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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
color vision spyder and print fix conclusion | william kossack | Digital Photography | 0 | January 9th 05 04:53 AM |