Erwin Puts has spoken: FILM IS OVER

[lee_shively]

With the proliferation of the internet, it's amazing what you can find out there in cyberland.

 

Ohmagawd, there's more black and white film available to me right now than when I started shooting three decades ago! Jeez, look at all the people using traditional methods of photography on forums and personal websites! Glorybe, used film cameras are so cheap right now, I can afford to buy a Hasselblad system! Photo paper? Fercryinoutloud, who needs Kodak or Agfa--lookit all the stuff available! Chemicals? Hell, mix your own--they're there for you to "add to shopping cart"!

 

Let Kodak and Agfa make their fortunes in technology, chemical production or even sheep ranching. There's a lot of small players meeting the demand for traditional photography materials. While the film user is probably heading toward a niche market, it's a healthy niche market that gets healthier all the time.

 

The only place I continually see this Film is Dead crap is right here.

[eliot_rosen1]

Troll post. He doesn't even bother to accurately post what Erwin really said.

[mingus1]

as you maybe able to read between Erwin' lines is that he is backstabbing Leica slowly but surely and bit by bit. This maybe due to the trouble he had publishing his book ... ... whatever reason, it is totally appposed to the original pro-leica Puts.

 

And then this film-digital discussion is getting boring, over boring over boring.

My fridge is full of film, and so could anyones be, I can still buy any type or any brand I choose in any quantity, this also goes for the chemicals.... and who gives a flying cats violin about the lines per whatever measure... It's only meant to wind one another up.

 

Look at the galleries of people who defend one or the other ... close up of close ups of close ups of flowers, and then trillions of the same sort, taken from the same angle ... ahh yes the occasional squirel and house - pet be it cat or dog.... all highly, and unnaturally sharpened and saturated ...

 

Me.... I really get fed up with this technocratic wobble, mutual for both analogis as digitalists ...

[tony_senzaorbi]

Douglas, I don't know what you've got against dental hygienists (did you used to be married to one or something?)but I was just remarking that it was contrarian in terms of what is usually said in terms of the camera body being the least important part of the image chain (at least before digital it was). I'm always interested in what makes artists (photographers are artists) tick.

[doug herr]

Tony - apologies for the tone of my previous post. BTW, it's technicans, not hygenists. Yes I agree my view is contrary to conventional wisdom particularly as expressed by a few on photo.net who quite reliable post "it's not the camera, it's the photographer". My view is that it's the combination of and interaction between the photographer, tools, technique, subject and light that make the photograph.

[brambor]

I'm not even reading the link. I'm too busy trying to be a better photographer. Yesterday I printed a tri-x shot on ink jet. The day before I printed a D shot. Regardless of media they all reside on my computer and sometimes I don't remember what I shot them with.

<p>

<img src="http://static.flickr.com/24/102835820_2f813e5102_o.jpg" width="500" height="728" alt="Evening at AMC Hut" /></a>

[ray .]

<i> Equally I would think very poorly of someone charging more

money for a silver based darkroom print JUST because it is

silver based.</i><p>Based on that you'd have to think poorly of

most people in the world, who if they can make a buck, do.

There are certainly worse sins than a poor photographer selling

a print. <p>

 

I like what Douglas says here- the viewfinder is often overlooked

in these debates about cameras. But that people get so worked

up on either side of it is a little silly anyway. Like arguing BMW's

vs Mercedes and getting snippy about it.

[tony_senzaorbi]

"Tony - apologies for the tone of my previous post. BTW, it's technicans, not hygenists. Yes I agree my view is contrary to conventional wisdom particularly as expressed by a few on photo.net who quite reliable post "it's not the camera, it's the photographer". My view is that it's the combination of and interaction between the photographer, tools, technique, subject and light that make the photograph."

 

I agree, so now those you refer to have someone else to flame too <grin>. BTW are you in the UK? In the US we call them hygienists. Kind of like lift and elevator no doubt.

[35mmdelux]

film is already buried, with 90% of the market digital as we write. This doesn't mean that film will not be produced. It will continue to be produced in smaller scale. Digital IMO is the Timex equivalent to the masses. Throwaway novels to literature. Rolex/Patek to Timex. McDonalds to a real dinner. A Walmart suit to Brooks.

 

The focal point, as always, will be to the masses where big profits can be generated. But these big companies are not single product driven. They have multiple products. Some have thousands of product lines.

 

Producing film/chemicals is a no-brainer for the producers since the formulas and R&D was paid off years ago. It easy cash flow for them. A smaller product/revenue line, but mostly cash inflows.

 

Its a different world out there today. I happen to like film and the history it conveys. And I pay handsomely for it. If I were an AP photog, then I wouldn't have a choice. But as a freelancer, its the historical nature that I'm interested in, not the quick fix.

[david k.]

Interesting that at the current PMA show, Fuji is introducing a number of NEW professional films, they obviously are not consulting Erwin!!

[terry_rory]

"Digital IMO is the Timex equivalent to the masses. Throwaway novels to literature."

 

Paul, a lot of throw-away, mass market writings ended up as great literature. (Shakespeare wrote for the common mass paying public as did Dickens whose great books were serialised in cheap popular magazines.)

 

'Peasant food' is now served up in some Michelin starred restaurants and great operas were often first performed to large rowdy crowds of common folk (including prostitutes who plied their trade amongst the audience) and some of the best Jazz was first performed in bars, brothels and clubs that catered to common tastes.

 

Film photography itself would never have taken off if Kodak had not found a way of making it affordable at 'Timex' or 'McDonalds' prices to the masses.

[oceanphysics]

Kodak doesn't believe that anyway. I'm sure they do believe it will be a niche business, and therefore one they're not very interested in being in, perhaps in two years, though they haven't explicitly said.

[nels]

Film died over a year ago. At the funeral, Canon was handing out 1DsII to all the important guests. Wild parties and celebrations immediately ensued.

 

Mourning has never been more fun.

[terry_rory]

Rene, 12:41 is a superb photograph.

[bart feliciano]

Troll.

 

Do the other forums get trolled as much as this one?

[kevin m.]

"Film died over a year ago."

 

Then why is B&H still taking my orders?

 

"At the funeral, Canon was handing out 1DsII to all the important guests."

 

Mighty generous of them, considering the camera retails for $7,149.95

 

"Wild parties and celebrations immediately ensued."

 

Cool. After the euphoria has ebbed, perhaps those who keep posting their digital images

straight out of the camera will take the time to learn a little post processing.

[rj]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=FetchChildren&Q=&ci=2545

 

http://www.jandcphoto.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=6

 

http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=category&cat1=Film

 

Just some places where I buy dead film. It doesn't smell that bad, really.

[michael_kastner]

Ach ja, up to here (inclusively) it's all pretty boring

[brambor]

Thanks Trevor. Tri-x at 1/15 F2

[g-man1]

If I may add my bit to Douglas Herr and Tony Sensaorbi thread within a thread: I like my Contax T film camera, it's small, easy to focus, has a large lens 38/2.8) and has a few milliseconds shutter lag (on par with my M7) and I can take good pictures at ISO 800. It's always in my pocket and ready to take pics of my son, etc. In that sense, the equipment often does count. I would like a digital SLR, but it won't fit in my pocket -- my digital p&s does fit, but it has horrible focus and terrible shutter delay. Eventually, a small digital camera with reliable, quick focus, minimal shutter delay, long battery life, low light capability, high reliability, and enough megapixels to project/view on a CRT/LCD/screen will come along (inevitably) and film will be "dead" for me. Until then, my scanner will provide the missing link.

[vic_.]

A few sociological observations on the advent of digital technology:

<p>It has created a lot of pornographers, or pseudo-pornographers, since they don't have to go to their local photo store to get their "negatives" devloped and printed (or more likely, put on the web). Cell-phone cameras are a huge nuisance in this regard. Tells you what's been on a lot of people's minds all along.

<p>It has introduced more people to photography than did film, as the P&S is simple to use.

[kevin m.]

"I would like a digital SLR, but it won't fit in my pocket -- my digital p&s does fit, but it has

horrible focus and terrible shutter delay. Eventually, a small digital camera with reliable,

quick focus, minimal shutter delay, long battery life, low light capability, high reliability, and

enough megapixels to project/view on a CRT/LCD/screen will come along (inevitably) and

film will be "dead" for me."

 

Gary, try the Fuji F10. It's been superceded, so you should be able to get it at a discount.

Small, big shutter button, excellent low light performance and virtually no shutter lag.

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<I>Bart F , feb 22, 2006; 02:01 p.m.

Troll.

Do the other forums get trolled as much as this one?

 

</I><P>Actually it doesn't matter. This forum just takes the ball and runs. In fact, the initial

post rarely has much of anything to do with how the thread goes. The worst problem are

first-timers asking 'first-timer' questions. They usually get jumped on as trolls.

[al_kaplan1]

Not just FILM but no doubt especially B&W FILM. I guess that explains why I shot a wedding and a bas mitzvah party this past weekend for clients who didn't want digital. They wanted film, and except for a few posed formals they wanted black and white film. They wanted to be assured that I'd print on conventional silver/gelatin paper. In the meantime a Canadian citizen who'd seen my photos here on Photo.net's Leica Forum sent me the money to pay for two signed B&W prints. I'm a trusting sort and mailed them out the day he said he would send payment. I have my money! Ain't life grand? Time to take off the black suits and stop the wailing and mourning.

[franklin_polk]

I wonder why, at this point, photo.net doesn't have a filter that automatically deletes threads that have the phrase "film vs. digital" in thim. Heres something that no one's brought up yet: I find simply shooting film more fun than digital to me. In addition, for my movies, I can't afford a $5000 camcorder that it would take to equal the look of well shot Super 8mm or 16mm. Just my thoughts.