 Pete H |
Film going away? The link below is NOT intended to start a war about film Vs Digital. I knew this would happen, as did many of us, just not THIS soon. As digital is leaping forward in quality, it was obvious this would happen. When a staunch leader in photography, as well as a sucessful company makes a decision like this; well, I think it heralds the beginning of the end for film. It is not difficult to read what will become of film. Good or bad, film IS on the way out, and sooner than anyone predicted. www.dpreview.com/news/0601/06011201nikon_news.php
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Will Turner |
"It is not difficult to read what will become of film. Good or bad, film IS on the way out, and sooner than anyone predicted." You make a moronic, unsupportable prediction like that, but you don't want to start a war over film vs. digital? What evidence do you have that millions of film camera owners are going to suddenly say "OK, we give up, we're all going to buy unreliable digital cameras now? What is it about you digital fanatics? Can't you just enjoy what you use without constantly mouthing off about film?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Justin G. |
Pete what a very unthought out notion your throwing out. it's funny how all these digital die hards think digital is the only way to go. "it gives you instant preview". screw that idea. that just means you don't know what you're doing and don't have trust and faith in yourself to shoot it right. I LOOOOOOVE watching people chimp. it's so ridiculous. so many people lose precious shots because they're staring at their LCD screen while i'm already five shots into the moment ahead of them. and they say, "well film is horrible b/c you don't get instant feedback". photography has been around for what 200 some years (+ or - I really don't know). and digital's only been popular for a few years. what do you think all these other people do? film is dead, film is dead, film is dead. hey people are still painting aren't they? anyways what do you think ansel adams did, sit there and stare at his big ole 8x10 LCD, yeah right. he actually studied so he knew he could trust himself to get it right. and I think it's funny how so many people sacrifice soo much quality just for a quicker turnaround. is it really that big a deal?? I mean if I had to wait 2 weeks to get my portraits back, they'd be more precious to me to seeing the shot right away, taking it home, and whoop-ti-freakin-doo it's a picture. did you know that the highest MP 35mm camera has JUST BARELY SQUEEZED by in beating Velvia 50 in resolution. AND that's with the finest lenses. so there's $9,500 out the door, just to meet up with film. and here I spent $500 for my mamiya and I am quite sure and willing to bet on the fact that i'm shooting with much more quality and detail than you're little 6MP. I can't remember who but I think it's Christopher Walrath on here who knows the specs. You're D70 only has 6,100,000 "pieces" of information in it while the average 35mm film has I think 50,000,000,000 (50 billion) hallide crystals. Not to mention my 6x7 negs which probably have around 200,000,000,000 (200 billion) hallide crystals filled with information. And also your D70 has a slowest ISO of what, 200? That can only mean 1 thing, NOISE! and ugly noise as the D70 is an old camera and lots of improvements has been made since. And you also can't base the fact that film is dead just by one company dropping their consumer film line (pay attention this is important). You've got to remember they they only are dropping their CONSUMER lines, and keeping their pro line of 35mm film. Hmm why would any PRO want a film? probably because they aren't too naive about digital being the ONLY way to go. they realize that it's not. if film was dead then they'd drop the FM10 and the F6's as well. and you've got to remember the fact that it was Nikon who dropped their film line; they aren't even leading the photography industry. Canon has way surpassed them throughout the last decade. ESPECIALLY in optics. Watch an NFL game and count the ration of white lenses with red rings compared to black lenses with gold rings. you'll barely find any. I don't forsee Canon dropping their film line anytime soon either. They're cameras are too good and people are still buying them. I think that's about it for now. When I think of more I'll be sure to let you know. And beitknown, I think it's quite humorous that digital people are stubborn and seem to think that digital is the ONLY way to go, while filmers stay opened minded and realize that there's a place for both. Keep that in mind. I don't downplay digital, I just downplay the naive photographer. Cheers!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Justin G. |
And if Nikon is soo superior then why does their highest performer professional camera not even meet up to Canon's prosumer cameras. Nikon D2X professional DSLR
and ISO sensitivity at 100-800, still slacking on their ISO's, maybe time to research on that Nikon
This, ladies and gentlemen, is why I'm NOT worried about Nikon dropping their film bodies. Maybe they're trying to save money for research so maybe eventually they can get their pro cameras up to par with canon's prosumers. I don't see them surpassing the 1Ds Mk II though. Nikon=inferior
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Pete H |
Well Will; Without personally attacking YOU, it seems Nikon is making a statement here. It is NOT a statement of quality..it is a statement of sound financial planning with foresight that THIS IS the way things will go in the future. The fallout of which should be obvious. You saw no opinion rendered from me weather this a good thing or bad. "What evidence do you have that millions of film camera owners are going to suddenly say "OK, we give up, we're all going to buy unreliable digital cameras now?" "Unreliable?" Hmm? Doesn't even deserve a comment. LOL It would seem Nikon is beginning to provide that evidence, with others soon to follow. Your anger Will, betrays you. You know film is on the way out, just as vinyl records are rare, yet there are some holdouts who go to and fro looking for their scratchy LP's. More power to them. Will; are you keeping all your prints in shoeboxes? Hmmm? Apparently you do have a computer. NO Will; I am not trying to start a war on film Vs Digital, that already exists and the evidence of Digital media (replacing) film is already in place. You read more into what I provided and decided to put words into my mouth.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Pete H |
Justin, You too have read more into what I pointed to. Nikon IS dropping much of their line. Period! End of story. You point out the pros and cons of film and digital. The fact remains that film will see far less usage in the short yrs ahead...Amateur AND commercial. Already has. Anyone who can not read the writing on the wall is simply burying their head in the sand. 6 MP, 12MP, 22MP..Makes no difference in the fact that film is dying a slow death. What anyone wishes to do with the information provided is entirely up to them.
That opinion makes no difference to what is happening to film. Justin, even YOU are quoting digital. This remains not a question of quality or which is better..The evidence supports the fact that film is dying; just as VHS has died. It took a few yrs, but go into any video rental store and look for VHS...Its still there, but not in any great numbers. Hey; I have a Mamiya and a Bronica...beautiful quality; yet I rarely shoot with them in the face of digital, post processing capablities are awesome..I suppose I could scan my big negs, but then we are back to digital again, yes? :)
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Pete H |
Just a P.S Justin.. Those NFL pros with the white lenses? Guess what? They're shooting digital! Doesn't matter why..they are shooting digital!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Justin G. |
Pete you missed my point. I was trying to state that Nikon is inferior to Canon, which means that by Nikon dropping their consumer film line (not the F6) doesn't mean anything because Canon is still there for the filmers. Went home on the holidays. At my mom's house, all decided to watch movies. DVD player screwed up so we watched VHS's. When photography was introduced people were fearful that painting would meet it's demise. People are still painting. Same thing here, just because digital arrived doesn't mean that film is meeting its demise. It's becoming less popular with the era of lazy photographers but there will always be a demand for it. And another thing, the article is only about 35mm. There's still 120/220, 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10. I do agree that 35mm film is hanging on with life support, but "film" will never die. Not as long as the quality surpasses digital. I don't see that happening anytime soon. The new technology of MF digital is still in the $30,000 range. And that's only MF. A 6x7 is about 4x larger than a 35mm. a 4x5 is about 4x larger than a 6x7. An 8x10 is 4x larger than a 4x5. Digital has a LOOOOOOOOONNNNNGGGGGGGGG way to go before all film DIES. But yes I do believe 35mm is slowly slipping. I sold my EOS system for a MF and when I want to get a digi (never go digi) I'll get one to replace my 35mm film. But not MF until I can get a Leaf.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Justin G. |
I KNOW they're shooting digital. You're still missing the point. it doesnt matter that nikon is dropping their film, they are inferior! it's like if target were to go out of business. who really cares, we still got walmart. they can drop their film line, who really cares, they are consumer grade anyways, and we still have canon.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Will Turner |
I want an answer to my question, Pete: "Can't you just enjoy what you use without constantly mouthing off about film?" If you look at every camera forum on the web today, there is a post like Pete's, eagerly announcing the News from Nikon. Always, it's done by a digital enthusiast. Always, complete with gratuitous comments about the supposed dim future of film. Any time there is a closure of a film factory, or discontinuance of a film camera, you see these moronic posts. Not surprisingly, when new film cameras or films do come out, this news is totally ignored. So what is it about your personality, Pete, that causes you to post this stuff? If you were just having a Dan Rather moment and wanted to give us news, you could have listed only the link. Why post your comments at all? A "Film is dead" post has no artistic merit, no technical usefulness. It won't convince anyone that hasn't heard the same thing for the last five years. It's childish, juvenile. Like that guy at the party we always detest who won't shut up about how much better his stuff is than yours. So still curious. What schadenfreude pleasure do you derive in pronouncing the death of film that causes you to start these posts? You obviously don't use film. Why not simply enjoy what you've got and spare us your silly predictions?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
"Like that guy at the party we always detest who won't shut up about how much better his stuff is than yours." My stuff's better than yooours! My stuff's better than yooours! lol Pete, Nikon's decision was a business decision based on profit. It doesn't mean the end of film. I think it is more of a reflection of the changes at Nikon over the years from a primarily pro oriented manufacturer to a consumer oriented manufacturer than it is on the future of film. Yes, film will become used less and less by the average shooter but the pros will continue to use film OR digital depending on the application. Justin, the pros you see on the sidelines at games are primarily shooting Canon. Canon has, for several years, had an advantage over nikon in the area of long lenses, which is what is used to shoot sports. Nikon, however, has the advantage over Canon with WA lenses. Will, I agree that digital shooters do tend to revel in any news that might point to the showdown in the use of film. I can't for the life of me understand why. As a film shooter, I can see where digital has the advantage over film in some applications, like news photography for example where speed is a necessity. For the type of work that I do, that is not necessary so I stick with film. Too much computer work needed for digital and I'm too old for that!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Pete H |
Will; If yu ACTUAKKT read my posts elsewhere, you;d see I DO indeed shoot film..Med format wit ha Bronica AND a Mamiya..I just don't shoot nearly as much..The cost would be staggering! Yes; I love digital, post processing, touchup etc...I remember when I had to have a pro lab do that for me. Holy smokes! If I had the time I would save all these posts and re-post them 2 yrs from now..It would be interesting. Pete
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sean Ronters |
"If I had the time I would save all these posts and re-post them 2 yrs from now..It would be interesting." I sure don't think it would be interesting. Pete, since you're convinced film is dead, wouldya mind just keeping the secret to yourself? I started reading this board just to get away from all this bilge..
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
"And if Nikon is soo superior then why does their highest performer professional camera not even meet up to Canon's prosumer cameras." My question is why do Canon owners always feel the need to put Nikon down?? Still trying to figure out that one. It always comes across a bit defensive to me :D.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Stacey M |
Sharon. LOL you got pulled into it again!!! Just let the galleries speak for themselves. Who has more medals...your are shooting Nikon and he is shooting Canon. You beat him hands down by 100%. I am just happy to own a camera, Nikon ---Canon----who cares!!!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
Saw this in a Quotations web site. Buying a Nikon doesn't make you a photographer. It makes you a Nikon owner.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
chrisbudny.com - Chris Budny Contact Chris Budny Chris Budny's Gallery |
Well, John, at least we can eliminate your concern... I too believe you will in fact live to see the [near-total] demise of film in the amateur world of photography! I love my digicam, as a complete photography amateur--I'm a long way from approaching pro. And I fondly (albeit dimly) recall loving the art class, way back in jr. high, shooting and developing our own film! I even recall cursing (but somewhat admiring) the challenges of using my dad's ancient Pentax 35mm years ago. Not to point to a great conspiracy theory, but our society is racing, screamingly obsessed, full-tilt into complete technology worship. There's just no way for manufacturers to make film cameras "ipod" sexy to the average consumer. And nothing brings in profits like releasing minor technology "advances" to get the masses discarding their old, and buying up new. :(
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Justin G. |
Stacey if you knew anything about me you'd know that I don't primarily shoot Canon; I used to be now i'm 99% 67. I'm not on this site for the contest. I don't upload any to the contest. And I took a quick look at your gallery and the only pics that you got a finalist on were over processed and they look very fake and amateurish. using the diffuse glow a little too much. and the cake one, don't know how that won, blown out specular highlight in the glasses, cake is blown out, wrinkled background, and a overly soft image. or is that out of focus. i'm not one to upfront attack; I just fight back when attacked. And the Nikon issue, i'm not attacking nikon to be randomly attacking them, i'm just comparing specs that's all.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
Christopher, I agree with your assessment regarding the obsession with technology. The problem remains that too many folks really believe that a digital camera will make them a better photographer. Imagine - a professional wedding photographer snapping 5,000 images at a wedding and claiming s/he can still make money. Imagine an amateur who, after returning from that "one-in-a-lifetime vacation to ??????," starts to scream because s/he can't find that one particular image to show Auntie Mame!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
"Not to point to a great conspiracy theory, but our society is racing, screamingly obsessed, full-tilt into complete technology worship." Lemmings still race full-tilt into the sea but it doesn't mean it's a good thing.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Stacey, I'm always getting sucked in :D. "Buying a Nikon doesn't make you a photographer. It makes you a Nikon owner." Yep, definitely defensive :o)! Justin aka I don't get even I get ahead! Good thing you aren't entering the contest after blasting the judges like you just did, but hey, what do they know??? They are all just professional photographers. Maybe you could offer to help them muddle through :D.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Justin G. |
They other ones aren't that bad, just the one effect is overdone. I meant what I said though on the last one, I won't take that back. And sure we'll go with that name, cuz the business I'm in if you don't get ahead, you DIE.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Nicole Kessel |
Digital vs. film, Nikon vs.Canon, Since when did it become about what you shoot with instead of who does the shooting! Who cares what is "better" then the other. It's all a matter of personal OPINION! You have to shoot what works for you and your budget. Film will never die completley. But, I'm sure it will be in the minority. What Nikon is doing is a smart decision on their behalf. I'm excited because I shoot digital and Nikon so it's all good news to me. With their attention leaning towards digital now I'm hoping this will drive their prices down so I can afford better equipment.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Justin G. |
Enlighten me please... "Since when did it become about what you shoot with instead of who does the shooting!" Now a little later... "I'm hoping this will drive their prices down so I can afford better equipment." If it's not the equipment then why do you need better equipment?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Well said, Nicole! Since when did the camera manufacturers develope a camera that composes the image in the viewfinder for you???
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Nicole Kessel |
Well Justin, if I could accomplish the shots I want with a $50 1 megapixel point and shoot I would... but, guess what? It doesn't work that way now, does it!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
MEMO: Please note that some members have been banned from answering to the following thread, originated by Justing Goeden, regarding Rodinol film developer. (http://www.betterphoto.com/forms/QnAdetail.php?threadID=21751)
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Craig Paulsen |
wake up and smell the megapixels. Those of us who actually shoot for a living know that digital makes money and film is fast but slow. Deadlines are dead with film.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Janessa L. Taber-Webb |
hmmm...I don't have time to read everyone's comments on this, but I would like to say a few things. I don't think film is on it's way out. Film is great. Infact I think Film is better than digital. I just find it hard to trust film after what happened to me during my daughters birth (the film got tangled in the camera and was lost) But everyone has their prefrences I guess. Digital is fast, and you can do alot with digital, but I will always be a fan of film, even though I shoot digital. Infact, I kind of miss film..... :(
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Craig Paulsen |
lab lost a roll from one of my weddings once, bad news for the bride
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Janessa L. Taber-Webb |
But....you can lose pictures on digital too just as easy!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Pete H |
Carumba! Talk about opening a can of worms! Yikes! Guess I'll need a macro. LOL
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Craig Paulsen |
Jan, yes happened to me once so I put the chip away and used my recovery cd when I got home, no problem.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Justin G. |
"wake up and smell the megapixels. Those of us who actually shoot for a living know that digital makes money and film is fast but slow. Deadlines are dead with film." Craig please note that I do NOT shoot for a living as I do not have time to. I barely have time to shoot anymore. I've got a job that I usually work 10 hours or so, and I'm also working on 10 credit hours in school, leaving no time for even my wife. I see her at 1:00ish in the mornign when I get home and she's sleeping. She leaves for work at 6:00. i'm also preparing for an 8 month deployment. I realize that digital makes money. it's only because the public thinks that if you have a digital camera you're a pro photog. i'm not ragging on the people who actually know how to use theirs, or those who are established an know what you're doing, but am I the only damn one who notices people letting "photogs" with their kodak easyshare shoot their wedding. their once in a lifetime opportunity? that's obsurd. all, I do realize where digital is, and where 35mm film stands, I really do. I don't try and rag on people who shoot digital, just the one's who are too stubborn to realize that film makes good quality, no matter how much you don't want it to. I don't mean to offend anyone personally (well I did crack on the judges, but that needed to be called out). and I also wrote that title being a smart elic. greg I know you don't like me, and I don't like you. and i'm sure neither of us gives two shits. you have nice images. we'll leave it at that.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
"i'm not ragging on the people who actually know how to use theirs, or those who are established an know what you're doing, but am I the only damn one who notices people letting "photogs" with their kodak easyshare shoot their wedding. their once in a lifetime opportunity? that's obsurd." I gotta agree there and I'm always amazed when someone pops into the Q&A and says, "I'm doing a wedding, HELP!" Anyone doing a wedding should not need help for crying out loud! Anyone hiring a photog for a wedding should know better. I think when we read those threads we are looking at a situation where the wedding party can't/won't pay for a professional photog with a medium format camera and the experience to back it up.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Craig Paulsen |
Which is Better? Neither is better on an absolute basis. The choice depends on your application. Once you know your application the debate goes away. The debate only exists when people presume erroneously that someone else's needs mirror their own. I can get great 12 x 18" glossy prints for $2.99 at Costco every day from my digital camera, and we all can get fuzzy results on film. It's the artist, not the medium, which defines quality. If and only if you're an accomplished artist who can extract every last drop from film's quality then film, meaning large format film, technically is better than digital in every way. Few people have the skill to work film out to this level, thus the debate. Most people get better results from digital. Artists print their own work, but if you use a lab for prints you'll have more control and get better results from digital.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Justin G. |
Very valid point Sharon. Joe Buissink and Jeff Ascough neither use medium format. Both are still 35mm. Film actually but that's just their style. That doesn't neccessarily mean that film is the way because 2 pros are using it, but who am I to question them, ya know? lol.. They make enough in one wedding to pay for both of my cars and all my photog equipment I own!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
He's soon to be handling firearms. Lovely.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Robin Sheppard |
Wow! Interesting flame war. Can we start one on MC vs. PC, and maybe Ford vs Chevy? Gee, it's so nice to back in high school again! I shot film for 40 years before going 100% digital. But the reason has nothing to do with any perceived "superiority" of one media over the other. It's quite simply that my financial condition right now has me living in 200 sq. feet of living space, and I have no room for storing film negs and tansparencies, much less a darkroom! Maybe when my financial situation improves, I'll include film again. But I'm not going to try to convince anybody that "film is dead." Digital imaging is still in its infancy. Wait a hundred years or so to see if today's digital images are still available by then. Did anybody else read that article on home-burned CDs and DVDs only lasting 2 or 3 years? Shoot film or shoot digital; for most of us it's a personal preference. As far as sports photographers go, I suspect it's not so much a personal preference as it is the pressures of the marketplace: most magazine & newspaper publishers now insist on digital.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Steve Warren |
True, most pros use digital becuase you can transmit and have pic from the other side of the world back at your office within a few minutes. I plan on getting a maxxum 7d, but will never leave film. By the way, I call it "film" and shoot two formats, 35mm and 120.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Ryan Glaze |
Wow!! I like debate but I love enthusiasm... Here's my take...we all love photography...shoot what you want...share what you can...my experience is to go shoot a 100 pictures with my kids at the park and then go home and watch them on TV...have some great laughs and create some memories. My dad, who has been an avid film photographer for years, switched to digital and recently offered to sell me his film equipment...no thanks...This lazy photographer loves digital!!! Enthusiasm, Ryan
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Nicole Kessel |
Robin, what article was that about the CD's? I've never heard that... should I be concerned?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Robin Sheppard |
Nicole, I'll try to find the article & send you a link to it.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Justin G. |
I know I know old thread I'm not here to start crap I just want to put this out on the table. Fuji's declaration to it's dedication to silver hallide photography:
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Kip T. Berger |
Nicole & Robin, here's the link concerning the predicted lifspan of burnt CD Media, not pressed CD's. http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20060110/tc_pcworld/124312;_ylt=AsMthtTmZFDawbt4YbJvgrCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Robin Sheppard |
Kip, Thanks! That's the original article I had seen, but couldn't remember where. Robin
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Chet |
Hello everyone, I am a armature photographer who loves to take pictures on film. I cant see as of yet ever owning an DLSR. I sort of feel like its cheeting.I just like film. I have been reading all the questions about film going away, and I have to tell you it was breaking my heart, I wanted to go to my local wal-mart and buy all there film inventory so I would have film for the rest of my life. LOL Anyway I was searching on the web about all this and came across this article on KenRockwell.com "IS FILM GOING AWAY" http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmgoingaway.htm maybe you have read this, but it sure made me feel a lot better, I am confident now that film is not going away! Thanks,
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Chet |
Thanks,
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Chet |
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John G. Clifford Jr |
Film will eventually go away... when something better comes along. Digital IS that "better." But it's not better for all the things one can do with a camera at this time. Digital is "better" when it comes to snapshots. A 6 MP digicam provides pictures that are at least as good as 35mm point & shoot cameras, and you have the advantages of instantly seeing what you capture. Plus you can easily send images via email to your friends and family. Digital is "better" when it comes to photojournalism. A reporter in a remote location can shoot a news event and send the photos to his editors quickly. And, as with the snapshooter, he can also instantly see that his picture shows what he wants. Film is at its best for medium- and large format deliberate shooting (studio or landscape). Digital is making inroads here, but the cost of the equipment is still prohibitive for most potential users. When digital becomes cheaper, film will go away. Remember, film replaced chemically-treated glass plates. Digital is merely another way of image capturing, and is neither better nor worse, nor is it "cheating." Re people 'chimping' by looking at their images... is it cheating to use a Polaroid back on a MF camera to check exposure and compensstion? People, especially the brand-loyal chest thumpers, need to remember that ANY camera, and ANY image capture medium (film or digital), is just a tool. Manual typewriters replaced pen and paper, and were replaced with word processors, which were then replaced by computers. Does that make a book written on a computer any less of a work of art than one written on a manual typewriter or in longhand? Don't tell me about your great Canon/Nikon/whatever, or how using film is somehow more worthy. I'm not impressed by your brand of camera, or your choice of medium. Show me your photos. Let your images do your talking.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Chet |
I was just worried that I was going to throw my film cameras in the trash. I am so new to photography I don’t know much. I am going to be buying a D70s soon though, but I know I will never part with my Nikon F4, F3, FA, or AE-1 I am sure I will love digital too, especially knowing I can shoot all the pictures I want and not have to worried about the cost of film. That’s what keeps me from shooting lots of pictures now.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Autumn Hernandez |
I'm just curious why everyone gets so heated about this. Would you get mad at someone if they preferred chocolate ice-cream to vanilla? Everybody has their own preferences, and so what if they don't like what you like. You can't effectively argue someone's taste. Chances are chocolate and vanilla are both going to be around for a while. ;) I will add, my friend, who has been in the business for somewhere around 20 years, can't even find anyone to develop her infared film so she has a couple rolls just sitting in her freezer. What's next? Sign of things to come? You tell me.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Justin G. |
what kind is it? i'll take it!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Autumn Hernandez |
I didn't actually ask. I'll see her Thursday so I'll find out. Do you know of any places that DO develop it?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Justin G. |
well since I don't know exactly what kind it is I couldn't tell ya. but I looked at Kodak's EIR tech pub and it's a typical E-6 process. Also, Kodak's HIE B&W infrared film is a B&W process with TMax, HC110, or XTOL. There are a lot of send-out places that do services that are highly renowned and have fair prices. Of course I'm blanking out as to name a few but AANDI and 'The Slide Printer' stick out. you can google searches for places and you should get a plethora of places. good luck.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Steve Warren |
I used to develop it in Tmax developer, but you have to be VERY careful not to fog it.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
More bad news for film. Has anyone seen this?? http://www.photoscala.com/node/view/1260
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
The folks, who are members of BP.com and/or serious photographers, are into the death knell of film. But, just yesterday, a friend called to ask about whether he should recommend [to his lady fair] the repair of her two film cameras [one an antique Rollei 35.] There are almost 300 million people in the US; a huge number of them own cameras and most, I would say, use film. To those, who only shoot on vacations or on holidays, film will always be needed. Oh, maybe not 20-30 different variations but, perhaps, one or two ISO speeds in each manufacturers' line? B&W continues to come back. [And, yes, I know one can produce a B&W image from a color one with Photoshop.] Until we find out about Konica-Minolta and Sony, we won't know too much about Konica's B&W Infrared film. Konica was the third largest manufacturer of film in the world; it'll be interesting to see if its products simply vanish like Agfa's. But, Agfa was a small player anyway. We also haven't heard from 3M. Nearly all that film you buy with a pharmacy's brand name is made by 3M. Betcha didn't know that. Think it'll vanish too? Not me! There are just too many folks who still love their film-based point-and-shoots, who just don't have several hundred to several thousands of dollars for a digital camera they will still use only very infrequently. You know what, five members of my camera club don't have a home computer, either! And, lots of people don't have cell phones and iPods. [iPods outsold digital cameras in 2005; whuch is more important?] It's all about whether one is into photography [at all or big time!] All this being said, I'm just about ready to get my digital SLR. Of course, I have to decide whether a larger spot meter and LCD screen make the Canon 30D worth $400 more than one of the 20D leftovers.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
I don't have a cell phone :o)! I've had computers since before you could do photos on them though. I hope film sticks around for a while. Even though I'm hooked on digital there are some things a film camera is better for, but not because they use film. Rather more because of what I can do with them that I can't do with my D70, like a double exposure and a BULB exposure all night long if I want. The D70 is limited to 30 minutes. As for prints, I recently had a couple of 8x10s done from the D70 and the detail and clarity blew any enlargement I've ever had done with a film camera right out of the water.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Slim Brady |
Last workshop I was in 100% of all were shooting Digital and the one's that shot film were only for product stills or landscapes. Digital technology has turned shooting film into a hobby. Not the camera alone, but with Photoshop (captured in RAW)has made pro's into super pro's. As long as you have all your shadows and highlights (use a polarizer!)you can do anything you want to the picture. Most people don't look at a photo like we do, Digital has already been excepted. So if you like driving the old car around, hey its your car. Just make sure you stayout of the fast lane cause I'll be driving by in my MACHMarkIIIDsX3.14 UmmmmmmmmKAHY
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
LOL Two Cents! I'll keep in the granny lane if I see you in my rear view mirror! The original question was if film is going away?? Well, maybe not but it looks like the film cameras are slowly disappearing. Just a few weeks ago Nikon announced reducing their film cameras to only 2 models.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Steve Warren |
I shoot with film and love it. I plan on getting a digital camera someday, but will never give up film. I took some shots with my Pentax K-1000, scanned them to a high resolution, and ended up with a 32 MP file. The K1000 is built like a tank and doesnt even need a battery other than to operate the meter. I paid less than 100.00 for it. So, to each their own, but it will be many years before I can get such resolution from anything on the market. How long till I'll be able to get a 32MP dslr for less than 100 bucks? Furthermore, it's built like a tank, and nothing on the market that costs less than my used Honda can even come close to the build quality. It's over 20 years old, how many of those mega-buck Canons will be around 20 years from now? I admit that digital is great, and catching up to film fast, but the bottom line for me is better resolution for a fraction of what a digtal camera costs.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
Hey Two Cents - why not read some of the comments in this thread one mo' time. Kerry's confirmed with film for the moment, so is Justin. Sharon uses both. Steve is still using one of the classic and best teaching cameras ever made and probably gets more great pictures that many [most] digital-only users. Why?? Like folks married to Mercedes over BMW's or Nikon over Canon, the new rage of digital users seem to feel traditional film users are faded dinosaurs. Actually, a lot of digital users have to fall back to film cameras because they can't make the things work in anything but full automatic. There are some advantages that digital offers - probably the best is that little LCD screen. Digital comes at a significant capital cost and that's one of the reasons I've held off this long. It ain't the camera, regardless of price, that "makes" the picture. It's the photographer. Great photos have been made with a pinhole camera - lots of computer driven features in that pinhole unit. Digital continues to be improved but the magazines still suggest it takes an $8,000 Canon to produce a print that equals the result of ISO-100 film. The argument will go on til doomsday. You haven't put up any pictures in a gallery so none of us can comment on your work. I sure hope said images show a little personal creatively and not just the results of a fully automated computerized thingamajig that can't help but produce, at least, minimally-acceptable results.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Slim Brady |
I think I did see a 32pixel camera for $100 bucks, OHH?, I'm sorry did you say million or Thousillion. Lets see, a billion crystals devided by 20 million deivded by 10million advance per year. So give or take 100yrs. No two snowflakes are alike, but with Digital there will be. The microscopic dots will take over the crystals and the computers and robots will rule the world. I say in 5 years film is totally gone. Not to many people buy B&W tv's (unless money is a problem)
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
You've gone from not making sense to barely making words. If that's your two cents' worth, you were overcharged!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Steve Warren |
I disagree 2 cents. Film will diminish and the market will shrink, but there will always be a need and demand for it. It will no doubt be much smaller than it is today, but it wont go away. There are still millions of film cameras around that will be going strong in five years. The Nikon f6, which I hear is selling well, is just one example. Nikon F bodies are known for their toughness, so they will be here 5, 10, even 20 years from now. I would bet an F6 purchased today will outlast a D2X. As a matter of fact, my K1000 will not only still be around, it's likely not lose any value. At the same time I saw the once 2200 dollar Olympus E-1 on eBay for 600, and a Canon D30 that once went for 3,000 for 500. And I had to add a comment about the Canon having better image quality than ISO 100 print film. In my opinion it was comparing apples to oranges to give digital a false advantage. The Canon Mk2 is a very serious pro camera, so why did they compare it to consumer print film? The photographer who would buy an 8,000 dollar camera body is not likely to use consumer film. If they wanted a fair comparison, they would have used a pro film like Velvia with the L setting (ISO 50)on the camera. The fact that they did not leads me to think they intentionally manipulated the comparison to give digital a false advantage.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Slim Brady |
6mil-mp's is good enough for me. I have no trouble with noise (tripod rules that out) The only time I have noise is if I add it. Straight
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Justin G. |
I say in 5 years film is totally gone. So you mean in five years they will have affordable digital backs to compare to 4x5 and 8x10 film? Like John said it takes ~$8000 just to equal Velvia 50. Don't forget that's not just any Velvia, but 35mm Velvia. What about 6x7 velvia? 6x9 velvia? 4x5 velvia? 8x10 velvia. shit, there's some wild ULF shooters about there. what about 16x20" Velvia? I mean there's some cameras that can only pull off "ok" 16x20's and these peoples' negatives are 16x20. So I'm not here to say which is better than which, but to say that all of film will be gone in 5 years is kind of ridiculous. Go over to apug.org and say the word digital and see the thousands of users jump all over you and how passionate they are over their film. I say 35mm film will be headed out in 5 years, MF will be see some competition, but 'film' in general, no.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John G. Clifford Jr |
I think that in 5 years digital backs for MF-sized camera bodies will be ubiquitous and inexpensive... probably around $1,000 for what today costs $20,000 or more. But, the better question will be "Who needs it?" The answer is: only professionals or advanced amateurs who want to make REALLY big prints, and who are willing to spend thousands for the quality lenses that will be needed. We'll have dSLRs with 20 MP of resolution for under $2k, and the 10 to 12 MP dSLRs will be selling for what 6 MP dSLRs like the D50 sell for today... or less. A 20 MP camera will provide a 5400 x 3600 pixel image that prints 100% at 10" x 15" on a 360 dpi printer... or 12" x 18" @ 300 dpi. Uprez it by 50% (which is easily doable today with excellent results) and you have an 18" x 27" print with incredible detail. How big do we need to get, and how many megapixels do we really need for 99% of the pictures we take? The limiting factor will be the resolving ability of the lenses, not the density of the image sensor. We are pretty much at this point now with cameras like the D2x and the 1DMkII.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
I see by the reoccuring weather patterns it looks like we're due for another there's needs to be more contest categories thread. After this comercial, I'll have the 5 day outlook.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Chet |
Why didn’t newspaper go out when TV and radio came in? They said it would back then. Radio was supposed to put news paper out of business. TV was supposed to put radio out of business. Think about all the work it took to make a news paper. That amazes me. And we still have news paper today. I don’t think film will ever go away.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Slim Brady |
some people just like to read, no problem with that.
I told people they should shoot RAW for the longest time. JPEG shooters I know who laughed at me are now shooting RAW. Film will be a novelty
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Steve Warren |
Just as some people like to read, some people prefer film, and as long as they do, there will always be a market for it. Just like newspapers. Do you think all those expensive F6s and F5s will simply go away? How about the Leicas? You cant honestly think these tough-as-nails cameras will just cease to exist. Leicas have been around decades before the digital rage, and will be working long after the majority of digital cameras made today. They will surely be around much longer than 5 years. There were people back in 2000 who said the same thing, that film would be gone by now. These are the same "experts" who ponied up 3-5 grand for digital cameras you can get for less than a thousand bucks today, and film is still alive whereas these once-megabuck DSLRs are worth a fraction of what they sold for. Here's MY prediction for 5 years: I'll still be shooting with my K1000, Nikon users will still be shooting with their F bodies, Leica, medium format and large format shooters will still be using 6*6,6*7,6*9,8*10, and other film formats. Most shooters who use names like Leica, Mamiya, Hasselblad will still be buying film in various formats As John C says, you'll be able to get 20MP cameras for a fraction of what the mk2 goes for today. Film will be much less common, but still available. Especially here in NYC where I have B&H a subway ride away. Maybe then I'll pick one up a mk2 for a thousand bucks and laugh at everyone still paying off the 8 grand with 18% interest. Digital is great, no doubt, but it's got MUCH longer than 5 years before it's a replacement for film.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Slim Brady |
guess you don't get out often. I go to big events and there very close
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Five day outlook: Arrival of television didn't cause radio to disappear, but it did cause drastic changes to it's market share and how people use it. No longer did people use it to listen to shows. Soap operas, no more family around the radio listening to the Lone Ranger shows. It changed to mostly listening to music. Newspapers didn't disappear. But more and more individuals get news thru the internet. And ask any editor and they'll tell you that strings are tighter now-a-days. Due to tv, internet, and other economic factors. Black and white film didn't disappear. But it did change from all black and white to not very many people use black and white. Forget any list of what artist uses black and white, or what goof ball on here says they always use black and white. There was still a drastic drop in it's use. Film hasn't disappeard. It may never disappear. The market share and it's use has changed. Maybe there will only be fuji and kodak to choose from. Grocery stores may no longer do film or sell film. A roll of 400 is about $5.50. There's no need to be so paranoid as to ask should I buy a digital because I've heard rumors about film not being around. No one knows what's going to happen, not even people who only use one format, nor the people who are constantly signifying who's in what group. When changes happen you adapt. If film does go away, then buy a digital camera without crying about it. By that time the price should be lower. Even if it isn't, what else you going to do. Until every store and every online site says they no longer have film, what's the point of going on about it.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Slim Brady |
"what's the point of going on about it" to reel in suckerfish
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Kristy A. Keene |
You all can't actually think film we dissappear! I Know that my parents would not touch a digital camera (too confusing!) Plus believe it or not, Not everyone has a hundred bucks to buy a digital camera. I know that concept may seem weird, but alot of people I know wants to buy the one time use cameras or film! I love my digital camera but I still see the benefits of film. Why can't you just agree both is good?!?! Why do you have to be on one side or the other? I have some shots from a 35mm that I think are priceless but I also have shots from my digital camera that I equally love. The point is film is still in High demand! Both are great but neither will dissappear off the face of the earth anytime soon!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John G. Clifford Jr |
You know, one can talk about the disappearance of film without saying that film is bad. Roll film was definitely an improvement over sheet film for many uses. Photojournalism would never have become as important, and as ubiquitous, as it has without the evolution of the 35mm SLR (and the 35mm rangefinder). But 35mm roll film has one foot in the grave, and the other is on a banana peel. Will film eventually disappear? Not for another couple of decades. Even after that it may still be around... but I doubt it. How many photo stores sell glass plates? Digital is no "better" than film on the scale of good versus evil... it's just a different way of capturing light. But, digital does offer a lot more flexibility to the average photographer. You don't need a darkroom, or a local photo processor. You just need a computer and a photo printer. Even today, you can spend under $100 and produce 4x6 prints that equal or surpass anything you can get from a photo lab. I love film cameras, just because I love finely-made mechanical items. But, in a decade or two, the same people who own wooden powerboats, antique radios, and classic fishing reels will be the owners, and users, of film and film cameras. The average person will be using digital and film won't be missed... just as we don't miss glass plates or Brownie cameras.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Slim Brady |
Film might get better, but digital quality will pass film sooner or later, just like casettes and CD's
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Steve Warren |
Yes, digital will surpass film, but it's gonna take a long time,much longer than 5 years. Seeing how so many DSLRs have issues with noise at high ISOs, banding, and other issues that film users dont have, I think it'll take a little while. In the meantime, I did another scan last night of a film print at 12800 dpi and it gave me a scan resolution of 73665*49894 pixels. This is from a Minolta Maxxum film camera. Now I admit that I may never need such resolution, but for me to agree film is on the way out while the best I can get on digital is 16MP for 8 grand makes no sense. 3000-plus megapixel ability for 100-300 dollars (depending upon which of my film bodies I use), or 16.7MP for 8000 plus the cost of a really good lens. It'll be later, not sooner before digital can touch that.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John D. Gretzinger |
Although most of my shooting is now done with a Canon 20D, I still hold on to and use both my Olympus OM-2 and my Hasselblad. Of all the stuff(tm) that I've shot recently, the two shots people want the most were taken with the OM-2, scanned and then printed in large format. For pure resolution, one simply cannot beat film at any comparable format. A friend of mine recently did a 4'x 8' print of 1/3 of a shot he took in Death Valley with his 4x5 view camera. The resolution on this thing is amazing. You stand in front of it and feel as though you are standing in the sand surrounded by flowers. What digital, at any price, can accomplish that? I enjoy the freedom ditital allows me, but the basics have not changed. All the equipment in the world will not turn a poor snapshot into an Ansel Adams class image.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John G. Clifford Jr |
Steve, just because you can scan a negative at a resolution of 12,800 dpi doesn't mean the negative resolves to that level of detail. In terms of MTF, 8 MP dSLRs equal 35mm and anything higher exceeds 35mm quality. John, the OM-2 is a great camera, but what people want is the picture, not the mechanism that took the picture. If your shot had been with an 8 MP or better dSLR, people would still want it, right? And, 4x5 view cameras show incredible detail. You're talking about 16x the area of a 35mm negative, or 25x the area of a dSLR's APS-sized sensor. In other words, it takes around 100 MP to equal 4x5 quality. Have you seen some of the multi-row panoramas that people have produced? The Gigapixel image (not to be confused with the Gigapixel project, a converted 9"x18" reconnaissance camera whose negatives are scanned) was made with a Canon D20 and has over a BILLION pixels... and at 5 FEET x 10 FEET the detail at eyeball-close range is astounding. In fact, you can see detail close-up that you couldn't have seen standing at the vantage point where the image was originally taken. Note that we're talking about a consumer-level dSLR that, combined with a technique, made an image that surpasses everything else out there in terms of resolution and detail (including the Gigapixel Project images) regardless of the cost. This IS the Golden Age of Photography.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Slim Brady |
"8 MP dSLRs equal 35mm and anything higher exceeds 35mm quality" I get more detail in my shadows and highlights shots then I would with film (HDR). And then when in CS2 bridge I can tweak them seperately. That for me slam dunks it. Why would I waste my time with film, when it can be scratched or lost(from the lab-happened once). Digital 35mm has already passed film, which most of us use. So that part is already gone. Plus with the PS2 bridge more and more people are shooting Raw to improve workflow. My editor went from 8hrs to 45min, once she got it down to a T. When people drive old cars they are usually pimped out. So I guess you could use your old camera for a hood ornament....sizzle
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Justin G. |
Yes I do agree that 35mm has surpassed digital. But it takes a good $7200 digital camera and the best glass when you can just spend $300-$500 on a good FD system and have excellent, excellent results. SO yes, to reitterate, yes digital has surpassed film, but it takes a crapload of money to do it. Yes those prices will come down, who knows when but they will.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Slim Brady |
If you want the equipment, you have to market yourself shooting whatever to make money in your area. I already had the lenses so the switch for me wasn't bad. I've done some trading with adorama for credit. So what I spent on 2 digital bodies, chips ,PS and a few special lenses. I made back in one year. So the next year I have bill free equipment. 8mp is enough for pros. I'm not even looking at the 12's,16's,22's
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Slim Brady |
You could go with 12,16,22 but it's not necessary and that would just mean more gigs (money wasted for nothing)
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
This has become such a pointless discussion. Neither side is actually going to convince the other side of anything, so why bother?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
Amen, Chris.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Slim Brady |
"This has become such a pointless discussion" Whats your point?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Bob Chance |
Holy Crap: So many respondents I couldn't read them all.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Slim Brady |
LAST WORD
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
Not really.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
LOL :P
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Slim Brady |
Film isn't dead to companies without deadlines. Now alot of commercial clients require digital so they can see the results as they happen and modify it as its shot. Can't do that with film. No reshoots, but if its just for fun keep it.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Neal A. Wells |
For the past twenty-five years I have made my living as a blacksmith-a trade once considered "dead". In the early part of the 20th century, everybody sold forges, anvils, and tools, even Sears & Roebuck. Blacksmiths were an indispensable part of the community but the Industrial Revolution changed all that, much like the digital revolution is changing photography. Again, like digital, staying abreast of machine technology was very expensive and tools were quickly replaced by newer tooling and methods. The little guy (the blacksmith) couldn't compete and the numbers dwindled until the trade was thought dead. But there remained a breath of life and the trade came back to the point that new blacksmithing tools are now offered by a number of companies. Even wrought iron is once again being produced and work from a competent blacksmith commands high prices. Some of the things one can do in a blacksmith shop are nearly impossible to duplicate by machine. I suspect film will be the same-it may suffer a "near death experience" but some enterprising soul will realize that there are tens of millions of film cameras out there still waiting for the next picture to be snapped. That resurgence may not support the number of suppliers it does currently but it sure is a big market for one or two dedicated companies. I shoot with both and both formats have their place but I find it is much easier to make a 35mm Velvia slide digital than to make a jpeg into a slide and my reject rate is much lower with film and there is no tweaking. I think film will survive and even prosper, especially as the megapixel race continues and digital commands higher and higher prices to bring it ever closer to the quality of film, not to mention the computer, digital storage, etc.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Film lovers might enjoy this article, Film Forever.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Mike Rubin |
I ADMIT, About 20% through this discussion (war) I stopped reading the responses. Film/Digital, Nikon/Canon, Who really cares? Just enjoy your format and brand, and continue to improve. There are more important things in this world to worry about.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Mike Rubin |
I ADMIT, About 20% through this discussion (war) I stopped reading the responses. Film/Digital, Nikon/Canon, Who really cares? Just enjoy your format and brand, and continue to improve. There are more important things in this world to worry about.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Justin G. |
Like abortion, politics, and religion ;-) lol, just kiddin' Mike.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Justin G. |
Like abortion, politics, and religion ;-) lol, just kiddin' Mike.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Justin G. |
Like abortion, politics, and religion ;-) lol, just kiddin' Mike.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Justin G. |
Wow it says there was an error, but then it still posts it...hmmmm
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Mike Rubin |
Justin, Now you did it. We will be hearing from the Religious Right,religious left, Pro life and Pro choice. Did I leave anyone out?. Oh the politicians are too busy slamming each other on TV and radio. :)
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||||||||
