another nail :-(

Discussion in 'UK Photography' started by Chris H, Aug 12, 2010.

  1. Chris H

    Chris H Guest

    I see that Fuji have decided to stop their range of sensia slide film.
    Apparently there are stocks to last until the end of the year.

    It seems that the decline in 35mm film will continue and become a
    minority market like plate photography.
     
    Chris H, Aug 12, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Chris H

    John Bean Guest

    Other than for photojournalism and sport I never really saw the point of
    35mm still photography even before it was displaced by digital capture;
    in fact I am astonished it lasted as long as it did as a mainstream
    format.

    I for one don't miss it and (nostalgia aside) I certainly don't mourn
    its demise.
     
    John Bean, Aug 12, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Chris H

    Chris H Guest

    In the relatively short history of photography 1840-2010 the 35mm film
    has had only a small period of use. It will be all but forgotten in a
    few years like 120 and 126 roll film.
     
    Chris H, Aug 13, 2010
    #3
  4. Chris H

    John Bean Guest

    Only if you define the 76 years[1] that 35mm has been in use as "a small
    period". In reality it's been in use for almost half the time that
    photography has existed and hugely dominant for a large proportion of
    that time.


    Note: [1] Starting with Kodaks's definition of the "135" cassette format
    in 1934
     
    John Bean, Aug 13, 2010
    #4
  5. Chris H

    Chris H Guest

    Fair enough but like glass plates it's time is over now. From what I
    can see 35mm film is less than 10% of the usage it had 5-10 years ago
    and it is still falling.

    Unlike glass plates 35m film is difficult for the small non industrial
    user to make.
     
    Chris H, Aug 13, 2010
    #5
  6. Chris H

    John Bean Guest

    This is very true.

    Actually I wasn't intending to be argumentitive but the emoticon at the
    end of your subject line led me to believe you thought the demise of
    35mm was A Bad Thing for some perverse reason. Good riddance, I say.
     
    John Bean, Aug 13, 2010
    #6
  7. Chris H

    Chris H Guest

    The problem is that film has to be made in batches and has a shelf life.
    What we are seeing is smaller and smaller batches and longer gaps
    between them. It seems that when the smallest run possible is not
    selling before the use by date they are stopping the range.
    I went digital about 6 years ago and have not used a film camera since.
    Finally sold off all the bits a couple of years ago.

    I could never afford or have the logistics for a dark room in years gone
    by. I was on the move too much with rented accommodation or in the
    military. Now with digital, a laptop and lightroom /photoshop I can do
    more than I could in a dark room over a coffee in a cafe in daylight.
    And them of course send them around the world using the cafe's wifi or
    my mobile phone.

    The proliferation of cheap reasonable quality digital cameras (P&S to
    Bridge and entry level DSLRs) not to mention camera-phones and PS
    Elements "free" with many computers and cameras added to facebook,
    fliker etc has meant a resurgence in photography as a hobby at a level
    never before seen.

    So whilst the use of film has dropped 95% the number of people taking
    photographs (and the number of pictures taken ) has risen considerably.
     
    Chris H, Aug 13, 2010
    #7
  8. Chris H

    Geoff Berrow Guest

    I suppose it will still be around as long as movie film makers keep on
    using it.
     
    Geoff Berrow, Aug 13, 2010
    #8
  9. Chris H

    Chris H Guest

    AFAIK They all went digital a few years ago. The Cinemas are following
    suite. Even the X-ray machine in my local (small) hospital is digital!

    The problem is the type of film. I recall last year some one was all
    puffed up because one of the companies had brought out a NEW 35mm slide
    film... it had replaced about 5 other films they had dropped over the
    last 2 years.

    Eventually the likes of Fuji, Agfa Kodak etc will come down to one
    colour, one B&W and one slide film. (If they havne't dropped the B&W
    yet) Produced in ever smaller batches until they get down to the
    smallest economical batch run.

    When they get to the end of life of a batch and there is still unsold
    film the will just not run any more and dismantle the production line to
    put something more profitable in the factory. (Or sell the land)
     
    Chris H, Aug 13, 2010
    #9
  10. Chris H

    John Bean Guest

    Even if true (and I don't dispute it) cine stock isn't the same medium -
    neither base nor emulsion - used for 35mm still cameras. If making 35mm
    cine stock is still economic there's no implication that 35mm still
    camera stock would be.

    I suspect there's not much "Hollywood" stuff originated on film stock -
    35mm or otherwise - these days but I'd be very surprised if there
    weren't lots of 35mm prints made for distribution.
     
    John Bean, Aug 13, 2010
    #10
  11. Good riddance you say. Well thank you very much. I still use 35mm slide film,
    doing so still gives me great pleasure, but somehow this offends you? Does the
    continued existance of film take something away from your pleasure in
    photography, does it threaten your hobby, of course it doesn't, so why the
    attitude?
     
    John F. Kendall, Aug 14, 2010
    #11
  12. Chris H

    Bruce Guest


    The "attitude" is probably because he is very upset. He has invested
    thousands of pounds in a new digital camera, lenses (you just *have*
    to have those "digital" lenses!), software and a printer, upgraded his
    computer, bought a new laptop, all at vast expense ...

    .... then found the results he is getting are no better than with film.
    So he keenly awaits the demise of film, because its continued
    availability reminds him of just how much money he has spent, and of
    how many hours a week he now spends-post processing and printing his
    images, only to get results that are no better than with film.

    Yes, I would be upset too. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Aug 14, 2010
    #12
  13. Chris H

    Bruce Guest


    Manufacturing facilities for making and coating 35mm movie film still
    exist, and are thriving. This means that manufacturing facilities for
    35mm film for stills photography still exist.

    Different base, different emulsions, so what? As long as there are
    manufacturing and coating facilities and sufficient demand for 35mm
    film (and there most assuredly is) it will still be manufactured. Of
    course the range of films that are available will steadily reduce to
    ensure that what is still made can be made in economic quantities.

    Kodachrome has already gone - Kodachrome processing will be over by
    the end of 2010 - and the number of minilabs processing C41 colour
    negative film is rapidly contracting. However, black and white and
    colour slide E6 films will be around for many years to come - long
    after I'm dead, I'm sure.

    To those who have invested thousands of pounds in digital capture and
    post-processing, only to find that the results are no better than they
    obtained with film, the continued existence of film photography must
    be a real irritant. These are the people who claim that film is dead,
    in the hope that it will be, one day soon.

    Alas, they are going to have to wait a very long time. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Aug 14, 2010
    #13
  14. Chris H

    John Bean Guest

    It's existence is not a matter of offence, my comment was just a summary
    of my first reply to the OP, where I said I've never understood its
    popularity as a mainstream medium in the first place.

    It's not and never has been an emotive subject for me, no matter that
    others may try to make it so, but perhaps the use of the phrase "good
    riddance" is more an expression of relief from the tedious "35mm vs
    xxxx" so beloved of fanatics than the loss of the format itself.
     
    John Bean, Aug 14, 2010
    #14
  15. Chris H

    Chris H Guest

    Distribution yes but I thought that most "film" and "video" had gone
    digital now. Certainly all the news teams have gone digital and all the
    people making non mainstream-cinema "film" and "video" seem to be using
    digital cameras. The porn industry (which is probably larger than
    "Hollywood") is all digital these days.

    Given the amounts of special effects etc and from what I have seen of
    the "making of... " features on major film DVD's most mainstream cinema
    films are now digital from start to finish.

    Does anyone have any authoritative stats on this?
     
    Chris H, Aug 14, 2010
    #15
  16. Chris H

    Chris H Guest

    The two are similar but completely separate. They have no bearing on
    each other. Besides cine stock is a positive (slide) film (with sound
    track) and most 35mm still film is negative?
    Agreed.... Though most new cinemas are now digital.
     
    Chris H, Aug 14, 2010
    #16
  17. Chris H

    Chris H Guest

    Not the same thing at all!!!!!
    The demand is dropping like a stone!!! My Local Calumet says
    professional use has dropped over 90% in the last 5 years.
    This is what I said earlier. We will end up with each manufacturer doing
    one slide and one negative colour film. Maybe a colour slide film.
    I am sorry to hear that. You will be missed by many I am sure. We will
    all send flowers.
    Actually I can do far more with a mid-high end DSLR and a laptop than
    could ever be done with 35mm film and a dark room. I started photography
    some 40+ years ago on 126 film. (Can you still get 126 film?)

    In reality according to a friend of mine who does "digital imaging"
    professionally and photography for fun (his other camera is a satellite)
    anything better than a Nikon D200 and Photoshop CS(1) will out perform
    35mm film in 95% of cases.

    With the current range of "full format" DSLRs, modern lenses with DxO,
    CS3 onwards (and addin's like the OnOne suite) digital can outperform
    35mm film 100% of the time. In fact one of the past Presidents of the
    Royal Photographic Society said the same to me a couple of months ago.

    But what do they know... they both started over 40 years ago with film.
    It is effectively dead now. Well about as dead as plate and field
    cameras. However with those at least you can make the plates at home.
    Film is far more problematical. So I expect glass plates to outlive 35mm
    film.
     
    Chris H, Aug 14, 2010
    #17
  18. Chris H

    John Bean Guest

    Your tone makes it sound as though you are disagreeing with what I
    wrote, yet you're not. It's very disconcerting.
    I don't think so, I was under the impression that traditional
    "Hollywood" style films (Technicolor, Eastmancolor et al) were shot on
    colour negative stock and mass-printed for distribution.
     
    John Bean, Aug 14, 2010
    #18
  19. Chris H

    Geoff Berrow Guest

    Professional stuff is on negative and the 'rushes' are a positive
    print used for editing. Sound is separate. Neg cutting is the last
    thing that happens and the sound is combined on the final print.

    At least that's how it was when I was a student, admittedly quite a
    long time ago.
     
    Geoff Berrow, Aug 14, 2010
    #19
  20. Chris H

    Chris H Guest

    I stand corrected.
     
    Chris H, Aug 14, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.