No more "film is dead/dying/crappy" posts please

[Emre Yildirim]

Although the past 10 or so threads on how film is supposedly dying have been insightful and interesting, I think I'm getting a little annoyed now. Everyone is making it sound like film is going to completely disappear in two years or something.

Let me remind everyone that manufacturers are still coming out with new emulsions and improving them as well. Fuji just came out with a new Velvia less than 6 months ago! How can you people think so negatively about film's future? If Kodak's CEO wants to be stupid and make statements like the ones he did, then that's fine. Personally I never liked Kodak's films (except maybe Tmax 100) - once Fuji came along, Kodak was pretty much in decline anyway. Most of their slide films are grainier, or just as grainy as Fuji's crappiest consumer films.

Anyway, I don't want to start another discussion about this as there are more than enough in this forum. I think we'll have film 35mm, 120, 4x5, and 8x10 for at least 10 more years. I'm guessing 35mm film might be gone in the next 5 years, but who cares about that? 35mm sucks anyway, I'm glad it's going away. I suspect however that medium and large format will stick around. The price drop isn't going to continue indefinitely - the Canon 1Ds MkII only dropped a few hundred dollars since it was released. There's just not all that much demand for higher-res digital cameras...not for the consumer/prosumer at least.

[Deniz]

I have to agree with my fellow contryman here :)

I got quite a few boxes of 8x10 film in my freezer that i have to go through to start complaining.. and if they stop producing affordable 8x10 film, i will start making Tintypes..

cheers

[C.A]

I'm also bored with the "film is dead" thing, film should be around for as long as we are because it's used in many other specialist fields and not just photography. I've yet to see an x-ray machine with a digital back. I used to get grief every time I went to my local photography store to buy some film, but now I use mail order and they've lost a customer. There's many other manufactures other than Kodak and Fuji, give retro photographic a try www.retrophotographic.com

[J.L. Kennedy]

If you want to limit the topics of discussion allowed on this forum, you should probably email the moderators directly. However, it seems rather constrictive to limit discussion of film availability on a large format photography forum. It's kind of central to what most of us do! I haven't noticed a lot of discussion on digital capture and considering the best we can get is the Betterlight for multiple thousands of dollars for a scanning back, I'm guessing that most of us will be using film for a while and will be concerned about its availability (and will want to talk about it, no matter whether our discussion makes any difference). My suggestion for you is to just put out a general notice to everyone that you are tired of the topic and that if we persist in discussing it we should not expect you to join in. That way no one will be disappointed when you don't.

[C.A]

J.L.Kennedy, If this is an open forum I'm aloud my say, I've noticed a few like you on this forum who really get on my nerves.

[Emre Yildirim]

J.L.,

There is nothing wrong with discussing these topics, but 5 threads is redundant. I'm just getting annoyed when people make assumptions and try to second-guess the film industry's motivations. These threads (which get gloomier and more doubtful each time they branch out into new threads) are very discouraging to people who may have joined this forum and is interested in LF photography. I'm not saying it shouldn't be discussed, but there is no need to cast this much doubt on film while it's still being produced, improved and sold around the world.

[Richard Kelham]

C Alex said: "I've yet to see an x-ray machine with a digital back."

Saw one a couple of years ago when I damaged my back in a car-crash. Probably standard equipment in all new hospitals by now, at least here in the UK.

Having said that, I reckon film production will outlive me (especially if I carry on driving!).

Richard

[C.A]

J.L, I think we've misunderstood each other, I was trying to say that film is needed all over the place so there's no need for anyone to worry about it disappearing.

[J.L. Kennedy]

What really gets on my nerves is people coming to an open forum and trying it make it less open by saying that other people shouldn't discuss "on topic" stuff because they are tired of hearing about it. This topic of film availability is of great concern to many and there is always new information so it's not like a forum reader can go back and search the threads for the answer to a question. It's current and it's on topic. I don't mind saying that I skip most of the film availability threads because I feel exactly as you do, that they are boring. However, this forum wouldn't be of much use if forum participants felt stupid for bringing up some topic or another for fear of being told "That's stupid and you shouldn't be talking about it." By the way, I'm all for strong moderation to remove flame wars, profanity, off topic posts calculated to stir up flame wars, etc.

[J.L. Kennedy]

C. Alex: I never said you weren't allowed your say. What I was responding to was the obvious intent of the person who started this thread by titling it "No more... please". That seems to me an obvious attempt to limit discussion. By the way, it appears that we were both writing responses at the same time and your last post beat mine! I appreciate your conciliatory tone and hope that you will forgive me for sounding so harsh in my previous posts.

[Wayne]

What really gets on my nerves is when trolls like "Emre Yildirim" make up fake usernames to tell me that the rapid disappearance of many films isnt a valid topic of discussion.

