what if film photography was invented after digital?

[maitani]

let's think digital was on the market they way we know it today since 50 years or so, what would happen if some stroke of genius would have invented today a chemical procedure to shoot (film)rolls through physically "touchable" celluloid material on silver-halogenide base, to let you 'burn' the decisive moment on a well archivable negative or positive.
what would happen? what would you be shooting? what would the early adopters buy? what would the reactions be? would the new be automatically better?

interested to hear your opinions.

 

[Araakii]

Is there another parallel example that really exists in real life? I mean, I cannot imagine anything like this happening so I don't know what to think of it.

 

[Nikon Bob]

You would likely get a flat reaction for the same reason people have , for the most part, swung en mass to digital. I'd stay digital and no, new is not automatically better. Pointless really as it would never happen.

Bob

 

[mani]

People would be ditching their old-fashioned, 'nostalgic' digital cameras en masse. The gear-heads would be taunting the digital diehards for keeping their crappy cameras with blown highlights and poor color, and they'd be waxing lyrical about the 'beautifully pronounced grain' and natural hues of color film.

Only problem - film manufacturers would need to produce a new film every few months so that the GAS-obsessed consumerists we've all become could be regularly supplied with a fix.

 

[River Dog]

We would all be talking about reducing the appearance of grain and high ISO performance. :bang:

 

[shadowfox]

I'd still be shooting film and digital.

Seriously, this is a mind-bending question. I have a feeling that were this the case, film won't take off at all. Human nature favors convenience and instant gratification. Has been, will always be.

 

[btgc]

We would have rolls of 1000-4000 frames, great.
Sadly, using filters would require $40 adapters for each different camera.

 

[Teuthida]

Peopke would be obsessing about being able to reproduce that 'Leica Glow' on film.

 

[DtheG]

I once heard a similar question posed some 40 years ago in respect of electronic ignition and fuel injection in cars: what if someone invented the carburettor?

And my answer is rather similar. Film had many years of incremental improvement to reach its final state of 'perfection'. Had this final perfected film been sprung upon a world with digital at the state it was ten years ago we would no doubt marvel at the definition and dynamic range. But that would nonetheless be a quality that could only really be appreciated by looking at a physical print. So it would, in an otherwise digital world be an artist medium but not part of everyday life.
The reality is that for any mundane purpose the quality of current digital imaging is more than a match for film and so much cheaper and more convinient.

 

[Keith]

We'd be frantically trying to find ways to deal with the grain I suspect!

The automobile was invented after the horse and cart ... the other way around wouldn't work either!

 

[Aristophanes]

We would not have Ansel Adams for inspiration.

 

[Speedfreak]

what would the reactions be?

- So you are restricted to one sort of ISO and if you want faster than base ISO grain starts to build up like crazy?
- Are the pictures supposed to be that noisy?
- Is this the higest resolution you can get?
- So you have to send this film thing to a lab that processes it and then you get back a strip with tiny inverted images? Where´s the point?

In short: No. Film today relies on nostalgia. Take that away and there is hardly anything left...

 

[flip]

Working within the constraints of the new medium would define it as "for arts" use - perhaps like using a holga. Some would blossom in the new medium and digital efforts to keep up would include applications to generate grain. Yet, digital stalwarts would continue to cling to the superiority of feeling "inherent" in low-grain digital reproduction on retina displays.

In some ways, this situation is what we have now.

 

[denizg7]

let's think digital was on the market they way we know it today since 50 years or so, what would happen if some stroke of genius would have invented today a chemical procedure to shoot (film)rolls through physically "touchable" celluloid material on silver-halogenide base, to let you 'burn' the decisive moment on a well archivable negative or positive.
what would happen? what would you be shooting? what would the early adopters buy? what would the reactions be? would the new be automatically better?

interested to hear your opinions.

If this was to happen. Eventually we would have a camera where as it's both Film for special occasions and Digital for everyday use

 

[Paul Jenkin]

"New" is almost invariably interesting, sexy and attracts attention. However, "New" isn't always better; it's just just "different". Therefore, those who like both would use both. Those who prefer one to the other would ditch the one they don't like and the world would go on.

 

[shadowfox]

In short: No. Film today relies on nostalgia. Take that away and there is hardly anything left...

This is, of course, your *personal* opinion, yes?

Just checking.

 

[clayne]

The reality is that for any mundane purpose the quality of current digital imaging is more than a match for film and so much cheaper and more convinient.

The dynamic range of film offers in-built analog compression when approaching saturation. Digital CANNOT provide this. When are digital people going to consider this significant effect?

There's a reason I may choose to shoot Tri-X at 200, 400, or 1600 given the conditions - and the film responds differently! I also develop accordingly. You absolutely cannot duplicate this effect digitally - because you have a linear space to operate within. I, however, do not.

 

[Aristophanes]

The dynamic range of film offers in-built analog compression when approaching saturation. Digital CANNOT provide this. When are digital people going to consider this significant effect?

There's a reason I may choose to shoot Tri-X at 200, 400, or 1600 given the conditions - and the film responds differently! I also develop accordingly. You absolutely cannot duplicate this effect digitally - because you have a linear space to operate within. I, however, do not.

It is possible to design non-linear non-film analog sensors with digital converters. It is not (yet) economical to do so because the differences are imperceptible for market requirements.

The photography market has decisively voted that this is not a "significant effect". The market is mostly comprised of "digital people" being once "analog people" who saw little to no need for preserving this function.

With enough data points, a digital file can be made to exactly mimic or even surpass the the non-linear compression of film. Again, it is not (yet) economical to develop those products, although the current trajectory of sensors is heading in that direction.

This does not diminish that there can or should be two paths to similar outcomes. It would be nice if the film market persisted as an alternative medium. The loss of camera manufacturing suggests that in the long term there will be no capital available for film production. We are starting to see that in motion pictures.

 

[taxi38]

It could.be argued that this is actually happening now,photographers who have never used film are trying it for the very first time.It would be interesting to hear an opinion of films merits from one of them.

 

[Yoricko]

Depends on the level of technology of film and digital.

If we're talking about the same level of technology of film and digital as it is right now, people would probably stick to digital since most people does not benefit from the advantages of film.