Re: Film may not be dead...

[frank theriault]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:32:30 -0600 (CST), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 In many ways
> professional photography is only tangentially about actual photography.

I would never presume to tell Mr. Roberts (one of my favourite movies
of all time, BTW ) how to compile his annual list of PDML Quotes,
but surely here's an early contender!!

cheers,
frank


-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: Film may not be dead...

[edwin]

> 
> > But still, I don't know anybody (be it "pro"  or "amateur") for
> > whom digital has changed life significantly, made them instantly
> > happier or helped their karma ;-) while this is not an argument
> > against digital (god forbid!), it's an argument against arguments pro
> > digital ;-)
> 
> It just goes to show how different experiences can be, I personally know many 
> people (besides myself) who are much happier in their photographic pursuits 
> since the widespread adoption of digital imaging technologies.

Digital is certainly more time-efficient for me, which means I spend more 
time taking pictures and less time staring at a sweep clock, or more time
at home and less time at work.  This might arguably have improved my life.
I can't as easily say it's improved my PHOTOGRAPHY.  In many ways 
professional photography is only tangentially about actual photography.

DJE

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[John Whittingham]

>  the Super A being the only real departure for me

I lie, I have a 645 as well!

John



-- Original Message ---
From: "John Whittingham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:35:11 +0000
Subject: Re: Film may not be dead.

> > What about the ergonomics?
> 
> I prefer the layout of classic cameras, KX, MX, LX, Nikon FM (sorry!)
>  the Super A being the only real departure for me, I'd have to 
> handle the MZ-S to know.
> 
> John
> 
> -- Original Message ---
> From: Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Sent: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:30:40 + (GMT)
> Subject: Re: Film may not be dead.
> 
> > On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, John Whittingham wrote:
> > 
> > > Super A bodies from time to time despite owning a MZ-3 and ZX-5n, I'd 
> love a
> > > MZ-S but I'm not sure I'd take to the ergonomics, beautiful camera all 
the
> > > same,
> > 
> > What about the ergonomics?
> > 
> > Kostas
> --- End of Original Message ---
--- End of Original Message ---

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[John Whittingham]

The one thing that worries me is that the digital producers e.g. Fuji, Kodak 
and others who also manufacture film products may actually reduce the quality 
of the film to make digital appear better. It was rumoured that CD 
manufacturers bought up vinyl producing plants and reduced the quality in a 
last ditch attempt at killing off vinyl altogether but failed miserably :)
I for one would like to have the choice of medium I use.

I'm not planning on buying a DSLR until we get full frame 36mm x 24mm at 
reasonable cost which may well be never, if Pentax don't make one I'll be 
switching to another make, but I'm very patient!

There seems to be a lot of problems being reported regarding the *istD lately 
it's putting me right off DSLR's in general. I'm still using KX, MX, LX and 
Super A bodies from time to time despite owning a MZ-3 and ZX-5n, I'd love a 
MZ-S but I'm not sure I'd take to the ergonomics, beautiful camera all the 
same, nearly clicked the BIN button on one for £350 the other day on eekBay.

John

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[John Whittingham]

> What about the ergonomics?

I prefer the layout of classic cameras, KX, MX, LX, Nikon FM (sorry!) the 
Super A being the only real departure for me, I'd have to handle the MZ-S to 
know.

John


-- Original Message ---
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:30:40 + (GMT)
Subject: Re: Film may not be dead.

> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, John Whittingham wrote:
> 
> > Super A bodies from time to time despite owning a MZ-3 and ZX-5n, I'd 
love a
> > MZ-S but I'm not sure I'd take to the ergonomics, beautiful camera all the
> > same,
> 
> What about the ergonomics?
> 
> Kostas
--- End of Original Message ---

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Kostas Kavoussanakis]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, John Whittingham wrote:

> Super A bodies from time to time despite owning a MZ-3 and ZX-5n, I'd love a
> MZ-S but I'm not sure I'd take to the ergonomics, beautiful camera all the
> same,

What about the ergonomics?

Kostas

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Paul Stenquist]

4x5 digital is used in the field  by some pro car shooters. However, I 
wouldn't be surprised if someone shooting for an architectural magazine 
might use film, but that would be a highly specialized exception. That 
would not be true of all mags that run high quality glossy spreads.

On Jan 17, 2005, at 11:42 PM, Peter J. Alling wrote:
Then the working pro with the ultramodern high tech aluminum frame 4x5 
view camera shooting ektachrome for a architectural
magazine that I spoke with not long ago lied.  I doubt it.  4x5 
digital is a studio thing, not for field work, not yet anyway.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not true. All magazines are now working with digital. Some of it is 
4x5, but it's digital.


What could be called "super glossy" magazines are still demanding 
4x5 inch chromes.  I expect that until 4x5" chrome films are 
completely discontinued that aspect of the commercial market will 
use film.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I think film will continue to be available for the forseeable 
future, perhaps
as long as fifty years, probably longer. It's kind of like oil 
paints. They didn't go away when people started making photographs 
or for that matter when acrylics were developed. Different media 
appeal to different artists. Will film be used for commercial 
photography? Not for the most part, but there will always be some 
exceptions. Will film be capable of providing images that are 
superior to digital? Eventually, no. But because it is different, it 
will still represent a unique choice.


I don't expect film to go away entirely, just to get ridiculously 
expensive with limited choice just like vinyl recordings vs CD. 
The majority of my Leica film kit will be on the block shortly.


My thoughts exactly, CD has been around since 1983 and you can 
still buy vinyl albeit selected releases, I reckon film has at the 
very least 20 years left :)

John
-- Original Message ---
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 08:28:42 +1000
Subject: Re: Film may not be dead.

On 17 Jan 2005 at 11:39, Graywolf wrote:

I will close with the comment that in your and Rob's last posts 
you both admitted you like film, especially B&W but are just too 
lazy to mess with

it at

this time. Got a message for both of you. Keep proselytizing 
digital and

you

will help make film disappear, then you will never have to make 
the

choice.

I don't expect film to go away entirely, just to get ridiculously 
expensive with limited choice just like vinyl recordings vs CD. 
The majority of my Leica film kit will be on the block shortly.

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

--- End of Original Message ---


--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you 
get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot 
foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during 
peacetime.
	--P.J. O'Rourke





--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get 
to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - 
two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
	--P.J. O'Rourke

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Peter J. Alling]

Then the working pro with the ultramodern high tech aluminum frame 4x5 
view camera shooting ektachrome for a architectural
magazine that I spoke with not long ago lied.  I doubt it.  4x5 digital 
is a studio thing, not for field work, not yet anyway.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not true. All magazines are now working with digital. Some of it is 4x5, but 
it's digital.
 

What could be called "super glossy" magazines are still demanding 4x5 
inch chromes.  I expect that until 4x5" chrome films are completely 
discontinued that aspect of the commercial market will use film.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   

I think film will continue to be available for the forseeable future, perhaps 
 

as long as fifty years, probably longer. It's kind of like oil paints. They 
didn't go away when people started making photographs or for that matter when 
acrylics were developed. Different media appeal to different artists. Will film 
be used for commercial photography? Not for the most part, but there will always 
be some exceptions. Will film be capable of providing images that are superior 
to digital? Eventually, no. But because it is different, it will still represent 
a unique choice.
   


 

I don't expect film to go away entirely, just to get ridiculously 
expensive with limited choice just like vinyl recordings vs CD. The 
majority of my Leica film kit will be on the block shortly.


 

My thoughts exactly, CD has been around since 1983 and you can still buy 
vinyl albeit selected releases, I reckon film has at the very least 20 years 
left :)

John
-- Original Message ---
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 08:28:42 +1000
Subject: Re: Film may not be dead.
  

   

On 17 Jan 2005 at 11:39, Graywolf wrote:


 

I will close with the comment that in your and Rob's last posts you both 
admitted you like film, especially B&W but are just too lazy to mess with 
  

   

it at
  

   

this time. Got a message for both of you. Keep proselytizing digital and 
  

   

you
  

   

will help make film disappear, then you will never have to make the 
  

   

choice.
  

   

I don't expect film to go away entirely, just to get ridiculously 
expensive with limited choice just like vinyl recordings vs CD. The 
majority of my Leica film kit will be on the block shortly.

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998


 

--- End of Original Message ---
  

   


 

--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. 
During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings 
and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
	--P.J. O'Rourke

   


 


--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. 
During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings 
and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
	--P.J. O'Rourke

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[pnstenquist]

Not true. All magazines are now working with digital. Some of it is 4x5, but 
it's digital.


> What could be called "super glossy" magazines are still demanding 4x5 
> inch chromes.  I expect that until 4x5" chrome films are completely 
> discontinued that aspect of the commercial market will use film.
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> >I think film will continue to be available for the forseeable future, 
> >perhaps 
> as long as fifty years, probably longer. It's kind of like oil paints. They 
> didn't go away when people started making photographs or for that matter when 
> acrylics were developed. Different media appeal to different artists. Will 
> film 
> be used for commercial photography? Not for the most part, but there will 
> always 
> be some exceptions. Will film be capable of providing images that are 
> superior 
> to digital? Eventually, no. But because it is different, it will still 
> represent 
> a unique choice.
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >>>I don't expect film to go away entirely, just to get ridiculously 
> >>>expensive with limited choice just like vinyl recordings vs CD. The 
> >>>majority of my Leica film kit will be on the block shortly.
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>My thoughts exactly, CD has been around since 1983 and you can still buy 
> >>vinyl albeit selected releases, I reckon film has at the very least 20 
> >>years 
> >>left :)
> >>
> >>John
> >>
> >>
> >>-- Original Message ---
> >>From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> >>Sent: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 08:28:42 +1000
> >>Subject: Re: Film may not be dead.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>On 17 Jan 2005 at 11:39, Graywolf wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>>>I will close with the comment that in your and Rob's last posts you both 
> >>>>admitted you like film, especially B&W but are just too lazy to mess with 
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>it at
> >>
> >>
> >>>>this time. Got a message for both of you. Keep proselytizing digital and 
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>you
> >>
> >>
> >>>>will help make film disappear, then you will never have to make the 
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>choice.
> >>
> >>
> >>>I don't expect film to go away entirely, just to get ridiculously 
> >>>expensive with limited choice just like vinyl recordings vs CD. The 
> >>>majority of my Leica film kit will be on the block shortly.
> >>>
> >>>Rob Studdert
> >>>HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
> >>>Tel +61-2-9554-4110
> >>>UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
> >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
> >>>Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>--- End of Original Message ---
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. 
> During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings 
> and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during 
> peacetime.
>   --P.J. O'Rourke
> 
> 

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Peter J. Alling]

What could be called "super glossy" magazines are still demanding 4x5 
inch chromes.  I expect that until 4x5" chrome films are completely 
discontinued that aspect of the commercial market will use film.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think film will continue to be available for the forseeable future, perhaps 
as long as fifty years, probably longer. It's kind of like oil paints. They 
didn't go away when people started making photographs or for that matter when 
acrylics were developed. Different media appeal to different artists. Will film 
be used for commercial photography? Not for the most part, but there will 
always be some exceptions. Will film be capable of providing images that are 
superior to digital? Eventually, no. But because it is different, it will still 
represent a unique choice.
 

I don't expect film to go away entirely, just to get ridiculously 
expensive with limited choice just like vinyl recordings vs CD. The 
majority of my Leica film kit will be on the block shortly.
 

My thoughts exactly, CD has been around since 1983 and you can still buy 
vinyl albeit selected releases, I reckon film has at the very least 20 years 
left :)

John
-- Original Message ---
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 08:28:42 +1000
Subject: Re: Film may not be dead.
   

On 17 Jan 2005 at 11:39, Graywolf wrote:
 

I will close with the comment that in your and Rob's last posts you both 
admitted you like film, especially B&W but are just too lazy to mess with 
   

it at
   

this time. Got a message for both of you. Keep proselytizing digital and 
   

you
   

will help make film disappear, then you will never have to make the 
   

choice.
   

I don't expect film to go away entirely, just to get ridiculously 
expensive with limited choice just like vinyl recordings vs CD. The 
majority of my Leica film kit will be on the block shortly.

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
 

--- End of Original Message ---
   


 


--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. 
During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings 
and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
	--P.J. O'Rourke

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Rob Studdert]

On 17 Jan 2005 at 18:59, Collin R Brendemuehl wrote:

> In 1985 I got to work on an early educational CD for some folks in NY.
> I was in Oklahoma @ the time.
> My former employer has Hitachi's external CD ROM drive SN #nnn01.
> I don't know what the series was, but it was definitely #1.

One of the very first CD players (audio) the Sony CDP-101 was launched October 
1982.

http://www.sony.net/Fun/SH/1-20/h5.html

The first burner I ever used/sold was some time later, it was a 2x Philips unit 
(CDD 521) which was an external SCSI unit about the same shape and size as a 
decent audio amplifier and hellishly expensive. Things have come far in the 
digital realm in a short time.


