The death of film. Do we mourn?

[mark u]

The thing I have noticed recently is the death of excitement about most new digital offerings - which is something I realise I don't mourn. Image quality is plateauing instead of showing major advances as it did only a couple of years ago or so. Good image quality is now available cheaply in digital crop DSLRs from several brands... at least good enough for most purposes. All this means that it is much easier to make rational decisions - the environment is more stable. Emotional decisions (whether to jump on the latest digital offering, or to continue shooting film, either just because...) will remain as irrational as ever.

 

Personally, I still enjoy working with film (from Velvia to B&W) alongside digital. I might add an X-Pan at some point (it will take a long while before there is a digital equivalent I suspect). Larger format work is clearly a much cheaper proposition in film where low volume use is concerned. Digital makes some very interesting techniques rather more practical. There are avenues to explore in both directions, and nothing to mourn either way.

[aplumpton]

I wanted to put this into the Digital Darkroom forum, but was rejected. It would be

nice to stir a bit of constructive debate of film versus digital, without being slave to

the industry.

 

"Film versus digital - time for a counter-reaction?" (propsed for Digital Darkroom

categary: "Imaging Techniques>Other")

 

I predict that there will be a modest to significant reaction against digital in 5 to 10

years, but mainly expressed as a rekindled desire for film photography.

 

Why? People will be wanting a craft and art activity requiring manual and mental

dexterity combined, like that of silver halide based photography.

 

When you spend most of the day at work in front of a computer, why do the same

again at home? The complexities of digital technology can be overwhelming, a

technician's nightmare, whereas the mechanical manipulations of light using an

enlarger are direct, uncomplicated and satisfying. A visceral experience.

 

The film and paper companies are doing well. Ilford (HarmannTechnologies) bought

Kentmere, and Fuji, Rollei, Efke and others are bringing excellent new film products

to the market.

 

Even those who have not grown up in film photography may not be inclined to be

always dragged along always by new technology. Look at the Retro fashions in

architecture, in music, in art. We are always re-inventing ourselves. Granted that

the real time appraisal of a snapped image is the major asset of digital (why I, too,

use one or two such cameras for certain projects), the complexity and cost of

computer manipulations, printer qualities, storage uncertainties and pitfalls, and the

hefty cost of high quality digital capture and output, will make a lot of us look back

at film photography.

 

Most of us are not high stress, high rapidity of output photo professionals and have

more time to think photos and use slower processes.

 

The counter-revolution I postulate is not going to be overwhelming (maybe to regain

simply 10- 15% of the long term market, but itshould be sizeable enough to secure

film photography. It will also assure the long term pleasure of darkroom activity.

Note that 19th century Daguerrotype and Cyanotype materials and methods are still

around. Maybe the digital axe was too large to elimnate them?

 

As for the space required for darkroom photography, many are small (mine is only 6

feet x 10 feet and I can produce 20 x 24 inch B&W prints). Even a bathroom can be

used. My photo and work office space (8 feet x 8 feet) is no larger, and must

accomodate a computer, scanner, printer and dry mounting of photos, and other

devices.

 

I cannot do 20 x 24 inch prints! And the lightroom is periodically under territorial

attack for its full possession by my partner's craft and stitching work.

 

Digital and film can, and should, co-exist. They offer different, but important

pleasures.

 

It's not either - or, unless you believe the 'rush with the manufacturers' mags like

Shutterbug or Pop Photography, and even to some extent Photo Techniques (the

English are more conservative, with good silver base as well as digital articles in

their Black and White Photography).

 

In my area, snowmobiles, off-road 4 wheelers, seadoos, and other marvels of the

new "consumables" technologies are omnipresent. Yet they have not replaced the

old fashioned snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, kayaking and canoeing.

 

So don't sell all your film camera and processing equipment yet. You may sucked

into the Retro Photo movement and wish you hadn't actedtoo precipitously!

[nancy s.]

I hate sitting at a computer doing that sort of work. I just really hate it. I have some lovely stuff right now.. RAW files that need the usual tweaking and I just always have something way better to do with my time.

 

Heck.. half the time I don't even turn this machine ON at home. Fact is, tonight is not a usual night or it would not be on now.

 

I sit at a computer all day. I just can't get into this nights and weekends too. So, I shoot film.

 

Once in awhile I do work in my wet dark room as well.. but there feels more craft to that than to this computer stuff.

[aplumpton]

Nancy, I wonder how many others feel that way too? It's something that may well

grow with time, rather than the opposite, as we increasingly become mesmerised by

screen pixels.

 

Les, take heart. The same situation was true with most of us guys before we found

out that cooking, something we didn't traditionally know how to do, was actually a lot

of fun! "Cooking" film and prints is the same. Not difficult, lots of fun, and easier on

the neck and back than the monitor. And if you can panel your darkroom with white

melamine wall panels (but not white in the enlarger region) you can get as good a

resonance as any bathroom shower, as you sing to your favourite music. And I've

installed a foam matting under my inexpensive vinyl floor that feels real good under

the tootsies as I walk between print trays and washer.

[kelly_flanigan1]

In records the LP and 45 are actually newer mediums; they came out in 1948 and 1949. My dads and mothers records when they were kids were 78 rpm. My grandfather shot 8x10 and contact printed. When my dad was in grade school they came home from WW1; they had civil war vets in the ww1 parades. Do the tools really matter; here is a shot of some great great aunts in Norway in the 1920's.:<BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/old%20photos/GreatAunts266.jpg?t=1201758839">

[bruce_mattes]

Arthur & Nancy

 

I had an aunt, now deceased, who worked for IBM for 29 1/2 years before retiring with full benefits..When she moved into her retirement home in Myrtle Beach I asked her when she was going to purchase a home PC & participate in the then new WWW & the Internet..

 

Her reply?..

 

If she NEVER sat in front of another monitor & keyboard again it wouldn't pain her a bit..And to her dying day she kept that promise to herself..

 

I too think that there will be a backlash, if you want to call it that, from digital towards film..It IS more tactile, and to some can seem more real..No one who has witnessed it can forget the magic of seeing for the first time the image appear on a silver print in the developing solution..Computers just do not have the same allure..

 

I agree that for the professional photographer who needs instant feedback in order to please a client, or the bosses; that digital will probably remain the medium of choice..

 

And it's quite plain that for sports, wildlife, & any other fast-paced action photography, digital allows the photographer to capture images that would be near impossible to capture with film..

 

I say near impossible, because it's quite clear that film photographers WERE able to capture sports & wildlife on film..It just took a very complete understanding of one's abilities, one's equipment, great anticipation, & a lot of talent..Still in all, it was done, albeit with much greater difficulty then we can do today with digital cameras..

 

For myself, I just cannot seem to warm up to digital..I will in all likelihood always have a digital SLR around, especially for documenting household possessions, etc..I'll also have a rig set up with a BushHawk & a long fast telephoto for sports & wildlife photography..

 

For everything else I'll be moving into medium format with the purchase of a Pentax 67II system sometime this year..

 

I'll also keep the Pentax MX for nostalgia's sake, as it was my first real camera, although I don't know how much, if any 35mm film I'll shoot through it..

 

Bruce

[kyle shortes]

I once did a photo essay on the dying art of film, heres some images from it (warning: Not for the Canon fanatic)

 

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g217/hansaru/pic2.jpg

 

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g217/hansaru/pic1.jpg

 

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g217/hansaru/forNG.jpg

[Lou_Meluso]

I seems most folks posting here use minature format cameras. If you worked in large format the answer is clear. Film still reigns. Sure some struggle with Betterlights in the field but it's not suitable for many types of shooting. I shoot with Betterlight, Imacon and Nikon digital cameras. I also shoot with film. As far as 35mm, please note the major companies are still introducing new, improved emulsions, so how can you say film is dead? just because it's not the only game in town anymore?. Another benefit many miss is the price/performace ratio. Many newbies to photography can't afford top digital slr cameras(not cheap point and shoots) never mind all the computer stuff. With film cameras on the cheap, and high quality films still available, a novice has entry into some fantastic image quality for not much money. Later add a nice film scanner, and now you have a bridge to all the power of Photoshop and digital printing, which is, in my estimation, the REAL renaissance in photography today, not digital cameras. A good film scanner is the new accessory to film cameras that keeps them viable as modern image making tools. While the many advantages of digital can not be dismissed, especially in a commercial/production environment, using a good scanner with medium or large format will put 35mm digital cameras to shame quality-wise. Using a good scanner and high resolution 35mm films and top quality optic and careful shooting technique will challange the quality of 35mm digital at a fraction to the cost.

At the end of the day, focus on good image making and no one will ask, or care, what tool you used to create those compelling images

[kyle shortes]

"At the end of the day, focus on good image making and no one will ask, or care, what tool you used to create those compelling images"

 

Well said.

[michaelchristensen]

Fuji is about to release a medium format 6x7 folding film camera in 2008 .. why would they do this if film was obsolete? I would buy that before any new digital camera coming out in the next few years.

 

I have a digital SLR for use at weddings and commercial events; but there is an inherent quality with film that digital does not measure up to. Digital simply requires more "support" than "film" to remain operationally viable .. there are advantages to each method of capture .. one does not obsolete another.

 

Digital is popular not because it produces better images. It does not. On another thread here at photonet someone suggested looking at kodachromes taken from WWII (shorpy.com) .. and other photos taken within the last 100 years .. anyone thinking that film can't capture stunning detail has perhaps not really looked at film from a historical standpoint.

 

If someone needs to work fast and capture a lot of images of good to excellent quality, certainly digital 10mp plus cameras are capable of doing so .. hence their popularity .. but the images look different!

 

Those who have shot digital for some time now are beginning to realize that digital is not the "end-all-to-beat-all" that it was claimed to achieve .. some photographers have let thier digital cameras gather dust to go back to film. So, film 'aint dead.

 

And even Fuji understands that pro photographers still hold a sincere interest in shooting film for certain things.

 

I had hoped that film camera prices for the Mamiya 7 would show a sharp decline .. after all, who shoots film anymore other than large format landscape photographers .. the answer to that is .. a whole lot of photographers who spend more time shooting than sharing digital images on photonet. You'll probably only see their work if you go to galleries .. as posting digital reproductions of such large images are not conducive to website postings/viewing on computer monitors .. which can not display or reproduce such large files with justice.

 

To be fair to film shooters who have a minority voice on photo.net, Pbase, Flickr, etc .. their work seldom makes it to the likes of websites.

 

Both digital and film methods of capture have limitations. A good photographer will know how to exploit each medium of capture to produce the desired results. As much as I like luminous landscape, I find myself wondering how it really looks with film.

 

Having used digital cameras for a few years, I too frequently carry a film camera in my bag for the better compositions .. and prefer film for my personal albums ... certainly, I like having digital in those terrible interior lighting conditions where I can bump up the ISO and adjust the white balance .. but post processing digital diminishes the fun of the experience. Others may and do disagree.

 

But before we mourn the death of film perhaps we should mourn the concept of those who never got the chance to shoot it, work with it and study its' utility with the same ferver that goes with operating and using a digital camera platform.

[sagephotoworld.com]

Film will only die out when two things happen.

 

1. The big film manufacturers find the market has dwindled to such a point that it's not worth their while to make film.

 

2. The amateurs and artists that make their own wet collodian or dagarrotypes cannot buy the chemicals due to legislation against pollution/terrorists etc.

 

Until then I expect there to be a general downsizing of the production facilities. Film will only be truly dead when the last piece of film rolls off the last production plant in the world. I think it could be at least 20 years before we see that.

 

In terms of economics, dentists still buy and still use film-based X-rays. Why? Because the digital X-ray gear is still horribly expensive. Many dentists still have film X-ray gear and need only to buy the film and chemicals - why should they upgrade to digital when what they have works and can be repaired?

[Ian Taylor]

Did they mourn the death of the collodion process?

[kari_karhu1]

I use medium size film for subjects and print sizes that would need a large sensor, costing five to ten times more than Nikon D3.

 

My teenager uses kino when she wants wide angle, since we cannot afford a D3 of her own.

 

So, where and when is the funeral? We'd like to come and take some slides.