However, the compromise that was made is that roll film in the new TMY will have the UV layer added to it.
Looking forwad to some cold adult beverages in Ft. Collins next summer at the combined photo conference when we get this train with ULF sheet film back on the tracks soon. First one is one me!
There's no question we still use film and like film. The big question is how long film will be in its current selection?
In the meantime I'm stocking my freezer with past date specials for the day its all said and done.
I can kind of imagine what they do, depending on whether it's color or black and white. But, that wouldn't necessarily correlate well with reality.
Guys, there is no question that some newcomers to the medium enjoy dabbling with film and college darkrooms are busy. That does not mean it is a representative view. Firstly, the question was directed at professionals. Secondly, we know what sales figures for film look like. Thirdly, as an example: some people say that the image quality of the Daguerrotype has never been surpassed - how many people nowadays use them and, more importantly, how many photographers benchmark their output against the Daguerrotype? Lastly, this is the LF forum and 99% of the world uses small format cameras. I guess you get the idea.
Not that it matters. You can enjoy film and photography no matter what 'the pros' use and think. Different requirements, different worlds altogether.
After three years trying, I still can't get my professional, pigment-based, Epson printer to spit out a sheet of paper that matches the monitor. I can print color in the darkroom, and get what I want in about three test strips. I started printing color in the darkroom a few months ago, for a total of seven sessions. I have yet to see how digital is so much easier. Granted, I haven't had to do any masking yet.
I shoot 35mm, 6x6 and 5x4. By next summer I'd like to be ready to try 10x8. I own no digital gear, but have cause to use it at work. So, I guess my personal taste is pretty clear. I love using film. I love printing.
However, I recently visited another forum where someone posted figures for sales of camera gear in the UK. Digital cameras peaked last year and have fallen back slightly, to £850 million. Film cameras fell from £150m, to £20m, then £6m! Now, this is hardware only. Not film, paper, chemistry etc.
The problem I see is that if the only new film gear on sale is Leica and Haselblad, what happens to the kid with a couple of hundred bucks to spend? Where is his entry to film shooting. Yes, right now there is a mass of unwanted, cheap second-hand camera kit to be had (In fact, my dealer has just halved the price on new RB67's to get rid of them). How old is YOUR kit? What happens when our gear begins to fail? Film can only survive if the next generation of togs have something with which to shoot it.
I think that this statement is based on an economic reality for professionals of using smaller formats with digital than they did for film. You note that he does not deny that the marketplace is demanding digital, just that the consumer is happier with a lower common denominator of quality for the digital advantage. That the photographer demands a higher level of quality for his own work is at least encouraging but it still shows that pros are only using film if allowed or for their own personal (i.e. not pro level usage - the kind that goes through a LOT of film) projects and use."With digital, there's this whole thing of, 'Oh, it looks good enough to get by, it's fine, it'll do.' You didn't have that with film. Was it good enough? It was great!
Can't say that I find it particularly exciting for the prospect of film, just who would put money on Kodak's inherent loyalty to film? Ilford was taken over by it's managers when it went bust because of that loyalty, can't see kodak letting it get anywhere near that far given how far they've fallen already. Anyone want to put a date on how long Polaroid will last?
I think a previous poster made a good point, the film industry will move eastwards. I wouldn't be surprised at all if a few years hence the mass produced film is based in China with Europe providing a few niche films and cameras at higher expense.
His 2nd quote really puts it into perspective. It ain't coming back to where it was. The retro thing will wear off with the young like all fashions and even if they keep the passion past that age, commercial realities won't give them the scope to spend the kind of money on film that will break it back to anywhere near the level of pro usage that was. Just how many students in those dark rooms will use film in their jobs?"Digital will continue to get better and better and better," Smith said. "Maybe film will become an art thing, who knows? But there will always be those who want to shoot film."
Those of us who want LF quality without having to pay a fortune are still going to be using film, those who like the look of film will still be using it, those who don't like technology will still use it. I just think that the underlying message of that article is contradicted by the content of the article.
Whilst the practices of one photographer are interesting, what would be more useful is a wider survey. B&W Mag recently produced the results of a survey run by Kodak of a large number of Europen pros. 65% of them still, & will continue, to use film.
The Foundation Degree course I start on monday (two years, then a top-up year to make it a full degree) is going to be my only real insight into the situation in the next few years.
During my portfolio showing/interview a few weeks ago I asked the course leader whether I'd be in the minority if I walked in with film cameras and used them extensively during the course. He didn't have a straight answer.
What it boiled down to was the course is made to be vocational - to get a foothold in the commercial photography industry. Guess what? He said the industry is pushing digital. So in a sense the industry dictates what he promotes in the course, and that will be digital capture. From his own mouth he said there is no point pushing film use if when the students hit the proper jobs everything is digital. It doesn't make sense.
Same happened with the AVCE Art & Design course. Originally a large part of the Lens-Based unit was in the darkroom. I was talking to my old tutor at the end of the two years of that course, he said he wouldn't be continuing to teach that darkroom part any more - "it's outdated". He could see the reality that most kids use digital.
I'm glad, however, that there is still going to be a place for film.
In fact it winds me up. I'm 20, for the past 4 years I've been using film exclusively and trying my best to put a good portfolio together (through all formats), then a guy I know waltzes up about a year ago knowing nothing, gets a fancy dslr and some lenses, a light or two, suddenly he gets guest passes to gigs and is selling his shots (albeit for peanuts) to a local paper.
That makes me sick on a personal level, but I'm still going to hold my ground and if I can walk out of the Degree course with a good grade, and the qualifications necessary to demand a fair price for my services, I would love to continue using film for fine art portraiture. I don't mind being a niche.