The death of film. Do we mourn?

[ken munn]

I have a perfectly splendid Canon EOS 30v resting unused and rolls of 35mm sitting in fridge. And there's

a Rollei TLR. In all honesty I'm barely tempted to take them out and use them. It's a situation that's

common amongst PNers, I sure. But should we mourn the death of film? Are pixels a complete, better

replacement, or have we lost something which we can't duplicate in digital?

 

The only thing I an think of is the anticipation of the processed film coming back from the lab. Oh, and

having a packet of 6 x 4s to pass around.

 

Nonetheless, I can't bring myself to stick the film cameras on eBay, for the sake of a few bucks. What are

you doing with your film equipment?<div></div>

[lake_photography]

I use my film equipment. I have a 2 1/4 as well as a Nikon F3 and a couple of others. I shoot

digital most of the time but will always use film. I have actually found myself going back to

film more and more. I find with film I think more about what I am shooting and I find it a

more relaxing way to shoot. If you want to rid yourself of those film cameras I would be

happy to adopt them and give them a good home and make sure they get plenty of exercise.

 

BTW your photograph is great!

[dan_mcclain]

I bought a D50 a few years ago, got tired of the computer with a lens mount, and missed the build quality and controls of Nikon film SLRs. So I now use an F2A, F3HP, YashicaMat,Yashica Electro 35, Argus C3, Crown Graphic, and am having a 1937 Rolleicord serviced for a battery free "go everywhere" camera. I know of many labs that still process and print 120 and even 4x5, so for the time being I'm not missing digital at all. If the labs ever stop developing film (and I doubt every lab in the US would, because there would be enough demand for a few) I'll set up a home darkroom, stock up on black and white film and chemicals, and keep going.

[WJT]

I have and use all of my film gear and intend to do so until I can no longer obtain film to feed them. I shoot 6x7 and 4x5, both color and B&W, with a couple of Pentax 67 outfits and Graphex Crown Graphic. The usual intended end of my workflow is a LARGE Chromira print, 24x36 inches and larger. There is no affordably priced alternative on the market (though the ZD is close) that would equal the results that I get with my film gear. The race is not even close against the 4x5. This situation will eventually change, of course, but presently film is alive and well with me. Regards.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I use my film gear. And I sold my D200.

[b_reagan]

Ken - are you over 40? My reason for asking is to see if my analogy will make sense to you. Film is no more dead than vinyl. It occupies a smaller niche for those who can appreciate and enjoy the subtleties. And as far as vinyl goes, there's a new demand in the 18-24 age bracket as most indie bands release on vinyl, and the Rolling Stones never stopped.

 

If film is dead why did Fuji bring back Velvia 50? Why is Vista being manufactured years after AGFA quit the business? Film may no longer suit your personal style and there's no harm in that. What's in the fridge? Maybe we should talk - bernard

[elliott2]

Yes I am quite certain that film is in its last death throws. Like any technology transition there will be short few years of overlap as some of the older generation hold out. However a few years more pass and then only the odd specialist will bother to continue, sometimes just to be different from the crowd. Film will within a few years have joined the ranks of other obsolete (but note, not necessarily worse technologies, just less convenient) that went before it. Examples include the horse and cart, the 78, the 45, the LP, soon the CD and DVD, the airship the steam locomotive and countless others. Do I mourn,not at all. I just accept it and explore this strange new exciting world.

[joshroot]

I don't mourn the "death" of film, though I would argue that rumors of it's death have been greatly exaggerated. I think film will be around for some time still.

 

That having been said, I won't cry when it's gone. I just like to make images, the medium is not that important to me personally.

[bobatkins]

"Film is no more dead than vinyl"

 

Couldn't have said it better myself...What's "vinyl"

 

I'd say film is no more dead than the teletype machine and 8" floppy disks. I think I have examples of both of those somewhere in my basement.

 

Prints are the final result of photography, and it matters no more what is used to make them than it matters what sort of brush an artist used to paint a picture or what sort of pen (remember those things) a writer used to write a novel. What matters is the final product.

[mdunker]

I was reading the article referenced a few days ago about Capa's lost negatives and the first thought that came to mind was where and how will we recover lost images from the digital generation? I suppose we'll find a hard drive previously removed from some photographer's computer collecting dust in a suitcase. Although I'm awed by what features can be packed into a camera these days I still thoroughly enjoy the tactile sense of loading film and holding it when developed. Similar to holding a print in your hands, just one or two steps earlier (depending on printing method). Silly I know...

[bobatkins]

"I still thoroughly enjoy the tactile sense of loading film and holding it when developed"

 

It's easy to get nostalgic about film. Things aren't like they used to be, but then again they never were.

[ronald_moravec1]

I am in the process of finding more Leica brass filom cassettes to properly feed my screw and M cameras.

 

Nikon D200 gets used for 50% of the time.

 

Both are nice, Digi easier for color, but I scan color and monochrome.

[elliott2]

You are out of touch Bernard. Both of my children 18 and 15 do not know what vinyl is. They would laugh at your suggestion. They rarely even buy CDs now (that is what the oldies do). As for indie bands releasing on vinyl, free downloads is where it is now that is why the big record companies are in trouble.

[david_dorcich1]

Yes big companies who only want yearly growth are in trouble. But not small art house firms that the supply to hobbiest and artists. In the Sf bay area there are 6 music stores withing 20 miles of me that carry thousands of LPs each. Large companies don't see the market share in making them but indie labels do.

 

Film isn't going anywhere, what is going to change is who you buy it from.

[KenPapai]

If you consider the 35mm SLR format, film is dead for all practical, real purposes. But then, it is an odditity and yes I still shoot a roll or two (at the same time as shooting with the SLR... final print quality with my DSLRs exceeds my film capabilities by a lot).

[colin carron]

I have sold all the medium format stuff. I have ebayed most of the 35mm film gear but keep a film body 'as backup' but mostly because I would get next to nothing for it.

 

I am keeping my 4x5 large format gear against the day when 4x5 digital backs have come down in price to the point where they are viable again. That would be fun.

[Karim Ghantous]

I don't. Well, not really. If film were really cheap then I would tolerate the fact that it takes ages to process and that when it goes to the lab I lose control of my images.

 

You would have heard of those parents who got jailed or bankrupted because they took pictures of their naked children, because the lab operators reported them to the police. Sure, some may not be innocent, but the point is that your images should be under your control from start to finish. Digital cameras allow that.

[geoffs1]

Digital, Film - eh... I don't have any more affinity to either of them than I do to my favorite framing hammer (on reflection, I actually have much more affection for my hammer than any photographic equipment).

 

I really don't get the whole "film vs. digital" conversation. Why does it have to be "vs"? Film is has its particular characteristics, digital has different ones. There's a lot of overlap, too.

 

Am I a lesser photographer because I currently use digital cameras? Am I an intrinsically superior artist because I have a 25 year archive of negatives and slides? Balderdash.

[waltflanagan]

<i>You are out of touch Bernard. Both of my children 18 and 15 do not know what vinyl is. They would laugh at your suggestion. They rarely even buy CDs now (that is what the oldies do). As for indie bands releasing on vinyl, free downloads is where it is now that is why the big record companies are in trouble.</i><p>

John, I think you're missing the point. An indie band wouldn't be associating with a big record company. Indie bands are about sticking it to the man and just being different. They probably would be into the free downloads though. As for your kids, well maybe they would laugh but some of the non-mainstream kids who just want to be different for the sake of being different are into vinyl as a kind of retro thing.

<p>

Here's an a Time article from a few weeks ago about the resurgence of vinyl. Yeah, sales are up 30% but that's up from .2% of the market. Maybe next year they'll hit .3% :)

<p>

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1702369,00.html

[brucecahn]

See the current View Camera Magazine for comments from Kodak about this. On a recent photographer survey they were told that many pros still use film for important work. "Kodak remains committed to the film market..(yak yak)..photographers who rely on film to relax and understand we will be with them for a long time."

[johan_de_groote]

When film is really dead I'll take up another hobby.

[richard_keistler]

Were I a professional I would likely be using digital. I am not, and I do not. I like the, no correct that, love the cameras I've accumulated over the years. I finally outgrew that addiction to new gear that we go through, though it took a couple of decades. What else can I say? Play with your digital devices, knowing that any savings you realize over using film is cancelled by the obsolescence of the equipment in a short time.

 

I can remember in the 60's when 'real' photographers didn't believe in in-camera meters, the controversy that ran for years over slide vs. print film, etc., etc. It's rather sad, really, that we as photographers can never seem to get past the technology at hand and concentrate on the photos themselves! Rather like asking Shakespeare who cut his quills. . .

 

BTW Mr. Munn, feel free to send me that Rollei; it'll join my TLR's as a treasured (and participating) member of my collection.

[SCL]

Times change, technology marches on. Film isn't dead for lots of us. For you it is...feel free to mourn the loss. The rest of us are out taking film and digital pictures and enjoying the features each offers.

[keith_leonin]

<i>"...when it goes to the lab I lose control of my images.... your images should be under your control from start to finish. Digital cameras allow that. -- Karim</i>

<p><p>

So do film cameras -- every heard of a darkroom?

<p><p>

TOTAL CONTROL is about 1) Taking the image (composition & exposure), 2) Post-processing ("wet" or digital darkroom and 3) Printing (on paper or on screen).

<p><p>

Given two people with equal expertise at a specific medium, can you honestly say that one has MORE CONTROL over the other?

<p><p>

Maybe the reason you think you have more control with the digital medium is because you don't know enough about shooting, processing & printing film?

<p><p>

Just a thought...

[d_f11]

How about finding yourself another photo site to stick your anti-film talk. Film is ALIVE & WELL here at Photo.Net in ALl formats -

and everywhere else.

Get with the program!