Would you give up photography if.............?

<p>There have been more than enough threads on the relative benefits and and attributes of film versus digital but I don't recall anyone asking the key question. Namely, if the supply of film was to dry up completely would you continue to make images with the technology that remained?<br>

I was asking myself this question earlier this week after buying another ancient lens to try out on my Crown Graphic. I have pretty much come to the conclusion that if film were to vanish then I would probably not continue a serious interest in the creation of new images via photographic methods. I don't think that film is going away in the near future but I pose this as a hypothetical question. I found that by asking myself this question, it forced me to evaluate what drives my interest in photography after 30 years or so. From the answer I tended towards, I would have to say that for me at least the end result is only part of the enjoyment. So it is not the end result in itself that is all important. There are obviously less tangible factors at work here, most of which have been aired many times previously. I would be interested to know though, to what extent the loss of film as a medium would affect the future picture making behaviour of current film users on this forum.</p>

<p>I probably would continue, but at a very reduced rate. I was a digital early adopter, and found that it was great for manipulating images more than recording them. By now I've bored everyone by my stories of my digicams dying on me, so I found that the permanence of the images I take with my mechanical cameras are a great comfort, even when they're bad shots. I have prints and negatives my father took in the 1920s, still in excellent shape. My project lately has been to scan motorcycle racing slides from the 1970s for my brother to put online. A very mechanical process, but it allows me to see how nice Kodachrome images keep, and how variable Ektachromes are ;)<br>

P.S. Yes, I use the dust/scratch reduction channels along with boosting color on some of the faded Ektachromes. Might as well use what's there. The slides haven't been cared for as they should have been. Luckily, I've encountered no crossover in the older Ektachromes. Yet.</p>

<p>Yes, I'd continue, as I already do occasionally shoot digitally, but I'd be sorry to lose the ability to use all those wonderful old cameras and film. I think I'd still always want to take pictures, though I'm sure my point of view and attitude would change.</p>

<p>I would probably stop shooting the way I do, and either incorporate digital into other artistic mediums, or focus almost entirely on sculpture or painting. It's just not the same to me.</p>

<p>I'd definitely continue photography as I enjoy digital photography a lot. I'd miss using film and my film cameras; I'd still have to play with them though. By the same token, if for some reason digital photography went away and only film was left, I'd gladly use film and continue photography.</p>

<p>Would definitely continue...I really don't care what the process is, i'm just still as amazed now as I was when I started that I can do this.</p>

<p>Possibly, but I wouldn't get near as much pleasure from it.</p>

<p>No, I'd quit photography if I couldn't get film any more.</p>

<p>Depends...will they have developed reasonably priced self-contained full-format digital backs for my 4x5 view camera by then? :-)</p>

<p>Of course I wouldn't give it up. Digital is expanding and developing every week and represents an interesting challenge. I've been shooting film and doing darkroom work for over a half century and continue to do so, but I've also been using digital gear for 10 years, and see some really interesting developments there which allow me to use (if I desire) virtually all of the 35mm lenses I've acquired over the years via the micro 4/3 bodies. I haven't bitten yet due to the crop factor, but I've seen larger than 8x10 prints (my usual print size) from this smaller sensor which are giving my 35mm film gear and my DSLR a real run for the money. IMHO the only issue right now is getting top notch 4/3 lenses...although the Leica M lenses work fine via adapters they aren't optimized in IQ for this sensor. So don't even think about throwing in the towel in the unlikely event that film disappears.</p>

<p>I will be long gone before thats : Oh thank you!</p>

<p>I have enjoyed both film and digital cameras and their pictures. Will continue whatever medium is available. After al film existed long before I was born and changed many times over during my life too. I don't use auto focus in film; I also use only manual controls in digital. sp</p>

<p>I hate to spoil the futurist party, but the larger probability is the end of cheap digital photography.</p>

<p>Camera makers are facing steep rises in production costs. Even Chinese workers won't tolerate low wages anymore. Beijing recently ordered across-the-board pay rises.</p>

<p>The energy costs involved in digital technology production are increasing, promising further steep price rises generally. I came across this very thought-provoking piece on computer chips, their energy and pollution costs:</p>

<p>http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2009/06/embodied-energy-of-digital-technology.html</p>

<p>The 'embodied energy' in a computer chip is phenomenal. From the above article:</p>

<p>"The most up-to-date life cycle analysis of a computer dates from 2004 and concerns a machine from 1990. It concluded that while the ratio of fossil fuel use to product weight is 2 to 1 for most manufactured products (you need 2 kilograms of fuel for 1 kilogram of product), the ratio is 12 to 1 for a computer (you need 12 kilograms of fuel for 1 kilogram of computer). Considering an average life expectancy of 3 years, this means that the total energy use of a computer is dominated by production (83% or 7,329 megajoule) as opposed to operation (17%). Similar figures were obtained for mobile phones.</p>

<p>While the 1990 computer was a desktop machine with a CRT-monitor, many of today's computers are laptops with an LCD-screen. At first sight, this seems to indicate that the embodied energy of today's machines is lower than that of the 1990 machine, because much less material (plastics, metals, glass) is needed. But it is not the plastic, the metal and the glass that makes computers so energy-intensive to produce. It's the tiny microchips, and present-day computers have more of them, not less."</p>

<p>In digital production you must make millions of items, or none at all. Digital production will continue for certain at some level, as there is a huge military and surveillance market. But will ordinary people be able to afford this technology?</p>

<p>Another issue for digital production is the impending resource crises of rare-earth elements needed for chip, CCD and LCD manufacture. The earth has been ruthlessly stripped of minerals and soon we will have problems even finding enough lead and copper, let alone Hafnium, Antimony, etc. for chip doping and LCD displays. Recently the Chinese government, leading exporters of rare earth metals, announced restrictions of exports and are openly discussing total bans on their export.</p>

<p>Compared to the price of even one fab line for a single chip, the cost of a new film coating plant is negligible.<br /> <br /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yes.</p>

<p>To me the most pleasure is in creating an image. I have used a lot of different cameras, film formats, and now I have added digital. I like the added control I have in the digital darkroom versus the film darkroom. I will continue using both film and digital.</p>

<p>Another point is that I dont worry about things like the disappearance of film. It will be here as long as I am alive. It may be harder to get. It may be harder to find the chemicals to develop film and paper. </p>

<p>There are so many other things to worry about. Use what you can while you can. When everything runs out we will go back to cave painting. Now there is a craft.</p>

<p>Peter dW's arguments are all good ones, and I'm sure no expert, but I would have guessed that the competition in the microchip industry will remain fierce, and keep prices down. This is an embodiment of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law">Moore's Law</a>, and I suspect we have a few years left in which it will remain valid.</p>

<p>On the original topic, I can't believe some of you guys are so wedded to film that you would stop making photographs. It reminds me of those redneck bumper stickers about Fords vs Chevys. I'm currently 100% film (at the moment of making the exposure at least, because I use scanned negatives a lot these days). But if I ever can't get film anymore, my down time will be about 90min, while I drive across town to buy a Canon 5D Mark LXVI with a 50/1.4.</p>

<p>I would continue to use digital cameras like the Canon G10 or G11 for snapshots etc. but I would most certainly give up serious photography. I do photography purely for pleasure and for some reason I do not get the same kick out of digital cameras.</p>

<p>I enjoy film photography far more than I do digital. I also enjoy the darkroom work, but have never been interested in digital manipulation. If film went away next year I would continue to shoot, though I would have to upgrade my computer, monitor, and get a fancy new printer in order to get the most out of it.</p>

<p>Peter, very interesting article, thanks for the link.</p>

<p>I love my film cameras, and don't think film will disappear in my lifetime (mainly because I am ancient)but if it did, i would continue to shoot via digital. I often think that clinging to film is a desparate effort to return to our youth, nothing wrong with that.<br>

But let's not become resentful tea baggers. The times they are a changing. I can imagine an era in the not too distant future where all photography is via 3D holograms or something even more exotic. And I'll bet digital fans will be moaning about the demise of the digital era.<br>

My generation has seen the demise of the mechanical cams and gears and pulleys to the dominance of solid state electronics and there will always be something new around the corner. If film sadly disappears, well digital cameras can produce great images also. I wonder what I would do with my Leicas, Retinas, Spotmatics, Nikon F series, etc. My wife would probably have a fantastic garage sale since she doesn't know a Leica from a Holga.</p>

<p>Thanks for the varied and reasoned responses. What I was getting at was that it depends on what drives you to engage in traditional photography and how wedded you are to the medium of film that will determine your response. And their is no right or wrong answer to this; just your own answer. For myself the digital compact would still be used for snapshots and as a kind of personal memo. For self expression I would have to look further afield; no bad thing perhaps. Maybe painting, drawing, writing or perhaps getting some sort of continuity into those archived images to self publish a book or two.</p>

<p>I loved my film cameras (Nikon 3HP and Contax G2s), but found that shooting Kodachrome or Velvia was just too expensive. I've now fully embraced digital and will never return to film. I consider it a nostaligic anachronism. I always found it was about creating the image.</p>

<p>I doubt film will go away completely; but I'm the kind of guy that would keep making [and shooting] his own emulsions. I told the tech editor to Microscopy Today magazine that I wanted to make a Daguerreotype from an electron microscope.<br>

He knows I'm serious. But I'm surprised nobody has brought up that possibility here yet, too.</p>

<p>I would enthusiastically complete my switch to digital. <heresy> Some of those cameras and lenses actually are pretty good. </heresy></p>

<p>Also, that doesn't mean I couldn't use a lot of my old gear, especially the lenses. I'm sure I would join the active community of buffs using old manual lenses on digi bodies.</p>

<p>I also have a fantasy that someday I could even go back to using the cameras themselves, because someday someone will make a full frame, self powered digital sensor and memory unit with the form factor of a 35mm film cartridge that you can just drop into an old 35mm body with minimal modifications. </p>

<p> </p>

I probably won't quit all together.. but I'll still play make believe and pretend my old cameras have film in them and still cock and fire the shutters, and look through the GG and focus them lovingly!

<p>I'd continue to use my film cameras without film, producing pure conceptual art. ;)</p>

I'v always had a yen to take up oil painting and faced with a learning curve for that or digital who knows. I've always thought that paintings display much better than any form of photography and if not soon when (never).