 John D |
Film vs. Digital Do you think that digital will completely replace film in 5 or 10 years time? And what would folks do with their film cameras?
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
John A. Lind |
No.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
doug Nelson |
No, film will be around as long as we are. It's still the cheapest way to get photos. Many people don't have computers and don't want them. The industry still doesn't make it easy to learn the new technology. As John pointed out in the last discussion on this, there isn't much, if anything, in digital technology, for all the expense and fiddling, that makes a superior image to what fine grained film and good optics can deliver. For those willing to ride the learning curve, digital is wonderfully convenient. With people under about 35, digital is making inroads into film at an amazing rate. There will always be people who can't lay out $200 or more for a digital camera, storage cards, computer and software. The $15 Kodak and a few bucks for drugstore prints when you want them will continue to meet their needs.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Wayne Attridge |
I vote no as well. The details are not there in digital, despite what some folks, especially commissioned sales people, might tell you. The only chance is with the new canon 12 megapixel camera but here in Canada it costs $12k. You can buy a lot of film with that kind of money. The up side of the digital revolution is that you can get some very good deals on 35mm film cameras and lenses.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Dan Ver |
Hi all. i would say no too. However few days ago I went travelling a bit and crossed many touristic sites; I was amazed to see so many people having a digital camera in their hands! People of all age. As pointed out before, digital made photo accessible to many people who otherwise would have not been into photo: the learning curve is amazing. and I do not agree with Douglas to say that digital is expensive and that people dont want a computer! a Dark room, that what I dont want! "The up side of the digital revolution is that you can get some very good deals on 35mm film cameras and lenses.": To me that gives a pretty good idea to where the camera market is aming at.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Dennis Rogers |
I would have to say a possiblity, because the techology for Digtial cameras is getting cheaper. I live in NZ and bought my first Digtial Camera that cost me $600 for a 640X480 resoultion about 2 or so years ago. Now for less I can get a 2 megapixel digtial Camera. The cost of these cameras is coming down quite fast along with higher mega pixels resoultions costing less. I would pick in 2 years time maybe a 4 mega pixel camera maybe the price now of what you get a 2 mega pixel for? Does not take long for the price and resoultion to go up with a price reduction. I don't think it will be long before you can buy a 12 mega camera the way techology is heading, and would not be supprise if a 12 megapixel camera will be an afforderable option for many in 10 years or less. Just look at computers for example. The prices keep dropping with increased preformance and ever faster processing power. So beleive techology will be able to put a digtial camera in everyones hands in less than 10 years of better quality than a normal 35 mm camera. Also people are finding the digtial camera a lot more conveniant to use, and you don't need a very powerful computer at all to save your picture to your computer and print them out. Also you don't even need a computer for a lot of digtial cameras these days as many you cam print straight to a DPOF printer which means you can go to photo development place and get your pictures printed I would think almost on the spot, faster than a 1 hour photo place. Also looking at the specs I need to run my camera with a computer and the minimum specs are a 200 mhz computer with windows 98 and a 200 mhz computer nowdays your likely to pick up for nothing, or almost anyway. Bet next year all 3 mega pixel cameras will be the same price as this years 2 megapixel range. The prices of Digtial cameras lately is coming down at an every increasing rate, and the megapixels are also going up with these price drops.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Duane Carter |
Yes, digital will replace film. The change will be hard for some, it's human nature to resist change, even when it's obvious. We all like to stay in our comfort zones.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Michael McCullough |
Never , digital has a very very long way to go before it even matches film,its like with the introduction of acriylic paints it hasn't replaced oils,digital can better 400 speed film now in some cameras but does not compare with overall film performance in 35mm. and yes we are only talking 35mm. here what about medium and large format?Digital also has a distinct look,I feel.Long live film.....
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Dan Ver |
have a look at the recent reports in digital still camera market ... "Canon to double D-SLR CMOS production [] ... This investment will apparently double product capacity of CMOS sensors for digital SLR cameras [] " "camera shipments by CIPA members (the majority of digital camera manufacturers) are up 93% for the period January to May 2003 compared to the same period last year. [] In contrast film camera shipments are down 20%, [] ... Europe which took an amazing 4.5 million units (up 149%). Total shipments of digital cameras from January to May 2003 had a value of $3.43 billion, film cameras and lenses totaled $703 million. []" http://www.dpreview.com/news/0112/01122601minoltanoaps.php http://www.dpreview.com/news/0305/03052002nikkiestory.php http://www.dpreview.com/news/9906/99060802digitrend.php etc etc ... and about the format, even hasselbad as design a digital back module for their systems!!! in cinema, more and more movie are filmed with digital camera. the only brake to digital technology is the last generation of people who REFUSE it. ;)
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Wayne Attridge |
"The aim of modern technology is to make things as good as they used to be" You need only watch the digital projection of the new Star Wars movie to see that film will be hard to replace. Possibly the new generation will be ingrained with digital technology (fast and easy) without ever being exposed to the wonders of film. Too bad. If it goes, it will be lost forever.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Dennis Rogers |
I think another reason digtial will replace film is with software avaible with your camera, or software you can buy, your in total control of what your picture looks like. If it's to dark you can lighten it. To bright you can darken it. No Redeye reduction on your flash, the software can correct this, no need to go to a processing photo place to touchup your photos, and this a big plus for digitial as anyone with a PC can touch up their own photos to there liking, as commercial photo development places don't always do the best job and results vary. As far as larger than the 35mm format, these will not be replaced, but there will be no need for the 35mm format, and this will disappear. This argument also must have happened with the large format and 35mm when they where sold side by side. 35mm was produced as a more comventant form, as a 35mm camera was smaller a lot smaller and lighter, and was the format that took over from the larger format, which has all but disappared to all but the professional. large format is a lot better, and clearer than 35mm, but did not take off for the general mass market, because of the size of the camera, and guss processing must have also cost more?. The market does not always go for the clearest, best format, which larger format clearly is, but goes for convenince over quality. Same will happen here with the 35mm, for the mass market the digtial camera will replace it, as digtial cameras are a hell of a lot more conveniant. A large format will one day be replaced, but digtial has some way to match there preformance, but the modern digtial camera at the upper end takes just as good, if not better photos now than 35mm film, and this quality will soon be in the hands of anyone as the price for digtial cameras and megapixels are at the same time dropping fast. The more people buy into the digtial camera market the quicker the pices will come down and Megapixels go up for your dollar also.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Michael McCullough |
Like I've tried to say digital cannot compete on every level with film yet,will it ever replace film the answer should be never,too many amazing masterpieces made with film for it to be replaced,I know I'll still shoot film as long as I can hold a camera,dosen't mean I won't be digital as well down the road.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Hida |
No, I certainly trust not!! However, if the technology continues to be upgraded and the prices continue down, digital will give film increased compitetion in the amateur ans snap shooter market. Just looking around the streets of New York city, there seems to be more and more "regular folks" using digital cameras. Scandisk even has an instrument that allows viewing on the TV, without the need of a computer. Snap shooters are taking less of an economic risk. Don't have to pay to have bad shots processed.It clearly means that film manufacturers must continue to seek new markets to remain viable.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
John A. Lind |
