adan Posted June 3, 2011 Share #101 Posted June 3, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) James - good catch on the math. Discrete film rolls down to 2.54% (1/39th), and single-use cams down to 19% (1/5th) from 2000 figures, for a net total reduction of 95%-ish (1/40th). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 Hi adan, Take a look here Film sales now 1/50th what they were in 2000. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wildlightphoto Posted June 3, 2011 Share #102 Posted June 3, 2011 OFFTOPIC cool link! wildphoto explanation is misleading. Even if facts are not wrong, but it is impossible to make theories about films due its analog nature. while softwares are build up with mathematics. there in the article it is mentioned about 10 layers of grains, that makes films way superior while digital which haves only 1 layer! No wonder about deep 3d sense from film. Some clever quote from Nestor Here's a link to a paper by Nestor Rodriguez (Senior Technical Associate at Eastman Kodak): Quote: Q: What are the main differences between the way images are recorded on film and digital, aside from resolution? A: "Film is analog, like the human eye. It sees and records continuous tonal gradations between black and white. no need to say any more Who am I to argue with an opinion posted on the internet? So what if it contradicts my photography, chemistry, physics and quantum mechanics professors? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted June 3, 2011 Share #103 Posted June 3, 2011 Who am I to argue with an opinion posted on the internet? So what if it contradicts my photography, chemistry, physics and quantum mechanics professors? Dont they post on the internet? Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted June 3, 2011 Share #104 Posted June 3, 2011 Wilson (Call me TIFF) ;-}} Hi Tiff Yes I work with TIFF files (not photo images BTW) but lots of the photo people dont understand to avoid JPEG files other than for web screen or sending to printer. Scene contrast can be a problem using film or digital. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted June 3, 2011 Share #105 Posted June 3, 2011 Dont they post on the internet? Noel If the converse of conventional wisdom is accurate, I suppose if they don't post on the internet it can't be true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJDrew Posted June 3, 2011 Share #106 Posted June 3, 2011 This article indicates one thing - and it's about photographers not film. In 2000, only 1/50th of the people taking photographs cared about their images. That makes plenty of sense and seems to apply today. Have you been on Flickr lately? The trouble down the road is that when the number of high-quality, older film cameras that are available and in working condition deteriorates... the barriers to entry will be pretty high for younger film customers (LOMO aside)... and we all know that too many of the good Leicas are sitting in people's glass cabinets and shrines. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted June 3, 2011 Share #107 Posted June 3, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi There is another syndrome lots of people seem think that you have to have 4999 GBP to own a Leica body and 1000+ GBP for a kit lens. I get stopped in street by people who want to gossip. They are gobsmacked by information M2 400 GBP + cv f/2.5 35mm classic 180 GBP, in shops a few blocks away. Some have DSLR or two already. Dont seem to be aware of MP or M7 either. More people are aware of upgraded Lubitel 281 GBP in Lomo shop. Whereas M9 owners look at the M2's top plate script and go aaaaaaaa. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasis7 Posted June 3, 2011 Share #108 Posted June 3, 2011 ....quantum mechanics professors? *chuckle* go back to the reality and take photos Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasis7 Posted June 3, 2011 Share #109 Posted June 3, 2011 Dont they post on the internet? Noel I must be a fictive figure made by computer Blue Gene.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasis7 Posted June 3, 2011 Share #110 Posted June 3, 2011 There still are quite a few commercial users and consumer users. These will decline and perhaps the artful uses will pick up a bit. I looked at how much surplus space Kodak has and it is an example of the decline in manufacturing. This will never be replaced even if Kodak finds a way to become successful in new markets. yupp, it worries me a bit if Kodak decides to give up Trix I hope Trix lives under long time, maybe buy factoring machine from Kodak and run enthusiast company named " Big Grain" lol:) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted June 3, 2011 Share #111 Posted June 3, 2011 *chuckle* go back to the reality and take photos You'd be surprised at how much quantum mechanics has to do with everyday life. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobYIL Posted June 3, 2011 Share #112 Posted June 3, 2011 I can not reason why people feel so pessimistic when they note the decline in the sales of photographic film... It’s the same story with vinyl, believed to be extinct some ten years ago however still selling in millions a year, no matter if it’s only one or two percent compared to the digital media sales. BTW, as of today, we have never witnessed this many state of art turntables in whole vinyl history. It’s the same story with tube gear, we were hearing it would go extinct after transistors became popular by the beginning of the 60’s... No, not at all, still a small but sound percentage of hi-fi aficionados stick to tubes as being the best gear to listen to. Again, as of today, we have never witnessed this many state of art tube amplifiers in whole tube history. I believe there would still be a few percent of people who would afford $300 or $3.000 to buy digital cameras to use more frequently than ever but when it comes especially to B&W photography or for anything they believe they could express in more aesthetical -or different-way, they would reach to the analog camera they keep in a corner. Especially the new generations seeking alternative ways for expression. While comfort and convenience could be for masses, art and aesthetics may not.. how many percentage of human population go visit exhibitions? If trends were to set the aesthetical values of human beings, then the walls of museums and exhibitions would be filled probably only with photographs taken in the last decade. I also wonder about the percentage of the digital users who had a wish to visit Magnum Photos website... This is from someone who’s still keeping some film Leicas, doing his own development and printing, but also believing he would buy an M9 in a heartbeat if it could turn out the same characteristics in B&W he gets from film. And since 1963, I have never witnessed an era for film being cheaper than what it is today when compared to our buying power. Lets be thankful for what we have in hand... We certainly are enjoying better means than what Eisensteadt or Frank or Koudelka used to do some decades ago... certainly incomparable to what a certain HCB was facing during his months-long stay in China along the Cultural Revolution. I am sure none of us would pay even 50c for the sort of film he was using then. Regards, Bob (P.S. English is not my native language.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted June 3, 2011 Share #113 Posted June 3, 2011 Excellent, and positive, post Bob! I've said it before, in many ways there's never been a better time to shoot film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted June 3, 2011 Share #114 Posted June 3, 2011 I don't totally buy into the analogy of film photography with "vinyl." Vinyl records are a distribution medium, equating to newspapers, books, prints (or Facebook or flickr or CDs and .mp3s) Film cameras are a recording medium, equating to mastering tape recorders (or digital sound recorders). We can record digitally or in analog, and distribute digitally or in analog. Film pix on Facebook, digital pix in ink; analog recordings on mp3, digital masters on vinyl. Don't confuse recording with distribution, though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted June 3, 2011 Share #115 Posted June 3, 2011 Andy, the analogy is not relevant to what the media actually are aimed at, but to the fact that in both cases an analog technology was deemed to be wiped away by its digital heir and instead is happily about to outlive it albeit in much smaller numbers than those of its heydays. Cheers, Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 3, 2011 Share #116 Posted June 3, 2011 Andy, the analogy is not relevant to what the media actually are aimed at, but to the fact that in both cases an analog technology was deemed to be wiped away by its digital heir and instead is happily about to outlive it albeit in much smaller numbers than those of its heydays. Cheers, Bruno If the music has been recorded and processed digitally, what exactly is the advantage of then listening to it via vinyl other than having larger cover art? Is the digital to analog conversion that is made before the record is pressed somehow better than the analog conversion made via the CD player when you listen? Do the surface noises and mechanical anomalies of using a turntable, needle, tonearm, cartridge and pre-amp add something to the sound? Is anyone recording and mastering with analog gear any more? That being said, MP3 and CDs to a lesser degree are all about convenience and miniaturization. But excellent sound quality was reached long ago with LPs. With digital photography, the quality, features, and applications are still evolving and have a long way to go. But digital photography and digital video have similar advantages to digital music when it comes to miniaturization, economics, and convenience. 