Depressing Statement re Film

[Rob_5419]

I wasn't around 50 years ago, but I remember that 25 years ago I could by Kodak, Agfa, Fuji, Ferrania, Ilford, Efke, ORWO, GAF, and probably at least four more brands of film. Locally.

I was.....but that's why I can't remember a thing now

Brian - slap! Naughty now. Let bygones be gone. This thread has got enough prozac in it to keep it more edifying for us all.

[Bill_1856]

Bill_1856,

Senile I may be. But that is because I was around in the 1950s. The choices back then were mainly Kodak or Kodak. The other producers were Ansco and Agfa. I don't recall Fuji having much of a presence at all. Transparency film was mainly Kodachrome and quite slow at that. The few color negative films that were available were expensive and the papers were unstable.

I still have the Kodak Data Guides from that era that list the specifications for both film and paper they manufactured. Many of the current manufacturers were not around back then. There was nowhere near the selection that I see today in, say, the Freestyle catalog. I invite you to show me that there were more emulsions 50 years ago.

There were Kodak, Ansco, Defender from USA. Europe photo industry had mostly recovered and there were at least Agfa, Adox, Perutz, Ferrina, and several British which i don't recall in addition to Ilford. Kodachrome was the primary color film (Kodacolor wasn't too good at this point), but there were also Agfachrome, Anscocolor, mcGregor, FR, Ektachrome, Geavert. Both Ansco and Kodak had a wide selection of B&W emulsions in every size which had ever been made, from ultra-slow to Royal Pan (faster than any sheet film emulson available today). My own favorite was Ansco Isopan. Then there were printing papers. Every company had multiple choices of contact and enlarging paper, with surfaces from glossey to canvas, and bases from tissue to linen. Kodak alone must have had more than a dozen basic papers, most in contrast grades from 1-5 (except for Ilustraters Special -- the best of all). Defender had Varigam (which many old-timers still claim was better than the latest multi-contrast stuff available today). For home color darkroom Ansco had Printon, and Kodak had Dye-Transfrer.<P>You may have been around then, but I don't think you were involved in the industry.<P>Let's let this discussion drop -- I'm tired of acrimonious forum threads.

[David_Senesac]

I had to really laugh after going to the link after first reading all the replies. Thought it would be some several page essay and analysis presenting a long list of examples of how film is declining while digital is growing along with conclusions on what, how, when and why. Instead its just a couple brief paragraphs with a few documentary images of the Kodak plant in Canada that probably painfully for that local area had to close its doors. About all he tersely noted was how film generally is declining. Since that plant obviously was more likely about the consumer juggernaut of point and shoot and 35mm film markets, I bet that was all he was reflecting on and not much more. Just making a short descriptive text caption for the Kodak plant images without a serious attempt to make any profound statement. You guys really took that for a ride haha with 8 pages of posts in just two days. To me it is rather ironic because it tends to show how it is WE who want to be discussing the subject and it seems to be bothering more than a few of us. So it taint about Burley or what he said but rather the whole tangle of issues around increasing digital encroachment into traditional film areas.

Personally I've been applauding the digital changes for a lot longer than the short few years since digital camera sensors came to the scene. How immensely it all has been regularly changing since I bought a manual everything OM-1 in 1979. You old timers remember all the media jabber going on at that time when the first auto exposure cameras came on the scene then repeated a few years later when the first auto focus cameras appeared dooming all the old manual focus lenses. Over and over. Just got to be around long enough although the current digital camera sensor revolution is certainly the most significant and radical revolution of all. When film scanners like PEC laser scanners were first used in the early 80's, that allowed me to get much better prints from my 35mm Kodachromes. Then in the 90s Photoshop, PhotoCDs, Evercolor Labs archival prints, Cymbolic Sciences Lightjet, Durst Lambda, inkjet color printers, archival media, and all the rest freed us early semi-digital implementors of some of the worst limitations of film processes that had left us at the mercy of a one-sided relationship with commercial labs.

Today I have a small museum of all sorts of film format cameras lenses and all the associated junk including rolls of old film I refuse to chuck in the trash but doubtlessly will never use. Today I love some things about the little compact 7mp Coolpix camera always in my pocket in the field with its 1GB bottomless media and quick to deplete battery while wishing it wasn't at the same time such a limited toy that could still fit in my pocket. Regardless it is extremely useful for making small images even if I need to waste effort in Photoshop to straighten out the color balance and whatnot.

Below pic taken a couple minutes ago with my Coolpix. The film and the dated 4mp Pentax digicam with its hopelessly mechanically stuck out lens both need to see my trash can. But heh I can quickly deposit my newer Coolpix image globally in an minute. That fact is certainly a welcome advance I like. Sir, give me one of those films and I'll also take a few bytes too, thankyou.


...David

[Andrew O'Neill]

Anyone who doesn't agree that film is a thriving business, that the materials will always be around forever, and that anything related to digital istinks, is at best misguided and at worst a fool. And probably a Canadian to boot.

Suddenly it's pick on Canada Day. Grow up!

[David Luttmann]

Suddenly it's pick on Canada Day. Grow up!

That's fine....we can travel the world without a target on our backs

[Capocheny]

That's fine....we can travel the world without a target on our backs

David, Andrew,

NOT all Americans have the sentiment or opinion that a few seem to have here on this forum. By and large, there ARE LOTS of American people who have the capacity for intellectual intercourse. I know quite a few of them.

So, don't over-generalize... forgive those who seem to have this unabashed need to make foolish comments and demonstrate their true character!

Life is too short to waste time on them.

Cheers

[Merg Ross]

Moderators, the Lounge might be a better place for this thread.

[Brian Ellis]

Suddenly it's pick on Canada Day. Grow up!

I thought the sarcasm was self-evident, especially the part about Canada. Far from picking on Canada, it was intended as a slap at those who in fact did pick on Canda. My apologies for not making things clearer, apparently I should have stuck a smiley in there but I thought my response was so obviously sarcastic that it was unnecessary.

[Brian Ellis]

That's fine....we can travel the world without a target on our backs

Good grief, another one. As I explained in response to Andrew's demand that I grow up, I thought my message was clearly intended as sarcasm and if anything the part about Canada was a put-down of those who brought Canada into the discussion. My apologies for not making that clearer.

[Brian Ellis]

David, Andrew,

NOT all Americans have the sentiment or opinion that a few seem to have here on this forum. By and large, there ARE LOTS of American people who have the capacity for intellectual intercourse. I know quite a few of them.

So, don't over-generalize... forgive those who seem to have this unabashed need to make foolish comments and demonstrate their true character!

Life is too short to waste time on them.

Cheers

I'm truly surprised that anyone thought my supposed summary of this thread was to be taken seriously but obviously some did, for which I apologize. I think if you re-read the message the intended sarcasm will be clear but in retrospect given the offense it obviously gave to some I should have added a smiley or in some other way made it obvious that I wasn't intending to provide the questioner with a serious summary of the thread and that my reference to Canada related to the previous mentions by others of Canada.