BetterPhoto.com - Become a better photographer today!
EMAIL:
PASSWORD:
remember me:     
     


BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Questions

To participate in the Forum, become a BetterPhoto member or Sign In.

 
Photography Question 
John D

member since: 4/21/2003
 

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?

7/27/2003 2:42:32 PM

 
John A. Lind
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/27/2001
  No.

7/27/2003 9:58:16 PM

 
doug Nelson
DougNelsonPhoto.com

member since: 6/14/2001
  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.

7/28/2003 5:49:56 AM

 
Wayne Attridge

member since: 9/27/2002
  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.

7/28/2003 3:41:54 PM

 
Dan Ver

member since: 6/26/2002
  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.

7/29/2003 1:05:32 AM

 
Dennis  Rogers

member since: 7/22/2003
  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.

7/29/2003 2:23:40 AM

 
Duane Carter
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 2/7/2003
  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.

7/29/2003 5:57:36 AM

 
Michael McCullough

member since: 6/11/2002
  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.....

7/29/2003 7:55:55 AM

 
Dan Ver

member since: 6/26/2002
  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.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0305/03052002nikkiestory.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/news/9906/99060802digitrend.asp

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. ;)

7/29/2003 8:45:11 AM

 
Wayne Attridge

member since: 9/27/2002
  "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.

7/29/2003 12:43:44 PM

 
Dennis  Rogers

member since: 7/22/2003
  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.

7/29/2003 2:46:59 PM

 
Michael McCullough

member since: 6/11/2002
  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.

7/29/2003 3:48:33 PM

 
Hida 

member since: 9/28/2001
  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.

7/29/2003 7:12:32 PM

 
John A. Lind
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/27/2001
  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
(who probably should have stuck to the original, one word answer: "No.")

7/29/2003 8:37:14 PM

 
Roman E. Johnston

member since: 3/26/2003
  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

7/29/2003 10:28:59 PM

 
Michael McCullough

member since: 6/11/2002
  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!!!!!!!

7/30/2003 9:11:29 AM

 
Allan L. Whitehead
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/27/2001
 
 
 
I'm afraid that I have to disagree with Doug Nelson. Film is not the cheapest way to go these days. But I also think that film will still be around for some time to come. I take about 600 pictures a week and I couldn't afford (nor could mst people) to do that with film. When I get bad pictures with digital (yes, not all my pictures are good) I just delete the bad ones and keep the good ones. I could carry both film and Digital and when I see that once-in- life time shot I could not have used my film camera (see Light Up My Life) and would have missed this shot if it had not been for my digital camera - Allan

8/1/2003 10:43:44 AM

 
Wayne Attridge

member since: 9/27/2002
  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.

8/1/2003 11:59:24 AM

 
Roman E. Johnston

member since: 3/26/2003
 
 
  Gold Spill
Gold Spill
Digital Photo
© Roman E. Johnston
Nikon Coolpix 5700...
 
 
Digital or Film......believe it or not...photography is still photography.....capturing light in hopes to relay to the world...the images if what you saw that bring fourth emotion.

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

8/1/2003 6:05:54 PM

 
Peter  Brickey

member since: 7/29/2003
  Digital replace film in 5 to 10 years time? No. In 30 to 40 years time? Yes.
The technology curve is way too upward. What many say is impossible now soon becomes commonplace. I retired my film camera and went digital simply to increase my learning ability in photography. I am now better able to experiment with what I used to consider risky art shots because I no longer have the expense of developing the film.
I think this has had the effect of broadening my artistic senses.

8/1/2003 7:22:29 PM

 
Aleem 

member since: 3/17/2003
  no
Film do not vs digital, they are parallel and in my opinion digital will be more popular than films and its the industry's demand as well as ameature or home users are more comfortable with it. but still the chemistry work has its own qualities and versatalaties, as darkroom work cannot be overtaken by photoshop, if it was possible then gold, copper, or even silver tonings should be available or printer having pencils on their heads for some hand coloring touch. in short as black & white is not elemenated over 100 years and it is still popular among the photographers digital will not replace films as it would be a great addition to the photography.

8/2/2003 8:28:03 PM

 
Jeff Sedlik

member since: 8/12/2003
  It is 1908. You feel the wind in your hair as your buggy bounces down the road at 15 mph clip, your horse sending a malodorous plume in your general direction. Honk Honk! A shiny brand-new Ford motor car flies past at more than twice your speed, driver waiving with a smile, leaving you coughing in a cloud dust. As he disappears over the horizon, you mutter "Gol' darn Henry Ford and his new fangled contraption! It'll never last. Too expensive. Too noisy. Too many levers and knobs. And gasoline -- why, you'd need a gas pump in every town! It'll never happen. All I need is a bucket of oats and I'm on my way. They'll learn. And they'll all be back to the horse & buggy faster than you can say "Head Gasket!"

Jump to 2003. As of this moment, sales of amateur and professional digital cameras exceed sales of film cameras. Film consumption is dropping steeply. In the next few years, as film consumption continues to fall, the price of film (and processing, and prints ,and all else related to film-based photography) will skyrocket. Labs (as we know them) will virtually disappear. Processes like E-6 and b&w are destined to become "alternative" processes, followed (eventually) by C41. As demand for digital gear continues to grow exponentially, we will see prices for digital cameras drop steeply. Even the least expensive digital cameras will out-resolve today's film. Compression technology will improve and eliminate file size considerations. At the same time, processor speed and storage technology will continue to improve, reducing or eliminating speed and storage considerations. The pace of technological advancement has increased to the point where any consideration of the historical rate of change in our medium is foolhardy. In photography, we can't look to the past or present to determine the future. You can state and restate the limitations of today's technology, but you are just looking at your shoes. Raise your eyes to the horizon. Don't get me wrong. I love the smell of fixer in the morning. But regardless of the outcome of this digital vs. film debate, we will all, eventually, be digital photographers. So, is that a bucket of oats I see in your hands?

Jeff Sedlik

8/12/2003 10:00:08 AM

 
AZdustdevil 

member since: 8/20/2003
  Film will always be with us. Film and digital are different and for different purposes. Digital was really intended for Newspapers and amateurs who take snapshots. In terms of asthetics, film has it all over digital. Digital often has a harshness that is unmistakable. For convenience, speed, and economy, choose digital. For quality photographic artwork to hang in the museums and galleries, choose film.

8/20/2003 10:17:28 PM

 
doug Nelson
DougNelsonPhoto.com

member since: 6/14/2001
  May I muddy this discussion some more? If some folks' digital cameras and my digital scanners are any indication, the service life of this stuff seems to be 2 to 3 years. A CCD, and maybe the rest of the electronics are extremely susceptible to dust, moisture and heat damage. Expose the CCD or CMOS in a digital SLR to a mist droplet or city dust while changing lenses, and you've done major damage. Don't expect consumer level digital cameras to be all that well sealed. Going digital has its price. I don't expect a film scanner to give me the service life of a 70's Canon F-1, but two years? Sheesh. Makes me wish I'd stuck with fine grain films, a few top-of-the-line lenses, a tripod and the old darkroom.

8/21/2003 6:11:39 AM

 
Wayne Attridge

member since: 9/27/2002
  Doug, I think you have raised an important point. My daughter has a Nikon Coolpix 995 and it takes quite nice pictures, BUT, she went away last week to a wedding and phoned me the night before from another city asking about her camera. It just QUIT. I was unable to help her. Conversely, I took a film in to the lab and upon picking up the pictures, I showed the tech one of the photos for a comparison to digital, and he was amazed at the clarity and asked what I had shot it with. My answer was 'my 70's Canon F1n and a 200mm f2.8 prime lens'. I think that the manufacturers, in an effort to keep the prices down on the new gear, have sacrificed quality. Part of the reason for that though, is the fact that the technology in the digital world is changing so fast that the products are obsolete long before longevity comes into play. The consumers are now driving the market by demanding more and more with each passing day. Printers with higher dpi's, cameras with more pixels, scanners with higher counts and faster. We have become the disposable generation, buy it cheap, use it for two years, and throw it away. You would not have, in the 70's, bought an F1, for example, and then two years later bought an F2, and then an F3, ..... You bought a quality product hoping it would last and give you good service. As I mentioned previously, they are trying to make digital as good as your old F1 was!!!

8/21/2003 9:12:58 AM

 
Allan L. Whitehead
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/27/2001
 
 
 
Wayne. Not all Digital Cameras are inexpensive and all cameras need to handled carefully. I have a Nikon coolpix 885 (cost about $1500 cdn) which takes excellent pictures and a Nikon D-100 Digital ($3,600 cdn) which takes fantastic pictures. I take a lot of on the water sailing pictures (about 2,500 so far this summer and the results are phenominal. This was my choice as I have 2 Nikkor Zoom lenses (35-70mm, 1.3.3-4.5 and a AF Nikkor 70-300mm 1.4-5.6 D) and I can honestly say that of all the Cameras that I have owned over years, nothing takes picture like my Nikons have as long as I have looked after and maintained them. Digital is here to stay and unfortunately for some nay sayers it still requires lots of thought and a good sense of composition. Digital doesn't produce camera pointers, but rather more competent and better photographers. Any one who doesn't realize or doesn't want to admit this shoud take their head out of the sand, look around, smell the coffee, come to their senses and realize that See my Photo "NiteOntPlace159.jpg' which was taken with my D-100 Nikon at 9:00 PM when it was pitch black. The image is slightly fuzzy because it was so dark I could not focus. The image was simply bightened and slightly contrasted and printed. Lets see you do that with your Canon. Digital is definately here to stay. Sorry Wayne - Allan W.

8/21/2003 9:44:41 AM

 
Allan L. Whitehead
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/27/2001
 
 
 
Wayne. Not all Digital Cameras are inexpensive and all cameras need to handled carefully. I have a Nikon coolpix 885 (cost about $1500 cdn) which takes excellent pictures and a Nikon D-100 Digital ($3,600 cdn) which takes fantastic pictures. I take a lot of on the water sailing pictures (about 2,500 so far this summer and the results are phenominal. This was my choice as I have 2 Nikkor Zoom lenses (35-70mm, 1.3.3-4.5 and a AF Nikkor 70-300mm 1.4-5.6 D) and I can honestly say that of all the Cameras that I have owned over years, nothing takes picture like my Nikons have as long as I have looked after and maintained them. Digital is here to stay and unfortunately for some nay sayers it still requires lots of thought and a good sense of composition. Digital doesn't produce camera pointers, but rather more competent and better photographers. Any one who doesn't realize or doesn't want to admit this shoud take their head out of the sand, look around, smell the coffee, come to their senses and realize that See my Photo "NiteOntPlace159.jpg' which was taken with my D-100 Nikon at 9:00 PM when it was pitch black. The image is slightly fuzzy because it was so dark I could not focus. The image was simply bightened and slightly contrasted and printed. Lets see you do that with your Canon. Digital is definately here to stay. Sorry Wayne - Allan W.

8/21/2003 9:48:58 AM

 
Dennis  Rogers

member since: 7/22/2003
  It was mentioned about the life of digtial cameras maybe being 2-3 years of life. Well Computers are said to have a service life of 5 years or less, but I still know of many people using computers 8-9 years old and still going.

So it's possible your digtial camera will last longer then 2-3 years, maybe not the cheaper ones, which use cheap parts, but the dearer ones should.

There is a saying you only get what you pay for, and want something to last you have to pay the money.

Also Film cameras still also break down and attract dust and grime, springs etc wear out, and the modern 35mm camera will not last much longer then a digtial camera as many of these are made cheap also.

So if you don't want to replace your computer, and it becomes 10 years old and still going, same as your digtial camera then fine.

The thing is not the camera breaking down, but the techology and computers changing fast, which makes your camera and software out of date, forcing you to keep your old computer to to be able to use the camera and software.

Change your computer and if you have a really good camera the software may not work on your new computer.

So if you change your operating system, or hardware you have to make sure it's compatiable with your camera else you will be forced to throw it away.

8/21/2003 1:52:16 PM

 
Darron Fenton

member since: 8/22/2003
  What about slides? Nothing beats viewing your best work lit up on the big screen. I may be wrong, but I don't think Digital's are able to produce colour transparencies. Film is here to stay for a long while yet.

8/22/2003 12:19:21 AM

 
Dennis  Rogers

member since: 7/22/2003
  Well if you like the big screen and rich then I guess you can use an LCD projector and can then project your Digtial photos on a big screen, so don't need slides for Digtial photo because you can project them as I said above.

8/22/2003 1:45:14 AM

 
Buddy Purugganan

member since: 8/31/2002
  Its like looking at the classic Volkswagen and then looking at their latest design 'new century' prototype. Digital may have flooded the photography world but the 35mm remains and hard core pros will stick to their FM2N fully manual arsenal than get low batts with their 10 gazillion pixel digital cams in the harshest or extreme conditions! Digital has its advantages which may surpass Film in some aspects but will they make digital cams that can endure sub--zero climates? Can digital cams go through rain forests, Sahara desert dehydrated weather or high altitudes of the Himalayas??? Think again digital aficionados! A Nikon FM2N can survive such cases! Can a digital cam do the same? I rest my case.....

11/22/2003 10:55:28 PM

 
Darron Fenton

member since: 8/22/2003
  A friend of mine purchased an expensive digital job. He was showing off his photos when I showed some of my work on colour transparencies. Everyone remarked at how jewel like and real the images were, with some people commenting that they felt as if they could walk in and touch the subject. A lot of people donít yet realise that a colour slide is equivalent to 24 m/pixels, along way for digital to go yet. Besides, colour slide film has the light from the original subject forever etched on its surface, a lot closer to the real thing then 1ís & 0ís made to look like a photo. So when I look at slides of my dear old Grandmother long since passed, I know I am looking at the light of her person not a computer file. I know digital is screaming along, I only hope the magic of film is not lost in all the hype.

11/27/2003 6:26:17 PM

 
Steven Butterworth

member since: 8/24/2004
  Film will die - but VERY slowly. When I visit my camera shop locally they still have on their shelves Minox film/110 film/Black and White.

