Future of Photography....Your take.

Bob_A wrote in post #2248729
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.

Even with digital I try to make every shot count on the basis that I don;t want to have to keep changing cards.

So, will ANYONE want to sue film IF and WHEN digital evolves to the point where it is far better than film in every aspect? Seems with technology, that will eventually be the situation. Someday, MAYBE you will buy 25 GB cards, faster than current cards, for say $10. The camera will have 30 MP, with so many features and automatic perfections that a five year old will be able to take "perfect" pictures, meaning pros will have the only advantage by knowing how to best position the camera and subjects for the best photo. Instead of cars, maybe a 100 GB built in card with wireless transfer rates of say, fully loaded card downloads in five seconds. Who knows, this is all possible and maybe things we can't even think of now will be readily available. It will make film cameras as ridiculous to use as those used in the Civil War where they shot off black powder and subjects had to sit still for ten seconds (I don't know what they did, but I've seen movies where they show things like that.

Oh well, this is a generation or two away. Kids being born today will more than likely not be directed towards film, and with each of us who dies away as a film user, I doubt there will be a "replacement" film user being born.

I'm sure when cars were invented, many folks said horses would never be replaced for certain jobs. We still use horses though............

Bob_A wrote in post #2248729
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.

Yes but it's allows you to enjoy photography more if you don't hafta worry about breezing threw film.
I rarely bracket....only on a rare occasion.

I haven't put a roll of film in either my SLR's in over five years. Why? I ask myself?
1, I can chimp my photos
2, I can turn in my work the same day I shoot
3, My clients can view proofs on the spot
4, it's way easier
5, I'm saving a fortune Remember how much a roll of Velvis costs? thes processing...
Especially with today's modern digital SLRs I can use very high quality lenses and bodies
However, I will most likely never part with my old Nikon film gear just in case I wanna take a trip down memory row

joegolf68 wrote in post #2249140
So, will ANYONE want to sue film IF and WHEN digital evolves to the point where it is far better than film in every aspect? Seems with technology, that will eventually be the situation. Someday, MAYBE you will buy 25 GB cards, faster than current cards, for say $10. The camera will have 30 MP, with so many features and automatic perfections that a five year old will be able to take "perfect" pictures, meaning pros will have the only advantage by knowing how to best position the camera and subjects for the best photo. Instead of cars, maybe a 100 GB built in card with wireless transfer rates of say, fully loaded card downloads in five seconds. Who knows, this is all possible and maybe things we can't even think of now will be readily available. It will make film cameras as ridiculous to use as those used in the Civil War where they shot off black powder and subjects had to sit still for ten seconds (I don't know what they did, but I've seen movies where they show things like that.

Oh well, this is a generation or two away. Kids being born today will more than likely not be directed towards film, and with each of us who dies away as a film user, I doubt there will be a "replacement" film user being born.

I'm sure when cars were invented, many folks said horses would never be replaced for certain jobs. We still use horses though............

Ahhhh hahhhhh!
Joe hit upon another point!
Photography milestones.
Bout every 50yrs or there about photography hits a milestone.
IMHO Digital is the milestone of this era starting a new standard.
I was born about the time color photo's and 35mm became the standard.
LOL there sure was some weird stuff in my 42yrs.
110....poloroid (lets pull out the photo and watch it develop)...Kodak Disc Film. None of which went over well.
My 1st introduction to photography was a Poloroid Sun Camera...still even have a few of my pics.
WOW I'm getting old!

Mike Reynolds wrote in post #2249620
I haven't put a roll of film in either my SLR's in over five years. Why? I ask myself?
1, I can chimp my photos
2, I can turn in my work the same day I shoot
3, My clients can view proofs on the spot
4, it's way easier
5, I'm saving a fortune Remember how much a roll of Velvia costs? then processing...
Especially with today's modern digital SLRs I can use very high quality lenses and bodies
However, I will most likely never part with my old Nikon film gear just in case I wanna take a trip down memory row

You bring up the same points I was trying to make.
Yeah I used Ektar 25 it was for my high quality flower and macro work. It was at least a $1-$2 more a roll but NICE stuff!!
Processing/film cost was killing me back then!
Reason why I gave up photography for about 10yrs.
Sometimes I'd kill 5 rolls in a day.....for the average shmuck like me that was a lotta $$.

Bob_A wrote in post #2248729
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.

Bob_A I hope you aren't reffering to me as an amature?

Your point is well made, shooting digital verse Film,

Once I was shooting digital with another photographer, at a local fashion show, where speed and image counts, After the first section was done we were both getting ready for the ligerie, he turned to me and said," Man you shoot like a Woodpicker" I was on my fifth card while he was still on his second, yes the camera was a bit different a rebal 3 frames per second against a 20D's 5 frames, lens at 4-5 against a 2.8.

There is no way I would have shot that many images if I was using Film, unless someone else was paying for the film before the event!

No digital camera can fix a image that has poor composition, though some have features to assist with lighting, none can teach the shooter how to deal with lights contisitantly.

Chas

Akchas wrote in post #2252261
Bob_A I hope you aren't reffering to me as an amature?

Nope, wasn't suggesting that you were.

Graphyfotoz wrote in post #2249634
Ahhhh hahhhhh!
Joe hit upon another point!
Photography milestones.
Bout every 50yrs or there about photography hits a milestone.
IMHO Digital is the milestone of this era starting a new standard.
I was born about the time color photo's and 35mm became the standard.
LOL there sure was some weird stuff in my 42yrs.
110....poloroid (lets pull out the photo and watch it develop)...Kodak Disc Film. None of which went over well.
My 1st introduction to photography was a Poloroid Sun Camera...still even have a few of my pics.
WOW I'm getting old!

There are many advances in technology but some things either reach a perfection that can never be improved upon or reach an impasse that needs lateral thinking to overcome. Along the road there are many dead ends and wrong turns (in photography disk film, 127 roll film, stereo cameras, 110 SLRs, APS SLRs etc). In other fields - cars - 4 wheels a gearbox and a petrol engine. They haven't changed since 1908 when Henry Ford started his car factory. Sure body styles and efficiency have changed but the basics are exactly the same. There have been attempts to produce electric cars which were defeated by lousy batteries and easy availability of petrol in the 1920s. There have been more recent attempts but defeated by the cost of an efficient vehicle. Bicycles haven't changed for 100 years aside from the introduction of suspension and gears - both of which are relatively minor improvements. What we have now is a minor change in the recording format combined with a minor change from manual focus to autofocus. The basics of a light-tight box with a sensitive material and a shutter have never changed.

Now if we're talking about things that have really changed it's productivity and health. Our cameras are more productive than ever before. Being more productive (not just cameras) means that we now have more money and can afford more expensive and better healthcare. This in turn has led to medical excellence. Basically we have an upward spiral of development and improvement in all aspects of life.

Being more productive with photography we now reach another impasse. Because so many people can take such good photos and because so many can afford very good gear (I defy anybody to tell from looking at the photo, the difference between a landscape taken on a Canon XT with a kit lens at f11 and one taken with a Canon 17-55 on a 1D Mk2) the market has become far more saturated. Thus payments are dropping rapidly. I see the same happening with photography as happened with TEFL. When that started, foreign English teachers were a novelty and thus prized and highly paid. Now kids on their gap year try to teach English, teach it badly, receive poor money and change jobs rapidly thus making low pay the norm (which is why I got out of TEFL).

Talking more about the technology which was the OP's main issue, one of my acquaintance who ran a photography shop said back in the days of 2 megapixels: "the digital darkroom has revolutionised photography. Digital cameras I'm not so sure about". He was quite right - his workflow improved and his output improved because he could do everything with almost no waste. The film scans took a minute or so and the rest was done on a computer with the output only produced when the print was perfect. I think by now digital cameras have just about matched 35mm film in quality. 6 megapixels will produce a very good 150 DPI 13.3 x 20 print. I compare that to my photos taken with Ilford HP5 400ASA film where grain was visible at 10x8. HP5 was my usual film. It's only since I started digital that I've been using 100 ASA more often.

I can imagine 35mm digital photography improving and going full frame. I can imagine there will be an impasse when pixels cannot be crowded any closer without image quality suffering. If and when Foveon gets good enough to be in mainstream cameras, that could be another improvement. I see no reason for medium format cameras to exist as a mainstream camera. Digital - especially with the 16mp 35mm format can now produce higher quality than most medium format cameras. Having said that medium format digital is beginning to rival some large format cameras. I predict a lot of change in the future.

Akchas wrote in post #2252261
No digital camera can fix a image that has poor composition, though some have features to assist with lighting, none can teach the shooter how to deal with lights contisitantly.

Chas

Can't say it enough.....
It's not the camera....it's the person behind the box that makes the picture.
Don't matter....Digital or Film!

Altho IMHO Digital allows much more flexabilty in so many ways.

Graphyfotoz wrote in post #2253756
Can't say it enough.....
It's not the camera....it's the person behind the box that makes the picture.
Don't matter....Digital or Film!

Altho IMHO Digital allows much more flexabilty in so many ways.

One could say that cameras are just quicker and easier for those of use with zero artistic skills than a set of coloured paints and a sheet of paper.

rhys wrote in post #2253952
One could say that cameras are just quicker and easier for those of use with zero artistic skills than a set of colored paints and a sheet of paper.

Technology doesn't MAKE a photo artistic only the person does!

1st thing I learned from the Old timers I've associated with over the past 20yrs.

Graphyfotoz wrote in post #2254063
Technology doesn't MAKE a photo artistic only the person does!

You are correct, technology is just a tool, but without that tool many of the artistic qualities would be near impossible to create. Photoshop allows one to create images that never existed. Cutting people out because it's too cluttered, adding folks in, moving things around, combining several photos to make one. All this technology has done is made it so more people can do this.

Graphyfotoz wrote in post #2254063
1st thing I learned from the Old timers I've associated with over the past 20yrs.

I love old timers, heck I am almost one myself and they are a wealth of knowledge and experience. But, many are also set in ways that no longer are a relevant todays as they were years ago. The more old timer, the more distant from the cutting edge. I see this especially in the engineering field as there are many engineers who have been in the business for 30 years or more are so set in certain ways that offering a new idea instantly gets resistance.

edit