Steve Bellayr
Veteran
Keep in mind that 10 years ago I was buying LPs in mint or near perfect condition for as low as 4 for a dollar. At the same time I found it was difficult to locate a turntable. Today, LPs are $2 each at thrift stores and all the high school kids buy them. Second and Charles sells the LPs for even more, sometimes up to $30 each for newly issued. Turntables at all levels are readily available. Maybe, all is not lost.
Larry Kellogg
Established
I agree. It's funny, turntables and cartridges are at an all time high as far as quality, and vinyl LPs are dirt cheap. Once you pick up a decent record cleaner machine, life is good. See www.audiogon.com for great deals on all kinds of analog equipment.
Maybe nothing ever dies.
Argenticien
Dave
I had my half-yearly dental cleaning today. Sometime between the last one and this one, the dentist's office had switched over from analog (film) to digital x-rays. As more of that happens, that further undermines the consumer analog photography infrastructure/supply chain, since medical radiography, like Hollywood movie-making, was another unseen (to mass consumers) big chunk of supporting demand.
Digital oral x-rays, by the way, strike me as a bit icky. Everyone chomps down on the same bite-wing sensor. Yes each patient gets their own disposable plastic-film sleeve wrapped around it, but I do still hope they're cleaning these with alcohol every so often. Quick Googling seems to indicate these sensors cost about $5000 (?!), so they'll have to save a lot of film/chemistry to break even, and hope that nobody's kid bites down hard and destroys one.
--Dave
Digital oral x-rays, by the way, strike me as a bit icky. Everyone chomps down on the same bite-wing sensor. Yes each patient gets their own disposable plastic-film sleeve wrapped around it, but I do still hope they're cleaning these with alcohol every so often. Quick Googling seems to indicate these sensors cost about $5000 (?!), so they'll have to save a lot of film/chemistry to break even, and hope that nobody's kid bites down hard and destroys one.
--Dave
willie_901
Veteran
The basic chemicals used in film processing are also used for industrial processes that have nothing to do with film. This is true for color and BW negative. Those chemicals will be available for a very long time. If there is demand, someone will package them for film development. They could become rather expensive (though I doubt it), but the required chemicals will be sold.
clayne
shoot film or die
Hardly the end of analog. They've been pushing articles like this for about 10 years now. Want to shoot film? Shoot it then. Otherwise, same ole same ole FUD look-at-me-im-filling-you-in-on-something-you-already-are-aware-of stuff.
Is it really mimicking film? what did film mimick then?
RBruceCR
Well-known
I'm taking my first bulk roll of TMax 100 to the photoshop to fill the reusable cassettes right now!
upceci
-
Winogrand was a major figure in popularizing street photography, he inspired many and produced many images. That is it.
upceci
-
Hopefully you got delivery of your M Mono. Now you will have a more involved photography experience because you can see the results right away. But of course there is no reason you cannot carry a film camera as well and combine the best of two... There is too much of either/or mentality in photography these days.
clayne
shoot film or die
A more involved photography experience because he can see the results right away? That sounds like it could go straight on a marketing brochure. I fail to see how ability to chimp helps one become an innately better photographer. It doesn't work that way.
I think he meant that it's just easier to see them after you photograph because you can process them that night on your computer (as opposed to developing film and then printing). Also, the person who that comment is directed towards (Calzone) has a huge backlog of film to print, so the comment was regarding the fact that digital will be more immediate for him to see his results.
Chimping? That a personal thing... it's neither bad nor good unless you let ego come into play.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Thanks. The Monochrom is a very practical camera for me, and it does seem like Leica especially designed this camera especially for me.
Just know that I still intend on shooting as much film as I can, and that a light table is plenty good for me to do a "rough cut" as far as editing is concerned. I'm exceptionally good in inverting a negative into a positive in my mind, and never made contact sheets. Also I like seeing the negatives in 50-60 roll batches after a delay. Something to be said for seeing the images much later with fresh eyes.
Cal
upceci
-
To add to jsrockit's reply which clarified my post, I should also add that chimping is a term coined by sports photographers because in their line of shooting constant concentration and always being ready to grab the moment is essential -- chimping can be a negative habit for those people. For amateurs and casual shooters to use such terms like chimping only makes them look uninformed and pro-wannabe.
upceci
-
I have not used the M Mono but I'm sure its a great camera. In my own personal experience of shooting film and digital, I have to say for me the end result really did not warrant shooting film anymore. And I was shooting B&W only. Things as small as limited frames, changing film, inconsistent development and exposure, not to mention scanning really did not justify for me the trouble of film. I'm not lazy, I'm just careful where I allocate my energy and resources... But another factor that put me off from shooting b&w itself was its ubiquity. Today people turn an image into b&w because its color version does not appeal to them. to me this has been a major reason why i slowly lost interest in b&w shooting. Digital is the current medium and i'm one of those people who's more interested in today rather than the past or the future.
Exactly how I feel.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Thanks for the explaining a good point: in particular "end result." Perhaps this is where you and I differ. I make negatives for wet printing, and perhaps the density is too much for many scanners. Also know that I always intended on printing big, and that I also shoot mucho medium format.
My intent is/was to stay 100% analog, image capture became the priority, and as a result of mass repetition I get very consistent results. Someone I deeply respect who shoots large format looked at one of my 6x9 negatives stated, "With negatives like these you don't need a 4x5."
Now with the Monochrom nothing really changes, except that I am learning a totally new medium. My intent is to become a good digital printer, and my approach is digital is a separate medium. At this point I must be very humble because digital is all new to me.
Cal
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Highlight 1: Why were your development and exposure inconsistent? These are not difficult to master.
Highlight 2: Scanning? Well, that's why I still have a proper darkroom.
Highlight 3: So are many of us. Which is why many of us still prefer film.
Highlights 4/5: So is film. If you can't handle/don't like film, fine, but at least allow those of us who prefer film to insult you the same way you insult us.
Cheers,
R.
dabick42
Well-known
The invention of digital photography was a godsend to people who want their photography to be easy, with little or no physical effort or cerebral involvement.
Some of these ''enlightened'' souls even say that oldtime human judgements like exposure evaluation and focussing are best left for onboard electronics to sort out, as they ''get in the way'' of artistic appraisal and impede the immediacy of the decisive moment .. (!)
And as for spending hours in smelly darkrooms, no way, Josie !
I take some comfort in the knowledge that there are still a goodly number of other die-hard film users out there who feel as I do - that we live in an increasingly spoon-fed, computer-led world, and we're all the poorer for it...
Some of these ''enlightened'' souls even say that oldtime human judgements like exposure evaluation and focussing are best left for onboard electronics to sort out, as they ''get in the way'' of artistic appraisal and impede the immediacy of the decisive moment .. (!)
And as for spending hours in smelly darkrooms, no way, Josie !
I take some comfort in the knowledge that there are still a goodly number of other die-hard film users out there who feel as I do - that we live in an increasingly spoon-fed, computer-led world, and we're all the poorer for it...
Bob T
Established
There's one thing a digital camera/workflow absolutely needs that using film does not.......electricity. With the recent debacle surrounding the cruise ship that lost power for 5 days I'll bet the images produced by the people on board dwindled drastically during the last couple of days due to dead batteries. I can't imagine many people (if anyone) were using film in their cameras. (Not that we may want to see what was going on during the last couple of days)
willie_901
Veteran
Bob,
The way to big and heavy Nikon D700 would easily last 10 days with two OEM batteries. This assumes one is reasonably selective and wouldn't run around the ship pressing the shutter indiscriminately. It also assumes limited chimping, not using an IS lens and judiciously using the flash. Documenting the onboard experience for five days without AC power would be easy, but it would not be fun!
I just paid $51 for a portable USB charger. This unit is as about the size of a portable hard drive. It will charge an smart phone/tablet a couple of times. Again, with thoughtful use fortaking photos for five days without access to AC power would not be a problem.
During 5 years of switching to digital I ran low on batteries once. I ended up using live-view mode for five hours and I had planned for three. I finished the gig with about 15% of my third Nikon battery left.
It would be easy for an inexperienced person to kill their camera batteries the first day. Running out of film may or may not be an issue too.
I prefer using a film camera to a digital camera. This would be especially true for large format film compared to a DSLR. But battery technology has developed to the point where battery life is not an issue.
The way to big and heavy Nikon D700 would easily last 10 days with two OEM batteries. This assumes one is reasonably selective and wouldn't run around the ship pressing the shutter indiscriminately. It also assumes limited chimping, not using an IS lens and judiciously using the flash. Documenting the onboard experience for five days without AC power would be easy, but it would not be fun!
I just paid $51 for a portable USB charger. This unit is as about the size of a portable hard drive. It will charge an smart phone/tablet a couple of times. Again, with thoughtful use fortaking photos for five days without access to AC power would not be a problem.
During 5 years of switching to digital I ran low on batteries once. I ended up using live-view mode for five hours and I had planned for three. I finished the gig with about 15% of my third Nikon battery left.
It would be easy for an inexperienced person to kill their camera batteries the first day. Running out of film may or may not be an issue too.
I prefer using a film camera to a digital camera. This would be especially true for large format film compared to a DSLR. But battery technology has developed to the point where battery life is not an issue.