Pixiq

"But looking at the fervent comments in the follow up to the post I notice something that I see in the Nikon vs. Canon wars and in the Mac vs. PC debates before Macs became cool—people who still use film are violently in favor of it. Not just in favor of them using it, but in favor of everyone using it. "

Since I stated a number of times in my comments on the other post that I use both film and digital, quite frankly I am at a loss to understand how you came up with this interpretation of what I was saying. Quite frankly, there was more of that "my way or the highway" kind of attitude from other commenters, with lines like "Every photographer I know who's worth their salt shoots digital"

Regarding spray and pray I already clarified with Jack that what I was talking about was not to confused with sports photography. You might want to go back and reread the entire comment thread.

In summary, I was not trying to push an analog film uber alles position, or make it an either/or debate; to claim that I was would be a mischaracterization of what I was saying.

I could go on (e.g. do you believe a 20 megapixel sensor is close in equivalent resolution to film in a 8 x 10 view camera? If one wishes to look at that statement in terms of the grammar you use, that is what you are saying)

David,

Good post.
I've also talked a lot with friends at Kodak, and frankly, the reason they're hanging on to film and hung on longer than made sense, is that it's soooo profitable for them.
These days, as I write about in my book, they are more an intellectual property company, making much more money on their patents than on manufacturing.

But to me as far as the digital vs film, it's a dead horse.
As a friend's daddy once said, "When your horse dies....get off."

I've yet to hear good, real reasons to continue with film other than emotional ones.

If Kodak is a business and "it's soooo profitable" to do film, then by definition it makes sense, Jack.

Not sure how the bit about being an intellectual property company is germane to the point at hand though.

Excellent article David! You've covered a lot of the argument, if there is an argument at this point. I print from both digital captures and scanned 35mm slides on a daily basis and from my experience (50+ years) when we passed 10mp we passed the threshold of film (35mm) whether it was Kodachrome, Velvia, or E100VS. The proof is in the print and the publications. We did a cover of Outdoor Photographer with a 6mp file.

I'll say it again, we get images on a regular basis that we were never able to get on film. The fact that I have control of the image from capture, to optimization, to print, and in stunning color. I've been involved in photography for 56 years and it's more exciting now than ever...because of digital. Time to go take pictures insteading of hashing old news.

David - I can not agree more whole heartedly about your Kodak comments. I have watched over the last decade and more while the Great Yellow Father continued to shoot himself in the foot. The final shot for me was seeing blister-packed film cameras touted as "digital" cameras because the film would be scanned to disk! I thought, that is either a brilliant marketing ploy, or a really, really sad final attempt to stay viable in this industry. I suppose it was a bit of both.

I do, however, disagree with your final outcome on film. I am a passionate shooter of Holga Toy Camera images (http://www.HolgaToyCamera.com) as are many photographers of all ages. I believe that film will live on for the "fine arts" applications of photography. I certainly hope so anyway.

I have also been teaching film photography since 1995. While I witnessed a drop in interest for a few years, I see a resurgence happening in the last year. Many of my students are in the 18-21 age range and have grown-up digitally. What I am witnessing is a fascination and enthusiasm for shooting film - almost as a hip-retro thing! Students are telling me it's allowing them a different level of connection with photography because of the tactile interaction not present with the 0s and 1s of digital photography.

Will film go away completely? I hope not. Call me a photo survivalist, but I'm keeping a stock of TriX, D-76, Fixer and my old film Nikons!

Agreed David - really...for the most part, that is! Years ago as a photojournalist I remember the first hints of digital on the horizon. And I remember boo-hooing it! You know..."you can have my TriX and my Nikon when you can pry it from my..."

And now? I'm no longer a working journalist, but I can't imagine that business NOT being digital!

But how about applications such as nature photography? My nature-shooting colleagues are still producing images on film (larger formats) and then scanning - and the quality really is something which can't be matched digitally (yet...and short of a $50K back!!!).

One more note: I cancelled my Outdoor Photographer subscription a couple of years ago. Why? Because I grew sick of having the publication shoving digital down our throats. The real reason? In their "editorial" bombardment of everything digital I noticed something. I went back through more than a year's worth of cover credits. Guess what? Every single one of them was shot on film.

Sometimes you just do something for the process of it. Film is to mess with, and it's fun to know you're creating images by exposing chemicals on a strip of plastic. I like not knowing how it'll turn out and I like playing around in the darkroom.

It's like asking why some people enjoy driving manual cars, or why someone might cook a meal from scratch even if the restaurant is the same price. It's just the process.