AlanG Posted July 30, 2010 Share #161 Posted July 30, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Many people may use film for 10% or 30% and digital for the rest, but that is still some demand for film. Most use film for 0% of their photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 30, 2010 Posted July 30, 2010 Hi AlanG, Take a look here Film vs. Digital. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pgk Posted July 30, 2010 Share #162 Posted July 30, 2010 Most use film for 0% of their photography. There are students coming through the photographic system who have never shot film, just like I never shot wet-plate systems. Theirs has always been a digital world and I suspect very few will ever consider it anything else. I also have a friend who describes himself as a true Yorkshire Luddite (he even sent me a photo of himself posing with a statue of the luddites). Even so he too has moved entirely from film to digital! I personally hope that film survives but suspect that if it does it will be used by an extremely small minority of photographers (like <<<<<1%, probably <<<<<<0.001%). 10 years ago I would not have believed this possible, I do now, and I am not debating the technical/aesthetic merits, its a purely practical and commercial view. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted July 30, 2010 Share #163 Posted July 30, 2010 From Kodak's most recent quarterly report - (Also consider that motion pictures is moving more and more to digital - for production and distribution.) 2010 - 2nd quarter - Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group second-quarter sales were $466 million, a 21% decline from the year-ago quarter, driven by continuing industry-related declines. Second-quarter earnings from operations for the segment were $29 million, compared with earnings of $51 million in the year-ago period. This decrease in earnings was primarily driven by industry-related declines in volumes and increased raw material costs, partially offset by cost reductions across the segment. In 2007 2nd quarter - Film Products Group earnings from operations were $137 million, compared with $119 million in the year-ago quarter, representing a strong improvement in the face of declining revenue. During the second quarter of 2007, the group achieved a 25% operating margin, as compared with 18% in the year-ago quarter. The operating margin performance resulted from changing product mix, lower depreciation expense, and actions to reduce traditional infrastructure ahead of revenue declines. Film Products Group sales were $559 million, down from $660 million in the year-ago quarter, representing a decrease of 15%. -------------------- The best I can tell, in three years, 2nd quarter profit for film, processing and entertainment (motion picture film?) went from $137 million to $29 million. And I'm not sure if the figures from 2007 even included the sales numbers for the "Entertainment Group." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesop Posted July 30, 2010 Share #164 Posted July 30, 2010 ...and on and on - ad infinitum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted July 30, 2010 Share #165 Posted July 30, 2010 AlanG, that was Thanks for making me smile wide. Thought it had t be stated because I'm not a member of the "most using it for 0%". I'm in the other fast growing group. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted July 30, 2010 Share #166 Posted July 30, 2010 Crikey what a great deal of rubbish has been written here today - mostly by people who apparently have never shot anything like Portra, for instance. The old old canard that 'user error' causes ugly highlights, for instance. I never get blown highlights with digital either these days - but that is due to extremely careful exposure (sometimes under-exposure which in post brings more noise) combined with some self-censorship: there are shots that I don't attempt with digital because I foresee how ugly they will be. Those same shots - midsummer noon in the garden with shade and bright sunshine - is pure pleasure with film. Some tawdry b&w digital post-processed crop doesn't prove anything. Let's see the beautiful rendering of deep shadow against the brightest highlights in color if we wanna have a comparison. Anyway, I find this discussion with a militant contingent of digital adherents depressing. I guess they long for film to disappear because its superiority is galling to their expensive digital gear acquistions. I'm quite happy to use both - but I can see a clear difference, and I know which gives the higher quality image. Even hotel time is best spent elsewhere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jplomley Posted July 30, 2010 Share #167 Posted July 30, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Most use film for 0% of their photography. Wow! Many thanks for that astonishing factoid. Guess I best sell my 35, 6x7, and 4x5 film gear so we don't round up that 0% to 0.00000000000000000000001% Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cocker Posted July 30, 2010 Share #168 Posted July 30, 2010 Please close this thread. At best its boring At worst it a load of bollocks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted July 30, 2010 Share #169 Posted July 30, 2010 [...] I don't understand why digital proponents wish so badly for film to disappear altogether. Can they not let this small percentage survive? They must have total annihilation, I guess. They have no such wish, and they have no power. Worry not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted July 30, 2010 Share #170 Posted July 30, 2010 Anyway, I find this discussion with a militant contingent of digital adherents depressing. I guess they long for film to disappear because its superiority is galling to their expensive digital gear acquistions. I don't know who this refers to, but I can only speak for myself: my photos for the last four years have been made mostly with the DMR. 35mm color film hasn't worked out for me as well as the DMR has, but I'm fine with people buying and using film if that's their choice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted July 30, 2010 Share #171 Posted July 30, 2010 Please close this thread. At best its boring At worst it a load of bollocks So don't read it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted July 30, 2010 Share #172 Posted July 30, 2010 Wow! Many thanks for that astonishing factoid. Guess I best sell my 35, 6x7, and 4x5 film gear so we don't round up that 0% to 0.00000000000000000000001% Do you not comprehend what the word "most" means? Do you think that more than 50% of the people who shoot pictures in this world use film at all? I bet most use cell phones and p&s digital cameras exclusively. You are simply part of the group that uses film for 10% - 30% of your photography. Or maybe you belong to the even smaller group that uses film for 30%-100% of your photography. Just because fewer and fewer people use film does not mean that I oppose it. I'm simply stating the obvious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted July 30, 2010 Share #173 Posted July 30, 2010 Please close this thread. At best its boring At worst it a load of bollocks The advantages and disadvantages of media and methods is a very interesting discussion for many photographers. I think we can learn something from each other in the conversation. The only thing that brings this thread (and some others) down is the occasional bad behavior. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted July 30, 2010 Share #174 Posted July 30, 2010 The advantages and disadvantages of media and methods is a very interesting discussion for many photographers. I think we can learn something from each other in the conversation. The only thing that brings this thread (and some others) down is the occasional bad behavior. No it isn't. It's like discussing how wine is stored, rather than what it tastes like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted July 30, 2010 Share #175 Posted July 30, 2010 The advantages and disadvantages of media and methods is a very interesting discussion for many photographers. ... No it isn't. There are indeed "many" photographers discussing the topic. Hence it is certainly not wrong to assume that they find it "interesting" or "very interesting". It's like discussing how wine is stored, rather than what it tastes like. Assuming that some of us already know what wine might taste like, what's wrong about discussing how to store it best? Wine fancier do exactly that: they discuss how to store their expensive and rare wines and what implements to use for storing wines. Assuming that none of us knows how wine might taste like, what good is discussing it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted July 30, 2010 Share #176 Posted July 30, 2010 In my experience, and without the support of erroneous or fictitious statistics, the degree to which someone is fascinated by this ridiculous 'debate' is usually inversely proportional to their photographic ability. When I meet other pros this topic barely even rates a mention. But when camera geeks approach me on the street the only things they want to discuss are the pixel count of their latest toy and how antiquated my cameras look. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted July 30, 2010 Share #177 Posted July 30, 2010 In my experience, and without the support of erroneous or fictitious statistics, the degree to which someone is fascinated by this ridiculous 'debate' is usually inversely proportional to their photographic ability. When I meet other pros this topic barely even rates a mention. But when camera geeks approach me on the street the only things they want to discuss are the pixel count of their latest toy and how antiquated my cameras look. Have it your way. Your fictitious statistics are most certainly no less entertaining than the others in this thread. Perhaps it might be useful for all concerned to recall the OP of this thread: For those of you that are still shooting film, what do you see as the benefits vs. shooting with a M8, M8.2 or M9? I have given one of my reasons. My other reason is, of course, that I don't own one of the cameras mentioned in the OP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted July 30, 2010 Share #178 Posted July 30, 2010 The real difference is in the workflow. And in this regard, digital clearly is favourable by far—quicker, cheaper, easier, more productive. That's why 99 out of 100 (blunt estimation) working pros are using digital these days—including those who are concerned about sheer image quality more than cost or time-to-market. And oh, by the way: Sorry Dirk—I'm afraid I spoilt your experiment. Maybe I should have kept my mouth shut ... No worries - nothing spoilt, but I guess some might have misunderstood the intend and the experiment all together. As stated, it was not do state "some proof" of superiority in digital ! I do still shoot film and digital parallel to each other and don't plan, to scrap either process. Plasticman had a hard day I guess - I too hate those hotel bet sheets, stinking after chemical cleaning, producing depressive mood and alike ;-) Again - the ugly blown highlights were the standard after opening the file - the smooth filmlike highlights after a few mouse clicks in PP - no rocket science and certainly quicker than retouching scratches and dust on the negs from bad handling in lab (or by myself!). I can not comment on the digital tools, to do this processing being there for some time now, as I started with photography all together just shy of 3 years ago now. I was just surprised with everything, I find Lightroom 3 has improved and provides me now. I certainly can imagine, that some wiz could accomplish that with the first photoshop versions and a Nikon D1. I find Plasticman's tone a bit militant, as nobody here (and I do not know anybody anywhere else for that matter) wishes for film to vanish - "Crikey what a great deal of rubbish…"! I love film! (no digital Leica can be pushed to ISO6400 and gives me the look, I love as easy) I love my M8.2! (it is soo much quicker, than film - I don't have to wait over night for drying and I don't have to deal with scanning and rescanning and rescanning and…) I don't think either that this thread should be closed (gosh - some people really like to avoid a good discussion by using gaffer tape and ropes)! There is obviously good food for thoughts and a need for discussion if some people like or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted July 31, 2010 Share #179 Posted July 31, 2010 thanks:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted July 31, 2010 Share #180 Posted July 31, 2010 ........... and with that last round of applause I think the joke is over Imants. Thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.