Re: [photo-3d] Re: Re: Films days are numbered??

[Brian Reynolds <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>]

Mike Kersenbrock wrote:
> Brian Reynolds wrote:
> > I think film will survive so long as there are people who
> > appreciate the difference in look between film and video
> > (digital).  This is the
> 
> Or .... so long as there are sufficient number of people who are
> willing to pay sufficiently to gain that appreciation.  Things that
> I like a lot get discontinued fairly often.  Just not enough others.
> Instead of raising prices to those of us who like it, it just gets
> discontinued.
> 

If you're not willing to pay for something (either directly or
indirectly (e.g., by supporting museums, or tax money for artists))
then you can't be said to appreciate it.  There is no such thing as a
free lunch.

> > Film and processing costs are the same across formats when priced
> > per square inch (or square mm).  If I recall correctly two rolls
> > of 35mm
> 
> I think you bring up one of the fundamental points missing in some
> of the arguments to date (and all of this is 3D related because most
> all of the stereo cameras that currently exist are film based).  The
> argument that says the existence of old niche formats of film
> "proves" that even if digital formats take over film will still be
> available is a logical fallacy, IMO.  If they still made
> Kodachrome-X, tintype plates, etc then it would be true, but as far
> as I know, they don't.
> 
[a good description of film production]
> 

You do have to be careful of emulsion names though.  Tri-X in 35mm is
not the same as Tri-X Professional in 4x5.  They aren't even close.

> Digital photography attacks the film production itself.  If
> production of the film is affected, then it affects all formats.  If
> production of a film goes away, then all formats will go away -- and
> I think history backs me up on this.
> 

However tintype and glass plates (both of which were "obsoleted" by
flexible film in much the same way digital "obsoletes" film) are still
in production.  If there is a market for something it will be
produced.

One thing digital advocates forget is that there is a big world out
there besides North America, Western Europe and Japan.  The letters
column of this month's Photo Techniques USA has pictures of a street
photographer in Mexico City (one of many) using a process that a
previous article had proclaimed as being ancient history.  There is
now and will be a huge market for film in other parts of the world.
That's one of the reasons why Kodak and Fuji continue to develope new
film.

> A better comparison of digital replacing film would be some new film
> replacing an old one.  The old one goes away completely, and this is
> something that has happened a lot and often.  Digital isn't a new
> format of film, it replaces film itself (even more, it's a new
> photography paradigm).
> 

Even this doesn't always happen.  Bergger film has released (within
the last year or so) a film that in magazine test seems to be very
similar to the discontinued Kodak Super XX.  There is talk of a
private individual restarting production of dye transfer materials
(used in the original 3 strip Technicolor and for dye transfer prints
on paper).

-- 
Brian Reynolds                  | "Dee Dee!  Don't touch that button!"
reynolds@xxxxxxxxx              | "Oooh!"
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds  |    -- Dexter and Dee Dee
NAR# 54438                      |       "Dexter's Laboratory"