Why film will die
Roland Karlsson
using lots of chemicals. The turn around time from taking picture
until you see it is mostly measured in days (or months for those
that don't take more than 7 pictures on their holiday).
As soon as a replacement can be found that is good enough,
film will (as a general method for taking pictures) just die.
We are very near this point now, very near. Don't buy shares
in film manufacturing companies :)
Will it bother me that it dies? Nope - not really. The
intermediate media when taking pictures is not really
important.
The only problem may be photographic papers.
They will also die and with them a method for making
final photograps - just like other good methods - platinum
printing, oil transfer, carbon prrinting, etc, etc.
Thats a shame really.
But film? - nope don't bother me at all.
Roland
a.m.
past four years:
"when will digital be as good as film?"
"when will digital be better than film?"
"when will digital sell as much as film?"
"does digital sell more than film?"
"when will digital replace film?"
"will film die?"
--
Alfred Molon
alfred_molon at csi dot com
In article <asH%6.30154$Qp1.4...@nntp1.chello.se>,
roland....@chello.se says...
J Greely
>Film cameras use LOTS of film.
Gosh, I hope so.
>Each film has to be wet processed using lots of chemicals.
Actually, that's no longer true:
http://www.appliedsciencefiction.com/products/pic/
>The turn around time from taking picture until you see it is mostly
>measured in days
If you wish it to be, yes. If you want it faster, in most places it
can be a few hours.
>As soon as a replacement can be found that is good enough,
An important conditional that most people who write alarmist "film is
dead" articles forget about.
>We are very near this point now, very near.
Ever seen the sales figures on those $10 disposables? "Good enough" is
about more than pixel counts.
>Don't buy shares in film manufacturing companies :)
Well, not Kodak, but that's just because they can't seem to master
digital, despite the fact that people seem to like the products they
make for it. Buy Fuji.
>The only problem may be photographic papers. They will also die and
>with them a method for making final photograps
Nope, photographic paper won't die. What do you think Ofoto,
Shutterfly, and all those other digi-print shops are using? Look at
the Kodak Pegasus, the Fuji Frontier, etc.
>just like other good methods - platinum printing, oil transfer,
>carbon prrinting, etc, etc. Thats a shame really.
There are almost certainly more people making use of alternative
printing technologies today than there were when they were
commercially viable.
-j
Roland Karlsson
> >Each film has to be wet processed using lots of chemicals.
>
> Actually, that's no longer true:
> http://www.appliedsciencefiction.com/products/pic/
Hmmmm ... so ... I have not seen any of those around where I live.
Are you sure this is for real, and if so for everyone.
It is not vaporware? Oh - a pun! They use vapors to
develop the film instead of chemicals solved in water.
You will get no negatives you know. Only digital pictures.
So, in a sense, this is a digital technique and the film acts
as the sensor.
> >The turn around time from taking picture until you see it is mostly
> >measured in days
>
> If you wish it to be, yes. If you want it faster, in most places it
> can be a few hours.
I was maybe unclear. Most people use several days to take 24 pictures.
And therefore it takes days before you get them. Of course - it can
go faster if you really want. But thats not the point. The point is that
you can take 1 picture and view it almost instantly with a digital camera.
> >As soon as a replacement can be found that is good enough,
>
> An important conditional that most people who write alarmist "film is
> dead" articles forget about.
This is not an alarm. I think it is a fact. Nothing that consumes
material survives when a good enough alternative arrives that don't.
> >We are very near this point now, very near.
>
> Ever seen the sales figures on those $10 disposables? "Good enough" is
> about more than pixel counts.
Yupp. Selling good. But there is nothing digital that can compete.
Those disposables are made for two reasons: (1) sometimes you need
something that does not matter that you lose and (2) some people
never have $200 in their wallet to buy a camera.
> Nope, photographic paper won't die. What do you think Ofoto,
> Shutterfly, and all those other digi-print shops are using? Look at
> the Kodak Pegasus, the Fuji Frontier, etc.
OK I might be wrong there.
> >just like other good methods - platinum printing, oil transfer,
> >carbon prrinting, etc, etc. Thats a shame really.
>
> There are almost certainly more people making use of alternative
> printing technologies today than there were when they were
> commercially viable.
I know. I have made my own carbon paper, gum printing paper, van dyke
brown paper, etc. etc. You can even buy kits from diverse places.
But it is hard work. It is mostly experiments and most pictures are
test pictures I think. OK - some excellent results are also made.
Looked at Irving Penn's platinum pictures some years ago - absolutely
stunning. But making a modern color paper as a hobby; that is out of
the question.
Roland
Mike Russell
> Interesting to see how this film vs. digital debate has evolved over the
> past four years:
> "when will digital be as good as film?"
> "when will digital be better than film?"
> "when will digital sell as much as film?"
> "does digital sell more than film?"
> "when will digital replace film?"
> "will film die?"
> --
> Alfred Molon
Yet the case can trivially be made, and has been ad infinitum, that even the first evolutionary step
has not been reached yet. Anyway I think it's a waste of time to get too involved in exactly when
digital media will beat film on specs alone - this happened with audio long ago and there are still
those prefer vinyl over cd.
I don't think we should get too excited about exactly when film will go away - a watched media never
expires.
Did photographers in the late 19th century ask when oil painting would die? No. Instead they put
their efforts into making their own livings, doing new things with phography such as mass
portraiture, and in so doing made photography economically viable. After that happened, the great
schools of mural and portrait painting simply faded, as people of the caliber of David and Ingres
simply chose other professions. Although painters did attack the validity of photography as an
artistic medium, no one really sat around tapping their foot, waiting for the stores selling art
supplies to go out of business, or even turn into photographer supply stores.
What happened instead was that painting exploded in a new direction where photography could not
follow: impressionism and later, abstract art. Perhaps film will find a similar rebirth, exploding
into new areas of exploration, but it is unlikely that film as such will discover anything new at
all. Film now has digital following in it's footsteps, ready to swarm over any innovation, like a
younger brother Mozart watching from his elder sister's elbow as she learned the piano.
What will happen instead, I'm guessing, is a merging of photography with painting, because
photographers and painters are now turning to the same digital tools to do their work. Imagine the
thin dividing line between the two art forms if photography had somehow been initially invented
using oil paints instead of emulsion - as nearly happened with the painterly bromoil process.
Film photography is already "morphing" into digital, using scanners to turn its images into digital
ones to reach the output devices, not to mention the revenue, available only to those who use
digital images. (BTW, because of the overlap of input and output processes that rec.photo is the
sparking point for this debate at all. With separate groups, we could live in peace and concentrate
on making pictures)
The core to this question of film versus digital, and what gives this debate the ability to be
reborn over and over with tiny changes in wording, is the eternal Oedipal battle of the young
attempting to wrest their inheritance from the old.
The old, established, and inflexible photographers, and those who emulate them, will continue to
promote the virtues of film over digital. And they will indeed do this until, to paraphrase the now
defunct Power Computing slogan: film will die "when they pry the last roll of film from my cold,
dead fingers".
For the rest of us the question of film vs. digital is not one we answer yes or no to, but one that
we no longer even ask For us, film is gathering dust, and the idea of taking 24 images, waiting a
day after the last image is taken, and then paying someone 15 dollars before we even find out
whether they turned out or not is simply laughable.
People are so bold as to ask for free stock photographs over the net, because, sadly for
photographers, that's what they are worth. A new way of making a living from photography must be
invented.
Those who cling to film like Gepetto to a whale's bicuspid (or a wrapper to a stale sandwich) will
be quietly swallowed, however wonderful their film work may have been.
When this happens, there will be no reason to cheer, and certainly no glory for digital, and this is
why I suggest that instead we focus on new ways to bring photography to life, rather than focusing
on each nail being driven into the acetate, gelatin, and silver coffin.
Mark R. Bohn
likely continue as a niche market, particularly for B&W.
Mark
Billy
>
> > Actually, that's no longer true:
> > http://www.appliedsciencefiction.com/products/pic/
>
> develop the film instead of chemicals solved in water.
I don't believe that's the case. I understood that they
read the altered film particles from some means other than
the traditional optical scan techniques - the film is
never actually developed (AFAIK).
> You will get no negatives you know. Only digital pictures.
> So, in a sense, this is a digital technique and the film acts
> as the sensor.
See above for why you don't get negs back. They are not
developed, they're destroyed. Anyway, most film is already
scanned, so the negs don't matter. There are some minor
(IMHO) differences in the specs between film and digital;
film is about 4x the resolution, has better color depth,
more dynamic range, etc. However, most importantly, the
camera that's wrapped around the film can do things like
shoot 5 frames per second, keep the shutter open for a few
hours, get really short depth of field without resorting
to monstrous lenses, offer super fast response, and in
general, behave like a *camera*. I think when digital gets
this part of it in cameras that cost around US $300 (after
all, if you only shoot 5 rolls a year, why spend 2K on
*any* camera?) maybe then you'll see film really start to
lose ground.
Realistically, 3 or 4 megapix is all 99% of photographers
need, in fact, you can easily demonstrate that a typical
35mm is only capable of 6 megapix. But even when digital
cameras start acting like cameras and have 6 megapix
sensors, medium format and large format film cameras still
offer many advantages over digital imaging. And I can't
think of a business case for developing a 50 megapixel
sensor that would handle like a Hasselblad.
> I was maybe unclear. Most people use several days to take 24 pictures.
> And therefore it takes days before you get them. Of course - it can
> go faster if you really want. But thats not the point. The point is that
> you can take 1 picture and view it almost instantly with a digital camera.
You can do this with some film cameras now, in fact, the
Nikon F5 (a high end film camera) has a 1.3 megapix digital
camera built-in, it just doesn't save the images.
> Nothing that consumes
> material survives when a good enough alternative arrives that don't.
If so, why isn't bio-diesel sold at every gas station?
http://www.veggievan.org/
> > Ever seen the sales figures on those $10 disposables? "Good enough" is
> > about more than pixel counts.
>
> Yupp. Selling good. But there is nothing digital that can compete.
> Those disposables are made for two reasons: (1) sometimes you need
> something that does not matter that you lose and (2) some people
> never have $200 in their wallet to buy a camera.
Or $1,000 for a computer, printer, and enough paper/ink
for a few hundred prints, as well as the time to sit and
edit/print all your own stuff. I'd much rather just send
it off (which is what I do now with my digital images).
> > Nope, photographic paper won't die. What do you think Ofoto,
> > Shutterfly, and all those other digi-print shops are using? Look at
> > the Kodak Pegasus, the Fuji Frontier, etc.
>
> OK I might be wrong there.
Yeah, ink-jets just don't do it. Either dye-sub needs
to make some major advances or we're stuck with these
laser projectors (which print on photo paper) which are
nowhere near being affordable by anyone, now that the
dot-bombs have made us all paupers. ;)
--
-Billy e-mail - billy_rpd at yahoo dot com checked weekly
Look - RPD FAQ - http://rpdfaq.50megs.com
Please support descriptive subjects by ignoring generic
posts!
