What will happen to film Leicas

[Ellie]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A Scandinavian store here lists these 35mm film cameras for ordering (and many more in medium format).

 

Canon EOS 1V

Leica M7

Nikon F6

Phenix DC828N

[Printmaker]

What you are talking about is the viability of small scale production for film and having processing facilities available, all at a cost that people are willing to pay. Unfortunately as volume goes down, costs go up. B/w film should be no problem to keep in small quantity production with home processing. ...

 

It comes down to if Kodak some day gives up on C41 and Fuji gives up on E6 and C41. Will anyone be able to step in and make these films? (Processing chemicals are probably not as hard for a small firm to make and at worst C41 and E6 can be processed in small or large tanks.) ....

 

Kodak used to publish their formulas. Amazon has the B&W formula book used from $2.79 - Processing Chemicals and Formulas for Black and White Photography (Kodak publication)

Add a freezer full of your favorite films and you're set.

 

As for E6 and C41, personally I could care less if they were never used again. It would be a far better world without those poisons.

[AlanG]

Kodak used to publish their formulas. Amazon has the B&W formula book used from $2.79 - Processing Chemicals and Formulas for Black and White Photography (Kodak publication)

Add a freezer full of your favorite films and you're set.

 

As for E6 and C41, personally I could care less if they were never used again. It would be a far better world without those poisons.

 

OK, but making b/w chemicals and even crude emulsions is not very hard. I used to do it and I'm sure some manufacturers will offer this for quite a long while. Kodak started as a dry plate maker for photographers who couldn't be bothered to make their own sensitive glass plates. I'm sure I have all of the formulas too. I don't think that was the issue people are concerned with. But color film is and Kodak certainly does not publish their formulas for color chemicals or give instruction on how to make color film.

 

If you don't like the color chemicals, you can just shoot three color separated b/w images of course.

[pico]

Kodak used to publish their formulas. [...]

 

Unfortunately, the formulas for making the silver base, or The Pot, is as carefully guarded as an ancient alchemist's secret. )

 

As for E6 and C41, personally I could care less if they were never used again. It would be a far better world without those poisons.

 

Are they really poisons? I would appreciate a citation. Thank you.

.

[Guest Joachim_I]

I just got rid of my M7 - film is just too expensive to process here in Aus.

You were looking at the wrong places then. At least in Melbourne we are still blessed with fast, reliable and pretty cheap film processing. I have lived in four countries in the past ten years and Australia has been by far the best for film processing.

[plasticman]

The entire basis for modern marketing is discontent: your television is not thin enough, your kitchen is last year's color and, faster than any other area of consumer fatigue, your digital camera has too few megapixels or more noise or lower sharpness or a slower buffer or a noisier shutter or...

 

The problem for manufacturers that have to return month-on-month increases in their profits is that film-users are liberated from this treadmill. Tired of using Tri-X in your M2? Switch to a roll of Efke 25 for a change. Need better high ISO images? The new Portra 400 is the answer to your prayers.

Dr Kaufmann is simply trying to undermine this comfortable situation.

 

Just look at the M9 users who are suddenly appalled by how awful their sensor is, how primitive the Bayer mosaic, how traumatically much information is discarded when the de-mosaicing process is run by their camera. Clearly the only answer is to 'upgrade' to the vastly superior M Monochrom. Then their problems will be over... until Photokina.

 

In the meantime, the film user looks on with bemusement. But also with the constant, unrelenting harassment of the embittered digital slave: 'film is dying! switch to digital! join us!'

[Guest malland]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Wholly irrelevant because most digital user are not in a position to shoot digital, whether at the high end or a the (mass) low end — but I guess it makes you feel good about yourself, which is fine because so many film users like to whine about this subject.

 

And the M-Monochrom is not a substitute for the M9, for the simple and obvious reason that it does not do colour.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Scratching the Surface©

[mmradman]

 

And the M-Monochrom is not a substitute for the M9, for the simple and obvious reason that it does not do colour.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Scratching the Surface©

 

Stating the obvious; on the other hand M9 or M8 are pretty good substitutes for M-Monochrom.

[jaapv]

Well, maybe, but by that token Kodak Gold is a pretty good substitute for Tri-X. Easy enough to create something slightly resembling B&W film from color negative scans...

[AlanG]

In the meantime, the film user looks on with bemusement. But also with the constant, unrelenting harassment of the embittered digital slave: 'film is dying! switch to digital! join us!'

 

I think if your current film camera and film choices suit your needs and fit in with your sense of aesthetics, you'd be stupid to use a digital camera. (Unless you need something that can only be done digitally or just want to explore the medium and technology.) Likewise digital cameras have gotten pretty mature and many digital shooters don't need to upgrade. For example the new 5DIII is a better camera than the 5DII but is not so much better that many will "need" to upgrade.

 

You may have missed it but the same thing happened with film cameras. The Nikon F was pretty special and the F2 added few features but was more refined. They kept changing it up to the F6. Some bought into the newer film cameras and some did not. Even medium format systems evolved adding electronics, AF, etc. But a lot of photographers stuck with their old 500 series Hasselblads. The Leica M was the exception and stayed pretty much the same for a long time thus avoiding the temptation in some to upgrade. As a matter of fact, the M system shrunk a lot in accessories and usefulness. So what did they do instead? Leica made various limited edition models that served no useful purpose but people bought them for some reason.

 

However it is my opinion that if Leica did not make the move to digital there wouldn't be a Leica camera company to write about today. So they are meeting some needs in the market and can use that success to keep making film cameras for people such as you. (As long as people keep buying them.) So what's not to like about digital from your point of view?

[plasticman]

I think if your current film camera and film choices suit your needs and fit in with your sense of aesthetics, you'd be stupid to use a digital camera. (Unless you need something that can only be done digitally or just want to explore the medium and technology.) Likewise digital cameras have gotten pretty mature and many digital shooters don't need to upgrade. For example the new 5DIII is a better camera than the 5DII but is not so much better that many will "need" to upgrade... So what's not to like about digital from your point of view?

 

Just as some background, at work we've pretty much settled into using a P45+ back for most of the recent shoots. The motion graphics team that work with us have three RED cameras, but an amazing amount of regular TV ads are shot on 5DIIs (and I guess 5DIIIs now). At home I use my own M8 (for a lot of kid stuff) and my partner's (discarded) D90 for filming stuff like my daughter's first dance lesson.

 

Funnily enough, when I saw the Sobol images from the Monochrom I was pretty bowled over, and pretty soon I was rationalizing some reasons why I might get the camera: my life right now (with two kids under 4 years) is a lot of bottom-wiping and tear-drying and not a lot of drinking in bars or even eating in restaurants, so I was starting to think that maybe I should treat myself, and that it isn't sooo much money for my only hobby, and so on. And those Sobol images had drama and edge - things lacking when changing diapers is the most exciting thing you've done all day.

 

But five minutes of reality-check was all I needed to realize that what this was really about was the seduction of being one of the serious photographers in a very exclusive club. I could look down on the plebeian class of workaday M9 owners from the lofty and rarefied heights of the ascetic monochrome photographer: no vulgar color fripperies for me!

 

Essentially, it was just another transformational consumerist dream: the unfulfilled promise that the next purchase would change something fundamental in my life. We're (mostly) all on that treadmill. Modern society measures our worth in these terms, and it takes a strong person to withstand the pressure. Judging from the amount of equipment that people* on this forum get through, then not so many of us withstand the empty promises of consumerism.

 

My observation in the other post was simply a reference to the obtuse remarks by Dr Kaufmann, but also the infinite and unrelenting posts by people popping-up with indefatigable energy in every single thread that might discourage film users. I've come to the conclusion that there's some sort of obsessive, unconscious cognitive dissonance involved - especially where former film users have abandoned the medium and switched to digital. For some reason they can't simply leave it behind, but need to gnaw away at the people still enjoying or discovering film.

 

The psychology is a mystery to me, I have to admit, but at least Kaufmann has an obvious economic motive to disrupt the untroubled existence of the film crowd: he needs to switch them to the insecure, upgrade-obsessed consumers that will spend 9000 bucks on a new 'improved' body every couple years, instead of buying one camera that lasts them a lifetime.

 

 

*this includes me - I have more film cameras than I can realistically use so that I'm actually currently making myself an iOS app to keep track of which film is in which camera.

