enough doom & gloom, okay? :)

[Joseph O'Neil]

I s anyone else prowing tired of all the "death of film" comments and threads anymore. At this point, I don't care what Nikon or Kodak are doing. I am not at all upset about the way things are going, I am more angry at just how obtuse the entrie general public seems to be about these things. A few facts off the top of my head;

- used LF gear is virutally non-existant around here - it gets snapped up too quick. 4x5 enlargers get sold within a couple of weeks, and two the main large format stores in Toronto have - between the two of them , well ONE used LF lens and ONE used 4x5 camera - and that's it. If film is "dead" who's buying all this stuff?

- AZO may be "dead", but you know, I've been shooting B&W for almsot 25 years, and to the best of my recollection, even when every local camera sotre stocked wet darkroom supplies, AZO was still a special order item. The only time I ever saw AZo on the shelf is when a local camera store ordered a box extra too much on a special order;

- LF photography is between pro and artist use, IMO, and that's a good thing. Give you an example - there's a company called Lee Valley Tools here in Canada, specializes in expensive woodworking tools. In short, if you wan tto spend $100 on a single Chisel, this is the place to do it. about 6 stores in the whole country, plus mail order. The one here locally is about 5 minutes drive due north of a Wal-Mart, and yet, when you go intot hat small, speciality sotre, you always have ot take a number to get service, they are that busy, year round.

- the part that really drives me nuts is how transparent the motivation to "make film dead" is for large companies. Put it this way - i have film cameras - 35mm, 120 and 4x5, some as old as 50 years, that are completely useable, and in some cases, litterally as good as the day they were bought brand new. By compaison, my 4 year old digital camera is junk.
Think about it people, think about it, yes digital si great, I use it too, but the number one, primary reaosn digital is pushed so ahrd is because unliek film cameras, there is no way in hell that 50years from now *anybody* is going to say "this digital cmaera is a good as today as it was brand new 50 years ago." They are not going to say it 25 years from now, 10 years fomr now, maybe nto even 5 years from now. I have a 6 year old laser printer that is "no longer supported" even though there is not a single thing wrong it it. That's exactly why the large companies are pushing digital.

Wake up people and smell the coffee - it's not conspiracy, it's basic, common sense marketing 101 - build a product that is oboslete, even if it still works, inside 5 years, and you will make a lot more money than a product that is still useable after 50 years.

My apologies for flying off the handle and ranting so, but after the past week fo film is gone, Nikon is gone, etc, etc, I've just about had it. The whole internet if full of these stories, but it's like the old story of the Emporer's New Clothes, everybody knows what's going one, but is afraid to say it out loud. Why?

One last thought - my daughter missed her school pricutres due to illness, so my wife trook her this past wekend to a local superstore, and had some portriats doen there. One 8x10, 2 5x7 and a sheet of wallet sized prints - all very good - less than $10 cdn, including taxes for everything. Pretty cheap, eh?
This same weekend, through word of mouth only, some people who know i have a 4x5, and want a me to shoot and engagement picture for them with it, because it will be "something special", something different than the "other places do." The fact that I will be a lot more money that the department supertore isn't the issue - it's the percieved value of work done with a LF camera as opposed to the digital "everyone else is doing."

I really, really think the future looks superb for all LF work. Right now, we are in the middle of changing times and changing markets, and change always hurts, for better or worse. If we hang tight. ride the storm out, it's gonna be good, very good. So please, no more doom and gloom, okay? Let's try and find a way to make things work, make the future brighter, instead of waiting for the apocalypse to come?

As for Kodak and "film is gone", fine, go ahead, think that way, becasue that's exactly the reason I was in my darkroom last night loading up 25 film holders with Forte Pan 400 instead of Tri-X.

joe

(again apologies for the full ranting mode, haven't had my 6 cups of moring coffee yet. :)

[Bruce Wehman]

Couldn't agree more: Sure, as the supply of materials diminishes, the cost will go up, but the same thing will happen to the product of the effort - fewer large format photographs = more valuable LF photographs. Nope, I don't think scarcity is a bad thing at all.

[Don Sparks]

Bravo Joseph! Let the film is dead peddlers start their own forum instead of trying to shove it down everybody elses throat.

[Ken Lee]

I agree. Legitimate news on the issue is helpful, but trolls and rants full of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) are something else.

[Nick_3536]

Actually Lee Valley is at best mid market. If you want expensive hand tools then start with somebody like

http://www.lie-nielsen.com/

LV tried to sell thier products for one year but they were too expensive for most LV customers.

Some of the products "introduced" by Lie Nielsen had been killed off by the big makers decades ago. Stanley couldn't support the volume on the items. The English companies like Norris went out of business.

Sounds a lot like the film market. The companies needing to sell massive amounts of volume are having problems. The question is how many new companies will spring up to fill the gaps.

[Walt Calahan]

Today is a beautiful day to make pictures! Yesterday was too. I hear tomorrow will be even better.

No gloom and doom here. HA!

[David Luttmann]

"By compaison, my 4 year old digital camera is junk. Think about it people, think about it, yes digital si great, I use it too, but the number one, primary reaosn digital is pushed so ahrd is because unliek film cameras, there is no way in hell that 50years from now *anybody* is going to say "this digital cmaera is a good as today as it was brand new 50 years ago." They are not going to say it 25 years from now, 10 years fomr now, maybe nto even 5 years from now. I have a 6 year old laser printer that is "no longer supported" even though there is not a single thing wrong it it. That's exactly why the large companies are pushing digital. "

Interesting. Did your 4 year digital camera stop working? (of course film cameras never break....) Did the quality of images you produce with it degrade over the last 4 years? Will this degrading you seem to indicate increase over the next 4 yrs, 5 yrs, 10 yrs?

I think you are generalizing a bit too much. My Canon D30 takes every bit as good a photo as it did the day I bought it. While I agree with you completely on the film issue, to suggest, as many film users do, the their digital camera somehow started taking lower quality or inferior images the second a new model came out....to suggest it is now junk, when the images it takes today are identical to those 4 years ago.....is simply ridiculous!

My 3MP D30 is perfect for for what I bought it for....snapshots of 4x6 & 5x7....sometimes 8x10. It still accomplishes this today.....and it will tomorrow. As well, the last time I checked, the RAW & JPG formats where still in use today. The JPG format is not a toner cartridge.....it will be with us for decades to come. Film is no more dead than my D30 & JPG are. To suggest otherwise is simply your reversal of the doom and gloom you so detest.

[Tony Karnezis]

Wow Joseph--I'd love to see the rant that would come out AFTER your morning coffee! =)

[Joe Forks]

I'll keep buying film as long as I can find it for sale.
I'll keep shooting it as long as I can develop it / get it developed.

Now about boycotting Kodak emulsions, as much as I'd like to, I think the best thing for us to do is just to keep shooting whatever it is we like to shoot. If everyone avoids Kodak emulsions because of a perceived slight by the CEO, we may just cause a quicker discontinuation.

I really don't see it coming though, at least not in the immediate future. IMO this digital revolution has actually bred more MF and LF users. New users seem to be coming out of the woodwork. Possibly we'll see the second coming?!

Forky

[Dan Ingram]

"Did your 4 year digital camera stop working? (of course film cameras never break....) Did the quality of images you produce with it degrade over the last 4 years? Will this degrading you seem to indicate increase over the next 4 yrs, 5 yrs, 10 yrs?"

My six-year-old digital camera still works as well as it did six years ago. However, in a few years when the nearly-defunct SmartMedia cards it uses are hard to find, I may have to reevaluate that statement. Furthermore, the images I took with it are OK, but can be far surpassed with a much less expensive digital today, adding to my displeasure. As far as degradation goes, who knows? None of this is intended to slag digital cameras, a developing technology that should be beneficial to photography in the long run. But I do personally feel like the camera I bought six years ago is, by current standards, junk, and nothing that happens in the future will change that.

On the contrary, I always tell my friends that my Crown Graphic is capable of better images now that when it made in 1960 (the same year I was made!) because lots of film emulsions have improved greatly (no Velvia in 1960!). That trend may or may not contunue now, but the idea that a 70-year old Zeiss Ikon can be loaded with modern transparency film and take beautiful images that folks in the 1930s could only dream about is one of the things that makes film attractive to me. I have the benefit of decades of experience in camera and film design and research. Digital SLRs are getting pretty cheap, but as long as I can buy hundreds of sheets of 4x5 Velvia for the cost of the cheapest one out there, my choice is clear.

And as far as the death of film and film cameras is concerned, anyone who regularly pursues Ebay items knows that the good old cameras are still in very high demand. Film isn't going anywhere anytime soon, and anyone who spends their time worrying about what CEOs at Kodak and Nikon are feeding to the press would probably be better off shooting the beautiful winter weather. Photographs give me pleasure. CEOs give me gas.

Dan

[bglick]

Joe, whats wrong with sharing information regarding the "state of affairs" of our field? If one doesn't agree or doesn't care, don't read the posts? Isn't that the purpose of this forum?

[Joseph O'Neil]

> "Interesting. Did your 4 year digital camera stop working? (of course film cameras never break....) Did the quality of images you produce with it degrade over the last 4 years? Will this degrading you seem to indicate increase over the next 4 yrs, 5 yrs, 10 yrs?"

No, it works pretty good - which is the crux of the matter. No, the issue was , in no particular order..

1) The 1.3 megapixel coverage, which was fine, is now not good enough since newer cameras do better, for less.

2) the smart media cards, which it uses, I am told - by no less than *four* different stores, ranging from mom & pop business to large, big box chain stores, is a format that is "on it's wayout" or "soon to be dead" or "hardly ever supported and is special order", etc, etc. I even had one young clerk stiffle laughing out loud when I asked for a new , larger card. He'll go far in retail I imagine......

3) with the exception of the mom & pop camera store, everybody else did their very best to convince of me of why my old digital camera was no good anymore, junk, outdated, the usualy "buy new or the end of the world will fall upon your head" type of thing. Vultures falling upon the dead is how I felt - me being the carrion. :)

You guys are right, the Jpeg format - like TIFF, GIF, etc, will be around some time. One "little detail". CDs are shown to physically to degrade over time. So does tape backup. Last year, I fired up an old machine that would actually talk to my old tape backup drive, trying to retirve some old data, only to find that the tape itself had degraded (despite being stored in a dry, fireproof safe), and the info was unreadable.

Oh yes - the smart media card itself - weird thing - my old Smartmedia card reader- external USB device, which I used on my old Thinkpad, does not have drivers for Win XP (nor Linux, for that matter), so I cannot use it on *any* Win XP machine. For some reason, the built in multi-card readers built into my new HP laptop, my dad's new Gateway laptop, my mom's HP laptop, and the company Toshiba laptop - none of them will read any of the smart media cards from that old digital camera, even though the cards themselves work fine in the camera, and I can plug the camera the camera itself into any of those computers via the USB cord orignally supplied with that camera, but since that specific USB cord for that camera is no longer made, and cannot be replaced (I asked) better not loose it, eh?

So in short, that's how my 4 year old, still functional digital camera, has "stopped working".
:(

joe

[scott_6029]

Great post! If I may I would like to share with you the 'demise' of Vacuum tubes in Audio gear with the transistor!

I am an audiophile and ULF photographer....I have been a 'high-end' audiophile for 20 years and listening to TUBE equipment for the last 20 years with NO death in sight. Tubes are currently manufactured in China, Russia, and Eastern Bloc countries....with the advent of the transistor, tubes were 'supposed' to be all but dead and buried decades ago.....At CES you can find more than 100 live showrooms with expensive highend tube gear....with a worldwide following....Lot's of folks ask me...what happens when you can't get tubes? Well they have been asking for the last 20 years and will continue to ask for 20 more....I know, film doesn't last as long as tubes do....but...

If there is a market, there will be a way...and my guess is there will always be.....unless a digital back is smaller, lighter than a filmholder, can store info in the field etc. ....even then....

Sure the big names like Kodak HAVE to go digital. Too much infrastructure to support a film only market....and they are probably too big (read overhead) to even supply film on a shorter supply level on a profitable basis. So, what do companies do? Close down or sell the film division, or find an alternative less expensive supplier to fill demand. Ultimately, demand and supply is inevitable....

So, the smaller, more nimble, less infrastuctured film mfrs. fill the gap, and fill the gap, and fill the gap, until it is no longer economically feasable....fortunately with the Internet and the likes of worldwide shipping, etc. it is a LOT easier to fill the gap....

So, make sure you have enough in the fridge to cover a brief shipping timeframe, or at worst a short production run (read special order). But I don't believe its time to panic yet....

Yes, in the short run, quality can become somewhat of an issue, but ultimately survival of the fittest wins out and quality amongst the few manufacturers wins out...and prices can increase....but, tubes from China (while quality can be suspect, but there are some very good suppliers I might add) are very affordable.

This is the transitional period, so to speak, and will sort itself out, and is with the likes of Ilford, and suppliers to J and C photo and even Kodak considering some special runs...it may just all work itself out!

[CXC]

Nice rant, but it doesn't change the fact that since, say, 5 years ago, there are fewer LF film companies, making fewer different types sheet film.

My local lab has tacked a 100% extra fee for enlargements from 5x7 or 8x10, for what I'm sure are perfectly valid business reasons, not just to price me out.

In the next 5 years I expect to have either to set up a darkroom, rent time in a darkroom, or mail away exposed film for development.

I think it was the beginning of the end when Richard Avedon passed away. I suspect that he single-handedly constituted more than half the world's 8x10 Tri-X consumption. There just aren't enough of us to maintain critical mass. One guy in his basement can produce LF cameras and sell them, maybe even at a profit, certainly to his own fulfillment. How fulfilling is it to manufacture film? If one guy could do it in his basement, and actually wanted to, for some reason, then by now we could be buying Bob's Fancy Grade Film, if we found Tri-X insufficiently grainy.

Film is getting old and gonna die one of these days, just like me. I don't like either fact, but saying it ain't so won't make it not so.

[CXC]

Oops, I just got around to reading earlier posts stating there are more films now then ever. Don't bother flaming me, I take it all back.

[bglick]

CXC, your first post is the reality of the situation, and it also brings up another interesting point. Making LF cameras is truly a passion, and always will be. Yes, these makers have to make a profit, but I am sure many of them could be do something else and doing better. But making film, well, theres no fun in that, its not like a camera whereas you can show it off to the world, get compliments, feel good about your craftsmanship, sort of like making music. Making film is "for profit only" type of business.

I am curious what it takes to make color film? Just how much capital expenditure is required to produce the finished product? I am so curious, I will start a new thread....

[tim atherton]

WG - you can use my Bob's Fancy Grade Film thread if you like... :-)

On which note - it just came back to me - isn''t there an ex-kodak type on APUG or somewhere who has bought up an old film coating machine - does up to 10" or something?

[David Luttmann]

Ditto Scott,

I've had no problem finding good tubes for all of my Audio Research gear.

[Phong]

> isn''t there an ex-kodak type on APUG or somewhere who has bought up an old film coating machine - does up to 10" or something?

You are probably thinking of Rowland "Ron" Mowrey
See this page at www.photoformulary.com (http://www.photoformulary.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=1&tabid=13)
under " Emulsion Making and Coating ". See also the posts on www.apug.org (http://www.apug.org) from "Photo Engineer", and also posts from "Rowland Mowrey" on photo.net

Cheers,

[Robert Skeoch]

Actually while we're getting the facts all straightened out... Nikon did say they were stopping LF lenses.... they did not say they were stopping the sale of film cameas. They still offer the new F6. I'm not a Nikon shooter anymore, but if I was, the F6 would be my first choice for a film camera anyway.
-Rob Skeoch

[Oren Grad]

They still offer the new F6.

And the F6 exists because they went to the trouble to develop a film camera that could share technology with the latest high-end digital bodies. If anything, that represents an effort to defend at least a small, high-end film niche as long as they can even as their sales have gone overwhelmingly digital. If one starts with a realistic view of where the market is at and what it takes for a company like Nikon to remain viable, that looks to me like lemonade, not lemons.

[Jim Galli]

There are more new parts available for Model A Fords now than there were 50 years ago. How come?

[John Kasaian]

Nikon's departure from LF lenses, IMHO isn't that big of a deal since, lets face it, there are a lot of those great Nikon lenses out there and unless you drop 'em or do something wierd, they're darn near immortal. Consider all the Goerz, Wollensak and Ilex lenses that cycle through eBay as well as all those truly esoteric refugees from Victorian England and Austro-Hungary.

With Fuji, Osaka, Schneider and Rodenstock still producing lenses things don't look so bleak. Heck, Nikon (and Fuji and Osaka for that matter) never did aggressively market theirLF lenses in the US and many other parts of the world anyway.

As for the Kodak CEO's remarks, even if it is a foreshadowing of things to come from Kodak is hardly an inconvenience. The same formula chemicals are available from half a dozen other sources (I guess the copyrights run out after 100 years or so) and we've already been forcibly weaned off their printing papers and the only three b&w emulsions they still offer in sheet form, while truly wonderful, aren't the alpha and omega of whats available. And all the time the popularity of LF grows!

Not only that, it seems like a couple of times a year another new camera maker shows up on the scene.

The future does look bright.

[Mark Woods]

Actually Kodak did a lot of R&D in the amateur market and migrated the results to the Motion Picture Imaging market. And if you believe the rap from Sony and Texas Instruments, film is dead. But, that said, I always remind these people that like future revenue streams to think of I Love Lucy. It was shot 3 cameras on film and can be "up graded" from the original to the next best format. Digital is not archival (at least for the 100 or so years that is the conservative estimate for film and a 1000 years stored correctly according to Kodak). The half life of tape and other electronic recording mediums is 15 years. This means that the content needs to be migrated to the next medium every 7 years. Then there is the technological migration that must take place. No one has mentioned losse, the little bit of differenece between one "clone" and the next. Regarding Lucas, his first Star Wars shot on video can not be shown today in its native format, which is an interesting thought. I won't go into his adgenda with Hollywood.

Film's not dead. The world is just a different place. I heard an interview with the CEO of 2929 Productions (produced "Good Night and Good Luck") who is working with Steven Soderbourgh on 6 films that will be simoutaneously released in theatres and on DVD (and on TV/Cable if they can arrange it). He is looking for what the new paradigm is. Amazing times! Lots of ways to guess wrong and lots of new things. We do live in an interesting time.

Kind Regards,
MW

[Victor Samou Wong]

Why hello there fellow Torontonian.... there are no cameras because I keep buying them all... muahahahahahaha... well ok maybe not... I'm in absolutely no place to do that.
Yeah looking for a nice crusty used 4x5 field camera with full movements in Toronto is hell.....

But hey you can get scalped at the upcoming photo show on the 22nd.

Cheers

[Jim Galli]

Just had a frightening thought. Brave new world, year is 2929. The only thing the archeologists will have to give them a picture of the previous 1500 years will be films of "I Love Lucy" and a few portraits by George Hurrell. They'll ponder and hypothesize why there is a gap before and after the 150 year parenthesis covered by film.

[Michael Greer]

This is a general response that was sparked by Joe Forks' post.
I used to be a BFA persuing Photography student. Since then, my life has taken a number of turns but I've always maintained a strong interest in photography. My medium format camera of choice is the Mamiya 6. As for LF I still have a much altered Speed Graphic, I used to have a Tech III, and I'm awaiting shipment of a Shen-Hao (Gasp!!) When I first got my Mamiya, the 50mm F4 G lens for that system could usually be found for right around $600. I never had the money when I saw one available back then. Fast-forward five years, and either due to inflation or the MF afficianados spilling out of the woodwork as Mr. Forks mentioned, one is hard pressed to find one and get it for less than $800. Here comes my shameless promotional statement; Thank you Lensandrepro!! I guess my point is that either there are more MF and LF users spilling out of the woodwork, as Mr. Forks speculated, or inflation truly does effect everything.

I also ask you this; How many of you out there that do your own processing and printing enjoy the "camera work" as much as the film-darkroom work?
I'll help keep film alive with all of you. Thanks.