End of 35 mm Cameras

[ErnestoJL]

I´ve been following this thread for some time and what is most important to me is something that´s not noted behind the market reasons which would bring film photography to an end. I don´t recall if someone pointed this out, but for me it´s very important: film photography (and the way I´m doing it) means to keep a single instant of time and life frozen, to be seen, studied, enjoyed and preserved for, perhaps (I hope) eternity.

There is a way to edit any single picture we make no matter if it´s digital or digitalized from regular colour or BW negs. But what is most important, the original picture is preserved, it is not edited, not modified, not altered in any way, just the real thing, nothing else, nothing less. So we allways can go back to the roots and see what was it.

I said in another thread that my idea of photography is one that´s similar to HCB´s one (I´m not comparing myself with him!) the decisive moment. To keep this for the future generations of mankind is something I´m not allowed to resign by myself. That´s why I ´ll be glad to pay premium prices for a boutique item like 35mm film would become to be.

I know very well what is market presure and that big companies wouldn´t do anything against their shareholders, this would be the death sentence for film.
But as long as only one film manufacturer remains active, this activity will be less harmful for the environment than any small imaging chip manufacturing facility. Chemicals used for film manufacturing and developing can be easily cleaned and recycled than those from a chip manufacturing facility.
This is something we all have to tell all the other people interested in the "instant satisfaction" concept.

Ernesto

 

[Socke]

Just to the environmental impact of film vs. chip production.

It's not the problem as long as it's economical feasable to controll.
Wastemanagement is expensive, recycling, resusing and proper dispose of something all cost money. In the old days we didn't care and when we found out rare elements weren't that rare in mothers milk anymore we started to wory about what we did and this put presure on the manufacturers to change production to a less risky one.

In the late 80s beginning 90s I worked for a windowglass producer, Thermopane Glass, the two sheets of glass were bonded to a frame and sealed with bitumen. The tools used clogg up when not in use and so had to be cleaned after production stopped for the day.
This was done with a solvent I know as 1,1,1-Trichlorethan. The workers washed the pipes and nozles in open barrels of that stuff.
Around 1989 it was certain that it induces cancer and users had to report every ounce of Tri used and proof proper disposal. At my company there usualy wasn't anything left to dispose off, because it evaporates pretty fast.
So production was changed and the pipes and nozels are frozen to stop them from clogging after work and cleaned once in a week instead of twice a day.
The cleaning is done in a sealed system where nearly no Tri can evaporate.
In the end it turned out, that it was cheaper this way and the equipment for freezing pipes and nozles was payed for with the savings in Tri within two years.

Here in germany we have strong environmental protection and if chip foundries were environmentaly unsafe, we wouldn't have chip production here.
It is doable as long as the cost are earned!

Recycling of electronic components is still a problem and usualy exported to third world coutries with lesser or none environmental controll. In europe this will end soon and every producer selling electronics will have to provide environmentaly safe disposal of goods as well as proof to the safe disposal.

It's our obligation to keep this planet in a usable state for the generations to come.

 

[Bertram2]

Ernesto,

I don´t recall if someone pointed this out, but for me it´s very important: film photography (and the way I´m doing it) means to keep a single instant of time and life frozen, to be seen, studied, enjoyed and preserved for, perhaps (I hope) eternity.

This is what I called "pictures without parents" in another thread meaning ther is no material source from a digital pic. If all my complaints about the look of the photos and handling of the cameras had no reason any more there would still remain THIS prob !

There is a way to edit any single picture we make no matter if it´s digital or digitalized from regular colour or BW negs. But what is most important, the original picture is preserved, it is not edited, not modified, not altered in any way, just the real thing, nothing else, nothing less. So we allways can go back to the roots and see what was it.

Exactly. A neg was burned with the light of THAT certain slice of time you wanted to keep and so it is a piece of frozen time. That is something Very different from some magnetic points on a HD I'd say ?
Concerning the modification issue i often got the answer that EVERY pic can be modified or manipulated, it always could, since photography exists.
Well that's as true as trivial and does not meet my point. I am not talking about what others do but about MY life and MY negs which are indeed a kinda materialized piece of frozen time. 🙂

II know very well what is market presure and that big companies wouldn´t do anything against their shareholders,

It is worse IMO. The market pressure is made by the companies itself, they must get the old technolgy outta the way to accelerate the market penetration for the new stuff.

