Oh oh--
This is a real can of worms, and most opinions are based upon the
specific use people have in mind.
Video has been around now for what, over 20 years? Did it kill film in
the motion picture industry? Certainly not yet... the theaters are
still using light projection systems, and most 'filming" is still done
with, well, film. Did it kill off 8mm home movies and much of film use
in television? Yeap.
I see the same situation occurring in the land of still photography.
Many home snapshot users will switch to digital. Our local lab now
charges $.59 CAN for a digital source 4x6" print, just as they do for a
negative print, cheaper still if you bring a whole "card" of CD-R in.
Some catalogue and product photos have moved to digital due to quality
(wide exposure latitude, no grain, speed, no development, etc) using
very expensive digital backs on their cameras.
Is digital right for the fine art photographer, probably not yet.
Reasons are that most cameras do not allow for exchangeable lenses at a
reasonable price, resolution is not up to 35mm and certainly not MF
level (at a 'this world' price), battery consumption is still a big
problem for mobility, and storage and ease of access to images can still
be problematic. These problems are slowly being worked through with
better electronics that use less power, newer battery technologies, and
new storage devices and methods.
A big problem still is the human interface aspect. A slide, and to some
extent, a neg can be looked at without any additional equipment, and be
recognized. Not so with a digital file.
Film has good permanence if taken care of reasonably, storage space is
relatively small when considering an image contains upwards of 200 megs
in a 35mm frame. Digital cameras, for now, are not really upgradable,
while I can improve my camera to the latest image quality just by buying
a new roll of film. It will be some time before a digital camera will
be able to provide the quality:cost ratio of the current "disposable"
cameras. And just yesterday I was reading about bad pixels/sensors or at
least dirt that couldn't be cleaned off the sensor without a trip to the
repair shop on some Fuji cameras (I'm sure this is true of others as
well).
Digital has a lot of benefits. No need to send away your images for
development, where they can get lost or damaged, and certainly having to
deal with the delay. No film and processing costs. Easy destruction of
unwanted images with no waste. Ease in bringing the image into email,
photoshop, desktop publishing, etc. Adjustable white balance, so few to
no filters required. Good low light sensitivity. Small and lightweight
in many cases. Large, easy to see viewfinders, even in very low light.
I believe both the film and digital camera have, and will continue to
have, their places in photography for many years to come, but, just like
in movie shooting, niches will develop where one or the other will
become or remain strong fro some time to come. Who knows, maybe
eventually both methods will be replaced by something completely unheard
of today...
Art
Do digital
Tomasz Zakrzewski wrote:
>
> From
> >
> "The CanoScan FS4000US will be my last 35mm scanner. It's more than adequate
> to capture the detail in my images going back to the 1960's. Digital cameras
> are improving so fast that I doubt I'll be using 35mm after 2002. Current
> digital cameras approach 35mm in quality. There's plenty of debate on
> whether they've surpassed 35mm already, but they certainly will by 2002. Any
> digital camera you buy today will be obsolete in a year or two, but you have
> to weigh the cost of the camera against the savings in film and processing.
> The scale is tipping ever more strongly towards digital. Film sales will
> soon start dropping like a rock; prices will go up and less popular films
> will disappear. It's over for film."
>
> I have a question to people writing to this list: do all of you use still
> film only because digital cameras as not good enough yet? Or are here people
> who see clear benefits of silver halide technology for themselves?
>
> For me it seems that on the net you can find only extreme opinions (like the
> one cited above). You can either find statements like "film is already dead"
> made by self-styled prophets or "digital will never be good enough" said by
> "die-hard analogues" who didn't even try digital photography yet.
> I don't believe either of them.
> I'd really like to get in contact with people who are experienced in both
> mediums, are not biased against any of them, but above all who admire good
> photography and can distinguish between boring and fascinating, between
> average and sublime.
>
> Please, don't get me wrong, I'm continously upgrading my knowledge in
> digital photography and I see clear benefits of it but in certain areas. I
> don't want to see it capturing the whole of photography. I worry that
> photography will share the fate of other noble technologies sacrificed in
> the name of cost/speed/decreasing standards.
> Do you know how an Alfa Romeo V6 engine differs from a GM Ecotec engine? If
> yes, you also know what I mean.
>
> Sorry for this somewhat off-topic text. I hope you won't ban me from this
> list.
>
> Regards
>
> Tomasz Zakrzewski
>
> ___________________________________________
> fotografia - tomasz zakrzewski www.zakrzewski.art.pl
> foto@zakrzewski.art.pl
