Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Last I heard, one can still purchase canvas and put paint on it... Wasn't film supposed to eliminate the need to mess up canvas with sloppy paste of many colors?
This has to be the silliest question on photo fora, which is why my answer is also silly, I.E., Ask a silly question...
This has to be the silliest question on photo fora, which is why my answer is also silly, I.E., Ask a silly question...
Taqi
Established
One of the main issues I have with digital is the equipment. I went out shooting with a friend the other day, me with my R3a, him with a Nikon DSLR. Now he is perfectly happy with it, but boy the size of it... he takes a fair sized rucksack with him wherever he goes. Now I could never do that - it would stop me shooting. He finds it no problem - fair enough - but says that he never shoots street (in the loosest sense) photography because he doesnt feel comfortable doing it, and I can see why - he looks like a paparazzo.. That's not to say he doesnt shoot seriously good pictures.
Plus I want 3 basic controls - shutter speed, aperture, focus. I cannot be arsed with menus, screens, buttons etc. I would consider an M8 when everything is shaken out with it but I weigh it up against the MP and for me it is a no brainer. So for the modest type of photography I aspire to , simpler & smaller is better for me, and that means film.
As an aside, I also have a couple of standard 8 cine cameras I occasionally use, (one of which I think dates back to the 30's) which as a format was supposedly rendered obsolete in 1965 and as a technology in the mid 80's - I can still get the film so whilst I try not to be complacent about the future of film (keep buying!) I am stoical.
Plus I want 3 basic controls - shutter speed, aperture, focus. I cannot be arsed with menus, screens, buttons etc. I would consider an M8 when everything is shaken out with it but I weigh it up against the MP and for me it is a no brainer. So for the modest type of photography I aspire to , simpler & smaller is better for me, and that means film.
As an aside, I also have a couple of standard 8 cine cameras I occasionally use, (one of which I think dates back to the 30's) which as a format was supposedly rendered obsolete in 1965 and as a technology in the mid 80's - I can still get the film so whilst I try not to be complacent about the future of film (keep buying!) I am stoical.
Last edited:
MadMan2k
Well-known
Where do you find the standard 8 film? I've looked for some, but it seems pretty rare, and expensive considering the camera (kodak brownie 8mm movie camera) I have cost $2.50...
Bike Tourist
Well-known
I have determined that film has a future at least ten years beyond my own.
Therefor, it's not my problem.
Therefor, it's not my problem.
GeneW
Veteran
I think film will be around for quite some time, but in a broad historical sense I think we're approaching the sunset of film's day. After that perhaps a long twilight. After that, maybe just a few campfires on the hillside. It's still some way off but digicams just keep getting better and better. I use both film and digital and although it's a totally personal opinion, I believe they're at par right now, with each having strengths and some shortcomings. My much devalued $0.02 CAD.
Gene
Gene
NickTrop
Veteran
40th Anniversary of Super 8 film
Kodak celebrates 40th anniversary of super 8 film announces new color reversal product to portfolio
ROCHESTER, NY, May 9 -From its beginnings as the home movie medium of the 1960s, Super 8 film is alive and well, and serving a vital segment of today's filmmaking industry...
...Kodak remains committed to the Super 8 format, as evidenced by the new film announced today. Kodak is building on a product line that covers the needs of enthusiasts, from a choice of stocks in negative, black and white, and reversal films.
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/about/news/super8.jhtml
----------
Gim'me a break. This article came out in 2005, when Kodak introduced a NEW SUPER 8 FILM. 35mm still camera film will be available to your grandchildren. My question is, does still digital capture have a future given its poor quality relative to film, major inconveniences, slow processing on home PCs, need to manipulate every image you shoot to get one that's acceptable, reliance on batteries that drain in hours, reliance on computers and software, need for unreliable storage devices certain to crash or become unreadable, reliance on competing file formats sure not to be around years from now, and accelerated obsolescence cycle that caused people like me to return to film???
I mean you don't need this near perfect product - get a decent camera that lasts for decades (or even a lifetime if you bother to CLA it every couple decades), buy a roll of film for a few bucks, snap away, drop it off on almost any corner in the nation, and get a bunch of prints back for about a quarter a pop, in about an hour. Perfect... Nope, nope none of that. You need this thing - this futzy complicated new plastic gadget that costs $300 for a point and shoot than can't do above 200 ISO that requires a computer, expensive short lived batteries, has 1/3 the resolution of film, a printer, expensive inks, expensive software, mass storage... and will take you hours going cross-eyed in front of your PC or Kiosk to get the same number of prints you can get at any drugstore in about an hour for $8.00 if you used film.
