Photo Gallery: 80% Digital, 20% Film

[donald_choi]

Is it just me or are most of the photos uploaded to Photo.net

recently is made by a digital camera? I feel like I'm part of an

endangered species...you know...those who haven't started using

digital cameras yet.

 

I wonder if anyone at Photo.net keeps any statistics on this. It

would be interesting to see how this stat changed over the past few

years.

[ethan_adler]

That is a good question, I would be interested in an official photo.net

response to this as well. <BR>

I recently had discussions with a few photography store folks. One guy at a

major photo store told me that he couldn't move any of the used inventory and

suggested that film may be scarce in the near future. But I attribute his slow

sales to the likes of keh and ebay.<BR>

I spoke with the owner one of the professional photo labs near me and told

me he was overwhelmed. It was noon and he had already received 300 rolls

that day. He was telling me that his business has picked up in the last couple

years. He thinks film is here to stay, or it isn't going anywhere soon.

[scott_blair1]

Let's look at the film uploads on Photo.net---what percentage is NOT 35mm, and what percentage of the 35mm is NOT SLR? What kind of film/camera do you use, Donald? You have no uploaded images (odd, since this post is about online galleries) but I'm guessing you are smack in the middle of the vast majority, statistically: 35mm/SLR

[Guest]

Maybe the galleries show a bit of a bias against film-users, who need either good lab scans or their own scanner to upload photos. At any rate, that's the reason I haven't uploaded - maybe Donald's reason, too? I'm certainly not afraid to show my slides for critique at the local photo society (whose members show more slides than prints, so they're unrepresentative of the general population as well).

[donald_choi]

Scott, I currently have an FE2, FM3A and a F100 and shoot mainly slides with the occasional negative when the need arises. I used to have a few images posted, however, I removed them as I need to reorganize my portfolio. Ian has a point though....maybe the reason why we see so many more photos from digital cameras is because it's so convenient to upload them. With film, I have to go through the process of scanning them (and I don't have my own scanner).

 

Anyways, I still wouldn't mind seeing some stats on the digital/film image ratio and how that has progressed over time. That would be very interesting to know.

[jim mucklin]

Donald

If I could only figure out how to hook my snyc cord into the video card there would be more film

[armando_roldan]

I don't shoot digital for many reasons but here are the main two. First is money and second is time.I don't want to set in front of my computer tweaking with images for hours to make image it better than what I orginally shot. It stops being a photograph which to me means " a frozen moment of reality " to " a computer enhanced piece of conceptual art". OK, I am getting people mad..sorry. Back to money. I always want the best. Best cameras, best lenses and if I go digital, I can't deal with going in deep moneywise for the best digital only to see my investment worth 1/2 of what I paid within 6 months. Film will be around for ever. They still make B&W film correct, even tho 99.9% of commercially processed film is color.

 

They still are making 2 1/2 x 2 1/4 TLR cameras. Digital is here to stay but for how long? I understand that some of those 80yr shelf life photo quality ink jet prints are really degrading within 10yrs or even less. I been told and read the Cds will be obsolete within 5-10yrs. Things change all the time but when you got something good, it sticks around a long time.

[klix]

<i>I feel like I'm part of an endangered species...</i><p><p>

As a B&W film shooter, I hope 35mm film isn't on the endangered list, especially since I just plunked down a few thousand $$$ today on some RF equipment.

[hal_bissinger]

I think the reason is the owners of digicams are so delirious with their new toy that they have to post everything they shoot for the world to see. Kind of like when you got a new bike for your birthday when you were a kid. You had to take it out and show it off.<p>

Most of us that shoot film have been doing it for a long time and couldn't care less what other people think.

[jim_gifford]

Donald, when you notice the prevalence of digital cameras used in uploaded photos, remember the medium you're using.

 

It's a lot easier to upload photos once you've sprung for the equipment needed to take and massage digital photos.

 

I am not at all suprised that people who have digital cameras upload a lot of pictures. I am also not surprised that people who are comfortable using the Internet to discuss photography tend to have digital photo equipment.

 

If you were looking instead at a gallery with prints on the walls, you might find digital photography accounting for less than 80 percent of THOSE images.

 

In other words, where you are and whom you're with has a lot to do with the observed high adoption rate of digital technology.

 

Me? I use film more than 90 percent of the time. But 50 percent of the pictures I've slung into photo-net threads are digital... more properly said, 50 percent "is" digital because one is, one ain't.

 

Have fun,

[lex_jenkins]

Digicams just make it easier for the nondiscriminating to upload any danged thing they catch. Some is excellent, some is crap, most is somewhere in the snooze zone.

 

When you hafta scan and tweak a slide, neg or print, you tend to be a bit choosier about what you spend your time on.

 

FWIW, my ratio (or do I mean percentage...?) of excellent, crap and snooze is the same whether I use film or digital. But when I use my digicam I tend to make hundreds of exposures per session, whereas with film I make a fraction of that. I just try not to subject viewers to any of the crap and as little as possible of the snoozers.

[scott_blair1]

If you would like to share your dross, film users, CD's are cheap and available almost anyplace that develops film.

[frankl]

This month's Black and White photography magazine (UK) has an interesting quote from Ilford's general manager :

 

"Digital has enormous potential for growth" says Stephen Brierly. "At some stage in 2003 more than 50% of our business will come from inkjet as more and more shifts at Mobberly (main plant) move to inkjet. I cannot say, hand on heart, that we will develop a new black and white emulsion"

 

This quote was at the end of an article with the headline "B&W film sales boom" - not everyone is doom and gloom - kodak just released a handful of new emulsions. I expect that B&W film and 35mm film in general will be around for many years to come. There will always be a hobbyist market for B&W film, large enough to sustain multiple manufacturers.

[over exposure]

Sincerely, i really think that digital will become a major mass thing...

 

attention: mass thing, that doesn't really means the death of 35mm film.....instead i strongly believe that for those who love it will be even richer and stronger than before.

 

If you look around even just in photo-net you can read so many passioned photographers who have really nice words about their film attitude: the two disciplines are different in many ways..you think about the photo, you have a more simple interface, you are not thinking to nothing that seems a computer if you hold an FM2 in hand, right?

 

In my opinion is like pretending that if you were a sailor, you were worried from motor-driven boats, cause, you know, you prefer the wind.....

 

Good luck!!