Now if the price of Digital projectors came down AND spare bulbs for them - the speed of film to die may well be hastened.

However one example Projector 4,599 Swiss Francs - spare bulb 890 Swiss Francs!

Until those prices change especially for the spare bulbs, then film will live for ages!

9/1/2004 9:59:15 AM

 
Lindsey M. Lyons

member since: 11/28/2004
  I think that by taking away film we take away the second form of photography art, ....the development. I love to develop my own pics and watch the blank piece of paper magically form to something amazing.
NO WAY can digital compare to film.

11/28/2004 8:31:44 PM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member
gregorylagrange.org

member since: 11/11/2003
  Digital's already in rain forest and deserts(Iraq anyone). It's also already in galleries.
If digital was intended for newspapers(as if that has to do with anything), what was film originally intended for? Sure wasn't for mom and dad to carry around on vacation.
Light of the original subject? That's a chemical reaction, which is the exchange of electrons, so not seeing any higher purity in it.
Since film started in another century and digital is recent, what digital can or can't do is a skewed approach to the argument. A lot of things were thought to be as good as it's gonna get.
Things change, you change with them. Nobody here can say for sure how much film is going to be around. It fading away isn't a far fetch possibility, it faded away for the movie industry. That's analogous to what could happen with still cameras.
Platinum palladium prints became scarce.

And what exactly is this hard core stuff?

11/29/2004 4:40:59 AM

 
Roman E. Johnston

member since: 3/26/2003
  Well.....this thread was started years ago. Now were seeing companys like Nikon removing all but their top of the line Film bodys and a direct statment to the world that film is on its way out. Medium Format comanys offer digital backs for their cameras. If enough convert to digital to the point that film is not profitable....it is possable that film might not survive...or become a very expensive niche business.

Any other thoughts?

1/20/2006 6:41:26 AM

 
Kip T. Berger
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 2/20/2002
  I'd rather have both the option of film & digital...but feel the demise of film is already set. Film manufacturers are losing their percentage to the digital market and I think will eventually succumb. Camera manufacturers are spending more now on digital R&D , while discontinuing 35mm lines. Even with music, we see similar premonitions of the digital format replacing the cd.
Anyone want to buy a Canon Eos 1V-HS ? I'm feeling like the camera will last longer than the availability of film for it. Regardless of the "format" outcome, we as photographers & artists will continue to adapt and try to capture the moment.

1/20/2006 9:29:46 AM

 
George Anderson

member since: 7/6/2005
  "Well if you like the big screen and rich then I guess you can use an LCD projector and can then project your Digtial photos on a big screen, so don't need slides for Digtial photo because you can project them as I said above."

Only if you don't care about the projected photo quality. A $40 35mm Braun with a Rodenstock lens, or $300 Leitz projector with a Super Colorplan lens, or a $200 Kodak Ektagraphic with a Navitar/Buehl lens will optically outperform away any digital projector made by a considerable margin. Medium format projected film is even better.

Digital is fine if you like that. But let's not get carried away in a rush to the bottom rung of photo quality while we are busily defending our preferences/prejudices. With the number of firms going out of the camera business these days, we're going to need all the digital- and film-based photo equipment competition we can get
to get manufacturers to produce a quality product that raises the bar, not lowers it.

1/20/2006 10:37:55 AM

 
Carolyn  M. Fletcher
BetterPhoto Member
Contact Carolyn
Carolyn 's Gallery
PickYourShots.com

member since: 10/6/2001
  I don't know how true this may be, but I have read that many professional photographers are going digital. I guess to each his or her own, and whatever flips your bippy. It's all beautiful and I love to look at all shots no matter what they were done with.

1/20/2006 11:17:54 AM

 
Steve Sandefer

member since: 2/26/2006
  I think it is possible that digital will take the forefront in photography. However, there will always be diehard film users. I have shot weddings, portraits, senior pictures, little league, and have always used a film slr and a medium format camera for that use. It is difficult to change, however, as amazing as film shooting can be, digital shooting is so much fun....immediate feedback....manipulating your own images, etc. Digital shooting takes practice just as learning a 35mm or whatever camera you use does. Digital has kicked the pants off the value of previously purchased film cameras. I own a Minolta 9xi that is a true workhorse and a great film camera. With the lens and camera my investment about 6 or 7 years ago was $1500-2000. The camera is now valued (book) at about $250. Think I would sell it for that...heck no! I still love it, but I truly think it is going to take a back seat to my shooting with my digital slr.

3/19/2006 2:30:42 PM

 

To participate in the Forum, become a BetterPhoto member or Sign In.
 

Copyright © 1996-2014 BetterPhoto.com, Inc.ģ All Rights Reserved.