 Adrie Uys |
Will slide films and film cameras disappear? Our local Fuji retailer in Upington, South Africa is telling everybody that slide films and film cameras will disappear within a year or two. He dont even stock slide films anymore. One of our local newspapers had a similar story today. Taking slides for the last 47 years I am a bit worried and would like to hear what the experts have to say.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
With the advent of photography, painters will become a thing of the past. - Whoops, the're still around. With the advent of color photography, B&W film will cease to be made. - Uh, Tri-X just celebrated its 50th anniversary and B&W photography is becoming more popular all the time. With the advent of digital photography, film photography will die. - See comments 1 & 2. Many people have been talking about the death of film photography but it hasn't happend yet and won't anytime in the near future. Your local retailer is nuts, or he is just trying to sell more digital cameras.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Cammarata |
Color print film in 35 mm format may die,...a lot sooner than print aficianados might prefer since lately, it's getting too easy and inexpensive to get a print from a digital camera. 35 mm black and white print film will hang on a bit longer. There are enough purists out there...and guys selling darkroom equipment and developing chemicals to keep the market alive for a while. Slide film will probably hang around the longest, since the advancement of digital technology is geared more toward the majority,...those who want to e-mail their photos to a friend or get a print of their kid at a birthday party. The best way to keep slide film alive is to keep shooting it. As long as there is a market they will keep producing it and there will be labs who will keep processing it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Matthew Slyfield |
Bob, It may be difficult to create transparencies from digital pictures, but it is very easy to create a DVD slide show that will play in any DVD player. I bought my first digital camera last year. In June of last year I went with my parents to Yellowstone and I came back with over 800 photos. It took me only a couple of days to create a DVD slide show from the entire lot of pictures and it was the first time I had ever attempted to create a DVD. Who needs transparencies from digital to replace slides? While I don't think either color print film or slide film will entirely disapear any time soon, if ever, I do think that the market for both is likely to drop off to the point where you will have to go to specialty labs to have them processed.
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
U.S. and Japan, some euro countries will still have film market. No surprise if world wide distribution ends. Not many suv's in Japan. Not feasible reason to keep film in south africa maybe. Film won't leave for business people, will be cut back for consumers. No need to panic, eventhough that's what photogs seems to do best.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Cammarata |
What Greg said clarifies my point. CONSUMERS will determine what happens in the consumer market and how fast. Working pros need not worry about their film being phased out as long as they keep using it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Chris J. Browne |
I work at a photo lab in Northern California; and here is what I know. Film is still prefered by the Court System. Anything legal is shot on film for evidence. Over the last year we have processed and printed over 1000 rolls for one construction litigation alone. It is still very hard to doctor a negative. If the judge thinks something is fishy, then he takes the negs and has them printed and compared to the first prints. We also still develope and print Reversal (E-6, Slide, Transparency)film along with Black and White. I've seen the increase in both with the decrease of family pictures taken on film. Many families now use digital and bring us the cards or send them via the internet. Kodachrome just died in the last two years due to strict environmental laws. Black and White negatives are still Archival. They will be around in 100 years! Will that CD, DVD, or memory card. What about a way to read that old CD. Can you get data off an 8" floppy! I don't think so! That was only 25 years ago. I agree that consumers witll dictate the furture of film. The marriage of the two is the best solution. Scan and have digital images; also have backup on negatives!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
To paraphrase (I think) Shakespere: "The reports of the death of film are greatly exagerated." IMHO, actually I think there's going to be a backlash in this industry and a huge resurgence of film usage. First, I think that consumers are going to realize how they get bilked into buying camera equipment including lenses, with ever-increasing resolution often making previous versions of similar equipment obsolete. Then support equipment goes the same way. As that happens, you can see the bottom dropping out of the used film equip market and that in turn, allows people who previously couldn't or wouldn't afford higher end film equipment to buy that equipment now, That promotes and generates more film use. And there you have it... the demise of digital by built-in overpriced, obsolescence and redundency. Now, if Kodak would only bring back Verichrome Pan.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
Not that it is important but that was Samual L. Clemens (aka Mark Twain) you were paraphrasing. Yea, bring back VPS and Kodachrome 25 - slow but what a film! Had a lifespan of 100 years in dark storage. Lifespan of B&W negatives - who knows? At least 100 years, probably a lot more. Lifespan of a CD? A couple of scratches. Lifespan of a hard drive" One crash. Digital is great for snapshots but I worry about its archival capabilities.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Terry R. Hatfield |
Intresting Thoughts On The Subject:-)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Adrie Uys |
