much longer).

 

I am surprised that B&W materials are disappearing faster than color though, I would expect B&W photographers who do their own printing to be the last people to switch to digital. OTOH color film is a PITA. If you shoot slide you need a different film for each type of lighting and you have the same narrow exposure lattitude as digital without the histogram. If you shoot color negative, chances are you will have to get someone else to process and print it. That will either be expensive or the colors will be wrong.

 

I guess sales of color negative film are being propped up by the sale of disposable cameras and color paper will still be widely used in those digital minilab machines for some time.

[fivetonsflax]

Jeff -- I feel your pain as regards poor performance of digital cameras. I have found that a

digital SLR is more responsive than smaller digital cameras. Give one a try before you

write off digital entirely.

 

To the person who pointed out that Kodak's stock went up -- yup, Wall Street sure does

love layoffs. Blecch.

 

I really hope that Ilford and others are able to take up the slack. Inkjet may or may not be

as good as traditional wet prints, but it's *different*, and it's better to have more options

than fewer.

[ilkka_nissila]

You don't really need to have a different E6 film for each lighting condition as much as you used to in the past. For example, E100GX and Elite 100 handle people photography in the outdoors very well, and they also do fit architecture well. If it's really sunny then I tend to lean towards the Elite and if it's cloudy or shady then the GX. Two films for different light isn't that bad. But what you get is the option of punching up the colours with Velvia or VS, and so on. If your contrast range is high, you can use color negative or C-41 black and white negative film which handles extreme contrast well.

 

In the past, the films were such that you *had to* apply filtration in sunlight or cloudy, the sensitivity to this was stronger than with today's films IMHO. Of course, you can still apply filters, but it does take a bit of time. What is nice is that slides take almost no space at all to store, and you can project them or scan them for prints, and modern iso 100 slide films scan with much less grain than negative films do. And there is so much emotion and "being there" with a projected slide, it's hard to replicate the feeling with other methods.

[mikeseb]

Like most serious photographers these days I am straddling the film / digital divide, trying

to cobble together cost-effective solutions that work for a variety of situations. Also like

others here, I

have found the squabbling between digital and film zealots tiresome and unhelpful.

 

As to the original question: who can say? Seems logical that for the mass consumer, digital

would supplant color film / transparencies before it would kill B&W, which is more often

the preserve

of the afficionados. Is most color film sold to folks taking vacation snaps? I don't know,

but if so then it'll be toast in the mass market in five to ten years as digital cameras

continue to get cheaper and better; they are now more than good enough for snaps as we

all know.

 

I'd love to be able to afford a MF digital back for my Contax 645, but until then I'll

continue using TMax 100, HP5, and TriX, and seque to the next one remaining if/when

those are discontinued. I have lately started using T400CN and XP2 with good results, so

maybe that'll hold me for a while. Don't see myself stockpiling Tri-X out in the root cellar

like some crazed film survivalist. Part of my enjoyment in photography is sort of a

McGuyver thing (go ask your parents :) )--try to take what is available and learn to get the

best possible results from it. I enjoy the challenge.

 

While the toned digital image of a leaf someone posted here is good in its own right, I also

like that certain texture, feel, and presence that I see in scanned B&W film, and which I

have not seen convincingly emulated in the digital realm. If someone can direct me to the

means by which it CAN be done, I'd love to have that information.

 

Just my opinion. I guess, in keeping with the spirit of this thread towards the end, I should

call someone a name or throw a pie or something! :)

 

Mike Sebastian

[ken_hughes4]

the problem with most of the digital/film arguments around here is that everyones opinion is based on their own standards (and abilities) of quality.

 

I've noticed that the "loudest" usually corresponds with the lowest quality.