User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 5:52:22 AM EDT
http://www.nikon.co.uk/press_room/releases/show.aspx?rid=201
As a professional photographer and photography teacher, this changes everything. I knew it would, but man I love film. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 5:54:24 AM EDT
[#1]
I love film and I love cameras, but I've never been fond of the chemicals involved in developing negatives and prints and slides.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 6:00:17 AM EDT
[#2]
Film will never completely die. It will be relegated to artists, etc.... high end medium and large format, etc...
Consumer-level film has been dead for a while now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 6:02:22 AM EDT
[#3]
Actually the article says they will continue the F6 and one other film camera, the FM10.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 6:03:01 AM EDT
[#4]
Sad. I, too, love film.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 6:06:53 AM EDT
[#5]
"Ohhhh the times they are a chaaanngin!!"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 6:08:46 AM EDT
[#6]
The F6 looks sweet...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 6:09:23 AM EDT
[#7]
What is film?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 6:09:51 AM EDT
[#8]
I like film, too. Seeing the difference between them is very interesting. Fuji really pops. Agfa has some incredible portrait film.
But the thing I don't like is that it winds up being fifteen bucks a roll by the time I get done. I also don't like the lag you have between when you take the picture and when you are able to view the results. It makes it much harder to remember what you were doing when you took the picture and learn from the process. I like the ability to enlarge film to big sizes, but I also have to recognize that there aren't many pictures that I really do that with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 6:13:26 AM EDT
[#9]
so have digital cameras finally surpassed film regarding image quality?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 6:18:39 AM EDT
[#10]
I think the size of a full frame sensor needs to be around 25-30 megapixels to equal the detail in the highest resolution Fuji or Kokak film in 35 mm. It's around 15-20 right now and offers so much flexibility that fewer reasons for film exist.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 6:28:03 AM EDT
[#11]
No. Digital cameras still have one basic deficiency - The number of shades of green they can record is still less than the human eye can discern. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 6:33:16 AM EDT
[#12]
No, but there have been some cameras built that equal it. It is just a matter of time until they do. But I think you have to look at what you mean by "quality". I really love the quality of some films - fine grain, nice way of handling the colors, etc. But the fine grain really only counts if you are going to blow the picture up. I don't blow up that many, and most of them wind up being viewed most of the time on a computer monitor, so what is the real point of having 50 million pixels? I used to have a medium format camera. I eventually sold it just because I didn't use it that much, and it was pretty expensive when I did. As far as the colors go, I really like Agfa and Fuji film -- each in their own way -- but you can take photoshop and achieve the same thing. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 6:34:56 AM EDT
[#13]
Film vs digital
45 vs 9mm 7.62 vs 5.56 Boxers vs Briefs Tits vs Ass Paper vs Plastic You get the point. Quality & detail are in the eye of the beholder. My father & I have a professional photography business. We bought our first digital camera in April 02- a Canon D60. The only time we look back on our past it to realize just how tightly our color lab squeezed our balls. We were at the mercy of the lab. Now I manage color, do retouching, proofing, etc. We are in complete control or our images. The only downside is the computer time. I spend about 30 hours a week in Photoshop, in addition to photographing and managing the business. And with the software on the market, just about anything is now possible. At least in my area, the film holdouts are dying out. They can't compete with the creative possibilities of digital. And the 3 big color labs that had been in business for 25-40 years are now out of business. In addition, digital allows us to protect our copyrights more effectively. All customers receive a reduced resolution CD slideshow to view. The CD is encryted, the res is reduced, and an expiration date is placed on the CD. Now if I could only CLONE myself to increase productivity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 6:35:54 AM EDT
[#14]
There are some instances where film is still the way to go.
A number of years ago my brother went on a NOLS course deep in the north Cascades. For people not familiar with that area it is extremely rugged, extremely wet, and very cold. My brother took a Nikon FM2N all manual film camera. Other people had digital cameras, electronically controlled film cameras etc. An instructor even criticized his choice to bring a film all manual camera.  By the end of the trip the only camera that still functioned was my brother's FM2N. And that was even after taking several direct hits from crampons, rocks, etc. Until they can get an electronic camera to be that rugged I imagine that there will still be a market for film, all manual cameras. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 6:40:56 AM EDT
[#15]
I'm not giving up on film just yet. I still process and print my own black & white. I guess when that goes, I just won't bother anymore.
I wonder how long all those inkjet prints will last? I guess we'll see. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 6:44:03 AM EDT
[#16]
I have an FM2n that's been soaked and dropped quite a few times. It's still going strong. The last time I went into a Nikon dealer and mentioned I had one, the clerk tried to buy it from me. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 6:44:56 AM EDT
[#17]
Right on NewbHunter. We have a primarily wedding, senior, family portrait business. I wouldn't take any one of our digital cameras into the wild. Even my $1000 Digital Rebel is still too valuable. I do have a 40 year old pentax 35mm that is my beater camera. Problem is, I don't have time to take a vacation. I guess there is always next year.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 6:46:27 AM EDT
[#18]
++1 I have taught basic photography to a few people and it is so much less tedious with a modern digital SLR. No more note taking as all of the exposure info is imbedded in the image file. It's so much easier to show the trade-offs between shutter speed, aperature, depth of field, etc. by looking at the immediate results from a digital cam rather than waiting days for prints and then trying to remember the settings used for each image. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 6:48:50 AM EDT
[#19]
Not near so long as film. They make spectacular claims about shelf life on the new photopaper and inks you can use at home... But that's apparently only under the specific conditions of storage laid out by the manufacturer. I've seen real prints that have taken some ungodly abuse, and still been useable. I doubt my grandkids will find too many of my HP photoprinter shots in the attic in useable shape, the way I found Kodak prints my grandfather made back in the day. But we shall see. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 7:01:09 AM EDT
[#20]
I don't worry about the longevity of my prints. Our lab uses Fuji Frontier Printers, in which a RGB laser exposes the image on photographic paper, which is then processed chemically. The resulting photographic print supposedly has the same shelf life as prints made from negative film. After 4 years of this, I am a believer. However, I'm not quite so sure about inkjet prints. I use a cheap HP printer to make some in-house proofs for yearbooks & newspapers. I do know of some professional photographers who print everything in-house using inkjet printers. Not really my thing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 7:06:32 AM EDT
[#21]
See, now that's different. I'm too much of a cheap ass to bother with it for the money, though. Most of my pics end up on CDs. I'd say I print less than a quarter of what I actually photograph. For professionals, on the other hand... 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 7:10:56 AM EDT
[#22]
I'm surprised they are dropping film now, had expected it in 2 or 3 years (when image sensors equalled film) but guess the (film) sales have dropped off the edge...
* wondering if a second F100 on closeout is in the offing * Now that I think about it, the general public won't notice the difference anyway... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 7:12:48 AM EDT
[#23]
I've seen prints from a Frontier and they do look great. They are the same as a "regular" print so they should last just as long. I shouldn't really complain about the demise of film as the poplular medium, I could never have afforded my Mamiya RB67SD if it wasn't for digital. I paid about half of what a new body costs when I bought it in like new condition with a 90mm lens. It makes outstanding photos. As long as I can still get Ilford film, chemicals and paper then the rest doesn't matter. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 7:18:32 AM EDT
[#24]
The AK47 of cameras! I had one for years and used it professionally, and it never failed me, even when the meter battery conked out, and I didn't have time to change it. I knew somebody who'd been a photojournalist in South America and said he'd used his as a club to get himself out of riots and muggings in Argentina. I saw digital coming in, and got out of the pro stuff and running a photolab/camera shop. Working 16 hour days gets old, with a growing family really quickly. After a while I didn't even want to look at a camera any more. It's an industry totally changed- I wouldn't even have a job now. I saw the continual turnover and reinvestment in new 35mm equipment as a hassle (med./lg. format equip. seems to go on forever, however). I also saw the dumping of all my Nikon gear (FM2s, Nikkormats, F2s, F3, F4, N90s, etc. and ALL the lenses, flashes, etc.) and then starting up the same merry-go-round with digital as something I didn't want to do any more. So I sold it all while I could still get a good price. (Bought guns with the proceeds!  )I still pull out the med. format Rolleiflexes for fun, occasionally, but darkroom is dead, and paper/chemicals are tough to find. Even high schools don't use the stuff anymore. Nowadays I mostly let the wife do all the family picture taking with her Canon Rebel digital camera. She likes doing it more than I do.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 9:23:51 AM EDT
[#25]
This is kinda sad, but understandable.
I love film, but have not used any of my 35mm cameras in a couple of years. It is mostly the cost of processing that gets me. Also, I usually have a hard time using the entire roll of film. I am too cheap to take a bunch of pictures and use the best one, like I do with my digital cameras. I still have my first camera, an old Petri that my dad gave me for my birthday in 1974 or 75. The pictures are as good as my F3 or AE-1, but that is probably due to lack of operator skill. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 9:28:26 AM EDT
[#26]
Holy crap, I didn't think Nikon would do it this quick. I just may hold on to my Canon antiques
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 9:35:57 AM EDT
[#27]
That's too bad. Then end of a legend.
Ironically, I'm just getting BACK into film phography. I got my old Canon body refurbished a few years back, and now have started using it exclusively for B/W photography (I hope Ilford never stops making film or paper ). A few years from now (when one of us has tenure and we're in the same city), we intend to set up a darkroom. I used to have my own darkroom back in the old country, and it's such a great hobby, in my opinion. I can't wait to get back to it. Few things are as cool as getting that print exposure just right, and then watching it slowly appear in the developing fluid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 11:00:17 AM EDT
[#28]
I agree with that assessment. I can tell which which image was taken a digital consumer camera and a film camera. They still haven't got the image where the digital image is complete equivalent to the film image. Remember, film is analog and can record many more shades of colors than digital, even with 32 or 64 million colors available in digital. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 12:09:17 PM EDT
[#29]
Well, there's resolution and color and then there is practical resolution and color. I became so frustrated with the quality of photofinishing that I had basically stopped taking pictures. I'm a filmmaker for a living so I'm used to film producing very high quality images, much better than HDTV say. But you can't through that kind of horsepower at still stuff. Just seemed like more and more local places were doing crap work. I was always arguing with the "photo technician" pointing out that there was information in an area they burned out, that they cropped out some feet, all sorts of stuff.
I wasn't a big fan of digital. Did some work for Kodak and they gave me a high-end consumer digital camera package. This thing was slow but it took great pics! Or it wasn't that the pictures were great but I could get decent digital images, correct them in Photoshop, save them and tell the place that was doing the printing, "DO NOT ALTER THE FILES! PRINT THEM AS ARE EXACTLY!" It was like magic! I liked still photography again! I own two D70's now (Digital SLR's) and use them a lot for work and play (great for taking location and production stills) But... Digital cameras can't take slides... And are still not for archival or landscape/architectural work yet. But for 95% of everything even pros do, they are the cats pajamas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 12:15:32 PM EDT
[#30]
So, like when you point and shoot a pic, you get an image that's within 6 inches or so of what you were actually aiming at?  SG |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 12:23:36 PM EDT
[#31]
I have my mom's old Nikon stuff from the late 80's in storage somewhere...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 1:19:37 PM EDT
[#32]
You might be able to make some money from ebay on that - there seems to be a solid market for the old classic camera bodies (assuming you don't want to keep it, or give it to a dutch on-line buddy or something). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 1:31:43 PM EDT
[#33]
Our whole E-6 and C-41 lab was packed up an sold to Canada via eBay. I miss the big black rotating door. We called it the orgasmatron.
Film for us was dead. I haven't made a print in five years. Digital isn't film, it's close but it doesn't have the depth film does. Clients want it fast and cheap. Quality? Yeah, if it doesn't cost more. $4 or 5K will get you a nice Nikon D2X. I can't recall who has the 10 megapixel out. Nikon or Canon? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 1:33:09 PM EDT
[#34]
I believe Canon has a 12 megapixel now. A good friend of my wife recently got a new digitial camera (very high megapixel) that supposedly also comes with a GPS receiver built in, so that it can tell you precisely where each picture was taken 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 1:35:35 PM EDT
[#35]
crap
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 1:36:14 PM EDT
[#36]
Do you scan any of your slides? Have a thread in the Photo forum looking to see what can do KII & K64 properly... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 1:38:47 PM EDT
[#37]
i will bet in 10 years it will go the way of the do-do bird. Tech will quadruple or better in that time and cheaper costs with MUCH better tech will bury film. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 1:41:29 PM EDT
[#38]
Yeah - but there will always be a small group of Luddites that actually ENJOY messing around with baths of chemicals in dark-rooms with the cool pale orange lighting. I agree it will be completely gone from the consumer market in about 10 years - as soon as they make a super-cheap digital camera where people can go to walgreen's and just shove the camera/memory card in a slot, and get paper prints instantly. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 2:27:02 PM EDT
[#39]
I'm impressed! I had no idea there were so many photo savvy folks on this board. I wonder how many like me do it for a living?
My contacts with Ilford have assured me that black and white photographic paper will be available for at least two years. We had a big scare last summer when Kodak announced they were ceasing production and Ilford was in bankruptcy. Looks like Ilford has gotten things squared away, but it is only a matter of time before Kodak will cease production on packaged darkroom chemicals. I think though that this is really huge. Canon and Nikon are essentially the only powerhouses left in the camera manufacturing business. Even the Hasselblad, Leica and Sinar folks are hurting at the high end level. The fact that one of them is ceasing manufacture is going to lead to the acceleration of the extinction of film based photography. I felt pretty comfortable that film would be an option for at least five more years, particularly in the fine art world. I'd bet closer to two years now. Sure, they're going to continue with the FM10 (plastic crap for high school programs) and the big boy. But who's going to pay such a high price for a film camera when they can get an equally good digital? The only digital camera that comes close to film is the Canon Mark II. I used it last spring while on assignment in Nigeria. It is without question the first digital camera I've ever used that actually has the visual characteristics of film. Of course for that price it should make toast and take out the trash too. I knew it was inevetible, but damn! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 2:28:46 PM EDT
[#40]
It's a camera, not a woman.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 2:30:27 PM EDT
[#41]
So...you wanna buy some left over p-methylaminophenolsulphate? I guess I wont be doing much zone system anymore. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 3:09:07 PM EDT
[#42]
Actually there are many cameras that handily beat film and that's just talking 35mm format. The original 1Ds trumped film and it came out almost 4 years ago. Today, you got Nikon's D2x, the Canon 5D, and the 16.7 MP shoulder killer Canon 1Ds MkII which is what I use. I've been doing photography as a hobby and professionally for 15 years and I don't miss film one bit. I just got done with an assignment in Venezuela where I shot 5000 photos. If I had used film, that would have cost me thousands to develop, and MONTHS to organize and scan. God I hate scanning! My friends couldn't understand why I would spend $8000 on a camera body. Well it paid for itself in 2 months. It's a no brainer if you shoot a lot. Also with digital... * You don't have to mess with Polaroid proofs or guessing. I can see how the photo turned out right after I shoot. This is especially useful with flash photography or portraits where facial expressions can change and make or break a photo in a split second. * I can change ISO, color balance, etc... anytime I want. No more rewinding film mid roll or juggling what types of film to bring. * I can shoot at 1600 ASA with the 1Ds MkII and get excellent photos. With film, anything above 400 was not satisfactory (IMO). * I don't have to fight with TSA every week to not x-ray my film when I fly * I can shoot hundreds of photos instead of 36 without stopping * I don't smell like chemicals and my clothes don't turn funny colors from being in a darkroom all day * If I want to edit a photo, I can do some serious dodging, burning, sharpening, contrast masking etc.... to perfect the image in 15 minutes. This would have taken hours if not days and cost an arm and a leg in a darkroom * I don't have to carry a huge bag of film around with me, and then worry about it fogging in hot climates. * I can experiment and shoot as much as I want using new techniques and it will cost me virtually nothing. * etc.. etc.. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 3:27:20 PM EDT
[#43]
Give it to the guy in the wooden shoes! I'm amazed at the prices- the stuff's going for a fraction of what it was bringing in in 1998. F3 bodies for 150 bucks on ebay- use 'em, then put them on your mantel or use them as doorstops when you finally can't get film anymore.Hell- Kodachrome slide film and B/W Polycontrast papers are gone - what's next?
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 3:39:07 PM EDT
[#44]
What about legal problems? Can digital images be used as evidence in courts?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 4:04:53 PM EDT
[#45]
RAW files provide a certain level of authentication. Canon makes some kind of encryption/validation system that you can buy, nobody uses it but police for crime scene photos though. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 4:14:12 PM EDT
[#46]
I spoke to a photog about this and he told me that someone is working on some software that will tell you if it's been dinked with. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 4:17:49 PM EDT
[#47]
I have to do some professional photography for my job. The last time the 35mm or 21/4 square cameras came out was 3 years ago. I have a very expensive set of classic paperweights now.
ANdy |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 4:27:51 PM EDT
[#48]
Do any of you all know if Nikon FG or N50 film cameras are decent? I've got one of each that's been sitting in the closet for years.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 4:33:45 PM EDT
[#49]
I have no idea what you are talking about. I fly a professional photographer who routinely blows up photos for everything from forensics to posters and uses digital. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 4:36:24 PM EDT
[#50]
The Canon that my customer uses has survived a chest high drop onto the tarmac and an accidental kick out of a helicopter floor to the tarmac. I agree though that for truely crap conditions you can currently get a more rugged film camera. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
