DougK
This space left blank
Well said, Francisco.
I think I'm going to go make some prints now. 🙂
I think I'm going to go make some prints now. 🙂
My theory on the SLOW death of digital
- Thread starter MP Guy
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 135
- Views 10K
K
Krasnaya_Zvezda
Guest
I'll try to state this, briefly, succinctly, Film = jazz. It's not going anywhere, but it won't die, either. True lovers of the medium will keep it alive, because they know it, they understand it, they grok the exquisite nature of it; but it is gone forever from the mainstream, from those who never grasped its subtleties to begin with.
Soapy Kittens
Young Professional
My sister is an archivist with Masters degree, and we've had conversations about this. She says that transferring an image file from one medium to another cannot be done without data loss and that it's a major concern in the archiving community. I've done no research to support this, but... It seems to me you might be onto something there. I don't think most people care one way or another, but as far as long term image life, until there's a better archiving technology, film is the way to go. I compare it to how no one cared about baseball cards in the 1950's, so they became rarer and rarer. No one cares about archiving digital photographs now, so thirty years down the line there will undoubtedly be more quality film images from 2005... That said, digital photography isn't going anywhere; it's not an either/or situation. I liked the jazz analogy. Jazz, vinyl, and film photography. I don't see a problem with that.
Ben
Ben
K
Ken Tanaka
Guest
There actually is little to debate here. While the film imaging medium will persevere for many years to come, albeit increasingly as a "nostalgic imaging technique", the sheer capital buoying electronic imaging's development (not to mention its numerous advantages) ensure that it will remain increasingly dominant indefinitely.
The next epoch will be marked by an entirely new medium but certainly not emulsion-based film. Rather, it's likely to be a digital-type removable medium, perhaps organic, able to retain its image, and to be stored, indefinitely. There is already much work, and capital, being devoted toward this type of goal. Such a medium could gradually shift the marketing economics back toward photography's consumables -- a potentially richer market -- and somewhat away from instruments. It's likely that sensor-based image recording will remain solidly positioned for consumer cameras, as the incremental investment required by manufacturers to support that market segment will be modest and the ever-richer returns will provide much-needed capital to retire the enormous debts incurred to develop digital imaging's technology and manufacturing facilities. The new medium will be introduced at the top end of the market and will likely remain there for a decade or so. But eventually it, too, will trickle down to daddy cams.
Meanwhile, at least some films will continue to be available for feeding our rangefinders. Consolidation of brands and emulsions will help to keep film's profitability attractive to at least two or three companies.
That's my forecast.
The next epoch will be marked by an entirely new medium but certainly not emulsion-based film. Rather, it's likely to be a digital-type removable medium, perhaps organic, able to retain its image, and to be stored, indefinitely. There is already much work, and capital, being devoted toward this type of goal. Such a medium could gradually shift the marketing economics back toward photography's consumables -- a potentially richer market -- and somewhat away from instruments. It's likely that sensor-based image recording will remain solidly positioned for consumer cameras, as the incremental investment required by manufacturers to support that market segment will be modest and the ever-richer returns will provide much-needed capital to retire the enormous debts incurred to develop digital imaging's technology and manufacturing facilities. The new medium will be introduced at the top end of the market and will likely remain there for a decade or so. But eventually it, too, will trickle down to daddy cams.
Meanwhile, at least some films will continue to be available for feeding our rangefinders. Consolidation of brands and emulsions will help to keep film's profitability attractive to at least two or three companies.
That's my forecast.
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
Spot on !
Spot on !
Seldom in times where all kind of would-be fortunetellers try to sell us hearsay and second hand info read in magazines as their forecast . 😀
Best,
Bertram
Spot on !
Agreed at all points, nothing to add, IMHO a forecast which earns the name !Ken Tanaka said:
Seldom in times where all kind of would-be fortunetellers try to sell us hearsay and second hand info read in magazines as their forecast . 😀
Best,
Bertram
jon_flanders
Well-known
I think that there is another side to this debate that needs to be explored.
What is the energy cost of digital vs film? In a world of growing fossil fuel scarcity, what will be the priorities?
Film storage would seem to be fairly benign, energy-wise. If stored in a cool place that doesn't require air-conditioning, anyway.
Many digital mediums require electricity to either maintain storage or to read what was stored.
Then there is the question of energy in the cost of a single photograph. What happens if we compare the energy required to make a print from a 60's camera versus a modern digital? The film processing itself could be considered to be equal, assuming you use a home printer or a lab. Of course, film requires chemicals and the energy to acquire them and use them to make the negatives.
On the other hand, the energy used to make that metal camera has already been expended long ago.
We are still in the process of amortizing the energy and resources needed to creat our plastic digital. And as has been pointed out, the turnover of the product cycle means that disposability comes with a cost, energy wise. As the price of petroleum continues it's relentless drive, plastic may not be so cheap.
I haven't done a study on all this, but I suspect film has some advantages in this area.
What is the energy cost of digital vs film? In a world of growing fossil fuel scarcity, what will be the priorities?
Film storage would seem to be fairly benign, energy-wise. If stored in a cool place that doesn't require air-conditioning, anyway.
Many digital mediums require electricity to either maintain storage or to read what was stored.
Then there is the question of energy in the cost of a single photograph. What happens if we compare the energy required to make a print from a 60's camera versus a modern digital? The film processing itself could be considered to be equal, assuming you use a home printer or a lab. Of course, film requires chemicals and the energy to acquire them and use them to make the negatives.
On the other hand, the energy used to make that metal camera has already been expended long ago.
We are still in the process of amortizing the energy and resources needed to creat our plastic digital. And as has been pointed out, the turnover of the product cycle means that disposability comes with a cost, energy wise. As the price of petroleum continues it's relentless drive, plastic may not be so cheap.
I haven't done a study on all this, but I suspect film has some advantages in this area.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Interesting points, jon... because they bring about the problem of the so-called e-waste. Digital gizmos, with their high rate of "obsoletization" (I made up the word, but I'm sure you guys get my drift) only add to this particular problem. Not that film cameras aren't made of plastic, but then, your chances of literally throwing one away are slim.
What do people do with their "suddenly obsolete" digital cameras? I doubt they throw them away, though I'm sure not everyone gets an upgrade. In any case, like with computers, it'll take some time before noticing anything.
Again... I'm not particularly bent on debating which is better or which will "survive." Neither video killed the radio star, nor the phonograph killed the concert musician. If anything, we'll see a cohabitation of media, and more power (and choices) to us, users.
Your compulsive optimistic signing off live from DeKalb,
What do people do with their "suddenly obsolete" digital cameras? I doubt they throw them away, though I'm sure not everyone gets an upgrade. In any case, like with computers, it'll take some time before noticing anything.
Again... I'm not particularly bent on debating which is better or which will "survive." Neither video killed the radio star, nor the phonograph killed the concert musician. If anything, we'll see a cohabitation of media, and more power (and choices) to us, users.
Your compulsive optimistic signing off live from DeKalb,
P
pradeep1
Guest
In a very short while, children will be born who will never use a film camera. Probably will never see one either. I don't see them picking up film either, except in small niches, or unless they've got parents who show them film and what film can do. Digital will overcome its archival problems (example the Adobe DNG format for camera RAW) and by 2010 will dominate all aspects of photography. Once the users of this board die out, film will as well. I remember reading a thread on this forum about how old people are. Most seemed to be above 45. I am 30 and my generation was at the tipping point between film/digital. Imagine what someone who is 1 day old today will think when they are my age?
Fortunately, the USA comprises of only 4% of the world's population, and if you add Europe and Japan, a maximum of 10%. That means there is still 90% of the world's population using film. That may extend the shelf life of film a bit longer.
Fortunately, the USA comprises of only 4% of the world's population, and if you add Europe and Japan, a maximum of 10%. That means there is still 90% of the world's population using film. That may extend the shelf life of film a bit longer.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
That's what is to expect but it does not say anything about film, if it will survive in a niche or not.pradeep1 said:
And if you expect film do die out with this forum I'd say this will last a bit. Our youngest members are in the age of 19 to 25. Enuff time for me to produce more negs for my 19yo son to watch them 2050 and give them to his son 2065 or so.
Together with his own negs, he too uses a film camera .
If you meant this saying " a bit longer " I agree.
Best,
Bertram
Russ
Well-known
Just yesterday, we booked another wedding. The young couple informed us that if we were digital shooters, that they could not use our services. This is the second wedding that we've recently booked, where the client insisted on using film only. And that was for the purpose of archivalness.
The young couple, are both in the digital field. He works for Intel, and she works in the data, retrieval and storage business. So I will happily be burning NPH & Neopan film. 🙂
Russ
The young couple, are both in the digital field. He works for Intel, and she works in the data, retrieval and storage business. So I will happily be burning NPH & Neopan film. 🙂
Russ
K
Kin Lau
Guest
Film as used in photography, is _already_ a niche market. The bigger market has always been the motion picture industry. We're a speck of dust compared to them, and they will dictate where this will end up. If our cameras didn't share the same 35mm film size (it's a different frame size, but same film size) as movie cameras, 35mm would have been dead a long time ago... aps didn't have that advantage.
I work for Intel as well. Us geeks know .........
John Robertson
Well-known
3MP+ camera phones will kill the compact digital, people here already are using them more than compact cameras for parties etc, they don't want prints as they just text the pictures to each other. Also you get these on contract and the companies upgrade as necessary with very little expense. I've spoken to a lot of people in the 18-25 age group and that is the way they are thinking. "prints just lie around and get lost " said one. Kyocera is dropping cameras to concentrate on producing parts for these things!
Could be interesting!!
Could be interesting!!
Last edited:
P
pradeep1
Guest
I guess we'll all see where this ends up in 20 years. Hopefully we'll all be around. 😉
DougK
This space left blank
Film or digital, it's an exciting time to be involved in photography.
S
Sawdust
Guest
At age 85 I hope your hope comes true! For a couple of years I have been working with photos and film of my GGgrandfather taken during the Civil War. Surprising the quality that can be obtained from the old prints and negs.
Dusty
Dusty
pradeep1 said:
R
RML
Guest
pradeep1 said:
You kinda forget that countries like China, India and Indonesia are rapidly catching up. These three countries alone count for 20-25% of the world's population. True, large sections of their populations are very poor (still) and can't afford a digital camera + PC, but they usually can't afford a film camera either. The majority of digital sales will soon (already?) come from those countries. Added benefit will IMO be that among 2-2.5 billion people there must be a few film geeks; at least enough for a few film producers to remain profitable.
R
RML
Guest
SolaresLarrave said:
I think this is a wrong premise. Though people do like prints, they shoot tons of shots with their (digital) cameras but have only a handful printed. The majority of shots is shared digitally over the internet.
Whether film or digital will survive is IMO much less interesting than to find out what other, new, medium might see the light of day in the (near) future. Will there ever be a medium that can combine the pros of both film and digital, preferably without adding a host of cons?
aizan
Veteran
don't forget about polaroid! the kids love it because it's instant, social, and looks cool!
R
RML
Guest
aizan said:
Not just kids.
Last time in Mongolia I shot mainly with my new Eos 300D, and being able to show the photos instantaniously from the card was a big hit! Actually it was such a big hit that people readily let me shoot whatever whenever I wanted. The "instant gratification" can definitely be helpful to get people in a cooperative mood.
Similar threads
