Home » in English » Comments about our Editorial » How long will film be around?
|
| Goodbye film... [message #639 is a reply to message #98 ] |
Thu, 21 April 2005 19:32   |
|
01:08pm Feb 21, 2002
Pedro,
Had you so carefully defined (qualified) what you were asking in your survey as you have in this editorial, I think many people, including myself, might have given you a different answer. I certainly agree that silver based imaging is on the decline, being rapidly replaced by digital.
There is, however, a digital divide in photography, much as there is in internet use, one that will keep many people in the film business for the time being. Although the price of digital cameras is falling, they are still higher that a simple 35mm point and shoot. They also require a computer and software, and you need a printer to to produce something that can be shared by hand, put on the wall, in your wallet or dropped into a letter or holiday card. Sure, you can email a photo to someone, provided they have a computer with internet access available to them. They might use one at the library or an internet cafe, but they need to make prints to take the pictures back to their non-digital home. They also need to know how to do it.
Operating a digital camera, a computer and the the various widgets that go with them requires a certain amount of knowledge and technical sophistication. Seemingly intelligent, educated people (who can?t program their VCR either) still go into labs or camera stores and say, ?Will you take the film out and put another roll in??, or they may buy disposable cameras that are as simple to use as George Eastman?s original Kodak. (I refuse to say ?single use?, because that ignores the waste.)
Of course, one day there will be digital cameras at the 7-11 check out counter that you will be able to plug into a machine that will make prints for you.
Perhaps a more important question is, what will happen to all those digital photos sitting on Zip disks, hard drives, CD?s, or printed with the types of inks and papers that insure their disappearance in only a few years? These are family histories, as well as documents of the common place, everyday events that define out societies, and, yes, our cultures. Many people may keep up with the changes in storage technology, moving their files to the new device or media, but what about millions of others who place their family memories in a box in the closet? Will their grandchildren be able to view them?
I have attached a photograph taken of my grandfather and mother in Pittsburgh, Pa. almost 80 years ago. It resided in my late grandmother?s sewing basket for at least 30 years that I know of, right next to a print of my great-grandfather, Camille Ernest Galanot, who brought his family to the US from France before 1900. Where would those images be today had they been stored on magnetic media or been printed on an inkjet printer with OEM inks?
Who will use film in the future? Perhaps only a few artists who choose silver as their medium and the darkroom as their workshop.
Regards,
Peter A. Calvin
http://www.petercalvin.com
|
|
|
| Film vs. Digital [message #640 is a reply to message #98 ] |
Thu, 21 April 2005 19:33 |
 Gelabert, Edgar
Messages: 14
Registered: April 2005 |
Junior Member |
|
|
03:41pm Feb 23, 2002
In the professional world of journalism, advertising and other
commercial related work, digital is replacing film. In the public world of non-photographers, they still prefer film based prints in
a shoe box. This is not cultural but based on the fact that people
all over the world are basically lazy. It will always be much easier
to drop off a roll of film at the local One Hour Photo Shop going to work and pick up the prints on the way home.
Kodak, Fuji and Ilford are well aware of this tendency. New films
that are sharper, grainless and with better color are constantly
being marketed. New and better enlarging papers, especially by Ilford,
keep coming to market. Mr. Calvin is correct when he states that
digital imaging takes a technical sophistication that the average
person does not want to bother dealing with.
World-wide, how many people can afford computers? Not many. We have
to stop living in a bubble and realize that only a few people care
enough about photography to make it a profession or serious hobby.
The learning curve gets harder. A recent report by the photo industry
indicates that out of the billiones of pix taken in the U. S. annualy,
95% are taken with film. Film may one day die but not in our lifetime.
Ed Gelabert, Bronx, NY
|
|
| |
| Emotions & Analog Niches [message #642 is a reply to message #98 ] |
Fri, 22 April 2005 14:26 |
|
01:38am Mar 12, 2002
I'm quite astonished about the emotional tone of the February editorial, it's as if Pedro Meyer simply cannot accept the result of the Internet poll just because it does not reflect his own assumptions. This is somewhat strange since the editorials are usually full of fresh ideas and avoid the emotional stiffness of many digital vs. analog combatants. And there is no need for the strong reaction.
First, one could argue, that the poll was just done over the Internet - with all the well known procedural uncertainties. Second, it came with pre-defined, but unspecific answers. Those who klicked the "forever" button probably did so for various reasons. Pedro Meyer assumed, that they thought today's film portfolio would be around forever. I klicked the button thinking, that there will always be enough manufacturers to get a reasonable variety of films. But I also assume that the current portfolios will go down substantially. So we aren't that far off, are we?
My personal view is that on the long run there will be at least two professional niches for film based photography: (1) Fine Art (Black and White), and (2) reportages from remote locations.
(1) Fine Art. Will there ever be a 4x5 in chip with the resolution of a TMAX 100? Maybe, but 99.99999% of the photographers won't have the money for buying it. Most ordinary needs can already be served with today's digital cameras (advertisements, magazines, mainly A4 format at max or posters seen from the distance). Hybrid technologies are right now well enough developed to get the best out of both worlds - photographing with film, then scanning, then photoshopping, then printing - so why spending millions of Dollars for developing extremely expensive Fine Art equipment for only a few people to use?
(2) Remote locations. That point depends not only on the evolution of technology, but also on sociological circumstances. But if there will remain possibilities to publish such work, there will be people who need "battery independent" photographic equipment.
Best regards,
Christian Gapp, Germany
http://www.pixelphoto.de
|
|
|
| The Eye and the Laws of Optics Are not Obsolete. [message #643 is a reply to message #98 ] |
Fri, 22 April 2005 14:40 |
|
11:09am Mar 12, 2002
I remember to this day, crossing the street at Burrard and Nelson (Vancouver, BC)about 12 years ago with art director/designer Chris Dahl when he told me, "Älex, technology may change but people will always hire us for our eyes." After 28 years as an editorial photographer in Vancouver and as I struggle in the current bad market for photographers I am comforted by Dahl's words that while my equipment is obsolete my eyes aren't. I may be wrong but it would seem that the only thing digital cameras cannot match (yet) is the look of 35mm infrared b+w film.
The extent of my digital involvement is that I scan my 6x7cm transparencies, negs and prints with an Epson 1640SU and I now rarely provide magazines with hard copy (prints or transparencies) as I E-mail everything or in some cases when the files are big I send CD's by courier.
Like Mr. Meyer I, too struggled with bad photo materials in the 60's in Mexico City. The largest photo store at the time, American Photo Supply would sell us Brazilian made Kodak paper. We could never choose the finish as mat or glossy was available in no particular patterns as were the different grades. Upon opening the paper in the darkroom many times the paper was so warped that the only way of placing a sheet on an easel without cracking the emulsion was to first soak the paper in a solution of glycerin and water. I don't grieve for the folks at Kodak. Consider that here in Vancouver Kodak Infrared b+w 35mm film has been back-ordered for months. We don't know when it will become available and the Kodak reps are mostly invisible. Meanwhile the German Macophot IR820c infrared film is avaiable in both 35mm and 120 formats and I am playing around with it.
Mr. Meyer talks of his excitement in the possibilities of digital cameras. After having discovered, on my own, the results of scanning b+w negs as colour negs and playing with the levels in photoshop to get some very nice skin tones I realized I was only at the tip of a huge iceberg of possibility. As soon as digital backs for my 6x7cm camera come down in price I see no reason why I should not at least in part embrace this digital revolution.
While some photographers may point out the pleasure of printing negatives on to paper, the smell of the chemicals, the look of a nicely printed and toned archival print (and I understand this as I still do it) few ever consider that when they shoot a really good slide or transparency the image is finished when the button is pressed. Immediately, that transparency is digitized if is to appear in a paper, magazine or billboard. This has been normal procedure for many years now. For those who have precise shooting habits digital cameras stand to make that job even easier.
The only criticism I can direct at photographers with digital cameras is that some become lazy and don't properly light their photographs. They spend hours trying to correct all that with a computer. Bad photographers will always exist regardless of the quality or type of their equipment.
|
|
|
| Film...probably forever [message #644 is a reply to message #98 ] |
Fri, 22 April 2005 14:46 |
camocanu
Messages: 0
Registered: May 2009 |
|
|
|
11:09am Mar 14, 2002
Painters still have access to pure Belgian linen canvass after 3oo years. Horses still exist and one of my friends uses horses exclusively - and not for religious reasons - just because he likes to and can afford to. Automobilists still possess and drive extraordinarily fine motor cars long after the Golden Age was surpassed by the Rice Burners.
As the digital camera allows everyone to make and publish "pit-churs"
the demand and desire for fine-art photographs will naturally increase but only for wealthy patrons - a small and narrow niche.
Inevitably the digital camera will drive the cost of photographic supplies upward so that only the most gifted can profitably employ them or only the wealthy can afford to "dabble". So be it. That is how things work on this planet and this planet has never been blessed with intelligence. Oh plenty of "peasant craftiness" and an occasional outburst of "native engineering" but no, never the true intellect that considers more than just price.
As for me I shall find some way to continue making 11x14 platinum prints and die happily analog! If they bury or cremate me digitally that is their affair! Edward K. Jellytoes
|
|
|
| Film will probably be around for a while. [message #645 is a reply to message #98 ] |
Fri, 22 April 2005 14:56 |
|
10:35am Mar 26, 2002
Looking at the CCD's avaialble today, high-speed or fine-grained
film still has advantages. The best CCD's can't (yet) match the
speed or clarity of T-MAX, Delta or 64/24 Kodachrome. When they
do -- and I can buy a body and lenses that work equally well as
my Nikons -- I'll be happy to switch.
Even when that happens there will still be times when film works
out better. As the number of pixels goes up, so does the transfer
time and amount of memory required on the flash ROM. With a roll
of film I can grab 5 fps without having to worry about it; with
a CCD there is the latch-and-load cycle that can't be avoided.
Obviously, adding batteries helps this (and the drive mechanism
in my F100 can be replaced with more power cells or an internal
flash to help on this) but the technology for moving data off
the CCD onto flash is still pretty limited.
Lacking a major breakthrough in storage technology this won't
change any time soon. Net result is that professional films
(fast or fine-grained) will likely be readily avialable for
some time to come.
|
|
|
| the death of film [message #646 is a reply to message #98 ] |
Fri, 22 April 2005 15:10 |
|
11:35pm Mar 26, 2002
a) The only person who is shooting a big budget film at the moment on HDTV is George Lucas, who is a special kind of beast. From a technical standpoint Panavision's digital "movie camera" (a tricked out Sony HDTV camera) is years away from replacing a Arri or Panavison. The image is compressed, which makes FX work difficult or impossible and the quality is simply not there, yet.
b) I think you are correct about the amateur consumers going digital. I think we will lose a lot of the variety we see today in available filmstocks. But I believe that film will become a vertical market that caters to artists, hobbiests etc. There are millions of people out there who will absolutly refuse to stop shooting film and they will be supplied by smaller companies. Of course that will drive costs up. I believe that film will continue to be used for a long time in many countries that aren't as digitaly integrated as the United States and Europe.
c) I would bet good money that the last stock to go will be Tri-X.
d) I think the die hards will even go as far as preparing their own glass plates to continue shooting.
e) I'm not anti-digital. I work in the visual effects business and digital is how I make my living.
Cheers,
feli
|
|
|
| How long will film be around [message #647 is a reply to message #98 ] |
Fri, 22 April 2005 15:17 |
|
03:49pm Mar 29, 2002
Anybody try to by any super 8 movie film lately? It's a little difficult to find. This is one clear example of film media being replaced by electronic media even with nice cameras such as the cine bleu around. I have a nice 35mm with all sorts of lenses, etc. but it is retired. My Olympus c-2100 with the equivalent of a 38 to 380 optical zoom weighing much less than just my 80-250 lens alone for my 35mm settled that question for me. It seems the only limit to digital performance is processor speed and memory compaction. Supposedly PC's will ship in just a couple of years with pedobyte hard drives capable of storing all the movies ever produced. With 5 mp cameras available to day, it surely seems that 5, 10 years from now digital cameras will equal or surpass film in performance. I believe there will always be film just like there are still folks who make deguerrotype photos and photographers who can see the difference between photos shot on a Leica vs. a Nikon (I confess I can't). But I believe film cameras in general will go the way of the super 8 movie camera in time.
|
|
|
| Chemical process will last for a while [message #648 is a reply to message #98 ] |
Fri, 22 April 2005 15:21 |
|
01:28am Mar 30, 2002
The only way to work photographic images is on film. Remember, the other process is called digital, no ofense, but there?s no point to compare. Every technique is unique in developing its own language in the hands of the artist.
http://www.123soho.com/member/adriancaldera/body.html.
Take a loock at my work, I?ll apreciate your comments, my own techniques are Caldergrams, Caldercams and straight camera work, that I only can craft with film, photo paper and sensitivity.
Make a photogram and you will discover your inner universe.
Saludos desde la frontera larga.
|
|
|
| Digital Dilemma or Digital Delight [message #649 is a reply to message #98 ] |
Fri, 22 April 2005 17:12 |
|
10:50am Apr 1, 2002
Dear Pedro, Dear People,
I'm most impressed with your web site, your thematic concerns, presentations and philosophy. You've achieved a truly useful and rewarding 'meeting place' for those of us concerned with images, content and media. As a 'newbe' at ZoneZero I've been drawn in by your technology discussions.
The recent 'debate' over the future of film is certainly a major issue. And perhaps I've tuned in a bit late here to join the discussion. But the question, "Is film Doomed?" seems to be part of the daily conjecture in the Hollywood community I inhabit. We all ask if film is fading from our professional and personal lives. And we do that constantly in a perpetually evolving environment. We've been fiddling around with this thesis for a very long time. At this point the fiddling is over and the reality is here. Film's role in the creative processes is certainly going to be much different than it has been, historically. And what if anything will film mean to the creative process in the not too distant future?
As an insufferable film snob for much of my professional life I viewed video as a cheap and dirty cop-out for low budget desperation work. As a producer/director at NBC many years ago I was faced with the changing culture as videotape and electronic editing began to emerge as a viable alternative to film production. "Video" however was mostly a dirty word to accomplished cinematographers, directors, and film school graduates. The very idea of video was disgusting. Of course even the word 'video' was seldom used. It was Television, or it was Film.
Working as a young promo producer for NBC when Laugh In shook up the notion of prime time entertainment, I marveled as editor Art Schneider, sealed in a glass-walled booth with headphones and razor blades, edited that then fast-paced ("jump cut") breakthrough show on unwieldy two inch tape. His "time code" was actually a recorded voice reading numbers at the very edge of the tape or could be jotted down with a pencil by finding videotape's striations (the Edit Sync Guide) with a photographer's Lupe. Even then I began to envision a whole new world of acquisition and presentation. That vision was just a tad premature in the late sixties.
When a careless cameraman or technician tilted a huge video camera down too far allowing debris to contaminate the cesium oxide targets of early image tubes, or when our satellites and astronauts blew out image tubes on the moon by accidentally finding the sun while attempting to capture the unthinkable, we suspected the technology had a ways to go. Well it wasn't all that long before my beloved Panavision and Arriflex cameras, and all my favorite Kodak emulsions, were being used less and less in the press of budgetary realities that demanded extraordinary volume, speed and quality-be-damned. Ah the wisdom of network execs! (Hell, it was only television!) Nonetheless most TV entertainment at that time was filmed then projected via video film chains. (Still is, in fact but sans those rumbling film chains.) As image capturing became more refined and Sony Trinitrons brought much of that new quality into the living room, all that film looked even better.
During this period the only people not concerned with such technological arm waving were the guys and gals in the photo department. If video cameras blew out on the moon, so what? Naturally all those beautiful Hasselblaud shots came back to earth to amaze an entire generation.
I learned lighting from a photographer's and filmmaker's perspective. Hell, what else was there? Lighting for TV was merely mega-wattage banks of tungsten that melted makeup and produced double or triple nose shadows. Hang everything you've got wherever you can, and plug'm in boys! When still photographers came on stage to shoot publicity pictures the first thing they did was have most of that awful lighting flipped off. And they only shot on the TV stages when the 'stars' were much too important to walk the few yards over to the photo studio.
When at last the first decent video cameras finally became available (well after The Full Color Network slogged into sign-on to sign-off Peacock hues) we somehow managed to override union technicians who looked at oscilloscopes, not pictures, and produced moving images that most couldn't tell, nor care which source medium it was. (Did anyone even use the word 'medium' in those days except at séances?) Sure pros saw the difference. But audiences cared nothing about technology if the content captured their interest.
Somewhere along the way one of the propeller-heads back in the electronics shop (early seventies, I think) asked me if I knew anything about "digital" technology. Well, yeah, sure, of course. I was a big cheese then so I must be aware of such things. When he started his query with an analogy of analogue recording I realized that 'digital' didn't have much to do with counting on your fingers. The thing that struck me like a lightening bolt (he was a most credible engineer in spite of the beanie) was his description of how I might change the color of actress's eyes if I so desired. I could make them blue, for example, instead of brown. Digital technology, someday, would track those peepers no matter what the action throughout any scene I might conceive. He even went so far as to suggest that it would be possible to create totally synthetic actors in some kind of computer thingy and do away with all sorts of problems like egos and agents. The eyes thing intrigued me. The make-believe actors, well, that was a bit much. After all, in the early seventies a computer to me was just two things: those screens with glowing green letters at the bank that informed the world I was barely making it, and my $300 Bomar calculator that could actually add, subtract, multiply and if that wasn't enough, divide also!
It was always impressed upon me how time, the only thing of value we actually get to spend, will change the world. My 100% 20th Century Mother was born on a farm by the light of a kerosene lamp. The doctor made a four-hour horse ride to reach the farmhouse. He spent the night, completed his mission, and after a breakfast of grits'n gravy saddled up and rode off at dawn. But my mother lived long enough to see man get off the horse and walk across the moon. Now that's awesome! (the original 'awesome' as defined in Webster's Third Unabridged Dictionary, not the green-haired-pierced-nose "awesome" dude version). -While she did indeed live well into the digital age I doubt she valued anything digital more than flush toilets. Yet anything digital has become my life while I certainly take flush toilets for granted.
Some of my closest associates -who were also great friends and film snobs like me- those who refused to consider electronic alternatives in creating content, over time were gradually forced out of "the business." Their P-Ram's were zapped before they even knew there were such things. Their businesses simply dried up because they not only didn't understand this emerging technology, they didn't have the vocabulary to discuss it, or understand it. Now, any teenager with half a brain can run circles around the digital me, whipping through sophisticated programs that mystify me and thus create anguish and doubts about my sanity or intelligence. Kids today take computers for granted and so naturally focus on what can be done with them.
But the fact remains I'm busy! I'm producing tons of stuff, nice stuff with pretty pictures and fantastic sound. I'm working almost totally alone, sailing yachts across the Pacific, trudging through rain forests on Samoa and bringing back fantastic footage that stands up to (almost) any fine film work. My new footage now costs a mere pittance. When I call, "roll'm" I no longer get knots in my stomach. If I shoot 40 hours to capture one great moment of a blue whale surfacing after diving for krill I will not need to mortgage my home. I can afford to let the camera run, and run, until that damn three-toed sloth finally moves! Because my cameras run lots and long I have astonishing 'accidents.' Naturally I embellish such accidental results with stories of heroic efforts to capture the impossible. It's a wonderful life, finally! I do, however, miss my marvelous crews, friends, those who could tell me when I had my head up my ass. (There's something so special about that 'campfire camaraderie.' It's the only element that's truly irreplaceable.) Nonetheless, working at home in my underwear and editing, creating titles and special effects, then walking out the door (usually fully dressed) with a finished digital master that can become a theatrical film, a TV show, a commercial, a DVD, well gee, who can argue with this? My ego long ago recovered from the lack of Panavision, an Arri or Eclair and Kodak's 5248. (It's what's on the screen that counts, stupid!)
I was born in a hospital in L.A. The closest horse was for rent in Griffith Park. A freeway was already zipping from Pasadena to downtown L.A. Toilets flushed. My dad gave me my first camera not long after I learned to walk. Flash bulbs looked like light bulbs stuffed with tin foil and screwed into light sockets. You could somehow push that little lever down holding the shutter of the Kodak box camera open, flip on the light switch and scare the krap outta your mom. This explains all those deckle-edged prints of a woman in constant mortal fright that grace our family photo albums. A bit later on I briefly manned a six foot high, one-ton RCA TK-44 camera, a behemoth about the size of a fork lift, shoving it around a stage at NBC Burbank under lights that could bake a turkey while making fuzzy colored pictures only after a whole bunch of tubes, cables, scopes, mysterious switch panels and power units behaved correctly. More recently I captured a spectacular, high resolution, wide screen digital sequence of a volcanic eruption with a camera carried in my shaving kit. Another accident. And it's truly awesome!
My talented brother-in-law flies around on Air Force One. Before George W. lands pictures of our President in lofty action can become central to a cover or page layout at U.S News & World Report -if it's all that important. This is a not-so-secret process, any more. Who's got time to deal with labs and messengers when cyber space carries superb images everywhere instantly? Proof sheets? What? And on the other side of this equation, the money side, one guy with a digital camera and a laptop is the pool photographer for U.S News, Time, Newsweek, and others, sending a flood of coverage to all yet giving each of them instant choices to avoid duplication thus preserving their cherished 'exclusive' status while cutting major costs from the process.
Perhaps the suits in the accounting office have as much to say about the future of film as anyone. Once upon a time I upset the suits at Disney with a film budget that was only a fraction of the cost of P&A (prints and advertising). I was extremely proud of the fact that I could produce a major motion picture for only a few million dollars. I think I knew what I was doing and I certainly understood how to manage production budgets. But the studio was flummoxed by the fact that releasing the picture would cost many times more than the production. How could that be? Duh. They killed it. (If I listed the cast, you'd be amazed.)
Today George Lucas is disappointed that his next HDTV originated Star Wars release will not be distributed via fiber optic channels and projected digitally as planned. It's not the technology. That's already with us. The infrastructure hasn't quite caught up. But it will, and soon. HDTV will bring to the living room better images and sound than most of those 30-in-1 Cineplex's. To attract audiences willing to pay baby sitters $20 an hour theaters will need to present amazing experiences, perhaps something short of Huxley's 'feelies,' but not so far from the present Imax impact. Studio accountants will salivate over the huge savings in release prints when Spielberg's next epic is slated for 3300 venues on a weekend when this can be accomplished with a single, or maybe several, electronic masters. And perhaps one day, should I ever be nuts enough to come out of the rain forest, 21st Century Disney would be delighted if I chose once again to present them with a production budget of only ten million for a quality 'film.'
It's been at least eight or nine years since I first hoisted an HDTV camera on my shoulder, one married to a delicious Panavision lens, and saw a fantastic, filmic image appear on a twenty-foot wide screen. About five years ago I sat in the projection room at Sony's High Def Lab in Culver City and witnessed split screen comparisons of 35 and 70 mm film with scenes transferred from Digital Betacam, DVCAM, and HD originations. It was so damn good then and it's so much finer now. Working with today's digital photography I use lots of diffusion and post production tricks to mimic a film look. Why is it that degrading the apparent resolution of digital video makes viewers think it's film when film's resolution is vastly more finite, theoretically?
Well I guess I actually don't have a clue what the future of film will be. I do know that film production and photography as we know it will change drastically. Financially and creatively the digital domain gives us a wealth of choices with very few compromises. Technology lurching around the corner will, within months, not years, kick us up another flight in quality and flexibility. I believe most of us will be working digitally in the future whether we like it or not. But how can we not absolutely love it? Personally, I have never experienced such freedom nor enjoyed such a level of spontaneous expression before. It's gets better with every day I devote to the advancement of my technological understanding.
Still there's that 'thing' about film. I have yet to satisfy myself trying to produce the same results in still photography that I achieved using Panatomic X so long ago. That is, I can't yet do it in my home studio with reasonably priced printers. Sure, I see it on the Apple Cinema Display, but it doesn't yet come out of my Epson printers as I'd like it. So whose fault is that? Viewing an original Ansel Adams print or the works of Edward Curtis; watching the brilliant cinematography of a James Wong Howe, a Terence Malick, Gordon Willis, and, oh hell, there are way too many to list here but you know what I mean anyway. God, I do love film! But digital is the future. Digital is now. And that's fine with me.
Maybe for those of us with a bit of history behind us it comes down to this: Film is something tangible. We can hold it, feel it, and love it. It will always (for our generation) be the standard by which we measure everything we produce in the future. Anything digital might only be a practical reality but it's one that does indeed let us fall in love with our work. We can produce much more work or just fiddle around till the cows come home without a second thought. We might even have a few splendid 'accidents.' It also puts that need for creative expression within the reach of almost anyone. Think of how many Orson Wells' or Akira Kurosawas or Frank Capas we'll get to know in the future. That's exciting.
On another level I'll leave you with an image I captured only last weekend. This is just a mental image, but significant, I think.
I have a 20 month-old grandson. Therefore I found myself, for goodness sakes, at Disneyland for the first time in twenty years without being paid to go there. Strolling down Uncle Walt's Main Street I saw the usual snap-snapping of snapshots with kids and family groups clustered around Goofy and Pluto. But now after each flash everyone rushes to the camera to see the results on little LCD screens, giggling or scowling, and usually doing it all over again. Snap, snap, giggle.
What stopped me, what captured my interest was that this too familiar, so mundane ritual was taking place in front of the nearly empty "Kodak Store."
-Tom Moody, March 28, 2002
|
|
|
| A Time to Reflect [message #650 is a reply to message #98 ] |
Fri, 22 April 2005 17:28 |
|
11:30am Apr 1, 2002
I know that what I'm about to write as well as the attached photo don't really fit in with Pedro's last editorial "How Long Will Film Be Around". Nevertheless, here goes ...
I took a photo (attached) a few weeks ago in the Liberty City area of Miami (a predominately African-American community) that caused me to reflect. In a few days (April 4) it will be the 34th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King's assassination and with all the violence going on in the world today and the extremely high levels of testosterone and penchant for war by many of the world's leaders (especially our own), I thought it might not be a bad time to remember these profound words of Dr. King:
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction ... The chain reaction of evil - hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars - must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the darkness ... of annihilation." ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
In retrospect, perhaps this little commentary does belong here because if we (the human race) can't get along a little better than we've been doing, we won't have to worry about how long film will be around.
Peter Singhofen
Just a guy from Winter Park
[Updated on: Fri, 22 April 2005 17:36]
|
|
|
| Your ZoneZero article [message #651 is a reply to message #98 ] |
Fri, 22 April 2005 17:39 |
|
10:17am Apr 3, 2002
How very appropriate. You make an excellent, and moving, point given the events of these recent days, and months. Thanks.
|
|
|
| Digital photography as the replacement media for photography [message #652 is a reply to message #98 ] |
Fri, 22 April 2005 18:44 |
|
04:20am Apr 17, 2002
My name is Barry Patman, I am from Plumpton NSW Australia.
Recently I went to the photo show in Sydney, a much smaller version of Photokina.
On the Ilford Stand they seemed more interested in colour prints than black & white. There was no digital black & white photos on display, I asked representatives if Ilford had tried their Gallerie Digital Paper in black & white, to my surprise they had not. I then asked them if Ilford thought black & white was going to disappear as digital became more popular. They could not give me a straight answer, the best they could say was, we think Canon has tried something on black & white.
It is hard to know what to make of it. Black & white exhibitions are going gang busters in Sydney and Melbourne at present and I believe it is the same in New York, Boston & Chicago, to name a few.
Regards,
Barry Patman.
|
|
|
| Re: The Eye and the Laws of Optics Are not Obsolete. [message #653 is a reply to message #643 ] |
Fri, 22 April 2005 18:47 |
|
11:56pm Jan 2, 2003
Alex,
You should have a look at digital IR images shot with mainstream digital cameras, both SLRs and point and shoots. Try Issue 1 of Digital ImageMaker International at www.dimagemaker.com, page 60 onwards for some examples. Grab the higher res .SIT or .ZIP compressed version.
Shooting IR with a modern digital SLR sure beats the uncertainty of IR film.
Cheers,
Wayne
|
|
|
| Best of both worlds? Digitized slides? [message #654 is a reply to message #98 ] |
Fri, 22 April 2005 18:49 |
|
03:03am Feb 8, 2003
I work at a wealthy museum in a wealthy country (Japan) and have been able to have my research slides copied and digitised onto CDs. Using only standard rather than professional grade digitising reduced the cost a bit, but it is still expensive. I like the result - I have an instant visual catalogue of my photo collection, and can sort multiple copies into different themes, with numbers automatically assigned to each photograph. The quality is good enough for websites. And I have a physical copy, the slide, that is good for at least twenty years with no software or computer upgrades. Is something like this affordable for people in Bangladesh and other countries? It might be interesting to post an international chart of the costs of doing photography in different countries.
|
|
|
| The revolution is over. [message #655 is a reply to message #98 ] |
Fri, 22 April 2005 18:51 |
|
08:51am Feb 23, 2003
I have been a serious amateur photographer for about 40 years, and recently discovered that I can make a better b&w print from my negatives using a film scanner and an ink jet printer than I could with an enlarger and the photo-chemical process. Since I've never printed colour, the digital tools have given me a capability I didn't previously have.
Is a digital camera in my future? Certainly, when I can afford one as good as (or better than) the film cameras I use.
A camera is a tool to make a picture.
|
|
|
| Film Forever [message #656 is a reply to message #98 ] |
Fri, 22 April 2005 18:56 |
|
03:53pm Mar 18, 2003
Who cares if digital cameras have higher resolution than film, digital just doesn't look as good. Last I checked, my face wasn't composed of jagged lines, so neither should pictures of my face.
With more and more people getting into digital, their acceptence of bad pictures has gone up. "I can just fix it with the computer later." What ever happened to skill?
Why not just forget all the techno mumbo jumbo, throw away the computer, and just take a picture.
|
|
|
| Trying to reach Pedro Meyer [message #657 is a reply to message #98 ] |
Fri, 22 April 2005 19:00 |
|
05:00pm Aug 4, 2003
Trying to reach Pedro Meyer. When I was Editor of Popular Photography, I shared a birthday (just day/month) and long friendship with Norman Rothschild, one of our editors and columnists. I seem to recall his often mentioning the work of Pedro Meyer, whom he knew and I didn't. I just saw Pedro's comments in the current 'Smart Computing' and wondered if this is the same Pedro that Norman knew. It has been 20 years since I left Pop Photo and Norman has been gone for at least 6 years now. If this reaches you, Pedro, I'd enjoy a response Ken Poli
|
|
|
| Re: Film Forever [message #658 is a reply to message #656 ] |
Fri, 22 April 2005 19:06 |
|
05:04pm Aug 4, 2003
Dan: Is your face composed of millions of microscopic grains of metallic silver? Just wondering..... Ken Poli
|
|
|
| PHOTOGRAPHER [message #659 is a reply to message #98 ] |
Fri, 22 April 2005 19:13 |
|
12:16pm Nov 11, 2003
Actually, film still has a higher resolution than digital - especially with the new improved "F" films from Fuji. Remember, with film you are recording the shot with molecules, whereas the sensors in digital cameras are composed of groups of molecules!
Respectfully,
JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER
http://www.musecube.com/JAYcarreon
|
|
|
| the digital tiranny [message #660 is a reply to message #98 ] |
Fri, 22 April 2005 19:16 |
|
02:31pm Mar 24, 2004
I think we should all get along and live and let live.
In an ideal world everyone should have a choice to shoot
on what ever he likes,be it film or digital.
In reality everyone just keeps attacking the other side.
and everyone keeps repeating the same old arguments.
Film people speak about quality,and digital people speak about
on site monitoring and revolutions.
If everyone one would be a bit less egoistic they would
hope for a future in which digital would be a lot cheaper,and
film labs would still offer negative developing for decades
from now.
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Nov 22 02:54:25 EST 2009
|
Members
Search
FAQ
Register
Login
Home
How long will film be around?
