craig_sander

<p>Scott is correct. Most people...especially younger people...are not getting prints made anymore. They usually leave the pictures they take on their phones or they upload them to facebook. I've had many discussions about this with people in the business for the last couple years. The two drugstore photo labs that I usually develop my C-41 at have had numerous employee changes in the last several years and I was even been asked why I needed my negatives that I had processed made into prints.</p>

<p>I see what you're saying Daniel, and it makes perfect sense. However, its frustrating when in the past several years, I every film I jump to is another sinking ship. The latest being Fuji T64. For my work, I've gone from Kodak 160T, to 64T, to Ektachrome 100 with an 80B filter, to the now discontinued Fuji T64. My next choice, once my current supply runs out, would be to try Provia or Velvia 100, but for how long? I'm taking your advice...I'm trying to creat amazing images using whats available, but it sure is testing my commitment.<br>

I'm sure Spirer would suggest we all just go digital because Kodak is just playing us all, but thats obviously not the case. (Shaking head)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I see an effort to stramline production materials, and the cost of producing them, hence showing an interest in the survival of the films that prove themselves through sales by Fuji. I hope others see it that way too.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>People said this about Kodak right up until they finally got rid of the last of there chromes. So no...there is no way to put a positive spin on this for the long term interest.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Movie theater pricing isn't based on markup. If they can fill the theater at $12, why would they charge $8? This is simple business understanding.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They would lower the price to bring more people in from other theaters. Simple business practices. And Hollywood has been in a slump for almost three years now.</p>

<p>The problem is, it takes money to find a way to make things cheaper. In order to get that money, its gonna take a price increase on something that the market is shrinking for.<br>

I do wish film was cheaper. I don't care what they're paying in other countries. Here in the U.S. its high and I can see the reason why some people are struggling with the hobby.<br>

There is no harm in discussing this. You aren't taking away from valuable film shooting time with this thread.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...Canon has to project reasonable results, it's called "guidance." Failure to do so will result in a major stock hit.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're right Jeff. Ever hear of inflated profits?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know where he's travellng Jeff, but I just spent some time in San Diego and San Francisco with my kids. All I saw everywhere were consumer DSLRs from Nikon, Canon and Pentax. Lots of point and shoots from a multitude of companies...and just a few people using their cell phones.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Los Angeles, Las Vegas, San Diego, Ft Collins...and I've been to many family reunions, birthdays and weddings and people are using the cameras on their phones over SLR's and point and shoots. This is relevant to the person who commented on how the once profitable camera companies are losing ground.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I just took a look at Canon's World wide financial results for 1st quarter 2012 and their projections for the year. They expect increased sales and profit for their camera division.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I expect a large tax return every year, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna get it. I rarely see anyone with Canon, Nikon, Pentax or any other major camera name when I'm traveling. People are mostly using their cell phones to take vacation and family pictures.</p>

<p>I'm not sure how switching to digital is gonna get you the look of E100G.<br>

I've seen people post photos of digital shots that are meant to replicate the look of Velvia and Kodachrome and they always fall short in my opinion.</p>

<p>Steve, I would just stock up on E100G for now. I just bought 4 5-packs of the stuff over the weekend to add to my freezer collection. I tried Provia on a tip from a friend and it doesn't look like E100G in my opinion.</p>

<p>Thanks John. I also found 120 rolls in stock and for a decent price at the lomography website. If you had told me 10 years ago that I'd be buying my film at a specialty store over the internet, I don't think I would have believed you :)</p>

<p>Does Fuji still make T64 film? I heard they dropped it a few years ago yet its still on their website of chromes they offer.</p>

<p>When Kodak discontinues it Portra and Ektar fills, people will say how smart a decision it is for them to streamline and stay competative. And when they cut their B&W film, what will they be saying then?</p>

<p>It always amazes me how the digital trolls still check out the film forum to bash on someone who is just making an observation about young film users. You'd think after all these years they would grow up, but I guess not.</p>

<p>Two years ago, I was looked at as the guy who was resisting technology or maybe the guy who was living in denial about the future of photography. Nowadays, I'm noticing that I'm the guy who's "keeping it real". I like the transition.</p>

<p>Are there any online stores that are still selling new old stock of Ektachrome 64T in 120?<br>

I know it was available for a while after it was discointinued here in the American market. The online auction market is full of way outdated stuff.</p>

<p>I just don't like the "Get rid of two, replace with one better" trend.<br>

But I am very interested to see and try this new film.<br>

Thanks Kodak.</p>

<p>North Coast Photographic Services out of Carlsbad, CA.</p>

<p>I don't believe it was the processing. I mean, I suppose it could be, but I have my film processed there all the time and I don't want to think that was the issue. Plus, if they aren't responsible, I don't want to give them any bad publicity.<br>

The light sources were from the downtown buildings and street lights. The moon was close to full that night, but I don't think the light from the moon was a factor.<br>

Yes, the 80B filter was used to cut down on some of the high pressure sodium vapor lighting. An 80A would have been better, but I used what I had at the time.<br>

The color cast was easy to correct once I opened it in a photo editing software, but I don't like to do that.</p>

<p>Has anyone experienced a color shift towards magenta with Astia 100F using long exposures?<br>

I recently purchased some slightly out of date stuff figuring that it would be ok since I've heard how this film has outstanding reciprocity characteristics, but when I got my film back, it definately had issues.<br>

The film was only out of date by 6 months or so and I don't think it was being stored in someone's engine compartment.<br>

Kinda disappointing because I had high hopes for this film.<br>

By the way, the exposures were cityscapes at night with exposures ranging from about 1 to 2 minutes using an 80B filter.</p>

<p>A quick check on Amazon shows the 24 exposure rolls are still in stock.<br>

Kinda pricey at $7 something for Gold 100, but then again, I noticed the other day that Walgreens is now charging me $12 something for a roll of 36 exposure film with single prints.</p>

<p>I still see Kodak Gold 100 at liquor stores and in some convenience stores in my area (Southern California). The dates are always good, but maybe I've seen the last of them?</p>

<p>I agree with Randall. Offering quality images from film is something thats desirable, even if prints from negatives are extra.<br>

NCPS has had to tremendous success with their service.</p>

<p>The last time I flew, I put all my exposed 120 film in my cargo short pocket.<br />Because the spools are plastic, they went through the metal detectors without a trace, and when I had them processed back home, they all turned out perfectly fine.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I now tend to edit before I shoot, thinking whether a banal shot is really worth the effort. That discipline is tough to maintain with digital<em>.<br /></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>Russ has it right.</em><br>

<em>Its human nature to waste more when you feel like you have an unlimited supply of something. If you know you can shoot 500 digital images vs 10 shots in a medium format camera, you're most likely going to make those 10 shots count and you're most likely going to shoot a lot more with the 500 that you probably aren't going to keep.</em></p>

<p>Dan,<br>

Digital images are data. Data that is interpreted by the sensor, and is either stored on your camera or computer or a disc of some sort.<br>

Thos items that the data is stored on is physical. The data itself isn't.<br>

The words I type in this post aren't physical. Word documents on your computer aren't physical.<br>

This type of data is temporary/transitory.<br>

I can erase this data with ZERO physical effect on the computers hardrive.<br>

Same thing with a memory chip or a CD or DVD.<br>

If I take a belt sander to my film strips, I am damaging the PHYSICAL image.<br>

I don' t have to print a negative to make it physical. I can see my images on the chromes I shoot just by looking at them. Looking at the PHYSICAL emulsion coated film.</p>

<p>Fine. I'll see it my way, and you see it yours.</p>