RE: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
Same thing here, Rob, although I may keep bodies, that wount sell for a decent (reserve)price. I like them all, but I only use them rarely. I'll keep my MZ-S and my 6x6 equioment (Pentacon Six) for a while... Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 17. juli 2004 09:51 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?) On 17 Jul 2004 at 9:34, Jens Bladt wrote: > Pentax isn't Dying. Film is, increasingly slowly at some stage perhaps, but it's > still going down. As Pentax has/had a pro-market in MF, they have to upgrade > this (Hasselblad and Rollei did) or/and try to dig further into/stay alive in > consumer DSLR/D-P&S markets. So who here has shed their excess film bodies in view of the pending fate of film? I have, I'm down to the smallest number of film bodies I've had for many years and I don't expect the number to ever increase either. 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 is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
On 18 Jul 2004 at 17:29, Amita Guha wrote: > Very true. It brought my husband back to SLR photography. He went > through 3 digital P&Ss before buying a ZX-50, because he missed having > that level of control. Problem is, he hated scanning the prints. Then > the 300D came out, months before the *istD. He pounced on it and hasn't > looked back (although I think he actually covets the *istD. :) Exactly the observation I made. 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 is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
The fine grain BW films like Tmax 100 and Tech pans look signifigantly better even scanned than Grayscale converted scanned color films. JCO -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 2:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?) - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?) > Why start digital if you never used digital before? You have to start > everything at some point don't you? > > Never shoot BW? Oh I see, but what if you wanted to try? By selling > ALL your film bodies and saying "never use film again" you have burned > your bridges and limited your creative possiblities. To me, with 35mm > film cameras so cheap now, it is worth having at least one > just for fine grain BW because the results are still better than APS > 6MP Digital for that application If they are scanning film for output, it doesn't matter. Want black and white? Convert the colour image. Unless you are printing in a darkroom, there isn't much advantage to shooting black and white, and some significant disadvantages. William Robb
Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?) > Why start digital if you never used digital before? You have to > start everything at some point don't you? > > Never shoot BW? Oh I see, but what if you wanted to try? By selling > ALL your film bodies and saying "never use film again" you have > burned your bridges and limited your creative possiblities. To me, > with 35mm film cameras so cheap now, it is worth having at least one > just for fine grain BW because the results are still better than > APS 6MP Digital for that application If they are scanning film for output, it doesn't matter. Want black and white? Convert the colour image. Unless you are printing in a darkroom, there isn't much advantage to shooting black and white, and some significant disadvantages. William Robb
Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?) > READ! I said BW film. Black and White! Try shooting some Tech Pan > full frame with some really good lenses and find out what 35mm > film is capable of. The color films you just mentioned are nowhere near > as sharp. JC, you're flogging a dead horse. If what they wanted was ultimate resolution, they wouldn't be shooting 35mm film, much less digital anything. I agree with you about tech pan though. It is a pretty amazing emulsion. William Robb
RE: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
> From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Also, an angle not mentioned is the renewed interest folks are having > in photography generally as a result of digital- perhaps it > will be the > saviour of film and not the other way around... Very true. It brought my husband back to SLR photography. He went through 3 digital P&Ss before buying a ZX-50, because he missed having that level of control. Problem is, he hated scanning the prints. Then the 300D came out, months before the *istD. He pounced on it and hasn't looked back (although I think he actually covets the *istD. :) Amita
Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Why start digital if you never used digital before? You have to > start everything at some point don't you? huh? sure, but I have no interest in "fine grained B&W" (see below) > Never shoot BW? No, I've shot countless rolls of Tri-X, I've never shot Tech Pan. > Oh I see, but what if you wanted to try? By selling > ALL your film bodies and saying "never use film again" you have > burned your bridges and limited your creative possiblities. To me, > with 35mm film cameras so cheap now, it is worth having at least one > just for fine grain BW because the results are still better than > APS 6MP Digital for that application Here is a link to photos I'm mostly proud of: http://home.mindspring.com/~c_skofteland (some suck, yes, but I think one or two are pretty damn good :-) ). My style of photogrpahy does not translate to B&W *in my opinion*. I suck at B&W photography. I don't really like shooting in B&W. Sure now and then I'll try some portraits of the wife or kid or a scenic or whatever in B&W (with Tri-X in the past because I liked it's "look and feel", now with digital conversions) but usually I'm unhappy with the results.My point, is that if I don't intend to try something that I have no interest in, how am I "burning my bridges"? So, having a 35mm camera around just for fine grained B&W, would be a waste of a good camera; it would collect dust. I *like* shooting in color and if I think my reslults with a 6mp digital camera are better than the slide films I used to use I can safely get rid of all my film cameras and not suffer. I think my style of shooting has translated to digital just fine. BTW, if I ever feel the need for "fine grained B&W" I'll run some through my dad's Linhof Technika IV. Christian
RE: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
Why start digital if you never used digital before? You have to start everything at some point don't you? Never shoot BW? Oh I see, but what if you wanted to try? By selling ALL your film bodies and saying "never use film again" you have burned your bridges and limited your creative possiblities. To me, with 35mm film cameras so cheap now, it is worth having at least one just for fine grain BW because the results are still better than APS 6MP Digital for that application -Original Message- From: Christian Skofteland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 9:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?) My point JCO, is that I never shot Tech Pan before so why would I start now? And why would I compare it to the *ist D? Apples and Oranges. Even I can see that. I implied that the D replaced film *for me* and the way *I* make pictures. I make no assumptions for other people and their styles. Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > READ! I said BW film. Black and White! Try shooting some Tech Pan full > frame with some really good lenses and find out what 35mm film is > capable of. The color films you just mentioned are nowhere near as > sharp. JCO
Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
And I'm holding on to my MZ-S primarily for sentimental reasons. I haven't shot the first frame of film since getting the *ist D. Bill - Original Message - From: "Christian Skofteland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 8:44 AM Subject: Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?) > I sold ALL my film bodies (6 cameras: LX, 3x MX, P3 and SuperProgram) to buy > my *ist D. I knew I'd never use film again! ;-) > > Christian Skofteland > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > - Original Message - > From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > So who here has shed their excess film bodies in view of the pending fate > of > > film? > > > > I have, I'm down to the smallest number of film bodies I've had for many > years > > and I don't expect the number to ever increase either. > > >
Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
My point JCO, is that I never shot Tech Pan before so why would I start now? And why would I compare it to the *ist D? Apples and Oranges. Even I can see that. I implied that the D replaced film *for me* and the way *I* make pictures. I make no assumptions for other people and their styles. Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > READ! I said BW film. Black and White! Try shooting some Tech Pan > full frame with some really good lenses and find out what 35mm > film is capable of. The color films you just mentioned are nowhere near > as sharp. > JCO
RE: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
READ! I said BW film. Black and White! Try shooting some Tech Pan full frame with some really good lenses and find out what 35mm film is capable of. The color films you just mentioned are nowhere near as sharp. JCO -Original Message- From: Christian Skofteland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 9:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?) - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To > Then how do you do hi-res B&W ? u I don't? Did I before digital? hm, nope! ;-) > rhetorical question no answer expected. oops! > 6MP DSLRs still cant match fine grain BW 35mm film (yet). Well it sure matches and possibly exceeds Velvia and Provia 100F (my two favs from film) and ISO 800 on the D looks remarkably like Sensia 200... Christian
Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To > Then how do you do hi-res B&W ? u I don't? Did I before digital? hm, nope! ;-) > rhetorical question no answer expected. oops! > 6MP DSLRs still cant match fine grain BW 35mm film (yet). Well it sure matches and possibly exceeds Velvia and Provia 100F (my two favs from film) and ISO 800 on the D looks remarkably like Sensia 200... Christian
RE: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
Then how do you do hi-res B&W ? rhetorical question no answer expected. 6MP DSLRs still cant match fine grain BW 35mm film (yet). JCO -Original Message- From: Christian Skofteland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 8:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?) I sold ALL my film bodies (6 cameras: LX, 3x MX, P3 and SuperProgram) to buy my *ist D. I knew I'd never use film again! ;-) Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So who here has shed their excess film bodies in view of the pending > fate of > film? > > I have, I'm down to the smallest number of film bodies I've had for > many years > and I don't expect the number to ever increase either. >
Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
I sold ALL my film bodies (6 cameras: LX, 3x MX, P3 and SuperProgram) to buy my *ist D. I knew I'd never use film again! ;-) Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So who here has shed their excess film bodies in view of the pending fate of > film? > > I have, I'm down to the smallest number of film bodies I've had for many years > and I don't expect the number to ever increase either. >
Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
Antonio, I'm afraid that would be wishful thinking. The AVERAGE consumers are switching to digital in droves. I've been working at a local minilab for only about 90 days so far, but we're selling 10-20 digital cameras for every film camera. We're also seeing an increase in digital printing that is the same price, or less if printing 50 or more images, as prints from film. I would also guess that 60-70 percent of our film developing is from one time use cameras. Unfortunately, it is this user that supports film, not those of us who are photographic enthusiasts. Bill - Original Message - From: "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 2:53 PM Subject: Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?) > Also, an angle not mentioned is the renewed interest folks are having > in photography generally as a result of digital- perhaps it will be the > saviour of film and not the other way around... > > A.
RE: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
I know I should sell the LX and MZ5n, but just can't bring myself to do it. I recently shot a couple of rolls of HP5 in the MX with the 50/1.2 and the results reminded me of why I enjoy B&W portraiture so much. The *ist-D is the default choice for colour. I don't expect I'll ever buy another 35mm camera, but assume that eventually the *ist D will be replaced with another digi. I'm still shooting MF and LF, but don't expect to be buying that much more gear there. Providing I stick with B&W I expect that there will always be something available for 120 and 4x5 that will suit me. I wouldn't want to bet on things like tungsten balanced colour film lasting forever but I think the B&W film niche will remain profitable enough for at least one company to continue manufacturing it. I expect that the next decade will see film move from being a recording medium to an artistic choice and from that point the sales will stabilize and the prices will jump. Regards, Paul Ewins Melbourne, Australia -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] So who here has shed their excess film bodies in view of the pending fate of film?
Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
most of my photographer friends can't which is better between my *istD and my Provia 100F shots at up to 11x14. usually, they can tell which is film and which is digital, but looked at purely from an image quality point of view, digital has many more advantages than disadvantages for my work. if i know i am going to be making prints larger than 11x14, shooting Velvia has an advantage provided that what i am shooting is within it's exposure latitude. Herb - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 11:50 AM Subject: Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?) > (I'm pretty sure I read this here as well as hearing it word-of-mouth, so it > should be in the archives -- anyway, some of the folks on this list are in the > business and would know if that's the trend. Including at least one wedding > photographer who *has* switched from medium format to digital.) > In other words, digital is apparently also making some inroads into the medium > format market, and although I am not in a position to know how strong a trend > this is, that information may well be available to us in this discussion. > Of course none of us can know for sure what WILL happen ...
Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
two of my film bodies are not worth enough to get rid of. the remaining two, i am undecided about. i haven't used any of them since i got my *istD. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 3:50 AM Subject: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?) > So who here has shed their excess film bodies in view of the pending fate of > film? > > I have, I'm down to the smallest number of film bodies I've had for many years > and I don't expect the number to ever increase either.
Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
On 17 Jul 2004 at 21:04, Nick Clark wrote: > There's still no substitute in quality terms for projecting transparencies. Sure but I don't project slides and if I do I can always get an 8k line slide written from any digitized image. I had a Polaroid 4k film printer for some years but sold it recently due to lack of use. 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 is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
Kevin Waterson wrote: > On the contrary, I am buying up film bodies. I agree that market forces will be > the demise of film. But I think film will survive, albeit on a smaller scale. > Ilford are reporting an increase in sales of Black and White products. I think > as the lemming consumers gobble up the latest fad-gadgets and digital P and S, > the demand for film photographers will increase. I'm sure film will survive too but not as a mass market medium, it can be likened to the limited vinyl audio recordings which are being produced amongst the sea of DC/DVD releases. > Digital is in its infancy and there is still no solution for achiving > digital. > Perhaps when it reaches adultery we may see folks coming back to film, when they > realise they have been duped into a 'better' solution. This is the bit I don't buy. As far as I'm concerned there still isn't a viable solution for archiving film (after over 100years). I have much more confidence in the potential longevity of my digital archives. 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 is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
On 17 Jul 2004 at 20:53, Antonio Aparicio wrote: > Also, an angle not mentioned is the renewed interest folks are having > in photography generally as a result of digital- perhaps it will be the > saviour of film and not the other way around... I see your point but often I expect that the migration route for re- awakened/new photographers is Digi-PnS to Digi-SLR. 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 is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
Not so far fetched actually. I didn't really get interested in photography until the first digitals came out. I bought one and thought it was cool. Then I happened to try a friends 35mm and realized this was much better. I even bought another 4Mb digital after that, but 35mm was still better at that time. They are more advanced now though and if I had bought something like the *ist D I doubt I would have ever gained an interest in film. However with the lower end to even decent 35mm costing less then many digicams, it leaves the door open for interest in the better features of the 35mm SLR. Real autofocus or manual, total exposure control, more then 2 or 3 apertures to choose from, a real viewfinder, powerful add on flash, less battery issues, not to mention the improved picture quality even now as compared to a digicam were all reasons my digicam to this day mostly collects dust. The price tag of a 35mm basic kit even as compared to a digital rebel with accessories is still much lower. It's even lower in many cases then a decent quality digicam. I would take a Walmart 35mm SLR kit(which is what I basically used for 35mm SLR pricing here) for a important shot any day before I would dust off the digicam. I'm not putting down the quality of DSLR at all here. Just comparing available performance dollar for dollar as I know it. Although the very real risk of spending thousands of dollars on lenses could offset this, but they don't know that until they get the photo gear bug. Many might mention here that I did not consider the film and developing costs here. That's true, but I highly doubt most people will shoot as many photos as the folks shooting the *istD's on this list. > -Original Message- > From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 2:53 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?) > > > Also, an angle not mentioned is the renewed interest folks are having > in photography generally as a result of digital- perhaps it will be the > saviour of film and not the other way around... > > A. > >
Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
This one time, at band camp, Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>Perhaps when it reaches adultery ... > > > > > > Say > > WHAT???!! > > I'm not sure he meant quite that... > > Sounds like Archie Bunker! Actually, it was Radar O'rielly from M.A.S.H Kevin -- __ (_ \ _) ) | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \) \_||_| \) \) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
There's still no substitute in quality terms for projecting transparencies. Nick -Original Message- From: "Rob Studdert"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 17/07/04 14:42:04 My *ist D seems to be teamed up with my Mamiya MF gear quite often but 35mm film holds little appeal for me these days but for the full frame coverage it offers.
RE: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
Very good point, Antonio. I'm sure digital photography has inspired a lot of people, who didn't previously took an interest in photography. It's has become SO easy, that some of them might even learn enough to be able to expose some film properly :-). Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 17. juli 2004 20:53 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?) Also, an angle not mentioned is the renewed interest folks are having in photography generally as a result of digital- perhaps it will be the saviour of film and not the other way around... A. On 17 Jul 2004, at 16:03, Kevin Waterson wrote: > This one time, at band camp, "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> So who here has shed their excess film bodies in view of the pending >> fate of >> film? >> >> I have, I'm down to the smallest number of film bodies I've had for >> many years >> and I don't expect the number to ever increase either. > > On the contrary, I am buying up film bodies. I agree that market > forces will be > the demise of film. But I think film will survive, albeit on a smaller > scale. > Ilford are reporting an increase in sales of Black and White products. > I think > as the lemming consumers gobble up the latest fad-gadgets and digital > P and S, > the demand for film photographers will increase. > > These home point and shoot folks are revelling in the idea of 'free' > photos. > These are the same snappers who know little of photography and are > happy with > the results the super-market labs churn out. > > Digital is in its infancy and there is still no solution for achiving > digital. > Perhaps when it reaches adultery we may see folks coming back to film, > when they > realise they have been duped into a 'better' solution. > > Kind regards > Kevin > > > -- > __ > (_ \ > _) ) > | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) > | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / > |_| \) \_||_| \) \) > Kevin Waterson > Port Macquarie, Australia >
Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 17 Jul 2004, at 16:03, Kevin Waterson apparently wrote: .. Perhaps when it reaches adultery ... Say WHAT???!! I'm not sure he meant quite that... Sounds like Archie Bunker! keith
RE: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
Why are people lemmings for buying digital?? Whets wrong with appreciating the lack of development costs, or appreciating the convenience?? Why are people not lemmings when they use the more expensive, less convenient method, the method that does not mesh perfectly with our ever more digital world?? Get a grip man. I don't think most consumers ever really liked film, because they bought cheap film that didn't give them superb results in the first place. And now, you can get a smaller, vastly more convenient, and in the long run, vastly cheaper digital camera, a camera that suits the needs of the average person with a computer far better than film ever will, and you call them lemmings?? How about calling yourself stubborn? I dunno what animal that would be, maybe the buffalo... Ever heard of buffalo stampeding off a cliff?? Happened all the time, often at the hands of the Indians, they would stampede the buffalo then scare them down a gorge and over a cliff where warriors waited to pick the injured brutes off one by one. -el gringo -Original Message- From: Kevin Waterson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 9:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?) This one time, at band camp, "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So who here has shed their excess film bodies in view of the pending fate of > film? > > I have, I'm down to the smallest number of film bodies I've had for many years > and I don't expect the number to ever increase either. On the contrary, I am buying up film bodies. I agree that market forces will be the demise of film. But I think film will survive, albeit on a smaller scale. Ilford are reporting an increase in sales of Black and White products. I think as the lemming consumers gobble up the latest fad-gadgets and digital P and S, the demand for film photographers will increase. These home point and shoot folks are revelling in the idea of 'free' photos. These are the same snappers who know little of photography and are happy with the results the super-market labs churn out. Digital is in its infancy and there is still no solution for achiving digital. Perhaps when it reaches adultery we may see folks coming back to film, when they realise they have been duped into a 'better' solution. Kind regards Kevin -- __ (_ \ _) ) | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \) \_||_| \) \) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
I am down to an old ZX-10 of my wife's and an *ist film camera that my daughter uses. I don't expect to buy any other film cameras. The ZX-10 is never used. My daughter uses the *ist right now, but in the fall she is on the yearbook staff of her school - digital is how they do things now. We'll see whether she is willing to scan or not. -- Best regards, Bruce Saturday, July 17, 2004, 12:50:38 AM, you wrote: RS> So who here has shed their excess film bodies in view of the pending fate of RS> film? RS> I have, I'm down to the smallest number of film bodies I've had for many years RS> and I don't expect the number to ever increase either. RS> Cheers, RS> Rob Studdert RS> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA RS> Tel +61-2-9554-4110 RS> UTC(GMT) +10 Hours RS> [EMAIL PROTECTED] RS> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ RS> Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
Well "die" means that eventually it will disappear. I think what you mean is that it will ocuppy an ever smaller share of the market. A. On 17 Jul 2004, at 18:18, Jens Bladt wrote: I did say that it would die, in increasingly slower rate - that means I think the curve will flatten and in the end and find a nwe steady level - not deissapear totally. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 17. juli 2004 15:42 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?) On 17 Jul 2004 at 14:34, Antonio Aparicio wrote: I dunno, I think film is doing fine considering. Sure a lot of people will switch to digital for the convenience factor, but it is a bit extreme to say film is dying (i.e. that it will eventually completely disappear) - the results you get from film are just too good. Anyway we are talking just 35mm here - in MF and LF film still rules the roost, and apart from say sport and newspaper photogs, most pro's use MF anyway. My *ist D seems to be teamed up with my Mamiya MF gear quite often but 35mm film holds little appeal for me these days but for the full frame coverage it offers. 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 is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
I did say that it would die, in increasingly slower rate - that means I think the curve will flatten and in the end and find a nwe steady level - not deissapear totally. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 17. juli 2004 15:42 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?) On 17 Jul 2004 at 14:34, Antonio Aparicio wrote: > I dunno, I think film is doing fine considering. Sure a lot of people > will switch to digital for the convenience factor, but it is a bit > extreme to say film is dying (i.e. that it will eventually completely > disappear) - the results you get from film are just too good. Anyway we > are talking just 35mm here - in MF and LF film still rules the roost, > and apart from say sport and newspaper photogs, most pro's use MF > anyway. My *ist D seems to be teamed up with my Mamiya MF gear quite often but 35mm film holds little appeal for me these days but for the full frame coverage it offers. 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 is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
Yeah, so I here. Even at 20K a digital back still makes economical sense to the serous pro who gets through lot of film. Apparently it pays for itself in no time. A. On 17 Jul 2004, at 17:50, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In other words, digital is apparently also making some inroads into the medium format market, and although I am not in a position to know how strong a trend this is, that information may well be available to us in this discussion. Of course none of us can know for sure what WILL happen ...
Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
Antonio said: > I dunno, I think film is doing fine considering. Sure a lot of people > will switch to digital for the convenience factor, but it is a bit > extreme to say film is dying (i.e. that it will eventually completely > disappear) - the results you get from film are just too good. Anyway we > are talking just 35mm here - in MF and LF film still rules the roost, > and apart from say sport and newspaper photogs, most pro's use MF > anyway. If you remove "sport and newspaper photogs" from the list of pros, leaving the medium format shooters in the group, you're still left with wedding photogs and I hear & read in various places (can't recall exact references, perhaps others can help here) that lots of those who used to use medium format have already switched or are in the process of switching to digital. I think that then leaves commercial (products, advertising) and landscape/nature/wildlife people, and ... ? Do we know what they're doing? I think some of the gang here might have some idea. (I'm pretty sure I read this here as well as hearing it word-of-mouth, so it should be in the archives -- anyway, some of the folks on this list are in the business and would know if that's the trend. Including at least one wedding photographer who *has* switched from medium format to digital.) In other words, digital is apparently also making some inroads into the medium format market, and although I am not in a position to know how strong a trend this is, that information may well be available to us in this discussion. Of course none of us can know for sure what WILL happen ... ERN
Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
I have some Leica screw mount bodies, and Leica copies I am selling soon. My Pentax ES and ESII's I will keep because of all the SMC Takumars I own. I will sell my K2DMD and motor and keep my LX. My 645 I will keep. I have an Optio 230 digital. Jim A. > From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Organization: Digital Image Studio > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 17:50:38 +1000 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?) > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 03:50:42 -0400 > > On 17 Jul 2004 at 9:34, Jens Bladt wrote: > >> Pentax isn't Dying. Film is, increasingly slowly at some stage perhaps, but >> it's >> still going down. As Pentax has/had a pro-market in MF, they have to upgrade >> this (Hasselblad and Rollei did) or/and try to dig further into/stay alive in >> consumer DSLR/D-P&S markets. > > So who here has shed their excess film bodies in view of the pending fate of > film? > > I have, I'm down to the smallest number of film bodies I've had for many years > and I don't expect the number to ever increase either. > > 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 is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004, graywolf wrote: > Strangely, there are an increasing number of people who are moving back > to film as they have discovered that their needs are not met by > digital. This is my experience too. I have two (serious published amateur) photographer friends with Canon 10Ds and both of them have independently bought a new medium format film camera recently. They think the DSLR is great, but it just doesn't do everything they want. I hate to use the word 'snaps' but that's just what digi feels like to me. There isn't a picture I have taken on any camera (including digital) that I didn't wish I had taken on the 67, and both these guys confess to very similar feelings. I don't think digital is going away of course, but neither is film just yet. Chris
Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
This one time, at band camp, "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So who here has shed their excess film bodies in view of the pending fate of > film? > > I have, I'm down to the smallest number of film bodies I've had for many years > and I don't expect the number to ever increase either. On the contrary, I am buying up film bodies. I agree that market forces will be the demise of film. But I think film will survive, albeit on a smaller scale. Ilford are reporting an increase in sales of Black and White products. I think as the lemming consumers gobble up the latest fad-gadgets and digital P and S, the demand for film photographers will increase. These home point and shoot folks are revelling in the idea of 'free' photos. These are the same snappers who know little of photography and are happy with the results the super-market labs churn out. Digital is in its infancy and there is still no solution for achiving digital. Perhaps when it reaches adultery we may see folks coming back to film, when they realise they have been duped into a 'better' solution. Kind regards Kevin -- __ (_ \ _) ) | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \) \_||_| \) \) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
On 17 Jul 2004 at 14:34, Antonio Aparicio wrote: > I dunno, I think film is doing fine considering. Sure a lot of people > will switch to digital for the convenience factor, but it is a bit > extreme to say film is dying (i.e. that it will eventually completely > disappear) - the results you get from film are just too good. Anyway we > are talking just 35mm here - in MF and LF film still rules the roost, > and apart from say sport and newspaper photogs, most pro's use MF > anyway. My *ist D seems to be teamed up with my Mamiya MF gear quite often but 35mm film holds little appeal for me these days but for the full frame coverage it offers. 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 is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
- Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" Subject: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?) > On 17 Jul 2004 at 9:34, Jens Bladt wrote: > > > Pentax isn't Dying. Film is, increasingly slowly at some stage perhaps, but it's > > still going down. As Pentax has/had a pro-market in MF, they have to upgrade > > this (Hasselblad and Rollei did) or/and try to dig further into/stay alive in > > consumer DSLR/D-P&S markets. > > So who here has shed their excess film bodies in view of the pending fate of > film? > > I have, I'm down to the smallest number of film bodies I've had for many years > and I don't expect the number to ever increase either. You and a whole bunch of other people. The only segment of the film market that is still strong is the single use cameras. We are literally down 50% on film processing over last years numbers. Last year was the last year we saw growth in film processing, and the % was less than half of what it had been the year before. On the pro side of things, a lot of the volume shooter pro boys are switching to digital, and are selling their Hasselblads (and everything else medium format) to finance the move. It's a natural progression. Two decades ago, the marketplace determined that one hour photo labs were more desirable than full service labs. Convenience took precedence over quality and product diversity, and the demise of the full service lab began. Ten years ago, the marketplace decided that putting one hour labs into discount department stores. More convenience, and cheaper pricing, but also lowered quality, and even less service is the result, but it didn't matter, the fate of the stand alone camera store/ photo lab was sealed. Digital is, after the initial investment, pretty much cost free, and is very convenient. The fact that the quality just isn't there doesn't matter. The marketplace has continually shown that it is not quality driven, and film doesn't have what it takes anymore to stay in the game. I think this is very sad, but it is, unfortunatley, true. William Robb
