The hopeful future of film photography

[sanking]

I recently started using a Canon 50D DSLR and was interested in reviews of its performance, and found a review by Harold Merklinger on the Luminous Landscape. He wrote.

"Back to the Canon 50D. The first thing I did with a 50D was to put the nearest lens at hand - a Canon 50/1.2L - on the camera, step outside my front door and take a picture of the house across the street. Then I looked at the image on the computer. "Finally!" my eyes told me "I can see the sort of detail I used to see with slow, fine-grain, b&w film!" What particularly grabbed my attention was that I could tell the maple trees behind the house from the oak trees, by the shape of the leaves."

That pretty much sums up DSLR versus MF film for me. If I were to take a photograph of the house across the street with my Mamiya 7II camera, and any one of the four lenses that I use with it, I would expect to see the "veins" of the tree leaves with a good quality scan.

BTW, to put things in perspective, I recently had a chance to do some extensive comparisons of the Canon 5D versus the 50D. The 5D is better in many respects, but in terms of resolution the 50D is slightly better, assuming your lens, and/or aperture, does not limit resolution. So the Canon 50D is a fairly decent DSLR.

Sandy King

[Kirk Gittings]

Some random thoughts related to this topic (in my mind at least)......I remember my grandmother remarking how amazing she thought the first cars and airplanes were. But my grandfather was still working a mule on his farm when he died in the 1960's. The technological changes in their lifetime were staggering. My cell phone has replaced my wrist watches, land line phones and alarm clocks. I'm sure I am not alone in this change. Yet the technology and sales of those three items seems to continue to forge ahead, because though they are unnecessary some people continue to use and like them. I have no use for film anymore in my commercial business. But I like film. I could choose to use it at the expense my time and profitability. I choose digital for my business because I want to make the most money from it. I choose film for my personal work because its about the joy of process and not money or time.

I just received my 5DMII yesterday. At first blush it seems like a hell of a camera. My 5D is only 2 years old and yet it seems like old technology in comparison the MII. The MII will potentially solve a couple of problems for me that slow me down when processing files like upresing, dust and maybe noise. I figure the time saved processing files alone will pay for it in maybe ten big jobs (by late February or early March maybe). My business has flourished since going digital and my personal work too because it is now so distinct technologically from what I do everyday. It is all good. Technologically speaking we live in the best of photographic times.

[Andrew O'Neill]

A student in my graphic design class (we do all work in digital there) is buying a canon eos-5 so that he can shoot black and white film. He's 17. There is hope.

[Nathan67]

"How many people make 60 inch prints" ...........a lot of people do, look at all the 44 inch printers were buying. Also by big I really mean 30 inches and up, which right now means digital backs (without interpolation) are still struggling in this market (it is for the small print market only....wedding/news/magazines/fashion). Walk into any frame shop, or art gallery and you will see a few big prints. Just check the websites of photographers selling their works in here. For Ken Duncan and Peter Lik a 60 inch print is not that big, and Peter Lik alone sold $35million worth this year. Check out these guys, and it is not just photographers making big prints. Oil/watercolor artists have been doing it for years. Go check out any gallery, they are huge. Until digital backs and dslr cameras can produce bigger prints, and people start trusting the files they have saved will last....the fine art market cannot afford to risk it with digital. One image can be worth millions, and you don't want to start reproducing by copying a print. As one person said...so long as they come off the original file they are originals, once they are off copied prints they become just reproductions.

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum172/...news-film.html

Here are two typical artists, both are making fine art prints. The little stuff you can get at Wallmart.

http://www.davidbrookover.com/interior.html (photographer....all big prints)
http://www.tomrissacher.com./seascapes.html (painter....all big prints)

Lets not forget the industrial photographers serving corporations, malls, retail and using big cameras. Check this 17 ft print........ http://www.panos.at:80/ How can you say digital can satisfy the majority of the market? Jobs like this need 8x10 format, not a P45 that in this situation you can consider as nothing but a toy when you need a mans size camera to get the job done. Digital is great for the wedding/news/magazine/sports and some areas of commercial (fashion, etc). In many cases a dslr is sufficient. Digital is for the short term market, for pros wanting it done fast, cost effective, and don't care about sales 2 years from now (wedding shooters find people scanning their images, while commercial guys would consider a 2 yr old McDonalds ad already old). They don't worry about long term storage of images while fine artists do (their nest egg for retirement).

"How many care how long they really look, and how long they last". Well, as mentioned earlier, if I sell limited editions (commercial guys doing magazines don't do this), and my income is based on 150 copies selling at $3500 per image ($total $525,000).....well I certainly will care. Most artist originals are big, then when reduced they look even better.

I find it odd that many are saying film is dead when the film mfrs themselves admit the market has stabilized and film is growing slowly. With the intro of digital, the market went through a change. Local labs are gone (because 35mm sales were down), but we still have Wallmart/Costco/Sams club to handle the needs of the cosnumer markets ( elderly population afraid of computers. Some pro labs will close down (but were they really just a mom pop lab and 35mm film was their bulk of business). I find the labs in Toronto with a professional base doing well and processing up to 8x10. But I believe like all retail, were moving towards the super store in photography (BH Photo, Adoroama, Calumet), and same is happening to labs (West Coast, etc). Unfortunately, many of us are now not only shipping to buy our new cameras (buying unseen products), but also to process the film.

Film is not dead, it is "high-end" photography that the average consumer isn't aware of! It is funny that these are the ones spreading negative comments about film, who own only a D40, and never seen a large format camera in their life....totally clueless. Film can make big prints, digital cannot....that's a big market for film.

Erm.... facts, that 17 foot print was not taken with a large format camera.. it is a stitched job from a Nikon D70s, not even a high end digital camera.... 6mp if you had clicked on the link to view the file you would have been presented with this info under the pano.

Now. I too hope that film will survive, however my studio has been fully digital the last 5 years, and the only film stuff I do is for personal projects because I enjoy the process so much.
My corporate and private clients expect digital, on some shoots I may pull out one of my large format cameras or run a roll of film through my hassy, but on the whole I dont have the time...
I just love using my hassy and my LF cameras, but its my 1DsmkIII that pays the bills and pays for my expensive film habit

Nathan

[Stefan Lungu]

My business has flourished since going digital and my personal work too because it is now so distinct technologically from what I do everyday. It is all good. Technologically speaking we live in the best of photographic times.

I'm thinking the same every time I see a debate about film vs. digital or life/death of film. I for myself would not want to skip the digital I have for convenience and other such reasons, and a friend of my father who was a passionate photog in hir younger days was pretty impressed at the detail level of the 1Ds MkI shots I took ( he only shot 35mm ). But I am very happy to use my 6x9 folder with B&W film and start using my Crown with 4x5. No need really for those tools to compete. Only problem that we were discussing was if we will be able to use them in the future - and that goes for digital ( file formats, archive etc. ) as well as for film ( any film available ).

Regards, Stefan

[AutumnJazz]

A student in my graphic design class (we do all work in digital there) is buying a canon eos-5 so that he can shoot black and white film. He's 17. There is hope.

I'm 16 and I'm in the process of buying a 45.

[bspeed]

I'm 16 and I'm in the process of buying a 45.

That's awesome
there is hope for the world, with Generation "Now"

[sanking]

Since most people are not able to own an infinte number of cameras, and since we are linited to the equipment we can carry for any specific project, digital and film are in constant competition IMO. Digital and film have strong points and if one want sto make intelligent decisions about how to spend money, or pack and carry equipment for a specific project one must constantly think about the desired outcome and which method can get you there best. In that sense digital and film are in constant competition.

Sandy King

I'm thinking the same every time I see a debate about film vs. digital or life/death of film. I for myself would not want to skip the digital I have for convenience and other such reasons, and a friend of my father who was a passionate photog in hir younger days was pretty impressed at the detail level of the 1Ds MkI shots I took ( he only shot 35mm ). But I am very happy to use my 6x9 folder with B&W film and start using my Crown with 4x5. No need really for those tools to compete. Only problem that we were discussing was if we will be able to use them in the future - and that goes for digital ( file formats, archive etc. ) as well as for film ( any film available ).

Regards, Stefan

[D. Bryant]

[QUOTE=Van Camper;428468]

I think the information were getting from the mfrs is the more relialable indicator (sales figures). Mfrs at photokina are agreeing the film/digital war is over, and there is stabilization. Film sales are moving up

Fuji and Kodak both reported decreases in film and related consumable sales for '08 to be markedly down. This may also include Ilford products too. What mfrs are reporting increases?

Don Bryant

[D. Bryant]

[QUOTE=Van Camper;429251]

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum172/...news-film.html

http://www.thiaps.com/editors/ (40% inc in 4x5 film sales alone)

I also find the following comments interesting....

"In the last two years Kodak introduced 11 (!) new or improved films: Portra 160 NC-2, 160 VC-2, 400 NC-2, 400 VC-2, Portra 800 version 3, improved Gold 200 and Gold 400, Portra 400 NC-3 and Portra 400 VC-3, TMY-2, Ektar 100.

I grew up in in the "golden analogue days". But I can't remenber a time in the past, when Kodak introduced 11 Films in only two years. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Look back at summer 2006: Anyone here on apug who thougt that Kodak will bring 11 new films to the market in the next two years?
No, quite the opposite: The apug experts talked about Kodak leaving the film market.
Anyone here on apug who thought we will see Velvia 50 back on the shelves?"
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum172/...ws-film-4.html

I see, now I understand the situation more clearly. Good to have an optimist onboard.

Don Bryant