Community weekly poll: Will digital photography replace film photography?
- 11/30/05 6:56 PM
Will digital photography replace film photography?
by Marc Bennett - 11/30/05 6:56 PM
Do you think digital photography will replace film photography in a few years (let's say by 2010)?
Absolutely (why?)
Possibly (why?)
Still too early to say (why?)
It will, but not by 2010 (why not?)
Never!!! (why not?)
Could merge
by comicfan - 11/30/05 11:36 PM In reply to: Will digital photography replace film photography? by Marc Bennett
I don't think it will replace it completely for a while. I think if anything, it may merge using both together, which in some respect it has, then eventually replace film. With newer technology, eventually we may get digital to small enough um, specs?, that would rival or better true film. Pixels will be a thing of the past. Just as digital sound is rivaling analog sound, already filters frequencies wasted, (ones the human ear can't hear) but still has a while to go before complete digitized\analog I guess I could call it?
Paul
Absolutely
by SteveF48 - 12/2/05 2:23 AM In reply to: Will digital photography replace film photography? by Marc Bennett
When a well-respected photographer like Patrick Litchfield says that he is now fully digital, you have to believe that film is dead.
He reckons to save £80k ($128,000) per annum, since he stopped using film. I certainly couldn't afford the 2000 odd pictures I've taken this year if I had to pay for processing.
I don't think that anyone can tell a photograph made by a 4 megapixel, or above, camera and a modern inkjet from one made from film.
Film is dead, digital rules
It's already in process
by kaycep - 12/2/05 7:12 AM In reply to: Absolutely by SteveF48Bad pun, but irresistible. The Brownie camera brought film camera photography out of professional hands and into the mainstream, just as the increase in pixel capability is meeting with the price drop now. Photography is defined by price and availability and I see the digital revolution as underway if not already complete except the shouting.
Brownie Cameras versus "Real" Cameras
by Donaldsc - 12/4/05 12:17 PM In reply to: It's already in process by kaycepAlthough Brownie cameras put photography into the hands of the vast unwashed majority who are completely incapable of taking good photographs (as compared to snapshots), you can still go out and purchase a 4x5 or 8x10 view camera.
What to bet as to which group of people takes better phtographs?
The average person who takes pictures with a digital camera takes hundreds of pictures on a weekend in the vain hope that one of them turns out good - if they could even recognize a good photograph. Wouldn't it be better to try to compose and then shoot instead of just puching the shutter button.
Convenience is not necessarily quality.
You describe method not material
by Skcoop - 12/4/05 7:39 PM In reply to: Brownie Cameras versus "Real" Cameras by DonaldscI agree with what you say in principle, but also feel you over look the obvious. When method, knowledge, and emotional effort are combined, the device used to create or capture the image will be of little consequence, regardless of being film or digital. The result will still be closer to what the photographer intended than the happy accident most snap shooters are quite happy with. To them thats part of the charm.
emotional content
by usn_m_adair - 12/7/05 3:37 AM In reply to: You describe method not material by Skcoopi think that you have the wrong term of what a good picture is. what i find good is anything that had meening to me. the same picture you think is crap. i also think that whatever gets me that picture the easiest and best quality should be what i buy. digital.
Photography is defined by price?
by nsevastian - 12/13/05 3:32 PM In reply to: It's already in process by kaycepThis is the stupidest thing I heard here. Tell that to the pro who spends thousand of dollars on camera lenses and process wheather is digital or film or both.
You Sir, don't know anything about photography, or photographers. Photography is defined by judgment, talent, inteligence like any other art. Don't confuse please a photographer with the average tourist Snap shot Joe. Don't forget whether is digital or film the camera and the equipment is just an artist's tools. The demand on the tool will determine what the artist will use; provided he has the budget for the best, he will use the best, and most expensive equipment either film or digital. If you lack an unlimited budget, like the rest of us you start to make compromises. The tools limitations at the high end are related to the quality of your lens and not by the quality of the film versus the digital sensor. The point is that one has to decide whether he needs a camera to create art or he needs it for Hollidays, tourist shots or birthdays. The divide between digital enthusiasts and pro's follows this divide.
You say
by comicfan - 12/2/05 2:08 PM In reply to: Absolutely by SteveF48that he has went digital? Very interresting. Well, I guess my point is moot then and it seems things have already shifted into the higher ranks of photography. If a professional will use digital then the tides have turned already. Thanks for that info, appreciated.
Paul
Not so, in general yes, but not everyone will leave film
by jmco007 - 12/2/05 8:35 PM In reply to: Absolutely by SteveF48I for one am not a pro, it is a hobby. Film has a quality about it that no digital camera can rival. Film has now an archive 300-500 years, digital is 5-10, but they are working on it.
In short, the Ford Model T was passed by many decades ago, but they are still with us, car shows, movies, and nostalgic car buffs. Film like classic cars will endure.
'Film will endure'
by SteveF48 - 12/3/05 5:55 AM In reply to: Not so, in general yes, but not everyone will leave film by jmco007as a curiosity.
I have owned several film cameras, in fact I still have two. Film is as you said, like the Model T, a museum piece.
There may be some specialist areas, e.g. high speed photography where it will stand its ground for a while, but even Agfa and Kodak have seen the writing on the wall.
film is like v8's
by tglpn - 12/4/05 9:25 AM In reply to: 'Film will endure' by SteveF48there is going to be several of us who still like's to dip our fingers in chemicals, and feeling around in the dark just like some gear heads like the feel of grease and oil on a old 283 chevy engine It will be probably rare but still there.
Thats the problem
by adamharte - 12/13/05 12:53 PM In reply to: Absolutely by SteveF48This is such an amature way of thinking about photography. You cant just wrap everything up into a nice little gift basket like this. its not really about if digital it taking over film, because there are so many factors. For example, there is a total difference between the Professional and the Amature. Digital cameras has made everyone think that they have a gift for photography, and for some reason they seem to think if they snap away filling up there memorystick plus there 6 backup sticks from there little camera backpack, that they will take beter shots.
The concept of digital cameras and being able to take photos for free, and only having to print the selected few, is taking away from the art. People dont take the time and respect each photo deserves. Its not like film where you are always thinking, "this shot is costing me money, so I beter take full advantage, and think about the angle, lighing, contrast. etc"
film vs digital
by julian falutz - 1/3/06 9:23 PM In reply to: Absolutely by SteveF48Take the "taste" test. Take the same picture with a film and a top quality digital camera (more than 4, and preferably 5 megapixels), have each processed with top grade equipment and then ask several (non)professional friends which photo they prefer. My experience has been that film photos are easily distinguished (I am comparing photos taken with a Nikon N80 and 28-105 lens to those taken with a Fujica E550 6.2 megapixel camera).
Now, if you aren't that fussy about quality... then go ahead and take those 2000 digital pics each day, and unless photography consumes your entire life, what exactly will you do with them? How will you easily file them? How will you easily and dependably print them?
Sorry, for me, digital is not yet ready for prime time. For the snap-shooter, maybe.
Digital photography has still much learn
by rolflinden - 12/2/05 3:30 AM In reply to: Will digital photography replace film photography? by Marc Bennett
If you compare e g two portrait pictures - one taken digitally, one 'old fashioned' - you will see my point of view. Skintones, highlights etc in digital pictures are still underperforming when compared. Unfortunalety the crowd of happy consumers do not see these shortcomings and they believe that what they get from theire 'high performing 8-12 megapixel cameras' is state of the art. What really will kill analog photography will be the pricing of the pictures consumers take.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
