The beginning of the end for 35mm?

[TomWithTheWeather]

Nikon all but ends production of its 35mm line up. Will Canon follow? Will this drive film into a niche market for artists and professionals? Discuss.

I welcome our new digital overlords.

[st0lve]

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

[Section_Ei8ht]

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.

[ginsengavenger]

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?

[jfas]

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

[DaanO]

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.

[jfas]

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

[DaanO]

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

[TomWithTheWeather]

"Artistry" is all subjective, whether it be processing a peice of film with chemicals or altering an image file with photoshop. One is no more artistic than the other.

The one thing I don't like is when people claim that one technique is more artistic than the other.

[DaanO]

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.

[Section_Ei8ht]

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

[DaanO]

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

[TomWithTheWeather]

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.

Well, yeah. I guess the word "subjective" isn't the best word, but what I mean is, art can be anything to anyone. So my point is that one method of photography isn't any less artistic than any other method.

[DaanO]

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

[TomWithTheWeather]

Yeah, if someone dubs something they created as art then it's art. Even though it can be shitty art.