So film is dead?

Read this...

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...html?aff=r ss

"Ric Trexell" wrote in message
net...
Read this...

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...html?aff=r ss


No, it just "hit bottom."

"He added: 'In general, you could say that all professional films are in
various stages of decline, but this appears to be a year where I am seeing a
significant relative strength, where sales are very close to where they were
in 2007, with black & white film type performing very well among all
formats.' "

Of course the Casio digital camera advertisement over the article was a bit
ironic... :-)
-Jim

Ric Trexell wrote:
Read this...

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...html?aff=r ss

The trend of film not being dead has been going for longer than digital
has been around...


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Ric Trexell wrote,on my timestamp of 8/11/2008 8:09 AM:
Read this...

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...html?aff=r ss




a large number of the newest subscribers to APUG
has been from folks returning to film after using
digital.

Like I said a few months ago:
the death of digital is imminent.
g,d&r

"Noons" wrote in message
...
Ric Trexell wrote,on my timestamp of 8/11/2008 8:09 AM:
Read this...

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...html?aff=r ss




a large number of the newest subscribers to APUG
has been from folks returning to film after using
digital.

Like I said a few months ago:
the death of digital is imminent.
g,d&r




As a wedding photographer, I shoot digital. Young people are computer
oriented, and with the growth in popularity of flush-mounted wedding albums,
among other factors, digital makes more sense, that plus the fact that I
can proof as I shoot, to the relief of all concerned.

However, for personal enjoyment, I much prefer film. I don't see the death
of either.


Patrick

Patrick L wrote,on my timestamp of 10/11/2008 6:52 AM:


As a wedding photographer, I shoot digital.

'sOK, I won't hold that against you!


However, for personal enjoyment, I much prefer film. I don't see the
death of either.

Me neither. I just enjoy taking the
mickey out of digital barfheads...

"Ric Trexell" wrote in message
net...
Read this...


http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...html?aff=r ss

************************************************** **************************
*******
I wasn't trying to start another one of those digital/film is better
debates. I shoot film but my interest is preserving photos. If we use
digital or film and our photos only last a few years, why bother. So many
times when I ask the average Joe or Sally what they are doing to preserve
their digital photos, they will give me the same lame answers of 'how you
can store it on your computer'. I then point out that I didn't ask how one
can store their pictures, I was asking how 'they' store their pictures.
They tell me about burning them to CD's and then I ask are you using
archivial CD's or just regular ones. Ofcourse they have been told that CD's
last for a million years and then ask what is an archivial CD. I think a
lot of people will be loosing their digital photos in the next few years.
I'm not talking about the guy that has a $1000 Nikon and knows all this, I'm
talking about the woman with her new $75 digital P&S that has no idea about
the need for careful storage. Hopefully I'm wrong and people will have
their photos for decades to come. I'm just thinking that day may come when
we hear about how a lot of people have lost their Hawaii vacation photos or
that first birthday party shots of their kids birthdays. Time will tell.
Ric in Wisconsin.

Ric Trexell wrote:
"Ric Trexell" wrote in message
net...
Read this...


http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...html?aff=r ss
************************************************** **************************
*******
I wasn't trying to start another one of those digital/film is better
debates. I shoot film but my interest is preserving photos. If we use
digital or film and our photos only last a few years, why bother. So many
times when I ask the average Joe or Sally what they are doing to preserve
their digital photos, they will give me the same lame answers of 'how you
can store it on your computer'. I then point out that I didn't ask how one
can store their pictures, I was asking how 'they' store their pictures.
They tell me about burning them to CD's and then I ask are you using
archivial CD's or just regular ones. Ofcourse they have been told that CD's
last for a million years and then ask what is an archivial CD. I think a
lot of people will be loosing their digital photos in the next few years.
I'm not talking about the guy that has a $1000 Nikon and knows all this, I'm
talking about the woman with her new $75 digital P&S that has no idea about
the need for careful storage. Hopefully I'm wrong and people will have
their photos for decades to come. I'm just thinking that day may come when
we hear about how a lot of people have lost their Hawaii vacation photos or
that first birthday party shots of their kids birthdays. Time will tell.
Ric in Wisconsin.


I guess that for most people the print is sufficient - after all, they
probably have old BW photos from their parents or g/parents. It doesn't
occur to them that color prints don't and won't last as long as the old
BW images. Almost universally, they don't keep the negatives, or at
best they are put in some drawer in the packet they came in from the
processor.

I recall years ago now seeing 35mm and 126 negatives scattered along the
street, in the gutter, discarded as soon as they left the store. They
have the prints, why do they need these funny orange negatives - can't
see much on them anyway. This situation has actually been aided and
abetted by Kodak with their print copy machines - 'no negative needed'
approach.

The point I am making is that relatively few people consider the
longevity of their images, and fewer still actually do something about
it. At least the digital users might burn their images to a CD/DVD and
perhaps give copies to their relatives, which is not perfect, but better
than a badly stored or no negative.

There is one potential problem that besets digital, though. With film,
once you've shot your 24 or 36 images, you get them processed, and you
have 24/36 prints in your hand. Digital cameras, with multi-gigabyte
cards installed can store hundreds or even thousands of images, none of
which get printed. At best they are looked at once or twice on the
computer, then forgotten. That is the real downside of digital. Too
many images, no prints at all.

There was an article in the local paper just yesterday in which the
owner of a burgled camera was pleading for the return of the SD card
'You can keep the camera, please just return the card' because it had
images of his late mother and some other stuff he wanted. Very sad.

The fact remains that probably fewer than 0.1% (ballpark) camera users
pay any attention to long-term keeping of their images.

Colin D.

Ric Trexell wrote:

the need for careful storage. Hopefully I'm wrong and people will have
their photos for decades to come. I'm just thinking that day may come
when we hear about how a lot of people have lost their Hawaii vacation
photos or
that first birthday party shots of their kids birthdays. Time will tell.
Ric in Wisconsin.

OTOH the same people who don't pay attention to careful storage of their
digital photos probally didn't store their negatives in acid free storage
in a temperature and humidity controlled environment either...

Pete


--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

That Rich wrote:

This is very true Ric.
I am rather anal about archiving my stuff and have been for many
years, yet I can't convince my own children the need to archive
important photographs. They both use P&S digital, print one in a
thousand photos and store the rest on HDD waiting to fail. Hopefully,
I won't need to say.......... "I told you so".

Goodness, get them to mirror the important stuff to a second hard drive in
an external caddy.

No point in telling you, you know this!


--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk