Future of Film

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Penicillin was going to make leaches obsolete.

[plasticman]

Penicillin was going to make leaches obsolete.

 

Ahhh! At last you've come to your senses! Penicillin has been overused and is now becoming ineffective, and leeches have outlasted all the new-fangled innovation and are making a comeback!

 

So - you're returning to film, after all?

[AlanG]

 

So - you're returning to film, after all?

 

Go leeches!

 

I never left film. My stock agency returned large boxes of my images a couple of years ago. (A decade worth of stock shooting.) There is no limit to the amount of scanning I could do if I had the time. I can't add any more to this backlog. Some people are pushing the idea of using a digital camera and slide duplicator in place of scanning in order to speed up the process. I tried this (5DII & Bowens Illumitron with Schneider copy lens) but the results weren't quite as good as from my scanner.

 

I think film is great for those who need it to fulfill a particular artistic expression (or just like working with it) but if you shoot at a high volume, it can become overwhelming. Even without scanning - labeling, organizing (cross-indexing) and filing slides is a major challenge.

[Guest nafpie]

What rubbish.

 

Is this YOUR way to comment a personal statement of another user (Alan), which is well-grounded and clearly to identify as HIS point of view?

 

What a shame - especially for a moderator.

 

That is MY opinion. Please respect. Thank you.

[Guest nafpie]

From now on, digital evangelists will be added automatically to my ignore list.

 

Yes, ignore digital photography. Thats the best way to keep film alive.

[redbaron]

Not the photography - I love my iPhone - just the evangilists that feel the need to denegrate something simply to justify why they spent thousands on something else.

[bill]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Is this YOUR way to comment a personal statement of another user (Alan), which is well-grounded and clearly to identify as HIS point of view?

 

What a shame - especially for a moderator.

 

That is MY opinion. Please respect. Thank you.

 

Interesting double standard. So you ask for respect for your opinion, but do not accept that Andy can express an opinion of his own?

[Guest nafpie]

... Andy can express an opinion of his own?

 

Oh yes, he can.

 

And I am pretty sure that you understood me very well.

 

Yes, he can express an opinion of his own, but not mention others opinion as 'rubbish'.

 

Isn't that hard to understand, he?

[Guest nafpie]

the evangilists that feel the need to denegrate something simply to justify why they spent thousands on something else.

 

Can't see any of those people your are talking about in this thread.

[jaapv]

One cannot have an opinion about an opinion?

[pop]

I take it that member nafpie takes offense at one member calling the opinion of another member "rubbish". I rather think that in Germany it would be somewhat impolite to call someones opinion "Mist". Not that it's not done, though.

[Guest nafpie]

One cannot have an opinion about an opinion?

 

Why not?

 

I just posted my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

Thanks.

[AlanG]

Is this YOUR way to comment a personal statement of another user (Alan), which is well-grounded and clearly to identify as HIS point of view?

 

What a shame - especially for a moderator.

 

That is MY opinion. Please respect. Thank you.

 

Thanks, but I am used to it and it is about the level of consideration I expected.

 

For reference, here is what that statement was directed towards... in the context of the OP, by functionally obsolete, I'd define that to mean that there won't be any photographic quality, speed, convenience, ISO or other performance advantage to using 35mm film over a 35mm digital camera for general photography. Of course 4x5 and 8x10 film will currently whip it just as current 65 megapixel MF will whip 35mm film today from various technical perspectives.

-------------------------------------------

"Full frame cameras have advanced in various ways since the 11 megapixel 1Ds in 2003. I don't think anything about film cameras, film technology, film processing, and scanning has improved significantly in those 7 years. Over the next 7 years, digital sensors, digital cameras, firmware, and software will continue to improve while film, film cameras, and scanners will not improve much, if at all. (For instance, the top shutter speed on an M7 is 1/1000 and is 1/4000 on an M9.)

 

So when it comes to versatility, capability, and overall quality, film will be functionally obsolete in a few more years (it is already for many)... whether some people will prefer using it and the look of it, is another matter."

[AlanG]

Not the photography - I love my iPhone - just the evangilists that feel the need to denegrate something simply to justify why they spent thousands on something else.

 

You could say the same thing about film users and likely be wrong both ways. If I shoot 1,000 rolls of film what will that cost for film, processing, scanning, all those trips to the lab, labeling and filing, scanning costs and time? Compare that to the overall cost of doing the same thing digitally.

 

I think most users are well aware of why they shoot film or shoot digitally and have taken the costs and time into consideration.

[pop]

Thanks, but I am used to it and it is about the level of consideration I expected.

Sorry; if you feel that way I can see no possible reason for your posting here unless you want to incite other people to respond in a manner you decide to find rude.

For reference, here is what that statement was directed towards... in the context of the OP, by functionally obsolete, I'd define that to mean that there won't be any photographic quality, speed, convenience, ISO or other performance advantage to using 35mm film over a 35mm digital camera for general photography.

Of course, it's up to you how you want to define your terms. For what it's worth, I think what OP seemed to have in mind when posing the question was not very close to the definition you chose.

....
"Full frame cameras have advanced in various ways since the 11 megapixel 1Ds in 2003. I don't think anything about film cameras, film technology, film processing, and scanning has improved significantly in those 7 years. Over the next 7 years, digital sensors, digital cameras, firmware, and software will continue to improve while film, film cameras, and scanners will not improve much, if at all. (For instance, the top shutter speed on an M7 is 1/1000 and is 1/4000 on an M9.)

So when it comes to versatility, capability, and overall quality, film will be functionally obsolete in a few more years (it is already for many)... whether some people will prefer using it and the look of it, is another matter."

I can see no real reason why you post this statement twice. If it was correct the first time around, it will be just as correct now, neither more nor less. On the other hand, if it was not, it will not gain a iota by being repeated.

Let's assume the film camera was around eighty years old. In that case we're comparing a technology with another which is about eleven times as long in use. Given that any kind of technology progresses fast in the beginning years and slower after reaching some kind of maturity, how could it possibly be other than that digital technology shows more progress than film technology in the same time span? That only shows that digital technology still had some catching up to do. In the eyes of some, it still has.

Film technology, development and scanning have indeed improved in the last decade.

Your example about shutter speed having increased from 1/1000 to 1/4000 is not entirely without irony. If it was relevant for further development, you'd have to take notice of the fact that the M8 - a digital camera - was capable of a still faster speed. In that vein, digital technology ought to be said to be on the descent again.

My prediction is that if film might be discontinued, it will not be not for lack of versatility, capability or quality but for lack of demand. However, demand for photographic paraphernalia is not mostly driven by the discerning pro but by the casual user. And for many casual users digital photography is certainly more gratifying than the traditional chemical way.

[Guest nafpie]

Sorry; if you feel that way I can see no possible reason for your posting here unless you want to incite other people to respond in a manner you decide to find rude.

 

I am sorry too. Why should an personal opinion PROdigital and CONTRAfilm *not* be appreciated in a thread called 'Future of Film'?

 

Do you hope for an interesting debate or do you want to allow FilmFanBoys votes olny?

[AlanG]

 

I can see no real reason why you post this statement twice. If it was correct the first time around, it will be just as correct now, neither more nor less. On the other hand, if it was not, it will not gain a iota by being repeated.

 

 

Well, it was way back so I don't know if many would have known what was being referenced. I'm sorry if it is controversial to you. But when anyone asks me if I think they should go with film or digital (e.g. therefore they obviously don't have a compelling reason to use film) I recommend digital.

 

As for the 1/400 th of a second... Leica hasn't offered that on a film M. Nor do they offered auto-bracketing or on a film M. (And the motor is gone too.) This has nothing to do with digital vs. film but just shows how the film M is a bit more limited. And since Leica says they will not be making a new film M, this won't change whereas digital cameras, M and others, will continue to evolve.

 

Scanner technology may change on the higher levels... I can't say, but many pro-sumer models are gone. E-6 processing has been around for about 35 years and hasn't changed much. Nor has b/w processing. Film at best has improved very slightly in the past 7 years but if you consider various emulsions and formats hat have been dropped, you can't call that progress. I don't see any variable color balancing ISO 6,400-104,000 slide film out there.

[pop]

... when anyone asks me if I think they should go with film or digital (e.g. therefore they obviously don't have a compelling reason to use film) I recommend digital.

 

No problem at that end of the business. The OP asks for opinions, and opinions he gets. Giving reasons for those opinions makes the answers meaningful. They also make discussions possible.

[andybarton]

Is this YOUR way to comment a personal statement of another user (Alan), which is well-grounded and clearly to identify as HIS point of view?

 

What a shame - especially for a moderator.

 

That is MY opinion. Please respect. Thank you.

 

I am currently in the north of Scotland with only one bar of mobile phone signal, so I apologise for the tardiness of my response.

 

Your insinuations are uncalled for, with respect. My opinions are just as valid as Alan's, or yours. Moderators ate allowed their opinions, as are all members of this forum.

 

I don't have the benefit of being able to read the whole of this thread at present, but please rest assured that I will do so when I return home to broadband-land.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[redbaron]

Can't see any of those people your are talking about in this thread.

 

Neither can I now.