End of 35mm film - long live digital - or is it?

[Carol Haynes]

Saw this on CNET

http://reviews.cnet....blog&tag=nl.e501

Interesting. I must admit I mostly use digital these days but I have 5 film cameras (3 by Canon) and in some ways would hate to see 35mm disappear completely - mainly because 35mm quality digital images are still way out of the budget of most photographers.

Presumably if 35mm cameras start to disappear it won't be long before processing becomes difficult too - there is already a move for the cheap processing labs in the UK to shut up shop!

Is it a good thing or not? Discuss ... (you can tell I am in teacher mode can't you )

Political ... caution

I got this from the newsletter here and there is an interesting, scary, item on National Identity cards which has caused a bit of resentment (and will no doubt cause more) in the UK recently. I don't intend this to be the start of a political discussion but it was an interesting read with technological and social implications.

[app103]

I think it will be awhile before processing completely disappears being that having professional quality prints is still something people want even if all they have is a digital camera.

People still can't edit photos like a pro too, meaning if you want your pics looking their best you'd still have to let a pro handle them, digital or not.

And what parent wants to let their child take an expensive digital camera on a class trip when it would make more sense to hand them a disposable 35mm?

What about weddings where it has become kind of customary to put a disposable camera on each table at the reception and let your guests snap pics for you?

35mm isn't going anywhere till disposable digital replaces the disposable 35mm. (is there even such thing as disposable digital cameras yet?)


btw...I still own a 110 that is near impossible to buy film for these days, and that is a sad thing.

and mouser...where is the quick reply in this section of the forum? 

[Carol Haynes]

You can get very cheap (or even free) digital cameras which are great for kids and don't have cost implications for getting stuff developed. The pictures are adequate for displaying on screen but not for printing but it is only a matter of time before 3Mp cameras arrive in the cornflake box!

Quick reply should be at the bottom of the thread - I am using it now ???

[koncool]

In my opinion 35mm film won't disappear. Also, don't take megapixels for granted. Why does a Jaga camera at 8mp capture terrible photographs of unprintable quality, when my Camedia C1400L at 1.4mp (okay, its an SLR camera but still...) has better quality? So, there are other factors to take into consideration, such as the quality of the CCD etc.

[rjbull]

Presumably if 35mm cameras start to disappear it won't be long before processing becomes difficult too

-Carol Haynes (May 26, 2006, 04:54 AM)

I look through Amateur Photographer every week (mostly for the adverts), and haven't yet seen anything about Canon dropping film camera manufacture.

I only (normally) shoot 35mm transparency film, and get it processed at a local professional photographer's place on the nearest tradng estate.   They shoot some digital, but still enough film to put an E6 process on every day.  Maybe it won't be so easy for casual users to find processing houses, but no doubt larger mail-order places like Peak Processing - oops, now Peak Imaging - will keep going for quite a while.  Peak are in Sheffield, I think, not a million miles from the CarolHaynes mansion?

It's not just the film, either.  Lenses and ancillaries aren't always available for digital cameras, and if they are, they're very expensive.  I've not yet seen a shift lens for digital advertised, for example; very wide lenses are rare or non-existent; no digital Hasselblad XPan yet (OK I know you can make panoramas digitally, but it's extra work).

[koncool]

Actually, being an owner of lots of both film and digital camers, I strongly support film. In my possession I have:

Nikon Coolpix E950
Nikon Coolpix E990
Olympus Camedia C40
Olympus Camedia C7070UZ
Olympus Camedia C1400L
Canon EOS 300D

and some more, but none of them did impress me, even with really good lenses. Compare the results from cameras such as the Voigtlander Vito B from 1954 and the Leica CL from 1974 with the output of digital ones and you'll immediately see what I mean. There can be no comparison, and probably never will be any. And no, film is nowhere near death.

[Carol Haynes]

Presumably if 35mm cameras start to disappear it won't be long before processing becomes difficult too

-Carol Haynes (May 26, 2006, 04:54 AM)

Peak are in Sheffield, I think, not a million miles from the CarolHaynes mansion?

It's not just the film, either.  Lenses and ancillaries aren't always available for digital cameras, and if they are, they're very expensive.  I've not yet seen a shift lens for digital advertised, for example; very wide lenses are rare or non-existent; no digital Hasselblad XPan yet (OK I know you can make panoramas digitally, but it's extra work).

-rjbull (May 26, 2006, 06:12 AM)

Actually one of the good things about Canon EOS cameras is they can use the same lenses as the film versions and with the advent of 35mm CCDs you get exactly the same expected 'use of the lens'.

Sheffield isn't that far away - but not close enough to pop in for film processing (like a 4 hour round trip at least).

Compare the results from cameras such as the Voigtlander Vito B from 1954 and the Leica CL from 1974 with the output of digital ones and you'll immediately see what I mean.

This is the trouble with consumer level products (even the expensive ones). By the time you get to the Pro versions of Canon you are in a different league and the the quality is up there (which is why almost all professional photographers have moved over to the digital these days). Images from the 16.7 Mp Canons are now accepted by photo archives (the first digital cameras to acheive this) but you are talking the best part of £5,000 for the body !!!

As already pointed out though there is still the issue of transparencies. Can you actually do transparencies at all with digital? I have never seen anyone mention this and if you can would you have similar problems to trying to convert 35mm negatives?

[koncool]

Yeah but don't you achieve the same (or better) results with, e.g. a Canon EOS 5 (which I love so much ) or an EOS 1? Why pay such a large amount of money?

[Carol Haynes]

Don't know - I've never had the opportunity to play with the EOS 1 or 5, I have an EOS 300D and don't see the need to replace it anytime soon.

[rjbull]

Actually one of the good things about Canon EOS cameras is they can use the same lenses as the film versions and with the advent of 35mm CCDs you get exactly the same expected 'use of the lens'.

-Carol Haynes (May 26, 2006, 06:54 AM)

I'd forgotten that, but I thought it was still in the realm of if you have to ask, you can't afford it...  you can get top quality and versatility from second-hand film gear costing a few hundred pounds (if that) that might be an order of magnitude more expensive with digital.

Sheffield isn't that far away - but not close enough to pop in for film processing (like a 4 hour round trip at least).

There's still Postman Pat and his black-and-white cat...

Compare the results from cameras such as the Voigtlander Vito B from 1954 and the Leica CL from 1974

I rather wish I'd acquired a Leitz Minolta CLE, though I heard they're rather fragile.  The idea seemed to me great for a hiking / sightseeing camera.

As already pointed out though there is still the issue of transparencies. Can you actually do transparencies at all with digital?

I believe so, though I've not heard of it being done.  There are those big Fuji machines that scan transparencies using a laser and write out the results, also using a laser, onto normal "Crystal Archive" photographic paper.  Seems no reason why they couldn't write onto film like that from a digital file.  Most people will ask, why would you want to, when you can get digital projectors?  Albeit, they're another expensive item.