Depressing Statement re Film

[Richard K.]

As a dedicated user of LF film (7x17, 10x12 and soon 6.5x8.5), I found this statement:

"Photography as we know it is passing into history. As photographic media move rapidly from traditional light sensitive materials and processes to digital systems of capture and printing, the use of photographic films and papers have plunged into an irreversible decline that is quickly headed towards obsolescence."

on Robert Burley's web site

http://www.robertburley.com/index.php?page_id=4&file=Disappearance%20of%20Darkness%202006/

a tad depressing. He documented the demise of the Kodak Canada facilities and is apparently working on a book called " The Disappearance of Darkness"

Somebody cheer me up quick!!

[John Kasaian]

So, you believe everything you read?
Fiber glass has been around at least since the 40's, but there are still sculptors chipping away at marble and granite.
Now go buy some plate holders and be happy :)

[steve simmons]

OK, lets see if this brightens your day

Fuji just brought back Velvia!

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

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


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

just my 2 cents

steve simmons

[Rob_5419]

So who on earth is Robert Burley, other than another opinionated go-with-the-flow writer?

Richard; white noise. Why listen to it? You're moving into a niche area. Ignorami outside of your niche don't know any better..

[davidb]

Who gives a crap?

Go out and make a few images with your antiquated gear.

(sorry I just had this stuff)

[Rob_5419]

Yes ... exactly.

On second thoughts, don't tell me who Mr Burley is.

I want to stay ignorant:D

[tim atherton]

So who on earth is Robert Burley, other than another opinionated go-with-the-flow writer?

Richard; white noise. Why listen to it? You're moving into a niche area. Ignorami outside of your niche don't know any better..

a well respected Canadian LF colour photographer who has worked on projects with the likes of Geoffrey James, Lee Friedlander, Phyllis Lambert etc

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

This is what you get for beleiving a guy that decided to go digital and labels his ink jet prints as "digital chromogenic prints"..Typical...

Don't pay attention to folk like this guy, they just wish traditional materials would go away so people cannot compare their stuff to a real photograph.

[tim atherton]

This is what you get for beleiving a guy that decided to go digital and labels his ink jet prints as "digital chromogenic prints"..Typical...
.


for the record, those are Lightjets (or simialr) - i.e. printed on traditional chromogenic colour paper originating from LF colour negative film

it always beholds a luddite to at least get their facts straight

[Steven Barall]

Canadian? Need I say more?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

for the record, those are Lightjets (or simialr) - i.e. printed on traditional chromogenic colour paper originating from LF colour negative film

it always beholds a luddite to at least get their facts straight

Ah, then the guy is an idiot. Hoping to have traditional materials go away yet needing them to print.

And they are not from a color negative, not at 99 cm in size, they are form digital files. So as you say before you post your erudition and make an ass of yourself get your facts straight as well.

[John Cahill]

Canadian? Need I say more?

Don't insult Canadians. They are the only civilized people in North America.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Canadian? Need I say more?

Nope, seems like sour grapes to me....

[Gordon Moat]

Yeah . . . who the f*(% is Robert Burley? And why would he know any more than anyone else in the world of photography?

It seems every month some expert pops up and makes the same proclamation. These experts have also made this same proclamation for well over six years. Yet both Kodak and Fuji have introduced new films (even niche market transparency films), and one can still get Ilford films, amongst several other smaller choices.

Simple fact is that as long as someone can generate profit from film sales, film developing, or making photographic (chemical) prints, then some company will continue to do those things. Consider a super niche product like Kodachrome, and Dwayne's is still processing about 1000 rolls a day . . . imagine how much profit Kodak is still making from Kodachrome.

Oil painting is about as dead as any technology could possibly be dead, yet I can still buy oil paints, canvas, and brushes. It is not because it is propped up by enthusiasts, it is solely because several companies can make a profit from this continuing.

Maybe the distant future of film is places like Bostick & Sullivan selling chemicals to enthusiasts, or the need to get our supplies at an art store in a big city. However, we are not there yet. Can you buy film today? Yes! Can you get film processed today? Yes!

Seriously take a look at all that Polaroid has been through, and still one can buy Polaroid film. One can even buy Fuji Instant peel apart films. Someone must be buying this stuff, or it would not be available for sale.

So a company shuts down a factory . . . Big Fluffy Dog! Now go out and shoot some film.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[tim atherton]

Ah, then the guy is an idiot. Hoping to have traditional materials go away yet needing them to print.

It's really about time you improve your English comprehension

either that or you didn't actually read what he said (big surprise there...). Nowhere did he say he was "Hoping to have traditional materials go away". In fact the work in question is very much an elegiac record of the once massive Kodak production facilities in Canada from someone who still uses a lot of traditional materials - both film and paper.


And they are not from a color negative, not at 99 cm in size, they are form digital files. So as you say before you post your erudition and make an ass of yourself get your facts straight as well.

Again, your English comprehension really can't be that good, as I said "originating from LF colour negative film" - which is indeed the case

But you've got to have your childish little digs at anyone who would actually dare to use any form of digital process in their work.

Your statement was simply wrong.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Again, your English comprehension really can't be that good, as I said "originating from LF colour negative film" - which is indeed the case

But you've got to have your childish little digs at anyone who would actually dare to use any form of digital process in their work.

Your statement was simply wrong.

Well, for someone who is a native english speaker it seems your english comprehension requires more work than mine, I learned english as a second language, what is your excuse? If the first paragraph of his BS introduction is not a wish to see traditional materials go away, I don't know what is.

Given that people doing ink jet prints will use any name excpet ink jet print to label their work one does not know if they are ink jets on anything else. So I might have been wrong calling them ink jet prints, but you are also wrong in pretending they are from purely traditional materials from a LF negative, which I am sure was your intention.

I don't take digs at people using digital, I take digs at those ass***** who use digital and pretend it to be the best thing since sliced bread just because they lacked the talent to make traditional work for them..... you are a perfect example.

[paulr]

Fiber glass has been around at least since the 40's, but there are still sculptors chipping away at marble and granite.
Now go buy some plate holders and be happy :)

a bit different, since sculptors don't rely on materials that come from a specialized and expensive manufacturing process. those of us who use film are dependent on film remaining a profitable business. the industry in its current incarnation won't be able to sustain itself if demand gets too much lower; whether or not a cottage industry can rise up to replace it is a matter of speculation.

i don't know why speculation on the fate of an industry becomes such a religious issue. personally i hope film sticks around; if it does vanish i hope it waits until reasonable and affordable (for me at least!) digital alternatives appear.

[tim atherton]

If the first paragraph of his BS introduction is not a wish to see traditional materials go away, I don't know what is.
.

Photography as we know it is passing into history. As photographic media move rapidly from traditional light sensitive materials and processes to digital systems of capture and printing, the use of photographic films and papers have plunged into an irreversible decline that is quickly headed towards obsolescence. The goal of this project is to create an interpreted photographic record of a rapidly disappearing manufacturing infrastructure dedicated to the production and use of photochemical materials. The images presented here document the final year of the Kodak Canada facility in Toronto. This facility, which was made up of 18 buildings on a 5 hectare site, had a one hundred year history of producing photographic films and papers. It was sold in 2006 and demolished in the summer of 2007..

?? Simply sounds like a reasonable (and reasonably accurate) description of the current state of affairs - from someone who happens to be a long time film user


So I might have been wrong calling them ink jet prints, but you are also wrong in pretending they are from purely traditional materials from a LF negative, which I am sure was your intention.

which wasn't at all what I said - once again you are 100% incorrect.

Ahh - And you pretend to know my intentions - how typically arrogant of you.

