Film is dead (again)

[kelly_flanigan1]

Dr. Wilhelm has been doing good color research for many years. <BR><BR>Colors will always fade with direct sunlight; UV light is harsh.....

[Spearhead]

<i>why would the big makers still be making the things?</i><p>

 

The ones I use have mostly been discontinued over the last five years. The selection is getting low enough that when I finish the Ultra 50 in my closet, I will probably switch to digital for color rather than bother with films I don't particularly care for.<p>

 

The vinyl argument is nonsense. Sure it's still here, but mostly because of the DJ servicing market. I have close to 2000 CDs, but less than 3% of the current ones were ever issued on vinyl. Want lots of good music? You will have to get CDs.

[travis1]

even if digital results look better in time, the joy of using a manual camera can never be

replaced.

 

 

u still don't get it?

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>At this point in time anyways, I doubt that any digital print can

look as good as negative printed. </I><P> That is because <I>

you</I> haven't seen any high quality prints made with digital

technology. I have, many of them. Digital darkroom technology

already offers a photographer the ability to finely control every

aspect of the final image. Different digital printing technology

offers a huge variety of options from desktop printers like the

Epson and other inkjet printers to big glicee' prints to Lightjet

negatives, transparencies to machines that output on

conventional photographic materials such as transparencies

and prints. And these technologies are rapidly evolving.<P>As

for digital cameras, well those too are evolving.<P>I love film but

I love photography -- the art of marking images with a camera --

no matter what the technology is inside the camera or what

technology is used to process and disseminate those images

afterward is used, more.<P>As for putting a digital sensor in an

M-6, I think that will be called the M8 -- if Lecia is still making

cameras in five or ten years.<P>I hope they are and I hope that

film is still around as well. Film has a unique look and there is

that wonderful thrill of opening a box of slides and finding

beautiful treasures inside.

[joseph_ho]

everyone who shoots a leica could gave afforded an AF camera. why in the world did those people get the mechanical one then? new motorcycles are smooth and efficent, but ppl still buy harley-D's. digital recordings aremuch cleaner and consistent than anologs but some insist on listening to vinyl. film records accuratly and quickly, but ppl still like to paint stuff. film may die in the mainstream but probably not cause of a new printer ink. it will always have a place in the hearts of people who love it.

[john_collier2]

"permanence expert Henry Wilhelm"

 

He is a regonised and well respected authority but that is not the same as

being right. He also waxed eloquent over the 1270 BEFORE its colour

problems were known. Many people (including Kodak) have said that

accellerated tests do not give accurate indications of print life. The tests are a

good indication but it takes time to find out for sure.

 

Film has a proven track record and it has not been dethroned yet. As an

aside, they have discovered a new bacteria whose meal of choice is cds...

[bobtodrick]

I doubt if film will ever 'die' for the same reason that painting didn't when photography was invented. The people claiming the death of film use arguments that usually go along the lines of 'the image is all important - it doesn't matter whether you use film or a CCD and if the digital technology is quicker, better, easier it will overtake film'. Gee - can't all these things be said of film over paint? Many artists, hobbyists and pros like the look of film over digital - or even just like the process of going into a darkroom rather than sitting in front of a computer (I do - I work at a computer all day and relish Sunday morning in my darkroom). Then of course (as I've said many times before - and yes I work in the industry) 500 million 'moms and dads' shooting 3 or 4 rolls a year (total 2 billion rolls) are not going to rush out and buy a $1000 digital camera, a $300 dollar printer and a computer (which they may or may not have). Stack this up against the 1000's of serious amateurs and pros shooting, say an average of 100 rolls a year (say 5 million rolls) and you can see where the film companies make their money. It may be a hard pill to swallow, but you and I and the pros who shout the benefits of digital are not what Kodak bases its future on.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I> Gee - can't all these things be said of film over paint?</I> <

P>No they can't. <P> Photography and painting are two different

activities, two different philosophies, two different ways of

working, two completely different ways of physically relating to a

subject both as to how the image is created and in the temporal

aspects of creating an image, they are two completely different

things. <P>A better argument is that digital image processing

(i.e programs like Adobe Photoshop, etc) is closer to painting in

terms of the amount of control and amount of time possibly

spent in the making of an image . Photography is unique and it

makes no difference, or only a very slight difference if you have

film in the camera or a digital recording device. <P>In other

words I think it is wise to separate digital photography from

digital image making to get a better grasp of the subjets.

Conflate the two into one and you end up being confused and

frustrated.

[bobtodrick]

Ellis...you mistook (is that a word) what I said. To some degree I agree with you. What I was saying was that it was said in the late 1800's (and it was in many circles) that photography would kill painting, in particular portrait painting. It is the same that's being said now of film. But I only agree with you to a point. To myself (and others I associate with) there is a philisophical difference between film and digital capture - just as there is a difference in philosophy between using a BIC and a Waterman fountain pen - the old 'the journey is what's important' scenario. I do a lot of digital printing, mainly for promo stuff and I appreciate it's value - but when I'm making an exhibition print, what partly gives it value (in my mind anyway...and I'm the one making it) is the fact that I have stood in my darkroom, sweated over the developer as opposed to sitting at a computer screen and in my mind (again I'm the one making it - you may feel different about what you produce), this is why I feel justified in asking $1000 for it. Different people have different philosophies and I personally take offense at the many (though of course not all) digital gurus out their who claim their philosophy is the only one.

[tony_brookes]

Ellis - I have searched on Google but cannot find Dr.Wilhelm (Phd). I have found a Dr.Wilhelm who teaches 'virtual manufacturing' but only him. Whilst your Dr.Wilhelm may be eminent in image decay my questioning is of his skill as a photographer capable of comparing intrinsic photographic quality. I have seen the most incredible quality in digitally produced prints from negatives and of digital photos printed digitally. But in my opinion, and I know in the opinion of many others, as of to-day it is no contest against film and wet printing. That does not mean to say that in due course, if they can reduce the size of pixels and can produce depth in the recorded image, the quality will not eventually compare favourably.

[henk]

Gee - can't all these things be said of film over paint? < P>No they can't.

 

I dont agree, you can say this because film over paint as wel as analogue over digital refers to two different media. Separating digital photography from digital image making doesnt have ANYTHING to do with this fact. More so the relative degredation of physical 'work' ads to the comparison. Still a nice try Ellis ;)

[nesrani]

Tony, you need to be a little more flexible in your search strings. Try searching around the concepts of digital, ink, permanency, Wilhelm, print and so on, and you'll find plenty of mentions of Henry Wilhelm.

 

As to his being a photographer, I can't imagine what that could have to do with the archival properties of digital printing media.

[art waldschmidt]

Since our society (and economy) places such overwhelming emphasis on everything that is (or purports to be) "cutting-edge" - it is obvious that many feel a compulsion, if not a duty, to embrace all things new. I think much of many "improvements" is more about marketing and the ease by which even supposedly sophisticated consumers can be easily lead or steered. To me, the really ridiculous aspect of this kind of thinking, is when it makes inroads into areas such as art. It is one thing to embrace choice, but it is another thing to be a slave to the latest marketable "improvement"

Personally, I don't care how many earth shaking advances are made or touted as long as the more traditional mediums are still available - that availability, is the issue for me.

The quote: "a change every bit as profound as the invention of photography itself" does not admit to any subtle or discreet rebuttal precisely because the statement is so resoundingly ABSURD!!

Worry all you want. If film disappears I'll have to coat my own plates or go back to painting.

[grant_.]

http://www.zonezero.com/magazine/news/sensor.html

 

anyone see this...?

 

it seems to be the way things are going...

 

change is inevitable

[alfie wang]

I hope that film isn't dead again. It's not deja vu.

 

I essentially believe that film at its worst aspect will have a cult following. Also digital is not without its flaws either. There is a sparkle which always exists on film which can't be duplicated by minute pixels.

 

On the other hand, vinyl hasn't killed CD's. There actually are always both LP and CD releases for hiphop music and dance (e.g. DJ Shadow). In fact, there is that hardcore underground feel that original scratchy vinyl has which a clean yet lackluster CD can't have.

 

I think that we need to acknowledge that film and digital must co-exist. It's comparable to the ongoing Arab-Palestinian situations where people all over the world want to paint them as being enemies when they share the same heritage and Semitic bloodlines. We don't need to compete film against digital.

[grant_.]

from a practical point of view, and an economic one,

digital is by far faster and more cost effiecient than film.

 

its why most photojournalists use digital today.

even studio photogs are using them now, especially the high end

digital backs.

 

theres just no reason to use film in the situations

if you can get the same or better quality, with less

time and fewer expenses....and less waste of course....

which is a huge ecological advantage too....

[william_macintire]

Film still excells for high speed, and there is some indication that even higher-speed, fine grain color print emulsions may be on the horizon. We might be seeing 3200 ASA or even faster film at the local drugstore in the future. Digital right now compares pretty poorly at ASA400 max for most cameras. On the other hand, many point and shoot digital cameras have surprisingly fast lenses compared to point and shoot film cameras.

[bobtodrick]

Again Grant, according to your new is bestest attitude we should then get rid of the aforementioned fountain pens, Ferraris (they are no where near as cost efficient as a Honda Civic), tailor-made suits (something cheap from Sears will cover your body). Gee what a boring world if we follow your thinking. As stated earlier by a few film and digital can co-exist. Why do the digital lovers all seem to think that it's their way or nothing?

[eliot]

more stupidity. one of these questions comes up every few weeks and the same tired arguments get made by the same people over and over. Enough is enough.

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

Ellis---you might know the answer to this. Isn't Henry Wilheim the man who

made the wonderful archival print washers in Iowa back a few years ago? I

love my Zone VI print washer (we miss you Fred Picker), but the ones Henry

made were absolutely bullet proof.

[gary_yeowell]

Anyone who actually thinks that CD,s sound as good as vinyl have never heard them played on a 'decent' turntable!, and the 'DJ,s are keeping vinyl alive' nonsense doesn,t hold water as the call for LP,s is growing significantly, so much so that even EMI are re-issuing vinyl, and don,t even get me on the digital is better than film nonsense!

[grant_.]

bob, ever hear of the american space pen...it writes upsidedown in space??

 

the russians used a pencil...

 

:P

[hadji_singh]

<i> It's comparable to the ongoing Arab-Palestinian

situations</i><p>

This is one of the <b>stupidest things</b> I have heard in a long

time. Comparing the digital/film debate with the situation in the

Middle East? Get your priorities straight.

[bobtodrick]

<bob, ever hear of the american space pen...it writes upsidedown in space??> Grant - and your point could possibly be...what?

[mike dixon]

I certainly won't dispute Dr. Wilhelm's expertise on print permanence, but equating improved inkjet print permanence to the death of analog photography makes no sense. Film-based images can easily be digitized and printed on inkjets (and digitally-captured images can easily be printed on analog print media). His pronouncement is comparable to saying that a new, "improved" film emulsion signals the death of digital.