Even more proof film is dying.

[kelsey george]

I think Michael said it best.

 

Maybe Clinton could have said 'The trend of film sale decline continues'. Doesn't sound new or interesting does it?

 

Will film disappear this century... I doubt it. Ever been to a steam engine fair? Know anybody that draws or paints, or reads things on paper, and not on silly web threads?

[bill_thorlin]

I was starting to wonder why I never come here much anymore - I've stopped wondering now.

[chris_harley1]

I hear that colour film is out now and that its gonna kill off black and white completely, guess Ive no choice but to change over to colour then.

[clinton_abe]

Bill Thorlin- I know what you mean. I make a simple post, and some other posters, jump all over me. It's not my fault that film is dying (not dead, mind you).

[richard_wallace2]

For weeks i've been away from computers, and naturally, away from the Minolta forum's... and after "all this time" i see the same topic in the top 5 topic's!...

 

We (most of us at least) enjoy old cameras, god knows why, but we still use them. Dynax's, Srt's, Xg's, X series... anyone of us with it's "pride and joy" from the "good old film days". Those of us, who have comitted fully to digital... well... don't mind us, if we trully enjoy photography, we'll turn our ways to the digital way. Meanwhile, please, let us enjoy our film cameras (no matter the age). That can't be to hard, can it?

 

RWallace

[clinton_abe]

Richard- The 'subject line' should be your hint not to read the post. No one is forcing you to click on the post, are they? You and the other die hard film users, are free to post about all your old outdated equipment and you're free to ignore this subject.

 

But, I guess it's like driving by the scene of a horrible traffic accident with police cars and ambulances all around. There's nothing you can do to help, and you might see something that you prefer not to see. So, looking at the accident scene doesn't do you any good, but you can't help but slow down and look, trying to see something.

 

Just because you don't have the strength, nor the willpower, not to click on the post, don't blame me. I'm just posting about something I read that will affect film users.

[keith_van_hulle1]

No, the point is really that this is nothing more than a troll. You're welcome to your views, but, as has been discussed here endlessly, you cannot prove your point. Yes, the market is changing; we all agree on that. Can I empirically state that film will be around after you're worm food? Not really. No proof. Neither do you have any for your inflammatory statements - that's why this fits the troll claim perfectly. What about all the new emulsions that have come out since 2000? What if I said that, in five years, as people start to realize they don't have their prints and negatives of all their memories, that a huge shift in buying habits back to film will occur? I can still print my dad's work from WWII, not sure I'll be able to make that claim 60 years from now with shots from the average digital P&S that everyone uses. Horses for courses . . .<div></div>

[dw fletcher]

I agree. There's no point to a topic like this. Why insult film users? I'm 80 percent digital, obviously using film the rest of the time. Let people who want to use film use film, you know? As of right now it's still cheap to use it...when it's not, people will adjust. I really don't see why someone has to come on here and tell us film is dying, like it's some kind of revelation and he's the only one who "gets it". Silly.

[clinton_abe]

Keith- What 'inflammatory' statement did I make in my original post? I merely reported on a couple of news released I read on dpreview.com. Would you have a different view if I had put a 'subject line' reading 'Oh, no!! More bad news for film.'?

 

Dustin- If you don't like the subject, then don't read the post. If you'll notice, this subject matter has gotten more replies than just about any other subject matter. The only other subject matter that draws as many responses is the Dynax/Maxxum 9D.

 

I guess the majority of users of this (Minolta) forum, would rather discuss the latest lenses for their SRT-101s, and deny the fact that KM is NOT making any.

[ken_hughes4]

Usually I find that people who find their worth in what type of equipment they own to have squat to show for it....clinton, upload some pics and prove me right or wrong...

 

20% of kodak's business would be a very large amount, I don't think film is going anywhere soon if that's the case.

[michael_linn]

Clinton's posts simply reflect the childish glee of any marplot.

[clinton_abe]

Ken- I'll have to dig into my files as I haven't shot film for over a year now, and the only digital shots I have are with my Sony P&S which doesn't give me much control over shutter speed or aperture, so I have to work at composition more to compensate. Then you have to teach me how to download the picture on to the forum as I haven't done that before. I usually just download the pictures into my computer and then into Photoshop. Do you mind if they're digitally manipulated?

[ken_hughes4]

"Then you have to teach me how to download the picture on to the forum as I haven't done that before. I usually just download the pictures into my computer and then into Photoshop. Do you mind if they're digitally manipulated?"

 

really not sure if this is supposed to impress me or intimidate me? I've been using photoshop since before version 3, been a pro for about 15 years, so please don't try to play your little games with me.

[clinton_abe]

Ken- I'm just telling you the truth. Even when I try emailing some pictures to friends, I have problems. I only got a real computer about 16 months ago. Before that, I had a computer that ran Windows 95 and was used only for some light invoicing and for a some letters using 'Notepad'. I bought it for $100 from a friend about 3 years ago.

 

You sure are a negative person...not beliving what someone tells you. I was trying to find a picture I took for a an ad for a sunglass line. (Oh, I hope you don't think I was trying to impress you?)

 

Do you have some pictures you would like to share? If not, talk about playing games.

[clinton_abe]

Ken- I see that you've gone through the trouble of getting my email address, I'm looking forward to seeing some of your work. The one picture you have posted seems interesting from the thumbnail, I saw. Do you do most of your work in B&W? Was it from film or are you shooting digital? And as soon as I find something I think will fit your standards, I'll email them to you.

[bill_thorlin]

Misinterpretation + misconception + misinformation + misapplication + misrepresentation + misconstruction = missing

[clinton_abe]

Bill- For someone who doesn't like the subject matter, you sure have a lot to say about it. Is your post your equivalence of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying 'LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA..." when someone says something you don't want to hear?

 

Your post is cute but 'misguided'.

[bacsa]

"They're still using equipment out of production for over thirty years."

 

Clinton - I am glad to use equipment of about seventy (70) years old. Not minolta though, but a rolleiflex. I am completely satisfied with the results on 120-format (uhh what an ancient technology!) negative film, colour and BW, and i can tell you that the prints look just gorgeous on paper (who the hell is that crazy to still enjoy printed photos?) and the slides (wow do they still make such stinky old stuff?)wieved with a loupe (yuck what's a "loupe", is it some kind of far eastern soya sauce?) look far better than anything one can ever see on a stupid monitor. But you might know this very well, since you yourself are using that dying media.

 

So film dying or not - why don't you enjoy it until you can?

 

By the way i'm not a luddite - i wirk in high tech every day. It's nice to take a break from that and enjoy a different approach.

[bacsa]

Oh and I am honestly sorry for you that you did not shoot your film camera for over a year and all you have is a SOny digital P&S which does not give you control over etc etc. Seriously.

 

Look, i have a seventies fixed-lens rangefinder, you can have it cheaply, r u interested?

[bacsa]

eh<div></div>

[bill_thorlin]

Mistaken.

[pavelp]

<i>seem to be stuck in a time warp. They're still using equipment out of production for over thirty years.</i><br><br>

 

Could you also come to Medium Format forum and tell those clowns there who use pre-war cameras some of your gospel? They will love it! Guaranteed!

[ken_hughes4]

I shoot film, mostly 4x5, some 2 1/4 and a tiny amount of 35mm. I scan all my film with my little imacon and print digitally.

 

With b/w I find that digital is severely lacking in quality. I would shoot digital for color, but I am not a high volume shooter (i.e., catalogs, etc.) and it doesn't make much sense for the cost, although I am looking lustfully at the mamiya zd that has yet to come out.

 

So you can see that I have nothing against digital. I just think that the only thing to worry about is the quality of what goes on the wall, or in the advertisement, regardless of how it's done--by film and silver prints, or film and digital prints or by pure digital alone. One system works for me, and may not work for others. If I'm not secure enough in my choices that I have to attack the choices of others for no real reasons, then it would be time to rethink my position.

 

This doesn't mean that I don't disagree with people when they make statements that I find to be false, there are many misconceptions coming from both sides all the time. There are advantages and disadvantages with either choice.

[dw fletcher]

Clint, I don't have anything against the subject. It can be interesting to discuss what will happen as photographers continue to migrate from film to digital. Well, I should say it was interesting the first few hundred times.

 

The real problem with the way you post is your tone. You're baiting people into arguments for no apparent reason. Everybody knows that film is being used less as digital is used more, but that doesn't mean that people using older equipment are somehow stupid. A 1970's XD11 or SRT will still make a fine photograph for a very reasonable price so it makes plenty of sense to use them in 2005.

 

Can you not understand that?

[clinton_abe]

Dustin- I'm only battling people because I posted a one sentence statement of FACTS that I read at dpreview, earlier that day, and others attacked me. My 'subject line' said 'film is dying', but others chose to read it as 'film is DEAD' and attacked me. It's not my fault they can't read. Then, there are people like Bill T., who read the 'subject line', knew what the message was about, and knew they wouldn't like what they would read, but still read it, then attacked me. It's not my fault they came looking for a fight.

 

From my standpoint, this is a forum to discuss happening in the photo business, and my post certainly brought a lot of discussion. Look at poor Shirish, who wanted to get feedback on a camera bag, KM sells. No one responded, so poor Shirish was forced to respond to his own question. I guess no one cares about camera bags.