future of 4x5 and 8x10 film

[redrockcoulee]

Yes, he made it up. The notion that courts are "disallowing" digital images is an urban myth that film fanatics like to trot out from time to time in these sorts of discussions.

The fact is that while digital images have presented problems from an evidentiary standpoint, those problems have for the most part been dealt with and digital images are now introduced into evidence pretty much to the same extent and the same way as any record is introduced - i.e. either the parties stipulate or someone authenticates
them.

And of course the notion that "corporations" are switching to film for "important documents" is a vast over-generalization. "Corporations" (whatever exactly that means - is he talking about my little professional P.A.?) do whatever they do without letting most of us know. But I seriously doubt that most corporations have someone who sits around deciding which documents are "important" and which aren't, and then photographs the "important" ones with a film camera.

This winter I have taken two environmental monitoring courses (Neilsen Environmental) where the instructors, who teach and consult on contaminated sites do state that in THEIR experience they have had digital images questions in court and also advise against using either wide angle or telephoto lenses as they are also questioned about accuracy of the scene. I had asked them why digital was acceptable in criminal courts as the forensic in police forces are using digital and they just repeated their personal experience.They had no axe to grind as they were not photographers and actually suggested disposable cameras. They are both considered experts in the field of monitoring wells. Details can be supplied on request if you doubt their credentials. Personally I use digital for my contaminated sites and would never think of a disposable camera. I am just repeated what was stated in two different classes.

Again not sure if those taking photographs for evidence are using large format film as they did use 35mm and last year the Nikon D200 was the accepted standard among the police forces in Canada.

[Drew Wiley]

Here's where some of the confusion lies. Microfilm is very practical for storing history
for posterity. For example, not many libraries would want to keep actual daily copies of
the NY Times or other major newspapers on hand because they would take up a lot of
space, tend to deteriorate, and present a fire hazard. Same for arcane public records
like obituaries. With microfilm there's no need for some kind of digital rosetta stone to
interpret between the kinds of comuputer software that might hypothetically be around
decades from now. On the other hand, digital storage is much better for current work
that someone wants to communicate in the contemporary world, like a relevant phD
thesis at a university. The two different modes actually complement one another in
certain ways, rather than compete. The same goes for aerial survelliance. Satellites are good for certain things, but true film for others. Spy planes still operate over much
of the earth (accept Russia, where there's an agreement not to). An entire NSA facility
exists where digital technology is not even allowed, so that nobody can tinker with it.
But there are six additive color enlargers for 9x9 aerial film. Although I obviously haven't been in this facility I have seen specific components from the machines
because my own 8x10 color enlarger was built on a similar premise and I used a couple
of the same subcontractors. And on several occasions I've seen actual samples
from the NSA - and believe me they weren't digital! Satellites or old-fashioned spies
tell where the NSA to acquire true-color and greater detailed images from actual planes. I even know the folks who make the special lenses for them. If you've got a
hundred grand to spare why not order up your own dagor with all aspheric elements!

[rguinter]

.... after the recent news about Rollei going under ....

Is that true about Rollei going under? And here I was planning to purchase some of their IR film in the near future. Too bad. Bob

[Drew Wiley]

Postscript - Marko, I'm all too familiar with what's going on with medical imaging too.
I even helped set up the digital stuff for my wife's clinic. But that amounts to short
term archiving for insurance purposes, liability, patient history,etc. And this is not "archival" in the sense most art conservators mean. Yes, you'd document a
valuable art collection on disc for insurance or potential theft issues, but those discs
aren't a substitute for the object itself. There are also plenty of instances where there's been a misdiagnosis due to electronic transfer of digitized information; in such case, if there is a question, mailing hard-copy X-rays are sometimes requested, or frequently an MRI - but that's relatively expensive, so not a routine option without a fuss from the insurance companies. Film is anything but dead, especially in those many places around the globe where hospitals can't afford hi-tech equipment. Cumulatively
the demand for X-ray film is still enormous. But in terms of attracting new investment
money, Kodak is wise to keep at the forefront of supplying the medical trade with
digital technology (as is Nikon).

[Marko]

This winter I have taken two environmental monitoring courses (Neilsen Environmental) where the instructors, who teach and consult on contaminated sites do state that in THEIR experience they have had digital images questions in court and also advise against using either wide angle or telephoto lenses as they are also questioned about accuracy of the scene.

Questioning is what the courts do by design. Being questioned is very different from being disallowed and the difference is much more than semantic.

[Marko]

Is that true about Rollei going under? And here I was planning to purchase some of their IR film in the near future. Too bad. Bob

Unfortunately it is. I have lots of good memories tied to that brand and I hate to see it go.

But it is Francke & Heidecke, the umbrella company that declared insolvency. May not be the film division, though. I didn't check because it does not concern me, I am not using their films.

[redrockcoulee]

Questioning is what the courts do by design. Being questioned is very different from being disallowed and the difference is much more than semantic.

I am glad you explained that to me. I never said disallowed and was repeating the experience of people who often testify in court and found film more acceptable than digital.

As far as semantics goes I went back and did a quick re read of the thread and noted that you wish to define film as being dead when you can no longer buy the brand that you want at a local store. You have also claimed that a true barometer of the future of large format film is the lack of introduction of new 35mm cameras and the decrease of availability of film in mass market outlets. Those like myself who have mentioned the new companies and models of large format cameras or the increase of sales of film or of new or improved emulsions as people who are using only beliefs and not reason.

I am sorry but your choice of data to forecast the future of large format film is no more proven than that of mine or some of the others who have predicted that large format film is here for a while. In addition you have dismissed any indicators that do not agree with your forecast. I can see where the sales of new 35mm cameras can be a possible indicator (your forecast) but fail to see how sales of large format cameras or of film itself (others) cannot be. I think that there is dogma going on in.

Obviously none of us knows the future and it is of some interest to read what others view as important and how they interpret those data points. What is not interesting is the putting down of those ideas that are based on other indicators as not worthy of being even in the same league as yours and that it has to be irrational wishes instead of a thoughtful prediction. We can agree or disagree on the future of large format film but I will not agree that only what you think leads to a forecast for the future is valid.

My point is that there are other criteria that can be looked at for forecasting the future and when someone believes otherwise there can be no dialogue only arguments.

[Marko]

Well, glad to be of service, since you seem to be overly liberal with other people's words and their meanings...

Go back again and do a bit more careful re-read of the thread - you might notice that you are twisting both my words and the meaning of what I said beyond recognition.

I never put down anybody's idea because I disagree with it, I put down meaningless blather with no facts behind it and no intention to back it up. You're welcome to disagree and to try and prove me wrong, you are welcome to question anything I say and I will try to answer your questions.

But if you keep misinterpreting me intentionally, we have nothing to talk about and you can join the other seagulls here in doing their thing for all I care.

[Oren Grad]

But it is Francke & Heidecke, the umbrella company that declared insolvency. May not be the film division, though. I didn't check because it does not concern me, I am not using their films.

Just to be precise: the Rollei trademark is now owned by a marketing company that has been using and/or licensing the name for all sorts of things - film, consumer digicams, accessories, etc. Franke & Heidecke is an entirely independent manufacturing company which retains the right to use the Rollei name for the TLRs that it manufactures as well as for the 600x / Hy6 SLR systems that it manufactures for sale under the Rollei brand and as OEM for Sinar and Leaf. F&H has nothing to do with Rollei-branded film or any of the other Rollei-branded consumer products. It's F&H that filed for insolvency. As yet it has not been liquidated, and conceivably it will survive, given the strong interest that Sinar and Leaf have in maintaining F&H's manufacturing capacity for the Hy6 platform.

[Marko]

Thanks for the clarification, Oren.

Again, I am not sure, simply because I never used their film and may easily be wrong, but I always thought they simply co-branded film produced by Maco/Adox.

Either way, for me Rollei brand was always synonymous with cameras, not film, and I do hope they manage to survive this.