Digital Outsells Film, But Film Still King to Some

[James Fee]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.macworld.com/news/2004/09/23/digitalfilm/index.php/?lsrc=mcrss-0904' target='_blank'>http://www.macworld.com/news/2004/09/23/digitalfilm/index.php/?lsrc=mcrss-0904</a><br /><br /></div>"<i>Over a decade later, many professional photographers have followed their lead, although others still hold out against the inevitable advance of digital technology, and few have been as quick to discard the old ways as Opus and company. In fact, some, such as Eric Welch, photo editor for the Gemological Institute of America, believe film could still be a viable alternative, but they're frustrated with what they see as Kodak's abandonment of the market. "I was a strong proponent of film for a long time," Welch said. "I argued that film would always be better than digital and would continue to improve. In fact, film could be ten times better than it is now, but Kodak threw their research out the window."</i><br /><br />Interesting thoughts, are we seeing film die because it is being ignored by Kodak and Fuji or has digital just gotten so much better so quickly that it seems like traditional film is stuck in the 1980's. Honestly, not too many people these days have even know what <a href="http://www.paulsimon.com/lyrics/kodachrome.html">Kodachrome</a> is.<br /><br />Could film cameras such as the <a href="http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/filmcamera/slr/2000-2004/f6/index.htm">Nikon F6</a> be the limit of film camera development?

[Neil Enns]

I haven't touched my film cameras in more than a year. But there's still something about taking a Kodachrome slide and holding it up to the light that makes me grin. When I go home for Christmas I'm taking my film body specifically so I can shoot some Kodachrome pics of winter.

Neil

[James Fee]

I think you've hit on why film is still popular with some people. Digital photos are sometimes just too perfect, film can capture parts of a photograph that you miss while staring at your digital images in photoshop.

[Montego]

My best friend is a pro photographer in Lexington, KY. HE shoots stuff for the city and does wedding photography on the side. He uses Nikon equipment for both film and digital. He shoots everything for the city in digital, but still shoots weddings on film because he thinks the digital quality is too different.

Interestingly, he also owns a fairly inexpensive Olympus D-580 4MP camera and says that for the print sizes he shoots for the city the Olympus looks as good as his Nikon 6MP. However, he takes the Nikon because he says people expect to see his "pro" equipment.

[dean_shan]

I havn't used film in years. Could be that up until now (college) I was over 100 miles from the closest film developer. With digital I could see the results that day not a week or month later. There is somthing to be said about developing your own photographs. I find that to be quite fun.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

I think you've hit on why film is still popular with some people. Digital photos are sometimes just too perfect, film can capture parts of a photograph that you miss while staring at your digital images in photoshop.

Ok, I didn't quite get the logic behind this one. :silly:

Film has about hit the limit, compared to digital. Fact is that in 20 years digital has surpassed what film has done in about 100 years. I don't doubt that digital will continue to improve, and while film can still be improved on, I don't think it'll be at the rate at which digital is improving.

I still like my chromes, but it's a matter of time before I go to digital. Increasing film prices doesn't help.

[James Fee]

I think you've hit on why film is still popular with some people. Digital photos are sometimes just too perfect, film can capture parts of a photograph that you miss while staring at your digital images in photoshop.

Ok, I didn't quite get the logic behind this one. :silly:

Well it didn't come out how I was thinking it.

Basically there is something about film that I just don't see in digital photos. Maybe it is something I can't quantify, but its there.

[Jason Dunn]

Basically there is something about film that I just don't see in digital photos. Maybe it is something I can't quantify, but its there.

The problem with digital is that it's too perfect. Film has a sort of vagueness about the images that digital does away with. Digital captures the world as it is, whereas film in many ways captures the world the way our eyes see it. My 2 cents. ;-)

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Hmm, I never saw it that way. There's a film look and a digital look, but it's more due to contrast and tonal curve differences. Never saw it as too perfect.

[Jason Dunn]

Hmm, I never saw it that way. There's a film look and a digital look, but it's more due to contrast and tonal curve differences. Never saw it as too perfect.

I'd say that your eyes, and the film you shoot, are quite different from most. I was talking more about the regular, point and shoot cameras that the Average Joe has. It you look at the results from one of those pictures, and compare that to even an entry-level point and shoot digital camera, the most striking difference to me is that digital simply picks up more detail. Quite a few people just starting out in digital don't like it because of that...but they usually get over it quickly. ;-)

[Neil Enns]

It's partly the film grain, and partly the tone lent to an image by the film you use. Shooting Kodachrome, for example, gives a wonderful cool cast to your images. I'm no photo pro, but winter shots on Kodachrome still give me the willies. It's something you can do in Photoshop, but it's never quite the same.

Neil

[ctmagnus]

fwiw, my brother has even gone digital. He doesn't even own a CD player yet, never mind a computer!

[James Fee]

It's partly the film grain, and partly the tone lent to an image by the film you use. Shooting Kodachrome, for example, gives a wonderful cool cast to your images. I'm no photo pro, but winter shots on Kodachrome still give me the willies. It's something you can do in Photoshop, but it's never quite the same.
That is what I'm talking about. Its hard to describe, but I love the look...

That said, I'm 100% digital these days.

[dean_shan]

fwiw, my brother has even gone digital. He doesn't even own a CD player yet, never mind a computer!

Where does he store his photos?

[ctmagnus]

fwiw, my brother has even gone digital. He doesn't even own a CD player yet, never mind a computer!

Where does he store his photos?

On my dad's PC. He says he's planning on getting a PC but if my mom's genes are too powerful in him, that won't happen anytime soon.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

I'd say that your eyes, and the film you shoot, are quite different from most. I was talking more about the regular, point and shoot cameras that the Average Joe has. It you look at the results from one of those pictures, and compare that to even an entry-level point and shoot digital camera, the most striking difference to me is that digital simply picks up more detail.

That's a good point. Here the most popular consumer film due to sheer marketing power is probably the extremely crappy Kodak Max 400. "10 foot pole" and "do not touch with" come to mind when it's mentioned. If it's a similar case in NorthAm, then yes, it's probably the film at fault.

Then again Max 400 isn't too bad if you don't underexpose by more than 2/3 a stop, and don't develop larger than 4x6s..

Finally where the film is developed and printed plays a part as well.

Quite a few people just starting out in digital don't like it because of that...but they usually get over it quickly. ;-)

That sounds like when Dad bought the first generation of Sony miniDV cameras.. the difference in quality was amazing. The difference was that I liked it right off the bat. =P

It's partly the film grain, and partly the tone lent to an image by the film you use. Shooting Kodachrome, for example, gives a wonderful cool cast to your images. I'm no photo pro, but winter shots on Kodachrome still give me the willies. It's something you can do in Photoshop, but it's never quite the same.

Film grain isn't that big a problem in some films unless you go over a certain size.

Kodachrome is an outdated emulsion. The line from Kodak to use is the Ektachrome E100 series, most notably E100G and E100VS. If you need to cut cost the tranny from Kodak to use is the consumer Elitechrome 100 Extra Colour (aka EBX), derived from the same base as the E100VS.[/quote]

[Neil Enns]

Film grain isn't that big a problem in some films unless you go over a certain size. (...) Kodachrome is an outdated emulsion.

I'm not talking about the grain distracting from images, I'm talking about it *adding* to the images. Some of the most wonderful B&W shots I've seen had blatantly obvious grain that added to the beauty of the images. I've never even come close to shooting anything like that, but the touch it lends is unmistakable.

Even if Kodachrome is outdated I still love it. When you hold it up to the light and see the bazillion layers of different colours it makes up, and the crazy silver outlines around the edges in the image, it's just so... cool!

Neil