Is there a future for film...

[Highway 61]

Still, as I'm sure others will agree, the dynamic range of black and white film is still superior than that of most digital sensors.

Well this is just the very reverse, recent large size digital sensors have a very wider dynamic range than what any B&W film can produce.

I'm afraid you are globally confusing greys scales range, dynamic range, curves and curves feet.

B&W film just has this more pleasant rendition to the human eye because, as a matter of fact, it has less dynamic range, with dark shadows and the like, plus that "material" issued by the film grain etc.

Yet it's fully possible to get the very same result off a DLSR if you accept to spend several hours per photo in front of your screen post-processing your RAW files. Do you ?

As for myself, I don't, and here the actual reasons why I still shoot B&W film :

- I like feeding my manual cameras with film
- I like cocking my manual cameras shutters
- I like depressing my manual cameras mechanical shutter releases
- I like processing my own films at home in my steel reels and tanks
- I like enlarging my photos on FB paper in my wet darkroom while listening to the radio

As I can't do all of this with a digital camera, I still continue to shoot film.

Softwares emulating film rendition are a joke for newbies/nostalgics. No need to use those to get nice B&W pics off a RAW file.

As for film market : as per the economy rules, there just cannot remain a lone film manufacturer. The free market rules obey to competition. Would you still shoot film if the lone remaining film manufacturer were, say, Lucky ? Go figure.

So there is just one sane behaviour there : shoot film if you like it. Regularly buy good quality films from actually existing manufacturers (Kodak, Ilford, Foma) as per your needs. Don't hoard film stocks, as it's fooling the market, and will speed the films manufacturers death.

 

[sanmich]

I LOVE the film look (and I've been a digital only shooter for a while now)

Now that's a contradiction I didn't meet so far...
You use exclusively digital, but still the survival of film is important to you😕
why??

 

[djcphoto]

I know that film has an aesthetic/practical/artistic difference compared to digital; whether it's an advantage to a photographer is a personal thing. I know it is for me.

 

[gavinlg]

Now that's a contradiction I didn't meet so far...
You use exclusively digital, but still the survival of film is important to you😕
why??

Well, I've used film up until very recently, and I plan to continue at some point in the future. 35mm film can interchange with 35mm (full frame) digital, but it's not the 35mm stuff that keeps me interested in film. It's the 120 stuff that keeps 35mm digital cameras honest. I'd love a mamiya 7 setup at some point to complement my 5d and x100.

 

[Nikon Bob]

I would think that there is a future for film in a niche market and it will not disappear completely. It offers a different way of working to digital and having choices is always good. I have been shooting a DSLR exclusively the past several years but have absolutely no interest in seeing film disappear altogether. I cannot understand why someone would automatically presume that a digital shooter would want film to disappear.

Bob

 

[segedi]

For some reason I keep buying film...

And after seeing some of Chriscrawfordphoto's slide film scans, I just bought 15 rolls of Provia 100F!

 

[sanmich]

Well, I've used film up until very recently, and I plan to continue at some point in the future. 35mm film can interchange with 35mm (full frame) digital, but it's not the 35mm stuff that keeps me interested in film. It's the 120 stuff that keeps 35mm digital cameras honest. I'd love a mamiya 7 setup at some point to complement my 5d and x100.

Makes sense...
thanks

Back to the OP:

I won't even consider digital as long as a FF Leica body cost so much.
After an M9 is priced as a D700, I will probably find other reasons to keepon shooting film, but it may be harder to justify.

 

[RMontgomery]

Even though I have a dslr, I still enjoy shooting with my film cameras. As far as film, I believe it will still be around long after I'm gone.

 

[thegman]

Dear Simon,

Yes.

A good imitation is not the same as the real thing.

And, a good different thing is still not the same thing.

But a lot depends on how much effort you want to put in. Scanning is one thing. Wet printing is quite another.

Cheers,

R.

I agree with this 100%. I find it hard to express in words, but an identical reproduction of a film photograph using digital means, to me somehow seems false. I have nothing against digital photography, but using it to convince the viewer that they are in fact viewing a film photograph does not seem to be a very good idea.

I don't want an alcoholic beverage which tastes like a 20 year old Scottish whisky. I want an actual 20 year old Scottish whisky. I may not be able to tell the difference, but knowing the history and it's provenance somehow matters to me, either in photography, whisky, or many other things.

By all means, shoot digital for it's strengths, but using those strengths to fake the qualities of another medium seems pointless to me.

 

[claacct]

I agree with this 100%. I find it hard to express in words, but an identical reproduction of a film photograph using digital means, to me somehow seems false. I have nothing against digital photography, but using it to convince the viewer that they are in fact viewing a film photograph does not seem to be a very good idea.

I don't want an alcoholic beverage which tastes like a 20 year old Scottish whisky. I want an actual 20 year old Scottish whisky. I may not be able to tell the difference, but knowing the history and it's provenance somehow matters to me, either in photography, whisky, or many other things.

By all means, shoot digital for it's strengths, but using those strengths to fake the qualities of another medium seems pointless to me.

In other words Sebastiao Salgado is a shameless fake and a fraud...

 

[semilog]

Well this is just the very reverse, recent large size digital sensors have a very wider dynamic range than what any B&W film can produce.

Well, that may or may not be true; the technical issues are certainly more complicated than a simple [are too! / are not!] dichotomy. DR has not been a limiting parameter in B&W photography for quite some time, and it's a largely solved problem in digital photography as well, except on sensors with very tight pixel pitch. In any case one might wish to ask, given that both film and digital sensors with low noise and high FWC can give you 14 stops of DR, are there really a lot of situations in practical (non-scientific) photography that require more?

I think this is a pretty boring and unhelpful line of argument.

 

[ampguy]

not to mention

not to mention

less gas for the lactose intolerants ....

It all depends on what is you are after. Is there any reason to eat shortdated icecream from milk and berries if product from vegetable oils and aromatisers tastes close enough to real icecream, costs way less and keeps fresh for much longer?

 

[semilog]

Thegman wrote: I agree with this 100%. I find it hard to express in words, but an identical reproduction of a film photograph using digital means, to me somehow seems false. I have nothing against digital photography, but using it to convince the viewer that they are in fact viewing a film photograph does not seem to be a very good idea.

With all due respect, blanket statements like this suggest that you may not know what you're talking about. Great prints are great prints, period.

You really should have seen the showing of Todd Gangler's carbon gelatin pigment prints that we went to last night. His prints are made using a hybrid digital and analog workflow. I have never seen finer prints, in color or in black and white, using any methodology.

 

[Simon Bruxelles]

Thanks for all your replies. My question was not whether film would continue but whether film photography has reached the end of the road in terms of style and innovation. Can I use my film cameras to take pictures that are fresh, original and interesting, or has it all been done already, by far greater photographers than I?
I know I prefer a film image to a digital one but do the physical limitations of film mean it's impossible to do anything that hasn't been done before. With digital you have HDR and the amazing macro images created by merging dozens of images each focussed in a different plane, but whatever we do with film will always be seen in the context of the great photographers of the past.
So I am wondering if there's still an opportunity to create great, original images on film or has it all been done.

[/url]
Smithfield by debrux2010, on Flickr[/IMG]

 

[Teuthida]

It all depends on what is you are after. Is there any reason to eat shortdated icecream from milk and berries if product from vegetable oils and aromatisers tastes close enough to real icecream, costs way less and keeps fresh for much longer?

I love a good analogy. well done.

 

[Nikon Bob]

Simon

I have a feeling that, generally, it has all been done before no matter what medium you use and especially if said medium has been around awhile. With the shear numbers of people taking photos today it is almost inevitable that several people will see the same subject in the same way and interpret it in a similar fashion, not necessarily identical fashion but close enough not to matter too much.

Bob

 

[Simon Bruxelles]

Simon

I have a feeling that, generally, it has all been done before no matter what medium you use ...

Bob

I agree re film but not with digital which is still pushing the boundaries. For example I have seen some amazing night landscapes of the milky way that could not have been done without current technology. But I still love film!

 

[haempe]

I agree re film but not with digital which is still pushing the boundaries. For example I have seen some amazing night landscapes of the milky way that could not have been done without current technology. But I still love film!

😕
Use whatever you need, to reach your goal...
It seems this thread goes silly...

 

[semilog]

I am wondering if there's still an opportunity to create great, original images on film or has it all been done.

Is painting done? Sculpture? Stone lithography? Classical piano? Poetry?

 

[thegman]

With all due respect, blanket statements like this suggest that you may not know what you're talking about. Great prints are great prints, period.

You really should have seen the showing of Todd Gangler's carbon gelatin pigment prints that we went to last night. His prints are made using a hybrid digital and analog workflow. I have never seen finer prints, in color or in black and white, using any methodology.

Like I said, I have trouble putting this into words.

First of all, I don't think it's a matter of not knowing what I (or anyone else) is talking about. It's a simple matter of preference. I may not like Ribena, but it does not mean I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to fruit cordials. It's just a matter of preference.

Second of all, I've nothing against a digital or hybrid workflow, I myself don't wet print, I print digitally. I don't doubt a digital print can be as good, or better than any other.

What I'm saying is that when you start applying effects to make digital look like film, I'm not sure what the value is there.

What I'm trying to say is that:

a) There is nothing wrong with digital workflows
b) Film workflow is not "better".
c) I don't like this business of using digital to make fake film shots.

I just don't see the value in making digital photos look like film ones. I'm not saying it's bad, or wrong, I just don't see the value in it.