burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Where do you get your data?

Kodak (Alaris) have discontinued all their slide films. They only make a few amateur films and a few portrait films.

The few motion picture stocks made are being replaced by digital means in most cases. While a few old directors cling to what they know, almost all the younger ones are using digital capture. They use film recorders to produce projectable prints, when needed.

Over half the world's theaters now use digital projectors, and the figure is over three quarters, here in the USA.

Leitz Loc: Solms

Digital is great. Film is great. I shoot more film because I prefer it to digital. Not particularly interested in what anyone else uses!

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Amen, to the whole niche market concept. No medium ever killed off an older medium entirely... just practically! You know a medium is "dead" when it has only a niche market.

In blind tests, no one can hear the difference a conductor type makes. However, in blind tests, most folks do prefer the sound of tube pre-amps and amplifiers. It turns out that harmonic distortion is a good musical thing... Which is why high end audio companies like Universal Audio still make tube gear. But they also emulate some of it in software plug-ins for digital audio workstations! As it turns out, the computer can model tube performance with a finer degree of creative control than we had with genuine tubes.

I remember my first AM crystal radio and portable transistor radio. I also remember my first stereo receiver in 1974, and I enjoyed it a heck of a lot more than the AM sets!

One of the biggest misconceptions of digital imaging is that it necessarily has a "hard edge" or a "more granular look" than film imaging. Well, it doesn't have to. As with most art forms, *how you use* the medium to convey the message is key. The medium is NOT the message.

I've seen large digital prints that sold for $10,000 to $30,000 each. I would defy anyone to tell whether they were made by optical or digital means. They were just good prints, made by a master photographer, in his den or spare bedroom, on an Epson.

exposeu Loc: Wenatchee, WA

My digital cameras, various Nikon and Olympus cameras have come and gone. Staying with Olympus now, OMD EM-5 and enjoy it the most. But as the saying goes, " you will have to pry my Hasselblads from my cold dead hands."

Randy

RobertW Loc: Breezy Point, New York

No--don't have a SPARE 20K for a combo Hassy despite my love for the Hassies I used for years. My photography (at 80) is now for my own pleasure and no longer "For the Record", and my EM1, my LeicaDLux6 and my Minox IIIS will satisfy all my needs- admirably too!

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Kodak is primarily a brand name licensing company now, not a manufacturer. The true manufactiring companies are the ones to look at. Ferrania are in the process of opening another factory in Italy to keep up with demand. And Illford expanded its facitlites very recently for the same reason. A number of Chinese companies are doing quite well, with steadily increasing exports. Consumer demand for reversal film has been diminishing, but not so with negative film. This shift shouldn't really come as a surprise, as the consumer base has shifted from professional to hobbyists. Every year, new films are released on the market. Not all make it to the U.S., but they are available in Europe and Asia.

Certainly possible that film photography may dissappear altogether at sometime in the future. But that this will occur within the next few years is very unlikely. At present, the signs are just not there. Trends in the motion picture industry do not necessarily dictate or equate to what happens or will happen in photography. The consumer base is very different.

UXOEOD

Some poster here sound like they long for the good old days when you could get a shave, a haircut, a tooth pulled, abd brain surgery at the corner barbershop. If you want to compare photography to Da Vinci, you won't find any artists that mix thier own paints, which he had to.

Yes, film is still available, so is tin, and there are still a few who do tin-type photography.

On an extremely routine basis we unskilled amatures do things that Mr A Adams would have given a limb to be able to do. Enjoy technology, and put the old grey mare out to pasture, the age of the steam tractor has changed farming forever!

Welcome to 2015!

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

Keep in mind that silver gelatin film and paper and digital are but two of several photographic processes. Film replaced glass plates yet Slavich still makes commercial glass plates and many people are making silver gelatin emulsions for plates at home.

Here is a list of photographic processes off the top of my head, most of these if not all are done by someone today.

Calotype, Daguerreotype. Salt Print, Cyanotype, Van Dyke, Wetplate Collodion (Ambrotype and Tintype), Dryplate Colloion, Gum Dichromate, Kallitype, Platnium/ Palladium, Copperplate Photogravure, Polymerplate Photogravure, Photolithograph, Bromoil, Woodburytype, Ziatype, Anthotype, Autochrome, Opaltype, Silver Gelatin Dryplate, Carbon Print, Dye Transfer, and Chrysotype.

This list is not exhaustive. These are ones that came to mind easily. With all of these I know someone that does and I have done quite a few. I don't think film is going away anytime soon. Take a look at the classes that George Eastman House offers

Here is a good source to see what processes are in use

http://www.alternativephotography.com/wp/processes/all-articles

Leitz Loc: Solms

I get a kick out of these inane comments from those who pretend to know what's best for everyone else! :lol:

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

There is a time to follow the crowd, and a time to do one's own thing.

Unfortunately, there are some who cannot tell the difference of circumstance. And, the circumstances of one are not the same as another's.

We can provide advice, guidance, and view points. We cannot grant wisdom.

The good news for those who wish to work with film is that the EQUIPMENT is very inexpensive, and very plentiful!

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

a

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

a

just so you are aware, an 16x24 inch print, with a 6x6 negarive or transparence will give you 472 dots per inch. with a 63 megapixel digital imaging device you only get 406 dots per inch - just imagine the "information" lost in the digital print!
as for cameras, i'd go with a mamiya 645 or the rz 6x7. the reason being the bronicas are not all that dependable - never were. these days a used hasselblad is a real steal and the lens system cannot be bettered. any way you go, all the best. let me know if i can assist in any way.
kindest regards,
cody

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Cameras don't record "dots." Some printers do print with dots.

Just imagine that the average human can see more than 250 *pixels* (of original, recorded-in-camera detail) per inch at a normal viewing distance for an 8x10!

Well, we CAN'T, or so Kodak proved in their digital imaging research back in the late 1990s...

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

My 11"x17" lcd monitor at 1680 x 1050 resoluion works out to 99 x 95 pixels per square inch. Since I don't print anything, that's as much detail that is available to me. A full screen image is just 1.76 MP.Pretty much a 2MP image is going to look the same as a 200MP image. But esthetically I still like the way film looks.
Bob

BebuLamar

I like digital but I want to be able to continue to use film. I hate the fact that the situation now forcing me to abandon film. The price of film and processing is very high. I couldn't even get B&H to ship my color chemistry to to it myself.