10 years ago people would not have guessed that by now small inexpensive consumer cameras would be capable of filming commercials and Hollywood productions. So in that respect and others digital is already far surpassing what was possible with film and there is a lot more driving digital photography than what is analogous with what is going on in the audio world. And although it is not my field, I bet digital recording and mixing technology has had a major impact on sound recording too. Aren't there inexpensive digital recorders and mixers that surpass what the old expensive tape ones could do? I think Nagra may still make a tape recorder or two but otherwise all their gear is digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted June 3, 2011 Share #117 Posted June 3, 2011 "in both cases an analog technology was deemed to be wiped away by its digital heir and instead is happily about to outlive it...." OK, so vinyl may outlive CDs (hasn't happened yet, but it may) - it hasn't yet outlived digital audio files in general (or did I miss a news report about all the world's iPods disappearing overnight?) What evidence is there that film is "happily about to outlive...its digital heir?" Got a firm date in mind for the end of digital photography (including cell phones - and whatever comes along to replace them)? Look, I think (and sure hope) film will be around quite a while - but its not even close to "outliving" digital. Let's leave fantasyland to Disney. http://washingtonexaminer.com/files/2c5860c414d1b50cee0e6a706700c750_3.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted June 3, 2011 Share #118 Posted June 3, 2011 "in both cases an analog technology was deemed to be wiped away by its digital heir and instead is happily about to outlive it...." OK, so vinyl may outlive CDs (hasn't happened yet, but it may) - it hasn't yet outlived digital audio files in general (or did I miss a news report about all the world's iPods disappearing overnight?) What evidence is there that film is "happily about to outlive...its digital heir?" Got a firm date in mind for the end of digital photography (including cell phones - and whatever comes along to replace them)? Look, I think (and sure hope) film will be around quite a while - but its not even close to "outliving" digital. Let's leave fantasyland to Disney. http://washingtonexaminer.com/files/2c5860c414d1b50cee0e6a706700c750_3.jpg Well both DAT (tape) and mini disc seemed to be dead commercially? Like 220 monochrome and Kodachrome has gone. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted June 3, 2011 Share #119 Posted June 3, 2011 Alan, if we stick to the sheer technical facts and marketing logic neither film nor vinyl nor rangefinder cameras should be still around. Fact is that they are in spite of any logical argumentation. You try telling a Leica M owner that he should throw away his camera in favor of a Canikon autoeverything. Or try telling the owner of a McIntosh tubes amplifier to discard his relic in favor of some solid state gear. In either case pros will choose the latter but the niche enthusiast will stick to his older brick. Obviously the progress won't stop. And it's obvious as well that the mass market industry will push new technologies, not older ones. I never said that film and vinyl are going to be again mass products. They've turned into niche products and as such they'll survive for an undefined period. Instead, I have the strong feeling that digital sensors and CD are more prone to disappear replaced by new technologies exactly for the fact that they obey to marketing rules. As already said, CDs are on the verge of extinction replaced by liquid music and not necessarily MP3s. If you consider for instance Linn master series in flac format they sport higher quality than CDs. But still someone keeps buying vinyl. Why? Digital sensors as we know them might be replaced by wizardries such an enhanced Foveon or Hasselblad shifting sensors. But still someone keeps buying films. Why? Vinyl, tubes, films and rangefinders will be sticking around as long as there'll be some maniac with retro tastes. Cheers, Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted June 3, 2011 Share #120 Posted June 3, 2011 "in both cases an analog technology was deemed to be wiped away by its digital heir and instead is happily about to outlive it...." OK, so vinyl may outlive CDs (hasn't happened yet, but it may) - it hasn't yet outlived digital audio files in general (or did I miss a news report about all the world's iPods disappearing overnight?) What evidence is there that film is "happily about to outlive...its digital heir?" Got a firm date in mind for the end of digital photography (including cell phones - and whatever comes along to replace them)? Look, I think (and sure hope) film will be around quite a while - but its not even close to "outliving" digital. Let's leave fantasyland to Disney. http://washingtonexaminer.com/files/2c5860c414d1b50cee0e6a706700c750_3.jpg Andy, if you read carefully what I wrote you'll understand that I didn't say that film is going to outlive digital. I said it's going to outlive digital sensors as we know them now. And I kept saying that it's going to be around for an undefined period. And there's no evidence. I made it clear that this is a forecast. Only time will tell. Said forecast being based on what happened with vinyl and CD. And similarly, I said that vinyl is going to outlive its digital heir meaning the CD. The iPod you mentioned is just one if not the main of the reasons why the CD is getting progressively discarded, i.e. ubiquitous music aptly named "liquid" by Linn, who saw it coming long time ago and started offering dedicated gear along with their traditional stuff. Cheers, Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.