italy74
Well-known
What a pity I couldn't vote, however I think film will be around for a while again. Probably not for a century (assumed we don't extinguis ourselves before or someone prohibits its use) but for a few decades I'd say yes. It might seem strange but even if the mainstream is turning digital, the more I go forward and the more I see people looking back to film. I don't know why is that, maybe digital may be still an illusion, like SnowWhite red apple, too perfect to be really pleasant for our eyes.. no idea here.. probably some of us still look for the imperfection, for the thrill of a not-standard outcome, for a grain that more than image defects reveals our own growth in artistic terms. Just guessing.
KM-25
Well-known
The world I live in is photography full time. Sure, I do a little here and there to keep up with trends, who is moving and shaking, read PDN.
But I also live. I shoot. I shoot film. I shoot digital. I wet scan film. I am building a 300+ square foot darkroom. I had a 30" x 100 foot roll of Ilford Multi-Grade paper show up at my doorstep yesterday, it will be for the 24" x 100 foot roll of Arista Ortho-Litho film that I am shooting in a precision pinhole camera that takes tack sharp photos using 2 x 4 foot film.
I talk with suppliers, my friends at Ilford, Kodak, Freestyle, B&H. I have developed relationships with them...as a professional. I keep getting great results with Kodachrome for the Kodachrome Project...for the film's 75th anniversary.
In other words, I live in a world where not only is film still available, but through the work I do, the things I teach, the people I meet, film will still be around long after most of us are gone.
I don't even question it, I live photography for today, not tomorrow. And photography lived for today will keep it around for tomorrow.
But then I come on these forums and I read this stuff...sometimes by people who have no connections to the world I and others are in....and I get nothing from it but a headache.
Then there are people on this site who post quite a bit and *sound* like they know a lot and you would think by what they say, they might even take a decent photo. But then you see the work they do and you wonder:
Why even discuss the differences between a Formula One race car and a Hyundai if your feet can't even reach the gas, brake or clutch pedals?
But I also live. I shoot. I shoot film. I shoot digital. I wet scan film. I am building a 300+ square foot darkroom. I had a 30" x 100 foot roll of Ilford Multi-Grade paper show up at my doorstep yesterday, it will be for the 24" x 100 foot roll of Arista Ortho-Litho film that I am shooting in a precision pinhole camera that takes tack sharp photos using 2 x 4 foot film.
I talk with suppliers, my friends at Ilford, Kodak, Freestyle, B&H. I have developed relationships with them...as a professional. I keep getting great results with Kodachrome for the Kodachrome Project...for the film's 75th anniversary.
In other words, I live in a world where not only is film still available, but through the work I do, the things I teach, the people I meet, film will still be around long after most of us are gone.
I don't even question it, I live photography for today, not tomorrow. And photography lived for today will keep it around for tomorrow.
But then I come on these forums and I read this stuff...sometimes by people who have no connections to the world I and others are in....and I get nothing from it but a headache.
Then there are people on this site who post quite a bit and *sound* like they know a lot and you would think by what they say, they might even take a decent photo. But then you see the work they do and you wonder:
Why even discuss the differences between a Formula One race car and a Hyundai if your feet can't even reach the gas, brake or clutch pedals?
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
Discussion forums are for discussion. No one has to prove their bona fides to have an opinion and to state it. As in most things, one need not be an artist to talk knowledgeably about art, a gourmet chef to talk about cooking, a race car driver to have something useful and interesting to say about racing.
In fact, I don't know of any professional movie critics who are also great actors or well-known directors, and many of the best writers on photographic subjects are hardly masters of their craft. I know a few dentists who can go on at length about the various differences between Leica accessories, but they don't have any gallery openings anytime soon. In short, there is a difference between being an artist and being qualified to speak on a subject.
We've had this discussion before too on RFF. Some new person shows up, and before they will engage in any debate, they announce their credentials, and demand to see photographic examples of expertise from anyone they argue with - else they pronounce their opponent unfit to talk to. If you can't beat the argument, go after the writer. It's called 'ad hominem' and it's really rather boorish and childish.
In fact, I don't know of any professional movie critics who are also great actors or well-known directors, and many of the best writers on photographic subjects are hardly masters of their craft. I know a few dentists who can go on at length about the various differences between Leica accessories, but they don't have any gallery openings anytime soon. In short, there is a difference between being an artist and being qualified to speak on a subject.
We've had this discussion before too on RFF. Some new person shows up, and before they will engage in any debate, they announce their credentials, and demand to see photographic examples of expertise from anyone they argue with - else they pronounce their opponent unfit to talk to. If you can't beat the argument, go after the writer. It's called 'ad hominem' and it's really rather boorish and childish.
antiquark
Derek Ross
(Hmmm, was that posted to the wrong thread? Seems out of context.)
However, if it's in the right thread, I'd argue that 'ad hominem' is an overused term, and doesn't apply to many arguments where people think it does.
However, if it's in the right thread, I'd argue that 'ad hominem' is an overused term, and doesn't apply to many arguments where people think it does.
Adrian Nasti
Adrian N
I am certain that lovers of vinyl music went through similar ruminations at the introduction of the CD in the early 1980's. There were predictions that vinyl would be obsolete within a decade etc
Well, nearly 30 years have passed and vinyl is still around albeit in a niche way but nonetheless available and preferred by many people.
I think film will remain a presence for a long time. It is another artistic tool, no different to choosing pastels over paint or oil over watercolour. I am certain that a number of people predicted the death of painting when photography was on the ascendancy.
The only thing that has concerned me is not the lack of availability of film lately but the availability of good labs to process the stuff. I am in Sydney and the market has shrunk somewhat over the last few years, although to be fair those that remain are still doing good business. A process of consolidation no doubt. I will have to start processing more of my own..
No more panic people - just shoot more film!
Well, nearly 30 years have passed and vinyl is still around albeit in a niche way but nonetheless available and preferred by many people.
I think film will remain a presence for a long time. It is another artistic tool, no different to choosing pastels over paint or oil over watercolour. I am certain that a number of people predicted the death of painting when photography was on the ascendancy.
The only thing that has concerned me is not the lack of availability of film lately but the availability of good labs to process the stuff. I am in Sydney and the market has shrunk somewhat over the last few years, although to be fair those that remain are still doing good business. A process of consolidation no doubt. I will have to start processing more of my own..
No more panic people - just shoot more film!
bmattock
Veteran
Mine wasn't posted to the wrong thread, but my reply to the poster above myself was intended to point out an example of 'ad hominem'.
While I agree the term is often overused, when two people discuss, say, the relative remaining lifespan of film, and one of the parties states that because the other person hasn't the professional gravitas that they have, and their photos are ugly too, then their opinions should not count - well, that's about as ad hominum as they get. Kinda like saying "Yeah, well your momma wears army boots." She may, but it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, and it goes to the person, not the subject being discussed.
sfj
Member
There's an interesting parallel with the holography industry. From the 1960s and particularly 1970s, Agfa, Kodak and Ilford supplied high resolution film to a growing band of holography enthusiasts and a rising industry (miniscule by comparison to photography, though). Kodak innovated very little from the 1980s; Agfa and particularly Ilford worked harder to satisfy user needs, but still found the market too small to maintain. In 1991 Ilford ceased production of all holographic materials; in 1997 Agfa Gavaert ceased holographic film/plate production.
Holographers stockpiled the Agfa product and some continue to use it today. However, to suit this small but diehard market, independent film manufacturers arose: a couple of companies in Eastern Europe in particular. Prices are higher than they were, but affordable by enthusiasts. Quality is debatable: the old big manufacturers had quality control problems, too, because holographic emulsions were done in small production runs. There's some evidence that the new cottage-industry manufacturers are producing comparable product in an economically sustainable way. By comparison to, say, 35mm film or MF film users, holographers represent a very tiny market indeed, so there is hope!
Holographers stockpiled the Agfa product and some continue to use it today. However, to suit this small but diehard market, independent film manufacturers arose: a couple of companies in Eastern Europe in particular. Prices are higher than they were, but affordable by enthusiasts. Quality is debatable: the old big manufacturers had quality control problems, too, because holographic emulsions were done in small production runs. There's some evidence that the new cottage-industry manufacturers are producing comparable product in an economically sustainable way. By comparison to, say, 35mm film or MF film users, holographers represent a very tiny market indeed, so there is hope!
JohnTF
Veteran
KM-25
Well-known
First of all, my post was not aimed at you, if it was, I would have addressed it as such, but your posting history is pretty prolific, so go ahead and take credit for it if you feel it is all about you..
But more importantly is that with the internet, companies are actually having to spend money on watchdogs that keep an eye out for errant information by arm chair experts who have no credentials, no basis for saying the things they do.
I was on a shoot two weeks ago, I was using my 6x6 Hasselblad camera and shooting black and white. One of the hired hands who was a photo enthusiast was surprised by me using a camera he was sure there was no film for anymore.
When I asked him why he thought that, he smiled with embarrassment and said, "OK, I feel like and idiot now, but I read it on one of the photo web sites."
So I then asked him who wrote the article. He replied, "It was not an article, some forum member who seemed like he knew a lot wrote it."
I shook my head...
When this kind of thing happens...on the F___ing internet, it is DAMAGING to the industry and the public perception of it.
