Film vs. Digital reminds me of the Tube vs. Solid State debate in audio circles

Discussion in 'Photography' started by richardsfault, Jul 23, 2004.

  1. richardsfault

    BillB Guest

    Indeed. You don't, won't or can't think. I'll only go so far as
    to point out statements only a dunce could make, but see no need to
    enter a debate with one.
    BillB, Sep 17, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. [bmoag wrote in]
    Negatives and slides can be lost and damaged too.

    In fact it's much easier to make a backup of the image files (i.e. the
    'original' copies of the image) than to try to make duplicate negs.

    Negatives can be lost in a fire, files can be sent to friends and family
    all over the world.
    Andy Davidson, Sep 17, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. [james wrote in]
    Hi, James --

    Manufacturers pay a lot of attention to backwards compatibility now.

    My DVD drive can play ten or fifteen year old CDs just fine.

    The same argument about backwards compatibility can also be applied to
    film arguments - try getting 126 or kodak disc film printed up quickly!
    Andy Davidson, Sep 17, 2004
  4. richardsfault

    james Guest

    Comments inline:
    I guess I should have been a bit more clear on my thoughts. I understand
    that the DATA once transfered to newer storage media, will still be (should
    be) just as readable. My statement about hardware was more to the fact that
    if for instance, back when I had my TRS-80 (yes, I had one,.,,,new) with
    tape drive, and I kept the tapes and then later the floppies, stored
    somewhere safely, and then 25 or more years later I tried to retreive the
    data, there is a good chance that I would not be able to read the tapes or
    floppies. The same thing with my first IBM PC with the 5 1/2 drives and
    disks. Not transfering the data as changes takes place, in my opinion, would
    almost insure loss of the original data. All it means is actively taking
    the time to keep one's data in the most current storage method available.
    Tell that to the National Archives, the Mormon Church's Family History
    Center in Salt Lake City and dozens of other archives all over the country.
    I am not suggesting using Microfilm as a storage media for digital images.
    Just that film technology still has it's place and has a proven track record
    for long storage of information. Oh, and they do preserve original
    documents etc. too. But, they do not allow the general public direct access
    to most originals as they are in too fragile condition for handling on a
    daily basis.
    Personally, I love Digital Imaging and using digital cameras. I find them
    to be great tools and well worth the investment in time and money. But, at
    the same time, I know that without any sort of diligence on my part, none of
    the images I create will last a long time. And the same can be said for
    A quick side note and I will just sit back and watch this thread again, my
    wife works at a local Wal-Mart in the Jewelry dept. which in located right
    next to the Photo Center. I have become aquainted with the employees in the
    Photo Center for quite a while now. And they tell me that 90% or more of
    their printing comes from families using the cheap 35mm film cameras.
    Including the One Time Use cameras.
    And the other 10% is digital prints from people either bringing in their
    media and letting them use it to print from or using one of the photo
    printing kisocks to setup their prints. And even then they have people
    bringing in old film prints and scanning them at the kisocks for reprints.
    I think that with the younger generation of people growing up with digital,
    that eventually Film use by the general public will fade to just being a
    niche market of do-it-yourselfer B&W photographers and special needs groups.
    It will be interesting to see how places like the National Archives will
    handle this in the future. (even though I may not be around by that time)
    james, Sep 17, 2004
  5. richardsfault

    james Guest

    Comments inline:

    I agree, they do to a point. CD technology is basiclly the same as it was
    10-15 years ago as far as the media is concerned. All it will take for CD
    format to go away is music producers to start selling albums on DVD or some
    other large storage media and not making their new products available in the
    older format. The same thing is happening right now with VHS. Pre-recorded
    movies are starting to come out only on DVD. Some are still producing VHS
    copies as well. But, they usually don't offer the "extras" that are
    available on DVD. eg. Multiple sound tracks, different language subtitles,
    GAMES, and tons of other extras that appear on the DVD version of a movie
    release and not on VHS. All of that is designed to wean us away from VHS.
    Which in this case, is fine by me. VHS tapes can vary in quailty and
    degrade with viewing that does not happen to DVD disks. (if handled
    Once a new media format is adopted for music, you can be sure that CD
    technology will go away over time and if you don't have the music you like
    in the newer format or the hardware available to use the older technology,
    then you will loose your music.

    Those were never real standards in Film. Only in passing. 35mm has been
    around for quite a while and can still be printed. Even 4X5 and large format
    film can be printed (not at Wal-Mart though) with commercial film
    proccessors or even at home , in a home darkroom. I can go to a camera
    store in Fort Worth (nearest one to me) and they have all kinds of film
    available and even now have a new printing lab.
    So, film still has it's place. As I stated in another post, I LOVE my 10D
    and digital imaging. And I know it can only get better. But, unless I take
    the time to keep moving those images and data that I think are important (to
    me at least) to newer storage media , they could and would end up being
    Thanks for the comments and I am truly enjoying this thread.
    james, Sep 17, 2004
  6. richardsfault

    BillB Guest

    Good, because most digital images contain the type of color
    information that silver halide based technology doesn't handle
    particularly well. :)
    BillB, Sep 17, 2004
  7. richardsfault

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Ultimately, yes. But I've been at this a long time. I really have no doubt
    about what's going to happen - it's never failed before.
    I don't think your logic here holds water. First of all, no competing
    industry is making a change here, either - it is the same industry. Second,
    while profit certainly is a driving factor, it is not the only one.
    Technological progress is deemed "a good thing" in and of itself, because
    it's assumed that improved technology leads to improved quality, better and
    more desireable products, and finally a better bottom line.

    The camera industry is moving to digital because it *is* expanding their
    market. Consumers are easily convinced that a $100 camera that needs no
    film is to their benefit, and it's no accident that digital cameras are now
    outselling film cameras. This trend shows no signs of slowing down.

    Given the trend, I don't see how you can be in such denial. You talk about
    lifetimes, I think we're talking about less than a decade.
    With film, you not only have to drop it off somewhere, but you have to buy
    it, change it, limit your shots, wait to have it developed before you can
    see the results, and digitize it if you want it on a computer at all.
    Digital cameras have all of those things "built in", plus things like
    switchable ISOs and new ways of composing shots (i.e. viewscreens). The
    convenience of digital over film is similarly undeniable.

    Again, not "better". The word "better" implies superiority, which digital
    clearly is not. Cameras, whether they be film or digital, are just tools
    used to obtain an end result, and the end result of film and digital aren't
    better or worse than each other. The way you speak on this subject makes it
    sound like you feel threatened, which is understandable, but I think that
    also makes you fight hard about it, which is unnecessary. Digital
    represents no threat to you.
    I don't, and I don't know why you have that notion.
    Technological progress is a good thing, because it means better products for
    us to use, whether they be film or digital. Because film cameras are such a
    mature technology, there's not much to get excited about on that side of the
    fence. But digital is booming, and someday (and maybe this is what you feel
    threatened by) it *will* be a better tool than film, because it's
    potentially capable of things that would be impossible to do with film
    cameras. Imagine being able to shoot hand-held in the dark with no noise,
    and print that shot at large poster sizes with perfect sharpness and
    clarity. Digital is opening up a whole new world in photography, and I
    don't know why anyone who loves photography would resist such promising

    Even that won't stop you from using film if you want to, but why do you
    think it's so unnatural for someone like me to get excited about the
    prospect of better and better cameras and continually improving technology?
    I love photography - I want cameras and their capabilities to progess into
    the stratosphere. Don't you?

    It is not I who is insisting that one technology is better - it is you who
    is insisting one is worse. You clearly have a chip on your shoulder, and it
    would be a shame if you allowed a grudge to prevent you from enjoying new
    technologies and capabilities along with the rest of us, whether you
    actually used them or not.
    Mike Kohary, Sep 18, 2004

  8. Perhaps what bothers me most is your choice of words, Mike. I don't know
    if those words are intentional or just poorly chosen. For example, your use
    of the word "failed" above contains the suggestion that film's quick demise
    (your position in this discussion) would be a success.

    The camera manufacturers don't control the film manufacturers. Unlike the
    music industry, for example, where the major recording companies owned the
    record and cassette manufacturing companies, Nikon or Canon doesn't own Agfa
    or Fuji. They're not the same industry. There are two players in this game
    and each one will affect the other. As long as there is a market for film,
    and the film companies are going to work very hard to insure that, the
    camera companies will sell film cameras.

    So it does come right back down to the bottom line or profits. But your're
    missing the whole point. In this case, there is nothing to gain from killing
    off one industry to solely target another. The camera manufacturers are out
    to sell cameras and, once prices level out, they will not care whether those
    cameras are film or digital. The film manufacturers, on the other hand, do
    care and will work to remain in business. As such, I just don't think we'll
    see that quick of an end to film.

    Oh, please. Stick to the subject of market trends and stop trying to
    psychoanalyze me with comments about being in denial, feeling threatened, or
    having a chip on my shoulder. Since none of those apply to me, you're simply
    not very good at it.

    Well, I just don't see how the world was able to get along for all those
    years without digital. Come on, Mike. You make a minor effort, such as
    changing film, sound like the end of the world.

    Have you ever heard the phrase "a mountain out of a mole hill." My film
    camera has "switchable ISO's" also. It's called changing film, something
    photographers have been doing for decades. That camera also has a viewfinder
    for composing shots.

    Well, one certainly can't say you're not enthusiastic. Look, since I owned
    several digital cameras and have been involved in computer graphics and
    digital imaging since not long after getting my first computer some 20+
    years ago, I can appreciate digital photography also. But there is a clear
    limit to my enthusiasm, and the reality of digital's impact on film.

    Nonsense. I've said absolutely nothing to even suggest one technology is
    better than the other. Instead, my comments have focused strongly on the
    realities of the marketplace, with only passing responses to the comments
    made by others about the actual technologies.

    Still more attempts to psychoanalyze. Simply because I've not agreed with
    your viewpoint that film faces a quick death, you've decided I'm in denial,
    feel threatened, have a chip on my shoulder, hold a grudge, and am prevented
    from enjoying new technologies. Anything else?

    Dwight Stewart, Sep 18, 2004
  9. richardsfault

    BillB Guest

    Yep. Your inane reply contained nothing to indicate that you're
    not still a dunce. You're inching into dunderhead territory.
    BillB, Sep 18, 2004
  10. richardsfault

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Maybe you're just taking it too personally. I don't intend it the way
    you're taking it, and I can't control how you take it. "It's never failed
    before", simply means that all other electronic product has moved inexorably
    towards digital, and I'm positive cameras will do the same. I'm not using
    the word "failed" in the context of "failure versus success", and I have no
    desire for "film's quick demise". I just see it as an inevitable objective
    fact, not an agenda.

    I don't desire film's demise, I desire digital's progress. In the process,
    it will probably mean film's demise, but that's just a side-effect that
    The film manufacturers have nothing to do with it. The camera manufacturers
    have been making film cameras, now they're making digital cameras, and
    someday they may decide it's not worth it to make film cameras any longer.
    Film manufacturers are "competitors", though I understand your point that
    they'll be affected. They'll either have to diversify or swirl down the
    drain. Such is business.
    I see your point, but I don't think it will make any difference. In the
    end, the consumer will dictate, and right now they're speaking loud and
    clear - digital is "in".
    I doubt that film manufacturers have that kind of clout. Camera
    manufacturers only care about what will sell, and increasingly, that's
    digital instead of film. The film manufacturers (some of them also camera
    manufacturers) won't have much say in the matter - they have to follow the
    camera manufacturers, who are going to follow the consumer.
    It's how you come off in these discussions. You're very defensive, and it
    doesn't make much sense.
    See what I mean? What exactly are you defending here? Why deny the obvious
    conveniences of digital?

    The other day, I did a model shoot. I took 800 pictures in two hours,
    storing all of that on two wafer-thin cards in my pocket, and instantly
    accessed them the minute I got home. Impossible to do with film.

    That's not an "opinion" or a "position", and I'm not putting anything down.
    It's just a statement of fact - you couldn't do that with film, period. It
    is an opinion that I find that more convenient, but honestly, who wouldn't,
    and why? It's not like it's a very controversial statement to say that it's
    awesome you can take a lot more shots, consequentially (hopefully) getting
    more good shots, and see them instantly.
    More defensiveness. I can switch ISOs at the press of a button. You have
    to either use up the remaining film or waste a bunch, then open the camera,
    take out the old film, put in the new film, and only then can you go again.
    You'd have to do a serious dance to convince anyone that the two methods are
    equivalent and neither is more convenient than the other. I can walk
    outside and snap shots on ISO 100, and then walk back inside and take shots
    at ISO 800 five seconds later. You would have to do your whole
    film-changing process to do the same thing. I can walk outside and back in
    20 times without missing a beat. That would be either impossible or
    prohibitively expensive to do with film (say, during a wedding where you
    don't have time to switch around).

    What are you defending here? The convenience of digital in this case is
    undeniable. Why bother pretending it's not? You make it all such a
    "versus" thing.
    Yup. Does that bother you?
    That's fine. Am I pestering you to be enthusiastic? No, it's you pestering
    me to not be so enthusiastic.

    I think in about 5-7 years, you're going to be pretty unhappy with this
    newsgroup if you're still carrying the same attitude. But you're right
    about one thing: that's your business, not mine.
    What else should I assume? I can't think of any other reasons to behave as
    you do in response to posts about digital photography. It seems like every
    time someone posts something positive about digital, you have to respond
    negatively. Maybe you should leave us digital enthusiasts alone, and you
    won't be accused of such things. Deal?
    Mike Kohary, Sep 18, 2004

  11. You seem to be reading as much into my words as you claim I'm reading into

    Of course they do. Again, as I said earlier, camera manufacturers are out
    to sell cameras and, beyond profits, they don't care what kind of cameras.
    Therefore, as long as there is a film industry, and film manufacturers are
    certainly going to work hard to make sure that is the case, camera
    manufacturers are going to make film cameras. Do you honestly expect camera
    manufacturers to do otherwise?

    Digital is "in" at the moment. But don't forget millions of film cameras
    are still being sold, many more world-wide. I just don't see how anyone can
    twist that into some perception that film is dead or quickly dying.

    Why would you see another perspective as being defensive? This is a
    discussion about "film vs. digital." There is more than one viewpoint, your
    viewpoint, in that discussion.

    I'm not defending anything. You made it sound like changing film is a
    serious inconvenience, which it obviously is not.

    Great. But is it really that different with film? It certainly doesn't
    take that long to drop film off at a lab and pick it up a few hours later on
    both prints and CD's.

    It's not more defensiveness. It's simply a response to a mountain out of a
    molehill. One rarely has a need to change ISO's in the middle of a roll of
    film. But, where needed, just about every professional film camera today has
    the ability to remove film mid-roll and return later to finish that roll,
    without the waste you claim above.

    In what way am I pestering you? I posted a message in response to what
    someone calling themself "bmoag" said. You were not involved until you
    decided to respond to that. And I'm certainly not holding you hostage, so
    you can end your involvement anytime you want by simply not responding.

    Excuse me? Look at the subject line at the top of your screen. This is a
    discussion about both film and digital, not just digital. As for my
    behavior, I suggest yours has been far worse than mine. After all, I haven't
    made personal comments about you being in denial, feeling threatened, having
    a chip on the shoulder, and other such nonsense (by the way, this sentence
    is being defensive).

    Bull. I said nothing negative when I joined this discussion. Here is a
    copy of my first message in this thread.

    "I've been passively reading this thread
    and am amazed at the bold proclamations.
    More specifically, how many are so quick
    to write off a multi-billion dollar industry.
    The evidence just doesn't fit that picture.
    Film cameras are still selling. Even though
    digital cameras did just recently start
    outselling film cameras, those film cameras
    still account for almost half of the new
    cameras sold today. And that doesn't even
    include the many, many, millions of existing
    film cameras already in use. Stores still
    enjoy a brisk film processing business, with
    still delays due to heavy sales volume during
    major holidays. And the film industry is not
    just going to sit on its tail waiting to be
    replaced - waiting to lose that multi-billion
    dollar industry. It will certainly fight back.
    Given all that, it is clear film is not going
    to going to disappear (not going to be
    entirely replaced) anytime soon, perhaps
    even within our lifetimes. So, the writing
    may indeed be on the wall, but that writing
    is going to be long faded with age before
    anything some think that writing says now
    becomes the reality."

    Now, if you can find anything negative in that, perhaps you can point it
    out to me.

    Again, you were not involved until you decided to involve yourself.
    Regardless, this is a public newsgroup with both film and digital
    photographers. Therefore, if you want to be left alone to discuss digital
    without any involvement by film photographers, I suggest you start another
    newsgroup dedicated solely to digital. Another option is to stick to the
    subject of this discussion and stop trying to make claims (in denial,
    negative, and so on) about the other participants.

    Dwight Stewart, Sep 19, 2004
  12. richardsfault

    roger Guest

    Good, because most digital images contain the type of color

    I've been enjoying this thread, but i am a little fuzzy on what this
    statement above means. It was my impression and experience that a
    well exposed transparency (and i have worked with them for over 15
    years and in formats up to 4x5 in size), picked up every color nuance
    and detail of a scene. what is this "type of color information" that
    is missing from film? I am not attacking, just curious as to what
    this means.
    oh yea, also, there were some great comments on backing up digital
    files, with changing technology, you really have to keep up on
    re-backing things up every 20 years or so. My 2 year old carried
    around her book full of birthday photos from her big 2 birthday party
    for months, showing everyone who entered the house, and curling up
    with it several times a day to look at it on mom's lap or mine, yet
    whenever she gets near my computer she ends up renaming files like
    "important financial statements from may" into slightly less
    appropriately named files like "========.....". I'd rather let her
    carry around her album than anything else. I guess the whole image
    storage issue will never be settled. I know my kids never get tired
    of looking at photos of themselves. to tuck them away on a computer
    that only i can access seems like a crime to me.
    roger, Sep 21, 2004
  13. richardsfault

    BillB Guest

    On 20 Sep 2004 21:03:54 -0700, roger wrote:

    }}}} Microfilm is still a silver halide based technology
    }}}} and therefore . . .

    }}} Tell that to the National Archives, the Mormon Church's Family
    }}} History Center in Salt Lake City and dozens of other archives
    }}} all over the country. I am not suggesting using Microfilm as a
    }}} storage media for digital images.
    When developed, the silver halide in B&W film (the Microfilm
    mentioned above) is converted to a metallic silver that is ideal for
    archival purposes. The dyes used in color film are organic and
    aren't nearly as permanent. I believe that occasionally silver
    halide film has been used for color photography (a few movies but
    probably more for astronomy or other purposes) by using colored
    filters to take several simultaneous pictures, so that each B&W film
    captures a single color. They can later be 'combined' to produce
    color pictures, but I'm unaware that this technique has ever been
    used with Microfilm.
    BillB, Sep 21, 2004
  14. richardsfault

    RSD99 Guest

    "BillB" posted:
    I believe that occasionally silver
    halide film has been used for color photography (a few
    movies but
    probably more for astronomy or other purposes)

    Do you mean as in both the Kodachrome and Technicolor
    processes ... both of which were silver halide-based IIRC
    .... and which account for a bit more usage than "just a few
    movies" ... ?

    And don't forget the Dye Transfer and Carbro printing
    processes that were used to make color prints ... until
    roughly the 1960s or so ..
    RSD99, Sep 21, 2004
  15. richardsfault

    roger Guest

    When developed, the silver halide in B&W film (the Microfilm
    gotcha, you were using this reference in relation to microfilm. I
    have used a similar process to produce tri-color gum prints, its an
    early process that produces a color print using 3 separate b&w negs,
    and makes a very permanent print. Commercial printing uses the same
    concept for printing books, magazines, newspapers, posters, teeshirts,
    etc. You can adapt the technology to anything. I'm not convinced
    anything relating to microfilm recording would ever be important
    enough to use this technique on.
    roger, Sep 21, 2004
  16. That's absurd. On the contrary, the evidence does indicate
    that film is an endangered species.

    LP's and casettes was a multi-billion dollar industry. It was
    simply replaced virtually at 100% by the CD. It was more than
    obvious that it was going to happen that way. And I remember
    when the CD's were first showing up, hearing countless people
    arguing about why the CD would never really be successful and
    would never replace LP's and casettes. (arguments including
    people that have LP collections of more than 1000 or 2000
    albums, including also the fact that "you don't find any good
    music on CD, that's just for classical music", and other
    stupidities like that)

    Same thing for mechanical calculators, or mechanical typewriters;
    they can fight whatever the hell they want -- they can not
    force consumers to go against their best judgement; they could
    not even manipulate them and deceive them into keeping buying
    their obsolete technology.

    The day someone invents flying cars, or transporters (yes,
    transporters a la Star Trek) that cost about the same or less
    than cars, the multi-multi-multi-billion dollars automobile
    industry, will simply disappear -- not overnight, but it will
    disappear very abruptly. And the automobile industry can
    fight as much as they want, but they simply can not point a
    gun at the consumer and force them to buy cars (well, this
    example of transporters is perhaps a bit inadequate, in that
    the automobile industry could use FUD -- Fear, Uncertainty
    and Doubt -- campaigns against the transporters, and pray
    on people's fear of having their molecules spreading around;
    not to mention moral and religious arguments about the
    transporter being evil and treating the human body as a soul-
    less bunch of matter, blah blah blah... Still, all that
    means is that cars would remain as a niche market, for those
    lunatics and fanatics that refuse to use a transporter -- and
    even then, soon enough they would be pissed off, when they
    start having trouble finding gas, and having to pay 200
    dollars for one gallon of gas, and not finding highways --
    which would soon cease to exist, etc. etc. etc.).
    The thing is, they can fight back all they want. Consumers
    are the ones that decide. They can fight back, but they can
    not point a gun at every consumer and force them to buy what
    they tell them to buy. When two competing products are close,
    or when the consumer is not qualified to decide, then there's
    room for manipulation through advertising. But you did mention
    some of the key details in you paragraph above: "Still delays
    due to heavy sales during holidays"...

    Millions of existing cameras?? I can't speak for all those
    millions, but I can speak for one of those many millions of
    existing film cameras: my Nikon F80... The power button of
    that camera has been in the ON position ONLY ONCE since I got
    my Nikon D70. And it was due to a technicality -- I needed
    very wide angle for one picture I was taking, and the D70,
    with its 1.5X focal length multiplier, makes my 18mm lens
    turn into a pedestrian 27mm... So, I resorted to my F80.
    Just that one time. Has not been used for anything else
    since I got my digital camera. And frankly, I would feel
    profoundly stupid using that camera for any occasion other
    than needing the 18mm, or extra-long exposures for astro-
    photography -- and even then, that's only because I still
    don't know very well how to get around that with the digital
    one, or some other very specific (and rare) reasons. Why
    would I choose to shot "blindly" (i.e., not knowing right
    away if the shot was fine or not, so that I know if I have
    to repeat it while I still have the chance), plus having to
    wait until the entire roll is shot, to then having to take
    the car and pollute the air with the 12km trip to the place
    where I develop the pictures, and then having to wait in
    line, then wait an hour (or a couple hours), *then PAY
    additional money*, to possibly discover that the images
    were under-exposed; or perhaps that the idiot of the photo-
    lab didn't adjust the colors or screwed up somehow... Why
    would I choose to use the F80 when I have the D70 right
    next to it?

    See, the key detail in here is that the consumer market
    is typically driven by *convenience* above all else.

    To a long-life audiophile like me, the main reason why I
    would want CD's is for the brutally and astronomically
    superior sound quality that it offers. Yet, I doubt that
    more than 10% of the world's population has ever stopped
    to think about that -- "sound quality? what's that? and
    why would I care about that?" The CD won't wear with use;
    it's not a delicate fragile thing that can jump to the
    next or previous groove if I jump next to the turntable;
    it doesn't make woaw-woaw like LP's do. It won't just
    get destroyed as casette tapes used to do when the roller
    jams and starts eating the tape.

    So, you see, LP's and casette manufactures could fight
    back all they wanted -- they do not decide what people
    buy or not. (again, this example is tricky, given that
    in that case it was the same industry the ones that
    started producing CD's -- but it would have happened
    exactly the same way if it had been a completely
    different industry -- or a mixture of it, as is the
    case of photography: Kodak is producing digital
    cameras; virtually all film camera manufacturers are
    also producing digital and digital SLR cameras)
    This is truly a joke. In my lifetime alone (and I'm
    still very young -- I'm not even 40) I have witnessed
    technological revolutions much more drastic than this
    one... Yes, it feels like a lifetime, yet it has been
    just a couple decades. Computers. The Internet. MP3.
    E-commerce. Technology is going astonishingly fast, so
    no, it won't take half a lifetime to see a technology
    be replaced by a new & improved technology.

    There's another detail -- many people (possibly including
    you) don't seem to realize that digital photography is
    a replacement for the negatives or slides, and only
    that. It can be a replacement for paper if you want
    to, but generally speaking, it is not. From a negative,
    you can order prints (well, you normally get prints the
    first time). From a digital picture, you can order
    prints (more easily than from a negative, mind you;
    you can do it online -- just upload your pictures and
    order prints of up to 12 x 18; possibly other sites
    are offering, or surely will be offering soon, larger
    sizes). So, what's the diff?

    Carlos Moreno, Sep 21, 2004
  17. richardsfault

    Bob S Guest

    I have been reading this and have a few thoughts.....

    #1 Yes, there are a lot of digicams being sold. There are always a
    lot of new things at the start of the fad. There are places for
    digicams but they can not fully replace film.

    #2 I just returned from a week in Las Vegas. I carried my EOS-3
    around quite a bit. I was surprised at the number of comments I got
    about people not ready for digital. I didn't count but it was a lot.

    #3 When I got home I took my film to the lab and sat home looking
    over the prints while enjoying a cold Bass Ale. I was not tied to my
    computer to look at everything I shot, picking out what I wanted to
    save. And I didn't have to print things I wanted to share on my ink
    jet printer. Oh yeah, I was told that I didn't have to sit in front
    of my computer, stores have equipment to do that. So I stand in the
    store looking at what I want to print. I'd rather sit.

    #4 Cost? Anybody ever price photo ink? Or photo paper? And what
    is your time worth while at the computer? Then there is the cost,
    granted they are getting lower in price, of a quality photo printer.

    #5 Somebody said negs can get lost in fires, etc. and you can send
    images all over the world. True. How many of the images you send get
    archived ath the receiving end? Do you keep every image you receive
    in case the sender might lose his original?

    #6 The changing computer equipment/media was mentioned. So if I go
    all digital I not only have to get the images from my digicam but now
    I have to copy them from last week's media to today's media
    periodicaly to insure that I have them when I want them. Someone
    once said that he was having a difficult time getting stuff off of a
    5.25 diskette. Oh, BTW, he printed a 60 year old negative the night
    before. That was about 4 or 5 years ago too.....

    Digital is neat and has a place. But film will be here for a long
    time yet. Oh yeah, Canon just announced a new film camera.....

    Bob S, Sep 22, 2004
  18. richardsfault

    roger Guest

    That's absurd. On the contrary, the evidence does indicate
    Possibly true, Kodak has more or less stopped research and development
    on new film types, although fuji has promised thus far to persevere.

    I don't really believe this, thanks to multi-billion dollar ad
    campaigns, billions have been served the worst food in the nation,
    Mcdonalds.And the automobile industry can
    although thanks to the oil industry, technology in the 40's and 50's
    focused on changing over to electric and other alterna-fuels was
    squelched for decades.
    I work in a multi-million dollar a year camera store and we sell about
    92 percent digital to 8 percent film cameras. It's been like that for
    about 3 years now, hardly recently. Our statistics reveal even with
    that high of a number, most familys (60 to 70 percent) still own and
    use a film camera in the house also. Our in-house lab is typically
    about a 50-50 split 35mm and digital negatives (emailed or dropped

    As stated above, digital prints are just as popular as film prints.
    As far as the multi-billion dollar film industry, the camera
    manufacturers have much more power in the world than the film
    producers. I still regularly use an Olympus OM-1 that is as old as i
    am, 35mm cameras were built to last. the typical life expectancy of a
    digital camera is 3 years. they are just not built to last longer
    than that. 200 dollar point and shoot digital up to the 1300 dollar
    slr's. 3 years. that's it. honest to goodness that has come from
    manufactures' reps. the camera makers are guaranteeing repeat
    business every 3 years.

    And frankly, I would feel
    You should have gone with the eos 10d then, the CMOS chip handles long
    exposures very well, it is becoming an exceptional astrophoto camera.
    You forget one point however, you have been blessed with one of the
    best digital cameras out there, you have little need to use film. try
    this for an experiment, run out and buy a kodak easy share CX series
    camera, 200 bucks, or a fuji 330, under 200, a coolpix 2200, 150
    bucks, any camera in the 300 dollar and under range, available
    anywhere and insanely popular, shoot a birthday or christmas, then
    look at your prints, and i guarantee you will pick up the F80 and
    start loving it all over again. I see these cheap cameras go out all
    the time, and we try to sell based on what print size the customer
    wants, but it most oftenly comes down to price point.

    To a long-life audiophile like me, the main reason why I
    except for the high ranges, which any audiophile will tell you, the cd
    fails in this area.

    The CD won't wear with use;
    here's another experiment, give my 2 year old an hour with your cd
    collection and i guarantee that half your collection will be unusable.
    scratched, licked, chewed, stepped on, cracked, you name it, she'll
    do it. i love her to pieces, but if i hear the cd cabinet opening, i
    go a 'runnin.

    that's all
    roger, Sep 22, 2004

  19. Before I say anything, and before you also get the wrong impression, let
    me point out that my words are not intended to be anti-digital. While I do
    use film equipment, I certainly use digital equipment as well. That clearly
    said, let's address your comments.

    As I said elsewhere, the same factors are not present in the photography
    industry as was the case with the music industry. In the music industry, the
    major recording labels owned the record manufacturing companies. As such,
    they were easily able to orchestrate a switch from one medium to the other.
    But in the photography industry, the camera manufacturers don't own the film
    manufacturers. And those film manufacturers are going to work hard to remain
    a player in this overall industry.

    Camera manufacturers have a clear incentive to promote digital today -
    increased profits from high digital product prices. But, once prices begin
    to level out between film and digital cameras, that incentive will be
    greatly reduced. At that point, camera manufacturers will simply market
    whatever sells. And the film manufacturers will be right there to insure
    film cameras are right there in that whatever sells.

    Don't get me wrong, film will never dominate the photography industry as
    it once did. But I'm far from convinced it is a dead industry.

    You mentioned several other technologies (typewriters and so on). Since I
    don't want to get into an analysis of each, and such analysis wouldn't
    really change what I wrote above, I'll move on without further comment on
    those things.

    Of course. That obviously goes without saying. However, consumers are
    influenced by many factors, including marketing, advertising, product
    prices, and so on. For the reasons stated earlier, the marketing and
    advertising focus today is on digital cameras. But there is no reason to
    believe that is going to remain the focus forever.

    Well, if that is indeed an accurate description of your situation, then
    you've made the right choice. However, I have enough experience to know
    whether most pictures are going to come out properly exposed or not, most
    professional cameras (including mine) have the ability to change film
    mid-roll to finish at some more convenient time, and my film is processed by
    a lab just down the street.

    Since you place so much emphasis on it above, I'll address processing
    costs separately. I've added up the figures for both the film and digital
    sides of my business, including such things as equipment costs, film
    processing, manpower costs, and so on. In my own case (and strictly in my
    own case - others may vary), I found no significant difference. The cost of
    film processing is mostly offset by increased digital equipment costs,
    manpower costs (sitting in front of that computer), and printer ink, papers,
    and so on. And when I pass on those processing costs to customers, film
    actually becomes cheaper for me. At the same time, I haven't found too many
    customers willing to pay for me to sit in front of the computer, especially
    when my time is worth far more than the cost of processing a roll of film.

    And I've lived long enough to see many, much touted, technological
    revolutions ("the paperless office" springs to mind) turn out to be nothing
    more than hype. As such, I'm a little more careful about making bold
    proclamations about any so-called technological revolution today.

    The rest of your message seems to focus on things we've already discussed
    (records, CD's, and so on), so I won't repeat my responses again.

    Dwight Stewart, Sep 22, 2004
  20. richardsfault

    Mike Kohary Guest

    I don't think so. Your resistance is vociferous.
    I'm sure film manufacturers will fight. It won't matter - in the end, the
    consumer will decide, and all the evidence and current trends indicate
    consumers are moving to digital.
    Because every year, film sales decrease at a rapid rate. I don't think it's
    a reach to think that trend has gone beyond the point of no return.

    But you know what? I have more important things to do than try to convince
    you of that. You are welcome to think anything you want. Just try not to
    protest too loudly when the posts of others reflect the reality of the
    situation, rather than the pipe dream that digital photography is going to
    remain some kind of niche market.
    My viewpoint is that there is no such thing as "film versus digital". It is
    because you see it as a conflict that we have these discussions.
    Sure you are. Whenever someone points out the obvious conveniences of
    digital technology, you defend film as if it had equal conveniences. ???
    I was speaking in general, not necessarily just about me in particular. You
    tend to pester digital photography enthusiasts, and try to bring them down.
    It's annoying.
    Mike Kohary, Sep 22, 2004
    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.