Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,997   Posts: 1,524,303   Online: 811
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30
  1. #21
    Aristophanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    505
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    Bullshit, the manufacturers of modern digital cameras are well in on and okay with all of this. They absolutely love this arrangement of continual release/obsolete/buy-again.

    So yes, I can blame my "fellow" photographers (they're not really my fellows), for enabling that bad cycle to continue, and I can also blame the consumers of photography who don't give a damn one way or another (but who will invariably notice something missing given enough time).

    I'm talking, right now, analog right now, with experienced printers and lab people - NOT generic consumers. Dude this is APUG, not johnny-consumer-find-me-a-lab-for-my-kodak-gold.com. The entire site is dedicated to the process, materials, and DIY attitude. Get that through your head. You're preaching to the absolutely wrong audience.
    Built-in obsolescence was as much a part of film photography as digital. How many orphaned formats are there for film? How many crappy P&S's were made for 135? 110? APS? Orphaned lens mounts? The list goes on. Kodak and Fuji ruthlessly changed box designs to make consumers believe the formula had changed, when, in reality, no chemistry changes ever took place. They liked to make customers feel that the new box was better than the old. It's a for of marketing obsolescence,preying on consumer insecurity.

    Nothing has changed there.

    People left analog for the cost and convenience of digital. The whole point of economics and consumer decision-makig is to make the most out of scarce resources.

    Nothing has changed there.

    Experienced printers and lab people were the first to leave because of the same economic principle I just spoke to above. The ones most qualified to judge quality in a commercial setting left for digital faster than the hobby crowd which is mostly what APUG is. This includes the vast majority of the glossy art set and the mass printers, like magazines and advertising.

    The generic consumer is, and has always been, the mass market necessary to justify the mass production of roll and cartridge film. In order for there to be a top-tier of "experienced printers and lab people" everyone has to start somewhere lower on the ladder, usually working in a lab cranking out Brownie films all the way up to mini-labs, and the teeny, tiny home development market surviving on the economically viable remains. George Eastman got that. There is no yin without the yang. The few who love analog photography as an art form have always relied on the mass market to subsidize production. Vernacular photography gave you your roll and cartridge film market. Silver printing was the basis of Eastman's "we do the rest". This is THE business case study of Kodak and film photography overall. It is the core of the business model and the ONLY one that has ever existed.

    Nothing has changed there.

    If you're going to defend the legacy of his original invention, at least try and understand the economic principles supporting it.

  2. #22
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    The problem is you're entirely all about economics, and the majority of people here are NOT about the economics of photography.

    For Christ sakes man, you're on The Analog Photography Users Group. Have you figured that out yet? Everything about this forum is focused on quality, not quantity. Again, again, again, APUG is not about the mass market consumer. You keep equating everything with that because you cannot break out of our own obsession with economics and how that relates to film photography.

    We've heard you, countless times now, people are not absolutely disagreeing with every single one of your points about economics - they're just tired of hearing about it and focus on other aspects of why analog photography is a powerful and meaningful form of expression.

    You can't keep your head out of the numbers though.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Lubbock, TX
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    29
    I shoot half film and half digital. I use digital for reference photographs that I use when I want to draw something by hand later and film for memories that count.

    Why do I continue to use film? One word: archivability. I was thrilled when my family found and scanned film from my great-grandparents with pictures that hadn't been seen in more than 70 years. I felt connected to the past in a very tangible way. Digital is a very shaky archival medium right now, and with most generic consumers taking digital photos, not thinking about it and then accidentally deleting them and not constantly migrating them, who knows what's going to happen to their digital photos within 70 years?

    I love taking pictures with film. Every time I hold a strip of negatives or cardboard slides, I feel a connection with what I photographed and I feel like those photographs are a labor of love.

    Is digital convenient? Yes it is, but now people expect everything yesterday. It's a pain in the butt to try to shoot film at family gatherings or on trips with colleagues, because they don't have the patience to pose and wait for me to manually focus and get the exposure ready, and I feel that people have lost the virtue of patience. My aunt told me very coldly at a family gathering that film just needs to disappear, and others have told me that this is the 21st century and I need to adapt or get left behind. I'm not a Luddite, but I see digital as just another tool in the photographic toolbox, and not the best thing since sliced bread and the end-all/be-all of technological advancement. Cost doesn't matter to me, since I run a budget every month for film. I shoot wisely with film. As my dad likes to tell me: "You get what you pay for."

    Is digital artistic? Yes, it is. Photoshop can do some wild things with photographs that analog can't match, and I'm learning how to digitally paint on my iPad. Those who say digital isn't and can't be artistic are deluding themselves. I want to learn how to use Photoshop and Lightroom (whenever I can afford them), but I don't like being forced into using just one medium. I constantly back up my best digital photos.

    If film were to totally disappear like my aunt wished that Christmas day a couple of years ago, I wouldn't stop taking photos, but I wouldn't do it as often as I do now. It would take all the fun out of it...
    Typical digital zombies say: "Adapt or die!" "The world is changing, change with it!" "Analog is old and nasty! EEEEEEEWWWWWW!" "Why should I pay money for getting my pictures when I can have everything NOW?" "Why shoot manual when you can have the camera do everything automatically?"

    Primary 35mm camera - Pentax K1000
    Secondary 35mm camera - Mamiya/Sekor 1000 DTL - M42 Mount
    Medium Format: Mamiya RB67

  4. #24
    Aristophanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    505
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    The problem is you're entirely all about economics, and the majority of people here are NOT about the economics of photography.

    For Christ sakes man, you're on The Analog Photography Users Group. Have you figured that out yet? Everything about this forum is focused on quality, not quantity. Again, again, again, APUG is not about the mass market consumer. You keep equating everything with that because you cannot break out of our own obsession with economics and how that relates to film photography.

    We've heard you, countless times now, people are not absolutely disagreeing with every single one of your points about economics - they're just tired of hearing about it and focus on other aspects of why analog photography is a powerful and meaningful form of expression.

    You can't keep your head out of the numbers though.
    For God's sake man, Thom Hogan is the source of this thread's info and he has a long treatise on the financial situation of film photography, most of it related to the "size of ponds" argument, which is 100% an economic allegory!

    That's the OP.

    You're in the wrong thread, not me in the wrong forum. That should be obvious.

  5. #25
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SE Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,515
    Images
    15
    I get a giggle that guys like Thom need ever more "technologically sophisticated" digital cameras to photograph with.
    Strange. The most beautiful photographic works I have seen have been created with Wistas, Linhofs and the big guns of medium format, Hasselblad, Pentax, Bronica. Clearly he has a blinkered view of what photography is about, and that applies to all those sucking up to the next best/greatest/technologically advanced thing to achieve what the wiser amongst us have been turning out for decades.

    Aristophanes, do you ever get out and photograph, use a camera? You are very, veery negatively geared on your discussion of film. I don't think we want to hear about what an economist thinks of film. It's what photographers can do with it that matters. Now please get up, go out and photograph, then come back and talk about that.
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
    —Anon.






  6. #26
    eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,400
    Images
    200
    I think we can all agree that the price of doing traditional photography will rise, and our film/paper options will decrease. The real cost of this is in our shortcomings. I'd suggest that, rather than bemoan the losses (or, conversely, throw dirt on the grave) of analog, we all get a lot friggin' better at what we do, so we can get the image we want using a lot less film, paper and chemistry.

  7. #27
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by PKM-25 View Post
    I'm not stressed, I read these threads not so much for information as much as watch-this-train-wreck entertainment.

    The better, less obscure products are often the most used therefore purchased. So to avoid stress, one only needs to prepare for what the worst case scenario could be in regards to product longevity...per product. Most of the more talented shooters of analog product I know keep it simple, they don't dabble in everything then piss and moan when one out of over 100 films gets nixed. Instead, they invest a few grand into product and supporting product and move onto to more important things like shooting, printing, marketing, networking.

    Changes in the larger scheme of analog products have set a lot of us into motion in terms of making decisions as to what the most important products are for our needs. If one of these products is prone to be on the chopping block, we simply either replace it with another product or stock up, no big deal and certainly no stress....

    So you can either keep typing the keyboard in a manner that would make a jazz organist gasp or get on with using the products we have and make some fine images happen.

    I've made my choice, obviously you have too...
    Doubt dedicated Ektachrome shooters, following your logic, would take much comfort from this "advice."

  8. #28
    Aristophanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    505
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour View Post
    I get a giggle that guys like Thom need ever more "technologically sophisticated" digital cameras to photograph with.
    Strange. The most beautiful photographic works I have seen have been created with Wistas, Linhofs and the big guns of medium format, Hasselblad, Pentax, Bronica. Clearly he has a blinkered view of what photography is about, and that applies to all those sucking up to the next best/greatest/technologically advanced thing to achieve what the wiser amongst us have been turning out for decades.

    Aristophanes, do you ever get out and photograph, use a camera? You are very, veery negatively geared on your discussion of film. I don't think we want to hear about what an economist thinks of film. It's what photographers can do with it that matters. Now please get up, go out and photograph, then come back and talk about that.
    I have as many images in the Gallery here as you do.

    The title of this General Discussion Forum is "Industry News". I pay attention to where I post, not just what I post. Others should to. That's why there are titles and a hierarchy of discussion options.

    Thom Hogan writes that "film is in jeopardy". I agree. It is negative. All local labs near me have gone away. My Fuji contact tells me there hasn't been a single new mini-lab machine installed anywhere in North America in almost 2 years. He's not even sure the fabrication facility is doing more than churning out a few spare parts here and there and may permanently close.

  9. #29
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SE Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,515
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post

    The title of this General Discussion Forum is "Industry News". I pay attention to where I post, not just what I post. Others should to. That's why there are titles and a hierarchy of discussion options.
    [...]

    I suggest that should read the other way around. Many people here are up to their pussy bows hearing rants about "film is in jeopardy". So what!? Let it come when it is due, rather than an "Industry News" troll 2 steps behind wielding a branding iron.
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
    —Anon.






  10. #30
    Aristophanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    505
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour View Post
    I suggest that should read the other way around. Many people here are up to their pussy bows hearing rants about "film is in jeopardy". So what!? Let it come when it is due, rather than an "Industry News" troll 2 steps behind wielding a branding iron.
    It's just a discussion about the economics of film photography. You have to be the one who is overly emotionally attached to start name calling. How about just sticking to the facts?

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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