Is film dead?

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by Jay Dougherty

Digital does require good editing skills. No doubt. But photography is still photography. Photographic talent is required in digital as well as in film photography. I recall from my film days that film required good darkroom skills. I view Photoshop as the modern-day darkroom, a much better one than I could ever afford in the old days, as well.

And the digital darkroom smells much nicer too.

[tom8080]

It may never be dead to some. Take this man, for example...

http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

I saw a TV special about him a few months ago. He uses film and has a darkroom assistant do things the "old fashioned way" under his watchful eye for his photo exhibitions.

He appears to use mostly modern Canon equipment (film). In the TV program, there was a video minicam attached to his camera in such a way that the TV viewer sees what he saw, and you see him snapping away, even seeing many of the camera settings on the top LCD screen. I was totaly mesmerized by this guy. He risks his life for his shots. He doesn't seem to use any long glass, he gets into the action. Like the shot on the website above standing with a group of Palestinians throwing Molotov cocktails at the Israeli army.

Anyway, the shutterlag and slow focus of some digicams would probably not work for his type of photography. Or maybe he is reluctant to change, who knows? But his work speaks for itself.


Tom

[caribou]

Hi Tom

James Nachtwey is a living legend and by far the greatest/most famous war photographer of our generation.

I can confirm he now uses Canon Digital EOS 1DS, etc....

his book Inferno is well worth looking at.

The man is a true legend and his passion to tell the truth is unsurpassed.

[Narsuitus]

"Is film dead?"

No, but it has been mortally wounded.

[dc2]

I personally believe film will surprise a lot of people with a revival before it its what you call well and truly dead

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by dc2

I personally believe film will surprise a lot of people with a revival before it its what you call well and truly dead

Hmm, I'd really like to agree as I still shoot slide film and would want it to always be available, but what's the background to your belief in a revival? From what I can see, the film manufacturing industry is either struggling or winding down, and digital seems to be on an exponential growth pattern.

I can see some growth in third-party printing (i.e. 'digital developing') - it's probably quite alarming how many images are just sat on a hard drive waiting to die rather than printed out and enjoyed. But I can't see any increase in the general camera owning public shooting film.

[dc2]

Well all I can say is my local stores have seen a revival although quite small its from both pro and amateur
photographers and its has steadily growing over the last year not totally to my surprise

[Narsuitus]

Originally Posted by dc2

Well all I can say is my local stores have seen a* revival although quite small its from both pro and amateur
photographers and its has steadily growing over the last year not totally to my surprise

Is it possible that your local stores are seeing a revival due to consolidation? In other words, your local stores may be getting business from other stores that have closed or cut back.

[scoundrel1728]

Originally Posted by C.Oeste

The writing is on the wall amigos, Kodak has stopped producing b&w paper, and all R&D in film?!?! KODAK, for crying out loud! In 35mm type cameras, digital technology has over taken film (according to studies that I have read see: http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html). By the way, regarding new v. old, I have horses that I really enjoy riding, but if I seriously want to get anywhere, I drive my truck.

I think writing off large and perhaps medium format is premature, but 35 mm is well into its decline and medium format photographers are hearing digital footsteps behind them. The historical importance of 35 mm may give it a sort of shadow afterlife, but I don't hear of many new photographers opting for 35 mm film over digital for their serious work, and even the movie industry is starting to go digital.

It is not clear where 35 mm photographers will continue to get their film, even if they would wish to continue shooting the medium, or where the new generation of 35 mm photographers will come from. I can't think of a single application for 35 mm film that can't be better performed by either a larger film format or by digital. Some on this thread have disagreed, but it would be interesting to see how many 35 mm film shots would be chosen as the best in a careful double-blind test in which the source of the shots is a mixed bag of digital SLR, 35 mm film, and medium/large format, with outspoken champions of 35 mm film being the judges.

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by scoundrel1728

The historical importance of 35 mm may give it a sort of shadow afterlife, but I don't hear of many new photographers opting for 35 mm film over digital for their serious work, and even the movie industry is starting to go digital.

I'm interested in what's happening in the movie industry. For me movie film has always just looked fantastic, whether 35mm or 70mm. How is the technology shifting over there? Is it basically big sensors in a digital back with the normal film lenses up front? I've always wondered how the quality will look - are there any mainstream movies out there now that have been entirely recorded digitally? Are they processed later to look like 'film'?

[scoundrel1728]

Originally Posted by Paul

I'm interested in what's happening in the movie industry. For me movie film has always just looked fantastic, whether 35mm or 70mm. How is the technology shifting over there? Is it basically big sensors in a digital back with the normal film lenses up front? I've always wondered how the quality will look - are there any mainstream movies out there now that have been entirely recorded digitally? Are they processed later to look like 'film'?

I think Dreamworks is pretty much already there and Pixar is not far behind. I don't know much about the non-animated studios, but I suspect they are headed that way too, albeit much more slowly.

[Sidebyte]

Originally Posted by scoundrel1728

I can't think of a single application for 35 mm film that can't be better performed by either a larger film format or by digital.*

I can, my WALLET. Even a used Hassy or Mamiya SYSTEM will cost many times over the cost of an excellent 35 mm with excellent comparable lens. You can scan high quality 35 mm, digitize it and print for a FRACTION of the cost of a new Mark11s or D2x and in all probability outperform the digi.

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by Sidebyte

I can, my WALLET. Even a used Hassy or Mamiya SYSTEM will cost many times over the cost of an excellent 35 mm with excellent comparable lens. You can scan high quality 35 mm, digitize it and print for a FRACTION of the cost of a new Mark11s or D2x and in all probability outperform the digi.

I used to think that, but I have changed my view recently. I still love film for B&W but I know I can't get the same quality (i.e. resolution) with 35mm colour film compared to digital.

[Sidebyte]

Paul,
another advantage of using 35 mm is you don't have to put up with terms like "noise", megapixels and lens crop. Fortunately during most of my lengthy photography experience, I didn't have to deal with these anomalies.

[scoundrel1728]

Originally Posted by Sidebyte

I can, my WALLET.* [snip] You can scan high quality 35 mm, digitize it and print for a FRACTION of the cost of a new Mark11s or D2x and in all probability outperform the digi.

Can you? How much does the scanner (which you wouldn't need with a digital) cost? And how much does it cost per exposure for film, processing, proofs, and the time necessary to scan the film? If you are talking pro here, time is money and the extra incremental cost per exposure of film will outstrip the difference in initial cost of the equipment in a matter of months; a year or two at most.

As for the superior quality of film, we may have to agree to disagree on that one.

Originally Posted by Sidebyte

another advantage of using 35 mm is you don't have to put up with terms like "noise", megapixels and lens crop. Fortunately during most of my lengthy photography experience, I didn't have to deal with these anomalies.

Yes you did, except for crop factor, but under different names. Graininess is film's equivalent for noise and you were also accepting resolution loss beyond the increased noise for increased film sensitivity when using film. When you could quantify the resolution at all, it was in line pairs per millimeter or some other such measure. You didn't have to worry about crop factor because everyone was using the same film format, namely 24 x 36 mm. Medium and large format photographers have their own analog for crop factor because of the differing formats, but they don't call it by that name.

[Sidebyte]

My primary complaint regarding digital vs. film is the inability of the digital (mine, D1h and 14n) to handle overexposure blowouts of highlights. I typically have to underexpose and then adjust in PS. Too time consuming and the results aren't always the best, especially water scenes. I've been shooting film since 1947 and IMO the technology is far more perfected than digital, due basically to the time of existence. In the future, I'm sure digital will eventually overtake film, but for now it's sucking hind titty. My old 1932 Kodak Recomar 3 1/4 X 4 1/4 cut film folding camera RESOLUTION wise will blow the doors off my 14n, both require good lighting to perform well. Fortunately I don't do sports or low light extremes so both cameras do well for landscape photo's. Technolgy is fantastic, but digital is only one stage above "Merlin the Magician" at present. Just look at the progress since the initial entries from Kodak (Nikon) only ten years ago. Film has had a century to improve technology albiet none lately. The closest approach to film will probably presently be a 5D at $3,000 USD+ (my 14n was 1/2 that) L lens and a $2,000 computer to correct all the hinkies. My old F4 Nikon ($500. used) with AI lens (used primes) for landscape photo's plus a film scanner ( $600) and my Epson 1280 printer produce exceptional landscape photo's for my use, ( I'm retired and have no intentions of selling any). The expense is minimal because I still have 4 digitals and proof-shoot virtually all scenes. My cost for film and developing is minimal, it would take more years than I have left to amortize a 5D or M11s.

[Paul Shields]

Sidebye, I think you make some telling points here. I've always tried to 'shoot to the right' with digital to get the most dynamic range, but it is very easy as you say to blow highlights, and they're non-recoverable. Film has a gentler latitude in this regard. Still, there's still a lot more development of digital to come and I'm pretty optimistic for the future.

[scoundrel1728]

So your primary gripe about digital is its tendency to "blow out" highlights. From this, I assume that you shoot negative film since transparency film has the same problem as digital in this respect. Furthermore, there are some things you can do with a digital image that you can't with a transparency, including making a true duplicate and performing after-exposure corrections and manipulations.

This leaves you with the choice of shooting negative film, which you apparently do in fairly low volume. I will grant that negative film has an advantage in dynamic range over today's digitals, possibly over even the Fuji S3 pro with its extended highlight range. For medium and large formats, film also has a resolution advantage, but that is not necessarily the case when comparing 35 mm and today's digitals like your DCS-14n. (The D1H is only 3 megapixels and cannot compete with film or today's digitals in resolution.) And it was only 35 mm that I said was essentially dead, not medium or large format, so the comparison of the 14n to your Recomar doesn't apply.

As long as you stay at low volume, the per-exposure costs of film won't mount up as quickly as it would for an active pro, and the ready availability of good used film gear reduces the capital expenditure for the film route. Nevertheless, unless you stick with a wet lab or have someone else do the processing for you, you must still get a decent scanner, computer, software, and most of the other paraiphernalia necessary for digital processing anyway, so the capital expense amounts to the difference in price between a digital body and a scanner plus film body. In your case, you have - and have paid for - both digital and film equipment, using your digital for proof-shooting. And if you forgo any digital steps in your processing, you must instead pay for paper proofs and any custom prints you make and possibly lose some creative control if you cannot adequately communicate to the printer exactly how you want the process done - or worse, pay the setup and operating expenses of your own wet lab or, perhaps more practical in your case, do it yourself in a rented lab.

Thus, the increased setup cost for your case would be the $1500 price of your 14n, minus $1100 for your used film body and scanner, for a premium of about US$400 for going digital. Although you don't say what your "minimal" film and processing costs are, I would guess that you could make that up in a couple thousand shots at most. Make that a few hundred if you are talking about the Recomar, but the improved quality in that case might well be worth the extra expense.

[Sidebyte]

Read my bio....I am retired on a small farm one hour out of Medellin, Colombia S.A. I have no choice but to print my own prints, 13 X 19 on my Epson is adequate for my needs. The only professional service I utilize is my film purchases and development. There is only one professional lab in Medellin, only one Canon dealer and no Nikon, Minolta or Oly dealer. Considering the fact that I only scan and print specific, limited prints from my 35 mm's ( I have Voigtlander, Contax, Nikon, Canon and Olympus older 35 mm's), the expense is minimal. Add to that the fact that I'm 70 years old, I don't think I can justify or amortize a costly purchase.
I photograph for my own pleasure only and probably spend too much on a hobby anyway....but my fondest wish is to live long enough to become a burden on my children