future of 4x5 and 8x10 film

[Gene McCluney]

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.

Other way around. Maco licensed the Rollei name for film products. It is not co-branded. All the finance and marketing is Maco operating under the licensed name of Rollei. Totally separate from the entity that makes the Rollei film cameras. Maco sources emulsions from Agfa/Gevaert and Filmotec primarily.

[Brian Ellis]

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.

Of course I didn't say that no digital image has ever been questioned in any court. Just the opposite. I said that "dital images have presented problems from an evidentiary standpoint" and that those problems have "for the most part" been dealt with. My point wasn't to say that nobody ever questioned the use of digital images as evidence. I'm sure your instructors were telling the truth when they related their experience. The point of my message was that, contrary to what a couple people have said in this thread, there is no rule to the effect that digital images can't be used in court. They can be and they are.

[Gordon Moat]

A matter of intent as well as perspective, I suppose.
..........

Today, film is in the process of moving into the same category. Like it or not, to look at the existing supply and availability and seriously dispute the fact represents nothing more than magical thinking. Facts have long proven that they don't care about any of that.

I think these types of statements are what cause flak in your direction.

[redrockcoulee]

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.

You said "But what I am trying to point out are general trends, and the direction where they are pointing is fairly obvious to anybody who wants to look with a rational eye. Cameras are, IMO, an indicator - they are being made for both film and for digital sensors and vice versa. If you want to see a trend, look at what is being made and how much and what is being dropped. The trend is clearly there, has been for a while now.

If you refuse to see it, that's fine, plenty of people have said so here. But a discussion based on beliefs is rather pointless, because it inevitably turns into either a choir practice or a mud slinging match."

Where did I twist your statement. You have made it clear that 35 mm film sales are down and you stated about no new 35mm cameras. But you did dismiss the increase in sales of film and in LF cameras. If I mistake your statement that I added in the quotation marks than I am sorry but I can only read what I see. I thought that looking at the current trends in sales of film, of new film emulsion and of new large format models and manufactures as lines of evidence and yet it seems that it is irrational to do so.

Nobody has argued that film will ever be what it used to be or that it will overtake digital but if the film manufactures see an increase and they are putting efforts into product lines than how can that be ignored. It is another piece of evidence that should be included in one's analysis. This is not mud slinging. You had also posted about Afga no longer being available and to tell the truth in the 70s living in a city of half a million it was not always available anyways.

I have no intensions of trying to prove you wrong in your predictions, that is an impossible task unless we come back in 2o years. All I ever tried to do was to bring up factors other than 35mm cameras models and the sale of new cameras into the predictive model.

But do not call me a seagull as there is no such thing as a seagull. There are California gulls, Mew Gulls, Ring billed Gulls etc but no species or family or genus of seagulls, only gulls and some that are called seagulls are actually terns. I did question about the use of new 35mm camera models as a predictive model and got a lecture more than a discussion. There are a few other statements I could have pulled to back my claim that you are dismissive of other people's stance on this subject. But it is really about the future of large format film and as nothing you have said has persuaded me to think otherwise (although you have stated valid points to ponder there is not doubt about that). But your last statement is correct in that we have nothing to talk about.

[redrockcoulee]

Of course I didn't say that no digital image has ever been questioned in any court. Just the opposite. I said that "dital images have presented problems from an evidentiary standpoint" and that those problems have "for the most part" been dealt with. My point wasn't to say that nobody ever questioned the use of digital images as evidence. I'm sure your instructors were telling the truth when they related their experience. The point of my message was that, contrary to what a couple people have said in this thread, there is no rule to the effect that digital images can't be used in court. They can be and they are.

Brian

I was just responding to the urban myth part of your message. And I did write that I do use digital for the purpose that the instructors said to use film as I have little potential for our sites to go to court. My 4X5 enlarger and a lot of my photo paper is from the city police force as they went digital.

As well there were many statements made by various people about digital or film and their opponents demanding proofs and this was the only instance where I have a tiny bit of knowledge, second hand though it is. Perhaps I should have posted without the quotes to indicate I was not arguing with you .Sorry of there was a misunderstanding.

[Andrew O'Neill]

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

rguinter, you can get Efke's IR. As far as I can tell, it's the same film and on a much thicker base...and it's cheaper.

[Marko]

I think these types of statements are what cause flak in your direction.

I think you are right.

But that's my opinion, I try my best to explain how I came to it and I'm open to changing it if proven wrong. I won't change it nor will I stop expressing it simply because some don't like it.

[Marko]

Where did I twist your statement.

Here:

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.

And here:

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.

And here:

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.

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.

This is patently false. I dismiss those who come out with bombastic nonsense, such as the one about "major corporations and courts" or the one about "major libraries" switching back to film in an attempt to dispute my opinion but who refuse to provide ANY data for what they say except to provide a quote from APUG.

I have repeatedly said here that this is all just a personal opinion based on what data I had available to me as an amateur, the same thing all of us here do, unless there is a professional market analyst somewhere among us. And even they have been roundly dismissed and even ridiculed in the other thread about Kodak's dwindling share.

I also went to the trouble and effort of explaining how and why I came to my opinion and provided plenty of examples. I will NOT dismiss either you or anybody else for questioning or disputing my conclusions, but I will ask that you have the courtesy to provide some real, reasonably independent data yourself. No, I'm sorry, but I do not consider APUG to be a credible source in film vs. digital "discussions", for obvious reasons.

You have made it clear that 35 mm film sales are down and you stated about no new 35mm cameras. But you did dismiss the increase in sales of film and in LF cameras. If I mistake your statement that I added in the quotation marks than I am sorry but I can only read what I see. I thought that looking at the current trends in sales of film, of new film emulsion and of new large format models and manufactures as lines of evidence and yet it seems that it is irrational to do so.

You also said that you did a quick re-read of the thread. Perhaps you should re-read a bit more carefully? Maybe even try reading within the context? Pulling one or two sentences out of discussion like this won't get you very far in the comprehension department. If I didn't already make it clear that I am looking at the profitability of film market as a basic determining factor for the future of film production, and at 35mm as the mass-production carrier of that market, I don't know how to make ti clearer.

Nobody has argued that film will ever be what it used to be or that it will overtake digital but if the film manufactures see an increase and they are putting efforts into product lines than how can that be ignored. It is another piece of evidence that should be included in one's analysis. This is not mud slinging. You had also posted about Afga no longer being available and to tell the truth in the 70s living in a city of half a million it was not always available anyways.

I have no intensions of trying to prove you wrong in your predictions, that is an impossible task unless we come back in 2o years. All I ever tried to do was to bring up factors other than 35mm cameras models and the sale of new cameras into the predictive model.

That's exactly what some people have been saying, that is what I tend to ridicule and you took that part out of the overall context and blew it up.

You can dispute my opinion and we can discuss it all you want and I will admit I was wrong if you manage to prove it, no problem about it. This is a discussion board, after all. Just follow the basic rules of a normal discourse and all will be fine.

But do not call me a seagull as there is no such thing as a seagull. There are California gulls, Mew Gulls, Ring billed Gulls etc but no species or family or genus of seagulls, only gulls and some that are called seagulls are actually terns. I did question about the use of new 35mm camera models as a predictive model and got a lecture more than a discussion. There are a few other statements I could have pulled to back my claim that you are dismissive of other people's stance on this subject. But it is really about the future of large format film and as nothing you have said has persuaded me to think otherwise (although you have stated valid points to ponder there is not doubt about that). But your last statement is correct in that we have nothing to talk about.

See this is the problem here - you keep twisting what I say to the point of non-recognition!

Didn't you see the big "But if you keep misinterpreting me intentionally," part right before "we have nothing to talk about"[/b]?

Sorry, I am not a marine biologist, the gulls all look the same to me - not overly intelligent birds that come screeching out of the blue, usually in groups, drop lots of stuff down and generally make a huge mess, always the same, regardless of what one says or does.

We can talk about anything you want, but IF you keep twisting my words, what's the point?

[redrockcoulee]

Marko

In post 183 you made a statement on what you were basing your criteria on the future of large format film. In post 187 I submitted other criteria that I thought relevant to the discussion, that perhaps the trend in sales in film, especially large format film land the introduction of new models and new manufactures of large format film as better indicators. Your response was not a discussion on that point but dismissing, and I thought dishing, views that were opposing yours. Read what you said in post 189. It is true that I did not provide any proof that She Hao has produced new models in the last two years or that Chamoinix is a new manufacturer of cameras. But alternatively I never asked for proof that Nikon or Cannon have made new models of digital cameras in the last two years. Neither statements need proving as far as I am concerned. But if you want I can go get those for you. As far as film sales goes I do not have the numbers but comments were made by others on that subject here and elsewhere and I have to take them on their word just as I took you on your word about the lack of film in your local stores.

I know little in the way of microfilm, movie film stock or storage for corporations and have not stated any comments about those three subjects. I made a single comment about digital versus film in court cases regarding contaminated sites based strictly on the word of professionals in that field and if you need their names they are Dave and Gillian Neilsen. Do a search of monitoring wells and Neilsen if you want. I do not remember quoting APUG but perhaps some of the info came from there like the announcements of new film emulsions but when someone announces that Kodak or Ilford or Fuji has a new film I normally go to the company's web site and Kodak and Fuji have produced new or upgraded emulsions.

What you have accused me doing is of INTENTIONALLY misinterpreting (Post 264). I have not done so. The topic of any motivation or lack of motivation on my part is one subject that I do know more than you. If you read my comments I said do not call me a seagull I did not say that you had called me a seagull. It was really a response to your semantics statement and I guess I was trying to be smart that you were being big on the meanings of words and yet used a term that although is extremely common is totally incorrect. Perhaps a smiley would have been in order. And actually an ornithologist would be more appropriate than a marine biologist as the gulls also live inland.

I still believe that although sales of 35mm film might be an indicator of the future of large format film, the trend in sales of film in general and large format film in particular must also be viewed as indicators for the future of large format film and not to do so is only looking at part of the picture. What I submitted were these introductions of film and cameras as bases that film is not dying and there is still a future for large format film. I also read the replies and remarks that you made to others and it was and still is my impression that you are more interested in arguing than discussing and therefore may later remarks, Marko, you can respond to this if you wish and have the last word.

[Michael_4514]

It seems that this thread was quiet for about four years. Before it degenerates any further, maybe we should just let it go back to sleep and reconvene in another four years and take stock of the supply of film at that time.