Film photography predictions for 2015

marciofs · Jan 18, 2015

Roger Cole said:
The film at least (haven't really checked out the papers) only seems significantly less expensive in the rebranded Freestyle Arista brand. From B&H I just checked out 400 speed 120 to keep the options less maddening and Foma branded Foma is actually thirty cents a roll MORE than HP5+. Only the Holga branded Foma is less and that not by much (twenty cents a roll.) Single rolls of 400 speed 120 vary from a low of $3.89 for the Holga branded Foma to a high of $4.95 for Delta 400.

I'm glad they're around, because I like options and I like to play with some (Arista branded) Foma myself, but I probably wouldn't if I had to pay very nearly as much for it as for Ilford or Kodak. The Arista branded Foma 400 from Freestyle is $3.19, still a full seventy cents a roll less than even the Holga branded film from B&H and proportionately even less than the offerings from Ilford and Kodak.

Here in Germany is the cheapest film and paper brand you will find. At least is the cheapest I could find. Specially when buying the pack with 10 rools.

Foma 400 120 is 4.17 per roll and 3.53 the pack with 10 rolls.
Foma 100 120 is 3.55 per roll and 3.19 the pack with 10 rolls.
HP5 120 is 4.55 per roll and 4.25 the pack with 10 rolls.

These prices are from Fotoimpex which are the best prices I could find in germany so far. If I buy HP5 in shops around where I live the price are about 6.55 and 7.22 (some shops the proces goes even higher) por a single roll.

In Ireland I used tompey less for Ilford and Fuji films. In grrmany they are more expensive I don't know the reason.

About 4x5in sheet of film. I pay about 30 euro for a pack with 50 Foma400 and more than 40 euro for a pack of 25 HP5.

About paper, I pay as low as 15 euro for a pack of 100 Foma RC paper. It is really cheap.

tnabbott · Jan 19, 2015

John von said:
Wait someone pass me that silicon chip... Oh wait, is that a film camera?
I read the all the responses to the OP. All 16 pages of comments.
@tnabbott: The film is dead comments are pretty much the same as saying electrical cars are dead, long live cars running on gasoline! Cars were first built using electrical motors and not gasoline. The invention of the assembly line, which led to faster production of cars made with gasoline engines led to the decrease in electrical cars. Google it... But wait, the funny thing is guess what? Yup, electrical cars were still being made and now new companies are creating cars running on electric.Electric cars are not dead.
So why would I post that comment? And what does it have to do with Film Photography?
Well, film is not dead. You can say it is, and that is your opinion. However, looking at facts, film is resurfacing as a viable medium. Publishers who were not accepting film are now doing so. There are as we speak labs opening that cater to all film market. If film was dead, why would they open up a business catering to film processing? There are a lot of companies selling film and developing chemicals. If film was dead, they would be shutting down.
Oh wait, I know what you are going to say. Something like "I can't walk into Walmart and buy 120 film or chemicals." You can't walk into Walmart and buy Pro Photographer's gear, either. And that goes with Best Buy and other electronic retailers.
That's why there a companies like B&H, KEH, Adorama, freestyle etc... They cater to the professionals or the people who know what they want and need for their gear.
But based on your comments, tnabbott, film is dead.
What I do see is digital is easier. Someone can take a photo, not care about exposure, light source, background, etc and can edit everything out. Hell, they can even replace the background of photos. Film is nostalgic and will remain to be so. Do you even know how digital Cameras work? If you did you would realize that even though the 2000.00 plastic component in your hand reads camera, it does not record the image as viewed by the photographer. It is analyzed and recorded in 010101010 in code. It does not see the image. It analyzes the code from a on-board database. Film is an organic process.
What I do see is Digital cameras being massed produced. Very costly and a lot of digital photogs now keep saying "My camera is outdated." Even though they bought it 3 months ago. And the funny part is, Digital camera technology has not advanced much since the advent of the technology. Same processor being built. Mostly its I now have 36mp and I can shoot at 3200. But then I have to edit the one photo for 1 hour to get it to look right.
So the debate really should be centered around technology. I can't wait until someone walks up and says, "Wow, is that a pen?" and hands me the new tablet...

Oh boy: another one who does not like to read the entirety of a posting. Please read my post in its entirety, then go back and read it again. You'll get it sooner or later. The knee-jerk reaction to any statement containing the words "film" and "dead" in the same sentence is quite odd. If you read these forums and those on related sites you can only come to one conclusion, film is dead as I use that term in my post. To reiterate, sourcing is so troublesome that the time necessary to keep film and various supplies stocked was, for me, no longer worth it.

tnabbott · Jan 19, 2015

Pioneer said:
Actually, I think it is digital that is dying. Not phones of course but the digital that has attempted to mimic the old film form factors that really made no sense. That is why the smartphone is eating the digital camera's lunch. People have started to realize that they don't need that digital monstrosity sitting in the closet. In fact, not only do they not need it, it doesn't even do what they want to do anymore. The newer models don't either.

