Reading mode: Light Dark

A sad day for film

Go to last post
Yesterday I was at photoimpex b&w store here in Berlin, I talked to one of the guys about Ilford. They sell different eastern european film brands, like "Fomapan" and "Efke", it seems that noone of the remaining companies is really doing any research anymore due to low selling numbers.

I couldn't believe the numbers that the guy told me: A worldwide volume of not more than 30.000 USD on every film type - in other words: close to nothing and certainly too low to o research.

Small firms can keep producing with those low quantities, bigger manufacturers like Ilford can't .
Here's the store's homepage:

http://www.fotoimpex.de/

regards, Bernie
 
Carl Feather said:
What is your time worth? The bride isn't going to pay you $125 an
hour to sit in front of a monitor. The lab charges me about 35
cents a proof for film proofs, 39 cents for digital. I already have
the film equipment. I got to do about eight weddings to buy one
DSLR that's outdated by the time it's paid for. My film cameras
have been paid for for years. They are MAKING MONEY for me with
film. I have yet to make money from a DSLR. All they've done is
cost money: New lenses, flash cards, different flashes, new
computer, software, CD-ROM burner, DVD burner, batteries. There's
no end to it. I say let the lab make the investment in that
equipment, not me. I simply can't make enough money to make digital
worth while.
Click to expand...
Whqt is the bride paying the lab/hour? She is paying isn't she. If so she WILL pay you that much if you're worth it. Many are and do.

$.39 for a digital scan? That is very cheap! Are they hi-rez? The local pro shop/lab charges $10...or for a really good scan $25/neg. I can see why you go that route at $.39.

About that DSLR being exticnt once it's paid off...if it's at least 6 MP I don't see why it would be extinct. Any of the 6 MP DSLR's will give you a fine 16x20 easily and not too many are buying more than the occasional 11x14 from their wedding anyway which I can get (almost) from an older 3 MP point'n shoot. A $2000 investment in a good DSLR (getting cheaper now) and never buying film agian is not a bad investment. I've saved more on film than if I had bought 3 more DSLR's. It's paid for itself and still putting out excellent results. I have a 16x20 crop from a file shot at ISO 400 sitting right here that looks better than medium format film would from my not-so-top-of-the-line MF camera. (Yashica MAT 124G, not a slouch by any means)

It's [DSLR] nowhere near obsolete. Not even close. The next model (S3) is supposed to give a DR closer to film. The S2, as I use it, gives more DR than I ever got with K64. It's not obsolete.

Now, if you had bought one of the older DSLR's say, 4 years ago....ouch! Very expensive and not very good compared to todays efforts.

Lenses, computers, CD-RW's ($39 for the fastest out there)...most already have and use that stuff. If you're just starting out digital, it IS expensive but is getting cheaper by the...hour almost. A useable PC will set you back less than $500. How many rolls of film would that be including processing?

Whether film or digital you can make pretty much the same salary. You just need to charge for all your time with digital plus save on the lab fees.

Depends on how you wish to work it I suppose. Nothing wrong with your way really.

Robert
 
Bernie Ess said:
Yesterday I was at photoimpex b&w store here in Berlin, I talked to
one of the guys about Ilford. They sell different eastern european
film brands, like "Fomapan" and "Efke", it seems that noone of the
remaining companies is really doing any research anymore due to low
selling numbers.

I couldn't believe the numbers that the guy told me: A worldwide
volume of not more than 30.000 USD on every film type - in other
words: close to nothing and certainly too low to o research.

Small firms can keep producing with those low quantities, bigger
manufacturers like Ilford can't .
Click to expand...
I'm betting the last one standing is someone like Lucky Film in China. Using existing IP, no R&D costs, low overhead....

--
A cyberstalker told me not to post anymore...
So I'm posting even more!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com
 
Joseph S. Wisniewski said:
I'm betting the last one standing is someone like Lucky Film in
China. Using existing IP, no R&D costs, low overhead....
Click to expand...
and a good market too. china's people are oing to keep using film, and lots of it, for a long time. Most Chinese are very poor by American standards. Most live in one or two room houses made of cement blocks (by comparison, my apartment has eight rooms). such people can afford film, but not a $500 digicam.
--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com
Featured in the November, 2003 issue
Popular Photography
 
Sir Fallot said:
Ilford Imaging, the photographic materials supplier, has gone into
administration after its traditional photography business was hit
by the rising popularity of digital cameras.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2004/08/24/cnilford24.xml&sSheet=/money/2004/08/24/ixcity.html
Click to expand...
The printing industry, which I work in, uses little to no film nowdays. It used to use acres of film on a daily basis. Sure, it was mostly ortho film, but without that production how can they expect to produce film for cameras that fewer and fewer are using. Prepress is all digital now for the most part with the exception of a few smaller shops here and there. I'm sure this will affect them also and require them to step up to the digital age.

One thing for sure, digital can make for less problems by far in the prepress department and on the press the plates have fewer if any problems related to using film. Cleaner, sharper etc without all the spots we used to get from pinholes in the film or the mask. where there used to be rows of light tables for film strippers we now have banks of computers with proofs comming off the large format epsons and similar units.

All that film no longer needed. Besides, where did itall go to when it was thrown away? That stuff doens't just decompose like grass cuttings.

I feel that the digital world is a better place in that regard although there are probably trade-offs.

Robert
 
digidog said:
Christopher Crawford said:
For people and
landscapes film still rules in 4x5/8x10. Someday a 4x5 full frame
non-scan back will come out....and maybe someone could afford
it..LOL
Click to expand...
Not sure about many/all landscapes. Might want to visit Stephen
Johnson's site:

http://www.sjphoto.com/

New 22mp single shot backs give even 4x5 a run for it's money and
don't suffer the limitations of a scan back. The scan back is still
the quality king. The newer Betterlight backs are much faster but
it's really a niche product.

As for a 4x5 full frame instant back, it's way overkill. It would
(by today's technology) cost a fortune too. NASA has an 8x10 CCD
which at the time cost several hundred thousands of dollars. So
this isn't a technology issue.

--
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net
Click to expand...
You basically prove my point. For landscape and general use, the simple and cheap 4x5 easily outperforms the DSLR's, Medium format and even the 22MP color backs on the market. As well, my Shen Hao 4x5 and lens with films holders came to less than $800. How much does the 22MP back cost. Yes, about $22,000. And my 4x5 film does better...or, at least as good. Before you start ranting about "digital is the future", etc., etc., keep in mind that right now, even my $600 Mamiya RB67 matches the $7000 Canon 1DS, at least up to the 24x30 prints I've had made on Epson and Light jet printers.

Remember, no matter how much we all love the convenience of digital, MF and LF film wins in terms of quality....and will for a few years yet. When it no longer does, I'll be the first to grab whatever the digital back is that does it...at a reasonable price.

Dave Luttmann
 
Dave Luttmann said:
As well, my Shen Hao
4x5 and lens with films holders came to less than $800. How much
does the 22MP back cost. Yes, about $22,000. And my 4x5 film does
better...or, at least as good.
Click to expand...
When you can reproduce a 13 stop dynamic range with any film, let me know. Also expect to have to spend huge bucks to able to scan the entire range of even a chrome (with half that range).

--
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net
 
digidog said:
Dave Luttmann said:
As well, my Shen Hao
4x5 and lens with films holders came to less than $800. How much
does the 22MP back cost. Yes, about $22,000. And my 4x5 film does
better...or, at least as good.
Click to expand...
When you can reproduce a 13 stop dynamic range with any film, let
me know. Also expect to have to spend huge bucks to able to scan
the entire range of even a chrome (with half that range).

--
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net
Click to expand...
Color negative easily gets 11 to 12 stops. And those of us who do large presentation printing know that the difference between 11, 12 or 13 stops doesn't really effect things much. As well, even a basic high quality flatbed scanner like the 4870 will produce great results from 4x5 at 24x30 inch output. I readily use one with no problems. I also have access to an imacon that works quite well. I'm not saying that a 4x5 is the same to use as a 1DS. All I'm saying is that right now, MF and 4x5 hold the top rung of the quality ladder. If you've done any large printing, as I have, from 16x24 to 40x50, it is easy to tell the 1DS vs the MF & LF film....and the film wins. Quoting tech specs, etc,etc, doesn't change what we seeon print.

Dave
 
Dave Luttmann said:
digidog said:
Dave Luttmann said:
As well, my Shen Hao
4x5 and lens with films holders came to less than $800. How much
does the 22MP back cost. Yes, about $22,000. And my 4x5 film does
better...or, at least as good.
Click to expand...
When you can reproduce a 13 stop dynamic range with any film, let
me know. Also expect to have to spend huge bucks to able to scan
the entire range of even a chrome (with half that range).

--
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net
Click to expand...
Color negative easily gets 11 to 12 stops. And those of us who do
large presentation printing know that the difference between 11, 12
or 13 stops doesn't really effect things much. As well, even a
basic high quality flatbed scanner like the 4870 will produce great
results from 4x5 at 24x30 inch output. I readily use one with no
problems. I also have access to an imacon that works quite well.
I'm not saying that a 4x5 is the same to use as a 1DS. All I'm
saying is that right now, MF and 4x5 hold the top rung of the
quality ladder. If you've done any large printing, as I have, from
16x24 to 40x50, it is easy to tell the 1DS vs the MF & LF
film....and the film wins. Quoting tech specs, etc,etc, doesn't
change what we seeon print.

Dave
Click to expand...
Digidog isn't a photographer so he can't be expected to know the difference in quality. He's a color management and Adobe Photoshop expert named Andrew Rodney. He's one of the greats in computerized graphic design, but not a photographer, at least that I've heard.

I have gotten 13 or more stops of dynamic range from black and white neg films and do so routinely for my abandoned house images. When you can photograph inside a totally unlit building and get detail in the dark wood trim and the brightly sulit windows, as I can, then you're doing far more than any digital system can unless you go to the trouble of combining exposures in Photoshop (which usually works beautifully but is time consuming and requires you to take two seperate exposures. You don't always have that chance.

--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com
Featured in the November, 2003 issue
Popular Photography
 
Dave Luttmann said:
Color negative easily gets 11 to 12 stops.
Click to expand...
None I've ever used, maybe 8. 6 from chrome. And oh, all that grain and reduced color gamut.
The Davinator said:
And those of us who do
large presentation printing know that the difference between 11, 12
or 13 stops doesn't really effect things much.
Click to expand...
I'd rather have it and not use it than not have it when necessary (like anything shot outdoors).
The Davinator said:
As well, even a
basic high quality flatbed scanner like the 4870 will produce great
results from 4x5 at 24x30 inch output.
Click to expand...
Right. You're talking to a guy that ran drum scanners for a very long time. I have an Epson 3200 (as well as an Imacon 848) and I know what each can produce compared to a ScanMate 11000...
The Davinator said:
If you've done any large printing, as I have, from
16x24 to 40x50, it is easy to tell the 1DS vs the MF & LF
film....and the film wins. Quoting tech specs, etc,etc, doesn't
change what we seeon print.
Click to expand...
I've got the film versus digital files (published for PEI mag) to show the difference. Where should I send the CD with the big honking files for you to see the differences. Betterlight versus 4x5 and 2x2 versus an Imacon 3020. Night and day differences.
--
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net
 
Christopher Crawford said:
Digidog isn't a photographer so he can't be expected to know the
difference in quality.
Click to expand...
For your information Chris, I have a BA in Photography from Art Center College of Design and spent well over a decade in the LA market shooting advertising and corporate work for the likes of Apple, GTE Forbes, Disney, etc. I made a handsome living in a pretty competitive market before leaving LA for Santa Fe and getting into a much better (sane) business. I know the differences in quality and have the files to prove it to anyone with a pair of eyes.

