G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

could be that digital photography has developed alongside this new idea of digital socializing.

in the old days if a person showed off their holiday snaps every time you went around to their house they were considered a bore....

Photo's got framed - one only has so much wall space to hang your pictures so you only showed your best - not the near misses or 'the mildly interesting' or the 'hi I am here' crap.

It is not the camera's ability to shoot more pictures nor the ability to PP as an additional hobby its the idea that you can remain semi anonymous and get people to say nice things or you can say bad things about the crap that you type or download.

If UHH charged per downloaded comment or picture it would make a huge difference to what we all read and see.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Ok, so this thread is about to bit the dust.

I am out of here, will keep monitoring it and answer only direct question.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Clearly you have only kept up with digital. There are new films coming out all of the time that are better than ever. Kodak still makes several of the best color and B&W films out there as does Ilford. There are many others - just check the list on B&H.

As for formats, just do the math. A 6x6 medium format image is about three times as big as full frame 24x36 mm. At 4000 DIP (Coolscan) or 4800 DPI (V750) you can produce scans that are between 70 and 100 MP. Not to mention 4x5 film at upwards of 300 or 400 MP - far more than necessary.

So unless you are planning to drop enough money to buy a Lexus you are not likely to get into medium format digital. Large format digital is totally out of the question, for me at least.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

IF you actually want to learn photography, there's nothing like Black & White film, processing that film yourself, making contact prints and then making prints, yourself, in a wet darkroom. While all of that can be done electronically today, the "real life" experience is missing. Some may differ with this, which is fine as this my opinion. When I finally switched to digital from film, kicking and screaming, I already had a great deal of knowledge from the film days. I also benefited from not having pro gear as I was growing up and actually had to practice and learn how to anticipate action in sports photography and wind the film myself. Now that I have gear that does everything for me, I can see that my start in photography was beneficial to my abilities now. I am neither the best, nor the worst photographer on the planet, but I still really enjoy photography, learning, experimenting, and I still try to improve with every outing. It think that digital has made learning and experimenting easier, but it is still critically important to learn the basics and to learn about light. I do agree with those who claim that film forced you to think more, as it actually cost money to have film processed and printed. It's easy to erase what is not so good today and all you've lost is your time. Again, just my perspective (aka rant) on this subject!

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

rob s Loc: La Mesa, CA

Perhaps because the capture method itself forces you to use different techniques to get the content you want .........

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

:thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

:thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

The topic was regarding the prosumer film people getting served by getting their film developed and printed.
As far as that goes, Kodak is out of business.

glblanchard

Why teach latin? It hasn't been spoken in centuries. But it is the root of most written language. So is film the root of photography.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Err.. finger painting in caves is the true ancestor of photography... Understand 'Need to communicate when not present'.

:shock: :evil: :mrgreen: :oops: :lol: :lol: :lol: (Half joking)

Kuzano

Call me stupid if you must. 25 years of computer consulting. 20 years teaching community ed classes, including Digital Photography and Photoshop for a large portion of that time. 30 years of financial marketing, and Software sales in the Banking industry. A degree in Electrical Engineering,,, BUT, I could still be stupid.

Stranger things happen in this world. Stupidity is, for the most part, a "learned" behavior.

As far as the film market dying out... I think not. 3 full credit B/W film classes per quarter at our Community College and always full.

Ferrania film just announced re-introduction of film in various emulsions. Ilford just a year ago built a large facility in Southern California to create a presence of their films from Europe. (they are in England).

Kodak film is still in production (WTF are you getting your information):

http://thedissolve.com/news/384-kodaks-back-in-action-and-making-film-stock-again/

The Impossible Project and another have re-produced Polaroid film for 1 or 2 years now.

Medium and Large format film emulsions have changed but some new emulsions have been introduced. 220 film is pretty much gone, but was never a big seller in the best film days.

A 6X9 film frame, which almost NO digital camera can touch for image quality is 4.7 times larger than FF sensor size, and capable with a good drum scan of a 200Mb file size.

4X5 inch film sheet film is 13 times bigger than Full Frame sensor size and Scans to 600Mb files size if desired. NO full frame camera now in production can touch 4X5.

The market for mid-large format to 8X10 is growing, and Ultralarge format... film to 20X24 inches is very active and has been for the last few years.

You have obviously no clue what is happening with film since you are so lost in your digital campaign.

These are just facts followed by opinions, but you are like a dog with a chew toy. Another "film is dead, and I'm doing my best to cover the grave with my own brand of dirt!!" advocate.

I did Photoshop nicely up to CS2 and CS3. My first Photoshop purchased was PS7 which I used a lot.

The reason I don't use RAW at all and PP much is that the camera's have evolved and neither of those are necessary if you:

1) first learned your skills on film, and

2) take full advantage of your current digital camera to

3) apply the skills you learned using film, when you could absorb less information at your own pace.

People learning ALL the aspects of photography using just digital technology are at a serious disadvantage (talking about average folks here- not people like you) trying to learn it ALL Digitally.

You and I will never agree, so don't even try to get on my good side, particularly by calling me stupid. You will never win me over.

The only good thing about this disagreement is that some people will agree with you, and some will agree with me.

I leave it to them to decide which of them are stupid, if that's the language you choose to use.

Oh yes, and too dumb to drive cars. I did a count recently. I am currently 71 years old, bought my first car at 15, and as of about a year ago, I have owned a total of 116 automobiles. I've twisted wrenches for most of those years, raced, restored, and customized both domestic and foreign.

I am currently in the middle of two project cars now.

If I am too dumb to drive, shouldn't I be dead by now?

Armadillo Loc: Ventura, CA

David,

Thanks for the timeline on Kodaks' demise.

Michael G

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Not using raw is a fundamental error due to the limitations of JPG. Now if you are more comfortable with that so be it.

Trying to convince other folks that raw is basically worthless is a mistake. You are telling folks to drive the car you cannot drive*. Akin to drive a car as a Yugo when it is a Maserati... THAT I disagree with.

Oh, yeah, driving a Maserati is not that easy, loads of power and rear wheel train, not to mention a gear box that has more than just RND123...

So...
YUGO = JPG antiquated unreliable will get you anywhere
Maserati = raw, easily broken (by poor drivers), best to drive it on open roads

:shock: :mrgreen:

----
* Joke alluding to your post analogy

nakkh Loc: San Mateo, Ca

CD's or Vinyl / Digital or Film.... There is something to be said about the analog world. Both can co-exist very happily.