haris Posted December 20, 2006 Share #201 Posted December 20, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Depends with whom you are friend... If you see on Leica forum how many waching on digital part compared to film part, if you see medium format film camera manufacturers are gone, if you see Canon, Nikon abandon film camera making, if you wach TV a lot and see commercials,if you see what happened to Agfa, then film future is not good. But then if you go to APUG forum, if you see that Ilford, Paterson after short problems are back in making films, papers and chemistry, if you see that Ilford, Kodak, Fuji introduce new films/chemistry/papers if you look at Cosina rangefinders cameras and theire new models, if you see that other company continued to make Rodinal, if you look at large format photography and see many small companies are there making cameras and equipment, if you see at this forum people who tells they use digital for work BUT film for private, and who tells they return from digital SLRs to film especially rangefinders, if you see Eastern Europe (Foma, Forte, Slavich, EFKE), China (Lucky), Maco/Rollei, Gigabyte, ADOX, then film future is good. That is, if you are surounded with people who only talks about suicide, you will sonner or later think about it or even do it. But, if you are surounded with people who smile and live full life, you will live life and not think about dark things. Conclusion: If you like film photography, use it, by using it you will help companies to continue to make what is needed for it. Only problem is that digi imagers/manufacturers are so agresive, For them it is not enough just to have digital, they want to kill film photography. What a frustrated bunch... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 Hi haris, Take a look here The Future for Film. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jacksparrow Posted December 20, 2006 Share #202 Posted December 20, 2006 they want to kill film because there's a lot more busines in the digital arena: a new camera every two-three years! + software + computer... you do the math. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomasw_ Posted December 20, 2006 Share #203 Posted December 20, 2006 no, I think it is otherwise. The relationship between digital/film is not that of one trying to beat out one another per se. Film and digital achieve different goals; as such, though digital is more convenient and therefore the more popular choice for most, there will always be a niche market for film manufactors and processors. The direct competition will be like vs like, film vs film, Ilford vs Kodak; one processor vs another, etc.. The indirect competition of like vs unlike, film vs digital, has already run its course for the most part, as there is not much more to lose in terms of film users; in fact it may be that some hobbyists/pros will return to use film at times as you suggest. That would add a bit to the niche market, as more photographers realize film and digital just do different aspects of the craft well. A sensible notion to my mind:) respectfully, Thomas W. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsmukler Posted December 20, 2006 Share #204 Posted December 20, 2006 I think that, from the standpoint of the manufacturers, they had no choice but to jump on the digital bandwagon and work feverishly to catch up with the early entrants. From there, it was a snowball effect: digital became all-the-rave, especially since it plays into consumers' thirst for electronic gadgets. The interesting thing is that, for millions of families--all of those holiday/vacation snapshooters who probably account for the largest volume of gear and print-related sales--they did not immediately realize that the camera was only part of the story: Now they needed to figure out how to get back to handy prints that they could share and place in scrapbooks. Thus: a whole new market for processed CDs, home photo printers, overly expensive ink cartridges, and so on. I think some of the fun is going to wear off on the mass-consumer side of digital, and that a lot of casual snapshooters will stick with or return to basic film cameras. That's good for advanced amateurs who want to keep feeding their Leicas, Nikons, and so on, and also good for the companies that did not wholly abandon their film-based products. I agree that it was good news when Nikon released the F6, even if they did also cut back on their other film cameras. There are so many millions of film users worldwide that I doubt that it will become a true niche market any time soon. At a workshop in Italy last year, I was one of only a few film shooters. The digital folks (who all had to lug their laptops along) had to fuss with system interoperability, how-much-to-PhotoShop issues, and so on. When it came to screening our work, the head instructor repeatedly mentioned to me that (for personal work), looking at the projected slides from my MPs and Leica optics made him want to return to film. As mentioned earlier in this thread, there is some quality of light recording and transmission (projection) that film offers and digital does not. It's not all about megapixels and white balance. I would like to think that the manufacturers monitor forums like this one and realize that, sales figures notwithstanding, there are a lot of passionate film users out there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haris Posted December 20, 2006 Share #205 Posted December 20, 2006 they want to kill film because there's a lot more busines in the digital arena: a new camera every two-three years! + software + computer... you do the math. That is only one part. Other part is digital technology provide easier tracking and control for companies of who, how, use theire products, easier reaching users and easier ways of persuation of people to buy theire products. That is why digital is good for companies. For example every introduction of new digital video format, including DVD, have as big part announcing how companies will use that technology to stop illegal copiying of content. That is theire right, but that shows that technology is more and more used to control than to provide benefit to customers, tommorow more than today. And I am not happy to be controlled by corporations. Of course one can't escape, but one can do what is possibile to stay uncontrolled. That is why I don't like digital techology per se, and especially digital imaging... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted December 20, 2006 Share #206 Posted December 20, 2006 If you all will bear with me for a few seconds, I'd like to relate the saga I've been through ... that has lead me full circle right back to film as an IMPORTANT expressive tool ... The relentless argument in favor of the expressive qualities of digital have mostly centered around it's ability to render clean files for larger prints seen at normal viewing distances. For example, the claim that the M8 can produce files the equal to MF neg films that have been scanned is one such claim. Logically this may be true in the hands of a master print maker such as David. Emotionally, as in "expressiveness" I do not subscribe to this at all. I truly believe that the majority of people are being brainwashed into subscribing to one set of technical criteria, and are ignoring the other emotional ones. For those interested in exploring their expressive powers to the fullest, I think it is criminal to eliminate one media over the other based on a narrow band of intellectual criteria. Please allow me to detail how I have come to this realization, for it is not from lack of experience in either medium. I currently shoot almost every top level form of digital capture available, including 1DsMKII & 5D, Leica M8 & DMR/9, Hasselbald H3D/39 with HC lenses as well as using a CF adapter for Zeiss V lenses, 500 series cameras with a CFV digital back, an Aptus 75s on a Mamiya RZ Pro-II and 645 AFDII also using an adapter with Zeiss CFE & FE lenses. I've also used a rented Phase One P45 with view camera on location. For film photography I use the 200 and 500 Hasselblads, RZ Pro-II, M7 & MP3, EOS1V ... scanned on a Imacon 949. I also refuse to dismantel my darkroom. Evaluation will always be in the eye of the beholder. To my eye film not only has a place in our bag of tools, I even still prefer scanned film to digital, including the most cutting edge digital mentioned above. It remains an essential expressive tool for me, and I doubt it will ever be overshadowed by digital ... because it is simply a different medium. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted December 21, 2006 Share #207 Posted December 21, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) i really cannot understandd all those apocaliptic talks about the future of the film... film is here and it will be here, even if far less then 10% of photography is done on film. in fact, we have more and more new products in recent times, and some of the manufacturers still improve their films - like fuji for example or like maco. agfa is gone.. rite, but now the b/w films of agfa are p[roduced by maco, and actually, maco even extended the product range with really cool stuff. ilford continues to make ilforchrom and so is fuji with t35 and of course all the other papers for negative print papers. u still can buy a brand new darkroom equipment from entiry level and up to the top stuff. in fact, the film photography today is at such a high level in terms of quality, flexibility and usability and range of products... like never before i think, and that includes b/w and colour. digital still cannot go to such a high level as film - sorry to disapoint all the digital "small-talkers and talk-backers". and no, those are not "subjective" qualities.... marc.. u say "beholder of the viewer" - well, ya, practically it is true.... but actually, the qualities of film are very "objective", and if one cannot see it, then it is his/her problem - he/she is probably not sensetive enough in his eyes. and by the way, it is a little surprising how much photographers are full ignrants, blind, not-sensitive, un-educated... now many of them pretend themselves to be engeneers too with all those talks about digital stuff (resolution enough or not enough, what colour profile, what mtf graf, how much details etc). in short talking crap. put a slide film on light table.. there is an answer why film will continue. print the b/w photo in darkroom on silver gelatin fb paper - there is an answer why film will continue. and if somebody says that digital is better in everything (which implies that there is no more place for film) - dont belive it... those people simply dont know what thye talk about.... fast, one-hour-labs are not example of fine film qualities, just like crap digital is not example of fine digital. but again, as i said previously, most of the photographers are SHEEPS. and sheeps - they are eassy to navigate, agitate, direct etc.... if u know a little about rehtorics, marketing, big campign starategies etc.. make a little analyzes of what is going on in photography market... u will be surprised what an eassy game it is to play with the majority of photographers - hobists and pros. here are a few craps about digital agressive markrting and agitation: - u can photograph hundreds and even thousends of pictures without increased cost... well, who said that u should photograph hundreds pictures for each assignment. better think a little, be sensitive to what is going on around, be focused with what u want to do.. beleive me, u will not need so much photos made in jpeg, or even worth, to come back and process hundreds of raws. but.. we can photograph thousend pictures now... what a liberation of creativity :-)))) a new norm - photograph blind, without distinction of what u do :-))))) - digital files are cleaner, better quality(???), more resolution, grainless..... well... agin, lets put the silde on the light table, or make the fine print from slide or b/w... isnt it clean enough??? isnt it smooth enough if u know how to make it smooth??? isnt the resolution good enough ??? and what about other qualities that film has even in small format, and digital doesnot unless we talk about medium digis that only they can come somehow closer to it?? what about depth, richness in colours, luminosity, and most important - feeling of SUBSTANCE that film and fine print from film radiate??? those are not important enough??? but again... who talks about SUBSTANCE ??? we have new norms of clean grainless and high resolution PLASTIC details that will make a new materpices in photography :-)))) the other qualities of photography are none-sense.. traditionalists talks... digital photographers talk only serious things... resolution etc.. they are visually sensetive people... so sensetive that they can see even on tiny crap internet files the qualities of the cameras and lenses and colour reproductions :-)))) both film and digital photography have their places... they both have their capabilites and unique chracters etc.... both have their own practical advantages etc... analyze it for yourself.. see what is important to u and how it serves u... dont be SHEEP :-)))))) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted December 21, 2006 Share #208 Posted December 21, 2006 ...The previous poster was using the "projected slide" as his marker for quality. Something like an M8 can produce a digital file which when printed is the equal of a print from film, but no digital projector I have yet seen or used can equal the quality of projected 35mm film, let alone projected MF slides.John, I think that are very few people interested in projecting slides these days — and it's been like that for quite some time, before the great digital divide. —Mitch/Sydney Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted December 21, 2006 Share #209 Posted December 21, 2006 see what is important to u and how it serves u... dont be SHEEP :-)))))) grass good succulent grass is more important Vic,,,./.. baaaa bbbaaaabaaabaababaa Though I teach both film and digital, if it wasn't for digital I probably wouldn't own a camera. The darkroom diciplined process grates me yet I am happy to bake my own bread and only use a woodfired oven a process not unlike film to print Something like an M8 can produce a digital file which when printed is the equal of a print from film,,, and to what end? a technical end? The film/digital should rage loud and clear but not in technical terms but as a art belonging to the world of artisians Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frc Posted December 21, 2006 Share #210 Posted December 21, 2006 People often move in herds, just have a look t the flows in the big sities and holiday-resorts.What's wrong with it. let them have their collective illusions, their tribal habits and their strong conformation. As long as no mala fide dictators apear things aren't all that bad. OK, I know digitator has risen and is now yelling at the masses. Widescreen, wideband cinema-telivision-devices are traded in massive numbers, haven't toasters gone digital yet. This issue can be pulled into the absurd as far as you like but what does it help us. Let's face the bare facts. How many people ever really used film for what it was and is. In my oppinion very few. Holiday snapshots, oh yes use Kodachrome, ah take the lenscap of before exposure. Cat in the kitchen, couldn't be done without tri-X. ( it's a black and white cat ) The average consumer has no clue about the internal of their fotocam. A new roll of film is not to be seen as anything more than an entitlement to make 24 or 36 more images. It's sent away to the supermarkets lab, only paying attention to the price. Lowest is best, the consumer organisations stress to not pay to much for for the aquirred products, so one doesn't. The fact that this market has made an almost complete swap to the digital is not surprising, and I wonder if many of these consumer-photographers will ever realise there is a difference, and if whether they are willing to make the change back to film more than occasionally just for other reasons than nostalgia. This market is lost for filmsales in any quantity. The professional market however? Let's first define. A pro is:?. Makes money, enough to live. Part of the income is photography. Is famous and accredited by many, more fans= more pro. Anybody making little or no money but filming, sorry photographing with a scope wider than, look at this, how nice and sharp. I will let you decide. Is a hardworking pro with little more knowledge than his tricks of the trade and the sunday-papers opinions a discerning and credible partner to discuss a topic such as film/digi without uncrittically taking the bias imposed by digitator into his considderations. No. And that's a riggid NO. Sorry for shouting in capitals. The discussion on this topic should be helt in an entirely different field. Not those that are biased should be involved into this discussion, not film, not digi. If one does an assignment with a web-intended use it's not a necesity to use film. Documentary, here a lasting quallity is required, portrait, here texture and colour are to ones taste, these are other envireonments with different rules. Fine art B&W prints, channel-mixer <?> monochrome, not for me, but this is personal. As long as these areas are dwelled with dedicated photographers I see no reason for a complete disappearance of film. Market will dictate that a fewer amount of compamies will survive, but as long as there is a demand from users, worldwide, it's very unlikely film is going to disappear. I hope. Film is dead. Film is more natural. Grain looks nicer than pixels. Digital is sharper. The faster workflow is always the better one. Film-users are freaks. If you're pro you use digital. If you're a real pro you use film. If you're biased you're going to repond to isolated remarks. Being clever you look at the content. Some consumers have brains, and use them. Some pro's to;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frc Posted December 21, 2006 Share #211 Posted December 21, 2006 Beleive it or not, some people don't burn wood in their ovens but use film. They say it.s a nicer warmth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted December 22, 2006 Share #212 Posted December 22, 2006 ha ha imants.... of course it is more important, but on film it looks even better :-))))))))) besides... it is not a big deal to handel the woodifred oven... seriously... usually, your slide film is going to be almost perfect.. so there is little need to play with it. a matter of one test only to make great print on ilfochrom :-))))))))))) u need more artistic interpretations.. no problems... make one or two more tests. or use the fuji paper wich gives more room to play (the ilfochrom is perfect to reproduce the silde on print but it is a bit tight process relativly to fuji where u can play with more variables during printing). u know.. darkroom doesnt have so much room for manipulation as digital, but the point is that a good darkroom print is more COHERENT even without those manipulations :-)))) it is smple... it is optical process. i dont think there is a need to mention the great virtues of b/w print in darkroom. frc... that is rite.. "how many people used film for film qualities"... but the problem is that now more and more people become "super photo&art experts" in digital :-)))))) cause now they have 10megapixel cameras and coutless tech specs to talk about :-))))))))))))) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lieberdavid Posted December 22, 2006 Share #213 Posted December 22, 2006 In reply to the assertion that the future for film is bleak, a few here have mentioned that some manufacturers are bringing out new films or darkroom chemicals and use these facts as evidence that the future for film is going to be fine. These facts are evidence of film's PRESENT status, not its future. Many of us here have asserted that the FUTURE for film is bleak. I wish it were not so, but I fear that it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted December 22, 2006 Share #214 Posted December 22, 2006 besides... it is not a big deal to handel the woodifred oven...... smells better than a darkroom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted December 22, 2006 Share #215 Posted December 22, 2006 hi imants - ah - thats true for sure :-)))) i also hate the cleaning and washing :-)))) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guywalder Posted December 23, 2006 Share #216 Posted December 23, 2006 Depends with whom you are friend...If you see on Leica forum how many waching on digital part compared to film part, if you see medium format film camera manufacturers are gone, if you see Canon, Nikon abandon film camera making, if you wach TV a lot and see commercials,if you see what happened to Agfa, then film future is not good. err not really, on general forums you see many more people posting in the Canon section than in the Nikon section, but that hardly means Nikon is dying, it just reflects that Canon has a bigger customer base. Nikon has not abandoned film cameras, in fact they released a brand new top of the range film camera not so long ago (F6), the cameras they stopped making are the mass market compact cameras, since thats where convenience far outweighs esoteric aesthetic considerations. I remain hopeful that film will stick around, albeit in a more limited way than today. After all watercolour paint didnt mean the end of traditional oil painting did it!? Happy Christmas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wide.angle Posted December 24, 2006 Share #217 Posted December 24, 2006 Lol, I cannot believe this thread has gone so long in a film forum about whether film is dead or not!?? Is there anything better to discuss? Will check back after the holidays, I'm taking quite a few rolls with me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haris Posted December 24, 2006 Share #218 Posted December 24, 2006 Well, in recent few months I bought 50 rolls of HP5, 25 rolls of FP4, 10 rolls of Delta3200 in 35 mm, then 50 rolls of FP4 in 120 format and I already have 25 rolls of HP5 and 20 rolls of Delta100 in 12 format. Then I bought 10 packs of ID11 and 10 packs of Perceptol, 5 liter Multigrade developer, 5 liter Hypam fixer and some stop and washing help chemistry. Still have 120 sheets of 24x30cm and 150 sheets of 20x25 of MgIV RC, and waiting end of hollydays to buy some 30x40 MgFB (I am starting finally seriously FB paper), and warmtone, selenium toner and warmtone developer... And 10 boxes of Bromophen (longer shelf and solution life than Multigrade developer). Why I am telling this? Well, this is answer to question is film dead or will it have future. And I know people which bought much bigger quantities than me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron110n Posted December 25, 2006 Share #219 Posted December 25, 2006 Let me gab some acufine and tmax developer fom last night's x-mass eve snaps. Over-all demand among friends and family was B&W on film. Bottomline is, Colored film will one day be gone with it's depleated market demand. Digital will be gone and replaced with a newer technology. But B&W film and wet processing will be here to stay and out live digital and it's succesor.. The art of capturing the image. The art of blending with the right developer. The art of wet processing and agitation. The art of adding and subtracting developing time. The result??? No digital or photoshop could match or get close to... ever. My 2 cents -Ron Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted December 26, 2006 Share #220 Posted December 26, 2006 Why I am telling this? Well, this is answer to question is film dead or will it have future. Haris you are worse than a squirrel hoarding nuts for winter!!!!, I am sure there is no deep freeze on the way, film has not died Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.