What is it they want to do? They want to share. Just like the people who shot slides in the 50s, 60s and 70s so they could put on slide shows. But the smartphone has made it so much smoother. And you don't have to wait until you get back from Rome either. You can do it the moment you take the picture.

So what is left?

How do you distinguish "digital" from "phones"? Assuming your reference to phones is to the cameras in them, are you not talking about digital photography (for better or worse).

Pioneer · Jan 19, 2015

tnabbott said:
How do you distinguish "digital" from "phones"? Assuming your reference to phones is to the cameras in them, are you not talking about digital photography (for better or worse).

I wasn't as clear as I could have been. By phones I was indeed referring to those phones which include cameras in them. The digital that is losing sales are those digital cameras that still mimic the shape and function of the old film camera styles, ie; rangefinders, slrs, point and shoot, etc. In my opinion, as I noted, one of the big reasons for this is that the camera embedded in the phone takes pictures that can easily be transmitted through the phone to others and shared.

Sirius Glass · Jan 19, 2015

Pioneer said:
I wasn't as clear as I could have been. By phones I was indeed referring to those phones which include cameras in them. The digital that is losing sales are those digital cameras that still mimic the shape and function of the old film camera styles, ie; rangefinders, slrs, point and shoot, etc. In my opinion, as I noted, one of the big reasons for this is that the camera embedded in the phone takes pictures that can easily be transmitted through the phone to others and shared.

Digital photography is dead!
Digital photography is dead!
Digital photography is dead!
Digital photography is dead!
:munch::munch::munch::munch::munch:

Ken Nadvornick · Jan 19, 2015

Actually, my unspoken fear is that true camera photography may become dead, regardless of the internal technology being used. In the same way that beautiful handwriting is dead. Another victim of the rampant digitalization of cultures worldwide.

Interesting little story to illustrate... My wife works at a place where there are lots of first-time-job young people. High school aged kids. She told me the story of a middle-aged manager who gave one of these young people a task to complete.

Because it was the first time this individual had been asked to perform the task, he wrote down in longhand script the detailed steps on a sheet of paper and handed the sheet to the individual. A long period of silence ensued as the employee looked over the instructions. Then a look of exasperation, followed by "I don't know what this says. I can't read it."

It's not that the individual couldn't read or write. Far from it. She was otherwise very intelligent. It just turns out that some public schools have stopped teaching cursive handwriting—which of course then also means cursive reading comprehension—as a necessary skill set.

Why?

Well, everything digital has a keyboard, right? And everyone has endless access to digital gadgets, right? No one writes down their thoughts anymore using pencil and paper. So why bother? (The students are instead taught to print block letters by hand, since this is what the digital gadgets present to them for comprehension.)

I worry that photography is headed down a similar road. Everything has a digital camera in it, right? Nobody records their visual thoughts anymore using real purpose-built cameras. So why bother with them?

Ken

Francesco_from_Rome · Jan 19, 2015

Ken, I am worried about that, too. To counter it, as futile it may be, I am teaching my 3yo kid how to load film in a camera, and how to operate one (both analogue and digital, he has an old point and shoot all for himself). And he has shot pilaroids (actually very expensive impossible ones) and talks about this with his classmates....he also "helps" me to develop bw films by keeping track of yhe time and checking the temperature of the bath.

Will it be enough, I don't know...

cliveh · Jan 19, 2015

Variations in creative media don't die, they just go in and out of fashion. Can you name any artistic medium that is no longer practised anywhere on the planet?

Ken Nadvornick · Jan 19, 2015

But the medium to a significant degree often does alter the message presented. Messages must be tailored to the abilities of a given medium to express them. And not all expressive media are created equal.

For example, it's possible that the memorable texture and flow presented within a Hemingway novel might not have been what it is if it had not been composed on a manual typewriter.

Knowing that, practically speaking, there are only so many times one is prepared to laboriously rewrite a passage on a typewriter, one is forced by that medium to think longer and more clearly in the first place about what one is trying to say before striking the keys.

The analogy to film-based and purpose-built camera photography is direct, I think...

Ken

cliveh · Jan 19, 2015

Ken Nadvornick said:
But the medium to a significant degree often does alter the message presented. Messages must be tailored to the abilities of a given medium to express them. And not all expressive media are created equal.

For example, it's possible that the memorable texture and flow presented within a Hemingway novel might not have been what it is if it had not been composed on a manual typewriter.

Knowing that, practically speaking, there are only so many times one is prepared to laboriously rewrite a passage on a typewriter, one is forced by that medium to think longer and more clearly in the first place about what one is trying to say before striking the keys.

