Community weekly poll: Should camera manufacturers abandon film (and please explain)?
- 7/11/06 11:36 AM
you coulda printed it at a lab still so
by robert-0 - 7/13/06 7:13 PM In reply to: Film cameras by Savile Burdettyour own dumb mistake.....
Do not abandon film- YET!
by Kakez.b $ - 7/12/06 1:36 AM In reply to: Should camera manufacturers abandon film (and please explain)? by Marc Bennett
Until Digital Camera makers can produce a digital camera with the response time of a film camera and does not cost the earth THEN film could be abandoned
keefynh
my biggest complaint for digital as well
by littlefaith - 7/12/06 4:21 AM In reply to: Do not abandon film- YET! by Kakez.b $That's my biggest complaint so far with digital cameras as well. I don't need to be dragged kicking and screaming into adopting new technologies. I usually enjoy trying new stuff. I haven't had a digital camera that can take a picture of my preschool son faster than he can run away yet. Perhaps I just can't afford the high-end model, but I already invested in an expensive Nikon SLR many years ago, and I keep hoping Nikon won't abandon me as a consumer if I ever want to purchase additional lenses and such for my old but fabulous film camera. However, am I wrong, or didn't they already announce that they will no longer make film cameras? That makes me sad!!!
Digital versus Film
by AlecJ248 - 7/12/06 2:55 AM In reply to: Should camera manufacturers abandon film (and please explain)? by Marc Bennett
I have seen several incarnations of digital systems, each described by their progenitators as "the dog's bollocks" (excuse my anglosaxon!). A couple of years later the digital system involved has gone out of favour. exemplar gratis, 5-1/4 floppy disks, being followed by 3-1/2 ditto. I still use 3-1/2 disks for storing things, but no longer everything. The backups I put on 5-1/4 disks are no longer accessible. On the other hand, there are thos Dead Sea Scrolls which have survived the best part of 2 millennia and can still be accessed. I also have family photographs of ancestors taken 150 years ago, and one or two original negatives which can still be used to print new copies. How long will even paper inkjet printouts last? Sorry, digital is too ephemeral.
Film for Forensics
by PDeuth - 7/12/06 4:28 AM In reply to: Should camera manufacturers abandon film (and please explain)? by Marc Bennett
I own several film cameras, none of which I use any more. For my present purposes the Nikon D2X suffices, but a nice digital back for the view camera I have would be nice. As a sophisticated, experienced, and some-time professional photographer I find that the total control and instant access of digital photography are attributes too powerful to forsake.
I would use film for instances where a record must be generated, something that might be used in court, or whenever a legal question might arise. The negative will provide a record of the event that can not be manipulated after the exposure. On the very high end of film, a nice 4x5 chrome, scanned on a drum scanner, generates quality that even the hottest digital camera backs can't, but dragging along an E6 machine, a drum scanner, and a generator is a bother. Note that I would take the negative/chrome and scan it: I would not compemplate giving up control of my photo editing, manipulation, and output to a lab.
Even with the 12 mp Nikon I can up-res the photos to make 16x20 prints superior to film. Digital has, in the balance, too much in favor, yet film maintains that narrow niche. If you're new to digital, there is much to learn, as there is much to control. Take some classes, study Photoshop, join NAPP, and stick with it. Oh, take out a second mortgage at some point, too, for up-grades are lurking around the corner! Enjoy.
Film is still the primary medium for longevity
by Irelands child - 7/12/06 4:54 AM In reply to: Should camera manufacturers abandon film (and please explain)? by Marc Bennett
While I still subscribe to film as the best way to capture and keep photos, I have gone 95% to digital as my ''film of choice'' because of convenience. Film is sharper, negatives are almost permanent, large, commercial photography can only use film due to the small sizes of the photo sensors on digitals. Saving to a PC and ultimately to CD is only temporary - both deteriorate/die! Printed digital photos using print jets will not last more than a few years with todays technology - I have grandparents and parents photos from the early 1900's to the 1960's that are still as sharp now as they were then. Will digitals last that long? Not with current technology. Eventually yes, but not now !!!
Film is 35 Megapixels, Digital is not (Yet)
by cpeterka - 7/12/06 5:30 AM In reply to: Should camera manufacturers abandon film (and please explain)? by Marc Bennett
The resolution of a 35 mm Film picture is right around 35 Megapixels. That's what gives the 'Life' and 'Depth' to the photos you see in National Geographic. Once they get digital cameras at or above that point, then film will start to disappear from the main street and only be used by professionals with needs that can be addressed only with the film medium.
So it will exist for ... oh, say.. 10 years ? Then we had all better get some sort of digital medium that can be saved and archived and read over the next 100 to 200 years so our Great Great Grandchildren can see history. How many of us still listen to the Rolling Stones or Steppenwolf on 8-track tapes? or even CD's?
Technology will make all mediums ( except film ) obsolete.
Yes, resolution not there yet
by gaboury - 7/12/06 6:22 AM In reply to: Film is 35 Megapixels, Digital is not (Yet) by cpeterkaA cheap disposable film camera can have greater resolution than the best digital camera on the market, at least in terms of medium. People always seem to forget the importance of lens quality, which is why marketing resolution of digital cameras is quite misleading.
While 35 megapixels may be a high estimate for a 35 mm negative (I believe the number is about half that), the numbers for 4 x 5" and 8 x 10" film are still far beyond the capabilities of digital cameras, and will be for a few years at least.
Also, can someone tell me wher I can buy an infrared digital camera for the $5 it costs to buy a roll of infrared film...
You're a little behind...
by slamendola - 7/12/06 7:33 AM In reply to: Film is 35 Megapixels, Digital is not (Yet) by cpeterkaDigital has already surpassed 35Mpix (Hasselblad) They (Geographic) don't get the quality of their photos from the Megapixels, they get it from Editing, White Balance, and sharpness. If I took a Canon 1D or D2X (much less than 35Mpix) I could get photos just like theirs (with my experience). There is MUCH more than megapixels that makes the photo.
Film is superior to digital technology, cameras are the same
by shubhodeepdas - 7/12/06 6:45 AM In reply to: Should camera manufacturers abandon film (and please explain)? by Marc Bennett
It's the story which is repeating again, we had this with audio with the introduction of CDs and till today CDs are just convenient but their audiophile quality suffers when compared to LPs or good old spool. Digital audio, introduced much earlier than Digital Imaging has a long long way to go.
Similarly, Film has its grays which Digital Photography lacks. Its just too clear and uniform for comfort. Lets face it, "life" has its grays in audio / video, its analogue.. capturing the same in Digital's 1 and 0s will take time, not impossible though.
At present, film and analogue rules, even though digital is convenient. Professional use, no way.
DIGITAL VS FILM PHOTO TAKING
by sunfireplum - 7/12/06 7:07 AM In reply to: Should camera manufacturers abandon film (and please explain)? by Marc Bennett
No! The taking of photo's by conventional film is, at least, as good as that of digital and is much easier to view at a later date. The picture quality of film is superior at this time also. The Point and Shoot feature is also a strong positive. I prefer the option of using both formats. Thanks,
Maybe but film has its place
by rochagomes - 7/12/06 7:13 AM In reply to: Should camera manufacturers abandon film (and please explain)? by Marc Bennett
For Professional photographers, digital still can not suppase the depth and clarity of film. Film is hundreds or is it thousands of megapixals. Therefore, there are times a professional will need that clarity.
Also digital is still an energy hog (battery killer). They have been plenty of times I wanted to take my ''new'' digital camera but batteries are dead or almost dead (AA NMH) not lithium. And I have 2 sets of batteries. I had to grab my film camera which I brought 2 months after my digital for that reason and portability. I have a big zoom on my digital
Complex factor as it pertains to what to do with the pictures. Most times I do not want to review them and edit them. I just want to drop off the film and have something back in a few days or weeks.
Cost: I still contend digital pictures, if YOU print them out at home are more expensive than film due to ink and paper.
I wouldn't be willing to give up either one...
by CWatkinsNash - 7/12/06 7:32 AM In reply to: Should camera manufacturers abandon film (and please explain)? by Marc Bennett
but if I was told I could have only one, I'd keep film.
I love digital. I love the convenience, and the cost benefit of not having to have film developed.
I love film. I usually just have the negs processed and scan them in myself.
I love Photoshop. I can make a color image b&w, then imitate the effects of filters on that image. Perfect imitation? No, but pretty darn good. But there's nothing more satisfying than looking at an untouched shot and being happy with what you created - as-is.
The particular model of digital camera I currently have is a Kodak Z650 with 10x optical zoom (38mm - 380mm equivalent). Consumer reviews lament the fact that there's no anti-shake feature. I can see their point, but for years I've used a fully manual Pentax P3n. Throw a 300mm lens on the front of that thing, and you learn fast how to keep the camera still when you can't use a tripod.
I'm still getting used to holding a lighter camera. And for me, the possibility to manufacture cameras that are ridiculously small is not a factor. I need a camera I can feel in my hands. Fortunately, I found one that's shaped about the same as an SLR. I just wish it weighed more.
My P3n is great, but I also love my Argus C3's. I have three of them. Three identical, heavy, akward, brick-shaped cameras that each see things a different way. I can take the same shot with each and they will all be unique to that camera. Sharp? No. Good balance? No. Beautiful? To me, yes.
Will I ever buy a DSLR? Probably not, for the same reason I never bought a more advanced film SLR. Some people will understand that, others won't.
Not yet...
by kititian1 - 7/12/06 8:04 AM In reply to: Should camera manufacturers abandon film (and please explain)? by Marc Bennett
There are a few applications where the better resolution and color of film is still necessary. The problem with film then becomes the shelf life of the photos. Film is on it's way out.
Film vs. digital
by gmaida - 7/12/06 8:17 AM In reply to: Should camera manufacturers abandon film (and please explain)? by Marc Bennett
I have used at least 10 different digital cameras and I'm still looking for one that does not require editing almost every shot. They usually require lightening and increased contrast levels at least (except for the best sunlit scenes). I don't remember film cameras having that sort of problem. My cameras are Canon dominated but it's also true of Olympus.
Also,there may be professional or industrial uses of film of which I am unaware.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
%20-%20CNET%20Community%20weekly%20poll%20Forums&srcUrl=http://forums.cnet.com/5208-7813_102-0.html?messageID%3D2063278){kind=small}