Has the Digital Camera Killed Regular Film Photography?
- Posted on June 1, 2011 at 7:20am by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) — At Image City Photography Gallery, Gary Thompson delights in pointing out qualities of light, contrast and clarity in one of his best-selling prints – a winter-sunset view of Yosemite National Park’s El Capitan peak shot with a hefty Pentax film camera he bought in 1999 for $1,700.
His wife, Phyllis, a latecomer to fine-art photography after they retired from teaching in the 1990s, favors a Hasselblad X-Pan for panoramic landscapes, such as a time-lapse shot of a harbor in Nova Scotia.
Of 11 partners and resident artists at the private gallery in Rochester – the western New York city where George Eastman transformed photography from an arcane hobby into a mass commodity with his $1 Brownie in 1900 – the Thompsons are the only ones left who haven’t switched to filmless digital cameras.
But that time may be near.
“I like the color we get in film, the natural light,” says Phyllis Thompson, 70, who married her high-school sweetheart 50 years ago. “But digital cameras are getting much better all the time, and there will come a time when we probably won’t be able to get film anymore. And then we’ll have to change.”
At the turn of the 21st century, American shutterbugs were buying close to a billion rolls of film per year. This year, they might buy a mere 20 million, plus 31 million single-use cameras – the beach-resort staple vacationers turn to in a pinch, according to the Photo Marketing Association.
Eastman Kodak Co. marketed the world’s first flexible roll film in 1888. By 1999, more than 800 million rolls were sold in the United States alone. The next year marked the apex for combined U.S. sales of rolls of film (upward of 786 million) and single-use cameras (162 million).
Equally startling has been the plunge in film camera sales over the last decade. Domestic purchases have tumbled from 19.7 million cameras in 2000 to 280,000 in 2009 and might dip below 100,000 this year, says Yukihiko Matsumoto, the Jackson, Mich.-based association’s chief researcher.
For InfoTrends imaging analyst Ed Lee, film’s fade-out is moving sharply into focus: “If I extrapolate the trend for film sales and retirements of film cameras, it looks like film will be mostly gone in the U.S. by the end of the decade.”
Just who are the die-hards, holdouts and hangers-on?
Among those who still rely on film – at least part of the time – are advanced amateurs and a smattering of professionals who specialize in nature, travel, scientific, documentary, museum, fine art and forensic photography, market surveys show.
Regular point-and-shoot adherents who haven’t made the switch tend be poorer or older – 55 and up.
But there’s also a swelling band of new devotees who grew up in the digital age and may have gotten hooked from spending a magical hour in the darkroom during a high school or college class.
Others are simply drawn to its strengths over digital and are even venturing into retro-photo careers.
“In everything from wedding to portrait to commercial photography, young professionals are finding digital so prevalent that they’re looking for a sense of differentiation,” says Kayce Baker, a marketing director at Fujifilm North America. “That artistic look is something their high-end clients want to see.”
Kodak remains the world’s biggest film manufacturer, with Japan’s Fuji right on its tail. But the consumer and professional films they make have dwindled to a precious few dozen film stocks in a handful of formats, becoming one more factor in the mammoth drop-off in film processing.
Scott’s Photo in Rochester finally switched this year stopped daily processing of color print film because fewer than one in 20 customers are dropping off film. A decade ago, “we could process 300 rolls on a good day, and now we see maybe 8 or 10 rolls on the few days we actually process,” owner Scott Sims says.
For the hustling masses, there’s no turning back the clock.
“There’s so many digital images taken every day, especially with mobile media, that never will hit a piece of paper,” says Therese Mulligan, administrative chair of the School of Photographic Arts and Sciences at Rochester Institute of Technology.
Even at major photography schools, film is an elective specialty.
“Our entire first two years’ curriculum is digital in orientation,” Mulligan says. “Those that follow a fine-art option are the first to gravitate toward film. Other genres we teach – photojournalism or advertising or biomedical – have a stronger digital emphasis because of the industry itself.”
In a rich irony, film’s newest fans – not unlike music aficionados who swear by vinyl records – are being drawn together via the rise of the Internet.
“The technology that enabled the demise of film is actually helping to keep it relevant with specific types of users,” says IDC analyst Chris Chute.
But with the film market shrinking by more than 20 percent annually, most other signs point downhill. Analysts foresee Kodak offloading its still-profitable film division sometime in the next half-dozen years as it battles to complete a long and painful digital transformation.
Kodak will churn out a variety of films as long as there’s sufficient demand for each of them, says Scott DiSabato, its marketing manager for professional film. It has even launched four new types since 2007.
While digital has largely closed the image-quality gap, DiSabato says a top-line film camera using large-format film “is still unsurpassed” in recording high-resolution images.
“The beauty with film is a lot of wonderful properties are inherent and don’t require work afterward” whereas digital can involve heavy computer manipulation to get the same effect, DiSabato says.
“In the extreme, they call it `stomped on,’” he said. “But a lot of photographers want to be photographers, not computer technicians. And some prized film capabilities – grain, color hues, skin-tone reproduction – can’t quite be duplicated no matter how much stomping goes on.”
Gary Thompson, who’s been exhibiting his best photos for 32 years, captured his Yosemite picture on medium-format slide film – which is 4 1/2 times bigger than 35 mm film – during one of many weeks-long photo jaunts with his wife.
In the digitally scanned, 24-by-30-inch print, the shadow from a dipping sun has climbed halfway up El Capitan. The wooded, black-and-white foreground with its lacy snow patterns stands in stark contrast to the golden glow on the granite cliff face under a blue sky.
“I don’t know if I could have gotten this print that large with that kind of detail“ using a digital camera without ”shooting several images and blending them together in Photoshop,” he says. “What attracts me to shoot in almost all instances is the quality of light and there’s something about film and working with it and the way it records that I just like.”
Thompson feels acutely that he’s reaching the end of an era.
“As people’s film cameras break down, rather than purchasing another one, they move to digital,” he says. “Eventually, we’ll probably be doing that. There’s a certain nostalgia involved, particularly when I’m working with one of my big husky cameras. That will be sad. But hey, when it happens, I’ll adjust.”
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 693 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 498 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 352 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 332 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 318 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 318 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 332 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 243 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 318 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (63)
eddyjames1952
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 2:19pmKind of makes you wonder what if….Nothing being stored on permanent media.I wonder if that is one of the reasons there are no records from the time when all the ancient structures that date back over 10-15000 years ago,stone buildings that we can’t reproduce even now,and no records of how it was done,before the last ice age advanced civilizations occurred all over the world,massive buildings,advanced mathematics required but no written records until about 4,000 yrs ago when we learned to make clay tablets again. I wonder in another 10,000 yrs what will remain of all the floppy discs and 8 track tapes etc.
Report Post »Shackleford
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 1:49pmI was a holdout of the film era but even I went digital in 2001 after I saw first hand how digital images from a casual digital camera had much more realistic color than those from my casual 35mm. Like all things information that get converted into digital data, the digital version is superior in nearly every way. Most notably is the fact that the photos and negatives won‘t age and that it’s easy to distribute them.
Of course you’ll have those that hang on to the past and insist that the old technology is better than modern stuff. Even today you still have so-called audiophiles who claim that vinyl records sound better than digital audio. Of course what they really mean is that they prefer audio with the imperfections (i.e. warmth) that they’ve grown accustomed to. It must get expensive buying all that vinyl for playback one time so that way they can enjoy that pristine virgin vinyl!
Unlike advances in digital audio which basically remains stagnant due to rigid rules in formatting (i.e. the 1980s era CD audio format still defines the rules for digital audio), digital pictures have no such constraints. With each passing month new camera models are released with ever growing resolutions that make the “analog perfection” of the negative less and less of an advantage.
Report Post »Beerbear
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 1:45pmI have two digital cameras. One is a point and shoot from Sony, which I tend to carry within range, the other is DSLR from Nikon. When I’m out shooting, I tend to take a ton of photos (when I go to Japan I come home with 500+ photos easily.) Only a handful usually survives the selection once all the data is on my computer. If I was to do this with old film, it would simply be too expensive. Plus, programs like Photoshop allow me to edit my photos easily.
Good riddance the old film is dead. It was good back then. I loved my old Canon SLR, but I didn’t have the freedom I have today. Face it. Taking 100 photos with my old SLR required me to carry at least 2-3 additional cartridges, and I had to reload, sometimes losing time and the motive I wanted to shoot. Plus I had to prepare everything beforehand. Digital I just fire away and select the best shot afterwards. Thanks, I take the digital.
Report Post »thinkinghuman
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 1:29pmI think it is a great idea to shoot pictures with film. That way, in 20 years you can have BROWN SEPIA color. All it takes is time :-)
Report Post »philosophy108
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 10:15pmFaded photos are mainly a result of cheap processing (common with the “drugstore” B&W processing
of yesteryear). I have some Kodachrome prints of myself as a todler; printed in 1947. They have not faded,
the colors have not shifted in all these years. The big overall problem with silver prints is fading
from longterm exposure to light.
Technicolor resembles your modern ink-jet print; it uses dye instead of sliver for the prints, so
that unlike silver-based prints, they dye doesn’t have to withstand harsh chemicals needed
to process silver-based images. The color-dyes that can wihstand photo-chemicals tend to be more
prone to fading (many old TV shows are faded from repeated light exposures) and the non-photographic
dyes tend to be more robust. I’ve seen very old Technicolor prints that look just beautiful, despite
having being printed in the 1930′s. Some color-print processes are less robust than others in the
photo-print department.
I too miss the old darkroom, my old 4 x 5 1910 Auto-Graflex reflex (with an 18-shot film magazine),
Report Post »and the pre-Anniversay Speed Graphic with the 1,000th of a second cloth focal plane shutter,
and the big, 3-cell flashguns that could use bulbs up to the size of a 100W light bulb, synchronized
with an electrical solenoid to the ancient Compur shutter with the f 4.5 lense.
Ghandi was a Republican
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 1:20pmThe photomarts should be concentrating on Superior paper and development techniques. Maybe a 3D development process. This is what makes Capitalism so great.
Report Post »Juan
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 1:12pmI make my living as a portrait photographer. Been doing it for 37 years. I went digital in 2000. One thing is for sure, the properties of light and photography have not changed. Film processing was one of the worst polluters of all times. It put lots of heavy metals into the water table. Watching an image “magically” appear under the glow of a red safe light in a chemically dampened darkroom. You can get the same effect using a fade in on any number of software slide shows.
Report Post »Little known fact: Most film is processed then scanned and printed on the same paper as digital photos. Your post processing options in digital far outreach those capable with film and require just as much skill and artistic talent to apply. Any idiot could go into a darkroom and make a bad picture and any idiot can use Photoshop to do the same. It takes a craftsman and artist to create a photograph, whether the media be film or digital capture. By the way. How many boxes of slides are laying around that will never again be seen on the screen because the projector bulb burned out years ago and can’t be replaced. Get them scanned if they are that important.
And yes, I do miss my Nikon F2 Photomic loaded with Kodachrome 25. Those were heady days.
Federated Republic
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 6:17pm“And yes, I do miss my Nikon F2 Photomic loaded with Kodachrome 25. Those were heady days”
Yes those where the days and sympathize with you;-)
Kodachrome and laser prints. sigh!
Report Post »eddvoss
Posted on June 2, 2011 at 9:55amBut I love my Nikon D-100 and laptop.
Report Post »yosemitefan
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 1:00pmThe blame for this falls at the feet of Kodak – too much inbreeding at the top. The serious amateur and pro photographer were ignored by Kodak. Their marketing teams went to the Walmarts Kmarts to sell them millions of rolls for a penny a roll profit while cutting the Real photographers out of the equation. The average point n shoot customer takes one roll of film per year – christmas pics at both ends with summer vacation in the middle. In the 90′s I kept 40 to 50 rolls at home all the time – but Kodak ignored that huge market and went for the volume stores.
Digital photography is a gross mis-application of technology. Digicams are great for for the point and shooters who want to post to the internet or quick turn around time for the press.
Two huge problems with digital – long term storage does not exist and the chips resolution is very limited to a distance of 30 feet or less. Anything at long distance is just color and shapes – no detail.
I have slides taken at Yosemite of El Capitan from the Merced river, you can see the pine trees up near the top from a distance of 4 miles and the color is amazing. Plus these slide were taken in 1997 and are still perfect. Digital images taken in 2005 are 80% lost from my digital files. But I still have the original slides and negs and can make more at any time.
Report Post »photography czar
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 12:48pmI started my career as an Industrial Photographer. I used 4×5 View Cameras ( the kind with bellows and the cloth over my head). I had to process film and print 400 8×10s at a time. No matter if I wore a smock, my clothes ended up stained, I smelled of fixer, I hated the dark. I love digital. My computer is my darkroom. I have so much more opportunities to get better and better imagery with pixels. I now work for a company that makes Muscle Car Parts and I use digital for my advertisements and parts photos. I have a site on FB as I am called Photo Czar.
Report Post »eddvoss
Posted on June 2, 2011 at 9:57amI was an Army photographer for 8 years and had to make tons of prints at a time. Digital is so much easier.
Report Post »publicuss
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 11:57amDigital is fine if you have electricity in some form… No power, no pictures… Looks like we better buy lots of film and normal bulbs before…
Report Post »RedManBlueState
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 11:51amFilm still has much higher resolution, color range, and low light capabilities than even the best digital cameras today. However, I am not a professional photographer trying to grab a Pulitzer winning shot in the African jungle. I’m a dad who takes snapshots at Disneyland, and digital is a far superior medium for that. Just being able to check the picture immediately to see if Jr. closed his eyes or stuck out his tongue and take it again before moving on is a huge plus. As well as being able to preview those 1000 pictures I take on vacation to pick out the 10 that actually come out and toss the rest without paying to process and print them all.
Report Post »Stupid Windmill
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 11:38amGood riddance I say. So much cheaper to deal with digital photos.
Report Post »brianmoc
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 12:39pmthank you! Please with the film! Yes its better quality but THE cost IS to MUCH. Box of paper 15$ negative development 12$ a roll! And you get one keeper picture every 5 rolls? I’m sad I sold my film cameras but I’m also happy I saved time and 1000’s of dolor’s by now using digital. http://www.flickr.com/photos/29498542@N05/
Report Post »DDD
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 10:27amFilm photography does produce better quality pictures than digital. Its a sad thing really. Just like the CD revolution – the quality of the sound from vinyl records is lost forever and I miss it terribly.
Report Post »eddvoss
Posted on June 2, 2011 at 2:03amThat is a matter of opinion DDD I can get much larger prints from my digital than I can from film without the grain. I really takes some enlargement before it begins to pixelate. A friend of mine is classified in the top ranking of PPA and runs his portrait business using strictly digital equipment. His wife does the sales and shows the proofs before the client even leaves the building.
Report Post »lewbrown
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 10:13amDuring the Vietnam war I was stationed on the USS Intrepid in the South China Sea, I remember Processing returning film from recon Navy Aircraft. The old fashion way of processing and printing. Real chemicals, real film, real enlarger, and real time. At that time I could look at a negative and tell what the time f/stop exposure should be. Now I just let the auto feature of my digital camera do it all. Sometimes I miss the good ole ways.
Report Post »eddvoss
Posted on June 2, 2011 at 1:59amLew you can still flip that digital to manual mode and set the exposure yourself.
Report Post »Bearclaws
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 9:29amI don’t believe film will ever disappear. There are companies like Ilford in the UK who are committed to film and printing paper. Also Kodak will still make a batch of a particular film, if you have the money; so photographers have formed co-op’s, so the cost to each partner isn’t that much.
Report Post »eddvoss
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 9:25amAfter years of working with film doing everything short of mixing my developer from the basic chemicals I made the transition to digital a few years ago. I love the ease of using it. The only draw backs that I see are the lack of actual prints to share. You know those sappy home photos. I use a number of back ups so that I don’t lose them. As a photographer and writer all my work is important to me, and I print out hard copies of the final products.
Report Post »nomercy63
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 8:54amThings change move along!
Report Post »Miyegombo Bayartsogt
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 8:42amOne day the sun will belch and all that is digital will fry. Every bit of the computer memory will vanish into the ether forever. Then what? Personally, I keep many cans of colorful paints on hand to paint pictures in post-picture apocalypse.
Report Post »threecats407
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 8:35amI somewhat reluctantly switched from slides to digital a few years ago. I guess it was more a matter of being easier to view your shots later vs a slide projector. Still nothing beats a slide on a light table and it is telling how many shots in Outdoor Photographer credit film.
Report Post »Any who have done it know the magic that came with developing your own stuff.
TimeIsUp
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 9:46amYes, I do. In fact, just returned from a photography expedition where I took a couple thousand digital images, and 36 large format chromes. Now I must find someplace that still develops these 4×5 E-6 films, or resort to developing them myself, assuming I can find the chemistry… It certainly is a different photo-world today, but I still anxiously await seeing the results.
Report Post »Liberal_Atheist_Critical_Thinker
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 8:32amSnowleopard {gallery of cat folks} said -
“All things change in time; its just for us to see they are good changes and not ones for disasterous intent or outcome.”
I’m glad to see you are a progressive. Congratulations!
Report Post »intlctlrdnck
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 8:11amSo yes, digital has finally returned film photography to the relm of “elite” fine-art, which critics of the Brownie had bemoaned.
But what it has created is an entire generation that will not have those shoe boxes and photo albums full of family photos. The snap-shooter rarely makes prints anymore, and few people know how to, or care to, archive their computer-stored images properly. So those baby pictures we all dreaded our mothers dragging out at inappropriate times are simply gone. Lost on a dead hard drive somewhere. That blurry shot of Great-Aunt Pauline on her 90th birthday never even made it to the computer hard drive in the first place. It was deleted in-camera. It would have been the last picture of her the family would have had.
Report Post »YankeeBlue
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 10:09amYes, so sad. They won’t have rotary telephones or VHS tapes either… how will they survive with only every photo they’ve ever taken instantly available on an iPad?
Report Post »dr_funk
Posted on June 2, 2011 at 3:56am@YankeeBlue
I used to think strictly-digital was awesome…
Until my hard drive died, and I lost ALL of my music and ALL of my photos.
There’s something to be said for the permanence of photo prints.
Report Post »Christabel
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 7:48amJust as a suggestion Blaze; stupid headline for a good and interesting story. Come on, what a stupid question. Ya think???
Report Post »Rob
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 7:48amWow…The Blaze really jumped on a breaking story here.
Report Post »13th Imam
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 8:02amBut you are here. And commenting . You are still a Dope
Report Post »TomFerrari
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 10:12amAnd yet, you, 13th, are ALSO here, and belittling other people who are here for being here.
Hypocrite.
Report Post »Rob
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 10:34amlol… wow, you told me!
Report Post »teddrunk
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 7:31amWith any luck the company with a “K” will cease to exist. A hugely leftist Commie company. Sen. McCarthy could have a field day digging out Commies there.
Report Post »*************************
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 7:11pmI’m afraid to say the K-word. Kodak. Kodak. KODAK!! (Take THAT, TheBlaze auto-censor!)
And here is another reason for wanting the Eastman Kodak company to meet it’s justly deserved demise. It is on the “Human Rights Campaign” list of companies scoring a perfect 100 percent for policies supportive of sex pérverts! See “America’s Pro-hómoséxual Giants” at WorldNetDaily – http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=114304 and learn who unsuspecting Americans have supported in the destruction of the U.S.A.!!
(Glenn Beck may think it’s a evil to execute hómoséxuals but God states it is evil not to! Who will you follow?)
Report Post »stinkybisquit
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 7:27amIt is the closing of an era. I know the last roll of Kodachrome was developed this spring; I wonder how long before B&W film, using silver, will follow. Sure, there will always be a niche, but I’ll miss this our version of the buggy whip.
Report Post »MASTER YODA
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 1:29pmRunning perfect for now, he said his model t is, when it breaks, planning on buying an edsel, is he. Herh herh herh.
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 7:26amAll things change in time; its just for us to see they are good changes and not ones for disasterous intent or outcome.
Report Post »13th Imam
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 7:41amSubsidize the film industry. Subsidize the Buggy Whip industry. All DEMOCRATS should rally the poor Union workers that will no longer have Kodak jobs. Barry should ban all Digital cameras.
Report Post »No Processed Film , No Peace
nzkiwi
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 7:56amI loved doing my own B+W developing as a kid. I wouldn’t do it now, though, given the choice. I have to smile though when my small children spot me taking a picture of them and ask “Can I see it?”. In the old days it usually took a week before you could see it, if you had it processed professionally.
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 10:19am@13th Imam,
“Subsidize the film industry. Subsidize the Buggy Whip industry. All DEMOCRATS should rally the poor Union workers that will no longer have Kodak jobs.”
LOL. Which is exactly the kind of attitude that got us the Sherman Act, which screwed the people.
The Truth About Sherman
http://mises.org/daily/331
“The sugar and petroleum trusts were among the most widely attacked, but there is evidence that these trusts actually reduced prices from what they otherwise would have been. Congress clearly recognized this. During the House debates over the Sherman Act, Congressman William Mason stated, “Trusts have made products cheaper, have reduced prices; but if the price of oil, for instance, were reduced to one cent a barrel, it would not right the wrong done to the people of this country by the ‘trusts’ which have destroyed legitimate competition and driven honest men from legitimate business enterprises.” [Congressional Record, 51st Congress, House, 1st Session (June 20, 1890), p. 4100.]“
Report Post »Kraus79
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 10:27amFilm is definitely dead. In fact, I‘d say it’s days were numbered five or six years ago. Polaroid nixed its instant film division a few years ago.
Report Post »jb.kibs
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 10:50amdeath of a mouse.
Report Post »the optical/laser mice have killed mechanical roller mice.
i’m sad about it.. but moved on.. ;)
independentvoteril
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 1:09pmIt’s NOT just the older people that are still using film.. MANY younger people find doing it the old way is much better (according to them) and they are looking for OLD camera’s and learning to develope their own film to.my dad was really into photography if he were alive I think he would like the new technology but would still use the old way ..Personally I LOVE the newer camera‘s I don’t have to worry about taking the film to get it developed.. paying for pictures of NOTHING.. and I can fit MORE memory cards in a much smaller space than rolls of film..
Report Post »jzs
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 1:38pmWhy don’t we increase subsidies to the oil industry? Even though the are making record profits we should give till it hurts.
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 2:55pm@jzs,
“Why don’t we increase subsidies to the oil industry? Even though the are making record profits we should give till it hurts.”
How many times to the Blazers have to tell you that they’re against ALL subsidies?
Further, wealth disparity is not a bad thing, if people earn that money.
Did you know that Anti-Trust legislation actually protects government monopolies? What happened to promoting competition?
And not competition for competition’s sake, mind you. If someone does something so well, in a truly free market, that no one else can do it better or cheaper, and they’re not getting subsidies, then nothing is keeping anyone from competing with them but sheer efficiency and consumer choice.
A natural monopoly is not anti-competition – in fact it’s quite pro-competition.
The Truth About Sherman
http://mises.org/daily/331
“In a particularly revealing statement during the debates over the antitrust act, Sen. Sherman attacked the trusts on the ground that they “subverted the tariff system; they undermined the policy of government to protect … American industries by levying duties on imported goods.” (Page 4100). This is certainly an odd statement from the author of the “Magna Carta of free enterprise.” But increased output and reduced prices in these increasingly efficient industries apparently dissipated the monopoly profits previously generated by the tariffs. This worked against the objectives of the protected industries and their leg
Report Post »Oil_Robb
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 6:44pmindoor plumbing kicked the crap out of the need for an Out House also
Report Post »*************************
Posted on June 1, 2011 at 6:53pmLOL! It’s change … like in Obama’s “change”!
Here’s an example:
Anyone remember 16mm movie film? That was BEFORE 35mm film you knew from movie theaters when you grew up. Well, 16mm film is SO ADVANCED, it has HIGHER RESOLUTION than HD TV! And when HD DVDs are made, the resolution of 35mm film is SO HIGH, they must DEGRADE IT DOWN to the HD standard!!
Here’s another example:
EMP. If you’ve played video games like “Starsiege Tribes”, you know that Electro Magnetic Pulse is a dangerous weapon that could disrupt and destroy ALL our electronics RIGHT THROUGH THE AIR! Whether from a nuclear sky burst or sun spot eruption, there goes OUR ENTIRE SOCIETY’S INSTRUMENTALITIES! Oh, and no more picture unless (you guessed it) you’re using film. ;-)
So, not all change is good change. Right, Barry Soetoro?
Report Post »dr_funk
Posted on June 2, 2011 at 3:52amIts very difficult to get digital photos to look like film shots looked straight out of the envelope at the developer. With most digital photos, you never view them on a piece of paper. If we converted entirely to digital, and then lose our ability to create electricity, we would lose all of those photos.
I learned photography on an old, used Nikkormat EL. Once I got the hang of the controls (aperture, shutter, etc), and learned some of the basics of composition, etc, it was very easy to get good shots. Since you only had 24 or so shots in a roll, it forced you to be more frugal with your film, and really wait for the best shot, rather than just popping off dozens of frames like you can with a digital, hoping that you get one that comes out.
I’ve since had the opportunity to shoot with digital (college film class), and I can say its quite irritating trying to get the color and vividness of film out of a digital shot. I have to spend a lot of time tweaking the camera settings and playing with photos in photoshop just to get them to look good. Whereas, some of my best photos were taken with film, and I never manipulated them. Just framed it, snapped the shutter, and had it developed.
Report Post »Rational Man
Posted on June 2, 2011 at 3:02pmI just came out of my cave and bought a digital camera the other day. It is not an expensive one and I got it just to upload pics to my laptop for ebay and disscusion forums. I hate the darn thing! The auto focus doesn’t work right and sometimes I have to take five pics to get one good one. I have tried everything. I have to adjust most of the pics after I up load them to the laptop for contrast, color and exposure. And the re-chargable batteries don’t last long enough to shoot through a sporting event. Not a good first experience going digital.
Report Post »I used to have great fun taking great pics of all kinds with my old Minolta SLR. I will have to spend big bucks to get one with manual focus and exposure to get good pics with a digital that will match the quality of my old 35mm…………………
I think there is a place for both.
OldNavyVet
Posted on June 3, 2011 at 2:03amEastman Kodak has historically been a non union company. You should check your facts before attacking their fine name. I know this to be true, at least until 1990, when I sought employment elswhere. I am not fond of unions, and what they have done to our great country. I just want to encourage you to research before you speak. Thanks….
Report Post »