I feel like Don Mclean...

[dano1]

Hey all,

 

I just had my first roll of E6 developed this week and was pretty

excited. It seemed as if everything that was bothering me about film

was solved by using transparencies. The colors were dead-on with no

tweaking, and the grain was neglegeable.

 

So, I was picking up some Reala I had shot at my niece's first

bithday, and I asked the guy behind the counter if he sold any E100G.

He told me that he doesn't sell any pro slide films anymore because

the Pros don't use it anymore.

 

I could litterally feel my heart sink at that moment. He went on

talking about how this past year all the pro's in town have gone digital.

 

I walked out with a deep understanding of how Don Mclean felt the day

he read in the paper that Buddy Holly, Richie Valens, and the Big

Bopper had died in a plane crash, effectively killing Rock and Roll.

 

Are we really getting to the point where only snapshooters and

die-hard enthusiasts use film?

 

Have all the Pro's really switched over to digital?

 

I don't know, I've just been bummed all day after hearing that.

What's your take on it?

 

Dan O.

[r.t. dowling]

It's true that many pros have switched to digital. But look at it this way: why would Fuji have just released two new professional slide films if no professionals were using film? I doubt they did it just to please the slide film buffs.

[arnabdas]

I think he ran out of stock on E100G.

[jtk]

R&R lives with the Rolling Stones and a zillion teenagers who gag when they hear emo. When that plane crashed the girls in my junior high school literally cried in the hallways...they became hippie chicks who dug the Grateful Dead and Quicksilver and disdained the Beatles, and along the way there they went nuts for the Kingsmen and Paul Revere and the Raiders.

 

Film's a little less popular than the Kingsmen, but some very sexy grandmothers and grandfathers still love it...nothing like an occasional toke of Rodinal to keep the joints flexible.

[._._z]

Fuji is simply squeezing out the last fruits of its years-old, years-long film r&d

efforts, which has been dramatically cut back. They've halted all film production in

Europe (Holland) and the USA (South Carolina), and will only produce film in Japan,

retrenching by producing less. (Worldwide film sales declined 12%-18% yearly since

2001, with a 30% decrease in 2005.)

 

40% of all film sold today is in the form of cheap one-time-use cameras.

[freehueco]

I'm still processing more film than ever. Maybe it's just that we're getitng a growing portion

of a shrinking market; but film has not died yet.

 

But I am standing on the levy drinking whiskey and rye... =)

[greg lockrey]

A lot of pros" have gone to digital because it is quicker to see results. My business caters to artists and photographers who need limited edtion printing and they find the results are fast and economical to get. I occasionally make slides of their artwork so that they can submit their pieces into shows. Slides are vibrant alright, but I wouldn't say that color fidelity is all that close though. I do a lot of large format printing for the digital "pros" and I have to say that most of the old timers haven't a clue as to what they are doing. Some guys think that they can get a 24x36" from their 1 kb file because the camera is an 8 mp. Then blame the printer for the pixalated print. If the artworld has anything to say about it, slides will remain until the galleries get computers. Projectors are cheaper and the images can be viewd life size.

[g._armour_van_horn]

A huge number of pros have, in fact, switched to digital. They're the ones that have the budgets to do it right. Portrait studios rarely shot E-6 films to begin with, so as they move to digital that isn't going to change the market any. Catalog photographers had the most reason to switch, because they could flow their work directly into Quark or InDesign, eliminating the film and the scanning. But there are still pros using chromes, and I would expect the decline of film is going to slow now that the folks who could easily switch have already done so.

 

My impression is that Fuji is selling more slide film than Kodak. Sure, they're closing the plants that make C-41 films, but as far as I can tell all the E-6 film was made in Japan anyway. So they're cutting their overhead so as to be able to make money on the declining volume.

 

As the volume declines, it makes less and less sense to try to keep a range of E-6 materials in hundreds of different stores. Those who get organized to serve regional markets will be able to stock the films and move them before they get too old, your local dealer apparently isn't going to be one of them.

 

Yes, the day will come when you can't buy slide film anymore. That will probably come after you have decided that the price has gone too high anyway - as the volume drops the unit prices are bound to go up at some point. But by then there might actually be digital cameras that have sufficient quality (by which I most certainly do not mean that they have enough megapixels) and perform the way you want them to.

