Are you willing to let film die off? How do you really feel?

Started Aug 14, 2012 | Discussions thread
jack69 Forum Member • Posts: 92
Re: Let me rephrase that

PerL wrote:

jack69 wrote:

PerL wrote:

jack69 wrote:

PerL wrote:

PHOTOJOE55 wrote:

Keh, and other Camera Brokers are just about begging for our film cameras and other gear, but they are paying peanuts! For me, there is no question. I'm using the gear. Many people are demanding film. We've got people that have come in every year, to Document in Portraits, the growth and changes in their families and they want it done with film. They even ask to see the negatives on the light table!

But even if there was no demand for it, I would still shoot Film, even if it's a small percentage of our work. I think, if we all just forget about it, it will continue to fade away. I don't know who keeps those kind of records, but I want to keep Film alive.

If we don't shoot film, they will soon slow or halt production, and I'm sure the prices will quickly rise. I often wonder what Keh and the others are doing with the gear. Are they sending it to Japan? Any ideas?

I'd like to find out how many people are still shooting film. If not, will it bother you if film fades away completely? If you have a minute to spare, maybe you could voice your opinion. I know of a few that agree with me, but I'd like to hear from people actively shooting every day or at least every week. When Fuji took the full name Fujifilm, I thought that meant their commitment to the medium.

It would be tragic if film disappeared.

Tragic? Don't you think that you use a too strong term? Tragic to whom? to you? The photographic community moved on and embraced digital.

OK - tragic is to strong, it should be reserved for more serious matters. Lets say sad.

In answer to your other statement - At least the artistic community has not moved on entirely. If you go to a exhibition of photographic art you will probably still see more prints from film than digital. And the film shots often looks more pleasing to many viewers

To be more specifik about pros and cons about film/digital:
Lets leave convinience aside because it does not matter to the viewers.
Then IMO:
Sports, wildlife, long tele shots: Digital wins
Portraits, skin tone. Film wins usually
Low light color: Digital wins
Good light color: Film wins usually
Good light B&W: Film wins

Low light B&W: Film wins up to ISO 1600-2000 - not technically, but more > appealing, above that digital wins

Completley disagree with you.

OK I think film sometimes looks better, you think digital always looks better. So we disagree

For the past 10 years I have been using Digital for portraiture and outdoors photography. Digital replaced a 6x6 Hasselblad gear. The results with the digital are as good, if not better than film. Digital offers features that film cannot touch.
Don't forget, in PP you can achieve any result that you aim for.

There may be some masters at PP that can achieve any result they aim for, although I have never seen it, and definitly not the average photographer. Its like a guy with a syntheziser saying he can emulate any real instrument. It is not entirely > true.

What counts is that it works for me by far better than film. I had used film, MF, for 30 years and I have some film knowledge. My romance with film is over.

Some people are fanatical with what ever concerns film. There are a lot of weak link in the chain that processes film.

Kodak used to deliver film, to retailers, in unrefrigerated trucks during summer months and the film was "cooking" inside.(This will guaranty better colors)

Once brought to the lab, you would get back, from time to time, negs with greasy finger prints or worse, with scratches (and this was from a PRO lab) .

The beauty of digital, beside its features, is that I have full control of the process, I don't depend on somebody else’s service.

For the work I do, Digital is nothing but WIN, WIN, WIN.

The look of colors out of camera: A well exposed slide beats any digital OOC. You can improve digital with PP of course, but have to walk on a thin line between good punch and tacky overdoing.
Amount of necessary PP work: Film wins
Tonality, natural looking DR: film wins

In the future I can see film as a way for professionals to separate them from the mass of digital photos that tends to look the same. At least in some niches.

I have a full DSLR set and a few digicams, but also bought a Nikon F100 and a FE some months ago to shot film again.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow