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

your own dumb mistake.....

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!!!

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.

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.

Digital 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.

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,

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.

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.

After over 60 years of photographic experience, including 4 years using digital cameras, I believe that digital cameras are great for non-critical work. If you need to make prints larger that 20" x 40", the most advanced digital camera is marginal at best. The other point is that the prints haven't been around long enough to prove that they aren't affected by atmospheric and other agents. I still use film cameras for exacting work, but certainly will use a digital camera for the general run of photos.

Digital sucks! Film is best!

I don't think film will be replaced by digital. They both have a place in the market. I'm a professional photograper and received as part of my BA, photography and fine art. I love getting into the darkroom and experiment with film. Photographers who are professional will continue to use film. I process colour film, black and white and also use infrared film. I also use a digital camera for quick reference in my creations. I like to experiment with digital shots with my Photoshope programme.

First point - photographers make photographs, cameras only record what you want to see. A good photographer will work with whatever medium they are using and will select a film to capture a scene how they see it, whether it is Velvia or PanF or a digital SLR
Second Point. Digital doesn't do black and white - and it has nothing to do with resoution. The tonal gradation of a good BW print is so far ahead of anything digital can produce that it'll take a dedicated black and white sensor (not a mickey mouse "feature" or a quick photoshop tweek) to close the gap. The market would be small so the unit price would be far too high so I don't see one appearing any time soon.
Third point - I use a medium format film camera, from each film I expose I expect to be able to print at least 9 of the 12 frames, shooting in 35mm I might get 10 worth printing from a 36 exposure film. With my digital camera my keep to throw-away ratio goes to about 1 in 20 or less. Don't confuse quantity with quality. I don't have access to a view camera but if I did I would expect to be getting close to 1 exposure, 1 print with very little waste (partly because of the expense but mostly due to the time and care needed to set up the camera in the first place.)
Fourth point - references have been made to grain, pixels and "noise" as if they were all the same thing. They are not! Digital noise is never attractive, pixels don't add to an image but film grain can become part of the photograph and can enhance the image (not always - but sometimes)

It's great to see so many people taking an interest in photography again but please remeber that you are your own most valuable critic - keep the duff shots to yourself and let the world see some good photography - whatever you use to capture it.

I think that the manufacturers has not developed any camera with the resolution of a film camera.

When that occur, maybe the film will be dead.

the epa in the us will not continue to allow the chemical dump created by the film camera industry. Its over Paper weights unless someone comes up with film coating that does not polute