do you think film cameras are going to disappear?

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Frederic Dazet, Jan 23, 2004.

  1. and be fully replaced by digital cameras? the impression i have is that soon
    enough, our film cameras are going to stay in our drawers as old family
    relics.....
     
    Frederic Dazet, Jan 23, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. That's a hard one to guess. Digital is much more attractive to the
    snapshooter, since it is like polaroid, only better with the ability to
    instantly see the results. With professionals, film has its advantages, but
    many pro photogs are moving to digital now that their employers have locked
    into digital images (such as newspaper photography).

    Paul Riemerman
     
    Paul Riemerman, Jan 23, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Frederic Dazet

    Jud McCranie Guest

    Probably eventually, but not in my lifetime.
     
    Jud McCranie, Jan 23, 2004
    #3
  4. Frederic Dazet

    howard Guest


    Do you want people to see your photos in a hundred years time ?

    CD's and DVD's will be obsolete in 10 years, how are your great grand
    children
    going to see all your most loved images ? Well, they'll probably be stored
    on a chip half the size of a credit card, and when folks find these little
    plastic chips , (old family relics), are they going to know what they are
    in 2104 ?

    How are they going to extract those images ?

    I'm staying with film. (mostly)

    H.
     
    howard, Jan 23, 2004
    #4
  5. Frederic Dazet

    Colyn Guest

    Colyn, Jan 23, 2004
    #5
  6. Frederic Dazet

    brian Guest

    In a word, no.

    In a lot more than a word, Film has its niche, more people are taking up
    film photography as a hobby all the time, at the college I attend, the new
    class sizes have gradually increased over the last 10 years, 10 years ago
    there were 15 people in the first class, today there are 27 starters, as
    people find they have more spare time and want a hobby that has more to it
    than simply pointing the camera and clicking the button, film photography
    may decline for the holiday snap-shooter, but those who want quality will
    stick with film, partly because of the buzz of being able to say "I took it,
    i developed it, i printed it, I mounted it and I framed it." Photography is
    also an art and that will keep film alive too, there will always be a market
    for film.
    Digital has its place too. journalism can't do without it nowadays, and the
    average joe will be happier to take his digital anywhere he goes, and
    that's a huge market.
    but with quality digital imaging costing literally thousands of pounds, over
    the same quality film camera costing hundreds, then film will remain the
    overall winner probably for at least half of the semi-pro and most of the
    amature market.
    people say , Ah but digital has no processing costs, perhaps not, but
    printing costs can be very expensive, the correct paper and ink are
    expensive as is a quality printer to print from, so you take your images to
    an imaging store and it costs just as much there to have them printed.,
    overall,developing and printing costs, are about the same if not cheaper
    than digital printing costs.

    To sum up, both have a place beside one and other for many many decades to
    come
    In My Opinion.

    Brian......................
     
    brian, Jan 23, 2004
    #6
  7. Frederic Dazet

    Jud McCranie Guest

    And to get a 20 or more small prints at home takes a lot of time.
     
    Jud McCranie, Jan 23, 2004
    #7
  8. This is so ironic, that you use the argument that plays most
    IN FAVOR of digital photography.

    Yes, I would like my photos to look fine in a hundred years time,
    and not find them chamically deteriorated and irreparable. I
    wouldn't like humidity or heat to damage the negatives
    irreversibly.
    You really don't understand technology... The actual medium where
    you store the files is *so* irrelevant. So, 10 years from now
    DVD-ROM's are obsolete. So what? The files are still there,
    so in the mean time (while both the DVD and its replacing
    technology are available), you copy the files from all your
    DVD's into a single unit of the whatever technology is replacing
    them.

    100 megabytes hard drives are now obsolete, and yet I did not
    lose any of the information that I had on my 105MB hard disk
    9 years ago. 5-1/4 floppies are absolutely obsolete (to the
    point that I bet that no less than 25 to 50% of the people
    reading this will think that "5-1/4" was a typo), and I didn't
    lose any data that I had in them (well, most of the data and
    programs that I ever had on those is now obsolete; but it
    doesn't matter -- the part that was not, I have it on my current
    hard disk with backups on CD's)
    With a tricorder!!! (or whatever technology is around by
    2104).

    The "what will happen to my pictures in 100 years" is possibly
    the strongest argument in favor of digital photography!!!

    Unless lost, a digital photography that you take now has no
    reason not to look *identical* photon by photon, 30 centuries
    from now. Actually, 30 million millenia, and still there's
    no single reason why your digital picture will not still be
    around and in perfect condition (100% identical to the moment
    you took it).

    Carlos
    --
     
    Carlos Moreno, Jan 23, 2004
    #8
  9. Frederic Dazet

    howard Guest


    OR WHATEVER !? Right , thanks for proving my point !

    You just don't *know* do you ?
     
    howard, Jan 23, 2004
    #9
  10. Frederic Dazet

    Jud McCranie Guest

    You have to have something that can read it. I've got some data on 8
    inch floppy drives, no way to read them. To read things on 5.25 inch
    floppy drive, I would have to get out a computer that is 17 years
    old. Those are the DOS ones - I've got old Apple II ones that I can't
    read.

    I have a lot of open reel tapes and consumer open reel tape decks
    haven't been made for years. Also, some of them are in a EE format
    that very few tape decks could play properly. I also have some 78 RPM
    records with no way to play them.
     
    Jud McCranie, Jan 23, 2004
    #10
  11. Frederic Dazet

    Alan Kerr Guest

    Carlos, CD's only have a life of about 5 years (ok i know some of you
    have had them longer but this is a safe timeframe). Our home burners
    only use low powered laser unlike burners fotr commercial CD's. Because
    of this the CD's have a layer of vegetable dye that reacts to the weak
    laser. Over time this layer of vegetable dye breaks down. Don't expect
    CD's to be around for your Garndkids. Every 5 years it would be wise to
    re-burn CD's. Some of the expensive CD's are a little more stable e.g.
    archive Cd's but they still have a limited shelf life.

    Alan
     
    Alan Kerr, Jan 24, 2004
    #11
  12. Frederic Dazet

    brian Guest

    Stored correctly a negative, or slide will last at least 100 years, probably
    a lot more, so to be safe, in 100 years someone uses a copy stand to copy
    the negative, 100 more years, and again 100 years later. the copy stand is
    so simple you could make one yourself in about half an hour, the camera, is
    almost as simple, whether its 50 years old or brand new it uses the same
    format to capture the image, and will do for centuries to come, we don't
    *need* electronics, to take photos on film, most electronics on film
    camera's are just a gimick anyway, we can even make our own film, our own
    emulsion, developer, stop bath, fixers. All we need is a dark room, a little
    bit of light and some chemicals.

    Srored correctly a digital image can degrade in as little as 5 years, a
    digital print in as little as 25 years, so in 5 years you resave your image,
    and then every 5 years after that, doesnt matter what medium you save it to,
    but the danger is that the format will change, miss the change by a few
    years and you've lost it. Even the digital camera you have just now will be
    obsolete in about 1 year, you need a computer, that need supgrading every 6
    months, a printer that need filled with expensive ink every month or so, an
    expensive digital camera that will, as I said, be obsolete or just not good
    enough in about a year, and expensive paper to print the image out onto.

    Digital is not, as some people seem to think, the dogs bollocks of
    photography, more the little brother of film photography, its a snap shot
    medium, ideal for joe bloggs, and invaluable for journalism, you know, the
    guys who can change their £5000 digital SLR every year for the latest
    technology and claim it on their expenses, because lets face it, to ge tthe
    same quality of image from a digital as you do from a £250 film SLR, you
    have to spend, literally thousands of pounds.

    But hey, this debate will rage long after your digital prints have faded

    Brian......................
     
    brian, Jan 24, 2004
    #12
  13. Frederic Dazet

    John_H Guest

    Yep, the date back on my new EOS-300 only runs to 2019.

    I reckon the writing is on the wall. ;-)
     
    John_H, Jan 24, 2004
    #13
  14. Proving what point?? The only thing I notice about points
    is that you keep missing it!!
    Well, some people, including me, lack the capacity to see
    100 years in the future with accurate detail. So no, I do
    not know what is the name of the technology that WILL allow
    us to see digital pictures 100 years from now.

    The point being that the name (or the technology itself)
    is irrelevant!!

    A negative deteriorates over time. Any physical/mechanical/
    chemical medium will deteriorate in 100 years; and it typically
    won't allow you to make copies (not without cumulatively
    deteriorating the quality as you make more copies).

    Information does not deteriorate. The number 65234190 will
    *always* be the exact same number (and you can make trillions
    of copies of that number, and each of the copies will be the
    *exact same* number. It doesn't matter what technology you
    use to write down that number (so, are you worried about
    using numbers because calculators will be obsolete 50 years
    from now??)

    With digital photography, instead of storing a visual image
    as a the chemical state of a bunch of molecules excited by
    light and then chemically processed, you store them as a
    sequence of numbers!! You store them today on a hard drive
    or a CD-ROM or a DVD-ROM, because that's what's convenient
    today. 10 years from now, when optical store-cubes become
    available, you will -- before the DVD drives cease to exist --
    copy your files from the DVD-ROM or the hard disk to those
    optical store-cubes; then, 30 years from now, when the
    optical store-cubes are about to become obsolete and replaced
    by the quantum hyper-storage, then you take your optical
    store-cubes and copy all the information to the new quantum
    hyper-storage units. It doesn't matter what the technology
    is called -- there will always be an available technology;
    the data will survive years and years and years with ZERO
    (and I really mean *absolute ZERO*) deterioration.