So for me it is clear that I buy products only from companies who show a clear commitment for film or from those who try to survive in the niche like Ilford.
That's hard, I love Tri-X and BW400 too, and I used Kodak Extra Color slides ! 😡 Will I manage to be consequent enuff ? not sure 🙄

Best,
Bertram

 

[Socke]

Bertram, my father and grandfather used to work directly on negatives. One of the reasons to gradualy introduce computers into their workflow from 1986 on was the ease of undoing actions and the quality of the digital copies.

It is possible to wash paint from negatives but it's tedius and prone to error. You can easily destroy the negative in the retouching process and when it is retouched you normaly can't get back to the original state.

 

[taffer]

I´ve been following this thread for some time and what is most important to me is something that´s not noted behind the market reasons which would bring film photography to an end. I don´t recall if someone pointed this out, but for me it´s very important: film photography (and the way I´m doing it) means to keep a single instant of time and life frozen, to be seen, studied, enjoyed and preserved for, perhaps (I hope) eternity.

There is a way to edit any single picture we make no matter if it´s digital or digitalized from regular colour or BW negs. But what is most important, the original picture is preserved, it is not edited, not modified, not altered in any way, just the real thing, nothing else, nothing less. So we allways can go back to the roots and see what was it.

I said in another thread that my idea of photography is one that´s similar to HCB´s one (I´m not comparing myself with him!) the decisive moment. To keep this for the future generations of mankind is something I´m not allowed to resign by myself. That´s why I ´ll be glad to pay premium prices for a boutique item like 35mm film would become to be.

I know very well what is market presure and that big companies wouldn´t do anything against their shareholders, this would be the death sentence for film.
But as long as only one film manufacturer remains active, this activity will be less harmful for the environment than any small imaging chip manufacturing facility. Chemicals used for film manufacturing and developing can be easily cleaned and recycled than those from a chip manufacturing facility.
This is something we all have to tell all the other people interested in the "instant satisfaction" concept.

Ernesto

Ernesto, while I agree with most of your post, there's a weak point on it, and if you allow me I'll point you to it 🙂

When we see those unforgettable images from HCB or Ansel Adams, just to name a couple, we're looking at their (and most times somebody else's) interpretation of a negative. Images from both of them are known to have had a huge stage of work involved in the printing process to end in the way we all know them nowadays.

My point is that nobody asks to see the true negative from those images (if it ever still exists), and I'm sure that if we could, some times we could even become dissappointed on how 'normal' they looked when compared to the extraordinary prints we normally see in exhibitions.

I'm a convinced film user and mostly for the same reasons you mention, but afaik, we only have one live to take pictures, so it might be a better idea to adapt to whatever is coming than to trying to fight against it 😉

Albest,

Oscar

 

[Andy K]

Ernesto, while I agree with most of your post, there's a weak point on it, and if you allow me I'll point you to it 🙂

When we see those unforgettable images from HCB or Ansel Adams, just to name a couple, we're looking at their (and most times somebody else's) interpretation of a negative. Images from both of them are known to have had a huge stage of work involved in the printing process to end in the way we all know them nowadays.

My point is that nobody asks to see the true negative from those images (if it ever still exists), and I'm sure that if we could, some times we could even become dissappointed on how 'normal' they looked when compared to the extraordinary prints we normally see in exhibitions.

I'm a convinced film user and mostly for the same reasons you mention, but afaik, we only have one live to take pictures, so it might be a better idea to adapt to whatever is coming than to trying to fight against it 😉

Albest,

Oscar

But the original negative is still there, for future generations to use.

No one is trying to 'fight against' digital.
What (as I have seen many times) people are fighting against is what appears to be some kind of digital 'evangelism' for want of a better word. It's the 'Oh, you're still using film, you should get this/that/the other Dslr etc. etc.' What these people don't seem to get is I use film because I prefer film. I think prints made in a darkroom from a negative look better than inkjet prints. I have seen some very nice digital images, but I have not seen a single one I would want to hang on my wall. (BTW has anyone seen the small print in Canon's latest printer ads? About the 'longevity' of their prints? If not I suggest you find a Canon ad and take a look)
Digital can only ever emulate film, it can never match film. I have seen hundreds of discussions about 'How do I get that film look in PS?' or 'How do I get my images to have grain in PS?' My advice to those people would be, if you want your photographs to look like film photographs stop wasting your time sitting in front of a computer and get a film camera.

