What really gets on my nerves is when trolls like "Emre Yildirim" make up fake usernames to tell me that the rapid disappearance of many films isnt a valid topic of discussion.
What really gets on my nerves is when trolls like "Emre Yildirim" make up fake usernames to tell me that the rapid disappearance of many films isnt a valid topic of discussion.
"I'm also bored with the "film is dead" thing, film should be around for as long as we are because it's used in many other specialist fields and not just photography. I've yet to see an x-ray machine with a digital back."
There are a whole range of digital X-Ray machines - they also make "digital" film packs to use in regular X-Ray machines. And of course their big selling point is "no flm costs"
Our friends at Kodak make them I think - among others. The US military even uses them in their Field Hospitals in Iraq.
among others
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/health/pdf/prod/directCap/dr/M1-449.pdf
etc
If you are bored with the "film is dead" thing - stop reading all the posts and go and make photographs. No one is forcing you to read them
You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn
www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog
My apologies to "Emre" for my comment about the false username, as earlier today the function for finding posts by a user was apparently malfunctioning and it came up with zero posts by that name. Now its working and I see that this user has posted before. But the topic is still valid-last year alone several popular films vanished forever, and more seem certain to go in short order.
" I've yet to see an x-ray machine with a digital back"
To which someone responded they saw one in the UK when in a hospital there for injuries. Fully digital dectectors for x-ray machines are becoming more common however the price difference of a fully digital (meaning after exposure the technician simply reviews the image on a monitor) as opposed to an old style unit using film is somewhere around $300K. Which is why digital has not replaced film in any medium whether it is photography or medical care. What the person in the UK saw was most likely a hybrid unit that uses cassettes with a screen that is sensitive to x-ray which is then digitally scanned but is filmless.
I can see where in industrial, medical and commercial applications that digital is becoming more the norm due to the advantages of speed(no developing etc.) and protability(you can send the images in e-mail) but as I have said before and other have stated the invention of photography didn't mean that people quit painting pictures. The expense of going digital for most of us is out of the question. Were I a pro arcitestural photographer I would probably invest in a scanner for my negs and a small (11x14) printer to enable me to compete but that's about it.
Ron, I have been Xrayed a lot in the past 2 years, and every facility uses digital recording devices, ZERO film. I too was quite shocked to see this. After the technician takes the recording device and puts it into the reader, the image appears on the PC monitor in less then a minute....quite impressive, of course, unlike photography, every x ray facility will not run out and replace film xrays for this new technology. It may be more efficient, but offers a 50 year payback.
As for the "too much" issue.... I think J.L.'s posts are very sensible....it's an open forum, right? There is many threads which I have zero interest in. So, when I see the subject header, I just skip over them, what's so hard about that? If you don't like the subject matter or the opinions on certain subject matter, don't read it? But why attempt to prevent others from discussing it?
I also agree with J.L. in that, film is the most significant part of what we do, hence our constant curiosity of its "state of affairs". This latest round of film issues has shed much new light on the subject. And although many of us film users don't feel threatened film will be gone next month, we still like to stay abreast of the liklihood of its demise. Many of us, base decisions on our future endeavors / gear purchases, on this type of information.
Hey, thanks for calling me a troll.
Okay, you're right, film is disappearing. So is the ozone layer and the Lucky Charms cereal boxes that are on sale at the grocery store right now. Let's move on (and by move one, I really mean, let's start 18 more threads on how film is dead - maybe the additional discussion will kill film faster/bring it back). Just because a forum is open, doesn't mean it shouled be spammed with the same topic over and over. But whatever, I'm just going to skip these threads in my inbox from now on.
Film is not dead at all. It's just a really backward way of making a picture. Film is dumb, not dead.
A dear friend I've know since First Grade is a X-Ray technician in a hospital.
All his X-Ray gear is digital. He says that it allows the dcotors to see far more from one exposure than film can see. By using levels in the imaging software the doctor can see throughout the soft tissues. In the past to get various soft tissues, the X-Ray technician would have to make various exposures at varying intensities of X-Ray. This saves patients from large exposure to radiation.
Also it saves having to dispose of the radioactive chemical waste that comes from developing X-Ray film, which is great for the environment. The pay off to the hospital is far sooner than 50 years if one factors in the cost of all the external issures of using radiation, as well as the speed by which images can be sent to doctors throughout the hospital. No more couriering film from place to place. The doctor can access the information at any networked computer.
Film isn't dumb. Film has no mind. People are smart or dumb accordingly.
"...the radioactive chemical waste that comes from developing X-Ray film..."
Please explain. Why radioactive?
, but records still selling now even less people are interested , but still have it ... sound better than CD anyway.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks