Film clock still counting down

[Deleted]

Was in Walmart the other day. Six years ago there selection of 35 mm film and "use-once" 35mm cameras occupied about 20 feet of shelf space with a variety of brands and film speeds. Today the store carries two Fuji film speeds (ISO 400 and 800, I think) plus one hanger of the use-once cameras. That's it. I also noticed recently that at least on of the local Wallgreen stores seems to have removed its film processing equipment and only makes prints from digital cameras.
You can still find a wider variety of films at the dedicated camera store but that store only has three outlets to serve a local population of about 800,000. The best source of film--other than the standard Fuji--is on line.
I think it's been at least three years since I shot film. I still have my film cameras--but they are mostly for looking, not shooting.

W.

[daveh]

I've shot some film recently, but I need to get around to developing it. I'd prefer do it myself rather than take it in to a shop, but it's a question of getting round to ordering B&W, colour negative and reversal chemicals - not overly cheap. Shooting digitally I can get prints done at a local shop: these are proper photographic prints rather than inkjet. Most work, though, is looked at people on the internet anyway so whatever the initial medium it ends up as digital. In the last five years, say, I've probably used less than 10 actual films but used something like the equivalent of 2,500 (or more) films digitally.

With all that in mind, it's no wonder the shops don't have much paraphernalia associated with film.

[Deleted]

I'm fortunate in that I have been testing a color laser printer for the company that makes it. When the test ends they will give me a brand new example of the same printer which can handle up to 8.5 x 14 inches. I can make prints on coated paper as good or better than what I can get at a local store--and at about half the cost of ink jet prints. I wouldn't have that option if I had to buy the printer, however as it's a fairly pricey model.

W.

[daveh]

We do have a Canon (forget the model) dye sublimation printer. The quality from that is better than ink jet. The image is stable: it doesn't appear to be affected by either light or water. The only problem is that it only does 6"x4". Cost-wise it's just a little more than the commercial prints from the shop (as above).

I do have a cheap colour laser printer (it was £110 a year or so ago). It's great for coloured flyers and such like, but hasn't got the quality for photos.

Wayne, your 8.5 x 14 is the "legal" size. It's strange how paper sizes have developed with letter, legal and foolscap of the older sizes and A, B, and C (? just envelopes). I wouldn't mind a 4AO printer - imagine what that would cost!

[grenouille]

I have a Sony DPP-EX50 printer, after using it for a couple of years, they discontinue the model and do not manufacture the catridge to go with it.
Normally the catridge comes with the paper in one packet which means that I cannot use the printer anymore.
Have tried all the photo shops in my area and the result was the same, main agent says that they do not have this particular type as the model has been discontinued.
Have to be careful when you buy this type of printer, I'm now back to my old Epson inkjet.
With regards to 35mm, all the supermarket and photo shops still stock them although in reduced quantity.

Hye

[daveh]

Hye, yes it is a potential problem, but I don't think it will be with an actual problem for the Canon for several years yet. Canon are still producing new printers in the Selphy range. I don't know what Sony are up to: I've just had a look at their UK website. It's one of those that looks pretty but fails to tell you what you want to know.

[nikonbob]

In a small city of approximately 100,000 the situation is much the same, very limited film and choice and getting difficult to get 1 hr develope and scan. If you do buy film at the local retail stores you get hosed and the same goes for local developing if you can get it. I was never that interested in developing at home or the traditional darkroom either. For me the clock has counted down completely as far as using film is concerned. I really don't miss film at all with one big exception and that is there are virtually no digital camera equivalents to the fine old cameras in my collection. There is the Leica M9 but way too expensive and the new Fuji X1 Pro which has possibilities bur certainly no Nikon FM2n digital clones. You know it is bad when even the local pawnshops won't take film camera anymore. In my locale reality sucks, in larger less isolated centers it maybe a different story. For printing I just get it done at the camera store for the few larger than 8x10 inch prints I want for the house. Again large format printers are too expensive and my old HP 7960 does well for 8x10s. Kind of depressing when you think about it.

Bob

[mickeyobe]

nikonbob said:
"Kind of depressing when you think about it."

Bob,

I recently switched from my Lexmark 9300 printer that cost me close to $80 for a colour cartridge to a Kodak C310 printer. The Kodak printer with ink cost me less than half the price of a Lexmark cartridge. It is much easier to use, turns out beautiful prints four times faster than the Lexmark, is quieter and does not cause my desk to rock and roll.

The point is things are improving so rapidly that I feel sure reasonably priced large format printers are just over the horizon and the kind of fine cameras that you want may well be on the way.
Although The beautiful workmanship of the old treasures will never be replicated as there is neither a need nor a demand for them. The quality of the finished electronic photos is now excellent and will continue to improve.
Cheer up.

Mickey

[daveh]

The thing with the cameras is that, as you say Mickey, with advances it's almost pointless making one that will last too well. For the price of twenty 35mm films or ten cine films you can get a camera that does both - with sound too.

Back in 1970-something my Topcon SuperD with f1.4 lens cost just over £100. One sold the other day on ebay for £250: a good camera for that price if you want to collect or shoot film. I bet in terms of spending power my 1970s £100 would be about £1,000 now. the Topcon is a good camera, but it is infinitely easier to do all of what it did now, using a modern DSLR (digital SLR).

'Old' cameras were capable of excellent results, but it took time and money to get there. There days the average photo taken is better than what was being turned out say forty or fifty years ago. They are certainly better focussed in the main. I believe autofocus does focus quicker and more accurately than doing it manually, especially so if one's eyesight is not 20/20.

The digital revolution will move on apace. 35mm and 120 film will hopefully always be made, but most of the others are gone or will do soon. Okay, there might be the occasional specialist manufacturer which produces one of the other sizes, but, in the end, who wants to produce a film that has limited sales

[grenouille]

Dave,

You're right, I should have opted for Canon but at that time, in the local magazine, Sony was given quite a good picture, goes to show, d'ont beleive what you read at times.

As for the digital revolution, I'm still 50/50 with 35mm & digital as I do all my black and White in my local club, so I hope that 35mm will not die off during my lifetime, guess it will not as I'm now in my 70s and its home stretch for me(or is it straight).

Hye

[daveh]

Hye,

It's often the luck of the draw. One would reasonably have expected Sony to have kept going with their printer. I suppose though they did lose out with their Betamax to the other companies and VHS in spite of Betamax probably being better. (Of course there was also Philips and V2000 (if I have the name right).)

We have got a couple HP of inkjet 6x4: an early one, which still works fine and a later one which developed a problem (I'm now not quite sure what it was) which made it unreliable. The Canon is much better quality anyway, so in a sense the breakdown was a good thing.

Dave.

[Deleted]

A lot of folks don'r realize that color printers -- both ink jet and toner are pretty much like razor blades. Razor blade companies will give, or sell to you very cheaply, a beautiful razor handle. They make their money on selling you shaving cream and outlandishly-priced blades for years and years.

Printers are the same way. Most of the major printer companies don't make much or any profit on the printers they sell. The money is made on the ink, and toner cartridges they sell. When I test printers I have to sign a nondisclosure form promising not to reveal any details to outside parties--keeping new ink and toner designs secret is more important than the printer itself. If the company can sell a new Ink of Toner cartridge for six months or a year before outside companies begin selling refills or knockoffs, it means a lot more money on the bottom line. That's why the cartridges that come in a printer usually have about half the toner or ink that the ones you buy later have. They want you to go out and by more supplies.

Dave: I called it 8.5 x 14 because I wasn't sure if "legal" size translates outside North America. Obviously it does. Before I retired the company I worked for got to test a color laser that would produce prints up to 12 by 18 inches on heavy stock. Did an outstanding job. The only problem was the printer was about two feet wide, three feet deep, five feet tall and weighed about 350 pounds. In addition to the size the thing retailed at about $10,000 and the four toner cartridges cost about $300 each!. Not exactly what most home photographers can afford. When I signed up to do home testing I indicated I wanted to test equipment that home users could afford to operate.

One problem I ran into recently with ink jet printers was that I found an exceptional deal on ink and stocked up on enough cartridges to last a long time. Almost a year later I still had some of the cartridges and when I put a new one in the printer it informed me that the cartridge was past its expiration date and shouldn't be used. And it popped up the nag every time I tried to print. Toner apparently isn't as affected by the time it stays in the cartridge.


A lot of commercial photographers now use those big ink jet printer/plotters that print on roll paper up to about 60 inches wide. I know a pro that a couple of years ago sold his 5x7 view camera and replaced it with a Hasselblad with a digital back something over 20 megapixels. He can print virtually "grainless" prints 5 feet wide. Of course he's got will over $50,000 invested in camera, lenses and printer.

BTW, 5x7 inches as a size seems to be disappearing. This latest printer has a 5x8 setting but the only way to set it for 5x7 is manual programming--actually a majority of the available paper size choices now are metric.

