Movies shot on film are immediately converted to digital for editing. Very few theaters even have the capability to project 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.
That was my point. The move to convenience has sacrificed quality. Par for the course.Movies shot on film are immediately converted to digital for editing. Very few theaters even have the capability to project film.
The for those who's abilities and desires have gone to scanning, crossing the Rubicon can be a very real thing. Just because you and many others find the old process easy and fun doesn't mean that all these scanning folk do or will.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.
As some of you may know, I own a photo shop / minilab (established 1985) in rural Ireland, local population 65k , catchment population 100K (approx).
Digital printing on RA4 paper is our labs business. We are the only lab left in town ( in the 1990's there were 4).
The digital printing onto photo paper is surviving and has increased 10% over the last 3 years. Customers are making prints from their phones.
We also offer 35mm C41 and B&W film processing, by instore and online. We have seen an increase in volume of 10% (on average) each year for the last 3 years. So much so that I was able to justify the expense of having the film processor refurbished last year. We run the C41 every day, none of this Tuesday & Thursday only.
The instore film porcessing is 90% dev & print, 5% dev & CD, 5% dev & upload google drive.
The online film processing is 90% dev & upload google drive, 10% dev & CD
In 2018, film processing was 8% of my turnover, 2016 it was 5%. Make what you like out of that. For me it's music to my ears.
(I purposely have used percentages as any other figures are my own business and not any ones else's. Yes I know it's just a local view and without industry figures to compare to it, may have no bearing on the global figures)
I don't know whether it has or hasn't, but those of us committed to film/darkroom should be thankful for scanners. They play a huge role in the ability for more people to participate in contact printing processes. Platinum, cyanotype, kallitype, VDB, etc. These processes are now available to a larger segment of photographers, thanks to digital advances in scanning and printing. In fact, I think we're not far from printers being designed to facilitate the creation of digital negatives for the home user in an easier manner. Young artists will be making cyanotypes from their iphone photos. Perhaps a few of them will develop an interest in giving silver gelatin a try.There is no good evidence scanning has affected film use.
Are you sure that there wasn't a digital intermediate?Dunkirk.
This sounds like photographic Stockholm Syndrome. I was kidnapped and starved for 20 days, but then they fed me and when I realized I'd be dead without their help I had no reason not to like them.I don't know whether it has or hasn't, but those of us committed to film/darkroom should be thankful for scanners.
.
They play a huge role in the ability for more people to participate in contact printing processes.
Are you sure that there wasn't a digital intermediate?
It certainly appeared to have been digitally edited, when I saw a digital projection of it.
I don't know what is so hard to believe that many of the people working with digital negatives wouldn't be if a large camera negative was a requirement. There are people on this site using digital negs for their alt work.Well if you are going to make a quantitative statement I'm going to have to insist on actual numbers showing that more people are participating than they did before scanners existed.
Thank you for the info and the link, which I mostly understoodShot on 70mm, edited on film (conformed actually I think they used an avid) and release prints were struck for what venues could handle the prints. Everyone else got digital...
It certainly wasnt a totally pure film to film production: https://www.provideocoalition.com/AOTC-DUNKIRK-JOHN-LEE
Look, I work on a Steenbeck daily in 35mm, but I don't cut on one. I just view processed dupe negs, interpositives and theatrical prints that I time. I make no bones about being glad I don't have to cut features on a flatbed, but some people still like it...
I don't know what is so hard to believe that many of the people working with digital negatives wouldn't be if a large camera negative was a requirement. There are people on this site using digital negs for their alt work.
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.
This is a really interesting point. Can pre-negative files be developed in the computer before producing a neg?I don't know what is so hard to believe that many of the people working with digital negatives wouldn't be if a large camera negative was a requirement. There are people on this site using digital negs for their alt work.
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.
yupI don't know what is so hard to believe that many of the people working with digital negatives wouldn't be if a large camera negative was a requirement. There are people on this site using digital negs for their alt work.
I think there are members who are producing digital negatives for alt processes, using tweaked digital files before printing on Pictorico transparency film. I don't know the details (not doing it myself) but I assume they use profiles specific to the process.This is a really interesting point. Can pre-negative files be developed in the computer before producing a neg?
I said there's the ability for more people to explore contact printing processes because of digital technologies. I don't have numbers, but there are certainly more printers capable of producing large negatives than there are 8x10 cameras.I find it hard to believe that more people are doing contact printing now because of scanners than they were before scanners...that requires numbers in order for me to believe it. I would be surprised, yes.
I said there's the ability for more people to explore contact printing processes because of digital technologies. I don't have numbers, but there are certainly more printers capable of producing large negatives than there are 8x10 cameras.
There’s no doubt that it is.If the ability isn't being utilized by more people than contact printed before, then its a moot point.
you are probably right, but we don't live in that reality at the moment. but in this day and age
the general public ( and some hardened well shown artists ) use scanners and digital techniology
in their work on a regular basis, and have for decades. its an establised medium and works well for some people,
and for others, understood it is the spawn of the devil &c.
Yet there is value in the idea, it's just that the relative numbers are unclear. That said, even if the numbers are equal or 2-to-1, 3-to-1, that would be a lot not using traditional analogue methods. An exact number would give us the degree but input from folks on the site can get us close.If the ability isn't being utilized by more people than contact printed before, then its a moot point.
There is some truth to this but it is a moot post, since the topic was what if scanning had never existed, and its affect on film.
Yet there is value in the idea, it's just that the relative numbers are unclear. That said, even if the numbers are equal or 2-to-1, 3-to-1, that would be a lot not using traditional analogue methods. An exact number would give us the degree but input from folks on the site can get us close.
I found this pertinent concerning market trends for Photo Chemicals. It suggests:
December 2018 Chemical imbalance: Weak demand for photographic chemicals will continue to hinder revenue growth
https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-.../chemical/chemical-product-manufacturing.html
I does suggest something of a position in the marked for photo, supporting thoughts that film may have reached a threshold and questions growth.
I have nothing on film scanners, though: the internet searching I do is dominated by link to retailers and reviews.
...It is important to stress that film is a very high quality, viable photographic medium and its continued use should be promoted in the interest of the photographic community...
This is nothing new. Of course there is, and has been, a decline. But that does not mean it will continue to the point of the death of analog photography. It is evident by the growth of the analog portion of this site over the years that a strong interest in analog photography continues.
It is important to stress that film is a very high quality, viable photographic medium and its continued use should be promoted in the interest of the photographic community, not be killed off as you continue to try to do with your doom-for-film posts.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?