I noticed a lot of comments related to the cost of film. Well, that is a legitimate point for amateurs, who really do not care to dabble into fine art and making huge prints. I agree, for the average family guy, a digital camera for $700-2000 is all they needs, he rarely would do a 16x20inch print, it does all his family pictures, and costs him nothing after the initial investment to have fun with it. With this mentality you would be crazy to shoot anything but digital today.
The next market is the commercial sector (wedding, magazine, etc). High volume shooting (300 shots per day) would be costly in film/processing. The savings alone would be $30k per year, so a digital back is no big deal to buy. A dslr or digital back to them is a lifesaver, it would drive these guys crazy staying up all night scanning. Before digital many argue it was easier, you photograph the wedding, and let the labs do the rest.
The next market is high- end photography, either high end digital backs or high end film (large format). If your doing commercial (again high volume), a high end digital back is "good enough" for prints to about 24inches at 300ppi output. After that your into interpolating, while with large format film you can print to 50 inches, with 8x10 film to 10 feet. This market is dominated by fine art and pro landscape shooters. It is low volume shooting (you may spend days travelling and only shoot a few sheets). Quality is the number one objective (not cost). You may spend days building a set to photograph, or whatever to create your art. Certainly $30 in film/processing is no big deal (it costs more for my friend who paints in traditional oils to do a canvas painting....after paint, worn out brushes, canvas, stretcher it runs him about $100 easily). This is about low volume very high end art. This is where art separates from the commercial and amateur uses. We have millions of feet of walls to cover in homes, offices, and commercial areas. Others stick to galleries and common sizes are prints of 50inches or larger (see Edward Burtynski). A digital back won't do, they want maximum quality. A barn on 35mm film will be maybe .25 inches in size, on 4x5 film maybe 2 inches in size, and maybe 4 inches in size on 8x10 film....giving you room to record more data (in other words you can only lay down so much information on a given area of film or sensor, after which you need a bigger sensor or film). If you become a fine art photographer, you will understand, film is high-end photography (while before it was used for all market segments to satisfy all needs). We got guys who don't think twice plunking $784 for 25 sheets of 20x24 b/w film (
http://www.bigcameraworkshops.com/default2.asp ) . Cost is not the issue, quality is the only thing that matters in this market, and how big you can print. Your concern is to give the finest quality print possible to customers paying $3500 for a single landscape print..... See
http://www.kenduncan.com/ or Peter Lik at
Dead Link Removed who makes $35million in sales per year from his roughly 17 locations hanging prints up to 3 meters in size, by selling to the rich (he is building 2-3 locations at a time now). Here are a few youtube videos.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vi1kntO6yE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3icnywkMpM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moutL1dHaTY&feature=related
Film allows huge prints (without interpolating up), it is also archival. A commercial photographer doesn't care if he has a read error after 2 yrs...his hamburger add is already old, and wedding photographers know the only sales are the first time, after that everyone scans on a flatbed at home for reprints. When you sell limited edition prints ob 100 or more, it represents a huge profit loss if your file is lost. Film is safe, it is "fixed", always able to be scanned. No issues with operating systems or software aging, read errors, etc. Film is the only insurance these guys have (one on film, the other on DVD after scanning).
Check out Photokina 2008 (leading edge for photography). Everyone there will tell you film sales have stabilized (because they serve different markets with different different needs). ..... (there was a url link here which no longer exists) and also check out
Dead Link Removed . It's not a question of is film dead, but rather which do you need for the job you have to do. You pick one or the other.
I also want to point out that so many of us talk about a p45 for high end digital , but it still does not match 4x5 film, and how many of us can afford one?. At least with film you pay as you go, while with a p45 or P65 back after paying $40k for the back, you still need lenses and a body that runs you up to $60k. You better be sure of your sales volume, are you a high volume shooter, if not you can get higher quality with 4x5 film and get a body, lenses, and camera for under $10k new (less then half that used). Remember, with digital you shoot like a machine gun coming home every day with 200-300 images, but with large format film you will come home with one or two (sometimes none) images, but they will be far better. If your into fine art, film is the only choice (unless your famous like Peter Lik). He has a p45 back, but his prime cameras that provide the very best quality in his 3 meter prints are from his Linhof Technorama and Fotoman 617 cameras. For most fine art and landscape shooters, you cannot afford to shoot anything else but film!
If you want to immerse yourself into high-end photography, make big prints, and affordably, film is the best choice and only choice for most of us (unless you got $60k to toss around). Myself I would rather put it toward a car, boat, cottage, mortgage, childrens education. So many will argue about digital, but rarely are referring to the high end stuff like a p65 back, and rarely do these same people own one. In fact I would say in this or other forums less then 10% are doing enough volume to justify $40-60k, the rest are doing there business with dslr or lower end medium format backs (none offer the quality of large format film). Of course a good scanner is the key, I turned to 612/617 and get incredible results with my Nikon 9000. Cheap and good (and new)compared to more expensive alternatives. I do not recommend a Epson unless your making prints up to 20inches.
I like digital for family images, but I like it more because it has introduced more people into "fine-art" photography then ever before. Everyone has a lightroom (in the old days few had darkrooms). Once the bug is there, they want more, the highest quality, then bigger prints. Their digital camera for $3000 is no longer enough, but they cannot afford a $40k back which only replaces film, yet still offers less quality. For these people there is only one choice (film). I see so many argue against me...the future they argue is digital (sure for some market sectors), but when asked if they own a p65 back ($40k) or the body/lenses... the answer is no, they shoot large format. Apparently talk is cheap, but if you want to be a doer, get some high end large format film. I see many teens getting into it, which I love to see. Film is a different media from digital, just as watercolor is to oil painting. Similar skills, same image, just done differently using different materials and equipment. You pick what suits your needs, and what you can afford! Also remember, film cameras don't die, you just load it up in 5 yrs with the latest and greatest film and you're never obsolete like with digital cameras. Film equipment from 50 years ago (4x5 Crown Graphics, etc) are very popular and produce amazing results with todays films.
