Future of Photography....Your take.

I see the locic of film for Full Format camera's....it will be quite a while before they will go out I think.
35mm on the other hand.....looks like it's anyone guess from what I see from the feedback here.

Just remember folks.....it's not the camera that makes a photo....it's the person behind the camera.
Don't matter....Digital or Film!

digital is nicer. All Film is a dirty process that deserves to die. I have processesed acres of orthochromatic (litho printing film) over 40 years. The chemistry I have tossed into the environment plus the plastic substrate materials I have tossed out is frightening.Digital is so much more eco-friendly.
Sam

digital is nicer. All Film is a dirty process that deserves to die. I have processesed acres of orthochromatic (litho printing film) over 40 years. The chemistry I have tossed into the environment plus the plastic substrate materials I have tossed out is frightening.Digital is so much more eco-friendly.
Sam

My take simple in another three years film is gone, look at it this way in the last three years we went from 2.5 meg censors to what now 16. & 10.2 when full frame becomes the main stay then film will go. Even large format or the 4x5 class is feeling the digital impact.

Here is the issue just like when the instat-a-matic or the 110 came out, the amount of camera's sold, out numbered the amount of people who knew how to use them. Digital is here and it will stay. The amount of people who know how to use them is still about the same, add into the mix the software which was once hard to get the image dialed in is now almost as diverse as the cameras that are coming out and with each six months something new will be added, updated or a new release and still the amount of people who know how to use it is about the same.

I have a mentor who like me we still shoot both, until my 4x5 and the large format is completely digital, we will still shoot both, we both figure that time will be within three years.

Chas

Canon website lists 6 DSLRs and 5 35mm SLRs. (54.5% - 45.5%)

B&H lists 33 DSLRs and 31 35mm SLRs (51.5% - 48.5%)

Might as well say about half and half. By that I would say 35mm still lives and will be around for a long time.

Graphyfotoz wrote in post #2245518
I see the locic of film for Full Format camera's....it will be quite a while before they will go out I think.
35mm on the other hand.....looks like it's anyone guess from what I see from the feedback here.

Just remember folks.....it's not the camera that makes a photo....it's the person behind the camera.
Don't matter....Digital or Film!

Except for B&W where film has much more dynamic range. Once this gap has been closed, which still could be several years from now, film will only be for a few remaining enthusiasts.

rhys wrote in post #2245384
I think digital has revolutionised photography. It has brought costs down tremendously.

I have yet to see how my costs have been brought down "tremendously". Actually, I've never spent so much as I have since going digital.

Software costs, including plugins and upgrades
My 20D body was 10 times more expensive than my Elan II. And I'll replace a DSLR body more often as technology improves.
Memory cards (and from some recent posts here, they DO fail)
Printer that will be replaced every couple of years.

and I make just as many prints as I did using film, maybe more ...

And what do I get?

1. Images that rival slide film (maybe even a bit better) but with much less dynamic range than B&W.
2. A camera that I have to be very careful not to get wet (Didn't worry as much with my Elan II or my old OM-1).
3. A viewfinder that's so dim I can't use it to manual focus.
4. Limited ability to shoot outside at -20 to -30C ... which in my part of the world is common during January and February.

Don't get me wrong, I really, really like my 20D. But I'm also looking forward to the next generation of cameras that hopefully will use less power, be more weather resistant and have better dynamic range. And I'm looking forward to full frame, because man do I miss having a bright viewfinder.

With revolution of HD programming at home, new systems are able to freeze action at any point, at a resolution of 1920x1440 currently.

Fast forward this question 15 years from now....
What if there is no digital SLR anymore. People can just freeze the future of HD video and put it to print. Things like Newspapers can pick the best frame, sports magazines can just do the same. Maybe photojournalists will not be still photographers anymore. I am scared.

joeflux wrote in post #2246181
Fast forward this question 15 years from now....
What if there is no digital SLR anymore. People can just freeze the future of HD video and put it to print. Things like Newspapers can pick the best frame, sports magazines can just do the same. Maybe photojournalists will not be still photographers anymore. I am scared.

15 years is too short. There are still a few fundamental inventions needed to bring about a total shift. However, some of those are close to reality. Freescale is working a totally new memory technology that promises a 100 fold increase in cost/capacity making things like disk drives a thing of the past. Foveon is playing with a new sensor type. It's not ready to replace either CMOS or CCD but there is much more potential there than the current technologies. But for the shorter term, I see a real market for software improvements such as what Canon did with Digic III. Face technology, landscape technology will help those who do not want to learn a lot about photography take much better pictures. Now build in HDR, automatic macro stacking and a few other things and even someone with little knowledge will take stunning pics.

To keep up with the recent postings:

Cost:
I spend the same amount or less on my equipment.
My Body and Glass is no more expensive than my 35mm equipment was.
(Canon A-1/Minolta X700 with a Tamron 28mm and a Tamron 60-300mm both were the adapt-all series)
But then again my Digital equipment was all bought 2nd hand like new cond.
My A-1 back then was too ( less than 10 rolls threw it at purchase in 1988 )

Photo Storage:
Well at this point I use a 1gig and 3 512's.
My logic....if a card s---t's the bed I don't lose much!
A 1gig Ultra II is about the cost of about 10 Rolls of quality film and holds 300+ JPG's how many times over??
**Based on my 6.1mp 10D**

Printing:
Paper and ink is a tad expensive but all in all round the same cost as having prints done for you.
Inks....Paper....Print​ers are evolving at a alarming rate these days.
100yr Paper and Inks.....Printer quality is right up there these days.
Price is very affordable as well.

Environment:
LOVE IT!
Less and less chemicals....less and less film containers to worry about.
Very good for our environment.
Bad side is.....those film containers come in handy for lotsa things....esp if your a fisherman!

Other Pros:
It's nice to see what you take right then and there.
Nice to just delete a bad shot and move on.
Film....well your SOL!

I used to hate loading film in the field....30 pics....load....30 pics....load.
Risking dust in the back....now and then the roll wouldn't spool.
Digital....load a CF card that holds 200-400 pics....done...no muss no fuss!

Two comments were made earlier. One was about film being worse for tne environment. The other was that digital was more expensive overall.

Regarding film being worse for the environment it really depends what you shoot. If it's B/W then the stop bath, developer and fixer mixed and flushed down the drain is pretty much OK as it's chemically neutral. B/W chemicals aren't anywhere near as toxic as colour chemistry. Colour chemistry - labs can't just dump the chemicals. They send them off and specialist firms extract the silver and repreocess the chemicals. The waste from the user end is in thrown-away film, batterries and prints. Prints all contain PVC.

With digital the waste is hidden. Each time you upgrade a camera, the old camera will eventually get thrown in the trash. More digital cameras are produced and sold than film cameras ever were - each tiny upgrade much sought after and heavily advertised. Really - what's the huge difference between the 10D and the 30D? There isn't one - the 20D is a 10D with a few minor tweaks and the 30D has some even more minor tweaks. Basically you have 10D, 10D.1, 10D.11. Then lets look at batteries - if you use disposables then because digital uses a ton more power than film cameras you're using a ton more. If you're using rechargable, how much of that power comes from fossil-fuel power stations or from nuclear. How much comes from clean energy sources such as wind or sun?

Now let's look at the cost comparison.
Film costs about $7 per roll and processing is about the same. That's $14 per 36 exposures. You buy the camera and lenses once and don't generally bother with the daft upgrade bandwaggon. If you have a film camera that works you use it until it is unrepairable and then buy a new film camera.

With digital you buy a new camera every 2 years because advertisers tell you that your old camera is a piece of $%^& and that you should buy a new one. The fact that a 3mp camera can produce a very nice 10x8 eludes most people. The fact that a 400mhz computer running Windows 98 with poto processing software and which is not web connected (thus not needing antivirus or firewall or antispyware products) will run as well now as it did when it was new also eludes people.

You don't have to jump onto the upgrade bandwaggon with digital. SUre - the startup costs are high. The camera is more expensive. As regards printers and computers - how much did your darkroom cost to build, maintain and run?

Now - how many shots have you taken 2,500 digital? 10,000 digital? More? Now divide that by 36 and multiply by $14 and tell me that film per shot is cheaper than digital. You have to take the whole cost into account - not just little snippets.

Rhys makes some valid points guys!
Only thing I can say is.....it's a long time before anyone tosses a DSLR to the curb!
There are still some Canon 60's being used out there!

Least for now a DSLR holds it's value quite well.
Film cameras 2nd hand are quite reasonable!

rhys wrote in post #2247258
Two comments were made earlier. One was about film being worse for tne environment. The other was that digital was more expensive overall.

Now - how many shots have you taken 2,500 digital? 10,000 digital? More? Now divide that by 36 and multiply by $14 and tell me that film per shot is cheaper than digital. You have to take the whole cost into account - not just little snippets.

Okay I shoot two to three times a week each session averages 5 hours at a rate of 13 cards of images, I am shooting small jpg and raw for each frame on bracketing exposure so each card has about 134 images or about 1742 images that’s 48 rolls of film, $672.00, in processing costs now times that out by the minimum of two shoots a week which is 8.4 is $5644.80

Now when I shoot with film, I set the maximum amount of film I expect to use at 144 frames, but always have more on hand. At the 144 frames or an expected cost of $2016.00 I would never shoot the amount as I do with digital because I would be broke! but okay, times that by the 8.4 is $16934.40.

I am not even going to go down the road on the quality issue, I will save that for another thread, but just so you know where I am, I shoot digital even black and white at every shoot now.

Chas

Holy sticker shock Chas!!
The numbers you put forth speak volumes!!
What a huge diff in cost.
Film cost is 2x then some the cost of Digital.
Quite a revolation!!

But as Chas said, he wouldn't really shoot that much if he shot film.

Don't go assuming that if an amateur had a film camera they'd be shooting even 5000 frames a year, because most wouldn't. You'd actually have to focus on composition and light to get the shot right the first time instead of taking a dozen shots to get one that looks good.