Digital imaging and its so-called "advantages" is the biggest scam ever perpetrated by the marketing departments of Japanese consumer electronics companies. They managed to convince an unsuspecting public that a darn near perfect product (film and film cameras) that is superior in nearly every way to digital, is actually inferior to a new technology, convincing people to throw away perfectly good - actually better cameras that take better more evocative, deeper, richer, more visually interesting, and more sophisticated images, more easily, which are much more fun and simplier to use...
...and run out and plunk down hundreds/thousands of dollars on an inferior new technology...
Brilliant!
Big tobacco, I'm sure, is taking notes...
Leica - to their credit, resisted this lunacy until they nearly went bankrupt. Their engineers, I'm sure, are still scratching their heads - Let me get this straight. You want to put this outstanding piece of high-end glass on that crappy low-res (relative to film) highlight destroying digital sensor? Er, okay, whatever...
But a lot of this "logic" seems to be going around these days. We had people in high places who convinced a nation that attacking a country that didn't have anything to do with a tragic and infamous terrorist attack, actually takes precidence over capturing and punishing the actual perpetrators of the attack... ...going on five years, thousands of lives, and hundreds of billions of wasted dollars later...
... so I guess anything is possible
Kodak celebrates 40th anniversary of super 8 film announces new color reversal product to portfolio
ROCHESTER, NY, May 9 -From its beginnings as the home movie medium of the 1960s, Super 8 film is alive and well, and serving a vital segment of today's filmmaking industry...
...Kodak remains committed to the Super 8 format, as evidenced by the new film announced today. Kodak is building on a product line that covers the needs of enthusiasts, from a choice of stocks in negative, black and white, and reversal films.
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/about/news/super8.jhtml
----------
Gim'me a break. This article came out in 2005, when Kodak introduced a NEW SUPER 8 FILM. 35mm still camera film will be available to your grandchildren. My question is, does still digital capture have a future given its poor quality relative to film, major inconveniences, slow processing on home PCs, need to manipulate every image you shoot to get one that's acceptable, reliance on batteries that drain in hours, reliance on computers and software, need for unreliable storage devices certain to crash or become unreadable, reliance on competing file formats sure not to be around years from now, and accelerated obsolescence cycle that caused people like me to return to film???
I mean you don't need this near perfect product - get a decent camera that lasts for decades (or even a lifetime if you bother to CLA it every couple decades), buy a roll of film for a few bucks, snap away, drop it off on almost any corner in the nation, and get a bunch of prints back for about a quarter a pop, in about an hour. Perfect... Nope, nope none of that. You need this thing - this futzy complicated new plastic gadget that costs $300 for a point and shoot than can't do above 200 ISO that requires a computer, expensive short lived batteries, has 1/3 the resolution of film, a printer, expensive inks, expensive software, mass storage... and will take you hours going cross-eyed in front of your PC or Kiosk to get the same number of prints you can get at any drugstore in about an hour for $8.00 if you used film.
Digital imaging and its so-called "advantages" is the biggest scam ever perpetrated by the marketing departments of Japanese consumer electronics companies. They managed to convince an unsuspecting public that a darn near perfect product (film and film cameras) that is superior in nearly every way to digital, is actually inferior to a new technology, convincing people to throw away perfectly good - actually better cameras that take better more evocative, deeper, richer, more visually interesting, and more sophisticated images, more easily, which are much more fun and simplier to use...
...and run out and plunk down hundreds/thousands of dollars on an inferior new technology...
Brilliant!
Big tobacco, I'm sure, is taking notes...
Leica - to their credit, resisted this lunacy until they nearly went bankrupt. Their engineers, I'm sure, are still scratching their heads - Let me get this straight. You want to put this outstanding piece of high-end glass on that crappy low-res (relative to film) highlight destroying digital sensor? Er, okay, whatever...
But a lot of this "logic" seems to be going around these days. We had people in high places who convinced a nation that attacking a country that didn't have anything to do with a tragic and infamous terrorist attack, actually takes precidence over capturing and punishing the actual perpetrators of the attack... ...going on five years, thousands of lives, and hundreds of billions of wasted dollars later...
... so I guess anything is possible
Last edited:
Taqi
Established
MadMan2k said:
Here is a useful list of suppliers:
http://www.standard8.org/film_stock.php
Due to standard 8 film's close relationship with 16mm, and lack of dependence on a cartridge, I suspect it will be around longer than Super 8 paradoxically...
Hmmm now I've got the Bolex H8 lust again
amateriat
We're all light!
To echo Dick's sentiment: I don't have an infinite future, either, but I expect to be using film for some time yet. Just what I'll be shooting with, say, in five to ten years' time is anyone's guess (and, who knows, perhaps a true "killer" digital system will emerge in that time; it isn't here now, IMO), but I'll find material to work with. And I don't take for granted what I have to work with now.
- Barrett
- Barrett
5:00 PM
It's a light machine
NickTrop said:
Sorry Nick. When I shoot kids with my M4, they run around behind me expecting to see the picture on an LCD. Film's future is a question, but digital is here to stay.
40oz
...
we have newspapers, radio, and television. I use all three on a daily basis for news and entertainment. I also use my PC for the same. At the introduction of each new media, there was alot of handwringing about how the existing media were now "dead." It never ceases to amaze me how many people fail to learn from the history that stares them in the face every day. (Let's take bets on how many people respond with a comment on how they heard newspapers are in trouble because of internet advertising 
)
Film won't be "dead" until people stop asking if it is :/
)Film won't be "dead" until people stop asking if it is :/
S
Socke
Guest
yeah, and they still make horsewhips and buggies and so on. But nobody makes real to real audio tapes anymore.
pesphoto
Veteran
When I have kids in the near future they sure as heck will know film and darkrooms way before they know anything about digital cameras.
NickTrop
Veteran
5:00 PM said:
Again, people are used to a new technology being better than the technology it replaces. Japanese consumer electronic companies are aware of this assumption, and brilliantly exploited this consumer assumption to sell an inferior technology - digital, to the masses. They were able to get the picture quality good enough on digital (from a resolution standpoint) on small prints to dupe the world into throwing out their perfectly good but "old" cameras in favor of a new technology with a good "hook"/gimmick - seeing you pictures immediately on a tiny LCD screen. Big deal. Because some people are conditioned to this gimmick (as the novelty wears off for others) does not predict the longevity of the inferior medium.
Digital is inferior in almost every way to film. Film blows it away from a quality standpoint, a convenience standpoint, and a cost standpoint (beyond a certain volume, which is why "pros" shoot it for crappy commercial work). Film and film cameras are a near perfect technology. Buy a roll of film - cheap. Drop it off and have it developed (cheap if your not doing 100 rolls). Pick it up in an hour. Blow it up to near any size without concern of images getting blurry or pixelated. No need for batteries on "the best" of the cameras (the all manual ones). Perfect. Want to project an image? No biggie. Shoot slide, and project the image on a billboard if you want. Cameras? Last a lifetime under normal use, with a CLA ever couple decades. No need for computers, short-lived expensive rechargable batteries, finicky short-lived printers, printer inks, cables,
or software, "firmware updates" to fix problems after release, bugs - like an unwanted "IR Mode" on pricey cameras etc., etc., etc...
Film - a perfect technology with - what, proven three times the resolution of digital? Better control of highlights? More interesting, rich, deeper images that cause TV producers to /INSIST/ on film for dramas, leaving the crappy digital capture for soap operas cheap reality TV shows...
Why?
Because they know digital is cheap but not evocative. If digital capture was evocative enough, ALL TV would be shot on it. Why do you think this is not the case in 2007?
And again,
1. Film is a near perfect technology the blows digital away in nearly every aspect from cost to image quality. People are beginning to recognize this.
2. Digital imaging and its so-called "advantages" is the biggest scam ever perpetrated by the marketing departments of Japanese consumer electronics companies.
3. Hey, people get duped sometimes. But - like the war in Iraq, start to catch one after a while.
So, again, my question is, does the inferior technology, digital, have a future?
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Better have a flame proof suit...
Better have a flame proof suit...
Nick,
While I agree with you, try posting this quote over at www.dpreview.com and see what the response is...
Better have a flame proof suit...
NickTrop said:
Nick,
While I agree with you, try posting this quote over at www.dpreview.com and see what the response is...
pesphoto
Veteran
i have to agree that for me film is the only way to go.
But digital does have a place...especially in the commercial world and wedding world. My wife shoots weddings and digital has revolutionized the wedding photography industry. The only drawback is that so many people now think they can just buy a digital camera and call themselves a professional photographer. But in terms of making the whole process easier, quicker and aslo more profitable makes digital so worth it for professional use.
But digital does have a place...especially in the commercial world and wedding world. My wife shoots weddings and digital has revolutionized the wedding photography industry. The only drawback is that so many people now think they can just buy a digital camera and call themselves a professional photographer. But in terms of making the whole process easier, quicker and aslo more profitable makes digital so worth it for professional use.
robert blu
quiet photographer
I do really hope film will have a future . I just bought a new film scanner !
rob
rob
5:00 PM
It's a light machine
I appreciate a well-reasoned argument in favor of something I personally love dearly, but the cultural shift toward digital's instant gratification and perceived quality is already complete. Nobody in the mass market cares that my Leica is almost as old as I am; nobody in the mass market has cared much about camera longevity since the Polaroid Swinger. Photography equipment is a huge industry that runs like all other corporate interests: in pursuit of profit. Average people - who buy 90%+ of everything the industry makes - are not sorry to see film go; "good riddance" is a fair summary of their attitudes towards film. Many, many people who stopped taking pictures years ago have now bought digitals and are snapping away. One study says there are probably already 500 billion digital images among consumers, only a tiny fraction of which will ever be printed. 11% of Americans have more than 10,000 digital images; how many Americans EVER had that many film negatives? Cameras are now PC peripherals for the vast majority - and people are delighted with this. From their point of view, those of us that prefer to shoot film are like the cranks who still argue that no word processor is better than a Remington Noiseless Junior typewriter.
Film may be a nearly-perfect technology as you describe it; it is also a technology that average people have RUN, not walked away from as soon as there was a viable alternative with compelling new features. The allure of the P&S digital camera among average people is astonishing. I know people who never really figured out their VCRs and who are constantly shooting video clips instead of stills because they can't even remember to make sure their digicam is set to "Auto" - but they will still tell you how much better their shiny new plastic wonder is than their old film camera. The truth is they hated loading film, they hated unloading film, they hated taking film to be processed, they hated waiting for it to be developed and printed, they hated that 17 shots out of 36 sucked but they had to pay for them anyway. Just the single fact that they can now instantly review and discard their failures absolutely dooms film for them. Digital is a dream come true for this sort of person, meaning 90%+ of all people who ever press a shutter release.
The simple fact is that we film enthusists are a drop in the global photography industry bucket. Thankfully it is a very large bucket, so I do expect film to continue for those who really want it and are willing to pay for it. But the last new film camera I bought - a very nifty Rollei Prego for my wife - is literally worth less than nothing today. It has depreciated completely, while an early digital I bought a year later can still draw eBay buyers. In the mass market, film is dead and nothing short of a reversal in the laws of physics is going to bring it back.
Film may be a nearly-perfect technology as you describe it; it is also a technology that average people have RUN, not walked away from as soon as there was a viable alternative with compelling new features. The allure of the P&S digital camera among average people is astonishing. I know people who never really figured out their VCRs and who are constantly shooting video clips instead of stills because they can't even remember to make sure their digicam is set to "Auto" - but they will still tell you how much better their shiny new plastic wonder is than their old film camera. The truth is they hated loading film, they hated unloading film, they hated taking film to be processed, they hated waiting for it to be developed and printed, they hated that 17 shots out of 36 sucked but they had to pay for them anyway. Just the single fact that they can now instantly review and discard their failures absolutely dooms film for them. Digital is a dream come true for this sort of person, meaning 90%+ of all people who ever press a shutter release.
The simple fact is that we film enthusists are a drop in the global photography industry bucket. Thankfully it is a very large bucket, so I do expect film to continue for those who really want it and are willing to pay for it. But the last new film camera I bought - a very nifty Rollei Prego for my wife - is literally worth less than nothing today. It has depreciated completely, while an early digital I bought a year later can still draw eBay buyers. In the mass market, film is dead and nothing short of a reversal in the laws of physics is going to bring it back.
K
Kin Lau
Guest
NickTrop said:
I'm trying to figure out why it's only the "Japanese" being singled out.
aad
Not so new now.
Funny, I've been doing the "digital dance" for the last week or so, and finally got out to a store to handle some of my candidates.
I was surprised at the decent quality and feel, the speed to "ready" when turned on-
But I can't buy any of them. At least not as a hobby camera, and that's what photography is for me, a hobby.
They either rely on the LCD screen (bigger now, but still difficult for me to enjoy), have a miserable little peep-hole, or an execrable electronic viewfinder that works better if I close my eyes. The SLRs are way too big. I just wouldn't enjoy using them. It outweighs any convenience in not having to develop and scan.
As for image quality, I have to agree with Nick-slides are so far ahead, even 35mm. I hope someday scanners can do them justice so the silly internet comparisons might quiet down.
Frankly, my 2.2 MP Nikon Coolpix seems to do all I need from a digital right now.
I was surprised at the decent quality and feel, the speed to "ready" when turned on-
But I can't buy any of them. At least not as a hobby camera, and that's what photography is for me, a hobby.
They either rely on the LCD screen (bigger now, but still difficult for me to enjoy), have a miserable little peep-hole, or an execrable electronic viewfinder that works better if I close my eyes. The SLRs are way too big. I just wouldn't enjoy using them. It outweighs any convenience in not having to develop and scan.
As for image quality, I have to agree with Nick-slides are so far ahead, even 35mm. I hope someday scanners can do them justice so the silly internet comparisons might quiet down.
Frankly, my 2.2 MP Nikon Coolpix seems to do all I need from a digital right now.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
To be entirely fair, my digital P&S has replaced my film P&S in which I used mainly color print film. My slides and B&W film use is still done with either SLRs or Rangefinders.