Community poll forum: Will digital photography replace film photography?

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.

Why 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

If 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.

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.

Isn't this answering a different question?
Personally I find that Photoshop and PaintShop Pro are excellent products, but they eat hours.
I mean that once I start working on a photo I could go on forever tweaking this adjusting that...

I always try to take photos that I can print straight out of the camera. I love the immediacy of digital, it's like Polaroid on steroids. If the picture isn't right I can take several more.
As for Black & White, my last three digital cameras have been able to take excellent B&W as standard, just by selecting an option on the menu.

As far as Digital goes, it makes important advances in terms of getting cheaper and better. Is amazing to think that a little pocket camera will give you manual and automatic features in 7.1 Mpixels with about 900 pics at the highest resolution JPEG files like Olympus C-7000. You can shoot your heart out all week for less than $300.00 the price of the camera. Only the savings in film and processing for this kind of camera will pay for it in no time at all. Now if youre really picky about quality, if you're composing your pictures, if you wake up at dawn to get the first light on top of the water and you're bracketing to get the best possible exposure? Well then the cost and practicality is not your issue. You are the guy that is carrying his "glass" and medium or large format camera in two bags, if not more. That is because you come to realize that the real limitations of a photographer are his imagination and the "glass" he is using. I don't care about the pixels because a $30,000.00 digital back will give you the resolution but if you use a lens just about the size of your thumb nail you will just produce another piece of garbage, by your own intransigent standards.
To conclude, if you do Christmas pics to family and kids, and even more than that, digital will give you a lot of advantages.
If you're really anal about your photographs, if you want to be able to enlarge your work to put it on the side of the building, if you want to publish in some reputable magazines, you stick to at least medium format film and really good "glass"
Put your dime in it.
Nick S.

Ok, just give me a minute.

Believe me I have a 7.1 Mpixels camera and I know what I'm talking about. Maybe you should try a medium format Hasselblad or better 5x7 Graflex. You wouldn't know what hit you. The resolution is mind blowing. You can digitize at 4800 dpi rezolution and get 780 mb TIFF files. You don't enlarge 1/3 of the picture you enlarge 1/50 or more and you still get mind blowing clarity. Like I said, the limit is the quality of your lens. You shoud try a fixed focal lens for medium format agains your zoom lens and then you will see the difference.

never because there are people out there (artists) who prefer to have analog i think my brother said. He's an artist and he and everyone he knows don't like digital something to do with not getting the raw image or something. i feel like i said somethnig alot there

I would have said a harsh no 6 or 7 years ago, but now look at photography today. Digital photography has already passed film photography as the primary format in professional photography, but many will not give up their film cameras for sometime. Large format photography will not be replaced by digital for sometime, but some of the medium format digitals shoot 20MP or better (hard to beat that kind of resolution). The only bad thing is that those medium format digitals cost more than many new cars (right now).