Is film photography dead?

[CSR Studio]

I completely disagree with the ones saying that film is dead in commercial applications. That is just plain incorrect. There are quite a few major magazines that expect a 4x5 trans and wouldn't want a digital image. It all depends on what area of photography you are working in. Film is not dead and probably will never die. I still shoot quite a bit of film, all large format.

 

[jbylake]

I completely disagree with the ones saying that film is dead in commercial applications. That is just plain incorrect. There are quite a few major magazines that expect a 4x5 trans and wouldn't want a digital image. It all depends on what area of photography you are working in. Film is not dead and probably will never die. I still shoot quite a bit of film, all large format.

This thread pop's up, someone usually squeal's something about Kodachrome, it dies (the thread) and comes back to life at a later time.

Not really sure why...

J.

 

[alex3D]

After being into photography for almost 35 years, I remember the days when I was fed up with the high cost of film photography and welcomed big time the digital photography age... Well, after owning I do not how many digital cameras thru my life, I am now becoming more and more involved in film photography once again!!!... It all started when I bought off eBay a very old Minolta APS film scanner for $10. Putting thru an old Kodak APS negative roll to test it, woke me up. Wow... I could not believe my eyes, the 'magic' of film -even with this limited size negative scans, made me wonder how great it would look if 35mm or even 120 film was used... I have now ordered tons of new film cameras to restart my film shooting all over again... they are so cheap everywhere that it is sometimes hard to believe the prices they go for now... To my surprise, the scans I made from these old APS negative film I took many years ago while on vacation, came out incredible even when I played those scanned images in my 65 inch HDTV monitor. Hopefully if not Kodak, some other smaller companies around the world would continue making films for people like me that have re-discovered the 'magic' of film photography.

 

[Battou]

I completely disagree with the ones saying that film is dead in commercial applications. That is just plain incorrect. There are quite a few major magazines that expect a 4x5 trans and wouldn't want a digital image. It all depends on what area of photography you are working in. Film is not dead and probably will never die. I still shoot quite a bit of film, all large format.

This thread pop's up, someone usually squeal's something about Kodachrome, it dies (the thread) and comes back to life at a later time.

Not really sure why...

J.

...perhaps it's a sign.



Kodochrome dies...then it comes back to life at a later time....maybe

 

[Mulewings~]

I have 3 film cameras and still use them. Processing options are very limited in my rural area.

Film is very much alive!

 

[RancerDS]

Exactly one month to the day, processed a roll of film... Order #xx9521. Looks like it's increasing marginally.

 

[Sbuxo]

Definitely not. Lots of magazine photographers use film, but usually medium-format for better quality when enlarging

 

[TexasJeff]

My local community college has shut its darkroom down entirely and only teaches digital now. The photography professors there are old school film shooters who emphasize good composition, proper exposure and so forth.
Point being I am sure they did not want this to happen and it was likely due to financial reasons more than anything.
I am happy I have an intimate working knowledge of film photography and I hope to put it to use once again. Darkroom work is dirty, expensive and time consuming. Film can be a hassle to use in the field. Digital images can be sent around the world literally seconds after they are captured. There are arguments for both side but I am predicting that the expense and environmental concerns associated with chemical processes will be films eventual downfall. It is only a matter of time before digital is as capable as film in every way.

 

[ann]

and attendence in my darkroom classes continue to grow.

photography is expensive regardless , you think film and paper is expensive; have to been doing any inkjet printing and then there is the constant upgrading of software.

 

[TexasJeff]

I know it is Ann I didn't mean to offend.
I am actually planning on setting up a small darkroom this year as I have the time a cash to do it. I have dreamed of having one in my home for years.
Rather exciting really. Or am I just a glutton for punishment? At any rate I have enough negatives to keep me busy for a year even if I don't shoot another roll.
In spite of my and others passion I still feel like film is doomed to die a slow death. If I am wrong I will happily eat my words!

 

[addaminsane]

film photography is to fun to die!

 

[thoughtcryme]

IMO, film will only die if there's a comparable replacement for it.
If digital eventually achieves film resolution, affordably, then film should start worrying.

 

[basujanha2610]

lolz!

No this is very young to fight with the oldest one!:lmao:

 

[c.cloudwalker]

I completely disagree with the ones saying that film is dead in commercial applications. That is just plain incorrect. There are quite a few major magazines that expect a 4x5 trans and wouldn't want a digital image. It all depends on what area of photography you are working in. Film is not dead and probably will never die. I still shoot quite a bit of film, all large format.

In another thread you claimed to shoot film for weddings. Are you shooting weddings in large format?

 

[skieur]

IMO, film will only die if there's a comparable replacement for it.
If digital eventually achieves film resolution, affordably, then film should start worrying.

Then I guess you should start worrying because digital has passed film resolution.

skieur