 Patrick J. Whalen |
Why aren't there any articles about film? Why aren't there any articles on film? I realize this is the digital age, but it seems that everyone has turned there back on what got them here in the first place. I am still a die-hard film lover, but find it harder all the time to find any really good articles on film based photography. I have cancelled my magazine subscriptions for this very reason. I am not condeming digital photography,I just would like to see some articles about film. Someone once told me, that digital was cheaper than film and having it processed. I can have a lot of film processed a whole lot cheaper than what it costs for a good digital camera, printer,scanner, computer and software. Not to mention the cost of ink and paper. I still say nothing beats a properly exposed, well lit and composed color transparency. There is no fixing a color slide. It's either right or wrong. Pat
|
|
|
|
||
|
Glen Taylor |
I guess publishers don't think there's enough money in it, they have a hard enough time selling the digital mags (the 'print is dead' phenomenon). You're right that there's still a need for good film-based articles, especially in mastering medium and large format, but that's always been a tiny portion of the market. I think the internet has affected the printed word in that a lot of people just don't read a lot anymore, making it harder to cater to niche markets with mass-market publications. But the good news is that the net has many new webpages and forums devoted to all types of film-based photography. So the digital age isn't all bad.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
Because film is dead (or at least it smells that way when it comes out of the fixer). Magazines cater to the masses (and to their advertisers) and right now the masses are buying digital and the advertisers are pushing digital. (Why wouldn't camera manufacturers push digital? They make a greater profit per unit off digital cameras.) The magazines aren't going to take up space in their magazines for articles that fewer people are going to read. It is a shame that there isn't a magazine out there to cater to film shooters like you an me but there aren't. No, digital isn't any cheaper. You just spend your money buying something different (camera, memory card, software, etc.) rather than film and processing.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Why bother? I ran across this in a discussion forum. I hope it's not true, but I'm not familiar with the site so I don't know if it's fact or fiction. I have to say I think it's sad though. http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.php?cid=7-7890-8161
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
It's true. Nikon is dropping all their consumer grade film cameras (except the FM10) and will continue to make only the pro level F6 film camera. Don't worry about film though. There are still enough folks using film to keep its production going for a long time, even if it is a shrinking market.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
The thing that bothers me is I wanted to get another film camera body on down the road a ways, but it looks like I'll have to make that decision now or forget it. I do still have an old Canon FD system for film though.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tom Walker |
Kerry, log in to APUG>ORG, stands for Anolog Photography Users Group. They have their own magazine, "Emulsions"
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
HEY TOM !!!!!!! http://www.apug.org That is a truly wonderful web site !!!! Well organized, lots of postings pouring in from around the world, easy to navigate, and DARKROOM AND FILM stuff !!! Yea ! Thanks very much for sharing that with us film /darkroom user-enthusiasts. I signed up and help support it financially. I just answered a question for a guy over there with a Hasselblad 500CM. Imagine a question like that around here!!! LOL !! Hey Kerry, remind me to send you my aunt's receipe for using fixer to pickle kosher dills. (Or is it the other way around?) Take care gang.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Hey Mark, what's a Hasselblad??? LOL One time years ago on vacation I saw a guy carrying one on a tripod at Bryce NP. Not being one to just politely smile as he passes I started asking questions. He was nice enough to let me look in the viewfinder to see the difference between 35mm and MF. I was blown away. To this day I'd like to have one, but that's pie in the sky ;).
