The Death of Film

It needs one of these.
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …00_Camouflage_T​ripod.html

groundloop wrote in post #14956879
Excuse me, but that comes across as a mighty rude comment. I didn't read anything in the Original Post advising others not to use film, nor criticizing those who do. What I read was one person's opinion of why he chooses not to use film anymore.

As for me, I too grew up using film. I never had a darkroom myself, but I've shot thousands of rolls of film throughout the years. I also agree with everything that was said, and I don't much miss film either. One of the things I remember is loading my camera with ASA 100 (planning on shooting outdoors on a sunny day) only to be disappointed and faced with the choice of either waiting for good light or wasting half a roll of film. I've also shot an entire roll only to find that it didn't properly load, I certainly don't miss that.

I personally view film much the way as I do vinyl records - I believe the modern alternative is much better. If you want to shoot film or listen to clicks and pops with your music more power to you. But I much prefer digital.

This is pretty much me too. I didn't shoot 1000's of rolls, but certainly 100's, and never had the time or really the interest in developing. Now I have the luxury of time, but I much prefer sitting here at my computer as I work, watching the waves break on the reef and beach, instead of being locked up in a darkroom with smelly chemicals.

Also, it's easier to experiment with different editing techniques. There is a whole world of creativity available to the photographer today that just didn't exist to any reasonable extent back in the days when film was the only option.

While I loved shooting with film, I've taken totally to digital and don't plan on looking back.

Curtis N wrote in post #14964101
A wooden view camera on a carbon fiber tripod.
I dunno. Something about that just seems wrong.

Its like a '34 Ford with A/C and power steering.........lol

Wood view cameras are still manufactured today, principally for their light weight. My Korona was built sometime between 1895 and 1912 and still works great.

Nature Nut wrote in post #14963719
The real question is: Would Ansel Adam's have used a DLSR if given the opportunity? The digital community needs more famous people to fight the war of Digital v.s. Film

Maybe Annie L. will abandon that photoshop processing and go back and shoot film again to "fight the war"

HappySnapper90 wrote in post #14962376
Hmm, record a video then? If you want to "record an event as it happened", you want to take photos that tell a story not sterile photos that shows people in a room and which color the walls are and the weather conditions.

I would say that a lot more photos are taken in the interest of simple family records than those made to tell a story.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #14963718
But it aint passed and it aint dead. I haven't shot film in almost 7 years. Not one roll or one sheet but I know a lot of people that still do though most are shooting medium and large format but theres a guy tuna and sjones that post here that shoot 135 format and do better street work than 95% of the others seen on POTN and they do it with film.

But how many of those "might" shoot digital if the price of a digital back wasn't so prohibitive? I'm not downplaying the possibilities, just wondering. I once toyed with the idea of going to a 4x5, but the opportunity just never became a real option. 15 years of 35mm, then a few years of sporadic digital P&S, now APS-C digital, and this is where I call it a day. I'm very happy with my current format, and don't intend to incur the cost of moving beyond it. I'd rather focus on be the best I'm capable of with that than trying anything new at my age. I still have a daunting amount to learn just with shooting and developing my RAW digital images.

Preeb wrote in post #14965229
But how many of those "might" shoot digital if the price of a digital back wasn't so prohibitive? I'm not downplaying the possibilities, just wondering. I once toyed with the idea of going to a 4x5, but the opportunity just never became a real option. 15 years of 35mm, then a few years of sporadic digital P&S, now APS-C digital, and this is where I call it a day. I'm very happy with my current format, and don't intend to incur the cost of moving beyond it. I'd rather focus on be the best I'm capable of with that than trying anything new at my age. I still have a daunting amount to learn just with shooting and developing my RAW digital images.

4x5 is a wonderful experience, I started using 4x5 back in the late 1970s when I landed a job with the photographic unit of a large industrial plant. The department had two Linhof kits with Schneider glass between three photographers. We only used 4x5 and medium format for any serious photography. 35mm was mainly used for photojournalism type photography,, we had an interworks newspaper.

In 1986 I commenced a four year course in commercial photography at college level. All practical lessons were conducted in 4x5, although any work we submitted and shot outside could be done on 35mm or medium format. The college had Linhof and Sinar cameras. I bought a Sinar P2 whilst still studying but stupidly sold it after I was offered a job for a newspaper 1990.

I haven't processed film since 1994, the newspaper went over to shooting colour around that time and film was processed by a lab. Given the camera, film, chemicals and equipment I could easily shoot and process film again without much thought

I shot film seriously, with developing it on my own and everything for around one year, because I've been told it'll make me a much better photographer (you aren't a real photographer if you don't shoot film" is what I was told)....it didn't, then I finally realized what does help me, working on my composition and lighting. I hated the smell of the chemicals, and being locked in a darkroom on a beautiful day.
I don't think anything I learned during my film year I couldn't have learned using digital, in fact, I actually learned much faster using digital.
I don't really see film as magical, but that's just me. I love digital, and I love that it lets me focus more on the creative aspect of photography.

So, personally, if film died, I wouldn't mourn it, but I wouldn't go out and seek to kill it.
If others enjoy it, more power to them, it's the end result that matters, and just as I enjoy digital more, I acknowledge that others enjoy film more. It's the end result that should matter. However, it really gets me when film buffs try to assert their medium as the superior one, cause fact is both film and digital have their pros and cons.

KhaledA wrote in post #14969206
However, it really gets me when film buffs try to assert their medium as the superior one, cause fact is both film and digital have their pros and cons.

It gets me when anybody says, "You're not a real _______ if you don't do _______". Do whatever gets you to where you want to be.

You're not a real photographer if you don't do film
You're not a real photographer if you don't do digital

What does it matter? Opinions come and go like trade winds in the Bahamas.

jetcode wrote in post #14971813
You're not a real photographer if you don't do film
You're not a real photographer if you don't do digital

What does it matter? Opinions come and go like trade winds in the Bahamas.

You forgot the most important one:

Your not a photographer unless you shoot exclusively on M mode.

I use A mode because I can only twiddle one knob at a time. Hell half my cameras have no meter at all! No dials. And everything is upside down and backwards talk about modern conveniences.

moose10101 wrote in post #14971336
It gets me when anybody says, "You're not a real _______ if you don't do _______". Do whatever gets you to where you want to be.

Yeah, you're right on this one.

My most vivid (pun intended) impressions of film are what a giant PITA it was when working on a deadline. Anyone who has printed from wet film and carried wet prints to the editor will know what I mean. Now you can shoot, instantly see what you have, change iso up and down within a job in the same camera, process, and transmit from the site. The only reason I have to touch another roll of film is to maybe shoot with my Nikonos, and that is only because my current underwater cam is a point and shoot.

It was fun years ago, but there was no alternative.

I can't imagine the film path for commercial and newspaper work and with deadlines. I make way too many mistakes taking my time with film and I can't print for squat. Well I can but it takes a week or so per image. The neg has to be dead on to get a good print for me. Fortunately between the scanner and latest Adobe toys I have considerably more control.

The place where film really shines is in large prints. I saw a show once where these b/w winter images of Yosemite shot with an 8x10 or larger covered the walls of a restaurant with a 20 foot ceiling. It was breathtaking. Absolutely gorgeous. I was with Galen Rowell and all of a sudden his work had a new reference. Galen shot 35mm and 16x20 was pushing it. I shot a young ballerina once on a 8x10 and 35mm. That was a good day. I love MF film too. And 4x5. It's novelty imaging today but it used to be defacto standard.