The change is not obvious . . . I won't accept data presented by a group whose stated purpose is promoting digital technology and its continued growth (dpreview). They're drinking their own bath water; characterizing them as biased is being polite. There are too many factors being ignored in the propaganda, to include: (a) Digital is a very young technology with very, very small user base. Its market has not been saturated, as it has with film. Wonder why manufacturers are pushing it so hard? It's very hard to increase sales revenue (and therefore profit) with a mature technology that has saturated the potential global market with durable goods. I know all too well. I work in a mature market that is saturated on most continents with durable goods, and it has nothing to do with photography. Only so many people will replace what they have in any given year. (b) The business model for film cameras has primarily been one similar to durable goods. There are enormous numbers of professionals still using 15-25 year old professional grade cameras. OTOH, the digital camera manufacturers are pursuing a different business model. They have learned the lessons from sales of film cameras well, along with the lessons from sales of computers and computer software. Digital cameras are intended to be competely obsolete in 5 years or less. They're not intended to be "durable" goods. Their manufacturers are leveraging on technological improvements to ensure obsolesence and striving very hard to keep it on the computer/software business model. It ensures more sales revenue over time. (c) Ignorance of technological limits. The electronics industry is just now realizing there are absolute limits to some of their core technologies. The speed of light is one of them. The size of atoms and molecules is another. These things *cannot* change. Extrapolating future technological advancement based on the past is fallacious. It can only be done to a point of "discontinuity" after which these absolute limits intervene and all the rules suddenly change. There are some core electronics technologies nearing these limits now, and the "gurus" that work intimately with them are finally waking up to it. NO technological breakthrough will ever change the speed of light, nor will any change the size of atoms and molecules. Resusal to accept the technology is not without good reason. Digital, even the most expensive, highest end, falls very short of what I want to do with photography. I have 11x14 prints on my wall that demonstrate what 35mm small format can deliver when it's printed using an **optical** enlarger. There's no digital camera made that can match it and there won't be for quite some time. If I take the original transparencies and project them onto a 50 inch screen using an **optical** projector, there's no digital projection system that can come anywhere near what's on the screen, and again there won't be for quite some time, if ever. Scanning film and printing or projecting it using digital printers and projectors dumbs it down to no better than a digital camera. Before leaping to a new technology, or the latest and greatest products being marketed by those who will do anything to convince me I don't just want it, I **need** it, I ask myself what it can deliver compared to what I'm already using. Once I strip away all the marketing hype, factoids, half-truths and pseudo-science surrounding digital cameras, I'm not left with any reasons to accept it. Indeed, once I replace it with real science and full information, I've got plenty of reasons to continue rejecting it; not only now, but for the foreseeable future extending at least to 20 years from now. -- John
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Roman E. Johnston |
This cant be answerd in a yes no kind of question..... Do I think film for the most part will be taken over by digital in the next 10 years....well....for the most part...yes. Where I would see it never gaining ground is with people who perfer film as an artistic choice. This will not be a majority in any stretch of the word....but there will always be enough to keep the medium alive. Its not a Digital Vs. Film world.....no more than its this paint brush vs. that paint brush kind of world. But as the technology matures, and the megapixel races die down, yes...for the most part (mainstreem) digital will replace film out of sheer raw convience......(and for a lot of artists as well) Just my 2 cents. Roman
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Michael McCullough |
One most final thought, I feel so much more confident grabbing my fully manual SRT 101 and heading out for a few days to shoot some images,than I believe I would with a battery dependent digital delight,oh and god forbid if you ever drop or bang up the latest wizardry,I believe this will hold true for the future when digital and film are compared!!!!!!!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Allan L. Whitehead |
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Wayne Attridge |
The idea behind photography is not to shoot everything in sight at every possible angle and exposure and throw away the bad ones. Maybe if National Geographic is buying the film (and even then you wouldn't have a job for long). Practice your craft and just take the quality shots on film. This is what the digital revolution has done. It is changing 'photographer' to 'camera pointer'. It may be a bad representation on the web but if the 'light up my life' picture is an example of digital imaging, let film be here to stay.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Roman E. Johnston |
Matters not the medium you use....but how proficient you get WITH that medium in reaching that goal. May BOTH mediums be here to stay....as the loss of either would be a great one. Which one you perfer...is a personal choice...and dosnt make one medium better or worse than any other.....and if you embrace BOTH.....your twice as lucky.....as now your options are doubled. Peace to you all! Roman
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
|||||||||||
