Helen Bach
(K=2331) - Comment Date 3/22/2006
|
Don't believe them Chuck. Don't let this become a self-fulfilling prophesy. Nobody at B&H can predict the future, but they can try to persuade people to spend a load of money on digital cameras.
Both Fuji and Kodak say they want to stay in the film business and they see a continuing, albeit reduced, demand for some time. They are still introducing new films. Film is the best it has ever been.
|
|
|
|
Chuck Freeman
(K=13616) - Comment Date 3/22/2006
|
Hi Helen:
I call Fuji and Kodak Customer Service frequently. As a matter of fact I called Kodak this morning. Had difficulty communicating with nice lady. She really knew little about film. ( you can tell when you talk for a few minutes) But I did clearly hear her say that Ektachrome 100 is gone. Though some still on Market.
She did also say for right now KODAK IS DEDICATED TO FILM AND DIGITAL.
THANKS FOR YOUR ENCOURAGING WORDS.
|
|
tHERE WAS ONCE A PRETTY SONG CALLED "TO YOU: THIS ROSE"
|
|
stefan streefkerk
(K=113) - Comment Date 3/22/2006
|
After using film for some years, I'm actually quiet happy not to use it anymore. Since I have acquired my new professional digital camera I am so thrilled about it's positive sides. I like to work quick so that helps, I also like to keep my films clean (with negatives there's always a chance they will be damaged by dust or scratches). Also now I can skip the film developing and printing and use my extra time for adjusting my photos in photoshop. After hearing for years that my printing-skills weren't what they should be I guess I'm just really happy I don't have to work with film no more. I really enjoy(ed) printing myself but I rather spend my time out of the dark room being creative with the camera. Besides printing in the dark room is a bit old fashioned (most photographers have it done for them). I guess this just works best for me.
|
|
|
|
Chuck Freeman
(K=13616) - Comment Date 3/23/2006
|
Actually I use to love Dark Room Printing. But that was a few years ago.
But I ma sure you know you can use film digitally.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 3/24/2006
|
They are correct in saying that film is going to disappear, but would have had to qualify that by saying from which market segments.
I fully expect there to be film for a few years yet, but only in the very low and very high market segments.
Expect there to be little between Kodak Gold and Velvia, maybe nothing at all.
And that Velvia will cost you so much to process that it's uneconomical for any but occasional use (in fact that's already the case here right now, with slide processing costing over $10 per roll and taking a week or more, up from $4 per roll and 2 days only a few months ago).
But as said stores like B&H which see a very high percentage of non-returning customers have every incentive to sell you the most expensive equipment possible.
As you are unlikely to use their processing services or buy film from them, they have no incentive at all in trying to sell you a $200 film camera instead of a $2000 digicam, an incentive your regular retailer would have because you'd be coming back for film and processing regularly.
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Boarini
(K=1895) - Comment Date 3/25/2006
|
When it comes to film, I'm optimistic. Film has certain qualities (both subjecive/emotional and objective) that cannot be matched by digital. I personally think film will always be produced. Even with the transistor, the best guitar amplifiers in the world still use vaccum tubes! They said radio would kill the newspaper, TV would kill the radio, the internet would kill TV, etc. What's more, I think that as the years go by, many will rediscover it's spell. What worries me more is the demise of film camera manufacturers, such as Nikon. But it's not all bad. For example, Zeiss is now introducing manual focus lenses in Nikon mount! Cosina Voigtlander is busy producing 35mm rangefinders! And of course Leica, which I think will still produce the R and M lines for years. The market will change, but film will still be around. If it dissappears, I'm quiting photography.
|
|
|
|
Chuck Freeman
(K=13616) - Comment Date 3/27/2006
|
Actaully I have purchased 100's of rolls of Film over the years from B&H and Adorama. They know me and I always talk to Bill.
He has never tried to deceive me. He told me they had two Minolta 70's in stock, and that they "might" get more if Minolta shipped more.
I was a little skeptical of course, but I called almost every reputable store I could find. I did find one more Minolta af 70 for sale at a much higher price.
So I called Bill back, and ordered Minolta 70, which is a little dandy.
As far as Film, they have all that is available from Fuji and Kodak, Ilford and some ASgfa.
I pay for Fuji Mailers $4.25 for USA only. Of course, Fuji Lbas will process any e6 film.
For Kodachrome 64 I pay 6.50 per roll and 5.95 for Kodak Processing ( There is only one lab in USA that processes Kodachrome and that is DWAYNES PHOTO in Parson's Kansas.
Fuji is fast, Dwayne's is fast and Reasonable price.
Walmart sends all their out of lab to Dwaynes, including any slide film to Dwaynes.
So Film is chaep here. I can buy 5 rolls of Fuji 200, in great date, for under $6.00 at WALMART.
But I do like Digital Photoshop etc and use it. But film is for me at this time.
Chuck
|
|
Daytona Beach Florida 1999
|
|
Chuck Freeman
(K=13616) - Comment Date 3/28/2006
|
GReat thought and comment. I believe Film "might" get scarce, but far from being gone. I wanted to add that I buy Fuji Provia Professional for $4.85 and Velvia 50 for 5.50 dollars.
I use strictly Fuji Prepaid mailers, which I buy from B&H and Adorama..
Chuck
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Boarini
(K=1895) - Comment Date 3/29/2006
|
To Chuck Freeman and all other film lovers out there, check out this link and share it with everybody you know! A cause for celebration: It's one of Ilford's managers being interviewed, stating Ilford's commitment to all films and Silver Halide Processes for decades to come! Even GLASS PLATES. Thank God for Ilford, I love those people. My prediction: in the next ten years film use will INCREASE, as it gets more "artsy." The few camera manufacturers that still produce film cameras (especially COSINA) and companies like Ilford will find a very successfuly niche market. So to all film users, I say switch to Ilford, they believe in us, so why not support them? Hey, HP5 is the best film in my opinion anyway!!! Almost forgot the link:
http://photoformulary.com/images/Silver_Conference_movies/Steven_Brierley.mov
|
|
|
|
Helen Bach
(K=2331) - Comment Date 3/30/2006
|
Ilford don't support colour film users, or motion picture film users very well, unfortunately. Thank goodness for Kodak and Fuji.
Best,
Helen
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Boarini
(K=1895) - Comment Date 3/30/2006
|
True, Ilford does not support color. Their market is black and white still photography. But color film isn't going away either, especially slide films like Velvia. But both Kodak and Fuji have reduced their production drastically, and color print (c41) sales will center on markets in developing countries to remain profitable. Kodak has eliminated Kodakchrome 25 and 64, which was a terrible blow to many users. But the same thing will happen with color films: they will become more "artsy." Many lanscape users would prefer to quit photography if Velvia ever went away. What I like about Ilford is that they're the only ones to have commited themselves to my type of photography. Personally I don't care about color film. BTW, if the link I posted doesn't open, go to www.photoformulary.com and navigate to find the interview.
|
|
|
|
Chuck Freeman
(K=13616) - Comment Date 3/30/2006
|
Has Kodachrome 64 trulu been discontinued. Last week, when I personally called Kodak, they ststed that there were no plans to discontinue KR64 at this time.
Chuck
|
|
|
|
Chuck Freeman
(K=13616) - Comment Date 3/31/2006
|
I believe film will survive. Thanks for your encouraging comment
Chuck
|
|
Sign from 1950's.
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 3/31/2006
|
no, K64 has not been discontinued. Kodak has just further reduced the number of processing facilities (which was already pretty dismal).
I believe there are now only 3 or 4 places worldwide that can process K64, so expect your work to take longer and get more expensive if you were using one of the closing labs.
|
|
|
|
Daniel Taylor
(K=3495) - Comment Date 4/1/2006
|
I believe film will survive in some capacity for years to come simply because it's not difficult to manufacture. It was profitable commercially with the industrial base and potential market of late 1800's America. There are a lot of existing film bodies so I think demand will drive some production for some time.
It's probably fair to say that production will end up limited to a couple low end films and a couple high end films. Maybe some small shops will come into play producing special films in low quantities, but the price will be high.
Having said that, I really don't get all the hand wringing over film. Since going digital I don't miss it one bit. If all film production ceased tomorrow, the only negative response I would have would be "bummer I can't shoot the few old bodies I've collected; oh well, they look nice on the shelf." Then I would go back to shooting my DSLR.
I don't think the radio/TV or painting/photography analogies are accurate because digital and film are two different ways of accomplishing the exact same thing, not two similar but different things. It's more like integrated circuit vs. vacuum tube in computer design.
Honestly, the cure for the "film blues" is to pick up and shoot a 5D. You'll never look back.
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Boarini
(K=1895) - Comment Date 4/1/2006
|
Interesting discussion, and now to add a little more. Found a very educational and interesting link on film and digital which examines the strengths and weaknesses of both in an objective manner. There's a lot of things that I didn't know.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm#examples
|
|
|
|
Helen Bach
(K=2331) - Comment Date 4/1/2006
|
Speaking of inaccurate analogies, the film we use today is very different from that made in the late 1800's. Colour film is difficult to manufacture - there are very few manufacturers, and small-scale production of high quality film is just not possible.
I don't buy the 'digital is best' argument. The two media are different, with different qualities. Film has some technical capabilities that digital can't yet match. Dynamic range is just one of them. We each have different requirements, different tastes.
I'm not wringing my hands over film, and there's no need for anyone else to. It's better than it has ever been, and it is still improving. Both Fuji and Kodak are releasing improved films in the near future. If you've got the film blues buy a large format camera and lens for a tenth of the cost of a 5D body, and shoot some frames that the 5D couldn't begin to match.
Best,
Helen
PS Daniel, could you give us a link to some of your pictures.
|
|
|
|
Daniel Taylor
(K=3495) - Comment Date 4/5/2006
|
"Speaking of inaccurate analogies, the film we use today is very different from that made in the late 1800's. Colour film is difficult to manufacture - there are very few manufacturers, and small-scale production of high quality film is just not possible."
Nonsense. Film may be improved, but it's still a proper mix of chemicals on a base. There are small companies producing chemically more complex products all over the world. If demand shrinks below the point where Fuji and Kodak remain interested, there's no reason a small company couldn't produce batches of decent B&W and color film.
But if I'm wrong, well them maybe there should be some hand wringing over film. How much longer will Fuji or Kodak care?
"If you've got the film blues buy a large format camera and lens for a tenth of the cost of a 5D body, and shoot some frames that the 5D couldn't begin to match."
This is equivalent to me saying "if you have the digital blues pick up a 39 MP MF back and shoot some frames that 35mm couldn't begin to match." Not a fair comparison, and an obvious attempt by you to "one up" digital in order to feel good about film. Beyond that the statement has no point.
"PS Daniel, could you give us a link to some of your pictures."
No. Not on this web site. After being burned by someone related to this site I no longer post my images or links to my images here.
|
|
|
|
Chuck Freeman
(K=13616) - Comment Date 4/5/2006
|
Helen:
I now stand encouraged about film from you and many others on this thread. Many thanks to you and others.
chuck freeman
|
|
Where Brown's once lived. 2006
|
|
Helen Bach
(K=2331) - Comment Date 4/5/2006
|
Chuck,
There's plenty to be encouraged about.
Daniel,
You appear to know very little about film manufacture.
The point that you have missed, perhaps because of your agenda, about the comparison with LF is that you can obtain extremely high quality results with film at comparatively low cost, if your bag is making a few, well-considered images.
I don't need to feel one up on digital, and to suggest so is a cheap shot. I use both film and digital, and appreciate the benefits and special qualities of both. I think that it's a shame that other people don't feel the same way. I also believe that it is nonsense to claim that one or the other is 'best'.
If you are more interested in expressing your opinions than showing us your vision, I wonder what your purpose is here.
Best wishes,
Helen
|
|
|
|
Chuck Freeman
(K=13616) - Comment Date 4/5/2006
|
Daniel:
Come on nman. Post your photos. Most of mine get few comments. And I have had my ass burned on some site and a couple of times on UF.
So post and take it on the chin. On another site I got 1200 views and two critiques. Oh well, she was a beautiful girl in a Bikini. Lol
|
|
|
|
