Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              20      
21
       end
  

Archive 2016 · Could you go back to film?

  
 
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.21 #1 · p.21 #1 · Could you go back to film?


So far the survey says that over 210 people feel film has no relevance to them whatsoever.

In contrast, just over 30 individuals find fulfillment through film.

Seems pretty conclusive that from this heavily weighted demographic (most respondents are previous film users or are very familiar with film's attributes, not "general public") that film is essentially dead to the largest possible marketing group, with only few still interested in commercially available product.

In fact, the skew of film fans seems to be heavily weighted toward "roll your own" developing and/or printing/scanning.

If the film production was nearly non-existent, as it has been for years, any small uptick will be a huge statistical percentage. But comparatively, if 20 years ago, 1000 units were being produced and purchased, and today only 2 are being produced/purchased, if the number climbs to 3.5 units that's an enormous percentage increase over 2, but catastrophic compared to 1000.

The survey is pretty clear, and the opinions of the widest number of respondents echo this. Only the energetically repeated voices of the same few seem to make the claims of increased film use stand out.

There is an undeniable remaining interest in film use, just as there are still model train associations, and Civil War re-enactors. People still love and maintain horses and stables, and even though automobiles have largely made horse travel obsolete, horseplay can still make for an interesting lifestyle -- or simply a pleasant afternoon.



Jan 18, 2017 at 07:05 PM
chez
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #2 · p.21 #2 · Could you go back to film?


Gunzorro wrote:
So far the survey says that over 210 people feel film has no relevance to them whatsoever.

In contrast, just over 30 individuals find fulfillment through film.

Seems pretty conclusive that from this heavily weighted demographic (most respondents are previous film users or are very familiar with film's attributes, not "general public") that film is essentially dead to the largest possible marketing group, with only few still interested in commercially available product.

In fact, the skew of film fans seems to be heavily weighted toward "roll your own" developing and/or printing/scanning.

If the film production was nearly non-existent, as it has been for
...Show more

Statistics are funny. What I am seeing is 31% of the respondents still use film in some fashion. Given this is a digital based form...that's pretty darn good. Try this same poll in a film based form like apug and see what the results will be.

Were you really expecting any other results. In reality, I'm quite amazed at the results with 31% still using film.

By the way...I found you last paragraph very derogatory.



Jan 18, 2017 at 07:35 PM
ken.vs.ryu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #3 · p.21 #3 · Could you go back to film?




kodak roll your movie stock (eastman xx and vision3d) for use in 120/35mm still cameras.



Jan 18, 2017 at 07:52 PM
PhotoMaximum
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #4 · p.21 #4 · Could you go back to film?


There is no doubt that film has improved over the decades. But any marginal progression in specific film quality upgrades in no way matches the meteoric development of digital sensor technology.

Is TriX or Fujichrome demonstrably better now than it was in 1998? Are there any high speed films that match the incredibly high ISO ratings of the cutting edge digital cameras? No...

Film is interesting. Some fans stay completely in the analog arena. No scanning and no digital delivery of any kind. There are great web forums devoted to this. The issue here is how do you reach any audience with a 100% analog workflow? "Come on over and look at my chromes on the light table?" You have to print your images...

Prior to digital there was endless chatter about how many steps it took to look at the final delivery medium, namely the print. If you shot black and white film you could make a print in your darkroom. If you shot color transparency you had forks in the road. Do you create an internegative and then print from the second generation piece of film? Or do you battle with the contrast issues of Cibachrome or IlfoChrome straight from your slide? Both of these are dead now.

Then came computers. You scanned the film. Scanning is just a huge arena all to its own. Even if dislike digital cameras and shoot and scan is your workflow you are still invloved in digital navel gazing: you get obsessed with pixel peeping, just like digital camera shooters. What kind of scanner matches the film you are using and how much does that cost, etc? Scanning gets technical fast. It can also get expensive and time consuming. Larger scanners are not really transportable which is an issue if you want to shoot and deliver images on the road. How do you avoid scanning grain, silver salt shadows, dust and scratches? There is just a huge variation in scanner performance, but this is largely impacted by the film and exposure values of the images involved.

The interesting choice: say you shoot black and white film and want to share your images with the world. Do you scan your negatives and use digital software to finalize your prints or web jpegs? Or do you print your pictures in the darkroom and then scan the print? Which is more honest and which is less tainted by that "awful digital"? Lots of opinions on this of course.

To the guys who love film and have so much passion for it: we are not trying to pee in your cereal here. Just please be realistic. Your film arena is now a very small portion of the imaging world. Enjoy it now, because it might not be a long term option for you. Even if Kodak brings back a little Ektachrome now that reality is still there...



Jan 18, 2017 at 08:04 PM
chez
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #5 · p.21 #5 · Could you go back to film?


PhotoMaximum wrote:
Film is interesting. Some fans stay completely in the analog arena. No scanning and no digital delivery of any kind. There are great web forums devoted to this. The issue here is how do you reach any audience with a 100% analog workflow? "Come on over and look at my chromes on the light table?" You have to print your images...

The interesting choice: say you shoot black and white film and want to share your images with the world. Do you scan your negatives and use digital software to finalize your prints or web jpegs? Or do you print your
...Show more

My final goal with photography is the print...so that is how I show off my art...not via the net at 1200 pixels to be viewed by an unknown system that is not calibrated and maybe having a green tint. No...that is not how I want my art to be displayed.

I'm very meticulous with my printing and final presentation and I use galleries and other exhibitions to show off my work. It hangs in high end homes throughout British Columbia and that is how I want my art to be displayed...so I have control over the variables. I've even advised clients on the proper lighting to get the most out of my prints.

Just throwing up a small digital image onto the net and having millions view it might turn some cranks...but I know the huge majority of those viewing the image are using very poor quality displays which affect my image greatly. Sure...I post images onto the net...but that is not why I take photos...far from it. I don't need the ego boost of having the entire world looking at my art...I'm happy to meet a very select few which appreciate the detailed process I go through creating my prints...my art.

So...maybe some of us don't need to post to the world and get a bunch of likes for our images. Maybe some of us are happy to just show off our final prints...whether they are created totally analog...or totally digital or maybe some hybrid mix of analog and digital.



Jan 18, 2017 at 08:53 PM
George Orwell
Offline
• •
[X]
p.21 #6 · p.21 #6 · Could you go back to film?


PhotoMaximum wrote:
There is no doubt that film has improved over the decades. But any marginal progression in specific film quality upgrades in no way matches the meteoric development of digital sensor technology.


WOW!! A 140 year old technology is not advancing as quickly as a 20 year old one? Stop the presses!!
PhotoMaximum wrote:
Is TriX or Fujichrome demonstrably better now than it was in 1998?


Yes, Tri-X is now a partially T-Grained film, making the grain better than it was in the past.

PhotoMaximum wrote:
Are there any high speed films that match the incredibly high ISO ratings of the cutting edge digital cameras? No...


Nope. Yet I still shoot 99% film over digital. Stratospheric ISO values are completely uninteresting to me.
PhotoMaximum wrote:
Film is interesting. Some fans stay completely in the analog arena. No scanning and no digital delivery of any kind. There are great web forums devoted to this. The issue here is how do you reach any audience with a 100% analog workflow? "Come on over and look at my chromes on the light table?" You have to print your images...


Straw man argument. NO ONE here is saying stay 100% analogue. You invent nonsense to denigrate film.
PhotoMaximum wrote:

To the guys who love film and have so much passion for it: we are not trying to pee in your cereal here.


Yes you are. It's transparent and contemptible.

PhotoMaximum wrote:
Just please be realistic.


Pulllzeee.......LMAO.
PhotoMaximum wrote:
Your film arena is now a very small portion of the imaging world.


Duh. No one is claiming film use is back to where it once was. It is growing and that is beyond debate.
PhotoMaximum wrote:
Enjoy it now, because it might not be a long term option for you.


More FUD. More idiotic nonsense. Just laughable.
PhotoMaximum wrote:
Even if Kodak brings back a little Ektachrome now that reality is still there...


Yes, the reality of NEW film(s).

Meanwhile, digital camera sales are in free fall still. Double digit declines including SLR's and mirrorless, now 5+ years.






Jan 18, 2017 at 09:00 PM
George Orwell
Offline
• •
[X]
p.21 #7 · p.21 #7 · Could you go back to film?


Gunzorro wrote:
So far the survey says that over 210 people feel film has no relevance to them whatsoever.

There is an undeniable remaining interest in film use, just as there are still model train associations, and Civil War re-enactors. People still love and maintain horses and stables, and even though automobiles have largely made horse travel obsolete, horseplay can still make for an interesting lifestyle -- or simply a pleasant afternoon.


5.7 MILLION people bought a film camera last year. The top 7 cameras sold at Amazon.com during the holiday season were film. I doubt that many model trains were sold.

"The Wall Street Journal reports that Fujiís Instax cameras are selling in record numbers and far outpacing the companyís digital cameras. The company estimates that it sold 5 million of the cameras in the fiscal year that just ended last month, and that it will sell at least 6.5 million in the next year.

By comparison, the company only sold 1.4 million digital cameras in the previous year. Whatís more, the standalone digital camera industry saw a 19% decline."




Jan 18, 2017 at 09:03 PM
PhotoMaximum
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #8 · p.21 #8 · Could you go back to film?


Wow George,

You barge into a friendly photography forum with so much anger and very little nuance to see that this is a wide arena. Even when posters are trying to share your enthusisiam you puke all over them? You seem to think this is winner take all joust? This is not a contact sport. OK?

I am dying to see some of your images. Please show some photos that illustrate how your technique would be impossible with a modern digital camera?

Edited on Jan 19, 2017 at 10:45 AM · View previous versions



Jan 18, 2017 at 09:16 PM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.21 #9 · p.21 #9 · Could you go back to film?


chez wrote:
My final goal with photography is the print...so that is how I show off my art...not via the net at 1200 pixels to be viewed by an unknown system that is not calibrated and maybe having a green tint. No...that is not how I want my art to be displayed.

I'm very meticulous with my printing and final presentation and I use galleries and other exhibitions to show off my work. It hangs in high end homes throughout British Columbia and that is how I want my art to be displayed...so I have control over the variables. I've even advised clients
...Show more

And maybe some who are interested in commercial photography and pleasing clients by satisfying their needs with rapid turnaround and digital files. The vast majority of "work" has swung that direction, as evidenced by the complete collapse of the professional photo lab community.

If people are happy to share their work on forums, more power to them -- I don't see it as being terribly easy to create images that can be viewed around the world on all sorts of monitors. That's a skill in itself to produce the dynamism of the image, communicating through all the means of viewing.

Whatever works and make one satisfied! Film, digital, graphic arts, video, painting. . . it's all creative.



Jan 18, 2017 at 11:50 PM
MAubrey
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.21 #10 · p.21 #10 · Could you go back to film?


George Orwell wrote:
Completely unnecessary. I've had film scanned over a dozen times without issue. Your idea of how badly film is affected by airport x-rays is very much misguided.



I wish that I could say that I've had your luck. But in the past, I've lost some excellent shots. To each his own.



Jan 18, 2017 at 11:53 PM
George Orwell
Offline
• •
[X]
p.21 #11 · p.21 #11 · Could you go back to film?


PhotoMaximum wrote:
Wow George,

You barge into a friendly photography forum with so much anger and very little nuance to see that this is wide arena. Even when posters are trying to share your enthusisiam you puke all over them? You seem to think this is winner take all joust? This is not a contact sport. OK?


You make ridiculous, unsubstantiated, and aggressively anti film statements and then act surprised when there is blow back. Hilarious.
PhotoMaximum wrote:
I am dying to see some of your images. Please show some photos that illustrate how your technique would be impossible with a modern digital camera?


Another straw man argument. Nowhere do I claim anything I do with film can't be done digitally.



Jan 19, 2017 at 03:35 AM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.21 #12 · p.21 #12 · Could you go back to film?


I really would love to respond a bit more, but the bully pulpit seems occupied by someone with a vested interest in film sales, and not afraid to use invective to beat the majority into opposition.

Until people wise up, this thread is pointless.



Jan 19, 2017 at 09:11 AM
ken.vs.ryu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #13 · p.21 #13 · Could you go back to film?


check it out



https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2017788873/lab-box-the-first-multi-format-daylight-loading-fi



Feb 21, 2017 at 01:13 PM
retrofocus
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #14 · p.21 #14 · Could you go back to film?


ken.vs.ryu wrote:
check it out

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2017788873/lab-box-the-first-multi-format-daylight-loading-fi


How does this device self-rolled 35 mm film which exceeds the 36 frames of a normal roll? In the worst case the last few frames then remain unrolled within this device. When you do this all "manual" with a Paterson reel for example, you still have the option not to fully wind the end of your film and just place it into the tank. Not sure if this device can do this. But nevertheless, it is a good idea - simple and effective!



Feb 21, 2017 at 01:52 PM
retrofocus
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.21 #15 · p.21 #15 · Could you go back to film?


Had a lot of fun recently shooting with my 4x5 large format camera with 210/5.6 lens on Kodak T-Max 100 film. Developed with Rodinal (1:100). Resolution and detail is incredible - plus shifting/tilting is easy and allows a variety of placements!

http://martinbluhm.zenfolio.com/img/s9/v92/p2213322338-5.jpg



Feb 21, 2017 at 01:56 PM
1       2       3              20      
21
       end




FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              20      
21
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.