--
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net
 
digidog said:
Dave Luttmann said:
Color negative easily gets 11 to 12 stops.
Click to expand...
None I've ever used, maybe 8. 6 from chrome. And oh, all that grain
and reduced color gamut.
Click to expand...
Chris, if you think that grain is a problem with MF or 4x5, then you truly have little experience with film based photographic materials. As an aside, I don't know what films you use, but with Fuji NPS and numerous B&W materials I use, 11 stops is common. Most photographers know this. Also, you CAN'T get 13 stops from 12 bit capture DSLR's. It is physically impossible based on the limited color gamut of 12bit capture. Even with 16bit capture, 13 stops is a stretch. And 16bit capture isn't available in DSLR's, only expensive backs.
Member said:
Member said:
And those of us who do
large presentation printing know that the difference between 11, 12
or 13 stops doesn't really effect things much.
Click to expand...
I'd rather have it and not use it than not have it when necessary
(like anything shot outdoors).
Click to expand...
I've covered color gamut and dynamic range in my post above.
Member said:
Member said:
As well, even a
basic high quality flatbed scanner like the 4870 will produce great
results from 4x5 at 24x30 inch output.
Click to expand...
Right. You're talking to a guy that ran drum scanners for a very
long time. I have an Epson 3200 (as well as an Imacon 848) and I
know what each can produce compared to a ScanMate 11000...
Click to expand...
Then you know that the output from them as well as consumer based flat bed scanners on large format scanning easily outdoes anything from a DSLR, and competes easily with single shot digital backs.
Member said:
Member said:
If you've done any large printing, as I have, from
16x24 to 40x50, it is easy to tell the 1DS vs the MF & LF
film....and the film wins. Quoting tech specs, etc,etc, doesn't
change what we seeon print.
Click to expand...
I've got the film versus digital files (published for PEI mag) to
show the difference. Where should I send the CD with the big
honking files for you to see the differences. Betterlight versus
4x5 and 2x2 versus an Imacon 3020. Night and day differences.
Click to expand...
Betterlight is multiscan. Shooting landscapes, moving objects, or objects that change over a short period causes multi color problems. This is well known and why scanning backs are typically used in studio or controlled settings. A single shot like Leaf's 22MP back may match a 4x5, but it does so at nearly 30 times the cost. So at this point, for the public and working pro, film rules to upper end of the quality chain. Nothing you have said proves otherwise. The prints I show that are 24x30 and 40x50 (and even 16x20) are simply more detailed and provide better shadow detail when shot with MF & 4x5, then those compared to both the Canon 1DS and Kodak Pro/N. As a comparsion, I've had hundreds of people viewing landscape shots on large prints, and I've NEVER had one choose the 1DS over 4x5.

The betterlight is simply not an option for a vast majority of photographic targets, and as such is not a valid comparison. I too can load Kodak Technical Pan in my RB67, and shoot through RBG filters and combine the 3 exposures and have a final shot than will slaughter the better light back. But is that truly and option for normal photographic use. I think not.

Dave Luttmann
 
You can have a decent P&S digital under 100$ and it's less expensive do print digital then Film.

But the question, is how do preserve photography. Ink jet photo, even with pro inkjet printer and pro paper and with acrylic coating are prome do lost they color.
-Denis B.
Christopher Crawford said:
Joseph S. Wisniewski said:
I'm betting the last one standing is someone like Lucky Film in
China. Using existing IP, no R&D costs, low overhead....
Click to expand...
and a good market too. china's people are oing to keep using film,
and lots of it, for a long time. Most Chinese are very poor by
American standards. Most live in one or two room houses made of
cement blocks (by comparison, my apartment has eight rooms). such
people can afford film, but not a $500 digicam.
--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com
Featured in the November, 2003 issue
Popular Photography
Click to expand...
 
Dave Luttmann said:
Also, you CAN'T get 13 stops from 12
bit capture DSLR's. It is physically impossible based on the
limited color gamut of 12bit capture.
Click to expand...
Am, bit depth and dynamic range (and color gamut) are totally separate from one another.
The Davinator said:
Then you know that the output from them as well as consumer based
flat bed scanners on large format scanning easily outdoes anything
from a DSLR, and competes easily with single shot digital backs.
Click to expand...
Says who? I'm not seeing this at all.
The Davinator said:
Betterlight is multiscan. Shooting landscapes, moving objects, or
objects that change over a short period causes multi color
problems.
Click to expand...
Yes but I have plenty of captures that dont' move (as does Steve Johnson and plenty of other scan back users). I also have a ONE shot 3020 capture (old system) that blows the doors of medium format film scanned on a drum. Not a lick of grain and far wider tonal range.
The Davinator said:
A single shot like Leaf's
22MP back may match a 4x5, but it does so at nearly 30 times the
cost.
Click to expand...
So we're NOT factoring film cost, Polaroid cost, scanning cost, processing cost and time? Excuse me but I think you're using a straw man argument here as far as costs are concerned no?

