Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > The end is near for 35mm? Or is it? When is the end?

Reply
Thread Tools

The end is near for 35mm? Or is it? When is the end?

 
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-01-2006

"Dennis Pogson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> My grand-daughter has just started her 4th year of a 4-year degree course
> in
> photography at Glasgow College of Art.
>
> So far, digital photography has never been mentioned at all, and I doubt
> whether it will be. She visits my house occasionally and is simply amazed
> at
> all my digital stuff.
>
> So who's right and who's wrong? Are the Universities so out of touch that
> they have not yet heard of the so-called digital revolution? Or do they
> know
> something we don't?


You've said that before, but you've missed the point. See the "Art" bit in
"Glasgow College of Art"? I'd guess they take art fairly seriously there.
And it turns out that there's still a lot of art photography done with
medium and large format. You can see some of that world at LensWork.

http://www.lenswork.com/

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
JohnR66
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-01-2006
"j" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I am thinking of just a couple of the many signs from manufactures that the
>end is near for 35mm film.
>
> Rollei who packages their 35mm in a coffin. or rather a wooden box, which
> strikes me as just stupid.
>
> Leica who dropped their film oriented classes.
>
> Do you all see other conspicuous signs?
>
>

I'm thinking of some of the large "cameras for the masses" companies such as
Canon who pulled the plug on 35mm. Nikon, wasn't so quick to leave film by
introducing an upgraded F100 and calling it an F6.

I see more signs of it fading every so often. I noticed that many stores
carry nothing slower than ISO 400 film now. I used to buy 100 or 200 speed
film and over expose it by a stop for better contrast. ISO 400 on about any
DSLR is way better than film if you want minimal grain.

Oh well, It's been 2-1/2 years since I made an exposure on 35mm. It is dead
as far as I'm concerned.
John


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-01-2006
EF in FLA wrote:
>>> digital is a fad. laugh all you want.

>
> OK. Bwahahahah!!!
>
>>> when the Photoshop craze has been run into the ground

>
> Photoshop craze? That's like saying microwave oven craze, computer craze,
> dvd payer craze, etc.


Can you spell t.r.o.l.l.?

Car craze (actually was thought to be that, long before anyone here was
around). Cell phone craze. Probably Talking Movies, and record players,
too.

As to microwaves, tho, mine is used only for reheating, and mostly
coffee. The thought of actually cooking in it lost its appeal years ago.

--
john mcwilliams
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dennis Pogson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-01-2006
David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Dennis Pogson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> My grand-daughter has just started her 4th year of a 4-year degree
>> course in
>> photography at Glasgow College of Art.
>>
>> So far, digital photography has never been mentioned at all, and I
>> doubt whether it will be. She visits my house occasionally and is
>> simply amazed at
>> all my digital stuff.
>>
>> So who's right and who's wrong? Are the Universities so out of touch
>> that they have not yet heard of the so-called digital revolution? Or
>> do they know
>> something we don't?

>
> You've said that before, but you've missed the point. See the "Art"
> bit in "Glasgow College of Art"? I'd guess they take art fairly
> seriously there. And it turns out that there's still a lot of art
> photography done with medium and large format. You can see some of
> that world at LensWork.
>
> http://www.lenswork.com/
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan


That is like saying digital photography is not "serious" photography.


 
Reply With Quote
 
John Bean
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-01-2006
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 13:55:59 GMT, "Dennis Pogson"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "Dennis Pogson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>> My grand-daughter has just started her 4th year of a 4-year degree
>>> course in
>>> photography at Glasgow College of Art.
>>>
>>> So far, digital photography has never been mentioned at all, and I
>>> doubt whether it will be. She visits my house occasionally and is
>>> simply amazed at
>>> all my digital stuff.
>>>
>>> So who's right and who's wrong? Are the Universities so out of touch
>>> that they have not yet heard of the so-called digital revolution? Or
>>> do they know
>>> something we don't?

>>
>> You've said that before, but you've missed the point. See the "Art"
>> bit in "Glasgow College of Art"? I'd guess they take art fairly
>> seriously there. And it turns out that there's still a lot of art
>> photography done with medium and large format. You can see some of
>> that world at LensWork.
>>
>> http://www.lenswork.com/
>>
>> David J. Littleboy
>> Tokyo, Japan

>
>That is like saying digital photography is not "serious" photography.


No it's not. It's saying that digital hasn't become
sufficiently usable or affordable as a replacement for film
in certain areas of photography.



--
John Bean
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Funk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-01-2006
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 13:18:02 GMT, "Dennis Pogson"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>My grand-daughter has just started her 4th year of a 4-year degree course in
>photography at Glasgow College of Art.
>
>So far, digital photography has never been mentioned at all, and I doubt
>whether it will be. She visits my house occasionally and is simply amazed at
>all my digital stuff.


Art is different from taking photographs.
Does the Art college teach Art, or taking photographs? They aren't the
same thing.
>
>So who's right and who's wrong? Are the Universities so out of touch that
>they have not yet heard of the so-called digital revolution? Or do they know
>something we don't?


In the US, yes, universities qare often out of touch with everyday
realities.
>
>Second-hand values of the better film cameras and lenses are holding up
>well, and if it's a Leica you want, forget it unless you take out a
>mortgage! Nikon lenses are selling at ridiculous prices only because Nikon
>decided that all their lenses would be usable, with varying degrees of
>automation and sophistication, on their digital SLRs.


Those Leicas are the end result of over a century of development of
cameras; digital hasn't been around anywhere near that long.
Nikon lenses are selling at "rediculous" prices? Where?
>
>I don't think the digital cameras will have one quarter of the staying power
>of the old classics like the Leica M series or the Nikon F3. In ten years
>time our plastic fantastics will be in use as doorstops.


See above; digital technology has a long way to go before it reaches
the maturity film reached a long time ago.
>
>Sell my F3 and Leica 3g? You nust be joking! (I'm on my 7th digital camera
>in 4 years!).


And film photographers used to buy SLRs at a pretty good clip, too, as
the technology matured.
Weren't you there then?
>Dennis.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Annika1980
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-01-2006

Dennis Pogson wrote:

>
> My grand-daughter has just started her 4th year of a 4-year degree course in
> photography at Glasgow College of Art.
>
> So far, digital photography has never been mentioned at all, and I doubt
> whether it will be. She visits my house occasionally and is simply amazed at
> all my digital stuff.
>
> So who's right and who's wrong? Are the Universities so out of touch that
> they have not yet heard of the so-called digital revolution? Or do they know
> something we don't?


They teach the old ways because that's all they know. Also, it is what
they're equipped for. Switching to digital would cost $$$. And to
teach digital they'd first have to learn it so they would go from being
the teacher to being a student. They know that the money is in the
teaching.


Personally, I would question the usefulness of a 4-year degree course
that hasn't mentioned digital in 3 years. Or perhaps they'll start the
fourth year by saying, "OK, forget all that other stuff...."

I'm sure that in 3 years your granddaughter has learned a great deal
about photography, lighting, exposure, etc. But I fear she will be
blissfully ignorant of the current tools and methods used to capture
the images. So far, her class should be called "The History of
Photography." What does she intend to do when she graduates? Being
ignorant of digital puts her at a serious disadvantage when trying to
compete with folks who know about the modern processes. Certainly, if
she intends to earn money through her photography she is in for a long
struggle.

 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-01-2006
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 13:18:02 GMT, Dennis Pogson wrote:

> I don't think the digital cameras will have one quarter of the staying power
> of the old classics like the Leica M series or the Nikon F3. In ten years
> time our plastic fantastics will be in use as doorstops.
>
> Sell my F3 and Leica 3g? You nust be joking! (I'm on my 7th digital camera
> in 4 years!).


At that rate, in ten years you'll have bought two dozen digital
cameras. How many film cameras will you have added? Your answer
misses the point of the OP's question. It's not how long an old,
individual, well built camera will last, but rather, will the photo
industry continue producing products (35mm film and cameras) that
are no longer purchased? Having used digital cameras for six years,
I'm now on my third. None of them ever broke down or became erratic
or started producing lower quality images. If any of your older
digital cameras are doorstops, is it because they don't work as well
as they once did, or because you felt compelled to buy newer models
that produced better images or added convenience or functionality?
That you're buying so many digital cameras provides hints that your
Nikon F3 and Leica 3g have effectively become doorstops, even if
they still work well.

How often do you use these two film cameras compared to your
digital cameras? If the answer is "not very much", then you can't
really blame the photo industry for the less rugged, flimsier
cameras they're producing. In their day the F3 and 3g were not
considered to be low end, inexpensive disposable cameras. Nikon and
Canon produced more than their share of those and still do. If you
get a top of the line digital camera from Nikon, Canon or even
Leica, it'll be a well made, durable camera that'll probably give up
little in terms of longevity to the F3s and 3gs. The primary reason
for upgrading or replacing any of these top of the line digitals
would not be because they broke down due to flimsy construction. It
would be because you either really *need* the new features and
functionality of the newer cameras, or more likely, because
consumers must follow their lemming-like imperative to *buy*.

 
Reply With Quote
 
AZ Nomad
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-01-2006
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 13:18:02 GMT, Dennis Pogson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>joe mama wrote:
>> "EF in FLA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:ehFTg.23546$(E-Mail Removed).. .
>>>> I am sure one will be able to go into just about camera store and
>>>> buy a 35mm film camera for as long as I live (pushing 64), and
>>>> probably decades after that.
>>>
>>> Most pawn shops have more 35mm's than they can ever sell. Pretty
>>> soon they'll just go straight to trash dumps because NO ONE will
>>> want them. Hey, life goes on.

>>
>>
>> i have a 33 yo FE2 and some same-aged nikkor lenses, as well as a
>> d100 and some newer digital lenses. i wonder which ones will last
>> longer?
>>
>> digital is a fad. laugh all you want. when the Photoshop craze has
>> been run into the ground, people are going to get bored and remember
>> that you need to actually "know" how to get an image in silver. plus,
>> nobody is going to want to replace gear every five years (or less).
>> unless it gets so cheap that it is no longer viable to manufacture.
>>
>> we'll see. i don't think film is going anywhere all that soon.
>> especially 35mm. seen any all-digital movies lately???


>My grand-daughter has just started her 4th year of a 4-year degree course in
>photography at Glasgow College of Art.


>So far, digital photography has never been mentioned at all, and I doubt
>whether it will be. She visits my house occasionally and is simply amazed at
>all my digital stuff.


Reminds me of a high school science class in 1978 where we were using
slide-rulers even though calculators had been out for nearly a decade
and scientific functions were beginning to appear on cheap calculators.




 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-01-2006

"Dennis Pogson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "Dennis Pogson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>> My grand-daughter has just started her 4th year of a 4-year degree
>>> course in photography at Glasgow College of Art.
>>>
>>> So far, digital photography has never been mentioned at all, and I
>>> doubt whether it will be. She visits my house occasionally and is
>>> simply amazed at
>>> all my digital stuff.
>>>
>>> So who's right and who's wrong? Are the Universities so out of touch
>>> that they have not yet heard of the so-called digital revolution? Or
>>> do they know
>>> something we don't?

>>
>> You've said that before, but you've missed the point. See the "Art"
>> bit in "Glasgow College of Art"? I'd guess they take art fairly
>> seriously there. And it turns out that there's still a lot of art
>> photography done with medium and large format. You can see some of
>> that world at LensWork.
>>
>> http://www.lenswork.com/
>>
>> David J. Littleboy
>> Tokyo, Japan

>
> That is like saying digital photography is not "serious" photography.


Not at all. It's just to point out that digital is not all there is to
photography. Open your mind and learn.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The END (of PyCon early bird registration) is NEAR! VanL Python 0 01-06-2010 08:01 PM
near "PROCEDURE": expecting: END swapsap1 VHDL 0 08-13-2007 11:31 AM
Toshiba suggests end of DVD war is near. Allan DVD Video 1 06-02-2005 01:31 PM
The end is near for Blu-Ray and HD-DVD (I hope) RichA DVD Video 5 05-30-2005 08:33 PM
D60: THE END IS NEAR !!! Annika1980 Digital Photography 8 10-30-2003 12:58 AM



Advertisments