Film is not dead

KitWorks

#1 – 7:24 AM June 17, 2009

Actually, film is still a popular choice among artists, and not only because it is "classic" or "artsy". 35mm film captures something like 14 megapixels of information, so affordable digital cameras only recently surpassed film in terms of detail. Even then, the most affordable DSLRs use a CCD sensor which most artists feel is inferior.

The best digital images require much more expensive equipment then equivalent film cameras, not to mention the cost of owning or renting the large, high-end printers needed to make fine prints.

Also, from personal experience, I can tell you there is a lot going for film, even today. Digital has all the same hassles of film photography and printing, plus all the hassles born of personal computing.

Expect film to be around for a while, z-day or not.

kukkurovaca

#2 – 9:16 AM June 17, 2009

I started out with photography in the digital era, but now I've largely transitioned to film. The ability to use different emulsions with their own strengths and characteristics, and to use shockingly inexpensive old film cameras that have no digital equivalent, like a Koni-Omega 6x7 rangefinder, make film very appealing.

As a result of folks discovering this, film sales have rebounded in recent years. Of course, film will never be the de facto standard for family snapshooting now that digital compacts are affordable, but it's certainly not dead.

w000t

#3 – 12:06 PM June 17, 2009

If one wants to play around with old-school film, I recommend E6. It is actually pretty easy to develop at home with just a bit of fairly cheap equipment. Since it's slide film, you then have some great options to enjoy the film. You can mount the slides in carriers, scan the strip, get prints made, or even make your own View-Master.

Also, the color gamut on E6 is truly amazing - much better than digital and even better than most negative film. The only downside is that the exposure latitude is quite a bit less forgiving than negative film (bracketing is probably a good idea).

Idiotswork

#4 – 12:28 PM June 17, 2009

But for some reason you think darkroom chemicals will be available after Z-day? I'm sure Kodak's production line will still be running. Maybe the mini-lab at Target will still be open, too....

While the nostalgia for film is touching and everything why the need to demonize digital? From a working photographer's POV, there is zero reason to shoot film. Yes, there are some of the same problems that we had with film, but try getting 200 4x5's developed right now. I live in Baltimore and there isn't a single professional film lab left in town. And the ones in New York don't have enough volume to develop the film properly.

P.S. @Wooot: Ektachrome does not have a wider color gamut than digital cameras. It definitely beats sRGB, but a RAW file from a DSLR easily covers it. Ektachrome's gamut is roughly equivalent to ProPhoto RGB, which is available as an option in most RAW processors.

BartFeliciano

#5 – 1:03 PM June 17, 2009

Post Z-Day we can still develop BW film with Coffee.

http://photo-utopia.blogspot.com/2007/09/developing-in-coffee.html

w000t

#6 – 1:22 PM June 17, 2009

@Idiotswork:
I generally agree with you, except that I don't think anybody here was "demonizing" digital (BBG is pretty clearly digital camera country, friend). Despite remaining a fan of E6, I haven't shot or developed a roll of film in years.

"Ektachrome's gamut is roughly equivalent to ProPhoto RGB." It's actually the other way around. ProPhoto RGB was Kodak's improved version of Ekta Space which was intended to cover the E6 gamut (but didn't). So, ProPhoto RGB's gamut is (by design) equivalent to E6.

Basically, I should have said, "much better than most digital and as good as the best digital that pros shoot" but I was semantically lazy.

As for darkroom chemicals: Yeah, they'll be around. Most of the few remaining pro labs are run by mole men. And mole men hate zombies. They'll keep processing prints just to spite their undead foes, who hate having their picture taken for obvious reasons.

maxoid

#7 – 1:51 PM June 17, 2009

you'll have to take my portra 160vc/ilford hp5 from my cold, dead hands...

i take artsy shots with film, but the event photography i do is digital or nothing. no other way to go to a crazy backstage party event, take a thousand or more shots in three hours, and turn 'em around for post-processing & delivery/uploading within 24 hours. no development cost or downtime. totally different from the film shots, but they have their own purpose, and make more money.

that, and my kodak retina IIIc has been mechanically perfect and battery-free since 1954 (photocell lightmeter FTW). as long as 35mm film is made, i'll use it.

dculberson

#8 – 2:10 PM June 17, 2009

Everyone knows that darkroom chemicals are the proven weapon against zombies, so we'll be manufacturing them in even greater numbers after z-day. There will be a short downtime, but once the fortified underground labs get going, there's no stopping it. Cachunk cachunk.

historyman68

#9 – 4:07 PM June 17, 2009

@5 - what makes you think we'll be drinking coffee post Z-Day?

kukkurovaca

#10 – 4:16 PM June 17, 2009

The alternative process geeks will probably be coating their own glass plates after z-day.

philipb

#11 – 11:08 AM June 18, 2009

The other advantage of film is low cost cameras with full manual & B settings. Fuji do a pretty decent job with their FinePix series but it's not until you get into the high-$ digital SLRs that these features are really available.

Idiotswork

#12 – 9:46 PM June 18, 2009

I long to join the ranks of zombie fighting photographic mole men.

I agree BB is not too anti-digital by its very nature, but I still doubt that Ilford and Kodak will be producing gelatin silver film. The need to keep chickens for eggs to produce albumin types seems to preclude post-z-day photo production. Can we post-apocalyptic photogs really be expected to raise poultry, coat our own plates, wait for the precariously long exposures, and fight off the undead? I think not. Shouldn't we rather focus on stockpiling solar battery chargers?

tony

#13 – 7:56 PM September 28, 2009

Anyone remember the 5.25" floppies? Almost no one can read files on those things anymore. Even a floppy diskette from the 1990s is obsolete on most computer systems. This is what the future of today's digital images will look like. Nobody will be able to read them. Good luck converting "raw" files 20 or 50 years from now to a visible image. The daguerreotypes from the 19th century will last longer than today's digital images. If you want photography that will last then use film. It's stood the test of time and will continue to do so. As for megapixels, sensors, and impossible to follow "menus" on digital equipment...all that's important in photography is composition, lighting, focus, aperture, and exposure time. That's it.