IAC DISCUSSION FORUMS

Now let me see if I can start a new thread without
upsetting anyone.
I started this thread on the private forum and it lead to much
polite discussion, so here goes, (as Dave and others haven't
seen it).....no swearing mind! Keep it clean too. hee hee hee.

Did you read this week that Dixons, our favourite photographic shops,
are to cease selling 35mm film still cameras?
So is this the end of 35mm film soon as digital cameras
get cheaper as production rises and their definition increases?

Should we care?
I don't, although I might miss the little yellow bags we
sent through the post that got lost(!) and the excitement
and apprehension of waiting for the slides to arrive back
on the doormat to discover how they turned out.

The thrill of developing one's own film in the bath!
Digital is so positive all the time, that we never get
this excitement any more, do we? I use a digital *Megxon*
.....now I bet that's got you guessing!
Albert.
http://www.retinascope.co.uk/index.html

"Animation" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:

Now let me see if I can start a new thread without
upsetting anyone.
I started this thread on the private forum and it lead to much
polite discussion, so here goes, (as Dave and others haven't
seen it).....no swearing mind! Keep it clean too. hee hee hee.

Did you read this week that Dixons, our favourite photographic shops,
are to cease selling 35mm film still cameras?
So is this the end of 35mm film soon as digital cameras
get cheaper as production rises and their definition increases?

Should we care?
I don't, although I might miss the little yellow bags we
sent through the post that got lost(!) and the excitement
and apprehension of waiting for the slides to arrive back
on the doormat to discover how they turned out.

The thrill of developing one's own film in the bath!
Digital is so positive all the time, that we never get
this excitement any more, do we? I use a digital *Megxon*
.....now I bet that's got you guessing!
Albert.
http://www.retinascope.co.uk/index.html

I am afraid it is the end of film, not because of Dixons but all the pros
I speak to are now very happy with digital and once the glossy advertising
photographers use it then the die will be cast. Reversal (slides) still
look fantastic but will go as well soon.

"Animation" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:

Now let me see if I can start a new thread without
upsetting anyone.
I started this thread on the private forum and it lead to much
polite discussion, so here goes, (as Dave and others haven't
seen it).....no swearing mind! Keep it clean too. hee hee hee.

Did you read this week that Dixons, our favourite photographic shops,
are to cease selling 35mm film still cameras?
So is this the end of 35mm film soon as digital cameras
get cheaper as production rises and their definition increases?

Should we care?
I don't, although I might miss the little yellow bags we
sent through the post that got lost(!) and the excitement
and apprehension of waiting for the slides to arrive back
on the doormat to discover how they turned out.

The thrill of developing one's own film in the bath!
Digital is so positive all the time, that we never get
this excitement any more, do we? I use a digital *Megxon*
.....now I bet that's got you guessing!
Albert.
http://www.retinascope.co.uk/index.html

Regarding film, yes, we do care, but that's probably because of the many
reasons you have listed. I started developing B&W films using a dim red light,
by hand in 1954. Now I have a digital camera and I must say that it is very
convenient to process the images on my computer. I can work on up to 50 photos
in an hour or two, whereas it would take an hour to set up the darkroom and
process one or two rolls of film, which would be 12-24 shots on large format
(2.25 inches square). By the time I had enlarged them, another two hours
or more would have gone by, with only a dozen or so decent Black & White
prints.

But I am sad, as I have invested a lot of effort and time over the last 50
years, but time and progress marches on. Soon we may be giving up DV for
the new high definition format when making our "films" - but I'm not sure
I will ever go down that road, as the costs are high and it is the manufacturers
who benefit most with their balance sheets. Anyway, I'm more drawn to still
images at present, but that could change ...

Peter Thomlinson

Did you read this week that Dixons, our favourite photographic shops,
are to cease selling 35mm film still cameras?
So is this the end of 35mm film soon as digital cameras
get cheaper as production rises and their definition increases?

Should we care?

Each technology seems to have its day then fade away.
In transport we had the stage-coach decades, the canal decades, the railway
decades, the car decades ...
So we should accept that photographic technology will move on too.

In fact, of course, all these technologies improve little-by-little through
their lifetime. The 35mm still film I used to buy as a kid was cheap from
Marston & Heard. It was also slower and grainier than the Ilford material
I last put through my tank as an adult. The first digital still cameras were
low-resolution. Now they offer superb resolution and are starting to overcome
the tedious delay between pressing the button and the shutter going. If
they can only reduce the re-set time before you can take the next image ...

It seems to me that the trick is not to be among the first to adopt any new
technology, but to give it a few years to mature. Keep an eye on it and when
it has reached an acceptable standard (and acceptable price bracket)move
over to it.

There will always be enthusiasts who prefer the older technology, who will
keep it alive and swear that it had virtues lacking in the new one. The point
for most of us is to keep a balanced view and jump when the quality the new
technology provides can satisfy our needs.

By the way - does anyone else out there remember developing 8mm or 16mm cine
film stock at home? Getting that into the special tank was fiddling pain
!

Dave (who really did have an Esso sticker on his developing vessel: "I've
got a tiger in my tank!")

"Dave Watterson" <david.filmsocs@virgin.net> wrote:

By the way - does anyone else out there remember developing 8mm or 16mm
cine
film stock at home? Getting that into the special tank was fiddling pain

Yes, I tried it once. The operative word being..... ONCE!
I believe it was a "Morse" tank and it was 16mm reversal
black and white stock as I recall....we are going back about 50 years!
It was a complete disaster, so I let Humpries Film Labs in London
do my processing after that!

Dave (who really did have an Esso sticker on his developing vessel: "I've
got a tiger in my tank!")
Albert.....just got a pussy cat in his.

"Peter" <allegro@pocoanimato.co.uk> wrote:

Anyway, I'm more drawn to still
images at present, but that could change ...

If it does, never give up still imagery......
" A single picture says a thousand words."

Funnily enough I seem to spend more time now
concentrating on the still image than on the moving one.
Is that retrogression, having started in stills?
Maybe. Maybe not?
Albert...

Technology does help to make filmmaking more accessible. Many young filmmakers,
in particular, won't be able to make films if the technology is not as cheap
as it is now.

I personally think 35mm still looks better than DV when used for a film.
The film look is a part of the film language because we are all used to it.
10 years from now, though, when we have seen enough digital movies, perhaps
more people will accept DVs and think "hey that film made with 35mm is just
so old fashion".

Perhaps.

However, filmmaking consists of a lot of elements. Technology is not everything.
Ideas, script writing... I do it on a computer, you can do it with pen and
paper. Acting, directing... nothing to do with technology at all. If you
only remember the cinematography after you see a film, the film is probably
not a good one.

As non-commercial filmmakers, we are limited to the technology we can afford,
but creativity has no limit.

We still need to chase the technology because the bar for "acceptable quality"
is being raised all the time, but there is no need to be obsessed with it!

Atta

"atta chui" <atta.chui@ntlworld.com> wrote:

I personally think 35mm still looks better than DV when used for a film.

This thread started about the demise of 35mm *stills* film.
It can become very confusing to readers especially new to
the thread if we don't all answer by including
parts of what the previous contributors have said.....
.....as I am doing here.

The film look is a part of the film language because we are all used to
it.

....and here for a second example.

So,just hit "post response" to include part of previous
letters, which you can edit to include the points you wish
to answer.
Atta knows about this as the webmaster, but others may not.

Sometimes someone answers a leter without any previous
reference being left in and even gives it a new title just
to confuse even further, as though communication via email
wasn't confusing enough all ready!!

This has been mentioned by others in the past, by the way,
so it's not just me being grouchy!

Albert.......Grouchy Marks!

oops you are right Albert... my comment has drifted off the topic, perhaps
i should have made references to the AV-world which may be more relevant?
anyway i just wanted to comment on the use of technology on any art form
- it is a means but not an end... very sorry about the confusion.

This thread started about the demise of 35mm *stills* film.
It can become very confusing to readers especially new to
the thread if we don't all answer by including
parts of what the previous contributors have said.....