[tim atherton]

So a company shuts down a factory . . . Big Fluffy Dog! Now go out and shoot some film.

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

It was, though, the factory that produced many of the most well loved Kodak films and papers for the N American market

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

?? Simply sounds like an accurate description of the current state of affairs

Dis you actually read the first few sentences? and if you did, did you understand them?
Probably not.....


which wasn't at all what I said - once again you are 100% incorrect.

Ahh - And you pretend to know my intentions - how typically arrogant of you.


uh huh..... this is typical of you, now that you don't use your other identities you back down and pretend you did not try to make implications. Seems the written english is not something you are very good at or most likely you don't have the balls to say what you mean.

[tim atherton]

Dis you actually read the first few sentences? and if you did, did you understand them?
Probably not.....



uh huh..... this is typical of you, now that you don't use your other identities you back down and pretend you did not try to make implications. Seems the written english is not something you are very good at or most likely you don't have the balls to say what you mean.


yeah yeah - blah blah blah. When your nonsense statments are questioned it's so predicatble that you turn personal attack.

yaddah yaddah yaddah

what's next - your usual off-line threats?

[Ron Bose]

I'm not even going to touch the anti-Canadian issue ...

Just buy Ilford sheet film, give that company enough business to keep it viable and guess what, they'll stay in business.

I'm slowly moving my film needs away from Kodak who'll probably stop making films because they're share holders demand a better dividend. So screw them.

BUY ILFORD, KEEP THEM IN BUSINESS AND WE"LL HAVE FILM FOR DECADES TO COME !!!

[Ole Tjugen]

... And they are not from a color negative, not at 99 cm in size, they are form digital files. So as you say before you post your erudition and make an ass of yourself get your facts straight as well.


Jorge,

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

[Ash]

Handbags, much?

No point arguing guys, stress on a forum isn't a good outlet!




I have at least two camera shops still stocking traditional paper, and chemicals. About four camera shops stocking film, high street stores stocking film also.

I can get any Ilford product delivered directly to at least one of the camera shops to save a few pennies. I am an hour by train away from any one of the major cities in Southern UK that will have almost anything I could ever wish for.


I won't worry, not until I have to travel two hours to get something basic... and all the camera stores in Swindon stop stocking photo products.

[C. D. Keth]

This comes up every so often. When traditional photography becomes completely obsolete (like now, basically) it will decline until some people start supplying for it as a niche industry. Like painting, hand printing, et cetera.

Photography has existed for 160ish years and you can still get oil paint. Don't worry so much.

[davidb]

Remember the paperless office?

[Ash]

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

[cyrus]

a well respected Canadian LF colour photographer who has worked on projects with the likes of Geoffrey James, Lee Friedlander, Phyllis Lambert etc

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

Photography didn't replace painting which didn't replace wood-block printing. No reason to assume film will be replaced by digital.

(In fact, I strongly suspect that the digital still photo is dead as we now have the technology to easily record and display moving images instead. The rush to declare film obsolete, digital didn't see its own obsolescence fast approaching.)

I am doing copper plate photogravure, for god's sakes. You can't any more dead than that - and yet, highly prized and in demand with lots of printmaking cottage industries supporting it.

[John Kasaian]

a bit different, since sculptors don't rely on materials that come from a specialized and expensive manufacturing process. those of us who use film are dependent on film remaining a profitable business. the industry in its current incarnation won't be able to sustain itself if demand gets too much lower; whether or not a cottage industry can rise up to replace it is a matter of speculation.

i don't know why speculation on the fate of an industry becomes such a religious issue. personally i hope film sticks around; if it does vanish i hope it waits until reasonable and affordable (for me at least!) digital alternatives appear.

Hence the suggestion for plate holders! :)

[cyrus]

a bit different, since sculptors don't rely on materials that come from a specialized and expensive manufacturing process. those of us who use film are dependent on film remaining a profitable business. the industry in its current incarnation won't be able to sustain itself if demand gets too much lower; whether or not a cottage industry can rise up to replace it is a matter of speculation.

i don't know why speculation on the fate of an industry becomes such a religious issue. personally i hope film sticks around; if it does vanish i hope it waits until reasonable and affordable (for me at least!) digital alternatives appear.

Worst comes to worst, coat your own plates.

[tim atherton]

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

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

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

Nowhere did I read Robert Burley saying film is dead.

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

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

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

[David A. Goldfarb]

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

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

[Ash]

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

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge,

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

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

[Ole Tjugen]

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

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

[tim atherton]

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


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

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

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

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

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

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

[roteague]

OK, lets see if this brightens your day

Fuji just brought back Velvia!

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

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


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

just my 2 cents

steve simmons

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

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

[Bill_1856]

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

[Ole Tjugen]

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

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


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

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

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

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

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

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

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

hmmmm...so these are prints from slides, from an enlarger? this does not make sense....you say the make prints from enlargers, yet they state the final print is from a light jet, which from what I understand requires a digital file.... so which is it?

[Ole Tjugen]

hmmmm...so these are prints from slides, from an enlarger? this does not make sense....you say the make prints from enlargers, yet they state the final print is from a light jet, which from what I understand requires a digital file.... so which is it?


You misunderstand. I'm talking about two different labs.

One is Forstöringsateljeen in Sweden, which makes prints with enlargers, from negatives or slides of any size up to 20x24".

The other one is whichever lab Robert Burley uses, where they use a digital step to print on RA-4 paper with coloured lasers.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

You misunderstand. I'm talking about two different labs.

One is Forstöringsateljeen in Sweden, which makes prints with enlargers, from negatives or slides of any size up to 20x24".

The other one is whichever lab Robert Burley uses, where they use a digital step to print on RA-4 paper with coloured lasers.

YOu were not clear that these were two different labs. It is great to know there are still labs which make real prints.....

[paulr]

Duggal in NYC will print black and white up to 50x144" and color up to 72x144" (that's 365cm wide). With an enlarger.

And all these accusations of cowardice. I'm really curious about someone might demonstrate bravery in an online forum.

[Natasa Stojsic]

Come on guys.......
Time Out

[Richard K.]

Thanks to all who responded so positively to the original thread concern. It seems that film is alive for now and that we have a passionate bunch of practitioners as well. I'm turning 60 (no idea how that happened!) next month and I never dreamed that I would outlive film, but with any luck, maybe I won't ...er...
BTW I've employed the old accepted time tested cure for this kind of depression and have decided to order a full-plate Ebony...

[Rob_5419]

BTW I've employed the old accepted time tested cure for this kind of depression and have decided to order a full-plate Ebony...

Errrr Richard - look at what you've done by raising this thread!

Now the rest of us who can't afford a whole plate Ebony will just quietly melt away and slit our wrists.....

[Richard K.]

An addendum....
It occurs to me that perhaps most of us passionate supporters of film are perhaps older rather than younger and that maybe film's demise may be concurrent with ours. There just doesn't seem to be the same passionate support in the younger generation. Why, I bet that there's people under 25 who have never experienced the brilliance and eye-popping impact of a 35mm slide show (not to mention the occasionally attendant terminal boredom!). In watching my son's baseball games, I have yet to see a parent using a FILM camera and the photos taken are typically shared by e-mail or in blogs. Nothing you can put on a wall. Displaying them on your 1080p HD plasma is cool and all but not quite the same. What bothers me is that these parents and especially their kids will probably never use film because they have learned to appreciate photography in a different way. If younger people do not see the beauty of the traditional medium and its aesthetic potential, they won't demand it and it WILL die.

[Richard K.]

Errrr Richard - look at what you've done by raising this thread!

Now the rest of us who can't afford a whole plate Ebony will just quietly melt away and slit our wrists.....

Rob, I really can't afford it either but I've managed to rationalize it beautifully by invoking a convoluted argument involving Daguerre, communion with past masters, as well as poetic and cosmic forces of fate and nature...

[C. D. Keth]

An addendum....
It occurs to me that perhaps most of us passionate supporters of film are perhaps older rather than younger and that maybe film's demise may be concurrent with ours.

I'm 22. My girlfriend is 22 and is interested in this stuff. I know a few people from school about my age who shoot 8x10 on a regular basis. I know one guy who is 25 now that shoots 16x20 regularly. He actually works an extra job, not so he can pay his rent or for his car, but so he can shoot ultra large format.

It's hitting the younger generations. I know just as many old guys (no offense) who recently bought a DSLR. My Dad is one of them.

[Gordon Moat]

An addendum....
It occurs to me that perhaps most of us passionate supporters of film are perhaps older rather than younger and that maybe film's demise may be concurrent with ours. There just doesn't seem to be the same passionate support in the younger generation. Why, I bet that there's people under 25 who have never experienced the brilliance and eye-popping impact of a 35mm slide show (not to mention the occasionally attendant terminal boredom!). . . . . .

Hello Richard,

There is a Classic Camera group very active on MySpace that is mostly under 35. If you know where to look, there are many younger people who enjoy using film. In southern California, I see more baby boomers with D-SLRs, because these are the people who can afford those. Younger individuals might own a camera phone, but they will rarely have the spare cash for a D-SLR. Younger people are discovering the great deals on "old school" cameras and film.

It seems all too easy for older people to dismiss those younger than them. It might be too convenient to place the problems upon those younger than you. However, those that do not make the simple assumptions might find some surprises. We are at least a generation away from those who might not understand film, if that ever really does happen.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[C. D. Keth]

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

I missed your comment earlier today. About 90% of feature films that you see in theaters are still originated on film. Digital capture doesn't have nearly the quality in video that it has in digital still cameras. It happens when you have to process and save not a few, but 24 (or more for slow motion shooting) stills per second.

Film will hang on for a good while in cinema. It will probably always co-exist with digital formats for many practical and artistic reasons.

[Rob_5419]

Rob, I really can't afford it either but I've managed to rationalize it beautifully by invoking a convoluted argument involving Daguerre, communion with past masters, as well as poetic and cosmic forces of fate and nature...

That's alright then - welcome to the whole plate photography forum! (Yes - we're in a small take-over ;) )

You'd be surprised; film is preferred by many, particularly in the 20's-30's and fine arts.
Teaching photography in college until I retired, that included both digital and film curricula (can't say I knew anything about the first bit, but there you go), there was a great energy about film photography. With the digital, everyone just quietly slunk to their desktops and produced the most computer manipulated garbage you could ever see.

Film just isn't going to be the mainstream mode of snapshot capture that it was in the heyday of the 80's with budget (crap) prints being churned out by Kodak and Agfa machines with poor quality processor controls.

PS - how long will it take for your Ebony to be constructed then?

I'm going to flog off my British Sanderson whole plate camera then!

[Natasa Stojsic]

Thanks to all who responded so positively to the original thread concern. It seems that film is alive for now and that we have a passionate bunch of practitioners as well. I'm turning 60 (no idea how that happened!) next month and I never dreamed that I would outlive film, but with any luck, maybe I won't ...er...
BTW I've employed the old accepted time tested cure for this kind of depression and have decided to order a full-plate Ebony...

If you don't mind me asking, what model are you planing to buy? ....... Dealer?

I was considering Ebony SV45U2 at Badger Graphics (http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_list&pageNumber=2&c=108&v=&sortBy=PriceHiLo&search=) Jeff seem's fair.

[Stephen Willard]

An addendum....
It occurs to me that perhaps most of us passionate supporters of film are perhaps older rather than younger and that maybe film's demise may be concurrent with ours. There just doesn't seem to be the same passionate support in the younger generation. Why, I bet that there's people under 25 who...

Richard you are dead wrong. Digital has been good for LF photography. Even though I am a 56 year juvenile, there is a new renaissance of young people starting out with digital and progressing to LF as a way of distinguishing themselves from the masses.

Digital has made photography accessible to a larger number of people then ever before and who would never otherwise be involved with a camera. From there it is just a hop and a jump before some will move to a LF camera. In the past two years the only people I have seen with LF cameras have been 30 and younger. The last wedding I photographed a year ago before I retired, both the bride and groom were LF photographers and 23 years of age. I suspect my nephew who is also interested in photography will be switching to a LF camera shortly after seeing my 5x7 work and who is completely frustrated with all of the short comings of the digital camera.

I remember when the digital watches were first introduced and put the Swiss watch makers out of business. The only watches I now own are analog watches which are more intuitive and graphical to read. Analog time is here to stay. I believe in the long run analog photography will be with us for a very long time. So cheer up and enjoy your love for film.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

If you don't mind me asking, what model are you planing to buy? ....... Dealer?

I was considering Ebony SV45U2 at Badger Graphics (http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_list&pageNumber=2&c=108&v=&sortBy=PriceHiLo&search=) Jeff seem's fair.

Jeff is very fair, I just got my AS from him. He had it listed in the website at $5399 and without me even asking he met the lower price of a competitor. You can trust him to do right by you.

[Richard K.]

That's alright then - welcome to the whole plate photography forum! (Yes - we're in a small take-over ;) )


PS - how long will it take for your Ebony to be constructed then?



3 months they tell me....

[Rob_5419]

That's pretty fast!

What's swayed you over to whole-plate format then? :)

Chamonix might be able to do one in 6 months; Argentum in 1 year ;)

[Natasa Stojsic]

You misunderstand. I'm talking about two different labs.

One is Forstöringsateljeen in Sweden, which makes prints with enlargers, from negatives or slides of any size up to 20x24".

The other one is whichever lab Robert Burley uses, where they use a digital step to print on RA-4 paper with coloured lasers.

Is there a link to Forstöringsateljeen Lab in Sweden?

[Richard K.]

I'm 22. My girlfriend is 22 and is interested in this stuff. I know a few people from school about my age who shoot 8x10 on a regular basis. I know one guy who is 25 now that shoots 16x20 regularly. He actually works an extra job, not so he can pay his rent or for his car, but so he can shoot ultra large format.

It's hitting the younger generations. I know just as many old guys (no offense) who recently bought a DSLR. My Dad is one of them.

Christopher, you've made my day! Thanks for the post. I guess I was really referring to the general public; those with artistic sensibility will always find their medium. I just hope that there's enough of you to keep film around! Congratulate that 25-year-old 16x20 shooter for me!

[Richard K.]

If you don't mind me asking, what model are you planing to buy? ....... Dealer?



I was considering Ebony SV45U2 at Badger Graphics (http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_list&pageNumber=2&c=108&v=&sortBy=PriceHiLo&search=) Jeff seem's fair.

Hi Natasa;

I'm ordering the full-plate (6 1/2 x 8 1/2) model; it's listed on the Badger site (it's listed there NOW, wasn't there for the longest time - maybe there IS a full-plate movement afoot!). I live in Canada so I'm ordering through Rob Skeoch (BigCameraWorkshops.com).

Ebonys are beautiful and Jeff IS very fair!

[Rob_5419]

Richard,

I'm trying to figure out why the whole plate is improportionally more than the 5x7" or 8x10" SV versions.

Is that due to the limited numbers, or the fact that the whole plate model is still considered by Ebony as a 'custom' item?

Surely a greater number of orders would bring the price down to a proportional price point to fit between the 5x7 and 10x8 models?