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Collin R Brendemuehl]

At 18:49 2005.01.17 -0500, you wrote:
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:03:27 +
From: "John Whittingham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I don't expect film to go away entirely, just to get ridiculously
> expensive with limited choice just like vinyl recordings vs CD. The
> majority of my Leica film kit will be on the block shortly.
My thoughts exactly, CD has been around since 1983 and you can still buy
vinyl albeit selected releases, I reckon film has at the very least 20 years
left :)
John
In 1985 I got to work on an early educational CD for some folks in NY.
I was in Oklahoma @ the time.
My former employer has Hitachi's external CD ROM drive SN #nnn01.
I don't know what the series was, but it was definitely #1.
Collin
"You impress at a distance, but you impact a life up close. The closer the 
relationship the greater the impact."
Howard Hendricks

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Rob Studdert" 
Subject: Re: Film may not be dead.

I hate renovations.
I feel your pain.
William Robb

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Rob Studdert]

On 17 Jan 2005 at 17:39, William Robb wrote:

> > I feel the wind of change wafting through the Studdert 
> > billabong
> 
> He's going to finish the bathroom?

LOL, I'm going to have an imprint of a lady's shoe on my a*se if I don't real 
soon :-)

I hate renovations.


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Rob Studdert]

On 17 Jan 2005 at 15:34, Tim Sherburne wrote:

> Hmmm In painting, however, the medium plays a significant difference in 
> the
> appearance of the final result. Does that carry over to the film vs. digital
> debate? If I can get the same final result regardless of the medium, then 
> medium
> no longer matters, or, at least, it matters to a very, very small market, as 
> in
> the case of vinyl vs. CDs.

I suspect for some proponents of film (much like vinyl enthusiasts) the process 
is as important as the result, I think the point at which absolute print 
quality is an argument is past.

The following image was made using stitched images from a current DSLR, it's a 
10MB image but it's well worth the DL time.

http://caldwellphotographic.com/FlatironFullSizeJPEG10.jpg


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Tim Sherburne"
Subject: Re: Film may not be dead.


Hmmm In painting, however, the medium plays a significant 
difference in
the appearance of the final result. Does that carry over to the 
film vs.
digital debate? If I can get the same final result regardless of 
the medium,
then medium no longer matters, or, at least, it matters to a very, 
very
small market, as in the case of vinyl vs. CDs.

It seems that most of the discussion around the 'net concludes that 
digital
allows the photographer to create images that conceal the true 
medium,
fooling everyone but the most discriminating enthusiast.
What will do film in will be a numbers game.
Right now, if you want a print for the wall, film has some 
advantages.
The problem is that as more and more labs turn to a pure digital 
workflow, film loses those advantages, and in many instances becomes 
an inferior imaging choice.

William Robb 

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Cotty"
Subject: Re: Film may not be dead.


I feel the wind of change wafting through the Studdert 
billabong
He's going to finish the bathroom?
William Robb 

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Tim Sherburne]

Hmmm In painting, however, the medium plays a significant difference in
the appearance of the final result. Does that carry over to the film vs.
digital debate? If I can get the same final result regardless of the medium,
then medium no longer matters, or, at least, it matters to a very, very
small market, as in the case of vinyl vs. CDs.

It seems that most of the discussion around the 'net concludes that digital
allows the photographer to create images that conceal the true medium,
fooling everyone but the most discriminating enthusiast.

Tim

On 1/17/05 15:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I think film will continue to be available for the forseeable future, perhaps
> as long as fifty years, probably longer. It's kind of like oil paints. They
> didn't go away when people started making photographs or for that matter when
> acrylics were developed. Different media appeal to different artists. Will
> film be used for commercial photography? Not for the most part, but there will
> always be some exceptions. Will film be capable of providing images that are
> superior to digital? Eventually, no. But because it is different, it will
> still represent a unique choice.
> 
> 
>>> I don't expect film to go away entirely, just to get ridiculously
>>> expensive with limited choice just like vinyl recordings vs CD. The
>>> majority of my Leica film kit will be on the block shortly.
>> 
>> My thoughts exactly, CD has been around since 1983 and you can still buy
>> vinyl albeit selected releases, I reckon film has at the very least 20 years
>> left :)
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> 
>> -- Original Message ---
>> From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
>> Sent: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 08:28:42 +1000
>> Subject: Re: Film may not be dead.
>> 
>>> On 17 Jan 2005 at 11:39, Graywolf wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I will close with the comment that in your and Rob's last posts you both
>>>> admitted you like film, especially B&W but are just too lazy to mess with
>> it at
>>>> this time. Got a message for both of you. Keep proselytizing digital and
>> you
>>>> will help make film disappear, then you will never have to make the
>> choice.
>>> 
>>> I don't expect film to go away entirely, just to get ridiculously
>>> expensive with limited choice just like vinyl recordings vs CD. The
>>> majority of my Leica film kit will be on the block shortly.
>>> 
>>> Rob Studdert
>>> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
>>> Tel +61-2-9554-4110
>>> UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
>>> Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
>> --- End of Original Message ---
>> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[pnstenquist]

I think film will continue to be available for the forseeable future, perhaps 
as long as fifty years, probably longer. It's kind of like oil paints. They 
didn't go away when people started making photographs or for that matter when 
acrylics were developed. Different media appeal to different artists. Will film 
be used for commercial photography? Not for the most part, but there will 
always be some exceptions. Will film be capable of providing images that are 
superior to digital? Eventually, no. But because it is different, it will still 
represent a unique choice.


> > I don't expect film to go away entirely, just to get ridiculously 
> > expensive with limited choice just like vinyl recordings vs CD. The 
> > majority of my Leica film kit will be on the block shortly.
> 
> My thoughts exactly, CD has been around since 1983 and you can still buy 
> vinyl albeit selected releases, I reckon film has at the very least 20 years 
> left :)
> 
> John
> 
> 
> -- Original Message ---
> From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Sent: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 08:28:42 +1000
> Subject: Re: Film may not be dead.
> 
> > On 17 Jan 2005 at 11:39, Graywolf wrote:
> > 
> > > I will close with the comment that in your and Rob's last posts you both 
> > > admitted you like film, especially B&W but are just too lazy to mess with 
> it at
> > > this time. Got a message for both of you. Keep proselytizing digital and 
> you
> > > will help make film disappear, then you will never have to make the 
> choice.
> > 
> > I don't expect film to go away entirely, just to get ridiculously 
> > expensive with limited choice just like vinyl recordings vs CD. The 
> > majority of my Leica film kit will be on the block shortly.
> > 
> > Rob Studdert
> > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
> > Tel +61-2-9554-4110
> > UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
> > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
> --- End of Original Message ---
> 

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Cotty]

On 18/1/05, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed:

>I don't expect film to go away entirely, just to get ridiculously expensive 
>with limited choice just like vinyl recordings vs CD. The majority of my
>Leica 
>film kit will be on the block shortly.


I feel the wind of change wafting through the Studdert billabong



Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[John Whittingham]

> I don't expect film to go away entirely, just to get ridiculously 
> expensive with limited choice just like vinyl recordings vs CD. The 
> majority of my Leica film kit will be on the block shortly.

My thoughts exactly, CD has been around since 1983 and you can still buy 
vinyl albeit selected releases, I reckon film has at the very least 20 years 
left :)

John


-- Original Message ---
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 08:28:42 +1000
Subject: Re: Film may not be dead.

> On 17 Jan 2005 at 11:39, Graywolf wrote:
> 
> > I will close with the comment that in your and Rob's last posts you both 
> > admitted you like film, especially B&W but are just too lazy to mess with 
it at
> > this time. Got a message for both of you. Keep proselytizing digital and 
you
> > will help make film disappear, then you will never have to make the 
choice.
> 
> I don't expect film to go away entirely, just to get ridiculously 
> expensive with limited choice just like vinyl recordings vs CD. The 
> majority of my Leica film kit will be on the block shortly.
> 
> Rob Studdert
> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
> Tel +61-2-9554-4110
> UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
> Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
--- End of Original Message ---

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Rob Studdert]

On 17 Jan 2005 at 11:39, Graywolf wrote:

> I will close with the comment that in your and Rob's last posts you both 
> admitted you like film, especially B&W but are just too lazy to mess with it 
> at
> this time. Got a message for both of you. Keep proselytizing digital and you
> will help make film disappear, then you will never have to make the choice.

I don't expect film to go away entirely, just to get ridiculously expensive 
with limited choice just like vinyl recordings vs CD. The majority of my Leica 
film kit will be on the block shortly.


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Peter J. Alling]

Mark Roberts wrote:
"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 

From: "Henri Toivonen"
   

And when will consumers stop following the hypes and make up their 
own mind.. probably never.
 

Some always will.
The few, the eccentric.
   

...the PDML!
(Seriously, that sounds like a good description of us.)
 

Then that should read...
   The few, the proud, the eccentric, the proudly eccentric.
--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. 
During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings 
and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
	--P.J. O'Rourke

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Graywolf]

You are correct about that, and even then they would not all agree. I do have 
8x10 print made from a downloaded 13.9mp Kodak DSC14 image and a cropped 8x10 
machine print from a ASA 400 6x7 negative. When I showed them to the guys at GFM 
Camera clinic year before last, most of them preferred the digital. The only 
real dissenters where myself and one of the speakers (I can't think of his name 
at the moment --blame the NPH, but he is the guy who took the photo of the hippy 
putting a flower in the National Guardsman's rifle barrel). They liked the 
creamy smoothness of the digital even though there was far far more detail in 
the 6x7 print.

So, it is not even just a case of what is better, it is also a case of what 
someone wants to see. Subjective as hell.

As I have said before, the process of analog photography is an important part of 
photography as a hobby to me, and going by apug.com and other film orientated 
websites to many others as well. Those who are only interested in the images 
will obviously prefer digital. Those who enjoy the whole process will continue 
to use film (by the way only about 1% of those who take photos did their own 
processing even before digital came along the numbers probably have not changed 
that much, just the perceptions about them).

I will close with the comment that in your and Rob's last posts you both 
admitted you like film, especially B&W but are just too lazy to mess with it at 
this time. Got a message for both of you. Keep proselytizing digital and you 
will help make film disappear, then you will never have to make the choice.

graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
Paul Stenquist wrote:
By the way, all these arguments are pointless, because they're based on 
conjecture. For example, no one is sitting there with a high quality 
print from a 16 megapixel camera comparing it to a high quality print 
from MF. And even if one of us were doing that others could say that one 
or the other really wasn't top quality. The only thing that will prove 
the point is time and the consensus opinion of history. Until then, it's 
all a matter of personal opinion, based primarily on pure conjecture.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.13 - Release Date: 1/16/2005

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Paul Stenquist"
Subject: Re: Film may not be dead.


The only thing that will prove the point is time and the consensus 
opinion of history.
This would be the same concesus of opinion that proved that nitrate 
film was better than glass plate, roll film was better than sheets, 
and small format was better than medium format.

In the marketplace, there is no doubt that digital is better. Look at 
the sales of digital cameras vs. film cameras. Look at how film sales 
are in free fall.

"Better", however, is a pretty slippery word.
William Robb

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Paul Stenquist]

By the way, all these arguments are pointless, because they're based on 
conjecture. For example, no one is sitting there with a high quality 
print from a 16 megapixel camera comparing it to a high quality print 
from MF. And even if one of us were doing that others could say that 
one or the other really wasn't top quality. The only thing that will 
prove the point is time and the consensus opinion of history. Until 
then, it's all a matter of personal opinion, based primarily on pure 
conjecture.
On Jan 17, 2005, at 1:50 AM, Rob Studdert wrote:

On 17 Jan 2005 at 0:01, Graywolf wrote:
Certainly you and Paul (grin). I remember when we three argued the 
other way
around not too many years back. You and Paul claimed no one in their 
right mind
would spend that much on a digital camera, and I argued that it made 
perfect
sense if you were trying to make a living with your camera.
Hmm, you'd have to post me an archive link as I don't recall holding 
such a
position, I have all my PDML posts since 1997 handy but I don't fancy 
trolling
through them :-)

My recollection is that I had been keen on the prospect of a DSLR (at 
nearly
any sane cost) since well before the MR-52 raised it's pretty but 
fanciful
head.

Cheers,
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Paul Stenquist]

I once argued that an affordable DSLR like the *istD wouldn't provide 
sufficient resolution to be any more than a toy. I never doubted 
high-end digital. A lot of the studio pros in town started shooting 4x5 
digital five years ago. The expensive stuff was always good for the 
high-end market. It took a demonstration by a local pro to convince me 
that 6.1 megapixels was enough to afford me the quality I needed for 
magazines and stock. After that,  I never looked back. However, as a 
hobbyist, I do miss BW darkroom work and intend to shoot some more film 
down the road.
Paul
On Jan 17, 2005, at 1:50 AM, Rob Studdert wrote:

On 17 Jan 2005 at 0:01, Graywolf wrote:
Certainly you and Paul (grin). I remember when we three argued the 
other way
around not too many years back. You and Paul claimed no one in their 
right mind
would spend that much on a digital camera, and I argued that it made 
perfect
sense if you were trying to make a living with your camera.
Hmm, you'd have to post me an archive link as I don't recall holding 
such a
position, I have all my PDML posts since 1997 handy but I don't fancy 
trolling
through them :-)

My recollection is that I had been keen on the prospect of a DSLR (at 
nearly
any sane cost) since well before the MR-52 raised it's pretty but 
fanciful
head.

Cheers,
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Rob Studdert]

On 17 Jan 2005 at 12:11, Frantisek wrote:

> But still, I don't know anybody (be it "pro"  or "amateur") for
> whom digital has changed life significantly, made them instantly
> happier or helped their karma ;-) while this is not an argument
> against digital (god forbid!), it's an argument against arguments pro
> digital ;-)

It just goes to show how different experiences can be, I personally know many 
people (besides myself) who are much happier in their photographic pursuits 
since the widespread adoption of digital imaging technologies.


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Frantisek]

G> Certainly you and Paul (grin). I remember when we three argued the other way
G> around not too many years back. You and Paul claimed no one in their right 
mind
G> would spend that much on a digital camera, and I argued that it made perfect
G> sense if you were trying to make a living with your camera.

It were funny discussions these days :) All the number crunching going
on.

G> I am actually pro digital --especially for professional use which has 
nothing to
G> do with quality but everything to do with making profits--, but I find I 
have to
G> argue for film for the exact reasons Frantisek mentions. And not having 
invested
G> thousands on digital equipment I do not have to "justify" it to myself.

I do use digital daily, and I like certains things of it. I do use
film, not as much, but still a lot, especially when going on any kind
of trip. There are times I wish I could "afford" to shoot an event
with just the leica/film slr (there is one older PJ who was to Ukraine elections
with _just_ leicas, almost everybody else was sending jpegs over
the net...). There are times I am glad I shot something _not for
work_ on digital as well. Call me moody perhaps :)

Both processes have inconveniences for me - I am not that good at
darkroom work (and now with less and less practice, probably getting
worse), and I dislike having to stare on computer screen for too much
time (because I have been working on computers for too much of my life
already).

I feel both processes are different... just that, different processes.
One is sometimes better because it has some hard to define feel, be that
nostalghia, feeling of amateurism - meaning love of something, or of
simply a good workmanship done with love (of course, only if it was
done so). Like a good old wooden table has. But only in some cases.

But still, I don't know anybody (be it "pro"  or "amateur") for
whom digital has changed life significantly, made them instantly
happier or helped their karma ;-) while this is not an argument
against digital (god forbid!), it's an argument against arguments pro
digital ;-)

enough words from me, I don't aspire to thinking that my opinion is
so original as to be entertaining on the list. Please bear my posts me with
patience :)

Frantisek

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Rob Studdert]

On 17 Jan 2005 at 0:01, Graywolf wrote:

> Certainly you and Paul (grin). I remember when we three argued the other way
> around not too many years back. You and Paul claimed no one in their right 
> mind
> would spend that much on a digital camera, and I argued that it made perfect
> sense if you were trying to make a living with your camera.

Hmm, you'd have to post me an archive link as I don't recall holding such a 
position, I have all my PDML posts since 1997 handy but I don't fancy trolling 
through them :-)

My recollection is that I had been keen on the prospect of a DSLR (at nearly 
any sane cost) since well before the MR-52 raised it's pretty but fanciful 
head.

Cheers,


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Graywolf]

Certainly you and Paul (grin). I remember when we three argued the other way 
around not too many years back. You and Paul claimed no one in their right mind 
would spend that much on a digital camera, and I argued that it made perfect 
sense if you were trying to make a living with your camera.

I am actually pro digital --especially for professional use which has nothing to 
do with quality but everything to do with making profits--, but I find I have to 
argue for film for the exact reasons Frantisek mentions. And not having invested 
thousands on digital equipment I do not have to "justify" it to myself.

graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 16 Jan 2005 at 23:00, Frantisek wrote:

...but surely many people are helping it into the grave by saying "it
is" all over the internet. If you are so happy with digital, why the
need for voicing it so strongly? It's a tool, not religion.

I think you are mislead if you think the demise of film is even partly due to 
discussions floating about the internet. How many people who were absolutely 
pro film on-line changed their views upon the use of a decent digital camera?

Cheers,
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.13 - Release Date: 1/16/2005

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Mark Roberts]

"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>From: "Henri Toivonen"
>
>> And when will consumers stop following the hypes and make up their 
>> own mind.. probably never.
>
>Some always will.
>
>The few, the eccentric.

...the PDML!

(Seriously, that sounds like a good description of us.)

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Henri Toivonen"
Subject: Re: Film may not be dead.


And when will consumers stop following the hypes and make up their 
own mind.. probably never.
Some always will.
The few, the eccentric.
William Robb

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: Film may not be dead.


How many people who were absolutely
pro film on-line changed their views upon the use of a decent 
digital camera?
HAR!!
William Robb 

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Henri Toivonen]

William Robb wrote:
Digital is another step, a logical step, in that trend.
It's evolution.
William Robb
Then this is my prediction:
Soon everybody will use cameras that are integrated in our mobile 
phones, with lousy quality and sharpness, and maybe about 6mpix. ;-)
Can't get any more convenient than that.

No but seriously, I agree with you, I'm just wondering where the end 
will be with this search of convenience.
And when will consumers stop following the hypes and make up their own 
mind.. probably never.

/Henri

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Henri Toivonen"
Subject: Re: Film may not be dead.


I think it IS partly due to the hype that is going on right now 
that film is dead and soon you won't even be able to buy film.
Simply because beginners, or people that are thinking about buying 
a camera, do some research on the net. People do that nowadays alot 
before they buy something, and read all these hundreds of pages 
saying that film is dead, film is worthless, all hail digital.

Nobody buys new analog slr's anymore, and the general attitude is 
turning now amongst beginners that film is really crap, simply 
because it's old. So even less people buy film cameras.

"Wow, what are you doing with that old dinosaur, throw that in the 
trash and buy a DIGITAL camera!".
I've even heard some sales clerks at photoshops say that when a 
customer comes in with a film camera.

I think all this is for the worse. Speeds up the death of film even 
more.

The manufacture of photographic equipment is, for the most part, 
driven by consumer fads.
We gave up glass plates for sheet film.
Was sheet film better? At the time, I strongly doubt it.
We gave up sheet film for roll film.
Why?
Was it better?
It was an era when image quality was, to a greater extent than today, 
driven by square inches, so I'd say not.
We gave up roll film for small format 35mm.
Is 35mm better?
Knowedgable film users will assure you it isn't.

In every one of those examples, we have traded ultimate image quality 
for convenience, to a certain extent.

Digital is another step, a logical step, in that trend.
It's evolution.
William Robb 

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Rob Studdert]

On 17 Jan 2005 at 0:05, Henri Toivonen wrote:

> Simply because beginners, or people that are thinking about buying a 
> camera, do some research on the net. People do that nowadays alot before 
> they buy something, and read all these hundreds of pages saying that 
> film is dead, film is worthless, all hail digital.

I know plenty of people who have bought digital cameras and either have a 
computer and don't use it or don't have a computer at all, however this doesn't 
seem to stop them from coming to the same conclusions as can be found in 
discussions all over internet forums. Retailers and labs are pushing digital 
cameras and digital image capture, it's difficult to find a decent film camera 
in any shop around here and the range of films is shrinking, doesn't bother me 
so much these days even though I still have big $$ in Leica and Mamiya film 
cameras.


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Henri Toivonen]

Rob Studdert wrote:
On 16 Jan 2005 at 23:00, Frantisek wrote:
 

...but surely many people are helping it into the grave by saying "it
is" all over the internet. If you are so happy with digital, why the
need for voicing it so strongly? It's a tool, not religion.
   

I think you are mislead if you think the demise of film is even partly due to 
discussions floating about the internet. How many people who were absolutely 
pro film on-line changed their views upon the use of a decent digital camera?

Cheers,
Rob Studdert
 

I think it IS partly due to the hype that is going on right now that 
film is dead and soon you won't even be able to buy film.
Simply because beginners, or people that are thinking about buying a 
camera, do some research on the net. People do that nowadays alot before 
they buy something, and read all these hundreds of pages saying that 
film is dead, film is worthless, all hail digital.

Nobody buys new analog slr's anymore, and the general attitude is 
turning now amongst beginners that film is really crap, simply because 
it's old. So even less people buy film cameras.

"Wow, what are you doing with that old dinosaur, throw that in the trash 
and buy a DIGITAL camera!".
I've even heard some sales clerks at photoshops say that when a customer 
comes in with a film camera.

I think all this is for the worse. Speeds up the death of film even more.
/Henri

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Rob Studdert]

On 16 Jan 2005 at 23:00, Frantisek wrote:

> ...but surely many people are helping it into the grave by saying "it
> is" all over the internet. If you are so happy with digital, why the
> need for voicing it so strongly? It's a tool, not religion.

I think you are mislead if you think the demise of film is even partly due to 
discussions floating about the internet. How many people who were absolutely 
pro film on-line changed their views upon the use of a decent digital camera?

Cheers,


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Frantisek]

...but surely many people are helping it into the grave by saying "it
is" all over the internet. If you are so happy with digital, why the
need for voicing it so strongly? It's a tool, not religion.

It's just a meme: film is dead. But look at how it spreads. Memes
spread well. And you are helping it to spread, hammering the nails in
the coffin of poor Silver Halide.

The more people say that film is dead, the more dead it will be.
Internet is full of memes, and self-perpetuating "discussions"
relating "known facts". Rumours circle around so much that the very
discussion board that created them may believe in them after few cycles on
other boards...

Something that is said (written) thousand times becomes a reality. So
watch your words carefuly. In the blogosphere, first was Word, then
was Reality.

I have written too much words already. Film is dead. Long live film!

Frantisek

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[John Celio]

I wish I'd gotten in on this thread days ago, before I had 600+ posts to 
sift through.

The following opinions are based on my short time (2.2 years) working at a 
camera shop.

With that in mind ...
C-41 film will die (as a marketable item).
...Processing will be too expensive to maintian.
...135/120/220 will go (are going) first.  Sheet films later.
I doubt C-41 will die anytime soon.  It's still the most convenient film 
format, and people do still seem to use a lot of single-use cameras.  Plus, 
shops like mine have labs that print both digital images and film-based 
images from the same machine, so the cost of keeping C-41 processing going 
alongside digital processing can't be that much more than just digital 
processing alone.  Not that I would know the actual numbers, though.

Medium format may as well be dead right now, but it does twitch from time to 
time.  Matter of fact, I'm hoping to find a decent Pentax 67 in the near 
future, because I really like medium format quality.

B&W film will maintain its niche.
...you can process it yourself.
True B&W processing will decline, yes, but C-41 B&W will stick around, I 
believe, for a while longer.  Convenience and nostalgia will be the driving 
force there, I believe.

I'm not certain how color positive (reversal/E6) films will do.
My shop seems to do a decent amount of slide film, but it has slowed down a 
heck of a lot, even in the two+ years I've been there.

I swear it's not my fault.
John Celio
--
http://www.neovenator.com
http://www.newpixel.net
AIM: Neopifex
"Hey, I'm an artist.  I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a 
statement." 

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[John Celio]

You know I am beginning to wonder if I would be wasting money to go to
school...I can't afford to go to someplace like UC, and the two junior
colleges out here seem to be stuck in the dark ages in so far as
photography goes.
You ought to check out Diablo Valley College, over in Pleasant Hill (other 
side of the Caldecott from you).  We get a lot of students from DVC, and 
they seem to have a decent program.  You should check it out for yourself, 
though, because I'm not exactly certain on that.

I wanna leave something  behind, even if it is just a few pretty pictures, 
and
will do whatevr I have to do to accomplish that even if it means
teaching myself from books.  It wouldn't be ideal but it wouldn't be
the first time either...
Another thing you need to do: visit Reed's Cameras & Imaging in Walnut 
Creek.  That's where I work, every day except thursday and friday.  At the 
very least, I love teaching photography, or at least trying to, and I'd be 
more than happy to help you out if I can.

John Celio
--
http://www.neovenator.com
http://www.newpixel.net
AIM: Neopifex
"Hey, I'm an artist.  I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a 
statement." 

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[John Celio]

So it was written:
And, just a
small point - the "hippies" left in 1970, many moving to Marin County to
take up the straight life.  Surprisingly - or maybe not so surprising -
many of the long-haired, dope-smoking, brown-rice-and-veggie-eating, Mario
Savio following hippies I knew in 1967 are now quite conservative, even if
they espouse a liberal philosophy, and drive "Marin County VW's" (that's a
Porsche for those who don't know Marin).
If anyone visiting California wants to see hippies, I tell them to drop by 
Davis, where I went to college (aka university for you international-types), 
or anywhere in Mendocino County.  Davis is something of a hippy mecca, and 
most of Mendocino County is remote enough that folks there just live however 
the heck they want.  Beautiful area, too.

Not a hippy, but knew quite a few,
John Celio
--
http://www.neovenator.com
http://www.newpixel.net
AIM: Neopifex
"Hey, I'm an artist.  I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a 
statement." 

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[mike wilson]

Hi,
n/a wrote:
Can't handle the image of a sizzling posterior, MIke? 
As others have already pointed out, it's not a rear, here.
(GRIN) 
Indeed.  8-)
Actually I was referring to the climate, not to anything
saliciousLOL I lived in FL for half my life, where it is LITERALLY
that hot...9 months out of the year you can't sit down in a car w/o
running the AC firstI am speaking english, actually...of a
sort...southern style...My whole clan tends to be rather smart-mouthed
and long-winded...Sue me, it's genetic on BOTH sides...
Two great nations, separated by a common language

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[johnf]

I think his point was that to those of us brought up in the UK,
or in varous of her dominions, it's more of a sizzling anterior ...

n/a mused:
> 
> Can't handle the image of a sizzling posterior, MIke? 
> 
> (GRIN) 
> 
> Actually I was referring to the climate, not to anything
> saliciousLOL I lived in FL for half my life, where it is LITERALLY
> that hot...9 months out of the year you can't sit down in a car w/o
> running the AC firstI am speaking english, actually...of a
> sort...southern style...My whole clan tends to be rather smart-mouthed
> and long-winded...Sue me, it's genetic on BOTH sides...
> 
> 
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:57:19 +, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > n/a wrote:
> > 
> > > Actually I came out here to get away from 300 days a year of my shorts
> > > clad fanny sticking to my carseat everytime I wanted to hit the road,
> > 
> > Too much information!!!  You might want to check up on what you just
> > wrote in English, as opposed to American  8-)
> > 
> > mike
> > 
> >
> 

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[ernreed2]

Quoting n/a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Can't handle the image of a sizzling posterior, MIke? 
> 
> (GRIN) 
> 
> Actually I was referring to the climate, not to anything
> saliciousLOL I lived in FL for half my life, where it is LITERALLY
> that hot...9 months out of the year you can't sit down in a car w/o
> running the AC first


Tends be easier in a car with cloth seats. Or, if one *doesn't* wear 
shorts ...

BTW it's possible Mike was referring to some threads we've had in the past 
regarding different meanings of the term "fanny" in different parts of the 
English-speaking world. If you have some time to dig around the archives, you 
might find them and be enlightened :-)

ERNR

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[n/a]

Can't handle the image of a sizzling posterior, MIke? 

(GRIN) 

Actually I was referring to the climate, not to anything
saliciousLOL I lived in FL for half my life, where it is LITERALLY
that hot...9 months out of the year you can't sit down in a car w/o
running the AC firstI am speaking english, actually...of a
sort...southern style...My whole clan tends to be rather smart-mouthed
and long-winded...Sue me, it's genetic on BOTH sides...


On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:57:19 +, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> n/a wrote:
> 
> > Actually I came out here to get away from 300 days a year of my shorts
> > clad fanny sticking to my carseat everytime I wanted to hit the road,
> 
> Too much information!!!  You might want to check up on what you just
> wrote in English, as opposed to American  8-)
> 
> mike
> 
>

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Herb Chong]

it's not necessary to go to a fine arts school to learn to be a very good
photographer. in fact, given how a lot of photography schools seem to
operate, i would say that they may teach you technical skills but turn your
brain to mush trying to make you over into a socially aware photographer
looking for a message in everything. if you can avoid the school-think of a
photography school, i think they are good thing. otherwise, the technical
skills for using a camera and getting good focus and exposure are not that
hard to learn.

the hardest things to learn are to be able to see something from a new
perspective and to be able to translate that into an image. that is very
hard to teach, and most of the people who teach in degree programs teach
because they can't do it. the ones that can do it are teaching via workshops
and otherwise shooting for a living.

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "n/a" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: Film may not be dead.


> You know I am beginning to wonder if I would be wasting money to go to
> school...I can't afford to go to someplace like UC, and the two junior
> colleges out here seem to be stuck in the dark ages in so far as
> photography goes. One barely has a program. The other, it's pretty
> bad. City College seems viable, and has a good program I am told, but
> then again 99% of it is geared towards traditional photography, at
> least so far as I can tell though they do seem to be adding more
> digital stuff towards the end. I think I can still learn a lot there,
> but I'm not sure I can learn everything I want to...

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Mark Roberts]

"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>From: "Mark Roberts"
>
>> "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>From: "n/a"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Have you checked into the cost of buying a digital photolab?
>>>You want a place with Photoshop terminals and a digital lab capable of 
>>>going
>>>to even a 12x18 inch print, you will probably be spending close to a 
>>>million
>>>dollars.
>>
>> ???
>> We have a computer and Epson 7500 setup that will make magnificent 24 x
>> 36 prints. Probably cost less than $10,000.
>
>
>Thats an inkjet printer, not a digital photolab.
>Huge difference.

Yep. Apples vs oranges. Or rather, dinosaurs vs mammals. ;-)

>Think Noritsu or Fuji, rather than Epson.

Dinosaurs. Someday (not too far from now) you'll be telling people you
once saw a Fuji Frontier machine and they'll be amazed.

(I'm not getting into the issue of print quality here, just long-term
survivability.)

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Cotty]

On 14/1/05, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Hi,
>
>n/a wrote:
>
>> Actually I came out here to get away from 300 days a year of my shorts
>> clad fanny sticking to my carseat everytime I wanted to hit the road,
>
>Too much information!!!  You might want to check up on what you just 
>wrote in English, as opposed to American  8-)
>
>mike

Oh I dunno -  - - 

hilk hilk




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[mike wilson]

Hi,
n/a wrote:
Actually I came out here to get away from 300 days a year of my shorts
clad fanny sticking to my carseat everytime I wanted to hit the road,
Too much information!!!  You might want to check up on what you just 
wrote in English, as opposed to American  8-)

mike

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[frank theriault]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:47:47 -0500, Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, Frank, as I always say, "Real photographers use Speed Graphics". What 
> many
> of you may not realize is that I did not invent that statement.

Get OUT!!

You didn't coin that phrase?  Geez, Tom, that pretty much taints my
opinion of you, and now I'm so disillusioned that my weekend will
likely be ruined.  

But seriously, I of course (verging on Old Fart status myself...)
agree with pretty much all of your post.  You just say it so well (no
joking there).

Now, I'm off to have a fabulous weekend in Kingston with my kids. 
Catch y'all later, and y'all have yerselves a good weekend, too.

cheers,
frank
-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Keith Whaley]

Graywolf wrote:
The beginner, at anything, always has strong opinions. Stong opinions 
and ignorance go hand in hand. You have to be truely knowledgable to 
know how much you do not know.
Thanks, Tom!
In almost any situation, that needs to be said...again and again!  
The more you actually know and truly understand, the more you realize 
the depth of your ignorance...
There is always so much more to know and understand, about any given 
subject, it's almost overwhelming at times.

But, until you get to that point, the hubris takes over and prompts you 
to believe you actually know something!  

keith
graywolf
[...]
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
A learner (in my opinion) need not have strong opinions, open eyes and
ears will do.

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Graywolf]

Well, Frank, as I always say, "Real photographers use Speed Graphics". What many 
of you may not realize is that I did not invent that statement. It was common 
back in the 1960's when the old big cameras were dying out and being replace 
with 35mm. It was exactly the same then as "Real photographers use film" (the 
digital v. film argument) would be today.

Just as then the new is the future. The old is for us old farts filled with 
nostalgia. It does not matter which is better. But the old cameras remained 
usable for decades afterwards. That does not look like it will be so with this 
so called revolution. There is no doubt that digital is the future and if I was 
starting into photography today I would be a fool to buy a film camera.

But liking the cameras I have, and wanting to use them for the rest of my life 
(another 20-30 years if I am real lucky), I have to argue the film side in hopes 
that I will be influential enough so that enough of us will continue to use it 
to keep it available. Unlike flashbulbs for the anti-digital camera 
, film will not keep for decades, so 
someone has to keep manufacturing it and at a price I can afford.

graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
frank theriault wrote:
Well, absolutely.  This whole Digital vs. Film thing is really pretty
silly, isn't it?
The most important part of the photographic equation is the thing that
looks through the viewfinder (by that, I mean the photographer, BTW
).
The very fact that some of the photographers on this list that I
respect the most use and enjoy both media indicates that digital and
film have their advantages.  Some advantages (of both) are technical,
some are emotional, some are financial (as in, if I had the bucks, I'd
likely have a digital camera - not that it would replace my beloved
film gear).
NOW...  that being said, here's what I think about starting with film
as opposed to starting on digital:  I think that learning photography
on a completely manual camera has it's advantages.  Being forced to
think of what light does to a capture surface (and by that I mean
either film or a digital sensor), and how you can control it with the
three basic functions of a camera (shutter, aperture, focus) will
likely make you a better photographer, faster.
I'm not saying you can't learn on an automatic camera.  I'm not saying
film is superior to digital for learning.  If they made a digital
camera with completely manual controls, that would be what to learn
on.  I'm not talking manual over-ride, but no auto anything at all. 
You and I know they'll never make one.  No one would buy it - except
students, then they'd sell it at the end of first year, and the
incoming class of next year would buy the previous year's used ones at
the local used camera stores.  But, since digital is an electronic
medium, the cameras pretty much have to be automatic.

So, the way to learn photography is with film, IMHO, due to the
foregoing.  That's not an advantage of film per se, but an "advantage"
of some of the cameras they once made to accept film.
However, to re-inforce what I said in the beginning, no matter what
the medium, the photographer will always be the most important part of
what makes a good photo (except that without a camera, there'll be no
photo, no matter how talented the photographer - but that's another
story for another time).
There.  Now I've ranted, and I feel better.
ciao,
frank


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.12 - Release Date: 1/14/2005

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Graywolf]

The beginner, at anything, always has strong opinions. Stong opinions and 
ignorance go hand in hand. You have to be truely knowledgable to know how much 
you do not know.

graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
A learner (in my opinion) need not have strong opinions, open eyes and
ears will do.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.12 - Release Date: 1/14/2005

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Peter J. Alling]

I would think that depends.  In the world of photography the teacher is 
probably a working
photographer as well.  Neither job usually pays enough to make ends meet. 

Cotty wrote:
On 13/1/05, n/a, discombobulated, unleashed:
 

That many? 

That surprises me because my future teacher that I spoke to seemed to
think I was premature in predicting that the pros were focusing more
in digital. She was pretty admant about telling me that I needed to
"rethink" my idea of mostly being a digital  photographer.
   

[snip]
Well there you are. The last people you should listen to are teachers!

Cheers,
 Cotty
___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

 


--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. 
During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings 
and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
	--P.J. O'Rourke

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[frank theriault]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 01:22:01 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > http://www.snopes.com/language/stories/420.htm
> =
> Thanks. I smoked a lot of pot back in the "good old days", and had never
> heard the term.

I never heard the term;  maybe it never made it's way up to my cold
dark part of the world.

When I was at one of my Universities (don't ask...), the pub (at which
I worked - again, don't ask) sat atop a "building on stilts".  Under
the building was a parking lot and a service shaft, with a grate that
spewed lovely warm air in the winter.

We called it "Florida".  It was where we went to smoke (all manner of
things) in wintertime, as it was dry and warm.  At our school, "Let's
go down to Florida" had the same meaning as 420.

Ah, memories...



-frank


-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[pnstenquist]

Traditional photography instruction is very valuable if it's complete and 
detailed. Whether you eventually shoot digital or film, an in-depth 
understanding of exposure and the various parameters that affect your work will 
serve you well. You can learn a lot from books. My favorites are the three 
Ansel Adams books: the camera, the negative, and the print. These can take you 
way beyond the basics, but they require serious study. Once you've mastered the 
technical details, the transition to digital is simple. Digital cameras work in 
a very similar manner. There are some differences in the way the sensor records 
a scene as opposed to film, but there are differences from one type of film to 
another anyway. Learn as much as you can. 


> You know I am beginning to wonder if I would be wasting money to go to
> school...I can't afford to go to someplace like UC, and the two junior
> colleges out here seem to be stuck in the dark ages in so far as
> photography goes. One barely has a program. The other, it's pretty
> bad. City College seems viable, and has a good program I am told, but
> then again 99% of it is geared towards traditional photography, at
> least so far as I can tell though they do seem to be adding more
> digital stuff towards the end. I think I can still learn a lot there,
> but I'm not sure I can learn everything I want to...
> 
> I'm told the Harvey Milk Center has a good program and I am likely
> doing some swapping in so far as skills with an instructor there. I've
> got lots of digital imaging skills because I was a graphic designer
> trainee before I got hurt, and I am swapping him some digital work for
> help with the basics of regular photography.  They do seem to have a
> wonderful lab set up. So I am thinking I may just go that route and
> take a class at a time there as I can. It's far cheaper than most of
> the colleges and while I won't have an AS degree at the end, I'll
> still have the skills
> 
> This is a second career for me, and it's what I'd like to do with rest
> of my life. I have some medical problems which are making it difficult
> for me physically, and I don't know that I'll make it much past 65
> maybe. I'm almost 40 now, so I decided that if am going to be stuck
> being disabled and sick, I am going to do what I want, and not just
> rot on SS incomeI'm not likely to get married or have kids, The
> "work" is my life, and I feel it has to have more meaning than just
> collecting a paycheck.
> 
> I wanna leave something  behind, even if it is just a few pretty pictures, 
> and 
> will do whatevr I have to do to accomplish that even if it means
> teaching myself from books.  It wouldn't be ideal but it wouldn't be
> the first time either...
> 
> I mean to have a lil studio in 3 years.  I'm going to do mostly
> portrait stuff, kids, animals, people. Maybe catalog or magazine work
> if I can get it. I'm not aiming to be some hot shot. I just want to
> make a living and shoot what I want on the side...Fill my life up with
> something meaningful so that I can enjoy whatever time I do have.  I'm
> likely to be doing that partly from a wheelchair at some point, but I
> don't mean to let it slow me downmuch
> 
> PQ
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:30:15 + (GMT), Kostas Kavoussanakis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Cotty wrote:
> > 
> > > On 13/1/05, n/a, discombobulated, unleashed:
> > >
> > > >That surprises me because my future teacher that I spoke to seemed to
> > > >think I was premature in predicting that the pros were focusing more
> > > >in digital. She was pretty admant about telling me that I needed to
> > > >"rethink" my idea of mostly being a digital  photographer.
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > Well there you are. The last people you should listen to are teachers!
> > 
> > Good point. Here is another point: as far as I understand, the lass
> > with no name wants to learn photography. She can do most of that with
> > any camera and leave the digi vs film dust to settle on its own. A
> > learner (in my opinion) need not have strong opinions, open eyes and
> > ears will do.
> > 
> > Kostas
> > 
> >
> 

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[frank theriault]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 08:53:11 -0800, n/a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You know I am beginning to wonder if I would be wasting money to go to
> school...I can't afford to go to someplace like UC, and the two junior
> colleges out here seem to be stuck in the dark ages in so far as
> photography goes. One barely has a program. The other, it's pretty
> bad. City College seems viable, and has a good program I am told, but
> then again 99% of it is geared towards traditional photography, at
> least so far as I can tell though they do seem to be adding more
> digital stuff towards the end. I think I can still learn a lot there,
> but I'm not sure I can learn everything I want to...
> 
> I'm told the Harvey Milk Center has a good program and I am likely
> doing some swapping in so far as skills with an instructor there. I've
> got lots of digital imaging skills because I was a graphic designer
> trainee before I got hurt, and I am swapping him some digital work for
> help with the basics of regular photography.  They do seem to have a
> wonderful lab set up. So I am thinking I may just go that route and
> take a class at a time there as I can. It's far cheaper than most of
> the colleges and while I won't have an AS degree at the end, I'll
> still have the skills
> 
> This is a second career for me, and it's what I'd like to do with rest
> of my life. I have some medical problems which are making it difficult
> for me physically, and I don't know that I'll make it much past 65
> maybe. I'm almost 40 now, so I decided that if am going to be stuck
> being disabled and sick, I am going to do what I want, and not just
> rot on SS incomeI'm not likely to get married or have kids, The
> "work" is my life, and I feel it has to have more meaning than just
> collecting a paycheck.
> 
> I wanna leave something  behind, even if it is just a few pretty pictures, and
> will do whatevr I have to do to accomplish that even if it means
> teaching myself from books.  It wouldn't be ideal but it wouldn't be
> the first time either...
> 
> I mean to have a lil studio in 3 years.  I'm going to do mostly
> portrait stuff, kids, animals, people. Maybe catalog or magazine work
> if I can get it. I'm not aiming to be some hot shot. I just want to
> make a living and shoot what I want on the side...Fill my life up with
> something meaningful so that I can enjoy whatever time I do have.  I'm
> likely to be doing that partly from a wheelchair at some point, but I
> don't mean to let it slow me downmuch
> 

Take this worth a grain of salt, because I likely don't know what I'm
talking about (but that's never stopped me before... ):

I think if your intention is to do studio work, a course would be most
helpful.  All that lighting stuff confuses the hell out of me (using a
flash on my camera confuses the hell out of me ).

Of course, if you could hook up with a studio guy as a "volunteer" to
learn the craft for a year or so, that might be cheaper than school. 
The problem with being an unpaid assistant is that it becomes
tantamount to slave labour.  Or at least unpaid labour.  And, some
poor schmuck of a photographer's assistant is out of work.  Mind you,
the photog may not have had the money to hire one in the first place. 
Still, I don't like the idea of doing such work for free, especially
since it seems so prevalent in the industry that it's now almost
expected...

Now, about school.  One good thing that I would guess that they'll do
for you (at least the programmes that I know of up here in Toronto do)
is they might have a few courses that teach one of "the business of
being a photographer".  As well, they may be a valuable resource for
contacts within the industry.

Just a few thoughts from a guy who is not a pro and has never taken a
photography course in his life, and is likely never to do those two
things, ever.  

cheers,
frank
-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[n/a]

You know I am beginning to wonder if I would be wasting money to go to
school...I can't afford to go to someplace like UC, and the two junior
colleges out here seem to be stuck in the dark ages in so far as
photography goes. One barely has a program. The other, it's pretty
bad. City College seems viable, and has a good program I am told, but
then again 99% of it is geared towards traditional photography, at
least so far as I can tell though they do seem to be adding more
digital stuff towards the end. I think I can still learn a lot there,
but I'm not sure I can learn everything I want to...

I'm told the Harvey Milk Center has a good program and I am likely
doing some swapping in so far as skills with an instructor there. I've
got lots of digital imaging skills because I was a graphic designer
trainee before I got hurt, and I am swapping him some digital work for
help with the basics of regular photography.  They do seem to have a
wonderful lab set up. So I am thinking I may just go that route and
take a class at a time there as I can. It's far cheaper than most of
the colleges and while I won't have an AS degree at the end, I'll
still have the skills

This is a second career for me, and it's what I'd like to do with rest
of my life. I have some medical problems which are making it difficult
for me physically, and I don't know that I'll make it much past 65
maybe. I'm almost 40 now, so I decided that if am going to be stuck
being disabled and sick, I am going to do what I want, and not just
rot on SS incomeI'm not likely to get married or have kids, The
"work" is my life, and I feel it has to have more meaning than just
collecting a paycheck.

I wanna leave something  behind, even if it is just a few pretty pictures, and 
will do whatevr I have to do to accomplish that even if it means
teaching myself from books.  It wouldn't be ideal but it wouldn't be
the first time either...

I mean to have a lil studio in 3 years.  I'm going to do mostly
portrait stuff, kids, animals, people. Maybe catalog or magazine work
if I can get it. I'm not aiming to be some hot shot. I just want to
make a living and shoot what I want on the side...Fill my life up with
something meaningful so that I can enjoy whatever time I do have.  I'm
likely to be doing that partly from a wheelchair at some point, but I
don't mean to let it slow me downmuch

PQ



On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:30:15 + (GMT), Kostas Kavoussanakis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Cotty wrote:
> 
> > On 13/1/05, n/a, discombobulated, unleashed:
> >
> > >That surprises me because my future teacher that I spoke to seemed to
> > >think I was premature in predicting that the pros were focusing more
> > >in digital. She was pretty admant about telling me that I needed to
> > >"rethink" my idea of mostly being a digital  photographer.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Well there you are. The last people you should listen to are teachers!
> 
> Good point. Here is another point: as far as I understand, the lass
> with no name wants to learn photography. She can do most of that with
> any camera and leave the digi vs film dust to settle on its own. A
> learner (in my opinion) need not have strong opinions, open eyes and
> ears will do.
> 
> Kostas
> 
>

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[frank theriault]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:30:15 + (GMT), Kostas Kavoussanakis 
> > Well there you are. The last people you should listen to are teachers!
> 
> Good point. Here is another point: as far as I understand, the lass
> with no name wants to learn photography. She can do most of that with
> any camera and leave the digi vs film dust to settle on its own. A
> learner (in my opinion) need not have strong opinions, open eyes and
> ears will do.
> 
> Kostas

Well, absolutely.  This whole Digital vs. Film thing is really pretty
silly, isn't it?

The most important part of the photographic equation is the thing that
looks through the viewfinder (by that, I mean the photographer, BTW
).

The very fact that some of the photographers on this list that I
respect the most use and enjoy both media indicates that digital and
film have their advantages.  Some advantages (of both) are technical,
some are emotional, some are financial (as in, if I had the bucks, I'd
likely have a digital camera - not that it would replace my beloved
film gear).

NOW...  that being said, here's what I think about starting with film
as opposed to starting on digital:  I think that learning photography
on a completely manual camera has it's advantages.  Being forced to
think of what light does to a capture surface (and by that I mean
either film or a digital sensor), and how you can control it with the
three basic functions of a camera (shutter, aperture, focus) will
likely make you a better photographer, faster.

I'm not saying you can't learn on an automatic camera.  I'm not saying
film is superior to digital for learning.  If they made a digital
camera with completely manual controls, that would be what to learn
on.  I'm not talking manual over-ride, but no auto anything at all. 
You and I know they'll never make one.  No one would buy it - except
students, then they'd sell it at the end of first year, and the
incoming class of next year would buy the previous year's used ones at
the local used camera stores.  But, since digital is an electronic
medium, the cameras pretty much have to be automatic.

So, the way to learn photography is with film, IMHO, due to the
foregoing.  That's not an advantage of film per se, but an "advantage"
of some of the cameras they once made to accept film.

However, to re-inforce what I said in the beginning, no matter what
the medium, the photographer will always be the most important part of
what makes a good photo (except that without a camera, there'll be no
photo, no matter how talented the photographer - but that's another
story for another time).

There.  Now I've ranted, and I feel better.

ciao,
frank


-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[wendy beard]

 --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
> >Graywolf wrote:
> >A few of the folks here are actually using film
> again.
> 
> That's true. I shot a roll of Tri-X in my Barnack
> Leica in July of last year. I may shoot another roll
> next year . 
> Paul
> 

Well I shot a roll of film in September just because I
wanted to use my MZ-S again. I really like that camera
and feel sad that I'm not using it.
I was trying to decide if I should sell it or the istD
. Couldn't decide, so sold neither.

Wendy

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Shel Belinkoff]

So did we ... life was much simpler then.  I didn't learn about 420 until
just about a year ago.  

Shel 


> ...  for instance we just called it weed. :-)
>
>
> Rob Studdert

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Mark Roberts"
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 8:31 PM

Subject: Re: Film may not be dead.

"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: "n/a"

Have you checked into the cost of buying a digital photolab?
You want a place with Photoshop terminals and a digital lab capable of 
going
to even a 12x18 inch print, you will probably be spending close to a 
million
dollars.
???
We have a computer and Epson 7500 setup that will make magnificent 24 x
36 prints. Probably cost less than $10,000.

Thats an inkjet printer, not a digital photolab.
Huge difference.
Think Noritsu or Fuji, rather than Epson.
William Robb 

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Butch Black"

Subject: Re: Film may not be dead.

My theory (and you can say you heard it here first) is in 4-5 years, if 
the drug store and big box 1hr labs can't figure out how to get more 
people to print more of their digital prints (I think the current 
consensus is that less then 5% of all digital prints make it to paper in 
all forms. WW and others, correct me if I'm wrong here) they will start 
pulling out labs.
I think you are pretty close to correct.
At the volumes I am now projecting, I suspect that photofinishing will be an 
unprofitable venture within the next couple of years, and will also lose the 
retail draw that grocery stores use it for, putting up with it being a loss 
leader.

When it is neither profitable, nor a consumer magnet, the big boys will stop 
playing the game.
Whether they will leave anyone behind to pick up the mess they leave behind 
is anyones guess.
My guess is that they won't, and 5 years from now, if you want a real 
photograph (as opposed to a dye sub or inkjet print) it will be a difficult 
commodity to locate locally for a lot of people.

Some places will be less affected than others, of course, but a lot of small 
markets are going to suffer,more than they already are.

William Robb

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Rob Studdert]

On 13 Jan 2005 at 22:18, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

> Gee, this message never appeared on the list as I received it.
> 
> You probably feel like I do when Rob Studdert or John Francis explains how
> an JPEG imbedded in a TIFF becomes a RAW file algorithm causing CA in high
> contrast situations at the wide end of a DA zoom 

I don't try to over-complicate things, some needs explaining in tech terms and 
stuff is just basic, for instance we just called it weed. :-)


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Mark Roberts]

"Butch Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>my 
>guess is that in 5 years there will be a drastic drop off in the number of 
>places you will be able to get any processing, film or digital done.

I think you're right with regards to film but not digital processing.
Film processing requires enough space, cost and maintenance (not to
mention a machine operator). Digital prints come from a self-serve kiosk
that costs very little to buy and operate.
I expect film minilabs to start disappearing in the next two years but
digital print kiosks are going to be getting cheaper and popping up
*more* in places where we've never seen them before.

As someone else has pointed out, the death of film (as a mainstream
product) won't be caused by its quality but by its availability and the
cost and availability of processing.

