another theory on state of film

[summitar]

During a chat with the proprietor of a neighborhood photo shop, I mentioned that

I was surprised to see Nikon F100s going for less than $200 on bay watch. He is

about my vintage and has been in the business for over 40 years. He suggests

that as a contributing factor to the decline of film is that schools that teach

photography are going digital to avoid the expense of digital darkrooms,

enlargers, developing devices, etc. Maybe the teachers are no longer

recommending Pentax K1000s since it more difficult for the average student to

get reliable ones as easily as few years ago. I wa a Boeing engineer among

other things and I took a 10 week course in color printing about 4 years ago.

Very enjoyable and very professional. Boeing picked up the $800 tuition with

its new theory that any learning on any subject keeps the gray cells alive. The

school was beginning to transition to digital. Does anyone have any related

information. I posted this comment in this forum because this is a film forum

and I am familiar with most of the posters. To keep my post on the up and up, I

will add that in the past three months, I bought a Leica IIIf with summitar and

135 mm hektor, and also an M6 classic from this shop, which were tradins. My

fourth screwmount and second M series. Long live film. I know it will outlive

me, which is small satisfaction given my age.

[david_m]

The problem with film is the same problem that LP records and now audio tapes have, they have been bypassed by technology. They still do the job, but they are no longer the technolgy of choice. The capitalist markets depend on new technology replacing old so everything new is portrayed as 'better' and 'improved' and most people fall for it. People who still use the old technology become subjects of curiosity and sometimes disdain. Film and film cameras will be around to some extent for years more. It's no surprise that darkroom classes have been replaced by digital photography classes. Look what happened to the venearble 'Shutterbug' magazine. It's now almost totally devoted to digital photography.

[alan_rockwood]

I looked at a photo magazine today that reported on a recent photo trade show. I think the magazine was Shutterbug. Anyway, I don't think there was a single mention of film or film cameras in the show report.

 

Look at the oft-repeated bright side of this mad-dash to digital. There are now a lot of great bargains to be had on film cameras and darkroom equipment.

 

One other note, the owner of a camera store in Utah County, Utah recently told me that he is still selling a fair amount of Ilford Black and White film, mostly to photo students at the local college.

[rustys pics]

As a college Photography instructor since 1992, I can give you a good idea of where things

are heading. I teach at both a major 4 year university, and a 2 year college. I have tenure at

niether so my opinions are untainted by academic politics, which are becoming more and

more like corporate politics, BTW.

Students are demanding more digital courses because that is where their careers will be.

But also, digital is easy and cheap for them. Too easy, really. Most colleges are keeping

their black and white darkrooms. But intro Photography courses are increasingly being

taught digital only. Darkroom classes are electives only. It's actually far more expensive for

colleges to maintain digital facilties than analog. Every 3 years we need to replace 18-30

work stations. Every 18 months we have to upgrade software. So the private 4 year

colleges are passing the cost on to students by requiring them to buy Notebook

computers

and their own software. 2 Year junior colleges have more access to funding, so we tend to

upgrade the equipment. THe junior college students increasingly cannot afford even a

basic 35mm camera. SO we must purchase Digital SLR cameras as loaners.

 

So your friend has it half right. large, 4 year colleges are switching to digital because that

is what students (and parents) demand. It is not cheaper than analog darkrooms, but more

costly. So the cost is getting passed on to students. I have seen a 50 inch RA4 color

processor literally broken up and destroyed to make way for workstations.

 

From an educators standpoint, nothing can replace the comraderie inspired by a group of

people working in a large darkroom together. Students learn faster and get to know each

other far faster. In digital classes, students by and large sit at their workstations, nearly

oblivious to the person next to them. You also have to factor in the ungodly cost of digital

printing. Students rarely, if ever get a satisfactory print on the first try. Usually they settle

for whatever the printer spits out, as we're on them about wasting the expensive inks.

I'm not knocking digital photography. But there are some large potholes that have been

hastily covered up on the road to the digital promised land.

[al_kaplan1]

No doubt most Pentax K-1000 bodies still work, as do the Olympus OM series and Minolta SR and SRT bodies,and yup, it's kind of difficult for a manufacturer to make big money when they made the $144 Omega B-22XL enlarger that I bought new in 1965. I'm still using it, along with the 50/2.8 Nikkor lens that I picked up in 1962 to use on a Durst 305. Sine then I've probably replaced the bulb less than ten times. I doubt if any of my tanks and reels are less than forty years old. My accountant complains that I've had no depreciation write-off in over thirty years. Film is cheap, and by IRS standards my Leicas are free.

[patrick j dempsey]

I heard similar reports that students are discouraged from using manual cameras at all and that they should learn on automatic cameras. I sort-of fail to see the point... what does the class teach? How can you teach f-stops on a camera that gives infinite apertures? How can you teach depth-of-field on a camera without a depth-of-field scale on the lens or a rangefinder? It seems strange to me to attempt to teach a class which is fundamentally a matter of simple physics with the most technologically advanced and complex device possible. Like learning to drive in a race car. Of course maybe Im wrong in believing that at some point the photographer would want to know exactly how to make the exact image he wants without taking sample shots at different settings.... or depending on post-processing to fix everything.

[John Seaman]

I have just completed three "beginners" courses at the local college - traditional photography, digital, and studio, and have been accepted to do the HNC course next year. The photography department has just moved campus, and brought all the BW and colour darkrooms to the new site - the course will be both film and digital.

 

It's interesting to see some people's reactions to using film. Digital users will often have a quick look at the back of the K1000 to see how the picture looks. The point about team working in the darkroom is very well made. There is a discipline associated with film and darkroom work which is easy to lose when you go digital.

[Brian]

<P>It's hard to be sure we're being objective in these discussions. I'm old enough to have a long history with film, and though I have nothing against digital, I believe I can see the pros and cons. The point has been made about cost. The infrastructure to run a digital darkroom is huge and largely un-noticed, but given the apparent necessity to equip all schools and colleges with computer facilities I guess that infrastructure is going to be there anyway. Whereas wet darkroom facilities are "extra" even though in absolute terms they are comparatively cheap.</P><P>I also agree with the point about learning on manual cameras. The idea surely is to understand what the camera is doing, then later you can hand over to auto control, with the proviso that you know what is happening and can over-ride it if it isn't doing what you want.</P>

[vivek iyer]

Russ, Enjoyed your informative post. Thanks!

 

Absolutely true about the corporatization of academics. I think you are being a bit gentle there. :)

[chuck_foreman1]

Hi,

 

It's a mixed bag for sure and like the others I see each has it's pros and cons. A recent friend, knowing I was into Photgraphy related his daughter had been accepted at the Maryland Institute College of Art as a Photography Major.

At her orientation was asked if she had a conventional camera, (No. "Better get one") and had she ever worked in a darkroom (No. ) was informed "Amazing things can be done there". So I think the jury is still out on the demise of film. I definitely enjoyed working with others in the darkroom too. Everyone has their own creative self, but

"learning" is a sharing thing and not to be under-estimated. For now; Keep the sinks, spare the workstation!

[richard_oleson]

I do hope that the universities will manage to keep at least some film programs open (maybe to supplement the gum bichromate classes for the hardcore art types). Certainly a darkroom is a vastly different, and more rewarding, experience than sitting at a computer terminal and pushing the "print" button.

 

A front page story in today's newspaper is the closing of Lexington's last/only professional custom processing lab. The nearest custom film processor is now in Ohio.....

 

Life goes on, it doesn't always get better....

 

:(=

[john_robison3]

Russ Rosener's comment is a real eyeopener for me. For quite a while I've had the feeling that going digital for me, a strictly hobby photographer, would involve a road with many expenses that would be hard to predict starting out.

David M's comment about the "disdain" felt by some for film photographers also hit home. Just last week I stopped by a Kits Cameras store in Tacoma Wa. to just take a look at DSLRs. While handling a Pentax D100 I asked how does one manually control the shutter speed and aperture. I was also curious if it had a DOF preview and how it would look on the smallish screen. Her eyes narrowed and I could tell from her expression that she no longer wanted to waste her time with this old man. This was evidently because I had commented that pushing buttons and going through menus on the back of the camera seemed a rather invloved procedure compared to just moving single aperture rings or shutter speed dials. "They come with instruction books you know" was her comment as she turned her back, ending the conversation.

I sometimes think that at least some photographers using digital feel that our continued use of film is a challenge and comment on their choice of digital. They may think that we feel superior because we still use film and that somehow invalidates their selection of equipment. What nonsense!

[kelly_flanigan1]

High schools and Jr colleges have often dropped film/chemical based photo courses due to enviromental madness many years ago. There is also the dumbing down factor due to risk; some schools dont each as much cooking home-ech? sp:) either. I bought a Bessler 23C and a Omega B22 at the local thrift store for about 25 each. A new teacher comes on board; and the internal darkroom is scrapped; the old stuff doesnt fit the game plan. Then the school has new computers to support, a zillion inkcartridges to buy, and a service contract on the printer support. From a standpoint of buying 35mm camera gear and enlargers; the equipment is very low in cost today. In many areas one cannot buy a roll of tri-x or chemicals locally anymore; its all mailorder. Several of the old photoshop computers sold off by the local schools are PIII's with 1 gig of ram, win2000, 667 to 1.3 ghz. The sad thing is the new machines have wazoo gamers vidoe cards and less ram.

[robert_marvin]

"They may think that we feel superior because we still use film and that somehow invalidates their selection of equipment. What nonsense!"

 

Is it? To tell the truth, that IS exactly how I feel, although I try to keep my remarks about "real cameras" and "real prints" to a minimum when speaking with friends who have "gone digital" :-)

[bloosqr]

@john robinson: If I were guessing its because she probably got paid a bit more the

minimum wage to do sales which involved mostly P&S's and you had caught her on the

fact that she had no real idea how cameras worked (I dont have a pentax, but the top dial

looks like every other camera w/ a P,Tv,Av, M dial) so obviously in M mode it is possible.

 

That said, I have always been partial to canons and the last time we were at B&H the B&H

person convinced my SO to buy an olympus digicam for various reasons. We were walking

around boston at night (I with a film camera) she with the digicam, and her camera was

taking some incredible night time shots at iso 800 (this was honed in by the fact that her

brother had the canon s3 is and wasn't getting anything to come out) and I was curious as

to what it was picking as its settings and what surprised me was there is no way to get the

shutterspeed / aperture info of a picture from the olympus stylus . It has all sorts of other

info but not that. It seems like an odd thing to hide.

[tom_murray2]

"During a chat with the proprietor of a neighborhood photo shop, I mentioned that I was surprised to see Nikon F100s going for less than $200 on bay watch. He is about my vintage and has been in the business for over 40 years. He suggests that as a contributing factor to the decline of film is that schools that teach photography are going digital to avoid the expense of digital darkrooms, enlargers, developing devices, etc."

 

I'm not surprised that "the proprietor of a neighborhood photo shop" is totally out of touch with reality which is why those neighborhood photo shops are dropping like flies. The "contributing factor to the decline of film" is the same as the reason schools are going to digital: the majority of the world is happy to be rid of buying and developing film, happy to be able to see their shots instantly so to see the results of new techniques and retake shots that don't work, and not sentimental about dumping their film gear.

[james_baker6]

Well film may still be OK for a pro with a dedicated darkroom and running water etc but for the amatuer digital would seem to be, by far, the best way to go. All you need is a PC w/Photoshop, a mid level printer, some photo paper and your ready to go. This set up will take you to 8.5"X11" prints. I think back to trying to set up all that film equipment, mixing chemicals, safe lights,all sorts of paper,etc. etc. what a major pain in the butt. Then you have to clean it all up !!!! I love film cameras but you can keep the processing part.

[luis triguez]

Very soon is going to be worse because of the lack of water. Film and paper rinsing consume too much water meanwhile people is dieing thirsty. So, one day or another, we, rich occidentals, must pay for it: more money and more restriction. Digital is the future in all the senses.<div></div>

[summitar]

I am not into developing and printing myself (except for printing scanned photos) but I totally respect the talent and artistry of those that are. God bless them! I recognize the advantages of digital, and they are many, but the cameras are close to being disposable items. Who repairs a TV these days? How much are those Kodak digitals that sold for $14,000 worth today. It is unfortunate that many young people will never experience the delight of film cameras. To them it is probably like choosing a crystal set radio (Have they heard of such a thing) over and ipod (whatever the hell they are). Why all the emphasis on high tech audio devices since no music has been written since 1980? I get some (maybe unwarranted) satisfaction form using a glass and steel masterpiece that will last long after today's digitals will be landfill in about 5 years. That said, I don't use a typewriter anymore, but do enjoy fountain pens. I think there is only one place in the Seattle area that processes tri-x nowadays, but one can still get films like kodacolor processed anyplace, and I think Costco does an adequate job (a great job when you consider the cost). And for Tom Murray: I see where you are coming from, but how did you stumble onto this forum.

[andrew_brown3]

Hi all,

An interesting post. I don't want this to be taken wrongly!, but digital imaging has nothing to do with photography. There's no sense of wonder taking images with a thing that looks like a silver box of matches and that you hold at arm's length to be able to see the image on the back of it. Weird. The chips in the silver box are already obsolete when you buy it, and who will ever buy, say, a seven year old second-hand digital camera??

Of course I'm biased; but I have always bought second hand stuff, and my Nikon F's are 40 years old!! There must be a Crusade away from digital to film; to a future where manufacturers once again crowd the market place with films of all sorts and sizes and digital imaging systems are consigned to the same deep pit as that other symbol of failed technological wizardry- nuclear power.

When you can pick your nose with one hand and put an image on your phone using the other one, it is surely time for us to realise that technology has gone too far down the stupid road and that we must reverse and take the other route; down the magic road of the latent image; down the road of wonder and amazement.

I'll get me coat......

Andy.

[wendell_kelly]

May I offer a different perspective here-

 

I suggest that film will necessarily continue to be the preferred photographic medium whenever the environment is one or high humidity or maritime (read airborne salt). I further suggest that the film cameras used there will be entirely mechanical. Electronics can be lovely in low humidity, temperate environments; they fail quickly in regions of condensing humidity.

 

Short of military level seals and weatherproofing (and clearly the corresponding cost), high humidity environments quickly destroy consumer electronics. If you doubt this, leave your latest digital jewel in your basement for the remainder of the summer and see how well it operates in November. I wonder how many photojournalist would be using digital equipment if the current war, instead of being fought at the edge of a desert, was still in South Vietnam.

[vivek iyer]

<i>There must be a Crusade away from digital to film; to a future where manufacturers once again crowd the market place with films of all sorts and sizes..</i>

 

<p>

Sorry, Andy. I disagree with that. We must not stop there (or even go there) and really campaign for glass plate emulsions. We can certainly do away with film curls and the fuzziness associated with that.

<p>

Otherwise, we will be forced to buy into expensive cameras with vacuum backs to keep the films flat. ;)

[don_e]

"...a pro with a dedicated darkroom and running water etc"

 

And who has time to seek such an exotic thing as running water?

[don_e]

"Film and paper rinsing consume too much water..."

 

Unlike digital which merely requires electricity? I wonder where that comes from.

[summitar]

I am not trying to pick on Tom Murray, but I think sentimentality is pretty much what this format is all about. Of course, the classic cameras are so neat that there is little price to paid for sentimentality. Mark Twain once said, "I support my country all the time and my government when it deserves it". Well, I really like my classic cameras all the time and my digitals when they deserve it.