W.

[daveh]

Metric sizes: we, being Europe, are on metric sizes for everything except road distances. I still translate into proper units. Somehow 6x4 sounds better than 15x10, or 150x100 (we should use the mm rather than the cm) - and 10x8 sounds better than whatever it is on the metric system.

Printers: every new model seems to introduce a new 'safety feature' to make it harder to use third party inks. I do wonder if the manufacturers sold everything at a sensible price whether they wouldn't make just as much in the long run.

Wayne, as you say the printers are sold with half-ink cartridges. The laser printer I bought for about £110 has four toners. Full price for each and the tioal cost is almost £200. In effect the printer is being sold for a tenner.

As regards your 'out of date ink': I had an Epson with 'continuous ink supply'. When the head starting failing I bought a newer model - carefully researching so that the CISS would still fit. It fitted physically, but not, as it were, mentally. It just wouldn't operate at all with it. Nor would it take the cheap cartridges that were being sold at that time. (I think it was a case that the 'cheap' manufacturers needed to upgrade their chips to be recognisable on the newer printer. The net result was that I gave up on Epson and bought a Canon A3+ (model 9000) which is better in most respects. I suspect the original purchase price isn't discounted as much, but it's certainly easy to get cheaper inks.

My nephew has/had an A2 (or was it even as big as A0?) plotter-printer, but then he is a professional photographer.

I suppose this illustrates the difference between analogue and digital. With analogue enlargements you just needed more distance between the enlarger and the easel. A cheap system would do the job. With digital each next size up needs further investment.

The best thing we did at home was to install a wireless printer/scanner. It saves having to connect a lead every time we want to use it, and, as long as the computer is within 'earshot' it'll print from anywhere. All the house is covered, and some of the garden too.

[grenouille]

Talking about ink jet printers for normal home use, They all have a definite life span. I outlive 4 printers over a period of 12 years, when its time to go they just died.

Hye

[Deleted]

Dave:
Yeah I'm pretty much wireless, too. Printer is in one room but the computers or PDAs or whatever can be anywhere in the house or the immediate vicinity. Wifi has improved in the past few years, too. Most equipment will pretty much hook itself up to the network, now. My last printer would occasionally lose it's memory and drop the connection. The one I have now has never dropped its connection. In addition, as long as the wifi and the printer is on, I can print (or others who know the correct email address can print) from basically anywhere in the world.

A lot of people I know no longer have a stand alone computer. They use "Pads" instead. I can't do that as I would not like to try to edit and lay out a 500-page book on a 10-inch screen using finger waves instead of a keyboard and mouse. Guess I'm sort of an old fashioned guy. ;D

W.

Apr 8, 2012 1:25:47 GMT -5 daveh said:

Metric sizes: we, being Europe, are on metric sizes for everything except road distances. I still translate into proper units. Somehow 6x4 sounds better than 15x10, or 150x100 (we should use the mm rather than the cm) - and 10x8 sounds better than whatever it is on the metric system.

Printers: every new model seems to introduce a new 'safety feature' to make it harder to use third party inks. I do wonder if the manufacturers sold everything at a sensible price whether they wouldn't make just as much in the long run.

Wayne, as you say the printers are sold with half-ink cartridges. The laser printer I bought for about £110 has four toners. Full price for each and the tioal cost is almost £200. In effect the printer is being sold for a tenner.

As regards your 'out of date ink': I had an Epson with 'continuous ink supply'. When the head starting failing I bought a newer model - carefully researching so that the CISS would still fit. It fitted physically, but not, as it were, mentally. It just wouldn't operate at all with it. Nor would it take the cheap cartridges that were being sold at that time. (I think it was a case that the 'cheap' manufacturers needed to upgrade their chips to be recognisable on the newer printer. The net result was that I gave up on Epson and bought a Canon A3+ (model 9000) which is better in most respects. I suspect the original purchase price isn't discounted as much, but it's certainly easy to get cheaper inks.

My nephew has/had an A2 (or was it even as big as A0?) plotter-printer, but then he is a professional photographer.

I suppose this illustrates the difference between analogue and digital. With analogue enlargements you just needed more distance between the enlarger and the easel. A cheap system would do the job. With digital each next size up needs further investment.

The best thing we did at home was to install a wireless printer/scanner. It saves having to connect a lead every time we want to use it, and, as long as the computer is within 'earshot' it'll print from anywhere. All the house is covered, and some of the garden too.