Glauke
Member
My real doubts are not regarding the future of the films, but the way the substitute seems to taking. I'm not an adept of the old chemical way to take photos, i would gladly accept a new technology came to make things better.
When the first digital cameras came out some years ago, i dreamed about a new era for us old-fashioned: digital backs with a full frame sensor to refit the old SLRs, digital film in form of a film roll, even the end of the SLR era (why sticking with a mirror between lens and sensor when you can use an high resolution, frameable, perfect compositioning LCD screen?)
But....what the real? No digital backs, no full frame sensor (at least at human price), no digital film, no high resolution screens....nothing. Nothing we can dream about, nothing we can say "film has gone",....NOTHING BETTER THAN WHAT WE JUST HAVE. What they offer? Plastic. Plastic everywhere. Plastic in the body and in the lens. Plastic silver painted cameras where the silver goes away with just the prolonged touch of our fingers. Plastic LCD that become every day more scratched. Plastic buttons and dials made to break after the guarantees period.
Sensors? With the "anti dust vibro technology"? Don't make me laugh. What we want, what we need, is a 24x36 mm sensor with a decent resoution and a good dinamic range, to manage highlights and shadows. What we have? Damn small sensors, full of poor pixels, smaller, smaller, smaller....Even Leica, even Contax, even Rollei are not able to offer a full frame sensor for their cameras, and their best offer still stand at a price of a new car...
..ok, sorry for my angry..There are too much examples in others places where the tecnology does not mean an evolution, but just a easier way to get profit. Audio CD quality is really better than vinyl? VHS is better than Betamax? MP3 is better than audiotape? LCD monitors are always better than CRT?
Digital sensors can be better than film? Surely, but the story tell us that probably it will never. Digital photography seems taking the direction of the mass market, instead the direction of the evolution.
When the first digital cameras came out some years ago, i dreamed about a new era for us old-fashioned: digital backs with a full frame sensor to refit the old SLRs, digital film in form of a film roll, even the end of the SLR era (why sticking with a mirror between lens and sensor when you can use an high resolution, frameable, perfect compositioning LCD screen?)
But....what the real? No digital backs, no full frame sensor (at least at human price), no digital film, no high resolution screens....nothing. Nothing we can dream about, nothing we can say "film has gone",....NOTHING BETTER THAN WHAT WE JUST HAVE. What they offer? Plastic. Plastic everywhere. Plastic in the body and in the lens. Plastic silver painted cameras where the silver goes away with just the prolonged touch of our fingers. Plastic LCD that become every day more scratched. Plastic buttons and dials made to break after the guarantees period.
Sensors? With the "anti dust vibro technology"? Don't make me laugh. What we want, what we need, is a 24x36 mm sensor with a decent resoution and a good dinamic range, to manage highlights and shadows. What we have? Damn small sensors, full of poor pixels, smaller, smaller, smaller....Even Leica, even Contax, even Rollei are not able to offer a full frame sensor for their cameras, and their best offer still stand at a price of a new car...
..ok, sorry for my angry..There are too much examples in others places where the tecnology does not mean an evolution, but just a easier way to get profit. Audio CD quality is really better than vinyl? VHS is better than Betamax? MP3 is better than audiotape? LCD monitors are always better than CRT?
Digital sensors can be better than film? Surely, but the story tell us that probably it will never. Digital photography seems taking the direction of the mass market, instead the direction of the evolution.
Last edited:
S
Socke
Guest
toyotadesigner said:
I've had slides developed at both big labs in germany, Eurocolor and CeWe Color, both have a dust problem.
And a scratch problem and a cut inside the frame problem and a develop slides in c41 problem .....
Realy great when you get your spoiled slides back and they give you a free film but no free flight back to wherever you've shot what they spoiled :bang:
Glauke
Member
toyotadesigner said:
Don't worry, i'm here to learn what is the real art of photography just to evily smile at the blowed faces of my digital converted friends!
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Does Anyone Understand Film Manufacturing?
Does Anyone Understand Film Manufacturing?
I create images using both electronic image-sensor cameras, and silver emulsion technology. I enjoy both, but find that, for my vision, there are certain aspects of silver emulsion image making that I find irresistable. So I would wish that the world revolved around my whims and desires. Sadly, it doesn't.
Despite that, the reality is that film is manufactured in batch processes. There is a certain break-even point below which it is not economically advantageous to even start up a batch production line.
And that's the 'fly in the ointment' regarding the possibility of film always being a "niche market", as many are apt to prognosticate. You cannot manufacture film in batch process for a niche market. The two concepts are diametrically opposite one another. What actually happens is that entire product lines get obsoleted, because sales drop below the critical break-even point, and equipment is too expensive to keep running properly or replace. And the knowledge base of experienced technicians get lost, when people get layed off.
Yes, there will be smaller companies trying to do this. But there will be no guarantee that the materials that you and I have struggled with for years to learn their finer properties will even be available. Most likely, the variability in manufacturing quality brought about by intermittent production runs on old, outdated film manufacturing equipment will cause all but the most diehard film advocate to give up.
And while electronic imaging technology continues to be refined (think of where all the R&D money comes from - sales), film technology will straggle further and further behind; as manufacturing quality drops by the rise of "niche manufacturers", film will begin to look worse and worse by comparison, helping to complete the self-fulfilling prophecy of film's demise.
Think of it like this: you just spent the last 6 months getting to know the properties of the "new" eastern european or Chinese film that came out at the beginning of the year; yea, there has been obvious quality issues that were never a problem when Kodak and Ilford was in business. Now, you've just found the perfect developer combination that balances granularity with tonal rendition, and you've just recieved news that this brand of film is no longer available. But wait, a new eastern european startup company has just introduced a new film. So you place an order and have to start the learning curve all over again...that could be the future for film advocates.
I recently had a discussion with someone about "old" photographs, who was under the impression that granularity and scratches were the norm for photographs of the late 19th century. In fact, this person was talking about mimicking the 'look' (or what they thought was the 'look') of 19th century photography, in Photoshop. Of course, most 19th century photography was large format, thus granularity was not the issue. But my point is how quickly people forget what a medium actually looks like, once they've been told that it's obsolete, and been forgotten.
When the lessons of 100 years of manufacturing legacy are lost, when Kodak and others leave the film business all together, or drop key legacy product lines, what company is going to produce a film that looks like Tri-X, has equivalent quality, doesn't violate patent rights (yes, companies will defend patents in court that they aren't even manufacturing, just for the mere principle of protection of intellectual property) and doesn't have unpredictable defects and flaws? Oh, and they have to do it to make a profit.
Sadly, I wish that these harsh realities were mere fantasy. But one cannot ignore the realities of the economies of manufacturing. Companies are in business to make money. They are not a charity, catering to the whims of fickle hobbiests.
I happen to work in the semiconductor manufacturing business. That's 'chip making' in layman's terms. I understand the economic advantages of scale brought about by shrinking silicon circuitry onto ever larger sized wafers. These represent the advantages being made every year in the world of electronic image making. And, other than "2 electron sensitization", I don't see any new silver-based technology being developed for manufacture in the film world. In fact, what we've been holding onto in the last several years with the availability of traditional B/W materials is the mere fact of their very existence. We're not even asking for continued technological improvement; just that they survive in the market place. And it doesn't look good.
Does Anyone Understand Film Manufacturing?
I create images using both electronic image-sensor cameras, and silver emulsion technology. I enjoy both, but find that, for my vision, there are certain aspects of silver emulsion image making that I find irresistable. So I would wish that the world revolved around my whims and desires. Sadly, it doesn't.
Despite that, the reality is that film is manufactured in batch processes. There is a certain break-even point below which it is not economically advantageous to even start up a batch production line.
And that's the 'fly in the ointment' regarding the possibility of film always being a "niche market", as many are apt to prognosticate. You cannot manufacture film in batch process for a niche market. The two concepts are diametrically opposite one another. What actually happens is that entire product lines get obsoleted, because sales drop below the critical break-even point, and equipment is too expensive to keep running properly or replace. And the knowledge base of experienced technicians get lost, when people get layed off.
Yes, there will be smaller companies trying to do this. But there will be no guarantee that the materials that you and I have struggled with for years to learn their finer properties will even be available. Most likely, the variability in manufacturing quality brought about by intermittent production runs on old, outdated film manufacturing equipment will cause all but the most diehard film advocate to give up.
And while electronic imaging technology continues to be refined (think of where all the R&D money comes from - sales), film technology will straggle further and further behind; as manufacturing quality drops by the rise of "niche manufacturers", film will begin to look worse and worse by comparison, helping to complete the self-fulfilling prophecy of film's demise.
Think of it like this: you just spent the last 6 months getting to know the properties of the "new" eastern european or Chinese film that came out at the beginning of the year; yea, there has been obvious quality issues that were never a problem when Kodak and Ilford was in business. Now, you've just found the perfect developer combination that balances granularity with tonal rendition, and you've just recieved news that this brand of film is no longer available. But wait, a new eastern european startup company has just introduced a new film. So you place an order and have to start the learning curve all over again...that could be the future for film advocates.
I recently had a discussion with someone about "old" photographs, who was under the impression that granularity and scratches were the norm for photographs of the late 19th century. In fact, this person was talking about mimicking the 'look' (or what they thought was the 'look') of 19th century photography, in Photoshop. Of course, most 19th century photography was large format, thus granularity was not the issue. But my point is how quickly people forget what a medium actually looks like, once they've been told that it's obsolete, and been forgotten.
When the lessons of 100 years of manufacturing legacy are lost, when Kodak and others leave the film business all together, or drop key legacy product lines, what company is going to produce a film that looks like Tri-X, has equivalent quality, doesn't violate patent rights (yes, companies will defend patents in court that they aren't even manufacturing, just for the mere principle of protection of intellectual property) and doesn't have unpredictable defects and flaws? Oh, and they have to do it to make a profit.
Sadly, I wish that these harsh realities were mere fantasy. But one cannot ignore the realities of the economies of manufacturing. Companies are in business to make money. They are not a charity, catering to the whims of fickle hobbiests.
I happen to work in the semiconductor manufacturing business. That's 'chip making' in layman's terms. I understand the economic advantages of scale brought about by shrinking silicon circuitry onto ever larger sized wafers. These represent the advantages being made every year in the world of electronic image making. And, other than "2 electron sensitization", I don't see any new silver-based technology being developed for manufacture in the film world. In fact, what we've been holding onto in the last several years with the availability of traditional B/W materials is the mere fact of their very existence. We're not even asking for continued technological improvement; just that they survive in the market place. And it doesn't look good.
Platinum RF
Well-known
NO, No future
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Buggy-Whipping the Dead Horse...
Buggy-Whipping the Dead Horse...
Cute.
Flippant, but cute.
If photography were to cease today - truly cease - it would not be the end of the world. Not by a long shot. In fact, it may bring about a revival in the other visual arts.
We've heard this argument before: there'll always be a niche market for 'traditional' black and white photographic materials, so not to worry. That argument is predicated on the faulted assumption that film manufacturing scales linearly; that you can just 'crank down' the rate of production until you're at the level of the cottage industry, and it would therefore be indefinitely sustainable.
Like other large-scale chemical/industrial manufacturing, there's a certain minimal level of production below which the process won't run. That's especially true with a coating line, which requires a certain minimal amount of paper or film base, and chemicals, commited to the run in order for it to even work.
It ain't buggy whips. You can manufacture buggy whips in a cottage industry setting. In fact, you can still purchase buggy whips, even today. But film manufacturing ain't buggy whips. It doesn't scale linearly.
Some may say 'surely this ain't the end of photography; it still progresses forward'. True. In some form it most likely will. You can go to a museum and stand in front of an Edward Weston contact print. In fact, the flippancy with which some of these retorts are delivered makes me believe that most here have never viewed a silver chloride contact print in person, especially one crafted by an artist such as Edward Weston.
But the fact is that today, you cannot purchase silver chloride contact printing paper (aside from resales of old production runs). It is no longer manufactured. It didn't scale down to the level of cottage industry. The last brand going was Kodak's Azo. There's talk of Michael Smith having a new silver chloride paper manufactured. There's also Ron Mowry, over at APUG, who's hand-coated a silver chloride paper. But they're not available today.
When we lose the materials of our craft, we don't lose photography; it will go on. What we lose is our art, for art is inextricably interwoven with the materials dear to the craftsman. And that is why we should be concerned.
Buggy-Whipping the Dead Horse...
Platinum RF said:
Cute.
Flippant, but cute.
If photography were to cease today - truly cease - it would not be the end of the world. Not by a long shot. In fact, it may bring about a revival in the other visual arts.
We've heard this argument before: there'll always be a niche market for 'traditional' black and white photographic materials, so not to worry. That argument is predicated on the faulted assumption that film manufacturing scales linearly; that you can just 'crank down' the rate of production until you're at the level of the cottage industry, and it would therefore be indefinitely sustainable.
