Find tech advice for business here
Community weekly poll: Will digital photography replace film photography?
- 11/30/05 6:56 PM
Digital will only continue to get better
by rockosmodurnlife - 12/2/05 4:26 AM In reply to: Digital photography has still much learn by rolflindenI agree but until I can take my digital camera on vacation and think "i hope nothing happens to this camera because these photos are priceless" instead of "i hope nothing happens this camera because it cost so much" then disposable $10 cameras easy to pick up virtually anywhere and quite dependable will keep film alive.
never
by ColoGal2445 - 12/2/05 4:13 AM In reply to: Will digital photography replace film photography? by Marc Bennett
It could possibly merge but never replace. Too many still use film for photography and digital as ot gets better in technology will be a great equal.
Never--more reasons
by rwpryor - 2/16/06 5:31 PM In reply to: never by ColoGal2445I also say NEVER because there will always be artists who will continue to work in film, discover new techniques, rediscover old techniques, and pass along their knowledge to the next generation of artists.
We do it now the same way (artisticly): pinhole cameras, developing with coffee and soda or vitamin C and soda, cyanotype, paladium, etc.
Our local high school has lost the vision of offering a film class for adults. Perhaps they will regain it before their equipment gets trashed or becomes obsolete. If they do, I will take the class and get my hands back in the soup. I'm keeping my film cameras around just in case.
Will digital photography replace film photography?
by bertie59 - 12/2/05 4:50 AM In reply to: Will digital photography replace film photography? by Marc Bennett
It is almost certain to. I have worked in the traditional silver halide process for almost 30 years.I was recently made redundant by Kodak. The plant in the UK where I was employed was completely closed at the end of August 2005 with the loss of approx 450 jobs. Virtually all the equipment used in the manufacturing process was scrapped but some was sold at auction. Conservative estimates of the machinery scrapped in direct manufacture of the 35 mm product in our plant ran around £100 million . So far the drop in sales for 35 mm product has forced Kodak to shed some 17000 jobs worldwide and a further 7000 will be lost sometime in 2006. It also no secret that Kodak have already closed other plants such as Australia and Canada, who will be next?
However I perhaps should point out that I had 30 wonderful and interesting years with Kodak.I am sure the company will continue to adjust to this digital revolution and will continue to prosper and be a worldleader in the photograpy business
Yes
by rmr - 12/2/05 5:02 AM In reply to: Will digital photography replace film photography? by Marc Bennett
It already has!
digital photo replacing film photo
by coolsweetjoy - 12/2/05 5:18 AM In reply to: Will digital photography replace film photography? by Marc Bennett
Absolutely! I think it's already replaced it. Coolsweetjoy
It's only 5 years away now!!
by Ukexpat - 12/2/05 5:21 AM In reply to: Will digital photography replace film photography? by Marc Bennett
Newcomers to photography will most likely start out on digital but of those millions of people who are still on film there has to be an incentive to change.
If you only shoot 4 or 5 rolls of 35mm a year there is no cost incentive.
If you don't have access to a computer, where is the incentive ? (think of the many 3rd world photographers).
I suspect that film will be around, on a worldwide basis, for another 20 years before it becomes the equivalent of a vinyl disk - for afficianados and devotees only.
Define'replace'
by SteveF48 - 12/3/05 5:26 AM In reply to: It's only 5 years away now!! by UkexpatEven if you only shoot 4 rolls of film in a year there are incentives to change:
In the UK 4 films will cost about £100 to buy and process. A cheap digital camera and printer can be bought for about that price;
Enlargements cost the earth, but an A4 inkjet print will cost less than £1;
Reprints are expensive, but even high street shops will print a 5x7 photograph for no more than 15p;
It's far easier to tinker with digital files;
They are also easier to share on the Internet, or by email;
It doesn't cost anything to take a bad photo.
The incentives are already there
by Skcoop - 12/5/05 8:59 PM In reply to: It's only 5 years away now!! by UkexpatMost people I know, old, cheap, or just plain determined not to change, have seen the need to change with the times.
Most of their kids are buying them digital cameras in order to allow the exchange with family members through e-mail. If they didn't have computers before they have them now because their kids, grand kids and most of their friends use them as the main means of communication.
Even if they don't own a computer, almost all the commercial processing outlets now handle digital the same as they handle film. You indicate thinking of 3rd world photographers. If they have access to film processing, there is a near 100 per cent chance they will also have access to digital. In fact with the decreasing cost of the basic snap shot digital camera they are a natural for the third world market as they remove the cost of film from the equation.
We'll always have horses around, but they were replaced as the main means of transportation a long time ago. The same can probably be said for film. We may love it as a medium, and for its process, but digital will replace it as the main consumer level medium, and sooner than most of us will believe.
Probably not
by Chas666 - 12/2/05 5:40 AM In reply to: Will digital photography replace film photography? by Marc Bennett
Due to the VERY small size of the silver halide molecules and crystals in photographic film, the image captured on photo film will always contain much more detail than one from a digital camera. This is because the silver halides are so very much smaller than a pixel. So until they can make a pixel as small as a halide molecule, you'll always get a better image with the good old fashioned wet photography.
There are some assumptions here though. This assumes that you are using a decent lens, a tripod, and a correct exposure. Then you will have an outstanding image which you can scan into your computer and still have a better picture than one taken with a digital camera. Also, it doesn't make all that much difference how many megapixels your camera has, if the lens is poor then the image will be poor. In addition, 99% of photographers can't print a 16 x 20 inch print that could be made with an 8 megapixel camera; 3-4 MPs are fine.
For those scoffing at the tripod, it makes the difference between a snapshot and a photograph. There's a big difference.
Pixel size vs. Crystal size.
by mwooge - 12/2/05 5:53 AM In reply to: Probably not by Chas666Good points, but I disagree about your comments about the crystal sizes of silver halide. You say: "Due to the VERY small size of the silver halide molecules and crystals in photographic film, the image captured on photo film will always contain much more detail than one from a digital camera." But to get a decent resolution on larger prints you need bigger film sizes. More pixels. Clearly, the small crystal size isn't all that much smaller than a digital camera's pixel.
Pixels already equal color grain size
by timp7910 - 12/7/05 9:08 PM In reply to: Pixel size vs. Crystal size. by mwoogeGrain size is larger than you think.
Typical 6+ Mp 35mm sensor uses 8 micron pixel sites. The Canon 16Mp 1Ds is smaller.
Top quality color film, Fuji Velvia grain size........ 8 micron.
Sources: dpreview.com for Canon
Fuji film corp site for film grain.
Digital has already replaced film for serious 35mm photography. Medium format film is about equal to high end 35mm digital.
Probably
by SteveF48 - 12/3/05 5:49 AM In reply to: Probably not by Chas666It doesn't matter how much detail the media captures.
For all practical purposes our eyes are the limiting factor and it doesn't take a very high resolution to persuade the eye.
I have printed well exposed pictures with an acceptable colour balance on A4 paper from images containing less than 1 megapixel.
They wouldn't be acceptable in an art book, or magazine, but to the unaided eye there is sufficient detail to create a pleasing effect.
Digital will never completely replace film
by smartipants - 12/2/05 6:24 AM In reply to: Will digital photography replace film photography? by Marc Bennett
As long as there are people who love the art form of creating images on paper in a darkroom using tried and true techniques, film will always exist, albeit it may get harder to find the equipment needed. Professional photographers are making the change to digital for weddings and portraits, but film will always exist. People thought color would push out black and white, but it didn't happen because of the mood b&w adds to an image. There are still photographers creating daguerrotypes and other antique pictures, which were thought to come to demise by advances in photography. Taking pictures is not just for family snapshots, there are many artistic photographers currently creating works in older photographic media. :o)
35mm to digital
by stevoph - 12/2/05 6:32 AM In reply to: Will digital photography replace film photography? by Marc Bennett
I have stopped using 35mm since 2001 and I average around 600 - 1000 pictures to develop. Only half of them are good to print. Since I got the digital camera I have cut down the cost of developing the films. And now I am producing MORE image with my digial camera with more accuracy. If mistakes are made, I just delete it and try again. Also I can store up 2000 image on a DVD-R. Yeah, 35mm will phase out for sure within due time.
Stevo
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