It's me again. Thanks to all of you. I sometimes use my digital camera for "digitography" as I call it, but when it comes to the know how and real "photography" I prefer one of my cameras and slide film. My 47 year old slides are still masterpieces and dont need to be changed digitally. Help me if I am wrong, 25 million pixels to print larger than any digital image. Here in South Africa a digital camera 12,4 million pixels, half that of my slides, will cost me R65,000 ($10,480) After reading what the experts said I strongly believe I will go long before cameras and slide films.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
I think calling for the demise of digital is the same as the people who keep crying about "what digital has done to me and us true photographers". Full of crap. If you the kind of person that takes all the steps to store negatives in a way that will make them last 100 years, and keep them scratch free, then you have a counter part in somebody who uses digital and takes the effort to keep cd's, dvd's, what ever else will come out later, in good condition. Anybody who wants to bring up stories of cd's degrading, they must be ignoring stories of negatives degrading. Regardless of medium, it requires you to take care of it. Who's to say silver prices or environmental concerns won't bring major changes to film. If anything changes, adapt.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
For Chris B. in particular: "Rumors of Kodachrome's death have been greatly exaggerated." One of the remaining "Super 8" cinema Kodachromes was just discontinued. There is at least one remaining Super-8 cinema Kodachrome as well as 16mm cinema Kodachrome. Professional and Consumer K25 (PKM and KM) were discontinued a number of years ago. Medium format 120 size Kodachrome was discontinued a number of years before that. In 35mm, professional K64 (PKR) and K200 (PKL) were folded into the Consumer K64 (KR) and K200 (KL) . . . _AND_BOTH_ARE_STILL_IN_PRODUCTION. Professional and consumer Kodachrome has always been the same emulsion on the same film base. The difference is solely how long it was aged by Kodak prior to shipping, whether it is refrigerated in storage (after aging), and appropriate adjustment of expiration date based on aging and storage. Pros using Kodachrome have known this for a long time. Not surprising that PKR and PKL disappeared; the cost of them were quite steep compared to KR and KL. All the pros I knew or talked to using Kodachrome always bought KR and KL . . . same exact films at much lower price. Don't know WHO told you Kodachrome is dead, but they are Dead Wrong! -- John Lind
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
taking him too literally I think.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Chris J. Browne |
I do work at a photo lab and Kodachrome is not used for still photography any more. We are required to carry Kodakchrome 35mm film by Kodak (we are taking part in Kodak's Remodel Plan) so we are required to carry it: There is no processing it via Kodak. . .They don't want to deal with it. It is the stupidest thing that Kodak has ever done! And they do some real stupid things: They always start great ideas but never follow through! Our lobby remodel will be one of those. . .it takes about three years for Kodak to stop supporting something. We use KodaTel software for plotting chemistry; there is a parallel port dongle with password for using the software; we were sent the unlock code about two years back and don't have to pay yearly $$$ to use the software now. Kodak is crazy and slow moving. Back to Kodachrome; it is effectively dead for use as a still medium in California; it is illegal to use the chemicals in California and many other states. It is mostly off-shore processing now with less Kodak control. It takes a full time chemist to monitor and adjust the chemicals during processing. I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers. Chris Browne
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kevin Ekstrom |
Film will not die. Digital and film will work side by side. Digital has not yet reached the quality of film. But digital has made the process of picture taking very user friendly. I believe we need 25 to 30 megapixel to duplicate film? Correct me if I'm wrong. In one frame of 35mm film there is 40 billion silver halide. I will never give up my film cameras.I also no many,many others who feel the same way.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kevin Ekstrom |
A slight correction in my last post: I also know many people. Not 'I also no many people'. LOL...
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
A mag tested a d20 to already to be slightly better to 35mm. Can't remember with one.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kevin Ekstrom |
I'll take your word on this...what is the market price? Probally more than my Mitsubishi Spyder cost.....
|
|
|
|
||
|
Miles Mitchell |
On the consumer side I believe demand will keep transparecy film and cameras with us for a long time. However, media submissions that used to require transparencies for color seps are now done digitally. Architectural submissions for awards and publication are now done digitally. The professional has to worry more about this than the consumer shooter. Any way, this is how it's showing up for me. Miles
|
|
|
|
||
|
Andrew Laverghetta |
I've got an issue that hasn't really made much sense to me. I see that there are digital backs for medium format film cameras that are somewhere around 22megapixels. Now, IF the Canon 1DS MarkII is SOMEWHERE around the quality for 35mm film and if a medium format negative is about 4 times the size of a 35mm negative, how can it be that the 16megapixel canon can be compared to medium format anything? Also, is the 6 megapixel difference between the 1DS MarkII and I think Hasselblad's 22megapixel digital back really enough to make a "digital negative" that is "4 times the size of a 35mm "digital negative"? Does this make sense? What I'm saying is how medium format is so much better then 35mm, why isn't medium format digital just as much better than 35mmdigital? Or is that extra 6 or so megapixels really doing that much?
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Gregory, If you're referring to the April 2005 Pop Photo article which compared a Canon 1DS Mark II shooting in RAW mode to a Canon EOS 3 with film, the guy who did the test and wrote it should be tarred and feathered for using Kodak Gold 100 in the EOS 3! It was one of the worst films to pick for it (significantly grainier than most ISO 400 films) . . . and it's my firm belief he did that quite deliberately to get the results he wanted for the article. Andrew: The Hasselblad back, if it's to shoot a 6x6 square (and not a 645) needs nothing less than about 75 megapixels minimum . . . if not slightly over 80 megapixels with very high end glass. Using the same criteria for a 645, which has the same aspect ratio as a digital, is at least 50 megapixels, if not slightly over 60 megapixels. While the Hasselblad back does get very close to 35mm . . . to the extent that it's likely not to be able to tell much difference in most applications . . . it's not up to medium format film capabilities. Some additional notes are worthwhile. The resolving power of a medium format system is inherently slightly less than 35mm small format. The same is true when going from medium format to large format. However, the increase in film dimensions overtakes that loss by a huge margin. A 35mm system with top end glass is capable of about 80-90 line pairs per millimeter on film. This isn't 90 pixels per millimeter, it's 180 pixels (one pixel for each line in the pair). The dirt cheap, bottom of the barrel mid-range zoom lenses bundled with consumer cameras such as the Canon Rebels and Nikon "N" series are optically abysmal and one is lucky to achieve 40 lppmm even with Velvia 50 or Kodachrome 64. This wasn't the case a couple decades ago when consumer SLR's were bundled with 50mm primes that had excellent optics and allowed 60-80 lppmm depending on specific lens. -- John Lind
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Because it's not following what you've said dosen't mean it's a deliberately slanted article. Getting carried away with your bril cream and feathered boas. april of '05 is too recent for it to be that one anyway.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Gregory, My axe to grind with that particular article (April '05) is not the results he got . . . which I would have predicted . . . it's how he manipulated the "test" to achieve the results he wanted from the outset. To clarify a bit more, he used a professional grade top-line digital in RAW (with the greatest number of pixels in its sensor), a pro-grade film camera, and in it he put one of the cheapest, extremely grainy, bottom of the barrel consumer film that no professional I know of would ever consider using for any serious work . . . one that doesn't enlarge well beyond a 5x7 print. The author then proceeds to imply those results are hard and fast film limits . . . that it's The Wall for 35mm format. A proper experiment design would have examined at least the "BOB" (Best of the Best) and a more thorough one would have also sought the "WOW" (Worst of the Worst) . . . for both the film and digital . . . to find "The Walls" for each. What he did was a "BOB" for the digital and something closer to a "WOW" with the film to deliberately achieve the results he got . . . foregone, a priori conclusions he hints at early on. That's the reason I cried "Foul." I'm surprised it got past their editorial staff. I'm accustomed to Peer Review of experiments that include minute details of the experiment design (and its rationale), followed by scrutiny of its execution in all its minute details before any results and conclusions drawn from them are allowed to see the light of day. -- John Lind
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
For Chris: I don't know where you're getting your information. At this time (and this is very, very recent) Kodachrome sent for developing using pre-purchased mailers is apparently being trans-shipped and developed by Dwayne's, a lab that's been handling Kodachrome for some time. It was done (until very recently) by their Qualex lab in Fair Lawn, New Jersey (Qualex is a subsidiary wholely owned by Kodak). I don't know where the Kodachrome that's being sent to Qualex via store drop boxes is going; Qualex is handling it. I DO KNOW it's not leaving the Continental U.S. and that all the slide mounts come back with "Slide Processing by Kodak" boldly printed in huge letters on the backs of the slide mounts. I've found manufacturer reps . . . film and camera . . . to be frequently misinformed (at their best) and to deliberately "blow smoke" (at their worst). They're essentially salesmen from manufacturer (or wholesaler) to the retailer. Some are no better than used car salesmen. Their "job" is to get the retailer to buy goods and services from the firm they represent . . . and to push (or force) the retailers into buying what the firm they represent wants to sell them. That's what they're directed to do and are rewarded for by the firms they represent (and who write their paychecks). Getting the true inside story about anything from them about their firms is a great rarity (related to what's coming in the future). Take what they tell you with many, enormously huge grains of salt. -- John Lind
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
if you are a great photographer, it doesn't mater what kind of box (body) you use. The lens is very important because of its glass. By the way, when is the last time you listened to an 8-track tape
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
No film will never die, but the photographers shooting it will. The next generation will want quicker results and that will slowly push film off the edge. Would you rather store chemicals or cartridges
|
|
|
|
||
|
Patrick Perron |
After a one-year hiedas to digital I'm back to film. My digital camera has been awesome and I can't imagine living without it. It has permitted me to learn more about photography in one year than in the previous 4. It has also changed how I take a picture. Nonetheless, it doesn't offer the same rapport with the subject as a film camera does. Kinda like driving automatic instead of manual. While I think that mass 35mm film will eventually disappear, I think film will be around for some time still. It may become more expensive and difficult to have it processed.
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
In about 5 yrs
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||