Community weekly poll: Will digital photography replace film photography?
- 11/30/05 6:56 PM
Yes and No
by Dr. Planarian - 12/2/05 2:34 PM In reply to: Will digital photography replace film photography? by Marc Bennett
For all intents and purposes digital photography has already replaced film. The highest megapixel professional digital cameras are already approaching the resolution of all but the finest grain films, and will soon surpass them. The ability to view electronically taken photos instantly is a benefit that film can never match. The ability to manipulate the color and contrast is unique to electronic media. And the cost per photo is rapidly approaching the infinitesimal, except for those that you might choose to print on paper, and the cost for those is falling as well and is already comparable to prints from a developer.
This is not to say that film photography will actually go away. After all, you can still buy records on vinyl, and some people still drive their '58 Oldsmobiles with pride. Film will always retain a certain quaint charm that will appeal to the same pretentious folks who still obstinately maintain that vaccuum-tube amplifiers are the only ones capable of reproducing high fidelity sound, and amps that employ transistors are only for the gauche.
But by 2010 the detail even in consumer electronic cameras will exceed what you can get from a top-line Hasselblad or Speed Graphic and any type of film now available. For any conceivable photographic, as opposed to historical or cultural, purpose, film will no longer be used.
Be careful what you post Mr. Planarian it may start a war.
by jmco007 - 12/2/05 9:15 PM In reply to: Yes and No by Dr. PlanarianQuote:
"Film will always retain a certain quaint charm that will appeal to the same pretentious folks who still obstinately maintain..."
This is a open public forum and you should keep that in view. There are 10's of 1,000's of us who appreciate the artistic beauty of film and to call us; "pretentious folks who still obstinately" is offensive. thus you are not worthy to bear the title "Dr." Your lack of courtesy, decency, and sensitivity disqualifies you.
Hence, "Be careful what you post Mr. Planarian it may start a war."
Fine artists may disagree, Dr. Planarian;
by cvismeg - 12/4/05 3:18 PM In reply to: Yes and No by Dr. PlanarianWhy paint a portrait or nature when photography is much more superior capturing reality?
The artist may find reason to follow an ''antique'' media with its processing technique to express his or her intent without digital wizardry.
Totally optical system with analog film is a form of fine art.
Amateur almost totally, Professional mostly.
by gryps - 12/2/05 7:08 PM In reply to: Will digital photography replace film photography? by Marc Bennett
In a similar fashion to CDs replacing vinyl and audiocassettes, we'll see digital photography mostly replace conventional film photography. While I'll keep my early film Nikons, I have had my darkroom packed up for some years, far preferring to use digital 'film' and a digital 'darkroom' for speed and cost.
I must say, though, that I still have a good collection of vinyl records and also a wind-up portable gramaphone and a bunch of 78s. Audio cassettes we use in our classic cars, although we have CD stackers hidden in them too.
As most of the photos I take are for reproduction, it is simpler, faster and easier to use digital, and for most purposes the quality is certainly adequate, even for magazine reproduction.
Will digital photography replace film?
by rjfitze - 12/2/05 8:08 PM In reply to: Will digital photography replace film photography? by Marc Bennett
No, as the digital cameras lack: speed, quality meaning mega pixels are too low. The mega pixels should be about 100 or more and we've only reached 22 mp at a cost of $22,000.00. The cost is outrageous as well.
depends on the price. eventually
by back_water_tech - 12/2/05 9:30 PM In reply to: Will digital photography replace film photography? by Marc Bennett
I like to think I am an amateur photographer. 
I love to use my Canon Rebel X 35mm camera.
I recently purchased a Toshiba 3.2 mp digital
I like both cameras, but i still take all my "good" prints with the Canon. I use the digital to get an idea what the shot should look like and then take it with the 35mm.
If I could get good large prints (i sometimes get some of my landscapes blown up to poster sizes) out of a digital camera, then i might use it more.
I do know that my sister's digital Rebel does take real nice photos with its 8 mp setup, but for the $1200 she paid for it, it had better take good prints.
Film will be here for a while. until I can go to Wal-Mart and pick up a $10 digital that takes as good (if not better) photos as the 35mm through a way’s, then film will be on the way out. Until then, we wait. 
Film + Scanner give higher resolutions
by pelota - 12/2/05 11:31 PM In reply to: Will digital photography replace film photography? by Marc Bennett
Those who like to print large can get better resolution from a 35mm film scanner plus film. My Minolta ScanElite 5400 II give me over 40 Megapixels worth of resolution. To my knowledge, no digital camera gives nearly that resolution. Not even close! So I believe serious photographers will be using film for some time to come.
Do you know that Digital X-Rays are Replacing Film X-Rays?
by mrmanfam - 12/3/05 5:40 AM In reply to: Will digital photography replace film photography? by Marc Bennett
Absolutely the digital technology will replace film. The cameras are lighter weight and smaller, one can take hundreds of shots and re-use the medium instead of buying new rolls of film, and processing can be done as cheaply (or expensively) as one wants AT HOME! Processing is also IMMEDITATE, so one can take a photo and put it in a report right away! Plus, its the way to go for transferring photos on the internet.
If it's any indicator, hospitals are already using DIGITAL imaging for X-rays instead of the old fashioned FILM x-rays. Done in this way, we can send the image to a specialist in another country (and vice versa) immediately over the net. And if the quality is good enough for diagnosing small, life and death tumors, the quality will be good enough for photos of Uncle Joe.
Define 'Replace'
by SteveF48 - 12/3/05 6:02 AM In reply to: Will digital photography replace film photography? by Marc Bennett
I think that one can say that film has replaced digital, when it is easier for the general public to buy and use digital than film.
In the Western World I think that is already the case, my nearest photgraphic store only sells about 10 types of film camera.
However it will be a few years before the whole world is completely digital.
Other forum members have mention black & white, daguerrotype, etc. This is like saying that the horse and cart still exists, true, but irrelevant to this discussion.
For the average user, digital. But professional maybe not.
by konwiddak - 12/3/05 6:42 AM In reply to: Will digital photography replace film photography? by Marc Bennett
Digital cameras are advancing fast and by 2010 I beleive will occupy 99.9% of the market. Film cameras however will never be replaced, in the same way if you search hard and long enough you can find amplifiers using old fashioned vlaves. Film still retains some advantages over digital, the pictures can be blown up bigger, shorter delay between pictures and not so important nowardays but the cameas dont always need batteries. For these reasons there will always be film cameras out there, just they wont be that common.
Yes, absolutely
by philomat - 12/3/05 10:29 AM In reply to: Will digital photography replace film photography? by Marc Bennett
Because digital photos are both much cheaper and less of a bother to deal with.
They take less space than those huge photo albums that weigh a ton!
They are easier to organize than paper prints.
It's easier to share them (online or on CD/DVD.
They don't fade or get torn.
It's easy, fast and cheap to make backups of our whole photo collection.
In fact, the only reason I still have paper prints made is to accomodate older friends/relatives who dont use computers. And even then, I can order copies online and have them delivered wherever for a few pennies per photo!
Louis-Philippe Thouin
Quebec, Canada
Question too ambiguous
by - 12/5/05 7:09 AM In reply to: Will digital photography replace film photography? by Marc Bennett
What is the question exactly?
When the general public will completely abandon film in favour of digital?
Or professionals?
Or artists?
The question is just too ambigious.
I think Joe Average has already abandoned film in favour of digital.
Professionals too
by SteveF48 - 12/8/05 6:10 AM In reply to: Question too ambiguous byIf you ask publications which format to use to submit a photograph the answer will be very often be digital.
Magazines and newspapers are almost exclusively composed on computers, so most of the images people see every day were produced by professional photographers with digital cameras.
Publications
by nsevastian - 12/8/05 8:07 AM In reply to: Professionals too by SteveF48Actually this is not true. Respectable publications that care about the quality of their product require to have the page lytographed and the process requires huge file sizes. Only maybe if you have a 22 MP back or if you digitize your medium format you are going to make it to print.
don't think so.....
by afmcorp - 12/5/05 9:30 AM In reply to: Will digital photography replace film photography? by Marc Bennett
obviously a large portion of picture taking will be done on digital formats. this is seen by the hughe number of digi cameras being sold. but.... there are photo styles that i don't believe can currently be replaced by digital images. black & white for example. until everyday software can change or enhance fotos equally as well as manual modes i think there will be at least a small portion of the market will remain with non digital formats.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
