Anyone still using 35mm film?

[student]

Well, the trick here is to find something unique that would be meaningful, for whatever reason. If drinking one's own urine (a seemingly meaningless activity) brings attention to whoever performs it, and that is his/ her desire, then it has then become meaningful! :bsmilie:

It is this word, 'meaning' that has sparked off things such as the mid-life crisis...for what really IS the meaning of life? And there are so many answers to that. :think:

Like "art", the word "meaning" can be taken to mean almost anything.

"Anything" can be "art"

"Anything" can be "meaningful".

Who is to judge? But I think a reasonable guide to "art" and "meaning" is "enduring". In the case of the urine drinking, I do not think it is devoid of "meaning". The "artist" was making a point. But looking back, what was achieved? Who "remembers" it? ("remembering" as not just an act of memory, but something worth remembering)

 

[LittleWolf]

I hope camera and film manufacturers see that there are still a lot of people out there who still use analogue equipment and film and still put money into R&D.

As far as film goes, many die-hard users emphasize how they like the way it behaves and looks. If users are happy with the status quo, there's little incentive for further R&D. Just think of the outcry (by some) when chromogenic b/w films came out, or when Kodak Tmax didn't give the traditional grain structure. I think there was/is even some kind of "retro" movement to go back to more traditional films.

I think the majority of film-related innovation will be for professional/technical applications, not for pictorial photography.

It's also sad that most organizations are not encouraging photography in general. Just digital photography. Most require submissions in digital format.

The logistics of filing and handling large numbers of hardcopies are much more challenging (read: expensive) than keeping files in a database that can be accessed instantly over a network. The intention of many sponsored competitions/exhibitions is clearly not to promote or advance photography, but to get cheap positive PR and/or advertising. If the sponsors get 95% of the buzz at a fraction of the cost, they are probably very satisfied. I don't think it is their intention to discriminate against film users, they just couldn't care less.

 

[student]

As far as film goes, many die-hard users emphasize how they like the way it behaves and looks. If users are happy with the status quo, there's little incentive for further R&D. Just think of the outcry (by some) when chromogenic b/w films came out, or when Kodak Tmax didn't give the traditional grain structure. I think there was/is even some kind of "retro" movement to go back to more traditional films.

I think the majority of film-related innovation will be for professional/technical applications, not for pictorial photography.

That I agree. In actual fact, film photographers would be extremely happy if the film makers stop making R&D and give us the back the "old emulsions".

The logistics of filing and handling large numbers of hardcopies are much more challenging (read: expensive) than keeping files in a database that can be accessed instantly over a network.

That I am not so sure.

I think it has got to do with the way filing was done rather than whether it is digital or analogue. A lot of culling must be done. Like what I am doing with my digital files.

My negative files kept in boxes (read: cheap!) will outlast any fancy computers by a long long margin.

The important negatives are kept separately, and I can get them faster than you can switch on the computer!

 

[LittleWolf]

That I agree. In actual fact, film photographers would be extremely happy if the film makers stop making R&D and give us the back the "old emulsions".

This attitude may lead to the demise of film as a widely available medium. If film companies cannot have a competitive edge by manufacturing a high-tech product, they will have to compete with low-tech, low-investment production outlets with the price being the main competitive element. This route is in my opinion extremely risky, and I doubt many companies would pursue it.

Alternatively, some companies could cater to a small niche "artisan" market. In this case, film would also evolve into some special arts&crafts supply which you only find at specialised shops at high prices. It certainly wouldn't be the film we know as widely available, inexpensive commodity.

And don't forget you also need the related chemical products. People here on Clubsnap are already complaining that it's hard to find certain developers etc. The hassle of dealing with environmental/safety regulations for delivering to a small market at low margin may not be very attractive for suppliers.

Of course, people are more and more mixing their own photographic chemicals (also in line with the retro trend), but I have my doubts you can make your own films without some heavy investment in specialized equipment or sliding back to 19th century quality standards.

I think it has got to do with the way filing was done rather than whether it is digital or analogue. A lot of culling must be done. Like what I am doing with my digital files.

My negative files kept in boxes (read: cheap!) will outlast any fancy computers by a long long margin.

I was referring to events like competitions and exhibitions. Computer files are easy to handle for the organizer, instantly available by reviewers/judges or editors in different locations, without having to worry about damaging the sensitive media. If the PR department is smart, they may even put the images on the web for judging by the public, which a) gives them more headlines, and b) allows them to use the public to do the work for them for free. The winning entries will not only be displayed at some exhibition, but also on the sponsor's web site - more free advertising. And so on ...

Compare this with files of prints that have to properly labeled, protected from fingerprints/scratches, carried around (and tracked so that they are not lost!) when different people need to see them, etc. For an event where you have to deal with hundreds of submissions, I think there's no doubt what is less effort for the organizer.

 

[student]

This attitude may lead to the demise of film as a widely available medium. If film companies cannot have a competitive edge by manufacturing a high-tech product, they will have to compete with low-tech, low-investment production outlets with the price being the main competitive element. This route is in my opinion extremely risky, and I doubt many companies would pursue it.

Alternatively, some companies could cater to a small niche "artisan" market. In this case, film would also evolve into some special arts&crafts supply which you only find at specialised shops at high prices. It certainly wouldn't be the film we know as widely available, inexpensive commodity.

And don't forget you also need the related chemical products. People here on Clubsnap are already complaining that it's hard to find certain developers etc. The hassle of dealing with environmental/safety regulations for delivering to a small market at low margin may not be very attractive for suppliers.

Of course, people are more and more mixing their own photographic chemicals (also in line with the retro trend), but I have my doubts you can make your own films without some heavy investment in specialized equipment or sliding back to 19th century quality standards.

No thanks to digital, film has already or is evolving into a niche market. It will evolve into a market catering to "artisan' pursuits. The reason why film has gone down hill is not because of advancement of film product. Film suffered because of the ubiquitous digital cameras, including the handphones.

In the past, there was no choice but to use films.

Unfortunately evolving more high tech films or papers do not equate to better products for making images, except perhaps for multigrade papers. The quality of old films and papers are simply different from the modern high tech ones. The paper I use a lot is a graded 100% cotton paper rich with silver, and produce an image which is not replicated by more modern high tech multigrade papers.

While there are newer chemicals, one must remember that the most popular still remain to be some of the oldest. Newer products merely change some characteistic of the older products, but do not replace them.

I was referring to events like competitions and exhibitions. Computer files are easy to handle for the organizer, instantly available by reviewers/judges or editors in different locations, without having to worry about damaging the sensitive media. If the PR department is smart, they may even put the images on the web for judging by the public, which a) gives them more headlines, and b) allows them to use the public to do the work for them for free. The winning entries will not only be displayed at some exhibition, but also on the sponsor's web site - more free advertising. And so on ...

Compare this with files of prints that have to properly labeled, protected from fingerprints/scratches, carried around (and tracked so that they are not lost!) when different people need to see them, etc. For an event where you have to deal with hundreds of submissions, I think there's no doubt what is less effort for the organizer.

We are obviously talking about different things.

I am talking about making images now and in the future. I have absolutely no interests in such things as you described.

Judging a print on the web is like trying to see how different tiramisu taste like by looking at those little jpegs. Completely inadequate!

I may be talking nonsense here, but how can one determine the quality of a print which in its raw scanned state is in the order of something like 80-100MB file, and having to reduce to a miserable paltry file size of 100kb for the web? How can one really judge images based on these little jokes?

 

[fastshot]

For what it is worth, here's are some of my personal experience with film (15 cameras) vs digital (5 cameras).

- the shooting style is still the same. All the visualization takes place before lifting the camera up to the eye.

- because of digital instant feedback, I have higher number of good pictures with digital cam from any outing. I usually check the picture just taken for exposure, sharpness and closed eyes etc. No cost to retake the scene until satisfied. With film, you never know if anything was amissed until the after development.

- If I calculate the cost per picture by taking cost of equipment divided by number of "good" photos taken, then my analog film pictures cost more than my digital pictures. It didn't help that I was one of those victims that bought everything from exotic film compacts, SLR, RF and MF cams. I think cost for film, chemicals, processing, paper will go up as the supply drops off. Whereas Flash memory prices are dropping steadily.

- Using digital photos (or scanned film) and post processing, I get better final colour prints than from film and darkroom printing. Although for B/W, I do occasionally get very satisfying prints with the right negatives and glazed fibre paper. Cost per final print is about the same depending on how many times you need to reprint to get it right.

- managing the thousands of films or digital pictures are equally time consuming and daunting. I agree that B/W negative is the most reliable media. Color egs fades quite quickly, so does early years Ektachrome. I have no problems with Kodachrome, velvia, provia. It is much easier to catalog digital pictures, but managing the backups is scary since recordable CD/DVD media, harddisk has limited life and file formats are not universal.

- I enjoy using both digital cameras and film cameras equally, although the good feeling is a little different in each case. I agree with other posters regarding the joy of photography is primarily about getting/creating the picture and secondarily in using well made equipment.

- investing into digital gear is very much the cookoo clock syndrome. You are always tempted to spend more than you need. Strong BUY, BUY, BUY virus. But then again, alot of people do actually enjoy going to the shop or CS and spend their hard earned money.

- finally, yes, I still occasionally shoot film (b/w & positives) with either rangefinders (G2, Bessa, Mamiya 6,7) or compacts (TC-1, G21, Rollei 35, T2). At the moment, the Mamiya 7 with 43mm super wide is unbeatable for landscape pictures. The G2 + 21mm Biogon is close behind. These advantages will probably be gone in near future as the digital sensors and new "digital" wide angle lenses get better.

So, don't worry so much, and just go enjoy photography with whatever you got.

 

[Ben1223]

The intention of many sponsored competitions/exhibitions is clearly not to promote or advance photography, but to get cheap positive PR and/or advertising. If the sponsors get 95% of the buzz at a fraction of the cost, they are probably very satisfied. I don't think it is their intention to discriminate against film users, they just couldn't care less.

And that's the sad part, isn't it? In short, they don't really care about the art.

 

[doug3fflux]

And that's the sad part, isn't it? In short, they don't really care about the art.

for them i think its just easy workflow, more profits that matters//

 

[LittleWolf]

And that's the sad part, isn't it? In short, they don't really care about the art.

Very few sponsors/organizers care about anything that isn't in their own interest. They're usually not charities.

 

[fuwen]

I shoot only colour negatives (now use VC160, miss my Ektapress, Ektar etc etc),manual focus with full matt screen, manual exposure. Sorry do not know anything about developing. I only shoot film for the following reasons:

1. My eyes can see the different between digital prints and film prints. I can even see the different between photos taken by negatives printed with digital and conventional machine. Film and conventional developing machine clearly superior.

2. Being a manual focus man the DSLR (sorry I am in a range finder forum but I prefer SLR) cropped view finder just becomes uninteresting when compared to a SLR. At present to achieve the same feel and satisfaction with my SLR I will probably need to spend $5000 to $10000 but that do not make sense for me. I bought a Pentax DL last year because my son dropped my Sony and also I am sick of prosumer digital without finder. Shutter count less than 100 because only use for not so serious shots.

3. I am a father of 3 young kids. How to find find time to sit in front of computer and do PS? (anyway oldman PS skill sucks) The most effective work flow for me is to spend 90% of the time capturing images. Send the negatives to the girl at Photo Finish Causeway Point. Collect the developed prints back. Decide what to enlarge to 5R/8R. One night find half an hour put them into albums. That is it! I have been in an organisation talking about QCC, 6-Sigma etc etc stressing doing things the first time right. So to me is images should be captured as correctly as it can be when the shutter fired. Trying to touch up after that go against this quality logic. For static slow shot it is quite easy to do it first time right assuming u already have the skill. For fast shot u do not have 2nd chance anyway so no different between digital and non-digital. However, I do agree that digitals are good for beginners learning purposes.

However, if the photographer is not matured enough, ie he does not do a lot of thinking before he takes the shot, chances are he will not be able to take good shots as he is just trial and errors with digital hoping to get 1 good one. I think that is dangerous. And if a beginer start taking shots without thinking (because it is digital and he think he can get one right just by trying) the chances are he will never get a good shot.


IMHO, YMMV etc etc

 

[glfar2004]

I am still enjoying film and my humble Bessa-T.

See these pictures and enjoy it.

http://gallery.clubsnap.com/showphoto.php?photo=51745

 

[Macky]

IMHO, I feel that a lot of people are too concerned about the "tools" rather than the "job". Why does it matter what you use if you can ultimately produce a good picture?? I am convinced that there will certainly come a time when 35mm film will be no more. What then? Will you stop taking pictures?

 

[student]

IMHO, I feel that a lot of people are too concerned about the "tools" rather than the "job". Why does it matter what you use if you can ultimately produce a good picture?? I am convinced that there will certainly come a time when 35mm film will be no more. What then? Will you stop taking pictures?

Five years ago, a colleague told me that according to soothsayers, film will be dead in 4 years.

I offered him a bet with a SGD10,000.00 mininum. It was fortunate that he was a real chicken and backed off. Today film is still very much alive, and will continue despite gnashing of teeth by techheads - just like many old processes in making imageries.

In fact in large format photography, the sales of such cameras has never been better.

In making an image, the format does not matter. And digital definitely has great advantages, and we do not need to belabour that point.

But to say that the way of presentation of that same image is identical across media is plainly wrong and indicative of a very blinkered mindset.

Despite advantages in film development. Despite changes and unending improvement in digital technology, such archaic methods of printing like Platinum and bromoil printing (to name a few) are still striving and much sought after by people who understand the beauty of such media.

It is the unfortunate "modern" but highly ignorant "now generation" who thinks that the world is but technology. They forget, or do not know, that despite the ease and convenience of the computer to write words, the laser jet generated piece of writing is absolutely nothing compared to the beautiful calligraphy by a master. They do not know the joy of receiving a hand written letter written with a fountain pen.

Yes, technology willl make things very convenient. A simple illustration is what I am now doing exactly. Using technology.

But I will rather see the the Sunflowers "live" than see a ******* reproduction by a laserjet (or whatever) of the same image.

 

[fWord]

Personally I would hope that film still sees the light and continues to live on, but without costs increasing significantly till they become very much like specialised materials. This is partly because, although I've always shot digital, am actually planning to go small-time with film and see if I can click with it. I haven't been around very long, but have laid my hands on old equipment before and really like the feel of it...but then again, I'm a sucker for old stuff.

 

[Macky]

It is the unfortunate "modern" but highly ignorant "now generation" who thinks that the world is but technology.QUOTE]

Is film not "techonology"? Did it exist 200 years ago? Even alternative printing processes as its called now, eg Platinum prints, cyanotypes, kallitypes, etc., are some form of techonology.

While I certainly agree that current technology cannot yet reproduce a Velasquez masterpiece that hangs in the Prado today, I believe its merely a matter of time.

Most probably longer than 4 years, but it will happen.

 

[LittleWolf]

Is film not "techonology"? Did it exist 200 years ago? Even alternative printing processes as its called now, eg Platinum prints, cyanotypes, kallitypes, etc., are some form of techonology.

How history repeats itself... here's a quote from a book I recently acquired on the transition from the calotype process to wet collodion plates in the 1850s:

The glass negative resolved a number of problems that had beset photography from its early years [...] Detail was captured far better and there was greater nuance of light and shade.

There was much debate at the time about the aesthetic advantages of the calotype process. Its slightly blurred and grainy effect was considered to possess a more "pictorial" quality ...

(M. Frizot, in "The New History of Photography", Chapter 5, Koenemann (Cologne), 1998).

 

[student]

How history repeats itself... here's a quote from a book I recently acquired on the transition from the calotype process to wet collodion plates in the 1850s:

History does repeat itself in different guises. The past had its version, The current digital technoheads are merely repeating similar "technoheads" of the past. Absolutely nothing original at all.

But despite advances in technology, many "old processes" still remain. It is not possible for anyone person to know all processes. But calotypes still exists.

So, what can we learn from history? That the glass plate put to death calotype?

That digital will SURELY put film to death?

Are we so dense that we cannot learn from history and common sense?

 

[LittleWolf]

History does repeat itself in different guises. The past had its version, The current digital technoheads are merely repeating similar "technoheads" of the past. Absolutely nothing original at all.

By you realize that, by touting your beloved silver-halide-in-gelatin-emulsions and related laboratory/darkroom processes, you are what was considered a technohead maybe in the 1890s?

So, what can we learn from history? That the glass plate put to death calotype?

I think the lesson is pretty obvious: whatever was common when one grew up/grew into the hobby (or even profession) is the best, and any change is seen with suspicion. The same back then, the same now, and the same in other hobbies, as well. Maybe it's due to a natural fear of the new and unknown and, with new technology, losing the "expert" status and starting again as a newbie. The fear of digital imaging technology is fundamentally no different than the prehistoric caveman's fear of fire, or the late 70s/early 80s secretary's fear of the word processor.

On top of that, there's of course sentimental romantization.

Are we so dense that we cannot learn from history and common sense?

What I learn from looking at the history of photography is that people have produced great pictures whith whatever technology was available. In light of this, common sense would suggest that it's the image that matters, not the details of the recording technology - as suggested by someone else in this thread.

What the progress of technology has done for us to continuously remove technical limitations that prevented us from taking pictures in certain situations. When exposure times where a few minutes instead of an hour, the first portraits became possible; when it was reduced to seconds, it became possible to take the first street scenes with humans; when wet collodion was replaced with dry plates, photographers didn't have to carry a darkroom around with them. With each technological innovation, there was an outcry by traditionalists, but in the end everyone profited from it.

I still have a fondness for film, but I have to acknowledge that affordable electronic imaging technology has progressed to a point where it surpasses film in many aspects. (It is no coincidence that in science, where the cost of equipment is not the primary concern, electronic imagers have been continuously replacing photographic emulsions for many years - be it in astronomy, spectroscopy, remote imaging/sensing, or X-ray imaging/diffraction.) In particular, I'm still very fond of slides - but once there's similarly affordable high-quality projection technology for digitized images available, I will probably get a bit sentimental, but not get much gray hair if slide film disappears from the market. There's developments in the world that worry me more .

 

[waileong]

Well-said. There's a difference between "dead" and "extinct". In other words, while LPs may not be extinct (they still exist for those who want to buy them), they are dead in the sense that there's no interest by the majority of the market ever since the invention of the cassette tape and the CD.

Going by experience, CD's may soon be dead, as MP3's replace CD's for today's generation. A dumbing down, I know, but they said that CD's could not reproduce the subtle nuances of LP's too, and look what happened. Anyway, who's to say there won't be an MP4 or even better digital audio standard?

So if we distinguish dead and extinct, perhaps the film is dead argument is easier to swallow. It doesn't mean every single film maker has to disappear from this planet before we can consider film to be dead. Just enough to see that the majority of the world has abandoned film, and that there are no foreseeable improvements ahead for this medium.

Anyway, this is just academic, ie who cares as long as I can still get film, which is the only essential ingredient to continue film photography. The formulae for many darkroom chemicals is widely available so that anyone who wants can mix them from the raw ingredients, so there's no worry even if makers of developers or toners go bust.

Wai Leong
===

By you realize that, by touting your beloved silver-halide-in-gelatin-emulsions and related laboratory/darkroom processes, you are what was considered a technohead maybe in the 1890s?



I think the lesson is pretty obvious: whatever was common when one grew up/grew into the hobby (or even profession) is the best, and any change is seen with suspicion. The same back then, the same now, and the same in other hobbies, as well. Maybe it's due to a natural fear of the new and unknown and, with new technology, losing the "expert" status and starting again as a newbie. The fear of digital imaging technology is fundamentally no different than the prehistoric caveman's fear of fire, or the late 70s/early 80s secretary's fear of the word processor.

On top of that, there's of course sentimental romantization.



What I learn from looking at the history of photography is that people have produced great pictures whith whatever technology was available. In light of this, common sense would suggest that it's the image that matters, not the details of the recording technology - as suggested by someone else in this thread.

What the progress of technology has done for us to continuously remove technical limitations that prevented us from taking pictures in certain situations. When exposure times where a few minutes instead of an hour, the first portraits became possible; when it was reduced to seconds, it became possible to take the first street scenes with humans; when wet collodion was replaced with dry plates, photographers didn't have to carry a darkroom around with them. With each technological innovation, there was an outcry by traditionalists, but in the end everyone profited from it.

I still have a fondness for film, but I have to acknowledge that affordable electronic imaging technology has progressed to a point where it surpasses film in many aspects. (It is no coincidence that in science, where the cost of equipment is not the primary concern, electronic imagers have been continuously replacing photographic emulsions for many years - be it in astronomy, spectroscopy, remote imaging/sensing, or X-ray imaging/diffraction.) In particular, I'm still very fond of slides - but once there's similarly affordable high-quality projection technology for digitized images available, I will probably get a bit sentimental, but not get much gray hair if slide film disappears from the market. There's developments in the world that worry me more .

 

[Macky]

What I learn from looking at the history of photography is that people have produced great pictures whith whatever technology was available. In light of this, common sense would suggest that it's the image that matters, not the details of the recording technology - as suggested by someone else in this thread.

Hear!! Hear!!