Will we all go digital?

[jrong]

Never. I'd sooner give up taking pictures.

😎

 

[Edward Felcher]

Yes, maybe for you.

But for me, for your children, and to 90% of the people on earth now, using a computer and a digital camera is as easy as breathing.

If you enjoy the craft of film, then shoot it. Lots of people like reviving old processes, like salt prints. I recently went to an exhibit of modern "old prints". It was superb.

But don't poo-poo the new because of your preferences or inability to mutate/evolve/roll with the times.

Oh yes, indeed. And I'm already back...

A short story about the "easy digital way"?

Today I had to order a spare-part what I didn't exactly know to fit to my car.
So my first plan was to take a digtal photo of the broken part and send it to the dealer by E-Mail.
But... a great lack of desire to take this small electronic monster named "Fuji F11", fight with the display-finder, swap memory card, load pictures, start application(s) to resize and optimize... drove me to phone the dealer and order the part on the direct way.

Obviously the costs for a long-distance call and a possible return couldn't seem horrible enough to grab the digicam 😉

So I spent some money but I saved my time and my energy.
Went out to shoot some film instead (no spare-parts!)

Regards, Axel

 

[ywenz]

Yes, digital will eventually become so good that even the film die-hards will convert.. just watch!

 

[pesphoto]

its not just about how good digital images might become, its about the processing and printing in a darkroom just as much as the shooting

 

[Edward Felcher]

You view yourself as someone "above" the average and your idenity is wedded to your craft. So of course you prefer film for the time being and you will find fault with any digital imaging device.

But to the masses, the same hundreds of millions who bought Box Kodaks and "pushed the button and let Kodak do the rest", digital is it.

All the flaws you find wrong with modern digital cameras will eventually be addressed and perfected until digital imaging itself is superceded by something else.

Bio-mechanical devices with the ability to synthesize a perceivable reality in a medium as yet uninvented?

All of us? Nope - not me. I don't see how anyone can say that. For example, digital is far easier than developing and printing a roll of black and white film. However, I enjoy the process of making a print from film using a film camera.

To me, for every so-called "advantage" of digital there are at least as many compromises and disadvantages. For example. Digital point and shooters? Forget it, you are and always will be asking me to give up selective focus due the the sensor size. An unreasonable constraint - a deal breaker. That constraint is due to the laws of physics and will always be the case. In addition most don't give you a usable ISO above 200. They cost around $250-350 last time I checked. They only last a few years before they break or become obsolete. Think of the fantastic classic film cameras you can get, with a great lens, perhaps even serviced, for the cost of a cheap "average" digital p&s.

That leaves me with DSLRs. Hate those things - big/indescrete cameras, futzy drop-down menus and tiny buttons, slow auto zooms lenses... oh, and the price. Very expensive for what they do. That leaves me with DRFs. Sorry, out of my price range, not worth the "crazy money" relavtive to their "advantages" over a film rangefinder.

Sorry - respectfully disagree. Time and technological advancements "within the next 5 years" won't change this.

 

[thefsb]

Hello together

But in maybe 5 years or so, when you can buy a m8 probably cheaper than a mp,

...

What do you think? What has to happen to make you give up film?

Fabian

well, you hardly need an mp to shoot film. a yashica electro takes swell photos and doesn't cost an arm and a leg.

there's an analogy that i think is interesting: vinyl is by no means dead despite more than 20 years of competition from cds. (i still buy lps. new and used. love em.) there are enough vinyl fans to sustain the industry, and not just old people like me. you can easily get an lp pressed and there's plenty vendors to choose from, some offering great quaility work.

i think something similar will happen with film photography. those of us who enjoy using film will do so.

for me, personally, it's not a matter of switching. i use both. but film and film cameras are more fun, for now.

 

[Michiel Fokkema]

Every technology has its merits.
Painting was supposed to disapear also when photography was invented.
I use a lot of film because I prefer the look over the digital pictures. I also don't trust the archival properties fo digital. All the family pictures are made on film for this reason. Film compacts are so cheap. My wife uses a Minilux zoom which I bought for EUR200,- That quality is not available in a digital compact.
Although i like to work in the darkroom, it might disapear in the future.

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema

 

[pesphoto]

So of course you prefer film for the time being and you will find fault with any digital imaging device.

I dont find "fault" with any digital device. I use it for my my professional work and think its great for commercial purposes, not for my personal work.

 

[Edward Felcher]

OK, then you prefer the craft of film photography, and that gives many people an immense feeling of satisfaction.

Other people paint, weave rugs, you name it. That's also excellent.

But astonishing artistry can be done with electronic imaging devices and computers.

Have you looked at the special effects in a movie lately? That takes almost uncanny artistic abilty and craftsmanship to produce.

So of course you prefer film for the time being and you will find fault with any digital imaging device.

I dont find "fault" with any digital device. I use it for my my professional work and think its great for commercial purposes, not for my personal work.

 

[NickTrop]

Nope - no one in my family shoots digital and don't see them ever doing so. The pharmacy is stocked with disposable film cameras for people on the other end of the spectrum who don't want to be bothered with the hassle of computers, storage, printers, uploading, software, standing in front of a kiosk - ya know, all those wonderful digital "conveniences". Disposable digitals are a novelty and will remain so. Putting an expensive sensor in a disposable that gives you the quality of film is - and will remain, cost-prohibitive.

Digital cameras themselves are as charmless as the pictures they make. The film market will consist of those of us who don't want to be bothered with all those digital "conveniences" and "cost savings in the long run" (LOL rolls eyes) just want to take a picture when they need to - that is the desposable market, those of us who "know better" and don't/won't fall for the techno-hype, and converts like me who saw something lacking and sterile in this wonderful new technology and appreciate a fine piece of camera craftmanship - like a fine cigar, over something stamped out like so many hambugers at McDonalds. Perhaps this won't be the "lion's share" but it will be a big enough world-wide market to support film.

Enjoy your "digital". Personally I think they are overpriced commodity itams which are no fun and frankly "suck" - just my honest opinion, and are the photographic equivalent of "Instant coffee" and just about as good.

 

[pesphoto]

OK, then you prefer the craft of film photography, and that gives many people an immense feeling of satisfaction.

Other people paint, weave rugs, you name it. That's also excellent.

But astonishing artistry can be done with electronic imaging devices and computers.

Have you looked at the special effects in a movie lately? That takes almost uncanny artistic abilty and craftsmanship to produce.

Yeah, i can appreciate people who do cool things with digtal equipment, Im not putting it down in any way. Just not for me. I dont go to special effects movies simply because they do nothing for me. I prefer to watch something real even if it looks imperfect. Prefer it that way actually.
Its all opinion and personal taste.

 

[jaffa_777]

I started with digital and thought it was absolutely the best. After a while I started to notice my pics had a clinical sameness look to them. Then I started researching film. I then started to shoot film. Colour and B&W. Oh my God! So this is what photography is all about! All my personal work is now shot on film. Commercial is on digital because most client's can't tell the difference.

It's similar to listening to a cd after listening to a record. I instantly want to go back to the record.

 

[Axel]

...But don't poo-poo the new because of your preferences or inability to mutate/evolve/roll with the times.

Hi,

if my posting sounds like that I did something wrong - sorry.

But I think I'm right in the middle of "the new". No problems so far... 😉

Perhaps I should explain that I shot some 10.000 pictures with my digital equipment the last five years. The experience that none of this photo-computers works for me like shooting film grew step by step.
If one or more of your assumed reasons came true I'd rather spent that much thousands of Euros for a nice Hassy or Zeiss-lenses or...

There are a lot of issues to be fixed before (consumer-) digicams will be reliable, durable and easy to use as film-cameras. For some this is not so important (perhaps you?), for others more (like me).
No reason to out-border each other at all 😉

Kind regards, Axel

 

[Edward Felcher]

I think artificial is better than real.

Yeah, i can appreciate people who do cool things with digtal equipment, Im not putting it down in any way. Just not for me. I dont go to special effects movies simply because they do nothing for me. I prefer to watch something real even if it looks imperfect. Prefer it that way actually.
Its all opinion and personal taste.

 

[Sparrow]

I think artificial is better than real.

Both are artificial, do you mean you prefer the impossible?

 

[photogdave]

At the end of the day the number one reason I don't like digital is the cameras themselves.
You pay far more and get far less than an equivalent film camera. The Canon EOS 1V with booster sold for about $3000 CDN. This was their flagship film camera. The EOS 1DS MK II, their flagship digital, sells for $8800 and you don't get the same speed. If you want the speed (10 FPS) you go for the 1D MK III at $5500 but you lose full frame.
The consumer market is even worse. Canon EOS Elan 7N film body is $425. The digital equivalent is the 30D at $1320. For the amount of money consumers are spending on DSLRs with plastic bodies, dim viewfinders and hokey focus systems, they could have bought some kick-ass film cameras!
Strangely, only Leica seems to be bridging the gap. The M8 is only about $1000 more than a new MP or M7!

 

[pesphoto]

Also, I like to shoot around asa 1000 to 3200 a lot. I like grain, but when i tried it with a digital camera the noise was just ugly. Not grain like film, just ugly.

 

[jaapv]

At the end of the day the number one reason I don't like digital is the cameras themselves.
You pay far more and get far less than an equivalent film camera. The Canon EOS 1V with booster sold for about $3000 CDN. This was their flagship film camera. The EOS 1DS MK II, their flagship digital, sells for $8800 and you don't get the same speed. If you want the speed (10 FPS) you go for the 1D MK III at $5500 but you lose full frame.
The consumer market is even worse. Canon EOS Elan 7N film body is $425. The digital equivalent is the 30D at $1320. For the amount of money consumers are spending on DSLRs with plastic bodies, dim viewfinders and hokey focus systems, they could have bought some kick-ass film cameras!
Strangely, only Leica seems to be bridging the gap. The M8 is only about $1000 more than a new MP or M7!

This is not quite fair as a comparison. To the film camera you must add the cost of film and developing, and a filmscanner maybe (and then the computer etc...).
If you do chemical prints the cost of a darkroom as well.
To digital add the cost of computer hardware.

Adding it all up the average amateur will break even over say two or three years and the pro will have saved a fortune by going digital.
In the end it is a matter of taste and inclination, I am 99% digital, someone else 100% film. So what...
Film will never die in the hands of photographic artists and hobbyists, but for mainstream consumer photography I predict 90% digital in first world countries and on the pro market within five years or less.

 

[photogdave]

This is not quite fair as a comparison. To the film camera you must add the cost of film and developing, and a filmscanner maybe (and then the computer etc...).
If you do chemical prints the cost of a darkroom as well.
To digital add the cost of computer hardware.

Adding it all up the average amateur will break even over say two or three years and the pro will have saved a fortune by going digital.
In the end it is a matter of taste and inclination, I am 99% digital, someone else 100% film. So what...
Film will never die in the hands of photographic artists and hobbyists, but for mainstream consumer photography I predict 90% digital in first world countries and on the pro market within five years or less.

But you still end up with a crappier camera. That's my point.

 

[Axel]

This is not quite fair as a comparison. To the film camera you must add the cost of film and developing...

Hi,

in Germany you can get a film, developing and 36 color-prints for around EUR 5,- actually.
Are there similar prices in the other countries?

Regards, Axel