Kodak Film Article

[Roy5051]

The Kodak film article in this weeks News pages is very interesting. Are we to believe that photographers are foregoing digital imaging and going back to film? Certainly Kodak's experience seems to indicate that this may be so, especially with regard to black and white and/or large format.

My question is this - in a few years time, when film cameras have been out of production for some years, what equipment will these photographers be using? Will Kodak (or any others) restart film camera production, or will it just be large format photographers using film? Will the mass market ever again have the choice of film or digital? What do other forum members think?

[beejaybee]

Shouldn't this thread be somewhere else?

Anyhoo - yes, I do know of people who are ditching digital imaging for normal / art / pictorial photography - partly because it's more satisfying, and partly because it's a way of getting off the gear treadmill, whose speed seems to be increasing.

Thinking of doing the same myself, though the technical benefits of digital for very low light long exposure work are undeniable.

Bit rich of Kodak, though, who were leading the stampede to digital, at least until very recently. I'll believe they're genuine when they re-introduce Kodachrome 25 and Technical Pan 2415.

[AlexMonro]

There has been some discussion over the last few months of Fuji / Voightlander introducing a new medium format (6x7?) folding camera.

Also I believe Voightlander are still making the Bessa Series of 35mm rangefinders, Zeiss have the Ikon 35mm rangefinder, and of course, there's the Leica M7.

I think you can still buy a brand new Nikon F6 (though I'm not sure if they're still being made).

I think that reports of the death of film have been exagerated, though it may be looking a little peaky in places...

[mark_jacobs]

Shouldn't this thread be somewhere else?

Here?

[AJUK]

long exposure work are undeniable.

I think you can still buy a brand new Nikon F6 (though I'm not sure if they're still being made).


[/QUOTE]
What about the Canon EOS 1v?

[beejaybee]

I think you can still buy a brand new Nikon F6

Too heavy. Might as well go medium format - and have more detailed images than 35mm can manage.

And it's the film that is the problem for long exposure, not the camera. (Reciprocity failure)

[taxor]

I can't ever see there being a stampede back to film. I think film is, and will remain, a niche market, though it will never go away. There is enough of a market for one major player (Ilford hopefully)and a couple of smaller outfits and maybe the same for a major camera manufacturer. At the worst, if no film cameras are ever produced again, there will be a ready supply of good used ones around and a cottage industry dedicated to service and repair. I recently went on a tour of the Ilford plant at Mobberly and I can only say I was thoroughly impressed with their committment to traditional film based photography. I'm not really interested in Kodak any more; they can get knotted!

[Mojo_66]

I think Fuji have shown a commitment to film recently too with the introduction of the new Velvia 50 and Provia 400X.

[Benchista]

long exposure work are undeniable.

I think you can still buy a brand new Nikon F6 (though I'm not sure if they're still being made).

What about the Canon EOS 1v?

I think Canon stopped making them back in March, and they appear to be just about running out now.

[taxor]

I think Fuji have shown a commitment to film recently too with the introduction of the new Velvia 50 and Provia 400X.

Yes, you're quite right

[AJUK]

Sorry there was a reason for that quote, I thought film was at an advantage for long exposure work, especially really long exposures, I though Reciprocity failure wasn't much of a problem with modern film?

[beejaybee]

I thought film was at an advantage for long exposure work, especially really long exposures, I though Reciprocity failure wasn't much of a problem with modern film?

For long exposure work there are no films with a reciprocity characteristic greater than 0.9 (1.0 is perfect), most are around 0.8. An ISO 100 film with a reciprocity characteristic of 0.9 behaves as if it were ISO 10 with an exposure time running into the hours.

Kodak Technical Pan 2415, hypersensitized with hydrogen and cooled to -40C, got to 0.95 which is why astronomical photographers liked it so much.

But all digital sensors have essentially no reciprocity failure at all, nor any need for pre-flashing, hypersensitizing or cooling to achieve high quantum capture sensitivity. Cooling does help control noise, though.

[Roy5051]

[/QUOTE]But all digital sensors have essentially no reciprocity failure at all, nor any need for pre-flashing, hypersensitizing or cooling to achieve high quantum capture sensitivity. Cooling does help control noise, though.

[/QUOTE]

But digital sensors are almost useless at low light photography, noise becomes an unbearable problem, at least in my experience

[beejaybee]

But digital sensors are almost useless at low light photography, noise becomes an unbearable problem, at least in my experience

What kit is your experience based on?

In my experience, the noise you get from a decent DSLR set at ISO 3200 is a great deal less disruptive than the grain obtained by normally developing e.g. Delta 3200. And Delta 3200 has an effective speed of about ISO 100 for a one hour exposure (but still with football sized grain); you can get the same exposure with a DSLR with an exposure of a couple of minutes.

[AJUK]

I thought film was at an advantage for long exposure work, especially really long exposures, I though Reciprocity failure wasn't much of a problem with modern film?

For long exposure work there are no films with a reciprocity characteristic.....

I was thinking more along the lines of noise and battery consumption.

What kit is your experience based on?

In my experience, the noise you get from a decent DSLR set at ISO 3200 is a great deal less disruptive than the grain obtained by normally developing e.g. Delta 3200. And Delta 3200 has an effective speed of about ISO 100 for a one hour exposure (but still with football sized grain); you can get the same exposure with a DSLR with an exposure of a couple of minutes.

Your right, but I think he means long exposure noise not high ISO noise. Saying that I was surprised at how good the new T-max looks at 1600.