This guy thinks film is dead

Wyno · May 6, 2010

Hi guys,
I found this article in the latest edition of the Geelong Business News. The author thinks that because he doesn't use it, and has no interest in it, that film is dead. It's attitudes like this this that will kill off film, it's nearly happened in Geelong already. It's basically the diehards and the users of Holga cameras that are keeping film alive here.
Mike

markrewald · May 6, 2010

Maybe write a rebuttal to the article. Great exposure (pardon the pun) for both you and film.

karthik · May 7, 2010

... I went through many rolls of black and white, 35m slide then color film,...

Well, at least he is consistent. If he sees moving from BW to color film as unidirectional evolution/progress, then moving on to the latest DSLR is the right move for him.

mesh · May 7, 2010

I still love (and use) my old 33mm camera ;-)

Existing Light · May 7, 2010

"allowing greater flexibility and creative composition, this technology makes it easy to compose and shoot images on the 3.0-inch Clear View Wide LCD screen, without ever having to bring the camera to your eye"

I understand this is a prosumer camera that's being marketed to advanced consumer photographers, but this made me laugh a bit How many professionals actually use the live view on 35mm cameras? I've never been fond of it. If I want a bigger viewfinder, i'll use a bigger camera (which, fortunately will have a bigger negative or image sensor, depending on which technology I'm shooting at the time).

These next two quotes makes me want to beat the shit out of him

"I can now officially declare that 35mm film is dead"

"... even though you love your old 35mm camera, it's time to retire it -- permanently"

35mm film is dead? But what about Ektar being released in 2008? It sold so well that it got released in 120 and sheets. I thought there was still a glimmer og hope for the format. PErhaps Kodak is keeping us in denial about our fate. Thanks for showing me the light. I'll put my 35mm cameras on ebay and offer my film as freebies. Maybe someone will be able to use it as bookends or something.

Seriously, though, who the hell are you to declare anything dead? I declare digital photography dead. People, retire your digital cameras and revive your cameras of olde!

If I didnt find this humerous, I'd probably be mad. Basically he's telling us to replace our 35mm cameras with a prosumer digital. Shit, if I'm going to go digital, I'm going to get one of the top of the line Canon or Nikon cameras. Maybe even a digital Mamiya or Hasselblad. that camera he's raving about is fine for snapshots and videos of the kids on vacation. Actually, I think it's a bit overkill for that. The Xti I used to have was fine for such use (ok it didnt have video. Just work out yor shutter finger and press the shutter really fast ).

Ian David · May 7, 2010

Wyno said:
Hi guys,
I found this article in the latest edition of the Geelong Business News. The author thinks that because he doesn't use it, and has no interest in it, that film is dead. It's attitudes like this this that will kill off film, it's nearly happened in Geelong already. It's basically the diehards and the users of Holga cameras that are keeping film alive here.
Mike

I guess the Geelong Business News has a readership of about 15 people...

hoffy · May 7, 2010

Sounds very much like a sponsored article (not like that kind of thing happens in this country....)

And I am probably flaming the fires here a bit, but seriously, the reactions here? The article is aimed at high end consumers. They are more then likely not ever going to ever print a photo, so why the heck would they want to use film.

Nothing to see here, move on......

Kevin Kehler · May 7, 2010

If all you need is live view to compose your picture, why is the guy in the picture got it up to his eye? Write a rebuttal and see if they print it; probably not since the advertisers make no money on not selling you the latest thing and the last thing any magazine wants is to upset advertisers.

Mainecoonmaniac · May 7, 2010

Well, CDs have been around for over 20 years, yet there are still people have an interest in buying music on vinyl. Some vinyl fans are kids under 20 are rediscovering the quality if analog music. It will be the same for photography.

Kevin Caulfield · May 7, 2010

A guy I know from an online forum in Australia who writes articles which are nationally syndicated had an article prior to last Christmas which explicitly stated that Kodak doesn't make film anymore.

Worker 11811 · May 7, 2010

I just went through the digital vs. film debate in my head.

I could buy a new digicam like the EOS 550D for between $800 and $1,000.
Add in the cost of accessories. Then figure in the cost of consumables like paper and ink. (It costs over $50 to refill my printer!)

But, instead I bought TWO 35mm cameras and only paid approx. $60 for the lot. I bought an ENTIRE darkroom setup for $200. (Enlarger, tanks, trays, utensils & everything.) With approx. another $100 worth of consumables, I am already operational and making prints today.

For consumables, I can pay approx. $6.00 for each roll of film, about $40 for a pack of photographic paper and $50 for enough chemistry to process a whole boatload of film and prints, that comes out to just two refills of my inkjet printer, not including the paper I would buy.

Okay... So I can pay $460 for film or I can pay $1,000 for digital.

So, the way I look at it, I'm getting better quality for half the price. Once I added it up, it didn't take me long to decide.

Mainecoonmaniac said:
Well, CDs have been around for over 20 years, yet there are still people have an interest in buying music on vinyl. Some vinyl fans are kids under 20 are rediscovering the quality if analog music. It will be the same for photography.

There are still people who make Daguerreotypes! Those have been "dead" for over 100 years. Haven't they?

Darkroom317 · May 7, 2010

Once it gets it gets to medium format it is even worse economically. Look at the prices for "good" digital backs in comparison to the price of a medium format film kit and the prices per roll with developing. Digital is not worth the money.

Wyno · May 7, 2010

I am going to write a rebuttal, and I will include that as yet digital does not have the tonal range smoothness of black and white film and that if film was dead, then why are Kodak, Fuji, Iford etc still making it?
I must admit, when I first read this article I was very upset. I didn't think anyone (apart from my missus) thought that way, or was that blinded by their own intelligence (LOL).
Mike

Worker 11811 · May 7, 2010

See if you can work the money angle on this guy. What does this guy have to gain by pushing digital on people?

Kevin Caulfield · May 7, 2010

Worker 11811 said:
See if you can work the money angle on this guy. What does this guy have to gain by pushing digital on people?

Advertising revenue, clearly. It's obviously a paid promo.

Worker 11811 · May 7, 2010

I agree. All they ever want to do is sell you more sh** you don't need.

Ricus.stormfire · May 7, 2010

...Hmmm, you see, that's the exact reason why I sold my DSLR, and will never ever support Canon again. I just feel there is little point in buying (pricey) lenses (or ink for that matter) from a company that is pushing so hard on the d****** agenda, paying people to lie.

D****** is a marketing scam, it wants you to buy into an "upgrade cycle", buying a "new super duper better blah blah" version, everytime a new DSLR comes out.

It's a pity that the consumer market fell for this, in twenty years time (almost) no-one will have the photographs (or "Images"...I hate that word) that they are so merrily shooting now. Inkjet prints suck and don't seem very archival (unless you have an uber pricey printer and inkset?)

Just my 2 cents...

Long live film (and darkroom printing)

Seabird · May 7, 2010

And remember this: its only a short jump from "Live Face Detection" to "Live Moonrise Over Hernandez" detection. Then it wont just be film that's dead...

Carey Bird

Poisson Du Jour · May 7, 2010

None of what this fellow writes entails critical analysis or subjective, balanced assessment (that means I take the view that not all digital cameras can be seen in a favourable light); I am seriously wondering if he's into a cash-for-comment dig with Canon.

As for film being dead. Really (guffaws)? And replaced with what, exactly?
That is said, after the intro paragraph. Shallow, specious and ignorant..
I make careful, technical judgement of people based on their skills as photographers, not by what they write about the newest toy in their hands. And I don't bow to industry bigwigs like Canon, Nikon etc. I often get to watch enthusiast photographers work their way up from the mediocre to the magnificent. This guy, however, has nothing to show but talk-talk-talk. I'll recount my maxim: "In God we trust. All others bring evidence!".

andrewkirkby · May 7, 2010

As a former Canon Australia employee i can tell you that this is the view of the people within Canon and pretty much every large photo company.

If they can't make money from something, they bash it and try and discredit it.

The problem is that most *consumer* results are better from digital than they are from film. I put this down to shitty minilab printing. I can see why it has fallen away.

but slide film and B&W can not be replicated in terms of quality or colour.

the Eos5500 is the bottom end of the range. The smaller the number the better the camera. My 1978 Canon A1 and a 35mm 2.8lens will eclipse anything that camera will be able to produce and it cost 1/10th. But then again, it has its purpose as does the digital (just not in my hands). By today's standards i have a rubbish camera, but at the end of the day it is the results that matter - not the camera.

I am going to challenge this guy to a shoot off.

wotalegend · May 7, 2010

What incenses me more is not that this is apparently a thinly disguised paid promotion, but that this person claims the authority to officially declare 35mm film dead. Did he seek, and receive, approval from Kodak, Ilford, Fujifilm etc etc to make his "official" pronouncement? I think not. And did he also have approval from Leica, Nikon, Cosina, and other camera manufacturers currently manufacturing 35mm cameras? Most likely a no for that also? I guess we should take comfort from the fact that he has only declared the death of 35mm film, and not MF and LF. But then he probably doesn't know that they ever existed anyway. And thank goodness he is not my doctor.

Steve Smith · May 7, 2010

andrewkirkby said:
The problem is that most *consumer* results are better from digital than they are from film. I put this down to shitty minilab printing. I can see why it has fallen away.

I think it's more due to the fact that consumers use to use the cheap Happy Snaps three for £5 films available from the high street mini-labs rather than good films from Kodak and Fuji.

Most mini-labs I have used have given good results with good films.

Steve.

Athiril · May 7, 2010

andrew: while I agree with you, digital also cannot match the highlight retention of colour neg.

Your A1 also cannot match a video shot with the 550.. there are certain things the new cameras are brilliant for and open up a new market.

Steve: minilab here gave an absolute rubbish flat grey muddy looking print from my 30D that I had spent time tuning the image exactly how I wanted to look, so I of course turned off auto-corrections at the minilab which still makes colour wet prints from a laser printer, expecting it to be accurate and somewhat calibrated.. I can only imagine what they do to colour negatives that are brought in to be printed from, since they also have to scan in the same machine to print them.

I really love the idea of laser-exposed wet-prints that can be as sharp as the laser's size of focus point, with the contrast range fitting exactly onto the paper on a nice wet print... but they just f* it up so badly it isn't funny.

And here in the OP and mine's country, unless you live in a capital city and no where a proper printing lab exists, you dont really have a good choice to get good prints from people who know what they're doing with their machinery, you have to do it yourself, either enlarging onto RA-4 which is expensive and hard to get here, or buy a higher end A3 inkjet photo printer (which are brilliant in technical quality and calibration and colour reproduction I must say - I'd use one for gallery submissions) which isn't the same.

Film is not dead, (local sales yes, many people in Aus import because of the ludicrous prices we get charged) but I would say good printing is dead (even though much of it remains on RA-4, and others on shitty inkjet prints, which they dont tell you).

Poisson Du Jour · May 7, 2010

Good printing, as a generalisation, aint dead, boys and girls. But truth be told, we do now need to seek it out my carefully from the digifloss.
We still do have Ilfochrome in Australia. This is the way to go for reversal-to-'chrome. It seems traditional wet-method colour prints though are rare. Now the revelation: digi files printed to Ilfochrome have a distinctly odd appearance, far removed from stock- or EI-variant Velvia, Provia or something from Kodak (though most Ilfochrome printers believe Velvia delivers the 'Gold Standard' in colour and fidelity). That stuff though all comes down to the limited gamut an spectral non-linearity of D. So all this wordy reviewing of fancy cameras is window dressing. None of the foregoing comments will be of interest to those who remain convinced film is dead, but then, they're the ones who never bothered to learn some serious post-shoot production skills with celluloid and make money from their work. That is what I want to see.

hoffy · May 7, 2010

Poisson Du Jour said:
Good printing, as a generalisation, aint dead, boys and girls. But truth be told, we do now need to seek it out my carefully from the digifloss.
We still do have Ilfochrome in Australia. This is the way to go for reversal-to-'chrome. It seems traditional wet-method colour prints though are rare. Now the revelation: digi files printed to Ilfochrome have a distinctly odd appearance, far removed from stock- or EI-variant Velvia, Provia or something from Kodak (though most Ilfochrome printers believe Velvia delivers the 'Gold Standard' in colour and fidelity). That stuff though all comes down to the limited gamut an spectral non-linearity of D. So all this wordy reviewing of fancy cameras is window dressing. None of the foregoing comments will be of interest to those who remain convinced film is dead, but then, they're the ones who never bothered to learn some serious post-shoot production skills with celluloid and make money from their work. That is what I want to see.

When you say "Wet Traditional Colour", do you mean optically enlarged prints, or do you count Lazer exposed prints?

If you are including Laser exposed prints, I beg to differ. Last night my camera club was a guest of one of Adelaides better print processors, Hut Street Photos.

Yes, 90% of his business is Digital (heck, he is in business and has to make a living), but is still committed to C41 processing. He says he does around 60 rolls of C41 a day in 35, 120 and as he has just found out 220 formats (He never knew the machine he had could do 220 until not that long ago when someone brought a roll in).

While he Inkjets all the big stuff, he said that there is still a place for wet processed prints, whether they originate from Film or from digital, even so that he stands by Kodaks original archival quality statements.

He also said that he can see that Film will never die.....

I still think there are way to many over reactions from this story. If you want this kind of thing to hassle you, then you have a niggling feeling in the back of your head that it might indeed become true.

Otherwise, get some film and shoot it and enjoy what you do

This guy thinks film is dead

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency