End of Film Photography?

[monsoon]

[monsoon]

[Allan]

I haven't taken any photos with a film camera for about 3-1/2 years now. I finally just sold all my film camera stuff on Ebay before it was completely worthless. Digital is so much more convenient. When I go out to take photographs, I might take as many as 500 pics on all different settings...that gets expensive real quick with film photography given the cost of developing a roll of film. With digital, it's also easier to edit photos. And with the quality of photo printers available today, if you want a copy on paper for some reason, you can just print it out.

[TravisNC]

Film cameras are certainly on the decline, but I think it will be a long time before we see the end of them. I wouldn't really even think about Kodak when buying a camera anyway (film, of course; camera, no), so I'm not surprised their leaving the market.

My stepmom's Canon film camera broke recently and she got a new camera for Christmas. My dad and I had almost convinced her to get a digital camera, but when she went to Circuit City and compared the digital and film models they had been considering she knew instantly that she wanted the film one. Some people just aren't technologically inclined. Plus, her main reason for wanting film was that she wants physical prints of all of her photos and that would be expensive and time consuming using digital.

[Scott]

I like the instant gratification you get from digital. I can't imagine having to wait for film to be developed anymore. When the average cameras quality in digital is as good as film then that will be real changing of the guard.

[BrandonTO416]

There are many things you can do with film that you cannot do with digital, especially night time effects. But you have to have a photography class or two behind you before you know how to use film to its best.

It really is never going to go away...

I took a film class in high school and developed my own pictures, and even took photos in a shoe box..

But I've not used film since I got my digicam in Dec. 2000. LOL I'm not really talented with film anyway, I've forgot all the things I learned in that photography class back in 1998.

[JunktionFET]

The only digital camera I can stand to use are ones that allow you to adjust the aperture and the shutter speed--well actually, the equivalent of the "shutter speed" (since digital cameras don't have shutters per se).

You know what ruins digital audio and video? Compression. "Loss less" compression like "zipping" is fine, but the destructive crap like JPEG and MPEGx can be pretty nasty.

The idea behind destructive compression is to remove as much information as possible so that a typical user won't readily notice.

You know that "noise" you see on some JPEGs (especially around a texture change)? That is artifacting from compression.

Compressed audio is the same way--often times MPEG audio sounds bright, noisy, dirty, or "thin".

Anyway... newer ultra-high-resolution cameras are great IMO. The early digital cameras weren't so hot. It is like comparing a record (remember those?) to a conventional audio CD. The record has a smoother more linear sound--because it IS linear--the CD is sampled (at 44.1kHz).

DADs and SACD are newer technologies and are sampled at much higher rates than regular CDs (96kHz and 192kHz respectively), and thus become more indistinguishable from the trusty vinyl. In fact, I can't tell the difference unless I listen to the same piece over and over again--that's how good they are.

New cameras with super dense resolution (higher "megapixel") become as good as (or even better) than film.

[Allan]

I took a film class in high school and developed my own pictures, and even took photos in a shoe box..

How come every high school except for mine offers a photography class? You'd think a school with 2300 students would be able to offer a photography class. It's not like there isn't any money...my school is one of the few in the state that is running huge budget surpluses.