AlanG Posted November 7, 2010 Share #321 Posted November 7, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I think it is acknowledged that film is no longer mainstream. However, nor is it dying. There has been a resurgence in film use recently, particularly among the young. Kodak have released a new colour film, Agfa film has re-appeared under a new guise, and an interesting (and strangely beautiful) new polaroid film emerged in 2010. Maybe not dramatic, but I think it does comply with the definition of an upswing. This sounds good but Kodak is replacing two color films with the new one. Kodak and Fuji have dropped a lot of films and sizes in recent years. There will need to be quite an upswing for this trend to be reversed. I don't believe there are plans for any color Agfa film to be coming back but I wish Adox luck in their efforts with the old Agfa film, paper and chemicals as well as with their Croatian made products. I don't know how far any of you go back, but in the early 70s I was a student at RIT. The RIT bookstore had one of the best supplies of photographic materials that could be found at any one place. (There were more than 1,000 photo students who were printing pictures all the time.) There were aisles of photo paper of every size and type from Kodak, DuPont, Agfa, Ilford, Cibachrome, and others. Kodak alone made a vast range of papers in various surfaces and tones. I liked Agfa Brovira, Portriga Rapid and eventually Gevagam came out. And of course all your dye transfer and alternative process supplies were there too. People came from quite a wide area to shop there. Last week I spoke to someone who graduated from RIT about 4 years ago. He was working for Phase One. He said they still taught film photography and printing up until his second year when they dropped it from the curriculum. (I'm not sure if this is true in all photography programs at RIT.) He said a few people would still shoot film and make analog prints but most of the 120 or so darkrooms were gone. I was at the PhotoPlus Expo in NY a week ago. (I've attended every show since it started around 1983) Fujifilm didn't even have a booth. On the plus side, Kodak was there and they gave away samples of Tri-X for a while. (I don't know why they chose Tri-X.) Other than Kodak, the Lomos, and the M7 and MP at the Leica booth, I don't remember any film cameras or anything else film related. The old shows were much much better. You should have seen all the darkroom, large format, film stuff, lighting, and specialized equipment, at this show 20 years ago. All the darkroom gear was replaced with large inkjet printers from HP, Epson and Canon. And the paper being shown was from Moab and Hahnemuhle. If you think a bunch of young people shooting with Holgas and Lomos will re-invigorate the industry, I think this is a reality check. I may not be as happy about this as some of you (BILL) may think, but I've accepted it for what it is. The reality is that it has been many years since I've had a customer who wanted to receive any film, deal with scanning, or wanted custom silver gelatin prints. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 7, 2010 Posted November 7, 2010 Hi AlanG, Take a look here Future of Film. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
bill Posted November 7, 2010 Share #322 Posted November 7, 2010 I rest my case. Hope is not allowed. The green shoots of recovery are trampled underfoot. Simple pleasures are scorned. The wet blanket is applied... Don't dare mention an upswing, nor the prospect of interest from a younger generation... F*lm is a four letter word, after all... Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcoombs Posted November 7, 2010 Share #323 Posted November 7, 2010 You know, you guys (Bill and Alan) are actually agreeing - violently. Doug Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted November 7, 2010 Share #324 Posted November 7, 2010 Very cool. Sounds like the digital equivalent of Kodachrome 25, a film I used to shoot all the time. I would have no interest in a digital equivalent of Kodachrome 25. I used to be a die-hard Kodachrome user but when I first started using the DMR I compared it side-by-side with my last roll of K25, and as it turned out I was glad it was my last roll of K25. For me image quality trumps convenience and cost. I used to print my film photos (made with the 280mm f/4 APO) to 16"x20" until I saw how horrid they look compared with a 16"x20" from the DMR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
twittle Posted November 7, 2010 Share #325 Posted November 7, 2010 If you think a bunch of young people shooting with Holgas and Lomos will re-invigorate the industry, I think this is a reality check. Out of curiosity, what is your motivation for posting in the film forum, this thread in particular? You think film users need a reality check? We're painfully aware of what's happening to a medium we enjoy using; we don't need you to point it out to us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted November 7, 2010 Share #326 Posted November 7, 2010 You think film users need a reality check? We're painfully aware of what's happening to a medium we enjoy using; we don't need you to point it out to us. Respectfully - it appears that at least a few do indeed need reality checks. Statement: "Digital is a way for bad photographers to look good. A good photographer doesn't have to manipulate (fix) (correct) his/her work." Reality checks: H-CB's darkroom printer reports at least one case where H-CB so overexposed a neg that the printer turned on the enlarger and went out for a 30-minute lunch while light crept through the iron-hard negative. W. Eugene Smith was known for spending up to 24 hours producing one print to his satisfaction from his own negs. In his book The Print, Ansel Adams devotes 30 pages to means of "fixing" (improving, not hypo) images in the darkroom, including: Changes of developer Changes of development time Dodging and burning Water bath developer Local application of developer, alkali, or hot water Flashing the paper Local bleaching with ferricyanide Variable contrast papers (Local exposure of different areas with different contrast filters) Perhaps the poster doesn't consider H-CB or WES or Adams to be "good photographers". But chemical post-processing to "fix" images has been around just about as long as chemical photography itself. It's funny how many of the "fixing" tools in Photoshop are represented by icons showing the "analog" tools used by photographers (presumably bad, in the poster's opinion) to improve their images in post-processing (i.e., the darkroom) - a Hand for burning, a Dodging Tool for dodging, a Band-aid for removing dust specks (raise you hands if you are a B&W film photographer who never spotted a print). Statement: "There has been a resurgence in film use recently....I think it does comply with the definition of an upswing." Reality check: a resurgence or upswing means an INCREASE, not a slower decrease. There will be a resurgence or upswing of film that "complies with the definition" on that day that aggregate film sales (Kodak + Adox + Fuji + Ilford + whoever, added together) are higher than they were the previous year. Which may well happen in the future - but has not happened "recently." Definitions: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/resurgence http://www.thefreedictionary.com/upswing The long-term viability of film is inversely proportional to the extent that it can only (apparently) be defended by insults ("Technotubbies," "bad photographers") or illogical spin (replacing two films with one is "an upswing.") Facing facts rather than hiding from them is the only way to start dealing with a problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted November 7, 2010 Share #327 Posted November 7, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I won't claim to be a great photographer, but I've been told by many that I'm not a bad one. When I look at my work, I don't see much difference between what I shot on film and what I shot on digital. And I believe the link I posted illustrates this. I also don't see much difference between using a lens attached to a box that contains a Kodak digital sensor plus computer with a lens attached to a box full of springs and gears along with a Kodak analog sensor. I think it is what's behind the box that matters. Using film or digital is simply a choice in how one records an image. The content of that image is not inserted by the choice of technology. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted November 7, 2010 Share #328 Posted November 7, 2010 You know, you guys (Bill and Alan) are actually agreeing - violently. Doug I tend to agree with you (despite that Bill doesn't seem to see this) except the violent part. I generally try my best to leave any emotion out of posts and stick to the hypothesis and supporting detail. Emotional content of posts is easily misconstrued. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
twittle Posted November 7, 2010 Share #329 Posted November 7, 2010 Respectfully - it appears that at least a few do indeed need reality checks.... The long-term viability of film is inversely proportional to the extent that it can only (apparently) be defended by insults ("Technotubbies," "bad photographers") or illogical spin (replacing two films with one is "an upswing.") Facing facts rather than hiding from them is the only way to start dealing with a problem. I'm not giving anyone a pass here--some individuals may indeed be in denial about the long-term prospects of film--, but wouldn't you agree that it serves little purpose to come into a thread just to point that out (I'm not talking about you)? All that does is put people on the defensive and end in fruitless argument. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebarnman Posted November 7, 2010 Share #330 Posted November 7, 2010 Agfa film has re-appeared under a new guise Really? Do you have a link for this new Agfa film? Thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
twittle Posted November 7, 2010 Share #331 Posted November 7, 2010 Really? Do you have a link for this new Agfa film? Thanks! It's made by the German firm Adox. - ADOX PAN 400 - Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted November 7, 2010 Share #332 Posted November 7, 2010 I'm not giving anyone a pass here--some individuals may indeed be in denial about the long-term prospects of film--, but wouldn't you agree that it serves little purpose to come into a thread just to point that out (I'm not talking about you)? All that does is put people on the defensive and end in fruitless argument. Well let's just say that film is in resurgence, pat each other on the back, and go home happy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted November 7, 2010 Share #333 Posted November 7, 2010 @ twittle - I take you point. I guess if the stated subject is "Future of Film" - then it serves exactly the purpose of the thread to point out where people are in denial (if - in fact - they are). There's an old saying among courtroom lawyers (barristers, not solicitors): "Argue the facts - if the facts are against you, argue the Law - if the Law is against you, pound the table." As a former jury member, and journalist with a pretty good BS-detector, I can tell you that the facts are all that count. I ignore the "Law" and the table-pounding. "Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." - Thomas Henry Huxley Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebarnman Posted November 7, 2010 Share #334 Posted November 7, 2010 I would have no interest in a digital equivalent of Kodachrome 25. I used to be a die-hard Kodachrome user but when I first started using the DMR I compared it side-by-side with my last roll of K25, and as it turned out I was glad it was my last roll of K25. For me image quality trumps convenience and cost. I used to print my film photos (made with the 280mm f/4 APO) to 16"x20" until I saw how horrid they look compared with a 16"x20" from the DMR. That means a lot coming from you Doug. I've read and seen your work for years from the leicareflex Digest. I stopped reading it some time ago, however never unsubscribed...so the emails keep piling up. It's a hard read in it's email format. I know there's a webpage of the messages, still, not easy like a regular forum. I'm probably going to unsubscribe now, particularly since this forum is much easier to use. Regardless, seems to me, I would think that a digital equivalent of Kodachrome 25 would probably approach film's large format! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebarnman Posted November 7, 2010 Share #335 Posted November 7, 2010 It's made by the German firm Adox. - ADOX PAN 400 - Wow, thanks! It's available in the US via Freestyle. I enjoy taking photographing with B&W negitive film and having it reversed processed to produce B&W slides. Here's the link for ADOX 25 ISO (for B&W transparencies) dr5 CHROME - Black and White slide / transparency process + THE ONLY RELIABLE SCALA PROCESSING WORLDWIDE This service is excellent and I've used it several times throughout the years. Here's the page of all the B&W negatives he develops into transparencies (and the recommended ISO for the film your shooting) dr5 CHROME - Black and White transparency process + THE ONLY RELIABLE SCALA PROCESSING WORLDWIDE I'll have to give ADOX a try! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StS Posted November 7, 2010 Share #336 Posted November 7, 2010 I'm wondering, why I'm still contributing to this discussion, however, I remember the innocent question, which started this debatte was, whether it is still useful to invest in film equipment. I'm sure the member, who started this thread fled a long time ago. The answer, of course depends on your needs. I would rate the survival of Tungsten colour film to be critical, but I find digital to be the best medium non-daylight colour photos* anyhow. The original poster hinted a background in black-and-white home processing. If this is an option, I'm convinced the availability of materials will outlast us all. For my personal situation, the availability of film has actually increased compared to the situation twenty years ago, since online ordering gives me easy access to film I would have needed to order at a local store back then. Since I have been advised to get a reality check, I had a coffee and checked the film options to be ready to be ordered this nice Sunday morning (unfortunately the last three are in German only). I'm sure there are more dealers, my apologies to those I overlooked. http://www.macodirect.de/index.php?language=en&osCsid=f360e23d422711788527b579b8612ce2 - Fotoimpex Berlin | alles fr die analoge Fotografie - PHOTOTEC - Ihr Photoversand Monochrom® Have a nice day Stefan *footnote - leaving one with the mess to balance several light sources with different colour temperature... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sedgeorg Posted November 7, 2010 Share #337 Posted November 7, 2010 The thread title says: Future of film. It's not necessarily about a comparison or a competition with digital technology. Sticking with film today might be seen as a statement, be it for emotional, aesthetic or sometimes technical reasons. Hence people using film know what they are doing and why they do it, despite all the conveniences of digital technology, and the film vs digital debate is not going to lead anywhere. When I started reading this thread I hoped for some actual information on the future of film, like statements from manufacturers, sales figures, etc. There is some, yet 90% of the discussion centers around film vs digital. There are enough digital subforums around here, so digital shooters find a vast playground to contribute in talk or provide information about that technology. Why does it have to be exactly this one actually dedicated to film photography? Why do so many digital ambassadors (it doesn't matter wether they once were film users or not, they made their decision) keep posting to the film forum, trying to convince film users that their media of choice is obsolete and technically inferior to digital instead of contributing to the actual discussion? It's pointless, and it's pretentious sometimes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted November 7, 2010 Share #338 Posted November 7, 2010 Why do so many digital ambassadors (it doesn't matter wether they once were film users or not, they made their decision) keep posting to the film forum... Partly because it's impossible to discuss the future of film without discussing digital. If digital hadn't come along there'd be no point in even posing the question, let alone debating it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted November 7, 2010 Share #339 Posted November 7, 2010 Reality check? Certainly. Right now, I own and use three digital cameras and three film cameras. I have a fridge full of film. I can, as Stefan says, get a wide range of emulsions cheaply over the Internet. I can get my films developed and burned to CD at a high resolution quickly and at reasonable cost via mail order, ditto high quality enlargements. I can go to my local high street and get my films processed in one hour. In short, the existing infrastructure gives me all I want and need. It could in fact continue to do so without inconveniencing me one jot or iota if it shrank considerably from current levels. Film sales, and the associated investment in infrastructure and "advances" will never again reach past levels - but they do not need to. I wonder sometimes if those who deny film, with all the fervour of reformed smokers, also titter childishly when they see someone using a fountain pen or wearing an analogue watch. Do they rush over, I wonder, and with missionary zeal demonstrate that their gel pen writes upside down or their Casio has a built in altimeter? The legal argument point is an interesting aside; three years of business law at college, a career of contractual negotiation and two stints of jury service have also, I like to think, given me a finely tuned bullshit-detector. But what I see here is less muck-spreading, and more like that unpleasant Colonial invention, a Filibuster. There seems to be a genuine intent to talk film down, and out. The part I don't get is why... Why come here time and time again to suck the joy from something that pleasures many and harms none? I'm going out now, on a crisp Autumn day, with my D-Lux 4. I am not a bigot, you see - everything has it's role and it's place, whether appreciated by others or not. I suggest those others take their tool of choice and do the same and we let this unproductive little thread fade away. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted November 7, 2010 Share #340 Posted November 7, 2010 Bill, you are not the future of film, the forum is not the future of film. The future of film is in the hands of the 99.99% of the population who don't read photographic internet forums. No one here has said that film is going to die. The original poster asked what the future of film is. The question in itself implies that something has changed, that there is a degree of uncertainty. If there were not they there'd be no point in asking the question. Film IMHO it will retreat into a niche market. Black and white will remain popular, colour emulsions will continue to disappear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.