I ask because after I finish my next roll of film, my trusty 35 mm camera goes into the closet forever! I intend to buy a CCD digital camera…I’ve decided that the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages! Sure, I’'miss the brilliant Kodacolors, but think of what you save…and having all your shots on disc is great!
Anyway, I liked to take B&W infrared pictures…are any of the digital cameras senstive to IR (I could just slap a red filterover the lens and shoot in IR)?
Should I scrap my film camera? 
If film is “dead” you can call me Mr. Zombie Photo Person because that’s all I use. I have a small digital camera that I got for Christmas, and I’ll use it occasionally for party snapshots and mini-movies, but I have no intention of putting away my Hasselblad or Holga forever.
I think what you’ll find over the next few years, is that for industrial/commercial photography digital will become the norm. It will supplant film for newspapers, magazines, advertising and military work. At the same time film will continue to be used by fine art photographers, some journalists who prefer it, specific magazines and some advertising companies that want a particular effect or type of photo that’s only possible with film (such as alternative process prints like Platinum or Gum).
Film and paper will no more “die” than painting did when photography was invented. It will just be repositioned as a more artistic, specialized medium.
I forgot to say, my advice, keep the 35 mm, even if you don’t use it so much. I understand that for snapshots it may be less expensive to use digital, since you can edit before printing. I’m not familiar with any digital that has IR capability but I haven’t really checked. You may find that you’ll still put out the old Canon(or whatever) more than you think.
I’d hate to see film photography die out completely, though for the life of me I don’t know why I feel this way. Just sentimental, I guess.
The most pleasant surprise for me has been the ability of my digital camera to capture the quality of light. In the past, I’d take a film picture just for the beauty of the autumnal glow or early-morning haze, only to have the effect washed out by commercial film processing. My little Minolta captures the light *exactly * as I see it. I can’t tell you how happy I was to find this little bonus.
Sure go and buy a digital camara if you wish - they have their uses for fun photography but if you are taking serious pictures I think you will find yourself coming back to your SLR again and again. But if it is in the cupboard and not sold you have not got a problem.
If you want to ever blow up some of your shots only film will really perform.
If you want your negatives also on disk you can pay and get that done.
For me the photo quality of digital camaras is still noticably poor, and the flexibility I have with my SLR on manual mode is invaluable. I have borrowed a couple of mid-price digitals to test out my reactions and would rather spend the money on a 500mm lens for my Nikon frankly.
I went off travelling for a year in 2002/3 and have had to run off reprints of my shots of African wildlife and Australian and New Zealand landscape for various travelling companions who had gone digital - mostly for the convenience reasons you are citing. Pretty much all of them are dissappointed with the results compared to a quality SLR.
If you know you are going to miss the brilliant Kodacolors then you should check out the latest Fijichrome 100 - nothing in the digital world is going match it for a while yet for home photography.
It may take a while, as evidenced from a photo-news magazine I subscribe to…
“Perhaps every photographer has questioned the long-term viability of film as we rush headlong into the Digital Age…”
much article snipping, to get to this part…
“One of the present concerns with digital photography is that many, if not most, fans are are shooting with amateur or ‘pro-sumer’ equipment (3 to 6 mega pixel cameras), whereas the generallly accepted threshold for high-end, publication-quality is a minimum of 12 megapixels”
I would disagree with some of this. While the PHD (push here dummy) cameras are very limited, the digital SLRs have tremendous capability and lend themselves well to enlargement. For exterior shots, a digital with good resolution is hard to beat.
I recently tried to sell my two Nikon N70 bodies, since I am moving to a Nikon D100 digital SLR. There were no public takers, and the best offer I could get from a dealer was $200 for both cameras. I ended up donating them to a vocational school for the tax writeoff. The upside is that my lenses will work with the new digital and the resolution is over 6 Mpix. I loved my 35mm cameras, but nothing really competes with being able to instantly see your results and to reshoot, if necessary.
So is film dead? Nah, not for awhile yet (and look at the comeback for vinyl!). Photographers who have a lot of money invested in the equipment are going to continue to use it, as are those who can’t afford to buy the better quality digitals (at least for now). Digital is making a serious dent in the film sales, though, and everyone is jumping on the digital express.
Well it is all hard to tell. Lots of colleges are closing their wetlabs because everyone is shooting digital. No-one can doubt that digital gear provides more immediate feedback to photographers (and thus better photographers, unless someone wishes to argue that learning photography is different to every other form of learning on earth) and allows the photographer to take unlimited shots without keeping them. However my nephew, who is a professional photographer, owns no digital cameras and pays thousands of dollars for Nikons and the like and keeps putting off his first digital purchase.
I have a friend who is a professional photographer. He is about decided to go all digital. A year or so ago he started using a web-based photofinisher. He sends off his wedding negatives and gets access to scanned prints via the internet for cropping etc within a couple days. Customers can go online and orders prints directly, without placing orders with him. He has many thousands of dollars invested in equipment, lenses, lights and the like, so this is not a decision he is making lightly. But the quality of the high end equipment and the savings from processing will pay for itself inside a year or so.
Another guy is a photographer for a sports agency. He travels and shoots all kinds of sporting events. He’s used all digital equipment for some time.
Film photography is not dead, but it’s use has to be on the decline. I would imgine eventually only artists will be using film.
I’m not a shutterbug, so this may be old news. However I read a few years back about a woman who had developed a new process that created a film that had six time the definition that one can currently achieve with film. It was touted as way beyond anything digital could do at the time, and probably for quite a while thereafter. Supposedly breath-taking results. Unfortunately a quick Google didn’t bring anything up that I can cite.
The problem was that it was an expensive process, and with digital photography becoming so prominant, there was a question of wheter there would be enough sales volume to bring the cost down to a reasonable level. I think the process was also in Beta, so problems may have cropped up later.
I’m sure film photography will continue to be around for a while, if only for the die-hard professionals and true-blue hobbyists who want to work with the unique aspects of film photography.
In the consumer space, though, I think film is just about dead; for doing 4 x 6s of your family vacation, digital has too many advantages over film.
No, I’d daresay film is not dead, but I second the opinion above that is will rapidly transition into a medium of more pure artistic expression.
I am a professional photographer working in music journalism, and the advantages of digital significantly outweigh any disadvantages. Film cost alone is a huge factor. One 1 gig microdrive holds over 1000 medium size jpegs, for a cost of well under $1000 bucks. And it’s reusable. And for studio situations, I shoot RAW files, which preserve editing capabilities to a level far beyond any darkroom manipulation. Heck I can adjust white balance after the fact. Try that with film.
That said, most of the consumer level digitals are still pretty much crap when it comes to enlargements and pro print quality. But the pro level digitals are absolutely incredible, and I regularly do enlargements of up to 16x24 with no loss. I’ve even taken a few prints up to 24x30. Of course, some pixelation is apparent at that size, but you’re going to get grain from a print as well at that size.
Digital is the wave of the future, but I will also say that a grounding in silver based photography is still essential for any budding pro. Besides, there’s something quite addictive about darkroom work…
KTM
It was just a few months ago that Kodak (or some other major film maker) eliminated a bunch of film-related jobs. Something like 1000 people let go.
You should have a look at this page for info on digital IR. It’s possible, but varies from camera to camera. IMO infrared B&W, and other areas where it’s difficult to previsualise tonal relationships, is where digital really shines.
There are forums all over the Net where people debate film vs. digital until they’re blue in the face. Each has its advantages. High-end digital is still very expensive to get started in at a high level, and film and processing volume has to be very large to make it worthwhile.
You should have a look at this page for info on digital IR. It’s possible, but varies from camera to camera. IMO infrared B&W, and other areas where it’s difficult to previsualise tonal relationships, is where digital really shines.
There are forums all over the Net where people debate film vs. digital until they’re blue in the face. Each has its advantages. High-end digital is still very expensive to get started in.
Yikes! Sorry about the double-post! :eek:
There will always be a few people holding on to film.
But they will be dinosaurs. The potential for digital to improve is almost infinite. But film is at a standstill. While there are occasional innovations, the fundamental properties of silver and celluoid ensure that there is only so far it can go. Pretty soon digital will pass it signifigantly on all fronts.
…ah, yes… I love the smell of Fixer in the morning…
I have both, and I think there’s still plenty of room for film. I got my digital because I want to start doing artistic shots, and it’s more inexpensive to get the hang of certain techniques this way. I’ve got an Olympus, and it’s quite a camera. Once the weather breaks, I intend to get lost for a few hours with my new toy!
Speaking for myself and my fellow Apatosaurs, I’m in no hurry to give up my film, thanks. :rolleyes: