Caedes

Elephant Graveyard

Discussion Board -> Elephant Graveyard -> Digital or Film?

Digital or Film?

sedeac
08/31/03 6:21 AM GMT
I've been noticing that a majority of the photographs on Caedes have been taking using digital cameras, and although I too enjoy the instant gratification of digital, what happened to good old fashioned 35mm? Do you think its just a trend with todays electronic age or that film cameras will be replaced by digital ones?


nobody said it was easy...
0∈ [?]

Comments

Post a Comment  -  Subscribe to this discussion
CrazyIvan
08/31/03 12:48 AM GMT
I think it will be a long time before film "goes out." A good digital camera is still way too expensive. My 35mm is much crisper and sharper than my digital. In digital, low light shots are still a nightmare unless you purchased a nice digital with a good enough ccd. As far as a trend . . . I carry both in my camera bag, and I consider myself a tech junkie.
0∈ [?]
"The sky is not the limit . . . the ground is."
+xentrik
08/31/03 5:37 PM GMT
After I got a digital, I went from, on average, about a roll of film every 2 weeks, to one every 6 months. There was a weekend where I used 7 rolls. Now I click off all kinds of stuff on the digital, and keep the 35mm for something I want a really nice shot of. Plus not having to pay $10, and waiting, for processing is a real plus.
Film takes enlargements much, much better, there are continuous tones to enlarge, as opposed to the discrete pixels of digital. On the other hand, with a good printer, a 4x6 from a 2MP camera looks great until you get within like 3" of it.
My guess is that digital will never fully replace film; for it to become anywhere close to a replacement, many more people will need to need to acquire computer skills. My mother has commented on getting one after using mine, but I shudder to think of the first time she calls asking me how to do something, or where those photos she took last week are.
0∈ [?]
+ppigeon
08/31/03 7:21 PM GMT
I am convinced that the future is to the numeric.
I am sometimes very disappointed of the treatment of 35 mm films: bad dosage of colors, claws,... I think that the numeric cameras are going to be cheaper and I bet that in some years, just the nostalgics and some professionals will use argentics cameras.
With the reduction of users, the treatment of films is going to become dearer and the process is engaged: the treatment of 35mm films will become a luxury...
Do'nt forget: the argentic process of development is very pollutant...
0∈ [?]
"Violence is the last resort of the incompetent" (I. Asimov)
::Piner
09/03/03 3:09 AM GMT
I am also a tech junkie, but Ivan pretty much said it for me, I carry both with me and use each as needed.
0∈ [?]
The work of art may have a moral effect, but to demand moral purpose from an artist is to make him ruin his work. (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe - 1832)
imlarryboy
09/06/03 6:11 AM GMT
I think that the two will coexist much like the point-and-shoot and the SLR's coexist. Once casual photographers realize the convenience and ease of use of the digital cameras, they will begin to migrate that direction. But the hardcore professionals will definitely stick with the film.

On my recent trip to England, I took over 500 pictures in two weeks using my digital camera, and as usual only about 15% to 25% of those are keepers. I would probably have passed out if I had to get those developed, and I wouldn't have taken nearly that many pictures knowing that I would eventually have to get them developed. I love digital!
0∈ [?]
::tbhockey
09/09/03 1:34 AM GMT
heheh, woah im glad i found this disscussion =) im doing a report for school on "Digital vs Film cameras" hehehe! keep talking guys, keep talking
0∈ [?]
-tbhockey
::ladyturtle27
09/09/03 1:54 AM GMT
It will be interesting to see how well the newer Digital SLRs do to correct some of these problems. Anyone have a D-SLR?

(For tbhockey - You might want to check out the magazine Outdoor Photographer. I was reading an article in the August 2003 I think, that gave some really good information on both film and digital as well as price ranges. This month's has a D-SLR buying guide in it. The website I think shows at least some of the articles)
0∈ [?]
"In all things of nature, there is something of the marvelous." - Aristotle
=xentrik
09/09/03 6:38 PM GMT
There's a new standard for digital SLR I was just reading about on the Olympus site (http://www.olympusamerica.com/e1/index.html); they are one of the first to market with a product. (No, I don't work for them, I'm just a fan, both my cameras are Olympus.) I'm drooling over the thing, but it's going to be awhile before I can afford one. :)

To add to the debate, some real pros don't even bother with the 35mm we think of when talking about film. Ever watch a pro portrait studio take photos? They have sheets of medium format film, which have bigger negatives, giving better enlargements with less grain.

For cost issues, my 35mm was $180(2 years ago), and my digital was $300 last year. Over time, I spent much more on film and developing than the high set-up cost of the digital (rechargeable batteries, more memory). On the other hand, a good exposure on the film will blow away the same photo from the digital. Tones are better, detail in landscapes is sharper, there is no immediate compression on the graphic data. The cheaper camera, from the same company, and a year older, actually has better optics and quality because costs were cut to make the digital affordable.
0∈ [?]
::captk2071
09/11/03 7:50 AM GMT
Time to muddy the water even more. hehehe
I think the issue of definition and enlargement is only valid when we are limited to 2 or 3MP resolutions. 4MP is now very common and the new generation of D-SLR are at least 6MP and some are over 10MP. The real issue is cost. The breakthrough may be closer than you think. Canon is marketing a new D-SLR (300D) for US$899 which is a new price point for a quality digital SLR and it is fully compatible with their current EF lens. Okay, it is still a lot of mulas but when you consider the same camera a couple of years ago would be in the US$2000 range, it is a big step forward. Not to mention that I have 2 Canon EOS film cameras with the full kit of lens and accessories. That gives me the option to extend the life of my lens and flashes indefinitely.
There is one other point that I can relate as a personal experience. When I went to Europe on holiday some years ago, I took about 20 rolls of slides. Kodak ruined every single one of them with their processing. They were very apologietic and gave me free films but that is small comfort. Unless we have access to a darkroom ourselves, we are at the mercy of the photo labs. But with digital photography, I have my own darkroom and I can be as creative as I want. I have created panoramic shots of up to 6 photos which would have been impossible before except to a pro with very specialised gear. I have turned night into day and experimented with many other tricks. You can't ignore that aspect of digital photography. That level of freedom is priceless.
0∈ [?]
"Be Prepared . . ."
sedeac
09/11/03 9:19 PM GMT
Thanks for all your comments, thats true with the medium format cameras, I meant to include those as well for the film side, and yes captk, without access to a darkroom it is hard, especially handing over priceless photos to someone you dont know or have any real reason to trust, I do most of my own prints, but color is a pain to develop on my own, thanks everyone for your thoughts
0∈ [?]
=xentrik
09/12/03 12:36 AM GMT
I guess my whole points were that true, paid-to-do-it pros will likely stick with film, since the equipment has been developed over years to do what they require, and are used to. On the other hand, many people on this site have digitals, and have made it thier hobby to learn how to do things in software that would need special space and thousands of dollars in equipment to do with film.
The average person, though, doesn't have thousands of dollars to spend, nor thousands of hours to practice or learn software. People that buy $5 disposable cameras to take vacation snapshots aren't going to go digital until they can get a $5 disposable digital camera. So, from my opinion, in the near future, digital is going to be limited to middle to high end users who have at least reasonable computer skill.
0∈ [?]

Leave a comment (registration required):

Subject: