future of 4x5 and 8x10 film

[Andrew O'Neill]

Getting back to the topic, I can see some films/formats being discontinued, such as 8x10 colour in the future. when? I don't know. I wouldn't worry. I saw several boxes of 8x10 colour film at my local supplier (in Vancouver). The film guy there says people are buying it.
The bottom line is if people stop buying, the makers stop making. So, lets keep buying!

[Ben Syverson]

If they stop making 8x10 color film, I'm done. I'll wait out photography until I can do the same thing with digital.

Which means 20 or 30 years.

[emo supremo]

Positive side: Xray (ortho) film in small physician's offices clinics will offer some respite. Also, labs continue to do their important image acquisition on sheet film and scan for publications, etc.

Negative side: The old saw "Photography will put an end to painting." is charming. I liked it when I heard it too. But it is a fallacy of logic. "Simplify, simplify, but don't simplify too much." is another of my favorite witticisms. The connection between photography and painting is NOT identical the connection between film and digital and, therefore, renders this argument flawed.
(but I'm still on your side!)

[Jay W]

I believe that on the recording side of things, digital has (nearly) completely taken over. I think that Protools (in music recording) is analogous to Photoshop in that it provides incredible control over the music. Recording digitally and using Protools has allowed each muscian to setup a home studio and get a very high quality output compared to the reel-to-reel days. I would guess that part of home studio move is in response to the recording industry going down the tubes, but I think a larger part is that high quality output (using digital) is now very cheap.

I think you're right that the majority of vinyl sales now is due ot the DJs and beat makers snatching up LPs, but as these "kids" get older, I wonder how long that trend will last. (I'm 30 years out of touch with that generation, so maybe it's not a trend.)

Jay

Actually, it is. Or rather, it was never gone - the whole DJ market has kept it afloat, peak vinyl sales ever were around 2002, about fifteen years after it had completely vanished from the consumer market, and there still are more releases on vinyl than in the pre CD days. And while timecode controlled computers with control vinyl are by now taking over part of the DJ market, there is yet another comeback as fan merchandise - there is a massive swing among independent labels towards a double strategy of internet download sales plus added value vinyl editions, with CD dropped entirely from the catalogue.

Sevo

[redrockcoulee]

As far as costs goes it is less expensive for me to print from my medium and large format images than from digital and that is not counting the cost of a printer. I did calculations that shown me that for printing say 16X20 B&W prints on fibre photo paper plus chemicals is less expensive than paper for the Epson plus inks. And the cost of darkroom equipment to move up from MF to LF was less than $100 compared to 3K for a printer.

The first two week holiday we took paid for my wife's K10D in film savings. And even though there always seems to be additional 'needs' for digital such as a stand alone HD so do not have to drag a computer with us, digital does save us money over 35mm film.

So for us the answer of which is less expensive, film or digital the answer is yes (both are depending on format and type). The quality from LF or from the Hasselblad exceeds that of the Pentax, the speed, convience and portability exceeds that of the MF and LF and is less expensive in the long run than film Pentaxs. It seems to me that those who argue for one being less expensive than the other are doing so from their uses or needs which is not universal. B&W for me is less expensive with film, even including the cost of the camera gear. If I only shoot colour my conclusions would be different.

AS far as the car analogy goes, my place of work is 50km from the nearest public transit and walking that distance in the dark, at 30 below with a 60 kph wind whipping snow does not seem practical.

PCX seems like one format that was common for graphics that has disappeared. I am not sure that we can state that all of the existing ones will be supported but if not then surely there will be a very long transition time that it would be easy to convert. There storage and format argument does not seem as strong as one of personal preference and of cost. Both of which are dependent on the individual more than the media. Currently if I want the best quality colour image for the least cost I would use the Hasselblad and scan in the Nikon CS8000 although I do have limited access to a Epson V750. Much less expensive that drum scans of LF or renting a MF digital back or a D3X. If I had lots of money I would likely get a CFV back for the Hassey and still shoot B&W film and could argue that both are the most economical medium. Digital negatives do not seem super cheap either.

Which would you choose to make orange juice and which to make apple pie? I hope that film is around for a long time. And I hope that the Pentax for example works more on fps, speed of autofocus and a higher ISO than in more megapixels but I would not even guess the future of digital cameras in 10 or 15 years. The inclusion of video seems the wrong direction in my mind but that might only be me.

[Marko]

OK, now that I went out and got some life (no expletive) over the weekend, here are a few remarks on some of the responses:

1. Car analogy was made in regard to the "obsolescence" argument - to compare the need for new cars and new cameras when a new model becomes available as opposed to the need to buy new car or new camera when the old one stops providing the service for which it was bought in the first place.

2. The sound recording analogy was made in regard to the "mainstream" vs. "alternative" or "boutique" technologies in their respective fields.

3. The cost comparison was made in an effort to compare two different technologies in a more meaningful way regarding the total cost of ownership (TCO) not just the initial cost of acquisition.

I believe I made the intent and reasoning behind them pretty clear, but all three were conveniently distorted into something entirely different by cute little snipes meant not to argue but to shut down the argument.

We are all here to discuss topics and compare and confront different opinions, that's the very purpose of an Internet Forum. I do not aim to offend anybody (or shove anything down anybody's throat as alleged) and I try very hard to be civil. My opinion on topics such as this seems to contradict some people's beliefs and they seem to take a great personal offense at the fact. That is unfortunate but there is nothing I can nor want to do about it. Profanities and personal insults will only change my opinion about those who resort to them and get them ignored.

Marko

[sanking]

Marko,

Ok, if you want to discuss topics and compare and confront different opinions, and not offend, please stop the snide remarks about people who talk positively about film by equating their opinion to "Ludditte anti-digital whining, " APUG mentality, and suggesting that we need group therapy.

It does not matter in the least to me that your opinions don't agree with mine. But when you basically insult people who talk positively about film, and then respond with patronizing comments, don't expect us to suffer those insults in silence. Your insults are offensive, on principle primarily, and secondarily because some of us who you insult may know as much about digital photography as you.


On many occasions you have called for civility in the forums. Please look carefully at your own participation and try to practice what you preach. It is highly hypocritical in my opinion for a person to make snide remarks about those with those with whom you disagree (and I can quote several such comments by you in the thread), and then complain because someone finally reacts to what you have said with words that you find offensive. I think my position is clear. I have no intention of suffering your insults and patronizing comments in silence. If you want civil discourse, begin by practicing what you preach.


Sandy King

[Marko]

Ok Sandy, fair enough. I really did not want to have any more discussions with you, but I don't want to dismiss such a statement without making an effort to examine it - including my own words and attitude - in detail.

You have told me before, in this and other threads, that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones (or a variation of it). My response now remains the same as in one of our previous exchanges: I do try very hard not to cast the first stone, but I will pick up a stone cast at me and hurl it back. I am simply not Christian enough to turn the other cheek.

So, yes, I can be snide, patronizing, sarcastic and caustic (and I have been in this thread), but... always in response to an attitude received and always towards the attitude and never to the person. I have never uttered a single profanity and I have never personally attacked you or anybody else in this thread. I have never called - not even implied - you clueless nor did I tell you what to do with your opinion or to go get a life.

In my view, profanity is an intellectual crutch, a sign of feeble mind. They diminish the validity of any point one is trying to make and that is the biggest reason why I refuse to use them. I don't need such "amplification", if someone else's facts are better or more valid then mine, I will be only be happy to adopt them.

So, please go back in this thread and read carefully what each of us said, how and when. I did not find a single thing I said that was offensive to you until your posts #140, #145 and #152, which became progressively patronizing and dismissive. I still do not see how I offended you prior to those, try as I may.

As for your opening statement, I do not make snide or disparaging remarks about "people who talk positively about film" - never did, never will. If nothing else, then because I am using film myself - not because I have to, but because I like it. To suggest that I would berate anybody for doing the same is a complete non-sequitur at best and dishonest at worst.

Facts are independent of our likes, dislikes and beliefs, they just are. What I do make snide and sarcastic remarks about is confusing the two, especially when it represents or at the very least comes across as a deliberate attempt to derail an otherwise interesting and lively discussion. In other words, not film and not the people, but the climate of "magical thinking" and loud and abrasive derision of anything that does not fit into that mold that is so prevalent on APUG.

I hope I have been clear enough this time. If you still feel I insulted you first, please explain how and point me to the occasion - I will gladly extend my apologies if warranted. But respect is a two-way street, you get what you extend. No more but no less either.

Marko

[sanking]

Marko,

I am responding to you in a PM. No need to discuss this further in public.

Sandy

[Marko]

Agreed, thank you.