Question from an Old Timer

Okay, I admit it. I'm a dinosaur. I come from the old world of film and manual

focus SLR cameras. My first was a Canon TL QL, followed by a FT-QL. Moved on to

a couple of A1s and ended up with a pair of T90s. I had the fortune of being in

a place physically and financially to be able to build-up my system to a point

that I couldn't carry it in one bag. This is not necessarily a good thing. I've

been out of the loop for a few years and now I'm beginning to look at getting

back into the hobby. I have a Bessler 23C2-XL and a Philips Tri-Color equipped

darkroom although at the present it is in storage.

 

Anyway, my question is this: Is there still a viable future for film?

 

Should I consider selling off my entire system and darkroom and move to digital

or stay with what I have and love?

 

Thanks.

Do whatever makes you happy. Film and the chemicals to process it will be around for a long time, though probably with an ever decreasing number of choices.

 

Personally I wouldn't go back to film, but that's just me.

Buy or borrow a digital SLR and try it. You may decide to go all digital, you may not care for it and decide to go back to film, or you might do some of both. Hard to beat the immediacy of digital.

 

As for myself, I shoot about 80% digital, but then I still like playing around with older cameras sometimes.

I posted something in the thread below this one that applies to your question.

 

It really depends what you want to accomplish.... doing it for money as a profession? just a hobby?

 

If it's just an advanced hobby, then i'd say to take a pair of scissors to your internet connection and do what you love, regardless of what anyone tells you (follow bob's advice above).

 

But if you are looking to do it again as a profession, then i personally don't see any future in film. Medium and Large format might be around for a little while perhaps, but even now they are slowly being replaced by the ease and power of 21+ megapixel Digital SLR cameras and the power of the digital darkroom.

 

The old school photographer with an FM2 is going to have a very hard time keeping pace with the talented 25 year old photography student with even mid-range digital SLR equipment when it comes to paid work.

When I was studying Calculus, my teacher forced us to learn the longhand way of solving a problem, despite everyone in the class having a TI-81 programmable graphing calculator. On all the tests, we had to show all our work, to prove we didn't just get the answer from the calculator. Without that experience, I would not have appreciated the calculator as much.

 

However, I don't ever miss the act of solving something with pencil and paper. I'm just as content to have my answer more quickly, and electronically. Likewise for letters via US Postal Service. Those have long since been replaced by E-mail. My banking is electronic (paycheck gets deposited electronically, and bills are paid that way too). All of my Christmas shopping is done in 30 minutes, thanks to the wonders of the Internet.

 

Yet, I know a number of people that still write paper checks (no Visa check card), shop at the mall, and write letters long hand (not even with a typewriter).

 

To each, his own. :)

Why the angst?

 

I shoot film and am thinking about getting a dslr. I like the Pentax K20D. I also like my MP, my G2, my 500CM,my C645 my Contax IIIa, and my 3rd wife.

 

It's all good (except wife #2).

Keep your old shoes--and darkroom. If it's any consolation, film(ironically)has never been better. The new Kodak Tmax 400(TMY-2)is wonderful; and the new Portra series for colour is also nice.The only catch that might hurt is the end of Kodak b&w paper, but there are other options.

 

Just in case you're worried about being the sole remaining giant reptile, have a look at this site, dust off the enlarger--and maybe buy a flatbed scanner just to keep people from talking...

 

 

http://www.smellsfunny.net/

" Anyway, my question is this: Is there still a viable future for film? "

 

Not for 35mm film (pro work). But a very small niche future for hobbyests? Yes, that will always be there. There are still horses being ridden or driven for transportation and some people still mail personal letters via postal service (cannot understand why though).

 

Like many here, I started out a couple decades ago in the chemical darkroom and pretty much chucked that forever with digital 8 years ago.

Dinosaur? Yikes. My first cameras were older than that and they were new when I got 'em as a kid. And I'm still a kid ... in my mind.

 

Film, light sensitive b&w paper and related chemistry will be around for a long time to come. If nothing else, as boutique items from specialty vendors catering to traditionalists and neo-traditionalists. If you've got the money, they'll sell it to you.

 

If I had space for a dedicated darkroom I'd still be shooting mostly b&w film and printing it myself. I use digital because it's practical, and relatively cost effective. But I don't care for the workflow. More a matter of preference for process, not a declaration of superiority. Heck, some artists still paint in the iconic style using egg tempera. I've never once read an "Oil vs. Egg Tempera" dispute online. Just a preference for process.

Some people still shoot film, others just do digital. It's as much personal prefrence as it is viability. The makers of film products are still selling the stuff so somebody must be buying it. If you sold all of your equipment that you listed you probably wouldnt get enough for it for a good digital camera. Some may argue that though.

 

Theres some pretty neat stuff that you can do with some of those cameras that digital cant do as effectively. Black and White, in my opinion, just doesnt look right with digital cameras, even after you send them through photoshop. In fact, as an arguement for film, photoshop has plugins (settings) that you can use to make your digital images look like specific types of film. So if digital imitates film then which is really better? But I am just playing devils advocate here.

 

The correct answer is: use which ever camera that you are more prone to pick up and use, an image can not be made until you press the shutter release. To that point you havent used film in quite some time and you may be ready to make the switch.

Glen, you used the word "love" when you mentioned film. Stick with film.

 

That said, also take a look-see at digital just so that you will know what it is. But don't go at it thinking you are going to transition into digital without a lot of hurt, pain, and frustration. And that's just to learn the new lingo that comes with digital.

 

I believe film will be around for a long time but the chemistry to do your own work with it probably will not. That is not an issue if you make you own chemistry. It is easy to do. I make all of my own developers, fixers, toners, etc.

 

Now about David's comment:

 

>>> But if you are looking to do it again as a profession, then i personally don't see any future in film. <<<

 

David, consider there are two ways to make a hamburger; you can hump and hustle and work your tail off to crank out a $1 hamburger every minute (digital photography), or you can put an emphases on making one $15 premium hamburger ever 15-minutes (film photography). I guarantee you, David, anyone that blows off film as having no future in the photo business is blowing off the big ticket money makers. That said, I want to encourage everyone to get out of film and into digital photography. Btw, the cost of your $1 hamburger just dropped to 85-cents so you are going to need to work harder to make the same money. And the price of my $15 hamburger has now bumped to $20.

Do both. Exhume your film equipment, and get an entry-level DSLR (ideally one that will let you use some of your old lenses).

" ...or stay with what I have and love?"

 

Why not! :)

Guys,

 

Thanks for the input, I really appreciate it. I'm still not any closer to a decision. All points made are useful and valid. There is the nagging truth that I have invested a small fortune (many years ago) and today it is worth pennies on the dollar. That hurts. Then again, I haven't used it much in the past few years.

 

I have been using digital but I haven't gotten into computer manipulation of the images. I wonder about being able to produce high quality large images.

 

My interest is purely personal and as a hobby. I can spend hours in the darkroom just for the fun of it. I have ventured into the world of the professional photographer as well. Like a pro friend of mine once said, one difference between a pro and an advanced amateur was that the amateur usually had better equipment. That doesn't mean they made better images.

 

I guess the first thing I need to do in educate myself on Photoshop and see if it has the same thrill as seeing that image emerge from the blank white paper the first time.

 

Thanks for all the comments. This may be one of the best forums on the net.

My son gave me back an old Minolta 7000 with some lenses that I had given him years ago. He said why would I want to use that complicated old thing? Never have even used it once. So, I put batteries in it and I am enjoying it very much, even while it is hunting around trying to find something to focus on. Keep your old stuff but maybe try digital too.

"...stay with what I have and love?"

 

Digital or film, never ever sell what you love to shoot with.

It's about 50 years now since the advent of the transistor but there are many hi-fi buffs who still prefer the sound of vacuum-tube amplifiers and there are still manufacturers producing them.

 

I still shoot film for all my serious photography.

You might want to investigate whether or not you can obtain your chemicals easily before plunging into film. The EPA (according to two local suppliers here in DFW) has begun to take an interest in "residual nature" of some of the developers and there are a few gaps in the developers and fixers once available.

 

I still enjoy shooting film once and awhile, especially large format 8x10 plates, but the clock is certainly "ticking" for this technology. I've retained my film equipment, but am using digital for most of my work these days.

@ Oxide.....

 

"I guarantee you, David, anyone that blows off film as having no future in the photo business is blowing off the big ticket money makers"

 

I guess it depends on how 'future' we are talking. In the short term, medium/large format guys aren't going away... And in the case of Glen, the OP, i'm sure film will be around as long as he is. I guess it's going to be an argument for a long time. Lot's of guys still shoot film, but I don't think it will be all that long before it becomes too much of a disadvantage for general contract photography. I know everyone is going to say "a professional is someone who can take a great shot on a single use film camera" etc etc. While I agree to some point, Paid work isn't about the photographer, it's about the client.

 

In the end, it's a question of whether or not the photographer can deliver the final product within the constraints that the client sets. There are always going to be high demand professionals who can set their own terms, but that's the minority. The majority can set whatever constraints they want, but if it doesn't suit anyone's needs or wants, they won't get any business. Even at this point, only 10 or so years into the digital photography revolution, I have a hard time imagining anyone but the best making a living shooting strictly film.

David, we could have our own discussion, maybe start another thread on the perception of photography AFTER the influx of digital imaging. I think many people might see digital photography as entirely different, easier, than film photography.

 

My professional experience is primarily with people photography (wedding/portraits). Film based and silver prints are still a very valuable product and I suspect will be for some time. And yes, you are correct, marketing and clientele has everything to do with it.

 

I think the people that buy silver prints do not understand digital imaging, especially the back end of it, the post-exposure processing and file manipulation. They think it is easier than film photography and thus it does not have the same value to them. Pull out a medium format film camera and people go "ooooh". Pull out a high-end digital SLR and people want to compare it for dissimilarity to the digital camera in their purse or built into a cell phone. "Your Nikon D3 is 12 mega pixels? Wow! So is my Canon Elph/PowerShot!" It is almost as if they think they could make similar quality digital images if they had the same camera.

 

And I confess a similar bias. I still buy/collect silver prints from photographers. I have yet to buy an image that could have been sent as an email attachment, whether it is a file or a digital print. In some cases I pay large sums for some silver prints but I personally would not pay $2 for a digital print no matter how extraordinary it is. And of course I have my reason for this and it is not an anti-digital thing at all.

 

And you know one of the ironies is that we used to give away our b&w art prints to anyone that expressed a desire to have one. Today, everyone wants to sell their crappiest of all crappy digital prints. Everyone thinks they are a rock n roll star with a digital camera. Some are, most are not.

 

I think after this generation is gone the next generation of people is where digital takes over professional photography completely. Well, there will always be the 'artist' holdouts. :)