will film always be around?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I am in the market to get my first digicam. The reason I held out was I
have a Minolta X700 with a whole list of fine and expensive lenses and
accessories. I was sure that the level of digicam I could afford would leave
me very dissatisfied quality wise.
I still feel that way actually. But having settled at I'd say the "advanced
amateur" level and no intention of getting any more serious I am coming to
the realization I don't need a digicam with all the capabilities of my X700.
Speaking mostly of the changeable lenses and hotshoe.
As for a digicam I want a reasonably featured point and shoot. I am looking
at the HP R717 and have decided on that. Unfortunately none of my local
stores have them in stock yet. I will be vacationing in Salt Lake City in
early July and hopefully can get the camera with enough time to learn how to
use it.
Now for my original question. I do like to take high quality photo's that I
can enter in my local county fair and the rare semi-pro photo work. The
Minolta with my different lenses fills this bill adequately. Will film be
around for years to come and will we be able to get competent developers? I
say that because I work next door to Rite-Aide and the photo department is
right in front by the cash registers. They have been trying to train this
guy and I watch every day during my breaks when I get a soda or something.
He is going crazy and the girl teaching him doesn't know her ass from a hole
in the ground. These are the people entrusted to develop my Pulitzer prize
winning photo? I think not lol.
I used to send my film to Kodak via Long's Drugs, but they use Fuji now. I
can't find anyone in my small market area who uses Kodak, and did I hear
Kodak is getting out of the film business? I have a bunch of film waiting to
be processed because I have this surely paranoid idea that Fuji will screw
up my pics because it is not Fuji film. My paranoia comes from all the times
I got 3 or 4 good pics from a whole roll using non-Kodak processors and
usually the full 36 with Kodak.
All comments, suggestions and other input is most welcome.
Hank L.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I forgot to add. I don't like carrying around all that heavy equipment
anymore and that's why I want a P&S and not an SLR. If film will be here, I
can always take the Minolta when I am doing something special.
Hank

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> I am in the market to get my first digicam. The reason I held out was I
> have a Minolta X700 with a whole list of fine and expensive lenses and
> accessories.

Quick, sell NOW while there may still be someone willing to buy this stuff!
Once you go digi you will wonder why you waited so long.

ef

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hank L. wrote:
> I am in the market to get my first digicam. The reason I held out was I
> have a Minolta X700 with a whole list of fine and expensive lenses and
> accessories. I was sure that the level of digicam I could afford would leave
> me very dissatisfied quality wise.
> I still feel that way actually. But having settled at I'd say the "advanced
> amateur" level and no intention of getting any more serious I am coming to
> the realization I don't need a digicam with all the capabilities of my X700.
> Speaking mostly of the changeable lenses and hotshoe.
> As for a digicam I want a reasonably featured point and shoot. I am looking
> at the HP R717 and have decided on that. Unfortunately none of my local
> stores have them in stock yet. I will be vacationing in Salt Lake City in
> early July and hopefully can get the camera with enough time to learn how to
> use it.
> Now for my original question. I do like to take high quality photo's that I
> can enter in my local county fair and the rare semi-pro photo work. The
> Minolta with my different lenses fills this bill adequately. Will film be
> around for years to come and will we be able to get competent developers? I
> say that because I work next door to Rite-Aide and the photo department is
> right in front by the cash registers. They have been trying to train this
> guy and I watch every day during my breaks when I get a soda or something.
> He is going crazy and the girl teaching him doesn't know her ass from a hole
> in the ground. These are the people entrusted to develop my Pulitzer prize
> winning photo? I think not lol.
> I used to send my film to Kodak via Long's Drugs, but they use Fuji now. I
> can't find anyone in my small market area who uses Kodak, and did I hear
> Kodak is getting out of the film business? I have a bunch of film waiting to
> be processed because I have this surely paranoid idea that Fuji will screw
> up my pics because it is not Fuji film. My paranoia comes from all the times
> I got 3 or 4 good pics from a whole roll using non-Kodak processors and
> usually the full 36 with Kodak.
> All comments, suggestions and other input is most welcome.
> Hank L.
>
>
I am sure film will still be fairly common through at least the next 50
years. People still ride horses....


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
> I am sure film will still be fairly common through at least the next 50
> years. People still ride horses....
>

I doubt film will be common in 20 years much less 50. As for horses, I
don't see much in the way of hitching post for them at the local bar.
It really comes down to what you consider fairly common, I think in 20
years, and possibly less, it will be hard to find film locally and hard
to get it processed locally, to me once this is the case I would say
film would no longer be fairly common.

Scott

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hello Hank

I think 35mm and medium format film will be around for many years and
will be a specialist medium that pro labs will cater for, but at a
price!

I shoot colour neg film 95% of the time and scan it at 4000 ppi for
excellent prints, and as an advanced amateur you'll know that the final
print is what it's all about. (See my post in "Which negatives to
print?" http://groups-beta.google.com/grou [...] oderated.)

DSLRs can be problematic, especially consumer models. The loss of
highlight information is a real pain and requires a sometimes near
impossible software balancing act in RAW conversion software and
image-editing software to make good use of any data that is actually
captured, often in two images or more. Shooting in low light situations
at less than ISO 200 is visibly disappointing with a loss of contrast
and saturation, not to mention the increase in noise. This shows up
badly in the prints. With the exception of people shots converted to
B&W which I like gritty anyway, I can never justify shooting anything
at other than ISO 100 on my DSLR.

A couple of years down the line things will probably have improved
regarding ISO, but I think there is a real ongling shortcoming with
highlight retention. Fuji with its FinePix S3 Pro have had a real go at
getting around this: " With 12.3 million effective pixels and Super CCD
SR II (Super Dynamic Range) sensor technology, the FinePix S3 Pro
offers wider dynamic range and higher S/N ratios for beautiful digital
images..." But it's still not what we need and some distance behind the
truly wide dynamic range of pro colour neg film like ISO 100 Fuji
Reala.

I always send my film to a pro lab to ensure the film is properly
processed and I use the same lab to do my digital prints after software
editing. You could think about sending your film directly to a
digital-based pro lab and get the prints done there too. What size of
prints will you get? You may find your print size limited by a consumer
DSLR's 8 MP pixel output and while digital images enlarge really well,
interpolation (the adding of pixels to make an image bigger) subtracts
from the quality of your lenses. To my eye 35mm film scanned to
5700x3700 delivers better enlargements and allows for (much) more
detailed editing. (See my site for issues surrounding grain.) Have you
thought about getting a decent film scanner instead of a digital
camera?

;o)

IMO, film will be here for a considerable number who will prefer it and
like to use it and will justify you using your X-700. As an advanced
amateur I know that carrying a bit of weight around goes with the
territory! But the detailed scanned images and prints are worth the
effort, and that's why we have a passion for it all!

Good luck with your choice!

)

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Hank L." <jujuju@hohoho.com> wrote in message
news:7uMqe.8569$rt3.4657@fe03.lga...
> I used to send my film to Kodak via Long's Drugs, but they use Fuji now. I
> can't find anyone in my small market area who uses Kodak, and did I hear
> Kodak is getting out of the film business? I have a bunch of film waiting
> to be processed because I have this surely paranoid idea that Fuji will
> screw up my pics because it is not Fuji film. My paranoia comes from all
> the times I got 3 or 4 good pics from a whole roll using non-Kodak
> processors and usually the full 36 with Kodak.
My experience with Kodak film and Kodak processing is just the opposite. I
have had nothing but lousy results from both. I found Fuji film and frontier
labs to deliver far better and more consistent results than anything Kodak
can muster. I used to use nothing but Kodak film & processing, assuming it
was best around. I always thought Fuji was the poor cousin. Anyway, a couple
of years ago I had to get a warranty claim on a camera and in the process
the store where I bought the camera printed some test shots for me on their
fuji lab. Well I was blown away by the quality - everything I'd had printed
on Kodak looked soft and blurry and dull colours in comparison (I just
assumed that that was how photos came out). I got the Fuji lab to reprint
some of my old negs, and they came out heaps better than the Kodak prints -
sharp images with bright colours. Then I tried Fuji film and again I was
blown away by the quality. I have since tried Kodak film a couple of times
only to be sadly disappointed, and have tried the local labs a couple of
times too, also to be sadly disappointed. Now, i'm 100% converted to Fuji
film and processing, and my photos have never looked better.
> All comments, suggestions and other input is most welcome.
> Hank L.
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118546489.430391.181790@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> I am sure film will still be fairly common through at least the next 50
>> years. People still ride horses....
>>
>
> I doubt film will be common in 20 years much less 50. As for horses, I
> don't see much in the way of hitching post for them at the local bar.
> It really comes down to what you consider fairly common, I think in 20
> years, and possibly less, it will be hard to find film locally and hard
> to get it processed locally, to me once this is the case I would say
> film would no longer be fairly common.
>
> Scott
>

.....and in less time than 20 years (probably a lot less) you won't be able
to read any of the digital images you stored on your memory cards, CDs,
DVDs, tapes etc ;O(
The technologies will be obsolete and the storage medium will probably have
failed.
That's progress for you.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

dylan wrote:
> "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1118546489.430391.181790@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>>Ron Hunter wrote:
>>
>>>I am sure film will still be fairly common through at least the next 50
>>>years. People still ride horses....
>>>
>>
>>I doubt film will be common in 20 years much less 50. As for horses, I
>>don't see much in the way of hitching post for them at the local bar.
>>It really comes down to what you consider fairly common, I think in 20
>>years, and possibly less, it will be hard to find film locally and hard
>>to get it processed locally, to me once this is the case I would say
>>film would no longer be fairly common.
>>
>>Scott
>>
>
>
> ....and in less time than 20 years (probably a lot less) you won't be able
> to read any of the digital images you stored on your memory cards, CDs,
> DVDs, tapes etc ;O(
> The technologies will be obsolete and the storage medium will probably have
> failed.
> That's progress for you.
>
>
?? I still have two of my three computers sporting a 3.5 inch floppy
drive. How old it THAT?


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Uh, I don't think that is a good analogy at all. Here is a better one.

How many photographers now use the Glass Plate System?

And no. Film will see very limited use in 50 years.
--
PWW (Paul Wayne Wilson)
Over 1,000 Photographs Online at,
http://PhotoStockFile.com


On 6/11/05 10:56 PM, in article avNqe.18672$mZ2.12335@fe07.lga, "Ron Hunter"
<rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

> I am sure film will still be fairly common through at least the next 50
> years. People still ride horses....

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

EF wrote:
>Quick, sell NOW while there may still be someone willing to buy this stuff!

Damn right. The marketability of used film cameras has fallen to
nil in the past five years. Five years ago, you'd still get good
prices selling your old film camera on eBay - but not now.

No $4 to park! No $6 admission!
http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

" Man those were the days "
Wow ! 1984, that wasn't long ago ;O) and you had issues with it.

"TIFF and JEPG files "
I wasn't just talking formats I was meaning technologies as well

"Digital archives from a few years ago are now unreadable"

now where's my reader for my 3M tapes (cannot remember the format) or the 8"
floppies ? ;O)

"You seem to forget a lot of us have been digital for many years already"

and I'm one of them !

Cheers.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>On 6/12/05 8:48 AM, in article d8hauv$cc3$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk,
>"dylan" <no@nowhere.com> wrote:

> " Man those were the days "
> Wow ! 1984, that wasn't long ago ;O) and you had issues with it.

You were the one mentioning 1985, so I just happened to be able to go a year
longer. It has been over 20 years. Gee whiz I was trying to be humorous.

> "TIFF and JEPG files "
> I wasn't just talking formats I was meaning technologies as well
>
> "Digital archives from a few years ago are now unreadable"
>
> now where's my reader for my 3M tapes (cannot remember the format) or the 8"
> floppies ? ;O)

The digital Photography, digital publishing and just the plain digital
revolution did not start around the early 1990's. I published a four color
magazine, all digital, back in 1995, and most of the 4 color publication
printers were just beginning to learn about digital imagery at that time. I
did it on my PowerMac 8100, an 1800 SprintScan, Quark, Photoshop and DAT
tapes. They told me I could not do it, but I did. And I can open all those
files today. No Problem. In fact the old TIFF files are the easiest to open.

If you are talking about digital images before 1990, I don't know what you
are talking about. Digital images was almost, if not completely, nonexistent
before then.

JPEG's did not exist prior to 1992.
http://www.jpeg.org/jpeg/index.html
"Probably the largest and most important contribution however was the work
of the Independent JPEG Group (IJG), and Tom Lane in particular.  Their Open
Source software implementation, as well as being one of the major Open
Source packages was key to the success of the JPEG standard and was
incorporated by many companies into a variety of products such as image
editors and Internet browsers."

If you are talking about archiving software or other types of DATA for other
purposes than that is a completely different beast than archiving digital
images.

If you really need the 3M tapes or 8" floppies converted, I will find a way
to do it, ... for a price. There is always a way. It might not economically
feasible but that's all relative.

Plus archival methods do not change overnight, it goes on for years and
years. If you really needed those older archives, you could have re-
archived them with the new technologies way before the old one went so
obsolete.

> "You seem to forget a lot of us have been digital for many years already"
>
> and I'm one of them !

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Hank L." <jujuju@hohoho.com> wrote in message
news:7uMqe.8569$rt3.4657@fe03.lga...
> I am in the market to get my first digicam. The reason I held out was I
> have a Minolta X700 with a whole list of fine and expensive lenses and
> accessories. I was sure that the level of digicam I could afford would
> leave me very dissatisfied quality wise.
> I still feel that way actually. But having settled at I'd say the
> "advanced amateur" level and no intention of getting any more serious I am
> coming to the realization I don't need a digicam with all the capabilities
> of my X700. Speaking mostly of the changeable lenses and hotshoe.
> As for a digicam I want a reasonably featured point and shoot. I am
> looking at the HP R717 and have decided on that. Unfortunately none of my
> local stores have them in stock yet. I will be vacationing in Salt Lake
> City in early July and hopefully can get the camera with enough time to
> learn how to use it.
> Now for my original question. I do like to take high quality photo's that
> I can enter in my local county fair and the rare semi-pro photo work. The
> Minolta with my different lenses fills this bill adequately. Will film be
> around for years to come and will we be able to get competent developers?
> I say that because I work next door to Rite-Aide and the photo department
> is right in front by the cash registers. They have been trying to train
> this guy and I watch every day during my breaks when I get a soda or
> something. He is going crazy and the girl teaching him doesn't know her
> ass from a hole in the ground. These are the people entrusted to develop
> my Pulitzer prize winning photo? I think not lol.
> I used to send my film to Kodak via Long's Drugs, but they use Fuji now. I
> can't find anyone in my small market area who uses Kodak, and did I hear
> Kodak is getting out of the film business? I have a bunch of film waiting
> to be processed because I have this surely paranoid idea that Fuji will
> screw up my pics because it is not Fuji film. My paranoia comes from all
> the times I got 3 or 4 good pics from a whole roll using non-Kodak
> processors and usually the full 36 with Kodak.
> All comments, suggestions and other input is most welcome.
> Hank L.
The exposure lattitude (dynamic range) for color negetive film is much
higher than digital. I think some pros will continue to use film along side
digital where the latitude is important.
John

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

PWW wrote:
>>On 6/12/05 8:48 AM, in article d8hauv$cc3$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk,
>>"dylan" <no@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>>" Man those were the days "
>>Wow ! 1984, that wasn't long ago ;O) and you had issues with it.
>
>
> You were the one mentioning 1985, so I just happened to be able to go a year
> longer. It has been over 20 years. Gee whiz I was trying to be humorous.
>
>
>>"TIFF and JEPG files "
>>I wasn't just talking formats I was meaning technologies as well
>>
>>"Digital archives from a few years ago are now unreadable"
>>
>>now where's my reader for my 3M tapes (cannot remember the format) or the 8"
>>floppies ? ;O)
>
>
> The digital Photography, digital publishing and just the plain digital
> revolution did not start around the early 1990's. I published a four color
> magazine, all digital, back in 1995, and most of the 4 color publication
> printers were just beginning to learn about digital imagery at that time. I
> did it on my PowerMac 8100, an 1800 SprintScan, Quark, Photoshop and DAT
> tapes. They told me I could not do it, but I did. And I can open all those
> files today. No Problem. In fact the old TIFF files are the easiest to open.
>
> If you are talking about digital images before 1990, I don't know what you
> are talking about. Digital images was almost, if not completely, nonexistent
> before then.
>
> JPEG's did not exist prior to 1992.
> http://www.jpeg.org/jpeg/index.html
> "Probably the largest and most important contribution however was the work
> of the Independent JPEG Group (IJG), and Tom Lane in particular. Their Open
> Source software implementation, as well as being one of the major Open
> Source packages was key to the success of the JPEG standard and was
> incorporated by many companies into a variety of products such as image
> editors and Internet browsers."
>
> If you are talking about archiving software or other types of DATA for other
> purposes than that is a completely different beast than archiving digital
> images.
>
> If you really need the 3M tapes or 8" floppies converted, I will find a way
> to do it, ... for a price. There is always a way. It might not economically
> feasible but that's all relative.
>
> Plus archival methods do not change overnight, it goes on for years and
> years. If you really needed those older archives, you could have re-
> archived them with the new technologies way before the old one went so
> obsolete.

EXACTLY! I have switched archival systems for my consulting company
many times over the last 10 years. It rather easy to do, and
inexpensive, if done properly.

>>"You seem to forget a lot of us have been digital for many years already"
>>
>>and I'm one of them !
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Hank L." <jujuju@hohoho.com> writes:

> I am in the market to get my first digicam. The reason I held out was I
> have a Minolta X700 with a whole list of fine and expensive lenses and
> accessories. I was sure that the level of digicam I could afford would leave
> me very dissatisfied quality wise.
> I still feel that way actually. But having settled at I'd say the "advanced
> amateur" level and no intention of getting any more serious I am coming to
> the realization I don't need a digicam with all the capabilities of my X700.
> Speaking mostly of the changeable lenses and hotshoe.
> As for a digicam I want a reasonably featured point and shoot. I am looking
> at the HP R717 and have decided on that. Unfortunately none of my local
> stores have them in stock yet. I will be vacationing in Salt Lake City in
> early July and hopefully can get the camera with enough time to learn how to
> use it.
> Now for my original question. I do like to take high quality photo's that I
> can enter in my local county fair and the rare semi-pro photo work. The
> Minolta with my different lenses fills this bill adequately. Will film be
> around for years to come and will we be able to get competent developers? I
> say that because I work next door to Rite-Aide and the photo department is
> right in front by the cash registers. They have been trying to train this
> guy and I watch every day during my breaks when I get a soda or something.
> He is going crazy and the girl teaching him doesn't know her ass from a hole
> in the ground. These are the people entrusted to develop my Pulitzer prize
> winning photo? I think not lol.

Well the drug store photo shop (and lately the Walmart/Target/etc. one) has
always fairly medicore IMHO. Fortunately with today's minilabs, the minimum
wage staff doesn't have to know much, just how to feed the photos in, change
chemicals, etc. I stopped going to Walmart to get my pictures printed, when
they started bumping the saturation up.

> I used to send my film to Kodak via Long's Drugs, but they use Fuji now. I
> can't find anyone in my small market area who uses Kodak, and did I hear
> Kodak is getting out of the film business? I have a bunch of film waiting to
> be processed because I have this surely paranoid idea that Fuji will screw
> up my pics because it is not Fuji film. My paranoia comes from all the times
> I got 3 or 4 good pics from a whole roll using non-Kodak processors and
> usually the full 36 with Kodak.
> All comments, suggestions and other input is most welcome.

Personally when I was using film many years ago, I prefered the Fuji look over
the Kodak look. Even when I switched to digital, I preferred the Fuji look
that came from the Frontier machines. However recently, I have switched to
using mpix.com to make my bigger prints, and the Kodak paper they used really
was nice.

In terms of film, I expect within about 5 years or so, drug stores, etc. will
now longer process film (unless they send it out for a special order like they
used to do). Every time I go into my camera store, I notice the film developer
section has been shrinking. If you've been reading the papers, you probably
have noticed that Agfa just went into bankruptcy, Kodak has been laying people
off left and right, and Ilford's film division is also on the ropes if not
closed (the Swiss division that sells the inkjet paper has been doing booming
business).

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

PWW wrote:
> Uh, I don't think that is a good analogy at all. Here is a better one.
>
> How many photographers now use the Glass Plate System?
>
> And no. Film will see very limited use in 50 years.
Actually, historical photographic methods are becoming a new item of
interest. One can still find people who can make pictures the old ways.
You may not see film in the pharmacy in 50 years, but you will see it
in the science lab, and likely in medical labs. Believe it or not, some
people still buy tube type audio amplifiers, and pay MUCH more for them.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1118569386.686869.149840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
theimageplane@uk2.net says...
>
> > Its getting harder to find a good roll of film in the stores.
>
>
>
> Try ordering online from a specialist, dedicated source. It can be much
> more cost-effective. My favourite film was always hard to get but the
> price difference compared to online shopping was ridiculous! My film is
> delivered post free too.
>
> Also, film in stores is usually not stored properly and gets wormed up
> nicely.
>
> )
>
>


For the few rolls I'll shoot this summer, I will find an on-line source and
order some ISO 50 and ISO 100.

I only have 2 working film bodies left.

The others are now over 30 years old and will not be repaired.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 21:12:46 +0000, Gregory Blank wrote:

> In article <P21re.19076$mZ2.1917@fe07.lga>,
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>> >
>> I have a few hundred floppies. Most of them were written from 1986 to
>> 1995 on an Atari ST. About half of them are still readable on my WinXP
>> machine, and the pictures are still displayable. I have ever reason be
>> believe that equipment in the next decade or two will still read a CD or
>> DVD ROM, and decode the pictures.
>> If some major technological upgrade comes along, and it certainly WILL,
>> then users can just recopy from CD/DVD to the newer medium. Any picture
>> formats that need converting can be done at that time. Can you say that
>> for the box of pictures your mother left you?
>
> Depends on wether Mom left the negatives, surely one can re photograph
> the prints or even scan them now.
If they were properly fixed and washed there should be no need to. I have
prints that I made 40 years ago (b+w) that are still the same as when I
printed them.

--
neil
delete delete to reply

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

PWW <pww@-REMOVE-PhotoStockFile.com> writes:

>If you are talking about digital images before 1990, I don't know what you
>are talking about. Digital images was almost, if not completely, nonexistent
>before then.

There may not have been consumer digital imaging software before that,
but there was certainly digital imaging activity.

I can remember capturing and printing what was probably my first
digital image in 1976. Capture used a video camera plus a
one-line-at-a-time analog digitizer. To print it, the greyscale data
was used to control a dither pattern on a higher-resolution 1-bit
electrostatic printer, simulating greyscale in pretty much the way
current inkjet printers do. Of course, I wrote most of the software
myself.

By 1987 or so, I was doing RGB colour scans using a 2048x2048 camera
head sold by Eikonix. Again, I wrote a lot of the software. In those
days, hardware came with manuals that described how to program it, since
that's what you had to do.

Hollywood had already started using digital imaging effects in films by
then too. Young Sherlock Holmes (1985) has a scene where a
computer-generated character (a glass church window come alive) walks
through a scene containing human actors. Film of the actors was shot,
then digitized to add in the CGI character.

Dave

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Still have a 5.25 - 3.5 combo drive but it is in a drawer. It is those
dang QIC 120mb tapes that I'm having a problem with. I have a friend
who has a lot of work from the early 90's on optical drives, his broke
an he can't find a compatible replacement.
I get the feeling CD's will be around for a while, maybe even 20 years,
but DVD's with the compatibility issues are a question.

Tom

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hank L. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>Quick, sell NOW while there may still be someone willing to buy this
> >>>>>>>>stuff!
> Once you go digi you will wonder why you waited so long.<<<<<<<<<<<
>
>
> I have wanted to sell the camera for years but unfortunately it is worth so
> little compared to what I paid, I just kept it.
> The entire rig cost close the $3K in the early 80's. A camera store
> appraised it at $350 and that was when digital was just coming on the scene
> for the consumer. I probably couldn't give it away now. Hell, just the tele
> lens cost $900 and it's still like new as is the whole thing really (I am
> famous for the care I take of my stuff lol).
> Oh, on that note, can my old lenses be adapted for a digi-SLR? I have not
> kept up with photo-progress over the last several years so I have no idea.
>
> Hank L.

I'm not sure what you have for lenses - if you're holding a 1980's
pre-AF slr, you may not be able to mount the lenses. The only Minolta
digital SLR choice right now is the Maxxum 7D, it uses Minolta A-type
bayonet mount lenses with a 1.5X focal length multiplier. It got a
decent review on DPReview last year; it has built-in image
stabilization which should be very handy.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/konicaminolta7d/

It's running about US$1100-1300 for the body right now - not bad
overall I guess; you'd pay that $400 premium (over a dRebel body) to
get an IS lens for a Canon.....

ECM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brad <bjdbradnospam@gmail.com> writes:
> I have a feeling that those throw away cameras will be around for some
> time to come and they will always need developing, as an earlier
> poster said in our lifetime we won't see the demise of film.

Will they be around in the numbers they're around in now, after everyone
has a camera in their cell phone?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ronald Baird wrote:
> Greetings Hank,
>
> You are in for some exciting photographic times, Hank, digital will
> seriously expand your imaging horizons.
>
> You should be able to find a local area that will process your film. Kodak
> is still firmly in the film business and they are not going to be leaving it
> for a very long time. Even if digital takes the dominant role, Kodak will
> continue to sell and support film and processor for as long as I am alive.
> If you want to contact me directly, I will be glad to share locations where
> you can get Kodak processing. There are literally thousands of ports for
> film process as well as printing from your digital camera images via your
> computer, memory cards, and more. Let me know what you need and I will try
> to help you out.
>
> Best regards and talk to you soon,
>
> Ron Baird
> Eastman Kodak Company
>
>
>

Ron,
It is not 'if digital takes the dominant role', it HAS taken the
dominant role! It will continue to erode the film market until it has
95% of it. There will still be die-hard film fans, however, and
applications where film is still better for the purpose. I suspect that
if you want to buy film in 5 years, you will need to find a specialty
store, and if you need it in 10 years, you will need to mail-order it,
or live in a large city to find a source. But there will still be
people using film long after I am gone.


Now, for a question. What is the target market for the new 'Z' and 'C'
lines of Kodak cameras?



--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Scott W wrote:
> Or will they be around when you can buy a good 3 MP camera for say $20.
> The thing that seems to be easy to forget is that whereas film is
> pretty much as good as it is going to get digital camera will continue
> to get both better and cheaper. And let's fact it a digital camera
> does not have to be all that good to be much better then one of those
> disposable cameras.

Why is film as good as its going to get? I shoot both digital and film,
and see film continue to get better even today- like the new Velvia film.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Don Stauffer wrote:
> Scott W wrote:
> > Or will they be around when you can buy a good 3 MP camera for say $20.
> > The thing that seems to be easy to forget is that whereas film is
> > pretty much as good as it is going to get digital camera will continue
> > to get both better and cheaper. And let's fact it a digital camera
> > does not have to be all that good to be much better then one of those
> > disposable cameras.
>
> Why is film as good as its going to get? I shoot both digital and film,
> and see film continue to get better even today- like the new Velvia film.

First off the improvements in film over the years have been small when
compared to the pace of digital cameras. In 1998 I paid $200 for a
640 x 480 camera that took pretty bad photos, needed a lot of light and
had a shutter lag in the many seconds, now that same $200 can get me a
pretty nice 4 MP camera that take very good photos. In 5 years from
now what will $200 buy me, in the way of a digital camera?

The second thing is that there is going to be very little R&D work
don't on film, why bother with the market shrinking so fast.

Scott