[Richard K.]

That's pretty fast!

What's swayed you over to whole-plate format then? :)



I have a 7x17 Phillips and a 10 x12 Canham and full-plate just appeals to me for all the reasons that many have voiced in previous threads in this and other forums. It really is a wonderful size for small contact prints. I also enjoy the feeling of historical connection and just maybe the sheer perversity of having a small part in the revival of a historically significant but now obsolete format. Even Ansel used one for a while!

[Rob_5419]

I have a 7x17 Phillips and a 10 x12 Canham and full-plate just appeals to me for all the reasons that many have voiced in previous threads in this and other forums. It really is a wonderful size for small contact prints. I also enjoy the feeling of historical connection and just maybe the sheer perversity of having a small part in the revival of a historically significant but now obsolete format. Even Ansel used one for a while!

Woohoo! You're pretty much there then.

I'm not aware of whole plate format in any other forum than this one. But then I don't really visit other forums.

Who are you calling 'obsolete'!!! Digital will be long dead before whole plate pixels over ;)

[Richard K.]

Richard,

I'm trying to figure out why the whole plate is improportionally more than the 5x7" or 8x10" SV versions.

Is that due to the limited numbers, or the fact that the whole plate model is still considered by Ebony as a 'custom' item?

Surely a greater number of orders would bring the price down to a proportional price point to fit between the 5x7 and 10x8 models?

Rob, that was my question too! I think the answer is in fact that quoted in your second sentence above. Your last point is an excellent one and I wonder what quantity would be needed to bring the price down to the size-proportional region. I could e-mail Ebony and find out but we would then run the risk of having Clay and Sal annoyed that they spent more!

[Rob_5419]

Clay & Sal can live with it! Besides, it might bring whole plate film prices down if there's more ;)

If you're the 4th/5th person to have bought a whole plate, and Ebony already have the tooling, is it possible that the low US$/Can$ conversion rate has driven up the prices?

It'd be nice to hear from Ebony if you do email them :)

4kg is quite a weight to be carrying though...that's what's putting me off.

My Sanderson is nowhere near that...

[Richard K.]

Clay & Sal can live with it! Besides, it might bring whole plate film prices down if there's more ;)

If you're the 4th/5th person to have bought a whole plate, and Ebony already have the tooling, is it possible that the low US$/Can$ conversion rate has driven up the prices?

It'd be nice to hear from Ebony if you do email them :)

4kg is quite a weight to be carrying though...that's what's putting me off.

My Sanderson is nowhere near that...

LOL I'd like to hear Clay or Sal say that they can live with it!:)
I've just finished e-mailing Hiromi at Ebony and I will let you know what he says.
4 kg isn't light but it is lighter than either of my 2 other cameras - maybe I'm just planning for future infirnity, when I'm down to one camera...

[riooso]

What a hack the guy that wrote the article is! Look at a LF slide and the resulting print and there can be no discussion about the differences of digital and what we do! I love it when people like this ingrain their crap into the general populace. I realize now that I will be able to make some real dollars from LF images. I am just a hack, but when people come to my house and see what is on my wall they go to pieces. I can not imagine going to an outdoor fair and selling my images. I am evolving and new but it is coming and I hope it will be kind to me in retirement. I'm offered what I consider obscene amounts of cash for a print in my home and I am happy! One does not have to be terribly discerning to see the difference between digital garbage and LF work. When digital gets good enough to be "AS GOOD" or better that my 4x5 we will switch over. When I say AS GOOD I am talking AS GOOD straight up not "if you do this or that most people can not tell the difference" BS.
We are in the golden age my friends and I am enjoying the ride!

Richard

[Ash]

I got to the start of page 7... and I'm bored.


Anyone sum up the arguments and face-slapping for me??


In relation to the question of age of photographer vs age of medium, I'm 20 and I've been using film for 10 years, since I could use compacts and disposables. I have D-SLR's handy, good ones too.... but I still shoot film. I still have hundreds invested in film equipment, and still spend all weekend sorting out a semi-permanent darkroom, staying up til over 1am to get some prints :)

[Jim Chinn]

My contention has been that LF and ULF film will probably always be available. It will be more expensive compared to today and will probably come from one manufacturer with a choice of two emulsions. I don't know if that will be from Ilford or some producer in China or Eastern Europe.

Paper for enlarging will be the same. One manufacturer with the choice of a couple papers, probably a neutral and warmtone VC fiber, maybe an RC. Again, more expensive than what we pay today.

We will also need to plan what we need for 6 months or a year in advance as the small amount of production needed for the film and paper market will make the economy of limited production runs the norm.

Right now there are really two players in the LF/ULF film market. Efke/Adox and Ilford.
Ilford has had problems getting enough orders to justify producing and cutting some ULF sizes. It will be interesting to see if they even do another run in 08. I don't consider Kodak a realistic option for myself. I can't afford to tie money up with a middle man for months in the hopes my format will actually be cut and delivered. But if enough folks can work out a realistic deal with Kodak then you have a third source.

[Pete Watkins]

Jim, Ilford will always have problems while the management/skivvies or whatever they're self opinionated employees are called. They even alienate film users in their home market. The future lies in the east!
Pete.

[John Kasaian]

Oh my! What a long, strange thread this has been!

[Sal Santamaura]

LOL I'd like to hear Clay or Sal say that they can live with it! :) ...Clay will have to speak for himself, but I can certainly live with it.

My 6.5x8.5 Ebony/Lotus adventure was embarked upon with full understanding that I'd be paying a high price for the nonrecurring costs. Even at that time, Hiromi was unwilling to lower his quote per camera for quantity 2 -- there was another person (not Clay) who was considering ordering simultaneously. I'm not sure what annual order volume might convince Ebony to eliminate "custom" status and reduce price to the vicinity of what it charges for an SV810. Perhaps Ian Wilson might be able to share that with you off line.

The greatest reaction I have to all this recent 6.5x8.5 activity, including Fotoman holders and possible Chamonix cameras, is elation. All you folks are going to be purchasing film! That will keep me and a Rotatrim from having to cut down 8x10 in the dark for many years' worth of Ilford special order periods. It might even convince Simon Galley to offer 6.5x8.5 Delta 100 next time.

Yeah, I can live with it. Even if you were suddenly able to get an Ebony for less than the cost of one of its 4x5s!

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'm not even going to touch the anti-Canadian issue ...

anti-Canadian issue??? Now that's the funniest thing I've heard all day. You Yanks are soooo jealous, aren't ya?:)

[bob carnie]

My lab still prints by hand and by Durst Lambda on to all sorts of traditional media.
I have a 11x14 mint condition Deveere colour enlarger just waiting to print some 11x14 negs.
We are actually increasing the size of our darkrooms to accomodate large mural prints , funny we are getting more and more requests and right now I am in the middle of making 30 mural tritoned prints for our exhibition and promotion needs.
Andre Laradeo*Dmax* has joined with me here in Toronto to produce very large hand and digital fibre murals as well as colour. We are working from film and files daily onto various wet processes.
We also print large format Epson inkjet but I do prefer the wet prints over the ink, but with that said I would for specific projects nothing beats the ink print.
Film based printing is a shrinking market for sure but if one has a strong enough sphincter and the guts to hold onto the wet side of things the work gravitates to the last labs standing.
We just purchased a 40x60 hot press for the larger prints and combined with an 40x60 auto mat cutter we are able to make a profit with silver mural prints.
Being in Toronto helps as the rent is bearable compared to the larger markets, and you do need a lot of space to be competent fibre mural printing.
I do consider colour hand prints from artist who are serious and willing to go the distance in producing a show.* it definately is harder to make hand prints vs lambda prints* but we do both for our client base.
I know of at least 10 labs still willing to work on an enlarger as well as a laser device, this may change as the owner/operator moves on in years , but right now I think there are a lot of options.
I have been working my whole professional life to be able to do this and am extremely happy to be doing so now and in the future.

One thing that has not changed for us, I definately prefer to work with the Artist face to face rather than FTP as lunch bag letdown, or our inability to read the artist vision via the internet is a real pain in the ass. Working this way really takes a lot of patience and wilingness to figure out how we work together over long distances. So unfortunately for long term relationships between printer/photographer a visit to Toronto is vital at some point.

*Only in Canada you say*



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

[bob carnie]

I am pretty sure Ed Burtynskys lab Toronto Image Works does Roberts prints on their 50inch Chromira printer.
They would be RA4 colour prints from digital files.


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

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

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

[al olson]

Film is not dead.

I view recent reports that film sales have leveled off at 25% of what they were at their peak as a positive sign. This reduction of film market may not be enough for the business model of a huge corporation like Kodak, but it is a great opportunity for smaller companies.

We have seen a number of competitors surface in recent years. It is true that some of the film emulsions like Technical Pan and Kodak's IR sheet surfaces have disappeared. But in fact, we still have many times the film and paper choices than we had 50 years ago.

More and more serious photographers are venturing into large format. I, myself, returned to the fold about 6 years ago after a hiatus of 40 years. Baby-boomers who want to do fine art photography in their retirement are buying large format equipment. A sheet of 8x10 has surface area similar to a 36-exposure roll of 35mm film, so even if the LF photographer only exposes 2 or three sheets at a time, there is a better return for the manufacturer than selling a roll of 35mm for 36 exposures.

I currently have an 8x10, three 4x5s, and two 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 cameras. Prices on ebay for the lenses and cameras that I purchased five or six years ago have nearly doubled.

In a View Camera interview with Ron Wisner, I believe, he mentioned that annual sales had doubled (2003 to 2004 IIRC). Elsewhere, there has been mention that the number of LF camera manufacturers worldwide has doubled over the past 10 years.

Three years ago I could not find 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 sheet film from anyone. The only manufacturer, Ilford, had ceased production. Now Ilford's HP5 is back, Efke is producing it in three different ISOs as is ARISTO.edu.

These are all indicators that the LF market is growing, not diminishing.

Despite the difficulty of obtaining film, paper, and chemicals locally, I believe that the growing interest in LF photography will keep film alive for years to come.

[Rider]

Does Ilford produce color film?


I'm not even going to touch the anti-Canadian issue ...

Just buy Ilford sheet film, give that company enough business to keep it viable and guess what, they'll stay in business.

I'm slowly moving my film needs away from Kodak who'll probably stop making films because they're share holders demand a better dividend. So screw them.

BUY ILFORD, KEEP THEM IN BUSINESS AND WE"LL HAVE FILM FOR DECADES TO COME !!!

[Rider]

How do you find the classic camera myspace group?


Hello Richard,

There is a Classic Camera group very active on MySpace that is mostly under 35. If you know where to look, there are many younger people who enjoy using film. In southern California, I see more baby boomers with D-SLRs, because these are the people who can afford those. Younger individuals might own a camera phone, but they will rarely have the spare cash for a D-SLR. Younger people are discovering the great deals on "old school" cameras and film.

It seems all too easy for older people to dismiss those younger than them. It might be too convenient to place the problems upon those younger than you. However, those that do not make the simple assumptions might find some surprises. We are at least a generation away from those who might not understand film, if that ever really does happen.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Ole Tjugen]

Is there a link to Forstöringsateljeen Lab in Sweden?

http://www.forstoringsateljen.se/

I had an "e" too many in the name. Swedish and Norwegian are just different enough to be confusing... :)

[Bill_1856]

Al Olsen: "But in fact, we still have many times the film and paper choices than we had 50 years ago."
You've gotten totally senile to make that kind of really incorrect and misleading statement.

[Marko]

No need to worry about photography, it will survive in whatever form. What is trully depressing, though, is the rapidly declining level of this board, which seems to be turning into yet another apug lately, only more profane and immature.

Whatever happened to the art of intelligent and reasonable discussion? Why is it all of a sudden not enough to disagree with the oponent, and turn to character asassination instead?

Save for some well known cases, I wonder what is it that makes adults at their right minds think they will somehow lend more credence to their cases if they start shouting obscenities and hurling insults when faced with a statement they don't like?

Come on, guys, being civil will not make you less of a man, only less of an ape... ;)

[JPlomley]

As a newbie to LF and someone who values the opinions of many members and contributors on this forum, not to mention being a Canadian living in Quebec, some of you, and you know who you are, should be permanantly banned from this sight for your disgraceful comments.

[Gordon Moat]

How do you find the classic camera myspace group?

Classic Cameras Group on MySpace (http://groups.myspace.com/classiccameras)

If I recall correctly, the guy who runs the group contacted me. The bad thing about MySpace Groups is that the interface sucks. It is not easy to keep track of messages, nor is it very straight forward to do replies, nor include links in replies.

Anyway, there are some talented and knowledgeable people on that group. Give it a browse, and see what you think. You might find a few of my recent postings there.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Doug Dolde]

It's bound to happen sooner or later but why get depressed? you're gonna die too !

[Brian Ellis]

I think his statement should be read carefully. He didn't say that film or traditional materials will totally disappear, he said that photography "as we know it" is passing into history. That seems to me unquestionably true. Film sales decline every year, formerly significant players in the photography business (e.g. Agfa, Minolta) disappear, there are fewer and fewer wet labs around, entire product lines such as Kodak b&w paper and Nikon film cameras are no longer manufactured, former users of massive amounts of film such as major newspapers no longer use it, electronics manufacturers such as Sony that formerly had nothing to do with still cameras now hold a significant share of the market, people in the U.S. and maybe elsewhere tend to buy their cameras and ancillary stuff from large electronic chains like Best Buy rather than local camera stores (because, among other reasons, there are hardly any local camera stores left except in major cities), etc. etc. These are all indisputable facts though the conclusions about what these facts mean for the future is a matter of opinion. But I don't see how anyone can question that photography "as we know it" (or, more accurately, as we knew it for most of the 20th century) is disappearing.

Is it headed for "obsolescence?" I guess that depends on how one defines "obsolete." But certainly the photography has undergone a massive change in the last 10-15 years and that change hasn't been for the better in the case of traditional equipment and materials. I don't think those changes are going to come to a sudden halt in the year 2007.

[Rob_5419]

LOL I'd like to hear Clay or Sal say that they can live with it!
I've just finished e-mailing Hiromi at Ebony and I will let you know what he says.
4 kg isn't light but it is lighter than either of my 2 other cameras - maybe I'm just planning for future infirnity, when I'm down to one camera...


Hey Richard,

Thanks for that. It's more out of curiosity rather than any hankering desire for a 4kg whole plate camera. Even 5x4" on vacation feels like a lot, with all the DDS and things. Nice thing is in the coast of Bordeaux there's a lot of space and room to go photographing here. I'm constantly rethinking about whole plate, and in the end, I'll probably settle for a European manufacturer (lower taxes, that's all).

'One' camera.....lol. Now there's a thought. Yeah right. Didn't last long ;)

[al olson]

Al Olsen: "But in fact, we still have many times the film and paper choices than we had 50 years ago."
You've gotten totally senile to make that kind of really incorrect and misleading statement.

Bill_1856,

Senile I may be. But that is because I was around in the 1950s. The choices back then were mainly Kodak or Kodak. The other producers were Ansco and Agfa. I don't recall Fuji having much of a presence at all. Transparency film was mainly Kodachrome and quite slow at that. The few color negative films that were available were expensive and the papers were unstable.

I still have the Kodak Data Guides from that era that list the specifications for both film and paper they manufactured. Many of the current manufacturers were not around back then. There was nowhere near the selection that I see today in, say, the Freestyle catalog. I invite you to show me that there were more emulsions 50 years ago.

[Ole Tjugen]

I wasn't around 50 years ago, but I remember that 25 years ago I could by Kodak, Agfa, Fuji, Ferrania, Ilford, Efke, ORWO, GAF, and probably at least four more brands of film. Locally.

Several of these had colour films too, and Kodak had two very different series of slide films (Ektachrome and Kodachrome). I vaguely remember Sakurachrome too, which I rather liked. But I have no idea who made it.

[Brian Ellis]

"Anyone sum up the arguments and face-slapping for me??"

Anyone who doesn't agree that film is a thriving business, that the materials will always be around forever, and that anything related to digital istinks, is at best misguided and at worst a fool. And probably a Canadian to boot.

[Rob_5419]

I wasn't around 50 years ago, but I remember that 25 years ago I could by Kodak, Agfa, Fuji, Ferrania, Ilford, Efke, ORWO, GAF, and probably at least four more brands of film. Locally.


I was.....but that's why I can't remember a thing now :p

Brian - slap! Naughty now. Let bygones be gone. This thread has got enough prozac in it to keep it more edifying for us all.

[Bill_1856]

Bill_1856,

Senile I may be. But that is because I was around in the 1950s. The choices back then were mainly Kodak or Kodak. The other producers were Ansco and Agfa. I don't recall Fuji having much of a presence at all. Transparency film was mainly Kodachrome and quite slow at that. The few color negative films that were available were expensive and the papers were unstable.

I still have the Kodak Data Guides from that era that list the specifications for both film and paper they manufactured. Many of the current manufacturers were not around back then. There was nowhere near the selection that I see today in, say, the Freestyle catalog. I invite you to show me that there were more emulsions 50 years ago.

There were Kodak, Ansco, Defender from USA. Europe photo industry had mostly recovered and there were at least Agfa, Adox, Perutz, Ferrina, and several British which i don't recall in addition to Ilford. Kodachrome was the primary color film (Kodacolor wasn't too good at this point), but there were also Agfachrome, Anscocolor, mcGregor, FR, Ektachrome, Geavert. Both Ansco and Kodak had a wide selection of B&W emulsions in every size which had ever been made, from ultra-slow to Royal Pan (faster than any sheet film emulson available today). My own favorite was Ansco Isopan. Then there were printing papers. Every company had multiple choices of contact and enlarging paper, with surfaces from glossey to canvas, and bases from tissue to linen. Kodak alone must have had more than a dozen basic papers, most in contrast grades from 1-5 (except for Ilustraters Special -- the best of all). Defender had Varigam (which many old-timers still claim was better than the latest multi-contrast stuff available today). For home color darkroom Ansco had Printon, and Kodak had Dye-Transfrer.<P>You may have been around then, but I don't think you were involved in the industry.<P>Let's let this discussion drop -- I'm tired of acrimonious forum threads.

[David_Senesac]

I had to really laugh after going to the link after first reading all the replies. Thought it would be some several page essay and analysis presenting a long list of examples of how film is declining while digital is growing along with conclusions on what, how, when and why. Instead its just a couple brief paragraphs with a few documentary images of the Kodak plant in Canada that probably painfully for that local area had to close its doors. About all he tersely noted was how film generally is declining. Since that plant obviously was more likely about the consumer juggernaut of point and shoot and 35mm film markets, I bet that was all he was reflecting on and not much more. Just making a short descriptive text caption for the Kodak plant images without a serious attempt to make any profound statement. You guys really took that for a ride haha with 8 pages of posts in just two days. To me it is rather ironic because it tends to show how it is WE who want to be discussing the subject and it seems to be bothering more than a few of us. So it taint about Burley or what he said but rather the whole tangle of issues around increasing digital encroachment into traditional film areas.

Personally I've been applauding the digital changes for a lot longer than the short few years since digital camera sensors came to the scene. How immensely it all has been regularly changing since I bought a manual everything OM-1 in 1979. You old timers remember all the media jabber going on at that time when the first auto exposure cameras came on the scene then repeated a few years later when the first auto focus cameras appeared dooming all the old manual focus lenses. Over and over. Just got to be around long enough although the current digital camera sensor revolution is certainly the most significant and radical revolution of all. When film scanners like PEC laser scanners were first used in the early 80's, that allowed me to get much better prints from my 35mm Kodachromes. Then in the 90s Photoshop, PhotoCDs, Evercolor Labs archival prints, Cymbolic Sciences Lightjet, Durst Lambda, inkjet color printers, archival media, and all the rest freed us early semi-digital implementors of some of the worst limitations of film processes that had left us at the mercy of a one-sided relationship with commercial labs.

Today I have a small museum of all sorts of film format cameras lenses and all the associated junk including rolls of old film I refuse to chuck in the trash but doubtlessly will never use. Today I love some things about the little compact 7mp Coolpix camera always in my pocket in the field with its 1GB bottomless media and quick to deplete battery while wishing it wasn't at the same time such a limited toy that could still fit in my pocket. Regardless it is extremely useful for making small images even if I need to waste effort in Photoshop to straighten out the color balance and whatnot.

Below pic taken a couple minutes ago with my Coolpix. The film and the dated 4mp Pentax digicam with its hopelessly mechanically stuck out lens both need to see my trash can. But heh I can quickly deposit my newer Coolpix image globally in an minute. That fact is certainly a welcome advance I like. Sir, give me one of those films and I'll also take a few bytes too, thankyou.
http://www.davidsenesac.com/_a-z_evad/KR64.jpg

...David

[Andrew O'Neill]

Anyone who doesn't agree that film is a thriving business, that the materials will always be around forever, and that anything related to digital istinks, is at best misguided and at worst a fool. And probably a Canadian to boot.

Suddenly it's pick on Canada Day. Grow up!

[David Luttmann]

Suddenly it's pick on Canada Day. Grow up!

That's fine....we can travel the world without a target on our backs :D

[Capocheny]

That's fine....we can travel the world without a target on our backs :D

David, Andrew,

NOT all Americans have the sentiment or opinion that a few seem to have here on this forum. By and large, there ARE LOTS of American people who have the capacity for intellectual intercourse. I know quite a few of them. :)

So, don't over-generalize... forgive those who seem to have this unabashed need to make foolish comments and demonstrate their true character!

Life is too short to waste time on them. :)

Cheers

[Merg Ross]

Moderators, the Lounge might be a better place for this thread.

[Brian Ellis]

Suddenly it's pick on Canada Day. Grow up!

I thought the sarcasm was self-evident, especially the part about Canada. Far from picking on Canada, it was intended as a slap at those who in fact did pick on Canda. My apologies for not making things clearer, apparently I should have stuck a smiley in there but I thought my response was so obviously sarcastic that it was unnecessary.

[Brian Ellis]

That's fine....we can travel the world without a target on our backs :D

Good grief, another one. As I explained in response to Andrew's demand that I grow up, I thought my message was clearly intended as sarcasm and if anything the part about Canada was a put-down of those who brought Canada into the discussion. My apologies for not making that clearer.

[Brian Ellis]

David, Andrew,

NOT all Americans have the sentiment or opinion that a few seem to have here on this forum. By and large, there ARE LOTS of American people who have the capacity for intellectual intercourse. I know quite a few of them. :)

So, don't over-generalize... forgive those who seem to have this unabashed need to make foolish comments and demonstrate their true character!

Life is too short to waste time on them. :)

Cheers

I'm truly surprised that anyone thought my supposed summary of this thread was to be taken seriously but obviously some did, for which I apologize. I think if you re-read the message the intended sarcasm will be clear but in retrospect given the offense it obviously gave to some I should have added a smiley or in some other way made it obvious that I wasn't intending to provide the questioner with a serious summary of the thread and that my reference to Canada related to the previous mentions by others of Canada.

[Brian Ellis]

I was.....but that's why I can't remember a thing now :p

Brian - slap! Naughty now. Let bygones be gone. This thread has got enough prozac in it to keep it more edifying for us all.

As I've already explained elsewhere, I thought my message was so obviously sarcastic that nobody would take it as a serious attempt to summarize this thread. I now see I was wrong since you and at least three others think I was putting down Canadians. That wasn't my intent at all and I've posted public and private messages explaining that and apologizing for not making my effort at humor clearer.

[Merg Ross]

My suggestion, somewhat facetious, of moving this thread to the Lounge, was in no way a response to Brian's comments. I understood his sarcasm immediately; unfortunately, he followed some pretty bad actors on this thread.

My concern was that the initial ugliness of this thread might repeat.

[big_ben_blue]

Good grief, do we have a lot of dramaqueens here; may I suggest cutting down on the caffeine a bit; I thought Brian's little sarcastic statement was selfevident, a little lighthearted fun in an otherwise pretty sour thread...

[Rob_5419]

Well so did I.

Not sure why I come across as humourless :eek:

Must be the digital internet format.

Yeah. That's it.

[David Crossley]

I'm with what Merg, Ben and Rob said.

Some folks here are reading Brian's remarks out of context (which are pretty funny actually).



David Crossley/Crossley Photography.... (from Canada)

[paulr]

http://www.lyricsondemand.com/soundtracks/s/southparkbiggerlongeruncutlyrics/blamecanadalyrics.html

[Annie M.]

Brian... you have nothing to apologize for your post was very amusing.... Canadian men just have no sense of humor... ;)

[Capocheny]

Far from picking on Canada, it was intended as a slap at those who in fact did pick on Canda.

Brian, as I said in my PM in response to your note... "No harm, no foul... no big deal. Thanks again for your note." :)

Cheers

[Jordan]

I am 28 years old and all the employess at my place of business are under their mid 30s. We work at a fine art b&w printing lab outside of boston. We often print from 8x10 negs and even have an 11x14 enlarger. Our specialty is traditional printing. We work closely with many well known photographers and still see an abundance of new work from new clients who still prefer traditional methods. All of us here make pictures using film, almost all use view cameras, half of us have 8x10's and one of us even has 11X14. We love using film and really honestly would probably feel lost without it. The topic of film becoming obsolete, no matter how often it comes up, always bums me out as well. I will do whatever I can to ensure it's longevity. Personally I think digital is crap for art purposes. As photographers we should be aware how important the process is to the final product. Art can be about process and when you to far simplify the process the final product will suffer. Going out with my view camera is a meditative activity for me, one that requires patience and discipline. I feel like I NEED film and these other traditional materials. I know many of you feel the same way.

[David Luttmann]

Brian, as I said in my PM in response to your note... "No harm, no foul... no big deal. Thanks again for your note." :)

Cheers

Agreed. My comments had more to do with the trolls in this thread as opposed to Brian.

No worries Brian....we're all AOK up here in Canada.

[Natasa Stojsic]

http://www.forstoringsateljen.se/

I had an "e" too many in the name. Swedish and Norwegian are just different enough to be confusing... :)

Thank you, I appreciate it!!!

[Natasa Stojsic]

Hi Natasa;

I'm ordering the full-plate (6 1/2 x 8 1/2) model; it's listed on the Badger site (it's listed there NOW, wasn't there for the longest time - maybe there IS a full-plate movement afoot!). I live in Canada so I'm ordering through Rob Skeoch (BigCameraWorkshops.com).

Ebonys are beautiful and Jeff IS very fair!

Thanks Richard. I actually never heard or seen (6 1/2 x 8 1/2) model, but when you buy it make sure to post lots of pictures!!!

I will probably decide on 4x5 because of the weight. The difference alone when you compare mahogany vs ebony is substantial but I like the look of the ebony better, so I guess I have to put up with a little extra weight.

[Richard K.]

Rob, that was my question too! I think the answer is in fact that quoted in your second sentence above. Your last point is an excellent one and I wonder what quantity would be needed to bring the price down to the size-proportional region. I could e-mail Ebony and find out but we would then run the risk of having Clay and Sal annoyed that they spent more!

Rob (and hopefully at least 4 others), I quote a reply from Ebony:

Dear Richard,

Hiromi says that if there were at least 5 orders (which I know is a bit of a tall order!) the price could be lowered a bit, but unfortunately not down to the level of the SV810. Perhaps somewhere about half-way between the SV810 and the SV Wholeplate?

$1250 savings (going by prices on Badger) is a few lunches out, no:) ? Are there four of you out there?

[CP Goerz]

Perhaps one unnoticed consequence of digital will be of the baby/teen pics and family event images, in olden days a whole roll would be printed and given out to folks who would pop them in a tin or album and later on... many years later on that is, they would become 'historical'. Most folk are quite happy to share a Jpeg, maybe even spray an image out that will deteriorate like crazy as soon as water hits it etc so in effect we are becoming a generation that doesn't keep a record of itself in any permanent form.



We have seen the pace of technology work its way through floppy disks, Zip disks, problems of long term storage with CDs is becoming more apparent but nothing beats an image held in the hand to convey information so quickly and easily.

[paulr]

We have seen the pace of technology work its way through floppy disks, Zip disks, problems of long term storage with CDs is becoming more apparent but nothing beats an image held in the hand to convey information so quickly and easily.

i think these issues will sort themselves out in time. archiving digital files is a big issue for businesses, and the lessons learned will trickle down to everyday life. it's also reasonable to expect even low end inkjet printers will achieve lightfastness that's more than competitive with c-prints. ink on paper is far from a new medium, and it's only a matter of time before the lessons of high end pigment prints (and lithography and offset) trickle down to the home printers.

i see a couple of advantages to snapshots going digital. one is environmental. digital filing and distribution encourage people to make far fewer prints than they used to. that's a lot less paper/ink/chemistry getting consumed.

and simple digital filing systems (like iphoto) help people actually find the pictures they want. i'm sure some families are disciplined and organized about these things, but in my house growing up we had a closet literally filled with overstuffed boxes of snapshots. the handful of chosen ones would end up on a wall, but finding any of the others required an archeological dig to find.

[Richard K.]

Rob (and hopefully at least 4 others), I quote a reply from Ebony:

Dear Richard,

Hiromi says that if there were at least 5 orders (which I know is a bit of a tall order!) the price could be lowered a bit, but unfortunately not down to the level of the SV810. Perhaps somewhere about half-way between the SV810 and the SV Wholeplate?

$1250 savings (going by prices on Badger) is a few lunches out, no:) ? Are there four of you out there?

With apologies to Ian Wilson, the direct firm quote above may not be applicable. As a courtesy reply to me, he was really just guessing about the price. However, Hiromi did say that a price reduction would be possible, however the camera would still cost more than an SV810. The main problem is the expense of having high-quality titanium parts custom-made - even 5 sets of each won't bring the price down very much.

Also, there's no need to order through one dealer, each individual could order through their dealer, but Hiromi would need to get 5 confirmed orders from his dealers at the same time (or within a week, say).

I guess if there's interest, we should coordinate the orders so that they are placed within a week's duration (but not necessarily within this week!). I hope the interest is there! Can we sum up intentions here in this thread anf if we ARE ordering, perhaps do so the week of September 3rd and let our dealers know about the possible discount from Hiromi.

[Richard K.]

With apologies to Ian Wilson, the direct firm quote above may not be applicable. As a courtesy reply to me, he was really just guessing about the price. However, Hiromi did say that a price reduction would be possible, however the camera would still cost more than an SV810. The main problem is the expense of having high-quality titanium parts custom-made - even 5 sets of each won't bring the price down very much.

Also, there's no need to order through one dealer, each individual could order through their dealer, but Hiromi would need to get 5 confirmed orders from his dealers at the same time (or within a week, say).

I guess if there's interest, we should coordinate the orders so that they are placed within a week's duration (but not necessarily within this week!). I hope the interest is there! Can we sum up intentions here in this thread anf if we ARE ordering, perhaps do so the week of September 3rd and let our dealers know about the possible discount from Hiromi.

For keeping track of any interest in this group purchase, I have started a new thread:
"Ebony Whole-plate Deal Possible". Please post there with your intended order!

[Rob_5419]

Richard -

it'd be nice if Ebony did what Lotus do, and buy up film formats for their cameras too. That way Ebony would support whole plate film and the Ilford ULF programme, supporting its own format.

I'm kind of thinking, that anyone in the UK who's interested in joining up for the whole plate SV Ebony camera, is automatically at a price disadvantage compared to the rest of you guys. Unless a US/Canadian dealer is willing to order for those in the UK and ship out to the UK. For the same camera e.g. a SV45U, it looks like UK photographers pay around &#163;500 more for the same camera: and that's before VAT is added. I'm not sure how UK dealers would explain that anomaly (exchange rate issues?), although it makes it harder to want to support UK dealers with this kind of unversal price discrepancy here. Even the SV810e sells in the States for $6695 and in the UK for &#163;4,295 before 17.5&#37; VAT is added.

Go figure.:confused:

[Rick Cove]

Well, I for one have found a few rays of optimism in this thread.
Yes, digital imaging will increasingly dominate the market. Yes, 35 mm film is essentially dead. (sigh....all my wonderful old Nikkors destined to become paperweights...sure wish they threw a bigger image circle.). Yes mass photography is changing fundamentally and for the vast majority images are becoming as disposable as cardboard coffee cups.
Still, it is gratifying to hear the passionate voices of so many, especially those who are a bit younger, so dedicated to real photography as a true art form. If the traditional, oft times superior photographic methods and materials are to survive it will likely be in LF.
Yes, the quote was depressing. I tend to disagree with the author. Still, we really must all try to keep the remaining emulsions going. Although I usually shoot B. & W, this thread has convinced me to go buy some sheets of velvia.
I've also enjoyed the many discussions re: the use of older equipment interesting. I, my Technika III, and one of it's lenses, all turned 52 this year. All are still great looking and imbued with wonderful character, though perhaps a bit tattered around some edges. The camera and lens at least, still work as well as they did 30 years ago. In this age in which so many products become obsolete within days of their initial release, that is gratifying.
By the way Brian, as a Canadian I just wanted you to know that I took your comment about us in the way it was intended, and that an earlier writer from some place called New York City had made the original offending comment. We Canucks are a great people fortunate to live in a wonderful country, but as we live beside the colossus of the modern world we have, in my humble opinion, tended to develop a bit too much sensitivity to the actions and views of our neighbour and usually good friend to the south. As one of our Prime Ministers once said in explaining this,
"Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt.".
Anyway folks, get out there and keep shootin'.

[tanzylynne]

Richard you are dead wrong. Digital has been good for LF photography. Even though I am a 56 year juvenile, there is a new renaissance of young people starting out with digital and progressing to LF as a way of distinguishing themselves from the masses.

Digital has made photography accessible to a larger number of people then ever before and who would never otherwise be involved with a camera. From there it is just a hop and a jump before some will move to a LF camera. In the past two years the only people I have seen with LF cameras have been 30 and younger. The last wedding I photographed a year ago before I retired, both the bride and groom were LF photographers and 23 years of age. I suspect my nephew who is also interested in photography will be switching to a LF camera shortly after seeing my 5x7 work and who is completely frustrated with all of the short comings of the digital camera.



Twenty-seven year old lady here, very much enamored of my Sinar F1, 90mm Nikkor, and the lovely negatives and transparencies they make together. The above post resembles in large part the genesis of my own interest, that along with a love of architecture and the requirements of the Library of Congress. I don't think they're going to budge on their 4x5 or larger negative requirement anytime soon. Even if 100+ MP digital cameras become available they still need to consider archival integrity.

Something that I think will be lost to some extent is darkroom manipulation of processing and prints. It's easy and non-technical (at least to my generation) to scan negatives/slides, manipulate in GIMP/Photoshop, and print. If most of the younger large format photographers feel similarly, you might see darkroom lexicon survive as buttons on a program, but not so much a skill honed by experience.

Then again, these twenty and thirtysomething hipsters never cease to amaze me with what they are willing to do to be *authentic* or quirky.

[Jody_S]

I believe Robert Burley's book has now been released. Here's a preview of 20 photos on CNN.com:

The Death of Film (http://cnnphotos.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/05/the-death-of-film/)

[DrTang]

I believe Robert Burley's book has now been released. Here's a preview of 20 photos on CNN.com:

The Death of Film (http://cnnphotos.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/05/the-death-of-film/)


blah-blah-blah death of film..whatevs.. BUT

it's still a great idea for a project and thus.. I hate him with the fire of a thousand suns

[SpeedGraphicMan]

Did photography kill the art of paintings as was originally thought?

A oil painting is no better than a watercolor painting, just as film capture is no better then digital.
They are just different!

Apparently the writer of the article/book whatever is simply a supposed intellectual and not a photographer!

I spent $150 for a good condition Speed Graphic 2 years ago... They are now selling for close to $400 because people are buying them left and right!

[Mark Barendt]

Given a new Grand daughter this fall and a foot surgery planned for next week and limited vacation time the odds of my participation is low but there's is fleeting hope, yes some hope...

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?82963-Join-Me-For-Desert-Trip-III-(February-2013)&highlight=Death+Valley+2013

[John Kasaian]

This thread commenced in 2007 and I can still buy all the sheet film I need.:rolleyes:

[Brian Ellis]

I believe Robert Burley's book has now been released. Here's a preview of 20 photos on CNN.com:

The Death of Film (http://cnnphotos.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/05/the-death-of-film/)

Very poignant photographs. I'm not sure some here understand Burley's views on film and the purpose of the book.

[Jody_S]

Very poignant photographs. I'm not sure some here understand Burley's views on film and the purpose of the book.

I was just wondering if anyone would actually look at the photos, the reason of course I posted the update. I wasn't trying to reignite a 'death of film?' argument.

[Brian C. Miller]

Some very nice photos. Part of the retail change, though, is not simply the rise of the digital sensor, but also the rise of internet sales. I'm sure the words on the photo studio were something to the effect of, "So long and thanks for your patronage," but of course I couldn't read it. (or for all I know, it was, "Closed due to advent of point & shoot digital cameras.")

A person always gets poignant photos of "busy" ruins. The ruins where really nothing went on aren't very poignant, are they? ;) Although I do have a few photographs of old prospectors or cattleman shacks. Pioneers tend to build a little bit larger than 10x10 or so.