Cordiality and lack thereof...

I seem to recollect the demise of vinyl [ records ] which have returned as a growing [ ? ] specialist market - because , currently , digital can't offer the same experience .
Note - I said ' same ' , not better or worse . [ I love my LPs , but I am biased ]
Maybe film will become a similar niche market - and why not ?
 
I think that the arguments regarding the longevity/demise of film are both valid and inspire a lot of passion on either side ( based upon what I've been reading in this forum ), but my reason for starting this thread in the first place was just to comment ( OK, and complain a bit ) about what I see as a lack of civility in some posts. All I'm trying to say is that there are ways to get across your point of view without tearing down someone else's or getting personal.

Geez, all these things are really not that significant in the greater scheme of things. Yes, I recognize the fact that people are passionate about different things ( I myself hope that film never dies, and I wish that many films were still around: Tech Pan, HIE, etc... ), but just try to get your point across in a way that is easily understood and civil. The world doesn't ( and shouldn't, in MY opinion ) have to lower it's standards to that of talk radio or Fox News. Say it with grace and eloquence, or at the least, with civility.

I beginning to think that I should not have started this post...
 
Here's another analogy to vinyl:

Discussions like this are a bit like when you get to the final track on the LP on a non-autoreturn turntable sometimes. You just sit there listening to the hum from the amp, listening to the crackle as the record spins round, and round, and round, ssssssshhhhhh-thump-ssssssssshhhhhh-thump-shhhhhhhhhhh-thump over and over and over...

🙂
 
Lilserenity said:
Here's another analogy to vinyl:

Discussions like this are a bit like when you get to the final track on the LP on a non-autoreturn turntable sometimes. You just sit there listening to the hum from the amp, listening to the crackle as the record spins round, and round, and round, ssssssshhhhhh-thump-ssssssssshhhhhh-thump-shhhhhhhhhhh-thump over and over and over...

🙂
Click to expand...

Brilliant!

For civility, though (not Death of Film) I try never to say anything on the forum that I woudn't say to someone's face. I don't always succeed, and of course there's always the possibility of being misunderstood in the absence of body language and a smile, but I try.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Bill,

Everyone is free to die, as well, and all of us will.

That doesn't stop a death being a tragedy.

You may fairly complain that the word 'tragedy' is over-dramatic in this context, or that to compare a person's death with the death of film is tasteless; but plenty of people I've never heard of die every day, and while that's a tragedy for their family and friends, it usually isn't for me.

It all depends on where you're standing.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Understood, Roger. I just have a difficult time thinking that anything associated with photography might be taken that seriously. A lot of things can go wrong in life and cause us great pain. Film's future isn't one of them,
at least as I see it. I try to avoid letting things I cannot control become that important to me.
 


I'm doing my part to keep film alive and so is my youngest son.



The simple fact is getting film camera into the hands of the next generation is the best way I know of to keep film alive now and into the future. I'm not sure of statistics and "stuff" like how much film is sold but I do make a point of telling my local camera stores to keep film in stock and I buy it on a regular basis. I love my D3, heck I've got two of them but film has its own look that I still love. Not to mention the fact that it's what I learned on. And it's fun and I think important to pass on to the next generation the fine art of shooting film.



Taken with Leica M7 and 15 Voigt on Ektar 100
 
Last edited:
Gumby said:
I think film is already well-established in the artistic niche. The question with no answer is if that niche will be large enough to support commerical manufacturing of film products. GROWING that niche, as you say, is essential to future availability.
Click to expand...

I don't think film is well established in an artistic niche... yet. If it were, we'll already start to see stores that cater to that niche specifically.

As far as I can see around me, photo stores haven't clued into this niche. They feverishly compete for the large segment of digital photographers without even lifting as much as a pinky to try to introduce film to those who never done it before.

I personally see it as an business oversight.
 
wgerrard said:
How can any photographic choices be considered "tragic"? Film and digital create images in different ways, so the resulting images differ subtly. Everyone is free to choose, or not choose, one approach over the other.
Click to expand...

Bill, it's tragic if we lost the ability to choose. That's all I'm saying.
 
MatthewThompson said:
I'd certainly not diffuse somebody's enthusiasm for film use, but I'm also not about taking the fight to the streets and start a silver gelatin re-education geurilla movement. That's just silly, I'd be no better than the wankers who scoff at my choices in using film in the first place.
Click to expand...

I agree with you and I never advocated to do any guerrilla movement. Be careful what you accuse me of suggesting.

I use digital. I will always use digital stuff.

But at the same time, if no one is proactively maintaining that film have just as much potential as an artistic medium for photography, then digital will drive it into oblivion.

Is this so hard to understand?

I'm sorry if I mistake you for someone who cares if film will be there in the future.
 
shadowfox said:
I agree with you and I never advocated to do any guerrilla movement. Be careful what you accuse me of suggesting.

I use digital. I will always use digital stuff.

But at the same time, if no one is proactively maintaining that film have just as much potential as an artistic medium for photography, then digital will drive it into oblivion.

Is this so hard to understand?

I'm sorry if I mistake you for someone who cares if film will be there in the future.
Click to expand...

I've accused you of nothing. Your point is not difficult to understand. Please, don't apologize for anything connected to my choices or concerns; they're my cross to bear. Enjoy your weekend.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Painting supposedly 'died' when photography was invented. Oil painting was supposed to die when modern Acrylic paints came out in the 1950s. Today, there are a number of companies making professional level oil paints to serve a market that is likely much smaller than the current film market. Someone will keep making it for the few artistic photographers who want it, just as oils continue to be made.
Click to expand...

Well said. Why can't we just stop harping about film versus digital ( or digital versus film), and just get on with discussing (and displaying) photography?
 
I also think the analogy to painting isn't exactly an accurate one. Parents didn't go out on weekend and paint picture's of their kids while at a picnic. Painting was left to the artists (commercial or not) who were talented enough to do it.

Maybe a better comparison is the audio world. In studios, has tape gone away because digital has taken over? To a large extent, yes, but not completely. It's harder to get and more expensive, but at this point, still available to the crowd who wants it.

Has vinyl disappeared in favor of CDs and now MP3?
No. You can't get every artist on vinyl. You certainly can't get vinyl in ever store. It's harder to track down a good record player -- or needle for it -- these days. But for the collectors and the people who are into it, you can still buy vinyl, old and new, even all these years later. And surprisingly enough there's been a bit of a resurgence lately and you can even get vinyl down at Best Buy these days. As digital downloads are taking over, I think vinyl will likely outlive CDs now.

I think film will still be around a long time. It will become less mainstream and you won't be able to go to CVS and buy it or process it, but you'll still be able to get it, even if more expensive.

As for being rude about the whole topic... I'm not sure why anyone needs to be "right" and argue from their angry soapbox or yell from their belligerent rooftops about it. Time will tell. If you don't enjoy film, no need to be nasty to those of us that do 😀
 
Last edited:
shadowfox said:
As far as I can see around me, photo stores haven't clued into this niche. They feverishly compete for the large segment of digital photographers without even lifting as much as a pinky to try to introduce film to those who never done it before.

I personally see it as an business oversight.
Click to expand...


There's every chance that an established photo store has already eliminated or rolled back film because it wasn't making money for them. What incentive do they have to reverse course? Better to turn the space over to more digital equipment.

Large population centers might be able to support one or two well-established stores that sell film and have a rack of used cameras. One such store exists in my town, where it sells to an established base of film customers. But, if that store was opening anew, they couldn't afford to locate in their current building, they'd rent space in a mall or shopping strip, they would not have an established cluster of film customers and a bunch of used hardware accumulated over years and years, and almost certainly would go entirely digital.

Film is not a cause for retailers.
 
I find some of the comparisons always made in threads like this pretty silly. Film of course did not replace painting and there is no real comparison. I am quite capable of using a camera well and producing good images but have no talent in drawing or painting. The two are not really connected despite a century old fear.
Vinyl LP's do not really compare to film / digital either. There have only been a handful of film manufacturers but there were thousands of LP manufacturers in the US. There were dozens in any city of size. If you like the sound of LP's better it is most likely a nostalgic feeling. The small groove in a LP wasn't much for bandwidth. There is also the RIAA filter - de-emphasize to cut the groove and re-emphasize on playback. The re-emphasizing also amplified the turntable rumble. The tubes in the amp created distortion as they warmed up. All of this is remembering "great sound" as growing up, but you are remembering excess noise and added distortion. Yes you can purchase LP's now but there are pretty much a vanity item for artists and a money maker for record companies. They are expensive and a limited run item.

Paints can be made at home (maybe not the best quality) and vinyl LP are still made (a few companies did not destroy their old machines). None of this means that they are equivalent to film. Making modern film is an exacting process that I think is not something anyone can do at home and have an equivalent product. Not even close. Even if Polaroid is coming back the appeal will be very limited - mainly the fashion industry (I think). Digital killed it once and what has changed?......


Steve
 
sjw617 said:
I find some of the comparisons always made in threads like this pretty silly. Film of course did not replace painting and there is no real comparison. I am quite capable of using a camera well and producing good images but have no talent in drawing or painting. The two are not really connected despite a century old fear.
Vinyl LP's do not really compare to film / digital either. There have only been a handful of film manufacturers but there were thousands of LP manufacturers in the US. There were dozens in any city of size. If you like the sound of LP's better it is most likely a nostalgic feeling. The small groove in a LP wasn't much for bandwidth. There is also the RIAA filter - de-emphasize to cut the groove and re-emphasize on playback. The re-emphasizing also amplified the turntable rumble. The tubes in the amp created distortion as they warmed up. All of this is remembering "great sound" as growing up, but you are remembering excess noise and added distortion. Yes you can purchase LP's now but there are pretty much a vanity item for artists and a money maker for record companies. They are expensive and a limited run item.

Paints can be made at home (maybe not the best quality) and vinyl LP are still made (a few companies did not destroy their old machines). None of this means that they are equivalent to film. Making modern film is an exacting process that I think is not something anyone can do at home and have an equivalent product. Not even close. Even if Polaroid is coming back the appeal will be very limited - mainly the fashion industry (I think). Digital killed it once and what has changed?......


Steve
Click to expand...

Steve, I agree. You are good.
 
I'll offer a criterion for when film is dead.

Film is dead when it costs more than $36 USD (pre-tax, without shipping) in 2010 constant dollars to purchase a roll of ISO400, 36 exposure 135 film, of grade equivalent to or better than Tri-X, Neopan 400, or HP5.

A dollar a shot is where I'd put my 35 mm cameras away for good (the chemistry costs are negligible and I can prepare all of my own stuff there without a problem). This would mean a 10-fold increase from the current price. It is actually a pretty aggressive criterion. I don't think that Polaroid SX-70 film was ever less than a dollar a shot in 2010 constant dollars.
 
Fuji Superia 400 (135-36) is US 1.99 per roll at B+H. My Walgreens charges less than US 3 for development (neg. only). If they disappear we can continue using Tetanal kits, for color. My last B+W film (RR/APX 100), I bought for US 2.50 per 135-36 roll.

It's as cheap as it never was. If somebody seriously is concerned about film stock in 10-20 years from now, I cordially ( 🙂 ) recommend to stock up now.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom