I know for a fact that 35mm is NOT dead. I work on the retail side of the counter for a photo specialty retailer, and while film sales are dropping, we're still selling quite a bit of film. Most of it is multi-packs in 400 & 800 speed, both Kodak and Fuji. I wish Agfa still had 800 speed multi-packs--that was a great film for some applications! We're still moving slide film, but I suspect that's because of the three colleges we have here in town. We're moving black & white, probably for the same reason. Digital just isn't for everyone!

Dear Photoman 478,

Have you ever heard the expression, "My mind is made up. Do not confuse me with the facts!"

The mere fact that you are absolutely correct carries no weight whatsoever with digi-fanatics!

Cheers,

Roger

I've recently come back to the 35 mm world after going through several digital cameras that I was sure were the best thing going. I've had an olympus, a Sony and still have the Fujifilm S5100. Took me a while but I just like the world of film.

Dear Stranger,

Try explaining that (or indeed anything else much)to a digital evangelist. On another forum (rangefinder) I've just been called an ignorant old fool for still using film. Someone who goes back to film must be even worse: you'll be lucky not to be burned for heresy.

Yes, I have a Nikon D70. Yes, I use it for all sort of things. But for pleasure, it's a film camera.

Cheers,

Roger

Quote:
In spite of the lack of posts in this thread, 35mm SLR photography remains very popular.

Not a lot of new cameras are being sold, but millions are already in use.

Why did Kodak decide to downsize? Did film cameras ever generate revenue as much as the current digital market?

Dear Ric,

Revenue? Or profit? The former is very little use without the latter and the margins on digicams are miserable, just as they are with other consumer electronics.

Cheers,

Roger

Well, it appears this is turning into another digital vs. film dust up. Haven't there been enough of those over the past 4 or 5 years? I know the Shutterbug fora are new but do we have to drudge up this same useless argument to christen them?

I'm almost 46, and have been shooting since I was about 12. I still haven't gotten a digital camera, but I know I will eventually. I have several Nikons that I use, and a couple Minolta Maxxum 9000's that are going to my daughter in the Army. I also have a Mamiya 645 for senior and group portrait work. I use mainly Fuji 400, but I also use the 800 and 1600 speed Fuji films for action shots. certainly not looking to debate one over the other. just looking forward to when i can do both .

There is nothing like 35mm SLR. I have gotten back into it after many years away from photography and while digital has some advantages give me 35mm anytime. Quality just can't compare no way shape nor form. Lets see a digital camera pick up a race car drivers eyes as he goes into a spin in turn 4 at Daytona!!!!!!

What I like most about 35mm is that you can extremely change the results just by exchanging the film. Just imagine what you would have to do to shoot an infrared picture with digital On the other side it is the not knowing until you develop effect that is soooo great! I just love it. And if you want to use photoshop - just scan the negative and the resolution, contrast, and color of the picture will be better than with any digital.

Yes, I too prefer film over digital. However, it's a good thing we have options. For example, I just lost my father to cancer and appreciated the option to scan my favorite film based photo of him. Isn't this what the art of photography is about, helping us creat memories?

i dont beleive that 35mm are dead at all. the reason that film sales are down is because the average person wants convinence. they can get a cheep digi point and shoot for 400 bucks and never have to buy film. in hte long run if they dont break it, it will save them money. but when it comes to art/pro photographers i think a magority still use film becuase of the level of detail in high quality films(and if scanned can have a higher resolution then the best dslr). thats just my two cents.

^and wow did i kill the word "majority" there.

There will always be a market for 35mm photography. Digital images are great,but lose the files and they are gone. As long as there are photos to be taken there will be 35mm film cameras to take them.

For my biological field work, I simply love my Nikon CP5700. It is compact and has terrific close up capabilities.
For "real" photography, I throw some Ilford into my FM2 and have fun in the darkroom later - thanks Frances for all the darkroom tips!

I don't think 35mm is dead. It is rather dying. Point and shooters rarely use film anymore, and when they "step up" to an SLR, they mostlikely will stay digital. 135/120 film will become a niche market in my books.
And if it will be gone somewhen, well, then you still can make your own emulsions on glassplates ....

I agree, I used digital a lot before I got my scanner. In the last year I have scanned a couple thousand negs,slides both 35mm and medium format. The one thing I realized right away the ability to adjust the scanned images which other wise would not have been of any use. I love film format and the ability to control the outcome more easily with the use of filters and different film speeds. I know digital has come a long way, but I believe film still holds a depth that digital cannot produce. Many say film in not as practical as digital, All I can say is the only prints I have are made from film. With the price of film scanners coming down and getting better and the drop in 35mm SLRs I find it much more reasonable then the cost of high end digitals with prime lens.

I absolutely love film, but the last few roles of 135 film I had developed at a local pro lab in NY came back in appalling condition (and the price keeps dbling). Have been to 5 pro labs across the entire US since moving here from the UK and each time have had to move to a different one, because they stopped developing my favorite format IR colour(color)/B+W.

I am now facing up to buying a DSLR (Nikon - D70), since most of the lenses are interchangeable with my current stock. But will keep my F301.

I bought a digital slr, canon eos 350d, now I can't wait to get rid of it and go back to film.

Don't be hasty! Both film and digital have their place. I do a lot of shooting in medium format, somewhat less in 35mm. Basically, I'm an old timer who prefers his photography uncluttered by overreaching technology. Having said that, I wll admit to doing all my printing digitally, scanning my own negatives. So, technically speaking, even though I shoot a lot of film, the end product is digital.

I also own a Canon EOS 20D. Recently, on a trip lasting about a month, most of my shooting was done with this camera and I have admit to being impressed with its capabilities. One advantage is being able to edit my stuff on my laptop while on the road, no lab, no darkroom, no scanner. In a way, the production process is a lot cleaner than with film, i.e., fewer steps between the shot and the print.

So, while I'll never give up on film (until they pry the takeup spool from my cold, dead fingers), Digital is here to stay in my gear.

Check the attachment for one of my EOS 20D shots.....

This is in reference to film processing becoming higher and quality lower. Living in he midwest there are few labs in my area that process medium format let alone want to do a good job on 35mm. I find the prices are going up so I know if I stay with film soon or later I will have to do my BW negs, which would not be to hard because I scan for prints.

I wanted really bad to jump to medium format so I did, but the only lab that processes the film in my area doubled the price because all they want to do is digital. So I will sell my camera and go back to 35mm. I feel like with the changing times all that we gain we lose much. many labs no longer want to process film but more than that I see some that also no longer care about quality. That is the sad part about progress. We lose that connection of pride for services offered. I know I am beating a dead horse, but most of the old timers who shot with film did so with pride and purpose.

I see very talented people who use digital and produce images that inspire the soul, for those I believe there time is here, for many of us our time is limited by progress. I know we must move toward the future, but can't we still embrace the past.

Here is a image taken with my Fuji 645 Acros 100

Peter, here is what I see. When you look at the 35m cameras in production today, Bessa R3A, Zeiss Ikon, Leica M7& MP, Leica R9, Rollie 35mm RF, many of these tell me 35mm is very much alive for those you want it. Very little production seems to focus on AF cameras, but instead is directed towards those who enjoy the experience of the camera as well as the quality of lens. That to me is a hopeful thought to keep in mind. I believe those who want and need the fast paced AF cameras there is a lot to be offered in Digital. Those who enjoy the basic experience of 35mm photography still have much to choose from.

Having just been on vacation with our neighbours & compared photos he is now dumping his digital camera and reverting to 35mm. The time will come when price & quality will beat film but not yet especially as there are great bargains to be had on ebay.

Nah, 35 mm is not dead. You just got more choices. That is like comparing a microwave meal (SOME digital cameras) to home made, or a chefs (SOME film cameras). True, digital has tons of pluses, you don't have to do this, or that, or think (little jab intended). What about depth of field, haven't seen much of that in digital photos. Yeah, I have a digital too. True, digital, instant preview, you can fix it up, manipulate it the computer. But .... before I hit the shutter button, I really got to imagine, visualize, what I am going for, shutter speed, f-stop, do I push or pull the film, what type of film, do I want grain for effect, how about a filter (Cokin) or two??? I am sure the top of the line digitals can do all of the above (but I don't have the money, sigh). To me using a film camera is more about capturing what is in my head, what I hope to see. Maybe I am old school (old fool), the Ole Guard, but that's me (and a few more souls who write in). Nothing like the feel of a old 35mm, focusing, dialing in the aperture, shutter speed, wondering, setting the flash to subject distance, what is not to like? Choosing the right time of day, existing light, a little fill flash, or maybe bounce, choices, choices.
Hey, your not alone, you still have choices. Should I get Fuji, Konica, Ilford film? There's something for everyone, digital, 35, 120 you name your damage. I don

I purchased a Panasonic FZ10 digital camera. I really like the camera, particularly how it feels in my hand. Guess what? It feels like my old Pentax sf 1. Unfortunately I sold that camera planning to go strictly digital. I miss my film. So yesterdday I purchased a A Pentax sf1 off ebay and anxiously await it. I think there is a place for both film and digital. After spending an amount of time with Adobe Elements 3 and correcting/changing/enhancing my photo, I just can't look at the results the same way as I do a "great shot" for using a film camera correctly. I look forward with great anticipation to coming back to film. I will continue to shoot with the digital camera, but when a wave of creativity hits me, I'll pick up the film camera.

I wouldn't be too sure that 35mm photography is dead. I'm 17, and most of the photographs I've ever taken have been with a digital camera. However, recently I've gotten very interested in photography and I'm looking at getting a 35mm camera rather than a digital camera.

Don't ask why, I simply don't know. I just prefer the idea of having photographs in your hand rather than a digital file which can easily be deleted.

And I like the noise.

Sam

I love my film, however when the time is right I will start using digital.
I am drawn to film for the simple fact that I feel you have to put more care into your photograph, not saying that those who use digital do not.
There seems to have arisen a large number of people whom think they are an artist or photographer, just because they have a digital camera and a photo shop program of some sort, call me a purist if you will but I just do not like a digitally altered image to make up for the lack of knowledge and in some cases talent with a camera.
Once the DSLR cameras become more affordable and stop being obsolete like a computer shortly after purchase I will invest.

Agree here, the manipulation that goes on with digital images I find worrying. Of course shots originally shot on film can be manipulated too (airbrushing has been going on in newspapers for years). But this whole digital revolution means that people are far more likely to alter their image on the computer. In the end it makes for less interesting photos (if done too much). Most serious digital photographers probably wouldn't do too much manipulation because they realise that it actually reduces the quality of the image.

I heard someone say recently that film still has the edge when it comes to very fine detail on objects further away. Digital photo evangelists are a bit like internet geeks. Yes, the internet is useful, but most of the bells and whistles are distractions. Same with dig. photos. People will use them, but not to the life changing way the evangists prophesize.

I am sorry but your statement belies history and fact. Photographers have been "manipulating" images since the 1880's. In the earliest days of photography B&W emulsions were color blind so skies were always reproduced dead white. Photographers quickly learned if you took a landscape and you wanted clouds in it to make two exposures, one normal and one very much underexposed for the foreground so the sky and clouds recorded. Then the two images were double printed after the foreground in the sky negative was blocked out with opaque.

Also in the earliest phase of photography paper negatives were in common usage which allowed very easily added image information with a graphite pencil or ink on the back. In fact when glass plates were used it was common to make a paper positive and an inter-negative to produce a final print after both the paper positive and subsequent negative had considerable work by hand added to it.

Moving on to modern times, on what would have been Ansel Adam's 100th birthday a large show of his early work was curated by Moma and travelled around the country. Many were disappointed by the early prints of familiar Adams images because they were flat and dull compared to the later prints made from those same negatives. Ansel became a darkroom artist, a wizard who used every "trick" in the book in printing his images to enhance the drama and impact of the scenes he captured. One of the most manipulated of Adam's images is probably his most famous "Moonrise Over Hernandez".

Today, every photograph you see that's reproduced in a book or magazine or printed on a calendar or poster even if originally made on film has been scanned, digitized, and there is no way the average person can know to what extent it has been manipulated once in digital form and processed with a computer. The entire reproduction media is digital and has been for many more years than there have been digital cameras, with the exception of a few publishers that specialize in rare fine arts books made with obsolete letter presses.

And finally, a decade ago one enterprising fine arts photographer invested a great deal in a large format view camera with a digital scanning back capturing landscape images all across the country in digital image files that are many hundreds of megabytes in size. His prints are frequently displayed at the world's largest photography trade shows. These prints are several feet by several feet and display a level of detail that has not been seen by the best film photographers using an 8x10 camera, and the digital images are in color.

Thanks for the history lesson. Yes, I did say 'manipulation' had been going on with film for years. Of course photography has always been about 'manipulation'. But ordinary people nowadays have software where they can do all sorts of stuff to their images.

Yes, and that's great that ordinary people have readily available and relatively inexpensive tools they can use to exercise their creativity and imagination. No "sin" is committed if you want to make someone look better in a picture than they do in real life, nor is any harm done by removing the powerlines running across the sky in a landscape, or even making a picture look like it was taken in a funhouse mirror as a joke. A photograph by its very nature is a distortion of reality in itself from the beginning so why fulminate about a little darkroom magic? What really counts is the purpose and the intent of the maker. Technology makes it easy to counterfeit and thereby steal from others. That does not make the technology bad, just the person who abuses it at others expense.

David,

As much as I like the print from the negative. Many times when printing digital it is nice to remove unwanted stuff in an image. Often more than not the image is very nice except this little detail of some sort that ruins the whole image. Real or not this is the one thing I like about digital control. Monte Johnson.

A good digi SLR cost too much for someone like me that isnt a pro photo dude. When the 9 megapixel digi SLRs prices go down to about a $100 then film is dead. I dont think that will happen for a very long time and until that time comes I will use my $100 used Pentax K1000 and a film scanner to digitize. For the price of a good digi I could built about 2, dual processor PCs fully loaded will all the media cards and raid 5. Most pour starving computer techs would rather spend the $ on keeping up with the PC technoloy, not $5000-7000 on just a digi photo hobby.
With a dark room, a film spool for some developer, stop, fix and a film scanner you dont have to wait that much longer for results than a digi anyway, about half an hour total to develop and digitize film.
Can you change the CCD speed in a digi like film ISO.
Since Im a pour starving digital PC tech I'll stay with film scanner for a while, and use my 3.1 meg digi for the quick stuff.
The law of economics, if there is a demand a supply will be sold.

A very god point. When you know a 100 dollar camera will produce a better image than a 1000 dollar digital then it is not a hard choice. I too use fillm and scan to digital. My 700 dollar Fuji will produce images I believe a 4000 dollar digital can not do. It does make it hard to invest that kind of money in digital when film cameras are so reasonable. Monte Johnson.

I have all kinds of photo editing software and I like to do effect on photos with each brand. I want to do the same between old technoloy and new.
Now Im learning all kinds of dark room tricks at the campus, with photo enlargers like dodge and burning. I none of my software will do this. Since allmost everyone is going digital I might find an enlarger at a yardsale or swapmeet for almost nothing. Then I can use the old dark room enlarger tricks that Im learning, and scann with flatbed, then use the digital dark room.
I have a hard time explaning to techy people why Im a computer tech that uses film sometimes until they see the results, and they know I know my computer stuff when they see me plugin a new HD firewire or 1970s video camera into my computer and almost getting the same resolution with a software enhancement.
A digi SLR that has the same comparable resolution with all the lenses form 28mm to 300mm with the ring extenders for macro would cost thousands.
I have another 35mm camera that uses the same lenses for backup Sears KS-2. Add a few more thou I dont think I,ll cough up the $ too replace all that.
I very happy with the scanners and want to play with photo paper.
Im not a film freak I have used a 7 year old 3.1 digi camera since it was new its less expensive than film and a little quicker, but even a 5mega pixel digi cant compare to ISO 50 and a good scanner for resolution.

Can a digi do color infared?

I just get a cd at the same time I get my film developed... seems like I am getting the best of both worlds... but I will be tempted if the Pentax DS comes down to about $360 for the body

Pentax is like a chevy engine most of the old parts fit the new. Thats why I have a Pentax cause the old K lenses are compatible with the new bodys. So when I go to digi SLR I'll just get a Pentax digi body, but I think that I will wait until 10 megapixel bodys cost around $500. I dont need AF lenses cause I do most my photos in manual anyway, and havent used the auto shutter on the Sears K2 in years.
I think that Ill still use some film for some projects like color infared, and wont throw away the old.

It does seem srange to some I use film and a computer, but it is the best of both world. Shooting 645 format then scanning on my 4870 gives me a great image to work with. Sure the files are large, but if I want to print say a 24+36 which I have I edit it in PS then burn to a disk run to the mall and print. Besides many of us have old family negatives and slides. It is fun to scan and look at them. Granted digital downloading of images is easier, but not as rewarding for me. Monte Johnson.

Great thread. I just joined here recently and was planning on buying my first camera leaning towards a film 35mm slr. One model on sale in my town is a new Canon Rebel T1. I figure its better to actually learn photography properly first then maybe some day make a move to digital. The idea of spennding hours in the field learning appeals to me, all of my friends think its a waste of time. I have even tried a Nikon D70 for a weekend, nice camera but I would never use half the features it has, let alone afford it along with a big lense. I am still reviewing equipment and have not made a final decision yet.

Paul, I think it is a lot easier to learn photography using a digital camera because of the instant feedback on exposure, Composition and etc. Just because some refuse to learn photography and would rather spend needless time on the computer making adjustments that, IMHO, should be made iN CAMERA, is not a reason to eschew a digital slr.
A camera placed in manual mode behaves the same as a camera that does not have any scene modes, really!

I agree on one point. it is a lot easier to learn about exposure when using digital because of the software like photoshop, I do not believe you must use film to learn photography, but I feel in truth both are very different. I found working with digital with landscape had it's drawback compared to film. I found film to be more friendly in some lighting conditions. I think it is important to decide what you want from your photography for yourself. Is BW your thing? Does print size become a deteriming factor. Detail in the case of landscape adds so much to the overall affect. I started with digital but become disatisfied with the overall detail it presented for the camera I was using. The good thing was I learned a lot about the range of exposure by processing my images in photoshop. When I moved to film I had a much better perspective of how light works in an image. Digital gives you the advandage of trial and error. Film can be exspensive to learn from. I just purchased a Rolleiflex GX and find I am learning whole new lessons about photography. I shoot for large wall prints 16+20 to 20+24 and I find film like medium format still offers more than digital. My advice is with the advancement of digital cameras and the high resolution senors which are becoming better at achieving the shadow detail then it might be smart to look toward the future of digital. If you want the best image you can get at this time for larger wall prints then film still is ahead as long as you shoot at least medium format. 35mm is a close runner up to digital now. attached is a film image. I love BW and I still feel BW film has alook digital doesnot. Monte Johnson.

Thanks ronk, I have finally decided to get a Fuju S5200 for my first digicam and start that way. I will also use a TCON-17 add lense with a tripod and see how that goes. Thanks for your help and suggestion.

I don't see how film or even 35mm SLRs can be considered 'dead' when the supposed consumer DSLR replacements not only can't replace film in all situations (cold/wet weather, long exposures, shallow DOF compositions) but - often don't last a year or two without a trip to the repair center for a new pin receptor assembly, circuit board, sensor, or LCD panel. When the warranty and parts run out for these things, now that is 'DEAD'.

From a marketing sales statistics perspective film is as good as dead as far as new camera sales are concerned. And from a perspective of film processing the decline in volume has been over the last few years like going over Niagara Falls in slow motion. But for 30 some years previous the sales of 35mm SLR camera's was in the millions every year. Many of those cameras, in fact probably most still work, but 35mm film sales and processing indicate they aren't being used that much. Apparently a good part of the bulk of film sales and processing in the past was always based on point and shoot snapshots, which have been replaced by now really cheap pocket digitals and even cell phones.

But you are correct, film is not dead yet, but it just might as well be from some business perspectives except maybe e-Bay.

That digitals are as unreliable as you say however, is not supported by any statistics. Apple iPods are having more problems, but considering the life most of them are subjected to it is maybe no wonder.

If you really have something to contribute, next time how about some evidence to back it up?

"That digitals are as unreliable as you say however, is not supported by any statistics. Apple iPods are having more problems, but considering the life most of them are subjected to it is maybe no wonder. If you really have something to contribute, next time how about some evidence to back it up?"

Not that you or Shutterbug would ever attempt to accumulate such 'statistics' right? Ironic that the only evidence you'd ever 'accept' is evidence that requires the resources of a photo publication, or Consumer Reports to conduct. And I'm sure you still wouldn't accept the results, pointing out they didn't compare results to all older film cameras ever made, or didn't use the right conditions, etc, etc. Cute.

Fortunately, I don't have to walk into traffic to know that it's dangerous, nor do I have to conduct a five-year survey of camera owners to know that I've seen many a digital cameras made these days not only break, but break frequently. The average digicam is about like a television in terms of sensitivity - drop it, or get it wet, and it's dead.

I can 'survey' my friends and family to see if any of them still have a working digital camera they purchased that lasted more than 2 years without a breakdown - NOPE. I can read the comments on this and other boards from folks with $1,200 DSLRs who complain they have to send their cameras back for service all the time. Doesn't sound like any film cameras I've bought over the years. If the fish smells, throw it out.

>>I can 'survey' my friends and family to see if any of them still have a working digital camera they purchased that lasted more than 2 years without a breakdown - NOPE. I can read the comments on this and other boards from folks with $1,200 DSLRs who complain they have to send their cameras back for service all the time. Doesn't sound like any film cameras I've bought over the years. If the fish smells, throw it out.<<

So now a few things you have witnessed personally, the individual anecdote proves the rule? A few cameras that fail out of millions is a basis for saying all are bad? I was testing and evaluating cameras beginning in 1975 for Petersen's PhotoGraphic and I can assure you the technology then produced a lot more duds than it does today, and the failure rate of Miranda and some other brands of cameras most have not heard of or are old enough to remember was prodigious.

If anything, electronics and digital technologies have made even the least expensive cameras far more reliable than comparably priced cameras like the Petri were in the 70's and 80's.

Sure Leica's and Rolleiflex cameras were very reliable, and remain so, but look at what a new one costs today. It should be reliable.

But what most decidedly disproves your arrogant assumptions is that 25 years ago there were numerous camera repair shops that thrived, and today most have withered and gone away for lack of business.

Post deleted by George_Schaub

Quote: "Today, I see digital owners who accidentally bump their expensive DSLRs against a wall - result, a dead camera. A little dust from a trip gets into the electronics, and the camera comes back "unrepairable due to dust". A drop of moisture inside the camera body and fzzzt! no warranty coverage. Do you write of these things? NO"

So, where exactly did you see these, and when? Or is it just another urban myth that keeps showing up on the web? Has it occurred to you that maybe, just maybe the reason no one writes about it (except in forums) is that these folks, if real, are a drop in the bucket compared to the total number of users? Oh, yeah, we got trouble! right here in River City! With a capital T and that rhymes with D and that stands for Digital!!

Bill,

Thanks for taking up on yet another Mr. Anonymous loony tunes with neither the b... or the sense to not open his mouth when he has nothing to say but tear down others to his low level.

I was asked to moderate this forum and gave up on that when there was no policy to limit posting to registered users. I volunteer my participation and get nothing from the magazine for doing so. And will cease trying to be supportive if it is just going to be a free for all for every nut-case out there whose only intent is to stick it in the eye of anyone who comes along because they can get away with it.

The use of digital cameras in cold wet wether is the same as for film, use a plastic bag over the camera with the lens poking out. The bag is held in place by the filter threads; one needs a filter on the lens to do this.
A shallow dof is possible through faster lenses used at approcriate distances and via PS.
NO camera, digital or film, can handle exposure times of several hours UNLESS it has a bulb setting on the shutter that is MECHANICAL rather than electricaly controlled.

This is exactly the kind of language, attitude and gratuitous insults we do not want on this forum. This refers to an anonymous post above that has been deleted.