The future of film and LF cameras.

[Stephen Willard]

Consider this:

Has the gun eliminated the bow?
Has the airplane eliminated the hot air balloon?
Has the rototiller replaced the spade?
Has the power lawn mower eliminated the hand mower?
Has email eliminated snail mail?
Has the cell phone replaced the house phone?
Has the Palm Pilot replaced day planers?
Has the stapler replaced paperclips?
Has the cloths dryer eliminated cloths pins?
Has the power boat replaced the canoe or sail boat?
Has bottled compressed air replace the dust brush?
Has the gun scope replaced open sights?
Has paint sprayers eliminated paint brushes?
Has the vacuum cleaner eliminated the broom?
Has the computer eliminated filing cabinets?
Has the automatic transmission replaced the standard transmission?
Has online billing replaced snail mail billing?
Has online banking replaced the bank?
Has plastic replaced paper money?
Has metal studs replaced wood studs?
Has the flat screen TV replaced the TV tube?
Has the iPod replaced the stereo system?
Has the pen replaced the pencil?
Has the computer printer replaced the pen?
Has DVDs replaced books?
Has online classes replaced the class room?
Has the light bulb eliminated oil lamps?
Has the electric stove eliminated gas stoves?
Has nonstick pots and pans replaced cast iron pots and pans?
Has online ecards replaced paper cards?
Has contacts eliminated glasses?
Has the digital watch replaced the analog watch?
Has the GPS eliminated the compass?
Has the gun eliminated the knife?
Has the chain saw eliminated the axe?
Has the power saw eliminated hand saw?
Has the power staple gun eliminated the nail and hammer?
Has the power plane eliminated the hand plane?
Has Velcro replaced the shoe lace?
Has the hair clipper replaced the hand scissors?
Has fast food replaced real food?
Has DVDs eliminated the movie theater?
Has synthetic fabrics eliminated cotton fabrics?
Has modern furnaces eliminated fireplaces or wood stoves?
Has FM replaced AM?
Has TV eliminated radio?
Has online news eliminated TV news or newspapers?
Has the snowboard eliminated the ski?
Has the alpine ski eliminated the Nordic ski?
Has the snowmobile eliminated the snowshoe?
Has the supermarket eliminated the corner market?
Has the power toothbrush eliminated the hand toothbrush?
Has synthetic down replaced goose down?
Has the race car replaced the race horse?
Has the automobile eliminated the horse?
Has synthetic boots eliminated leather boots?
Has artificial bait eliminated the worm?
Has the kayak eliminated the inner tube?
Has the supermarket eliminated the vegetable garden?

In all cases noted above the answer is NO! The hot air balloon, the axe, the bow and arrow, and the cloths pin will most likely never go away, and I suspect film will not either. There will always be a significant group of people who have no camera and will go to Wal-Mart to buy a reusable film camera.

To do high quality fine art digital photography today is and will continue to be extremely expensive, and it is cost prohibitive to stay current. My digital buddy has given up trying to stay current which probable explains why digital sales are slumping. The market saturation point is being reached. Those that are going to do digital imaging have done it, and they do not have the buck left to upgrade to the next generational leap. For this reason alone I believe film will be with us for many years. I can make a high quality16x20 color print in my darkroom for about $1.00 which includes printing on Fuji Crystal Archive paper and chemistry, and the minute I put the latest sheet film in LF camera I am current. My friend estimates it would cost anywhere from $20 to $35 to make a high quality16x20 inkjet print. Control or no control that is a big difference, and some of us are smart enough to realize this and will continue to demand traditional photographic products because they are a lot cheaper.

Some would say why would I every want to grow my own vegetables when I can buy them at the store, or why would I ever want to fly a hot air balloon when I have so much more control flying a jet. My only answer is some of us have the talent and artistic vision to produce great prints without having to twirl bits and pixels. The pleasures of growing your own vegetables, the smell of air dried cloths, the quiet flight of a hot air balloon, and taking hours if not days constructing an exquisite composition with a LF camera simply has no equal.

[scott_6029]

And the tranistor replaced the vacuum tube? NO! High end audio vacuum tube equip. is more musical than transistors. Plenty of mfrs. of tubes in the world. There is a single plant in russia turning 600k tubes a month.

[George Kara]

Stephen

I dont think there is any reason to justify using film, or digital for that matter. I am primarily a painter and prefer oil over acrylic or tempera. I also combine digitized imagery to create moving paintings.

I personally feel comfortable using both and see no need to justify anything to anyone. If you have the bucks for a scanning back and your style of shooting is suitable. God Bless you and go for it.

The medium itself has little value. Its the content only. I have been finding out more and more that the purchasers of most of the high end digi backs are amateurs who have the financial means to play. Thats OK.

the same type also are the ones purchasing the Bugatti V16's (darn Id love one of the those myself).

If I could afford it, Id have the leaf, phase one, and better light back. While living in Monaco of course.

Like it or not, digital is here to stay and has been the largest development in still imagery since the advent of film. Good or Bad.

Cant we all get along? lol

[Brian Vuillemenot]

To be fair, while none of those things have completely eliminated the other, many of them have greatly reduced the demand, in many cases to a small group of people who still embrace the old technology. I mean, outside of Amish country, do you see many horse drawn buggies on your commute to work?

[Scott Davis]

In the case of email replacing snailmail, well, with the exception of UCS (unsolicited commercial snailmail), I'd say it just about has. When was the last time anyone sent you an actual LETTER, and not just a Hallmark card for your birthday?

[scott_6029]

I don't think this has anything to do with digital. Pro or con. I don't think he is justifying film either. I think he is justifying that film will probably be around for a while. And I agree that film will be around...less demand, probably;format - who knows, hopefully large :).

Also, I think he is saying that the two processes are different and he enjoys analog. Growing your own vegetables, so to speak (although the example is a little extreme).

I also sense a desire for optimism that he will be able to enjoy his film for awhile? I share the same desire and hope film stays around for awhile too. But, I also shoot 4x5 transparencies and have them drum scanned for color prints (30x40's). And, I also shoot 8x10 and 7 x 17 b&w. And, I use a digital camera for all my family shooting and sharing images and what not (it's fantastic for this). No, I think we are just trying to be optimistic about the future of what we enjoy. At least that's my position. If others like/love digital, go for it. Do what you like, no?

The vacuum tube was supposed to be extinct a longggg time ago. I prefer the sound of tubes over transistors, but others will disagree. I don't care. I just care that I can get tubes :).

[Jim Rhoades]

Whoa, It's too bad I like black and white so much. My 16x20 paper goes for $3.49 a sheet, NYC price. A buck for a 16x20 color print?

[Brian Ellis]

Yawn

[Bruce Watson]

The thread that will not die. Yawn...

Darn Brian - you beat me to it!

[Stephen Willard]

Scott,

You are correct. All I am trying to say is film with be with us for a long time for the same reason the bow and arrow is and the cloths pin is. Last fall after shooting a wedding I drove to Kebbler Pass near Crested Butte, Colorado to check out the fall foliage. To my surprise, I noticed on the hill above me were around 10 LF photographers. When I drove up there I was further surprised to find not one of them was over 30.

I just did my last wedding on June 23th of this year for a young couple who both had there own 4x5 cameras and demanded I shoot their wedding using film. So I did.

I just returned from a 23 day trip in the mountains south of Aspen Colorado and met hundreds of people on the trail with my llamas. Everyone wants a picture of me and my llamas and unlike years ago everyone new what LF photography was. I would say close to 20% of those I posed for used reusable film cameras. I took in over 200 business cards and had none left when I came out.

I really work the crowds on the trails now talking about my llamas, my cameras, and the process I use. I most always pose the hikers with my llamas and use their cameras to take a picture of them. I then give them my business cards, and since I started doing this 2 years ago the sales of my prints have more the doubled. Most people I meet have a perception of LF photographers as very special artists who create exquisite photographic image. We LFers are at the top of the food chain. The fact they encountered me in the back country furthers that perception.

Here is my two cent prediction. I believe that digital photography may actual be good for LF photography. It has brought lots of young people into the fold that would have just been playing video games. As they mature as photographers many of them may migrate to LF photography for the challenge and the prestige. Up to last year I have never meet any young people using LF cameras. All of these kids I have met recently had roots in 35mm digital land.

So who knows where this is going, but I am very optimistic about film and LF cameras. This spring I was in a bicycle shop having my bike tuned when the owner informed me that classic bike designs were outselling mountain bikes and road bikes combined. Perhaps there is a resurgence of LFers with young people who are now looking for the ultimate challenge. The classic LF camera loaded with fresh film!

[Stephen Willard]

Jim,

If my memory serves me right, I paid $33.00 for a box of 50 sheets of 16x20 crystal archive paper. That is 66 cents per sheet. I have not check B&H prices so I am not sure. Even if it was $3.50 a print that would be a lot cheaper then digital which make my point still valid.

[QT Luong]

The cost in consumables (ink and paper) for a 16x20 inkjet print on the Epson 9800 is less than $4.

[tim atherton]

Jim,

If my memory serves me right, I paid $33.00 for a box of 50 sheets of 16x20 crystal archive paper. That is 66 cents per sheet. I have not check B&H prices so I am not sure. Even if it was $3.50 a print that would be a lot cheaper then digital which make my point still valid.

About $60.00 a box so just over $1.00 a sheet + chemicals.

[QT Luong]

Anyway, if you are printing single images, the cost of supplies in both processes is neglectible compared to print value or compared to time and other expenses. If you are printing in large quantities (such as for guest room decor in a large hotel) you'd use a Lightjet or similar printer.

[kjsphotography]

The cost in consumables (ink and paper) for a 16x20 inkjet print on the Epson 9800 is less than $4.

You forgot about paper waste and clearing ink heads. The cost is much higher than $4 a print especially if you haven’t run your printer for a while and have to run the test page to make sure everything is in check and everything is in alignment. When I owned a 7600 printer I have literally blown though entire ink cartridges to clear it and get it right and at $70 a pop for the cartridge and the paper wasted it got real expensive. I no longer use ink at all for anything…

[tim atherton]

You forgot about paper waste and clearing ink heads. The cost is much higher than $4 a print especially if you haven’t run your printer for a while and have to run the test page to make sure everything is in check and everything is in alignment.

which is no different than two or three test prints under the enlarger and throwing out stale chemistry because you haven't used it for a while

The 7800 I have been using on a contract here doesn't seem to waste ink like a lot of the earlier models btw and never seems to get clogs and such - as close to maintenance free as I've had in a printer

[kjsphotography]

I have to disagree but I am not even going to dabate with you on tihs issue as it is completely pointless.

You may belive what you will...

Good day sir...

[tim atherton]

I think you forgot to take your ball home with you... :-)

[QT Luong]

The 7800 I have been using on a contract here doesn't seem to waste ink like a lot of the earlier models btw and never seems to get clogs and such - as close to maintenance free as I've had in a printer

Yes, I am also amazed by that. Since I got my 9800, I have never even ran a single check or nozzle clean as the prints just roll out nice. I do print regularly, but if I didn't I wouldn't have bought a printer in the first place.

[Stephen Willard]

Yes, I am also amazed by that. Since I got my 9800, I have never even ran a single check or nozzle clean as the prints just roll out nice. I do print regularly, but if I didn't I wouldn't have bought a printer in the first place.

Of course you may be right QT, but only if you can afford to upgrade to a 9800. I suspect most cannot once they have invested in lesser models of printers.

[Stephen Willard]

$70 for a single cartridge sounds pricey to me. I have Fujimoto CP51 roller transport printer. It takes about $130 to fill up the two 5 liter replenishing tanks and the processor with RA4 low utilization chemistry. I turn it on in late October and print all winter long printing every day throughout the day for the entire winter with that $130 initial load of chemistry.

If I shut down for two weeks to go shoot film in the field I bottle the developer in the processor in air tight bottles. The developer in the 5 liter replenishing tank with a floating lid does not oxidize at all for the entire winter. The bleach fix is very stable and is not effected by oxidation. Can you run a 9800 on a single suite of cartridges for the entire winter printing every day? How many cartridges does it take? I ask these questions in earnest.

[Ted Harris]

I'll chime in that my experience with a 4800 has been just the same as Tim's and Tuan's with their large printers. Mine is about a year old and I have not had any of the referenced problems either. Once went through a cleaning cycle jus tfor assurance as I was a bout to print a large job for a client.

Further, there is some merit in Tim's analogy if you are talking about color printing. Cost, was in fact, the main reason that I first started considering digital printing some 5 years ago.

[kjsphotography]

They use 110ML per cartridge and takes 7 cartridges. They are really expensive, I ended up selling the printer and now only print traditionally and have cut my cost way down since doing so. Here is the link to the prices of the 7600 cartridges.

http://www.inkjetart.com/epson_ink/7600-9600.html

They are $70 a pop and that printer takes 7 of them plus shipping to get them to you. It is about $500 in ink to get started and some of the colors go extremely fast.

Actually last year beofre I sold it Steve ( Chiller ) visited me from AUS and he saw exactly what I am talkign about. He could not believe the amount of waste to jstu get one print out and I also had this printed serviced. I am telling you ink cost are so much higher than silver prints and I really was tight on tryign to keep cost down. I believe Steve is also on this forum so PM him and ask. I am really frustrated how often you had to run the test. Maybe the new ones are better ubt I will never go back to using one unless I cant get silver based products.

Kev

[raucousimages]

Film is not going away. Period, full stop, end of story. If that realy bothers the "Doom and Gloom" crowd let them go digital or back to finger paint or somthing. If they spent as much time shooting film as bitching about not having film there would be one hell of a market for film.

John

[David Luttmann]

Film is not going away. Period, full stop, end of story. If that realy bothers the "Doom and Gloom" crowd let them go digital or back to finger paint or somthing. If they spent as much time shooting film as bitching about not having film there would be one hell of a market for film.

John

Well said!

[tim atherton]

part of how fast they go is what you are printing - if you are printing 48" prints, obviously they go a lot faster ( and of course, the printers do come with ink in them, so you don't need "$500 to get started", although the first batch of cartridges appear to go faster because of filling up the lines and reservoirs etc for the first time). But I find I'm getting pretty good value from the cartridges

Again, some inks go faster than others depending on what kind of prints you are making.

But as I've said, the new models are much more economical in the cleaning cycles etc. They also, literally, never seem to need running adjustment cycles, allignments etc. Ours has just run and run.

And with the quality of the papers/printers/profiles, I rarely run off lots of test prints now. With the B&W stuff on Silver Rag, my setup is such that I know what I'm going to get from the file through the printer and I just go ahead and print now. Not like the "old days" where you'd run off a dozen prints tweaking just to get it "right". I ran off one the other day I'd never printed in silver rag before with the new printers. I'd always tweak and tweak and never get quite what I wanted. This time, pulled it up on the screen, adjusted it with my current setup, printed, and got the best print I've ever got for it from an ink print straight off. Final result, an excellent (imo) b&w print.

[tim atherton]

$70 for a single cartridge sounds pricey to me. I have Fujimoto CP51 roller transport printer. It takes about $130 to fill up the two 5 liter replenishing tanks and the processor with RA4 low utilization chemistry. I turn it on in late October and print all winter long printing every day throughout the day for the entire winter with that $130 initial load of chemistry.

Can you run a 9800 on a single suite of cartridges for the entire winter printing every day? How many cartridges does it take? I ask these questions in earnest.

How many 40"x50" prints do you run through it over the winter?

[tim atherton]

How many cartridges does it take? I ask these questions in earnest.

really... - so, how deep's a hole? How long is a piece of string?

It's a little hard giving an answer to your question when we have no idea of haw many prints of a certain size you will run off during the "winter" (which is how long exactly?)

There are sites around that have worked out a rough per sq in cost for the different pritners. You'd probably be best of looking at those.

[Ron Marshall]

This is a link to a detailed cost analysis for an Epson 4800, including paper and ink, even hardware depreciation.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/4800%20tracking.shtml

[Brian Ellis]

Stephen told us in an earlier thread that the camera gear carried by his llama in the field cost about $20,000. The equipment I carry cost about $3500. So I can go through $16,500 worth of ink and paper printing digitally before he's even made a single darkroom print and we're still even (and that's not even taking the cost of the llama into account : - ))

[Carsten Wolff]

Now, Now, to be fair, we all know that you don't need to fork out 20 grand or even 3 to get potentially similar outcomes....:).
May I suggest that this digital vs. traditional discussion type is very non-yielding, as when it comes down to learning how to use ANY technique the “best possible result” is far from immediate.
Digital will get ever cheaper and better. That of course doesn't render other techniques invalid. We wouldn’t throw Weston, or Adams prints into the recycling bin after scanning the print, would we?
I'd go as far as to say that there is far more dilettantism in both camps (and don't forget there are more than two “camps”....:)) than there are differences in what is achievable in almost any medium at any cost and I would think that even in this forum, only a minority of the users may have actually reached the point where they can say that they make full use of the potential of either technique (and that's all it is).

Relax, guys and gals, you won't ever have to put your gear on Ebay if you don’t want to, as long as you actually enjoy using it ;).

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Stephen told us in an earlier thread that the camera gear carried by his llama in the field cost about $20,000. The equipment I carry cost about $3500. So I can go through $16,500 worth of ink and paper printing digitally before he's even made a single darkroom print and we're still even (and that's not even taking the cost of the llama into account : - ))
The equipment I carried including 8x10 and 12x20 was $4500 and pt/pd chemicals are cheaper than ink jet cartridges (and yes that includes the pt and pd) ...... so that hardly seems an acurate comparison. How much would a 4x5 leaf scanner cost even talking without the lap top........ if you are really talking digital and that is for the puny 4x5 it is a botomless pit ........

[David Luttmann]

Jorge,

What does a pt/pd 8x10 and 12x20 print cost you....with your normal paper and chemicals? Not trying to start a fight here....I am curious though. People who think inkjet printing is cheap....well, have never printed with inkjet!

[John Kasaian]

The digital capturers serve a large and specialized market---if they want to play, they've got to pay. Lets hope the financial rewards are commensurate with the expense.

Not so for me. I'm quite happy with my silver halides and chemicals. I enjoy learning time-honored skills using antiquated equipment. Its fun.

Of course I'm not shooting advertising campaigns and my idea of artistic satisfaction dosn't depend on making a turtle swim in a church or putting faces on gnarled tree trunks in the Yosemite granite either.

Digital is a tool, a useful tool---it just isn't "my" tool. I think most LF'ers who shoot commercially have already climbed aboard the digi band wagon out of neccesity. Those of us left behind still support enough of a film based segement of the industry to make it worthwhile to continue producing film and paper. What is unusual is that more new LF gear is being sold each year so there must be others out there who find traditional LF film personally satisfying. I hope anyway.

Cheers!

[Carsten Wolff]

I'm not sure who actually has real data to back that up, John. I agree that used LF gear may have been sold/traded in the last few years more than used to be the case, say, 10 years ago, but I think we may have past that peak as well (e.g. just have a look at the number of items listed under LF in trading posts or on internet sites, or try to get an Apo-Artar on Ebay these days; am I the only one who seems to have noticed a drop-off in good gear lately?). However, if true, might this be just a sign that the shift from the commercial users to the recreational ones has more or less run its course, now?
As an indicator it'd be interesting to know whether the new gear market is expanding or shrinking....

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge,

What does a pt/pd 8x10 and 12x20 print cost you....with your normal paper and chemicals? Not trying to start a fight here....I am curious though. People who think inkjet printing is cheap....well, have never printed with inkjet!

I just bought 25 gr of pd for $300 which makes about 250 ml of solution, I use about 0.7 ml of paladium and 0.16 ml of pt. So this amount will make me about 300 prints. I figure about $1.50 in solutions being generous and another buck for the paper for a total of $2.5 per 8x10 print or $7.50 per 12x20.

Out of curiosity I looked a Cone's prices and I remember thinking that the inks were about double those of pt/pd solutions. Of course if you are printing pt/pd by the seat of the pants then making all them test prints makes it more expensive, but a well standarized system saves a lot by avoiding the test prints. Here lies the advantage of PS, you get to see before you print what you are going to get, at least that is the theory, of course if you get into RIPs and curves for each paper then that advantage is lost.....

[David Luttmann]

I just bought 25 gr of pd for $300 which makes about 250 ml of solution, I use about 0.7 ml of paladium and 0.16 ml of pt. So this amount will make me about 300 prints. I figure about $1.50 in solutions being generous and another buck for the paper for a total of $2.5 per 8x10 print or $7.50 per 12x20.

Out of curiosity I looked a Cone's prices and I remember thinking that the inks were about double those of pt/pd solutions. Of course if you are printing pt/pd by the seat of the pants then making all them test prints makes it more expensive, but a well standarized system saves a lot by avoiding the test prints. Here lies the advantage of PS, you get to see before you print what you are going to get, at least that is the theory, of course if you get into RIPs and curves for each paper then that advantage is lost.....

Thanks Jorge....

Depending on the paper, the inkjet can be cheaper, or way more expensive....as can anything I guess. An 8x10 HM Photorag sheet costs about $1, and with ink and protective sprays factored in, it falls in around the same $2.50. There are papers and ink combos I've used that can easily run double that.

Even though I see the results more or less on screen, I often print more than once as paper and screen are of course, very different.

Photography has never been a cheap hobby/profession....then again, neither is any hobby really!

[Stephen Willard]

I would like to note that this string is really about the future of film and LF cameras. It is not about what resides in my llama packs or how much ink is for inkjets. I am sure the newer generations of prints are much better than the older ones. But the fact is most digital people I know personally can no longer afford to stay current even if it is more cost effective to buy the newest and latest. They have run out of money, and I am sure there are thousands more like my friends who no longer are buying more digital darkroom gear. This behavior is having and will have a negative impact on the industry at large.

For those of you who find joy in the demise of traditional photography and LF cameras, I say park it buster. It an't going to happen. Both will be around for many years. And I will continue to cart $20K of traditional photographic equipment around with my llamas without fear of damage :-)

[George Kara]

[QUOTE=Stephen Willard]... They have run out of money, and I am sure there are thousands more like my friends who no longer are buying more digital darkroom gear.

This is The statement of this thread. I purchased my Canon eos 1ds new and intend to keep it for many years. There are many digitheads however that seem to think that because it is 3-5 years old, its old technology and somehow inferior. Of course this is completely untrue.

We all have reasons to justify spending money - and all are questionable. How do I know? Im a CPA by profession and a darned good one. Let me prove it to you.

Stephen Willard: "George, I have a math question. How much is two plus two?"

George: "What do you want it to be?"

Stephen Willard: "Great answer"

[Ed Richards]

[QUOTE=Stephen Willard]... This is The statement of this thread. I purchased my Canon eos 1ds new and intend to keep it for many years. There are many digitheads however that seem to think that because it is 3-5 years old, its old technology and somehow inferior. Of course this is completely untrue.

Of course we know that LF photographers stick with the same cameras for their working lives, since the basic design has not changes in 100 years. Not being obesessed with gear is one of the reasons why LF is such a cost effective hobby.

[Rory_5244]

LF photographers are not obsessed with gear? :o