The comeback?

[Eric Rose]

Well I see we have our very own Rip Van Winkle. I hate to say it RPC but your arguments are old and have long ago been dismissed.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

And all of this speaks to defining the proposition of "The Comeback"; a sense of potentials based upon history, passion, hope, and a sense of the superiority of film.

Just for grins, let us assume that film renders superior quality to digital capture.

Film has improved from the days of George Eastman to the days of Superia, Kodachrome, Cinestill, HP5 and Tri-X. I doubt, given the market, that film is likely to improve in the terms our friends on Photrio would consider worthy. One of the few real new films is currently Amazon's largest seller, is Instax film.

Computer power and cameras, on the other hand, have improved at an an astonishing rate over the last 20 years. Market forces notwithstanding, improvements in the digit process are more likely to continue.

Regardless of any understanding of film quality, film has peaked out and is finding its base in a smaller segment of shooters than digital. We are still at a point where industry is coming to terms with a historically smaller market that is still forming, amidst film producers who are leaving the market, in the context of "The Comeback."

As to some absolute about quality, film or otherwise? I believe that humans will take any tool, any craft, any process and work it to its zenith.

 

[RPC]

Well I see we have our very own Rip Van Winkle. I hate to say it RPC but your arguments are old and have long ago been dismissed.

I'm sure they have, mostly by the pro-digital people. Never mind that there are still plenty of film users, who have not dismissed them, despite the predicted death of film by now, by the pro-digital people and their wishful thinking long ago. To many, convenience isn't everything.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Convenience made marketing it easy.

I've often heard a criticism of the digital process because it is seen as quick and convenient, as if there were something wrong with that and slow and inconvenient was some proof of value. A quick Wikipedia:

"
Advertisement for the Kodak camera containing the slogan.
"You Press the Button, We Do the Rest" was an advertising slogan coined by George Eastman, the founder of Kodak, in 1888. Eastman believed in making photography available to the world, and making it possible for anyone who had the desire to take great pictures. Until then, taking photographs was a complicated process that could only be accomplished if the photographer could process and develop film. With his new slogan, Eastman and the Eastman Kodak Company became wildly successful and helped make photography popular."

It was the occurrence of ubiquitous home computers that set the stage for digital capture by large numbers of people (and many other things). One could plug a camera (or card) into your home computer like a refrigerator plugs into a wall. But now, just as with film I press the button and I can do the rest. So can millions of people who have no wish to tie up their bathroom as a darkroom.

 

[RPC]

I often heard a criticism of digit because it is quick and convenient, as if there were something wrong with that and slow and inconvenient was some proof of value. A quick Wikipedia:

"
Advertisement for the Kodak camera containing the slogan.
"You Press the Button, We Do the Rest" was an advertising slogan coined by George Eastman, the founder of Kodak, in 1888. Eastman believed in making photography available to the world, and making it possible for anyone who had the desire to take great pictures. Until then, taking photographs was a complicated process that could only be accomplished if the photographer could process and develop film. With his new slogan, Eastman and the Eastman Kodak Company became wildly successful and helped make photography popular."

It was the occurrence of ubiquitous home computers that set the stage for digital capture by large numbers of people. One could plug a camera (or card) into a computer like a refrigerator plugs into a wall.

So? That doesn't mean there wasn't those who weren't in to that, and took a more involved approach for better quality, and this was an entirely different technological era. A poor example.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

I disagree; it is a perfect example; a time of the seminal technological evolution of our craft. And that is where we are now with the digital process.

Further, it is the foundation of our work in film. It's not just as a function of the process we use, but also that it instigated an enormous market which funded Kodak's very considerable development. Even in ruins Rochester speaks of success in a market it created and developed.

We benefitted by the byproducts of all of this success: film and the technical and entertainment industries it spawned filled the news and the pages of Pop Photo (for example) articles and Mail Order Ads alike bringing us new experiences, new gear, new films & papers, lighting, cameras...a tremendously long list valued at Billions and Billions.

Film does not own hard work and success, or taking a more "involved approach". That belongs to humans: we will work any tool to success and work as hard as we can to make that happen.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

It must be coming back. The local Digital folks have almost all learned that "yes film is still being manufactured in spite of what you had been told". I've been in photography for 77 years and there seems to be more B&W films being made now than at anytime in my lifetime. Maybe that is because it is more of a world market now, when before it was, in the USA, Kodak, Agfa/Ansco, DuPont, maybe Gevaert (sp) and later Ferrania, 3M. Mostly the first two. At the end of WW2, Dupont came out with a paper that used "filters" instead of grades called Varigam followed by a warmer-toned Varilour. ......Regards!

Good knowledge.

 

[RPC]

All this does is remind me that film has been around along time and has proven itself as a viable medium by giving us years of high quality images and motion pictures. Digital is the new kid on the block and has yet to totally prove itself to the point where should be a preferred medium or replace film for any reasons other than convenience. Quality has been discussed here but there are other issues to consider such as archival quality. It will be along time before that issue is resolved.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

to the point where should be a preferred medium or replace film for any reasons other than convenience.

You press the button....

 

[removed account4]

I'm sure they have, mostly by the pro-digital people. Never mind that there are still plenty of film users, who have not dismissed them, despite the predicted death of film by now, by the pro-digital people and their wishful thinking long ago. To many, convenience isn't everything.

LOL im not pro digital or pro film, im pro PHOTOGRAPHY

and unfortunately you still haven't answered my question/s ...

when you look at a digital c print under glass
and a darkroom print under glass
can you really tell the difference ?
i'm not talking about a crappy digital photo
im talking about one made with love ... like
allegedly all film photo are
( but if you have seen decades of crappy snapshots which 99% of film photography is/was ... )

just because something is made with film or is a chrome and can be projected &c doesn't mean it
is "quality" or better ... there probably isn't as much cr@p made by chemical photography just because
as true as it was with snapshots or a friend with a slide show that went on and on and on and .. people
using a digital camera seem to be alergic to editing too ..

As to some absolute about quality, film or otherwise? I believe that humans will take any tool, any craft, any process and work it to its zenith.

couldn't agree more !

 

[Wayne]

I'd just like to say that the waste stream issues involved with commercial wet labs were a huge issue. For that reason alone the industrial arm of photography would have 'caught on' to the digital way.

Are you in possession of data showing that the waste stream of computer imaging is less? Liquid effluent is less but that is only one part of the manufacturing and processing chain.

 

[DonJ]

I'm sure they have, mostly by the pro-digital people. Never mind that there are still plenty of film users, who have not dismissed them, despite the predicted death of film by now, by the pro-digital people and their wishful thinking long ago. To many, convenience isn't everything.

Why do some people who like to use film believe that digital users spend their time hoping for the death of film? The vast majority of digital shooters are indifferent toward the existence of film.

The "us against them" attitude is childish and counter-productive. Unfortunately, it shows up far too often here.

 

[Ste_S]

just because something is made with film or is a chrome and can be projected &c doesn't mean it
is "quality" or better

I wonder if there's people who go through Salgado's Genesis book wondering if the photo was done with Tri-X or Digital before deciding if they like it or not...

 

[Eric Rose]

This is the biggest TROLL thread I've seen here on APUG/Photrio.

You guys are being played. Don't feed the troll!

 

[removed account4]

I wonder if there's people who go through Salgado's Genesis book wondering if the photo was done with Tri-X or Digital before deciding if they like it or not...

IDK but i think a lot of people have a bone to pick or axe to grind with people or processes or methods or you name it ..
its too bad cause in the end 99% of it all is fun, inconsequential, goofy, no pretension, memories ( and a lot of them crappy but fun )
.. and 99.999% of people couldn't care less about how it was made.. its like not liking a photograph because
the person who took it wasn't wearing socks, and it was winter ..

 

[faberryman]

I wonder if there's people who go through Salgado's Genesis book wondering if the photo was done with Tri-X or Digital before deciding if they like it or not...

Around here, yes.

 

[RPC]

This is the biggest TROLL thread I've seen here on APUG/Photrio.

You guys are being played. Don't feed the troll!

Do you mean Berkely Mike, he is the one who started and continues totally unnecessary posts obviously designed to praise digital and show the lesser importance of film? I am not a troll, I just find it necessary to show an opposing view based on plenty of experience with both film and digital images as indicated earlier. How many of you have such experience? I have presented some points none of which have not been successfully refuted. Now I am seeing those here who, when seeing points and opinions they don't like, are yelling "troll". Such mentality does not promote meaningful discussion and can only harm both Photrio and the photographic community.

 

[markjwyatt]

...Regardless of any understanding of film quality, film has peaked out and is finding its base in a smaller segment of shooters than digital. We are still at a point where industry is coming to terms with a historically smaller market that is still forming, amidst film producers who are leaving the market, in the context of "The Comeback"...

This is true with all technologies. I saw one of the last steam engines produced at the Sacramento train museum. It was massive and amazing, and clearly the pinnacle of steam engineering, but a diesel (possibly electric) displaced it with a much smaller footprint and more power.

Electric cars may do that to internal combustion cars in the next 10-20 years now that the efficiency of ICEs have peaked. But a Ferrari with a V12 or even a Corvette is still going to be a nice ride!

I wonder if this is part of the program of planned obsolescence. Once a technology has peaked it is hard to charge ever higher prices for the product, so a new technology is needed...

 

[faberryman]

Such mentality does not promote meaningful discussion and can only harm both Photrio and the photographic community.

There is no meaningful discussion in the analog vs. digital debate. It is a waste of time. Nobody is going to convince anybody about anything. Chose the one (or both) you want, and get on with it. Debating it will not improve your photography.

 

[RPC]

There is no meaningful discussion in the analog vs. digital debate. It is a waste of time.

I agree. That is why I cringe every time I see someone bring it up like the aformentioned poster. But on the other hand it is not in the interest of the photographic community to not give opposing views. It is often unfortunate that they end up dragging out so long to the point where someone finally yells "troll".

 

[removed account4]

It is often unfortunate that they end up dragging out so long to the point where someone finally yells "troll".

LOL !!!

 

[RPC]

LOL !!!

You think that's funny? I don't. More inappropriate mentality.

 

[jtk]

Pro commercial photographers almost entirely use digital, as do pro and amateur art photographers. The notion that there's a worthwhile debate is ridiculous.

 

[removed account4]

You think that's funny? I don't. More inappropriate mentality.

yes i do think it is funny ...
i asked questions about your beliefs more than once
seeing you disregarded my image/photography centrist ideas
as trivial and since you have an hardened opinion
about chemical photography. instead of answering questions
so i could understand your point of view a little more completely
( seeing your profile is blocked, you have no website, no images you have made in the gallery or in threads
and you seem to be some sort of authority about chemical based photography )
instead you disregard the questions as "silly" and then claim other people
who are photography centrist as trolls. yes, i think this whole thing is comical.

 

[faberryman]

...yes, i think this whole thing is comical.

Theater of the absurd.