I'd say it's going to take longer as certain specialty films will continue to have a market until digital imaging improves to the point that it can compete with them. But I agree with the basic sentiment. At some point it companies won't make enough money selling film so they'll stop.
--
That might be true down the road but right now is what matters and right now, film is still in wide use by top pros.
Sorry Dan, perhaps you are not quite as informed as you believe you are.
Maybe the magazines you deal with still prefer film, but there are many, many who use accept digital and are very happy with the results. Whether an AD prefers film or digital is totally irrelevant to capabilities and limitations and speaks primarily to bias and resistance to change. Apparently you haven't seen top digital work in landscapes, etc., or didn't recognize that it was digital when you did see it. Next time you're in California admiring Galen's beautiful landscapes, stop by Steve Johnson's and look at some superior digital landscapes and then tell me digital isn't up to the task
Show me your top ten digital images and I'll do likewise for you....
Well I'm glad you're proud of your transparency work Daniel, but it still has nothing to do with the issues of promoting film on a digital forum which is what my response was about. You're trying to start a "film versus digital" quality argument and that has been discussed here for many years before you ever visited this forum.David Alan Harvey
John Fielder
Ace Kvale
Frans Lanting
Anne Griffiths-Belt
Bill Hatcher
Jimmy Chin
Gordon Wiltsie
Peter Essick
Daniel Bayer..
You don't see "this type of image" consistently from film or transparency either but that doesn't mean that it can't or isn't being done because it can and is.
I hope you are not quoting me because I didn't comment on that issue, but as long as you brought it up film is rapidly being replaced in pro use by digital. When's the last time you attended PMA or Photokina? Take a look at their statistics and then show me which is being sold more to professionals. Have a look at the trends by film makers and their forecasts - you have an education coming. The world of photography is much larger than your personal experience and your bias is showing here.
--
Been there, knew Galen.Sorry Dan, perhaps you are not quite as informed as you believe you
are.
Next time you're in California
admiring Galen's beautiful landscapes, stop by Steve Johnson's and
look at some superior digital landscapes and then tell me digital
isn't up to the task
I think that might be fun. You are a fellow colorad'n, what the heck!
I promote both and try to dispel the hype.Well I'm glad you're proud of your transparency work Daniel, but itDavid Alan Harvey
John Fielder
Ace Kvale
Frans Lanting
Anne Griffiths-Belt
Bill Hatcher
Jimmy Chin
Gordon Wiltsie
Peter Essick
Daniel Bayer..
still has nothing to do with the issues of promoting film on a
digital forum which is what my response was about.
Rightfully so.
I do
by digital. When's the last time you attended
I would rather be out shooting or at a marketing type convention versus a gear fest.
I teach a digital workshop in Aspen. The famous David C. Hiser would only let me do that if I knew what the heck is going on.
Yep! Over 27 years of my 37 year old life knowing what my only method of living should be.
It's all about what you prefer. No one has any basis for saying that film is dead, not that you did.
You see, that's where we enter the world of "opinion." Terms like "reality" when applied to photos only have meaning in the subjective realm. Personally, though I also knew Galen and Barbara and love the work, prefer Steve's landscapes for the identical reason you prefer Galen's.Been there, knew Galen.Next time you're in California
admiring Galen's beautiful landscapes, stop by Steve Johnson's and
look at some superior digital landscapes and then tell me digital
isn't up to the task
Good stuff, different look, no where near the reality of Galen's.
Not even close.
We'll have to do that some day!
Likewise - but when in Rome......
Only because you're looking at top film work - if you were looking at top digital work you would also see the same...
That's good, we need more dedicated photographers who can truly enjoy what they do and make a good living while doing it...
The top pros in certain areas. Certainly not the top pros in sports photography or photojournalism.
National Geographic shooters are 90% film.
--
You have a clear impression but don't understand it.
Rather than bite on your distraction from the point, perhaps you could use your superior technological insight and begin a definition of this ellusive 3D quality?
--
Candidate,
That happens to be true but that doesn't follow from my statement about the D30.
haven't seen those. Please link
Seems to be a lot of film religious people in this forum and most make that claim and just as baseless as you did.
Interesting. What ISO? Any online resolution tests of such a film?
So? That just means they pay twice the price to take a shot.
First off, the D30 didn't slay 35mm. If you actually read his reviews, you'll see in his review of the D60, he says that it (the D60) now matches 35mm. How the D60 match 35mm, and the D30 be better than 35mm. Seems Michael Recihman changed his mind....something most of us film users already knew.