B. Foelsch
If I may expand (or expound) ever so slightly, I would dare to offer that
film, digital cameras, printers, chemical processing and all that are simply
TOOLS, to be used at one's pleasure. To be sure, the invention of the power
saw did not condemn the hand saw to oblivion, but the hand saw is now more
firmly entrenched in the niche in which it is truly outstanding. Chemical
photography will follow the same pattern; it will not dry up and blow away,
but it will prosper in those areas where it is the best alternative. Prior
to digital it was the only alternative.
HOWEVER.......
All this business of comparing the technical details of film with the
technical details of digital is silly. I would dare to say that the
technical quality of SNAPSHOT images (which IS the biggest piece of the
photo market) reached a peak in the 1940's; film sizes were large, emulsions
were silver-rich, enlargement ratios were small, lenses were mature,
flashbulbs were good and bright, red-eye was rare, apertures could be small
etc. etc. (Ok, ok, maybe the original Kodacolor wasn't so good, but humor
me, just this once!) Since that time, Kodak, at least, has been promoting
the view that less quality is more desirable. Film (and frame) sizes have
declined steadily, from 122 to 120/620 to 127 to 35/828 to 126 to 110 to the
horrible disc. At each point along the way quality (or at least the AVERAGE
quality) of snapshots has declined, being superseded by other marketing
objectives; smaller cameras, easier loading, no batteries to change, no
flashbulbs to buy, fits in a shirt pocket, and so on.
Instead of comparing digital to a medium format transparency, compare it to
the Disc Camera, or the 110 Instamatic. The Disc was Kodak's 1981 idea of
what the AVERAGE user wanted. Amazing how they wiggled away from that one.
I guess my point is that, for the AVERAGE USER, digital is already far
better than the prints he brings home from Motophoto. Take a look at the
stuff the average user has stuck to the refrigerator door. ITS AWFUL.
Polaroid helps my argument as well.
When I show the average person the pictures I get with an old 1MP HP C30,
printed out on the old Photosmart printer, they are amazed. The big
drawbacks to digital at this point are cost and the level of computer
literacy required. The quality, FOR THE AVERAGE USER, is past the point of
being an issue. And, the average user is where the dollars will come from.
Now, I admit that technically, the BEST digital does not come close to the
BEST film. But, what percentage of the potential market cares, or could even
discern that level of quality? 5%? I would guess more like 1%.
Right now it is ALL about cost and usability. While I think HPs products are
headed down in quality, their approach to taking the computer out of the
digital photo loop is a good one. Digital will go into high gear is when
Grandma is comfortable with it, much like she has been comfortable with film
since 1910. A $49 camera with no controls beside the shutter release. A $49
printer that makes only 4 x 6 prints, minimal controls, no adjustments, no
computer. You want enlargements? Go to the drugstore, or ask your nephew to
enlarge them for you. That model was successful for many years, and it still
could be today.
Remember when a four-function calculator cost $200? How far along that curve
do you think digital is right now? I would guess we are about at the $50
point.
FWIW, I will draw a pension from EK in the not too distant future....
"Mike Russell" <ge...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:abO%6.5679$Uj6....@open-news.pacbell.net...
Terry Dawson
news:MPG.15a99ec35...@news.supernews.com...
>
> What happened instead was that painting exploded in a new direction where
photography could not
> follow: impressionism and later, abstract art. Perhaps film will find a
similar rebirth, exploding
> into new areas of exploration, but it is unlikely that film as such will
discover anything new at
> all. Film now has digital following in it's footsteps, ready to swarm
over any innovation, like a
> younger brother Mozart watching from his elder sister's elbow as she
learned the piano.
>
Actually, photography went in those directions as well. Anyway, I
respectfully reject the comparison of the old painting vs. photography
debate to the film vs. digital debate. The only thing painting and
photography have in common is that they are both visual arts. Practicing
photography with digital has nearly everything in common with doing it on
film (except in the lab, of course). Using digital is more akin to changing
from oil to acrylic paintings. It's a strictly technical issue.. as proven
in the debates here many times.
(snip)
> People are so bold as to ask for free stock photographs over the net,
because, sadly for
> photographers, that's what they are worth. A new way of making a living
from photography must be
> invented.
>
I think you are lamenting the problems created by computers and The
Internet, not the digital camera. All arts and media are feeling the pinch.
But your point about new ways of bringing commercial photography to market
is quite valid, IMHO.
> Those who cling to film like Gepetto to a whale's bicuspid (or a wrapper
to a stale sandwich) will
> be quietly swallowed, however wonderful their film work may have been.
>
> When this happens, there will be no reason to cheer, and certainly no
glory for digital, and this is
> why I suggest that instead we focus on new ways to bring photography to
life, rather than focusing
> on each nail being driven into the acetate, gelatin, and silver coffin.
>
I have fond memories of my film days, but I will actually cheer its passing
for one simple reason. The major camera makers will then have to shut down
their antique factories and turn their efforts to designing affordable
digital cameras for those of us who need (and know how to use) precise
framing, quick response and reasonably rugged construction.
--
My Digital Photography Pages
http://digital.photography.home.att.net/
Jeff
"Mark R. Bohn" <mark...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:9hof5q$dbi8$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com...
> It may go out of the mainstream, but I don't think it will die. It will
> likely continue as a niche market, particularly for B&W.
It's going to be market driven, of course. At some point, if (when) the
market for film becomes too small to produce and sell it for an affordable
price, lots of folks will find themselves stuck with very expensive Nikon
and Hasselblad paperweights. This trend will be speeded up by the
leapfrogging-megapixel-technology, and the
dumb-it-down-so-grandma-can-use-it, wars.
Unless I'm miising something big here, I give it five years.
-jeff
somebody
>This trend will be speeded up by the
>leapfrogging-megapixel-technology, and the
>dumb-it-down-so-grandma-can-use-it, wars.
u forget to mention the "they won't notice all that CCD noise...just give 'em
more pixels!"
>Unless I'm miising something big here, I give it five years.
yeah, the damnable noise coming from everything but the D30 and D1x.
J Greely
>Hmmmm ... so ... I have not seen any of those around where I live.
That would be because it's very new. Unlike a certain "digital film
insert", though, they're actually showing off working units, and there
were samples from one in Shutterbug a few months ago.
>You will get no negatives you know. Only digital pictures.
>So, in a sense, this is a digital technique and the film acts
>as the sensor.
Yes, but it's still conventional photographic film, just loaded into a
different type of processor. If it works and the cost is reasonable, a
lot of people will be glad to keep their existing cameras (especially
since the quality is almost certainly more consistent than one-hour
minilab prints).
>I was maybe unclear. Most people use several days to take 24 pictures.
>And therefore it takes days before you get them.
If it becomes a serious competitive issue, there's a trivial solution:
shorter rolls. You can get 12-exposure rolls of film if you really
want them, it's just that no one seems to care enough to distribute
them more widely.
>This is not an alarm. I think it is a fact. Nothing that consumes
>material survives when a good enough alternative arrives that don't.
This is vague enough to be hard to argue with, but in general it seems
that digicams replace film consumption with battery consumption.
-j
Roland Karlsson
> > It is not vaporware? Oh - a pun! They use vapors to
> > develop the film instead of chemicals solved in water.
>
> I don't believe that's the case. I understood that they
> read the altered film particles from some means other than
> the traditional optical scan techniques - the film is
> never actually developed (AFAIK).
It is developed. This is what it says on applied science fictions pages.
" In the Digital PIC process, micro-amounts of a proprietary
developing agent are applied to a roll of exposed but
undeveloped film as it is fed through the processor's
image-capture engine. "
> See above for why you don't get negs back. They are not
> developed, they're destroyed. Anyway, most film is already
> scanned, so the negs don't matter.
OK, I know.
> There are some minor
> (IMHO) differences in the specs between film and digital;
> film is about 4x the resolution, has better color depth,
> more dynamic range, etc. However, most importantly, the
> camera that's wrapped around the film can do things like
> shoot 5 frames per second, keep the shutter open for a few
> hours, get really short depth of field without resorting
> to monstrous lenses, offer super fast response, and in
> general, behave like a *camera*. I think when digital gets
> this part of it in cameras that cost around US $300 (after
> all, if you only shoot 5 rolls a year, why spend 2K on
> *any* camera?) maybe then you'll see film really start to
> lose ground.
Yepp ... the only question is when?
BTW - what you just described is quite high demands by most
peoples standard. I think that those that wants this standard
are prepared to pay more than $300, rather $600 I think.
For those that wants to pay $100 to $200 you can have
a much simpler camera.
Like this ...
> Realistically, 3 or 4 megapix is all 99% of photographers
> need, in fact, you can easily demonstrate that a typical
> 35mm is only capable of 6 megapix. But even when digital
> cameras start acting like cameras and have 6 megapix
> sensors, medium format and large format film cameras still
> offer many advantages over digital imaging.
Yupp
> And I can't
> think of a business case for developing a 50 megapixel
> sensor that would handle like a Hasselblad.
Ahhh ... but here I think you are wrong. I think that
there are lots of people waiting for those sensors.
Some will buy it even at a price of $100.000 I think.
And at $10.000 they will sell very good. And at
$1000. No problem.
> Or $1,000 for a computer, printer, and enough paper/ink
> for a few hundred prints, as well as the time to sit and
> edit/print all your own stuff. I'd much rather just send
> it off (which is what I do now with my digital images).
Lots of people (at least here in Sweden) already have
a computer that is good enough at home. Many people
(me included) are very dissatisfied with the pictures
they get from a printing lab. Making some minor
changes to the pictures and then sending them to
a lab that promise not to make any modifications
would be super nice. A lab that uses the same color
profile that I do at home.
Roland
David Kilpatrick
>
> Roland Karlsson wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, that's no longer true:
> > > http://www.appliedsciencefiction.com/products/pic/
> >
> > It is not vaporware? Oh - a pun! They use vapors to
> > develop the film instead of chemicals solved in water.
>
> I don't believe that's the case. I understood that they
> read the altered film particles from some means other than
> the traditional optical scan techniques - the film is
> never actually developed (AFAIK).
>
>
program they use to restore colour to faded originals. I spoke on two
occasions with their technical staff at photokina and elicited all the
detail I needed to know.
Basically, the development system is just a regular minilab and the
scanner is just a special optical scanner. There is no mythical vapour
development, just a spray type wet developer which partially develops
the film leaving the backing layer untouched. No mask is generated, no
colour is generated. I do not fully understand how the scanner works,
but it acts from both sides of the developed, unfixed, unbleached film
and detects what amounts to a thinly developed image according to layer
position (this is why the prototype only worked on one type of film, I
think the test rolls were Kodak Gold 200). Apparently one problem they
had to work on was the complexity of some multilayer emulsions, and
getting the correct emulsion layer identified.
The scanner reads density only, by the layer, and reconstructs colour
from a very low dynamic range of the partially developed image. The
commercial ROC which comes with several desktop scanners is pretty good
at doing this, but this is a special version with precise
characteristics. If all the settings have been made correctly, and the
scan has extracted the right values from the 'depth' of the film, you
get a colour image which is nearly as good as a regular processed film.
The action of scanning exposes the film to infra-red light as well as
visible light; no idea how. Maybe their developer colour couplers have
sufficient action to give each layer enough of its dye values to be
identified. But after scanning, the image deteriorates; the chemicals in
the film continue to process it, fogged. If the scan failed for any
reason, or the data was corrupted or lost, you can't go back. Hence
there is a massive liability placed on the operator of the shopping mall
dev station (ASF is essentially a franchise operation, or was planned to
be, with outlets buying into the whole new system). All kinds of
disclaimers would be needed. The prototype developing stations also
accepted CD-R, camera memory media and diskettes for printing digitally;
and can also write CD-Rs.
The chemical usage is so low that waste chem recovery is not a major
issue. The spliced together films are all wound up on to one big reel,
stuck together by their gooey emulsions. No silver leaves the film
during processing, so this entire dry by-product is shipped off for
silver recovery - 100 per cent recovery, in theory.
Provided the system is 100 per cent perfect in operation and never loses
a single frame of data, provided ASF can set it up to read every
imaginable colour neg film anyone might bring in (b/w is promised too
but that's easy!), provided the customer understands that there never
will be a negative, only an 18Mb scan on CD-R if paid for - well, it's
an eco-friendly stand alone shopping mall d&p system.
My criticisms are that there is no turning back if an error occurs, and
the system depends on a highly tuned, sensitive, and fragile conversion
of a low dynamic range (ghost) image to a full range 24-bit scan.
Questions like 'what happens to a serious underexposure?' can only be
answered when someone brings in a pre-loaded cardboard 35mm job with
fixed exposure, and expects the same result from ASF's machine as they
get from regular d & p. I'm not sure it will do very well with negatives
exposed on the current principle 'film has three stops latitude either
way' used in many low end fixed focus 35mms and preloaded throwaways.
David Kilpatrick
Tom Holub
Terry Dawson <terry....@att.net> wrote:
)
)Actually, photography went in those directions as well. Anyway, I
)respectfully reject the comparison of the old painting vs. photography
)debate to the film vs. digital debate. The only thing painting and
)photography have in common is that they are both visual arts. Practicing
)photography with digital has nearly everything in common with doing it on
)film (except in the lab, of course). Using digital is more akin to changing
)from oil to acrylic paintings. It's a strictly technical issue.. as proven
)in the debates here many times.
To take a different analogy, the music CD didn't kill the vinyl LP.
In fact, the turntable equipment you can buy today is much better than
what you could get in 1980, and an entirely new musical form has been
created based on qualities inherent to the turntable (you can't
scratch with a CD). When the music community was having this same
debate in the early days of the CD, I doubt anyone envisioned the DJ
scene.
As digital supplants film in common usage, people will start to discover
qualities which are unique to film, and use film to do things digital
won't adequately emulate. It will be a niche, but likely an interesting
one.
-Tom
Ron Bean
"Jeff" <dont.sp...@waysoft.dot.calm> writes:
>At some point, if (when) the
>market for film becomes too small to produce and sell it for an affordable
>price,
Define "affordable".
[Hint: the answer will vary depending on who you ask...]
>lots of folks will find themselves stuck with very expensive Nikon
>and Hasselblad paperweights.
Those "paperweights" have removable lenses, and you can already
buy digital cameras that use them (bodies for Nikon, backs for
Hasselblad). I wouldn't shed any tears over a Nikon body or a
Hasselblad back, but the lenses won't be paperweights any time
soon. Those particular digital cameras aren't cheap, but those
particular lenses weren't cheap either.
Do you really think "lots of folks" own Hasselblads?
(relate this to the "what's affordable" question above)
I think good glass will always have some value. At one time every
printing company had a big process camera that took 20x24" sheet
film. Most of them are scrap now (a few are still in use; I use
one occasionally). But their big Rodenstock flat-field lenses are
still worth money (if you can find one).
>Unless I'm miising something big here, I give it five years.
Five years is a long time.
If you had a five year old camera right now, would you think
you'd gotten your money's worth by now? If it's a point-and-shoot,
the answer is almost certainly yes. If it's an SLR, your mileage
may vary, but then there's a better chance that the lenses will
have some residual value (unless they were cheap ones to begin
with).
Look at what happened to obsolete film formats like 128, 126,
110. They did not suddenly disappear without any warning, they
were just sold in fewer and fewer places, and you had to go
further out of your way to find them. Ditto for flashbulbs and
flash cubes (remember those?), and certain kinds of batteries.
I can remember back in the early '70s when my mother finally
couldn't get film for her 1950s Kodak Bantam, and I couldn't get
128 film for my Kodak Brownie (garage sale special, it had
stopped working by then anyway). We bought an instamatic, which
took 126 cartridges that are also no longer available. Now I have
an old 35mm point-and-shoot which is obsolete-- I really don't
care if I can get film for it or not! I expect to use it for the
last time later this summer. If I were a pro, my equipment
would be less likely to be obsolete, but more likely to be worn
out.
So if someone is scared to buy a film SLR because 35mm film might
suddenly disappear without warning in the next few years, I don't
think you need to worry about it. You might have fewer choices
for emulsions as time goes on. Eventually you'll want a new
camera anyway. There are better reasons to buy a digital camera
than fear of a "film famine"...
FT
news:9hq31u$2u30$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
>
> To take a different analogy, the music CD didn't kill the vinyl LP.
But the CD killed the LP as a mass market product. And that is what will
happen with film to.
Maybe it will take 10 years or maybe it will only take 5 years, but it's
pretty obvious where we are going.
Billy
>
> If it works and the cost is reasonable, a lot of people will be
> glad to keep their existing cameras (especially since the quality
> is almost certainly more consistent than one-hour minilab prints).
Yes, I'd suspect that the negs are never handled (from the
little that I've read of the process, it would seem to
preclude handling) so that would pretty much eliminate the
scratches, smudges, and dust problems. Also, getting the
files on CD and sending them off to Ofoto would eliminate
the other problem with minilabs, the mis-adjusted printer.
I wish they had something like this for medium format, I
still can't find someone to do a 2000 dpi scan for
anywhere near the few bucks I was paying for 35mm scans.
It's either US $35 per image for a drum scan or a piece of
crap 600 dpi flatbed scan.
> ...in general it seems that digicams replace film consumption
> with battery consumption.
Nah, rechargables.
Keith Kakerbeck
news:9hq31u$2u30$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> In article <DkQ%6.1609$Fy3.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Terry Dawson <terry....@att.net> wrote:
> To take a different analogy, the music CD didn't kill the vinyl LP.
> In fact, the turntable equipment you can buy today is much better than
> what you could get in 1980, and an entirely new musical form has been
> created based on qualities inherent to the turntable (you can't
> scratch with a CD). When the music community was having this same
> debate in the early days of the CD, I doubt anyone envisioned the DJ
> scene.
The reproduction of music using CD is much superior to LP. Granted, you
cannot 'scratch' using CD but, conversely, I'd don't think I want my vinyl
played with a cartridge that has been used for scratching.
-Keith K
J Greely
>I wish they had something like this for medium format, I
>still can't find someone to do a 2000 dpi scan for
>anywhere near the few bucks I was paying for 35mm scans.
The just-announced Minolta looks good. I'd say the same for a Nikon,
except that based on past experience I'll never buy a scanner from
them again. This assumes you have a few thousand dollars to spare,
of course... :-)
-j
John Stewart see REAL email address in message.
> To take a different analogy, the music CD didn't kill the vinyl LP.
In what sense? In terms of the masses, it certainly did. You can't buy an
LP in a standard mass market store. Perhaps there are some specialty LPs,
just as there are folks who insist that tube amps sound better than solid
state.
> When the music community was having this same
> debate in the early days of the CD, I doubt anyone envisioned the DJ
> scene.
So DJ are the one using LPs? That's not exactly the mass market. ASnd are
they using newly reelased LPs to run back and forth?
Just curious. If film goes the way LPs did, then a handful of specialist
will be the only ones with film
John
John Stewart see REAL email address in message.
> The reproduction of music using CD is much superior to LP. Granted, you
> cannot 'scratch' using CD but, conversely, I'd don't think I want my
vinyl
> played with a cartridge that has been used for scratching.
Surely there must be some way to sample a portion of a CD and "scratch" it
in memory using a mouse?
John
Mike Russell
news:br807.199$Dw.5...@news7.onvoy.net...
...
> Surely there must be some way to sample a portion of a CD and "scratch" it
> in memory using a mouse?
But it would be oh so un-cool.
How about these analogies - LP's are output devices like chemically developed slides or prints.
CD's are like digital prints. Tape masters are like film. Digital mixers are like PhotoShop.
Digital Cameras are like digital recorders.
So the first to go digital, for both digital and audio, is the vinyl record (similar to a chemical
print or slide). Then high end professional mixing gear (similar to PhotoShop), then studio
recording gear (as scan backs for large format, and professional hand held cameras), and finally the
common, portable recording devices (similar to consumer digital cameras).
John Stewart see REAL email address in message.
> Surely there must be some way to sample a portion of a CD and "scratch"
it
> > in memory using a mouse?
>
> But it would be oh so un-cool.
>
> How about these analogies - LP's are output devices like chemically
developed slides or prints.
> CD's are like digital prints. Tape masters are like film. Digital
mixers are like PhotoShop.
> Digital Cameras are like digital recorders.
Ever run across a device called a Theramin? Analog box (tubes!) with a wire
sticking straight out. Wave hand in the "field" around the wire to play
tones. Now if they could control a digital sample that way, I'd bet you
would find it cool!
John
Tom Holub
John Stewart see REAL email address in message. <cr...@frother.gov.invalid> wrote:
)
) > To take a different analogy, the music CD didn't kill the vinyl LP.
)
)In what sense?
In the sense which I explained in my post, if you'd bothered to read
it. Obviously CD has completely taken over as a distribution format,
but LP's are still being used and good LP equipment is still being
produced and sold.
) > When the music community was having this same
) > debate in the early days of the CD, I doubt anyone envisioned the DJ
) > scene.
)
)So DJ are the one using LPs? That's not exactly the mass market. ASnd are
)they using newly reelased LPs to run back and forth?
)
)Just curious. If film goes the way LPs did, then a handful of specialist
)will be the only ones with film
It seems fairly obvious that digital will supplant film for typical usages;
it's only a matter of when. I think it's reasonably likely that new
usages for film will develop, in areas where film has qualities not
easily emulated by digital.
Yes, it's possible to scratch with CD's, and it's possible to "play" a
trumpet by programming a MIDI synthesizer, but it doesn't really work.
Scratching with an LP is completely organic; you put your hand on the
table and you turn it the amount you want it to turn, and the sound is
generated by the needle in the groove. You could set up a program on
your Mac that buffered the last 10 seconds of the album and then used
some sort of algorithm to estimate what it might sound like played
backwards at various different speeds, and use your mouse to control
it, but it just wouldn't work well (plus it only gets you control of
one of the turntables). This is an example of an usage where the
physical nature of the object is an advantage.
Film almost certainly has analagous advantages; it only remains to
discover them.
-Tom
Jeff
"Ron Bean" <rb...@earth.execpc.com> wrote in message
news:3b40b6e5$0$12822$272e...@news.execpc.com...
>
> "Jeff" <dont.sp...@waysoft.dot.calm> writes:
>
> >At some point, if (when) the
> >market for film becomes too small to produce and sell it for an
affordable
> >price,
>
> Define "affordable".
I don't have to. The _marketplace_ will define it by refusing to buy, when
it it reached.
-jeff
Liberty
>
> This is vague enough to be hard to argue with, but in general it seems
> that digicams replace film consumption with battery consumption.
My rechargables last for years, a roll of film lasted 24 exposures.
In fact the batteries on my film SLR never lasted more than a year.
--
Khan ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ghengus Khan gk...@airmail.net:Opinions and Commentary are free
PGP Server:pgpkeys.mit.edu :That is what I charge and that is
http://web2.airmail.net/gkhan :what they are worth.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Stewart see REAL email address in message.
> > To take a different analogy, the music CD didn't kill the vinyl LP.
> )
> )In what sense?
>
> In the sense which I explained in my post, if you'd bothered to read
> it.
You analogy was unlcear, which is why I asked the question after reading the
entire post. It seemed more like you made a case that film, like LPs wopuld
become a small backwater usage item, eventually forgotten. Do you really
think that DJ will be scratching records in twenty years? How about 50?
I think it's reasonably likely that new
> usages for film will develop, in areas where film has qualities not
> easily emulated by digital.
Name one, no...name three. Look how far digital has come in the past five
years. Imagine the next ten!
So basically, you are talking about "micro use" somewhat like the few people
who still make wet plates and coat glass? If THAT is your defintion of film
not dying, especially when compared to now with millions of feet rolling off
of machines everyday, workwide, then you are probably correct.
And I suppose that bloodletting as a cure for evil humours will not die, as
somewhere somebody is probably still sticking somebody in the arm.
John
J Greely
>My rechargables last for years, a roll of film lasted 24 exposures.
[why on earth would anyone who plans to shoot more than one roll in a
day load a 24? Hell, most of the film I buy only comes in 36's]
I can shoot several thousand exposures through my 35mm SLR without
changing the batteries. This newsgroup is full of stories of people
whose digicams can't last more than an hour without a battery change.
Changing film tends to be a bit quicker than changing batteries, also.
That said, I do carry two types of rechargable: AA for my external
flash (which lasts several rolls) and sometimes the belt-clip unit
that powers my Quantum Qflash (which lasts 6-8 rolls, typically).
-j
Paul Rubin
> I can shoot several thousand exposures through my 35mm SLR without
> changing the batteries. This newsgroup is full of stories of people
> whose digicams can't last more than an hour without a battery change.
> Changing film tends to be a bit quicker than changing batteries, also.
I don't see that many of those stories. Most digicams will let you
shoot quite a long time if you use the optical viewfinder instead of
the LCD screen. Since 35mm cameras don't have an LCD screen, it's
reasonable to compare the digicam with the LCD off.
Changing batteries in a digicam is generally faster than changing 35mm
film, especially if you count the time needed to rewind the film
before you can change it. And with a digicam, you get a low battery
warning and you can go on shooting for a little while, then change
batteries at a convenient break. With 35mm film, if you see the film
getting low, you have to either finish the roll (and maybe then have
to change film at a less convenient juncture) or else waste frames.
J Greely
>Since 35mm cameras don't have an LCD screen, it's
>reasonable to compare the digicam with the LCD off.
If that is indeed the way they are most commonly used, but I keep
seeing reviews where many of the features that are touted as benefits
of the digicam require the use of the LCD. There is, of course, the
LCD viewfinder for the 35mm Contax N1, but at $500 I expect it's not
going to be seen often.
>Changing batteries in a digicam is generally faster than changing 35mm
>film, especially if you count the time needed to rewind the film
>before you can change it.
The time to rewind the film is no longer than the time it takes to
find another roll to load. As for battery-changing time, I see in the
Imaging Resource review of the Nikon 995 that it averages five seconds
to turn on, and anywhere from 1 to 39 seconds to turn *off*. Would it
be unfair to say that there's typically a fifteen second delay
involved in changing the batteries in this popular camera, that can be
considered equivalent to "waiting for the film to rewind"?
With those delays accounted for, I can't imagine it taking longer to
load a roll of film than to load a battery.
-j
Russ
in the car before I even got home - to see what pictures turned out
from the vacation or the birthday which was already a fading memory.
I will miss the bad shots, most of the family album are bad shots. Will
we all be printing these "bad ones" using Ophoto.com or at our desk?
I don't. Ever. Seems like I only print one in a hundred these days.
The bad ones are the only ones I have of many relatives.
Makes you wonder why "print only the good ones" is such a selling point.
I like sifting through the boxes of photos. I don't sift my hard drive.
I don't seem to print one 1000th as many as I once did, when I used to print
them all and even get "doubles".
Am I lazy? No, It just used to be built-in to the flow, now it's something
else
you have to budget time for.
I don't seem to be given as many photos either. Guess you have the same
problem.
I do get them in e-mail, but I never seem to print those - so I never get to
hang them on
the fridge.
I don't have as many excuses to go to the camera shop. "gotta get more film"
"gotta pick up the prints" and I loathe office supply stores - "gotta get
another inkjet cartridge"
heck - that makes doubles look pretty cheap.
I even kind of miss the flashing "E" when the film didn't thread properly. I
certainly will
miss the "1" when it did.
I miss the battery that seemed to last forever.
I miss not having to read the manual.
I miss not having to worry about "storage" on a long trip.
I miss winding the film with that ratcheting motion.
I miss the shutter sound.
--Scott.
"Roland Karlsson" <roland....@chello.se> wrote in message
news:asH%6.30154$Qp1.4...@nntp1.chello.se...
> Film cameras use LOTS of film. Each film has to be wet processed
> using lots of chemicals. The turn around time from taking picture
> until you see it is mostly measured in days (or months for those
> that don't take more than 7 pictures on their holiday).
>
> As soon as a replacement can be found that is good enough,
> film will (as a general method for taking pictures) just die.
> We are very near this point now, very near. Don't buy shares
> in film manufacturing companies :)
>
> Will it bother me that it dies? Nope - not really. The
> intermediate media when taking pictures is not really
> important.
>
> The only problem may be photographic papers.
> They will also die and with them a method for making
> final photograps - just like other good methods - platinum
> printing, oil transfer, carbon prrinting, etc, etc.
> Thats a shame really.
>
> But film? - nope don't bother me at all.
>
>
> Roland
>
>
>
David Kilpatrick
>
> Ever run across a device called a Theramin? Analog box (tubes!) with a wire
> sticking straight out. Wave hand in the "field" around the wire to play
> tones. Now if they could control a digital sample that way, I'd bet you
> would find it cool!
>
It's called a Kaoss Pad it's built in to many DJ mixers. Not three-d
like the theramin, but more like a matrix touch pad.
Also the Roland EG-101 and other synths have the i-Beam controller. Wave
your hand in the air, control the quality, speed, pitch of arpeggiation
etc - more or less like a Theramin but a bir sharply logarithmic in
response (inverse square law at work with infra-red beams here). I've
got one of these but never tried the Kaoss Pad. Very tempted by the
low-cost theramins available on the net right now!
David
John Stewart see REAL email address in message.
Intel web cams and others bundle some simple demo games that let you "hit" a
ball on the screen with your hand. The camera somehow merges the real hand
with the image of the ball. I wonder if there could be some software that
would allow you to aim a web cam in a space and then do something similar
involving music that way. As I said, the technology for the camera to
physical world interaction already exists. See we actually got back on
topic! :)
John
Terry Dawson
news:VKc07.288467$p33.5...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
Hmmm. You must have read my little article at
http://digital.photography.home.att.net/writings/ruready.html
It's interesting that, even though the basic principles of good photography
are the same with digital, the photographer's experience is quite different.
Such is the whole digital revolution -- not just in photography.
--
My Digital Photography Pages
http://digital.photography.home.att.net/
Matt Bryda
> This is not an alarm. I think it is a fact. Nothing that consumes
> material survives when a good enough alternative arrives that don't.
(Wern't we supposed to have paperless offices by now?) Paper is alive and
well. Ebook sales are BAD, as people want the physical book. Same for
photography. Film will always survive. In fact my parents and I were
having this discussion this weekend. Dad was impressed. Mom was not - even
though the prints I make from the printer are indistinguishable from those
you get at the local photo place, they still wern't pictures according to
her. So, you also have people's attitudes to overcome.
-Matt
John Stewart see REAL email address in message.
> What about paper? We have the technology to make paper obsolete.
> (Wern't we supposed to have paperless offices by now?) Paper is alive
and
> well.
One of the funniest things is to go the press room at the November Comdex
show and see all the PAPER in the form of press kits, etc.
They could probaby give everyone 5 CDs and save a forest!
But the problem is getting all the parties together to make the CDs.
With the push towards digital AND the introduction of "dry" processing of
existing film (which destroys the negative!), I see a lot more organization
than the "paperless office" efforts.
John
a.m.
says...
> >Each film has to be wet processed using lots of chemicals.
>
> Actually, that's no longer true:
> http://www.appliedsciencefiction.com/products/pic/
They still use liquid chemicals to process the film. It's a wet process,
but the liquid which is sprayed on the film dries very quickly. After the
processing the film is discarded.
--
Alfred Molon
alfred_molon at csi dot com
J Greely
>They still use liquid chemicals to process the film.
But not "lots", and the chemical recovery process is very efficient.
-j
Roland Karlsson
> "Roland Karlsson" <roland....@chello.se> wrote in message
> news:8kM%6.30198$Qp1.4...@nntp1.chello.se...
> > This is not an alarm. I think it is a fact. Nothing that consumes
> > material survives when a good enough alternative arrives that don't.
> What about paper? We have the technology to make paper obsolete.
What technology? Have not seen anything that can replace a book or
a newspaper. There are competing methods - but they are not good enough.
> (Wern't we supposed to have paperless offices by now?)
The paperless office is here - at least at some places - and at least
almost paperless. In my previous occupation we used very little paper.
But in most places computers have just increased paper use.
> Paper is alive and
> well. Ebook sales are BAD, as people want the physical book. Same for
> photography.
Eh? Who is looking at film? People want photgraphs on paper - yes.
But people do not care about the intermediate film.
> Film will always survive.
Nope, it will not. It will survive for different long times in different
areas. But it will eventually dissapear totally. It is so very inconvenient.
OK - maybe not totally - look below.
You can compare it to computers. Some years ago we had to deliver the programs
to a data central, and we got the answer tomorrow. Then, we could get two
answers a day and then we had to wait an hour to get the answer. Today we
just run the program to get the answer. And we change it and get a new
answer within seconds. Those old batch oriented computers are dead.
The same will happen for pictures. The possibility to take a picture, look at it
and take a new if it is not good is so powerful that everyone wants it
eventually. Both professionals and vacation photographers.
> In fact my parents and I were
> having this discussion this weekend. Dad was impressed. Mom was not - even
> though the prints I make from the printer are indistinguishable from those
> you get at the local photo place, they still wern't pictures according to
> her. So, you also have people's attitudes to overcome.
Yes, some. As long as there are lots of people that still use their old
(or rather new) film camera, someone will make film. But at one point it
will not be economically possible. Then film dies for consumer photography.
For professional photography things are different. Professional photgraphers
are prepared to buy new stuff. So ... if a digital camera suites the job better,
it will be digital. And when all jobs are better to do digital, then film dies
for professional photography.
Maybe there will be some very obscure niches where film is still needed. Holography
is one technique that comes to my mind. Hmmmmm ... hard to see how to replace it
without film. The resolution demad is tremendous, and some holograms assumes
that the holographic film has depth. The 3D picture is recorded in a 3D media
with totally unbelievable amount of data. But - never say never - someone may
just surprise us and solve this problem with a digital method.
Roland
Roland Karlsson
> Yes, it's possible to scratch with CD's, and it's possible to "play" a
> trumpet by programming a MIDI synthesizer, but it doesn't really work.
> Scratching with an LP is completely organic; you put your hand on the
> table and you turn it the amount you want it to turn, and the sound is
> generated by the needle in the groove. You could set up a program on
> your Mac that buffered the last 10 seconds of the album and then used
> some sort of algorithm to estimate what it might sound like played
> backwards at various different speeds, and use your mouse to control
> it, but it just wouldn't work well (plus it only gets you control of
> one of the turntables). This is an example of an usage where the
> physical nature of the object is an advantage.
But if you make the scratch input device in the form of a vinyl record?
Roland
Roland Karlsson
Yes - I can agree with most (all?) that you wrote.
One of the strongest was that about "bad photographs". Yes, it is a great risk
that "bad photographs" will not be saved for the future. And lots of interesting
stuff can be found in bad photographs.
I can add one more - I will miss the smell of a fresh film when I take it out
of the container.
But it will not help - film will die.
Roland
"Russ" <remove_...@home.com> skrev i meddelandet news:VKc07.288467$p33.5...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
Marvin Margoshes
> in the car before I even got home - to see what pictures turned out
> from the vacation or the birthday which was already a fading memory.
to see the pictures.
>
> I will miss the bad shots, most of the family album are bad shots. Will
> we all be printing these "bad ones" using Ophoto.com or at our desk?
> I don't. Ever. Seems like I only print one in a hundred these days.
I throw the bad shots away, or edit them into good shots. I save the cost
of film and developing for bad shots - like sa whole roll of double
exposures.
>
> The bad ones are the only ones I have of many relatives.
>
> Makes you wonder why "print only the good ones" is such a selling point.
>
> I like sifting through the boxes of photos. I don't sift my hard drive.
So, print and sift.
> I don't seem to print one 1000th as many as I once did, when I used to
print
> them all and even get "doubles".
>
> Am I lazy? No, It just used to be built-in to the flow, now it's something
> else
> you have to budget time for.
>
> I don't seem to be given as many photos either. Guess you have the same
> problem.
I get lost by e-mail, and send them that way too. Or I post them on the Web
foir others to see.
>
> I do get them in e-mail, but I never seem to print those - so I never get
to
> hang them on
> the fridge.
Your choice.
>
> I don't have as many excuses to go to the camera shop. "gotta get more
film"
> "gotta pick up the prints" and I loathe office supply stores - "gotta get
> another inkjet cartridge"
> heck - that makes doubles look pretty cheap.
>
> I even kind of miss the flashing "E" when the film didn't thread properly.
I
> certainly will
> miss the "1" when it did.
>
> I miss the battery that seemed to last forever.
>
> I miss not having to read the manual.
>
> I miss not having to worry about "storage" on a long trip.
I don't miss having a dozen rolls in my luggage, and trying to keep the used
film separate.
>
> I miss winding the film with that ratcheting motion.
>
> I miss the shutter sound.
>
> --Scott.
Ain't nostalgia for "the good old days" fun?
Billy
>
> And I suppose that bloodletting as a cure for evil humours will not die, as
> somewhere somebody is probably still sticking somebody in the arm.
Not just sticking somebody in the arm.....
http://www.noah.org/trepan/
--
-Billy e-mail - billy_rpd at yahoo dot com checked weekly
Look - RPD FAQ - http://rpdfaq.50megs.com
Please support descriptive subjects by ignoring generic
posts!
Jon Freivald
sentiment to someone else. Also, as with the original poster, "bad" pics are
all I have of some loved ones...
On the other hand -- I have all of my digital pics and scans burned to CD's,
and I know just where they are. Trying to locate the negative for a certain
print is near impossible...
--
--
Jon Freivald ( j...@freivald.org -- http://www.freivald.org/~jon )
( phone/fax: 516.794.7696 -- e-mail page: pag...@freivald.org {40 chars
max} )
The 2 most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.
"Roland Karlsson" <roland....@chello.se> wrote in message
news:zmp07.30445$Qp1.4...@nntp1.chello.se...
J Greely
>One of the strongest was that about "bad photographs". Yes, it is a
>great risk that "bad photographs" will not be saved for the future.
Given the mindset so often expressed by digicam users, it's unlikely
they'll even keep the bad shots long enough to figure out *why* they
were bad. If you're not learning from your mistakes, are you learning
at all?
-j
Joan McGalliard
No, no, no.
With film I would see a scene, and spend some effort in trying to
capture what I see. I might bracket, or try different aperture/shutter
speed combinations. Then I put the camera away until next time. A
month or so later I finish the film, take it to the shop, and pick it up
a few days later. When I look at the rather mediocre results, but no
longer remember what the scene was like, what I was trying to capture or
what I did. I just have a bunch of uninvolving pictures in my hand.
With digital, I am looking at the results a few seconds (on the lcd) or
a few hours after taking the photo. I learn quickly what works (and
what doesn't) and sometimes go and try again straight away. My
photography has improved in leaps and bounds since getting my digital.
Doing this with film is expensive, and time consuming.
joan
--
Joan McGalliard
Ron Bean
"Jeff" <dont.sp...@waysoft.dot.calm> writes:
>> Define "affordable".
>
>I don't have to. The _marketplace_ will define it by refusing to buy, when
>it it reached.
But you need to define *which marketplace*. Consumer, pro, fine
art, each with several sub-markets...
That's why LP's are not "dead". If you're trying to say they're
no longer mainstream, then say that. Being "dead" is not the same
thing.
(I think 8 track tapes are "dead"-- some people collect them but
I don't think they're making any new ones. Radio stations used to
use tape cartridges which were similar but incompatible.)
Similarly with film. Film will be "dead" when it is no longer
manufactured anywhere, for any purpose. It will fade from the
mainstream *long* before that happens (in fact it's already
happened in some markets).
My guess is that disposable cameras will be around for a long
time, although I'd like to be wrong about that (you could break
open a disposable and use the film in your SLR, if you rewind it
first).
I'm not sure why this topic seems to matter so much to so many
people. Part of it is sloppy language-- if you tell someone film
will be "dead" they'll say "of course not", but if you say it
won't be mainstream, that same person will agree with you. You'll
have fewer arguments if you say what you mean.
Part of it might be the fear of being "stuck" with equipment that
can't be used because you can't buy film. I pointed out earlier
that it will almost certainly be available somewhere for a long
time, you'll just have to look harder and harder to find it, and
you'll have fewer choices for emulsions.
A good analogy is my daisywheel printer, which takes Diablo
Hytype II ribbons-- They stopped making daisywheel printers years
ago, but I know of one place where I can still buy ribbons for
it. I've finally stopped using the printer, but not because I was
forced to by lack of supplies (it's really noisy, and the
neighbors were complaining).
Similarly, you'll probably want a new camera before film
disappears completely. By definition, it won't disappear until
very few people are still using their 35mm cameras, which means
even fewer people will be buying them. That means 35mm camera
sales will zero out some years *before* film disappears.
Things are heading that way, but there's a long way to go.
I still see 35mm P&S cameras for sale all over the place.
Anyway, can anyone give any other reason for spending so much
bandwidth trying to predict the future? Remember, straight-line
extrapolations of current trends are almost always wrong. Expect
the unexpected.
Matt Bryda
> What technology? Have not seen anything that can replace a book or
> a newspaper. There are competing methods - but they are not good enough.
searchable and readable. Where you can go into a library and get a CD-ROM
with the book on it. Where all your business documents are online and
instead of looking up that PO from 1980, you pop in the 1980 PO CD...
> The paperless office is here - at least at some places - and at least
> almost paperless. In my previous occupation we used very little paper.
> But in most places computers have just increased paper use.
Most places still use quite a bit of paper and will for some time.
Paper is so much easier to proof, etc.
> Eh? Who is looking at film? People want photgraphs on paper - yes.
> But people do not care about the intermediate film.
Some do. Some are going to be PO'ed when that $400 Digicam cannot make
good 8x10's (1.3MP and under) while the $99 P&S will make 'em just fine.
Not to mention, the lack of a real zoom on the low end models...
> Nope, it will not. It will survive for different long times in different
> areas. But it will eventually dissapear totally. It is so very
inconvenient.
> OK - maybe not totally - look below.
Somewhat inconvenient, but not very. The reason I like digital is
because I get control over my prints. I like film because I can shoot
something and if I love it, I can get HUGE prints to show off to everyone.
With my Camera (1.3MB Olympus), I can get decent 8x10's, but not as good as
a negative enlarged to 8x10.
> answer within seconds. Those old batch oriented computers are dead.
No, they are still used in billing departments and such where they run a
batch of bills every night. I work at a public utility co. and their
mainframe is alive and well (and does billing at night in batches.)
> The same will happen for pictures. The possibility to take a picture, look
at it
> and take a new if it is not good is so powerful that everyone wants it
> eventually. Both professionals and vacation photographers.
Definitely a plus for Digital. However, with Kodak's new Advantix
camera, that capability is slowly coming to film as well.
-Matt
Freak Cell
"Joan McGalliard" <jem*NO-SPAM*@netspace.net.au> wrote in message
news:1ew0es2.10r8s0c1bbfz2kN%jem*NO-SPAM*@netspace.net.au...
Yes, agreed. I'm not sure if other cameras do it or to what extent but, my
Oly C3040Z also saves Metadata with the image of all settings. It really
beats keeping notes of speeds and apertures, etc., by hand.
James Himmelman
<3b42d88b$0$18892$272e...@news.execpc.com>:
>Anyway, can anyone give any other reason for spending so much
>bandwidth trying to predict the future? Remember, straight-line
>extrapolations of current trends are almost always wrong. Expect
>the unexpected.
Because we are interested in photography and this is a discussion
group. This is the biggest change to happen in the industry for as
far back as I can remember. It's fun to try to predict the near and
long term impact. Apparently, digicams are already outselling
conventional cams.
Why don't you give us your reasons for participating?
--
Jim H.
James Himmelman
<9hv296$1tv$1...@newstest.laserlink.net>:
>because I get control over my prints. I like film because I can
>shoot something and if I love it, I can get HUGE prints to show
>off to everyone. With my Camera (1.3MB Olympus), I can get decent
>8x10's, but not as good as a negative enlarged to 8x10.
>-Matt
But the topic is why film -will- die. Not that film -is- dead. Your
1.3Mp is old news in this rapidly maturing digital world. I purchased
my 2.1Mp Olympus for less than the $400 you mentioned for a 1.3Mp
digicam. The 8X10's I produce are quite nice. My sub-$400 2.1Mp
camera is now fast becoming old news, and the replacements in that
price range will produce even better 8X10's.
--
Jim H.
Roland Karlsson
> "Roland Karlsson" <roland....@chello.se> wrote in message
> news:rep07.30442$Qp1.4...@nntp1.chello.se...
> > What technology? Have not seen anything that can replace a book or
> > a newspaper. There are competing methods - but they are not good enough.
> Scanners and imaging products. You know, where everyting is online and
> searchable and readable. Where you can go into a library and get a CD-ROM
> with the book on it. Where all your business documents are online and
> instead of looking up that PO from 1980, you pop in the 1980 PO CD...
Yes, products exist. But for most usage, books and magazines are still better.
Computers are so clumsy.
> > Eh? Who is looking at film? People want photgraphs on paper - yes.
> > But people do not care about the intermediate film.
> Some do. Some are going to be PO'ed when that $400 Digicam cannot make
> good 8x10's (1.3MP and under) while the $99 P&S will make 'em just fine.
> Not to mention, the lack of a real zoom on the low end models...
But ... I just said when digital is good enough. And when it is good
enough then it is good enough. It is not now I am talking about.
> > and take a new if it is not good is so powerful that everyone wants it
> > eventually. Both professionals and vacation photographers.
> Definitely a plus for Digital. However, with Kodak's new Advantix
> camera, that capability is slowly coming to film as well.
Eh? How?
Roland
Roland Karlsson
> Yes, agreed. I'm not sure if other cameras do it or to what extent but, my
> Oly C3040Z also saves Metadata with the image of all settings. It really
> beats keeping notes of speeds and apertures, etc., by hand.
This is one thing I will NOT miss about film - the lack of metadata.
I have been photographing for several years and keeping track of things
manually is a pain in the behind. OK - I know that some advanced Kodak
Advantix cameras store metadata. But - thats about it.
Roland
somebody
>I know that some advanced Kodak
>Advantix cameras store metadata. But - thats about it.
some higher end 35mm film bodies will print the metadata on the pic, and/or save
100's of rolls of data in its memory, and u can connect your pc to the cam and
u/l the data to your pc.
Roland Karlsson
> some higher end 35mm film bodies will print the metadata on the pic, and/or save
> 100's of rolls of data in its memory, and u can connect your pc to the cam and
> u/l the data to your pc.
Hmmm .. I have tried to find those cameras. The Nikon F80s prints data between pictures.
The Nikon F100 has a personal computer data link, but I cannot see what it is used for.
Canon EOS 1V adds a number to each picture and you can download the metainfo to a PC.
Minolta Dynax 9 also has the possibility to download metadata.
OK - so some new (and expensive) cameras have the feature. Nice, but unfortunately
some years to late. At least thats my opinion.
Roland
J Greely
>With film I would see a scene, and spend some effort in trying to
>capture what I see. I might bracket, or try different aperture/shutter
>speed combinations. Then I put the camera away until next time. A
>month or so later I finish the film,
Um, when I take a camera out and "spend some effort" trying to capture
something, I finish at least *one* roll...
Actually, I think I average about seven rolls for a half-day spent
wandering around looking at things and learning to take better
pictures of them. Then I spend several hours (the same day, or worst
case the next) deciding which were *good* pictures.
The major difference between the two media is that you spent your
money up front on the camera, computer, and printer, while I spend it
day-by-day on film. Eventually the numbers will be equal, but we have
to shoot a lot of pictures first.
-j
somebody
>The Nikon F100 has a personal computer data link, but I cannot see what it is used for.
it uploads the picture data to your pc, as stated in the post u responded to.
Roland Karlsson
Let me see ... hmmm ... seven rolls ... that will be $50 ... all included.
30 such half day excursions to learn to photograph and you have the
same cost as the computer. It does not look like it will take long for
you to save money to a computer and other things this way.
BTW - don't you own a computer already? Most people do - at least if they
are posting on USENET.
Roland
Ron Bean
jhi...@i-2000.com (James Himmelman) writes:
>>Anyway, can anyone give any other reason for spending so much
>>bandwidth trying to predict the future?
>It's fun to try to predict the near and
>long term impact.
Sure, but "fun" doesn't explain why it seems so *important* to
some people. Doesn't it stop being "fun" when everyone is
repeating themselves for the Nth time?
>Why don't you give us your reasons for participating?
Because of the non-communication aspect I mentioned earlier.
Someone boldly declares "Film Will Die". Someone else points out
why not (same reasons as the last 5 times it came up). First guy
says "But it won't be mainstream". So why not say that in the
first place? The conversation is meaningless if you're not
talking about the same thing.
Normally I ignore the subject, because I haven't seen any new
arguments in a long time. Whatever happens will happen. If I wanted
a film camera now, I wouldn't hesitate to buy one.
In fact, I've *been* avoiding buying a new camera for several years,
because film doesn't really do what I want to do. Digital does, but
the quality just wasn't there until about a year ago (unless you
want to talk about cameras with 5-digit price tags). The next couple
of years should be really interesting. But I don't see any point in
trying to predict anything more than that, with any kind of certainty.
J Greely
>30 such half day excursions to learn to photograph
Somebody's a slow learner. Obviously the person you're imagining
didn't bother to *look* at the results of those sessions.
You can get a good grasp of the major technical aspects of photography
with one roll of slide film, a garden hose, a tree, and a cooperative
friend. You do have to actually look at all of the pictures, though.
>BTW - don't you own a computer already?
Me, personally? Yes, I have six or seven of them at the moment. Only
one is actually suitable for photo editing, however; none of the rest
have more than 128MB of RAM.
-j
Marko Björkroth
Almost all older Minolta AF bodies support Creative Expansion Cards and one
of the not-so-popular cards was a Data Memory which recorded shutter speed,
aperture, exp-compensation, focal lenght and max aperture available. I think
the first camera that supported cards was the Dynax/Maxxum 7000i introduced
1988. Other bodies supporting CE cards include 8000i, 7xi ('92), 9xi and
700si ('93). Unfortunately, there is no CE card reader available (as far as I
know). One must read the recorded data from the tiny LCD on the top of the
camera.
The 800si ('97), Dynax 7 and 9 have a build in memory (800si: 9 rolls, 7 and
9: 7 rolls) and they no longer need cards. They also record more data, such
as flash status (on/off), metering mode etc.
Marko
Roland Karlsson
> Almost all older Minolta AF bodies support Creative Expansion Cards and one
> of the not-so-popular cards was a Data Memory which recorded shutter speed,
> aperture, exp-compensation, focal lenght and max aperture available. I think
> the first camera that supported cards was the Dynax/Maxxum 7000i introduced
> 1988. Other bodies supporting CE cards include 8000i, 7xi ('92), 9xi and
> 700si ('93). Unfortunately, there is no CE card reader available (as far as I
> know). One must read the recorded data from the tiny LCD on the top of the
> camera.
>
> The 800si ('97), Dynax 7 and 9 have a build in memory (800si: 9 rolls, 7 and
> 9: 7 rolls) and they no longer need cards. They also record more data, such
> as flash status (on/off), metering mode etc.
Yes, I know about this. Rather useless gadgets. The information must be stored
with the film. In the camera and at some card is just toys. If you can download
to a computer things are improved. But it is still a hassle to map the correct
film to the data in the computer.
Roland
Joe Blow
wrote:
>jem*NO-SPAM*@netspace.net.au (Joan McGalliard) writes:
>>With film I would see a scene, and spend some effort in trying to
>>capture what I see. I might bracket, or try different aperture/shutter
>>speed combinations. Then I put the camera away until next time. A
>>month or so later I finish the film,
>
>Um, when I take a camera out and "spend some effort" trying to capture
>something, I finish at least *one* roll...
That's you. But I would suspect that most film camera owners do not.
I got my digital camera back in Nov00 and haven't used my film camera
since. I had accumulated about 14 rolls of undeveloped film. I
eventually took them to be processed at the usual place (Wal-Mart)
and through a stroke of luck, they didn't cost me anything (they
didn't meet their one day turn around).
It is just as fun to look through those film pictures as it is to look
at the images (on the computer) from my digital.
I find that don't look at old film pictures nearly as much as I look
at my digital images. I usually look at the film prints right away,
usually before I get to the checkout counter and then maybe a few
times after that then they are put away .
I'm on my home computer nearly every day so access to the digital
images is really easy. Since I look at these images more often, they
seem to get "burned" into my brain.
Since I can't control the development or printing process for my film,
it's hard for me to judge what's wrong with the prints that didn't
turn out as expected.
With digital, I have nearly full control over the entire process from
capturing the image to printing the image. To me, the cost issue is
not as important as is quality.
>
>Actually, I think I average about seven rolls for a half-day spent
>wandering around looking at things and learning to take better
>pictures of them. Then I spend several hours (the same day, or worst
>case the next) deciding which were *good* pictures.
Where do you get your film developed that you can have it later that
day (that gives decent quality)?
>
>The major difference between the two media is that you spent your
>money up front on the camera, computer, and printer, while I spend it
>day-by-day on film. Eventually the numbers will be equal, but we have
>to shoot a lot of pictures first.
That would be true if you didn't have a PC to start with and most
people don't need a zillion megabytes of memory in their PC to do
minor image manipulation and printing.Buying an entire PC/digital
imaging system could take a long time for the costs to even out versus
film, but eventually digital will be cheaper.
But I would be that most already have a PC that's used for a multitude
of other tasks and that they get into digital after the fact. If they
use their PC 1/4 of the time for digital imaging, then only 1/4 of the
PC cost should be calculated into the cost of digital imaging.
I would also bet that most people don't get into digital because of
the potential cost savings, that's just a nice by product, they do it
because it's more fun and convenient than film. I can also tell from
personal experience that the image and print quality from my digital
setup is for the most part better (sometimes WAY better) that what I
get from my film camera (Nikon 6006 with Nikon lenses).
Bottom line for me (at this point in time) is that I don't care if
film dies or it doesn't, I will probably never use it again.
John
J Greely
>That's you. But I would suspect that most film camera owners do not.
I suspect they also do not "spend some effort" trying to capture a
subject, which was the specific scenario I was responding to.
>Where do you get your film developed that you can have it later that
>day (that gives decent quality)?
Two-hour slide processing is quite common (although I only know of one
place in the area that will do it on Sunday), and on the relatively
rare occasions when I shoot print film, the folks at Long's Drugs have
been putting some real effort into acquiring better minilabs and
teaching employees to use them.
>That would be true if you didn't have a PC to start with and most
>people don't need a zillion megabytes of memory in their PC to do
>minor image manipulation and printing.
I tend to forget how tiny digicam images are. Even my web scans start
out as 14MB TIFFs.
>Buying an entire PC/digital imaging system could take a long time for
>the costs to even out versus film, but eventually digital will be
>cheaper.
If it takes more than a year to break even, the digicam is now
obsolete. :-)
>I would also bet that most people don't get into digital because of
>the potential cost savings, that's just a nice by product, they do it
>because it's more fun and convenient than film.
Oddly enough, I shoot film because it's *much* more convenient than
digital. Also more responsive; the shutter lag on most consumer
digicams is horrible.
>I can also tell from personal experience that the image and print
>quality from my digital setup is for the most part better (sometimes
>WAY better) that what I get from my film camera (Nikon 6006 with
>Nikon lenses).
Then you were getting lousy prints. I think that that more than
anything else is what has driven people to digital capture: if
one-hour photo labs didn't suck so badly, no one would dream of paying
$1000 for a camera that can't make a good 8x10 print.
-j
Jim Miller
> I never erase any shots -- what I might see as a bad shot may have a special
> sentiment to someone else. Also, as with the original poster, "bad" pics are
> all I have of some loved ones...
>
> On the other hand -- I have all of my digital pics and scans burned to CD's,
> and I know just where they are. Trying to locate the negative for a certain
> print is near impossible...
I've stayed out of this discussion so far, probably for my own good.
But I've got to chime in at this point.
I shoot/shot both formats (need to finally replace my
dying/dead Olympus D-220L after about 4000 shots--small
pix but great color balance). I started back with
digital after a long absence from any photography and
then moved to film when I found the over-automation a
serious pain in the neck.
Digital pictures are only as good as the time that you
take to print and archive them properly. The jury is
still out on today's inkjet printing processes. What
works well in the lab may not work so well in real
life and those promised prints lasting x years may only
last x/10 years in the real world. And your memories
are only as good as the methods you use to back up and
verify your archived disks. Again, only time will tell.
Film pictures are a heck of a lot easier to deal with
as far as getting prints made (unless you shoot slides
and then that's another story...). But once you get your
package back from the local super store/drug store/etc,
if you don't store and catalog the negatives properly
you are the mercy of the original prints and whoever got
copies of them. Same problem.
Composing and shooting the picture is only half the show,
whether it's film or digital. Archiving and catalogging
is the other half if you to be able to find your memories.
I'm not perfect, but I can tell you pretty much on each of
my archived digtal disks and each of my hundred plus rolls
in the binder pages exactly where to find what memory if I
can come up with a rough date and a guess as to where or
what the picture was of.
And I get the best of both worlds when I shoot. I can get
that toxic film smell (makes me feel alive) and I can see
some of my shots as soon as I get home from whatever I'm
doing. Oh the joys of being flexible. Semper Gumby! :)
Shoot'em if you've got'em - Two Fin Jim
Myndir frá Íslandi - Pictures from Iceland
http://www151.pair.com/icephoto/index.htm
Joe Blow
>If it takes more than a year to break even, the digicam is now
>obsolete. :-)
Not really. Maybe a few years ago it would have been. If I really
like the 4x6s and 5x7s that I get from my setup now, I don't think
I'll hate them a year from now just because there is newer, faster and
improved features.
In terms of speed and features, yes, my camera will be obsolete.
Just like in film, the early cameras did not take great pictures. Over
time, the quality dramatically improved. I would say that a good bit
of that improvement has already happened with digital.
>
>>I would also bet that most people don't get into digital because of
>>the potential cost savings, that's just a nice by product, they do it
>>because it's more fun and convenient than film.
>
>Oddly enough, I shoot film because it's *much* more convenient than
>digital. Also more responsive; the shutter lag on most consumer
>digicams is horrible.
How so is film more convenient than digital for you?
It's true that my Nikon , for the most part, is much faster (really
depends on the lens though) than my digital in terms of shutter lag.
But that really hasn't been too much of a problem. There have been a
few times that I've missed shots because of it.
>
>>I can also tell from personal experience that the image and print
>>quality from my digital setup is for the most part better (sometimes
>>WAY better) that what I get from my film camera (Nikon 6006 with
>>Nikon lenses).
>
>Then you were getting lousy prints. I think that that more than
>anything else is what has driven people to digital capture: if
>one-hour photo labs didn't suck so badly, no one would dream of paying
>$1000 for a camera that can't make a good 8x10 print.
But how much should I expect to pay to get the best( or really decent)
quality prints (4x6 or 5x7) from my film? My processing usually costs
about $5-7 a roll. I had our Honeymoon pics (film) printed a so-called
custom lab and they didn't turn out any better than K-Mart.
I've scanned some of my negs and still don't think that they are any
better than my digital images. Can they ruin the quality of the
negative with inferior developing?
John
J Greely
>Not really. Maybe a few years ago it would have been.
There was a reason for the smiley. Yes, the release cycle at the
"makes a decent 4x6 print" end of the range has slowed down a bit, and
we're no longer stuck with serial-port connections and tiny little
storage cards, so having "last year's model" is not as bad as it was a
few years ago. At least, not until the manufacturer stops stocking
parts to repair them.
>Just like in film, the early cameras did not take great pictures.
Um, no. They took great pictures, and the same camera took better
pictures every time new film was released. I have fifty-year-old
cameras that take fantastic pictures, thanks to the improvements in
film. Improvements in SmartMedia just allow you to take more pictures
at the same quality.
>How so is film more convenient than digital for you?
I can walk out of my house with a small shoulder bag and shoot several
thousand pictures. No stopping to charge NiCads, no stopping to delete
pictures to make room for more, etc, etc. I can also shoot under a
wider variety of conditions without a tripod by carrying different
film. I don't have to trade off storage capacity for quality. I don't
have to twiddle my thumbs waiting for the camera to turn on or off. I
don't have to press the shutter release and hope the camera fires
before the subject changes. Etc, etc.
>But how much should I expect to pay to get the best( or really decent)
>quality prints (4x6 or 5x7) from my film? My processing usually costs
>about $5-7 a roll.
Like I said earlier, the folks at Long's Drugs have made a serious
attempt to raise the standard of minilab prints.
>I had our Honeymoon pics (film) printed a so-called
>custom lab and they didn't turn out any better than K-Mart.
When I take print film to Keeble & Shuchat and pay their prices, I
*always* get terrific prints. And if I don't like them, they'll keep
trying until I do.
>I've scanned some of my negs and still don't think that they are any
>better than my digital images.
I've never seen a picture from a consumer digicam that was even
passably sharp. If you were using a decent fixed lens on a 35mm SLR,
you should be seeing *much* better pictures from film scans. Even with
a relatively cheap zoom you should see a difference.
>Can they ruin the quality of the negative with inferior developing?
Usually they just get them dusty and scratched up.
-j
Joe Blow
>
>>Just like in film, the early cameras did not take great pictures.
>
>Um, no. They took great pictures, and the same camera took better
>pictures every time new film was released. I have fifty-year-old
>cameras that take fantastic pictures, thanks to the improvements in
>film. Improvements in SmartMedia just allow you to take more pictures
>at the same quality.
I'm talking a little older than 50 years. How about 150 years ago?
Comparing SmartMedia to film is an invalid comparsion. The SM card
isn't involved in the creation of the final image. But it's ironic
that it's marketed that way. I've seen many ads in magazines that
would lead you to believe that.
You can compare the CCD to film though.
>>How so is film more convenient than digital for you?
>
>I can walk out of my house with a small shoulder bag and shoot several
>thousand pictures. No stopping to charge NiCads, no stopping to delete
>pictures to make room for more, etc, etc. I can also shoot under a
>wider variety of conditions without a tripod by carrying different
>film. I don't have to trade off storage capacity for quality. I don't
>have to twiddle my thumbs waiting for the camera to turn on or off. I
>don't have to press the shutter release and hope the camera fires
>before the subject changes. Etc, etc.
>
Except for the initial cost of memory cards and batteries, I can do
all that and it doesn't cost me a dime (not counting the electricity
that charged the batteries). And as far as throwing away the bad pics
goes, why not? I don't need them. This will give me room to take some
more pics. My batteries are always in the chargers ready to go.
If you did what you say you can do (shoot several thousand pics), that
would cost you a lot of money in film alone and then there's the
development cost on top of that. The abilty to use different types of
film is a plus but the average camera owner usually doesn't know how
to determine if the scene would dictate the use of a different film
type.
I will concede that most digitals are a little slow in the shutter lag
time, but I don't twiddle my thumbs waiting for MY (certain models are
very slow compared to my Oly 2100) camera to turn on or off. It's on
and ready to go in about 4 seconds and off in about 2 seconds. Can't
wait that long?
It really boils down to what the mass market buyer ends up with as far
as quality (even if it's perceived). Most people are happy to get a
picture that's reasonably sharp, exposed and color balanced. Most
don't expect studio or professional quality images.
This is what will determine how long film remains in the mainstream.
Meet me back here in 10 years and will talk about it some more and see
how it turns out.
John
Billy
>
> >Just like in film, the early cameras did not take great pictures.
>
> Um, no. They took great pictures,
Well, either that or the photographer did. ;)
> I have fifty-year-old cameras that take fantastic pictures
Hmmm, my cameras tend to just sit on the shelf all day,
how did you train your cameras to take such nice shots?
In particular, I'm thinking of pbx1-0101.jpg. I hope
you don't mind, but I've held that one up as an example
of 'try *that* with your built in flash' a few times.
Oh, in reference to your comment on your web site, let
me officially raise my hand. ^.
> thanks to the improvements in film. Improvements in SmartMedia
> just allow you to take more pictures at the same quality.
Well, often more pictures equals more keepers.
> >How so is film more convenient than digital for you?
>
> I can walk out of my house with a small shoulder bag and shoot several
> thousand pictures.
So can I. A microdrive and a gel-cell and I'm set for weeks.
> No stopping to charge NiCads, no stopping to delete
> pictures to make room for more, etc, etc.
None of that's a problem for me....
> I can also shoot under a wider variety of conditions without a
> tripod by carrying different film.
Well, after trying to buy fluorescent balanced film and
fighting with what Fuji considers tungsten balanced, I'll
stick with my digicams on-the-fly selections. Although,
I do wish my S10 had more than ISO 400, I'm seriously
looking at the new Minolta 7 (and it's even your brand, J).
> I don't have to trade off storage capacity for quality.
Microdrive... Microdrive... Microdrive...
> I don't have to twiddle my thumbs waiting for the camera to turn on or
> off. I don't have to press the shutter release and hope the camera
> fires before the subject changes.
Ow Ouch, Uncle Uncle!! ;)
> ... the folks at Long's Drugs have made a serious
> attempt to raise the standard of minilab prints.
Too bad they're the only ones....
> >I had our Honeymoon pics (film) printed a so-called
> >custom lab and they didn't turn out any better than K-Mart.
>
> When I take print film to Keeble & Shuchat and pay their prices, I
> *always* get terrific prints. And if I don't like them, they'll keep
> trying until I do.
Does that include going back to Barbados and re-taking
the shot? That preview feature can be a lifesaver.
> >I've scanned some of my negs and still don't think that they are any
> >better than my digital images.
>
> I've never seen a picture from a consumer digicam that was even
> passably sharp. If you were using a decent fixed lens on a 35mm SLR,
> you should be seeing *much* better pictures from film scans. Even with
> a relatively cheap zoom you should see a difference.
But not a huge difference, speaking from personal experience
here. I'd say with my cheap zoom, I can get about a 6
megapix image. However, the *much* higher effective
shutter speed on my digicam equals more sharp shots.
For instance, with my digicam I can hand-hold my 600mm lens,
not possible with 35mm.
--
-Billy e-mail - billy_rpd at yahoo dot com checked weekly
Look - RPD FAQ - http://rpdfaq.50megs.com
Please support descriptive subjects by ignoring generic
posts!
J Greely
>I'm talking a little older than 50 years. How about 150 years ago?
Well, those didn't use film. I've seen some darn nice prints from
wet-plate negatives, though.
>Comparing SmartMedia to film is an invalid comparsion.
No more than comparing a film camera to a digicam is. Bottom line, an
Apple QuickTake will never take a better picture than it did the day
you bought it, but a 100-year-old film camera will produce better
results today than it did when it was new.
>You can compare the CCD to film though.
Still not field-upgradable.
>Except for the initial cost of memory cards and batteries, I can do
>all that
Then you don't have any of the standard consumer digicams. All of them
have at least one of the limitations I mentioned, most of them have
all.
>And as far as throwing away the bad pics goes, why not? I don't need
>them.
So what do you learn from?
>This will give me room to take some more pics.
But you still have to take the time to clear out space to take more
pictures. If you're doing that based solely on the in-camera LCD,
you're not seeing what you actually shot. If you're carrying a
laptop around on every outing, you've changed the conditions.
>My batteries are always in the chargers ready to go.
My batteries are in the camera. I can shoot literally thousands of
pictures without changing them at all.
>If you did what you say you can do (shoot several thousand pics),
>that would cost you a lot of money in film alone and then there's the
>development cost on top of that.
Yes, and eventually it will catch up to the cost of your camera,
batteries, and storage devices. [Actually, to be fair, my primary
camera almost certainly cost more than yours; I know some of my lenses
did]
>The abilty to use different types of film is a plus but the average
>camera owner usually doesn't know how to determine if the scene would
>dictate the use of a different film type.
Can't be too difficult to figure out. Kodak writes it on the damn box
for them.
>Can't wait that long?
Not always, no. Of course, I can just leave my camera on for several
hours and not have to worry about it at all.
-j
J Greely
>Hmmm, my cameras tend to just sit on the shelf all day,
>how did you train your cameras to take such nice shots?
I'm trying to train one of them to run the scanner now.
>>thanks to the improvements in film. Improvements in SmartMedia
>>just allow you to take more pictures at the same quality.
>Well, often more pictures equals more keepers.
I've found that I still throw away two thirds of my pictures, but that
the ones I throw away now are the ones I would have kept four years
ago.
>So can I. A microdrive and a gel-cell and I'm set for weeks.
What, one of the Quantums? I frequently carry around a Turbo Plus, but
that's to power the flash, and it usually lasts about 300 pictures
before it's down to below 25% charge.
>Although, I do wish my S10 had more than ISO 400, I'm seriously
>looking at the new Minolta 7 (and it's even your brand, J).
Heh. I've been thinking about picking one up as a backup body. I'm
hoping they'll start rechipping the high-end lenses for it; I don't
want to buy a 300/2.8 again any time soon.
>Microdrive... Microdrive... Microdrive...
Microdrive-compatible-digicam... Microdrive-compatible-digicam...
>Does that include going back to Barbados and re-taking the shot?
I recommend J Barry O'Rourke's book "How to Photograph Women
Beautifully", which includes a story about a Newsweek cover shoot
where he had to do just that.
>That preview feature can be a lifesaver.
There are more things that the preview LCD won't tell you than there
are that it will. Any of them could lead to a shot that's no good.
Hell, I've got slides that don't show their defects under a 6x loupe,
but once they're scanned, I wish I could go back and shoot them again.
-j
Mark
forward to my first digicam purchase this fall. I have searched the net,
spoken with folks who own digicams, went to the stores to hold a few, and
have pretty much settled on a Sony DSC-s75. I am looking so forward to the
digital experience.
Your post is very humbling. All that you said is true. I have boxes and
albums of my 39 years on this earth and some of the most treasured are the
bad ones. I also get that little jilt when opening the package in Wal Mart
before you take it to the checkout to see what turned out. I recently found
a roll of film I had forgotten to develope and on it was a pix of me and my
now 8 year old daughter when she was 4 months old.
Mechanical reasons you mentioned are why I have setlled for the Sony. It
has many manual features I'm used to. Point and shoots are great, but I
like to just "shoot a roll" ever now and then. Now I guess it's "shoot a
stick".
Lessons I learned from your post include:
Don't delete it unless it's just unrecognizable mess
Get at least a 64 mb stick to allow for the bad ones too.
Upload and print often to kodak.com or I use photoworks.com
(this should rectify itself soon as more kiosks and vendors are allowing you
to bring in your photomedia and print directly from it)
So, thanks for the eyeopener even before I get my eyes this fall.
Invaluable information.
Mark Bedwell
Also, we will miss the picking up of the Hotwheels and Barbies when my 8 and
5 year olds have long gone.
"Russ" <remove_...@home.com> wrote in message
news:VKc07.288467$p33.5...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
> I miss the joy of picking up the package and looking through it
> in the car before I even got home - to see what pictures turned out
> from the vacation or the birthday which was already a fading memory.
>
> I will miss the bad shots, most of the family album are bad shots. Will
> we all be printing these "bad ones" using Ophoto.com or at our desk?
> I don't. Ever. Seems like I only print one in a hundred these days.
>
> The bad ones are the only ones I have of many relatives.
>
> Makes you wonder why "print only the good ones" is such a selling point.
>
> I like sifting through the boxes of photos. I don't sift my hard drive.
>
> I don't seem to print one 1000th as many as I once did, when I used to
print
> them all and even get "doubles".
>
> Am I lazy? No, It just used to be built-in to the flow, now it's something
> else
> you have to budget time for.
>
> I don't seem to be given as many photos either. Guess you have the same
> problem.
>
> I do get them in e-mail, but I never seem to print those - so I never get
to
> hang them on
> the fridge.
>
> I don't have as many excuses to go to the camera shop. "gotta get more
film"
> "gotta pick up the prints" and I loathe office supply stores - "gotta get
> another inkjet cartridge"
> heck - that makes doubles look pretty cheap.
>
> I even kind of miss the flashing "E" when the film didn't thread properly.
I
> certainly will
> miss the "1" when it did.
>
> I miss the battery that seemed to last forever.
>
> I miss not having to read the manual.
>
> I miss not having to worry about "storage" on a long trip.
>
> I miss winding the film with that ratcheting motion.
>
> I miss the shutter sound.
>
> --Scott.
>
> "Roland Karlsson" <roland....@chello.se> wrote in message
> news:asH%6.30154$Qp1.4...@nntp1.chello.se...
> > Film cameras use LOTS of film. Each film has to be wet processed
> > using lots of chemicals. The turn around time from taking picture
> > until you see it is mostly measured in days (or months for those
> > that don't take more than 7 pictures on their holiday).
> >
> > As soon as a replacement can be found that is good enough,
> > film will (as a general method for taking pictures) just die.
> > We are very near this point now, very near. Don't buy shares
> > in film manufacturing companies :)
> >
> > Will it bother me that it dies? Nope - not really. The
> > intermediate media when taking pictures is not really
> > important.
> >
> > The only problem may be photographic papers.
> > They will also die and with them a method for making
> > final photograps - just like other good methods - platinum
> > printing, oil transfer, carbon prrinting, etc, etc.
> > Thats a shame really.
> >
> > But film? - nope don't bother me at all.
> >
> >
> > Roland
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Billy
>
> > A microdrive and a gel-cell and I'm set for weeks.
>
> What, one of the Quantums? I frequently carry around a Turbo Plus, but
> that's to power the flash, and it usually lasts about 300 pictures
> before it's down to below 25% charge.
Nope, just a cheap-o 3AH PowerSonic - you know me. ;)
> >Microdrive... Microdrive... Microdrive...
>
> Microdrive-compatible-digicam... Microdrive-compatible-digicam...
Yes, that can be something to watch out for. Even among
microdrive compatible cameras.
> >That preview feature can be a lifesaver.
>
> There are more things that the preview LCD won't tell you than there
> are that it will. Any of them could lead to a shot that's no good.
> Hell, I've got slides that don't show their defects under a 6x loupe,
> but once they're scanned, I wish I could go back and shoot them again.
Yes, I've run across that many times, although the little
magnifier on my S10 is a big improvement over my A50.
It's even tough to tell how the color balance is going to
turn out, and forget details. It's still better than the
preview on my 35mm, but, interestingly enough, I don't think
it's nearly as good as the WLF on my 6x6. The only problem
with that is that you still don't know exactly what you shot
till all the developing is done, but it can't be beat for
composition (except, maybe for some of the LF cameras, if
you don't mind wearing a hood all the time).
I suppose that's one of the reasons that I'm not all that
psyched about SLR digitals, they're going to have their
own problems until LCD's make some huge improvements, and
using an optical path will defeat many of the advantages
of digital (holding the camera at odd angles and composing
via the screen). And, even with an optical path, I don't
think the image is all that easy to work with. So, as I
mentioned earlier in this thread, I think film cameras will
be in trouble when digital cameras handle like film cameras,
IMHO, the image capture is already close enough with the
advent of 5 megapix digitals. The image preview issue is
not trivial and I've yet to see a really good solution on a
digicam.
David J. Littleboy
"Mark" <bal...@charter.net> wrote:
> WOWWW! Have been an avid shutter bug 35 mm, in the past and am so looking
> forward to my first digicam purchase this fall. I have searched the net,
> spoken with folks who own digicams, went to the stores to hold a few, and
> have pretty much settled on a Sony DSC-s75. I am looking so forward to
the
> digital experience.
The S85's worth the wait/extra money. The lens is good enough that (at least
the early) 5 MP cameras won't obsolete it. (IMHO, and all that...)
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan