The death of film....again
nathantw
<http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/23/MNGNVCT8F01.DTL&type=tech>
Michael Weinstein
<nathantw1_nospam@remove_sbcglobal.net> said:
> More crap for the public to believe:
>
> <http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/23/MNGNVCT8F01.DTL&type=tech>
you
>
may not like it, and in fact I don't like it either, but what makes you
think it is untrue?
--
Michael | "You're going to need a bigger boat."
nathantw
under a rock until all is clear.
"Michael Weinstein" <notreall...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:2005052500281743658%notreallymeNOSPAM@ixnetcomcom...
Gordon Moat
> More crap for the public to believe:
>
> <http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/23/MNGNVCT8F01.DTL&type=tech>
One part the writer does have right is that ordinary people are considering images "less
precious". There is a careless attitude towards taking photos with a direct digital
camera. Obviously, not everyone does that, but it increasingly seems to be majority
behaviour. The designer of the Nikon F6 called it "respect for the image", in that a
photographer using film would think more before pressing the shutter button.
If enough carelessness takes hold, then photography will become mundane, and less
important. When the images hold little value, or not enough attention, then photography
is essentially dead. In one way that is not so bad, since those who are serious, or
professionals, might again be more valued for what they can accomplish with a creative
vision.
The technology has changed attitudes and approaches. With many companies not making much
profit on the cameras (or even losing money), how will more capable camera phones affect
the market. Soon the western world will have camera phones that match direct digital P&S
cameras, and likely at very low prices due to service plan competition. I wonder how many
companies will stop making cameras entirely.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com/technology.html>
johnboy
news:v7Ske.21027$J12...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> More crap for the public to believe:
>
> <http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/23/MNGNVCT8F01.DTL&type=tech>
Shoot the messenger!
David J. Littleboy
"Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> nathantw wrote:
>> More crap for the public to believe:
>>
>> <http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/23/MNGNVCT8F01.DTL&type=tech>
>
> One part the writer does have right is that ordinary people are
> considering images "less
> precious". There is a careless attitude towards taking photos with a
> direct digital
> camera. Obviously, not everyone does that, but it increasingly seems to be
> majority
> behaviour. The designer of the Nikon F6 called it "respect for the image",
> in that a
> photographer using film would think more before pressing the shutter
> button.
Hmm. I don't buy this at all. Most folks use cameras to record things.
Nothing more. They don't have a clue how incredibly beautiful a well-made
photograph can be. They just want a recognizable snapshot.
There's nothing wrong with that: just as most people don't have the time to
learn to play jazz guitar, most people don't have the time to learn
photography. They need the CD player to entertain/soothe them and the P&S
camera to take snapshots with minimal effort.
Also, there's nothing new about that. The box brownie wasn't the death of
photography as an art form, and neither will the digital camera be. (It
would be great if there were quotes from before WWII decrying mass-produced
cameras.)
> If enough carelessness takes hold, then photography will become mundane,
> and less important.
Read S. Sontag. Photography was already mundane (or worse) in 1975.
There's really no point in getting bent out of shape over snapshooters.
Hopefully, their expenditures will support the industries that make our
tools.
> The technology has changed attitudes and approaches. With many companies
> not making much
> profit on the cameras (or even losing money), how will more capable camera
> phones affect
> the market. Soon the western world will have camera phones that match
> direct digital P&S
> cameras, and likely at very low prices due to service plan competition. I
> wonder how many
> companies will stop making cameras entirely.
Certainly the single-use camera's days are numbered<g>.
But as long as we do better than folks do with their P&S cameras, we'll
always be able to justify our hobby or existence. If we can't do better, we
don't deserve our significant other's tolerance, or our customers' money.
(In other words, we're more threatened by increased ability of the masses to
produce quality images than by a decreased ability.)
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
rafe bustin
wrote:
>nathantw wrote:
>
>> More crap for the public to believe:
>>
>> <http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/23/MNGNVCT8F01.DTL&type=tech>
>
>One part the writer does have right is that ordinary people are considering images "less
>precious". There is a careless attitude towards taking photos with a direct digital
>camera. Obviously, not everyone does that, but it increasingly seems to be majority
>behaviour. The designer of the Nikon F6 called it "respect for the image", in that a
>photographer using film would think more before pressing the shutter button.
I absolutely ditto Dave Littleboy's response.
The vast majority of people aren't looking
for art, craftsmanship, sharpness, composition.
They don't give a hoot about the rule of thirds.
They care about recording memories of their
family and friends in special times and places.
And that is how it should be.
I have recently had this point driven home quite
forcefully, having inherited the vast... umm...
"archives" of my Dad's lifetime output of
photography. What I'm keeping are photos of
people. What goes in the trash are 95% of the
photos of mountains, castles, sunsets, trees,
flowers, resort beaches and monuments.
The criterion (for me) isn't sharpness, focus,
or artistic merit. It's the memories, the
record of the life of him and his family.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Chris Brown
David J. Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>
>But as long as we do better than folks do with their P&S cameras, we'll
>always be able to justify our hobby or existence. If we can't do better, we
>don't deserve our significant other's tolerance, or our customers' money.
>(In other words, we're more threatened by increased ability of the masses to
>produce quality images than by a decreased ability.)
if you ever find yourself in London, after sundown, there's an interesting
experience you can have. Find your way to the northern end of Hungerford
Bridge, and stand on the riverbank on the upstream side (towards the Houses
of Parliament). Look across the river at the London Eye observation wheel.
Notice that every few seconds, the flash of a camera can be seen from inside
one of the glass pods.
We're safe for a while. ;-)
David J. Littleboy
I was thinking of that the other day: when I took this panorama, I wanted to
get the welder's arc in the shot, and the thought crossed my mind that
that's a lot easier than catching other people's flash.
http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/43504169/original
> We're safe for a while. ;-)
One of the first photographic jokes I heard when I was starting out was:
Q: "What do I set my camera on to take a flash picture of the moon?"
A: "Infinity."
That must have been around 1965 or so.
Bill Hilton
>
>One part the writer does have right is that ordinary people are considering images
>"less precious". There is a careless attitude towards taking photos with a direct
>digital camera.
The pompous elites have been saying this exact same thing every since
the first Kodak Brownie camera, with the motto "Just push the button,
we do the rest". It's no more nor less true today with digital than it
was a hundred years ago but digital is a convenient contemporary
bogeyman.
Bill
Q.G. de Bakker
> Also, there's nothing new about that. The box brownie wasn't the death of
> photography as an art form, and neither will the digital camera be. (It
> would be great if there were quotes from before WWII decrying
mass-produced
> cameras.)
>
> > If enough carelessness takes hold, then photography will become mundane,
> > and less important.
>
> Read S. Sontag. Photography was already mundane (or worse) in 1975.
>
> There's really no point in getting bent out of shape over snapshooters.
> Hopefully, their expenditures will support the industries that make our
> tools.
So it's back to producing our own plates (wet and/or dry) again?
Remember that what turned photography into an indeed mundane, but viable,
business, was the huge appetite for it: all those snapshooters that are now
snapping digital.
Eastman Kodak would hardly be remembered, were it not for Eastman's success
in making the snapshooters buy film, and lots of it.
If Sontag said that quoted above, she was wrong: photography was 'mundane'
long before 1975.
And exactly that made it what is. Had it remained a field reserved for "the
careful", it would be as obscure and meaningless (!) today as Ikebana in
Islington high street.
And now that those pillars of the photoindustry use less and less film, film
will indeed be dead soon.
Photography will not. The photoindustry will not. But film will.
The only things left to debate really is how soon 'soon' will be.
My guess is: not quite yet.
> But as long as we do better than folks do with their P&S cameras, we'll
> always be able to justify our hobby or existence.
Indeed. We will even be pushed harder to justify our photography. We'll have
to put more effort into it.
But not because we (could) do better (has it really escaped you that
"better", or even plain "good", is not highly valued today? "More"? "Quick"?
"Easy"? "Convenient"? Yes! But "good"? Noooo...)
Why than?
Well, for instance (and i believe i mentioned it above): do you (still) know
how to make a good emulsion?
Better find copies of those old books, and start practicing. ;-)
Chris Brown
Q.G. de Bakker <q...@tiscali.nl> wrote:
>So it's back to producing our own plates (wet and/or dry) again?
>
>Remember that what turned photography into an indeed mundane, but viable,
>business, was the huge appetite for it: all those snapshooters that are now
>snapping digital.
How many of them were shooting E6 films before? Free hint - none of them
were, but E6 films are still a viable business model. Fuji has just
introduced a new one - Veliva 100.
Gordon Moat
> "Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> > nathantw wrote:
> >> More crap for the public to believe:
> >>
> >> <http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/23/MNGNVCT8F01.DTL&type=tech>
> >
> > One part the writer does have right is that ordinary people are
> > considering images "less
> > precious". There is a careless attitude towards taking photos with a
> > direct digital
> > camera. Obviously, not everyone does that, but it increasingly seems to be
> > majority
> > behaviour. The designer of the Nikon F6 called it "respect for the image",
> > in that a
> > photographer using film would think more before pressing the shutter
> > button.
>
> Hmm. I don't buy this at all. Most folks use cameras to record things.
> Nothing more. They don't have a clue how incredibly beautiful a well-made
> photograph can be. They just want a recognizable snapshot.
Okay, recording history is a large aspect of photography. However, it would surprise me if
someone bought a Nikon F6 just to record history.
>
>
> There's nothing wrong with that: just as most people don't have the time to
> learn to play jazz guitar, most people don't have the time to learn
> photography. They need the CD player to entertain/soothe them and the P&S
> camera to take snapshots with minimal effort.
>
> Also, there's nothing new about that. The box brownie wasn't the death of
> photography as an art form, and neither will the digital camera be. (It
> would be great if there were quotes from before WWII decrying mass-produced
> cameras.)
The really old Kodak idea of "you take the pictures, we do the rest". Sure, that is why we
still see one-time-use cameras all over the place, grocery stores, department stores, even
electronics stores. It would be neat to read comments of the past. I would guess that roll
film probably created an uproar from people who were used to previous plates or sheet films.
>
>
> > If enough carelessness takes hold, then photography will become mundane,
> > and less important.
>
> Read S. Sontag. Photography was already mundane (or worse) in 1975.
>
> There's really no point in getting bent out of shape over snapshooters.
> Hopefully, their expenditures will support the industries that make our
> tools.
That's true. The revenue is important for those companies to continue. Rollei sell lots or
cheap crap, but they still have the 6000 series.
>
>
> > The technology has changed attitudes and approaches. With many companies
> > not making much
> > profit on the cameras (or even losing money), how will more capable camera
> > phones affect
> > the market. Soon the western world will have camera phones that match
> > direct digital P&S
> > cameras, and likely at very low prices due to service plan competition. I
> > wonder how many
> > companies will stop making cameras entirely.
>
> Certainly the single-use camera's days are numbered<g>.
Probably in Japan, Europe and North America in the near future. Might still be viable in low
economy markets, or emerging markets, at least for a little while longer.
>
>
> But as long as we do better than folks do with their P&S cameras, we'll
> always be able to justify our hobby or existence. If we can't do better, we
> don't deserve our significant other's tolerance, or our customers' money.
> (In other words, we're more threatened by increased ability of the masses to
> produce quality images than by a decreased ability.)
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
Very true. Of course, image quality is not just determined by the gear. Aesthetic
considerations have always been biased over technical quality in creative imaging.
Gordon Moat
> On Wed, 25 May 2005 00:53:53 -0700, Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> >nathantw wrote:
> >
> >> More crap for the public to believe:
> >>
> >> <http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/23/MNGNVCT8F01.DTL&type=tech>
> >
> >One part the writer does have right is that ordinary people are considering images "less
> >precious". There is a careless attitude towards taking photos with a direct digital
> >camera. Obviously, not everyone does that, but it increasingly seems to be majority
> >behaviour. The designer of the Nikon F6 called it "respect for the image", in that a
> >photographer using film would think more before pressing the shutter button.
>
> I absolutely ditto Dave Littleboy's response.
>
> The vast majority of people aren't looking
> for art, craftsmanship, sharpness, composition.
> They don't give a hoot about the rule of thirds.
>
> They care about recording memories of their
> family and friends in special times and places.
Recording history is one large aspect of photography.
>
> And that is how it should be.
So it should only/always be that way? Is there something wrong with caring about art,
composition, or craftsmanship?
>
>
> I have recently had this point driven home quite
> forcefully, having inherited the vast... umm...
> "archives" of my Dad's lifetime output of
> photography. What I'm keeping are photos of
> people. What goes in the trash are 95% of the
> photos of mountains, castles, sunsets, trees,
> flowers, resort beaches and monuments.
Why? I don't understand why it would be less important to know where someone went, what they
saw, or what they did. I have inherited some very old images of my family, yet I am not
compelled to throw out any of them. I still find them interesting, even if I don't know
exactly what/where/whom I am seeing.
>
>
> The criterion (for me) isn't sharpness, focus,
> or artistic merit. It's the memories, the
> record of the life of him and his family.
>
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com
If all you want is to record history, I don't have a problem with that. However, a casual
look at your web site indicates that you don't just record history. Does your statement now
mean that you have given up on "artistic" images, or you consider them less valid? If yes,
what made you stop?
Gordon Moat
> > Gordon Moat writes ...
> >
> >One part the writer does have right is that ordinary people are considering images
> >"less precious". There is a careless attitude towards taking photos with a direct
> >digital camera.
>
> The pompous elites have been saying this exact same thing every since
> the first Kodak Brownie camera, with the motto "Just push the button,
> we do the rest".
I think I might be misunderstanding you Bill. Do you imply that those who care about
their imagery at an aesthetic level are "pompous elites"?
I know some artists do offend people, some even intentionally, but I don't see that as
the dominant bias. There has been a bad trend of art for artists in some time periods
or areas, though I am glad to rarely find that anymore. Art is barely supported in
North America, and it would be stupid for artists to take an elitist attitude. I have
always tried to have fun with my non-work creative imagery, always with the intention
of entertaining, or urging some curiosity; and I find those same attitudes dominant in
others.
> It's no more nor less true today with digital than it
> was a hundred years ago but digital is a convenient contemporary
> bogeyman.
>
> Bill
I don't blame the technology for causing great problems. I am acknowledging that it is
changing the way people do some things. Overall, modern society has more negative
influences than digital imaging.
Neil Gould
>
> if you ever find yourself in London, after sundown, there's an
> interesting experience you can have. Find your way to the northern
> end of Hungerford Bridge, and stand on the riverbank on the upstream
> side (towards the Houses of Parliament). Look across the river at the
> London Eye observation wheel.
>
> Notice that every few seconds, the flash of a camera can be seen from
> inside one of the glass pods.
>
> We're safe for a while. ;-)
>
witness the endeavors of those attempting to light the Grand Canyon with
their flash units. ;-)
Neil
RRiddle
> If enough carelessness takes hold, then photography will become mundane, and less
> important. When the images hold little value, or not enough attention, then photography
> is essentially dead. In one way that is not so bad, since those who are serious, or
> professionals, might again be more valued for what they can accomplish with a creative
> vision.
Agree wholeheartedly. The huge majority of people do not appreciate good
photographic images. They're happy to get their cell-phone pix printed at 5X7
or larger at the local photo counter. I shudder to think how many I've printed.
The good news about that, is that genuinely well-composed, quality-printed,
matted & framed prints should increase in value as objets d'art.
Photography is far from dead. But with the exponential growth of image
availability, _quality_ images are becoming an increasingly small percentage
of the total.
Gregory Blank
Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>Soon the western world will have camera phones that match direct
> digital P&S
> cameras, and likely at very low prices due to service plan competition. I
> wonder how many
> companies will stop making cameras entirely.
Gordon, I was on a shoot last week for a local magazine in a museum
it was a field trip of students, quite a few were using their cell
phones to take quick reference shots of some of the displays.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
RRiddle
> The pompous elites have been saying this exact same thing every since
> the first Kodak Brownie camera, with the motto "Just push the button,
> we do the rest". It's no more nor less true today with digital than it
> was a hundred years ago but digital is a convenient contemporary
> bogeyman.
At the risk of pomposity, I'll say that I see your point, but you're wrong.
Today's situation is not analogous to the time when Brownies hit the market.
It's a difference of degree though, not principle. Images today are far more
ubiquitous than they were at the beginning of the 20th century.
At last count there were...what...5 _BILLION_ web pages? When Brownies were
new, at most snapshots were shared with immediate family & friends. Now, a
healthy proportion of pixsnappers publish their photos in some form on the
web. And they email the URL to anyone they can think of. This has resulted
in a horrifying mass of absolutely mediocre photos of people with their heads
cut off, devil horns, and/or gleaming redly from the eyes. Yuckola.
rafe bustin
wrote:
>rafe bustin wrote:
>>
>> I have recently had this point driven home quite
>> forcefully, having inherited the vast... umm...
>> "archives" of my Dad's lifetime output of
>> photography. What I'm keeping are photos of
>> people. What goes in the trash are 95% of the
>> photos of mountains, castles, sunsets, trees,
>> flowers, resort beaches and monuments.
>
>Why? I don't understand why it would be less important to know where someone went, what they
>saw, or what they did. I have inherited some very old images of my family, yet I am not
>compelled to throw out any of them. I still find them interesting, even if I don't know
>exactly what/where/whom I am seeing.
There's no right or wrong here. This is a
fairly personal matter for me, though I
suspect not an uncommon situation.
In the case I'm describing, there are
literally thousands of slides, negatives and
snapshots to deal with. I think there's a
much better chance of appreciating them if that
store is edited down to, say, a few hundred.
As for the travels, they're well documented
elsewhere, in scrapbooks. And no, I'm not
terribly interested in the details of each
trip taken. I know he travelled a great
deal. I'm not that interested in whether
he went to Vancouver in 1986 or to Vienna
in 1993. I am interested in who he visited
on these trips, particularly relatives.
>> The criterion (for me) isn't sharpness, focus,
>> or artistic merit. It's the memories, the
>> record of the life of him and his family.
>>
>> rafe b.
>> http://www.terrapinphoto.com
>
>If all you want is to record history, I don't have a problem with that. However, a casual
>look at your web site indicates that you don't just record history. Does your statement now
>mean that you have given up on "artistic" images, or you consider them less valid? If yes,
>what made you stop?
No, I haven't changed much of anything, but
I have been giving a lot of thought to these
questions... who will look at my photos when
I'm gone? What matters more, the people I
know and love, or my best "artistic" efforts
at photographing landscapes?
I can easily picture my nieces and nephews
rummaging through my own store of images with
the same criteria.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
rafe bustin
<ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
>Since you're planning a trip to the U.S. southwest, you may be able to
>witness the endeavors of those attempting to light the Grand Canyon with
>their flash units. ;-)
Oh, goodness. I still remember seeing
flashbulbs go off at Niagara Falls at
night, and folks similarly attempting
to light up the city from the top of
the Washington Monument at night.
This speaks more to people's ignorance
of science than anything else.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Chris Brown
Michael Weinstein
Even worse are those who use their flashes to take pictures of
nighttime fireworks. And if you try to explain to them that you do not
"light up" light with light, they look at you blankly as though you are
from another planet. You do better pointing out that it's too far for
their flash. And some of them don't understand THAT.
Philip Homburg
RRiddle <r...@REMOVETHISrpriddle.com> wrote:
>At last count there were...what...5 _BILLION_ web pages? When Brownies were
>new, at most snapshots were shared with immediate family & friends. Now, a
>healthy proportion of pixsnappers publish their photos in some form on the
>web. And they email the URL to anyone they can think of. This has resulted
>in a horrifying mass of absolutely mediocre photos of people with their heads
>cut off, devil horns, and/or gleaming redly from the eyes. Yuckola.
Well, make sure that you don't give your e-mail address to everybody.
Then, you don't get the URLs for those web-pages...
I don't see the big difference here.
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Gregory Blank
Michael Weinstein <notreall...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Even worse are those who use their flashes to take pictures of
> nighttime fireworks. And if you try to explain to them that you do not
> "light up" light with light, they look at you blankly as though you are
> from another planet. You do better pointing out that it's too far for
> their flash. And some of them don't understand THAT.
Those very people are driving high speed, high power high tech
automobiles on the freeways obviously well above the speed limit,
brakes,brakes who needs them, since they never take their foot off the
gas peddle?
ml1...@soton.ac.uk
london eye. During my two 2min exposures, I had about 5 tourists stand
next to me and take pics of the Houses of Parliament/Big Ben with
flash...
johnboy
news:1117107034.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I was in London last year taking some night shots by the river near the
> london eye. During my two 2min exposures, I had about 5 tourists stand
> next to me and take pics of the Houses of Parliament/Big Ben with
> flash...
I'd not be quick to call them stupid; just how many night pictures of Big
Ben do you suppose have already been done by professionals?
Little Green Eyed Dragon
"johnboy" <sha...@nospam.no> wrote:
> I'd not be quick to call them stupid; just how many night pictures of Big
> Ben do you suppose have already been done by professionals?
I would, standing next to me as if to take the very same image,....
people do that kind of stuff more to irritate than anything. I get great
personal satisfaction knowing their bogus attempts have;
A) Failed to raise my blood pressure.
B) Failed to get the same image I see in my mind's eye.
But seriously Your looking for trouble right, by deriding his post?
Maybe he is either doing the shot for personal enjoyment or has an angle
or technique no one else knows. No matter how tired a particular subject
may become there is always room to make something different.
Q.G. de Bakker
> >So it's back to producing our own plates (wet and/or dry) again?
> >
> >Remember that what turned photography into an indeed mundane, but viable,
> >business, was the huge appetite for it: all those snapshooters that are
now
> >snapping digital.
>
> How many of them were shooting E6 films before? Free hint - none of them
> were,
That's what you think. Don't you remember the endless slide shows we were
treated to?
I do.
E6 (and E4 before that), Kodachrome (remember the stuff?) were big in
'snapshooter' land.
> but E6 films are still a viable business model. Fuji has just
> introduced a new one - Veliva 100.
Yes. But "still" is the key word.
Anyway, what i was trying to put across is that the few 'careful'
photographers there are cannot and will not keep 'film alive'.
The 'fine arts' shooters among us really need to read up on how to make
emulsions if they do want to continue using film for very long. No kidding.
It have been the 'snapshooters' that made photography what it is, and it
will be the 'snapshooters' no longer buying film that will inevitably bring
'film' to an end.
Photography will not come to an end. The photoindustry will not come to an
end. But film will.
So there is no point in introducing an snapshooter-vs-careful-photographers
argument. Fun to debate, maybe. But really no point.
Gordon Moat
> . . . . . . . .
> >
> >Why? I don't understand why it would be less important to know where someone went, what they
> >saw, or what they did. I have inherited some very old images of my family, yet I am not
> >compelled to throw out any of them. I still find them interesting, even if I don't know
> >exactly what/where/whom I am seeing.
>
> There's no right or wrong here. This is a
> fairly personal matter for me, though I
> suspect not an uncommon situation.
>
> In the case I'm describing, there are
> literally thousands of slides, negatives and
> snapshots to deal with. I think there's a
> much better chance of appreciating them if that
> store is edited down to, say, a few hundred.
Okay, I don't see any problem with that. I only have a few hundred old family images.
>
>
> As for the travels, they're well documented
> elsewhere, in scrapbooks. And no, I'm not
> terribly interested in the details of each
> trip taken. I know he travelled a great
> deal. I'm not that interested in whether
> he went to Vancouver in 1986 or to Vienna
> in 1993. I am interested in who he visited
> on these trips, particularly relatives.
>
> >> The criterion (for me) isn't sharpness, focus,
> >> or artistic merit. It's the memories, the
> >> record of the life of him and his family.
> >>
> >> rafe b.
> >> http://www.terrapinphoto.com
> >
> >If all you want is to record history, I don't have a problem with that. However, a casual
> >look at your web site indicates that you don't just record history. Does your statement now
> >mean that you have given up on "artistic" images, or you consider them less valid? If yes,
> >what made you stop?
>
> No, I haven't changed much of anything, but
> I have been giving a lot of thought to these
> questions... who will look at my photos when
> I'm gone? What matters more, the people I
> know and love, or my best "artistic" efforts
> at photographing landscapes?
That is a very personal decision. I can only hope that my paintings and photos are found
interesting by people after I am gone, but I will have no way to know that.
>
>
> I can easily picture my nieces and nephews
> rummaging through my own store of images with
> the same criteria.
>
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Well, I hope you don't give up on making "artistic" images.
Gordon Moat
> In article <42942EFB...@attglobal.net>,
> Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >Soon the western world will have camera phones that match direct
> > digital P&S
> > cameras, and likely at very low prices due to service plan competition. I
> > wonder how many
> > companies will stop making cameras entirely.
>
> Gordon, I was on a shoot last week for a local magazine in a museum
> it was a field trip of students, quite a few were using their cell
> phones to take quick reference shots of some of the displays.
>
> --
> LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
I think the nice thing about that was they were in the museum. When I was in
college from 1994 to 1998, I use to get permission to photograph in museums.
The images of artworks helped influence my own artwork. When I could not
photograph an area, I often sketched those artworks.
It pains me to hear of so many cuts in arts programs budgets, though it is an
inevitable consequence of poor financial management. Hopefully, younger people
will try to educate themselves a bit about the world of art, and some of the
history. There has been a more recent awareness of fine art in the public eye,
so hopefully it will only get better.
Chris Brown
>
>> >So it's back to producing our own plates (wet and/or dry) again?
>> >
>> >Remember that what turned photography into an indeed mundane, but viable,
>> >business, was the huge appetite for it: all those snapshooters that are
>now
>> >snapping digital.
>>
>> How many of them were shooting E6 films before? Free hint - none of them
>> were,
>
>That's what you think. Don't you remember the endless slide shows we were
>treated to?
OK, point taken - the most irritating ones were shooting slides.
>Yes. But "still" is the key word.
>
>Anyway, what i was trying to put across is that the few 'careful'
>photographers there are cannot and will not keep 'film alive'.
I wouldn't be so sure. Film photography can almost certainly survive as a
cottage industry . After all, look at large format. The big boys still
support them. OK, to an extent 35mm and 120 subsidise emulsions being
available in 4x5, but that doesn't explain development especially for large
format, such as Quickload.
And the existence of films such as Scala suggests that the film companies
are willing to support niche markets, even when the emulsion in question
really never would be used by the masses.
>The 'fine arts' shooters among us really need to read up on how to make
>emulsions if they do want to continue using film for very long. No kidding.
I think you're being overly pessimistic. There's going to be increased
rationalisation, certainly, and there will be casulaties, and we'll probably
have to rely increasingly on postal processing services (or do our own E6
processing, yuck!), but reflect on this - generations after the invention of
the bra, you can still buy a brand-new, handmade Victorian-style corset.
In fact, tell you what - go ahead and learn how to make your own emulsions.
If we do then get abandoned, go into business selling your film through
the web. I'll buy from you, if it's any good.
Q.G. de Bakker
> I wouldn't be so sure. Film photography can almost certainly survive as a
> cottage industry .
Indeed. Eastman Dry Plate Company Instead of Kodak, many photographers
pouring their own emulsions (had i mentioned that prospect? ;-)), etc.
But will that be able to produce the modern high tech emulsions?
> After all, look at large format. The big boys still
> support them.
Good example.
I know they do not want such things, but where are those autoeverything LF
cameras built in a shed?
When the 'big boys' decide to quit (which effectively they already have (no
new products in aeons), though they still manage to keep supply up), the
"cottage industry" LF cameras will be no more sophisticated than those used
100 years ago.
> OK, to an extent 35mm and 120 subsidise emulsions being
> available in 4x5, but that doesn't explain development especially for
large
> format, such as Quickload.
:-)
Wow! Quickload! What will they do next, put a man on the Moon?
:-)
> And the existence of films such as Scala suggests that the film companies
> are willing to support niche markets, even when the emulsion in question
> really never would be used by the masses.
Indeed.
Niche products, held in high esteem by the "careful photographers", like,
say, the fabeled Kodachrome...
Oops!
There will be a point at which film manufacturers decide that while it had
been fun while it lasted, the time to abandon the chemical way has come.
Agfa, for instance, had already made that decision a few years ago. It's
just that they couldn't find someone willing to pay good money to take it
off their hands that they continued.
> >The 'fine arts' shooters among us really need to read up on how to make
> >emulsions if they do want to continue using film for very long. No
kidding.
>
> I think you're being overly pessimistic. There's going to be increased
> rationalisation, certainly,
We have passed that stage already.
Don't you remember all the talk about Kodak quiting, etc..? Missed Agfa's
above mentioned attempt to get rid of their film division?
Already forgotten how Ilford was in troubled waters, and how they saved
their rear end (for now), not too long ago.
The only major manufacturer who i haven't heard of going through that fase
yet is Fuji. And that must be because i missed it. ;-)
> and there will be casulaties, and we'll probably
> have to rely increasingly on postal processing services (or do our own E6
> processing, yuck!),
Aha. "Yuck", you say. (And rightly so.)
And in saying that, you echo the mass-movements motive to leave film be, and
embrace that 'new thing'.
The 'thin end'? Et tu, uhm..., Chris?
;-)
> but reflect on this - generations after the invention of
> the bra, you can still buy a brand-new, handmade Victorian-style corset.
Yes.
And folding wooden LF cameras are still made every day.
But you will be hard pressed to find one of those computer aided Sinar
cameras.
So if we can be content using the things a cottage industry can provide, if
we do not mind equipment of 100-year-ago's level of sophistication, and do
not mind to piour our own plates, the future is nothing to woory about.
But if we can't, and do...
> In fact, tell you what - go ahead and learn how to make your own
emulsions.
> If we do then get abandoned, go into business selling your film through
> the web. I'll buy from you, if it's any good.
And that's the crux.
If you are expecting anything as good as you can get now, think again.
Your proposal does not appear to make much business sense... ;-)
Gregory Blank
"Q.G. de Bakker" <q...@tiscali.nl> wrote:
> But film will.
I think your being an alarmist.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
David Starr
>Chris Brown wrote:
>> After all, look at large format. The big boys still
>> support them.
>
>Good example.
>I know they do not want such things, but where are those autoeverything LF
>cameras built in a shed?
>When the 'big boys' decide to quit (which effectively they already have (no
>new products in aeons), though they still manage to keep supply up), the
>"cottage industry" LF cameras will be no more sophisticated than those used
>100 years ago.
Why do they need to be more sophisticated? LF cameras have everything you need
now.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography
www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chris Brown
Q.G. de Bakker <q...@tiscali.nl> wrote:
>Good example.
>I know they do not want such things, but where are those autoeverything LF
>cameras built in a shed?
Like you said, nobody wants one.
>When the 'big boys' decide to quit (which effectively they already have (no
>new products in aeons), though they still manage to keep supply up), the
>"cottage industry" LF cameras will be no more sophisticated than those used
>100 years ago.
The basic design of LF cameras hardly changes - they do what they need to
do. I have one that's ten years old, people often mistake it for something
from before the war, probably because it's made of wood. It does what it
needs to do.
>> OK, to an extent 35mm and 120 subsidise emulsions being
>> available in 4x5, but that doesn't explain development especially for
>large
>> format, such as Quickload.
>
>:-)
>
>Wow! Quickload! What will they do next, put a man on the Moon?
The point is not to do with what Quickload is, but that Fuji were happy to
develop such a product for a niche market. The medium format market is
*huge* compared to the number of people using Quickload.
And, by the way, don't knock it until you've used it. The amount of hassle
it saves makes the stuff worth its weight in gold for me.
>> And the existence of films such as Scala suggests that the film companies
>> are willing to support niche markets, even when the emulsion in question
>> really never would be used by the masses.
>
>Indeed.
>Niche products, held in high esteem by the "careful photographers", like,
>say, the fabeled Kodachrome...
How available has Kodachorme ever been available to niche users such as LF
landscape photographers? ISTM that Kodak has always been happy to let Fuji
have all that business. Buy any book on fine art landscape photography, and
look at the technical details of the pictures:
Velvia
velvia
Provia
Velvia
Provia
Velvia
Velvia
etc.
Hell, even in 120, didn't Kodachrome cease to be avialable long, long before
digital was ever viable as a mainstream format?
>There will be a point at which film manufacturers decide that while it had
>been fun while it lasted, the time to abandon the chemical way has come.
>Agfa, for instance, had already made that decision a few years ago. It's
>just that they couldn't find someone willing to pay good money to take it
>off their hands that they continued.
That makes no sense. If they decided to quit, there's no reason to keep an
unprofitable business going because no-one wants to buy it. You just close
it down. It happens all the time.
>The only major manufacturer who i haven't heard of going through that fase
>yet is Fuji. And that must be because i missed it. ;-)
As we speak, Fuji is introducing a new emulsion in the global market -
Velvia 100.
>Yes.
>And folding wooden LF cameras are still made every day.
>But you will be hard pressed to find one of those computer aided Sinar
>cameras.
You'll be hard pressed to find a car with five wheels as well (not counting
the spare).
>So if we can be content using the things a cottage industry can provide, if
>we do not mind equipment of 100-year-ago's level of sophistication,
100 years is overstating the case. 50 is more like it, and the reason that
mdoern LF cameras look and work like the LF cameras of the 50s is because
that's fundementally when they got to the stage where they did what peoeple
wanted them to do. You want a point and shoot, go and buy a CoolPix.
>and do
>not mind to piour our own plates, the future is nothing to woory about.
>But if we can't, and do...
I fully expect that 4x5 sheet film, as in the stuff that loads into existing
dark slides, will be available after I'm dead, and I expect to live for at
least another 40 years.
Hell, you can still buy 127 film. When was the last time someone made those
cameras?
>> In fact, tell you what - go ahead and learn how to make your own
>emulsions.
>> If we do then get abandoned, go into business selling your film through
>> the web. I'll buy from you, if it's any good.
>
>And that's the crux.
>If you are expecting anything as good as you can get now, think again.
>Your proposal does not appear to make much business sense... ;-)
Plenty of small businesses do very well providing services to niche markets.
A business doesn't have to be the size of Vodafone to be successful. You,
sir, are a snob.
Q.G. de Bakker
> >> After all, look at large format. The big boys still
> >> support them.
> >
> >Good example.
> >I know they do not want such things, but where are those autoeverything
LF
> >cameras built in a shed?
> >When the 'big boys' decide to quit (which effectively they already have
(no
> >new products in aeons), though they still manage to keep supply up), the
> >"cottage industry" LF cameras will be no more sophisticated than those
used
> >100 years ago.
>
> Why do they need to be more sophisticated? LF cameras have everything you
need
> now.
Two things.
First, notice the "i know they do not [etc.]" bit.
Second, yes, LF cameras have everything you need now. But even when
manufacturers like Sinar stop making them, they will no longer.
The "cottage industry" wooden thingies with brass fittings are not quite it.
And precision things like the Sinar blocks are a bit harder to make. Too
hard for a man and his brother in a garden shed.
And back to the first bit: it is an example. Not the most obvious one we
could think of, but good enough.
The level of sophistication, quality, will drop once the industry notices
the market has dropped below what can sustain the effort needed to maintain
that quality, and acts accordingly. That, as was argued, does indeed not
mean the thingies they make will be gone completely. A "cottage industry"
can indeed 'step in' and continue the effort.
But never (!) at the same level of sophistication and quality.
First, because there is not enough money in the market left to make that
even possible.
Second because it just cannot be done without an investment in skill,
machinery, time and labourthat is beyond the reach of an enthusiast, his
toolkit, and the permission of 'her indoors' to park the lawn mower on the
patio permanently.
Things like those simple wooden LF cameras, yes. But think (if the LF
example isn't clear enough for you) 'Contax 645 AF'. I would love to see how
a "cottage industry" type shop manages to built a thing like that...
