I appreciate your insights David Brooks. Thank you for making this discussion a valuable one for me. You know a while back Tom Brokaw wrote a book about the "greatest generation" talking about the WWII generation. I personally feel that you are a part of the "greatest photography generation" because your generation has seen photography grow exponentially in every direction. I am always honored to gleam insight from folks like you. Thanks again and happy shooting (whatever you are shooting with.....unless you are shooting at a campaign contributor)

David Sarti,

Hahaha, good one. Yes your juvenile response has grown into a worthwhile discussion. You can thank me later.

David,

Old man would not be an insult simply because I am a bit of an old man. No thanks on the Cracker Barrel, which I have probably dined at as I made numerous trips to Tennessee years ago. Today if I indulged in the food that is popular in your neck of the woods I'd be in real trouble, and I'd also get scolded unmercifully by my doctor.

Just FYI information a Speed Graphic was standard issue for military photographers during the Korean conflict. But in the Air force to do many of my assignments I used a K-20 aerial camera more, and in the studio an 8x10. In fact I had my own personal Deardorff 8x10 the last year in the service when I was stationed in South Carolina. But traded it for a 4x5 when I went to photo school because that was required and I really could not afford 8x10 film as a student. By 1970 I was working in Hollywood for Warner-Elektra records involved in the production of analog multimedia presentations, what you now call rock video.

David,
I am just going to throw a few names at you,,
1 Tony Boyd
2 Gordon Mathis (my Uncle)
Both USAF photographers
Just a shot in the dark, thought tou might rember them.

David,

Sorry but that was just too long ago for someone who doesn't easily remember names.

Well, a quite lively discussion. Not sure I can give much to this. I do use film and that is all I have used. I have borrowed a Digital Rebel before and liked the results, but call me an old (and yes I could be considered an old man by some ) fuddy duddy. I still prefer film.

As was also mentioned, this whole debate is really a very personal type thing. If Digital was so great, then why are some major pros still shooting film? It's all a matter of preference. It also has to do with what you are shooting. Most of the pros I know of in landscape photography still shoot film. And they are very quick to let you know why; for them, digital cannot compare in resolution and print quality to what they can do with their medium format cameras. They still are digital in the respect that they will digitize their negs and work on them digitially. Just from what I have seen of both, straight out of the camera, digital cannot touch a medium format neg shot on Velvia. That is not necessarily the resolution, but the vivid colors attained.

Here goes another tomato....

Seem The editor fo Shutterbug Has been shuveling dirt in film grave too. George_Schaub seems to agree film. 35mm and med format are history (everyone wave by by) Next the digital demons are comming after you large format guys too. So all you film only guys need to get ready for retirement... hahahaha

Quote:
Here goes another tomato....

Seem The editor fo Shutterbug Has been shuveling dirt in film grave too. George_Schaub seems to agree film. 35mm and med format are history (everyone wave by by) Next the digital demons are comming after you large format guys too. So all you film only guys need to get ready for retirement... hahahaha

Well, guess I will wait and see before I give up my film. I love the mag, but Mr. Schaub, or anyone else for that matter, would seem to be blowing hot air on that subject. Sorry, I just don't see that ever happening. I think it is a little assinine for anyone to be saying that film of all types will be dead soon. There are still too many people out there that like using it. I can use film and still work digitally for all that goes and still come up with images just as good, or better, than digital cameras I have seen.

Photocat,

I don't think David Sarti's reading of George Schaub is as conclusive about a demise of film as David depicts. However, if you follow just the photo business activity in sales of both film cameras and film processing, the changes in the last few years are dramatic, with film sales and film camera volume dropping off precipitously and digital growing like a patch of weeds in a wet year.

However a similar "revolution" took place in the 50's and 60's as television grew exponentially, and both radio and motion picture business declined. Today however, the radio business is very big and healthy and motion picture production has grown substantially, and in part because it is one of our largest export industries.

Much of the rest of the world excepting Japan, Korea, the US and Europe is moving much more slowly adopting digital cameras at a slower rate (excepting in some countries like Brazil camera cell phones are big sellers). So, many of the smaller independent film producers will continue to enjoy sizable world markets, that will also supplant losses of some film choices in the US from Kodak and Fuji and the shut-downs of parts of Agfa and Ilford production. You'll just have to look for less well-known brands imported and sold by unfamiliar sources.