Writing about film vs digital, need an interview!

BrianG

Hi,

I have to write an essay about film photography vs digital photography and whether or not film photography will be able to survive with continuing advances in digital photography technology. For this essay, I need an interview from an "expert" in this field.

I was wondering if there is anyone on this forum who is a professional photographer that would let me ask them several questions (over PM or e-mail) about this subject for my essay for school. I would greatly appreciate it if anyone could do this.


These are the questions. I'm personally going to be lenient on what would be considered a "professional" photographer. A sentence or two per question is certainly enough.


Just a little info about yourself:


<?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o:p></o:p>
1.) What experience do you have as a professional photographer?
<o:p></o:p>
2.) What is your e-mail for confirmation for the teacher?
<o:p></o:p>
3.) What is your name?


The actual "interview"
<o:p></o:p>
1.) Will film photography be able to survive with continuing advances in digital photography, or could digital photography fully replace it? What are you initial thoughts when you read this question.
<o:p></o:p>
2.) Do you prefer film or digital? Why?
<o:p></o:p>
3.) If you prefer film, do you ever use digital? If you prefer digital, do you ever use film? What is the reason for this?
<o:p></o:p>
4.) How much longer do you think film will be common among professional photographers, or will digital eventually be the choice of the vast majority of professional photographers?
<o:p></o:p>
5.) How much longer do you think film will be common among amateur photographers, or will digital eventually be the choice of the vast majority of amateur photographers?
<o:p></o:p>
6.) Many people would think that digital photography saves time, however some professional photographers supposedly disagree. What is your opinion of this?
<o:p></o:p>
7.) Which is more expensive in the long run, digital or film?
<o:p></o:p>
8.) Will the convenience of cheap one-time use film cameras ensure film’s survival in developed nations for many years to come?
<o:p></o:p>
9.) If you take many pictures with a digital camera, is it a necessity to bring along a laptop computer to transfer picture files to
<o:p></o:p>
10.) Would you recommend a digital or film camera to someone who is new to photography?



Again, thank you to anyone who answers these questions.

Thank you in advance,
Brian

DavidTO

Brian,

Since your post isn't about camera per se, I moved your thread to the Wide Angle/News forum.

Best of luck with your paper!

wxwax

BrianG wrote:

Hi,

I have to write an essay about film photography vs digital photography and whether or not film photography will be able to survive with continuing advances in digital photography technology. For this essay, I need an interview from an "expert" in this field.

I was wondering if there is anyone on this forum who is a professional photographer that would let me ask them several questions (over PM or e-mail) about this subject for my essay for school. I would greatly appreciate it if anyone could do this.

Thank you in advance,
Brian

Send Patch29 a PM, see if he can spend a few minutes with you.

nickphoto123

Need an interview
Hi Brian,

Reading your post, I started to think, just who would be an expert in this field.
Predicting if film will still be economically feasible as a method to take photos in the future might best be done by an Economist.

Just the other day two university researchers announced that they have simplified the amount of computations required to compress a digital photgraphic image. In addition thay have discovered a way to create a CCD that has a dynamic range of 100,000 to 1. The resulting image quality and very low power consumption of these two achievments, if they can be economically introduced to the market place, will render film as 'almost useless', IMHO. This is because film would be left behind in terms sensitivity.

That is not the case at the moment.

On a global scale, film is very much alive. I read that in Japan, about 80% of photographs taken are with dispoable film cameras.

Many economies are poor and the citizens of these countries do not have the computing power required of digital photography. This will not change for many centuries, human nature being what it is.
Film still rules in these economies ( compared to digital ).

May I suggest that you research Kodak, Agfa, Leica, and Canon
to see just how they were affected by the digital revolution. Some are winners, others losers.

To me it is quite clear that your instructor is teaching you much more than just about our favorite subject of photogaphy.

Absorb it all like a sponge, and enjoy the process at the same time.

Regards, Nicholas

wxwax

Film will never go away. It's not a matter of economics or practicality, it's a question of aesthetics. It will become marginalized, but it will not disappear.

DavidTO

wxwax wrote:

Film will never go away. It's not a matter of economics or practicality, it's a question of aesthetics. It will become marginalized, but it will not disappear.