That goes for all (!) the important bits involved in photography. When the
industry decides to quit, levels/the 'state of the art' must and will drop
to that of 100 years ago. Almost exactly to where we were before it even
became an industry.
Q.G. de Bakker
> > But film will.
>
> I think your being an alarmist.
Ah well... I'm sure my greatgrandchildren's greatgrandchildren will not live
for ever too.
Too pessimistic? Crying wolf? I don't know... don't think so. Do you?
Tony Polson
>end. But film will.
Don't be such a pessimist. According to UK retail figures I have
seen, there are signs of a small but significant revival in the
fortunes of film, with sales of film SLRs increasing over late 2004
and sales of film holding up well.
The D+P business is still in decline but once again there are signs
that people who principally shoot for prints prefer film over digital,
with "digital kiosks" conspicuously failing to take off.
Q.G. de Bakker
> >Good example.
> >I know they do not want such things, but where are those autoeverything
LF
> >cameras built in a shed?
>
> Like you said, nobody wants one.
Sure.
But that doesn't make any difference for what the exapmple shows.
> The basic design of LF cameras hardly changes - they do what they need to
> do. I have one that's ten years old, people often mistake it for something
> from before the war, probably because it's made of wood. It does what it
> needs to do.
There we are.
Self made emulsions also do what they need to do.
A Holga also does what ot needs to do.
So does a digital camera...
The debate, however, is about how (!) they do what they need to do.
That wooden LF type camera is, to me, no match for a Sinar P. I wouldn't
want one.
When the MF market collapses, those wooden thingies will survive, i'm sure.
No good to me.
> >Wow! Quickload! What will they do next, put a man on the Moon?
>
> The point is not to do with what Quickload is, but that Fuji were happy to
> develop such a product for a niche market. The medium format market is
> *huge* compared to the number of people using Quickload.
Quickload was developed long before LF was a niche market.
But is that even relevant?
The point is that you simply can't expect cottage industry to keep us happy.
It cannot (!) give us what we have gotten used to, not give us what we want.
> And, by the way, don't knock it until you've used it. The amount of hassle
> it saves makes the stuff worth its weight in gold for me.
Don't build your case on assumptions.
But who's knocking it?
The point, however, is ... [see above]
> >> And the existence of films such as Scala suggests that the film
companies
> >> are willing to support niche markets, even when the emulsion in
question
> >> really never would be used by the masses.
> >
> >Indeed.
> >Niche products, held in high esteem by the "careful photographers", like,
> >say, the fabeled Kodachrome...
>
> How available has Kodachorme ever been available to niche users such as LF
> landscape photographers?
Kodachrome was indeed available in pretty large sheets. Used for exactly
that: LF landscape photography.
Until it proved not commercially viable. Then it disappeared from the LF
scene.
You see, this is all not new. What i'm pointing out has happened before, and
is in a well advanced state of happening again.
> ISTM that Kodak has always been happy to let Fuji
> have all that business.
Fuji wasn't even known when Kodachrome (to stay with that example) was
discontinued in LF shets.
Kodak knew, and knows what they are doing. Fon't you worry. I really would
like to see where they let someone else "have all that business" without
having very good reasons for semingly doing so.
But we're digressing. Next we know w're in a Kodak vs Fuji/the rest debate.
;-)
> Buy any book on fine art landscape photography, and
> look at the technical details of the pictures:
> Velvia
> velvia
> Provia
> Velvia
> Provia
> Velvia
> Velvia
>
> etc.
And even that is changing...
;-)
> Hell, even in 120, didn't Kodachrome cease to be avialable long, long
before
> digital was ever viable as a mainstream format?
Yes.
Which, again, shows that "the film companies are" *not* (!!!) "willing to
support niche markets, even when the emulsion in question really never would
be used by the masses."
> That makes no sense. If they decided to quit, there's no reason to keep an
> unprofitable business going because no-one wants to buy it. You just close
> it down. It happens all the time.
Exactly!
Now you get my point.
> As we speak, Fuji is introducing a new emulsion in the global market -
> Velvia 100.
Hence the thread "The Velvia drout has started"...
> >So if we can be content using the things a cottage industry can provide,
if
> >we do not mind equipment of 100-year-ago's level of sophistication,
>
> 100 years is overstating the case. 50 is more like it, and the reason that
> mdoern LF cameras look and work like the LF cameras of the 50s is because
> that's fundementally when they got to the stage where they did what
peoeple
> wanted them to do. You want a point and shoot, go and buy a CoolPix.
And when Sinar's patent finally expired, all the other manufacturers rushed
to change the order of the axes, so their products too could be "torkelfrei"
(great word, isn't it?) Some also copied the segment block. No progress. ;-)
But granted, there is not much to a LF camera.
But even they can show what will happen when the Big Players decide to quit
and leave the playing field to the "cottage industry".
> I fully expect that 4x5 sheet film, as in the stuff that loads into
existing
> dark slides, will be available after I'm dead, and I expect to live for at
> least another 40 years.
Well i don't.
And i don't share your expectations about film either.
;-)
Unless of course, you don't mind what it is that you can still load "into
existing dark slides".
"Pour your own", and all that...
> Hell, you can still buy 127 film. When was the last time someone made
those
> cameras?
You can still buy 220 film. Don't ask where, or what emulsions. But you can!
And that while they still are making cameras that take 220 film!
Hm... Makes you think, doesn't it?
> >> If we do then get abandoned, go into business selling your film through
> >> the web. I'll buy from you, if it's any good.
> >
> >And that's the crux.
> >If you are expecting anything as good as you can get now, think again.
> >Your proposal does not appear to make much business sense... ;-)
>
> Plenty of small businesses do very well providing services to niche
markets.
> A business doesn't have to be the size of Vodafone to be successful. You,
> sir, are a snob.
No, no. Not at all. I'm a realist.
Just try to find your beloved Velvia or Provia in "cottage industry" land.
But if you really don't believe me, send me your check, and i'll start
cooking your first batch of "cottage industry" film tomorrow.
Q.G. de Bakker
> Don't be such a pessimist. According to UK retail figures I have
> seen, there are signs of a small but significant revival in the
> fortunes of film,
"a small but significant revival"
A true optimist's choice of words...?
;-)
Philip Homburg
Chris Brown <cpb...@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>I fully expect that 4x5 sheet film, as in the stuff that loads into existing
>dark slides, will be available after I'm dead, and I expect to live for at
>least another 40 years.
>
>Hell, you can still buy 127 film. When was the last time someone made those
>cameras?
There is a big difference between making film at all and making film
available in one additional format.
I have no idea complex it is to make film. I assume that complexity
sort of determines the minimal volume that is required to produce film at
reasonable costs.
rafe bustin
wrote:
>Well, I hope you don't give up on making "artistic" images.
I don't plan to. But at the same time,
I think there's a time and place for just
getting snap-happy with the digicam or
the Nikon, annoying the wife and/or whoever
else happens to be in range.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Gregory Blank
"Q.G. de Bakker" <q...@tiscali.nl> wrote:
I don't know if there will always be color films available within my
life span because big companies are more or less required to exist
in order to have it be made, its a more complex technology. Conversely
color papers RA4, shall show little sign of diminishment
because those papers are used for both optical labs and
digital ones/ Same chemistry& same paper.
But I do believe B&W sheet film will always be available, because smaller
companies can produce it and there will be people buying it. Now
reasonably priced, quality B&W paper could be another matter.
Gordon Moat
> Chris Brown wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't be so sure. Film photography can almost certainly survive as a
> > cottage industry .
>
> Indeed. Eastman Dry Plate Company Instead of Kodak, many photographers
> pouring their own emulsions (had i mentioned that prospect? ;-)), etc.
> But will that be able to produce the modern high tech emulsions?
The chemical technology has other uses. Fuji is licensing Kodak technology for
OLED, which is based upon research started in the film production areas. Kodak
are also willing to make special orders of emulsions, though the cost and
quantity are high. Fuji use a technology from producing films to enhance
another product used in LCD display manufacture. The chemical research does not
just go to photographic films for photography.
I doubt either Fuji or Kodak would give up any of the chemical trade secrets
and research. It is not reasonable to expect the technology behind the latest
emulsions to ever just be passed on to someone else.
>
>
> > After all, look at large format. The big boys still
> > support them.
>
> Good example.
> I know they do not want such things, but where are those autoeverything LF
> cameras built in a shed?
> When the 'big boys' decide to quit (which effectively they already have (no
> new products in aeons), though they still manage to keep supply up), the
> "cottage industry" LF cameras will be no more sophisticated than those used
> 100 years ago.
Definitely agree. There is little need for Large Format cameras to get
technically better. Only some materials changes have occurred, like the TOYO
CF. Lenses are another realm, with Nikon and Schneider still making large
format lenses, and still using the latest coatings and glass. While many might
not consider Nikon one of the "big boys" in photography, their large format
lenses are well respected by some.
>
> . . . . . . . . .
> > And the existence of films such as Scala suggests that the film companies
> > are willing to support niche markets, even when the emulsion in question
> > really never would be used by the masses.
>
> Indeed.
> Niche products, held in high esteem by the "careful photographers", like,
> say, the fabeled Kodachrome...
> Oops!
Niche products to attract attention to other products, or the brand name. Other
companies in other industries do that all the time, so why not film producers .
. . . . . .
>
>
> There will be a point at which film manufacturers decide that while it had
> been fun while it lasted, the time to abandon the chemical way has come.
> Agfa, for instance, had already made that decision a few years ago.
Though they completely abandoned the digital imaging market first, including
direct digital cameras.
> It's
> just that they couldn't find someone willing to pay good money to take it
> off their hands that they continued.
If you really looked at the financials, there was a great deal more going on at
AGFA than whining about film. Film never failed to generate a profit, which is
more than can be stated for some of the other endeavours of AGFA.
>
>
> > >The 'fine arts' shooters among us really need to read up on how to make
> > >emulsions if they do want to continue using film for very long. No
> kidding.
> >
> > I think you're being overly pessimistic. There's going to be increased
> > rationalisation, certainly,
>
> We have passed that stage already.
> Don't you remember all the talk about Kodak quiting, etc..? Missed Agfa's
> above mentioned attempt to get rid of their film division?
> Already forgotten how Ilford was in troubled waters, and how they saved
> their rear end (for now), not too long ago.
> The only major manufacturer who i haven't heard of going through that fase
> yet is Fuji. And that must be because i missed it. ;-)
Recent Fuji financials show growth in one area, and that is graphic arts and
printing products. Almost all other Fuji divisions are down in growth, though a
few areas have flat lined. Film products for photography are less than 30% of
revenues, though that division is one of the few that still generates profits.
More complete data is available at the main Fuji website in Japan, including
lots of nice easy to understand graphs.
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . .
Film still generates profits. Only when there are no more profits, will there
be no more film. That will not happen in our lifetime. Film might disappear, or
become difficult to get, in some market areas, but even that is many years from
today. Being able to buy film, and wanting to buy film are two different
things.
Q.G. de Bakker
> > Indeed.
> > Niche products, held in high esteem by the "careful photographers",
like,
> > say, the fabeled Kodachrome...
> > Oops!
>
> Niche products to attract attention to other products, or the brand name.
Other
> companies in other industries do that all the time, so why not film
producers .
> . . . . . .
Yes, why not?
Meanwhile, film producers are discontinuing their niche products (simply
because it turns out it doesn't work the way you think it could), and are
concentrating on keeping (rationalized/restructured) production of their
'main stream' products a financial and economic possibility.
(And now news reaches us that Agfa-Photo has decided it cannot even do
that.)
Nice products, or a "cottage industry" scale photoindustry cannot (!!!) keep
supply up of the things we would like to have.
Once the Big Boys decide it's time to quit, that's it.
I know it gets old, but i'll say it once again: if the "careful"
photographers hope to continue using chemical photography, they better start
learning the alchemist trade.
> > There will be a point at which film manufacturers decide that while it
had
> > been fun while it lasted, the time to abandon the chemical way has come.
> > Agfa, for instance, had already made that decision a few years ago.
>
> Though they completely abandoned the digital imaging market first,
including
> direct digital cameras.
You must be joking...
Agfa is one of the major players in the field of digital imaging.
Perhaps not in the consumer product market, no. But, would you know, that's
not all of the digital imaging market?
> If you really looked at the financials, there was a great deal more going
on at
> AGFA than whining about film. Film never failed to generate a profit,
which is
> more than can be stated for some of the other endeavours of AGFA.
What was going on is that Agfa knew which way film is going. They are one of
the few who got it right.
Unlike companies like Hasselblad or Contax/Kyocera, who let themselves be
surprised completely by the digital tsunami.
> Film still generates profits. Only when there are no more profits, will
there
> be no more film.
Or when people in suits and ties decide the profits aren't large enough,
yes.
> That will not happen in our lifetime. Film might disappear, or
> become difficult to get, in some market areas, but even that is many years
from
> today. Being able to buy film, and wanting to buy film are two different
> things.
And now we're at the 'right' discussion: *when* will it all happen.
All this talk about whether it will or not serves no purpose.
And this "if it does we can stick our heads in the sand, ignore it, and wait
for Superman to come out of retirement, assume the disguise of a
cottage-industry, and make the 'bad-we-will-not-acknowledge' go
away"-believe is rather, well... removed from realism, isn't it?
Tony Polson
Frankly, I am amazed that there is any revival at all, given your
forecasts of doom ...
;-)
Gregory Blank
Tony Polson <t...@nospam.net> wrote:
> Frankly, I am amazed that there is any revival at all, given your
> forecasts of doom ...
>
> ;-)
The longer you participate the more hand wringers
you"ll see. There's a lot of knowledgeable people
on the net, and paranoid ones as well. Not to say he's
completely paranoid, but coating one's own plates because
one thinks film has a limited life span is borderline :-)
Coating one's own film/paper for an effect is understandable.
Tony Polson
>The longer you participate the more hand wringers
>you"ll see. There's a lot of knowledgeable people
>on the net, and paranoid ones as well. Not to say he's
>completely paranoid, but coating one's own plates because
>one thinks film has a limited life span is borderline :-)
I have enjoyed the OP's postings for some years now, and I wouldn't
have done so if he wasn't slightly eccentric.
Aren't we all?
;-)
Chris Brown
Q.G. de Bakker <q...@tiscali.nl> wrote:
[Kodachrome]
>Meanwhile, film producers are discontinuing their niche products (simply
>because it turns out it doesn't work the way you think it could),
You keep going on about Kodachrome, a film that's been 35mm only since long
before digital was a practical alternative for most uses, produced by one of
the less commercily competent film manufacturers, as though it's somehow
relevant to the future availability of LF and MF films. It's unclear why.
>and are
>concentrating on keeping (rationalized/restructured) production of their
>'main stream' products a financial and economic possibility.
>(And now news reaches us that Agfa-Photo has decided it cannot even do
>that.)
It's been suggested that the film part of Agfa Photo was the only part that
was making a profit. That doesn't really support your stance.
>Nice products, or a "cottage industry" scale photoindustry cannot (!!!) keep
>supply up of the things we would like to have.
You have an odd idea of what constututed a niche market if you think MF and
LF are, only now, going to be a niche. MF has been a niche since the 1960s
at least, LF probably since before World War II.
Medium format hasn't, thus far, really been a cottage industry, but that's
been the state of the large format industry for aeons. You act as though
this is a state that's somehow new. It isn't - all that's happening with MF
and LF is that they're becoming amateur-only formats (and the word "amateur"
there shouldn't carry any negative connotations, quite the opposite, in
fact, and I'm also including the fine-art LF landscape guys in that, even
though they (try to) make money at it).
>I know it gets old, but i'll say it once again: if the "careful"
>photographers hope to continue using chemical photography, they better start
>learning the alchemist trade.
However, so far your supporting argument for this position appears to
revolve around the lack of autofocus view cameras and Kodak, the mass-market
courting geniuses who brought us 620, Disc and APS, amongst other things,
losing interest in an oddball slide film that's only been avaialble in the
consumer-grade format (i.e. 35mm) for ages now anyway.
That and the film manufacturers who actually have shown a real interest in
doing anyhthing other than chasing consumer-imaging behaving in the exact
kind of way you'd think they wouldn't if they had no interest in supporting
the niche markets that MF and LF *already are*.
Oh, and by the way, the next stage of consumer digital imaging is happening,
andit's clear that the consumer-imaging future belongs to the IC fabricators
and cellphone manufacturers. This being the case, photographic film may well
actually represent one of the best hopes for a profit centre that companies
who's business is actually photography have.
There is money to be made in supplying medium and large format film.
Business, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and if people want to buy film,
someone with a nose for a profit will be around to sell it to them. If
nobody else, the Chinese will quite hapilly take our money.
>> If you really looked at the financials, there was a great deal more going
>on at
>> AGFA than whining about film. Film never failed to generate a profit,
>which is
>> more than can be stated for some of the other endeavours of AGFA.
>
>What was going on is that Agfa knew which way film is going. They are one of
>the few who got it right.
All indciations are that Agfa Photographic's film business was *subsidising*
their digital imaging products, not the other way round.
I don't see why you seem to be so gloomy about all of this. You present a
scenario for the sky falling, but it doesn't appear to be grounded in
observed reality. If it does become impossible to get hold of MF and LF
film, it won't be for any of the reasons you've outlined in this thread,
because your reasoning just doesn't make sense.
>Unlike companies like Hasselblad or Contax/Kyocera, who let themselves be
>surprised completely by the digital tsunami.
Hasselblad sold the sort of MF cameras that wedding photographers wanted to
use, not the sort that amateur photographers wanted to use. The wedding guys
are all going digital - go figure.
To see where the money is going in MF, try to get a good deal on a decent
TLR on eBay - it's not easy, and it's not from lack of supply either. For
new gear, look to people like Mamiya and their 6*7 rangefinder system, and
over the next decade, look increasingly to China.
Meanwhile, everyone in the film supply and process business I talk to can't
seem to keep 120 film on their shelves, and my local lab is thinking of
diversifying the facilities it offers to 120 users because of the increase
in business they're seeing.
Your reality, where the death of film photography is symbolised by the lack
of autofocus view cameras and the death of the 35mm-only Kodachrome, is not
one that many of the rest of us appear to inhabit. YMMV.
Gregory Blank
Tony Polson <t...@nospam.net> wrote:
We are,..... &
I like QG too, if you "git rite" down to it,.... he is correct,
the ONLY way to insure that you will have photosensitive
materials is to make them yourself, however nothing is guaranteed
like the availability silver nitrate and other chemicals. & Then you
should consider that here in the US and the desert someone might run you
over in their SUV and then you won't make any pictures any way.
Gregory Blank
Chris Brown <cpb...@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
> You keep going on about Kodachrome, a film that's been 35mm only since long
> before digital was a practical alternative for most uses, produced by one of
> the less commercily competent film manufacturers, as though it's somehow
> relevant to the future availability of LF and MF films. It's unclear why.
I would hardly call Kodak less competent. Maybe sometimes less willing
but they are certainly competent. And all things considered I wouldn't
throw that baby out with the bath water in the hope someone new overseas
will do a better job somewhere down the line. Competition is good, it
keeps everyone honest in relative terms. I shoot a fair amount of Kodak
film, I probably shoot more if it was more equally priced to Fuji films.
It sucks that an American Product is a lot more expensive here in
America.
Q.G. de Bakker
> [Kodachrome]
>
> >Meanwhile, film producers are discontinuing their niche products (simply
> >because it turns out it doesn't work the way you think it could),
>
> You keep going on about Kodachrome, a film that's been 35mm only since
long
> before digital was a practical alternative for most uses, produced by one
of
> the less commercily competent film manufacturers, as though it's somehow
> relevant to the future availability of LF and MF films. It's unclear why.
You miss the point (and your judgement of Kodak isn't accurate).
All this talk about niche markets is moot.
If the masses decide film is no longer for them, our beloved film will be
gone. Completely. The industry (Kodak, Agfa, and Fuji alike) will not
hesitate to pull the plug on them.
You mentioned film companies' willingness to support niche markets, while
what's hapened to all niche products we have seen has shown they are not.
We don't have to guess. Companies have shown us what they think about niche
products.
> >(And now news reaches us that Agfa-Photo has decided it cannot even do
> >that.)
>
> It's been suggested that the film part of Agfa Photo was the only part
that
> was making a profit. That doesn't really support your stance.
Sure, ignore the fact that here a major player in the film market decided it
is time to quit...
Ignore even that they quit because they do not make any money...
But, and i hope you can forgive me, i don't.
> >Nice products, or a "cottage industry" scale photoindustry cannot (!!!)
keep
> >supply up of the things we would like to have.
>
> You have an odd idea of what constututed a niche market if you think MF
and
> LF are, only now, going to be a niche. MF has been a niche since the 1960s
> at least, LF probably since before World War II.
> Medium format hasn't, thus far, really been a cottage industry, but that's
> been the state of the large format industry for aeons.
:-)
Not for a single moment, have i thought MF, or certainly LF, is not a niche
market. What makes you even think that?
But i also do not see how already being a niche market will make becoming a
niche-in-a-niche market a viable proposition?
> You act as though
> this is a state that's somehow new.
Not at all. I 'act' as if having no film to run through these things will be
something new.
And i know what this will lead to. Bronica has shown the way. Contax/Kyocera
followed, Rollei, Hasselblad and Mamiya are not far behind.
> It isn't - all that's happening with MF
> and LF is that they're becoming amateur-only formats (and the word
"amateur"
> there shouldn't carry any negative connotations, quite the opposite, in
> fact, and I'm also including the fine-art LF landscape guys in that, even
> though they (try to) make money at it).
No, no.
MF (and LF) will become a collector's format. Things to put on shelves.
> >I know it gets old, but i'll say it once again: if the "careful"
> >photographers hope to continue using chemical photography, they better
start
> >learning the alchemist trade.
>
> However, so far your supporting argument for this position appears to
> revolve around the lack of autofocus view cameras and Kodak, the
mass-market
> courting geniuses who brought us 620, Disc and APS, amongst other things,
> losing interest in an oddball slide film that's only been avaialble in the
> consumer-grade format (i.e. 35mm) for ages now anyway.
Now this is getting silly.
If you really think my argument revolves around there not being AF LF
cameras, you really need to start reading this thread again.
Don't put your dislike of what is happening in the industry and market
between you and reality.
Agfa is gone. Fuji film (those new ones) is hard to find. The Kodak (and
Ilford) product range and production have been 'rationalized'. The industry
already has given off massive signs that things are not good. Photofinishing
industry is following suit.
And there are no reasons to believe that a garden shed operation can
continue where companies like Fuji or Kodak will have given up.
In short: "film is dead" is 99% true.
And with it MF and LF, unless they become digital machines that make sense
of the larger format.
The only bit, the final 1% that isn't true is that it isn't dead right now.
The only thing left to debate is when it will be.
> That and the film manufacturers who actually have shown a real interest in
> doing anyhthing other than chasing consumer-imaging behaving in the exact
> kind of way you'd think they wouldn't if they had no interest in
supporting
> the niche markets that MF and LF *already are*.
I don't see it.
But i do see, and have given examples of, the opposite.
> There is money to be made in supplying medium and large format film.
Increasingly less.
And one time sooner or later, there will not be any longer.
> Business, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and if people want to buy film,
> someone with a nose for a profit will be around to sell it to them. If
> nobody else, the Chinese will quite hapilly take our money.
They are smarter than that.
They put their bets on your "next-stage". Extremely sensible.
The vacuum business abhores is that found in a market with no buyers.
You seem to forget (or ignore) that this entire discussion is sparked, made
into something that makes sense, by exactly that vacuum forming.
> >What was going on is that Agfa knew which way film is going. They are one
of
> >the few who got it right.
>
> All indciations are that Agfa Photographic's film business was
*subsidising*
> their digital imaging products, not the other way round.
That must be why Agfa tried so hard to sell the division...
That's why this 'division' applied for bankruptcy today. That's why so many
people lost their jobs this week.
They make enough not only to cover costs, but subsidize Agfa's digital
imaging branch...
And the Moon is made of Edammer.
> I don't see why you seem to be so gloomy about all of this. You present a
> scenario for the sky falling, but it doesn't appear to be grounded in
> observed reality. If it does become impossible to get hold of MF and LF
> film, it won't be for any of the reasons you've outlined in this thread,
> because your reasoning just doesn't make sense.
"Gloomy"?
See, that's the trouble here.
You let your emotions do the talking. You obviously do not like what's
happening enough so to make you say it cannot happen. And things that cannot
happen actualy happening wouldn't make sense, no. I understand, and
commisserate.
"Gloomy?" You are realy showing here.
I'm not gloomy.
I enjoy photography using film. I enjoy how film has improved over the
years. I'll also enjoy photography without film.
I don't seen any reason to be "gloomy".
And that, believe it or not, because i also have no problem embracing
reality (hate to use these words) "as it is".
And i actually have "observed" reality, instead of only wishing for it.
Q.G. de Bakker
> Frankly, I am amazed that there is any revival at all, given your
> forecasts of doom ...
"Doom". A word expressing people's emotion about some possible event. Not
the event itself.
Would you believe that it is possible that the demise of film (whenever that
may be), this event, can be something we need not dread?
I would.
Doesn't mean i don't like film (i do), just that i like photography more.
Now would anyone forecast the end of photography, i will join in the
wailing, don't you worry. ;-)
The Leitmotiv running through all "film is dead" threads is "it cannot be,
it will not be, because we do not want it to be. And even if, some miracle
will happen to make it not so".
And all these same threads have one raison d'etre: the market moving
steadily towards that conclusion.
These "doom"-sayers (i.e. the people saying that acknowledging what is
happening, what is given cause to these discussions, is pessimistic and
defeatist fantasy) are acknowledging just that by joining in the singing of
the Leitmotiv.
"Doom", "pessimistic"... there is no reason why these words should be used
except the "it cannot be [etc.]"-thingy.
Philip Homburg
>LF are, only now, going to be a niche. MF has been a niche since the 1960s
>at least, LF probably since before World War II.
I doubt that niche market is the right word in this context. A niche market
is a small part of the main market. With mass produced goods, it typically
implies a different (hopefully higher) quality at the expense of slower
rate of innovation or adoption of new technologies.
However, for film we are talking about the main market. Producing film
in other formats than the most popular one is not a big problem.
When digital has become the default, film will be a market separate from
'normal' photography. Just like products for oil-paintings are unrelated
to photography.
(Film cameras will be niche market because they share many components with
digital cameras)
Tony Polson
>We are,..... &
>
>I like QG too, if you "git rite" down to it,.... he is correct,
>the ONLY way to insure that you will have photosensitive
>materials is to make them yourself, however nothing is guaranteed
>like the availability silver nitrate and other chemicals. & Then you
>should consider that here in the US and the desert someone might run you
>over in their SUV and then you won't make any pictures any way.
There's nothing like a positive outlook on life, I always say.
;-)
Chris Brown
Gregory Blank <bugst...@gregblankphoto.com> wrote:
>In article <dphjm2-...@narcissus.dyndns.org>,
> Chris Brown <cpb...@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>
>> You keep going on about Kodachrome, a film that's been 35mm only since long
>> before digital was a practical alternative for most uses, produced by one of
>> the less commercily competent film manufacturers, as though it's somehow
>> relevant to the future availability of LF and MF films. It's unclear why.
>
>I would hardly call Kodak less competent. Maybe sometimes less willing
>but they are certainly competent.
I said commercially competent, and they do have an impressive track record
of doing stupid things, such as their occasional (and invariably doomed)
attempts to introduce tiny format films because they think 35mm is too good
for consumers, and their apparent ceding of the medium and large format
transparency market to Fuji.
Gordon Moat
> Gordon Moat wrote:
>
> > > Indeed.
> > > Niche products, held in high esteem by the "careful photographers",
> like,
> > > say, the fabeled Kodachrome...
> > > Oops!
> >
> > Niche products to attract attention to other products, or the brand name.
> Other
> > companies in other industries do that all the time, so why not film
> producers .
> > . . . . . .
>
> Yes, why not?
>
> Meanwhile, film producers are discontinuing their niche products (simply
> because it turns out it doesn't work the way you think it could), and are
> concentrating on keeping (rationalized/restructured) production of their
> 'main stream' products a financial and economic possibility.
> (And now news reaches us that Agfa-Photo has decided it cannot even do
> that.)
Sure, emphasize the popular items. Of course, the biggest sellers are
one-time-use cameras. After that is motion picture film.
>
>
> Nice products, or a "cottage industry" scale photoindustry cannot (!!!) keep
> supply up of the things we would like to have.
> Once the Big Boys decide it's time to quit, that's it.
Still too many complimentary technologies. B/W photographic film is related to
films used for commercial printing. It would not surprise me to see a few films
disappear, but not all at the same time.
As long as Kodak and Fuji continue to produce films that I can find useful to
express my creative vision, then I am fine. I really don't think that will
change much any time soon. Both Kodak and Fuji have released new E-6 products
recently, and both of us know that is a niche market (and always has been).
>
>
> I know it gets old, but i'll say it once again: if the "careful"
> photographers hope to continue using chemical photography, they better start
> learning the alchemist trade.
I have done platinum prints, which is sort of what you are suggesting. Chemical
photo prints, like from a lab, use technology common regardless of digital
image origination or from film.
My guess if your worst case scenario happens soon is that Bergger, Ferenia,
Forte, Efke, Adox, Gigabit and other east European companies will be the
suppliers. The other choice is from the Kodak investment and modernization of
the Lucky Film plants in China. Why should I care if my film comes from China,
or eastern Europe?
>
>
> > > There will be a point at which film manufacturers decide that while it
> had
> > > been fun while it lasted, the time to abandon the chemical way has come.
> > > Agfa, for instance, had already made that decision a few years ago.
> >
> > Though they completely abandoned the digital imaging market first,
> including
> > direct digital cameras.
>
> You must be joking...
>
> Agfa is one of the major players in the field of digital imaging.
You can read the old news items at your leisure. AGFA sold off digital
scanning, and digital camera divisions a few years ago. Those were partly
consumer divisions, though also part of their graphic art division.
>
> Perhaps not in the consumer product market, no. But, would you know, that's
> not all of the digital imaging market?
>
The only "digital" currently at AGFA is products for the graphic arts industry.
No scanners, no scanning backs, and no digital cameras. I know quite well of
their graphic arts products, since I have used them numerous times. The reason
the other "digital" lines were sold off was due to a lack of profits. The
existing graphics arts group is fairly high profit, and combined with medical
imaging accounts for most revenues and profits at the current AGFA company (not
AGFA photo).
>
> > If you really looked at the financials, there was a great deal more going
> on at
> > AGFA than whining about film. Film never failed to generate a profit,
> which is
> > more than can be stated for some of the other endeavours of AGFA.
>
> What was going on is that Agfa knew which way film is going. They are one of
> the few who got it right.
> Unlike companies like Hasselblad or Contax/Kyocera, who let themselves be
> surprised completely by the digital tsunami.
Considering today's news, it has yet to be seen if they really understood all
the financial aspects. Several top executives were involved in the transfer.
The banks and other investors would not have put 1 Euro towards any of that
without a hope of return on investment. If the company executives who brokered
the deal were fraudulent with their information, then I would expect them to be
prosecuted under German (or EU) laws.
Do you think the executives lied about AGFAPhoto potential to line their own
pockets? Could it be simpler that they mismanaged the company? Do you expect
the courts to order AGFAPhoto to liquidate all assets, or to reorganize?
>
>
> > Film still generates profits. Only when there are no more profits, will
> there
> > be no more film.
>
> Or when people in suits and ties decide the profits aren't large enough,
> yes.
>
Sure . . . though Kodak and Fuji are much more than film. Both are
repositioning themselves to address the commercial printing and graphic arts
businesses. Kodak is doing better in that regard, though mostly from purchasing
several companies. Fuji is hurting much more, and until something else
generates profits, I doubt they will cut off anything that does generate
profits.
You have to also consider how the research and development of chemical films
compliment other technologies. Kodak uses that R&D for OLED, while Fuji uses
that technology for LCD display materials. It could happen that both stop
making film and only use the chemical factories for other technologies, but I
don't see that happening any time soon.
>
> > That will not happen in our lifetime. Film might disappear, or
> > become difficult to get, in some market areas, but even that is many years
> from
> > today. Being able to buy film, and wanting to buy film are two different
> > things.
>
> And now we're at the 'right' discussion: *when* will it all happen.
I don't see it happening in the next ten years, if not longer.
>
>
> All this talk about whether it will or not serves no purpose.
Sure it does. If it happens after I am dead, then it doesn't affect my life.
>
>
> And this "if it does we can stick our heads in the sand, ignore it, and wait
> for Superman to come out of retirement, assume the disguise of a
> cottage-industry, and make the 'bad-we-will-not-acknowledge' go
> away"-believe is rather, well... removed from realism, isn't it?
No, I think you are slightly removed from reality. Your idea is a cataclysmic
doom. Why don't you just give away all your film stuff to the other nice people
on this group, and go over to the .digital groups.
Q.G. de Bakker
> I said commercially competent, and they do have an impressive track record
> of doing stupid things, such as their occasional (and invariably doomed)
> attempts to introduce tiny format films because they think 35mm is too
good
> for consumers, and their apparent ceding of the medium and large format
> transparency market to Fuji.
You really need to learn a bit about photoindustry (and Kodak's) history.
"Attempts to introduce tiny formats [etc.]" were what led to Kodak's biggest
commercial successes ever. (Even to Kodak's success, period. It was what
made the tiny Eastman Dry Plate Company into the gigantic Kodak company of
today. Think "Brownie", to begin with.)
Let's just mention some of it.
Instamatic, for starters. Over 70 million units sold in a few years time.
And that were just cameras. The number of films... At the time the average
shooter shot 4 35 mm films a year. The average Instamatic user shot double
the amount.
But you only remember "Disc"?
They sold over 25 million units. Granted, not as big as instamatic, but
hardly a "stupid thing", commercially.
True, they only sold 25 million because at the time 35 mm P&S cameas were
arriving. So Kodak sold ship loads of those too.
You're not really one for knowing these things, are you?
Yet you think you know that Kodak is a foolish company doing stupid things,
like selling awfully huge amounts of their "invariably doomed" products.
You brought up several things that you think photoindustry should do (like
"inceased rationalisation", the layman's answer to everything. Convenient,
since you do not have to say what exactly that would entail), blatantly
oblivious of how photoindustry has 'been there, done that" already.
Claimed that amateurs did not use slide film.
Qoute "quick load" as an innovation.
Get in a huff when it is pointed out to you how photoindustry has dropped
niche products when you claim they are willing to support niche products.
("You keep going on about Kodachrome" - I don't. I keep pointing to where
you are wrong).
Mention Fuji producing new films as evidence that there is live left in it
yet, though also complain you can't find any.
Complain about not finding a place to get your films processed.
Get trampled over by today's news of Agfa Photo going bankrupt.
You're not doing very well, are you?
;-)
Gordon Moat
In other words, if we don't agree with you, then we are delusional? Great that
you have such an open mind and overall vision of things. ;-)
Q.G. de Bakker
> The only "digital" currently at AGFA is products for the graphic arts
industry.
!
Look beyond your horizon before you declare you know the world.
> [...] The
> existing graphics arts group is fairly high profit, and combined with
medical
> imaging accounts for most revenues and profits at the current AGFA company
And that medical imaging is digital. Filmless. In radiology departments in
those parts of the world that can afford to spend lots of money, film is
already very much dead.
Agfa is huge in that market.
> (not AGFA photo).
No, not Agfa photo. They sold that.
> [...]
> Do you think the executives lied about AGFAPhoto potential to line their
own
> pockets? Could it be simpler that they mismanaged the company? Do you
expect
> the courts to order AGFAPhoto to liquidate all assets, or to reorganize?