The analogy to film-based and purpose-built camera photography is direct, I think...

Ken

How true, but perhaps the media determines the message and vice versa.

gzinsel · Jan 19, 2015

who we are . . . . is ever evolving!!!!!!! there is no standard that sets the standards! enjoy photography while it is here, today! maybe tomorrow, or it will be "something" that we talk about like copper engravings, WAIT . .. wait

Ken Nadvornick · Jan 19, 2015

cliveh said:
How true, but perhaps the media determines the message and vice versa.

Which is exactly why I worry...

Loss of any medium dilutes the ability to effectively communicate messages. There may then be fewer better options. Carefully crafted Hemingway novels risk becoming a thing of the past because the technology used to create them is a thing of the past. So too carefully crafted photographs.

I once knew a young lady who was a student majoring in English Literature. She loved to write poetry. She refused to do so using anything other than a simple pencil and pad of paper. Her work was very good. I get it.

Ken

Sal Santamaura · Jan 20, 2015

cliveh said:
...the media determines...

Far off topic, but for some reason this tripped my trigger.

For everyone's information (not picking on Clive, he just happened to be here), media is a plural form. Medium is the singular form. Your roll of film, sheet of printing paper, SD card, etc. is properly referred to as a recording medium. Collectively they are recording media. Thus, in the above example, correct structure would be "...the medium determines..."

Similarly, data is the plural form of datum. When one describes a single element of information, it is a datum. If describing two or more such elements, they are data. The correct structure for a commonly seen statement would be "...the data indicate..."

OK, tangent complete.

marciofs · Jan 20, 2015

cliveh said:
How true, but perhaps the media determines the message and vice versa.

As somebody importat have said, the medium is the message. Meaning that the medium have strong influence on the message. And as Nail Postmann used to say, technology is the bigest ideology of all. Meaning that the our lives, our everyday tasks and consequently the way we see the world and even the way we think is strongly influenced by tools/media we use.

cliveh · Jan 20, 2015

Sal Santamaura said:
Far off topic, but for some reason this tripped my trigger.

For everyone's information (not picking on Clive, he just happened to be here), media is a plural form. Medium is the singular form. Your roll of film, sheet of printing paper, SD card, etc. is properly referred to as a recording medium. Collectively they are recording media. Thus, in the above example, correct structure would be "...the medium determines..."

Similarly, data is the plural form of datum. When one describes a single element of information, it is a datum. If describing two or more such elements, they are data. The correct structure for a commonly seen statement would be "...the data indicate..."

OK, tangent complete.

I stand corrected and thank you for pointing this out.

Ken Nadvornick · Jan 20, 2015

marciofs said:
As somebody importat have said, the medium is the message. Meaning that the medium have strong influence on the message. And as Nail Postmann used to say, technology is the bigest ideology of all. Meaning that the our lives, our everyday tasks and consequently the way we see the world and even the way we think is strongly influenced by tools/media we use.

Which, in turn, offers a somewhat different take on the mutually exclusive definitions of "film photograph" and "digital photograph".

Because content and presentation and, most importantly, thought processes, can be strongly influenced by the tools in hand, the look of a film photograph is often significantly different from the look of a digital photograph. Even when the raw subjects are ostensibly the same.

As an example, I have been a Sports Illustrated subscriber for more decades than I can count. I originally subscribed because of the beautiful and deeply moving and insightful athletic photography it presented. The writing was wonderful, but it was the photographs that hooked me.

Then digital technology muscled out film technology at the magazine for all of the deadline-driven, financial, and practical considerations with which we are all familiar, and can't honestly argue against from a bottom-line perspective.

But there was additional more serious collateral damage in that transition. The most egregious being that the photographs now look digital. The subjects are the same. After all, it's the same sports cycles over and over by season. But the... depth of vision... for want of a better term, has been compromised.

Instead of a victorious Cassius Clay snarling down at a fallen Sonny Liston made with a Rolleiflex TLR, we get endless stadium-wide scenes of close-up action whose only purpose is to show off the enormous depth-of-field of some digital sensors.

It very much reminds me of those 3D movies where the entire plot revolves around crap jumping out of the screen at you. Nothing more than a shallow look-at-me-look-at-me excuse that often does little to advance the reader's understanding of the story being presented.

I still subscribe to SI, but now it's the writing I anticipate more. Not the photography. The pictures no longer resonate with me the way they once did. The change in medium has not been kind to the resulting photographic message.

And I fear this change-of-photographic-mindset trend will only continue in 2015...

Ken

MDM1960 · Jan 20, 2015

I will graduate from 120 format into large format, minus the diploma.

Moopheus · Jan 20, 2015

Sal Santamaura said:
Far off topic, but for some reason this tripped my trigger.

For everyone's information (not picking on Clive, he just happened to be here), media is a plural form. Medium is the singular form. Your roll of film, sheet of printing paper, SD card, etc. is properly referred to as a recording medium. Collectively they are recording media. Thus, in the above example, correct structure would be "...the medium determines..."

Well, as a publishing professional with an entire bookcase of dictionaries and references in the hallway outside my office, I can tell you that _media_ is not unacceptable as a mass (collective) noun referring to, you know, the media.

"The singular _medium_ cannot be used as a collective noun for the press. "--American Heritage Dictionary.

Sal Santamaura · Jan 20, 2015

Moopheus said:
Well, as a publishing professional with an entire bookcase of dictionaries and references in the hallway outside my office, I can tell you that _media_ is not unacceptable as a mass (collective) noun referring to, you know, the media.

"The singular _medium_ cannot be used as a collective noun for the press. "--American Heritage Dictionary.

"The media" in your usage is a plural and does not conflict with what I posted. It refers to multiple press entities. My trigger gets tripped in this instance when, while referring to "the media," speakers and writers use "the media is" rather than correctly stating "the media are."

blockend · Jan 20, 2015

Ken Nadvornick said:
Instead of a victorious Cassius Clay snarling down at a fallen Sonny Liston made with a Rolleiflex TLR, we get endless stadium-wide scenes of close-up action whose only purpose is to show off the enormous depth-of-field of some digital sensors.

It very much reminds me of those 3D movies where the entire plot revolves around crap jumping out of the screen at you. Nothing more than a shallow look-at-me-look-at-me excuse that often does little to advance the reader's understanding of the story being presented.

Hard to disagree with that. To be fair, the can-do imperative pre-dated digital photography by some years. All kinds of junk modes found their way on to film SLRs in the 80s and 90s. Digital photography ran with what-if theme, resulting in the optical computers we have today.

I think zoom lenses are responsible for some of the pictorial dumbing down that's so prevalent. I don't have anything against zooms per se (I sometimes use one), but they seem to encourage tweaking of focal lengths that contributes very little to the over all aesthetic of a picture, in much the same way that editing software promotes dumb use of the sliders "because it's there". Humans as a species aren't known for their ability to resist novelty for its own sake, and photographers are no exception.

RattyMouse · Jan 20, 2015

Sal Santamaura said:
Far off topic, but for some reason this tripped my trigger.

For everyone's information (not picking on Clive, he just happened to be here), media is a plural form. Medium is the singular form. Your roll of film, sheet of printing paper, SD card, etc. is properly referred to as a recording medium. Collectively they are recording media. Thus, in the above example, correct structure would be "...the medium determines..."

Similarly, data is the plural form of datum. When one describes a single element of information, it is a datum. If describing two or more such elements, they are data. The correct structure for a commonly seen statement would be "...the data indicate..."

OK, tangent complete.

Having worked in the sciences now 20 years, and with that acquiring, reviewing, publishing, and communicating with other scientists about data, I've not once heard a single person use the word datum. Make it 26 years if you count my undergrad and graduate degree.

I think humanity has changed the meaning of the word data by showing it has no use for the word datum.

Ken Nadvornick · Jan 20, 2015

I got dinged for it once by a professor in a geological report I submitted. But that was back in the Lower Pleistocene epoch. I've been extra careful in using it ever since the advent of anatomically modern humans...

Ken

cliveh · Jan 20, 2015

blockend said:
I think zoom lenses are responsible for some of the pictorial dumbing down that's so prevalent.

Couldn't agree more, they should rediscover the value of perspective and get off their backsides to get the correct distance between camera and subject with a standard lens.

Sal Santamaura · Jan 20, 2015

RattyMouse said:
Having worked in the sciences now 20 years, and with that acquiring, reviewing, publishing, and communicating with other scientists about data, I've not once heard a single person use the word datum. Make it 26 years if you count my undergrad and graduate degree...

I've only very rarely heard "datum" used. The commonly employed alternative is "data point."

RattyMouse said:
...I think humanity has changed the meaning of the word data by showing it has no use for the word datum.

Not really. The masses have simply made misuse of "data" common. It's an analogous situation to how humanity misuses apostrophes in its constructions.

alanrockwood · Jan 20, 2015

RattyMouse said:
Having worked in the sciences now 20 years, and with that acquiring, reviewing, publishing, and communicating with other scientists about data, I've not once heard a single person use the word datum. Make it 26 years if you count my undergrad and graduate degree.

I think humanity has changed the meaning of the word data by showing it has no use for the word datum.

47 years and counting here, if you count undergraduate and graduate work. I have heard the word datum used plenty of times and have used it myself. However, it is true that that the meaning seems to have shifted (or at least is in the process of shifting) to include both singular and plural.

Film photography predictions for 2015

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency