Film sold out

[italy74]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

but if you want something like an Olympus Pen or Nikon F (never mind Leica bodies), then prices are constantly climbing.

 

Agree. Also whatever mf lens is raising its price, everywhere else than where I live at least. Where I live looks like a mf lenses galore if you know where to look for and so is for film cameras. Yet, aside local shops, internet shows ridiculous prices for lenses which were much less priced 3 - 4 yrs ago. Some country especially (HK, Germany) over ebay show price lists which are just out of this world. I really wonder who's going to purchase such items there.

 

Actually, I'm hoping a decent AIS 28 F/2 for Nikon shows up everywhere else than HK or Germany (possibly in Europe) yet I've not been lucky so far. Also an old lens by Sigma 28 f/1.8, priced only 280 € a few years ago now sells for over 400 € .... Maybe it's due to FF cameras yet speculation is evident.

 

Film.. where I live is clear that shops have less stuff in their stocks yet so far is enough and at times it's a bit cheaper than usual.

[MX5Bob]

Absolutely, people can do what they want, I'm all for it. I was just saying that its a mistake to think people are taking up film because there is some fundamental truth they are discovering about it. Sure some will stick with it, thats OK, but the majority of new film users are following a trend, its fashionable, and some will continue, but more will go back to digital. Its 'The Summer of Love' for film, harking back to a simpler time, but as with the flower power era nearly all hippies converted to a normal life after they got it out of their system (and I had long hair). In any case film will reach a plateau and hover there as generations come and go, with steady sales for the right niche companies.

 

Steve

 

And this would be different in what way from the pursuit of photography at any other time in the past half century? Or the pursuit of pretty much anything else humans engage in short of reproduction?

 

I shoot film because I like the look. I prefer B&W and don't at all mind if there are dark shadows and don't plan on changing way from that no matter how many HDR photos are fawned over by people on photo.net.

[pico]

Andy, where do you work? I might be going back to Denver to visit my family and would like to meet you and order a case or two of Tri-X (just to piss 'em off )

[Paulus]

Andy, where do you work? I might be going back to Denver to visit my family and would like to meet you and order a case or two of Tri-X (just to piss 'em off )

 

Does anyone know why the T-max 400 is cheaper than the tri-x 400? ( at least it is where I buy it , Antwerpen, Belgium)

 

They sell a lot of filmrolls there!

[adan]

"Does anyone know why the T-max 400 is cheaper than the tri-x 400?"

 

It could simply be that Tmax has a higher sales volume, and costs can be distributed over more rolls, at less cost per roll.

 

However, I believe the tabular grains in T-Max films (thus the "T" in the name) are engineered to capture light more efficiently, and thus there is a bit less silver per roll than the old-tech films (Tri-X/Plus-X). T-Max was developed (no pun intended) after the Hunt brothers tried to corner the market in silver and ran up the price - early 1980s. Today's similar silver bubble may have had more price effect on the older films.

 

Silver Thursday - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[adan]

BTW- we got in 50 rolls of TMax 400, and they sold out AGAIN in less than a week.

[MX5Bob]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

"Does anyone know why the T-max 400 is cheaper than the tri-x 400?"

 

It could simply be that Tmax has a higher sales volume, and costs can be distributed over more rolls, at less cost per roll.

 

However, I believe the tabular grains in T-Max films (thus the "T" in the name) are engineered to capture light more efficiently, and thus there is a bit less silver per roll than the old-tech films (Tri-X/Plus-X). T-Max was developed (no pun intended) after the Hunt brothers tried to corner the market in silver and ran up the price - early 1980s. Today's similar silver bubble may have had more price effect on the older films.

 

Silver Thursday - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

For which the Hunt Bros. deservedly paid.

 

I remember film and paper prices went up considerably. I don't think Agfa Brovira was as good after that.

[Gentleman Villain]

I've been gone for awhile and made good use of the time by studying a lot of media theory. There is no question that film and digital are completely different mediums. This may be considered controversial in photo forums but it is common knowledge in media theory. Film photography is a mechanical medium and digital imaging is an electrical medium.

 

Digital did not replace film, but it did change the environment in which film was forced to operate. This change in environment is knocking the old players out of the business and paving the way for new players to enter in the future. These new players haven't come up yet, but rest assured, they are guaranteed to come along. It's a guarantee

 

Film is going to make a giant comeback but it isn't going to be viewed the same way as it was in the past and it won't fill the same roles. This is why so many people are confused by what's going on. Film photography will be considered an art form and treated much more seriously than it was in the past by the general public. IT's not going to be accessible or democratic. Film photography technique is going to be an academic study and digital is going to be considered easy, commonplace and ordinary. Film will be fine art and digital will be folk art. Film will be used by specialists and digital will be used by hacks and multi-taskers.

[hamey]

Excellent post GV.

 

I love shooting my slide film for my series stuff but my other Electronic thing , well just to get the

coverage and to view it on my Mac.

 

Cheers.

[AlanG]

I've been gone for awhile and made good use of the time by studying a lot of media theory. There is no question that film and digital are completely different mediums. This may be considered controversial in photo forums but it is common knowledge in media theory. Film photography is a mechanical medium and digital imaging is an electrical medium.

 

Digital did not replace film, but it did change the environment in which film was forced to operate. This change in environment is knocking the old players out of the business and paving the way for new players to enter in the future. These new players haven't come up yet, but rest assured, they are guaranteed to come along. It's a guarantee

 

Film is going to make a giant comeback but it isn't going to be viewed the same way as it was in the past and it won't fill the same roles. This is why so many people are confused by what's going on. Film photography will be considered an art form and treated much more seriously than it was in the past by the general public. IT's not going to be accessible or democratic. Film photography technique is going to be an academic study and digital is going to be considered easy, commonplace and ordinary. Film will be fine art and digital will be folk art. Film will be used by specialists and digital will be used by hacks and multi-taskers.

 

Agreed!!! And I will further "guarantee" that those photographers will not use Leicas and only will use wet plates, tintypes, ambrotypes and Daguerreotypes. Because 35mm film has always been just for "hacks" anyway.

[pico]

Film is going to make a giant comeback

 

Giant? What is giant .05% of the photograph buyers?

 

but it isn't going to be viewed the same way as it was in the past and it won't fill the same roles. This is why so many people are confused by what's going on. Film photography will be considered an art form and treated much more seriously [...]

 

Yeah, like the flocks drawn to wet plate photography.

 

Don't confuse history as a prediction of the future.

See ya there.

[Ronan]

...your input is embarrassing, Ronan - and I am being polite. If you must reply, at least try to read and understand the essence of my questioning, before proffering zero-value anecdotal responses like "Ask around".

 

I too was being polite after reading your 'posts'. Lets leave it at that, and move on.

 

Cheers.

[Gentleman Villain]

Alan might remember me from awhile back because I used to pay him compliments on his architectural work

 

Film and digital are separate mediums. Film is mechanical and digital is electrical. Folks that are interested in researching the differences between the two mediums can find out more by looking into Mediation Theory. BTW - it's the same theory used by the big media groups to understand the impact of technologies before they are released.

 

Yes, digital is a "cool" medium which means it is participatory. Cool mediums are easy to access and democratic. The content that fills them becomes associated with amateur work in the minds of the general public. It's important to understand that these are general perceptions. Not every person will share the same perception but the mainstream will eventually adopt the view that digital is ordinary and not special.

 

Film is a "hot" medium which means that it is more difficult to access. Hot mediums are not readily available or easily learned by the general public and this makes them exclusive and elitist *gulp* mediums. Fine art is based on context and inaccessibility of a medium increases it's chances of being perceived as an art form by the general public.

 

Alan is right that 35mm was mostly for hacks in the film days (photojournalists exempt from that statement) Professionals and artists mostly worked in medium and large formats. But the introduction of digital has altered the environment in which film exists and this has effected perceptions relating to formats. Today, 35mm film isn't considered more or less valid than any other film format but digital is now for hacks.

[iphoenix]

Not every person will share the same perception but the mainstream will eventually adopt the view that digital is ordinary and not special.

Yes, and that is already happening in Australia. Digital has apparently become the "norm" and, whilst I am not part of the community of photographers (my abilities are far lower than those of my cameras); the people I associate with are looking for more (with less complication) from their cameras. They miss the enjoyment of opening the folder of pictures taken on film. Some, including me, would love to have better access to the chemicals we use to develop our film. But, I can see it happening if we keep asking for it.

[gyoung]

snip...

 

Alan is right that 35mm was mostly for hacks in the film days (photojournalists exempt from that statement) Professionals and artists mostly worked in medium and large formats.

 

Hmm, a rather sweeping generalisation, as a 'hack' (ie not highly paid celebrity) professional photographer I always looked for the best tool for the job, and that was often 35mm, for instance for slide shows illustrating lectures or presentations.

Even when medium format was used it was more often because the labs/plate makers couldn't or wouldn't take the trouble to work from 35mm, I would much rather have used my M3s or Nikon F2s etc for hand camera jobs than a Rollei or Mamiya C330.

Technical stuff is different, A Sinar or similar for architecture/furniture etc was almost indispensible, although I got a lot of use out of Nikon F2 + PC Nikkors or bellows with movements and 100mm lens head in the studio to produce slides for lectures etc.

 

You wouldn't very often have found anything larger than 35mm in use in Fleet Street after about 1965 either, the darkroom lads had to learn to keep their sticky fingers off the small negs! Press lads would have given their eyeteeth as they say for digital, I remember developing Tri X in steaming ID11 and printing wet for speed, and 35mm Polaroid? that was amusing!

 

Gerry

[AlanG]

Well I'm shooting everything on 35mm digital now and they look as good or better as when I shot the same subjects on MF or LF. But somehow I've become a hack.

 

Pencils, pens, paint, paper and canvas are all easily accessible but we still associate work done using them with artists. It seems to me it takes the same skills to shoot a photo on film as it does on digital and the results can be very similar. So I don't know why anyone would really think that the choice of using film will make it special. But if you are an artist and can sell that to buyers, good for you.

 

It seems that at least one "real" artist is trying to figure out how to sell digital iPhone "paintings."

 

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/07/131854461/in-paris-a-display-from-hockney-s-pixelated-period