Cinematographers. They know digital is cheaper and they use it for post-processing, but most think it looks like crap, so initial capture is on film. Serious television drama is shot on film, even though the only output will ever be video.
In fashion I suspect film will become a special effect, for a retro look.
Photojournalism is pretty much all digital now except for the photographers who have enough clout to make their own artistic choices--the Magnum group, Sylvia Plachy, Martin Scholler, David Burnett, and the like.
Portraiture on film will just be at the high end.
David B, I know it's kind of scary. It's not that people necessarily want to go in this direction but the industry is forcing them to go there.
It is a corporation dominated industry now and the direction they wish to go in is the direction that it will head.
That is definitely not to say that people will not be able to do what they love to do now, it's just that small boutique companies will have to supply them with product and there may not be as many choices.
I agree I think there is definately a high end nitch for any photographers who stay with film and even perhaps traditional prints. That's my nitch now and I have no plans to change.
I did say I am ignorant, didn't I? The reason I mentioned Ilford would hold out longer is this: I haven't seen an Ilford digicam/sensor yet. I forgot that inks and papers are just as important...
I was just pondering all of this and then remembered a scene for the Tom Cruise movie "minority report".
His wife was a photographer and they showed her working in a wet darkroom. And in that darkroom was a huge box of ilford paper.
That makes me happy.
ps...what year was that supposed to be?
I was talking recently with some pro photogs.
Film vs digi.
Wedding phototog: going back to film for some, if not all work, people prefer the look. When they saw samples they where drawn to the film examples. He said people say "they look better..."
packshot photog:digital, unless it has movement (he used lit candles as an example of things NOt to shot with digital backs)
both think digital is good, BUT it is limited, as film is, and they are hearing of more and more pros dusting of the 'blad and film backs and using the "analog capture device" that they can pick up at their local proshop.
The use of black and white is also, in their minds still better suited to film (highlights don't blockup.)
So, who knows, the demand for film may well increase again as pro's realise that they need a full arsenal of tools.
When bankers get together for dinner, they discuss art. When artists get together for dinner, they discuss money. Oscar Wilde Blog fp4.blogspot.com
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
They said exactly the same thing about 4x5 APX100 as well. Then all of a sudden it was gone. What they tell us now is no indicator of whether it will be gone in 3 months or not.
Originally Posted by david b
Needless to say, I dumped everything Agfa like a hot potato when they actively lied about 4x5 APX100. Who can be dependent in any way on a supplier or vendor that acts like this? I'm probably not alone.
Hope they go bankrupt. Good riddance.
i'm surprised that departments of motor vehicles and passport picture makers haven't switched to digital yet given their committment to making everyone who appears before their lenses look just godawful!! so there are a couple a holdouts for traditional processes. and schoolchildren all over the globe need film to view solar eclipses...so they're helping too. film rules!!
I won't argue that. It's true.
Originally Posted by blansky
However - I will submit that there are a far greater number of "Low Budget Die Hards" out there - myself included - than the "Ad-Hype" types would like us to believe. In fact ... I don't know ANY photographers that wouldn't fit that mould - and I am certainly NOT excluding professionals. How about it gang, would you describe yourself like that?
The way I see it. the field of Professional photography will evolve (or devolve?) - or are we already there? - to the same general mix as restaurants - there will be the `Great Chains' - the McDonalds, the Dunkin Donuts, the Starbucks ... heavily financed, equipped with all of the latest snazzy gadgets, ... targeting the great unwashed masses, and stamping out "cookie cutter" food; and there will be the local "Specialty" shops - French, Italian, Seafood - offering unique meals - product with "individual involvement" - the touch of a human being -- with finesse, --and directed to the tastes of individuals.
In writing this --- I sense a number of parallels between cooking - should it really be "Chef-ting"? - and photography. The one-hour labs and the disposable cameras represent TV dinners - Edward Weston would be on the level of a "Black Hat" five-star Chef...
Ed Sukach, FFP.
How long can film and paper be frozen and at what temerature?
I just don't understant the draw to Flat, Depthless Digital Imaging.
Just a thought, but if in 5 years we are unable to get decent film and paper products, can there be such a thing as "fine art" photography or will the industry "discontinue" the process altogether?
Originally Posted by blansky
Do you think the "less choices" will just be different or different and low quality?