dimitris
Established
Its funny because I always thought that digital being easier to reproduce could potentially survive longer. Having 2-3 backups is cheap and easy to do. People that worry about their hard drives being caught in a house fire forget that negatives burn just as well.
Don't get me wrong I have been shooting film for years and really enjoyed it however going digital has released the way I take pictures. Truth being told the regular mom and pop that snap thousands of photos every day might not keep regular backups but people who do shouldn't have any issues loosing their work.
Don't get me wrong I have been shooting film for years and really enjoyed it however going digital has released the way I take pictures. Truth being told the regular mom and pop that snap thousands of photos every day might not keep regular backups but people who do shouldn't have any issues loosing their work.
raid
Dad Photographer
Digital imaging will go away one day, but not to yield to analog but to some futuristic innovations that will come out one day.
Merkin
For the Weekend
Newspapers have been using frame grabs from video for their still photos for years. The Dallas Morning News pioneered it years ago. The results are better than the theory.
You get video for the web and stills for the print product.
while this is true, newspaper images are significantly lower in resolution and generally smaller in size than magazine images or prints. for a newspaper, the equivalent of 1 or 2 megapixels is plenty (this is why the newspaper industry were the first adopters of digital cameras), and while the results are certainly better than the theory, the application is limited.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
I think that a lot of the younger folks here on the forum don't remember just how bad newspaper reproduction use to be a few decades ago. They think "WOW, 4x5 press cameras! BIG negatives!" and forget that newspapers were printed on cheap pulp paper via letterpress using zinc half-tone plates with 65 dots per inch (DPI) at best. Today they've mostly all gone to better paper and offset lithography, but it's still not the quality of most magazines. Those 4x5 negatives were often souped in Dektol paper developer, fixed until clear, given a quick rinse and stuck in the negative carrier of the Omega D2 while still wet (and loaded with fixer!). Negative carriers were pitted and eroded from the fix, dripping chemicals made a mess of the inside of the bellows and the rear element of the lens. Fingers carried chemicals everyplace. "Archival" wasn't part of the equasion because the prints too only got a minimal fix, a quck wash, and this was before RC papers!. For awhile in the seventies "stabilization processors" were in common use. The paper had chemicals in it. It would go through a desk top processor that would activate the developer then "stabilize" it so you ended up with a damp chemical laden print to give the editor. It could be fixed and washed later, but rarely was.
Anyway, newspapers have a long history of lousy reproduction and nobody much cares. It's always been about speed even though TV news has one-upped the the print media on that front. Today's frame grabs are actually pretty decent quality, and it's always been a "good enough for a newspaper" culture.
Anyway, newspapers have a long history of lousy reproduction and nobody much cares. It's always been about speed even though TV news has one-upped the the print media on that front. Today's frame grabs are actually pretty decent quality, and it's always been a "good enough for a newspaper" culture.
kitaanat
kitaanat
I guess that the digital will be last for long (until the better method exists)
but the medium may change to another thing.
I imagine:
The next generation of camera may provide the internet capability that mean
the can show the picture to someone at home (far away) immediately after
release the shutter. No need to use any memory card or other storage.
Or the glasses that can capture any picture with eyes control. (i'm dreaming)
But I wish I can have enough film to take a photo until I leave this world.
but the medium may change to another thing.
I imagine:
The next generation of camera may provide the internet capability that mean
the can show the picture to someone at home (far away) immediately after
release the shutter. No need to use any memory card or other storage.
Or the glasses that can capture any picture with eyes control. (i'm dreaming)
But I wish I can have enough film to take a photo until I leave this world.
Merkin
For the Weekend
I guess that the digital will be last for long (until the better method exists)
but the medium may change to another thing.
I imagine:
The next generation of camera may provide the internet capability that mean
the can show the picture to someone at home (far away) immediately after
release the shutter. No need to use any memory card or other storage.
Or the glasses that can capture any picture with eyes control. (i'm dreaming)
But I wish I can have enough film to take a photo until I leave this world.
that already exists, in a way. i heard a story on the bbc world service about a memory card that is actually a wifi transmitter that sends your pictures directly to a computer as you shoot them.
also, something along the lines of a pair of glasses that are eye controlled isnt TERRIBLY far fetched either. keep in mind that canon had several cameras with eye controlled focus back in the nineties.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
All new technology isn't good! Ever since cell phones came along there is just no place to change into my Superman outfit.
Merkin
For the Weekend
jfretless
Established
Yeah. The company is called eye-fi. Their basic card will send your images wireless to your computer, say in the studio setup. They now have a card that with a inexpensive yearly subscription, will automatically connect to global wi-fi hotspot network, McDonald's uses "this" company's network, and upload your images to any one of the tens of image hosting site, like Flickr, and social networking site, Facebook. If you are not close to the hotspot, once you are, the camera will start the upload process automatically.
I know with smartphones, that already can be done, but at least now, the quality of the camera phone isn't on par with a P&S camera. With the eye-fi card can use any digital camera that uses a SD card. ...otoh, cameraphones are reaching the 5MP mark, so it's only a matter of time before...
nzeeman
Well-known
i think digital improving is near the end now - we have full frame sensor - when mp number reach the resolution of the lens there will be no point in making more mp.
also many cameras will have full frame but not all because full frame need bigger lenses and many people dont want big cameras.
but everyone will have camera which can make publishable photos so number of pros will decline... it is same as with internet - many journalists are fired because internet papers are getting dominant, and also many people write blogs and they are now new form of journalism.
film also wont be dead because even if number of film photographer go down to less than 1.000.000 in the whole world (which is one in 6000 people) there will be some small company which will produce film because they will have interest in it as they would be only producer - but only producer for 1.000.000 still can make good profit...
also many cameras will have full frame but not all because full frame need bigger lenses and many people dont want big cameras.
but everyone will have camera which can make publishable photos so number of pros will decline... it is same as with internet - many journalists are fired because internet papers are getting dominant, and also many people write blogs and they are now new form of journalism.
film also wont be dead because even if number of film photographer go down to less than 1.000.000 in the whole world (which is one in 6000 people) there will be some small company which will produce film because they will have interest in it as they would be only producer - but only producer for 1.000.000 still can make good profit...
wgerrard
Veteran
nzeeman, I agree that once sensors are big enough to match up with the lenses that people already own, we are likely to see a change in emphasis, but I'm not sure sensors will never grow larger.
In any case, I think we will then see so-called full frame sensors prices drop -- over time, not precipitously -- to levels that allow their use in very inexpensive cameras. Develpment -- it will be mostly software development -- will proceed along lines intended to make expensive camera more intelligent and consumer cameras more convenient. The lines between phones, music players, cameras, and such will continue to blur. Someone will try to digitally alter, in camera, aspects of the light captured by the sensor to allow a single fixed lens to appear to function at multiple focal lengths.
(A faint memory says someone has already tried this.)
Moving data from a camera to a PC is simply a matter of connecting a wireless device to a given IP address. Millions of people post to Twitter and their blogs (including pix) using cellphones and other wireless device, so pushing data that happens to be digital image files seems to be little more than a bandwidth issue.
I have to take issue with folks who argue that digital cameras are a passing fad. Our culture will become more digitized, not less. Film will stay around a long as someone can make money making and selling it, but the future, as well as the present, is digital.
In any case, I think we will then see so-called full frame sensors prices drop -- over time, not precipitously -- to levels that allow their use in very inexpensive cameras. Develpment -- it will be mostly software development -- will proceed along lines intended to make expensive camera more intelligent and consumer cameras more convenient. The lines between phones, music players, cameras, and such will continue to blur. Someone will try to digitally alter, in camera, aspects of the light captured by the sensor to allow a single fixed lens to appear to function at multiple focal lengths.
(A faint memory says someone has already tried this.)
Moving data from a camera to a PC is simply a matter of connecting a wireless device to a given IP address. Millions of people post to Twitter and their blogs (including pix) using cellphones and other wireless device, so pushing data that happens to be digital image files seems to be little more than a bandwidth issue.
I have to take issue with folks who argue that digital cameras are a passing fad. Our culture will become more digitized, not less. Film will stay around a long as someone can make money making and selling it, but the future, as well as the present, is digital.
Last edited:
Don't sell yourself short. The majority of people still just center the main subject and take the picture. Framing and composing, in interesting ways, will never be perfected by the masses.
rastahogrider
Newbie
Film vs. Digital
Film vs. Digital
I, for one, prefer film and I feel confident in saying I will always prefer film. But, as my dad used to say, "Never say never." There's just something very appealing to me about film. Maybe it's the suspense of waiting to get the film developed, the challenge of making each shot count (cost money for developing), or because film may have more resolution - not quite sure. But, digital is here to stay, unless something greater comes along. I just hope companies will continue to produce film. I would be sick without film!
Film vs. Digital
I, for one, prefer film and I feel confident in saying I will always prefer film. But, as my dad used to say, "Never say never." There's just something very appealing to me about film. Maybe it's the suspense of waiting to get the film developed, the challenge of making each shot count (cost money for developing), or because film may have more resolution - not quite sure. But, digital is here to stay, unless something greater comes along. I just hope companies will continue to produce film. I would be sick without film!
lorriman
Established
This is my thoroughly shirazed opinion:
I think people are already getting bored in the p&s world. Even the event snap is liable to die: events are mostly all the same really. How often does a woodstock happen?
In the digi large-sensor/interchangeable-lenses world there might be two waves. The first is what we have now and that we are maybe at peak. The second I think will come when micro 4/3rds becomes cheap along with cheap large aperture normals or pancakes. All driven by marketing. However western government finances are so dire the 2nd wave is in doubt (by my self).
I think people are already getting bored in the p&s world. Even the event snap is liable to die: events are mostly all the same really. How often does a woodstock happen?
In the digi large-sensor/interchangeable-lenses world there might be two waves. The first is what we have now and that we are maybe at peak. The second I think will come when micro 4/3rds becomes cheap along with cheap large aperture normals or pancakes. All driven by marketing. However western government finances are so dire the 2nd wave is in doubt (by my self).
mrisney
Well-known
Cell Phones/Smart Phones will replace digital P&S's - eating up that market. DSLR's will start to loose mirrors - and go EVF. in 5 years used DSLR's will clog Ebay. nobody will want them. Film will become even more fine art, since there are very few film camera's produced, prices for well made film gear will appreciate. The next wave - a film resurgence - I;m hoping - will produce better, more affordable dedicated scanners.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
When the digital imaging wave dies, a beautiful thing called K-14 process will thrive once again.
At least, this is my wish.
Phil Forrest
At least, this is my wish.
Phil Forrest
sjw617
Panoramist
I think you are correct that that digital photography is somewhat similar to the brownie introduction. The original appeal of everyone being able to have snaps of family, friends and events was revolutionary. The number of photographers did not diminish afterwards, almost every family had a camera. Pictures became more common place but thousands are still produced every year.
The jumping in with fistfuls of money is not only a digital story but film also. How many hobbyists own Leica, Hasselblad or other expensive equipment? This site is a good example of people who own some expensive equipment. There are many people here who own a large number of expensive cameras. Many people here keep buying 'new' bodies and lenses in search of better images.
I do not think the number of pictures taken and uploaded will drop that much. It will probably level off. But maybe people will edit what they save and throw out the massive amount of blurry or 'meaningless' pictures. Maybe there are photos that have lesser value to people but that is not only a digital issue. Film users also take blurry, out of focus, badly composed and badly exposed photos. But film users seem to never throw out a bad negative or slide. You are right about people changing the perception of some photos. They will realize that some 'events' are meaningless years from now and delete pictures. Some people seem to take pictures of everything and many of them too. As we know, the cost of the equipment does not increase the quality of the images.
I think the people worrying about hard drives or memory cards loosing their collection are overblown. I do not know anyone (photographer or not) who has lost a full hard drive of information. I had a laptop zapped from a lightening strike but I got everything that was on the hard drive. Keeping your collection intact takes a little bit of work. Camera or card upgrades are irrelevant. You don't keep photos in the camera and shouldn't just keep buying cards. You have to be aware of how to keep them. Hard drive, CD, DVD etc are the current way and you have to be aware of newer more effective ways when they are developed.
Yes, negatives will hold up well if they are kept. There are many being converted to digital and then thrown out by generations behind the shooter. Slides can easily be seen but negatives are 'hard'' to decipher. You can tell they are pictures but not always who or what they are of. Future generations may not value negatives as much as the one who took the picture. They also may be kept in the box for decades more. Eventually a generation may not have knowledge of film, enlargers or even film scanners (generations down the road).
And to your thread question... When the digital wave dies years from now it will have been replaced by a newer, easier way to produce images. Digital will not die soon and be replaced by film.
Kodak has told us they are making themselves into a digital company. They say this because they have seen what mass consumers want and are making it for them. They have seen their film sales drop 95% over the last dozen years (I would guess that Fuji's numbers are similar). Eventually Kodak will see film as such a small part of their business that it will no longer cost effective to produce. People will only pay so much for film. (polls here say the 1/4 people get 1 good shot per roll, 1/4 get 2 or 3 shots per roll) If you are currently paying for a roll and developing to get a small numbers of keepers, then there has to be a cost that will become unacceptable. If you are paying 5 or $10 for that keeper now, how much are you willing to spend in the future? Medium format is very expensive for me --$5 every time I trip the shutter (or more for a keeper if I bracket). There will someday be a price that I will not be willing to pay. I am not sure what that price is right now.
I guess none of us will really know what happens when the digital wave dies since none of us will be around to see.
Steve
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I do. Several of them. All snapshooting mom types, not serious photographers. The serious amateur photographers, and the professionals, know this is a risk and they have proper backups. Ordinary people often do not. I have seen people I know lose THOUSANDS of images, often every picture they ever took of their child, when a single HD died. Sad. They were sad! Too bad, the pics were gone forever.
sjw617
Panoramist
Chris,
I am sure many people loose things because of a crash. I also hear people complain about computer crashes but I have not experienced that either.
You are correct - back up all images. It doesn't matter pro, enthusiast or average snap shooter.
Steve
raid
Dad Photographer
I was carrying a Bessa R last evening at the fairgrounds,and a friend took a look at the camera and said in astomishment " so this a film camera! Wow. I am impressed."