[AlanG]

The psychology is a mystery to me, I have to admit, but at least Kaufmann has an obvious economic motive to disrupt the untroubled existence of the film crowd: he needs to switch them to the insecure, upgrade-obsessed consumers that will spend 9000 bucks on a new 'improved' body every couple years, instead of buying one camera that lasts them a lifetime.

 

Possessions have a lot of meaning to people and I don't think you can disregard how one's purchasing choices, or lack thereof become representative of a person in some way or another. Especially when they are older, have some money and pursue a hobby. There have been near riots to get limited edition Nike sneakers.

 

While your opinion has merit, in the macro economic scheme of things modern society is very dependent on consumer spending. And it is up to each of us to do our part. (You included!)

 

I look at most of the discussions here as splitting hairs over esoteric aspects about equipment that sometimes cross the line to having some meaning about photography. Every interest group or hobby does the same thing. Do you think many Ferrari owners actually drive their cars that much? In that respect, most Leica users probably get pretty good use out of the item. I consider myself an analytical detail person so for me it is a diversion that keeps me off the streets and away from brothels, bars, and drugs. It has been a long time since I felt any attachment to photo equipment and my choices are determined by what will allow me to work most efficiently and economically.

 

40 years ago I used to sell cameras, including Leicas, in Washington DC. When I stopped into the new Leica "boutique" here this past weekend I felt that I walked into a space that I could not really relate to as a camera store any more. (Although I had a very nice discussion with one of the staff there.) I am not sure why that is but it may be along your lines that this stuff is kind of "overkill" for many when it comes to price/performance/actual needs. But since when has that stopped most of us? And peculiarly I am tempted by much of it too so they must know what works.

 

This has little to do with film vs. digital. A Leica film camera and a few lenses won't cost that much less than with a digital body. The decline of film is simply about newer disruptive technology replacing an established technology. And there is not much you or I can say or do that will have any affect on this.

[chrism]

I've come to the conclusion that there's some sort of obsessive, unconscious cognitive dissonance involved - especially where former film users have abandoned the medium and switched to digital. For some reason they can't simply leave it behind, but need to gnaw away at the people still enjoying or discovering film.

 

I have a foot in both camps. I enjoy film, largely for the whole process and with the added pleasant surprise when something actually turns out respectable, and I enjoy digital, where the convenience is attractive. I intend to continue with both and expand into the M Monochrom too. Right now I am being surprised by how good the Olympus OM-D is, and how nice the negatives from Rodinal are. I'm not giving up either. I don't really think it's the ex-film users who give the most grief to those of us who still use it - I find it's the younger digital-only crowd who don't even begin to get it who ridicule the most. Now that doesn't bother me, but I do feel rather sorry for them in that they are deliberately shutting themselves off from another source of photographic pleasure, and I can't imagine why one would ever do such a thing.

 

The psychology is a mystery to me, I have to admit, but at least Kaufmann has an obvious economic motive to disrupt the untroubled existence of the film crowd: he needs to switch them to the insecure, upgrade-obsessed consumers that will spend 9000 bucks on a new 'improved' body every couple years, instead of buying one camera that lasts them a lifetime.

 

Distinctly troubling. I know Leica needs to make a go of its digital products to survive, but to promote them by suggesting film is dead when you sell all the M7s and MPs you can make? It doesn't make good, consistent sense when you think about it, and I wish Dr K. had thought about it a bit longer if he said that film would be dead in five years. I'd like Leica to continue to succeed in both realms and I'll be sorry if they ever discontinue film cameras.

 

I have more film cameras than I can realistically use so that I'm actually currently making myself an iOS app to keep track of which film is in which camera.

 

I sympathise! I just wish that among my numerous film SLRs and MF cameras of various kinds there was one I could feel had the same build quality as an M7 or MP. What's that? Get an R system? You might be right, but the price isn't, just yet.

 

Chris

[luigi bertolotti]

Just to make a diversion to this (interesting) thread.... I think that there is no doubt that a fine and well made mechanical camera has an appeal, a pleasure to handle and also some collateral advantage in operation that I think that many photographers, independtly from the "death or next to" of film, would be unhappy to see them disppear (and this applies of course to Leicas, but why not to Nikon F or Rolleiflex TLR or Hasselblad or some Linhof Technika...). I think also that the basic electronics of digital cameras (sensor + screen, CPU+RAM, Mass Memory, Power), will surely evolve also in terms of miniaturization and standardization; so, is it possible that in some years the industry can find a market opportunity in the above sentiment for mechanical cameras and develop some products targeted to it and at adequate but not unaffordable price ? Imagine the structure of a classic M (VF/RF top + mech shutter, no spaces for film and related advance/rewind mechanism) and a removable back+bottom with LCD+sensor, power at one side and electronics at the other (roughly said, into the volumes historically occupied by film rolls): I think that, even renouncing to many features of an "integrated" digicamera as M9 or the next to come, it could have a certain success... and same could be said of a Nikon F made with the same principle... and they could also make "specialized" digital units to fit into (a BW unit, a ultrahigh ISO unit, a "HDR" unit...); do you think is a nonsense ?

[adan]

But five minutes of reality-check was all I needed to realize that what this was really about was the seduction of being one of the serious photographers in a very exclusive club. I could look down on the plebeian class of workaday M9 owners from the lofty and rarefied heights of the ascetic monochrome photographer: no vulgar color fripperies for me!

 

But how is this any different from what you do on the film forum anyway?

 

.... I look down on the plebeian class of workaday M9 owners from the lofty and rarefied heights of the ascetic FILM photographer: no vulgar color fripperies for me!

 

Sorry, but that is how you come across in thread after thread.

 

Anyway - with due respect to Dr. K., I don't think he is nearly as influential as some here think or fear. Film won't disappear a day earlier, or later, because of what he says or doesn't say.

[AlanG]

Imagine the structure of a classic M (VF/RF top + mech shutter, no spaces for film and related advance/rewind mechanism) and a removable back+bottom with LCD+sensor, power at one side and electronics at the other (roughly said, into the volumes historically occupied by film rolls):

 

I bet it wouldn't take Sony very long to make this if they wanted to. But they don't want to.

[Printmaker]

...Are they really poisons? I would appreciate a citation. Thank you.

.

 

Before digital, I would take in paintings and shoot them with an 8x10. The three shot bracket went into my E6 line and the dry film would end up on one of my Crosfield 646 Scanners. At that time (1984- 1991), the city of Santa Fe made me pay for the disposal of my E6 chemicals which they labeled "toxic waste". The same was true for the potassium ferrocyanide which we used for dot etching (thank the gods for Photoshop). And the city made the photo lab across the street dispose of their C41 chemistry in the same way. A service came by and picked up the used chemicals along with barrels of film, printing plates, rubylith, chromalin powders, and the sludge from our silver recovery unit.

 

Today, I run the same business in a different location. My weekly waste consists of a bag each of paper and canvas that comes from trimming prints to size. Both of those bags of end trimmings gets recycled. The spent ink cartridges and packing materials also get recycled. Nothing goes into the landfill or the water.

 

I'm not against film or home darkrooms. It is great for the amateur or artist. But few people realize the impact industrial photography had on the environment just a few years ago.

 

However, if you think E6 or C41 chemistry is safe, have a drink.

[Printmaker]

OK,

 

If you don't like the color chemicals, you can just shoot three color separated b/w images of course.

 

Been there. Done that.

 

Circa 1972. Camera= 30 inch Brown. Film = Kodak Pan Masking + Kodak Separation Negative. Best solution for the time.

 

Circa 1976. Enlarger= Berkey Point Source. Film = Kodak Masking + Kodak Pan Lith. Best solution for direct screen.

 

Circa 1980 Scanner= Crosfield 540. Film= Kodak or Agfa continuous tone. Process = sep negs for dye transfer.

 

Ancient history.

[chrism]

However, if you think E6 or C41 chemistry is safe, have a drink.

 

Much as I love the scent of plain old B&W thiosulphate fixer, I'm not going to drink even one sip to prove any point whatsoever!

 

Chris

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Printmaker]

Much as I love the scent of plain old B&W thiosulphate fixer, I'm not going to drink even one sip to prove any point whatsoever!

 

Chris

 

Fixer (with hardener) tastes a little like peanut butter. I went to school with someone who thought it was funny to switch the trays around.