35mm Film Is Dead????
russbutner
Dallas
lad with stars and not Nikons in my eyes) listening to the latest New Wave
singles on the shops turntables.
The gal behind the counter pulled out this little shiny disc and said that
this was going to be the future of music. A CD. Me and my buddies all
scoffed at the fact that it only had one playable side, but when she put it
into this CD player thing weird shit started happening. A door creaked open
and footsteps that came from an invisible being started tracking across the
room. A few seconds later I was listening to the clearest version of Michael
Jackson's Thiller I had ever heard. It still took me about 10 years to
finally give in to technology and buy my first CD, but it happened.
Digital camera technology may not be as well perfected as it can be yet, but
don't kid yourself about it's ability to usurp the traditional film market
over time. It will happen eventually.
When last did you buy a vinyl l.p. record?
SHADETREE© <shad...@priest.tc> wrote in message
news:odh3nto5n18022bq1...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> "Photography as a fad is well-nigh on it's last legs, thanks
> principally to the bicycle craze."
>
> Alfred Stieglitz
> 1917
>
> That statement makes about as much sense now as the
> "digital" crowd going around saying "the sky is falling" when
> it comes to 35mm film photography.
>
> Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Kodak, and several other companies
> are racing to market with new and improved FILM scanners.
> They are bringing these more to the consumers at the same time
> enticing pros with newer an MUCH better scanners.
>
> They MUST be crazy!! Film is DEAD!!
>
>
> SHADETREE©
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Thou shalt not commit an adult tree!"
>
> 2nd Timmy Tree, Chapter 2, vs 8
>
> Book of Shade
>
> Holy Wood of God
>
NickC
Dallas wrote:
>
> I recall sitting in a record shop back in the early 80's (when I was a wee
> lad with stars and not Nikons in my eyes) listening to the latest New Wave
> singles on the shops turntables.
>
> The gal behind the counter pulled out this little shiny disc and said that
> this was going to be the future of music. A CD. Me and my buddies all
> scoffed at the fact that it only had one playable side, but when she put it
> into this CD player thing weird shit started happening. A door creaked open
> and footsteps that came from an invisible being started tracking across the
> room. A few seconds later I was listening to the clearest version of Michael
> Jackson's Thiller I had ever heard. It still took me about 10 years to
> finally give in to technology and buy my first CD, but it happened.
>
> Digital camera technology may not be as well perfected as it can be yet, but
> don't kid yourself about it's ability to usurp the traditional film market
> over time. It will happen eventually.
That's like saying someday it will rain and sure enough someday it will.
However, I don't agree with this prediction and there a number of
reasons why technically I don't agree. Then there is the artistic side
to photography that must be reckoned with. How does one wish to
present artistic photographic talent, working with a negative or
manipulating a computer. A computer whose software may get continually
updated to the point when old stored digital pictures can not be used
because the software that digitized them is no longer available;
unless the digitized pictures are in the raw condition. Then too
consider millions of Jane and John Doe's who point and shoot, who
comprise the massive majority of picture takers who only occasionally
take pictures for vacations, parties, and other occasional gatherings.
Millions who don't even have computers much less want digital cameras.
Besides, a photo processor can easily convert neg's to digital's, and
the photographer gets to keep the neg's too.
Remember when Polaroid cameras hit the market. They were extremely
popular and many thought that conventional photography would
eventually give way to Polaroid cameras. Well, it looks like Polaroid
is due to file Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
I think digital photography will eventually find its rightful place in
the motion picture industry and theaters will be showing movies beamed
down from satellites. I think eventually the conventional 35mm and
larger size film cameras will eventually incorporate camera backs
similar to the digital whereby the photographer will be able to see
the picture that was just taken; but it will be taken on film, and
batteries won't have to be changed so often as they are for digital
cameras.
I think camera manufactures have a better handle on what may become of
photography in the future. They appear to be spending millions
developing and marketing newer and better lenses and camera bodies;
not to mention what Kodak, Agfa, Fuji, and Ilford are spending
developing new film chemistry. Still, I am aware that photo lab's of
tomorrow will be processing memory chips, converting them to prints,
which may satisfy many present day point and shooters. But that opens
up another can of photographic worms to contend with.
> When last did you buy a vinyl l.p. record?
Which may prove the point of obsolescence. Aside from the big bucks
collectors are paying for good condition vinals and 78's of old
masters. CD's were supposed to knock out tapes, but they didn't.
Consider too that now that CD's are being coded to prevent
reproduction, tapes my just become the music method by default. And,
lurking on the horizon is DVD's to knock out CD's, but not tapes. Many
a music lover has found that the VCR has music reproduction qualities
that equal CD's and one may find three hours of home recorded music
being played via VCR's.
No my friend. I've witnessed many who have sold off their conventional
camera equipment and plunged into digital picture taking only to go
back to film. Then again, who really knows what the future has in
store. In the long run, it's what sells to the masses that counts.
Nick
Mxsmanic
news:3b723...@news1.mweb.co.za...
> Digital camera technology may not be as well
> perfected as it can be yet, but don't kid yourself
> about it's ability to usurp the traditional
> film market over time. It will happen eventually.
Lots of things will happen _eventually_. However, the move to digital
photography will not be as rapid as the move to digital audio, mainly
because the bandwidth required from a technical standpoint is orders of
magnitude higher with photography (and video). Old LP audio recordings
really didn't carry that much useful information, and it was not
terribly difficult to record it on a CD, once the CD fabrication process
was worked out (even so, CDs didn't actually appear on the market until
decades after their technical possibility had been recognized and
examined). In the case of images, though, the amount of data to be
recorded rises exponentially, and requires far higher levels of
technology, and so the move to digital imaging is much slower.
It is the difficulty of creating digital image-capture devices that can
match film size and resolution and making them at reasonable cost that
is holding digital photography back. Another difficulty is the cost and
inconvenience of storage media for digital images. Both of these
problems will eventually be resolved, but given the bandwidth required,
it is unlikely that they will be resolved as quickly as they were for
digital audio.
> When last did you buy a vinyl l.p. record?
In the late 1970s. As soon as I saw CDs for sale in my local record
shop (around 1981, I think), I bought them, and got one of the first CD
players to play them--and I never looked back. It was clear that CDs
would wipe out LPs, as they had only advantages, with no disadvantages.
This was one of only a handful of occasions in my life when I felt
confident jumping immediately on board with a new technology; there was
just no way that CD could fail, and sure enough, it took over in no
time.
However, the situation for digital photography is different, and I've
never invested in it whole-hog, as I knew that there were problems with
it. Indeed, I even backed out of my initial investment, when it became
apparent that film could give me a better workflow and better images at
a lower price. I'll have to wait for digital photography to advance a
_lot_ more before I invest anything more into it. The handful of
advantages of digital photography right now are not relevant for my
applications, whereas the disadvantages (and, unlike CD audio, digital
photography has a number of disadvantages) are serious handicaps for my
work.
Mxsmanic
news:3B7253D1...@mediaone.net...
> Many a music lover has found that the VCR
> has music reproduction qualities that equal
> CD's and one may find three hours of home
> recorded music being played via VCR's.
That is because VHS tape has much higher bandwidth than either LPs or
audio CDs; it has nothing to do with analog-vs.-digital. Note that DVDs
provide sound that will blow away VHS tape and CDs and LPs, and they are
digital--again, it's just a question of greater bandwidth.
Since anything with adequate bandwidth to represent moving images
accurately typically has extra bandwidth to burn from an audio
standpoint, any technology that provides high-quality images (such as
DVD) will provide ultra-ultra-high-quality audio as well.
> I've witnessed many who have sold off their
> conventional camera equipment and plunged into
> digital picture taking only to go back to film.
I'm one of them (except that I never sold my conventional camera stuff).
Unfortunately, digital just isn't ready for what I want to do. Maybe
someday (certainly someday, but not tomorrow).
Bob Hickey
there's a cover for every pot. How much do you really want/need to learn
just to get a picture? Explain the complete process and cost of getting
the first digital picture and the average "man from Mars" will run
screaming out of Circuit City, never to return. On the other
end is the vast majority. "Yeah, you pust this button, then when it
stops, take it over to that counter".
One thing I keep noticing; people do not pay for frustration, if
something gets between them and their purpose, it's over. In the closet.
My step-son the computer wiz and Social Studies teacher, got a digital.
He needed a USB line, which didn't come with it. In the closet. Gave him
a Pentax. Couldn't handle the magic fingers. In the closet.
OTOH, instant gratification is the world's best seller. At an increasing
rate. Ice makers in the door, Instant tea, which takes exactly the same
time, but says "easy" on the box. And tell me McDonalds doesn't smell
exactly like cat food. If people can't be bothered to learn the recipe
for ice, I don't hold out a lot of hope for digital photography. Sales,
yes; use, no. Bob Hickey
gene
Gene
SHADETREE© <shad...@priest.tc> wrote in article
<odh3nto5n18022bq1...@4ax.com>...
Charo
the naysayers who firmly believe that every Tom Dick and Harry are saving
their pennies to buy a digital camera. Even the bottom-of-the-line digital
cameras that are available to the average consumer cost ten times as much as
a bottom-of-the-line 35mm point & shoot at Wal-Mart. Indeed, technology has
made leaps and bounds with digital imaging - but it is available, for the
most part, only to the high-end user, the pro, who can afford the thousands
of dollars for bodies, memory, lenses, etc. What average "Joe" can even
afford a Nikon Coolpix? My company invested in a $400 digital camera, and
the resolution is so poor, recycle time so bad, that my boss has decided to
start documenting with 35mm SLR instead, *for convenience* and quality.
When I got married, I scattered those disposable 35mm cameras throughout the
reception for my guests to use. What a blast! Every wedding I have been to
in the last four years had those disposable 35mm cameras on the tables.
There is a *huge* market for these. Digital can't replace that, not at
$3/camera (bulk price).
I don't know *one* person who has never picked up a disposable 35mm at the
last minute, because they forgot to bring their camera to an event or on
vacation. I do this all the time. They are convenient and cheap. Try
picking up a digital camera because you forgot your "regular" digital camera
at home. You're in for at least 7 times the cost of a 35mm disposable. Can
digital cameras be sold as disposable cameras, for less than $10 each? It
will be a long time before that can happen.
The point-and-shoot digital cameras are the digital cameras that are selling
"like hotcakes" - not the SLRs. I personally don't know *anyone* who isn't
a professional photographer who can afford a digital SLR. Of the
professionals that I know, only one has invested in a digital SLR - and he
is financing it, because he couldn't afford to shell out the $5K all at
once!
The point & shoot digitals are pretty cost prohibitive, too. I don't know
what it's like in yuppyland, but here in Southeastern North Carolina,
regular old folks can't just up and drop $1,000 on a camera (35mm or
digital)... and the majority of the regular old folks would *never* spend
that much on a camera, anyway. I know very few people with digital cameras,
but everyone I know owns a 35mm point & shoot.
So, my philosophy is, not only will digital imaging have to improve quite a
bit to compete with 35mm, it will also have to come down in price
significantly. I certainly won't invest in a digital SLR, even if I already
own the correct lenses, when I can buy a top-of-the-line 35mm body for 1/5
the cost.
All the Chicken Littles should just calm down for a while... and try to come
back to earth, where the masses earn $7/hour working in service industries,
and only the elite can afford fancy gadgets and toys. At least the $7/hour
cashier can afford a 35mm point & shoot and a couple of rolls of film per
year (about average for most point & shooters).
~Charo
"SHADETREE©" <shad...@priest.tc> wrote in message
news:odh3nto5n18022bq1...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
Bob Mathison
mechanisms and
digital cameras are recording mechanisms. In the world of audio
recording
it is true that most playback mechanisms are digital but on the
recording
side you would be frightend how many musicans treaure old tube amps.
how musicans treasure 400 year old instruments. Things change thant's
true but on
the source side every creation media has it's own advantages and
creaters use
what's appropiate.
Digital and analog will live side by side very happily for along time to
come.
Bob Olhsson
wrote:
>Digital camera technology may not be as well perfected as it can be yet, but
>don't kid yourself about it's ability to usurp the traditional film market
>over time. It will happen eventually.
My profession is audio recording and mastering.
Digital technology has in fact taken over distribution to consumers and
amateur production however this is primarily because it's so much
cheaper that it offers a five-fold retail margin increase to stores
over comparable analog products.
Much to the surprise of even the tape machine and tape manufacturers,
analog tape recording remains the medium of choice for high-end
performance-based pop music recording because professionals
consistently find they can get superb results much faster and hence
cheaper by using it. I have little doubt that this is the very same
reason the view camera hasn't gone away at the high-end of photography
despite the incredible developments in less expensive 35mm and digital
photography over the years.
In the end the cost of labor always dictates what technology will be
most appropriate. For tape or film to go away there would need to be a
technical breakthrough that quite simply hasn't happened yet at the
high-end. I define the high-end as being the applications where the
cost of whatever is in front of the lens or the microphone defines the
economics.
--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery Recording Project Design and Consulting
Box 90412, Nashville TN 37209 Tracking, Mixing and Mastering
615.352.7635 FAX 615.356.2483 Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
40 years of making people sound better than they thought possible!
Richard F. Jr.
any of Canon's
and Nikon's Pro SLR 35mm camera's but yet cost no more then a F5 or F100
(35mm) <under 1800 $
to under 1000 $> then I MAY buy one, and when the printers for doing TRUE
PHOTO QUALITY , and ARCHIVAL
for less then the price for a good enlarger <under 1000 $ +/-> I may get one
Rich
"Dallas" <dal...@ananzi.co.za> wrote in message
news:3b723...@news1.mweb.co.za...
Meryl Arbing
analog storage: Cheaper, higher quality, and more portable are just the
opposite of the digital camera which are: more expensive, lower quality, and
ties the user to a computer. Compared to a digital camera, a comparable 35mm
point and shoot zoom camera is cheaper, produces higher quality images and
more portable since you can go pretty well anywhere in the world a buy a
roll of 35mm film.
Tony Parkinson
yet, but
> don't kid yourself about it's ability to usurp the traditional film
market
> over time. It will happen eventually.
>
goes Supernova. It will happen eventually !! so applying your
(il)logic, perhaps we should all go out and commit suicide !!!
8^)
Meryl Arbing
"You push the button; we do the rest." With digital the new slogan is: "You
push the button and then you push a few more buttons and then you go here
and push a few more buttons and then you move this mouse-thing which also
has buttons which you push and after pushing a few more buttons you will
have had to do everyting."
"Bob Hickey" <bobh...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:19804-3B...@storefull-227.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Dallas
<snip>
>No my friend. I've witnessed many who have sold off their conventional
>camera equipment and plunged into digital picture taking only to go
>back to film. Then again, who really knows what the future has in
>store. In the long run, it's what sells to the masses that counts.
35mm film will eventually fall by the wayside in favour of a digital
replacement. The technology is still in it's infancy which is why many
professional photographers have been disappointed as you point out.
You are right to say that market demand will ultimately determine what
happens, but when I speak to my friends who work in camera shops and they
tell me about the huge number of digital cameras that they sell, it's pretty
obvious what the market wants.
Storage and hardware redundancy is irrelavant in the digital realm, because
it's just ones and zeros. Whether you store an image on a CD, DVD, DAT tape,
stiffy disc, hard drive, zip drive, memory stick, compactflash card or
whatever, you can easily transfer it from one to the other.
I would give film another 10-15 years in the mainstream. It will still be
around, but it will become a niche market. Digital will prevail. I just
can't see the convenience of it failing to break the back of film.
Smart film companies like Kodak, Agfa and Fuji are already fully behind the
technology. Buy their stock today and you will retire in 15 years as a very
wealthy individual.
NickC
Dallas wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >No my friend. I've witnessed many who have sold off their conventional
> >camera equipment and plunged into digital picture taking only to go
> >back to film. Then again, who really knows what the future has in
> >store. In the long run, it's what sells to the masses that counts.
>
> 35mm film will eventually fall by the wayside in favour of a digital
> replacement. The technology is still in it's infancy which is why many
> professional photographers have been disappointed as you point out.
>
> You are right to say that market demand will ultimately determine what
> happens, but when I speak to my friends who work in camera shops and they
> tell me about the huge number of digital cameras that they sell, it's pretty
> obvious what the market wants.
I do agree and have also seen local camera shops stocking more digital
cameras than they have been stocking before. But I equate such action
as being similar to the start up and stocking of VCR tape rental
shops. Such shops now are are the wane. Digital's are the new toy, the
new interest, and with good marketing techniques sales will continue
to increase, particularly among new buyers. But after having gotten
one and using it for a time and being confronted with its inherent
inadequate versatility's as compared to film use, they end up on
internet auction sites. I consider the digital buyers of today as
being merely the means by which camera companies are obtaining funds
to continue making digital cameras almost immediately obsolete. Yet
film sales have also increased tremendously. With such fine digital
equipment such as Nikon's Coolscan, I would not be surprised to see
the transparency film market increase in use. Consider this for a
moment, If digital cameras were to disappear tomorrow, the
disappearance would not be felt and the photo industry would continue
to thrive. The conventional film camera can handle both worlds of
photographic interest and even handle them better than digital
cameras.
It's not my intent to say you are wrong in your perceptive view of
what may be the photographic future but I can't help but think that
the camera, for all it's versatility and accuracy has never replaced
the artist with brush, paint, and easel. Photography is still an art
form and film is the brush of the photographic artist.
> Storage and hardware redundancy is irrelavant in the digital realm, because
> it's just ones and zeros. Whether you store an image on a CD, DVD, DAT tape,
> stiffy disc, hard drive, zip drive, memory stick, compactflash card or
> whatever, you can easily transfer it from one to the other.
>
> I would give film another 10-15 years in the mainstream. It will still be
> around, but it will become a niche market. Digital will prevail. I just
> can't see the convenience of it failing to break the back of film.
Again I agree, digital will prevail but I don't see it breaking the
back of the film industry. Not when film can be used to bridge and
satisfy photo creativity and the snap shot market while also filling
an existing gap for commercial digital computerized photo
reproduction.
> Smart film companies like Kodak, Agfa and Fuji are already fully behind the
> technology. Buy their stock today and you will retire in 15 years as a very
> wealthy individual.
I do believe words similar to this have been said about the internet
and the tremendous marketing potential of the internet. Now we see the
technology market is almost in the toilet. Would-be millionaires have
gone bust and thousands of people have found themselves unemployed.
Nick
David Littlewood
<NOSPAMar...@btinternet.com> writes
would need to be several times as massive as it is [Nitpick mode off]
:)
Actually, on reflection, there is a more direct analogy: (1) you will
die; (2) you won't be able to take photos or look at pictures when you
are dead; (3) therefore you might as well throw all your stuff away now
and save yourself the trouble.
--
David Littlewood
David Littlewood
>Film is a passing fad. Glass plates will never be replaced. Or will they?
>
sculpture. On past performance there is a good chance of archival
performance.
--
David Littlewood
Gregg
Steve
>"Photography as a fad is well-nigh on it's last legs, thanks
>principally to the bicycle craze."
>Alfred Stieglitz
>1917
>That statement makes about as much sense now as the
>"digital" crowd going around saying "the sky is falling" when
>it comes to 35mm film photography.
>Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Kodak, and several other companies
>are racing to market with new and improved FILM scanners.
>They are bringing these more to the consumers at the same time
>enticing pros with newer an MUCH better scanners.
>They MUST be crazy!! Film is DEAD!!
No, the film market is shrinking. There is a difference. Of course
they are milking all they can out of the medium before its demand goes
down to nothing. However, if you could see what the new pro level
digital backs are doing, you'd wonder how film survived as long as it
did.
Film scanners do not equate with a thriving film market. They equate
with a thriving scanning market - many many folks are scanning their old
transparencies to get quality digital files. Think about it Shade,
scanners are digital. People want their old work in the digital medium
- seems proof that digital is here to stay and is winning.
Steve
Steve
>However, I don't agree with this prediction and there a number of
>reasons why technically I don't agree. Then there is the artistic side
>to photography that must be reckoned with. How does one wish to
>present artistic photographic talent, working with a negative or
>manipulating a computer. A computer whose software may get continually
>updated to the point when old stored digital pictures can not be used
>because the software that digitized them is no longer available;
>unless the digitized pictures are in the raw condition. Then too
>consider millions of Jane and John Doe's who point and shoot, who
>comprise the massive majority of picture takers who only occasionally
>take pictures for vacations, parties, and other occasional gatherings.
>Millions who don't even have computers much less want digital cameras.
>Besides, a photo processor can easily convert neg's to digital's, and
>the photographer gets to keep the neg's too.
In the consumer/vacation arena, there are photo printers that take your
memory stick and print from it without the need for a computer. I think
the consumer level digital is in good shape and catching on.
>I think digital photography will eventually find its rightful place in
>the motion picture industry and theaters will be showing movies beamed
>down from satellites. I think eventually the conventional 35mm and
>larger size film cameras will eventually incorporate camera backs
>similar to the digital whereby the photographer will be able to see
>the picture that was just taken; but it will be taken on film, and
That's pure nonsense. Reality is happening now and film is being
replaced by digital. The D1X has convinced many pros to give up on film
already. My local supplier has hundreds of them on back order for local
pros. In the large format and medium format realm, its even worse.
There is no more film to speak of in the areas that I deal with. In
product shots and marketing literature where I am, its all digital.
Rarely does a client request film.
>Which may prove the point of obsolescence. Aside from the big bucks
>collectors are paying for good condition vinals and 78's of old
>masters. CD's were supposed to knock out tapes, but they didn't.
Yes, they did for the most part. Go to the local auto stereo store
and see how many tape decks you can count. Its about 1 for every 15
CD decks. No one expects film to die altogether, but its going to take
a very small back seat just as LPs and tape have. Go to your local
tower - all the music is on CD. The tape section is a small corner,
smaller than the LP section.
>reproduction, tapes my just become the music method by default. And,
>lurking on the horizon is DVD's to knock out CD's, but not tapes. Many
>a music lover has found that the VCR has music reproduction qualities
>that equal CD's and one may find three hours of home recorded music
>being played via VCR's. =
Another silly statement. Are you looking at what is already happening?
Film has its place, but digital is growing in both the pro (in a big
way) and consumer (in a bigger way) arenas.
>No my friend. I've witnessed many who have sold off their conventional
>camera equipment and plunged into digital picture taking only to go
>back to film. Then again, who really knows what the future has in
>store. In the long run, it's what sells to the masses that counts. =
Right, we all believe that.
Steve
Steve
>I do agree and have also seen local camera shops stocking more digital
>cameras than they have been stocking before. But I equate such action
>as being similar to the start up and stocking of VCR tape rental
>shops. Such shops now are are the wane. Digital's are the new toy, the
>new interest, and with good marketing techniques sales will continue
>to increase, particularly among new buyers. But after having gotten
>one and using it for a time and being confronted with its inherent
>inadequate versatility's as compared to film use, they end up on
>internet auction sites. I consider the digital buyers of today as
>being merely the means by which camera companies are obtaining funds
>to continue making digital cameras almost immediately obsolete. Yet
Go look and see the vast number of F5s and EOS1Vs on the auction block.
>film sales have also increased tremendously. With such fine digital
>equipment such as Nikon's Coolscan, I would not be surprised to see
>the transparency film market increase in use. Consider this for a
>moment, If digital cameras were to disappear tomorrow, the
>disappearance would not be felt and the photo industry would continue
>to thrive. The conventional film camera can handle both worlds of
>photographic interest and even handle them better than digital
>cameras.
You're not in the real world. If digital died, most commercial
photographers would have to rearrange their work flow and lay off dozens
of digital technicians. Most colour houses are oriented mostly toward
digital. Most product shots are digital. You're just pulling this crap
out of your ass because you don't have any contact with reality.
>Again I agree, digital will prevail but I don't see it breaking the
>back of the film industry. Not when film can be used to bridge and
>satisfy photo creativity and the snap shot market while also filling
>an existing gap for commercial digital computerized photo
>reproduction.
Pros don't like scanning when they can shoot on digital. Its moving
that way. Today's digital backs are producing better tonality, colour
accuracy, and lower grain than film.
>> Smart film companies like Kodak, Agfa and Fuji are already fully behind the
>> technology. Buy their stock today and you will retire in 15 years as a very
>> wealthy individual.
Kodak huh...I'll sell you mine...
Edward Craft
wrote on 8/9/01 2:32 PM:
> I do agree and have also seen local camera shops stocking more digital
> cameras than they have been stocking before. But I equate such action
> as being similar to the start up and stocking of VCR tape rental
> shops. Such shops now are are the wane.
Can you spell Blockbuster? Poor analogy.
> Digital's are the new toy, the new interest, and with good marketing
techniques sales will continue
> to increase, particularly among new buyers. But after having gotten
> one and using it for a time and being confronted with its inherent
> inadequate versatility's as compared to film use, they end up on
> internet auction sites.
You'll find a lot more 35mm cameras on Ebay than you will digital cameras.
> I consider the digital buyers of today as being merely the means by which
camera companies are obtaining funds
> to continue making digital cameras almost immediately obsolete. Yet
> film sales have also increased tremendously. With such fine digital
> equipment such as Nikon's Coolscan, I would not be surprised to see
> the transparency film market increase in use.
A nice thought. Unfortunately, Kodak's film sales decreased last year, as I
have previously posted. That has, to my knowledge, never happened in recent
history. I don't have numbers for other companies but Kodak is a bit of a
bellwether, don't you think? And I for one would be *shocked* to see an
increase in sales of slide film because they haven't increased in ages. This
despite the fact that there have been very impressive film scanners around
(and at decent prices) for years.
>
> Again I agree, digital will prevail but I don't see it breaking the
> back of the film industry. Not when film can be used to bridge and
> satisfy photo creativity and the snap shot market while also filling
> an existing gap for commercial digital computerized photo
> reproduction.
>
Digital is breaking the back of the film industry even now as we speak.
Perhaps you just can't hear the bones snapping. Kodak is big enough and
nimble enough to adjust. Polaroid wasn't. Ilford probably isn't. It's just
reality. Sorry.
EC
Bob Hickey
operation of a Ponzi scheme, is in itself a Ponzi scheme. That's why the
damn thing didn't die with him. Bob Hickey
Re: 35mm Film Is Dead????
Group: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Date: Thu, Aug 9, 2001, 6:32pm (EDT+4)
From: n-c...@mediaone.net (NickC)
Hugh P. Reilly
record player.
-Hugh
"Dallas" <dal...@ananzi.co.za> wrote in message
news:3b723...@news1.mweb.co.za...
Mxsmanic
news:tn542an...@corp.supernews.com...
> Even the bottom-of-the-line digital cameras
> that are available to the average consumer
> cost ten times as much as a bottom-of-the-line
> 35mm point & shoot at Wal-Mart.
In terms of unit sales, by far the most popular cameras today are
disposable film cameras. I'm surprised by how many people use them.
> There is a *huge* market for these. Digital
> can't replace that, not at $3/camera (bulk price).
See above. Still an extremely economical and efficient way to produce
pictures, particularly for isolated special occasions.
> At least the $7/hour cashier can afford a 35mm
> point & shoot and a couple of rolls of film per
> year (about average for most point & shooters).
An acquaintance of mine sent her daughter abroad for the summer, and her
hosts, as a gift, developed the film she had in the camera she brought
with her, so that she'd have pictures of her visit. It turns out that
she had had the same roll in the camera since she first bought it, and
some of the pictures on the roll were already several years old!
Mxsmanic
news:9kuppb$r...@nntpb.cb.lucent.com...
> Go look and see the vast number of F5s and EOS1Vs
> on the auction block.
High-end photo equipment has been readily available for as long as
photography has existed.
Note also that film equipment tends to hold value quite well, whereas
digital cameras are worthless before you finish signing the check to pay
for them.
> If digital died, most commercial photographers
> would have to rearrange their work flow and lay
> off dozens of digital technicians.
The same would be true if film disappeared tomorrow.
> Pros don't like scanning when they can shoot
> on digital.
But then again, many pros don't like the results they get from digital,
so they still scan, as it provides the best bang for the buck.
> Today's digital backs are producing better
> tonality, colour accuracy, and lower grain than film.
True. Unfortunately, they are still inferior in resolution, and in some
applications, that is a big problem.
Mxsmanic
> However, if you could see what the new
> pro level digital backs are doing, you'd
> wonder how film survived as long as it
> did.
Because a film camera costs 25 times less than an equivalent digital
camera. That's one reason why many people _haven't_ seen what digital
backs are doing--they can't afford it!
> People want their old work in the digital
> medium - seems proof that digital is here
> to stay and is winning.
Yes, I agree. The only weak link right now is the digital camera, or
more specifically, the digital capture mechanism. When CCDs can be
produced in the same size as 24x36 film, with the same resolution, at
the same price, 35mm film will very rapidly dwindle to a niche market,
at least for color. I don't expect MF to be affected for years to come,
however, unless some unforseeable breakthrough in digital technology
occurs.
Mxsmanic
news:9kuvma$3...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> Sorry, records have WAY more resolution
> than CD's.
This is an urban legend. Rather like the myth that film has more
dynamic range and less noise than digital (it doesn't).
Bob Mathison
"In ignorance there is strength"
G. Orwell
Joseph S. Wisniewski
>
> Sorry, records have WAY more resolution than CD's.
Possibly true, the very first time you play them. After that, dust adds
noise (good-bye dynamic range) and the dust and the stylus abrade the
wide bandwidth away.
This, of course, is assuming that the record company didn't keep
pressing vinyl until the die was in pretty bad shape. No, they never did
that, the record companies I knew always concentrated on bringing the
consumer the very highest quality product.
> You just had a crappy record player.
Look at the weakest link in the chain. If you ever saw a typical record
pressing operation, you'd wonder why you flushed all that money down the
toilet for the non-crappy record player. Sort of like buying the EOS-1v
or F5, loading it with generic drugstore film and using drugstore
processing.
Ciao!
Joe
Joseph S. Wisniewski
>
> When George Eastman produced the first crude Kodak cameras, the slogan was
> "You push the button; we do the rest." With digital the new slogan is: "You
> push the button and then you push a few more buttons and then you go here
> and push a few more buttons and then you move this mouse-thing which also
> has buttons which you push and after pushing a few more buttons you will
> have had to do everyting."
You push the button, and take the memory card to CVS pharmacy, where
they hand you back your 4x6 prints in 10 minutes, instead of 2 hours or
the next day.
My girlfriend loves borrowing my little Canon S100. She knows how to
work the on-off button, the zoom lever, and the "shutter" button. She
can get 4x6's from the drugstore, and a passable 8x10 from my printer.
Ciao!
Joe
Skip
>
> Pros don't like scanning when they can shoot on digital. Its moving
> that way. Today's digital backs are producing better tonality, colour
> accuracy, and lower grain than film.
>
>
Time for you to take a reality check. There is not a single digital
back or camera that produces images with as good tonality or color
accuracy as film, apples for apples, and only produces finer grain
because it isn't part of the process. You may be able to tweak a
downloaded image to rival a scan of a print, neg or transparency, but
comparing initial product, no way. I know several commercial photogs
who work largely in digital, and it is a convenience issue, pure and
simple. By the time an image is scanned or downloaded, and set up for
publication, resolution has gone to hell anyway, so why shoot film?
But you're right about Kodak.
Skip
--
Shadowcatcher Imagery
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Skip
>
>
> Can you spell Blockbuster? Poor analogy.
>
>
ones largely selling digital equipment to the masses, pushing the small
stores into niches. One reason 35mm stuff shows up on e-bay could be
that it retains its value better. And too, there are a lot of people
who have found that they can produce acceptable results with a $400 P&S
digital, and see no reason to keep a bag full of gear around to do the
same thing. Digital is coming, no doubt, but its market will be the
bookends of the film market, the low end, mass marketed P&S cameras, and
high zoot pro equipment for the commercial/journalist shooter who needs
it easy, needs it quick and needs it now. I see my local store getting
farther away from the low buck digital stuff, and selling the Nikons and
Olys to pros.
Edward Craft
on 8/9/01 7:55 PM:
> Time for you to take a reality check. There is not a single digital
> back or camera that produces images with as good tonality or color
> accuracy as film, apples for apples, and only produces finer grain
> because it isn't part of the process.
You may be due for a reality check yourself. Give a test run to some of the
newer digital SLRs. Be sure to use quality lenses. You may be in for a
surprise.
> You may be able to tweak a downloaded image to rival a scan of a print, neg or
transparency, but
> comparing initial product, no way.
Same as above. BTW, everything that occurs in film processing and in the
darkroom could be also be called tweaking.
> I know several commercial photogs who work largely in digital, and it is a
convenience issue, pure and simple. By the time an image is scanned or
downloaded, and set up for publication, resolution has gone to hell anyway,
so why shoot film?
Keep in mind that 35mm was itself invented for convenience, and cannot match
the quality of larger negatives. That aside, your last point has some
validity. Given that many of us have long been scanning negs or slides for
final output anyway, digital has a much shorter row to hoe to match film
quality than even its most ardent critics would like to admit.
EC
Paul Rubin
> Not such a poor analogy, after all. The mass merchandisers will be the
> ones largely selling digital equipment to the masses, pushing the small
> stores into niches. One reason 35mm stuff shows up on e-bay could be
> that it retains its value better.
The value of my 35mm stuff (5 Nikon bodies and about 10 lenses) has
been taking a beating in the past year or two, after being stable for
many years. People have been blaming it on the economy, cyclical
patterns in the used camera market, obsolescence of my particular
stuff due to newer models being around, etc. They're blaming it on
everything but digital. Meanwhile, at work I'm known as a photo buff,
so people sometimes come to me for photo-related advice. They all ask
the exact same question: what digital camera should I buy?
I think it's time to face the music.
T70SSRS
>
>You push the button, and take the memory card to CVS pharmacy, where
>they hand you back your 4x6 prints in 10 minutes, instead of 2 hours or
>the next day.
How much does this service cost? Is that 10 minute time frame consistant?
Doesn't this kind of go against the logic that going digital ends processing
costs? If the end product comes from the same service provider, at similar
costs, with similar results, what difference difference does the means of
capture make?
> and a passable 8x10 from my printer.
How would that compare to a CVS 8x10 machine print? "Passable" is a pretty
subjective term, is inkjet printing better than machine printing, assuming
operators of equal abilities?
Tom
Edward Craft
on 8/9/01 8:03 PM:
> One reason 35mm stuff shows up on e-bay could be that it retains its value
better.
Another could be that people are dumping their 35mm gear in favor of
digital, the exact opposite of your original hypothesis.
> And too, there are a lot of people who have found that they can produce
acceptable results with a $400 P&S
> digital, and see no reason to keep a bag full of gear around to do the
> same thing.
Indeed. Add to that a number of serious shooters who are unloading *some* of
their 35mm kit to generate cash for digital gear.
> Digital is coming, no doubt, but its market will be the bookends of the film
market, the low end, mass marketed P&S cameras, and high zoot pro equipment
for the commercial/journalist shooter who needs it easy, needs it quick and
needs it now.
This may be a good description of what the market is now. It is a poor
description of what the market will be, within, I suspect, a matter of
months.
> I see my local store getting farther away from the low buck digital stuff, and
selling the Nikons and Olys to pros.
My local store offers nary a single digital camera. They are alarmed by how
few 35mm cameras they've sold this year. Their film processing business is
off 15% from last year. Go figure.
EC
Hugh P. Reilly
recordings are almost indistinguishable from records and don't have all the
baggage. Of course they have baggage all their own. Have you ever looked
at photos on your monitor that were 16 bit compared to 24 bit? The effect
is similar in music. 16 bit CD's suck, that's a fact. When 24 bit hits
I'll be the first to chuck the records.
-Hugh
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iRDc7.141558$Cu6.10...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Annika1980
>Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Kodak, and several other companies
>are racing to market with new and improved FILM scanners.
>They are bringing these more to the consumers at the same time
>enticing pros with newer an MUCH better scanners.
>
>They MUST be crazy!! Film is DEAD!!
>
>
Perhaps they realize that many people will want to digitize their old film
stock even as they are switching to digital cameras.
Hugh P. Reilly
www. needledoctor.com
look at all those fools.
You can buy a CD player for about $100.
Ignorance in that you will never know what you are missing. Think about
what you are saying. Digital cameras of the lowest quality are better than
the best analog cameras. That statement is just as stupid when it comes to
sound equipment too. But just like digital sound is better for the masses.
So will digital pictures be. It's not about format, it's about resolution.
And 16 bit is horrible for reproducing soundstages and tones and voices.
The only thing 16 bit sound is better at than records is silence. Not an
urban myth. I just wish you could only hear it for yourself. Becasue if
you go into circuit city and buy the latest Sony rack system that looks real
cool, you are buying a zoom point and shoot camera. I'm sure people that
buy zoom point and shoot cameras laugh at us who spend $500 for a Zeiss
prime. Oh, it's an urban myth, the lens has nothing to do with it. If you
could hear what was reallly in those Beatles, Pink Floyd, Police records you
would be dumbstruck. But you need a $1000 turntable, With a $700 needle.
With $1500 preamp/phono stage. With a $1500 amp. With $300 cables. With
$1500 speakers. And I'm lowballing it. THAT'S why CD's are better for the
masses. Becasue they sound better than a $500 rack system. Not because
CD's sound better than records. The very notion is beyond absurd. I have
done side by side camparisons with people and the CD can't come close.
-Hugh
"Bob Mathison" <sup...@antiquetools.com> wrote in message
news:3B730D...@antiquetools.com...
Darrell A. Larose
Very true, my 20 year old Pentax LX can now fetch me double of what
I paid for it new. They go for $1000 CDN up here! A year old digi cam
you'd be lucky to get 25% of what you paid. Digital Cameras at this
time are not as good as film, PERIOD! but the rate the technology is
advancing they are catching up. The new Pentax MR-52 is promising with
their Phillips Semiconductor 24x36mm 6 MP CCD. I do use both film and
digital, Digital P&S cameras sales are up, prices are coming down. Both
are fun, both have their place!
Darrell Larose
Ottawa, Canada
Skip
Trust me, I have, the D1 and the Oly E-10, used by photographers who are
experienced in using both them and film cameras. Both of them still
shoot film when the output warrants it, or it is for their own purposes.
I wouldn't make that statement out of thin air, unlike some denizens
around here.
The only time I've seen a digital image truly rival film for tonality
was on the internet, as a hard copy, not yet. Not saying it won't
happen, it most likely will, but as far as my own experience, it hasn't.
Sean Golden
arguments of the 80s when CDs were busily replacing vinyl and the same
argument raged. I would bet that in many cases it is the same people who
said CDs would never replace vinyl who are now saying CCDs will never
replace film. It is somewhere between sad and poignant.
Film will be around for a while to come yet, but the clear fact of the
long-term superiority of digital is clear to anyone who cares to look.
Digital is not perfect, but then as I saw in some other post, neither is
California. But most assuredly, neither is film.
It will be a short time from now when digital cameras not only meet but
actually surpass the capability of film. As I pointed out in another post
at another time, the real death-knell for film will be when the mass
consumer market disappears (and it will) and film purists are forced to pay
exorbitant prices for film because it is no longer manufactured in the
quantities that the market currently supports. This is due to economies of
scale. When you are selling millions of tubes of film every year, you can
afford a huge factory and distribution channels. When you are selling
thousands, you cannot. When the market disappears, so will the commodity,
the product will then become a niche market target and will command
appropriately high prices. Film will price itself right out of the market.
It is amazing to me that those who claim that film will "never die" or that
digital is just a "fad" cannot even recognize the forces of history when
they are confronted with them in clear and intelligent ways. I am simply
amazed to discover that Luddite mentality exists at every level of
technology. You would think there was some threshold you would cross where
people no longer refused to accept reality. I would think that had been
crossed with the steam engine, but apparently it hasn't been crossed yet.
