Me, but then it reather goes with the job. David.
If digital gets to emulate film so well that it gives you a roll of negatives after every 12, 24 0r 36 shots, I might consider using it. If it doesn't I would give up photography.
A person told me a year ago, that film is on it's way out. I won't get it, or it will cost a fortune in the future. It will cost a bit more, but I don't think it will be expensive. I said to this person you are telling me that if the demand dwindles to say 1/4 of its current demand that there is not enough
demand to keep at least one company going full time, people working 40 hrs a week. I say it won't go away, just too hard to beleive.
Happy New Year,
"In other words you can still print in the same way as you would now but the capture medium is now digital but the output is analogue."
you are making a girl from a grandmother. it si not possible.
And to all folks thinking about disappering films. Many times I said that photography is not in trouble. It just got normal. Some freaken manufacturers of equipment intersted to make money out of photographers (like kodak, agfa, ... and whoever else) are gone, so what. Photography will be around as long photographers are.
To answer the Q.: I would make my own films.
I would prefer to think that film will be around for as long as I desire to work in the the darkroom. As a person that has just recently had their interest rekindled in film photography, I would hate to think otherwise.
Silver prices are one good reason. I don't relish the prospect of buying quantities of silver in dollars any time soon. I'm inclined to think it's going to get worse.
In the future, I rather think the stuff is going to go directly out of the ground and into country X's central bank before any emulsion maker ever gets a chance to lay hands on it.
I must admit I have sinned.
A looming deadline left me no time to print an image for a locall Hotel. I had captured the image on film and did not have the time make a print, so I scanned my 4x5 neg and had the image outputed at the Darkroom here in New Orleans.
The result was a fantastic 16x20 print that to the average person IS a real photograph.......
However,I would have prefered it to have been a fiber print. The Inkjet or Giclee prints lack something to me that is in a hand made silver print. It lacks a certain depth, and for that reason I will continue to make prints for as long as I am able.
I think what we have to realize is that times and technologies change, Im not at all saying we SHOULD change but our ways and methods must adapt. I also believe in the old saying: "Where theres a will theres a way" I believe this to be true of us.
I don't think any of us who love photography could just walk away from it, because our usual materials are no longer available. We would just move on to something else, be it wet plates , Tintypes, whatever.
A recent show that I participated in changed my mind on all of this. The show included 85 photographs for 85 different photographers. All methods were represented. There was Traditional Silver, C prints, Giclee, Carbon, Platinum, you name it. What I learned is that despite the media and methods used, high quality art was possible in any of the medium.
Of course being a black and white printer myself I had more respect for the fine prints that were put up and that were crafted by hand by the artist. But the others were no less stunning to the eye.
My point is that if we love photography, and most of us here do, we will find a way to continue.
Sorry for the long post.
PS: as to national treasuries purchasing silver, the way things work these days, if they do buy it, it'll be to mint into coins to sell. Governments aren't really big on precious metals (for "backing currencies") ever since currencies learned to float. It's far more "flexible" to be able to print money on demand. Modern currency is a debt instrument, rather than a token representing physical value (i.e., metal)
I would not worry about the availability of silver.