The Death of Film

moose10101 wrote in post #14959297
You're entitled to express your opinion about film. However, your desire to be "the first to throw dirt on its casket" is flat-out offensive.

How about answering the question that several posters have asked: why would you want to deprive others of the choice of using film?

I'm sorry, but I have no idea how to respond to your odd hyper-sensitivity to this issue and your baseless accusations. Good day, sir.

irishman wrote in post #14960162
I'm sorry, but I have no idea how to respond to your odd hyper-sensitivity to this issue and your baseless accusations. Good day, sir.

Maybe you should reconsider your purpose for starting the thread in the first place. You don't like film; fine, is someone trying to force you to use it? If not, why go out of your way to crap on a technology that many of your fellow photographers still enjoy using (even some of those who also shoot digital).

It just seemed to me to be an overt effort to be inflammatory.

P.S., none of those other things you mentioned are dead, either. Not being "mainstream" doesn't mean something is dead.

Guys. Could you please keep to the topic here and leave the attitude behind.

Moose, there is no place here for profanity, even when starred out.

Film is not going anywhere. It will be come less and less used by the masses but I know several photographers that coat their on platinum papers and still do van dyke brown and cyan o type prints. The more rare these processes become the more valuable they become because there is nothing in the digital world that looks like those processes. There are many like sjones that have a preference for film and that is the tool of choice for them. They think in terms of quality over convenience. I have been digital now for almost 7 years. I think both film and digital have a place. I miss the darkroom and will someday be shooting film again. I still have hundreds of rolls of film in my freezer. Some Ektalure and some Kodak Elite paper in grades 2 & 3.

watt100 wrote in post #14959865
Since you keep bringing that up why not ask National Geographic how many of their photographers use film ? I did and got a response from their Photography Dept

here you go:
askngs@nationalgeograp​hic.com

You may be shocked, (even amazed) that National Geographic is fully in the digital era !

Nat Geo is not only NOT fully digital, they periodically publish photos using technologies much older than modern film (e.g. tintypes).

What I'm shocked (even amazed) about is that someone from their photo department apparently doesn't even read the magazine.

I still use film (Fujichrome). I have noticed that the color saturation and the grain work better as opposed to digital. From the latest I have read ,color positives have an equivalent "megapixel" ratio of 24
Luis E Gonzalez

moose10101 wrote in post #14960828
What I'm shocked (even amazed) about is that someone from their photo department apparently doesn't even read the magazine.

Not really, plenty of people working for their employer have no interest in using or consuming the employer's products.

watt100 wrote in post #14959865
Since you keep bringing that up why not ask National Geographic how many of their photographers use film ? I did and got a response from their Photography Dept

here you go:
askngs@nationalgeograp​hic.com

You may be shocked, (even amazed) that National Geographic is fully in the digital era !

There was a piece on PBS of the top images of 2009 IIRC in 2010 and half the featured photographers still shot film.

frugivore wrote in post #14957339
I have not had the experience of shooting film, aside from depressing the shutter button on my dad's camera a few times. I do intend to try it.

Some of you mentioned that film is still being used professionally. Is there a parallel in the video and/or audio industries? If so, to what extent has digital medium replaced them so far?

I would think that video has all but killed movie film sales.

For 2.5 minutes of motion capture you would need.

Film:

Kodak Super 8 film (50') $17.95 + $3.99 shipping.
Film processing $15.00 + $7.00 shipping

Total for film $43.94 (no sound btw)

Digital:

1gb CF Card $0.00 (you probably already have one that will work, you also get sound :smile

airfrogusmc wrote in post #14961059
There was a piece on PBS of the top images of 2009 IIRC in 2010 and half the featured photographers still shot film.

hate to bust your bubble airfrog but National Geographic Magazine sailed into the digital era a couple of years, the number of film photographers is ....
(roll drums) ....... almost none !!
Don't believe me?
askngs@nationalgeograp​hic.com

watt100 wrote in post #14961300
hate to bust your bubble airfrog but National Geographic Magazine sailed into the digital era a couple of years, the number of film photographers is ....
(roll drums) ....... almost none !!
Don't believe me?
askngs@nationalgeograp​hic.com

Did ya see the piece? Did ya see the cameras they were using? There is still a place at the table for film and most photographers choose what they feel comfortable shooting. Did you even watch the links I posted in #4. Film is preferred by many photographers. Most don't post hear but go to a large format or medium format forum.

I remember that video was going to kill still photography. Color was going to kill B&W. Zoom lenses would be the death of primes. CDs would kill vinyl. MTV would kill the radio.

Video killed the Radio star

watt100 wrote in post #14961300
hate to bust your bubble airfrog but National Geographic Magazine sailed into the digital era a couple of years, the number of film photographers is ....
(roll drums) ....... almost none !!
Don't believe me?
askngs@nationalgeograp​hic.com

In your post #42, it was zero. They were "completely digital", remember? Fact is, you don't know how many. It's probably a small minority, but it's not "zero".

Save the drum rolls, please.

moose10101 wrote in post #14961474
In your post #42, it was zero. They were "completely digital", remember? Fact is, you don't know how many. It's probably a small minority, but it's not "zero".

Save the drum rolls, please.

LOL

All you gotta do is ask:
askngs@nationalgeograp​hic.com

You don't even need to be an NG subscriber !

airfrogusmc wrote in post #14961329
Did ya see the piece? Did ya see the cameras they were using? There is still a place at the table for film and most photographers choose what they feel comfortable shooting. Did you even watch the links I posted in #4. Film is preferred by many photographers. Most don't post hear but go to a large format or medium format forum.

No, I haven't seen the PBS from 2009 but it is easy to find out the National Geographic photographers who still use film in 2012