Why?

[larrydressler]

<p>You all sound like end time prophets. I hate to say this but even film users depress me these days because the talk more than they shoot. I have shot in the last 10 days 12 rolls of film 120 and 35mm... Shoot don't worry..</p>

[mjferron]

<p> I like the train wreck comment. I use to race motocross. Some would come to watch us race and others hoped for bad crashes. </p>

<p>Back in 2001 or so a number of contest sites appeared that would publish only digital photography. The film folks would bash (with some justification) early digital as inferior. This would piss off the digital pioneers. The whole thing unfortunately became a Chevy/Ford, Nikon/Canon, Democrat/ Republican type of divide. As one who enjoys both mediums I think crazy to get uptight over such foolish thing. Oh wait we live on Earth right? Never mind.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>I am for Ron Paul... Check it out... it is real freedom... :) Michael You can't understand it all but you do understand it to a point. I shot Basket ball games in the 70s and er had arguments on pushing film and the developer and even the flash if any that was used.. One guy was using a Speed Graphic... But I have to say He had better pictures than some as he knew where to place himself for a winning shot...</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I still haven't seen any references to any of these offenses committed here. In fact, I see far more whining about it than I do what the whining is about. Aren't there any references?</p>

<p>Also, re Ron Paul, the guy's a racist. If you followed his ideas, my family will be toast. Sorry, no dice.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Did you not notice the grin Jeff... I am Jewish and others.... all in one white package that tans easily.... I sad on the first of the year that I would not take film is dead seriously and I am finding I was right for this.. there are other things that are more important. :)</p>

[bms]

<blockquote>

<p>Eddy, have you tried Dwayne's?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1</p>

[ryanjoseph]

<p>I don't "hate" film. I just don't see it as relevant technology, just like the buggy whip, FM radio, CDs, analog cable, and books. I am an avid reader, often reading about 40 or more books a year. My personal library is over 1200 books. I have not bought a single new book since 2009, when I got an Amazon Kindle. People now ask me if I hate books. Apparently people cannot differentiate between indifference or seeing a technology as obsolete and hatred.<br>

I've been on this forum nine years, and I have never seen them "film haters" that are getting referenced so often. I have however seen digital haters, and received a pretty nasty private message from one recently. </p>

 

[donbright]

<p>First; Both mediums have their place. Perhaps like many of you, I loath this conversation. So you may ask, well, then WHY are you contributing? I wish I could be the one to articulate a point that would stop the debate that has become more about our wanting to be heard than the merit of the debate. Are we that freaking fragile that we need to continue the practice of bleeding this to oblivion? Here is what I'm looking at. This tension didn't exist before the advent of digital. What are the cultural, and generational influences on this issue? I've had this happen in the field, Where a digital camera operator has literally insulted me for operating a film capture camera. What is that? This attitude is enshrouded within a belief system that the latest is the greatest, so get out of my way, I'm younger, better, smarter. Its just an arrogance that seems to permeate so many corners of our culture today. I know arrogance has always been with us, I'm not that naive, but I've yet to have someone my junior stop and ask a question about a problem that they're having with their photography, presuming that someone their senior might know something about something based on being on the earth longer than they have, and being on the earth longer doesn't get it either, its just that I can recall as a kid starting a job at 16 years old, we never doubted our senior colleagues, to do that was disrespectful. We squeezed them for what they knew. There are too many Photographers, some with tremendous artistic expressional ability, that run the other way when it comes down to doing the work. How many of those Photographers ran away screaming from film capture because they don't want to deal with exposure accuracy within 3rd stops? Many are shooting digitally because of that. This all seems to be fear based. I don't know, someone will now pick these comments apart and render what I've seen as non-grata. Or perhaps help by taking a seed of thought that I've presented and improve on it. </p>

[DB_Gallery]

Been awhile since I posted, but since I read the forums when I need to kill time that can't be spent making images, I figure

I can throw a post in once or twice a year. Why worry about what people think one way or the other? I used to and then I just got ticked..

 

You can not and should not take the online world as the sole word on any subject, you are just asking for heartache if you

do. Last week, I had a blast shooting Portra 400 and Ilford HP5 in my blad. Last night, I had fun shooting my D700 with a

35 1.4G on a short job that was in super low light. Today, I placed an NPS order for a D4 and then for 100 rolls of Tri-X in 120,

all relevant technology, none obsolete, all of it coming alive in the hands of a photographer who cares more about his vision

than the glasses he uses to see the world with....

 

 

I'll check back in a few months.

[exposed1]

<p>Daniel,<br>

I have to agree. I, like you, use both. Right now I am on the look for a small, 35mm camera that I can use hiking. I also enjoy the use of my Olympus E-pl2 for hiking. I use the camera that gets done what I vision, not what is the most current or the one that will make me look "more pro".</p>

<p>Couple of other things I ask "why"? Why do people call hiking a walk to the store?<br>

HDR.... is that just slide film?</p>

<p>Randy </p>

<p> </p>

[jeff_z.]

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>I doubt you will find any on this forum as this is where I come to get away from "Those People."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've never seen any of "those people" (ever thought of running for political office?) say it anywhere, and due to my role on photo.net, I see most of the posts on most forums. There seem to be far more accusations of people "hating" than any evidence of it.</p>

<p>I still haven't seen any references to any of these offenses committed here. In fact, I see far more whining about it than I do what the whining is about. Aren't there any references?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jeff, I'm quoting two of your responses, partly because I'm not entirely clear on what you're saying, but my best guess is that you're saying that you don't see the rumor mongering, general negativity expressed or implied towards film photography by several people on photo.net, and in particular, that come into film forums? If so, I am really confused because I've felt it for years, and a simple quick search of the archives refreshed my memory all too clearly. Perhaps this is a question of semantics between us, as I've felt a clear bias by many over the years here.</p>

<p>My only reason for participating in these discussions is because I do think that the negativity that I clearly have read and felt, does in fact dissuade some people from continuing with film photography; it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, and I personally know casual photographers whose needs would likely be well met with the film equipment that they own and understand, along with a drug store scan for email, etc. But they've told me that out of peer pressure, real or perceived, they "went digital" and now regret it. I have more advanced interests, and certainly, my choice of film photography is not holding me back whatsoever. And I know many more people at my level of interest that continue to appreciate and practice film photography.</p>

<p>Here's a post that's six and a half years old (and other negative posts exist right up to the present). This is one that I'll never forget (along with one of his statements) because it was be a moderator, no less.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00CYwf<br /> What would you pick as the next product on which the Kodak axe will fall? Kodachrome? Any B&W film other than Tri-X?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And he states the same false thing about Kodak's still profitable film division, while their ill-begotten digital ventures continue to bleed red ink to this day.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"... I can't blame Kodak. They're goal is to make money, not support analog photography. They're a public company, not a not-for-profit foundation to keep film alive."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And currently, we have Doug Harl, who after arriving here less than a year ago, continues to peculiarly post intense doom and gloom about film photography over and over and over and over and.............. Here are just a few of his choice comments that I found among many, many more:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...Kodak must leave the film business and other business lines or it will die. Period."<br /> AND you can keep using it until you're blue in the face but the fact is, it's going away. Didn't do any good for Kodachrome, the Ektachromes that were ditched, Plus-X, Portra NC and VC - Oh, they were combined "wink" "wink", etc ....<br /> Make fun of me all you want, poo-poo what I say.. but every time there's an announcement here of a film being discontinued, I just see more and more confirmation of the reality of what's happening in the film industry.<br /> This is a classic case of a "disruptive technology" and it's AWESOME to watch!</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6548847"><strong>Doug Harl</strong></a><strong> , Nov 25, 2011; 04:45 p.m.</strong><br /> My bad, I just got back from Publix and they still had 4 rolls of Kodak color film on their rack. And Walmart still has the FUJI something or another there too with the mailers that go to Dwaynes.<br /> Just want to be accurate ....<br /> EDIT: And if Walmart is selling FUJI film .... that may explain what FUJI is still making it. Hmmmmmmm.</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6548847"><strong>Doug Harl</strong></a><strong> , Nov 25, 2011; 05:06 p.m.</strong><br /> Mods ... if you'll indulge me one last statement on this thread - and I promise this WILL be my last ...<br /> I thought what is happening to Kodak now, wouldn't have happened until 2018. In other words, Kodak's FPEG division is 6 years ahead of my schedule of its decline.<br /> My worst case scenario has turned out to be a pipe dream.</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6548847"><strong>Doug Harl</strong></a><strong> , Jan 11, 2012; 02:29 p.m.</strong><br /> As of the Third Quarter of 2011, Kodak's Film, Processing, Entertainment Group (FPEG) income <strong>decreased 98%</strong>.<br /> See page 26 of their<a href="http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTEzODE3fENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1"> 3rd quarter 10-q</a>.<br /> Whether that will continue, we won't know because FPEG was merged into other groups - to my great annoyance because this was an economic curiosity for me.It's not often where you see a disruptive technology drastically change an industry. Although, my fiancial model of the FPEG division shows them operating at a loss for the first quarter of 2012.<br /> It is quite interesting that the hint of eliminating the film business sent the stock up almost 50% yesterday. I think that gives some indication of Wall Street's opinion of Kodak's film business.<br /> Over the last day, I have been trying to ascertain the scope of this reorg. From what I've seen, Kodak isn't reducing redundancies (ex. canning people, closing facilities). It looks like this is an accounting reorg.<br /> But here's something quite telling about Kodak's Management's thinking:<br /> “As we complete Kodak’s <strong>transformation to a digital company</strong>, our future markets will be very different from our past, and we need to organize ourselves in keeping with that evolution,” <a href="http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/Kodak_Creates_New_Business_Structure_to_Accelerate_Digital_Transformation.htm">Perez said.</a><br /> <em>(Bold added by me.)</em><br /> <strong><em>My prediction is that Kodak will exit the Film business by year end 2012.</em></strong><br /> Ilford, Foma, and other film companies are strictly B&W companies and their market is geared towards the artist market.<br /> Although, the decline in traditional photographing is an industry wide phenomena, I do not have access to their financials so I cannot comment on their business structure or profitability or their sales for that matter.<br /> <strong> </strong></p>

<p><strong> </strong></p>

</blockquote>

[donbright]

<p>Daniel, Thanks for that; I'll be leaving shortly on a road trip up the coast of California. This will be that precious chance to get away and practice the art of exclusion. When I get back, I'll heed the advice and keep the perspective. Love that Steinbeck Country.</p>

[jeff_livacich]

<p>Jeff Z.-</p>

<p>Doug Harl does seem to be out to illuminate things for us poor benighted souls. He makes a big deal out of declaring that film use is declining- like the rest of us can't read.<br>

He has a problem with interpreting data, though. I repudiated his claim of a 98% drop in one quarter, and that the drop was year over year, when it was a comparison of like periods of consecutive years. He claims to study this stuff, but he's clearly an amateur.<br>

He says the recent reorganization enabled Kodak to rid itself of that "albatross around its neck- the Film Group". That in spite of the fact that film is only reason Kodak has been able to stay in business, and the only Group in his cited example to show a profit.<br>

<em> <br /></em><br>

<em> </em>To the OP I say, what the hell- it's the internet!</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Film can't be dead? I just shot and processed 3 rolls today and found a new lab that is doing E6 in my town.... Ohh My....</p>

[donbright]

<p>The lab I work with, just recently re-tooled for film bringing on good old fashion, 'Dip and Dunk,' Tanks for E-6, and they do beautiful work. If you are in a need to know, ask the labs. The real labs. Could this issue be perpetuated by Photographers that refuse to understand exposure and tonality? I referred in an earlier comment about the guy who insulted me for using film capture. Well, thats not the norm. Actually I end up from time to time spending valuable shoot time talking to interested people about film. I apologize for dwelling on that incident. I was just shocked, I guess.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Nitch... Way to go.. invest in them give us all the details.. maybe some of us will too.</p>

[jeff_z.]

<p>Jeff L., Exactly!<br /><br />Don, My experiences with people in the field are almost always very positive, also, when talking about film. The director of an independent movie I shot some stills for several months ago, told me straight away of his love of film photography (he was also one of the videographers, and does some professional still photography). Moreover, they all loved my pictures and use them. :)<br /> <br /><br /></p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Shoot film enjoy be happy if it does not make you happy shoot something else.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Don't be negative about film!</p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>@Don - I had a film-ophile verbally attack me in the field for using digital cameras and daring to touch the photos after they "came out of the camera". He was rude, loud and in my opinion ignorant as heck. I let it bother me for, oh, at least four minutes. I let go of it, moved on and enjoyed the rest of the day and the last two years since then shooting photos (and working them in post). It runs both ways, and I really, really wish these threads would stop. Funny - I should ignore them, but I just can't. Like somebody said earlier it's like watching a train wreck, you just can't look elsewhere when its going on. </p>

[johne37179]

<p>I like driving antique cars and flying in classic airplanes. I like film for the same reason.</p>

[plangereis]

<p>I like Henry's perspective, and share it. Film has advantages that digital does not, and vice versa. I have not heard many people say that they "hate" film or digital formats on this site, and I agree that anyone who takes that extreme perspective is merely trying to get reassurance for their chosen format. I have shot film in the past, and loved the quality of the images I got using it. Yet, I like the flexibility and ease of use that digital offers. It all comes down to different strokes for different folks. Anyone could argue for either format, but to what purpose.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Larry I'm with ya on the Ron Paul thing. Some try to brand him as ultra conservative in a attempt to tarnish his appeal but both he and his son Rand have some fine ideas about the welfare of the US and about where it should mind it's own business.</p>

<p>(PS I did two batches of E6 at home. First was a flop and the second attempt beautiful.) Not sure it's worth it but I had fun.(kinda)</p>

[James G. Dainis]

Note from moderator:

 

Let's save the political comments for the Off Topic forum.

[User_4525289]

<p>Film haters just jealous. Film is cool, people shooting film are great, big film cameras attract other people attention...</p>