The Worst of Times, The Best of Times

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

I stopped by the local camera shop to shoot the breeze yesterday. It was confirmed to me that digital is definitely taking over. I guess ya'll were right. One of the senior sales guys talked about film being out of mainstream photography in the next two years, meaning that only specialty users would be buying it. I guess that is shooters like we Leica users. Are these the worst of times?

Then I wandered over to the used darkroom gear and found a cherry 50/2.8 Rodenstock Rodagon lens for $75. That should be great with my Summicron exposed Delta 400 negs. I think I'll pick up a 4x5 enlarger for a song next. I'll be in my darkroom later tonight to check the Rodagon out. These are the best of times. Don't miss 'em.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), March 15, 2002

Answers

And, I picked up 15 Kodak Carousel trays last week (all in mint condition) for $2 a piece. I retired gentleman was consolidating his slides.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), March 15, 2002.

Pardon the language, but the "senior sales guy" was farting in the wind.

-- Vijay A. Nebhrajani (vijay_nebhrajani@yahoo.com), March 15, 2002.

There can be no doubt that film is dead but, like the chicken with his head cut off, just hasn't figured it out yet. Betcha that within 3 years it'll be all over. For a while we'll all say that film is better (like we said about vinyl as opposed to CDs) but then we'll all be saying "I can't believe we used film! Yep, 3 years, tops!

I just hope all my current M lenses will work on the M8 digital!

-- MikeP (mike996@optonline.net), March 15, 2002.


speaking of the m8 digital, there is a pic of the new leica/panasonic "digital reportage camera" in amateur photographer this week. there is a blurb also with some specs and price info. as for film, it will be around for the next 20 years or so -- there are too many film based cameras in circulation at the moment. more important perhaps, film will be used in less developed countries where tech support for digital is not widespread.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), March 15, 2002.

Film will be around for our lifetimes! There just isn't that many people on this planet that are as glued to computers as this forum's participants are. Film P&S's hafta make up quite a bit of new camera sales, and if not then those who own film cameras probably don't shoot enough to replace their trusty cameras with digital ones.

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), March 15, 2002.


This round around has been beaten to death here and at every other photo forums. Digital cameras can make images as good as a decent film camera, but to think film will be "gone" in 2 or 3 years is plain old silly.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), March 15, 2002.

I'm sorry.

I wasn't trying to stir the pointless debate.

Used prices on darkroom gear are too good to be true! That is the message!!!

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), March 15, 2002.


I just dont understand how digital is going to take over in a short amount of time. I work at a mini-lab ( the contrition of going back to art school) and people cant even load their APS camera's. I wont even get into when they come back because they put it on P instead of H setting. Who's going to teach the public to white balance, file size, color correction . The pro photographer's are having a hard time with this. I think the technologies after you take the photo have to catch up for the digital camera's. IMHO we are safe for a while. scott

-- Scott Evans (scottevans@attbi.com), March 15, 2002.

Used darkroom equipment can be bought for much less now compared to 3 or 4 years ago. I know at least 6 people that sold it all for digital. And they still have problems getting the prints to look right. I'll keep getting my hands wet 'til I'm dead or they ban chemicals. Beseler 4x5's seem to be selling very cheap.

Film will never go out(Ansel will make sure of that somehow).But, yet a digital back for a Leica M would be a nice addition.

-- chris a williams (LeicaChris@worldnet.att.net), March 15, 2002.


Sorry to disagree with everybody, but film is already disappearing. In five years, maybe Gold 800 and 400TCN or whatever it's called will still be around, but the films I have used for the last ten years are mostly gone. The wedding and portrait markets are starting to convert to digital now, and that will make far fewer 120 format films available. Magazines are going digital - I did some shots for a high-end, beautifully printed magazine last year and they wanted a CD with high resolution files. The only requirement was "no scans from 35mm."

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), March 16, 2002.


I think Jeff is right from the "professional" perspective. The economies of professional imaging make it logical and worthwhile. The professional will have to learn & adapt, or die, very quickly.

But I think Scott has a point about the "amateur" market. The general public has little tolerence for rapid change where the burden of change is placed on the consumer. Vinyl versus CD was a no-brainer - what's to "learn"? But digital imaging - and the requisit image transfer, manipulation, storage, and reproduction - is another matter.

The fallout? I think traditional professional materials will see decreasing demand, and the manufacturers will reduce or cease production. Amateur materials, however, will continue to sell for some time. Manufacturers will have to make a quantum leap in digital convenience and pricing, or it will take a long time for Joe Consumer to catch up.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), March 16, 2002.


I live in a college town and spoke to the head of the film dept recently about the influx of digital in the college scene here. He said he loves digital but the college kids generally hate it and dont want to know. They like the process of traditional photography better...he cites the reason as being that it's fun as well as artistic. I dont think film will die so quickly. Vinal is still used for the best classical recordings as a digital cd leaves out some of the sound spectrum. You really cant beat the warmth of analog. As long as there is $$$ to be made off of film or vinal records or oil paints for that matter, some one will be there to meet the demand.

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), March 16, 2002.

Signs (literally) are up at one local professional photo supply house - on Kodak letterhead - announcing that Verichrome Pan 120 and 35mm Ektagraphic film have both ceased production and will become unavailable as stock are sold off. These are marginal products compared to Tri-X and Velvia, no doubt, but as I mentioned in some previous digital-vs.-film thread, we can expect to see some serious shrinkage in the number of items in film manufacturers' catalogs.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing - do we REALLY need 6 to 8 different 100/160-speed color neg films from Kodak alone? (NC-VC-Max-Gold-Royal Gold-Supra etc. etc.) Or Tri-X Pro/Tri-X plain/Tmax/TmaxCN/PortraB&W/ SelectB&W in 400 speed black and white?

Film will be around as long as it's economical to produce - it's up to the product managers to get their catalogs under control.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 16, 2002.


digital may take over MF and 35mm; but the Minox world is still the kingdom of film, no trace of digital, not for a long time.

-- martin tai (martiin.tai@capcanada.com), March 16, 2002.

Even if Velvia and Sensia die out, Tri-X will live forever!

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), March 16, 2002.


I disagree about there being a "lot to learn" for the general public with digital. You snap a picture as with any point/shoot, you pop out the flash card (or whatever media) and hand it to the 1 hour photo guy, he hands you your photos and your media. How could it be easier? Several local 1 hours are already doing just that.

The notion that for digital to go big, everyone will have to use a computer and produce their own photos is unrealistic and unnecessary. And white balance? How does the general public "white balance" now with film? They don't. Nobody cares even though film is terrible at "white balance." Everyone accepts the orange of daylight film under tungsten or the green under fluorescents. And anyway the processing in the 1 hour lab can "correct" color balance as necessary just as it does today with film.

We don't have to get on the train or even like the train but it's best to stand clear of the tracks because we're sure not going to stop the train.

-- MikeP (mike996@optonline.net), March 16, 2002.


I liked a statement I saw on the Leica Users Group about digital- "digital- it means paying alot more for something you already have and getting less quality".

Now I think this refers to 35mm digital, since I know large format digital is very good, but will set you back at least $15,000.

-- chris a williams (LeicaChris@worldnet.att.net), March 16, 2002.


Why is everyone spending so much time worrying about film versus digital. When CDs took over from Vinyl it took 10 years and there is now a revival of Vinyl. The ability to make crisp clear sound was much greater than the present ability to make acceptable digital pictures. In fact digital pictures are still streets behind wet prints. But of course they are catching up and if prices of digital gear falls - it will need to fall by about 75% - then most photography will be digital. but don't wait for the paint to dry - it could likewise take 10 years. A friend who is now 100% digital says it takes him an hour to do a print he likes and it's more expensive than wet prints.

-- Tony Brookes (gdz00@lineone.net), March 16, 2002.

The "digital is better" crowd are producing sterile, generic, character-less images for "professional" or ersatz "photojournalistic" use.

Hell, platinum and P.O.P. aren't dead--and they haven't been mainstream processes for nearly a century.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), March 16, 2002.


MikeP is right. The barriers to convenient use of digital media will be as low or lower than those for film are today. That goes both for the consumer and the vendor. A processor no larger than a small self- serve copier that takes input from a CF, SM or microdrive, or a photoCD and outputs to 4x6, website, CD, even to 11x14 if you want. Mated to a credit card striker and you could have prints just as easily at Kinkos as at the drugstore or a photo shop, any time of day. How could that be any less attractive than 1-hour processors? The vendor won't have to pay a technician except to service the machine, and the footprint will be a lot smaller.

-- Chris Henry (henryjc@concentric.net), March 16, 2002.

No-one here was saying "digital is better." But it's probably easier to state one's own personal rants than look at the issues...

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), March 16, 2002.

MikeP is right. It will be made easy. In the same way that Kodak made it possible for everyone to use a camera, some company or combination of companies will introduce simpler cameras and drugstore self-processing machines that do what today's drugstore machines do.

I don't find all this agonizing to be particularly useful. If the materials disappear, I'll use digital. The film companies aren't going to listen if the volume isn't there. I am among the thousands of people that wrote Agfa after the disappearance of Ultra 50. Not only didn't it bring it back, it appears they killed its successor before it was released.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), March 16, 2002.


FWIW i'm involved also in watchmaking and retail sales of watches... well electronic watches did displace old mechanical.Today there is a growing market for the mechanical watch and some of these are very expensive.I think like what happened in this industry will happen in photography.There will be hybrids,some film and some digital.For the ord user,digital is both very expensive compared to film,the results are short life...i am in my 50's so will continue to shoot b/w and use darkroom...i will purchase a digital for e-mail use.... I march to my own beat!I did b/w when everybody went to color. Now b/w back in fashion.The slow speed of digital cameras a real drawback.Even my film EOS,is way too slow for me!! Yup a camera designed in the 50's is still tops.My M3 still faster in so many ways to the EOS which is remarkeable. All digital photo users always mention the "delete" feature.I wonder why?

-- jason gold (leeu72@hotmail.com), March 16, 2002.

The only reason this issue raises so much heat is because Leica hasn't even confirmed that a digital M or R body is under development, and we all know Leica's history of remaining decades behind in technology. If we're all honest, we'll all admit we're PO'd at the possibility (if it isn't a probability) that our substantial investment in Leica gear may well be of limited or possibly no practical use in the forseeable future. If there were a digital Leica body today I believe that the film-will-be-here-forever camp would have many fewer members. I believe that Leica's marketing people feel that film and their customer base have the same number of years left, and so have chosen to produce one last camera--the M7, with a minimum of R&D--and make one last splash of profit before the line, film and those who use them both, are either dead or too old to go shooting. I dare Leica to prove me wrong by revealing a plan to offer a digital body for our Leica lenses.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 16, 2002.

What about storage, how are we going to save thousands of snaps made a year, I still feel that having something digitaly is like not having any thing at all, I trust silver, are we going to trust bits?

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), March 16, 2002.

As for Leica developing a digital M body, dream on. I am not counting on that ever happening. There is a better chance of another manufacturer developing a multiplatform back that can be used for Leica M,R, Contax, or other manual lenses that can allow for a market larger than Leica lens owners alone. That will likely be a Japanese or Korean company, not Leica, if it even happens at all.

It is not beyond imagining that we will have to buy film mail order from a few suppliers in the not too distant future, and obtain processing the same way and at higher cost. 35mm technology is the best developed and most popular photographic format in the history of still photography, but look at what video did to 8mm film. And don't think that the developing world will endlessly keep the technology afloat. Sure, you can still send a cable or telex to many places but few do anymore; current technology spreads quickly everywhere.

-- Chris Henry (henryjc@concentric.net), March 16, 2002.


Here's what I think is really funny. Two years ago on this very site are a number of posts saying things like "in two years film will be dead" -- "digital taking over" -- "we need a digital M". All of which kind of makes me believe that the posts in this thread, which say exactly what was being said two years ago (or seven years ago in PC Magazine) are, just as someone above stated 'farts in the wind'. Again I'll bring out my standard reply to the CD analogy - 20 years many were saying the synthesizer would revolutionize music and replace instruments. I go to our local symphony 4 times a year and have yet to see a damn synth on stage. Boy they must be behind the times!! Sure digital is coming. Sure it will replace a lot of film applications. But as I've said before - with a few billion rolls of film sold last year alone (mostly to Gramps and Grandma and old aunt Mable - who sure aren't racing to buy a computer or a digi-cam) film isn't going anywhere fast. To whoever above mentioned the lack of supply of the different types of film - more new films were introduced last year than old films discontinued - please check your facts.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), March 16, 2002.

Hello Dan. Not until the movie houses are completely converted to digital "projection" could I see Kodak consider discontinuing 35mm.film stock. Regards.

-- Sheridan Zantis (albada60@hotmail.com), March 16, 2002.

Sheridan, 35mm motion picture stock shares little in common with 35mm photographic stock, except the misleading 35mm name. As for the "Best of / Worst of ", IMO it'll never be better than now. Digital has reached a point of real useability, yet no one is forced into using it because film is also readily available. Sadly, we've lost a few great film emulsions just like we've lost silver rich enlarging papers. But not because of digital. In return, we've gained some hybred films that perportadly are made for scanning, as well as some truly wonderful fast films. In fact, I think speed may (MAY) be the one thing that will stave off films' supposed demise. A 3200 or 6400 ISO film with the grain of T-Max 400cn is quite concievable. Ahhhh, my M (insert #) with a 50/Noct at 6400 and grainless 11X14s. For personal photography, my digitals may end up sitting on the shelf instead. ---Marc Williams

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.com), March 16, 2002.

This is a silly debate, which has been discussed several times before on this forum. People who use digital cameras and find them very convenient get it into their heads that 35 mm film is on its way out. This is unlikely for many years to come, and thos eof you who think so ought to know better. It has been around too long, too many people are heavily invested in 35 mm camera systems, and there are too many photogrophers who don't use or don't like digital photography for film to disappear in the next few years. I heard the same nonsense when digital cameras were first introduced and the same nonsense that cassette tapes were about to disappear when CDs were introduced. We still have cassettes, LP records, and film will not disappear any time soon. By the numbers, the vast majority of photographers do NOT use digital cameras today. And the professional market is not the largest market for 35 mm film.

Enough of this stupidity. It's getting tiresome. If anyone wants to make a ten thousand dollar bet that 35 mm film won't be available in three years, I'll be happy to oblige. It's a sucker bet.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), March 16, 2002.


The trouble is that something modern coming up doesn't mean we have to get rid of our old stuff. Like I built a harpsichord and I'm now going to work on a clavichord. (That's my problem.) Both of these instruments started to conk out as early as 200-250 years ago due to their successors but there are apparently still lovers thereof. I still listen a lot to my LPs, because -- apart from all of the the modern advantages of a CD -- many of my LPs unfortunately never came out later as a CD. Cameras ditto, e.g. re an M3. That means that even when digitals may eventually some day "win", there will still be thousands of us around with our Ms, until we, too, ourselves conk out. That's all very personal, but to conclude... me, I'm not worried about anything here.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), March 16, 2002.

I think this is an interesting discussion. Digital is here in the way autofocus is here. In the midst ofbreathtaking breakthroughs in photo equipment isn't it amazing that the good old Rangefinder is undergoing a revival? I mean until--what?--1999 there was no Cosina Voigtlander. Remember looking for used extenal clip on meters? How about suffering with old cloudy and scratched LSM lenses for you IIIf? What about dreaming about a Leicavit for your M4-P? Or, hey, can you believe there was a time when your only choice for an auto exposure M camera was a used CLE? Now, suddenly, all the stuff RF users either had to get used or dream about is out there new.

There is the digital trend, as there was an SLR trend, and an autofocus trend. But one must consider counter trends and revivals. Suddenly people are rediscovering manual focus SLRs--notice the new Nikon FM manifestation. The truth is that electronic photography is still young and frankly not quite up to film in many respects. It may never be ------- !

Here's what really amazes me. I can still buy 110 film easily while the 110 camera is basically a dead duck. No one makes them as far as I know. (I went on a Pentax 110 kick a few years ago--totally nuts but fun.)

Or get this: Here in Japan you can buy mini copies of Leicas, Nikons, Rolleis, Hassies, etc. that use Minox film. Now talk about an ultra specialized photographic field--Minox. But these characters are bestsellers. You ought to see young Japanese women looking at these things and going, "EEEEEh! Kawa--iiiii!"

I have a feeling our 'luxes, 'crons, and Ms have a few years left before they become curious decorations like typewriters. (Anyone miss typewriters, by the way? I don't. I never want to see another typewriter again. But a vintage Mamiya 6x6, an Olympus Pen-- another story!)

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), March 16, 2002.


I just thought of another counter trend that will make Leica people happy--if you believe analogies mean something. The fountain pen revival in the midst of the computer revolution. Until a short time ago if you wanted a flexible nib fountain pen you had to search for it at garage sales. Where you would find now expensive RF stuff that no one wanted.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), March 16, 2002.

Might I respectfully suggest that all of us who love film and have even the slightest concern that it may disappear in the next two (or next twenty) years, spend one hour less per week on internet forums lamenting and instead shoot at least one roll more of our favorite film emulsion per week. Money talks and continued demand for a product speaks much louder than endless cyber-jawboneing. And in the end we'll definitely end up with more photos from the increased volume, and probably better photos from the increased pratice.

-- Tod Hart (tghart@altavista.com), March 16, 2002.

Yeah, fountain pens are back. What is the point? Pens are low tech, can be filled with bulk ink, which is also low tech and the process cycle ends when the ink meets the paper. Unless paper disappears, then that is all she wrote, so to speak. Photography requires a supportive industrial infrastructure pre and post exposure and for most shooters the availability of expensive processing machines (yeah, yeah, I could shoot only B+W, do my own chemistry, enlarge and print, but I don't want to, and besides, that requires support that is even more tenuous than commercial processing). We in Leicaland are subject to the larger industry trends and those trends are going digital, at all levels of photography.

-- Chris Henry (henryjc@concentric.net), March 17, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