Film: Obsolete?

[mamapaparazzi]

So, I realize that this is a forum for digital photography, but I have to throw this out there...

I was talking with some people on Monday and this is how the conversation went:
Me: I couldn't get film at (at certain store)
Neighbour: Who the hell buys film anymore?
Me: Uh, people who have $1000 cameras that take film still buy film.
Sister-in-law: Well, the problem with stuff like that it that it's becoming obsolete.

So, my question to all of you is: Do you think film is obsolete (or becoming so)? I can honestly say that the photos I'm most proud of were taken with my SLR with its 'obsolete' film...

[Jim Bryant]

Who knows will film become obsolete? I don't think so, there are still photographers that shoot both film and digital. There are some obsolete art directors out there that still require film/transparencies shoot for their assignments. There are also plenty of photographers that still shoot film from time to time. As for me...........I have mostly all digital cameras and a few film cameras set aside to please those dinosaur clients, who pay good money for film.

Maybe some types of processing will go away such as Kodachrome, but the Ektachromes and color negative films will be around for a while longer.

[Barbara V]

I hope it's not obsolete. I, too, am proudest of my photos taken with film, and I understand photography in relation to film, even now when shooting digital. To tell you the truth, I don't see myself running out any time soon to buy film, though... I'm rather deep into the digital ease of taking the picture and seeing it soon after. I love film, but I'd need to be processing and printing it myself to be really satisfied. Since everybody and their mother seems to possess a digital camera of some sort, maybe it is becoming obsolete.

[look_yau]

it will be for general public, but not for photography hobbyist and professionals

[Jim Bryant]

Every photographer should be raised on film. If you can expose film, you'll have no trouble doing the same digitally. Shooting film really teaches one about photography, something that these dSLR's on program or auto can't. And by the way, I still know some pros in the Seattle and NYC areas that still shoot film.

[tuxcomputers]

Film is not obsolete but there is little market for it. I look at the Film v Digital this way.

For both digital and film you have the initial cost of the camera. With digital you have the additional cost of memory cards and software (but only if you don't use free / open source). I don't count the cost of the computer because most people already have one.

After that you have the running costs, with digital you have a small amount of electricity to charge your battery. Apart from that the cost per frame goes down for every shot you take because you are dividing the initial cost by the number of frames.

With film you have a constant cost of the film, the chemicals to process the film and the printing. When I say constant I mean on going because it seems that the cost of film and processing is going up.

Lets say that I get a single keeper for every 100 photos I take, with digital I can take, print and frame three great photos for the cost of three prints. With film I would have the cost of 300 frames of film, 300 frames of processing and 3 enlargements.

I certainly know which cost I would rather incur.

[Xposurepro]

by definition to make something obsolete is done by replacing it with something newer or better.

Digital is naturally newer so that leaves the debate to is it better. Which is cheaper to process? Digital. Which is faster to process? Digital. Which offers better storage in terms of space? Digital. Which offers faster recovery? Digital. Which offers the most output flexibility in a single media .. i.e 1 roll of film vs 1 media card? Digital. Which can quickly help you realize you got a papercut on your finger? Ok film wins on the last one. ... I haven't developed a roll of film in over a decade now .. by definition it has been obsolete for a long time. Sure a lot of people might enjoy it for fun but then again a lot of people like doing things that have been obsolete for hundreds of years.

[Talita]

I would LOVE to have the oppertunity to learn with film. My grantfather, years ago did wedding photos and my grandmother did the cakes and dresses. I was about 5 years old and can still remember the taste and smell of when I went into that dark room. It was amazing, they had both passer away by the time I was 10. No-one else in my family has the passion, I am digital. I grew up in a digital age, that's just the way it is. I could post-process before I had enough money to buy a camera to take my own photos.

Form what I can remember it looks alot easier doing it digitally than developing film in your own darkroom. But I think delevoping your own photo's you have the feeling of creating something yourself, I don`t think you get the exact same feeling with digital. I envy the photographers that had the privelage to do both.

It will most prob go obsolete, but I`m sure it`s not because it`s not excellent. I think it's just the way of the world

[OsmosisStudios]

For the general public? Yeah. For the artist, professional, or niche markets? Hell no.

For instance: Today im shooting both 35mm and medium format film.

[rkfoster]

I went on a photography walkabout which the guide prefaced with a monologue on one specific benefit of film: gradations of gray scale. He asserted that todays ccd can only encode about 50 levels of brightness, where film is closer to 200. (Compared to around, I believe, 10,000 for the human eye).

He asserted the result is a more believable image, many steps closer to deceiving the eye into "believing" the image. He did indeed have prints to back up his assertion, but perhaps there are other factors in play at that stage of the game.

So, if this fellow is not off his rocker, an artiste fellowship may provide enough monetary incentive to prolong the film infrastructure for the foreseeable future.

Can anyone else here attest to this bit about grayscale? It was a quite fascinating rant.