Boycott digital?

[Christopher Nisperos]

Upon seeing the title of this thread, you probably thought, "Oh brother, doesn't this guy know it's too late?"

Well, please don't think I'm naïve. I have worked in the photo industry, on and off, for over thirty years. In 1974, at 18 years old, I was a tech rep for EPOI, the then Nikon/Mamiya/Durst/Sinar-Bron distributor. I learned early-on about the power of marketing and I saw that small ideas could ripple-out and have big effects. I used that concept years later when I helped Guy Gerard introduce his Bergger products to the U.S. marketplace, writing the original English-languages press releases, personally planting the idea that his Forte/BPF200 was a Super-XX lookalike and introducing him to LotusViewCamera.

If you're reading this, whomever you are and whatever your level of competency and expertise, I consider you my colleaugue. You may even be as passionate about black & white traditional photography as I am. So, dear colleague, speaking to you from the heart, I'll admit to you that I'm very upset by the recent news of Ilford and Agfa going out of the black & white business. Alot of good people are jobless and many of us are looking for books on filmmaking, and I don't mean cinema!

Digital has kicked traditional's butt, while it's not really a "one or the other" contest. We who use film and photographic paper are saddened and perhaps panicked (sic) by the prospect of having to scramble around for our supplies, and then pay through the nose once we actually find them. Just today I saw a comment on a thread dating from February of this year, "Don't worry, film and paper will be here and plentiful for many years to come". I want badly that this be true, don't you?

I sincerely believe that it is not too late to help black and white hold onto what little ground it has left, and to reverse the trend toward flushing away the motivation for companies like Kodak, Forte, Foma, Lucky/Kodak, Mitsubishi, Fuji, Slavich, Ferrania, Tura, Hindu, et al. to continue production. This change depends upon each of us working together, whether we are young, old, working professional, retired amateur, student or teacher. The seeds of change are right here before you eyes.

I propose a four point plan which can only be effective if done ON A REGULAR BASIS for a steady period of, say, at least two years (photokina 2006 would make a great milestone date to see if it has worked):

1. Don't give manufacturers a reason to stop production (or business!). Those of us who aren't buying b&w film or paper regularly must increase our consumption of those products remaining on the market. Those who already buy, why not increase your purchase even slightly? I suggest that, as much as possible, we buy on --or around--the same date each month. This would cause a surge in sales figures which would be noticed by dealers and suppliers. For this reason, I chose a weird date so the sales surge can't be attributed to payday on the 15th or 30th.... so "BUY f/8" means buy on the 8th of the month, or first business day thereafter. Also, encourage others to buy.

2. Boycott digital cameras and accessories. Yes, I said it. Don't buy any new digital cameras before photokina 2006. ...not even a cheap disposable. Use what you have. Suffer. Resist. Use your dough for b&w or a photo safari. If you are serious about saving b&w, this shouldn't be a big problem for you. It's time to fight back and stop the blah blah. Amateurs: Stop promoting digital by showing your camera off in public. Use your film camera for a while! (color of b&w). Pros : I know that this part of the plan isn’t always possible, but why not shoot traditional B&W from time-to-time?

3. Actively support film-based, black & white photography. Talk it up, and often. Amateurs can do one or two exhibitions. If you're a working photographer, why not submit a b&w print instead of a memory file to your ad agency client once-in-awhile? If you're an art director or creative, why not ask for black & white more often? Remind your friends about the charm (and permanence) of b&w for their family photos (Ever notice that the sound on audio tapes can fade and CDs skip? I worry about electronic storage, so I always advise friends with newborn children to back-up their digital pix by shooting at least two rolls of b&w during their child's first year.. for "heritage insurance").

4. Tell others about this plan.

Summary: buy more, boycott digital products, support black & white, spread the word.

For those reading this who are thinking, "this guy is a reactionary", I'll readily admit that you're perhaps right. On the other hand, my idea is not really revolutionary, is it? Plus, it's better than whistling a song while the boat sinks. I say, let's try it.. I certainly will. I hope you'll join in.

Christopher Nisperos

Paris, 30 August 2004

[Bill_1856]

Getting your OX gored, eh?

[ronald moravec]

The only digital thing I ever bought was a scanner, but I with you.

Leica can keep their $5000 digital back. Ordered 100 ft of tri x Saturday. I will stock up on 4x5 film and paper.

Does Kodak make a decent fiber black and white paper?

[Andre Noble]

This past week I browsed over the entirety of B&H Photo Video web site's film stock, and placed about 15 varieties of roll and sheet films into my "Wish List" basket.

I plan to make regular purchases from this list monthly on my payday for the reasons you mention above.

The sky IS falling.

[Alex Hawley]

"Does Kodak make a decent fiber black and white paper?" The answer is "Yes", its called Polymax Fine Art. Its a multi-grade paper, a little less contrasty than Ilford, but nice just the same. Then of course, there is Azo which is another story.

Nice idea Christopher. The unofficial boycott of France has hurt them in trade with the USA. But how will you reach the Big Audience? There's also a certain digital snobbery that some people seem to have been born with.

[enrico scotece]

I think the most important thing here is the value actively (keyword) supporting b+w not only by shooting but educating more and more people about it. The more I speak to people, the more they are fascinated and intrigued by the process. Remind people that there is a major difference between Photography and digital imaging. Digital cameras are just another peice of electronics that will be outdated in 6 months time or until the next 'model' comes out, then people wonder why they bought the peice of crap in the first place - many consumers dont realise this. Photography is something else.

[Jeff Moore]

. . . Tilting at windmills.

[Andre Noble]

That's right. Every Large Format photographer is a Don Quixote at heart.

[Melvin H J Tan]

I'm with you! Here in Singapore, 4x5 supplies are scarce already...with Ilford going out of business, I'm concerned the other big players will also cease their film productions. Way to go! Let's make a difference. I personally make it a point to always impart some good words for film. Don't you hate it when people ask you if the camera you're carrying 'is digital?' even when it's an xpan or a M6? I just roll my eyes and say film's better! Ha ha!

[Andrew O'Neill]

So, Ilford is really and truely going out of the B/W business??

[RichSBV]

" . . . Tilting at windmills.

--Jeff Moore, 2004-08-29 19:55:56 "

I know a whole lot about "tilting at windmills"! And sometimes you _can_ win!

P.S. I've boycotted digital since about 1990 when I bough a cheap cam for web use... Found no use for it...

[John Kasaian]

Ah, but the Digiman is his own worse enemy. Buy a digital camera and a card and there is very little else The Digiman can sell you---except another digital camera! I think the marketing people at Kodak, Canon, et al. are still trying to figure that one out. They could make junk that corks out after a year or so, but then they'd never get the lucerative upper end market with that kind of reputation. Besides, they'll have to compete with the cell phone manufacturers anyway.

"Popular Photography" may well have to change it's title to "Popular Cell Phoney" before too long.

To increase the market for sheet film it would be far more efficent in the long run to introduce another to the fun of LF and let them feed their habit on repackaged Forte, Ilford(whats left of 'em) and Efke.

Try this:

After you phone in your orders for a second freezer and a gross of those 100 sheet boxes that J and C sells, call a friend and invite them for a day in the country shooting landscapes(or better yet, shooting the Swedish Bikini team!). Let them look through the gg and (most important) tell them what Clyde Butcher sells his prints for. Sweeten the bait by letting them watch a print come up under the safe light and casually let slip that you've got a spare unused camera in the closet(or know of one on eBay thats going sinfully cheap). Your friend will beg you to impart your mystical knowlege of what goes on under the sinister dark cloth and will then start burning up copious quantities of B&W sheet film for that illusive and difinitive shot

Repeat this often in order to addict as many friends and relatives to recreational silver halides as possible, then let the free market take care of the rest.

Hi-Ho Silver!

[Christopher Nisperos]

Thanks, my friends, for your fast feedback. I was up until 4:a.m., Paris time, writing and re-writing this thread-head, and then I hesitated for 20 minutes before submitting it. "People will think I'm nuts", I thought. I'm heartened to see I'm not so alone. Let's make this nut tree bountiful!

"Tilting at windmills"? Maybe. But living here in Cartier-Bressonville, I'm used to being alone in defending or explaining the concept of "fine art" photography and educating my French friends and colleagues as to the existence of Ansel Adams ("oh, oui, Hansel et Grétel, non?"), Weston, Cunningham, et al. It's been mostly non-photographers who are ignorant of these greats, but it is surprising that I still encounter photographers who think that Weston is a just brand of shoes!. A side effect has been that I have always had good results from my exhibitions of my West Coast style photography here in a culture which doesn't yet fully put photography at the same level as painting, and which only understands, for the most part, content-oriented, "peopled" images. So you see, it's as Rich says: Chris - 1. Windmill - 0.

I see that André has a wise idea of just making his purchases a regular part of his payment routine. Alex asks a good question. How will we reach the "Big Audience"? Hey, we're IN the audience! All we have to do is start talking to the people seated next to us and ask them to pass the information down the row! Be a blabbermouth for b&w. As John aptly puts it, "addict your friends"! Why are we still doing this after years and years? Because we love it! Now is the time to share your enthusiasm, not hide it. There's even a benefit: we learn (or refresh our memory) as we teach, so I believe Enrico is right on track.

You might want to spread the word, as I have, simply by copying the text of the "four point plan", and emailing it to friends who aren't in this group.

For Melvin in Hong Kong: the next time someone asks if your Xpan is a digital, just say, "Yes, to operate it I use my digits!"

Don't forget, the movement to save fiber-based papers in the 1970's had only two main proponents: the good and venerable David Vestal, in the U.S., and the unjustifibly-unknown Jean Dieuzaide, here in France. Because of their efforts, not only was fiber-based saved, but Ilford saw fit to launch their now legendary Galerie, snowballing the whole manufacturing craze of excellent, premium papers.

I am confident that we can be just as successful in slowing the demise of b&w and thereby help preserve an aspect of photography that few people ever speak (or think) about: the sensual aspects (sensual as in touch, smell, etc.). It is the essence of the artisinal nature of traditional photography. It is mixing chemicals, loading film, burning & dodging, developing paper, etc., etc. It is what others call "work", and what we call pleasure. It is the smell and feel of fresh photographic paper. It is meticulously retouching a negative or a print with a tiny brush and taking pleasure in finding that your correction is invisible. It is the "zen" of being alone in the darkroom, and feeling your shoulders drop with relaxation. This, also, my friends, is what we're working to save ... and to pass these experiences on to the young photographers who today think that the photographic experience is limited to composing a picture in a viewfinder and then just pushing alot of buttons afterward.

They'll thank you.

Friendly regards,

Christopher Nisperos

Paris, 30 August 2004

[Jim Rhoades]

Any Frenchman who honors Adams, Weston and Cunningham is A-OK in my book. My three favorites too. I will at least give you my pledge on #2.

John K. Maybe it's time for the Graphic Advenger to pick up his lance and center punch a few windmills.

Andre, Don Quixote, how right you are.

[Andre Noble]

Yeah, at least once a year I give my elementary students a healthy exposure to traditional photography such as B&W film processing, Large Format camera usage , medium format black and white portraiture, etc.

Suprisingly, these 8 & 9 year olds have previously heard about 'darkrooms', 'red lights', 'photography chemicals', etc.

[Steve Hamley]

I tend to disagree with the OP. Many of us, myself included, started out many years ago using 35mm and gradually moved to larger formats. Digital is now the starting point for many beginning photographers, and some fraction of them will end up using LF for landscape and fine art in the furure, so the boycott call seems to be like a "Boycott 35mm", or "Boycott color film".

A better approach seems to be to foster photography wherever and whenever you can. I recently helped a friend get started doing 8x10 contact prints, and now there is a new LF photographer "on board". Bashing the camera or format they already use won't help anyone, but helping someone get started in LF will.

Steve

[Jeff Morfit]

I have no immediate future plans to get involved with digital in any way or form. I shoot black and white, large format and medium format, films because I know that the negatives will be around for years to come. What about digital? Who is to say that several years from now someone will not invent a storage system that will make CD/DVD obselete? Then what will become of all those CD's? Black and white film has been around in one form or another for over 150 years. That in it self says a lot. Anyway, I spend entirely too much of my time sitting in front of computers now. That is one reason that I have hung onto traditional black and white chemistry for film and prints for so long. Both require something called exercise in order to make them work properly.

As for companies not making traditional films, papers, chemicals, etc. I say so what. This means that someone can start their own company concentrating exclusively on black and white products only. I am sure that many of the people who will be losing their jobs will be looking for new work. What is to keep them from starting their own film and chemical businesses? If there is a demand, even if it is a niche market, people will buy their products. It happens all the time. A major advantage to owning and operating a small niche company is the fact that it can respond faster to customer demands for new and improved products. One of my wishes for years has been that someone manufacture and sell a black and white film of ASA 32 or there abouts in 120 and large format sizes. I know that many photographers never forgave Kodak for discontinuing their Panatomic-X film years ago. That would be one of my first wishes if someone where to start their own film company.

As for me, I plan on shooting black and white film for as long as I can lug my cameras around. To heck with this digital nonsense.

[Christopher Nisperos]

Thank you, Jim Rhoades, for making me A-OK in your book, but I'm a Californian! Hope I can still stay in the book. I did study with Adams and (Brett) Weston, and spent a nice afternoon once with Imogen Cunningham. But take heart, there are Frenchmen who know of and respect all of these photographers.

And thank you, Steve Hamley, for giving me an opportunity to clarify a few things. This boycott and campaign is not about "stopping digital photography", but rather saving --and promulgating-- black and white traditional photography. If you've helped a friend get into LF recently, as you said, you're already in the spirit of the campaign. Admittedly, at this point, such a boycott/campaign is like closing the barndoors after most of the horses have already escaped, but the last horses must be saved.

It's inaccurate to compare "35mm or color film vs. LF" to the "digital vs. traditional" issue (OK.. there was some talk, at the introduction of popular color films, that black and white would no longer be produced). But I think you're missing the point; it's not a question of trying to supplant one form of the medium (b&w) for the other (digital). In fact, the opposite is occuring, and thus this boycott / campaign.

Using a silly analogy, imagine that one day, Honda discontinued their three-wheeled motorcycles. No big deal because they still make two-wheeled models, right? This is radically different from the question of ALL motorcycles being discontinued. Ok, cars still exist, but we like motorbikes. (I don't ride a motorcycle, but this is the best analogy I could think of...)

You say, "A better approach seems to be to foster photography wherever and whenever you can". Here, we agree again. The funny thing is, it's pretty ironic that you got someone involved in LF and don't see the need to get involved in this type of campaign. Please take another look at the plan and see what you think. What's wrong with a beginner starting with a film-based camera anyway? I don't see the problem.

As far as "bashing" goes, ... please. Which form of the medium do you think has taken the real bashing here: black and white, or digital? I make no apologies except to all my colleagues for having kept my mouth shut until it is/was almost too late.

Christopher Nisperos

Paris, 30 August 2004

[CXC]

How many of us own more than one LF camera? How many of those have been out shooting alone when it would have been nice to have some company, as well as another set of eyes, and hands?

Next time out, invite a non-LF photographer along, and lone him *everything*, camera, film, etc. GIVE him film. Let's grow a little bit.

[Steve Hamley]

Christopher,

"This boycott and campaign is not about "stopping digital photography", but rather saving --and promulgating-- black and white traditional photography."

I don't think it needs saving. I've posted this in recent threads, but both Keith Canham and Jim Andracki have told me they can't keep 8x10 and larger cameras on the shelves. Phillips have suspended orders at least a couple of times to catch up. Kodak just built a new facility in the past year or so for manufacturing B&W film. Polaroid is making noises about introducing an 8x10 "type 55"

http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/496619.html

Other information sources on the internet report sheet film sales up by about 10%.

So let me give you an excercise: Call Jim at Midwest, Jeff Taugner at Badger Graphic, and Jeff Wheeler at Quality camera and ask them how LF camera and film sales have been going and report back to us. Maybe you will be pleasantly surprised.

Steve

[Bob Salomon]

"at EPOI"

With Keister, LaCompte, Robinson etc?

[Christopher Nisperos]

Dear Mr. Smith,

You sound like a charming guy. Of course, I could be wrong. Well, down to business:

I first noticed the Bergger/Forte film in response to an American friend who was desperately searching for any ASA200 replacement for Super XX and asked me to keep an eye out for him. While the film was (and is) often referred to as being "old technology" (pre-tabular grain), I was careful never to use the term, "thick emulsion", first, because I didn't know if it was or not, and secondly, just in case I ever encountered somebody like you. See? You kept me honest and we'd never even met. Thanks!

Since the introduction of this film years ago, numerous magazines have done exhaustive testing and comparisons of the characteristic curves and spectral sensitivity differences between it and Super XX, so any differences have long been known, especially by many people reading this thread ---apparently, except for you. Many people have used this film over the years and are quite happy that that it appeared on the market. I do not think it was a disservice, nor dishonest, to help get this film unto the market.

" . . . . a boycott in possible violation of US RICO (anti racketeering) statutes." Oh, brother. The only polite word I can think of in response to this is ridiculous. I suppose you would have had Martin-Luther King charged with "racketeering" for organizing the Montgomery bus boycott, or César Chavez, for his grape boycotts. Please.

"If you don't like Pixelography, don't use it." According to a search on Google, Pixelography seems to be a company name. I don't use the services of this company, however I have used digital photography and might again, even without your permission.