When a person who is a prolific internet junkie makes post after post about what they think they know and they have *zero* credibility in the industry, this DAMAGES the perception of the industry for everyone and is hard to combat.
One of the major photo suppliers is flying my out to their facility in a week or so, under strict NDA of course. Aside from the reasons that I am going there for, I am going to try to address this problem of how do we as professionals in the industry combat what the arm chair idiots keep filling the internet with?
Because I am DAMN sick of it as they are too I would imagine..
But more importantly is that with the internet, companies are actually having to spend money on watchdogs that keep an eye out for errant information by arm chair experts who have no credentials, no basis for saying the things they do.
I was on a shoot two weeks ago, I was using my 6x6 Hasselblad camera and shooting black and white. One of the hired hands who was a photo enthusiast was surprised by me using a camera he was sure there was no film for anymore.
When I asked him why he thought that, he smiled with embarrassment and said, "OK, I feel like and idiot now, but I read it on one of the photo web sites."
So I then asked him who wrote the article. He replied, "It was not an article, some forum member who seemed like he knew a lot wrote it."
I shook my head...
When this kind of thing happens...on the F___ing internet, it is DAMAGING to the industry and the public perception of it.
When a person who is a prolific internet junkie makes post after post about what they think they know and they have *zero* credibility in the industry, this DAMAGES the perception of the industry for everyone and is hard to combat.
One of the major photo suppliers is flying my out to their facility in a week or so, under strict NDA of course. Aside from the reasons that I am going there for, I am going to try to address this problem of how do we as professionals in the industry combat what the arm chair idiots keep filling the internet with?
Because I am DAMN sick of it as they are too I would imagine..
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
If you say so.
Gasp. You mean people actually exercise their right of free speech? Amazing. You mean they draw conclusions based on the information they have available, some of which is correct and some of which is erroneous? Tragedy. You mean people should require 'credentials' before being allowed to speak? I'm amazed.
Your hired hand was a moron.
Did he? Which one, I wonder? Who would be so stupid as to insinuate that 120 or 220 roll film is not made anymore?
Perhaps your hired hand thought your camera took 620 film instead, and didn't know about the various work-arounds that can be used to keep shooting even with 620?
Well, there you have it. Forum members are not to be trusted, especially those who seem to know what they're talking about.
In sadness and pity, I'm sure. Lord, what fools these mortals be.
When people are free to say whatever they like and read whatever they like, all sorts of horrible things are likely to happen.
Even if they're right? That seems strange.
Seems like quite a pickle. How to shut up people who have opinions whom you have not given permission to speak?
Let us know how that works out, won't you?
notturtle
Well-known
Can we please break down each previous post by word rather than by sentence, because this is not nearly annoying enough. Perhaps then we can then start quoting and commenting by syllable?
bmattock, you did it again. Please can you cease dragging posts off topic and slicing them into dozens of pedantic pieces. Have you absolutely no ability to bite your lip? If you feel someone writes a one liner at the end of a post that bothers you, perhaps address that in person with a PM? The irony is that you have thrown yourself under those words and made them about you specifically and publicly rather than stood to one side.
Back on topic. I read (OK, well I did an online translation from German to English) of a German newspaper article in which Salgado says that he has gone digital. This is a little bit of a surprise as I cannot quite envisage his images as cleaner digital files, but I am sure he has that all covered. What was more interesting was his claimed reason for switching. He used the oft ridiculed line that films nowadays use so much less silver that the difference is immediately obvious in the images that result from them. I found this interesting as I thought it was generally acknowledged that this is rubbish. I suppose this relates to this discussion in that if film manufacturers are damaging the imaging quality of their films by making them lighter on silver then they are hollowing out their own future (and by definition, this would bother the high end user marker more than the casual amateur, who has gone digital anyway).
I am not convinced that this is at all true. Take Delta 100 for example. It is not for everything, but I have some lovely glowing rich images from this modern film which uses far less silver than the oldies. I find that the bigger issue (ignoring the tonal characteristics that often differ in general terms between older and newer tech films, such as the curve) is in paper. I have found that the last batch of Ilford MGIV I used is far better than the stuff I used three years ago. The MG WT is spectacular in comparison with what I used a while back (and the base is paler which i prefer). It is rich, glowing and produces images with great depth. The old Forte PWT was wonderful and almost without peer, as was Oriental Seagul and Agfa MCC. All these used to produce, for me, richer images than Ilford a couple of years ago, but the fact that in my eyes the ilford (particularly the WT) seems better now than ever suggests that despite eco restricttions (on things like cadmium) and the desire to minimise costly silver papers are not really going backwards at all. I would guess that papers are the more important link in the process when it comes to economising on ingredients, but then again i would not really know!
Has anyone got thoughts on this surprising comment from salgado? I suspect he has made the swithc for other reasons, but to suggest the negatives of today are not a pacth on those of yesteryear rings a bit hollow to me. Could he have been talking about papers rather than films? I mean, he used to use a fair amount of TMax 3200, which is a modern tech film and always was (I realise his mainstays have been TriX 400 in 35mm and TXP 320 in 120). He has also used Tmax 100 ocassionally has he not? That has always been at the thinner end of the spectrum.
Although silver is an important cost to the manufacturer, is is really going to make a night and day difference to the cost of making and distributing the fiml overall - enough to warrant reducing quality to save a few pennies (which i am sure 99% of users would gladly pay if their images were so much better). I just don't buy it, especially as the consensus seems to be that there is little to no link between silver content and image quality. So I am led to believe by the techs/scientists out there.
bmattock, you did it again. Please can you cease dragging posts off topic and slicing them into dozens of pedantic pieces. Have you absolutely no ability to bite your lip? If you feel someone writes a one liner at the end of a post that bothers you, perhaps address that in person with a PM? The irony is that you have thrown yourself under those words and made them about you specifically and publicly rather than stood to one side.
Back on topic. I read (OK, well I did an online translation from German to English) of a German newspaper article in which Salgado says that he has gone digital. This is a little bit of a surprise as I cannot quite envisage his images as cleaner digital files, but I am sure he has that all covered. What was more interesting was his claimed reason for switching. He used the oft ridiculed line that films nowadays use so much less silver that the difference is immediately obvious in the images that result from them. I found this interesting as I thought it was generally acknowledged that this is rubbish. I suppose this relates to this discussion in that if film manufacturers are damaging the imaging quality of their films by making them lighter on silver then they are hollowing out their own future (and by definition, this would bother the high end user marker more than the casual amateur, who has gone digital anyway).
I am not convinced that this is at all true. Take Delta 100 for example. It is not for everything, but I have some lovely glowing rich images from this modern film which uses far less silver than the oldies. I find that the bigger issue (ignoring the tonal characteristics that often differ in general terms between older and newer tech films, such as the curve) is in paper. I have found that the last batch of Ilford MGIV I used is far better than the stuff I used three years ago. The MG WT is spectacular in comparison with what I used a while back (and the base is paler which i prefer). It is rich, glowing and produces images with great depth. The old Forte PWT was wonderful and almost without peer, as was Oriental Seagul and Agfa MCC. All these used to produce, for me, richer images than Ilford a couple of years ago, but the fact that in my eyes the ilford (particularly the WT) seems better now than ever suggests that despite eco restricttions (on things like cadmium) and the desire to minimise costly silver papers are not really going backwards at all. I would guess that papers are the more important link in the process when it comes to economising on ingredients, but then again i would not really know!
Has anyone got thoughts on this surprising comment from salgado? I suspect he has made the swithc for other reasons, but to suggest the negatives of today are not a pacth on those of yesteryear rings a bit hollow to me. Could he have been talking about papers rather than films? I mean, he used to use a fair amount of TMax 3200, which is a modern tech film and always was (I realise his mainstays have been TriX 400 in 35mm and TXP 320 in 120). He has also used Tmax 100 ocassionally has he not? That has always been at the thinner end of the spectrum.
Although silver is an important cost to the manufacturer, is is really going to make a night and day difference to the cost of making and distributing the fiml overall - enough to warrant reducing quality to save a few pennies (which i am sure 99% of users would gladly pay if their images were so much better). I just don't buy it, especially as the consensus seems to be that there is little to no link between silver content and image quality. So I am led to believe by the techs/scientists out there.
FrozenInTime
Well-known
I wish Kodak would sell that negative holder - it looks the business for 'scanning' film with a DSLR.
Attachments
bmattock
Veteran
I think the way I do it is the way to do it.
No, thank you. Can you please stop trying to hector people into behaving as you wish they would behave? I can assure you I'm not going to stop behaving as I wish, so you really are wasting your time.
bmattock
Veteran
Yes, that was my point. Looking at it, I wonder if some enterprising person might not make something like that for commercial use?
antiquark
Derek Ross
Is there an online copy of the interview with Salgado? I looked for it, but couldn't find anything. I'd like to read it to see if anything was taken out of context regarding his comment about silver.
HansDerHase
Established
furcafe
Veteran
Q.T.Getomov
Newbie
It just occurred to me that xray film is made from pretty much the same chemicals and processes as regular negative film stock so until a digital xray machine is invented then there will still be a requirement to produce film in one form or another. Therefore, no matter how niche film becomes for photographers there will still be plants making the stuff.