I am not out to "replicate" anything. I know how to use film to get what I want. Digital is good for situations that are both low light and low contrast, or where I never need to make a decent print, but only to share the pix digitally with others. Otherwise, film gives me much better results. It is not about camera specifications. It is about linear response being a limiting, less flexible, and less controllable method of capture. (For what it is worth, this is the same reason I dislike films with a long straight-line...although at least they are more easily controlled, and with better quality) Regardless of resolution, digital will never, ever, ever, replace film for me UNTIL I can personally program the sensor to respond to light in the exact non-linear way I want it to respond, shot by shot, the same way I decide how to expose, develop, and print a shot...and until I can print silver gelatin and RA prints from digital files MYSELF, AT HOME, for less than I will spend doing the same with film. No matter how good an inkjet is, it is still just ink laying on top of a piece of paper, and still unfeasibly expensive in a non-commercial environment. I would rather make litho prints on newsprint than inkjets. I do not want resolution and I do not want cleanliness. I want the ability to get what I want, and I already have that.
Last edited by 2F/2F; 01-02-2009 at 08:33 PM. Click to view previous post history.
"Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."
- Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)
I think 35 mm film will be around for a good many years, just because of the large number of cameras that use it. Look how long 620, 116, and 616 lasted. Motion picture film (at least color motion picture film) is quite different from still camera film, and it may not have that much influence on the life span of the still camera products.
There are a couple of issues here, first is related to MP film, Hollywood is still mostly film, it simply costs too much to replace all the film equipment with digital equipment of the same quality. Think about a projector at your local theatre, it was installed new in 1995 when the 2 screen theatre was completely redone to became a 6 screen theatre, To replace this perfectly good projector with a digital one costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and you don't really gain anything over the platter system you installed in 1995.
Originally Posted by Lobalobo
So motion picture positive film is going to be produced for a long time yet. Still camera film emulsions are well established, so you knock off a batch a year, using the same machinery as your MP film, make a little extra money that way.
Second, there are people who tossed their film equipment for digital, and then there are dual format shooters and returnees. I am a dual format returnee, I switched to digital about 3 years ago, then finding it wasn't working well for B&W, have started to switch back to shooting film for B&W.
See my Blog at http://clickandspin.blogspot.com
The greatest advance in photography in the last 100 years is not digital, it's odourless stop bath....
I don't think that all new film cameras are dead now... here's a fast count of films camera still available new:
Voigtlander Bessas r3a r2a r2m r3m r4m r4a.... plus many many different lenses...
Zeiss Ikon, Zeiss Ikon SW... plus many exceptionnal lenses....
Leica M7 Leica MP... plus many amazing lenses...
Rolleiflex 80mm 2.8; 50mm 4.0; 135m 4.0
Rolleiflex Hy6 (sinar and leaf equivalent is hybrid)
Hasselblad V series still available even if sales are certainly pretty low...
Mamiya RZ RB and 7 series
All the fotoman stuff linhof technorama horseman plus noblex in panoramic.
EVEN MINOX STILL PRODUCE FILM CAMERAS 3 models plus special editions
All the large format stuff... and add the lomography crappy basic slr to that.
To me, it seems that only the players that are big in the digital industry are dropping film cameras... And that the vast majority of what remains kick *ss. I am completely satisfied about the offering.
And, there is something special about film camera: R&D is limited and you don't have to sell the whole batch in a 2 year bracket, you offer a good product and sell it on many years...
Actually, if one don't take the amateur point and shoot market, I would say that there is more different film camera systems available than in the digital world. and most of it is better built.
Maybe I am wrong, but I am very optimistic!
There are current NEW 35mm rangefinder cameras made by Leica, then there are new Zeiss and Voigtlander rangefinder cameras, several models, and many lenses. This covers the whole price spectrum of 35mm rangefinder cameras. Leica and Nikon both still offer a high end 35mm SLR. Voigtlander (Cosina) has an entry level 35mm SLR, and so does Nikon (made by Cosina)..the FM10. 35mm new film cameras are not quite dead yet. There are probably more Large Format sheet-film cameras made now than in the last 50 years. The large-format artisan built camera is a growth market. Medium format is not quite dead. Hasselblad and Mamyia have something still. Seagull TLR's, Roelli/Sinar medium format has a film back. There are panoramic cameras and camera backs for LF cameras using medium format film. No...I don't think the equipment end of the equation is dead.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Kris beat me to the punch. I stumbled into the rangefinder world a few years back and have been pleasantly surprised by the steady stream of new 35mm film cameras (and great lenses for them) that Zeiss, Cosina (under the Voigtlander mark), and Leica have produced recently.
I imagine there will be fewer choices of 35mm film in the future, but even if no more 35mm film camera is ever produced, there will still be significant demand for *some* 35mm film. Keep in mind the vast number of 35mm film cameras produced over the years. Think of the odd formats (126, 127, etc.) that were produced many years after cameras in those formats were no longer manufactured.
I was shocked recently to see B&H selling home-made 828! When was the last time an 828 camera was made? I don't think there are that many Bantam Specials out there. There are still billions of people who could make up a film market. Digital isn't squat without a computer to view it on. A big chunk of the world hasn't come into the computer age and won't for some time.
Hi John, probably it comes from the same ones who used to buy comparing the specs of stuff they never use, or which primary use is to be a social sign. IE if you have a first gen ipod out of an exhibition case you're kinda a lamer, translate that to stashing images (in the end is what most people does) and you get the idea.
Originally Posted by jnanian
/me again in my own point of view, making friends, as usual
828 film was re-packaged and given a new lease of life as the 126 cartridge
Originally Posted by stealthman_1
But even 126 died is now almost unobtainable, except for some small specialist packaging.
I'd say Bollywood and many other places - Cairo comes to mind - are by far more significant in film use than Holywood.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer