I cannot help but to think that film will go the way of thermionic valves (radio tubes for the non techie).

Used to be that every drugstore had a tube section and a huge tester - remember those days?

Now it seems... after about 20 years of near non-use, the tube again is making its mark, with some new designs of old favorites, and more tube based items being available again - primarily in audio and musical instruments.

Sure the selection is not like it once was - but they're still goin - and better today than 20 years ago.

I cannot help but to think that we'll be using eastern block film, and chinese film and film and paper from all sorts of odd places where it still pays to make it and market it. We'll rememeber the "old days" of Kodachrome, and rag on which Russian emulsion is the best for whatever. I only hope I'm around to enjoy that resurgance.

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), March 15, 2002

Answers

Charles,

I think your analogy is spot on.

I can remember the first tubeless amp I heard. And later the first CD album. In the case of both I thought the music was too "harsh" even with a set of 45 year old ears at the time of the CD.

Today, when the eyes are 60 years along, I can pick out most shows on TV that are "filmed" rather than taken with video. Believe me they're aren't many, and "movies" at the theatre are next.

Visually I don't think they are as pleasing however. But my mind was programmed in an analog era.

Best,

Jerry

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), March 16, 2002.

Charles:

You are probably closer to the truth than most will believe. Another case in point is the chlorinated solvents and refrigerants (R12). It is now illegal to make them in "developed" countries, but the 3rd world countries "Argentina, Mexico, China" now make it in quantity and it is smuggled into the US.

Imagine buying black market film, because it is the only stuff available.

Thought provoking, yes. Imaginable, yes.

-- Mark A. Johnson (logical1@catholic.org), March 16, 2002.

But Mark, I think you miss the point. Tubes came back (and film might, if it goes away) because of virtues unappreciated at the time of their demise. Refrigerants harmful the environment are meeting their demise because of faults unappreciated and unknown when they were introduced.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 16, 2002.

Themionic valves came back because people missed the "pleasant euphonics" of 2-3% intermodular distortion (albeit even order) when the industry moved to more accurate transistors with 0.01% IM distortion but predominantly "odd order products". There is a case to be made for tubes (hey, I run a 9W Audio Note Kit One at home) as satisfying many requirements for a proper "psycho-acoustic" effect... as well as for a proper vinyl rig. However, tubes and vinyl will never return to the mainstay because the market has spoken. North America is a consumer/throw away society that stopped valuing quality decades ago. I certainly hope this is NOT the case for film and that professionals will still stick to thier guns and support the superior medium.

But when you throw operating margins and the need to feed your family into the equation the future of film as a mainstay product doesn't look all that good. Oh well, at least the gear junkies will be forced to budget more $$$$ for film than constantly recycling gear. Should make them better photographers.

I guess there's a silver lining on every cloud.

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), March 16, 2002.

So true, tubes/valves are making a comeback, and have been for at least 5 years in a fairly big way. However todays valve market for audio enthusiasts is pretty good. The BEST equipment was make back years ago, but there is some decent new equipment being made today (look at the new Fender and Marshall guitar amps for instance), and there is a really good selection of new valves being made too (although not as wide a range as before). Todays new tubes/valves are really good, maybe not the best that ever was, but they're getting better. The eastern block factories and to some extent the Chinese factories are working with US, Japanese and Euro distribution to formulate and fine tune their products to make them better. Capitalism at its finest I'd say.

Ok back to film - I'd not be suprised if the US/Japan film makers just quit making consumer film, then pro film. I can see niche companies following through in the market, as has happened in the valve market, and becoming the new products of choice in time. Niche companies would be in less developed (no pun) areas, where digital would not be feasable due to cost perhaps, but where existing or inexpensive paper/silver/chemical imaging would be acceptable.

One problem - is the rapid capitalization and westernization of those behind the times eastern block countries, so we'll all have to wait and see what happens.

So my prediction: A fall off of mainstream film use in the forseeable but undeterminate future, with a short "dark ages" (no pun) before a resurgance in the fine art, enthusiast and specialized professional markets - with non traditional suppliers of materials (as compared to todays market).

I think we are about to see history repete itself.

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), March 16, 2002.

I thoroughly recommend an article in the British mag Amateur Photographer of 22 December 2001, from Silicon to Silver, by scientist Geoffrey Crawley - former B+W chemist for Paterson, BJP editor, exposed photographic hoax, and advised on Kennedy assasination photographs. A very scientific article, but among his comments, Crawley writes: "Most photgraphers - but not all - still find it preferable to work in black and white (in the darkroom). It gives a direct hands-on satisfaction that the computer keyboard, pre-set program routines and monitoring on a VDU somehow lack - especially if they already make everyday use of a computer in the workplace... "As to the future, the full superseding by electronic means of silver halide systems could only occur if means are found to make still smaller pixels for the photo-sensor and more rapid and larger capcity image storage. Even then, film is likely to co-exist, aspeople enjoy having alternatives....And remember - it is what an image says that is most important, not the means use to make it."

-- David Killick (dalex@inet.net.nz), March 16, 2002.

>> especially if they already make everyday use of a computer in the workplace...

As someone who not only uses a computer at work, but also as someone who designs silicon chips for a living, let me assure you that the last thing I want at home is a computer. (Or scanner, or digital camera...)

For me film is the joy of photography. When film goes (not 'if'; film will go eventually) I'll very reluctantly move to digital.

As for valves vs transistors; if you have heard a properly designed BJT (bipolar junction transistor, NOT MOSFET) amplifier, you should know it sounds better than any valve amp, any day. If you think valves sound better, you've probably heard some stupid IC based/MOSFET amp whose crossover and TIM characteristics are absolutely f***ed up. And most solid state amps have narrow bandwidths - 20Hz-20kHz or so. It is difficult to design high power and wide band amplifiers. A good design should have at least a decade above and a decade below: 2Hz to 200kHz. Most audio designers will shudder at this, it is hard to stabilize an amp with that much bandwidth; but hear an amp with this wide a band - you should be impressed big time.

-- Vijay A. Nebhrajani (vijay_nebhrajani@yahoo.com), March 16, 2002.

I can take a negative and turn it into a beautiful 20x24 inch print anytime I want to in my darkroom on about $500. worth of equipment. How much would the gear needed to do that digitaly cost me?

Steve

-- Steve Belden (otterpond@adelphia.net), March 16, 2002.

Well... we'll get too far off subject if we debate silicon vs rare-earth cathodes.

My only response is that there are enough people who prefer the sound of tubes/valves over that of silicon, that they are able to suppport a decent industry segment - and one that is growing, not shrinking.

Maybe someday we'll discuss the same in retrospect on film vs digital, and I say that with a bit of an evil grin.

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), March 16, 2002.

Strongly suggest we all use this as an excuse to spend more money (and go into deep debt if necessary) and buy Linhof Technikas with a full complement of lenses. Some think large format B&W will be the last to go.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), March 16, 2002.

As for valves vs transistors; if you have heard a properly designed BJT (bipolar junction transistor, NOT MOSFET) amplifier, you should know it sounds better than any valve amp, any day. If you think valves sound better, you've probably heard some stupid IC based/MOSFET amp whose crossover and TIM characteristics are absolutely f***ed up.

Maybe but I've yet to hear a solid state system that pleases me as much as my Kit One/Cardas/Proac Tablette combo. I guess it all depends on what you listen to. I like intimate jazz ensembles and light rock so dynamic range isn't really that important. More important is the LACK of a crossover (via single-ended device amplification) that I can clearly hear compared to any push-pull amplifier (except for some of the ultra expensive class A operation designs). Granted my system can't reproduce the 1812 Overture with any measure of realism (you'd need a Krell KPS 600/ Wilson Watt/puppy combo or equivalent for that) but I'm not looking to. Also, its a popular myth that tubes are "slower" than their transistor counterparts. Its all in the power supply. My system is very simple with 2 regulator stages in the power supply... some massive OFC C core output transformers coupled to Viac VV32B output tubes (modified 300B variant) and its response is quick. My point is... there's something to be said for the knowledge of your fore-runners. Just as there will be an audience who appreciates the positive qualities of thermionic rectification and moving-coil cartridges there will also be those who will always favor film over digital.

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), March 17, 2002.

If this is a valid analogy, so is the typewriter vs the word processor/computer. Note that writing is a creative production, akin to photography, requiring a tool, as opposed to mechanical reproduction of stuff created elsewhere, which is what tubes are generally part of (yes, I know about amps.) But writing didn't die when the typewriter did.

For every analogy, there is surely a counter-analogy and it doesn't make much sense getting worked up over it, or even thinking about it, when there is still so much to be photographed.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), March 17, 2002.

John, as I recall, McIntosh rated its power amp distortion levels at 1/2 percent from 20 to 20,000 cycles (hertz, in current terms). Though maybe that was only for harmonic distortion and not IM. I still have all that stuff someplace. I'll look it up. I still like to hook up my Marantz model 7C preamp and 8 power amp. But the 8 won't drive the Dalquist DQ-10's in my main system.

I don't believe I've yet read a criticism of digital photography that parallels the disappointment of early transistor audio gear; or any disappointing reports at all. I keep waiting to hear that digital photos are too grainy, lacking in transparency or depth, or Je Ne Sais Pas Quois. But that doesn't seem to be happening.

I haven't bought a digital camera yet. My first one may be the Leica Digilux, which my dealer says he should have by May. As far as I can see, the only disappointment is having to use it with just one zoom lens, albeit a promising one: A 3:1 zoom Summicron f/2-2.5, or something like that. I wish they had just put an M bayonet mount on it. Or even an M with R adapter. The price seems OK at around $850.00

At this point I'm a digital duffer, still struggling with the images I scan with my new Epson 2450 scanner. I haven't even succeeded in posting to Photo-Net yet. All I get is a "server error" notice. I guess I expect it to be easier than it is.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 17, 2002.

Steve: Ahhh - but you HAVE a darkroom! How much did building/installing that cost? More than the $500 spent on equipment per se? It would cost me over $5000 to built and equip a functioning print darkroom at a quality level I could live with well into the future. (Film I do in the bathroom 8^))

To answer your question, though: computer ($1200), scanner ($1200), 13x19 printer ($600) = $3000 total for prints up to 12x18 image size.

True; for 20x24 (15x23 image size) you have to jump up to a $20000 printer - for the time being. But the first CD writers were $5000 for 1x speed in 1993 - now they're a giveaway item. The first 11x17 inkjet printers were $3000 - now they're $600.

If we're comparing costs, we need to include supplies/time as well as equipment - How many sheets of paper does it take to produce 1 final print, and how many hours to spot/finish multiple prints?

I went to digital handling and output (from film originals) not because it was cheaper or more expensive (a wash in my case) but because it was:

• more flexible (mix&match output from color or B&W; print corrections like dodging/burning, spotting, color balance only need to be done once, and can be done with much finer 'touch' (pixel-by-pixel)

• took less space

• took less setup time (and print drying time)

• eliminated some environmental concerns (water use, chemical disposal and paper waste)

• and provided a much wider spectrum of output - not just prints, but CDs, Web, desktop publishing, etc.

As to digital vs. analog reproduction: as a travel writer I used to send newspapers the best dupe slides I could get (at $1 per) and they were still pretty crumby - not I make my own scans and send them 24 much sharper images on a CD for $1 instead of 12 fuzzy dupes for $12.00. (Back on topic - this really shows off the Leica lenses better, too!)

Now this is no reflection on the pure joy of making chemical silver prints in a quiet dark space. And inkjet prints are not the same as really good FB silver prints (but actually a heck of a lot better than 95% of silver RC prints - Epson's Glossy Photo paper (which is fiber- based) looks closer to Ilford Galerie than to PolyContrast IIIRC.)

I may even spend that $5000 to put a darkroom in the basement now I own the space. But digital as an adjunct to analog capture has been great for MY photographic expression!

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 17, 2002.