I agree for those that still enoy film there is nothing much out there. I guess if you are a magazine you are at the mercy of the people who buy the adds. It is all about marketing, and whats sells the most. Or I should say who has the most money to invest. Nothing wrong with that, but it leaves the rest in the cold. I for one enjoy reading about film and film cameras, At times I will say Shutterbug has some updates on film and a film camera review, but for the most part it reviews digital cameras software, digital scanners and printers. I do get much from the aticles on scanners and printers but I wish there were more on film cameras if not new ones just old cameras of interest.I don't blame the magazines because they must change with the times or lose everything, but wish a section was reserved for film and film cameras. Monte Johnson.

>>I agree for those that still enoy film there is nothing much out there. I guess if you are a magazine you are at the mercy of the people who buy the adds.<<

Monte,

I would suggest that you are being done a disservice by Luddite thinking that wants to preserve the past, just like the Taliban wanted to preserve the 13th century height of the caliphate in Afghanistan.

I have been a writer for Shutterbug for over a decade and have yet to hear a word either directly or indirectly from any of Shutterbug's advertisers. Even dealing with the manufacturer's PR agencies absolutely no leverage is used on me to influence what I write or write about. I choose what I want to cover, and then get the OK and an assignment from my editor.

However, at this date with a column, Digital Help, I do obtain some idea of what my readership is interested in having me cover. So I do respond to the readers interest, and I believe the magazine as a whole is currently quite well balanced in that regard. I and possibly Joe Farace write pretty exclusively about digital. Roger Hicks and Frances Schultz write only about analog film photography and classic-type equipment. Robert Mayer writes mostly about accessories and I believe remains more commited to film photography than digital. Peter Burian wrote about film until fairly recently, and I believe still covers some film camera and equipment issues. And finally, the magazine just did a major piece devoted specifically to films of all brands and types.

I don't have specific figures but I would guess Shutterbug readers are now close to being evenly divided, and with quite a few who have a foot in both film and digital, as I do because I have a huge library of film images I will eventually scan if I live that long.

However, I also have to take some clues as to what the public wants if the prices for used film equipment on eBay is any indication, as well as the fact a local camera store has a room full of film camera trade-ins that is of no value and may just be given to charity.

In fact if you will also notice there are sections in this forum exclusively devoted to film and traditional cameras as well as classics and collectable cameras.

So are you spending as much time corresponding with the film advocates and reading Roger Hicks and Frances Schultz as you are with us in the digital sections? If not I wonder why?

Sorry Monte but you invite a little ribbing<S>.

David,
I am sorry, after reading your reply I can see my statements were based on my own feelings and not the facts at hand. That happens to me sometimes, The one reason I get Sgutterbug is it does have articles on film and film cameras from time to time. I know there not real interest for many on older cameras, just one of my passions. All in all I guess they can't write the mazaine just for me. Monte Johnson.

Joe, I agree that the mags don't seem to be interested in the image; but why should they. In the digital world, the taking of the image is no longer important. The graphic artist take over with PS. This may be boring to me, but it is reality.

Thanks Marty, I appreciate the support. The German magazine I mentioned (Photo Deal), writes exclusively about the older cameras, working with them, and things like current value vs a daily user, etc.

I subscribed for a couple of years until the cost became prohibitive, and now with the price of oil @ an all-time high, the prices of everything else go up (except salaries) .

Quote:
>>I agree for those that still enoy film there is nothing much out there. I guess if you are a magazine you are at the mercy of the people who buy the ads.<<

You betcha Monte. $ talks, everything else walks.

Quote:
Monte,

I would suggest that you are being done a disservice by thinking that wants to preserve the past. Just like the Taliban wanted to preserve the 13th century height of the caliphate in Afghanistan.

So, you're comparing those who aren't digital converts to terrorists? Now I've heard everything.

Quote:
However, with a column, Digital Help, I do obtain some idea of what my readership is interested in having me cover. So I do respond to the readers interest, and I believe the magazine as a whole is currently quite well balanced in that regard.

I and possibly Joe Farace write pretty exclusively about digital. Roger Hicks and Frances Schultz write only about analog film photography and classic-type equipment. Robert Mayer writes mostly about accessories and I believe remains more commited to film photography than digital. Peter Burian wrote about film until fairly recently, and I believe still covers some film camera and equipment issues.

Do you realize the majority of writers mentioned has "digital" attached to them? Unless using Reaganomics, it doesn't quite equal "well balanced", in my book.

Quote:
However, I also have to take some clues as to what the public wants if the prices for used film equipment on eBay is any indication, as well as the fact a local camera store has a room full of film camera trade-ins that is of no value and may just be given to charity.

So, you're automatically assuming ALL of these are due to digital conversions? Perhaps people are having to sell their beloved cameras to pay bills, or there are ungrateful grandchildren who decided to sell off grandpa's "old junk" so they can buy the lastest PS2 game.

Perhaps some of those "no value" cameras will find their place in the care of a collector (as I am). However, I buy collectibles to use them, and keep them from being chucked out.

With your thinking, there would be no demand for anything "old-fashioned" such as victrolas, because CDs are smaller, and (with care) can last an indetermined amount of time. (Check the prices for Victrolas on eBay). But, in 2005 I can still buy needles for my pre-WW I victrola made in Berlin, AND a player for my Edison cylinders!

Just because something is old, doesn't make it obsolete.

Quote:
In fact if you will also notice there are sections exclusively devoted to film and traditional cameras as well as classics and collectable cameras.

Why not bring it to this site?

Quote:
So are you spending as much time corresponding with the film advocates or are you with us in the digital sections? If not I wonder why?

To paraphrase, "if you're not WITH us, you're AGAINST us." I've only been hearing that since 9-11.

Quote:

Quote:
Monte,

I would suggest that you are being done a disservice by thinking that wants to preserve the past. Just like the Taliban wanted to preserve the 13th century height of the caliphate in Afghanistan.

So, you're comparing those who aren't digital converts to terrorists? Now I've heard everything.

Noooo, I don't think that was the comparison that was meant, not at all. The Taliban are multi-faceted, and one of the facets (the one mentioned in the comparison) was their desire to stay rooted in the past. It is an aspect of their collective "personality" that has been noted in other Arab/Islamic cultures (whether true or not), and is probably true in most mindsets that are focused on things "traditional". I am certain guilty of practicing this paradigm myself, and I am of the opinion it is not always a Bad Thing. There is certainly a difference between wanting to take a picture of ancient statues with a large format camera and wanting to blow up said ancient statues.

Quote:
To paraphrase, "if you're not WITH us, you're AGAINST us." I've only been hearing that since 9-11.

I've actually heard that all my life -- sometimes even coming out of the mouths of others.

OK, even though I am not a moderator (nor do I wish to be one, thank you very much), I would encourage us all to step back from the precipice, take a deep breath (or 10), and remember that above all, this is supposed to be fun.

-EdT.

Quote:
With the exception of "View Camera" in the US, and "Photo Deal" in Germany (which is desperately needed on these shores), I can think of none other who still deal with actually WORKING to get an image.

It depends on how you define "working". Making an image is much more (IMHO) than simply "taking a picture" -- it includes the post-camera work in the darkroom (wet or digital), through the production of the final output (print / transparency / file.) I'll agree that we may not have so many magazines/articles devoted to "wet" darkroom techniques, but to be perfectly honest the digital darkroom is far more accessible to many of us (to say nothing of being more environmentally friendly!) -- and I say that even though I do some "wet darkroom" work myself.

-EdT.

Thanks for expressing your view so succinctly and rationally. I wholeheartedly agree this should be fun. Sadly it is all too easy for us to take ourselves a bit too seriously.

I agree 100%. I looked for a long time for a film camera magazine, and ended up settling with Shutterbug. It's still a good magazine, but still overwhelmed with digital.

Don't you think it would be remiss for Shutterbug to be anything else. Otherwise you wouldn't be getting the information you need to make informed decisions in todays photography world.

Quote:
Don't you think it would be remiss for Shutterbug to be anything else. Otherwise you wouldn't be getting the information you need to make informed decisions in todays photography world.

Absolutely not. If anything, there should be at least ONE magazine dedicated to people like myself who PREFER shooting film, processing it, printing in a darkroom, and only using scanners to send images to friends/family.

A much less pervasive use of digital in true photography. I often look @ images taken as recently as the 1930s, with film speeds of 8 or 12 (or even less), where a TRUE photographer was able to get a magnificent exposure, endless DoF, and amazingly tight grain.

I seriously doubt there are many people left who know how to use critical focus in conjunction with aperture control to achieve infinite DoF.

Digital cameras (IMO) have brought about the dumbing down of the photographer as a person, and photography as a whole.
Why bother to learn how to actually USE a camera, when you can fake it out in Photoshop?

Quote:
Thanks for expressing your view. Sadly it is all too easy for us to take ourselves a bit too seriously.

And you're one of the worst ones, Mr. Brooks. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is banned from this site. Yet somehow, you always have the last word on everything, to prove yourself in the right....every last time.

(I'll bet you'll do the same here as well).

Quote:

Quote:
Thanks for expressing your view. Sadly it is all too easy for us to take ourselves a bit too seriously.

And you're one of the worst ones, Mr. Brooks. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is banned from this site. Yet somehow, you always have the last word on everything, to prove yourself in the right....every last time.

(I'll bet you'll do the same here as well).

Actually I have enjoyed what Mr Brooks has had to say....so far! I'm sure that at some point I'll disagree. I think that digital is going to degenerate the skill of photography, in fact it's already had an impact. But life moves on. I love my film camera's but I also understand the advantage's of digital and I use that also. For me, film is much more fun, digital convienent and sooner gratifying,,,,or not depending on my screw-up's!

OK Mr Brooks, your supposed to get the last word. Your turn and I don't mind,,,,long as you don't disagree with me!!!

The only persons banned from the site have been those who broke the rule against making personal insults. But that seems to be all you have to contribute, criticism of other people.

Anyone can differ on content with me, and I will likely respond, unless it is something I have no knowledge of or experience doing. If like myself you have done photography as a full-time occupation for 54 years, one should have learned a little bit that might be valuable to someone else. If I didn't share what I have learned from my experience, I think that would be pretty selfish. What value would a forum be if we cannot learn from each other. Should everyone be faced with the task of re-inventing the wheel?

>>I seriously doubt there are many people left who know how to use critical focus in conjunction with aperture control to achieve infinite DoF.<<

Then I ask who would subscribe to and support the magazine you think should be published besides yourself.

BTW there is a very fine magazine published by a traditional fine arts photographer out of Sacramento, California I believe is titled View Camera. From what you say you prefer, it would seem to be what you are wishing for in a magazine.

Quote:

A much less pervasive use of digital in true photography. I often look @ images taken as recently as the 1930s, with film speeds of 8 or 12 (or even less), where a TRUE photographer was able to get a magnificent exposure, endless DoF, and amazingly tight grain.

I seriously doubt there are many people left who know how to use critical focus in conjunction with aperture control to achieve infinite DoF.

Digital cameras (IMO) have brought about the dumbing down of the photographer as a person, and photography as a whole.

Why bother to learn how to actually USE a camera, when you can fake it out in Photoshop?

I completely disagree with these statements

The use of digital backs does not change the complexity of the photographic process. If I handed a D2X to a complete newb and put it on auto mode he woulnd't be hanging his work in some art museum next week. Conversely, just because a person owns a view camera doesn't make him/her some photographic expert. If ONLY you could just trust a matrix meter to get the exposure right....if ONLY you could just put the camera on P mode and trust it to give you the image you want to make. In what way does digital dumb down photography? If I shoot a crappy shot with no understanding of color temperature or exposure or critical focus in RAW mode no amount of Photoshop will correct it.

as for the tight grain and wonderful contrast found in the images of the "true photographers" I think you are remembering a photographic past that simply did not exist! you are looking at the PRINTS!!! what an amazing amount of correction can be done in the darkroom! its only because color darkroom never caught on ......and the fact that almost no one does darkroom work anymore that the vast majority of photographers dont even realize that PRACTICALLY EVERYTHING YOU CAN DO IN PHOTOSHOP CAN BE DONE IN THE DARKROOM>>>> and it was! Ansel Adams wrote several books on the subject....retouching negatives, improving contrast, color correction after the fact...even unsharp masking is possible in the darkroom. If anything, ,,,,the digital age has merely allowed us to rediscover the aspects of the photography that previous generations have left behind.....because of their complexity. As for tight grain....if you want images to look like Ansel Adams took them then you better be prepared to carry around an 8x10 Deardorf every where you go and make contact prints from every image.

in the early part of photographic history the photographer had to take the shot, develop the film, and make the print. ..... somewhere in the 30's it became possible to take the shot and forget the rest....and hand it over to some third party.....and be lazy....since it would all be fixed in processing.

if anything....digital has allowed the photographer to finally rediscover the COMPLETE process from taking the shot to making the print... and if that photographer has no skill the shot will SUCK and no amount of photoshop will fix it. If you blow out the highlights with a DSLR you are just as screwed as if you did the same with slide film....and trust me......( and any Photoshop person out there will quickly agree).. CRAP IN= CRAP OUT if you get it right in the camera you will always have a better picture .. I think that you assume that RAW mode allows for amazing manipulations of the image. Believe me.... if its crap...its crap..

as for that "wonderful ISO 8 film"... IT WAS CRAP!! the main reason the cameras were so big was becayause the film was so bad it wouldnt tolerate enlargement!!! contact prints were the norm and for good reason. Do you think we should be walking around shooting ISO 8 film? my God...every shot would have to be tripod mounted. THANK GOD FOR PROGRESS!! just cause they had it in the old days doesnt mean it was better. If you handed Ansel Adams a nice new Toya A2....a nice set of Schneider lenses and some GOOD black and white film.....he would have no problem significantly improving on his older work. I daresay that the only reason he'd stick with a view camera is the movements and not the film size.

why are people so threatened by digital workflow?

if your definition of photography requires film then shoot film...who's stopping you?

if the magazines you read don't reflect your tastes then change magazines....or better yet, start your own... in todays "digital age" anyone can start a website that caters to their specific interests and many of these sites have found mass followings. Thirty years ago your only recourse would be to type a letter to the editor on a typewriter ( remember those) and send it by snail mail and hope it would be printed. In today's age you can start your own site or voice your disinterest on an electronic bulletin board. How ironic your distaste for digital doesn't extend into these areas. ....how I long for the days I could sit behind my Remington manual typewriter and send off my letters to the editor :-) THOSE were the days..

anyone have some Whiteout?

as for magazines reflecting the current trend in photography.....do you really think Shutterbug should cater exclusively to film and then go out of business from lack of a reader base? that simply doesn't make financial sense. just remember ....35mm used to be the bastard child of photography... it was meant for the masses and was intended to be of "acceptable" quality for the masses. In photographic terms it was a joke in the 30's. but things have a way of changing.....and people who shot medium and large format gravitated to the smaller format as time went on. Those who still needed the latger film kept with it.....the rest stuck with 35mm and as time went on the film and equipment got better.

if we dumped every new technology because it offended some purist we'd all be living in caves speaking in grunts and wearing animal skins.

Well,

I cannot help but put in my two cents.

I, for one am a bit tired of Mr. Anonymous >unregistered< knocking everything; and sniping at David Brooks all the time.

I could have sworn this was about photography, of all things!

Now we're also hearing in this forum about ISO 8 films and how great they were.(I guess you mean ASA, in case you don't remember! It wasn't ISO, then.)

When digital first started to take up considerable space in Shutterbug, I, too had the Luddite reaction.

Until I got my first Digital camera.

Having cut my teeth on a 4"x5" speed Graphic in the 40's and graduated to a Leica IIIf in the 50's using - yes! - ASA 10 Kodachrome, I have found that a small, ever-present digital camera is what I have been looking for all along. I remember sitting in high school debating with myself if it would be better to just photograph that huge blackboard full of the prof's notes, or go ahead and try to write it down. Writing won out - too much darkroom time!

All the times scrambling in the camera bag for the big cameras & just the right lens, while the beautiful clouds deflated. Lugging all that stuff around europe, worrying about film, x-rays and thieves.

In addition to continuous-tone photography, there was photo-lithography back then: how many of the complainers know how to make halftones? How many want to strip negatives onto 'goldenrod' paper and sit for hours painting out dustspots with red opaque?

Would you not rather use your computer with all it's tricks & fonts than have to get, say, a 24 piont headline cast in lead type so you can photograph an ink proof for that newsletter? Ah! the good old days, breathing hypo & lead fumes in the publishing game!

Do I miss that? No. Do I miss hours in a darkroom counting off exposures and dodging? No. Do I miss always smelling like hypo and having brown fingernails. Not hardly!!

Not to mention "flashing" & "bumping" halftones - do any of our Luddite friends have any idea what that even means?

And, yes, I do know that there's still photo-lithography, with type & even halftones computer- generated straight to film.

As to Mr. David Brooks - his "Digital Help" column and almost instant, patient, email feedback helped to drag me into the 21st century. Not just with digital cameras per se, but with my iMac computer, too.

I say "Hooray for David Brooks!" - He actually knows what he's talking about!

To paraphrase Ed Truitt; lets all step back and take a deep breath. If there was MARKET for an all-film magazine, there would no doubt BE such a magazine.

And, Mr (or Mz, as the case may be) Anonymous - why not become registered? I'm surprised that unregistered folks can post things on this forum, and would say it makes it a very - dare I say, TOO - friendly site.

C'mon, guy! Let's talk photography!

-Erik

A big amen to that!

I agree Bill. One thing I will say is as the world turns so shall we go with it, but no one ever demanded we should lose our identity as photographers, Film or digital what does it matter as long as we enjoy and share what we love to do. Monte Johnson.

And amen to that,too, Monte....