The Future for Film

[jacksparrow]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey, just for the more pesimistic of you about the future of film....

 

I'm a techno freak, I started with a point and shot cameras a long time ago, and then I've been using the D2 for the last three years and digital for the last... 7 or so, and now, as my next step, and after waiting for the M8... I'm seriously considering getting an MP instead!!

 

Reasons, in no particular order:

 

1) MP won´t be techno crap in 5 years from now. Who of you would be using the best cell phone availabe 5 years ago? surely the megapixel count won't go much higher, but latitude, sensitivity, storage capacity, sensor size... all that will be light years from what is available now much sooner than we think.

 

2) the 6000 shots curse, I consider myself comfortable with Photoshop, but the point is... don´t have the time to go and tweak the hunderds of photos coming out of the digital! film would force to preselect and decide if something deserves to be a picture beofre taking it.

 

3) Related with 2), and I guess as a general consideration, I'm getting tired of the "more and faster is better", maybe taking only 36 pictures, and then waiting one day to get them back has some value... like I read recently in a thread, someone said the gesture of advancing the film was something special... and I know I'm introducing here some "romantic" quality to film and the old processing that might be arbitrary, but I think there's a lot of people with me in there.

 

4) MP is Cheaper

 

5) I'm sure sometime in the future, when everyone is digital, film will become "the cool thing", and film will come back.

 

Well.. just some ideas... I hope I'm right, because I don't want to put my savings in some collector's item with no use in the future!! :-)

 

By the way, what about MP + Summilux 50? I wear glasses, and I´m VERY shortsighted (7 diopters) would the regular 0.72 viewfinder be OK for that setup? would I need the 1.25x viewfinder attachment?

 

cheers

[LADP]

prior quote....."Most movies are still shot on 35mm color film"

 

IMHO...that is in large part due to the economics of distribution. How to and who will pay for the upgrade of distribution, storage, and prsentation of the digital movies. The theater owners see great advantages in digital but cant, or wont, be the sole investors in upgrading the technology.

 

Actually, the deal for mass digital distribution of motion pictures is pretty much already inked. Basically there's a partnership of the major Studios and the theater chain owners on the table that looks to be feasible for all parties concerned to make the switch. The real cost for a distributer at the moment is the print cost for the thousands of release prints (many, many duplications needed for wide spread theatrical release of typical major motion pictures - 2000 - 3000 theaters nation-wide). The cost of the negative for origination is negligible.

 

At the moment, originating in digital formats is virtually the same cost as originating in 35mm when you factor in the associated additional work flow, equipment and crew needed to get the project shot and posted (and outputed to 35mm for distribution). When the theaters are finally set up for satellite distribution and digital projectors, the cost of originating in digital will be marginally cheaper, but IMHO the cost differential between originating in film vs. HD will NOT be a deciding factor in which medium to use for several years.

[Advertisement]

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

[egpj]

I thought that digital projectors could not match the output from 35 mm projector.

[lambroving]

Steven Spielberg prefers film...

[ossifan]

...3) Related with 2), and I guess as a general consideration, I'm getting tired of the "more and faster is better", maybe taking only 36 pictures, and then waiting one day to get them back has some value... like I read recently in a thread, someone said the gesture of advancing the film was something special... and I know I'm introducing here some "romantic" quality to film and the old processing that might be arbitrary, but I think there's a lot of people with me in there.

 

 

I'm with you on the tiresome culture of "more and faster is better" and see nothing wrong with thinking of film as a romantic medium. I hope to use film all my life.

 

I also enjoy developing film and making prints - I like the process, similar to how life is in the journey, not the destination. I know I can always scan my negatives if I need a digital image. I spend so much time in front of my computer for work, I really don't want to sit in front of it at home as part of my hobby!

 

I have no idea about the future of film, but I certainly hope that it will be available for some time to come.

 

Cheers,

Alex

[LADP]

I thought that digital projectors could not match the output from 35 mm projector.

