PDA

View Full Version : future of 4x5 and 8x10 film



Pages : [1] 2

bglick
20-Dec-2004, 14:38
I searched the past posts, but did not find much recent information. I have been out of LF for awhile...what is the prospect of 8x10 color film becoming obsolete in the near future? It's my guess 4x5 film would outlive 8x10 film as their probably is 50x more 4x5 cameras in existence vs. 8x10. However, after experiencing the digital world myself, I feel the threat 4x5 film will soon have is digital cameras / backs getting better and better. I think within 2 years, 40 MP cameras will be a reality. When the Foveon, (RGB per pixel, is perfected - which is in the works) coupled with increased pixel count, I think 4x5 will be at the mercy of digital also. Of course the casual hobby shooter will not run out and buy such expensive gear, but unfortunately they are not the big buyers of film, which works against what we need.

My gut feeling is, Fuji and Kodak, as a result of the digital proliferation, will constantly analyze each product line and demand profitability in each film size. Due to the propietary nature of film, I could not imagine them selling the LF film business off. Companies of this size just close the product line. Any rumblings in the industry? Any thoughts? TYIA

Neal Shields
20-Dec-2004, 15:57
Film is just paper on a clear background.

It seems to me that the future of digital is to have your prints made at the drugstore on a Fuji Frontier machine.

That machine writes to triditional photo paper with lasers.

So as long as there is a market for the paper I suspect they will keep making film.

Beyond that, I think digital may actually be increasing the interest in high resolution photography.

The FBI study equates 200 ASA 35 mm film to 16 meg so even 40 meg doesn't even obsolete medium format much less 4x5.


http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/april2002/swgitfield1.htm (http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/april2002/swgitfield1.htm)

I am not much of a photographer and the tests I have run with old cameras and lenses show that I can get detail in the 60 to 80 lp/mm range to the edge of a 4x5 negative so again, 40 meg doesn't feed the bull dog at my house.

Alan Davenport
20-Dec-2004, 16:46
I'll open myself up for much abuse by saying this, but our days are numbered. I can't say just when, but it's a given that there will come a time when film of any kind is a thing of the past. To believe otherwise is naive.

That said, I think it (film) will be around for a while yet. The selection is already getting a bit limited and that will get worse, but we should be able to keep shooting.

Graeme Hird
20-Dec-2004, 18:07
I don't think film will be taken out of production completely, though I'm sure our choice of film will be narrowed considerably. As the big guys close their doors, the little guys will get more business and get more profitable.

So we may be stuck with films from companies like Maco, but that will be better than throwing out our cameras.

Get shooting while you can ....

bglick
20-Dec-2004, 18:27
Graeme, its great to hear from you again! After a long hiatus, I am back on line. Hope all is going well in the land down under!

BTW, who else makes color 8x10 film other than the big two?

Scott Rosenberg
20-Dec-2004, 18:30
i know digital is quicker. i know digital is more convenient. i know digital is getting better every couple of months. i know one day there will be a consumer digicam sold for less than a box of 8x10 velvia that will take pictures with more detail than a 20x24. i know all these things, and still i continue to invest in my large format outfit.

i also know that shooting with my 4x5 is an incredibly rewarding experience for me. the slow, deliberate, methodical process is something i absolutely love. i cherish getting under my darkcloth and carefully composing a shot. there is something special about crafting a photograph, something i've never been able to feel shooting digitally.

as long as there's film and paper available, i'll be supporting the companies putting it out.

Sal Santamaura
20-Dec-2004, 18:51
Bill, it's great to hear from you again! How 'ya been? Where 'ya been?

Now let's locate John Hicks and get him posting here.

Herb Cunningham
20-Dec-2004, 19:31
I scanned a 4x5 neg once on my Epson 3200 at max resolution-I have a MacG5 that has 2.5 gig of ram. It took forever, but the resulting file of ONE negative was 1.4 gig. While not a geek, I am an engineer, and of course you could not really make use of all those bits, but it convinced me that film was safe.

Look at a good quality contact print from LF. that should do it.

bglick
20-Dec-2004, 19:31
Hi Sal! It's like old times! Nice to hear from ya!

As for the beauty and nostalgia of shooting film, I do agree.... but my concern is, the big users will convert, leaving a tiny market that larger companies do not like to support. We have seen that in many areas, Bronica went under.... Mamiya is introducing MF digital camera 1st qtr. Mamiya gear on ebay has taken a nose dive as MF shooters are moving to 35mm, specially with the new Canon 16.7 MP 1DsII.

I certainly do not want to start a digital vs. film war, that is not my motive here. But I would like to share some thoughts, it will demonstrate my concerns. First, any data that you reveiw, digital vs. film, which is more than 6 months old is not relevant. The sensors have improved in every area, noise, size, tonal range, etc. When I read about the direction the makers are moving, its quite impressive. For example, Canon is perfecting the ability for each one of their pixels to record RG&B, vs. now all Bayer sensors only record one color. This will approx. double the recorded data. The sensor sizes are getting larger, Mamiyas first introduction is 22 MP, they will surely be at 35 - 40 MP real soon. Nikon is introducing a new technology that will extend the exposure latitude by turning off the pixels that are nearing over exposure, while allowing the open shutter to continual expose the shadow areas. Just think about a 10 stop image latitude capability with grainless film, no cost to buy film, process film, scan film, etc. Its my best guess, film may loose to digital more for beauty and asthetic reasons, as these sensors / software get better. It will raise the bar on image quality. Up to this point, that has not been the case, except for smaller sized prints, 11x14 and under, except for dedicated scanning backs.

I will not dispute that well exposed chrome will still not rival a good digital image, but as the image quality gets so good, people will gravitate to digital. I shoot mostly 8x10, some 4x5, and when I got my first digital camera, Canon 20d, I am blown away by the image quality.... even vs. 8x10 film.... not at 60" of course..... it's just the grainless look, the color pallette, just plain beautiful. But I love huge prints, so I don't want to end my LF shooting, I was just curious about the opinion vs. others. About 3 yrs ago on this forum, I used to laugh at people (in the privacy of my home) who thought digital would take over film..... oh well, this is capitalism at its best!

Dean Cookson
20-Dec-2004, 19:43
Absolutely, digital will completely replace film. Exactly like film completely replaced painting... After all, we all know that it's impossible to buy paint and canvas anymore, right?

Leonard Metcalf
20-Dec-2004, 20:11
I agree with Dean, the more digital becomes comon place and continues to grow, film will become a special interest market, much like the fine art market mentioned. People are still producing art with lithographic stones for example. The growth of digital can only make the fine art of hand printing or the use of film more and more nostaligic and eliet. Film will be seen as a dying art, and we will be the ones who maintain it. Yes it will become harder and harder to get the products we want, we will be subject to loosing some (or even many) of our favorites as economic rationalism kicks in.

On the positive side, traditional analogue photography will only benifit from the on slaught of digital, as it is eleveated to some form of fine and historic art form.

Paul Fitzgerald
20-Dec-2004, 20:28
I do hate to say it BUT unless Kodak sells their R&D to China, it's all over but the crying. The U.S. govt. does not do aero-recon anymore, they do satellite surveillance. Kodak can no longer 'make it by the mile and sell it by the inch' and have announced they will no longer make film after 2005 thanks to market pressure and EPA regs. Ilford, Agfa, Forte, ect. are all having major problems. Unless film and paper will be made in China or India we will all be going back to wet plates, too bad they don't make glass in the U.S. anymore.

This sounds like a perfect opportunity for a boutique business BUT I'm sure EPA, OSHA, local building codes, insurance rates and the Internet sales tax will end that before it starts.

Happy holidays.

Peter Galea
20-Dec-2004, 20:53
Paul,
Kodak has announced that they will no longer manufacture film after 2005?
Where can I read about that?

Isaac Crawford
20-Dec-2004, 20:57
Absolutely, digital will completely replace film. Exactly like film completely replaced painting... After all, we all know that it's impossible to buy paint and canvas anymore, right?

I'm sorry, but I am sick of this comparison. Painting and photography are different enough that they have very little overlap. A better comparison would be between dry plates and wet plates. The people that switched (all of them eventually) changed technology, but continued to make photographs. How about film vs. plates? Carbro vs color printing? You get the idea. Film will be completely replaced, and it really won't be that big a deal. How many people actually wish they were using wet plates? Technology is a good thing, it is what invented photography...

Isaac

Graeme Hird
20-Dec-2004, 21:21
G'day Bill,

It's great to have you back too! I'll send you an email off forum later in the day.

Kodak may well go under (they seem to have lost the plot a few years ago) but I think Fuji will keep going strong for some time yet. I only ever use Fuji film in any case - they don't chop and change their products anywhere near as often as Kodak do, probably because they got it right the first time .....

If there is no more colour film in the format I want to shoot, I'll get some colour separation filters, shoot B&W through them and combine the three channels in PS later (I'm considering doing this anyway, even before film gets hard to find.)

But I have a lot of confidence that the little guys will keep making film. Hell, I'll fill the niche myself if it comes down to it!

Cheers,
Graeme

Dean Cookson
20-Dec-2004, 21:22
I'm sorry too, Issac, but you're wrong. Technology is a good thing, but new tech rarely completely replaces old.

Cars killed the horse and buggy as transportation, but people still ride horses.

The telegraph gave us a faster method of communcation than letters, then the telephone gave us real time, then the Internet have us email and the web but people still buy stationery.

Microwaves pop some great popcorn and make reheating leftovers a snap, but I still own a stove and oven and a grill.

To take your examples:

There are still people out there doing dry plate photography, there are people still out there doing wet plate photography and there are still people out there making cabro prints.

Like I said, you're right about technology being good thing. It gives us an endlessly increasing number of outlets for our creative expression.

Film may not be available in every corner drug store in 15 varieties before too much longer and Kodak may get out of the film business eventually but someone will still be making photographic film for a long time to come. Basically as long as there are some of us crazy enough to lug big heavy cameras around to use it...

bglick
20-Dec-2004, 23:09
Herb, I used to feel the same way, till I went digital, as they say, the proof is in the pudding. Digital sensors record the image direct from the camera lens, and suffer little MTF effects. Whereas film suffers MTF effects from the lens, then further is subjected to scanning inefficiencies. What does this all mean in the end? A good clean digital file shot properly and treated properly within the digital workflow will produce equal to better quality image than its scanned cousin, also treated properly - with one amazing caveat....the digital file will be approx 1/3 the size of the scanned file. I too am an engineer, and this baffled me for years...but then through testing and reading up on the subject, I finaly came to grips with this issue. The biggest reason scanned files are so much bigger than an equaly well resolved digital file is the scanning process itself. I owned a new drum scanner for a few years and have seen this first hand. The dpi issue is very subjective.... a scanner, whether CCD or PMT does not record perfect dots in a grid pattern, the recorded dots, or points, overlap each other a lot, which increases file size, but does not proportional increase resolution. Also, if you scan test targets, you will find there is little relationship between the dpi set on the scanner and the ability to resolve transparency test targets. Most scanners, specially CCD's will not acheive half their advertised DPI. Epson is notorious for this. When you have to scan at 4000 dpi to acheive 2000 dpi, you get overbloated files that offer no more image quality.

Of course, all this must be kept in context, lets not compare a 3 MP camera with 8x10 film. Also, the lenses used in digital are much sharper to begin with than LF lenses, this also favors digital. But as I mentioned earlier, once digital licks the RGB per pixel issue and expands its exposure lattitude, the images will be even more stunning than now, but at the same file size as today, as currently a min. of 2/3 rds of a digital file size is interpolated data. This excludes up rezzing in PS. That will soon change and digital will take a quantam leap over what we see today, even with only modest gains in Pixel count.

Of course, when all this comes to fruition, i.e. 40 MP backs with all the improvements mentioned above, and lower prices, say $10k for a digital back, I too will struggle with the change, but with better image quality, easier shooting, easier processing, great payback vs. film, processing & scanning cost, it would be hard to turn down. Even at this size, the digital will not match 8x10 film, but will surely equal 4x5 film, which only leaves a small % of the market to film.

As for the comparison of photography vs. oil on canvas art, I agree with the posters above. I don't see a the relationship here. A painters objective is rarely set out to duplicate or compete with the photographic process.

Graeme, leave it up to you for that brilliant take on replacing film! That would be an amazing task to accomplish, but in theory its all possible! Let me know how your gallery is doin!

Isaac Crawford
20-Dec-2004, 23:21
I'm sorry too, Issac, but you're wrong. Technology is a good thing, but new tech rarely completely replaces old.

Am I? How many people on these forums use wet plate technology? How many people in the world? When was the last time you talked to carbro printer?. How many businesses make carbro materials? How many make wet plate materials? You're right in that some people still do those things, but they are an insignificant percentage of the people doing photography and they have to make everything themselves. Those things have been, by any reasonable account, completely replaced. As have horses as a mode of transporation. My point isn't that these things can't still be done, it's just that there is very little point to it any more. If your aim is to make photographs, what exactly is gained by using wet plate technology? If you want to go to the store, why ride a horse? In the not so distant future the same will be asked about film. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy using my Leica and my view cameras, but I'm not going to cry when there isn't any point in using them any more. On the contrary, I'm looking forward to the day when something better is availible. You're right that technology expands our outlets for expression, so why are people so afraid of it? This is what I'm addressing, people should be excited about digital, not afraid.

Isaac

Dean Cookson
21-Dec-2004, 00:10
"I enjoy using my Leica and my view cameras, but I'm not going to cry when there isn't any point in using them any more."

That's why we're never going to understand each other. The point (to me) of using my 8x10, developing my film and contact printing the negatives on Azo or in pt/pd is to use my 8x10, develop my film and contact print my negatives. I do it because I enjoy the act of doing it every bit as much as the end product.

Don't get me wrong either. I'm not afraid of digital or advancing technology. My day job is managing the operations team at an Internet search engine. I only play a luddite on the net...

There are plenty of things in my life that are about the destination (driving to the store, for example). For me, my photography is about the journey. The good news (for me anyway) is that there are plenty of other people out there who feel the same way. As long as we're willing to keep buying film and paper and chemistry, someone out there will keep making it and selling it to us.

Paul Fitzgerald
21-Dec-2004, 00:52
Hi Peter,

Kodak has announced this several times over the last 2 years , the last time was about 3 months ago and Wall Street took them off the Dow Jones 100 (S&P 100?) after being there for 100 years. I guess you could check the financial pages.

Kodak announcing they are going 100% digital makes as much sense as GM announcing they will stop making cars and get into tele-commuting. Actually, it does make sense, they have lost all of their largest consumers. The military went digital, consumers went digital and a little movie "28 Days Later" has Hollywood going digital or out of bussiness. Thank you, Princess Di.

Actually all of this does have a bright side, at least the whole Zone System joke will finally be dead and buried, with a stake thru it's heart. Free at last, Free at last, Thanks God Almighty, Free at Last.

Happy holidays.

Eric Leppanen
21-Dec-2004, 01:55
Although I appreciate the risks of underestimating the digital juggernaut, I question how quickly some of the digital innovations mentioned above will evolve. But I also suspect film's future has become predetermined even by existing digital technology.

Canon took two years to replace the 1Ds with the 1Ds Mark II, so let's charitably assume that pressure from Nikon and other sources will accelerate the next product cycle to eighteen months (putatively June 2006). Let's also charitably assume that this next generation camera (uncreatively call it the Mark III) supports RGB pixels at a similar pixel pitch as the current Mark II, resulting in a resolution of over 40Mp. Since this will clearly exceed the capabilities of any lens design cost-effectively manufactured in existing 35mm form-factor lens mounts, an entirely new lens family (based on a larger mount, hopefully in a more sensible 4:3 aspect ratio) will have to be developed. All this development will have to occur without compromising development efforts in the real money making franchises, namely the amateur and prosumer markets. I'm not saying this all can't be done (perhaps farming out some lens design tasks to third parties such as Zeiss), but I question whether Canon or Nikon is financially motivated to push such an expensive paradigm shift so quickly. June 2006 seems awfully soon, I suspect end of 2006 would be the earliest we would see a real, shipping camera.

My more immediate concern is that existing digital products are sufficiently good that commercial photographers are abandoning film in large numbers, and that chrome film will be the first casualty. I have been told that Fuji considers film to be a highly profitable legacy business and feels no particular pressure to discontinue it even in large format sizes. Kodak's digital product line has been struggling, and I question whether they can afford to pre-emptively discontinue film production. However, getting rid of chrome film may be a tempting compromise since the amateur market does not use it and the prosumer/professional market is migrating away from it. My totally uninformed guess is that Kodak will halt chrome film production in 12-18 months (maybe that will let them close another factory or two), and Fuji will continue chrome production for another year or two but eventually go with the flow and discontinue it too. One would think Kodak would hang onto B&W a bit longer (since they still have a leading franchise there, however truncated), but of course that would devolve at some point to a few boutique suppliers.

These transitions would be mostly driven by the impact of current digital products, rather than the prospect of a future gazillion megapixel digital camera.

Juergen
21-Dec-2004, 02:27
hello friends. first of all: I like this forum. LF-guys seem to be special people, more balanced in pronouncing judgement, more democratic, somewhat more mature and calm :-). I have followed this forum now for two years, with a few exceptions I did it only as a reader. I learnt so much about photography and, though I am not practising LF-photography yet, it is my aim to enter this nice community buying into some LF-system in the future. But first I have to complete my bronica-MF-gear. So, thanks for being out there!
This said I think the digital-traditional argument, which leads to rhetorical wars in other forums, is something every photographer thinking about, in a more or less concerning way. I mean, it depends a lot of the single person, his needs, his expectations, his view and professional or non-professional use of photography and so on. Why fear? There should be place for both, traditional and digital photography. Okay, from a technological and economical point of view the 19. and 20. century have been those of photoGRAPHY, whether this one and probably the next one as well will be those of photoIMAGING. But there are good reasons to practise both of them. Every workflow has it inherent benefits, so, for instance the slowness and troubles of the traditional workflow can be a real benefit for somebody. I, personally, didn’t shoot for 10 years or so, because I thought digital-imaging would be replacing analogical-equipment very very fast. I lost 10 years. Now, when bronica is going to finish its production of mf-cameras I am buying into the system (actually I bought two NEW sq-ai-bodies, some lenses). That seems strange, but it has been my decision not to follow the new industry and market directions, it has been my decision to contemplate a little bit more on the process and to increase the manual craft work (darkroom). That makes me feel good, I just do 8 hours of work in front of the monitor all day long.
But, sure, digital imaging becomes better and easier and affordable every six months. And I will do a try probably as well in this field. Why not? Other opportunities, other benefits, other challenges.
It is, in my opinion, not a simple question of: “In terms of quality this one is better than the other one.” – because the answer today is x and tomorrow it is y. They are different things. I remember something – more or less appropriate for the above discussion – some years ago: Chess. The challenge was as well the computer. The people discussed only: Is it possible that a computer will defeat the world champion? Will it be possible to play anymore after such a “delusion”? Oh, I assure you, still I prefer playing chess against humans, I don’t like to play against the machine, but for match-analysis and match-preparing a computer offers great help.
The story goes on. Digital will be the “normal” way to take photographs, but I think there will be still a supply with traditional materials. But, may be, I am too optimistic.
Anyway, I like the idea of a camera without batteries. I hope to get one in the not far future.
Thanks again. Greetings from Italy and Merry Christmas.
Juergen

Jorge Gasteazoro
21-Dec-2004, 05:11
Isaac, if you ever saw a print made from a glass plate you would understand. If you ever saw a color carbon or dye transfer print, you would understand. The problem is that the old technology requires time, which many people are not willing to spend any longer, specially in the commercial areas. What you are missing is that these methods are still available, B&S is now selling carbon tissue, if you dont want to buy it, you can make it...can you make color paper? If in fact digital replaces film, I see a revival of a lot of these methods.

Color film wont be gone in 16 to 18 months. While it is true that many commercial photographers have moved to digital, many have gone back to film. The economics of digital are not what many people thought. I constantly read the many woes of commercial and wedding photographers that went digital, thought that all they had to do was shoot the image over the phone lines, only to find out they spent many hours fixing images in PS for the client. Time for which they were not paid for.

In the end, does it really matter? Not IMO, worrying about film is futile. It is here now, use it, enjoy what you do, and if it ever becomes unavailable in the future, well then reassess your position and pick an alternative. If today I was shooting my last piece of film, tomorrow you will find me learning how to make dry plates, or learning how to coat a piece of acetate with my own home made emulsion, I can do that, I doubt you can learn how to make CCDs. I assure you, "classic" photography wont die. After all, there are people still making horse saddles....no?

ADG
21-Dec-2004, 07:07
It might be fun to invite predictions of when this technology will dissapear, and that technology will surpass X point in the future etc etc
Should make good reading in a few years time...

Come on then, predict my future!

Nick_3536
21-Dec-2004, 07:34
"Kodak's digital product line has been struggling"

Kodak is the largest digital camera maker. The biggest myth of digital is that companies like Canon and Nikon matter. Neither is close to a volume leader in digital. It's only getting worse for both of them. We can expect the made and designed in China to start taking what part of the low cost market isn't already going to the cell phone makers. If they're only able to sell to the prosumer market is that a real market for them?

So I have to ask. This money that's supposed to be invested in "improving" digital who provides it? What's the market for ever better digital cameras? Remember Canon refused to stop making APS cameras. They can make money on APS cameras with no real investment.

Can anybody explain to me why the future of pure digital cameras is any better then what what the MF makers had for years? A relatively tiny niche market. OTOH how do they fund the development?

Henry Ambrose
21-Dec-2004, 08:00
Written above:
"Kodak can no longer 'make it by the mile and sell it by the inch' and have announced they will no longer make film after 2005 thanks to market pressure and EPA regs."

Where did this come from? -- I want to read the announcement from Kodak.
How silly!

Scott Rosenberg
21-Dec-2004, 09:00
there's an interesting read along these lines here (http://www.bythom.com/2005predictions.htm).

Tom Westbrook
21-Dec-2004, 09:28
Here's an interesting article about Kodak's deepening relationship to Lucky in China.


http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-12/20/content_401619.htm (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-12/20/content_401619.htm)

bglick
21-Dec-2004, 14:27
Eric, you wrote....

assume that this next generation camera (uncreatively call it the Mark III) supports RGB pixels at a similar pixel pitch as the current Mark II, resulting in a resolution of over 40Mp. Since this will clearly exceed the capabilities of any lens design cost-effectively manufactured in existing 35mm form

This is not accurate. Currently, each pixel is being hit with RGB color, the problem is, the pixels can only record one color. When the pixels become R, B, & G receptive, the lens will not have to deliver anything more data, its strictly a function of the ability to record more existing lens data. This difference will be surface in the camera file size being 3x larger, vs. now. Currently the file size is expanded (by interpolation) in the PC during raw conversion. I think its humorous how Raw Conversion software is nothing more than filling in 2 of 3 missing pieces of data in each pixel. It surely is a politically correct terminology for digital neophytes. As for the gain in resolution vs. now, that varies based on the color being shot. Since Bayer sensors are GRGB, if you shoot a blue or red scene, you only have one pixel recording data out of 4. Each pixel ultimately has to have RGB data, or 12 data values. Since only 1 exists, the remaining 11 are interpolated. So a best case scenario, with the same pixel count sensor, resolution will increase 12x, impressive indeed. Not to mention tonal range! Going to the other extreme, if you shoot a grey subject, all 4 pixels will record data, so the improvement in resolution will go from 4 to 12, or 3x. So there is some variables here.

Now, take the chip and hypothetically make it 40 MP, about 2x improvement vs. today, so overall, this will produce an improvement in resolution of 2 x 12 = 24 or 2 x 3 = 6. So the overall improvement of a 40MP true RGB sensor vs. today will lie between 6x and 24x better than todays best sensors, i.e. shooting the best and worst case color scenarios. Based on average subject colors, maybe a fair average improvement factor will be about 10x, since the algorithms for interpolation are good, so not all pixels will benefit from "true" data vs. interpolated data. So how does all this compare to film...here is the simplest method I use to draw this parallel......

Lets work off the assumption from real world testing, the new 1DsII matches 6 x 4.5 scanned film, (some suggest 6x7, but lets lean in favor of film). So 56mm x 45 mm = 2520 sq mm = 16.7 MP. If we have a 10x improvement in digital data, then film would need a 10x increase in area to match it, or 25,200 sq mm. 4x5 film is about 12,000 sq mm, scary huh. This will match 5x7 film quality..... So, it's possible even a 20 - 25 MP sensor with true RGB data can match 4x5 film. All these pieces of the puzzle are available today, just not in one single product.

So the relevance of this to my post is.... about 25 MP (maybe 30 MP to be safe?) true RGB sensor will match 4x5 resolution and offer much better tonal range and color palette. Considering Mamiya is starting into the digital world at 22 MP the pixel count is not far from reality, probably one generation away. Engineers are completing the true RGB pixel, considering Foveon has already perfected this technology, I am sure the other big players will only improve upon the true RGB pixel. So other than matched resolution, what are the other advantages digital will offer vs. scanned film:

1. Much smaller and compact camera systems, MF size systems.

2. Faster lenses so the camera systems are more versatile, handheld shooting to LF landscape shooting will be a reality. Zoom lenses!

3. Better image lattitude vs. film, up to 3 or 4 stops.

4. Better tonal range, specially when digital sensors move into more linear method of tonal capture, vs. today, where half the tonal range is in the top highlight stop. Half the remaining tonal range values are in the next stop down, etc. So therefore 75% of the tonal ranges are in the top two stops....not desirable, but still effective even today as their is such high and accurate capture ranges.

5. File sizes about 70% less than their scanned cousins. Much easier to work with. As PC's are getting faster, soon dual 64 bit processors with 16 gig accessible RAM will be the norm, less than 2 years from reality, so these files will be easy to work with vs. just a year or two ago, 1 - 2 gig files from 8x10 film were very cumbersome to work with.

6. The one benefit I enjoy the most is, immediate visual verification you got the shot you want, no Polaroids, no exposure issues, no plugged shadows or blown out highlights, flash issues, etc. If the shot needs to be re taken, you know in less than a second or two....

As for scanned 8x10 film, It may always hold a slight edge over digital, but this may only be noticeable at a max. enlargement size, which 95% of the time never gets printed. Also, scanning backs will surely exceed 8x10 film quality in the future, so this leaves a tiny gap for 8x10 film, moving subjects that you want the max. enlargement potential.

Anyway, not trying to start a digital forum here, but just wanted to share my thoughts on the subject. It's my opinion, the future of film in any format size is a function of digitals ability to trump it - in a cost effective manner. As for the one posters question of a prediction of when this will happen.... well here is mine, in 35mm its here, MF is here in 05, and a true 4x5 film replacement is late 07.

The encouraging news may be, these super backs will be adapted to 4x5 cameras, so for the slow shooters (not handheld market) they can view the digital back as an alternative to film, but not replace the entire picture taking process. So maybe all our gear won't become worthless! :-) But smaller camera systems, hand holdable, more bells and whistles would surely be more desirable to a majority of the market.

As for the film purist posters, I applaud there commitment to film and all its niche benefits. I am sure in the future I will buy some of their work as its an art form I enjoy and have an appreciation for.

As for the poster who commented on wedding shooters moving back to film.... this is true and makes perfect sense, as wedding shooters have to deal with one issue in almost every shot - how to hold detail in black tuxes and white gowns / shirts, an easy 5 stop spread - and with todays digital technology, this is surely its achillies heel. Most wedding shooters shoot negative film vs. chrome film for this exact reason, exposure latitude is VERY important. In my opinion, wedding photographers should hold out with neg. film, until digital capture improves in BOTH exposure lattitude (through electronically eliminating light absorption in pixels nearing blow out) and more linear tonal range capture throughout the entire exposure latitude. Even today the 1DsII will be inferior to color negative film in this area. I wonder if Mamiya will address this issue, and expose it, as they are big in the wedding market.

Bill

Randy Becker
21-Dec-2004, 16:05
I had an interesting thing happen to me a couple of weeks ago:

In addition to shooting professionally, I also teach photography at our community college. As I was walking to my office at the school, I was told the entire campus had lost power. Sure enough, all but the emergency lights were out.

I had come to school to work on a few images before class so I went into my office and without thinking, reached down to turn on my computer. My images, after all, were on a CD. Well, of course without any power, my CD was completely useless.

As I sat there contemplating my navel in a darkened office, I looked over to my bookcase and picked up a piece of 5x7 black and white film. I held it up to the window and couldn't help smiling at the irony of sitting in a brand new $20 million technology building at an equally new $6,000 computer that couldn't do a thing without power, yet simply by holding up a piece of "obselete" technology to a window I could appreciate an image one of my students made the week before.

Best regards,
Randy Becker

Just because we CAN do something doesn't mean we SHOULD do it...

Jim Rice
21-Dec-2004, 16:39
I find threads of this sort enormously depressing.

John Berry ( Roadkill )
21-Dec-2004, 16:46
Happened on this site a couple of weeks ago. Been doing LF since Super-xx. I filled a tray for the first time in 4 yrs and reminded of how much I loved the process. As was stated earlier it's as much the process as it is the results. I've been shooting my Fugi s2pro for a while now. but it doesn't give me the same feeling as watching a print come up and being able to say "gotcha ". For me it's not only an investment in equipment, film, and chemicales. There is an emotional investment that I didn't realise I was missing. In fact I was thinking about selling the Wisner and getting deeper into digital. ( please slap me here ) One of these days a digital back for 4x5 will be available that won't be at a purchase order price. If film goes away I will work with what I can get. Afterall I didn't quit when they stopped making super-xx. ( STILL POed about that ) Great board I'll be spending a lot more time here. Nice to be around other obsesives. ( If you into LF it's way past a hobby )
Thanks, John Berry ( roadkill )

Jim Rice
21-Dec-2004, 17:06
*Slaps John hard*.......just doing my part. ;-)

John Berry ( Roadkill )
21-Dec-2004, 17:14
Thanks I needed that

Norm Johnson
21-Dec-2004, 18:30
Rochester NY DEMOCRAT CHRONICLE front page today has information on where KODAK is at. To get it I searched for the Democrat Chronicle and on front page there it was.

Gem Singer
21-Dec-2004, 20:04
None of us has a crystal ball. We all know it's coming, but we don't know exactly when. Kodak will eventually phase out color film in 4x5 and 8x10 sheets. However, if we're avid Kodak color sheet film users, we're bound to get LUCKY.

Brian Ellis
22-Dec-2004, 06:54
"I find threads of this sort enormously depressing."

Me too. The notion that otherwise sane people are acutally spending time and energy to say the same things that have already been said by thousands upon thousands of other people thousands upon thousands of times iin thousand upon thousands of identical threads dealing with the same unanswerable quetion is very depressing.

bglick
22-Dec-2004, 11:39
"I find threads of this sort enormously depressing."

I can understand that....but out of curiosity, then why do you read them? It's easy to skip over a thread on this type of forum.

Michael Kadillak
25-Dec-2004, 16:38
I completely agree Brian. This subject continues to manifest itself over and over for some bizzare reason. There are some fundamentally negative personalities out there that for some reason cannot look the facts straight on and just let it go.

We used more film in 2003 than we did at the earlier peak of conventional film consumption in the mid 1960's and that is an absolute fact. Simple economics dictate that as long as there is money to be made, conventional free market forces will insure that the product will be made. But still they regularly want to congregate in the halls of doom and gloom.

You would think that if there was even a hint of truth to these fears, I would want to spend every moment of opportunity out in the field making photographs rather than wasting it in this fruitless literary death spiral.

To the darkroom! I have spend three minutes more than I should have on this jibberish.

JohanHB
2-Jan-2005, 23:45
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/features/filmStatement.shtml

Statement re: The Future of Film at Kodak

For Customers, Channel Partners, Etc.

Friday, September 26, 2003

Regarding Kodak's Sept. 25 investors meeting and the resulting reports and rumors:

Please be assured that Eastman Kodak Company remains fully committed to anticipating and meeting our customers' needs for film, whether these end-users are professional photographers, advanced amateurs or hobbyists, or consumer picture-takers. We know that these customers depend on their camera to record their special memories, whether the images are of everyday moments or special once-in-a-lifetime events. We remain dedicated to maintaining our leadership in the film market through a clear understanding of customer needs combined with related product planning, development, manufacture, marketing and sales.

To affirm this intention, we highlight the eight new or upgraded films introduced to the professional and consumer markets within the last two years alone. These include new color negative films (KODAK PROFESSIONAL PORTRA Films and KODAK High Definition Films), color reversal films and new black & white films. We are very pleased that these films have received terrific acceptance by our customers. We also introduced numerous new high-quality papers for both the consumer and professional markets to ensure beautiful, long lasting images.

Kodak is committed to ensuring that our customers have increasing capabilities and opportunities to take, share, print and manage their images. While Kodak management acknowledged during the Investors' Meeting that the worldwide film market is declining, they reinforced our ongoing participation in film and a broader investment in image printing, sharing and image management capabilities. We believe that our professional, advanced amateur and consumer photography customers will be pleased by these directions.

...i know, posted just two years ago, but permit my cliche; have fun now...

duff photographer
13-Mar-2009, 07:45
After four and-a-bit years since the last post on this thread, it was interesting to read the predictions - mostly all wrong :D !

In an age of 24 mp '35mm' cameras and 65 mp digital backs, film still has its place and quite a big place at that. Digital has meant that the lenses used have had to be either redesigned or built to tighter tolerances to keep up with the higher resolution of the chip. That's something the lens manufacturers never bothered to do with film, even though black-and-white film, for example, has ratings upwards of 300 lp/mm! Now that we have some decent lenses out there we are now also seeing what film can really do in terms of resolution. Yes, we have a longer and more complex processing of the image before we can get a print if we wish to digitise the negative but the end result is worth the effort if we use the best means and materials available to us. That effort for me produced a 6x9 rollfilm in Rollei Pan 25 that easily beat a Hasselblad 39 mp back in an informal test I recently carried out (a test I'll be repeating again with more rigorous methodology so don't take my word for it until then). The film image cost me just under £1 to produce and the equpment needed to make it was ten times less than that of the Hasselblad. Both do the job they were designed well of course.

There are also some inherent restrictions that digital places on photography. Unless we get 4x5 digital backs it will never get past the depth of field foreshortening, the lack of movements on medium format cameras (the recent increase in tilt&shift lenses is a poor substitute), for which 65 mp digital backs are designed for, and the huge cost. Indeed, now that the world is well and truly into recession it will be interesting to see if these high end, high megapixel, digital backs, designed for a specialised market (commercial photography) will survive.

As of today, we still have new film technologies being introduced and after talking to my local but well-known film seller, rollfilm and sheetfilm sells have been increasing.

My prediction? Little change with medium format digital sells receeding a little, 35mm digital receeding a lot, and sheetfilm, as well as rollfilm, making a small comeback. ...or is that happening now?

Scott-S
13-Mar-2009, 09:08
I think if film were to go it would have already gone. I don't know for sure but digital has already captured over 90% of the market. I called Bostic and Sullivan yesterday and asked how business was. He said it was thriving. Freestyle in LA is doing excellent business and they cater to the film world. It's pure economics, if there is a demand for something.... someone will come along and supply it. The film business has already moved into Eastern Europe with Efke, Fomapan, etc.

GPS
13-Mar-2009, 09:55
I think if film were to go it would have already gone.
...
The film business has already moved into Eastern Europe with Efke, Fomapan, etc.

Already?? Moved there?? Wow! :) Foma was producing film from 1921 in Czechoslovakia (today the Czech republik), Central Europe...;)

Drew Wiley
13-Mar-2009, 09:55
A lot of sheer bull on this thread. The NSA does do a lot of aerial recon, and satellite
digital is no substitute for the real deal. I know who services their enlargers, who makes their lenses,etc. There is an entire classified facility where digital is completely prohibited. Satellites are like spotting scopes telling you where to look. 9x9 film is still
a lot better for detail and provides a "true color" reference which cannot be easily
manipulated by a potential smart ass with access to a computer. They're not that dumb (it's the job of politicians to be dumb). DEA also uses a lot of film. Commercially there is no real substitute for large format film. Catalog houses etc might be able to amortize a scanning back etc, but how many typical photographers can afford to invest tens of thousands of dollars in fragile finicky equipment dependent upon rapidly obsolescent software? It just doesn't make sense. Most professionals going digital are going to opt for SLRs or medium format. From time to time we might lose a favorite film or paper, but overall the selection and quality of sheet film is better than it has ever been. If you like digital do it. Otherwise have fun with film. Changes have been
occuring for a long, long time. Film evolves too, and there's enough of us using it to
made it profitiable to someone somewhere for the forseeable future.

Scott-S
13-Mar-2009, 10:01
Already?? Moved there?? Wow! :) Foma was producing film from 1921 in Czechoslovakia (today the Czech republik), Central Europe...;)

what I meant was they have a greater share of the market. Obviously they are making the film on old machines so it would make sense that they have made film for a long time..

sorry for the confusion

GPS
13-Mar-2009, 11:25
what I meant was they have a greater share of the market. Obviously they are making the film on old machines so it would make sense that they have made film for a long time..

sorry for the confusion

Obviously on old machines? Where do you have that info from? Do you think they make the film on machines from 1921?

Bob McCarthy
13-Mar-2009, 11:55
Interesting thread, I hadn't read it before. I shoot 4x5 and I for the first time saw a file from a Phase 65 digital back. It was the file size equivalent of me scanning at 1800 dpi. I was very impressed with the per pixel sharpness.

So it is an economic issue now. $40k will buy lots of view camera equipment and film and is the primary reason why large format will have a life. After seeing this file, I can attest there is no longer a quality advantage.

What irk's me, is my local processor recently doubled his E-6 processing price to $3.50/sheet.

I suppose I should be glad I have a local lab.

bob

Herb Cunningham
13-Mar-2009, 12:00
I have a 21mp digital camera that i will use for color, which I only occasionally do. Just yesterday I bout an EOS 650 35mm body at a local shop so I can shoot b/w with it. It uses the same lens and the digital, and I don't have to put up with digital b/w, while quite good, is different, and not to my liking.
I don't see film going anywhere.

Marko
13-Mar-2009, 12:08
So it is an economic issue now. $40k will buy lots of view camera equipment and film and is the primary reason why large format will have a life. After seeing this file, I can attest there is no longer a quality advantage.

What irk's me, is my local processor recently doubled his E-6 processing price to $3.50/sheet.

Consider this: less than 10 years ago, Canon D30 cost $3000 and had 3 MP. Today, Canon's lowest DSLR costs about 6 times less $$ and provides about 4 times more MP.

Even if you dismiss Moore's law and linear extrapolation, it is still a fairly good indicator of the future trends. I think it is a pretty safe bet that the technology will get up there and its price will drop down here, and sooner rather than later.

Barrie B.
13-Mar-2009, 13:20
Greetings all,
Sure Digital has been taken up by the mums and Dads as ' The Modern Box Camera' and it does the job well.
The pro`s have taken up digital to keep up with their market , in the commercial world every-body wants results today / tomorrow .

But as Camera Hobbyists the Large Format equipment , with all of the potential movements is a joy to own and use . Sometimes it it not the final image only but the whole process that gives us the satisifaction .

I still enjoy my Wisner 4 X 5 and a few lenses to take Black and White Images , all processed by hand in my home darkroom . I use a Canon EOS Digital for Color Images of the family.

As long as film is still being made and used in Motion Picture Industry and some areas of Science we will still have Film for our equipment ( although we will have less choices )

Barrie B. Melbourne Australia.:D

Jeremy Moore
13-Mar-2009, 13:30
i also know that shooting with my 4x5 is an incredibly rewarding experience for me. the slow, deliberate, methodical process is something i absolutely love. i cherish getting under my darkcloth and carefully composing a shot. there is something special about crafting a photograph, something i've never been able to feel shooting digitally.

This is still just as true today as it was when Scott wrote it over 4 years ago.

Marko
13-Mar-2009, 13:54
So, is all that enjoyment the result of using a view camera to compose and capture a photo or is it the result of using film?

I really don't see what would be different if one would stick a digital sensor instead of film in the back of the view camera once done with composing a shot, darkcloth, reflex finder or whatever other means of previewing the image? Would the enjoyment be gone and why?

steve hartsfield
13-Mar-2009, 15:59
To me, film is going to be like vinyl and reel-to-reel tape is to digital music, something for people/artists who really enjoy the feel and results of the medium. There will always be a demand for film in my house, just like vinyl. I have to believe that film will eventually fall into a smaller artistic market. There is nothing quite like good ole silver paper.

Carioca
13-Mar-2009, 16:06
If we all keep shooting more than worrying,
film will be there, for ever...
Simple law of demand=production.

PSedit: unbelievable but true, LP vinyls are still produced...

Absolutely, digital will completely replace film. Exactly like film completely replaced painting... After all, we all know that it's impossible to buy paint and canvas anymore, right?

Carioca
13-Mar-2009, 16:36
Due to the crisis and my job, I work less, bummer!
But, I have more free time and I do print more...

Jeremy Moore
13-Mar-2009, 16:39
So, is all that enjoyment the result of using a view camera to compose and capture a photo or is it the result of using film?

I really don't see what would be different if one would stick a digital sensor instead of film in the back of the view camera once done with composing a shot, darkcloth, reflex finder or whatever other means of previewing the image? Would the enjoyment be gone and why?

I like using a ground glass, the bigger the better. I don't want to use a 645 size ground glass nor do I want to use a reflex viewer or whatever. The 6x9 area captured by a Betterlight is also too small.

This means I need a sensor that is 4"x5" or 8"x10" or next week 11"x14" to replace film in my large format workflow. Additionally, I still shoot quite a bit of 120 because there isn't a digital equivalent to my Rolleiflex--not quality of file, but small, square, WLF. It's not the quality, it's the working methods.

There isn't even anything on the market like this at any price I know of.

Marko
13-Mar-2009, 21:37
I like using a ground glass, the bigger the better. I don't want to use a 645 size ground glass nor do I want to use a reflex viewer or whatever. The 6x9 area captured by a Betterlight is also too small.

This means I need a sensor that is 4"x5" or 8"x10" or next week 11"x14" to replace film in my large format workflow. Additionally, I still shoot quite a bit of 120 because there isn't a digital equivalent to my Rolleiflex--not quality of file, but small, square, WLF. It's not the quality, it's the working methods.

There isn't even anything on the market like this at any price I know of.

Don't get me wrong, so do I. That's one of the reasons I still use both 4x5 and MF. The other reason is that it is a thing of nostalgia for me, I always loved b&w film.

But my point is that when digital sensors mature enough and reach the right price point, nothing will change except the type of light sensitive device at one end of the camera. Well, the ground glass might get replaced with an LCD as discussed in another recent thread, but then again, maybe not. Either way, Lens, shutter, aperture, ground glass and the laws of physics will still remain the same. Ditto for composition and the general aesthetic.

Now, whether film will still be available and in what shape remains to be seen. My guess, which is as good as anybody's, is that it will become a historical process kept alive by a small number of devotees, much like daguerreotype is today. Highly artistic and respected, but out of the mainstream.

I perceive the real question behind the question of this thread to be whether we will live long enough to see the end of the process that we witnessed starting. Personally, I would certainly hope so. ;)

aphexafx
14-Mar-2009, 01:31
- film is archival. You can always scan it on a office machine 50 yrs from now. Digital
is always changing....operating systems/software/file formats/etc. This is important
for those selling limited editions where over a few years it can represent $300k or
more in sales.

Great post, but I don't agree with this statement. Digital files are much more achievable than film at every level. Pretending that future changes to OS and file format popularity will limit the longevity of digital files is a huge misnomer. The fact that the data is digital means that it can be copied, converted, etc. with zero loss of quality and this guarantees that the files will be exactly as they are today at any point in the future.

If the argument is that film retains 100% of detail that might be better sampled to a digital file in the future, I think that this notion is quickly becoming obsolete as we are fast approaching the point where scanners can resolve past film resolution and digital sensors are producing sharper images per area in the first place!

CG
14-Mar-2009, 07:59
Electronic media are fine till file formats change and you have to rescan or copy and convert everything you have. Or wait till the substrate CD - tape - disc starts degenerating. Lots of electronic media are on their way to becoming unreadable -many video formats are pretty much gone already.

Film stays the same, requires no conversion... Digital's good for many things - but archival quality isn't one unless you want to keep recopying and converting /updating everything frequently.

Marko
14-Mar-2009, 10:04
It will be a long wait before digital backs are affordable for most of us. In that time I can have high quality images now rather then dream about a digital back that still cannot match larger films like 612/617/4x5/5x7/8x10.

I also don't see it being practical walking around with a $50k digital back (which is only replacing film) and having to worry about thieves, weather, or falling. Just not practical for the field.

Of course it is impractical if you can't afford it, no argument about that. Each time I see someone driving a Ferrari or a Lamborghini around LA, I keep thinking how impractical or worrisome that should be, but I'm sure my opinion would change if I could afford one of those... :D

Back to MF digital backs, here is someone who can (http://www.elizabethcarmel.com/) (walk around with it on a regular basis) and who doesn't (seem to worry about it). Or if she does worry, it does not show in her images.


Digital is short term, film long term when it comes to longevity. So digital better fits the commercial sector where convenience and speed is important, while fine artists and landscape shooter would prefer film. Film has many advantages

I am sure that's why institutions like http://www.loc.gov/index.html and such are sinking so much effort and resources into digitizing and computer storage of their collections (http://www.loc.gov/library/libarch-digital.html).


analog film doesn't depreciate while digital film does.

"Digital film"? What exactly is it and how does it depreciate? :D


http://www.thiaps.com/editors/

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum172/54564-photokina-positive-news-film.html

Uh, is this supposed to be an argument of some sort? I mean, if you want to believe something because APUG says so, go ahead, knock yourself out. Just don't bother me until I can again walk to my local photo store and buy a package of APX 100 or Panatomic-X, preferably 4x5. Or perhaps a box of Type 55.

Anthony Lewis
14-Mar-2009, 13:35
"Digital files are much more achievable than film at every level." (I think the word was meant to be archivable)

One of the very first tape formats was QUAD (2 inch wide tape) way back in the sixties. It was the professional television standard world wide. Try finding a machine in the world that works today to replay any of that material? Any film from the sixties, I can hold up to the light and see it quite clearly. Since then dozens of tape formats have come and gone - together with the machinery that replays those tapes - already mostly lost.

Remember the 3 1/2 inch floppy disc from 10-15 years ago. Try finding a working computer to take one of these now? Where will the DVD and CD be in 10-15 years?

Digital archiving may exist, but it depends on all material being upgraded to the lastest digital media at least every ten years. With the billions of images now stored on CD's and DVD's, is this really going to happen, and who is going to do it?

I would also like to point out that CD's and DVD's seem to be a susceptible to scratches as old vinyl records. Except the difference is, CD's and DVD's can become totally unplayable with one scratch. Another point, if our images are stored digitally in a highly compressed format, I am not convinced that they will 100% identical to the original - in other words, is this a form of generation loss?

Marko
14-Mar-2009, 14:32
Digital film is dslr/digital back...and anything digital depreciates faster then any roll or sheet of film.

This still does not make much sense to me. Incorrect terminology aside, I don't see what does depreciation has to do with this at all - the back will not magically stop working when it reaches certain age. Neither will the software that comes with it. It's quality is comparable to the current MF film and I don't see how that will change five or ten years down the road.


So she uses a P45 digital back, but do you have one, and what about the rest of us? Can it take the kind of pictures you want (has no tilts,swings). It still isn't the best choice for rough weather/hiking, nor matches the quality of large format film. Just because she uses a P45 doesn't make it the best choice for landscape work.

And neither do you, I gather, so how can you judge whether it is or is not the best choice?

Let's not run in circles, shall we? This was a response to your statement: "I also don't see it being practical walking around with a $50k digital back (which is only replacing film) and having to worry about thieves, weather, or falling. Just not practical for the field.".

I maintain what I said - it is impractical and worrisome only to those who cannot afford it, just like driving Ferraris. The fact that you or I cannot afford one of those does not make them any less good or comfortable, only less reachable.

Which in turn has nothing to do with the question of this thread - what is the future of LF film. My take on it, which is as good (not to say as random) as yours, is that there are two factors that will determine its future:

1. The existence of viable alternative in the form of higher quality, lower cost, faster and more manageable technology. This technology has already surpassed 35mm and is on its way to do the same with MF. Given the way and the rate at which this technology advances, chances are that it will reach the LF level in another decade or so.

2. Economy of scale - film will be available only as long as there is enough demand for it to be produced on a scale that guarantees sufficient profit. Digital imaging technology does not even have to advance to the true quality level of LF as we know it today - all it needs to do is provide sufficiently high quality at reasonably low cost for the largest commonly needed format for it to drain most of the demand for LF, at least on the commercial scale. Similar to what high end FF 35mm DSLRs did to MF over the last several years.

On both points, there is very little reason to doubt that current MF digital sensors will follow the same pattern at the similar rate as the crop-factor and FF DSLRs. And when the current prices drop by the factor of 7, they will have reached the existing price level of current high-end FF DSLRs. And when that happens, that will put them right in the ballpark of what professional MF shooters have always been used to paying for anyway, unlike the small format ones.


I recommend you read up more about digital storage issues, many corporations are switching to film for important documents, and courts are disallowing them.

They do? Which ones? I quoted and linked the Library of Congress. Would you care to list some real life examples too?

FYI, I've spent my entire working life working with computers and worrying about digital file storage and attendant issues and I got my certifications along the way. But if you would be kind enough to share some of your sources, I'm always open to learning new things...


Don't know what your problem is about APUG. Funny how your racing to get yourself some APX100 or Pantomic in 4x5 yet push the merits of a P45 (talk certainly is cheap).

What's funny about it? I've been using and processing film since Ilford HP was still a 4 and the "Plus" was still ways off. I was never really a Kodak guy, but since everybody keeps raving about Panatomic X and how good it was while it existed, I thought I might give it a try once this new trend you are talking about - of film coming back and replacing digital - materializes, the production starts again and local stores start stocking it instead of those unreliable CF cards... ;)

As for APUG, as long as what happens there stays there, I don't have a problem with it at all. If I want to indulge in a good session or two of Ludditte anti-digital whining, I know how to get there. That's exactly why I tend to stay away from it and that's why I don't want to see some of the same lunacy here.

Marko

Ben Syverson
14-Mar-2009, 16:03
I'm an image processing engineer. Let me tell you, digital is just not there yet.

Even if the P65+'s 8984x6732 sensor was "perfect," and could deliver 4492x3366 line pairs (the max according to Nyquist), it still couldn't stand up to a Mamiya 7 scanned on a Coolscan 9000, which yields 69.78 real megapixels (http://bensyverson.tumblr.com/post/61387936/real-megapixels).

Give it a couple years, and the highest-end digital backs will beat 6x7 in resolution. Give it a yew years after that, and they'll eventually beat 4x5. Wait a few more years after that, and the best backs will beat 8x10. Taking into account inflation, we're probably talking about $100,000 for a non-scanning 400 megapixel* back that beats 8x10 sometime around 2015-2020.

If you wait even longer, maybe 5 or 10 years until 2025 or so, a 400 megapixel* camera may even drop to the point where it's accessible to the consumer/prosumer for $5000 or so. That's assuming that camera makers even believe that 400 megapixels is something that amateurs want. It's obviously overkill for most people, so a consumer 400 MP* camera may never come out.

So you can wait 15-20 years (or forever) in the hope that all of that will happen according to plan, or you can pick up a dusty Kodak 2D 8x10 system and shoot 400 megapixels* TODAY for under $1000.

* Assuming you can get 40 lp/mm on your 8x10 (~254x203 mm), you're generating 10160x8120 line pairs, which would require at the very least a 20320x16240 pixel digital sensor (because of Nyquist). You would call such a sensor 330 megapixels. However, because you lose some resolution to the Bayer and AA filter, you would need to oversample. You'd probably need at least a 400 megapixel sensor to resolve that many line pairs.

Marko
14-Mar-2009, 16:32
Ben, that's basically what I said, sans the numbers, isn't it?

Except that I'd rather not use a dusty camera of any sort and that I have yet to see .78 of a real pixel...

BTW, that Mamiya 7/Coolscan 9000 will set you back close to 10 grand or so if you go full hog. I'd rather spend that kind of money on tomorrow's technology than on yesterday's one. And it's not even LF so it does not qualify for this thread anyway...

:D

P.S. Just to prevent the usual "argument", I currently do shoot both 4x5 and MF film. So, I think I have a fairly good idea about what it takes and how much it costs.

Ben Syverson
14-Mar-2009, 16:38
I got my Mamiya 7 with 80mm for $900 -- the Coolscan 9000 is $2000 new, so you're looking at $2900. Of course, the 7 is overkill, because the 9000 can't resolve past about 60-70 lp/mm, so you could get similar results from a $200 RB67. The remaining $8000 or so buys a lot of film...

Not trying to argue, just pointing out that the numbers aren't there yet for digital, and they won't be for a solid 20 years, if ever. "Tomorrow's technology" indeed. :rolleyes:

Marko
14-Mar-2009, 17:31
I got my Mamiya 7 with 80mm for $900 -- the Coolscan 9000 is $2000 new, so you're looking at $2900. Of course, the 7 is overkill, because the 9000 can't resolve past about 60-70 lp/mm, so you could get similar results from a $200 RB67. The remaining $8000 or so buys a lot of film...

No sense comparing new to used. Mamiya 7 with 80mm lens is tagged $3600 at B&H and SB67 at $800 with no lens or back. If you want to compare used, try pricing out some used digital over on eBay? ;)


Not trying to argue, just pointing out that the numbers aren't there yet for digital, and they won't be for a solid 20 years, if ever. "Tomorrow's technology" indeed. :rolleyes:

Well, yes, my impression was that we were supposed to discuss the future of LF film here.

Instead we ended up with three distinct discussions - current digital vs. current film, future digital vs. current film (I don't think anybody can seriously dispute that film is at the end of its development cycle) and the future of film as such. Whether the future we are talking about will happen in 10 or so years (my guess) or 20+ years (your guess) does not matter, it is still the future either way. :rolleyes:

I have no intention to participate in the first one, it's simply too polluted with all the garbage being tossed into it. As for the other two, I tried to make my best guess, which is all anybody can do at this point.

Marko
14-Mar-2009, 17:46
This is the large format forum, and as of now the p45/65 does not even come close to matching large format film. Since this forum is in pursuit of maximum quality, that is also affordable, digital doesn't even hold a candle to film on either criteria. So why all the hub-bub....digital simply isn't there yet (not even on the archival front).

Hey, whatever you say...

But again, this here is the thread about the future of LF film, I made my best guess based on the past and current states of digital as part of the future trend.

You could at least try to provide the examples of those "many corporations (that) are switching to film for important documents, and courts (that) are disallowing them." you mentioned...

You surely didn't make that up, did you? Or did they go so far back that they are now disallowing even the Internet access?

;)

Ben Syverson
14-Mar-2009, 18:06
If you want to compare used, try pricing out some used digital over on eBay? ;)
Okay... you mean like the 17 megapixel Leaf Valeo 17WI (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190277406527) for $6500 that has roughly a quarter the resolution of a Mamiya 7 scanned on a 9000, yet costs more than a brand new Mamiya 7 and Coolscan 9000 combined?


Instead we ended up with three distinct discussions - current digital vs. current film, future digital vs. current film (I don't think anybody can seriously dispute that film is at the end of its development cycle) and the future of film as such.
Well, with new film emulsions still being developed and released, I guess I do dispute the idea that film is at the end of its development cycle.

The future is anyone's guess, but the current reality is that film still blows the doors off digital, and it will be a long time until digital is up to par.

Just because digital is "the future" doesn't mean it makes any sense to shoot it right now. In 1960, computers were "the future." If you could go back and time, would you encourage a small business owner to sink $1 million dollars into a mainframe?

sanking
14-Mar-2009, 18:57
Marko,

I don't know what you mean by full hog, but a Mamiya 7II with 65mm or 80mm lens can be had for $2k new. Just have a look on ebay. And a Nikon LS 9000 will run only slightly more than $2k. That is about $4k in my book.

The point that some others have made, and that I consider valid, is that unless you plan to spend a huge amount of money film will give much higher image quality than digital. No DSLR will come close to the Mamiya 7 for pure image quality, to say nothing of LF, unless you arbitrarily impose limits like size below 16X20 or such. To even match it you will have to go to a P45 and spend about 9X-10X.

Clearly digital has some creative possibilities that are not there for film. But for final image quality, especially in B&W, film still has it all over digital if cost and image quality are both considered.

Sandy King

Marko
14-Mar-2009, 20:04
Hi Sandy,

Since the price of the new high-end digital back never fails to be brought up in discussions like this, it only makes sense to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Therefore, by "full hog" I meant buying a full system new in the store. If used is the comparison of the day, than we look at eBay for both sides of the story, and by that I mean closed auctions where the item actually sold. Otherwise, a comparison makes little sense.

I thought I made it clear that I do not consider digital to be the equivalent of 6x7 yet and nowhere near the 4x5 at this point in time. I do think it is equal to 6x4.5 and that it has surpassed the 35mm film. And I do think it will get there, based on the past and present trends and that the only question is when.

My point in a thread which is speculative by its very nature - the one that tries to deal with the future - was that we can only watch trends and based on the past and current facts we can try to extrapolate the future. What we hope, wish or like is one thing, what has happened, is happening and will - possibly - happen is something else entirely.

I tried to reasonably explain my best guess - I might be right or wrong, the time will show, no need to be offended, it's just a guess, not even a full opinion.

Marko
14-Mar-2009, 20:29
Okay... you mean like the 17 megapixel Leaf Valeo 17WI (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190277406527) for $6500 that has roughly a quarter the resolution of a Mamiya 7 scanned on a 9000, yet costs more than a brand new Mamiya 7 and Coolscan 9000 combined?

Sigh... this is getting tiresome and pointless. I really have no interest in being forced to keep repeating ad nauseam that I do not compare resolution or quality of existing MF backs to 6x7 film, Mamiya 7, RB67 or whatever, as it is today.

Actually, I meant something more along the lines of this one (http://cgi.ebay.com/Sinar-Sinarback-eMotion-75-LV-Digital-Back_W0QQitemZ360136637935QQcmdZViewItemQQptZDigital_Cameras?hash=item360136637935&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1234%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318%7C301%3A0%7C293%3A1%7C294%3A50#ht_3221wt_1162), with double the resolution of the one you mention, with actual bids being placed.

All I am saying is that it is nonsensical to bandy about the in-store $40,000 price tag as an argument of inferiority and then compare it to a $900 price tag off of eBay as further proof.

If you don't - or won't - see the double fallacy in this, then any further discussion is useless. Which seems to be the goal of such approach. Oh, well. I have more important things in life to get upset over.

Marko
14-Mar-2009, 20:48
Van,

Just in case you missed it, the title of this thread is "future of 4x5 and 8x10 film".

I used the MF digital back as a trend indicator.

Which part of it don't you understand?

Ben Syverson
14-Mar-2009, 21:03
The trend is there... The timeline is just a very long one.

99% of the people who will jump from film to digital already have. People who used to shoot 4x5 are now happy with a Canon 5D, because it may be all they need. Yet, film is going strong... hmm...

Oren Grad
14-Mar-2009, 21:35
Therefore, by "full hog" I meant buying a full system new in the store. If used is the comparison of the day, than we look at eBay for both sides of the story, and by that I mean closed auctions where the item actually sold. Otherwise, a comparison makes little sense.

The Mamiya 7 is an unfortunate example that just confuses this aspect of the discussion, because there's a big difference between the price set by the US distributor for US dealers and the prevailing prices in Asia, especially Hong Kong at the moment. So yes, you really can buy a 7II brand new with lens for $2000, from a Hong Kong dealer via eBay, though Mamiya America won't touch it if you need repairs.

Marko
14-Mar-2009, 21:57
The Mamiya 7 is an unfortunate example that just confuses this aspect of the discussion, because there's a big difference between the price set by the US distributor for US dealers and the prevailing prices in Asia, especially Hong Kong at the moment. So yes, you really can buy a 7II brand new with lens for $2000, from a Hong Kong dealer via eBay, though Mamiya America won't touch it if you need repairs.

Any individual example based on price in a discussion like this is unfortunate and only confuses the main point, IMO.

That being said, the $40,000 price tag for one of those backs - currently it is a P65+, 60 MP - being bandied around virtually all discussions like this is a full US retail price. Therefore, it only makes sense to compare it to another US retail price.

Provided, of course, that any such comparison makes any sense at all, since that price is almost always used simply for its shock value in order to derail the discussion and not much anything else. Hence my comparison to a Ferrari.

Marko
14-Mar-2009, 21:59
The trend is there... The timeline is just a very long one.

99% of the people who will jump from film to digital already have. People who used to shoot 4x5 are now happy with a Canon 5D, because it may be all they need. Yet, film is going strong... hmm...

Yes, I'm sure that's why we have "discussions" like this every so often on this and other boards... ;)

JBrunner
14-Mar-2009, 22:36
I do enjoy discussions of megapixels and line pairs and such, and when such and such reaches this point, etc.

I have a bit of a different take. I could give a rats ass when such and such overtakes whatever. I like to shoot film for the qualities it delivers. The way the photograph looks. Sure I suppose I could get a whatsit and blow it through some algorithm set up to mimic a particular thing, but that really doesn't get me to my end. It gets me a facsimile of the prints I already make. To me digital and film are different things. I have seen stunning work come out of both. I shoot a lot of digital commercially, but I'm mostly a film guy when it come to art. I use it for its qualities. The quality has been more than satisfactory for some time. The folks who are waiting for some magic number to appear that signals the time to jump? I don't think it probably matters what they shoot with.YMMV.

Marko
15-Mar-2009, 08:32
Van, you are still missing it - yes, the future of LF film is not just related to digital, it will be decided by digital.

As for these conversations, it's not like we really need them anyway, they're here mostly as a byproduct of the transition - the more something is happening, the loudest some people question it or deny it. If you have to ask what the future of film will be, you already know it but won't accept it. ;)

JBrunner
15-Mar-2009, 12:02
Van, you are still missing it - yes, the future of LF film is not just related to digital, it will be decided by digital.

As for these conversations, it's not like we really need them anyway, they're here mostly as a byproduct of the transition - the more something is happening, the loudest some people question it or deny it. If you have to ask what the future of film will be, you already know it but won't accept it. ;)

Uh huh, just like how it wasn't going to be here in 2005 as alluded to in in one of the first posts in this thread. FWIW I don't really worry about it. If I ever have to I will. If it comes down to it, I'm perfectly capable of making what I need, although my choices will be a bit limited.

Marko
15-Mar-2009, 13:58
I know what the future of film will be

Great, so since we both know what we need to know, there's no need to carry on with this, so we can let the thread sleep for another few years.

Who knows, some of those corporations you mentioned may even choose to come out of hiding by then?

;)

Andrew O'Neill
15-Mar-2009, 15:54
As far as I'm concerned, the future of 4x5 and 8x10 film looks bright! Just keeping buying and shooting and stop doing the Chicken Little routine.

John Bowen
15-Mar-2009, 16:55
film will be available long after this thread is dead and gone.....

just my 2 cents

Gordon Moat
15-Mar-2009, 17:46
If we assumed a really unusual situation, taken to an extreme, then perhaps some people might worry less. To start with, I use a 4x5 camera for most of my work, not because of film, but because I need the movements. I have 14 years experience in PhotoShop, and despite all the post possible to alter images, there is the factor of time and the results being not exactly the same as using movements ... basically, my choice is to get it right in-camera and minimize my time in post processing. I only deliver digital image files, which means all my film gets scanned and then FTPed to the client. Less time I spend on the computer means more time for writing proposals, meeting with clients, and working on self-promotion.

Okay, so let's take a wild assumption that suddenly a meteorite strikes Kodak, bounces, and then lands on Fuji headquarters. Both remaining major film producers are wiped out in one (un)natural disaster. At the moment, there is enough colour film and chemicals remaining in the world to last me another three years (or maybe a bit longer). After that, if I want to continue using a view camera, I either need a scanning back or a smaller view camera with a digital back.

Perhaps Marko will be the one to chime in on this. Best I can tell, Arca Swiss and Linhof would be the two choices for a platform for a MFDB. Due to the high cost of a MFDB from almost any company, I would likely plan on rentals, or maybe a lease plan for a digital back. Recall that film was a zero cost item for me, since I either billed out for it, or incorporated it into what I charged. I would also need another set of lenses, mostly very short focal lengths, to go with the roughly 6x4.5 sized chip. So the remaining question is how much would it cost me for a micrometer movement small view camera and renting a digital back for (up to) 50 shooting days per year?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

Marko
15-Mar-2009, 20:07
Hey Gordon,

Given that I only use film for b&w and then mostly Ilford, I think I would hardly notice such an event. :D

But then on a more serious note, such an event would have equally catastrophic impact on digital MF backs as it would have on film, given that Kodak is one of the major suppliers of MF sensors and Fuji is actually producing Hasselblad cameras and lenses. Especially now that Rollei has gone under.

But suppose that at least one MF digital back mfg survives and remains in business, my bet would go to Linhof as the sturdiest and more precise of the two. Based on the amount of time you would require such a setup, I think you would be much better off renting or cooperatively leasing, which I think will be the way to go for most low- to medium output shooters for a while. But whatever your cost, you should be able to bill it to your clients or to find other ways of incorporating it into your price.

Marko

Gordon Moat
17-Mar-2009, 12:31
Hey Gordon,

Given that I only use film for b&w and then mostly Ilford, I think I would hardly notice such an event. :D

But then on a more serious note, such an event would have equally catastrophic impact on digital MF backs as it would have on film, given that Kodak is one of the major suppliers of MF sensors and Fuji is actually producing Hasselblad cameras and lenses. Especially now that Rollei has gone under.

But suppose that at least one MF digital back mfg survives and remains in business, my bet would go to Linhof as the sturdiest and more precise of the two. Based on the amount of time you would require such a setup, I think you would be much better off renting or cooperatively leasing, which I think will be the way to go for most low- to medium output shooters for a while. But whatever your cost, you should be able to bill it to your clients or to find other ways of incorporating it into your price.

Marko

Oddly enough, despite that Leaf is owned by Kodak, they get their imaging chips from Dalsa, which is in California. Leaf is also not headquartered in Rochester. It's a weird situation, though when Kodak bought Creo, they got Leaf in the package.

Mamiya and Leaf use Dalsa imaging chips. Hasselblad/Imacon (Shriro) and PhaseOne use Kodak imaging chips. Sinar/JenOptik is the exception, since they currently have both chip suppliers, depending upon which back, though that might change in the near future.

Anyway, my point was that the conversion cost is quite high on the equipment side of things. The lenses are less available on the used market, and are priced higher. The more precise cameras are also higher in price than a good 4x5. Precision is necessary in movements due to the small size of the imaging chips, and is further complicated by the smaller ground glass size making composition with movements a slower pace. Everything is possible, but the costs are much higher, and must be passed on to clients.

Advertising shooting can be a weird business. The amount of time I spend in meetings, then writing proposals, then logistics and planning, and after the shoot review and delivery, makes the actual possible shooting days quite low. It is indeed low volume, but there is a huge component of time to make each shoot possible.

Add to this currently the need by clients to keep shoot costs lower, or tightly control expenses, and it is not rocket science to figure out that currently using film lowers costs to the corporates and agencies. Once things change in the advertising industry, and budgets move upwards again, then I can consider adding in more modern high end gear. I can see it happening eventually, or I may have no other choice, but for now there is no need to change, and I feel confident that this will be the situation for at least the next 3 to 5 years.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

Drew Wiley
17-Mar-2009, 15:12
There's a world of difference between what is "good enough" for profitable marketing
puposes, and what is hypothetically feasible. Technology tends to rest on plateaus
based not only only R&D but on corporate economics. We might never see a digital back equal to 8x10 film, simply because, who would buy it? Even if you could build something with that level of capture, what about output? Digital output itself limits how much information you can put into the print. Anyone who thinks that digital prints
are actually "photographic quality" is just plain nuts. There is plenty of room for
personal preferences here in terms of style and modes of control, so I'm not knocking
digitial - it's just a different beast, and for the forseeable future won't replace sheet
film. But another factor is that there is a lot of interest in doing it the old-fashioned
way. I run into photography and art students all the time who want to learn large format. The schools are teaching them digital but they want a real hands-on craft.
The limiting factor is the shortage of darkrooms; many people don't have anywhere to build one. A number of them contact print. I bump into a lot of retired people who
also are interested in film photography and printing. The amateur market alone is
capable of supporting a certain amount of sustained sheet film business. It might be a
smaller percent of photographers than in the 1950's, but the sum population is also
much greater, and there is still a substantial demand for sheet film. Even the local
camera store stocks three freezers of 4x5 film, and it sells out regularly.

Roger Thoms
17-Mar-2009, 15:30
[QUOTE=Drew Wiley;450012] Even the local
camera store stocks three freezers of 4x5 film, and it sells out regularly.

What store are you speaking?
Roger Thoms

Drew Wiley
17-Mar-2009, 16:01
The store is Looking Glass in Berkeley. Unfortunately, their offering of 8x10 is limited to
random boxes of Kodak and Ilford B&W. Good selection of 4x5 and 120 film.

Roger Thoms
17-Mar-2009, 16:09
Thanks Drew, I'll check them out. As far as the future of 4x5 film I'm still shoot black and white and plan to continue. I have also just bought some 5x7 black and white film for a Kodak 2D I just got. Don't shoot color sheet film any more and think that color material are in greater danger of going away.

Roger Thoms

Drew Wiley
17-Mar-2009, 19:59
Don't worry Roger, color sheet film is better than ever, and both Fuji and Kodak seem to be in stiff competition in this department. 5X7 is a little tricky to find, but
you can always cut in down from 8x10 if needed. Black and white is abundant in
common sizes, although my favorite b&w film is now gone. Over the years one just
gets used to testing new film, as nothing is permanent but change.

Andrew O'Neill
17-Mar-2009, 20:12
my favorite b&w film is now gone

Drew, just out of curiosity, which film was it?

Jay W
18-Mar-2009, 10:17
I tend to have a different view of cameras....as toys. I don't try to sell my work, which removes any aspect of "work" from my hobby. Very liberating. I think a lot of people here are similar, in that they've owned and used a bunch of different cameras. Each is fun for their own reason.

I enjoy large format because you get to tweak everything before taking the picture. Also, my topics tend to require detail to make them work. The problem is, my legs can't handle hiking with a big pack every day. So when I go on vacation, I bring and use three formats: 35, 120, and 4x5.

Recently, I picked up a digital SLR, hoping to replace the 35 and 120 systems for vacation. We'll see.

Jay

Drew Wiley
18-Mar-2009, 10:44
Andrew - my favorite B&W film was Bergger 200, at least in 8x10. It was a dream to
print from when dev in Pyro. I'm experimenting now with Arista 200, which is distinctly
slower and very susceptible to scratching during dev. And I keep on hand HP5+, FP4+,
100TM, and ACROS in 8x10. The only major film I haven't tried yet is the new TM400.
So lots of good options out there; it's just that Bergger was the cat's meow for me.
In color I miss E100G in Readyload because it was a dimensionally-stable polyester-base film, whereas Fuji at the same contrast level is still on acetate. But since most of
my color photog is also with the 8x10 that's a minor inconvenience. Wish Astia was
easier to get in 8x10. I use it for a dupe film. It actually works much better than the
official duplicating films by either Kodak or Fuji (I generally print Cibachromes from
contrast-corrected contact dupes - the detail and general quality absolutely blows away anything digital).

The Muid
18-Mar-2009, 12:06
Well, unfortunately, film - as we know it - will eventually die. It has a plastic base, and plastic is made from oil. So, eventually oil will run out and when that happens, film - as we know it - will die.

That's not to say that other, similar products won't be made. If there's sufficient demand, they will be. But this is all centuries away probably, lol, more so if we ever move away from fossil-fueled energy.

Best thing to do to keep film around is to increase demand. Convince your friends/family/anyone who'll listen to shoot only on film. No one prints their digital pics anyways.



Diarmuid:cool:

Drew Wiley
18-Mar-2009, 12:35
Digital cameras are also largely made from petroleum plastics. Does that mean they
are going extinct unless we find a way to make them from recycled cardboard? Film is
a very, very small amount of the plastics market, which can be derived in many cases
from either petrochemicals or vegetable oils. The average new house is now wrapped
with more plastic than the amount of film you will ever consume in your life. Does that mean we go back to living in caves? I'm getting sick of this BS. Back when most
professionals were shooting sheet film the masses were shooting box Brownie cameras.
Now the masses shoot digital pocket cameras. What's the difference really? We're
talking about two completely different markets.

emo supremo
18-Mar-2009, 14:46
You know, there are a lot of physicians etc that have xray machines that depend on film. How does that affect the 'rumblings' alluded to in the previous post?

D. Bryant
18-Mar-2009, 18:24
You know, there are a lot of physicians etc that have xray machines that depend on film. How does that affect the 'rumblings' alluded to in the previous post?

In the US those numbers are beginning to crumble. Digital imaging for medecine is growing very rapidly though xray film will be around for a while.

Don Bryant

Drew Wiley
18-Mar-2009, 19:11
Don - how many photographers do you know who can afford a piece of gear even
remotely as expensive as a medical imaging device? Probably a single call by a
service technician would flatten the annual budget of most of us. Right now I'm
shopping around for a Zeiss microscope similar to what I had in school. I'd be perfectly happy with something of forty or fifty year old vintage. Look at what a
state-of-art hybrid optical/digital Nikon microscope costs - maybe fifty grand! That's
why they can dump most of their traditional film camera line and just go primarily
digital. If the digital cameras themselves don't go obsolete within a few years, the
software backing them certainly will. Then you have to buy again over and over.
That allows them to concentrate their high-end engineering on medical and industrial
equipment, which seems to be quite profitable. Same goes for Fuji and Kodak. The
technology is stunning, but hardly answers our practical needs. I don't see any
alternative to sheet film anywhere on the horizon.

Marko
18-Mar-2009, 21:13
If the digital cameras themselves don't go obsolete within a few years, the software backing them certainly will. Then you have to buy again over and over.

I don't get it. How exactly does a digital camera go obsolete, short of breaking apart? Wouldn't that (breaking apart) make a film camera equally obsolete?

Do you know of any camera that was backed by a major software such as Photoshop but is not any more? Any examples maybe?

My Canon D30 - the 3.1 MP one of Y2K vintage, not the 30D one - still works fine, producing equally nice images as it did on day one. No mysterious cracks developing, no signs of premature obsolescence and both its RAW files and its JPGs load just fine in my Photoshop CS3. As a reminder, Photoshop upgraded to the version 5.5 the year that camera came out and Camera RAW did not yet exist.

Had I bought a film camera at the same time, I would've paid about $500 for it, I would be using the same lenses and I would have to keep buying film and keep paying for processing it. Figure $10 per roll for slides (sans scanning, which would be extra). Figure 1 roll per week over nine years, it comes down to $4680 plus $500 for the camera = $5180. The D30 cost $3000 new back then and a decent size memory card another couple of hundred, which means I would be in the red by about two grand since then and I would have been shooting less, keeping an eye on the cost.

So even if it goes obsolete now, it's earned its keep. The Rebel XT I got three years ago cost me all of $500 and it already shot the equivalent of about 150 rolls, so it too can break any time it chooses, it's earned its keep several times over. The more I shoot it, the less it costs me per shot, which is exactly the opposite for film.

So, please, it is high time to stop propagating this nonsense about rapid obsolescence.


The technology is stunning, but hardly answers our practical needs. I don't see any alternative to sheet film anywhere on the horizon.

It is perfectly understandable that you don't see the alternative, but that doesn't necessarily mean the alternative does not exist. It only means that it is not the right alternative for you for whatever reason.

sanking
18-Mar-2009, 21:49
Digital cameras go obsolete in the same way that computers go obsolete. The makers are continually adding new features and increasing resolution and pixel count just as computers get more RAM, speed and hard drive space.

Most of us could get by with 10 year old computers but we don't, and my experience is that people think of digital cameras in the same way. The goal in terms of our ideal digital camera is a moving target in that we want more and more image quality for less and less money. And for now we are getting it.


Sandy King






I don't get it. How exactly does a digital camera go obsolete, short of breaking apart? Wouldn't that (breaking apart) make a film camera equally obsolete?

Marko
19-Mar-2009, 06:12
Digital cameras go obsolete in the same way that computers go obsolete. The makers are continually adding new features and increasing resolution and pixel count just as computers get more RAM, speed and hard drive space.

Most of us could get by with 10 year old computers but we don't, and my experience is that people think of digital cameras in the same way. The goal in terms of our ideal digital camera is a moving target in that we want more and more image quality for less and less money. And for now we are getting it.


Sandy King

But that's not the cameras that go obsolete, it's the people, after all. The same could be said of film cameras and indeed, I remember the old days when Nikon or Canon or Olympus would come out with a new model, many would be excited and start selling the old cameras to buy the new model.

There are people that only lease new cars for two or three years and then move on to the next model. I still regret selling my previous car after 6 years, but at that time, I drove 25,000 miles a year and couldn't afford having a car in the shop, so I sold it when it got close to 150,000 miles and got a decent penny for it. The new owner is still using it, fifth year on, has more than 200,000 in it and still going just fine. I got the same model, just newer and plan on using it for another five years. Will it go "obsolete" when a new model hits the market this or next year? Yes. Is is going to stop working or at least become less reliable or perform worse than it did? Certainly not.

"I want" it is very different from "I need". Cars, cameras or whatever.

Especially cameras, since the people who take the most pride in the age of their equipment and processes are somehow the quickest and loudest to point out how quickly the new cameras become "obsolete" simply because there is a new model out there... :)

Stefan Lungu
19-Mar-2009, 07:16
No offence Marko, but you can, of course still shoot the D30 and the Rebel XT, but by todays standards they both are "obsolete". Of course, for you they do the job, but other than that they are not that good. And if you would try to do something with the pictures, like selling, you will see that the D30 files are to small or to noisy. As I said, I am sure they still do fine for your needs, just as I now use a 1Ds from the about same time, but they have their problems. I don't know how log the RAW files of the 1Ds will still be supported, but I am sure there is no bug fixes for importing these files. And one more note : the more software and electronics for large mass production you have, the higher the probability to have something defect. And while the D30 was something that was not yet intended for the high volumes, the next "consumer grade" DSLR's were. I would not bet my money on how long the Rebel XT will last - take it from one that only shoots those old Contax lenses on his Canon.
And, by the way, you don't "need" a camera as much as you don't need a car ( even if the car is more needed than the camera ).

sanking
19-Mar-2009, 07:59
What you say about people buying the latest model of film cameras is true, but the larger point is that even today a person can take a Leica M3 produced in the 1950s into the fiield and make images that quality wise virtually as good as can be made with the most expensive 35mm cameras produced today. And the same is true for MF and LF cameras.And I personally know many people still using film cameras made two and three decades ago, and even older for that matter.

This can definitely not be said about digital cameras as the top of the line 1.5 mp camera of 10-15 years ago can not begin to compete image quality wise with top of the line DSLRs of today. And how many people do you know today who paid close to $1k for 3.2 mp digital Nikon CoolPix cameras still using those cameras? This is what I mean by obselete.

And make no doubt about it. If you own a 3-4 year old Canon Rebel it is already obselete. Hell, you are probably already lusting in your heart for one of the new 20+ mp DSLRs.

Sandy

Marko
19-Mar-2009, 09:19
No offence Marko, but you can, of course still shoot the D30 and the Rebel XT, but by todays standards they both are "obsolete". Of course, for you they do the job, but other than that they are not that good. And if you would try to do something with the pictures, like selling, you will see that the D30 files are to small or to noisy.

Hey Stefan, no offense taken, this is the discussion board - we are here to exchange opinions.

As I said before, I don't sell my pictures, I maintain photography as a hobby, to slow down and relax. You are right in the sense that there are better cameras available, but mine still work fine for me. I will disagree with the D30 being noisy, though. It's files may be smallish, but it's got large pixels which produce really smooth tones within the image size.


I don't know how log the RAW files of the 1Ds will still be supported, but I am sure there is no bug fixes for importing these files. And one more note : the more software and electronics for large mass production you have, the higher the probability to have something defect.

This is true for everything we use these days - even the clothes we buy are not as durable as they used to be 50 years ago. And they go out of fashion - i.e. become obsolete ;) - much faster too...

The issue of digital file storage is one of the paradigm. Computer files differ from paper files in several important aspects: There can be more "originals" (aka identical copies) than only one, thousands if you want, you can easily store them in many physically distant locations without having to travel, you can manipulate them in the ways you never could with paper files - and "un-manipulate" as easily if you are careful -, you can share them with millions of people instantaneously without even having to print them... But the price for the security, speed and convenience is maintenance. Just like you need to maintain your car and regularly change oil, so you need to maintain your digital files - convert formats, rotate storage media, maintain redundancy, update software, etc.

In a word, it's progress and it has its price, we simply have to pay it.


And while the D30 was something that was not yet intended for the high volumes, the next "consumer grade" DSLR's were. I would not bet my money on how long the Rebel XT will last - take it from one that only shoots those old Contax lenses on his Canon.

True but irrelevant. I said it in another thread - I bought my Rebel three years ago for about $500 and I shot an equivalent of 150 rolls or so, not counting "fooling around". If I opted for a Canon film camera (and thus use the same lenses), I would have paid about $200 for it and I would have paid about $1500 more for film and processing (E6, $10 per roll to buy and process give or take, sans scanning).

So even if it dies today, my Rebel has already paid for itself AND for a new 50D body if I wanted to buy it now. If I wait another couple of years, it could be a 5D MKIII. :D


And, by the way, you don't "need" a camera as much as you don't need a car ( even if the car is more needed than the camera ).

Sorry, I'm not buying this - I can still move around without a car but I can't take pictures without a camera.

Drew Wiley
19-Mar-2009, 09:22
Rapid obsolesence of amateur and mid-range professional cameras is not just a matter
of coincidence. It's corporate policy for manufacturers. Its a key strategy to their
sustained profitibility. And its a hell of a lot cheaper to make an electronic device in this day and age than an intricate mechanical one. Maybe someone with a tradition like Sinar or Hasselblad will attempt to keep some continuity and interchangeability within higher range products. But I can pull out a Sinar catalog from a decade ago and virtually all the state-of-art digital options are now basically landfill. You can't give them away. Compare that to a clean fifty year old dagor lens, which costs far more now than it did new.

sanking
19-Mar-2009, 09:44
I think Stefan made a good point about the car. For most of us a car is not a luxury but an absolute necessity to move around, therefore not a want but a real "need". Those who can "move around" without a car are in a minority of people, certainly in the US, who happen to live in cities with mass transit.

On the other hand, not being someone who makes my living from photography the difference between my "wants" and "needs" as they relate to photography are basically irrelevant.

Sandy







Sorry, I'm not buying this - I can still move around without a car but I can't take pictures without a camera.

Marko
19-Mar-2009, 10:11
What you say about people buying the latest model of film cameras is true, but the larger point is that even today a person can take a Leica M3 produced in the 1950s into the fiield and make images that quality wise virtually as good as can be made with the most expensive 35mm cameras produced today. And the same is true for MF and LF cameras.And I personally know many people still using film cameras made two and three decades ago, and even older for that matter.

This is all true, but... they still have to pay for that film. And for processing that film. And every shot they take still costs them.



This can definitely not be said about digital cameras as the top of the line 1.5 mp camera of 10-15 years ago can not begin to compete image quality wise with top of the line DSLRs of today. And how many people do you know today who paid close to $1k for 3.2 mp digital Nikon CoolPix cameras still using those cameras? This is what I mean by obselete.

And make no doubt about it. If you own a 3-4 year old Canon Rebel it is already obselete. Hell, you are probably already lusting in your heart for one of the new 20+ mp DSLRs.

Sandy


True again, it is obsolete, but who cares? It has already paid for itself AND for the 50D (see my previous post).

The larger point I am trying to make here is that with digital, you are primarily buying a supply of film for a certain period of time. Once the price you pay for it reaches the price you would have paid for the same amount of film, the counter stops and everything after that point is free.

With a film camera - and I do own a few of those too and may even add to the collection once I'm done with taxes - you keep buying film after you've paid for the camera. Take Leica - they do not come cheap regardless of vintage, and you still have to buy film. Or take Mamiya 7 which you own, if I am not mistaken. They are pretty expensive too and that's also before any film. So yes, they can last much longer, but their price needs to be added to the price of film. The longer you use them, the lesser the addition per shot, but it is still there and you still pay for film itself.

Think of film cameras as inkjet printers, if you will - the printer comes cheap, they may even give it out for free in some cases, but ink is where they get you.

:)

Marko
19-Mar-2009, 10:15
I think Stefan made a good point about the car. For most of us a car is not a luxury but an absolute necessity to move around, therefore not a want but a real "need". Those who can "move around" without a car are in a minority of people, certainly in the US, who happen to live in cities with mass transit.

On the other hand, not being someone who makes my living from photography the difference between my "wants" and "needs" as they relate to photography are basically irrelevant.

Sandy

Well, yes, I should know, I live and work in Los Angeles... :) And I do not make my living from photography either, but I still can't make a picture without a camera while I *can* reach from one end of Los Angeles to another without a car. As a matter of fact, I did that once, for a period of a few months.

Marko
19-Mar-2009, 10:21
Rapid obsolesence of amateur and mid-range professional cameras is not just a matter
of coincidence. It's corporate policy for manufacturers. Its a key strategy to their
sustained profitibility. And its a hell of a lot cheaper to make an electronic device in this day and age than an intricate mechanical one. Maybe someone with a tradition like Sinar or Hasselblad will attempt to keep some continuity and interchangeability within higher range products. But I can pull out a Sinar catalog from a decade ago and virtually all the state-of-art digital options are now basically landfill. You can't give them away. Compare that to a clean fifty year old dagor lens, which costs far more now than it did new.

Yes, but it is still irrelevant. You still have to buy film and hence pay for each shot you take with that decades-old, state of the art camera and that's in addition for what you paid for the camera itself. I know, I own a few. My digital, on the other hand, has paid for itself and for its replacement, so who cares if it falls apart today?

I don't fondle my cameras, I take pictures with them. ;)

BTW, what do lenses have to do with this? All my lenses work perfectly well with my 15-years old film Canon as they do with my digital Canon. Didn't Jim Galli stick a Wolly or something like that recently on a DSLR, here on this very board?

Drew Wiley
19-Mar-2009, 11:09
Marko - you're not comparing apples to apples. Yeah, I bought my wife a digital camera
for documentation in the operating room. She has to post results in the computer every day and this is the one and only option. Both the camera and the medical software package supporting the data input will be obsolete in a few years and require
replacement. So what. The cost is amortized. Same goes for DLSRs in professional
photography. But what on earth does that have in common with large-format? (unless
you're a catalog house or something like that where you can recover expenses by firing
half the art department - but then your competition does the same thing to, so you're
right back where you started). After all, this is a "large format" forum. Do you really
think I'm going to spend fifty to a hundred grand to stuff a fragile battery-dependent
digital device into my backpack and haul it into the mountains? My friend Joes Holmes
was chatting with me the other day about acquiring an Arca system for stitching images digitally to get "8x10" quality. He's been using a Technika for years and also
backpacks. But it ain't the same thing. Composition is different, lenses are different,
and nothing between frames can move. That's knocks out about 90% of what I
personally photograph. And it ain't cheap. Besides, the technology just hasn't arrived
where digital can compete with 8x10 film in terms of actual quality. Why would it?
If architectual and product photographers can fill 80% of their digital needs with small
or medium format options, why would anyone bother to market anything for large scale
requirements? It is vastly more cost effective just to dig out the old view camera, a
box of film, and have the thing scanned.

Wallace_Billingham
19-Mar-2009, 12:39
This can definitely not be said about digital cameras as the top of the line 1.5 mp camera of 10-15 years ago can not begin to compete image quality wise with top of the line DSLRs of today.


The problem with that analogy is that digital cameras have matured quite a bit over the last 10 years. You could not make a good 11x14 print with a 1.5mp camera however you can make a very good 11x14 print with a modern DSLR and even make a very nice 20x30 print with a modern DSLR (or at least as good as 35mm film would look). If the standard to compare a 35mm sized DSLR is with 35mm film we have reached that point and then some. As such a modern digital camera will still work just fine in 10-15 years because it has reached the point of what it was intended to replace. At this point any extra MPs or resolution the camera makers make in new models is not going to do the average user any good because they don't make huge prints, and they have reached the point where optical quality in lenses start to become an issue.

My first computer back in the day was a Timex Sinclare, which was quickly followed with a Vic 20, then a C64, then an Apple IIe, then a Windows 3.1 box, then with a Windows 95 machine, then with a Windows 98 machine, then with a Windows XP machine. My kids still use the Windows 98 machine and my wife still uses the XP box they still work very well for what they were intended for. Internet, Email, and every once in a while using MS Office for something. The only reason I upgraded to a new machine for myself was to have more RAM for my film scans.

What we have seen over the last 10 years was the maturation of the personal computer where upgrades are no longer a big deal. The same thing has happened with digital cameras.

Having said all that I still love to shoot film and work in the darkroom. I do it however because it is something I love to do. I also own 2 DSLRs and a bunch of nice AF lenses for them. When I shot a major concert tour last summer at a stadium for a magazine I fired off 10GBs of digital files using my DSLRs. If I were to shoot a similar event 10 years from now I could still use the same exact cameras and get the same exact results which were perfect for my needs.

If I am however shooting my landscape work I much prefer a nice big negative with B&W film. My film cameras were rendered obsolete many years ago but they still work just fine for my intended use

Marko
19-Mar-2009, 12:52
Marko - you're not comparing apples to apples. Yeah, I bought my wife a digital camera for documentation in the operating room. She has to post results in the computer every day and this is the one and only option. Both the camera and the medical software package supporting the data input will be obsolete in a few years and require replacement. So what. The cost is amortized. Same goes for DLSRs in professional photography. But what on earth does that have in common with large-format? (unless you're a catalog house or something like that where you can recover expenses by firing half the art department - but then your competition does the same thing to, so you're right back where you started). After all, this is a "large format" forum.

Drew, I am not comparing anything here, I'm just saying that whenever all this obsolescence argument is brought up, it never accounts for the fact that digital camera/back replaces not just film camera but also *film itself* and therefore is just one big red herring.

A price tag on the camera - ANY camera - is only a small part of the TCO. If you fail to account for that, then you are comparing apples to oranges, not me.

Yes, this is indeed a large format forum. And this is a discussion about the future of large format film. What digital has to do with this is that it *will* eventually - like in the future - replace large format film just like it effectively replaced 35mm film for all but the very fringe purposes and just like it is currently in the process of replacing medium format film for most purposes. Nine years since the first commercial APS-sized DSLR hit the market, we already have a full-frame 645 digital back less then 10 MP short of 6x7 film shot on the best camera available.

My conclusion is that if digital continues to develop at this clip and if there is enough demand for the type of images that currently only LF film can provide, then it *will* replace film *as mainstream* medium in another 10 or 15 years.


Do you really think I'm going to spend fifty to a hundred grand to stuff a fragile battery-dependent digital device into my backpack and haul it into the mountains? My friend Joes Holmes was chatting with me the other day about acquiring an Arca system for stitching images digitally to get "8x10" quality. He's been using a Technika for years and also backpacks. But it ain't the same thing. Composition is different, lenses are different, and nothing between frames can move. That's knocks out about 90% of what I personally photograph. And it ain't cheap.

If your friend is using the same 8x10 view camera for digital stitching he use for a piece of 8x10 film, then I don't see how could composition and lenses possibly be different? The only thing different is stitching and if that does not suit 90% of YOUR style and budget, it does not make it inferior, it only makes it unsuitable and/or unaffordable FOR YOU. So, to use your own opening analogy, between you and Elizabeth Carmel (http://www.elizabethcarmel.com/), one is obviously an apple and the other an orange. ;)

jb7
19-Mar-2009, 13:30
This is ridiculous.
Looking into the future, all I can see are apples and oranges.


joseph

sanking
19-Mar-2009, 13:41
I think you are wrong. Given the rapid improvement in the technology I fully expect that ten years from now a 12mp DSLR will be considered as obsolete, and have as little value, as a 3.2 mp digital camera of today.

Sandy King






The problem with that analogy is that digital cameras have matured quite a bit over the last 10 years. You could not make a good 11x14 print with a 1.5mp camera however you can make a very good 11x14 print with a modern DSLR and even make a very nice 20x30 print with a modern DSLR (or at least as good as 35mm film would look).

Drew Wiley
19-Mar-2009, 13:45
Marko - there's no such thing as an 8x10 camera for digital stitching, or anything even
remotely close to it, which confirms that you are just spouting steam. If film wasn't
profitable to manufacturers it would be extinct already. And the category of people
interested in the revival of hands-on craft is actually growing. Are we therefore going
to see a digital back you can remove from a 16x20 camera in order to make a "digital
contract print". Ridiculous. Film and digital are going to continue to evolve parallel for
some quite so time simply because there's a strong market for both.

Ben Syverson
19-Mar-2009, 14:15
I hope someday there is an 8x10" digital sensor that's the same size as a film holder, but I'm not holding my breath.

And as Drew points out, there's no possible digital replacement for contact prints, unless there's some digital revolution in Platinum / Palladium prints. :)

tgtaylor
19-Mar-2009, 14:18
... the fact that digital camera/back replace not just film camera but also *film itself* ... ;)


I don't believe that large format digital backs can currently replace LF cameras and film for most outdoors work. From what I am aware of, they are scanning backs and take upwards of a minute or more to download the image - too long for effective image capture. Conversely, a large format camera "downloads" the same image onto a sheet of film in a fraction of a second - the speed at which most outdoor images require. Finally, analogue LF gear weighs less than its digital counterpart.

I'm sure that LF digital backs will overcome the above drawbacks but they are not there yet. In any event, a traditionally produced print will always look a little different that its digital counterpart rendering the few "traditional photographers" that much coveted "unique" look :) .

Keep Shooting!

Thomas

Thomas

Drew Wiley
19-Mar-2009, 15:07
Most of this giraffes versus zebras discussion has centered around cameras per se. I
have a couple of friends who invested a couple million dollars apiece into what was
state-of-the-art digital gear just a decade ago. Almost everything they bought is now
either worthless or no longer corporate servicable. One person went bankrupt because
he financed things and before his loans were paid off better equipment was available
cheaper, and he fell out of competition. The other person has considerable wealth and
left the stuff lying around in storage because it's too high quality to take to the dump,
but no one actually wants it. A few pieces went to digital labs who got stuff at about
5% its original value. That's what I call risk. One piece which did sell was a Chromira
printer, which is still possibly the most sophisticated digital printing device made, at
least in its upgraded form. The electrical engineer who holds key patents on this device
and himself operates a digital lab makes his personal prints using a 1930's 5x7 tricolor
camera (optical components modernized). The reason - nothing digital in existence can
rival the tonality and color reproduction. I have contact prints made a hundred years
ago using lenses and emulsions which were already considered obsolete, yet which
absolutely blow away any digital print I have ever seen in terms of detail and tonalilty.
So it seems absolutely ludicrous to me for someone to talk about photographic quality
in a 20X30 print made from DLSR. Not knocking the fun or business potential in doing
this - it just seems like the wrong forum. Just last week I was talking to a couple of
folks in the neighborhood who make digital tapestries made from photographs. They
were bragging about a self-portrait by Chuck Close they were digitizing into silk (not
printing but digital weaving!). And by the way, unless you're the kind of person who
can sell a painting for over seven figures, they're not interested in your business. But
guess what the original photo came from - a vintage view camera and Smith and
Pinkham lens.

Michael Kadillak
19-Mar-2009, 16:33
I like the tactile properties of film as they exist within an emulsion conveyed by a quality film. Rather than concern yourself about the adverse scenario, buy some film and make the best images you possibly can. In these challenging times we all need a reason to enjoy life and its marvelous possibilities. I personally feel that LF or ULF is a great opportunity to enjoy a bonefide diversity from the daily grind. After a day of shooting there is nothing quite like a good glass of wine amd a good meal contemplating the days visual events.

Marko
19-Mar-2009, 18:45
And as Drew points out, there's no possible digital replacement for contact prints, unless there's some digital revolution in Platinum / Palladium prints. :)

Ever heard of digital negatives? I hear that lots of alt people have been using those quite successfully for quite some time now.

But how about photo paper? My favorite used to be Agfa and then when that went away, Forte. Lots of people liked Kodak too, created quite an uproar when they pulled the plug. But then again, those were all enlarging papers, just like Kentmere. I never contact-printed, but I hear Azo was special...

So, I'm curious, which paper do you consider the best match for contact printing your film today?

Wallace_Billingham
19-Mar-2009, 19:23
I think you are wrong. Given the rapid improvement in the technology I fully expect that ten years from now a 12mp DSLR will be considered as obsolete, and have as little value, as a 3.2 mp digital camera of today.

Sandy King

Why do you expect that? What rapid technology will come about in 10 years? Will a 48mp sensor make 8x10, 11x14 or 20x30 prints any better than the 12mp sensors of today?

In 1982 my parents got me a Canon AE-1 SLR, 10 years later Canon had a different lens mount and was all about the EOS system. My AE-1 was considered obsolete yet I could take the same exact quality images as the new EOS cameras. Yet I did not then (or now) feel that my camera had little value. It was still very much working and doing what I wanted it to do.

Two years ago I got a Canon 30D. Eight years from now when the camera is 10 years old (unless I break it) it will still work just fine for me. It does not have some internal clock that will make it turn into a pumpkin when it is three years old and stop working. Will there be some new shiny model of Canon DSLR then? Yep. Will I care? Probably not. Canon, Nikon, etc know that the MP race is a dead end. That is why they are doing things like adding video, sensor cleaning etc. They know it is going to be a tough sell to get people to upgrade from the current DSLRs. Many working pros that I know do not want more MPs as all that means is bigger file sizes, more HD space, and more computer power to process those images. At the end of the day when you are selling 8x10s and 11x14s as part of your wedding package anything more than a 12mp DSLR is a waste of space.

Canon recently "upgraded" the 5D to the 5DII and went from 12mp to 21. One wedding shooter I know got one because after 300,000 shots (that would be over 8,000 rolls of 35mm film) one of his 5Ds was pretty much worn out. He actually prefers his older 5Ds as more MPs does not really do anything for him, and means that his memory cards fill up faster

sanking
19-Mar-2009, 19:47
Question to you. Why would you think there will be less rapid advancement of the technology in the next 10-15 years than there was in the past 10-15 years? I am inclined to believe the advancement will be more rapid, not less.

Will a 48 mp sensor make a 20X30 print better than a 12mp sensor today? IMO, yes indeed, if detail means anything to you. If it does not, let's just put a pin hole on the 12mp camera and be happy.

BTW, this is the LF forum. Detail and the ability to make large prints matter to most of us here. If those things did not matter, we might be on one of the Leica forums.


Sandy




Why do you expect that? What rapid technology will come about in 10 years? Will a 48mp sensor make 8x10, 11x14 or 20x30 prints any better than the 12mp sensors of today?

Marko
19-Mar-2009, 19:58
Question to you. Why would you think there will be less rapid advancement of the technology in the next 10-15 years than there was in the past 10-15 years? I am inclined to believe the advancement will be more rapid, not less.

Will a 48 mp sensor make a 20X30 print better than a 12mp sensor today? IMO, yes indeed, if detail means anything to you. If it does not, let's just put a pin hole on the 12mp camera and be happy.



Sandy


Of course it will make a 20x30 pring better, but I doubt we will see the 48MP sensor on a 35mm equivalent body. Just as in film days, people who want or need to print that big turn to MF or even LF.

I share Wallace's opinion that the 35mm equivalent cameras are reaching the area of diminishing returns, at least when it comes to MP count. The development will continue, but the grounds of rapid advancement is shifting toward larger formats as there is more room for growth there.

sanking
19-Mar-2009, 20:15
Marko,

But who cares about 35mm? This is the LF forum, not a Leica 35mm forum. From the perspective of LF any DSLR out there is immediately obsolete because it can not meet the standard of minimum LF, which is 4X5.

Sandy King







Of course it will make a 20x30 pring better, but I doubt we will see the 48MP sensor on a 35mm equivalent body. Just as in film days, people who want or need to print that big turn to MF or even LF.

I share Wallace's opinion that the 35mm equivalent cameras are reaching the area of diminishing returns, at least when it comes to MP count. The development will continue, but the grounds of rapid advancement is shifting toward larger formats as there is more room for growth there.

Stefan Lungu
20-Mar-2009, 00:31
Hm, don't know about you guys, but the title "future of 4x5 and 8x10 film" somehow is not reflected in the last part of this thread. Maybe we should leave the digital vs. film in small formats topic and return to the film part for LF.

Albrecht Namatdurer
20-Mar-2009, 01:43
Hey- they said that painting would be dead soon after the introductuion of film-
Now- I sell my paintings for about AUD$30000- for a 6'x4' canvas
- equate that with a 6x4 digital print-( go figure)
Given what the experts said and the modest fees I get for my "soon to be dead " paintings, I suspect that film will be around for a long, long time yet !

Marko
20-Mar-2009, 05:41
Marko,

But who cares about 35mm? This is the LF forum, not a Leica 35mm forum. From the perspective of LF any DSLR out there is immediately obsolete because it can not meet the standard of minimum LF, which is 4X5.

Sandy King

Sandy, the point is that the development of digital sensors have reached the plateau, more or less, in the small format segment. The trend, however, continues moving up and if it keeps the same momentum, we will see the same process starting to happen in LF in another 10 or so years.

In other words, what is happening now with smaller formats will be happening to LF in the future, which makes is very relevant to this thread because it will make LF film as relevant as the 35mm or at least 120 film is today.

Personally, I don't really care, I use film mostly for nostalgic reasons, as a fringe in what is already a hobby. Those among us who are mostly or exclusively oriented toward film and who make a living with it should care, because it will affect them in a very direct manner.

sanking
20-Mar-2009, 10:31
Marko,

There will probably come a time when digital sensors will beat LF film for image quality at any print size, and when that time comes film will likely be in short supply. But that time has not come yet, and especially not in B&W, though a case could be made that in color the P65 back gives results as good as 4X5 film. But the price is way beyond what most of can/will pay for the convenience.

So for now I am doing what the dog whisperer Cesar Millan says about a good, happy dog, ie. "he/she is living in the now." For me, the now is that film photography, both MF and LF, is a much better value in terms of image quality than digital. That is just the drop dead bottom line as I see it.

Sandy







Sandy, the point is that the development of digital sensors have reached the plateau, more or less, in the small format segment. The trend, however, continues moving up and if it keeps the same momentum, we will see the same process starting to happen in LF in another 10 or so years.

Drew Wiley
20-Mar-2009, 10:37
Doesn't matter, anyway. By the time film is extinct I will be too; and in fact, digital in
the form we currently know it will also probably be extinct. Just looke at the history of
music recording:

Marko
20-Mar-2009, 14:15
Sandy, I thought the topic of this thread was speculation about the future of LF film?

If the real intent is some sort of support group or group therapy, however, there's plenty of threads like that on that other board. I wouldn't expect to find one here, although they seem to be popping up much more recently. Probably because film is coming back...

Marko
20-Mar-2009, 14:17
Doesn't matter, anyway. By the time film is extinct I will be too; and in fact, digital in
the form we currently know it will also probably be extinct. Just looke at the history of
music recording:

What about the history of music recording? Is vinyl coming back too?

:rolleyes:

poseur
20-Mar-2009, 14:24
What about the history of music recording? Is vinyl coming back too?

:rolleyes:

Ignorance is bliss:
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/venues/2008/12/04/vinyl_records_begin_a_comeback.aspx

sanking
20-Mar-2009, 14:59
Sandy, I thought the topic of this thread was speculation about the future of LF film?

If the real intent is some sort of support group or group therapy, however, there's plenty of threads like that on that other board. I wouldn't expect to find one here, although they seem to be popping up much more recently. Probably because film is coming back...



I guess you forgot about the topic of the thread when you wrote the following.

"I don't get it. How exactly does a digital camera go obsolete, short of breaking apart? Wouldn't that (breaking apart) make a film camera equally obsolete?

Do you know of any camera that was backed by a major software such as Photoshop but is not any more? Any examples maybe?

My Canon D30 - the 3.1 MP one of Y2K vintage, not the 30D one - still works fine, producing equally nice images as it did on day one. No mysterious cracks developing, no signs of premature obsolescence and both its RAW files and its JPGs load just fine in my Photoshop CS3. As a reminder, Photoshop upgraded to the version 5.5 the year that camera came out and Camera RAW did not yet exist.

Had I bought a film camera at the same time, I would've paid about $500 for it, I would be using the same lenses and I would have to keep buying film and keep paying for processing it. Figure $10 per roll for slides (sans scanning, which would be extra). Figure 1 roll per week over nine years, it comes down to $4680 plus $500 for the camera = $5180. The D30 cost $3000 new back then and a decent size memory card another couple of hundred, which means I would be in the red by about two grand since then and I would have been shooting less, keeping an eye on the cost.

So even if it goes obsolete now, it's earned its keep. The Rebel XT I got three years ago cost me all of $500 and it already shot the equivalent of about 150 rolls, so it too can break any time it chooses, it's earned its keep several times over. The more I shoot it, the less it costs me per shot, which is exactly the opposite for film."

People who live in glass houses should think hard before throwing stones at others.


Sandy

Marko
20-Mar-2009, 15:19
Sorry, but you lost me here...

So, I will concede that digital is indeed by its very nature becoming obsolete the moment it sees the light of the day, it will never replace film, which is doing just great and is even coming back as we speak, etc., etc...

This thread is running in circles like some sort of twisted merry-go-round. It's making me dizzy so I think I'll step out now and go make some obsolete pictures. Maybe I'll shoot some film too, before it reaches an expiration date.

Gene McCluney
20-Mar-2009, 15:22
I don't get it. Who cares? Are you NOT going to shoot film, if it is ultimately doomed? This is just about the most useless topic I can think of. Get yer butt out there and shoot. I shot over 100 sheets of 4x5 Ektachrome, and 72 sheets of 5x7 b/w in the last 2 weeks. What have you done. (Not singling anyone out).

If my clients insist on digital, I shoot digital...big deal.

If I have the choice, or can persuade client to go film, we shoot film.

I shoot all my personal stuff on film.

sanking
20-Mar-2009, 15:28
Marko,

It is not so much the thread that is running in circles, but you. The message of Van Camper and a number of others has been very clear. At this point in time one can get more image quality for the buck from film. We recognize that there may come a point in time when film is no longer available. But it is available now, and I choose to use it for the greater image quality for the dollar.

For some reason that seems to really push you over the edge. You should sit down and try to focus on your message, because to me it is very confused and contorted, as if you were inventing it as you go along.

Or better yet, take your camera on the LA public transportation and go make some good photographs.



Sandy



Sorry, but you lost me here...

So, I will concede that digital is indeed by its very nature becoming obsolete the moment it sees the light of the day, it will never replace film, which is doing just great and is even coming back as we speak, etc., etc...

This thread is running in circles like some sort of twisted merry-go-round. It's making me dizzy so I think I'll step out now and go make some obsolete pictures. Maybe I'll shoot some film too, before it reaches an expiration date.

Sevo
20-Mar-2009, 15:33
What about the history of music recording? Is vinyl coming back too?


Actually, it is. Or rather, it was never gone - the whole DJ market has kept it afloat, peak vinyl sales ever were around 2002, about fifteen years after it had completely vanished from the consumer market, and there still are more releases on vinyl than in the pre CD days. And while timecode controlled computers with control vinyl are by now taking over part of the DJ market, there is yet another comeback as fan merchandise - there is a massive swing among independent labels towards a double strategy of internet download sales plus added value vinyl editions, with CD dropped entirely from the catalogue.

Sevo

Gene McCluney
20-Mar-2009, 15:50
I don't care if digital exceeds the quality of film, it just doesn't matter if you prefer the "look" of film. There is no "turning point" where a quality point is reached where film is redundant. It just won't happen in my eyes. Film is different than digital. Creative people like different. I like different.

Marko
20-Mar-2009, 21:28
Marko,

It is not so much the thread that is running in circles, but you. The message of Van Camper and a number of others has been very clear. At this point in time one can get more image quality for the buck from film. We recognize that there may come a point in time when film is no longer available. But it is available now, and I choose to use it for the greater image quality for the dollar.

For some reason that seems to really push you over the edge. You should sit down and try to focus on your message, because to me it is very confused and contorted, as if you were inventing it as you go along.

Or better yet, take your camera on the LA public transportation and go make some good photographs.



Sandy

Whatever makes you happy, Sandy.

If it is winning the argument, I conceded all your points already, so we can now leave this dead horse alone.

As for the mutual inability (or perhaps unwillingness) to comprehend what the other is trying to say, I guess we will just have to live with it. Won't be the first time and likely not the last either.

Marko

sanking
20-Mar-2009, 22:01
Winning the argument?

Dude, you appear to be truly clueless. I could care less what camera you use and how your photograph. In this thread I have done nothing other than state my opinion about my own preferences. I don't ask you to agree with my procedures or follow my methods.

Yet you seem hell bent on shoving your opinions down the throat of others as if they were gospel from the mouth of the Lord.

Get a f**&ing life.

Sandy King







Whatever makes you happy, Sandy.

If it is winning the argument, I conceded all your points already, so we can now leave this dead horse alone.

As for the mutual inability (or perhaps unwillingness) to comprehend what the other is trying to say, I guess we will just have to live with it. Won't be the first time and likely not the last either.

Marko

Andrew O'Neill
20-Mar-2009, 23:12
Getting back to the topic, I can see some films/formats being discontinued, such as 8x10 colour in the future. when? I don't know. I wouldn't worry. I saw several boxes of 8x10 colour film at my local supplier (in Vancouver). The film guy there says people are buying it.
The bottom line is if people stop buying, the makers stop making. So, lets keep buying!

Ben Syverson
20-Mar-2009, 23:35
If they stop making 8x10 color film, I'm done. I'll wait out photography until I can do the same thing with digital.

Which means 20 or 30 years.

emo supremo
21-Mar-2009, 05:16
Positive side: Xray (ortho) film in small physician's offices clinics will offer some respite. Also, labs continue to do their important image acquisition on sheet film and scan for publications, etc.

Negative side: The old saw "Photography will put an end to painting." is charming. I liked it when I heard it too. But it is a fallacy of logic. "Simplify, simplify, but don't simplify too much." is another of my favorite witticisms. The connection between photography and painting is NOT identical the connection between film and digital and, therefore, renders this argument flawed.
(but I'm still on your side!)

Jay W
21-Mar-2009, 07:11
I believe that on the recording side of things, digital has (nearly) completely taken over. I think that Protools (in music recording) is analogous to Photoshop in that it provides incredible control over the music. Recording digitally and using Protools has allowed each muscian to setup a home studio and get a very high quality output compared to the reel-to-reel days. I would guess that part of home studio move is in response to the recording industry going down the tubes, but I think a larger part is that high quality output (using digital) is now very cheap.

I think you're right that the majority of vinyl sales now is due ot the DJs and beat makers snatching up LPs, but as these "kids" get older, I wonder how long that trend will last. (I'm 30 years out of touch with that generation, so maybe it's not a trend.)

Jay


Actually, it is. Or rather, it was never gone - the whole DJ market has kept it afloat, peak vinyl sales ever were around 2002, about fifteen years after it had completely vanished from the consumer market, and there still are more releases on vinyl than in the pre CD days. And while timecode controlled computers with control vinyl are by now taking over part of the DJ market, there is yet another comeback as fan merchandise - there is a massive swing among independent labels towards a double strategy of internet download sales plus added value vinyl editions, with CD dropped entirely from the catalogue.

Sevo

redrockcoulee
21-Mar-2009, 08:17
As far as costs goes it is less expensive for me to print from my medium and large format images than from digital and that is not counting the cost of a printer. I did calculations that shown me that for printing say 16X20 B&W prints on fibre photo paper plus chemicals is less expensive than paper for the Epson plus inks. And the cost of darkroom equipment to move up from MF to LF was less than $100 compared to 3K for a printer.

The first two week holiday we took paid for my wife's K10D in film savings. And even though there always seems to be additional 'needs' for digital such as a stand alone HD so do not have to drag a computer with us, digital does save us money over 35mm film.

So for us the answer of which is less expensive, film or digital the answer is yes (both are depending on format and type). The quality from LF or from the Hasselblad exceeds that of the Pentax, the speed, convience and portability exceeds that of the MF and LF and is less expensive in the long run than film Pentaxs. It seems to me that those who argue for one being less expensive than the other are doing so from their uses or needs which is not universal. B&W for me is less expensive with film, even including the cost of the camera gear. If I only shoot colour my conclusions would be different.

AS far as the car analogy goes, my place of work is 50km from the nearest public transit and walking that distance in the dark, at 30 below with a 60 kph wind whipping snow does not seem practical.

PCX seems like one format that was common for graphics that has disappeared. I am not sure that we can state that all of the existing ones will be supported but if not then surely there will be a very long transition time that it would be easy to convert. There storage and format argument does not seem as strong as one of personal preference and of cost. Both of which are dependent on the individual more than the media. Currently if I want the best quality colour image for the least cost I would use the Hasselblad and scan in the Nikon CS8000 although I do have limited access to a Epson V750. Much less expensive that drum scans of LF or renting a MF digital back or a D3X. If I had lots of money I would likely get a CFV back for the Hassey and still shoot B&W film and could argue that both are the most economical medium. Digital negatives do not seem super cheap either.

Which would you choose to make orange juice and which to make apple pie? I hope that film is around for a long time. And I hope that the Pentax for example works more on fps, speed of autofocus and a higher ISO than in more megapixels but I would not even guess the future of digital cameras in 10 or 15 years. The inclusion of video seems the wrong direction in my mind but that might only be me.

Marko
22-Mar-2009, 19:01
OK, now that I went out and got some life (no expletive) over the weekend, here are a few remarks on some of the responses:

1. Car analogy was made in regard to the "obsolescence" argument - to compare the need for new cars and new cameras when a new model becomes available as opposed to the need to buy new car or new camera when the old one stops providing the service for which it was bought in the first place.

2. The sound recording analogy was made in regard to the "mainstream" vs. "alternative" or "boutique" technologies in their respective fields.

3. The cost comparison was made in an effort to compare two different technologies in a more meaningful way regarding the total cost of ownership (TCO) not just the initial cost of acquisition.

I believe I made the intent and reasoning behind them pretty clear, but all three were conveniently distorted into something entirely different by cute little snipes meant not to argue but to shut down the argument.

We are all here to discuss topics and compare and confront different opinions, that's the very purpose of an Internet Forum. I do not aim to offend anybody (or shove anything down anybody's throat as alleged) and I try very hard to be civil. My opinion on topics such as this seems to contradict some people's beliefs and they seem to take a great personal offense at the fact. That is unfortunate but there is nothing I can nor want to do about it. Profanities and personal insults will only change my opinion about those who resort to them and get them ignored.

Marko

sanking
22-Mar-2009, 19:26
Marko,

Ok, if you want to discuss topics and compare and confront different opinions, and not offend, please stop the snide remarks about people who talk positively about film by equating their opinion to "Ludditte anti-digital whining, " APUG mentality, and suggesting that we need group therapy.

It does not matter in the least to me that your opinions don't agree with mine. But when you basically insult people who talk positively about film, and then respond with patronizing comments, don't expect us to suffer those insults in silence. Your insults are offensive, on principle primarily, and secondarily because some of us who you insult may know as much about digital photography as you.


On many occasions you have called for civility in the forums. Please look carefully at your own participation and try to practice what you preach. It is highly hypocritical in my opinion for a person to make snide remarks about those with those with whom you disagree (and I can quote several such comments by you in the thread), and then complain because someone finally reacts to what you have said with words that you find offensive. I think my position is clear. I have no intention of suffering your insults and patronizing comments in silence. If you want civil discourse, begin by practicing what you preach.


Sandy King

Marko
22-Mar-2009, 21:52
Ok Sandy, fair enough. I really did not want to have any more discussions with you, but I don't want to dismiss such a statement without making an effort to examine it - including my own words and attitude - in detail.

You have told me before, in this and other threads, that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones (or a variation of it). My response now remains the same as in one of our previous exchanges: I do try very hard not to cast the first stone, but I will pick up a stone cast at me and hurl it back. I am simply not Christian enough to turn the other cheek.

So, yes, I can be snide, patronizing, sarcastic and caustic (and I have been in this thread), but... always in response to an attitude received and always towards the attitude and never to the person. I have never uttered a single profanity and I have never personally attacked you or anybody else in this thread. I have never called - not even implied - you clueless nor did I tell you what to do with your opinion or to go get a life.

In my view, profanity is an intellectual crutch, a sign of feeble mind. They diminish the validity of any point one is trying to make and that is the biggest reason why I refuse to use them. I don't need such "amplification", if someone else's facts are better or more valid then mine, I will be only be happy to adopt them.

So, please go back in this thread and read carefully what each of us said, how and when. I did not find a single thing I said that was offensive to you until your posts #140, #145 and #152, which became progressively patronizing and dismissive. I still do not see how I offended you prior to those, try as I may.

As for your opening statement, I do not make snide or disparaging remarks about "people who talk positively about film" - never did, never will. If nothing else, then because I am using film myself - not because I have to, but because I like it. To suggest that I would berate anybody for doing the same is a complete non-sequitur at best and dishonest at worst.

Facts are independent of our likes, dislikes and beliefs, they just are. What I do make snide and sarcastic remarks about is confusing the two, especially when it represents or at the very least comes across as a deliberate attempt to derail an otherwise interesting and lively discussion. In other words, not film and not the people, but the climate of "magical thinking" and loud and abrasive derision of anything that does not fit into that mold that is so prevalent on APUG.

I hope I have been clear enough this time. If you still feel I insulted you first, please explain how and point me to the occasion - I will gladly extend my apologies if warranted. But respect is a two-way street, you get what you extend. No more but no less either.

Marko

sanking
22-Mar-2009, 22:45
Marko,

I am responding to you in a PM. No need to discuss this further in public.

Sandy

Marko
23-Mar-2009, 05:41
Agreed, thank you.

rguinter
23-Mar-2009, 10:13
[QUOTE= This group therefore sees film as a long term "investment", because his image is on hard copy (film), and will always be ready to scan and print. It offers many of us security because it is proven to last. His only fear is loss due to fire/water damage, and not because of read errors/operating system and too many file protocols (we already have over a dozen file formats).[/QUOTE]

I made essentially this same comment on another thread a few weeks ago and got blasted for raising the concern that digital files are more easily lost. With what I've read of this whole discussion on the future of film versus digital, it has ignored the proven longevity of film (and even other analog methods like vinyl music recordings). Yes I have vinyl recordings that are over 40-years old and, with the right equipment, can render digitial music files today that exceed the quality of current CD.

For those that are doing fine art photography, yes digital methods may produce the results they want... either today or sometime in the future. That is fine. But their work could easily vanish into the black hole of computer failure at any time. When properly stored the longevity of quality film transparencies is measured in centuries. Ansel Adams' Kodachromes look as good today as the day they were made. And with proper archiving they will last hundreds of years more.

And my own (total digital output) since the computer revolution started has passed well into the terabytes... perhaps someday soon to exceed a petabyte.

Photography for me is still only a hobby. But my favorite panoramic cameras use film and I like the idea of not having to try and archive mega-, giga-, and terabyes worth of digital film data.

Bob

Roger Thoms
23-Mar-2009, 10:43
I had to marvel the other day at the beauty of film. I was at Rayko Photography Center in San Francisco last week using the group darkroom. There was a 71 year old gentleman printing negatives that he had shot in the early 1960's. The images looked great. By the way does anyone have a working Zip Drive? I have a digital image file on a Zip disk that I need transferred to CD/DVD before it's to late. Unfortunately the lab who scanned the transparency also lost it.

Roger Thoms

rguinter
23-Mar-2009, 16:33
I remember reading a book about Ansel Adams many years ago. Like most of these references the exact book or location where I found it has vanished from my aging brain. But I recall Ansel was quoted as saying he expected to average no more than 12 good images a year. I think all would agree that his art work, both negatives and positives, are second to none.

Me, I've been doing artistic type photography with my Fuji 617, Widelux 1500, 4x5-, and 8x10-inch cameras for about 15-years and, like Ansel, I feel I get about 12-good images a year. So it really wouldn't be difficult for me to archive these few whether they were film or digital. But, given the fickle nature of all the computers I've had over those years, I am really glad that they are on film and properly stored away. The work I do for a living requires lots and lots of photos. It would be foolish to waste time and money with film on these. But on vacations and weekends when I'm being artistic I will continue to use film until it is no longer available. Bob

Wallace_Billingham
24-Mar-2009, 08:46
FWIW in this day and age if you shoot film you should have both the negative and a digital copy stored somewhere.

Some examples

Ansel Adams once had a fire and lost a bunch of negatives. Digital was of course not around them but if he had digital copies somewhere he would not have lost them.

My sister-in-law in Mississippi lost a bunch of negatives and prints during Katrina, but her digital files lived on quite well stored safely online.

We all know negatives can and should last a very long time, but they can still quite easilyu be lost forever in a fire or flood

rguinter
24-Mar-2009, 09:26
Wallace: A good point about archiving storage. No matter what the medium the storage is only as safe as nature will allow. If one has photos that qualify (in their own mind) for long term archival it would be best to make duplicates of some type and store them in a separate place from the originals. I know one artist who learned that after losing a 35-mm Kodachrome of a very popular photo. But unfortunately, even that strategy won't reduce the probability of loss to zero. Bob

rguinter
24-Mar-2009, 09:56
After reading several more pages of this lengthy thread I sense another point in the digital vs film controversy has been missed. My photography work is all MF panoramic and 4x5-, 8x10-inch formats. Some of the best shots I have in my own work were taken at outdoor temperatures between 0 and minus 20 F. I would like to see anyone spend several hours outdoors with their digital equipment at -20F and have anything requiring battery power actually work. My LF lens shutters and mechanical panoramic cameras all work flawlessly at these temperatures. And the film doesn't seem to care. Another thought for those of us who want the deep freeze landscape shots. Bob

Marko
24-Mar-2009, 11:31
0 - 20 bellow? At temperatures even remotely close to that, I would worry about keeping myself functioning, nevermind my camera....

Lynn Jones
24-Mar-2009, 12:50
From a professional photography standpoint, film will be dead by 2010 (that's the PMA and PPA position) and I suspect that to be the case for anything except very rare situations.

