Is Film Dead...

[gnashings]

Digital still has this issue of highlights. This has kept movies and tv shooting on film to some degree. What I can't figure out is why still photographers choose to ignore this problem.

Doug

If you look at the graet majority of the rationale put behind digital photography by its great champions, its composed in huge parts of things being chosen to be ignored.

 

[digiconvert]

Is Film dead ?
As a mass market consumer product it is dying, as a serious amateur/professional product it is almost dead- my local chain store lab does a lot of film but they tell me it's overwhelmingly APS.
However some people (at least 11500 apparently) enjoy the process of capturing images on film. Some use it professionally, some use it as a creative medium away from their professional photography whilst others just enjoy taking pictures with film.
But it has to be accepted that we are a minority and that we will be treated as such by businesses who have shareholders to satisfy (most of us have a pension plan I guess so that includes us). Digital will not go away, it is convenient, less demanding in some respects and has a huge consumer base to build on until the next big thing comes along. Most of the photographers here would have decided instamatic cameras were not for them in the 60s/70s but they were incredibly popular and gave pleasure to millions, they were just not what you used if you wanterd a little more control of the process. Can we please stop chastising this well expired equine quadraped and celebrate the fantastic work that is showcased in the galleries and enjoy doing what we do.
I don't expect to be losing my MF or 35mm camera or film in the next few years but if do I might eventually switch to digital and PS for my creative expression, a fellow photographer uses a Canon 5D and expensive lenses, good printer and a lot of skill with PS to produce images which anyone in this group would admire, he also wants to try my MF because he feels I am a 'real' photographer because I have to think about what I do far more than he does. I'll stick to MF for BW but might move to a digital back to replace my 35mm because most of the prints I get from a lab these days never see an analogue enlarger, it's about the right tool for the right job.
Sorry for the drone but I just get so depressed about this debate-we will end up killing film ourselves at this rate !

 

[arigram]

- Is film dead?
- No, but soon you will be...
- What are you doing with my digital cam..No!
- Aaaargh!

 

[Soeren]

- Is film dead?
- No, but soon you will be...
- What are you doing with my digital cam..No!
- Aaaargh!

I hope that was a D-P&S because a D-SLR is to big to swallow
Cheers Søren

 

[arigram]

I hope that was a D-P&S because a D-SLR is to big to swallow
Cheers Søren

Swallow? I didn't say anything about putting it in his ...mouth!

 

[bogeyes]

If film is dead, who the hell keeps buying all the film cameras/ darkroom stuff on ebay? I,m still waiting for the prices to drop, if any of you digi-converts have some; no longer used Ive gone digital cameras you want to throw away (cos there now junk) you know the ones, Arca, Hasselblad, Linhoff, Horseman, Nikon, Canon etc. send them to me PLEASE.

 

[Soeren]

Swallow? I didn't say anything about putting it in his ...mouth!

OH well then. HMM................. AUCH
Søren

 

[tony lockerbie]

The big problem that I see currently with digital is that delete button. People are not printing out or saving their pictures- just sending them off into cyberspace. How many of us have those beaut Kodachromes and box brownie contact prints of our parents and us as children to treasure? It seems a shame that so many family pictures have been victims of the delete or delegated to a dodgy CD or hard drive.

 

[Andy K]

It seems a shame that so many family pictures have been victims of the delete or delegated to a dodgy CD or hard drive.

This is a point I have mentioned to many digital users in many D vs R(eal photography) discussions. Apparently, (according to digital users) it is cheaper and easier to backup every CD ROM and HardDrive, then store them in seperate geographical locations, and to repeatedly back them up a couple of times a year in perpetuity.
Yes, they swear it is cheaper and easier than developing your negs and storing them in ph neutral sleeves in a file.

 

[gr82bart]

Yawn....yeah, yeah, yeah, we film shooters are more enlightened. Whatever.

Art.

 

[Andy K]

hehehe, damn I'm good!

 

[anthroboi]

Um, okay...how is THIS post okay but other posts just mentioning the "D" word closed immediately and labelled flame-war fuel? Just wonderin' is all

D-

 

[Kino]

If film is dead, who the hell keeps buying all the film cameras/ darkroom stuff on ebay? I,m still waiting for the prices to drop, if any of you digi-converts have some; no longer used Ive gone digital cameras you want to throw away (cos there now junk) you know the ones, Arca, Hasselblad, Linhoff, Horseman, Nikon, Canon etc. send them to me PLEASE.

Yeah, tell me about it! :rolleyes:

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Why should film have to die, who want this to happen?
Why can't digifolks leave film alone? They are always there to knock film down, why on earth are they so (verbally) aggressive?
I experienced this on several occasions.
This attitude looks odd to me, why not put this into question?

Philippe

 

[JBrunner]

Why should film have to die, who want this to happen?
Why can't digifolks leave film alone? They are always there to knock film down, why on earth are they so (verbally) aggressive?
I experienced this on several occasions.
This attitude looks odd to me, why not put this into question?

Philippe

I think it is a defensive posture. Some digi photographers (not all) may feel they are looked on as lazy, or not quite as versed. Despite its commercial success, it is easy for a traditionalist to dismiss pixelography as a bastard child, with a tiny wave of the hand.

There is very little mystery to digital photography, and many of the users feel that in order to be taken really seriously across the board, they must discredit traditional methods. You don't find this so much with the older people, but more so with an inexperienced person with aspirations.

Also, don't forget the constant and unrelenting sales and marketing BS.

I myself own a very expensive DSLR. It's basically a bad joke.

Perhaps if it were my only camera, and I was trying to be taken seriously, and I was younger, and better programed as a mindless consumer, I too would develop a chip on my shoulder regarding old wood and brass cameras, that consistently blow DSLRs away with contemptuous ease.

My suggestion is to get involved with a photo club. Take an easygoing attitude and don't get into digi vs. film arguments, (a wave of the hand is enough ) and you might be surprised at the interest in your traditional methods.

Viola! soon the cream begins to separate.

You would be shocked at how many will start down the path to the dark slide, once they even start messing with just a holga.

Don't bother with smug lost causes. The people who want to argue the digital point to death, generally aren't photographers that will ever be worth mention, and the ones that are, well you don't have too look to deep to see that they are usually on some kind of endorsement gravy train.

My perception, FWWW.

 

[anthroboi]

Why should film have to die, who want this to happen?
Why can't digifolks leave film alone? They are always there to knock film down, why on earth are they so (verbally) aggressive?
I experienced this on several occasions.
This attitude looks odd to me, why not put this into question?

Philippe

I personally dislike digital. I don't like the look, the feel, the experience. So, I'm no fan of digital. However, I must note I've seen a LOT more verbally aggressive film users knocking digital and being extremely condescending about digital. I agree with their reasoning (for the most part) but just scanning a few of the threads on this site and others like it illustrate my point, I'm afraid. Perhaps it's because film users feel the need to take a defensive position to try and save their art from? Either way, I don't think it's working. It would be a better idea to try and educate people who haven't used much film before, rather than to defensively scare them away....

Anyways, that's just my 2 cents.

D-

 

[David Brown]

... I must note I've seen a LOT more verbally aggressive film users knocking digital and being extremely condescending about digital. ... Perhaps it's because film users feel the need to take a defensive position to try and save their art from?

D-

I think it's because every month there is a thread on this forum (and others) and an article in one or more photo magazines that contain the words: "film is dead".

As for "a LOT more", well, on this forum, maybe. In the larger world, not so much.

As usual, I could be wrong.

 

[Kimberly Anderson]

Film is not dead.

I just bought 10 rolls of 120 and 25 sheets of 12x20 Ilford FP4.

This is however, the first time I've bought film in over 7 years.

I'd say for me, film is making a big comeback.

 

[lkorell]

I think a lot of the arguments are a result of fear. Film shooters are afraid they will no longer have access to good products and digital shooters are concerned with streamlining their workflow and hoping they can manage their time better. Both worlds offer big challenges ahead. As digital gets better and better maybe there won't be as great a dependency on noise and color correcting software.

But I think we are blaming the wrong things when we get into these debates. When you shoot film and send it to the lab, they ARE correcting mistakes in exposure and color. Yes, film has a greater latitude, but I don't believe that every frame is a perfect exposure to start with. Some need a bit of help.
Digital just puts the burden of that correction process onto the photographer instead of a lab. The real problem is that while you did have to pay a lab to do this processing, who's paying YOU to do it now? And then you have to fight the rumor that digital is somehow cheaper??? People want to pay less now for photography thinking digital saves the photographer money so why not pass it on to the customer.
Please! When was the last time you spent $3000-$5000 on a camera you knew was only going to last you a couple of years before you replaced it?

So the real debate about film vs. digital has zero to do with quality. It's about simple economics and capabilities to perform services that you may or may not have great skill in doing. It takes time to become a Photoshop expert. Deal with it.

Ok, so I shoot mostly digital now, but the real problem for me is that while I like my digital cameras....I love my film cameras. They are truly some of the finest pieces of craftsmanship and they feel so good to work with. I miss that and hope to begin integrating some black & white film shooting back into my weddings. I too like the look of film in that area. I see better in black & white and love to shoot it with my cameras. I purchased an F6 and - shame on me - I've not used it on a wedding yet. Can't wait. The next one I think I will bring it.

Oh, and BTW, film isn't dead. It probably won't go away as long as there are people who want it. Companies will sell things that people will buy. If we keep buying film, they will keep making it.

Lou

 

[per volquartz]

Of course film is dead...

Film by itself is nothing but acetate, with silver embedded in a gelatin emulsion.

If the supply of film tightens up - do what Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee did: Buy as much of it as you can - to last your life time - if you want to work with film...

Instead of worrying about whether or not film is dead Id worry more about lame - or dead photography... using whatever medium...


...my 3.5 cents....

 

[David Brown]

... But I think we are blaming the wrong things when we get into these debates. When you shoot film and send it to the lab, they ARE correcting mistakes in exposure and color. ...

Digital just puts the burden of that correction process onto the photographer instead of a lab. The real problem is that while you did have to pay a lab to do this processing, who's paying YOU to do it now? ...

Lou:

I don't dissagree with you "in context". Back when I did weddings, (in color), all of the processing and printing was done by a lab.

However, many photographers do their own darkroom work - as I always have in B&W - and so the additional time and expense of "doing it yourself" in digital isn't always applicable.

Not arguing, just "for the record".

... So the real debate about film vs. digital has zero to do with quality. It's about simple economics and capabilities to perform services that you may or may not have great skill in doing. It takes time to become a Photoshop expert.

Lou

Respectfully dissagree, however, on this one. Quality remains a factor in this debate.

Cheers,

 

[roteague]

Film is not dead.

I just bought 10 rolls of 120 and 25 sheets of 12x20 Ilford FP4.

This is however, the first time I've bought film in over 7 years.

I'd say for me, film is making a big comeback.

Welcome back to the darkside Michael.

 

[roteague]

So the real debate about film vs. digital has zero to do with quality.

Lou, that is actually not the case. In the mind of some, including me, film is still a superior product for image making. When you start making statements or comparisons between the two you have to define the baseline you are talking about. When I read people saying "digital is sharper/better than film", I have to ask "Compared to what film, in what developer, at what contrast ratio, and for what final medium?" The answer also has to do with your individual acceptance of the look and feel of film vs digital. So, it is NOT a simple statement one way or another.

 

[lkorell]

I guess the debate about quality will go on. The only thing I have to offer is that for some types of photography quality is definitely not in question. Some of the world's most beautiful images ARE being produced digitally by very accomplished photographers. If you argue that, then you clearly are a bit behind the times.
For other types of photography however, there is a real demand for the film look and texture. That I will agree may not be compared to digital output. In the whole process of printing, the film process for me seems to have an edge.

The quality factor is typically based more on demand than actual aesthetics. For some types of photos, large prints, textured prints, gallery type fine art, etc., there may be a real difference in the output. There are though many applications where that is not a critical deliverable. For publication, you cannot as easily tell what the texture of an image is or whether it was captured with film or digital. In my area, weddings, when you produce an album, you cannot tell how an image was captured unless you are using actual mounted prints as in the traditional album. I don't get asked for those anymore. The "magazine" or "flush mount" albums are increasingly more in demand.

For commercial photography, many are using digital backs for medium format. There are many who would argue that the digital is actually better quality. I don't know because I cannot afford to get into that elite group with the big $$$$ but I have seen some remarkable images done in medium format digital.

We as photographers have choices. For serious amateurs and hobbyists, there are more choices because you are shooting for yourself. For anyone who depends on clients for their business, you have to look at demand for product and decide what suits your demographic the best and what your business model/workflow can handle.

Lots of people don't want to go digital just because of the initial startup costs. It ain't cheap! No matter what anyone says. There is a learning curve to deal with as well. It has been two years already for me as a newbie to digital and I still feel like a total beginner. But I see a value. In my past business when I worked with another photographer we tried a hybrid studio with film & digital. It became increasingly easier to do digital and much more difficult to continue with film and recoup the costs of lab work.
I am not advocating a switch to digital, don't get me wrong. I'm saying that whatever works for you is what works for you. I don't want to go 100% either way because I still enjoy my film gear, don't want to sell it so cheap, and desire to keep my skills with film intact. Digital is sometimes more convenient for learning because it has immediate feedback. As someone said on another forum, "digital has made me a much better film shooter". I agree because I look for light in a whole new way. And isn't light what photography is all about anyway?


Lou

 

[roteague]

Good summation Lou. It boils down to individual tastes and choices. There are people here who shoot both weddings and portraiture on film, and are happy with the results. On the other hand you shoot them with digital, and you are happy with the results. With an electrical engineering background, I can tell you that it is alwful hard to compare the two mediums technically; so, the comparisons need to come down to a matter of individual tastes.