h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Sheet... Ilford has gone into recievership.

Ilford are the worlds largest manufacturers of B/W film - making THE premier brands. But they also make most of the paper and chemicals with which both Business and home photographers process and print their b/w films.

On top of the recent disbanding of Agfa's film based photographic businesses this could spell the end of b/w and prehaps of real photography all together.

Ilford have been making photographic products for over 125 of photography's 160 year history.

The recievers seem pessimistic about finding a buyer for the b/w business (based in east London). Boots perhaps? Maybe one of the newspapers?

Call me ignorant, but I don't understand what the fuss is about.

So a company manufacturing and obsolescent technology is succumbing to market forces - so what? You might just as well complain that the companies that built steam engines aren't around any more.

Is it or is it not the case that if you want a black and white photograph in 2004, the best way to get one is simply to take a colour photograph with a good digital camera, then remove the colours in Photoshop or similar?

Is it or is it not the case that in the unlikely event that you're one of the very, very few people who actually need "proper" film, there is still a source, albeit an expensive one?

And is it or is it not the case that, while digital cameras may currently not be as good as the best film cameras, it's only a matter of time - and not much time at that? Is or is not the professional or enthusiastic amateur going to be able to buy a digital camera capable of giving as good or better results as film within the next decade?

And given the manifold benefits of the digital format (instant reviewability, infinite copiability with no degradation, portability, easy digital manipulation, etc. etc. etc.), why should we be bemoaning the passing of a Victorian technology that has more than had its day?

I'm sure it's very sad for the people working for Ilford, but hey - that's progress.

Isn't it?

H.

I do b/w photos. I take digital pictures, throw the contents into my computer, open Photoshop, select Image > Adjustments > Desaturate, adjust brightness and contrast if I'm feeling particularly cheeky, stick the results back onto my media card, take that to Boots and put it in the instant print machine, bisto.

The process might have changed but the art still exists.

The problem is, is that B/W photography is not obsolete in anyway. It remains the best method of fine detail archival image recording.

Meanwhile colour photography, which is run quite close in quality by top end digital photography is no substitute as it's grain levels and fidelity are so much lower (400% at equivelent ISO).

Well there is one thing that can be said for B&W film... it is archival.

Sure, digital images can be stored and copied with no degredation, but due to equipment obsolescence they can't be considered archival. Currently the most stable media to store images on are CDs and DVDs, but will we be using these 100 years from now? For a digital image to last that long it will have to be migrated from storage device to storage device with every major change in technology. But B&W film (and some colour materials such as cibachrome prints and kodachrome film) can last for centuries when stored properly.


But yes, you are probably correct... film is going the way of the buggy whip. Once the resolution/price ratio is down where film quality images can be taken on amateur priced equipment and the shutter lag problems are overcome I'm sure the traditional photographic equipment will fade away.

We will adapt. Just in the same way drafting classes have put down their paper and pens and picked up tablets and styluses [styli?].

triple simulpost!

But the prints are not archival - they'll last between a year and ten years. Wheras a correctly fixed photographic print will last at least 160 years.

Yeah - When i recorded my first digital images i saved them on 5 1/2 inch floppies (one per disc!). Anybody out there still got a machine that i could retrieve them on?

Also file types become obsolete, the programs and o/s that support files disappear. Look at Wordstar - a really poppular WP program in the 80's and early 90's - it's files are not recoverable by any current program!

No neg - no print.

But if you want a neg, or a print, you can produce these from a digital original. Doesn't a digital original give you *more* possible options for archiving? And could you not produce a properly fixed image from a digital original that would last?

At least in principle, given that a digital image is nothing more than a string of numbers, then by definition any digital image that you want to keep can be stored, perfectly, for any arbitrary period of time. The only issue is the storage medium, and that is a LOT easier to arrange than the rather special requirements for storing "proper" photographs without damaging or fading them.

And in answer to the question about 5.25" discs, the answer is yes, there are people with machines you could use to retrieve those images. They're not common, or cheap - but why didn't you migrate them to a newer medium when you could?

There doesn't seem to be the same concern, yet, about the imminent demise of celluloid as the preferred medium for film-making in favour of digital media. Why not?

H.

Have you noticed the new kodak advert? They have seen the way that wind is blowing and now have a campaign urging people to make prints of their digital images. Clearly their revenue from selling and developing film is dropping so now they are targetting digital camera users specifically.

"Wordstar - a really poppular WP program in the 80's and early 90's - it's files are not recoverable by any current program"


http://www.wordstar.org/wordstar/pages/convert_faq.htm


Oh, and if anyone wants an old 5.25/360kb drive, i've three or four lying around the office somewhere

negative v digital

negative capture of natural image with the varing light exactly as it was captured.

digital arbitary decisions are made as to colour if it isn't exactly one of the colours avalible to the format to save no matter how much quality you save a digital image it is always going to be squares.


also i remmeber reading about an article about CDs which have been manufactured poorly so they within a few years the metal insdie the disc either corodes or shrinks. corrupting the data.

Kodak nearly went bust too from what I've been reading. They stuck with traditional film far too long and are still somewhat in trouble I believe.
I like those machines they are advertising though, good idea. I shall be using one when it's going to be cheaper than buying film quality paper and using up an entire toner cartridge on them on my home printer.

Unfortunately, if enough people were still interested in the product offered by the above company then they wouldn't have gone out of business. C'est la vie I think.

I too was a little shocked when I heard the news this morning. I was not too shocked when I heard that Kodak and AGFA were cutting jobs and film brands but they are mostly colour film.

I suppose it is because I do not equate black and white with digital photography. As mentioned above you get amazing tonal definition with B&W that you do not get with colour. You can also get great grainy shots as well when you push a B&W film to ISO3200 with a non-superfine grain film.

What I would like to know from any B&W digital users is can you get the same range of effects as mentioned above using a digital camera with black and white shots? Do you have to take a 'colour' photograph and then turn it into a B&W photo on the pc and if so will you still get the contrast that B&W gives you.

If not then B&W film still has a market until you can replicate what you can do ona digital camera.

However, Ilford sales have been dropping by 11% per year so, assuming these people are not giving up on B&W photography totally, then digital cameras MUST be able to give you similar/the same results as normal film. So, should we be worried overall? It is a shame but that is progress.

Call me old-fashioned, but I am personally a little disappointed in the "way the wind is blowing" when it comes to photography. For me, part of the beauty of taking B&W photographs is the process of developing them. Simply converting color prints to B&W by clicking a mouse takes away a lot of artistic involvement. I hope technology doesn't consume every part of human expression, as it seems that this is the trend we are currently in.

Try printing a cyanotype sometime... You'll love that process. It's beautiful and you can watch it develop in broad daylight.

A colleague at work mentioned the pleasure and artistry of actually developing the film.

Again, I don't understand. He simply doesn't like computers.

But surely something like Photoshop actually *increases* the potential for creativity? Doesn't it?

An analogy - music.

Old technology is the piano. New tech is the electronic keyboard. Nowadays a good electronic keyboard will pretty much replicate the sound of a real piano to all but the most professionally attuned ears. Purists stick to the real thing out of a desire for authenticity - but there is so much additional potential for creativity with the electronic version, isn't there? Or am I just barking up the wrong tree and missing the point?

To me, bemoaning the demise of "proper" film is simply Luddite-ism (is that a word?). The fact is, it isn't gone yet, because right now, you can't *quite* get the same results from digital as you can from film. But the day you can is less than a decade away, and then what is the *point* of messing about with chemicals in darkened rooms?

Also, the point about the picture being "squares" - the picture on film is dots. Grain size is everything. And eventually, digital pictures will be finer than the finest films.

I ask again - why is nobody similarly bemoaning the imminent demise of celluloid film in movies?

H.

Probably because MP film is not accessable to the hobbyist.

Although, there has been some complaints about digital projection.

Roger Ebert said it looked like big tv. He didn't like it.

As a person who uses Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator extensively, i find that often computer generated stuff can look to perfect or to clean. Often i'll add in grain and imperfections on purpose to give it a more natural feel, but it never looks as good as hand made photos or artwork.

I would think that you should be able to get some very good results with black and white digital. I believe the jpg format uses 16 million colours? Well if all of those colours are allocated to grayscale shades then that should give you some really nice tone variation. And the nice thing is you don't even have to change film to do it .

I think shutter lag is a thing of the past now. More or less. I'm more bothered about how long it takes to charge the bloody flash. Oh and how hard it is to take night shots with a lens the size of my thumbnail. You can get a tiny camera to fit in your shirt pocket or hang off your belt loop, but can you get a tiny tripod to go with it?

Losing the artistry? Well it is my opinion that when an old skill becomes obsolete, people will simply spend their time developing their new skills. You could get really good at manipulating the photos in your favourite graphics package instead.

And if colour film's detail level is soon to be eclipsed by digital then 400% more detail for black & white film is nothing. I'd say 3 to 5 years. Of course by then the camera will probably also do your dishes and will be part of your mobile phone/watch/stereo/jetpack anyway.