Community poll forum: Should camera manufacturers abandon film (and please explain)?

So take your photos at a higher resolution. Taken at the highest resolution your camera is capable of, your prints should be better than what you can get from blowing up an original print (unless you're going to great lengths).

First of all, film is just as susceptible to resolution as digital cameras are, though it is governed by film speed and film size, as opposed to megapixels. Albeit the average 35mm film is as high a resolution as many semi-professional digital cameras, film has it's own pixel, which is called film grain. If you blow up film picture, you will of course not spot any pixels, they don't exist, but you will spot the grain of the film, which is just as unpleasant as spotting the pixels.

It also depends highly on the speed of the film. with an ISO (also called film speed) 100 film, you can blow up to a much larger size without seeing the grain, than with a film with an ISO of 1600. you blow up a 1600 ISO 35mm negative to an 8x10, and you'll see grain, but for the average 6mp digital camera picture, you can easily blow it up to an 8x10, without seeing the pixels. You'd also see this kind of noise by raising the ISO in a digital camera, so once again, there are many variables.

All of these factors contribute significantly to the "resolution" of pictures, be it from a film or a digital camera. Not to be disrespectful, though your "comments are simple", they address an issue which cannot be addressed that simply. Indeed, film can easily have a higher resolution than a digital camera, again depending on it's film speed. If you were to take a picture at a normal film speed, say 200 or 400 with an 8x10 view camera.... there would be no consumer digital camera that could possibly match the resolution of that picture. Although view cameras are expensive, an average one is $4500 (US) (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=63768&is=REG&addedTroughType=search)
their resolution surpasses comparably priced digital cameras many times.

So the answer to the main subject of the post, is... film will have its uses for years to come, though someday it will be come defunct, as image sensors become more and more advance, requiring less power, and therefore generating less noise. Sigma cameras utilize Foveon's X3 chip, which has each color registered on a different layer of the sensor. This allows the sensor's pixels to be larger, and they therefore need less power, and generate less noise. Perhaps this will the be the future of high-quality digital imaging. We'll just have to wait and see.

i know that you can easily get good 8x10 prints from a 35mm camera, i wasn't saying that you needed to spend 4500 to get a good film camera, i was saying that if you were to spend money on an 8x10 view camera (wasn't talking bout the print), there would be no digital that could surpass it. I love both formats, and though i don't think you can possibly get as creative with film as you can with digital, there's nothing in the world like standing in the darkroom waiting for your exposure to be complete and developing it yourself. One of the main reasons though that i love my 20d, is that if you're having trouble getting the shot at a decent shutter speed at 200 ISO, all you have to do is up it to 400 or 800 with the push of a button. Impossible in film without multiple bodies or changing films mid-roll.

Check out that Foveon X3 though, used in sigma cameras, it allows information to be captured at every point on the sensor, much higher quality.

Good talking to you and by the way, didn't think i said much in my bio....

digital photography is certainly more convenient and easy to use than conventional film photography. each of us will have to decide our own preferences based on what we want from our photos, and how much effort we are willing to expend.

the question of curtailing production of photographic film will be one decided by the marketplace. if there remains a demand then someone will fill it. otherwise film will go the way of buggy whips, slide rules, and the such, as it should be.

respectfully, Carl G.

I have a digital camera (6 mega pixels) which cost 140 brand new. I shoot at high Resolution and after downloading resize to 10 X 8 inches and save at 300 dpi. This gives an image that produces good quality prints.
Using a better cammera and saving at higher resolution and size you can get pin sharp photos at A3 size
keefynh

I use a Canon 350D with Tamron 28-300 f5.6 zoom lens.
My main interest is Military aircraft and having taken over 1000 images of Aircraft during FOUR DAYS a week ago I have to say that I could not have taken the shots I took with a film SLR.
The cost of film alone would prohibit such useage never mind processing cost or chemicals if I did my own processing.
Of the 100+ images less than 10% have been deleted.
OK I expect I will end up with a couple of hundred pictures saved but they will include examples I would have missed without using Multishot taking 3 images a second as the fast jet approaches.
OK so I may look biased but a good friend of mine who has been taking wedding photos comercially for the past 15 years has just sold his Miranda / Hassleblad half plate systems and converted 100% to Digital. The results are just as good. His customers are pleased with the results and can get the images on CD / DVD for a fraction of the cost before he used digital. The processing house he used charged nearly 5.00 a print to scan an digitise to jpeg. For a 50 picutre album that is over 200 ! try explaining that to a customer. Now he puts the pictures on disc free of charge as part of his service.
Is Film dead ? I have to say NO right now put is in Intensive care and undergoping constant trteatment to keep it alive.

Film is old news no longer need you can buy a simple digital camera for almost what a couple throwaways cost.. When I take pictures with my Digital I can take 300 pics and throw away the ones that are not perfect.. you can do anything with a digital that you can a film camera. Quit wasting silver on Film..

Thank you for writing that. I have made three posts trying to say exactly what you just said! Does this make sense? They are talking about taking pictures. You are talking about photography. I think there is a difference! Sort of paint by numbers (photo editing) and an original oil painting (composing, adjusting light, exposure, developing time, film speed, etc.)

Digital is subject to loss from crashes, accidential deletion, alteration, etc.
I prefer paper records because:
1) I have lost data from crashes
2) Have been unable to transfer all photos as I changed systems.
3) Accidently deleted files
4) As technology advances, yesterday's digital photos may not be compatible with new OS and software.
5) I have had online records altered by a financial institution. My only proof was my paper statements which they don't like sending!
6) The best back up for photos are paper prints and negatives stored in a safe, climate controlled, fireproof location.
http://www.LowCostTelecommunications.biz

A full frame digital camera such as the Canon 5d costs over 2k. Most of us simply cannot afford such an item. My K2 rebel however does full frame and it was 200 dollars. When the time comes that all digital slrs are full frame and the price is a lot less than it is now.. then maybe it'll be time to abandon film. But as of right now that would be absurd. Plus.. I still see better quality with film over digital.. not much of quality difference but there is some.

With the advent of higher resolution cameras digital now rivals film. No longer is the darkroom the place for the master... the place is now software like Photoshop and the computer. As much people that are used to cameras want film to remain, ( as we did with vinyl records ), the truth is film has been replaced... Film is way expensive compared to memeory which is reusable over and over... the price of computers has come down and if you don't own one.. you can go to the local store and have the pictures printed from your digital media... Why fight what is already here ? Of course the embedded base of film cameras and the people that will want to appear as if they don't go with the crowd will keep film around for a few years.. Too bad Kodak!!! ( by the way Kodak has some awesome digital cameras for the lay person... I bought one for my daughter and she takes it everywhere and loves it!)

I can get special effects with my digital camera, I can shoot in the dark, I can get pictures of comets, lunar eclipses etc. I can control the shutter f-stop and iso, I have virtually no shutter lag so i can catch anything, I can blow up my pics to 20x30 without problems 35mm has to be dead on for that. It sounds as if your stuck with a point and shoot. Don't think for a second that i would give up my film camera but digital has surpassed film at least at the 35mm format.
It is not warm though like the differance between a CD and an old vinyl record.

you can get a digital rebel XT, an 8 megapixel camera for around $800, and a 75-300 (non image stabilized) zoom for around another $200. These are average prices, you might be able to find them cheaper.

Digital can indeed capture wildlife, though i am still learning, here are some basic shots i took using my digital. Though they aren't the best, it shows that digital really does have potential. (low res files for the web, my camera has much higher output)

http://photo.net/photos/nokiah

enjoy

I'm still reading through all responses before I post my comments, but I had to respond to those pics. They are beautiful.