Well, I was talking about just still photography in the last paragraph of my post. I think still film consumption last year was "only" one or two billion feet of 35mm, don't remember OTOH.
Digital hasn't even caught on for television yet, and theatres, which make sometimes 0% of the profit the first week a film hits screens, are expected to sink a few hundred thousand in digital projectors. Riiiiiight. . . I'm just glad that Hollywood cinematographers aren't a bunch of cost-cutting scum, like the still photographers who think the only thing that makes a picture "better" is if it costs less to make. There's a group that actually care about the integrity of their images, even if they have to shoot such drivel as "Jason XCIX". At least they're well-lit, thoughtfully composed shots of gore and violence and implausible events.
Originally Posted by FilmIs4Ever
Around my neck of the woods, though, wedding photography is about 80/20 digital. You still do see some Mamiya RZ stuff around shooting film. Most wedding photographers in my area demand (and get) a 50% advance for the wedding and the customers demand to see proofs immediately.
That 80/20 ratio pretty much applies to the students as well.
Anyhow, there's no way I can challenge the statement that amatuers shoot far more film than pros do. I'd be interested in knowing where the ratios are skewed for pros vs amatuers on black and white, though.
If anybody's interested (and I don't want to presume too much) I can post a link that shows that although photographic use of silver has dropped from its peak level - it hasn't dropped anywhere near the extent you might suspect given the big drop in the use of still, pictorial film. There are obviously signficant uses for film beyond still picture, pictorial applications and they are holding up better.
There's a story I recall about Sofia Coppola having a conversation with her father about the shooting of "Lost in Translation". Francis Ford advised her that she had enough to worry about and that she should shoot it in DV.
Originally Posted by FilmIs4Ever
She resisted, favoring the softer look of film. Very appropriate and undoubtedly the right decision. I think Lance Acord set back the Indie Posers and their Digital Video aspirations 10 years with that one film...
If I'm paying $9.50 for a movie ticket I think you'd better give me "the look of the light"...
DV still screams low budget as far as I'm concerned.
I was told this by someone who should be and seemed to be in the know.
Originally Posted by PHOTOTONE
The Kodak report is not surprising, but just disappointing.
People such as myself (who shoot almost exclusively transparencies) have been little or no help to Kodak because we have long ago switched over to Fuji Transparency fillms. Kodak still makes a very high quality transparency product and they have tried to bring many of us that are/were pros back into the fold.
I hope that they stay in this business because not only for their importance and long history, but I would like to have some competition and alternatives for Fuji Film transparency products. We need to have at least 2 main players to keep the other honest and to keep pricing from running wild and unchecked. I just hope that there is and will remain enough of an audience to keep both Giants going and running relatively smoothly for a long time to come.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
See my post elsewhere. If Kodak divests itself of the film division the film unit will be better and stronger than ever.
Your disclosure, not EK. What are your reasons for posting this, including why you are speculating so much on EK?
Originally Posted by aldevo
Your posting efforts are more prolific towards gloom and doom topics. If you are simply seriously over-worried about current conditions, then I can understand some anxiety. However, it does not seem that way to me, hence why I wonder about your posting efforts. If I am wrong, I apologize in advance.
I have to admit it - I blew it on this one.
No need to apologize. I agree I ran amok and veered of the road into speculation. It won't happen again.
I have nothing against Kodak. I do use quite a bit of Tri-X
Gloom and doom? That may be going a bit far, but I really think the continued availability of film and paper faces some very serious doubts. And I do think there are others with some fairly deep knowledge on this board that would share those concerns.
I dabbled in digital photography in 2001 and 2002 but have returned - almost exclusively - to traditional silver photography in early 2003. Since then I have used 6 films and 6 different papers extensively - never more than 2 or 3 of each at a time. And every one of those products - except for Kodak 400TX has been discontinued (e.g. Agfa APX 100/400, Kodak PolyContrast IV, and now Forte and Berrger) or faces that immediate prospect.
It's been very frustrating for me. I have put substantial time and effort into learning these different materials only to have to start over. Admittedly, I've learned enough now to make this easier but each of the discontinued products had something to offer me that has been difficult or impossible to replace.
It's difficult to make progress in your craft when this happens and it does reduce the enjoyment I derive from it. I know I'm not the only person who has faced these challenges.
Even so, I agree that I've gone a little too far. I think you'll find future posts from me are more constructive.
I was wrong here and I'm moving on. My thanks to everybody who pointed out my transgression here. I'm looking forward to being a more useful part of the community.
I don't think Bergger is gone. Since they sub-contract out the manufacture of their products, they are in a position to find another source, and probably will. (Bergger had Forte make products for them).
Originally Posted by aldevo
It's probably a little early to completely write off Forte and Bergger but it doesn't look great.
There's a thread on largeformatphotography.info about Forte where a poster has contacted Bergger and been told that they are attempting to rescue Forte.
As PhotoEngineer and others have pointed out, it's very difficult to take emulsion coating recipes from Company X and transfer them to Company Y. I'm a little dubious about the "lore" of Bergger because Forte had products in its catalog before Bergger came along that seem awfully close to what is packaged under the Bergger label today.
But Forte was rescued once. Perhaps they are like a cat...