Depressing Statement re Film

[tim atherton]

Yes I'm sure he's a great photographer. PHOTOGRAPHER - not Zelda the Prescient Teller of Photography's Future.

Photography didn't replace painting which didn't replace wood-block printing. No reason to assume film will be replaced by digital. (In fact, I strongly suspect that the digital still photo is dead.)

there is, though, a significant difference between something be dead and being obsolete.

Nowhere did I read Robert Burley saying film is dead.

He did say it's heading towards obsolence - which is pretty hard to argue with.

Which precisely isn't to say that film will not be around. (the steam train is still around, as is the typewriter and the record player, as is the wet-plate collodion process and woodblock printing as a mainstream means of illustration. But they are all essentially obsolete - practiced and used by enthusiasts and artists)

And the initial poster is correct - it's a statement and a situation which appears depressing. One which, knowing what I do of Burely he probably feels likewise about. (and which, I think is reflected in the elegiac nature of those photographs)

[David A. Goldfarb]

Just a fleeting question....I'm sure there are but does anyone know if there's still some studios that use film for cinema??

Yes, film is still the predominant mode for cinema, serious television dramas, and even many commercials, but it's very much a hybrid process with layers of digital enhancement and editing between the initial shoot on film and final print, still on film for most theatres.

[Ash]

Considering Film/Media/Commercial-media must be one of the more intensive customer bases, I'd hope film will be around so long as there is a market there. At least, the revenue should help the loss-making areas keep afloat longer??

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge,

please explain to me why they can't be form a colour negative if they are 99cm wide?

You know of any lab that is hand printing from LF negatives at these sizes? I don't, at least not in color. I know of a couple which print from 8x10 and 12x20 negatives in specially made enlargers, but they only do B&W and I am sure there are plenty which print from 4x5 negs onto B&W. As I understand it all of the labs making color prints at these sizes are using lightjet and chromira machines from digital files.

[Ole Tjugen]

Jorge, I know at least one lab that is making hand prints (to 200cm) from negatives (up to 20x24"). In colour. In black and white they're limited to 120cm, since Ilford don't make larger papers.

In this case however it's stated that the prints are chromogenic light jet prints, which uses a digital intermediate between film and print. But the original "capture" could still be LF colour negative.

[tim atherton]

You know of any lab that is hand printing from LF negatives at these sizes? I don't, at least not in color.

sure - three labs I've used still do - such as Duggal. They still make hand enlarged colour C-Prints from negatives via enlarger up to 72"x144"

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge, I know at least one lab that is making hand prints (to 200cm) from negatives (up to 20x24"). In colour. In black and white they're limited to 120cm, since Ilford don't make larger papers.

In this case however it's stated that the prints are chromogenic light jet prints, which uses a digital intermediate between film and print. But the original "capture" could still be LF colour negative.

Ole, I am talking about making hand prints from and enlarger with a LF negative, not a scanned negative that has been converted to a negative file. This is a true traditional color print.

BTW, what the hell is this chromogenic BS? They are color prints, probably still using some derivative of the C41 process.

[roteague]

OK, lets see if this brightens your day

Fuji just brought back Velvia!

sales of sheet film for both Kodak, Fuji and Ilford continue to surprise these companies

both Kodak and Ilford are taking and filling orders for ULF film!


In all areas people, in order to get their books published, will write new theories of whatever to cause a stir. IMHO that is what this guy is doing.

just my 2 cents

steve simmons

Personally, I'm not as worried about LF as I am about 35mm. I still prefer 35mm to digital.

My 2 cents, I don't like this guys work at all - bland, boring ....

[Bill_1856]

You guys should be posting all this s..t on APUG. In another 5 years silver-based film will 1) not be available at all except in 35mm B&W, and/or 2) only the very wealthy will be able to afford it, (especially in these eqo inflating ULF sizes).
Enjoy what we've got while we've still got it. It will soon be went with the wind, miss Scarlett.

[Ole Tjugen]

Ole, I am talking about making hand prints from and enlarger with a LF negative, not a scanned negative that has been converted to a negative file. This is a true traditional color print.

BTW, what the hell is this chromogenic BS? They are color prints, probably still using some derivative of the C41 process.

The lab I mentioned makes "hand prints" - they use a HUGE horizontal enlarger.

"This case" referred to Robert Burley, whose text and pictures set off this whole thread.

"Chromogenic print" usually refers to the RA-4 process for paper, not C-41 which is a film negative process.