Why did they want to kill film?

KRR said:

KRR wrote:

I hate digital because it is not film. What if the consumer got suckered by the immediate gradification dance?

Click to expand...

Oh, don't kid yourself. It was always about the most immediate possible viewing of the image, as Edwin Land demonstrated.

Besides, film was only ever a stop-gap technology while we waited for REAL photography to be invented. All that messy spreading of cow and sheep renderings on plastic could stop as soon as something better... (MUCH better) arrived!

Film was doomed even BEFORE digital became a reality, because we knew what we were looking for right from the start.....and film was not it!

Indeed, electric moving pictures had their origins in the 1920's [TV] so it was a matter of some puzzlement that it took another three generations for electric STILLS to become viable....

... but boy are we glad they eventually made it! (At one stage in the 80's I thought I was gonna DIE before it happened.)

TKO how can you have posted 9000 times? Wow! Lighten up, why do you feel the need to put me down just because I like film and do not like that consumers were suckered into digital so that they would be told to upgrade their camera every couple of years. You have been played by the camera manufacturers. Yes, if you find my opinion to be offensive, then consider yourself offended.

KRR wrote:

KRR said:

57even: Iif you will re-read the precise words from my post. I said, "...90% of snapshooters AND PROS..." Please try to relax and notice the two words "and pros". Thats means there are two types of digital users: snapshooters and pros. So, which are you? Perhaps English is not your native language, in which case I accept your apology. I did not insult you. I have no beef with digital...I clearly said it is better for 90%...but I still prefer film for what I do.

Click to expand...

If you say so.. Some 13 or so years ago, I needed immediate shots to help me construct several tool manuals. I had a darkroom, the manuals were B&W, and I could have gone with the joy of darkroom work...if that's a joy. I loved it back in '68. I chose instead to invest in an Olympus C2020Z digital camera as a supplement to my 35mm gear. The immediacy and ease of transfer was a revelation. That little camera was a joy to use, and the sharp lens, always an Olympus feature, let me provide 2/3 page shots to magazines, too. You opened this thread by insulting digital photographers because you prefer film. Preferring film is fine, but it doesn't seem necessary to insult those who prefer other media. In fact, it lessens the effectiveness of whatever message you were trying to pass.

What was that message? You seem to have flipped and flopped a bit and insulted others understanding of your words, when they understood what you had written perfectly well; you do not seem to have a similar understanding of what you put on-screen.

PerL said:

PerL wrote:

...dont know why, but it seems to provoke a lot of people.

Click to expand...

Except if you're exhibiting your photography at an art sales/show then it's seen as something different and special. True.

PerL said:

Click to expand...

Visiting som art and architecture exhibitions in Europe this year - Kassel "Documenta"; Venice Biennial - I noticed quite a lot of people, mostly in their 20s and early 30s, walking around with analog cameras. Part of the retro trend obviously, but perhaps also some sort of digital fatigue. My 14 year old son prefers his (cheap) Nikon FE2 from the 80s to his Nikon 3100.

Time was when painting a portrait of a person was a well respected profession.

But, no, technology had to replace the portrait painter with this newfangled thing called a camera and film.

It removed the human element of recording an image of a person, and replaced that with a simple device, needing little skill to operate.

True, it was much faster, one no longer had to sit for hours, but the end result had no human interpretation to it. It is a cold, lifeless recording, berefit of the energy that a human hand with a brush, and a human eye with human imagination, can give to a proper portrait.

Would Renoir's The Theatre Box be anything special if it had taken with a camera rather than painted by a person?

Why did this happen?

Film is dying because there is not enough user that have good reason to use film over digital , film is outdated for most of us and buy the way the market is so small that you cannot have a big industry behind.

Mark Smith145430 said:

Mark Smith wrote:

Mark Smith145430 said:

T3 wrote:

Mark Smith145430 said:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

That's easy. The film image will look film right away....they digital shooter will spend a ridiculous amount of time trying to make the DSLR image look like film....and fail.

Click to expand...

There's really no point in "trying to make the DSLR image look like film" because that's just some arbitrary point of comparison just for the sake of comparison. The real point is whether photographers are able to produce images that they like, using their digital cameras.

Click to expand...

Which of course they can't always do. If the film or printing medium isn't possible to mimic using digital i.e carbro, tin type, tranparency or platinum printing then you're just making life difficult by using digital.

It's far from arbitrary, it's about choice, the masses have chosen digtal.

Click to expand...

Yes, well...I wonder just how many "film" shooters today work with tintype, platinum printing and carbro. The masses had long ago chosen 35mm film in one type or another, while a few--a relative very, very, very few--choose to use other forms that might or might not start with actual film. We know there are people out there still using wet plates, but how many?

I've long wondered why people who claim film superiority over digital don't test to see. It cannot be impossible to set a scene and then shoot it with each, from exactly the same position using exactly the same lighting with both types. Then process as usual and make super-large prints of both. Compare. End of argument, but probably the start of a new one.

."..dont know why, but it seems to provoke a lot of people."

Well, in this case, being called a sucker may have something to do with it.

T3 said:

T3 wrote:

T3 said:

KRR wrote:

T3, a lightweight camera may be better for you because some women prefer a dainty and small form factor because the traditional professional SLR may be more than your muscles can handle.

Click to expand...

Keep trolling away, KRR. You're just an angry old man who can't understand that the world has moved on from film, shaking his cane at a world he doesn't understand. You're a befuddled old man who can't understand new technology, so you cling to the irrational, paranoid, ill-informed belief that "THEY" killed film for no reason at all. You sit in your house with your old rolls of film, your VHS tapes, your phonograph, and your rotary-dial telephone, angrily eyeing the world outside that has left him behind.

"Get off my lawn, you crazy kids with your newfangled digital doodad cameras!"

Click to expand...

Be fair. Not all old men are angry, nor are we afraid of digital. I switched as soon as digital was feasible from a reproduction (for magazines) standpoint and for cost. That was over 13 years ago, when I was only 61. The only film cameras I have around here now are those that are either broken but too pretty to toss or those I use in photos.

You really do have a penchant for snotty responses, don't you.

KRR said:

KRR wrote:

Baker: Digital is just alright with me (Doobie Bros. song). Since you asked in a nice way, I will respond, but be forewarned that the angry digital cult types may attack me for my opinions. Note: Not all digital shooters are angry, shallow-thinking twits. (said with tongue in cheek.)

So, here are some of my insensitive generalizations for debate:

Digital is in early stages of design evolution, with too many variables, e.g. sensor sizes.

Click to expand...

And film doesn't ever vary in size in its later stages of development. Right?

KRR said:

Digital is not chemical, but mathematical.

Click to expand...

Chemicals to process film require no math to design and make, right?

KRR said:

Digital is menu-driven, not knob-driven.

Click to expand...

Eh? The back of my DSLR bristles with controls.

KRR said:

Digital is electronic, not mechanical.

Click to expand...

Controls on most newer SLRs were also electronically enabled.

KRR said:

Digital is typically plastic, not brass & magnesium alloy.

Click to expand...

Bullfeathers.

KRR said:

Digital is girly, whereas film was traditionally a man's hobby.

Click to expand...

Huh? You must be a doppelganger for Arnie Swarzenego.

KRR said:

Digital shots are "free" which makes you lazy; snapping away at random.

Click to expand...

For some reason, I take more shots with my DSLRs, but I am still learning. Something you seem to have stopped a fair time in the past.

KRR said:

Digital is new for neophytes vs. film is old school and traditional.

Click to expand...

Huh?

KRR said:

Digital is not, by definition, continuous tone; it is 0's and 1's.

Click to expand...

Oh, sure. But how many 0s and 1s?

KRR said:

Digital obsoleted millions of perfectly fine film cameras before it was necessary.

Click to expand...

No camera is truly obsolete until you can't feed it. Film is still available.

KRR said:

Digital is compressed internet JPEG party pix; film is giant framed art.

Click to expand...

Digital serves up raw information from which the photographer can go where he or she wishes.

KRR said:

Digital is good for the masses who are in a hurry, on a budget, with little patience, who hate tradition and the older generation.

Click to expand...

Probably. So what? Although I don't think my grandchildren really hate me and the newer generation is yet to young for that kind of thing.

KRR said:

Digital is MTV, film is Austin City Limits.

Click to expand...

That's just pitiful.

KRR said:

My 40 year old slides are "originals" but digital slides will have to be re-calculated for new formats.

Click to expand...

Not true, at least for the next 50 or so years;: digital originals can be copied with NO loss of data. Try that with slides.

KRR said:

Digital is a new purchase vs. a paid up film camera.

Click to expand...

My digital SLR is paid for.

KRR said:

Digital fits your purse, SLRs don't.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. My Pentax K20D won't fit even my wife's purse, which is huge and heavy.

KRR said:

Digital is better than film for 99% of photographers! So, my digital friends, lighten up on us old film farts. Who cares? You're happy--we're happy, and heaven will take us both. Besides, the world has bigger problems about which to get angry. What if FEMA camps don't allow picture taking? ;-)

Click to expand...

Well, us digital types really don't care until someone calls us suckers and then goes on to be more snidely insulting.

What does FEMA have to do with digital photography?

ChrisMT said:

ChrisMT wrote:

My 14 year old son prefers his (cheap) Nikon FE2 from the 80s to his Nikon 3100.

Click to expand...

Probably only because to him it seems different and makes him "cool".Who pays for his film processing, prints and/or scans? The morale of the story: don't buy a kid an expensive dSLR (all dSLRs are expensive) because they'll put it down in a few or a couple of months for something completely different!

Actually, he does his own film processing, saves for film etc. And uses the digital a lot to. But, prefers the FE2 because its "feeling". The point being digital is nothing "special" for the generation born into it, analog is.

KRR said:

KRR wrote:

There are only a handful of professional E-6 color labs left in America. I had planned to stock up on film when the end approaches. But, now I hear that Kodak may exit the chemical business and there are only 2 slide mount mfg. left in the world.

Somebody, tell me again why we obsoeleted millions of dollars of equipment used so successfully by fine art photographers. Will medium format outlive 35mm? Will my very wonderful Nikon F5 make a good doorstop?

I hate digital because it is not film. What if the consumer got suckered by the immediate gradification dance?

Click to expand...

Why did they kill record, it worked so well, or kill the cassette tape or cd. All that money and equipment spent on producing, manufacturing etc...




It is evolution, eventually something will kill digital as we know it. The good news is, digital is much better for the environment. I can only imagine what film, developing chemicals do to the environment.

KRR said:

KRR wrote:

..........................


Will medium format outlive 35mm? Will my very wonderful Nikon F5 make a good doorstop?

Click to expand...

I think that the medium format will outlive 35mm.

First point for sensor the price is exponential to the size while it is only proportional for film , by the way if you want to shoot medium format the film is a lot cheaper. One of the advantage of digital is low light capability but as medium formats use in situation where light is not a trouble it suffer a lot less of the comparison to digital.

Second, point the 24x36 was created for convenience compare to bigger format and on this point the digital is way better. For reporter of news paper the possibility to send the file in few second to the other part of the world is priceless, for sport event the high ISO capability of digital is also a must have, by the way this users will never come back to film and camera like your F5 was design for them............ No customer for such film camera imply no R&D from big manufacturer ............. the 24x36 camera is therefore dead and the F5 is a nice door stopper.

For medium format camera does not matter that much , no need of very fast AF, ultra complex metering or big motor for very fast busting ................ by the way with or without new camera it may survive to the 24x36

carpediem007 said:

carpediem007 wrote:

carpediem007 said:

Chikubi wrote:

If slide film is your only idea of film, then yes, you'll likely have problems. Otherwise, there are lots of people shooting film and will continue to do so for quite some time I imagine...
--

Click to expand...

True, but slide film gives me total control over exposure while with negative film I'm at the mercy of the lab doing the developing...

Click to expand...

If you want control, learn to do the developing yourself - it's not that difficult and you should be able to find good used darkroom equipment and a small colour processor available at give-away prices.

KRR said:

KRR wrote:

Somebody, tell me again why we obsoeleted millions of dollars of equipment used so successfully by fine art photographers. Will medium format outlive 35mm? Will my very wonderful Nikon F5 make a good doorstop?

Click to expand...

Film cameras reached the point where they were so good I no longer felt a need to upgrade - and built so well they will easily last 20-30 years. If you needed faster ISO or more resolution, you needed a different film not a new camera. Modern manufacturing companies rely on growth and planned obsolescence - if consumers don't feel they need to upgrade it is not too good for their business model.

Digital has brought back the desire to upgrade in a big way.

Not too good for the manufacturers of film though

Digital is cheaper, cleaner(environmentaly), more convenient. Photography has been revoloutionised, in a good way. Same as mail vs email, phones vs horseback. Market forces have/are killing film, its too expensive. The advantages of digital far outway any that film can offer.

TrapperJohn said:

TrapperJohn wrote:

Time was when painting a portrait of a person was a well respected profession.

But, no, technology had to replace the portrait painter with this newfangled thing called a camera and film.

Click to expand...

Yes photography largely killed the ordinary "professional" portrait painting business - but there are still some very talented and successful artists who make a very good living painting portraits.

In a few short years digital photography has already reduced the number of photographers who use film to a small minority - but, for a long time, there will be a few who will still want to use film for its own special qualities - and some will make a good living out of it too.

But yes, film has more or less become a specialized art medium - not the preferred medium for most photography.

For those that like film, the good thing is that very good used equipment is now a fantastic bargain.