The beginning of the end for 35mm?

Tbh I find shooting with film more "emotional", well its to hard to explain, but there is a whole other feel while shooting film than digital.

If I had money for it, I'd only use film.

It would be a shame if the price on film etc. incresed even more

you're not the only one, st0lve. That mentallity is all over the movie industry. My friend who goes to film school in New York and I have this argument all the time. I prefer shooting on digital, he prefers film. He says its more artistic.

I advocate digital just because of the greater amount of control you have over it, mainly not having to wait to have your daylies come back the next day to see if you need a reshoot, its easier to incorporate special effects, and its easier to shoot in low light conditions, etc.

But I still agree, there is a whole other feeling while shooting with film. But given the choice, I prefer digital. Just seems like theres more you can do with it and it seems a bit more versitle.

TBH I think the beginning of the end for 35mm was a long time ago when professionals began using digital cameras in steadily increasing numbers and the general populace flocked to small digicams in droves. Independent camera shops whose bread and butter was developing film rolls, they've been going under and dropping like flies for years. Kodak stopped investing in new film R&D years ago.

There will always be a place for film though, its tail will be long and strong indeed. Vinyl records are still going strong with the enthusiast set, eh?

film has archival propertys that digital doesnt, i mean sure you can back up on hd after hd, but a harddrive isnt celluloid. i cant see 35mm going the way of the dodo

Doing something because it's "more artistic" is in itself the least artistic thing i can possibly think of. In other words, that's bullshit. I do agree that shooting on film is way different from shooting on film, it feels different and it gives different results, some things can only be done on film even.

i dont think he meant its more artistic just because its "the cool" thing to do, i think he meant it because there are things you can only do on film, more possibilities means more artistry

Those things have little to do with something being artistic or not in my opinion.

Art is NOT subjective. Art isn't 'just taste'. Artistic therefor, isn't subjective either. For example, i really dislike Wassily Kandinsky but i can appreciate his paintings as art.

Quote

Art (or the creative arts) commonly refers to the act and process of making material works (or artworks) which, from concept to creation, hold a fidelity to the creative impulse —ie. 'art' is work distinct from creative work that is driven by necessity (ie. vocation), by biological drive (i.e. procreation), or (in art-purist contexts) by any undisciplined pursuit of recreation.The creative arts essentially denotes a collection of disciplines whose principal purpose (or sole purpose) is in the output of material whose creation is compelled by a personal drive and echoing or reflecting a message, mood, and symbology for the viewer to interpret.

As such, the term 'art' may be taken to include forms as diverse as prose writing, poetry, dance, acting, music (both performance and creation), sculpture and painting. However, the term 'art' most commonly refers to the visual arts— in particular painting, sculpture, drawing, engraving, conceptual art and installation art. These tend to be regarded as the 'fine arts', whereas furniture, industrial design, graphic design and others come under the umbrella of applied art, although they feature in several 'museums of art' and indeed 'histories of art'.

Art is a broad term, which may be interpreted in different ways, often relating to creativity, aesthetics and generation of emotion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic

Does that mean that art is subjective? Not at all. That it can be interpreted in many ways means something else.

Then i can agree. It's just that everytime someone says art is subjective or (even worse) just an opinion, something starts to itch

Quote from Holeman

film has archival propertys that digital doesnt, i mean sure you can back up on hd after hd, but a harddrive isnt celluloid. i cant see 35mm going the way of the dodo

i'm confused... you're saying digital has worse archival properties than celuloid? digital = forever. celuloid = gets yellow and some colors start to fade after 20-30 years. film has much worse archival properties than digital.

- ook

tell that to somebody who's lost two years of photographs to a hard drive crash... hardware is not forever. The beauty of digital content is its easy and lossless duplication but the media it resides upon is so fragile and transient. It takes a responsible person to mind and maintain their digital media.

the photographs become yellow if they arnt processed correctly, or if the technology wasnt quite up to par (like 70s color photos) but the actual film stays around in great condition for a long long time, and you can reprint with them, where as digital is just a file, just 1's and 0's that isnt anything actually tangible

The negatives (or whatever they're called in english, the actual film) of all the photos my mother took during her life are still in great condition. Even from her childhood.

Quote from DaanO

The negatives (or whatever they're called in english, the actual film) of all the photos my mother took during her life are still in great condition. Even from her childhood.

I guess everyone has different experiences with old film. I'm currently in the process of scanning and color correcting hundreds of my parents old pictures so they won't just derteriorate in the box. Especially the ones of my parent's parents.

Digital is the way to go for long term storage because it's lossless assuming you take care of your media and make regular backups.

Don't get me wrong, I love the analog look of film, but I don't think it's fair to say it keeps better than digital.

- ook