For hobbiests and advanced amateurs, I think film will be around for 20 or so years, especially roll films and possibly some 4x5.

I teach photography as a profession and now only digital, however my personal area of greatest competence and expertise is b/w film, especially practical sensitometry and quality control. I guess it is just as well that I also teach History of Photography!

Lynn

Ben Syverson
24-Mar-2009, 15:32
I still say, it's hard to imagine a time when NO ONE will be able to make a profit making and selling film.

Until that happens, film will not be "dead."

Gordon Moat
24-Mar-2009, 15:42
Seems that people have different definitions of dead. Some consider that term to fit when there is a decline, while others will not use that term until something is extinct. Obviously, film is far from extinct, though for some people it is functionally in a coma.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

Andrew O'Neill
24-Mar-2009, 15:51
Film will always be available at least in my lifetime...and I've got at least 40 years left. Ooh, that's depressing. My, how time flies.

Marko
24-Mar-2009, 16:31
Seems that people have different definitions of dead. Some consider that term to fit when there is a decline, while others will not use that term until something is extinct. Obviously, film is far from extinct, though for some people it is functionally in a coma.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

A matter of intent as well as perspective, I suppose.

One could successfully argue that big, luxury ocean liners, horse buggies, vinyl records and oil paintings are still very much alive, along with their attendant industries.

On the other hand, equally successful argument could be made that they are as good as dead from their original, mainstream purpose point of view after being replaced with newer, more efficient and more advanced technologies. Which means that nobody

And each could be right from their respective points of view.

If the criteria for being alive or at least not being dead is the fact that someone somewhere in the world is still doing/making/using it, then even suits-of-armor and longbows are still not dead. But if the criteria is everyday mainstream usage, I just don't see anybody ordering oil portraits to immortalize their likeness for the future generations nor do I see anybody actually traveling from New York to a business meeting in Hong Kong by ship. From that POV, both are effectively dead, despite the fact that rich people still do both.

Ten years ago, photography was film, period. There was a reason why all the other processes, historic and esoteric alike were and still are called alternative and/or historic.

Today, film is in the process of moving into the same category. Like it or not, to look at the existing supply and availability and seriously dispute the fact represents nothing more than magical thinking. Facts have long proven that they don't care about any of that.

jb7
24-Mar-2009, 18:02
Marko, big sheets of film will outlast you.
One could hopefully argue, the sooner the better,
even to the detriment of big film.


joseph

Marko
24-Mar-2009, 18:58
?

I am not sure I understand your point, Joseph.

rachase
24-Mar-2009, 19:29
Today, film is in the process of moving into the same category. Like it or not, to look at the existing supply and availability and seriously dispute the fact represents nothing more than magical thinking. Facts have long proven that they don't care about any of that.

What fact or facts are you referring to, Marko?

Marko
24-Mar-2009, 22:05
Photokina 2008 which is the leading edge for photography proves you wrong (I've mentioned this before, but you conveniently ignore this issue). Everyone there reports film sales have stabilized, and actually are now growing. Large format film sales have increased by 40% according to Kodak. Why would Fuji introduce a 6x7 folder film camera for 2009, or new large format camera makers appear in the market? Why would Linhof upgrade the Technica and Technorama if things are dead, when keeping with exisint products could get by?Why would Kodak and Fuji be introducing new films if the market were dying?

It is awesome that film is selling so much. It really is. But until I can walk into my neighborhood photo store as I used to ten years ago and actually be able to buy the film I want and possibly even developer and fixer for it, I just can't be too excited about it. Ditto until I see Agfa, Forte, Kentmere and Polaroid come back to life. Not even to mention Kodak photo papers...

As to why Kodak, Fuji and Linhof do what they do, I don't know. I don't sit on their boards and I don't hold their stock. All I know is that the likes of Minolta, Contax, Bronica and Rollei among others are gone while the likes of Sony, Panasonic, Ricoh, Samsung and other formerly purely electronics companies are in and are not shy about it.


We all know film sales are not like they once were, because digital is now a competitor....but film is also a competitor doing well where highest quality, biggest prints and archival issues are important. I've mentioned this before, but you always ignore this point.

No, I don't ignore the point. I consider the point false because digital is not a competitor to film, it is film's successor. If you don't believe me, just walk out into any visited public space and watch the people taking pictures. Then tell me how many film cameras did you see and how many digital ones. Then walk around the city, look through the stores that sell photo equipment and tell me how many films, which types and in which formats can you buy on the spot.

Yes, those are "just" the snapshots, but like it or not, THAT is the future of film right there. Those are the people whose buying decisions the corporations we both mentioned follow in order to earn their money. Or don't follow and go bust.

You already brought this up before and I already replied to it: if you really want to believe whatever the delusion of the day is over at APUG, knock yourself out, but don't expect me to take it seriously and don't blame me for breaking the bad news.

Marko
24-Mar-2009, 22:21
What fact or facts are you referring to, Marko?

Looking over at dpreview.com, I can see a whole bunch of new digital cameras and lenses anounced almost weekly. There was a new Canon announced just today.

How many new film cameras were announced in the last year? How many of them can you purchase and take home today? The only one I know was the Fuji/Bessa and it was still not available in stores the last time I looked. Given the price quoted, I doubt I would buy it even if it were. The last new film camera model that was released and became available that I know of was Nikon F6 a few years ago. Many more were discontinued since then, the latest being Leica R series just the other day and Rollei a few weeks ago.

I think those all should qualify as facts. If film were doing well, film cameras would follow suit, don't you think?

rachase
24-Mar-2009, 22:53
Looking over at dpreview.com, I can see a whole bunch of new digital cameras and lenses anounced almost weekly. There was a new Canon announced just today.

To replace the older, obsolescent digital cameras and lenses?

sanking
24-Mar-2009, 23:31
Those obsolete digital cameras, Canon 20D and 30D for example, make perfectly wonderful color prints up to 5X7" in size. With interpolation you might even get up to 11X14". That should full satisfy the needs of most amateur snap shooters.

Sandy King




To replace the older, obsolescent digital cameras and lenses?

Stefan Lungu
25-Mar-2009, 02:08
Well, for the large big volume market Marko is right - the snapshots are digital, made a lot more than in film days, not printed and probably not seen again after two weeks, simply because they are too many. On the other hand, one could argue that B&W film has been a niche product for some time already, and so will be slide film. Sales in film have gone down after the digital affordable SLR were there, but after a while they stabilized. That was the point. So, if the market has stabilized we can hope that we will still get what we get today, as long as Fuji, Kodak and Ilford are doing the right thing and are not thinking the profit is too small to be worth the trouble. And, you can still get the cheap films in the supermakret around here in germany. You will not get the films that you usually shoot, nor developer, but it is available. Film is not mainstream anymore, that's true, but it is still available and will be available. Same goes for the cameras - you don't see "little" cameras ( that Fuji and Bessa are rather a limited run nostalgic product in my book ), but LF is available as new camera with more, smaller producers jumping in, and I expect that will happen to film also.

redrockcoulee
25-Mar-2009, 05:17
Marko

I thought the discussion was about film being dead not about no new film cameras being made. If you want to discuss no new film cameras lately how long as the new She Hao or all the Chamonix been on the market. I can still buy some film in my local city and even get 4X5 E6 developed locally but if I wanted to buy a full frame Canon or Nikon I would have to either special order locally or order on-line.That in no way means that high end digital is dead. As long as I can order film on-line or have the wonderful selection when I go to the bright lights of Calgary or Vancouver then film is available. Some members on this forum also go to GetDPI workshops forum (not sure of the URL) and there users of medium and large format commercial photographers discuss and show results from their medium format backs and even there some of them shoot film as well or only film.

Film still remains the more cost effective media FOR ME in black and white whereas digital is by far the best for some of my other applications. So I cannot buy 120 and large format film locally and no longer chemicals as there is no local photo store (reasons other than film/digital for the only one to go out of business) does not mean that it is not available and on=line is easier to buy anyway. I cannot buy neat hand tools or Swedish furniture or parts for my cars locally either does not mean that Ikea or Lee Valley are dead although Saab may be going that way.

If digital works best for you go that route, if film does than shoot film. Myself like many others will choose both depending on the situation and mood. I do not need a new 35mm camera to shoot film espeically when I have a Hasselblad and three large format cameras, one of which was produced during the digital age. I hardly use the two 35mm cameras I do have. But have a brick of HIE so will be using one of them this summer for sure.

Marko
25-Mar-2009, 05:18
To replace the older, obsolescent digital cameras and lenses?

I have ever heard of a lens becoming obsolete. How does it do that?

Marko
25-Mar-2009, 05:45
Redrock, the discussion is actually about the future of LF film, not about film being dead.

I have been using b&w film since before some of the participants were born and I still enjoy using and processing it. Just shot a batch over this weekend, in fact.

But what I like or dislike as an individual has very little impact on the general trends and especially on the future of film. If you ask me whether I would like to have film available for the next 20 or 30 years, of course I would. I would like to see many of those films that went away come back in some form or the other (if for no other reason then to stop all the whining. ;)).

But what I am trying to point out are general trends, and the direction where they are pointing is fairly obvious to anybody who wants to look with a rational eye. Cameras are, IMO, an indicator - they are being made for both film and for digital sensors and vice versa. If you want to see a trend, look at what is being made and how much and what is being dropped. The trend is clearly there, has been for a while now.

If you refuse to see it, that's fine, plenty of people have said so here. But a discussion based on beliefs is rather pointless, because it inevitably turns into either a choir practice or a mud slinging match.

P.S. There are about 15 million people (legally :D) in Los Angeles area and only a handful of stores you could just walk in and buy film (as in 35mm, 120 and 4x5) and half of them belong to the same chain. On the other hand, you can buy CF or SD cards in any Rite Aid or Walmart.

Marko
25-Mar-2009, 05:55
Those obsolete digital cameras, Canon 20D and 30D for example, make perfectly wonderful color prints up to 5X7" in size. With interpolation you might even get up to 11X14". That should full satisfy the needs of most amateur snap shooters.

Sandy King

Sandy, you can call them snap shooters, digi heads or even perverts (as someone did recently!) or whatever you like, but this is essentially very true for the majority of people who like taking pictures for whatever reason, professionally or not.

And that - the numbers and the balance - is ultimately going to decide the future of film in general, IMO, just like it used to keep film production fat and happy in the past. When Kodak decides that there isn't much profit in film any more, it will do what it did with papers in a heartbeat. They are a business, after all, they are in it for profits.

Robbie Shymanski
25-Mar-2009, 07:02
Wow. There's five years rehashing the same on this thread, but I'll try an add my 2 cents.

Last night I attended an interview with recording engineer Steve Albini. He is a fascinating fellow. He runs a recording studio here in Chicago and is a huge proponent on the use of analog magnetic tape and "traditional" recording techniques (along with being a good critic of the music industry). One of the questions that came up was the availability of studio grade recording tape. A few years ago there was a huge concern when 3M ended production of the stock and for a short period no one in the world was making one and two inch recording tape! There are now two companies in Pennsylvania and the Netherlands that produce stock at studio grade quality. (I am guessing there is even less demand for 2" mag tape than for sheet film... ) Being that this is his bread and butter, he felt assured that he was not going to be running out of tape to record on any time soon. His conversation soon moved to how he learned how to record sound. He lamented on the fact that he didn't apprenctice his craft, but had to learn through trial and error and through hitting the library! He claimed that most of his craft was learned through the research of 30 year old technical guides and manuals. He wasn't learning anything new, just what wasn't being passed on for the sake of the new. And then related a story from Soviet-era Russia. I guess in the 1970s, a studio in the USSR wanted a 24-track mixing board. But through a mix of economic restriction and political pride, the studio was not allowed to be good capitalists and just go out and buy one. But there engineers did have access to western technical journals and a machine shop. Within a year they had scratch-built a studio grade 24-track studio. And the moral of the story was that the technology, although electro-mechanical, is open source and easily reverse-engineered. The question was if the same could be done with digital. Could ProTools software and the required hardware be reverse-engineered in a simillar fashion?

I bring this up because the analogy to LF is obvious. Even if Kodak or Fuji give up the ship, the technology ain't new and the knowledge to reproduce it has 150 years of availablity. I mean that I know, if I had to, I could always figure out how to coat my own stock (at least in BW. I freely admit the difficulty in doing color). And when it comes down to it, I can always find a box and stick a hole in it and have a camera. I have no idea how my computer works or how the the card in my 40D is made. LF is 19th century technology. Tinkers figured most of this out. I hate to think how many man hours were used to bring PS4 to current state after the 20 years since Adobe started or my already "obsolete" 40D. Film will have availability. It may take a little longer to find it. I have no problem sending orders to Freestyle or Formulary. And I live in a city where there are tons of good libraries if it all dropped off the face of the earth. If I had to do it all with plates and salted paper, I wouldn't complain too much.

Ben Syverson
25-Mar-2009, 08:57
Cool, thanks for relating those tidbits from Steve Albini!

Neither ProTools nor Photoshop are terribly complicated pieces of software... I fired up Photoshop 1.0 a few weeks ago, and was shocked at how little had changed. You could build a competitor for either in about 18 months with four good engineers.

I think you're right that as long as the knowledge exists, we'll be okay.

Drew Wiley
25-Mar-2009, 09:23
Film photography in some form or another has been around for nearly two hundred
years now, whether we're talking glass plates, tintype, or the various plastic-based films beginning with nitrocellulose. Crocodiles were around before dinosaurs and actually outlived them because they've always had a logical niche. And even though I
might or might not be around to witness it, I'm pretty sure that digital photography in
the form we currently recognize it will be extinct BEFORE film is. All those state of the
art gadgets everyone is harping about will soon seem as relevant as Fortran programming and punch cards. Something else will take it place, probably repeatedly,
and equipment will have to be replaced several times within a lifetime. Today's DLSR's
and digital backs will inevitably end up in "Antiques Roadshow" if they don't end up in
the dump first. But someone will probably still be using a view camera somewhere,
with lenses that don't go obsolete with every little shift in the techno wind.

sanking
25-Mar-2009, 09:44
I call them snap shooters because that is who they are. These are the folks who ten years ago used 35mm film and dropped it off at their local pharmacy store to be processed. Now they use digital point and shoot and DSLRs and do pretty much the same thing, except curiously lots of people don't even have prints made, they just look at the screen.

This thread is about 4X5 and 8X10 film, and whether it will be available in the future. And based on sales of LF film over the past two decades I would add that the thread is really about LF B&W film. Users of LF equipment are, in overwhelming numbers, primarily users of B&W film. I personally have not exposed a sheet of LF color film in over two decades.

Now, the truth of the matter is that there has been very little professional use of LF sheet film since commercial portrait photographers switched to MF back in the 1970s. Over the past two decades I would estimate that well over 90% of the sales of LF sheet film has been B&W film sold to a market of advanced amateurs engaged in fine art photography, or at least striving to make fine art work. And in spite of that fact there are still numerous films available for LF workers, form 4X5 to 20X24". This is the market that will determine if there is a demand for LF sheet film in the future. The number of snap shooters with digital cameras has nothing to do with it. People who used LF when 35mm and MF was more convenient are not going to switch to digital because of its convenience. In fact, the appearance of new LF cameras and their popularity in both the new and used market suggests that the number of users of LF B&W film is increasing, not decreasing.

Would this group of LF users switch to digital if LF digital backs were available that offer equality quality in B&W? No doubt some would, *if* the price of a digital LF back were competitive with the cost of film for this rather rather small group of relatively low-volume film us. Will that happen in the next twenty years? I would say, only if there is a significant market for the development of the technology for this small group of people, and that in my mind is much in doubt.

Sandy King

rachase
25-Mar-2009, 11:06
I have ever heard of a lens becoming obsolete. How does it do that?
By upgrading to new 'full frame' DLSR while retaining an ultra wide angle lens that no longer covers? I suppose vignetting can be construed as a desireable feature.

redrockcoulee
25-Mar-2009, 11:23
Redrock, the discussion is actually about the future of LF film, not about film being dead.

I have been using b&w film since before some of the participants were born and I still enjoy using and processing it. Just shot a batch over this weekend, in fact.

But what I like or dislike as an individual has very little impact on the general trends and especially on the future of film. If you ask me whether I would like to have film available for the next 20 or 30 years, of course I would. I would like to see many of those films that went away come back in some form or the other (if for no other reason then to stop all the whining. ;)).

But what I am trying to point out are general trends, and the direction where they are pointing is fairly obvious to anybody who wants to look with a rational eye. Cameras are, IMO, an indicator - they are being made for both film and for digital sensors and vice versa. If you want to see a trend, look at what is being made and how much and what is being dropped. The trend is clearly there, has been for a while now.

If you refuse to see it, that's fine, plenty of people have said so here. But a discussion based on beliefs is rather pointless, because it inevitably turns into either a choir practice or a mud slinging match.

P.S. There are about 15 million people (legally :D) in Los Angeles area and only a handful of stores you could just walk in and buy film (as in 35mm, 120 and 4x5) and half of them belong to the same chain. On the other hand, you can buy CF or SD cards in any Rite Aid or Walmart.

But if you are using manufacturing of new equipment as a barometer of the future of large format film than I think, and it is only my opinion, that you must use the manufacture of large format cameras not that of 35mm cameras. And there are not only new models but also new companies that have started in the last decade.

A couple of weeks ago I was in Future Shop and they only had one size of CF cards and yet had over a dozen of SD cards, various sizes, speeds and manufactures. I don't think that shows that CF cameras are going to disappear but it is clear that for now that the top end cameras continue to use that card. I would not use a place like Future Shop to gauge high end digital camera gear as they do not sell anything above say a K200D.

The same I would not use mass market places as a gauge on the future of flim, especially MF or LF. These places only sell fast moving items and we all know that the volume of film sales has already dropped sustainlly. The question is will it continue to drop and disappear, grow again or stablize. I suspect that those who continue to use film are those who are less likely to buy it at the corner gas station or grocery store. Those customers are the ones who when buying gas or groceries see film and remember that they have a birthday party to go to the next day and do not remember if they have film or not.

The gest of the discussion seems, to some degree, based on what an indivudal is using to assest the trends. I tend to look at the new emulsions available, the new camera models coming out, and the active promotion of film but some suppliers as signs that film in the near future, say 10 to 20 years, is safe and it is possible the volume may show a very small increase during that time. You appear to be basing on availablity of film in common locations. One would expect to obtain opposite results from these two views.

If one wants something as a pure speculation or predicition than the one I would have made is that the sales of low end digital SLR will fall off in the near future as consumers realize that there is no real reason to upgrade from what they have. The middle might as well and the higher end will continue to advance. But I based my comments on film not on irrational hopes but on the direction the market seems to be going. I do not expect film to regain its edge over digital as there are no reasons for this to occur but just cause people buy digital SLRs or P&S does not meant that sales for MF and LF film will not continue.There are a lot of cameras out there being used and film is a consumeable.

Marko
25-Mar-2009, 11:49
Would this group of LF users switch to digital if LF digital backs were available that offer equality quality in B&W? No doubt some would, *if* the price of a digital LF back were competitive with the cost of film for this rather rather small group of relatively low-volume film us. Will that happen in the next twenty years? I would say, only if there is a significant market for the development of the technology for this small group of people, and that in my mind is much in doubt.

Sandy King

Sandy, I agree with most of what you say. I would certainly hope you are right as far as the future availability of b&w film is concerned.

But my point is that if this group is too small to create a significant market for new technology R&D, it might also end up being too small to sustain demand for film that would be profitable enough to maintain the production in the absence of snap shooters and commercial photographers, historically two highest-volume groups who have now largely switched.

I think the next ten or so years will show.

Marko
25-Mar-2009, 12:01
By upgrading to new 'full frame' DLSR while retaining an ultra wide angle lens that no longer covers? I suppose vignetting can be construed as a desireable feature.

You mean like some examples I've seen on this board of using lenses designed to cover up to 5x7 on a 8x10 film or something along those lines? :rolleyes:

Bob McCarthy
25-Mar-2009, 12:04
A couple of weeks ago I was in Future Shop and they only had one size of CF cards and yet had over a dozen of SD cards, various sizes, speeds and manufactures. I don't think that shows that CF cameras are going to disappear but it is clear that for now that the top end cameras continue to use that card. I would not use a place like Future Shop to gauge high end digital camera gear as they do not sell anything above say a K200D.


It's hard to get a handle on sales volume and sales trends. Much speciality retailing has gone online and we can't get a sense of phones ringing in a call center. It's just not the recession killing companies with long histories, it's a complete wholesale change in buying patterns. If anything, the recession is speeding it up.

My photo buying has gone from 95% storefront to 95% internet over the last 10 years.

I would suspect I fit the mold of most serious photographers.

bob mccarthy

Marko
25-Mar-2009, 12:13
Redrock, film is expensive to produce. If the demand for it is not sufficient to keep the production profitable, then the production will cease. I use the sale of cameras made for film as one of the indicators of the future demand for film. More film cameras = more film bought. And vice versa. In other words, I am basing my opinion on the volume of film used. In doing so, I am looking at past and the present to spot a trend to extrapolate into the future.

As far as I know, two of the highest volume groups - snap shooters and commercial photographers have largely switched. What remains are medical imaging, movie industry and fine art folks. Medical is already transitioning and the fine arts people are too few and too low volume to maintain the overall demand. That leaves the movie industry and when they switch, that will be largely it for commercial film production.

Again, this is just a personal opinion. If I had a crystal ball, I would surely be keeping it very secret and make a bundle of money on it. But I don't, so here we are speculating the best we can... :)

rachase
25-Mar-2009, 12:29
You mean like some examples I've seen on this board of using lenses designed to cover up to 5x7 on a 8x10 film or something along those lines? :rolleyes:

Yes, it happened to a friend after his $2700 DSLR camera body upgrade. Now he needs a lens 'upgrade' for compatability purposes. I don't think he intends to jump back and forth between his 'full frame' and 'partial frame' format DLSRs.

Drew Wiley
25-Mar-2009, 12:33
Marko - film is commercially viable precisely because it is expendable and has to bought
over and over again. The same axiom will inevitably apply to digital cameras and software. Ever hear of the company that made a lightbulb that lasted a hundred years?
They went out of business because they didn't get any repeat sales. Maybe all those
little digital cameras are wonderful for people sharing images on the web, but what
about printmaking? It used to be that the cost of a printing paper was based on the
amount of silver and gelatin used. Now you pay just as much or more for just the paper! And look at the price of inks. Put two and two together. It's all about profitability, or at least the pursuit thereof. But for a moment let's imagine that someone came out with an affordable and portable digital SLR that could realistically compete with the quality of large format film. Would that allow people to compose their
images with the same feel? Ever look at a platinum print made by Julia Cameron, or an
albumen by Carleton Watkins? Thank God digital didn't exist or we'd never be able to
view images like these. It ain't about how many pixels you can fit per square inch!

Marko
25-Mar-2009, 12:36
Yes, it happened to a friend after his $2700 DSLR camera body upgrade. Now he needs a lens 'upgrade' for compatability purposes. I don't think he intends to jump back and forth between his 'full frame' and 'partial frame' format DLSRs.

Sorry but this just makes no sense - that would be exactly the same as being disappointed that the lenses which worked just fine on your 4x5 all of a sudden don't cover your new 8x10...

My "L" lenses work just fine on both FF and crop-format Canons. They would also work great on my film Canon, if only I didn't stop using it.

rachase
25-Mar-2009, 12:53
Sorry but this just makes no sense - that would be exactly the same as being disappointed that the lenses which worked just fine on your 4x5 all of a sudden don't cover your new 8x10...

My "L" lenses work just fine on both FF and crop-format Canons. They would also work great on my film Canon, if only I didn't stop using it.
I don't see the two cases as being equivalent at all. The 8x10's technology isn't newer than that of the 4x5; the 8x10 certainly didn't come into being to supplant the 4x5 unlike FF over crop-format. I think it's entirely possible that your crop-format camera could become a buggy whip in short order as FF becomes the dominant format in prosumer DLSRs.

Marko
25-Mar-2009, 12:57
Drew,

I just don't see how film could possibly be commercially more viable? Even at the very amateur volume of one roll per week (35mm for the sake of comparison), current DSLRs break even after only a year or so. Everything after that is basically free. That's not counting prints from either film or digital.

I don't have to print myself - I can do exactly what I did with color negatives: send them to the lab. The prices I see for printing digital prints do not differ significantly from the prices I see for film prints.

MF is - again, currently - a "bit" harder to justify, but still not impossible. Even the highest end most expensive digital back - the often mentioned $40,000 one - breaks even at only 25-26 rolls of film per week over the very reasonable amortization period of three years. 25 rolls of film is a trifle for a commercial shooter - I've seen wedding photographers come back from a single wedding with double that many rolls.

As for LF format - the fact is that current quality of digital is not even close. No argument about this. My point is that 10 years ago, it wasn't close to 35mm, much less MF. The real question is how far it will get over the next 10 years? I gave my $0.02 on that based on what I think is rational analysis.

The feel while composing the image, on the other hand, is completely personal and purely sentimental. Speaking for myself, nothing has ever come even close to a feel of a TLR Rollei I was too foolish but needy enough to sell long time ago. But its absence has not prevented me from enjoying taking pictures with my DSLRs, my 4x5 and my 645.

Finally, while I have never tried it myself, my understanding is that digital lends itself quite readily and capably to platinum, carbon and other alternative processes via digital negatives. I heard Sandy's been particularly skilled at this, maybe he'll pitch in on this.

Marko
25-Mar-2009, 13:04
I don't see the two cases as being equivalent at all. The 8x10's technology isn't newer than that of the 4x5; the 8x10 certainly didn't come into being to supplant the 4x5 unlike FF over crop-format. I think it's entirely possible that your crop-format camera could become a buggy whip in short order as FF becomes the dominant format in prosumer DLSRs.

It is not about being newer, it is about being designed for the purpose.

It doesn't matter to me if my current DSLR drops down to the floor and breaks into pieces today - it has paid itself three times over during the three years I've had it. If I decide to go FF next, both of my lenses are older than my current DSLR and will work just as great on FF as they do on crop frame and as they did on film body.

Radical changes like the one you describe were happening long before digital came along. That's just the price of progress and this is just one huge red herring of an argument.

sanking
25-Mar-2009, 13:16
Marko,

But as I pointed out, the market for LF B&W film now is not that different from what it was ten or even twenty years go. It may not be large enough for new R&D but we really don't need much of that anyway. Every B&W film out there is at a minimum adequate for most of our needs in LF so the product is already as good as it needs to be. And producing B&W film is not rocket science. If every major player in the world today quit making B&W film someone else could do it if there were a market. In fact, I think that is the likely scenario as many of the big players will probably get out of the business of making film and it will become a niche market. Film will cost a lot more, but it will be available for a long time in the future IMO.

The bigger question is if the market is large enough to support the R&D needed to produce LF digital backs. That is much more in doubt from my perspective than whether LF film will be around.

I want to emphasize that my comments apply only to LF B&W film, not to other formats, and not to color.

One issue pertaining to color film, which has not been mentioned, is that it is not archival. So if one is thinking in terms of long term stability any color image is going to be useless in the long term because the dyes will fade. Permanence can only be assured by making three-color separations on B&W film.

As a fine art photographer I am not that concerned about the archival qualities of capture, whether it be digital or film. The only thing that matters to me is my work on print, and for that I always make same size digital negatives for contact printing, with pigment inks. So in terms of my own work there is a print, and a negative back-up.

Naturally, photographers who do primarily documentary type work have different concerns than those I have expressed.


Sandy King







Sandy, I agree with most of what you say. I would certainly hope you are right as far as the future availability of b&w film is concerned.

But my point is that if this group is too small to create a significant market for new technology R&D, it might also end up being too small to sustain demand for film that would be profitable enough to maintain the production in the absence of snap shooters and commercial photographers, historically two highest-volume groups who have now largely switched.

I think the next ten or so years will show.

Drew Wiley
25-Mar-2009, 13:31
Sandy - I shoot color sheet film as well as b&w. "Archival" qualities are in fact being
touted as improvements in certain color film by both Kodak and Fuji. R&D is anything but dead. In the past every time you turned around there was a new color film being
introduced. So it seems like the selection has diminished. But in fact the newer films are more versatile. Same with color printing papers. No, these films are not archival in
the sense a carbon print might be, but 50 years or more is pretty good, especially if you compare it to the probability that data on current digital discs will probably have to be transferred to some new kind of media well before then, with all the attendant
fuss and expense. Once this is factored in, digital isn't really archival at all. That is
exactly why major libraries have gone back to microfilm.

Marko
25-Mar-2009, 13:55
Once this is factored in, digital isn't really archival at all. That is exactly why major libraries have gone back to microfilm.

Drew, I'm not even going to bother addressing the first part, but I would really like to hear which "major libraries" have "gone back to microfilm"?

The Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/index.html) certainly didn't. If anything, they keep expanding their digital collections (http://www.loc.gov/library/libarch-digital.html).

So does Stanford University Library (http://collections.stanford.edu/).

And the University of Michigan (http://www.lib.umich.edu/). Here's what their Accomplishments Paper says specific to this subject:


Currently, we acquire many materials in both print and electronic format. Where there
are reliable and robust mechanisms for archiving and long term scholarly use we
increasingly collect materials in electronic format only. Here, too, we can save space and
money which can be put to other good purposes while serving the current and future
needs of our academic communities. We are both cautious with respect to any risk to the
collections and aggressive with respect to exploiting opportunities inherent in new
technologies.

And so does Harvard University Library (http://digitalcollections.harvard.edu/).

And Oxford (http://www.ouls.ox.ac.uk/eresources)...

And the NYPL (http://www.nypl.org/digital/)...

Care to put some of your links up? Oh, right, they have gone back to microfilm, they don't have links. Well, that's allright, names would do just fine.

;)

sanking
25-Mar-2009, 14:17
Well, in fact virtually all of my work in printing is with digital negatives, in carbon transfer, kallitype and pt/pd. People debate whether digital negatives from inkjet printers give results as good as contact prints from in-camera negatives, and all I can see is that it depends and if a person does not already understand why it will take me too much of my time to explain. Bottom line, the issues are just too complicated to support simple yes and no answers.

So I could produce a digital negative about equally well from a scan of an in-camera negative from any one of my film negatives, from 6X7 cm format to 12X20" , or directly from a digital file from my Canon 50D. Whatever you do final look depends tremendously on good file processing. There is no specific digital look, IMO, although the way folks process their files often results in a kind of digital look. I try to avoid this by applying a lot of smoothing and noise reductions to give a creamy look to my prints, which is more or less why I liked LF in the first place. Sometimes I make a mistake and get a biting kind of sharpness that works well for a certain kind of image.

My rule is that no one rule applies. You have to experiment and find what works for you. Final image size determines a lot. If you want to make really large prints MF or LF film will usually serve you better, IMO, unless you have the money to spring for a P65 MF back. For prints in the 12X18" range 12-22 DSLR gives nice results.

The other side of the coin is that some people make wonderful prints from Diana and Holga type cameras.


Sandy King





Finally, while I have never tried it myself, my understanding is that digital lends itself quite readily and capably to platinum, carbon and other alternative processes via digital negatives. I heard Sandy's been particularly skilled at this, maybe he'll pitch in on this.

rachase
25-Mar-2009, 14:27
It doesn't matter to me if my current DSLR drops down to the floor and breaks into pieces today - it has paid itself three times over during the three years I've had it. If I decide to go FF next, both of my lenses are older than my current DSLR and will work just as great on FF as they do on crop frame and as they did on film body.

To some it does matter. Your example is anecdotal. You are talking about your own usage - I don't think you can infer that everyone shoots at that kind of volume.

Drew Wiley
25-Mar-2009, 14:34
Marko - once again you're spouting off without doing your homework. Certainly digital
storage is convenient for many university departments. But for true archiving it's a
different story and there's have already been some serious well known incidents where
where massive data was lost. Why do you think microfilm is still being made in significant volume? Certainly not for convenience! Just go back to the analogy of music
recording or even movies. Want to spend the money getting a big private collection of
movies transferred from tape to disc? What happens in a decade or two when these
discs themselves go obsolete? Microfilm on the other hand doesn't go obsolete unless
there's a fire or nobody is left alive who can read the language. The only technology
you really need to keep it viable is a magnifier.

Marko
25-Mar-2009, 14:47
Drew,

No need for dissertation about microfilm qualities - all I asked was a very simple and direct question - which "major libraries" did you say "have gone back to microfilm"?

I put six names, why can't you put two or three? They do exist, don't they?

sanking
25-Mar-2009, 15:24
Marco,

You have mentioned several times in this thread the question of relevance to the question of the OP, some five years ago.

What does the question of digital storage versus microfilm have to do with the question pertinent to the thread?

The thread is about the future of 4X5 and 8X10 film, not digital versus microfilm storage at libraries.

Sandy King.





Drew,

No need for dissertation about microfilm qualities - all I asked was a very simple and direct question - which "major libraries" did you say "have gone back to microfilm"?

I put six names, why can't you put two or three? They do exist, don't they?

Marko
25-Mar-2009, 15:30
Marco,

You have mentioned several times in this thread the question of relevance to the question of the OP, some five years ago.

What does the question of digital storage versus microfilm have to do with the question pertinent to the thread?

The thread is about the future of 4X5 and 8X10 film, not digital versus microfilm storage at libraries.

Sandy King.

Hey Sandy,

Beats me, I certainly didn't bring any of that stuff up, I was simply responding to some preposterous claims. Or perhaps hilarious might be a better word.

But you have a good point, I should know better than to feed the trolls...

Marko

sanking
25-Mar-2009, 15:53
Marko,

I don't believe Drew is trolling, in fact the issue he raised seems very valid. However, I think for this thread we should just stick to the issue of the original OP, which already has fairly broad implications.

Since we appear in agreement on the major point, so much the better.

Sandy



Hey Sandy,

Beats me, I certainly didn't bring any of that stuff up, I was simply responding to some preposterous claims. Or perhaps hilarious might be a better word.

But you have a good point, I should know better than to feed the trolls...

Marko

Drew Wiley
25-Mar-2009, 15:54
A couple of large format sheet films recently marketed as a replacement for TechPan
were actually cut from microfilm stock. I've got a sample of one of them. But that's incidental information. Marko, since you seem so eager for a food fight, let me first ask if you actually shoot and print large format - all this seems very hypothetical to you. These kinds of threads are fun up to a point and sometimes informative, but it seems to me your kind of logic is better suited to a point-and-shoot forum. I've got decades
of experience under my belt and world-class prints to prove it. I'm pretty sure Sandy
also knows the ropes. But I'm pretty sure you're winging it.

Marko
25-Mar-2009, 16:07
Marko,

I don't believe Drew is a troll, in fact the issue he raised seems very valid to this poor deprived gray matter.

First there was that Frank character with his "famous photographers switching to film", then came Van with "major corporations and courts" and now Drew with "major libraries".

Honestly, I find it hard to take that for anything other than trolling intended to derail a discussion someone doesn't seem comfortable with, when all them come up with the exact same nonsense with no intention of providing a single example. You'd think something like that would make screaming front page news and be paraded all over that other discussion board. And yet, not a peep.

They even act surprised and/or offended if you dare ask for examples. Or they simply ignore you.

Yes, I agree that we should stick to the issue, but it is hard to resist a good laugh here and there when faced with such nonsense... ;)

Drew Wiley
25-Mar-2009, 16:20
Marko - all you have to do is Google the words Microfilm and Library to see how far off base you are. A little more searching will also produce an instance where a major library lost their entire archive because they disposed of microfilm after going to disc.
And it was in nationally publisized. Film is still very relevant to archiving. The problem
with separation negatives from color film is that they tend to be print specific. What
works for dye transfer, for example, won't work well for carbon. And archiving these
itself becomes hypothetical because the output available down the line will inevitably
be different from today. If they original can be preserved, however, more options are
open. But even within my lifetime I could take a Kodachrome I made as a teenager and
print it today at a high level of quality.

Marko
25-Mar-2009, 16:35
You guys are cracking me up, it's like arguing with seagulls, only more tedious.

Drew, it is very simple - you make a claim, you provide examples.

I provided mine, it is your turn now. Just a few names, you can skip the fluff.

How hard can it be?

Don Hutton
25-Mar-2009, 18:26
You guys are cracking me up, it's like arguing with seagulls...and I bet you have argued with seagulls...

Drew Wiley
25-Mar-2009, 18:26
Marko - here are a few leads for you. You do the homework. First of all, you might
consider it "fluff" but there's an entire Microfilm division of Kodak, and they even
have competition. And they've updated their product line. What does 2+2 equal?
Second, there's an actual career category called Data Risk Management; now what
on earth could that be for? Third, there's a number of articles out there, web
accessible, on the hypothetical possibility of a "Digital Dark Ages". This kind of subject is relevant to both visual and literary archivists. Obviously, microfilm is
suited to the storage of text, not a collection of paintings. But to quote one data risk
article, asked how perishable digital data is: "The question is really how accessible
is our digital data. Data may reside physically intact ...but the computer that wrote
the data and can read it will be extinct." Now if I were a commercial photographer
or photojournalist that probably wouldn't matter too much because I could amortize
my equipment from time to time and my priority would be upon rapid delivery of
the visual product. But if you're trying to produce a lifetime of high quality images and hope to make income from shots several decades after they were taken, I don't think I'd personally trust digital storage. Ordinary film solves a lot of problems. And
there's a lot more to the film industry than what you find at the corner camera store. Just think of how much film base Hollywood, Bollywood, and the Chinese film
market still consumes! And indeed, new types of film are still being designed, even
on a custom basis if you can meet minimum orders. Just because you haven't been
to a zoo don't go around telling people that elephants don't exist!

sanking
25-Mar-2009, 18:53
Not only that, there is a whole other world outside of Los Angeles. I mean, some of us have been buying LF film by mail order for the past two decades.


Sandy King





And
there's a lot more to the film industry than what you find at the corner camera store. Just think of how much film base Hollywood, Bollywood, and the Chinese film
market still consumes! And indeed, new types of film are still being designed, even
on a custom basis if you can meet minimum orders. Just because you haven't been
to a zoo don't go around telling people that elephants don't exist!

Brian Ellis
25-Mar-2009, 19:06
Marko,

But who cares about 35mm? This is the LF forum, not a Leica 35mm forum. From the perspective of LF any DSLR out there is immediately obsolete because it can not meet the standard of minimum LF, which is 4X5.

Sandy King

"What you say about people buying the latest model of film cameras is true, but the larger point is that even today a person can take a Leica M3 produced in the 1950s into the fiield and make images that quality wise virtually as good as can be made with the most expensive 35mm cameras produced today. And the same is true for MF and LF cameras.And I personally know many people still using film cameras made two and three decades ago, and even older for that matter.
Sandy"

sanking
25-Mar-2009, 19:16
Brian,

And, other than quoting me from an earlier message, your point is?

The ball appears to have been dropped somewhere in this exchange.

Sandy




"What you say about people buying the latest model of film cameras is true, but the larger point is that even today a person can take a Leica M3 produced in the 1950s into the fiield and make images that quality wise virtually as good as can be made with the most expensive 35mm cameras produced today. And the same is true for MF and LF cameras.And I personally know many people still using film cameras made two and three decades ago, and even older for that matter.
Sandy"

Merg Ross
25-Mar-2009, 21:01
"I find threads of this sort enormously depressing."

Me too. The notion that otherwise sane people are acutally spending time and energy to say the same things that have already been said by thousands upon thousands of other people thousands upon thousands of times iin thousand upon thousands of identical threads dealing with the same unanswerable quetion is very depressing.

Where is there evidence of sanity in this five year old thread? It reads very much like defensive posturing from those who produce their art by differing techniques. And, I might add, very little enlightenment to the future of large format film has been provided, which was the original topic.

We do not know the future of film, but I think it foolish to predict its demise anytime soon. First, there must be a viable replacement, and we have not reached that point yet; some will surely disagree. However, the goal should be to take pleasure in producing your art, by the technique of your choice.

sanking
26-Mar-2009, 11:12
That is true, but it is no different from the majority of other threads on the forum. Many people take personal offense if anything negative is said about their equipment or technique, even when the comment is not directed toward the person. If one points out that drum and professional flatbeds give better results than an Epson flatbed ,the remark is taken as personal affront by the Epson owner. If you suggest that a DSLR can not give the same image quality as a sheet of LF film, the owner of the DSLR takes offense.

Dealing with petty attitudes is just part of business as usual in exchanging information on the forum.

Sandy King







Where is there evidence of sanity in this five year old thread? It reads very much like defensive posturing from those who produce their art by differing techniques.

Marko
26-Mar-2009, 11:37
There is nothing inherently insane or unusual in trying to figure out what the future brings. But unfortunately, as Sandy pointed out, too many people are violently intolerant toward differing opinions and prefer to shoot the messenger rather than deal with the message itself.

The insanity begins when users of cameras type A start calling users of cameras type B "machine gunners", "digiheads", "snapshooters" and such. Someone recently even equalled users of the "other" type with pedophiles!

But that has very little to do with the topic of the thread - the attitude in question has been creeping up in virtually all types of discussions, to the point of making sane people start avoiding any discussion. This was a very different board a few years ago - there were all sorts of conversations going on with very few "screamers" and "cursers", but it is increasingly starting to resemble certain other boards in this regard.

dwross
26-Mar-2009, 12:09
However, the goal should be to take pleasure in producing your art, by the technique of your choice.

Amen.

rguinter
26-Mar-2009, 13:33
0 - 20 bellow? At temperatures even remotely close to that, I would worry about keeping myself functioning, nevermind my camera....

Marko:

-20F yes indeed. And yes a reliable 4x4, chains on all 4, snowshoes, pac-boots, crampons, and a host of other miscellaneous survival gear are sometimes needed just for the getting there. I find for some of the best artistic photos, the effort of getting there far exceeds the minimal effort needed in setting up and clicking the shutter. But film cameras do work rather reliably at these low temperature extremes when I wouldn't even consider carrying anything battery powered because the voltage drops off to nothing in a very short time. The essence of a (primarily) wilderness, backwoods photographer I guess. Bob

rguinter
26-Mar-2009, 13:42
I thought the quote was..."never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." But perhaps the dinosaurs should have paid more attention to meteors... that is, if current theory about their extinction is correct.

rguinter
26-Mar-2009, 13:49
Into the great white open.....

sanking
26-Mar-2009, 14:05
The July/August 2007 edition of Lenswork has a portfolio by Joan Myers of her work in Antarctica, sponsored by a NSF grant. In her interview with Brooks Jensen she mentions that she took a Nikon D100 DSLR and a Fujica. She writes that she had no problem with either camera bit that some of the film separated from the backing and the ball head of her tripod froze. She notes that she ended up shooting mostly with the DSLR.


Sandy King

Marko
26-Mar-2009, 14:18
Marko:

-20F yes indeed. And yes a reliable 4x4, chains on all 4, snowshoes, pac-boots, crampons, and a host of other miscellaneous survival gear are sometimes needed just for the getting there. I find for some of the best artistic photos, the effort of getting there far exceeds the minimal effort needed in setting up and clicking the shutter. But film cameras do work rather reliably at these low temperature extremes when I wouldn't even consider carrying anything battery powered because the voltage drops off to nothing in a very short time. The essence of a (primarily) wilderness, backwoods photographer I guess. Bob

Insofar as this has anything to do with the topic, everywhere I look I hear that digital cameras work just fine in the extreme cold, provided that adequate measures are taken. Such as a system for warming up the batteries and a mechanism to prevent exposing the camera to sudden temperature changes. The latter applies equally to all cameras, film or digital. Digital sensors seem to like lower temperature much better than film, though, as cooling is one of the best noise-reducing methods.

David Burdeny (http://www.davidburdeny.com/), for example, has a really great Antarctica and Greenland series from 2007 for which he used transparencies AND digital capture as indicated in the print info section.

tgtaylor
26-Mar-2009, 14:51
If anyone watched Extreme Ice which aired this past Tuesday on the PBS program Nova, you will note that the photographer used a digital camera AND a Large Format Toyo field camera.

"So long as photography is essentially about image-making then the method used to arrive at the image is irrelevant." Joe Cornish

sanking
26-Mar-2009, 15:15
BTW, I was one of the instructors along with Joe Cornish at a workshop sponsored by Digital Elevator last October in eastern Ontario. Joe's work is simple, but very elegant, and I don't use that word often for color landscape photography.

Joe has worked for much of his career with 4X5 transparency film, but was experimenting with a newly acquired P45 back at workshop on his 4X5 Ebony. He made several direct comparisons between film and the P45 for his own self-education.

At some point he may post some opinion about the different media, but so far I have not seen it. But his opinion is one that I would value more than what comes out of the Luminous Landscape.

Sandy King





If anyone watched Extreme Ice which aired this past Tuesday on the PBS program Nova, you will note that the photographer used a digital camera AND a Large Format Toyo field camera.

"So long as photography is essentially about image-making then the method used to arrive at the image is irrelevant." Joe Cornish

Richard Littlewood
27-Mar-2009, 01:32
Sadly film will go the way of the dinosaurs unless younger people start to get more involved, and I dont know what it's like all around the world. but where I'm at the trend is very much away from film and the darkroom.

rguinter
27-Mar-2009, 06:13
Insofar as this has anything to do with the topic, everywhere I look I hear that digital cameras work just fine in the extreme cold, provided that adequate measures are taken. Such as a system for warming up the batteries and a mechanism to prevent exposing the camera to sudden temperature changes. The latter applies equally to all cameras, film or digital. Digital sensors seem to like lower temperature much better than film, though, as cooling is one of the best noise-reducing methods.

David Burdeny (http://www.davidburdeny.com/), for example, has a really great Antarctica and Greenland series from 2007 for which he used transparencies AND digital capture as indicated in the print info section.


Well yes, perhaps it’s a stretch on the original topic. My post was to make a point for one of the advantages of film photography. Granted, anyone with sufficient funding and human resources at their disposal can charter a trip to Antarctica with all the electronics needed to render excellent digital photos. But for a hobbyist like me there is limited room in my backpack for gear that is prone to failure under adverse weather conditions. I keep a 9-volt in my pocket to power my lightmeter. But beyond that, the rest of my digital equipment stays behind. I suspect NASA has funded battery technology sufficiently to produce power sources that will function down to near absolute zero. But the only batteries available to me are what I can get at my local store. And I find from experience that these simply do not work well at sub-zero temperatures. Bob

Brian Ellis
27-Mar-2009, 07:30
Hey, whatever you say...

But again, this here is the thread about the future of LF film, I made my best guess based on the past and current states of digital as part of the future trend.

You could at least try to provide the examples of those "many corporations (that) are switching to film for important documents, and courts (that) are disallowing them." you mentioned...

You surely didn't make that up, did you? Or did they go so far back that they are now disallowing even the Internet access?

;)

Yes, he made it up. The notion that courts are "disallowing" digital images is an urban myth that film fanatics like to trot out from time to time in these sorts of discussions.

The fact is that while digital images have presented problems from an evidentiary standpoint, those problems have for the most part been dealt with and digital images are now introduced into evidence pretty much to the same extent and the same way as any record is introduced - i.e. either the parties stipulate or someone authenticates
them.

And of course the notion that "corporations" are switching to film for "important documents" is a vast over-generalization. "Corporations" (whatever exactly that means - is he talking about my little professional P.A.?) do whatever they do without letting most of us know. But I seriously doubt that most corporations have someone who sits around deciding which documents are "important" and which aren't, and then photographs the "important" ones with a film camera.

Marko
27-Mar-2009, 08:36
Of course he made it up. It is funny in a pathetic sort of way that three different (?) individuals would come up with slight variations of the same myth - first there were "big-time wedding and portrait photographers" tossed around a few times, then came the "major corporations and courts" and finally "major libraries", all magnanimously "switching back to film" but in a very hush-hush sort of way, probably to escape enraged hordes of "digi-heads" joined by outed "pedophiles"...

So hush-hush in fact, that even the originators of those "news" dare not respond to repeated inquires. One would think that after the recent news about Rollei going under and the plug being pulled on Kentmere, something on this order of magnitude would cause jubilant celebration over at APUG, but curiosly, there's not a peep.

If it weren't for such garbage, discussions like this might actually be rather interesting, for even Ansel Adams mused about it. Perhaps that is the goal - to shut down meaningful discussions about topics like this one?

Marko
27-Mar-2009, 08:45
Well yes, perhaps it’s a stretch on the original topic. My post was to make a point for one of the advantages of film photography. Granted, anyone with sufficient funding and human resources at their disposal can charter a trip to Antarctica with all the electronics needed to render excellent digital photos. But for a hobbyist like me there is limited room in my backpack for gear that is prone to failure under adverse weather conditions. I keep a 9-volt in my pocket to power my lightmeter. But beyond that, the rest of my digital equipment stays behind. I suspect NASA has funded battery technology sufficiently to produce power sources that will function down to near absolute zero. But the only batteries available to me are what I can get at my local store. And I find from experience that these simply do not work well at sub-zero temperatures. Bob

To me, funding a trip to Antarctica sounds much more expensive than pulling two wires from the battery in a pocket. If you know of a trip that cheap, I'd like to know about it.

Drew Wiley
27-Mar-2009, 08:52
Marko - I'm so glad to see you've invented a digital movie camera, and have also via
divine fiat made survelliance planes disappear from existence, now that we no longer
need them. Of course, if major movie producers wanted to switch primarily to electronic capture they could have done it some time ago with video cameras. Have
fun with your point-and-shoot! I'm enjoying film myself, but unfortunately only have
about twelve types of 8x10 on hand right now, so scarce has the selection become!

Marko
27-Mar-2009, 11:11
A few illustrative quotes from the link (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20071113/kodak-china-lucky-film.htm)provided in the Kodak share thread (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=46748&page=2):



The move brings to a close what was once one of Kodak's most optimistic endeavors, derailed by the rapid rise of digital cameras and resulting global decline in demand for film.


Kodak had hoped that consumers in China would take to film photography before moving to digital cameras.


Kodak is undergoing a lengthy and expensive transformation into a maker of digital cameras and printing services. Since late 2003, the Rochester, New York-based company has focused on digital devices, hoping to outpace the drop in demand for film.

Lucky Film has also seen a sharp drop in its earnings in recent years. Its profits recovered a little last year, which it mainly attributed to growth of its digital photographic business.

That's one rather big wall and this is a pretty clear writing for anybody willing to read.

Marko
27-Mar-2009, 11:21
Now, regarding the movie industry:

1. Headline: Bollywood set to embrace digital cinema (http://www.physorg.com/news9233.html)


While studios and theater owners in Hollywood fight over who pays for the expensive computer-based projection systems for digital screening of movies, digital cinema distribution is the new technological revolution that is sweeping the Hindi film industry known as Bollywood.

2. Headline: Hollywood hails digital film deal (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4724335.stm)


The digital cinema revolution has moved a step closer after Hollywood studios reached a landmark deal that will consign reels of film to history.

Please note the dates on both articles - makes it pretty old news, four years to be exact. There is only one direction that related technologies took since then.

Drew Wiley
27-Mar-2009, 11:42
Marko - this is old stuff. And it's talking about digital cinema screens, not digital capture. So how many malls actually have this now, or are willing to go into deep debt to acquire it? I know Lucas is pushing for it, but last time I ran across him he was
watering fruit trees at his ranch. What affects me as a photographer, however, is the
demand for suppliers to keep producing film base. Although there are various acetates
and polyesters used for different applications, as long as there are certain heavy users
of these bases there will be a variety of coating machines in operation, hence the
incentive for get profit from secondary customers like still photographers. Digital screens would affect the mass-production of movies for distribution itself, but not the
intensive use of film for orignal capture. But I'd certainly agree the technology itself
is quite interesting; but here again, it's the actual profitability to the industry which
will determine if this flies or not, since there are competing options which involve film
itself. Around this part of the world, there's been an enormous amount of debate over
this specific subject between people with vastly more money than either you or I.

Marko
27-Mar-2009, 11:53
And here's some about medical imaging:

1. Europe Poised for Exponential Growth in the Digitised Medical Imaging Storage Space, Reveals Frost & Sullivan (http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/europe-poised-exponential-growth-digitised-medical-imaging-storage-space-724525826/)


"There is an increasing demand for digitising medical images as opposed to the traditional film-based images," notes Frost & Sullivan Research Analyst Shriram Shanmugham. "Unlike film-based images, digital images do not decay over time and can easily be stored for longer periods of time. Digitised images require less inventory space and the same image can be accessed by multiple physicians simultaneously."

Moreover, the turn-around time from the initial meeting with the physician to availing complete diagnosis is reduced. As a result, patients can expect quicker appointments with physicians and they can have permanent access to the images from remote sites.

2. Examine the Medical Imaging Markets, Volume I: Radiography (http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS224421+12-Feb-2009+BW20090212)


The reinvigorated market for medical imaging systems employing x-rays has
undoubtedly been propelled by the explosion of digital technology. But also, the
expanded role of imaging modalities in a whole host of clinical applications
from trauma to cancer to cardiology has increased the profile of radiography
while enabling computer technologies expand the usefulness of traditional x-ray
techniques.

These are quite current.

redrockcoulee
27-Mar-2009, 12:23
Yes, he made it up. The notion that courts are "disallowing" digital images is an urban myth that film fanatics like to trot out from time to time in these sorts of discussions.

The fact is that while digital images have presented problems from an evidentiary standpoint, those problems have for the most part been dealt with and digital images are now introduced into evidence pretty much to the same extent and the same way as any record is introduced - i.e. either the parties stipulate or someone authenticates
them.

And of course the notion that "corporations" are switching to film for "important documents" is a vast over-generalization. "Corporations" (whatever exactly that means - is he talking about my little professional P.A.?) do whatever they do without letting most of us know. But I seriously doubt that most corporations have someone who sits around deciding which documents are "important" and which aren't, and then photographs the "important" ones with a film camera.

This winter I have taken two environmental monitoring courses (Neilsen Environmental) where the instructors, who teach and consult on contaminated sites do state that in THEIR experience they have had digital images questions in court and also advise against using either wide angle or telephoto lenses as they are also questioned about accuracy of the scene. I had asked them why digital was acceptable in criminal courts as the forensic in police forces are using digital and they just repeated their personal experience.They had no axe to grind as they were not photographers and actually suggested disposable cameras. They are both considered experts in the field of monitoring wells. Details can be supplied on request if you doubt their credentials. Personally I use digital for my contaminated sites and would never think of a disposable camera. I am just repeated what was stated in two different classes.

Again not sure if those taking photographs for evidence are using large format film as they did use 35mm and last year the Nikon D200 was the accepted standard among the police forces in Canada.

Drew Wiley
27-Mar-2009, 12:45
Here's where some of the confusion lies. Microfilm is very practical for storing history
for posterity. For example, not many libraries would want to keep actual daily copies of
the NY Times or other major newspapers on hand because they would take up a lot of
space, tend to deteriorate, and present a fire hazard. Same for arcane public records
like obituaries. With microfilm there's no need for some kind of digital rosetta stone to
interpret between the kinds of comuputer software that might hypothetically be around
decades from now. On the other hand, digital storage is much better for current work
that someone wants to communicate in the contemporary world, like a relevant phD
thesis at a university. The two different modes actually complement one another in
certain ways, rather than compete. The same goes for aerial survelliance. Satellites are good for certain things, but true film for others. Spy planes still operate over much
of the earth (accept Russia, where there's an agreement not to). An entire NSA facility
exists where digital technology is not even allowed, so that nobody can tinker with it.
But there are six additive color enlargers for 9x9 aerial film. Although I obviously haven't been in this facility I have seen specific components from the machines
because my own 8x10 color enlarger was built on a similar premise and I used a couple
of the same subcontractors. And on several occasions I've seen actual samples
from the NSA - and believe me they weren't digital! Satellites or old-fashioned spies
tell where the NSA to acquire true-color and greater detailed images from actual planes. I even know the folks who make the special lenses for them. If you've got a
hundred grand to spare why not order up your own dagor with all aspheric elements!

rguinter
27-Mar-2009, 13:37
.... after the recent news about Rollei going under ....

Is that true about Rollei going under? And here I was planning to purchase some of their IR film in the near future. Too bad. Bob

Drew Wiley
27-Mar-2009, 13:39
Postscript - Marko, I'm all too familiar with what's going on with medical imaging too.
I even helped set up the digital stuff for my wife's clinic. But that amounts to short
term archiving for insurance purposes, liability, patient history,etc. And this is not "archival" in the sense most art conservators mean. Yes, you'd document a
valuable art collection on disc for insurance or potential theft issues, but those discs
aren't a substitute for the object itself. There are also plenty of instances where there's been a misdiagnosis due to electronic transfer of digitized information; in such case, if there is a question, mailing hard-copy X-rays are sometimes requested, or frequently an MRI - but that's relatively expensive, so not a routine option without a fuss from the insurance companies. Film is anything but dead, especially in those many places around the globe where hospitals can't afford hi-tech equipment. Cumulatively
the demand for X-ray film is still enormous. But in terms of attracting new investment
money, Kodak is wise to keep at the forefront of supplying the medical trade with
digital technology (as is Nikon).

Marko
27-Mar-2009, 13:41
This winter I have taken two environmental monitoring courses (Neilsen Environmental) where the instructors, who teach and consult on contaminated sites do state that in THEIR experience they have had digital images questions in court and also advise against using either wide angle or telephoto lenses as they are also questioned about accuracy of the scene.

Questioning is what the courts do by design. Being questioned is very different from being disallowed and the difference is much more than semantic.

Marko
27-Mar-2009, 13:55
Is that true about Rollei going under? And here I was planning to purchase some of their IR film in the near future. Too bad. Bob

Unfortunately it is. I have lots of good memories tied to that brand and I hate to see it go.

But it is Francke & Heidecke, the umbrella company that declared insolvency. May not be the film division, though. I didn't check because it does not concern me, I am not using their films.

redrockcoulee
27-Mar-2009, 14:21
Questioning is what the courts do by design. Being questioned is very different from being disallowed and the difference is much more than semantic.

I am glad you explained that to me.:cool: I never said disallowed and was repeating the experience of people who often testify in court and found film more acceptable than digital.

As far as semantics goes I went back and did a quick re read of the thread and noted that you wish to define film as being dead when you can no longer buy the brand that you want at a local store. You have also claimed that a true barometer of the future of large format film is the lack of introduction of new 35mm cameras and the decrease of availability of film in mass market outlets. Those like myself who have mentioned the new companies and models of large format cameras or the increase of sales of film or of new or improved emulsions as people who are using only beliefs and not reason.

I am sorry but your choice of data to forecast the future of large format film is no more proven than that of mine or some of the others who have predicted that large format film is here for a while. In addition you have dismissed any indicators that do not agree with your forecast. I can see where the sales of new 35mm cameras can be a possible indicator (your forecast) but fail to see how sales of large format cameras or of film itself (others) cannot be. I think that there is dogma going on in.

Obviously none of us knows the future and it is of some interest to read what others view as important and how they interpret those data points. What is not interesting is the putting down of those ideas that are based on other indicators as not worthy of being even in the same league as yours and that it has to be irrational wishes instead of a thoughtful prediction. We can agree or disagree on the future of large format film but I will not agree that only what you think leads to a forecast for the future is valid.

My point is that there are other criteria that can be looked at for forecasting the future and when someone believes otherwise there can be no dialogue only arguments.

Marko
27-Mar-2009, 15:14
Well, glad to be of service, since you seem to be overly liberal with other people's words and their meanings...

Go back again and do a bit more careful re-read of the thread - you might notice that you are twisting both my words and the meaning of what I said beyond recognition.

I never put down anybody's idea because I disagree with it, I put down meaningless blather with no facts behind it and no intention to back it up. You're welcome to disagree and to try and prove me wrong, you are welcome to question anything I say and I will try to answer your questions.

But if you keep misinterpreting me intentionally, we have nothing to talk about and you can join the other seagulls here in doing their thing for all I care.

Oren Grad
27-Mar-2009, 16:07
But it is Francke & Heidecke, the umbrella company that declared insolvency. May not be the film division, though. I didn't check because it does not concern me, I am not using their films.

Just to be precise: the Rollei trademark is now owned by a marketing company that has been using and/or licensing the name for all sorts of things - film, consumer digicams, accessories, etc. Franke & Heidecke is an entirely independent manufacturing company which retains the right to use the Rollei name for the TLRs that it manufactures as well as for the 600x / Hy6 SLR systems that it manufactures for sale under the Rollei brand and as OEM for Sinar and Leaf. F&H has nothing to do with Rollei-branded film or any of the other Rollei-branded consumer products. It's F&H that filed for insolvency. As yet it has not been liquidated, and conceivably it will survive, given the strong interest that Sinar and Leaf have in maintaining F&H's manufacturing capacity for the Hy6 platform.

Marko
27-Mar-2009, 16:31
Thanks for the clarification, Oren.

Again, I am not sure, simply because I never used their film and may easily be wrong, but I always thought they simply co-branded film produced by Maco/Adox.

Either way, for me Rollei brand was always synonymous with cameras, not film, and I do hope they manage to survive this.

Gene McCluney
27-Mar-2009, 18:03
Thanks for the clarification, Oren.

Again, I am not sure, simply because I never used their film and may easily be wrong, but I always thought they simply co-branded film produced by Maco/Adox.



Other way around. Maco licensed the Rollei name for film products. It is not co-branded. All the finance and marketing is Maco operating under the licensed name of Rollei. Totally separate from the entity that makes the Rollei film cameras. Maco sources emulsions from Agfa/Gevaert and Filmotec primarily.

Brian Ellis
27-Mar-2009, 21:02
This winter I have taken two environmental monitoring courses (Neilsen Environmental) where the instructors, who teach and consult on contaminated sites do state that in THEIR experience they have had digital images questions in court and also advise against using either wide angle or telephoto lenses as they are also questioned about accuracy of the scene. I had asked them why digital was acceptable in criminal courts as the forensic in police forces are using digital and they just repeated their personal experience.They had no axe to grind as they were not photographers and actually suggested disposable cameras. They are both considered experts in the field of monitoring wells. Details can be supplied on request if you doubt their credentials. Personally I use digital for my contaminated sites and would never think of a disposable camera. I am just repeated what was stated in two different classes.

Again not sure if those taking photographs for evidence are using large format film as they did use 35mm and last year the Nikon D200 was the accepted standard among the police forces in Canada.


Of course I didn't say that no digital image has ever been questioned in any court. Just the opposite. I said that "dital images have presented problems from an evidentiary standpoint" and that those problems have "for the most part" been dealt with. My point wasn't to say that nobody ever questioned the use of digital images as evidence. I'm sure your instructors were telling the truth when they related their experience. The point of my message was that, contrary to what a couple people have said in this thread, there is no rule to the effect that digital images can't be used in court. They can be and they are.

Gordon Moat
27-Mar-2009, 21:27
A matter of intent as well as perspective, I suppose.
..........

Today, film is in the process of moving into the same category. Like it or not, to look at the existing supply and availability and seriously dispute the fact represents nothing more than magical thinking. Facts have long proven that they don't care about any of that.

I think these types of statements are what cause flak in your direction.

redrockcoulee
27-Mar-2009, 22:07
Well, glad to be of service, since you seem to be overly liberal with other people's words and their meanings...

Go back again and do a bit more careful re-read of the thread - you might notice that you are twisting both my words and the meaning of what I said beyond recognition.

I never put down anybody's idea because I disagree with it, I put down meaningless blather with no facts behind it and no intention to back it up. You're welcome to disagree and to try and prove me wrong, you are welcome to question anything I say and I will try to answer your questions.

But if you keep misinterpreting me intentionally, we have nothing to talk about and you can join the other seagulls here in doing their thing for all I care.

You said "But what I am trying to point out are general trends, and the direction where they are pointing is fairly obvious to anybody who wants to look with a rational eye. Cameras are, IMO, an indicator - they are being made for both film and for digital sensors and vice versa. If you want to see a trend, look at what is being made and how much and what is being dropped. The trend is clearly there, has been for a while now.

If you refuse to see it, that's fine, plenty of people have said so here. But a discussion based on beliefs is rather pointless, because it inevitably turns into either a choir practice or a mud slinging match."

Where did I twist your statement. You have made it clear that 35 mm film sales are down and you stated about no new 35mm cameras. But you did dismiss the increase in sales of film and in LF cameras. If I mistake your statement that I added in the quotation marks than I am sorry but I can only read what I see. I thought that looking at the current trends in sales of film, of new film emulsion and of new large format models and manufactures as lines of evidence and yet it seems that it is irrational to do so.

Nobody has argued that film will ever be what it used to be or that it will overtake digital but if the film manufactures see an increase and they are putting efforts into product lines than how can that be ignored. It is another piece of evidence that should be included in one's analysis. This is not mud slinging. You had also posted about Afga no longer being available and to tell the truth in the 70s living in a city of half a million it was not always available anyways.

I have no intensions of trying to prove you wrong in your predictions, that is an impossible task unless we come back in 2o years. All I ever tried to do was to bring up factors other than 35mm cameras models and the sale of new cameras into the predictive model.

But do not call me a seagull as there is no such thing as a seagull. There are California gulls, Mew Gulls, Ring billed Gulls etc but no species or family or genus of seagulls, only gulls and some that are called seagulls are actually terns. I did question about the use of new 35mm camera models as a predictive model and got a lecture more than a discussion. There are a few other statements I could have pulled to back my claim that you are dismissive of other people's stance on this subject. But it is really about the future of large format film and as nothing you have said has persuaded me to think otherwise (although you have stated valid points to ponder there is not doubt about that). But your last statement is correct in that we have nothing to talk about.

redrockcoulee
27-Mar-2009, 22:14
Of course I didn't say that no digital image has ever been questioned in any court. Just the opposite. I said that "dital images have presented problems from an evidentiary standpoint" and that those problems have "for the most part" been dealt with. My point wasn't to say that nobody ever questioned the use of digital images as evidence. I'm sure your instructors were telling the truth when they related their experience. The point of my message was that, contrary to what a couple people have said in this thread, there is no rule to the effect that digital images can't be used in court. They can be and they are.

Brian

I was just responding to the urban myth part of your message. And I did write that I do use digital for the purpose that the instructors said to use film as I have little potential for our sites to go to court. My 4X5 enlarger and a lot of my photo paper is from the city police force as they went digital.

As well there were many statements made by various people about digital or film and their opponents demanding proofs and this was the only instance where I have a tiny bit of knowledge, second hand though it is. Perhaps I should have posted without the quotes to indicate I was not arguing with you .Sorry of there was a misunderstanding.

Andrew O'Neill
27-Mar-2009, 22:22
Is that true about Rollei going under? And here I was planning to purchase some of their IR film in the near future. Too bad. Bob

rguinter, you can get Efke's IR. As far as I can tell, it's the same film and on a much thicker base...and it's cheaper.

Marko
28-Mar-2009, 06:45
I think these types of statements are what cause flak in your direction.

I think you are right.

But that's my opinion, I try my best to explain how I came to it and I'm open to changing it if proven wrong. I won't change it nor will I stop expressing it simply because some don't like it.

Marko
28-Mar-2009, 08:08
Where did I twist your statement.

Here:


As far as semantics goes I went back and did a quick re read of the thread and noted that you wish to define film as being dead when you can no longer buy the brand that you want at a local store.

And here:


You have also claimed that a true barometer of the future of large format film is the lack of introduction of new 35mm cameras and the decrease of availability of film in mass market outlets.

And here:


In addition you have dismissed any indicators that do not agree with your forecast. I can see where the sales of new 35mm cameras can be a possible indicator (your forecast) but fail to see how sales of large format cameras or of film itself (others) cannot be.


What is not interesting is the putting down of those ideas that are based on other indicators as not worthy of being even in the same league as yours and that it has to be irrational wishes instead of a thoughtful prediction. We can agree or disagree on the future of large format film but I will not agree that only what you think leads to a forecast for the future is valid.

This is patently false. I dismiss those who come out with bombastic nonsense, such as the one about "major corporations and courts" or the one about "major libraries" switching back to film in an attempt to dispute my opinion but who refuse to provide ANY data for what they say except to provide a quote from APUG.

I have repeatedly said here that this is all just a personal opinion based on what data I had available to me as an amateur, the same thing all of us here do, unless there is a professional market analyst somewhere among us. And even they have been roundly dismissed and even ridiculed in the other thread about Kodak's dwindling share.

I also went to the trouble and effort of explaining how and why I came to my opinion and provided plenty of examples. I will NOT dismiss either you or anybody else for questioning or disputing my conclusions, but I will ask that you have the courtesy to provide some real, reasonably independent data yourself. No, I'm sorry, but I do not consider APUG to be a credible source in film vs. digital "discussions", for obvious reasons.



You have made it clear that 35 mm film sales are down and you stated about no new 35mm cameras. But you did dismiss the increase in sales of film and in LF cameras. If I mistake your statement that I added in the quotation marks than I am sorry but I can only read what I see. I thought that looking at the current trends in sales of film, of new film emulsion and of new large format models and manufactures as lines of evidence and yet it seems that it is irrational to do so.

You also said that you did a quick re-read of the thread. Perhaps you should re-read a bit more carefully? Maybe even try reading within the context? Pulling one or two sentences out of discussion like this won't get you very far in the comprehension department. If I didn't already make it clear that I am looking at the profitability of film market as a basic determining factor for the future of film production, and at 35mm as the mass-production carrier of that market, I don't know how to make ti clearer.


Nobody has argued that film will ever be what it used to be or that it will overtake digital but if the film manufactures see an increase and they are putting efforts into product lines than how can that be ignored. It is another piece of evidence that should be included in one's analysis. This is not mud slinging. You had also posted about Afga no longer being available and to tell the truth in the 70s living in a city of half a million it was not always available anyways.

I have no intensions of trying to prove you wrong in your predictions, that is an impossible task unless we come back in 2o years. All I ever tried to do was to bring up factors other than 35mm cameras models and the sale of new cameras into the predictive model.

That's exactly what some people have been saying, that is what I tend to ridicule and you took that part out of the overall context and blew it up.

You can dispute my opinion and we can discuss it all you want and I will admit I was wrong if you manage to prove it, no problem about it. This is a discussion board, after all. Just follow the basic rules of a normal discourse and all will be fine.



But do not call me a seagull as there is no such thing as a seagull. There are California gulls, Mew Gulls, Ring billed Gulls etc but no species or family or genus of seagulls, only gulls and some that are called seagulls are actually terns. I did question about the use of new 35mm camera models as a predictive model and got a lecture more than a discussion. There are a few other statements I could have pulled to back my claim that you are dismissive of other people's stance on this subject. But it is really about the future of large format film and as nothing you have said has persuaded me to think otherwise (although you have stated valid points to ponder there is not doubt about that). But your last statement is correct in that we have nothing to talk about.

See this is the problem here - you keep twisting what I say to the point of non-recognition!

Didn't you see the big "But if you keep misinterpreting me intentionally," part right before "we have nothing to talk about"[/b]?

Sorry, I am not a marine biologist, the gulls all look the same to me - not overly intelligent birds that come screeching out of the blue, usually in groups, drop lots of stuff down and generally make a huge mess, always the same, regardless of what one says or does.

We can talk about anything you want, but IF you keep twisting my words, what's the point?

redrockcoulee
28-Mar-2009, 09:26
Marko

In post 183 you made a statement on what you were basing your criteria on the future of large format film. In post 187 I submitted other criteria that I thought relevant to the discussion, that perhaps the trend in sales in film, especially large format film land the introduction of new models and new manufactures of large format film as better indicators. Your response was not a discussion on that point but dismissing, and I thought dishing, views that were opposing yours. Read what you said in post 189. It is true that I did not provide any proof that She Hao has produced new models in the last two years or that Chamoinix is a new manufacturer of cameras. But alternatively I never asked for proof that Nikon or Cannon have made new models of digital cameras in the last two years. Neither statements need proving as far as I am concerned. But if you want I can go get those for you. As far as film sales goes I do not have the numbers but comments were made by others on that subject here and elsewhere and I have to take them on their word just as I took you on your word about the lack of film in your local stores.

I know little in the way of microfilm, movie film stock or storage for corporations and have not stated any comments about those three subjects. I made a single comment about digital versus film in court cases regarding contaminated sites based strictly on the word of professionals in that field and if you need their names they are Dave and Gillian Neilsen. Do a search of monitoring wells and Neilsen if you want. I do not remember quoting APUG but perhaps some of the info came from there like the announcements of new film emulsions but when someone announces that Kodak or Ilford or Fuji has a new film I normally go to the company's web site and Kodak and Fuji have produced new or upgraded emulsions.

What you have accused me doing is of INTENTIONALLY misinterpreting (Post 264). I have not done so. The topic of any motivation or lack of motivation on my part is one subject that I do know more than you. If you read my comments I said do not call me a seagull I did not say that you had called me a seagull. It was really a response to your semantics statement and I guess I was trying to be smart that you were being big on the meanings of words and yet used a term that although is extremely common is totally incorrect. Perhaps a smiley would have been in order. And actually an ornithologist would be more appropriate than a marine biologist as the gulls also live inland.

I still believe that although sales of 35mm film might be an indicator of the future of large format film, the trend in sales of film in general and large format film in particular must also be viewed as indicators for the future of large format film and not to do so is only looking at part of the picture. What I submitted were these introductions of film and cameras as bases that film is not dying and there is still a future for large format film. I also read the replies and remarks that you made to others and it was and still is my impression that you are more interested in arguing than discussing and therefore may later remarks, Marko, you can respond to this if you wish and have the last word.

Michael_4514
28-Mar-2009, 09:46
It seems that this thread was quiet for about four years. Before it degenerates any further, maybe we should just let it go back to sleep and reconvene in another four years and take stock of the supply of film at that time.