    Wanting to have your photographs 100 years from now is
    the strongest argument against film photography, and one
    of the strongest in favor of digital photography.

    Carlos
    --
     
    Carlos Moreno, Jan 24, 2004
    #14
  15. Frederic Dazet

    Drifter Guest

    ---->snip<----
    Honestly Howard, YOU just don't know.
    How many 100 year old photos do you have?

    At this point it's not about the medium, its about the archiving
    process. If someone keeps up with transferring the images from the
    "old" medium to whatever the new one is then the images will survive.
    If someone just throws them in a box in a hot attic then they'll be as
    dead as all my dad's 8mm film from the 1960's.

    For my generation I am the family archivist. I'm in the process of
    taking a large number of very old photos (some well preserved, some
    disintegrating as I scan them) and bringing them up to the "new"
    format (digital). Right now things are getting stored to multiple
    DVD. In a year or five I'm sure they'll get transferred to blu-ray
    disks or whatever comes next. However if nobody takes over the task
    after me then someone in the future will be in the boat I'm in right
    now with the film based stuff, to wit, some of the stuff was taken
    care of and is still visible, other stuff was not taken care of and it
    has deteriorated beyond recognition.

    Drifter
     
    Drifter, Jan 24, 2004
    #15
  16. Frederic Dazet

    Drifter Guest

    You have to have something that can read it. I've got some data on 8
    inch floppy drives, no way to read them. To read things on 5.25 inch
    floppy drive, I would have to get out a computer that is 17 years
    old. Those are the DOS ones - I've got old Apple II ones that I can't
    read.

    I have a lot of open reel tapes and consumer open reel tape decks
    haven't been made for years. Also, some of them are in a EE format
    that very few tape decks could play properly. I also have some 78 RPM
    records with no way to play them.[/QUOTE]

    All that means is that nobody bothered to copy all of that material to
    new media -BEFORE- the old media became totally obsolete. Sorry but
    technology doesn't change that fast, you get warning that a format is
    going away a LONG time before that equipment is gone.

    Drifter
     
    Drifter, Jan 24, 2004
    #16
  17. Frederic Dazet

    Drifter Guest

    Stored correctly a negative, or slide will last at least 100 years, probably
    Right, and each copy of a copy of a copy degrades the image some in
    addition to what time has done until eventually it is unrecognizable.
    Digital copies are exact duplicates the first time or the 500'th time.

    Now I will freely admit that a damaged negative may still be mostly
    visible whereas a damaged digital file may be completely unreadable,
    but again that goes back to careful archiving, making multiple copies,
    storing them correctly, and transferring them to a newer format
    -BEFORE- the old format is toast.
    Okay, I'll agree with that.
    I think you mean stored incorrectly. Other than one REALLY cheap cd
    and ones that were abused (i.e. a couple left out in the sun and the
    usual drops and scratches) I haven't had a CD go bad. I also make a
    second archive copy of everything that gets stored in a nice CD case
    in a cool dark cabinet.
    Yes if you are careless. Just like my dad lost all of his 8mm film
    because he carelessly left it in the attic (terrible conditions for
    any film).
    Fair enough, but what's the difference between the expenses you list
    for digital vs the constant cost for chemicals, photo papers, and so
    forth for film? Also you assume that everyone needs that stuff at
    home. Does everyone need a darkroom at home? No, and now there are
    many places that will print digital onto the same kodak paper, etc
    that you use for film so in the end the digital prints will probably
    last as long as the analog ones.
    And so it was (cost wise) in the infancy of film photography. There
    was a funny quote from "back in the day" by a portrait painter
    disdaining <film> photography as pandering to the untalented masses
    and stating that no serious artist should pay any attention to it. I
    wish I could find the quote again. Anyway my point is you seem to be
    displaying the same attitude towards the new kid on the block
    (digital).
    Which will take about as long as your analog prints since we use the
    same printing process.

    Drifter
     
    Drifter, Jan 24, 2004
    #17
  18. Frederic Dazet

    Jud McCranie Guest

    One of the big problems in technology is rapidly changing formats and
    standards. And just a few months ago my sister almost lost ALL of her
    digital photos.
     
    Jud McCranie, Jan 24, 2004
    #18
  19. Frederic Dazet

    Jud McCranie Guest

    We have family photos about 140 years old.
     
    Jud McCranie, Jan 24, 2004
    #19
  20. Frederic Dazet

    Jud McCranie Guest

    I've also got programs on paper tape - no way to read them. I've also
    got programs on punched cards - no way to read them.
     
    Jud McCranie, Jan 24, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.