Posted on 03/14/2006 4:30:08 AM PST by libstripper
Weston Naef sounds almost misty-eyed when discussing Kodak Tri-X, a black-and-white 35mm film first made in the 1950s and a staple of photojournalism for decades. "It was a wonderful 400-speed film," says Mr. Naef, curator of photography for the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles, referring to Tri-X's ability to capture an image in low light, known as its "speed." "And then it could be 'pushed' [chemically altered during development] to 1200, or even 2400"--meaning it could be used in even lower light.
Tri-X--along with Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Fujicolor and all those other mellifluously named films--and the Nikon, Minolta and Canon cameras long used by amateur and professional photographers alike are becoming anachronisms. According to the Photo Marketing Association, digital cameras are likely to account for 90% of all cameras sold in 2006. In January Nikon, one of the most revered names in photography, announced it was largely abandoning the film camera business. Days later Minolta (now known as Konica Minolta) followed suit. Kodak now earns more from digital photography than film, although so far it hasn't profited from that trend.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Still can't beat the gamma and resolution of film - but digital gets closer every year.
I got a Canon 20D 35 MM with the 1.4 lens for christmas. I must say, its a very complicated camera and learning digital photography is a bit of a chore.
Unfortunately Tri-X is a microcosm of what ails Kodak. Even by the mid-1970s Ilford offered a better product and continued R&D while Kodak rested on its laurels. By 1980 nobody in my circle even considered Kodak for black & white work and by the mid-80s they were playing catch-up in colour technology as well.
The best low light film ever made. You can push it almost indefinitely, and it's very forgiving in the home darkroom -- dodges and burns very well.
My husband used to make a little extra money taking pictures of people riding at the stable in an indoor arena and selling the prints for a dollar a pop. Tri-X handled the indoor lighting with no problem and still produced a good sharp image.
Try that with a digital camera! (And don't get me started on the vagaries of trying to capture a good action shot with a digital. The Leica M-3 is the best camera ever made for the grab shot - what you see in the rangefinder is what you get when you trip the shutter, no lag at all.)
I guess that's all gone now.
I had a Nikon, which was a better camera, but I had used the Carl Zeiss camera for so long, it had become like a part of my body and so the Nikon gathered dust most of the time.
I also picked up an old Rolleiflex for larger format shots. It was an already an oldie but goody when I bought back in 1963.
I hear that Herr Zeiss named his dog "Leica". < g >
For years (before digital) we always shot on 35mm film for slides. We'd preview the slides and select the ones that we wanted to have prints made of. Today, you can't get prints made from 35mm slides. So... the only way we can look at select old photos is to roll out the slide projector.
A really cool trick you can do with a digital camera is hook it up to a giant screen HD TV and sho your digital pics on that.
I've been watching this happen. I'd like to keep shooting Kodachrome 64 or even 25, but heck, finding a place to get it processed is a booger.
I love digital cameras but theres is nothing like a black and white print in your hands. When I travel, I always take my Fuji digital and also go to Walmart and buy one of those disposable Kodak B&W cameras. I take it to Walgreens for developement and they give me the prints as well as putting them on a CD so I can also email them. I hope they dont kill off film.
I have a 35 mm Nikon F2, with accesories, that's worth about one grand (guessing). Should I keep it or sell it? Serious photographers' replies welcome.
I have succussfully pushed Tri-X to 6400 ASA.
Sure you can. You can even do it yourself with a film scanner, and convert them to digital in one step.
I did not know there was a film scanner. What brand/model film scanner would you recommend?
Somehow, photography just isn't the same without a wet darkroom.
The movie business is moving rapidly to digital for the post production process, but I suspect film will be the primary medium for the original photography for many years to come. The reasons are those you cite, plus simplicity. There's something about that physical interaction between light, silver, and chemicals that's magic.
The funny sort of parallel right now is happening in sound mixing. We've gone almost exlusively to digital recording and mixing, and the big emphasis now is on using analog (and tube) devices on the front or back end to undo the very pristine quality that was the big selling point of digital in the first place.
My bet is that in less than fives years film will no longer be sold by mass murchandisers and will be available only only camera/photo specialty shops. My wife and I recently returned from a week in Paris and had digital photos I could not have imagined taking with our Nikon 35 mm SLR. Yes, the digital images are not quite up to the standards of specialized films, but the quality is more than good enough for framed enlargements. The ability to alter pictures digitally is a great plus as with film these tricks would require very elaborate and complex darkroom techniques beyond the reach of all but professionals and the most highly skilled amateurs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.