The Future of Film

[thomjinx]

Among professional photographers, it seems (to me, at least) that underwater photographers are among the first to swithch to digital. The most obvious reason is that you are NOT limited to only 36 shots per camera. It is maddening to see a great shot right after you've shot your last exposure in a film camera. With a big memory card you can shoot a few hundred shots in one dive.

Thomjinx

 

[The Kraken]

A most excellent point!

the K

 

[MarkH]

I think film is on the way out. I'm actually suprised 35mm is still being supported the way it is (I haven't seen any processors decide to cancel developing services yet). Of course I'm going to hold out for as long as I can, probably because I'm cheap (you can get a manual film SLR body for about the cost of a disposable camera). Old Ikelite housings go for cheap as well. There's also something satisfying about having every picture you ever took stored in boxes in the basement (even the bad ones) so 30 years from now I can root through them and relive "history".

 

[Fish_Whisperer]

There's also something satisfying about having every picture you ever took stored in boxes in the basement (even the bad ones) so 30 years from now I can root through them and relive "history".

Yep! That's the thing I don't like about digital: One computer glitch, and it's GONE. If your camera floods, it's GONE. Printed digital photos look terrible compared to regular photos. (Even when using that ultra-expensive photo-print paper)

 

[Warren_L]

Go digital. It's pretty well a no-brainer, especially when it comes to underwater photography. For many of the reasons mentioned before, there's so much more in advantages over film. The only area where film has digital beat is in the high end professional stuff, and I would suspect that 99.9% of us do not fall into that category.

I've been a long time film user since the 80s, shooting 35mm and medium format for years, and transitioning to digital in the mid-90s. At first, the affordable technology in digital was not close to being comparable to what we could do with the affordable film technology at the time, but the tables have turned in the last 10 years. I just picked up a second camera body - Nikon D200, and man, I have to say that what I'm getting out of that rivals just about anything I've done in the past on film.

So unless you're into high end professional photography, a good digicam will do fine. Or unless you're willing to shell out $30,000+ for a Phase One P45 39 Megapix medium format back.

 

[louisianadiver]

Although digital is clearly the current medium of choice, there is still a future for film. The switch from 35mm film to digital is a lot like the switch from 120/220 (medium format) films to 35mm after WWII. The old medium format shooters complained that 35mm was toy-like, that the quality was unacceptable, or that they'd never switch over and have to buy not only new cameras but new lenses as well. Of course, the world turned to 35mm and you don't see newspapter photogs with Rollei's anymore. On the other hand, medium format certainly didn't go away. It's still readily available and the quality is still fabulous. Likewise, 35mm film cameras will be around in the future, and film will also be available. I know of a few well-known underwater photographers who have invested fully in digital and who are now selling all the digital stuff and going back to film. However, digital is definitely the mainstream today.

Clay

 

[Barracuda2]

Howarde,

The reason I post the question is that I absolutely hate the lag time present in digital cameras.
the K

I use the Nikon D70 for athletic action shots where lag time is so short that after a little practice I can pull the trigger at the right time and get that shot. This camera will sync with flash with just about any shutter speed setting. I used the Nikonos for years and I believe that you won't miss a thing when shooting the D70. Most UW shots are primarily "posed" shots anyway. Professionally, I can't imagine going back to film for shooting weddings, portraits, etc. I have been able to really get some dramatic lighting effect shots with digital because I can make immidiate adjustments on the camera or with the lighting. Also, with simple enhancement tools like iphoto, you can bring back a lack-luster photo to a great shot through contrast, brightness, cropping, etc. and with 6.1 megapixel, I can put a film shot next to a digital shot and very few could tell the difference. I've blown up shots to 20 x 30 posters and you could still count the hairs on the leg of a basketball player.
My $.02

 

[LavaSurfer]

Just a quick question.

I'm wondering if there is any logic in buying a film camera nowadays.

I have a basic point and shoot film camera, but I want to move on up to something with more capability.

I've shot professionally in a past career and am quite happy with film.

But seeing the movement in the digital photography arena makes me question whether or not I should purchase a camera such as a Nikonos or Motor Marine.

Thanx . . .

the K

In the subject you ask "The Future of Film"
The answer, Its gone.

Yes there will always be those people that will specialize in film and it has its place.
As do 8 tracks, cassettes and vinyl records for the audiophiles.

Digital is instant gratification and error can be corrected instead of regretted.

 

[RonFrank]

I can not say that I can agree with any of this.

One computer glitch, and it's GONE.

The simple solution for this is the same that ALL companies use, and have used since the 70's. Backup, and archive.

If by computer glitch you mean in camera, well that rarely results in the media being destroyed.

If your camera floods, it's GONE.

Hardly. Generally media that has been exposed to water, even salt water recovers just fine. The media may end up ruined over time, but there are many cases of flooding where the images were recovered. I'm also not so sure how well film does in salt water. In fresh it would be fine.

Printed digital photos look terrible compared to regular photos. (Even when using that ultra-expensive photo-print paper)

This is just plain wrong. EVERY shot in sports illustrated is shot digitally (with the exception of the swimsuit editions where MF is used, but some is shot digitally). National Geo has now published a few digitally shot articles. Printing can be done wet or dry from a digital image just like using film.

Resolution in ink jets exceeds that of most sub-dye priinters these days, and it is impossible for even knowledgable printers to distinguish between a digital and a film based print unless one can identify the paper it's printed on.

I shot film for decades. I still own a wet B&W/Color darkroom setup (which needs to go byebye), and have done my own printing wet and now dry for a long time. Digital is here, and in a big way. You can remain in denial (as a lot of long time film photographers do) or open up those eyeballs, and realize that digital now offers solutions to about 99% of the professional photographers needs.

The only applications where film still rules is IR/UV shooting, and situations where one is remote, and has no access to power required to charge batteries for long periods of time. Cold can also be a factor that impacts digital use. But overall, digital is never going to fully replace film, but it already has replaced it in many applications.

 

[Fish_Whisperer]

Well, clearly you are more knowledgeable than I am. I'm not looking to be a professional photographer. I just want a simple camera that is point-&-shoot, without a bunch of settings to mess around with. That's all.