Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,285   Posts: 1,535,082   Online: 1171
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 47
  1. #21
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    Having help design a 400 asa film from scratch at EK, I can say that the aims of both films in terms of color and curve shape (latitude) are / were the same, the difference being in sharpness and grain due to the coarser grain in the 400 film. But, given that a 400 speed film can look remarkably like a 100 speed film when exposed at 100 and printed to give the same results.

    When you think about it, the 9 emulsions in a 400 speed film overlap in character with the 9 emulsions in the 100 speed film. The fast emulsions in the 100 film are often identical to the slow emulsions in the 400 film. Even the medium emulsions may overlap, depending on design.

    BTW, my latest digital computer equipment came with a warning that the equipment contained toxic materials and must be disposed of properly, not just placed in the garbage. That was a note applicable in the EU. When will the USA become aware of this? IDK, but it is something largely ignored here but it is developing into a problem and if that is recognized then disposable digital will never become the norm.

    PE

  2. #22

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Woonsocket, RI USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
    BTW, my latest digital computer equipment came with a warning that the equipment contained toxic materials and must be disposed of properly, not just placed in the garbage. That was a note applicable in the EU. When will the USA become aware of this? IDK, but it is something largely ignored here but it is developing into a problem and if that is recognized then disposable digital will never become the norm.
    "Disposable" digital cameras aren't really disposable. When you return the camera to the store, they pull the images off it, clear the camera's memory, put it back in a box, and sell it again. (I don't guarantee that all of this happens at the store, though; they might send it out to a processing center somewhere.) It's really more of a rental model than a throw-away product.

    That said, I'd be interested in seeing an analysis of the environmental impact of film vs. digital photography. Film consumes physical resources (acetate, emulsion, etc.) and requires consumable chemistry to process, vs. digital requiring more in the way of electronics. I really have no idea how these two compare in terms of long-term (say, 10 or 20 years' use) environmental impact.

  3. #23
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    Consider this;

    Analog photography, a mature science, has eliminated toxic chemistry from its manufacturing.

    Digital uses Lead, Mercury, Arsenic, Selenium and other chemistry now unused by analog.

    PE

  4. #24
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    56
    We seem to beat this dead horse on a monthly basis. It's as if we are condemned to do so.

    Why?

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Near Tavistock, Devon, on the edge of Dartmoor.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,024
    Quote Originally Posted by StephenS
    I ask this because I'm surprised at how little film is now offered in the grocery stores, Wal Mart, etc. It's getting hard to find consumer versions of 100 ASA film for snapshots at this point.
    Going off at a bit of a tangent (but along the same lines) I am surprised at how available 110 format film still is, even though I can't remember the last time I was aware of anyone (other than myself) using it.
    I've just returned from a lunchtime stroll which included Boots (large national chain of chemists, kitchenware & general stores for those who don't know) and I was amazed to see a shelf in the film section bulging with Kodak 110 film in fresh new packaging that I hadn't seen before with an expiry date of late 2008. Someone must be using the stuff and it's nowhere near as hard to come by as its sellers on eBay would like us to believe. (BTW, my use of 110 is for curiosity value in my collection of 110 cameras in much the same way as the owner of a Model T Ford might take it out for a drive occasionally without expecting it to perform like a Ferrari!)

    Best wishes,

    Steve

  6. #26
    DBP
    DBP is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,883
    Images
    34
    Yes, I still see, and buy, 110 film in local supermarkets. Unfortunately, the Kodak cartridges are miscoded. It mostly goes into my Pentax 110, and a Minolta Weathermatic that travels more than I do.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by StephenS
    Is there a place with growing film sales? .
    Dear Stephen,

    I fear we're it.

    Cheers,

    R.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
    BTW, my latest digital computer equipment came with a warning that the equipment contained toxic materials and must be disposed of properly, not just placed in the garbage. That was a note applicable in the EU. When will the USA become aware of this? IDK, but it is something largely ignored here but it is developing into a problem and if that is recognized then disposable digital will never become the norm.

    PE
    The sooner this happens, the better. A friend who works for a VERY large printer manufacturer says that the thinking is going back towards products that are built to last and capable of being repaired and upgraded. The environmental cost of disposable electronics is going to become a major issue quite soon, in his opinion and in the opinion of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Science, better known as the RSA.

    Cheers,

    Roger (FRSA)

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    861
    Hello Roger,

    Isn't the ultimate expression of a prosperous society the ability to simply throw away or consume as much as possible?


    No . . . I am not serious about that, though if one just looks at the high turnover of many products, it does seem that glutony drives some buying habits. However, this is almost too cultural anthropology applying niche cultures habits to large populations. There is also that materialistic emphasis of having something new, or perceived as cool.

    The value of a brand is an ancient concept that still drives some companies, or at the very least keeps them around. Unfortunately some companies that drift away from their core values, or whatever made them well known, can find themselves in trouble. Kodak needs to please investors, but if they left their core of film they would lose a great deal of admiration. Partly that would be because leaving film production would be seen as a failure, and any failure would be detrimental to the reputation of a company. It seems that to avoid that, they would at the very least continue to offer it as a premium niche product to select customers, while still indicating to the public what they are doing.

    Fuji is also in that sort of dilemna. Both Fuji and Kodak can invest heavily in other industries, such as graphics arts, commercial printing, medical imaging, et al, though both need to avoid announcing too many things perceived as failures. Staying in film is not viewed as a failure as long as continued profits are shown. Both are public companies that must please the psycological needs of their investors, often living under the buy on the rumour, sell on the news mentality. We read comments that either should dump film production, but they are the voices of the few, perhaps some with vested interests.

    Environmental issues and expenses are other issues. While some companies can off-shore to avoid or minimize liability, at some point those new countries will adopt more regulations. These issues will need to be dealt with in the near future. It is surprising that the US is not doing more about this, though one needs to remember that these things are better implemented when the economy is in better shape. No politician wants to push issues that might cause companies to shift more production off-shore, cost US jobs, nor raise the prices of goods.

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat
    A G Studio

  10. #30

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Woonsocket, RI USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Roberts
    Going off at a bit of a tangent (but along the same lines) I am surprised at how available 110 format film still is, even though I can't remember the last time I was aware of anyone (other than myself) using it.
    ...
    Someone must be using the stuff
    I don't know much about it, but I believe there's still a 110 "Barbie" camera being made and sold -- or at least it was being sold until fairly recently. (I don't know if its current status.) I'm sure that alone drives a lot of the sales of 110 film today.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin