# Will film ever come back?



## Weaving Wax (Apr 28, 2007)

Film equipment is dirt cheap and a lot of people still do it, plus, new films are coming out. Digital (from my understanding) has been around for maybe the past 10 yrs and is still fairly new. My question is, do you think that once digital has been around a bit longer people might go back to film? Like...not exclusively or that people will stop using digital, but that maybe after a bit that the film market will pick back up? Like maybe you won't see so many people giving away film gear for dirt cheap. 

I mean this as a friendly discussion, not a film vs. digital debate...


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Apr 28, 2007)

No. Digital has too much potential.


----------



## Silverpenguin (Apr 28, 2007)

Film is too expensive and the results take too long to be seen, I think those two reasons are enough to see that film doesn not make a come back for the average consumer. I only became interested in photography in recent years and only had a film camera for about a year so I unfortunately don't appreciate 'the good old days'.


----------



## panocho (Apr 28, 2007)

No need to wait a bit longer: some have already done it -and "confessed" here

then "the market" as such (i.e. a majority of people), I would really doubt so. But on the other hand, I definitely wouldn't be surprised seeing film equipment stop the continuous lowering of prices and start recovering a little. It is obvious that now it is the way it is because it's the moment when most of the people is moving to digital.

and finally, yes, nostalgia might easily attack many digital users after a while and make them long after some of their old cameras. not just coming back to film, though.

...and perhaps also the new and futures users, who never knew film, might also be interested in trying that?


----------



## Irminsul (Apr 28, 2007)

Weaving Wax said:


> ...My question is, do you think that once digital has been around a bit longer people might go back to film? Like...not exclusively or that people will stop using digital, but that maybe after a bit that the film market will pick back up? Like maybe you won't see so many people giving away film gear for dirt cheap...


 
I agree with the first reply in that digital has too much potential v. film.  Pretty soon, no doubt, we will be seeing marketing of more megapixels (16+), more (and cheaper) full frame sensors and such refinements as improved dynamic range in digital photography. But paradoxically, somehow I believe that film itself could, for a time, benefit from the development of digital technology, as the quality of scanned film will also improve.  But I don't see a full comeback for film, given the awesome potential of digital.  Don't get me wrong.  I shoot both a Canon EOS Elan 7ne and a Rebel XTi, and will probably continue to do so for some time.  But I believe the future holds much more in store for digital than for film, which still has a lot of sentimental value for me in this long transitional period.


----------



## dinodan (Apr 28, 2007)

I see a continuing niche for film, but not a widespread renaissance in the future. As previously pointed out, digital is just too darned convenient.

I do wonder if some of these film cameras that can currently be bought for dirt cheap prices might not start appreciating in value among the _cognoscenti_ in a few years.

After all, there are still a few people doing daguerrotypes!


----------



## xfloggingkylex (Apr 28, 2007)

It's really sad, once pentax releases their 645D for 4 figures (instead of 5 like the hasselblads) we will slowly begin to see digital creeping into all areas.  It is already dominating 35mm and medium format is slowly moving digital.

Also, companies are developing chips that utilize better dynamic range (fuji) and have less problems with dust (olympus being the only company at the moment to dented this problem in camera, I know pentax is working on a suction type dust reduction system that will basically be an internal blower bulb to remove dust).  with the rise of better dynamic range and the absense of dust, as well as advancements in noise eliminating processors, film will have little to no advantages over digital.

It's still a ways off but thats the way things are moving.


----------



## Alpha (Apr 28, 2007)

35mm may die a slow and painful death once Kodachrome goes.

MF and LF will be around forever.


----------



## Alex_B (Apr 28, 2007)

Weaving Wax said:


> Film equipment is dirt cheap and a lot of people still do it, plus, new films are coming out. Digital (from my understanding) has been around for maybe the past 10 yrs and is still fairly new. My question is, do you think that once digital has been around a bit longer people might go back to film? Like...not exclusively or that people will stop using digital, but that maybe after a bit that the film market will pick back up? Like maybe you won't see so many people giving away film gear for dirt cheap.
> 
> I mean this as a friendly discussion, not a film vs. digital debate...



Well, for bread and butter photography such as weddings, events, sports for papers and magazines, fashion, and all that it will be digital only. digital is getting cheaper and cheaper, agencies and magazines demand digital files.

In fine arts, film is not dead, and certainly will not die as it is an independent form of photographic art. people still paint oil on canvas even though there are pens in various colours available 

in that way however, film will be used for unique individual pieces of art, of which you do not produce too many per year and which might sell at high prices (if you are good). hence good film will be more expensive as it will become a specialists product. mass production will be purely digital.

This is about my view of the future, might be wrong though 

i still have film cameras and will not sell them  but I only use them for special things, not for "shootings" where hundreds of images are produced. So for me personally it has started already ...


----------



## blackdoglab (Apr 28, 2007)

> 35mm may die a slow and painful death once Kodachrome goes.


 
I doubt that 35mm will die.  On the contrary, I think digital equipment will advance so quickly and so often to the point where the "latest" cameras will become redundant in six months.  That's where computers have gone.  And what assurance do we have that operating systems will not change completely in the near future.  Your current digital files would become useless.  Negatives (especiall b&w) don't crash.  (granted some of your color will fade)  I think film will keep going because, well, it works.  As for costs, how much do you spend on ink and paper?  What about your printer and computer?  Lest we forget the planned obsolesence of many technologies we thought to be revolutionary, film will continue.  I want to make it clear, though, that I'm not against digital.  After all, I'm typing on a computer, and I do scan my negatives and create inkjet prints from them.  I will fight tooth and nail to keep film alive and kicking as I'm sure many other folks will.  Now is a great time to be a photographer.  We have the option of film, digital, and a combination thereof (i'm talking about scanning here).  Personally, I'm waiting for a camera with interchangable film and digital backs.  Until then, I'll stick with my setup because it works and works well.


----------



## Tangerini (Apr 28, 2007)

I find this an interesting discussion, I don't have anything of note to add, but it sounds like it might be a good time for me to start building my darkroom


----------



## Alex_B (Apr 28, 2007)

blackdoglab said:


> On the contrary, I think digital equipment will advance so quickly and so often to the point where the "latest" cameras will become redundant in six months.  That's where computers have gone.



My computers usually last 4 to 5 years. still today ...



> And what assurance do we have that operating systems will not change completely in the near future.  Your current digital files would become useless.


They will change, and they always have. but with every change you have the chance to transfer your data into the new formats if necessary.

you are only in trouble if you try to do that 20 years after the changes ... then it might be hard to transfer / find a converter.

but if youu keep your archives alive, backup often, then you are on the safe side. an archive requires some effort to maintain.



> Negatives (especiall b&w) don't crash.  (granted some of your color will fade)  I think film will keep going because, well, it works.


Well, also keeping a film archive alive is not trivial and requires some effort. (temperature, humidity, ...) I already lost some of my film work which just hast degraded too much.



> As for costs, how much do you spend on ink and paper?


almost nothing, I only print what I want to see on my wall in large scale.



> What about your printer and computer?


much less than for my lenses ...



> Personally, I'm waiting for a camera with interchangable film and digital backs.


That is very common for medium format 

just had to comment 

btw, I like film


----------



## New Hampshire (Apr 28, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> MF and LF will be around forever.


If my friend has anything to say about it, this statement holds true.  My friend is a freelance Landscape photographer.  His "bread and butter" shots come from a Pentax 645.  We got to talking about digital backs and I asked if he would ever use one a) if he could afford one ($12000 is a bit much for almost ANYONE  ) or b) they got cheap enough you COULD afford one.  He gave me this look and replied "Noooo way will I ever shoot digital with my 645......that is staying film FOREVER."  As it is, he switched to a digital camera over his 35mm only because he had very little choice.  His workload pretty much dictated he needed near instant access to his work, thus the switch.  

Brian


----------



## blackdoglab (Apr 28, 2007)

O.K, those are some good points.  We don't know what the future will hold for photography.  Before I go, I just want to point out something.  I just acquired a load of negatives my grandma took about fifty years ago.  They had ben stored in their paper sleeves and then in a box which was filled with junk.  They still look great and have scanned well.  We also found a dozen slides an aunt shot on anscochrome.  These babies are only thirty years old but show no signs of fading.

Just like Mark Twain, the reports of the death of film have beenb greatly exaggerated.


----------



## Alex_B (Apr 28, 2007)

New Hampshire said:


> ($12000 is a bit much for almost ANYONE  )




i disagree, for many people running non-photography businesses, $12000 for one of the central pieces of equipment is pretty cheap. Often machinery needed for your business exceeds 100 000 USDs.

Many people need one or two cars for their business, that is well beyond $12000 per car ...!

Just for startup freelancers photographers it is unaffordable.


----------



## Alex_B (Apr 28, 2007)

blackdoglab said:


> They had ben stored in their paper sleeves and then in a box which was filled with junk.  They still look great and have scanned well.




I am just sitting in front of two boxes of slide film, both exposed about 10 years ago. both stored under the same conditions over those 10 years. one box looks horrible, even chips of the film emulsion falling off, whereas the oth box contains perfect film with perfect colours.

both AGFA.

A mistery to me ...


----------



## New Hampshire (Apr 28, 2007)

Alex_B said:


> Just for startup freelancers photographers it is unaffordable.


 
Actually he has been at it for over 15 years.  I think he has such a love for film that he refuses to go that way.  He really would still be shooting 35mm for all his other stuff (he just uses the MF for scenics) if not for the overwhelming need t go digital.

Brian


----------



## cosmonaut (Apr 28, 2007)

It's getting a quality scan of the negative that's the problem. The department stores are used to the disposable camera crowd and not the serious landscape photogs. Slide film is awesome but also expensive. 
Cosmo


----------



## Alex_B (Apr 28, 2007)

cosmonaut said:


> It's getting a quality scan of the negative that's the problem. The department stores are used to the disposable camera crowd and not the serious landscape photogs. Slide film is awesome but also expensive.
> Cosmo



well, the nikon scanners are affordable (cheaper than many digital cameras). 

of course you accumulate costs with each slide (personal experience  )


----------



## Weaving Wax (Apr 28, 2007)

Wow! 

Well, I'm not looking to get into photography professionally. So...for me, it doesn't really matter where the market goes, but I'm glad I'm getting all of this insight!


----------



## Torus34 (Apr 28, 2007)

I've never noticed that film has gone away.  I still work with the same b&w films and cameras I've used for years.  Have I missed something?


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Apr 28, 2007)

My film work is exclusively 4x5 in the studio. If it's small format, it's digital.


----------



## blackdoglab (Apr 28, 2007)

I've simmered down since last posting on this thread and have come to a few conclusions.
1. Film is alive and well, but is headed in a different direction.
2. Digital is here to stay, so let's all hold hands in a circle and sing some old Peter Paul and Mary songs.
3. Don't panic.  Digital doesn't make film obsolete and digital is another great tool at our disposal.
4. In the coming years, you will see some films disappear and new ones fill their place.
5. Digital will improve and prices are likely to come down.  This just means that you will have more options.
6. As photographers and consumers, we will be the ones to keep things going.  If enough people demand it, the producers will respond.
7. Hey, they're just tools.  Relax and have fun.

8. Let's have a Nikon vs. Canon vs. Pentax debate.  We'll meet at the saloon and have a shootout at high noon.


----------



## terri (Apr 28, 2007)

:raises hand meekly to state: 

I'll never "go digital". It's boring to me. Thank goodness I don't have to rely on getting shots fast for my income. 

Film photography has always seemed a happy marriage of art and science. I love it that way. (I appreciate that I can afford to love it that way, because it's not overwhelmingly just about the speed with which to get results back to clients that drives the bus.) :cheer:


----------



## nealjpage (Apr 29, 2007)

terri said:


> :raises hand meekly to state:
> 
> I'll never "go digital". It's boring to me. Thank goodness I don't have to rely on getting shots fast for my income.
> 
> Film photography has always seemed a happy marriage of art and science. I love it that way. (I appreciate that I can afford to love it that way, because it's not overwhelmingly just about the speed with which to get results back to clients that drives the bus.) :cheer:



I like the cut of your jib, Terri.  I was at a concert tonight and watched a photographer shoot hundreds of pictures, looking at each one.  Instant gratification is one thing, but he was using his camera the same way a commercial fisherman uses a net to catch fish--eventually something'll come along.

I think that digi is here to stay for the average Joe, just like the Brownie camera introduced photography to the masses.  It's cheap, it's easy, and you don't need to work hard to take some decent pictures.  However, I wonder if the digi format is going to come to some sort of plateau for professionals and not improve much.  That may give people a reason to look back to the old standby, film, and realize that it's worth the time and effort.  Or so I hope :heart:


----------



## Alex_B (Apr 29, 2007)

nealjpage said:


> It's cheap, it's easy, and you don't need to work hard to take some decent pictures.



Here I strongly have to disagree .. it is not always cheap, it is not easy (OK, no processing, but a proper digital darkroom is just as much work as a film darkroom, just there are no toxic chemicals around ) .. and it is still hard to take a decent picture (as you easily realise when you browse through the millions of images on flickr and what all those other sites are).

I shoot 35mm slide film and 35mm digital, and I have to say to me it is equally difficult to produce decent images with both! When I first started digital, I was really amazed how similar slide film and sensors are.

Then going to negative film, exposure wise I would even say it is easier than digital, since its dynamic range is often much wider than that of todays sensors!

Oh, and composition is still as hard as it always is :mrgreen:


----------



## xfloggingkylex (Apr 29, 2007)

I think its pretty silly to say that MF and LF will be around forever if you in fact think that 35mm will die.  Just because those formats are moving slower doesn't mean they wont be taken over.  I bet when the first digital cameras hit the market that cost and arm and a leg for a 1.3mp camera people didn't start say "well, film is done for" but rather said that film would always win over digital.  The fact is that the digital movement is slow into larger formats, but it is still happening none the less.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Apr 29, 2007)

It is my observation that film will not die completely.  Not as long as there is a market.  The life or death of all photographic formats has been market driven.  The market forces did not include eastern europe and asia when 127 and 110 died.  As long as it is profitable to make film or film cameras there will be product available.  At what point it is no longer profitable?  I don't know.  But as long as Lucky in china is making film (it is my understanding they bought a lot kodak equip and technology) there will be film on the market.

Why would photographers want to use film... Well if the day ever comes that there is a higher end market for a stamp on the wedding album, "In the tradition of ansel adams and edward weston.. this album made by a true artist with the real photographic process ie film."  You may always see a market for film.  If a portrait is made with film and marketed as something special because it isn't from a camera your uncle eddie has,then film may have a premium...

And this may all be wishful thinking.  At any rate it is just my opinon and should be taken for nothing but the ramblings of a madman.


----------



## blackdoglab (Apr 29, 2007)

> I think its pretty silly to say that MF and LF will be around forever if you in fact think that 35mm will die. Just because those formats are moving slower doesn't mean they wont be taken over. I bet when the first digital cameras hit the market that cost and arm and a leg for a 1.3mp camera people didn't start say "well, film is done for" but rather said that film would always win over digital. The fact is that the digital movement is slow into larger formats, but it is still happening none the less.
> __________________


Hmmmmm...
I think the only major technological change in film was roll film (as opposed to glass plates), and some folks still like to use hand coated glass plates.  When a new technology comes in, it doesn't make the previous one invalid.  If new technology makes the old invalid, then why do some of us love and use our manual everything equipment?    Certainly digital is different from film, but replace it?  Why?  I prefer the look of black&white film over a jpeg converted.  I love the look of slide film and even cross-processed film.  There is something very special about being in the darkroom that you don't get with photoshop (even if you turn on a safelight while you work).  
Shall we compare hammers and nail guns as a metaphor for this debate?  How about nails and screws?  They're all tools, right?  They all get the job done, but some are better suited for different things and people.


----------



## Alpha (Apr 29, 2007)

xfloggingkylex said:


> I think its pretty silly to say that MF and LF will be around forever if you in fact think that 35mm will die.  Just because those formats are moving slower doesn't mean they wont be taken over.  I bet when the first digital cameras hit the market that cost and arm and a leg for a 1.3mp camera people didn't start say "well, film is done for" but rather said that film would always win over digital.  The fact is that the digital movement is slow into larger formats, but it is still happening none the less.



And I think you could have saved yourself the energy of writing that response had you noticed that I said "*may* die," not "will die."


----------



## terri (Apr 29, 2007)

This is slowly descending into a film v. digital debate, which is why I grimaced when I saw the title. 

You guys just can't seem to help yourselves.  

The question the OP posed is "Will film ever come back?" Ambiguous enough, since it never left the market, and new films continue to come onto the market. 

So what is the real point of the question? Will it "come back" in a way where mass-produced cheap film P&S cams reign supreme over mass-produced cheap digital P&S cams? Will film as a medium win back the hearts and minds of the masses? The answer to both questions is unquestionably a resounding "No", particularly the second one. How to lure in the crowd who has grown up on digital and cut their teeth on the idea that photography is only another McGadget (makes a *job* go faster, easier & with a cool new high-tech slant)? 

But no one seems to be satisfied with this conclusion; you all want to continue to hammer away the merits of each, the costs of each, or even the environmental soundness of each. Both have pros and cons; each will clearly win over the other in certain categoies, and it's all been argued, ad nauseam - and really, who gives a crap? :razz:

If you want to shoot film, you're going to shoot film. Go for it! If you want to shoot digital, you're going to shoot digital. Go for it! There is no wrong choice, for it is a subjective one based upon your own needs, your wallet, your preferred method of giving your artistic voice an outlet, earning some extra money - or just showing pics of the family vacation or new baby to old Aunt Sally across the country. 

And you don't have to defend your choice in a photography forum that supports both.

Now really. Everyone should run out and start using glass plates exclusively again (astonishing, isn't it, that the supplies are still so readily available for so obsolete a process)  so these film v.digi debates can DIE! Forever! :hail:


----------



## Alex_B (Apr 29, 2007)

come on terri, this is a very civilised conversation  no one is claiming one or the other was "better", it is just about the future perspective, also th fear of some people who use film, if it will always be affordable to buy it.


----------



## terri (Apr 29, 2007)

Alex_B said:


> come on terri, this is a very civilised conversation  no one is claiming one or the other was "better", *it is just about the future perspective, also th fear of some people who use film, if it will always be affordable to buy it*.


Really? That was what the OP had in mind? See, my interpretation was different. And there's the rub. 

They _all_ start as civilized conversations. And then the annoyance creeps in when someone or other doesn't budge in their opinion, even after being clearly shown "the facts". There have been so many of these kinds of threads over the years... I promise you, there _is_ a reason we made it part of the forum rules to ban these debates.  

Now here is another one that has to be monitored to make sure the swords don't come out. Make me proud, then. G'wan.


----------



## fmw (Apr 29, 2007)

Film hasn't gone anywhere. It has merely declined in market share. Will it regain market share? No. It will continue to lose market share. Film cameras and film will become increasingly difficult to find. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to see that. Even venerable old Nikon has stopped making film cameras. I've shot film for 1/2 a century and I still do. But I understand clearly that it is a dying technology and, while it is dying slowly, it will eventually die completely. 

I still have a couple of old slide rules from years ago. I still know how to use them. But I can't buy a new one if I want one. Or at least I think I can't. Is K&E still in business?  Film will finally go the same way.


----------



## nealjpage (Apr 29, 2007)

Alex_B said:


> Here I strongly have to disagree .. it is not always cheap, it is not easy (OK, no processing, but a proper digital darkroom is just as much work as a film darkroom, just there are no toxic chemicals around ) .. and it is still hard to take a decent picture (as you easily realise when you browse through the millions of images on flickr and what all those other sites are).



Fair.  I was meaning for the average user--if given the choice between a P&S digi and a P&S film, most people are going to take the digi.  Now, I'm no economist, but I can't help but wonder if the (what market do you call people like my parents, who just take snapshots?  every day users??) make up a larger share of the photography market then do avid amatures and professionals that use high-end gear.  IF the everyday users drive the market, and I think they do, film (esp 35mm) will start to decline, as recent events have shown.  And no, I don't ever see that part of the market resurging.

But I think Max is right--MF and LF will probably always have a niche and probably never dissapear.


----------



## ksmattfish (Apr 29, 2007)

Weaving Wax said:


> My question is, do you think that once digital has been around a bit longer people might go back to film? Like...not exclusively or that people will stop using digital, but that maybe after a bit that the film market will pick back up?



I think that there are plenty of people who thought of film photography as too inconvenient, but picked up a digital camera, found themselves hooked on photography, and then became more willing to explore film photography.  I am under the impression that BW darkroom materials and supplies sales are up.

Unfortunately the big profits in the film industry have been centered around color film and the uniform, automated processing and printing industry that has dominated the last 50 years of film photography.  The big companies will probably get out of film photography, but as long as people want to buy film and the supplies neccessary to process and print it, film will be available.  Maybe not at the grocery store, but from art supply stores for sure.  

Film photography was/is immensely more popular than colloidian photography ever was, yet you can still go out and get the materials to do colloidian photography (and many even older processes) over 100 years after the introduction of film "killed" it.


----------



## blackdoglab (Apr 29, 2007)

> Film cameras and film will become increasingly difficult to find. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to see that. Even venerable old Nikon has stopped making film cameras. I've shot film for 1/2 a century and I still do. But I understand clearly that it is a dying technology and, while it is dying slowly, it will eventually die completely


 
Film will only die if you let it or want it to die.  And what about Nikon?  Well, too bad for them.  This thread has had the feel of "the sky is falling... The sky is falling" since it began.


----------



## Alex_B (Apr 29, 2007)

blackdoglab said:


> Film will only die if you let it or want it to die.  And what about Nikon?  Well, too bad for them.  This thread has had the feel of "the sky is falling... The sky is falling" since it began.



I also think it will not die totally, but the market segment might become very tiny, hence it will be more expensive than today.


----------



## blackdoglab (Apr 29, 2007)

> I also think it will not die totally, but the market segment might become very tiny, hence it will be more expensive than today.


true, very true.  I also think companies will become more specialized in what they produce.  Likewise companies that have dedicated themselves exclusively to digital will cater more and more to specialized needs.  I see film and digital as two very different animals.  I only understand the basics of how digital works, but I'm fine with that.  Besides, who knows what we'll be shooting with in twenty years from now.  Both digital and film may have new competition.


----------



## cigrainger (Apr 29, 2007)

Pentax makes me happy. My lenses work for both digital and film. No digital can reproduce the effect of natural grain. You simply cannot make a digital image properly look like a silver gelatin print with, say, Ilford Delta 3200 enlarged to 24"x16".

On the other hand, the post processing possibilities with a natively digital raw file are simply impossible with scanned film.

I shoot both.

To answer the initial question -- no, I don't think there will be a renaissance of film, any more than there already is. Among high school and college students, it's cool and trendy to shoot film. Retro and more "organic" things always retain a coolness and earthiness. Among the pros (and advanced amateurs) I know, having a fully metal, mechanical, manual camera as a backup is favorable as well.

I think prices may have bottomed out though.

And no, film won't go the way of the dinosaur. If anything I think nano particle film will take the reigns in the color film world.

If they stop producing Tri-X and the like, they'll have a lot of very angry $5000 Leica owners.


----------



## Alpha (Apr 29, 2007)

Alex_B said:


> I also think it will not die totally, but the market segment might become very tiny, hence it will be more expensive than today.



I think that this is empirically false. I'm not sure what will happen with color reversal film, but Fuji will make slide film forever. Consider that Fuji produces a once-a-year batch of 30,000 rolls of Fortia, which is specifically designed for photographing cherry blossoms (lol). If they were really worried about their broader market share, they wouldn't bother. Furthermore, so long as they can make enough money off the digital revolution, as they do and will continue to do, they'll have the extra cash to fund film production.

On the black and white side of things, Fuji certainly must have anticipated the digital revolution around the time that they were developing Acros. Additionally, there has been an enormous explosion in recent years of black and white film sales outside the three large houses, mainly due to Fotokemika (which produces the films that become rebranded as Efke/Adox/Maco/Rollei). There has also been a surge in sales of the films produced by Bergger and Foma (French and Czeck, respectively IIRC). Fotokemika basically bought the rights to Agfa's emulsions as it was dying, which certainly cut down on some of their R&D costs. Most notably, the costs of the Fotokemika films are generally lower than those produced by the big three. Ilford will have a large impact in the future, as they have insisted that they are in it for the long haul. But financially speaking, even if film production goes down from the big three, that leaves a greater market share to Fotokemika. While this might put them in a position to be able to raise film prices, it doesn't necessarily provide an impetus to do so.


----------



## GYFÄP (Apr 29, 2007)

I definitely do not hope that Digital will take over completely. Yeah, it's easier and less expensive and you can get your results faster but in my oppinion there's just someting about film... 
I think it makes each picture better because you know it's something special when you shoot your pictures. 

I think many people just forget about film and all its quality because of the new quicker and easier digital. 

That's just my oppinion. I'm kinda new at photography so I'm not that experienced I guess :roll: 
Sorry if my English is bad .


----------



## jwkwd (May 2, 2007)

FMW, I thought the slide rule analogy was funny, now, how many people don't know what a slide rule is? Back to the subject, myself I think that eventually film will die. Just not in my lifetime.


----------



## Alpha (May 2, 2007)

I never got the memo that it had left...


----------



## lasershot (May 2, 2007)

I honestly don't think it can make a full comeback just because digital tends to be some much more convienit when taking a lot of photos...


----------



## Alpha (May 2, 2007)

Yeah..post-processing is a real time-saver :er:


----------



## lasershot (May 2, 2007)

whats post-processing????


----------



## newrmdmike (May 2, 2007)

max brings up a great point about post work . . . i honestly think that if i shot 50% 50% digital that i would spend at least 60% of my time on the digital and only 40% on film.

however, if i was just scanning the film and not printing from negs then i would spend extra time on scanning making film more time consuming.

But, i think the biggest upset about that is that if we all treated our cameras like film cameras and got off the thought train of "i'll fix it in ps" we would all be so much better.  thats part of why i make myself shoot film on a regular basis. ansel adams saw the negative as 50% of it, and the print as the other 50%  if your not good at both you'll certainly not be remembered as a great (except for those few who pay others to print their negs)  although even those people have a vision for that photo, and if not printed correctly they won't be happy.

i prolly spend 30% of my photo time shooting, 20% with clients on the phone, ordering prints etc, and 50% preparing images. or worse!


----------



## loser101 (May 2, 2007)

I've used digital for a while and didn't want to try film because it is alot more work. I'm taking a photography class right now where i have to use film and i love it, haven't shot with my digital over a month now. I think both have their place and will go back to digital but only for color pictures, for black and white  ill use film. And if im still into film i will probably build my self a dark room.


----------



## Weaving Wax (May 2, 2007)

lasershot said:


> whats post-processing????



Fixing everything in Photoshop.


----------



## Mitica100 (May 3, 2007)

WW, film is here to stay, has never gone away. If in doubt, check some of the advertisers here, like Adorama or B&H. Personally, I don't shoot any digital, save for Ebay items that I sell. I shoot anything from Minox to 4x5 format.

Maybe some day I will be swept away by a MF digital camera, until then, film is the only way for me.


----------



## Weaving Wax (May 3, 2007)

I never said film went away and died off, although my title was misleading. I wasn't sure if I should title it differently. My main question was, did anyone think film would come back to being like it was. After people got over the "digital revolution". Sort-of like, vinyl records came back after people only bought CD's for years...


----------



## quixoticsage (May 21, 2007)

This might be redundant... but the cost of backing up your work (CD, DVD, Good Hard Drives, etc), ink, and countless other costs that have been mentioned are all apart of both digital and film.  So Digital is great, however, what does one do when the info is lost?  Wow! Yes, it happened to me, 200GB's of pictures GONE.  I had backed up 100GB's but still... If the majority of my shots where not film and scanned, then I would be up poop creek.  Regardless, it took alot of time to scan them in and organize but I still have the negatives and they are in good shape for the most part.  SO, I like digital and film... but one must remmeber to BACK UP your hard drive always.  And use good media to do it with.

Both film and digital have their drawbacks and what not.

I do think that film will always be around, and improve.  You cannot get Black and White shots that are fine art with digital.  Nothing can match the grain of film (say Ilford 3200).  But I am a purest where film is concerned, but impatient enough to like digital.  So I will have both in my arsenal.

So I ramble.  ok?  

Dan


----------



## JamesD (Jun 12, 2007)

Weaving Wax said:


> lasershot said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tell me you're joking.  Please.  I beg of you.

A raw capture, regardless of medium, is a draft.  Digital or analog, it is incomplete unless you are one of the nonexistent group of photographers who is blessed with consistently perfect scenes and lighting.

Dodging, burning, cropping, adjusting contrast, adjusting exposure/brightness, retouching, etc _ad puteulanus visio,_ are all postprocessing tasks which are common to _all_ media.  None of this has _anything_ to do with "fixing it in Photoshop."  It has to do with producing a finished product.

And, to give a _useful_ answer to someone asking an honest question: "post processing" is the work you do on a raw capture to create the final image.

-JamesD


----------



## skieur (Jun 12, 2007)

JamesD said:


> Tell me you're joking. Please. I beg of you.
> 
> A raw capture, regardless of medium, is a draft. Digital or analog, it is incomplete unless you are one of the nonexistent group of photographers who is blessed with consistently perfect scenes and lighting.
> 
> ...


 
Agreed! :thumbup:   Every digital photo requires postprocessing.

skieur


----------



## deanimator (Jun 12, 2007)

I prefer film (b&w) for my documentary work
and hope there won´t be a resurgence in its popularity
Maybe if it continues to decline it will enhance the value of what I´m doing


----------



## JamesD (Jun 12, 2007)

skieur said:


> Agreed! :thumbup:   Every digital photo requires postprocessing.
> 
> skieur



My point is that every film image also requires it.  It's not unique to either.

And before it comes back to bite me, let me qualify:  requires it if it is to be other than a documentary image.

-JamesD


----------



## blackdoglab (Jun 12, 2007)

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  Film will only die if people want it to.  Film will be with us for at least another 150 years.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 12, 2007)

two weeks from now I'm going to move from retired to semi retired.  I had to give the film digital thing a lot of thought.  Here's what I decided which doesn't mean anyone else should do it.

I looked at the price of a kit.  Not a single camera but enough cameras to feel good about doing the kind of job I wanted to do.  Memory cards and batteries strobe light and the works.  I figured it would be well over five grand and that's not even the best equipment.

So I took a look at film.  I bought three manual focus bodies and two auto focus ones.  An array of lenses for both.  If I have a 25 percent mechanical failure, Im still going to have three camera working.  The cost per camera with winders and all kinds of cute stuff was under five hundred bucks half the price of a single dslr.  Yes the mechanical cameras are used but I wouldn't buy a used dslr so I can't use a used dslr prices.

Strobe lights I had a couple of 283s left from before so I resurrected them.  I could have bought them also used for about twenty five bucks each.  Now I still think it would cost less than five hundred bucks to buy everything I bought.

Did I hear someone say Yuck you have film.

True but I also spend a couple of hundred bucks on a new high resolution dedicated film scanner.  It is 7200 dpi optical scan.  From a thirty five mm neg I think  that is going to be about 20 or so megapix.  I have no use for all those pixies but what the heck.  

So I'm for sure betting film will be around.

Now why did I buy film and not digital... It's economics but not exactly what it seems.  Im 62 years old on that birthday.  I don't figure I'm going to be shooting anything in ten years, so why would I want to put ten grand in equipment for a part time business.  I know that isn't the thinking of younger people and I understand that.  It's just how I see it.  Of course most of the people I know with digital camers have updated at least once in the last three years.  

Factor in the film cost you say....  film is about 2.50 a roll give me two bucks to develop it and you have four fifty per roll....  five rolls max since i don't plan on shooting a thousand shots per job.  Lets say I've got twenty five bucks more than a digital shooter in the job.  If i do the full 12 weddings a year for the rest of those ten years, will film ever be a losing choice.  I don't think so.  

Does film make sense for you, I have no idea.  It just seemed to make sense to me.  Oh yeah I have lots of time to scan negs you might not.


----------



## Orrin (Jun 12, 2007)

In this entire discussion, no one has mentioned the preservation of history.
Glass plates from the civil war can still be viewed and copied. Silver based
films will last a long time in archival storage.

How are digital images being preserved? History tells us that a computer
ten years or more from now may not be able to read the current media.
(How may of you have a system that can read a 5 1/4 floppy?)  Even the
best CD/DVD's of today will have limited life. Some tests have shown that
they will deteriorate faster than originally thought.

Even you you have the "100 year" CD/DVD, with the constant changing 
of computer formats, it probably will not be readable in the distant future.

Images on silver based film/plates will last far longer!


----------



## skieur (Jun 12, 2007)

Yes, film is dead and gone or shortly will be.  Digital will improve with better processors, more dynamic colour range and steadily higher resolution.  OLEDs will drastically improve camera viewfinders and other screens and printing technology will also get better.  

skieur


----------



## BAB (Jun 12, 2007)

Short answer... no.  Long answer, digital is here to stay and will become increasingly more and more prevalent.  Having said that film will be around for years, albeit increasingly less available options.  Surely at some point, it will go away altogether, or at least, cease to be produced.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 12, 2007)

I have said this a hundred times.... It's not an artistic decission, it is a purely economic one.  As long as it is profitable for some small company to make film somewhere in the world, there will be film.  

When the day comes that it is no longer feasible, then film will be gone.  I don't expect the day to come for years but then I thought digital was a fad at the very first of it.

By the way there will be something to replace digital one day as well and possibly sooner than you think.  Some one is working in the dark somewhere on something new.  It is the nature of the beast we ride and always has been.


----------



## blackdoglab (Jun 13, 2007)

> Yes, film is dead and gone or shortly will be. Digital will improve with better processors, more dynamic colour range and steadily higher resolution. OLEDs will drastically improve camera viewfinders and other screens and printing technology will also get better.
> 
> skieur


 
So, if film is dead, then why can I find it at any grocery store and drug store?  Why do companies like Adorama, B&H, and Freestyle still carry it in profusion?  Why have companies like Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, Foma, Efke, Forte, and Lucky publicly announced that they are committed to film?  

Skiuer, are you the kind of person who can only see a nikon dslr as the only possible option?  Were you convinced by their silly d40 ad (which was shot on film by the way)?  I'm sorry, but your statement shows an ignorance and contempt that boggles my mind.  Digital is here to stay, but IT IS ONLY A TOOL!  Some of us actually prefer the look of film over digital and we are not as small a group as you would think.  

Sorry for that rant.  Whenever I hear stuff like that I feel like hitting them with a crown graphic.  Digital and film can and do get along when you want them too and when you see them as tools.  Folks like Mysteryscribe have a good head on their shoulders and can utilize both worlds.  That's the way it ought to be.


