The death of film was a self-fufilling prophesy

Dave Luttmann said:

First off, stop generalizing yourself....I don't live in the USA....I live in Canada. I presume you mean 1,000 population as opposed to 1,000,000.

Click to expand...

No, 1,000,000, Valencia if you need to know.

The Davinator said:

As far as two labs processing film in Spain, that's a load of garbage. The last time my brother was in Spain approx 18 months ago, there were shops processing film all over the place. Time to get out and look around your own country.

Click to expand...

Not anymore, and the few that process film are using 1 hour processing labs, not what you could call professional processing.

The Davinator said:

Google film processing in Spain.....you'll be surprised, and you'll learn something!

Click to expand...

I don't need to learn anything, i've seen almost all pro labs drop film processing, at least in my city, and only two at country level still accept film orders. Other labs say they accept it, but they send it outside Spain to have it processed.

I don't understand your hostility, i used film at work and I preferred it to digital, i'm only stating how things are now.

--
Sorry about my english, it's not my first language.

I hear god only shoots digital now.

1991 Nikon F4S $1799.95 Top of the line Nikon pro film camera. Still works good as new.

2008 Nikon D3 $4999.95 Top of the line Nikon pro digital camera. Life expectancy?

I could pay for all the film 35 SLRs I've bought in the last 40 years for what I paid for the D3.

Bought CS3 2 years ago now we're up to CS5.

I'm not a professional photographer and I don't take 100K photos per year, my D3 is 2 years old and has less than 5K clicks. That's over a dollar per click, Film; pro slide $.50 per frame and Etkar 100 no prints is $.25 per frame.

I still use both of these cameras plus a D200 because I like taking photos.

I like digital because it is more convenient, because it certainly isn't cheaper for me.

Chris

F4SD3 said:

1991 Nikon F4S $1799.95 Top of the line Nikon pro film camera. Still works good as new.

2008 Nikon D3 $4999.95 Top of the line Nikon pro digital camera. Life expectancy?

Click to expand...

Shooting 10k images per year:

2008 Nikon: $20 for a memory card and 25cent electricity for recharing the battery.
1991 Nikon: ?

PS: If you are not a professional photographer and dont shoot so much, I think cost effectiveness of the most expensive cameras around doesnt make sense. You dont need it, so its just luxury.

Cards cost a lot more than $20, at the time I bought mine it was more like $70.

I bought the F4S because Canon FD lens would not work on the new AF cameras and I was going to have to start from scratch, at the time the F4S was the best 35 slr I could afford to buy. 20 years ago film was much cheaper than it is today and we didn't have to upgrade cameras every couple of years to keep up. So I bought the best I could knowing that it would be quite a few years before I would need to replace it.

I bought the D3 because it was at that time the only FX format camera in the Nikon lineup. To this day the cheapest FX format camera in the Nikon line is $3000.

Are you implying, that unless someone is a professional photogragher they should not be using the best equipment? I don't make a living with my cameras but I do make money, and for the PJ work I do a D3 is perhaps the best camera made. I just don't have to take a lot of photos to get the shot I'm looking for.

The point is that professional grade digital photography is not cheap and anyone who thinks it is, is fooling themselves.

How much money have you spent on digital photography? Be honest now, and not just what you can get by with.

Now we go from only 1 place in Spain processing film to many that use 1 hour labs like Frontier and Noritsu....which are pro lab equipment by the way.

Guess you did learn something afterall. I knew you were wrong with the 1 lab thing as a 1 minute Google search turned up hundreds of places to process film in Spain.

I do think that while there are benefits to the 35mm format, the true benefits are still with the medium format cameras and up. I suspect that it will be a time before digital sensors of those sizes will be affordable for the average user.

What did I work out my intended 8x10 home made to equal? Around 250 mega pixels once shot, developed and scanned. More if I remember correctly. The lenses I have put aside for the job have apertures down around the f350 mark. Digital would have a fit.

Oh and I mention again the Voigtlander medium format that has just recently been released. (drool!) It is going to be a specialist market but there is still a bit of life left in the technology yet.

--

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle

...oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

--

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle

...oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

Dave Luttmann said:

...that I can easily buy film cameras of any type.....and I can easily buy film from my local labs or online through many, many retailers.

Thus, as you've pointed out....the only people stating film is dead are either simply trolling for a fight on internet forums, or have no clue as to what many professionals and artists still use.

So, they are either clueless, or trolls. Take your pick....either way it's hardly a badge of honour for them.

The rest of us, people and professionals concerned with capturing their vision, will continue to use the mediums that they enjoy, and get the job done to their satisfaction. The remainder can continue trolling the forums spreading misinformation and announcing to the world how little they really know.

Click to expand...

I think it just to be a case of people who have unfortunately fallen into the trap of thinking (or at least believing the hype) that the world is totally digital now and that world and it's truth only exists on-line. Will we remember how to drive a nail when robots do it all?

It's been a worry to some in the art scene for decades now. What, I was once asked by a painter friend, will my work be worth when computers can mass produce it at the hand of any user? My answer was "Priceless because there will be only one of you and one of it." We can't give up on the analogue world because we have to remember that that is where we will always live.

--

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle

...oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

F4SD3 said:

1991 Nikon F4S $1799.95 Top of the line Nikon pro film camera. Still works good as new.

2008 Nikon D3 $4999.95 Top of the line Nikon pro digital camera. Life expectancy?

I could pay for all the film 35 SLRs I've bought in the last 40 years for what I paid for the D3.

Click to expand...

I think you will find that the cost of the F4S would be quite similar to the price of a D3 today if you figure out what $1799.95 would be equivalent to in todays dollars.

And that is assuming that you fit the F4S with the motordrive an other accessories to make it an equal to the D3 in performace.

My Canon F1n, purchased new in 1989 complete with the motordrive and auto prism was around $2500 . . . in todays dollars that works out to more than the price of a new Nikon D3.

F4SD3 said:

I'm not a professional photographer and I don't take 100K photos per year, my D3 is 2 years old and has less than 5K clicks. That's over a dollar per click, Film; pro slide $.50 per frame and Etkar 100 no prints is $.25 per frame.

I still use both of these cameras plus a D200 because I like taking photos.

I like digital because it is more convenient, because it certainly isn't cheaper for me.

Click to expand...

Then the D3 is a luxury camera that you really didn't have to buy, but you chose to do so at your own will.

So it was your choice to spend that kind of money, so you really shouldn't complain about it.

I will say that out of all of the FF DSLR's that I have sold, only a small few were to pro photograhers.

Most of them have been purchased by people who don't really need them for what they offer . . . but just can afford to have the most expensive cameras out there and are willing to spend the money to have the most expensive camera equipment out there.

One of those 'keeping up with the Joneses' kind of things . . .

You mentioned in another post in this thread that you shoot PJ work, but must not be very busy if you have less than 5000 clicks on that D3 in two years.

Another testament that the D3 for you was a luxury purchase, not a necessity purchase.

I'm a retired PJ and still do an occasional shoot, and can do them just fine with entry and mid level DSLR's.

An FF D3 or 1DS Mrk IV is not a necessity to do pro level work . . . especially PJ work.

--
J. D.
Colorado

• Who says you need a DSLR to get the shot? (from Olympus Tough 8000)

....hmmm, a completely dead medium continues to get updates. In this case, a new Portra 400....low grain, better scanning attributes.

Yup, a new film for the "dead" medium.....LOL.

I think I'll pick up a box of this dead film in 4x5

http://www.photographyblog.com/news/kodak_professional_portra_400/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xos2MnVxe-c&NR=1

may the light be with you
Matthias

This makes me wonder. Do you find that the quality of the images you process has increased as more serious image makers cling to the old medium or is it still a matter of "average" weekend snappers clinging to film cameras feeling that the upgrade to digital is just too expensive or daunting to prioritize at this time?

--

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. -Aristotle

...oh, and I see by the lack of responses that I am right yet again.

Dave Luttmann said:

....hmmm, a completely dead medium continues to get updates. In this case, a new Portra 400....low grain, better scanning attributes.

Click to expand...

But could it really just be 400 speed Ektar? Plus they are reducing their film line up, discontinuing 400 NC and 400VC so they have to produce just one 400 speed film.

The Davinator said:

Yup, a new film for the "dead" medium.....LOL.

Click to expand...

A couple of years ago when I told a non-computer film processing lab about Kodak's finger grain b+w TMY-2 (400 speed), the guy immediately said "oh, they've found a way to make it cheaper" and that all "improvements" are side effects of finding a way to reduce production costs and I agree with him. I'm sure Kodak wants to reduce what they spend making film. They've already done that by discontinuing Kodachrome and starting 2011 will never have to provide/produce chemicals to process it.

could be an Ektar 400. The saturation and contrast are significantly lower than Ektar 100 though.

This allows them to continue offerring excellent films for 35mm through 4x5. I'm going to try it for some 4x5 portraits as my favorite film for wedding and portraits, Fuji Pro 400H is not available in 4x5.

most of the film we're getting is from single-use cameras. Some is old film found in a drawer with no idea of what's on it. A bit of it is elderly people using their 35mm P&S camera 2-3 times per year and can't justify the change to digital. Very little of it is serious shooters still using their high-end 35's. The quality of the film-derived images we get is far lower than the digital images these days.

003tvd said:

most of the film we're getting is from single-use cameras. Some is old film found in a drawer with no idea of what's on it. A bit of it is elderly people using their 35mm P&S camera 2-3 times per year and can't justify the change to digital. Very little of it is serious shooters still using their high-end 35's. The quality of the film-derived images we get is far lower than the digital images these days.

Click to expand...

I guess for the most part you're not seeing medium format or 4x5....

only real old negs (2 1/4 and 4x5) for reprinting and scanning. Most of this stuff is "found in grandma's attic". Archiving the family history in most cases.

003tvd said:

only real old negs (2 1/4 and 4x5) for reprinting and scanning. Most of this stuff is "found in grandma's attic". Archiving the family history in most cases.

Click to expand...

Must be cool to see that old stuff.

I remember scanning about 30 rolls of Tri-X and Plus-X that my dad used in the early 60's. Awesome, never before seen....to me anyway. Man were they curled!!!

Dave Luttmann said:

could be an Ektar 400. The saturation and contrast are significantly lower than Ektar 100 though.

Click to expand...

But I thought that press release said "...without sacrificing saturation or contrast". Ektar isn't super high contrast or saturation. You can always increase or decrease these values after scanning anyways since it's unlikely you have a system or could find a lab that is able to print optically from the film.