So do you think Agfa was looking to sell the photo division for so many
years because they expected that keeping it would line their pockets?
They tried to sell it while it still had some value.
They sold it to a group willing to scrape the barrel for that last bit.
Market has moved on, there is no residual value left.
The company shuts own.
As usual, the owners get off smiling, the workforce really suffers.
You can't get a court German, European, or US, to find fault with that.
Alas.
End of story.
> No, I think you are slightly removed from reality. Your idea is a
cataclysmic
> doom. Why don't you just give away all your film stuff to the other nice
people
> on this group, and go over to the .digital groups.
I really have to ask: why do you too think that saying that film will indeed
be dead sooner or later is "cataclysmic doom"?
We on;t light our houses using oil or gas, do we? Was the idea of the people
who brought electric lighting in our homes "cataclysmic doom"?
What is it that feeds this type of reaction to statements of the obvious?
Sure film will die. The only thing not clear is when.
And we, unlike photographers 30 years ago, know why, what it is that will,
no, has (!) come to take its place.
Is that really so frightening? Because if it is, please explain it to me, so
i can be afraid too. I might try a bout of denial too. Maybe i can grow to
like it.
But tell, do you think your art will die just because your images will be
recorded using a sightly different medium?
Q.G. de Bakker
> In other words, if we don't agree with you, then we are delusional?
In your words, yes. Apparently.
> Great that
> you have such an open mind and overall vision of things. ;-)
Yet another example of "i offer my emotions in lieu of arguments".
;-)
Chris Brown
Philip Homburg <phi...@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote:
>
>When digital has become the default, film will be a market separate from
>'normal' photography. Just like products for oil-paintings are unrelated
>to photography.
Bigno, and those products for oil paintings are, guess what, still available.
Q.G. de Bakker
> >When digital has become the default, film will be a market separate from
> >'normal' photography. Just like products for oil-paintings are unrelated
> >to photography.
>
> Bigno, and those products for oil paintings are, guess what, still
available.
True. Because it is as easy as boiling water to make that stuff...
Lamp oil and candles are still available too. So are paint and glass. So we
can still make Magic Lantern and the slides that they take.
I guess that if TV would cease to be, we'll yell out "Bingo!", and start
replacing it by the ones we make ourselves on our kitchen tables.
After all, can't be that hard, can it?
Guess what, not everything is as simple as boiling water.
Gordon Moat
> Gordon Moat wrote:
>
> > The only "digital" currently at AGFA is products for the graphic arts
> industry.
>
> !
> Look beyond your horizon before you declare you know the world.
Okay, so I forgot to mention medical imaging again . . . so sue me. Don't you
make mistakes, or do you just never admit them?
>
>
> > [...] The
> > existing graphics arts group is fairly high profit, and combined with
> medical
> > imaging accounts for most revenues and profits at the current AGFA company
>
> And that medical imaging is digital. Filmless. In radiology departments in
> those parts of the world that can afford to spend lots of money, film is
> already very much dead.
> Agfa is huge in that market.
Not a consumer market.
>
>
> > (not AGFA photo).
>
> No, not Agfa photo. They sold that.
>
> > [...]
> > Do you think the executives lied about AGFAPhoto potential to line their
> own
> > pockets? Could it be simpler that they mismanaged the company? Do you
> expect
> > the courts to order AGFAPhoto to liquidate all assets, or to reorganize?
>
> So do you think Agfa was looking to sell the photo division for so many
> years because they expected that keeping it would line their pockets?
How would a group of executives convince banks and other investors to put money
towards a division?
Were the profits real at that time, or were they faked for the benefit of the
investors?
Why was that division and all assets not liquidated at that time? According to
financial documents of that time, the value of the assets was greater than the
sale, which implies that they could have simply liquidated that division for
nearly the same revenues. Please explain that one.
>
>
> They tried to sell it while it still had some value.
> They sold it to a group willing to scrape the barrel for that last bit.
They bullshitted investors to forking over cash . . . is basically what you are
stating. Do you really think all the investors were that stupid?
>
> Market has moved on, there is no residual value left.
> The company shuts own.
> As usual, the owners get off smiling, the workforce really suffers.
> You can't get a court German, European, or US, to find fault with that.
I am waiting on this one. Similar to the recent MG / Rover debacle, I expect
some investigation will happen. You just watch, if liquidation happens instead
of reorganization, someone will sue and take this to court.
>
> Alas.
> End of story.
Yeah . . . big f'''ing deal . . . who cares . . . . . . . . . right? You must
be happy with yourself.
The only AGFA film I made any regular use of was APX100. Of course, there is
enough of that on the current market to last a few years, even if today was the
last batch to ever be made. Also, it is not special enough that I cannot use
something else.
>
>
> > No, I think you are slightly removed from reality. Your idea is a
> cataclysmic
> > doom. Why don't you just give away all your film stuff to the other nice
> people
> > on this group, and go over to the .digital groups.
>
> I really have to ask: why do you too think that saying that film will indeed
> be dead sooner or later is "cataclysmic doom"?
The manner in which you are making your statements indicates today, not some
time in the future. Every time someone puts a time frame of years (one to ten,
or more) on this, you go off on them and tell them they are wrong. That is
"cataclysmic doom", the idea that today is the earthquake tsunami volcano that
sucks all film into a hole from which it will never again reappear. It is not
my opinion of your statement, it is my opinion of you.
>
> We on;t light our houses using oil or gas, do we? Was the idea of the people
> who brought electric lighting in our homes "cataclysmic doom"?
> What is it that feeds this type of reaction to statements of the obvious?
You do. You debunk any notion that we can buy film next year, or even next
month. If you would state, five years, ten years, any time frame, then maybe
more people would not find your writings so extreme. So pick a time frame, and
stick to it.
I don't do analogies, and history has shown that technology is only one factor
in change, and it never happens on a global scale, always regional, and in
stages. I can still buy oil paints, and canvas. Those are obviously passed up
by all major imaging technologies, yet I can still go to any art store in any
big city, and buy them. I even know how to make my own oil paints, but I don't
have to because I can just buy them.
>
>
> Sure film will die. The only thing not clear is when.
> And we, unlike photographers 30 years ago, know why, what it is that will,
> no, has (!) come to take its place.
So pick a year. Why is it so tough for you to just stick to a number?
>
>
> Is that really so frightening?
What, that you are such an ass?
> Because if it is, please explain it to me, so
> i can be afraid too. I might try a bout of denial too. Maybe i can grow to
> like it.
I state ten years before we will not be able to get good E-6 emulsions from
anyone, or no longer be able to get processing. I will make this easy for you,
pick sooner or later . . . no explanation needed.
>
>
> But tell, do you think your art will die just because your images will be
> recorded using a sightly different medium?
Of course not. I still exhibit oil paintings. Are they "dead" because the
technology of oil painting is not a major market? In fact, I exhibit Polaroid
works too . . . and didn't they go bankrupt just a few years ago. How am I able
to buy Polaroid films, and how is it that they even introduced a new emulsion?
Why did Fuji enter the instant peel apart film market in North America
recently?
Why does it have to be 100% with you? I think a steady decline is a reasonable
expectation. Will my ability to create be impacted . . . . then the answer is
no. My choices might change, or be more limited, by I don't see that destroying
what I am capable of creating. If I only had one film, in one size, from one
country, I could probably still find an interesting way to express myself with
that limitation.
I have been doing digital imaging since late 1994, and I continue to do digital
imaging. It has advantages, and disadvantages. Film still works better for me
in many ways to match my creative vision. Direct digital gets better every
year, but I am not yet ready again to fork over a large amount of cash for any
of the products today. Maybe that will change next year, or maybe five years or
more (my guess is 2008). At the point when I have no complaints about direct
digital imaging, I will make that a dominant part of my creative vision.
All this comes down to time. Pick a year and stick to it.
Gordon Moat
Pick a year Q.G.
Gregory Blank
Tony Polson <t...@nospam.net> wrote:
I prefer sarcastic as opposed to down right pessimism and yes
I think he is still being an alarmist. As for Agfa, I wish them all the
best,... the workers that is. If someone had ask me 12 months who would
go first it would be certainly have been Agfa, not Ilford.
The most positive thing I can leave anyone with is a simple statement:
which is, if you like a product buy as much as you can as often as you
can and maybe some corporate bean counter won't decide to cut it from
production before you have had your fill. Now That's optimism ;-)
Q.G. de Bakker
> [...]. Please explain that one.
>
> [...] Do you really think all the investors were that stupid?
They say "The company's sales have been hit hard by the boom in the digital
photography segment."
So you decide if anybody is that stupid to believe that.
I don't really care.
The point was again?
> I am waiting on this one. Similar to the recent MG / Rover debacle, I
expect
> some investigation will happen. You just watch, if liquidation happens
instead
> of reorganization, someone will sue and take this to court.
I will watch. I wil not hold my breath waiting.
> Yeah . . . big f'''ing deal . . . who cares . . . . . . . . . right? You
must
> be happy with yourself.
???
What is up with you?
> The only AGFA film I made any regular use of was APX100. Of course, there
is
> enough of that on the current market to last a few years, even if today
was the
> last batch to ever be made. Also, it is not special enough that I cannot
use
> something else.
> The manner in which you are making your statements indicates today, not
some
> time in the future.
This is beyond silly.
I have said over and again that the only thing we do not know, the only
thing to debate is *when* film will die.
> Every time someone puts a time frame of years (one to ten,
> or more) on this, you go off on them and tell them they are wrong.
Better start reading this thread. Perhaps you should use paper and pencil to
take notes so you not get lost?
> That is
> "cataclysmic doom", the idea that today is the earthquake tsunami volcano
that
> sucks all film into a hole from which it will never again reappear. It is
not
> my opinion of your statement, it is my opinion of you.
Those apparently are words, and opinions, of you, yes.
Get a grip...
> You do. You debunk any notion that we can buy film next year, or even next
> month. If you would state, five years, ten years, any time frame, then
maybe
> more people would not find your writings so extreme. So pick a time frame,
and
> stick to it.
You really have lost it. I'm sorry.
I'll put it all to you once more. It's very simple: "Film will die". That's
a certainty.
"What we do not know is when". That's a certainty too.
So no, i will not pick a time frame. We can talk about it, if you wish.
After all (take note), it is all that is left to debate.
I will leave making silly uninformed statements like the one you demand of
me to other people.
Reading this thread shows there is ample supply of those who will all too
gladly.
> I don't do analogies, and history has shown that technology is only one
factor
> in change, and it never happens on a global scale, always regional, and in
> stages. I can still buy oil paints, and canvas. Those are obviously passed
up
> by all major imaging technologies, yet I can still go to any art store in
any
> big city, and buy them. I even know how to make my own oil paints, but I
don't
> have to because I can just buy them.
Yes.
That point i addressed (again) in a recent reply to Chris.
> > Sure film will die. The only thing not clear is when. [...]
>
> So pick a year. Why is it so tough for you to just stick to a number?
Can you read and understand "not clear"?
> What, that you are such an ass?
Your really are a master of the fine arts...
> > Because if it is, please explain it to me, so
> > i can be afraid too. I might try a bout of denial too. Maybe i can grow
to
> > like it.
>
> I state ten years before we will not be able to get good E-6 emulsions
from
> anyone, or no longer be able to get processing. I will make this easy for
you,
> pick sooner or later . . . no explanation needed.
This gibbesrish is explaining why the prospect of film becoming a thing of
the past is frightening people???
Say, do you think film will die?
And do you know when that will be?
> > But tell, do you think your art will die just because your images will
be
> > recorded using a sightly different medium?
>
> Of course not.
So why do you think "doom" when one medium apears to be becoming a thing of
the past?
> I still exhibit oil paintings. Are they "dead" because the
> technology of oil painting is not a major market?
Are they dead because they still exist? What silly questions you pose.
Why aren't they dead, and will that same reason keep film alive?
Address that point, and you'll begin to make sense again.
> In fact, I exhibit Polaroid
> works too . . . and didn't they go bankrupt just a few years ago.
They were bought by Fuji, yes.
> How am I able
> to buy Polaroid films,
You are not. You are buying Fuji films.
Just like people still are buying "Agfa" films.
>and how is it that they even introduced a new emulsion?
> Why did Fuji enter the instant peel apart film market in North America
> recently?
How is it that Agfa sold their chemical photography to Agfa Photo?
Why is it that they... oh no, they didn't. They went bankrupt.
> Why does it have to be 100% with you?
What makes you believe that?
> I think a steady decline is a reasonable
> expectation.
So do i.
So we're back talking about the "when". Good.
Does that also mean you lost that inane urge to demand to know a definite
date for something was ais impssoible to date definitely?
> Will my ability to create be impacted . . . . then the answer is
> no. My choices might change, or be more limited, by I don't see that
destroying
> what I am capable of creating. If I only had one film, in one size, from
one
> country, I could probably still find an interesting way to express myself
with
> that limitation.
Right. My thoughts exactly.
Also why i can't understand why you use the term doom, others talk about
pessimism, etc.
There is nothing to be afraid of.
Acknowledging that the use of images and the way we produce images will
change, in fact has changed enough to turn the industry already, is no
reason to deny the painfully (ask those 2,500 workers now left without
income) obvious.
Of course film will die. A bit of it has today.
It's really quite unbelievable that people do not see that. What utter and
complete imbecile must anyone be not to?
The answer to that is in all the posts above. And no, i do not think it is a
matter of being imbeciles. It's (in short) a matter of not wanting to.
> I have been doing digital imaging since late 1994, and I continue to do
digital
> imaging. It has advantages, and disadvantages. Film still works better for
me
> in many ways to match my creative vision. Direct digital gets better every
> year, but I am not yet ready again to fork over a large amount of cash for
any
> of the products today. Maybe that will change next year, or maybe five
years or
> more (my guess is 2008). At the point when I have no complaints about
direct
> digital imaging, I will make that a dominant part of my creative vision.
Indeed.
One thing to add to that is the question if, once enough people decided to
do the same, the remaining market will be able to sustain the industry at
the necessary level, i.e. the question whether a "cottage industry" can keep
these things alive.
My answer to this i have stated quite a few times already. But here it is
again: Yes. But not at the level of product quality/sophistication we are
used to, and/or perhaps need. We will need to put a lot of effort into it
ourselves too. Learn to mix and pour... etc.
> All this comes down to time. Pick a year and stick to it.
And there i was thinking you had regained your usual good judgement again...
;-)
Q.G. de Bakker
> Pick a year Q.G.
Explain why, and how that could make sense, Gordon.
Gordon Moat
> Gordon Moat wrote:
>
> > [...]. Please explain that one.
> >
> > [...] Do you really think all the investors were that stupid?
>
> They say "The company's sales have been hit hard by the boom in the digital
> photography segment."
>
> So you decide if anybody is that stupid to believe that.
> I don't really care.
>
> The point was again?
Bad management could have brought the company down faster than the affects of
digital photography.
>
>
> . . . . . . . . .
>
> So no, i will not pick a time frame. We can talk about it, if you wish.
> After all (take note), it is all that is left to debate.
Yet you don't want to "debate" on that.
>
> . . . . . . . . .
>
> Say, do you think film will die?
Decline, not die. Maybe that is our difference / debate.
>
> And do you know when that will be?
My best guess is within ten years. Quite a bit can happen in that time frame.
>
>
> > > But tell, do you think your art will die just because your images will
> be
> > > recorded using a sightly different medium?
> >
> > Of course not.
>
> So why do you think "doom" when one medium apears to be becoming a thing of
> the past?
I don't, but your presentation of events implies "doom". I don't agree with
that. There is no "doom", simply things are as they appear.
>
>
> > I still exhibit oil paintings. Are they "dead" because the
> > technology of oil painting is not a major market?
>
> Are they dead because they still exist? What silly questions you pose.
> Why aren't they dead, and will that same reason keep film alive?
Finally, a realistic question. Your statements imply film is dead without major
players and major markets. What prevents small companies from making 100 year
old technology? Maybe you think that is not E-6 films, but why not E-6 films
from small companies?
So what will keep film "alive" . . . the same thing that keeps oil paints
alive: a desire to use such things to create. The point when that is not
practical is when the sources are so few, or far away, that time to produce
those photographic images becomes too long to bother. Of course, someone always
will "bother" in our lifetime . . . . . not dead, maybe a steady decline, and
then very difficult. It might not be me that bothers, but I will wait to decide
that until that point occurs.
>
> Address that point, and you'll begin to make sense again.
"Dead" to me means vanished with nothing left. "Decline" means a reduction,
which I think is more accurate. If this thread had been titled "The Decline of
Film", do you think the activity would have been as high?
>
>
> > In fact, I exhibit Polaroid
> > works too . . . and didn't they go bankrupt just a few years ago.
>
> They were bought by Fuji, yes.
Actually, Petters Group Worldwide:
>
>
> > How am I able
> > to buy Polaroid films,
>
> You are not. You are buying Fuji films.
I don't buy any Polaroid films that are not instant films; Fuji licenses the
instant film technology. Their instant films are slightly different from
Polaroid emulsions. The greatest difference is actually in the paper backing
(not really paper on the Fuji instant), and the all plastic carrier for the
pack films. The Fuji instant is made in Japan, while the Polaroid instant films
are made in Mexico.
The other Polaroid branded 35 mm and APS films are mostly Fuji. They are
strictly consumer products.
>
> Just like people still are buying "Agfa" films.
Different situation, and quite often those other-branded films, like store name
brands. Maybe that hurt AGFA, in that their name was too transparent.
>
>
> >and how is it that they even introduced a new emulsion?
> > Why did Fuji enter the instant peel apart film market in North America
> > recently?
>
> How is it that Agfa sold their chemical photography to Agfa Photo?
> Why is it that they... oh no, they didn't. They went bankrupt.
>
> > Why does it have to be 100% with you?
>
> What makes you believe that?
Your unyielding approach, and using "dead". Last time I checked "dead" was a
100% thing. I don't believe in coming back from the dead. So if film is "dead",
that means total, now, and never to return. If you stated "film is dying", I
would agree with you; financial information (facts) support that view.
>
>
> > I think a steady decline is a reasonable
> > expectation.
>
> So do i.
> So we're back talking about the "when". Good.
> Does that also mean you lost that inane urge to demand to know a definite
> date for something was ais impssoible to date definitely?
Not entirely. It is good to have informed opinions of what might happen in the
future. "Film is dead" statements today tell me nothing about the future, and
nothing about choices.
>
>
> > Will my ability to create be impacted . . . . then the answer is
> > no. My choices might change, or be more limited, by I don't see that
> destroying
> > what I am capable of creating. If I only had one film, in one size, from
> one
> > country, I could probably still find an interesting way to express myself
> with
> > that limitation.
>
> Right. My thoughts exactly.
>
> Also why i can't understand why you use the term doom, others talk about
> pessimism, etc.
"Dead" is a dark term, and equates well with the term "doom". "Decline" is a
term that equates less well with "doom".
>
> There is nothing to be afraid of.
Agreed. There is nothing unknown.
>
> Acknowledging that the use of images and the way we produce images will
> change, in fact has changed enough to turn the industry already, is no
> reason to deny the painfully (ask those 2,500 workers now left without
> income) obvious.
>
> Of course film will die. A bit of it has today.
> It's really quite unbelievable that people do not see that. What utter and
> complete imbecile must anyone be not to?
There you go with the absolutes again. Why not just switch to using the word
"decline" instead of "die", or "dead"?
>
> The answer to that is in all the posts above. And no, i do not think it is a
> matter of being imbeciles. It's (in short) a matter of not wanting to.
It does not matter to some if film declines. Some may moan about a favourite
emulsion going away, but the reality is that there are no technical hurdles to
prevent film being available in our lifetimes. Definitely not all the film
emulsions we have today, but do we really need that many choices?
>
>
> > I have been doing digital imaging since late 1994, and I continue to do
> digital
> > imaging. It has advantages, and disadvantages. Film still works better for
> me
> > in many ways to match my creative vision. Direct digital gets better every
> > year, but I am not yet ready again to fork over a large amount of cash for
> any
> > of the products today. Maybe that will change next year, or maybe five
> years or
> > more (my guess is 2008). At the point when I have no complaints about
> direct
> > digital imaging, I will make that a dominant part of my creative vision.
>
> Indeed.
>
> One thing to add to that is the question if, once enough people decided to
> do the same, the remaining market will be able to sustain the industry at
> the necessary level, i.e. the question whether a "cottage industry" can keep
> these things alive.
A cottage industry could not meet current demand. The small companies can only
meet a greatly reduced demand. The small companies also might be able to
produce nice B/W films, but struggle to make any good colour films.
>
> My answer to this i have stated quite a few times already. But here it is
> again: Yes. But not at the level of product quality/sophistication we are
> used to, and/or perhaps need. We will need to put a lot of effort into it
> ourselves too. Learn to mix and pour... etc.
I am okay with B/W films, if that is the only choice. In fact, I think the
quality from some of the very small companies is at a good level. With E-6 it
is a very different story. This has been a small volume product for many years
(except movie industry), and the very latest might be quite difficult to
reproduce.
Of course, that assumes that the small companies can not be innovative, or
reverse engineer a product. That would point to little faith in those companies
doing anything better in the next several years. Seems a bit too pessimistic a
view for me to agree. I don't think products out of China, India, or eastern
Europe show much of any quality today (rarely), but I think they will get
better in the future.
>
>
> > All this comes down to time. Pick a year and stick to it.
>
> And there i was thinking you had regained your usual good judgement again...
> ;-)
Okay, so you don't want to put a time frame on it. My feeling is that some best
guess time frame gives people time to adjust and plan ahead. You are well read,
and it does not seem that taking a risk at being wrong would be that bad a
consequence of picking a date in the future. Anyway, about all we seem to agree
on is that film production is in decline.
Gordon Moat
It would give an opportunity for your well read, and well researched,
knowledge to empower others. That empowerment could provide a future
direction and plan of action. If you know film is "dead", then you
should know how quick the "decline" is happening; putting a number on it
is only a small step more.
;-)
Nicholas O. Lindan
> Bad management could have brought the company down faster than the affects of
> digital photography.
"Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Oscar Wilde
Unfortunately for Oscar the Marquis of Queensbury
was well supplied with both.
Maybe we can rephrase for our discussion:
"Never attribute to market forces that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Any consultant who has
listened to the executive
staff explain why their
company is tanking.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/
Q.G. de Bakker
> Bad management could have brought the company down faster than the affects
of
> digital photography.
Yes. Could have.
> > Say, do you think film will die?
>
> Decline, not die. Maybe that is our difference / debate.
Hmm.. would be a new debate.
> > And do you know when that will be?
>
> My best guess is within ten years. Quite a bit can happen in that time
frame.
So you too can only guess.
Why were you insisting on a date being named?
> > So why do you think "doom" when one medium apears to be becoming a thing
of
> > the past?
>
> I don't, but your presentation of events implies "doom".
Is it that hard to understand that the "doom" you see is not in the thing
you see, but in the way you feel about it?
I don't have any problem with the way things are going. Let alone feelings
so strong that they would make me want to deny what is so obviously
happening.
The "doom" is all yours.
I never presented a doom scenario. Just described what was happening,
pointing out that some views expressed here were pure fantasy while i went
along.
That some people do not want the things happening to be true
> I don't agree with
> that. There is no "doom", simply things are as they appear.
Goodness me!
So please do have a long hard think, and try to find out why you saw "doom"
in the first place.
Like i said above: the doom is all yours!
> > Are they dead because they still exist? What silly questions you pose.
> > Why aren't they dead, and will that same reason keep film alive?
>
> Finally, a realistic question.
Excuse me?
What have you been smoking...
> Your statements imply film is dead without major
> players and major markets. What prevents small companies from making 100
year
> old technology?
Would you be so kind and read what i actually said? Not what you rather
believe i said?
Begin at the beginning.
The answer to that is right there. And it's not that idiotic spectre of doom
you apparently like to see so badly.
> Maybe you think that is not E-6 films, but why not E-6 films
> from small companies?
Because some things (E6 too, or not?) can not be made by small companies.
Not unless they charge prohibitively large amounts, i.e. not.
"Cataclysmic doom"?
> "Dead" to me means vanished with nothing left. "Decline" means a
reduction,
> which I think is more accurate.
A very fine distinction.
You apparently can still get 620 film. But would you say it is "alive"?
>If this thread had been titled "The Decline of
> Film", do you think the activity would have been as high?
Quite frankly, yes.
It would have drawn the same rabid response of the people not wanting it to
be even considered a possibility.
> Actually, Petters Group Worldwide:
>
>
<http://www.polaroid.com/global/printer_friendly.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845
524441763479&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302028583>
Aha!
> > > How am I able
> > > to buy Polaroid films,
> >
> > You are not. You are buying Fuji films.
>
> I don't buy any Polaroid films that are not instant films; Fuji licenses
the
> instant film technology. Their instant films are slightly different from
> Polaroid emulsions. The greatest difference is actually in the paper
backing
> (not really paper on the Fuji instant), and the all plastic carrier for
the
> pack films. The Fuji instant is made in Japan, while the Polaroid instant
films
> are made in Mexico.
I will ammend what i said: "You are not. You are buying Petters' film."
;-)
May seem a silly distinction, but it is as significant as Agfa film being
Agfa Photo Group film.
We can't ignore what has happened on the business/commercial side of things,
even though the actual products may be the same.
After all, this entire "film will die" thing is just, and only, that: a
business/commercial thing.
> > Just like people still are buying "Agfa" films.
>
> Different situation, [...]
Well, no.
Same thing: a company producing and selling a product, not making enough
money doing so.
Might be due to bad management, of course. Might be because of something
else too.
How long can we keep blaming management for the things that consumers do?
> > > Why does it have to be 100% with you?
> >
> > What makes you believe that?
>
> Your unyielding approach,
That? Yes, you have me there. I do indeed not accept ludricous sentiments
for gospel truth.
> and using "dead". Last time I checked "dead" was a
> 100% thing.
So you (!) are the 100% man!
See my 620 film question above.
> I don't believe in coming back from the dead. So if film is "dead",
> that means total, now, and never to return. If you stated "film is dying",
I
> would agree with you; financial information (facts) support that view.
Just curious, what would you suppose "dying" means if the end of it is not
death?
> > So do i.
> > So we're back talking about the "when". Good.
> > Does that also mean you lost that inane urge to demand to know a
definite
> > date for something was ais impssoible to date definitely?
>
> Not entirely. It is good to have informed opinions of what might happen in
the
> future. "Film is dead" statements today tell me nothing about the future,
and
> nothing about choices.
And you very clearly missed the many times i said that just that (the
"when"-question) was the only thing left debating, yes.
Anyhow, this demanding to have a definite date named (too) is an extremely
silly thing.
We don't know.
> "Dead" is a dark term, and equates well with the term "doom". "Decline" is
a
> term that equates less well with "doom".
Now who are you fooling...
;-)
Ala "Lets call "tuberculosis" TB and it is a less offensive condition (see
how i carefully avoided the use of another word that might frighten us?)"?
Do you know Shakespeare's "by any other name"?
> > There is nothing to be afraid of.
>
> Agreed. There is nothing unknown.
Oh, but there is!
Quaint how you equate "nothing to be afraid" of with "nothing unknown".
There are still may unknowns (When? How suddenly/gradually? What will be
thrown back too? Will we still mind, or will our very own changed habits
contribute to the thing? And so on).
There's just nothing to be afraid of.
> > Of course film will die. A bit of it has today.
> > It's really quite unbelievable that people do not see that. What utter
and
> > complete imbecile must anyone be not to?
>
> There you go with the absolutes again. Why not just switch to using the
word
> "decline" instead of "die", or "dead"?
I'm sorry, but i'm not that easily fooled.
Not that easily scared either. "Absolutes"?
> > The answer to that is in all the posts above. And no, i do not think it
is a
> > matter of being imbeciles. It's (in short) a matter of not wanting to.
>
> It does not matter to some if film declines. Some may moan about a
favourite
> emulsion going away, but the reality is that there are no technical
hurdles to
> prevent film being available in our lifetimes.
How wonderfully vage, and already 100% (how's that for an "absolute"?) true.
After all, we have film now, and now is within our lifetimes.
Indeed, it does not matter to some.
Some may indeed moan about a favourite emulsion going away
And (you left that bit out) others still will demand to hear proof in the
form of a definite date, will not have any of it anyway, and start talking
gibberish about "doom" (of the "cataclysmic" variety).
> Definitely not all the film
> emulsions we have today, but do we really need that many choices?
Good question.
But would you please direct it first to those who think (know for sure even)
that your "definitely" is 'absolutist', 'pessimistic' and "cataclysmic
doom"?
;-)
> A cottage industry could not meet current demand. The small companies can
only
> meet a greatly reduced demand. The small companies also might be able to
> produce nice B/W films, but struggle to make any good colour films.
They may also struggle to make it commercially viable. Making good things
requires investment. And without the economics of scale...
> I am okay with B/W films, if that is the only choice. In fact, I think the
> quality from some of the very small companies is at a good level.
Apropos small companies, when did anyone buy their first/last Gigabit film?
Some small companies' quality products only exist on paper.
;-)
LR Kalajainen
event on my little digital 3.2 mp camera so we could share the pics by
email with distant family members. I also shot it on 35mm color print
film and on my 645 Fuji rangefinder loaded with B&W. For immediate
gratification and sharing, the digital is terrific. But when my
grandson grows up, the color print film will still be around for him to
enjoy, and when his grandson grows up, he'll be able to see what his
grandfather looked like at birth on the B&W. For his sake--that unborn
descendent several generations hence-- I hope film doesn't die.
johnboy
processing shop and suffered good-naturedly their bad "film is dead" rants.
I have known these folks for fifteen years and like them.
Some of their comments are important because they are thoroughly immersed in
the average consumer's perspective; - first, film processing is 20% of what
it was just a few years ago. They no longer accept trade-ins of any kind
whatsoever and sell only spendy pocketsized P&S film cameras and the rest is
all digital. The average person is just thrilled with 4mp, rarely prints
anything, a few people every year lose their whole collection due to
catastrophic computer failures and they just shrug it off; and the
price-point for "a great" digital camera is $900.
Like I said, that's the 'average' consumer's view. Remember, these people
make the market and the high-end consumer rides on its tails.
Oh, they are considering getting me a digital back for the Hasselblad, just
as a favor, and to see what I think of it. I told them up front that I don't
like to carry anything but a pocket of film - no batteries, laptop computers
or auxilary drives and the look on their face showed that the light had
dawned.
Chris Brown
Q.G. de Bakker <q...@tiscali.nl> wrote:
>
>You really need to learn a bit about photoindustry (and Kodak's) history.
Coming from someone who seems to think that the lack of autofocus view
cameras, and slowing sales of a 35mm-only emulsion, are somehow sure signs
of the terminal decline of medium and large format photography, you'll
forgive me if I take that with a pinch of salt.
>Claimed that amateurs did not use slide film.
I did no such thing - amateur photographers are probably the largest users
of slide film.
>Mention Fuji producing new films as evidence that there is live left in it
>yet, though also complain you can't find any.
Velvia 100 can't be found yet because it *isn't on sale yet*, what with it
being a *newly announced product*.
>Complain about not finding a place to get your films processed.
Given that I can get all my films processed 50 metres from my front door at
a lab that does 35mm, 120 and 4x5 E6, C41 and B&W on a 4-hour service, it's
not at all clear where you get this idea from. Probably the same place you
got the idea about autofocus view cameras.
Chris Brown
>> except the "it cannot be [etc.]"-thingy.
>
>In other words, if we don't agree with you, then we are delusional? Great that
>you have such an open mind and overall vision of things. ;-)
Quite a visionary though, you have to admit, what with his visionary ideas
for precision engineered autofocus view cameras, and the suggestion that
businesses in an increasingly competitive photography market are all about
to up-sticks and drop the one activity which is almost entirely profit for
them - film production, when there's still significant market demand for it,
so they can concentrate on getting their arses kicked by Nokia.
He ought to be one of those CEOs or something.
Gordon Moat
> Gordon Moat wrote:
>
> > Bad management could have brought the company down faster than the affects
> of
> > digital photography.
>
> Yes. Could have.
>
> > > Say, do you think film will die?
> >
> > Decline, not die. Maybe that is our difference / debate.
>
> Hmm.. would be a new debate.
>
> > > And do you know when that will be?
> >
> > My best guess is within ten years. Quite a bit can happen in that time
> frame.
>
> So you too can only guess.
> Why were you insisting on a date being named?
Can anyone really know the future? Obviously any prediction is just a best
"guess". Even your statement / prediction of "the death of film" is only your
best guess at the moment.
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
>
> Because some things (E6 too, or not?) can not be made by small companies.
Okay, so you do not have any faith in the ability of small companies to make
certain products (like E-6 films).
>
> Not unless they charge prohibitively large amounts, i.e. not.
> "Cataclysmic doom"?
>
> > "Dead" to me means vanished with nothing left. "Decline" means a
> reduction,
> > which I think is more accurate.
>
> A very fine distinction.
> You apparently can still get 620 film. But would you say it is "alive"?
Good example. Since it is possible to get it, then it is "alive". If it were
not possible to get it, then it would be "dead". A better example is that old
Polaroid instant roll film, like they made for the Pathfinder cameras, which
has been dead for many years.
>
>
> >If this thread had been titled "The Decline of
> > Film", do you think the activity would have been as high?
>
> Quite frankly, yes.
> It would have drawn the same rabid response of the people not wanting it to
> be even considered a possibility.
>
> > Actually, Petters Group Worldwide:
> >
> >
> <http://www.polaroid.com/global/printer_friendly.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845
> 524441763479&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302028583>
>
> Aha!
>
> > > > How am I able
> > > > to buy Polaroid films,
> > >
> > > You are not. You are buying Fuji films.
> >
> > I don't buy any Polaroid films that are not instant films; Fuji licenses
> the
> > instant film technology. Their instant films are slightly different from
> > Polaroid emulsions. The greatest difference is actually in the paper
> backing
> > (not really paper on the Fuji instant), and the all plastic carrier for
> the
> > pack films. The Fuji instant is made in Japan, while the Polaroid instant
> films
> > are made in Mexico.
>
> I will ammend what i said: "You are not. You are buying Petters' film."
> ;-)
>
Okay ;-)
>
> May seem a silly distinction, but it is as significant as Agfa film being
> Agfa Photo Group film.
> We can't ignore what has happened on the business/commercial side of things,
> even though the actual products may be the same.
> After all, this entire "film will die" thing is just, and only, that: a
> business/commercial thing.
Meaning the business (or big business) of film will die? Does that imply a
change to very limited products as part of a "cottage industry"?
>
>
> > > Just like people still are buying "Agfa" films.
> >
> > Different situation, [...]
>
> Well, no.
> Same thing: a company producing and selling a product, not making enough
> money doing so.
> Might be due to bad management, of course. Might be because of something
> else too.
> How long can we keep blaming management for the things that consumers do?
When we read news stories and financial reports of corporate wrong, how can we
only blame consumers?
Goldman Sachs just got burned for some recent financial dealings in the US.
Maybe a little surprising, but Goldman Sachs were also the deal maker for the
AGFA to AGFA Photo financial arrangements, and advised the investors who put up
the capitol. That is just one aspect of how I cannot only blame consumers.
>
>
> > > > Why does it have to be 100% with you?
> > >
> > > What makes you believe that?
> >
> > Your unyielding approach,
>
> That? Yes, you have me there. I do indeed not accept ludricous sentiments
> for gospel truth.
>
> > and using "dead". Last time I checked "dead" was a
> > 100% thing.
>
> So you (!) are the 100% man!
>
> See my 620 film question above.
Funny that I have two rolls at the moment. Of course the old Kodak box camera
they go to has not been produced for decades.
