A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » General Photography » In The Darkroom
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

is it a forgone conclusion...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 25th 05, 11:13 AM
Justin Thyme
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Joe Mama" wrote in message
. ..
that this ng will be irrelevant in a year or so? i certainly hope not, but
film seems to be dieing a slow, painful death.

i'm 43, and it sucks to think that in a decade, or less, that film--as we
knew it--will be gone.

This is an interesting thing. Film formats like 126 and 110 were extremely
popular only 20 years ago, yet now they are almost non-existent. Both had
advantages and disadvantages over 35mm, yet both died. 20-25 years ago,
nearly every compact camera was either 126 or 110 format. Back in those
days these were the mainstream format for mum & dad p&s'ers, mainly because
the drop in cartridges meant ease of use. 35mm was a premium product used
mainly by SLR cameras or only the more expensive compacts. As compact 35mm
cameras got better though (and autoloading became standard), 35mm became the
film of choice for most compact cameras, and 126 & 110 died. Then came APS -
if not for the digital revolution, I think APS would have easily become the
most common film for mum & dad shooters with compact cameras, because it is
so easy.
So it seems that what the mum & dad point & shooters use is the most readily
available product. 126 and 110 film can still be bought, but only from
specialists. 120 and 220 film can still be bought, but only from
specialists. For all intents and purposes though, these other formats are
now dead. Since the mainstream seem to be switching to digital, history
would tell us that film will be all but dead, but still available as a niche
product.
BUT, there are a couple of other things film has going for it. The big one
is entry cost. Film cameras at all levels are significantly cheaper than
their digital equivalent. Eg (In Australian prices), a basic film compact
can be had for $15, whereas the basic digital compact is about $125. A basic
film zoom camera costs around $100, whereas it is about $250 for the same in
digital. SLR's come in at about $300 for film, $1300 for digital. At all of
these levels, the film camera is capable of a better image than it's
equivalent digital. Eg, you have to jump up to about a $400 digital compact
to be comparable to a film compact. A $3000 DSLR is where you start matching
a $300 film SLR. Film's disadvantage is in it's longterm cost - basically,
digital has a high capital outlay and low running cost, whereas film has a
low capital outlay and high running cost. This is not likely to change in a
hurry, so film will always be king for people with lower disposable incomes.
This is evidenced by the high sales of disposable cameras. I have a friend
who works at a mini-lab store, and disposable cameras account for about 2/3
of their film sales, and about 1/3 of their printing.
Digital is the big boom trend, but I am already starting to see some of the
wheels falling off the bandwagon. A lot of people I speak to agree that
digital is great for their snaps, but they would still prefer to commit
their serious work to film. A lot of people also indicate that they prefer
the look of film images. A lot of people indicate that DSLR's are out of
their price range, and they find a compact digicam too limiting, so while
they may use the compact digicam for their happy snaps, they continue to
shoot film for anything that requires the more advanced functions of an SLR.
Another thing I frequently hear is people who have found that digital has
re-kindled their interest in photography, and then they find themselves
switching back to film for a more pure form of the hobby. Others had
digital rekindle their interest, (or even spark an interest they didn't know
they had) found their digicam limiting, and have invested in film SLR's, and
started shooting slides or B&W. I know of quite a few people who have had
digital cameras, and now shoot more film than they did 5 years ago, so maybe
the writing isn't totally on the wall yet.
So we might see a serious decline in the amount of stores that carry
consumer colour film, but I expect film will still be available for a long
time to come from specialist stores. Heck I already find it hard to find
colour neg film other than 100 and 400 ISO - I have been known to buy
disposable cameras just so I can rob them of the 800ISO film inside them.

bummer, dude....



  #22  
Old February 25th 05, 07:26 PM
Apasny Mitia 944660015
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

can be had for $15, whereas the basic digital compact is about $125. A
basic
film zoom camera costs around $100, whereas it is about $250 for the same

in
digital. SLR's come in at about $300 for film, $1300 for digital. At all

of
these levels, the film camera is capable of a better image than it's


even SLR film camera is "capable" only if you are spend $$$ for really good
film and processing.

and Time=Money.
i am not professional but Niagara Falls are 15hr of driving in one way

PS especially after Canon anonced new "Digital Rebel"

  #23  
Old February 25th 05, 08:34 PM
Nicholas O. Lindan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Justin Thyme" wrote

This is an interesting thing. Film formats like 126 and 110 were extremely
popular only 20 years ago, yet now they are almost non-existent. Both had
advantages and disadvantages over 35mm, yet both died.


My opinionated view:

Don't forget 'disc'. The 126-110-disc [early 60's - mid 70's]
progression was a terrible descent into the cesspit of adequacy
and the backlash to 35mm inevitable. A 35mm could be counted on
to produce a 'wow you should be a professional' snapshot with 'lots
of different colors' in it. Remember all those tourist-dads
walking around mountain vistas with an SLR to which was invariably coupled
an 80-200 zoom [mid-70's to late 80's].

Film formats had been getting smaller for
http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/filmsize.html.
Smaller = cheaper and smaller = convenient have been the driving forces.
However, all the marketing hype in the world won't prevent the populace from
settling (eventually) on the best compromise - no matter a corporation's
desire for higher profits. The point and shoot 35mm held the crown after the
SLR as dad ditched the 80-200 for a bottle of Viagra.

Consumer digital is doing well on the gee-whiz factor. Most likely
the falling price/performance ratio, doubling every 2 years, will hold
and digital will become king-of-the hill for real: the best _compromise_
choice. If not then there may be a move back to 35 as there was with
126-110-disc.

Then came APS - if not for the digital revolution, I think APS would
have easily become the most common film for mum & dad shooters with
compact cameras, because it is so easy.


That was the promise. But it wasn't easy: film was harder to find, not
everybody would process it, it cost substantially more (no WalMart house
brands), only a few cameras to choose from, you couldn't see the negatives,
and finally: the results were inferior. P&S's were all auto load: shove
35mm in the back, shove APS in the bottom: who cares? Both were speed-coded.
Marketing hype, that the 'smaller negative is perfectly adequate for the
average photographer's needs' fell on it's face -- people still rumbaed
being led down that path by Kodak several times before, and had a drawer
full of 126 Instamatics, 110 Instamatics, disc Instamatics and Instant
Instamatics to prove it.

So it seems that what the mum & dad point & shooters use is the most readily
available product.


Yes, 35mm was lingua franca and the key was it produced much better than
adequate
results at a reasonable price. If adequacy is all that is required we would
all be listening to 8-tracks, driving Trabbants and eating Purina Monkey
Chow for dinner.

SLR's come in at about $300 for film, $1300 for digital.


Oooh, it's a bigger spread than that: A $167 Pentax w/ 50mm f2 loaded with
Kodachrome will outperform an $8,000 digital camera. Load it with tech
pan (or TMX100 in MX) and it is no contest.

However, in 10-20 years that $8,000 digital will perform 10-100 times
better and cost $167. 20 years ago the zowy computer was an XT with
640K (packed!) memory and a 10 Meg hard drive (how am I _ever_ going to
fill that up). Moore's law for solid-state electronics (everything
doubles every two years) looks like it is good for the next 10 years
at the minimum: last year's technology show-stopper is this year's
'so what?'.

Film's disadvantage is in it's long-term cost


Yes, but the reason turns out to be that people only print 1 in 100 of
the pictures they take. Somewhat balanced in that they take 20 times as many
pictures.

On the consumables front: the price of ink and paper is _not_ subject to
Moore's law. The relative parity of ink-jet and silver prints will
hold.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

  #24  
Old February 25th 05, 08:41 PM
Nicholas O. Lindan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote

Film formats had been getting smaller for
http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/filmsize.html


Wrong link--try:

http://www.nwmangum.com/Kodak/FilmHist.html

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/
  #25  
Old February 25th 05, 10:54 PM
Max
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You make a very good point, but I still have to differ just slightly.

Old formats die ridiculously hard. I'm sure you'd be shocked--literally
*shocked*--that magnetic tape still has a near and dear place in
everyone's heart as a significantly better means of backup than optical,
simply because it takes up such little space and is almost universally
readable. Plus it never goes bad. You can fit a kilometer of tape on a
shelf somewhere and it'll be good for a millennium.

Vinyl, on the other hand, has lived so long because it is an aurally
superior storage of music. No matter how good CD's become, their
discrete nature will always be won out easily by a 78rpm vinyl or
Bakelite disc. In the same vein, actually, three-inch magnetic tape is
even better. At, say, 30 inches per second recording, it's as good as
live if not better.

VHS is dead because it just isn't as good as DVD. Its advantages, few
though they were, are now gone and there's just nothing left to keep
people buying them. Even the VCR has been easily phased out by the hard
drive based equivalent: a TiVo.

Sorry for the rant . . . my background is as a deejay and my majors are
computer science and physics ;-P

My point is that as long as film still has something on digital, which
it does right now, it will live on. And even then, there's always
nostalgia. Just as hipsters resurrected Pumas, film could easily be
resurrected if it ever dies out completely.

- max

bob wrote:
Max wrote:

Foregone conclusion is such a strong phrase. I think that the
vacations and family photos crowd is already jumping from colour film
to digital because it's so cheap in the long run, but that doesn't
mean anything.



Actually it means quite a bit. When you take away all the film that
journalists used to shoot, and all the film that product photogs used to
shoot, and all the film that wedding photogs, portrait studios, and the
like used to shoot, and add to that all the film that the vacation and
family crowd used to shoot, well it doesn't take too much to realize
that at some point there will no longer be a large enough market to
justify manufacturing 35mm color film any more. Just like there's no LP
records, and soon there will probably be no VHS. There's some, true
enough, but not for most people's vision of reality.

Bob

  #26  
Old February 26th 05, 12:28 AM
Stefan Patric
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thursday 24 February 2005 20:29, Frank Pittel wrote:

Steven Kefford ""keff.antispam\"@ f2s.com" wrote:
: Max wrote:
: ...
: A friend of mine won't stop talking about how film is dead and how
: much he loves his digital and how I need to buy one. But why? For
: now, at
: ...

: Why do digital evangelists have to prophesise that film is dead? Do
: they
: need some extra justification for their switch to digital? Why
: can't
: they be content with their digital, and let others make there own
: decisions?

I think that most of them are trying to justify going digital to
themselves.


No. They REALLY do believe digital produces better quality images than
film. (But believing doesn't make it so.) And anyone, who isn't a
believer -- say, Hallelujah! -- is a poor, unfortunate, misguided, dumb
as a post soul, who must be saved or be lost in photo hell forever.
(Another Hallelujah, please.) Such is the way of the arrogant:
They're always right and everyone else is wrong, irrespective of the
facts. Fanatics have a tremendous capacity to explain away the truth,
if it doesn't fit their ideology.

--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group

  #27  
Old February 26th 05, 12:52 AM
Stefan Patric
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thursday 24 February 2005 21:10, Frank Pittel wrote:

Stefan Patric wrote:
: On Thursday 24 February 2005 00:42, Joe Mama wrote:

: that this ng will be irrelevant in a year or so? i certainly hope
: not, but film seems to be dieing a slow, painful death.
:
: i'm 43, and it sucks to think that in a decade, or less, that
: film--as we knew it--will be gone.

: There is one absolute: Progress begets obsolescence. And its
: corollary as it relates to capitalism: If it's not profitable, you
: can't afford to sell it. But do I think film will disappear entirely
: in the next
: decade or so? Or ever? No. No more so than wainwrights,
: blacksmiths
: or shepards have. Even though they are rare and the services they
: provide are from another era and forgotten by most, they are still
: needed, and they exist because a market for those services exist.
: Such
: will be the case with film. And just as some are compelled to
: embrace the new and abandon the old, just because it's new, there
: are always a few traditionalists, who find satisfaction in the old
: ways, even though they are considered relics of the past by those
: who think "new and improved" always means "better."

: So, as long as there are photographers who need film, there will
: always
: be those competing to provide it. That's what makes capitalism and
: free enterprise better than any other economic philosophy. Only
: when traditional photographers and those who appreciate traditional
: photographs cease to exist will film become truly extinct. And when
: might that be?

: Why can't digital and film co-exist, each on its own merits? Why
: must one displace the other?

They can and are co-existing. I personally have a digital camera as
well as a number of film camera. They both have their place and
advantages. (as well as disadvantages)


Not in the eyes of the digital bigots. To them, we are currently in a
transitional state where digital photography is in the process of
supplanting and forever eliminating film photography. With the
digitals, there can never be co-existence. Why would there need to be?
Digital is, after all, totally superior in every way to film.

To me, digital cameras are just another tool in my kit. Superior in
some ways to film, but not in others. And that means I have a greater
choice in picking the proper tool that fits the job. What could be
better?

--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group

  #28  
Old February 26th 05, 02:45 AM
Nicholas O. Lindan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Max" wrote

Old formats die ridiculously hard. I'm sure you'd be shocked--literally
*shocked*--that magnetic tape still has a near and dear place in
everyone's heart as a significantly better means of backup than optical,


For 9-track, not shocked at all. It is the death of 1/4" and
cassettes I had in mind.

Plus it never goes bad.


Oh yes it does ... the binder turns to goo.

it'll be good for a millennium.


Ask Warner Bros.

Vinyl, on the other hand, has lived so long because it is an aurally
superior storage of music. No matter how good CD's become,


Now here we part company. I am an engineer, after all.

But I grew up on records and I think they sound great. I have been listening
to the same scratches, dirt and gouges since forever and if they are gone
the music just isn't the same.

three-inch magnetic tape is even better. At, say, 30 inches
per second recording, [it's better than live]


If it's rap music and the tape has turned to goo, I will agree with you.

Sorry for the rant . . . my background is as a deejay and my majors are
computer science and physics ;-P


Fallen from Grace, you say. Or is it that you _were_ a DJ and are now
studying 'computer science' (if it has to say it is a science in the
name you know it is not. 'social science'? Like 'mouth watering' on
the menu: my mouth always waters right before I throw up; don't know
why the restaurants want to advertise it.) - switch to engineering -
engineering is applied physics.

My point is that as long as film still has something on digital, which
it does right now, it will live on.


Yes, but digital has a long long way to go before it reaches its
limits.

Just as hipsters resurrected Pumas ...


Whaaa?

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/
  #29  
Old February 26th 05, 02:50 AM
Nicholas O. Lindan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Stefan Patric" wrote

No. They REALLY do believe digital produces better quality images than
film.


Of course they do.

Nobody says "I shoot digital because it is inferior and I am a dumb-ass".

and

Nobody says "I shoot film because it is inferior and I am a dumb-ass".


But believing doesn't make it so.


Blasphemy. I will pray for your immortal soul.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/
  #30  
Old February 26th 05, 07:53 AM
Max
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hahahahaha oops. I have the distinct feeling that I'm clearly the
youngest person on this entire newsgroup.

You're totally right about cassettes. Those died long ago. But that's
missing the point! The introduction of a new format does not necessarily
make the old one obsolete. Digital still has a lot of potential, and
it's an exciting technology for those it can benefit the most.
Personally, I feel like if I bought a digital camera for anything other
than movies (I can't afford film for my super-8. . .), then I would
never use my film cameras. It's probably an irrational fear. I love the
process of bringing my images from concept to print. I learned
photography as part of a vocational program in high school while I was
learning lithography, so I consider it kind of like a trade. I don't
want to see it die just like I don't want to see lithography die (which
it clearly hasn't, even though there's xerography to "replace" it).

All I'm saying, and all I've said to all of my digital fan friends, is
that if you're so down on film, just shut up about it and leave the rest
of us alone. There are magical things that happen in the body of a film
camera that it's difficult for me to imagine reproducing in the digital
world. My pinhole cameras that I've built, for instance, each see the
world in a unique way. I think folks are a little too quick to the draw,
even if it really is a foregone conclusion.

- max

PS - Pumas are shoes. They were really popular in the eighties and now
crowds of young folks are wearing them again. "Vintage" has somehow
become a marketable term for new clothing; not sure how that works, but
whatever.


Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
"Max" wrote


Old formats die ridiculously hard. I'm sure you'd be shocked--literally
*shocked*--that magnetic tape still has a near and dear place in
everyone's heart as a significantly better means of backup than optical,



For 9-track, not shocked at all. It is the death of 1/4" and
cassettes I had in mind.


Plus it never goes bad.



Oh yes it does ... the binder turns to goo.


it'll be good for a millennium.



Ask Warner Bros.


Vinyl, on the other hand, has lived so long because it is an aurally
superior storage of music. No matter how good CD's become,



Now here we part company. I am an engineer, after all.

But I grew up on records and I think they sound great. I have been listening
to the same scratches, dirt and gouges since forever and if they are gone
the music just isn't the same.


three-inch magnetic tape is even better. At, say, 30 inches
per second recording, [it's better than live]



If it's rap music and the tape has turned to goo, I will agree with you.


Sorry for the rant . . . my background is as a deejay and my majors are
computer science and physics ;-P



Fallen from Grace, you say. Or is it that you _were_ a DJ and are now
studying 'computer science' (if it has to say it is a science in the
name you know it is not. 'social science'? Like 'mouth watering' on
the menu: my mouth always waters right before I throw up; don't know
why the restaurants want to advertise it.) - switch to engineering -
engineering is applied physics.


My point is that as long as film still has something on digital, which
it does right now, it will live on.



Yes, but digital has a long long way to go before it reaches its
limits.


Just as hipsters resurrected Pumas ...



Whaaa?

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
color vision spyder and print fix conclusion william kossack Digital Photography 0 January 9th 05 05:53 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.