I agree with what you stated here, both in terms of moving to a digital
camera (it isn't the same medium as film, any more than video was to
cinema film), and I also agree that storage of film has a lot of
advantages in terms of archiving.
Of course, digital offers a lot of advantages in both areas as well, but
they are not the same medium.
Art
Berry Ives wrote:
> I think Arthur and Austin are very much on target. Some specialty labs will
> provide certain film services like scanning, etc.
>
> Since when did artists ever have the market clout to dictate what would be
> manufactured or supported by the manufacturers of mass market products?
> Besides, most of them will be only too glad to adapt to digital if they
> haven't already.
>
> Yes, somebody will probably keep producing B&W film of some kind--and
> processing it--for many years to come, but it will be a specialty market.
> It is unlikely there will be many starving artists who will afford those
> services.
>
> As for me, I am still shooting film, mostly color and all C-41, for art
> prints. One of my major reasons for using film is that I love shooting with
> my Contax manual focus SLR. I am afraid that I am going to lose something
> in how I use the camera, how I shoot, when I finally switch to a digital
> SLR. I love the analog controls and the absolute sense of focus control and
> aperture control. And I hate menus! But I am waiting to see the new
> Olympus second generation E-1 when it comes out in a few days.
>
> My other issue is that I think film is a good way to store images, perhaps
> less risky than digital media. Yes, I know, the negative film I use is not
> as archival as Kodachrome. But if I print archival prints with pigment
> inks, I guess I'm not going to worry that much about the film. That's just
> me; others have different needs.
>
> So for now, I continue to scan on my Nikon V, which works very well for
> negative C-41 film.
>
> Berry
>
>
>
>
> On 2/25/06 2:52 PM, "scott@adrenaline.com" <scott@adrenaline.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Poppy cock. As long as there are photographic *artists*, there will
>>be mono chrome emulsion shooting, even if no company chooses to
>>make film any longer.
>>
>>I don't imagine that many photographic artists make much coin, but
>>Sally Mann's work is very popular, get's top marquee exhibitions and
>>her books are sold at common outlets like Borders.
>>
>>Her recent "What Remains" project (exhibition and book) was shot on
>>glass plate negatives.
>>
>>While I don't recall how she printed, there are folks coating their own
>>papers in palladium to make fine art contact prints, each one a thing of
>>beauty and a product of the hand crafting of the artist - hence collectible
>>by fine art afficionados - vs. the "infinite reproducibility" of digitally
>>"captured" "images" (I like my DSLR but really hate the new terminology).
>>
>>There is even a movement to product 8x10 or 11x14 "digital internegatives"
>>from digitally captures images for final, fine art oriented
>>platinum/palladium/
>>cyanotype/etc. contact printing.
>>
>>By hook or by crook, as it were, B&W shooting and printing will go on
>>for decades to come, long after the mini-mart C-41 machines are rusting
>>in dumps.
>>
>>Can't speak for the consumer market, the photojournalists and so on -
>>but I don't really give a crap about them in the first place.
>>
>>Scott
>>
>>
>>Mike Kersenbrock wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>When was the last time you saw a 8mm movie film to video transfer system
>>>>sold retail? I imagine there are some commercial outfits still offering
>>>>video transfer services, but even those are probably disappearing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>How popular were 8mm movies as compared to still photos (to compare their
>>>market sizes)? I have no idea, not having been a film-movie person
>>>(started with a
>>>VHS + video camera about 20~25 years ago or so). How many still film
>>>photos exist to
>>>be converted as compared to 8mm films to be converted ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>What I am getting at is this: Film will become specialty product,
>>>>available by special order or through a few minimal manufacturers.
>>>>Non-commerical dedicated film scanners will disappear, as flatbeds take
>>>>over that market niche. Even the flatbed market long full of brands and
>>>>models has reduced to a handful.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I wonder how many mfgrs there ever has been (as opposed to marketing
>>>companies OEMing
>>>product). But I think you're right.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Will the prices on these last dedicated film scanners suddenly
>>>>skyrocket? Not likely. Did 8mm film cameras skyrocket when video came
>>>>out? Has the cost of 35mm camera bodies skyrocketed as the digital
>>>>camera market took over?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I think we're still in the film->digital conversion stage. There still
>>>are film cameras
>>>for sale new, and there still is a lot of film being sold even if it's a
>>>less massive number
>>>than previously. So conversion needs should remain significant for a
>>>while longer, but
>>>it'll eventually end the way you say, for sure.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>What probably will happen, is several commercial labs will offer
>>>>reasonably priced scanning services, since they will need to maintain
>>>>scanners so when people bring in old film based images for printing,
>>>>they can make prints.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>If prints "survive" the digital trend. Prints (even if digitially
>>>printed) seem so *analog*. :-)
>>>Maybe "programmable electronic paper" will make the printing companies
>>>go bye bye as well.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The days of demand crunches causing price increases on basically
>>>>obsolete products is over. It almost never occurs anymore, because
>>>>people recognize the next generation or product is usually cheaper and
>>>>offers more options. If you honestly believe, for instance, CRT
>>>>monitors are going to become pricey as they stop manufacture, I've got
>>>>some to sell you ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>They will eventually become spendy, but not any time soon. Only when
>>>the units being
>>>made are only very small niche specialized ones made in small volumes
>>>(where current
>>>cheapie ones aren't applicable). There are very very spendy high-end
>>>CRT based monitors
>>>available for purchase now.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The only way I could see something like a dedicated film scanner
>>>>becoming more valuable is because it became a collector's item, sort of
>>>>like a DeLorean car, Maybe someday people will be dragging old XT
>>>>computers and film scanners to the "Antique RoadShow", but it may be a
>>>>while yet ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Kinda, but XT's are a bit different. My current multi-Ghz computer I'm
>>>writing on can run
>>>the very same application binaries that DOS XT could (theoretically
>>>anyway). The film scanner
>>>as such won't be replaced by a super-set, it'll just be a product who's
>>>need has gone away.
>>>Perhaps subtle, but not quite the same. If new ones become unavailable,
>>>used prices may
>>>go up (depending upon supply/demand dynamics) because there will be a
>>>long lasting need
>>>for them (for procrastinators) even after need has dropped too low for
>>>sustaining a business
>>>selling new scanners. Unless the flatbeds get so good that they really
>>>are obsolete in which
>>>case they'll just be $5 items at goodwill (that don't sell).
>>>
>>>Mike K.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>--
>>Pics @
>>Leica M6TTL, Bessa R, Nikon FM3a, Nikon D70, Rollei AFM35
>>(Jihad Sigint NSA FBI Patriot Act)
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>----------
>>Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
>>filmscanners'
>>or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
>>body
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
