I finally gave up on film 2 years ago. Digital is great but it makes for lazy photography.

What?!, a company is making a product that is no longer needed or wanted! We need to get them some bailout quick or all those Kodak jobs will be lost!

tjsands1118: What?!, a company is making a product that is no longer needed or wanted! We need to get them some bailout quick or all those Kodak jobs will be lost!


There are people who still use film. The biggest being the military, others being enthusiasts. Digital photography still cannot match the resolution of film. But yes, digital is more convenient.

wakizashi: tjsands1118: What?!, a company is making a product that is no longer needed or wanted! We need to get them some bailout quick or all those Kodak jobs will be lost!


There are people who still use film. The biggest being the military, others being enthusiasts. Digital photography still cannot match the resolution of film. But yes, digital is more convenient.

I remember reading a magazine in 1998 with a cover article on "DIGITAL: Finally, prints as sharp as film!" I think you may be thinking of photographic plates.

I got a digital camera for Christmas this year. I really wasn't ready to give up my 35mm, but...

/ Yeah, it's pretty neat.
// Still think there's a place for film (especially low light, saturated colors, etc.).

The one thing I miss about film cameras is the fact that when you pressed the shutter, they would take a farking picture. Digital cameras can take more pics, don't need reloading, can be much smaller and lighter-weight, can zoom in way farther without that ginormous telescopic attachment my dad owned, and blah blah blah, but there's always that two- to three-second delay between when you press the shutter and the picture actually happens. I've lost a lot of good shots either because I forgot to compensate or else compensated wrong.

It's not just the big ol' digital I'm currently using: the smaller one we bought first that's now for backup did the same thing, as does every digital I've ever borrowed. I'm told that if you shell the fark out for a really high-end one, it'll snap the picture instantly, but TAKING A farkING PICTURE WHEN THE farkING SHUTTER GETS PRESSED should NOT be a high-end luxury feature!

Other than that, though: yeah, I totally see film going extinct in the next decade or two. And--except for that one bit--good riddance. It was a bloody pain in the ass compared to digital.

CravenMorehead: I finally gave up on film 2 years ago. Digital is great but it makes for lazy photography.

Yeah, that.
But you know it also makes for easy photography. I can do with digital cameras things I could only dream of being able to do with my old Nikons with film. I was pretty good at b&w, did it and printed my own negs for a couple of decades, too.
I picked up a Nikon Coolpix in 2004 (Yeah, I wasn't an early adopter) and went right out and took pictures I had only dreamed of taking before.
Digital is incredibly lightweight, versatile and etc. The instant edit and try-again factor saves untold resources and time. No film at five to seven bucks a roll, plus chemicals, plus prints, anymore.

I miss wet photography, but only now and then and then not very much.
/Always used Ilford paper and films in my later years anyway, but cut my teeth on Kodak everything, including a Kodak Retinette 35 mm camera.

tjsands1118: What?!, a company is making a product that is no longer needed or wanted! We need to get them some bailout quick or all those Kodak jobs will be lost!

When the NYT sees readership decline yet more as a result of them increasing prices because of a declining interest in their product, we will see calls from more assbackwards "progressive" (as usual, "progressive" if the year was 1960 or 1860) politicians calling for just what you mention.

The digital delay (shutter delay) has been pretty much solved in the digital SLRs.

Fireproof: Digital photography still cannot match the resolution of film. But yes, digital is more convenient.

I don't know about that.
I've got a Canon DSLR with an off-the-shelf zoom lens that's the 35mm equivalent of a 400 mm (a Canon EF-55 to 250 zoom with image stabilization) lens. I can point that lens at a passenger jet leaving a vapor trail six miles up, then go inside, upload it to my computer, enlarge it and see the company logos and paint schemes on the jet. A pixel with that combination of gear is about the same as a person standing next to that jet at six miles range, so maybe if a person pulled a DB Cooper at that instant, I would be able to make them out exiting the aircraft.
I've taken some killer images of the moon, and shots of birds in flight that I probably would never have gotten with a heavier, slower 35 film camera.
It's amazing technology right off the retail shelf.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

Not saying this is better or that is better, but clearly film is the winner for certain things, while digital is the winner for others.

Helen_Arigby: The one thing I miss about film cameras is the fact that when you pressed the shutter, they would take a farking picture. Digital cameras can take more pics, don't need reloading, can be much smaller and lighter-weight, can zoom in way farther without that ginormous telescopic attachment my dad owned, and blah blah blah, but there's always that two- to three-second delay between when you press the shutter and the picture actually happens. I've lost a lot of good shots either because I forgot to compensate or else compensated wrong.

It's not just the big ol' digital I'm currently using: the smaller one we bought first that's now for backup did the same thing, as does every digital I've ever borrowed. I'm told that if you shell the fark out for a really high-end one, it'll snap the picture instantly, but TAKING A farkING PICTURE WHEN THE farkING SHUTTER GETS PRESSED should NOT be a high-end luxury feature!

Other than that, though: yeah, I totally see film going extinct in the next decade or two. And--except for that one bit--good riddance. It was a bloody pain in the ass compared to digital.

Set your camera to manual focus.

DrippinBalls: Jowzers!!!! Owned too much film gear, too many Nikons, Canons, Leicas, Hasselblads, Contax's . Loved them all. Learned the characteristics of Microdol X. Bought only the finest Ilford & Zone 6 fiber based papers. Shooting Tri-X at ASA 320. Digital? So much nicer, in so many ways. But, I've only been doing this for 40 years, what the hell do I know.

Ha! I've still got one of those beautiful Zone VI plexi print washers up in my closet.
A bottle of Kodak selenium toner, too.
My good old Beseler enlarger is lonely, so lonely...

wakizashi: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

Not saying this is better or that is better, but clearly film is the winner for certain things, while digital is the winner for others.

That article is 6 years old and no longer holds up, IMO.

Between the improved performance of digital and the ease of stitching multiple images, I've spent my last dollar on film equipment. I'll still buy film for my 4x5 camera and use it, but full-frame sensors and and improved processing software have closed the "large-print resolution" gap in the last few years.

I very much enjoy the large-format photography experience, but it no longer gives me a resolution advantage when printing at 40x50 inches.

Helen_Arigby: The one thing I miss about film cameras is the fact that when you pressed the shutter, they would take a farking picture. Digital cameras can take more pics, don't need reloading, can be much smaller and lighter-weight, can zoom in way farther without that ginormous telescopic attachment my dad owned, and blah blah blah, but there's always that two- to three-second delay between when you press the shutter and the picture actually happens. I've lost a lot of good shots either because I forgot to compensate or else compensated wrong.

It's not just the big ol' digital I'm currently using: the smaller one we bought first that's now for backup did the same thing, as does every digital I've ever borrowed. I'm told that if you shell the fark out for a really high-end one, it'll snap the picture instantly, but TAKING A farkING PICTURE WHEN THE farkING SHUTTER GETS PRESSED should NOT be a high-end luxury feature!

Other than that, though: yeah, I totally see film going extinct in the next decade or two. And--except for that one bit--good riddance. It was a bloody pain in the ass compared to digital.

The shutter lag on my Canon S95 is around .09 seconds. If you need something quicker than that a DSLR is the best solution.

The KAF-8300 is a great chip.

CravenMorehead: I finally gave up on film 2 years ago. Digital is great but it makes for lazy photography.

It doesn't have to.

When I have the time I go into manual mode with my DSLR. I play with it and generally think about DoF and what I want in focus. I have a light meter on my phone (note to farkers I didn't say what kind). I have a remote instead of a cable release. Tripods are your true friend. Play with +/- exposures. It all takes time and eventually you know the camera and can do it well. I seldom edit in gimp as I take my time getting the right exposure if I can. Even PS/gimp can't save a bad exposure. I learned that in the darkroom and in gimp.

So just slow down and think about what you want. It is not the digital. It is you.

I also point and shoot. I will admit I am more adventurous when I am not paying the film bill but I still take my time trying to get what I want.

Enjoy both worlds.

Helen_Arigby: The one thing I miss about film cameras is the fact that when you pressed the shutter, they would take a farking picture. Digital cameras can take more pics, don't need reloading, can be much smaller and lighter-weight, can zoom in way farther without that ginormous telescopic attachment my dad owned, and blah blah blah, but there's always that two- to three-second delay between when you press the shutter and the picture actually happens. I've lost a lot of good shots either because I forgot to compensate or else compensated wrong.

Others have already said it, but your delay is probably the camera auto focusing before it takes the shot. Many digital cameras have a two position shutter release. When you push it half way down, it will make the camera focus, and then when you push it the rest of the way, it will pretty much instantly take the picture. If your camera is like that, you should be able to pre-load the release so the camera has focused ahead of time.

I know digital photography has allowed me to become a much better photographer. The instant feedback, and the ability to quickly experiment with the basics of aperture, shutter, and iso is more than enough justification for digital. I have taken about 4500 photos with my E-PL2 in the last year, and I know that I would have never been able to practice that much, or get those shots with a film camera.

They also have a high speed programmable printer development and building service that made money before it became part of Kodak, and it is at risk of being closed.

BenjaminFarklin: wakizashi: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

Not saying this is better or that is better, but clearly film is the winner for certain things, while digital is the winner for others.

That article is 6 years old and no longer holds up, IMO.

If you like the lack of yellows and greens that the sRGB and AdobeRGB color gamut can reproduce, the cheap-ass prints that change color over months instead of years, and truly believe that a full-frame 28 million 8 to 12 bit sensors in a Bayer grid is the equivalent of 28 million crystals in each of three layers; fine, won't argue with you. But even scRGB 16bit leaves a chunk of green out; digital work flows just can't capture or reproduce that.

Film is going no where until cameras like the RED come down to reasonable prices. It may only be used by artists, but the fact that families aren't having paintings commissioned often hasn't killed the oil/watercolor/acrylic/pastel market either.

saturn badger: Even PS/gimp can't save a bad exposure. I learned that in the darkroom and in gimp.

It depends. I've had some pretty questionable exposures that I was able to get decent pictures out of when I shoot in RAW. If you're more than 2 or 3 steps off, it gets more questionable but within a reasonable limit, RAW allows you to change the exposure with little to no compromise in quality.

But yes, I agree that it's far better to get your exposure correct when you take the picture than to spend all your time in post trying to make the picture you should have taken in the first place.

And, as others have stated, my DSLR has instant response when I push the shutter button. No delay whatsoever.