Helen Bach
(K=2331) - Comment Date 3/3/2006
|
Kambiz,
I don't worry about it, I just keep shooting film. Fuji film, Kodak film, it's all great stuff. Film will be around for a while, I suspect. Both companies know that there will be a market, however small, into the foreseeable future. They need to cut down on production in order to survive in the film business.
Best,
Helen
|
|
|
|
Kambiz K
(K=37420) - Comment Date 3/3/2006
|
Helen
I am very sure you know the two basic factors in marketing, Supply & Demand.
Then I am afraid the price of each good roll film reaches to £20 or more each?
I never trusted business people in my entire life?
Look what my favorite manufacture, Minolta did just for the sake of share's price? They didn't give d**** about the art of photography!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 3/3/2006
|
Well, Fuji has indeed never publicly stated they're withdrawing from the film industry.
But to people watching the industry the writing is on the wall.
Fuji has last month announced they're cutting over 5000 jobs, all of them in the film and traditional camera divisions. And that's the net cutbacks, they're also hiring people in their digital divisions (and moving those to China to reduce manufacturing cost) so the actual layoffs are even greater.
They're closing their largest US film production plant, which means US film output will be seriously cut (don't have percentages but it could be by over 50%).
Similar moves are likely all over the world.
Kodak is doing the same thing. They have already announced their intention to reduce their line of slide films to 2 emulsions only, K64 and one ISO 100 E6 emulsion.
They've also already scrapped their entire R&D effort into new film emulsions (both B&W, E6 and C41).
I expect film, indeed for ever increasing prices and longer waiting periods as everything needs to be placed on backorder, to be available for a few more years, but past 2010 at the latest it will effectively be end of the line (I'd not consider €20 for a roll of Velvia and another €25 and 2-3 weeks waiting for processing to be viable, and it seems likely to be a scenario like that in a few years' time).
I trust business people to do whatever is in the best interest of their shareholders in the short term (which is all most of those shareholders care about).
I trust some businesspeople to do what's best for their employees in the medium long term.
I trust none to do what's best for their customers if that's not the best also for their shareholders and/or employees, and continueing film production at current levels and choice of emulsions is definitely not good for shareholders in the short term and has little good effect on employees in the middle long term except some may get to keep their jobs a bit longer.
|
|
|
|
Helen Bach
(K=2331) - Comment Date 3/4/2006
|
"Kodak is doing the same thing. They have already announced their intention to reduce their line of slide films to 2 emulsions only, K64 and one ISO 100 E6 emulsion.
They've also already scrapped their entire R&D effort into new film emulsions (both B&W, E6 and C41)."
Jeroen,
What is the source of this information?
Thanks,
Helen
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 3/4/2006
|
Seen that posted in several reputable locations by people who don't post BS.
Yes, I know their site still lists a full lineup. But I've been waiting for delivery of some of the less standard emulsions since mid december now and all I got so far is a confirmation from the importer that it's on backorder from the US with no indication of delivery time.
That's the same statement the store has gotten several times in the past when items were no longer available and the importer didn't want to cancel the order in the hope the customer would change it to something else that was available...
|
|
|
|
Helen Bach
(K=2331) - Comment Date 3/4/2006
|
If it is an official announcement the source would be traceable, and quoted. If you know that something is official, you know where it came from. Internet rumours, no matter how widespread, should be regarded as just that: internet rumours. Please, unless you have seen the evidence yourself that something is official, don't trust rumour.
There's one thing that tells me that it is nonsense: K64 will probably not be one of the last two slide films produced by Kodak. Kodak are not that daft. There is far too little demand for K64, and too few places to process it.
Kodak have just introduced a new version of Portra 800. They are continuing to release new motion picture films.
Here in NYC at least, there are no supply problems. What do you want? Could I send you some?
Best,
Helen
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 3/5/2006
|
I've been shopping for some E1600P to try. At the cost I'm not going to ask anyone to send me some (they cost something like €20 per roll, processing not included).
|
|
|
|
Helen Bach
(K=2331) - Comment Date 3/5/2006
|
Jeroen,
Ektachrome P1600 (EPH) is worth a try - it has a look all of its own.
If you would like a roll or two, I'll send some to you for USD 15 per roll, postage included. This isn't an advert by the way, just an offer to help a fellow film user out.
For anybody else reading this who is unfamiliar with P1600: it is a 400 speed slide film that is designed to be push processed. If you expose it at EI 1600 it needs a 2-stop push, hence the 'P' in the designation (like T-Max P3200). It is only available in 35 mm.
Best,
Helen
|
|
|
|
Chuck Freeman
(K=13616) - Comment Date 3/9/2006
|
Kambiz: I love it and it requires skill to save images.
According to some physists, NO DIGITAL PIXEL has even come vclose to film in sharpness
|
|
My newest VINTAGE
|
|
Clay Turtle
(K=-42) - Comment Date 3/18/2006
|
Seems to be going in that direction, Nikon announced they were not producing 35mm format, Kodak announced they were stopping production of B&W paper! As the quality (quantity) of file produced increases & as general acceptance of digital prints, it would seem the end of an era.
I been shooting LF 4x5 and working toward a 5x7 => 8x10 format but the real problem is film. the only silver lining to this cloud on the horizon is that film cameras are dropping in price, top of the line Nikons (film) can be had for a song & a dance compared to what they were selling for a year ago. Don't do much with digital so I wonder about their files? Are they really up to snuff? A 1200 dpi flatbed scan of a 4x5 produces 50 to 80 megs file & I don't consider them to be particularly a good scan. A 5x7 would be double that & an 8x10 would require a Dvd to hold it's file. But file size isn't the real parameter of comparison, it is the quality & the size print that is my concern. A 16 x 20 inch print from a 4x5 slide or negative is like a 8x12 to 35mm. format, my work doesn't really look good till I get to 20 x 24 inches of enlargement.
|
|
|
|
Paul Spencer
(K=117) - Comment Date 3/19/2006
|
Just as CD's replaced vinyl albumns Digital photography will push film into the realms of obscurity.
You can still actually get some music on vinyl and I'm sure thet, for those prepared to pay the price, film will be available for many years to come.
In regard to Chucks comments "I love it and it requires skill to save images.
According to some physists, NO DIGITAL PIXEL has even come vclose to film in sharpness"
a) it takes little skil to "save" images on film only to save great images. So does digital, just diferent skills. Essentially you are doing exactly the same thing as we do with film. It's just less messy and much faster. I'm damn glad I don't have to go through exposure and colour correction on my enlarger any more, saves me a heap of money too.
b) As audio CD's have been replaced by Digital Audio discs for those who really want quality, I'm sure that Digital cameras will keep getting better. And maybe even completely diferent technology eventually.
I can't really understand what that last statement actually means really.
A pixel is very sharp, but it's only one dot. Enough pixels put together will give a very sharp image. Also it is ultimately the lens as much as the film that dictates sharpness with a film camera. And are we talking 35mm or 6x4 film? emulsion or dye based?
Emulsion film is made up of light sensitive particles which are basicaly the chemical equivalent of pixels, so that just goes to verify that enough pixels can outdo any film.
There are just to many variables for that statement to have any meaning.
They said the same thing about CD's when they came out, they don't sound like vinyl. but look what happened.
For most people's use Digital is already plenty good enough to replace film and in a few years who knows how good it will get, is 500mp sharp enough? 6mp is plenty for most people.
File sizes for 500mp would be a problem now. But when I started using computers 1Mb was a huge file. equivalent to at least 1Gb these days so you can be sure that with faster computers and bigger storage coming along every few weeks these days that issue will be resolved.
|
|
|
|
Paul Spencer
(K=117) - Comment Date 3/19/2006
|
I'm actualy waiting for nano robotic photography to be developed.
Then one image can contain thousands as the little robots move around to make each new image. LOL
|
|
|
|
Chuck Freeman
(K=13616) - Comment Date 3/22/2006
|
I am still sticking to Film for as long as it is available. Digital is okay-I know how to use digital. Not saying I ma the greatest of course. But Film feels like photography and brings me great pleasure.
Virtually any slide film or print film is available at B&H or Adorama in NYC.
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
(K=127263) - Comment Date 4/24/2006
|
Hi Paul, him all!
The "last statement" means the following:
A pixel alone is neither sharp nor unsharp not anythingn else inbetween. It is the number of pixels *on a defined area* that can be used as a measure for sharpness. So, the information, say, 12 megapixels alone doesn't say anything at all, until we know the size of the area that these number of pixels alltogether have to cover. That means, the number of pixels per unit length is what is importnat. The resolution, and not the pixels themselves.
Let's go on to geometry, since science is our only guide when it gets technical. If you have, say, 10 megapixels and you have to cover an area of 10cm*10cm (a square photo) then you will have enough pixels to get a good resolution, i.e. a good sharpness. In this example, each (square) pixel will have (ideally) an edge length of 0.03mm and it will cover and area of 0.01mm^2, which is so small that the image will appear smooth and sharp without any "jigsaw" lookings. But if you want to magnify the photo to the size of a poster of, say 1m*1m, and you still have only 10 megapixels, then each pixel will have an edge length of 0.3 mm and it will cover an area of 0.1mm^2 which is more than visible, resulting in all those jigsaw patterns that make an image worse. Don't get me wrong here, I also like images that are *intensionaly* less sharp, but then it should be the idea of the photographer and not such unneeded technical limitations that make an image less sharp or containg jigsaw patterns.
Now on for the film. The ideal size of a "pixel" on film is at... molecular scale, which is maximal at about 100nm or so. Assuming homogenous distribution of "pixels" (i.e. chomophoric molecules) on film, an area of 24mm*36mm contains about 86500 megapixels! So, distributing this number of pixels on a 10m*10m huge poster will still result in a pixel with the edge length of 0.03mm, which means that each pixel will cover 1.2mm^2. At 1m*1m a single pixel will have the edge length of 0.003mm and cover the area of 0.00001mm which is so tiny that the eye will not even notice any pixel at all, resulting in a super sharp photo. A normal film is enough (theoretically) to get enough resolution for covering such huge areas with a really finest detailed photo.
The problem is that such tiny "pixels" are very difficult to be used in such a manner that they "catch" light independently of each other. But even considering that actually groups of some dozens of molecules (i.e. pixels) on film catch the light of a point of your photographed scene as a group, acting thus as a larger molecule, a huge resolution is still available.
Of course at 10cm*10cm the eye will hardly tell any difference but if you want a big photo, say for an exhibition, then film has enourmous advantages if one considers only quality.
Easy of use is another story, of course.
Best wishes and keep on shooting!
Nick
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
(K=127263) - Comment Date 4/25/2006
|
Oops, it can get dangerous to post so late at night ;-)
Of course the area covered by a pixel of side length 0.03mm is not 1.2mm^2 but 0.0009mm^2. And a pixel of side length 0.003mm will cover an area of 0.000009mm^2.
Sorry for the mistakes.
|
|
|
|
José Azevedo
(K=9845) - Comment Date 4/26/2006
|
Hi,
film is great, has unique texture and properties. Since you can still buy, for example, 4x4, 126 or 110 film, I don't believe it'll fade like dinosaurs. And should you ever think it's not that sharp, it's time to change your film scanner.
Regards,
José Azevedo
|
|
|
|
josh evilsizor
(K=1417) - Comment Date 4/27/2006
|
I hope film never goes away.. I enjoy shooting my RB67 to much.
|
|
|
|
craig auge
(K=552) - Comment Date 7/2/2006
|
what do i think about film? DEPTH one day a girl friend of mine was looking at some of my photos i had on the wall when she said " I love the way you can just look into the picture". Now days high end digital has sharpness nailed down and a good photoghrapher with some good computers skills can pull out some relistic looking color. But precived depth seems to be a big problem. For some reason they have a cut and paste 2D look to them. I'm sure a million peaple will ague the statement espeasialy some one that just spent $4000 dollars on a digital camera cause as a consumer socity its got to be the best thing out there cause the manufacture says so:P
|
|
|
|
craig auge
(K=552) - Comment Date 7/2/2006
|
What do i think about film? I wish fuji wouldn't have discontinued P-400 press I really liked that film it wasn't so punchy in its color had a more relistic look to it than 400 x-tra but i will deal:)
|
|
|
|
Shirley D. Cross-Taylor
(K=174022) - Comment Date 7/20/2006
|
Hope you don't mind a newcomer putting her 'two' cents in. So far, I continue to use film because I can't afford the initial expense of digital, and I have a high quality film scanner. My experience is that film is becoming cheaper, at least here in the US. I order all my film by mail from New York.
|
|
|
|
Scott McFadden
(K=5663) - Comment Date 8/24/2006
|
I use both , I like both ...they both have good n bad points.
When film starts getting rare manufactors will realise the value of some lines and dissmiss others .film though is still being developed albiet at a less advanced pace.
|
|
|
|
Renato Haber
(K=7328) - Comment Date 8/24/2006
|
I don't know... Maybe I am totally wrong...
I guess film will never end. The same so famous story about printed newspaper. People say that someday there will be just digital ones. I don't believe in that. There is nothing like a printed newspaper and cup of tea or coffee, isn't it?
I do believe also that some people that are introduced to the "digital world" of Photography will be interessed to try film, also medium and big formats, try to develop, etc. etc. etc.
Other point is if Kodak and Fuji will be joined by one buying the other. Any guess?
The price of a film roll in the feature is a good point. Let's see what id going to happen...
Cheers,
Renato
|
|
|
|
Joe Johnson
(K=8529) - Comment Date 8/25/2006
|
I would hate to see the end of quality film, as opposed to generic snapshot film. I suppose it is inevitable with the rush to digital beginning about 2001-2002. It'll be almost five years since that sea-change began. I've shot exclusively with various digicams, since. But for many things, I really think the photographic quality of good film makes it superior, on balance, and by comparison.
Perhaps those who see the detail in film, that I think still is not matched even in expensive, 'high' res, low-noise dSLRs, will all have to put together a dark room of their own. But I just don't see stitching as an alternative to large format film, just as one example. And film has a long shelf-life. I have slides as clean and bright as the day they came back from processing, years and years ago, held in sleeves and poly slide sheets. I'd sure hate to think it would be financially prohibitive to go out and shoot with the same film, today.
The quality from film, from the range to the detail, then just becomes more difficult to print and manipulate. I just hope that the top photographers can still turn to good, professional film whenever they wish.
|
|
|
|
Clay Turtle
(K=-42) - Comment Date 8/26/2006
|
I would have to agree but most of my earlier works (slides, neg.s, prints) were burned or destroyed (missing) after my trailer burned to the ground.
The big interest in digital for me came from 'printing from a digital copy of negative or slide rather than making copy negative to work with in printing. One for exposure & long term storage, the other as active work stock.
|
|
|
|
Cooki Lumsden
(K=271) - Comment Date 10/28/2006
|
IMHO film will exist as long as there are pretty cocktail waitreees in Las Vegas. After all they still make pencils don't they?;)
|
|
|
|
Simon Jarvis
(K=489) - Comment Date 11/14/2006
|
Process is everything digital is part of the i want it now dont care about the result era Film is about look and see see see see the reward of patience is patience Time will tell just see 99.9% of crap that is posted on this site these days tell me is that the garbage that you want to see and call art blah
|
|
|
|
Clay Turtle
(K=-42) - Comment Date 11/17/2006
|
Nice Nick but I would clerify a statement:
"Now on for the film. The ideal size of a "pixel" on film is at... molecular scale, which is maximal at about 100nm or so. Assuming homogenous distribution of "pixels" (i.e. chomophoric molecules) on film."
Yes they form a molecular crytal atructure, an augment of molecules whose size is a major factor of film speed or ISO.
I agree Simon . . . proof is in the pudding & the taste of those who consume it.:)
|
|
|
|
Rashed Abdulla
(K=163889) - Comment Date 1/23/2007
|
Here I can not find sheet films ny more:(((((((((
|
|
|
|
Gayle's Eclectic Photos
(K=91109) - Comment Date 1/23/2007
|
hi,might try this place for sheet film...
http://www.adorama.com/Search-Results.tpl?page=searchresults&searchinfo=sheet%20film
regards,gayle
|
|
|
|
Gayle's Eclectic Photos
(K=91109) - Comment Date 1/23/2007
|
hi, link i posted for you didn't take me back to "sheet film" page at that site,but just go there and type in sheet film in top left search field...it will then take you to the search results for that online photo store....regards,gayle
|
|
|
|
Rashed Abdulla
(K=163889) - Comment Date 1/23/2007
|
Thank you so much Ms. Gayle Hardman for your assistant and wish you all of the best
|
|
|
|
Helen Bach
(K=2331) - Comment Date 1/24/2007
|
You could also try B&H www.bhphoto.com
I live near Adorama and B&H, and am more than willing to assist if you have any difficulty getting what you want. I buy sheet film from both shops regularly, and it would be no trouble to buy some for you and post it on.
Best wishes,
Helen
|
|
|
|
Rashed Abdulla
(K=163889) - Comment Date 1/24/2007
|
Iposted this in a wrong thread:((((((((
I always had a great feeling that you are like most of the American people, nice and gentle.
I been ordering stuff from adorama for the last 2 years and my brother also did the same.
People in Qatar are turning to digital, and that made films so rare these days, we do still have nagtive 35mm but even the 120 is not more supply here, may I was one of the last to change into the digital world but i feel so sad to see my Sinar F1 not been used.
My friend Helen, thank you for your offer, I can get better deal from you being a friend , this worth the value of the whole world to me, Friendship to us means a lot, I like every one on UF and I every day leanrn something new here and meet wonderful people from all over the world
In Ham radio greetings we say 88's , thats go to a gentle female like you while for a male we say 73's.
Wishing you all of the best my friend and wihsing UF all of the best too.
|
|
|
|
Richard Nixon
(K=144) - Comment Date 4/11/2007
|
I think that if one day there is no commercially available film people will make it themselves, just as before it was mass produced.
But I don't think it will ever stop being made, somewhere in the world.
Richard
|
|
|
|
Free Rider
(K=430) - Comment Date 4/11/2007
|
To the person who wanted verification of Kodak's moves towards digital:
See their March 14, 2007 press release entitled "Kodak Streamlines Management Structure for Digital Future". If you look through the rest of their releases around this subject, their intent becomes clear.
|
|
|
|
Billy Bloggs
(K=51043) - Comment Date 4/17/2007
|
Helen, Tito,
You might want to check whether posting film through US Mail is a viable option. I have heard of film being fogged going through postal customs of some countries because some use high powered X-ray machines. I'm not sure if this is the same for FedEx etc - I'd ask first to be sure.
Regards, Gary
|
|
|
|
Billy Bloggs
(K=51043) - Comment Date 4/17/2007
|
I agree with Richard, I can't ever see film disappearing entirely. There's a factory in Croatia that has recently started manufacturing monochrome film and the Chinese market is still pretty big I'm told. Specialist manufacturers will probably buy the rights off the current major players and film will become an 'art' medium, used by talented connoisseurs like ourselves! If there's a demand, there's always a buck to be made.
Regards, Gary
|
|
|
|
Leander Conferido
(K=10) - Comment Date 7/30/2007
|
Just remember when CDs took over vinyl. CDs are now the medium but people still go vinyl because there is contour when you listen LPs. Film will always be film and this is my road.
|
|
|
|
miguel candela
(K=30) - Comment Date 1/10/2008
|
I also think film will still with us for a while. Many professional photographers still using it. I also think that film gives better quality and better printings...but it´s also expensive and time consuming..
Do not worry, we will still enjoying film for years.
>
|
|
|
|
Kurt LaRue
(K=5067) - Comment Date 3/26/2008
|
Though I have no concrete evidence to go by, I have to believe that film vs digital will follow a path similar to the vinyl vs CD music trend started in the early 1980's.
Digital music virtually wiped out vinyl for many years. As recently as five or six years ago one could not find a turntable anywhere except in a high-end audiophile supply (at astronomical prices of course). Today, most of the big reatailers stock several different models of turntables and some recordings are being released in vinyl again.
Vinyl is enjoying a renaissance of sorts as a new generation has discovered the pleasure of listening to pure, undigitized analog as opposed to the "artificial-simulated" sound of CD's and MP3's.
Analog film may be on the decline right now, but I anticipate a resurgence in it's use in the future. As long as there's a profit to be made from it, film will be available.
By the way, I don't know if anyone here uses Polaroid Type 55P/N as I do in my 4X5, but with the recent announcement that Polaroid is getting out of the film business, I've been watching prices closely. A couple of days ago, a 20 exposure box of Type 55 sold on ebay for $103US. This same film still goes for $87 at B&H! Go figure...
Kurt
|
|
|
|