Like other large-scale chemical/industrial manufacturing, there's a certain minimal level of production below which the process won't run. That's especially true with a coating line, which requires a certain minimal amount of paper or film base, and chemicals, commited to the run in order for it to even work.
It ain't buggy whips. You can manufacture buggy whips in a cottage industry setting. In fact, you can still purchase buggy whips, even today. But film manufacturing ain't buggy whips. It doesn't scale linearly.
Some may say 'surely this ain't the end of photography; it still progresses forward'. True. In some form it most likely will. You can go to a museum and stand in front of an Edward Weston contact print. In fact, the flippancy with which some of these retorts are delivered makes me believe that most here have never viewed a silver chloride contact print in person, especially one crafted by an artist such as Edward Weston.
But the fact is that today, you cannot purchase silver chloride contact printing paper (aside from resales of old production runs). It is no longer manufactured. It didn't scale down to the level of cottage industry. The last brand going was Kodak's Azo. There's talk of Michael Smith having a new silver chloride paper manufactured. There's also Ron Mowry, over at APUG, who's hand-coated a silver chloride paper. But they're not available today.
When we lose the materials of our craft, we don't lose photography; it will go on. What we lose is our art, for art is inextricably interwoven with the materials dear to the craftsman. And that is why we should be concerned.
Last edited:
350D_user
B+W film devotee
We humans are an inquisitive rabble. Long gone photographic processes are still continuing, albeit a very niche thing... http://www.alternativephotography.com/JoeV said:
peterm1
Veteran
Sadly not, except for a few people who are enthusiasts who will be forced to pay more and more for their obsession
S
Socke
Guest
350D_user said:
Interesting website, thanks for the link
Krosya
Konicaze
it's still here
it's still here
I'm not sure where you are, but in Midwest USA film is everywhere. And eveybody is happy to develop it. For MF I have to go to a Pro lab, but its always been the case. But even a well known chain here like Walgreens will develop just about any film - it may take a bit longer for true B&W and slides. So, I don't really see much of a change here. Just on a top of film - other digital choices. But thats "with", not "instead of" film.
it's still here
Socke said:
I'm not sure where you are, but in Midwest USA film is everywhere. And eveybody is happy to develop it. For MF I have to go to a Pro lab, but its always been the case. But even a well known chain here like Walgreens will develop just about any film - it may take a bit longer for true B&W and slides. So, I don't really see much of a change here. Just on a top of film - other digital choices. But thats "with", not "instead of" film.
mrtoml
Mancunian
Interesting and thoughtful posts.JoeV said:
The issue of scalability is only partly true. There was a discussion on APUG a little while ago about the possibility of a new European venture starting up using Agfa's old equipment to produce film. This came straight from the horse's mouth (Adox) and it was far from clear whether it would actually happen.
The key to the success of the venture relied on the company using Agfa's smaller scale research product testing equipment to do the film runs rather than the huge mass production line equipment that became unprofitable to continue with. Thus there may be scaled down versions of film and paper production possible. In other words, an innovative company might be able to produce or maintain scaled down versions of film production equipment. It wouldn't be a cottage industry, but it would be viable for the forseeable future. There is also talk of new and improved emulsions being developed.
The discussion is here (look especially at the posts from Adox/Fotoimpex on page 2):
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum172/34823-another-agfa-paper-rumor-confirm-anybody.html
I think the main problem with this debate is that we just don't know what the future holds and it is actually quite unpredictable. And furthermore there is a large element of luck and unpredictability in the way that the market evolves and changes. Even when there is demand for something the market itself doesn't always work out the best solution despite what orthodox economists think.
bottley1
only to feel
The photographic industry has always lived on the profits of the amateur user, these profits funding the more rarified enthusiast / pro market. From sale trends here in the UK. sales of film cameras are plummeting, most snappers now opting for digital cameras. Just read that Nokia (yes, Nokia) is now the worlds largest camera manufacturer!! As stated elsewhere on this thread, film/chemicals/light sensitive paper consumables will become increasingly economically unviable. My take on all of this is that film will become extinct within 10 years, in the west, with manufacturers in China (huge home film market) coming in to fill the gap
mrtoml
Mancunian
bottley1 said:
Again it depends on which part of the market we are talking about. For example, large format is actually thriving. Someone from Robert White said recently in a letter to BW magazine that they can't get enough Ebony cameras to meet demand. View Camera magazine also echoed similar sentiments in articles last year.
jaffa_777
Established
from digital to film.
from digital to film.
I don't know how many people are like me out there, but as I have said on this forum before, I started on digital having never shot film in my life. I thought it was the best thing since sliced bread. Instant gratification, super clean, super sharp, silky smooth images. Thousands of possibilities of the final outcome of an image when shooting RAW and using photoshop. Digital did help me in learning the fundamentals quicker and cheaper than I would have with film and I will still continue to use it for most commercial work for cost factors.
Now after a while, the novelty of sitting in front of a computer and digitally enhancing every single image that I wanted to use wears off. It takes so much time, with so many possible outcomes, and my eyes start to feel like they were gonna fall out their sockets. In my opinion RAW can be a blessing and a curse.
I began to check out a lot of peoples images and to me, the digtal stuff started to all have a similar look, or better say emotional response. This stuff I find comes from the majority who shoot and post/print and don't know much about post processing to get artisically what they want out of there work. Digital is so accurate, faithfull, sharp and lifeless to me, its boring if nothing is done with it. The people who do know what they want artisically are usally excellent at photoshop and can produce some amazing work. I love that I can insert a certain roll of film to gain a desired outcome instead.
I looked into film a while ago and it has been a love affair growing over a number of months. I love the colours, vibrancy, tones, graduations, grain and the emotive response I feel when looking at the images from films like provia, ektachrome and velvia. I love the warm skin tones in films like portra and cold ones from nps. And don't get me started on b&w. I don't know about you but I don't get this from digital.
To sum up in short, I find digital to be true, accurate, perfect and boring, (without extensive knowledge in photoshop). I find film to be impressionistic, artistic, imperfect and emotive.
What do you think?
from digital to film.
I don't know how many people are like me out there, but as I have said on this forum before, I started on digital having never shot film in my life. I thought it was the best thing since sliced bread. Instant gratification, super clean, super sharp, silky smooth images. Thousands of possibilities of the final outcome of an image when shooting RAW and using photoshop. Digital did help me in learning the fundamentals quicker and cheaper than I would have with film and I will still continue to use it for most commercial work for cost factors.
Now after a while, the novelty of sitting in front of a computer and digitally enhancing every single image that I wanted to use wears off. It takes so much time, with so many possible outcomes, and my eyes start to feel like they were gonna fall out their sockets. In my opinion RAW can be a blessing and a curse.
I began to check out a lot of peoples images and to me, the digtal stuff started to all have a similar look, or better say emotional response. This stuff I find comes from the majority who shoot and post/print and don't know much about post processing to get artisically what they want out of there work. Digital is so accurate, faithfull, sharp and lifeless to me, its boring if nothing is done with it. The people who do know what they want artisically are usally excellent at photoshop and can produce some amazing work. I love that I can insert a certain roll of film to gain a desired outcome instead.
I looked into film a while ago and it has been a love affair growing over a number of months. I love the colours, vibrancy, tones, graduations, grain and the emotive response I feel when looking at the images from films like provia, ektachrome and velvia. I love the warm skin tones in films like portra and cold ones from nps. And don't get me started on b&w. I don't know about you but I don't get this from digital.
To sum up in short, I find digital to be true, accurate, perfect and boring, (without extensive knowledge in photoshop). I find film to be impressionistic, artistic, imperfect and emotive.
What do you think?
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Isn't a better question...which lens is sharper? :angel:
Sparrow
Veteran
If this is still going at Christmas perhaps we could all have a nice game of football?
:angel:
:angel:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Now, that's what I call a "fair and balanced" answer. I'd think that the MF Pentax lenses ought to be lumped together with those. Most Nikon prime lenses give an awful blur (there are some notable exceptions), and Canon primes are unfortunately too soft and don't come close to the Zeiss or Leica primes.toyotadesigner said:
Of course film photography has a future; it is unfortunate that many good emulsions are dying (i.e. Kodachrome) or have died (i.e. Techpan) in the wake of "digital".
The question comes up periodically, and this horse really has been beaten to a fine mist (imvvvvvvho).
Bosk
Make photos, not war.
I think film definately has a future given that most baby boomers and members of generation 'X' grew up using film rather than digital, and old habits tend to die hard. I'm sure that a small percentage of them will resist going digital to the last, and film will also have a novelty/retro value to the younger generations which ought to help sustain it awhile longer.