File :-(, x, )
iProd !8x7lXo9zIQ
I ask you this, beloved /p/. How much longer do you think film photography will last versus the age of digital photos?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/5.6Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2007:05:26 15:26:28Exposure Time1/640 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0.7 EVMetering ModePartialFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length55.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1440Image Height960RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
First off, Interesting shot.

I think it'll always stick around, just as radio didn't kill newspaper, tv didn't kill radio, e-mail didn't kill the post, etc.

I DO think that for now there's overlap in quality between film + digital. For example: pro film beats shitty digital, pro digital beats shitty film. I think that in the future (long-term) digital technology will surpass that of what film can do.

Ultimately, it's all about personal taste + application. I hate arguing with people about why digital is crap or why film is crap.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
Let's put it this way. Earlier this week, my store got in a shipment of 6 full boxes (20 packs) of fuji velvia film, and the same amount of Fuji provia film. They were all sold out, so I had to walk away with just 2 rolls of Provia.

There's audiences out there for both, and both will continue to stick around. Most photographers will migrate over to digital, for ease of use and easier editing, easier color correction and easier photoshopping. There are stubborn photographers, like me, who will continue to use slide film, or regular film (i personally very, very much dislike negative film, though, the quality is horrible) or eventually begin to use both, depending on what the "assignment" or "job" is. I don't think film will ever actually die, though.
>> Anonymous
>>50688
For foreseeable future. People enjoy film, it's quite different from digital, so I think there always will be someone who will want shoot film. If nothing else, look at lomography movement.

If you would have added "among professional photographer", it would be a better question.
>> des
>>50688
Think about it like this:
You can still get Super8mm film.
You can still buy cassette tapes and reel tape.
You can still buy reproduction parts for hundreds (thousands?) of vehicles and pieces of equipment.
If there's money to be made somewhere, someone is going to try to make it.

Will film be popularly relevant to the average consumer? I'd say it already isn't. For artists, experimenters/enthusiasts and special purposes users, it always will be.
>> Anonymous
Don't forget about the problems with film like the law of reciprocity. That problem will never be solved in film, and digital will never suffer from it.
>> ac
>>50701
>digital black and white which just has all of the saturation removed giving it a bland grey effect.
Digital black and white is just as real as black and white film. There's really no significant difference between 0x000000 and 0xFFFFFF and fully-exposed/completely-unexposed emulsion.

I think the bland gray you're talking about comes from people inexpertly using the somewhat naive "desaturate" technique to convert to black and white.

>>50703
Reciprocity failure isn't necessarily a "problem" that needs to be "solved". It is, in fact, one of the reasons why digital doesn't have as much exposure range as film does.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
The one disadvantage to film is sitting downstairs right now and if mom didn't take her little point and shoot digital, i would've taken a picture of it and shot it. The living room floor is compeltely covered in little white boxes full of slides. Over 500 of them, 36+ pictures inside each. There are also 3 wastebaskets full of slides to be thrown away, and another box of empty boxes beside that.

See guys? we never get that with digital; all i have to do is go downstairs and i'm wading through slide heaven! Then again there's another 200+ boxes in the closet and some more i can't find yet around the house... oops.
>> ac
>>50707
Wow. It seems like such a waste to throw away slides like that. Are you sure there's nothing worth keeping?
>> ac
>>50714
(Of course, I say that as someone who's maxed out at two rolls of film in a single day. You shoot film like I shoot digital, so I guess I can understand chucking a lot of slides...)
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>50722

i deleted it cause i thought it sounded mean. Apparently not ;) no, i seriously go through a lot of film if i'm in the mood to shoot, and I "see" a lot of shots. I stopped trying to "make sure I got the shot" a long time ago, and just follow my instinct, now. it's never failed me, to be honest.
>> ac
>>50725
You should send me your to-be-chucked slides instead of just throwing them away. I'd be interested to see your leftovers.
>> Anonymous
I think artists will still use film if they're going for a film look, but not otherwise.

Question: what are the aesthetic differences between the look of a good film and the look of an image produced by a good digital sensor?
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>50726

they're pretty crappy. seriously. They deserve to be thrown away.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>50727

to answer you question, in all honesty, I don't think there is a good negative film out there, that i have seen, that can take decent pictures. Digital has any print film beat out any time of the day, and if slide film didn't exist I would've already moved to digital.

Fuji Velvia film 50 & 100 and to a point Provia 100, gives me color saturation, detail, a fine grain, a wide range of color and.. well. an "artistic" feel to my photographs that I am simply in love with. It pops right out of the slide, to the point where if I set the lighting correctly (i do everything but manually focus) and don't frick up things on my end, i get consistent surprises and wonders when i get my roll of film back. Colors I didn't notice with my eye when I took the picture are there. It picks up things I would have never noticed. I hate to say it this way, but I can't get that with some of the digital cameras i've tried. Not without a lot of photoshopping and a lot of color mixing afterwards. I guess i just prefer t do the "darkroom" or "photoshopping" work with my camera, on the film itself, as opposed to working with it afterwards.
>> Anonymous
Black and white film will always be a favorite of mine. It's easy enough to develop and print that it's still enjoyable to be hand-on with. It's less convenient than digital but still has the visceral feel of working with your hands. Color film is just too much work for me to process myself.
>> elf_man
From what I've read, there's print film of nice high quality, but getting it developed pretty much kills it, unless you do it yourself, which is complicated and expensive compared to b&w. Which is why digital seems to beat it.
>> Anonymous
for actual photographers, film is still a necessity and will always be...there are some techniques that can only be done using film like, Polaroid transfers/lifts, salt prints and cyanotypes just to name a few altho you can print ortho lithos in a printer, you still dont get the same quality as you do with real film....so for actual artists, real film is better for most things, while digital can be useful for others
>> Anonymous
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbbYeH-DXko
>> Anonymous
>>50767
...

Is this duck?
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
I love film, I love the darkroom, I love gelatin silver prints, and they all allow me to do things that would be impossible with digital.

I can't say whether or not they'll continue to exist, but I'll enjoy it while it lasts. I'm starting to think I was born about 30 years later than I should've been. :(
>> ac
>>50766
>so for actual artists, real film is better for most things, while digital can be useful for others

should be

>so for actual artists, real film is better for most obscure niche techniques used specifically to get a unique, lomo-type aesthetic, while digital is roughly equivalent for 99.9% of the photographic techniques that people actually still use on a regular basis.