Film Still Popular Among Pros

[Michael Kadillak]

Three cheers for film!

Sep 19, 1:49 PM EDT
Film Still Popular Among the Pros

By BEN DOBBIN
AP Business Writer

ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) -- Photojournalist Chris Usher usually relies on digital technology. When he wants something special, though, he reaches for a film camera.

"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. It has a tangible feel to it."

Even as the digital revolution is transforming photography, more than two-thirds of professional photographers in a survey released Wednesday said they still prefer using film for certain tasks, praising its ability to add an almost organic quality to pictures.

Eastman Kodak Co., which surveyed 9,000 U.S. photographers who earn their livelihoods freeze-framing news, weddings, nature, fashion and other worlds, will draw some comfort from its findings.

Putting the finishing touches to a drastic, four-year digital makeover, Kodak is still betting that film, its cash cow for a century, will continue to generate enough revenue to see it through the most painful passage in its 126-year history. Kodak's work force will slip to 34,000 at year-end, half what it was five years ago.

Even while its chemical-based businesses shrink, Kodak remains the world's top maker of silver-halide film, and the storied product - which George Eastman launched in 1889 - retains an ardent following.

"If a client gives me the choice, I'm going to shoot film," said Matthew Jordan Smith, a fashion and celebrity photographer in Los Angeles. "With digital, there's this whole thing of, 'Oh, it looks good enough to get by, it's fine, it'll do.' You didn't have that with film. Was it good enough? It was great!

"Digital will continue to get better and better and better," Smith said. "Maybe film will become an art thing, who knows? But there will always be those who want to shoot film."

The survey was mailed in mid-August to more than 40,000 of the nation's estimated 64,000 full-time and part-time professional photographers, and 75 percent of the 9,000 who responded said they will continue to use film even as they embrace digital imaging.

Sixty-eight percent said they prefer film over digital for a variety of applications. Many cited its superiority for shooting larger-format and black-and-white images, the adaptability of color film to a wider range of lighting conditions, and film archives being far easier to store than electronic ones.

Usher, a freelancer who covers the White House for both Newsweek and Time magazines and is coming out with a book illustrating hurricane-ravaged New Orleans, isn't surprised his colleagues expressed a lingering loyalty to some of the old methods.

"Film by its very physical nature is layers of grains of different colors," he said. "It's hard to describe, but it does actually have a micro three-dimensionality that you can see in that weird way."

By contrast, he said, "digital pictures look very flat, and even the prints. ... Digital looks literally cut-and-pasted.

"Probably the biggest disadvantage of digital - I think if you ask most photographers, at least the ones that are honest will admit this - is you end up spending more time behind the computer than you do behind the camera. If you're shooting raw, you still have to go in there and adjust the images, tweak 'em, tone 'em and get everything just so. With film, there it is."

While "digital is here to stay," Usher expects film's fortunes will someday brighten once more.

"In fact, now that the honeymoon and the infatuation is starting to run its course," he said, "I think that in the next five years you're going to see almost a retro backlash because of the things that film gives you that you can't get with digital."

[Ash]

"In fact, now that the honeymoon and the infatuation is starting to run its course," he said, "I think that in the next five years you're going to see almost a retro backlash because of the things that film gives you that you can't get with digital."

That, or digital capture and print technology will progress to a level closer to the qualities in analogue methods....maybe?


Don't get me wrong I am an avid film user and I stand behind silver-based. In fact the amount I'm investing in the gear and the consumables I HOPE it lasts!!


Nice to know that there are at least 9,000 film users left though :rolleyes:

[davidb]

APUG has over 32,000 members.

[Gene McCluney]

I use between 50 and 200 sheets of 4x5 transparency film a month in my business. I also shoot between 25 and 50 5x7 b/w, and about 50 sheets 4x5 b/w each month for my personal projects. Film sure ain't dead for me!!

[kjsphotography]

I invested in digital a few years back spent tens of thousands. After realizing my mistake I sold everything and went back to film exclusively and this time with 8x10 to boot!

I will never use digital again for my work. I just love what film can do...

[David A. Goldfarb]

APUG has over 32,000 members.

More like 22,000 registered users at the moment. Maybe you were looking at the statistic for the number of threads, which is a bit over 32,000 right now.

[Dirk Rösler]

Bear in mind that the people surveyed actually remember and know what film is (and its properties). Ask the same question in 5, 10 years and the picture may change completely. Unless something else happens :)

[Juergen Sattler]

I think Dirk hit the nail on the head - the issue is not with us old-timers - we will always use film, but with the younger crowd - they never get to experience the difference. Sure, there will always be a few who try their luck with film and will stick with it, but that'll be the minority. The cellphone camera generation could be the last nail in the coffin of the Kodaks of this world.

[Sylvester Graham]

The cellphone camera generation could be the last nail in the coffin of the Kodaks of this world.

I'm part of the cell-phone generation, thank you very much. And I know for a fact many young people are drawn to traditional because it's different and "counter-culture" and exciting!

And this generational problem is being addressed, http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=29037

[David Karp]

I don't teach photography, but at my college the traditional darkroom classes still fill up every semester. We also offer a full range of digital photo courses. Given the choice, students are still filling up the wet darkroom.

[John Bowen]

I think Dirk hit the nail on the head - the issue is not with us old-timers - we will always use film, but with the younger crowd - they never get to experience the difference.

Ilford is starting a program in the UK to promote darkroom skills in photography classes. Let's hope it catches on and spreads across the pond.

[Sylvester Graham]

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.

[Dave Parker]

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.

Dave

[naturephoto1]

APUG has over 32,000 members.

David,

You are a bit high, APUG only has over 22,000 members. ;)

Rich

[Darryl Baird]

I don't teach photography, but at my college the traditional darkroom classes still fill up every semester. We also offer a full range of digital photo courses. Given the choice, students are still filling up the wet darkroom.

I teach and we offer four to five "wet" classes a semester as opposed to the two or three digital. The demand is always strong. We will always offer some form of traditional (read that as alternative process in the near future) film or hand-crafted process. It makes sense to me to offer choices -- if you want to be a pro, you have to learn more digital stuff, but the fine artists get to play with all the toys ;)

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.

[D. Bryant]

I teach and we offer four to five "wet" classes a semester as opposed to the two or three digital. The demand is always strong. We will always offer some form of traditional (read that as alternative process in the near future) film or hand-crafted process. It makes sense to me to offer choices -- if you want to be a pro, you have to learn more digital stuff, but the fine artists get to play with all the toys ;)

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.
FWIW, I teach Introduction to Film Photography and Introduction to Digital Photography at a local community art center. Our darkroom classes are the only one available in the Atlanta metro area and the students keep signing up.

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.

Don Bryant

[Brian Ellis]

"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.

[scott_6029]

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.

[Michael Kadillak]

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.

Don Bryant

We will be able to acquire ULF sheet film for as long as we want to. Why?

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.

Keep Smiling!

[David Karp]

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.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Plus, Kodak just improved the grain structure of TMY to be equal to what one would expect out of a 200 ASA film.

Keep Smiling!

Oh God! Please tell me the have not added an UV blocking layer to it as they did with Tmx.....Otherwise I am screwed!

[Michael Kadillak]

Oh God! Please tell me the have not added an UV blocking layer to it as they did with Tmx.....Otherwise I am screwed!

Rest east Jorge. I am happy to share with you that I was told just this afternoon that a UV coating WILL NOT be added to the new TMY sheet film. My Kodak contact went to the matt with management with this request/plea/directive and prevailed. Thank God he is a photographer and understands the reasoning behind it.

However, the compromise that was made is that roll film in the new TMY will have the UV layer added to it.

Looking forwad to some cold adult beverages in Ft. Collins next summer at the combined photo conference when we get this train with ULF sheet film back on the tracks soon. First one is one me!

Cheers

[SamReeves]

There's no question we still use film and like film. The big question is how long film will be in its current selection?

In the meantime I'm stocking my freezer with past date specials for the day its all said and done.

[neil poulsen]

Three cheers for film!
. . . Even as the digital revolution is transforming photography, more than two-thirds of professional photographers in a survey released Wednesday said they still prefer using film for certain tasks, praising its ability to add an almost organic quality to pictures. . . .

This is interesting and relates to capture. But, I wonder how these same photographers render these images, whether traditionally using a darkroom and enlarger, or digitally by scanning the negative or transparency.

I can kind of imagine what they do, depending on whether it's color or black and white. But, that wouldn't necessarily correlate well with reality.

[Dirk Rösler]

Guys, there is no question that some newcomers to the medium enjoy dabbling with film and college darkrooms are busy. That does not mean it is a representative view. Firstly, the question was directed at professionals. Secondly, we know what sales figures for film look like. Thirdly, as an example: some people say that the image quality of the Daguerrotype has never been surpassed - how many people nowadays use them and, more importantly, how many photographers benchmark their output against the Daguerrotype? Lastly, this is the LF forum and 99% of the world uses small format cameras. I guess you get the idea.

Not that it matters. You can enjoy film and photography no matter what 'the pros' use and think. Different requirements, different worlds altogether.

[Gary L. Quay]

After three years trying, I still can't get my professional, pigment-based, Epson printer to spit out a sheet of paper that matches the monitor. I can print color in the darkroom, and get what I want in about three test strips. I started printing color in the darkroom a few months ago, for a total of seven sessions. I have yet to see how digital is so much easier. Granted, I haven't had to do any masking yet.

--Gary

[Colin Robertson]

I shoot 35mm, 6x6 and 5x4. By next summer I'd like to be ready to try 10x8. I own no digital gear, but have cause to use it at work. So, I guess my personal taste is pretty clear. I love using film. I love printing.
However, I recently visited another forum where someone posted figures for sales of camera gear in the UK. Digital cameras peaked last year and have fallen back slightly, to £850 million. Film cameras fell from £150m, to £20m, then £6m! Now, this is hardware only. Not film, paper, chemistry etc.
The problem I see is that if the only new film gear on sale is Leica and Haselblad, what happens to the kid with a couple of hundred bucks to spend? Where is his entry to film shooting. Yes, right now there is a mass of unwanted, cheap second-hand camera kit to be had (In fact, my dealer has just halved the price on new RB67's to get rid of them). How old is YOUR kit? What happens when our gear begins to fail? Film can only survive if the next generation of togs have something with which to shoot it.

[Ben R]

"With digital, there's this whole thing of, 'Oh, it looks good enough to get by, it's fine, it'll do.' You didn't have that with film. Was it good enough? It was great!


I think that this statement is based on an economic reality for professionals of using smaller formats with digital than they did for film. You note that he does not deny that the marketplace is demanding digital, just that the consumer is happier with a lower common denominator of quality for the digital advantage. That the photographer demands a higher level of quality for his own work is at least encouraging but it still shows that pros are only using film if allowed or for their own personal (i.e. not pro level usage - the kind that goes through a LOT of film) projects and use.

Can't say that I find it particularly exciting for the prospect of film, just who would put money on Kodak's inherent loyalty to film? Ilford was taken over by it's managers when it went bust because of that loyalty, can't see kodak letting it get anywhere near that far given how far they've fallen already. Anyone want to put a date on how long Polaroid will last?

I think a previous poster made a good point, the film industry will move eastwards. I wouldn't be surprised at all if a few years hence the mass produced film is based in China with Europe providing a few niche films and cameras at higher expense.


"Digital will continue to get better and better and better," Smith said. "Maybe film will become an art thing, who knows? But there will always be those who want to shoot film."

His 2nd quote really puts it into perspective. It ain't coming back to where it was. The retro thing will wear off with the young like all fashions and even if they keep the passion past that age, commercial realities won't give them the scope to spend the kind of money on film that will break it back to anywhere near the level of pro usage that was. Just how many students in those dark rooms will use film in their jobs?

Those of us who want LF quality without having to pay a fortune are still going to be using film, those who like the look of film will still be using it, those who don't like technology will still use it. I just think that the underlying message of that article is contradicted by the content of the article.

[Steve Kefford]

Whilst the practices of one photographer are interesting, what would be more useful is a wider survey. B&W Mag recently produced the results of a survey run by Kodak of a large number of Europen pros. 65% of them still, & will continue, to use film.

Steve

[Ash]

The Foundation Degree course I start on monday (two years, then a top-up year to make it a full degree) is going to be my only real insight into the situation in the next few years.

During my portfolio showing/interview a few weeks ago I asked the course leader whether I'd be in the minority if I walked in with film cameras and used them extensively during the course. He didn't have a straight answer.

What it boiled down to was the course is made to be vocational - to get a foothold in the commercial photography industry. Guess what? He said the industry is pushing digital. So in a sense the industry dictates what he promotes in the course, and that will be digital capture. From his own mouth he said there is no point pushing film use if when the students hit the proper jobs everything is digital. It doesn't make sense.

Same happened with the AVCE Art & Design course. Originally a large part of the Lens-Based unit was in the darkroom. I was talking to my old tutor at the end of the two years of that course, he said he wouldn't be continuing to teach that darkroom part any more - "it's outdated". He could see the reality that most kids use digital.

I'm glad, however, that there is still going to be a place for film.

In fact it winds me up. I'm 20, for the past 4 years I've been using film exclusively and trying my best to put a good portfolio together (through all formats), then a guy I know waltzes up about a year ago knowing nothing, gets a fancy dslr and some lenses, a light or two, suddenly he gets guest passes to gigs and is selling his shots (albeit for peanuts) to a local paper.

That makes me sick on a personal level, but I'm still going to hold my ground and if I can walk out of the Degree course with a good grade, and the qualifications necessary to demand a fair price for my services, I would love to continue using film for fine art portraiture. I don't mind being a niche.

[Ash]

Oh I best clarify - the FD course has a large darkroom setup with multiple enlargers up to 4x5, and is fully b&w. Colour developing is possible but then the negs/trannies must be scanned on a scanner.

And the guy that winds me up, well, no he's not great at photography (before you bash me and worship him ;) ).

[Frank Petronio]

Knowing how to use digital well will make you a better film photographer Ash... you're lucky to live in a time when you can do both with ease. Getting instant feedback is very valuable, and it saves a lot of money wasted on Polaroid and guessing.

Group darkroom classes always suck anyway, once you get beyind the basics you'll readily outpace most of your professors anyway. Even at RIT in the 80s there were only a handful of profs that knew their way around the darkroom.

Just save a few coins and pick up a used 2mp pro body, like the old Kodak DCS720 from 6-7 years ago (maybe 100 pounds if not free). It is a rugged beast, like a "real" camera and it will use real lenses and all that. It should be sufficiently retro enough to cause a mild consternation (only 2 mp but his pictures rock!) and by going down in resolution and being somewhat digital retro... you'll show the gearheads that it isn't the camera or the media that matters.

Or just do something equaly absurd, like use a digital P&S really, really well, like this guy: http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844

Now that you're into school, the idea is to rebel against it ;-)

[cyrus]

The future is in photogravure and everyone knows it!

[Brian Ellis]

After three years trying, I still can't get my professional, pigment-based, Epson printer to spit out a sheet of paper that matches the monitor. I can print color in the darkroom, and get what I want in about three test strips. I started printing color in the darkroom a few months ago, for a total of seven sessions. I have yet to see how digital is so much easier. Granted, I haven't had to do any masking yet.

--Gary


Digital isn't easier, it's much harder. The only people who think digital color printing is easier than printing in a color darkroom are the people who don't know anything about it.

You find your color darkroom easy to use because you can do next to nothing in it from a creative standpoint (unless you start making masks, which almost no one does because it's a royal PITA to do and isn't all that great anyhow). Without masks you can do exactly two things in a color darkroom - get the exposure right and get the color balance right. You can maybe do a tiny tiny amount of dodging and burning before you mess up the color balance. That's it, end of print, move the next one on to the assembly line and do the same thing over and over again.

When you have almost no options, and when those two options are basically mechanical tasks, things are very easy. Printing color digitally is much harder because you can do so much more with it, the creative choices are literally infinite. So learning how to do those things requires a lot of effort and then applying them takes even more effort. But oh so much more rewarding.

I'm at a loss as to why you've been trying for three years to match your prints with your monitor and haven't been successful. Millions of people have successfully calibrated their monitors. What calibration system and monitor are you using?

[paulr]

The future is in photogravure and everyone knows it!

maybe the near future. for the distant future my money's on cave painting with charcoal.

[SamReeves]

Group darkroom classes always suck anyway, once you get beyind the basics you'll readily outpace most of your professors anyway. Even at RIT in the 80s there were only a handful of profs that knew their way around the darkroom.

LOL! Yup, and they all have a different version of how to go about the darkroom. One thing that peeved me most working in education was nobody was consistent with teaching technique at the basic level. One instructor would say wash your prints of 5 minutes, and another would say 20 minutes. Being a lab manager I'd have to flush out students who didn't wash in enough time because of all these different notions running around. :p

[Joe O'Hara]

All,

Interesting thing that the article didn't cite anyone praising Kodak's film in
particular. I'm coming back into the field after 30 years and from what I hear,
they're not at the leading edge any more.

I doubt that we will ever be able to make a 4x5 inch piece of silicon that is
as perfect as a similar sized piece of film. Digital wins in the smaller formats,
but it's hard to believe that it will ever match what can be done with a LF
camera and traditional materials.

If you like what film does, keep on buying it! Economics wins in the end.

Cheers,
Joe O'Hara

[roteague]

Digital wins in the smaller formats,

That, is a matter of opinion. I will gladly take anything out of my F6 over my D200.

[Los]

i bought a used 6mp dslr a week ago, figured i'd see what all the hype was about and stay up on what's going on with photography in general. i've printed from it mostly at 5x7, the 8x10 seemed to be a bit much for it. while i found the 5x7 print very good, it has a quality about it that is inherent to the technology that i found a little wanting. it is convenient, and the color and exposure controls have amazed me (using RSE), but it is more work and less "wow". i was carrying a canon VT in my walkaround bag. it was a gift from a family member who has passed and i was nervous about losing or damaging it, so i swapped it out with the dslr. the dslr doesn't quite fit in my walk around (it wears a 28mm prime), and it can't make a "wow" of an 8x10 like the VT. i give people credit for being sensible and smart. if everyone was seeing what i'm seeing in the prints, the digital honeymoon would be coming to a close real soon. oddly, as i was buying lenses and sensor cleaning kit for dslr, i did see many students at samys with AE-1's and k1000's. good for them. i guess film is still popular with pros and students.

[Rory_5244]

After a digital-using pro went on national TV in Trinidad to extoll the virtues of digital, and to make fun of my website's film use, he still hasn't accepted the challenge of putting up one of his (12MP) prints against one of my 8x10s enlarged to, oh, a measly 80"x100". Oh yes, and to allow viewers to walk right up to the prints. Come on, make my day. :cool:

[Dave Jeffery]

I was drawn into large format photography because my sister bought a 44" printer and I quickly discovered the limitations of 35mm capture for producing large prints. Perhaps the digital printing revolution will draw others in as well?

[Ben R]

I'm sure he would Rory if you shot your 8X10" at 3fps... :D

Seriously though, each format has its place and comparing a 35mm format whether film or digital to 3 steps up is just rediculous. People seem to argue film vs digital as a medium forgetting that each has to be compared within its own format size! That anyone can say that digital is better comparing his 12MP output (that IMO outresolves most 35mm film in general use) to a 645 even never mind an 8X10" is just silly.

[Dave Jeffery]

I was drawn into large format photography because my sister bought a 44" printer and I quickly discovered the limitations of 35mm capture for producing large prints. Perhaps the digital printing revolution will draw others in as well?

To add to that Canon and HP have just jumped into the large printer competition in a big way and if large printers become a lot cheaper as a result and proliferate, and a sweet, small, flatbed scanner for only 35mm, medium format and 4x5 is made with a glass bathtub for wet scanning, and digital sensors cannot increase capacity cheaply, there may be a lot more interest in medium format and 4x5 film use? Create a new 6 shot Graflock holder loaded by Fuji in a cleanroom which is recyclable?

Hey, I'm dreaming and I'm not even in bed yet.

[Gary L. Quay]

I'm at a loss as to why you've been trying for three years to match your prints with your monitor and haven't been successful. Millions of people have successfully calibrated their monitors. What calibration system and monitor are you using?

Monoco EZ color and a Huey monitor calibrator. It's an eMac with a CRT monitor.

Also, I'm a bit of a traditionalist when it comes to photography. A representation of what I see through the lens is what I'm looking for, perhaps that's why the darkroom fits me so well at this point.

--Gary

[Brian C. Miller]

Usher, a freelancer who covers the White House for both Newsweek and Time magazines and is coming out with a book illustrating hurricane-ravaged New Orleans, isn't surprised his colleagues expressed a lingering loyalty to some of the old methods.

71605

Chris Usher and his view camera, from a mini-documentary. He was also using something that looked like a Polaroid conversion.

[Jay DeFehr]

A five year old thread -- it might be interesting to see a current poll of the same question. Then again, it might be depressing.

[Fred L]

I believe he used a Razzle in New Orleans.

[cosmicexplosion]

"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.

i think he might be talking about , when you shoot digital, the camera has a hard time deciding where to focus the sky or the forground sky fore sky skitso shit

or maybe thats just in auto focus, or a prob long solved, also he means the cut and paste quality of the images as they dont blend as well as film,

i have seen some grand black and white prints shot and printed with digital,
mind you they were small.

but i dont think we should encourage too many people to use film, or we will lose our edge!

[Brian C. Miller]

According to Chris Usher's web site, he's currently working with wet plate. And from some of his pictures, he's using a lens with swirlies.

[Fr. Mark]

Is the argument that digital and film are different approaches valid? Oil paints did not completely kill egg tempera not did acrylic kill goauche. I thought I saw a statistic somewhere that the bottom of the film market was reach in 2009. The middle class in India (and maybe China too) is larger than the U.S. Entire population...

[Fr. Mark]

Humph. Did not realize how old this thread is! Oh well.

[Liquid Artist]

Still a valid topic, and it may be interesting to see if people's views have changed.

In my case I am actually using my digital for the first time in nearly 2 years. Only to photograph finished prints since I don't have a scanner and a gallery wants a digital version of what they are displaying.

I don't hate digital cameras, I just hate spending my days behind a computer. If it wasn't for my BlackBerry you'd never see me online.

On a related note. I was the only photographer out of 10 in an art show this summer that shot film. The rest came by and told me they wanted to switch back, but I doubt that more than one will.

Plus I got a sweet deal on a Beseler 45M last month when a local art center got rid of all their darkroom equipment. No one had used it in years.