-
Depressing Statement re Film
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.ph...rkness%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!!
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
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 :)
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
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
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
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..
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Who gives a crap?
Go out and make a few images with your antiquated gear.
(sorry I just had this stuff)
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Yes ... exactly.
On second thoughts, don't tell me who Mr Burley is.
I want to stay ignorant:D
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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..
a well respected Canadian LF colour photographer who has worked on projects with the likes of Geoffrey James, Lee Friedlander, Phyllis Lambert etc
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
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.
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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...
.
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
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Canadian? Need I say more?
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tim atherton
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.
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Canadian? Need I say more?
Don't insult Canadians. They are the only civilized people in North America.
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Steven Barall
Canadian? Need I say more?
Nope, seems like sour grapes to me....
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
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
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jorge Gasteazoro
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tim atherton
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.
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
John Kasaian
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.
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jorge Gasteazoro
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
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gordon Moat
So a company shuts down a factory . . . Big Fluffy Dog! Now go out and shoot some film.
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
It was, though, the factory that produced many of the most well loved Kodak films and papers for the N American market
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
?? 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.....
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jorge Gasteazoro
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?
-
Re: Depressing Statement re 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 !!!
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jorge Gasteazoro
... 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?
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
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.
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
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.
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Remember the paperless office?
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Just a fleeting question....I'm sure there are but does anyone know if there's still some studios that use film for cinema??
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tim atherton
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.
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
paulr
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! :)
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
paulr
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.
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cyrus
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)
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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??
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.
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
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??
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ole Tjugen
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.
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
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.
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jorge Gasteazoro
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"
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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.
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.
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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
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 ....
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
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.
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jorge Gasteazoro
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.
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ole Tjugen
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?
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jorge Gasteazoro
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.
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ole Tjugen
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.....
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
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.
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Come on guys.......
Time Out
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
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...
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
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.....
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
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.
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rob_5419
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...
-
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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.
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.