The Worst of Times, The Best of Times

[dan_brown4]

I stopped by the local camera shop to shoot the breeze yesterday. It was confirmed to me that digital is definitely taking over. I guess ya'll were right. One of the senior sales guys talked about film being out of mainstream photography in the next two years, meaning that only specialty users would be buying it. I guess that is shooters like we Leica users. Are these the worst of times?

 

<p>

 

Then I wandered over to the used darkroom gear and found a cherry 50/2.8 Rodenstock Rodagon lens for $75. That should be great with my Summicron exposed Delta 400 negs. I think I'll pick up a 4x5 enlarger for a song next. I'll be in my darkroom later tonight to check the Rodagon out. These are the best of times. Don't miss 'em.

[dan_brown4]

And, I picked up 15 Kodak Carousel trays last week (all in mint

condition) for $2 a piece. I retired gentleman was consolidating his

slides.

[vijay_nebhrajani]

Pardon the language, but the "senior sales guy" was farting in the

wind.

[mikep1]

There can be no doubt that film is dead but, like the chicken with

his head cut off, just hasn't figured it out yet. Betcha that within

3 years it'll be all over. For a while we'll all say that film is

better (like we said about vinyl as opposed to CDs) but then we'll

all be saying "I can't believe we used film! Yep, 3 years, tops!

 

<p>

 

I just hope all my current M lenses will work on the M8 digital!

[roger_michel]

speaking of the m8 digital, there is a pic of the new

leica/panasonic "digital reportage camera" in amateur photographer

this week. there is a blurb also with some specs and price info. as

for film, it will be around for the next 20 years or so -- there are

too many film based cameras in circulation at the moment. more

important perhaps, film will be used in less developed countries

where tech support for digital is not widespread.

[james_.1]

Film will be around for our lifetimes! There just isn't that many

people on this planet that are as glued to computers as this forum's

participants are. Film P&S's hafta make up quite a bit of new

camera sales, and if not then those who own film cameras probably

don't shoot enough to replace their trusty cameras with digital

ones.

[andrew_schank]

This round around has been beaten to death here and at every other

photo forums. Digital cameras can make images as good as a decent

film camera, but to think film will be "gone" in 2 or 3 years is

plain old silly.

[dan_brown4]

I'm sorry.

 

<p>

 

I wasn't trying to stir the pointless debate.

 

<p>

 

Used prices on darkroom gear are too good to be true! That is the

message!!!

[scott evans]

I just dont understand how digital is going to take over in a short

amount of time. I work at a mini-lab ( the contrition of going back

to art school) and people cant even load their APS camera's. I

wont even get into when they come back because they put it on P

instead of H setting. Who's going to teach the public to white

balance, file size, color correction . The pro photographer's are

having a hard time with this. I think the technologies after you

take the photo have to catch up for the digital camera's. IMHO we

are safe for a while. scott

[zoeica images]

Used darkroom equipment can be bought for much less now compared to 3

or 4 years ago. I know at least 6 people that sold it all for digital.

And they still have problems getting the prints to look right. I'll

keep getting my hands wet 'til I'm dead or they ban chemicals.

Beseler 4x5's seem to be selling very cheap.

 

<p>

 

Film will never go out(Ansel will make sure of that somehow).But, yet

a digital back for a Leica M would be a nice addition.

[Spearhead]

Sorry to disagree with everybody, but film is already disappearing.

In five years, maybe Gold 800 and 400TCN or whatever it's called

will still be around, but the films I have used for the last ten

years are mostly gone. The wedding and portrait markets are

starting to convert to digital now, and that will make far fewer 120

format films available. Magazines are going digital - I did some

shots for a high-end, beautifully printed magazine last year and

they wanted a CD with high resolution files. The only requirement

was "no scans from 35mm."

[kens]

I think Jeff is right from the "professional" perspective. The

economies of professional imaging make it logical and worthwhile. The

professional will have to learn & adapt, or die, very quickly.

 

<p>

 

But I think Scott has a point about the "amateur" market. The general

public has little tolerence for rapid change where the burden of

change is placed on the consumer. Vinyl versus CD was a no-brainer -

what's to "learn"? But digital imaging - and the requisit image

transfer, manipulation, storage, and reproduction - is another matter.

 

<p>

 

The fallout? I think traditional professional materials will see

decreasing demand, and the manufacturers will reduce or cease

production. Amateur materials, however, will continue to sell for

some time. Manufacturers will have to make a quantum leap in digital

convenience and pricing, or it will take a long time for Joe Consumer

to catch up.

[emile_de_leon9]

I live in a college town and spoke to the head of the film dept

recently about the influx of digital in the college scene here. He

said he loves digital but the college kids generally hate it and

dont want to know. They like the process of traditional photography

better...he cites the reason as being that it's fun as well as

artistic. I dont think film will die so quickly. Vinal is still used

for the best classical recordings as a digital cd leaves out some of

the sound spectrum. You really cant beat the warmth of analog. As

long as there is $$$ to be made off of film or vinal records or oil

paints for that matter, some one will be there to meet the demand.

[andy_piper2]

Signs (literally) are up at one local professional photo supply house -

on Kodak letterhead - announcing that Verichrome Pan 120 and 35mm

Ektagraphic film have both ceased production and will become

unavailable as stock are sold off. These are marginal products compared

to Tri-X and Velvia, no doubt, but as I mentioned in some previous

digital-vs.-film thread, we can expect to see some serious shrinkage in

the number of items in film manufacturers' catalogs.

 

<p>

 

This isn't necessarily a bad thing - do we REALLY need 6 to 8 different

100/160-speed color neg films from Kodak alone? (NC-VC-Max-Gold-Royal

Gold-Supra etc. etc.) Or Tri-X Pro/Tri-X plain/Tmax/TmaxCN/PortraB&W/

SelectB&W in 400 speed black and white?

 

<p>

 

Film will be around as long as it's economical to produce - it's up to

the product managers to get their catalogs under control.

[MTC Photography]

digital may take over MF and 35mm; but the Minox world is still the

kingdom of film, no trace of digital, not for a long time.

[alfie wang]

Even if Velvia and Sensia die out, Tri-X will live forever!

[mikep1]

I disagree about there being a "lot to learn" for the general public

with digital. You snap a picture as with any point/shoot, you pop

out the flash card (or whatever media) and hand it to the 1 hour

photo guy, he hands you your photos and your media. How could it be

easier? Several local 1 hours are already doing just that.

 

<p>

 

The notion that for digital to go big, everyone will have to use a

computer and produce their own photos is unrealistic and

unnecessary. And white balance? How does the general public "white

balance" now with film? They don't. Nobody cares even though film

is terrible at "white balance." Everyone accepts the orange of

daylight film under tungsten or the green under fluorescents. And

anyway the processing in the 1 hour lab can "correct" color balance

as necessary just as it does today with film.

 

<p>

 

We don't have to get on the train or even like the train but it's

best to stand clear of the tracks because we're sure not going to

stop the train.

[zoeica images]

I liked a statement I saw on the Leica Users Group about digital-

"digital- it means paying alot more for something you already have

and getting less quality".

 

<p>

 

Now I think this refers to 35mm digital, since I know large format

digital is very good, but will set you back at least $15,000.

[tony_brookes5]

Why is everyone spending so much time worrying about film versus

digital. When CDs took over from Vinyl it took 10 years and there is

now a revival of Vinyl. The ability to make crisp clear sound was

much greater than the present ability to make acceptable digital

pictures. In fact digital pictures are still streets behind wet

prints. But of course they are catching up and if prices of digital

gear falls - it will need to fall by about 75% - then most

photography will be digital. but don't wait for the paint to dry - it

could likewise take 10 years. A friend who is now 100% digital says

it takes him an hour to do a print he likes and it's more expensive

than wet prints.

[peter_hughes1]

The "digital is better" crowd are producing sterile, generic,

character-less images for "professional" or

ersatz "photojournalistic" use.<p>Hell, platinum and P.O.P. aren't

dead--and they haven't been mainstream processes for nearly a

century.

[chris_henry]

MikeP is right. The barriers to convenient use of digital media will

be as low or lower than those for film are today. That goes both for

the consumer and the vendor. A processor no larger than a small self-

serve copier that takes input from a CF, SM or microdrive, or a

photoCD and outputs to 4x6, website, CD, even to 11x14 if you want.

Mated to a credit card striker and you could have prints just as

easily at Kinkos as at the drugstore or a photo shop, any time of

day. How could that be any less attractive than 1-hour processors?

The vendor won't have to pay a technician except to

service the machine, and the footprint will be a lot smaller.

[Spearhead]

No-one here was saying "digital is better." But it's probably

easier to state one's own personal rants than look at the issues...

[Spearhead]

MikeP is right. It will be made easy. In the same way that Kodak

made it possible for everyone to use a camera, some company or

combination of companies will introduce simpler cameras and

drugstore self-processing machines that do what today's drugstore

machines do.

 

<p>

 

I don't find all this agonizing to be particularly useful. If the

materials disappear, I'll use digital. The film companies aren't

going to listen if the volume isn't there. I am among the thousands

of people that wrote Agfa after the disappearance of Ultra 50. Not

only didn't it bring it back, it appears they killed its successor

before it was released.

[jason]

FWIW i'm involved also in watchmaking and retail sales of watches...

well electronic watches did displace old mechanical.Today there is a

growing market for the mechanical watch and some of these are very

expensive.I think like what happened in this industry will happen in

photography.There will be hybrids,some film and some digital.For the

ord user,digital is both very expensive compared to film,the results

are short life...i am in my 50's so will continue to shoot b/w and use

darkroom...i will purchase a digital for e-mail use....

I march to my own beat!I did b/w when everybody went to color.

Now b/w back in fashion.The slow speed of digital cameras a real

drawback.Even my film EOS,is way too slow for me!!

Yup a camera designed in the 50's is still tops.My M3 still faster in

so many ways to the EOS which is remarkeable.

All digital photo users always mention the "delete" feature.I wonder

why?

[jay_.]

The only reason this issue raises so much heat is because Leica

hasn't even confirmed that a digital M or R body is under

development, and we all know Leica's history of remaining decades

behind in technology. If we're all honest, we'll all admit we're

PO'd at the possibility (if it isn't a probability) that our

substantial investment in Leica gear may well be of limited or

possibly no practical use in the forseeable future. If there were a

digital Leica body today I believe that the film-will-be-here-forever

camp would have many fewer members. I believe that Leica's marketing

people feel that film and their customer base have the same number of

years left, and so have chosen to produce one last camera--the M7,

with a minimum of R&D--and make one last splash of profit before the

line, film and those who use them both, are either dead or too old to

go shooting. I dare Leica to prove me wrong by revealing a plan to

offer a digital body for our Leica lenses.