I agree with what you stated here, both in terms of moving to a digital camera (it isn't the same medium as film, any more than video was to cinema film), and I also agree that storage of film has a lot of advantages in terms of archiving.
Of course, digital offers a lot of advantages in both areas as well, but they are not the same medium. Art Berry Ives wrote: > I think Arthur and Austin are very much on target. Some specialty labs will > provide certain film services like scanning, etc. > > Since when did artists ever have the market clout to dictate what would be > manufactured or supported by the manufacturers of mass market products? > Besides, most of them will be only too glad to adapt to digital if they > haven't already. > > Yes, somebody will probably keep producing B&W film of some kind--and > processing it--for many years to come, but it will be a specialty market. > It is unlikely there will be many starving artists who will afford those > services. > > As for me, I am still shooting film, mostly color and all C-41, for art > prints. One of my major reasons for using film is that I love shooting with > my Contax manual focus SLR. I am afraid that I am going to lose something > in how I use the camera, how I shoot, when I finally switch to a digital > SLR. I love the analog controls and the absolute sense of focus control and > aperture control. And I hate menus! But I am waiting to see the new > Olympus second generation E-1 when it comes out in a few days. > > My other issue is that I think film is a good way to store images, perhaps > less risky than digital media. Yes, I know, the negative film I use is not > as archival as Kodachrome. But if I print archival prints with pigment > inks, I guess I'm not going to worry that much about the film. That's just > me; others have different needs. > > So for now, I continue to scan on my Nikon V, which works very well for > negative C-41 film. > > Berry > > > > > On 2/25/06 2:52 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Poppy cock. As long as there are photographic *artists*, there will >>be mono chrome emulsion shooting, even if no company chooses to >>make film any longer. >> >>I don't imagine that many photographic artists make much coin, but >>Sally Mann's work is very popular, get's top marquee exhibitions and >>her books are sold at common outlets like Borders. >> >>Her recent "What Remains" project (exhibition and book) was shot on >>glass plate negatives. >> >>While I don't recall how she printed, there are folks coating their own >>papers in palladium to make fine art contact prints, each one a thing of >>beauty and a product of the hand crafting of the artist - hence collectible >>by fine art afficionados - vs. the "infinite reproducibility" of digitally >>"captured" "images" (I like my DSLR but really hate the new terminology). >> >>There is even a movement to product 8x10 or 11x14 "digital internegatives" >>from digitally captures images for final, fine art oriented >>platinum/palladium/ >>cyanotype/etc. contact printing. >> >>By hook or by crook, as it were, B&W shooting and printing will go on >>for decades to come, long after the mini-mart C-41 machines are rusting >>in dumps. >> >>Can't speak for the consumer market, the photojournalists and so on - >>but I don't really give a crap about them in the first place. >> >>Scott >> >> >>Mike Kersenbrock wrote: >> >> >>>Arthur Entlich wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>When was the last time you saw a 8mm movie film to video transfer system >>>>sold retail? I imagine there are some commercial outfits still offering >>>>video transfer services, but even those are probably disappearing. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>How popular were 8mm movies as compared to still photos (to compare their >>>market sizes)? I have no idea, not having been a film-movie person >>>(started with a >>>VHS + video camera about 20~25 years ago or so). How many still film >>>photos exist to >>>be converted as compared to 8mm films to be converted ? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>What I am getting at is this: Film will become specialty product, >>>>available by special order or through a few minimal manufacturers. >>>>Non-commerical dedicated film scanners will disappear, as flatbeds take >>>>over that market niche. Even the flatbed market long full of brands and >>>>models has reduced to a handful. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>I wonder how many mfgrs there ever has been (as opposed to marketing >>>companies OEMing >>>product). But I think you're right. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Will the prices on these last dedicated film scanners suddenly >>>>skyrocket? Not likely. Did 8mm film cameras skyrocket when video came >>>>out? Has the cost of 35mm camera bodies skyrocketed as the digital >>>>camera market took over? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>I think we're still in the film->digital conversion stage. There still >>>are film cameras >>>for sale new, and there still is a lot of film being sold even if it's a >>>less massive number >>>than previously. So conversion needs should remain significant for a >>>while longer, but >>>it'll eventually end the way you say, for sure. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>What probably will happen, is several commercial labs will offer >>>>reasonably priced scanning services, since they will need to maintain >>>>scanners so when people bring in old film based images for printing, >>>>they can make prints. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>If prints "survive" the digital trend. Prints (even if digitially >>>printed) seem so *analog*. :-) >>>Maybe "programmable electronic paper" will make the printing companies >>>go bye bye as well. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>The days of demand crunches causing price increases on basically >>>>obsolete products is over. It almost never occurs anymore, because >>>>people recognize the next generation or product is usually cheaper and >>>>offers more options. If you honestly believe, for instance, CRT >>>>monitors are going to become pricey as they stop manufacture, I've got >>>>some to sell you ;-) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>They will eventually become spendy, but not any time soon. Only when >>>the units being >>>made are only very small niche specialized ones made in small volumes >>>(where current >>>cheapie ones aren't applicable). There are very very spendy high-end >>>CRT based monitors >>>available for purchase now. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>The only way I could see something like a dedicated film scanner >>>>becoming more valuable is because it became a collector's item, sort of >>>>like a DeLorean car, Maybe someday people will be dragging old XT >>>>computers and film scanners to the "Antique RoadShow", but it may be a >>>>while yet ;-) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>Kinda, but XT's are a bit different. My current multi-Ghz computer I'm >>>writing on can run >>>the very same application binaries that DOS XT could (theoretically >>>anyway). The film scanner >>>as such won't be replaced by a super-set, it'll just be a product who's >>>need has gone away. >>>Perhaps subtle, but not quite the same. If new ones become unavailable, >>>used prices may >>>go up (depending upon supply/demand dynamics) because there will be a >>>long lasting need >>>for them (for procrastinators) even after need has dropped too low for >>>sustaining a business >>>selling new scanners. Unless the flatbeds get so good that they really >>>are obsolete in which >>>case they'll just be $5 items at goodwill (that don't sell). >>> >>>Mike K. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>-- >>Pics @ http://www.adrenaline.com/snaps >>Leica M6TTL, Bessa R, Nikon FM3a, Nikon D70, Rollei AFM35 >>(Jihad Sigint NSA FBI Patriot Act) >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>---------- >>Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe >>filmscanners' >>or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or >>body > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body