"But don't shed crocodile tears about the 300 at Ilford while not having done anything about the over 10,000 at Eastman Kodak over the past number of years."

You have alot of nerve. I happen to have friends at Ilford AND Kodak and have done more during my life for the promotion of photography and photographic products than you, whomever or whatever you are, are capable of imagining. Ordinarily, I would ask you what YOU have done to help the 10,000 people laid off by Kodak, but I really don't want to hear from you again.

Your lack of humanity and total spirit of meanness and hatred has nullified any kind of moral lesson you have woefully tried to give. If you are representative of the typical digital user, I feel sorry for the medium. Happily, I do not think you are. I don't know what you are so angry about, but your response is out of proportion.

"Pixelography has its place, just like the toilet. Doesn't mean we try to flush it."

What really belongs in the toilet is your message.

Have a nice day.

[K. Praslowicz]

Thanks, my friends, for your fast feedback. I was up until 4:a.m., Paris time, writing and re-writing this thread-head, and then I hesitated for 20 minutes before submitting it. "People will think I'm nuts", I thought. I'm heartened to see I'm not so alone. Let's make this nut tree bountiful!

Just remember, today's mighty oak was yesterday's nut that held it's ground. :)

[Christopher Nisperos]

To CXC: Great idea... except I can't STAND people touching my equpment! I keep a nice Crown Graphic for these purposes.

To Steve Hamley: What you say is true. I've seen the same situation you described, even here in Paris at the local LF shop (they sell LF and panoramic ONLY!) Gandolfi, Keith Canham, Ebony and Philips are also in the window. What's interesting is that the manufacturers of field cameras seem to do better than the monorail camera makers (no stats, just gut feeling).

But don't forget, these cameras use film. I think that we are currently on the "edge" of a lamentable situation and that it is important to keep the heat on. If Kodak and Polaroid are doing--or will be doing-- something for us, great. But they will only continue if their products are commercially viable. It's only logical. In turn, a company estimates this viability by market research (which today most likely includes reading these threads). We must keep them confident in retaining their current products --- and introducing new products ---by letting them know that they have a willing and hungry market (but not at any price!).



To Bob Salomon: Hey, you! I do remember Jerry Robinson, but not the others. I'll send you a seperate email, perhaps with salty stories which cannot be retold before this honorable group!

[ISO 2]

Your passion for emulsion based photography is lovely Christopher. I'm sorry that there are people like Mr Smith who will question motives, and others who respond with sarcasm and sniping remarks on an issue which threatens others livelihoods.

I appreciate your efforts to organise the counterculture which emulsion based photography has become: film photographers and the industry as a whole were way too backward in anticipating how economic greed, consumer indifference to quality and susceptibility to marketing could produce this current status quo, whereby emulsions themselves risk having a short shelf life.

Most of my own colleagues (fine art photographers) work alone: as a result, our efforts are not concerted nor organised. The digital revolution is part of an electronic consumer market boom which we might try and knock back with our handbags....and risk being ineffective as we watch our livelihood being reduced to the workflow of digital convenience.

I do still feel that Dan (why has he become Mr Smith?) has a point; it is difficult not to translate passion into political and social action, whereby critical leaps are prised. Anyone can attack a worthy premise, on the fault of its political or social implications (and thus dismiss the premise by precisely missing the point), reifying the consequence instead of the point. Mr Smith - your attack on Christopher in your statement about crocodile tears was unkind and unwarranted. None of us need to be fired in order to feel the distress on our self worth and family in order to feel for another person. And what we omit to do with Kodak has its own reasons in a different context.

If we are to support buying B&W film - my question would be: which film brand? This is a specific question, which goes above the generalised spirit of the counter(digital)culture which the thread elevates in our awareness. My personal response would be to support Fuji, who had a more organised response to the digital assault, and generated a "Back to Film" campaign all of last year; continued to treat professional photographers with respect (regardless of their imaging medium of choice) and have demonstrated a viability where none exists with Ilford and Agfa, except for more unpleasant results to people's livelihoods and consumers of their products.

The concept of a specific date may not be successful: for instance; a photographer may pay off his mortgage on the 9th; electricity bill on the 15th, and water bill on the 1st.

The alternative to a boycott, as proposed above, is to recommend education and awareness: "what are the consequences if I buy a mobile phone with a digital camera, and what will be its impact on the film industry?" Most teenagers who succumb to such marketing influences have no concept of the longer-term consequences of being commercially seduced by viable lifestyle gadgets.

As I no longer work in the photographic pedagogic field, I find myself powerless to influence others decisions for imaging. Most fine art photographers work alone. Colleagues who work in advertising and commercial photography are already subjected to marketing considerations; a 5x4 tranny is no longer imperative, when a digital 5MB file will do. Having said that, a client who approached me for a portfolio of portfolio work, on the sole basis of the bokeh of my work, confessed that he was a keen digital photographer and was taken by surprise at the unusual qualities of emulsion work and the effect of optics on emulsion. Already in a select niche, this is the limited way I can enable others to recognise the qualities of emulsion based photography. I can throw my heart and towel at my work and let others decide. It is the strengths of emulsion based photography which will declare others interest in emulsion based photography, unless we are all heading for special charity conservation status as an endangered species in a consumer era.

The concept of boycotting has a history which those in the States would be able to smile at. With respect to film and digital, the problem with the fading availability of film emulsion is a market driven context: marketing forces are contracting the film emulsion market. The gains from selling affordable and low cost unit film and paper (also not subsided by major camera manufacturers) are very poor in comparison to the cheaper silicon based technologies; the software and battery consumption, which feeds into the desktop driven lifestyle. Some speculators see a vanishing point for film (their enthusiasm for catastrophism gets the better of their intellect); others see an uncomfortable equilibrium to be attained in the future, when film emulsion photography will have a new identity in the ashes of modern digital photography, rather than the ubiquitous one which it has historically held. The rise of the digital market still hasn't peaked: I grasp that it makes sense not to add to this peak, yet the contraction of the film market doens't necessarily run anti-parallel to digital success.

All these considerations return me to a point: film emulsion users like myself are way too slow for political and social action in this battle of marketing economics, and we probably need the idealism which you have Christopher, or at least others like you to suggest what options are possible, even if we do not voice our support, we imply it.

[Paul Butzi]

Dan Smith and I have, historically, agreed on very, very little. Just when you think you have someone categorized, though, they up and surprise you.

I have to say that I'm disinclined to lend much weight to any idea thought up by the guy who "personally plant[ed] the idea that his Forte/BPF200 was a Super-XX lookalike" without any evidence to support that claim. Claiming that now, years after the fact, the differences are known and thus the lie was of no significance does not increase my level of regard. People wasted money and time because of your lie.

Photography as a field is already rife with destructive superstition. What we don't need at all is lowlife marketing people adding to the already great pile of misinformation.

Maybe you should consider this: Part of Ilford's business is digital products. The same is true of Kodak, Fuji, etc. Rather than boycott them, why not focus on helping them find a business model that will keep both product lines afloat? Perhaps if we patronize only those companies which provide for both digital and traditional needs, the winners of the big digital shakeout will still be able to sell us film and paper, as well as ink, inkjet paper, OHP film for writing digital contact negs, etc.

As for your vitriolic snipe at Dan - you should be ashamed. Nothing in his post merited the tone of your response. Having tangled with Dan in the past, I can honestly say that I know what a heated response from him looks like, and this one actually seems pretty damn polite.

[Capocheny]

Christopher,

I applaud your efforts in trying to organize a revitalization of a "grass roots" movement towards the useage of B&W materials. FWIW, I just picked up 100 rolls of Ilford XP-2 Super 135-36 exposure films. Along with this, I also ordered 500 sheets of 4x5 B&W films from Kodak and Ilford. And, my freezer is currently packed full of 4x5 Velvia, Provia, and Portra sheet films.

As much as I thought the idea of loaning a camera to a friend is a good one... I also suspected that there are folks out there who consider their cameras a "personal" item. I happen to be one of these folks. I don't have a problem with showing people what happens when that image "pops" up in front of their eyes in the darkroom. This was, in fact, how I started into photography over 25 years ago. I was simply amazed when I saw my first image appear in the developer. It sure sold me! This is what I'd suggest people do instead of loaning their cameras out (unless you're comfortable with doing so.)

Secondly, I'd suggest that people SHOW others their images. It's similar to the proverbial sales call where you're selling "intangibles" versus "tangibles." The "process" of photography may not be initally understood as WELL as ACTUALLY seeing the end results. Once they see the final product... their curiosity is more likely to be stirred up to the point where they'd be more interested in the process of actually learning "how" the image is produced. At this point, a convert is born and all you have to do is to feed the curiosity.

Frankly, I think there IS a place for digital photography (as there is for traditional film photography.) Chris's post has made no mention/suggestion that it doesn't! He said in his opening paragraph that, this is not really "a one or other contest." It's pretty clear to me what his stand is on this subject. It seems to me that Chris's mandate is simply to encourage folks to use traditional film for a "finite" period (ON A REGULAR BASIS for a steady period of, say, at least two years) in order to send a message to the manufacturers that there is still a demand for traditional film. I use both digital AND traditional cameras and, lo and behold, they can co-exist together. However, this posting is simply about "sending a message to the manufacturers of B&W film that there is still a demand for their products... by ordering film on a specific day of the month." Nothing more sinister should be attributed to what Chris is trying to do. If you shoot strictly digital... that's fine too. Just don't get involved in what Chris is trying to do!

Dan, it's rather unnecessary and unproductive to call someone a liar. IMHO, you could have phrased it in a much more amicable and un-aggressive manner and still gotten your point across. I'm almost 100% sure this forum isn't meant to be a place for personal attacks! And, likewise, for rebuttals!

IMHO, this is one website that is really, really enjoyable to read because it truly is populated by some great people who have only the best of intentions at heart. And, what is that intention? To share their wealth of knowledge for (and about) Large Format Photography with others. I've learned a lot about using my Sinar properly (hmmm... :>)) from folks like QT Luong, John K., David M., Bob S., Andrew, John C., and many others. So, let's not derail this positive experience and turn the website into a free-for-all like some of the other sites!

In all fairness to Dan's comment;

"But don't shed crocodile tears about the 300 at Ilford while not having done anything about the over 10,000 at Eastman Kodak over the past number of years."

I don't think he was making a statement about the sad situation for those folks who have lost their jobs over at Eastman Kodak over the past number of years. I interpret his motivation in making this phrase was to question, "why Chris didn't do anything (or say anything) back in the days when Kodak was laying off all these people... why just now?" Or, at least, I'm hoping this was his intended meaning when the comment was made.

At the end of the day, folks, we can either choose to support the endeavors of Chris, or not. It's up to each and every one of us to make that decision without having to justify what we do. And, certainly, it's up to us to be either civil to one another, or not.

I hope we choose the road of civilility.

My two-bits worth!

Cheers

[darter]

Christopher, you might be able to achieve the same results by organizing a "traditional photographers association." The association, by the market power of its membership would be able to approach manufacturers, retailers and educational institutions to encourage and promote the continuance of traditional photographic materials and education. Similar types of organizations have done tremendous work in ensuring that many older or traditional technologies stay alive and supported by manufacturers. The cost of membership could be easily recovered by obtaining discounts from major retailers or through other benefits.

[steve simmons]

Photo Vision tried to do a non-digital magazne and it disappeared. It got very little support from either advertisers or readers. The buying power of such an association seems to be a weak bargaining force.

Ilford's problems, and Kodak has noticed the same, is that the sales of film and darkroom products is off more each year. The have to do something to stay solvent.

There is a website for analogue photo buffs (ww.apug.org). Try it and see what you think.

steve simmons

[Ron Bose]

Let's face it, the world is driven by the corporations.

Magazines which advertise the latest digital products will survive, those who don't won't. Having said that VC, Black and White Photography seem to be doing well.

We're a niche market and big companies don't (can't) care about us anymore. They can't keep running to supply such a small market. When pro's ran through sheets and sheets of film we were able to take advantage. Now the pro usage of sheet film has dramatically reduced, the corporations are wanting out.

IMO all the big guys will stop sheet film production sooner or later and we'll have to hope that Forte, Bergger, Efke, Maco and other small manufacturers will have the economics to keep supplying us niche users, at likely a higher price and lower volume.

The sad thing is that all of the infrastructure is there for film. It's also a high margin product (presumably when made in bulk). It's the 'financial markets' who cry "growth !!" who demand that the big boys go digital even if film sales can be maintained at a certain level.

Sigh ....

[steve simmons]

I think you are missing part of the problem. Consumers are not supporting the products and the publications that support traditional photography. You can't blame the corporations for this.

And when some people fel the need have to ferrot out obscure products from foreign countries because that is the only film that they feel reproduces their vison it splinters an already small market (I am not saying don't buy these films but just being realistic about what is happning.).Kodak and Ilford hae watched as their sales of traditional products have declined every year and the sales of digital cameras has now surpassed - on a yearly basis - that of film cameras.

steve simmons

[Ron Bose]

"I think you are missing part of the problem. Consumers are not supporting the products and the publications that support traditional photography"

Steve, you're right. However, my original post pointed out that as amateur LFers we are a minority when it comes to shooting volume. With pro shooters and many LF amateurs going digital, the 'bulk' demand for film has fallen.

Therefore, the Kodak and Ilford companies cannot sustain their bottom line from their film assets and it becomes uneconomical to continue in this business.

Most large businesses primary goal is to satisfy the financial markets to keep their stock-holders happy. If stock holders cannot see major growth in film, they don't want the business to be involved with it. However, digital has an apparently huge growth potential, and investors are salivating over this.

Where this type of thinking falls down is when we consider that film assets are already in place, the profit margins on film are relatively high and this makes it a good revenue earner. The reduction in the size of the market has scared stockholders, but I hope that this doesn't mean that Kodak and Ilford are 'forced' to kill off the film business. The demand is still there, albeit reduced.

Maybe Kodak's and Ilford's film divisions are too big for today's market ? I hope they can adapt and survive. In the meantime, if Fuji, Bergger, Maco, Efke or whoever can stay in business to satisfy this market then I will be happy.

The way we can keep film alive is to keep buying film, paper and chemicals !!

p.s. I know a couple of wedding/portrait guys who've abandoned digital because their customers (Joe Public) thought that the print quality was poor compared to MF film. They also found that the savings in film and developing costs were surpassed by the extra manhours required sitting in front of PhotoShop ...

[Jim Galli]

Funny, from the title, I expected this thread to be a silly diatribe.......and it is. I did my part though. The morning I read about Ilfords troubles I ordered another 10"X300 ft. of Efke 100pl from J&C. That's good for 450 more 8X10's.

[Struan Gray]

Milking a mature cash cow is a perfectly respectable way of doing business if that's what your investors have been told to expect, but you have to go out and find enough customers so you can pay cash dividends to compensate for a slow or non-existent growth. When Ikea were preparing for their annual catalogue shoot Fuji would deliver five or more lorryloads of sheet film. That's more film on order than I'll ever buy in my hopefully long lifetime, and it's gone forever. The big manufacturers simply are not yet organised to attract and supply the little guy, who has always tagged along as on coat tails of the large-scale commercial users. I prefer expensive sheet film to no sheet film, so I hope that Ilford's receivers and Kodak's executives will see the point of selling or leasing their intellectual property to someone with a more hobbyist-oriented business model.

David Kilpatrick, who publishes small photography magazines from the Borders in the UK has written some interesting things on uk.photo newsgroups about ad revenue in the digital age. Essentially, the camera makers will only pay for ads featuring their digital offerings, even in generalist publications. Squeezed between growth-obsessed investors and a public that is prepared to pay a whopping premium for digital, who can blame them?

[Christopher Nisperos]

argggh... I just deleted a long response and explanation that I wrote here at the office because my home computer is out. Maybe this is God's way of telling me to be more concise?

Anyway, in short:

To ISO2: Thanks for your kind words. Your post deserves a better response than I can currently write, and I hope to post it soon.

To Paul Butzi: I especially regret that I erased my detailed response to you. You wrote, "Nothing in (Dan Smith's) post merited the tone of your response." You're joking, right? In short, I don't see why I should be ashamed to defend myself when I'm wrongly accused of being a liar. As well, I was quite polite to Mr. Smith, especially under the circumstances.

It's my fault that I used the term "lookalike" without a clear explanantion. As I don't want this to become an issue which overclouds the more important problem of retaining production of existing black and white products, I will try, once and for all to explain the question of helping BPF200 reach the U.S. market.

Please remember that, originally, I discovered this film in response to a friend who had asked me to keep an eye out for an ASA200 black and white sheet film. When I found it, I told him (and everyone else) that it was ASA200, but that I was not sure whether or not it was "thick emulsion". Please re-read that. As an LF shooter, you know --or should know--very well that the term thick emulsion has a very specific meaning. In my mind, the fact that I pointed out this specification is the mark of an honest representation, NOT the other way around. The only way I ever likened this film to Super XX was by it's ASA, nothing else. Please find the lie. Whether the magazines wrote about it otherwise is neither my fault nor my intention. Nor do I deserve to be called a liar or a low-life because of it. Further accusations of this kind will invite a different response from me.

The irony is, until now, I had always believed that helping this film reach the market was both a service to Bergger AND the user. If I recall correctly, at the time their were many, many people looking for an ASA200 film, thick emulsion or not. Do you really believe that they wasted time and money to see if this film would work for them?

I hope this explanation satifies you and others. Ordinarily, I would ask for apologies for the accusations, but I would really like this thread to continue in the generally positive spirit that most of the posters have exhibited, so I do not intend to return to this subject.

Getting back to the main subject: I really agree with the gist of Steve Simmons comments. We, as consumers, haven't done our job. We whine, infight (see above), nitpick, tell how we would have improved such-and-such product (with no intention of ever buying it), ask, "how many elements are in this lens I'll never buy", etc. etc. OK, I'm generalizing .. I know that on the other hand are many of us who shoot alot and often. But the question has to be asked, "did I do enough"?

My personal answer is no. Let's all keep shooting, and pick up a couple more boxes of whatever your favorite film is. Don't forget to talk it up. Paul Butzi asks, "why not focus on helping (Kodak and Fuji) find a business model that will keep both product lines afloat?" Good question. But at the moment, digital doesn't seem to need any help. Giving black and white a hand right now is the best model I can think of.

[d.s.]

Shooting film is NOT the only way to fight the digital revolution. The average person who you can talk into shooting film will take the exposed roll to the local drug store / Walmart, ect. to have it developed. The problem is, those photomats PRINT with a digital printer. When the person gets their prints back, they still don't have the quality of a wet print and may be discouraged with film.

So I suggest to the average person that they not only shoot film, But also send the film to a lab that offers traditional wet printing. When the film comes back from the processors, then take the roll to a photomat and have them make a print also. Then compare the two. The results speak for themselves! This also helps to keep a traditional photo prosessor in business. I have noticed a lot of darkroom equipment sold on E-pay because the company is "going digital". You have to save "film" on all fronts.

[Paul Butzi]

Christopher writes "I learned early-on about the power of marketing and I
saw that small ideas could ripple-out and have big effects. I used that
concept years later when I helped Guy Gerard introduce his Bergger products
to the U.S. marketplace, writing the original English-languages press
releases, personally planting the idea that his Forte/BPF200 was a Super-XX
lookalike "

</a>

but he also writes "<a name="524701"> The only way I ever likened this
film to Super XX was by it's ASA, nothing else. Please find the lie. Whether
the magazines wrote about it otherwise is neither my fault nor my intention.
"</a>



Let me see.&nbsp; You wrote the original English language press releases,
you've claimed that you personally planted the idea that the film was a
'look-alike', and you claim you did this because you understood the power of
marketing.&nbsp; At the same time, you claim that what the magazines (which
used the content of the press&nbsp; release as photo magazines always do)
wrote was neither your fault nor your intention.



I'm experiencing a significant cognitive dissonance, here.&nbsp; Either
you had no effect and thus your first boast is unmerited, or you
successfully planted the idea that BPF200 was a Super-XX lookalike in which
case your claim of no responsibility is meritless.&nbsp; But not both.&nbsp;
You can't simultaneously claim and reject responsibility, at least if you
have the integrity most ordinary humans desire.

<a name="524701">

Christopher writes "The irony is, until now, I had always believed that
helping this film reach the market was both a service to Bergger AND the
user. If I recall correctly, at the time their were many, many people
looking for an ASA200 film, thick emulsion or not. Do you really believe
that they wasted time and money to see if this film would work for them? "

</a>

Yes.&nbsp; Many people I know excitedly tried the film for no other
reason than it was touted widely as a Super XX lookalike when in fact it was
not.&nbsp; To me, that's a waste.

[Christopher Nisperos]

To Mr. Smith: Thanks for your post.

To everybody else: In reviewing what has been posted so far, it's heartening to see that many have understood the necessity to begin speaking out about the use and benefits of black and white to the public-at-large . . . not just amongst ourselves.

I wonder if the same crisis would be occuring if the use of black and white traditional processes hadn't dwindled to just us "elite" (serious amateurs, professionals and students). Here was a situation of survival by numbers.

Maybe instead of just US buying more, we should be encouraging our friends to shoot a couple of rolls each year? I know tha the natural objection (depending upon where you live) will be, "Yeah, but where do I get them devloped"? If no local labs are available, it'd be a perfect opportunity to bring a friend into a darkroom and show him the steps. Who knows? Maybe we can enlarge our "membership rolls" this way?

At least, for sure, you'd be helping a friend while helping to increase black and white sales volume.

[Christopher Nisperos]

. . .OOPS! I meant Mr. Butzi, thanks for your post.

[Christopher Nisperos]

Steve Simmons, Ron Bose and Struan Gray all hit the nail on the head with their reflections about the business elements of this crisis. Steve is right when he says, "Consumers are not supporting the products and the publications that support traditional photography. You can't blame the corporations for this." In other words, we simply haven't bought enough.

Ron said, "We're a niche market and big companies don't (can't) care about us anymore. They can't keep running to supply such a small market." That's why we've got to stick together to, effectively, become a 'big' market. Therefore, Phil's idea of eventually associating (as a buyers group, in block?), perhaps has some merit. Any thoughts on this point?

To answer Paul Butzi's last post, I finally dug up the original text from the BPF200 press release I wrote. It says, in part:

"While BPF200 is similar to Kodak's discontinued Super XX by its film speed, it cannot be said that it is a replacement for this film."

I think it should be very clear from this text that, not only did I NOT mislead, but took pains to avoid being dishonest. Furthermore, nowhere in the text is the term, "lookalike". I hope we can now progress with this thread in a friendly manner.

Lastly, I want to thank all the old friends in the photo industry who have taken the time to contact me seperately. It's always good to hear from you.

[Bob._3483]

Christopher: stop digging.

Paul Butzi was simply repeating what you yourself wrote in your first post:

"I used that concept years later when I helped Guy Gerard introduce his Bergger products to the U.S. marketplace, writing the original English-languages press releases, personally planting the idea that his Forte/BPF200 was a Super-XX lookalike and introducing him to LotusViewCamera."

Why do you keep suggesting that Paul is somehow inventing the word "lookalike" or misquoting you? It's there for all to read! If that was an error on your part and you subsequently realised you did not make that claim, fine: but don't try to say that Paul is making it all up when it was you who said it in your own post! That is just plain absurd.

On topic: I will continue to buy Ilford products for as long as I can and will switch to another supplier if that no longer becomes possible. B&W digital is not an option as far as I am concerned. I was hoping that the lesser reliance on commercial sales of b&w compared to colour reversal film would help keep b&w film on the shelves: that's not looking a very good theory at the moment...

I have no intention of "boycotting" digital products; not least because I do not see that there is any direct correlation between the kind of LF b&w photography I attempt and any digital picture taking system currently on the market. I also have no intention of spending yet more hours of my life in front of a PC screen to print those negatives. I actually enjoy my darkroom!

Like all enthusiasts, I already evangelise what I do amongst friends and relatives - no doubt boring them to death in the process.

Reading old photo magazines from the 1960's & 70's shows many lamenting the popularity of 35mm "miniature"" cameras and the rise of gadget driven photography. I find myself gazing at the adverts for 8 megapixel SLRs for over a grand with much the same attitude....

[Christopher Nisperos]

Bob, you're absolutely right. That's why I said, before Paul's last post, "It's my fault that I used the term "lookalike" without a clear explanantion". Then I attempted to explain, as clearly as I could, what I meant, and he returned to the word anyway in his post.

I never said I was misquoted, but after humbly admitting using words or terms which where chosen unthoughtfully, I don't see the use in reverting to them. That's all.

Speaking of words: because of the "limited time period" aspect of the boycott idea, a friend of mine here told me that the word "moratorium" is better than boycott. I don't necessarily agree, but anyway the goals remain unchanged. Any thoughts?

Lastly, this action relates to digital cameras..not necessarily "all digital products".

[Carlos]

I do not understand ... If I have a negative and an enlarger (light bulb, with a lens) I have an archival that can be reproduce easily. Not to mention resolution.
Why is it that people want to maintain this expensive computers (G5 dual processors, plus screen) and they end up sending their files to be printed, just like you used to do 1 hr photo. And the best part is that everything (camera, computer, storage device, etc) becomes obsolete every year.
Although it is an irreversible trend, I do not think that consumers made a good choice with respect to photography.

[Michael Chmilar]

If you have a computer, software, and printer that meet your needs, you can continue to use it productively forever. If it fulfills your needs, there is no need to replace or upgrade any part of it. Where is the obsolesence?

[Wayne]

I will continue my not buying of digital, and tomorrow I am going to buy a cheap Polaroid camera and lots of film, and show everyone I know that analog even wins in the fast print department.

.

[Christopher Nisperos]

Christopher: stop digging.
Paul Butzi was simply repeating what you yourself wrote in your first post:
"I used that concept years later when I helped Guy Gerard introduce his Bergger products to the U.S. marketplace, writing the original English-languages press releases, personally planting the idea that his Forte/BPF200 was a Super-XX lookalike and introducing him to LotusViewCamera."

Why do you keep suggesting that Paul is somehow inventing the word "lookalike" or misquoting you? It's there for all to read! If that was an error on your part and you subsequently realised you did not make that claim, fine: but don't try to say that Paul is making it all up when it was you who said it in your own post! That is just plain absurd.

On topic: I will continue to buy Ilford products for as long as I can and will switch to another supplier if that no longer becomes possible. B&W digital is not an option as far as I am concerned. I was hoping that the lesser reliance on commercial sales of b&w compared to colour reversal film would help keep b&w film on the shelves: that's not looking a very good theory at the moment...

I have no intention of "boycotting" digital products; not least because I do not see that there is any direct correlation between the kind of LF b&w photography I attempt and any digital picture taking system currently on the market. I also have no intention of spending yet more hours of my life in front of a PC screen to print those negatives. I actually enjoy my darkroom! Like all enthusiasts, I already evangelise what I do amongst friends and relatives - no doubt boring them to death in the process.


Bob, If you're still around ... I've just re-found this post .. and, at the risk of (re)opening a can of worms:

More than fifteen years after this post I've had quite a bit of time to reflect upon it and and now I regret only one thing: that I didn't reject violently enough the refusal of people such as yourself to recognize that I simply couldn't think of a better term than "plant" an idea (I probably should have said —and meant— "spread the news" . . . If people refuse to believe or accept this, that's really not my problem).

After all, at the time it was quite good news that there was a Super XX lookalike available. And, by the way, I never saw anything wrong with using the word, "lookalike" for an ASA 200, thick emulsion film which was made by a company which —before communism took over the country (Hungary)— was previously called Kodak, and whose characteristics were basically identical to an ASA 200, thick emulsion film which was made by a company which was currently called Kodak. DUH. So, get off my back, already.

The bottom line is that, thanks to my efforts and whateverthehell words I happened to use, this film quickly came to the attention of —and available to— exactly those who wanted to use it. What is also clear is that, at the time, Bergger —in the person of Guy Gerard— had absolutely no clue about how to connect this product with the American market. None. Guy Gerard barely spoke English and had no idea of the mythic status of Super XX. Plus, he'd never heard of Freestyle or B&H. I'm the one who educated him about those means of getting his product into your hands.

Secondly, my idea, way back when, of a digital boycott —as I've clearly outlined in the initial post— wasn't about "stopping digital"; it was about "slowing or stopping the death of film" ('cause that's what we all thought was about to happen, remember??) or, better yet, "slowing the demise of analogue photography". Any "reading into" my efforts as it having such a ridiculous goal as stopping digital, is just as stupid as the notion itself (not addressed to Bob). Luckily, as history —and forums such as this one and APUG and people like you and I— have so far shown, a grassroots and commercial movement to save film has since fallen into place. My efforts were measly, but I'm happy that my tiny "drop of water" helped to contribute to the great sea of resistance against the extinction of analog photography.

There. Now —if I happen to kick the bucket anytime soon— at least I've put in my final two cents and clarified this once and for all. If not .. whew ...
just .. just think whatever you're gonna think.

[Oren Grad]

And with that, we will re-close the can.