Which Ones?

[maddoc]

Melvin, that's too bad.

I'm a photographer because I like making images. The medium is really secondary.

Melvin has a point, photography is about creating photographs, something that can be produced, watched and handled without the need for computers (... apart from scanning film)

Digital imaging is something completely different. The emphasis is placed on digital data processing with the aim to create an image that simulates a photograph.

 

[Al Kaplan]

"Simulates a photograph" just like the image on a page in a magazine simulates a photograph. Phrased to perfection Maddoc!

 

[kuzano]

I have nothing to offer here...

I have nothing to offer here...

I can still get 110 cartridges new for my Pentax Auto 110. I can still buy APS film. Some people are still rolling 127 film...

I don't anticipate the demise of 35mm, 120 roll film or sheet film in my remaining years. I won't be surprised if I can't buy some of it locally, however.

 

[Ade-oh]

I rather think that we'll lose most digital 'consumer' cameras before we lose film. Let's face it, you can take decent enough digital snapshots with a cellphone these days: who will want to buy both just to take snaps to upload to Facebook? For most people, photography is about recording moments, people and places, not about 'creating images'.

I found my old 'Amphoto Book of Film' from the late 80s the other day whilst cleaning my darkroom, and while a few of the old emulsion types have disappeared (Kodak Infra-Red, Tech Pan and Recording, for example), there is actually a much wider variety of film on offer now than there was then, when digital was just a twinkle in Mr Nikon's eye. I'm 44 now and prepared to bet a small sum that I will still be able to feed all of my film cameras (far too many), as well as my two enlargers, while I'm still able to take photographs.

 

[Harry Lime]

I doubt that film will vanish! There is still a healthy demand for it. Look at LOMOgraphy - 1 million adherents, all using film. If they just use 2-3 rools a year - thats 3 million rolls! Enough for a "niche" manufacturer to exist.

And that's the point. The reason why someone may sell up to 3 million rolls to the plastic camera crowd is because the LOMO, Diana etc are in production and a viable product (for what they are).

Sales of film and the availability of good analog cameras, are highly dependent on each other.

Fuji may be the only film company out there that has figured that out and I hope they sell the new 667 by the truck load.

 

[Harry Lime]

Has anybody tried to buy a top of the line, conventional enlarger lately? DeVere and Durst are making digital enlargers. One firm in America is buying up old Dursts and reconditioning them. The prices are very high. And if you are fortunate to have a top level enlarger to preserve the quality of your negs, you will find it impossible to get some of those wonderful, high quality, graded fibre enlarging papers like Ilford Galerie and Afga Portriga. This may parallel "which disappeared first, the camera or the film."

If it wasn't for the internet we would all be up the creek without a paddle. IMO the internet saved film. It allows small specialized companies to exist and thrive, without the massive overhead of having an actual shop.

Ebay and online dealers of used gear have saved millions of cameras etc from ending up in landfills.

The net opens up the entire global market to sales. As an example I recently purchased a pack of 777 developer from the Frugal Photographer, who is located somewhere in the United States. I am currently in London, UK.

I highly doubt that companies like ADOX etc would still be around if it wasn't for the internet. Remember when EFKE was an obscure little company, somewhere in Eastern Europe? Word spread around the globe that they were making vintage emulsions and by hook or crook people located all over the world managed to get their hands on their products. Would have never happened without the internet.

So, that half of the equation is working. But we need a steady supply of functional cameras to for long term survival.

 

[bmattock]

I rather think that we'll lose most digital 'consumer' cameras before we lose film.

You are incorrect.

I found my old 'Amphoto Book of Film' from the late 80s the other day whilst cleaning my darkroom, and while a few of the old emulsion types have disappeared (Kodak Infra-Red, Tech Pan and Recording, for example), there is actually a much wider variety of film on offer now than there was then, when digital was just a twinkle in Mr Nikon's eye.

No, there isn't. I collect the old camera magazines, and I'm old enough to remember the annual film comparison tests they ran. There were once dozens of manufacturers and hundreds of film types. You are absolutely incorrect.

I'm 44 now and prepared to bet a small sum that I will still be able to feed all of my film cameras (far too many), as well as my two enlargers, while I'm still able to take photographs.

That may well be - given certain caveats, such as a good deep freezer and a generator for power outages. Photographic film as a consumer item is destined for the ashheap of history, and sooner rather than later.

 

[bmattock]

Melvin has a point, photography is about creating photographs, something that can be produced, watched and handled without the need for computers (... apart from scanning film)

Is speaking about mouths moving in proximity to your ear? Is writing about typeset print on paper you see with your eye? Photography is about still, as opposed to moving, images. There is no definition of it in the world, other than the one you just made up, that defines photography as being exclusive to film.

 

[bmattock]

Harry, where there's a market there wil be suppliers.

An old canard, and utterly untrue. Markets go unrequited all the time. The demand has to be 'sufficient' for the prospective market to make a profit, and in the age of government regulations on everything from the environment to the levels of toxins that employees are exposed to, such demand also requires that government regulations permit it to be filled.

I wish people would stop saying "where there is demand, there will be supply," when anyone can provide dozens of examples where that is demonstrably false.

 

[bmattock]

I doubt that film will vanish! There is still a healthy demand for it. Look at LOMOgraphy - 1 million adherents, all using film. If they just use 2-3 rools a year - thats 3 million rolls! Enough for a "niche" manufacturer to exist.

Most of them shoot color, and most of them have it processed by commercial processors like one-hour labs. Take away the one-hour labs, and the Lomo people will drop Lomos like a bad habit.

Kodak just opened up a new coating plant in Rochester and introduced the Tmax2 and the Ektar 100 - and they are still making XX and XXX!

Kodak has cut production of everything they make drastically, demolished far more plants than they've opened, and cut nearly 1/2 of their workforce in the past two years.

We might not have the choices that we used to have in speeds, color emulsions etc (and sizes like 220), but it will be around.

Not for very long.

OK, so I tend to stock up on it - just in case. About 5000 ft in the freezer currently and I am planning to add another 5-6000 ft in the new year. Hate running out of favorite stocks (Double X and TriX primarily). Fuji in Japan has also stated that they will support film as long as there are cameras using it around. The introduction of the Fuji 667/Bessa III "folder" at Photokina supports this statement too.

Stocking up is a good idea if you can and wish to continue shooting film. Don't forget the chemistry too. Whilst one can process B&W in coffee if need be, C41 will not be easy to source chemistry for once companies like Eastman Chemical stop making them, which they will as soon as their main customers stop ordering them.

 

[J J Kapsberger]

The demand has to be 'sufficient' for the prospective market to make a profit...

Correct, and if there is sufficient demand, after all impediments such as government regulation or interference, there will be a supply, as your quoted member points out.

I wish people would stop saying "where there is demand, there will be supply," when anyone can provide dozens of examples where that is demonstrably false.

Such as? Give us a dozen examples.

 

[bmattock]

Correct, and if there is sufficient demand, after all impediments such as government regulation or interference, there will be a supply, as your quoted member points out.

He did not state that, he stated an old saw that there will always be supply to meet demand, which is not true.

Such as? Give us a dozen examples.

I can give hundreds, starting with Kodak disc film, continuing through 8-track tapes, and ending with Dodo dinners. You agreed with me yourself - demand has to be sufficient to induce a manufacturer to foresee the chance of a reasonable profit, or the demand will go unrequited. One cannot truthfully say "I want it, therefore, someone will make it for me."

Film is often compared to LP records, which unfortunately is a false analogy. The bar to entry for pressing vinyl is significantly lower than the bar to entry to making photographic film, from the availability of raw supplies and manufacturing equipment to the environmental requirements of manufacturing each.

 

[bmattock]

Merry Christmas to you Bill.

And to you. May your Christmas be full of joy, love, and good cheer.

 

[Tom A]

Stocking up is a good idea if you can and wish to continue shooting film. Don't forget the chemistry too. Whilst one can process B&W in coffee if need be, C41 will not be easy to source chemistry for once companies like Eastman Chemical stop making them, which they will as soon as their main customers stop ordering them.[/QUOTE]

So far I haven't had a problem. I buy bulk chemistry (60 to 100 lbs at a time) and make my own "soups". I usually keep 2 years supply of chemistry and film in stock - and if there is a shortage - I could probably "drag" that out to last 4 years.
As for Kodak demolishing "Kodak Park" - part of that was to modernize coating plants and compensate for lower demand.
As for LOMO - they have enough pull to have their own films made - including a run of 300 000 rolls, this year, that was spooled backwards (you shot through the backing!!!!) In cases like this "money talks" and they might have to ship film to a processor, but they dont seem adverse to that! The filmrun of 300 000 rolls was sold out in weeks by the way and they were apologetic at Photokina for not having any samples left!
Of course, there is nothing to prevent them from using LOMO's with bl/w either. I do in our Ltd Edition! Lomo Fisheye.

 

[Nikon Bob]

Bill

You are being too rational about a subject, film, that causes a very emotional reaction from people here. I personally think you are quite right and it would be prudent to stalk up on film and chemicals for the long haul if you want continue to use film as your main photographic medium.

Bob

 

[bmattock]

Bill

You are being too rational about a subject, film, that causes a very emotional reaction from people here. I personally think you are quite right and it would be prudent to stalk up on film and chemicals for the long haul if you want continue to use film as your main photographic medium.

