future of 4x5 and 8x10 film

[Jeremy Moore]

i also know that shooting with my 4x5 is an incredibly rewarding experience for me. the slow, deliberate, methodical process is something i absolutely love. i cherish getting under my darkcloth and carefully composing a shot. there is something special about crafting a photograph, something i've never been able to feel shooting digitally.

This is still just as true today as it was when Scott wrote it over 4 years ago.

[Marko]

So, is all that enjoyment the result of using a view camera to compose and capture a photo or is it the result of using film?

I really don't see what would be different if one would stick a digital sensor instead of film in the back of the view camera once done with composing a shot, darkcloth, reflex finder or whatever other means of previewing the image? Would the enjoyment be gone and why?

[steve hartsfield]

To me, film is going to be like vinyl and reel-to-reel tape is to digital music, something for people/artists who really enjoy the feel and results of the medium. There will always be a demand for film in my house, just like vinyl. I have to believe that film will eventually fall into a smaller artistic market. There is nothing quite like good ole silver paper.

[Carioca]

If we all keep shooting more than worrying,
film will be there, for ever...
Simple law of demand=production.

PSedit: unbelievable but true, LP vinyls are still produced...

Absolutely, digital will completely replace film. Exactly like film completely replaced painting... After all, we all know that it's impossible to buy paint and canvas anymore, right?

[Carioca]

Due to the crisis and my job, I work less, bummer!
But, I have more free time and I do print more...

[Jeremy Moore]

So, is all that enjoyment the result of using a view camera to compose and capture a photo or is it the result of using film?

I really don't see what would be different if one would stick a digital sensor instead of film in the back of the view camera once done with composing a shot, darkcloth, reflex finder or whatever other means of previewing the image? Would the enjoyment be gone and why?

I like using a ground glass, the bigger the better. I don't want to use a 645 size ground glass nor do I want to use a reflex viewer or whatever. The 6x9 area captured by a Betterlight is also too small.

This means I need a sensor that is 4"x5" or 8"x10" or next week 11"x14" to replace film in my large format workflow. Additionally, I still shoot quite a bit of 120 because there isn't a digital equivalent to my Rolleiflex--not quality of file, but small, square, WLF. It's not the quality, it's the working methods.

There isn't even anything on the market like this at any price I know of.

[Marko]

I like using a ground glass, the bigger the better. I don't want to use a 645 size ground glass nor do I want to use a reflex viewer or whatever. The 6x9 area captured by a Betterlight is also too small.

This means I need a sensor that is 4"x5" or 8"x10" or next week 11"x14" to replace film in my large format workflow. Additionally, I still shoot quite a bit of 120 because there isn't a digital equivalent to my Rolleiflex--not quality of file, but small, square, WLF. It's not the quality, it's the working methods.

There isn't even anything on the market like this at any price I know of.

Don't get me wrong, so do I. That's one of the reasons I still use both 4x5 and MF. The other reason is that it is a thing of nostalgia for me, I always loved b&w film.

But my point is that when digital sensors mature enough and reach the right price point, nothing will change except the type of light sensitive device at one end of the camera. Well, the ground glass might get replaced with an LCD as discussed in another recent thread, but then again, maybe not. Either way, Lens, shutter, aperture, ground glass and the laws of physics will still remain the same. Ditto for composition and the general aesthetic.

Now, whether film will still be available and in what shape remains to be seen. My guess, which is as good as anybody's, is that it will become a historical process kept alive by a small number of devotees, much like daguerreotype is today. Highly artistic and respected, but out of the mainstream.

I perceive the real question behind the question of this thread to be whether we will live long enough to see the end of the process that we witnessed starting. Personally, I would certainly hope so.

[aphexafx]

- film is archival. You can always scan it on a office machine 50 yrs from now. Digital
is always changing....operating systems/software/file formats/etc. This is important
for those selling limited editions where over a few years it can represent $300k or
more in sales.

Great post, but I don't agree with this statement. Digital files are much more achievable than film at every level. Pretending that future changes to OS and file format popularity will limit the longevity of digital files is a huge misnomer. The fact that the data is digital means that it can be copied, converted, etc. with zero loss of quality and this guarantees that the files will be exactly as they are today at any point in the future.

If the argument is that film retains 100% of detail that might be better sampled to a digital file in the future, I think that this notion is quickly becoming obsolete as we are fast approaching the point where scanners can resolve past film resolution and digital sensors are producing sharper images per area in the first place!

[CG]

Electronic media are fine till file formats change and you have to rescan or copy and convert everything you have. Or wait till the substrate CD - tape - disc starts degenerating. Lots of electronic media are on their way to becoming unreadable -many video formats are pretty much gone already.

Film stays the same, requires no conversion... Digital's good for many things - but archival quality isn't one unless you want to keep recopying and converting /updating everything frequently.

[Marko]

It will be a long wait before digital backs are affordable for most of us. In that time I can have high quality images now rather then dream about a digital back that still cannot match larger films like 612/617/4x5/5x7/8x10.

I also don't see it being practical walking around with a $50k digital back (which is only replacing film) and having to worry about thieves, weather, or falling. Just not practical for the field.

Of course it is impractical if you can't afford it, no argument about that. Each time I see someone driving a Ferrari or a Lamborghini around LA, I keep thinking how impractical or worrisome that should be, but I'm sure my opinion would change if I could afford one of those...

Back to MF digital backs, here is someone who can (walk around with it on a regular basis) and who doesn't (seem to worry about it). Or if she does worry, it does not show in her images.

Digital is short term, film long term when it comes to longevity. So digital better fits the commercial sector where convenience and speed is important, while fine artists and landscape shooter would prefer film. Film has many advantages

I am sure that's why institutions like http://www.loc.gov/index.html and such are sinking so much effort and resources into digitizing and computer storage of their collections.

analog film doesn't depreciate while digital film does.

"Digital film"? What exactly is it and how does it depreciate?

http://www.thiaps.com/editors/

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

Uh, is this supposed to be an argument of some sort? I mean, if you want to believe something because APUG says so, go ahead, knock yourself out. Just don't bother me until I can again walk to my local photo store and buy a package of APX 100 or Panatomic-X, preferably 4x5. Or perhaps a box of Type 55.