Snowbuzz
Well-known
I bought the highlighted book a month ago. I got all choked up. I think every film user should have a copy.
Just a note to Larry in post #27. The last contracts for camera-neg, 35mm, cine-film end next year. No more shooting on colour-neg for a major production after that. None. Zero. If nothing else is arranged in the meantime, that will be the closure of Kodak film production too. For several years there have been no film cine-cameras produced by the big manufacturers either.
I'm hoping that the use of film in Hollywood will keep us going for a while longer but, of course, more and more films are being displayed digitally. Still, I have read that Hollywood is backing up digitally created films onto physical film.
while many motion pictures shot and stored on colour negative in the "dark age" sixties to eighties are already fading from the archives...
so what happens when all the tonnes of negatives
are around and we do not have a decent scanner to scan it ?
just a scary thought....
raytoei
You'll still be able to print them the old fashioned way...
You know I have heard this arument many times before but I really think this fear is over rated, with respect.
If there is a need and a demand there will be software that will convert old formats to new formats. When people raise this as a concern I always am inclined to think of all the images I took in film which have never been published anywhere, and now reside in cardboard boxes in the shed - one day to be thrown out because my need to spring clean and gain space is greater. To be brutally honest many images I have made have neevr even been developed.
How many times has this been repeated across the world and throughout the 20th century.
By comparison we now have billions of photos on sites like Flickr and across the web, probably trillions. Some of those may be lost but I doubt that they all will be - or even most of them. These images constitute a remarkable source of historical information for future social historians.
But hard copy images sitting in someone's shed and deteriorating there will never be seen - no one will ever know they existed. But with digital not only are they easily stored, they are easily backed up for added security. Not so with hard images and negatives.
So while we may be sad at the passing of an iconic company I really am optimistic that digital is much safer way of storing and transimitting precious (and not so precious) images to future generations.
recently i bought a 10 year old minolta 5400 scanner.
the images produced is better than any of the remaining
scanners in production (epson, canon) except for the
plustek. so what happens when all the tonnes of negatives
are around and we do not have a decent scanner to scan it ?
just a scary thought....
raytoei
Oh my goodness! You mean we might have to retrograde to wet darkrooms? 😉
Now is the time to shoot as much film as you can. Over the past five years I have been shooting as much film as I can, without any regard to printing. I know whenever the end happens that I took advantage of using film as much as I could.
Printing has been postponed.
Cal
I think this Winogrand approach is essentially a waste of time and precious film.
I think this Winogrand approach is essentially a waste of time and precious film.
Why, I believe Cal will still eventually get to printing his negatives. It was only a waste for Winogrand because he died before he got to the backlog of film. We should all be so lucky to get as far as Winogrand did by enganging in such a "waste of time and precious film."
WHY? I'm exploiting a resource while it is cheap and still readily available. I think that this will lead to less remorse and regrets. Anyways it makes sense to me.
Editing and printing can be time intensive and there is no reason for urgency.
Anyways I think I'm looking at the big picture. B&W will still remain, but it definitely will get more and more expensive as time goes on.
Cal