Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
- Original Message - From: "Gautam Sarup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 12:31 AM Subject: RE: The Nature of Film's Final Throws Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There will always be a niche market for film Got me wondering what it takes to manufacture film. The raw material could hardly be expensive (is that assumption wrong?) so the cost/difficulty must be in the machinery or the process. Anyway, may Bob be right and film sticks around. I'd hate having to learn to make coated glass plates. Interesting article here: http://www.forbes.com/reuters/newswire/2004/02/09/rtr1252759.html Regards, Gautam (The original Luddite) Actually, if you consider yourself a luddite, your're ready for post factory photography. Check out the following http://www.collodion.org/q&a.html and Http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eastman/sfeature/wetplate_step1.html Regards, J.W.L.
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
consistent quality requires large batches with a large startup cost. Herb - Original Message - From: "Gautam Sarup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 2:31 AM Subject: RE: The Nature of Film's Final Throws Got me wondering what it takes to manufacture film. The raw material could hardly be expensive (is that assumption wrong?) so the cost/difficulty must be in the machinery or the process.
RE: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There will always be a niche market for film Got me wondering what it takes to manufacture film. The raw material could hardly be expensive (is that assumption wrong?) so the cost/difficulty must be in the machinery or the process. Anyway, may Bob be right and film sticks around. I'd hate having to learn to make coated glass plates. Interesting article here: http://www.forbes.com/reuters/newswire/2004/02/09/rtr1252759.html Regards, Gautam (The original Luddite)
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
On Aug 26, 2005, at 3:59 PM, Bob Blakely wrote: The point is... If the APS size sensor gives acceptable performance, then a 24x36 mm sensor designed to the same pixel density and pixel performance IS better. At any rate, the comment regarding medium format sensors is still valid. Again, think about it. This is true presuming that the ray trace from the lens to sensor does not change dramatically such that the edge/corner areas on the larger sensor are too oblique, or if the sensor has been designed to be more tolerant of accepting light at oblique angles. Ideally, a larger lens mount and lenses designed for a more telecentric ray trace should be used. Less ideally, but still an improvement, would be reformulated lenses with the same principle in mind. The secondary question is whether the larger sensor technology is necessary. That's a qualitative judgement and I'll leave that for others to debate. Godfrey
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
I know..I know. I'm making no effort to compare different dimension sensors. Thanks for input. Jack --- Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The point is... > > If the APS size sensor gives acceptable performance, > then a 24x36 mm sensor > designed to the same pixel density and pixel > performance IS better. At any > rate, the comment regarding medium format sensors is > still valid. Again, > think about it. > > Regards, > Bob... > > By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll > become happy; > if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher. > - Socrates > > > From: "Jack Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Bob, I look at pixels more as grain in film. All > else > > being equal, a 50 Velvia 120/35 image will yield > > greater resolution than the same shot using 200 > Gold. > > Regardless of format, I assume there would be no > limit > > to the resolution gains to be realized by using > finer > > grain film. > > Apparently I can't apply this standard to pixels. > Nor > > can the magazine writer.(?) > > I'm wondering at what point does a noise producing > > higher pixel count sensor lose its advantage over > > another sensor of the same size, but with fewer > > pixels. > > > > Jack > > > > --- Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> I understood the point of your (very reasonable) > >> question, so why be picky? > >> Truth is, I didn't even notice it and further, I > >> screw up all the time > >> myself. > >> > >> Whatever can be done at one size can be done at > most > >> any size. The cost is > >> chip yield. The fact that some idiot in a > magazine > >> says that an APS sensor > >> would contain more tightly packed pixels than > would > >> a 24x36 and so 24x36 is > >> unnecessary, doesn't mean that it must be that > way. > >> If what the writer said > >> is true, then there's no point to medium format > >> digital cameras! Think about > >> it. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Bob... > >> > > > > >> By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, > you'll > >> become happy; > >> if you get a bad one, you'll become a > philosopher. > >> - Socrates > >> > >> > >> From: "Jack Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >> > >> > Bob, > >> > Thanks for your response and for ignoring my > >> misuse of > >> > the word "throws". SHB: "Throes". > >> > Didn't I see something in a photo magazine > about > >> the > >> > fact that an APS sensor would contain more > tightly > >> > packed pixels than would a 24x36? Thus, > according > >> to > >> > the writer, assuming the same pixel count, the > >> smaller > >> > sensor would capture and reveal more detail. > >> > Why do I doubt the assumption? > >> > > >> > Jack > >> > > >> > --- Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> There will always be a niche market for film, > >> even > >> >> 35mm. Digital will > >> >> supplant it for most real applications, most > >> >> importantly in the consumer > >> >> market where the dollars, euros, pounds, yen, > >> etc. > >> >> are, but film still > >> >> offers some image advantages (or at least > claimed > >> >> advantages), and > >> >> aficionados will still provide some market, > >> enough > >> >> for perhaps two or so > >> >> small outfits to produce it. The intelligence > >> >> agencies still use it for best > >> >> detail and (what's the word?) acuity and will > >> >> continue to use it for non > >> >> real time airborne reconnaissance, so someone > >> will > >> >> continue making that. > >> >> Slitting it to 35mm and perforating it is a > >> small > >> >> thing, and it can then be > >> >> sold to those few consumers who still want it. > >> >> Astronomers will still demand > >> >> it for some applications, though the format > will > >> be > >> >> larger, still, it starts > >> >> out as rolls that can be slit. Why 35mm? Well, > in > >> my > >> >> opinion it provides the > >> >> best compromise between versatility (as a > >> function > >> >> of size) and quality (as > >> >> a function of image area). FYI, while I'm sure > >> that > >> >> many will not agree, > >> >> this is the same reason I would prefer a > 24x36mm > >> >> sensor for a 35mm sized > >> >> camera. As it is with film, so it is with > sensors > >> - > >> >> the larger the format, > >> >> the greater quality potential. > >> >> > >> >> Regards, > >> >> Bob... > >> >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> >> By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, > >> you'll > >> >> become happy; > >> >> if you get a bad one, you'll become a > >> philosopher. > >> >> - Socrates > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> From: "Jack Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > How much longer will starving film cameras > >> demand > >> >> 35mm > >> >> > color pos/neg films be pro
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
The point is... If the APS size sensor gives acceptable performance, then a 24x36 mm sensor designed to the same pixel density and pixel performance IS better. At any rate, the comment regarding medium format sensors is still valid. Again, think about it. Regards, Bob... By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher. - Socrates From: "Jack Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bob, I look at pixels more as grain in film. All else being equal, a 50 Velvia 120/35 image will yield greater resolution than the same shot using 200 Gold. Regardless of format, I assume there would be no limit to the resolution gains to be realized by using finer grain film. Apparently I can't apply this standard to pixels. Nor can the magazine writer.(?) I'm wondering at what point does a noise producing higher pixel count sensor lose its advantage over another sensor of the same size, but with fewer pixels. Jack --- Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I understood the point of your (very reasonable) question, so why be picky? Truth is, I didn't even notice it and further, I screw up all the time myself. Whatever can be done at one size can be done at most any size. The cost is chip yield. The fact that some idiot in a magazine says that an APS sensor would contain more tightly packed pixels than would a 24x36 and so 24x36 is unnecessary, doesn't mean that it must be that way. If what the writer said is true, then there's no point to medium format digital cameras! Think about it. Regards, Bob... By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher. - Socrates From: "Jack Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Bob, > Thanks for your response and for ignoring my misuse of > the word "throws". SHB: "Throes". > Didn't I see something in a photo magazine about the > fact that an APS sensor would contain more tightly > packed pixels than would a 24x36? Thus, according to > the writer, assuming the same pixel count, the smaller > sensor would capture and reveal more detail. > Why do I doubt the assumption? > > Jack > > --- Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> There will always be a niche market for film, even >> 35mm. Digital will >> supplant it for most real applications, most >> importantly in the consumer >> market where the dollars, euros, pounds, yen, etc. >> are, but film still >> offers some image advantages (or at least claimed >> advantages), and >> aficionados will still provide some market, enough >> for perhaps two or so >> small outfits to produce it. The intelligence >> agencies still use it for best >> detail and (what's the word?) acuity and will >> continue to use it for non >> real time airborne reconnaissance, so someone will >> continue making that. >> Slitting it to 35mm and perforating it is a small >> thing, and it can then be >> sold to those few consumers who still want it. >> Astronomers will still demand >> it for some applications, though the format will be >> larger, still, it starts >> out as rolls that can be slit. Why 35mm? Well, in my >> opinion it provides the >> best compromise between versatility (as a function >> of size) and quality (as >> a function of image area). FYI, while I'm sure that >> many will not agree, >> this is the same reason I would prefer a 24x36mm >> sensor for a 35mm sized >> camera. As it is with film, so it is with sensors - >> the larger the format, >> the greater quality potential. >> >> Regards, >> Bob... >> > >> By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll >> become happy; >> if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher. >> - Socrates >> >> >> From: "Jack Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> >> > How much longer will starving film cameras demand >> 35mm >> > color pos/neg films be produced? What level of >> > production and availability would qualify as "in >> > production"? >> > What's the likelihood of film's resuscitation >> through >> > some manner of structural breakthrough? >> > Un-answerable, but care to muse? >> >> >> > > > > > __ > Yahoo! Mail for Mobile > Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. > http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail > > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
Bob, I look at pixels more as grain in film. All else being equal, a 50 Velvia 120/35 image will yield greater resolution than the same shot using 200 Gold. Regardless of format, I assume there would be no limit to the resolution gains to be realized by using finer grain film. Apparently I can't apply this standard to pixels. Nor can the magazine writer.(?) I'm wondering at what point does a noise producing higher pixel count sensor lose its advantage over another sensor of the same size, but with fewer pixels. Jack --- Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I understood the point of your (very reasonable) > question, so why be picky? > Truth is, I didn't even notice it and further, I > screw up all the time > myself. > > Whatever can be done at one size can be done at most > any size. The cost is > chip yield. The fact that some idiot in a magazine > says that an APS sensor > would contain more tightly packed pixels than would > a 24x36 and so 24x36 is > unnecessary, doesn't mean that it must be that way. > If what the writer said > is true, then there's no point to medium format > digital cameras! Think about > it. > > Regards, > Bob... > > By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll > become happy; > if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher. > - Socrates > > > From: "Jack Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Bob, > > Thanks for your response and for ignoring my > misuse of > > the word "throws". SHB: "Throes". > > Didn't I see something in a photo magazine about > the > > fact that an APS sensor would contain more tightly > > packed pixels than would a 24x36? Thus, according > to > > the writer, assuming the same pixel count, the > smaller > > sensor would capture and reveal more detail. > > Why do I doubt the assumption? > > > > Jack > > > > --- Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> There will always be a niche market for film, > even > >> 35mm. Digital will > >> supplant it for most real applications, most > >> importantly in the consumer > >> market where the dollars, euros, pounds, yen, > etc. > >> are, but film still > >> offers some image advantages (or at least claimed > >> advantages), and > >> aficionados will still provide some market, > enough > >> for perhaps two or so > >> small outfits to produce it. The intelligence > >> agencies still use it for best > >> detail and (what's the word?) acuity and will > >> continue to use it for non > >> real time airborne reconnaissance, so someone > will > >> continue making that. > >> Slitting it to 35mm and perforating it is a > small > >> thing, and it can then be > >> sold to those few consumers who still want it. > >> Astronomers will still demand > >> it for some applications, though the format will > be > >> larger, still, it starts > >> out as rolls that can be slit. Why 35mm? Well, in > my > >> opinion it provides the > >> best compromise between versatility (as a > function > >> of size) and quality (as > >> a function of image area). FYI, while I'm sure > that > >> many will not agree, > >> this is the same reason I would prefer a 24x36mm > >> sensor for a 35mm sized > >> camera. As it is with film, so it is with sensors > - > >> the larger the format, > >> the greater quality potential. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Bob... > >> > > > > >> By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, > you'll > >> become happy; > >> if you get a bad one, you'll become a > philosopher. > >> - Socrates > >> > >> > >> From: "Jack Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >> > >> > How much longer will starving film cameras > demand > >> 35mm > >> > color pos/neg films be produced? What level of > >> > production and availability would qualify as > "in > >> > production"? > >> > What's the likelihood of film's resuscitation > >> through > >> > some manner of structural breakthrough? > >> > Un-answerable, but care to muse? > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > __ > > Yahoo! Mail for Mobile > > Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your > mobile phone. > > http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail > > > > > > > > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
I understood the point of your (very reasonable) question, so why be picky? Truth is, I didn't even notice it and further, I screw up all the time myself. Whatever can be done at one size can be done at most any size. The cost is chip yield. The fact that some idiot in a magazine says that an APS sensor would contain more tightly packed pixels than would a 24x36 and so 24x36 is unnecessary, doesn't mean that it must be that way. If what the writer said is true, then there's no point to medium format digital cameras! Think about it. Regards, Bob... By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher. - Socrates From: "Jack Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bob, Thanks for your response and for ignoring my misuse of the word "throws". SHB: "Throes". Didn't I see something in a photo magazine about the fact that an APS sensor would contain more tightly packed pixels than would a 24x36? Thus, according to the writer, assuming the same pixel count, the smaller sensor would capture and reveal more detail. Why do I doubt the assumption? Jack --- Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There will always be a niche market for film, even 35mm. Digital will supplant it for most real applications, most importantly in the consumer market where the dollars, euros, pounds, yen, etc. are, but film still offers some image advantages (or at least claimed advantages), and aficionados will still provide some market, enough for perhaps two or so small outfits to produce it. The intelligence agencies still use it for best detail and (what's the word?) acuity and will continue to use it for non real time airborne reconnaissance, so someone will continue making that. Slitting it to 35mm and perforating it is a small thing, and it can then be sold to those few consumers who still want it. Astronomers will still demand it for some applications, though the format will be larger, still, it starts out as rolls that can be slit. Why 35mm? Well, in my opinion it provides the best compromise between versatility (as a function of size) and quality (as a function of image area). FYI, while I'm sure that many will not agree, this is the same reason I would prefer a 24x36mm sensor for a 35mm sized camera. As it is with film, so it is with sensors - the larger the format, the greater quality potential. Regards, Bob... By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher. - Socrates From: "Jack Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > How much longer will starving film cameras demand 35mm > color pos/neg films be produced? What level of > production and availability would qualify as "in > production"? > What's the likelihood of film's resuscitation through > some manner of structural breakthrough? > Un-answerable, but care to muse? __ Yahoo! Mail for Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Does it then follow, that a 6mp sensor will yield a >sharper, less noisy image than an 11mp? >Where do the lines cross? Pixel count, fill factor and sensor size (and other factors as well) all come into play. An 11mp full-frame sensor might have larger pixels than a 6mp APS-C sensor, so it could be both lower in noise *and* higher in resolution. Improvement in technology also comes into play because it's always advancing: This year's sensors are lower in noise than those from two years ago. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
Does it then follow, that a 6mp sensor will yield a sharper, less noisy image than an 11mp? Where do the lines cross? Jack --- Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Didn't I see something in a photo magazine about > the > >fact that an APS sensor would contain more tightly > >packed pixels than would a 24x36? > > For sensors of the same pixel count. "More tightly > packed" is another > way of saying "smaller", and therefore noisier, > pixels. > > >Thus, according to the writer, assuming the same > pixel count, > >the smaller sensor would capture and reveal more > detail. > >Why do I doubt the assumption? > > Because, although it may theoretically capture more > detail per unit > area, the sensor is smaller and the image will > therefore require more > magnification for a print of the same size as one > made with a larger > sensor, therefore losing resolution in the final > image. And, as the > image is magnified for the final image, so will be > noise, which is > already higher with smaller sensor pixels. > > It's remarkably similar to film: The less > magnification you have to do > to your capture when making the final print, the > better off you are. > > > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Didn't I see something in a photo magazine about the >fact that an APS sensor would contain more tightly >packed pixels than would a 24x36? For sensors of the same pixel count. "More tightly packed" is another way of saying "smaller", and therefore noisier, pixels. >Thus, according to the writer, assuming the same pixel count, >the smaller sensor would capture and reveal more detail. >Why do I doubt the assumption? Because, although it may theoretically capture more detail per unit area, the sensor is smaller and the image will therefore require more magnification for a print of the same size as one made with a larger sensor, therefore losing resolution in the final image. And, as the image is magnified for the final image, so will be noise, which is already higher with smaller sensor pixels. It's remarkably similar to film: The less magnification you have to do to your capture when making the final print, the better off you are. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
Bob, Thanks for your response and for ignoring my misuse of the word "throws". SHB: "Throes". Didn't I see something in a photo magazine about the fact that an APS sensor would contain more tightly packed pixels than would a 24x36? Thus, according to the writer, assuming the same pixel count, the smaller sensor would capture and reveal more detail. Why do I doubt the assumption? Jack --- Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There will always be a niche market for film, even > 35mm. Digital will > supplant it for most real applications, most > importantly in the consumer > market where the dollars, euros, pounds, yen, etc. > are, but film still > offers some image advantages (or at least claimed > advantages), and > aficionados will still provide some market, enough > for perhaps two or so > small outfits to produce it. The intelligence > agencies still use it for best > detail and (what's the word?) acuity and will > continue to use it for non > real time airborne reconnaissance, so someone will > continue making that. > Slitting it to 35mm and perforating it is a small > thing, and it can then be > sold to those few consumers who still want it. > Astronomers will still demand > it for some applications, though the format will be > larger, still, it starts > out as rolls that can be slit. Why 35mm? Well, in my > opinion it provides the > best compromise between versatility (as a function > of size) and quality (as > a function of image area). FYI, while I'm sure that > many will not agree, > this is the same reason I would prefer a 24x36mm > sensor for a 35mm sized > camera. As it is with film, so it is with sensors - > the larger the format, > the greater quality potential. > > Regards, > Bob... > > By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll > become happy; > if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher. > - Socrates > > > From: "Jack Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > How much longer will starving film cameras demand > 35mm > > color pos/neg films be produced? What level of > > production and availability would qualify as "in > > production"? > > What's the likelihood of film's resuscitation > through > > some manner of structural breakthrough? > > Un-answerable, but care to muse? > > > __ Yahoo! Mail for Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
There will always be a niche market for film, even 35mm. Digital will supplant it for most real applications, most importantly in the consumer market where the dollars, euros, pounds, yen, etc. are, but film still offers some image advantages (or at least claimed advantages), and aficionados will still provide some market, enough for perhaps two or so small outfits to produce it. The intelligence agencies still use it for best detail and (what's the word?) acuity and will continue to use it for non real time airborne reconnaissance, so someone will continue making that. Slitting it to 35mm and perforating it is a small thing, and it can then be sold to those few consumers who still want it. Astronomers will still demand it for some applications, though the format will be larger, still, it starts out as rolls that can be slit. Why 35mm? Well, in my opinion it provides the best compromise between versatility (as a function of size) and quality (as a function of image area). FYI, while I'm sure that many will not agree, this is the same reason I would prefer a 24x36mm sensor for a 35mm sized camera. As it is with film, so it is with sensors - the larger the format, the greater quality potential. Regards, Bob... By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher. - Socrates From: "Jack Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> How much longer will starving film cameras demand 35mm color pos/neg films be produced? What level of production and availability would qualify as "in production"? What's the likelihood of film's resuscitation through some manner of structural breakthrough? Un-answerable, but care to muse?
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 09:07:20AM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote: > Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Yeah, as in "death throws". > > Sorry, I was being pedantic. It's "death throes". I'm glad somebody eventually pointed this out; it's been quietly bugging me every time I see the subject line.
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
I have to pass along one more endearing film experience; My now 41 year old daughter who, when asked to suggest some High School graduation gifts, immediately named, "a good camera". She received a Pentax K1000 w/M-50mm f/1.7 (I believe)and has since added short and medium Pentax zooms. Must mention that her K1000, also, got stolen. I replaced it while remembering my experience. Some while back, while tinkering with our cameras, she mentioned that she had "always liked the smell of film". At that moment, we became even closer. Jack --- David Oswald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Jack Davis wrote: > > How much longer will starving film cameras demand > 35mm > > color pos/neg films be produced? What level of > > production and availability would qualify as "in > > production"? > > What's the likelihood of film's resuscitation > through > > some manner of structural breakthrough? > > Un-answerable, but care to muse? > > > > I was thinking the other day about things I remember > from my childhood > (I was born in 1968): > > Visiting the "As-Is" section of a local thrift > store. "You can buy one > thing up to $1.00". I found some relic of a > malfunctioning bellows > camera. I wonder whatever happened to that. > > My first (functioning) camera: A 126 with flashcube. > > Sitting in the back seat of the stationwagon while > my parents pass > through the "PhotoHut" drive-through to pick up > their prints and slides. > > Family gatherings with the slide projector. Dad > always messing around > with the focus until we were all dizzy. Slides > always getting stuck in > the mechanism. Remember how they pop out of focus > if they get too hot? > > Our Polaroid One-Step; a photographic > disappointment. > > Junior High School Photography class: Developing B&W > negatives and > processing my own prints. Building a pinhole > camera. Opening a new > world of creativity. > > Dad got himself an Olympus OM-2n and began acquiring > lenses. I can > still name most of them: 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, > 135mm f/2.8, 24mm > f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8, 35-70 f/??, Vivitar > teleconverter: 2x, and 1:1 macro. > I had a lot of fun with that camera too. > > Taking my own slides and prints on an extended trip > to Portugal > (1987-1989), with a hand-me-down Canon A1 (or > something like that; a > split-image focusing camera that looked a lot like > an SLR but wasn't). > > My PZ-20: A chance to dig a little deeper into the > hobby. > > My ZX-5n: I tried new film almost every month there > for awhile: Royal > Gold, Gold, Max, Porta 400VC, 160NC, Supra 100, 400, > 800, NHG 800, > Superia 400, Reala 100, Tri-X, and so on... pushing, > pulling, filtering, > rewinding with the leader out so I can swap but > still finish the roll > later, etc. > > A kid born in 2008 (when I turn 40) won't ever > process his own prints, > won't experiment with film, won't pick up prints at > PhotoHut, won't > watch family slide shows on a projector screen, and > won't know that 24 > Exposure rolls really have 25 shots on them if > you're lucky. ;) > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
David, Thanks for the retro trip. My memories (too far back to totally relate here) begin with sitting by my father in his basement "darkroom" , nostrils full of the smell of chemistry, and being amazed each time an image developed in the tray. First camera, Baby Brownie in about 1942. Took it to school to show off and (Mom was right) it got stolen. Crushing day. Still have the first picture taken. Jack --- David Oswald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Jack Davis wrote: > > How much longer will starving film cameras demand > 35mm > > color pos/neg films be produced? What level of > > production and availability would qualify as "in > > production"? > > What's the likelihood of film's resuscitation > through > > some manner of structural breakthrough? > > Un-answerable, but care to muse? > > > > I was thinking the other day about things I remember > from my childhood > (I was born in 1968): > > Visiting the "As-Is" section of a local thrift > store. "You can buy one > thing up to $1.00". I found some relic of a > malfunctioning bellows > camera. I wonder whatever happened to that. > > My first (functioning) camera: A 126 with flashcube. > > Sitting in the back seat of the stationwagon while > my parents pass > through the "PhotoHut" drive-through to pick up > their prints and slides. > > Family gatherings with the slide projector. Dad > always messing around > with the focus until we were all dizzy. Slides > always getting stuck in > the mechanism. Remember how they pop out of focus > if they get too hot? > > Our Polaroid One-Step; a photographic > disappointment. > > Junior High School Photography class: Developing B&W > negatives and > processing my own prints. Building a pinhole > camera. Opening a new > world of creativity. > > Dad got himself an Olympus OM-2n and began acquiring > lenses. I can > still name most of them: 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, > 135mm f/2.8, 24mm > f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8, 35-70 f/??, Vivitar > teleconverter: 2x, and 1:1 macro. > I had a lot of fun with that camera too. > > Taking my own slides and prints on an extended trip > to Portugal > (1987-1989), with a hand-me-down Canon A1 (or > something like that; a > split-image focusing camera that looked a lot like > an SLR but wasn't). > > My PZ-20: A chance to dig a little deeper into the > hobby. > > My ZX-5n: I tried new film almost every month there > for awhile: Royal > Gold, Gold, Max, Porta 400VC, 160NC, Supra 100, 400, > 800, NHG 800, > Superia 400, Reala 100, Tri-X, and so on... pushing, > pulling, filtering, > rewinding with the leader out so I can swap but > still finish the roll > later, etc. > > A kid born in 2008 (when I turn 40) won't ever > process his own prints, > won't experiment with film, won't pick up prints at > PhotoHut, won't > watch family slide shows on a projector screen, and > won't know that 24 > Exposure rolls really have 25 shots on them if > you're lucky. ;) > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
Pretty much my feeling, also. Lack of commercial support facilities will likely hasten the end. Jack --- William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Jack Davis" Subject: The Nature of Film's > Final Throws > > > > How much longer will starving film cameras demand > 35mm > > color pos/neg films be produced? What level of > > production and availability would qualify as "in > > production"? > > What's the likelihood of film's resuscitation > through > > some manner of structural breakthrough? > > Un-answerable, but care to muse? > > As a readily available consumer commodity, I expect > film will pretty much be > gone within 5 years. > > William Robb > > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
Er..that is, "throes". Thanks, Jack --- Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Throws??? > > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Yeah, as in "death throws". Sorry, I was being pedantic. It's "death throes". >--- Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Throws??? >> >> >> -- >> Mark Roberts >> Photography and writing >> www.robertstech.com >> >> > > > > > >Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page >http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
Yeah, as in "death throws". Jack --- Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Throws??? > > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com > > Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
Throws??? -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
This poetic post sets me in a very nostalgic mood. Those where the days, (I'm not at all ironic here). At the same time, I can't help wondering if my sons will be saying similar things about the media of today: Digital photo. ;-) Something like "A kid born in 2028 (when I turn 40) won't ever edit his own digies, wont experiment with WB, won't play with gamma and curves ..." Me don't know, but are still in state of nostalgica. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) > -Original Message- > From: David Oswald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 26. august 2005 07:03 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws > > > > Jack Davis wrote: > > How much longer will starving film cameras demand 35mm > > color pos/neg films be produced? What level of > > production and availability would qualify as "in > > production"? > > What's the likelihood of film's resuscitation through > > some manner of structural breakthrough? > > Un-answerable, but care to muse? > > > > I was thinking the other day about things I remember from my childhood > (I was born in 1968): > > Visiting the "As-Is" section of a local thrift store. "You can buy one > thing up to $1.00". I found some relic of a malfunctioning bellows > camera. I wonder whatever happened to that. > > My first (functioning) camera: A 126 with flashcube. > > Sitting in the back seat of the stationwagon while my parents pass > through the "PhotoHut" drive-through to pick up their prints and slides. > > Family gatherings with the slide projector. Dad always messing around > with the focus until we were all dizzy. Slides always getting stuck in > the mechanism. Remember how they pop out of focus if they get too hot? > > Our Polaroid One-Step; a photographic disappointment. > > Junior High School Photography class: Developing B&W negatives and > processing my own prints. Building a pinhole camera. Opening a new > world of creativity. > > Dad got himself an Olympus OM-2n and began acquiring lenses. I can > still name most of them: 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 135mm f/2.8, 24mm > f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8, 35-70 f/??, Vivitar teleconverter: 2x, and 1:1 macro. > I had a lot of fun with that camera too. > > Taking my own slides and prints on an extended trip to Portugal > (1987-1989), with a hand-me-down Canon A1 (or something like that; a > split-image focusing camera that looked a lot like an SLR but wasn't). > > My PZ-20: A chance to dig a little deeper into the hobby. > > My ZX-5n: I tried new film almost every month there for awhile: Royal > Gold, Gold, Max, Porta 400VC, 160NC, Supra 100, 400, 800, NHG 800, > Superia 400, Reala 100, Tri-X, and so on... pushing, pulling, filtering, > rewinding with the leader out so I can swap but still finish the roll > later, etc. > > A kid born in 2008 (when I turn 40) won't ever process his own prints, > won't experiment with film, won't pick up prints at PhotoHut, won't > watch family slide shows on a projector screen, and won't know that 24 > Exposure rolls really have 25 shots on them if you're lucky. ;) >
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
- Original Message - From: "Jack Davis" Subject: The Nature of Film's Final Throws How much longer will starving film cameras demand 35mm color pos/neg films be produced? What level of production and availability would qualify as "in production"? What's the likelihood of film's resuscitation through some manner of structural breakthrough? Un-answerable, but care to muse? As a readily available consumer commodity, I expect film will pretty much be gone within 5 years. William Robb
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
Jack Davis wrote: How much longer will starving film cameras demand 35mm color pos/neg films be produced? What level of production and availability would qualify as "in production"? What's the likelihood of film's resuscitation through some manner of structural breakthrough? Un-answerable, but care to muse? I was thinking the other day about things I remember from my childhood (I was born in 1968): Visiting the "As-Is" section of a local thrift store. "You can buy one thing up to $1.00". I found some relic of a malfunctioning bellows camera. I wonder whatever happened to that. My first (functioning) camera: A 126 with flashcube. Sitting in the back seat of the stationwagon while my parents pass through the "PhotoHut" drive-through to pick up their prints and slides. Family gatherings with the slide projector. Dad always messing around with the focus until we were all dizzy. Slides always getting stuck in the mechanism. Remember how they pop out of focus if they get too hot? Our Polaroid One-Step; a photographic disappointment. Junior High School Photography class: Developing B&W negatives and processing my own prints. Building a pinhole camera. Opening a new world of creativity. Dad got himself an Olympus OM-2n and began acquiring lenses. I can still name most of them: 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 135mm f/2.8, 24mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8, 35-70 f/??, Vivitar teleconverter: 2x, and 1:1 macro. I had a lot of fun with that camera too. Taking my own slides and prints on an extended trip to Portugal (1987-1989), with a hand-me-down Canon A1 (or something like that; a split-image focusing camera that looked a lot like an SLR but wasn't). My PZ-20: A chance to dig a little deeper into the hobby. My ZX-5n: I tried new film almost every month there for awhile: Royal Gold, Gold, Max, Porta 400VC, 160NC, Supra 100, 400, 800, NHG 800, Superia 400, Reala 100, Tri-X, and so on... pushing, pulling, filtering, rewinding with the leader out so I can swap but still finish the roll later, etc. A kid born in 2008 (when I turn 40) won't ever process his own prints, won't experiment with film, won't pick up prints at PhotoHut, won't watch family slide shows on a projector screen, and won't know that 24 Exposure rolls really have 25 shots on them if you're lucky. ;)
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
As fewer shooters are using film, the market, obviously, becomes unable to absorb current production volume. Reduced production levels, then re-balances with demand. A supply v demand competition might satisfy film users for some time. It's that "time" value I and the owners of millions of film cameras, are wonderin' about. At my age, no way will I see the end of film. Jack --- Herb Chong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the rates have been in place historically for almost > a year now. Kodak's > film unit volume sales is declining in the US at an > annual rate of about > 30%/year every month for the past 8 or 10 months. > > Herb > - Original Message - > From: "Jack Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 9:27 PM > Subject: Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws > > > > I've read the heavy negative percentages assigned > to > > film sales forecasts, but feel these must be > assigned > > a reactionary status at this, still early, date. > > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
I don't know if film will actually die. Someone somewhere will continue to manufacture film stock if there is any demand at all. It's interesting but some discontinued film types have even made something of a comeback. Expensive but available. A few years ago you couldn't get 620 or 828 sized film. Now both are available if ordered on the Internet. There will probably always be enthusiasts who want to shoot b&w film. At least enough world wide to create enough demand for one or two maybe even more manufacturers. Maybe not Kodak, or Fuji, but someone will be there to satisfy the demand. Jack Davis wrote: I read this item earlier today. Thus my posted question. While it further defines a downward trend, it doesn't allow me to mentally plot future production levels or a discontinuance curve. Factory locations, identified in the article, are only of interest to the 1,000 employees in those areas. How much world impact will be felt by discontinuing some present operational plans in China? I've read the heavy negative percentages assigned to film sales forecasts, but feel these must be assigned a reactionary status at this, still early, date. Thanks for input. Jack --- Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050825/ap_on_bi_ge/kodak_consolidation Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
the rates have been in place historically for almost a year now. Kodak's film unit volume sales is declining in the US at an annual rate of about 30%/year every month for the past 8 or 10 months. Herb - Original Message - From: "Jack Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 9:27 PM Subject: Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws I've read the heavy negative percentages assigned to film sales forecasts, but feel these must be assigned a reactionary status at this, still early, date.
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
I read this item earlier today. Thus my posted question. While it further defines a downward trend, it doesn't allow me to mentally plot future production levels or a discontinuance curve. Factory locations, identified in the article, are only of interest to the 1,000 employees in those areas. How much world impact will be felt by discontinuing some present operational plans in China? I've read the heavy negative percentages assigned to film sales forecasts, but feel these must be assigned a reactionary status at this, still early, date. Thanks for input. Jack --- Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050825/ap_on_bi_ge/kodak_consolidation > > > Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050825/ap_on_bi_ge/kodak_consolidation That's the most succinct report yet. Thanks for posting it, keith whaley
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050825/ap_on_bi_ge/kodak_consolidation
Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throws
Jack Davis wrote: How much longer will starving film cameras demand 35mm color pos/neg films be produced? What level of production and availability would qualify as "in production"? What's the likelihood of film's resuscitation through some manner of structural breakthrough? Un-answerable, but care to muse? Jack Film's evolving into a niche market. It will become raer and more expensive, but film is not likely to disappear any more than Large Format Film did when LF became mostly obsolete. -Adam
