Herr Barnack Posted July 27, 2016 Share #1 Posted July 27, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Comeback?? Film photography never went anywhere to begin with! I will always remember the first time a tech head kind of photographer declared to me that "film is dead" and that it was only a matter of time until you wouldn't be able to buy film anywhere or have it processed. It was July of 1997. http://www.europeanceo.com/culture/film-photography-makes-a-stunning-comeback/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 Hi Herr Barnack, Take a look here Film Photography Makes A "Stunning" Comeback. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
adan Posted July 27, 2016 Share #2 Posted July 27, 2016 Words do have meanings: Stunning: Capable of causing loss of consciousness or emotional shock; stupefying, astounding, overwhelming. (From Latin, via French and English - ex + tonare, "extreme thunder.") Comeback: a return to a former position or condition (as of success or prosperity); a return to formerly enjoyed status or prosperity An analogy (based on the actual change in film sales since 2003): I had $100000. An economic crash reduced that by 99.8%, to $200. I then achieve a 5% increase, to $210. Is that a "stunning comeback?" I don't want to rain on anyone's personal or professional appreciation of film. It's here and it's clear. But exaggerated PR "overspeak" always deserves to be drowned in the gutter and washed down the storm sewer. Film did exactly what I and many others expected - found an economically-viable floor where it can survive, and even increase modestly*. A "comeback" will occur when it returns to 15% of its 2003 peak, a "stunning comeback" will be when it returns to 30% of its peak. ______________ *A "stunning comeback" that I would really like to see, in addition to film - the return to wider use of the concepts and words "modest,""modesty" and "modestly." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted July 27, 2016 Share #3 Posted July 27, 2016 That article is rather mis-titled. A 5% increase over 2 years is a stunning comeback? Film won't go away, but I personally don't have an interest in using it again. It was always a necessary means to an end, not an end in itself. Trying it again some years back, I was reminded of all the reasons why I chose digital. Digital started out as the poor version of film, but it has advanced so much since then, and today's software options provide all of the film looks and creative control I desire. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregm61 Posted July 27, 2016 Share #4 Posted July 27, 2016 There are periods of time I'll get a wild hair and shoot 5-6 rolls of film through and M4, M6 or a really sweet Contax IIA setup I continue to keep in shape, but more times than not they are in the closet when I walk out the door with a bag loaded with an M262 and/or M9, 4-5 lenses, batteries and no film canisters. For me, the film bodies are there for the fun/change of the different process. The comparative results do not justify messing with film, but there's little about any of it that could be considered logical. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted July 27, 2016 Author Share #5 Posted July 27, 2016 There are periods of time I'll get a wild hair and shoot 5-6 rolls of film through and M4, M6 or a really sweet Contax IIA setup I continue to keep in shape, but more times than not they are in the closet when I walk out the door with a bag loaded with an M262 and/or M9, 4-5 lenses, batteries and no film canisters. For me, the film bodies are there for the fun/change of the different process. The comparative results do not justify messing with film, but there's little about any of it that could be considered logical. That would be a stunning wild hair, capable of causing loss of consciousness or emotional shock; stupefying, astounding, overwhelming.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted July 28, 2016 Share #6 Posted July 28, 2016 Comeback?? Film photography never went anywhere to begin with! I will always remember the first time a tech head kind of photographer declared to me that "film is dead" and that it was only a matter of time until you wouldn't be able to buy film anywhere or have it processed. It was July of 1997. Carlos , Yes "Film is not dead" ...because it is the best medium 24x36 or MF to reproduce faithfully in every way black and white like color in an "artistic" sense of the term.. Look at this thread open in 2013 http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/page-957 Regards Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandokan Posted July 31, 2016 Share #7 Posted July 31, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) A screen film uses hundreds of thousands of meters of film - and making two such cinema films in a year is likely to skew the statistics. Reading up on the demise of Kodak, it was the cinema industry that kept them in business and not the camera industry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted July 31, 2016 Share #8 Posted July 31, 2016 A screen film uses hundreds of thousands of meters of film - and making two such cinema films in a year is likely to skew the statistics. [...] And serious 35mm still photographers do not use cine film. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted August 1, 2016 Share #9 Posted August 1, 2016 You'll get some debate on that - but in any event cine film helps absorb the fixed costs of maintaining a factory and machinery, and adds to the volume when negotiating cost of materials (gelatin, silver, dyes, film base, etc). Kodak likely gets a price break per ton, contracting for 50 tons of silver, compared to 5 tons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted August 1, 2016 Share #10 Posted August 1, 2016 Paul , you are right to come back to film like me. As you already know because you pass over our film thread , MF is also nice specially for landscape or portrait look at Chris pictures.But 24x36 is also beautiful look at Adam's pictures. The film is greater than the digital in general rendering , without contestIt suffices to compare (same picture taken at the same time) and we see. Just look at the current research working on curved sensors or multi-layerTherefore the sensor shows its insuffsance. Best Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotohuis Posted August 30, 2016 Share #11 Posted August 30, 2016 It is NOT a come back, it is just a small revival due to finding back (some) analogue cameras. Believe me, film, chemicals and photo paper is just bad business these days ..... It is how it is. Look what is going to happen with slide film E-6. Just a few years and it will be gone. Big internationals will leave this film business and they will be replaced by a few relative small specialized companies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemgb Posted August 30, 2016 Share #12 Posted August 30, 2016 It looks like gelatin plates are about to make a huge comeback too: http://petapixel.com/2016/06/14/galaxy-resurrecting-dry-plate-photography-large-format/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted September 4, 2016 Share #13 Posted September 4, 2016 Words do have meanings: Stunning: Capable of causing loss of consciousness or emotional shock; stupefying, astounding, overwhelming. (From Latin, via French and English - ex + tonare, "extreme thunder.") Comeback: a return to a former position or condition (as of success or prosperity); a return to formerly enjoyed status or prosperity An analogy (based on the actual change in film sales since 2003): I had $100000. An economic crash reduced that by 99.8%, to $200. I then achieve a 5% increase, to $210. Is that a "stunning comeback?" I don't want to rain on anyone's personal or professional appreciation of film. It's here and it's clear. But exaggerated PR "overspeak" always deserves to be drowned in the gutter and washed down the storm sewer. Film did exactly what I and many others expected - found an economically-viable floor where it can survive, and even increase modestly*. A "comeback" will occur when it returns to 15% of its 2003 peak, a "stunning comeback" will be when it returns to 30% of its peak. ______________ *A "stunning comeback" that I would really like to see, in addition to film - the return to wider use of the concepts and words "modest,""modesty" and "modestly." I agree with this assessment. And serious 35mm still photographers do not use cine film. . I disagree. Cinestill 50 is a wonderful low iso daylight and is one of the only games still left that allow for shooting nearly wide open in the bright daylight. A humble example from a low res intouched lab scan (the neg is in a pile of 100+ rolls that eventually will be properly scanned and edited. But even this rendition is gold... If that is all there was i would still prefer it over digital... 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/262922-film-photography-makes-a-stunning-comeback/?do=findComment&comment=3106857'>More sharing options...
pico Posted September 4, 2016 Share #14 Posted September 4, 2016 See the post. Mr. Miller is it not like you to post an out-of-focus image. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted September 4, 2016 Share #15 Posted September 4, 2016 See the post. Mr. Miller is it not like you to post an out-of-focus image. . It is not like me to post a low res untouched lab scan, either. All will be fixed in due course. Until then, I am very much enjoying the smaller, much sharper, version of this on my wallpaper on my iPhone. The focus here is on the cine film, which is utterly sublime... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted September 4, 2016 Share #16 Posted September 4, 2016 Film use declined rapidly, levelled off and has now started to increase a little. It's still profitable for a number of companies to continue as a business and to retail at relatively low cost. If you like film, use film. The more you use the better the prospects of keeping availability high and costs low. Meanwhile we have seen another year of declining sales of all types of digital cameras (CIPA) not including phones. I'd be more concerned about the future of high end still digital equipment if the trend continues and the resources that companies will be prepared to invest in newer/better technology for a shrinking market. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted September 5, 2016 Share #17 Posted September 5, 2016 [...] The focus here is on the cine film, which is utterly sublime...Which is utter trash, too. Posting out-of-focus examples does not help. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted September 5, 2016 Share #18 Posted September 5, 2016 Which is utter trash, too. you have drifted too far off of the reservation to have a meaningful discussion regarding this. I will have dozens of examples to nail into the coffin in due course... I look forward to seeing you eat your words... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted September 5, 2016 Share #19 Posted September 5, 2016 you have drifted too far off of the reservation to have a meaningful discussion regarding this. I will have dozens of examples to nail into the coffin in due course... It is your coffin. Feel free. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted September 5, 2016 Share #20 Posted September 5, 2016 She is also my wife; so yes, I will be most happy to be buried with her photos Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.