JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
I call bullsh*t.
I don't know about your town or city, but in the last 3 years the Walgreens chain of stores has embarked on an ambitious growth plan nationwide in the US to compete with Walmart, by having a plethora of smaller stores on almost every street corner. And they all have the quick labs that do C-41 processing and RA-4 printing from digital files.
There are now more C-41 labs in my town than ever, because of Walgreen's growth.
The gloom and doomers do have a real effect on the economy, but I prefer to vote with my wallet.
~Joe
urban_alchemist
Well-known
NickTrop
Veteran
I agree... That's how things will evolve. I send my Black and White out to Dwaynes in the US for processing sometimes, and buy virtually all my film on line except the occasional Fuji 800 speed, a good film readily available.
And that doesn't bother me in the least... As long as they still make it and I can get it at a reasonable price.
|
bmattock
Veteran
Anecdotal evidence not supported by facts.
http://www.gfk.com/imperia/md/content/gfkatphotokina/2008/world_of_imaging_article2.pdf
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-pTGv0c4yeK.9giv88fyGb.D34SZ64BR0oBeb?p=3
http://sbdcnet.org/dmdocuments/2004PhotoLab.pdf
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/business/6180802.html
http://www.tricities.com/tri/news/l...iness_shuttered_by_digital_photography/18303/
CIPA, the Japanese trade organization that tracks sales of Japanese-made cameras to international trade, stopped tracking film cameras entirely - the numbers are now too low to count. Monthly stats are here:
http://www.cipa.jp/english/data/dizital.html
http://www.cipa.jp/english/data/pdf/s_200811.pdf
Ignoring facts doesn't change them. Anecdotal evidence of families that never bought a digital camera does not change the trend. I'm sorry, it is what it is.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
The question comes down to what production amount and value of film can keep Kodak in the film business, right? So lets get in the time machine and go back fifty or sixty years, to the days before Kodak introduced the 35mm based 126 Instamatic format.
Any decent camera store stocked B&W Kodak, Ansco, Gavaert, Agfa, Adox and DuPont film. They carried at least two or three brands in a variety of sizes: 122, 118, 116, 616, 120, 620, 127, 828 and 35mm in both 18 and 36 exposure lengths. The corner drugstore likely had both Ansco and Kodak in all of those sizes. How cost effective was that?
The average family stuck an 8 or 12 exposure roll of film in the camera and shot a photo or two of the kids playing in the snow. If they had a flash gun they might have used a bulb or two taking pictures with the Christmas tree and kids showing off their presents. Next was a shot of everybody in their Easter best perhaps followed by a graduation picture. That roll would be finished and another started during summer vacation, etc Yup, they probably shot two rolls a year, maybe three if somebody got married or had a baby! Factor in the fact that the U.S. population was less than half of what it was today.
With all those other film manufacturers competing with Kodak for market share Kodak still managed to make money. If the average American family only uses an average of perhaps two disposeable film camera a year? You do the math.
Any decent camera store stocked B&W Kodak, Ansco, Gavaert, Agfa, Adox and DuPont film. They carried at least two or three brands in a variety of sizes: 122, 118, 116, 616, 120, 620, 127, 828 and 35mm in both 18 and 36 exposure lengths. The corner drugstore likely had both Ansco and Kodak in all of those sizes. How cost effective was that?
The average family stuck an 8 or 12 exposure roll of film in the camera and shot a photo or two of the kids playing in the snow. If they had a flash gun they might have used a bulb or two taking pictures with the Christmas tree and kids showing off their presents. Next was a shot of everybody in their Easter best perhaps followed by a graduation picture. That roll would be finished and another started during summer vacation, etc Yup, they probably shot two rolls a year, maybe three if somebody got married or had a baby! Factor in the fact that the U.S. population was less than half of what it was today.
With all those other film manufacturers competing with Kodak for market share Kodak still managed to make money. If the average American family only uses an average of perhaps two disposeable film camera a year? You do the math.
Nh3
Well-known
Color film is dead, b&w is alive and even recovering. I think more people are shooting b&w now than they did in 80s (just my opinion), the reason I say that is because Rodinal, Microphen all of those chemicals which were almost dead are commonly available these days.
Arista2 400 is made in Germany and I can buy it for CDN$2 a roll. I don't know when was the last time I bought anything made in germany for $2. Arista premium is trix and sold $2 a roll.
The future of film is b&w and the only way b&w would die is if something cataclysmic happens and our perception of photography changes.
Arista2 400 is made in Germany and I can buy it for CDN$2 a roll. I don't know when was the last time I bought anything made in germany for $2. Arista premium is trix and sold $2 a roll.
The future of film is b&w and the only way b&w would die is if something cataclysmic happens and our perception of photography changes.
Yvette
-
Does the average American family use two disposable film cameras a year? Most have digital P&S's now, I would think. I know I see very few disposables on the tables at weddings anymore, and they used to be ubiquitous. Those of us who shoot weddings had a lot fewer flashes going off in our faces before digital! 
bmattock
Veteran
Your opinion is incorrect, I'm sorry. Film use of all sorts have declined precipitously.
Arista II 440 *was* made in Germany, by Agfa. It was APX 400. I am told that Agfa made lots of master rolls and put them in deep freeze before closing their doors forever.
Something cataclysmic is happening.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I like film because I don't like to read manuals and edit at the computer. I just want peace and tranquility when I do photography.
Damaso
Photojournalist
"Film still represents a sizable portion of Kodak's finances. For the first three quarters of 2008, Kodak's film, photofinishing and entertainment group had $2.3 billion in sales, representing roughly a third of its overall sales and more than the $2.1 billion its consumer digital imaging group took in. But consumer digital imaging is growing, with its net sales up 13 percent from the first nine months of 2007, while the film, photofinishing and entertainment group sales were down 15 percent from the first nine months of 2007."
Yes, clinging...
Yes, clinging...
Nh3
Well-known
You're telling me that Nintendo Wii will stop people from playing real tennis, or all racing car drivers would play the latest racing simulation on their PS3 and stop racing?
If by that logic you have concluded that a simulation - which digital photography is - a simulation of photography will replace real photography then you're underestimating the human drive for curiosity.
Digital photography is a purely electronic activity and there is no room in it for creativity and originality, because of the "undo" button and because whatever you "do" with "it" was programmed by a group of code-monkeys in some IT company.
Digital photography like everything in our over-fed, bored, and lazy society is driven by lethargy and inertial. "Please make it easy", "make life easy", "I hate working hard and trying", those are the maxims of today and digital photography fits very well with "spirit of the times".
bmattock
Veteran
No, I haven't said anything like that. I refuted your statements that B&W film sales are higher than they were in the 1980's (they're not), and that Arista II 400 film is currently manufactured (it isn't).
I have concluded no such thing. I simply observe the trends and read the facts. I won't argue whether or not digital photography is 'real' photography - that's religion. I will note that it is accepted and used as if it were real, and that's really all that matters.
Religion.
Religion.
Nh3
Well-known
This is not a matter of faith vs. rational thought. Its a lot more simpler than that.
Any form of human activity performed with a computer program and the results produced in an electronic format that can only be interpreted with another computer program is a simulation.
Digital lacks humanity and that is an essential quality for any enduring work of art or any work of historical value.
Any form of human activity performed with a computer program and the results produced in an electronic format that can only be interpreted with another computer program is a simulation.
Digital lacks humanity and that is an essential quality for any enduring work of art or any work of historical value.
david.elliott
Well-known
Just thought I would interject briefly --
I think that digital has led at least some people, including myself, into film photography. If it werent for digital, I would never have become comfortable enough, quick enough with the basics of photography to try film.
I think that digital has led at least some people, including myself, into film photography. If it werent for digital, I would never have become comfortable enough, quick enough with the basics of photography to try film.
Yvette
-
That would include jpegs used to post photos in galleries? Only a computer program can interpret them.
antiquark
Derek Ross
Maybe Kodak thinks film will just keep hanging on, like vinyl records:
Vinyl record sales double in 2008
http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Vinyl+record+sales+double+2008/1143511/story.html
From the article:
The top selling vinyl album in 2008 was Radiohead's In Rainbows, followed by the Beatles' Abbey Road, at 16,500 units.
"From what I'm gathering, strangely enough, it's the younger generation that are really kind of going back to (vinyl),'' said Roy Trakin, editor of the U.S. music industry website Hits.
"It's a nostalgic throwback to listening to music in a traditional way.''
Vinyl record sales double in 2008
http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Vinyl+record+sales+double+2008/1143511/story.html
From the article:
The top selling vinyl album in 2008 was Radiohead's In Rainbows, followed by the Beatles' Abbey Road, at 16,500 units.
"From what I'm gathering, strangely enough, it's the younger generation that are really kind of going back to (vinyl),'' said Roy Trakin, editor of the U.S. music industry website Hits.
"It's a nostalgic throwback to listening to music in a traditional way.''
bmattock
Veteran
Our communication, right now, is such. Would it be less of a simulation if we communicated via round-robin typewritten or hand-written letters? Would the content be different? Would it communicate more or less?
Your telephone calls no longer travel in the purely analogue realm these days. Chances are high that your voice is digitized somewhere along the way, particularly if you use a cell phone. Is the simulation of your voice less communicative than your voice?
You prove my point for me. "Digital lacks humanity" is a judgment, personal, and not subject to any objective 'proof' one way or another - it is a belief. "...and that is an essential quality for any enduring work of art or any work of historical value..." says the same thing. You posit feeling as if it were provable fact, and that is a facet that marks religion.
I won't argue religion with you.
Nh3
Well-known
Computers are great for doing the mundane chores of daily life, banking, surfing the net etc...
But they can never replace our intrinsic drive for creativity, and creativity cannot be expressed through computer programs, period.
If I'm wrong then please show me a purely digital work of art, a masterpiece created through computer programs. And after I see such a work then I'll shut up and burn all my film and destroy all my film cameras.
I'm not kidding.
But they can never replace our intrinsic drive for creativity, and creativity cannot be expressed through computer programs, period.
If I'm wrong then please show me a purely digital work of art, a masterpiece created through computer programs. And after I see such a work then I'll shut up and burn all my film and destroy all my film cameras.
I'm not kidding.
Last edited:
Nh3
Well-known
I'm arguing here with a century of photography heritage and numberless masterpieces to back me up and you're touting a ten-year-old technology which still cannot produce a decent human portrait.
Speaking of religion, one of us is not introspective and I don't think its me.
Speaking of religion, one of us is not introspective and I don't think its me.
david.elliott
Well-known
Afraid I have to completely disagree with you here. There are some pretty incredible digital paintings done with computer programs.
http://artrage.com/
Artrage is a very inexpensive program that I, and many others, use to paint. One can use a mouse, trackpad, or tablet (my preference).
And this is just one option for painting digitally.
Last edited: