I use both digital and film. Mainly, I use digital for color and film for B&W. I do my photography this way because I like the result I get both in color and BW this way. I don't know if new advancements are made at this point. Kodak came out with new formulation in Tmax few years ago. I'm sure the rate of advancement has slowed but we must remember, film already is a very mature technology.
When it comes to investment into equipment, I am not sure if I'd spend thousands but I'd gladly spend hundreds which in turn be multi-thousands in dollars when these equipment were new. I just can't resist getting near top-of-the-line enlarger for $40, professional Nikon for $200, etc. I believe my Mamiya M645Super used to be mid thousands when new. I got it for $250.
If you buy digital gear, such as top-end Nikon for way over $5000, in few years you'll have much cheaper ones costing in low thousands that are, in many ways, better. Honestly, per-good-image-per-equipment basis, perhaps film photography is less expensive. You don't "machine-gun" film photography either. You carefully compose, and shoot. This is especially true for me in medium format.
I think it's a personal decision you'll have to make.
Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?
The issue isn't really whether or not a certain number of photographers prefer film, but rather, will there be enough of them to sustain Ilford, Kodak, Fuji, and the lesser known European manufacturers who make it. If they tank, we all do.
Pictorial photography is coming back strongly, and so are a multitude of alternative processes that are utilized for that purpose, Antipathy to digital button pushing is strong, but the alternatives need to be supported financially.
I reckon "film photography" will re-emerge from the amorphous swamp of contemporary picture making techniques as a premium or ultra-premium medium.
This will happen when folks realise that "film photography" is the only kind of photography that there really is. Everything else is some kind of painting or drawing whether executed by hand or by a concatenation of looking machines - cameras, thinking machines - computers, and painting machines - printers.
A long thesis could follow but won't. Searching APUG turns up a lot of illuminating threads.
Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.
Super 8 film is still being produced/sold/bought! Imagine that.Film's gonna be around for a while yet,there may be fewer choices but it'll be around.
the future is not bleak, but like the 1800s
... film and papers will be expensive but available
a lot of people might say " if i have to pay 200$ for a box of paper or a box of film i might as well make my own " ...
there will probably be a lot more entrepreneurs like mr eastman + mr harman ( pouring and selling dry plates )
who knows maybe someone may start to sell albumin paper again ...
i'm kind of looking forward to it
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
From what I remember reading not long ago, one of the reasons film was still around was due to the manufacturing of loads of movie film. Now I don't know how that reflects on producing Tmax or Portra or Velvia but I guess it does in some way. (Possibly chemical production?) But the thing is, movie production is moving to digital and 3D and after awhile I think we're going to see it reflect in photographic film production. Be that as it may, labs are still closing and some product is not being produced anymore whether film or chemicals or paper. So, I think the industry will continue to contract and it's really what happens in the economy and how many people go out and spend money and use product that will either sustain or spell the death knell for the industry, outside the alternative and perhaps hobbyist market if anything is left.
[QUOTE]If you are just looking for validation of your film habit this is definately the place to get it. Spending lots of money on film and film equipment is what we do, and we like it./QUOTE]
Amen to that.
Now a-days it appears that film is becoming more a hobby rather than a career. Its a shame, i feel that film has alot of qualities that digital cant offer, that kind of just get lost in translation. However digital has seem to become a necessity, There's not many traditional enthusiasts left now adays, and its up the the ones who are left to push for film to keep it alive. Great things are meant to die, but its not time for film to die yet, i have high hopes for film.
I'll continue to shoot film for as long as its around, just because it inspires the passion i have for photography. But i have felt a little weight on my shoulders to buy a digital camera, just because certain things require it. As danielstone mentioned.
I think film will be around for many more years.
Last edited by DennisGrieder; 04-07-2010 at 08:45 PM. Click to view previous post history.
As you may know, Patrick Lord Litchfield is a convert to digital and has for the past few years tried to convince Anthony Lord Snowden, (the former Anthony Armstrong Jones), to switch to digital. It is my understanding from conversations with mutual friends that Tony has written some very well thought out reasons why he believes that film still has a future. You might want to contact Lord Snowden and ask his opinion, in your quest for information.
Maybe you also can aks yourself if digital photography will exists in 10 years time.
The new dslrs have video capabilities and what you do is film and take the frame out that you like the most...
Analog photography will become more and more an art just like painting and sculpturing in the future.
The general view market doesn't care for quality, only a small group of people will see the difference and get excited about this.
So you make photos for this little group. A second problem is that you will have to go to an exhibition to see the actual quality. A website shows crap if you compare it with the original.
And that gives you another problem. Galleries here (Holland) do not have a lot with anlog photography at this time, if you are famous it's no problem, but the unknown man does not get anything from the ground.....
It's the same with music. Most people are happy to put up with harsh sounding MP3 downloads because they are more convenient whereas musicians passionate about their music are creating CDs and vinyl albums using vintage recording equipment.
Originally Posted by Willie Jan