A question about future generations

[copake_ham]

No, there is no way to make perfed film at home. Someone would have to build a machine to do it. Coating quality and other factors would also tend to degrade results too much.

PE

So, basically you're saying we will not go beyond the current state of dependence, our manufacturer-dependent attitude for that type of film.

I have a feeling my future camera would be a Sony or Panasonic...

Yes, Firecracker,

PE has consigned those of us who use 35mm to the dustbin of filmdom. He will lead his small, merry band of coaters as they hunker down in redoubts and preserve the ancient art.

As I said earlier, I have my Nikkor glass - and it is not obsolete - and I will continue to use it until they pry it from my cold, dead hands!

 

[Mark Layne]

Stop funding art colleges if they scrap their darkrooms.
Up to the time I sold my commercial printing plant we had a profitable niche market in steel and copper die engraved stationery, foil stamping and embossing.
The new owners threw away all the equipment and re-assigned the staff because although showing a higher margin of profit than offset printing it was "too small a percentage of the total sales" to bother with finicky customers. Sound like a well known photo products manufacturer?
Today there is not a lawyer, doctor or art school grad who knows the beauty of engraved stationery- at least around here. I still do some foil stamping and embossing 8 hours a day but when I quit it's the end of that.
Mark

 

[Alex Hawley]

So, my ultimate question is, is there a way to make 35mm roll film (with decent coating) at home? Where do I get the materials? How do I make sprocket holes?

PE has answered the question but I will expand on it and digress a little.

First, this question points directly to the technology required to make films and papers. Its one thing to be able to devise the emulsion, but quite another to actually produce high quality emulsion coated products. Devising the technology to produce reliable and consistent film/paper was the key in bringing them to the market.

Second, there is the availability of the components; the piece parts. Film base, paper base and individual chemical compounds. If 35mm film produciton ceases on a commercial scale, I think it is far beyond the means of the average person to even consider attempting to make the base.

We have already seen several Polaroid products be discontinued because components have become unavailable. PE has said the demand for baryta paper (the paper component for fiber-based paper) has shrunk to the extent where it's production may be in danger in a few years. Aagin, making baryta paper on an individual basis is beyond the means and capability, I think.

So where is this leading us? Back to technology that was in use a century ago I think. Large cameras, home-made emulsions coated on glass plates for negatives, coated on commonly available papers for prints. Is there still some variety available in these heretofore "alt" processes? Sure there is.

Here's another thought. I have an old Kodak 3A folding camera. The bellows is shot, the film size for it went extinct 35 years ago. It makes a post-card size negative which probably qualifies as large format but its not a large camera. It can be comfortably carried and hand-held. I found the user's manual on the 'Net one night and was astonished to discover that a plate holder had been available for these cameras as an option. OK, methinks, if I could somehow get or make a plate holder, this thing could become operable again.

PE has consigned those of us who use 35mm to the dustbin of filmdom. He will lead his small, merry band of coaters as they hunker down in redoubts and preserve the ancient art.

HMMM, methinks again. Would it be possible to make a plate holder that would adapt to a 35mm camera? Yes, I believe that is quite possible. There have been 120 and 70mm film backs for 35mm cameras in the past. A plate adapted to a 35mm camera body would make a negative of at least 35mm size, perhaps slightly larger. I believe this is quite feasible and could be done at an affordable cost.

The downside would be having to carry glass plates around which are somewhat fragile. The rapid-shoot utility of 35mm would also be lost. But, the extremely versatile camera system would still be of use.

So, all is not going to be lost. Adversity stimulates creativity which is a good thing.

 

[Alex Hawley]

Yes, Firecracker,

PE has consigned those of us who use 35mm to the dustbin of filmdom. He will lead his small, merry band of coaters as they hunker down in redoubts and preserve the ancient art.

As I said earlier, I have my Nikkor glass - and it is not obsolete - and I will continue to use it until they pry it from my cold, dead hands!

Laugh if you will Mr. Ham, but unless you can put some emulsion behind that Nikkor glass, your cold dead hands are just that; cold and dead. No one gives a hoot about the glass used to make the photo. So unless you start engaging your brain, that prized glass is going to become just another favored paper weight.

FWIW, I'm sitting here contemplating entering a photo in the Silver contest made with PE's emulsion and hand coated on a non-traditional paper. In fact, I think you just convinced me to do it. Thanks for the idea!

 

[reellis67]

Could not the advent of film have had this same level of impact (or at least something that comes close) on the glass plate world? It seems that many of the same arguments could be made between plates and film as are made with film and d****l, and look how long it tool glass plates to go away...

- Randy

 

[firecracker]

As I said earlier, I have my Nikkor glass - and it is not obsolete - and I will continue to use it until they pry it from my cold, dead hands!

Seriously, people like you and I can gather up some brains and money to buy the 35mm-roll-film-producing machine from a dying and/or dead manufacturers and start running a new business for the 35mm-film-diehard-users' community. I only prefer B&W, but you know we can talk about that later. I think there's just too much aesthetic values (grainy look, full-frame with black borders, etc) in a 35mm format to lose.

But this goes to tie with the ideas from the micro-brewery thread by Sean, which is to downsize the scale of mass production to a garage size and distribute to the selected smaller market.

I really think supporting remaining large manufacturers by buying their still-available products at this point, but it's like giving cash donations to large charity organizations and wondering how exactly you money was spent by them later on. You will never get a clear and better answer to yourself unless you actually do what you need to do to make a better change. We can do our best, but we have not quite started doing it yet.

 

[copake_ham]

Laugh if you will Mr. Ham, but unless you can put some emulsion behind that Nikkor glass, your cold dead hands are just that; cold and dead. No one gives a hoot about the glass used to make the photo. So unless you start engaging your brain, that prized glass is going to become just another favored paper weight.

FWIW, I'm sitting here contemplating entering a photo in the Silver contest made with PE's emulsion and hand coated on a non-traditional paper. In fact, I think you just convinced me to do it. Thanks for the idea!

Frankly, what I am saying is that I'm not going to let that glass just sit on the shelf.

If it comes to it - I will put it in front of a sensor!

I don't want to do that (at least not exclusively) but I'm not going let it go to waste either.

Remember, film camera bodies can also become favored paper weights and PE has told us that he thinks 35mm is dead. That doesn't mean the glass is.

I wish you luck in your endeavor but, as to the premise posited in the OP, I don't think that you coating your own plates is going to somehow preserve the film art for future generations.

And I also think that if 35mm film is dead then larger formats are in the same coffin. How much MF and LF film demand is there after all? Do you really think that MF and LF film demand alone is enough to keep the industry alive?

 

[firecracker]

Laugh if you will Mr. Ham, but unless you can put some emulsion behind that Nikkor glass, your cold dead hands are just that; cold and dead. No one gives a hoot about the glass used to make the photo. So unless you start engaging your brain, that prized glass is going to become just another favored paper weight.

FWIW, I'm sitting here contemplating entering a photo in the Silver contest made with PE's emulsion and hand coated on a non-traditional paper. In fact, I think you just convinced me to do it. Thanks for the idea!

Okay, let's not do a "who has more chance to survive and who is not" type of cat fight. We don't know. But let's keep all the available information at the center so everyone can share and start developing more ideas from there.

I'm a 35mm B&W film shooter and wet darkroom printer, and it looks like I belong to a sub-devided section of APUG when it comes down to film-and- paper-coating discussions, but that's NOT a significant point to make.

I think the accessibilty is the key as some have already pointed out earlier, and I belive that if we can bring more popular formats back to the market, the market will live and start to create both demand and supply of good traditional film and paper again.

 

[copake_ham]

Could not the advent of film have had this same level of impact (or at least something that comes close) on the glass plate world? It seems that many of the same arguments could be made between plates and film as are made with film and d****l, and look how long it tool glass plates to go away...

- Randy

The introduction of film made photography accessible to everyone and created a "mass market". Film didn't completely eliminate glass plate photography because there wasn't much of a market to eliminate. Glass plate photography was a specialist activity practiced by professionals. George Eastman (and his counterparts in Europe) made "light writing" available to everyone.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Gentlemen;

In research, Kodak found it difficult to make 35mm perfed film! We hand and machine coated 35mm unperfed, 120 and 4x5. We machine coated up to 11x14, but NO PERFS.

So, until someone designs a good hand coater for 35mm and a perfing machine, I doubt if there is any chance of making good 35mm hand coated films. The technology for doing it in a simple darkroom is not there yet. Oh, and the length of a 35mm roll is a problem as well and also slitting to 35mm.

I can make 120 and 4x5 and higher sizes. Thats it. The 120 is questionalble, as I have not tested it. I will need the special thin support and I can't get it. I can only get the 7 mil estar used in 4x5 and other sheet films.

I spent the evening doing 4x5 film and plate trial coatings with 3 new film and plate blades just to learn the process anew. Can anyone else say otherwise? If you know more than I do, please speak up!!!!

I DO NOT WANT TO RELEGATE ANYONE TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY. However, it may take place in spite of me. Believe me, you will not like anything I coat in 35mm nor will you come up with much better.

I want better than digital for the future. But all of us have limitations. We may need an emulsion preservation conference, but notes to fellow emulsion makers (not Kodak - they respond with indifference) are either unanswered or answered with vituperation. What is wrong with people? Why are the best emulsion makers here unwilling to respond in a civil manner?

PE

 

[Alex Hawley]

And I also think that if 35mm film is dead then larger formats are in the same coffin. How much MF and LF film demand is there after all? Do you really think that MF and LF film demand alone is enough to keep the industry alive?

No George, I don't believe that. But, with the "ancient" technology, I can make a film emulsion for 4x5 and larger film sizes in my own home and thus keep the art alive and use camera systems I already have. Like you said in your other post, before Eastman enabled mass production of film photo paper, photography was practiced only by highly skilled professionals because they had to individually make their sensitized materials. Producing any kind of roll film in a smaller size takes some very specialized technology and equipment which is beyond the means of the individual.

I'll give you another analogous example. I used to do quite a bit of hunting until very recent years. I have the knowledge and skill to make a modern bolt-action rifle and have done so. But I cannot make two components. I cannot, without some very specialized technology, adequately rifle the barrel. And its completely beyond my ability and means to make the high-quality steel necessary for a 50,000 psi firearm.

There is another local guy who makes custom archery equipment in his home shop. Even if we did not have steel to make the arrow points from, he could still make sophisticated archery hunting equipment that is better than that used in more primitive times. Just have to be able to obtain the right wood. Thus, he is able to preserve both the ability to hunt and if necessary, feed the family. He is preserving the art and craft of bowmaking, which has been around for several thousand years (hasn't died yet). But these bows being made today are far better than those made in previous eras because individual makers have vastly improved the basic design and shared the knowledge. And bowhunting is extremely popular these days, far more than two or three generations ago. If I restrict myself to hunting only with a firearm, and steel becomes unavailable, no more firearm, no more hunting, and I'm eating only what can be grown in the garden.

This probably makes no sense to city-folks whatsoever. However, I could make archery equipment in a New York City apartment. Who here can make a digital camera anywhere, or 35mm film? The technology required is far beyond the means of the individual and will remain so. But, the technology necessary for making emulsions and hand-coating film/paper enables the NYC resident, confined to a small dwelling space, to do it. I believe our Mr. Goldfarb and others have already proven it.

If massed-produced photo material does go extinct in my lifetime, I'm already working on a plan to carry on without it. Like Bowhunting, analog photography can be preserved and in fact blossom. It will be different in some respects, but it will still be alive.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Alex;

Thanks for the comment about the paper. Want more?

Ron

 

[CGross]

I am going out on a limb posting this…I think....but here goes.

I am no where near as experienced in photography as those of you responding to this thread. I am a guy who flat out Loves film, and working hard to become better exposing it, developing it and printing it.

However, I do have experience instituting change in large organizations and leading large groups of people. It's with much hope that I can ramble a bit here and make a contribution.

I'd first recommend reading the book "Who Moved My Cheese"
http://www.whomovedmycheese.com/

The reason I say this is that all 18,313 people who are members of this site are facing an industry that is in the middle of major change.

I like to think that moving the cheese is healthy. But sometimes, if allowed, it can be deadly. I believe that the change we are witnessing will ultimately do more for film users than no change. A few months ago I wasn't so sure.

When I became interested again in photography almost 18 months ago, I had some intense adrenaline flowing until I realized that what I remembered photography being in 1982 appeared to be almost gone. I freaked a bit...no actually a lot. But, I still went out and invested in an old Minolta camera, bought some film and got with it.

Then, I searched and searched the Internet for any site where there was a mass of people still dedicated to film. For some odd reason it took a while, but ultimately APUG appeared in my browser and I joined within 20 minutes of visiting the site.

I think that this how many have arrived at this place called APUG.

I have told everyone I know about this place. I show them my cameras, I show them many of your beautiful photos, I educate the hell out of everyone I can. Has it made a difference? A little, because an old friend sold his D camera recently to purchase a nice Mamiya 645. One step at a time right?

I have witnessed single contributors, small teams and large organizations do amazing things because they embraced change and set out to leverage it. APUG, being 18K strong surely could alter the course of film.

Sean brought to the Internet an amazing site. Each of you individually bring truly beautiful and spectacular photographs to the eyes of people everywhere. Everyone together, in my opinion, can capitalize on this changing industry.

It won't happen unless every person, rather than thinking of all of the reasons why film will disappear, instead think of all the reasons why film will stay put.

The other night I was cleaning out a closet full of old books to be placed in some new book shelves. I came across my collection of "A Day in the Life of...." books. I spent the next 6 hours pouring through them. The next day I thought.....”A Day in the Life of APUG? Could this ever happen?

If there is serious intent from this community to ensure film has a future, then we should all gather face to face. I am a huge fan of forums, email and the like. But nothing really starts until people are all in the same room, eye to eye, with ears wide open, and hungry to make things happen.

I would love see PE get the information he needs to coat up some film. Let’s help him and anyone else who can do this. Let’s solve the problem everyone is fearing.

My sincere regards to all on APUG.

 

[DBP]

HMMM, methinks again. Would it be possible to make a plate holder that would adapt to a 35mm camera? Yes, I believe that is quite possible. There have been 120 and 70mm film backs for 35mm cameras in the past. A plate adapted to a 35mm camera body would make a negative of at least 35mm size, perhaps slightly larger. I believe this is quite feasible and could be done at an affordable cost.

Not only possible, but done, for the Contax back in 1936.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The problem is coating defects in 35mm along with grain and sharpness.

PE

 

[copake_ham]

No George, I don't believe that. But, with the "ancient" technology, I can make a film emulsion for 4x5 and larger film sizes in my own home and thus keep the art alive and use camera systems I already have....

It's not a question of whether it can be done - it's one of who will do it.

If you really believe that the the salvation of film photography is for a few craftsfolk like yourself to "coat their own" than I am convinced it's time to re-consider that D-200!

The OP posit was how to convince future generations to preserve film-based photography. It's not going to be by convincing a few of them to "coat your own". More to the point, they sure aren't going to coat film. Glass? Maybe, after all, that would be a preservation art. Provided, of course, that those future generation can find the chemicals and formulae and have the interest in doing so.

Perhaps the real issue exposed in this thread is that non-35mm shooters here are now prepared to toss us off the lifeboat to "save the rest". Once you do so, who's next?

Remember, pro-MF has now gone digi and there are all those scanning backs being developed for larger formats....

 

[Photo Engineer]

George.

While I appreciate morse code, (learned it when I was about 11 and promptly forgot it), I don't appreciate how you plan to make acceptable 35mm hand coated film. I would be happy to give you free access to my lab for a full week for you to demonstrate it to me. I will, in return, show you why you are wrong.

The bottom line is that hand coated 35mm with any degree of quality, with a home darkroom is virtually impossible.

Best of luck.

PE

 

[MattKing]

Is the marketing paradigm the problem?

I've been musing about this and a number of other related threads over the last couple of days, and in particular wondering if the approach we are considering is, somehow, backwards.

It seems to me that the "modern" film industry didn't spring from the inventive minds of George Eastman and others. It sprung first from the groundswell of interest in the public's mind in photography and, in particular, in there being an easily accessible version of same available to the masses. George Eastman saw the interest, and developed the technology and marketing to meet it.

Well, we already have the technology, but the marketing method has just about disappeared. The film we use and love, and the cameras for it, were best seen in an old fashioned camera store. There are very few of those left. Where once you could go to your camera retailer and review with the staff there the catalogues listing the various models and accessories available, and gain from their knowledgable staff important information about what you required, nowadays you have to guess, based on a vague description and an even more unclear website photo whether part number 123456 meets your need.

In order to save film, it may be that we need to find a new way to make it available.

There would most likely have to be fewer outlets, but like archery (another example from above) maybe better outlets.

Prices would no doubt be higher, and selection more limited, but if the prices are stable, and the selection is reasonable, and stable, I think we could all live with it.

For better or worse, all but the youngest of us have become used to film and cameras as being high volume mass market items, with lower volume, specialized market subsets. If a new marketing mix can be achieved, it may support a medium volume, moderately specialized product that can be manufactured to fulfil that market's needs.

Whatever, it is certainly necessary to "think outside the box ".

Matt

 

[Photo Engineer]

Matt;

Outside the box is the reason I started this thread.

PE

 

[kjsphoto]

What you all forget is that China is getting into the game of film making now and they don’t get into something if there is no future as they are all about turning profits. As I read these thread I tell you to be honest, it seems that they are designed to make every scared that film is dead to force people to buy hand coating devices.

I think this is really the wrong mentality. America is not the only place in the world that offers products. China is up and coming and with a population of 2,000,000,000 people they will make a mint selling film based products to their own countrymen not to mention to the rest of the world that wants to continue to use it. Look at the sales coming from China in the LF sector, Do some research and you will see that their NEW MIDDLE class is thriving and rapidly getting into FILM based photography not DIGITAL.

What about EFKE paper and film? As far as I know they are doing well and producing, what about the new Russian paper? FOMA Film? Ilford Film? Etc.. Instead of sitting here moaning and complaining get off your backside and buy the products and use them to makes sure you help secure the future of the craft you say you love. Talk is cheap people. Either step up to the plate or deal with the after effects.

I do not know why certain people in this thread want everyone to think film and paper is dead and that we must hurry and buy self coating devices. If you do this YOU WILL BE THE REASON for the demise of the craft as we know it.

You want photography to be around for our generation and the next then buy what is available and use it. Stop chatting and start using the materials.

It is that simple.

Sorry but I am really getting sick of this type of propaganda. I realize that with Forte gone is took a massive hit, but at the same time companies out there are still producing and new companies are appearing replacing what is being lost.

If you think APUG represent all the user of film photographer you are dead wrong. The market is bigger than most want you to believe. There are a lot more people using film that will never touch an internet forum or a computer for that matter. Not everyone is rich like the western world that can afford the digital toys and computers. Many still use film but most Americans cannot see outside their own borders.

The bottom line is ,if you do not use and buy what is on the market they you deserve to see it gone.

 

[copake_ham]

George.

While I appreciate morse code, (learned it when I was about 11 and promptly forgot it), I don't appreciate how you plan to make acceptable 35mm hand coated film. I would be happy to give you free access to my lab for a full week for you to demonstrate it to me. I will, in return, show you why you are wrong.

The bottom line is that hand coated 35mm with any degree of quality, with a home darkroom is virtually impossible.

Best of luck.

PE

Huh?

Have you read anything here I wrote that would even begin to suggest I am interested in coating 35mm film?

I have zero, zip, nada interest in doing so.

And if that is what would be required to still shoot film then I would go digi! The reality is that I have an investment in good quality Nikkor glass - and I will use it. Preferably with film, but I will use it!

I think that is the clear point I have been making.

You and your "home coaters" seem to want to dump the rest of us film users. Fine. But that doesn't mean we will stop shooting!

If 35mm film dies - then very few MF and LF shooters will stay in the game too, since it will also die. No commercial manufacturer is going to survive making just MF and LF film.

I seriously doubt there are many more than a tiny minority of folk here on APUG who are willing and capable of "coating their own"!

 

[copake_ham]

What you all forget is that China is getting into the game of film making now and they don’t get into something if there is no future as they are all about turning profits. As I read these thread I tell you to be honest, it seems that they are designed to make every scared that film is dead to force people to buy hand coating devices.

I think this is really the wrong mentality. America is not the only place in the world that offers products. China is up and coming and with a population of 2,000,000,000 people they will make a mint selling film based products to their own countrymen not to mention to the rest of the world that wants to continue to use it. Look at the sales coming from China in the LF sector, Do some research and you will see that their NEW MIDDLE class is thriving and rapidly getting into FILM based photography not DIGITAL.

What about EFKE paper and film? As far as I know they are doing well and producing, what about the new Russian paper? FOMA Film? Ilford Film? Etc.. Instead of sitting here moaning and complaining get off your backside and buy the products and use them to makes sure you help secure the future of the craft you say you love. Talk is cheap people. Either step up to the plate or deal with the after effects.

I do not know why certain people in this thread want everyone to think film and paper is dead and that we must hurry and buy self coating devices. If you do this YOU WILL BE THE REASON for the demise of the craft as we know it.

You want photography to be around for our generation and the next then buy what is available and use it. Stop chatting and start using the materials.

It is that simple.

Sorry but I am really getting sick of this type of propaganda. I realize that with Forte gone is took a massive hit, but at the same time companies out there are still producing and new companies are appearing replacing what is being lost.

If you think APUG represent all the user of film photographer you are dead wrong. The market is bigger than most want you to believe. There are a lot more people using film that will never touch an internet forum or a computer for that matter. Not everyone is rich like the western world that can afford the digital toys and computers. Many still use film but most Americans cannot see outside their own borders.

The bottom line is ,if you do not use and buy what is on the market they you deserve to see it gone.

Once again, as night follows day, we see this post. This is the ever reliable "Chinese solution" argument!

FWIW:

Two years ago my wife had a biz trip to Shanghai. She asked to take my digiP&S rather than a film camera because she didn't want the "hassle" of carrying film in a lead bag and having to change rolls etc. for what was a quick trip.

While walking around with that aging digi-camera an innumerable number of street vendors approached her offering to sell her another CF card for it!

That was two years ago!

Hey guess where they make those CF cards?

Yesterday, the Chinese demonstrated the capability to destroy space satellites. They make most of the digicameras we buy, they make the iPod your listen to, they built the DVD player you just turned off and have you checked out where your cellphone was manufactured.?

For crying out loud, do you really think the Chinese are just chomping on the bit to buy a film camera because that's what you did 30 years ago?

Emerging ecomonies are not "required" to go through all the "technological stages" that older developed ones went through. For example, that's why wireless telecommunications is more reliable than wired versions in these nations.

The Chinese do not have to first go through a film photography stage before embracing digitals. Oh, and remember, it was a Chinese company that bought IBM's PC division!

 

[timbo10ca]

I think we are lazy when we argue like this. The fact of the matter is that the growth of digital photography is a direct result of the universality of PCs. Once a society crosses the threshhold and PC's become prevelant it is only a matter of course that more and more uses will become "digitized" to take advantage of that infrastructure.

In fact, to master Photoshop requires a hell of a lot of effort. Effort you and I may not want to undertake - but someone who does so is certainly not "lazy".

I actually took a course in PS last year taught by someone who works in the NYC advertising biz. She dazzled me with her ability to zoom into pics and adjust individual pixels and then zoom out and work of various areas of an image rapidly employing a vast array of tools available to her.

She was a frenzy of knowledgable activity and certainly not LAZY!

I prefer film photography over digital. But I think it is cavalierly out-of-touch to argue that an accomplished digital photographer/processor is LAZY!

It's one thing to favor our "art" over theirs - but to denegrate accomplished people because they have a different approach is unnecessary.

Haaang onaminut. I'm not "denegrating" the accomplished. I'm pointing out the fact that most people these days looking at a start in photography have this point of view. This is the struggle film faces. Cudos to those that have embraced and mastered the realm of Photoshop (I'll be the first to say it's an extremely complex tool), but do you think that these masters of the digital realm can be lured back to film? They've made the move forward as they see it. More and more people are going in that direction because it is perceived as easier. How many people do you know actually "master" Photoshop? I would bet that the majority of weekend warriors muck around and come up with something they can be proud of. If you read my posts, you and I seem to be arguing the same side of this discussion- no need to get hostile .

 

[kjsphoto]

As usual George you are missing the point. The point is that they would not make anything if they did not see a return on investment. And the fact that companies like Ilford and Fuji are coming out with new film based products, not to mention the Chinese is fact, plain and simple.

Speak and talk all you want but fact is fact and there is noting changing that. When I see Ilford, Fuji, Efke, Foma, Kentmere and the others pull out then I will get worried until then I will work and BUY the materials and I suggest you do the same, unless of course you jstu liek to trol the forums to preach doom and gloom. It gets rather boring and your point as far as I am concerned is pointless as usual. Look for a solution not a demise. And the solution is to get off the keyboard and use products, prints and take images so they will be around for future generation.

 

[kjsphoto]

For crying out loud, do you really think the Chinese are just chomping on the bit to buy a film camera because that's what you did 30 years ago?

Go do some research and see who is buying all the LF glass, specifically dagors. It isn't Americans or the Europeans...