Thank you David, exactly. I'm 18 (now nobody will take anything I say seriously, oh well) and the wet darkroom is my first love, I love it far more than digital, but circumstances often force me to use DSLRs. I'm not dissatisfied with the results, and I know just as much about digital than film (just recently) but if given the choice and time I like to work with film and paper. and the best part, is I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE.
Our local community college just added traditional classes back into its photography courses and this years enrollment in traditional class beat the digital classes by two to one, so I know for a fact there is still a large interest in traditional film based photography. I think over the next few years, will see interest in both methods of photography, but fill will hold its own and will continue to grow again in certain areas.
Richard A. Nelridge
My own recent education on vintage optics (here!) has served to firm up this viewpoint considerably.
In a weird twist, I'm now having to find and buy 35mm film cameras for student use, since nowadays students are more likely to own a decent digital camera. That's a shift that has occurred in the last two years.
I've found that the students taking the Intro to Film clasess tend to work harder than my digital students.
However I am still pretty pessimistic about the future of film, especially for the ULF sizes and to some extent about MF and 35 mm sized films. Even though we have a lot of film choices today I'm afraid the world wide demand for film will continue to slip and the price of film will continue to rise.
"I shoot just as much digital as the next guy out of necessity," Usher said. "I use film probably a third of the time, on personal projects 100 percent of the time. There's a richness and a depth of field that becomes more prevalent when you're shooting film as opposed to digital."
Depth of field is more prevalent when you're shooting film? I've heard a lot of very valid reasons for using film but that isn't one of them. I hope this guy was misquoted.
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
At my son's high school the photo class is FULL, very full...and it's ALL film and wet darkroom! Five enlargers....And according to him the kids enjoy it. They think it's cool.
Scott Peters Photography
Energing markets around the globe like China and India are experiencing economic boons and higher standards of living that facilitate BMW's, private home ownership and the inherent ability to participate in expressive art forms like photography. We are seeing this in the camera manufacturing business and producing sheet film holders. Eventually I feel that one of these countries will break into the global market with film produced domestically that will compete against the current players for both quality and price. The same scanario will also likely take place with lenses and shutters.
As a reference point in the Nov/Dec 1990 the price of 12x20 Super XX was listed at $12.30/sheet, which is on par with what TMY was sold in the past offering. By the way, Kodak has told me that they will be holding the film price from nearly two years ago on the next TMY ULF sheet film deal. Plus, Kodak just improved the grain structure of TMY to be equal to what one would expect out of a 200 ASA film.
I am not under the illusion that film will someday replace digital.
However, there are some indications that the steady decline of film is preordained and will happen sooner rather than later. Recently I had a conversation with a well-known LF and ULF camera designer/manufacturer. He told me that prior to this last quarter Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford all showed steady increases in sheet film sales (he did not have information for the last quarter). If they are selling more, someone must be buying it.
Maybe there truly is a place for both, and all the "this is better, no that is better" sort of arguments will fade away.