The comeback of film?

[bob carnie]

I am more worried about loss of contact and enlarging paper as many 'film nuts' scan for digital output.

I don't want to make emulsions of any kind...

There will be some small niche operators doing that for you Randy, think back to when the couple were making Pt Pd pre coated paper for us in the 80's they had a thriving business.

[Bob Salomon]

I was given a Minox age 7 in 1958 and developed the film myself without help.

But never got beyond Minox contact prints as father forbid an enlarger as frivolous even if I bought one with my paper route cash.

All film processed by mail until I finally took a college photography class in 1998 age 47. Tiny consumer digital was just then available. I bought a Nikon Coolpix 100 and did all assignments with film and tiny digital.

Interesting that that 0.3 MP sensor made a 512 X 480 image which is the same size as the crappy Mustang scan.

Many of those Minox prints were taken on a road trip for my 13th birthday through CT and other parts of NE. The first time I used it was to shoot pictures of submarines in their berths at Groton, CT. That caught the attention of the Shore Police who wanted to know why a 13 year old with a Minox was photographing subs through a chain link fence!

As a 13 year old I carried very little in the way of ID that would satisfy them. Fortunately my father’s sales rep was able to satisfy them. But they kept the film! But that was in 1954, so times have changed, today they probably would just shoot first.

[Bob Salomon]

Frank, you look happy with film extintion...

Film has only a tinny share of the wedding photography (1/10000 ?), but yes... top notch wedding photographers are one of the last refuges in film commercial photography.

Another refuge is some selected movie productions, as mentioned Episode 9 is right now being shot on film, a product that will raise beyond 1 billion.

The strong refuges are artists and amateurs.




Of course, but those 20, mostly leading the rankings of best wedding photographers, are pointing that film is just an excellent choice when a high quality output matters, their exemplary work enlights for those wanting to engage this way.

From the 800 million/y rolls peak present production is over some 3.5 million, but now increasing by some 6% yearly. There are good and bad news. Fuji killed Neopan, but kodak recovers P3200 and Ektachrome...

If they kill film we'll make dry plates and lumieres, it is true that film was "critically endangered", now perhaps we are in "vulnerable" situation, so at least we have an improvement.

Are you so naive and inexperienced to believe that high quality, professional prints can’t be done digitally?

[Tin Can]

Post WW II was interesting. My first wife was born in a US Occupied Germany camp, her parents had stories to tell.

I remember Nike Missile Silos inside Chicago near Montrose Harbour, which were removed and replaced by a Trap Shooting Range. Long gone.

During WW II my mother saw Japanese subs off LA. I don't know if she saw the attack.

No pictures...

Many of those Minox prints were taken on a road trip for my 13th birthday through CT and other parts of NE. The first time I used it was to shoot pictures of submarines in their berths at Groton, CT. That caught the attention of the Shore Police who wanted to know why a 13 year old with a Minox was photographing subs through a chain link fence!

As a 13 year old I carried very little in the way of ID that would satisfy them. Fortunately my father’s sales rep was able to satisfy them. But they kept the film! But that was in 1954, so times have changed, today they probably would just shoot first.

[Pere Casals]

Are you so naive and inexperienced to believe that high quality, professional prints can’t be done digitally?

Bob, 99.9999% of profesional prints are made digitally... so I'm not challenging digital supremacy in the market...

What I said is "film is just an excellent choice when a high quality output matters".

Let me go beyond: a Contax 645 loaded with Portra is a superior tool for many Wedding phtographers because of spectral response. No digital DSLR or Back has an specialized spectral response for portraiture, all are for general usage, while we have films with portraiture dedicated spectral respose. Digital world lacks that.

Of course we can manage RGB color later, but spectral information is lost in the capture instant, spectral information is reduced to 3 values. If the job is well done in that information reduction then we have a photographic quality plus, beyond pixel count and pixel peeping.

A DSLR has this, good in general:




Sylvies' Contax 645 has this, an amazingly well optimized response for human skin:




Of course there is 'à chacun son goût' about spectral responses, me I've no doubt about what is the best.

[Drew Wiley]

Good optical paper is certainly not in short supply at the moment. It changes and evolves just like everything else, but at present has no signs of impending extinction.

[Bob Salomon]

Post WW II was interesting. My first wife was born in a US Occupied Germany camp, her parents had stories to tell.

I remember Nike Missile Silos inside Chicago near Montrose Harbour, which were removed and replaced by a Trap Shooting Range. Long gone.

During WW II my mother saw Japanese subs off LA. I don't know if she saw the attack.

No pictures...

I was talking about images properly done with digital cameras and backs. You are naive if you refuse to acknowledge the quality that can be done digitally.

Go to a Phase One or Alpa or Hasselblad dealer and look at their outputs.
Go rent a Leica or high end Canon, Nikon, etc. and learn what they can really do.

[Tin Can]

I don’t argue that moot point.

I just like magic. 😎

I was talking about images properly done with digital cameras and backs. You are naive if you refuse to acknowledge the quality that can be done digitally.

Go to a Phase One or Alpa or Hasselblad dealer and look at their outputs.
Go rent a Leica or high end Canon, Nikon, etc. and learn what they can really do.

[Tin Can]

Bob Salomon,

Please let me explain. I don't care if people use Inkjet and digital, in fact I use both all the time. Currently a Nikon D750 works great for me. I just don't want to own an Inkjet printer as I have had too MANY. No more...

When I want an Inkjet print I have it printed by https://divlab.com/ after I use Adobe CC.

However what I love as a hobby and only for 'fun' is shooting LF film and printing on Ilford enlarging paper.

Unlike some, I don't think one is better than the other. Now they are just different sides of the same coin.

20 years ago I kept telling my cinematography friends who had just graduated Film school to shoot Digital videos and get serious.

16mm was just too expensive even 20 years ago.

Now they rent from http://doddpro.com/rental/ which is 3 blocks away. They still have no income...

[Bob Salomon]

Bob Salomon,

Please let me explain. I don't care if people use Inkjet and digital, in fact I use both all the time. Currently a Nikon D750 works great for me. I just don't want to own an Inkjet printer as I have had too MANY. No more...

When I want an Inkjet print I have it printed by https://divlab.com/ after I use Adobe CC.

However what I love as a hobby and only for 'fun' is shooting LF film and printing on Ilford enlarging paper.

Unlike some, I don't think one is better than the other. Now they are just different sides of the same coin.

20 years ago I kept telling my cinematography friends who had just graduated Film school to shoot Digital videos and get serious.

16mm was just too expensive even 20 years ago.

Now they rent from http://doddpro.com/rental/ which is 3 blocks away. They still have no income...

Randy,

Film is a tool, just as digital is.

Properly done it is very difficult, without looking under very high magnification, to tell if you can tell which are which.

Just like some artists use oils and others acrylics or pastels, etc. it is all art.