Need help on Research paper

[c.cloudwalker]

I hope you realize I'm being sort of a devil's advocate here. I love film. The future I see is not the one I would choose, but I don't have a choice. I'm going to have to live in it.

This is a discussion. You can say anything you want and it will not bother me. Playing devil's advocate or not does not matter. In this case I only wanted to make some people aware that we don't really know where technology is taking us. And it is in the same spirit that I will respond to our response

Something we'll learn to live with while awaiting the solar powered digital camera and the battery that powers the camera for months.

True and it will probably be here before I finish typing my response LOL. And in the meantime, how many very important photos did we miss? Now, I'll admit this comes from an idealist who still believes that photos can make a difference.

The chase for more and more megapixels will reach a point of diminishing returnsed"

I believe that is true but I am no computer expert and, on the other hand, I believe technology manufacturers will find ways after ways of making us think they have some better thing we can't live without and because we are so gadget oriented, we'll fall for it. And we'll spend more money.

Unhappily you are right-on.

Unhappily, I believe I am. And because I am one of those weirdos that believe we can learn from history if we only pay attention to it, it is very sad.

Again, right-on. But then, my film SLR has a computer in it. I'm really careful with it around water.

And again, unhappily I believe I am. How many important photos are we going to miss because we are trying to protect our equipment. Or our life as this little story will show: I spend time in Afghanistan when it was occupied by the russians. On one of my trips there I agreed to guide a tv crew. Worst experience of my life. The camera guy would jump behind a rock every time he heard the slightest noise

One day, those russian helicopters show up, coming up the valley and they start shooting at us. Absolutely beautiful visually and this guy is once again behind a rock From what I heard later there was absolutely no interesting footage from this guy's trip.)

 

[blash]

But the trend is: digital is getting cheaper; film is getting more expensive.

Not really. Fact is, I can get one of the best 35mm film bodies on the planet, the Nikon F5, for $350 used. Used Nikon D40's, the absolute lowest end DSLR on the planet, doesn't go for much less used. Consumer film SLR's can be had for under $70.

Or, you can pay over $4,000 for a Nikon D3. What's that you say? You can get a D90 for a little over a grand? Or a D300 for $1500? :lmao::lmao:

Fact is, if you're a low-volume shooter, you cannot beat film in terms of affordability. Yeah, I'll pay $7 for a roll of Velvia. Then I'll pay another $9 to have it developed, and then maybe $14 for prints, if I decide to print anything. $30 a week, if I shoot every week - a figure that goes down the more I process and print myself. Yeah, after a bajillion weeks a digital camera is less expensive. But it's a hell of a lot easier to come up with a small amount of money per week than it is to come up with a huge amount of money at once, as anyone who has ever used a mortgage to buy a house knows. And in the meantime, I'll enjoy higher quality pictures and have more fun while shooting, and use a higher quality camera body. Sounds like win-win to me.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

But the trend is: digital is getting cheaper; film is getting more expensive.

Not really. Fact is, I can get one of the best 35mm film bodies on the planet, the Nikon F5, for $350 used. Used Nikon D40's, the absolute lowest end DSLR on the planet, doesn't go for much less used. Consumer film SLR's can be had for under $70.

Or, you can pay over $4,000 for a Nikon D3. What's that you say? You can get a D90 for a little over a grand? Or a D300 for $1500? :lmao::lmao:

Fact is, if you're a low-volume shooter, you cannot beat film in terms of affordability. Yeah, I'll pay $7 for a roll of Velvia. Then I'll pay another $9 to have it developed, and then maybe $14 for prints, if I decide to print anything. $30 a week, if I shoot every week - a figure that goes down the more I process and print myself. Yeah, after a bajillion weeks a digital camera is less expensive. But it's a hell of a lot easier to come up with a small amount of money per week than it is to come up with a huge amount of money at once, as anyone who has ever used a mortgage to buy a house knows. And in the meantime, I'll enjoy higher quality pictures and have more fun while shooting, and use a higher quality camera body. Sounds like win-win to me.

:thumbup:

 

[manaheim]

Telephones will replace parcel post.

Television will replace radio.

Email will replace parcel post.

Microwaves will replace stoves.

Electronic fuel injection will replace carbeuration.

Digital will replace film.

See a pattern?

Generally speaking, it's INCREDIBLY rare that something outright replaces something else. Very frequently is the case where the new thing and old thing battle a bit and each finds it's place. Occasionally the new thing trumps the old thing in "common" usage, with only specialized or "hobbyists" working with the old thing, but very rarely does the new thing utterly kill the old.

In photography I think film is almost as near to dead as it ever will be. We're already at a point where very few "average consumers" will ever use film again... in the next several years, I'd be amazed if you saw film sold at any consumer store... but a lot of pros and specialized people will continue using film for many many years to come.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Telephones will replace parcel post.

Television will replace radio.

Email will replace parcel post.

Microwaves will replace stoves.

Electronic fuel injection will replace carbeuration.

Digital will replace film.

See a pattern?

Generally speaking, it's INCREDIBLY rare that something outright replaces something else. Very frequently is the case where the new thing and old thing battle a bit and each finds it's place. Occasionally the new thing trumps the old thing in "common" usage, with only specialized or "hobbyists" working with the old thing, but very rarely does the new thing utterly kill the old.

In photography I think film is almost as near to dead as it ever will be. We're already at a point where very few "average consumers" will ever use film again... in the next several years, I'd be amazed if you saw film sold at any consumer store... but a lot of pros and specialized people will continue using film for many many years to come.

Agree. Very nice way of putting it.

 

[manaheim]

^^^ thanks.

 

[skieur]

Telephones will replace parcel post.

Television will replace radio.

Email will replace parcel post.

Microwaves will replace stoves.

Electronic fuel injection will replace carbeuration.

Digital will replace film.

See a pattern?

Yes, I do. Dealing a lot with lawyers and companies, email and fax is replacing parcel post and couriers are used for shipping important documents. Microwave/convection ovens are replacing regular ovens particularly in RVs and motorhomes and the only thing a stove is used for is frying and boiling some vegetables even in a lot of regular homes. Some stove tops have even been replaced with a barbecue grill. Considering electronic fuel injection in my new outboard motor and my new lawnmower, I would say yes, it will replace the regular carburater. And digital is replacing film,.... so yes I do see a pattern.

skieur

 

[Actor]

But the trend is: digital is getting cheaper; film is getting more expensive.

Not really. Fact is, I can get one of the best 35mm film bodies on the planet, the Nikon F5, for $350 used. Used Nikon D40's, the absolute lowest end DSLR on the planet, doesn't go for much less used. Consumer film SLR's can be had for under $70.

Or, you can pay over $4,000 for a Nikon D3. What's that you say? You can get a D90 for a little over a grand? Or a D300 for $1500? :lmao::lmao:

In the long run it's not the price of the camera, it's the price of the media.

Fact is, if you're a low-volume shooter, you cannot beat film in terms of affordability.

The price of film forces me to be a low volume shooter. One 36 exposure roll costs about $5, processing about $7.50 and a scan to a disk is about $2.50, a total of $15. If I shoot a roll a week that's $65/month. Since it's just a hobby that's about all I can afford.

Consider the way my wife shoots with her digital. She shoots 700+ frames on a 2 GByte card, downloads those to her computer, clears the card and repeats. She prints only the best ones and emails a lot more to friends and relatives. She gets a lot of shots that I miss because she can decide later if she wants to print it or delete it or... That's a decision I have to make before I press the shutter.

 

[Actor]

Telephones will replace parcel post.

Television will replace radio.

Email will replace parcel post.

Microwaves will replace stoves.

Electronic fuel injection will replace carbeuration.

Digital will replace film.

See a pattern?

Generally speaking, it's INCREDIBLY rare that something outright replaces something else. Very frequently is the case where the new thing and old thing battle a bit and each finds it's place. Occasionally the new thing trumps the old thing in "common" usage, with only specialized or "hobbyists" working with the old thing, but very rarely does the new thing utterly kill the old.

In photography I think film is almost as near to dead as it ever will be. We're already at a point where very few "average consumers" will ever use film again... in the next several years, I'd be amazed if you saw film sold at any consumer store... but a lot of pros and specialized people will continue using film for many many years to come.

Unfortunately I think film may be one of those rare cases where something outright replaces something else. When Kodak and Fuji stop producing the stuff I doubt there will be enough demand to keep the minor manufacturers in business. Of course there will be die hard hobbyists who will find a way to brew their own, as well as micro-manufacturers who will cater to those willing to pay the price. Don't be surprised if a roll of film eventually goes to $100.

Just in case, I'm already working on a way to completely get the emulsion off a negative so that, after scanning, I can use the acetate to brew my next roll.

 

[blash]

The price of film forces me to be a low volume shooter. One 36 exposure roll costs about $5, processing about $7.50 and a scan to a disk is about $2.50, a total of $15. If I shoot a roll a week that's $65/month. Since it's just a hobby that's about all I can afford.

Consider the way my wife shoots with her digital. She shoots 700+ frames on a 2 GByte card, downloads those to her computer, clears the card and repeats. She prints only the best ones and emails a lot more to friends and relatives. She gets a lot of shots that I miss because she can decide later if she wants to print it or delete it or... That's a decision I have to make before I press the shutter.

Yes, in a way film requires you to be a low-volume shooter. But in doing so it makes you think more about your shots than just aiming and spraying the shutter. How many of your wife's shots, out of the 700+, are keepers? What's that percentage? With film since you're forced to work within constraints, you tend to be more careful and thus get better shots.

I actually like to work with 24 exposure rolls - now that I put some more thought into the process, I have difficulty even filling up a 24 exposure roll, and it's easier to spool up and develop.

 

[Phranquey]

Yes, in a way film requires you to be a low-volume shooter. But in doing so it makes you think more about your shots than just aiming and spraying the shutter. How many of your wife's shots, out of the 700+, are keepers? What's that percentage? With film since you're forced to work within constraints, you tend to be more careful and thus get better shots.

I actually like to work with 24 exposure rolls - now that I put some more thought into the process, I have difficulty even filling up a 24 exposure roll, and it's easier to spool up and develop.

This is a good point...but...I love to chase storms. Do you realize what the film cost was for shooting a couple hundred shots only to get nothing? It was enough to make me quit doing that until the digital age came about. Now I can easily go out and pop off gigabytes worth, and if I get nothing, no extra cost to me.

Don't get me wrong, I still love film, and still do use it occasionally, but I find it happening less and less.

 

[manaheim]

I wasn't suggesting that the new thing wouldn't become prevalent (sp?), I was only saying that the new thing very rarely irradicates the old.

You may see more microwaves than stoves in RVs, but people are still considering stoves pretty critical in their homes.

 

[skieur]

I wasn't suggesting that the new thing wouldn't become prevalent (sp?), I was only saying that the new thing very rarely irradicates the old.

You may see more microwaves than stoves in RVs, but people are still considering stoves pretty critical in their homes.

Oh, but it does slowly but surely irradicate the old. I have been around long enough to see it happen. It doesn't happen instantly but it does happen.

I orignally never thought that VHS would so quickly be eliminated by DVD but it happened, and Bluray is certainly eating into the regular DVD and will eventually replace it as well.

With Kodachrome gone, the writing is definitely on the wall for film. It is just a matter of time.

skieur

 

[c.cloudwalker]

I wasn't suggesting that the new thing wouldn't become prevalent (sp?), I was only saying that the new thing very rarely irradicates the old.

You may see more microwaves than stoves in RVs, but people are still considering stoves pretty critical in their homes.

Oh, but it does slowly but surely irradicate the old. I have been around long enough to see it happen. It doesn't happen instantly but it does happen.

I orignally never thought that VHS would so quickly be eliminated by DVD but it happened, and Bluray is certainly eating into the regular DVD and will eventually replace it as well.

With Kodachrome gone, the writing is definitely on the wall for film. It is just a matter of time.

skieur

VHS went out quickly because tape is a bad medium for the consumer market as it ages pretty badly. It was alright for video cams because it was easier to deal with than 8 mm film and, to be honest, most people don't watch their family movies that often. But for movie buffs, it was the pits. Laser discs were quite beautiful but they never took off. So, yes DVD took over.

On the other hand, nothing much I read about BluRay agrees with what you are saying. It's making some progress but definitely not as much as they were hoping for. I personally tell my friends not to buy BluRay and when I show them the difference between BluRay and a regular DVD in an upconverter player, they stick to their DVDs.


As for stoves and microwaves, I just had to laugh when you mentioned that. You are right that a lot of people don't use stoves anymore but that is only because they don't cook anymore Nonetheless I have yet to see a house for sale without a stove in the kitchen. And, according to what I've been reading recently, because of the state of the economy, people are starting to cook again. So I imagine they are using their stoves again.

Cheers

 

[manaheim]

Oh, but it does slowly but surely irradicate the old. I have been around long enough to see it happen. It doesn't happen instantly but it does happen.

I orignally never thought that VHS would so quickly be eliminated by DVD but it happened, and Bluray is certainly eating into the regular DVD and will eventually replace it as well.

With Kodachrome gone, the writing is definitely on the wall for film. It is just a matter of time.

skieur

VHS is still pretty actively used in a variety of applications... one of which being security cameras. However, sec cams are getting the 1/2 punch as now there are tivo-style devices for this purpose. Regardless... still in use.

Irradicated is a TOUGH thing to accomplish. Whittled down to almost nothing? Sure... but even that takes a while.