Will film ever come back?

[Alpha]

Yeah..post-processing is a real time-saver :er:

 

[lasershot]

whats post-processing????

 

[newrmdmike]

max brings up a great point about post work . . . i honestly think that if i shot 50% 50% digital that i would spend at least 60% of my time on the digital and only 40% on film.

however, if i was just scanning the film and not printing from negs then i would spend extra time on scanning making film more time consuming.

But, i think the biggest upset about that is that if we all treated our cameras like film cameras and got off the thought train of "i'll fix it in ps" we would all be so much better. thats part of why i make myself shoot film on a regular basis. ansel adams saw the negative as 50% of it, and the print as the other 50% if your not good at both you'll certainly not be remembered as a great (except for those few who pay others to print their negs) although even those people have a vision for that photo, and if not printed correctly they won't be happy.

i prolly spend 30% of my photo time shooting, 20% with clients on the phone, ordering prints etc, and 50% preparing images. or worse!

 

[loser101]

I've used digital for a while and didn't want to try film because it is alot more work. I'm taking a photography class right now where i have to use film and i love it, haven't shot with my digital over a month now. I think both have their place and will go back to digital but only for color pictures, for black and white ill use film. And if im still into film i will probably build my self a dark room.

 

[Weaving Wax]

whats post-processing????

Fixing everything in Photoshop.

 

[Mitica100]

WW, film is here to stay, has never gone away. If in doubt, check some of the advertisers here, like Adorama or B&H. Personally, I don't shoot any digital, save for Ebay items that I sell. I shoot anything from Minox to 4x5 format.

Maybe some day I will be swept away by a MF digital camera, until then, film is the only way for me.

 

[Weaving Wax]

I never said film went away and died off, although my title was misleading. I wasn't sure if I should title it differently. My main question was, did anyone think film would come back to being like it was. After people got over the "digital revolution". Sort-of like, vinyl records came back after people only bought CD's for years...

 

[quixoticsage]

This might be redundant... but the cost of backing up your work (CD, DVD, Good Hard Drives, etc), ink, and countless other costs that have been mentioned are all apart of both digital and film. So Digital is great, however, what does one do when the info is lost? Wow! Yes, it happened to me, 200GB's of pictures GONE. I had backed up 100GB's but still... If the majority of my shots where not film and scanned, then I would be up poop creek. Regardless, it took alot of time to scan them in and organize but I still have the negatives and they are in good shape for the most part. SO, I like digital and film... but one must remmeber to BACK UP your hard drive always. And use good media to do it with.

Both film and digital have their drawbacks and what not.

I do think that film will always be around, and improve. You cannot get Black and White shots that are fine art with digital. Nothing can match the grain of film (say Ilford 3200). But I am a purest where film is concerned, but impatient enough to like digital. So I will have both in my arsenal.

So I ramble. ok?

Dan

 

[JamesD]

whats post-processing????

Fixing everything in Photoshop.

Tell me you're joking. Please. I beg of you.

A raw capture, regardless of medium, is a draft. Digital or analog, it is incomplete unless you are one of the nonexistent group of photographers who is blessed with consistently perfect scenes and lighting.

Dodging, burning, cropping, adjusting contrast, adjusting exposure/brightness, retouching, etc ad puteulanus visio, are all postprocessing tasks which are common to all media. None of this has anything to do with "fixing it in Photoshop." It has to do with producing a finished product.

And, to give a useful answer to someone asking an honest question: "post processing" is the work you do on a raw capture to create the final image.

-JamesD

 

[skieur]

Tell me you're joking. Please. I beg of you.

A raw capture, regardless of medium, is a draft. Digital or analog, it is incomplete unless you are one of the nonexistent group of photographers who is blessed with consistently perfect scenes and lighting.

Dodging, burning, cropping, adjusting contrast, adjusting exposure/brightness, retouching, etc ad puteulanus visio, are all postprocessing tasks which are common to all media. None of this has anything to do with "fixing it in Photoshop." It has to do with producing a finished product.

And, to give a useful answer to someone asking an honest question: "post processing" is the work you do on a raw capture to create the final image.

-JamesD

Agreed! :thumbup: Every digital photo requires postprocessing.

skieur

 

[deanimator]

I prefer film (b&w) for my documentary work
and hope there won´t be a resurgence in its popularity
Maybe if it continues to decline it will enhance the value of what I´m doing

 

[JamesD]

Agreed! :thumbup: Every digital photo requires postprocessing.

skieur

My point is that every film image also requires it. It's not unique to either.

And before it comes back to bite me, let me qualify: requires it if it is to be other than a documentary image.

-JamesD

 

[blackdoglab]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Film will only die if people want it to. Film will be with us for at least another 150 years.

 

[mysteryscribe]

two weeks from now I'm going to move from retired to semi retired. I had to give the film digital thing a lot of thought. Here's what I decided which doesn't mean anyone else should do it.

I looked at the price of a kit. Not a single camera but enough cameras to feel good about doing the kind of job I wanted to do. Memory cards and batteries strobe light and the works. I figured it would be well over five grand and that's not even the best equipment.

So I took a look at film. I bought three manual focus bodies and two auto focus ones. An array of lenses for both. If I have a 25 percent mechanical failure, Im still going to have three camera working. The cost per camera with winders and all kinds of cute stuff was under five hundred bucks half the price of a single dslr. Yes the mechanical cameras are used but I wouldn't buy a used dslr so I can't use a used dslr prices.

Strobe lights I had a couple of 283s left from before so I resurrected them. I could have bought them also used for about twenty five bucks each. Now I still think it would cost less than five hundred bucks to buy everything I bought.

Did I hear someone say Yuck you have film.

True but I also spend a couple of hundred bucks on a new high resolution dedicated film scanner. It is 7200 dpi optical scan. From a thirty five mm neg I think that is going to be about 20 or so megapix. I have no use for all those pixies but what the heck.

So I'm for sure betting film will be around.

Now why did I buy film and not digital... It's economics but not exactly what it seems. Im 62 years old on that birthday. I don't figure I'm going to be shooting anything in ten years, so why would I want to put ten grand in equipment for a part time business. I know that isn't the thinking of younger people and I understand that. It's just how I see it. Of course most of the people I know with digital camers have updated at least once in the last three years.

Factor in the film cost you say.... film is about 2.50 a roll give me two bucks to develop it and you have four fifty per roll.... five rolls max since i don't plan on shooting a thousand shots per job. Lets say I've got twenty five bucks more than a digital shooter in the job. If i do the full 12 weddings a year for the rest of those ten years, will film ever be a losing choice. I don't think so.

Does film make sense for you, I have no idea. It just seemed to make sense to me. Oh yeah I have lots of time to scan negs you might not.

 

[Orrin]

In this entire discussion, no one has mentioned the preservation of history.
Glass plates from the civil war can still be viewed and copied. Silver based
films will last a long time in archival storage.

How are digital images being preserved? History tells us that a computer
ten years or more from now may not be able to read the current media.
(How may of you have a system that can read a 5 1/4 floppy?) Even the
best CD/DVD's of today will have limited life. Some tests have shown that
they will deteriorate faster than originally thought.

Even you you have the "100 year" CD/DVD, with the constant changing
of computer formats, it probably will not be readable in the distant future.

Images on silver based film/plates will last far longer!