Keep it up, it is fun to read these posts. I wonder what new technology you
luddites will be poo-pooing in twenty years when your 35mm cameras are
gathering dust in your closets, or being sold as charming antiques. You
will probaby be arguing that the new-fangled electronic paper will never
replace good old-fashioned ink-jets....
I must only assume that most of you still light your homes with oil lamps,
since the warm and charming highlights of pure olive oil can never be
matched by the harsh glare of electricity....
It is to laugh, long and hard...
-sdg
"Edward Craft" <ecr...@premise2020.com> wrote in message
news:B798B060.9A7A%ecr...@premise2020.com...
Skip
Sounds like your store is bucking the trend. The store I go to still
has a thriving processing business, but they cater more to the advanced
and pro shooter. Ritz and Wolf, it ain't.
As far as what the market will be in a matter of months, as you put it,
think about what I said. The low end, mass market is going to be
shifting more and more to digital, especially as PCs become more
ubiquitous. Film shooters will be the advanced amateurs and pros whose
niche requires film, like weddings and portraits. I think it will
remain that way for several years, until digital cameras equal or exceed
film resolution, tonality and color quality for a price that makes it
attractive to switch. When you figure that the Nikon D1 goes for a
price roughly 2 1/2 times that of the F5, and the Canon D30 by the same
margin over the body that begat it, the EOS 3, there's still a ways to
go. Especially since the resolution is anywhere from 1/2 to 1/4 of
films.
NickC
NickC
It seems like it never fails, that when a person starts insulting, it
generally means their lights are on but no ones home.
> >Again I agree, digital will prevail but I don't see it breaking the
> >back of the film industry. Not when film can be used to bridge and
> >satisfy photo creativity and the snap shot market while also filling
> >an existing gap for commercial digital computerized photo
> >reproduction.
>
> Pros don't like scanning when they can shoot on digital.
Bunk.
>Its moving
> that way. Today's digital backs are producing better tonality, colour
> accuracy, and lower grain than film.
>
> >> Smart film companies like Kodak, Agfa and Fuji are already fully behind the
> >> technology. Buy their stock today and you will retire in 15 years as a very
> >> wealthy individual.
>
> Kodak huh...I'll sell you mine...
Better keep the stock. You may need the income.
Nick
Bob Mathison
> I'm sure people that
> buy zoom point and shoot cameras laugh at us who spend $500 for a Zeiss
> prime. Oh, it's an urban myth, the lens has nothing to do with it. If you
> could hear what was reallly in those Beatles, Pink Floyd, Police records you
> would be dumbstruck. But you need a $1000 turntable, With a $700 needle.
> With $1500 preamp/phono stage. With a $1500 amp. With $300 cables. With
> $1500 speakers. And I'm lowballing it. THAT'S why CD's are better for the
> masses. Becasue they sound better than a $500 rack system. Not because
> CD's sound better than records. The very notion is beyond absurd. I have
> done side by side camparisons with people and the CD can't come close.
No you don't have to spend a lot of money - I have a B+O turntable, a
creek amp and a rotel CD player and
decent but not great speakers - total cost about 2 grand 10 years ago
for everything.
it doen't take even a second to hear that for example Mass market
Zepplin vinyl from the late 70's blows the crap out of the best
remastered CD's PAge is able to make.
The soundstage on Moby Dick is awesome on vinyl - eh on CD at best.
it's so obvious that it is amazing. I'm told DVD sound is pretty good
but I havn't heard it yet.
Edward Craft
shad...@priest.tc wrote on 8/9/01 10:59 PM:
> Polaroid has been in trouble for years...once again a POOR analogy.
My point wasn't an analogy, it was an example. Had it been an analogy it
would have been a perfect one, considering that Polaroid (whose troubles in
fact are fairly recent) attributes its woes to digital, as does every market
analyst on Wall Street.
> Ilford has for some time been a specialty film...those that use it
> WILL NOT switch to digital....it would be to them sacriledge!!
Well, I'm an Ilford user (who could quibble with your marginalizing Ilford
products as "specialty," but won't) and I'm going digital. That is, _adding_
digital to the kit, which is the real point here. I don't see serious
photographers completely abandoning film anytime soon, though some _are_.
Regardless, just the addition of digital into the equation hurts companies
like Ilford the most, because they are already so thin. If they ever fold,
we lose some terrific emulsions and printing papers. And if that happens it
accelerates the move to digital because there is less reason to stay with
film. See the death spiral?
>
> I went to my local pro shop...
Let's leave the golf stories to Annika. <g>
>they laughed at the mere suggestion that film is dead...and they are the
highest grossing camera store in Florida. I would bet that B & H would laugh
at you too.
Maybe Henry should speak for B&H. I didn't hear laughter when I bought my
D30 from them. The next time you visit your "pro store", ask them how much
of a transition they are making into _at least_ digital processing,
including the ability to handle consumer digicam output. If that isn't
happening, there will be a MacDonald's on that site before you know it.
EC
Bob Mathison
> Well, I'm an Ilford user (who could quibble with your marginalizing Ilford
> products as "specialty," but won't) and I'm going digital. That is, _adding_
> digital to the kit, which is the real point here. I don't see serious
> photographers completely abandoning film anytime soon, though some _are_.
> Regardless, just the addition of digital into the equation hurts companies
> like Ilford the most, because they are already so thin. If they ever fold,
> we lose some terrific emulsions and printing papers. And if that happens it
> accelerates the move to digital because there is less reason to stay with
> film. See the death spiral?
> >
Don't worry - Film may go into a slump - and certainly become more
expensive
Kodak could even go out of business - who knows but if the commercial
reasons
for using film dry up film makers must improve their products to appeal
to whos left.
The best example is B+W film - fifty years ago B+W was really popular,
readily
processed and materials were all around color came in and most of the
stuff vanished
but then there is a recnaessance - the B+W papers are better then ever,
film is better then ever, and large format cameras are more popular then
ever. At a price - true - but
I'd rather be shooting my BW film now then twenty or fifty years ago.
Edward Craft
on 8/9/01 11:11 PM:
> Trust me, I have, the D1 and the Oly E-10, used by photographers who are
> experienced in using both them and film cameras. Both of them still
> shoot film when the output warrants it, or it is for their own purposes.
> I wouldn't make that statement out of thin air, unlike some denizens
> around here.
> The only time I've seen a digital image truly rival film for tonality
> was on the internet, as a hard copy, not yet. Not saying it won't
> happen, it most likely will, but as far as my own experience, it hasn't.
I completely accept what you say and respect your opinion. I might suggest
that unsatisfactory digital prints may be more a function of poor output
rather than input devices. Nevertheless, and FWIW, I too still shoot film
when warranted, and there remain many situations where that is the case.
What surprises me is that there are less of them than I would have expected
six months ago.
Regards,
EC
Barry Twycross
>When last did you buy a vinyl l.p. record?
When did you last see a vinyl LP for sale? I was suprised to see them in
Tower recently, there were about as many of them as the Fancy Audio DVDs.
--
Barry
Ba...@netbox.com <http://www.netbox.com/barry>
------
(Obsolete sig deleted).
Edward Craft
Golden at seang...@earthlink.net wrote on 8/9/01 11:15 PM:
> I love this argument. It is so reminiscent of the digital vs. audio
> arguments of the 80s when CDs were busily replacing vinyl and the same
> argument raged. I would bet that in many cases it is the same people who
> said CDs would never replace vinyl who are now saying CCDs will never
> replace film. It is somewhere between sad and poignant...<big snip to the
end>...It is to laugh, long and hard...
Without comment on the rest of your post, this discussion IMHO is neither
sad or "to laugh." This is an important way for many of us to test our
opinions with people whose points of view and experience we respect. I'm
moving aggressively into digital but the pushback I've received here from
those you call "Luddites" has at least forced me to be sure to view my
digital work with an ever-more critical eye. That's a good thing. It's like
soliciting an opinion about a print you think is perfect from someone who
you know is going to hate it. Not always pleasant, but almost always
valuable.
Regards,
EC
Dallas
> THe problem with your analagy is that CD's and records are playback
> mechanisms and
> digital cameras are recording mechanisms. In the world of audio
> recording
> it is true that most playback mechanisms are digital but on the
> recording
> side you would be frightend how many musicans treaure old tube amps.
> how musicans treasure 400 year old instruments. Things change thant's
> true but on
> the source side every creation media has it's own advantages and
> creaters use
> what's appropiate.
> Digital and analog will live side by side very happily for along time to
> come.
What is the ratio of serious to casual photograph takers in this world?
1:9999 to the power of?
Who has more spends more on film? The pro photographers or the casual
snapshot takers?
The answer lies in the critical mass required to make a product feasible.
Rethink your answer..
Barry Twycross
>When I got married, I scattered those disposable 35mm cameras throughout the
>reception for my guests to use. What a blast! Every wedding I have been to
>in the last four years had those disposable 35mm cameras on the tables.
>There is a *huge* market for these. Digital can't replace that, not at
>$3/camera (bulk price).
I went to a wedding where they did that, the results were aweful. I'm
probably mpre picky that the average consumer, but I couldn't imagine
anyone being happy with that. A couple of months later at our wedding, I
put cameras on our tables, but I didn't use disposable, I got the cheapest
non disposables with flash I could find. After refilling each a few times I
was ahead on price, and the results were mainly acceptable.
>I don't know *one* person who has never picked up a disposable 35mm at the
>last minute, because they forgot to bring their camera to an event or on
>vacation. I do this all the time. They are convenient and cheap.
I did that once, and have made sure to bring my camera ever since. If you
like fuzzyness which shows up even on a 6x4 carry on with your disposables.
>Can
>digital cameras be sold as disposable cameras, for less than $10 each? It
>will be a long time before that can happen.
I'm pretty sure they will be, it may be 5-10 years.
Edward Craft
on 8/9/01 11:19 PM:
> Edward Craft wrote:
>>
>> My local store offers nary a single digital camera. They are alarmed by how
>> few 35mm cameras they've sold this year. Their film processing business is
>> off 15% from last year. Go figure.
