Cordiality and lack thereof...

SolaresLarrave said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hey, Bill and I are nowhere near as mature as first graders. :p
 
Many people here, I suspect from their posts, are not so much interested in film as in rangefinders, and shoot film only because there isn't an affordable digital RF. A $700 dollar M3 is doable, a $7,000 M9 is not for most folks.
 
People often seem to be talking at cross purposes in these thread because, often, they are.

Many of the "film will never die" folks seem to mean that literally, that, no matter what, hardy artisan types will do whatever is necessary to keep film from literally vanishing.

Many of the "film is dying" folks, and I am one, argue that film is on its way out as a commercial product available in mainstream retail channels. I.e., you'll only be able to buy it if you know how to find one of those hardy artisans.

One position does not contradict the other.

Why someone would become emotional when someone disagrees with their opinion about film's future baffles me.
 
MCTuomey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Anyone can make paint. Anyone. Cavemen did it. Not anyone can make film.

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

No, 'anyone' cannot. Enthusiasts with specialized knowledge and equipment can do it, and precious few of them.

and how/when did photography become mainstream? if photography = occasional family and travel snaps, then okay.
Click to expand...

That is correct, that's how it became mainstream. From the earliest days of Kodak's commercial success, photography became ubiquitous and cameras became a commonly-owned item in every household.

And those people, by their millions and billions are (or were) the market. They were the ones that kept the huge factories running and the prices low.

but i've never thought of photography so casually, meaning i reserve the term "photographer" for someone other than mainstream happy snappers.
Click to expand...

Good for you. You can call them anything you like, but they are (or were) the main market drivers. When they bought thousands of rolls of film to our one or two, they kept factories running, people employed, and film prices low. It isn't about what you call them, it's what they did - spend money on film. Now they don't. That changes things.
 
ButBack to the original posters thread for a moment about civility, etc.:

It goes a long way to just try to not get PERSONAL when arguing and counter-arguing. And try to not assume things about a person based on their comments, that in fact you don't actually know about them.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
Many people here, I suspect from their posts, are not so much interested in film as in rangefinders, and shoot film only because there isn't an affordable digital RF. A $700 dollar M3 is doable, a $7,000 M9 is not for most folks.
Click to expand...

Certainly the case for me, Pickett. The cameras I like and can afford happen to use film. What I like is convenience and small size and weight. The film part and the RF-ish part come second.
 
well, bill, photography as i consider it - something other than people with cameras snapping and the commercial enterprise that you refer to - can be supported wrt film by very small enterprises because film indeed can be made by individuals, small shops, mid-size shops, as well as large factories. it's happening now. as many have said, film production and distribution appears to be evolving into a smaller scale enterprise devoted to a smaller set of film users. not much to debate there, i think.

and back to the OT: civility would improve if posters would refrain from the use of epithets like your "Good for you" phrase that suggests a certain sarcasm and derision of another's thinking.
 
It does not take many people across the globe shooting 10 rolls of B&W film a year to sustain a few manufacturers... and the world has a lot of people in it.

I suspect to total membership of this forum uses at least 10,000 rolls a year on its own and most are not shooting it for commercial purposes but because they like certain aspects of film. So AGFA went down the plughole and Kodak is dropping some (mainly colour) lines. So what? The market will stabilise I suspect and so will production. Fring products will vanish. Maybe only Delta 3200 will remain. If it does not you can push TriX.

People using film now are not doing so because they cannot afford a digital camera... they have been affordable for a long time. I therefore suspect they will continue using film in many cases. Did Ilford not say that sales were stable?

I'm shooting more film than ever and I dont expect that to change in the next decade. I would be amazed if I cannot get hold of decent films in the main speed ranges 10 or so years from now. Why ever not? I am using the stuff and so are masses of people. Colleges in many cases are going back to teaching with film at least up to a point...

While formats might be put under pressure, they are all cut from the same master roll....
 
Turtle said:
It does not take many people across the globe shooting 10 rolls of B&W film a year to sustain a few manufacturers... and the world has a lot of people in it.

I suspect to total membership of this forum uses at least 10,000 rolls a year on its own and most are not shooting it for commercial purposes but because they like certain aspects of film. So AGFA went down the plughole and Kodak is dropping some (mainly colour) lines. So what? The market will stabilise I suspect and so will production. Fring products will vanish. Maybe only Delta 3200 will remain. If it does not you can push TriX.

People using film now are not doing so because they cannot afford a digital camera... they have been affordable for a long time. I therefore suspect they will continue using film in many cases. Did Ilford not say that sales were stable?

I'm shooting more film than ever and I dont expect that to change in the next decade. I would be amazed if I cannot get hold of decent films in the main speed ranges 10 or so years from now. Why ever not? I am using the stuff and so are masses of people. Colleges in many cases are going back to teaching with film at least up to a point...

While formats might be put under pressure, they are all cut from the same master roll....
Click to expand...

I guess that's a realistic vision. Maybe in a few years people talking about film sales understand film remains with us. Today I found some posts in other forum threads talking about how Kodak was about to give up film making, from comments inside the company, in 2002...


Cheers,

Juan
 
It's hard to imagine what production numbers were like for the film industry at it's peak. The observation that the total membership of RFF uses at least 10,000 rolls a year (probably high, but we'll go with it) really kind of puts the issue for companies making film in perspective. During the '80's and '90's as a newspaper shooter, I pretty consistently shot 100 rolls of film or so a week. One person. That's around 5,000 rolls a year. And there were a lot of us, then. And billions of photos on film from consumers every year. It really shows what a truly niche product film has become.
 
Journeyman said:
Only camera collectors care what type of gear other people use, for some strange, narcisistic reason. Real photographers don't give a rat's arse what others use. It's not relevant to anything that matters. Content matters.
Click to expand...

Really, I was on Vacation in Williamsburg using a Leica M3 with a Collapsible Elmar. A Photographer with the local newspaper came up to me, asked about the lens, and we had a nice conversation about Leica. He had not seen the collapsible before.

I guess he was a collector.

Yet another stupid statement on RFF.

But I can top it.

Film is Dead because it is a Chinese Communist Plot to Dominate the World with Electronic Gadgets made like CRAP that will directly upload your every image to a server in China and then Censor Them.

Took me 4 seconds to think of this one.
 
"Only camera collectors care what type of gear other people use, for some strange, narcisistic reason. Real photographers don't give a rat's arse what others use. It's not relevant to anything that matters. Content matters."

What an odd thing to say on a forum where gear is worshiped, coddled and featured in threads devoted to camera porn! ;)
 
Pickett Wilson said:
"Only camera collectors care what type of gear other people use, for some strange, narcisistic reason. Real photographers don't give a rat's arse what others use. It's not relevant to anything that matters. Content matters."

What an odd thing to say on a forum where gear is worshiped, coddled and featured in threads devoted to camera porn! ;)
Click to expand...

This is one of the problems with civility. How do you say, as tactfully as possible, "Nonsense, and arrogantly expressed nonsense at that."

First, what are 'real' photographers?

Second, any sane photographer cares more about what he or she uses than what others use. But precisely because 'Content matters', the vast majority of competent photographers do care what others use, if it offers the possibility of getting the results they want.

Almost all professionals I've met are indeed interested in equipment. Why wouldn't they be? They don't have to prove that they're 'real' photographers, because, after all, others are voting with their wallets. Most of the more competent amateurs I've met are the same way.

If they say they aren't, then most of the time (a) they're lying or (b) they are not very good photographers and are trying to disguise the fact behind the mask of being a hard-bitten pro or (c) they are trying to make the point that yes, a competent photographer can use pretty much anything provided he or she stays within the limits of that equipment.

Cheers,

R.
 
Journeyman said:
Roger, I take your point as well. While I won't argue the point, I will add that, IMHO, 'real' photographers only really care about other's gear when they're interested in improving their own work. I'm so sick of hearing that such-and-such a camera has so many megapixels and is therefore better than my film cameras. I hear it here and from strange people I meet all the time. I can understand it when a shop salesman says I should buy the latest thing. They have an interest in my money, but why do some people insist on telling me their camera is better than mine?
Click to expand...

Isn't that one of the definitions of a 'real' photographer?

But we are of one mind when faced with people telling us that their cameras are 'better' than ours. Sure, if someone says, "Money is no object, should I buy _________ or __________, I'll try to answer -- and if I own either, it's probably going to be the one I think is better. But unsolicited advice is, as you say, usually infuriating and often useless.

Honestly, though, you do get discussions among 'real' photographers along the lines of "Why do you use one of those? I've often wondered about them [or, never got along with them]", or "Hey, I've just got a _______ and it's amazing [or, it's cr*p]."

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Horses more or less became obsolete early in the last century, yet the market for horse-related items is very strong. Purina did not stop making horse feed when the percentage of horses per human population fell by more than 90% The demand may not be what it once was, but it is still there.

Here in Tokyo film has seen a pretty good resurgence over the last couple of years. Old film cameras seem to have become fashion accessories for wannabe hipsters, and photography is a fast-growing hobby among the increasing class of "liberated" women. Film is still considered the medium of artists and professionals, despite the popularity of digital.

There are quite a few women's photography magazines available at bookstores right now. Japan Camera has a couple of articles on women photographers who prefer film, and show them out and about with their favorite film cameras.

When I go to the local camera shops and make a purchase, my items end up being placed in a green and white shopping bag which says "Fuji, I love film" (in English, no less, because it's trendier).

Film has certainly made a resurgence with me. After a decade of digital, I changed, and it was like discovering photography all over again. Perhaps the novelty will wear off in time, but right now I'm quite happy shooting film.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Honestly, though, you do get discussions among 'real' photographers along the lines of "Why do you use one of those? I've often wondered about them [or, never got along with them]", or "Hey, I've just got a _______ and it's amazing [or, it's cr*p]."

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

When I got out of college, I managed a commercial/industrial studio for a pro in my city. We were fairly busy, did a few solid jobs a week. He had shelves of Hasselblad equipment and accessories that were unused. When I started getting onto using the Hassellad system again (liquidated mine to get on the DSLR train, the right choice at the time), he pretty much called me an idiot. Meanwhile he was chasing a never ending upgrade path, moving from a (disastrously bad) Kodak DCS 14n to a Canon D30.

I never understood the logic there. I shot DLSR (with my own gear) next to him on the same jobs, did all the post-processing work, etc. I knew the business inside and out, profits, budgets and the client side. He always seemed to want to correct my foolish impulses to work traditionally for my own enjoyment. I don't think anyone here (or out there in the real world) thinks they're going to use film (MF or otherwise) to make any sort of profit.

If a younger photog asked me what I thought of them wanting to shoot film (MF in my case, though I can see the appeal of 135) I'd encourage them to make images by any means possible. If film photography spoke to the I'd advise them to answer and explore.

I get questioned constantly about walking around with a MF film body, but if I have the 5D it turns into a numbers game; there's no winning. I've started pleading ignorance:

How many MP in that baby?
I dunno, makes nice photos though. It's just a tool.
My Nikanolympus has 18MP!
OK...
Thinking about replcing it though, the new 24MP units are coming...

Really, does it matter what we're using? Why can't we just take solace that we're all out to watch what's happening around us and capture moments and scenes that sparkle?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom