When they no longer make film...

Pickett Wilson said:
Having tried colloidion wet plates in the past, I have no clue how they got such nice prints back in the day. It's a messy, difficult process that is almost impossible to keep dust and uneven coating problems away. Got to admire those old time photographers.
Click to expand...


Thats why it took about a generation from the time of the wet plate, and the arrival of flexible roll film in portable cameras, until photography became "popular". Previous to that only the really dedicated can and will engage in it.
 
But the cost of a 100 rolls of your Velvia is $2,000. The cost of 3600 exposures on the digital camera? Nothing. The cost of 100,000 exposures on the digital? Nothing.
 
If you don't have a computer already, you probably wouldn't be interested in a digital camera anyway! ;)

Most folks had computers before digital cameras came along.
 
It's still a required expense. And not just any computer will do. Try using Photoshop on a netbook.:) Storing 100,000 photos...CD burner, backup drives, etc., etc.

But the biggest factor is depreciation...I saw an ebay auction last night for an M8.2. $3500 buy it now, the owner bought it 10 months ago for $6000. That's $250/month in depreciation.
 
I hope film never gets as scarce as .380 ammo. (50 shots were $12 two years ago - the same box was $86 yesterday)

I find the ammo shortage very suspicious. An end around on the 2nd amendment?

Give me my K64 and .380, please.
 
$37 for a box of .45 ammo at Walmart now. The ammo shortage is a result, though, of folks buying and hoarding thousands of rounds because they fear Obama is going to take it way. Same with guns. Folks gone crazy. What do they think they are hoarding it for? To take on the US government?

<rant mode off>
 
When they no longer make film...

... I will shoot digitally exclusively. What's the problem?
If I want to shoot, I'll take whatever is available.

No matter if format 120, format 135, a digital sensor or a "multidimensional-nano-crystalline-image-storage-device" (or whatever it will be called).

And, I will look at my old cameras, hold them in my hands and adore their beatuy. ;)
 
chippy said:
there wont be any lead pencils--you will have to use a digi tablet and stylus :p
Click to expand...

There will always be graphite. ;-)

Won't help me, one of the reasons I got in to photography was I have trouble drawing a straight line with a pencil.

I wonder what the cinema folks will do-- of course TV was supposed to kill off cinema which was supposed to kill off the stage. ;-)

Are the theaters just getting a DVD now? ;-)
 
Pickett Wilson said:
$37 for a box of .45 ammo at Walmart now. The ammo shortage is a result, though, of folks buying and hoarding thousands of rounds because they fear Obama is going to take it way. Same with guns. Folks gone crazy. What do they think they are hoarding it for? To take on the US government?

<rant mode off>
Click to expand...
Damn!....that's reminded me - the wife wants to go shooting with me tomorrow! :bang:
Dave.
3956109914_e3f0dceffe.jpg
 
Pickett Wilson said:
$37 for a box of .45 ammo at Walmart now. The ammo shortage is a result, though, of folks buying and hoarding thousands of rounds because they fear Obama is going to take it way. Same with guns. Folks gone crazy. What do they think they are hoarding it for? To take on the US government?

<rant mode off>
Click to expand...

Perhaps the government can balance the budget selling ammo? ;-) They probably have some stored from WWI yet.

Looks as if it is going up faster than gold?

Easy enough to reload, am guessing the price of copper especially plays a role? Time for those muzzle loaders to be dusted off?

Is anyone much paying that price for ammo?


Regards, John
 
antiquark said:
There are currently a few things film does better than digital. I guess the question is, how long will it take for digital to surpass film in those aspects?

One is sensor size. You can buy an 8x10 sheet if film. For the digital equivalent, I assure you there is no such thing as an 8x10 image sensor. It would cost a million dollars. Technology would have to progress beyond silicon wafers before 8x10 sensors appear.

Regarding full frame, the up-front cost of digital is ~ $2000. The cost of a roll of velvia is, what, $20? FF digital will have to come down quite a bit before it matches the cheapness of film.

Another aspect is ruggedness. You have to keep a digital camera within a certain temperature range for it to operate properly. With film, you have a wider range, especially if you have a mechanical camera. Not sure how long it will take for digital to match that.

Yet another aspect is the capability of zero-power operation. You can expose a frame of film for six months if you wanted to, without changing batteries or keeping it plugged in. Maybe someone will invent a digital sensor that's powered by the light hitting it, but that's probably many decades away.

I don't know, do technological advances usually result in things that are inferior in some respects? The only one I can think of (not that I've researched it much) is the old Victrola. A crank operated record player needed zero power! However, electric audio technologies caught on, and nobody bemoans the fact that we can't crank our ipods.
Click to expand...

physical sensor size- I am not convinced that a sensor that is physically 8x10 would be required to meet or exceed the image quality of an 8x10 negative. I think MF digital will end up replacing LF film, FF digital will end up replacing MF film, and smaller sensors will take the place of 35mm.

As to the expense, I am of the opinion that digital is already cheaper than film, if you shop smart and avoid GAS attacks. A 36 exposure roll of velvia is $6.25 here. 320 rolls costs 2000 dollars. That is 11,520 shots. Sure, there are plenty of GASsy people who get rid of digital cameras WAY before they accumulate that many shots, but as long as you press the shutter release button with the camera pointing at something 11,521 times, a digital body is cheaper than the film you would have put through a 35mm camera (note that the cost of a 35mm camera wasn't even factored in there). The weak link of a DSLR is the shutter, and you still get over 100,000 firings out of one.

As to ruggedness, I think there is as much difference from model to model and brand to brand as there is from film to digital. My Leica handled extreme heat better than my D700 can, but the leica HATED anything remotely resembling cold, which the D700 can handle it a bit (only about ten degrees, but still) better.

I do acknowledge your point about zero-power operation. Compared to never having to worry about it, keeping batteries charged is an aggravation. Leaving film in a camera for six months isnt really analogous though. You leave film in because the roll isn't finished. You don't have to fill a memory card before you dump it, so if you leave data on one for so long that it ends up being corrupted, it is your own fault. Also, the debate between electric and non-electric cameras has been going on long before digital was a reality, so I won't get in to that one here, other than saying that if it were somehow magically possible to get a digital camera that didnt require batteries, i would be all over it.

Unless people are specifically engineering new products to be worse than old ones, which does occasionally happen (toasters and american cars come to mind) the march of progress generally continues forward, unabated. You may not be able to hand crank a modern Hi-Fi, but you can't get surround sound out of a Victrola.
 
chippy said:
lol, thats about the cost of it in Oz....you USA wimps :p :D
Click to expand...


I was thinking that was the "tourist" price in much of Europe, which is why I used to bring it with me.

Prague remained reasonable for a long time, though the dollar dropping, next week's $10 is this weeks $5, so think positively, the money will be worth so little film will be a bargain at that price. ;-)

Am shopping for a new freezer and some tinfoil to block the cosmic rays as well, or am going to have a bullet and film sale one of these days.

A few years ago, people thought they were wasting their time shooting film that was out dated by a week or two, now they are fighting over it.

One thing, am not seeing any film for sale at Camera Shows.

There may still be time to buy Neobrom in Brno, has been shut down for at least fifteen years, but property values are down in the Czech Republic, I could see a co-op of RFF members taking turns running off a batch of film and paper. ;-)

Have planned on picking up some Efke in Croatia, could use a road trip.

Regards, John
 
Dave Wilkinson said:
.....and what do they need or use it all for ??:confused:
Click to expand...


Nothing in your neck of the woods, but back when I was target shooting, it put nice holes in paper. I was shooting around 100 rounds of 44 Special in an 1873 Colt a few nights a week.

Met a collector in Cleethorpes, all of his collection is in pieces now.

It is like most hobbies, they often look foolish to people not involved. My friends think I am crazy to have film cameras at all-- and you cannot explain it to them, no matter how hard you try, a picture to them will always now be something on a computer. What do you need film for? Still use your typewriter? ;-)

Reminds me of the days when people would admire a camera I was holding, and ask, "Does that camera take good pictures?", or "Is that a slide camera?", can you really answer those questions?

I have a good friend, he spent a month doing some research and traveling in Italy, taking a Casio his daughter found, shooting everything at low res to get all his pictures on one card.

His daughter just lost the camera, and the card, am not sure he is particularly upset, I think most of the images are on line somewhere, at even lower res.

So, to them, what do you need film for? And what do you "need" a Rangefinder camera for?

Regards, John
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
I think small European companies like Foma and Efke will be the last left. They both seem to be doing well, as is Ilford. Kodak built a new plant for professional film production a few yrs ago that was designed for low volume production in anticipation of film demand dropping off in favor of digital, so they should be able to stay in the game for a while.
Click to expand...

One thing about these two, they have existed for a long time on a limited market. My friend Misha was "Foma USA", and it was an uphill battle.

If they could stay in business with the small market they had, I am thinking they could remain in business a long time on the niche that remains when others close.

When I was first dealing with them, everyone in Czech Republic wanted Kodak, as Kodak = quality. Foma and Neobrom really wanted to be "just like Kodak" and compete with them in color. Twenty years ago, regular people in Czechoslovakia shot B&W the way we shot color snaps. Color film was still the next hill to climb, when people could afford it. Here, B&W was already more expensive than color.

So fast forward to today, they may be well positioned to serve the niche market, established, low overhead, trained workforce, and a global market.

I suggested this very scenario to them when I was associated with Misha, but they screwed around for years, until relatively recently, making "Acupan" etc. They may have wandered into a very decent market for a company in a fairly small country.

They are not some bloated company with huge health care costs, golden parachutes (actually I think Neobrom went belly up because the manager made himself a golden parachute and got a Mercedes), so their position may well be such that their film production should progress quite nicely as a sustainable entity.

When I was importing or trying to import their products, they just did not see the potential, they were trying to be Kodak. Current events may well be in their favor now.

Regards, John
 
JohnTF said:
Nothing in your neck of the woods, but back when I was target shooting, it put nice holes in paper. I was shooting around 100 rounds of 44 Special in an 1873 Colt a few nights a week.

Met a collector in Cleethorpes, all of his collection is in pieces now.

It is like most hobbies, they often look foolish to people not involved. My friends think I am crazy to have film cameras at all-- and you cannot explain it to them, no matter how hard you try, a picture to them will always now be something on a computer. What do you need film for? Still use your typewriter? ;-)

Reminds me of the days when people would admire a camera I was holding, and ask, "Does that camera take good pictures?", or "Is that a slide camera?", can you really answer those questions?

I have a good friend, he spent a month doing some research and traveling in Italy, taking a Casio his daughter found, shooting everything at low res to get all his pictures on one card.

His daughter just lost the camera, and the card, am not sure he is particularly upset, I think most of the images are on line somewhere, at even lower res.

So, to them, what do you need film for? And what do you "need" a Rangefinder camera for?

Regards, John
Click to expand...
That's fine! - thanks for the info....I was not being derisive ( I know I occasionally am! ) - just curious! :)
Dave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom