Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,931   Posts: 1,585,445   Online: 1066
      
Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 103
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    378
    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.

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by FilmIs4Ever View Post
    Umm, I must have missed the memo at the studio mandating that all future weddings must be shot with digital. Maybe you mean a different type of wedding photography other than the type I do? Newspapers are virtually 100% digital (I'm probably one of maybe a dozen photojournalists using film for college papers, and that's because I lie about it, scan it, de-grain it, and down res it to the point that only a skilled observer can even tell that it is film); frankly weddings are probably one of the last bastions with maybe 40-50% of the market (I mean pro wedding photographers too, not Uncle Bobs) still shooting film. Informal tally of other wedding photographers I see while I'm shooting a wedding of my own says it's virtually 50-50 in my neck of the woods. Compared with school photography, which is 90% digital according to a lab that would know, 40% is pretty damned good. Think of the countless 100 foot rolls of 70mm school studios are no longer buying. I take a roll of B&W film along to almost every wedding I shoot. Even if I load it in its own Mamiya RB back, it has *never* gotten used due to "time constraints". Everyone is rush rush rush on their wedding days and most people are too bothered to consider doing pictures a few days beforehand to take some of the pressure off. So B&W, except for the high-end photographers with couples willing to take time off for a private session, has been replaced by "Panalure B&W" in my line of work for quite some time now. We have weddings going back to the '60s that are all color.

    B&W was only around in papers because it was cheap, easy to develop under a wide range of conditions, and because a lot of papers were almost entirely B&W until the turn of the century. Remember when only the front page was in color, and usually only for special events? Even in the '90s, some figures I saw indicated that color negative film constituted over 90% of all film shot (as opposed to E6 and B&W), with most of that volume being generated by amateurs.

    All the Photo I students in the world, 6x7cm Playboy nipple shots, and National Geographic photo correspondance, and newspaper football pictures in the world only made a maybe 5% dent in overall film consumption. When amateurs started to abandon film in favor of digital, it's no wonder that Kodak took notice that the other 90+% of its market was moving its monies elsewhere. The only thing that is keeping film alive right now is Hollywood's massive 9 billion foot/year film consumption. Frankly, it's charity for them to keep making anything in B&W or E6, when C-41 and movie films are the only two lines still making them money.

    Sorry, but I really can't fathom how people think that the few hundred or few thousand feet of film they buy every year is significant compared with the billions of feet amateurs are no longer buying. How can pro photographers be so oblivous to the amateur machine that was and hopefully still will continue to fuel film coating?
    Good points!

    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.

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by FilmIs4Ever View Post
    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.
    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.

    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.

  4. #44
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by PHOTOTONE View Post
    I think the movie film industry is actually funding film coating.
    I was told this by someone who should be and seemed to be in the know.

    *

  5. #45
    naturephoto1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Breinigsville, PA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,819
    Images
    84
    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.

    Rich
    Richard A. Nelridge
    http://www.nelridge.com

  6. #46
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,556
    Images
    65
    See my post elsewhere. If Kodak divests itself of the film division the film unit will be better and stronger than ever.

    PE

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by aldevo View Post
    Disclosure of what?...EK hasn't announced they're going to do anything where the film division is concerned. I never said they did.

    Btw: You'll not that I made serveral other posts on different topics during the past week.
    Your disclosure, not EK. What are your reasons for posting this, including why you are speculating so much on EK?

    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.

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895

    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.

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Van Buren, Arkansas
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,412
    Images
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by aldevo View Post
    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.
    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).

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    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...



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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