Future of Film

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes- there is a biological limit i.e. the resolving power of the humen eye, but I'm not sure that it has been reached already. If that were so, we would not be seeing a difference between M9 and S2 images. But then, the same is true for film, the difference betwee 135 and medium format is quite marked. Of course, there is a technological limit as well, where photons are drowned out by random noise. That limit has, I think, been approached quite closely.

Edited September 2, 2010 by jaapv

[zipper]

Yes- there is a biological limit i.e. the resolving power of the humen eye, but I'm not sure that it has been reached already. If that were so, we would not be seeing a difference between M9 and S2 images. But then, the same is true for film, the difference betwee 135 and medium format is quite marked. Of course, there is a technological limit as well, where photons are drowned out by random noise. That limit has, I think, been approached quite closely.

 

exactly, hopefully we can now settle down (like the film M generation) with our M8/9s for a decade or so without worrying about when the M10 will make our kit obsolete... (this won't please the Leica bean-counters though)...

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[chrism]

...film flatness is an issue with 120 and I'm still working on a solution.

 

I had no idea how good 120 was through the 9000 until I got a glass negative carrier. Rather expensive but a huge benefit.

 

Chris

[plasticman]

The thing that some people just don't seem to understand, (and I must say I fail to see why they're unable to 'get it'), is that the look from film can* be so totally different to the way that a digital sensor renders light, that advances in one or the other are irrelevant.

 

It's about as useful as saying that Caravaggio is 'obsolete', as far as I'm concerned.

 

From my personal perspective, I'm looking at images that I took on film during a vacation in Denmark this summer, and comparing images taken with the M8 last year at some of the same locations. Now, I was (and still am) really pleased with the M8 pictures - but the film images have far, far more 'expressiveness' and atmosphere - often I have no idea why that is.

 

What I believe is that the images simply have something almost ineffable that is somehow nearer to the way the brain perceives a scene, rather than the way the eye sees it.

By this I mean that the digital image may be sharper, and possibly even register all the discrete colors of a scene more 'accurately', but the film image renders a more harmonious 'whole' that evokes the way the scene 'felt' or how I mentally perceived it.

 

I'd say that this is why film will survive - some people understand why they prefer film images. Others often state that preference (people usually prefer the images I've taken with my film cameras over those I've taken with digital), but then go back quite happily to shooting with their iPhones without caring how the final output looks.

 

 

 

*I use the word 'can' here because certain films look relatively similar to digital, while others look and behave totally differently.

Edited September 2, 2010 by plasticman

[plasticman]

exactly, hopefully we can now settle down (like the film M generation) with our M8/9s for a decade or so without worrying about when the M10 will make our kit obsolete... (this won't please the Leica bean-counters though)...

 

Good luck with that.

[zipper]

I had no idea how good 120 was through the 9000 until I got a glass negative carrier. Rather expensive but a huge benefit.

 

Chris

 

Chris, do you mind me asking where you got the glass carrier for your 9000 Coolscan, and how much?

[zipper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Good luck with that.

 

thanks, we live in hope...

[JBA]

I am going to "agree to disagree" with several posters in this thread

 

Indeed, Andy. I really like Ektar, while you can't stand it. Let's just live and let live.

[redbaron]

I use these three items to make a living. After twenty years of using various Ms working with an MP is almost as easy as writing, but I've probably used less than one percent of its potential. To call any of these things obsolete is utterly ridiculous.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[jaapv]

The thing that some people just don't seem to understand, (and I must say I fail to see why they're unable to 'get it'), is that the look from film can* be so totally different to the way that a digital sensor renders light, that advances in one or the other are irrelevant.

 

It's about as useful as saying that Caravaggio is 'obsolete', as far as I'm concerned.

 

From my personal perspective, I'm looking at images that I took on film during a vacation in Denmark this summer, and comparing images taken with the M8 last year at some of the same locations. Now, I was (and still am) really pleased with the M8 pictures - but the film images have far, far more 'expressiveness' and atmosphere - often I have no idea why that is.

 

What I believe is that the images simply have something almost ineffable that is somehow nearer to the way the brain perceives a scene, rather than the way the eye sees it.

By this I mean that the digital image may be sharper, and possibly even register all the discrete colors of a scene more 'accurately', but the film image renders a more harmonious 'whole' that evokes the way the scene 'felt' or how I mentally perceived it.

 

I'd say that this is why film will survive - some people understand why they prefer film images. Others often state that preference (people usually prefer the images I've taken with my film cameras over those I've taken with digital), but then go back quite happily to shooting with their iPhones without caring how the final output looks.

 

 

 

*I use the word 'can' here because certain films look relatively similar to digital, while others look and behave totally differently.

You know I don't disagree with your (and other's) artistic perception, but if you equate digital to i-phones, please compare to Kodak film-with-a-lens boxes, not to your Leica gear.

[Guest joewehry]

A friend (not even a pro nor an amateur photography. A tourist.) took some jaw-dropping photos of her Greece vacation. About an 80% hit rate of successful shots. All on three disposable point and shoot film camera with a set shutter, aperture and wee built in flash and plastic lens. (Kodak Gold film inside, I think.) I still trying to get close to her results with either my MP or M8. Of course, I haven't gone to Greece yet, which might help....

[plasticman]

You know I don't disagree with your (and other's) artistic perception, but if you equate digital to i-phones, please compare to Kodak film-with-a-lens boxes, not to your Leica gear.

 

Jaap, you misunderstood the point I was making in that particular sentence - my fault for being unclear.

What I was trying to say was that many people actually have no aesthetic interest in the look or emotion of their own photographs. I didn't even mean for this to be 'judgemental' - the world is a diverse place, and I don't expect everyone to share my values (good or bad).

 

My other point was that no matter how 'good' digital gets (AlanG seems to have some almost mystical belief that when it gets sufficiently 'better' then film becomes automatically 'obsolete'), film will continue to live its own flourishing life. It is a totally different, and (in my opinion) much more appealing aesthetic.

[noah_addis]

Chris, do you mind me asking where you got the glass carrier for your 9000 Coolscan, and how much?

 

I also have the glass carrier, I ordered it from B&H, though it's not always in stock.

 

I had bad problems with newton rings using the glass carrier. I used the film mask/spacer things as required but I would still get rings. The carrier uses anti-newton glass on top (between the light source and the film) and clear glass on the bottom (between the ccd sensor and the film).

 

I've solved the problem by removing the bottom glass and replacing it with a neg carrier, I first used matt board with an approx. 6x7cm hole in it and then had a machine shop replicate it in metal.

 

It works, but it's not perfect. I suspect fluid mounting is the way to go for critical work.

 

Back on topic--film may be functionally obsolete, but then again so are painting, drawing, sculpture and many other artistic media.

 

It's also true that there will likely be no further advances in film cameras. Even lenses are probably at the peak of their film capability as more and more manufacturers are relying on software corrections instead of better lens designs, though thankfully Leica seems to be bucking that trend. For now.

 

But so what? We have an incredible variety of film cameras and lenses, many available at relative bargain prices. I can't speak for everyone but I have a feeling that many film shooters don't care about adding more features (gimmicks?) to their cameras. For me cameras like the MP, M6, 501CM, Arca Swiss Metric, Mamiya 7II, etc., represent designs that could not be improved by adding more features. More features, especially automatic functions, would just get in the way of making photographs.

 

I have negatives I made when I first started my career in the late 90's/early 00's that were shot on color neg film. I can re-scan them and they are just as high in technical quality as photographs I shot yesterday. When the paper I worked for at the time started shooting digital, first only for deadline work and later for everything, we were using cameras that were state-of-the-art and cost $20,000 or more. Those files are basically unprintable, they may hold up to an 8x10 but the quality would be poor. They were all shot RAW and I'm not even sure if the file format is still readable. No one really cares since the quality is so bad anyway.

 

Now I do agree that digital has come to the point that the quality will hold up over time. If a file is good enough for a 16x20in. print now, it will still be that good in 50 years so long as you can read the file. But don't be mistaken, digital is not standing still, and that's a good thing. The advances we've had so far and are likely to have in the future give artists new ways to express themselves.

 

And in the future when you're projecting an exhibition of wall-sized interactive 3-d images from your Leica M20, those tiny, flat, motionless M9 files will seem pretty obsolete. And that's if CS15 will even read them. But I suspect that there will still be some photographers who appreciate the results and process of film, just as there will still be painters and sculptors and people who use hand tools.

[AlanG]

 

That's true and the basic point. If you are happy to work within the limitations of a film camera system, then you'll be OK. But in 10 years, the number of people doing this will be very small. It might even be hard to find a scanner and software that will work with whatever is the current OS at that time.

 

Those who think the look of film is important to what they communicate may be a large enough group to keep it going for some time... until they die out. Throughout the years, the technology of photography has changed many times. So history is our guide.

 

There have always been some people who liked to use the older methods or alternative processes. But there weren't enough of them to keep alive some of the methods such as Autochrome, carbro, dye transfer, Polaroid, and now Kodachrome. In my opinion, a lot of the attraction and uniqueness of film required one to make darkroom prints - sometimes on alternative material such as Kodalith paper, platinum, cyanotype, or toned silver gelatin prints. I don't think you can buy commercially prepared glass plates today, and I'm not sure if some of the alternative materials such as Kodalith paper are still available. There will always be a small group making daguerreotypes. But if my end result is for on screen display or digital prints, starting with film has much less of a draw to it for me as it ends up being digital anyway.

 

I don't believe there will be another generation of film users of sufficient size to keep it reasonably viable beyond a few b/w emulsions.

Edited September 2, 2010 by AlanG

[pico]

Check out what Canon is showing for today and some suggestions of where digital imaging is heading in the future.

 

Canon rules. It might be a good idea to buy Canon stock so that we can afford Leicas.

[Rolo]

Canon rules. It might be a good idea to buy Canon stock so that we can afford Leicas.

 

Suspect the iPhone will rule for both still and video capture. Buy Apple stock.

 

p.s. Maybe there's an issue there. When we discuss digital we refer to the mass market and with film a niche. If the masses depart the camera market for alternative products, will the camera manufacturers be able to sustain their investments for the much smaller niche of 'serious' digital camera users.

Edited September 2, 2010 by Rolo

[plasticman]

If you are happy to work within the limitations of a film camera system, then you'll be OK.

 

"Leonardo - if you're happy to work within the limitations of brushes and paint, then you'll be ok..."

 

Those who think the look of film is important to what they communicate may be a large enough group to keep it going for some time... until they die out.

 

I'm wondering what sort of age-group you think you're talking to Alan? I know that you're on some sort of mission to single-handedly wipe out film, but sometimes I'm mystified by your methodology. I guess the point here is that by always portraying film-users as dusty old men, shakily holding their ancient film cameras with bony, wrinkled hands, that you'll be able to scare away the 'kids'.

I think you might be surprised by how many of us don't fit your straw-man caricature.

[stephen.w]

I'm wondering what sort of age-group you think you're talking to Alan? I know that you're on some sort of mission to single-handedly wipe out film, but sometimes I'm mystified by your methodology. I guess the point here is that by always portraying film-users as dusty old men, shakily holding their ancient film cameras with bony, wrinkled hands, that you'll be able to scare away the 'kids'.

I think you might be surprised by how many of us don't fit your straw-man caricature.

 

I'm 27 years old and have started using film with an M6 classic and more recently with a CL. Long live 35mm film.

[andybarton]

When we discuss digital we refer to the mass market and with film a niche. If the masses depart the camera market for alternative products, will the camera manufacturers be able to sustain their investments for the much smaller niche of 'serious' digital camera users.

 

That's a very good point. When the time comes that the iPhone camera is good enough for most people, camera divisions of companies like Panasonic are really going to feel the pinch. Why buy a p&s camera, when your phone is just as good? (A zoom lens on a phone could be interesting)

 

Maybe we can expect Panasonic-type cameras to have phones built in...

 

Either way, the future of digital cameras is going to be an interesting one.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[plasticman]

Either way, the future of digital cameras is going to be an interesting one.

 

At the playground (with my almost-2-year old daughter Alan ) one thing I've noticed is that 99% of all child photographs are taken with an iPhone these days. Even a year-and-a-half ago, when I first started hanging there, far more people bothered to bring along some sort of DSLR. Now it's an extreme rarity.

 

A combination of improved cameras inside phones (they even capture HD video in many cases), together with the sheer explosion of social networking (so that images are rarely, if ever, printed, and are simply distributed to family and friends via Facebook), means that Canikon are going to find it harder and harder to find a market for their inconvenient technology in the future.

 

On the other hand, I'm noticing that more and more photo-blogs are featuring film cameras or film photographers. There's an increasing feeling that film is trendy again. Naturally it may not last, but I'm optimistic.