Bob

I know. I generally try not to get involved in 'Film is Dead' discussions anymore. In the first place, my prediction two years ago that color print film had but two years left to it was incorrect - it is still around. In the second place, it's not good for my blood pressure - illogic and wishful thinking disguised as rational discourse get right up my sleeve.

I realize that strong emotion causes logic to fly out the window - it happens to me as well, on a variety of issues - just not this one.

Well, I do hope that film lasts a good long time, and I hope that everyone who wishes to use it will still be able to find it for as long as they want. None of us can ultimately control what happens anyway; we shall see what transpires in the next year or so.

 

[Harry Lime]

I don't think film is dead. I'm just trying to point out it's not so obvious Achilles heel.

Everyone keeps talking about film going away, because of lack of demand. Lack of demand can be caused in two ways.

1) Enough people could simply lose interest in shooting film, so that the user base would shrink to the point that sales can no longer support the production of film.
Big companies like Kodak have high overhead and must answer to the stock holders.

or

2) Demand is not curtailed by lack of interest in the media, but because analog cameras are no longer available, can no longer be repaired or the pool of functional cameras has shrunk to the point that the amount of film that is consumed no longer able to support it's production.

In order to survive, film is dependent on a large of enough base of functional cameras to support it's production.

I hope I never see the day that film goes away. The great irony is that for almost 16 years I have made a good living as a professional in the field of digital image manipulation. I shoot both film and digital at work, but for my personal work it's 99% black and white film.

If Tri-X ceased to exist it would be an absolute disaster for my personal work. I probably go through 20-40 rolls a month and rarely leave the house without a Leica shoved in my jacket or bag. The look of my work is very much dependent on film and no, it can't be 100% duplicated via digital. Obviously I would still continue to shoot if film went away, because I am primarily interested in making images and telling stories, but something would be missing...

Besides, I have enough things blinking and beeping at me at work. The last thing I want to experience in my precious free time is more of that.

That said, to answer Bill's original question I would primarily miss my Leica M's and Nikon F.
The loss of the M and 1.4/35 Lux ASPH combo would be pretty hard to swallow...

 

[Rui Morais de Sousa]

Which Ones?

Hello everybody. This is my first ever post in RFF. I decided to make my registration, because I found Bill Pierce here. So will you allow me to start by sending my greetings to Mr. Pierce? Hello Bill, I am very happy to see you around! In the seventies, while I was living in Germany, starting falling seriously in love with photography, I drove for some days to Paris, were I was lucky to find the 1973 Leica Manual mentioned above. Happilly I bought it, and also read and re-read your articles, and marvelled at your knowledge and simplicity. This book still has a proud place in my living-room! As a matter of fact it is right here, opened on page 205, showing this wonderfull and unforgetable photograph of a child and his mother ( Your wife and sun?...). From than on, I tried to regularly buy Popular Photography, mainly to read your Nuts & Bolts section (If my memory doesn´t fail, it was called so, or?). The first time that I heard of you, was on a Minolta Mirror from 1977, in an article you made about light-meters. Since than, my prefered meter mode is incident! Coincidentaly, the first time a photograph of mine was published, was in that same issue, in the reader´s gallery, page 122, already using a Minolta Autometer. Thank you for so much great teaching, I owe you a LOT!
It´s been a long way since my Minolta cameras, shortly thereafter I started substituting them with Leica-M equipment, then I also started getting medium format, later also large format... What finally brings me to your question: like you, I also would miss my M's and my Rollei 3,5F. But also my Rollei 35mm and the fine Zeiss lenses, my 500 C/M, my 4x5´s, my 8x10 and the Schneider and Rodenstock´s. Maybe even worse, I would have to miss the possibility of using such specialised cameras like my Corfield WA 67, or the Horseman SW612 Pro. In my humble opinion, no DSLR can substitute them. Yes, I know that there are a Alpa or Horseman digital, but, even if I wanted to, I could not afford them! I struggle to keep able to pay the rent of my studio/workplace! And after all, why should I give up these fine instruments? All these "old" cameras and lenses keep on doing their job very, very competentely. They are not made of cheap plastic, they don´t need to be photoshop corrected! My oldest Leica, M3 with a collapsible 50mm Summicron, is 53 years old (my age, by the way) and looking still fresh and young! It keeps on making such fine photographs now as decades ago. I trully enjoy keeping on using it. I even feel proud about it. It's failure or sucess depends mainly on ME. Don't misunderstand me: I also use digital, and can understand it's advantages, but my heart keeps on beating analogic. I am very sorry, but my Canon digital might be fine to use, my brain sees it, but it doesn't make me throb!... And if we think about b&w, it's even more so: the physical sense of looking at, and touching a well made enlargement is far more interesting and rewardfull, then looking at a photograph in a screen, no matter how good that scren is. Looking at an 8x10 transparency is also a very special and phisical experience! Why let "them" steal that away from us? Aren't we also responsible for that matter? After all, we are the guys who run out and buy all the things they sell us, no matter what. We photographers, are usually very gear-oriented people, we like gimmicks. We tend to think that newer is equal to better. Unfortunatelly it is not always so! My newer cameras have lots of functions that I really don't need and don't even care about! I would gladly trade that for the old better engeneering. An Hasselblad 500 C/M was supposed to be built for hard work, having a useful life of at least two decades (I guess that mine is actually older). Now we have new models every six-or-so months. For what? Yes I know, technology is developing fast and a lot in digital. I'm glad to hear that. But who really needs new models every six months? I also can't find no point on the production of cheap crap that is sold to us like marvels... Who needs lenses made of plastic, already factory-programed to be optically corrected in a computer? Isn't that going backwards, isn't that rubish? Oh c'mon people, let's not allow that someone takes us for granted fools. Who needs one more "wonderzoom", so dark you can only use it in strong sunshine, so bad that any building photographed with it looks fatter than a barrell of wine? And like somebody else noted, I also still have trouble with the arrogance and ignorance of many newcomer (digital) photographers who think that because they can make a nice looking picture in photoshop, that's all there is to know. I think that I am enough open-minded, to mantain that there is a place for everybody and everything. For most people, a photograph is only a souvenir, they don't need top gear, they don't need Planar's or Distagon's... But those people surelly don't read these pages, don't use a rangefinder. Let's not confuse things, please. Beeing able to read and write, doesn't make a writer out of me!
Now someone mentioned the horrorvision of a Tri-X costing $8.00! Well, let me remember you, that altough globalisation, the world is not the same everywhere: the last Tri-X 35mm I bought, cost me EIGHT EUROS each, what is more than that! Another exemple from this small country of mine (Portugal): about a year ago, a client showed (again) interest on making a reprodution of a painting in 8x10". If I could do it? I was wise enough to tell him I had to see, and called the main photoshop in Lisbon (Colorfoto). About two weeks later, I get the information from Kodak, that I had to order a minimun of 10 boxes of film (100 sheets), and that would cost me over 1500 euros. Yes, one thousend-five-hundred! How much would I have to charge my client for that reproduction? I am sure, if I had asked about T-Max, the answer would be very much the same. (If I remember well, I have waited a couple of months to get b&w sheet film, the last time I ordered some 4x5). That meant that my 8x10 started collecting dust, of course. Happilly, I own a horseman 6x12 rollfilm back for my 4x5's...
Now I found a light at the end of the tunnell: I came to know Fotoimpex in Berlin, and got some 5x7 Adox film and 8x10 Fomapan (I had tried some horrible Fomapan in the eighties, this is something else). I have been shooting with it for a couple of weeks now, and LOVE IT! Both films seem to have those characteristics that made me love b&w photography in the first place: I believe they can produce photographs with that classic timeless feel of some decades ago, without looking dated. Nice shadow detail, good controlable highlights, nice gray values. For a cheaper price: what can I wish more? Guess what? I think my Gandolfi Precision won't collect dust again, and Kodak won't earn my money again (except maybe for Tri-x and D-76...Dektol?...). I also tried Adolux ATM 49 powder developer. I used it in 1+1 and 1+2 dilutions, and I am very positively impressed. I even like their simple, clean design. Just nice!
I must say, that, so far, I only developed the negatives and scanned some of them (scanning is not my strength...). I ain't done any contacts or enlargements yet (I have a Zone VI 5x7 and a Focomat Ic). Now I got wish to try some of their enlarging papers too. So, if it might interest you, take a look at Fotoimpex, they may have something for you too.
Like one of you also noted, thanks the Internet! It grants us the access of so many less known products, from so many corners of the world. I am only worried that my situation keeps on getting so critical, that I really can't use film no more, not because nobody sells it or I don't want it, but because I can't afford it, no matter how (relatively) cheap... If things don't start changing soon, that might be much shorter than the demise of film from production. My bad luck...
Just one more point: the Leica and Hasselblad representative in Portugal has a very nice gentleman, mr. Nunes, who is a very conscious repair technician. My Leicas and Hassis must be grateful to his service, he keeps them healthy. He is a really nice person, and was kind enough to take care of my Rollei TLR. Just came back from him and sounds (whispers...) like new again... I can't wait to run some film through it again... Good old friend too, this camera...
Well, for a first post, it surelly got a long one! I hope that some of you found it of some interest, and sorry for my mistakes and not-so-correct english. I am out of practice...
Have a nice New Year for everybody, and once again thank you mr. Pierce. Thank you for giving me the kick to share my thoughts with you all. Have a nice time! Rui