>
>
> > I don't believe in coming back from the dead. So if film is "dead",
> > that means total, now, and never to return. If you stated "film is dying",
> I
> > would agree with you; financial information (facts) support that view.
>
> Just curious, what would you suppose "dying" means if the end of it is not
> death?
Dying is a condition / process, while death is a final result. Just like
someone terminally ill might be given months to live, even doctors are making a
best guess; they can be wrong, or the timing might be off. State that someone /
something is dying, presents three possible outcomes: stability, recovery, or
death. How long any of those take is still just a guess.
>
> Anyhow, this demanding to have a definite date named (too) is an extremely
> silly thing.
> We don't know.
>
> > "Dead" is a dark term, and equates well with the term "doom". "Decline" is
> a
> > term that equates less well with "doom".
>
> Now who are you fooling...
> ;-)
>
> Ala "Lets call "tuberculosis" TB and it is a less offensive condition (see
> how i carefully avoided the use of another word that might frighten us?)"?
Silly analogy Q.G.
>
> Do you know Shakespeare's "by any other name"?
Do you know this statement:
"Nothing more difficult than to invent a new system, nothing more dangerous,
since the possibilities for success are few. Whoever wants to build a new
system makes enemies of all those who benefited and had privileges in the old
system, and will receive little support from those that will derive the most
benefit from the new order. Their reservation is due on the one hand to their
fear of those that oppose them, the defenders of the old regime, and on the
other, their scepticism; they don't believe in the new as long as its
superiority has not been proven"
>
>
> > > There is nothing to be afraid of.
> >
> > Agreed. There is nothing unknown.
>
> Oh, but there is!
>
> Quaint how you equate "nothing to be afraid" of with "nothing unknown".
I fear nothing, and having been "dead" three times, and then came back, I am
one of the few people who can make that statement. People should look more at
the big things of life and not worry about little shit. Terms like "dead" or
"love" are strong terms better left for humans, not some inanimate object.
The only thing I believe anyone should fear is the unknown, since that can be
useful for a survival instinct. Film is not a life threatening issue, so there
is nothing to "fear" in that.
It is interesting how you choose mostly to use very definitive projective terms
in your statements. It is not what you say that causes these debates, but how
you state things. If you really think using the word "decline" in your
statements (rather than "death") would have caused just as much discussion,
then why didn't you write it that way?
>
> . . . . . . . . . .
>
> > > Of course film will die. A bit of it has today.
> > > It's really quite unbelievable that people do not see that. What utter
> and
> > > complete imbecile must anyone be not to?
> >
> > There you go with the absolutes again. Why not just switch to using the
> word
> > "decline" instead of "die", or "dead"?
>
> I'm sorry, but i'm not that easily fooled.
> Not that easily scared either. "Absolutes"?
You implied that people who did not "see that" were "imbeciles". That is an
"absolute" that talks down to others, and implies that you see yourself at a
level above others.
Death is absolute. Dead is absolute. Decline is a state of change. Is that so
difficult for you to understand?
>
>
> > > The answer to that is in all the posts above. And no, i do not think it
> is a
> > > matter of being imbeciles. It's (in short) a matter of not wanting to.
> >
> > It does not matter to some if film declines. Some may moan about a
> favourite
> > emulsion going away, but the reality is that there are no technical
> hurdles to
> > prevent film being available in our lifetimes.
>
> How wonderfully vage, and already 100% (how's that for an "absolute"?) true.
> After all, we have film now, and now is within our lifetimes.
So is next year for many of us. Even ten years from now could be within many of
our lifetimes. Is that what you mean by too vague?
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
> > Definitely not all the film
> > emulsions we have today, but do we really need that many choices?
>
> Good question.
> But would you please direct it first to those who think (know for sure even)
> that your "definitely" is 'absolutist', 'pessimistic' and "cataclysmic
> doom"?
> ;-)
>
> > A cottage industry could not meet current demand. The small companies can
> only
> > meet a greatly reduced demand. The small companies also might be able to
> > produce nice B/W films, but struggle to make any good colour films.
>
> They may also struggle to make it commercially viable. Making good things
> requires investment. And without the economics of scale...
Prices go up. Look at the cost of doing platinum prints, very high due to only
a few companies making the chemicals, and very few sources for individuals to
purchase these items. Even that is still "commercially viable" because those
chemicals still make a profit. Economic of scale does not apply to everything,
and film products do not need large scale (high volume) to continue.
>
>
> > I am okay with B/W films, if that is the only choice. In fact, I think the
> > quality from some of the very small companies is at a good level.
>
> Apropos small companies, when did anyone buy their first/last Gigabit film?
> Some small companies' quality products only exist on paper.
> ;-)
Without a Kodak, Fuji, or AGFA, those who wanted a film product would buy
somewhere else. Those who live in the countries of those small film producers
buy those films, though our chances of hearing about that on this newsgroup are
small. Those who buy materials to make platinum prints don't get anything from
Kodak, Fuji, or AGFA.
Your prediction of the big companies abandoning film production entirely leaves
only small companies. Obviously some people don't want to buy from these small
companies, but that does not change the availability of the films. Ask yourself
why these companies are in business at all. What markets do they serve today?
Gordon Moat
I have seen a similar transformation of some camera stores in a few big cities
in North America. Some are starting to look like Best Buy, or any other
electronics store. They offer little that cannot be found at one of the major
chain stores, or even a department store like Target or Walmart. Sales change
to a basis of consumables for inkjet printers, software, or computer hardware.
Prices are even, or rarely better than the big stores, or mail order. Their
location might protect them a little, much like 7Eleven stores can still
survive unless close to real grocery stores.
Now we get news items of Pentax cutting jobs due to losses in their digital
division, and Olympus (number three or four in most digital camera market
areas) announcing 4000 layoffs due to a lack of profits from direct digital
imaging products. These stores could easily end up with just Sony, Canon and
Kodak products for cameras, though that would be an extreme result.
johnboy
Mexican Bug ceased two years ago) and it is not dead. In fact, you can get
parts almost everywhere. It's a thriving industry. Don't you think there are
more film fanatics than Bug drivers? Film will definitely endure, quite
possibly in private enterprises far from the madding stock holders.
Gordon Moat
That is what I have been trying to point out, but some people don't believe
small companies can produce something in film that people will actually want to
use. That supposes that all those current small company films are bad, and that
they will never get better. Seems overly pessimistic to me.
Gordon Moat
Funny. Makes you wonder if he sits on the board of directors of some company.
Scary thought, but if he did, then I sure as hell would not invest in such a
company.
I think you are right about Nokia. In fact, Zeiss seem to have a great deal of
faith in Nokia, since they are now designing lenses for camera phones for Nokia.
My guess is a Leica lens on some camera phone in the near future. Fun stuff.
Q.G. de Bakker
> Coming from someone who seems to think that the lack of autofocus view
> cameras,
That alone says enough.
You don't want to see things other than you want to. Fine.
Have fun.
Q.G. de Bakker
> > Why were you insisting on a date being named?
>
> Can anyone really know the future? Obviously any prediction is just a best
> "guess". Even your statement / prediction of "the death of film" is only
your
> best guess at the moment.
So now you have toned things down to "give us a best guess".
I see you are moving away from discussing the issue, taking the discussion
towards one about the words we could (!) use to describe a/the issue.
> Good example. Since it is possible to get it, then it is "alive". If it
were
> not possible to get it, then it would be "dead".
See?
> Meaning the business (or big business) of film will die? Does that imply a
> change to very limited products as part of a "cottage industry"?
Meaning that whether film will die or not, and when it will happen, will be
decided by financial/economic/business considerations.
> > Same thing: a company producing and selling a product, not making enough
> > money doing so.
> > Might be due to bad management, of course. Might be because of something
> > else too.
> > How long can we keep blaming management for the things that consumers
do?
>
> When we read news stories and financial reports of corporate wrong, how
can we
> only blame consumers?
"When"?
But yes, if (!) we decide the cause is corporate wrong doings, coprorate
wrong doings, and not consumers, are to blame.
Apparently you have aleady decided that in this instance management is
indeed to blame. I haven't.
> Goldman Sachs just got burned for some recent financial dealings in the
US.
> Maybe a little surprising, but Goldman Sachs were also the deal maker for
the
> AGFA to AGFA Photo financial arrangements, and advised the investors who
put up
> the capitol. That is just one aspect of how I cannot only blame consumers.
Were these financial dealings they "got burned for" the ones involving Agfa?
Or do you just suppose that if one thing they do is not good, everything
they do must be no good?
Mind you, i'm not saying that in this particular case consumers are to
blame. I don't know.
Hence: "Might be due to bad management, of course. Might be because of
something else too."
> > So you (!) are the 100% man!
> >
> > See my 620 film question above.
>
> Funny that I have two rolls at the moment. Of course the old Kodak box
camera
> they go to has not been produced for decades.
Thank you for affirming you indeed are the 100% man.
;-)
By the way, to show the merit of your "funny that [etc.]": i have a couple
of rolls of Kodachrome 25 too.
> > Just curious, what would you suppose "dying" means if the end of it is
not
> > death?
>
> Dying is a condition / process, while death is a final result.
Indeed. ;-)
Do you suppose we can separate the two? Is something dying when in the end
it will not be dead?
> Just like
> someone terminally ill might be given months to live, even doctors are
making a
> best guess; they can be wrong, or the timing might be off. State that
someone /
> something is dying, presents three possible outcomes:
You do!
:-)
> stability, recovery, or
> death.
Glad i can bring you some good news: only the latter is the outcome of
dying.
> How long any of those take is still just a guess.
That is right.
> > > "Dead" is a dark term, and equates well with the term "doom".
"Decline" is
> > a
> > > term that equates less well with "doom".
> >
> > Now who are you fooling...
> > ;-)
> >
> > Ala "Lets call "tuberculosis" TB and it is a less offensive condition
(see
> > how i carefully avoided the use of another word that might frighten
us?)"?
>
> Silly analogy Q.G.
Not at all.
You are objecting to the use of a term because it does not sound very nice
("dark").
Not because it is the wrong term, only because it sends shivers down your
spine.
*That* is what is silly here.
> > Do you know Shakespeare's "by any other name"?
>
> Do you know this statement:
>
> "Nothing more difficult than to invent a new system, nothing more
dangerous,
> since the possibilities for success are few. Whoever wants to build a new
> system makes enemies of all those who benefited and had privileges in the
old
> system, and will receive little support from those that will derive the
most
> benefit from the new order. Their reservation is due on the one hand to
their
> fear of those that oppose them, the defenders of the old regime, and on
the
> other, their scepticism; they don't believe in the new as long as its
> superiority has not been proven"
Do you know the relevance of either quote?
> > > > There is nothing to be afraid of.
> > >
> > > Agreed. There is nothing unknown.
> >
> > Oh, but there is!
> >
> > Quaint how you equate "nothing to be afraid" of with "nothing unknown".
>
> I fear nothing, [...]
>
> The only thing I believe anyone should fear is the unknown, since that can
be
> useful for a survival instinct.
So we return to Shakespeare. Different play though.
The things we should fear least is the unknown.
Nothing wrong in fearing known dangers, is there?
Certainly not once you have encountered them and know from first hand
experience where they could have led you. Then only fools would not know it
would be better to have fear.
But it is extremely silly to be afraid in advance of that you do not even
know. Especially in a world full of unknowns.
> Film is not a life threatening issue, so there
> is nothing to "fear" in that.
Right.
So it is still unclear why you
> It is interesting how you choose mostly to use very definitive projective
terms
> in your statements. It is not what you say that causes these debates, but
how
> you state things. If you really think using the word "decline" in your
> statements (rather than "death") would have caused just as much
discussion,
> then why didn't you write it that way?
First, i did not start this thread, did not come up with the title.
Second, it is a term used frequently, in this context. And rightly so.
And third, i do not fear words. Either word would not change the things they
are used to describe.
If they would, there would be something very, very wrong.
So i'm afraid you perhaps should ask yourself why the mere word "death"
creates so much unease. Whether you really are that brave.
End what caused this debate is you letting your emotions (about words...)
get in the way of even trying to read what was said.
After all, it turns out that you (largely) agree, so that couldn't have been
it.
> You implied that people who did not "see that" were "imbeciles". That is
an
> "absolute" that talks down to others, and implies that you see yourself at
a
> level above others.
I'm sorry, but i don't understand the particular menaing you give the word
"absolute".
Yes, i say that people who don't see the bleeding obvious are imbeciles.
Just like people who drown because they cannot swim are non-swimmers.
Absolute? Where?
But i forget you are a 100% man... One of those who cannot solve the "every
Creatan is a liar" paradox.
> Death is absolute. Dead is absolute. Decline is a state of change. Is that
so
> difficult for you to understand?
Not at all, no.
Are you still resisting to acknowledge the obvious end of this decline?
> > How wonderfully vage, and already 100% (how's that for an "absolute"?)
true.
> > After all, we have film now, and now is within our lifetimes.
>
> So is next year for many of us. Even ten years from now could be within
many of
> our lifetimes. Is that what you mean by too vague?
You don't get it.
You're argument is a tautology. It says nothing.
"the reality is that there are no technical hurdles to prevent film being
available in our lifetimes"
Film actually is available in our lifetimes, right?
So there must be no technical hurdles.
Therefore film will be available in our lifetimes.
> Prices go up. Look at the cost of doing platinum prints, very high due to
only
> a few companies making the chemicals, and very few sources for individuals
to
> purchase these items. Even that is still "commercially viable" because
those
> chemicals still make a profit. Economic of scale does not apply to
everything,
> and film products do not need large scale (high volume) to continue.
True.
But that (no large scale) would mean that there are only few people using
it.
So let me point this out in your chosen words (and one or two i may add):
the decline (!) will lead to "film" slipping into a deep coma.
And only if you look very, very hard, you can still make out feeble signs
that it is not actually dead.
Seeing that it isn't 100% dead requires deep pockets, expensive machines.
To all those that now are part of the "high volume" film is as good as dead
(remember, i'm not the "absolute 100% man". You are. ;-)).
And then there are things that come out of the coma, only to die, 100%.
You mentioned platinum prints. How about uranium toner? Where do you get dye
transfer material today?
> Your prediction of the big companies abandoning film production entirely
leaves
> only small companies. Obviously some people don't want to buy from these
small
> companies, but that does not change the availability of the films. Ask
yourself
> why these companies are in business at all. What markets do they serve
today?
Good question.
That's why i mentioned Gigabit. A company mentioned before as example of
those smal companies.
They make film that would make us forget the passing away of Technical Pan.
Yet have you ever tried to buy one of those Gigabit films?
Please do.
But i can tell you noone does. TP disapperead because 'noone' bought them.
All these non-buyers wil not run to Gigabit to get a TP replacement, will
they? ;-)
So indeed, what market do they serve today?
Gregory Blank
"Q.G. de Bakker" <q...@tiscali.nl> wrote:
Are you actually advocating auto focus view cameras..... if that
floats your boat why not fully automated ones, where by the photographer
is supplanted by a "chip" that makes all the impotent decisions? :-D
Gordon Moat
> Gordon Moat wrote:
>
> > > Why were you insisting on a date being named?
> >
> > Can anyone really know the future? Obviously any prediction is just a best
> > "guess". Even your statement / prediction of "the death of film" is only
> your
> > best guess at the moment.
>
> So now you have toned things down to "give us a best guess".
I stated it is your best guess. If that is all you are willing to state, the
same stuff over and over, then it is only your best guess, nothing more. What
makes you think you are so right, or so much better than anyone else? You
barely seem able to convince yourself.
>
>
> I see you are moving away from discussing the issue, taking the discussion
> towards one about the words we could (!) use to describe a/the issue.
It seems to me that you are having a problem with the english language. Perhaps
a copy of Webster's Dictionary would be in order for you.
>
>
> > Good example. Since it is possible to get it, then it is "alive". If it
> were
> > not possible to get it, then it would be "dead".
>
> See?
Why the question mark?
>
>
> > Meaning the business (or big business) of film will die? Does that imply a
> > change to very limited products as part of a "cottage industry"?
>
> Meaning that whether film will die or not, and when it will happen, will be
> decided by financial/economic/business considerations.
That is the first sensible and rational thing you have yet stated in this
entire thread. I swear this is like pulling teeth trying to get any sensible
statements out of you, and not some double-talk and selective snipping to twist
the statements of others.
>
>
> > > Same thing: a company producing and selling a product, not making enough
> > > money doing so.
> > > Might be due to bad management, of course. Might be because of something
> > > else too.
> > > How long can we keep blaming management for the things that consumers
> do?
> >
> > When we read news stories and financial reports of corporate wrong, how
> can we
> > only blame consumers?
>
> "When"?
I take it you don't read many news sources. Fine, if you don't read it, then it
must not be true.
>
> But yes, if (!) we decide the cause is corporate wrong doings, coprorate
> wrong doings, and not consumers, are to blame.
> Apparently you have aleady decided that in this instance management is
> indeed to blame. I haven't.
"Indeed" is another one of your "absolute" terms. Don't put words into my
mouth, and twist what I stated. If you cannot understand it, my suggestion is
that such a matter as corporate wrong is possible. If you don't agree, then
leave it at that, and disagree.
>
>
> > Goldman Sachs just got burned for some recent financial dealings in the
> US.
> > Maybe a little surprising, but Goldman Sachs were also the deal maker for
> the
> > AGFA to AGFA Photo financial arrangements, and advised the investors who
> put up
> > the capitol. That is just one aspect of how I cannot only blame consumers.
>
> Were these financial dealings they "got burned for" the ones involving Agfa?
Think about that question . . . . . this AGFA announcement just happened.
>
> Or do you just suppose that if one thing they do is not good, everything
> they do must be no good?
"Everything" is your "absolute" term, not mine. Again you try to twist what I
state. This happens far too often for me to think you are stupid, don't
understand the language I use, or lack reading comprehension . . . . in fact
the only reason I can think of that you continue in this manner is to try to
piss me off, which is something little men do . . . . . . . . . so grow up.
>
>
> Mind you, i'm not saying that in this particular case consumers are to
> blame. I don't know. . . . . . . . . .
Then why is it so difficult for you to just make that statement . . . . why do
you have to insert all the other crap and twist my words around?
>
>
> > > Just curious, what would you suppose "dying" means if the end of it is
> not
> > > death?
> >
> > Dying is a condition / process, while death is a final result.
>
> Indeed. ;-)
>
> Do you suppose we can separate the two? Is something dying when in the end
> it will not be dead?
It does not apply in this situation, film is inanimate.
>
> . . . . . . . . . . .
>
> > > > "Dead" is a dark term, and equates well with the term "doom".
> "Decline" is
> > > a
> > > > term that equates less well with "doom".
> > >
> > > Now who are you fooling...
> > > ;-)
> > >
> > > Ala "Lets call "tuberculosis" TB and it is a less offensive condition
> (see
> > > how i carefully avoided the use of another word that might frighten
> us?)"?
> >
> > Silly analogy Q.G.
>
> Not at all.
> You are objecting to the use of a term because it does not sound very nice
> ("dark").
Fuck being nice. Why should I continue to be "nice" to you?
>
> Not because it is the wrong term, only because it sends shivers down your
> spine.
I hope something bad happens in your life, maybe you will learn something from
it.
Maybe if you had ever faced death, or had someone close to you die, then you
might have a clue. What's it like being the cold bastard that you are showing
to us? Maybe you should experience something terrible in your life, then see if
you can come back and laugh about it.
> *That* is what is silly here.
>
> > > Do you know Shakespeare's "by any other name"?
> >
> > Do you know this statement:
> >
> > "Nothing more difficult than to invent a new system, nothing more
> dangerous,
> > since the possibilities for success are few. Whoever wants to build a new
> > system makes enemies of all those who benefited and had privileges in the
> old
> > system, and will receive little support from those that will derive the
> most
> > benefit from the new order. Their reservation is due on the one hand to
> their
> > fear of those that oppose them, the defenders of the old regime, and on
> the
> > other, their scepticism; they don't believe in the new as long as its
> > superiority has not been proven"
>
> Do you know the relevance of either quote?
You wish you had a clue.
>
>
> > > > > There is nothing to be afraid of.
> > > >
> > > > Agreed. There is nothing unknown.
> > >
> > > Oh, but there is!
> > >
> > > Quaint how you equate "nothing to be afraid" of with "nothing unknown".
> >
> > I fear nothing, [...]
> >
> > The only thing I believe anyone should fear is the unknown, since that can
> be
> > useful for a survival instinct.
>
> So we return to Shakespeare. Different play though.
>
> The things we should fear least is the unknown.
> Nothing wrong in fearing known dangers, is there?
I think there is, but that is my opinion. The dangers I know, I do not fear.
>
> Certainly not once you have encountered them and know from first hand
> experience where they could have led you. Then only fools would not know it
> would be better to have fear.
> But it is extremely silly to be afraid in advance of that you do not even
> know. Especially in a world full of unknowns.
Nothing is truly unknown, though I don't expect you to understand that.
>
>
> > Film is not a life threatening issue, so there
> > is nothing to "fear" in that.
>
> Right.
> So it is still unclear why you
Lost your thoughts?
>
>
> > It is interesting how you choose mostly to use very definitive projective
> terms
> > in your statements. It is not what you say that causes these debates, but
> how
> > you state things. If you really think using the word "decline" in your
> > statements (rather than "death") would have caused just as much
> discussion,
> > then why didn't you write it that way?
>
> First, i did not start this thread, did not come up with the title.
> Second, it is a term used frequently, in this context. And rightly so.
> And third, i do not fear words. Either word would not change the things they
> are used to describe.
> If they would, there would be something very, very wrong.
>
> So i'm afraid you perhaps should ask yourself why the mere word "death"
> creates so much unease. Whether you really are that brave.
My life is not validated by you and your thoughts.
Your arguments state less than nothing. They are merely taunts for your own
amusement.
>
>
> "the reality is that there are no technical hurdles to prevent film being
> available in our lifetimes"
>
> Film actually is available in our lifetimes, right?
>
> So there must be no technical hurdles.
>
> Therefore film will be available in our lifetimes.
>
> > Prices go up. Look at the cost of doing platinum prints, very high due to
> only
> > a few companies making the chemicals, and very few sources for individuals
> to
> > purchase these items. Even that is still "commercially viable" because
> those
> > chemicals still make a profit. Economic of scale does not apply to
> everything,
> > and film products do not need large scale (high volume) to continue.
>
> True.
> But that (no large scale) would mean that there are only few people using
> it.
>
> . . . . . . . . . . .
>
> And then there are things that come out of the coma, only to die, 100%.
> You mentioned platinum prints. How about uranium toner?
<http://www.jackspcs.com/t9.htm>
> Where do you get dye
> transfer material today?
Bostick & Sullivan, and a few other places. I know a few fine art photographers
that still make these, and show them at exhibits.
>
>
> > Your prediction of the big companies abandoning film production entirely
> leaves
> > only small companies. Obviously some people don't want to buy from these
> small
> > companies, but that does not change the availability of the films. Ask
> yourself
> > why these companies are in business at all. What markets do they serve
> today?
>
> Good question.
> That's why i mentioned Gigabit. A company mentioned before as example of
> those smal companies.
> They make film that would make us forget the passing away of Technical Pan.
> Yet have you ever tried to buy one of those Gigabit films?
> Please do.
> But i can tell you noone does. TP disapperead because 'noone' bought them.
> All these non-buyers wil not run to Gigabit to get a TP replacement, will
> they? ;-)
> So indeed, what market do they serve today?
Try EFKE, ADOX, Ferrenia, Lucky Film, Bergger and Forte. They have local
markets in their home countries. Some have slightly expanded beyond their
borders. None will challenge, or become, Fuji nor Kodak. None are subsidized by
their governments, and exist today on their own profitability.
The real answer is they first serve their home country markets. However, you
chose to selectively pick one item; a rather poor attempt by you to put facts
and figures into your predictions. Do you think all films not made by Kodak or
Fuji are like Gigabit film?
Q.G. de Bakker
> Are you actually advocating auto focus view cameras.....
Not at all.
This is Chris' kindergarten level attempt of saving his face.
Q.G. de Bakker
> > So now you have toned things down to "give us a best guess".
>
> I stated it is your best guess.
You're drifting something awfull.
You demanded i name the date film would be dead.
I haven't.
I even declined to give a "best guess".
But that doesn't matter, does it. because you read whatever you want to,
don't you?
And not even cosistently: you now see something "sensible and rational",
though it has been said from the beginning.
Open your mind, read the thread, and stop being childish.
All the relevant bits have been said. Again and again.
And my graps of the English language (your mother tongue?)
> > "When"?
>
> I take it you don't read many news sources. Fine, if you don't read it,
then it
> must not be true.
You didn't understand that. Right...
> > But yes, if (!) we decide the cause is corporate wrong doings, coprorate
> > wrong doings, and not consumers, are to blame.
> > Apparently you have aleady decided that in this instance management is
> > indeed to blame. I haven't.
>
> "Indeed" is another one of your "absolute" terms.
"Indeed"?
You're even seeing things.
> Don't put words into my
> mouth, and twist what I stated. If you cannot understand it, my suggestion
is
> that such a matter as corporate wrong is possible. If you don't agree,
then
> leave it at that, and disagree.
I'm not putting words in your mouth. Read man, and try to understand!
I pointed out the one option you chose not to mention.
Pointed out how you were happy to assume that something must be the case,
though you haven't got a clue.
Pointed out another instance of people's irational, emotional, way of
missing the point.
> > Or do you just suppose that if one thing they do is not good, everything
> > they do must be no good?
>
> "Everything" is your "absolute" term, not mine. Again you try to twist
what I
> state.
Not at all. I ask a simple question. Which you want to answer by complaining
i put words in your mouth.
But tell, do you really think that because GS is caught doing something
wrong they cannot do anything right, and therefor theit involement in the
Agfa thing must be bad too?
Premisse 1: Gordon Moat is not infallible.
Premisse 2: Gordon Moat wrote (Among other things, in hisline of thinking,
it doesn't really matter what he wrote):
> This happens far too often for me to think you are stupid, don't
> understand the language I use, or lack reading comprehension . . . . in
fact
> the only reason I can think of that you continue in this manner is to try
to
> piss me off, which is something little men do . . . . . . . . . so grow
up.
Conclusions: What Gordon Moat just wrote is wrong.
Silly, isn't it?
So stop doing it.
> > Mind you, i'm not saying that in this particular case consumers are to
> > blame. I don't know. . . . . . . . . .
>
> Then why is it so difficult for you to just make that statement . . . .
????
What part of your brains made you think i find it difficult to say that
consumers may be to blame?
This is stunning... So fundamental... you really do not even begin to
understand this entire thread. Not one word of it.
> It does not apply in this situation, film is inanimate.
Oh good. So you're not capable of abstract thinking either.
You are something special, aren't you?
> > You are objecting to the use of a term because it does not sound very
nice
> > ("dark").
>
> Fuck being nice. Why should I continue to be "nice" to you?
What did you say again about understanding the English language...?
> > Not because it is the wrong term, only because it sends shivers down
your
> > spine.
>
> I hope something bad happens in your life, maybe you will learn something
from
> it.
Thank you.
That really does clear up why you do not like to see film die.
> Maybe if you had ever faced death, or had someone close to you die, then
you
> might have a clue. What's it like being the cold bastard that you are
showing
> to us? Maybe you should experience something terrible in your life, then
see if
> you can come back and laugh about it.
Gordon, first, don't build your case on asumptions (you are a good match to
Chris, aren't you? Maybe you should play together?).
Second, snap out of your 'i have experienced something bad, so i am to be
pittied" mode.
Grow up.
> > Do you know the relevance of either quote?
>
> You wish you had a clue.
Yet you can be amusing...
> > The things we should fear least is the unknown.
> > Nothing wrong in fearing known dangers, is there?
>
> I think there is, but that is my opinion. The dangers I know, I do not
fear.
Good boy! That's real brave of you (though not really. Ask me and i'll
explain why ;-))
Me, i would shit my pants if for some reason i would find myself in the
lion's enclosure at the zoo.
So you do really not get out much? Afraid of all the unknowns you face in
daily live? Or is therapy helping you overcome the worst of it?
> Nothing is truly unknown, though I don't expect you to understand that.
ROTFLOL
I really love it!
> My life is not validated by you and your thoughts.
Who said that it might?
Your life is "validated" by who you are. And you show plenty (too much) of
that here.
If you dont like seeing your reflection, don't stand in front of the mirror
(you'll probably not understand that, but hey...! Who cares?).
> > You don't get it.
> > You're argument is a tautology. It says nothing.
>
> Your arguments state less than nothing. They are merely taunts for your
own
> amusement.
If you wish to think that, if that helps dispell your anxieties, i'm glad i
could be of help.
Chris Brown
Huh? You were the one who seemed to think the lack of "auto-everyting" view
cameras was somehow a point supporting your position. If you didn't think
these non-existence beasts were relevant, perhaps you shouldn't have watsted
everyone's time by harping on about them in the first place.
Q.G. de Bakker
> >This is Chris' kindergarten level attempt of saving his face.
>
> Huh? You were the one who seemed to think the lack of "auto-everyting"
view
> cameras was somehow a point supporting your position.
Read. And try to understand.
I know (you have shown, so i should be a bit more patient with you) you find
it difficult. Especially when you don't like what is written.
But try anyway.
Tony Polson
>
>I fear nothing, and having been "dead" three times, and then came back, I am
>one of the few people who can make that statement.
... and then he also wrote, in the same message:
>Death is absolute. Dead is absolute. Decline is a state of change. Is that so
>difficult for you to understand?
Am I the only person who perceives just a tad of inconsistency between
these apparently dogmatic statements?
;-)
Chris Brown
>
>> >This is Chris' kindergarten level attempt of saving his face.
>>
>> Huh? You were the one who seemed to think the lack of "auto-everyting"
>view
>> cameras was somehow a point supporting your position.
>
>Read. And try to understand.
It was pretty straightforward, tbh, you were apparently pointing to the lack
of a product that nobody wants anyway as evidence that large format can't
survive as a cottage industry, even though it's basically been one for the
last half century anyway.
>I know (you have shown, so i should be a bit more patient with you) you find
>it difficult. Especially when you don't like what is written.
It's more a question of being somewhat bemused by what's written - you seem
to be trying to make some sort of point about film not being available at
some unspecified future date, but your stated reasoning seems to be a bit
random at best, and the things you point to in support of your position by
and large do no such thing.
Still, if it makes you happy to think that film will disappear completely
"real soon now", go ahead and believe that.
Gregory Blank
Tony Polson <t...@nospam.net> wrote:
Lets say this, your the only one or at least first one to say it
bothers- so you get the brownie points.....
personally I don't care. :-)
Q.G. de Bakker
> >Read. And try to understand.
>
> It was pretty straightforward, tbh, you were apparently [...]
Q.G. de Bakker
> Am I the only person who perceives just a tad of inconsistency between
> these apparently dogmatic statements?
>
> ;-)
What makes you believe you could be?
;-)
McLeod
wrote:
>The technology has changed attitudes and approaches. With many companies not making much
>profit on the cameras (or even losing money), how will more capable camera phones affect
>the market. Soon the western world will have camera phones that match direct digital P&S
>cameras, and likely at very low prices due to service plan competition. I wonder how many
>companies will stop making cameras entirely.
I don't find the cell phone technology very interesting, I think it's
probably purchased by teenagers, but what if they could come out with
a professional digital camera with sat phone modem technology built
in? I think the first company to do that would sell a lot to
photojournalists. Imagine sending your images back to your editor
while you're driving back from your assignment with just a couple of
button pushes...even if your assignment was in Iraq.
Gordon Moat
Well, there are video phones in use by some photojournalists. Not very low cost, and some
really heavily dependant on constant recharging. I would guess the costs should drop as the
technology becomes more common.
The 3 to 4 MP digital P&S range is the largest market segment, going by available figures.
The most common camera phones are only in the 1.2 to 2 MP range, so not really that direct
competition yet. The 3 MP or more camera phones are now in only a few markets, and a very new
item. Camera phones with improved lenses are also not that common, though I would expect more
soon (check the Nokia and Zeiss arrangement).
Sony have a nice arrangement with Eriksson for the phone market. They already are huge in the
digital P&S market, so a move to better camera phones would not be much of a change. Samsung
and Sanyo are in similar positions.
The only aspects I feel are relevant to general photography are how these changes affect the
companies. With Olympus and Pentax reporting difficulties in making profits from digital
imaging, what happens to them if sales drop further?
On the professional side of things, recent Nikon and Canon digital SLRs have some capability
to send images wirelessly. It would not surprise me if at least one digital back maker tried
to follow that idea. This is not without issues, like image theft or intercept, but done
properly could be useful for some photography.
johnboy
"McLeod" <cer...@xplornet.com> wrote in message
news:vgfk911d5icojb5us...@4ax.com...
sure so then we can take the OS wars to the next silliest level
Stacey
>
> Doesn't mean i don't like film (i do), just that i like photography more.
> Now would anyone forecast the end of photography, i will join in the
> wailing, don't you worry. ;-)
>
Exactly. I'm not even a big fan of film, I just like the results it gives.
I'm a MUCH larger fan of photography!
--
Stacey
Chris Brown
McLeod <cer...@xplornet.com> wrote:
>
>I don't find the cell phone technology very interesting, I think it's
>probably purchased by teenagers,
The earlier phone cameras were utter crap. Nasty, blurry 640*480 affairs
which occasionally took a recognisable image. I have such a phone, and the
still camera is only ever used to snap an amusing scene and then fire off as
a picture message in an "I saw this and thought of you" kind of vein. It
does a passable job on video, though.
The newer ones that are coming through are actually not bad - certainly good
enough to be used to take the sort of pictures that snapshooters who used to
use fixed-focus 35mm P&S cameras, many of whom are now using cheap and
cheerful digital P&S cameras. These people represent the vast bulk of the
photographic market, by volume and probably by value, and they already carry
phones everywhere (well, maybe things in the US are a bit different, but
here in the UK, and the rest of Europe, not having a (mobile) phone is like
not having a TV, i.e. it's usually a deliberate lifestyle choice, and the
defualt is to have one. Such people will welcome the opportunity to be able
to take their holiday snaps with the bit of equipment that's always in their
pocket anyway.
I see the photography market, in the not too distant future, looking a
little different to today's landscape, which is in flux to an extent. There
will broadly be these classes of users:
Snapshooters using cellphone cameras. These phones will eventually kill the
point-and-shoot end of the digital market.
Technophobic snapshooters still using 35mm P&S cameras. These will decline
in number over time, but I don't think they'll ever entirely go away. There
are people who have a cellphone, but can't figure out how to read their text
messages, or access their voicemail - they're not going to want to use them
to take pictures either.
Amateur photographers using higher end digital cameras - the DSLRs we see
today, and the "luxury" end of the zoom-compact market.
Amateur photographers using film, be it medium format, large format, or even
35mm. A lot of these people will continue to, or even start to use film
simply because they enjoy that style of photography. I include the "fine
art", large format landscape guys, who (try to) sell their work in galleries
in this category.
Professional photographers - photojournalists, wedding photographers, etc.
People doing it as their job. They'll be using expensive digital cameras
such as high end 35mm-system DSLRs, or medium format DSLRs to do their work.
Some of these categories are not mutually exclusive. I think there's space
for all of them though, and as the market transitions to look more like
that, there are going to be a lot of casualties. The medium format
manufacturers who used to sell to working professionals are hurting a lot
now. The LF guys, and the MF guys who sell to "advanced amateurs", less so.
The greatest pain, however, is probably going to be felt by the people
providing consumer imaging, both 35mm film *and* the people making cheaper
digital cameras. They're the ones who the Nokias of this world have in their
sights.