Cordiality and lack thereof...

Quote
Any proof of that?

nope, just seeing where it went under the 45 second rule, anyway chriscrawford is back - have fun:)
 
Gumby said:
One really has to have a thick hide to survive on the internet, especially on forums where passion frequently leads to passionate discussion/momologues.
Click to expand...


I think the problem is that some on the internet seem to take things a little too literally.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Bill, once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Painting was commercially very important prior to photography's invention, enormous numbers of professional artists earned middle class and sometimes higher incomes painting portraits, signs, illustrations, etc.
Click to expand...

OK, fair enough. Most of that was done in by printing, not photography. And photography was quite good at ruining the livelihood of silhouette painters, who worked for those who could not afford to pay for painted portraits. Those who could afford to pay for painted portraits could also afford to pay for Daguerreotype portraits, and did. Photography also did some damage to the technical illustrator.

There's still a little work left for illustrators but most of them also do graphic design because there isnt enough work for illustration alone anymore, outside of a few stars. In the past large numbers of largely unknown artists worked and earned a living, that's gone. Painting declined as a commercial art form in the 19th century and was basically a fine-art only type of art from the beginning of the 20th. It wasn't until the 19th century that the 'starving artist' became a cultural icon.
Click to expand...

As I stated previously, painting was never an everyman's pursuit, which photography was. Painting may well have declined, but it didn't die, wasn't predicted to die, and photography didn't kill it. The two have precious little to do with each other.

No one has 'repeatedly' said that the barrier to entry in making artist paints is low.
Click to expand...

I have.

It is not. It involves working with extremely toxic powdered chemicals that are heavily regulated by the government and making good paints requires special machines that grind the powdered pigments into finer particles while mixing them into the linseed oil base. Artists did make thier own paints until the 1700's. They often didn't live long.
Click to expand...

And anyone can make their own paint now. It may not be good paint, and it may well be toxic, but it's not hard to do. Making film, on the other hand, is not something an average guy can do in his garage, nor will that come to pass. I repeat - the bar to entry for making art supplies is far lower than the bar to entry to making photographic film.

In any case, no one here who uses film gives a damn about consumers or mainstream markets anymore than Windsor & Newton or Gamblin or Schminke, or Old Holland or Grumbacher does (those are oil paint manufacturers, all still in business). Mainstream consumers don't buy oil paints, haven't for a century or more (painting was a popular hobby in the 19th century and into the early 20th...Winston Churchill among others did it for fun). Today mainstream consumers don't buy film. Artists and hobbyists do, just like with artists paints.
Click to expand...

All of which means nothing. Photography survives because it is (rapidly, was) a mainstream pursuit, with prices driven low by massive consumer consumption and production. If and when photographic film output declines to the level of painting, we'll see if the market can sustain the kind of prices that would have to be charged to create a roll of film for a 10,000 roll per year market versus a 10,000,000 roll per year market.

What the hell do I know though, I'm just a professional artist with a degree in art who is working on a degree in art history. So I don't have a clue what I'm talking about compared to the IT dude who knows EVERYTHING about....art?
Click to expand...

First, your degree doesn't make you smart, it makes you educated. Yay you. I gots me a degree too. Whoo-hoo and so what?

Second, I wasn't discussing art, I was discussing history and business, and to a lesser extent, economics. Tell me how your art degree qualifies you in those subjects.
 
Bill, my education gives me knowledge about the field I work in, just as yours does for you. I don't understand people who deprecate education, especially when they have one and benefit from it (You're working and making a living in IT, a field that usually requires a degree in computer science or something related).

Art is a business, though a lot of the people making money off of it hope that artists never realize that it is a business! LOL For what its worth, most artists today are, like me, self employed. Small businessmen. I truly believe that there are enough artistic photographers to support the manufacture of film in the small quantities they need, just as there are enough painters to support several art supply manufacturers.

Right now there are several film manufacturers still making film. Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, Foma, Efke, AGFA (in the Netherlands, not the Agfaphoto that went under). Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Its probably too many for the size of the market, we'll see in the future. If there aren't enough buyers to support them all, some will shut down or go into other businesses. The big guys like Kodak and Fuji will probably be the ones to go because they're into a lot of other businesses too and their managers demand higher profits from each of their divisions than a small company needs to survive. Even if all but a couple or even only one do shut down, we don't really need 6 or more companies making this stuff for those of us who like film to continue.

This really is about art, because artists will be the ones supporting the production of film. We largely are now, since the normal consumers and commercial/portrait/wedding pros have all gone digital (I shoot digital for my commercial work too, makes economic sense when clients want images fast and budgets are constrained). All you guys that keep preaching that film can't survive don't want to hear about the art world because then you have to admit that you're likely wrong, as the continued success of a number of small art supply manufacturers have shown in the world of painting.
 
Last edited:
I went digging around since we're talking about painting here... the "acrylic vs oil" argument is still going. For example:
http://www.itsallart.com/acrylicvsoil.html

Acrylic is a technically superior modern plastic product, and oil is the old way of painting.

If you replace acrylic with "digital" and oil with "analog" it's amazing how similar the arguments are in relation to photography. Acrylic is easier and faster to use, no harmful chemicals, lasts longer, visually identical to oils, etc. Yet oil persists!

Those whacky artists, they just don't listen to logic when choosing their media. :)

EDIT: this page even mentions the "Glow of oils." Sounds familiar to another glow that people around here talk about.
http://www.painterskeys.com/clickbacks/acrylic-snobs.asp
 
Last edited:
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Bill, my education gives me knowledge about the field I work in, just as yours does for you. I don't understand people who deprecate education, especially when they have one and benefit from it (You're working and making a living in IT, a field that usually requires a degree in computer science or something related).
Click to expand...

I haven't deprecated education. I said being educated doesn't make you smart. It doesn't. I had a college professor who believed that the moon landings were faked. Educated, yes. Smart, not so much. I've also known plenty of smart people who were not educated, or who were self-educated. So while I hold education in high regard, I don't think it is something one can wave around as an argument-ender. And if a person thinks being educated means they're right...well, they should consider getting a refund on that education, they've been robbed.


Art is a business, though a lot of the people making money off of it hope that artists never realize that it is a business! LOL For what its worth, most artists today are, like me, self employed. Small businessmen.
Click to expand...

Not really. There are a handful of artists worldwide who make serious money, and the rest scrape by as best they can, doing what they love; but not exactly getting rich. They may be engaged in business, but they're not good businessmen. I would not grant them that they 'understand' business. And before you say that doing what you love is more important than making money, I agree; but it's not smart from a business perspective.

I truly believe that there are enough artistic photographers to support the manufacture of film in the small quantities they need, just as there are enough painters to support several art supply manufacturers.
Click to expand...

And I do not.

Right now there are several film manufacturers still making film. Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, Foma, Efke, AGFA (in the Netherlands, not the Agfaphoto that went under). Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Its probably too many for the size of the market, we'll see in the future. If there aren't enough buyers to support them all, some will shut down or go into other businesses. The big guys like Kodak and Fuji will probably be the ones to go because they're into a lot of other businesses too and their managers demand higher profits from each of their divisions than a small company needs to survive. Even if all but a couple or even only one do shut down, we don't really need 6 or more companies making this stuff for those of us who like film to continue.
Click to expand...

Only Ferrania still makes color film besides Kodak and Fuji. When the biggies drop, that leaves only B&W. I am sure B&W will soldier on for some time after the big guys depart, but in the end...no. The current demand is propped up by a dwindling group of enthusiasts and amateurs like myself. When the last of us go 100% digital, it's over for film, whether artists like it or not.

This really is about art, because artists will be the ones supporting the production of film.
Click to expand...

Except that they can't.

We largely are now, since the normal consumers and commercial/portrait/wedding pros have all gone digital (I shoot digital for my commercial work too, makes economic sense when clients want images fast and budgets are constrained).
Click to expand...

No, you're not. The market is held up by enthusiasts, not professional artists.

All you guys that keep preaching that film can't survive don't want to hear about the art world because then you have to admit that you're likely wrong, as the continued success of a number of small art supply manufacturers have shown in the world of painting.
Click to expand...

Those same manufacturers could not get by producing film - it costs too much in small quantities, and you artists won't be wanting to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars per roll when you're the only market left.

And it's funny - someone mentioned earlier in this thread in a similar vein - when I insist on the correctness of my argument, I'm preaching. When you do it, you're simply stating facts. It's not about logic, is it?
 
antiquark said:
I went digging around since we're talking about painting here... the "acrylic vs oil" argument is still going. For example:
http://www.itsallart.com/acrylicvsoil.html

Acrylic is a technically superior modern plastic product, and oil is the old way of painting.

If you replace acrylic with "digital" and oil with "analog" it's amazing how similar the arguments are in relation to photography. Acrylic is easier and faster to use, no harmful chemicals, lasts longer, visually identical to oils, etc. Yet oil persists!

Those whacky artists, they just don't listen to logic when choosing their media. :)
Click to expand...

Great argument, if you fail to notice that oil paints are easily made and film is not, that oil paints can be made in small quantities and film not so much. Great logic, just bad business acumen.
 
if the bar is so high to making film, what extraordinary capability must exist over at APUG on the emulsion board ... and among the fine hobbyists who find adventure in alt processes.

just like paint, anyone can make their own film. "may not be good" but it can be done, and is, by some.

and how/when did photography become mainstream? if photography = occasional family and travel snaps, then okay. but i've never thought of photography so casually, meaning i reserve the term "photographer" for someone other than mainstream happy snappers.
 
bmattock said:
oil paints can be made in small quantities
Click to expand...

The fact is, nobody here knows how many tubes of oil paints are sold each year. So it's spurious logic to baldly state that "oil paints exist because they can be made in small quantities." Maybe they're being made in huge quantities! We don't know.
 
To think that overly enthusiastc film photographers won't drop hundreds for a roll of film ignores the audio nuts who drop thousands for a power cord!
 
bmattock said:
Great argument, if you fail to notice that oil paints are easily made and film is not, that oil paints can be made in small quantities and film not so much. Great logic, just bad business acumen.
Click to expand...

Oils are made with what is basically vegetable oil. You could make them with the stuff you buy in the grocery store! Manufacturers use Linseed oil because some other types discolor as the paint dries, but I suppose if worse come to worse one could live with it.

What about Acrylics? They're made with a base that is a complex molecular chain that you cannot buy or make easily. It requires factory production to make these paints and they're still around. I don't have actual figures so I may be totally wrong, but it seems that acrylics are less popular among artists than oils....yet I know of at least four manufacturers making them (Grumbacher, Liquitex, Golden, Utrecht).
 
I was in Walgreens today and they are selling a $10 film camera with "free film for life". The catch is you must bring the camera in with the film when you process it and process the film with Walgreens. Nevertheless there must be some demand.

By the way, I have always regarded this as basically a film camera users site. If it begins to be dominated by digital camera users I'm out of here. There are so few digital rangefinders it's hard to see how that can really happen, but I could be wrong!
 
What on earth is the point of discussing about something whose outcome isn't known yet? Analogies do not work always the way you want it, so using them in the film vs digital debate (like film vs theater, vinyl records vs CDs, painting vs photography) proves nothing to me.

And nothing annoys me more than seeing Bill and Chris act like a pair of first-graders, however refined their debate skills. Cool down, you both are admirable participants here and should not bang heads over something this silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom