Reading mode: Light Dark

Film is coming back...

Go to last post
RomanJohnston said:
If it gets any cheaper....you cna buy a card cheaper than you can buy
film.

And dispite your logic....I am thinking that I wouldnt put any money
on it.

Digital is here to stay.

Film is a limited market....and that is the way it is....

Roman
--
What will I be given today, and will I be open to see it?
Minor White
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
Click to expand...
How long does a memory card last? 10 years??

Not long..bad idea.
--



Clint is on holiday! Soon to return! ;-)
 
You haven't been paying attention, have you?
Barry Fitzgerald said:
RomanJohnston said:
If it gets any cheaper....you cna buy a card cheaper than you can buy
film.

And dispite your logic....I am thinking that I wouldnt put any money
on it.

Digital is here to stay.

Film is a limited market....and that is the way it is....

Roman
--
What will I be given today, and will I be open to see it?
Minor White
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
Click to expand...
How long does a memory card last? 10 years??

Not long..bad idea.
--



Clint is on holiday! Soon to return! ;-)
Click to expand...
--
Chris, Broussard, LA
 
Steven Noyes said:
In over 20 years of using hard drives, I have yet to have a failure
out of the blue. I have had two warnings of drives about to fail
(motor failures) but no hard failures.

I still do backups, however.
Click to expand...
We have a bunch of Advantech rack-mount PC's running equipment in our labs. The hard drives in them (normal IBM, Hitachi, Seagate and Western Digital 3.5" drives) fail regularly; they seem to last about 2 years and then croak. Now I've never seen a hard drive fail in anything else, like the Dell towers and laptops we use but these industrial PC's seem to be death on the drives. Maybe because they're on all the time, but they supposedly have sufficient cooling to allow for this.

As you might expect, I make sure I do backups since I have to use them all the time.

--
Leonard Migliore
 
Barry Fitzgerald said:
CharlieDIY said:
RafVal said:
Its like vintage cars, you see them in museums, theres certainly a
few enthusiasts, and you see the odd one on the road, but they dont
bother making them anymore
--
Click to expand...
And, as a vintage car fancier, I have to admit there's not much
chance any of them will be around in 1,000 years.

--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com
Click to expand...
Interesting thing here is the film cameras are likely to be working a
lot longer than their digital counterparts.

I have cameras from the 70's..and even a MF one from 1928 that still
works.......simple beast have to say..but it works!
--
Click to expand...
But how many frames through them, in comparison to all those worn out digital SLRs? I expect any decent DSLR to pop a minimum of 100,000 times without problems. That is one devil of a lot more shooting than the average heavy use 35mm saw, AFAIK.

--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com
 
of course an oil painting done with good quality materials is guarantied to last at least 500 years, how long will film last? I dont see many people moving from film to oil paint because of its lasting properties.
--
http://www.rafval.com
 
RafVal said:
of course an oil painting done with good quality materials is
guarantied to last at least 500 years, how long will film last? I
dont see many people moving from film to oil paint because of its
lasting properties.
--
http://www.rafval.com
Click to expand...
Oil painting has NOTHING to do with photography ;-)

The point here is that whilst digital is great and all...etc..etc, obvious advantages. Storage is one area that is a concern.
--



Clint is on holiday! Soon to return! ;-)
 
yes it does, its just a different medium, many of those early painters had invented cameras but they didnt have a medium to hold the image so they painted it instead, they would have been shooting digital if they had had it
--
http://www.rafval.com
 
RafVal said:
yes it does, its just a different medium, many of those early
painters had invented cameras but they didnt have a medium to hold
the image so they painted it instead, they would have been shooting
digital if they had had it
--
Click to expand...
Thats rubbish name one early painter that invented a camera?

People paint pictures for a host of different reasons to pair down the argument to if painters had cameras they would use them rather than paint is a ridiculous argument.
They are a different medium totally- which is why some still paint today!
Mark
--
http://www.photo-utopia.blogspot.com/
 
Im not saying they invented them, Im saying they have been around and used for hundreds of years, just not the technology for capturing images, which is all that the film/digital debate is about, sure pacasso wasnt after a photographic representation, dali was tho but you cant photograph the imagination yet, but many of the earlier painters were
--
http://www.rafval.com
 
RafVal said:
dutch painters used cameras to project there subjects onto their
canvas, obviously they didnt have film or digital backs 400 years ago
so they painted the image instead
--
http://www.rafval.com
Click to expand...
I dont think painting has a whole lot to do with photography. I take photos, I have almost no interest in canvas and oils..none. Many painters have no desire to take photos. Some do both.

As for the documentary paintings of many years ago...a fair point...sure I would love to see a photo of Caesar and his armies rampaging across europe..but it didnt happen! Nor did we get paintings much either...sculptures yes.

There are some elements they overlap..composition etc..but I would likely make a bad painter..a pal of mine can paint like a god..but is hopeless at taking photographs...
--



Clint is on holiday! Soon to return! ;-)
 
Im not talking about modern painters, they obviously would use a camera if it gave them the results they wanted, but before film was invented many painters were simply trying to do what a camera can do, and I think there is a lot to be learnt by studying their work
--
http://www.rafval.com
 
RafVal said:
Im not saying they invented them, Im saying they have been around and
used for hundreds of years, just not the technology for capturing
images, which is all that the film/digital debate is about, sure
pacasso wasnt after a photographic representation, dali was tho but
you cant photograph the imagination yet, but many of the earlier
painters were
--
http://www.rafval.com
Click to expand...
The area to look at here is you have a "choice" of mediums. Digital and film...likely you will have film for longer than many imagine..on a reduced scale of course. It wont die..because enough people want it.

You could say why do people do sketches or ballpoint pictures when they have full colour oils and acrylics available..or watercolours. Different mediums that can be used..for different results.

Film is different to digital in many ways..frankly I dont really care what people use..or indeed what I use..varies, its mostly digital..but more film of late. What is interesting is only the pictures that you get...and that is it.

Digital v Film is not a debate..its a choice. And nobody forces anyone to use either...

Choice is a good thing..I am sad that some wish to see the death of film...dont like it, dont use it! No gun at your head
--



Clint is on holiday! Soon to return! ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top