An article to think about

[little laker 0]

I thought that this article was interesting.

 

found here

Kodak: Most photographers prefer film

 

* Home

o » News

+ » Kodak: Most photographers prefer film

 

Monday 9th July 2007

Chris Cheesman

 

Most photographers still prefer using film according to a survey of professionals across Europe conducted by Kodak, which has stated its commitment to film provision.

 

'Far from fading into the history books film capture has a massive fan base and the future looks rosy,' said a spokesman for Kodak UK.

 

More than two-thirds (67%) of those questioned said that they intend to continue to use film capture.

 

Over half of respondents (55%) said they prefer the results that film capture provides, compared to digital.

 

And 19% admitted that they choose film cameras for more than 60% of their work.

 

Reasons photographers cited for preferring film included the 'ability to capture incredible detail', achieving a 'traditional photographic look' and capturing 'shadow detail'.

 

Kodak's general manager of Film Capture in Europe Oreste Maspes said: 'Kodak is committed to providing professional photographers with the best tools for the job, and it is clear that this includes film, and will continue to do so.'

 

Commenting on the findings a Kodak spokesman added: 'It is clear that while digital has introduced new benefits for professional photographers there will always be images best captured on film.

 

According to the survey these benefits include black and white images.

 

The research revealed that the majority (80%) of photographers produce black and white images and, to capture these, almost half (45%) prefer to use film.'

 

Almost 3,000 photographers across Europe took part in the survey.

 

Now you know why I'm starting to deal with medium format film for my money shots

[Peterjay 0]

I'm not sure what your point is. Kodak doing a survey on film is like a presidential candidate running his own election. Kodak has been steadily calcifying for the last 30 years, and it would appear that they're still determined to keep swimming against the tide. I'll be astounded if Eastman Kodak is still extant in its present form in 10 years - It's already a shell of what it once was. Kodak can trot out all the bogus, self-serving surveys it wants to, but the sales figures tell an entirely different story. If you don't believe me, ask the thousands of Kodak employees who have lost their jobs in the last 25 years. A couple of decades ago, diehards (including yours truly) were claiming that CDs would never replace vinyl LPs, but we all know how that worked out. I'm sure there will be a small niche market for emulsion-based capture for some time to come, but it's already out of the mainstream, (extinct in some areas) and what's left is sinking fast.

 

[Graham 0]

I got a request to purchase an egret in flight photo today, and e-mailing a RAW image, and instant bank wire transfers sure simplify things. I don't consider myself a pro, but for amatuers like me, the digital age makes things like this quick and easy.

 

I also don't have enough confidence yet to shoot film and wait until I drive home from my trip to see if my exposures were correct. I'd love to have anough confidence someday to shoot film and know I captured images as expected.

 

I have a lot of respect for pros that shoot film with confidence.

 

Graham

[Guest]

Just my .02 cents.

 

I don't think we adults will see the day that film dies completely. Even though digital is very convenient but the colors aren't quite there yet. I don't know where I saw it, but on a website there was a person who did a side by side shot with a film camera and a digital camera and all the setting were the same. To my the film shot had more vibrant colors than the digital shot did. So I think the digital cameras still have a little ways to go the get the colors to where they should be and for the black and whites to come around.

 

Cool article Stu.

Jim

[Peterjay 0]

The colors aren't there yet? Jeez, I can think of a multitude of topnotch photographers and publications who are apparently laboring under the delusion that they are, but I guess they must have missed the "test" you saw. Nobody said film was going to disappear completely - heck, there are still people out there using 19th century technology to make salt and albumen prints - but film gear is destined to be in short supply because nobody is going to design and manufacture what they can't sell, and the market for film cameras has all but dried up. The last I heard, Nikon's film line was down to one model, and Canon had announced that no more new models would be introduced, though they planned to keep producing current models for the time being. Even Leica was dragged kicking and screaming into the digital age, not because they wanted to, but because the change was necessary to give the company a chance to survive. Medium format lines have been dropping like flies in recent years, and there are only a few manufacturers left who still produce MF film cameras. I waited for pro-level digital to catch up with film before I made the switch to digital, and (like every professional I know personally) I haven't regretted it for a second. The image quality (at least using my particular camera) is at least the equal of MF film, creative control is vastly superior, and best of all, I no longer have to change rolls every 10 shots, (if you don't think that's a pain in the butt, you ought to give it a try) or spend days on end in the dark with the stench of toxic chemicals. Frankly, I don't give two hoots what the other guy does, but when I use up my stock of 120 film, the 6X7 will join my film Nikon on the shelf. They had their day, but as far as I'm concerned, it's over. Life is too short to waste time running a horse in the Indy 500.

[Graham 0]

I have to agree with you Peterjay. Digital has come a long way in the past couple of years, and the new Nikon D3 is taking digital quality to even higher levels. I pop an 8 gig card in my camera and I'm ready to take 305 jpeg and RAW shots, would get well over 1k if I disabled RAW. I'm very happy with my camera's color output, but I would like less noise at higher ISO. D3 solves that, for a price. And I can instantly adjust my ISO without having to change films. I'm not bashing film equipment and photographers, but I do think digital cameras these days are every bit as good as film. B&W might be another story, and I have no experience with either digital or film technology.

[little laker 0]

Stick to your beliefs, but I know which camera I'll be using for some of my money shots.

I am keeping my digital, but film has it's place in the world as well.

 

 

[Peterjay 0]

Stu, it's not a matter of belief - I'm not trying to bust anybody's chops either, but the implication was that all films are of the same quality and all digital capture systems are of the same quality, and it simply isn't true. You also implied that film capture is somehow inherently superior to digital capture, and if that's true, then the large number of people who put food on the table with their cameras have made a mistake by switching over, and that seems very unlikely. The current generation of sensors has pretty much settled that argument, and now that Nikon has gotten back into the game on the pro level, (Hooray!) the pace of improvement is going to pick up considerably, much to everyone's benefit. Heck, the last thing I want to see is the demise of film. it's great to see people working with traditional processes, and I admire you for doing it - it's the "my system is better than your system" stuff that bothers me. There's plenty of room for everybody.

[Al Beatty 0]

Hi guys,

 

Recently I read in one of my photog magazines that European photographers are slower to accept digital than are those here in the USA. Peterjay, I read in the same magazine about digital backs that are available for medium format cameras and larger format (cut film) type cameras. Before you put your medium format on the shelf you might check out digital backs. I sold my Hassleblad several years ago thinking I wouldn't need it any more; darn, I'm sure kicking myself now. Thankfully I kept my old 4x5 Speed Graphic. Who knows, it may once again be useful if I can afford the digital back. Take care & ...

 

Tight Lines - Al Beatty

www.btsflyfishing.com

Flyfisher magazine

[Guest]

Shoot Peter. I'm sorry what I said upset you so much. But what I was saying is what I saw with my own two eyes. I'm sure what I say isn't going to change the course of photography one way or another. But like I said in the original post. It is my .02 cents.

Jim

[Peterjay 0]

Al, unfortunately, my MF camera is a Pentax 6X7, which doesn't have the capacity to use interchangeable backs. It's essentially a 35mm type design that weighs six pounds with a normal lens. Boy, a speed graphic! I've been kicking around the idea of picking up one of those babies for a while - there are still quite a few of them out there, and they're great field cameras. BTW, I used to live out your way - a couple of my all-time favorite landscapes were shot at Bogus Basin.

 

Jim, sorry if I came across as upset, because I'm not. (well, maybe a little more ornery than usual, but that's probably due to the stress of moving for the tenth time in the last 18 years) I'm sure friends can agree to disagree, and I consider everyone here to be a friend as long as they don't throw bottles at my windshield or pee on my tomato plants. (or vice versa LOL) The reason I don't trust these online tests that seem to be everywhere these days is that they can easily be skewed to support someone's agenda, and they often are. I've seen tests that showed the exact opposite of the one you saw, and I wouldn't put any stock in them either. Like I said, sorry about being crochety - maybe I need to start kicking my dogs to reduce the stress a bit.

[Guest]

Geeze Peter. I think I would be kinda cranky also if I had been moving that much. Well as long as you don't lose your camera gear in the move everything should be ok. You take care and I will post some film pictures when I get them. OH did I say that. Sorry!!!! :hyst:

 

Jim

[little laker 0]

I'll probably be moving again in around 2 months, but I'm 1/2 thinking of just packing everything into my motorhome and moving it into a year round RV site in Kelowna.

Which shouldn't be all that hard

 

I don't think that anyone here will want to see my next film pictures anyways.

Considering that it'll be a photo shoot with a BEAUTIFUL model, whom will be carving up the slopes on her snowboard

After all there won't be any fish involved in it

[Peterjay 0]

Funny you should mention losing gear Jim - I haven't been able to find my monopod since we got here. What's really strange is that it was right next to me on the front seat of my truck, along with my other gear, and it just vanished. I'll probably find it in the freezer or the cat box if I can summon the strength to look.

 

Stu, I'd be careful if I were you. The last time I photographed a beautiful model, she talked me into marrying her, an experience I wouldn't wish on Osama bin Laden. (true story - it took me two years to get rid of her) If you've got the RV, at least you can make a break for it - I'm sure Ernie will let you hide in his attic until the trail gets cold.

[little laker 0]

I would say that she's 14 years younger than me Peter, so there isn't much chance of that happening.

However I just remembered that my last girlfriend is 14 years older than I am.

And there wasn't much chance of us going out, she was just the woman whom served me when I got my prescription filled