This "debate" is getting oh so tiresome!!!

[Rafael]

I have to confess that I simply do not understand the need for so much attention to be focused on the film vs. digital debate. The reason for this rant: I just returned from the camera store where, yet again, I was criticised for my "optimism" about the future of film photography.

Now don't get me wrong here, I have a DSLR kit. In fact, I have no film SLR kit anymore. And I shoot at least 90% of my payed work digitally. I have no axe to grind with digital photographers. I am one myself. But I simply do not understand those who persist in playing the role of "doomsday prophet" whenever they discuss film-based photography.

Now I realise that film companies are corporations with obligations only to their shareholders. I understand the power of the profit motive. And I understand that film-based photography will never have the same share of the market that it did prior to the advent of digital imaging. Nevertheless, it seems quite evident that there is a market for film. And judging by the interest in fora such as this one, by the success of a company like Cosina Voigtlander that is actively developing new film bodies and new lenses, and by the continuing demand for Leica products (despite their sometimes astronomical prices), it seems quite evident that the demand for film will continue into the future.

So why do so many people feel the constant need to prophesy the demise of film-based photography? According to the store clerk with whom I conversed today, there remains no doubt. Film will be dead within five years. (At this, I asked why he didn't just give me the FM2 he had under the counter. Afterall, it is essentially just a paperweight now, right?)

For some applications, digital imaging has advantages over traditional film-based photography. For others, a good photographer can do with film what nobody could do with a digital SLR (especially in B+W work). As I said before, I have a complete SLR kit. But for my upcoming trip to South America, I never gave a moment's thought to taking a camera other than a Leica.

So why are photographers turning on one another? Why are we not all supporting the continued development of products for both traditional film-based photography and digital imaging? What do any of us possibly have to gain from the demise of one facet of this pursuit that we all love so dearly? In other words, what is there to debate?

 

[tominabox1]

Funny you bring this up because just the other day I ran into the same thing. The clerk told me he'd be suprised if his store was still selling film in 8 months. He said the prices would go through the roof, like some 3 to 4x as much as current prices.

For a guy who has been working at this store for 8 Years he should know better.

/in an aside, I dont care much for the guy anyway, he's kind of a jerk but he just happens to be the guy I see every time I go in there now 🙁

Long live Film

 

[shadowfox]

The clerks in one of the last "traditional" Wolf camera store near my place at work are in general older and know better than to voice their own opinions unnecessarily. They helped the digital customers as courteously as they would me when I hand them a roll of 120 Kodak Portra 160 NC to develop and *scan* 🙂

As long as they still develop the films, I will give them my business gladly.

Meanwhile, I will continue raising an eyebrow or two to venues where everyone and their dog are toting digital cameras, while my wife, my daughter and I bring film cameras.

 

[ffttklackdedeng]

The reasons of the store clerk could be very simple - to help people justify the expenses of a new digital camera. Imho the very same reason why especially people new to the digital photo world or the ones who've spent a lot of money (for them) on digital equipment claim the demise of film. Just my 2c..

 

[Steve Bellayr]

In 1840 with the advent of photography the demise of painting was predicted. Wasn't there some sort of prediction about videotape replacing film in 1980?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

What debate? 😉

 

[pesphoto]

As for store clerks in a camera store, remember they are trying to sell the biggest and most expensive digital cameras they can so of course they are trying to persuade you that film is "dead". Or will be. Take it with a grain of salt, its not worth arguing with them.

 

[clintock]

A mom at my kids school asked me why i have not gone digital, i said that's like asking a guy swinging a hammer why he has not gone shovel.

 

[bmattock]

In 1840 with the advent of photography the demise of painting was predicted.

No, it wasn't.

It has been variously attributed to Paul Delaroche, Delacroix, Talbot and so on. No one has been able to find a period printed reference to the statement having been made by anyone, it is an apocryphal tale. However, that doesn't mean that someone didn't say it. One credible report I read has Paul Delaroche saying it, but with extreme sarcasm, meaning of course, just the opposite. The French are like that, you know.

It should also be noted that at the time of the invention of photography, many painters were industriously and profitably employed creating what we would now call 'technical drawings' of buildings, bridges, and natural land features for architects and engineers of the time. In very short order, this business was indeed killed stone cold dead by technology - that being the daguerreotype.

The daguerreotype was itself replaced by technology - it turned out to be an evolutionary dead-end.

Technological advances augment or they supercede. There is nothing else. This cannot be debated, it is cold hard fact.

Does digital photographic technology augment or does it supercede?

No one can argue 'which is better.' It does not matter, and neither the world nor history cares.

No one can argue which they prefer. No one but you gives a crap.

No one can argue supply-and-demand economics. That is a proven falsity. There are plenty of things that are in demand and are not made, for a number of reasons. Mercury batteries being a case in point.

No one can argue that because something else that was superceded is still being made in a cottage industry piecework manner, that means everything that is superceded will likewise be made in a cottage industry manner once superceded. There is no logical parallel from one item to the other, they are case-by-case. The existance of part-time bespoke buggy-whip makers does not predicate the existance of beaver hat producers, for example. Both may exist, or one may and the other not. There is no link one can draw.

So, it comes down to this. Does digital photographic technology augment, or does it supercede?

There is no other argument. And no matter what anyone argues, time will tell, and the decision will be completely out of our hands.

But no one will understand this because everyone has too much emotional skin in the game.

Too bad.

Please note - I did not come down on either side. Nor will I. You guys are a hoot.

 

[danwilly]

There are too many of us out there still shooting film to be ignored. Having said that, that film display area at Walgreens seems to get a little smaller each time I visit.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

I too find it a boring topic and simply state, when asked why I haven't "gone digital", that I simply don't want it yet.

Most people simply don't understand choices.

Live, from Costa Rica...

 

[rich815]

>>>>I simply do not understand those who persist in playing the role of "doomsday prophet" whenever they discuss film-based photography.

The reason the clerks do it is to sell more digicam SLRs.

The reason I suspect many others do it is to feel better about the thousands they spent on their DSLR kit. If film is going away, and going away fast, the better they feel about having made the "right" decision. Over at Mike Johnston's blog it seems most of the time when someone makes some comment about how film will be gone soon if you click on their profile you find they shoot a higher-end Canon or Nikon DSLRs (usually Canon) and sometimes even mention in their profile that they are "now 100% digital". Yeah? Well, if so, why even take the time to comment on a film-based thread and predict the pending demise of film then? Like I said, I guess to feel better somehow...

BTW, I remember on photo.net how people were saying how film would be almost impossible to get within the next 3-5 years. That was about 4-5 years ago.....

 

[Trius]

If I sense that film is truly disappearing, I will buy as much as I can of what I want, and watch the world change. I cannot "change the change"; I can be part of the momentum for change (or the momentum to retain), but ultimately it is what it is.

So, yes, it is boring. I choose my materials and tools because they are what I like, not because of some arcane arguments. If I have to adapt because the tools/materials I prefer are no longer available, then I will, or I will give up. I may rant a bit in the process, but I don't expect anyone to listen, much less cater to me.

 

[back alley]

all my lenses are m mount or ltm with adapters.
should film die before i do i'll get an m8 or rd1.

no debate...

 

[EcoLeica]

If anything 35mm will be around for a heck of a long time. I base this on the fact that both fuji and kodak are producing simple and super 8 formats (some places even still stock double eight stock). If ever there was a format that was a niche product it would be these forats. Yet both large companies find justification to keep producing and sometime improving these films. Im I worried? not really after looking at what has happened with Ilford and the likes of new film companies popping up now and then such as gigabit etc

I have to agree though, i always get pressure from most shops to jump ship to digital. Truth be told, to get the quality im getting now i would have to shell out for a very expensive DSLR kit., which is money i dont have

 

[BillBingham2]

The majority of the economy is driven by consumer purchases, luckily, digital cameras were an ever growing segment of that market. I would love to shoot 100% digital, but I can not afford it right now, so I am happy with film. People want to be cool, have the newest, biggest, baddest thing and now that is either a phone (ok,. smallest in that case) or camera. 4X5 is still out there and will be for some time I think, as will 135. You do not see a lot of 126, Disc, APS out there these days as they were focused on consumers and when the market shrinks to point, it implodes. 135 was driven by consumer and professionals so I think it will be around for awhile. At least until Nikon comes out with a digital FM3A with a real focusing screen (P please and thank you) and all the manual controls we love.

B2 (;->

 

[mwooten]

Sometimes with salesmen, it's best to multiply what they say be a factor of 0.25.

 

[Gray Fox]

I live on the south side of Atlanta, and tomorrow am heading to the Appalacian foothills to do my best to find good subjects for my 124 Mat G and Moskva 5. I will have to drive 30 miles, fortunately on my route, just to find 120 film. I'm lucky that a new Sam's store in my area can develop C-41 120 for me (not print, though), and that the machine operator is a film shooter herself. None of the photo stores on this side of town stock 120 and my local pro lab just closed up shop rather than convert to digital equipment. It's little wonder so many of us are dependent on mail order for anything other than common 34mm supplies.

 

[Ducky]

My wife watches political talk shows. Talking heads and gurus always on with opinions that may or may not be accurate even ten minutes from now. Babble and conflict, projections and educated opinions, optimists and doomsayers.

I love coming to the forum and getting away from all that. It's comforting.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

One credible report I read has Paul Delaroche saying it, but with extreme sarcasm, meaning of course, just the opposite. The French are like that, you know.

Sarcasm is unknown in the English-speaking world 🙄