|
|
|
|
||
|
Andrew Laverghetta |
I don't remember what all of these magazines are about but here are some that my photo instructor told the class about. After Image I believe Contact Sheet is probably going to be about film. I haven't even checked if they have website. Some of them get a little expensive I think and they are a different kind of magazine than your walmart style of magazines. I know at least some of these aren't the normal monthly mag either. Check 'em out. -Andrew
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
"There is no fixing a color slide. It's either right or wrong. Pat" Anybody notice how often people like that say "be sure and bracket your exposure". Anyway, film companies are cutting back on r&d. Haven't been any new advances in film, no bolder colors, advanced t-grains.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
"Someone once told me, that digital was cheaper than film and having it processed. I can have a lot of film processed a whole lot cheaper than what it costs for a good digital camera, printer,scanner, computer and software." True, but anyone can cut out the scanner and printer anyway, and if a person is as good with digital as film they could cut out the computer and software as well. I'm sure no respectable pro would get their prints done at Sam's Club but prints are only .11 cents for 4x6 and under $2.00 for an 8x10 which are good enough for this hobbyist. I have a nice Epson printer that hasn't been used in years.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Will Turner |
"Anyway, film companies are cutting back on r&d. Haven't been any new advances in film, no bolder colors, advanced t-grains." Actually, that isn't true. Fuji and Kodak have both been refining their emulsions for improved color rendition when scanned, and both companies have been introducing new portrait films for regional overseas markets. Then there is re-discovered innovation: one film manufacturer is even reproducing the silver-chrome German B/W films that gave portraits and landscapes of the '30s such luster and sheen.
|
|
|
|
||
|
doug Nelson |
Read Shutterbug. There are still articles on film, film scanning, and darkroom work, though most IS on digital. Check out photo.net, a series of active forums on all aspects of film, and all camera formats.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
Sharon...IS digital cheaper than film? It depends on whether you buy your pixels from B&H !!! One thing I seldom see digital photographers noting is how in touch with the photographic process they really are or can be by manipulating digits on an LCD. No one can tell me that spending hours of frustration fixing or trying to fix an image in photoshop gives the same sense of accomplishment as shooting an image correctly on film, controlling the process through development and printing, and producing a work of art of archival quality in a wet darkroom. And, btw, no one has demonstrated to me yet that a digital image will last as long as properly stored b&w negatives or even my Kodachromes. Personally, I still believe that real photography, the CRAFT of photography, isn't manipulating ones and o's. I think real photography is still in the processes that we use to produce images on film and photosensitized papers and that all digital photography is a convenient short-cut to a hardly identical result. [There. That oughta be like tossing gasoline on the fire. LOL !!!] I received a survey today from some editor at Rangefinder Magazine. Rangefinder is published by Skip Cohen who used to be president of Hasselblad USA. It was interesting to note that nothing in that survey seemed to inquire about film or film products. It was all do you use digital this or that. Clearly it was intended to get stats for advertisers. Even though Rangefinder was and I suppose still is a publication for photojournalists, including now wedding PJ's, the majority of its articles are on digital this or that. I only glance through it to see what the opposition is up to. Similarly, Shutterbug now caters to mostly digital photographers as most every consumer photo publication. Photo District News and Aperture, which I subscribe to and consider to be more of trade publications for professionals, are far more even-handed about film vs. digital and at their advertising shows it. Fuji, for example, is placing inserts in pro publications for transparency films. And, when Ilford was on the ropes in 2004, there was panic buying of all their film and paper products which, according to Ilford and some editorial writers, gave Ilford investors a clear signal that they should continue production of those products. It could be that since Agfa's recent announcement, panic buying by guys like me, will cause a resurgence of the company's film and paper product lines. Finally, (Sharon Meanwhile, of course manufacturers stop supporting equipment that won't stimulate a market to buy MORE NEW STUFF. It's not profitable to maintain old stuff. Just dispose of it. If they fixed the old stuff, they can't get you to buy more NEW STUFF. How profitable is that? Like when Nikon came out with the F-2's. They were some of the finest 35mm cameras and lenses made, like the Leicas. Like the Nikons, Leicas and Hasselblads that still use film and I still use nearly every day to make a living. I gotta go.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Craig m. Zacarelli |
I think people take to digital more because its more flexible, faster (no waiting for your prints to come back) and easier, if you shoot it wrong, delete and try again. As for cost, yeah 8 bucks a rool for film is kinda hight but, the camera bodies are a bit cheaper now, but digitals arent, the film is kinda pricy, esp with the added cost of developing but, ink and photopaper is also expensive. Digital is just easier unless you have your own darkroom to do it yourself! Craig-
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Well, I'm just a dumb ole girl and as such my opinions should be taken with a grain of salt. With that said, I do put a LOT of effort into getting it right in camera when I'm out shooting. Since having owned a SLR film camera since about 1983 it's what I'm used to doing. I prefer to compose my shots in the viewfinder rather than cropping them in Photoshop after the fact. Same as anyone would with film except I think people do crop a lot in the darkroom. Digital didn't change that for me. I hope digital film lasts longer than negatives. I have kept my negatives in a sealed container in the dark at a fairly even temperature for many years now. They are totally useless. They are faded, and the supposedly archival sleeves stuck to the film. Now when I try to remove them they get damaged. I haven't been able to tell if that is from the plastic coming off on the negative or the negative coming off on the plastic. My slides are still in pretty decent shape. I enjoy digital although I am not a total convert. I will miss film if it disappears from the face of the earth.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tom Walker |
MARK! How dare you! My Nikons make me what I am today. ( broke from buying too many of them )
|
|
|
|
||
|
Craig m. Zacarelli |
lol tom, I hear ya! would film actually dissapear? I like using film to, I have a canon rebel 35mm I keep in my truck at all times but I get the instant satisfaction from digital. I think thats what it is mostly, the gratification of seeing your shots right after you take em. if anyone suffers it might be the paper companies... I read somewhere that 90% of the digital shots taken are not printed out, and its no wonder with the price of ink, 50 bucks for two little cartridges? cc'mon, theyre the size of a freaking sharpie!
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
No one ever says that spending anytime using contrast filters to fix prints because they're off, or dodging and burning because a light was too direct, gives the same sense of accomplishment as shooting something correctly when you USE a digital camera and produce your art, if that's what it is to you, and don't need fixing. Real photography can be anything that somebody says it is. Depends on who's talking at the moment. Avedon said the first photograph he made was a negative of his sister he taped to his shoulder, went outside for a few minutes, and made photo from tanning. Used light to make an image. Light,photo; image,graph. All I need. Some of you make me think of eugenics, if that's the correct term. Back in '20s was it. Anyway, whatever you're holding in your hand, that's seems to be what you are. But I would like to ask all the people who say why shoot digital and spend hours fixing it with photoshop, when you shot that picture USING a digital camera, why didn't you shoot it right so you wouldn't have to spend hours doing that?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
What's an eugenics??? You better quit calling names, Gregory :D LOL.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
Sharon, I think "an eugenics" is something made out of left over stem cells. :>0 !! (Yikes!!) And NO, you are NOT dumb. I appreciate your input and your questions. Hey Tom !! Yes, I know the feeling. Me too. I buy them for spare parts since Nikon quit supporting them umpteen years ago. Kinda like what Konica-Minolta, (and Nikon) are doing more and more of lately in terms of not supporting older equipment. I'm sure they'll soon stop supporting the "older" digital stuff as well, from cameras to scanners. A corporate decision intended of course to benefit shareholders. BTW Tom, if you ever need F-2 parts, I have a source...
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
What is eugenics instead of what's an eugenics. Have to google it to make sure it's the correct term. But back in the '20s I think there used to be a practice that would classify people based on physical characteristics. Size of your nose, distance between your eyes, shape of your head, would determine intelligence, social value. Mostly a racial thing, although some white folks did fall victim to it. Pretty much a social purity thing. I believe even some women went through forced sterilization. Pretty awful thing, because it was something that many cities did as a systematic thing. Went down in permanent records if you were determined defective, so to speak. Anyway, the way some people have been calling people "digital" as what they are, or that they're the object of a grand hoodwink, yet the "film" people really know what's going on, is kinda pathetic to me. There's a use for digital that many just don't consider. And yes, that use can be that it's just fun to take pictures with a digital camera. Whoa, simply because something's fun, imagine. Still have two film cameras, I'll use them if I need to. I'll keep them even for sentimental reasons. And the thing about all the highly emotional testimonies, glancing at most of the galleries, they don't have good pictures.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Steve Warren |
Nikon is killing all but the F6, and Minolta has deep-sixed the 7 and 9. Us film lovers are losing options. The great irony of the which-is-cheaper debate is that the more people switch to digital, the cheaper film becomes. People are selling off their film and film equipment for pennies on the dollar in favor of expensive cameras that will be outdated in 2 years. I think film is better, but for those that disagree, I say go ahead and switch, but call me when you're getting rid of your old film .LOL.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||