Is the film camera dead? Discussion and poll.

[RTW1]

I haven't seen a digital camera and software that can duplicate many of Ansel Adams' photographs accurately.

How many film users can?
__________________

[Unregistered]

Film is really becoming a niche market. I started on a digital SLR and moved into large format. I shoot Medium and Large format up to 8x10. I have even carried the 8x10 up the sides of 10000ft mountains. Can digital compete with it? In a word no. On my drum scanner they 8x10 contains over 2 BILLION pixels of data. Sorry but your 6MB point and shoot wont come close.

I do think that film will remain for high end professionals and fine art photographers like myself. There are companies still making film, and film cameras as well as developing supplies. While the market will shrink and consolidate quite a bit, it wont die out completely. Digital is great for quick snap shots, web shots and for Aunt Sally's birthday party.

Both are tools and both have thier places, one is not better nor worse than they other. Both will continue to be around for a long time.

My two cents worth.

Ryan

[alanstancliff]

I'm sure you're quite right, Ryan. There are still people who are making very good art with daguerreotype. If artists are still using that medium to create, the same will no doubt be true of the film camera.

Each art medium has its strengths and weaknesses, and the artist loves to explore the limits.

[tomcat]

I think that the old film-cameras are almost dead. Though some artists or profs will still use them, the "standard" user takes a digital camera for taking his pictures.

On the other side I think, that if you want to make pictures from themes like sport (especially fast moving objects or sportsmen), insects or other (very) small objects or long time exposure (like taking pictures from the stars, planets, the moon and so on) you need better cameras - and they actually cost very much (some thousands of Dollars). I can get the same result with a regular camera for about 500 Dollar.

As a result, I use digital when I take standard-photos and the film-version when it comes to one of the themes above. So I can use all my equipment I already have and may take 10 pictures a second with a regular motor-winder or use different flashes for lighting the scene.

[jyoung]

Film is not dead, but it's sure getting sick.

Joe

[BlueFlare]

On the other side I think, that if you want to make pictures from themes like sport (especially fast moving objects or sportsmen), insects or other (very) small objects or long time exposure (like taking pictures from the stars, planets, the moon and so on) you need better cameras - and they actually cost very much (some thousands of Dollars).

No, they don't cost all that much. A descent 35mm SLR film camera body cost about as much as a a comparable digital camera body.
Also a lot of the things you mention have to do with lenses, not with cameras. In case you didn't know; that particular model lens that the traditional camera needs for that macro shot is exactly the same lens that the digital camera uses. Same story for tele lenses in sports photography. You also don't need a camera worth thousdands of dollars to make descent long exposure shots.

[BlueFlare]

Dead.... I think a lot of people think/thought the same about vinyl records.

Here's a story I read today: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/BUSINESS...nce/index.html

[ankhor]

Dead.... I think a lot of people think/thought the same about vinyl records.

Here's a story I read today: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/BUSINESS...nce/index.html

With digital camera`s getting better and better with more
pixels, I guess the difference will get less and less from the normal
camera`s in that regard.
The difference with analoge and digital recordings of music is, that
the capture quality hasn`t gotten any better, well it could get better
is they wanted but you would need a new machine to play the new discs.
And in my opinion, vinyl DOES sound better, if you have a clean crisp
record.

[RTK]

... well it could get better
is they wanted but you would need a new machine to play the new discs.
And in my opinion, vinyl DOES sound better, if you have a clean crisp
record.

Most (all by now?) dvd players are able to play the new Audio CD format (196 kHz sampling rate instead of the standard 96(?) kHz). I also know that my Yamaha amplifier, which is almost 2 years old (new ones all got it now?) can feed it through. Granted, the Audio CDs are almost 50%e more expensive... Personally, I don't need it... Can't see the point in my basement as everything rattles (and detracts): paintings, picture frames, vases, lamps, walls and my mother-in-laws teeth, And that's with the standard format when I turn the volume up.

I'm curious though: does anyone buy/use these new Audio CDs? Do they sound 50% better? 3% better?

As to vinyl... Been there... Had the garage sale... Considering the turn table and amp needed to get to this supposed "wow!" sound. Wouldn't it be cheaper to simply go all out and buy the top of the line in digital equipment?

ANY vinyl that I have ever heard, sound so 70s/80s (static-humms-pops-and-cracklings) even with the most ridiculously expensive equipment at the time.

The issue when it comes to sound must me the frequency range, no? Does vinyl really have the same range as the new Audio CDs? Yes, I assume there might be personal preferences when it comes to tone, as there is with musical instruments - but with Audio CDs (digital): but why not adjust it to where you want it to be?

Bit off-topic here... However, I'm curious. I have thought about getting a compatible player just to give it a go, but considering where my equipment is located - I doubt there would be a point...

Risto

[Unregistered]

vinyl DOES sound better, if you have a clean crisp record.

No it doesn't. In theory, yes, but reality is different than theory. The point of music is not to just store it, but to listen to it. When you take that reality in to account then vinyl records simply sound awful after several uses.