Renew My Faith Please ...

I believe I posted a link to this earlier, but will repeat:

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

wiggy

SYLLABICATION: wig·gy
PRONUNCIATION: wg
ADJECTIVE: Inflected forms: wig·gi·er, wig·gi·est
Slang Excited, eccentric, or crazy, especially in reaction to something:

digiconvert said:

Does anyone believe your superbly argued points will have any effect on 'Wiggy' ? If he is so anti film or film is dead why does he continue to post on a site devoted to film ????

Click to expand...

Precisely my point as posted around page 12 of this thread (07-01-2006, 08:57 PM).

It is one thing to go onto digital-oriented or even general photo websites and opine about the death of film. But to come onto a film-oriented site and do so on and on and on ad nauseum is both rude and the classic definition of a web troll!

It's a classic case of a boorish house guest starting an argument with the host and then refusing to leave. What next, is he going to start breaking up the furniture?

DBP said:

PE,

Is it reasonable to conclude from this that when the industry reaches equilibrium (and I fully do expect that to occur), the variety of emulsions will be limited by inherent minimal efficient lot sizes? I had expected so based on familiarity with other, mostly unrelated, manufacturing processes. To what degree is the efficient lot size driven by prior tooling investments as opposed to the nature of the processes.

It has been my impression that the same coating equipment is used to produce different films in emulsion batches. I presume that the actual coating equipment varies by process (i.e. b&w, E-6, C-41, and K-14). Is there more overlap than that?

I recognize that you may want to truncate or hedge your answers to the extent that they depend on proprietary data.

DBP

Click to expand...

One reactor can be used to make all emulsions at a given scale. One reactor must exist for each scale intended to be produced. You cannot run a reactor at half scale for example.

One machine can be used to coat all films. In this case it is more difficult, due to the difference between B&W and color. B&W only has 2 - 3 layers whereas color has up to 15 or so. This means different pump setups, speeds, and front end equipment. In addition, support changes are significant.

Therefore, setup time is very important as is shutdown or crossover between products.

In both making and coating, chemical contamination is a big issue with some products.

Solvent coated products use different equipment entirely. This includes most thermally developed products.

PE

"The Thing That Wouldn't Leave" - a famous TV sketch by John Belushi.

Photo Engineer said:

One reactor can be used to make all emulsions at a given scale. One reactor must exist for each scale intended to be produced. You cannot run a reactor at half scale for example.

One machine can be used to coat all films. In this case it is more difficult, due to the difference between B&W and color. B&W only has 2 - 3 layers whereas color has up to 15 or so. This means different pump setups, speeds, and front end equipment. In addition, support changes are significant.

Therefore, setup time is very important as is shutdown or crossover between products.

In both making and coating, chemical contamination is a big issue with some products.

Solvent coated products use different equipment entirely. This includes most thermally developed products.

PE

Click to expand...

Thank you.

On thing I learned recently is that emulsion can be bagged and refrigerated until it is melted for use. So you could make a pot of emulsion, and use it for several coating runs.

But IIRC there are also ways of preparing emulsion where you get a continuous output, as the emulsion is mixed "on the fly".

Petzi said:

On thing I learned recently is that emulsion can be bagged and refrigerated until it is melted for use. So you could make a pot of emulsion, and use it for several coating runs.

But IIRC there are also ways of preparing emulsion where you get a continuous output, as the emulsion is mixed "on the fly".

Click to expand...

No one, to my certain knowledge, has ever been able to devise a continuous emulsion making apparatus or come up with a suitable formula for continuous making. The closest is described in the patent by Wey and Whiteley, and that is still a batch process when you get right down to reducing it to practical terms.

All film making and emulsion making in the industry today is a batch process.

The emulsion can be refrigerated, as you say, but it is a gelatin containing product, and will eventually spoil even if the silver halide is still good within the gelatin itself, but this is rarely the case. Spoilage products ruin the emulsion itself.

Once heated or reheated, an emulsion must be used due to the inclusion of 'finals' or 'coating doctors'. It only has a certain hold life after which it changes due either to bacterial or fungal growth in the melt, continued sensiziation changes, or degradation of the gelatin by chemicals in the kettle.

This is far to complex to go into here and much of it is proprietary, but one typical problem in the old days came from hardening the emulsion while it kept in the kettle due to the addition of hardener. So, the kettle size and coating speed had to be 'coordinated'. Finally, it was found that adding the hardener to an overcoat was less difficult. Now days, it is done in an entirely different fashion.

Some companies avoid this problem by not hardening their film. This is an elegant but sometimes undesirable method of solving hardening problems.

PE

Thanks, so IDNRC. (I did not remember correctly)

Photo Engineer said:

Wiggy;

Autochromes taken during WWI were showcased recently and a URL was posted here on APUG. I'm not going to look it up for you. If you are interested you will do so for yourself. Suffice it to say, the quality was superb and that was from 100 years ago. I saw a tricolor glass slide set produced in about 1887, shown to me from the private GEH collection and it too was outstanding.

Click to expand...

I know what Autochromes look like. You misunderstand me. You said you had hand-coated color film. I presumed you meant you had just done it recently, and asked to see the results. I don't doubt you, I'm genuinely interested.

My hand coated Ilfochrome is proprietary Kodak property. If you don't believe that I did it, then thats ok with me. I know I did it, and the follow up was a long length machine coating as well, once we showed proof-of-concept from the hand coatings. It went on to become a patent on thermally processed color dye bleach. That is published, but not with pictures. Sorry. But, the formula is in the patent if you are interested.

Click to expand...

I did not realize it was not recently, sorry. And yes, I know how to look up patents, as well as how to read them.

As far as production figures and costs go, you are sadly in error. Kodak, back 10 years or more ago, ran up to 4 machines at top speed, 7 days / week and 24 hours / day. Now, they run fewer machines for fewer hours with a smaller staff. So, now it may be 2 machines insteead of 4 and they run 5 days a week. Staff were laid off, true and I feel their pain, I truly do because many are friends and neighbors. OTOH, this puts the lie to your facts as the remaining staff can still be well paid for a full work week. And, they produce film and paper in the quantity needed by the current market at a reasonable price.

Click to expand...

So I ask - now that you've scaled down from 24x7 to 8x5, what happens when that can no longer be done? Will workers come in to work one day a week, or two, or three? Additionally, does it cost less to keep the plant open? Do the property taxes go down, the insurance cost less, etc? The fixed costs don't decline. I take your point about scaling down from 24x7 to 8x5 and from 4 machines to 2. Fair enough, I can buy that. There are still the hard costs to consider - the cost per roll must be higher. Either Kodak (or whomever) absorbs that, or passes it on to the consumer.

The major rise in costs so far has been the rise in silver prices, and the rise in oil prices. This latter cascades down to all organic chemicals. Wages at EK have increased as expected along with those in other industries. So, not knowing how film is manufactured, you know nothing about how to cut production scale. You don't even cite some of the major problems facing EK in scaledown, because you don't know what they are.

Click to expand...

I can get quite technical if you like. True, I am not an employee of Kodak, nor have I ever been. I read and I'm not stupid, so I'm capable of absorbing anything you have to teach me.

Just as a small example, the making of an emulsion at a given rate / year becomes more difficult as consumption goes down. This is because the 'wet' emulsion and gelatin spoil just like food in a refrigerator. So, scale back is important, but making less of an emulsion is difficult due to physical and chemical properties of the process itself. This was my specialty at EK for about 15 years. You, on the other hand, have no concept of even the simplest methods of coating or emulsion making.

Click to expand...

You are incorrect. My knowledge is from books and online and is (I'm sure) incomplete, but I am aware of how film and paper are coated and what goes into the suspension. I can walk the benzene ring with you if you'd like. So please don't assume I'm completely ignorant - and whatever my level of ignorance is, it can be cured. Learn me, and I promise to listen. I respect your knowledge and your experience.

So, having given you an idea of how wrong you are, lets go on to digital and mention that it uses lead, arsenic, selenium, mercury and a host of chemicals that were eliminated from film years ago to make the EPA happy. Kodak is a rather 'clean' plant as chemical plants go and is cleaning up rapidly. The runoff from digital equipment dumps is becoming a major concern of landfill operators and the EPA is turning its eye on the digital fabrication industry as I type these words. Good luck digital and clean up your act.

Click to expand...

All forms of silicon manufacture in the computer and computer-related industries are quite polluting. That really is completely beside the point - like saying "Sure I beat my wife, but my neighbor beats his wife worse than I do."

So, Wiggy, just as you got things wrong with comments about my personal work from lack of knowledge, you have erred in your other comments about film mfg due to similar lack of knowledge. And, you have made film mfg seem more toxic by avoiding the severe problems now cropping up from digital fabrication.

Click to expand...

Actually, it is the EPA who has made repeated statements regarding the level of toxic chemicals in the ground, level, and water, and attributable to Kodak of times past. I read the reports and attempt to understand the complex chemistry in them and what it means.

Yes, film and paper production is way down, and yes a number of products are in danger of vanishing, but the information you present to support your arguments are not good enough or factual enough to support them. Sorry.

Click to expand...

Well then, we disagree. I'd still like more information.

Consumer and professional analog products, both color and B&W, will be around well beyond 2008.

PE

Click to expand...

Time will tell, and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'll admit it if that happens.

In the meantime, it appears I've stirred up the natives. I am perfectly willing to continue this discussion, but I will leave it up to you. I appreciate your taking the time to respond to my statements and correct me where I was in error.

Wigwam Jones said:

I
Traffic film? I admit I didn't take that into consideration.

Click to expand...

You've left off a lot.

I have a litle trouble believing that it is a major part of Kodak, Fuji, et al's film sales, but I'll look into it. In any case, when they shut down the production lines, the people who make traffic cameras will go digital, presuming they have not already done so.

Click to expand...

The industry would at the drop of a hat go digital if they could. They can't right now. Its a issue of authentication. The authenticity of a picture used in traffic surveillance systems is, among other factors, defined by its membership of a physical roll. To what extent can digital data security (encryption, electronic signatures, electronic watermarks, etc.) be sufficient? Right now its not and for good reason. Electronic systems can and are being developed but their use is for the current time limited as auxilary systems with film used as the central court evidence. Once systems are developed that meet the needs and demands of the courts we will see a shift but even that shift won't be quick due to the investment costs. While in many countries the cameras needs only store the identity of the vehicle (Spain for instance) in Germany, by contrast, one must also identify the driver. This makes things (beyond all the issues of evidence) difficult and places significant demands on the digital capture systems.

Traffic film is made and sold in VERY large quantities. Municipalities purchase film by the kilometer.

Even WHEN traffic film demand goes away do to the nature of production there would still be large stockpiles left. These "rests" would be sufficient to fill quite a few cameras for many many years.

edz said:

You've left off a lot.




The industry would at the drop of a hat go digital if they could. They can't right now. Its a issue of authentication. The authenticity of a picture used in traffic surveillance systems is, among other factors, defined by its membership of a physical roll. To what extent can digital data security (encryption, electronic signatures, electronic watermarks, etc.) be sufficient? Right now its not and for good reason. Electronic systems can and are being developed but their use is for the current time limited as auxilary systems with film used as the central court evidence. Once systems are developed that meet the needs and demands of the courts we will see a shift but even that shift won't be quick due to the investment costs. While in many countries the cameras needs only store the identity of the vehicle (Spain for instance) in Germany, by contrast, one must also identify the driver. This makes things (beyond all the issues of evidence) difficult and places significant demands on the digital capture systems.

Traffic film is made and sold in VERY large quantities. Municipalities purchase film by the kilometer.

Even WHEN traffic film demand goes away do to the nature of production there would still be large stockpiles left. These "rests" would be sufficient to fill quite a few cameras for many many years.

Click to expand...

I DO know a bit about authentication of digital files and it is a far from trivial matter. The audit controls needed to assure an auditor that a file could not
have been corrupted are expensive and hard to implement, and usually have to be applied at the point of data capture, which requires designing the traffic camera to digitally sign each photograph in a manner does cannot be falisified. This is trivial with film, but far from trivial in dealing with digital files, which are inherently easy to manipulate. I have long wondered if any police forensic departments have taken the step of trying to go digital, and how they handled this under the rules of evidence.

Photo Engineer,

You should save your fingers. There are certain people who will argue no matter what, and contrary to your real skills, knowledge and experience over their book information. The rebutal to your last post is evidence of such.

Thanks for posting what you have. It has been interesting especially because it comes from a current or former employee.

Wigwam Jones said:

In the meantime, it appears I've stirred up the natives.

Click to expand...

There is so much wrong with the use of such a term it would require a thread all of its own. It does however give an insight into the workings of his mind.

edz said:

The industry would at the drop of a hat go digital if they could. They can't right now. Its a issue of authentication. The authenticity of a picture used in traffic surveillance systems is, among other factors, defined by its membership of a physical roll.

Click to expand...

I have to slightly disagree - I know of at least one such surveillance system that is working totally digital, without any film anywhere, namely this one: http://www.stockholmsforsoket.se/templates/page.aspx?id=183 but that's going way off-topic on a forum like this! And it wouldn't work with film, either. Not with a 300.000+ passages a day, 5 days a week. Imagine the film costs...

As to the question of film being dead or not - I don't care as long as I can use it.

Wigwam said:

"So I ask - now that you've scaled down from 24x7 to 8x5, what happens when that can no longer be done? Will workers come in to work one day a week, or two, or three? Additionally, does it cost less to keep the plant open? Do the property taxes go down, the insurance cost less, etc? The fixed costs don't decline. I take your point about scaling down from 24x7 to 8x5 and from 4 machines to 2. Fair enough, I can buy that. There are still the hard costs to consider - the cost per roll must be higher. Either Kodak (or whomever) absorbs that, or passes it on to the consumer."

At the point you describe, a full shift will still coat but at the speed required to fit the market. It is less efficient, and at that coating speed prices will being to rise accordingly, but film will not vanish. The consumer will simply observe a price increase. It will not be exorbitant, because the drive now at EK is to solve that problem NOW for that day in the future when it happens, to minimize sticker shock! You see how little you know? And how much you have to learn?

Wigwam said:

"learn me"

This isn't even proper English. To "TEACH" you would require a lot of skill on my part, as there appears to be a lot of pre-existing bias there that must be overcome first.

Basically it involves chemistry, physics and engineering with lots of years of experience. Assuming you know all 3, even I knew that when I joined EK, but they didn't trust me with a coating machine or emulsion make. I learned for several years from a mentor to become a photo engineer before I was really ready to solo. Do you think it would take me a few minutes on APUG to teach you what took me over 30 years of lab work to acquire? This is not trivial science or engineering.

The workshops that I teach are toned down, non-chemistry versions of emulsion making bent towards the simple vs the complex but still can confound the novice. But, simply put, your arguments are naive, and being so, you are unaware of their naivete. I'm sorry, but that is true. You sound like another person on APUG who thinks he knows photographic science. The saving grace is that you are more polite.

I say I'm a photo engineer. I'm a generalist in the field. There are specialists who are coating engineers, emulsion engineers, finish engineers, dye engineers etc etc and so forth. I myself can only give you a slight dip into these fields. More to the point, there are probably only 200 - 300 of us world-wide and we have had thousands of hours training to get there, so don't think you can teach me photo product manufacturing. More importantly, don't think you can learn it here. Sorry.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

At the point you describe, a full shift will still coat but at the speed required to fit the market. It is less efficient, and at that coating speed prices will being to rise accordingly, but film will not vanish. The consumer will simply observe a price increase. It will not be exorbitant, because the drive now at EK is to solve that problem NOW for that day in the future when it happens, to minimize sticker shock! You see how little you know? And how much you have to learn?

Click to expand...

I am aware that there is much I do not know, about all kinds of things. I am also aware that I have much to learn. That, I didn't get from reading your response. I believe we continue to disagree on how much prices will rise when a factory makes 1/10 or less their rated output.

Wigwam said:

"learn me"

This isn't even proper English.

Click to expand...

No, it was a colloquialism, and meant to be humorous.

To "TEACH" you would require a lot of skill on my part, as there appears to be a lot of pre-existing bias there that must be overcome first.

Click to expand...

I've put a lot of time and energy into studying the problem - I guess because I found it fascinating as well as frustrating. And I'm pretty well attached to my conclusions, but that's because up until now, I have not been challenged on grounds that could withstand logical scrutiny. I still don't agree with all of your conclusions, but you bring more facts to the table than I've seen before now, rather than raw emotion. I hope I'm not so entrenched in my position that I can't recognize facts when I see them. Pre-existing bias? Well, I guess we've all got them. I'm game to learn, what more can I be?

Basically it involves chemistry, physics and engineering with lots of years of experience. Assuming you know all 3, even I knew that when I joined EK, but they didn't trust me with a coating machine or emulsion make. I learned for several years from a mentor to become a photo engineer before I was really ready to solo. Do you think it would take me a few minutes on APUG to teach you what took me over 30 years of lab work to acquire? This is not trivial science or engineering.

Click to expand...

So your suggestion would be that I simply agree with you? I'm willing to aquire knowledge, and if it changes my opinion on the future of film, then fair enough.

The workshops that I teach are toned down, non-chemistry versions of emulsion making bent towards the simple vs the complex but still can confound the novice. But, simply put, your arguments are naive, and being so, you are unaware of their naivete.

Click to expand...

Wow. I'm naive but I can't be told why, because I won't understand. Does that sound like a brush-off to you? Because it does to me.

I'm sorry, but that is true. You sound like another person on APUG who thinks he knows photographic science. The saving grace is that you are more polite.

Click to expand...

I only know what I have managed to teach myself. Which is a lot more than some, and a lot less than others. I try to learn from those who know more than I do.

I say I'm a photo engineer. I'm a generalist in the field. There are specialists who are coating engineers, emulsion engineers, finish engineers, dye engineers etc etc and so forth. I myself can only give you a slight dip into these fields. More to the point, there are probably only 200 - 300 of us world-wide and we have had thousands of hours training to get there, so don't think you can teach me photo product manufacturing. More importantly, don't think you can learn it here. Sorry.

Click to expand...

What are we talking about here? I'm not asking you to distill your career down into a 15 minute blurb and give it to me for free. We're having a discussion on the future of film. I have many reasons why I think it is not long for this world, and you disagree. I quote my facts as I understand them, and you say I'm wrong, but you can't possibly explain why - either it is too complex to explain, or I'm too naive to get it.

I do hope I have an open mind, but just telling me to essentially sit down and shut up because I don't bring enough to the party isn't going to convince me. If I'm wrong, spell it out and don't pull any punches. Expect me to defend my points with vigor - that's how arguments work, which people seem to forget. If you convince me - and you have on several smaller points - expect me to admit it. I've an ego, but I'm not easily bruised by being wrong. It's part of life.

I'll give it to you straight - I admire you and what you've done to preserve film and photography. I know you don't believe that, but it is true. I wish you didn't see my statements as attacks on your or what you're doing or even on Kodak, because to me, they're not. But as I look back on our conversation thus far, I see you appearing to be angry, backing me down and proving me wrong on a couple of points, reinforcing my own statements at times (sure film is going away), but then insisting that I'm all wrong and the reason - well, you're not going to tell me that.

Maybe this is all we have to give to each other. If so, I'm sorry that I failed to find common ground with you. In two years, we can take a look back and see how things turned out.

PE, First and foremost; thank you for the summated procedure on what goes into the making of film. I think with the knowledge put forth in these few posts classifies you as more than just a generalist in this field. Although as an artist my may concern is my final product and how that meets my vision, it is refreshing to know how the technical aspects come into play for me to achieve that goal. I don't usually like to get involved in a flame war on digital vs. film because we all have seen thousands of posts just like wigwams and they become oh so tiring. I shoot ULF and in this venue companies that coat films such as Efke/Adox have seen double the demand for film in the past year alone. As a matter of fact rumor has it that they are coating film so fast that quality control issues are arising. Ulf camera sales have doubled in the past three years, just ask Kieth Canham or other manufacturers and notice their 18 month or 2 yr lead times. I've also heard that there may be an American company ready to start coating their own films. Granted this all may lead to a niche market at higher prices for film but that is a market that is there for the taking for anyone ready to make the commitment to film. I think, and I mean this as a laymans view, that kodak knows as well as we do that digital just can't gives us what we want yet. But I'm not interested in that argument. My main point here is that I really appreciate your insight. I have two freezers that say I can shoot film until I'm dead. My concern is that future generations are going to miss out on all the fun we have had. God I hope not . Thanks again

And on, and on and on....

Wiggy will not stop because he is a meglomaniac and he is getting the audience he craves. He is the class clown - the one everyone applauds or appalls and either way he sees it as encouragement to continue.

His fixation is scary - but at least he's not the North Korean "Glorious Leader" with a couple of nukes at his disposal!

And besides, why do folks talk F-I-D, anyway. Film is not a person or living being of any kind. You are not going to wake up one day and see an obituary announcing that film died last night!

It is a mature technology which has been supplanted by digital imaging for many of its traditional uses. But it continues to be used at lower volume levels and probably has weathered the worst of the paradigm shift to digital alternatives.

Will film disappear altogether someday? Perhaps, even probably. Can anyone put a date on it? No, because film will not "die" in one fell swoop. It will decline in usage and perhaps wither away altogether some day - but no one knows when that will be.

With that, I'm out of this thread. I grew tired of Wiggy (er...Bill Mattock) once before. Just a word to all -please don't let him sour this site by giving him the attention he craves.

Wiggy, sorry if you took my comments as confrontational, they were not inteded as such, but merely to point out that I cannot, in a forum such as APUG, teach all that is necessary to convert you to my position, nor even enough to budge you a little from where you stand (If I read your position correctly). It is a matter of bias and education (not to demean yours as there is a lot I don't know as well).

I'm merely stating that you lack the information and education to make the hard and fast statements you do regarding film and its 'impending demise'. You yourself have admitted, to a degree, that lack. I cannot predict when fusion power plants will come on-line commercially so it would be futile for me to argue with a nuclear physicist about the state of the art. This is somewhat akin to what you are doing. That physicist would have a similarly difficult time explaining his reasoning to you and to me both.

The point is that your arguments lack enough substance to be unsound to me, and even to others not skillled in the art as I am. I'm trying to point out the exact reasons which others can only deduce from indirect experience, but which I can comment on from direct experience.

It would take hours to explain redesign of coatings, change of coating speeds, engineering for a reduced analog product consumption, and even I would only be giving ideas based on comments from friends and prior experience, not current facts directly learned by work at EK.

I want to help, but much of this is engineering and who wants to sit and go over all of that dry information for pages and pages. That is not a cop out to you or anyone, it is a fact that I just cannot type all of that out. It would take weeks of work here at my keyboard, and this is not presently the current venue.

Just presenting the drawings and equations would drive virtually all readers away, I guarantee it.

PE

Put simply. If for some unfathomable reason, The Great Yellow Father decides to quit making color film 1 year and 352 days from now, (I want that beer) that action alone would carry Fuji to at least the end of the decade.

In the coldest of respects Ilford can't be lamenting the end of Kodaks B&W paper output, nor the demise of Agfa. The market share Kodak and Agfa gave up in paper may have been too small for Big Yellow to continue, but substantial to Ilford, and other "small" manufacturers, which are tiny companies, next to Kodak.

The counter position seems to be, if it can go wrong, it will, and by my experience, thats not true. Its not an emotional thing at all. We are witnessing the decline of a multi billion dollar per year industry, it has some to go, allot more than two years imo.

Jerevan said:

I have to slightly disagree - I know of at least one such surveillance system that is working totally digital, without any film anywhere, namely this one: http://www.stockholmsforsoket.se/templates/page.aspx?id=183

Click to expand...

The Stockholm system is NOT a traffic surveillance but a toll system. Compare, for example, to the German "Toll Collect" system: http://www.toll-collect.de/

The "gag" with the Stockholm system is that in addition to the debit transcievers they choose to try to use license plates images (and character recognition) as a means to "tag" vehicles. Its not legal evidence that a car really passed the point but in such a system one does not need "legal evidence". The cost of potential disputes is significantly lower than the cost of other options. The motivation to dispute is also low. This is psychologically similar, I think, to the means of controlling subway, bus and tram tickets in much of Europe. Its cheaper to have a few small legal controls (at "random" times a group of controllers go through the wagons or stand at the exit points to control tickets) than to install systems (which too would by their nature have "leeks") to try to close the "holes".

The question "did I use the road" (toll charge) is less poignant than "did I run the red light while speeding". Its a "did I use the service" versus "did I break the law". The cost of a "conviction" for breaking a traffic law is high and may include beyond the fines also increased charges for insurrance and even license suspension.

but that's going way off-topic on a forum like this! And it wouldn't work with film, either. Not with a 300.000+ passages a day, 5 days a week. Imagine the film costs...

Click to expand...

Traffic systems are intended to take evidence of people breaking a law. They cannot be used (there also also issues of private sphere) to photograph people using a service as intended--- the Robot cameras, however, were often used for person surveillance by state security (in East and West) and espionage activities.

Given the fines for running a traffic light or speeding, the traffic systems when used as intended more than pay for themselves. The cost of film and developer is literally carried by the offender.

The current direction of technology is towards increased digital systems for control but retaining film based systems for evidence. Digital systems can also help authorities optimize the utilization of their film based system by providing better data about traffic flows and patterns. The point of traffic systems, we need recall, is NOT to fine bad guys but to make the roads safer. That's why in Germany its become legal and routine for radio stations to announce the location of Traffipax boxes and radar traps. That's also why in the State of California police cars are not allowed to hide but must be in plain sight.

Over the next few years, in this light, I think we will indeed see less use of film traffic cameras and more use of digital control systems. The word is "less" but hardly "replacement". Demand, however, might even go up as digital systems become more widespread and authorties look to tighten things. If the empirical evidence leads one to believe that an increased threat of punishment might improve traffic safety then we may see more.

DBP said:

I DO know a bit about authentication of digital files and it is a far from trivial matter. The audit controls needed to assure an auditor that a file could not
have been corrupted are expensive and hard to implement, and usually have to be applied at the point of data capture, which requires designing the traffic camera to digitally sign each photograph in a manner does cannot be falisified.

Click to expand...

Is it even worth the trouble? Recall each picture is literally paid for by the subject.

But yes.. governments would like to save some money... Is digital cheaper? No. The total cost per picture using digital technology over the period of investment would probably even rise with digital over analog. Traffic cameras are very robust and made to take millions of photographs and to keep going year after year. The image sensor and capture is constantly renewed (film).

Dear All,

I have read this thread with interest with valid points made on all sides..photo engineer as usual enlightening on the manufacture of photo products, he is absolutely correct only a few hundred people in the World can do it...it ai'nt easy... I have expounded before on photography as an art, art cannot die...therefore film and paper will remain in production, lots of consolidation and changes yes, but it certainly ai'nt going to die in two years ( so a few beers will need to be bought I think ) I leave you with this thought, the founder of ILFORD Alfred Hugh Harman made his first glass plate in 1879...we made our last make of glass plates ( for scientific use ) last thursday...127 years later, and the process ...by and large much the same...

Also we have noticed two interesting trends, digital has encouraged a higher level of image taking ( not making ) to some it becomes a passion, when you have a passion you experiment, this inevitably brinds them back to silver at some stage and we know that satisfies a creative urge in a way that digital does not ( ask anyone who prints their own work )...also film sales are pretty stable amongst key user groups and increasing in some, especially those who require image archiving, if you have got a negative, correctly processed and stored you are safe, you can digitise and do whatever you want, if you have not and just got a digital file the jury is most definitely out. Who, who values their images would take the risk, for a few cents and a bit of work in a darkroom.

Civilised debate is the way we all learn more, some learn they actually have a voice, some learn their voice may be stronger, but their point weaker, to contribute is not all, to listen to all....is all...

Simon Galley, ILFORD Photo, HARMAN technology Limited:

Simon R Galley said:

...Alfred Hugh Harman made his first glass plate in 1879...we made our last make of glass plates ( for scientific use ) last thursday...127 years later, and the process ...by and large much the same...

Click to expand...

Simon, is that "last make of glass plates" as in "most recent" or "final?"

Simon R Galley said:

Dear All,

I have read this thread with interest with valid points made on all sides..photo engineer as usual enlightening on the manufacture of photo products, he is absolutely correct only a few hundred people in the World can do it...it ai'nt easy... I have expounded before on photography as an art, art cannot die...therefore film and paper will remain in production...

Click to expand...

The logic of that statement is terribly flawed.

, lots of consolidation and changes yes, but it certainly ai'nt going to die in two years ( so a few beers will need to be bought I think )

Click to expand...

Again I repeat my prediction - the death of color print film in two years, B&W in a decade. I may be right, I may be wrong, but I'd prefer not to be misquoted.

I leave you with this thought, the founder of ILFORD Alfred Hugh Harman made his first glass plate in 1879...we made our last make of glass plates ( for scientific use ) last thursday...127 years later, and the process ...by and large much the same...

Click to expand...

Historically interesting - and means what?

Also we have noticed two interesting trends, digital has encouraged a higher level of image taking ( not making ) to some it becomes a passion, when you have a passion you experiment, this inevitably brinds them back to silver at some stage and we know that satisfies a creative urge in a way that digital does not ( ask anyone who prints their own work ).

Click to expand...

I do both digital and process & scan my own B&W film. I don't find one more creative than the other. So this means...what?

Many have noted that digital camera users tend not to print their photos. And this is a bad thing how? This is important to you how? So what, is what I'm asking? We say it and nod our heads sagely, like every shot taken by Aunt Edna and her Super-Clicker 2000 is worthy of framing and hanging in a museum. Oh, the poor, poor, digital snapper. No prints. Just a bunch of ones and zeros on a hard disk that will fail someday soon.

..also film sales are pretty stable amongst key user groups and increasing in some, especially those who require image archiving, if you have got a negative, correctly processed and stored you are safe, you can digitise and do whatever you want, if you have not and just got a digital file the jury is most definitely out. Who, who values their images would take the risk, for a few cents and a bit of work in a darkroom.

Click to expand...

There is a whole lot wrong with those statements, and a whole lot that is totally misleading.

First, consumer film sales are far from stable. They've fallen off a cliff. Both Kodak and Fuji report traditional film sales down at least 20% year-on-year for the past three years. And where is Agfa?

"Key user groups?" What's that, people who subscribe to "Darkroom Techniques?" Yes, I suppose they would be stable amongst that group. But what does that mean. You know as well as I do that consumer sales drive production.

Yes, I am sure Ilford is in a very good spot right now - they are sucking up traditional B&W film users and adding, rather than losing, customers. But Ilford is hardly the film on the shelves at Walgreens and Walmarts, is it? Ilford does not make any C41 products. So what happens with C41 shold hardly concern Ilford.

As to stability and archival qualities, please give me a break! 40,000 priceless negatives of the Kennedy years lost in one stroke on 9/11. Had they been digitized...

Yes, digital archival methods are perhaps not as stable as a correctly-processed and preserved B&W film strip. No doubt. But each and every copy of a digital photo is identical to the original - you can't say that for copies made of film frames.

When a digital image is stored in multiple locations, the statistical chances of losing tend towards zero, and quickly overtake the longevity of a single frame of film. If the photo is digital and very important - it can and will be stored in multiple locations, and kept updated to prevent loss.

Banks do it with your money, QED.

Civilised debate is the way we all learn more, some learn they actually have a voice, some learn their voice may be stronger, but their point weaker, to contribute is not all, to listen to all....is all...

Simon Galley, ILFORD Photo, HARMAN technology Limited:

Click to expand...

I am at this moment engaged in scanning a bunch of old 35mm color negatives that my sister sent me - she wants them to put on her website. They are bad. Old negs, colors faded. Scratched badly, although they are still in their sleeves from the one-hour place she had them done however many years ago. I suppose she had prints made - that is the habit with film users, right? But where are they? No one knows. Maybe in a shoe box somewhere, gathering dust. And the image quality is not good, clearly an inferior point-n-shoot camera was used, and the framing and composition is clearly indifferent - horizons tilted, fingers over the lens on some frames, and so on.

And you know what? THIS is who uses the lion's share of C41 film. SHE is the face of the person driving the mad rush towards digital cameras. Not you, not me. Not all of us who love film and use it well. Our combined purchases are a spit in the ocean to the millions and millions of moms, dads, aunts, uncles and so on who buy a throw-away camera with 800 speed film (because they think 800 is 'better' than 400, huh!) and take terrible photos.

The photos they take with a cheap point-n-shoot digital camera are slightly less crappy. They don't print them, mostly. Who cares? So what?

Collectively, we're being herded over the cliff with the cattle stampede. I'm sorry we're not in control, but we're not. My sister and all like her are the driving force, not us.

Best,

Wiggy