I guess I missed it. Gee, what a shame.

Thanks, George, for cleaning up the mess.....

Any time, David. The only problem is knowing that some of these guys just...don't....get it.

I really like photography. Film, digital, I like them both. I don't like anonimity(sp?)

Someday people will pay me to enjoy myself, until then I'll pay for it myself.

Hutch

I will shoot film until the very last roll is produced! Screw this digital nonsense....$5000 for a DSLR body??? Even $1000 for a remotely descent one. No thanks.

Quote:

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?

It's quite possible that what KodaK's C.E.O described as " Single use digital cameras " in a recent press statement will be things of the past as far as the mass market is concerned. kodak I think will be making mobile phone cameras that wiil give you internet access, and satelite tv,the sales of digital cameras are already suffering because the man in the street can't see any need for a camera when he can take pictures on his mobile. I think we will see a time in the not too distant future when many major players in the photographic industry will come out of photography, and seek aliances with phone manufacturers.

Again a very nice discussion. Not sure what got deleted, but glad it was. As I stated in my other post on another forum, I am simply one of those that prefer film over digital for a number of reasons. It is all personal and very subjective. What I don't like are those that sound too much like an evangelical right-winger yelling that I am going to hell for who I am. Now, I am not necessarily saying that Mr. Brooks is that, but sir, you have that tone to your replies. I would like to know why you cannot realize that this is a personal thing for anyone serious about photography? I love your posts; they are very insightful and well thought out. The fact remains that there is an underlying tone there of superiority which cannot proven for me.

I agree film or digital is a personal choice. I still use film for my own reasons and will continue to. I feel that some do take the self appointed attitude to push their way and that I find sad because we all are here to share what we do. We who use film know why we do and what we want. I know many who have went back to shooting film after using digital. I believe there are good things to digital but some of us perfer something other than a easy fix to making images. I for one spend much more on film than I would digital and it is a hassle at times but it is worth every bit to me.

Monte,

I would like to comment on your latest post. You said "...but some of us perfer something other than a easy fix to making images." You seem to imply that digital is somehow easier than film to "fix". Yes, digital gives you many tools to edit your images, but it doesn't replace careful consideration at the time of taking the shot and afterwards when editing the image. Digital gives you more flexibility, but doesn't allow you to get sloppy. Careless shooting isn't going to give you great results in the digital domaine.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Frans I guess I cannot take that back. I only meant the instant results give you the option to change settings and shoot again if you do not like what you got. I know digital offers a lot of tools to edit, but there is skill needed to get the best results. I need to use my words carefully.

Quote:
Frans I guess I cannot take that back. I only meant the instant results give you the option to change settings and shoot again if you do not like what you got. I know digital offers a lot of tools to edit, but there is skill needed to get the best results. I need to use my words carefully.

Monte,

Thanks for the reply. Don't worry, I just wanted to better understand what you meant and express how I see digital. I enjoy every step I take on this crazy road called digital photography and I hope you do the same for film.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

darn right is not dead, i love 35mm. more than digital, you just can beat film, its classic

35mm film photography will never die. im 27 years old and i should be into the digital revolution but i just cant do it,I like the way a roll of black and white film smells when you first open it,try that with a digital card all you smell is plastic..I hope i am dead before the history of photography dies

Quote:
...I hope i am dead before the history of photography dies

haha, be careful what you wish for, you could be smited right now just so you are dead when film dies.

Darkphotographer,
History marches on.
There were those who mourned the passing of precoated glass plates, glass plates, Ambrotypes, Dagureotypes and Talbot types.
Photography has gone to hell in a hand basket since they staryed selling premixed chemicals, IMHO.

Just for the record, there are folks out there still practicing the art of Daguerreotypy, though Talbot's process was almost identical to that of Daguerre. Don't worry about film dying out. There will always be a niche for those who wish to use that medium.

And I am glad for that fact. I have recently started picking up film photography and I was really worried when I started to that it was a dying world and I was entering at the end of it. Turns out I was totally wrong and that I am better off picking it up now then if I picked it up 10 years ago. The quality of the film seems higher and the great invention of Ebay and the internet makes it possible for me to be able to locate lenses and accesories for my OM-1 (and spare OM-1s ) at resonable prices. Especially compared to what some of the lenses would have been new. This is a hobby I am more then willing to spend a few hundred on...but I can get a heck of a lot more for a few hundred in the way of lenses and filters then I could have if I picked it up in say the 80's (of course I would have had problems being a good photographer if I had...I am only 23 now).

Digital has its place, and I will fully grant my fiance that it has convenience, especially for things like taking a bike ride with a little pocket 4mp camera. That little 4mp pocket camera is probably going to turn out better pictures then a 35mm point and shoot. But for sheer art I don't think digital is going to replace it anytime soon., at least not in my heart.

Heck there are still those people out there who think the only true car is a car with a carbeurator.
-Matt

Art comes from the shooter. The camera and film/sensor are only tools. In the hands of a skilled shooter, you will not be able to tell whether it is digital or film in origin. Now, 35mm has pretty much lost its edge, but medium and large format still offer an advantage unless your pockets are very deep. If they are, there are incredible solutions at the high-end of digital.

Here 35mm IS dead, with the exception of panoramics with my WideLuxe. However, it is medium format in length and 35mm in height. With a good scanner and a medium-format camera, you can pretty much equal the quality of a 22MP camera back or even better. Since the pros have dumped their film equipment, you should be able to find it reasonably priced with a bit of shopping.

I have both Nikon F3 and Leica systems gathering dust. Digital just lets me go so much farther, accomplishing images that I simply could not practically do with 35mm. It is not convenience or even economy, the camera empowers me to create images beyond what I could ever do with film.

Quote:
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.

I know I'm way late in getting into this debate, but I just had to respond to this statement.

Camera repair shops began disappearing with the advent of all-plastic, all-electronic 35mm cameras. Not because these cameras were so reliable, but because they were so unrepairable! I used to work in the retail side of photography back then and many an EOS or Maxxum sent for repair was returned as unrepairable or not cost-effective to repair. Many of these cameras were suffering symptoms that would have been easily cured in a mechanical camera, but the only way to fix the same problem in an electronic camera is to replace entire circuitry, which even if available (the camera makers even then were obsoleting cameras every other year) would cost as much or more than an entire new camera. I'm not saying that modern electronic cameras (either film or digital) are inherently unreliable, just that when they do go bad, they don't get fixed, they get replaced. Many old mechanical cameras are still around because they have been repaired again and again over the years. I still own a Kodak Retina IIa and a Minolta Autocord that are still great picture taking machines thanks to a repairman that brought both cameras' shutters back to life 10 years ago or so. I doubt that any of today's digital marvels will be around as long as these.

Quote:
Many old mechanical cameras are still around because they have been repaired again and again over the years. I still own a Kodak Retina IIa and a Minolta Autocord that are still great picture taking machines thanks to a repairman that brought both cameras' shutters back to life 10 years ago or so. I doubt that any of today's digital marvels will be around as long as these.

Yup, I have a slew of mechanical cameras that have been working for many decades. They are from an era when every small town had a guy who repaired radios with snips and solder. Install a new 12AX7 tube and the radio was as good as new. Then electronics became both complex and modular. The guy with the soldering iron and thick glasses could not longer swap parts - they were permanently mounted on circuit boards. He swapped the whole board. This too became the way of most camera repairs.

Digital has changed everything. I bought my Nikon F3 for the sole reason that it would not let me down on a shoot. I expected to own it for decades with a rare trip to the shop from time to time for cleaning and calibration. Given the same lens and film, the picture from it and from an entry-level camera body would be identical.

Digital changed all that. In 1965, Gordon Moore co-founder of Intel, wrote in a magazine that for the same cost, the number of transistors in an integrated circuit will double every 24 months. This became known as Moore's Law and was found to have a much broader interpretation - as in, the power of digital devices will double. In its own way, this is the reason digital cameras depreciate so drastically and there is almost no market for used cameras.

There is no incentive to build a robust digital F3, since the technology would be so antiquated by the time the camera wore out. While in use, all the photographic principles that have applied since the beginning of photography still apply, but the device itself represents the greatest technological change in the medium since Fox Talbot made the first negative/positive print in 1836. Glass plates replaced pewter and bitumen, and emulsion coated on glass plates gave way to emulsion coated on flexible film, but that was evolutionary. Sensors are a total break.

In film terms, payback for buying a digital camera is extremely fast when total cost of ownership is calculated. With film, the purchase of the camera is only the beginning of your cost of ownership. Film, processing and the time spent getting it processed and picking it up can well exceed the cost of the camera very quickly.

With digital, all that cost is embedded in the camera, and quickly covered in savings in time, processing and film. After five or six months of use, all three of my digital cameras were totally paid for and paying me back - in these terms. If I were to completely discard a camera body after two years, I would still be far ahead financially of where I was if I were still a film shooter. One just does not buy a digital device for long term use - at least as the primary device. Of course, lenses continue service generation after generation.

The advantages are not an illusion. When a new model replaces the old, it will have gained the responsiveness of the faster processors, the sequence capability of larger buffers and faster write times to the storage card. Sensors will be improved, with less noise, aberration and improved resolution. The newer camera will intrude less on the creative process and provide higher image quality in a wider range of shooting circumstances. These are things that actually show up in the photographs.

So there is no point in making a camera that will last three decades. There is barely any reason to build a camera that will last three years. There is every reason photographically, to continue to upgrade, and since the camera will pay for itself in consumables, there is every economic reason to trade up as well. For a working photographer, the savings in time alone make the difference, since the client is billed for the consumables.

Larry, you make some excellent points, but I believe the economics go the the other way for the hobbyist: Considering the initial cost of a digital camera that is capable of producing highest possible quality images equal to 35mm film, plus the computer, printer and software needed to process the images, a low-end 35mm camera loaded with today's film is a true bargain. Pros can justify the expense of digital easily enough, but the amateur can go a lot further on his dollar with good old film. Not only is the initial investment much smaller, upgrading is cheaper still; just buy the latest film emulsion and you've got the new generation of technology for under 10 bucks!

As an addendum to my previous post: While my Retina and Autocord may be taking pictures long after I'm dead, my Olympus OM-2S will be a paperweight as soon as the meter quits. The price of convenience and electronic technology.

i know many have said this but there is a place for both digital and film...when i do a still life or abstract pcitures i use my digital...but for ABSOLUTALY everything else..i use film

was out to colorado in late nov on elk hunt 5above to -12 using mecanical 35 with ge pr3 meter others had digital ,after 2days anything needing baterys didn,t work digital is not the end all

Quote:
I will shoot film until the very last roll is produced! Screw this digital nonsense....$5000 for a DSLR body??? Even $1000 for a remotely descent one. No thanks.

My thoughts exactly, you could get a Hasselblad for that much that will still be shooting pictures when DSLR is in the landfill.I hate the way photography has become an adjunct of the computer industry making the technology just as disposable.

Ben,

When I still shot film exclusively Kodachrome, my yearly bill for Kodachrome film and processing would more than pays for your too expensive digital. Today Kodachrome is not easy to get, and there is only one lab in the country to get processing, while when I was shooting film there was a Kodachrome processor within a few minutes drive of where I lived and worked.

All of the black and white films I used are no longer made that I processed and printed myself, and many of the chemicals (which I don't miss using) are no longer available.

If I just collected cameras and rarely actually photographed and made pictures, I might share your perspective. But Since I have been using digital, I have been able to do more at a much reduced cost, and actually produce better images and work in much more comfortable circumstances.

But I must admit being an old timer I still like B&W and have a 35mm film camera for that, and like using the C-41 process films, which I then scan for printing digitally. Digital cameras are at a disadvantage for making B&W photographs.

Film and its ... will be in place depending:
As long as there is a market for something or a market is created for something it will continue to sell. Most are duped into believing close margin. If that were the case, only folks out of the kindness of their hearts, charitable organizstions, and the like would be in business. When one prescription is taken from the contaioner, it pays for all the rest in the container; when one pair of pants is sold it pays for at least the dozen lot, when one camera is sold it would amaze one at the cost paid by the seller.
We are inb trouble -- greed entered into the picture on a scale never seen before; now we are suffering from it. Why so many think that sending out manufacuting and now jobs will make our country posper must be smoking stink weed or on a real ego trip. No jobs, no money, no nothing. The new in business circles are being led to believe that the reason New York is the Empire state because it will be the mecca for world service and therefore New York City the center. Did you ever see a servant make more money than a worker. If they did they would not be serving in that capacity, they would be working. So, now we will be involved in paperwork, insurance, financing, credit, and other such. so when we are invaded, we can make planes out of the paper and throw credit cards at the invaders. no HO, HO, Ho. Maybe this should be in the how it is today forum. no lol. And if this is not bad enough, many of the people voted in in this election have not remembered or never knew the the Constitution stipulates ... the Right to Life ... .

This is really become more politics than photography from what you said. But it doesn't work, the jobs in camera manufacture left America in the 1950's as they did Europe a short time later simply because at the wage rate of highly skilled manufacture and assembly that the product requires would make the cost so high few could be sold, and 40 years ago Asia had a much lower labor cost and the kind of workers that excelled in making precision, small products like cameras.

It makes no sense to blame the greed of business for the conditions we now have. There would be no Walmarts if customers didn't demand low prices and ignore the fact the quality of goods are poor or worse, and not realize that is no bargain.

People could afford better if over the last 30 years they had not voted in senators and congressman who are anti labor. If people are so dull they shoot themselves in the foot how can they blame someone else for having to limp through life.

We have the system we have today because it is what we have demanded and asked for by how we have behaved as consumers, and we don't bother to hold those who govern accountable for what we have allowed.

OOps -- I did not want to place blame on any one particular situation -- just how it is. Mark ups and margins will continue utill the end of time.
A shirt made in America, when there were still some; say made by people making bigger wages than overseas or out of counhtry , Sold for say 12.00. They took the shirts outside made at obscene wages, and then still sold them at 12.00 or more. You do not call this greed? Now, how about this? Nicaragua -- people work for sweat shops -- by guess who? The Chinese. In fact they are building housing for workers. People stand at the gates waiting for them to open so they can get in. Some lucky enough to work for the supervision, live on premise. Surrounding the manufacturing area(s) There are walls anywhere from 10 to 15 feet high with concertina barb wire on top to keep the place safe from ... . Now quess what a lot of the stuff is sold in USA. I will not divulge the stores because of ... . You can buy a T-shirt made there for about 50 cents, same thing here is 5 to 15 dollars. We are the way we are because no one will stand up for what the old folks did in the past. Instead of getting or staying on par with what was presented -- it is all being taken away. So, how can you expect to get employees that are conscienceous and reliable? Especially when they only want temps so they do not have to give any perks. Most employees spend most of the days looking over their shoulders wondering if they will have a job tomorrow. There is no security to speak of now. At one time workets wh started for example at a particular hour would show up maybe 10 minutes to 1/2 hour before and would leave at the particular hour or a little over. Now, emoployees how up an hour or two before and stay an hour or two later. Not only this many are starting to become afraid of taking a vacation because they may not have the job upon returing. What a bummer -- I think a new word will be coined if things do not improve -- It may become -- What a barak. lol

I am 75 years old and have been seriously active in politics and social issues much of my adult life, I don't agree with your perspective although I am quite aware people are exploited for cheap labor in many parts of the world. But it is not all bad and for many in the 3rd world as life has improved a little in some ways because there are also good people who are humane and supportive doing business in Ameica providing a fair return for what people in the 3rd world can produce. Sadly most Americans will not pay more for fair trade coffee, for instance, that returns a reasonable and generous price to the grower - most Americans just want the cheapest price.

But this is no place for this discussion. There are many other political/social venues for debate. And if you want to argue this privately you can reach me at: goofotografx@gmail.com

Socialism -vs- capitalism. We just won that election!

I appreciate what many are saying in this thread, but try the same topic on the General Digital SLR forum and you will be laughed at. Want to make sure that 35mm Photography is not dead? Here are some suggestions:

1) Consume film and darkroom supplies. Patronize your local suppliers so they don't go under. Yes, it costs more than online orders, but buy local and act global - boosts the local economy and keeps neighbors in jobs! For those of you who live in areas where all of the good camera shops closed... gee! I wonder why?

2) Advocate film photography. For pros, this means selling it to those you work for. For amateurs, this means spreading the word with your fellow shutterbugs.

3) Teach film. An instructor I know recently told me that she saw statistics proving that classrooms teaching digital only had a significantly higher drop rate than those teaching analog darkroom methods. This is what state number crunchers will look at and so will continue to fund teaching analog photography.

4) Get this magazine to support film more! The number of articles pertaining to analog photography in Shutterbug has dropped significantly in the past year. Write the publishers of this and other photography magazines and let them know that you use film and want more copy about analog photography.

5)The holiday season is upon us - give film as a gift!

6) Create a trend. Tell people you use film and it is cool. Make it cool and other people will want to be cool, like you! Herd the sheep!

I hope readers of this post take my suggestions in the light I offer them - in hope! Consumer action is directly responsible for the future of all consumed goods. Use film!

As far as I am concerned there are as many reasons not to use film. But also one thing you got wrong and that is the fact professionals provide what the client demands, and if it is for publication these days clients usually prefer and in many cases demand digital.

For non-professional enthusiast photography, as well as fine arts, there are reason why film may be personally and idiosyncratically preferable.

But you have to take into consideration:

1. film photography and its associated chemical processing is hazardous to the environment.

2. Film as a consumable is costly.

3. New film cameras are not being made so as the current cameras, wear, break down and get older the associated problems will get greater and reliability will disappear.

4. Only in relatively rare instance is there any significant difference in a resulting photograph whether it was made digitally or by analog film. ( On this of course I will get arguments, but my answer will be - what about images scanned from film and reproduced [printed] digitally?)

Quote:
As far as I am concerned there are as many reasons not to use film. But also one thing you got wrong and that is the fact professionals provide what the client demands, and if it is for publication these days clients usually prefer and in many cases demand digital...

4. Only in relatively rare instance is there any significant difference in a resulting photograph whether it was made digitally or by analog film. ( On this of course I will get arguments, but my answer will be - what about images scanned from film and reproduced [printed] digitally?)

Mr. Brooks, you aren't making any friends here!

Are you asking a question or presenting a challenge?

Are you really the same writer for this magazine? Please read the subject of this thread.

JCW

I have mixed feelings about this issue (if it really is an issue at all). In terms of 35mm film photography, I now see little to choose from between film and digital image quality. On the other hand, one thing I love to do is grab my Olympus OM-1 and go out for a day of walk-around shooting. For me, it's more satisfying than doing the same thing with my EOS 20D. Don't ask me why, I haven't a clue. It just is.

At the same time I think there's still a gap between the image quality produced by a DSLR, even a full-frame camera, than a medium-format film camera. That gap may be disappearing slowly due to the digital backs now available for many MF cameras......but who can afford one of those? So, I will probably keep shooting film with my Hasselblad until the price of a digital back drops somewhere below the cost of a second mortgage.

But, heres the deal: Film will be around for a long, long time to come, even in 35mm, as long as there are enough people out there who want it. After all, you can still buy 620 film from some vendors (like B&H), and how long has it been since the last MF camera was made for that film? And, believe it or not, you can still buy vacuum tubes for old tube-set radios, and they quit making those about 40 years ago. The point is, as long as there is demand, there will be supply. That's the way it works. You may not like what you'll have to pay for it, but there it is. And, it won't take a revolution to make it happen, just continued use by those who love film. Nothing Mr. Williams suggests will make that happen.

So, at least for now, I'll ignore that small voice that keeps whispering that I should trade in the Hasselblad for an EOS 5D, so I'll keep shooting film with it. And, keep playing in the street with the OM-1, too.

By the way: Mr. Williams, if you have a point to make in response to David's post, please make it and leave the personal attacks elsewhere, OK?

35mm film photography may not be dead, but it is already much diminished and will probably settle into a pretty small niche if it survives at all.

I am neither for nor against, and personally have both a dSLR and a couple of 35mm film bodies, as well as huge library of film from 50 years of shooting. But I am a realist, and also very open to other issues that are of necessity involved, like the environmental considerations, not just in processing the film but even more serious issues involving its manufacture.

Bill,

As I answered to the JCW post, like you I don't see an issue to argue about. How many different 35mm films will be available next year or 10 years from now will depend on how many people buy film tomorrow and 10 years from now. As you indicate probably no problem considering 620 film is still available.

Personally a digital back for a Hasselblad is not really a good solution considering what a full frame dSLR captures now, 24mpx! And there is really no advantage in MF optics over the best 35mm camera lenses, so as long as a dSLR is 1/10 the cost of MF digital, the only reason I can see to schlepp the extra weight is ego. And I'm much too old for that!

Your vacuum tube analogy is good, but sadly this audio enthusiast really cannot afford what a good turntable cost today, much less a tube amplifier, no way Jose!

I think it is unlikely we will see a good B&W digital camera solution, so B&W film I hope remains available and is well supported, there is still nothing like great B&W images.

I think we will see a time in the not too distant future when many major players in the photographic industry will come out of photography, and seek aliances with phone manufacturers.

So, who will make what I want... a quality DSLR that has a cell phone in it? Or, is that already being made?

Quote:
The point is, as long as there is demand, there will be supply. That's the way it works. You may not like what you'll have to pay for it, but there it is. And, it won't take a revolution to make it happen, just continued use by those who love film. Nothing Mr. Williams suggests will make that happen.

So, at least for now, I'll ignore that small voice that keeps whispering that I should trade in the Hasselblad for an EOS 5D, so I'll keep shooting film with it. And, keep playing in the street with the OM-1, too.

By the way: Mr. Williams, if you have a point to make in response to David's post, please make it and leave the personal attacks elsewhere, OK?

No personal attacks here, Mr. Kahn, just questions. It's good that you have your friend's back. Mr. Brooks seemed to be interested in stirring things up with me and I simply questioned it. Perhaps it was my political observation that offended him. My suggestions were made in a friendly and hopeful manner. If they offended you or your friend, perhaps you should ask yourselves why. I see no need to apologize.

So, if you two are running this thread, I will leave you to it and you can post your opinions as you see fit. Thanks for making me feel so warmly welcome! I have more important things to do.

CSW

You should not make any assumptions because what you assumed were my intentions was a bad guess, in other words mistaken on your part. I don't know what you are thinking when you use the word "friends" in this context. Other than occassionally exchanging messages within the forum there is no basis for friendship in any real sense, Bill Kahn and I have never met.

The issue is: whether 35mm Photography is or is not dead, is dying, or maybe somewhere in between one kind of existence and another. Everyone has a different perspective (sees it from their own position and experience) as well as what a person is committed to - and then there are the objective facts.

I did not read that you actually made a political observation, and whether you did or not, it is not a subject I relate to in a way that I would be offended by any idea.

Maybe you should ask WHY you are imagining the things you have described and expressed.

No one is "running" this thread, although all threads are monitored more or less for misuse of the forum, like spam or making personal attacks on an individual.

All I can see from your remarks is that you seem miffed because someone did not post a message cheering for your perspective and praising you for voicing your opinion. That you have better things to do may in itself be debatable.

Happy Thanksgiving!!!

Find much more friendly forums at Photo.net:

http://photo.net/community/

"Find much more friendly forums at Photo.net:"

James,

If it is that more people there agree with you that you find it friendlier, that's fine. But to me that's like going to an employee party at the bosses house. There isn't anything I can think that's any more boring than everyone being agreeable.

Stick around have some fun and excitement, if it gets too dull. I'm sure to say something that stirs the pot.

I still have three 35mm cameras. An Olympus OM-10 Quartz, Pentax ME Super, and a Pentax K100. As long as I can find the film I want to use, I will still shoot with film. Like others have said, you can scan the images and have all types of features at your disposal. Long live film

no it isnt dead and wont be ....
(1) digital cameras wont last as long
after ten years or so
the just break down and dont turn back on
(2) after all we who still buy cameras are getting the best deals ever "i paid anly 21 dollars for a pentax p3
and at a goodwill store i picked up a pentax k1000 for only 13dollars and a olympus super zoom for only 4 dollars
so film wont be going out. people are that dumb to sell for peanuts and we should know that "just keep on buying cameras"

I have had some great Nikon digital camera's, through the unfortunate happenings of the economy I had to sell off the camera's. Getting back into film brought me to develop my own B&W neg's and actually have an absolute blast with photography again. Film isn't dead, it has brought me back to life!!!

Hard times yes, so I spend less on things I don't need. And I too sold a large high MPX dSLR system recently and not because I needed the money, but at age 77 I am not as strong and energetic any more, so I got a pocket sized digital camera. But I use it rather infrequently, and have not put a roll of film in several 35mm SLR cameras I still have, for some time. My excuse for that is I made photographs almost daily since 1952, and now have a huge library of film images, and see few things to shoot I have not photographed already.

So, I am very positive about film, not to shoot now, but film with images already stored on it. I get a lot of pleasure, even entertainment, scanning my collection of images. There is a lot of enjoyment and satisfaction in making an image better than the original with a computer and software. So I still enjoy film, every day, and its already paid for, some time ago, and serving me well today. I haven't had more photo fun in a long time.

As much as I want to say "film is best!" -- which is what I used to think -- I think now that digital image quality is right up there, particularly for the amateur like me.

The huge advantage of 35 mm right now, at least for me, is cost. I replaced my dead Minolta 7000 body with a "new" vintage 7000 body for $35, and am back taking photos again. I can tweak the images a bit if necessary on the PC (usually due to lacklustre processing, but also because film is cheap and time short, esp. when taking photos of children). I can also get to play with my 500 mm mirror lens -- I hate to think what a lens that size for a decent DSLR would cost.

The big disadvantage of 35 mm to me is that the days of decent, knowledgeable film processing appear to be gone forever. I am therefore forced to do the aforesaid corrections digitally on the computer.

As much as I would like it to be otherwise, 35 mm is moribund. Enjoy it while it lasts. One day you won't be able to buy film, or get it processed.

A Computer printer is a piece of hardware for a computer. It is a device that must be connected to a computer which allows a user to print items on paper, such as letters and pictures.
Computers Printers

I haven't seen 35mm photography in years, do you know someone who's still using it? I had my wedding photos arranged by professional photo montage service, I wonder if they ever come across such photos these days...

I was just thinking about how expectations have changed so much in regards to technology over the past decade or two. It's really amazing to me, to see the "new generation of expectations."-Garrett Hoelscher

I agree that the Virginia Port is important because it offers irish breaks and many companies are making a few stops a year there and i think that we should invest more in it. This is a place that can bring us money and also keep a few job places intact.

I agree that the Virginia Port is important because it offers irish breaks and many companies are making a few stops a year there and i think that we should invest more in it. This is a place that can bring us money and also keep a few job places intact.

I have some products from Revlon and they are very good for 35 mm photography and other aging-related issues. I read an article about it on online legal forms and recommended them to all my friends after I went to the Spa last year and I realized how good it feels.