How about your Santa Claus hat? Will that ever go away?

wxwax

DavidTO wrote:

How about your Santa Claus hat? Will that ever go away?

Good question. Hope I can find my old one.

BrianG

Thanks for all the replies.

Could any "professional" photographers spare a few minutes to answer several questions via e-mail, or perhaps PM?

wxwax

BrianG wrote:

Thanks for all the replies.

Could any "professional" photographers spare a few minutes to answer several questions via e-mail, or perhaps PM?

Have you PM'd Patch29?

nickphoto123

Why don't you...
post your questions in a thread ( this one ).

You are trying to specify who should answer your questions ( expert, "professional" ).

Try stating your question and see what happens.

An exchange of thoughts with someone on a thread I am sure can be used as a valid interview for study purposes.

Regards, Nicholas

BrianG

These are the questions. I'm personally going to be lenient on what would be considered a "professional" photographer. A sentence or two per question is certainly enough.


Just a little info about yourself:


<?xml:namespace prefix = o />
1.) What experience do you have as a professional photographer?

2.) What is your e-mail for confirmation for the teacher?

3.) What is your name?


The actual "interview"

1.) Will film photography be able to survive with continuing advances in digital photography, or could digital photography fully replace it? What are you initial thoughts when you read this question.

2.) Do you prefer film or digital? Why?

3.) If you prefer film, do you ever use digital? If you prefer digital, do you ever use film? What is the reason for this?

4.) How much longer do you think film will be common among professional photographers, or will digital eventually be the choice of the vast majority of professional photographers?

5.) How much longer do you think film will be common among amateur photographers, or will digital eventually be the choice of the vast majority of amateur photographers?

6.) Many people would think that digital photography saves time, however some professional photographers supposedly disagree. What is your opinion of this?

7.) Which is more expensive in the long run, digital or film?

8.) Will the convenience of cheap one-time use film cameras ensure film’s survival in developed nations for many years to come?

9.) If you take many pictures with a digital camera, is it a necessity to bring along a laptop computer to transfer picture files to

10.) Would you recommend a digital or film camera to someone who is new to photography?



Again, thank you to anyone who answers these questions.
-Brian

(I also edited my original post and added the questions there, too.)

Matthew Saville

BrianG wrote:

These are the questions. I'm personally going to be lenient on what would be considered a "professional" photographer. A sentence or two per question is certainly enough.

Again, thank you to anyone who answers these questions.
-Brian

(I also edited my original post and added the questions there, too.)
<o:p></o:p>

Brian, I'm no pro, but, ...wait a minute. "Pro" means you make a large percentage of your income from photography, right? Well, considering I'm an un-employed student, who shoots photography for money, does that count as a large percentage fo my income?

Anyway, I may be a young gun but I've given the whole Film VS Digital thing a LOT of thought, and I've always had a lot to say, in what I like to think is an un-biased way. If you give me a minute, I'll oblige!

-Matt-

[Edit] Okay, here we go! feel free to email me with any further questions, or if you want any clarification or elaboration on a certain point...


Just a little info about yourself:
I'm an Engineering student at Cal Poly Pomona, but I have shot events etc. in both film and digital, at the client's preference.

My forte, hobby and passion however is photographing nature. (landscape, wildlife, insect/flora macro) For this, I shoot transparency (positive, "slide") film in 35mm, medium and 4x5 format. I have shot film and digital side-by-side for about two years now.

<o:p></o:p>1.) What experience do you have as a professional photographer?
Not too much, compared to some veterans. But as I said I've been shooting film and digital side-by-side for most of the professional photography I've done, which I hope shall help me answer your questions better.
<o:p></o:p>
2.) What is your e-mail for confirmation for the teacher?
matthewsaville at juno.com, or better yet www.matthewsaville.com - check out my portfolio!
<o:p></o:p>
3.) What is your name?
Matthew Saville


1.) Will film photography be able to survive with continuing advances in digital photography, or could digital photography fully replace it? What are you initial thoughts when you read this question.
The first thing that comes to mind is high-speed, fast-paced sports photography. In these areas, digital already reigns supreme in my opinion, it has done so for at least a few years now. This is because the nature of digital photography is INSTANT results, which is what action sports and news are all about, ESPECIALLY in this faster and faster -paced society.

