thegman
Veteran
I think even if you felt that digital was superior to film in every way, "obsolete" is not the right word I think. Film has uses which digital cannot compete with (yet). I would say that film is not obsolete in the super low end, like disposables, if you don't want to risk your main camera on a shark diving trip or something, just spend $10 on a disposable. Also, in the super high-end, digital can only compete with large format with extraordinarily expensive kit.
The Lomography company claims also to have 1 million members, presumably all shooting film. If we are to say film is obsolete based on this, then surely digital range finders are stone dead. Presumably also Phase One backs are dead in the water too. At dictionary.com, the first definition of "obsolete" means "no longer in general use". Clearly not true about film, unless you feel "general use" needs a broader user base than I do, and then of course it would cover a million things which nobody would consider obsolete.
The Lomography company claims also to have 1 million members, presumably all shooting film. If we are to say film is obsolete based on this, then surely digital range finders are stone dead. Presumably also Phase One backs are dead in the water too. At dictionary.com, the first definition of "obsolete" means "no longer in general use". Clearly not true about film, unless you feel "general use" needs a broader user base than I do, and then of course it would cover a million things which nobody would consider obsolete.
RichC
Well-known
I voted "Film is just another medium, I don't really care what happened to it".
Grown up with digital, my first camera (1999) was digital. Film? Who cares? Not me. Can't see the point, nor can my friends - we'll never use it, simply not interested.
Using film is like writing with a fountain pen or listening to vinyl in the 21st century: an affectation. I see a silver print and don't get it: I see nothing special at all. Certainly nothing I couldn't duplicate exactly with digital - not that I would. Why create a pastiche (like using one of those Photoshop plugins that turn a photo into an oil or watercolour painting - totally fake and pointless)?
I - and my digital-using friends - have talked about film vs. digital of course. Our conclusion is that the differences between film and digital are minuscule, and that digital outperforms film in every way. Some say that film sill has a few advantages like greater tonal range and a gentler fall off at the extremes (esp. highlights), but with technology advancing ever faster, in a few years digital (cameras and printers) will overcome even those.
At the end of the day, photography's about capturing an image that somehow communicates in an emotional way with the viewer. thus, only the final image counts, the end result: the viewer doesn't care how a photograph was taken or on what, or whether it's "straight" or Photoshopped. And nor do I.
So, photography's a means of communication, like writing. No writer I know gives a stuff what pen or paper or keyboard or computer they use: its the end result and the process of creation that's important to them - as it should be. Photographers should take a leaf out of their book!
Like a pen, a camera is just a tool. Why someone would feel attachment to a machine beats me!? I don't get this talk about mechanical objects and craft. (I don't get collectors either - what a weird idea, collecting objects!). Just buy the camera that will get you the image you want in the most efficient way. Today, that means a digital camera.
Today's digital camera is a disposal tool: you buy a camera - like a mobile phone - knowing it has a finite life of a few years before it's obsolete. Then you trash it and buy a new, better one... (Hopefully, cameras will end up being made of efficiently recyclable materials too - I grew up with built-in obsolescence, but we do need to balance that with environmental issues.)
Lastly, none of the above means that I want to see film disappear, and nor do I think it will. We still have fountain pens and vinyl records. What I would like to see disappear is the superior attitude that some photographers have, seeming to capitalise the word "Photography" when talking about film, implying that digital "photography" (which they lower case) is somehow inferior and not "proper" photography, that somehow a silver image is intrinsically of more worth than a digital image.
Grown up with digital, my first camera (1999) was digital. Film? Who cares? Not me. Can't see the point, nor can my friends - we'll never use it, simply not interested.
Using film is like writing with a fountain pen or listening to vinyl in the 21st century: an affectation. I see a silver print and don't get it: I see nothing special at all. Certainly nothing I couldn't duplicate exactly with digital - not that I would. Why create a pastiche (like using one of those Photoshop plugins that turn a photo into an oil or watercolour painting - totally fake and pointless)?
I - and my digital-using friends - have talked about film vs. digital of course. Our conclusion is that the differences between film and digital are minuscule, and that digital outperforms film in every way. Some say that film sill has a few advantages like greater tonal range and a gentler fall off at the extremes (esp. highlights), but with technology advancing ever faster, in a few years digital (cameras and printers) will overcome even those.
At the end of the day, photography's about capturing an image that somehow communicates in an emotional way with the viewer. thus, only the final image counts, the end result: the viewer doesn't care how a photograph was taken or on what, or whether it's "straight" or Photoshopped. And nor do I.
So, photography's a means of communication, like writing. No writer I know gives a stuff what pen or paper or keyboard or computer they use: its the end result and the process of creation that's important to them - as it should be. Photographers should take a leaf out of their book!
Like a pen, a camera is just a tool. Why someone would feel attachment to a machine beats me!? I don't get this talk about mechanical objects and craft. (I don't get collectors either - what a weird idea, collecting objects!). Just buy the camera that will get you the image you want in the most efficient way. Today, that means a digital camera.
Today's digital camera is a disposal tool: you buy a camera - like a mobile phone - knowing it has a finite life of a few years before it's obsolete. Then you trash it and buy a new, better one... (Hopefully, cameras will end up being made of efficiently recyclable materials too - I grew up with built-in obsolescence, but we do need to balance that with environmental issues.)
Lastly, none of the above means that I want to see film disappear, and nor do I think it will. We still have fountain pens and vinyl records. What I would like to see disappear is the superior attitude that some photographers have, seeming to capitalise the word "Photography" when talking about film, implying that digital "photography" (which they lower case) is somehow inferior and not "proper" photography, that somehow a silver image is intrinsically of more worth than a digital image.
georg16nik
Member
I voted for Film is not just a medium, it's a craft!
It is a way of life!!!
On the technical side of things.. film is a sensor and a card combined, on steroids.
It is a way of life!!!
On the technical side of things.. film is a sensor and a card combined, on steroids.
excellent
Well-known
I enjoy the process of it all. Also the craftsmanship of a Leica feels like no other. Never really owned a digi cam except for one on my phone.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Film continues to hold my interest
Film continues to hold my interest
I follow the developments in digital gear daily. I love seeing the surprises that show up on dpreview, photokina, supermarket magazine racks, etc.. I've even owned a few of these modern marvels. But using film gear still has some sort of grasp on my aesthetic 'mind'.
Today I was out on the streets of the city with my quirky little Kodak Retina camera. When I took a café break to reload, I thought a bit about why I like this form of photography so much (and why I find it so difficult to move on to digital). I'm pretty sure I enjoy the film photography experience most because:
1) the deeply relaxing experience with the slowed-down film gear.... especially the manual-everything stuff;
2) constantly being 'in the moment' for hours on end (no chimping/editing); and
2) the happiness I feel when I get to spend a few hours just trusting my intuition.
I had a great time today and haven't even seen the photos yet!!
Film continues to hold my interest
I follow the developments in digital gear daily. I love seeing the surprises that show up on dpreview, photokina, supermarket magazine racks, etc.. I've even owned a few of these modern marvels. But using film gear still has some sort of grasp on my aesthetic 'mind'.
Today I was out on the streets of the city with my quirky little Kodak Retina camera. When I took a café break to reload, I thought a bit about why I like this form of photography so much (and why I find it so difficult to move on to digital). I'm pretty sure I enjoy the film photography experience most because:
1) the deeply relaxing experience with the slowed-down film gear.... especially the manual-everything stuff;
2) constantly being 'in the moment' for hours on end (no chimping/editing); and
2) the happiness I feel when I get to spend a few hours just trusting my intuition.
I had a great time today and haven't even seen the photos yet!!
Soeren
Well-known
Kinda like asking "what is air to you" 
I like shooting film, loading and unloading cameras and sheetholders, I like the processing and spending time in the darkroom seeing the images emerge in the developer. Its a hobby to me (for which I for the time being have(has?) way to little time) and I don't mind that at my current level I could do a lot better pics using digital. It just doesn't rock my boat sitting in front of a computer in my sparetime too (most of my work is done in front of one)
Obsolete? inferior? I don't care, its fun.
Best regards
I like shooting film, loading and unloading cameras and sheetholders, I like the processing and spending time in the darkroom seeing the images emerge in the developer. Its a hobby to me (for which I for the time being have(has?) way to little time) and I don't mind that at my current level I could do a lot better pics using digital. It just doesn't rock my boat sitting in front of a computer in my sparetime too (most of my work is done in front of one)
Obsolete? inferior? I don't care, its fun.
Best regards
ChrisCummins
Couch Photographer.
I feel cheated - none of the answers fully suited me!
I propose a composite of these two options
- Film is just another medium, I don't really care what happened to it
- Film is a world in itself, worthy of a lifetime pursuit
Now, I do care what 'happened to [film]', but that doesn't mean it's necessarily 'worthy of a lifetime pursuit'. Film suits me because I like the process and the aesthetic. Digital suits my father because he likes the convenience and the automated-everything. I don't beleive me or my father have better or worser opinions, but at the same time I don't think we have the same experience of photography. I'm 19 years old and discovered very early on that film was the choice for me but I don't discount or discredit digital or digital users. Personally I find it quite a bonus that people are selling up their old film cameras, as it makes for some great bargain hunting on ebay!
So:
'Film is just another medium, and is a world in itself'.
Best regards,
Chris
I propose a composite of these two options
- Film is just another medium, I don't really care what happened to it
- Film is a world in itself, worthy of a lifetime pursuit
Now, I do care what 'happened to [film]', but that doesn't mean it's necessarily 'worthy of a lifetime pursuit'. Film suits me because I like the process and the aesthetic. Digital suits my father because he likes the convenience and the automated-everything. I don't beleive me or my father have better or worser opinions, but at the same time I don't think we have the same experience of photography. I'm 19 years old and discovered very early on that film was the choice for me but I don't discount or discredit digital or digital users. Personally I find it quite a bonus that people are selling up their old film cameras, as it makes for some great bargain hunting on ebay!
So:
'Film is just another medium, and is a world in itself'.
Best regards,
Chris
andreios
Well-known
Some time ago I joined the Large Format Photography Forum and I've been welcomed with the words "Welcome to the group therapy." At first I wondered a bit, but after my first day shooting with the LF camera I understood what was meant by the "therapy". And I can say for me it is not only LF shooting, but everything concerning photography (since I am all analogue right now) that has quite a therapeutic effect on me, maybe apart from scanning, but even that can be viewed as a training in patience..
jordanstarr
J.R.Starr
As digital becomes more and more of a computer art than print art (in my opinion), I find myself far more disconnected to it because I just can't enjoy the final result or the process as much. 'Film' to me can be summed up as a type of artist-lifestyle that I enjoy. To say that's obsolete is absurd.
israel_alanis
The Laugher
Yeah!
Yeah!
Im with you Soeren!
Film is a style of photography, everything is allow.
Imagine we said that prints of magazine, newspapers and more made with Heidelberg Printer are old and everything must be print with laser printer... no no
I love film for my photography.
Yeah!
Im with you Soeren!
Film is a style of photography, everything is allow.
Imagine we said that prints of magazine, newspapers and more made with Heidelberg Printer are old and everything must be print with laser printer... no no
I love film for my photography.
Kinda like asking "what is air to you"
I like shooting film, loading and unloading cameras and sheetholders, I like the processing and spending time in the darkroom seeing the images emerge in the developer. Its a hobby to me (for which I for the time being have(has?) way to little time) and I don't mind that at my current level I could do a lot better pics using digital. It just doesn't rock my boat sitting in front of a computer in my sparetime too (most of my work is done in front of one)
Obsolete? inferior? I don't care, its fun.
Best regards
Griffin
Grampa's cameras user
As a hobbyist, after shooting digital for a year, shooting film has been my "going black".
Red Robin
It Is What It Is
Both seem to have a place. The marketplace is smiling on digital, that may never change but I for one enjoy the film niche. 99% of my photography is with film, 90% of that is currently with a rangefinder. Nearly 96% of that is with a Canon P, the other 4% going to a Bessa R and a variety of fixed lenses of different makes and models. Someone will continue to market film. The price may rise but I believe it'll still be around. Then there's always the freezer!
Shane
Member
I learnt how to shoot with digital, it's only in the past 8 months that I've started shooting film. I'm never going back. I was always against film. But now I love it. Really love it. I like the surprise you get with film. I like that you think more because you don't want to waste film. I like that you have to really learn photography, not just your basic shutter, aperture and iso. I like that I have a solid copy of my photo. I like that I can print in the darkroom and go back and reprint, each print being completely unique. ( Even though I don't have access to a darkroom at the moment.) I like having to make sure my photo is going to come out how I want it to. I like fiddling around with the camera before I press the shutter. There's so much I like about film. I shot some digital the other day, I don't like it. It doesn't have the same feel when I'm taking the photo. I feel like I should have started with film. I'm 17 so I haven't really missed out on a great deal, but I have missed somethings, like kodachrome. Once I'd found out about it, it was too late. In my eyes film is real. Digital isn't, I'm not saying digital is fake, but it's hard to explain what I mean.
timor
Well-known
Digital is virtual and don't really exists until hard copy is printed.
Film existence is independent. It is created as "hard copy". It doesn't need any other device or electricity to be viewed.
I shoot both, digi for family events (I have to), and film as my beloved hobby. I like to do it with my own hands and own feelings. I like to shape my own craft.
Someone said, that people look at the LCD in camera right after they take the shot for instant gratification. It is often the only time picture is viewed at all. Looks like our life is "polluted" with plethora of digitally created images, our hard drives jammed with it. In todays fashion is "to click", viewing is secondary. Twisted :bang:
thomob
Established
I agree with Timor. Digital is for my client work. Film is for my personal work.
I love the way older film bodies feel and work, not to mention being slowed down and not trigger happy. Digital is great for its speediness, especially with needing to turn over work from shoot to client, its amazing.
Horses for different courses
I love the way older film bodies feel and work, not to mention being slowed down and not trigger happy. Digital is great for its speediness, especially with needing to turn over work from shoot to client, its amazing.
Horses for different courses
Chris101
summicronia
I'd love to be so binary about it, but I use both digital and film for commercial jobs and for personal work. In fact, I tend to blur business and pleasure as well as my photographic processes. I think, photographically speaking, I'm a hybrid mutt!
dave lackey
Veteran
This year, I have switched from hybrid to binary, film only for documentary work. I tried my best to get the character of my digital images to match the character of the small towns I am documenting but it was a complete failure.
So, I went with TriX and Ilford 100 for my latest documentary and...film fits the character of small towns rather nicely. In fact, the Mayor has asked that I have a gallery for November and December for those who cannot afford to buy the artist books which, unfortunately, are pricey:
http://www.adoramapix.com/davegt/book/meanwhile-in-grantville-georgia-1
So, I went with TriX and Ilford 100 for my latest documentary and...film fits the character of small towns rather nicely. In fact, the Mayor has asked that I have a gallery for November and December for those who cannot afford to buy the artist books which, unfortunately, are pricey:
http://www.adoramapix.com/davegt/book/meanwhile-in-grantville-georgia-1
SeanEsopenko
Newbie
4x5 and 6x7 film has turned out to be an economical way to make good quality prints. The 4x5 I shoot with needs a $22k+ digital back along with a technical camera like a cambo WDS paired with good schneider/rodenstock lenses to match it's image quality and technical movement capabilities.
And frankly I can't think of a digital setup that matches a Mamiya 7II for IQ and size/weight.
But here's the kicker: all this gear was had at a great price (started getting into film just over a year ago) because it isn't as convenient as digital. This was professional gear dumped by professionals for D3x's, 1Ds's, and medium format backs & cameras because they need their photos yesterday and they don't have the freedom to spend hours in a darkroom churning out the final proof of a print.
For the hobbyist/fine-artist with time on their hands I think film's a great way to go. For those with tight deadlines purchasing, renting or leasing digital equipment is the only way to go.
And frankly I can't think of a digital setup that matches a Mamiya 7II for IQ and size/weight.
But here's the kicker: all this gear was had at a great price (started getting into film just over a year ago) because it isn't as convenient as digital. This was professional gear dumped by professionals for D3x's, 1Ds's, and medium format backs & cameras because they need their photos yesterday and they don't have the freedom to spend hours in a darkroom churning out the final proof of a print.
For the hobbyist/fine-artist with time on their hands I think film's a great way to go. For those with tight deadlines purchasing, renting or leasing digital equipment is the only way to go.
zilch0
Newbie
Digital can't compete...
Digital can't compete...
I shoot film because digital can't do what film can do...
No handheld or head-mounted digital display can compete with with the resolution offered by back-lit, 52x52mm, stereo (3D) chromes viewed at 4.2x magnification in a handheld, medium-format stereo viewer:
If we can agree that a film like Fujichrome Velvia is capable of delivering subject detail at scan resolutions as high as 4000 dpi, the 52x52mm mask apertures in a medium format stereo mount can deliver a resolution of 64MP (8000x8000) to each eye - from original chromes, coming straight from the camera with nothing more than E-6 processing - with no digital workflow nor wet darkroom manipulation whatsoever. Everything has to be correct in-camera at the time of exposure, but the results are stunning.
Even if we assume that only 2000 dpi worth of subject detail can be scanned from a technically superb color or B&W reversal-processed chrome, we can claim a resolution of 16MP to each eye, using the analog, medium format stereo viewer, shown above.
Sony has announced a $780.00 head-mounted "Personal 3D Viewer" called HMZ-T1 with a resolution of only 1280x720 pixels per eye - that's 0.9MP - not 16MP (or 64MP), but 0.9MP:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/31/sony-3d-oled/
Thanks to the lack of high-resolution digital displays, no digital sensor - not even the Phase One IQ180 - can compete with my twin Mamiya 7ii's.
Attempts to convert digital captures to film (for use in analog stereo viewers) using film recorders like those made by Lasergraphics (at either 2k or 4k resolutions) simply don't look as good as the original chromes - not by a long shot!
http://www.lasergraphics.com/us/pages/directorfeatures.htm
So, until further notice, medium format film cameras reign supreme in the world of handheld 3D viewers.
Mike
Digital can't compete...
I shoot film because digital can't do what film can do...
No handheld or head-mounted digital display can compete with with the resolution offered by back-lit, 52x52mm, stereo (3D) chromes viewed at 4.2x magnification in a handheld, medium-format stereo viewer:
If we can agree that a film like Fujichrome Velvia is capable of delivering subject detail at scan resolutions as high as 4000 dpi, the 52x52mm mask apertures in a medium format stereo mount can deliver a resolution of 64MP (8000x8000) to each eye - from original chromes, coming straight from the camera with nothing more than E-6 processing - with no digital workflow nor wet darkroom manipulation whatsoever. Everything has to be correct in-camera at the time of exposure, but the results are stunning.
Even if we assume that only 2000 dpi worth of subject detail can be scanned from a technically superb color or B&W reversal-processed chrome, we can claim a resolution of 16MP to each eye, using the analog, medium format stereo viewer, shown above.
Sony has announced a $780.00 head-mounted "Personal 3D Viewer" called HMZ-T1 with a resolution of only 1280x720 pixels per eye - that's 0.9MP - not 16MP (or 64MP), but 0.9MP:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/31/sony-3d-oled/
Thanks to the lack of high-resolution digital displays, no digital sensor - not even the Phase One IQ180 - can compete with my twin Mamiya 7ii's.
Attempts to convert digital captures to film (for use in analog stereo viewers) using film recorders like those made by Lasergraphics (at either 2k or 4k resolutions) simply don't look as good as the original chromes - not by a long shot!
http://www.lasergraphics.com/us/pages/directorfeatures.htm
So, until further notice, medium format film cameras reign supreme in the world of handheld 3D viewers.
Mike
c.poulton
Well-known
I'm totally here with you on this Jamie! And I really like having to stop, maybe have a coffee or a beer as an excuse to change film. (Of course I can do this on the move easily but if I have the time....)
I might be unusual in that I started out in the world of film (there wasn't any other option in the early 80's!) and have never moved onto digital apart from a few shots taken for work on a cheap digital P+S and the occasional 'crappy' iPhone snap I use for 'fun' online.
I did try out my niece's dSLR on one occasion but hated the whole experience, from information overload in the viewfinder, autofocus that dictates focus for me, and not the otherway round, damn rear screen that lights up the world and draws attention to me, shutter lag, and this is one thing that the first time it happened really screwed me up - autofocus when it's dark and the damn cam lights up the scene even when I explicitly 'told' the camera I don't want to use a flash!:bang::bang::bang:
Then there's digital images - OK I know this has been discussed to death, but to me most digital images tend to look too 'sharp', something I just cannot put my finger on but I personally don't like them. In the same vein, digital B+W - again, I can't explicitly say why but it's as there is 'something missing', it does just not 'feel' right to me. Now, when we look at post processing, especially use of software to emulate the look of film, well.... maybe that's the way to go, I don't know?
Each to their own though and I admit that I have seen some really great images produced with digital equipment, however it's just that it's not for me. Maybe one day, but not today.....