Is film dead?

[DigitalPhotography]

For over 30 years I have enjoyed film-based photography. Before buying my D70 I seriously thought about buying an F100 or F5. To this day I often wonder if I have made a mistake by going digital. Digital photography is expensive, problematic, and requires a lot of $ for post processing (computer, software, printer, other hardware).

Is film dead?

[Simon Easton]

Originally Posted by DigitalPhotography

For over 30 years I have enjoyed film-based photography.* Before buying my D70 I seriously thought about buying an F100 or F5. To this day I often wonder if I have made a mistake by going digital.* Digital photography is expensive, problematic, and requires a lot of $ for post processing (computer, software, printer, other hardware).

Is film dead?

I hear you. But I'm afraid I'd have to say, yes, film is dead from the standpoint of what's happening now and where the market is headed.

On the other hand, if you still use film, you can still buy it, so in that sense it's not dead. But clearly if you want to move forward with the rest of the world, you have to transition to digital.

Perhaps there an analogy in the PC world. You can still use WordStar if you want to, but it's "dead" if you want support.

In MF landscape, film is not dead. But why, for example, would you want today to shoot a wedding with film, other than the fact that you haven't taken the plunge into digital?

Are you going to scan all of your negs? How much trouble is that? I could go on but...

[wtntennis]

I think film still has its place in the industry.

[bevilaquafoto]

Film is by no means dead. While I shoot the majority of my jobs on digital, I also just shot a job for a lifestyle magazine that will ONLY accept film! Nothing beats a roll of warm-toned, high stauration Fuji or Kodak film. I also still love shooting black & white portraits on Hasselblad. Digital absolutely has it's place. It is fast (ability to e-mail & FTP photos), versatile, and allows you to correct problems when shooting under less than ideal circumstances, but film still has a definite place that has not yet been eclipsed by digital. Don't throw away your film cameras yet!!

[d2creative]

I think digital is cheaper.
You need a computer, but I would have one of those anyway.
You need some software, but that's not that big of a deal. Especially if you can borrow some from someone for a while or get the LE versions.

The other side is, you save TONS of cash on film! And because of it you can shoot so much more! And then the money you had to spend on a computer and software comes back when you don't have to pay for all that developing of pics that aren't even worth keeping. And no messy stinky chemicals or darkroom space needed. And no scanning of prints or slides to get them onto the computer you probably had anyway so you can email your pics to family and friends.

Film isn't dead, but digital is definitely going to dominate. And at the same time, open up the world of photography to a whole new group of people that might have been scared to venture into it before.

[photosbymorgan2]

Film is not dead but digital is making great progress.

I figure in a few more years with the way digital is going, film will be pretty much set on the back burner.

[hartcons]

A local pro had an open house the other day and said while he uses digital (fuji s2 pro) for indoor work he still uses film for outdoor work (he feels that film can cover more dynamic range). With digital it does seem like you're often blocking up shadows or blowing highlights. If you haven't shot film and want to see what it feels like, just turn off image preview on your digital camera.

People talk about getting better resolution from scanning prints but I did that the other day and the dust bunnies were out of control (not to mention the fact that the photo had scratches). Lots of cleanup was involved. Made me appreciate digital, noise and all.

Have the stock photo houses started accepting digital or is it still all film (or slides?) with them.

[Mark Thomas]

I had the chace recently to buy a Hasselblad 500 with motor drive and 50, 80 & 150mm lenses for $300.00. After a long, hard think I decided against it. I realised I would not go back to film. I get better results from digital with proper post processing than I got with film and scanning. Film is not dead yet but I think it is taking it's last breath. If you look at all the film-camera-only and film manufacturers that have closed recently it shows the state of film at the moment.

cheers

[jwind]

Commercially, I thinks it's close... I think it'll be a long time before its dead though. Mind you I'm speaking from a commercial standpoint here -- all in all I view it as just another medium like watercolor <-> oil.

I DO think that digital benifits far outw weight that of film in a commercial/business setting. Quality in digital captures (from the right sensor) is sharper for one (sure too spark controversy).

What kills me is when clients insist on shooting film b/c "insert silly technephobe comment here" ie. it looks better, it feels better, the colors right. etc and then when they get chromes back, the first thing they do is scan them onto a computer. :

[AlbertP]

Originally Posted by jwind

Commercially, I thinks it's close... I think it'll be a long time before its dead though. Mind you I'm speaking from a commercial standpoint here -- all in all I view it as just another medium like watercolor <-> oil.

I DO think that digital benifits far outw weight that of film in a commercial/business setting.* Quality in digital captures (from the right sensor) is sharper for one (sure too spark controversy).

What kills me is when clients insist on shooting film b/c "insert silly technephobe comment here" ie. it looks better, it feels better, the colors right. etc and then when they get chromes back, the first thing they do is scan them onto a computer. :

Yup. Agree.

I never have anyone ask for film.

[hartcons]

Originally Posted by jwind

What kills me is when clients insist on shooting film b/c "insert silly technephobe comment here" ie. it looks better, it feels better, the colors right. etc and then when they get chromes back, the first thing they do is scan them onto a computer. :

Supposedly drum scanners are really good but otherwise I don't see why someone would want to go through the extra step of scanning a print when they could just shoot digital in the first place.

[jwind]

A few months ago I learned that the local professional Imaging/photo lab stopped developing E6 film. I was shocked... Sure says something about the industry.

[Wonjae Lee]

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....summary1.html
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/

In most cases, DSLRs have more dynamic range than equivalent (same ISO) film.

[jwind]

Originally Posted by th0t

There are still a small number of audiophiles who listen to analog LPs and extol*their virtues,

I'm one, though I do like the sound of vinyl.

[hartcons]

I recently picked up a little record player unit at Office Max and have been running around to garage sales picking up records for $1.00 or less. Of course the selection is a bit limited (a lot of somebody called Montavoni or something like that but I did find Police Greatest Hits as well). I presume it's not a high-quality record player ($80 for the whole thing) but I think it sounds great (the songs from Oklahoma never sounded so good) and you really get to see the cover art (and often the inner sleeve has lyrics that you can actually read). Personally I'd take records over tapes but cds are convenient (albeit still expensive). Now I have my eye on a pre-amp with vacuum tubes

[jwind]

I have a decent record Player and there are multiple Record stores around here where records range in price from Free (whole boxes) to quite expensive. I picked up a cheap PreAmp at radio shack and it really makes my records sound great..

[Stephanie]

I realize this is a digital forum. But I shoot only film b/c I love it. And I know when I get my slides, they are not manipulated in photoshop (although I've scanned negs and pp'd them )
Anyway.
I think film has it's place, and always will have one. Digital is convenient, but it takes the fun out of it... for me. Besides... I love the chemical smell escaping from the cracks of my camera

[hartcons]

Originally Posted by Stephanie

I realize this is a digital forum. But I shoot only film b/c I love it. And I know when I get my slides, they are not manipulated in photoshop (although I've scanned negs and pp'd them )
Anyway.
I think film has it's place, and always will have one. Digital is convenient, but it takes the fun out of it... for me. Besides... I love the chemical smell escaping from the cracks of my camera

I'll doublecheck this point with the site owner, but I should think that film users would be just as welcome on this site as digital users (a photo is a photo in the end regardless of how it was made). You just have that extra step of scanning before posting (unless that was done for you where you got your prints developed)! As far as I can tell not having shot film with an slr, there isn't that much difference between a slr and a d-slr (except that there's a sensor instead of film and plugs for connecting to the computer) anyway. I took several photo courses in high school and college and remember quite well playing around with all those chemicals (toxicity standards were a lot lower back then I think!)

[photosbymorgan2]

Originally Posted by Stephanie

I realize this is a digital forum. But I shoot only film b/c I love it. And I know when I get my slides, they are not manipulated in photoshop (although I've scanned negs and pp'd them )
Anyway.
I think film has it's place, and always will have one. Digital is convenient, but it takes the fun out of it... for me. Besides... I love the chemical smell escaping from the cracks of my camera*

All photographers are welcome on this site. Though most people are digital shooters, Film shooters are welcome as well.

So Post post post and enjoy. And post any questions you may have.