There are deeper technical benefits of digital photography too, such as not having to re-load your camera film every 36 shots. Some film cameras can go through a roll of film in a mere 4.5 seconds! With digital however you can just buy a memory card that holds thousands of images.

Also, digital SLR cameras have incredible low-light sensitivity that is much better than even the best high-speed films. All of these advantages are a dream come true for action photographers who often shoot high-speed sequences, or in dimly-lit situations, all while the client / editor / newsroom is demanding results ASAP. Voila, digital professionals have a huge advantage.


The second thing that comes to mind however are the Ansel Adams type, "zen-like" landscape nature photograpers. These kinds of photographers have much less need for haste and instant results. They are going to stick with their large format films for a long, long time, and many will probably prefer film forever.

Digital cameras are simply not high-resolution enough, yet, to match what a 4x5 inch piece of film can capture. Let alone an 8x10" piece of film, as Ansel Adams used! The technology is getting there, but as always with the "leading edge" of technology, it costs an immense ammount of money that for the time being makes it impractical. It may be a decade before digital "catches up" with large format film, it may be 3-5 years, I really don't know... But I do know that film will be around for quite a long time for these types of photographers.
<o:p></o:p>
2.) Do you prefer film or digital? Why?
I prefer digital by far when I am shooting professionally, (weddings, portraits, sports) because the bottom line is the instant feedback gives me the extra assurance that I have acceptable results, and the lack of 3rd-party (lab) involvement greatly hastens my turn-around time, especially if I use an online image host such as Smugmug.

However I do prefer film (by a small margin) when I am shooting for leisure, because the slow-paced nature of film requires you think more deeply about each image and make each shot count, which is very important when photographing landscapes and nature...
<o:p></o:p>
3.) If you prefer film, do you ever use digital? If you prefer digital, do you ever use film? What is the reason for this?
As I said above, I shoot film and digital side-by-side, as a hobby and professionally, though not always respectively. I still shoot many digital images in my nature photography for the sake of gaining experience in new, unfamiliar situations. Also, I still shoot film professionally if a client requests it.
<o:p></o:p>
4.) How much longer do you think film will be common among professional photographers, or will digital eventually be the choice of the vast majority of professional photographers?
Digital is already the choice of a large chunk of professional photographers, and more and more will convert in the coming months and years. The years we're currently passing through, 2005 and 2006, are probably going to see the largest majority of "switches" from film to digital among professional photographers.
<o:p></o:p>
5.) How much longer do you think film will be common among amateur photographers, or will digital eventually be the choice of the vast majority of amateur photographers?
You cay buy a decent amateur digital camera for under $200 these days. For most, this is affordable enough, and the simple desire to try something new will often prevail, even if film is indeed doing an adequate job for a lot of amateur photographers. I'll venture a guess and say that NO younger generation will "stick with film", because they will be raised on digital. Having said that, a large portion of folks who already own amateur film cameras will continue to use them, for any and every reason they wish, mostly just "if it ain't broke, don't fix it..."
<o:p></o:p>
6.) Many people would think that digital photography saves time, however some professional photographers supposedly disagree. What is your opinion of this?
I find it hard to understand how digital could NOT save a photographer time. An event photographer for example can take digital pictures at an event, (such as a wedding reception) and then plug their camera directly into a miniature inkjet printer, and print out guest photos, ON THE SPOT! With many printers you don't even need a laptop to do this, you only need a memory card slot on the printer or a USB cable that attaches to your camera. If that's not saving time, I don't know what is.

Most digital images admittedly DO require some "processing", there's no denying that. With digital, the photographer IS the lab, they are responsible for maximizing tones and color in their prints, just like they paid the lab to be responsible for when they shot film. In this aspect as well, I think digital still saves time compared to film. If I know my digital camera well, I can come home from shooting a wedding, upload my images to my computer in 10 minutes, "process" them in an hour or two, and then upload them to my image host in another 30 minutes. Sometimes, depending on the agreed upon package, my job is done at this point and I simply let the client order their images off the internet. Or, I to can order prints and assemble a wedding album etc. if I need to. In all situations though, I find that digital cuts turn-around time way, way back; it becomes a matter of hours instead of days.
<o:p></o:p>
7.) Which is more expensive in the long run, digital or film?
Film always gets accused of being oh-so-expensive in the long run, but for the working professional film & procesing costs are easily offset by profit. Long-term expenses can boil down to mere pennies per image often, for 35mm pros.

Digital is often assumed to be cheaper because once you buy a memory card and a camera, you don't have to pay "per roll" as you did with film. However, the "up-front" costs of digital are huge, and they always seem to proliferate on you. New computers, new software, there just seems to always be something that is "obsolete". This is just the way it goes with electronics, and as photography becomes more and more electronic, replacing "obsolete" equipment will consume funds.

However, this is with regard to the professional, whose job it is to compete with other professionals for the top spots in a rapidly changing field. Amateur photography is a whole different world. For amateurs, digital photography is by far cheaper. Because amateurs can afford to be less competitive, and concentrate on learning new things. Learning new things is what is so expensive with film, but cheap with digital. "Learning new things" could mean ruining 3-4 rolls of film before you start to get the hang of things, such as night time photography for example. But with digital, you simply take a picture and look at it on your LCD. Without paying a dime, you get to learn. (Although you probably did pay a fraction of a cent to charge your camera battery) I estimate that I've saved over $20,000 in "learning" costs by shooting digital. Of course, I don't even have this kind of money, so if I didn't shoot digital I simply wouldn't have learned that much. But my digital camera has been like a $20,000 grant to me, in effect!
<o:p></o:p>
8.) Will the convenience of cheap one-time use film cameras ensure film’s survival in developed nations for many years to come?
It's always a good idea to have a disposable camera on hand, for example in the glove compartment of your car. But I do not think disposable cameras will single-handedly keep film alive. The larger majority of film consumption will come from people who already own Point-and-Shoot film cameras and just never get around to switching, and those who still shoot the more professional, expensive films. These consumers will keep film alive.
<o:p></o:p>
9.) If you take many pictures with a digital camera, is it a necessity to bring along a laptop computer to transfer picture files to?
No. For small, "Point and Shoot" cameras, many times you can simply buy a high-capacity memory card and it will last you for a whole week or two of vacation! And for the larger, more professional digital cameras that are climbing into the 12 and 16 megapixel range, many pros are buying "Personal Storage Devices", which are essentially laptop hard drives with a memory card slot attached. You keep one of these little things in your camera bag, and you can "back up" up to 80 gigabytes of images on just four AA batteries, for example! (Hyperdrive, http://hyperdrive.com/shop/ ) Many of these devices can also plug into a Television for giving a slide show, too. So it is no longer necessary to carry around a laptop.

However, some professionals are in a line of business that may require image editing in the field, or wirelessly transmitting images to "headquarters", in which case they'll still use a laptop.
<o:p></o:p>
10.) Would you recommend a digital or film camera to someone who is new to photography?
Yes! Digital cameras are an incredible help for new photographers who are learning. The instant feedback on the LCD screen means that a beginner can see right away whether or not his capture was a success or a failure. If the beginner were shooting film, he might have to wait days for a lab to process his film and make prints before he could begin learning. The instant feedback of digital has been crucial in my own photography, it has helped me progress my skill and my style in a very accelerated manner, compared to when I shot film exclusively.

I myself still shoot film, it's enjoyable and relaxing, but I still reccomend digital to everyone who is interested in photography.

But film will not "die". Film photography will always be a fun hobby, at least. Just like painting, or composing a song. Even if all money-making avenues for the artists were to evaporate, they would still make their art. Because art is more than making money, it is a pasttime, a passion, a common pleasure that certain people will always enjoy. The same goes for photography. Certain people will always find maximum enjoyment in digital photography, and other people will always find maximum enjoyment in film photography. They're just mediums in the art of capturing images through a lens.

gus

Shay Stephens might be able to help out here brian...he is a pro of the most insane type, the wedding photog !

Shay Stephens

Kodak, and now Nikon are both scaling back and discontinuing film cameras and products. It's not hard for even non-professionals to see where this trend is leading.

Latest news:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0601/06011201nikon_news.asp

I don't have your email address, so contact me via my website and I will send you my responses to your survey.