 

I don't know how long slide film will be around, or how long I'll keep shooting and processing it. I'm pretty sure that the time left to us will be useful, and you sure can't beat today's prices on film-related equipment!

 

Van

[John Crowe]

You didn't even get a chance to use Kodachrome 25. Perhaps your heart could not take that loss though. You should get your hands on some of the last Velvia 50 asap. Good luck.

[jeff_z.]

"Have all the Pro's really switched over to digital?" Imho no, and probably not even most, depending on what genre of "pro" one is referring to. I've met a few NGS affilliated photographers, and here is my take, based on my perceptions and limited experience (I am not a professional). I asked one of the NGS connected photographers less than two years ago, how many of his peers were actually shooting digital, and he replied that only he and a very few others.

 

 

Imho, because of several factors, mainly those revolving around the profit motive and the probably desperate and perhaps short sighted desire to please Wall Street, digital has been shoved down the consumer's throat; oversold for now at least, because it is still an evolving technology, with much attendant needs for time and add'l hardware/software (although scanning has a learning curve also, but not nearly as steep). For the types of photography that I am interested in (the natural world, candids, photojournalism), I very much think that film is the best choice for now, both economically and aesthetically. When I've been among a mix of film and digital shooters, the digital folks were always spending a lot of time on their lap tops, while the film people were moving on to other things. I would think it not too much of a stretch that professionals are in the same boat, at least those of my areas of interest.

 

Many people seem to be susceptible for whatever is "new", and I think that marketers exploit this as much as possible. I think that this has fueled and helps to explain the seemingly pervasive perception in many circles that digital has taken over completely, and/or that it deserves this status. Another major sorepoint for me, is the fact that many workshops that I would otherwise be quite interested in, are now "Digital Photojournalism", or "Digital Whatever". Instead of being focused on the art and craft, they've got an equipment co. rep right there attempting to sell you a not too distantly obsolete, digital camera. Sad I think, and tends to make one just a bit cynical.. I hope you will stay with film, and not join the herd.

[robert_james]

In LA last weekend, the film counter at our largest camera store was packed. I had to wait just to buy slide film, and they ran out of one type. Go film!

[bruce_rubenstein]

There are two broad catagories of professional photography and the types of film that had been traditionally used. Negative film was used by photographers that needed photographic prints. This would be wedding, portrait and event photography. The other catagory is photography for reproduction and slides were used for this. The reason for slides is that they provide a reference during the prepress stage for how the image was supposed to look. (B&W and color neg film was also used for reproduction, but the prepress was different.) The printers doing the prepress were used to working from slides and it took a while to adapt to working directly from digital files. This was on of the things that has slowed the transition to digital.

 

The main drive to move to digital for commercial work is that film is a PIA. For most shoots the photographer is working with an AD adn/or an editor. Shots are check with Polaroids. Every shot is bracketed, because of potential variation on processing. Film can get lost or ruined. When the film goes to the printer it has to be sacnned and digitzed. Direct digital capture is just way more efficent.

 

Film is becoming, and will increasingly be a niche area for hobbyists and fine art photographers.

[rdkirk]

>>There are two broad catagories of professional photography and the types of film that had been traditionally used. Negative film was used by photographers that needed photographic prints. This would be wedding, portrait and event photography. The other catagory is photography for reproduction and slides were used for this.<<

 

Back in 1995, I was predicting that the first group to go digital would be PJs. That was a pretty safe projection: Their image quality needs were modest and definitely in second priority to their need for speed to publication.

 

I expected most other commercial photographers to be the second to "flip," because all print processes somewhat flatten end-display quality (including the fact that ultimate enlargement size is limited), and the freedom digital images gave art directors to manipulate the product would be overwhelmingly seductive. That was a fairly safe prediction, too.

 

What surprised the heck out of me was the swiftness that portrait and wedding photographers started flipping to digital. I expected them to be the last holdouts because their need was for ultimate print quality at significant enlargement. Even by 1996, the P&W folk in my mid-western region were going digital.

 

Two things I hadn't considered was the fact that the high level of competition meant they couldn't afford to miss a trick in customer offerings (and digital provides a lot in customer offerings), and I didn't realize at the time that portraits lend themselves fairly well to interpolation (like the flight of bumblebees, that was something the engineers didn't predict).

 

Architectural photographers and those making very large enlargements are still holdouts, but that's primarily because large format digital is still astronomical. If a 35mp back was down to the $10,000 range, they'd likely flip, too.

 

I'm still shooting 6x7 and 4x5 in film for that reason myself. If my cashflow could stand a Leaf Aptus 75, I'd be all digital.

[edgar_njari]

"Have all the Pro's really switched over to digital?"

 

In the recend words of Kodak themself (who is pushing the idea of digital) 2/3 of professionals still use film even though they own and use digital equipment in combination with it

[jtk]

As someone who used to work almost daily with art directors, primarily shooting E6 in MF and LF, I am SURE that I'd only work digitally, starting specifically with the 16MP ($11K) Canon if I was in that biz today. That's a very small investment for any important piece of business equipment, less than half what a gasoline station spends on a smog testing system.

 

Top end digital equipment is relatively inexpensive by comparison to top end film equipment of pre-digital times, and when you add to that the cost of time wasted in waiting for 2+hr E6 turnarounds and the traditional incompetence of art directors viewing Polaroids and film, Vs their obvious expertise viewing digital files properly on monitors, it's a no-brainer.

[geoff_samuel]

I'd say that photographers of all levels have switched to digital in the last few years. It's now just down to the luddites and hard-core film enthusiasts! (I am the latter). Having said that the lab I get my E-6 processing done always seems quite busy with E-6 processing, but I think that's the exception rather than the rule. May be at some point soon film will stop it's rapid decline and the labs that are left will be able to keep going, and film manufacturers will be able to produce lower volumes of film still at a reasonable price. Other than that we will all have to stock up the freezer!

[todd_phillips1]

The levy may be dry....but it's not dry of film.

 

I shoot for a living and just shot today for a commercial client four rolls of 220, one roll of 120 and four rolls of 35mm chrome. Yes, they will be scanned to a high res CD and be printed digitally, but that's just fine with the graphic designers because they have an original to check for color, contrast, etc.

 

Film isn't dead and wont be for for a LONG time. Here's a toast of whiskey and rye to film!

[a._t._burke]

Real men don't eat Quiche and real pros don't shoot digital? I say that only somewhat tongue in cheek. In my little town, Kalispell, MT, I have seen very little truly professional digital work.

 

One studio outfit for instance, went to Kodak digital SLRs at the <2mp level several years ago. They would do 16x20 portraits with 1.3mp. Talk about soft looking. The "pro" told his clients that it was a romantic dreamy look. Truth was that they were just soft, cheap inkjet prints that were sold for a high price. He had bought a reputable business and profiteered it into bankruptcy. Digital is quick, easy and make-believe Pros get the same money for itﾅeasy money. The portrait business had taken a bit of a black eye here. Has it in your area?

 

Digital is getting better every day. There is now enough pixel count and computer generated color fidelity to get great 5x7s and decent 8x10----- SNAPSHOTS. ButﾅReal professional work? Come on now!

 

There is still one place to get a real film portrait or product shot in Kalispell. Scott at Photo Video Plus uses 6x7 and 4x5 cameras with top-flight lenses and fresh, quality film. He has the lighting skills, tools and takes the time to get just the shot just right. There are plenty of pixels in his film scans to produce a 16x20 or even 30x40 and have sharp clear results with proper tonal graduations. His 5x7 and 8x10 prints done with a real photo process have that special look that no inkjet can achieve. No Quiche eater is he! When he retires who will replace him and his quality of work?

 

Alasﾅ. Digital deterioration is only a sign of the times. There are few pros or artisans at work today anywhere in any business. Your car is fixed by a remove and replace style mechanic. Fast food rules the dine out business. Look at how your kids are taught in public schools. Million dollar homes are built to minimum HUD standards. Andﾅﾅ. So-called pros use digital for work that should require Medium Format or better and professional level skill. As a people, we deserve it. We have dumbed down and don't realize, value or understand quality.

 

Yes, Rock 'n Roll had gone downhill ever since Buddy Holley died.

[bill_thorlin]

Don't know much about Don Mclean but do know something about Mark Twain.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

This guy has been using film for over 28 years and he's the best

pro photographer in my small art centric town. Do you think

digital would make him any better?

 

<a

href="http://www.partainphotographs.com/sensamp2.htm">Portr

ait Photography</a>

[greg lockrey]

Tim

 

Just looking at the cover page of the best photographer in your small town, I would have to say digital would help a lot since the skin colors will be CORRECTED and not too cyan, magenta, yellow and green as in his ad. Just my 2c

[Tim_Lookingbill]

Thanks, Gregory.

 

I think I'll call him up and subtley suggest digital. Since if he

hasn't found out by now, I doubt he's been sold on it. Or maybe

he's received some bad info.

 

This photographer has been producing the same results like

this for the past 5 years I've been here.

 

Who knows I might get some work out of it, maybe as a

consultant or retoucher, but I'm not holding my breath. I can't

believe he hasn't found this place and seen the gorgeous work

in these galleries.

[scott_eaton]

<I>The colors were dead-on with no tweaking, and the grain was neglegeable.</i> </p>So, you're comparing <b>prints</b> from negs vs <b>prints</b> from slides? Or this just another dufous 'slides on a light table vs prints from Walgreens' idiot thread? I'm curious how you are going to frame and matte those little slides.<P>I don't like to shoot weddings. I did it when I worked for a professional lab because I had cheap access to the best photo-finishing equipment made, and needed the side cash. Still, I don't like shooting them and will only give into pressure if it's a friend or close relative. When you're used to printing several dozen weddings a week from pro's who shoot nothing but LF/MF portraits and are masters at it, no matter how hard you try your work never looks that good in comparison.<P>Quick side bar, but note that I've yet to see *any* top demand wedding photographer use slide film (they either shoot digital or color neg) and they don't have problems getting accurate colors, so perhaps Dan O'Connell would like to introduce them to slides.<P>Anyways, I gave into pressure a few weeks and shot a friends wedding on digital -vs- haul my RB67 out of mothballs and buy a couple pro-packs of 120NPH. I applied the same post corrections I've used for years to make dSLR capture a dead ringer for NPH or Portra NC, and was astounded at the prints. No way could I have achieved those results with 35mm Portra NC. (Of course Les could with Provia 100 and his film scanner because his resolution is higher).<P>Basically, I know digital kick's film a$$ (unless you are a crappy photographer and need a medium to blame like digital and we all know that), but that's not where I'm going. What *is* sad is there are several portrait studios in town where the owners have switched from the typical Medium format color neg reproduction route to those fancy, over-priced $20,000 digital film backs. I hate to dissapoint my digital friends, but some people outta stick with film. Some of the blandest, pasty looking skin tones I've ever seen. Yeah, he's got greater resolution than my 10D, but who gives a crap if the skin tones make a low rez Sony picture proofer at Sears look good. <P>The point being there a lot of pros using digital who still have no clue, and just like expecting film to think for them, they want digital to think for them. We also have a lot of amatuers using film who make endless posts about why pros are using film and how film has higher quality. I'm honestly not sure what group has less of a clue.

[greg lockrey]

Working in the photo printing field both wet (30 plus years) and digital (for the past 8) I can tell you that digital has much greater control over the image than analog ever had. What used to be acceptable in the "wet" world will never pass today in the digital. Digital images can be corrected down to a specific color and not affect the over all look of the image. I can change the color of a girls dress from green to red and not affect her skin color. Sharpness (albeit apparent) can be manipulated also. Not to mention perspective, lens distortion, color abberations. Sure there are some minor issuses with D-max, but show me an observer who knows what the D-max of a particular print is or even cares. There are pixal interpolation programs out there that can take an 8x10" print into a 33x49' (yes that's feet). Try that with analog. Yes, slides are pretty, but digital will catch up and be able to make the image as large as a house.

[dano1]

Scott Eaton,

 

I was comparing 35mm color negative scans off a Nikon Coolscan V to 35mm color slide scans off the same scanner, at the same resolution.

 

It wasn't so much the portraits that I was suprized about the color, it was more so the fruit bowl. I have had a damn hard time getting negatives with odd colors to look right, especially when there are no white highlights.

 

When your highlight is orange, it makes it much more difficult to color balance.

 

I was suprised though at how little tweaking was needed with the portraits, at least with window light. I did say "with little tweaking" did I not?

 

It's taken me a while, but I have learned how to get proper color on things like Sunsets and other images without white highlights. What I enjoyed about slide film was that most of that color correction was completely unnecessary.

 

 

Trust me, I don't take my images to Wallgreens. I have my local lab develop the negatives and I scan them. The only prints I get come off my scans, as I have learned that is the only way to control output to my taste.

 

Take a look in my earlier thread for the samples of my first roll of slide film, including the fruit bowl.

 

Dan