>
> Sounds like your store is bucking the trend.
That may be charitable. The store has an upscale clientele and, like yours,
caters to advanced and pro shooters, including darkroom enthusiasts. But
they sell nothing digital. That alone may not be a big deal. After all, the
margins on cameras are rather modest (or so I'm told) while profits on film
processing would make the mafia blush. However, if I ran a business where
revenues from the cash cow (processing) were falling I would try to find out
why and get myself into _that_ business. Digital.
> As far as what the market will be in a matter of months, as you put it,
> think about what I said. The low end, mass market is going to be
> shifting more and more to digital, especially as PCs become more
> ubiquitous. Film shooters will be the advanced amateurs and pros whose
> niche requires film, like weddings and portraits. I think it will
> remain that way for several years, until digital cameras equal or exceed
> film resolution, tonality and color quality for a price that makes it
> attractive to switch. When you figure that the Nikon D1 goes for a
> price roughly 2 1/2 times that of the F5, and the Canon D30 by the same
> margin over the body that begat it, the EOS 3, there's still a ways to
> go. Especially since the resolution is anywhere from 1/2 to 1/4 of
> films.
I don't think we disagree on anything here other than the time frame. You
may be right. I just sense things moving faster. But that's not what I'm
most curious about. (BTW, did the EOS 3 really begat the D30? I've always
assumed the D30 was more like an Elan 7 body, but I'm not terribly up on
Canon bodies, despite having a D30.)
What I'm curious about is what you said about resolution. I accept that film
has a higher resolution than any digital camera at the moment. Many people
have posted credible numbers to that effect. My question is this: how much
of that resolution actually makes it to a print? For me, the resolution
resident on a negative or a slide means _nothing_. All that counts is the
print. So I'm genuinely curious how much gets lost in magnification. Some
must, and I suspect it's a lot. But I don't know, and I would appreciate any
enlightenment you or another member of the group could provide.
Regards,
EC
Paul Rubin
> The best example is B+W film - fifty years ago B+W was really
> popular, readily processed and materials were all around color came
> in and most of the stuff vanished but then there is a recnaessance -
> the B+W papers are better then ever, film is better then ever, and
> large format cameras are more popular then ever. At a price - true -
> but I'd rather be shooting my BW film now then twenty or fifty years
> ago.
I haven't followed the darkroom scene so I don't know about the paper
situation, but I constantly hear wailing as favorite B&W films are
discontinued. Panatomic X went years ago, Agfapan 25 more recently.
Kodak 2475, a favorite for that golfball grain, is gone (though TMZ is
an improvement for most purposes). Et cetera.
Edward Craft
phr-...@nightsong.com wrote on 8/10/01 1:30 AM:
> I haven't followed the darkroom scene so I don't know about the paper
> situation, but I constantly hear wailing as favorite B&W films are
> discontinued. Panatomic X went years ago, Agfapan 25 more recently.
> Kodak 2475, a favorite for that golfball grain, is gone (though TMZ is
> an improvement for most purposes). Et cetera.
A lot of good things are happening with B&W. Papers are improving,
especially RC. There are several new or newer films, Delta 3200 being one.
I've heard wonderful things about the new Delta 400 (which replaces, in a
clever name change, 400 Delta), but haven't tried it yet. Have to give
Ilford some time to work out some QC problems on that one. If there is to be
a surge into digital, it looks like anyone serious about B&W will have to
stay chemical. Scanners handle silver halide poorly, inkjets don't do mono
justice (at least in my experience).
EC
Paul Rubin
> A lot of good things are happening with B&W. Papers are improving,
> especially RC. There are several new or newer films, Delta 3200 being one.
> I've heard wonderful things about the new Delta 400 (which replaces, in a
> clever name change, 400 Delta), but haven't tried it yet. Have to give
> Ilford some time to work out some QC problems on that one. If there is to be
> a surge into digital, it looks like anyone serious about B&W will have to
> stay chemical. Scanners handle silver halide poorly, inkjets don't do mono
> justice (at least in my experience).
Try the Piezography monochrome inkjet inks. They're supposed to be
fantastic.
Yes there are finally some new fast B&W films appearing (color has
been faster than b/w for quite a long time) but I thought the artistic
shooters wanted slower film, not faster.
Vlad P
First, CDs and vinyl are 'distribution' media -- not
recording media.
In photography the distribution media is paper and recently
is web-based. They are complimentary.
So instead of asking 'when was the last time you bought LP'
(as a lead-on queston to prove that Digital photography will
kill film)
you should be asking when was the last time you looked
at a photo printed on paper (vs web) -- and you will find
that a lot of people do use paper pictures
Second,
no matter how you look at it -- humans sences
(vision and hearing) are Analog devices, the world around
us is analog. One has to use A-to-D converter whether
for sound or image to store the info as digital.
(the exception is when music is produced by digital instruments,
but it is the same as 'producing' photographs using Photoshop or Gimp
or ray-tracing software)
every time a conversion from Analog to Digital occurs information is lost
Yes, converting from Analog-to-analog (as the case with film or
vinyl tapes) can (and does) loose information as well.
However, well-designed analog storage media still can take vastly greater
range
of information then digital. that is why live conerts are first recorded
on tapes
I think photography will follow the same trend:
Film will be used as the primary
recording media -- then efficiently processed and then scanned into
digital for easier distribution and more effective copying (remember,
just like CDs) and printed.
The convinience of immediately seeing the picture taken --
should be difficult to implement (just like video cameras with LCD
screens ...) and there are already APS camears that do that.
I wish, however, that manufactures spend more time on figuring
out what film to develop so that images are sharper,
have greater archiving life and can be easily processed not
by large film processing machines, but by small 200-400$ devices
that anyone can buy and use at home (note I am talking about
film processing, not printing -- I think printing on paper will
still need to be done in the labs due to complexity, harmfull chemicals,
and economies of scale -- this way people who do not want
high-quality paper prints -- can use their scanners to scan the
negatives)
Regards,
Vlad P
"Dallas" <dal...@ananzi.co.za> wrote in message
news:3b723...@news1.mweb.co.za...
> I recall sitting in a record shop back in the early 80's (when I was a wee
> lad with stars and not Nikons in my eyes) listening to the latest New Wave
> singles on the shops turntables.
>
> The gal behind the counter pulled out this little shiny disc and said that
> this was going to be the future of music. A CD. Me and my buddies all
> scoffed at the fact that it only had one playable side, but when she put
it
> into this CD player thing weird shit started happening. A door creaked
open
> and footsteps that came from an invisible being started tracking across
the
> room. A few seconds later I was listening to the clearest version of
Michael
> Jackson's Thiller I had ever heard. It still took me about 10 years to
> finally give in to technology and buy my first CD, but it happened.
>
> Digital camera technology may not be as well perfected as it can be yet,
but
> don't kid yourself about it's ability to usurp the traditional film market
> over time. It will happen eventually.
>
> When last did you buy a vinyl l.p. record?
>
>
> SHADETREE© <shad...@priest.tc> wrote in message
> news:odh3nto5n18022bq1...@4ax.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > "Photography as a fad is well-nigh on it's last legs, thanks
> > principally to the bicycle craze."
> >
> > Alfred Stieglitz
> > 1917
> >
> > That statement makes about as much sense now as the
> > "digital" crowd going around saying "the sky is falling" when
> > it comes to 35mm film photography.
> >
> > Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Kodak, and several other companies
> > are racing to market with new and improved FILM scanners.
> > They are bringing these more to the consumers at the same time
> > enticing pros with newer an MUCH better scanners.
> >
> > They MUST be crazy!! Film is DEAD!!
> >
> >
> > SHADETREE©
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Thou shalt not commit an adult tree!"
> >
> > 2nd Timmy Tree, Chapter 2, vs 8
> >
> > Book of Shade
> >
> > Holy Wood of God
> >
>
>
Mxsmanic
> Who has more spends more on film? The pro
> photographers or the casual snapshot takers?
The motion-picture industry is one of the largest consumers of film in
the world, and it is composed of professionals.
Mxsmanic
Ever since Claude Shannon proved it, we've known that digital
representations ultimately will provide superior quality for everything.
The only difficulty is in implementing them properly. There has never
been any doubt about their superiority.
"Hugh P. Reilly" <hug...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:9kvetj$3...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Mxsmanic
news:3B730F02...@netfrog.net...
> Look at the weakest link in the chain. If you
> ever saw a typical record pressing operation,
> you'd wonder why you flushed all that money down the
> toilet for the non-crappy record player.
In the last years before CDs came out, I _did_ spend a lot of money on a
top-quality turntable and cartridge. All I discovered was just how
badly most LPs were actually mastered and pressed; very few recordings
could do the turntable and cartridge justice.
I suspect that the same is true of CDs, but since CDs provide maximum
quality even in their cheapest implementations (one of the advantages of
digital), the bad recordings are a lot more obvious.
Mxsmanic
> I accept that film has a higher resolution than
> any digital camera at the moment.
Usually it does; not always.
The problem in all these discussions is that people assume that other
characteristics, such as image quality, price, and so on, necessarily
correlate on a one-to-one basis with the digital/analogy dichotomy, but
that just isn't true. Some digital cameras and images are better than
some film cameras and images, and vice versa. There is no consistent
difference between the two, and so arguments about digital being better
than analog or vice versa are essentially moot.
The best images can come from either digital _or_ film. And so can the
worst. Whether they are digital or analog in origin makes no real
difference, in the final analysis. One proof of this is that you can't
really recognize a finished image as digital or analog in the vast
majority of cases, and certainly never in the case of the very best
images, which invariably lack the defects typical of either technology
and thus cannot be clearly identified as coming from one or the other.
Dallas
>I have
> done side by side camparisons with people and the CD can't come close.
> -Hugh
You are just missing the point entirely. It isn't about what's better, it's
about what sells. Geddit?
Holvbphoto
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>That is because VHS tape has much higher bandwidth than either LPs or
>audio CDs; it has nothing to do with analog-vs.-digital. Note that DVDs
>provide sound that will blow away VHS tape and CDs and LPs, and they are
>digital--again, it's just a question of greater bandwidth.
>
Never forget my first MTS VCR, I taped a film for a friend who had a mono VCR.
well I guess I don't have to tell you the sound was not in English!
Vince
Check out my web-site
http://www.holvbphoto.com
You'll see some stars there
Skip
I'm not so sure about the D30/EOS3, but I think the body is shared but
the electronics are an amalgamation of 3, Elan, and APS stuff. The
capabilities of the D30 compared to the 3 are somewhat limited, I'm
under the impression that AF speed is somewhat worse, for example.
Which makes the price difference even more remarkable.
As far as resolution that makes it to a print, I almost exclusively
shoot B&W, so not much is lost in the printing. It, of course, depends
on the enlargement. OTOH, I don't have any hard numbers, however.
Skip
When this discussion comes up, I think the assumption is comparing the
best with the best. Of course there are digital cameras out there that
can't hold a candle to a disposable 35mm, which in turn can't be
compared to a D1. And, generally, the difference between digital output
and film prints can be recognized by a discerning viewer, if not
specifically, than from the stand point that "something's just not
right."
Bob Mathison
artistic shooters want faster films that look like slower films.
Agfapan 25 was fabulous stuff but compared with Deltapro 100 developed
in Xtol
I needed the 2 stops so stopped shotting the 25 - althought I still have
a lot in my freezer.
ERNReed
>WILL NOT switch to digital....it would be to them sacriledge!!
Nevertheless, Ilford has a presence in the digital arena -- a truly excellent
inkjet photo paper. (That's all I know about, but I've never really followed
Ilford products.)
----------------------------------------------------------------
"They call me Mrs Reed"
http://members.aol.com/ernreed
If you aren't spamming, avoid the junktrap
NickC
Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> "NickC" <n-c...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:3B7253D1...@mediaone.net...
>
> > Many a music lover has found that the VCR
> > has music reproduction qualities that equal
> > CD's and one may find three hours of home
> > recorded music being played via VCR's.
>
> That is because VHS tape has much higher bandwidth than either LPs or
> audio CDs; it has nothing to do with analog-vs.-digital. Note that DVDs
> provide sound that will blow away VHS tape and CDs and LPs, and they are
> digital--again, it's just a question of greater bandwidth.
No rebut from me on this, but the point I was trying to make was that
spending leaps can be easily made, then justified, through the use of
commercial hyperbole.
> Since anything with adequate bandwidth to represent moving images
> accurately typically has extra bandwidth to burn from an audio
> standpoint, any technology that provides high-quality images (such as
> DVD) will provide ultra-ultra-high-quality audio as well.
>
> > I've witnessed many who have sold off their
> > conventional camera equipment and plunged into
> > digital picture taking only to go back to film.
>
> I'm one of them (except that I never sold my conventional camera stuff).
> Unfortunately, digital just isn't ready for what I want to do. Maybe
> someday (certainly someday, but not tomorrow).
I went that route too and ended up having the same experiences.
Fortunately I didn't sell off my conventional camera stuff either but
I did pick up some Nikon "S" lenses inexpensively from those who were
eager to make the leap but didn't buy several Nikon D bodies. When
they tried to buy them back, I didn't sell. It didn't take long for
me to realize I was better off using my conventional gear for my photo
interests rather than use digital gear. However, along with my having
neg's I do have my pictures digitized on CD's by the processing lab.
That way I can straddle both worlds without the need of a digital
camera. When I slap a 14mm wide angle lens on a F5 (or one of my
N90s'), I'm getting a 14mm lens view angle not a 20mm view angle.
I'll let all these other tech hungry jumpers finance the development
of digital cameras while I happily continue to use my conventional
gear. If I'm still around when all the bugs have been worked out, I
may give digital cameras another shot .... maybe. <g>
Nick
NickC
to be brilliant. <VBG>
Good post Vlad.
Nick
Hugh P. Reilly
-Hugh
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:g_Nc7.145252$Cu6.11...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Brad Cooke
Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> "Steve" <s...@randomc.com> wrote in message
> news:9kuppb$r...@nntpb.cb.lucent.com...
>
> > Go look and see the vast number of F5s and EOS1Vs
> > on the auction block.
>
> High-end photo equipment has been readily available for as long as
> photography has existed.
>
> Note also that film equipment tends to hold value quite well, whereas
> digital cameras are worthless before you finish signing the check to pay
> for them.
Indeed... though I noted that the price of an almost brand new EOS 3
dropped by a significant margin as soon as the 1V was available.
--
Regards,
Brad Cooke
The University of Calgary, Department of Chemistry
Thurbide Group, Analytical Separations/Detection
EM: bwc...@ucalgary.ca
PH: 220-8002
Edward Craft
at mxsm...@hotmail.com wrote on 8/10/01 5:51 AM:
I agree with you. I'm curious about the statements frequently made here
about the resolution of film. I grant, perhaps not knowing any better, that
more data is captured on a negative or slide than on currently-available
CCDs or CMOSs. But I wonder how much of that data gets lost due to
magnification when making a chemical print. You see, when someone says that
digital can't match film because there are only 3.5 megapixels on a chip
versus the equivalent of 160 billion (that may be high) on a slide, to me
that's completely irrelevant. I only care what actually gets to the printing
paper. My digitally-captured pictures printed on a quality inkjet look every
bit as good as film-based lab prints, even with close inspection, and I
think my standards are pretty high. So I truly don't understand the numbers
guys who say that can't be true. What am I missing? So again, how much of
film's data just lays there, unused (for a chemical print)? Someone should
know, wouldn't you think?
EC
Steve
>> Today's digital backs are producing better
>> tonality, colour accuracy, and lower grain than film.
>True. Unfortunately, they are still inferior in resolution, and in some
>applications, that is a big problem.
I used to think so, but now I don't. I just saw the results of a
digital fine-art shot of a 2 x 3 painting that was beautiful. Shot on a
4 x 5 digital scan back, it had no grain at all. You can put the
scanned stuff up next to the digitally shot stuff and the digital looks
better - essentially grainless.
Steve
Steve
>> Pros don't like scanning when they can shoot on digital. Its moving
>> that way. Today's digital backs are producing better tonality, colour
>> accuracy, and lower grain than film.
>> Kodak huh...I'll sell you mine...
>Time for you to take a reality check. There is not a single digital
>back or camera that produces images with as good tonality or color
>accuracy as film, apples for apples, and only produces finer grain
>because it isn't part of the process. You may be able to tweak a
>downloaded image to rival a scan of a print, neg or transparency, but
>comparing initial product, no way. I know several commercial photogs
>who work largely in digital, and it is a convenience issue, pure and
>simple. By the time an image is scanned or downloaded, and set up for
>publication, resolution has gone to hell anyway, so why shoot film?
>But you're right about Kodak.
But I think I'm right about the quality of digital too. Its looking
quite good. And it can record much higher latitude than film ever did.
We figured there were at least 15 stops from the back my friend tried
out the other day. As for colour, I'd say its accurate. So you get
good colour, no grain, and much better latitude. Its not just
convenience...
Steve
>Skip
Steve
>> Keep in mind that 35mm was itself invented for convenience, and cannot match
>> the quality of larger negatives. That aside, your last point has some
>> validity. Given that many of us have long been scanning negs or slides for
>> final output anyway, digital has a much shorter row to hoe to match film
>> quality than even its most ardent critics would like to admit.
>>
>> EC
>Trust me, I have, the D1 and the Oly E-10, used by photographers who are
>experienced in using both them and film cameras. Both of them still
>shoot film when the output warrants it, or it is for their own purposes.
>I wouldn't make that statement out of thin air, unlike some denizens
>around here.
>The only time I've seen a digital image truly rival film for tonality
>was on the internet, as a hard copy, not yet. Not saying it won't
>happen, it most likely will, but as far as my own experience, it hasn't.
That's the problem with your sample. You're using the D1 and the
Olympus E-10. Both great cameras in their arena, but you have to get
into the D1X or the high end backs for MF or LF before you begin to see
the quality we're talking about.
Steve
Steve
>> You're not in the real world. If digital died, most commercial
>> photographers would have to rearrange their work flow and lay off dozens
>> of digital technicians. Most colour houses are oriented mostly toward
>> digital. Most product shots are digital. You're just pulling this crap
>> out of your ass because you don't have any contact with reality.
>It seems like it never fails, that when a person starts insulting, it
>generally means their lights are on but no ones home.
Actually I wasn't insulting you, I was just stating facts. I just said
that you're not in the real world. You apparently don't have any
contact with what's really happening out there. Fine art is dominated
by digital. Commercial is at least 50/50. I only say so because I'm
there. I don't think film will totally die, I do think its going to
continue its decline until it hits a comfortable bottom.
>> >Again I agree, digital will prevail but I don't see it breaking the
>> >back of the film industry. Not when film can be used to bridge and
>> >satisfy photo creativity and the snap shot market while also filling
>> >an existing gap for commercial digital computerized photo
>> >reproduction.
>> Pros don't like scanning when they can shoot on digital.
>Bunk.
And you know because? Because nothing. You don't realize that scanning
still involves grain and professionals are fast realizing that the
grainless quality of digital is what clients want. I'm presently
doing a series of product shots for my company and none of the
photographers I called or normally deal with wanted to do it in film.
They charge more for film too - a sure sign if its decline.
You make up this dream world where "digital will find its place" and
people will have some useless device that lets you "see the image" but
record it on film. Do you actually think about your statements?
>> Kodak huh...I'll sell you mine...
>Better keep the stock. You may need the income.
More proof that you're clueless.
Steve
>Nick
PS: If I was insulting you, I'd actually say someting like this:
You're full of crap and you make up information as you go along. You're
stuck in a dream world and most likely never actually have any backup
for most of what you say. A troll would be insulted if I called you a
troll.
NickC
Steve wrote:
>
> >> You're not in the real world. If digital died, most commercial
> >> photographers would have to rearrange their work flow and lay off dozens
> >> of digital technicians. Most colour houses are oriented mostly toward
> >> digital. Most product shots are digital. You're just pulling this crap
> >> out of your ass because you don't have any contact with reality.
