how long will they keep producing?

[Knikki]

sorry i actually meant 35mm Cameras. i might be wrong but i am sure i heard that somewhere (possibly in the Independant)

HMM! now there is an interesting one:

Nikon still make the F6 but I think it will there last 35mm machine.

However Voigtlander are still making 35mm cameras with there Bressa range of rangefinder machines and are up to R4 models now.

Zeiss have recently released the Ikon rangefinder machines and I think Leica still make the M7 and R9 35mm machines.

 

[feeb]

are they still producing them then? wow, i thought all production of 35mm had ceased. I do think if they have, there will definatly be a comeback in a few years time... will just have to see!

 

[donut]

do i detect a slight change of direction ?

film is dead ,,,, long live film

 

[feeb]

no i do think that some specialists will still use film cameras, i also think that somewhere down the line they will even be produced again, but not on nearly as massive a basis as they have been produced

it will just be alot more specialist and possibly eventually even really hard to do

 

[ab$olut]

hello Fi , sorry if you thought i was shouting at you ,you just happened to be nearby as i raised my voice . just because digital is going to get better than film ( if it isnt already )wont stop me wanting to use it ,,the point i am trying to make is that i like film and will end up fighting someone out there for the last roll of it to be made ,as said by someone earlier , they drive an old vw bug , because they like it ,dont have to ,but they want to ,well i will use film because i want to . and im just wondering why you are looking forward to using a dying system ? ( that'ill be mf )

Pretty much summed up my opinion.

I'm 20 and Like film and older cars I love the fact its analog.

There will also always be younger people like myself who also want to do it how it was orginally will it keep film going? probally not So I say enjoy it while it lasts however long that is!

Digital is still a long way off and digital compacts even further to getting anywhere near film.

 

[feeb]

yep, digi has a while to go before its got anywhere near the quality of film. but it will get there and film wont get any better because there simply isnt the money involved to warrent it.

 

[Kev M]

film wont get any better because there simply isnt the money involved to warrent it.

How do you think film needs to get better, what's wrong with it at the minute?

 

[feeb]

its not that i think it needs to get better, its that i think that sooner or later, digital will catch it up.

if it was getting better at the same rate that digital is, then that would be a long way off, but as it is, film is not getting improved at nearly the same rate, and will therefore one day be matched and then bettered by digital.

 

[joxby]

Why do you keep using "better" to support you're opinion.
This isn't the start of a pixel v silver crystal war, its about a ridiculously narrow point of view.
Is that all it is, a quality measurement, digital will "take over" when sensors are good enough.
There's another one "take over"...take over what ? world domination (it all ready has), my overdraft (well its certainly related).

Digital doesn't replace film for me because it doesn't produce anything without an inkjet, you can shoot as many as you like but 99.9% will exist only in virtual reality.
Film by its very nature has to exist as a physical thing, that you made, that you can see and touch at the same time, it cannot be made and not exist in reality.
So which is better, a thousand fabulous digital files displayed on a screen, or one fabulous slide you can see and touch in real life ?
"Better" is an opinion not a fact, and not a solid foundation to build an argument on.
You are mistaken if you think film is the preserve of an older generation, the younger lot (when they get their heads out of their arses), will be able to appreciate the qualities of film in the same numbers as the older end trying film after digital, there's no reason why they shouldn't after all "what's age got to do with anything"...right.

Kev's nijahd me...

 

[joxby]

This article was in AP, 1 month ago

Whilst it is kinda self serving, (Kodak do want to improve their market), I think if there really was no improvement, they wouldn't try to flog a dead horse.

 

[feeb]

Why do you keep using "better" to support you're opinion.

i mean more developed, i mean that digital photography is making massive amounts of money so many many people are being paid to make it better, that might still be true on a smaller level with film, but not nearly as much as with digital.

This isn't the start of a pixel v silver crystal war, its about a ridiculously narrow point of view.

No there is no War, both are the same, digital has come from film and will eventually be at a point where it can take things further, simply because more people are using digital cameras, than they are film.

i am going to ignore your petty insult its just useless when i have expressed my point of view here and discussed it enough for it to be quite obvious that i am not narrow minded! i just have a different perspective to you, get over it.

Is that all it is, a quality measurement, digital will "take over" when sensors are good enough.

yes quality is a measurement, along with affordablity, reliablity and also how useful they are to professionals and amateurs alike.

There's another one "take over"...take over what ? world domination (it all ready has), my overdraft (well its certainly related).

this seems to be senseless playground dribble. i'll move on.

Digital doesn't replace film for me because it doesn't produce anything without an inkjet, you can shoot as many as you like but 99.9% will exist only in virtual reality.

there are obvious pros and cons to this, yes its true that more images will be produced out of cyber space, but are they neccessarily better pictures? isnt it nice to be able to manipulate and play with images indefinatly and have the opportunity to use the basic information again and again and again? its personal preference, and unfortunatly personal preference and general preference are very different, i am not suggesting you change your personal preference, only that the general consensous is very different.

Film by its very nature has to exist as a physical thing, that you made, that you can see and touch at the same time, it cannot be made and not exist in reality.

really does depend what you consider reality, see above.

So which is better, a thousand fabulous digital files displayed on a screen, or one fabulous slide you can see and touch in real life ?

depends who you are and what you like, what your in it for.

"Better" is an opinion not a fact, and not a solid foundation to build an argument on.

i have based my debate on many factors which i have discussed here without resorting to playground mudslinging. if thats not apparent to you, i suggest you read my posts again.

You are mistaken if you think film is the preserve of an older generation, the younger lot (when they get their heads out of their arses), will be able to appreciate the qualities of film in the same numbers as the older end trying film after digital, there's no reason why they shouldn't after all "what's age got to do with anything"...right.

i have heard younger people say the polar opposite of that, unfortunatly the younger generations are more and more used to a digital world, so less and less are interested in film. I am not talking about immediate change, i am talking about generations of development of digital, and less and less interest in film. considering that 10 years ago everyone was using film and now a huge portion of the market is using digital. Its fairly obvious which ways its going to go.

 

[joxby]

Oh, I'm disappointed
This was you're big chance to cast off the wiff of troll that's been following you around.

I guess I owe Sprog an apology

 

[sprog]

Accepted.

Do not feed the trolls.

 

[Knikki]

Gee people this is going round and round and round can we PLEASE come to some agrement?

1) Film will still be around for some time yet

2) Digital has the upper hand (and has for sometime) for use in the commercial world and currently people believe it has a way to go to match film.

3) Some people like using film NO MATTER WHAT AGE YOU ARE.(look at how many film groups are on Flickr and a real cross section of ages on there)

4) Just because one college has darkrooms that are not used DOES not mean all darkrooms are not used.

5) Commercial mostly use digital simple because of 'time' and is quicker to get the images to the client.

6) Sometimes things said on forums may not be what the person means and can be mis-interperted and not an insult.

7) No matter what you use to create your image lets just help each other out.

If you do not agree with some OR all of the things above then I am coming around with a wet fish

 

[feeb]

look guys i am a human being and you have NO RIGHT to suggest i am a troll just because i happen to have a different opinion to you

tell me, how is that not highly insulting!

WTF guys!

 

[Kev M]

i mean more developed, i mean that digital photography is making massive amounts of money so many many people are being paid to make it better, that might still be true on a smaller level with film, but not nearly as much as with digital.

I've seen you mention this thing about the lack of film development compared to digital quite a few times but I don't think you're looking at them in the right sense. To compare the two would be like comparing the development of horse drawn carts to that of cars. That might seem like a flippant comment but hear me out.

Film has been around for something like 150 years now and digital about15. I don't do photography history so I might be a little bit out with these numbers. Ergo, most of the development in film has already been done, much like the development of horse drawn carts, now it's down to fine tuning more. Therefore you won't see the leaps forward in film (or horse drawn carts) like you will in digital. This is why I think that if you're looking for proof that film is a dying breed then you're looking at the wrong yardstick with which to measure it.


Fast forward 100 years and where will digital be? Superceded by the next technology perhaps and if any of us are still alive we can wonder why Canikon are still flogging the digital horse which was soooo last century.

 

[feeb]

hi Kev - my point is that digital is the next evolution of film, we wouldnt have got to digital without film being around.

i suppose its more evident in moving film. High quality film recording is much much better than low quality digital recording, but there is more opportunity for digital to improve endlessly, whereas some will argue that film has had its day.

it was only around 50 years ago that film photography became a household thing, now in a mere 10 years, digital as totally, totally taken over.

Thing is, how many horse drawn carts do you see on the road? very few i reckon, its a specialist thing (i know a fair few people with horsedrawns, but they are more the hippie traveller types than big road users.

i think films biggest downfall is that you will need a company to mass produce film, chemicals and paper for it to be viable to do it on any level

if the money isnt there (i.e the interested to do it on a broad scale) then less and less people are going to be prepared to base companies on it.

this is why i think it will make a comeback in a few years, eventually everyone will stop making stuff, demand willl rise among the purists and someone, somewhere will eventually start producing these things again.

i see digital as an evolution of film, not an opposing force and i think if it improves in its first 20 years, as much as film did in its first 100, then we wil find ourselves with remarkable digital equipment and not much use for film.

who knows where it will all be in 100 years, perhaps somewhere none of us dreamed off, but we have all embraced the digital bandwagon, and i am sure if something cooler comes along, we will be first in line to try it out.

be funny if there are digital purists out there then, bleating on about their forgotten art and how 'its never going to change ever' fact is, photography and its processes has been changing since it began. this is just another step forward of that, and nothing to be fighting about

Fi x

 

[Matt]

can we avoid calling fellow members trolls please?

 

[Kev M]

hi Kev - my point is that digital is the next evolution of film, we wouldnt have got to digital without film being around.

i suppose its more evident in moving film. High quality film recording is much much better than low quality digital recording, but there is more opportunity for digital to improve endlessly, whereas some will argue that film has had its day.

Had its day in terms of evolutionary development possibly but I don't believe its had its day in terms of use nor will it for a long time to come. To be honest I don't hear people clammering for advances in film technology like they do digital. They are happy with what is out there so what really needs developing in terms of film technology?

it was only around 50 years ago that film photography became a household thing, now in a mere 10 years, digital as totally, totally taken over.

I agree that it has probably taken over in terms of introucing people to the photography market but not in a digital has taken over all photography kind of sense. Digital photography is easy (relatively) compared to film photography but as new digital photographers search for new challenges and ways in which they push themselves then these people (myself included in this) are trying film that would never have even bothered with photography let alone film in any serious way before.

Thing is, how many horse drawn carts do you see on the road? very few i reckon, its a specialist thing (i know a fair few people with horsedrawns, but they are more the hippie traveller types than big road users.

Sort of my point, you don't see many but you do see them occasionally and whilst there's probably nothing left to develop in the terms of carts, whilst there is a demand for them there will be a supply.

i think films biggest downfall is that you will need a company to mass produce film, chemicals and paper for it to be viable to do it on any level

Someone recently commented on here that the only future they saw for film was in scanning. If you think about that then you no longer need the specialist papers and chemicals for printing all you need is for the film to be prodced and the developing chemicals. That way you can uitilise the digital technology to enjoy your pictures in the same way but to keep the challenges involved with shooting film. Neither film nor digital need to e mutually exclusive and whilst scanning and printing on inkjets isn't going to placate the purists it allows people like me to enjoy something I never would have without a scanner and printer.

if the money isnt there (i.e the interested to do it on a broad scale) then less and less people are going to be prepared to base companies on it.

this is why i think it will make a comeback in a few years, eventually everyone will stop making stuff, demand willl rise among the purists and someone, somewhere will eventually start producing these things again.

I don't think there will ever be a total stop in the production of film and chemicals. Take a company like Kodak for example, because they develop a film they need to recoup the R&D costs as well as the manufacturing costs. they are also a masive company with massive overheads. If a film no longer becomes viable for them then they could sell the rights to that film for another company to produce it. Because the 2nd company has no R&D costs to recoup then it will be cheaper for them to produce and can therefore be sold at the same price point or cheaper and hopefully satisfying demand at the same time.

i see digital as an evolution of film, not an opposing force and i think if it improves in its first 20 years, as much as film did in its first 100, then we wil find ourselves with remarkable digital equipment and not much use for film.

Here is where I think you miss the point of some people and there reasons for shooting film. It's not all about the quality of the final product for everybody out there. The most fun I've had in a long time was with a Lubitel that someone on here donated to me. In case you don't know what a Lubitel is it's a Russian built twin lens reflex MF camera, takes pictures not too dissimilar to a Holga but looks less like a toy. I double exposed shots by accident, I wound the film on without taking a shot, I made all sorts of mistakes and do you know what I loved every minute of it and here's why.

I had no self imposed pressure to produce anything of quality like I do with a digital camera. There's no real excuse for poor digital photos from an SLR these days to a large extent. The cameras are clever, APS-C uses thebest part of the glass and with instant feedback you can easily make adjustments and do it again at zero cost. When you think like this and still produce large scale mediocrity when people out there are using the same kit with better results you can become dispondant. When you can't get the instant feedback then you're (well me anyway) going to be less hard on yourself when it's not quite perfect and as pressure goes down enjoyment goes up.

be funny if there are digital purists out there then, bleating on about their forgotten art and how 'its never going to change ever' fact is, photography and its processes has been changing since it began. this is just another step forward of that, and nothing to be fighting about

Fi x

I will say though that the arguments involving pros and amatuers and their respective usage of film will probably be very different and whilst pro use of film for commercial use may be on the decline it doesn't mean the market as a whole is and doesn't sound the death knell for the industry just yet

 

[CT]

Pretty good joined-up writing there Kev.

 

[whiteflyer]

Is this not the same as in music.

Long live the CD the vinyl LP is dead.

If there is a demand they will produce, that why bigger artists release albums on both formats now, and turntable sale are on the increase.

The same will happen to 35mm

 

[feeb]

i think there is definatly two sides to the argument, unfortunatly i am not seeing much extended commercial use, or new interest (you may say its just one dark room, but actually my college is one of the only three in the country that offer this sort of course, its massively sought after and people come from all over the country to study here) to keep any mass amounts of film being produced...

as it becomes less produced, it will become more expensive, as it becomes more expensive, it becomes less appetising to the younger generations.

imagine if your grandad had had an old digital instead of an old film, would you still be wanting to produce films?

i hear alot of you say quality is not important, of course it is. Its the quality of an artist that makes us what to paint like them. If less people are producing decent, high quality, exibition film photographs. then less people will be drawn to it. its a sliding scale

this stuff about turntables and film sales being on the increase, well of course they are, because they have decreased so massively in the last 5 years that even one more sale is an INCREASE. still not going to be as huge as they were 20 years ago. if you looked at a chart of production in the last 15 years, you would see they were still on a sliding scale, just happened to have a slight wobble along it. thats all.

most of the people in my class who enjoy black and white photography, have become accustomed to the fact that in commercial use it is not viable. if someone commissions you to do a photograph, they do not want a print and a negative, they want a digital image that they can have numerous copies and sizes of.

perhaps film will still be produced on a very minor scale. I spoke to Ian (my tutor) about his and he reckons people will go back to coating their own emulsion onto paper and using different techniques to create printed images. What Kev said about scanning is another evolution of that (and a damn interesting one)

my point about film no longer being bettered,is not suggesting that it NEEDS to be better, but only that digital is being bettered, and therefore will one day catch up with film. just a matter of time

Who knows what will happen in the future, its impossible to say, but from my experience, from working with some of the brightest young photographers in the country, digital is far far more popular than film and that ratio will increase with the next year, and the one after it.

it is irrelevant how many older people love flim and remember it from 'back in the day' if its not attractive to the younger generations, it does not have a future. now we have enough people to warrent lots of film production, but what about in 10 years? i can imagine it will be a very different story.

 

[feeb]

can we avoid calling fellow members trolls please?

pretty rubbish argument isnt it

perhaps if they had something debatable to come back with, they wouldnt have to resort to petty insults.

 

[Kev M]

i hear alot of you say quality is not important, of course it is. Its the quality of an artist that makes us what to paint like them. If less people are producing decent, high quality, exibition film photographs. then less people will be drawn to it. its a sliding scale

Your opinions seem to be very focussed on the commercial side of this debate which I guess is understandable seeing as you're devoting a lot of time and money which must be aimed at a career in photography. Most of the people here into film are doing it purely for recreational purposes. Out of the whole market pro users will be a small amount of that market and film companies aren't in business to keep just the pros serviced, the hobbyists will make up far more of their client base than the pros.

Whilst ultimate quality might be important for exhibitions for the hobbyist its about recording a moment not making a living. Great equipment is not the be all and end all, they're merely tools. give me a D3 and I'll produce the same mediocrity I do with my KM5D. Give Lee Frost a Holga and he'll produce images capable of putting a roof over his head and food on the table for his family.

I guess it depends on whether you define a quality image as being pin sharp and noise/grain less or the reaction the image causes in you. As you said it's the artist you aspire to not the artist kit bag.

 

[sprog]

pretty rubbish argument isnt it.

Your posting style seems to have benefited from the accusation though hasn't it?

I actually found some of your points on this page quite valid and well balanced.

 

[feeb]

Your posting style seems to have benefited from the accusation though hasn't it?

I actually found some of your points on this page quite valid and well balanced.

i will treat people as i am treated, people have had very balanced views so they earn some respect, unlike arrogant, uppity purists like yourself.

keep your compliment, it means absolutely nothing to me, i would rather just talk about the subject matter at hand, than your ignorant perception of what sort of person i am. thanks but no thanks

if you have nothing to say about the subject matter, please stop directing your posts at me. thank you

 

[feeb]

Your opinions seem to be very focussed on the commercial side of this debate which I guess is understandable seeing as you're devoting a lot of time and money which must be aimed at a career in photography. Most of the people here into film are doing it purely for recreational purposes. Out of the whole market pro users will be a small amount of that market and film companies aren't in business to keep just the pros serviced, the hobbyists will make up far more of their client base than the pros.

i totally agree, what i am trying to say, is that without professionals using film and making amazing film images, less and less people will be drawn to the uses and benefits of film. its all very well to have people enjoying the use of film in their lofts or personal dark rooms. but without the professional input, not enough people are going to be drawn to the quality that film produces, they will see a picture, wonder how to make it and instantly find themselves working with digital rather than exploring film.

i am not saying it will happen immediately, but without professional, commercial interest, i dont think enough of the hobby will be passed from generation to generation. I am seeing a massive decline in my generation for example, let alone in those younger than me, and again even younger. i was approached by a group of youngsters in the park last week, asking to look at the pictures i was taking. When i explained i was using a film camera, they didnt know what i meant and i had to explain to them why there was no image on a screen.

Whilst ultimate quality might be important for exhibitions for the hobbyist its about recording a moment not making a living. Great equipment is not the be all and end all, they're merely tools. give me a D3 and I'll produce the same mediocrity I do with my KM5D. Give Lee Frost a Holga and he'll produce images capable of putting a roof over his head and food on the table for his family.

Quite, this is what amateur photographers dont seem to realise (and going back to the 'isnt digital expensive' argument. i have people on my course with the best kit in the world, but they dont have the creativity to pull it off. at the same time i have people working with Pin hole cameras that because of their enthusiam and creativity, create much better images.

its not about money, it never has been, although people seem to loose sight of that. its easy to think 'i need this lens' or 'i cant live without an upgrade' but thats simply not true, a good tradesman can work with the most basic tools to create a brillant result. a bad tradesman will always blame their tools.

I guess it depends on whether you define a quality image as being pin sharp and noise/grain less or the reaction the image causes in you. As you said it's the artist you aspire to not the artist kit bag.

as i have said, when digital images can create that same emotion, the warmth you get from B+W photography, and only then, will there be an end to film photography. problem with my generation is that we are having to decide wether to focus on the dark room, or simply move to digital and NOT risk our lively-hood being obsolete in a few years time. Its a self forfilling prophecy.

 

[joxby]

I was in CCimaging the other day picking up some 120 slide, the place was full of processed 35mm draped over every flat surface, never seen it like that before, there's usually some bits left out on the counter for pick-ups, but nothing like that, I can't even guess how many rolls there were...:shrug:

 

[Matt]

look. There is some sensible debate in this thread that is being spoilt by an under-current of animosity. If you dont like someone or their posting style, use the ignore feature. If someone compliments you, dont throw it back in their face, and dont insult each other. If there are trolls on the boards, we KNOW who they are, and we take appropriate action when the time is right.

 

[feeb]

its all two sides of the same coin, this is nothing to do with wether i am a good person or bad person or even a person. its just a discussion and i think ANYTHING personal (good or bad) should just be left out of it, i am not prepared to take 'compliments' from someone who has chosen to call me 'it'

other than that its been quite an interesting debate.

 

[Kev M]

You must see something I and perhaps most of the others don't in an image Fi. I find it very hard to tell whether something was shot on digital or film as most film effects can be rendered in potatoshop now. When I see an inspiring image I don't question on whether it was shot on film or digital I question on how it was shot. It wasn't seeing film images that drew me to film it was the process in taking the photo that drew me in.

There's plenty of threads on here about digital having caught up with film (with the exception of large format) providing you have the moeny to invest in top spec full frame or digital MF backs. So perhaps already there is no comercial reason to shoot film any more in business.

As for film not getting passed on from generation to generation I wouldn't worry about that. Nobody (in real life) passed it on to me, everything I've been taught so far has comefrom the internet and the people who use it, like those on this very forum and as such that information is here to stay, forever. It might not be the same as being taught by a tutor or a friend or a family member but the information to learn is there all the same, everything else comes with experimentation and practice.

 

[feeb]

You must see something I and perhaps most of the others don't in an image Fi. I find it very hard to tell whether something was shot on digital or film as most film effects can be rendered in potatoshop now.

Wow, i certainly do see a difference, more so when working with black and white, digital images (and more to the point, inkjet) certainly dont create as beautiful a black and white image as film does, not by a long stretch.

When I see an inspiring image I don't question on whether it was shot on film or digital I question on how it was shot. It wasn't seeing film images that drew me to film it was the process in taking the photo that drew me in.

I find it quite easy to see what image is film and what is digital, and i think there is alot to be desired about digital as well. its great that some people have this love for film but i am not convinced its going to continue with such vigor into the future (perhaps i will be proved wrong, who knows! )

There's plenty of threads on here about digital having caught up with film (with the exception of large format) providing you have the moeny to invest in top spec full frame or digital MF backs. So perhaps already there is no comercial reason to shoot film any more in business.

Nope there are definate issues with prints at the moment, its impossible to create black and white prints to the same quality, and inkjet has to improve before that can happen. it needs alot more technology to make it cheaper, more usable and create consistantly better results.

As for film not getting passed on from generation to generation I wouldn't worry about that. Nobody (in real life) passed it on to me, everything I've been taught so far has comefrom the internet and the people who use it, like those on this very forum and as such that information is here to stay, forever. It might not be the same as being taught by a tutor or a friend or a family member but the information to learn is there all the same, everything else comes with experimentation and practice.

I am all for learning anyway you can find it

its great that you found film, i think its fantastic but i fear less and less people are these days.

i think people who study in any respects is bloody good, from standing in a field just getting to know your camera, to having someone give it to you in black and white (badom-tsh!) its just a different method

we shall have to see how film gets on. i am dubious but i hope for your sake and the other hardcore film heads, it continues for a good few years to come

 

[sprog]

I think it's time I knocked forums like this on the head anyway to be honest and concentrated more on taking photographs.

Feel free to delete my account admins... I'm offsky.

 

[lawless23456]

I think it's time I knocked forums like this on the head anyway to be honest and concentrated more on taking photographs.

Feel free to delete my account admins... I'm offsky.

i didnt want this thread to result in people leaving the forum sorry guys for causing such an argument

 

[joxby]

Don't be daft, its not your fault, your thread didn't cause nothing.
It's the way things are going these days.

 

[fracster]

Wow, everyone chilled out yet?

 

[lawless23456]

i sure do hope so