So at this point, for the public and working pro, film rules
The Davinator said:
to upper end of the quality chain. Nothing you have said proves
otherwise.
Click to expand...
Shot me an address via email, I send you the files. The proof is in the data.
The Davinator said:
The prints I show that are 24x30 and 40x50 (and even
16x20) are simply more detailed and provide better shadow detail
when shot with MF & 4x5, then those compared to both the Canon 1DS
and Kodak Pro/N.
Click to expand...
Well unless you did good science and setup both a digital capture and film capture and tested both and processed both correctly (and wish to send me both sets of files nothing you have said proves
otherwise!
The Davinator said:
The betterlight is simply not an option for a vast majority of
photographic targets, and as such is not a valid comparison.
Click to expand...
I agree about the limitations of a scan back, not of the instant capture backs or even DSLRs. The Betterlight was used to illustrate that a digital capture can far, far exceed the tonal range and color gamut of film. Again, I have the high rez files to back this up. I've done the science and have no incentive to say otherwise.

Shoot me an email, I'll be happy to send you the CD.
--
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net
 
denisb said:
You can have a decent P&S digital under 100$ and it's less
expensive do print digital then Film.
But the question, is how do preserve photography. Ink jet photo,
even with pro inkjet printer and pro paper and with acrylic coating
are prome do lost they color.
-Denis B.
Click to expand...
Denis,

You've never been poor. I can tell from your post, and i'm happy for you because being poor (I was for a while...no longer, thankfully) sucks. I have never been as poor as many Chinese people are, no where near as poor, and when i was poor (by american standards...to the poor in China I probably looked middle class) I couldn't afford to spend $100 on a camera. I could afford to buy a 4 pack of Fuji at Walmart for $6 and I could afford the $3 they charge to process each roll in thier cheap send out service. Film and process costs add up but most amateurs, especially poor ones, shoot only a couple rolls a year.
--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com
Featured in the November, 2003 issue
Popular Photography
 
digidog said:
Christopher Crawford said:
Digidog isn't a photographer so he can't be expected to know the
difference in quality.
Click to expand...
For your information Chris, I have a BA in Photography from Art
Center College of Design and spent well over a decade in the LA
market shooting advertising and corporate work for the likes of
Apple, GTE Forbes, Disney, etc. I made a handsome living in a
pretty competitive market before leaving LA for Santa Fe and
getting into a much better (sane) business. I know the differences
in quality and have the files to prove it to anyone with a pair of
eyes.

--
The Digital Dog
Click to expand...
Andrew,

i'm sorry I misspoke. I never knew you were a professional photographer. I have a number of Photoshop and graphics books whose authors talk about you as "The" color management expert, but no one mentions you as a photographer, even in photoshop books. I don't think you even mention it on your own website, which is mostly color management, do you? Anyway, I'm sorry.
Member said:
http://www.digitaldog.net
Click to expand...
--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com
Featured in the November, 2003 issue
Popular Photography
 
Was kind of hoping the link would take you to my site making it much easier to nagivate the entire image. So I'll paste it below in such a way that (hopefully) it doesn't automatically show up here in the post and you can copy/paste into your browser

Att the http: to this below:

digitaldog.imagingrevue.com/files/FilmVsDigital.jpg

Note that the 18 meg file was actually interpolated up using the old Bicubic interpolation to illustrate just what you can get away with using a "small" 18mb file. Now imagine what we'd get using Bicubic Smoother or a 22mp back! The film scan is NOT interpolated and produced on ScanMate drum scanner!

--
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top