I have nothing against digital other than it is absolutely not up to my standard and the fact that a sheet of transparencies looks a lot better than an SD-Card. I can see, feel, touch and smell the images I create because they actually exist in the real world.

Photography has always had a hard time being accepted as an ‘art’ and with the arrival of digital it will never be accepted, even in the most basic sense as an art form. (I am not an artist, but strictly full-on commercial).

I like to originate on film and don’t see a problem scanning images into a PC where they then exist digitally. This is my optimal use of the digital era. It means I never have to send originals away to clients and thats great.

I am really annoyed at the impact digital has had on my profession. Kodachrome, gone. Minolta, gone. Sunpak, gone. Metz, going. Film…?

I have watched mainly through the dealers how the entire sales market has pushed digital onto the consumer market at the expense of the professional market with absolutely no concern for the realities or the effects. Greed.

I am happy to use my laptop and photoshop, but it will be a cold day in hell the day I am forced to trade my beautiful transparencies for an SD-Card!

Mike Bruin

It is not a fait accompli that film is going away. Because MILLIONS of people world wide still use and love film every day, there is a healthy market for it. And it is profitable for Fuji and Kodak. They each made several 100 MILLIONS of real dollars selling the stuff last year.

I don't understand this "come into the 21st century" mentality. What's there to come into? So-so imaging and long hours in front of Photoshop? Been there, done that. No thanks.

There are many accomplished working pro's who use film not only for it's quality & aesthetics, but for economy. Film and processing costs are passed on to the clientele, and the images come back ready to go in a high-res scan from the lab. Most wedding shooters promise a 3 week turn around so getting your stuff turned inside 7 days is no big deal. See Jose Villa or Elizabeth Messina.

Why spend 1-2 days processing your photos in Photoshop (or resorting to canned automated "actions" that everyone else uses) where you can be out and about shooting, creating, and getting paid for new images?

I shoot both. I do love film, but love my digital for basic snaps in lower light where I can shoot 800 ISO kinda clean. digital has it's place.

Here is my set of Velvia shot with a 57 year old Kodak Retina viewfinder camera. It has a focusing dial that you estimate distance (guess) and no way to meter light. I used "Sunny 16". You be the judge. I doubt a D3 would have taken a better picture that day. And this is nothing unusual. Film shooter rip off clean, dynamic images everyday for personal and professional use.

I think the Atari 1040 ST Computer was the best ever made but I can't see me trying to make a living swapping it for my mac! ...Can you?

So David Baily still uses film! I wonder if he still tries to get to his appointments using a map or a satnav. The map will give a much better "User Experience" and maybe a better understanding of the journey you have made. For me give me the satnav anyday because I am only interested in the destination.

Thankfully a handful of manufacturers have figured out the niche markets are deep and devout, and the best from years past still have half a lifetime ahead.

I'm half-tempted to buy the new Fuji folder, just because it may be the last medium-format 100-year camera that will ever be produced.

Digital is great if you want sharp, flat, unemotional shots.... I shoot most of my weddings on film. You can take a look at them on my site at http://wwww.dreamweddingshawaii.com

I think I've shot with and owned most of the proline Nikon SLR and DSLR cameras as well as "old and new" Hasselblads. I really don't think that film will vanish. In music business the market for vinyls and great vinyl players once again increases. I also find that for sheer voice the records on 78rpm records played on high quality Victrolas made a century ago, produce the true range of dynamics in a trained opera voice any vinyl or CD can't express.

So, the same with photography. Yes, the sharpness of details produced by todays 25 megapixel DSLR can be astounding, yet even more with a medium format digital 50 mp back. But the recent Nikon and Canon DSLR, with sensors of 12mp and much more, give flatter and flatter pictures, as well as cleaner and cleaner colours. Well, that´s nice if you want pictures that look unnaturally clean and sharp.

But if you want a picture to capture all the aspects that rock the viewers like creating deep emotion, depth of colors, true range from sharpness to blur, colors the way the eyes see them and not the simple range that make digital pictures look clean, then the simpliest way may be to use film, a great camera body and the best set of lenses. Today you can buy a Nikon F4 or F5 and a bag full of older "glass and metal" pro lenses for mere a bargain. Even the used Hasselblad V-cameras and lenses are cheaper than most good quality DSLRs.

Well, there are a few digital cameras out there who give picture files quite similar to film in appearence. As I sad, I've tried 'em all, and for my purpose I use digital AND film, depending on how my customers want the pictures in their final output.

And the digital cameras I use are: Nikon D2h and D2hs. Yes, just 4+ megapixels. But a digital sensor thats just marvellous! It collects all the "dirty colors" of film (or most of them), there is almost no moare and the noise look much the same as film grain. And its 4mp file collects much more details than most 10mp sensor on high res DSLR cameras. I sometimes get jobs that recuire 5 meter enlargements o more, and those 4mp look much better than a 12mp D300.

Another great digital camera is the 6mp Kodak DCS 760 (which is essentially a Nikon F5 with a Kodak digital back). Though it can't be compared in detail resolution with the D2h 4 mp sensor, it endeed makes the most amazing portraits of them all. It doesn't collect medium contrast very well, so the final output for portrait is much like a Hasselblad with film and Softar soft filters. So for portrait jobs I often use the Kodak camera (without IR-filter).

The final digital camera I use is a Kodak Digital Pro back for my Hasselblad H1 camera. With a 37x37mm large sensor and almost 17mp resolution it creates files that look very natural. The Kodak sensors used in DCS 760 and Pro Back are essentially the same, and produces almost identical colors and appearance (though the digital Pro Back with its 17mp collects much much more details). But the Kodak sensors of 2002-2004 produces almost 3-dimesional feelings, and give a high class style in the final output that I can't get with the newer 31, 39 or 50 mp backs.

For film I use a Nikon F5, The Hasselblad H1 loaded with film and a Linhof Technica 4x5 large format with Velvia sheat film or blackwhite developed in my darkroom.

If I want to present a slideshow on the wall or large prints for an exhibition I most often shoot film.

But for most commercial work my customers need quick results so I use the Nikon D2h camera or Hasselblad H1 with Kodak back. I've owned Nikon D300, D3 and tried D3Dx, but I don't like the flat uninteresting pictures they give, so I stick to the "low res" D2h and film cameras even in commersial work.

On the wall in my office I use to change pictures every month. And most of all it's a film capture that meets my customers...

I don't understand the mega pixel comparision with digital and film. Even the highest quality digital camera that produces 50mb images, is still only capable of capturing 256 colors, while film can capture millions. That right there should tell you something.

Have been using Nikon F since mid 1970s, owned a Bronica ETRS system in the 80s, sold it..

Went to Nikon D40 and D300 when they first came out. Shoot a few portraits and weddings now and then.

Recently felt my work was missing something. Purchased a Bronica ETRS system on E-Bay, a Nikon N80, and a Beseler 23CII enlarger, all very cheap.

I notice on a roll of 120mm with 15 shots I get about 10 keepers. My technique slows down when using film. After making my first "silver gelatin" prints on the enlarger I am again hooked again on black and white printing.

I think after I retire from the Army next year, that I can differentiate my work from the digital competitors. I suspect I will shoot weddings mostly digital, with some MF film for the formals which are most likely to make 16x20 prints for hanging.

Purchased a Seal 210M dry mount press from Craig's List, can now shoot, develop, print, and mat my own prints, very satisfying.

I use digital for event work where time is of the essence and no one's looking for "fine art" quality images; and I use my digital point & shoot to take with me on the street and on holiday. This is where, to me, digital has it's strengths.

Film is greater for fine-art or outdoor imagery where I have time to seriously compose and shoot. Eventhough I've used digital as well, film's more forgiving than digital and has greater density than what's on a sensor. Plus you still have greater resolution with higher speeds on film than with digital.

I don't see the "demise" of film as many feel. Kodak and Fuji still have their yellow and green boxes. Toy cameras are still being made. Digital will get better in time, but not in the immediate future.

The final analysis is really the person behind the camera; whether shooting digital and/or film. God gave you the best photographic gear you'll ever have: creativity with eyes and brain.

'Nuff said!

And besides with film you compose, you light, and you live with it, end of story. And you don't spend countless time in front of a computer trying to get the color right.

I'm glad I didn't sell off my film kit as it's getting more use than digital these days.

Film photography is all we use now for our major projects, the digital camera is for researching ideas and taking photographs of places and structures so we have something to go back on.

Film is like Vinyl they will have to bring it back when they realize people what it and there is a market for it. It has greater depth, greater grain without the use of Photoshop and other photography software (which is all the rage now a days for amateur photographers).

Anyone who loves photography should at least put down the digital camera and try film and then see what difference and what different film is and does to a photograph.

William.x

I LOVE FUJI film as well and particularly Pro800 120 film, 160 S and 400H and there is NO comparison in quality, communication, tonal range, color, FEEL, and LOOK of FILM. F6,F5 and Hasselblad H1 owner. I mourn the loss of Polaroid as well. The hardness of digital is just UPSETTING!!!

I've got a lot to learn about it however. But I'm keeping my film equipment for SURE...

Boulder, CO