Future of Film

[A POV]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There was a time not so long ago when manufacturers stopped producing large format analog (magnetic) tape for audio production.

 

That period did not last.

 

So long as art has something to do with it, people will exploit the diminishing returns of archaic technology.

 

If in the future analog film is no longer produced, it won't be a situation that lasts very long.

 

Process is essential to art. That's part of technology's lesson. Support analog!

[adan]

I get the impression that they are mainly trying to convince themselves for laying out the bucks for digital. How many of these are actual photographers.

 

Ah, yes - the Tea Party approach. Why strain one's brains with facts when one can use snide insults instead?

 

I'll let Alan_G put up his own link if he wants - but he is a practicing architectural photographer.

 

Here's what I did last month with my M9. ColoradoSeen - Home

 

Now that the facts have squashed that particular worm...

[StS]

There was a time not so long ago when manufacturers stopped producing large format analog (magnetic) tape for audio production.

 

That period did not last.

 

(...)

 

I think the reason why I don't miss tape is the lack of an individual pleasing note of this medium. My apologies to tape aficionados, if there are any.

 

Some people still listen to LPs or use tube amplifiers, because both have a special characteristic, making it worth the (higher) effort to keep them. Although the transistor was invented in 1947.

 

Apart from that, tape was ageing, simply by sitting in the shelf. Some tape-records were starting to sound muffled after less than five years.

 

Stefan

[StS]

...speaking about obsolescence - when visiting Rome, one can cross Il Tevere over bridges, which were built more than two thousand years ago.

 

One would build theses differently today, but does this make them obsolete? They still do their job.

 

Stefan

[AlanG]

Don't be fooled by the people who say, "digital is the only way, film is dead". I get the impression that they are mainly trying to convince themselves for laying out the bucks for digital. How many of these are actual photographers. (that will stir up a bucket of worms)

 

I would not say that digital is the only way. Or that film is dead. Just that most photographers, pro and otherwise, have moved to digital and film will be a smaller and smaller percentage of the market going forward. This is not a qualitative statement about whether one feels that one can make better images on film or digital. That is up to you. There really is no reason to exaggerate even if you love using film.

 

As for laying out the big bucks. The price of some digital bodies is not very expensive and even the expensive ones are quickly offset by the savings vs. film and processing costs plus the cost of a scanner and the savings of time. The "barriers to entry" into the field as a working photographer has never been lower or required fewer skills, training, testing, and practice. It seems everyone is a "pro" or "semi-pro" today. I know a woman who has a successful career photographing babies and she knew virtually nothing about photography when she went into business.

 

There are many things one can do with digital cameras that are difficult or impossible to do on film. I can't shoot tethered with a film camera and the idea of going back to proofing on Polaroids is crazy. Every time I think of shooting film commercially on an assignment I have to consider various things that I'd have to compromise or eliminate due to limitations of the process, costs and the fact that all images will still have to be supplied in digital form.

 

I personally know several hundred working photographers (many very high level ones) and I think every one shoots digitally. Look at any major event or watch a high end ad shooter work. You won't see many film cameras (if any.) A few use film on occasion or because they like to shoot with a 4x5, a Holga, make 8x10 paper negs. or have some other particular methodology. Sinar, Hasselblad and 35mm film bodies flooded the market as pro photographers moved to digital.

 

I think you should turn your statement around and ask, "How many working photographers could use film on assignment even if they wanted to?" That is where film use has been made virtually obsolete. I'm afraid that it is mostly artists and hobbyists that comprise the bulk of the force that is keeping still film photography going.

 

If it were up to me, I wish digital had never been invented. My ability to light and shoot interiors on 4x5 transparency film kept out a lot of the low-end competition. And I could have worked that way for the rest of my career.

[redbaron]

Who cares what "most" photographers use? "Most" photographers don't know an aperture from their arse.

 

My iPhone (3G) can do more than an M9. It shoots video, makes panoramas and I can see the geo-tagged images on a 50" plasma via an Apple TV within minutes of shooting.

 

But would I suggest that the M9 is obsolete? Of course not.

 

From now on, digital evangelists will be added automatically to my ignore list. Shoot what you like, for whatever reasons you like, but keep your rationalising to yourself.

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...speaking about obsolescence - when visiting Rome, one can cross Il Tevere over bridges, which were built more than two thousand years ago.

 

One would build theses differently today, but does this make them obsolete? They still do their job.

 

Stefan

 

The bridges are still functional and not obsolete as long as they don't want to run heavier traffic across them. But the design and construction methods probably are obsolete as they are unlikely to rely solely on manual labor and hand tools today. I bet the building codes won't allow it and modern engineering is more about building with the least amount of material not the most. Of course if you are rebuilding a temple in Tibet or a house in Williamsburg, you will use all the old "obsolete" tools and methods in order to keep it authentic.

 

Anyway, you can make a lot of analogies. Film technology is not obsolete in sense that it can still make images that compare favorably with those made on digital equipment. But it is the cost and workflow that is making it obsolete in the commercial environment and greatly reducing the role for film in the snapshot and hobbyist communities.

[mooky]

Too, remember that not all 'professional' quality images are recorded by contract photographers or high output (numbers) photographers. Many are quietly working on long term projects (like myself) that had at one time done the 'contract work' only to decide that it wasn't 'their style' any longer.

 

Seeing that there are different creative needs and many different creative ideas, will influence why 'image takers' of all kinds choose what they use. Creatively, saying what is best for oneself to get to that final accomplished and desired creative point is all that matters.

 

It's all relative - digital is good for certain things and styles, so it is for film. Film fits my creative style and work flow, it's meditative, it's slower, it's a medium that allows me to work in a different creative space. Maybe it won't be around forever, and when/if that day comes it will be one less creative tool/medium to choose from - and I can't see how that is or would be a good thing.

[sc_john]

Ah, yes - the Tea Party approach. Why strain one's brains with facts when one can use snide insults instead?

 

I'll have to remember that... Good One!

[AlanG]

Ah, yes - the Tea Party approach. Why strain one's brains with facts when one can use snide insults instead?

 

I'll let Alan_G put up his own link if he wants - but he is a practicing architectural photographer.

 

 

No link. Countless wonderful photos have been made by countless excellent photographers working with film and digital.

Speaking of the Tea party...

 

And not such good news for Kodak.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100810-711806.html

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[pop]

Who cares what "most" photographers use? "Most" photographers don't know an aperture from their arse.

 

Back when "most" photographers (and picture taking non-photographers) used to buy film, inventing, producing and selling films was an attractive business. Hence, the anatomically incompetent photographers provided the attractive ecosystem for those who felt the need to tell an aperture from their arse.

 

The bridges are still functional and not obsolete as long as they don't want to run heavier traffic across them. But the design and construction methods probably are obsolete as they are unlikely to rely solely on manual labor and hand tools today. I bet the building codes won't allow it and modern engineering is more about building with the least amount of material not the most.

 

Also, long term use was not on the top of the agenda. There is an uncomfortable number of bridges which are only a few decades old and which require substantial amounts for restoration work. Well, true, there probably used to be a number of Roman bridges which fell apart after only a few centuries or even decades of use.

[StS]

(...)

 

Also, long term use was not on the top of the agenda. There is an uncomfortable number of bridges which are only a few decades old and which require substantial amounts for restoration work. Well, true, there probably used to be a number of Roman bridges which fell apart after only a few centuries or even decades of use.

 

Sure, lots of buildings even crashed immediately or during construction, since building back then had to rely on trying - one had to be lucky getting a more experienced (or lucky) building master.

 

One of the reasons these buildings are so durable is probably due to the building masters trying to err on the (very) safe side with no background about structural integrity and no knowledge about the quality of the supplied material.

 

But then, pre-stressed concrete allowed building new forms but gave a learning curve as well, even when statics was a well-established science, lots of these new buidlings had to be renovated after a few years. I don't want to denigrate progress here, simply to point out we have a learning curve even when working based on a scientific foundation. It wouldn't be possible to build an earthquake safe building like Taipei 101 using brick-and-mortar...

 

Stefan

[giordano]

I think the reason why I don't miss tape is the lack of an individual pleasing note of this medium. My apologies to tape aficionados, if there are any.

 

Some people still listen to LPs or use tube amplifiers, because both have a special characteristic, making it worth the (higher) effort to keep them. Although the transistor was invented in 1947.

 

Apart from that, tape was ageing, simply by sitting in the shelf. Some tape-records were starting to sound muffled after less than five years.

 

Do you realise that virtually all LPs are copies of analogue or digital tapes? Just a handful of LPs in the entire history of the medium have been cut directly from the mixer output.

[StS]

Sure, although I suspect, if one buys a new Vinly LP these days, it will be DDA*.

 

In my understanding, the individual characteristics of an LP comes from the sound of the needle sliding through the groove. The combination of pick-up system and player adds to the way it sounds as well. In this combination, tape was an intermediate medium, which should transport the information from the (individual) mixing to the (individual) final playback as linearly as possible.

 

With tape as the end medium, it is certainly different. I'm sure a Revox B77 stills sounds better than my 20 year old Technics tape recorder, beginning with the fact there is more tape area for the same information due to wider tracks and higher speeds. I stopped listening to my (compact casette) tape recordings, because they sound awful nowadays.

 

But this is just my personal perception.

 

Stefan

 

 

*footnote - I never understood the excitement about DDD CDs anyhow, prefering a skilful ADD mixed CD over a poorly DDD. Especially in the beginning, there was a learning curve as well, when most sound engineers had mastered their tape equipment. They should have printed the name of the sound engineer rather.

[Jaybob]

 

With tape as the end medium, it is certainly different. I'm sure a Revox B77 stills sounds better than my 20 year old Technics tape recorder, beginning with the fact there is more tape area for the same information due to wider tracks and higher speeds. I stopped listening to my (compact casette) tape recordings, because they sound awful nowadays.

 

But this is just my personal perception.

 

For the compact cassette, it really depends on the equipment that you play them back on. I'm a Nakamichi man, Nakamichi BX-300 Discrete Head Cassette Deck and I'll go toe to toe on sound quality with ANY MP3 you've got on your phone (or CD for that matter) against a 25 year old cassette chosen at random, my Nak, my 50 year old Fisher tube amp and my AR-2 speakers.

 

In case you weren't paying attention (I'm pretty sure you weren't), blank tapes especially the vintage Metal ones, have become profoundly expensive.

 

TDK MA-R 90 METAL BIAS 1982 SEALED BLANK CASSETTE TAPE - eBay (item 140448621986 end time Sep-10-10 18:22:57 PDT)

[A POV]

There was a time not so long ago when manufacturers stopped producing large format analog (magnetic) tape for audio production.

 

That period did not last.

 

My point was simply that you can buy freshly manufactured magnetic tape in 1/4, 1/2, 1 & 2 inch widths in 2010, after a period of a few years during which new stock was unavailable.

 

In 2009 more vinyl LPs were sold in the US than during any of the previous 30 years. Most if not all audiophile vinyl releases are remastered from original master tapes. And in most cases high budget (popular music) recordings made in the last 30 years have been mixed to 1/2" analog format. It's been at nearly 70 years since the prevalence of recordings made directly to vinyl lacquers or wax cylinders. But essentially a mastering engineer who prepares a record for manufacturing is recording (transfering) directly to a vinyl lacquer.

 

There are many many more people involved in photography than audio production. If the companies who manufacture film were to stop, it would be because of financial circumstances unique to the companies in question. They could be loser companies in a niche market operating like they did 15-20 years ago when digital was the niche and film was king. If this were to happen, new sources for film would quickly reappear. Of that you should have no doubt.

[zipper]

You are assuming that digital photography is somehow better than film photography in all cases. Many would take issue with that.

 

And to claim that hand tools are obsolete is just ridiculous.

 

agreed, it's matter of a difference 'quality' or look and feel of the medium, it is not a case case of which is better. In art a lithograph print is different from a screen print is different from an ink-jet, but each method is valid in it's own terms, it depend on your own personal preferences.

[earleygallery]

TV was going to make radio obsolete.

 

The motor car was going to make horses obsolete.

 

Sliced bread was going to make unsliced bread obsolete.

 

High rise flats were going to make houses in towns obsolete.

 

Colour was going to make B&W obsolete.

 

Microwave ovens were going to make cookers obsolete.

 

Photography was going to make painting obsolete.

 

Nylon was going to make cotton obsolete.

 

I could go on............

[zipper]

I really don't care how rapidly digital technology advances, or how many cool new things it can do.

 

I shoot Leica digital partially because it doesn't try to be all things to all people, and thus the menus don't get in the way of taking pictures.

 

And I just pulled out my old M4 again, as I do periodically, because the world is already an overcomplicated place, and I need to deal with that at the office whether I like it or not.

 

So it's refreshing sometimes to take a well made mechanical camera, a meter, and a few rolls of film and just relax and take photos at a slower pace and actually think about them sometimes.

 

Technological complexity has it's uses. So does simplicity.

 

a perfect summary of why I still use film (as well as digital), I like it because it is different, I like having to pre-visualise, anticipating, the slight uncertainty, the challenge and sense of satisfaction with the outcome. I like film because it is harder, not because it is easy. Film is tactile but above all I still shoot film because it is FUN.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pop]

TV was going to make radio obsolete.

did so. Radio has become a niche product.

 

The motor car was going to make horses obsolete.

did so as a the main means for locomotion and transportation.

 

Sliced bread was going to make unsliced bread obsolete.

did not.

 

High rise flats were going to make houses in towns obsolete.

did so in quite a few cities and towns

 

Colour was going to make B&W obsolete.

did so for TV and magazines

 

Microwave ovens were going to make cookers obsolete.

Convenience food and fast food did so in conjucnction with microwave ovens to an alarming extent.

 

Photography was going to make painting obsolete.

did so, as a means of portraying "reality". Some call it "liberation", others "obsolescence" SP?)

 

Nylon was going to make cotton obsolete.

did so for stockings. Most clothes are at least partly made of artificial fibre.

 

I could go on............