Shop RadioShack for Great Gifts
Community weekly poll: Will digital photography replace film photography?
- 11/30/05 6:56 PM
No excuse
by photobuff55 - 12/2/05 12:24 PM In reply to: 35mm to digital by stevophMaybe if you were taking film and had to pay for processing you'd be more careful to take the picture right the first time. Digital is not an excuse to delete at will. Put your camera on manual and learn to be a photographer!
NOTHING WILL EVER REPLACE THE 35MM NEGATIVE
by photobuff55 - 12/2/05 6:41 AM In reply to: Will digital photography replace film photography? by Marc Bennett
Technology is changing, evolving and hopefully improving - very fast. Too fast. The normal person can't afford to keep up with all the advancements and enhancements. The eternal fall-back is the film negative. It's been around 100 years, it will continue to be the mainstay. Just think about the history of the videotape. It started out Beta, VHS won the day, then we had the 8mm tape, then the Hi8, now "camcorders" write diectly to DVD and many can't handle any kind of tape. Granted, the tapes weren't great, they disintegrate over time, but what about a DVD/CD getting scratched, warped in the heat, broken in the cold? And who's to say that in 5 years (never mind 10 or more!) there will be any equipment around that can recognize a DVD? Give me the 35MM negative any time. Stored properly, they'll last another 100 years.
35mm Negatives
by SteveF48 - 12/3/05 6:06 AM In reply to: NOTHING WILL EVER REPLACE THE 35MM NEGATIVE by photobuff55I would be very surprised if you could still print from a 35mm negative in 100 years.
Where would you find the paper, enlarger and chemicals?
In a museum?
Digital can easily be transferred from the camera, to hard disk, CD, DVD, or any other media that comes along.
If I were you I'd start scanning my negatives. I am.
scanning Negs
by wmorten2 - 1/13/07 11:48 AM In reply to: 35mm Negatives by SteveF48Scan all you want, the electronic media (unless periodically refreshed) will deteriorate in less than ten years.
Large Format Negatives
by Donaldsc - 12/3/05 1:55 PM In reply to: NOTHING WILL EVER REPLACE THE 35MM NEGATIVE by photobuff55Actually, I suspect that the 35 mm negative may disappear but large format negatives will not. The differences in image quality between 35 mm negs and digital will diminish and disappear and the obvious convenience of digital will overwhelm 35 mm.
However, I doubt that except for the extremely expensive and inconvenient large format backs that are now available whether digital will ever equal the quality of large format negatives.
The biggest worry may be that as the market for analog drops, vendors will stop producing the wide range of film and print paper that is now available. As we speak (or write), some print papers that are beloved by professional photographers have been discontinued.
There is hope, however. You can still buy analog records and tubes for your $20,000 tube amplifier.
Yes - Absolutely
by WilliamKazak - 12/2/05 7:18 AM In reply to: Will digital photography replace film photography? by Marc Bennett
The amateurs like digital. It has a few advantages for them. They don't have to take it to the photo lab, they can just put it onto their computers and e-mail their pics to friends.It also allows "discreet work", where no lab will see their pictures.It is cheaper not to buy film and spend money on film processing.
Because digital is so popular, many film companies are are going to go out of the film business.This is already happening.Camera companies are not going to make film cameras if they don't sell.
The consumer market place is choosing digital.Therefore, camera manufacturers are responding by improving their digital cameras and lenses.Costs are coming down. Everyone is excited about digital photography.
Film is king,for now but that is changing RAPIDLY.
Digital has replaced my 35m SLR film, period....
by JayeD - 12/2/05 7:45 AM In reply to: Will digital photography replace film photography? by Marc Bennett
Digital imaging allows restoring, archiving & saving disintegrating film.
Digital image storage technology lasts longer (does not rot, disintegrate or degrade as fast as film).
Digital photography & technology accommodates higher definition, clarity, color & allows real time image viewing so missed angles, layouts & setups can be re-captured. Only the best shots are kept, mistakes can be deleted saving money on prints.
Not Simple Enough
by benoddo - 12/2/05 7:52 AM In reply to: Will digital photography replace film photography? by Marc Bennett
While technology has made digital photography almost as simple as today's disposable point and shoot film cameras, it still isn't simple enough for some people. Believe it or not, I have seen people have problems using disposable cameras. So it will be a few years yet until the technically challenged shutterbugs have gone the way of the dinosuars.
Digital Advantage
by wizard_z5 - 12/2/05 8:00 AM In reply to: Will digital photography replace film photography? by Marc Bennett
Digital Cameras offer more advantages in todays society. The most important thing for almost any product out there is convienience. Digital cameras have become the best method for photography because more and more applications require that pictures be digital anyway. If you need a pictue on the internet it is much easier to just take it as a digital image and then upload it (rather then take it, develop it, scan it, then upload it). Polariods are pretty much gone due to the amazing instant access of digital pictures. In a matter of minutes you could take a picture and email it to your coworkers and have them looking at it. No one will agure that digital pictures are better than poloriod, even on the worst digital cameras.
You see it at home too. It is just more fun to see the picture you've taken right away. Printing has become cost effective and efficient. You just take your camera card to walgreens, walmart, ect., and have them print your pictures in less than 10 minutes. The digital cameras are idiot friendly so there are no worries there either.
For those that are more advanced there is even moe to digital photos. Digital photo retouching is the portrait photographers best friend but digital editing extends well beyond that. If you have a high quality digital camera that records in a camera RAW format then you have a wealth of advantages by plugging into photo edititing software, like photoshop CS2. Of course this software doesn't eliminate then need for taking good pictures but does give opportunity to make good pictures better. Preparing pictures for print really becomes just the start of the possibilities of digital photos in computers. Plus there still is the convienience. Pictures can be stored in your computer and easily found when needed, and .jpg isn't going away. Then they could be printed quickly if you needed a print version as well.
I doubt it
by demingy - 12/2/05 8:05 AM In reply to: Will digital photography replace film photography? by Marc Bennett
Let me put it this way: has graphic art replaced painting, drawing, and other forms of similar artwork?
Don't get me wrong, digital photography has replaced film photography for me personally, but I am not a "photographer". I know some photographers use digital cameras, but there are very few that I know who use digital exclusively. I also know several artistic photographers that still would never touch a digital camera.
I do believe that digital photography will take over for the most part in the "mainstream", but there will still be the artists who will prefer film photography (and will produce beautiful prints that could only be done with film).
Never
by billhartmann - 12/2/05 9:23 AM In reply to: Will digital photography replace film photography? by Marc Bennett
Not until digital photography can be in a form that is not easily modified. When used as evidence or proof of the digital photograph is too susceptible to modification. Of course film can be modified, but not as easily and undetectably as digital.
Shooting digital = Drawing on newsprint paper
by TrackStar1682 - 12/2/05 9:40 AM In reply to: Will digital photography replace film photography? by Marc Bennett
This came to me a few nights ago while I was out doing some long exposures with a friend. (Yes, we were using film, because digital sucks for long exposures!)
That same day, I took 86 digital pictures, although I normally use primarily film.
Why do people draw on news print? Because you can sketch stuff up quickly and easily and do a ton of work for cheap! Don't like your drawing? Start another or draw an X thru it! Really hate it? Crumble it up and throw it away!
Newsprint is good for doing a large volume of rough drafts and drumming up new ideas the same way digital can help expand your horizons for taking pictures. But, the same reason artists do their best work on better quality drawing papers or canvas is the same reason I do all my best photography on film.
I'll take a ton of digital photos and print maybe a few a year, but I'll also take hundreds of pictures with any of my 35mm film cameras and have a print made from nearly every picture and almost never regret it. Digital can be absolutely amazing for helping people learn and getting people into photography (I started on digital and then switched to film, strange, huh?) but it will never replace film because real masterpieces are made with film.
RIGHT ON!
by photobuff55 - 12/2/05 12:52 PM In reply to: Shooting digital = Drawing on newsprint paper by TrackStar1682I agree totally. Both have their place and time. Having digital does not negate the need or desire for film. Another example of the right place for digital is when our pastor was on a mission trip in Nigeria. He was able to take photos of the mission and upload them to the church website same day. But that doesn't mean film will go bye bye forever. Someone else talked about it being difficult to alter a 35MM negative in terms of legal evidence, which is true. However, working with film also requires a degree of knowledge of photography so that you get the picture the first time. There's a talent in that. When I'm taking pictures for entering in contests, I take pride in the fact that I got that photo on film and it wasn't altered to be something my talent couldn't create. And I've said it before - you can have the best of both worlds if you get a CD of digital scans when you get the film developed. There's nothing like that 35mm negative as backup to your CD - or vice versa, depending on your point of view.
Absolutely, but not completely
by rick_s_francis - 12/2/05 9:59 AM In reply to: Will digital photography replace film photography? by Marc Bennett
Digital has enough advantages to insure that it will replace film for general use:
With digital you get instant feedback of previewing an image. You can delete bad pictures without paying to print them. You can store far more pictures in a digital camera than a film camera. You can enhance digital pictures far easier than film. You can easily and cheaply share digital pictures via email or a web site. As for image quality, for small prints (4x6) I can't tell the difference between a 2MP digital vs. a point & shoot 35mm camera assuming that both pictures are properly exposed and that both are printed using quality paper and printer. If you go to larger sizes there is a difference, but I have a wonderful 11"x17" print from a 6MP DSLR and that is as large a picture as I am likely to print.
As more people switch to digital film will become more expensive and the cost of digital cameras will come down prompting more people to switch.
However, no matter how good digital becomes film will ALWAYS remain as a niche market for a variety of reasons. Some people will not want to learn something new. Others have a large investment in film cameras and equipment that they won't want to replace. Still others will stick with film for artistic reasons. After all there are still people making modern Daguerreotype prints! Currently Medium or Large format film cameras do have higher resolution than their digital counterparts but the cameras are very expensive and the film & processing costs are high too.
-Rick
will digital replace film photography
by xxecphoto - 12/2/05 10:28 AM In reply to: Will digital photography replace film photography? by Marc Bennett
Eventually,Yes (for the non professionals).
Yes and No for the Professionals.
I typically shoot photos that will eventually be blown up to 16x20, poster size and larger. The very top of the line or high end digital cams with 24mega pixels leave a little something to be desired in the finished product. But for Wall size blow ups film (Professional type)is still more dependable.
I love my D70, but I'm still in love with my Mamiya 645, and my Nikon 8008s. Since the invent of digital any one that can hold a camera will take a shot,
(it's called point & shoot), it's an image but maybe not what they saw or expected. But to truly shoot you must compose and allow for existing light, strobe light, flash, or night conditions, you must set the camera manually, not automatically. Auto simply means the camera will adjust everything for you as it reads the area, and all camera work on the medium area, closest subject, brightest image. I might want to shoot a grey cat on a cloudy day just inside the door. And I enjoy shooting nature, have you ever seen the inside of an orchid, (I have through my shots). The camera should capture what you saw not what it wants to give you. By 2025 Digital will probably be the only thing going (available) (maybe). Take your best shot with a digital and compare that to a shot taken with 100spd film and a shot taken with 64spd slide film, now blow all 3 up to 11x14 and you will see the difference, in fact you will probably see the difference in your initial print(s) Polaroid has almost completely stopped making instant film (almost)they now make digital cams for other companies. Kodak has lost a valuable share of the film market due to digital cams. But Kodak has for the past few years made digital cameras as well as film. Kodak and Nikon have calaberated on camera design. Yes the film era appears to be coming to an end, but not yet. My first good shot was taken with a Nikkormat FT3 one of the best 35mm invented (I still have the camera).
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
