On Wed, March 28, 2012 2:34 pm, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > Ilford is not dead, their products are still out there. And so are Adox, > Arista, Efke, Foma, Fuji, Kentmere, or Rollei (yes, film; may be > rebranded, though). > > (Digital has clearly won; film sales must be down 90% or some such. But > that's not DEAD. People who want normal photo tools should choose digital. > People who want film can still buy film, though, and that's as > it should be -- so long as there are enough of them.) -- > David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/ David, Sure, you can still buy it. But unless you develop the film and enlarge the prints yourself, the actual processing of the file is what has become more difficult. The processing was the part of the problem that had become so cheap and automatic that it wasn't an issue. That was always the rub with film; there was a lot of serious technical work to do after you pressed the shutter release (there is, of course, work to do in digital, too, but it pales in comparison). Now, processing establishments are rare and expensive, and they will certainly get more rare, and more expensive. Of course, a technology doesn't ever really die; Sally Mann still uses wet plate; there are plenty of folks who are willing to get down and dirty with chemicals to create their own emulsions. But as a *commodity*, yes, film and film cameras are becoming dinosaurs, and soon will be (if they are not already) prohibitively rare and expensive to use for all but the determined enthusiast. This has nothing to do with better or not; we have already learned that the best doesn't always win (Beta vs VHS, Blu-Ray vs HD DVD, etc.). I have a Spotmatic that works very well with the M42 takumar lenses I have (of course, the camera was designed for them), but unless I am willing to invest in a small darkroom (ferreting out the rather expensive chemicals and paper, which, for the time being, are still available) develop the Tri-X myself, and enlarge and develop the photographs, I just don't have the time or resources for it. Of course I could scan the negatives into digital form, but then a fair bit of the advantages of film (and photographic paper) are gone, and I might as well start from digital. I'm not telling you, or anyone else on this list, anything that they don't already know. But I will tell you that digital photography rekindled the love of making photographs for me, and that is a very powerful effect, easily trumping the affection for old photography processes and gear. Of course, the old takumars are on my Pentax K20, now. And you'll notice that a lot of my photographs look like they were taken on black and white film. But the days of film as a commodity substrate for photographs are over. Andrew -- http://andrewsharpe.com
