Film Vs Digital - Your opinion please.
Steven C (Doktersteve)
from digital to SLR. I have my reasons. SLR system is better for lenses, and
is not as outrageously expensive as digital SLR.
Film is better for enlargements, etc unless you are shooting with an 11
megapixel digital camera with some crazy super CCD, and even then there are
arguments which can be made for SLR.
I wonder what you think. Many people (usually proponents of digital) say
that digital will replace film, but i do not see this happening in the next
while, the next long while.
I am curious to hear some well thoughtout arguments for either side. I
havent had the experience to talk to anyone that has a well educated point
of view for either.
Thanks.
Steven.
---
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 1/28/2003
Ric Trexell
to me. As to what you said...
I
havent had the experience to talk to anyone that has a well educated point
of view for either.
...you might not get that here but I'll try. Many people ask this same
question and I wonder why it has to be an either or answer. To me it is
like asking what is better, black and white or color film. It depends on
what you want. If you are a pro and have to get a picture across the
country in a few minutes to meet a printing deadline for a paper, digital is
the way to go. If you travel out of the country and fear x-rays or lack of
film where you are going, digital is the way to go. If you need super sharp
prints, film is probably the best bet. Now to the real question in life, I
need to go across town at 25 mph. What is the best car? Ford or Chevy?
Thanks. Ric in Wisconsin.
Steven C (Doktersteve)
>
> What type of photography do you do? Reportage? Landscapes? Travel?
> Family snapshots?
>
Cityscapes, landscapes, protrait, travel, and sports.
> Slides or prints?
>
Prints. Which i like to enlarge and sell on the side. a problem when you go
digital unless you buy an outrageously priced professional digital slr.
> If prints, what size do you typically print? 4"x6"? or 11"x14"?
>
4x6 for archival purposes. i enlarge what i need to.
> Prime Lenses or Zooms?
Zoom, when i can manage to find one for my old Pentax. I use zoom often with
my current digital, but the quality is usually lacking.
>
> Unless you tell us what your objectives are, you will not receive answers
> that are applicable to your unique circumstances.
It wasnt really "what should i choose". i have my mind made up now and will
be going to SLR, at least until a versatile digital SLR hits the market, or
prices drop. I simply wanted to know what the opinions here on the formats
were.
> Too bad that the digital photos are inferior to the quality I get from my
> prime lenses on my 35mm . . .
>
That is why i am going to SLR. I am just an ameteur hobbiest, but its the
quality that counts, right?
> Decisions, decisions . . .
Definately.
James
"Ric Trexell" <rtre...@vbe.com> wrote in message
news:v4900tb...@corp.supernews.com...
Salts2001
Oh sure...everyone leaves out the underrated Chrysler! Gets across town at
25mph AND comes with multiple power outlets.
Tony Parkinson
news:rR_0a.212229$H7.75...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
> I wonder what you think. Many people (usually proponents of digital) say
> that digital will replace film, but i do not see this happening in the
next
> while, the next long while.
>
A century or so ago they were probably asking "Will Cameras & Film replace
Canvas & Watercolours ?"
Joseph Meehan
around for those uses where it is the better tool.
--
Joseph E. Meehan
26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
"Steven C (Doktersteve)" <real_dok...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rR_0a.212229$H7.75...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
Joseph Meehan
--
Joseph E. Meehan
26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
"Tony Parkinson" <NOSPAMar...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:b22ib8$lkq$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
Gregory L. Hansen
Steven C \(Doktersteve\) <real_dok...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>As some of you may have read in another thread, i am currently switching
>from digital to SLR. I have my reasons. SLR system is better for lenses, and
>is not as outrageously expensive as digital SLR.
>Film is better for enlargements, etc unless you are shooting with an 11
>megapixel digital camera with some crazy super CCD, and even then there are
>arguments which can be made for SLR.
>
>I wonder what you think. Many people (usually proponents of digital) say
>that digital will replace film, but i do not see this happening in the next
>while, the next long while.
>
>I am curious to hear some well thoughtout arguments for either side. I
>havent had the experience to talk to anyone that has a well educated point
>of view for either.
Well thought-out arguments? I can't afford it. A digital SLR costs
thousands of dollars, and I would need to buy a new computer and software
before I could use the traditional features of digital, and a new printer
if I'm not to rely on MotoPhoto for my printing needs. My photography
centers more on animals. I could spend hours in the woods waiting in
ambush before I give up and go home without snapping a single frame. So
it's not like the film cost is killing me.
As digital SLRs improve and prices drop a lot, I'm sure we'll see more
people using them. I'll probably get one eventually, but that will depend
on quality versus film, cost, my finances, and whether I've bought a new
computer. And my film camera is Pentax, so it would be nice to get a
digital SLR from Pentax. They might have one soon, if I can believe the
rumors, but they don't have one yet.
--
"A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree
with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance
our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.
Gregory L. Hansen
Joseph Meehan <sligoj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Digital will replace file just like 35mm replaced 4x5, which is still
>around for those uses where it is the better tool.
>
Just a thought: digital faces a moving target since film continues to
improve. And 4x5 benefits from the large volume of 35mm that's sold, it's
the same film cut to a different size.
As the market saturates with digital, R&D on film will slow but digital
will continue to improve. Someday we'll have a 4x5 sensor with umpteen
megapixels that will be the better tool than film.
David J. Littleboy
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> Joseph Meehan <sligoj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Digital will replace film just like 35mm replaced 4x5, which is still
> >around for those uses where it is the better tool.
But 4x5 _is_ a better tool, and will retain its niche. Right now, 35mm sits
between dSLRs and MF. When US$2,000 digital reaches 9MP, 35mm's niche goes
away (IMHO: stitching together 9MP worth of Sony F707 pixels makes _nice_
8x10s; even now it's hard to do better than the D60 with 35mm). MF's niche
is similarly going to be squeezed between the 11 to 14MP pro dSLRs and 4x5,
although I suspect that (despite MR's silliness) the raw area of a 6x7 or
6x9 frame (in 4000 dpi scanned Provia) is simply not beatable by _any_
sensor technology limited to 24x36mm.
> Just a thought: digital faces a moving target since film continues to
> improve. And 4x5 benefits from the large volume of 35mm that's sold, it's
> the same film cut to a different size.
Reality check: I did B&W 1960s and early 70s, and took 30 years off. Film
performance hasn't changed significantly in 30 years. There are few new kids
on the block (e.g. chromogenics), but XP2 is nowhere near as good as Plus-X
in Microdol X was 30 years ago. Provia's lovely, but slides were very nice
back in the 60's as well...
> As the market saturates with digital, R&D on film will slow but digital
> will continue to improve. Someday we'll have a 4x5 sensor with umpteen
> megapixels that will be the better tool than film.
We already do, they're called scanning backs...
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
jriegle
digital can be less expensive in the long run. You can at least preview your
images to select to ones to print. If your the "instant gratification" type,
digital is for you also.
My own tests revealed that 12mp (bayer patterned ccd) is not up to (but
close to) 35mm film in resolving power using excellent primes and slower
film although digital is nearly free of grain. 6mp should be the breakover
point for considering digital. My tests revealed that you don't do that much
better with film (ISO 200-800) and consumer wide range zooms. 6mp digital
SLRs are still rather costly.
There will be some interesting new toys shown at the photo show this month
so you may want to wait to see.
Remember, digital is quickly evolving. You may find yourself switching back
to digital in a year or two anyway!
John
Steven C (Doktersteve) <real_dok...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rR_0a.212229$H7.75...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
Annika1980
>I wonder what you think. Many people (usually proponents of digital) say
>that digital will replace film, but i do not see this happening in the next
>while, the next long while.
You don't see it happening? Are you blind? It's happening right now.
Digital cameras are one of the hottest sellers out there. Even the photo labs
are concentrating on doing prints from digital files now cause otherwise,
they'd soon be out of business.
Simon Stanmore
Simon
Tony Parkinson
news:xA61a.168791$GF.44...@twister.columbus.rr.com...
> You go back further than I do, I remember 35mm coming it. ;-)
>
Joseph Meehan
news:b23268$dma$5...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
> In article <uz61a.168790$GF.44...@twister.columbus.rr.com>,
> Joseph Meehan <sligoj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Digital will replace file just like 35mm replaced 4x5, which is still
> >around for those uses where it is the better tool.
> >
>
> Just a thought: digital faces a moving target since film continues to
> improve. And 4x5 benefits from the large volume of 35mm that's sold, it's
> the same film cut to a different size.
>
> As the market saturates with digital, R&D on film will slow but digital
> will continue to improve. Someday we'll have a 4x5 sensor with umpteen
> megapixels that will be the better tool than film.
Not better, but very good and different. It may end up being a better
tool for many uses, but I am sure that old 4x5 will remain a better tool for
many other uses. As noted, at one time many people thought photography
would replace oil paintings. Oil is still going strong, even if you can do
a more "accurate" image with a camera.
--
Joseph E. Meehan
26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
> --
Joseph Meehan
but I suspect that there will still be a 35 market in 20 years. Digital
will take over those areas it will be able to do as well or better, but
there will still be areas that 35 does better. Digital may equal 35 mm but
it is not the same as 35 mm.
Veggie burgers may improve and become a good burger, but I doubt if they
will ever replace the real thing.
William E. Graham
"Tony Parkinson" <NOSPAMar...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:b22ib8$lkq$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
days....But it's true, people still paint, and always will.....
Gordon Moat
film. A similar situation exists at other films speeds. With a digital SLR, the
ISO 100 setting colour capture results are fixed, unless I go to a different
chip design. While it is true I could play with the white point setting, or
adjust the image later in PhotoShop, it is not the same creative freedom I
enjoy with film.
I am a PhotoShop expert, and I do quite a bit of colour correction and
pre-press work. I have used several digital SLRs, and some digital backs for
medium format. I also continue to use several different film cameras, and types
of films. I would much rather spend time behind a camera, than in front of a
computer.
The main idea is choosing the tools that allow you to express your vision. If
someone is more comfortable with direct digital, than that is likely a better
choice. If another person would rather shoot everything with a Holga, or
pinhole camera, than that is another choice. Anything goes, and there is rarely
only one tool proper for all situations.
I think that eventually there will be disposable digital cameras. These will
allow consumers to get the same images that they get from disposable film
cameras now. When that happens, there may be a slow down of film development.
The biggest current development is mobile phone imaging (wireless imaging),
which I think will reduce sales of low end digital point and shoot cameras.
There is a huge portion of the world without computers. There are still markets
with under explored potential for film sales. Some people do not like computers
. . . just like some people still have a VCR (now DVD) player with a blinking
"12:00" . . . The point is that film will not just vanish, since there is still
potential for profits. As long as some companies can make money from film, it
will continue to be produced and sold somewhere in the world.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Gregory L. Hansen
Joseph Meehan <sligoj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>news:b23268$dma$5...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
>> In article <uz61a.168790$GF.44...@twister.columbus.rr.com>,
>> Joseph Meehan <sligoj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > Digital will replace file just like 35mm replaced 4x5, which is still
>> >around for those uses where it is the better tool.
>> >
>>
>> Just a thought: digital faces a moving target since film continues to
>> improve. And 4x5 benefits from the large volume of 35mm that's sold, it's
>> the same film cut to a different size.
>>
>> As the market saturates with digital, R&D on film will slow but digital
>> will continue to improve. Someday we'll have a 4x5 sensor with umpteen
>> megapixels that will be the better tool than film.
>
> Not better, but very good and different. It may end up being a better
>tool for many uses, but I am sure that old 4x5 will remain a better tool for
>many other uses. As noted, at one time many people thought photography
>would replace oil paintings. Oil is still going strong, even if you can do
>a more "accurate" image with a camera.
What does the old 4x5 do better than digital, in principle, could do?
I don't see how it relates to oil paintings because oil paintings are a
different concept. It's not the purpose of painting to just make an exact
reproduction of the thing in front of you. But a digital camera will
render into storable and manipulable form an image focused onto it by a
lens, while a 4x5 film camera will render into storable and manipulable
form an image focused onto it by a lens.
Joseph Meehan
>
> What does the old 4x5 do better than digital, in principle, could do?
>
> I don't see how it relates to oil paintings because oil paintings are a
> different concept. It's not the purpose of painting to just make an exact
> reproduction of the thing in front of you. But a digital camera will
> render into storable and manipulable form an image focused onto it by a
> lens, while a 4x5 film camera will render into storable and manipulable
> form an image focused onto it by a lens.
The results from film, at least at anything close to current technology
is not the same as the results from digital. Just as the tast of Tang is
not the same a real orange juice. I am not saying it is not close or that
one is better, only they are different, and at this time I do not see that
changing. In fact I would expect that digital will never be the same,
rather it is more likely to try and be more accurate than film, which I do
see happening. However, more accurate is not always the best for every use.
If you go back in history, you will see that much of oil painting was
exactly an attempt to make an exact reproduction. Little such attempt is
made today since photography is generally the better tool for that function.
What remains is a healthy "niche" for oil painting doing what it does best.
--
Joseph E. Meehan
26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
>
Phil Stripling
>SNIP<
> I am curious to hear some well thoughtout arguments for either side.
There aren't any well thought out arguments. I think you've put the
question less well than it could be -- it's not film _versus_ digital, from
my perspective. I use both; which I use depends on which better suits
whatever my purposes are. Each has a place, just like vinyl records and
cassette tapes did.
--
Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | civex.com is read daily.
Matt Clara
Or will we all be eating Solyent Green?!?
;-)
Joseph Meehan
"Matt Clara" <no.e...@this.guys.expense> wrote in message
news:kmp1a.46721$vm2.26364@rwcrnsc54...
>
>
> Or will we all be eating Solyent Green?!?
>
> ;-)
At my age I don't need to worry about eating it, but I might still be
involved with the product somehow. ;=)
Rico Tudor
Digital's unquestioned advantages include immediate review of captured
images, and a rapid path to final output (paper or Web). Film advantages
(for now) include lower capital cost, few electrical energy management
headaches, and superior (analog) imaging.
I use a DSLR for casual shooting like parties and family events: decent
quality, albums on the Web quickly, odd lighting evaluated on-the-spot,
and the camera offers AF and AE and auto-everything for fast-changing
action.
I use manual-focus film SLRs for slower, more deliberate shoots. I can
afford to devote more time to film scanning and custom processing.
Travel photography has the right pace for film, and you don't need to
worry about batteries -- a light camera is nice, too. The lightest
DSLR with a small prime weighs 1kg.
Regarding capital costs, if you want film images to merge with your
digital workflow, you must budget a good film scanner ($800-1500).
Suddenly, that DSLR doesn't look so expensive.
Regarding film image quality, if you shoot color negatives at 100 ASA or
lower, and print with an enlarger, you should exceed all DSLRs, except
the Canon 1Ds. If you shoot fine-grain B&W and print with an enlarger,
only digital scanning backs are better. If you shoot slides at 100 ASA
or lower, and project them, you will kick digital's ass (no competitive
projection technology).
--------
jriegle
sense as there are disposible film cameras. If they could make them so cheap
to where they could be disposable then they could make them have a removable
memory card that could be taken in for prints and the owner keep the camera!
Perhaps there could be an exchangable memory card program, but not the
camera!
Any digital camera would allow some way for the owner to down load to
his/her computer also.
John
Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3E458B45...@attglobal.net...
jriegle
http://home.att.net/~jriegle/resolution.htm
John
Simon Stanmore <nom...@thanks.com> wrote in message
news:104472284...@iris.uk.clara.net...
Gordon Moat
computers, or with little desire to play with images on them, that would love a
truly simple digital camera. Currently, the greatest volume, and highest
profits, are from sales of disposable film cameras. Numbers from Kodak, Fuji,
and AGFA indicate that nearly 18 % of homes use a one time use camera as their
primary camera.
Okay, current technical issues keep memory prices slightly too high, and CCD
and CMOS sensor prices too high. There is still higher profits in film one time
use cameras. However, I think we are very close to seeing a one time use
digital camera. I have already seen super cheap digital cameras that have no
built in LCD, and no removable memory. I have also seen a couple of mobile
phones with cameras.
So here is the bet. Within five years from this post, there will be a one time
use digital camera. If this does not happen, I will buy you whatever the
current best one time use film camera is at that time, and mail it to you.
However, if I am correct, you buy me the current one time use digital, and send
one to me.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Simon Stanmore
you been able to find out how the sensor chips actual pixel size affects the
recorded resolution?
Simon
"jriegle" <jri...@att.net> wrote in message
news:1Xt1a.28982$rq4.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
NickC
Gordon Moat wrote:
> I am willing to bet there is an entire segment of the consumer market, without
> computers, or with little desire to play with images on them, that would love a
> truly simple digital camera. Currently, the greatest volume, and highest
> profits, are from sales of disposable film cameras. Numbers from Kodak, Fuji,
> and AGFA indicate that nearly 18 % of homes use a one time use camera as their
> primary camera.
I know folks who have no desire to have a computer, none what so ever; nor
are they interested in replacing their film cameras with digicams. I've
overheard people shopping for cameras, being shown P&S digital cameras by
sales personnel, say they have no desire to buy a digital camera. They
would much rather have a simple P&S film camera because they are so easy to
use. Even when using a simple P&S film camera, very large photo's beyond
the usual 8x11's can be printed with no secondary thought to pixels or
special equipment.
Disposable film cameras selling for about $3.25 each, in quantities
purchased to be given to attendees at weddings and other social gatherings
will be hard to replace with competitive priced digicams.
We, or people like us who have an interest in photography, tend to think of
future trends in camera sales to be digicams because that's where our
interest lay. But there are multitudes of people who don't share our
interests. People who think disposable film cameras are good enough or who
dust off that ten year oldie with a lens that has never been taken off,
replacing a button battery and buying a roll of film, using the camera and
then putting it away again. I don't think these people share a burning
desire to jump on the digicam hay ride.
Current camera sales may well basically reflect those who have an interest
in photography who may be replacing existing film cameras or adding to them
with digicams, not necessarily reflect overwhelming new buyers who don't
have cameras to begin with, or those who may have an occasional need for a
camera.
It's difficult to think that there are people who would be happy to spend
hours of every day or weekends processing digital photos through their
computers. It's also difficult imagine that even with one hour digital
processing establishments, people would be willing to hand over their
compact flash cards, smart media cards, etc. that cost $50 and higher to a
part time worker and later accept being told that something happened to
their media card, as is sometimes the case with a roll of cheap film. The
difference being, the establishment would replace the film, but would they
replace an expensive media card if it were damaged or would the small print
on the processing envelope say, the media owner agrees not to hold the
establishment responsible for damaged media cards or lost digital photos.
Nick
NickC
Rico Tudor wrote:
> Digital imaging is evolving rapidly, dimming film's long-term outlook.
> Digital's unquestioned advantages include immediate review of captured
> images, and a rapid path to final output (paper or Web). Film advantages
> (for now) include lower capital cost, few electrical energy management
> headaches, and superior (analog) imaging.
I'd like to inject a thought here. This constant referral by posters to
seeing the captured image on the camera's monitor as being an advantage (as
opposed to bracketing with film) can be very misleading. The brightness
control of a digital camera's monitor is an independent setting made by the
user and may indicate an image was properly exposed when in fact it may not
have been. The advantage I see in having the monitor is for reviewing
composition and not an indicator that the captured image was properly
exposed. I still auto bracketing digital photo's when I think lighting
conditions warrant such caution.
Consider also, that viewing a camera's monitor in the sunlight of the day
can be extremely difficult and under certain conditions, almost impossible.
Sometimes there may be referrals by posters to an advantage of seeing a
histogram of an image; an advantage to whom, one who doesn't know nor is
interested in learning how to interpret a histogram? The interests of the
average picture taker is just in taking a picture not in having to
undertake the laborious tasks of learning the complexities of using a
digicam and out guessing what may be seen in a digicam monitor.
Nick
RDKirk
sligoj...@hotmail.com says...
> If you go back in history, you will see that much of oil painting was
> exactly an attempt to make an exact reproduction. Little such attempt is
> made today since photography is generally the better tool for that function.
> What remains is a healthy "niche" for oil painting doing what it does best.
>
And for a while, photography attempted the pictorialism of oil painting.
However, digital imaging has brought the pictorialism back.
--
RDKirk
"Men occasionally stumble on the truth, but most of them pick themselves
up
and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Winston Churchill
RDKirk
> So here is the bet. Within five years from this post, there will be a one time
> use digital camera. If this does not happen, I will buy you whatever the
> current best one time use film camera is at that time, and mail it to you.
> However, if I am correct, you buy me the current one time use digital, and send
> one to me.
>
There may not be a one-use digital camera, but as you've touched upon,
there will be digital cameras built into more of the devices that people
carry for other reasons.
Gordon Moat
Fuji, et al. While the marketing people would enjoy having everyone think
digital has already taken over, the numbers do not indicate this at all. After
reading through stacks of financial data, I found a total of two analysts that
even mentioned digital having an impact on film sales, and even then attribute
less than one percent decrease of film sales to sales of digital.
The current greatest impact on film sales has been from decreased travel, due
to security concerns. Interestingly, film sales surged substantially in
September 2001, and 2002. One time use cameras saw the largest sales increases
during those time periods as well.
The biggest hoped for push of digital imaging initially was to increase
computer hardware and software sales. Unfortunately, the impact was so slight,
that the next great push was for printing technology. When the best data so far
indicates that less than 11% of digital camera owners even print any pictures,
the hoped for printing supplies increase is not a reality. While the direct
printers without computers may attract some buyers, a bigger push is to
incorporate direct digital printing into the latest minilab set-ups.
The minilab sales are actually on the rise, though the competition between
Kodak, Fuji, and AGFA has increased. We still live in a Western world where a
one time use camera is the primary camera in 18 % of households. Quick minilabs
are still big business, and high profit. There are even some newer technologies
that will satisfy the digital cravings of film users, with perhaps an even
lower financial incentive to buy a digital camera, especially for those who
shoot little film each year.
Kodak has just opened a new facility for B/W films, and production is doing
quite well. There is a timeless look possible in some B/W shots, possibly the
reason for the currently increased interest in B/W photography. This is also
something not done as well with digital, and certainly behind in inkjet
printing. AGFA recently got out of some aspects of digital imagery, because
they were unable to derive profits sufficient to maintain the current
investment.
Lest you think consumers are everything for film companies, you should be aware
that less than 50 % of Kodak's revenues are from consumer products. The numbers
are similar for Fuji, though I am not sure with AGFA, who are heavy players in
the commercial printing market.
One sad thing you did point out is photo retailers. The is true of many other
products, and the era of small stores is disappearing in many areas. A side
effect of this may be decreased camera sales in general, both film and digital.
Cameras are rarely impulse buys, except in grocery stores. Surprisingly, the
greatest camera sales are actually in grocery, and discount type stores. While
probably none of us would admit to using these, they are the reality for the
market.
We are here with our computers, while many average people spend less than $20 a
year on photography. There is no digital market at that low a level. In fact, I
would imagine that there are few people who will spend more than $100 on any
camera, including film, in a year. These are also the same people who will not
buy a computer until is under $400, and is truly user friendly. I do not see
this mentality disappearing in ten years because some marketing people say that
digital photography is "the shit".
In fact, I think that wireless imaging will be the next great push. The biggest
reason is that it will sell more mobile phones, and more air time. Profits
drive products, and film still has decades of profits left in it.
The best financial data I have seen indicates that an impact of digital
photography would cause a decrease in film prices. The reason is that the big
players will drop prices to regain market share. As long as Kodak and Fuji (and
some smaller players) continue to battle, we will continue to see innovation in
film, and competitive pricing. Digital is just another profit area, though not
yet as good as film in that regard.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Jeremy wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
> "Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:3E458B45...@attglobal.net...
>
> > The main idea is choosing the tools that allow you to express your vision.
>
> It is doubtful that film will disappear completely. As you point out, it
> enables photographers to express their vision in ways not available in the
> digital domain.
>
> But what about the many millions of people that are not interested in
> expressing anything at all--but who want to do mundane things like get a
> snapshot of their kid's school play, or birthday party, or any of the
> millions of other things that people document with pictures?
>
> They are moving to the digital side in droves. It seems to be only a matter
> of time before all those one-hour processors go out of business, because
> they don't have enough customers to keep their machines running. And how
> about all the square footage in drug stores that is devoted to overnight
> photo processing? How long before that line is no longer generating the
> kind of revenue to justify its continued use of that floor space?
>
> As less people make use of film processing, it is virtually certain that the
> cost of film processing will go up--further threatening its continued use.
>
> Please understand that I am in no rush for any of this to happen, but it
> seems to me that the average consumer photographer is not going to stay in
> the market for film-based gear for more than a decade--perhaps even less
> time than that. We may be seeing the golden age of film-based cameras right
> now.
>
> That does not bode well for those of us that continue using film equipment.
>
> 1: As previously mentioned, the cost per print (or slide) is bound to rise,
> because it is being amortized over a much smaller user base.
>
> 2: The cost of equipment will probably rise as well--and for the same
> reason.
>
> 3: The number of outlets that cater to film, film cameras and processing
> chemicals is bound to dwindle.
>
> 4: The available number of film types will probably shrink, as
> manufacturers will no longer be able to justify the continued production of
> types that do not sell well. Look at what is happening to Kodachrome film,
> as an example of what is to come.
>
> 5: There will almost certainly be less camera stores that deal in this
> equipment. I think that Ritz Camera may dominate the landscape in 20 years,
> as all of us "old guys" die out.
>
> 6: The quality of digital images will continue to improve--narrowing the
> gap between images made digitally and those made on film. The narrower that
> gap becomes, the more photographers will abandon film.
>
> Sure there will always be film. But how many of us will be able to afford
> it for all but the most critical applications?
>
> Photography NEEDS the mass market. Even though I never would have used any
> of Kodak's consumer products (620 film, 110 cartridges, Kodak cameras) I
> applaud them for having brought photography into the lives of millions of
> people that would never have considered buying a fine camera and lens.
>
> I possess hundreds of family photos of relatives that have passed on. The
> shots were taken with consumer-grade cameras, by relatives that had no eye
> for composition. Yet these shots are precious to me, because they are all I
> have to remember my relatives by.
>
> THAT (the consumer market) is the market that is fast shifting to digital.
> THAT is the market that has made fine photography affordable for the rest of
> us. And that is the market that won't be around to support us for much
> longer.
>
> Sad.
Pierre L
auto-everything zoom compact point & shoot. For the price of a cheap
digital, you can get a metal-bodied, completely weather-sealed 35mm compact
camera. The equivalent in a digital would be in the megabucks department.
Pierre
"Jeremy" <jer...@no-spam-thanks.com> wrote in message
news:e1R1a.9303$tO2.9...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
> "Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:3E458B45...@attglobal.net...
>
> > The main idea is choosing the tools that allow you to express your
vision.
>
> It is doubtful that film will disappear completely. As you point out, it
> enables photographers to express their vision in ways not available in the
> digital domain.
>
> But what about the many millions of people that are not interested in
> expressing anything at all--but who want to do mundane things like get a
> snapshot of their kid's school play, or birthday party, or any of the
> millions of other things that people document with pictures?
>
> They are moving to the digital side in droves. It seems to be only a
matter
> of time before all those one-hour processors go out of business, because
> they don't have enough customers to keep their machines running. [snip]
RDKirk
@hotmail.com says...
> Some of those are people who would probably be better served by a nice 35mm
> auto-everything zoom compact point & shoot. For the price of a cheap
> digital, you can get a metal-bodied, completely weather-sealed 35mm compact
> camera. The equivalent in a digital would be in the megabucks department.
>
That may be true, but ultimately the manufacturers will decide which--
and at what point--it's more profitable and feasible in the long run to
do: To maintain a cheap film line or to go fully digital.
As digital cameras become more integrated into other devices that people
are buying anyway (and thus don't see the camera as a totally separate
purchase), and as viewing images digitally becomes more and more
mainstream (PDAs, digital picture frames, TVs with card slots), and
local processors switch to processing prints from memory cards (cheaper
for them, easier to train personnel), we may see the market shift
regardless of what currently appears "best" for the consumer.
Lewis Lang
>From: Gordon Moat mo...@attglobal.net
>Date: Mon, Feb 10, 2003 6:43 PM
>Message-id: <3E47F2C8...@attglobal.net>
Agree/excellent post, Gordon. I couldn't have said it any better myself :-).
Regards,
Lewis
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Due to spam, I no longer accept emails at this address. Ping me on the ng or go
to my website & click on "LEWISCONTACT" to email. Sorry for the inconvenience
:-).
camOpt2001
"Salts2001" <salt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030208034814...@mb-cc.aol.com...
> >Chevy of course, everyone knows that. :)
>
> Oh sure...everyone leaves out the underrated Chrysler! Gets across town
at
> 25mph AND comes with multiple power outlets.
Electric Scooters
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&q=electric+sco
oter+%2225+mph+
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Joseph Meehan
news:b234hc$8da$1...@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> "Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> > Joseph Meehan <sligoj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >around for those uses where it is the better tool.
>
sits
> between dSLRs and MF. When US$2,000 digital reaches 9MP, 35mm's niche goes
> away (IMHO: stitching together 9MP worth of Sony F707 pixels makes _nice_
> 8x10s; even now it's hard to do better than the D60 with 35mm). MF's niche
> is similarly going to be squeezed between the 11 to 14MP pro dSLRs and
4x5,
> although I suspect that (despite MR's silliness) the raw area of a 6x7 or
> 6x9 frame (in 4000 dpi scanned Provia) is simply not beatable by _any_
> sensor technology limited to 24x36mm.
>
This is only true if the only factors you are considering is resolution
and price. Howeve I believe there are a number of other factors that I
consider when choosing a photographic tool.
--
Joseph E. Meehan
26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
...
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
>