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 13, 2007)

film will be around as long as people want to shoot film and are willing to pay for it ... people still ride horses even though we have cars these days ...


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 13, 2007)

Never never say I have a good head on my shoulders, do you want to be banned...


----------



## blackdoglab (Jun 13, 2007)

simmer down there buddy.  I just needed a chance to rant and one of yer posts had the right idea.


----------



## Rusty_Tripod (Jun 14, 2007)

Film will probably remain as an artistic medium. It also has some archival qualities to it. Once people recognize that their digital images may have a short lifespan due to ever increasing technologies and changes, some might return to it. 

Right now people are clinging to digital because it so darned easy to make wonderful pictures. I consider digital images as fugitive as they can be gone in a heartbeat. (I have heard too many stories of cameras and memory cards that died at an inopportune moment.)

Articles that I have read are already suggesting that materials being used to print digital images are less stable than film. As with the VCR giving way to the DVD player, storage mediums may not be able to recover images stored in earlier formats.  Example. At school, previous gradebooks are saved (by law), but they are saved on 3 1/4 floppies. Our new computers have CD and DVD drives but no floppy drives for discs.

Film will likely remain albeit lmited and controlled by cost factors.

A final factor in choosing film over digital is that it can be difficult to view digital images as trustworthy, or without manipulation. I would believe that a solid film negative and its pursuant image would prevail over a digital inage in a court setting.

Rusty Tripod


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 14, 2007)

I just got a back up camera I bought on ebay today. It is a minolta 7000 auto focus since my eyes are not good i needed a second autofocus for low light places.... This camera seems at first test to be absolutely perfect. I was surprised to see that it came with a perfect 35-80 minolta zoom lens. It's perfect for me anyway. 


Now please say film is dead a lot louder this gem was 25 bucks shipping included.... Please keep it up and I will toss these minoltas and buy nikon film for ten bucks each. I just love it.

ps my high resolution 189 buck film scanner came in and after I got the software problems resolved it works great.  The images with the combination should be better than anything I shot ten years ago when I was in business.  Thanks again guys.


----------



## motcon (Jun 14, 2007)

i wish this thread were dead. the revival of it took the wind from me.


----------



## JamesD (Jun 15, 2007)

Motion to lock.  Second?


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 15, 2007)

Oh come on guys, see the humor in it.  Let's not be as bad as the guy who took it personal when I said. "Layers were for cakes."


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jun 15, 2007)

I wonder if people had the discussion "will the Daguerrotype ever come back?" after Fox-Talbot published? I doubt it. It was a move forward. And there may well come a time when people ask if Digital will make a comeback.
Film photography will never go away but it will now forever be relegated to 'Alternative Techniques'.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 16, 2007)

I sorta agree with Hertz here for a change. Film will never be what it was, since it was the only source of photography for a good while. 

Digital photography will give way to a newer tecnology in a few years. If it lasts as long as film I will be shocked. Film as we know it isn't as old as photography. I expect 'film' as in the thin film of chemicals on the plate goes back farther than we think when we commonly say film.

Photography is ever changing, but it is also accomodating as well. As long as they make film, and i have my little scanner I can use film. I am fortunate to be in this bridge moment in photography. It will be more usable than say the old glass plate camera, at least for a while. One day if I live, even I would find that film was just too much touble. Fortunately I think film in sufficient amounts will be around longer than I.

As I say over and over, if I was a working professional photographer I would shoot digital without a doubt, but I would also realize it's likely demise as well. There will be a new and better technology on the horizon anyday now. I wonder if digital will ever be an alternative style of photography.

Every technology tends to dummy down the previous version, as the club gets larger. I suppose old time photographers forever say that and it is more and more true with every advance. If I give a chimp a camera and enough memory cards he will eventually produce forty acceptable images out of ten thousand.  If the chimp handler can change the cards for him that is.

God I am just asking to be assaulted.


----------



## blackdoglab (Jun 17, 2007)

With a few dissenting voices, I think we've come to the conclusion that film is here to stay regardless of where digital is headed.  The more I get into film, the more I've seen that it has infinite and bottonless possibilities, especially in regard to black and white.  

I was on vacation this past weekend, and every convience store, and almost every gift shop had Kodak Gold 200 and 400 iso.  So while film sales have been down, there is no need to write an obituary.  For the most part, the few people who rally against film and preach it's death prove to be somewhat short sighted.  Technology is changing so quickly that your cd files could go the way of Univac in fifty years.  

One impression that I've gained is that technology ony surpasses itself in it's own territory.  In other words, Univac gave way to transistor based computers which then gave way to microchip based systems.  Even in the microchip catagory there have been many innovations that have replaced the old.  However, we still have good old paper and pencil.  Typewriters and word processors still can't replace such a simple thing because they are in two different catagories.  Likewise the car didn't replace the bicycle but did supercede the horse and buggy for the general public.  In other words your digital camera may become redundant in a few years because a better technology may come along.  Likewise, i don't see too many folks using the deguarrotype process these days.  Once again, they are two different technologies that occasionally crossover but have the same blood relationship that I have to Atilla the Hun.

In general, I have found most digital folks to be knowledgable, objective, and general.  They recognize that it's just a tool with different (but not inherently better) possibilities or uses.  It is only a few folks that have pronounced the death of film (they're the kind that you wanna hit over the head with a Crown Graphic, a scanner, or any other heavy photographic device)


----------



## skieur (Jun 18, 2007)

JamesD said:


> My point is that every film image also requires it. It's not unique to either.
> 
> And before it comes back to bite me, let me qualify: requires it if it is to be other than a documentary image.
> 
> -JamesD


 
:mrgreen: Well, I will bite you.  There is no such thing as a documentary image.  That would only be possible if photography could somehow duplicate reality, which it can't.

skieur


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 18, 2007)

skieur said:


> :mrgreen: Well, I will bite you.  There is no such thing as a documentary image.  That would only be possible if photography could somehow duplicate reality, which it can't.
> 
> skieur



Nothing ever can "duplicate reality", so by your standard there would  be nothing documentary on this planet, not movies, not images, no books or other forms ot text/storable information.

But total duplication is not what is needed.

Everything only captures a certain part of reality. If this part is unmanipulated, then it is documentary.

A photograph, leaving away colour-issues, at least geometrically is a 2-dimensional projection of a 3 dimensional scene. Hence, if this image is unmanipulated in that geometrical sense, then it is documentary of the scene.

Of course, by changing the angle of view and all you can hide or show certain things of the scene, and hence inspire different interpretations of what is going on in the scene. But still it would document a real scene (just not fully).

*sigh* but now I did it again ... although I did not want to start this topic again after all my posts on this in another thread had been totally misunderstood.


----------



## skieur (Jun 18, 2007)

blackdoglab said:


> So, if film is dead, then why can I find it at any grocery store and drug store? Why do companies like Adorama, B&H, and Freestyle still carry it in profusion? Why have companies like Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, Foma, Efke, Forte, and Lucky publicly announced that they are committed to film?
> 
> Skiuer, are you the kind of person who can only see a nikon dslr as the only possible option? Were you convinced by their silly d40 ad (which was shot on film by the way)? I'm sorry, but your statement shows an ignorance and contempt that boggles my mind. Digital is here to stay, but IT IS ONLY A TOOL! Some of us actually prefer the look of film over digital and we are not as small a group as you would think.
> 
> Sorry for that rant. Whenever I hear stuff like that I feel like hitting them with a crown graphic. Digital and film can and do get along when you want them too and when you see them as tools. Folks like Mysteryscribe have a good head on their shoulders and can utilize both worlds. That's the way it ought to be.


 
Well, Kodak closed up their large plant in Canada, so the writing is on the wall. And, by the way, I use film too, I also realistically know it is dying.
When film was the only photographic media, scale made it profitable. As economies of scale become no longer necessary it becomes more expensive to produce film. Price goes up and more photographers move to digital as the quality improves, further pushing up the price of film. That is the way the manufacturing process and the economy works.

So, how long it will take film to disappear completely is open to question but the fact that it is heading in that direction is just basic economics.

skieur


----------



## deanimator (Jun 18, 2007)

Nietzsche: "God is dead"
Skieur: "Film is dead"

It must be true then, cos they said so...!


----------



## blackdoglab (Jun 18, 2007)

> Nietzsche: "God is dead"
> Skieur: "Film is dead"
> 
> It must be true then, cos they said so...!


 
and of course.... Nietzsche is as dead as a doornail.  My point is that film and digital are both very different animals.  

and by the way, I get the feeling that some folks here (like chicken little) are screaming "the sky is falling the sky is falling" when there's no chance of it happening.  Film lives because most of us want it to live and buy it.  Even Best Buy stores carry tri-x.


----------



## blackdoglab (Jun 18, 2007)

> How are digital images being preserved? History tells us that a computer
> ten years or more from now may not be able to read the current media.
> (How may of you have a system that can read a 5 1/4 floppy?) Even the
> best CD/DVD's of today will have limited life. Some tests have shown that
> they will deteriorate faster than originally thought.


 
good point.  I've got several dvd's that are, what, five years old and are completely unplayable due to disc rot.  Even when a negative is scratched, it can still be printed.


----------



## deanimator (Jun 18, 2007)

That reminds me...got a bunch of Tri-X here on my desk...so I´d better finish my beer and get into the darkroom (ah...how I love the smell of D-76 in the morning).
Meanwhile...wonder how that old git is doing ...must be smelling quite bad by now, or do you think he is still explaining to God just who is dead...? One or the other...!


----------



## blackdoglab (Jun 18, 2007)

Sorry if I burned any bridges...  All I'm saying is, if film is dead, then why do i and a hell of a lotta folks still like using it?  We've still got Ilford, Foma, Forte, Bergger, Fuji, Efke, and Lucky.  Even if Kodak decides to screw film, I'm sure they'll give the manufacturing rights to a smaller company.  And, if what I've seen follows through, that firm will deliver the same stuff for less.  The life or death of film depends on the customer, and if we ask, it will be given.  If you like film, buy it!  If you like digital, buy it!


----------



## deanimator (Jun 18, 2007)

skieur said:


> ...There is no such thing as a documentary image....


 :lmao::lmao::lmao:

This thread is so insane it´s hilarious...should move it to the Off-Topic Fiction Cafe or something :cyclops::banghead::roll:


----------



## Alpha (Jun 18, 2007)

This reminds me of a recent "forum" held at my university. The topic of discussion was "Evolution and Creationism: Mutually Exclusive?" And I thought, well, obviously. We don't have discussions about things that aren't. Cheese and Wine, incompatible? Nope, we don't have talks about that. Coffee and Cigarettes: Mutually Exclusive? No. 

My point being, we wouldn't have this talk if film had, in fact, died. Another thing to note is that these discussions are rarely, if ever, started by even the most paranoid of film users. They're started by people looking to toot their own digital horns.


----------



## nomade (Jun 19, 2007)

Film isn't gone to comeback, just that some other solution that is more convenient for everyday communication and journalism, also for sharing over the web, and even when shooting film we do scan and process them once more in PShop. Yet the convenient method lacks something important.
The chemistry of film doesn't match the precision of sensors, but it's better and more beautiful, and it is not perfect, and that's how great it is. It has some soul...


----------



## terri (Jun 19, 2007)

I usually lock these threads, for reasons I've already stated, but the participants protested earlier so I've been ignoring it. 

Anybody learn anything new? :sun: 

Just say the word and we're done here.


----------



## motcon (Jun 19, 2007)

terri said:


> Just say the word and we're done here.




word.


nothing of value in this thread....


----------



## deanimator (Jun 19, 2007)

Agree...nothing happening here.

Move along folks...


----------



## terri (Jun 19, 2007)

Thanks, all.


----------