[tim atherton]

"I'm also bored with the "film is dead" thing, film should be around for as long as we are because it's used in many other specialist fields and not just photography. I've yet to see an x-ray machine with a digital back."

There are a whole range of digital X-Ray machines - they also make "digital" film packs to use in regular X-Ray machines. And of course their big selling point is "no flm costs"

Our friends at Kodak make them I think - among others. The US military even uses them in their Field Hospitals in Iraq.

among others

http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/health/pdf/prod/directCap/dr/M1-449.pdf

etc

If you are bored with the "film is dead" thing - stop reading all the posts and go and make photographs. No one is forcing you to read them

[Wayne]

My apologies to "Emre" for my comment about the false username, as earlier today the function for finding posts by a user was apparently malfunctioning and it came up with zero posts by that name. Now its working and I see that this user has posted before. But the topic is still valid-last year alone several popular films vanished forever, and more seem certain to go in short order.

[ronald lamarsh]

" I've yet to see an x-ray machine with a digital back"
To which someone responded they saw one in the UK when in a hospital there for injuries. Fully digital dectectors for x-ray machines are becoming more common however the price difference of a fully digital (meaning after exposure the technician simply reviews the image on a monitor) as opposed to an old style unit using film is somewhere around $300K. Which is why digital has not replaced film in any medium whether it is photography or medical care. What the person in the UK saw was most likely a hybrid unit that uses cassettes with a screen that is sensitive to x-ray which is then digitally scanned but is filmless.
I can see where in industrial, medical and commercial applications that digital is becoming more the norm due to the advantages of speed(no developing etc.) and protability(you can send the images in e-mail) but as I have said before and other have stated the invention of photography didn't mean that people quit painting pictures. The expense of going digital for most of us is out of the question. Were I a pro arcitestural photographer I would probably invest in a scanner for my negs and a small (11x14) printer to enable me to compete but that's about it.

[bglick]

Ron, I have been Xrayed a lot in the past 2 years, and every facility uses digital recording devices, ZERO film. I too was quite shocked to see this. After the technician takes the recording device and puts it into the reader, the image appears on the PC monitor in less then a minute....quite impressive, of course, unlike photography, every x ray facility will not run out and replace film xrays for this new technology. It may be more efficient, but offers a 50 year payback.

As for the "too much" issue.... I think J.L.'s posts are very sensible....it's an open forum, right? There is many threads which I have zero interest in. So, when I see the subject header, I just skip over them, what's so hard about that? If you don't like the subject matter or the opinions on certain subject matter, don't read it? But why attempt to prevent others from discussing it?

I also agree with J.L. in that, film is the most significant part of what we do, hence our constant curiosity of its "state of affairs". This latest round of film issues has shed much new light on the subject. And although many of us film users don't feel threatened film will be gone next month, we still like to stay abreast of the liklihood of its demise. Many of us, base decisions on our future endeavors / gear purchases, on this type of information.

[Emre Yildirim]

Hey, thanks for calling me a troll.

Okay, you're right, film is disappearing. So is the ozone layer and the Lucky Charms cereal boxes that are on sale at the grocery store right now. Let's move on (and by move one, I really mean, let's start 18 more threads on how film is dead - maybe the additional discussion will kill film faster/bring it back). Just because a forum is open, doesn't mean it shouled be spammed with the same topic over and over. But whatever, I'm just going to skip these threads in my inbox from now on.

[Bee Flowers]

Film is not dead at all. It's just a really backward way of making a picture. Film is dumb, not dead.

[Walt Calahan]

A dear friend I've know since First Grade is a X-Ray technician in a hospital.

All his X-Ray gear is digital. He says that it allows the dcotors to see far more from one exposure than film can see. By using levels in the imaging software the doctor can see throughout the soft tissues. In the past to get various soft tissues, the X-Ray technician would have to make various exposures at varying intensities of X-Ray. This saves patients from large exposure to radiation.

Also it saves having to dispose of the radioactive chemical waste that comes from developing X-Ray film, which is great for the environment. The pay off to the hospital is far sooner than 50 years if one factors in the cost of all the external issures of using radiation, as well as the speed by which images can be sent to doctors throughout the hospital. No more couriering film from place to place. The doctor can access the information at any networked computer.

Film isn't dumb. Film has no mind. People are smart or dumb accordingly.

[Sal Santamaura]

"...the radioactive chemical waste that comes from developing X-Ray film..."

Please explain. Why radioactive?

[Varakan Ten Tipprapa]

, but records still selling now even less people are interested , but still have it ... sound better than CD anyway.

[C.A]

Haven't been in a hospital for 20 year, I guess things have moved on greatly, all high tech now. No need to enlighten me about x-rays, I've already been told. Don't understand the bit about "film is Dumb".

[Wayne]

Dont encourage the troll, Alex. ;-)