Some of you may know that photography is a serious passion of mine. I even dabbled as a semi-pro for a while as a sideline to supplement my meager physician's income a few years back. During that time I utilized (and still occasionally use) a professional photography service known as CPQ...they're one of the largest professional photography companies in the US. At the time I was using film exclusively, both 35mm and medium format and made my transition to digital while still using them. So today I get this e-mail about how they've decided to continue film services through 2008... It doesn't take a mystic to read the tea leaves here. Film is dying...call in the family and say your last regards b/c film is becoming a hobbies only event. Going the way of vinyl record albums where only a few dedicated hobbiests will continue to shoot and maintain the art of developing their own film and processing their own images. Polaroid announce just yesterday that they're discontinuing their instant photos, so you won't even have that any more (how will they make passport photos?) Anyway, here's the e-mail text, much as I love digital it's sad to see film go away. ****************************************************** To all CPQ Customers: Approximately 30 days ago we sent notice of our intent to discontinue film processing effective February 15th, 2008. Since that time, we discovered, through conversations with our customers, that while film usage continues to decline nationally, there remains a strong core demand for these services. Part of this is due to the fact that several Pro Labs decided at year end 2007 to discontinue handling Film Processing and related services. However, since CPQ remains one of the largest Film Processing Pro Labs in the United States it makes more sense for us to continue to be a full service Professional Lab in every sense of the word. That means providing the best possible service to the Professional film Photographer, just as we have been doing since 1971. With that being said, we anticipate being able to support the Professional Film Photographer throughout 2008. There will continue to be a level of uncertainty on the film side of the Professional Photography segment (insofar as parts for processing equipment, chemistry needs, etc.), so we ask that you keep Customer Service informed throughout the 2008 calendar year as to your possible migration to using digital capture. As always, we thank you for your business - now and in the future. Best Regards, Paul C. Kimball CPQ Professional Imaging
At least as a physician you have access to chemicals. If you need a darkroom fix, you can sniff a bottle of acetic acid. Vinegar works too, but it's just not as potent. I have all my darkroom equipment neatly packed away for my kids to throw out after I die. I'll never use it again, but I can't make myself get rid of it. As for passport photos, those are going digital too. Tom
Passport photos will finally be higher quality! Digital to anrchival paper and ink. Done in an instant. Honestly I can't believe that it has taken this long. Looks like film will have company with vinyl LP's, VHS tapes and gasoline cars.
There is a publication called Arizona Highways that accepts photo submissions almost exclusively in 4X5 format, and very reluctantly in 35mm format. Shots so taken can be submitted in digital format, however.
A sad day indeed it will when film is no longer. The first camera I ever bought I still love to this day, Canon EOS Elan 1993. In 2004 I dropped it for the last time from a chair and "upgraded" to digital with the Canon EOS Rebel Digital. There are things the Elan can do that the digital can't. I haven't reasearched much but I still think it'll do more than higher priced digital counterparts. For instance: 10 shot multiple exposures 3 frames per second continuous shooting, digital has a higher rate but can only hold 4 in the buffer before it has to start loading and then you're down to maybe 1 frame per 2 seconds. Second Shuttler Flash, oh how I miss that feature. Below is the perfect example of why 2nd shuttler flash is so cool to use B/W has a little too much stank on it but I don't I think could have made those shots with the digital. The flash would bleed out the fireif the flash came first. Oh well, sad day indeed....
High end digitals can do all that now days and much more. But you're right that there are some things you can't do. Some things are just done differently. It's easier to actually take 10 seperate shots with a digital then layer them in Photoshop...you don't have to worry about exposure compensation like with film that way...so multi exposure is much better with digitial. Flash is just as good. But I still have my Nikon FM2n...it may serve only as a paper weight the rest of its days...but I can't give it up. Selling my F5 on Ebay was one of the hardest things I've ever gotten rid of...but it hadn't been shot in 2 years and was losing value daily.
Really...someday you're gonna have to tell me about your work. Anyway, even X-ray film is dying...we're fully digital as are most big hospitals these days...for x-rays. They make prints only when the system is down and that's darn rare. We've still got light boxes but they see little use.
But they are still very picky and would rather have the 4x5, I can't say how many times I send the same 4x5s with some 35 & 4/5 times they go with the 4x5s. Even having a high end digital, they go with the others. I'll be sad to see film go. I used to LOVE my 4x5, but it's just too bulky for anything I do these days!
oh we have digital means to record these types of assays as well. currently the film is still cheap enough and the imager is expensive enough to keep most of us using film though. i just use a simple 8x10 sheet. i'm working with a chemiluminescent substrate. exposing it to film provides my readouts. but tomorrow is the big decider whether this part of my project survives or if i'm through with darkrooms.
Casio is coming out with a fast new Digital camera (they announced it and showed it at CES- for about $1,000) with 1,200 frames per second.. " [FONT='Arial','sans-serif']EXILIM Pro EX-F1, with the world’s fastest* burst shooting performance[/FONT] [FONT='Arial','sans-serif']This model incorporates a high speed CMOS sensor and a high speed LSI processor. With this model, Casio has achieved an ultra-high speed 60 frames per second (fps) burst rate for still images, together with 1,200 fps high speed movie recording that captures movement faster than the eye can see for ultra-slow motion replay. Moreover, the new model can record movies at full High-Definition."[/FONT]
I still have my 35 mm but haven't used it in years. I even took a night class to really learn how to use it. But the cost of developing just went up and up. And I took a lot of pictures so I had a choice of best shots. I like having prints and I like having photo albums I can flip through and look at. But I just can't beat the cost of digital. I only print the best and i can take as many as I like. I've been putting off buying a really nice digital camera...a digital equivalent of my 35mm. I will eventually. You can photoshop a lot. And some of it is really awesome. But there are some things that you can only do with a 35mm camera and print film. When I heard about Poloroid I immediately thought of William Wegman. I guess maybe they'll still produce their niche stuff. At least for a while.
We were using all digital 15 years ago, but then it was coming from an MRI anyway, so why go to film. We did have a printer for those traditionalists that insisted on using a light box. Tom
I haven't used my film cameras in years. The convenience of digital is just too overwhelming. Last year when I spent a month in China, I took over 2,600 digital photos. If I were limited to film, I probably wouldn't have taken more than 4 or 5 rolls of 36 exposure film. But I must say, I'm only a "point and shoot" and "snapshots" guy. Any artistic or beautiful pictures I've taken have been 100% accidental. And in this regard, I think I took more artistic and beautiful photos with my point and shoot film cameras (including the disposable kind) than I've taken with my Canon Rebel digital SLR or my Lumix (with Leica len) digital point and shoot. For point and shooters, the difference between what film and digital cameras produce is a lot like the visual difference between, say "The Godfather" (film) and any daytime soap opera (video). BTW, I've only bought one vinyl album in the last 10 years. But overall, vinyl albums sound better than CDs (at least during the first few plays -- before the scratches, pops and skips start appearing on the vinyl albums).
My Olympus OM1 remains unused for the last 5 or 6 years while I shall continue to favour Olympus digital cameras. One thing I hate about the current crop of compact digitals is the lack of an optical view finder on most. The rear screen isn't good as a view finder.
Do not under any circumstances get rid of the FM2n. I have an FM3 myself, and since Nikon has quit making them, I hope to be buried with mine. Those are arguably the best 35mm's ever. And not just film is going away. Paper too. As long as they don't go away completely, I'll be fine.
My $150 Canon A720IS has a feature they call second curtain flash sync. I just dabble in photography (a step up from snapshots), so I'm not sure if it's the same thing as your second shuttler flash, but it sounds similar. I just jumped into the digital age this Christmas. This camera has so many modes it really helps the semi-serious amateur like myself. I can pick the snow mode instead of messing with f/stops, or indoor lighting mode, I think there's a night mode for flash-fill, but I haven't tested it very well yet. And of course, with a $40 GraphicConverter application on my Mac, I can fine-tune the white balance, edit red-eyes, crop, do all kinds of special editing. iPhoto is so much more convenient than boxes of photos waiting to go into an album. I like doing most things the old-fashioned way, and resisted digital, but I've finally concluded this makes sense, just like cell-phones.
I use Kodachrome and it will be a very sad day when they stop producing the film or stop processing it. This is an archival film unrivaled for sharpness and color rendition. If digital ever gets to that level I'll embrace it.But I think they will need many more times the resolution . I still have my grandfathers Kodachromes from the 40s and they are stunning.Much better than todays process. Kodachrome projected looks better than reality.
The resolution of digital far exceeds any film. They can pack more pixels into the space of a grain of film emulsion. Color...OK, it's like comparing CDs to Vinyl...those who love vinyl will never accept that CDs could rival. And there is clearly a beauty to Kodachrome that is hard or impossible to achive completely with digital. But trust me, I used to cling to the resolution arguement too...but digital is the hands down winner....the closest film are some of the high quality B&W films, but no color slide or print film can rival any more.
I think you may be right. Certainly the F5 had a lot more in the way of features, but for durability, reliability, functionality in a pro body the F3 is legendary. The FM2n will be around longer than cockroaches! It'll shoot any time any where any temp. I've taken it mountain climbing, Ice climbing and just about anywhere and it just keeps working.
