35mm film, how much longer?

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

no_name wrote:

Glad I've still got access to the pro-lab in Raleigh to do my E6 - in by
9:00 out the same day.



The nearest prolab for me is more than 20 miles away. I have to have a need
for that fast of turn around with the price of gas today. The cost of driving
there alone is as much as using a Fuji mailer.


I can get to mine in about 15 minutes on foot. It'd be quicker, only
about 5 min walking, if there wasn't a Krispy Kreme donut shop on the
way. ;-D


I only use the car to get there if I'm on the way to somewhere else I
need the car to get to.


--

These are my views. If you've got a problem with it, you can blame it on
me, but this is what I think. I am not the official spokes-person for
any Government, Commercial or Educational institution.

John

Scott W wrote:

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
Scott W wrote:
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
And if I am going to pay for a scan, I want more than 24-bit color. 48-bit is
much more appropriate.
If you want 48 bit color you will either pay a lot per scan or you will
have to scan yourself. But they are most likely scanning with 16 bits
/color and converting to sRGB. It would be hard to find a scan that
benefits from more then 8 bits in this case.


sRGB is any bit depth you want; not just 24-bit. Perhaps you are thinking of
JPEG, as that is a 8-bit/24-bit color depth ONLY file format.
The point is with the gamma of sRGB 8 bits gives a larger dynamic
range.


Not than sRGB 16-bit, which was my point.

Can you show a scan where this is true?


It is common sense as there is more data to work with. I will leave it at
that, but there are several others here who will support this point if asked.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Now that I think of it, the location of film developing places sure
matters when deciding whether I want to go on shooting film
(especially slides) or not. As it happens, the only place in town
(and one of the few remaining in my country) that develops E-6 on-site
is only 2 blocks away. They also do nice enlargements digitally, so
right now what happens is, I go and shoot film, drop it off for developing,
pick it up a few hours later, scan, photoshop, then maybe upload some of the
images to the same place where they are printed almost immediately
(I usually receive an e-mail notification telling me they're ready for
pick-up some 7-15 minutes after I have ordered the prints.)

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
It is common sense as there is more data to work with. I will leave it at
that, but there are several others here who will support this point if asked.

The point is that it is very rare that a 16 bit / color scan makes any
differance at all, unlikly you even have one. So why worry about this
rather small detail when having someone else scan your film?

And if common sense says that more data is better then 100 bits/color
would be better then 16/color, but this is clearly not needed.

Scott

"Cardamon Dave" wrote in message
oups.com...
For me, the real question is: how long will there be quality film
photofinishing and printing? Film will be available indefinitely, but
more and more retailers are experiencing poor returns for the
square-footage they've dedicated to film processing.

I live in a city with an area population 500,000. No one does B&W or
anything bigger than 120. I talk to the guys that use to do the
professional work and they are basically doing 120 as a favor.

BMW Rider wrote:
"Cardamon Dave" wrote in message
oups.com...
For me, the real question is: how long will there be quality film
photofinishing and printing? Film will be available indefinitely, but
more and more retailers are experiencing poor returns for the
square-footage they've dedicated to film processing.

I live in a city with an area population 500,000. No one does B&W or
anything bigger than 120. I talk to the guys that use to do the
professional work and they are basically doing 120 as a favor.



Emigrate!

BMW Rider wrote:

"Cardamon Dave" wrote in message
oups.com...

For me, the real question is: how long will there be quality film
photofinishing and printing? Film will be available indefinitely, but
more and more retailers are experiencing poor returns for the
square-footage they've dedicated to film processing.


I live in a city with an area population 500,000. No one does B&W or
anything bigger than 120. I talk to the guys that use to do the
professional work and they are basically doing 120 as a favor.



Bummer.

--

These are my views. If you've got a problem with it, you can blame it on
me, but this is what I think. I am not the official spokes-person for
any Government, Commercial or Educational institution.

John

"no_name" wrote in message
. com...
jeremy wrote:


Does anyone really believe that all film will suddenly disappear?


Some of the digirati are hoping.

One has to wonder why, though it does seem to be the case. I drink tea, but
it doesn't mean I want coffee to go away. Some people just make no sense...


Peter

Bandicoot wrote:
"no_name" wrote in message
. com...
jeremy wrote:


Does anyone really believe that all film will suddenly disappear?


Some of the digirati are hoping.

One has to wonder why, though it does seem to be the case. I drink tea, but
it doesn't mean I want coffee to go away. Some people just make no sense...


The coffee and tea analogy is not really appropriate as they are concurrent.
A more appropriate analogy might be the horse and buggy being superceded by
the automobile. The process took about 30 years, but then it was largely
complete. Only the Amish hold out now.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote in message
...

The coffee and tea analogy is not really appropriate as they are
concurrent.
A more appropriate analogy might be the horse and buggy being superceded
by
the automobile. The process took about 30 years, but then it was largely
complete. Only the Amish hold out now.



Don't bet the farm on that prediction.

There is no talk whatsoever about digital being able to even come close to
the quality of 4x5 or 8x10. Digital is certainly well on its way to
replacing film for consumer and advanced amateur applications, but studio
work with LF remains the domain of film.

Even in Medium Format, the cost of digital backs is still prohibitive.

And we have not yet seen whether there will be a backlash from advanced
amateurs and certain types of professionals (the kind that shoot landscapes
and other types of subjects that do not require instant availability of the
image to make today's publication deadline). There have already been
articles in the NY Times about some photographers who have complained that
there is a "sameness" about digital photos. One photographer said that just
about everybody was using the same 3 or 4 lenses. He began working with a
Speed Graphic and he was producing prints that were quite different than
those of pros that were shooting DSLRs.

Film has a distinctive look, analogous to videotape versus film for
television pictures.

I have no doubt that consumers will switch exclusively to digital. But it
would be a mistake to base a prediction for the entire range of photographic
uses based solely upon what consumers do. In 30 years, those photographers
that continue to use film will not be the equivalent of the backward Amish.