# Is film photography dead?



## Actor (Dec 17, 2009)




----------



## bhop (Dec 17, 2009)

Just hungry..


----------



## CupCakeCommando (Dec 17, 2009)

lol that was funny. i dont think film photography will ever be dead. i think if its used it will be for artistic purposes. imo. i myself would like to learn film photography and plan on buying a film camera sooner or later


----------



## Valethar (Dec 18, 2009)

Probably not. I remember reading something not too long ago about Polaroid bringing back the 600 series, after having canned it years ago.

I still see a brisk business in film developing at places like Costco, etc... when I'm there, which leads me to think it's still doing well, despite the digital revolution.


----------



## T-town photographer (Dec 18, 2009)

I shoot 95 percent film.  I may be old schoold but this is what I do.

Michael


----------



## RancerDS (Dec 20, 2009)

Cute little video.

As to film being dead or not, had gotten back into it myself.  Living in a small town of 8,000 people.  Our new Walgreen's has been doing a pretty fair amount of business with their 1-hour photo.

My first roll of film was processed on Order #xx8089 (last 4 digits of the 6) around the first of November.  My last order number was #xx8819 just a few days ago.  That's probably about 1500 orders in the month and a half time span.  Bear in mind that it is the holiday season.  And that those orders could be for a handful of prints, for single enlargments, etc.  So it is not a good measure of film rolls processed; especially since prints from digital files are included in those.  But our local Walmart has a lab as well, not to mention the kiosks that automatically print out your 4"x6"'s.

I'm not going to speculate that film is going to make a comeback with a booming digital camera market ongoing.  And all digital cameras seem to retain their value very well for being an item in the electronics sector.  So you'll have to continue speculating if film is dead or not.

Just noticed another Okie on this site.  Wow!


----------



## IgsEMT (Dec 20, 2009)

Didn't see the clip, but film is classic and will not disappear. I'm actually intending on buying either 35mm or rather getting back into medium format. Its ironic b/c about 5 yrs ago I was looking towards digital and now I'm looking to supplement it with film 

Plus I'm a bit irritated at how photography art form is devalued nowadays where many ppl just see it as snap, snap snap. Film I think will resurect the art, at least with photo freaks who I associated with


----------



## mostly sunny (Dec 20, 2009)

Our walmart doesn't have a lab.  All film is sent out.  

I do have a 35mm camera- but never use it.  Nor, do I want to. Then again, I am just a Mom who like to take pictures of my kids. So I like to know if I have a good shot right away.  I have one kid that blinks in almost ALL photos.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Dec 20, 2009)

Will keep my DSLR for now but I'm glad I haven't sold my 35mm gear yet and I'm looking for an 8x10 camera right now.

From talking to a couple galleries recently collectors have a serious problem with digital prints and digital photography in general. For those who don't know, photography had a hell of a time getting accepted as an art worthy of collectors and museum for a long time. As it is, except for a rare few, photographers sell their work for a fraction of what painters get. I don't see digital helping the cause at all and that means that film will be wanted for a long time to come.

Film is often compared to vinyl records by people who think it is dead but the problem with that is the fact that vinyl sales are up... while CD sales are down.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Dec 20, 2009)

By the way, today's vinyl albums are better quality than yesterday's. Maybe we will get better film in a few years, lol.


----------



## Battou (Dec 20, 2009)

full size


----------



## Battou (Dec 20, 2009)

mostly sunny said:


> Our walmart doesn't have a lab.  All film is sent out.



Our Wal mart is the same way. They tried telling me to go to right aid if I wanted my film done in house......Heh, my reply left a handful of people with some rather interesting looks on their faces. I was not about to do that.


----------



## IgsEMT (Dec 20, 2009)

> Our Wal mart is the same way. They tried telling me to go to right aid if I wanted my film done in house......Heh, my reply left a handful of people with some rather interesting looks on their faces. I was not about to do that.


If you need a lab, I'd gladly recommend you mine.


----------



## Battou (Dec 20, 2009)

IgsEMT said:


> > Our Wal mart is the same way. They tried telling me to go to right aid if I wanted my film done in house......Heh, my reply left a handful of people with some rather interesting looks on their faces. I was not about to do that.
> 
> 
> If you need a lab, I'd gladly recommend you mine.



Do they process Negative Only?


----------



## taskoni (Dec 21, 2009)

I hope is not quiet dead yet... Just bought 35mm camera


----------



## IgsEMT (Dec 21, 2009)

> Quote: Originally Posted by *IgsEMT*
> 
> 
> _   		 			 	Quote:
> ...



The guy does everything from film to binding to delivering albums.


----------



## jbylake (Dec 21, 2009)

Have a film/photo/picture mounting/digital etc..etc..right around the corner from my house. About 1 mile or so, I guess. Had been sending my film to Cincy to be processed, then found out these people have been there, all this time.

Their primary sales is in digital camera's, of course, plus photo printing and mounting. I had about a 1/2 hour conversation with them about film. They said, that, suprisingly, film processing, or that portion of their business is steadily growing again, after nearly falling off to nothing. I just have them develop slides and neg's and then scan them onto my PC.

No shortage of film in this area, I just bought a boat load, and you can get it all over the internet.

The good thing is, that if you are really interested in film, now is the time to jump on it. 35mm's in perfect to mint condition, and lenses are relatively cheap, in fact compared to what they origionally sold for, dirt cheap. The down side of that is, if you're wanting to off load your film equipment, you're not going to get much for it, depending on what it is.

Most of the customers that this shop deals with, that are doing film, are either the over 50 crowd, and suprisingly, the younger crowd. These (the younger) are people who "grew up" with digital, and never used a film camera. Many of them are enrolling in photography classes, just to learn film, and processing.

So for now, I vote "no", film is not dead...it'll probably never be what it used to be, in fact I'm pretty sure of that, but it's on an upswing, for now. BTW, I have 4 bodies, a bunch of lenses, and all the associated goodies. I don't even own a digital camera except for a point 'n shoot, that I use around the shop to take quick pictures for our website. I'm probably going to break down and buy one next year, just for the "convienience" of it, though.  Not sure I'm looking forward to the learning curve, though.

J.:mrgreen:


----------



## J.Kendall (Dec 21, 2009)

Film will never die! thats basically all I shoot at all. It teaches you a lot about photography. A lot.


----------



## Battou (Dec 21, 2009)

IgsEMT said:


> > Quote: Originally Posted by *IgsEMT*
> >
> >
> > _   		 			 	Quote:
> ...



Got a website link?....Do I need to drop a name or anything?


----------



## robdavis305 (Dec 21, 2009)

Ask Nikon if film is dead. A Nikon F6 film camera will cost you over 2 grand.


----------



## rallysman (Dec 21, 2009)

Film wont die because some people are reluctant to change and others are rebels.


----------



## DennyCrane (Dec 21, 2009)

Formats come and go. Extending the music analogy, reel to reel is dead. 8-track is dead. Cassette is dead. Vinyl is virtually dead. Is it increasing? Yes. Are CDs decreasing? Yes. Vinyl still has less than a 1% market share. CDs are almost dead. It's all downloads now.
 Film will linger on for nature photography and pro landscapes for awhile, but consumer use is about gone. Hobbyists won't keep a format alive... at least anywhere near where it was 10-20 years ago. As sensors and camera processors continue to evolve, the argument for film will eventually fizzle out. It'll become a novelty along with a Desoto, an icebox, and a crystal radio.


that said, I still have all my vinyl records and I just fitted an old Yashica 35mm camera to accept my Canon's filters.


----------



## skieur (Dec 21, 2009)

If film is not dead yet, it is certainly dying.  At one point the quality of film was still better but now with a digital camera you can take a photo of what you cannot even see, in the dark.  Full frame 24megapixel digital cameras have hit $2,000 and will probably still go down further.

Medium format has been invaded by the 50 megapixel Hasselblad and large format by the ultra high resolution Red.  Improvements in chip technology will bring the prices down as well.

skieur


----------



## Valethar (Dec 23, 2009)

rallysman said:


> and others are rebels.



That must be the Canon crowd. Or would that be 'using Rebels'? 

Ok, bad pun..  crawling back into my cage again...


----------



## RauschPhotography (Dec 23, 2009)

Based on the fact my 35mm has been sitting on my dresser motionless for the last year and a half....Yes.


----------



## compur (Dec 23, 2009)

I've been going to cameras shows (which are mostly film-oriented) regularly 
in the L.A. area for many years.

I've watched the interest and turnout for these shows dwindle steadily
to a very low point last year, 2008.  But, this year there has been a 
resurgence and the shows are definitely increasing in popularity and
attendance.  One show had cut its schedule down to every-other month
but has now reinstated the monthly shows due to recent increased 
popularity.

Lots of younger people now are attending these shows rather than just the
usual older crowd and some of them are pretty savvy too about older film 
equipment.  Recently I talked with one young art student at a camera 
show who only uses Pentax 110 SLRs for her photo art.  She actually cuts 
her own 110 format film and reloads 110 cassettes to do this!


----------



## RauschPhotography (Dec 23, 2009)

Valethar said:


> rallysman said:
> 
> 
> > and others are rebels.
> ...



Ha. I laughed at this one, not going to lie.


----------



## MoeRoadKill (Dec 24, 2009)

My mum still uses her film camera, I know how to use one but its not very practical where we live because no one develops the film.:thumbdown:


----------



## sinjans (Dec 24, 2009)

:meh:

I beleive it is dying. I have my Elan 7e sitting in the pelican case and i fear she will not see a flicker of light for a long time. Maybe ill shoot a roll when i get my L glass but if someone offers shes a gonner. I find its just something that i do not need to use anymore. Its like fishing with a hand line when there is a perfectly good fishing rod in the bag.


----------



## jbylake (Dec 24, 2009)

I'll believe film is dead, when I see "*FILM IS DEAD*" on the Cover of Times Magazine. For you younger generation that don't get the analogy, you'll just have to google it.

J:mrgreen:


----------



## DennyCrane (Dec 24, 2009)

Heh, I got it.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Dec 24, 2009)

Because there are very few artists here I think the main point is totally lost.

Yes, film photography is dead as far as the commercial/retail/consumer markets are concerned. There is no good reason to use film in those markets. Turn in a transparency to a magazine and they will most probably never call you again for a job.

No, film photography is not dead in the art photo world. And it will probably make a comeback with the artsy younger generation when they realize that the galleries are not interested in showing digital prints.

The reason is fairly simple. I know I keep repeating myself but art photography had a hell of a time getting accepted as an art form by collectors. It eventually did get accepted but it was the rare photographer who was getting serious money for his prints. When I switched to painting, my income went way up very quickly. Like it or not, that is a fact of life.

With digital, we're back at zero and, tbh, I don't know that collectors will ever take digital prints seriously. So, no, film is not dead. And it will be the same kind of people who kept vinyl alive (in the world of music) that will keep film photo alive. The lovers of... Not the merchants.

Because the merchants/artists ratio here is probably 1000/1, that point is kinda lost.


----------



## compur (Dec 24, 2009)

Those who think the measure of a photograph is how many dots it contains 
or how "high tech" the equipment used to produce it will never understand 
the continuing appeal of film.


----------



## DennyCrane (Dec 24, 2009)

And the opposite is true, of course... the fact that it's done with technology does not in any way take away from the artistic ability of the person pressing the shutter.


----------



## William Petruzzo (Dec 24, 2009)

Perhaps for commercial purposes. But people still paint, even though there are photographic methods of capturing a subject.


----------



## Jordaan (Dec 30, 2009)

Honestly, for me, film will be dead when no one makes the actual film rolls and absolutely no one will develop it, basically when it's 100% gone from the world. THAT is when it's dead.

So it did "die" from the everyday thing, such as getting 620 film and 8mm at the store, but it's still very much alive for as mentioned above the artistic crowd and hobbyist such as myself. I like film more than digital but I can't deny the quickness of digital where you just snap and go, no reloading and unloading. Pretty much, I agree with compur and c.cloudwalker 100%. Film is only dead to the people who really believe it's "dead".


----------



## Shockey (Dec 30, 2009)

Film is not dead. It is getting harder and harder to find labs that will do a good job of developing it. 
Black and white portraits and wedding photography still see quite a few people using film.


----------



## jbylake (Dec 30, 2009)

Shockey said:


> Film is not dead. It is getting harder and harder to find labs that will do a good job of developing it.
> Black and white portraits and wedding photography still see quite a few people using film.


 
I don't exactly live in a "metropolitan" area, but there are at least 2 local labs that do great work for film, where I live.  If you "google" labs, there are loads and loads of them in the U.S. that do very good work.  Developing your own neg's and then scanning them is not only easy, but another great option.

I keep hearing this "lack of lab's" concern, voiced very often, and am just not seeing it.  Obviously there will never be as many as in the "good ol' days", but there are enough, that any serious film shooter can get great lab work.  Many pros's are still doing their own darkroom work, start to finish.  I know that this is not always convienent, as my current flat doesn't have a good place to do this, thus I go about a mile from my place, drop my film off to Robin's photo, pick it up, and scan the photo's I want to keep.

J.:mrgreen:


----------



## King Riffle (Dec 30, 2009)

No, not yet. I live in a city, yet we get many people from the hundreds of rural communities around here coming to get film developed at the shops here. Many of them (and many people here too) don't have computers, so digital is kind of useless (especially with film cameras so cheap in comparison). They'll keep it going for a while. 

I use various film cameras (though mostly a Yashica TL-Electro). I like the fact that it makes you work harder. With film you get few chances to get the shot right (as opposed to digital where you can just "machine gun" it until you get one that looks good). It's an odd kind of fun. I have even looked into purchasing a newer film SLR.  

That said, it's also a giant pita. It's expensive to do and you have to drop it off at the store and wait. Then you have to hope that they do it correctly. 

It has its pros and cons. I think it'll be at least a few years before it truly becomes a niche though. Perhaps when they come up with a disposable digital camera for around $10 that can take halfway decent shots.


----------



## JustForSneaks07 (Dec 31, 2009)

Kodachrome is dead


----------



## Battou (Dec 31, 2009)

All my film is dead....cuz I shot it 


I guess I should pick some at the store huh.


----------



## xjken99 (Jan 1, 2010)

I like to think it is not dead or will die any time soon.  I recently retired and I now actually have some time to get out there and shoot.  I have a few Canon manual focus slr's that I recently cleaned up and used for the first time in probably ten years.  They still work great and in fact I recently shot my first roll of black and white.  I hope there will be a resurgence in film but, I kinda doubt it, especially since the ease and cost of digital will only improve.  It is kind of ironic because it was my use of a simple Kodak point and shoot digital that actually rekindled my interest in film photography.


----------



## ann (Jan 1, 2010)

there is some resurgence in film. 

Several vendors i do business tell me that film sales are up.

My darkroom classes are busy and in fact every summer i offer a teenage workshop for traditional darkroom work and for the past several years there has been a waiting list. These teenagers have grown up with computers and the digital age and they are bored and find the darkroom magical, which some of us already know.:thumbup:


----------



## Photochick (Jan 1, 2010)

No, It is not dead.  I am a full time photographer with a store front studio and I shoot 100% film.  My clients love the fact that I shoot film and I have no intention of changing to digital anytime soon.  I have no problems finding film or having it professionally processed.


----------



## T-town photographer (Jan 1, 2010)

Photochick said:


> No, It is not dead. I am a full time photographer with a store front studio and I shoot 100% film. My clients love the fact that I shoot film and I have no intention of changing to digital anytime soon. I have no problems finding film or having it professionally processed.


 
I am loving the fact that film is not dead.  I take the digital with me to get a couple of ideas before I shoot it with film.  As long as I can help make it so film is not dead.

It is great to see another photographer from Tulsa on here.  Where is your studio at??

Michael


----------



## CSR Studio (Jan 2, 2010)

I completely disagree with the ones saying that film is dead in commercial applications. That is just plain incorrect. There are quite a few major magazines that expect a 4x5 trans and wouldn't want a digital image. It all depends on what area of photography you are working in. Film is not dead and probably will never die. I still shoot quite a bit of film, all large format.


----------



## jbylake (Jan 3, 2010)

CSR Studio said:


> I completely disagree with the ones saying that film is dead in commercial applications. That is just plain incorrect. There are quite a few major magazines that expect a 4x5 trans and wouldn't want a digital image. It all depends on what area of photography you are working in. Film is not dead and probably will never die. I still shoot quite a bit of film, all large format.


This thread pop's up, someone usually squeal's something about Kodachrome, it dies (the thread) and comes back to life at a later time.

Not really sure why...

J.


----------



## alex3D (Jan 4, 2010)

After being into photography for almost 35 years, I remember the days when I was fed up with the high cost of film photography and welcomed big time the digital photography age... Well, after owning I do not how many digital cameras thru my life, I am now becoming more and more involved in film photography once again!!!... It all started when I bought off eBay a very old Minolta APS film scanner for $10. Putting thru an old Kodak APS negative roll to test it, woke me up. Wow... I could not believe my eyes, the 'magic' of film -even with this limited size negative scans, made me wonder how great it would look if 35mm or even 120 film was used... I have now ordered tons of new film cameras to restart my film shooting all over again... they are so cheap everywhere that  it is sometimes hard to believe the prices they go for now... To my surprise, the scans I made from these old APS negative film I took many years ago while on vacation, came out incredible even when I played those scanned images in my 65 inch HDTV monitor. Hopefully if not Kodak, some other smaller companies around the world would continue making films for people like me that have re-discovered the 'magic' of film photography.


----------



## Battou (Jan 4, 2010)

jbylake said:


> CSR Studio said:
> 
> 
> > I completely disagree with the ones saying that film is dead in commercial applications. That is just plain incorrect. There are quite a few major magazines that expect a 4x5 trans and wouldn't want a digital image. It all depends on what area of photography you are working in. Film is not dead and probably will never die. I still shoot quite a bit of film, all large format.
> ...



...perhaps it's a sign.



Kodochrome dies...then it comes back to life at a later time....maybe


----------



## Mulewings~ (Jan 4, 2010)

I have 3 film cameras and still use them.  Processing options are very limited in my rural area.

Film is very much alive!


----------



## RancerDS (Jan 22, 2010)

Exactly one month to the day, processed a roll of film... Order #xx9521.  Looks like it's increasing marginally.


----------



## Sbuxo (Jan 22, 2010)

Definitely not. Lots of magazine photographers use film, but usually medium-format for better quality when enlarging


----------



## TexasJeff (Jan 27, 2010)

My local community college has shut its darkroom down entirely and only teaches digital now. The photography professors there are old school film shooters who emphasize good composition, proper exposure and so forth.
Point being I am sure they did not want this to happen and it was likely due to financial reasons more than anything.
I am happy I have an intimate working knowledge of film photography and I hope to put it to use once again. Darkroom work is dirty, expensive and time consuming. Film can be a hassle to use in the field. Digital images can be sent around the world literally seconds after they are captured. There are arguments for both side but I am predicting that the expense and environmental concerns associated with chemical processes will be films eventual downfall. It is only a matter of time before digital is as capable as film in every way.


----------



## ann (Jan 27, 2010)

and attendence in my darkroom classes continue to grow.

photography is expensive regardless , you think film and paper is expensive; have to been doing any inkjet printing and then there is the constant upgrading of software.


----------



## TexasJeff (Jan 28, 2010)

I know it is Ann I didn't mean to offend.
I am actually planning on setting up a small darkroom this year as I have the time a cash to do it. I have dreamed of having one in my home for years.
Rather exciting really. Or am I just a glutton for punishment? At any rate I have enough negatives to keep me busy for a year even if I don't shoot another roll.
In spite of my and others passion I still feel like film is doomed to die a slow death. If I am wrong I will happily eat my words!


----------



## addaminsane (Jan 29, 2010)

film photography is to fun to die!


----------



## thoughtcryme (Feb 5, 2010)

IMO, film will only die if there's a comparable replacement for it.
If digital eventually achieves film resolution, affordably, then film should start worrying.


----------



## basujanha2610 (Feb 6, 2010)

lolz!

No this is very young to fight with the oldest one!:lmao:


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Feb 6, 2010)

CSR Studio said:


> I completely disagree with the ones saying that film is dead in commercial applications. That is just plain incorrect. There are quite a few major magazines that expect a 4x5 trans and wouldn't want a digital image. It all depends on what area of photography you are working in. Film is not dead and probably will never die. I still shoot quite a bit of film, all large format.



In another thread you claimed to shoot film for weddings. Are you shooting weddings in large format?


----------



## skieur (Feb 6, 2010)

thoughtcryme said:


> IMO, film will only die if there's a comparable replacement for it.
> If digital eventually achieves film resolution, affordably, then film should start worrying.


 
Then I guess you should start worrying because digital has passed film resolution.

skieur


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Feb 6, 2010)

skieur said:


> thoughtcryme said:
> 
> 
> > IMO, film will only die if there's a comparable replacement for it.
> ...



Really?


----------



## TheGenericusername (Feb 6, 2010)

film is dead, wanna know why? cause camera companies arent running ads for them on tv or in internet flash ads..also film is way less functional than digital...i used to be a film die hard but now ive been changed


----------



## tran_ng (Feb 6, 2010)

I really don't know what will happen to film photography but i hope it will stay because it's an other side of the Art of photography. Shooting films gives you different feeling and a different approach. When you shoot film you have to assume what you do wich can make you progress a lot. Maybe not the best to perfect the technical side but if you want to be a better photographer, you have to progress in every aspect of the art. If film dissapear, it won't be evolution, it would be destruction.
Films will not stay because they have better image quality than digital...it's so much more than image quality itself...it's kinda indescriptible. So stop saying I have a 24 MP camera...it's just not what we're fighting for.(At least for me) 
I have a digital camera and i mostly shoot with it but I'm learning so much from my good old film camera. It's one of the best way to perfect your artistical approach, something we frogot to oftenly.


----------



## DennyCrane (Feb 7, 2010)

There's nothing more "artistic" to film than digital. That's like a painter saying acrylic is more artistic than water colors. Art is something that can be achieved in any medium.


----------



## tran_ng (Feb 7, 2010)

Yeah but it's an other tool with different aspects. I'm not sayin digital is not artistic...they're both photography but with new tool you can acheive new things and some people juste have more ease with different tools. How bad would be for painting if we'd take off either waters colors or acrylic.
I hope film will stay


----------



## skieur (Feb 7, 2010)

CSR Studio said:


> I completely disagree with the ones saying that film is dead in commercial applications. That is just plain incorrect. There are quite a few major magazines that expect a 4x5 trans and wouldn't want a digital image. It all depends on what area of photography you are working in. Film is not dead and probably will never die. I still shoot quite a bit of film, all large format.


 
I suppose it depends on the term "major magazines" but I find that a lot prefer digital.  The ones that are really picky about quality will certainly accept 24mp full frame, medium format digital or large format digital.  There are also of course, some magazines that don't want to pay for digital medium or large format quality and asking for 4X5 trans is a way of keeping costs down.

skieur


----------



## dxqcanada (Feb 7, 2010)

Film will only die once the Motion Picture and Medical industry stop using it.

Standard camera film may live on but probably supported by smaller companies such as Ilford or Fotokemika.


----------



## Retro_10s (Feb 8, 2010)

Film is far from dead - Lots of people using film, lots of people Whooping DSLR butt with  it too - the reverse of this is also true.

I'm not digital hater (infact i've been looking at D40's for a while) but I have lost count of the amount of people I know that have moved to DSLR because it's shiny and convenient, only to come back to film because It's cheaper, less expensive to fix should it go wrong, and the most important thing - they ENJOY it more. I love film, and the closest i come to digital now is a quick snap with my phone.

I get stopped by people in the street when I'm using my Canon AV-1 to talk about it, saying it's a lovely looking thing, and they used to have one etc etc... not so with digital.

There is NOTHING quite like waiting for those photos to develop in front of you, or picking them up from the developing shop. Certainly more fun than staring at a USB cable.

Long live film, If it was dead - people wouldn't use it, sell it, love it and preserve it. But they do, and 'lo, it's still here.  peace.


----------



## Actor (Feb 8, 2010)

dxqcanada said:


> Film will only die once the Motion Picture and Medical industry stop using it.


Quite a few movies are originated 100% digital and are printed on film only because some exhibitors don't yet have digital projectors.  This is particularly true of movies that use a lot of CGI.  I don't have any figures but I bet more that half the movies produced world wide are 100% digital origination.

As for the medicals, all the x-rays taken of me in recent years have been digital.  A major impetus here is that getting the picture to the doc quickly can be a life or death matter.


----------



## PJL (Feb 28, 2010)

I'm a pure novice, but I love shooting film.  There's just something about looking at a negative-produced print to me that's more appealing than looking at shots on a computer screen.  That being said, I'm not anti-digital.  I hope to one day drop $2,300 on a Nikon D700 (or its equivalent); until then, I'll keep taking shots with the Elan 7 I picked up with a battery pack in like new condition for $75.


----------



## djacobox372 (Mar 1, 2010)

skieur said:


> thoughtcryme said:
> 
> 
> > IMO, film will only die if there's a comparable replacement for it.
> ...


'

True, but unfortunately they can't figure out how to make digital work well small format. Slightly higher resolution doesn't matter when your sensors are so tiny.


----------



## skieur (Mar 1, 2010)

djacobox372 said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > thoughtcryme said:
> ...


 
Sorry, but I am not getting your point. What do you mean "they can't figure out how to make digital work well small format"? Slightly higher resolution may be true at 10 megapixels but at 24mp. and 37mp. it is much more than SLIGHTLY higher resolution.  It is even considerably more with the large 12mp chips, labelled as ultra high resolution in medium format.

skieur


----------



## compur (Mar 1, 2010)

And, another pixel war is underway.


----------



## skieur (Mar 1, 2010)

compur said:


> And, another pixel war is underway.


 
Pixels equate to resolution.  If you want to talk resolution instead then it is 2,000 to 3,000 lines.

skieur


----------



## compur (Mar 1, 2010)

See what I mean?


----------



## UUilliam (Mar 1, 2010)

photography used to be a science, combined of Chemistry, Physics and maths, now...
If you say to someone now "I take photographs for a living"

I bet their reaction will be "Uhm.. I can take photographs..."
but hand them a camera and ask them to take a CREATIVE photograph and they will probably struggle
but most people can take a "photograph" by simply setting the camera to an auto mode, it is quite sad, kind of like when EVERYONE decided to love and over play a song you like...

Not thatI  have ever developed film, I have currently 3 images in my film camera out of 36, once I use up the next 33 I hope to use a darkroom (college) to develop my own image, I would prefer to be more involved with my photography.


----------



## terri (Mar 1, 2010)

Ain't gonna happen.    :mrgreen:   I thought this thread would be the first one of its genre to NOT get locked, but I see people only paused for breath.    

These threads lead nowhere - locked.


----------