 

I really don't think they quite can yet, but the current state of the art is getting pretty close:

 

NEC STARUS

[pemayeux]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am really enjoying this thread as it makes me feel normal for wanting to continue to use film. By far, the majority of people I talk to about photography are perplexed when I talk of my love for film. Yes, I was seduced by the lure of digital. I started with a Leica D2. I hated it. I bought a Canon 5D. Aside from its bulk and weight it did give me some satisfaction. However, I still prefer to use my little Leica. I've come to the conclusion that as long as there is film, I will shoot film.

 

I also wonder, after a few generations have passed, how much of what has been shot digitally by amateur photograhers for the family photo album will still be viable. How much information, typically recorded by casual snapshots, will be lost forever because a computer drive was not backed up or a cd degraded?

 

I'm sticking with film.

[SteveYork]

Hey, just for the more pesimistic of you about the future of film....

 

I'm a techno freak, I started with a point and shot cameras a long time ago, and then I've been using the D2 for the last three years and digital for the last... 7 or so, and now, as my next step, and after waiting for the M8... I'm seriously considering getting an MP instead!!

 

Reasons, in no particular order:

 

1) MP won´t be techno crap in 5 years from now. Who of you would be using the best cell phone availabe 5 years ago? surely the megapixel count won't go much higher, but latitude, sensitivity, storage capacity, sensor size... all that will be light years from what is available now much sooner than we think.

 

2) the 6000 shots curse, I consider myself comfortable with Photoshop, but the point is... don´t have the time to go and tweak the hunderds of photos coming out of the digital! film would force to preselect and decide if something deserves to be a picture beofre taking it.

 

3) Related with 2), and I guess as a general consideration, I'm getting tired of the "more and faster is better", maybe taking only 36 pictures, and then waiting one day to get them back has some value... like I read recently in a thread, someone said the gesture of advancing the film was something special... and I know I'm introducing here some "romantic" quality to film and the old processing that might be arbitrary, but I think there's a lot of people with me in there.

 

4) MP is Cheaper

 

5) I'm sure sometime in the future, when everyone is digital, film will become "the cool thing", and film will come back.

 

Well.. just some ideas... I hope I'm right, because I don't want to put my savings in some collector's item with no use in the future!! :-)

 

By the way, what about MP + Summilux 50? I wear glasses, and I´m VERY shortsighted (7 diopters) would the regular 0.72 viewfinder be OK for that setup? would I need the 1.25x viewfinder attachment?

 

cheers

 

I too wear glasses, and my best pics come when I'm using my MP (0.72) and the 50mm Summilux ASPH. I have no problems seeing the framelines, and you can see a little around the framelines too. But then I'm far sighted, but that shouldn't make a difference if you wear glasses.

[petert531]

This kind of thread appears on the internet over and over again. In the end it all depends on what you do and how you shoot that determines whether film makes sense. There is no right answer.

 

If you shoot a roll of film or even two a week and scan them at home and maybe even photoshop a few then by all means, stay with film as a viable option. A year ago I thought I could stay in this camp. Until my film and developing on a monthly basis was 300-500 CDN$ (and my customers thought my work was substandard unless I sent the scans out to a lab to have an Imacon done...and then it still looked poor (on a computer where it is mostly evaluted these days guys, just like here) compared to a cheap digi camera).

 

For most amateur (read snapshooters) this is still not good enough because only 1 in 10 picture is a keeper (of any kind) and it feels good to delete the junk, and hey who doens't want to look at that picture of Grampa now...

 

If you shoot a thousand frames a week and need quick turnaround time (war reporter, fashion photog, wedding photog) digi wins the race in a few quick months, on $ alone, if not turnaround time expected. Only Large format, due to some technical reasons

gets any kind of real professional use anymore. I am sure we all know a local pro who hasn't given in, but realistically it's 90%+ now.

 

Bottom line, both will co-exist with film occupying a small part of the overall market. This will continue until not enough people buy film at all. Then there will be a great aftermarket of 'rare' film an chemicals etc (like rare tubes in the guitar amp market), so start getting ready to make a killing.

 

Peter

[ddp]

I honestly don't care if DSLR's can outresolve my film. I have no choice at my day job, so digital it is. It's great in many applications - but it has also fostered a culture of instant gratification amongst art directors, PR people and any others involved with the planning of the shoot. I like being busy - but few understand why it may take some time to tweak images just right for different applications.

 

As an M shooter, I find it odd that the M8 does little for me in the way of equipment "lust." I like the way my images look on film when shot with my MP or M3. The DMR almost had me, but I decided to sell all the R gear and further feed my lust for the M system.

 

I've had too much first hand experience with failure of various DSLR's in the field, and the lifespan of this stuff makes some prone to upgrade-itis. I can't imagine my MP being close to obsolete in 5 years...but an M8?

[Guest BaldHeadLightning]

Just to invite views from the members here (and perhaps to turn our attention to matters non-digital for just a moment), how do we see the future of film? Is it -

It will survive in archives for more than 100 years:D :D

[fotografr]

As I've already stated, I'm one of those luddites who still prefers the look of film and the process of getting film based images. That said, I think the answer to the question about the survival of film can perhaps be found right here on our forum home page. If you look at it now, you'll see the following stats:

 

Film Forum.........................17 threads

 

Digital Forum.....................518 threads

 

We are a dying breed.

[imported_peter_m]

As I've already stated, I'm one of those luddites who still prefers the look of film and the process of getting film based images. That said, I think the answer to the question about the survival of film can perhaps be found right here on our forum home page. If you look at it now, you'll see the following stats:

 

Film Forum.........................17 threads

 

Digital Forum.....................518 threads

 

We are a dying breed.

 

Brent,

The film forum is a lot younger then the digital forum and includes the M8 forum. Maybe not the bet comparison.

Peter

[lambroving]

Hello Brent,

 

The Digital Forum is just so much conversation and blather because processing a picture is so much software, manipulation and the like. Where are the quality pictures on the Forum from digital capture? With film, there is not so much conversation because you either have a picture or you don't. My best pictures are single frames and I took some time and trouble and thought to get them. This is not the process with digital capture for most part it would appear. To me digital capture = the dumbing down of photography, even though that need not be the case.

 

Of course, on the German Forum there is a lot of conversation about B&W processes, development and the like. If you look there, you will see many posts. Some of those guys are very clever and have good taste!

 

People who have been at this for many decades have eyes to see and appreciate the differences; you, Dan, me..., and a good many others. The rest seem to think that HDTV is photography and "image quality"... I don't THINK so!

[fotografr]

In that I do have to shoot most assignment work digitally, even though I prefer the look of film, I must say this video has my blood racing a bit. It would seem the M8 will really be a true M, and that will beat the hell out of shooting with Canons and Nikons from my perspective.

 

Phase One Videoblog

[fotografr]

Brent,

The film forum is a lot younger then the digital forum and includes the M8 forum. Maybe not the bet comparison.

Peter

 

Perhaps, but here's another indication: Currently viewing the Digital Forum: 49

Currently viewing the Film Forum: 3

[stunsworth]

Where are the quality pictures on the Forum from digital capture?

 

You're not looking hard enough William, there are lots. Of course there are also lots of poor images, but that has to do with the ability of the photogapher rather than the medium on which the image was captured. You'll see lots of poor film images too.

 

Remember when you take your film into a lab to be processed the prints will more than likely be made from scans of the negatives - that's why they are able to offer CDs of Jpegs of the images. As the negative is being processed it will be adjusted for white balance, contrast and saturation to provide an image that the machine believes to be pleasing to the eye. If you are lucky these adjustments will be under human control. If not you will be presented with images representing the machine's idea of what constitutes acceptability. Who has the better idea of what the final image is to look like, the person who took the photograph or the person who programmed the machine's software?

 

Whether I shoot digitally or using film the processing I undertake is virtually identical. Most of the time that consists of adjusting levels and curves, applying a little sharpening and that's about it.

 

A good photograph is made by a good photographer. A poor images is made by a poor one. Give a decent photographer a camera body and a 35/50mm lens and they will produce good images _regardless_ of whether the camera is digital or film. Regardless even of whether the camera is Leica Mikon or Canon - look at the photographs of Willy Ronis a fantastic photographer who used a lowly Pentax ME Super. He didn't spend thousands on equipment like many of us have, but took images that put just about everything that I've seen here in the shade.

 

The idea that film=good, digital=bad is blinkered in the extreme IMHO. It's the photographer who takes the photograph, not the camera.

[vic vic]

currently i work with film and i dont mind about anything else said about digital.

currently, i seroiusly concider to attach digi back to rollei, and maybe to get the m8 as well, but currently and in the future i have no intentions to abendom the film, especially black+white photography.

currently, people talk alot about digital... just talk - so it is obvious that the numbers indicate such thing. (but of course i dont say that outside of forums every body use film :-))))

 

 

peter....

 

1. if u cannot get a decent scan from imacon... well, your lab must study how to use this scanner. there is no chance to get bad scan from your slides if u (or lab graphic people) know to use the color-flex. trust me... only side by side u can distinguish the differance between ilfo-chrom print and hig-end digital print (which should be scanned first). or if u are exti,mly trained watcher.

 

2. large format photography use has nothing to do with digital or film. large format is used because u need or want its capabilities. in fact... all recent large cameras are optimized for digital use (by attaching special multi shot backs or scaning backs). sinar wirth their recent p3, linhof with thier recent 679 are examples of such cameras (digital needs in mind). otherwise, if u use only the single shot digi-backs (those that are more common in use with medium format cameras) can be used on large cameras that are non-digi optimized - like the linhof master-technika or technikardan or other sinars and arcas.

but it is true, many applications still require the film and only film. by the way, many of the car ads are made on 8x10 cameras and then scanned (on creo scanners for example).

 

about fashion.... it is a very big field.... true - some need faster transfer of ready images... but any serious fashion work is long time preparation... long long time. it is not only photographer there... designers, graphics, art directors, strategists etc etc are involved. at the bototn line, in those kind of works no one cares if they have to wait one day more (more than a day is not needed to gain the time lost on film processing and scanning).

but also true... a very agressive and very intelegent advertising is used to fully insert the digital into those fields, or insert as much as their technological acheivments allow.

[SteveYork]

Owners of labs have reported on these types of forums that their decline in film customers has started to level off, in some cases increased; ditto for film sales.

 

There's no doubt that digital is the future and that film will never reclaim much of the market. But I have a hard time believing that film will disappear. Even if it is only a tiny fraction of picture takers are using film, somebody, somewhere will be able to supply those customers. That's capatilism. I'm not saying the big manufacturers will stay in business, although they may on a more limited scale; and I'm not saying it won't be expensive, but it will be available.

 

And I can forsee a tiny renaissance in film among ameteurs. As more and more people go digital, there will be a pull among some to be different. And if you've ever had an electronic camera fail on you, as I have, well, there's only one option -- film. And I still like the B&W imaging of film better then digital, although I admit to having little digital exposure.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[hamey]

This topic seems to never end, well thats great, I for one have a difficultly in trying to relate my love for Film to the New Breed on which most are switched to anything electronic.

 

So whether we like it or not, it's an Electronic world out there and I would hate to replace my lovely Electronic clock on my bed side to the one I had in the sixties click-clock click clock all night, I would never sleep and of course other Electronic gadgets that we use in our daily lives make life so comfortable.

 

So in my Photography, why am I having difficultly in excepting Electronic imaging when

most things in our home is electronic.

 

Perhaps in realization I am prepered to discard all my Electronic devices whenever they become inoperable, including the computor I am using now, I just simply dispose of them without any second thoughts.

 

To me, my Photography is different I don't do it for business it's totally for my pleasure

I want to document life and thereby becomes part of my life and not to dispose off

thats why I choose the medium that I know and trust and thats FILM. (Slides)

I can handle it, smell it, and most importently, view it without any Electronic Aids.

Not worry about White balance, raw, jpeg, firmwere, Memory cards, batteries etc,etc that goes with the Bullshit in Digital imaging just to take a shot. (Just read the Digital Forum)

I like my photography uncomplecated, thats another reason why I shoot with a Leica.

Just pick it up, hold it, focus it and press the shutter then wind the next frame up.

When finished replace the light sensor (FILM) with another FULL 35mm light sensor, all for only 10 dollars, and you don't have to worry about dust specs on it.

 

Perhaps I am to much of a KISS. === Keep It Simple Stupid.

 

Cheers.