Is the film craze dead?

[BrianShaw]

Definitely. But not as amusing as whether or not the Nikon F2 is the best camera ever.

… and if it needs/deserves a CLA or not

 

[BrianShaw]

… and if it needs/deserves a CLA or not

… and what the best lens for it is.

 

[AnselMortensen]

But wait, will it affect my taxes if I shoot overpriced outdated film in a Nikon F2 that might need a CLA? What about if I stand develop the film in caffenol? Would it be better than digital?

 

[bluechromis]

Yet there lies the rescue of film.

Shooting on a phone is great. I use it for everything. But when I want to make a photograph I grab a camera. Video I stick with the phone because I don't feel compelled to make artistic movies. For stills it's still recognized that a dedicated camera, be it film or digital, SLR or point and shoot, will net you a photograph rather than a snapshot.

I agree that I prefer to use a camera majority of the time, but I am an old fart that grew up with cameras. But I was not trying to prove that a phone can be as good as a camera at everything.

The original question had to do with whether the trend of interest in analog is waning. My point is that going forward, phones will dominate the overall ecosystem of photography. Professionals may be the last holdout of digital cameras, but pros make up a small part of the digital camera market and a minuscule part of the analog gear market. What niche analog can have in that photo ecosystem will increasingly depend on how it can compete with (or complement) phones. Digital cameras will continue to be used but will be increasingly irrelevant to the question of the popularity of film. That is a different scenario than what we have seen in the recent past which was based on how analog competed with digital cameras.

 

[BrianShaw]

But wait, will it affect my taxes if I shoot overpriced outdated film in a Nikon F2 that might need a CLA? What about if I stand develop the film in caffenol? Would it be better than digital?

There will not be any significant tax implications if you pre-wet, especially if pre-wetting digital images.

 

[AnselMortensen]

There will not be any significant tax implications if you pre-wet, especially if pre-wetting digital images.

Wow, what a relief!

 

[madNbad]

But wait, will it affect my taxes if I shoot overpriced outdated film in a Nikon F2 that might need a CLA? What about if I stand develop the film in caffenol? Would it be better than digital?

Reduce development times by dividing the percentage of tax on any capital gains. If you do not have any capital gains, multiply the development time by using the state sales tax as a base. If your state does not have a sales tax, add the number of Rose Bowl wins to the base starting time. If your state does not have any Rose Bowl wins, divide by D2x. That should make HP5+ look like digital unless you are using a new Leica M6, then scratch all of the above information.

 

[MattKing]

Reduce development times by dividing the percentage of tax on any capital gains. If you do not have any capital gains, multiply the development time by using the state sales tax as a base. If your state does not have a sales tax, add the number of Rose Bowl wins to the base starting time. If your state does not have any Rose Bowl wins, divide by D2x. That should make HP5+ look like digital unless you are using a new Leica M6, then scratch all of the above information.

I believe this post was generated by ChatGPT

 

[madNbad]

I believe this post was generated by ChatGPT

Nope. Only my own artificial intelligence.

 

[Huss]

Someone mentioned Kodak Disc cameras a few posts up. Were they better or worse than 110 and/or APS? Anyone ever use a Disc camera?

 

[MattKing]

Someone mentioned Kodak Disc cameras a few posts up. Were they better or worse than 110 and/or APS? Anyone ever use a Disc camera?

I remember seeing an absolutely fantastic poster (48" x 60"?) size print from a disc negative. Beautiful colour, subdued grain, contrast optimized.
It, however, came from Kodak's research labs in Rochester, because it was on display in a large surprise party honouring a Kodak Canada employee who was required to retire from Kodak Canada on his 65th birthday - just a few months short of his 50th anniversary with the company.
For many years in the early middle part of the 20th century he was known as "Mr. Kodak" in western Canada, because he was in sales and was the only Canadian Kodak employee in that region.
IIRC, he drove a Ford Model A when he first went out on the road, and it was a current car!
The disc film format was small:

The good things about disc film were:
1) it and its cameras were small and it stayed flat;
2) it incorporated a bunch of quite interesting technology;
3) storage was easy and took little space; and
4) it drove a bunch of improvements in film and printing technologies, many of which subsequently showed up in larger formats.

 

[AnselMortensen]

Is a Disc camera a poor man's APS camera?

 

[campy51]

I started this thread because I think the rush to buy cameras was on the decline. It wasn't long ago that cameras were sold within a day or so and now it takes weeks. I don't know what this thread is about anymore.

 

[Cholentpot]

I started this thread because I think the rush to buy cameras was on the decline. It wasn't long ago that cameras were sold within a day or so and now it takes weeks. I don't know what this thread is about anymore.

Taxes

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Taxes

If it's about taxes it should be closed because, as we know, there isn't a more political subject than taxes.

 

[madNbad]

I started this thread because I think the rush to buy cameras was on the decline. It wasn't long ago that cameras were sold within a day or so and now it takes weeks. I don't know what this thread is about anymore.

Threads wander far from the original post when an off topic post takes on a life of its own. In this case the world’s economic process and the effect on someone who just wants to buy a camera or some film. Sales of just about everything has slowed. Your were correct in pointing out there was a run up in the prices of some popular models combined with a shortage of available products brought on the rush. It could be those wanting a particular camera has found it and are happy with it. There is also some have moved on to the next trend or just don’t have the available funds for one. The thread may be much different than what your original post intended but it sure did generate some interest.

 

[Yashica]

Is a Disc camera a poor man's APS camera?

I once had a 3.5" Floppy disc Sony Mavica...a hell long time ago.

 

[Hassasin]

I started this thread because I think the rush to buy cameras was on the decline. It wasn't long ago that cameras were sold within a day or so and now it takes weeks. I don't know what this thread is about anymore.

Back on subject then

I think buyers are more astute today about cameras and wait to either get a deal or exactly what they are looking for. While there are still buyers who just want to get film camera, the number of better educated ones has grown and ironically (perhaps) slowed down buy-anything-film movement. I'd call it saturation of new-to-film ownership has grown.

At the same time, last 3 years have not been gentle to predicting anyones' future, so it's a bit of a chance some need to take on spending on something they don't necessarily need.

But I am not sure sales have actually visibly slowed down.

 

[foc]

Is a Disc camera a poor man's APS camera?

IMO APS was way superior to Disc. In fact the APS system was a great one. Unfortunately, it was let down by cheap cameras that couldn't utilize the system's full potential.



I think the only thing good to come out of the Disc camera, was the film emulsion improvements developed for Disc, migrated into 35mm.

The Kodacolor HR Disc film was T-grain technology and went on to be VR in other film formats. A great improvement.

Fuji had similar with their Fujicolor HR.

 

[Don_ih]

the APS system was a great one. Unfortunately, it was let down by cheap cameras that couldn't utilize the system's full potential.

I think what really let it down was the fact that (1) it was a new film format and (2) film was in the process of being replaced by digital. It never had the chance to gain enough traction to develop its potential. I imagine the manufacturers that built cameras for APS must've felt quite a sting from the lack of sales. In the used market, there's no Canon EOS more pristine-looking than the Canon EOS IX.

 

[Overrank]

Someone mentioned Kodak Disc cameras a few posts up. Were they better or worse than 110 and/or APS? Anyone ever use a Disc camera?

I’ve used a disc camera a few times years ago, and more recently digitized the negatives. The images digitized are better than you would imagine, but not as good as from a Minox (which has a similar negative size). There are various pages on the internet that say that the print quality of disc film was let down as lots of photofinishers wouldn’t upgrade their enlargers as Kodak wanted them to.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Another slant on the fortunes of analog is Fuji's instant products. Many experts love Fuji's digital cameras. But Fuji's instant products are a huge and growing source of revenue for them. For one thing, people have to keep buying instant films. With digital cameras, there isn't the same ongoing revenue stream.

There have been small digital printers, and I think there have been some digital cameras that could spit out a little print. But those options don't seem to be the most popular. It seems to be something more than the ability to quickly make a print that drives the popularity of instant analog. Fuji instant cameras have been low-end, but there are increasing options to use instant film with more sophisticated cameras.
https://petapixel.com/2022/05/18/fujifilms-business-is-booming-thanks-to-the-success-of-film/

I bought my daughter who's now a new mom one of the Fuji instant cameras. She loves it. Having a picture you can pass around or give to a friend who's visiting with their kid is a lot of fun for them. There are also little portable printers available that you can print out cellphone pictures. But I don't know if those are as popular.

 

[Hassasin]

APS was for the masses, the amateurs and never for the pros or anyone "advanced". If one wanted control, APS did not provide it. It was a flop by design, and I'm not sure that digital had much to do with it, maybe it did.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Ther's nothing wrong with snapshots. In fact, most people are only interested in snaps. They want to record their lives and activities and memorialize them . Pictures of family, friends, vacations, parties, etc are recorded for posterity so they can "look at a picture of someone they love, and fall in love all over again."

Frankly, those kinds of photos have more meaning to more people than just another picture of the Eiffel Tower or the Grand Canyon, whether film or not.

 

[Hassasin]

Ther's nothing wrong with snapshots. In fact, most people are only interested in snaps. They want to record their lives and activities and memorialize them . Pictures of family, friends, vacations, parties, etc are recorded for posterity so they can "look at a picture of someone they love, and fall in love all over again."

Frankly, those kinds of photos have more meaning to more people than just another picture of the Eiffel Tower or the Grand Canyon, whether film or not.

At the time I thought APS was too advanced for snap-shot crowd and too limiting for the rest. I still think it was either too much or too little, so the audience it would satisfy simply did not exist to support it.