What incenses me more is not that this is apparently a thinly disguised paid promotion, but that this person claims the authority to officially declare 35mm film dead. Did he seek, and receive, approval from Kodak, Ilford, Fujifilm etc etc to make his "official" pronouncement? I think not. And did he also have approval from Leica, Nikon, Cosina, and other camera manufacturers currently manufacturing 35mm cameras? Most likely a no for that also? I guess we should take comfort from the fact that he has only declared the death of 35mm film, and not MF and LF. But then he probably doesn't know that they ever existed anyway. And thank goodness he is not my doctor.
I think it's more due to the fact that consumers use to use the cheap Happy Snaps three for £5 films available from the high street mini-labs rather than good films from Kodak and Fuji.
Originally Posted by andrewkirkby
Most mini-labs I have used have given good results with good films.
andrew: while I agree with you, digital also cannot match the highlight retention of colour neg.
Your A1 also cannot match a video shot with the 550.. there are certain things the new cameras are brilliant for and open up a new market.
Steve: minilab here gave an absolute rubbish flat grey muddy looking print from my 30D that I had spent time tuning the image exactly how I wanted to look, so I of course turned off auto-corrections at the minilab which still makes colour wet prints from a laser printer, expecting it to be accurate and somewhat calibrated.. I can only imagine what they do to colour negatives that are brought in to be printed from, since they also have to scan in the same machine to print them.
I really love the idea of laser-exposed wet-prints that can be as sharp as the laser's size of focus point, with the contrast range fitting exactly onto the paper on a nice wet print... but they just f* it up so badly it isn't funny.
And here in the OP and mine's country, unless you live in a capital city and no where a proper printing lab exists, you dont really have a good choice to get good prints from people who know what they're doing with their machinery, you have to do it yourself, either enlarging onto RA-4 which is expensive and hard to get here, or buy a higher end A3 inkjet photo printer (which are brilliant in technical quality and calibration and colour reproduction I must say - I'd use one for gallery submissions) which isn't the same.
Film is not dead, (local sales yes, many people in Aus import because of the ludicrous prices we get charged) but I would say good printing is dead (even though much of it remains on RA-4, and others on shitty inkjet prints, which they dont tell you).
Last edited by Athiril; 05-07-2010 at 03:58 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Good printing, as a generalisation, aint dead, boys and girls. But truth be told, we do now need to seek it out my carefully from the digifloss.
We still do have Ilfochrome in Australia. This is the way to go for reversal-to-'chrome. It seems traditional wet-method colour prints though are rare. Now the revelation: digi files printed to Ilfochrome have a distinctly odd appearance, far removed from stock- or EI-variant Velvia, Provia or something from Kodak (though most Ilfochrome printers believe Velvia delivers the 'Gold Standard' in colour and fidelity). That stuff though all comes down to the limited gamut an spectral non-linearity of D. So all this wordy reviewing of fancy cameras is window dressing. None of the foregoing comments will be of interest to those who remain convinced film is dead, but then, they're the ones who never bothered to learn some serious post-shoot production skills with celluloid and make money from their work. That is what I want to see.
.::Gary Rowan Higgins
One beautiful image is worth
a thousand hours of therapy.
"It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government
to save the environment."
When you say "Wet Traditional Colour", do you mean optically enlarged prints, or do you count Lazer exposed prints?
Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour
If you are including Laser exposed prints, I beg to differ. Last night my camera club was a guest of one of Adelaides better print processors, Hut Street Photos.
Yes, 90% of his business is Digital (heck, he is in business and has to make a living), but is still committed to C41 processing. He says he does around 60 rolls of C41 a day in 35, 120 and as he has just found out 220 formats (He never knew the machine he had could do 220 until not that long ago when someone brought a roll in).
While he Inkjets all the big stuff, he said that there is still a place for wet processed prints, whether they originate from Film or from digital, even so that he stands by Kodaks original archival quality statements.
He also said that he can see that Film will never die.....
I still think there are way to many over reactions from this story. If you want this kind of thing to hassle you, then you have a niggling feeling in the back of your head that it might indeed become true.
Otherwise, get some film and shoot it and enjoy what you do
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
This guy is an idiot, 'nuff said.
His digital Canon might have face detection, but I can detect a horse's backside without my camera's help.
Dead? Well maybe all of his film just expired
Helping to save analog photography one exposure at a time
The writer is not the smartest person around, and yes, this is clearly a thinly-veiled paid promotion which has not been declared as such, however my reading is that he is being slightly sarcastic about film being dead.
the ceo of kodak pretty much said the same thing a few years ago ..
and in a lot of ways it is true, film is dead compared to a few years ago.
who cares ?
i don't ...