 

[taffer]

That's exactly why I like film, the neg IS there, and is (IMHO) the best possible way of image backup that you can have.

>It's the 'Oh, you're still using film, you should get this/that/the other Dslr etc. etc.

Hehe, still remember a guy at work when I told him about my CL. 'But with that money you could have bought a digital!!!' 🙂

Yes of course, I guess I could have bought a 4MP P&S 😉

That said, it's priceless to see some faces people put when seeing the inmediate results. Both mediums have their pros, what I don't fancy is the idea that one of them has to dissappear, but I have no power over global markets...

 

[Socke]

Andy I'm with you and others that digital is not film. But on the other hand, Velvia 50 is not Tri-X 🙂

Inkjet printing isn't baryt either, but I have two digital pictures (wet)printed on baryt paper. It's quite expensive but impressive.

http://www.polycolor.de/

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I went into a Pawn shop, looking for "these old discarded cameras" last month. The owner told me that 35mm SLR's are very popular with the police department, and many of the officers buy them up.

Defence Lawyers can make Mince-Meat out of Digital Images.

 

[Bertram2]

It is possible to wash paint from negatives but it's tedius and prone to error. You can easily destroy the negative in the retouching process and when it is retouched you normaly can't get back to the original state.

Socke, this is ALL true ! But does not meet my point. Which is: I don't give up the neg as the original source !

This does explicitely not exclude digital from the later workflow of postprocessing
I work with scanned negs, I use PS and I will do inkjetprinting one day too, for colour only tho. Because I prefer a ink colorprint based on a scanned colour neg to a lab print, which is not exactly postprocessed as I want it to and which is anyway (AFAIK at least) scanned too before is printed. B&W ? Dunno yet, some friends ahve sent me B&W inkjet prints which look different but at least partly quite convincing.Depends on inks and printer.

To exclude all misunderstandings and wrong assumptions. I am NOT one of those
self-proclaimed guardians of the holy analog grail which you can find at APUG so often. ( Not sure if they are the majority, some sound quite o.k.) That's not me, I hate this elitist and condescend attitude of some stuffed shirts, so far out yet that some of them find it to be a lack of taste to shoot colour film at all :bang: Not to speak of the way how those are treated who who scan negs ! Which is in the purist's catechism a sin, different from scanning prints tho. 😕

Again, that's not me, I personally just want this celluloid burned by the light, it's a very important part of the magic of photography for me and at this point I am afraid nobody and no technical "advantage" can convince me to use a chip instead of film. Still absolutely therapy resistant !!! 😛

Regards,
Bertram

 

[Andy K]

To exclude all misunderstandings and wrong assumptions. I am NOT one of those
self-proclaimed guardians of the holy analog grail which you can find at APUG so often. ( Not sure if they are the majority, some sound quite o.k.) That's not me, I hate this elitist and condescend attitude of some stuffed shirts, so far out yet that some of them find it to be a lack of taste to shoot colour film at all :bang: Not to speak of the way how those are treated who who scan negs ! Which is in the purist's catechism a sin, different from scanning prints tho. 😕

The difference between a scanned neg and a scanned print is that a scan of a print is a scan of a completed analogue photograph. The shutter opened, the scene was recorded on the film, the film was developed, the negative was enlarged onto photosensitive paper, the paper was developed, the print was scanned.
A scanned neg is a scan of an incomplete analogue photograph.

I recommend you try your own developing and enlarging. You will not look back to scanning negs. I know, I used to scan negs, then I learned to make my own prints in the darkroom. A scanned neg no longer 'does it' for me.

 

[Socke]

Bertram and Andy, you're right because nobody can argue against what you feel and think when you have a neg to work on and put it in a sleeve afterwards and finaly hang a print on the wall.
Obviously there is more to photography than a picture on a website, in a magazin or on a wall.

"You smell that? Do you smell that? Rodinal, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of rodinal in the morning."

 

[Bertram2]

A scanned neg is a scan of an incomplete analogue photograph.

Ah, the English group of APUG has spoken. Notice benevolently, I did not say British 😉 No more faux pas !
My whole post was about negs tho, and I thought I was clear enuff about complete and incomplete ? I don't care how complete my workflow is.
But thanks anyway for explaining, it's brightening my understanding of the APUG basics.


I recommend you try your own developing and enlarging.
I did that already, 20years ago. My lab was sold, now I got not enuff room to build a new one up and so my approach was via scan this time . If anything shall get enlarged the lab gets postprocessed scans from me.

You will not look back to scanning negs. I know, I used to scan negs, then I learned to make my own prints in the darkroom.
For me it's the other way round, I think about going back by installing again at least something like temporary wet lab for my bathroom. For B&W only tho.

Let me add a remark which does not point on you personally: Scanning properly is an art of it's own. A long way to go until you get out of the neg ALL what is technically possible. You did it, you know it.
Printing with an ink jet is another art of it's own. Also a long way too go until you control it completely, many have given up after a while.
I have doubts if all those purists at APUG, who again and again try to exclude scanned negs from the gallery, really do know what they are talking about ? The quality of some of the scanned prints in the gallery let me doubt. They are obviously presented under the premise, that the principle is more important than the result.

I subscribed at APUG because I saw that there are many very talented and knowledgeable photogs , trying seriously and successfully to make really good photos based on film.

It's a bitter disappointment tho to find out how narrow the basics are defined and how narrow minded some folks are there, narrow minded enuff to let those who scan negs exist in a little subforum, for which one needs a seperate access.
As a "compromise" as it is said. Wouldn't it be more honest to exclude all "scanners" from the forum completely ? Wouldn't be THAT the iron consequence some always talk about there ?

The question is however how to control of what kind the posted gallery files are. Scanned negs or scanned prints ? 😉
It's an old political essential: Don't make laws you can't control.

Regards,
Bertram

 

[Bertram2]

Obviously there is more to photography than a picture on a website, in a magazin or on a wall.

"Y

Yes. I was hooked when at the age of 8 , in my father's darkroom,I saw the first time the latent pic coming outta the paper bathed in dev, in this moment I began to understand what all the fascination is about ! 😀
B.
("Frühe Prägung"). You can't get rid of those.

 

[Socke]

My background is print, so I'm more used to screend pictures printed on offset presses than on baryt paper 🙂

For ages the best results in printing, not enlarging, have been made from negatives or slides, not from paper.

That was the reason why my father and grandfather worked on the negative and not on a "print". Prints were only used for layout and proof purposes not for the cataloges.

When we still sold high end printers we had drumscanned negatives to show the capabilities of our Tektronix Phasers a scanned print wasn't good enough.

Even Linotype Opal and Saphire scanners won't come close to a dedicated slide scanner in the same price range.

And with the help of Lysonic or MIS inks and good papers you get very pleasant results from scanned negatives on inkjets, if you have the ICM profiles even a Fuji Frontier colour print from a scanned B/W negative can be very good. And then we have the possibilty to enlarge on materials unsuitable for wet printing, I have some awesome prints made on Kodak Endura Metallic Paper

 

[Andy K]

A scanned neg is a scan of an incomplete analogue photograph.

Ah, the English group of APUG has spoken. Notice benevolently, I did not say British 😉 No more faux pas !
My whole post was about negs tho, and I thought I was clear enuff about complete and incomplete ? I don't care how complete my workflow is.
But thanks anyway for explaining, it's brightening my understanding of the APUG basics.


I recommend you try your own developing and enlarging.
I did that already, 20years ago. My lab was sold, now I got not enuff room to build a new one up and so my approach was via scan this time . If anything shall get enlarged the lab gets postprocessed scans from me.

You will not look back to scanning negs. I know, I used to scan negs, then I learned to make my own prints in the darkroom.
For me it's the other way round, I think about going back by installing again at least something like temporary wet lab for my bathroom. For B&W only tho.

Let me add a remark which does not point on you personally: Scanning properly is an art of it's own. A long way to go until you get out of the neg ALL what is technically possible. You did it, you know it.
Printing with an ink jet is another art of it's own. Also a long way too go until you control it completely, many have given up after a while.
I have doubts if all those purists at APUG, who again and again try to exclude scanned negs from the gallery, really do know what they are talking about ? The quality of some of the scanned prints in the gallery let me doubt. They are obviously presented under the premise, that the principle is more important than the result.

I subscribed at APUG because I saw that there are many very talented and knowledgeable photogs , trying seriously and successfully to make really good photos based on film.

It's a bitter disappointment tho to find out how narrow the basics are defined and how narrow minded some folks are there, narrow minded enuff to let those who scan negs exist in a little subforum, for which one needs a seperate access.
As a "compromise" as it is said. Wouldn't it be more honest to exclude all "scanners" from the forum completely ? Wouldn't be THAT the iron consequence some always talk about there ?

The question is however how to control of what kind the posted gallery files are. Scanned negs or scanned prints ? 😉
It's an old political essential: Don't make laws you can't control.

Regards,
Bertram

You have completely misunderstood the purpose of APUG.

Analogue Photography Users Group.
Photoshop, scanning, inkjet printing etc. are digital methods. APUG is the only dedicated Analogue Photography website on the entire internet, there are no others. There are thousands of websites where people can discuss digital methods. Why try to insist APUG should become like them?
Yes there are galleries on APUG, but they are very much secondary to the forums. Most people, myself included, post scans of their prints, I spend very little time scanning, I scan resize and post, thats it. The internet is not my primary means of showing my photographs, so why should I waste time in front of a computer messing with PS when I could be having fun in the darkroom?.
There are several print and postcard exchanges always happening. Where members exchange actual prints.
I have never seen anyone on APUG flamed or insulted because they posted a neg scan, I used to post them myself and no-one flamed me. If it wasn't for APUG I would probably still be scanning negs instead of making my own enlargements. Something I have intended to do ever since I started using my first 35mm camera back in 1972.
That is the value of APUG, there is no better resource on the internet for information on analogue processes.
Before I found APUG I tried Photo.net. I asked a beginners question about developing and was subjected to insults and abuse from quite a few digital users. I will never go back to Photo.net, as far as I am concerned it populated by nothing but assholes.
Bertram, I'm sorry you don't like APUG.

Ps. I do NOT speak for 'the English group of APUG'. I speak for myself and my own experiences of APUG.

 

[Bertram2]

You have completely misunderstood the purpose of APUG.


Partly, yes, when I joined. Maybe my own fault but I cannot remember having read anything really clear about the basics.

Yes there are galleries on APUG, but they are very much secondary to the forums. Most people, myself included, post scans of their prints, I spend very little time scanning, I scan resize and post, thats it. The internet is not my primary means of showing my photographs, so why should I waste time in front of a computer messing with PS when I could be having fun in the darkroom?

Because you work earns a presentation as good as possible?. Because you want others to have fun with your pic ?
I read that recently. "Who the f.... cares about the gallery !!??" That sounds really strange to me, either you HAVE a gallery or not, and if you have one I find it a very strange attitude to say who cares about the stuff people put up there.
No matter if the web plays a big or a small role for you. Looks like a kinda demonstrative contempt ?

"Nothing like assholes " at p.net ? I would not second that. In principle you are right, but the principle always offends those who are different and post there too.. And there ARE some non- a---s ! Very few tho I admit.

B.

 

[Andy K]

You have completely misunderstood the purpose of APUG.


Partly, yes, when I joined. Maybe my own fault but I cannot remember having read anything really clear about the basics.

From APUG's front page:

"APUG.ORG is an international community of like minded individuals devoted to traditional (non-digital) photographic processes. APUG is sponsored by member and corporate donations. The site is based on an 'open source' model. In other words, this site is driven by the feedback and content we receive from our members. APUG is an active photographic community; our forums contain a highly detailed archive of traditional and historic photographic processes. We'd like to thank all of the photographers out there who have given us the encouragement to see this concept through."

Because you work earns a presentation as good as possible?. Because you want others to have fun with your pic ?
I read that recently. "Who the f.... cares about the gallery !!??" That sounds really strange to me, either you HAVE a gallery or not, and if you have one I find it a very strange attitude to say who cares about the stuff people put up there.
No matter if the web plays a big or a small role for you. Looks like a kinda demonstrative contempt ?

The best possible representation of my work is the print. That is why APUG has print exchanges.

 

[rayfoxlee]

There is another point here, too. Film cameras tend to be fairly basic - certainly RFs. Focus, shutter speed, aperture...........but with digital, the choice of compression, JPEG vs. RAW, white balance, saturation blah, blah, blah tends to get in the way of taking the picture.

Maybe I'm just a foolish old refusenik.

Ray

 

[Andy K]

Maybe I'm just a foolish old refusenik.

Ray

Or a 'Luddite elitist' which is what us analogue users are usually called. 🙄