Digital V Film: Something to Consider

Here's another twist on the "archiving" issue. If you have good pictures, put them on the Web and other people will be happy to archive them for you! Or at least the ones that they particularly like. Who among us doesn't have a pile of pictures on their hard drives, from Web sites, e-mails, etc.?

Of course, if you lose your originals, getting back copies of them all may be a problem. On the other hand, in terms of the "big picture" of preserving history, at least they're still out there somewhere for people to find in the future.

And lots of people do find them, and package them on CD's to sell on the internet auctions, etc. I know of a number of websites that have been ripped off in this way. The internet is for all practical purposes a "free theft" zone. This is one of the reasons that the new internet based historical societies sometimes have difficulty getting members to provide historic photos from their personal collections for the group's websites.

I guess that's not much worse though than some publishers and video companies that solicit material for a project, and make copies of the unused (and not paid for) items to market out the "back door" to other publishers or video outfits without the permisson of the original owner. The ethics in a large segment of this hobby could use improvement.

One question, Paul: What digital camera do you have firsthand experience with?

OK, all youse guys who are still wedded to film... Bronica 4x6 three lenses, etc et c , make an offer!!!! [email protected] ..talk is cheap... my last film camera is on the block.... film may be great, but so are horses...

Don't know if you noticed, but the digital hype is slowly stagnating, and there is an increasing number of folks returning to film.
There is no doubt that digital is here to stay as the ruler of the photographic market. But film is slowly finding a steady place in the industry again, this is specially true to younger amateurs. For some reason, youngsters think film is cool. Well I have to agree with them, and I'm glad that's the case.

I think film has a bright future as a smaller market.
Hey if 8mm Kodachrome survived this long, film in general will have to survive for the next 20 years in some form.

There's no hype to digital, it's the next step in the evolution of photography. When major companies like Kodak and Nikon focus their main energies on digital imaging, it's more than just hype. Look at Ebay and the prices of film SLR cameras up for auction; those prices hardly reflect renewed popularity in the medium. Want to buy my Nikon N70?

That said, film will always be around, at least in our lifetime, which I'm glad for. There will always be those who want to learn and practice the ancient arts, much like many outdoor cooking enthusiasts are taking a break from their gas grills to cook with real wood. As for digital photography being hype, I'd say that's just dinosaur talk.

mxdata wrote:
I guess that's not much worse though than some publishers and video companies that solicit material for a project, and make copies of the unused (and not paid for) items to market out the "back door" to other publishers or video outfits without the permisson of the original owner. The ethics in a large segment of this hobby could use improvement.

Then there are those "Locomotive" magazines that "borrow " your slides for a project and then never return them...even after repeated requests to do so.

Fred G wrote:There's no hype to digital, it's the next step in the evolution of photography. When major companies like Kodak and Nikon focus their main energies on digital imaging, it's more than just hype. Look at Ebay and the prices of film SLR cameras up for auction; those prices hardly reflect renewed popularity in the medium. Want to buy my Nikon N70?

That said, film will always be around, at least in our lifetime, which I'm glad for. There will always be those who want to learn and practice the ancient arts, much like many outdoor cooking enthusiasts are taking a break from their gas grills to cook with real wood. As for digital photography being hype, I'd say that's just dinosaur talk.

I'd say every change in entertainment technology is a hype, and later it is proven.

In 50's the hype was color movies, later on, including today, BW is not something outdated, but an alternative artistic choice.

Did BW film evolve into color film? Nope, someone invented color film and now you have two choices.
Is BW film outdated? Nope you can stil buy it and its lovely

Evolution is present in technical sciences which serve no subjective pleasure, like a washing machine, there really is no benefit to using an old washing machine.
But in art and entertainment, the best device and technology is that which stimulates the most.
If a vynil record sound better to a viewer, then it's the better choice, there really is no other philosophy to it. Unless you are a supermarked salesman, then of course you MUST follow the "evolution"


p.s. No thanks for the Nikon, I got my 35mm area covered. I mostly shoot medium format though.

The day when I'm going to convert to digital is when it stops being a complicated plastic gadget with thousands of circuits and recording the images in little squares. Well I guess that's not anytime soon
It's a machine. Machines are, well, machines.
I prefer painting and analog photography, that's more fluid, more natural

Digital photography has been proven. When companies like Hasselblad make digital backs for cameras, it's a done deal. And I disagree with you about color film. It did evolve from black and white. But I do agree that the medium that suits you best IS the best. Even if you think a pinhole camera is best, I'm on your side.

Fred G wrote:Digital photography has been proven. When companies like Hasselblad make digital backs for cameras, it's a done deal. And I disagree with you about color film. It did evolve from black and white. But I do agree that the medium that suits you best IS the best. Even if you think a pinhole camera is best, I'm on your side.

the reason why I call digital photography hype is because I see how it is "spread". Minus educated photographers, most people will tell you you are supose to switch to digital because it's the new thing and it's modern.
People feel obligated to turn digital because it's a new technology.
It's like fashion.
Digital brings some new looks and conveniences into the world of photography, but one should use a digital camera when it offers what he wants in terms of esthetics and work practices, and not just because it's the new shiny thing in the store.
Because a lot of people use digital just because of that (new shiny thing), I call it hype.
Hell, I'd like an Imacon digital back for sure as an option, but I'd never throw away film, why limit myself?
Negative films has its own look, E6 has its own look, some emulsions are new and look modern, some older (like EPR) and have a nice vintage and "retro" look and texture, digital has its own unique sleek look.
That's a lot of variety, neither of the above choices can be a replacement for all the others.

Hehe, painters probably said the same thing about budding photographers in the 1800's. "That's not art".

I'm an ex film photographer and embraced digital because I don't have my own darkroom nor the means to build one. That aspect was the most appealing to me, as well as convenience and economy. I can blast almost 600 photos from my Nikon DSLR. Ok, that means I can play the odds better but I don't (it's still all about composition and photography). Another big advantage is that I can be a courteous railfan at a fan trip. Between zoom and a digital camera, I don't have to scream at people like a filmie with a wide angle lens who needs a quarter acre of empty space between him and the train because he only brought 3 rolls of film.

Let me ask you something. Do you sell your photos?

Fred G wrote:Hehe, painters probably said the same thing about budding photographers in the 1800's. "That's not art".

I'm an ex film photographer and embraced digital because I don't have my own darkroom nor the means to build one. That aspect was the most appealing to me, as well as convenience and economy. I can blast almost 600 photos from my Nikon DSLR. Ok, that means I can play the odds better but I don't (it's still all about composition and photography). Another big advantage is that I can be a courteous railfan at a fan trip. Between zoom and a digital camera, I don't have to scream at people like a filmie with a wide angle lens who needs a quarter acre of empty space between him and the train because he only brought 3 rolls of film.

Let me ask you something. Do you sell your photos?

No, at least not anymore/now
At any rate, I'm not a pro, so I can affoard to "waste" money on any expensive technology as I want to.

And I'm glad it works for you, we are probably different profiles of photographers, therefore different combination of equipment techniques are best for us.
I'm just trying to fight for my right to CHOSE to shoot film. I think I should be free to shoot film without 10 people breathing down my neck trying to convince me my choice is wrong.