What effect is digital photography having on traditional, film-based photography?

Wilt wrote in post #9812045
One of my former wedding portraiture favorites, Fuji NPS, gone.

I thought Pro-S was an update of NPS.

Congratulations on having other people do your work for you. Also, congratulations on your moron tutors for setting a project that was out of date 8 years ago.

What a pointless waste of time.

DrPablo wrote in post #9811868
Well enough to introduce a bunch of new emulsions in the last couple years. Ilford, by the way, is doing great. In the large format world there are brand new 4x5 bodies coming out all the time. In the medium format world there are a couple companies like Horseman and Fotoman coming out with new panoramic bodies.

Oh wait, who am I kidding. The only relevant camera models in the world are digital SLRs and camera phones.

I wish the world was that easy! I shoot tons of film in 4x5, 8x10 and medium format and we can all try to convince ourselves that film is doing great, but the truth of the matter is that more and more emulsions are disappearing (Neopan 400 in MF is the latest) and the same is true for papers. When was the last 35mm film camera introduced and how many models do the big guys still sell? LF has been a niche market ever since the introduction of the 35mm camera. Walk into any camera store and ask them how their film sales are going - they will laugh at you.

Just wonder into the streets and count the people shooting film - it will be a rude awakening - but you already know that

Your original question - "What effect is digital photography having on traditional, film-based photography" is the reason you are getting many of the responses here. The literal answer to that simple question is simple. The effect is overpowering. Its obvious. Film based industries have been bought, sold and re-engineered. There are new emulsions being developed and released but the writing is on the wall.

Looking at each individual question below, some make a bit more sense.

MrOnlineIdentity wrote in post #9806359
Hi guys,

I’m currently undertaking a university project looking into how new, digital-based photography is effecting the traditional methods/processes of film-based photography.

It would be great to get some of your professional opinions to aid my research. Below there are 6 questions, and any response would be great and much appreciated!

Thank you!

1) Do you find that most of your customers come here looking for digital related products or advice, as opposed to traditional film photography products? Roughly what percentage is digital?

>>>Are you asking about POTN? Customers aren't looking here for anything. This is a USER forum. As far as POTN members the topics are most usually digital. However, there are hundreds here that have used film in the past...and many that still use film today. Most I would say have never used film.

2) What are your personal views on digital photography? For example do you feel like it devalues the traditional processes of photography, or does it enhance the medium of photography as it’s now easier for people to become involved?

>>>Devalue and enhance probably aren't a good choice of words here. From a literal viewpoint I'd say neither. There is no way to devalue film photography. You can only say that the trend has overwhelmingly leaned toward digital. There are well known professionals that still use only film. However, there are probably more people than ever using cameras now because of the accessibility, ease of use and cost of digital cameras.

3) Do you think digital photography is casing the death of traditional ‘dark room’ methods and chemical processes. If so, is it redefining what photography means?

>>>Photography is photography. However, the trend is overwhelmingly toward digital. Will film die? If it does, the cause will be market driven. No one buys film - no one will manufacture film. There is a point where film manufacturing companies may say its over from a return on investment standpoint. We don't know when that will happen.

4) Do you think photo manipulation is ‘cheating’ in that some people might think it takes away the skill from the photographer?

>>>The almighty debate. There are no absolute answers. There are skills required with both mediums. In todays world if a photograph is worthy of purchasing most buyers aren't concerned with the process used to get the image. If it is good they will come.

5) Do you think digital cameras will ever fully replace film-based cameras?

>>>Yes. The market will dictate when.

6) Finally, would you say that the digitisation of photography is overall a positive thing, or a negative thing?

>>>Current film users would probably lean towards negative. Digital users would say positive. From a diplomatic point of view I'd say go buy a digital camera, learn some post processing skills and embrace the new technology because its not going away.

Attached is a paper I wrote last semester. If you have any questions just PM me.. It is a PDF format.

MrOnlineIdentity wrote in post #9806359
5) Do you think digital cameras will ever fully replace film-based cameras?

It will be a long time before there's an semi-affordable large format digital camera.

There are some 60MP MF, maybe 60mm x 45mm image sensor digital cameras. And they cost $50,000+. 8"x10" LF film is much larger and are much cheaper.

Another comparison, though all costs are higher because it's highly specialized and uncommon photography. But aerial photogrammetry when using film is a 9"x9" negative and new film cameras for it are $300,000. The digital equivalent (not sure what image sensor size) costs $1.25 million. The cost is in part due to the large quantity of data stored per image, and during the flight images need to be captured at least every second. So that's a massive amount of data to be pulled off the image sensor and stored very quickly.

canonnoob wrote in post #9813940
Attached is a paper I wrote last semester. If you have any questions just PM me.. It is a PDF format.

Can you offer up a credit card number and your SS # as well please?

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #9814927
Can you offer up a credit card number and your SS # as well please?

sure jay... only for you though... lol

DrPablo wrote in post #9812087
I thought Pro-S was an update of NPS.

It is. I have no wedding coverage experience with the newer film, so I have to lament the older film's demise, even though the newer film is history soon, too.

That's not really a great enough cost difference to maintain a film technology. Along with that 9x9 film camera must also come a Versamat processor, a processing lab, and extremely extensive environmental protection measures. If you've already got old money sunk into a lab, then you can creak on. But it would be madness to start such a project anew with so little difference in camera costs.

You can certainly get old-design "new" gear from Kodak and Fairchild fairly cheap (Fairchild had one they had designed for the Shah of Iran that they were trying to sell us for $1,000,000 back in the 80s...but it didn't fit an SR or a U2, so we we weren't in the market), but try getting them to create a new design for film--I tried it for STRATCOM in the mid 90s, and found no takers at any price. I don't think they even have the designers on staff anymore.

I used sheet film and chemical development a few months ago in western hybridization (using chemiluminescent detection) because a 25,000$ digital system could not do the job.

Basically, a photon emitting enzyme is on the end of a secondary antibody, and the secondary antibody attaches to the primary antibody, which is specific for the protein of interest.

They still sell supplies for this in scientific catalogs.

However, in other contexts, digital has replaced film. For example, when running DNA on an agarose gel - back in the day, this was documented with Polaroid film, now its done digitally (as well as size determination), The same with photomicrographs, a Nikon system w/ B&W film was used several years ago, now its a 5 MP CCD camera.

RWatkins wrote in post #9816522
I used sheet film and chemical development a few months ago in western hybridization (using chemiluminescent detection) because a 25,000$ digital system could not do the job.

Basically, a photon emitting enzyme is on the end of a secondary antibody, and the secondary antibody attaches to the primary antibody, which is specific for the protein of interest.

They still sell supplies for this in scientific catalogs.

I have some vacation snaps that are like that.

Thanks you very much to everyone who has responded so far! The feedback is very much appreciated. Please let me justify some of the posts people have made:

chauncey wrote in post #9807168
You want us to go ahead and write your paper as well? These questions have been asked and answered in numerous places on the web.

Chairman7w wrote in post #9807373
apparently he posted this 10 years ago...

Karl Johnston wrote in post #9811985
You're about 10-15 years late to this debate !

fly my pretties wrote in post #9813096
Congratulations on having other people do your work for you. Also, congratulations on your moron tutors for setting a project that was out of date 8 years ago.

OK, first off I'm not getting other people to do my work for me. This is just one source of information on the topic where I am gathering my research, simply to get an insight into what active photographers (both film and digital) feel about the subject.

Secondly, this is only a sub-project of many, many other projects which I am self-directing as part of my course, under the umbrella title "Digitisation" (spelt in the English way as I'm English). The final product will be in book-form and is not an assignment/dissertatio​n, but part of my overall design research for my chosen topic.

In regards to the out-of-date comments - you are 100% correct. These issues have been widely covered and lots can be found about the subject online. I came onto this forum however to get real-time, real-people's opinions from people who can be described as photographers on some level.

Thanks for the advice seaside, you're right in saying some of the questions could've been phrased in a more understandable manner. Thanks also to cnonnoob for the paper. I haven't looked through it properly yet, but have scanned it and it looks very helpful.

Thanks again for all of the responses guys.