Silver is dead?

[emraphoto]

Technically this is not a film vs digital. But all discussions here turn into film vs. digital if it gets more than 25 replies, I guess there is not much else to discuss (and it is not boring, people are all over the place when it comes to film vs. digital).

i guess the "silver is dead" part fooled most of us.

 

[emraphoto]

It's the disconnect that is fascinating to me. Especially the "film is experiencing a renaissance," which I hear constantly in forums, as film sales continue to decline by double digits quarter after quarter. An interesting study in perception versus reality.

I really don't have a dog in the hunt either way. I have a number of film cameras, including Leicas, that I shoot regularly and a number of digital cameras that I use even more. So I am pretty agnostic about the whole thing. It's the perception that film is better, or will continue to exist forever simply because we want to use it, that is interesting to me.[/QUOTE

funny

 

[sig]

i guess the "silver is dead" part fooled most of us.

Valid point 🙂. I was trying to say that this was not a film is better than digital or digital is better than film discussion. I sort of understood that this was a 'film is dying' kind of a discussion. However closely related.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

It's the disconnect that is fascinating to me. Especially the "film is experiencing a renaissance," which I hear constantly in forums, as film sales continue to decline by double digits quarter after quarter. An interesting study in perception versus reality.

I really don't have a dog in the hunt either way. I have a number of film cameras, including Leicas, that I shoot regularly and a number of digital cameras that I use even more. So I am pretty agnostic about the whole thing. It's the perception that film is better, or will continue to exist forever simply because we want to use it, that is interesting to me.

Waiting for Thursday's release of Kodak's fourth quarter numbers.

I don't care if Kodak films disappear today, all of them. Irrelevant. I guess Fuji film started killing them decades ago. I am no expert here, but I guess the japanese market for film will be huge for long enough as to keep film coming during my lifetime.

Cheers,

Juan

 

[emraphoto]

Valid point 🙂. I was trying to say that this was not a film is better than digital or digital is better than film discussion. I sort of understood that this was a 'film is dying' kind of a discussion. However closely related.

there is no better medium, there are certainly better photographers.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Seriously, when film dies, I'll just chuck the film cameras in the trash. Until then I'll use them. I shot film exclusively for 40 years, but have never had a particular "passion" for it, as I have never been in love with cameras as artifacts. It is the images that interest me.

The whole debate is very interesting, though.

 

[biggambi]

I personally do not understand the contention between digital and film, and the processes that follow. I shoot both and enjoy both. As I explained in my original post, way back when this thread began. I do not believe that film is better in the color realm any more. But, it still is king in B&W. This is why I would love to see a B&W Leica M9. There is a thread that speaks directly to this topic, and the advantages have been well stated and demonstrated in that thread. What I do believe is that film is the bench mark. It holds the historical position over digital. Therefore, comparisons should be made.

Therefore, it seems absurd to denigrate one method or the other, and in turn the people who choose them. I am just glad there are people who still enjoy using rangefinders and who are creating wonderful photography. As members in this community attack one another over such matters. It strikes me as childish and closed minded. I am a theoretical physicist, I am use to rational discourse rather than emotional, so this issue is probably lost on me. But, it really does detract from having what could be very enjoyable exchanges of ideas.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Juan, Fuji's film sales declines over the last few years have followed pretty much the same trajectory as Kodak's. But Fuji is in a much better financial position overall than Kodak, and could potentially exit the film market sooner than Kodak because of it. Fuji, unlike Kodak, if profitable in other areas.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Well, it makes sense that if digital cameras are for the masses long ago, some old film manufacturers will have to say goodbye...

But that is far from meaning all of them will.

The process will be slow, and will continue beyond us. Hope my newborn twins shoot film with my cameras and other models to come from Mr. K!

Cheers,

Juan

 

[dfoo]

Seriously, when film dies, I'll just chuck the film cameras in the trash. Until then I'll use them. I shot film exclusively for 40 years, but have never had a particular "passion" for it, as I have never been in love with cameras as artifacts. It is the images that interest me.

The whole debate is very interesting, though.

The biggest problem I have is printing from digital cameras. I like my darkroom!

 

[biggambi]

I must admit I understand KM's point, and I agree. Both systems are related but definitely apart, because they imply different procedures. It's just that. Any photographer, including him, knows a good photographer is a good one with any camera.

Again, some baroque music records are fake in my opinion, and not real music if they were made with digitalized procedures instead of using and recording -from air- XVII th century gut strings real instruments. Are those recordings used? Of course, for elevators, dentists (just some of them) and some people, maybe in a massive way. Go ask any director or composer or instrumentalist what they prefer. Best has always been a minority thing.

Cheers,

Juan

Juan,

You are one of those people that can see the tree, but not the forest. I play jazz guitar, a rather narrow spectrum of the musical world. I understand the fundamentals of music begin with rhythm, and proceed from there. Lots of people make music in lots of ways. Just as lots of photographers make images in lots of ways. They all constitute the same things within their respective genres.

We are going to greatly disagree over such a myopic way of viewing the world, such as yours.

Kindest Regards,

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

No problem for me if you consider everything's the same. Many of us consider important people like you exist.

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Pickett Wilson]

dfoo, my Epson 3800 occupies about 3 feet by 2 feet of space and I can print 17" x 22 " inch prints from it and don't have to clean up the mess. Sure don't miss the darkroom! 🙂 I still process B&W film, but scan and print to the Epson.

 

[biggambi]

No problem for me if you consider everything's the same. Many of us consider important people like you exist.

Cheers,

Juan

Juan,

It's not that they are not differentiable, hence the word genre. Where the crux of the problem lies is that the word Photography and Music are not genres, they are types of things. Digital and film are genres within photography. Just as jazz and blues are genres within music. The issue is hinged on the basics of nomenclature. This is all quite simple, once those standards are followed.

Kindest Regards,

 

[Nikon Bob]

Talk about blaspheme! Do you actually expect real photographers to look at the unwashed ignorant masses of digital drones as equals? Face it some people are enlightened and others or ignorant and dim witted that just the way it is.

Speaking from the position of being ignorant and dim witted, hehaw pass the cool aid. Shirley you must be joking.

Bob

 

[Mcary]

Speaking from the position of being ignorant and dim witted, hehaw pass the cool aid. Shirley you must be joking.

Bob

No I'm not joking and stop calling me Shirley

Tell me Jimmy do like watching gladiator movies

 

[KM-25]

Oh, come on, it's just his PO.. 😉

Exactly, and that is what Bill wanted to hear. I know that my personal feeling that digital and the use of the now all too common computer not being photography is going to ruffle some feathers, but what am I supposed to do, B/S people?

Digital is a medium in photography, it is just not my kind anymore.

Life is too short to not go big, reach for true brilliance and be the best you that you can possibly be. So in that, I am cutting out the B/S in my life and getting down to core values.

I don't think anyone who is secure in their work and their choice of medium is going to be offended by what I say, I am certainly not offended by people who do not agree with me.

 

[KM-25]

He is a very capable writer, and he did not chose these words haphazardly.

Actually, I kind of did, I thought I had put "For my needs" on the end of it, so without that, folks are going to take offense when they should not.

 

[biggambi]

Actually, I kind of did, I thought I had put "For my needs" on the end of it, so without that, folks are going to take offense when they should not.

Fair enough, because otherwise I liked the article very much. Thank you for responding, and setting the correct perspective on it. As for me, I have just become overly critical of the words people are using due to the constant bickering that goes on at this forum. I certainly reacted in the strongest of fashion. Thus, my post is edited, and my view altered. I can understand gravitating to the form of photography that speaks loudest to you. I still shoot film and I have a fondness for it. But, for me digital has superseded it in many ways, for my needs. I wish it would catch up in the B&W aspect, because it lacks the degree of shading that film brings. And I still love the look of a fine dark room print.

Kindest Regards,