The comeback?

+1,000

 

+1000 or more.

 

Etiam w-, sine fine filum, post filum
spumas ageret in ore arietibus
Post hoc semper ubi XX secundis de postulantes jeeves ...
lots of digital amoris et pigmento ..

/film-really-is-superior./
/why-℗-analogue-film-in-a-digital-age./
/photographers-with-bad-attitudes./
/wall-street-journal-article-giclee-prints-roil-the-world-of-painting./
/f-ing-fakes./
/why-are-all-film-magazines-digital-now./
/why-shoot-film./
/ugh-a-creative-crutch./
/what-is-a-better-term-than-hybrid-darkroom./
/tired-of-anti-digital-threads./
/the-negative./
/wim-wenders./
/photography-is-over./

 

ROFL. It seems like you still have some misunderstanding about whatAnalog Photography Users Group meant, and what a personal attack is. Would you go to a Pittsburgh Steelers forum and expect fans there to roll out the red carpet for Cincinnati Bengals fans? For 15 years we had to hear people complaining that APUG wasn't sensitive to their digital needs and shouldnt be APUG at all, and you finally got what you wanted.

APUG was, formerly, the only place APUGers could post their opinions without being attacked for daring to have such opinions, or having it deleted. And for some reason, that ruffled the feathers of digital users who couldn't respect it. Digital users have always had many places to go to talk about digital, or digotal and film, but there was only one APUG. Now of course, there isn't even APUG, and analog users are personally attacked (use a dictionary) with regularity now that its gone.

But there's great stuff back in the archives, I'm glad you posted. I particularly like the quote below by Sean, the site Administrator, which so eloquently conflicts with your belief "its all the same thing". Its the vision and mission that built this site, that you and others never respected. You came in crying and are still crying. Its too bad we're taking such a different direction now because I don't think it will be successful or reversible.But its what you wanted.

"I've said before that I believe it has always been digital marketings intent to replace traditional, not work along side it as another form of photography. We must drive a division between the two mediums so that each is preserved in their own right. Publications, museums, and galleries must be informative in making distinctions between these two mediums. If for example the lines continue to blur and "digital platinum giclee prints" are labeled "Platinum Prints" and sold as a "Platinum Prints" then where does this leave us? Digital marketing quite often tries to dumb down the marketplace and remove distinctions between the two forms of photography. Maybe APUG is the first step in this 'awareness'. I would suggest all traditional photographers label their work to give an indication of the process. For example if you call your c-print a "traditional c-print" this raises awareness, then the digital camp will have no choice to call theirs a "digital c-print". We can drive this market, no need to let the digital hype steamroll us"

How things have changed.

 

I think a good summary is that analog and digital both have strengths and weaknesses, and both have unique elements to them. Artists will exploit whatever medium works for them.

I feel like the analog-only folks feel attacked by the digital supporters. Maybe there is some truth to this. I wonder though, when digital first starting coming out, and frankly the quality sucked relative to film, who was making the negative comments then?

I think we have gotten to the point where film has reached a very high level of development after 150 + years. Digital, following in film's footsteps, and using a film model advanced much more quickly because it is more removed from analog restrictions that challenged film development (there are analog restrictions for digital technology also).

Going forward, I suspect digital will continue to advance much more quickly than analog just because of simple economics. Fortunately, the state of film technology is like the state of internal combustion engine (which may not may not dwindle due to electrics)- extremely adequate for the needs of the user of the technology. I suspect the $billions in R&D investment to develop the next silver halide grain structure is over (unfortunately), but not $billions for the development of the next digital sensor technology. On the other hand a paintbrush is still adequate to produce some of the most beautiful and appealing art objects in the world, and I am thinking this is the same for the state of film technology.

 

How much of the digital scanning market carries the hardcore film market?

 

Not sure what you mean by that. Scanning is used for legacy film, slides, prints, etc. as well as new film. It is used for documents, etc. Not sure what the actual numbers are.

 

The average consumer with a point and shoot was the driving force, by a huge margin, for the film market before digital capture became ubiquitous. It carried the film/camera/photo accessories market and we had consequent access to an extremely rich photo marketplace. Now we have hardcore folk who shoot and process soup-to-nuts; those who do that don't see it as a technical hurdle but that might be quite different for the average film shooter. Hence, labs, scanners, and printers. I'm guessing that the public scanner crowd is much larger than the hard-core group and their dollars make film more possible than it might otherwise be.

 

So we should be thankful that digital users are actually film's saviors rather than its nemesis.

Got it.

 

They are not saviors, at least willingly, but they do contribute to keeping film alive. If they are using film they are film users, so they are part of the analog world also. The ones who help less (to save film) are those who use only digital capture.

 

I think the only thing keeping color film alive is digital scanning. If color film users couldn't share their images on Facebook and Instagram it would be all over.

 

If film users weren't able to scan their film then lab optical printing would have stayed in demand and those services would be used. And those who darkroom printed would have continued to do that. Slides could still be projected and viewed directly. Scanning simply brought the convenience factor into play, as with digital cameras. Even so, scanning has problems for many as we have seen on this site, so quality is certainly not a big factor. Where is the evidence that social media is that important to film users? Many here comment on the look and quality films give them, not how easy it is to scan and upload to social media. There is no good evidence scanning has affected film use.

 

Totally agree.

 

Scanning does exist, so comments about "if film users weren't able top scan" are not helpful.

Social media is important because of the convenience factor you mention. Rather than forcing people to sit in your house an agonize through 738 slides of the trip to the Grand Canyon, people hop on Facebook and look at whatever pictures they want.

I am one who talked about the look of film, but I also mentioned that likely most of the film images on Flickr have never been printed (I do not know this for a fact), and I do consider Flickr to within the realm of social media, so I would say social media (Flickr and related type sites) is important to film users.

 

The comment was made above that scanning is helping keeping film alive. My point was to demonstrate that it could stay alive and well even if scanning hadn't existed.

 

Ok. I suspect it helps a lot to keep film alive, but cannot demonstrate that. Now it is a matter of keeping film alive long enough to keep it established as a viable medium, and to keep as many big players in the game as possible (which helps to keep it from being abandoned due to economic reasons).

 

The prevalence of labs has been one of the main factors in film discussions cited as evidence of the film comeback. Now you challenge its value, as many have, in terms of real volumes.

It would be great to get input from folks who work in labs to get a sense of who does what and what it is worth. If they, as other service suppliers and vendors, are making a buck at this they can be seen a specific, successful, and significant part of the film market. Success is the ultimate index.

Scanning quality is a sliding scale dependent upon gear and skill.. As such, that modality as a factor for utility has an awkward value. That wet process might have remained as a force is an irrelevant point.

Absent scanners would film users, who simply like the look of film or who saw scanning as convenient, turn or return to their film tanks and trays with its infrastructure and time demands?

 

Cart before the horse.

The only thing keeping many mini-lab services going is the output of digital files onto RA-4 paper, the processing of C41 negatives is secondary and not particularly significant any more.

As virtually all Minilabs are digital these days output from film can be prints or scans, however the young people I know shooting film want prints primarily.

Ian

 

Why not? It has worked well for film users in the past and still is preferred by many today. It still a viable way to produce the best quality images right at home.

 

I hear you; it is an established process. What i am talking about is people and how they behave. People cite a tidal wave of new film users. Are these folks building darkrooms? If they are using labs and scanning, will they adjust and got to darkrooms? And the folk who come form darkroom and went to labs, will they be willing to go back to their darkrooms?

We can debate the relative amounts of these segments but I think it fair to say that there will be a portion who will not be able to recross the Rubicon. At the same time I believe a significant portion of folks will not manage the technical and convenience hurdle that the wet process demands.

The traditional hardcore folk see no problem. As a manager of training and organization, highly skilled folk lose touch with what it was like to get started and work on the margins of skill.

 

Talking about scanning.....I would suggest if it were not for film scanners (eg Arriscan etc) 35mm ECN2 process film would be dead, digital capture would have fully taken over by now.

Scanning has allowed film makers to continue to use it as a capture medium, it wouldn’t be used if you couldn’t scan and edit digitally.

After all, what was the last major release Hollywood feature film that you could see in your local cinema that wasn’t scanned and edited digitally in any way, one that had a full analog/photochemical workflow from film negative to release print. Must have been back in the 1990s if not before. Digital editing is bliss when you consider the commercial realities and demands of film making today. I wouldn’t want to do it the old school way now!

 

Dunkirk.

 

There is no Rubicon to cross. Darkroom processing is, and has been for some time, easy and to many, fun. That is what makes it a great hobby for many. Sadly, many have been attracted to the convenience of digital and never think about the advantages and possibilities of doing darkroom work. They just erroneously think digital must be better. Hopefully, they would be able to reconsider. Doing my photography digitally does not appeal to me at all as I know it is technically inferior to film.

 

Movies are certainly shot on digital because of convenience. Can you show that technical quality is better? Color negative film printed on print film and projected has huge dynamic range and outstanding color. I have trouble believing digital even comes close.