Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: When is the film going to die?  (Read 9129 times)
Erik Muehlberger
Guest
« Reply #20 on: October 08, 2002, 07:06:18 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']Don't worry. Film won't die anytime soon. There's a large population in the developing world for whom the requirement of having to have a computer and ink jet printer merely to process photos is absurd and uneconomical; and that same reasoning goes for the 1st world citizen who needs to only shoot a few rolls per year to satisfy his or her need to commemorate a vacation or wedding. (Who do you think is buying all those disposable cameras?)

The real test of film's staying power will come when digital has reached its stasis point and people like myself will be able to buy into a digital imaging system that (we believe) will last a few decades as our film cameras now do.[/font]
Logged
Erik M
Guest
« Reply #21 on: October 11, 2002, 09:25:49 AM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']>Kodachrome 200 Professional Film will continue to be available from Europe- and U.S.-based dealers of Kodak Professional photography products in 36-exposure, 35mm rolls. Starting Jan. 1, 2002, the suggested U.S. list price will be $23.50 per roll.<

I was using the price listed in the above press release on the Kodak web site. I'm glad it's actually available for half that. I should have checked what the actual retail price was before posting.[/font]
Logged
Marshal
Guest
« Reply #22 on: November 08, 2002, 11:56:18 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']Surfkid:

Are you talking about Kodachome Pro or all Pro films? I would have to disagree anyway, regardless. Whether Kodachrome Pro or Velvia certainly, I wouldn't say Pro films are more flat. Perhaps for Pro color negative films for studio and wedding photography. Some of those films are made particularly to be less contrasty. But that generalization does not apply to all Pro films.

What I do know without a doubt is that RVP is not flat.[/font]
Logged
Pete
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 104


« Reply #23 on: December 05, 2002, 04:13:18 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']I tend to agree.  Since getting my D60, I can take a great deal of shots but only print up the really outstanding ones.  Because I take lots of family and in-laws during holidays or birthdays, I can print up an 8x10 montage for several family members, each montage might have anywhere from 5 to ten photos on it, and all are happy to get something concrete (makes them pose more easily next time, too!).  The paper itself is probably no more than 75 cents a sheet (espson premium luster).  No way I could have done any of this with film.  Until I give them a montage, I can easily email shots that they might want to print up themselves.   But, hey, whatever makes you happy.[/font]
Logged
robertwatcher
Guest
« Reply #24 on: December 24, 2002, 11:57:13 AM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']I am in total agreement for casual use. Consumer cameras are excellent quality and give quick turnaround of prints and versatility with how you can store and send images.My son is always sending me snaps of my grandson (email) which I never got  before  because he never got the roll in his camera processed.[/font]
Logged
flash
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 151


« Reply #25 on: December 25, 2002, 01:58:30 AM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']Currently a 6x4 dithermal print from a portable printer like the little Canon is about A$1.00 and takes 90 sec to produce. It wont be long until some smart little japanese man (or woman) produces a machine that looks like an ATM. Stck in the memory card, select the prints you want from the thumbnails on the touch sensitive screen, wait 90 seconds and swipe your credit card. Bingo, the death of the minilab AND consumer film.

Gordon

P.S. B&W printing is not really more expensive than it was, it's just that Colour has gotten so much cheaper.

PPS. Professional Films are usually exactly the same films as their amateur equivalents, cut from the same rolls (eg KR200 and KR200 professional). Amateur film is shipped about 3 months prior to its being at its peak due to expected shelf life. Professional films are matured at the factory, tested regularly and refrigerated at their peak to slow down the aging process. Then shipped to the store in a refrigerated truck and stored in a coolroom or fridge at the store until sold and used. Why? so that a professional photographer knows two things for certain.
1. That every frame of every roll of that batch of film will have identical colour. (Very important in advertising)
2. That the film has been handled correctly from the factory and not exposed to extremes of heat etc.

Usually, unless you need to have this handling and consistancy, there is no need to purchase the pro emulsion over the amateur, if you are confidant that the shop store its film well and has a reasonable stock turn over.[/font]
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5146


« Reply #26 on: December 30, 2002, 02:29:43 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']On film versus digital print costs, I just tried the one hour digital service as Costco. Standard size prints are 19c each, the same as film reprints, and so even printing all of a set of 24 digital photos cost less that 35mm film, processing and print costs. Quality was better than my average mini-lab film experience, but still with a bit too much red.

Interestingly, digital is starting to offer more enlargement sizes than film within the cheap one or two hour, machine processed service, while anything other than 4"x6" from film is often a special order with higher price and several days' wait. For example, digital 6"x8" for $1, 8"x10" for $2 at Costco. Perhaps this is because the new film mini-labs do only standard size prints, while the digital prints are often made onto larger sheets, with several smaller size prints done on a single sheet which is then cut.[/font]
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad