Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
What is the context of the demise of film? My answer:
http://themachineplanet.wordpress.com/2013/11/19/all-that-science/
Dante
http://themachineplanet.wordpress.com/2013/11/19/all-that-science/
Dante
Scrambler
Well-known
So must all the trades associated with animal-powered transport have felt circa 1930.
Ronald M
Veteran
Sad but move over for the new world. I practically gave away 12 Leica cameras a year ago for an M9 mate for my M8.
Jets replaced propellers , something will replace gasoline, the world always moves on.
And yes I like riding in my car more than a buggy or sitting on a horse. Air conditioning is better than a fan.
Jets replaced propellers , something will replace gasoline, the world always moves on.
And yes I like riding in my car more than a buggy or sitting on a horse. Air conditioning is better than a fan.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
I remember the first time I heard the news flash that film would soon become extinct because of the digital photography "revolution." It was in June. Of 1997. 
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
Progress Fuels Regress....
Pioneer
Veteran
I don't think anything ever truly goes entirely away.
There are probably a few people out there who can chip rocks to make arrowheads. But there are few people who hunt today to provide their living, let alone people who regularly use the arrowheads they chipped from stone to do it.
Using film requires a very high level of technology which is a lot more expensive to maintain then the technology to make stone arrowheads. If the business case for film goes away, it will go away. At least the way most of us use it. I suspect the guys who use large format cameras will probably still have film when our 35mm film cameras have gone quiet.
But if it makes it any easier to take, digital requires an even higher level of technology to maintain. When the time comes for it to disappear it will happen even quicker.
There are probably a few people out there who can chip rocks to make arrowheads. But there are few people who hunt today to provide their living, let alone people who regularly use the arrowheads they chipped from stone to do it.
Using film requires a very high level of technology which is a lot more expensive to maintain then the technology to make stone arrowheads. If the business case for film goes away, it will go away. At least the way most of us use it. I suspect the guys who use large format cameras will probably still have film when our 35mm film cameras have gone quiet.
But if it makes it any easier to take, digital requires an even higher level of technology to maintain. When the time comes for it to disappear it will happen even quicker.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
Andrea Taurisano
il cimento
Not really. There are and there will always be enough airports in the world that have too short runways for jetliners. There, turbo-prop planes are still the only choice. This includes a significant part of the airport network here in Norway and most other countries with challenging terrain.
Conclusion (which applies to flight industry and photography): different tools for different jobs.
Scrambler
Well-known
Is it relevent to quote the Twin Otter? Out of production between 1988 and 2010, but with ongoing demand for the renewed line because, as you say, some runways are only suitable for STOL.
I expect film will have continued niche production in 100 years...
VertovSvilova
Well-known
This ongoing dialectic of 'film versus digital' is becoming somewhat tedious these days. I think one should simply choose the materials that work for them in respect to a particular end product, whether it be digital, film, or a mix of both. And paradoxically, the results (i.e., the content and context of the image) that originate from these purportedly discordant technologies seems to be a much lesser concern for some practitioners than the technology itself.
One can easily take the role of Delaroche (who viewed the purpose of painting only within a very narrow concept of visual representation) and proclaim: "from today, painting is dead!" But perhaps the better role to take would be that of Baldessari who saw photography as something that could inform and transform his own concept of painting. The reality is that painting never died, but instead was enlightened by photography.
Perhaps using existing technologies and materials to one's advantage and avoid the constraints of what photography 'should be' would be a more productive approach. There should be no 'should be.' And that is what allows the medium to progress, and to (hopefully) continue precipitating a unique and compelling form of visual language. That's the payoff that artists offer us; images that are of import and consequence. Which technologies are employed are important only to the degree that they might inform the image itself (e.g., Sally Mann's use of materials in respect to her subject matter or Andy Warhol's material production in respect to his interpretation of everyday consumerism, etc..)
One can easily take the role of Delaroche (who viewed the purpose of painting only within a very narrow concept of visual representation) and proclaim: "from today, painting is dead!" But perhaps the better role to take would be that of Baldessari who saw photography as something that could inform and transform his own concept of painting. The reality is that painting never died, but instead was enlightened by photography.
Perhaps using existing technologies and materials to one's advantage and avoid the constraints of what photography 'should be' would be a more productive approach. There should be no 'should be.' And that is what allows the medium to progress, and to (hopefully) continue precipitating a unique and compelling form of visual language. That's the payoff that artists offer us; images that are of import and consequence. Which technologies are employed are important only to the degree that they might inform the image itself (e.g., Sally Mann's use of materials in respect to her subject matter or Andy Warhol's material production in respect to his interpretation of everyday consumerism, etc..)
Deardorff
Member
Are you images better now?
More prop planes flying around in more places than you might think. Few bush pilots or crop dusters fly jets.
Try rounding up cattle in rough country in a car or pickup, or even a 4 wheel Gator type vehicle. A horse is much better for the job. As for air conditioning - it is highly overrated and many places can't support the electrical power needed.