Can they actually think ?
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
Stone, if digital is better than E6, then why do you use E6 instead of digital?
But, OTOH, as you and Ken point out, there is a market for Lobo and TIP products. This is one that went by under my radar and I am sorry. Yes, it may be a viable source of customers, but these customers will tend to be less critical that most of us wrt color, grain and sharpness. So yes, I do agree with you on those points.
Here is the thing for all the memebrs that say 'Oh hell no' to Ilford color.
The trend for film is extinction. No one can argue with that. My feelings are we should welcome any attempt a company makes at preserving film.
If not, we will all be buying expired film on Ebay to feed our cams.
I would like Ilford to market some color films, not necessarily make them. Seems like they are the only company that has their act together with regard to a long-term plan, marketing, and customer service.
Some people like grain in their pictures.
Originally Posted by Michael R 1974
I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
You're talking about young people here, not photography.
Originally Posted by Tom1956
Pics or it didn't happen. (young people say this)
I hate living in a day and time when everything I have spent a lifetime getting good at
is all dying.
This is because you're old.
I don't want to "save" film from extinction; I do not want to be an activist.--I just want it to be there. I abhor the activist mentality, and will not be one on this subject either.
'Cows are very fond of being photographed, and, unlike architecture, don't move.' - Oscar Wilde
Probably should have let this one bake for another thirty minutes before clicking Submit...
Originally Posted by batwister
"When making a portrait, my approach is quite the same as when I am portraying a rock. I do not wish to impose my personality upon the sitter, but, keeping myself open to receive reactions from his own special ego, record this with nothing added: except of course when I am working professionally, when money enters in,—then for a price, I become a liar..."
— Edward Weston, Daybooks, Vol. II, February 2, 1932
An excellent suggestion....maybe Simon could comment? I would not have thought that this would take a large capital outlay, and, given that UK Poundland can sell Kodak and Agfa 35mm color neg at £1 per roll (= $1.50 ) presumably at a worthwhile profit, it would seem there would be a reasonable return.
Originally Posted by Hatchetman
Kodak and Fuji can sell film at a low price because their manufacturing process is so fast and efficient.
But, I spent nearly 60 years learning and using photography. Analog photography! I know most all details of its manufacturing and processing. I don't want to be an activist at my age, but I will not see the skills that I learned die.
Last edited by Photo Engineer; 07-25-2013 at 06:19 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: Well, I typed in 70 instead of 60 years. Sorry.
Ok I'll clarify...
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
There are probably some films that are finer grained technically than the pixel count on a sensor, and if you are a perfect printer and own an enlarger that can print 20x30 prints and own trays that can process them and a full darkroom to do the work, and the chemistry and source the paper for such a job etc. then a 35mm image on film can print as detailed as a digital camera can or better if sticking to a full traditional process. Or possibly if you can afford a drum scan you potentially could get as sharp an image with a scan then printed chemically with the hybrid projector thing however that works. But for all realistic purposes for the normal photographer, you can't really make bigger than maybe an 8x10 print or 11x14 for some advanced non-pro's (or even some pro's). So for most realistic purposes digital can more easily and reasonably printed on a finer scale than film of a comparable size... now if you go to 120 film or Large Format, obviously there's not competition in the difficulty to get the finest grain, but again the whole process of printing optically is very costly if you don't have the setup and materials and have to start from scratch.
And if you're nobody like me, it doesn't matter how good your prints are, no one will pay the high price for a print that was done optically if you're a nobody.
I shoot film because for one I like the LOOK better, I care about the grain to a point so I shoot medium format mostly and now some LF now that I have my first 4x5, and since I hybrid process by scanning first, I can send the scanned image to the lab, and they print it chemically somehow, which costs a bit more than the places that print them with ink, but not so much more that I"m shocked by the price, so it's worth it to get a real chemical print and it doesn't cost me an entire darkroom setup to do it...
Anyway, I think I've lost my point... or forgotten what the heck I was even responding to, so I'll shut up now. But I shoot film because I like the look, and the process better, that doesn't mean I don't recognize that my digital camera doesn't produce more detailed images, just that detail isn't everything and the artistic vision I create with film satisfies me more. So better is all perspective.