>
> >It seems like it never fails, that when a person starts insulting, it
> >generally means their lights are on but no ones home.
>
> Actually I wasn't insulting you, I was just stating facts. I just said
> that you're not in the real world. You apparently don't have any
> contact with what's really happening out there.
I just spent the morning at an opening of a new super-duper animal
shelter. There were a large gathering of actors (Betty White, was
there as well as many other TV actors) who support the animal cause.
Many news paper photographers were there (including TV news stations,
like CBS) and some I already knew from their working around the
Hollywood denizens. One of the photographers was from the LA Times and
he wore two Nikon D1's with long lenses. The Nikon's weren't his, they
belonged to the news paper. He personally, has no digital cameras in
his gear. Another photographer from another news paper was using a
Kodak, and he didn't own that either. But, another had a Comedia 3030
(I think it was a 3030) and she said it was hers.
In the free lance area, NONE was using a digital camera. Of one, I
inquired about a preference and the response I received was a smile
followed by "I'm no trail horse. I tried digital and went back to
film." These are people who live by earnings in journalistic
photography.
That's the real world. But I doubt that you really know anything about
the "real world."
Nick
Skip
Haven't seen a D1X, have you? And this is a 35mm NG, not MF or LF. I
would be astounded, however it a digital equivalent of 4x5 or 8x10 could
outperform its film counterpart. I'd be willing to bet that it could
outperform the relatively puny initial image size of 35mm, but it had
bloody well better, and what about comparative cost?
It was my understanding that the D1X was an incremental improvement over
the D1, not a quantum leap, thus the evolutionary designation.
Skip
Fine art is NOT dominated by digital! At best it's probably a 60-40
split in favor of film, and I'm giving a great deal of latitude on that,
because I'm not completely informed as to what is happening on the east
coast, just the midwest and west coast. I'm talking fine art
photography here, not digitally reworked images, which of course is
dominated by digital, by definition. But that is still a niche in the
art world.
OTOH, commercial IS dominated by digital, far more than a 60/40 split in
favor of digital.
Mxsmanic
news:3B73C56F...@home.com...
> And, generally, the difference between digital
> output and film prints can be recognized by a
> discerning viewer, if not specifically, than
> from the stand point that "something's just not
> right."
I can't tell the difference. Can you? If so, how?
Mxsmanic
> So again, how much of film's data just lays there,
> unused (for a chemical print)? Someone should
> know, wouldn't you think?
Many people do know, but there is no way to give a single response to
your question. You have to specify a long list of other variables in
order to get a single answer; as long as they variables are left
unknown, the answer could be just about anything. And that is what most
people overlook in their highly emotional but technically inept
discussions on the topic.
Mxsmanic
> However, along with my having neg's I do have
> my pictures digitized on CD's by the processing
> lab.
My use of film stops right after development. I shoot film, develop it
(or have it developed for me, for C-41 and E-6) ... and then scan it.
And that's the end of the analog part of my workflow. I don't get
prints at all (I can always make my own prints on my Epson printer, or I
can send out the digital files for fancier prints). Everything is
digital after the scan. But at the same time, film is still king in my
workflow for the actual image capture, and I do keep negatives and
slides on file (although they aren't very well organized--it's easier to
look up the scans).
> When I slap a 14mm wide angle lens on a F5
> (or one of my N90s'), I'm getting a 14mm lens
> view angle not a 20mm view angle.
Yes. The 17-35 may have been made with the D1 in mind, but it sure is
nice to put it on an F5 and get an honest-to-goodness 17mm lens (and
Nikon did not skimp on the lens--it is sharp and virtually free of
distortion all the way out to the edges of the frame).
Mxsmanic
news:3B7432C3...@ucalgary.ca...
> Indeed... though I noted that the price of an
> almost brand new EOS 3 dropped by a significant
> margin as soon as the 1V was available.
Canon is the most gadget-oriented of the SLR makers, though, so I'd
expect to see a drop in resale value for older models when one of the
never-ending series of new models comes out. Hasselblad and Leica hold
value a lot better.
Mxsmanic
> I used to think so, but now I don't.
Your applications are probably not among those that require high
resolution.
Holvbphoto
<ecr...@premise2020.com> writes:
>
>> I haven't followed the darkroom scene so I don't know about the paper
>> situation, but I constantly hear wailing as favorite B&W films are
>> discontinued. Panatomic X went years ago, Agfapan 25 more recently.
>> Kodak 2475, a favorite for that golfball grain, is gone (though TMZ is
>> an improvement for most purposes). Et cetera.
>
I was given a camera for 616 film, I was still able to get that size as late as
the 1970s, only in color print, but no more.
Holvbphoto
(Barry Twycross) writes:
>
>When did you last see a vinyl LP for sale? I was suprised to see them in
>Tower recently, there were about as many of them as the Fancy Audio DVDs.
>
As a BOND fan I try to buy as much related to a new 007 film as I can, well
remember the over six year GAP between the last film "Licence to Kill" in 1989
and of course Goldeneye in 1995, I have the vinyl for LTK, couldn't get a vinyl
for GE.
LTK was the last of the series on LP.
Bob Mathison
<snip>Fine art is dominated by digital. <snip>
huh???
OF the photography shows in galleries in NY some it's true, show digital
work - mostly because the image was generated digitally - THe problem is
the stuff isn't archival and consequently difficult to collect. But the
overwhelming work originates on film and is printed on conventional
papers. My show for example - shot on film - printed illphochrome - the
only thing that is digital is my portpolio because it's a lot cheaper
and I can afford to lose a set of prints. but frankly compared to
ilphochrome printed digital color isn't in the same league - I certainly
wouldn't sign a digital print.
There have been superb works don't digitally but because the technique
won't work on film and then digitial becomes a new medium in itself.
Which is great. I use digital negatives for example. I would bet
however that a lot more hand coated platinum prints get sold then for
example any digital medium.
Edward Craft
mxsm...@hotmail.com wrote on 8/10/01 5:58 PM:
I would welcome a guess. Here's mine, technically inept as it may be. In the
distance between the enlarging lens and the paper, so much of film's
resolution gets lost that it makes film's advantage in that regard
irrelevant. That's why my digitally-captured digitally-output prints look
every bit as good as those film-captured and chemically-printed. All things
being equal, quality lenses, etc.
EC
NickC
We are in accord.
My desire for prints at the time of film processing is only to satisfy
my wife. She doesn't want to wait for me to make prints through
Photoshop and my Epson 1200. I use my photo equipment with my Mac to
make initial travel brochure layouts for local travel agencies or home
sale layouts for real estate agencies. I use the Nikon Coolscan IV
which can scan at 29,000 dpi (equates to about 10Meg's) and a density
range of 3.6. BTW, the best that the Nikon D1 can do is about 8Meg's.
Film is still the king with me too and as long as I can scan the
images, film will remain the king. It tickles me to read posts saying
how Pro's have migrated to digital cameras. The impression given is
intended to cause one to think "better go digital camera or be left
out of the happening's." Ha, I know very few pro's who actually own
digital cameras. When on assignments, the pro's get issued digital
cameras, or a allowances for renting them, from the agencies that
engage them. It's in their agreement, or they will use their personal
equipment which is film.
I'm super happy with the 17-35mm F2.8 Nikon lens, 28-70mm F2.8 Nikon
lens, 80-200mm F2.8 Nikon lens, and the 300mm f2.8 Nikon lens; all are
the "S" series. I'm not really unhappy with my other Nikon lenses but
those are not in the "S" series. The 14mm lens I mentioned is a Sigma.
It's good but not great. I bought the new version after I saw many of
the photographers photographing the movie awards were using it.
Nick
NickC
Again, there are variables to consider. For example; Is a diffused
enlarger being used or a condenser enlarger being used. That is just
the tip of the tech berg that is introduced in the evaluation process.
Nick
paleryder
A big factor is the size of the enlargement. At smaller sizes the images
are likely almost indistinguishable. Current technology seems to favor
film for large prints.
Steve
>> I used to think so, but now I don't.
>Your applications are probably not among those that require high
>resolution.
I like that you left out the context - but nevermind. I've seen results from
the DX1 and while I'm not ready to buy yet, it really does surprise me. I
believe Bjorn when he says that its as good as Velvia. The other applications
I speak of - like the fine art you left out - absolutely requires high
resolution. Its just that its shot in a larger format.
Steve
Edward Craft
wrote on 8/10/01 9:10 PM:
Pick one or the other. Just give me a number.
EC
P.S. Sorry, add a "please" to that.
Edward Craft
pale...@cableone.net wrote on 8/10/01 9:21 PM:
I agree. Let's say 8x12 so the neg is printed full frame. Does that help?
And let's go ahead and pick a high resolution film and a high resolution
film. Plus, we shot on a tripod.
EC
Mxsmanic
> I would welcome a guess. Here's mine, technically
> inept as it may be. In the distance between the
> enlarging lens and the paper, so much of film's
> resolution gets lost that it makes film's advantage
> in that regard irrelevant.
When the only difference between two prints is their digital or film
origin, I tend to agree.
Mxsmanic
> I'm super happy with the 17-35mm F2.8 Nikon lens,
> 28-70mm F2.8 Nikon lens, 80-200mm F2.8 Nikon lens,
> and the 300mm f2.8 Nikon lens; all are the "S" series.
The three zooms are a knockout trio, and essentially all that I ever
use. I'm sure the 300mm is equally nice, but I rarely have a need for
even 200mm, much less anything beyond, so I've never used it.
Mxsmanic
> I've seen results from the DX1 and while
> I'm not ready to buy yet, it really does
> surprise me. I believe Bjorn when he says
> that its as good as Velvia.
So do I. The only problems are that the D1x costs too much, and it
still doesn't have the resolution of film, nor does it have a 24x36
image area, essentially for using existing lenses with any consistency.
So I'll stick with film.
Also, does the D1x produces images with bit depths greater than 8 bits?
I'm not interested in any digital camera that produces only 8-bit
images, as that severely limits the headroom for Photoshop manipulation.