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Cotty]

On 13/1/05, n/a, discombobulated, unleashed:

>That many? 
>
>That surprises me because my future teacher that I spoke to seemed to
>think I was premature in predicting that the pros were focusing more
>in digital. She was pretty admant about telling me that I needed to
>"rethink" my idea of mostly being a digital  photographer.

[snip]

Well there you are. The last people you should listen to are teachers!




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Paul Stenquist]

Sounds like a plan. Good luck Ms. Queen :-)
On Jan 14, 2005, at 12:50 AM, n/a wrote:
 wrote:
HAR!
How true. But there's a whole generation who came out there just to 
be PC. Witness the Phantom Queen and her photography teacher. LOL>
Actually I came out here to get away from 300 days a year of my shorts
clad fanny sticking to my carseat everytime I wanted to hit the road,
and a life that basically consisted of work, mall, movie, school,
clicking a few photos here and there before the day started to sizzle,
and having no social life unless I wanted to date yet another hard
nosed, hypocritical, church going, stiff as a porn star's wazoo
Republican guy just slightly younger than my father..
Being an artsy, mostly tolerant, liberal, witchy, green, hippie type,
down South I'm kind of in the minorityMy clan doesn't get me at
all reallyNot for 38 years. But when I said I was moving to
Berkeley they all smiled like it made perfect sense
(Actually I'm on the border of Berkeley and Oakland...)
I think so...
I kinda like the place.
It feels like home, mostly, and will absolutely when I finally can
swing my wheels...and yes, it will be a VW, though not a porsche. I
want an OLD Beetle convertible, and if I have my way it will be
tye-dyed or psychadelic or something
(shrug)
It will likely be my last car, and what the heck, I am going to have
some fun with it whether it's PC correct or notI have a yen to
semi-recreate Janis Joplin's psychadelic porsche albeit on a Beetle
It will be about a year before I can afford it, but if you ever happen
to see a redhead in boho fashions cruising in a tye-dye VW convertable
with art rock stuff and a peace symbol on the hood "honk" cause
probably it will be insane lil me
PQ

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

... but what does it matter? 

I gave up on the film vs digital war for Lent year before last
and never got back to it. I decided I'd rather do photography in
whatever medium gave me the photo results I wanted. In the past
couple of years that has gone all to digital cameras and post
processing in Photoshop. 

I like the results, so do the people who buy them. I won't argue
their judgement. 

Godfrey





__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com 

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Kostas Kavoussanakis]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Cotty wrote:

> On 13/1/05, n/a, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> >That surprises me because my future teacher that I spoke to seemed to
> >think I was premature in predicting that the pros were focusing more
> >in digital. She was pretty admant about telling me that I needed to
> >"rethink" my idea of mostly being a digital  photographer.
>
> [snip]
>
> Well there you are. The last people you should listen to are teachers!

Good point. Here is another point: as far as I understand, the lass
with no name wants to learn photography. She can do most of that with
any camera and leave the digi vs film dust to settle on its own. A
learner (in my opinion) need not have strong opinions, open eyes and
ears will do.

Kostas

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Shel Belinkoff]

Gee, this message never appeared on the list as I received it.

You probably feel like I do when Rob Studdert or John Francis explains how
an JPEG imbedded in a TIFF becomes a RAW file algorithm causing CA in high
contrast situations at the wide end of a DA zoom 

Shel 

> > Any chance this thread will ever revert to language understandable by
people
> > who live east of California and grew up later than the seventies?
> > 
> > The Aussie slang threads we've had were clearer than this!
> > 
> > ERNR
> > then again, suppose I probably don't want to know
> > 
> > 
> > 

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 1/13/2005 10:13:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> From: Tim Sherburne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>
> Using Snopes might arguably be square, but, damnit, I had to know:
>
> http://www.snopes.com/language/stories/420.htm
=
Thanks. I smoked a lot of pot back in the "good old days", and had never 
heard the term.

Marnie aka Doe :-)

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Shel Belinkoff]

Well, we don't want you to BL7 

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Tim Sherburne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>
> Using Snopes might arguably be square, but, damnit, I had to know:
>
> 

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[n/a]

 wrote:
> HAR!
> How true. But there's a whole generation who came out there just to be PC. 
> Witness the Phantom Queen and her photography teacher. LOL>

Actually I came out here to get away from 300 days a year of my shorts
clad fanny sticking to my carseat everytime I wanted to hit the road,
and a life that basically consisted of work, mall, movie, school,
clicking a few photos here and there before the day started to sizzle,
and having no social life unless I wanted to date yet another hard
nosed, hypocritical, church going, stiff as a porn star's wazoo
Republican guy just slightly younger than my father..

Being an artsy, mostly tolerant, liberal, witchy, green, hippie type,
down South I'm kind of in the minorityMy clan doesn't get me at
all reallyNot for 38 years. But when I said I was moving to
Berkeley they all smiled like it made perfect sense

(Actually I'm on the border of Berkeley and Oakland...) 

I think so...

I kinda like the place. 

It feels like home, mostly, and will absolutely when I finally can
swing my wheels...and yes, it will be a VW, though not a porsche. I
want an OLD Beetle convertible, and if I have my way it will be
tye-dyed or psychadelic or something

(shrug) 

It will likely be my last car, and what the heck, I am going to have
some fun with it whether it's PC correct or notI have a yen to
semi-recreate Janis Joplin's psychadelic porsche albeit on a Beetle

It will be about a year before I can afford it, but if you ever happen
to see a redhead in boho fashions cruising in a tye-dye VW convertable
with art rock stuff and a peace symbol on the hood "honk" cause
probably it will be insane lil me

PQ

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 1/13/2005 11:40:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, I think one of the main
reasons I didn't get hired was because I was honest enough to disagree
with him on that stance.
===
OTOH, #1 rule of a job interview. Don't tick off the boss (or the person 
interviewing).

LOL.

Marnie aka Doe 

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 1/13/2005 4:54:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In my time I've watched a lot of people die retail-wise because they
didn't adapt as well to changing times. I've watched more than one
small company self-sabotoge themselves right out of business and I
don't like to see that, really...They can do both, and do well, and
they SHOULD.

LG is a lovely store, can't be beat on the film end, but they could be
a GREAT store for the digital folks too and unfortunately I am not
sure they wanna go there.. They'd rather stay in a niche market than
cater to the whole market, fine for them maybe, but unfortuately
that's a bit risky for most of the stores out there...

They're not all that lucky.

As for the "expanding labs" that a bit of a fallacy actually. It's not
so much that there are new ones as the ones that are there are going
online, and advertising more to catch up with the market as a whole. A
lot of labs had business enough that they never had to worry too much
about where the business was coming from. They didn't have to court it
as hard. Now they have to be more visible if they want thier share.

When Mom and Pop can sit down at the computer and print their own pics
and often DO?

It's dog eat dog time
=
When I took a portrait class at The Darkroom in Martinez about eight-nine (?) 
months ago, the instructor, who also is the director, knew almost nothing 
about digital. Since about three of us in the class had DSLRs he learned a bit 
more. (And I was a bit ticked he wasn't of more help to me with a DSLR, BTW.)

It has a rentable dark room and is the major place for B&W folks, I think, in 
CC County. OTOH, they won't last long if they don't come up to speed with 
digital. Which, BTW, I think they are beginning to -- more and more digital 
classes. Though they are going slow.

I think the digital wave came much faster than some die-hard film types were 
ready for -- they thought they could hold out longer :-). But, I agree, it's 
do or die at this point. At least if you are operating a business.

Marnie aka Doe 

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Tim Sherburne]

Using Snopes might arguably be square, but, damnit, I had to know:



Tim

On 1/13/05 20:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Quoting Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 
>>> From what I recall, 420 started as a euphemism in San Rafael in 1971 and
>> now everyone who wants to be cool uses the term.  That, of course, makes
>> it
>> very uncool.  FWIW, those who "420ed" before September 1971  needed
>> neither slang nor argot.  We just lit up and had a nice day 
>> 
>> Shel 
>> 
>> 
>>> [Original Message]
>>> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> 
>>> Speaking of the bay area, I got a kick out of your "420" mention.
>>> I was married to MJ for at least 20 years, but it was just the other
>>> day that I learned what 420 means. That's a hip, PC term. I'm just an
>>> old codger who's been there and done that ...
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> Any chance this thread will ever revert to language understandable by people
> who live east of California and grew up later than the seventies?
> 
> The Aussie slang threads we've had were clearer than this!
> 
> ERNR
> then again, suppose I probably don't want to know
> 
> 
> 

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[ernreed2]

Quoting Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> >From what I recall, 420 started as a euphemism in San Rafael in 1971 and
> now everyone who wants to be cool uses the term.  That, of course, makes
> it
> very uncool.  FWIW, those who "420ed" before September 1971  needed 
> neither slang nor argot.  We just lit up and had a nice day 
> 
> Shel 
> 
> 
> > [Original Message]
> > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> > Speaking of the bay area, I got a kick out of your "420" mention. 
> > I was married to MJ for at least 20 years, but it was just the other 
> > day that I learned what 420 means. That's a hip, PC term. I'm just an 
> > old codger who's been there and done that ...
> 
> 


Any chance this thread will ever revert to language understandable by people 
who live east of California and grew up later than the seventies? 

The Aussie slang threads we've had were clearer than this!

ERNR
then again, suppose I probably don't want to know

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Shel Belinkoff]

>From what I recall, 420 started as a euphemism in San Rafael in 1971 and
now everyone who wants to be cool uses the term.  That, of course, makes it
very uncool.  FWIW, those who "420ed" before September 1971  needed 
neither slang nor argot.  We just lit up and had a nice day 

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Speaking of the bay area, I got a kick out of your "420" mention. 
> I was married to MJ for at least 20 years, but it was just the other 
> day that I learned what 420 means. That's a hip, PC term. I'm just an 
> old codger who's been there and done that ...

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Luigi de Guzman]

On Thursday 13 January 2005 19:17, Mark Roberts wrote:
> To paraphrase Monty Python: "Film's not dead, but it was coughing up
> blood last night" (The "Dead Vicar on the Landing" sketch IIRC)

"It's a fair cop, but society is to blame."

"HI'd like to conclude this arrest...with a hymn..."

-Luigi

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[pnstenquist]

HAR!
How true. But there's a whole generation who came out there just to be PC. 
Witness the Phantom Queen and her photography teacher. LOL


> 
> 
> HERE is the same as everywhere else.  There are republicans and democrats,
> liberals and conservatives, digital photogs and film photogs.  And, just a
> small point - the "hippies" left in 1970, many moving to Marin County to
> take up the straight life.  Surprisingly - or maybe not so surprising -
> many of the long-haired, dope-smoking, brown-rice-and-veggie-eating, Mario
> Savio following hippies I knew in 1967 are now quite conservative, even if
> they espouse a liberal philosophy, and drive "Marin County VW's" (that's a
> Porsche for those who don't know Marin). A lot of 'em made their money
> selling dope or playing music, bought a place in Fairfax, and never looked
> back.  If you came out here to run with the hippies, see peace marches, and
> eat veggies you're 35 years too late.  I haven't seen a decent
> demonstration and march since People's Park  Meat has made a resurgence
> (albeit with high quality organic meat and free range anything), but that's
> gonna change again and grains and veggies will once again take a higher
> place on the food pyramid, Bruce Dern no longer runs the Dipsea, and the
> $10.00 full ounce lid (no seeds and twigs) is but a vague, distant memory.
> The gorgeous scenery was coopted by Joe Alioto with his downtown SF
> redevelopment, and the hillsides are all but covered with Million Dollar
> Homes (God bless the ticky-tacks). We've all been doing our business in
> coffee shops and sidewalk cafes since before A.P. Gianinni founded the
> BofA, and the great family owned restaurants have been for the most part
> replaced by chains.  
> 
> Welcome to the Left Coast, home of displaced and dyspeptic Right Coasters
> 
> 
> Shel 
> 
> 
> > [Original Message]
> > From: n/a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> 
> > I don't see why we can't ALL have fun with BOTH, but then again I am a
> > liberal semi-hippie pacifist...That's why I moved here after
> > all...Peace marches, genuine diversity, veggie co-ops, stunning
> > scenery and all that jazz
> >
> > I never expected to find myself in a sea of anti-digital bigotry...
> >
> > Not HERE...
> >
> > This is dot.com land after all, the place where the internet was
> > swaddled,  where they still openly worship the Macintosh, where "420"
> > apparently isn't an area code, and where stirring  a cup of coffee
> > ranks as an Olympic-worthy sport...
> 
> 

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Mark Roberts]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>Yes, that many. The pros have swung to digital faster than you can say, 
>"What happened to film?" When your livelihood depends on being able to 
>produce great photographs with minimal expense and in the lest amount 
>of time, you go for the best solution.

Two jobs I did this summer:

Shot the superbike races at Mid-Ohio. Took about 300 shots before lunch
and 300 in the afternoon. The web site I was working for
(superbikeplanet.com) had them within 90 minutes of the end of racing
both days. Anything less is unacceptable for any kind of news coverage
these days.

Did some advertising shots for an agency (working on an ad campaign for
my local organic food co-op). Took a couple of hundred shots in a 2-hour
session. All with perfect (or at least very close!) white balance in the
mixed daylight/tungsten/fluorescent lighting (yes, I reset the custom
white balance a lot - very quick and easy to do). This was for print so
I mailed them a CD with the images the next day.

This is the way it is.

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Shel Belinkoff]

HERE is the same as everywhere else.  There are republicans and democrats,
liberals and conservatives, digital photogs and film photogs.  And, just a
small point - the "hippies" left in 1970, many moving to Marin County to
take up the straight life.  Surprisingly - or maybe not so surprising -
many of the long-haired, dope-smoking, brown-rice-and-veggie-eating, Mario
Savio following hippies I knew in 1967 are now quite conservative, even if
they espouse a liberal philosophy, and drive "Marin County VW's" (that's a
Porsche for those who don't know Marin). A lot of 'em made their money
selling dope or playing music, bought a place in Fairfax, and never looked
back.  If you came out here to run with the hippies, see peace marches, and
eat veggies you're 35 years too late.  I haven't seen a decent
demonstration and march since People's Park  Meat has made a resurgence
(albeit with high quality organic meat and free range anything), but that's
gonna change again and grains and veggies will once again take a higher
place on the food pyramid, Bruce Dern no longer runs the Dipsea, and the
$10.00 full ounce lid (no seeds and twigs) is but a vague, distant memory.
The gorgeous scenery was coopted by Joe Alioto with his downtown SF
redevelopment, and the hillsides are all but covered with Million Dollar
Homes (God bless the ticky-tacks). We've all been doing our business in
coffee shops and sidewalk cafes since before A.P. Gianinni founded the
BofA, and the great family owned restaurants have been for the most part
replaced by chains.  

Welcome to the Left Coast, home of displaced and dyspeptic Right Coasters


Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: n/a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> I don't see why we can't ALL have fun with BOTH, but then again I am a
> liberal semi-hippie pacifist...That's why I moved here after
> all...Peace marches, genuine diversity, veggie co-ops, stunning
> scenery and all that jazz
>
> I never expected to find myself in a sea of anti-digital bigotry...
>
> Not HERE...
>
> This is dot.com land after all, the place where the internet was
> swaddled,  where they still openly worship the Macintosh, where "420"
> apparently isn't an area code, and where stirring  a cup of coffee
> ranks as an Olympic-worthy sport...

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[pnstenquist]

Yes, that many. The pros have swung to digital faster than you can say, "What 
happened to film?" When your livelihood depends on being able to produce great 
photographs with minimal expense and in the lest amount of time, you go for the 
best solution. But I understand where your teacher is coming from. Film is a 
wonderful mystery. You soak this piece of acetate in chemicals and an image 
forms. Great photographers have worked for a century in this traditional way, 
and there are many weonderful recipes in the expert film shooters repertoire. I 
think everyone should have a chance to shoot film and work in the traditional 
darkroom. But if one is serious about a career in photography, one should 
quickly turn to digital and learn to work in the digital darkroom.
  On another note, I don't think you should necessarily assume that the bay 
area is progressive. It's PC. That's different. Film is PC, because it's 
artsy-fartsy, and it has a history that ties it directly to an artisan 
mystique. It's cool. Digital is all about commerce and getting the job done. 
It's where the rest of the world is going. It's not for those who feel they 
must march to that different drummer. 
  Speaking of the bay area, I got a kick out of your "420" mention. I was 
married to MJ for at least 20 years, but it was just the other day that I 
learned what 420 means. That's a hip, PC term. I'm just an old codger who's 
been there and done that. That applies to photography as well.
Paul


> That many? 
> 
> That surprises me because my future teacher that I spoke to seemed to
> think I was premature in predicting that the pros were focusing more
> in digital. She was pretty admant about telling me that I needed to
> "rethink" my idea of mostly being a digital  photographer. Don't get
> me wrong I do want to learn film, but apres school? I'm going to let
> the lab do the developing...If I could? I'd probably shoot digital
> almost exclusively...I know a buddy who works at a lab in Emeryville
> seems to think film is being overshadowed by CD's and memory cards but
> I'm wondering just what the % really is
> 
> Me, I honestly think we need BOTH, but that LG and stores like it need
> to get more into digital than they are. I want more info, more tech
> stuff, and I'm just not finding it as easily as I'd like...Too many
> folks hell bent on keeping film as the only "true" artistic medium
> around here...LOL
> 
> I don't see why we can't ALL have fun with BOTH, but then again I am a
> liberal semi-hippie pacifist...That's why I moved here after
> all...Peace marches, genuine diversity, veggie co-ops, stunning
> scenery and all that jazz
> 
> I never expected to find myself in a sea of anti-digital bigotry...
> 
> Not HERE...
> 
> This is dot.com land after all, the place where the internet was
> swaddled,  where they still openly worship the Macintosh, where "420"
> apparently isn't an area code, and where stirring  a cup of coffee
> ranks as an Olympic-worthy sport...
> 
> ;) 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:34:45 -0500, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 
> > >The phantom queen said,
> > >>Film sales are steady
> > >> among serious hobbyists and pros,...
> > >
> > >No way. I look at pro portfolios on a regular basis. I would guess that 
> > >90% 
> are shooting digital exclusively. Serious hobbyists are going digital at a 
> very 
> rapid pace. That's just reality.
> > 
> > Yep. Film users for the most part now consist of students taking
> > photography courses, mommies with new babies and people who buy a
> > throw-away single-use camera every once in a while. The odd hobbyist and
> > pro who shoots a little film show up once in a while, but they're a
> > *very* small minority. Less than 5% would be my estimate of what we see.
> > 
> > --
> > Mark Roberts
> > Photography and writing
> > www.robertstech.com
> > 
> >
> 

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[n/a]

That many? 

That surprises me because my future teacher that I spoke to seemed to
think I was premature in predicting that the pros were focusing more
in digital. She was pretty admant about telling me that I needed to
"rethink" my idea of mostly being a digital  photographer. Don't get
me wrong I do want to learn film, but apres school? I'm going to let
the lab do the developing...If I could? I'd probably shoot digital
almost exclusively...I know a buddy who works at a lab in Emeryville
seems to think film is being overshadowed by CD's and memory cards but
I'm wondering just what the % really is

Me, I honestly think we need BOTH, but that LG and stores like it need
to get more into digital than they are. I want more info, more tech
stuff, and I'm just not finding it as easily as I'd like...Too many
folks hell bent on keeping film as the only "true" artistic medium
around here...LOL

I don't see why we can't ALL have fun with BOTH, but then again I am a
liberal semi-hippie pacifist...That's why I moved here after
all...Peace marches, genuine diversity, veggie co-ops, stunning
scenery and all that jazz

I never expected to find myself in a sea of anti-digital bigotry...

Not HERE...

This is dot.com land after all, the place where the internet was
swaddled,  where they still openly worship the Macintosh, where "420"
apparently isn't an area code, and where stirring  a cup of coffee
ranks as an Olympic-worthy sport...

;) 





On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:34:45 -0500, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> >The phantom queen said,
> >>Film sales are steady
> >> among serious hobbyists and pros,...
> >
> >No way. I look at pro portfolios on a regular basis. I would guess that 90% 
> >are shooting digital exclusively. Serious hobbyists are going digital at a 
> >very rapid pace. That's just reality.
> 
> Yep. Film users for the most part now consist of students taking
> photography courses, mommies with new babies and people who buy a
> throw-away single-use camera every once in a while. The odd hobbyist and
> pro who shoots a little film show up once in a while, but they're a
> *very* small minority. Less than 5% would be my estimate of what we see.
> 
> --
> Mark Roberts
> Photography and writing
> www.robertstech.com
> 
>

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Mark Roberts]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>The phantom queen said,
>>Film sales are steady
>> among serious hobbyists and pros,...
>
>No way. I look at pro portfolios on a regular basis. I would guess that 90% 
>are shooting digital exclusively. Serious hobbyists are going digital at a 
>very rapid pace. That's just reality.

Yep. Film users for the most part now consist of students taking
photography courses, mommies with new babies and people who buy a
throw-away single-use camera every once in a while. The odd hobbyist and
pro who shoots a little film show up once in a while, but they're a
*very* small minority. Less than 5% would be my estimate of what we see.

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Mark Roberts]

"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>From: "n/a"
>
>
>
>Have you checked into the cost of buying a digital photolab?
>You want a place with Photoshop terminals and a digital lab capable of going 
>to even a 12x18 inch print, you will probably be spending close to a million 
>dollars.

???
We have a computer and Epson 7500 setup that will make magnificent 24 x
36 prints. Probably cost less than $10,000.

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Butch Black]

Phantomqueen wrote:
 I'm all for BOTH, but I'm not going to ignore the fact that digital 
is
taking over the larger part of the market  Film is going to end up
being a niche market 20 years down the road...I think at this point
it's pretty undeniable, and that industry folks who do choose to
ignore it will rue the day

They'll either have to adapt or go under
While I agree with most of what you said in your e-mail, it may actually be 
that attitude that keeps them alive...IF they can survive the next 5 
years. My theory (and you can say you heard it here first) is in 4-5 years, 
if the drug store and big box 1hr labs can't figure out how to get more 
people to print more of their digital prints (I think the current consensus 
is that less then 5% of all digital prints make it to paper in all forms. WW 
and others, correct me if I'm wrong here) they will start pulling out labs. 
While still profitable it is a high demand, high headache department. Once 
the profit gets too slim, they will replace it with something else. So, my 
guess is that in 5 years there will be a drastic drop off in the number of 
places you will be able to get any processing, film or digital done. A store 
with good quality film processing if they are in an area with enough film 
shooters, will probably do well then. The question is will there be enough 
film shooters in that area to support the lab? Only time will tell.

Futurist in training
Butch

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[pnstenquist]

The phantom queen said,
>Film sales are steady
> among serious hobbyists and pros,...

No way. I look at pro portfolios on a regular basis. I would guess that 90% are 
shooting digital exclusively. Serious hobbyists are going digital at a very 
rapid pace. That's just reality.
Paul


>   way, and, as far as I'm concerned, I'm glad that they are providing for my
> film and darkroom needs - and at a reasonable price as well.  And there are
> a lot of east bay photogs who feel the same way.>
> 
> Quit being so defensive and really listen to what I am saying please? 
> 
> I never said they shouldn't keep on catering to the film folks, in
> fact I am glad they do given the student and pro base around here,
> (and hey I am soon to be one of them so of course I am glad there is
> somewhere I can still buy film and stuff reasonably...) but I do think
> that they are not catering as much to the digital crowd as they could
> be and that's going to cost them money-wise in the future if they
> don't get more up to speed.
> 
> Ok, I'm going to lay it on the line. 
> 
> Yes, I was talking about LG Photo in Berkeley, and yes, I love the
> darkroom, the fact that they have everything in terms of film, etc and
>  yes, they do have a selection of digital cameras though for a store
> that aims to be THE photo store in the area they don't have all the
> lines they could.
> 
> When I went in looking for one the sales staff was far sketchier on
> the digital end of things than the film. Having a Nikon rep in once in
> a while isn't the optimal way to sell cameras. KNOWING the cameras,
> the different lines and what the advantages and flaws of each one are
> is.
> 
> Stocking digital stuff is a pretty recent thing for them. 
> 
> A year or so ago I was trying to make a good decision on which digital
> camera to spend my money on and no one behind that counter really knew
> more about the cameras than I did walking through the door and doing
> some research online.  I needed a semi-pro camera and lenses, etc. 
> Something to get me from school to my first pro assignments.  No one
> behind that counter had the stats and experience  I needed to make a
> good decision.  They were all gung ho on selling me a film camera, but
> nearly blank when it came to finding me the best digital one.
> 
> When I finally did buy one, elsewhere, I still went back for my
> lenses, but it took a staff member a good amount of time to figure out
> what lenses and adapters go with my particular camera, and in this
> case, as it happened they were wrong about a certain lens being a good
> one, and I had to replace it with another, better one to get  what I
> needed. Time and money wasted
> 
> They're only now getting to the point where they are handling digital
> pics in bulk, doing prints from CD's filled with pics, and they still
> don't offer any real help regarding the digital imaging end of things.
> No digital lab. You come in as a novice looking to crop and edit
> yourself and you're out of luck. They have a machine to do it for you,
> sorta, but they could be offering BOTH.
> 
> A lot of people simply can't afford photoshop, but would love to be
> able to  regularly access a computer that has it...Or could use some
> help getting started in that direction. Fact is, a great portion of
> LG's knowlege and facility stops at film, and that's not as up to date
> it could be.
> 
> I say why not have BOTH labs?
> 
> But when I did, they looked at me like I was from Mars... 
> 
> I spoke to a higher up when I did my interview. The impression I got
> from him was that they did not want to deal with digital but they felt
> they had to. It was almost a reverse snobbery thing and it bugged me a
> bit. You look on the book shelves and very few of the good books on
> digital photography are even there...They have a lot on film, but
> there interest clearly stops there. Yeah, B&N and Borders can cover
> that, but do they have a staff that is well-versed in both kinds of
> photography and that can answer questions raised by reading or who can
> suggest the RIGHT book?
> 
> Not really
> 
> I personally personally like BOTH formats and think each has it's own
> advantages and that if allowed they can compliment each other. But I
> got the impression this guy was resistant to digital and couldn't be
> bothered except for the fact that it was beginning to impact the
> profit line
> 
> He's not seeing the bigger picture, I'm sorry, and that is bad for
> business. ANY business. You have to grow or you'll stagnate. To get
> new business you have to offer MORE, not stay with the staus quo...
> Yeah, you always want to offer your basis products, that's what keeps
> your current base customer happy, but you also want to cater to what's
> new and developing...You always  want to gain NEW customers.
> 
> This store should be doing a thriving business via web, but it's just
> poking alongThey should be COURTING the digital user and they are
> just BARELY cove

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Shel Belinkoff]

Ahh, the thrill of this new digital thing will soon wear off, paul.  Don't
give up your darkroom just yet.  By all accounts digital is just a passing
fad,  not much different than the hula hoop 

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Date: 1/13/2005 5:28:58 PM
> Subject: Re: Film may not be dead.
>
> >Graywolf wrote:
> >A few of the folks here are actually using film again.
>
> That's true. I shot a roll of Tri-X in my Barnack Leica in July of last
year. 
> I may shoot another roll next year . Seriously, the only thing that 
> makes me want to shoot film is my darkroom. I'll probably shoot some 
> BW medium format one of these days, so I can do some darkroom work. 
> But I'll shoot digital almost every day.
> Paul
>

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[pnstenquist]

>Graywolf wrote:
>A few of the folks here are actually using film again.

That's true. I shot a roll of Tri-X in my Barnack Leica in July of last year. I 
may shoot another roll next year . Seriously, the only thing that makes me 
want to shoot film is my darkroom. I'll probably shoot some BW medium format 
one of these days, so I can do some darkroom work. But I'll shoot digital 
almost every day.
Paul

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "n/a"
Subject: Re: Film may not be dead.


Have you checked into the cost of buying a digital photolab?
You want a place with Photoshop terminals and a digital lab capable of going 
to even a 12x18 inch print, you will probably be spending close to a million 
dollars.

Pragmatically speaking, that is a lot of money for a camera store to bandy 
about spending.

William Robb

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Graywolf]

It is worse than that, she was smiling at me because we had talked a couple of 
months previously when I had seen her using an old Mamiyaflex. Unfortunately my 
mental/physical condition is such that I did not remember that until the next 
day...

At least I now know what is causing such things; whether it is fixable still 
remains to be found out (sigh).

graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Peter J. Alling"
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: Film may not be dead.

Graywolf wrote:

The very most attractive one smiled at me, but she was using a Nikon 
so I did not speak to her...

Very foolish weedhopper.

I was thinking that if she had such bad taste as to use a Nikon, Tom 
mighta stood a chance.
Especially if she smiled at him.

HAR!
WW

Sorry Tom, couldn't resist.




--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.11 - Release Date: 1/12/2005

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Mark Roberts]

To paraphrase Monty Python: "Film's not dead, but it was coughing up
blood last night" (The "Dead Vicar on the Landing" sketch IIRC)

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Graywolf]

Just bought a digital, did you? About everybody on the list who bought a digital 
has gone through the same self-justification you are. Don't worry it will wear 
off in a year or so. A few of the folks here are actually using film again.

graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
n/a wrote:
Quit being so defensive and really listen to what I am saying please? 

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.11 - Release Date: 1/12/2005

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[n/a]

Quit being so defensive and really listen to what I am saying please? 

I never said they shouldn't keep on catering to the film folks, in
fact I am glad they do given the student and pro base around here,
(and hey I am soon to be one of them so of course I am glad there is
somewhere I can still buy film and stuff reasonably...) but I do think
that they are not catering as much to the digital crowd as they could
be and that's going to cost them money-wise in the future if they
don't get more up to speed.

Ok, I'm going to lay it on the line. 

Yes, I was talking about LG Photo in Berkeley, and yes, I love the
darkroom, the fact that they have everything in terms of film, etc and
 yes, they do have a selection of digital cameras though for a store
that aims to be THE photo store in the area they don't have all the
lines they could.

When I went in looking for one the sales staff was far sketchier on
the digital end of things than the film. Having a Nikon rep in once in
a while isn't the optimal way to sell cameras. KNOWING the cameras,
the different lines and what the advantages and flaws of each one are
is.

Stocking digital stuff is a pretty recent thing for them. 

A year or so ago I was trying to make a good decision on which digital
camera to spend my money on and no one behind that counter really knew
more about the cameras than I did walking through the door and doing
some research online.  I needed a semi-pro camera and lenses, etc. 
Something to get me from school to my first pro assignments.  No one
behind that counter had the stats and experience  I needed to make a
good decision.  They were all gung ho on selling me a film camera, but
nearly blank when it came to finding me the best digital one.

When I finally did buy one, elsewhere, I still went back for my
lenses, but it took a staff member a good amount of time to figure out
what lenses and adapters go with my particular camera, and in this
case, as it happened they were wrong about a certain lens being a good
one, and I had to replace it with another, better one to get  what I
needed. Time and money wasted

They're only now getting to the point where they are handling digital
pics in bulk, doing prints from CD's filled with pics, and they still
don't offer any real help regarding the digital imaging end of things.
No digital lab. You come in as a novice looking to crop and edit
yourself and you're out of luck. They have a machine to do it for you,
sorta, but they could be offering BOTH.

A lot of people simply can't afford photoshop, but would love to be
able to  regularly access a computer that has it...Or could use some
help getting started in that direction. Fact is, a great portion of
LG's knowlege and facility stops at film, and that's not as up to date
it could be.

I say why not have BOTH labs?

But when I did, they looked at me like I was from Mars... 

I spoke to a higher up when I did my interview. The impression I got
from him was that they did not want to deal with digital but they felt
they had to. It was almost a reverse snobbery thing and it bugged me a
bit. You look on the book shelves and very few of the good books on
digital photography are even there...They have a lot on film, but
there interest clearly stops there. Yeah, B&N and Borders can cover
that, but do they have a staff that is well-versed in both kinds of
photography and that can answer questions raised by reading or who can
suggest the RIGHT book?

Not really

I personally personally like BOTH formats and think each has it's own
advantages and that if allowed they can compliment each other. But I
got the impression this guy was resistant to digital and couldn't be
bothered except for the fact that it was beginning to impact the
profit line

He's not seeing the bigger picture, I'm sorry, and that is bad for
business. ANY business. You have to grow or you'll stagnate. To get
new business you have to offer MORE, not stay with the staus quo...
Yeah, you always want to offer your basis products, that's what keeps
your current base customer happy, but you also want to cater to what's
new and developing...You always  want to gain NEW customers.

This store should be doing a thriving business via web, but it's just
poking alongThey should be COURTING the digital user and they are
just BARELY covering the area.

This store is lucky. 

Like you said, it's in an area that is saturated with students and
pros who need  or like film. It will probably survive digital or not,
maybe not as well, if they chose not to get more into it, but unless
the schools go all digital and that's not likely, they'll do okay.

(Except for the fact that they have a ton of film-related equipment
they are admittedly stuck with, things like enlargers, that they are
contemplating selling at a loss because of the fact that sales of
those things has fallen to a crawl...)

This is not the case for other stores elsewhere.

There are a lot off stores across the country who will fold if 

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Mark Roberts]

"Nick Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>My local professional lab have just doubled the price for 
>their E6 processing as there's not the demand. They have to 
>make up a fresh batch of chemicals virtually for each film as 
>they often see 1 or none each day.

At the shop where I work we're seeing an average of 2-3 rolls of E6 per
day, in my estimation. And we're one of only 3 or 4 (I think) places in
Pittsburgh that does E6 in house. Equally worrying, in my view, is the
fact that none of the people bringing us E6 ever seems to be in a rush
to get it (we do same-day E6 if you get it in to us before noon). This
indicates to me that we're seeing mostly hobbyists rather than
professional shooters. We're charging $6.50 a roll.

>Didn't think it would happen this soon.

Same here. I expect it's only going to accelerate now, given the fact
that the digital camera was the #1 gift this past Christmas. I saw
2-megapixel digicams for $49.00 at several places - no zoom lens and
only good enough for 4x6 prints but that's all most people need and the
better/cheaper trend isn't slowing down yet...

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Shel Belinkoff]

Hi ...

Looking Glass has a customer base comprised largely of students, and many
are learning photography through the use of film.  It's not likely that
they'll give up on film so quickly.  Plus they're the only store around
that carries a wide range of film types and brands.  Just try getting Efke
at any other place in the east bay.  In addition, even some of the local
digital masters, such as Rob over at the Light Room, buy their film there
(at least he did a few months ago when I ran into him there).

There's still a big place for film in the east bay and the bay area in
general.  You may think otherwise, and the market may be shrinking, but the
demand is still strong.  Consider how crowded the Looking Glass is at
times.  Consider that they are the only place in town with a full range of
darkroom supplies and chemicals, and that they even have a rental darkroom
available.  In fact, they almost have a monopoly in the area when it comes
to conventional photography.  Try going into Saber's to buy chemicals, or
to get good information about various films.  Now that Rich and Eric are no
longer at sarber's in Berkeley, the sales staff sometimes has a hard time
addressing even the simplest questions.  hell, twice in the past 18 months
I went into sarber's (they are actually a little more convenient for me)
and asked for TX.  Once they were OUT OF STOCK! and the other time the
sales droid didn't know what TX was.  I wanted to by Xtol and ID-11, went
into sarber's only to discover that they didn't have any - meanwhile
Looking Glass had a truckload of the stuff.

So, while film may be dying, and you may think that Looking Glass "should"
do more digital, they seem to have a pretty good understanding of their
customer base.  And you've failed to mention the stock of digital cameras
that they do have.  It wasn't long ago that the Nikon rep was there giving
a demo on the various DSLR cameras and lenses, so the store's not
completely lost in the dark ages.

So, while YOU think they're "way off," they don't seem to feel the same
way, and, as far as I'm concerned, I'm glad that they are providing for my
film and darkroom needs - and at a reasonable price as well.  And there are
a lot of east bay photogs who feel the same way.

You think film is dead and dying?  Pick up a copy of the latest Photo
Directory from Momentum publications.  The last time i counted there were
more labs providing film services than those providing digital service. 
And there are more labs in the local bay area providing custom B&W services
- developing, printing, internegs, and so on, than I bet you're aware of. 
Add color to that mix and you may well be blown away by the number of
business that depend on film for all or a great percentage of their
business.  Pay a visit to The Photolab on 5th Street and do a traffic
count.  They specialize in B&W processing.

Anyway, time for me to shut up.  

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: n/a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> I'm not going to say which store  of the ones you named
>
> Gee, thanks guys for ignoring my attempt to be polite and not outright
> name the store I was interviewing with! I was trying to be nice and
> not say "who" I thought was being just a tad backward thinking re film
> vs digital...I guess I shouldn't have mentioned Berkeley at all
> though?  It's not a hard guessI feel bad now because they just
> might be reading this you know, and I'm not inclined towards being
> openly snarky. They're nice people. They're just not as ready to go
> digital as they could bePersonally, I think they are WAY off,
> but
>  
>
>
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:43:05 -0800, Shel Belinkoff
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I believe the Looking Glass on Telegraph Avenue was being discussed.
> > There's also Sarber's on Solano Avenue, and Peterson's (I believe), a
small
> > shop on College Avenue south of Ashby.  Plus, of course, a few shops in
> > Oakland, which is quite nearby Berkeley
> > 
> > Shel
> > 
> > > [Original Message]
> > > From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > Shel, please enlighten those of us who know not of any photo shop in
> > Berkeley.
> > >
> > > Not Cavo, surely???
> > 
> >

Re: Film may not be dead.....

[n/a]

I'm not going to say which store  of the ones you named

Gee, thanks guys for ignoring my attempt to be polite and not outright
name the store I was interviewing with! I was trying to be nice and
not say "who" I thought was being just a tad backward thinking re film
vs digital...I guess I shouldn't have mentioned Berkeley at all
though?  It's not a hard guessI feel bad now because they just
might be reading this you know, and I'm not inclined towards being
openly snarky. They're nice people. They're just not as ready to go
digital as they could bePersonally, I think they are WAY off,
but
 


On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:43:05 -0800, Shel Belinkoff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe the Looking Glass on Telegraph Avenue was being discussed.
> There's also Sarber's on Solano Avenue, and Peterson's (I believe), a small
> shop on College Avenue south of Ashby.  Plus, of course, a few shops in
> Oakland, which is quite nearby Berkeley
> 
> Shel
> 
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Shel, please enlighten those of us who know not of any photo shop in
> Berkeley.
> >
> > Not Cavo, surely???
> 
>