Thanks, William. I didn't have the clearness of mind to undress the column like that. I think you hit just about every point that unsettled me about it.
However, I'm not completely in line with you about reversal films. People like to come together and watch photos together, and neither C41 or digital has options that match color reversal film yet. The projector quality is improving, but has still a way to go. 1024x768 isn't exactly in line with slide film. When a satisfactory level of quality is reached, another few years will pass before prices drop. I think slide film will hang in there at least until then, and I think that day is a good while away yet. cheers, Jostein ----------------------------- Pictures at: http://oksne.net ----------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 4:11 PM Subject: Re: The Decline and Fall of Film > Allow me to pick at the column a bit first. > I don't think 35mm was a flash in the pan for amateurs. > It has been the mainstream format of choice for amateurs for some 50 years > now. > It became that because it was "what the pros's (read photojournalists) are > using" > Hardly a flash in the pan. > > The real flash in the pan format was disc, and I think APS is going to turn > into one as well. > > The Canon AE-1 represents the beginning of the dumbing down of amateurs. > > Now pros are being pushed into digital cameras, for all the reasons stated. > Amateur consumers will go the same way, because it is "what the pros (no > longer just photojournalists either) are using". > > Does anyone really think that Nikon was the camera brand of choice for the > advanced amateur photographer because the FG was a good camera? > It was because it was the brand of choice for the pros, and amateurs like > the cachet value of that. > Digital has the same cachet value, and in many ways the same comparative > quality as an FG. > > I don't know about his reasons for why amateurs cling to film. I don't think > it is about scanning, but if it is, consumer scanners produce similar file > sizes as 6mp cameras, but also have lots of baggage caused by the mismatch > of technology. > Digital makes more sense if you want to import images into a computer. > > C-41 processing is neither toxic, exacting, nor particularly unpleasant. I > think this line might be something that the lab industry has propogated to > protect their territory. > Formaldhyde hasn't been used in C-41 for close to a decade. > > He is right about lab quality being a problem, but as long as consumers > don't demand more quality, and show they are willing to pay for it, the > quality issues surrounding mini labs will only continue to get worse. > I don't see it resolving, myself. The good lab techs are finding other > things to do, or are getting older and are retiring. > In my city, I don't think there are more than a dozen people working in the > industry today that were in it 10 years ago. > > 120 black and white will survive, as will large format black and white. Both > have been niche markets for a very long time already. > 35mm colour print film will survive in some form for as long as enough > people buy the stuff. What will happen is that the number of choices will > start to dry up. > 35mm black and white will probably be around, with the same caveats on > supply. > Both are mature technologies, and are relatively cheap to produce. > Don't be surprised though, if the film you buy in 2012 was manufactured in > 2005, and the master rolls were stored cold until they were needed. > Reversal film still concerns me for lifespan in htis new world of imaging. > It has been a nich market unto itself, albeit a very large one. > I read some PMA figures a number of years ago, prior to any sort of digital > imaging being available. > At that time, less than 5% of film being shot was reversal, and amateur use > was less than 5% of that. > As pro's move more and more into digital, I think reversal film will become > even more marginalized. > > One thing that wasn't touched on in Dante Stella's article was what the lab > industry is involved in, other than taking a few swipes at the people > working in it. > The lab industry is actively behind digital imaging. > We want rid of film. > Film means one more machine to break down, one more set of chenicals to > stock and keep in control, and there are several downsides to film handling, > as it is quite delicate. > Photo labs are now pretty high pressure work environments, and one of the > first things to be lost when people have to work harder and faster than they > were deisgned to is care for the product they are handling. > As a photofinisher, film could go away tomorrow, and I would be a lot > happier. > > William Robb > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jostein" > Subject: Re: The Decline and Fall of Film > > > > Here's my opinion: > > > > Every columnist, that link included, discusssing digital use > heaven-or-hell > > scenarios. We have read praises of digital in the hundreds, I'm sure. Now > > comes the doomsday prophets telling us how bad things "really are". Sure > > each side have lots of market economy arguments, but so what? > > > > Film is going to exist for many years yet, for the same reasons that we > use > > Pentax. Some of us are just plain old loyal users, some of us honestly > think > > it's the best thing in the world, some of us are just resilient to change, > > and some of us just hate to be mainstream. >
